How hard can it be?

[Pelle Svanslös]

Watch a (relatively) modern groundstroker demolish a volley. Does
playing a S&V guy make the groundstroker's life harder than facing
another groundstroker? Well, ... I dunno.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIhEGJnTVc#t=9m54s

A real fast serve, a fast return, a fast volley into the middle. Yep,
you guessed it, fast play. None of it particularly well placed, but
that's how fast play often goes.

What is Agassi working with when he faces the volley?

A decent volley, placed to eliminate the angles, length could be better,
but if it was, the percentages of making it would be less (IOW if my
aunt had Wilanders, she wouldn't be my aunt).

What is the netman facing when Agassi is preparing to hit the pass?

He has a relatively good potition. Lateral angles covered as well as
they can be expected to be covered.

What does Agassi do?

He has disguise going for him, the netguy has no idea where the ball
will go. Agassi is also the one with the last say. If the netguy tosses
a coin and commits, he'll have to do it before Agassi pulls the trigger.
And he'll lose.

Agassi doesn't really hit the ball hard. Or even accurately. He merely
steps forward to take the ball as early as possible.

Add 1+1 and the result is that the ball is past the netguy before he has
time to bat his eyelids.

For Agassi, this is the easiest of shots. No risks, a nice target
halfway down the court. He'll make the pass 99/100.

What does the S&Ver say to himself after the point?

Gotta try it again. Maybe with better luck. Gotta keep at it. Let's go!

What do the stats say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBuQeAYJ_Ag#t=5m23s

Ouch!

The Verdict?

"Sonny, don't play like I do".

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 16.5.2017 17:24, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> Watch a (relatively) modern groundstroker demolish a volley. Does
> playing a S&V guy make the groundstroker's life harder than facing
> another groundstroker? Well, ... I dunno.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVIhEGJnTVc#t=9m54s
>
> A real fast serve, a fast return, a fast volley into the middle. Yep,
> you guessed it, fast play. None of it particularly well placed, but
> that's how fast play often goes.
>
> What is Agassi working with when he faces the volley?
>
> A decent volley, placed to eliminate the angles, length could be better,
> but if it was, the percentages of making it would be less (IOW if my
> aunt had Wilanders, she wouldn't be my aunt).
>
> What is the netman facing when Agassi is preparing to hit the pass?
>
> He has a relatively good potition. Lateral angles covered as well as
> they can be expected to be covered.

Make that horisontal.

[Pelle Svanslös]

Then again, make it horizontal. No typo traps.

[AZ]

Shakes will say you cherry-picked a poor serve and volleyer to demonstrate your point.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 8:08:34 AM UTC-7, AZ wrote:

> Shakes will say you cherry-picked a poor serve and volleyer to demonstrate your point.

Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.

[Shakes]

Maybe you should watch Agassi's 2000 and 2001 Wim SF matches with Rafter ?

[AZ]

It doesn't matter. I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player. You are hopelessly biased.

[Shakes]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:32:21 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:49:41 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:


> > Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.
>
> It doesn't matter.

It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.

> I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player.

How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?

> You are hopelessly biased.

Yes, against poor examples.

[AZ]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:37:02 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 11:32:21 PM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 10:49:41 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
>
>
> > > Well, he picked someone ranked 176 to make his point.
> >
> > It doesn't matter.
>
> It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
>

Because the ATP tour is not restricted to a handful of top 10 players and their rare GS semifinal encounters in the late 1990s. I think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.

> > I remember you once dismissed my example of 3 time doubles GS champ Llodra (career-high doubles ranking: 3 and career high singles ranking: 21 at the time) as a poor s/v player.
>
> How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?
>

Again with the scope shifting. Henman and Rafter were great S/V players priming in the late 1990s, but we should not forget that they were also good ground-stroke makers.

Llodra, on the other hand, is primarily a doubles player, 3 times doubles GS champ, a great S/V player by any measure, but compared to Henman/Rafter not so great a baseliner. Also, and this is crucial, he is NOT playing in the 1990s. Why is this crucial? Because the court surfaces are not the same as in the late 1990s. They are in general (especially Wimbledon) much slower and more homogenized. What's more, the number of fast surface tournaments have dropped. So who knows? If Wimbledon was as fast as in the 1990s, maybe Llodra too would make it to the semis/finals of Wimbledon.

You do not take these factors into account in a deliberate fashion and just bring up Henman/Rafter's late 1990s performance and ranking whenever it's convenient to dismiss players Llodra as poor examples of S&V players. This is highly disingenuous. The efficiency of a S&V tennis player depends on many different factors such as average surface speed and bounce, the level of the field on fast surfaces, the availability of fast surface tournaments, the state of racket technology available to the receiver of the volley, etc. It is clear that in the late 1990s, all of these factors were much more advantageous to S&V players than in the late 2010s. Take Wimbledon as an example. The surface is objectively shown to be slower and bouncier, making the return of volley much easier, even more so due to racket tech improvement. What's more, the number of fast, low-bounce tournaments have dwindled so there is less opportunity for s&v players to take advantage of niche tournaments to boost their overall ranking. And the nail in the coffin is that on the homogenized surfaces of today, there is a throng of highly efficient baseliners ready to take out a S&V more than ever before, especially when they know that all the chips are in their favor.

So bringing up late 1990s ranking and slam performance to dismiss legit examples like Llodra as "poor" is at willful ignorance best, dishonesty at worst.

> > You are hopelessly biased.
>
> Yes, against poor examples.

As I said, it doesn't matter. If you deliberately set your scope withing late 90s top ten volleyers and late 90s GS quarters/semis/finals, ignore all other changes that have happened on the tour and sweepingly call everything else poor examples, there is no general discussion possible. It's hopeless. You are a hopeless biased-for-90s poster.

[Whisper]

The serve was slow, volley midcourt & just sat up.

[The Iceberg]

That's why he didn't even bother to use a clip like Agassi Rafter at Wim 2001.

[reilloc]

On 5/17/2017 6:46 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> That's why he didn't even bother to use a clip like Agassi Rafter at Wim 2001.
>

Obviously, he's Putin's man and only posts about tennis to try to
justify his presence here. Clearly, he's laying the groundwork to
contend that the Trump golf swing's the definitive stroke in that game,
that any detractors should be gulagged.

LNC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[The Iceberg]

You were one of those students that cried when Trump won and demanded to be taken to a safe space eh!

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:53:34 AM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:37:02 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:

> > It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
> >
>
> Because the ATP tour is not restricted to a handful of top 10 players and their rare GS semifinal encounters in the late 1990s. I think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.
>

Sure, for general discussion, we can compare the 177 ranked baseliner against the 176 ranked S/V'er shown in Pelle's clip.

> > How good was he compared to Henman, Rafter both in ranking and performance ?
> >
>
> Again with the scope shifting. Henman and Rafter were great S/V players priming in the late 1990s, but we should not forget that they were also good ground-stroke makers.
>

All great S/V players had relatively great groundstrokes - Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Mac etc. It comes with the package of being a great S/V player because you have to play from the baseline too when receiving and you have to be good enough from the baseline to rally and create opportunities to come to the net. Why should we exclude that ?

> Llodra, on the other hand, is primarily a doubles player, 3 times doubles GS champ, a great S/V player by any measure, but compared to Henman/Rafter not so great a baseliner. Also, and this is crucial, he is NOT playing in the 1990s.
Why is this crucial? Because the court surfaces are not the same as in the late 1990s. They are in general (especially Wimbledon) much slower and more homogenized. What's more, the number of fast surface tournaments have dropped. So who knows? If Wimbledon was as fast as in the 1990s, maybe Llodra too would make it to the semis/finals of Wimbledon.

Let's make a fair comparision between Llodra and Henman. They had an overlap from 1999 when Llodra turned pro and 2007 when Henman retired. Having turned pro in 1999, Llodra's initial best performance was in 2004 (highest ranking of 38) when he was 24 yrs old, and then in 2010-2011 (by which point Henman had retired).

So comparing their performances in 2004:


Slam W/L:

Llodra - 6-3
Henman - 16-4

Master's 1000:

Llodra - 0-3
Henman - 16-9

Total W/L for the year:

Llodra - 20-12
Henman - 44-12

Age in 2004:

Llodra - 24 yrs
Henman - 30 yrs.

IOW, Henman was actually past his prime by then and still did better than Llodra.

Get this, they played each other once at the FO that year and Henman won. And then this, Henman also beat world #1 and, at the time, 2-slam champ Federer that year at Rotterdam.


Looking at their career stats in the 2000's since we know that the surface slowdowns happened then:

From 2001-2007, Llodra's W/L is 159-139 and Henman's W/L for that period is 237-127.

Looking at all these stats, it's clear that Llodra is not even at the level of a Henman, whether it's the 1990's peak Henman or the 2000's Henman..

>
> You do not take these factors into account in a deliberate fashion and just bring up Henman/Rafter's late 1990s performance and ranking whenever it's convenient to dismiss players Llodra as poor examples of S&V players. This is highly disingenuous. The efficiency of a S&V tennis player depends on many different factors such as average surface speed and bounce, the level of the field on fast surfaces, the availability of fast surface tournaments, the state of racket technology available to the receiver of the volley, etc. It is clear that in the late 1990s, all of these factors were much more advantageous to S&V players than in the late 2010s. Take Wimbledon as an example. The surface is objectively shown to be slower and bouncier, making the return of volley much easier, even more so due to racket tech improvement. What's more, the number of fast, low-bounce tournaments have dwindled so there is less opportunity for s&v players to take advantage of niche tournaments to boost their overall ranking. And the nail in the coffin is that on the homogenized surfaces of today, there is a throng of highly efficient baseliners ready to take out a S&V more than ever before, especially when they know that all the chips are in their favor.
>
> So bringing up late 1990s ranking and slam performance to dismiss legit examples like Llodra as "poor" is at willful ignorance best, dishonesty at worst.
>

That's why I posted stats only for the 2000's above. And I posted a 7 year period to account for ups-and-downs, pre-peaks and post-peaks.

> > Yes, against poor examples.
>
> As I said, it doesn't matter. If you deliberately set your scope withing late 90s top ten volleyers and late 90s GS quarters/semis/finals, ignore all other changes that have happened on the tour and sweepingly call everything else poor examples, there is no general discussion possible. It's hopeless. You are a hopeless biased-for-90s poster.

Well, at least I am not disingenuous so as to compare two players not even in the same ballpark of performance or rankings. How would you react if I took how Henman performed against a baseliner like Nicolas Massu and came to the conclusion that baseliners have no change against S/V'ers. You want to make a fair comparision, compare two players in the same ranking bracket.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 17.5.2017 22:31, Shakes wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:53:34 AM UTC-7, AZ wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 12:37:02 PM UTC+6, Shakes wrote:
>
>>> It does matter. I wonder why he didn't pick the Agassi-Rafter
>>> matches of 2000-2001 in that case.
>>>
>>
>> Because the ATP tour is not restricted to a handful of top 10
>> players and their rare GS semifinal encounters in the late 1990s. I
>> think Pelle is trying to have a general discussion.
>>
>
> Sure, for general discussion, we can compare the 177 ranked baseliner
> against the 176 ranked S/V'er shown in Pelle's clip.

Arnab is correct. The point of the point was:
1) to put the hypothesis that adjusting to different opponents is a
brain racking experience into a different light. Agassi wins the point
by doing what he does day in day out. However, don't take me wrong. I
agree with the hypo to some extent. To which, I'm not sure yet myself.
2) to illustrate that the groundgame was not nearly a finished product
in 1992. S&V was. Saceanu would have won the point against somebody
staying 1m behind the BL. Agassi steps in, and the attacker turns into a
defender.

The point is not to compare Agassi to Saceanu.

I'm not of course saying that this is the end all, be all of anything
either. 2) doesn't apply to all points and Agassi still lost matches and
lost them to S&Vers too.

But it is an example of one of the many changes that all seem to put the
volleyer at a disadvantage.

The numbers game will do, and did, the rest.

>
> All great S/V players had relatively great groundstrokes

:) Nice way of spinning this.

- Edberg,
> Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Henman, Mac etc.

:)

[Carey]

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 6:57:16 AM UTC-7, reilloc wrote:
> On 5/17/2017 6:46 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
> > That's why he didn't even bother to use a clip like Agassi Rafter at Wim 2001.
> >
>
> Obviously, he's Putin's man and only posts about tennis to try to
> justify his presence here. Clearly, he's laying the groundwork to
> contend that the Trump golf swing's the definitive stroke in that game,
> that any detractors should be gulagged.
>
> LNC

Pootin!! Rooskies!! Omnipotent and omnipresent, it seems...
Can't believe people are still buying this stuff. Well, not many are, except for Dem apparatchiks.

Russia's GNP and population are both roughly equal to... Mexico's.

It's not workin



R