Better volleyer: Sampras or Nadal?

[TheFifthSet]

Not meant as a flame war. Net statistics at major finals say Nadal by a healthy margin, common sense says Sampras. I would say Sampras. You?

 

[thejoe]

Nadal. Phenomenal volleyer.

 

[Dave M]

Not meant as a flame war. Net statistics at major finals say Nadal by a healthy margin, common sense says Sampras. I would say Sampras. You?

Thinking about it it's probably win % of net points that are higher for nadal as he woul be a lot more choosey about being there.I expect a lot of the WTA players have higher point in % at the net than most of the 80s/90s net players because they so frequently go there.
If you mean technique, then only Sampras can win this one in my mind!

 

[TheFifthSet]

Nadal. Phenomenal volleyer.

Agreed, he is pretty damn good. I may have to go back on my original opinion. I'd say it's a tossup. Rafter, Mcenroe, Nadal/Sampras, Laver. Top 5 in the open era right there.

Reference the stats (!!) if you don't believe me !!!

 

[dh003i]

that anyone voted Nadal shows either that some people have a sense of humor or are morons.

There is absolutely no way you can say Nadal is even close to as good as Sampras -- or Federer, for that matter -- in volleying. If he went to net as much as Sampras, or even Federer, his net % would drop drastically. Contrarily, if they had only went on sitters and not difficult volleys like he does, their net % would be much higher.

 

[thejoe]

Agreed, he is pretty damn good. I may have to go back on my original opinion. I'd say it's a tossup. Rafter, Mcenroe, Nadal/Sampras, Laver. Top 5 in the open era right there.

Reference the stats (!!) if you don't believe me !!!

Yep. The stats are bulletproof. I've never seen any of them play, I should add, but who needs witnesses when the stats tell the whole story?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Yep. The stats are bulletproof. I've never seen any of them play, I should add, but who needs witnesses when the stats tell the whole story?

Exactly. Heck, tennis should be simulated on a computer rather than played on a court, much neater that way, and I'm sure it would attract some more fans, i.e. the ones who don't bother to watch the matches.

 

[Jchurch]

Anyone that says Sampras is obviously a *********** or a *******. If you all can be so dumb as to not read the statistics, well then I feel awful for you!:mrgreen:

 

[veroniquem]

What do you mean "net statistics in major finals"?? # of approaches? Success at the net? Serve and volley %? You can't start a thread like that without giving precise examples. Without numbers to support your theory, your claim is void.
+ do you mean only on grass or on hard too? Major finals mean exclusively slams or master finals as well?

 

[edberg505]

Clearly the stats show Nadal has superior volleys. Heck, if we go by the percentage of net points won, Nadal could very well be the best volleyer the sport has ever seen. LOL.

 

[fed_rulz]

Clearly the stats show Nadal has superior volleys. Heck, if we go by the percentage of net points won, Nadal could very well be the best volleyer the sport has ever seen. LOL.

that's true. Nadal's net success % is consistently at least 10% higher than JMac's.

 

[norbac]

Nadal and it's not even close.

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

if by volleyer being a euphemism for butt-picker than yes i will have to go against the grain and choose Nadal by a long shot.

 

[Bud]

Not meant as a flame war. Net statistics at major finals say Nadal by a healthy margin, common sense says Sampras. I would say Sampras. You?

What net statistics are you referring to? Have you computed the net approach stats for Sampras at major finals?

Are you still angry that Nadal's net approach stats at Wimbledon this year were higher than Federer's? :grin:

 

[veroniquem]

Yeah I got no answer either so we can safely assume he's just trolling.

 

[Bud]

Yeah I got no answer either so we can safely assume he's just trolling.

I just figured that out... see my amended post.

- - - - -

To the OP... official match stats don't lie. They are the most objective numbers we have to compare one player to another. If you approach the net many times and are successful 50% or less then, your net approach timing/volleys are not exemplary.

Net approach statistics are about effectiveness (i.e. success) at net... not pretty volleys or volleys that many would agree are executed properly.

 

[edberg505]

What net statistics are you referring to? Have you computed the net approach stats for Sampras at major finals?

Are you still angry that Nadal's net approach stats at Wimbledon this year were higher than Federer's? :grin:

Ultimately, the number of net approaches me nothing. It's the number of points won right? I mean there's no doubt that Pete ventured to the net way more than Nadal in any final. Why is that even in the equation?

 

[Blinkism]

I wouldn't put Nadal and Sampras in the same sentence when discussing volleying skills...













Nadal, by a long shot.

 

[veroniquem]

Ultimately, the number of net approaches me nothing. It's the number of points won right? I mean there's no doubt that Pete ventured to the net way more than Nadal in any final. Why is that even in the equation?

I would say it's both combined. Obviously, if you win 100% of 5 approaches to net, it doesn't mean you're the greatest volleyer of all times!
You have to consider both numbers: among players with equivalent # of approaches during a match, which one had the highest % of success? Even that doesn't tell the whole story naturally but it's an interesting starting point.

 

[britbox]

Agreed, he is pretty damn good. I may have to go back on my original opinion. I'd say it's a tossup. Rafter, Mcenroe, Nadal/Sampras, Laver. Top 5 in the open era right there.

Reference the stats (!!) if you don't believe me !!!

Lol. No Stefan Edberg. Stick with the day job.

 

[edberg505]

I would say it's both combined. Obviously, if you win 100% of 5 approaches to net, it doesn't mean you're the greatest volleyer of all times!
You have to consider both numbers: among players with equivalent # of approaches during a match, which one had the highest % of success? Even that doesn't tell the whole story naturally but it's an interesting starting point.

I beg to differ. That's what was established in the "Better volleying skills Federer or Nadal" thread. Nadal had the higher percentage ergo, better volleys.

 

[Bud]

Ultimately, the number of net approaches me nothing. It's the number of points won right? I mean there's no doubt that Pete ventured to the net way more than Nadal in any final. Why is that even in the equation?

It means that if someone approaches the net 5 times and executes 5 successful volleys... they are a smart player who knows when to approach and a decent volleyer.

To deny that is delusion.

I beg to differ. That's what was established in the "Better volleying skills Federer or Nadal" thread. Nadal had the higher percentage ergo, better volleys.

First, those stats were for Wimbledon 2010 only. If by better you mean more effective then yes, Nadal was the better volleyer and chose better times to approach the net.

 

[edberg505]

It means that if someone approaches the net 5 times and executes 5 successful volleys... they are a smart player who knows when to approach and a decent volleyer.

To deny that is delusion.

I don't think that anyone was denying that. But the question is whether if player A approaches the net 170 times and wins 90 points is a better volleyer than player B who approaches the net 13 times and wins 12. Could one really assume that player B has better volleying skills that player A by merely looking at the numbers?

 

[edberg505]

It means that if someone approaches the net 5 times and executes 5 successful volleys... they are a smart player who knows when to approach and a decent volleyer.

To deny that is delusion.



First, those stats were for Wimbledon 2010 only. If by better you mean more effective then yes, Nadal was the better volleyer and chose better times to approach the net.

No, I don't. Those 2 terms aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Bud]

I don't think that anyone was denying that. But the question is whether if player A approaches the net 170 times and wins 90 points is a better volleyer than player B who approaches the net 13 times and wins 12. Could one really assume that player B has better volleying skills that player A by merely looking at the numbers?

Player B was the better volleyer and was also wiser on net approaches. The ability to run to net and flub a volley does not make you a good volleyer.

A good volleyer sees a great opportunity to approach and then executes. It has nothing to do with the total number of times you attempt to volley.

 

[Jchurch]

It means that if someone approaches the net 5 times and executes 5 successful volleys... they are a smart player who knows when to approach and a decent volleyer.

To deny that is delusion.



First, those stats were for Wimbledon 2010 only. If by better you mean more effective then yes, Nadal was the better volleyer and chose better times to approach the net.

They are a smart player who knows when to approach the net. That is all that 5 successful volleys out of 5 approaches show.

As far as Wimbledon 2010, please don't try to twist the stats. You intended to trash Federer's skills as a volleyer by merely citing percentage of set points won.

 

[veroniquem]

I don't think that anyone was denying that. But the question is whether if player A approaches the net 170 times and wins 90 points is a better volleyer than player B who approaches the net 13 times and wins 12. Could one really assume that player B has better volleying skills that player A by merely looking at the numbers?

That's why I've said you have to take both numbers into account. Among the players who approach the net with similar frequency, who has the best rate of success?

 

[Bud]

That's why I've said you have to take both numbers into account. Among the players who approach the net with similar frequency, who has the best rate of success?

And... if you're approaching too much and are winning 50% or less of the points... then you should be staying back and choosing better times to come in.

 

[Jchurch]

Player B was the better volleyer and was also wiser on net approaches. The ability to run to net and flub a volley does not make you a good volleyer.

A good volleyer sees a great opportunity to approach and then executes. It has nothing to do with the total number of times you attempt to volley.

Amazing post. First of all "FLUB" doesn't fit. What you are talking about is discretion in approaching the net. Does Nadal have better discretion then just about anyone on tour? Yes he does, but only coming in when the ball is a high floater doesn't really support your belief that Nadal is a good volleyer, just a good opportunist.

 

[veroniquem]

Player B was the better volleyer and was also wiser on net approaches. The ability to run to net and flub a volley does not make you a good volleyer.

A good volleyer sees a great opportunity to approach and then executes. It has nothing to do with the total number of times you attempt to volley.

That's why I'm not a big fan of systematic volleying anyway. Mixing is what works best at the highest level. If you go to net constantly but lose half the points there, I don't think it's the right strategy + you also have to look at whether you win more or less volleys as the match progresses. The opponent can adjust their passings and signifantly increase their rate of success with time. That's not good news for the volleyer.

 

[veroniquem]

Amazing post. First of all "FLUB" doesn't fit. What you are talking about is discretion in approaching the net. Does Nadal have better discretion then just about anyone on tour? Yes he does, but only coming in when the ball is a high floater doesn't really support your belief that Nadal is a good volleyer, just a good opportunist.

Good timing is an integral part of volleying skills, why not? A good player in general is a player who can play every shot AND has the court intelligence of HOW and WHEN to use them. Somehow accusing someone who has that court sense to be an opportunist is just absurd. It's like accusing a chess player to do the right move at the right time. Guess what? That's precisely what the game is about.

 

[Jchurch]

Good timing is an integral part of volleying skills, why not? A good player in general is a player who can play every shot AND has the court intelligence of HOW and WHEN to use them. Somehow accusing someone who has that court sense to be an opportunist is just absurd. It's like accusing a chess player to do the right move at the right time. Guess what? That's precisely what the game is about.

You might have noticed I did say that Nadal is better at choosing when to approach then just about anyone else on tour. As far as timing when it comes to volleying, timing is much more important in regards to getting one in position for the volley etc.

Would Sampras be more likely miss the volleys that Nadal makes or would Nadal be more likely to miss the volleys that Sampras makes?

 

[Bud]

Nadal sucks ass at the net.

Thanks for the worthwhile contribution to the thread :roll:

Previously banned member? **edit** (good guess on my part)

 

[kishnabe]

Nadal uses his topspin to go behind his oppents and get to the net....he only does this at crucial times to suprise his opponenets.

Sampras some of the times comes in to the net by his serve to finsh it off....or off his opponents return!

Sampras is the better volleyer by miles....Sampras has better half -volleys and shoestring volleys. His volleys are flat and penetrating...while Nadal has a better percentage at net is mainly due to him picking his spots perfectly and the era not used to volleys as it would be with sampras era.

Sampras had to deal with better returners like agassi and his collegues who are ready for volleyers. Sure string technology help returners these days...doesn't mean Nadal is facing better competition.

Is a return better with instinct+ string technology or anticpating a S&V pattern....I pick the latter. That means Sampras had less net points won because of the expected S&V pattern players faced. Nadal numbers are just inflated because this era is baseline bashing with style!

 

[Bud]

Nadal uses his topspin to go behind his oppents and get to the net....he only does this at crucial times to suprise his opponenets.

Sampras some of the times comes in to the net by his serve to finsh it off....or off his opponents return!

Sampras is the better volleyer by miles....Sampras has better half -volleys and shoestring volleys. His volleys are flat and penetrating...while Nadal has a better percentage at net is mainly due to him picking his spots perfectly and the era not used to volleys as it would be with sampras era.

Sampras had to deal with better returners like agassi and his collegues who are ready for volleyers. Sure string technology help returners these days...doesn't mean Nadal is facing better competition.

Is a return better with instinct+ string technology or anticpating a S&V pattern....I pick the latter. That means Sampras had less net points won because of the expected S&V pattern players faced. Nadal numbers are just inflated because this era is baseline bashing with style!

Is he a talentless moonballer as well? :grin:

 

[JeMar]

I just figured that out... see my amended post.

- - - - -

To the OP... official match stats don't lie. They are the most objective numbers we have to compare one player to another. If you approach the net many times and are successful 50% or less then, your net approach timing/volleys are not exemplary.

Net approach statistics are about effectiveness (i.e. success) at net... not pretty volleys or volleys that many would agree are executed properly.

So, are you saying that Nadal is a better volleyer then?

 

[TheFifthSet]

What net statistics are you referring to? Have you computed the net approach stats for Sampras at major finals?

Are you still angry that Nadal's net approach stats at Wimbledon this year were higher than Federer's? :grin:

k, here's some stats, compiled by krosero, net approaches for finals and Semi's etc. played by Sampras (the one's he recorded).

1995 US Open: 41/59
2000 Wimbledon final: 21/38
2002 US Open final: 60/105
1990 US Open final: 39/62
2000 AO Semifinal; 70/122
1995 AO final (up to 1-2 in the third set) 21/38
2001 US Open final - 49-98 !!


Pales in comparison to Rafa, eh? More to come. Feel free to post Nadal's statistics bro.

 

[TheFifthSet]

So, are you saying that Nadal is a better volleyer then?

Well the numbers would suggest it!

 

[TheFifthSet]

dlt

 

[Breaker]

Eh, no. Unlike you, I'm not a Nadal/Federer fanboy. Your M.O. is to make stupid comments. My M.O. is to deconstruct them, kid. Although I do support the legalization of hemp, if it makes you any better.

k, here's some stats, compiled by krosero, net approaches for finals and Semi's etc. played by Sampras (the one's he recorded).

1995 US Open: 41/59
2000 Wimbledon final: 21/38
2002 US Open final: 60/105
1990 US Open final: 39/62
2000 AO Semifinal; 70/122
1995 AO final (up to 1-2 in the third set) 21/38
2001 US Open final - 49-98 !!


Pales in comparison to Rafa, eh? More to come. Feel free to post Nadal's statistics bro.

Wow, Sampras' volleys are terrible. Scientific and factual analysis proves it. :grin:

 

[TheFifthSet]

1993 Wimbledon QF: 64/107
2001 US Open QF: 96/137
1999 Wimbledon final: 27/50 !!
1992 French Open QF: 12/19

 

[TheFifthSet]

Wow, Sampras' volleys are terrible. Scientific and factual analysis proves it.

Yep. More to come too, which proves Sampras utter incompetence at net in comparison to Nadal. They asked for stats, they're getting their damn stats.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Oh, here's some Nadal stats. 2007, 2008, 2010 Wimbledon finals: 56/75, 74% WOW!!!!

 

[P_Agony]

There is only one player who volleys better than Nadal:

Nikolay Davydenko.

Vamos!

 

[TheFifthSet]

dlt

 

[PrimeFed]

How is it possible for posters to be so stupid? Nadal is timid at the net. Sampras was a beast.

 

[PaulC]

What exactly the definition of a "Volleyer" here???

Hmm...

Nobody even tried to define who/what need to be done on court to be qualified is a "Vollyer" first before even proceed to argue who is a better volleyer???

Example: Is a player who volley less than 10 times a set qualified as a volleyer?
-- if so, then you can simply judge by % of points won. Lendl probably would be a decent "volleyer" by that too.

Or do you have to serve and volley more than 65% of times??

Or maybe 65%+ of your shots must be volleys??

-- If so, you don't have much true volleyer left in tennis history... maybe only Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Henman etc can even be qualified.

 

[TMF]

How is it possible for posters to be so stupid? Nadal is timid at the net. Sampras was a beast.

Welcome aboard.
You will see plenty of more posts from the nadal's fans.

 

[kishnabe]

Is he a talentless moonballer as well? :grin:

He is a talented moonballer with many aspects that make him seem like a all rounder. He has a good volley and I aint saying he is a bad volleyer....just who would think Nadal is a better volleyer than Sampras. Sampras was S&V guy for some years...Nadal just seldomly uses it. Even Federer the most extremist in evey aspect of tennis...isn't a better volleyer than Sampras.

Given the argument Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer because he does it at the right time. Federer has better net instincts when put to the defense...but some times he has bad approches. Nadal has the better approcahes...cause the guy thinks every point...when put to the pressure at breakpoints...he comes to the goods..that is why he is 14-7 agianst Federer.

Comparing Nadal to Sampras...not gonna swing Nadal's way...but if agianst Federer then yes.

 

[hoodjem]

Agreed, he is pretty damn good. I may have to go back on my original opinion. I'd say it's a tossup. Rafter, Mcenroe, Nadal/Sampras, Laver. Top 5 in the open era right there.

Reference the stats (!!) if you don't believe me !!!

Don't forget Edberg.