jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Murray is a bigger baseliner than any of those guys, except maybe Nadal
Today's players' net game
- Thread starter Sysyphus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- asstrollogy fedr woolpants
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
That's one way to argue Fed has GOAT volleys. Anyone claiming he has weaknesses in his net game, including but not limited to improper technique, must be wrong, end of story
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Widespread wool pants thesis: The players of today have terrible net games; someone like Federer isn't a true grass tennis great because he can't really (serve &) volley competently at all compared to those before the 2000s; and given a semi-quick court, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe and Edberg would volley today's fools into oblivion.
Reasonable antithesis: The player's of today only struggle to use the net to the same effect because they are facing incoming shots and passes of a completely different caliber; whereas the players pre-poly could come in behind relatively weak shots as long as they stayed low — because players had to hit them upwards seeing as they didn't have proper topspin drives to save their life, often leading to easy put-aways — these shots would make you utterly humiliated by the receiving players of today; in fact, it might be that any player who manages a success rate of 60% or above on 20+ net forays in a match today is automatically doing higher-level net play than the wool pants players ever did.
Let the games begin.
I think 2. is more right, but the problem then is the modern players don't develop their net game like the old greats did. So it kind of becomes a bit of both when we compare the tennis played now to then.
In other words, I think the volleying truly was better then even when accounting for the much harder spinner passes player face nowadays, but only because of where the evolved modern game places its emphasis.
Yes but guys like laver and Rosewall were even sharper at net
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
I did watch the piece and thank you for that. I'm sure you saw you heard concluding remark, that the best volleyers don't necessarily have the best 'technique' but cover the net very well....
Technique evolves. We might as well say everyone who doesn't hit a forehand like Federer has an 'improper technique'!
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
Maybe, but they never faced the incoming ball that the current guys face, so you shouldn't attempt to turn your opinion into a statement.
They all beat Roger Federer. OK 08 Fed was passive and timid which explained how Nadal went 0-2 easily. But Djokovic beat Fed who was playing serve and volley tennis under Edberg in 2014-2015.
No idea how anyone can say Federer isn't a top net player when one looks at his backhand smashes, skyhooks, drop volleys, BH drive volleys, regular smashes, jump smashes, FH drive volley etc. Only weakness as someone pointed out is the regular FH volley but he improved it massively in 2014.
Last edited:
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Widespread wool pants thesis: The players of today have terrible net games; someone like Federer isn't a true grass tennis great because he can't really (serve &) volley competently at all compared to those before the 2000s; and given a semi-quick court, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe and Edberg would volley today's fools into oblivion.
Reasonable antithesis: The player's of today only struggle to use the net to the same effect because they are facing incoming shots and passes of a completely different caliber; whereas the players pre-poly could come in behind relatively weak shots as long as they stayed low — because players had to hit them upwards seeing as they didn't have proper topspin drives to save their life, often leading to easy put-aways — these shots would make you utterly humiliated by the receiving players of today; in fact, it might be that any player who manages a success rate of 60% or above on 20+ net forays in a match today is automatically doing higher-level net play than the wool pants players ever did.
Let the games begin.
Because of the reasons you lay out in the antithesis, players today don't prefer to be playing volleys and most of the net play seems like a forced by-product of baseline exchanges. If a player ends up at the net, usually it's because the situation demands him to be there (a short ball he can't backtrack on, or the other guy bringing him in) or he's there expecting to hit a putaway. Don't be so sure about a success rate of %60 means the player played a wool-pant level match at the net. That might mean he played a great, aggressive match from the baseline resulting in a lot of putaways/smashes at the forecourt. I don't mean to be picky here but that's like Nadal on a good FH day venturing to net to hit a couple of drop volleys out of scrambled defensive balls, and McEnroe going "he has the best volleys in the game". Federer too, out of the top guys he has to be the only guy (or one of very few) who goes to net to actually play a volley on a consistent basis (and he probably does have better volleys than most, certainly on the BH side) and is much more forward oriented, but he's also still a baseline player first, a net player second.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
That's one way to argue Fed has GOAT volleys. Anyone claiming he has weaknesses in his net game, including but not limited to improper technique, must be wrong, end of story
What about Nadal's forehand, should that be excluded from any discussion about great forehands because of his technique?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Look at this way. If the technique isn't great, then though the volleyer may be covering the net well, he might hit it too much within the reach of the returner. So Mats makes the distinction between Fed's earlier forehand volley and now. Fed always had the reach but now with the improvement his volleying is even better. Fed made more net approaches with a higher winning percentage against Djokovic in 2015 Wimbledon than Roddick in 2004 W. Even if we unquestioningly accept TTW Roddick myths, at least some of that increased success would be on account of Fed's improved volleying.
That is not a proper analogy because forehand technique has been going up. It seems reasonable to conclude this given that forehands are struck with more topspin and more pace, meaning more reward for lower risk. An unintended consequence of this improvement in forehand technique is it is riskier to get to net. Because it is riskier to get to net, players spend more time on the baseline. And because they spend more time on the baseline, they volley less and because they volley less, they aren't as sharp as they perhaps could be when they do get to net. This is consistent with the observation that Fed's volleying has improved under Edberg. He has harnessed that improvement to attack the net more. And in coming in more often, he gets sharper and more confident at the net.
So if say some of the top players of the 90s were coming in regularly, they gave themselves more of a chance to be good at the net than today's top guys. What those guys would do against today's passing shots we don't know. But we also don't know, by the same token, whether today's guys would be comfortable coming in as often as their yesteryear counterparts even against less potent passing shots. Murray, for one, did not try to change up by coming in more often against M Zverev when the latter's groundstrokes were clearly the weakest link in his game. And on the few occasions Murray did, he did not fare well. Another example: Serena hardly hits the slice at all. So is it only because slicing is hara kiri in WTA (for argument's sake) or is it also because she lacks confidence in that shot?
I might agree however with the argument that this criticism is misdirected in any case when applied to Fed because he has been more adventurous than his rivals in making forecourt plays. But since he hasn't gone up against Edberg in the 80s nor Edberg against him in today's times, there is no basis to the claim that he is the GOAT volleyer because he is making volleys in today's tennis. He is among the better volleyers today and the best among the top guys. I for one am not interested in the comparison with the older guys because there is no way to compare.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I wouldn't go so far as calling Nadal's forehand technically deficient. The fundamentals are solid even if it has some extra flourish. And while players can get away with have different looking forehands because you have a lot more time at the baseline, at the net you don't have as much time. Most great volleys look much more similar.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't know if this is very relevant. The BH smash is kind of an exotic shot. And Fed has always had a very good BH volley; it was his FH volley that had issues
metsman
G.O.A.T.
when you're not hating you actually make sense!
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
I try to be objective when it comes to Fed's game. It's his personality that I have issues withwhen you're not hating you actually make sense!
Obviously some bias will creep in every now and then but I think I'm usually fair when I assess the technical aspects
It is isn't it? Always looks incredible when he does those.
But still Fed's volleys are excellent. His FH isn't perfect but it's still good. His BH volley I'd argue is up there with the best of them, especially CC slice volley, drop volleys and of course the BH smash / skyhooks.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
You make some very reasonable points and I agree with your conclusion that of course we can't make absolute comparisons. As I said in the opening comment "you can make a reasonable case..."
There is however a corollary to your point that the 80's generation had more time to practice the volley. If you factor in Federer's longevity that may not actually be the case over the course of a career to the extent one presupposes it is.
The Murray example may also be a slightly adventurous argument given that I suspect even Zverev's ground strokes have a bit more pop than the average 80's 90's ball. I also think Murray is not as flexible as Federer in his style and play and prefers to stick to his baseline cat and mouse game. Anyway I was never pretending for a moment that Murray belonged in the conversation as potential GOAT volleyer.
My own thoughts are that Federer has considerably softer hands on the forehand side than Edberg who was a bit 'stabby' frankly. It is conceivable that Federer's volleys are adapted best to the current game given the speed and spin of the incoming ball.
The bottom line is I know what I saw in the recent Wawrinka match and his movement, anticipation and reach was up there with anything I have seen before, and I was around to witness Becker and Edberg and some of MvEnroe's later matches.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
To make a convincing argument that Federer's forehand volleys are technically deficient you would need to produce some data which shows he has a higher error/lower winner rate on the forehand versus the backhand side and then compare that data with Edberg and the other usual suspects.
You seem to give quite a lot of leeway of what Nadal's forehand is allowed to get away with from a technical standpoint, so despite your best efforts, I feel your bias is creeping in terms of discussing Federer's forehand volleys.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, that's an insane opinion.
edberg's technique on the FH volley was perfect and so were his hands.
federer's technique on the FH volley though good, isn't perfect. He improved that under Edberg.
BHud
Hall of Fame
There are a lot of great volleyers today. They just have to be very selective when they do it because defense is really offensive in the modern game. Watch an old Sampras/Agassi video...yes they hit hard passing shorts/service returns, but the ball is flat. That's much easier to handle than the junk that's coming back on the balls today with the powerful racquets and poly strings. Anyone see the Bryan bros/Nadal-Verdasco match a few years back...even the bros had a lot of trouble with the movement on the ball (Nads/Verd stayed back and whacked groundies a lot)...and they're considered very good volleyers.
abmk
Bionic Poster
@Sysyphus : you seriously can't think the volleyers of today are upto the standards of the volleyers of before.
yes, its clearly tougher to volley now, but the guys in the past - edberg, mac, cash, rafter, sampras, henman and the ones before them - laver, rosewall, roche, gonzalez, sedgeman, hoad etc. were all better even taking that into account.
they were simply more practiced and had better instincts+feel up there.
yes, its clearly tougher to volley now, but the guys in the past - edberg, mac, cash, rafter, sampras, henman and the ones before them - laver, rosewall, roche, gonzalez, sedgeman, hoad etc. were all better even taking that into account.
they were simply more practiced and had better instincts+feel up there.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
They were better practiced and had good instincts against absolutely prehistorical opposition, yes. That much is true.
But would they manage 70% success rates up there against today's top players? Not a chance. Would be like bringing a stick to a gunfight.
abmk
Bionic Poster
If they approached the same # of times as today's guys, they'd have a better success rate at the net than them.
they obviously would not approach as much as they did when they actually played and would have to be smarter with their approaches.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
LOL, good one.
I can definitely see it. Gently strolling up to the net – wool pant draped and all – behind a slice floater expecting a nice floating pass to put away.
Yea, not like those missiles and bazookas Fed, Djoko etc have to face.
abmk
Bionic Poster
again, just proving your bias/preconceived notion.
you haven't watched much of edberg/mac etc. if you think that's what they were doing.
I have and I know what I'm talking about. Saying wool pant era, gently strolling up to the net etc. just proves you have nothing to base your words on. just empty words ...
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
hmmmm, sounds like someone got their flannel all ruffled up ~!~
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
Even if you are irrefutably correct in this opinion, you are ignoring the other component parts of good volleying, such as movement, anticipation and reactions.
abmk
Bionic Poster
sounds like you started a thread with your own pre-conceived (wrong) notion, but can't deal with opposing views ....
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
That's funny — you're the only one whose blood pressure seems to have risen here ~!~
Take some deep breaths and watch the Federer match — that should help.
abmk
Bionic Poster
oh, federer is a perfectly pretty good volleyer with a great BH volley, excellent smash ( normal and BH ), pretty good reactions and hands as good as any ( except say mac ) ..... but he's not even close to being the best at the net.
even if he played in an earlier era, I still don't see him being better than mac/edberg ( mac was a mad genius at the net and edberg was as close to perfect as it gets) ..
abmk
Bionic Poster
my blood pressure is perfectly fine, thank you.
all you have on your side is wool pants era, strolling to the net blah blah blah ..
the reality is completely different - which you''d know if you had actually watched the matches of edberg, mac, becker etc.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
ok
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
¿ You say this as if it's a bad thing . . . ?
Anyways, I thank you for this fruitful interchange of opinions. I think we should now set our differences aside, pour ourselves some Moët and enjoy Federer's exquisite volley exhibition against Del Potro.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Federer is not a big game player. Anyone who has seen top big game players play, and appreciate what they're looking at, understands that, historically, Fed is not a among the best net players. I'm sure he could have been. But, he chose a different approach which he said was a mistake, in particular, as to his rivalry with Nadal.
PS: In my view, Fed has improved his volleying and net play, presumably thanks to Edberg and Ljubicic.
F
Fedfan34
Guest
Federer is a big game player. Anyone who has seen top big game players play, and appreciate what they're looking at, understands that, historically, Fed is among the best net players. I'm sure he is. He chose a different approach, which he said was a boon, in particular, as to his rivalry with Roddick.
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
You can't get any better than this. GOAT at the net too.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Ridiculous! You couldn't be more wrong. Fed doesn't play the big game, and has never been, and probably never will be among the all time great net players, although, he has improved his volleying and net play, and his drive slice for which he credits Edberg.
Fed didn't need to S&V as his first strike style of tennis was GOAT level and he has GOAT FH and ATG serve to win most points and superb BH with lots of variety. While still mixing it up with net approaches.
His net game may not be Edberg tier but that's because of his era and the fact that he didn't have to practice it as much. Talent wise, he's as good as anyone at the net and can do anything!
F
Fedfan34
Guest
Ridiculous! You couldn't be more wrong. Fed does play the big game, and has always been, and will always be among the all time great big game players. Agree with you that he has improved his volleying and net play, and his drive slice and topspin too.
Watch the video in the post above you and you'll see how class federer's volleys are. His drop volleys, BH smashesnand skyhooks are GOAT tier. The rest (BH drive, FH drive) just ATG I'd say.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Your dazzling Insight is exceeded only by your originality. If you knew what the big game was then you would know that Federer is not, and never has been, a big game player.
KineticChain
Hall of Fame
tilden would CRUSHH moonballdal
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I've seen Federer play live, I don't need to watch a video.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Fed's first-strike brand of tennis didn't work so well against Nadal in and Djokovic in the finals of the most important event in the game on 3 occasions. If he was a genuine grass-court player with a great serve and volley game he would have been more successful, in my view. Having said that, it will be interesting to see how rhe improvement in his net play since being coached by Edberg, demonstrated at the AO, will manifest itself at Wimbledon this year.
F
Fedfan34
Guest
Your sizzling vision is only surpassed by your basis-in-fact. If you understood what the big game is then you would know Federer is, and always has been a big game player.
F
Fedfan34
Guest
You boneless noob. RENSHAW DESTROYS ZHEM ALL
Those two guys aren't that relevant since they're the generation after him. First strike tennis won him 18 grand slams, including 5 straight Wimbledon and USOs.
That being said, yes Federer was too passive in all 3 losing Wimbledon finals. Should've just played ultra aggressive tennis all the way through. He did try to S&V in 2014 but its hard on the slow grass to pull it off. He didn't play his usual style vs those guys in those finals that's why he lost.
That said, his volleys and net play are still amazing. It's just he doesn't choose to do it full time. He mixes it in nicely though as part of his all court game.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
It's more about intensity of practice (and use thereof in matches) within a season than across a career imo. I will build on this point further up in the post.
Maybe more than the average 80s/90s ball, possible, but more so than the top guys of the 90s? I have my doubts, especially given he has an extremely, extremely compact stroke, especially the forehand.
Agreed.
Right, I was responding to the generalisation laid out in the OP which pertains to today's players in general.
Again, I disagree on the forehand volley because if indeed he has improved it by modelling it more on the way Edberg himself used to hit it and is now enjoying more success up at the net, it indicates that it wasn't as good before.
Reach? I give you vertical reach because the slam dunk smash was not so popular before Sampras. But laterally...I don't remember when if ever I have seen Fed make a full length dive to hit a volley and get it just across the net. I have seen both Becker and Sampras do this and many times at that, especially Becker. Now if we accept that passing shots are more powerful and harder to block these days, there would, I imagine, be more occasions to have to dive full length to stop them. But while I have seen Fed stretch beautifully (and he has great footwork, to state the obvious), I don't remember him diving full length. I am sure he could if he wanted to, which is where I think he doesn't have the same instinct at the net that those guys did because he sees himself more as a baseliner who can also volley from time to time, thus giving him one more way to finish the point. And that's fair enough given not only the era he plays in but because he has a GOAT FH but without the same instincts, he's already a little handicapped in the volley to volley comparison. If you took away his almighty groundies and made him go mano a mano on the volley with say Edberg, how many is he going to win? At any rate, I don't think it's going to be a slam dunk for Fed.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Mac is a guy whose genius you can get through a few highlight reels. Edberg is a guy you have to watch full matches of. His movement up to and around the net was insanely quick and he just locked down the net with his wingspan and quickness. Obviously he was technically perfect, beautiful at absorbing pace and creating depth with volleys. His pure touch was not as good as Mac's or even Federer's, maybe more on par with Henman/Sampras but overall I think he was the best volleyer ever.
