have any of you considered that it is more a function of henman's style of play that precludes him from winning Wimbledon rather than his ability? Maybe it is just not possible to win anymore playing Serve/Volley exclusively these days..maybe tim should change his game more to an all court style? who is the last 'true' serve volleyer that won a tourney of any consequence? it is just too high risk and the tables have turned toward the baseliner..the ball bounces higher at wimby, the courts are slower, and the technology def benefits the return of serve rather than the serve, all which lead to baseline play. please dont bring up fed because he is more an all-courter than a s.v guy and he is in a world unto himself. there are always anomoly's of course like roddicks serve which i really think is embelleshed by technology. but to me, henman is an amazing player and he really isnt a gagger IMO..when you play s.v like that you always get into bad patches because there just is so little margin for error and you have the pressure of controlling ALL the points as opposed to a baseliner looping balls that clear the net by 6 feet waiting for the opponent to miss..not too much pressure there. my .02 coming from a former serve/volleyer. Ed
Another nail in the serve/volley/all-court coffin
- Thread starter NoBadMojo
- Start date
T
TwistServe
Guest
All court is definitely superior to pure S&V. Check out Fed and Sampras.
If you saw the Ancic V Heman match, you'd see that Ancic got lots of winners off the return because Henman came in and got toasted with a good return. Any good returner will get free points on a pure S&V player.
If you saw the Ancic V Heman match, you'd see that Ancic got lots of winners off the return because Henman came in and got toasted with a good return. Any good returner will get free points on a pure S&V player.
well sure..that was only one match....i was speaking in general terms which really has nothing to do w. a single match. lets see if ancic can win wimby as a s.v dude and then repost. henman didnt play well from what i saw..he had a real lot of trouble returning the serve of ancic IMO. ed
AAAA
Hall of Fame
NoBadMojo, I actually think Henman's brilliant French Open run adversely affected his Wimbledon preparation.
It's often been said that to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year is extremely difficult because of the mental and physical strain involved in winning two slams in such a short period of time.
Henman didn't win 'Garros but playing the way he did to reach the semi-final was only a notch or two less physically and mentally demanding than actually winning the tournament. So Henman goes into Wimbledon rather tired.
It's often been said that to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year is extremely difficult because of the mental and physical strain involved in winning two slams in such a short period of time.
Henman didn't win 'Garros but playing the way he did to reach the semi-final was only a notch or two less physically and mentally demanding than actually winning the tournament. So Henman goes into Wimbledon rather tired.
AAAA
Hall of Fame
If Sampras is considered to be a 'true' serve volleyer or a player able to play 'true' serve & volley tennis on grass when he was in his prime then I'm sure a prime-time Sampras would do very well were he around today.
On the point of racquets affecting the viability of s&v, when Mac suggested in print many of this board told him to shut up. Mac has an ego but imo he does know what he's talking about.
On the point of racquets affecting the viability of s&v, when Mac suggested in print many of this board told him to shut up. Mac has an ego but imo he does know what he's talking about.
Good theory, except Henman IS an ALLCOURTER. A S&V'er would come in even on his second serve, and Henman has a tendency to hang back when he misses his first serve to try to work his way to the net behind a short ball or a good approach shot. Look at how much Henman stays back compared to Stefan Edberg.
The only reason why Henman is classified as a S&V player is because he's probably the closest player left in the ATP tour today.
The only reason why Henman is classified as a S&V player is because he's probably the closest player left in the ATP tour today.
Henman just isn't good enough. He can play out of his mind sometimes (1st set against Coria at FO, 1st set against Mark in last round), and grass is definitely his favourite surface, but no part of his game is head and shoulders above the rest of the field.
He doesn't have a major weapon to rely on, and can be quite fragile mentally since he lacks the self belief that only comes from winning majors (look how its transformed Fed).
He's an all court predominantly SV player who's a notch below the best. Pete, McEnroe, Becker, Fed playing at their peak would absolutely demolish Henman at his peak.
He doesn't have a major weapon to rely on, and can be quite fragile mentally since he lacks the self belief that only comes from winning majors (look how its transformed Fed).
He's an all court predominantly SV player who's a notch below the best. Pete, McEnroe, Becker, Fed playing at their peak would absolutely demolish Henman at his peak.
python right! my point exactly. i guess you could put flipper in there too, but he has been injured so much. and as far as mac having great solid legs..gimme a break..ever see that dude? he looks frail. but there is something to be said about leg development and fast twitch muscles being more suited to s.v and more athletic play. to me, all the surfaces kind of play the same..more like clay. you got rebound ace where the ball bounces up, the us open where they often slow down the court based on which american they wish to favour, and now wimby where they slow down the court and make the ball bounce hgher. none of that stuff lends itself well to s.v play not to mention the inability of many top players to volley in any sort of decent way (roddick) to begin with. i am presented w. ranked juniors to work with and hitting a volley isnt even a part of their practice regime when i get them. from what i watched of the roddick schalken match, it looked like a clay court match...roddick was well behind the baseline much of the time as was schalken. roddick didnt do well when he got to the net..schalken did better IMO. the roddick match was boring for me...it;s very one dimensional, but this has been kicked around on the board alot before. as for me, i am so glad i learned to hit all the shots..tennis is so much more fun to have variety IMO. whether sampras and henman are all courters or s.v dudes is kinda irrelevant..sampras (to me) was an allcourter who could play killer s.v. i would call henmann more of a s.v, but to me the last true serve volleyer to have won anything was rafter, and he even had to develop a baseline game there towards the end just to compete. my .02 Ed
JohnThomas1
Professional
Henman's serve is below the past S & V's, if he had say Beckers serve it would be a different story.
i'm watching the fed hewitt match right now and that match supports what i am selling here. i dont think any of you would argue that fed has the ability to play world class s/v? and you wouldnt argue that hewitt is a wall? and you wouldnt argue that federer is a very smart player? soooo..he isnt playing any serve volley to speak of, and hasnt earlier in the draw (not that we've seen much at all of fed). if the percentages were there to do that, dont you think he would being the best s.v player on the planet playing on grass at wimby? my .02
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
I agree with you NoBadMojo, Wimbledon's efforts at trying to slow the game have ironically hurt their only British hope. Many players/commenators have remarked that bounce is now truer(read an article that the groundskeepers are using more rye to lengthen the durability of the grass)
It's kind of a shame because to serve & volley on both serves in today's game you need a huge serve. Every single point that Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Rafter, Lendl, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Cash, Stich played at Wimbledon they served & volleyed on both serves. Henman did S&V on both serves as well until 2002, when the slower conditions really became a factor.
I love watching Federer, but when I see that he doesn't even serve & volley every 1st serve(& never on the 2nd) I feel like I'm watching hardcourt tennis. Here's a good interview with Ferreira on the changes at Wimbledon.
Q. Grass court or clay court, does it make any difference?
WAYNE FERREIRA: I've enjoyed the grass. I've been a little bit disappointed over the years how it's changed and become more slower, more like a hard court. I wish it was quicker, as it was in the early '90s. But I still have a lot of fun coming here. It's a wonderful experience. You know, it's great to have been able to have been here in so many years.
Growing up in South Africa, this is the tournament you wanted to play in. I have a lot of great memories. I'm really going to miss coming here.
Q. When you talk about it becoming more like a hard court, slowing it down, how have they done that? How would you explain that change?
WAYNE FERREIRA: I think the main thing is the balls are a lot slower. The guys that have very big serves are still able to serve big and get away with it. But the guys who have sort of middle serves like me that aren't that hard or placing have struggled a little bit. Not so much on the first serve, but the second serve. I remember I came here in '90, from '90 and '95, I served and volleyed every first and second serve. If you didn't, you lost, basically. Since then it's been a struggle to serve and volley on second serves. It's changed a lot.
For me it's been disappointing because I would have won a lot more matches if it had stayed that way. A lot of other people have enjoyed it more. It's given more of the clay‑courters and the baseliners more of an opportunity to do well, but it's taken away a bit of the serve and volley, which is sad, because that's what grass is for, it's supposed to be to serve and volley.
It's kind of a shame because to serve & volley on both serves in today's game you need a huge serve. Every single point that Becker, Edberg, McEnroe, Rafter, Lendl, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Cash, Stich played at Wimbledon they served & volleyed on both serves. Henman did S&V on both serves as well until 2002, when the slower conditions really became a factor.
I love watching Federer, but when I see that he doesn't even serve & volley every 1st serve(& never on the 2nd) I feel like I'm watching hardcourt tennis. Here's a good interview with Ferreira on the changes at Wimbledon.
Q. Grass court or clay court, does it make any difference?
WAYNE FERREIRA: I've enjoyed the grass. I've been a little bit disappointed over the years how it's changed and become more slower, more like a hard court. I wish it was quicker, as it was in the early '90s. But I still have a lot of fun coming here. It's a wonderful experience. You know, it's great to have been able to have been here in so many years.
Growing up in South Africa, this is the tournament you wanted to play in. I have a lot of great memories. I'm really going to miss coming here.
Q. When you talk about it becoming more like a hard court, slowing it down, how have they done that? How would you explain that change?
WAYNE FERREIRA: I think the main thing is the balls are a lot slower. The guys that have very big serves are still able to serve big and get away with it. But the guys who have sort of middle serves like me that aren't that hard or placing have struggled a little bit. Not so much on the first serve, but the second serve. I remember I came here in '90, from '90 and '95, I served and volleyed every first and second serve. If you didn't, you lost, basically. Since then it's been a struggle to serve and volley on second serves. It's changed a lot.
For me it's been disappointing because I would have won a lot more matches if it had stayed that way. A lot of other people have enjoyed it more. It's given more of the clay‑courters and the baseliners more of an opportunity to do well, but it's taken away a bit of the serve and volley, which is sad, because that's what grass is for, it's supposed to be to serve and volley.
Good points. I don't really follow Henman, but judging from the fact I never hear about him except at Wimby, he isn't a very good all-court player. Becker, Sampras, and Fed had/has the groundies to back up their all court game.
Mac did have solid legs in his prime. He developed them playing soccer. I remember Bud Collins said his tennis coach tried to make him give up soccer, but then later said he was wrong as it developed his legs and balance.
Mac did have solid legs in his prime. He developed them playing soccer. I remember Bud Collins said his tennis coach tried to make him give up soccer, but then later said he was wrong as it developed his legs and balance.
Henman in fact is a very good all-court/all-surface player. The concepts are getting mixed up. He is definitely not a true serve and volleyer, and in fact his ability to play well on clay, slow hard courts (Indian Wells) and indoor (medium-to-fast) show his inclination and ability to hit solid groundstrokes.
I think the difference between an all-courter and a S & V player is subtle. It's more about inclination. Rafter could stay back and play effective defense, hit solid forehands, good slice backhands and, occasionally, rip topspin backhands but...he wanted to be at net. If you watched him, you felt him looking for every opportunity to come to net. Edberg always wanted to be up there. Becker should have, but liked to show off his groundstrokes out of stubbornness.
Or, maybe Henman would be at net all the time, but his serve, as mentioned, isn't quite at the top level. It's as if he's aware of that and so sometimes hesitates to come forward.
Anyhow, the All England clubbers definitely hurt him by hardening the courts/changing the grass. That's because they diminished the value of his slice backhand, as well as giving too much bounce to his serve. Another way to rephrase all of this, give him a very fast surface and he'll become a S & V. Give him a medium-fast surface, as Wimby as become, and he's an all-courter lacking the (serve) tools to be at net all the time. Give him a slow surface, and he'll hit reasonable topsin and use his legs and fitness to battle the best.
He might never win a Slam, but his consistency show Tim Henman to be quite a player.
I think the difference between an all-courter and a S & V player is subtle. It's more about inclination. Rafter could stay back and play effective defense, hit solid forehands, good slice backhands and, occasionally, rip topspin backhands but...he wanted to be at net. If you watched him, you felt him looking for every opportunity to come to net. Edberg always wanted to be up there. Becker should have, but liked to show off his groundstrokes out of stubbornness.
Or, maybe Henman would be at net all the time, but his serve, as mentioned, isn't quite at the top level. It's as if he's aware of that and so sometimes hesitates to come forward.
Anyhow, the All England clubbers definitely hurt him by hardening the courts/changing the grass. That's because they diminished the value of his slice backhand, as well as giving too much bounce to his serve. Another way to rephrase all of this, give him a very fast surface and he'll become a S & V. Give him a medium-fast surface, as Wimby as become, and he's an all-courter lacking the (serve) tools to be at net all the time. Give him a slow surface, and he'll hit reasonable topsin and use his legs and fitness to battle the best.
He might never win a Slam, but his consistency show Tim Henman to be quite a player.
Interesting discussion here at your post, NoBadMojo. Found it interesting & intriguing, especially that some of the posters here describe Henman as an all-courter and not a "pure" serve and volleyer. There's another similar discussion I started in another post "Ranking Serve & Volleyers" which you might find interesting. Will put the title of your post there too.
Phil
Hall of Fame
Defcon pretty much sums it up; it isn't the style dying out, it's the player-in this case Henman. If he could get 3-5 mph more on his serve-i.e. have a serve like Becker, Stich, etc. OR if he had a brilliant kick serve like Rafter or Edberg, that would put him over the top. Big IF's. I think he has one more "chance" to win Wimbledon, next year, and then that's all she wrote.
the styles' not dying out? sure it is. it's almost dead! we got henman playing s.v and...errrrrrr...hmmmmmm..well we got ancic..but who do we have that is winning tourneys w. that style? it wasnt so many years ago that almost everyone played serve and volley at the big w..even the baseliners..it was the only chance you had to win back then. it really wasnt even possible to hit from the back because of how the ball stayed low and skidded and you would get enough bad bounces that it was far better to try and take everything in the air. years ago the volley area was alot more worn out than the baseline, and now the only area worn out is the baseline. i really think henman must play more allcourt ball to have any shot at wimby..there just isnt percentage in playing s.v anymore based on how the game is now setup. my .o2 ed
and in mentioning rafters serve and edbergs serve.....the returns passed those types of serve by and that serve would get eaten up by lots of players these days..you can no longer take pace off your serve by kicking it to buy you that extra step or so for the first volley on a regular basis...that serve would get gobbled up <for the most part>. i think that is one of the reasons edberg retired and also rafter. IMO. ed
You are all over it, NoBad. I agree, Henman actually is a very gifted player with loads of talent and the best volley -- bar none -- in the ATP. He does lack power, but even so, whether he had decided to be a baseliner or to play the way he does, he still would have peaked where he did -- around #6 in the world. And, as you have pointed out, it's the returns that have changed the game. You can't charge on every point against great players. It's too bad Dent won't get into shape like Henman, Hewitt, Agassi, etc., and hustle harder. He has some pop and real nice touch at the net.
Kobble
Hall of Fame
IMO, it is a combination of the surface change and the player. Henman never won when the surface was right, because he did not have the biggest game. Now, he does have an excellent S&V combination, but now the surface is not ideal. However, if he had big weapons, he could overcome the surface problem. Sampras, Krajicek, and Ivanisevic all had huge weapons. Tim is like the serve&volley version of James Blake, he just isn't the best at any single critical aspect of the game, and he is paying for it. I don't know how much more can be said.
Datacipher
Banned
bcaz said:
Yes, he is a fine player and given the right luck might have broken through for 1 slam...but many players fall into this category...and they can't be confused for even a 1 slam player who was a serious contender at multiple slams....(for example Chang).
The fact is, if it weren't for Tim being the lone native British hope...I don't think he would be thought of as a top contender despite his success...I think he would be a more talented Tim Mayotte. Nothing wrong with that...but sometimes the British fans make it seem like he is a great champion with just horrible luck...the fact is I think he is fulfilling his potential.
I think Tims brain was in neutral yesterday-stats show he s/v'd 100%1st and 2nd serves throughout the match and that in his other matches he stayed back far more on the second serve.What was he thinking when Ancic clearly was seeing the ball like a mellon and spanking his returns?The media here in the UK is brutal and every sports writer becomes a two-week tennis expert during Wimbledon,so the pressure on Henman is intense.This is the same in Australia and France when they round on domestic players who inevetably fail on home soil.Also I dont believe grass is Henmans best surface,he lacks the natural instincts and pure firepower to beat the best,his best bet is a medium to fast hardcourt over best of 3 sets IMO.
