Mental game, return and volley go to Courier by a noticeable margin imo. He approached regularly and successfully to finish points, and was able to return Pistol's serve reasonably well in his day. Courier won his RG against 'Dre through sheer grit and endurance, beat defending champ PETE at USO, and also got Pete at RG in one of the best years and levels of his career, so have to give him mental strength. Speed and movement and athleticism also seem much clearly to Courier.Stroke by stroke:
Serve: AR
volley: AR
forehand: JC
backhand: even
return: even
speed/movement: even
mental game: even
By surface:
Clay: JC
Grass: AR
Indoor: AR
Hardcourt: even
Cowdung: even
And who responded without respondingA shocking surprise to see who started another Roddick thread![]()
I responded by voting.And who responded without responding![]()
Now explain yourself, Mr. ModI responded by voting.
Now explain yourself, Mr. Mod
Return it is clearly Courier and so is “mental game”. Volleys he is also on Roddick’s level, Roddick didn’t have great volleys. Net game overall I would put Courier even ahead.Stroke by stroke:
Serve: AR
volley: AR
forehand: JC
backhand: even
return: even
speed/movement: even
mental game: even
By surface:
Clay: JC
Grass: AR
Indoor: AR
Hardcourt: even
Cowdung: even
Mental game: I know of no player who blew more 2 sets to love leads and/or more matches after being up match point than JC.Mental game, return and volley go to Courier by a noticeable margin imo. He approached regularly and successfully to finish points, and was able to return Pistol's serve reasonably well in his day. Courier won his RG against 'Dre through sheer grit and endurance, beat defending champ PETE at USO, and also got Pete at RG in one of the best years and levels of his career, so have to give him mental strength. Speed and movement and athleticism also seem much clearly to Courier.
Backhand is interesting. Courier's backhand while janky was extremely reliable and accurate, so much so that in his book, PETE writes that people targeting that stroke failed over and over again until it was discovered that you needed to get him running to that side after a return in order to exploit it. Once Pistol discovered this he had a comfortable way in to their matches and victory came more easily. Roddick's backhand was exploitable anywhere, so Courier has to get the nod here.
Courier blew a LOT of matches after being up two sets and/or match points.Return it is clearly Courier and so is “mental game”. Volleys he is also on Roddick’s level, Roddick didn’t have great volleys. Net game overall I would put Courier even ahead.
Roddick made the Wimblie finals mainly because of his way better serve not because of his superior net game. Pete’s serve is one of the hardest to break, not sure whether Courier’s ability (or lack thereof) to break it tells us much about him having a bad return.Courier blew a LOT of matches after being up two sets and/or match points.
Roddick made wimbledon finals going to the net. No way JC could.
Courier couldn't break Sampras to save his life.
Would love to see Roddick try to break Sampras in the 90s on real grass with real gut and that funny backhand, or approach the net in an era with players who knew how to approach and pass across the board.Courier blew a LOT of matches after being up two sets and/or match points.
Roddick made wimbledon finals going to the net. No way JC could.
Courier couldn't break Sampras to save his life.
Never said that he made W finals BECAUSE of his net game, but he did make W finals regularly coming to the net, which again, I don't think JC could have. And yes, Pete had an ATG serve, but JC had virtually NO success breaking it. In fact, I believe he only broke Pete's serve 12 times in SIXTY sets played (that's 48 sets without breaking serve). I can't help but think AR would have broken him at least 13..Roddick made the Wimblie finals mainly because of his way better serve not because of his superior net game. Pete’s serve is one of the hardest to break, not sure whether Courier’s ability (or lack thereof) to break it tells us much about him having a bad return.
I suppose nobody should be surprised to see someone so obsessively wrong about Borg's retirement get this comparison so spectacularly wrong, but volley (see below), BH, return and movement (speed is more arguable) aren't even close, LOL.Stroke by stroke:
Serve: AR
volley: AR
forehand: JC
backhand: even
return: even
speed/movement: even
mental game: even
By surface:
Clay: JC
Grass: AR
Indoor: AR
Hardcourt: even
Cowdung: even
OK, now I know you never watched Courier play on grass. I guarantee you he played more S&V in his '93 Wimby run alone than any 2-3 of Roddick's runs combined.Courier blew a LOT of matches after being up two sets and/or match points.
Roddick made wimbledon finals going to the net. No way JC could.
Courier couldn't break Sampras to save his life.
Net game isn't even close, LOL. Take a gander at this:Roddick made the Wimblie finals mainly because of his way better serve not because of his superior net game. Pete’s serve is one of the hardest to break, not sure whether Courier’s ability (or lack thereof) to break it tells us much about him having a bad return.
Courier did break the Sampras serve in the 1993 Wimbledon final. Becker never broke Sampras' serve at all in 3 Wimbledon matches, while Sampras broke Becker's serve a combined 12 times over those 3 matches.Never said that he made W finals BECAUSE of his net game, but he did make W finals regularly coming to the net, which again, I don't think JC could have. And yes, Pete had an ATG serve, but JC had virtually NO success breaking it. In fact, I believe he only broke Pete's serve 12 times in SIXTY sets played (that's 48 sets without breaking serve). I can't help but think AR would have broken him at least 13..
That's incredibleCourier did break the Sampras serve in the 1993 Wimbledon final. Becker never broke Sampras' serve at all in 3 Wimbledon matches, while Sampras broke Becker's serve a combined 12 times over those 3 matches.
Re: Borg's retirement: Just to be clear, one cannot be "wrong" or "obsessively wrong" for raising a question. Again, for the 90th time, I made NO conclusions about Borg's retirement; rather, I asked a question. Conclusions/answers can be wrong; questions cannot. So you can cut the condescension - and do what you will with that "LOL."I suppose nobody should be surprised to see someone so obsessively wrong about Borg's retirement get this comparison so spectacularly wrong, but volley (see below), BH, return and movement (speed is more arguable) aren't even close, LOL.
And dude, are you even familiar with A-Rod's indoor record? He failed to make one YEC F despite his greater longevity while Mailman did it twice in a row, putting up a decent fight vs. Pistol in '91 to boot (Boris did smash him in straights the following year, but this is the indoor BOAT we're talking about). You could say Andy's 7 indoor titles vs. Jim's 4 makes up for it, but these were all 250/500 events, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
OK, now I know you never watched Courier play on grass. I guarantee you he played more S&V in his '93 Wimby run alone than any 2-3 of Roddick's runs combined.
And FYI Mailman's 5-set record stands at 56% vs. A-Rod's 45%. That isn't a hill you wanna die on if you're Team Roddick.
Net game isn't even close, LOL. Take a gander at this:
About the same % of approaches - 14.3% for Andy vs. 13.6% for Jim - but Mailman crushes A-Rod in % of net points won, 67.6% vs. 60.7% which is in fact the 3rd lowest per the TA charting database (only Bublik and Maamoun are worse). Yes, Roddick's infamous transition game/approach shots were indeed that bad.
You should know this if you've seen (and I know you have) how effective Jim was even on dirt in the '93 RG F vs. Bruguera who's at worst among the best passers ever. No, Courier would never be mistaken for a Stich or Krajicek, let alone Mac or Edberg, but among the 2-handers the guy knew better than most how to maximize his abilities at the net.
NonP, there to provide the stats to confirm the truths we all know. I was very surprised that anyone thought their net games were in the same league as I distinctly recall Courier as a very competent volleyer. Thanks for the data I needed to confirm.I suppose nobody should be surprised to see someone so obsessively wrong about Borg's retirement get this comparison so spectacularly wrong, but volley (see below), BH, return and movement (speed is more arguable) aren't even close, LOL.
And dude, are you even familiar with A-Rod's indoor record? He failed to make one YEC F despite his greater longevity while Mailman did it twice in a row, putting up a decent fight vs. Pistol in '91 to boot (Boris did smash him in straights the following year, but this is the indoor BOAT we're talking about). You could say Andy's 7 indoor titles vs. Jim's 4 makes up for it, but these were all 250/500 events, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
OK, now I know you never watched Courier play on grass. I guarantee you he played more S&V in his '93 Wimby run alone than any 2-3 of Roddick's runs combined.
And FYI Mailman's 5-set record stands at 56% vs. A-Rod's 45%. That isn't a hill you wanna die on if you're Team Roddick.
Net game isn't even close, LOL. Take a gander at this:
About the same % of approaches - 14.3% for Andy vs. 13.6% for Jim - but Mailman crushes A-Rod in % of net points won, 67.6% vs. 60.7% which is in fact the 3rd lowest per the TA charting database (only Bublik and Maamoun are worse). Yes, Roddick's infamous transition game/approach shots were indeed that bad.
You should know this if you've seen (and I know you have) how effective Jim was even on dirt in the '93 RG F vs. Bruguera who's at worst among the best passers ever. No, Courier would never be mistaken for a Stich or Krajicek, let alone Mac or Edberg, but among the 2-handers the guy knew better than most how to maximize his abilities at the net.
So Courier, clearly.Roddick on Grass, Courier outside Grass.
Jep exactly, hope I didn’t word it confusingly, i by no means think Roddick has the better net game (as replied to OP in post #11). For his dumbest approaching shots alone he is not on par here with Courier whose net game was quite competent as you showed. Also his return was of course better than A-Rod’s. Don’t get this guy’s logic that Jim allegedly not being able to break Pete’s (of all) serve should somehow prove he has a worse return than Roddick (which is tough to defend as Jim did break Pete’s serve in a Wimbledon final which is quite a feat given that only two players could do this).Net game isn't even close, LOL. Take a gander at this:
Tennis Abstract: Match Charting Project: Men's Tactics Leaders: Career
About the same % of approaches - 14.3% for Andy vs. 13.6% for Jim - but Mailman crushes A-Rod in % of net points won, 67.6% vs. 60.7% which is in fact the 3rd lowest per the TA charting database (only Bublik and Maamoun are worse). Yes, Roddick's infamous transition game/approach shots were indeed that bad.
You should know this if you've seen (and I know you have) how effective Jim was even on dirt in the '93 RG F vs. Bruguera who's at worst among the best passers ever. No, Courier would never be mistaken for a Stich or Krajicek, let alone Mac or Edberg, but among the 2-handers the guy knew better than most how to maximize his abilities at the net.
I know we discussed this in a different thread but it seems Goran was actually smart about his net game a la Mailman. Coming in on 29.6% of all points is still frequent, yes, but not quite enough to make him a full-time net hugger. And he won an impressive 67.1% of 'em, well above Rick's 63.0. Again the above caveats apply but it does seem that with the only arguable exception of S&V on 2nd-serve points the guy knew what he was doing, especially since he wasn't gonna win that much more from the baseline.Return it is clearly Courier and so is “mental game”. Volleys he is also on Roddick’s level, Roddick didn’t have great volleys. Net game overall I would put Courier even ahead.
TBF Pistol was dealing with a shoulder injury and first-time jitters in the '93 F, but yeah the guy was still hitting "two 1st serves" (as Courier himself moaned after the match) and yet Jim broke him twice, indeed the only Wimby F where the GSOAT got broken even once apart from '98 (where Goran also broke him twice, culminating in that spectacular return game in the 4th set*).Courier did break the Sampras serve in the 1993 Wimbledon final. Becker never broke Sampras' serve at all in 3 Wimbledon matches, while Sampras broke Becker's serve a combined 12 times over those 3 matches.
No comment on your first point. Others have already addressed your points rather thoroughly.Re: Borg's retirement: Just to be clear, one cannot be "wrong" or "obsessively wrong" for raising a question. Again, for the 90th time, I made NO conclusions about Borg's retirement; rather, I asked a question. Conclusions/answers can be wrong; questions cannot. So you can cut the condescension - and do what you will with that "LOL."
Re: YEC, AR had a better W-L record than JC at YEC. (if you're going to bring up records to support your argument, it's good to confirm that the records are actually in support of your argument).
Without going back and looking at the matches, I don't think JC s/v more than AR at W.
Re: five set records - JC was known for being the fittest guy on tour, AR was NOT. Fitness notwithstanding, JC blew multiple 2 set leads AND matches where he held multiple match points.
Net game: JC won a lot of points at net because he came in behind an ATG forehand. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about tennis can look at JC at the net and tell immediately that dude was NOT a natural volleyer.
Commentators kept talking about Sampras' shoulder injury during the 1993 Wimbledon quarter final against Agassi in particular, even though Agassi was using a modified service motion because of an injured wrist, and they barely mentioned the wrist, just talking how Agassi's new serve was getting him a lot more aces than before. That wrist needed surgery that December. It was one of the poorest quality Sampras vs. Agassi matches, despite being 5 sets.TBF Pistol was dealing with a shoulder injury and first-time jitters in the '93 F, but yeah the guy was still hitting "two 1st serves" (as Courier himself moaned after the match) and yet Jim broke him twice, indeed the only Wimby F where the GSOAT got broken even once apart from '98 (where Goran also broke him twice, culminating in that spectacular return game in the 4th set*).
Probably a bit of sample bias in those Arod stats considering a high proportion of those matches were against Federer. Those net stats will include the times Roddick was forced to come in off a Federer short slice e.g. not on his own terms, and against an ATG passer to boot. Not many players abused Roddick's transition game quite like Fed. One half point in Roddick's favour re. net game is that he has one of the GOAT overheads - the difference is probably only a couple of points here and there but it's still something.I suppose nobody should be surprised to see someone so obsessively wrong about Borg's retirement get this comparison so spectacularly wrong, but volley (see below), BH, return and movement (speed is more arguable) aren't even close, LOL.
And dude, are you even familiar with A-Rod's indoor record? He failed to make one YEC F despite his greater longevity while Mailman did it twice in a row, putting up a decent fight vs. Pistol in '91 to boot (Boris did smash him in straights the following year, but this is the indoor BOAT we're talking about). You could say Andy's 7 indoor titles vs. Jim's 4 makes up for it, but these were all 250/500 events, irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
OK, now I know you never watched Courier play on grass. I guarantee you he played more S&V in his '93 Wimby run alone than any 2-3 of Roddick's runs combined.
And FYI Mailman's 5-set record stands at 56% vs. A-Rod's 45%. That isn't a hill you wanna die on if you're Team Roddick.
Net game isn't even close, LOL. Take a gander at this:
About the same % of approaches - 14.3% for Andy vs. 13.6% for Jim - but Mailman crushes A-Rod in % of net points won, 67.6% vs. 60.7% which is in fact the 3rd lowest per the TA charting database (only Bublik and Maamoun are worse). Yes, Roddick's infamous transition game/approach shots were indeed that bad.
You should know this if you've seen (and I know you have) how effective Jim was even on dirt in the '93 RG F vs. Bruguera who's at worst among the best passers ever. No, Courier would never be mistaken for a Stich or Krajicek, let alone Mac or Edberg, but among the 2-handers the guy knew better than most how to maximize his abilities at the net.
No doubt that explains some of it but we're still talking 99 charted matches here. And my overall point wasn't that A-Rod sux as a net player per se but rather that it's quite a stretch to rate his volleys = or even > Mailman's when there's such a humongous gap in % of net points won. Like I said Jim was smart about when/how to come in and more than decent at the net. You don't approach on an above-average 13.6% of all points (not too far behind Fed's own 15.3%, as you probably noticed) and win 67.6% of 'em unless you know what you're doing.Probably a bit of sample bias in those Arod stats considering a high proportion of those matches were against Federer. Those net stats will include the times Roddick was forced to come in off a Federer short slice e.g. not on his own terms, and against an ATG passer to boot. Not many players abused Roddick's transition game quite like Fed. One half point in Roddick's favour re. net game is that he has one of the GOAT overheads - the difference is probably only a couple of points here and there but it's still something.
I saw Jim a few years after that and he was still completely abusing the ball. Yes, including off his "weak" BH.In 2005 I attended the Grand Slam Jam in Austin, Texas. Both Courier and Roddick were rather impressive.
Pistol's first volley was one of the primary reasons he won 14 slams. Gateway drug to the rest of his front court awesomeness.Hey kids, thought I'd follow up on my infallible overview of player types based on net play.
Like I said only Edberg, McEnroe and Rafter qualify as pure S&Ver (coming in on 45% or more of all points) per the TA charting database, but even here Stefan stands out, winning 65.5% of net points vs. Mac's 64.6% and Pat's 63.7%. Granted he does have a whopping 161 matches charted so far as opposed to Mac's 41 and Pat's 35, so his opposition was likely somewhat easier. And Rafter S&Ved even more (81.7%) than those two (77.6% for Stefan and 75.8% for Mac), which may or may not have brought down his Net W% (let's call it a subject for further study).
But that's indeed another feather in Edberg's cap and further bolsters Moose's case for him as the greatest S&Ver ever especially since he didn't get as many free points on serve as Mac and Rafter:
29.1% in % of serves unreturned vs. Mac's 31.7% and Pat's 34.6%, and that still understates the gap between him and Mac cuz the brash Yank's serve was no longer what it was after '85-ish. Put a gun to my head and I'd still give those two a tie, but it does seem that Edberg may stand alone even over the one-and-only McEnroe after all.
One more thing. Among the guys with at least 25% in Net Freq nobody but Muller (72.3%, due in no small part to his tiny sample of 21 matches) has a higher Net W% than Pistol's 69.0%. That should put to rest any doubts about his ATG volleys/net game. Sure, he might have looked like a mere mortal after that 1st volley, but few if any could deal better with "those low cannonballs following [their] big serves, often for outright winners from even behind the service line" (to quote me-self from that old thread).
Now a couple replies:
No doubt that explains some of it but we're still talking 99 charted matches here. And my overall point wasn't that A-Rod sux as a net player per se but rather that it's quite a stretch to rate his volleys = or even > Mailman's when there's such a humongous gap in % of net points won. Like I said Jim was smart about when/how to come in and more than decent at the net. You don't approach on an above-average 13.6% of all points (not too far behind Fed's own 15.3%, as you probably noticed) and win 67.6% of 'em unless you know what you're doing.
I saw Jim a few years after that and he was still completely abusing the ball. Yes, including off his "weak" BH.![]()
I was adding some contextual fluff to the debate rather than saying Arod had an equal net game to Courier, I've not watched enough of Courier to say that but I will take your word for it. Roddick was basically a guy with decent hands but lacking just about everything else that goes into making a good net player. He could have days when he looked quite good up there and then days where he's made look clumsy. Honestly his biggest problem was coaching and between the ears rather than technique.No doubt that explains some of it but we're still talking 99 charted matches here. And my overall point wasn't that A-Rod sux as a net player per se but rather that it's quite a stretch to rate his volleys = or even > Mailman's when there's such a humongous gap in % of net points won. Like I said Jim was smart about when/how to come in and more than decent at the net. You don't approach on an above-average 13.6% of all points (not too far behind Fed's own 15.3%, as you probably noticed) and win 67.6% of 'em unless you know what you're doing.
Have you seen Roddick's forehand volley? His pickups?I was adding some contextual fluff to the debate rather than saying Arod had an equal net game to Courier, I've not watched enough of Courier to say that but I will take your word for it. Roddick was basically a guy with decent hands but lacking just about everything else that goes into making a good net player. He could have days when he looked quite good up there and then days where he's made look clumsy. Honestly his biggest problem was coaching and between the ears rather than technique.
I'd like to see Rafter's stats on freebie serve points earlier in his career vs. later when he had shoulder issues. I would guess that his #s dropped in later years, but I could be wrong.Pistol's first volley was one of the primary reasons he won 14 slams. Gateway drug to the rest of his front court awesomeness.
Didn't know Pattycake's serve netted him that many free points. Tbh, I always thought of it as a less spinny and high Edberg serve with a bit more pace that like Eddy's got him in position up front.
I think F is giving Roddick and Federer way too much credit for Roddick's poor results up front. Fact is, he often chose to approach on short slices he didn't need to come in off of, especially after 2006, when he was essentially screaming his Fedsperation by forcing approaches ala AO 2007 to disastrous effect, making Feddy look like a Maestro when he was probably just being a clown. He went from being mediocre up front with some cringe moments (my god has anyone crowded the net in a Wimbledon final like Roddick in 2005?) to an all out meme-machine. He clearly wasn't made for the net, but didn't do himself any favors by picking his battles so unwisely.
I'm still surprised at the equating of Courier's competent, intelligent point-finishing with the frankly embarrassing, meme-making of Roddick.
There's a legit case to be made that Andy's volleys per se weren't so bad, but yeah no contest between him and Jim. At least half of anyone's net game lies in his approaches and that's where Mailman has A-Rod solidly beat.Pistol's first volley was one of the primary reasons he won 14 slams. Gateway drug to the rest of his front court awesomeness.
Didn't know Pattycake's serve netted him that many free points. Tbh, I always thought of it as a less spinny and high Edberg serve with a bit more pace that like Eddy's got him in position up front.
I think F is giving Roddick and Federer way too much credit for Roddick's poor results up front. Fact is, he often chose to approach on short slices he didn't need to come in off of, especially after 2006, when he was essentially screaming his Fedsperation by forcing approaches ala AO 2007 to disastrous effect, making Feddy look like a Maestro when he was probably just being a clown. He went from being mediocre up front with some cringe moments (my god has anyone crowded the net in a Wimbledon final like Roddick in 2005?) to an all out meme-machine. He clearly wasn't made for the net, but didn't do himself any favors by picking his battles so unwisely.
I'm still surprised at the equating of Courier's competent, intelligent point-finishing with the frankly embarrassing, meme-making of Roddick.
I doubt it. Here are his SGW%s by year (per the ATP database) from 1994-2001 followed by his annual ranking in said stat:I'd like to see Rafter's stats on freebie serve points earlier in his career vs. later when he had shoulder issues. I would guess that his #s dropped in later years, but I could be wrong.
Thanks! I stand corrected.There's a legit case to be made that Andy's volleys per se weren't so bad, but yeah no contest between him and Jim. At least half of anyone's net game lies in his approaches and that's where Mailman has A-Rod solidly beat.
And Rafter actually made the top 10 in SGW% for six years in a row ('plus one in '94). Which brings us to....
I doubt it. Here are his SGW%s by year (per the ATP database) from 1994-2001 followed by his annual ranking in said stat:
1994 - 83.5%, 10th
1995 - 79.9%, 29th
1996 - 84.7%, 6th
1997 - 84.8%, 6th
1998 - 87.6%, 4th
1999 - 84.7%, 7th
2000 - 87.8%, 3th
2001 - 87.4%, 4th
So his numbers did drop in '99 when he was forced to take that shoulder surgery, but then basically back to normal in his last two seasons. And as you can see the guy was a perennial top 10er in holding serve. No, he still wouldn't be mistaken for Becker or Stich despite their similar URS%s - I'm guessing you already know service stats have been increasingly steadily since the '90s - but whomever you rank below he's right there with 'em. An underrated/appreciated serve(r) for sure - especially on 2nds which TA tells us he won outright more often than anyone not named Cressy or Karlovic!
Probably a bit of sample bias in those Arod stats considering a high proportion of those matches were against Federer. Those net stats will include the times Roddick was forced to come in off a Federer short slice e.g. not on his own terms, and against an ATG passer to boot. Not many players abused Roddick's transition game quite like Fed. One half point in Roddick's favour re. net game is that he has one of the GOAT overheads - the difference is probably only a couple of points here and there but it's still something.
True; Roddick's "net game" was an exercise in clumsy, heavy-footed embarassment, which--if attempted in an era before his own--would have had him fumbling and being an easy target. I've seen park players with a better understanding of the net game than Roddick. Only in his era could he make the Wimbledon finals.Roddick made the Wimblie finals mainly because of his way better serve not because of his superior net game. Pete’s serve is one of the hardest to break, not sure whether Courier’s ability (or lack thereof) to break it tells us much about him having a bad return.
Those are interesting stats, as it indeed indicates that Goran’s net game is better than he is given credit for. I can remember him mishiting a lot of very easy volleys (sometimes in an almost comical way) in his matches against Rafter and Pete at Wimbledon (in his 92 final against Andre his volleys were quite solid given the level of returns he faced), but the stats show that he still seemed to have success with it. He has a success rate of 67.9% in serve and volley points which is good given that he came in 62.8%. So his overall net points could have been boosted by SnV points on first serve where he forced a return error and didn’t even have to hit one volley. Of course same will hold true for Rick, but he then has a SnV frequency of 86.2% suggesting that he came in more on second serve than Goran, which imho was never a winning strategy to begin with and would have brought his overall stats down. Interestingly the difference between the two in SnV points won and overall net points won is roughly the same (4.3% vs 4.1%). Since Rick has the better volley overall , the stats indeed suggest that Goran was more astute with his approaches (eg not coming in so much on second serves). Of course it would also be interesting to know which matches were charted and what the distribution over the surfaces is.I know we discussed this in a different thread but it seems Goran was actually smart about his net game a la Mailman. Coming in on 29.6% of all points is still frequent, yes, but not quite enough to make him a full-time net hugger. And he won an impressive 67.1% of 'em, well above Rick's 63.0. Again the above caveats apply but it does seem that with the only arguable exception of S&V on 2nd-serve points the guy knew what he was doing, especially since he wasn't gonna win that much more from the baseline.
Apart from free points in general he wasn’t too shabby on aces alone either. 8 times in his career he hit more than 20 (3 times alone in matches against Agassi). Of course he was not consistent, but on a good day he could occasionally get to high numbers here (Djokovic only managed it 5 times in more than twice as many career matches). Add to this his nasty and very effective kicker, and you get his great stats on SGW as posted by @NonP. I agree that Pat’s serve is really underrated, I have read many times here in TTW, that Pat had next to nothing apart from his volleys, and his mediocre serve held him back from further success. He of course had no Sampras serve but way above average.Didn't know Pattycake's serve netted him that many free points. Tbh, I always thought of it as a less spinny and high Edberg serve with a bit more pace that like Eddy's got him in position up front.
Absolutely brutal...but true.True; Roddick's "net game" was an exercise in clumsy, heavy-footed embarassment, which--if attempted in an era before his own--would have had him fumbling and being an easy target. I've seen park players with a better understanding of the net game than Roddick. Only in his era could he make the Wimbledon finals.
I wouldn't credit Roddick's net game for his appearances in Wimbledon finals. He stood so close to the net that he almost did the opponent's work for him.Mental game: I know of no player who blew more 2 sets to love leads and/or more matches after being up match point than JC.
Return: look at JC's break percentage vs. Sampras. Granted, Sampras had what was then the greatest serve OAT, but JC couldn't break him to save his life.
Volley: AR made multiple Wimbledon finals by going to the net. I don't think JC could have, namely because he was pretty stiff up there, although he did display good touch/feel at times. When JC did approach, it was always behind his I/O forehand, which was either an outright winner or set up a push volley into the open court.
Yes his serve is very underrated. Of course it wasn't a Sampras or Ivanisevic totally dominant serve, but it was excellent. What held him back from greater success was not having a stronger ground game, and particularly return of serve, not his serve.Apart from free points in general he wasn’t too shabby on aces alone either. 8 times in his career he hit more than 20 (3 times alone in matches against Agassi). Of course he was not consistent, but on a good day he could occasionally get to high numbers here (Djokovic only managed it 5 times in more than twice as many career matches). Add to this his nasty and very effective kicker, and you get his great stats on SGW as posted by @NonP. I agree that Pat’s serve is really underrated, I have read many times here in TTW, that Pat had next to nothing apart from his volleys, and his mediocre serve held him back from further success. He of course had no Sampras serve but way above average.
Yea. Even regarding return game he had a couple of great matches, like for example when he destroyed Becker’s serve and volley game with 15 clear return winners in their 1999 R16 Wimbledon match, or in some of the matches with Pete. Those were one-offs though and his overall return game was definitely a weakness as were his passing shots (relatively speaking). Had he been a little better here, he would definitely have grabbed a Wimbledon title.Yes his serve is very underrated. Of course it wasn't a Sampras or Ivanisevic totally dominant serve, but it was excellent. What held him back from greater success was not having a stronger ground game, and particularly return of serve, not his serve.
That second set in the 2000 final was such a killer for him. He had a two set lead in his grasp and then let it slip away.Yea. Even regarding return game he had a couple of great matches, like for example when he destroyed Becker’s serve and volley game with 15 clear return winners in their 1999 R16 Wimbledon match, or in some of the matches with Pete. Those were one-offs though and his overall return game was definitely a weakness as were his passing shots (relatively speaking). Had he been a little better here, he would definitely have grabbed a Wimbledon title.
That second set in the 2000 final was such a killer for him. He had a two set lead in his grasp and then let it slip away.
That match is very underrated. Quality wise it's fine, but for Sampras to win that match on one leg against a great grasscourter like Patty is one of the great efforts in a Wimbledon final.Sampras so far outplayed him in the 3rd and 4th sets I am not even sure it would have made a difference, then again a lot of that is psychological element and monentum. Not sure Sampras would have found the confidence or Rafter would have lost the confidence for Sampras to win 3 straight sets if Rafter wins the 2nd set.
That match is very underrated. Quality wise it's fine, but for Sampras to win that match on one leg against a great grasscourter like Patty is one of the great efforts in a Wimbledon final.