Does Murray have the ugliest game ever among ATGs?

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
This is how Bodo sized up an ATG in Courts of Babylon, speaking of Lendl:

Ultimately, Lendl would win eight Grand Slam titles, one more than his lifelong tormentor, John McEnroe, and the same number as his other major rival, Jimmy Connors. He would contest nineteen Grand Slam finals, appearing in the championship match in at least one of the Big Four tournaments for a solid decade beginning in 1981. Lendl led Czechoslovakia to a Davis Cup victory in 1980...
Lendl was ranked in the top ten for 13 consecutive years, a streak surpassed only by Connors (16 successive years). He won 94 sanctioned titles in his career, 17 more than McEnroe but 15 fewer than Connors. Between 1985 and 1988, Lendl held the world’s number one ranking for 157 consecutive weeks, second only to Connors’s 160-week run. But Lendl has spent the most total weeks in the number one position (270 weeks—2 weeks longer than Connors). Thus, he has a legitimate claim to being the top player of the Open era.


Judge Murray on that basis rather than merely how many slams he won.
(y)
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
He is. His success rate is unmatched. John Mcenroe says so https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...l-is-the-best-volleyer-in-the-top-100.504363/

Petchey presented the stats on tv and he showed that Nadal is the most successful volleyer of his generation. There was a thread about that too.

It's not a traditional volley but more like " set up, is that good enough?, yes, come to the net". Traditionally, players just went to the net regardless of the quality of previous shot. His superior movement allowed him to do so.
Comical.

Again, points won at the net is not indicative of being “the best volleyer of the big 3.”

Federer is far and away the best volleyer of the big 3 (it’s not even close). Anyone who claims otherwise is blind, taking drugs, or both.

Now Nadal may have the best % of points won at the net among the big 3. But that isn’t because he’s the best volleyer of the group. That would be akin to pointing at Nadal’s first serve points won or hold % and then claiming he’s the best server of the big 3. LOL. Come on man.

Lastly the “b/c Mark Petchey or John McEnroe said so” is laughable. Commentators will say anything to stir up controversy.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
He is. His success rate is unmatched. John Mcenroe says so https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...l-is-the-best-volleyer-in-the-top-100.504363/

Petchey presented the stats on tv and he showed that Nadal is the most successful volleyer of his generation. There was a thread about that too.

It's not a traditional volley but more like " set up, is that good enough?, yes, come to the net". Traditionally, players just went to the net regardless of the quality of previous shot. His superior movement allowed him to do so.

never happened.

Heck, just in like 30 matches b/w fedal, nadal's % at net is clearly lesser than fed's, even with nadal being atleast a little better at passing and nadal coming in only like 1/3rd of the time as fed did.

NEW TOTAL:

Federer at net on 17% of all points, has won 604 of 947 (64%)
Nadal at net on 6% of all points, has won 198 of 323 (61%)
(a total of 5643 points played in these matches)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Nadal_rivalry#Singles
For the whole set, check: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-in-his-grand-slam-finals.432432/post-7718217
 

tex123

Professional
Comical.

Again, points won at the net is not indicative of being “the best volleyer of the big 3.”

Federer is far and away the best volleyer of the big 3 (it’s not even close). Anyone who claims otherwise is blind, taking drugs, or both.

Now Nadal may have the best % of points won at the net among the big 3. But that isn’t because he’s the best volleyer of the group. That would be akin to pointing at Nadal’s first serve points won or hold % and then claiming he’s the best server of the big 3. LOL. Come on man.

Lastly the “b/c Mark Petchey or John McEnroe said so” is laughable. Commentators will say anything to stir up controversy.
Do you know anything about McEnroe's volleying skills? If McEnroe talks about volleys, you listen. Petchey is a very technical commentator.

How else would you measure if a person is great at the net? You can look all beautiful volleying but if it does not win you the point, you are clearly inferior. His success rate is unmatched.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
Do you know anything about McEnroe's volleying skills? If McEnroe talks about volleys, you listen. Petchey is a very technical commentator.
I do? Maybe you do. I realize there’s a fair bit of theatre going on when the announcers are carrying on about this player or that. Apparently you take everything they say at face value.

How else would you measure if a person is great at the net? You can look all beautiful volleying but if it does not win you the point, you are clearly inferior. His success rate is unmatched.
You said “best volleyer of the big 3.” You didn’t say “best winning % at the net of the big 3.” Two different things.

Again, take serving. Nadal routinely holds around 90% of his serve games over the course of the year - which is usually close to leading the tour. By your logic then Nadal is one of the best servers in the world?
 
Last edited:

skaj

Legend
Do you know anything about McEnroe's volleying skills? If McEnroe talks about volleys, you listen. Petchey is a very technical commentator.

How else would you measure if a person is great at the net? You can look all beautiful volleying but if it does not win you the point, you are clearly inferior. His success rate is unmatched.
And how often is Nadal at the net, especially compared to Federer? He is usually up there when there are no big risks, I wouldn't be surprised that his percentages are higher. That does not make his volleys better.
 

tex123

Professional
I do? Maybe you do. I realize there’s a fair bit of theatre going on when the announcers are carrying on about this player or that. Apparently you take everything they say at face value.



You said “best volleyer of the big 3.” You didn’t say “best winning % at the net of the big 3.” Two different things.

Again, take serving. Nadal routinely holds around 90% of his serve games over the course of the year - which is usually close to leading the tour. By your logic then Nadal is one of the best servers in the world?
You are really stretching it, aren't you? How is holding a service game comparable? Holding a service game involves a serve, point construction with forehand, backhand, volleys, drops etc.
Yes. He's one of the best servers. Not in the league of Sampras, Isner and the lot but one of the best servers. What's so debatable about this?
 

tex123

Professional
And how often is Nadal at the net, especially compared to Federer? He is usually up there when there are no big risks, I wouldn't be surprised that his percentages are higher. That does not make his volleys better.
If he's up at the net fewer times, that means his judgment and execution is exceptional. If anyone can do that then why don't they have the highest percentages? I factor that when I call him the best volleyer. Not just me McEnroe and Petchey too.
 

skaj

Legend
If he's up at the net fewer times, that means his judgment and execution is exceptional. If anyone can do that then why don't they have the highest percentages? I factor that when I call him the best volleyer. Not just me McEnroe and Petchey too.
No it doesn't, it means he's usually up there when it is safe and easier, and then he wins it more often than not. So, it's a wrong logic, Nadal told the exact thing to Petchey in the very interview. And McEnroe says all kind of things.

On the other hand, many other players have called Federer the best volleyer on tour, including the other half of "the big 4".
 

tex123

Professional
No it doesn't, it means he's usually up there when it is safe and easier, and then he wins it more often than not. So, it's a wrong logic, Nadal told the exact thing to Petchey in the very interview. And McEnroe says all kind of things.
Nadal was just being humble and modest as usual. He knows he's the best. Volley is not just about meeting racket and the ball. It is about your set up shot, judgment when to go in, foot speed, hand skills and anticipation. He excels in combining all those skills - which is why his percentage is the best. If Federer or someone (who you regard as better volleyer) go in and lose the point then they are not as good because their judgment, set up shot, foot speed or anticipation wasn't good enough.

On the other hand, many other players have called Federer the best volleyer on tour, including the other half of "the big 4".
I don't know who but that may be because they don't know the stats.
 

skaj

Legend
Nadal was just being humble and modest as usual. He knows he's the best. Volley is not just about meeting racket and the ball. It is about your set up shot, judgment when to go in, foot speed, hand skills and anticipation. He excels in combining all those skills - which is why his percentage is the best. If Federer or someone (who you regard as better volleyer) go in and lose the point then they are not as good because their judgment, set up shot, foot speed or anticipation wasn't good enough.


I don't know who but that may be because they don't know the stats.
Nadal didn't just say "nah, it's not me", he explained it, said exactly what I have said, which is the logical explanation for his percentage. Also, when asked about other elements of the game, he is not too humble to name himself. When his peers are asked asked who is the best volleyer his name does not come up often, if ever. Federer's does, often. You do the math.

Yes, volley is not just about racket meeting the ball - Federer is better at setting up the shot, at least as good at moving forward(≠ raw sprinting speed) and around the net, better anticipator, has better touch. So, Roger excels more in combining all those skill.
As for the "judgement when to go in", if the logic behind the good judgement is "I go in when it is safe and very probable to score a winner" than Nadal is a better judge...
 
Last edited:

tex123

Professional
Nadal didn't just say "nah, it's not me", he explained it, said exactly what I have said, which is the logical explanation for his percentage. Also, when asked about other elements of the game, he is not too humble to name himself. When his peers are asked asked who is the best volleyer his name does not come up often, if ever. Federer's does, often. You do the math.

Yes, volley is not just about racket meeting the ball - Federer is better at setting up the shot, at least as good at moving forward(≠ raw sprinting speed) and around the net, better anticipator, has better touch. So, Roger excels more in combining all those skill.
As for the "judgement when to go in", if the logic behind the good judgement is "I go in when it is safe and very probable to score a winner" than Nadal is a better judge...
I watched and I remember it very clearly. He was just being modest.

So why does he not have a winning %? Because he goes in on sub-par set up shots or he has poor volleying skills or bad footwork or bad judgment. You can argue all you want. Percentages don't lie. As someone said, you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
You are really stretching it, aren't you? How is holding a service game comparable? Holding a service game involves a serve, point construction with forehand, backhand, volleys, drops etc.
Yes. He's one of the best servers. Not in the league of Sampras, Isner and the lot but one of the best servers. What's so debatable about this?
By the same token, winning a point at the net isn’t solely about one’s volleys. Get it now?

Nadal has tinkered a lot with the serve over the years. He’s always been clutch with it on big points. But he was also very predictable - until Moya convinced him he needed to mix it up more. For me Nadal is a good server, relative to his overall level. Nowhere near “one of the best.”

Nadal holds so frequently primarily because of how well he backs up his serve - the shots he hits after the serve is in play.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Ugly game yes, ugly face yes, ugly attitude yes but lovely how his trolling still upsets the next gens
The ATP has tried everything to make their next gens evolve to the homogenized conditions but
trolling will always win the day when no effort is made for faster conditions.
 

tex123

Professional
By the same token, winning a point at the net isn’t solely about one’s volleys. Get it now?

Nadal has tinkered a lot with the serve over the years. He’s always been clutch with it on big points. But he was also very predictable - until Moya convinced him he needed to mix it up more. For me Nadal is a good server, relative to his overall level. Nowhere near “one of the best.”

Nadal holds so frequently primarily because of how well he backs up his serve - the shots he hits after the serve is in play.
Apples and Oranges. I'm referring to execution of one shot i.e. volley which involves set up, judgment, footwork, anticipation and good hand skills. You are talking about a service game.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
Apples and Oranges. I'm referring to execution of one shot i.e. volley which involves set up, judgment, footwork, anticipation and good hand skills. You are talking about a service game.
Your justification for superiority in that one shot is to point at a statistic that is influenced by a lot more than just that one shot.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
Look, winning % at the net is misleading in this argument because of the variances in how and when a player chooses to go to the net. Federer, especially later in his career, was extremely aggressive with going to net. Nadal, OTOH, picks his spots a lot more. So of course Nadal has a higher winning % at the net. Compared to Federer, Nadal isn’t as aggressive in employing the tactic of transitioning to the net.
 

skaj

Legend
I watched and I remember it very clearly. He was just being modest.

So why does he not have a winning %? Because he goes in on sub-par set up shots or he has poor volleying skills or bad footwork or bad judgment. You can argue all you want. Percentages don't lie. As someone said, you are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
It was written on his T-shirt "(I am just being modest)"? :D Yes, I have watched that interview too, it was posted in one of the threads of this very forum.

Why %? Because he is up there more, have you been reading my posts, or at least heard what Nadal himself said in that interview?

Percentages don't lie, they don't tell the truth either. Why? Because they don't have not only the ability to talk, but ability to think. They are just numbers. We, humans, on the other hand have that ability(although we don't use it always, obviously). We are able to understand the context of those numbers, something you are actively ignoring in this discussion.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion, who said that we are not? The difference between me and you here is that I have arguments for my opinion, you don't don't yours.
 
Last edited:

tex123

Professional
It's not misleading. It is telling you like it is. Nadal is not aggressive in employing that because it is a losing tactic on this surface with modern rackets. He's smart. So, he picks his moments wisely when to come to the net. Hence, he's a better volleyer with a better percentage.

What you two are arguing about is hand skills at the net which is only a part of the whole set up.
 

skaj

Legend
It's not misleading. It is telling you like it is. Nadal is not aggressive in employing that because it is a losing tactic on this surface with modern rackets. He's smart. So, he picks his moments wisely when to come to the net. Hence, he's a better volleyer with a better percentage.

What you two are arguing about is hand skills at the net which is only a part of the whole set up.
No, completely wrong logic, once again.

Now you are trying to twist the best volleyer(great volley technique, reflexes, net approach etc.) into a player who gets to the net only when there is a minimal chance for him to lose a point there. In that case, a poor volleyer(which Nadal isn't) could play all of their shots from the baseline, approach the net only once in a match to put away a 5km/h ball, and they will have a better % at the net than McEnroe, Edberg, Navratilova, Laver...

You are the one who is reductive, not me. I was talking about all the aspects of volleying. Go back and check if you don't remember, post #113 for exampele.

And you should have told Federer that volleying is a losing tactics with these surfaces and rackets. He would've had multiple slams. Oh, wait...
 

tex123

Professional
No, completely wrong logic, once again.

Now you are trying to twist the best volleyer(great volley technique, reflexes, net approach etc.) into a player who gets to the net only when there is a minimal chance for him to lose a point there. In that case, a poor volleyer(which Nadal isn't) could play all of their shots from the baseline, approach the net only once in a match to put away a 5km/h ball, and they will have a better % at the net than McEnroe, Edberg, Navratilova, Laver...

You are the one who is reductive, not me. I was talking about all the aspects of volleying. Go back and check if you don't remember, post #113 for exampele.

And you should have told Federer that volleying is a losing tactics with these surfaces and rackets. He would've had multiple slams. Oh, wait...
As I said, you can disagree all you want. Stats don't lie. I have not moved an inch from that central argument.

Anyone who calls Federer a volleyer is just out of his mind. Sampras was a volleyer. McEnroe was a volleyer. Edberg was a volleyer. Federer is NOTHING compared to them in the volleying department.

I repeat. In the modern game, the stat is in favour of Nadal. Neither of these modern players are traditional volleyers. Therefore, Nadal is the better of all 3. He has adapted the volley technique and combined it with superior judgment, foot speed, set up and anticipation. This argument has never changed and never will until I start to see the stat in Fed's favour.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
As I said, you can disagree all you want. Stats don't lie. I have not moved an inch from that central argument.

Anyone who calls Federer a volleyer is just out of his mind. Sampras was a volleyer. McEnroe was a volleyer. Edberg was a volleyer. Federer is NOTHING compared to them in the volleying department.

I repeat. In the modern game, the stat is in favour of Nadal. Neither of these modern players are traditional volleyers. Therefore, Nadal is the better of all 3. He has adapted the volley technique and combined it with superior judgment, foot speed, set up and anticipation. This argument has never changed and never will until I start to see the stat in Fed's favour.
I'd like to see Nadal beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon playing S/V on almost every serve like Federer did in 2001.
 

skaj

Legend
As I said, you can disagree all you want. Stats don't lie. I have not moved an inch from that central argument.

Anyone who calls Federer a volleyer is just out of his mind. Sampras was a volleyer. McEnroe was a volleyer. Edberg was a volleyer. Federer is NOTHING compared to them in the volleying department.

I repeat. In the modern game, the stat is in favour of Nadal. Neither of these modern players are traditional volleyers. Therefore, Nadal is the better of all 3. He has adapted the volley technique and combined it with superior judgment, foot speed, set up and anticipation. This argument has never changed and never will until I start to see the stat in Fed's favour.
Okay, now you are just repeating something that I already explained why is wrong, so I will quote myself from the previous posts that you are actively ignoring yet again:

Percentages don't lie, they don't tell the truth either. Why? Because they don't have not only the ability to talk, but ability to think. They are just numbers. We, humans, on the other hand have that ability(although we don't use it always, obviously). We are able to understand the context of those numbers, something you are actively ignoring in this discussion.”

No it doesn't, it means he's usually up there when it is safe and easier, and then he wins it more often than not. So, it's a wrong logic, Nadal told the exact thing to Petchey in the very interview.”

In that case, a poor volleyer(which Nadal isn't) could play all of their shots from the baseline, approach the net only once in a match to put away a 5km/h ball, and they will have a better % at the net than McEnroe, Edberg, Navratilova, Laver.”

You don’t have to repeat your quasi argument that was already exposed as wrong. Many times here.

When saying a good/bad/average/whatever volleyer, it means that a player is good/bad/average/whatever when volleying, not that his style of play is predominately volleying, in case you really misunderstood.

And how has he “adapted volley technique”? Are you now changing you argument and saying that Nadal has some special volley technique adapted for modern rackets and surfaces, but other don’t?
 

tex123

Professional
Okay, now you are just repeating something that I already explained why is wrong, so I will quote myself from the previous posts that you are actively ignoring yet again:

Percentages don't lie, they don't tell the truth either. Why? Because they don't have not only the ability to talk, but ability to think. They are just numbers. We, humans, on the other hand have that ability(although we don't use it always, obviously). We are able to understand the context of those numbers, something you are actively ignoring in this discussion.”

No it doesn't, it means he's usually up there when it is safe and easier, and then he wins it more often than not. So, it's a wrong logic, Nadal told the exact thing to Petchey in the very interview.”

In that case, a poor volleyer(which Nadal isn't) could play all of their shots from the baseline, approach the net only once in a match to put away a 5km/h ball, and they will have a better % at the net than McEnroe, Edberg, Navratilova, Laver.”

You don’t have to repeat your quasi argument that was already exposed as wrong. Many times here.

When saying a good/bad/average/whatever volleyer, it means that a player is good/bad/average/whatever when volleying, not that his style of play is predominately volleying, in case you really misunderstood.

And how has he “adapted volley technique”? Are you now changing you argument and saying that Nadal has some special volley technique adapted for modern rackets and surfaces, but other don’t?
I think I've explained it ad infinitum but you don't seem to be getting it or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

In the modern game, making a decision when approaching the net is very important. You don't want to look like a fool and get passed at the net all the time. If it is easier and safer, it means his set up shot was perfect. His planning was perfect. Why isn't it easier and safer for fed?

Traditional players approached the net no matter what (Edberg, Sampras etc.). Fast court conditions allowed them to do so. Nadal has changed that. He doesn't just hit a powerful shot and go to the net like Fed. There is a pause. Is that good enough? Let's get to the net. Fed can't do that as Nadal is faster and more agile and makes up for that pause. Petchey explained that too many times. Do you understand it now? If you don't then I suggest you watch how Nadal prepares for his volleys.

The result is that his percentage is greater. Stats are in his favour. His judgment is superior. His set up shot is superior. His footwork is superior. Hand skills are pretty much the same or maybe Fed's a little better. Therefore, Nadal is the better volleyer. Case closed.
 
Last edited:

tex123

Professional
I'd like to see Nadal beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon playing S/V on almost every serve like Federer did in 2001.
A washed up Sampras on the verge of retirement?
Sampras in his prime on fast courts of his days would eat Fed alive. He even beat Fed in an exho post retirement. Granted it was an exho but Fed does not like to lose - exho or not.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
surprised to hear lendl and wilander had ugly games, i always felt those guys had extremely solid technique. as for murray...nah, he's got plenty of touch and creativity.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro
A washed up Sampras on the verge of retirement?
Sampras in his prime on fast courts of his days would eat Fed alive. He even beat Fed in an exho post retirement. Granted it was an exho but Fed does not like to lose - exho or not.
You are entitled to your opinion even though it is 100 per cent wrong. And with this I mean every single thing you've said in this thread.
 

am1899

Hall of Fame
The result is that his percentage is greater.
Ok.

Stats are in his favour.
Is that not the same as the above?

His judgment is superior.
LOL.

His set up shot is superior.
Probably.

His footwork is superior.
:-D

Hand skills are pretty much the same or maybe Fed's a little better.
Perhaps.

Therefore, Nadal is the better volleyer.
:-D

Case closed.
LMAO.

Sorry to tell ya sport, but it’s you who doesn’t get it, not us. And at this point it’s pretty clear you’re never going to get it.
 

tex123

Professional
You are entitled to your opinion even though it is 100 per cent wrong. And with this I mean every single thing you've said in this thread.
I like Fed as well. I've shown that stats are in Nadal's favour. It's not just me - Petchey and McEnroe say it as well. Whether you like it or not or you consider it an affront to Fed, it's your problem. I tell it like it is.


BTW. Here's Sampras vs Fed Exho. Fed is serious and he needs 3 sets to beat a retired Sampras and in the second one he loses the match. Fed does not like to lose. This is with slowed down courts. Now imagine faster courts of Sampras era. Sampras would eat him alive.


 
Last edited:

tex123

Professional
Ok.



Is that not the same as the above?



LOL.



Probably.



:-D



Perhaps.



:-D



LMAO.

Sorry to tell ya sport, but it’s you who doesn’t get it, not us. And at this point it’s pretty clear you’re never going to get it.
Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like you've lost the argument. This Fed worshipping has to stop. Honestly. He's the most graceful player on court. But you lot seem to be on the edge every time people point out that in some areas he is second best. But that's your problem. Stats are in Nadal's favour and I've shown how he achieves those numbers. You may not like stats but it is a fact.

EDIT: I just noticed how you cut out the uncomfortable parts of the post to LOL and laugh.
 
Last edited:

am1899

Hall of Fame
Is that the best you can come up with? Sounds like you've lost the argument. This Fed worshipping has to stop. Honestly. He's the most graceful player on court. But you lot seem to be on the edge every time people point out that in some areas he is second best. But that's your problem. Stats are in Nadal's favour and I've shown how he achieves those numbers. You may not like stats but it is a fact.
As soon as you made your thesis that Nadal is the best volleyer amongst the big 3 because he has the best winning percentage at the net…you lost the argument right then and there, before it ever got started. That thesis doesn’t hold water at all for the countless reasons already stated.

So you moved the goal posts. But but but:

- John McEnroe and mark petchey said so.
- Nadal’s setup shot, footwork, judgement are better (lol as if anyone can objectively compare 2 players sense of judgement), etc.

Funny how you bring up all these other things and yet, simultaneously, you refuse to admit that these (and other factors you didn’t mention) all effect the stat you claim equates to Nadal being the best volleyer.

Stats are stats. But they don’t tell the full story.
 

skaj

Legend
I think I've explained it ad infinitum but you don't seem to be getting it or just arguing for the sake of arguing.

In the modern game, making a decision when approaching the net is very important. You don't want to look like a fool and get passed at the net all the time. If it is easier and safer, it means his set up shot was perfect. His planning was perfect. Why isn't it easier and safer for fed?

Traditional players approached the net no matter what (Edberg, Sampras etc.). Fast court conditions allowed them to do so. Nadal has changed that. He doesn't just hit a powerful shot and go to the net like Fed. There is a pause. Is that good enough? Let's get to the net. Fed can't do that as Nadal is faster and more agile and makes up for that pause. Petchey explained that too many times. Do you understand it now? If you don't then I suggest you watch how Nadal prepares for his volleys.

The result is that his percentage is greater. Stats are in his favour. His judgment is superior. His set up shot is superior. His footwork is superior. Hand skills are pretty much the same or maybe Fed's a little better. Therefore, Nadal is the better volleyer. Case closed.
No, you don’t seem to get it. You are not just reducing the best volleyer to the times a player chose to get to the net and arguing that Nadal is some kind of genius who calculates the optimal times to get to the net in order to get the best win-lose points % up there, you are a) confusing results and statistics b) suggesting that players care about statistics more than they care about results. You are by the way also confusing footwork and foot speed is seems, since you are calling Nadal’s footwork better than Federer’s.

Nadal is a baseliner who does not rely on volleys much. He does not get many points at the net. Federer wins more points at the net, and points win matches, and that’s results – winning matches, not statistics, and players care about winning matches more than percentages for different segments of the game. Federer knows that he can win more points and matches by getting to the net more, he knows he can risk and, thanks to his abilities as a volleyer, capitalize(as he did, I am sure you are familiar with his resume). His priority is not a game segment %, but a win, which is the right judgement. In the same way Nadal makes, I agree, a good judgement. Like Federer, knowing his abilities, which at the net are lesser than Roger’s, he stays in the back and does not risk by attacking the net often. Therefore, he has better statistics at the net, being a solid volleyer, but less of his results are coming from his net game.

Your "There is a pause. Is that good enough? Let's get to the net." "explanation" is what I said already many times - he does not risk with the net game, the way more skillful volleyers can afford to risk. And he does not "make up" for anthing here with his edge over Federer in agility and speed, because Federer's movement technique, anticipation and reflexes are superior.
 

skaj

Legend
As soon as you made your thesis that Nadal is the best volleyer amongst the big 3 because he has the best winning percentage at the net…you lost the argument right then and there, before it ever got started. That thesis doesn’t hold water at all for the countless reasons already stated.

So you moved the goal posts. But but but:

- John McEnroe and mark petchey said so.
- Nadal’s setup shot, footwork, judgement are better (lol as if anyone can objectively compare 2 players sense of judgement), etc.

Funny how you bring up all these other things and yet, simultaneously, you refuse to admit that these (and other factors you didn’t mention) all effect the stat you claim equates to Nadal being the best volleyer.

Stats are stats. But they don’t tell the full story.
And Nadal's setup shot is better than Federer's(slice?:unsure:). Also Rafa's footwork is better than Roger's who has arguably the best footwork in the Open Era...
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
I like Fed as well. I've shown that stats are in Nadal's favour. It's not just me - Petchey and McEnroe say it as well. Whether you like it or not or you consider it an affront to Fed, it's your problem. I tell it like it is.


BTW. Here's Sampras vs Fed Exho. Fed is serious and he needs 3 sets to beat a retired Sampras and in the second one he loses the match. Fed does not like to lose. This is with slowed down courts. Now imagine faster courts of Sampras era. Sampras would eat him alive.


this is true but whaat has an ugly game, ugly attitude on court have to do with Fedal perhaps the coolest 2 styles in the last 1.5 decades?

It is obvious Nadal is better than Federer everywhere except Serve, Flatter hitting yet Fedal would die quickly vs Sampras in the mid 90s.

As would Muzzler, Meds and many others as even a fat round bald slow Agassi at 35 and 3 x 5 set matches with little rest before the final
took peak Fed to a tight 4 sets. That alone proved homogenized conditions suit even previous gen players but Feds true potential
at the net was never seen as he found he could beat 99% of his opponents by staying back.

If conditions where like the mid 90s era we would not have a top 3 for so long or any tall lanky, heavy or hackers as we have now.
Look at what Borg and Lendl did to try and win Wimbledom S&V, could you imagine Nadal vs Sampras on fast grass and pre-2004/5 balls?

I sympathize with the players even Muzzler for the amount of Trolling required for these disgusting ATP forced homogenized conditions
and would prefer to see Servebots like Roscoe Tanner win as Michael Stich did just one Major than the trolling enforced of the last 2 decades.

We really dont know Feds true potential just like Michael Chang would have relished Troll conditions as he did beat Lendl on clay and indoor fast carpet.
Imagine Becker on 100% rye, slower balls and current racquets vs Edberg who relished 90s conditions.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
And Nadal's setup shot is better than Federer's(slice?:unsure:). Also Rafa's footwork is better than Roger's who has arguably the best footwork in the Open Era...
How many times has Nadal kept himself in the point and forced errors of FedVic with his forehand gripped slice vs Fed?
Nadals BH slice is devastating in terms of winning points not just setting up the volley. Its won him the day even against Meds recently
and destroyed so many baseliners over the years by forcing errors. Feds slice gets destroyed by Nadals FH.
 

tex123

Professional
As soon as you made your thesis that Nadal is the best volleyer amongst the big 3 because he has the best winning percentage at the net…you lost the argument right then and there, before it ever got started. That thesis doesn’t hold water at all for the countless reasons already stated.

So you moved the goal posts. But but but:

- John McEnroe and mark petchey said so.
- Nadal’s setup shot, footwork, judgement are better (lol as if anyone can objectively compare 2 players sense of judgement), etc.

Funny how you bring up all these other things and yet, simultaneously, you refuse to admit that these (and other factors you didn’t mention) all effect the stat you claim equates to Nadal being the best volleyer.

Stats are stats. But they don’t tell the full story.
What is with you lot, dude? Look at my posts all the way. It has stayed consistent. Just because you have a fascination for Fed does not change the stat. Just accept it and move on. You are simply arguing just for the sake of arguing. Fed is great at what he does. The volley stat is in Nadal's favour. End of story. Jeez.

I'm starting to like Novak fans now. He's the new GOAT after all. ;)
 

skaj

Legend
How many times has Nadal kept himself in the point and forced errors of FedVic with his forehand gripped slice vs Fed?
Nadals BH slice is devastating in terms of winning points not just setting up the volley. Its won him the day even against Meds recently
and destroyed so many baseliners over the years by forcing errors. Feds slice gets destroyed by Nadals FH.
No one said that Nadal’s slice is not good, just that it isn’t better than Federer. Same goes for their footwork, and volleys.
 

tex123

Professional
Joke of the day - Fed's footwork is better than Nadal! Simply delusional.

Nadal can own fed with ordinary shots and footwork. Such is his footwork and speed.

Volley debate is settled. Nadal. And he has the stats to back it up.
 

Olli Jokinen

Semi-Pro

am1899

Hall of Fame
What is with you lot, dude? Look at my posts all the way. It has stayed consistent. Just because you have a fascination for Fed does not change the stat. Just accept it and move on. You are simply arguing just for the sake of arguing. Fed is great at what he does. The volley stat is in Nadal's favour. End of story. Jeez.

I'm starting to like Novak fans now. He's the new GOAT after all. ;)
You don’t get it. It’s ok. Move on.
 

skaj

Legend
Joke of the day - Fed's footwork is better than Nadal! Simply delusional.

Nadal can own fed with ordinary shots and footwork. Such is his footwork and speed.

Volley debate is settled. Nadal. And he has the stats to back it up.
You are probably trolling, since you are not only saying Nadal's footwork is better but calling those who say it's Federer's(basically every tennis professional and everyone who understands the difference between footwork and foot speed) "simply delusional".

Not to mention that the volley debate has been settled for a while now, since your quasi arguments were exposed many posts ago, and it's Federer.
 
Top