Andy R took that 3.5 volley

A

acesrus

New User
and with Stefanki's help turned it into an above average volley. I didn't think he had it in him, but see such an improvement in touch, shot selection, and moving in. Congrats Andy well earned and deserved!
 
All due respect, he had hands of stone. Roger, IMHO, has the only 7.0 volley out there. Safin, once said about Roddick at Indian Wells, that his volley was 4.0 at best. Touch is one of those things. like leadership, that 99% of the time can't be taught, but I applaud Andy for his efforts. He learned it. That's just my 2 cents. I am a 5.0 doubles player so I know a few things about volleys.
 
acesrus said:
All due respect, he had hands of stone. Roger, IMHO, has the only 7.0 volley out there.
Click to expand...

Poor comment. Ever seen some of the other players who frequently (some more often than Rog) attack the net volley?

Safin, once said about Roddick at Indian Wells, that his volley was 4.0 at best.
Click to expand...

Safin said that did he, quoted a NTRP in an interview? Really?

Touch is one of those things. like leadership, that 99% of the time can't be taught, but I applaud Andy for his efforts. He learned it. That's just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

The only 2 cents in the post.

I am a 5.0 doubles player so I know a few things about volleys.
Click to expand...

Being a 5.0 doubles player allows you to assess the volleys of a 7.0 singles player? Nice.
 
Roger has a great volley, but he does not go to net as often as a guy like Stepanek, Haas the past few weeks or even Roddick and Nadal on grass. Being able to pick his spots makes his volley look a bit better than it actually is (and its still damn good)
 
Being a 5.0 doubles player allows you to assess the volleys of a 7.0 singles player? Nice.[/quote]

Ha. Remember Andy beat an "average" dude with a frying pan.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3073902

He might only need a 23" inch racquet to beat an NCAA kid. Not sure what Andy's cookware of choice would be to beat a 5.0, though. A wok? A skillet? A wooden spoon?


Give Andy some credit, jeez. The guy may have never won tons of Grand Slam titles, but you've never ever seen a dip in effort from him. Not once. That shows an amazing amount of heart and drive to keep plugging away like that.



Jeff
 
Sefanki's a guy you want in your corner. I remember when he got Rios to #1 in the rankings, was promptly dumped by Rios, and Rios was barely heard from again thereafter. Then his good work with Gonzo.
 
All, this post was intended to give AR some MAJOR props. Being a 5.0 doubles player does give me some perspective on what the volley game is about, and I think that AR deserves major kudos in his ability to do things that, frankly, 4 years ago were impossible.

Yes, Marat did poke at Roddick during a post match loss in the semis that his backhand volley was 4.0 or worse. (paraphrase) I think it was IW 2003, maybe 04 or 05.

If there is a player out there with volleys like Fed, 7.0 by USTA standards, I haven't seen them. That's not to say there are not people close. I have always thought Haas, Blake, Ivo, Safin, Kiefer, amongst others had superb net games. Maybe there are a few 7.0's out there. I have not seen Stepanek enough to comment.

I just disagree that Andy was ever a 6.5 volley guy, remember, the USTA rating system was scaled so that Sampras would fall in as 7.0.

I think JMac, Rafter, Sampras, Becker, Edberg were all 7.0 in their net game. To say that Andy is equal to that, not so much.
 
Just saw that point in 3rd set at 5-6, and he definitely chubbed it but it wasn't a mishit that warranted an apology.
 
Hewitt has technically perfect volleys (like all Aussie blokes), but the way he plays he's not at net much. Haas also looks good but he can't make the really tough ones.

For all the people doubting Fed's net skills, go and watch his 2001 match with Sampras - SV on every 1st and most 2nd serves, he volleyed just as well as Pete.
 
thejackal said:
Roger has a great volley, but he does not go to net as often as a guy like Stepanek, Haas the past few weeks or even Roddick and Nadal on grass. Being able to pick his spots makes his volley look a bit better than it actually is (and its still damn good)
Click to expand...

Uh, I think you are talking about Nadal.
 
Andy Roddick proved today that he hits EVERY shot better than Sampras, including volleys that I gave the edge to Sampras on before. Look at all the incredible volleys Roddick made on crucial points with the PDR, and realize that he would have 3 times as many if he used an easy volleying racket like what Sampras used.
 
That average guy Roddick played had a horrendous game. If it was me, I would easily beat Roddick if he had to use a frying pan.
 
Last edited:
The good thing about Andy is:

-He has taken some big time beatings and bounced back. How many times do we see a "hack" as some of you seem to think he is, do this?

-He is improving. His backhand, his fitness and his volleys. How many guys playing at that level have time and inclination to improve technique, fitness and get married AND show the results of hard work?

- The guy is in the finals at Wimbledon............................

3.5 volleys? Yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would love to see some of you ego maniacs in a press conference detailing Roddicks weakness and lack of skill. What a bunch of chops......
 
I dont think his volleys are as bad as people make it sound. His aproach shots are not always the smartest. I hate the slice bh aproach he hits. Its not a smart move especially when the other player is already in that cornerr
 
I'm really not a fan of these NTRP discussions. I guess the game is so much more complex than these ratings. However, I think many people tend to underestimate pro players' skills. I've heard some say that Karlovic's backhand is ridiculous, that Nadal's serve is a joke, that Almagro's net game is horrendous, that Fish's forehand is at amateurs level and so on (I'm picking the arguably worst strokes of top 25 players I can remember - though I really disagree in Rafa's case). In fact, these players strokes aren't as good as, respectively, Nalbandian, Federer, Stepanek and Gonzalez, but they aren't bad at any level. They're in fact quite good, as most of us couldn't handle 2/10 volleys like the worst pro you could imagine, or sustain a forehand rally with Fish (more than 3 crosscourt shots at 80 mph) and so on. A few of us may be able to serve above 125 mph, but probably will only hit inside the box 15, 20% of them. Not many here would be able to volley back even a sliced, shoulder-height return, or could do it on a regular basis. These pros are just too good. And the distance among top 50 players is quite small. Most of the time it is based on mental, not technical issues. On many occasions a 6-3, 6-4, 7-5 or 7-6 set is based on only one ball, or one bad service game (the worst scenario). Sometimes a top 5 player defeat a top 200 player only on tiebreaks. Federer is so good because he has that extra "fat" to burn called extra-talent; Nadal is so good because he has a slight mental edge above everyone else that allows him to be consistent on the worst scenarios. And so on. But even these guys, if they're not on they best level are "easily" beatable (at least one set lost) versus their opponents. And if they face each other, only one moment of loss of concentration could mean a 2-6, a breadstick or even a bagel. They play on a much higher level than us. The modern equipment allows us to hit some strokes at the same speed than theirs, but they have sooo much more consistency, stamina and faster legs than us that is just nonsense to think that one of their strokes is just worst, in overall terms, than ours. But I agree that Roddick's volley is quite better since he started to be trained by Stefanski. In fact, I guess the technique wasn't really a relevant issue. Roddick always tended to select the worst approach shots to go to the net, and in those cases (and considering the stroke's speeds of nowadays), Edberg, Rafter, Sampras or Henman couldn't win so much more points than Andy. He seems to be much more calm and conscious when doing this transition than before, when he looked kinda desperate to end the point.
 
Xuxa Kuerten said:
I'm really not a fan of these NTRP discussions. I guess the game is so much more complex than these ratings. However, I think many people tend to underestimate pro players' skills. I've heard some say that Karlovic's backhand is ridiculous, that Nadal's serve is a joke, that Almagro's net game is horrendous, that Fish's forehand is at amateurs level and so on (I'm picking the arguably worst strokes of top 25 players I can remember - though I really disagree in Rafa's case). In fact, these players strokes aren't as good as, respectively, Nalbandian, Federer, Stepanek and Gonzalez, but they aren't bad at any level. They're in fact quite good, as most of us couldn't handle 2/10 volleys like the worst pro you could imagine, or sustain a forehand rally with Fish (more than 3 crosscourt shots at 80 mph) and so on. A few of us may be able to serve above 125 mph, but probably will only hit inside the box 15, 20% of them. Not many here would be able to volley back even a sliced, shoulder-height return, or could do it on a regular basis. These pros are just too good. And the distance among top 50 players is quite small. Most of the time it is based on mental, not technical issues. On many occasions a 6-3, 6-4, 7-5 or 7-6 set is based on only one ball, or one bad service game (the worst scenario). Sometimes a top 5 player defeat a top 200 player only on tiebreaks. Federer is so good because he has that extra "fat" to burn called extra-talent; Nadal is so good because he has a slight mental edge above everyone else that allows him to be consistent on the worst scenarios. And so on. But even these guys, if they're not on they best level are "easily" beatable (at least one set lost) versus their opponents. And if they face each other, only one moment of loss of concentration could mean a 2-6, a breadstick or even a bagel. They play on a much higher level than us. The modern equipment allows us to hit some strokes at the same speed than theirs, but they have sooo much more consistency, stamina and faster legs than us that is just nonsense to think that one of their strokes is just worst, in overall terms, than ours. But I agree that Roddick's volley is quite better since he started to be trained by Stefanski. In fact, I guess the technique wasn't really a relevant issue. Roddick always tended to select the worst approach shots to go to the net, and in those cases (and considering the stroke's speeds of nowadays), Edberg, Rafter, Sampras or Henman couldn't win so much more points than Andy. He seems to be much more calm and conscious when doing this transition than before, when he looked kinda desperate to end the point.
Click to expand...

Well said.... Thanks for the good points...
 
acesrus said:
Yes, Marat did poke at Roddick during a post match loss in the semis that his backhand volley was 4.0 or worse. (paraphrase)
Click to expand...

I'm (still) calling BS unless I see a quote. I see no reason a pro, esp. a russian one, would refer to the US rating system when poking fun at another pro.

If there is a player out there with volleys like Fed, 7.0 by USTA standards, I haven't seen them. That's not to say there are not people close. I have always thought Haas, Blake, Ivo, Safin, Kiefer, amongst others had superb net games. Maybe there are a few 7.0's out there. I have not seen Stepanek enough to comment.
Click to expand...

Why the addiction to calling them 7.0s? They're pros, full-stop. I'm a huge Fed fan, but equally, there's a bunch of guys who, if the courts were faster, would be winning some good titles with nice volley-games.

From the USTA...

6.0-7.0

These players will generally not need NTRP ratings. Rankings or past ranking will speak for themselves. The 6.0 player typically has had intensive training for national tournament competition at the junior level and collegiate levels and has obtained a sectional and/or national ranking.

The 6.5 player has a reasonable chance of succeeding at the 7.0 level and has extensive satellite tournament experience.

The 7.0 is a world-class player who is committed to tournament competition on the international level and whose major source of income is tournament prize winnings.
Click to expand...

I just disagree that Andy was ever a 6.5 volley guy, remember, the USTA rating system was scaled so that Sampras would fall in as 7.0.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong, well, wrong as in it's scaled so that the top 100-200 or so are 7.0.

It's also not intended to rate a shot, but a level of play. If the top 100-200 in the world are 7.0, how the consistent #2-#5 in the world has low-rated volleys....well, it's just wrong.
 
you guys are stupid to think a pro player has a 3.5 volley...most of the guys in the low 100 rankings could easily bagel any recreational player.
 
Last edited:
Defcon said:
Hewitt has technically perfect volleys (like all Aussie blokes), but the way he plays he's not at net much. Haas also looks good but he can't make the really tough ones.

For all the people doubting Fed's net skills, go and watch his 2001 match with Sampras - SV on every 1st and most 2nd serves, he volleyed just as well as Pete.
Click to expand...

Fed's volleys r overrated imo. 1 of the best today but only top 20 in ne other era
 
EtePras said:
Andy Roddick proved today that he hits EVERY shot better than Sampras, including volleys that I gave the edge to Sampras on before. Look at all the incredible volleys Roddick made on crucial points with the PDR, and realize that he would have 3 times as many if he used an easy volleying racket like what Sampras used.
Click to expand...

another rtrded comment full of the bs u also say. roddick definitely doesnt volley better than sampras. 100 sq in PDR is harder 2 use than 85 sq in PS? thats shows how stupid u r. do u even play tennis
 
The point is that his volleys werent as good as they are right now, he used to do a very complicate movement, now he is keeping it simple and is working, the numers are just a way of saying: he was bad now he is good, boy you guys are picky!. This volley improvement combined with his new slices approaches, which now seem to have more bite, and his usually anti lob deffense, which is extremly good IMO, makes him a tough guy to beat on the net right now. He is just lacking a bit more of intuition to be very good. JMO.
 
acesrus said:
All due respect, he had hands of stone. Roger, IMHO, has the only 7.0 volley out there. Safin, once said about Roddick at Indian Wells, that his volley was 4.0 at best. Touch is one of those things. like leadership, that 99% of the time can't be taught, but I applaud Andy for his efforts. He learned it. That's just my 2 cents. I am a 5.0 doubles player so I know a few things about volleys.
Click to expand...
Why would Safin, a pro player who never played amatuer tennis in the USA, say that Roddic's volley "...was 4.0 at best."? He probably doesn't know (or care) about our NTPR ratings. So, I would interested to see this "quote" of yours...if it exists. As a "5.0 doubles player" (WHOA!) you know diddly squat about the PRO game.
 
acesrus said:
All due respect, he had hands of stone. Roger, IMHO, has the only 7.0 volley out there. Safin, once said about Roddick at Indian Wells, that his volley was 4.0 at best. Touch is one of those things. like leadership, that 99% of the time can't be taught, but I applaud Andy for his efforts. He learned it. That's just my 2 cents. I am a 5.0 doubles player so I know a few things about volleys.
Click to expand...


Can't be taught eh? But Andy learned it? He must be the smartest person EVER!
 
To the OP, I think you are exaggerating, but if you aren't, you should watch pro tennis players in person when they practice, and note how hard and consistent they hit. Then watch a match in person and note how hard the passing shots are hit.
 
acesrus said:
All due respect, he had hands of stone. Roger, IMHO, has the only 7.0 volley out there. Safin, once said about Roddick at Indian Wells, that his volley was 4.0 at best. Touch is one of those things. like leadership, that 99% of the time can't be taught, but I applaud Andy for his efforts. He learned it. That's just my 2 cents. I am a 5.0 doubles player so I know a few things about volleys.
Click to expand...

Safin knows all right? He's vollying a worldclass ball.

Not you volleying another 4.0 and saying wow I volley better than Roddick.

A murray passing shot would blow the raquet out of your hands.
 
Phil said:
Why would Safin, a pro player who never played amatuer tennis in the USA, say that Roddic's volley "...was 4.0 at best."? He probably doesn't know (or care) about our NTPR ratings. So, I would interested to see this "quote" of yours...if it exists. As a "5.0 doubles player" (WHOA!) you know diddly squat about the PRO game.
Click to expand...

LOL. A 5.0 is joke compared to Rodick. a J O K E
 
To sum it up, all top 100 pros have 7.0 volleys. They spent their entire lives training and hitting millions of balls.

Now I think all of them have spent more time working on their volleys with a coach, then any 3.5 player.
 
acesrus said:
If there is a player out there with volleys like Fed, 7.0 by USTA standards, I haven't seen them. That's not to say there are not people close. I have always thought Haas, Blake, Ivo, Safin, Kiefer, amongst others had superb net games. Maybe there are a few 7.0's out there. I have not seen Stepanek enough to comment.

I just disagree that Andy was ever a 6.5 volley guy, remember, the USTA rating system was scaled so that Sampras would fall in as 7.0.

I think JMac, Rafter, Sampras, Becker, Edberg were all 7.0 in their net game. To say that Andy is equal to that, not so much.
Click to expand...

7.0 is top 400 in the world. A 7.0 volley, by definition, would equate to the average volleying ability of a player ranked within the top 400 in the world. It makes no sense to say that 1 player in the world has a 7.0 volley. There might be many players who have sub-par volleys, which would probably mean they have 6.5 volleys, but chances are a guy in the top 10 would not have such sub-par volleying.

No way in hell any stroke of any player's game in the top 10 would be considered 3.5, 4.0, or 4.5 at best. That is an insult to them to say something like that because these players have put in so much time to develop all their strokes, and have results to back it up.

Probably the most notable weakness of any pro I've seen is Karlovic's return game which is pretty pathetic for his ranking (also considering his serve is best in the world).
 
darthpwner said:
another rtrded comment full of the bs u also say. roddick definitely doesnt volley better than sampras. 100 sq in PDR is harder 2 use than 85 sq in PS? thats shows how stupid u r. do u even play tennis
Click to expand...

Why do you base everything off the players racquet? Obviously for Roddick he feels the 100 sq inch racquet is easier to use than Sampras' 85 sq. inch. Racquet use is based purely on opinion.
 
acesrus said:
All, this post was intended to give AR some MAJOR props. Being a 5.0 doubles player does give me some perspective on what the volley game is about, and I think that AR deserves major kudos in his ability to do things that, frankly, 4 years ago were impossible.
Click to expand...

Andy had a 3.5 volley. You are a 5.0 doubles player (with presumably a 5.0 volley or better).

Has Roddick reached your level yet, or does he still have a ways to go?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Break To Win
Why did Andy Murray never try to improve his forehand?
Replies
10
Views
1K
InsuranceMan
InsuranceMan
156MPHserve
Gracious Andy
Replies
35
Views
3K
35ft6
35ft6
J
"Andy is a legend. If I have half the career that he’s had, then I’ll be a happy man.”Jack Draper after reaching US Open QF
Replies
35
Views
2K
Federev
Federev
D
Reasons for decline of Serve and Volley
2
Replies
58
Views
7K
Morpheus
Morpheus
K
The point that changed Agassi's life
Replies
2
Views
967
BreakPoint
BreakPoint
Back
Top