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

[prosealster]

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...

The argument is who has a better net game....not who is a better S&Ver... I said Rafter's foot work when S&V was not as good on grass...i thought an EXPERT like yourself would understand...maybe i need to spell it out for you .if you watch his matches...he has a tendency to slip a little bit after he landed from his serve on his way to the net on grass due to the way he lands after his serve.... and that split second if you actually play decent level tennis, would understand that it's very costly (once he gets to the net, he moves, jumps as well as anybody)....and he still made to 2 W finals, with that serve, ground game and average return game....

Having won 7w does not automatically make you the best volleyer ever(and many would agree that sampras was not a great volleyer when he won his 1st W).. similarly, JCF has way more clay titles than agassi... does that automatically mean he has better ground game than agassi??? i know many people would disagree..

again, as others have pointed out to you what NET GAME means... having a dig at soccer does not validate your arguments

 

[urban]

Rafter could go through with his net game even on clay. Thats in my book the real measure-stick of volleying ability, practice it successful on the slower courts without the help of the big serve. Rafter reached the sf at RG, he only had his net game. Sampras had the same success, but he abandoned his net game on the clay, and played mainly from the baseline.

 

[AndrewD]

I provided beef to my arguements.

You don't have any arguments. If you did you wouldn't feel the need to go all Serena Williams on us every time another person points out that you're wrong.

Just deal with it, Rafter had a better net game than Sampras because, without a serve that could give him as many easy volleys and put-aways, he needed a much stronger net game.

 

[Zimbo]

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.

I'm glad you could apreciate where I was coming from. It's cool that you still think Sampras is a better volleyer. Sampras was fantastic at the net. I just think Rafter was a little better. To me both were awesome at putting away a weak or average passing attempt. I might even give the nod to sampras here, especially on passing shots that were high. However, I think Rafter covered the net better (his anticipation and comfort at the net seemed more fluid and natural), had softer hands, had better placement, and could handle difficult passing shots a tad better. Watching Sampras and Rafter play Agassi, it just appeared to me that Agassi was more pressed and had a harder time passing Rafter, if you minus the times the serve or a great approach shot wasn't taken into consideration. That first volley against someone like Agassi's laser like passing shot was easier handled by Rafter then by Sampras.

Slappano, I know your original argument was if Rafter's volleys were superior to Sampras's how come he could not win Wimbleddon. Let's minus Wimbledon altogather. Can you compare/contrast the volleying skills of both players? I would like to see why you think Pete's were better.

 

[MattPr]

if Rafter's volleys were superior to Sampras's how come he could not win Wimbleddon. Let's minus Wimbledon altogather. Can you compare/contrast the volleying skills of both players? I would like to see why you think Pete's were better.

The funny thing is, people think all you need to win on grass is a big serve and some decent volleys. That's true to a degree but on the biggest stage of them all it isnt enough. Ivan Lendl always said that what stopped him doing better at Wimbledon was that he found it so hard to break serve, not to hold serve. Pat Rafter, even though he was a more gifted volleyer than Pete Sampras, just didn't have Pete's groundstrokes and had to work like the devil to get a break. That in turn puts a lot more pressure on you to hold your own serve. Grass used to give everyone's serve a nice little bonus so most guys found it easy to hold serve, even the ones who usually struggled. Breaking serve, now that was the tough one and it's one key reason why Pete did better than Pat and why Pat never won the big W.

Difference between the two guys on volley comes down to technique and inclination. Rafter was a natural volleyer, Sampras was a manufactured one. Rafter was always a net-rusher, even as a junior, whereas Sampras was, by inclination, essentially a baseliner. Sampras morphed into a serve-volley player but he lacked the wholly natural forward movement that the great netmen like McEnroe, Edberg, Cash, Rafter, Emerson, Newcombe, Kramer, etc have had. Doesn't mean Pete couldn't volley, just that he wasn't as good as those other guys. That was most obvious in his hands. The great volleyers have soft hands, even a power volleyer like Newcombe and Kramer. Pete, in comparison, had hard hands. The difference is minor but it's there if you know what you're looking at.

 

[Azzurri]

The funny thing is, people think all you need to win on grass is a big serve and some decent volleys. That's true to a degree but on the biggest stage of them all it isnt enough. Ivan Lendl always said that what stopped him doing better at Wimbledon was that he found it so hard to break serve, not to hold serve. Pat Rafter, even though he was a more gifted volleyer than Pete Sampras, just didn't have Pete's groundstrokes and had to work like the devil to get a break. That in turn puts a lot more pressure on you to hold your own serve. Grass used to give everyone's serve a nice little bonus so most guys found it easy to hold serve, even the ones who usually struggled. Breaking serve, now that was the tough one and it's one key reason why Pete did better than Pat and why Pat never won the big W.

Difference between the two guys on volley comes down to technique and inclination. Rafter was a natural volleyer, Sampras was a manufactured one. Rafter was always a net-rusher, even as a junior, whereas Sampras was, by inclination, essentially a baseliner. Sampras morphed into a serve-volley player but he lacked the wholly natural forward movement that the great netmen like McEnroe, Edberg, Cash, Rafter, Emerson, Newcombe, Kramer, etc have had. Doesn't mean Pete couldn't volley, just that he wasn't as good as those other guys. That was most obvious in his hands. The great volleyers have soft hands, even a power volleyer like Newcombe and Kramer. Pete, in comparison, had hard hands. The difference is minor but it's there if you know what you're looking at.

Finally...someone with some logic. Too many of you wanted to change my mind because you thought I was wrong...I asked for some sound proof or logic. Well here it is. You should all read this post twice and realize how silly you guys are. This arguement present a side I did not realize about rafter and Sampras (to a point). Too many posters here never gave a shred of evidence and by dismising 7 Wimby titles as not enough proof w/out countering it was a joke until now. I never thought about the return game....you guys should bow down to this poster and thank him for having a brain and providing an excellent, thoughtful response. Thank you Matt...

Now I need to watch a few old Rafter matches (against Pete).

All I asked was for a solid arguement against 7 Wimbledon titles against ZERO...this provided it.

 

[Red Velvet]

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.

With all respect to Mr. Rosewall, you're talking about an era where his contradictors didn't use/have a decent net game. As for Todd Woodbridge, his net game was enough to make him one of the best doubles player ever, but his singles record speaks for itself ! I especially remember a double bagel handed to him by Agassi at the Vienna tournament...
Anyways, if I go on and accept your definition of the net game, then what do we have to look at when rating a player's net game ? (half) Volleys and coverage only ? Kinda hard to ignore the approach simply because you don't start a point at the net !

The great volleyers have soft hands, even a power volleyer like Newcombe and Kramer. Pete, in comparison, had hard hands. The difference is minor but it's there if you know what you're looking at.

What's the meaning of hard hands ? I think I see what you mean, but I believe it's an impression given by the 38kg tension of Sampras' racquet.

Sampras morphed into a serve-volley player but he lacked the wholly natural forward movement

You're right here. The fact is Sampras was not glued to the net when volleying but at the same time he had 2 advantages : more difficult to lob and those best ever half volleys...

Rafter was a natural volleyer

OK but so are Woodforde and Woodbridge. It's not the guarantee of having the best technique of volleying, don't you think ? The fact is neither Sampras nor Rafter (IMO) had the best volleys technically speaking. That honor still belongs to Edberg.

 

[Azzurri]

I'm glad you could apreciate where I was coming from. It's cool that you still think Sampras is a better volleyer. Sampras was fantastic at the net. I just think Rafter was a little better. To me both were awesome at putting away a weak or average passing attempt. I might even give the nod to sampras here, especially on passing shots that were high. However, I think Rafter covered the net better (his anticipation and comfort at the net seemed more fluid and natural), had softer hands, had better placement, and could handle difficult passing shots a tad better. Watching Sampras and Rafter play Agassi, it just appeared to me that Agassi was more pressed and had a harder time passing Rafter, if you minus the times the serve or a great approach shot wasn't taken into consideration. That first volley against someone like Agassi's laser like passing shot was easier handled by Rafter then by Sampras.

Slappano, I know your original argument was if Rafter's volleys were superior to Sampras's how come he could not win Wimbleddon. Let's minus Wimbledon altogather. Can you compare/contrast the volleying skills of both players? I would like to see why you think Pete's were better.

Sorry, can't answer this question when you ask me to forget about Wimby...kind of silly to do that. That's like saying if we take away Pete's 7 Wimby titles who was better Lendl or Pete...well then it would be Lendl. Also, I asked that compare/contrast question first...

 

[Azzurri]

You don't have any arguments. If you did you wouldn't feel the need to go all Serena Williams on us every time another person points out that you're wrong.

Just deal with it, Rafter had a better net game than Sampras because, without a serve that could give him as many easy volleys and put-aways, he needed a much stronger net game.

wow...you are so enlightening...never thought of that...Pete has a better serve than Rafter so that is why is he less of a volleyer than Racfter...wow you have some great insight. Based on your stellar response I am going to completely change my mind....NOT.

I really get annyoed with the P U S S I E S on this board. Tennis players are known to be femanine...you are a perfect example. I have tried to be respectful when respect was shown. You probably never even saw Pete play.

 

[Azzurri]

Stupid thought....but a thougth anyway. If anyone plays Madden NFL football on PS or XBox you will know they rate certain players in a number of categories. By some slim chance, does anyone have a tennis video game that does the same? Does anyone have a game that has legends in it (specifically Rafter and Sampras) and is given a number rating based on serve, return, volley, etc....I would be interested to know what number is given to Pete and Patrick for their net/volley game.

I realize its a game, but research is done to give players certain strength points for different areas of their game.

 

[Azzurri]

I'm glad you could apreciate where I was coming from. It's cool that you still think Sampras is a better volleyer. Sampras was fantastic at the net. I just think Rafter was a little better. To me both were awesome at putting away a weak or average passing attempt. I might even give the nod to sampras here, especially on passing shots that were high. However, I think Rafter covered the net better (his anticipation and comfort at the net seemed more fluid and natural), had softer hands, had better placement, and could handle difficult passing shots a tad better. Watching Sampras and Rafter play Agassi, it just appeared to me that Agassi was more pressed and had a harder time passing Rafter, if you minus the times the serve or a great approach shot wasn't taken into consideration. That first volley against someone like Agassi's laser like passing shot was easier handled by Rafter then by Sampras.

Slappano, I know your original argument was if Rafter's volleys were superior to Sampras's how come he could not win Wimbleddon. Let's minus Wimbledon altogather. Can you compare/contrast the volleying skills of both players? I would like to see why you think Pete's were better.

Would it be safe to say that Rafter may be one of the greatest underachievers in Wimbledon history? Because if he was a better net player than Sampras and Sampras won 7 titles he should have one at least one. He did win 2 US Opens.

Funny you bring up Agassi....I believe he said rated Pete behind Mac and Edberg as the greatest net player he ever faced. I just don't know for sure, but I believe this was something he was asked in an interview in the lat 90's as to who was the most difficult player to pass at the net. I do know Rafter was NOT mentioned. Anyone know what I am talking about?

 

[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.

That is a good point. I don't consider Goran as one of the top net players of all time (he was terrific...no doubt, but not in the top 5). He may have had the best 1st serve ever. Roddick should not even be mentioned...Goran at least played the net for the most part, Roddick is PURE baseliner. The DEFINES it.

 

[hoosierbr]

Rafter had a better net game. IMO he's one of the best volleyers in the Open Era. Sampras had a solid net game but I think Rafter's was a little better.

 

[laurie]

I think this and he thinks that.

Time to end this stupid thread since it's clearly not conclusive one way or another.

 

[avmoghe]

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.

Are you that dense? Sampras winning Wimbledon seven times does not automatically mean he was a better volleyer.. serve, groundstrokes,fitness, mental ability.. all matter. As one of the other posters have pointed out... are you going to start claiming that Ivanisevic was a better volleyer than Rafter because he did better at Wimbledon (3 finals and 1 win)? (Given the foolishness of your arguments, I would not put it past you)

This isn't crap.. this is the same opinion as McEnroe and many of the other people posting here. You are wrong.. get over it. Sampras was inferior to Rafter as a volleyer... and that's final.

I think this and he thinks that.

Time to end this stupid thread since it's clearly not conclusive one way or another.

Conclusive? What on this forum is conclusive? If some idiot creates a thread that Donald young has a better forehand than Federer, and ignores common sense, there is no way to talk sense into him. Very little about tennis discussions will ever be conclusive.... especially given that the internet has given a voice to every delusional fan.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Also consider the skill it takes for sampras to volley with the small ps85. And the incredible accuracy and precision those frames produce on volleys, serves. Could rafter of volleyed as well with a ps85? I doubt it. Also the argument that pete was a baseliner dont mean anything. Because he had the talent to switch his game around and be the greatest serve AND volleyer ever.

 

[holera]

slappano's premise is very very stupid. better net game=wimbledon champ!!

therefore agassi had a better net game than henman. and i guess federer has a better net game than edberg.

his next argument is that agassi had a better serve and volley game than krajicek (or rafter) because he had better results at wimbledon.

 

[Azzurri]

Frankly I am tired of this. Some posters continue to put words in my mouth. Just because Agassi won one W title does not make him a better volleyer than Henman...never said that. I guess I am going on recollection of Rafter since I had not seen a match in a while. I will order a few matches (against Pete and Andre) to get a better idea, but I have seen quite a few highlights on different web sites and I am still convinced Pete was better.

The differnce between Pete's net game compared to Mac and Edberg was they had no where near the baseline game Pete did, so he did not have to be as great a net player as those to to succeed. Pete's serve was great, but so was Mac's (not the speed, but placement. Think of great pitchers in baseball that only throw mid 80's...what made them great was control and placement...Mac had that). Edberg's serve was good enough. I thought Rafter had a better serve than Edberg...maybe I am wrong, but my point was if Rafter was this good of a serve and volleyer (NET GAME) then he should have won at least one Wimbledon title. How can someone be mentioned in the same group as Mac and Edberg and NEVER win Wimbledon. But it seems we have some close minded Aussie's here.

I will get these matches in a few weeks and compare/contrast. We'll see I guess.

 

[Azzurri]

slappano's premise is very very stupid. better net game=wimbledon champ!!

therefore agassi had a better net game than henman. and i guess federer has a better net game than edberg.

his next argument is that agassi had a better serve and volley game than krajicek (or rafter) because he had better results at wimbledon.

You need to grow up. Samoras has 7 you baffoon, not one. This matters.

Assume all you want jack ***.

 

[Azzurri]

Also consider the skill it takes for sampras to volley with the small ps85. And the incredible accuracy and precision those frames produce on volleys, serves. Could rafter of volleyed as well with a ps85? I doubt it. Also the argument that pete was a baseliner dont mean anything. Because he had the talent to switch his game around and be the greatest serve AND volleyer ever.

Never thought of the racquet...good point. I think we have some Aussie people here sticking up for their lover boy Rafter. Can't win when some people have a man crush.

 

[Azzurri]

Are you that dense? Sampras winning Wimbledon seven times does not automatically mean he was a better volleyer.. serve, groundstrokes,fitness, mental ability.. all matter. As one of the other posters have pointed out... are you going to start claiming that Ivanisevic was a better volleyer than Rafter because he did better at Wimbledon (3 finals and 1 win)? (Given the foolishness of your arguments, I would not put it past you)

This isn't crap.. this is the same opinion as McEnroe and many of the other people posting here. You are wrong.. get over it. Sampras was inferior to Rafter as a volleyer... and that's final.



Conclusive? What on this forum is conclusive? If some idiot creates a thread that Donald young has a better forehand than Federer, and ignores common sense, there is no way to talk sense into him. Very little about tennis discussions will ever be conclusive.... especially given that the internet has given a voice to every delusional fan.

You are one whusy puss. I live in North East PA. Email me for my address if you want to speak face to face. Funny how tennis players think they are tough.

My arguement is not at all like saying D. Young has a better forehand than the greatest player with the greatest forehand you twit. For how good Rafter was he whould have won a W title, but he did not. That says something.

 

[avmoghe]

You are one whusy puss. I live in North East PA. Email me for my address if you want to speak face to face. Funny how tennis players think they are tough.

What the hell? Congratulations....you've proven your absolute stupidity beyond any possible doubt. Not only do you lack the ability to make sense, not only does your reading comprehension positively suck, you apparently think I would be interested in meeting you face to face to prove my "toughness".... as if my toughness has some actual relevance to the question of whether Sampras or Rafter had better volleying ability.

My arguement is not at all like saying D. Young has a better forehand than the greatest player with the greatest forehand you twit.

Try reading the posts next time. I was talking to the other poster (not to you) trying to illustrate why very few arguments on a tennis forum can be "conclusive". None of the content in that mini-paragraph is addressed to you.

For how good Rafter was he whould have won a W title, but he did not. That says something.

Yes, it says that Sampras was an overall better player (as many others before me have pointed out).

In either case, I'm done with this thread. Needless to say I have no wish to ever meet you face to face... seeing your foolishness on a tennis forum is more than enough.

 

[krz]

You are one whusy puss. I live in North East PA. Email me for my address if you want to speak face to face. Funny how tennis players think they are tough.

lol thats not hippo critical at all

 

[Andres]

Nalbandian made it to one Wimbledon final. Henman never passed the SF
Ergo, Nalbandian has a better net game than Henman.

Yup, makes perfect sense... :roll:

 

[Azzurri]

What the hell? Congratulations....you've proven your absolute stupidity beyond any possible doubt. Not only do you lack the ability to make sense, not only does your reading comprehension positively suck, you apparently think I would be interested in meeting you face to face to prove my "toughness".... as if my toughness has some actual relevance to the question of whether Sampras or Rafter had better volleying ability.



Try reading the posts next time. I was talking to the other poster (not to you) trying to illustrate why very few arguments on a tennis forum can be "conclusive". None of the content in that mini-paragraph is addressed to you.



Yes, it says that Sampras was an overall better player (as many others before me have pointed out).

In either case, I'm done with this thread. Needless to say I have no wish to ever meet you face to face... seeing your foolishness on a tennis forum is more than enough.

Bye Bye....so sad you are leaving.

 

[Azzurri]

Nalbandian made it to one Wimbledon final. Henman never passed the SF
Ergo, Nalbandian has a better net game than Henman.

Yup, makes perfect sense... :roll:

Sampras has 7 titles...not one jackie....

You can't make comparisons to one title, but SEVEN is a whole different story. Pat Cash won one....I think Rafter was a better S&V player then him, so there goes your arguement.

Nalbandian....he made it to the finals as a baseliner along with another baseliner...what does that tell you? The grass was slowed down by then. Prior to 2002, when was the last time 2 baseliners made the Wimbledon final....from 1980-2001, a volleyer was in the finals every year...gee since the courts were slowed since 2001 the baseliners started to dominate. So please with your silly and frankly dumbfounded arguements stop. I was hoping to get some intelligent examples or reasons why Rafter was better, but I did not hear any good enough to change my mind.

Hate to tell you and all the other fools. Not everyone in the world that thinks Sampras was a better volleyer than Rafter is a fool. If you think that you are probably the biggest jerk-off on this board. I think Pete was better....that is it. No one came up w/anything good enough to change my mind.

Go Italia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[laurie]

If you chaps actually take a step back from all of this for a moment, you will see that you (collectively) are getting worked up for no good reason.

Rafter was maybe unlucky not to get that Wimbledon title. But considering he's the same age as Krajicek and Sampras and Goran (give or take a year) then he actually peaked on grass very late, 1999 in fact when he got to the semifinal. His first centre court appearance was against Agassi in 1993. I believe he didn't like grass at first and preferred the hardcourts because of the footing and it helped his kick serve.

But we do know and personally I'm pleased he did figure grass out towards the end of his career. Those matches against Agassi and Goran in 2000 and 2001 are still talked about. His 2000 final against Sampras was probably Sampras' best final as a spectacle because Rafter is so competitive.

When we take their head to head in isolation, Sampras returned better than Rafter, moved better than Rafter and hit better passing shots off both wings better than Rafter. Sampras had beaten Rafter 8 times in a row at one stage and Rafter had to work extremely hard for the four wins he did get in the end against Sampras, winning 3 in a row at one stage from 1998 to 1999.

If Rafter had Pioline's attitude for instance, it would have been 16 nil to Sampras.

So again, the net game discussion doesn't really matter at all. What matters is that Rafter gave a lot of people pleasure watching his battling spirit and athletic volleying around the net, a good contrast to Sampras and Agassi who are good counterpunchers (yes I know Sampras is a serve and volleyer by the media's definition but he enjoyed the challenge of returning and passing).

 

[Azzurri]

If you chaps actually take a step back from all of this for a moment, you will see that you (collectively) are getting worked up for no good reason.

Rafter was maybe unlucky not to get that Wimbledon title. But considering he's the same age as Krajicek and Sampras and Goran (give or take a year) then he actually peaked on grass very late, 1999 in fact when he got to the semifinal. His first centre court appearance was against Agassi in 1993. I believe he didn't like grass at first and preferred the hardcourts because of the footing and it helped his kick serve.

But we do know and personally I'm pleased he did figure grass out towards the end of his career. Those matches against Agassi and Goran in 2000 and 2001 are still talked about. His 2000 final against Sampras was probably Sampras' best final as a spectacle because Rafter is so competitive.

When we take their head to head in isolation, Sampras returned better than Rafter, moved better than Rafter and hit better passing shots off both wings better than Rafter. Sampras had beaten Rafter 8 times in a row at one stage and Rafter had to work extremely hard for the four wins he did get in the end against Sampras, winning 3 in a row at one stage from 1998 to 1999.

If Rafter had Pioline's attitude for instance, it would have been 16 nil to Sampras.

So again, the net game discussion doesn't really matter at all. What matters is that Rafter gave a lot of people pleasure watching his battling spirit and athletic volleying around the net, a good contrast to Sampras and Agassi who are good counterpunchers (yes I know Sampras is a serve and volleyer by the media's definition but he enjoyed the challenge of returning and passing).

Thank you...nice post. I agree, we should really be talking about the last great S&V player. I loved his attitude and his game.

 

[Ossric]

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.

Numbers don't lie.

14 majors

 

[Ossric]

Thank you...nice post. I agree, we should really be talking about the last great S&V player. I loved his attitude and his game.

Agreed. Who's going to step up and be the next great S&V is what I'd like to know.

Honestly, Isner should look to become an S&V imo. The kid's amazing serve combined with an insane wingspan seems like a pretty good combo for a successful S&V career.

 

[Azzurri]

Agreed. Who's going to step up and be the next great S&V is what I'd like to know.

Honestly, Isner should look to become an S&V imo. The kid's amazing serve combined with an insane wingspan seems like a pretty good combo for a successful S&V career.

I don't know. I think (and I could be wrong) we have a player in our midst that could dominate the sport if he S&V and played the baseline to an extent. This player may be able to beat Federer....this player is...Roger Federer. Many of you have probably seen his match against Pete...his net game is awesome. He said on many occasions he does not S&V because he does not have to. The courts (and balls) are too slow. We will not see another Rafter unless someone decides enough is enough with the slowness of Wimbledon. Mac and some others claim the grass is now slower than the courts at the US Opne and maybe even CLAY!!! That is absurd if true.

 

[laurie]

Well Slappano and Ossric, I think Nicolas Mahut has potential but he needs to work on his baseline game.

What is interesting is this, Mahut did very well at Queens where the grass is still traditionally fast and bare (I've been to Queens many times) and usually where early June in London can be dry and hotter than early July which is usually wet. But mahut doesn't do well at Wimbledon, so the conditions at Wimbledon could be a factor. Mahut also got to the final in Newport as well.

I think if Gasquet can change his mentality he is definitely the typical all court player who has serve and volley potential on grass.

Let's also not forget Mauresmo served and volleyed her way to a Wimbledon title only last year.

 

[fps]

I don't know. I think (and I could be wrong) we have a player in our midst that could dominate the sport if he S&V and played the baseline to an extent. This player may be able to beat Federer....this player is...Roger Federer. Many of you have probably seen his match against Pete...his net game is awesome. He said on many occasions he does not S&V because he does not have to. The courts (and balls) are too slow. We will not see another Rafter unless someone decides enough is enough with the slowness of Wimbledon. Mac and some others claim the grass is now slower than the courts at the US Opne and maybe even CLAY!!! That is absurd if true.

Since upheaving (is that a word? is now lol) the wimbledon courts again is unlikely, they could perhaps use lighter balls? How would that pan out on the slower surface?

 

[Azzurri]

Well Slappano and Ossric, I think Nicolas Mahut has potential but he needs to work on his baseline game.

What is interesting is this, Mahut did very well at Queens where the grass is still traditionally fast and bare (I've been to Queens many times) and usually where early June in London can be dry and hotter than early July which is usually wet. But mahut doesn't do well at Wimbledon, so the conditions at Wimbledon could be a factor. Mahut also got to the final in Newport as well.

I think if Gasquet can change his mentality he is definitely the typical all court player who has serve and volley potential on grass.

Let's also not forget Mauresmo served and volleyed her way to a Wimbledon title only last year.

Forgot about Mahut...he does have a nice net game. I just miss the S&V player versus the baseliner.

 

[Azzurri]

Since upheaving (is that a word? is now lol) the wimbledon courts again is unlikely, they could perhaps use lighter balls? How would that pan out on the slower surface?

you would think the ball would fly faster...yes?

 

[AAAA]

Edberg, Mac, Rafter had better net games than Sampras.

 

[Azzurri]

Edberg, Mac, Rafter had better net games than Sampras.

I agree on Edberg and Mac.

To be honest, I did not say S&V on the thread because too many people would choose Sampras because of his serve. I shoulod realized the opposite would have happened. I still think Pete had a better net game. I watched tape of him in the early 90's compared to the mid-late 90's and he became a much stronger volleyer towards the end of his career. Even when he lost a step he was tremendous at the net. His net game allowed him to win another Wimby and USO his last). His early career he did play alot of baseline...at least compared to his last 4-5 years.

Not to be rude, but its these posts that annyed me in the first place. If you are going to argue a point or throw in your opinion, at least explain your self. Why does Rafter have a better net game? I have given many, many reasons and feel I justified myself. No one has to agree because we are all giving our opinions, but facts are facts. Pete won 7 Wimbledon Championships in an era of great S&V players. Rafter won none...to me...TO ME that says enough.

Frankly I don't believe half the posters saw Pete play more than a few times. I really believe a bunch of posters are under 21 and don't have a clue about Sampras other than You Tube and a few highlight matches on TTC.

 

[AAAA]

Not to be rude, but its these posts that annyed me in the first place. If you are going to argue a point or throw in your opinion, at least explain your self. Why does Rafter have a better net game? I have given many, many reasons and feel I justified myself. No one has to agree because we are all giving our opinions, but facts are facts. Pete won 7 Wimbledon Championships in an era of great S&V players. Rafter won none...to me...TO ME that says enough.

Frankly I don't believe half the posters saw Pete play more than a few times. I really believe a bunch of posters are under 21 and don't have a clue about Sampras other than You Tube and a few highlight matches on TTC.

People have already pointed out the problem with using wimbledons won as a measure of a net game in isolation. I don't think you accepted those arguments.

My opinion is based on what I saw, I've seen both their net games in action against all sorts of shots so with extensive observations of both I'm able to picture how each handle volleys of varying difficulty and come to the conclusion that Rafter has the better net game.

 

[laurie]

AAAA (What does stand for by the way?), you make interesting observations based on your opinions like everyone else here.

Here is Rafter's head to heads against some top opponents

Agassi 5-10
Kuerten 4-4
Henman 3-2
Ivanisevic 2-2
Krajicek 2-7
Korda 2-3
Hewitt 1-3
Corretja 3-1
Moya 1-3
Enqvist 6-2
Kafelnikov 2-3
Rios 2-1
Rusedski 7-3

Sampras against the same opponents:
Agassi 20-14
Kuertern 2-1
Henman 6-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Krajicek 4-6
Korda 12-5
Hewitt 4-5
Corretja 4-2
Moya 3-1
Enqvist 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Rios 2-0
Rusedski 9-1

I got those stats from www.atptennis.com I just tried to think of opponents they both played regularly. On a whole there it looks like Rafter had hard going against many opponents Sampras had relatively little trouble with, along with players they both found difficult like Krajicek and Hewitt. Rafter had a great rivalry with Agassi but had to work extremely hard for his 5 wins against Agassi.

Sampras meanwhile has a convincing 12-4 advantage over Rafter. With all this mind how do you technically and tactically deduce that Rafter is a better volleyer? Was Rafter's net game not enough to put people away regularly? In what areas do you see rRfter as a better volleyer, technically speaking?

And I want to make it clear, I'm not asking you whether you have a feeling after years of obeservations watching both players..I'm asking you clearly, in which areas technically do you consider Rafter to be a better volleyer?

I look forward to your views.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

JMac said Rafter was a better volleyer (see his TV commentary during their match at the 2001 USO).

I'm of two minds.

 

[AAAA]

AAAA (What does stand for by the way?), you make interesting observations based on your opinions like everyone else here.

Here is Rafter's head to heads against some top opponents

Agassi 5-10
Kuerten 4-4
Henman 3-2
Ivanisevic 2-2
Krajicek 2-7
Korda 2-3
Hewitt 1-3
Corretja 3-1
Moya 1-3
Enqvist 6-2
Kafelnikov 2-3
Rios 2-1
Rusedski 7-3

Sampras against the same opponents:
Agassi 20-14
Kuertern 2-1
Henman 6-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Krajicek 4-6
Korda 12-5
Hewitt 4-5
Corretja 4-2
Moya 3-1
Enqvist 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Rios 2-0
Rusedski 9-1

Head to head scores don't isolate the net game, you know that hence to consider the net game in isolation I judge from observation of how they handled volleys of visually the same difficulty.


Edit: If you want a considered response from me ,write an intelligent post without any major flaws like above. I'm just going by our previous discussions when you say, i say, you say, i say then you disappear.

 

[prosealster]

I agree on Edberg and Mac.

To be honest, I did not say S&V on the thread because too many people would choose Sampras because of his serve. I shoulod realized the opposite would have happened. I still think Pete had a better net game. I watched tape of him in the early 90's compared to the mid-late 90's and he became a much stronger volleyer towards the end of his career. Even when he lost a step he was tremendous at the net. His net game allowed him to win another Wimby and USO his last). His early career he did play alot of baseline...at least compared to his last 4-5 years.

Not to be rude, but its these posts that annyed me in the first place. If you are going to argue a point or throw in your opinion, at least explain your self. Why does Rafter have a better net game? I have given many, many reasons and feel I justified myself. No one has to agree because we are all giving our opinions, but facts are facts. Pete won 7 Wimbledon Championships in an era of great S&V players. Rafter won none...to me...TO ME that says enough.

Frankly I don't believe half the posters saw Pete play more than a few times. I really believe a bunch of posters are under 21 and don't have a clue about Sampras other than You Tube and a few highlight matches on TTC.

Infact, Sampras is such a flashy player, that if you never saw his matches, and just watch highlight reels, you'll think he has the best everything...we wouldnt be argueing against him in the 1st place.

I can tell you that I am definitely over 21, and I have seen them play countless times... Sampras at the Aussie opens, and rafter used to train at my club when I was a state ranked junior. As others pointed out, you cant just use 7 wimbledon to argue that pete was a better volleyer, coz there are so many other aspect of the game required to win (forgive me if you have put up other arguments, as I didnt read the whole thread)...the reason he was not more successful was he didnt have anything top class to back his volley up (other than his serve...but still no where as good as pete's as I dont think anyone would pick his serve over pete's ). I first saw him play when he was inside the top 100, he was hitting with some one i think ranked 400s at the time, he was getting creamed at baseline rallies (granted, his ground game did improve as his career progressed, but still nothing to be desired)..when they started playing games however, i soon realised where his weapons lie... to me (compared to sampras), he had a better low forehand volley, high forehand volley was about the same, better backhand volley - hgh and low, better backhand smash, although his overhead is not as flashy as pete's, he never misses a smash, and his movement at the net was also better. he also had a better diving volley, better anticipation, and softer hands... he was a natural volleyer..just watch his tape...time and time again, he would come to net with rubbish approach, and get away with it....something you dont see pete do...

Someone also mentioned that todd martin (who has played them both countless times) and JMac(who is an expert in the volley department) that rafter is a better volleyer ...I think they are pretty qualified judges...

 

[prosealster]

AAAA (What does stand for by the way?), you make interesting observations based on your opinions like everyone else here.

Here is Rafter's head to heads against some top opponents

Agassi 5-10
Kuerten 4-4
Henman 3-2
Ivanisevic 2-2
Krajicek 2-7
Korda 2-3
Hewitt 1-3
Corretja 3-1
Moya 1-3
Enqvist 6-2
Kafelnikov 2-3
Rios 2-1
Rusedski 7-3

Sampras against the same opponents:
Agassi 20-14
Kuertern 2-1
Henman 6-1
Ivanisevic 12-6
Krajicek 4-6
Korda 12-5
Hewitt 4-5
Corretja 4-2
Moya 3-1
Enqvist 9-2
Kafelnikov 11-2
Rios 2-0
Rusedski 9-1

I got those stats from www.atptennis.com I just tried to think of opponents they both played regularly. On a whole there it looks like Rafter had hard going against many opponents Sampras had relatively little trouble with, along with players they both found difficult like Krajicek and Hewitt. Rafter had a great rivalry with Agassi but had to work extremely hard for his 5 wins against Agassi.

Sampras meanwhile has a convincing 12-4 advantage over Rafter. With all this mind how do you technically and tactically deduce that Rafter is a better volleyer? Was Rafter's net game not enough to put people away regularly? In what areas do you see rRfter as a better volleyer, technically speaking?

And I want to make it clear, I'm not asking you whether you have a feeling after years of obeservations watching both players..I'm asking you clearly, in which areas technically do you consider Rafter to be a better volleyer?

I look forward to your views.

Laurie...i must say I am a fan of your site...and have enjoyed watching the classic matches you put up from time to time...but i must say, you cannot use head to head to argue who is the better volleyer..
as i think pete has better
1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand, backhand, return of serve, better mover at the baseline, mentally tougher...hack, he even sweats less than rafter

so it's no suprise that pete owned rafter in their head to head...as which bit rafter does better, (i know u didnt ask for my opinion) if you are interested, see my above post...cheers

 

[laurie]

Cheers Prosealster

I was actually asking AAAA a question. He hasn't answered my question. It was a clear question.

He also didn't say what AAAA stands for - I can only guess.

The man is a comic as all he can come with is observations.

He has absolutely no idea of why he thinks Rafter is a better volleyer. Not least he is not able to come with any technical reason for instance on why Rafter's forehand volley would be better. Excuse me, gut reactions and feelings are not acceptable. I asked you a question, I want an answer.

Absolute Abject Assenine Anal posts this guy comes up with on this message board.

 

[Azzurri]

Cheers Prosealster

I was actually asking AAAA a question. He hasn't answered my question. It was a clear question.

He also didn't say what AAAA stands for - I can only guess.

The man is a comic as all he can come with is observations.

He has absolutely no idea of why he thinks Rafter is a better volleyer. Not least he is not able to come with any technical reason for instance on why Rafter's forehand volley would be better. Excuse me, gut reactions and feelings are not acceptable. I asked you a question, I want an answer.

Absolute Abject Assenine Anal posts this guy comes up with on this message board.

Great response....I have been asking for this and never really got an answer. I used 7 W titles as ONE OF the reasons...not the only reason. People here are a bit dense and full of it. One of the posters is 21....he was 4 when Sampras started playing. He did not see a lot of Sampras in his prime.....no matter what he says I still think he is full of Sh$t.

 

[laurie]

Great response....I have been asking for this and never really got an answer. I used 7 W titles as ONE OF the reasons...not the only reason. People here are a bit dense and full of it. One of the posters is 21....he was 4 when Sampras started playing. He did not see a lot of Sampras in his prime.....no matter what he says I still think he is full of Sh$t.

The thing is, if I take Federerfanatic and Drakulie as examples, for sure there are Tennis things we don't agree on. But one thing is always sure, they are always able to back up any argument they make so you can respect that. There are many people who don't agree with me but I always am able to back up my arguments.

What this guy does is make snide remarks. He does that because he is hiding his true thoughts. He's not able to come clean on what he really feels, so they come out in snide remarks and hidden agendas and it looks like he doesn't really know what he's talking about because he is not able to back up his argument.

Drakulie and Federerfanatic are straight talkers. That's what I and am sure many others prefer than jokers.

 

[Azzurri]

The thing is, if I take Federerfanatic and Drakulie as examples, for sure there are Tennis things we don't agree on. But one thing is always sure, they are always able to back up any argument they make so you can respect that. There are many people who don't agree with me but I always am able to back up my arguments.

What this guy does is make snide remarks. He does that because he is hiding his true thoughts. He's not able to come clean on what he really feels, so they come out in snide remarks and hidden agendas and it looks like he doesn't really know what he's talking about because he is not able to back up his argument.

Drakulie and Federerfanatic are straight talkers. That's what I and am sure many others prefer than jokers.

True...I admire Drakulie and Federerfanatic because they are straight shooters. They provide good insight and as you stated back up their feelings.

I have tried to give plenty of reasons why Pete was better. Too many state Rafter was "technically" better...WTF does that mean...what, Rafter looks prettier on forehand volley's? Its absurd. Pete's net game won him 7 Wimbledon titles. His serve was a weapon, but its not enough. Look at Goran. He may have had the greatest serve in history and he won one Wimbledon title. He even lost to a baseliner.

I have given much respect to Rafter and tried not to down play his talent, but these "kids" or "new to tennis" people don't know anything about Pete. I watched just about every one of his majors in the slams from 1990-2002. The way Fed dominates is the way Pete dominated (almost). Pete's net game was better because he was able to win many titles and beat many players with a net game. Rafter did not. I would say Rafter may be a little more technical (as in soccer terms), but that does not translate to being a better net player. Edberg was the most technical net player I ever saw...Mac was the BEST net player I ever saw.

 

[AAAA]

Thank-you prosealster, you wrote the following

you cannot use head to head to argue who is the better volleyer..
as i think pete has better
1st serve, 2nd serve, forehand, backhand, return of serve, better mover at the baseline, mentally tougher...hack, he even sweats less than rafter

after I had already wrote :

Head to head scores don't isolate the net game, you know that hence to consider the net game in isolation I judge from observation of how they handled volleys of visually the same difficulty.

The part I wrote which is now in highlighted in bold summarises the key points you said in the bit I quoted above, from a different angle. Volleys are easier if you have the better serve, ground strokes are easier if you have better footwork, fitness and anticipation. All this is obvious hence head to head scores don't isolate the net game(for comparison in isolation). I wasn't pedantic enough to also write 'for comparison in isolation'. Maybe I should have.

 

[laurie]

Still hasn't answered a straightforward question.