beltsman
G.O.A.T.
Which serve and volliers did Nadal kill exactly? Which ones did he play against in your opinion?
Federer
Henman
Agassi who was from s-l&v era
Roddick
That one other guy
Which serve and volliers did Nadal kill exactly? Which ones did he play against in your opinion?
Well you and I both know the only S & V player on your list is Henman. Fed is a great all court player, and Roddick and Agassi couldn't volley a lick. So I am not sure you can credit Nadal with killing serve and volley play...Federer
Henman
Agassi who was from s-l&v era
Roddick
That one other guy
Not in person, but he was my tennis childhood/youth idol (in fact the only tennis idol other than Federer later) and I watched every match I was able to on TV. Surely I wasn’t one of those who thought he was “boring”. I liked his game very much, but realistically he couldn’t succeed with it in this era.
I believe Sampras was lucky to be born in the right era while Federer is the complete tennis genius who would have dominated everywhere in his prime.
In the Sampras era (and even more in the McEnroe era) the net player had the advantage, because the strings didn’t allow powerful passing shots from behind the baseline while the volley (especially drop volley) was not that much more difficult to hit.
It’s nothing against these players which did the right thing at the right time. But now their style would be as effective as staying back at every point in the 80s, no matter how good they are with their net-rushing.
A good approach shot in the right moment will always do the trick, and a player who can do that (like Federer) is superior to a one-dimensional player like Zverev, but something like chip-and-charge or generally approaching which a slice shot will be constantly eaten alive.
And by the way, I like 80s and 90s tennis very much and often re-weatch these matches. But I don’t like the unrealistic overrating of nostalgia. For example Edberg was nice to watch, but he would have no hope against today’s Big 3 and most likely against many others players.
Prime Lendl would have a field day giving ***-whoopings to today's 20-somethings.I agree with this. But I also think that Pete could have adjusted to today’s game. I don’t think that he would win 14 slam titles today, however. As you said, he played in the right time. I also think that The Big 3 play in the tight time.
One guy that I think played in the wrong time was Ivan Lendl. I think that Lendl is grossly underrated. The conditions of the game and equipment gave him virtually no chance to beat a great player like Becker at Wimbledon.
Prime Lendl would have a field day giving ***-whoopings to today's 20-somethings.
As long Mammies & Daddies are taking the lead in the career of their kids, things will remain the same....from bad to worse!
Not just because of the lack in the ability of training, but also as what Sampras said, parents DON'T invest in developing the game, all what they're interested in is match results, they don't sacrifice some matches in the early years for development.
I think so too. One thing that we know about Lendl is that he was easily the best of his era. Back then, there was a much bigger emphasis on being ranked #1 than slam titles(Wimbledon was the exception). Lendl was #1 for 270 weeks, despite playing in the wrong era as a baseline player. I remember reading a Sports Illustrated article about 30 years ago that mentioned why Lendl fell just short of breaking Connors’ then-record of 160 consecutive weeks at #1. The article listed all of Lendl’s injuries that year, including a severely damaged shoulder that was surgically repaired after that 1988 USO.
What’s funny is that I hated Lendl then and was a big McEnroe fan. I always rooted for Lenfl to lose. But later on, I learned to respect Lendl.
Federer
Henman
Agassi who was from s-l&v era
Roddick
That one other guy
I understand what you are saying but if as a parent you are outlaying vast amounts of cash, wouldn’t you want your child to succeed and make money. Otherwise what’s the point ? I prefer serve and volley to the relentless and boring baseline game of today but since the introduction of poly strings and the slowing down of courts I highly doubt teaching children to serve and volley is going to help them when they are older.
True.Reality is the best volleyer in the last 10 years was like no.20 at best. This is all we know.
I don't have any problem with parents coaching their kids AS an early step in building their careers, my complain is with those many parents (and not because of the financial situation) who do blieve that it's easy to be done and it's not necessary to have a proper coach at all, what is tennis at the end, just serving and forehand and backhand like pro that could be learned from tennis lessons on YOUTUBE!
In my opinion this is how it should be done:
1) Early years (till 7yo), coaching by parents, mostly let them discover themselves & the game, expressing themselves NOT rushing to copy/paste the PRO!
2) 7_10yo, frequently, time for some tennis lessons by good coaches who will keep allowing them to express themselves, and coaching them based on that Not like those coaches: ALL THE KIDS (regardless of their natural abilities and personalities) LINEUP, HANDLE YOUR RACKETS IN THE SAME WAY, NOW BRUSH THE BALL!!! So the parents role become less, just mentoring.
3) 10_12yo, time to get serious, match results will show how far can they go, at the end, the world can't handle one million PRO tennis player.
Another issue, I disagree with the say it's not necessary to teach this or that, kids must learn & master everything, who knows what the future is hiding.... Maybe faster courts!
I was pro S&V. And a few days later, I was washing dishes ;^)B
Raonic has reached a Wimbledon final, his game is a pale imitation of Petes.
If Raonic can reach a Wimbledon final i'm sure a more talented serve and volleyer can go further. Like someone who can hit a proper backhand and move well.
They just don't learn serve and vollety at junior level these days.
Raonic is not really a S&V player, he's a serve-dominant power baseliner. He hits a 140+ mph 1st serve with a lot of service winners. There's a difference.
Are you kidding me? That's all he did, especially in 2016. Just serve and rush. It was so hard to deal with because of his mental strength how reliable his serve-volley game was.Raonic has never served and volleyed in his life, beyond a few points. Edberg, Boris, Pete and Mac attacked on every single second serve and served and volleyed on every first serve, and most second serves.
I was so hyped for Raonic back in 2016, he was playing old school tennis, bold almost suicidal net rushing constantly, backed up by the infallible Missile serve, and a winners mentality. What really did it for me was the 5-set epic win over Federer at Wimbledon. I was so sure he would be a multi Slam winner and #1.Even 14-15 fed was enough for that crap field minus prime ATG nole...
What damage will sampras do to them!!!
Not everyone serves bombs like raomeme
I heard that Jack Sock is working on reinventing himself as a Taylor Dent style kamikaze S&V player as he's finally given up at developing a pro-caliber backhand.
I heard that Jack Sock is working on reinventing himself as a Taylor Dent style kamikaze S&V player as he's finally given up at developing a pro-caliber backhand.
Yup. As I mentioned in another discussion, Fed S&Ved back when his forehand wasn't yet big enough. People should maybe watch his 2000 USO match against JCF. JCF was overpowering him on the forehand side. This is the Fed who S&Ved a lot. In 2004, he made a clean break and promptly commenced his most productive phase. He used net play in general much more again in 2014/15. Why, because he was getting used to the new racquet and knew he was still searching for oomph on the groundies and besides playing Djokovic purely from the baseline was proving to be a losing proposition. It's not that S&V doesn't work. It's that it's become redundant. A lot of risk not worth taking unless you hit old style flat forehands and don't want to rally.A more talented player could successfully S&V.
But why would they? If they have more talent, then they would be able to rally from the baseline and would have even more success that way. Right now the only players who play purely S&V are those who LACK the talent to hit consistent big topspin groundies.
I watched Federer make his way onto the tour. He could do anything - he could hit flat or crazy spin, S&V or baseline, topspin or slice. And as he refined his game, he figured out the best way to play modern tennis - dominate rallies with a big forehand. Sure, he did lots of other things for variety, against specific opponents. He pulls out all sorts of crazy shots when put into weird positions, when pressured, because he can do anything with the ball. But his A-game is to take control of rallies with his forehand, and that's what got him his 20 slams.
The most talented players will have a choice of how to play (since they have the talent to do whatever style they want), and they will almost all choose to play forehand-dominated baseline tennis because that's what wins the most.
The epic win came ovet 1 legged fed anyways...I was so hyped for Raonic back in 2016, he was playing old school tennis, bold almost suicidal net rushing constantly, backed up by the infallible Missile serve, and a winners mentality. What really did it for me was the 5-set epic win over Federer at Wimbledon. I was so sure he would be a multi Slam winner and #1.
He's been a shadow of himself since he came back from the injury break.
Raonic had a strong ground game too, his biggest weakness was his movement.The epic win came ovet 1 legged fed anyways...
And servebots almost never dominate the tour as no.1
Pete had a very strong ground game, even if not fedalovic level...
No please....Raonic had a strong ground game too, his biggest weakness was his movement.
Ugly, yes. Effective though.No please....
He looks the most idiotic player once a rally starts..
I can't bear to watch...
Ugliest game
Any specific reasons why he got injured??Ugly, yes. Effective though.
These days he's a servebot though. The world beater Raonic hasn't been seen since 2017
I have no idea, my predictions before his comeback were dead wrong. I thought it would pan out like Federer's comeback since his game is really light on his body and sustainable, he just wasn't the player to burn out like Wilander or Murray who flamed out after their peaks; he was so calm and mentally solid, and didn't grind much like Nadal. It's really a mystery why he didn't recover his old level after the injury.Any specific reasons why he got injured??
I mean servebots are generally not that much injury prone
Maybe. Can’t agree or disagree here.If peak Sampras suddenly was 21 years old, with new racket strings/frame, he would still be HUGELY successful even with these slow-as-molasses court speeds of today. No player today (except Fed pre-2003) has ever played against a relentlessly attacking player who chipped and charged on every second serve and smothered their opponents with raw aggression.
Yes..I have no idea, my predictions before his comeback were dead wrong. I thought it would pan out like Federer's comeback since his game is really light on his body and sustainable, he just wasn't the player to burn out like Wilander or Murray who flamed out after their peaks; he was so calm and mentally solid, and didn't grind much like Nadal. It's really a mystery why he didn't recover his old level after the injury.
Raonic was more of a netrusher than classic servebot in 2015-17, he relied on more than just aces. Of course his serve would bail him out and he could be a servebot when all else failed, but for the most part he hurt opponents the most with his aggression and quick finishes at the net.
As you wrote, 'God, stats are misleading. I KNOW serving and volleying is more tiring than playing at the baseline because I've done it.Sports today is all about the percentage or analytics if you prefer. As a former sport writer I was heavy on the stats and they made for good articles but it's not realistic. You cannot accurately predict nor account for a litany of variables every time. You're just hedging.
Now with regards to the energy required. Running up to the net and finishing the point off a volley is about the same as 3 maybe 4 points hit from the baseline as despite some perceptions out there you do have to move around and you have to put in more energy to hit the ball as oppose to volleying being about angles. So no, I don't think it's more tiring than a baseline game at all and Federer proved just that with his more aggressive play. Playing from the baseline typically means less breaks, if you're aggressive a double break can end a set quite quickly. Yes S&V becomes more tiring with marathon matches but if you look at the games you'll find a lot of those 5 setters back in the day were under 3 hours. Now a 5 setter is typical to hit the 4 hour mark.
Also, most S&V is done on 1st serves and depends on if you got the angle. Yeah if you got a great 2nd serve you can go in on that but that wasn't possible for a lot of players. Hitting a serve down the middle is approached less than a serve out wide.
As you wrote, 'God, stats are misleading. I KNOW serving and volleying is more tiring than playing at the baseline because I've done it.
Yes, the 5 setters were shorter in duration, "in the day", because the courts were faster/players still had a net game, so the points were shorter. I can tell you were/are a sports writer because your technical details are very clear & understandable. Peter Bodo should be unemployed (and tarred/feathered), and YOU should be getting his gigs/assignments.
What did you think of yesterday's AO matches? I enjoyed a lot of what I saw: Rafa going for his serve, finally. WHY did he need Moya to tell him?! Chris Evert saying she thought Sugarpova would retire by the end of the year; next minute Maria's serving a double-bagel, like an experienced "deliteusse"...! My biggest shock: Murray can still run down balls but can't hit winners. Wouldn't hip probs necessitate the need to go for it? Well, happy new year.
Yes, if someone happens to have a top serve and a top volley, and a strong ground game at the same time.
Raomug lacks the latter, that's why he lost against Pouille.
Worse, he did not maximize his serves, even when Pouille was zoning. I never saw Sampras, Krajicek, Becker or Ivanisevic slowed down their serves, they still hit bombs and aimed for aces while following them to the net.
Raonic used Edberg's approach (slowing down serves) but did not have Edberg-tier volleys, that's why he lost. His serves slowed down, and thus were not enough for a zoning Pouille who used 2hbh (unlike Waw) and returned close to the baseline (unlike Z). Had he still hit bombs like Sampras, he could have had a chance.
Sad fact: the only guy you can bet on is Tsitsipas, and only on grass, if he fixes his serves to maximize his serve potential.
Becker was sufficiently consistent in Wimbledon (and on grass generally), only got upset once. On indoor he was also sufficiently consistent. On hard court, I agree, but also because he had motivation and personal issues for much of the early 1990s.Becker was a bit more consistent but still got upset here and there.
And even then until 1993, Edberg was consistent by 1990s standard (although not by late 1980s standard)Edberg never won more than 1 Slam in a season and lost 5 matches in the first 2 rounds during his contending years.
They need sufficiently high 1st serve percentage, at the minimum.Most S&V guys were prone to upsets though, so Raonic being off a tad he just collapsed.
In Wimbledon, it is a possibility that you can reach the final without facing any of them. And if Raonic of all people reached Slam F/SF employing S&V a lot then a more talented guy could have done better.Big no ask Fed how he would get passed millions of times by Djokodal