Which Serve & Volleyer of the 90's was most fun to watch?

[ubermeyer]

Sampras, but Karlovic is more fun to watch...

[darthpwner]

Originally Posted by eric draven

You really thought Sampras was heavy handed? I always kind of attributed it to that club of a racket he used. Considering how heavy it was and how tight he strung I was still amazed at his volleying.

Cash would have defenitely been on the list if it was for the 80's. I loved watching him play but only caught his matches more towards the end of his career.

You do know that Edberg used the same racket as Pete right?

[quest01]

Edberg had the best volleys but Pete Sampras was more fun to watch at the net.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by eric draven

You really thought Sampras was heavy handed? I always kind of attributed it to that club of a racket he used. Considering how heavy it was and how tight he strung I was still amazed at his volleying.

Cash would have defenitely been on the list if it was for the 80's. I loved watching him play but only caught his matches more towards the end of his career.

Yes, I do. I don't think it had anything to do with the weight of his racquet because there were a lot of guys using hefty racquets that displayed infinitely more touch and (most important when talking about volleyers) considerably faster hands. It's just that he was very manufactured on the volley. Of course, due to his talent, he was able to master the shot (in the same way that Rosewall, who wasn't a serve-volley player by inclination, became enormously effective due to an abundance of natural ability). However, it just wasn't in the same league as guys like Rafter, Edberg, McEnroe, Fitzgerald, Jarryd, Woodforde and Woodbridge.

Pete was a great player BUT when talking purely in terms of serve-volley he is hideously overrated. No doubt that's due to the majority of people having absolutely no idea what constitutes serve-volley as a style. I'm sure they figure that Pete won almost everything and he used to come to the net (not that it was a natural thing for him) so that means he must have been a great serve-volleyer. I'm sure you can see how stupid that is. Pancho Gonzalez, rated as one of the greatest players of all time (some rate him at the top), had the best serve of his era and followed it to the net. However, no-one ever tried to claim that he was the best serve-volley players of his era. They could see that, technically and style-wise, there were others who were far better (Hoad was streets ahead, so was Kramer and Sedgman was the best of the lot)

I'll put it like this - Pete was the greatest server who volleyed, but he wasn't the greatest serve-volleyer. With Sampras they really are two separate things rather than being one unit. A true serve-volley player serves to set up the volley. Sampras, on the other hand, served to win the point outright.

[Carsomyr]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

Mcenroe (for the amazing touch, improvised shots, and drive volleys, with those artist like hands)
Edberg (smoothest player of all time, rock solid volleys + touch)

Tier 2
Sampras (Some of Mcenroe's touch, some of Edberg's smoothness). All court power with shotmaking excellence.

Tier 3
Rafter (didn't have the touch of the 3 above, but good instincts, and excellent athleticism, made for a dynamic, if inelegant net game)
Becker (the worst of all of these players on the volley, but all-court game and charisma, and the dive, made him exciting)

Tier 4
Henman (good all around, but....rather bland, unless you're british!)

Other fun SV'ers/allcourters who played into the 90's a little....Noah, Leconte, Stich....

Great analysis. However, I preferred Rafter, if only because it was hard to predict what would happen while he was at net and the exchanges were generally longer due to his less-than-stellar first serve backing up his net attacks.

[0d1n]

In the "fun to watch" category I'll take an in form Stich over anybody and not only in the "S&V" style...but in ANY style. "Style" was Stich...and Stich was "style" .
I loved Edberg's game as well (except for that horrible forehand), and liked to watch Rafter for the sheer athletic ability and determination that he had.
And yes, I agree with AndrewD with regards to Rafter vs Sampras volleying skills...Sampras had other qualities, but a better volley than Rafter he did NOT have...sorry, he was clearly behind.

[jrepac]

got to agree w/Andrew D's assessment of Pete....he was a great server who occasionally volleyed. Used to get aggravated watching him, frankly, since he really should've/could've come in behind all of his serves. Think he would've been more effective that way, particularly against some of the blasting baseliners who tagged him later on (hewitt, safin). His serve was so good, it was criminal not to come in behind it....

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Yes, I do. I don't think it had anything to do with the weight of his racquet because there were a lot of guys using hefty racquets that displayed infinitely more touch and (most important when talking about volleyers) considerably faster hands. It's just that he was very manufactured on the volley. Of course, due to his talent, he was able to master the shot (in the same way that Rosewall, who wasn't a serve-volley player by inclination, became enormously effective due to an abundance of natural ability). However, it just wasn't in the same league as guys like Rafter, Edberg, McEnroe, Fitzgerald, Jarryd, Woodforde and Woodbridge.

Pete was a great player BUT when talking purely in terms of serve-volley he is hideously overrated. No doubt that's due to the majority of people having absolutely no idea what constitutes serve-volley as a style. I'm sure they figure that Pete won almost everything and he used to come to the net (not that it was a natural thing for him) so that means he must have been a great serve-volleyer. I'm sure you can see how stupid that is. Pancho Gonzalez, rated as one of the greatest players of all time (some rate him at the top), had the best serve of his era and followed it to the net. However, no-one ever tried to claim that he was the best serve-volley players of his era. They could see that, technically and style-wise, there were others who were far better (Hoad was streets ahead, so was Kramer and Sedgman was the best of the lot)

I'll put it like this - Pete was the greatest server who volleyed, but he wasn't the greatest serve-volleyer. With Sampras they really are two separate things rather than being one unit. A true serve-volley player serves to set up the volley. Sampras, on the other hand, served to win the point outright.

This post is hideously over rated. Pete was an all time great

[darthpwner]

Pete's serve is better than all of the other guys on the list combined with the exception of Becker

[zagor]

Rafter for me,he was sheer guts and athleticism at the net,his every match seemed like some great battle(for me anyway)in which he would charge no matter how good of an approach was and would rely on his great athleticism as much he relied on his touch.Contrast to Edberg who at his best was somehow always at the right spot at the right time and seemingly effortlessly put everything away.

I don't consider Sampras and Becker to be serve and volleyers,they're attacking all courters who could overwhelm any opponent with their power IMO.

[World Beater]

rafter...and henman. these guys won their points at net...they didnt just finish off pts at net.

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

You do know that Edberg used the same racket as Pete right?

Didn't Edberg use the midplus though? And Pete weighted his heavier and I'm pretty sure he strung his tighter as well. Not really the same racket...

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by eric draven

Didn't Edberg use the midplus though? And Pete weighted his heavier and I'm pretty sure he strung his tighter as well. Not really the same racket...

Nah he used the same racquet pete did

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

Yes, I do. I don't think it had anything to do with the weight of his racquet because there were a lot of guys using hefty racquets that displayed infinitely more touch and (most important when talking about volleyers) considerably faster hands. It's just that he was very manufactured on the volley. Of course, due to his talent, he was able to master the shot (in the same way that Rosewall, who wasn't a serve-volley player by inclination, became enormously effective due to an abundance of natural ability). However, it just wasn't in the same league as guys like Rafter, Edberg, McEnroe, Fitzgerald, Jarryd, Woodforde and Woodbridge.

Pete was a great player BUT when talking purely in terms of serve-volley he is hideously overrated. No doubt that's due to the majority of people having absolutely no idea what constitutes serve-volley as a style. I'm sure they figure that Pete won almost everything and he used to come to the net (not that it was a natural thing for him) so that means he must have been a great serve-volleyer. I'm sure you can see how stupid that is. Pancho Gonzalez, rated as one of the greatest players of all time (some rate him at the top), had the best serve of his era and followed it to the net. However, no-one ever tried to claim that he was the best serve-volley players of his era. They could see that, technically and style-wise, there were others who were far better (Hoad was streets ahead, so was Kramer and Sedgman was the best of the lot)

I'll put it like this - Pete was the greatest server who volleyed, but he wasn't the greatest serve-volleyer. With Sampras they really are two separate things rather than being one unit. A true serve-volley player serves to set up the volley. Sampras, on the other hand, served to win the point outright.

I don't know about "hideously overrated" but I see your point. I did qualify putting him in the poll as more of an all-courter. But still, you don't win as many Wimbledons as he did by being a so-so volleyer that just happened to have a great serve. I do see your point on separating his serving from being a serve and volleyer though.

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Nah he used the same racquet pete did

Then I stand corrected. But, I've always thought that Edberg was far more proficient in his volleys anyway. He just seemed to always know how to strike the ball when he was at the net. I would have rated him as the best if not for his continental forehand that would go awry on him every so often.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by eric draven

Then I stand corrected. But, I've always thought that Edberg was far more proficient in his volleys anyway. He just seemed to always know how to strike the ball when he was at the net. I would have rated him as the best if not for his continental forehand that would go awry on him every so often.

Edberg is probabaly the best volleyer I ever saw but Pete was no chopped liver.

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by jrepac

got to agree w/Andrew D's assessment of Pete....he was a great server who occasionally volleyed. Used to get aggravated watching him, frankly, since he really should've/could've come in behind all of his serves. Think he would've been more effective that way, particularly against some of the blasting baseliners who tagged him later on (hewitt, safin). His serve was so good, it was criminal not to come in behind it....

Well, towards the end of his career he became much more aggressive in his approaches to the net. In Paul Annacone's second stint with Pete didn't he pretty much tell him to use his serve and just get to the net all the time? You could see it in his last run for the US Open title.

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Edberg is probabaly the best volleyer I ever saw but Pete was no chopped liver.

No not at all. But I doubt we'll ever see another volleyer like Edberg. No one is trained like that anymore... well outside of Taylor "bioinic back" Dent. And there's no comparison there...

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by eric draven

No not at all. But I doubt we'll ever see another volleyer like Edberg. No one is trained like that anymore... well outside of Taylor "bioinic back" Dent. And there's no comparison there...

Because it's a losing strategy now.

[Datacipher]

Eric,

I find I rarely agree with Andrew's posts, I find them rather biased and somewhat ignorant, but he is entitled to them. In the case of Sampras, I feel Sampras had excellent touch, and I feel you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned it is all the more impressive with such a heavy racquet. Note, that others who have paid great accolades to Sampras' touch include Mcenroe, Gilbert, Courier and many others.

Yes. You are correct, that Annacone pushed for increasing SV from Pete, and Sampras began to do this more, as his stamina and legs were beginning to betray him more and more. Imagine how devastating his SV would have been had he done it more in his mid and early 20's?

I don't really agree with seperating Sampras' serve from his volleys. To me, that is rhetorical nonsense. At what point to do you draw the line? Everyone...(well...a few posters excluded), recognized Sampras devastating net game, and knew he could and would back up that serve, if he was coming in. Just because his serve was a huge weapon does not make his volley game any lesser....it simply meant he needed to use it a bit less! lol. But almost every SV'er used his serve as a big weapon. Becker, Krajicek, heck, Gonzalez, Tanner, Ashe etc. all hit aces, and all hit winners. (admittedly in the past, the mindset was less ace oriented). However, just because Sampras had such a good second serve that he could afford to go all out on the first, does not take away from his SV game! Even Edberg, and definitely Mcenroe, hit aces....people forget that....Rafter also hit plenty of big serves for aces and winners...Rafter and Mcenroe often went for big first serves, and only backed off, if their opponent was being too effective on the 2nd serve. Edberg often did use a kicker for his 1st, (but still mixed flat and slice serves in), but part of the reason for that was simply that it happened to be his BEST serve! He even had a great kicker as a young boy, so, he built his game around that! If you need to go for that first serve because you can't really volley, then yes, maybe you are not really a SV'er, but that clearly wasn't the case with Sampras.