Greatest Volleyers of All Time

[papatenis]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

You're backing up a questionable stretch of reasoning with another! Well, for one thing, when grass was "real" (it still is....that's another modern day myth in my opinion), you didn't HAVE to be a SV'er to win. However, in Sampras case, he did SV a lot at Wimbledon, in fact, earliy in his career, it was the one place he seemed to be a completely dedicated SV'er. Though he would sometimes do quite a bit on fast indoor courts....though early on...he'd often stay back indoors as well.

But there are other confounds to your original premise besides this...to equate volley to slams...well, SO many other variables and interactions. To give an easy example, Cash had a significantly better volley than Becker...(so does say....Leander Paes for that matter), but of course, it's not reflected in their singles slam count.

Grass was much faster in the 90's. Why do you think there were so many serve and volley players at that time.

If one had great volleys, then in theory all they had to do was get to the net and win the point?

How do you measure a great volley, style, efficiency or with wins.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by papatenis

How do you measure a great volley? If you think Sampras was an all court player, then how did he win Wimbledon so many times when grass was "real grass"

Personally, I don't call Sampras an all-court player. I call him a mostly serve-and-volley player.

But IMO his volley was not as consistent, as accurate, as dependable, and as versatile as those in tier one, whether he won 14 slams or zero slams.

If you want to know why Sampras won Wimbledon when the grass was faster, then you should ask Azzurri or other Sampras aficionados. I'm sure they can extoll the virtues of Sampras's fast-grass play better than I can.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by papatenis

Grass was much faster in the 90's. Why do you think there were so many serve and volley players at that time..

Oh come on. I started by pointing out how you had two premises that were highly confounded...now you're presenting a third. I have posted extensively about the lack of SV style players in the past, but rather than digress into a thorough exposition on why this is, let me simply help you by telling you, and any others who would subscribe to this theory,. that you should think about:
1.how long it takes to develop a pro player
2.how in the space of only a few years, with the retirement of Sampras/Becker/Edberg/Krajicek/Rafter etc. SV largely disappeared
3.whether potential pro players, and their coaches, design their games specifically for the speed of Wimbledon grass (do those that do, account for the majority?)
4.what happened to the SV on other surfaces? What about indoors?
5.despite Tim Henman's protestations, how come he was doing so well at the end of his career as an old man at Wimbledon?
6.do you actually believe there were just as many juniors and rookie pros playing SV style and that they were then selected against...due to failure at Wimbledon from slow grass? If you do, you're wrong on ALL counts, I assure you.


Whether you believe it has slowed down, or not, (and it certainly has not slowed down THAT much, despite what some players exaggerate, even scientific studies show that grass can only get SO "slow"). The lack of SV at Wimbledon, or in the game in general, is certainly not due to the slow grass conspiracy theory. I think that's absurd.

Originally Posted by papatenis

If one had great volleys, then in theory all they had to do was get to the net and win the point?.

Have no idea what this sentence means. In theory, if one had great volleys, one could win a lot of points if one got to the net with a good approach. Beyond that, great volleys mean nothing.

Originally Posted by papatenis

How do you measure a great volley, style, efficiency or with wins.

Any great stroke will have SOME correlation with winning, but there are so many confounds, such a relationship is IN NO WAY a good measure or predictor. Again, Leander Paes has great volleys, so does Reneberg, so does Woodforde, so does Flach, so does Annacone. It does not mean they are going to win WImbledon or be particularly successful. Too many other variables.

It's PARTICULARLY confounded when you point to Sampras 14 slams, (many of which were NOT from Wimbledon), many of which he largely won from the baseline, particularly in his younger years.

[papatenis]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

It's PARTICULARLY confounded when you point to Sampras 14 slams, (many of which were NOT from Wimbledon), many of which he largely won from the baseline, particularly in his younger years.

Sampras won Wimbledon SEVEN times.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by papatenis

Sampras won Wimbledon SEVEN times.

With all due respect, Bill Tilden won Wimbledon and a lot of it was from the baseline. Jimmy Connors almost never served and volleyed and won two Wimbledons. Admittedly he served and volleyed in the 1982 final.

Borg served and volleyed but he also stayed back and won five straight Wimbledons.

Don Budge won Wimbledon mainly because of his great groundstrokes.

My point is that you don't necessarily have to be a great volleyer to win Wimbledon. Not that the players I mentioned were not excellent volleyers but they won a lot of points because of other reasons beside the volley.

[darthpwner]

Originally Posted by pc1

With all due respect, Bill Tilden won Wimbledon and a lot of it was from the baseline. Jimmy Connors almost never served and volleyed and won two Wimbledons. Admittedly he served and volleyed in the 1982 final.

Borg served and volleyed but he also stayed back and won five straight Wimbledons.

Don Budge won Wimbledon mainly because of his great groundstrokes.

My point is that you don't necessarily have to be a great volleyer to win Wimbledon. Not that the players I mentioned were not excellent volleyers but they won a lot of points because of other reasons beside the volley.

You have to be a great mover to win on grass. Anyone agree?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

With all due respect, Bill Tilden won Wimbledon and a lot of it was from the baseline. Jimmy Connors almost never served and volleyed and won two Wimbledons. Admittedly he served and volleyed in the 1982 final.

Borg served and volleyed but he also stayed back and won five straight Wimbledons.

Don Budge won Wimbledon mainly because of his great groundstrokes.

My point is that you don't necessarily have to be a great volleyer to win Wimbledon. Not that the players I mentioned were not excellent volleyers but they won a lot of points because of other reasons beside the volley.

Oh and don't forget Agassi. He won it almost entirely from the baseline.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by darthpwner

You have to be a great mover to win on grass. Anyone agree?

I agree, although...it's generally true at all the slams! Grass with it's fast, low bounce and, especially in the old days, erratic bounces, put a special premium on quickness and flexibility of feet, hand, and mind. Though it's conceivable that a big man, with a big all around first strike game, could win at Wimbledon, even if not the greatest of movers, it happened only once in recent times (Krajicek).

[papatenis]

Originally Posted by pc1

My point is that you don't necessarily have to be a great volleyer to win Wimbledon. Not that the players I mentioned were not excellent volleyers but they won a lot of points because of other reasons beside the volley.

During the 90's when Sampras won 6 Wimbledon and the year 2000 he won another for a total of 7 Wimbledon, how in the world do you think he won all those Wimbledon? Surely not from the baseline.
Do you agree that Sampras was a serve and volley player, especially on grass?
If you agree, then I would say that he would have to be one of the greatest volleyer's.

[BTURNER]

I agree, although...it's generally true at all the slams! Grass with it's fast, low bounce and, especially in the old days, erratic bounces, put a special premium on quickness and flexibility of feet, hand, and mind. Though it's conceivable that a big man, with a big all around first strike game, could win at Wimbledon, even if not the greatest of movers, it happened only once in recent times (Krajicek)


Lindsey Davenport did it.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by papatenis

During the 90's when Sampras won 6 Wimbledon and the year 2000 he won another for a total of 7 Wimbledon, how in the world do you think he won all those Wimbledon? Surely not from the baseline.
Do you agree that Sampras was a serve and volley player, especially on grass?
If you agree, then I would say that he would have to be one of the greatest volleyer's.

No one's saying that Sampras was a 2nd-rate volleyer. He's just not in the same rarefied league as McEnroe and Edberg, and I say this as a huge Sampras fan. I also think Mac was a better volleyer than Laver, but I'll let the old-timers decide that as my viewing experience of Rod is admittedly limited.

As to your question, playing serve-and-volley and being a serve-and-volleyer are different things. Almost everyone S&Ved their way to the Wimbledon finals back then (Agassi is the only exception I can think of), but we don't call, say, Courier a S&Ver per se. Sampras in his early years was an all-court player who S&Ved often. He did become more aggressive later in his career, but even then he stayed back a good amount of time outside of grass. What won him 7 Wimbledons wasn't just his volley but also the rest of his all-around game, including one of the best serves in history. It ain't called serve-and-volley for nothing.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I agree, although...it's generally true at all the slams! Grass with it's fast, low bounce and, especially in the old days, erratic bounces, put a special premium on quickness and flexibility of feet, hand, and mind. Though it's conceivable that a big man, with a big all around first strike game, could win at Wimbledon, even if not the greatest of movers, it happened only once in recent times (Krajicek)


Lindsey Davenport did it.

Good point. To be frank, I never even think of the women!

[papatenis]

Originally Posted by NonP

No one's saying that Sampras was a 2nd-rate volleyer. He's just not in the same rarefied league as McEnroe and Edberg, and I say this as a huge Sampras fan. I also think Mac was a better volleyer than Laver, but I'll let the old-timers decide that as my viewing experience of Rod is admittedly limited.

As to your question, playing serve-and-volley and being a serve-and-volleyer are different things. Almost everyone S&Ved their way to the Wimbledon finals back then (Agassi is the only exception I can think of), but we don't call, say, Courier a S&Ver per se. Sampras in his early years was an all-court player who S&Ved often. He did become more aggressive later in his career, but even then he stayed back a good amount of time outside of grass. What won him 7 Wimbledons wasn't just his volley but also the rest of his all-around game, including one of the best serves in history. It ain't called serve-and-volley for nothing.

Sampras combined the serve-and-volley game of McEnroe with the ground game of Lendl with the athleticism and demeanor of Borg. But his mentality as a tennis player harkened back to the Aussies, Laver in particular. His game was designed to win Wimbledon. Arguments about who had better volleys are largely academic. Tony Roche is said to have had the greatest forehand volley ever. So what. Who had the greatest serve-and volley game? That is a far more interesting question. After all, there are many dimensions to it that are often overlooked. Here I think it might be useful to recall what McEnroe said about Sampras. He said that Sampras was a great control volleyer, as opposed to someone like Rafter, who used his kick serve to get in close to the net and hit a first-strike volley. Sampras played percentage tennis, but in the most aggressive way possible. If the percentages dictated less aggressive play, then he played less aggressively. In this sense, he was the most conservative player. Like any good serve-and-volleyer, he knew that if you come in, you are going to get passed. So you craft your serve-and-volley game to reduce those passing opportunities. It's actually a defensive-minded mentality guiding an offensive style of play. What made Sampras so invincible at Wimbledon was a serve-and-volley game that was virtually impenetrable. Volleys only tell part of the story. Has anyone ever half-volleyed better than Sampras? Henman comes close. Did anyone hit a better overhead? I doubt it. How about the drop volley? The lunge volley? The high backhand volley? Agassi's was pretty good. Sampras used his superior athleticism combined with great touch and creativity to "defend" the net. He applied this style of play and mentality throughout his career, with results that speak for themselves.

[NonP]

Originally Posted by papatenis

Sampras combined the serve-and-volley game of McEnroe with the ground game of Lendl with the athleticism and demeanor of Borg. But his mentality as a tennis player harkened back to the Aussies, Laver in particular. His game was designed to win Wimbledon. Arguments about who had better volleys are largely academic. Tony Roche is said to have had the greatest forehand volley ever. So what. Who had the greatest serve-and volley game? That is a far more interesting question. After all, there are many dimensions to it that are often overlooked. Here I think it might be useful to recall what McEnroe said about Sampras. He said that Sampras was a great control volleyer, as opposed to someone like Rafter, who used his kick serve to get in close to the net and hit a first-strike volley. Sampras played percentage tennis, but in the most aggressive way possible. If the percentages dictated less aggressive play, then he played less aggressively. In this sense, he was the most conservative player. Like any good serve-and-volleyer, he knew that if you come in, you are going to get passed. So you craft your serve-and-volley game to reduce those passing opportunities. It's actually a defensive-minded mentality guiding an offensive style of play. What made Sampras so invincible at Wimbledon was a serve-and-volley game that was virtually impenetrable. Volleys only tell part of the story. Has anyone ever half-volleyed better than Sampras? Henman comes close. Did anyone hit a better overhead? I doubt it. How about the drop volley? The lunge volley? The high backhand volley? Agassi's was pretty good. Sampras used his superior athleticism combined with great touch and creativity to "defend" the net. He applied this style of play and mentality throughout his career, with results that speak for themselves.

Uh... this is nice and all, but in case you haven't noticed, this thread is about volleys only. If you're interested there's already another thread on the greatest serve-and-volleyers:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=295149

Anyway we don't actually disagree much. As I said yesterday I'm a big fan of Pistol Pete.

[duusoo]

I think David Wheaton and Marty Riessen deserve some recognition as being great volleyers

[ttbrowne]

I have to put doubles players up there too. I just cannot see today's top doubles players as having a worse volley than Sampras or anyone else. Just because they don't have the skills to play singles means nothing.
You HAVE to put the Bryans, and almost everyone in the top 10 in the best category over the old dudes. Doubles today is lightning fast and you can't compare Hoad with Paes. Paes would eat his lunch.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by papatenis

Sampras combined the serve-and-volley game of McEnroe with the ground game of Lendl with the athleticism and demeanor of Borg.

Actually, because Mac's volley is more "touch" and drop, I would offer that Sampras's volley was modelled more on Edberg's volley: based more on power and placement.

I know that Sampras worked with Lendl on his private courts (when late 80s early 90s?), but it is a stretch to say that Sampras had the "ground game of Lendl": Lendl's backhand was much stronger than Sampras's with more variety. Borg was stoic and aloof; Sampras was quiet and reserved. I guess they are similar demeanors.

[K Factor]

1. sampras
2. federer
3. nadal
4.corretja
5.gonzalez

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Actually, because Mac's volley is more "touch" and drop, I would offer that Sampras's volley was modelled more on Edberg's volley: based more on power and placement.

I know that Sampras worked with Lendl on his private courts (when late 80s early 90s?), but it is a stretch to say that Sampras had the "ground game of Lendl": Lendl's backhand was much stronger than Sampras's with more variety. Borg was stoic and aloof; Sampras was quiet and reserved. I guess they are similar demeanors.

Actually, I don't think it was THAT much stronger than Sampras. Though Lendl's backhand is great by any standards, Sampras' is underrated. Interestingly, in the 80's, Vic Braden used to say that Lendl was the pro who best represented the strokes Braden taught, 10 years later, he'd say that Sampras had the backhand that best represented the strokes he taught!

But, you are right in that Sampras didn't learn/model his strokes from Lendl, though there is some similarity in both forehand and backhand. Sampras modelled mainly after Laver era players, (according to him and Fischer), and the fundamental mechanics of his groundstrokes came from Landsorp. His training time with Lendl, may have influenced his strokes a bit, but he already had his basic game well imprinted by that point, and really, he didn't spend very long with Lendl. Mostly they were hoping Pete would learn from Lendl's discipline and off-court training!

PS. Oh, yes, that was late 80's I believe.

[Leelord337]

rod laver + tony roche
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs
i rly like roche's volley starting at 2:41 and also how roche finishes off the volley at the point beginning @ 4:52