Federer's Ability To Serve And Volley

[380pistol]

I've been reading all this Roger can serve and volley nonsense around here is based on his 2001 match vs Sampras?? Then many go further saying he wasn't in his prime (a month before his 20th b-day) and all that.

What many don't understand is that is one of the best matches Roger has ever played... ever. All this he wasn't in his prime then means nothing, many play at beyond their years for a match or two or for a tournament, see....

Borg (1974 French Open)
Becker (1985 Wimbledon)
Edberg (1985 Australian Open)
Chang (1989 French Open)
Sampras (1990 US Open)
Safin (2000 US Open)

... only Marat was out of his teens at the time of these respective times. Is someone gonna logically argue Sampras' 1990 demolition of Agassi wan't one one of the greates matches Pete ever played cuz he was only 19 and didn't peak til 3 years later?? Do a search it came it #7 on my list of top 10 Sampras performances. The only difference bewteen Federer and these players, is that they went on to win that respective tournament while Roger didn't. Sampras had issues in 1991, Chang never won another slam (though lost finals to Sampras, Becker and Muster on clay), and Safin is... well.... Safin. Edberg and Becker didn't reach #1 until the next decade. And many would say Borgss peak was 1976-80, two years after his RG performance.

Now Federer could serve and volley so well what happened the next rd vs Henman?? He was young and inconsistent. Well in 2002 he was year more mature, ranked in the top 10, and Mac picked him at Wimbledon. Welll Rogers's erve and volley game brought him a loss to Schalken in Halle and and a fist rd exit to 18 year old Ancic.

Now he 's a good volleyer and can serve and volley at times, but to make a living doing it?? No. All this if he played in the 80's or 90's he'd serve and volley... whatever. Again...no. If he played, he'd probably be a more aggressive, or at least a n all courter that he was, and not the baseliner he's become in this day and age. All this he'd have to serve and volley is also nonsense. While I don't think Federer is the greatest pure baseliner (other facets are what make him great), but Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi and Courier all more thanheld their own from the baseline so why wouldn't Federer??

But Roger becoming this great serve and volleyer or any kind of serve and volley, come on now?? Before you mention Sampras 2001 and Henman, Schalken and Ancic!!

 

[Blinkism]

Kafelnikov def. Federer - 2000 Wimbledon Round 1

Second half of the clip is Fed serving. He stays at the baseline (and the commentators comment, in Russian, that this was the trend throughout the match, basically).

Federer being a S&V'er is a myth. He never S&V'ed more than half the time, and the "highlights" of his Sampras match only show him S&V'ing most of the time but anyone who remembers the match live will remember him sticking around the baseline for all the return games and staying behind for his second serves.

He basically S&V'ed 40% of the time in that match. And that was not usual from him.

Otherwise, from what I remember from 2000 until 2003ish; Federer was not a S&V'er and had a noted baseline game.

Federer is one of the greatest players even from the baseline, but his S&V was not his biggest weapon and is now a rare thing to see.

EDIT: I found a clip where it shows more baseline points from the Sampras-Federer match, to prove my point - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyia6sByOns&feature=related

And another clip of Hewitt playing Federer in 2001 in Rosmalen, just weeks before the famous Sampras match, where Federer plays more S&V and gets beaten by Hewitt - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AashZp6JiyA&feature=related.

Fed changed his grass style in the Sampras match to include more baseline rallies and focused on a better return game.

Federer's new baseline style made it easier for him to beat Hewitt in future matches, also.

 

[lawrence]

damn hewitt was fast back then

 

[zagor]

I've been reading all this Roger can serve and volley nonsense around here is based on his 2001 match vs Sampras?? Then many go further saying he wasn't in his prime (a month before his 20th b-day) and all that.

What many don't understand is that is one of the best matches Roger has ever played... ever. All this he wasn't in his prime then means nothing, many play at beyond their years for a match or two or for a tournament, see....

Borg (1974 French Open)
Becker (1985 Wimbledon)
Edberg (1985 Australian Open)
Chang (1989 French Open)
Sampras (1990 US Open)
Safin (2000 US Open)

... only Marat was out of his teens at the time of these respective times. Is someone gonna logically argue Sampras' 1990 demolition of Agassi wan't one one of the greates matches Pete ever played cuz he was only 19 and didn't peak til 3 years later?? Do a search it came it #7 on my list of top 10 Sampras performances. The only difference bewteen Federer and these players, is that they went on to win that respective tournament while Roger didn't. Sampras had issues in 1991, Chang never won another slam (though lost finals to Sampras, Becker and Muster on clay), and Safin is... well.... Safin. Edberg and Becker didn't reach #1 until the next decade. And many would say Borgss peak was 1976-80, two years after his RG performance.

Now Federer could serve and volley so well what happened the next rd vs Henman?? He was young and inconsistent. Well in 2002 he was year more mature, ranked in the top 10, and Mac picked him at Wimbledon. Welll Rogers's erve and volley game brought him a loss to Schalken in Halle and and a fist rd exit to 18 year old Ancic.

Now he 's a good volleyer and can serve and volley at times, but to make a living doing it?? No. All this if he played in the 80's or 90's he'd serve and volley... whatever. Again...no. If he played, he'd probably be a more aggressive, or at least a n all courter that he was, and not the baseliner he's become in this day and age. All this he'd have to serve and volley is also nonsense. While I don't think Federer is the greatest pure baseliner (other facets are what make him great), but Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi and Courier all more thanheld their own from the baseline so why wouldn't Federer??

But Roger becoming this great serve and volleyer or any kind of serve and volley, come on now?? Before you mention Sampras 2001 and Henman, Schalken and Ancic!!

I agree that Fed wouldn't have been a S&V in any era.IMO if he played in the 90s,80s he would have been a true all-court player(he would work on his skills at the net more because of faster surfaces and conditions)but his greatest strength would have remained his baseline play and transition from defense to offense.

As for Sampras 2001 match,I disagree that that was one of the best matches Fed played nor do I think that he was in his prime,his prime IMO began in 2004.

 

[Blinkism]

I agree that Fed wouldn't have been a S&V in any era.IMO if he played in the 90s,80s he would have been a true all-court player(he would work on his skills at the net more because of faster surfaces and conditions)but his greatest strength would have remained his baseline play and transition from defense to offense.

As for Sampras 2001 match,I disagree that that was one of the best matches Fed played nor do I think that he was in his prime,his prime IMO began in 2004.

I fully agree! He's one of the greatest baseliners, but part of his struggle in his early career was with playing the S&V'ers. He was losing to S&V'ers on clay, even!

His own S&V was not strong enough to go toe-to-toe with these guys, so he perfected his baseline game.

And, personally, I'm all the more grateful for it! His baseline game opened the door for guys like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, and everyone else today who took cue's from Federer, Hewitt, and Safin who killed the S&V game.

People hype S&V too much. It's really an inferior form of game, IMO, but I won't get in to that (don't want to hijack this thread). It's a nice technique to use to "mix it up", but S&V'ing every point on a service game is just completely boring and not fun to watch, for me.

 

[zagor]

I fully agree! He's one of the greatest baseliners, but part of his struggle in his early career was with playing the S&V'ers. He was losing to S&V'ers on clay, even!

His own S&V was not strong enough to go toe-to-toe with these guys, so he perfected his baseline game.

And, personally, I'm all the more grateful for it! His baseline game opened the door for guys like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, and everyone else today who took cue's from Federer, Hewitt, and Safin who killed the S&V game.

People hype S&V too much. It's really an inferior form of game, IMO, but I won't get in to that (don't want to hijack this thread). It's a nice technique to use to "mix it up", but S&V'ing every point on a service game is just completely boring and not fun to watch, for me.

I can understand why someone views a match between 2 serve and volleyers boring(I personally don't but can understand it)but a match-up between serve and volleyer and a baseliner is about as good as tennis gets for me.It's contrast of styles that makes it so entertaining-Rafter-Agassi,Sampras-Agassi,Courier-Edberg etc. those are the best matches for me.

 

[Blinkism]

I can understand why someone views a match between 2 serve and volleyers boring(I personally don't but can understand it)but a match-up between serve and volleyer and a baseliner is about as good as tennis gets for me.It's contrast of styles that makes it so entertaining-Rafter-Agassi,Sampras-Agassi,Courier-Edberg etc. those are the best matches for me.

I suppose, but I'm still happy with the way tennis evolved and Federer's a big part of that. Before 2005 my favorite player was Federer, followed by Hewitt and Safin.

And my favorite part of the beginning of this decade was seeing Hewitt and Safin beat up on S&V'ers, so I see your point about baseliner vs. S&V'er.

First match I ever saw was Agassi-Sampras in the final of the Canada Masters (I believe is was 1995).. Great match! It was Agassi beating Sampras with amazing baseline rallies and passing shots on his return game.

But, Ivanisevic vs. Sampras was a snoozefest, for me.

 

[rwn]

I've been reading all this Roger can serve and volley nonsense around here is based on his 2001 match vs Sampras?? Then many go further saying he wasn't in his prime (a month before his 20th b-day) and all that.

What many don't understand is that is one of the best matches Roger has ever played... ever. All this he wasn't in his prime then means nothing, many play at beyond their years for a match or two or for a tournament, see....

Borg (1974 French Open)
Becker (1985 Wimbledon)
Edberg (1985 Australian Open)
Chang (1989 French Open)
Sampras (1990 US Open)
Safin (2000 US Open)

... only Marat was out of his teens at the time of these respective times. Is someone gonna logically argue Sampras' 1990 demolition of Agassi wan't one one of the greates matches Pete ever played cuz he was only 19 and didn't peak til 3 years later?? Do a search it came it #7 on my list of top 10 Sampras performances. The only difference bewteen Federer and these players, is that they went on to win that respective tournament while Roger didn't. Sampras had issues in 1991, Chang never won another slam (though lost finals to Sampras, Becker and Muster on clay), and Safin is... well.... Safin. Edberg and Becker didn't reach #1 until the next decade. And many would say Borgss peak was 1976-80, two years after his RG performance.

Now Federer could serve and volley so well what happened the next rd vs Henman?? He was young and inconsistent. Well in 2002 he was year more mature, ranked in the top 10, and Mac picked him at Wimbledon. Welll Rogers's erve and volley game brought him a loss to Schalken in Halle and and a fist rd exit to 18 year old Ancic.

Now he 's a good volleyer and can serve and volley at times, but to make a living doing it?? No. All this if he played in the 80's or 90's he'd serve and volley... whatever. Again...no. If he played, he'd probably be a more aggressive, or at least a n all courter that he was, and not the baseliner he's become in this day and age. All this he'd have to serve and volley is also nonsense. While I don't think Federer is the greatest pure baseliner (other facets are what make him great), but Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi and Courier all more thanheld their own from the baseline so why wouldn't Federer??

But Roger becoming this great serve and volleyer or any kind of serve and volley, come on now?? Before you mention Sampras 2001 and Henman, Schalken and Ancic!!

Poor Pete. He grinded and grinded to get to 14 grand slam titles in 12 years, surviving many 5-setters against mediocre players on the way. He thinks he has an amazing record set for the ages. And then comes Federer: he surpasses Pete in 6 years time, hardly breaking a sweat. I can totally understand Sampras' fans have such a need to troll about Federer.

 

[zagor]

I suppose, but I'm still happy with the way tennis evolved and Federer's a big part of that. Before 2005 my favorite player was Federer, followed by Hewitt and Safin.

And my favorite part of the beginning of this decade was seeing Hewitt and Safin beat up on S&V'ers, so I see your point about baseliner vs. S&V'er.

First match I ever saw was Agassi-Sampras in the final of the Canada Masters (I believe is was 1995).. Great match! It was Agassi beating Sampras with amazing baseline rallies and passing shots on his return game.

But, Ivanisevic vs. Sampras was a snoozefest, for me.

Oh yes,I understand it was for most people .But there was something about Goran's serve,it was just a thing of beauty for me,I could watch that serve all day.On the other hand I find Karlovic's serve for example boring,it's just seems like a slam dunk for me but guys like Goran and Krajicek I really liked their serves.Plus Goran had a really funny on court personality,he was more entertaining than Safin for me.

Also Sampras with his athleticism,power and precision was always fun to watch,the guy was really fast around court.I was never that much of a fan of him(the way I am a fan of Fed)but I certainly liked hs game well enough.

 

[Blinkism]

Oh yes,I understand it was for most people .But there was something about Goran's serve,it was just a thing of beauty for me,I could watch that serve all day.On the other hand I find Karlovic's serve for example boring,it's just seems like a slam dunk for me but guys like Goran and Krajicek I really liked their serves.Plus Goran had a really funny on court personality,he was more entertaining than Safin for me.

Also Sampras with his athleticism,power and precision was always fun to watch,the guy was really fast around court.I was never that much of a fan of him(the way I am a fan of Fed)but I certainly liked hs game well enough.

I guess, maybe you're older than me (I'm in my late 20's) so maybe you've seen more S&V tennis than I have. I started playing tennis in 87 or 88 as a kid and all my coaches were about S&V, so I have no inherent bias against it. It wasn't until I was about 16 or something like that, when topspin and recovering to the middle of the baseline was a big thing (a shift towards a baseline game). Something about the baseline game really got my attention then and I only got to see it thawed out at the French and other clay tourney's on TV.

But now it's everywhere and it's ultimate form is in Federer and Nadal. Can't ask for more!

I can see how fans of S&V are unhappy that no one's playing like that anymore. I'll admit, even I get giddy at the sight of some S&V (nostalgia, maybe?), like Haas is playing now and sometimes Karlovic.

It's not the same, though.

It was a combination of Agassi, Kuerten, and Moya in the late 1990's and Safin, Federer, and Hewitt in the early 2000's that really made this shift happen, even though there was always baseline tennis (like Lendl and Courier) around.

I'd actually say Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon win was really the biggest shift and Federer's first few GS's really put the nail in the S&V coffin, and now the baseline game rules.

Anyways, back on topic - Federer was never a S&V'er, although he did have that aspect of his game in the early 2000's.