Who was the greatest serve and volley killer?

[dominikk1985]

This is not just about return but generally game against serve and volley players (so it also includes passing, lobbing, dealing with chip and charge and so on).

Who dealt best with serve and volley players?

Agassi was good of course but he had trouble against guys when he couldn't read their serves (he was quick but not super fast and needed to anticipate).

One guy that comes to mind was Hewitt. He was playing at the very end of the serve and volley era but he was a great returner, super quick and a great passer and lobber.

 

[KG1965]

Also to me comes to mind Lleyton.

 

[Ronaldo]

You Cannot Be Serious!

 

[Pheasant]

You cannot go wrong by picking Hewitt. He was great against serve and volley players on fast surfaces. By the time he was 20, he started owning guys like Henman and Sampras, even on grass. Hewitt's level of play during his peak was spectacular.

Safin was very good at playing Serve and Volley players too, mainly due to his ability to return well. Unlike Hewitt, he couldn't pull this off on grass courts.

And as someone else mentioned, Lendl was great too. If Lendl had access to the bigger rackets of the 2000's, then he would have been the best at wrecking S and V players, IMHO. Lendl was a very complete player.

 

[pc1]

Connors, Budge, Kovacs, Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Mecir, Tilden, Riggs.

 

[bigserving]

Easily gotta go with Jimmy Connors on this one. He won more tournaments than any man in history and did much of it during times when there were many serve-and-volleyers. During much of his era, serve-and-volley was a valid style of game that could be played successfully.

 

[dominikk1985]

The only knock against Leyton was that serve and volley players disappeared quickly when he was still young. But he was the complete package against serve and volley because he could handle low bounces too.

I think he could have won more if he was born 5 years earlier, because he was so good on fast low bouncing courts. The slowing down of the courts and the extreme power topspin players that emerged then were not matching well with his strokes because he hit flat and couldn't generate his own pace very well.

But on 90s grass I think he could have been a force.

 

[Ronaldo]

Easily gotta go with Jimmy Connors on this one. He won more tournaments than any man in history and did much of it during times when there were many serve-and-volleyers. During much of his era, serve-and-volley was a valid style of game that could be played successfully.

Wouldn't a flat ball hitter play into a serve & volley player's strength?

 

[pc1]

Wouldn't a flat ball hitter play into a serve & volley player's strength?

The flat ball hitter has more margin for error when they hit the ball. They don't have to brush up on the ball and potentially mishit more or hit the ball too high over the net. You don't need quite as precise timing. It also gives you more pace. Connors for example hit the ball extremely early and often angled which didn't give the serve and volley a chance to close in on the net. Often they were passed outright, lunging at the ball or the power return is right at their feet.

 

[bigserving]

Wouldn't a flat ball hitter play into a serve & volley player's strength?

That is absolutely a general argument that can be made.

In this case though, I am going on the basis of real career results. Just Win Baby!!!

 

[Gizo]

Hewitt had the perfect game to take down serve volleyers. His low returns to the servers' feet must have been a nightmare to deal with.

Connors's return, passing shots and lob were all formidable. His backhand lob and backhand passing shots were probably the best that I've ever seen. He could generate insane angles with those backhand passing shots, and that shot was on full display when at the age of 37 he destroyed Edberg at the US Open in 1989.

In terms of forehand passing shots, Lendl's were lethal and hard to beat.

 

[IowaGuy]

The only knock against Leyton was that serve and volley players disappeared quickly when he was still young. But he was the complete package against serve and volley because he could handle low bounces too.

I think he could have won more if he was born 5 years earlier, because he was so good on fast low bouncing courts. The slowing down of the courts and the extreme power topspin players that emerged then were not matching well with his strokes because he hit flat and couldn't generate his own pace very well.

But on 90s grass I think he could have been a force.

I don't think Leyton could hang on fast 90's grass against the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis, Krajicek, Rafter (late 90's), Becker and Edberg (early 90's), etc. Plus, Agassi could have given him a run as well.

Remember he would not have had poly strings then.

The field of grass-court specialists was very deep in the 90's. He likely would have had to beat 2 or 3 of these guys in a row to win a championship. He might beat one of them with non-poly strings, but likely not 3 of them.

 

[Steady Eddy]

Borg. For better or worse he ushered in this era of topspin passing shots. Makes it tough on the S & V guy.

 

[pc1]

Borg. For better or worse he ushered in this era of topspin passing shots. Makes it tough on the S & V guy.

Borg may have had the best passing shots I’ve seen.

 

[dominikk1985]

Borg is a good call

 

[BlueB]

If Lendl had access to the bigger rackets of the 2000's, then he would have been the best at wrecking S and V players, IMHO.

No one was stopping him from using POG.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

 

[NatF]

I don't think Leyton could hang on fast 90's grass against the likes of Sampras, Ivanisevic, Stich, Philippoussis, Krajicek, Rafter (late 90's), Becker and Edberg (early 90's), etc. Plus, Agassi could have given him a run as well.

Remember he would not have had poly strings then.

The field of grass-court specialists was very deep in the 90's. He likely would have had to beat 2 or 3 of these guys in a row to win a championship. He might beat one of them with non-poly strings, but likely not 3 of them.

Hewitt didn't switch to poly until 2004.

What you're saying about the grass court specialists is a bit of an exaggeration - post 1995 at least. Most of those guys didn't really overlap their best grass court tennis. The most consistent grass players were Sampras, Ivanisevic and older Becker. Everyone else were occasional factors. Henman was more consistent than most of those players you mentioned as well.

That being said I don't think Hewitt could beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

 

[Moses85]

Sampras retirement.

 

[Xavier G]

Connors and Borg from the 70's and 80's, then Lendl who faced an array of top serve & volley players.
Rosewall and Laver and more of the old time players too.
Serve and volley was much more prevalent in past eras. I liked the battle between the baseliners/great returners and the s&v types.

 

[Ronaldo]

Ultimately it was not who but what

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Hewitt didn't switch to poly until 2004.

What you're saying about the grass court specialists is a bit of an exaggeration - post 1995 at least. Most of those guys didn't really overlap their best grass court tennis. The most consistent grass players were Sampras, Ivanisevic and older Becker. Everyone else were occasional factors. Henman was more consistent than most of those players you mentioned as well.

That being said I don't think Hewitt could beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

I am big Sampras fan but Hewitt can defeat Sampras at Wimbledon before 2001.
Off course the chance would be around 10- 15 % .

 

[NatF]

I am big Sampras fan but Hewitt can defeat Sampras at Wimbledon before 2001.
Off course the chance would be around 10- 15 % .

The chance of a pro beating another pro is never 0, Hewitt is one of my favourites and I definitely think at his best he'd have decent chances at anyone else on grass from that era (sans maybe zoning Krajicek and zoning Ivanisevic) I just don't like his chances against Sampras.

 

[IowaGuy]

Hewitt didn't switch to poly until 2004.

What you're saying about the grass court specialists is a bit of an exaggeration - post 1995 at least. Most of those guys didn't really overlap their best grass court tennis. The most consistent grass players were Sampras, Ivanisevic and older Becker. Everyone else were occasional factors. Henman was more consistent than most of those players you mentioned as well.

That being said I don't think Hewitt could beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

But consistency isn't a huge factor when any one of those S&V could have a great day and beat you (look at some of Sampras' losses against Stich and Krajeck, for example). Some of those guys were the equivalent of modern-day Wawrinka: if you catch him on an off-day no biggie, but you'd rather not face him late in a GS. Put a few of those guys together in your draw and it's tough to win a championship.

My point was that Hewitt would have some tough draws, and would have to beat several S&V specialists in a row, and/or possibly get through Agassi.

Plus, as you allude to, he would basically have to get through Sampras at the end. That's a tough pill to swallow!

He might have won an occasional 90's Wimby (like Agassi did), but I don't think would have been "a force", which is where my reply was directed...

 

[fezer]

I am big Sampras fan but Hewitt can defeat Sampras at Wimbledon before 2001.
Off course the chance would be around 10- 15 % .

Becker came out of retirement and beat Hewitt 616476 in Wimbledon 99.
Becker could win only two tie breakers vs Sampras in 3 Wimbledon matches.
So one could imagine what Sampras might have done.

 

[NatF]

Becker came out of retirement and beat Hewitt 616476 in Wimbledon 99.
Becker could win only two tie breakers vs Sampras in 3 Wimbledon matches.
So one could imagine what Sampras might have done.

Hewitt was 18 and outside the top 30 at the time...so what? Might as well cite Hewitt thrashing Goran in 2004 and say how lucky he was Lleyton wasn't peaking the 90's...

 

[Ronaldo]

Hewitt was 18 and outside the top 30 at the time...so what? Might as well cite Hewitt thrashing Goran in 2004 and say how lucky he was Lleyton wasn't peaking the 90's...

Did Lleyton benefit from 2000s/modern grass?

 

[NatF]

Did Lleyton benefit from 2000s/modern grass?

I would expect so, Lleyton preferred to play from the back so the more even bounce definitely helped - I do think he would have managed to be a threat even on 90's grass though. He had some impressive victories at Queen's and other than Sampras most of those players probably didn't raise their games quite as much for Wimbledon.

 

[fezer]

Hewitt was 18 and outside the top 30 at the time...so what? Might as well cite Hewitt thrashing Goran in 2004 and say how lucky he was Lleyton wasn't peaking the 90's...

The best sv-killer should be able to win a set of retired Becker..
btw just noticed that Hewitt had a close encounter with Sampras just a few weeks before at Queens. We all know the woth of the Queens results, if we look at how Wimb99 ended.
in my opinion in the 80s/90s on faster surfaces uso/wimb/masters hardly any baseliner could handle powerful players, if Sampras, Edberg, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek et al were in form. Agassi and Lendl were exceptions from the rule. even on clay it was possible that these mentioned above simply steamrolled their opponent (eg Edberg vs Mancini rg89). and even "the cat" M.Mecir lost one of his best alltime matches in the wsf88 vs Edberg, because he just couldnt return/pass so accurately aver 5 sets.
imo Lendl and Agassi were the only exceptions from the rule. if they were peaking any sv player had a tough time.
Hewitt, Rios,Moya, Kafelnikov, Mecir, Chang, Wilander etc were dependent on the form of their opponent. but if they just gave an inch - anything was possible.
that was the fascination of tennis during those days: totally different approaches to the game, everyboy had their time of the year, versatility was there.

 

[NatF]

The best sv-killer should be able to win a set of retired Becker..
btw just noticed that Hewitt had a close encounter with Sampras just a few weeks before at Queens. We all know the woth of the Queens results, if we look at how Wimb99 ended.
in my opinion in the 80s/90s on faster surfaces uso/wimb/masters hardly any baseliner could handle powerful players, if Sampras, Edberg, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek et al were in form. Agassi and Lendl were exceptions from the rule. even on clay it was possible that these mentioned above simply steamrolled their opponent (eg Edberg vs Mancini rg89). and even "the cat" M.Mecir lost one of his best alltime matches in the wsf88 vs Edberg, because he just couldnt return/pass so accurately aver 5 sets.
imo Lendl and Agassi were the only exceptions from the rule. if they were peaking any sv player had a tough time.
Hewitt, Rios,Moya, Kafelnikov, Mecir, Chang, Wilander etc were dependent on the form of their opponent. but if they just gave an inch - anything was possible.
that was the fascination of tennis during those days: totally different approaches to the game, everyboy had their time of the year, versatility was there.

Becker was hardly retired, Wimbledon was his 7th tournament of the year - he actually made a final in Hong Kong earlier in the year as well losing in a tight 3 setter against Agassi. Like I said Hewitt was ranked 35 at the time and only 18 years old, losing to 31 year old Becker is hardly damning. Having said that Becker at his best would obviously be favoured over Hewitt, I do think Hewitt in his best form would have good chances to beat 1993/1995/1997 Becker though.

 

[heninfan99]

Lendl comes to mind first.

 

[Ronaldo]

Lendl comes to mind first.

 

[heninfan99]

Good stuff. Now post the McEnroe one.

 

[Ronaldo]

Good stuff. Now post the McEnroe one.

U Cannot B Serious!

 

[jrepac]

Hewitt had the perfect game to take down serve volleyers. His low returns to the servers' feet must have been a nightmare to deal with.

Connors's return, passing shots and lob were all formidable. His backhand lob and backhand passing shots were probably the best that I've ever seen. He could generate insane angles with those backhand passing shots, and that shot was on full display when at the age of 37 he destroyed Edberg at the US Open in 1989.

In terms of forehand passing shots, Lendl's were lethal and hard to beat.

Hewitt, Connors and Lendl come to mind...Agassi too. I just think the 1st three guys handled the BIG first serves better. As noted, JC in his heyday faced some of the very best S&V guys w/regularity (Tanner and Mac, for example). And while he is remembered for the return and passing game, his lob was pretty damn good when he used it. Like Evert's, you really didn't see it coming, partly because you were expecting the goundie drive to come at you.

 

[pc1]

Hewitt, Connors and Lendl come to mind...Agassi too. I just think the 1st three guys handled the BIG first serves better. As noted, JC in his heyday faced some of the very best S&V guys w/regularity (Tanner and Mac, for example). And while he is remembered for the return and passing game, his lob was pretty damn good when he used it. Like Evert's, you really didn't see it coming, partly because you were expecting the goundie drive to come at you.

Not sure about Lendl. He was very good to excellent but I thought his backhand return wasn’t attacking enough. Ironically Lendl preferred on big points to have the player serve to his backhand instead of his famous forehand.

 

[Gizo]

I think that Lendl’s backhand return was sketchy (it wasn’t weak but it wasn’t amazing either), his backhand lobs were quite good, and his backhand passing shots were outstanding (although his forehand passing shots were better and among the best ever).

Of course on the return of serve, the one handed backhand is generally an inherent weakness compared to the two hander. I have a one hander (without being snobbish I enjoy being in the minority there), but thankfully at the lowly level that I play at very few opponents I face have overly menacing serves.

Lendl really struggled to deal with Edberg’s kick serve to his backhand, especially as their h2h timeline progressed. I was actually surprised when I first saw that the h2h finished so closely poised at 14-13 to Edberg, as for a period at the time (when I didn’t have the internet to check stats), it seemed to me like Edberg was always beating Lendl. Becker, who had the best one handed backhand return I have seen along with his countryman Stich, was able to deal with and return that kicker a lot better.

 

[pc1]

I think that Lendl’s backhand return was sketchy (it wasn’t weak but it wasn’t amazing either), his backhand lobs were quite good, and his backhand passing shots were outstanding (although his forehand passing shots were better and among the best ever).

Of course on the return of serve, the one handed backhand is generally an inherent weakness compared to the two hander. I have a one hander (without being snobbish I enjoy being in the minority there), but thankfully at the lowly level that I play at very few opponents I face have overly menacing serves.

Lendl really struggled to deal with Edberg’s kick serve to his backhand, especially as their h2h timeliness progressed. I was actually surprised when I first saw that h2h finished so closely poised at 14-13 to Edberg, as for a period at the time (when I didn’t have the internet to check stats), it seemed to me like Edberg was always beating Lendl. Becker, who had the best one handed backhand return I have seen along with his countryman Stich, was able to deal with and return that kicker a lot better.

Becker did have an excellent backhand return but the two best one handed backhand returns I’ve seen were Laver’s and Rosewall’s. I personally liked Laver’s returns a bit better because of his ability to attack more with topspin angles but both were great. Both had great passing shots and great lobs.

Vines said if Laver was on serving and volleying against him was akin to suicide. I agree.

 

[pc1]

I think that Lendl’s backhand return was sketchy (it wasn’t weak but it wasn’t amazing either), his backhand lobs were quite good, and his backhand passing shots were outstanding (although his forehand passing shots were better and among the best ever).

Of course on the return of serve, the one handed backhand is generally an inherent weakness compared to the two hander. I have a one hander (without being snobbish I enjoy being in the minority there), but thankfully at the lowly level that I play at very few opponents I face have overly menacing serves.

Lendl really struggled to deal with Edberg’s kick serve to his backhand, especially as their h2h timeline progressed. I was actually surprised when I first saw that the h2h finished so closely poised at 14-13 to Edberg, as for a period at the time (when I didn’t have the internet to check stats), it seemed to me like Edberg was always beating Lendl. Becker, who had the best one handed backhand return I have seen along with his countryman Stich, was able to deal with and return that kicker a lot better.

I think the return was a reason Connors was very successful against Edberg despite a decent age gap of over 13 years between the two. They split 12 meetings.

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/stefan-edberg-vs-jimmy-connors/E004/C044

It's so funny Lendl preferred players to serve to his backhand on big points.

 

[fezer]

Becker was hardly retired, Wimbledon was his 7th tournament of the year - he actually made a final in Hong Kong earlier in the year as well losing in a tight 3 setter against Agassi. Like I said Hewitt was ranked 35 at the time and only 18 years old, losing to 31 year old Becker is hardly damning. Having said that Becker at his best would obviously be favoured over Hewitt, I do think Hewitt in his best form would have good chances to beat 1993/1995/1997 Becker though.

Boris had definitely retired from grand slam competition!
87/93 were Beckers slump years. 95 was quite well, he even beat Agassi!!!! and went on to win the yec! 97 Boris was already burnt out! mid 92 and early 94 he showed definitively signs of weakness.
Hewitt otoh was on his way to top20 and much talked about. it was quite astonishing how Becker handled him. and for me that shows that Hewitt was NOT the best sv-killer!
Becker on this forum is very often talked down when compared to other players, but of course when sb had beaten Boris, it is such a memorable win - a big scalp.

 

[NatF]

Boris had definitely retired from grand slam competition!
87/93 were Beckers slump years. 95 was quite well, he even beat Agassi!!!! and went on to win the yec! 97 Boris was already burnt out! mid 92 and early 94 he showed definitively signs of weakness.
Hewitt otoh was on his way to top20 and much talked about. it was quite astonishing how Becker handled him. and for me that shows that Hewitt was NOT the best sv-killer!
Becker on this forum is very often talked down when compared to other players, but of course when sb had beaten Boris, it is such a memorable win - a big scalp.

Hewitt on his way to top 20? He ended the year ranked 25. Ignoring his dominant record over S&V players in favour of a loss when he was 18 doesn't make much sense. Why does losing to Becker at 18 matter more than him destroying Sampras in a USO final at 20? I don't think Hewitt is necessarily the best player of all time at handling S&V players, but for his return game alone he's definitely up there.

Also Becker in the 1995 final against Sampras had 15 double faults. Sampras to his credit was flawless but it wasn't a great match from Becker - despite his mini resurgence in 1995-1996.

Don't think anyone is talking down Becker, it just so happens that his best play was in the late 80's.

 

[pc1]

Hewitt on his way to top 20? He ended the year ranked 25. Ignoring his dominant record over S&V players in favour of a loss when he was 18 doesn't make much sense. Why does losing to Becker at 18 matter more than him destroying Sampras in a USO final at 20? I don't think Hewitt is necessarily the best player of all time at handling S&V players, but for his return game alone he's definitely up there.

Also Becker in the 1995 final against Sampras had 15 double faults. Sampras to his credit was flawless but it wasn't a great match from Becker - despite his mini resurgence in 1995-1996.

Don't think anyone is talking down Becker, it just so happens that his best play was in the late 80's.

Now I know you like Hewitt’s return but how do you rank him for return over the last 25 years and as a serve and volley killer?

 

[NatF]

Now I know you like Hewitt’s return but how do you rank him for return over the last 25 years and as a serve and volley killer?

Probably the best return against S&V in that period imo, overall return is maybe 4th behind Djokovic, Murray and Agassi in the last 25 years.

As for S&V killers I'm not sure, guys like Connors, Lendl and Agassi probably stand above - partly because they're simply better players overall. I do think Hewitt at his best passed, returned and lobbed about as well as anyone. Underrated player imo

 

[Phoenix1983]

Has to be Hewitt.

 

[pc1]

Probably the best return against S&V in that period imo, overall return is maybe 4th behind Djokovic, Murray and Agassi in the last 25 years.

As for S&V killers I'm not sure, guys like Connors, Lendl and Agassi probably stand above - partly because they're simply better players overall. I do think Hewitt at his best passed, returned and lobbed about as well as anyone. Underrated player imo

All reasonable. I would possibly add Mecir to that mix. I think from observation he was superior to Agassi and Lendl. He was faster than both and his backhand return was superior to Lendl's.

On surfaces with sure bounces Lendl's backhand return was better but on grass, players like Connors, Agassi, Mecir and McEnroe may have had better backhand returns. I think McEnroe's return is very underrated also.

 

[jrepac]

Not sure about Lendl. He was very good to excellent but I thought his backhand return wasn’t attacking enough. Ironically Lendl preferred on big points to have the player serve to his backhand instead of his famous forehand.

Yah, on 2nd thought you are right. And on grass, his return wasn't all that good. And, Mac's returning ability was very under-appreciated.

 

[jaggy]

Borg, Lendl, Hewitt even Safin maybe.

 

[BTURNER]

Hewitt didn't switch to poly until 2004.

What you're saying about the grass court specialists is a bit of an exaggeration - post 1995 at least. Most of those guys didn't really overlap their best grass court tennis. The most consistent grass players were Sampras, Ivanisevic and older Becker. Everyone else were occasional factors. Henman was more consistent than most of those players you mentioned as well.

That being said I don't think Hewitt could beat Sampras at Wimbledon.

Keep in mind the number and stature of grass court tournaments. In the ninties there was exactly one grass court slam and very few tournaments left were played on lawns. With Connors

This is not just about return but generally game against serve and volley players (so it also includes passing, lobbing, dealing with chip and charge and so on).

Who dealt best with serve and volley players?

Agassi was good of course but he had trouble against guys when he couldn't read their serves (he was quick but not super fast and needed to anticipate).

One guy that comes to mind was Hewitt. He was playing at the very end of the serve and volley era but he was a great returner, super quick and a great passer and lobber.

 

[BTURNER]

Just some random thoughts. Thinking about this, we have to narrow this down a lot in some areas and broaden our vision in others. We are not interested in measuring how well they 'pass' or lob, if they are passing someone who chipped and charged to get to net, or someone who approached after a stroke or two or ten or fifteen. General scores or success rates against 'net rushers' are not what we want. Success rates on grass are not what we want.

Nor is 'big match play' on grass or carpet events quite what we want either. Matter of fact , I think we ought to look at early rounds consistency against a s/ver if players like Lendl or late career Connors, or a Leyton Hewitt might have trouble adjusting to or defending against the tactic in when they first see it at a Wimbledon Prep event, as well as looking later in the draw. That will not apply in earlier eras where could hardly be missed!

What about fellow S/vers who we seem to have excluded from this conversation. Maybe the real 'killers' can be discovered the break of serve rates of Budge, or Tilden, or Perry, or Laver, or a Rosewall from the wooden days in the 40's, 50's 60's and early 70's against other svers when a far higher percentage of matches played had two S/vers at war, and instead of a baseliner against a s/ver in the later 70's, 80's or 90's when there were fewer players and occasions to break such a service game .

Heck, maybe we are concentrating on the wrong Hewitt above thread! One of the best places to look is in doubles matches where s/v was the dominant tactic long past where it was in singles and on slower surfaces as well as fast! Great doubles and mixed teams by definition had to be fantastic at breaking down this strategy to win return games, even if they did it more with volley passes or lob volleys! The problem here of course is that you are measuring two players instead of one, but doubles will showcase a whole slew of nominees like Frew MacMillan, John Bromwich, the 'Woodies', Newcomb and Lutz, Roche or Jacques Brugnon, that otherwise would be missed.


Oh and by the way, lets not forget the women as we tend to ! Lets look at all the greats that had to break serve in an era with a lot of matches played in such circumstances and players like Lenglen, Wills, Connolly, Hart, Brough, Dupont, Hard, King, Court, and then maybe look at Evert or Austin

 

[IowaGuy]

All reasonable. I would possibly add Mecir to that mix. I think from observation he was superior to Agassi and Lendl. He was faster than both and his backhand return was superior to Lendl's.

On surfaces with sure bounces Lendl's backhand return was better but on grass, players like Connors, Agassi, Mecir and McEnroe may have had better backhand returns. I think McEnroe's return is very underrated also.

Edberg also had an underrated return against fellow S&V.

He has a pretty high ranking in lifetime % return games won, #17 of all time!!! (actually higher than Hewitt)

https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/stats/return-games-won

 

[Drob]

The best sv-killer should be able to win a set of retired Becker..
btw just noticed that Hewitt had a close encounter with Sampras just a few weeks before at Queens. We all know the woth of the Queens results, if we look at how Wimb99 ended.
in my opinion in the 80s/90s on faster surfaces uso/wimb/masters hardly any baseliner could handle powerful players, if Sampras, Edberg, Stich, Becker, Ivanisevic, Krajicek et al were in form. Agassi and Lendl were exceptions from the rule. even on clay it was possible that these mentioned above simply steamrolled their opponent (eg Edberg vs Mancini rg89). and even "the cat" M.Mecir lost one of his best alltime matches in the wsf88 vs Edberg, because he just couldnt return/pass so accurately aver 5 sets.
imo Lendl and Agassi were the only exceptions from the rule. if they were peaking any sv player had a tough time.
Hewitt, Rios,Moya, Kafelnikov, Mecir, Chang, Wilander etc were dependent on the form of their opponent. but if they just gave an inch - anything was possible.
that was the fascination of tennis during those days: totally different approaches to the game, everyboy had their time of the year, versatility was there.

"We all know the worth of Queen's results."




Since 1920, approx. 41 times a Queen's finalist or better has been a Wimbledon finalist or better in the same year. Considering Cramm blasted the living daylights out of Queen's but was forbidden to play Wimbledon; given Federer never (virtually never?) played Queen's (given his millions-dollars lifetime appearance fee at Halle, a tournament begun in 1993); given that Borg never (almost never?) bothered to be bothered and skipped Queen's *; and given the Musketeers were not frequent participants at Queen's (devil knows the reason), then, I ask, 40 correlations in 99 years? No predictive value? What if we looked at wimbledon semifinalists (Lendl '89, '90; Edberg '91 just bounce off my head)? No predictive value?

If you deduct 1939, 1976-81, and every year Federer has been a finalist (11), (and let's just leave the Musketeers out of this for simplicity sake), that is 99 years minus 18 years = 81. So, essentially, but for the absence of Fed and Borg at Queen's you have a 50 percent chance of making the Wimbledon finals w/in the fortnight if you make Queen's Club finals. We All Know The Worth of Queen's Results?


* Someone tell me because I am ignorant: After Adelaide in 1974, did Borg play any grass tournament other than Wimbledon?