Greatest Serves of All Time

[Moose Malloy]

If that’s correct, then Karlovic had 153 unreturned serves altogether. The ATP has him serving on 198 points, so that would come to an unreturned rate of 77.3%.

If the 102 unreturned include the 51 aces, then the unreturned rate would be 66.7%.

wouldn't be surprised if Bracciali had an unreturned rate of 60% as well, I remember espn showing a lot of that 5th set.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Dont' know if this one's been mentioned before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ten...-lets-fly.html

No one died out there, as Boris Becker once said, but one of Karlovic's aces thudded so hard into the scoreboard all the numbers flew off. It was like a lorry shedding its load on the M1, and took almost as long to clear up.

This took place with something like ace No 10 in a total of 51, which does not include the 102 occasions (officially described in the match statistics as "unreturned serves") when Bracciali barely got a racket on the ball.

It was a tribute to the Italian's refusal to surrender (not to mention one in the eye for national stereotypes) that it took him the thick end of 4½ hours to break the Croatian's serve, but when he eventually did, it gave him the match 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 12-10.

If that’s correct, then Karlovic had 153 unreturned serves altogether. The ATP has him serving on 198 points, so that would come to an unreturned rate of 77.3%.

If the 102 unreturned include the 51 aces, then the unreturned rate would be 66.7%.

Anyway Karlovic held in his first 32 service games, a great run.

Krosero,

That's great info. I think he has a great serve and his serving stats are out of this world. Still considering he rarely goes far into the tournaments I would guess that he often doesn't play against the best players so that's a strike against.

[kiki]

While searching miles per hour and % of serves can give a general definition, there are many other untangibles, such as techniche (Gonzales and I also would include here Stich), beautiful and coordinated movements (Newk and Sampras, also Ashe) use of spin and effects (Edberg and Mc enroe) and the ability to maximize it ( like Becker and Borg in their best days) to consider along mere statistics

[dangalak]

Who had a better serve people, Federer or McEnroe?

Oh wait I forgotm here is the place where Federer is a mere club player, while GM is the place where he is a god who serves better than Roddick. Too bad there is no middle ground.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Who had a better serve people, Federer or McEnroe?

Oh wait I forgotm here is the place where Federer is a mere club player, while GM is the place where he is a god who serves better than Roddick. Too bad there is no middle ground.

It isn't quite like that. There are plenty of people here who give Federer his due (even if they prefer to stick Laver or Gonzales in the #1 slot). Of course, there are others who insist that obviously inferior players are much better than Fed.

However, that doesn't mean I would ever suggest that Federer had a better serve than a player from a previous era here, out of sheer terror. With that said, I will go with no comment.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Who had a better serve people, Federer or McEnroe?

Oh wait I forgotm here is the place where Federer is a mere club player, while GM is the place where he is a god who serves better than Roddick. Too bad there is no middle ground.

Federer fits much in the Mac,Sedgman,Edberg,Rafter,Roche mold. a great server, not a very fast serve, but very effective and he uses to stablish a pattern for the point.But he is the only one of the group not following it to the net, which I think is the good decision, since he is not a good volleyer.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer fits much in the Mac,Sedgman,Edberg,Rafter,Roche mold. a great server, not a very fast serve, but very effective and he uses to stablish a pattern for the point.But he is the only one of the group not following it to the net, which I think is the good decision, since he is not a good volleyer.

Thanks for proving my point.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqExjxCJr4Q

He did that against Murray, one of the best passers in the game. You know, guys who use polystrings that allow for easy spin and therefore, easy passing shots, not even mentioning the slowed down surfaces.

You just couldn't help but leave a dig at him could you? If he "isn't a good volleyer" then who is? Surely you don't think that the likes of Edberg and Rafter would do much better than him? These days, a pure S&V or netrushing style will see you getting almost passed at will, even with these mercurial volleyers at the net. The surfaces and strings changing make it so that he shouldn't come in constantly behind his serve.

I mean God, watch his volleying since the Olympic final. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Thanks for proving my point.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqExjxCJr4Q

He did that against Murray, one of the best passers in the game. You know, guys who use polystrings that allow for easy spin and therefore, easy passing shots, not even mentioning the slowed down surfaces.

You just couldn't help but leave a dig at him could you? If he "isn't a good volleyer" then who is? Surely you don't think that the likes of Edberg and Rafter would do much better than him? These days, a pure S&V or netrushing style will see you getting almost passed at will, even with these mercurial volleyers at the net. The surfaces and strings changing make it so that he shouldn't come in constantly behind his serve.

I mean God, watch his volleying since the Olympic final. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Federer, in Golden Era would be AT MOST AN AVERAGE VOLLEYER

Other than that, I fully agree with you that slow surfaces and strings and reacket tecno makes the game go in the opposite direction of S&V play.I agree with you on that, but that is another problem.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer, in Golden Era would be AT MOST AN AVERAGE VOLLEYER

Other than that, I fully agree with you that slow surfaces and strings and reacket tecno makes the game go in the opposite direction of S&V play.I agree with you on that, but that is another problem.

Federer in his recent years would be an average or below average volleyer.

Federer before he became a baseliner would be a fairly good volleyer with potential to be great.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Federer in his recent years would be an average or below average volleyer.

Federer before he became a baseliner would be a fairly good volleyer with potential to be great.

Don't confuse being a great volleyer with being a great net player. Federer is neither, of course, but, he did seem more comfortable at net in the early years of his career than he does now. To some extent, that may be due to the evolution of racquets and string since 2000-1. But, IMO, his volley technique is not great and would not hold up very well in the era of S&V domination. Not that he couldn't change that any time he wanted to. There is no limit to Federer's "potential" even now. But, he hasn't done it, and, given the current state of the game and equipment, there's no justification for it. It would not be the most productive use of his time. We now live in the era of groundstrokes as ping pong slams. If you want to win, that's what you have to do.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Don't confuse being a great volleyer with being a great net player. Federer is neither, of course, but, he did seem more comfortable at net in the early years of his career than he does now. To some extent, that may be due to the evolution of racquets and string since 2000-1. But, IMO, his volley technique is not great and would not hold up very well in the era of S&V domination. Not that he couldn't change that any time he wanted to. There is no limit to Federer's "potential" even now. But, he hasn't done it, and, given the current state of the game and equipment, there's no justification for it. It would not be the most productive use of his time. We now live in the era of groundstrokes as ping pong slams. If you want to win, that's what you have to do.

It boggles my mind how Federer is supposedly "not a good volleyer". How can you be in the top ten of your time in terms of volleying and not be a good volleyer? If you had said "he isn't a great volleyer", you'd have a point. But saying Federer isn't a good volleyer is like saying "Sampras didn't have a good forehand".

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by dangalak

It boggles my mind how Federer is supposedly "not a good volleyer". How can you be in the top ten of your time in terms of volleying and not be a good volleyer? If you had said "he isn't a great volleyer", you'd have a point. But saying Federer isn't a good volleyer is like saying "Sampras didn't have a good forehand".

Read again. Your mind is boggled for nothing. I didn't say Federer didn't have a good volley. I said he didn't have a great volley, and that he isn't a great net player.

Your analogy to Sampras' forehand fails because Sampras, in fact, did have a great forehand. Not as great as Federers or Nadal's, of course, but, it was still a great forehand.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Read again. Your mind is boggled for nothing. I didn't say Federer didn't have a good volley. I said he didn't have a great volley, and that he isn't a great net player.

Your analogy to Sampras' forehand fails because Sampras, in fact, did have a great forehand. Not as great as Federers or Nadal's, of course, but, it was still a great forehand.

For his time. I doubt that it would hold up in terms of consistency.

But then again, I don't know that much about the early Sampras. Heard his groundies were much better around the early 90s.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Federer in his recent years would be an average or below average volleyer.

Federer before he became a baseliner would be a fairly good volleyer with potential to be great.

That is better

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Who had a better serve people, Federer or McEnroe?

Oh wait I forgot here is the place where Federer is a mere club player, while GM is the place where he is a god who serves better than Roddick. Too bad there is no middle ground.

GM?
General manager?
General Motors?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by dangalak

It boggles my mind how Federer is supposedly "not a good volleyer". How can you be in the top ten of your time in terms of volleying and not be a good volleyer? If you had said "he isn't a great volleyer", you'd have a point. But saying Federer isn't a good volleyer is like saying "Sampras didn't have a good forehand".

Fed is in the top-10 of his time in terms of the serve-and-volley game.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Fed is in the top-10 of his time in terms of the serve-and-volley game.

Probably true.

[Romismak]

Originally Posted by krosero

Dont' know if this one's been mentioned before.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ten...-lets-fly.html

No one died out there, as Boris Becker once said, but one of Karlovic's aces thudded so hard into the scoreboard all the numbers flew off. It was like a lorry shedding its load on the M1, and took almost as long to clear up.

This took place with something like ace No 10 in a total of 51, which does not include the 102 occasions (officially described in the match statistics as "unreturned serves") when Bracciali barely got a racket on the ball.

It was a tribute to the Italian's refusal to surrender (not to mention one in the eye for national stereotypes) that it took him the thick end of 4½ hours to break the Croatian's serve, but when he eventually did, it gave him the match 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 12-10.

If that’s correct, then Karlovic had 153 unreturned serves altogether. The ATP has him serving on 198 points, so that would come to an unreturned rate of 77.3%.

If the 102 unreturned include the 51 aces, then the unreturned rate would be 66.7%.

Anyway Karlovic held in his first 32 service games, a great run.

Good one

Must say it again for those who believe in Sampras or Federer or such things, prime Karlovic-serving prime i mean of course is biggest server in history

Best 1st serve ever + his 2nd isn´t as bad as people think - just it looks bad, because he can´d do much once he is in rally - but according to those statistics from this match he had probably a lot of 2nd serve unreturnables too, and on 1st serve i believe he was almost untouchable.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Romismak

Good one

Must say it again for those who believe in Sampras or Federer or such things, prime Karlovic-serving prime i mean of course is biggest server in history

Best 1st serve ever + his 2nd isn´t as bad as people think - just it looks bad, because he can´d do much once he is in rally - but according to those statistics from this match he had probably a lot of 2nd serve unreturnables too, and on 1st serve i believe he was almost untouchable.

Overall Karlovic ended up winning 58% of his 2nd serve points. On 1st serve he won 85%.

Bracciali was 67% and 87%.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Fed is in the top-10 of his time in terms of the serve-and-volley game.

Are even 10 guys who played S&V in Federer era?