How about these second serves and volleys ?
Shakes
http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/213/238
http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/265/272
http://splicd.com/ns5yw3MxcqY/141/155
http://splicd.com/M-6euy_WUfE/425/439
They are all from one match too. Not bad, eh ?
Here are a couple more:
http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/10/16
http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/350/370
The last one was amazing. Brad just kept shaking his head.
Tennis4Life
> http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/179/195
>
> http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/213/238
>
watch how he drops his center of gravity to pick that volley.. his
right knee is almost touching the ground when he hits the ball.
excellent form.
> http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/265/272
>
> http://splicd.com/ns5yw3MxcqY/141/155
>
> http://splicd.com/M-6euy_WUfE/425/439
>
> They are all from one match too. Not bad, eh ?
>
> Here are a couple more:
>
> http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/10/16
>
> http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/350/370
>
> The last one was amazing. Brad just kept shaking his head.
Brad knows 'winning ugly' doesn't work against this guy.
Iceberg
VERY GOOD POST! POST OF THE WEEK POSSIBLY!
Patrick Kehoe
ABSOLUTELY love watching Pete serve... that first strike off the
racket from Sampras is a classic... WHAT a second serve the guy had...
amazing!
P
Shakes
Yes, and, IMO, that's the kind of second serve you need to keep Nadal
on the backfoot. Because, once the return is in play starting from a
neutral situation, there's NOBODY currently who is better than Nadal.
And nobody has this good a second serve, not even Fed.
Sampras' 2nd serves against Agassi were like 117, 119, 120. That's at
least 10-15 mph more than anybody else's second serve. And he was able
to pull it off, more often than not.
God, how I would've loved to see Sampras and Nadal play on grass and
HC. Pete was clutch with his serving and volleying, and Nadal is
clutch too.
Shakes
> On Sep 28, 8:03 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/179/195
>
> >http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/213/238
>
> watch how he drops his center of gravity to pick that volley.. his
> right knee is almost touching the ground when he hits the ball.
> excellent form.
>
Yes. That's why I strongly disagree with people who claim there are
players today who can volley as well as Sampras. The guy was a
phenomenal volleyer. He was a monster on grass and fast HC. He had the
serve, the volley, the athleticism, quick strike baseline game, and he
was clutch mentally.
> >http://splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/265/272
>
> >http://splicd.com/ns5yw3MxcqY/141/155
>
> >http://splicd.com/M-6euy_WUfE/425/439
>
> > They are all from one match too. Not bad, eh ?
>
> > Here are a couple more:
>
> >http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/10/16
>
> >http://splicd.com/NQVGNaY8HJk/350/370
>
> > The last one was amazing. Brad just kept shaking his head.
>
> Brad knows 'winning ugly' doesn't work against this guy.
I always loved it when Sampras beat Agassi. There's nothing like
punching an ace past someone who is considered the greatest returner
ever, esp. on 2nd serve.
Vari L. Cinicke
Wonder why Sampras and Nadal haven't managed to play some exos. Maybe
they will mix it up in Macau one of these days on ultrafast courts.
--
Cheers,
vc
Shakes
Actually, Sampras has, on at least a couple of occasions, expressed
keen interest to play Nadal. In his words, he "wants to get a feel of
what his shots are like. If they are really as heavy as people say
they are".
I really wish they had played an exo or two. If Nadal plays SAP open
anytime, I think they would've arranged for an exo there. Sampras
played a couple of exos there - against Safin and Haas.
TT
Well Sampy did lose a lot on hc to Andre.
I'd really like to see them play on grass. Hard to see Sampras breaking him.
At hit for haiti exo they did face in doubles, Sampras really really had
trouble at the net against Rafa's passing shots, then again who wouldn't...
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Shakes
Agreed. But he won a lot too.
> I'd really like to see them play on grass. Hard to see Sampras breaking him.
> At hit for haiti exo they did face in doubles, Sampras really really had
> trouble at the net against Rafa's passing shots, then again who wouldn't...
>
Yes, I reckon he would have trouble against Nadal's passing shots. But
it would've been great to see how he would've adjusted.
Looking at the clips above, I think he would've ramped up his serve,
like he did against Agassi, at the expense of a few doubles. It
would've been a great match-up, stylistically. An all-time great S/
V'er against an all-time great baseliner.
Like always, it comes down to his level of serving. If Sampras has a
good serving day, I don't see Nadal breaking him. Likewise, if he has
an average serving day, Nadal will be all over him.
Shakes
Courier once said that Sampras' attitude towards the 2nd serve was
different to most players. Sampras looked upon it as being given 2
chances to hit a 1st serve. He figured he could, more often than not,
hit a 1st serve in one of the two attempts. :-)
Tennis4Life
>
> - Show quoted text -
that attitude came from the confidence that he could deliver second
serves as good as his first serves.
attitude without ability is nothing.
Shakes
Yes, and that confidence came from practice. Plus his impeccable ball
toss. Sampras has the best ball toss I've seen. Amazing control on the
toss.
Joe Ramirez
> Courier once said that Sampras' attitude towards the 2nd serve was
> different to most players. Sampras looked upon it as being given 2
> chances to hit a 1st serve. He figured he could, more often than not,
> hit a 1st serve in one of the two attempts. :-)
I recall discussing this issue some years ago, but it seems to me that
many players could benefit from a strategy of eliminating the
conventional second serve altogether and simply attempting an all-out
"first serve" every time.
Consider the following parameters, which I believe are within the
normal ranges:
1st serves in: 60%
Points won on 1st serve: 80%
2nd serves (conventional) in: 95%
Points won on 2nd serve (conventional): 40%
Under these circumstances, a player who hits a first serve and then,
if he misses, attempts a conventional second serve, will win 63.2% of
his total service points. But if he goes for a "first serve" on *both*
service attempts, he will win 67.2% of his service points. Thus, he
would be better off without using a conventional second serve.
Adjusting the basic percentages obviously affects the outcomes. If you
can win 50% of your conventional second serve points, the two
strategies will produce almost exactly equal results (but still with a
tiny edge to the "two first serves" approach). If you can make 70% of
your first serve attempts, then you have even more incentive to go all-
out on both serves.
An important difference between the two approaches is the way points
are lost. The player who goes for two first serves will double-fault
16% of the time; the conventional player will double-fault only 2% of
the time. I suppose this could produce an unnerving, "Damn, I'm
beating myself!" feeling for a while with the two first serves
strategy, but in the long run I think that could be overcome,
especially since there would be many more aces and cheap points won on
the "second" serve.
Javier González
Yeah. And I'd factor in that it's better to keep "raining rockets", in
or not, on your opponent than to give him opportunities to unload on
your conventional second serve and get himself pumped up on return
winners. The key (and not so easy feat considering the tennis culture)
would be to accept double faults as the price of doing 2x1st serve
business instead of getting the negative mental effect of double
faulting.
Joe Ramirez
I believe that my suggested approach is generally correct when the
basic percentages line up, but one factor that the model does not take
into account is streakiness. It's rare for a male player's
conventional second serve to falter consistently, but not so uncommon
for a first serve to "go off" for a while. Should that occur, the "two
first serves" strategy could produce multiple-double-fault games that
result in service breaks. But when the first serve comes back "on," a
run of great serving won't make up the deficit, because holding at
love is no better than holding at 30 or at deuce, as far as the set
score goes. Thus, streaky servers probably would be prudent to stick
with a conventional second serve, to avoid occasional double-fault
carnage. Servers whose first serve clicks at a fairly consistent rate
throughout a match should employ two first serves if the percentages
so dictate.
Shakes
Exactly. IMO, it's the streakiness that prevents this model from being
used. Most people use the kicker for the 2nd serve because it usually
lands in. However, because it's hit at a slower pace, it's apt to be
attacked unless it's placement is perfect.
Sampras also followed the same theory. However, I think instead of
attempting two "actual" 1st serves, he attempted to add some extra
pace to his kicker, when required.
So, in essence where most players have this scenario on their serves:
1st serve - flat, 120-125 mph
2nd serve - kicker 95 mph
Sampras had:
1st serve - flat, 120-125 mph
2nd serve (regular) - 100-105 mph
2nd serve (against Agassi) - 115-120 mph
He said, more than once, that the toss is the key.
bob
you are assuming that a guy who can hit 60% 1st serves knowing he has
another chance will continue to hit 60% knowing he does *not*have
another chance. IMO, 2nd serve % goes waydown from pressure/nerves.
bob
bob
you haven't addressed the obvious: how bout hitting a serve in between
1st and 2nd in speed, but able to put it in say 80%.
bob
Shakes
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
Good point. But the reason for this is addressed in my earlier post
above. Mostly the second serve is a kicker while the first is usually
a flat or a slice. So, it's kind of like a digital value. 1 = flat
serve or 1st serve; 0 = kicker or 2nd serve.
Sampras followed your suggestion by hitting his kicker harder than
most, sort of making it a combination of flat and kicker.
bob
wrote:
i know you're calling it 1 or 0 but IMO you could hit a "hard kicker"
and put in 80%. think of a slightly harder sampras 2nd serve. in a lot
+ win most pts off it.
bob
Joe Ramirez
Players would have to learn to cope with the pressures of a different
serving strategy. It's the same principle as your urging guys to rush
the net. Should they become intimidated after being passed a few
times? No -- just accept it and continue to play the percentages. A
player employing the "two first serves" approach would have to learn
to accept more double-faults, and just relax and continue to bomb them
in.
Joe Ramirez
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:02:56 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>
>
>
>
>
This is a plausible compromise approach, but its utility cannot be
firmly demonstrated because as far as I know, there are no statistics
on either serving percentage or points-won percentage when serving at
some intermediate speed. E.g., it might be that a three-quarter pace
serve is no more effective than a conventional second serve in staving
off an aggressive returner.
Whisper
Never at USO - 4 wins v 0, all 3 or 4 setters.
>
> I'd really like to see them play on grass. Hard to see Sampras breaking
> him.
huh? Oh it's TT type analysis - 'Borg had single-handed bh', 'Safin had
little power' etc
> At hit for haiti exo they did face in doubles, Sampras really really had
> trouble at the net against Rafa's passing shots, then again who wouldn't...
>
Sure, if Rafa has time to set up for his shots. Just think of Rafa's
losses to Potro last yr at USO, & to Tsonga at AO & multiply it by 3.
I think you'll find the correct analysis is Rafa would have trouble
breaking Sampras, & if he lost his own serve he's fucked. Sampras
wouldn't be bunting the returns back & rallying like Fed - he'd be going
for the kill most of the time & % say he'd break through.
Whisper
He underlined his 'all time 2nd serve king' status by producing a
phenomenal 2nd serve ace on matchpoint in the fabled 1999 Wimbledon
final v Agassi. Probably the best 2nd serve I've ever seen.
Has anyone else won a slam on 2nd serve ace? Probably not.
Whisper
Yep. Pretty hard for your opponent to get comfortable/find a rhythm
when you're serving bombs on the line every time. It also causes them
to tighten up on their own service games, knowing a lapse means the set
is gone.
Whisper
Yes, but not sure how many guys had the psyche to pull it off? A guy
like Stich comes to mind - smart & excellent serve mechanics.
Iceberg
exactly, Sampras could stay in a rally if he wanted, that is, to set
up a winner, but he pretty much only knew attack attack attack, in his
era there weren't these endless baseline rallies. If Nadal got broken,
that'd be pretty much it, your Potro/Tsonga examples X 3 is a very
good comparison.
Iceberg
I don't think he's practiced his volleys a huge amount recently,
that's only reason they're a bit off, they were better than when he
played Fed at Madison Sq Gdn though and that went to a tiebreak.
Iceberg
thanks for this Joe, sounds like a good strategy, will try this out in
next match, I need something new as I've been relying on my big 1st
serve too much and if it's off it gets annoying to continually hit
2nd's that people always return.
Shakes
Stich was awesome. A tall guy like that with all that ability. The guy
had every shot in the book. And yes, his serve was both huge and
beautiful to watch.
Stich and Korda are, IMO, two players who clearly had an extra serving
of pure talent.
arnab.z@gmail
Against Nadal, my guess is Pete would lose many more times than he has
lost to Agassi. And Pete lost to Agassi 14 times.
TT
> Consider the following parameters, which I believe are within the
> normal ranges:
>
> 1st serves in: 60%
> Points won on 1st serve: 80%
> 2nd serves (conventional) in: 95%
> Points won on 2nd serve (conventional): 40%
The problem here is that these figures are not within normal range:
-Only TWO players in ATP tour have 1st serve win 80% or more.
-NO ONE has 2nd serve win percentage at 40% or less, the normal figure
is from 45% up.
Also has to be noted that in your example, Joe, your math was
technically correct(nice!) - but you forgot that double-faults are
actually _included_ in "2nd serve points won" -stat by ATP...thus the
percentages you counted were actually for a total of 38% (0.95x0.4) of
2nd serve points won...not even lowly 40%.
I looked at most likely players who would benefit from serving 2 first
serves...and I could find only one, guess who? :)
That is correct - Ivo Karlovic. I'm pretty certain that *Karlovic* is
the *only player* in entire ATP tour who would _mathematically_ benefit
from serving 2 first serves.
Although I doubt he would _actually_ benefit from it...because of nerves
and perhaps streakiness of 1st serve as mentioned in other posts.
*
Here is *da math* for KARLOVIC, if anyone is interested:
1st Serve: 64%
1st Serve Points Won: 84%
2nd Serve Points Won: 51%
To win a point - conventional serving:
0.64(0.84) + 0.36(0.51)= 0.721
To win a point - 2 first serves:
0.64(0.84) + 0.36(0.64x0.84)= 0.731 ...better option for Ivo
So 0.721 and 0.731 are the _actual_ probabilities for Karlovic winning
one service point using these 2 different serving methods.
*
...However there is a much easier way to calculate if a player should
stick to conventional serving or not:
As you can see from above, the mathematical functions are mostly
identical, so we can drop most of it, if we just want to compare which
one is a _better_ way to serve.
We don't need to include first serve at all - the reason being that one
always serves the first serve same way(hard) in both options...
So the easy way to calculate is:
KARLOVIC 2ND SERVE:
"Another 1st serve" win%:
0.64x0.84 = 0.5376
"Conventional" 2nd serve win%:
0.51 (double faults are included in percentage)
0.5376 > 0.51 ...Thus Karlovic should serve "another first serve" on his
2nd serve, in theory.
-TT
Shakes
My guess is it would be about the same. I give Sampras the edge on
grass and the USO, while Nadal has the edge on the slower AO.
I would give Fed the definite edge against Sampras on clay and HC,
except grass where I feel Sampras can match him.
To me, Fed's returns are better than Nadal's and that's why Fed would
do better against Sampras than Nadal. And that's why Agassi beat
Sampras 14 times too. Nadal does not have the returns of Agassi or Fed
or Hewitt. Nadal makes players pay on their 2nd serve. IMO, on grass
and the USO, I don't see Nadal being able to attack the kind of 2nd
serves I showed in the original post. And most of those were under
crisis - like 15-15, 30-30, deuce etc.
Shakes
>
> Sure, if Rafa has time to set up for his shots. Just think of Rafa's
> losses to Potro last yr at USO, & to Tsonga at AO & multiply it by 3.
>
> I think you'll find the correct analysis is Rafa would have trouble
> breaking Sampras, & if he lost his own serve he's fucked. Sampras
> wouldn't be bunting the returns back & rallying like Fed - he'd be going
> for the kill most of the time & % say he'd break through.
I agree.
Win or lose, the match will be played on Sampras' terms. Too many
players these days play on Nadal's terms, rallying till the cows come
home.
Sampras, because of his huge serve and Nadal's poor returns, has the
privilege to just go for the low-percentage shot very quickly in a
rally. It's really surprising (or not ?) to see guys huff and puff all
the way through Nadal's service games, only to find out that they are
out of gas in their own service games. The 1st rule of tennis is to
hold serve. Too many players forget that maxim, and expend their
energy to break Nadal's serve.
I said numerous times that that is a sure way to lose to Nadal.
Obviously, if the player is less skilled, it makes no difference and
Nadal would beat him. But to see players like Fed make the same
mistake is mystifying, to me.
bob
agree in theory, but in practice, rushing to net is a strategy where
hitting the ball is more or less a reaction. serving on the other hand
gives you many seconds to sit there and just *think* about it.
different situation, but pt taken.
bob
arnab.z@gmail
What makes you think Nadal has poor returns? I never got the
impression that Nadal has poor returns. Even against good servers he
has returned pretty well.
TT
No replies for debunking yet another loony theory from Ramirez? I was
expecting at least an answer from Joe but I guess not...He's the "silent
type" when he's wrong...
jdeluise
Thanks for putting some work into this post. I would wonder though...
do you think a player would be able to physically sustain putting two
first serves in for their entire career? I'm not so sure.
jdeluise
>
> No replies for debunking yet another loony theory from Ramirez? I was
> expecting at least an answer from Joe but I guess not...He's the "silent
> type" when he's wrong...
you sure you "debunked" him? I'm not.
TT
No problem. It was interesting.
TT
Go ahead check yourself, I'd be surprised if you find someone else than
Karlovic. I already checked around 15-20 most likely candidates.
If using statistics and proving mathematically that something doesn't
apply in real world doesn't constitute as "debunking" I don't know what
does...
Shakes
He's not so good at returning 1st serves. He's good on the 2nd serves.
Nadal needs time to setup and take a crack at the returns. He is not
consistently good at shortening the backswing and just using the
server's pace - ala Fed, Hewitt, and Agassi.
Watch these clips of Nadal returning serves against Tsonga, Berdych,
and Djokovic. See how far back he is standing.
http://splicd.com/3kvpvO1TJgE/16/24 - Nadal - Tsonga at Rotterdam
http://splicd.com/bQvgXOBRusA/11/14 - Nadal - Berdych at IW
http://splicd.com/iG90-qSU_Ww/252/260 - Nadal - Djokovic at the USO
Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
servers.
http://splicd.com/QlTbDY9p8r4/26/31 - Federer-Sampras
http://splicd.com/D_5WSkbl1Hc/0/6 - Federer-Berdych
Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
bob
wrote:
not sure if a 1st serve takes much more out of you than a 2nd serve,
just the angle is different.
bob
jdeluise
On 1-Oct-2010, bob <stei...@comcast.net> wrote:
> not sure if a 1st serve takes much more out of you than a 2nd serve,
> just the angle is different.
I'm just thinking that to pull something like that off you'd probably never
practice a normal second serve throughout your career. I find my first
serve to be a lot more strenuous than my second, but that's probably because
I use a jump serve there. Seems risky to me..
Shakes
Well, you start off by hitting your normal second serve. Then, by
degrees, you try to add pace to it until the point where it lands in
more often than out. Most players, most of the time though not always,
hit flat on their 1st serve and a kick or slice on their 2nd.
The key is to try and increase the pace on the kick/slice, hit it
harder while being able to keep it in. That's how Sampras improved his
2nd serve.
IMO, it doesn't take too much out of you because the mechanics are
similar to your regular 2nd serve. You just swing harder.
Pelle Svanslös
I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. Nadal of now is different
from that of a year or two years back WRT the ROS.
At the USO Rafa received closer to the baseline than I remember him
doing in previous USOs. He's not standing on the baseline, as if that's
a requirement, but he's not standing so far back as to make it a
liability either.
Rafa's ROS percentages off the 1st were better than his year to date
average in his last three USO matches. Looks like a pretty good path
he's on.
> Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
> provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
> different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
> the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
Basically, it's hard to disagree. Yet you'll never know ...
> Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
> servers.
>
> http://splicd.com/QlTbDY9p8r4/26/31 - Federer-Sampras
> http://splicd.com/D_5WSkbl1Hc/0/6 - Federer-Berdych
>
> Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
I don't know how you get this from a couple of ROS examples, where they
stand and from the fact that one met Sampras and the other didn't.
They clearly have a different ROS strategy, that's for sure. As for the
overall effectiveness of each, you have to look how they win return
games, and there Nadal isn't behind Federer. That's the only comparison
available.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
Shakes
> Shakes wrote:
>
> > He's not so good at returning 1st serves. He's good on the 2nd serves.
> > Nadal needs time to setup and take a crack at the returns. He is not
> > consistently good at shortening the backswing and just using the
> > server's pace - ala Fed, Hewitt, and Agassi.
>
> > Watch these clips of Nadal returning serves against Tsonga, Berdych,
> > and Djokovic. See how far back he is standing.
>
> >http://splicd.com/3kvpvO1TJgE/16/24- Nadal - Tsonga at Rotterdam
> >http://splicd.com/bQvgXOBRusA/11/14- Nadal - Berdych at IW
> >http://splicd.com/iG90-qSU_Ww/252/260- Nadal - Djokovic at the USO
>
> I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. Nadal of now is different
> from that of a year or two years back WRT the ROS.
Well, the last clip I've provided is from this yrs USO F. Notice where
he is standing.
Returns are based on reading the opponent's serve, instant reflexes
(from a nearly stationary position) and timing and hand-eye
coordination. Your reflexes and speed are two components that don't
keep improving with the rest of your game. You can practice all you
want. At most, you can keep them as sharp as they are, but you cannot
make them sharper. Otherwise, even Sampras would've been able to
return like Agassi. You can improve your court coverage, even though
your basic speed is the same, through better anticipation, but you
cannot improve your reflexes or raw speed.
Against players who actually serve big, like the guys I mentioned
above, Nadal, unless he can read the serve, is still the same returner
as he was before.
>
> At the USO Rafa received closer to the baseline than I remember him
> doing in previous USOs. He's not standing on the baseline, as if that's
> a requirement, but he's not standing so far back as to make it a
> liability either.
>
On the 2nd serve, yes. But watch the last clip against Djok and see
where he is on the first serve.
> Rafa's ROS percentages off the 1st were better than his year to date
> average in his last three USO matches. Looks like a pretty good path
> he's on.
>
How many matches did he actually play a huge server, esp. on the
faster courts ? It makes a lot of difference.
> > Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
> > provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
> > different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
> > the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
>
> Basically, it's hard to disagree. Yet you'll never know ...
>
> > Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
> > servers.
>
> >http://splicd.com/QlTbDY9p8r4/26/31- Federer-Sampras
> >http://splicd.com/D_5WSkbl1Hc/0/6- Federer-Berdych
>
> > Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
>
> I don't know how you get this from a couple of ROS examples, where they
> stand and from the fact that one met Sampras and the other didn't.
>
> They clearly have a different ROS strategy, that's for sure. As for the
> overall effectiveness of each, you have to look how they win return
> games, and there Nadal isn't behind Federer. That's the only comparison
> available.
THat is, however, dependent on the rest of the game AFTER the return.
I am talking about just the ability to get the ball back into play.
ANd my point is, Fed, Hewitt are better at this than Nadal. And that's
why they would do better against Sampras than Nadal, which is what the
original story was about.
Pelle Svanslös
> On Oct 1, 2:45 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
>> Shakes wrote:
>
>>> He's not so good at returning 1st serves. He's good on the 2nd serves.
>>> Nadal needs time to setup and take a crack at the returns. He is not
>>> consistently good at shortening the backswing and just using the
>>> server's pace - ala Fed, Hewitt, and Agassi.
>>> Watch these clips of Nadal returning serves against Tsonga, Berdych,
>>> and Djokovic. See how far back he is standing.
>>> http://splicd.com/3kvpvO1TJgE/16/24- Nadal - Tsonga at Rotterdam
>>> http://splicd.com/bQvgXOBRusA/11/14- Nadal - Berdych at IW
>>> http://splicd.com/iG90-qSU_Ww/252/260- Nadal - Djokovic at the USO
>> I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. Nadal of now is different
>> from that of a year or two years back WRT the ROS.
>
> Well, the last clip I've provided is from this yrs USO F. Notice where
> he is standing.
I did notice. It's also a pretty bad angle to be able to judge anything
really. It certainly looks closer than your first example.
>
>> At the USO Rafa received closer to the baseline than I remember him
>> doing in previous USOs. He's not standing on the baseline, as if that's
>> a requirement, but he's not standing so far back as to make it a
>> liability either.
>>
>
> On the 2nd serve, yes.
On the 1st also.
>> Rafa's ROS percentages off the 1st were better than his year to date
>> average in his last three USO matches. Looks like a pretty good path
>> he's on.
>>
>
> How many matches did he actually play a huge server, esp. on the
> faster courts ? It makes a lot of difference.
Well, that's true.
>
>>> Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
>>> provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
>>> different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
>>> the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
>> Basically, it's hard to disagree. Yet you'll never know ...
>>
>>> Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
>>> servers.
>>> http://splicd.com/QlTbDY9p8r4/26/31- Federer-Sampras
>>> http://splicd.com/D_5WSkbl1Hc/0/6- Federer-Berdych
>>> Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
>> I don't know how you get this from a couple of ROS examples, where they
>> stand and from the fact that one met Sampras and the other didn't.
>>
>> They clearly have a different ROS strategy, that's for sure. As for the
>> overall effectiveness of each, you have to look how they win return
>> games, and there Nadal isn't behind Federer. That's the only comparison
>> available.
>
> THat is, however, dependent on the rest of the game AFTER the return.
Of course. It goes the other way round also. The rest of the game is
dependent on the quality of the return.
Put another way, overall success in return games is conditioned on how
good the return is. How conditioned, that I don't know. But that's the
reason I said "Nadal isn't behind Federer" although he has a clear lead
in this department.
If one or the other has to be named better in overall returning, it
can't be Federer.
> I am talking about just the ability to get the ball back into play.
That might not be useful. A sucky return is a return in play but will it
help you win the point, game?
Besides, nobody keeps a back-in-play statistic, maybe you mean win% on
1st/2nd serve?
> ANd my point is, Fed, Hewitt are better at this than Nadal.
I don't see where you get this from. Why is the Federer ROS clearly
superior to Nadal?
> And that's
> why they would do better against Sampras than Nadal,
Even if you were correct up to this point, you'll never know.
Shakes
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 2:45 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> >> Shakes wrote:
>
> >>> He's not so good at returning 1st serves. He's good on the 2nd serves.
> >>> Nadal needs time to setup and take a crack at the returns. He is not
> >>> consistently good at shortening the backswing and just using the
> >>> server's pace - ala Fed, Hewitt, and Agassi.
> >>> Watch these clips of Nadal returning serves against Tsonga, Berdych,
> >>> and Djokovic. See how far back he is standing.
> >>>http://splicd.com/bQvgXOBRusA/11/14-Nadal - Berdych at IW
> >>>http://splicd.com/iG90-qSU_Ww/252/260-Nadal - Djokovic at the USO
> >> I'm not quite sure of the point you're making. Nadal of now is different
> >> from that of a year or two years back WRT the ROS.
>
> > Well, the last clip I've provided is from this yrs USO F. Notice where
> > he is standing.
>
> I did notice. It's also a pretty bad angle to be able to judge anything
> really. It certainly looks closer than your first example.
>
>
The Fed-Berdych example was from a similar angle. Note how much closer
Fed stands - not only during the return, but during the initial part
of the ensuing rally as well.
>
> >> At the USO Rafa received closer to the baseline than I remember him
> >> doing in previous USOs. He's not standing on the baseline, as if that's
> >> a requirement, but he's not standing so far back as to make it a
> >> liability either.
>
> > On the 2nd serve, yes.
>
> On the 1st also.
>
Not against the big servers.
> >> Rafa's ROS percentages off the 1st were better than his year to date
> >> average in his last three USO matches. Looks like a pretty good path
> >> he's on.
>
> > How many matches did he actually play a huge server, esp. on the
> > faster courts ? It makes a lot of difference.
>
> Well, that's true.
>
>
>
> > THat is, however, dependent on the rest of the game AFTER the return.
>
> Of course. It goes the other way round also. The rest of the game is
> dependent on the quality of the return.
>
> Put another way, overall success in return games is conditioned on how
> good the return is. How conditioned, that I don't know. But that's the
> reason I said "Nadal isn't behind Federer" although he has a clear lead
> in this department.
>
> If one or the other has to be named better in overall returning, it
> can't be Federer.
>
The thing is we are not talking about the game after the return.
Because that comes into the picture only when the player is able to
get the return back into play. I'm talking about just getting serves
back into play. And Fed and Hewitt are better than Nadal here. And
their results show it too. Fed against Sampras, Philippoussis, Ancic,
Roddick etc. Nadal hardly played any of them. And no, I don't count
Djokovic, or even Berdych, as really big servers.
> > I am talking about just the ability to get the ball back into play.
>
> That might not be useful. A sucky return is a return in play but will it
> help you win the point, game?
>
It's very useful when playing attacking players with big serves -
Sampras and Philippoussis. The key is to chip the ball low to the feet
of the incoming player. Fed and Hewitt showed they can do that. Nadal
has not. And, having seen enough of Nadal over the yrs, I don't think
he can cover the same "horizontal" range as these two. And his grip
complicates matters further. Fed and Hewitt are a lot more linear in
their strokes. Their grips are a little more classical, useful for
quick dinks, chips etc. Nadal is not of the same mould.
> Besides, nobody keeps a back-in-play statistic, maybe you mean win% on
> 1st/2nd serve?
>
No, I don't. Because we are strictly talking about returning BIG
serves.
> > ANd my point is, Fed, Hewitt are better at this than Nadal.
>
> I don't see where you get this from. Why is the Federer ROS clearly
> superior to Nadal?
>
It's a lot easier to ace Nadal than it is (or rather, was) to ace Fed.
This is undoubtedly true. Many players, commentators have commented on
it. Agassi, when he was a guest commentator in the 2007 USO QF match
between Fed and Roddick, commented that Fed was just great at
returning serves.
> > And that's
> > why they would do better against Sampras than Nadal,
>
> Even if you were correct up to this point, you'll never know.
>
The Tsonga match in the 2008 AO was good enough for me to be convinced
that Nadal would be in trouble against Sampras.
Shakes
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 2:45 pm, Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> wrote:
> >> Shakes wrote:
>
> >>> He's not so good at returning 1st serves. He's good on the 2nd serves.
> >>> Nadal needs time to setup and take a crack at the returns. He is not
> >>> consistently good at shortening the backswing and just using the
> >>> server's pace - ala Fed, Hewitt, and Agassi.
> >>> Watch these clips of Nadal returning serves against Tsonga, Berdych,
> >>> and Djokovic. See how far back he is standing.
> >>>http://splicd.com/bQvgXOBRusA/11/14-Nadal - Berdych at IW
> >>>http://splicd.com/iG90-qSU_Ww/252/260-Nadal - Djokovic at the USO
Let me quantify that, by better, I am talking in terms of a stylistic
match-up with the big serving attacking players. I am not arguing
about returns "in general". Specifically, I am talking about the
ability to cut down the aces and service winners of big servers. To
me, that is critical when playing Sampras. And, IMO, Fed and Hewitt
can do this better than Nadal.
bob
wrote:
at the recreational player's level, the 1st serve probably takes much
more. at the professional level, most cases, i'd say the swing is just
as hard, the angle is different. as a very good HS player, i practiced
thousands and thousands of serves, i don't recall the 1st serve
"wearing me out" more than the 2nd.
bob
arnab.z@gmail
>
> Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
> provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
> different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
> the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
>
> Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
> servers.
>
>
> Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
I think you are building a fantasy.
Scott
>
>
>
> > I'd really like to see them play on grass. Hard to see Sampras breaking
> > him.
>
> little power' etc
>
> > At hit for haiti exo they did face in doubles, Sampras really really had
> > trouble at the net against Rafa's passing shots, then again who wouldn't...
>
> losses to Potro last yr at USO, & to Tsonga at AO & multiply it by 3.
>
> I think you'll find the correct analysis is Rafa would have trouble
> breaking Sampras, & if he lost his own serve he's fucked. Sampras
> wouldn't be bunting the returns back & rallying like Fed - he'd be going
Incorrect analysis. The correct answer is tennis has changed a great
deal since Sampras played.
Today you can't SV. it can't be done. Sampras would be trying to
volley missiles in comparison to what he saw. Then there's the
Sampras BH--which Rafa, Soder and a lot of kill-shot artists would
feast on.
Shakes
>
> > Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
> > provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
> > different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
> > the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
>
> > Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
> > servers.
>
> >http://splicd.com/QlTbDY9p8r4/26/31-Federer-Samprashttp://splicd.com/D_5WSkbl1Hc/0/6-Federer-Berdych
>
> > Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
>
> I think you are building a fantasy.
Is that your best analysis of the above videos ? So you see no
difference between their return positions and techniques ? Do you
think Nadal is as good a returner as Fed ? I think you are building a
fantasy about Nadal. I wish you would at least give some analysis of
why you are not convinced.
I think you are doing the same mistake about Sampras that Whisper/Bob
are doing with Fed. They undervalue Fed's achievements while they
overvalue Sampras' achievements. I don't do either. While I recognize
that Fed is superior to Sampras in a few aspects of the game, I also
recognize that Sampras is superior in a few. He has to be, otherwise
how could he win 14 slams.
Tennis is all about match-ups. Just because Fed matches up badly with
Nadal does not mean that every player in history has to match-up badly
with Nadal. You are making out other past players to be early men
players when compared to Fed/Nadal. Not true.
arnab.z@gmail
>
> > > Sampras would definitely be able to take more advantage of the angles
> > > provided. No offense meant to these guys, but Sampras is in a
> > > different league as a server. It's not just the pace. It's the pace,
> > > the accuracy, the variety, and the huge spin.
>
> > > Now, watch Fed and see where he is standing when returning the big
> > > servers.
>
>
> > > Clearly, Fed is a superior returner to Nadal.
>
> > I think you are building a fantasy.
>
> Is that your best analysis of the above videos ? So you see no
> difference between their return positions and techniques ? Do you
> think Nadal is as good a returner as Fed ? I think you are building a
> fantasy about Nadal. I wish you would at least give some analysis of
> why you are not convinced.
>
> I think you are doing the same mistake about Sampras that Whisper/Bob
> are doing with Fed. They undervalue Fed's achievements while they
> overvalue Sampras' achievements. I don't do either. While I recognize
> that Fed is superior to Sampras in a few aspects of the game, I also
> recognize that Sampras is superior in a few. He has to be, otherwise
> how could he win 14 slams.
>
> Tennis is all about match-ups. Just because Fed matches up badly with
> Nadal does not mean that every player in history has to match-up badly
> with Nadal. You are making out other past players to be early men
> players when compared to Fed/Nadal. Not true.
Not at all. I am not making any definitive conclusions about how a
matchup between Sampras and Nadal would go. You are making them by the
dozens. You are making Nadal a poor returner against Sampras based on
some video clips but there is no definitive proof. You are giving
Sampras free cheap points on serves, on his approach, on his volleys,
etc in the fantasy matchup, but it's just hard to believe.
I personally believe that for Sampras, Nadal would be a much tougher
opponent than Agassi was, because of a host of reasons. Plus he would
have the same matchup advantage that he has against Federer.
Agassi and Sampras both played cowboy-style tennis. They went for big
serves, big forehands, big backhands as early as possible, and
continued to play in that vein even if the point got longer. The
tennis that Federer and Nadal play is much more nuanced, much more
athletic, and it requires much more stamina, both mental and physical.
It requires a certain kind of patience, it utilizes the full geometry
of the court. This kind of tennis didn't really exist in Agassi-
Sampras's era.
That's why I don't want to make any conclusions about how good Sampras
might do against Nadal.
jdeluise
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:25:17 GMT, "jdeluise" <jdelu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm just thinking that to pull something like that off you'd probably never
> >practice a normal second serve throughout your career. I find my first
> >serve to be a lot more strenuous than my second, but that's probably because
> >I use a jump serve there. Seems risky to me..
>
> at the recreational player's level, the 1st serve probably takes much
> more. at the professional level, most cases, i'd say the swing is just
> as hard, the angle is different. as a very good HS player, i practiced
> thousands and thousands of serves, i don't recall the 1st serve
> "wearing me out" more than the 2nd.
OK come on, you're comparing a few years of high school play with an
entire career at the top of the game....lol.
Look, even Pete said in his book that serving hard in practice caused
him to have dead arm, affected his serve, and that he had to take pain
killers to deal with the problem.