Federer volleys not as solid as Sampras?
- Thread starter Radical97
- Start date
Phil
Hall of Fame
Radical97 said:Anyone think Federer volleys not quite as solid as Sampras? Is this partly due to Feds 'lighter' racket?
Yes, I agree that Sampras was a better volleyer, which is not to say that Federer is not a very good volleyer-he is. This has nothing to do with the racquet. Federer used the same racquet that Sampras used for years, and his volleys haven't gotten "worse" since switching racquets.
ATXtennisaddict
Hall of Fame
Well,sampras S&V, his volleys BETTER be the damned best in the game, and it was, evident from his 14 slams. Fed can fall back on his baseline game, so his volleys don't HAVE to be the damned best (although I'm sure he wants it to be). I'm sure he's working on it (tony roche)
Aykhan Mammadov
Hall of Fame
Sampras was volley's specialist. His volleys were apparently better than Fed's volley's. This is because Fed is more diversified player, for example his movement and anticipation IMHO are better, as well as his drop-shots.
federerhoogenbandfan
Banned
Roger is a very good volleyer, but Pete is better in this aspect of the game. Roger's returns and groundstrokes are better and more consistent IMO though.
DoubleHanded&LovinIt
Professional
Federer's volleys today were no more impressive than Roddick's. However, John McEnroe and Ted Robinson, Ted in particular, was quick to criticize Roddick's volleying whereas Roger's miscues at the net were overlookked.
Phil Daddario
Rookie
I believe Federer used to use the same Prostaff as well, which is what Phil was saying.
Sampras was a very good, but no great volleyer. His drop volley was excellent, but his standard volley was always played safe and not very deep. His forehand volley was better than his bh volley. In his later years he looked sometimes a little afraid to hit a volley at all, so he played virtually two first serves risking doubles. This tactic is documented in a recent Tennis Server article about Grand Slam statistics.
at the end of his career which was the beginning the revolution of the baseliners... people got a lot strong than it was used to be. players could attack him from baseline w/ ease, it's just becoming more risky to go to the net... volley is now became a support of a baseliner game, no one would dare to put S&V as thier primary weapon anymore.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
alan-n said:
This is what most people forget about. In Sampras' early career, his volley was very wristy. He improved over time.
Federer's volley is as good as Sampras at age of 23, Federer's volley is not as good as Sampras at the age of 26.
alan-n said:
I wouldn't say he was "mostly" baseliner in his mid-twenties.
He changed his styles based on surfaces (until his injury, herniated
disc happened and relyed more on S&V).
He basically tried win French with his baseline game.
(McAnroe once dubbed Safin as 21 century version of Sampras).
He completedly played pure S&V on grass.
He basically S&V-ed only on 1st serve on hard court.
He used everything he got against Agassi. He wasn't really super-successful
with S&V against Agassi. He went for two 1st serves and played
strong baseliner's game with Agassi. Basically no pure S&Ver cwould win
against Agassi.
The tennis guy said:
I would not say Sampras' volley was wristy. On the contrary, Sampras'
volley was simply block volleys. In most cases, his volley was not
agressive tools. He modeled his volleys after Laver's. When Laver came
into net, the point was already almost over, people said.
Just like Laver, Sampras volleys were
basically simple blocks and easy put aways, if I exaggerate a bit.
Having said that, I wouldn't say Federer has a net game as good as
Sampras of 23. In fact, 19 year old Sampras already exhibited superb
net game in his 1st US Open win in 1990. Also note that he always played
pure S&V in WImbledon. I really have not seen Federer's net game as solid
as 19 year old Sampras.
Federer's got a complete game. More balanced between offense and
defense than anyone I've ever seen. But I don't think I'll ever see
anyone who can balance baseline and net game better than Sampras....
dozu
Banned
among the players I have watched, Edberg has the BEST volley and was a true S&Ver naturally... Rafter belongs to that category but not quite have the same talent level as Edberg.
Sampras is NOT a natural S&Ver, he is basically a server, and his volleys are mostly quite easy because of those bullet serves. I'd put Becker in the same category.
It appears that with the modern racket technology, these players would not stand a chance against the big returners today, not even necessarily one as good as Fed, the way Hewitt and Safin took Sampras apart in the US open during Sampras later years show signs the game has evolved to baseline-centric.
During Sampras' prime, the only big returner was Agassi, but today's top players, e.g. Hewitt and Safin, already are returning better than Agassi..... so you see clearly what my position would be on all those Sampras vs. Fed arguments constantly show up on this board. The bottom line is Sampras was the best of his era, and Roger is the best of his own, it makes certain sense to compare their achievements, but it does NOT make sense at all to compare their games head to head, if there exists a time machine to put sampras at 23 years old on the same court with the 23 year old Federer, Fed will win in straight sets in any day, and I will bet my house on it any day.
Anyway, today's game is evolving towards an all-court style like what Roger is doing... and it's a good thing to see... I often hit with teenagers who are ranked regionally and they all look awful good during the baseline rallies, until I come to the net and they have NO passing shots or they are drawn to the net and they have NO volley to speak of, because none of them or their piers are trained at the net.
I think it's a great thing for Roger to sit on top of the hill with this elegant all-court style and I am sure in the coming years there will be more and more juniors copying and growing up with this style.... until that day, there is no foreseeable threat to Roger's dominance (dirt surface excluded), because the strategic match-up favors him so much against any current top-10's.
And back to the topic of whose volley is better? if you compare Sampras at his prime to the Federer of today, Sampras' volley is probably better because that is the foundation of his game! but in anycase, Edberg's volley is clearly the BEST in the business, because he does not blow people away with the serve. He hits the kick serve and expect the return to come back so the first volley is even a heavier portion of his game. (Rafter is pretty much the same).
Without this foundation, you'd see these S&V wonnabe's like Dent and Fish taken apart by opponents, due to lack of talent of their own, and those rocket returns from the modern rackets.
Sampras is NOT a natural S&Ver, he is basically a server, and his volleys are mostly quite easy because of those bullet serves. I'd put Becker in the same category.
It appears that with the modern racket technology, these players would not stand a chance against the big returners today, not even necessarily one as good as Fed, the way Hewitt and Safin took Sampras apart in the US open during Sampras later years show signs the game has evolved to baseline-centric.
During Sampras' prime, the only big returner was Agassi, but today's top players, e.g. Hewitt and Safin, already are returning better than Agassi..... so you see clearly what my position would be on all those Sampras vs. Fed arguments constantly show up on this board. The bottom line is Sampras was the best of his era, and Roger is the best of his own, it makes certain sense to compare their achievements, but it does NOT make sense at all to compare their games head to head, if there exists a time machine to put sampras at 23 years old on the same court with the 23 year old Federer, Fed will win in straight sets in any day, and I will bet my house on it any day.
Anyway, today's game is evolving towards an all-court style like what Roger is doing... and it's a good thing to see... I often hit with teenagers who are ranked regionally and they all look awful good during the baseline rallies, until I come to the net and they have NO passing shots or they are drawn to the net and they have NO volley to speak of, because none of them or their piers are trained at the net.
I think it's a great thing for Roger to sit on top of the hill with this elegant all-court style and I am sure in the coming years there will be more and more juniors copying and growing up with this style.... until that day, there is no foreseeable threat to Roger's dominance (dirt surface excluded), because the strategic match-up favors him so much against any current top-10's.
And back to the topic of whose volley is better? if you compare Sampras at his prime to the Federer of today, Sampras' volley is probably better because that is the foundation of his game! but in anycase, Edberg's volley is clearly the BEST in the business, because he does not blow people away with the serve. He hits the kick serve and expect the return to come back so the first volley is even a heavier portion of his game. (Rafter is pretty much the same).
Without this foundation, you'd see these S&V wonnabe's like Dent and Fish taken apart by opponents, due to lack of talent of their own, and those rocket returns from the modern rackets.
dozu said:
Federer is without a doubt the more spectacular player. However, Sampras was very very tough to beat on grass. His service games were so routine...breaking his service game was not at all easy. And I don't buy this stuff about Hewitt and Safin returning better. Sampras was not the same player in those last few US Open Finals in 1999 and 2000 I believe. He didn't have the same spring in his legs and just wasn't the same athlete. Many forget that he actually beat Safin in the US Open the following year before losing to Hewitt in the final.
I have no doubts that guys like Edberg, Becker, and Sampras could in fact compete in today's game. Obviously guys like Federer and Safin would certainly present tough challenges. However I am still of the belief that the best grass court game is the serve and volley game. Guys like Taylor Dent and Mardy Fish aren't as successful because they honestly lack the athleticism and court coverage that it takes to have success on grass.
sedwickdotcom
Rookie
doublehanded - skills at net are the same, but roddick's approaches aren't as smart, well-placed, or well-struck as fed's. id like rod over fed any day, but he needs to work on the aproach if he's ever going to make volleys a major weapon
volleying
I would have to say the opposite, I think Federer volleys better then Sampras. I know that Sampras was a good player, but I believe Sampras' serving is what got him as far as he did. That's not to say that he was bad at volleying or didn't have good ground strokes. However I believe Federer's game to be more rounded, and definitely more all court game. He still hasn't shown the big win on Clay at the French open, but he certainly has a chance to do it, where Sampras never had a chance at winning on clay.
Jukka
I would have to say the opposite, I think Federer volleys better then Sampras. I know that Sampras was a good player, but I believe Sampras' serving is what got him as far as he did. That's not to say that he was bad at volleying or didn't have good ground strokes. However I believe Federer's game to be more rounded, and definitely more all court game. He still hasn't shown the big win on Clay at the French open, but he certainly has a chance to do it, where Sampras never had a chance at winning on clay.
Jukka
diredesire
Moderator
jukka1970 said:
Winning a major, you mean? Sampras DID make it to the semi's in '96... that's not exactly bad, IMO.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Hevon vittu. ;-)jukka1970 said:
activentures
Rookie
Feds volleying is great compared to most guys on tour who are predominantly baseliners nowadays, but does not stand up against the likes of Rafter, Henman, Sampras etc. His hands ars surprisingly slow at the net when you consider his natural ability and talent in general play. Don't get me wrong, he is solid at the net, but there is definitely room for improvement which is kinda worrying for the rest.
L
laurie
Guest
dozu said:
Dozu, how do you explain that Sampras takes out Safin in straight sets in 2001 semi, a year after losing to him in the final? That shouldn't be possible from what you are saying. To me what explains that tournaround in result was that if Sampras was healthy in mind and body, his opponent knew they were in for a long day. In 2000 Sampras was not fresh against Safin. He thought the Super Saturday format affected older players and gives them less time to recover from niggles etc. It helps the younger players for sure.
Sampras played almost all the same players Roger is playing now bar the young ones like Ferrero, Nadal etc. I believe the likes of Muster, Moya, Kuerten, Corretja, Laarson, Courier, Kafelnikov, Costa, Enquist, Haas were all big returners. And Sampras beat them all in big finals and semis in slams and Masters tournaments. In fact against these guys Sampras had very incredible records. Bizarely in this list Laarson was the one who gave him most trouble. Sampras was 4:1 against Hewitt before he started declining and was actually losing to everyone he used to beat easily. Just think of that loss to Corretja on grass in 2002 Davis Cup when he was two sets up.
I too would like to see Federer's dominance attracting more all court players. Just as he was inspired by watching Sampras, Becker and Edberg. However, I don't see too many top class all court players right now. If you think how much trouble Roddick is having trying to play an all court game. I think the likes of Gasquet and Lopez might be the all court players in the next year or two once they have matured.
that's true dire, and there's certainly nothing wrong with making it to the semi-finals, that was a good accomplishment for him on clay. But I remember hearing the commentators during wimbledon during Pete's reign, saying that his game just wasn't tailored for the clay. But I still think overall that Federer's overall game is better, and that his groundstrokes are stronger. The difference between Federer and Sampras is that I think Federer does have his chance at winning a French Open.
I mean looking at all players men and women, there have been very few that excel at all 4 of the slams. Honestly I don't think we'll ever see someone repeat Graf's accomplishment of winning each slam at least 4 times each. And on top of that the game has changed so much in the last decade alone. Between racquet advancements, better sweet spots, I think it's going to be even more difficult to pull off. But Federer's construction of points and play around the court will at least give him a shot at the French open. The big question is, can Federer change his groundstrokes enough to adapt to the slower speed of clay.
I mean looking at all players men and women, there have been very few that excel at all 4 of the slams. Honestly I don't think we'll ever see someone repeat Graf's accomplishment of winning each slam at least 4 times each. And on top of that the game has changed so much in the last decade alone. Between racquet advancements, better sweet spots, I think it's going to be even more difficult to pull off. But Federer's construction of points and play around the court will at least give him a shot at the French open. The big question is, can Federer change his groundstrokes enough to adapt to the slower speed of clay.
Ballmachine
Semi-Pro
Everybody involved in this discussion should just take a look at Sampras' 2001 US Open quarter final match against Agassi. Watch his skills at the net and then get back to me. Your opinions should change dramatically.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
Heck Ballmachine, they should check out the '90 US Open Sampras-Agassi final. Sampras's volleys were always more solid than Fed at any age(Sampras was 19 then)
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Kevin Patrick said:
I watched three matches last night Sampras vs Agassi 90 US Open, Sampras vs Courier 91 US Open, Sampras vs Edberg 92 US Open, I don't see Sampras overall volley better than Federer.
Sampras better serve, more explosive forehand but less consistent; Federer better backhand, more consistent forehand, more consistent return; volley about even.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
You really think so tennis guy? Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I watched that '92 US Open final about 6 months ago. I remember some amazing volleys from Sampras in that match(one in particular, a backhand stab from mid-court(no man's land) that Sampras lunged for (did a 360)& was still able to stick it with enough pace to get in the corner. Tony Trabert said, "now that's something special."
I also remember many blasts that Agassi or Courier would hit straight at Samps that he was able to block (his wrist & forearm seems stronger than Fed in that retrospect, Fed seems to be wristy on very hard hit shots)
Also, I don't think it's a matter of just technique(as to why I think Sampras had superior volleys) but instincts. In that '90 US Open final, Agassi had Sampras beat on many exchanges but Sampras would "read" where he was going & cut off his passing shots. But that's just the way I saw it.
I also remember many blasts that Agassi or Courier would hit straight at Samps that he was able to block (his wrist & forearm seems stronger than Fed in that retrospect, Fed seems to be wristy on very hard hit shots)
Also, I don't think it's a matter of just technique(as to why I think Sampras had superior volleys) but instincts. In that '90 US Open final, Agassi had Sampras beat on many exchanges but Sampras would "read" where he was going & cut off his passing shots. But that's just the way I saw it.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
I agree Sampras moved better around the net than Federer, and dealing with low volley better than Federer. Overall volley technique and efficiency at that stage, Sampras was not better than Federer.
The other thing you have to remember, players today can hit more offensive shots out of position than in early 90s. Sampras improved his volley dramatically since he hooked up with Annacone.
The other thing you have to remember, players today can hit more offensive shots out of position than in early 90s. Sampras improved his volley dramatically since he hooked up with Annacone.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
I think Sampras had better efficiency than Federer because he came to net so much more than Fed. What % of Fed's points have been won at net last year & this year(all surfaces) compared to Sampras at the same age('93-'95)?
I read an interview with Fed in which he said he got discouraged by coming to net if he was passed. I think he just has a baseliner's mentality. Sampras wouldn't get discouraged by getting passed, even early in his career.
Also, I think "some" of today's players can hit more offensive shots out of position than the early 90s. Roddick is not one of them IMO. Plus Agassi & Courier's passing shots were better than many of today's players because they were forced to hit them more often. No one S&V's as much as they did back then. And Agassi was capable of some truly amazing out of position passing shots in the early 90s.
I read an interview with Fed in which he said he got discouraged by coming to net if he was passed. I think he just has a baseliner's mentality. Sampras wouldn't get discouraged by getting passed, even early in his career.
Also, I think "some" of today's players can hit more offensive shots out of position than the early 90s. Roddick is not one of them IMO. Plus Agassi & Courier's passing shots were better than many of today's players because they were forced to hit them more often. No one S&V's as much as they did back then. And Agassi was capable of some truly amazing out of position passing shots in the early 90s.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Kevin Patrick said:
Exclude Wimbledon, Sampras between 92-94 didn't come to net more than Federer does right now. The criticism of Sampras back then was the same you directed at Federer today, not coming to the net enough. Sampras only came to net more against serve and volleyers during that period, Federer does the same but fewer serve and vollyer today.
Grass has changed since 2002, the year Federer lost in the first round, Sampras lost in the second round. Federer said clearly in 2003, and many agreed, he lost because he served and volleyed too much, it was too risky to serve and volley all the time due to the slowness and high bounce of new grass. Henman complained many times that it is almost impossible to serve and volley all the time at W these days.
As I said many times, if the W grass stays the same as 2001, the year Federer beat Sampras there, Federer would come to the net a lot more. He did in that match on almost every serve.
The tennis guy said:
I don't think we can really compare the technique itself.
If you liked Federer's technique better, what can I say.
But Sampras obviously had more solid net game from the time he
debuted in pro-circuit.
In 1990 US Open against Lendle and McAnroe, I remember
some people saying "he play like a McAnroe". Obvously not terribly
correct comments but people were refering to his serve and volley
technqiue. After 1990 US Open loss to Sampras, McAnroe' comments
:"It's obvious how strong he was at the net but I was really surprised
how strong he was from the baseline."..
The tennis guy said:
I wouldn't say he improved his "volley" under Annacone.
He encouraged Sampras incorporate more of net game like chip and charge.
Most of Sampras's strokes were flat initially but got polished
with spin under Tim Gulikson who really shaped Sampras'
mature game.
The tennis guy said:
It's true some people said Sampras should come to net more often.
For example, he always wanted to win againt Korda from the baseline.
But Sampras at 24 still S&Ved way more than Federer on all surfaces.
The tennis guy said:
Your basic argument seems to be
1. Federer does not come to net because surface and nature of game
changed
2. If he does come to the net, he will do better.
3. So his volley is better or as good as Sampras.
This is not very convincing argument. Federer is extrememly talented
and has potential to be also good at net. He is still human and still
has thing s to improve.
Federer does not have good net game yet and not exaclty as
successfull at the net as from the baseline. It would be interesting to
see how Federer's game evolves. So far Sampras is only guy
I've ever seen who could be playing top notch tennis
both at the net and from the baseline....
Sampras had a slight edge over Federer, though not because of technique but because of equipment and commitment. That weighted 85 strung at 70lbs was a volley machine. Federer, from what I understand, has a more baseliner strung raquet, tension and string.
I think Federer knows that his serve is not strong enough to simply SV all the time but he uses it as very serious weapon for the rest of his game. I remember one point at the Oz Open against Agassi where he tried to serve and volley and Agassi passed him without much effort. Needless to say, he did not return to the net.
Neither of them volley as well as Edberg, Rafter or Max Mirnyi. Unfortunately for Mirnyi that's the only thing he does well and in today's game that's not enough. Rafter was an S&V machine as well, against everyone, but only on on hardcourts. Edberg's record speaks for itself.
Sampras played several loose points, both on volleys and returns, many more than Federer, or Rafter at his peak. The fact that he got away with so many loose points just proves how great his overall game was.
Cavaleer
I think Federer knows that his serve is not strong enough to simply SV all the time but he uses it as very serious weapon for the rest of his game. I remember one point at the Oz Open against Agassi where he tried to serve and volley and Agassi passed him without much effort. Needless to say, he did not return to the net.
Neither of them volley as well as Edberg, Rafter or Max Mirnyi. Unfortunately for Mirnyi that's the only thing he does well and in today's game that's not enough. Rafter was an S&V machine as well, against everyone, but only on on hardcourts. Edberg's record speaks for itself.
Sampras played several loose points, both on volleys and returns, many more than Federer, or Rafter at his peak. The fact that he got away with so many loose points just proves how great his overall game was.
Cavaleer
I surprised there is such debate on this. Of course Sampras has a better volley. He made his living at the net. Fed spends most of his time at the baseline. I don't see how there is any debate here.
It's like saying Lendl had better volleys than Mac. Granted, that is a more extreme example.
It's like saying Lendl had better volleys than Mac. Granted, that is a more extreme example.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
I guess you are too young to remember the days Sampras played predominantly on the baseline except on grass.newnuse said:
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
fastdunn said:
Well, if you want to rely on your memory of comments here and there, there is nothing I can say. I just watched three Sampras matches in early 90s on hard court, I don't see him coming to the net much more than Federer does.
Sampras' forehand volley was very wristy in early 90s, it became much more firm and punch since mid 90s.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
fastdunn said:
That's your mis-intepretation of what I said. Grass back in early 90s exegerate how much Sampras came to net.
Again, I watched several early 90s Sampras matches on hard court, he didn't come to net much more than Federer does. I am not arguing Sampras came to net much more since mid 90s. It seems that's what everyone remembers. Again, go back watch Sampras matches on hard court in early 90s, he came to net more only against serve and volleyers. Federer does the same thing right now. The problem is not many serve and volleyer to play against today. Against baseliner, they are about the same at same stage of their career.
joe sch
Legend
Federer short game does not compare to Sampras.
This is why I believe Sampras would win if both were at thier best on grass.
Sampras mastered all the volleys, half volleys and serve/vollies on grass because he played competition that forced him to rely on these weapons to win. Without Petes mastery of this short game, he would not have dominated Agassi, Ivanesivic, Becker, Edberg and won 5 wimbledon titles ! I believe Roger could develop this short game also if his competition required these skills and he has Tony Roche just as such an insurance policy.
This is why I believe Sampras would win if both were at thier best on grass.
Sampras mastered all the volleys, half volleys and serve/vollies on grass because he played competition that forced him to rely on these weapons to win. Without Petes mastery of this short game, he would not have dominated Agassi, Ivanesivic, Becker, Edberg and won 5 wimbledon titles ! I believe Roger could develop this short game also if his competition required these skills and he has Tony Roche just as such an insurance policy.
Phil Daddario
Rookie
Roger isn't exactly bad.
Sampras got through with hard work. Honestly, he was NOT a natural volleyer. Forget the soft hands, he didn't have them. But he prepared, as someone else said a perfect example of textbook volleying rather than natural feel.
His serve allowed him to maximize the volleying. If you had the "short game" or volleying on it's own, I believe they'd be equal or Federer even a little better.
And still, as someone else stated, all anyone seems to remember about Sampras is S&V. He played just like Federer for the most part, and stayed back the majority of the time except at Wimbledon.
Sampras got through with hard work. Honestly, he was NOT a natural volleyer. Forget the soft hands, he didn't have them. But he prepared, as someone else said a perfect example of textbook volleying rather than natural feel.
His serve allowed him to maximize the volleying. If you had the "short game" or volleying on it's own, I believe they'd be equal or Federer even a little better.
And still, as someone else stated, all anyone seems to remember about Sampras is S&V. He played just like Federer for the most part, and stayed back the majority of the time except at Wimbledon.
The tennis guy said:
No, I'm not too young. Sampras was a baseliner as a junior with a two hander. He switched to a one hander and S&V style because he wanted to win Wimbledon.
He tended to stay at the baseline more as a young pro, but he still ventured to the net much more often than Fed. His net game was better than Fed, even as a young pro. At his peak, there is no comparison on net game. You are comparing a top level S&V'er vs a mostly baseline player.
Sampras was no Mac, Edberg, Cash.. etc but was still a very good net player. Fed is not on the same level as Sampras. How can Fed be? The guy plays from the baseline the majority of the time, even on grass.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
newnuse said:
This is the problem people like you have, "I remember, I remember", your memory is wrong. Go watch more Sampras matches in early to mid 90s. You mistaken Sampras of early to mid 90s with late 90s. In 1995 at Indian Wells where Sampras beat Agassi 7-5, 6-3, 7-5, Sampras went to net 32 times won 20 points, that's about to the net 1 time per game. Is that much more than Federer does? Sampras beat Agassi because he could stay with him at the baseline, plus he could come to the net.
As I said, Sampras always went to net on grass, and to the net a lot against serve and volleyer, but against baseliner, he stayed on the baseline much more than coming to the net in early to mid 90s.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Phil Daddario said:
Exactly. People keep bring up I remember, I remember, well you don't remember exactly regarding early to mid 90s. Go back watch some tapes of his old matches.
I watched two again last night, one against Agassi in 95 at Indian Wells, one against Schalken in 97 in Philly, the score was like 3 6 7 5 6 3 , even then Sampras went to net only 29 times.
Okay, I'll take your word on the two matches you watched again.
Let's take Pete's game on grass vs Fed's game on grass. Pete S&V on grass. He was a S&V'er. A very good one as you can see by his 7 titles. Fed does not come to the net nearly as often. His volley when compared to a S&V'er like Sampras is inferior.
Fed just does not S&V as often as Sampras did. That part of his game is not as developed as Sampras was in his prime. You cannot compare Fed's volley vs Pete's volleys when Pete was younger. That does not make sense. At his peak (in terms of volleys), Pete was a better volleyer. Fed might get that level some day, but I doubt it. He just does not venture to the net enough. The guy is just not a S&V player on any surface.
Let's take Pete's game on grass vs Fed's game on grass. Pete S&V on grass. He was a S&V'er. A very good one as you can see by his 7 titles. Fed does not come to the net nearly as often. His volley when compared to a S&V'er like Sampras is inferior.
Fed just does not S&V as often as Sampras did. That part of his game is not as developed as Sampras was in his prime. You cannot compare Fed's volley vs Pete's volleys when Pete was younger. That does not make sense. At his peak (in terms of volleys), Pete was a better volleyer. Fed might get that level some day, but I doubt it. He just does not venture to the net enough. The guy is just not a S&V player on any surface.
Kevin Patrick
Hall of Fame
tennis guy,
I was watching some of the '94 Sampras-Courier Lipton SF last night (a very slow hardcourt)
Strictly by numbers at net, you would think he didn't go there that often. But there were quite a few service winners/faults in which he clearly was coming forward. He even threw in a few S&V on 2nd serves. And when he had an opening during a rally, he would try to get in.
My point is, his instincts included an attacking mentality(more so than Federer who seems more content to finish off points with a forehand than volley when faced with a choice) even at a young age.
Regardless of stats involving points at net, I just don't think Fed is as willing to get in.
I was watching some of the '94 Sampras-Courier Lipton SF last night (a very slow hardcourt)
Strictly by numbers at net, you would think he didn't go there that often. But there were quite a few service winners/faults in which he clearly was coming forward. He even threw in a few S&V on 2nd serves. And when he had an opening during a rally, he would try to get in.
My point is, his instincts included an attacking mentality(more so than Federer who seems more content to finish off points with a forehand than volley when faced with a choice) even at a young age.
Regardless of stats involving points at net, I just don't think Fed is as willing to get in.
Similar threads
- RogerRulez
- General Pro Player Discussion
