Sampras vs. Rafter...who had the better net game?

[Azzurri]

While I have a whole lot of respect and admiration for Patrick Rafter, I feel Sampras was the better net player. Some people think Sampras's serve was the only reason he was good at the net, I disagree. Sampras's serve was made better by his net game. He did not possess the power of Goran and Roddick (not saying he served wimpy), but he did have a great 2nd serve. Let's hear it...Sampras or Rafter.

 

[Fearsome Forehand]

I think Rafter was a better volleyer than Pete. Rafter was perhaps the best volleyer of his generation along with Edberg.

Pete was a very good volleyer but between the two, I'd have to go with The Skunk.

 

[Azzurri]

I think Rafter was a better volleyer than Pete. Rafter was perhaps the best volleyer of his generation along with Edberg.

Pete was a very good volleyer but between the two, I'd have to go with The Skunk. ;O) .

my issue with ranking Rafter ahead of Sampras is Rafter never won Wimbledon...the ultimate test for a S&V player (prior to 2001). Pete dominated a surface that was mostly won by S&V players from 1982-2000.
I would say, without doubt, that Rafter is the best S&V player to NOT win Wimbledon. I though he was much better than Henman.

 

[stormholloway]

But read the title. It says net game. Once each player is at net, who is more dangerous?

I think Pete gets slammed for being an average volleyer by a lot of people because he isn't Edberg, Rafter, or McEnroe. I think he's top five easy.

But add the serve in, and he's probably the best serve and volleyer ever.

 

[coloskier]

Rafter may have had the quicker reflexes, but Sampras had the better approach shots and putaway slice volleys.

 

[Azzurri]

But read the title. It says net game. Once each player is at net, who is more dangerous?

I think Pete gets slammed for being an average volleyer by a lot of people because he isn't Edberg, Rafter, or McEnroe. I think he's top five easy.

But add the serve in, and he's probably the best serve and volleyer ever.

Yea..you're right. When I say net game I also mean coming in to net on groundstrokes and serving. I agree with you, he is a top 5 S&V and net player. Some people think he is way overrated, but how can someone like Sampras have an overrated net game when he won 7 Wimbledon titles..perplexing.

I just won't and can't rate Rafter that high...he never won Wimbledon even at a time when there were far fewer net (S&V) players. He had a poor record against Pete and that is who we are comparing him to. Pete came to net all the time after 1996...he was a pure net player after that point of his career and he still won 4 more Wimby titles..what does that say for Rafter? I have yet to hear WHY or HOW Rafter is better...some arguements for. So far NONE.

 

[Azzurri]

Rafter may have had the quicker reflexes, but Sampras had the better approach shots and putaway slice volleys.

OK...we are getting somewhere. I see your point. Rafter was incredibly fast (hands) and reminded me of Mac to a point. That is obviosuly a gift he was born with. Hand speed is a good point. Not bad, but I need more...give me more.

The approach shots and put aways make Sampras better at the net.

 

[2 Cent]

Sampras beat Rafter in 5 sets at Wimbeldon 2000, to break Emerson's record. that says it all.

 

[Mad iX]

Rafter was smoother but Sampras could put them away better. They both did different things better.

 

[prosealster]

rafter had way better volleying skills than sampras.... (which is what net game is supposed to mean)...but if you factor in serve, approach shots.... you're essentially asking who has the better ATTACKING game....rather than who has the better net game ...in that case....Sampras easily

 

[Andres]

Rafter (10 characters)

 

[rod99]

Sampras beat Rafter in 5 sets at Wimbeldon 2000, to break Emerson's record. that says it all.

4 sets. and that has nothing to do with who had better volleys.

 

[scotus]

One time Pete played doubles with Edberg in LA.

Pete completely out-volleyed Edberg there (well, I guess Edberg was reaching the end of his career, so it is not a fair comparison).

 

[federerfanatic]

Rafter. Pete was a great volleyer obviously, in an era of many more quality volleyers then today. However Rafter was the best in the World at that time, at his peak.

 

[AndrewD]

If you really want to think that Sampras was better than everyone is all departments, that's fine. However, if you want a more honest answer than would satisfy the average fanboy, there's simply no way you can rank his net game or approach shots ahead of Rafter's. Actually, there is a way but it would involve not having seen the two play up close and not having any idea what constitutes good volleys and approach shots.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Well i pick sampras. People act like he was not a great volleyer. Plus his overhead is michael jordan caliber.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7s1ap03Vvo

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Rafter Highlights Seems like he has to work much harder than sampras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAc_ljAqxZM

 

[paterson]

I asked this question to Todd Martin during an online chat at Wimbledon. He said Rafter "hands down".

 

[Elina]

Pat Rafter, absolutely. He was so athletic and made it to impossible passes and managed to hit good volleys from those.

 

[Red Velvet]

Sampras' half-volleys were the smoothest I ever seen. On the other hand, Rafter had a huge presence at the net (not to mention his BH smash...).
But overall, I have to pick Sampras. A net game is not only volleys but includes the serve, anticipation and such. So I'd say that Sampras' net game was more complete (and thus better) than Rafter's.

 

[Andres]

Sampras' half-volleys were the smoothest I ever seen. On the other hand, Rafter had a huge presence at the net (not to mention his BH smash...).
But overall, I have to pick Sampras. A net game is not only volleys but includes the serve, anticipation and such. So I'd say that Sampras' net game was more complete (and thus better) than Rafter's.

No. Net game DOESN'T include serve. It does include transition game, and approach shots, but it DOESN'T include the serve.

If it does, then Karlovic & Goran > Rafter > Edberg > McEnroe, and we all know it's NOT.

 

[Andres]

Rafter Highlights Seems like he has to work much harder than sampras.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAc_ljAqxZM

Rafter hightlights: A video without a single point won by Pat. Smooth.
It's another Pete highlights vid.

This is Pat vs. Korda, 1997: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tga5sHDhoPE
Ivanisevic vs Rafter, 1996: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3MtK33O2q4

They're not highlights (except the 1st one, perhaps), so you don't see a highlight reel with OH, so many amazing winners.

OK, they're not good examples, but I couldn't find a higlights reel. I may have to compile one myself

 

[laurie]

I say Sampras because Rafter had a technically poor forehand volley. His wrsit often jerked on contact and he made a lot of errors off that side throughout his career, especially off hard hit shots. That was something that was discussed often by analysts throughout his career.

In contrast Sampras has one of the best technical forehand volleys, firm wrist, takes the ball out in front and knifes the ball with slice. He's the only serve and volleyer I can think of who didn't play with a wrist band, despite using the heaviest frame. He only started using a wrist band consistently in 2001.

Definitely Rafter was very rugged and athletic whilst Sampras was very smooth but equally athletic, because his movement was smooth it's deceptive.

I would also give half volleys to Sampras and the backhand smash to Rafter.

 

[Red Velvet]

Net game DOESN'T include serve

Sorry but to me the serve IS an approach shot. You cannot serve and volley (thus the name...) with a poor serve. First comes the serve and then the volley, so when you talk about "Net game" you have to include the serve.

Karlovic & Goran > Rafter > Edberg > McEnroe, and we all know it's NOT

¨

You seem to forget one thing in this ranking : volleys !!!!!
I remember you the question is about "Net game" between Sampras and Rafter, not a specific shot and other players. Anyway, here's my ranking regarding the "net game" :

Big Mac > ( due his talent) Sampras > (slightly) Edberg and Becker > Rafter

Don't even bother with Karlovic & Goran (especially Karlo) whom I consider as "random-thanks to my big serve" volleyers...

 

[Andres]

Sorry but to me the serve IS an approach shot. You cannot serve and volley (thus the name...) with a poor serve. First comes the serve and then the volley, so when you talk about "Net game" you have to include the serve.

You seem to forget one thing in this ranking : volleys !!!!!
I remember you the question is about "Net game" between Sampras and Rafter, not a specific shot and other players. Anyway, here's my ranking regarding the "net game" :

Big Mac > ( due his talent) Sampras > (slightly) Edberg and Becker > Rafter

Don't even bother with Karlovic & Goran (especially Karlo) whom I consider as "random-thanks to my big serve" volleyers...

That's precisely the point. I forgot to mention the volleys, since you included the serve as 'net game'. Well, they have a biiiiiiiig net game.

And Henman doesn't have a great serve, but he excels at S&V because of his great touch at the net.

And for the record, net game ISN'T all about S&V. Chip & Charge is purely net game, and you don't have a single serve there.

So, if we have to include the serve on 'Serve & Volley', he have to add the Return too. So basically, everything is net game besides a backhand and a forehand.

Net game is net game. Is right there in the name: NET GAME. Is what you do between the service line and the net. The return and the serve are not part of the net game.

 

[Red Velvet]

Chip & Charge is purely net game

Please, just tell me from WHERE are you chipping and charging ?!!!

you included the serve as 'net game'

Yes I did but I never excluded the "Chip and charge"...

And Henman doesn't have a great serve, but he excels at S&V because of his great touch at the net.

That's exactly the point : one can say that Henman has a good net game, thanks to his S&V. By the way, he's not bad at the C&C too.

 

[Andres]

Please, just tell me from WHERE are you chipping and charging ?!!!

From the baseline, returning serve.

Yes I did but I never excluded the "Chip and charge"...

No, but if you included the serve as Net Game, I'll include the Return of Serve, then....

That's exactly the point : one can say that Henman has a good net game, thanks to his S&V. By the way, he's not bad at the C&C too.

No, that's exactly the opposite of your point. You said you can't have a great net game with a poor serve, because first comes the serve, and then, the volley. Henman doesn't have a great serve (it could be way better), but has excellent volleys. That's why he has a great net game. It's not because of his serve.

First comes the serve and then the volley, so when you talk about "Net game" you have to include the serve.

When you Chip&Charge, you don't serve, you RETURN serves. So that means C&C isn't net game? Or maybe we should exclude the serve from the equation? Or perhaps adding the return of serve as well?

 

[Azzurri]

If you really want to think that Sampras was better than everyone is all departments, that's fine. However, if you want a more honest answer than would satisfy the average fanboy, there's simply no way you can rank his net game or approach shots ahead of Rafter's. Actually, there is a way but it would involve not having seen the two play up close and not having any idea what constitutes good volleys and approach shots.

Enlighten us...

 

[Red Velvet]

NET GAME. Is what you do between the service line and the net

Your definition...followed by this :

Chip & Charge is purely net game

and

From the baseline, returning serve

My point is when you're rating a net game, the serve must be taken in consideration because it's included in a S&V sequence. And quite strangely, those who possess a strong net game are often good S&V players as well...
As for the return, it's usually not considered as part of the net game because of its "one and only" use. The ONLY moment when a return could be considered as part of the net game is when applying a C&C scheme.

 

[Azzurri]

OK...so for those of you that thnk Rafter is better, riddle me this:

WHY DID PATRICK RAFTER NEVER WIN WIMBLEDON?

This is a huge part of the debate. Please don't give me any garbage about his weak serve and ground game...Edberg was lacking a solid groundgame too. Pat Cash won!! Hell, even Lendl made 2 finals in the heyday of S&V tennis players with incredible net games.

My point and arguement is that Rafter for how good a player he was, never won the pinnacle of S&V majors...Wimbledon. Sampras won &...how anyone forgets this when comparing Rafter and Sampras is really a joke.

I said this more than one (on other posts). I greatly admire rafter and loved his style. He was a great S&V player and had a great net game, but to be honest he may have underachieved greatly in terms of GS record, especially Wimby. There was truly only one person that was better in Rafter's era...SAMPRAS.

Pete had an incredible ability to take low forehand volleys and put them back with authority...I have not seen anyone since have that ability. I actually think Pete was better technically than Rafter, but Rafter was more natural at the net. Remember, Pete was a baseliner when he started playing and changed his game at around 13.

Sampras 12-4 record vs. Rafter and 7-0 Wimbledon titles in an era where S&V players RULED....(Fast courts) FACTS speak volumes.

 

[Red Velvet]

WHY DID PATRICK RAFTER NEVER WIN WIMBLEDON?
Because he fell on someone with a better NET GAME

 

[urban]

Rafter was better on hard courts than on grass. Vital was his high kicking serve, which was tough to handle on hard courts. On grass it stayed lower and was much easier to return.

 

[Azzurri]

Rafter was better on hard courts than on grass. Vital was his high kicking serve, which was tough to handle on hard courts. On grass it stayed lower and was much easier to return.

good point. I remember that. So his serve was a hinderance on grass, but remember Edberg had that huge kick serve and he won Wimby.

 

[quest01]

I think Rafter should be respected more and admired for his net game because he didnt have as big of serve as Sampras so he had to rely more on his net game. Rafter also didnt have as much free points on his serve like Sampras did.

 

[urban]

Yes Slappano, Edberg had a similar serve. But it could be returned on grass by someone like Becker, when Boris was on.When Edberg learnt to adapt to the noise and carnival atmosphere of the US open, he did pretty well there. And Edberg had a much better return than Rafter, especially on the backhand. It was low and soft and worked well on grass, because the volleyer had to dig it out.

 

[Azzurri]

I think Rafter should be respected more and admired for his net game because he didnt have as big of serve as Sampras so he had to rely more on his net game. Rafter also didnt have as much free points on his serve like Sampras did.

yes, I agree. Sampras had a better 1st and 2nd serve and did get a lot of free points, but that really is not an excuse as to why he never won Wimbledon. Edberg had a crap serve....he won a few. Agassi won with a crap serve, so it can be done. If he were better than Sampras as a net/S&V player then he should have won at least one. I remember a few years he was a favorite at Wimby but it never amounted to a win. He lost to Sampras in one of those finals.

 

[Azzurri]

Yes Slappano, Edberg had a similar serve. But it could be returned on grass by someone like Becker, when Boris was on.When Edberg learnt to adapt to the noise and carnival atmosphere of the US open, he did pretty well there. And Edberg had a much better return than Rafter, especially on the backhand. It was low and soft and worked well on grass, because the volleyer had to dig it out.

Not sure how the return game got into this conversation

Someone mentioned his serve was weak and I countered that Edberg also had a weak serve...it was not a good enough reason why Rafter never won Wimby. You are now going into other aspect of peoples games.

 

[avmoghe]

There is absolutely no question.... Rafter had better volleying skills. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

If you include groudstrokes and or approach shots, the question may become more complicated. But there is absolutely no question that Sampras was an inferior volleyer.

 

[Andres]

Your definition...followed by this :

and



My point is when you're rating a net game, the serve must be taken in consideration because it's included in a S&V sequence. And quite strangely, those who possess a strong net game are often good S&V players as well...
As for the return, it's usually not considered as part of the net game because of its "one and only" use. The ONLY moment when a return could be considered as part of the net game is when applying a C&C scheme.

You're saying exactly what I'm saying. You're contradicting yourself!

"the serve must be taken in consideration because it's included in a S&V sequence"

The ONLY moment when a return could be considered as part of the net game is when applying a C&C scheme

The only moment a serve must be taken in consideration is when playing S&V, the same way, a return must be taken in consideration when playing C&C.

Neither the return nor the serve are part of the net game. They don't !

 

[AndrewD]

Enlighten us...

What is the point in anyone enlightening you? It's pretty obvious that you want 'Sampras' to be the answer, so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Pete had a great serve, possibly the best ever, but as far as his net game goes, I can very easily name 20 players who were superior to him and Rafter is one of them. I can also name half a dozen women who had a better net game than Pete.

My point is when you're rating a net game, the serve must be taken in consideration

That just isn't correct at all. If you take the serve into account you'd actually think that Goran Ivanisevic had a good net game. Hell, you'd actually consider that Andy Roddick had a good net game.

The net game is the NET game. It isn't the serve. It isn't the groundstrokes and it really isn't the approach shot either. The reason for that is, you don't require a big serve or a great serve to be a great net player. It helps, but it is not essential - as men like Ken Rosewall and Todd Woodbridge have shown.

 

[laurie]

What is the point in anyone enlightening you? It's pretty obvious that you want 'Sampras' to be the answer, so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Pete had a great serve, possibly the best ever, but as far as his net game goes, I can very easily name 20 players who were superior to him and Rafter is one of them. I can also name half a dozen women who had a better net game than Pete.



That just isn't correct at all. If you take the serve into account you'd actually think that Goran Ivanisevic had a good net game. Hell, you'd actually consider that Andy Roddick had a good net game.

The net game is the NET game. It isn't the serve. It isn't the groundstrokes and it really isn't the approach shot either. The reason for that is, you don't require a big serve or a great serve to be a great net player. It helps, but it is not essential - as men like Ken Rosewall and Todd Woodbridge have shown.

Are you sure you are not been conservative? Can you not name about 75 players men and women who had a better net game than Pete?

 

[prosealster]

yes, I agree. Sampras had a better 1st and 2nd serve and did get a lot of free points, but that really is not an excuse as to why he never won Wimbledon. Edberg had a crap serve....he won a few. Agassi won with a crap serve, so it can be done. If he were better than Sampras as a net/S&V player then he should have won at least one. I remember a few years he was a favorite at Wimby but it never amounted to a win. He lost to Sampras in one of those finals.

Rafter never won Wimbledon was not of his volley skills... apart from those reasons already mentioned...rafter was not the best mover on grass...he would often lose his footing S&V on grass.. which made him look awkard at times....he S&V a lot better on hard court due to his kicker and footwork...

lack of wimbledon titles doesnt automatically make you a lousy net player... woodbridge never won wimbledon...but he was awesome at the net...agassi won it...and i'm sure no one is calling him a genius at the net..

 

[Zimbo]

OK...so for those of you that thnk Rafter is better, riddle me this:

WHY DID PATRICK RAFTER NEVER WIN WIMBLEDON?

This is a huge part of the debate. Please don't give me any garbage about his weak serve and ground game...Edberg was lacking a solid groundgame too. Pat Cash won!! Hell, even Lendl made 2 finals in the heyday of S&V tennis players with incredible net games.

My point and arguement is that Rafter for how good a player he was, never won the pinnacle of S&V majors...Wimbledon. Sampras won &...how anyone forgets this when comparing Rafter and Sampras is really a joke.

I said this more than one (on other posts). I greatly admire rafter and loved his style. He was a great S&V player and had a great net game, but to be honest he may have underachieved greatly in terms of GS record, especially Wimby. There was truly only one person that was better in Rafter's era...SAMPRAS.

Pete had an incredible ability to take low forehand volleys and put them back with authority...I have not seen anyone since have that ability. I actually think Pete was better technically than Rafter, but Rafter was more natural at the net. Remember, Pete was a baseliner when he started playing and changed his game at around 13.

Sampras 12-4 record vs. Rafter and 7-0 Wimbledon titles in an era where S&V players RULED....(Fast courts) FACTS speak volumes.

Sampras, Becker, Edberg won the big W because they were great. Cash got hot and played great tennis and that is why he won. For me Rafter had better volleys then Sampras and for that matter he had better volleys then Becker also. You keep on asking if Rafter's volleys were better then Sampras's why didn't he win Wimbledon. That's a legimate question to ask and by reading different peoples views I think they answered your question. It's just you don't agree with them. Let's put it this way., Everyone here knows that Rafter had better volleys then Goran and Agassi. This fact is not even debatable. Then how come they won Wimbledon but Rafter couldn't? Rafter had better volleys then Connors, and Borg, but how come he could not win at Wimbledon? The answer is simple, those players were better overall. Well, maybe not that simple but you get my drift.

 

[Andres]

What is the point in anyone enlightening you? It's pretty obvious that you want 'Sampras' to be the answer, so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Pete had a great serve, possibly the best ever, but as far as his net game goes, I can very easily name 20 players who were superior to him and Rafter is one of them. I can also name half a dozen women who had a better net game than Pete.



That just isn't correct at all. If you take the serve into account you'd actually think that Goran Ivanisevic had a good net game. Hell, you'd actually consider that Andy Roddick had a good net game.

The net game is the NET game. It isn't the serve. It isn't the groundstrokes and it really isn't the approach shot either. The reason for that is, you don't require a big serve or a great serve to be a great net player. It helps, but it is not essential - as men like Ken Rosewall and Todd Woodbridge have shown.

Thaaaaaaaaank you!!!!

 

[Azzurri]

There is absolutely no question.... Rafter had better volleying skills. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong.

If you include groudstrokes and or approach shots, the question may become more complicated. But there is absolutely no question that Sampras was an inferior volleyer.

His 7 Wimbledon titles are inferior to Rafter's 2 finals appearances....that is how stupid you sound when you say Sampras...a 7 time Wimby champ is inferior to anyone for anything. Don't post this crap...You can disagree with people's opinion, but you can't say someone is simply wrong cuz you said so...grow up.

Tired of morons talking crap on this thread. If you are going to argye, please have some logical arguements set, not 3rd grade dribble like this.

 

[Azzurri]

What is the point in anyone enlightening you? It's pretty obvious that you want 'Sampras' to be the answer, so it doesn't matter what anyone else says. Pete had a great serve, possibly the best ever, but as far as his net game goes, I can very easily name 20 players who were superior to him and Rafter is one of them. I can also name half a dozen women who had a better net game than Pete.



That just isn't correct at all. If you take the serve into account you'd actually think that Goran Ivanisevic had a good net game. Hell, you'd actually consider that Andy Roddick had a good net game.

The net game is the NET game. It isn't the serve. It isn't the groundstrokes and it really isn't the approach shot either. The reason for that is, you don't require a big serve or a great serve to be a great net player. It helps, but it is not essential - as men like Ken Rosewall and Todd Woodbridge have shown.

You are a piece of work. You need to pull your head out of your wide ***. Look at my responses to this point. I gave people credit for their thoughts. WTF??

Enough with the "net game" arguement. God...you people are whiny. S&V and net game are the same. When you serve and you come to net to volley that is part of a NET GAME. No one is arguing Rafter had a better serve. Never heard of a poor S&V with a poor net game...makes no sense. I do know of decent servers with great net games. Rafter had a decent serve...Sampras had a better serve.

I am simply asking for some type of concrete proof. I have provided numerous. 20 better net platers...the guy won 7 Wimbledon titles...keep smoking that sh$t. Rafter..for all his gifted ability at net NEVER, EVER won Wimbledon...the ultimate net game (prior to 2001 of course). Tell me how such a guy never won Wimby...I'm waiting for some genius to tell me.

 

[Azzurri]

Rafter never won Wimbledon was not of his volley skills... apart from those reasons already mentioned...rafter was not the best mover on grass...he would often lose his footing S&V on grass.. which made him look awkard at times....he S&V a lot better on hard court due to his kicker and footwork...

lack of wimbledon titles doesnt automatically make you a lousy net player... woodbridge never won wimbledon...but he was awesome at the net...agassi won it...and i'm sure no one is calling him a genius at the net..

wait...now Rafter was not a good mover on grass? Why? Did he wear the wrong shoes? No...Sampras was a better net player because he MOVED better than rafter on a surface made for S&V and a net game.

Don't bring in the hardcourt arguement...the court was slowed down after the 1991 US Open. You just provided proof to my point...Rafter could not move as well as Pete..ehnce Pete is a better net player. Unless you balem the shoes of course.

When the F did I ever say Rafter was a LOUSY net player...SHOW ME! I have given nothing but credit to the guy...many, many, many times.

I think Rafter is easily in the top 10 of S&V players of all time. I loved his game and his heart. I liked his style and admired his dedication after he became injured and fought his way back to the top. Hope this helps you undertsnad I never, ever said he was lousy at anything. I could tell you that you are a lousy reader....

 

[Azzurri]

Sampras, Becker, Edberg won the big W because they were great. Cash got hot and played great tennis and that is why he won. For me Rafter had better volleys then Sampras and for that matter he had better volleys then Becker also. You keep on asking if Rafter's volleys were better then Sampras's why didn't he win Wimbledon. That's a legimate question to ask and by reading different peoples views I think they answered your question. It's just you don't agree with them. Let's put it this way., Everyone here knows that Rafter had better volleys then Goran and Agassi. This fact is not even debatable. Then how come they won Wimbledon but Rafter couldn't? Rafter had better volleys then Connors, and Borg, but how come he could not win at Wimbledon? The answer is simple, those players were better overall. Well, maybe not that simple but you get my drift.

OK... I understand what you are saying...I think. So volleying was not that important to win Wimby and it was based on an overall game...I can buy that. In fact, this is the first arguement with any substance. Other posters provided NO SUCH arguements. They simply said he was better without backing up those statements. I am not illiterate (I may misspell words cuz I type fast), but I read the posts. I provided beef to my arguements. I still don't agree with you, but I get you and find it to be a good arguement.

Specifically, what makes Rafter's net game better...compare/contrast.

 

[Azzurri]

Thaaaaaaaaank you!!!!

Wake up Andres. I never said Pete is a better net player because of his serve...show me. I simply feel Pete has a better net game and the proof is in the pudding...7 W titles. Maybe you should worry about Argentinian soccer....you guys bombed in the World Cup...again. Go Italia!!!