Technically speaking, Federer is a strong contender for the best volley, serve, forehand, and backhand slice in tennis history. His movement is also very high on the list. Simply the best.
@@ryaniam22Even Wawrinka sliced/slices quite a lot of backhands, it’s just a really handy shot to have in general, and pretty much necessary to have a good or at least decent one if you have a one hander.
@@JanStront The problem with the one-handed backhand is that you have to position yourself to get a good shot. At that level and speed, this is sometimes hard to do, that's why they slice more often than not.
I actually think Fed's volleys were his best shot from a technical/touch/feel/hands/reflex standpoint. The only reason he's not considered the best volleyer ever is that the rest of his game was so good. Rafter and Edberg (for example) built their whole respective games around getting to the net, whereas Fed didn't have to. His net play was there though when he needed it and as such became a kind of artistic cherry on top of the rest of his magnificent arsenal of technical artistry.
I think anyone who serves and volleys on both first AND second serves is probably going to be ahead here. US Open 2000 Pat Rafter - I've still never seen anyone volley like that since, and that was hardcourt - but it's a different mindset. You have to volley as if your life depends on it, and turn defence into offence. John MacEnroe was excellent at that, making winners out of nothing more than a suicidal position at the net on break point down. He could also win with terrible tennis. That isn't Federer's strategy; he's volleying under less pressure. That's not to say he couldn't, in a different age of tennis. But he calculates it because it's strategic. He does not ever win with bad points. He doesn't have to. I agree with you, Rafter simply did not have the game to change gears. Edberg probably not either.
Federer is lightyears ahead with his volleys, I continue to be amazed by how good his anticipation was, his net coverage was so much better than everybody else's. I have seen training sessions with Federer, the stopvolleys he casually hits on really fast passing shots to fool around a bit are a sight to behold.
It's enough to watch s few matches Federer played (including some he lost) to realize he is and probably will remain the uncontested GOAT, in terms of skills, elegance and efficacy on the court.
Federer’s once coach Stefan Edberg, IMO, is the best volleyer. Federer’s volley tends to wait till ball drops below net and hit up while Edberg tries to finish all net points above the net, Federer has much improved since he hired Edberg
I had to think long and hard about this. I think its partly because Edberg used a kick serve very often when serve + volleying, meaning the ball was in the air longer, allowing him more time to get closer to the net. Returns didn't have as much time to dip lower. Similarly, Rogers time had much stronger groundstroke players, and racket tech had moved on, to allow both more power AND more spin. That meant less time for him to GET to the net, and shots were also coming in lower. I think also there's a place for the discussion in court speeds. I remember one year at Wimbledon he was almost exclusively serve + volley, and the next year when the courts were slowed, he was back about 80% of the time. Court Pace Index might be useful in this discussion. In any case, whether a player hit the ball from below the net, or above the net, they still had to hit it. I'm sure Roger got plenty of shots above the net, because his ground game was so strong. I always marveled at the fact that once he hit his first volley, opponents rarely were able to win a point after that volley. Other things being equal, I think there's very little to choose between the two players. They were both excellent. Maybe the biggest difference is their records on grass (before it was slowed), and fast carpet, which helped the serve and volley player tremendously.
Federer's volley is by far the best ever, he was constantly not only finishing points like Nadal or others, he would play several volleys, attack you with it and so on in an era where almost nobody volleys anymore due the courts being slower than before and players hitting stronger, faster. In the past there were some great volleys like Edberg, Sampras etc... but again, conditions were different, players didn't move as fast as they do now
Roger Federer for those in the back row, is the most complete attacking player and attacking game that tennis has ever seen or will see. There willl never be another. He's not the numbers GOAT but for me he is the most spectacularly gifted player Ive ever seen play. I'd rather watch Federer hit up against the wall than watch another clown show slam final w Novak he just does nothing for me spiritually speaking w his tennis. Roger's God mode is untouchable and has a significantly higher ceiling than both Novak and Rafa. All of tennis has gone two dimensional since Roger hanged up the racquet. The game iis not the same. Thank God for Carlos.
7-0 against Rafa to end his career. With his improved backhand after 2017 ever a roided up Rafa had no chance against Federer's much more talented, aggressive...and to be honest enjoyable playing style. Even Novak, who is a more all around player than Rafa could onky barely beat an old Federer by.....wait for it.....2 total points over back to back 5 hour Wimbledon finals. If tennis hadn't deliberately 'Tiger Proofed' tennis against Federer by slowing downs ALL the surfaces and ALL the balls then nobody woukd have ever given a shut about Novak because he'd be stuck at like maybe 4 major. Meanwhile Federer would have like 33 lol. At least Rafa would still be important because he at least would still have dominant clay and probably still have 18 or so majors.
Call me old school, but GOAT has to master all tools in tennis ( like baseball 5-tool player classification ). This gets above being great in their specific time in the age they played in. Federer will be the very best player I have seen in my lifetime. He could have dominated in any age of tennis he played in, right the way back to wooden racquets. I can't honestly say that of either Nadal or Novak. But I also don't think I could say that of MacEnroe, Edberg or Sampras either. I think Andre Agassi is probably the next best, simply for his striking of the ball. Hand eye coordination is really the biggest weapon in the game, because it creates time - that's the natural gift that you can't teach, it soaks into every shot and tactic - and no-one was quicker, not before or since. His gift would have been ferocious in any age.
@@user-ku2oy2df7m agreed 100%. My friends are like Alcaraz is devastating and I'm like he is to these 2 dimensional homogenized two handers. Even at 37 I wouldnt have seen Alcaraz beating Fed out of the box like he did to Nadal and Novak. It takes a 3D talent like Kyrgios to do that. Fed would have translated to any time and able to handle any player and his completeness will never be seen again. Sad.
Beautiful volleys that are helped by opponents knowing that this overhead is among the best all time as well. And even if you somehow get it over his head, then he's still likely to humiliate you with a tweener or other highlight shot.
I am a HUGE Roger fan. To me, he will be the GOAT, always. But Roger's volley may not even rank in the Top 5 for me. While he had amazing touch and pulled off some amazing volleys, he wasn't consistently a great volleyer and didn't command the net like so many other greats. With that, he definitely has the greatest drop volley ever. But it's his drive volleys that just put him behind others, especially his first volleys once at net. Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg, John McEnroe, and Pat Rafter all had superior drive volleys. Their racquet takebacks were more efficient and their grips were stronger.
Hard to claim this. Pat Rafter, Pete Sampras. Edberg, McEnroe. But all round sure. I hate they took the game away from Federer making the balls heavier and the courts slower. Feds reactions and hand eye made him Untouchable before that
Compare that to the current gen, it's like adding salt to the wound. Poetry in action, that's what we were blessed to witness, friends. Now it's gone. Bring on the big guns. Artillery from the base line, shot to the right, reload, shot to the left. No regrets though, I enjoyed it plenty while it lasted. Fedal duels, Federer-Djovovic duels. It was like a golden age, wasn't it?
There are some great volleys in this footage. But quite a bit is either Roger playing other shots - dropshot or backhand smash - or there are volleys that the great volleyers of the past would expect to be able to do (Macenroe, Edberg, Rafter, Laver, Roche etc). And, of course, there are some volleys only Roger could do!
Technically speaking his volleying is perfect but other players had just as good technique but better instincts like McEnroe, Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Rafter.
For all the young guys here, look at the point against Blake at 3:03. That's a real speed court, the kind of one that we don't see anymore and that changed the whole tennis.
Yes I try and explain to everyone that tennis tried to Roger proof tennis like gold tried to Tiger proofed golf and they did it by slowing down ALL the courts AND the balls. Roger's forehand was consistently 10 kph faster in the air before the ball changes and kept that pace up and didn't bounce as high before they fucked with all the grass and hardcourts (not sure if they slowed clay even more or not). I do know the one time they used fast blue clay Roger smoked Rafa in the final of the first clay court tourney of the season and Rafa shit a brick. He whined so much and literally threatened to never enter a clay tournament again if they used blue clay. Tennis caved like pansies and he got his way. But I never remember Roger mentioning the slowing of the courts even once.
The whole ‘best ever’ discussions are nonsense and a WOT. Just enjoy the greatness of each of the players named below. Anybody commenting who can do any of this please step forward.
Wilander, Mac and Edberg weren't volleying 83 mph average FH's and BH's. Fed all day. So for that reason and the resulting control and spectacular placement makes Roger the best volleyer of all time for me. I've been watching and playing tennis for 45 yrs this year so I have persepctive.
McEnroe and Edberg were UNQUESTIONABLY better volleyers. Sampras and Rafter probably were as well. I imagine guys like Laver and Rosewall were, too. Federer's great but those guys lived at the net; Fed just liked to vacation there.
Best? The good-old age-old question, isn't it? Key word, old. Too many objective and, above all, subjective variables to come up with an answer that satisfies everybody (meaning, forget it! every opinion is valid and can't be argued with). If you're talking about pure aesthetics then: volley, Edberg; serve, bah, either Roger or Sampras; forehand, Sampras; backhand, still Edberg; overall, definitely Roger. Other criteria? I'll not delve into any of them. My 2p and mine alone.
Edberg had more technically correct volleys - but Roger's just oozed shear talent..... Shame he approached on such poor approaches - the best players (Novak, Rafa especially) passed him more easily than they should have been able to.
