Today's players' net game

[Sysyphus]

Widespread wool pants thesis: The players of today have terrible net games; someone like Federer isn't a true grass tennis great because he can't really (serve &) volley competently at all compared to those before the 2000s; and given a semi-quick court, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe and Edberg would volley today's fools into oblivion.

Reasonable antithesis: The players of today only struggle to use the net to the same effect because they are facing incoming shots and passes of a completely different caliber; whereas the players pre-poly could come in behind relatively weak shots as long as they stayed low — because players had to hit them upwards seeing as they didn't have proper topspin drives to save their life, often leading to easy put-aways — these shots would make you utterly humiliated by the receiving players of today; in fact, it might be that any player who manages a success rate of 60% or above on 20+ net forays in a match today is automatically doing higher-level net play than the wool pants players ever did.

Let the games begin.

 

[DreddyTennis45]

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Well I've been saying for some time that there is a reasonable case for saying Federer has the greatest net skills the game has seen.

He seems to have extraordinary anticipation, movement and reactions given the speed and spin of the incoming ball. He has remarkable touch at the net and can take all the pace of the ball.

We will never know whether the wool pants guys would have been able to cope with the speed of the oncoming ball today.

OP makes a lucid argument though I think the usual suspects will scream heresy and insist the sun goes round the earth.

 

[SpinToWin]

When exactly are we talking when we say today? When I look at Sampras's (and his generation's) net skills, I believe a good case can be made for that era to have had the best net players overall.

 

[tennisaddict]

The eye test is what you go by and to me Fed has the best net game on par with McEnroe and Edberg.

Pete was better at serve and volley , but in terms of pure net skills , Fed is no way inferior to the past legends.

That said, other current players barring exception of the doubles guys like Mahut, Zverev , Bryan's all suck big time compared to even Llodra

 

[KINGROGER]

Of course Federer can serve and volley.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

 

[Sysyphus]

You know, I've played some great volleyers in my time: had a winning head-to-head with Stefan, bageled Pete, led JMac in the slam head-to-head — but I have to say, I have never seen anyone volley quite as competently as Andy Murray is doing these days. He has raised the level.

 

[Devilito]

You know, I've played some great volleyers in my time: had a winning head-to-head with Stefan, bageled Pete, led JMac in the slam head-to-head — but I have to say, I have never seen anyone volley quite as competently as Andy Murray is doing these days. He has raised the level.

Peak Trollander

 

[Dolgopolov85]

You know, I've played some great volleyers in my time: had a winning head-to-head with Stefan, bageled Pete, led JMac in the slam head-to-head — but I have to say, I have never seen anyone volley quite as competently as Andy Murray is doing these days. He has raised the level.

One would think if he was indeed as good as Trollander thought him to be, he would have followed Lendl's advice, dragged his ass off the baseline and got to net to beat MZ.

 

[Sysyphus]

One would think if he was indeed as good as Trollander thought him to be, he would have followed Lendl's advice, dragged his ass off the baseline and got to net to beat MZ.

Herpes zoster is a potentially lethal disease — please stay on topic.

 

[jm1980]

Widespread wool pants thesis: The players of today have terrible net games; someone like Federer isn't a true grass tennis great because he can't really (serve &) volley competently at all compared to those before the 2000s; and given a semi-quick court, Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe and Edberg would volley today's fools into oblivion.

Reasonable antithesis: The player's of today only struggle to use the net to the same effect because they are facing incoming shots and passes of a completely different caliber; whereas the players pre-poly could come in behind relatively weak shots as long as they stayed low — because players had to hit them upwards seeing as they didn't have proper topspin drives to save their life, often leading to easy put-aways — these shots would make you utterly humiliated by the receiving players of today; in fact, it might be that any player who manages a success rate of 60% or above on 20+ net forays in a match today is automatically doing higher-level net play than the wool pants players ever did.

Given:

Any player = Djokovic
A match today = Djokovic v del Potro Indian Wells

30 forays > 20 net forays
24/30 = 80% > 60% success rate

Djokovic is capable of higher-level net play than the wool pants players ever did

Q.E.D.

But it's one match in a meaningless tournament, you say...

Well, Djokovic had 487 net approaches in 20 Slam matches (averaging 24.4 per match) and had a success rate of 70.84%

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...eyers-of-open-era.578308/page-4#post-10820644

 

[90's Clay]

The eye test is what you go by and to me Fed has the best net game on par with McEnroe and Edberg.

Pete was better at serve and volley , but in terms of pure net skills , Fed is no way inferior to the past legends.

That said, other current players barring exception of the doubles guys like Mahut, Zverev , Bryan's all suck big time compared to even Llodra

This is why I will NEVER be able to take Fed fan's seriously. Fed can't even touch Pete or Rafter at the net. Much less Mac and the GOAT Edberg. Whats next? Fed is the best server ever now??

 

[Sysyphus]

Given:

Any player = Djokovic
A match today = Djokovic v del Potro Indian Wells

30 forays > 20 net forays
24/30 = 80% > 60% success rate

Djokovic is capable of higher-level net lay than the wool pants players ever did

Q.E.D.

You say this as if I (or others) might be surprised, but I think it's a given that Djokovic is far more skilled than the wool pants kings such as Rosewall and Laver, even at the net — would you not agree? They were facing spears and primitive slingshots; Djokovic is dodging bullets and missiles and coming out of it alive.

 

[Aretium]

This is why I will NEVER be able to take Fed fan's seriously. Fed can't even touch Pete or Rafter at the net. Much less Mac and the GOAT Edberg. Whats next? Fed is the best server ever now??

Fed has goat hands. He is a better half volleyer than anyone. HOWEVER, the previous generations were much better net players. But this generation has the most rounded games ever.

 

[SpinToWin]

You say this as if I (or others) might be surprised, but I think it's a given that Djokovic is far more skilled than the wool pants kings such as Rosewall and Laver, even at the net — would you not agree? They were facing spears and primitive slingshots; Djokovic is dodging bullets and missiles and coming out of it alive.

I'm getting NN "Rafa is the best ever" vibes haha

 

[Sysyphus]

Whats next? Fed is the best server ever now??

Of course he isn't, don't be silly. He can't touch Ivo.


He's down in tier two, right alongside Pete.

Now stay on topic.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

You know, I've played some great volleyers in my time: had a winning head-to-head with Stefan, bageled Pete, led JMac in the slam head-to-head — but I have to say, I have never seen anyone volley quite as competently as Andy Murray is doing these days. He has raised the level.

I concur. Mury goat.

 

[90's Clay]

Of course he isn't, don't be silly. He can't touch Ivo.


He's down in tier two, right alongside Pete.

Now stay on topic.

The topic is already dead when we start comparing Fed to Mac/Edberg/Pete/Rafter at the net.

 

[Sysyphus]

The topic is already dead when we start comparing Fed to Mac/Edberg/Pete/Rafter at the net.

That's harsh. While what Fed and his peers are doing is indeed a little more impressive given the quality of groundstrokes and passing shots today, I think those guys were still good enough that they can at least stand a comparison.

 

[Tennisanity]

This is why I will NEVER be able to take Fed fan's seriously.

LOL, aren't you the same loser who thinks Pete could sneak a win off of Nadal at RG playing S/V? LOLLLLLLL.

 

[Waspsting]

I'll go with the "reasonable antithesis" - and my compliments on putting both argument so lucidly.

Agassi led the way towards obliterating serve volleying with his power hitting. He did for Becker in particular while Courier did for Edberg.

It's a testament to Sampras' greatness that he was successful in the barrage of this onslaught, and even he needed the help of an extra big serve to do it.

The power groundstrokes have only grown since then. It's just not a good percentage play today though for that very reason, it's doubly handy as an extra string to have on the bow

 

[jm1980]

LOL, aren't you the same loser who thinks Pete could sneak a win off of Nadal at RG playing S/V? LOLLLLLLL.

Wasn't it Blocker who said that?

 

[Tennisanity]

Wasn't it Blocker who said that?

Blockhead, 90's moron, what's the diff? Both are idiots.

 

[90's Clay]

Blockhead, 90's moron, what's the diff? Both are idiots.

But categorizing Fed in the GOAT tiers of volleyers is "smart" right???

 

[90's Clay]

LOL, aren't you the same loser who thinks Pete could sneak a win off of Nadal at RG playing S/V? LOLLLLLLL.

I said Pete probably has a better chance by playing "going for broke" tennis. As big hitters like Soderling, Isner showed. Moreso than guys who tried to duke it out from the baseline at the French vs. Rafa

 

[captainbryce]

When exactly are we talking when we say today? When I look at Sampras's (and his generation's) net skills, I believe a good case can be made for that era to have had the best net players overall.

Absolutely. The best net players (not necessarily the best volley) in the history of the game were Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras respectively, with McEnroe being a distant 4th, Laver, Rosewall, and Roche, far behind him, Becker being an honorable mention, and Federer barely deserving a mention. Okay, that was all the attention grabber. Here are the reasons why:

The three I mentioned played during the transitional era, where new technology and great returners were becoming popular. Serve and Volley as a style of play has largely died because players like Agassi and Hewitt dined on everyone except the best net player having a perfect day. Against modern returners like Djokovic, Murray, and even Federer, it's a completely ineffective strategy. Only Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras would stand a chance routinely playing from the net in today's game, and even then, they'd lose more than they won against the big four.

 

[captainbryce]

New question: Who are the top 5 volleyers in today's game? (Not including doubles specialists-- no Leander Paes or Mike Bryan please).

 

[Sysyphus]

I'll go with the "reasonable antithesis" - and my compliments on putting both argument so lucidly.

Agassi led the way towards obliterating serve volleying with his power hitting. He did for Becker in particular while Courier did for Edberg.

It's a testament to Sampras' greatness that he was successful in the barrage of this onslaught, and even he needed the help of an extra big serve to do it.

The power groundstrokes have only grown since then. It's just not a good percentage play today though for that very reason, it's doubly handy as an extra string to have on the bow

Good points.

I agree that it's a major feather in Sampras's cap that he managed to win so darn much with his style even as the game started to change. It speaks to his talent.

I also think that someone like Agassi possibly got shortchanged little bit by coming up at the time he did. When he reached the top of tennis, poly was still not around (I believe he started to use kevlar strings at some point), and his technique was still a product of that era and not as well-suited to top spin shots as the modern technique of today. I think if he had had the opportunity to adapt his strokes to modern strikes at an earlier age, the Sampras match-up would've been very different. Then again, Pete probably would've adapted too.

 

[SpinToWin]

Absolutely. The best net players (not necessarily the best volley) in the history of the game were Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras respectively, with McEnroe being a distant 4th, Laver, Rosewall, and Roche, far behind him, Becker being an honorable mention, and Federer barely deserving a mention. Okay, that was all the attention grabber. Here are the reasons why:

The three I mentioned played during the transitional era, where new technology and great returners were becoming popular. Serve and Volley as a style of play has largely died because players like Agassi and Hewitt dined on everyone except the best net player having a perfect day. Against modern returners like Djokovic, Murray, and even Federer, it's a completely ineffective strategy. Only Edberg, Rafter, and Sampras would stand a chance routinely playing from the net in today's game, and even then, they'd lose more than they won against the big four.

Just curious, how do you rate the volleys of a guy like Philippousis (spelling?)? Recently stumbled over his '96 AO match against Sampras (IIRC) on YouTube and was very impressed by the tennis they produced.

 

[SpinToWin]

New question: Who are the top 5 volleyers in today's game? (Not including doubles specialists-- no Leander Paes or Mike Bryan please).

Again, what is today? Active players only? And volleyers only or do you mean net players overall?

 

[BeatlesFan]

Well I've been saying for some time that there is a reasonable case for saying Federer has the greatest net skills the game has seen.

I've been watching Roger since 2000 and have thought his net skills are one of the weaker areas of his game. He still doesn't have the proper technique on his FH volley.

These guys all had much superior volleying skills to Roger:
1. Edberg/Mac
2. Becker
3. Sampras
4. Rafter

Even guys like Cash, Henman or Krajicek were much better at the net than Roger.

If Federer had such great net skills, why did he spend the years 2004-2014 hardly venturing forward?

 

[Deleted member 733170]

I've been watching Roger since 2000 and have thought his net skills are one of the weaker areas of his game. He still doesn't have the proper technique on his FH volley.

These guys all had tremendously superior volleying skills to Roger:
1. Edberg/Mac
2. Becker
3. Sampras
4. Rafter

Even guys like Cash, Henman or Krajicek were much better at the net than Roger.

If Federer had such great net skills, why did he spend the years 2004-2014 hardly venturing forward?

All very interesting but when I hear people like you (and other armchair experts on TTW) stating that Federer doesn't have a 'proper technique on the forehand volley', I know I am under no obligation to take your opinions seriously.

As to your last question, I'm surprised you don't know the answer, but clearly an aggressive net game is a higher risk strategy in the poly string era. It's not the go to percentage play. Maybe in your haste to respond you neglected to read the OP?

 

[WisconsinPlayer]

... If Federer had such great net skills, why did he spend the years 2004-2014 hardly venturing forward?

The same reason that no one else does except for a select few, groundstrokes and passing shots are much faster with more spin in today's game due to better strings and racquets. The only smart time to come into the net today is when you have your opponent in a defensive position, neutral just won't cut it now

 

[captainbryce]

Again, what is today? Active players only? And volleyers only or do you mean net players overall?

Any active singles player (regardless of primary playing style). Who would you rate as the best singles net players. You may take into account various factors such as willingness to come forward, approach shots, anticipation/net coverage, reflexes, touch, variety, overheads, etc.

 

[captainbryce]

Just curious, how do you rate the volleys of a guy like Philippousis (spelling?)? Recently stumbled over his '96 AO match against Sampras (IIRC) on YouTube and was very impressed by the tennis they produced.

I agree with the quality of that match. In terms of playing style, Philippousis was basically another version of Sampras. He had basically the same skill set. Huge serve, nearly identical forehand, and great net skills. I think Sampras always had a slight edge in movement, consistency, and mental toughness. I also think Sampras had a better (and very underrated return of serve). Also, it's difficult to rate Philippoussis because his career seemed so much shorter, and the highlight reel so fewer and far between due to his injuries and absences from the game.

 

[Limpinhitter]

When exactly are we talking when we say today? When I look at Sampras's (and his generation's) net skills, I believe a good case can be made for that era to have had the best net players overall.

Maybe. McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras and Rafter were great net players. McEnroe and Edberg may be the GOAT net players. But, I think that the 50's and 60's were deeper in terms of all time great net players like Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Emerson, Roche and Newombe. Personally, I pick Roche as the net player GOAT.

 

[metsman]

Past players are obviously much superior to today's players in net play even accounting for differences in passing shots but that's only because today's players don't put any focus on improving their net play and technique because it's a fools errand.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Past players are obviously much superior to today's players in net play even accounting for differences in passing shots but that's only because today's players don't put any focus on improving their net play and technique because it's a fools errand.

If winning Wimbledon is a priority, then I don't think it's a fools errand.

 

[captainbryce]

If winning Wimbledon is a priority, then I don't think it's a fools errand

I can think of at least 4 players who would all disagree with you.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Andre Agassi, Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic all disagree with you.

I doubt they disagree. Of those, only Agassi played in what was left of the big game era. And Agassi's game was uniquely suited to succeed on grass against great big game players. What great big game players did Hewitt, Nadal and Djokovic beat to win Wimbledon?

 

[Fedfan34]

I doubt they disagree. Of those, only Agassi played in what was left of the big game era. And Agassi's game was uniquely suited to succeed on grass against great big game players. What great big game players did Hewitt, Nadal and Djokovic beat to win Wimbledon?

 

[Fedfan34]

I've been watching Roger since 2000 and have thought his net skills are one of the weaker areas of his game. He still doesn't have the proper technique on his FH volley.

These guys all had much superior volleying skills to Roger:
1. Edberg/Mac
2. Becker
3. Sampras
4. Rafter

Even guys like Cash, Henman or Krajicek were much better at the net than Roger.

If Federer had such great net skills, why did he spend the years 2004-2014 hardly venturing forward?

Sampras was better practiced at net than Rodger. Prime Fed winning in the 90s is as good at net as Pete. Definitely has better hands.

 

[captainbryce]

I doubt they disagree. Of those, only Agassi played in what was left of the big game era. And Agassi's game was uniquely suited to succeed on grass against great big game players. What great big game players did Hewitt, Nadal and Djokovic beat to win Wimbledon?

The issue is whether improved net play and volley is critical to winning Wimbledon. The four players listed PROVE that it is not, regardless of who their opponents happened to be. Which players you consider to have a "big game" or not is completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, 4 pure baselines (5 if you include Murray) have won Wimbledon without having much of a net game. Case closed!

 

[ojo rojo]

some prefer fish-nets - game

 

[Limpinhitter]

The issue is whether improved net play and volley is critical to winning Wimbledon. The four players listed PROVE that it is not, regardless of who their opponents happened to be. Which players you consider to have a "big game" or not is completely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, 4 pure baselines (5 if you include Murray) have won Wimbledon without having much of a net game. Case closed!

Very poor, superficial analysis for reasons, not the least of which, include that you misstate the issue. The issue is whether being a great big game player is an advantage on grass over being a great back court player. Further, of the four players you listed, only one proved that he could win against great big game players, and, as previously stated, that is because his game was uniquely suited to do that. The others have proven only that they could win Wimbledon against other back court players.

 

[KG1965]

Modern champions: "What is net game ?"

 

[SpinToWin]

I can think of at least 4 players who would all disagree with you.

Hewitt wasn't incompetent at the net...

 

[SpinToWin]

Any active singles player (regardless of primary playing style). Who would you rate as the best singles net players. You may take into account various factors such as willingness to come forward, approach shots, anticipation/net coverage, reflexes, touch, variety, overheads, etc.

Probably Mischa Zverev

 

[Dolgopolov85]

All very interesting but when I hear people like you (and other armchair experts on TTW) stating that Federer doesn't have a 'proper technique on the forehand volley', I know I am under no obligation to take your opinions seriously.

As to your last question, I'm surprised you don't know the answer, but clearly an aggressive net game is a higher risk strategy in the poly string era. It's not the go to percentage play. Maybe in your haste to respond you neglected to read the OP?

About the FH volley, when Wilander discussed it in 2015 with Annabel Croft (during Wimbledon), he did say Fed had improved it under Edberg. He said it wasn't necessarily bad earlier but it was more solid now. I will just post the clip here, doesn't seem to be in trollander mode: