Greatest Volleyers of All Time

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Greatest Volleyers of All-Time

Tier-one: McEnroe, Edberg, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Roche, Emerson, Gonzales.

Tier-two: Segura, Hoad, Newcombe, Panatta, Rafter, Cash, Kramer.

Tier-three: Ashe, Lutz, Gerulaitis, Sampras, Nastase, Borotra, Cochet, Henman.

Tier-four: Llodra, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Perry, Gottfried, Kriek, McLaughlin.


Present Tier: Federer, Nalbandian, Dent, Tsonga, Mahut, Safin, Fish, Ancic, Marc Lopez.

IMO, Nalbandian belongs in front of Federer.

[pc1]

Budge Patty was a great volley with a forehand volley some call the best of all time. Just figured I would throw him in.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by krosero

Federer's volleying and net skills are not perfect -- in this era that's generally true of the players -- but they have often impressed me for their athleticism and yes, even for pure volleying skill. And I am hardly someone who's barely seen older tennis or can't appreciate the volleying skills of the older greats. True that they did things with volleys that you don't see today; I'm not comparing. But Federer's skill at net is impressive in its own right.

Moreover, it's not that he's merely "stylish" up there. He has the numbers to back this up. I really think it's a mistake to compare Federer and Nadal as volleyers and not study their net stats. Nadal has nothing to compare to what Federer did in many matches back in 2001-06. Nadal has never come to net against Sampras on grass the way Federer over five sets in '01. It's hard even to imagine him attempting to play that style to that degree -- not saying that he can't do it; but it's a certainty that he has not done it. I just find it strange that Nadal sometimes gets credited as a volleyer as if he had put in such great performances at the net, when in fact all throughout his career he's never had a great number of approaches in any single match.

As late as '06, when Federer was already doing less net play, he made an effort to come in against Nadal at Rome and look at his numbers: 62 of 80 approaches won.

Nadal had nothing in his resume like that. And can you imagine him putting up such numbers on red clay in Rome against a baseliner equal to himself?

Ironically Nadal, even though he comes in very little, sometimes has poor winning percentages at net. When he beat Federer in Australia a few months ago he won only 5 of 15 approaches. I don't personally know of any match in which Federer's net success was below 50%.

Which is all somewhat strange if Nadal supposedly has better technique than Federer at net. The ultimate success at net is what matters, and I don't see any numbers supporting the argument that Nadal is better than Federer at net.

Maybe today, when Federer and Nadal approach at comparable frequencies, some comparison can be made. Historically it's not even close: it's Federer by a mile.

Thanks for this. I'm tired of people claiming Nadal is a better volleyer than Roger, or (God knows how) the best volleyer on tour based on something JMac said a while back in a commentary booth ( and its funny because I thought the more experienced posters don't go by sensationalist commentary. Or maybe that's done according convenience).

[Devilito]

Petros is tier ONE gtfo with anything else. He’s the only player with a net game that would still be valid today. It’s one thing to look like you have the hands of god when you have 20mph forehands being hit at you, it’s another thing to stand infront of the net while Agassi is about to drill a 100mph forehand into your skull. When guys like Andre started to drill returns off his fast serve basically better than anyone even in today’s game maybe apart form Novak, he basically invented the topspin half volley and took the 1st volley and stretch volley to avoid passes to another level.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Thanks for this. I'm tired of people claiming Nadal is a better volleyer than Roger, or (God knows how) the best volleyer on tour based on something JMac said a while back in a commentary booth ( and its funny because I thought the more experienced posters don't go by sensationalist commentary. Or maybe that's done according convenience).

You're quite correct it's done according to convenience, many historians were at JMac's throat when he was proclaiming Fed to be the GOAT in 2009 and whenever he (or any other analyst) claims today's players are much better (bigger, stronger, faster and other nonsense) because of the evolution of the game.

Of course, for them a tennis analyst's opinion gains a lot of weight whenever he says anything that directly or indirectly downgrades Fed and posters who disagree with such xy tennis experts are rabid Fed fanatics.

However on this topic, while Fed is definitely a better (and much more proven) volleyer than Nadal (or other members of the big 4 for that matter) he's just not in the conversation regarding Greatest Volleyers of All Time.

I mean during his (Fed's) prime net play was never a large, crucial part of his game, for the bulk of his career (and in his most successful years) he was mainly a baseliner who also happens to be a competent volleyer so that he always had/has an option to mix things up a bit when he's losing the baseline war and can finish points at the net (something many players today don't do but instead stay glued to the baseline even when they get a weak reply).

[BrooklynNY]

Originally Posted by Devilito

Petros is tier ONE gtfo with anything else. He’s the only player with a net game would would still be valid today. It’s one thing to look like you have the hands of god when you have 20mph forehands being hit at you, it’s another thing to stand infront of the net while Agassi is about to drill a 100mph forehand into your skull. When guys like Andre started to drill returns off his fast serve basically better than anyone even in today’s game maybe apart form Novak, he basically invented the topspin half volley and took the 1st volley and stretch volley to avoid passes to another level.

Agreed, I don't know how you can see anything else.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Budge Patty was a great volley with a forehand volley some call the best of all time. Just figured I would throw him in.

Good one, I also heard about his crushing FH volley.I was also thinking about some very good clay court volleyers like Victor Pecci and Raul Ramirez - a bit unconsistent, though-

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by Devilito

Petros is tier ONE gtfo with anything else. He’s the only player with a net game that would still be valid today. It’s one thing to look like you have the hands of god when you have 20mph forehands being hit at you, it’s another thing to stand infront of the net while Agassi is about to drill a 100mph forehand into your skull. When guys like Andre started to drill returns off his fast serve basically better than anyone even in today’s game maybe apart form Novak, he basically invented the topspin half volley and took the 1st volley and stretch volley to avoid passes to another level.

I can think of about a dozen or so players whose net games would still be "valid" today.

[li0scc0]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I can think of about a dozen or so players whose net games would still be "valid" today.

EXACTLY!!!! Completely agree. Some of those guys entire games would not translate to the 'modern' game, but their net game certainly would!

[hoodjem]

Greatest Volleyers of All-Time

Tier-one: McEnroe, Edberg, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Roche, Emerson, Gonzales.

Tier-two: Segura, Hoad, Newcombe, Panatta, Rafter, Cash, Kramer.

Tier-three: Ashe, Lutz, Gerulaitis, Sampras, Nastase, Borotra, Cochet, Henman, Patty.

Tier-four: Llodra, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Perry, Gottfried, Kriek, McLaughlin, Trabert, McGregor, Fraser, Stolle.


Present Tier: Nalbandian, Dent, Tsonga, Federer, Mahut, Safin, Fish, Ancic, Marc Lopez.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Greatest Volleyers of All-Time

Tier-one: McEnroe, Edberg, Laver, Rosewall, Sedgman, Roche, Emerson, Gonzales.

Tier-two: Segura, Hoad, Newcombe, Panatta, Rafter, Cash, Kramer.

Tier-three: Ashe, Lutz, Gerulaitis, Sampras, Nastase, Borotra, Cochet, Henman, Patty.

Tier-four: Llodra, Becker, Krajicek, Stich, Perry, Gottfried, Kriek, McLaughlin, Trabert, McGregor, Fraser, Stolle.


Present Tier: Nalbandian, Dent, Tsonga, Federer, Mahut, Safin, Fish, Ancic, Marc Lopez.

If you consider doubles players, which are those that spend more time at the net, we should also consider guys like Quist,Mc Millan,Mc Nair,Alexander.Your list is excellent for predominant singles players...I miss Amritraj, instead of LLodra.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

If you consider doubles players, which are those that spend more time at the net, we should also consider guys like Quist,Mc Millan,Mc Nair,Alexander.Your list is excellent for predominant singles players...I miss Amritraj, instead of LLodra.

Yep, primarily singles.
I think someone else started a list for doubles.

[kiki]

Amritraj is an underrated volleyer over those boards.He was much more of a touch and position volleyer than an atheltic one like Edberg or Rafter.Still, you feel when one guy is so at ease at the net and Vijay certainly was.

When he handled down Borg,Laver,mac or Connors, it was because he dominated at the net.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Amritraj is an underrated volleyer over those boards.He was much more of a touch and position volleyer than an atheltic one like Edberg or Rafter.Still, you feel when one guy is so at ease at the net and Vijay certainly was.

When he handled down Borg,Laver,mac or Connors, it was because he dominated at the net.

Vijay also had very good groundies when he was "on" his game. He's one of the many players who didn't come close to living up to his talent. He was one of my all time favorites. He could beat Nastase and lose to a nobody in the next round.l

[Leelord337]

Originally Posted by kiki

If you consider doubles players, which are those that spend more time at the net, we should also consider guys like Quist,Mc Millan,Mc Nair,Alexander.Your list is excellent for predominant singles players...I miss Amritraj, instead of LLodra.

i was thinking the bryan bros and danny nestor too..

[li0scc0]

Originally Posted by kiki

Amritraj is an underrated volleyer over those boards.He was much more of a touch and position volleyer than an atheltic one like Edberg or Rafter.Still, you feel when one guy is so at ease at the net and Vijay certainly was.

When he handled down Borg,Laver,mac or Connors, it was because he dominated at the net.

However, net play would include the overhead, and Vijay's was below average.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by li0scc0

However, net play would include the overhead, and Vijay's was below average.

I really can´t remember that well.You could be right.However, he was one of the best all round players, being able to playe great either at the baseline or at the net.From Laver to Mc Enroe, beat them all ( except Lendl)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by li0scc0

However, net play would include the overhead, and Vijay's was below average.

I thought Vijay had a very good overhead. However he choked on an easy overhead against Kodes at Wimbledon I believe in 1973 at a crucial moment. Hard to have good records against Nastase, Connors and Borg if you didn't have a good overhead.

He was (according to the ATP website) 3-2 against Connors (I think that may be wrong), 6-6 against Nastase and 1-5 against Borg. So he was 10-13 against three superstars.

In stroking ability I am not sure where you could pinpoint a major weakness with Vijay. I think he wasn't as fast as he could be but he wasn't slow either. Vijay was just a great talent. Many thought of the three top young players in the early 1970's (Vijay, Connors and Borg) that Vijay was the most talented.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I thought Vijay had a very good overhead. However he choked on an easy overhead against Kodes at Wimbledon I believe in 1973 at a crucial moment. Hard to have good records against Nastase, Connors and Borg if you didn't have a good overhead.

He was (according to the ATP website) 3-2 against Connors (I think that may be wrong), 6-6 against Nastase and 1-5 against Borg. So he was 10-13 against three superstars.

In stroking ability I am not sure where you could pinpoint a major weakness with Vijay. I think he wasn't as fast as he could be but he wasn't slow either. Vijay was just a great talent. Many thought of the three top young players in the early 1970's (Vijay, Connors and Borg) that Vijay was the most talented.

Amritraj´s vast talent, yet not winning a major title shows how deep talent was atop during the 70´s and 80´s.