Who is actually the best volleyer ever?

I have my views but would like read yours first.

Ever?

Mac and Fed.
Some doubles players are brilliant, too.

oh yeah double players.....

Stepanek is also great, so much flair and mischief.

Llodra is quick and more a classic old school.

Many players don't have a clue how to volley, especially the young players, and that's scary.

Llodra for me was the best I have seen (first starting watching in '01).
Henman up there for sure. 
Feds below them for me but not by much.

Everyone talks about Edberg from what i've seen.

Lol at Kim voting rafa.

I think comparing Edberg/McEnroe with Step, Fed and Llodra is a bit unfair to the latter as they have to deal with a very different ball at the net.

luvsports! wrote:Lol at Kim voting rafa.

I wanted to make him happy. nadal woudl not make my top 100. No kidding. I don;t think I have seen him hit a single attacking volley.

In terms of eye/hand coord - essential in volleying- we know fed is above the rest. However it is true that if you volley all day, you are going to read and anticipate the ball better...in that respect doubles players may have an advantage..except that they woudl be in trouble if they were SVing on the single court, on their own.

Tenez wrote:In terms of eye/hand coord - essential in volleying- we know fed is above the rest. However it is true that if you volley all day, you are going to read and anticipate the ball better...in that respect doubles players may have an advantage..except that they woudl be in trouble if they were SVing on the single court, on their own.

Yes, but Paes is amazing.
He has everything except fitness. A born tennis player.
Did he ever play singles?

Stepanek is really good to watch at the net.

Fed has brought it back in vogue in some style in Cincy!

I am still in shock Mac said Nadal is a great volleyer.

I'd say Edberg.

Also I thought Rafter was pretty nifty at the net.

Ok. For me amongst Singles players it is Roger again...by a mile. Yes I was a big fan of Edberg and always was the best volleyer, especially the BH side but Edberg was dealing with a much easier ball.

Fed is dealing with much tougher spinny balls and I have been amazed at how he handles those in his feet. He is after all the only player who can beat the top players with a high percentage of net points. We know he has the best eye hand coordination, which is crucial for net play, he has an olympic gold medal in double beating all the top doubles pros and is reinventing the SV game nowadays...at 34. But above all it's his ability to handle those nasty curvy shots deeping down which have made him my choice for the best net play. Edberg never had to deal with those....and we know Edberg coudl not do much v Agassi's returns so I am inclined to think he would be even less successful than Federer v the modern returners equipped with new strings.  

Second would be between Step and Llodra. Both huge talents...with Step far better at the angles and drop shots and Llodra better at aggressive volleys.

Yes Federer's volleying is out of this world.
I was blown away by how good he was in Cinci.

That was his talent at his shiniest best.

I wish people talked more about his volleys than that new returning tactic.

The most breath-taking tennis I have ever seen.

I chose Mac alongside Fed because of the feel he had for the ball.
And that was the last era when fitness and athleticism did not matter so much.

noleisthebest wrote:I chose Mac alongside Fed because of the feel he had for the ball.
And that was the last era when fitness and athleticism did not matter so much.

in that department Stepanek is as good as Mc.

Tenez wrote:Ok. For me amongst Singles players it is Roger again...by a mile. Yes I was a big fan of Edberg and always was the best volleyer, especially the BH side but Edberg was dealing with a much easier ball.

Fed is dealing with much tougher spinny balls and I have been amazed at how he handles those in his feet. He is after all the only player who can beat the top players with a high percentage of net points. We know he has the best eye hand coordination, which is crucial for net play, he has an olympic gold medal in double beating all the top doubles pros and is reinventing the SV game nowadays...at 34. But above all it's his ability to handle those nasty curvy shots deeping down which have made him my choice for the best net play. Edberg never had to deal with those....and we know Edberg coudl not do much v Agassi's returns so I am inclined to think he would be even less successful than Federer v the modern returners equipped with new strings.  

Second would be between Step and Llodra. Both huge talents...with Step far better at the angles and drop shots and Llodra better at aggressive volleys.

In some way isn't Nadal to Federer what Agassi was to Edberg? I think what I liked most about Edberg's volleying was that it was more refined. Becker/Ivanisevic were more about landing the ball over the net than precision.

I know we talk about shifting era's, but I think Federer in Edberg's day may have struggled with a pacier ball. There is no doubt Federer is fantastic at the net, I am inclined to go with Edberg. Federer wins enough plaudits as it is!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:I chose Mac alongside Fed because of the feel he had for the ball.
And that was the last era when fitness and athleticism did not matter so much.

in that department Stepanek is as good as Mc.

Yes, he is quite unique, I like the spirit that comes through his play.
Shame he plays with a DBH which is pretty average anyway.

He probably thought he didn't have a choice.

legendkillar wrote:In some way isn't Nadal to Federer what Agassi was to Edberg? I think what I liked most about Edberg's volleying was that it was more refined. Becker/Ivanisevic were more about landing the ball over the net than precision.

yes we can consider Agassi being Federer's nadal. But here there is no technology change between Edberg and Agassi. Both learnt to play under the same technology and same pace conditions (unelike Federer/nadal) and Pete managed to handle Agassi's return (thanks to a better serve obviously) but Agassi's pace was as good as today's pace but certainly not spinny like today. That makes the ball much harder to volley and place. This is why we see a lot more of drive volleys nowadays. Give federer or any of this generation volleyers flat returns and you will be surprised how precise they woudl be on the volleys. Edberg is certainly up there but simply in eye/coord fed is better and that is simply crucial in volleys. Did you see that double's point where federer plays 2 volleys within half a second?

I know we talk about shifting era's, but I think Federer in Edberg's day may have struggled with a pacier ball. There is no doubt Federer is fantastic at the net, I am inclined to go with Edberg. Federer wins enough plaudits as it is!

No. for the reason I gave above. No-one as far as I know can cope with pace better than Fed. Already at 20 Fed was beating Goran, Kraji, Pete, etc on their surface with their racquet.

I remember you like to give old guys lots of credits (Pete still being the best grass court ever...remember our discussion ) and that's good of you and I agree we should not be blinded by today's player who get so much more help (training, diet, technology, etc...) than the old guard. But we have to be fair also to today's players who are evolving in a much more competitive era than back then.

As I mentioned in my other thread, only 3 players are having it easier cause they have access to better training and diet. For the rest it is extremely hard.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:In some way isn't Nadal to Federer what Agassi was to Edberg? I think what I liked most about Edberg's volleying was that it was more refined. Becker/Ivanisevic were more about landing the ball over the net than precision.

yes we can consider Agassi being Federer's nadal. But here there is no technology change between Edberg and Agassi. Both learnt to play under the same technology and same pace conditions (unelike Federer/nadal) and Pete managed to handle Agassi's return (thanks to a better serve obviously) but Agassi's pace was as good as today's pace but certainly not spinny like today. That makes the ball much harder to volley and place. This is why we see a lot more of drive volleys nowadays. Give federer or any of this generation volleyers flat returns and you will be surprised how precise they woudl be on the volleys. Edberg is certainly up there but simply in eye/coord fed is better and that is simply crucial in volleys. Did you see that double's point where federer plays 2 volleys within half a second?

I know we talk about shifting era's, but I think Federer in Edberg's day may have struggled with a pacier ball. There is no doubt Federer is fantastic at the net, I am inclined to go with Edberg. Federer wins enough plaudits as it is!

No. for the reason I gave above. No-one as far as I know can cope with pace better than Fed. Already at 20 Fed was beating Goran, Kraji, Pete, etc on their surface with their racquet.

I remember you like to give old guys lots of credits (Pete still being the best grass court ever...remember our discussion ) and that's good of you and I agree we should not be blinded by today's player who get so much more help (training, diet, technology, etc...) than the old guard. But we have to be fair also to today's players who are evolving in a much more competitive era than back then.

As I mentioned in my other thread, only 3 players are having it easier cause they have access to better training and diet. For the rest it is extremely hard.

I think considering Goran, Kraijcek and Pete, they were by all accounts S&V players. I think with Agassi he was predominately a baseliner. I think with the volleying and why we marvel at Federer's now is that he is in a era that doesn't have high reward for the play. I think with the pacier ball I meant how would Federer cope at the net with a flat hard ball in those conds? Federer the player in 2001 wasn't the guy we see now

I think with the old guard, I think some were so in sync with a particular surface. That's why I rated Pete as the best grass player I had seen I think because of the nature of his game on that said surface. He was a force. Similar with Lendl on HC's.

I think with Federer like I do Borg I don't like to restrict him to just one surface as being his said surface. I think the fact Federer's game has been able to translate across all surfaces I think puts him in a different bracket all together. Like an un-earthly one. The problem I have with Borg is the early retirement. It's so uncertain to say whether he would've adapted his game to the emerging competition?

To me Federer has a bracket and standing all on his own

legendkillar wrote:....I think with the pacier ball I meant how would Federer cope at the net with a flat hard ball in those conds? Federer the player in 2001 wasn't the guy we see now

However fast or slow the conds I do not know a player able to put a racquet on the ball so precisely as federer and place it as precisely. Just looking at how he returned all those big servers at Wimby this year says it all...and unlike Murray and Djoko he stands closer, uses only one hand (requiring a much better eye hand coord as sweet spot is much smaller). This eye/hand coord is the very reason why Fed is still doing well at 34. So again based on that very fact, I cannot see how another player could cope with pace better than him.

I think with the old guard, I think some were so in sync with a particular surface. That's why I rated Pete as the best grass player I had seen I think because of the nature of his game on that said surface. He was a force. Similar with Lendl on HC's.

Yes he was a force and the titles speak for themselves. But when something "better" comes along, we just have to recognise it. The day someone more talented than Federer will come along...I want to be amongst the first ones to tell it. For me on grass, Fed is simply much better than Pete. When they played against each other they were pretty close...but Fed became much better with time....helped it is true by the fact that Fed learnt his tennis in a tougher environment than Pete.

To me Federer has a bracket and standing all on his own

Certainly and I don't think many would argue against that. We are not saying Fed is the most powerful player, the best stamina or even the best serve...but he has in my view about the best everything else.