**Official 2007 US Open***

[Arnold_O]

i bet bjorn borg beats roger federer in his prime. same with roscoe tanner and ivan lendl and pancho gonzales and maybe boris becker but not michael chang unless he was playing really good

[jogsxyz]

Only Rod Laver dominated all players in his era. The first time Laver saw Federer, Laver was amazed. Laver said Federer can do things to a tennis ball that he(Laver) thought wasn't possible.
Federer can be beat. But not by any single player. A team. Roddick to serve and Davydenko to receive.

[Uston]

[ QUOTE ]
i bet bjorn borg beats roger federer in his prime. same with roscoe tanner and ivan lendl and pancho gonzales and maybe boris becker but not michael chang unless he was playing really good

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Ronald Agenor? Would he house Federer as well?

[Maurice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a serve and volley game is still possible in today's era.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty ignorant statement. The overall return of serve, ground strokes, and passing shot abilities of the average player on tour, let alone the top players, is WAY too good for anyone to play a serve and volley game as their main strategy.

There is a reason no one in the top 50 plays that way. With Tim Henman retiring, Max Mirnyi is one of the few who still plays that way, and he is no where near the top of the men's game.

Even guy's with the biggest serves on tour, Roddick, Ljubicic, Federer, don't serve and volley. Heck, the giants like John Isner and even Ivo Karlovic only uses it about 50% of the time.

The racket and string technology has improved the ability to take full swings from any position and still control the ball with amazing precision, and this has made the ground strokes that are being hit today, better than anyone was hitting them 15 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]



The game is cyclical. Look, Sampras' service speed was ~125 on avg, and he could dial it up to 140. Federer is about the same. Yes, Fed can dial it up to 140 as well. I don't buy the speed issue. Look @ the demographics of tennis players over the past decade. There are alot more Spaniards and Argentinians today. They are clay courters and serve and volleying doesn't really apply there. You can do it, but you will not be effective @ all. When Sampras was around, you had what? Sampras, Edberg, Rafter, Stich, Cash and Becker. Those guys could bring it, and served as hard as some of today's pros. Speed isn't the issue.

Lets face the facts. Prior to 1974, the US Open was a grass court tourney. Prior to 1988, the Australian was a grass court tourney, and of course Wimbledon still is. So obviously, serve and volleying was the way to go back in the day. But over time, with fewer grass court tournies, the shift was away from serve and volleying and more towards baseliners. Like I mentioned before, with the influx of tennis players from primarily clay court nations, and with more clay court tournies than ever before, you really don't see players practicing serve and volleying. They don't need to. You don't want to be a serve and volleyer on clay. It's not the speed of the game that is dictating this, it's the surface games are being played on now. Less grass, more clay. Sampras could serve and volley his 140 mph serve, and Agassi, arguably the best returner in the game could really bring it with his groundstrokes. And Sampras was very effective vs Agassi on grass and hard courts. (Not clay though) Speed isn't the primary issue. Those guys did it 10 years ago, and they hit harder than some players today. It's a demographic change in the players and the type of courts the game is played on. Everything is cyclical, but unless there are more grass court tournies or tournies held on super fast surfaces, I don't expect it to change soon. Sampras made 1 French Open semifinal. Edberg made 1 French Open final. Rafter made the semis once, but got knocked out in the 4th round or sooner the other 7 times he played. Becker made 3 SF of the French, but no Finals. With so many clay court tournies, and so few grass court tournies, serve and volleying isn't the best strategy anymore for most players.



Oh, and the reverse is true. You argue that with new technology you can hit faster with better precision thus giving baseliners an edge they haven't had before. However that also means when you serve, you can hit faster with better precision. Obviously you haven't been on the receiving end of a 130 mph serve recently. It's tough to return well. You can't really take a full swing either, you just block it back. But like I said before, less grass tournies, more clay tournies, more players from clay court nations. People practice serve and volleying less. When your playing a match, are you going to win or lose playing to your strengths or weaknesses? Obviously your strengths, and more people are just flat out better baseliners than serve and volleyers because that is what they practice more often.The lack of grass court tournies and increased clay court tournies dictate this strategy.
I think a few players can become really successful serve and volleyers in the future. But of course, they will only be really effective on grass and hard courts.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and just another quick note, i think roddick is quite a bit like rafter and has a very similar game

[/ QUOTE ]

What?

[/ QUOTE ]

i was about to say the same thing, this basically discredits the rest of his post.

[/ QUOTE ]

oopsie, meant this guy:

Mark Philippousis

strong serve. solid forehand. not the best at transition (awkward moving from baseline to net at times).

rafter was not who i meant there at all. for some reason i got 'em mixed up.

Barron

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a few players can become really successful serve and volleyers in the future. But of course, they will only be really effective on grass and hard courts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy the speed issue. When the returner blocks a 140+mph serve, the ball comes back too fast for the server to get in position to volley.
Patrick Rafter often served at slower than 100mph. He used spins to keep the returners honest.