Best all-courter(s) by decade

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Interesting. what are some of the higher %'s in matches involving Cash, Edberg, Mac, or Navratilova you've come across?

Edberg was at 72% in the '91 USO Final.

I had Borg at 75% vs Vitas at '81 Wimbledon.

Nothing from memory stands out as the singlest highest. Some of the highest, just running a casual search: Navratilova was at 67% late in the '87 W final vs. Graf. She had 69% in the 1990 W final, that's probably one of her highest.

Cash had 71% late in his win over Connors, 87W, and he had 60% in the final. He was at 63% in the 84 USO semis and 88 AO final, late in those matches.

Edberg at 1992 USO - 70% vs. Lendl, 58% vs. Chang, late in those matches.

Mac is tough, he played before net stats were commonly given on TV and in the media. He had 67% late in the '84 USO final, that's the highest I can recall for him.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by World Beater

eh...not that simple.

Federer's success at net that day was directly related to his baseline play. To this day i havent seen federer hit his fh AND bh AND serve against nadal on clay as well as rome 2006.

Federer was coming behind some wicked approach shots and was forcing the action because his bh was penetrating the court and he was able to use his fh to outmaneuver nadal. His approaches were calculated and were the result of mostly great baseline play.

If federer was chipping and charging the net ala edberg, rafter. Then i would agree that approaching the net in 80s/90s style fashion would be a viable strategy. This match however is NOT a datapoint for this.

The strength of your approach shots is directly related to whether you are able to gain the ascendancy in rallies. Gaining the upper hand against nadal in rallies on CLAY is a very difficult task. I dont think i need to elaborate on why...

There is a reason on why to this day federer was able to produce one match with truly all court play to even have a chance of defeating a very good nadal. It took his absolute best performance on clay against nadal and he still lost. This is not the norm for federer, and i would be hardpressed to believe the norm for any other "all-court" player against nadal given how well federer plays from the baseline.

To the bold part: I spoke of "the strategy" but I was not referring to any particular past style of net play, still less the type of net play that was heavily characterized by chip-and-charge. Perhaps my phrasing seemed to imply something specific, but all I meant was net play -- high numbers of approaches, however that may come about. And I certainly agree with your description of how Federer came in during this match. That's all I meant by net play possibly working today: I don't need it to replicate any particular past style in any way; I'm just talking about net play, in whatever way (or ways) it might be produced today.

Incidentally I don't know that net play, on clay courts, ever was heavily reliant on chip-and-charge. That was a prominent grass-court tactic, but even then, on grass courts, of course, the main way that players came in was behind their own serves.

Generally speaking, at least apart from grass, it's always been the case that players would make approaches when they earned, or somehow got, a superior position over their opponent in a baseline rally. As you say above, "the strength of your approaches is directly related to whether you are able to gain the ascendancy in rallies", and that's always been accepted -- with one prominent exception.

The orthodox SV style was known as the Big Game, and in its most extreme forms it came under criticism. Ellsworth Vines thought that its most orthodox adherents should develop their groundstrokes more, and that they should come in more judiciously rather than simply coming in behind both serves all the time. He felt that in some tennis circles it was merely taken for granted that merely being at the net would put you in a superior position over a baseliner. And his criticisms were spot-on. But I certainly wasn't referring to the kind of injudicious net-rushing criticized by Vines, as a style that could possibly come back today. That would not work today, and as Vines noted, it wasn't even working back then: the best attackers then were those who attacked smartly and who developed good groundstrokes with which to make good approaches.

Now getting back to the question of net play today: that match was probably Federer's best ever on clay. And he had a stellar success rate, 76%. But it's not as if we're talking about how a 76% success rate against Nadal on clay should become the norm for all players. That was Federer's best effort and even he is not going to be reproduce it every day. All the more true for lesser players.

But let's just start with the fact that a 76% success rate is possible against Nadal on clay. Then shouldn't it be possible to see Federer, at least (never mind other players, for now), produce similar rates on other, faster surfaces? I know grass is not what is used to be, but there is still common agreement that it's faster than clay and that Federer has a greater advantage over Nadal than he does on clay. Yet Federer does not have net stats on grass, against Nadal, that equal his Rome stats, much less surpass them.

Why is that? It can't be that his level of play in the Rome match was a level above every match he's played on any surface. It was a very, very high level -- but surely he's had such days on grass or hard court. And those surfaces should be more suitable for him to come forward. So the natural question for me is, what happened? Why do his matches after Rome show lower success rates and even lower numbers of net approaches?

It seems to me that Roche's influence can be a large factor in all this.

Remember, I'm not asking why Federer did not become Edberg; and still less am I claiming that the tour as a whole can start attacking just as much as they did in the 70s or 80s or 90s. I don't know whether that is possible. I'm just saying, once Federer showed he could have a certain level of net success on clay against Nadal, then theoretically on faster surfaces he could have even better numbers. Yet Rome, on clay, seems to have been his high point as far as net play. Why is that?

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by krosero

hen theoretically on faster surfaces he could have even better numbers. Yet Rome, on clay, seems to have been his high point as far as net play. Why is that?

Certainly can't help but wonder how much this might have been part of the "communication" problem between them.

I don't even like to think about that split though...I think that was one of the crappiest things Roger ever did...the things he said to the press were unnecessary.

[urban]

If i recall the Rome match, i think it was very hot and the court played very fast. Rome can be very fast, almost like a hard court because they sometimes put less sand on the underground. When Sampras won Rome in 1994, the courts played ultra fast like a billard plate, and Sampras, Becker and Stich reached the semis.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by urban

If i recall the Rome match, i think it was very hot and the court played very fast. Rome can be very fast, almost like a hard court because they sometimes put less sand on the underground. When Sampras won Rome in 1994, the courts played ultra fast like a billard plate, and Sampras, Becker and Stich reached the semis.

Traditionally, Rome was considered the fastest clay court.Hamburg was the slowest one, I think.

[World Beater]

Originally Posted by krosero

Now getting back to the question of net play today: that match was probably Federer's best ever on clay. And he had a stellar success rate, 76%. But it's not as if we're talking about how a 76% success rate against Nadal on clay should become the norm for all players. That was Federer's best effort and even he is not going to be reproduce it every day. All the more true for lesser players.

But let's just start with the fact that a 76% success rate is possible against Nadal on clay. Then shouldn't it be possible to see Federer, at least (never mind other players, for now), produce similar rates on other, faster surfaces? I know grass is not what is used to be, but there is still common agreement that it's faster than clay and that Federer has a greater advantage over Nadal than he does on clay. Yet Federer does not have net stats on grass, against Nadal, that equal his Rome stats, much less surpass them.

Why is that? It can't be that his level of play in the Rome match was a level above every match he's played on any surface. It was a very, very high level -- but surely he's had such days on grass or hard court. And those surfaces should be more suitable for him to come forward. So the natural question for me is, what happened? Why do his matches after Rome show lower success rates and even lower numbers of net approaches?

It seems to me that Roche's influence can be a large factor in all this.

Remember, I'm not asking why Federer did not become Edberg; and still less am I claiming that the tour as a whole can start attacking just as much as they did in the 70s or 80s or 90s. I don't know whether that is possible. I'm just saying, once Federer showed he could have a certain level of net success on clay against Nadal, then theoretically on faster surfaces he could have even better numbers. Yet Rome, on clay, seems to have been his high point as far as net play. Why is that?

Well i think this is a matter of strategy on federer's part rather than anything else.

If you can end points on the baseline, then why come into net?

Points are generally shorter on faster surfaces, and federer can usually gain the ascendancy using his forehand very quickly in points and actually win points without having to come to net that often. He still is aggressive and does approach the net when the game play allows him to, but its not going to be as conscious of a choice as it is on clay.

On clay, its a different story. Because of nadal's elite movement + defense + topspin...trying to outduel him from the baseline is extremely difficult. So in order for him to end points in his favor, he has to approach the net at some point. Doing this of course implies that he gains the advantage in the rally to allow him to hit an approach shot of sufficient quality. The first window of opportunity, federer usually strikes on clay against nadal...on faster surfaces, federer doesnt need to approach the net and risk getting passed - he can just hit another penetrating forehand - which is a higher percentage shot for him.

apart from clay, federer has fared reasonably well against nadal. I believe they are equal or with federer having a slight advantage.

on the faster surfaces, federer holds the distinct edge - indoor hard courts. slower hardcourts - nadal may hold the slight edge. But the slowest hardcourts are in fact slower than the rome surface.

I don't know federer's win % at net at wimbledon against nadal - but im sure it must have been decent. Maybe not 75%. From what i understand, the grass surface isnt a whole lot faster than Rome. Faster than Roland garros...sure, but not rome.

Hewitt recently commented that the grass is playing slower than RG clay - dont know if this was exaggeration or not..but the fact that he is discussing it shows it is within the same ballpark. henman said something similar before he retired.

the 75% win at net i think is a more a reflection of federer's baseline play that day than his quality of net play, which was good..but it was more due to federer hitting quality approach shots.

[kiki]

The first all courters were Cochet,Tilden,Budge and Perry.next came Hoad, and Laver took it to its maximum.From early 2000´s NO ALL COURTER AT ALL (FED had too many shortcomings as an all courter)