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

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

I am open to new information, but I do not believe this true at all! Sampras WAS without contract for a few years, but he reached terms with them before and after that period and almost certainly got a few bucks! lol

Sorry, but again, from what I was told, Sampras was so dedicated to the ProStaff from SV that he took free gear and no $'s. Apparently he decided he was making enough on his other deals and primary source of income, tournaments.

[eric draven]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks for your feedback. I saw the point Andrew was making and I don't really agree but like you said people are entitled to their opinions. In the hopes of generating good discussion I try to see other posters' points. That said, you bring up a great point about the fact about how other great players hit aces and service winners as well. I think over time people tend to forget certain things about great players' games. It's why I like to go on youtube and watch posted videos of matches of older players. It helps put things in perspective about how good they were and how we often romanticize or overly-criticize their stengths and weaknesses.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by quest01

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

huh? you just started watching tennis a few years ago (2-4). you never even saw tennis in the 90's.

[Azzurri]

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....

LOL..where do I start. You never watched Pete play, you just like what AndrewD stated. I respectfully disagree with him and believe Pete to be on par w/Rafter and below Mac/Edberg. But for you to make these absurd statements show you are utterly clueless.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Azzurri

LOL..where do I start. You never watched Pete play, you just like what AndrewD stated. I respectfully disagree with him and believe Pete to be on par w/Rafter and below Mac/Edberg. But for you to make these absurd statements show you are utterly clueless.

Pete's volleys were some of the best in history. I don't know who these people were watching.

[Azzurri]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Pete's volleys were some of the best in history. I don't know who these people were watching.

a while back (maybe a year or so prior) I had not watched a Sampras match in quite a while. I had some matches on DVD (have added to the stock). The same arguement was going about Pete and his volley skills. I had been in discussion with fellow (clueless) posters about Rafter, Cash and Becker. I decided to watch 2 matches (01 vs. Fed and 99 vs Agassi). I was thoroughly impressed and forgot how good he actually was. The man won 7 WIMBLEDON titles. It is obviosu a serve alone cannot get you 7 titles (see Goran, Krajicek). I was really impressed with his half-volley/low-volley skills. How he was able to get them back with precision/placement and not pop them up was incredible. I also watched his 92 loss to Edberg and noticed how little Stefan dealt with the lo half-volley, but Pete seemed to get them more often.

I believe Pete to be a step (a slight one) below Mac/Edberg. The reason is plain and simple; Pete was more an all-court player than Mac/Edberg. Those 2 solely relied on their net game, while Pete had a greater arsenal of weapons..hence his winning 14 GS titles. The kiddies actually give Pete TOO much credit for his serve and not enough for his all-around game. It becomes painfully obvious which poster never saw Pete play, saw him very little or just flat out has no clue what they saw.

#'s aren't everything (in some cases). I still believe Babe Ruth to be a greater HR slugger than Bonds/Aaron. Prime Sampras beats a Prime Federer at Centre Court (Wimbledon).

[tennisdad65]

The poll is NOT: who was the best S&V of the 90s..
We all know Pete was the best, because of his dominating serve and better ground/overall game.

The Poll is: which S&V was the most fun to watch..
For this: Edberg gets my vote

[Ano]

Originally Posted by tennisdad65

The poll is NOT: who was the best S&V of the 90s..
We all know Pete was the best, because of his dominating serve and better ground/overall game.

The Poll is: which S&V was the most fun to watch..
For this: Edberg gets my vote

Same with me.

[35ft6]

I really don't like watching serve and volley tennis. Never really did. But Edberg was fun to watch. Mac was a close second, but something about Edberg's technique was more watchable.

I really liked Rafter and I liked watching his return games, but when he was serving and volleying, it was some of the most boring and painful tennis to watch. He was the closest you could ever get to being a counterpunching volleyer. Edberg was like an aikido master, redirecting energy, cutting off angles, just calmly getting his feet into the right place like he had ESP. Rafter always seemed to be playing catchup at net. At least that's the way I remember him, scrambling and sweating at the net, but somehow managing to get his racket on the ball.

Actually, the one shot I really liked from Rafter was when he was stretched out wide on the forehand volley, he would hit like this little continental top spin forehand. That was kind of cool. I've hit it a couple of times but it's a pure reaction shot and I rarely think of it in time. And he could really rifle a high backhand volley. Come to think of it, so can Federer.