Miss Serve and Volley? Get Over It.

Alright, that’s it. I’m tired of reading these rants from old school tennis fans that say our sport is going down the drain since they don’t see the stylistic choices of tennis players past any longer. I can understand where they’re coming from and don’t blame them for missing serve and volley a bit, but it’s time to accept the changes to our sport and stop the whining. Historically grass has been the fastest surface in tennis with low, skidding bounces making ground strokes challenging. Combine this with the lesser athletes and small, heavy wooden rackets of several generations ago and it’s easy to understand why getting to the net as soon as possible was the best play.

Since then serve and volley tennis has all but gone away at Wimbledon and it’s due to three main reasons:

The Grass

I’ve read several blogs recently that seem to regard the “supposed” slowing of the surface at Wimbledon as some kind of conspiracy theory, as if players are just saying this as an excuse. News flash: the type of grass being used has actually changed, it’s a documented fact. The new type (100% rye) plays much, much slower than the combination of rye and creeping red fescue that was previously used. The change was made back in 2001 and shortly thereafter the serve and volley game all but disappeared. Coincidence? No, it’s not.

The Players

Current professional players hit the ball harder and with more spin from everywhere on the court than ever before. It used to be that to hit a winner from the baseline you had to be in a balanced position with your weight moving through the shot and “stepping in”. That has completely gone out the window. Why? Today’s professional players have made training and physical strength into a science. They’re faster, stronger, and more versatile than ever before which makes ridiculous passing shots possible while practically falling over in the corner.

The Gear

Personally, I feel that way too much emphasis is placed on modern rackets and strings, I think the biggest difference between current pros and those 15 years ago is in training and athleticism, not rackets and strings. However, the more powerful rackets and polyester strings have definitely made a difference, no question about it.

Put It Together

So, we have a slower, higher bouncing surface, bigger, stronger, more versatile athletes, and equipment that accentuates both power and spin. Why in the world is anybody surprised that professional players are hesitant to get close to their opponents by coming to the net after taking all of this into account? It’s important that we never forget those who came before us and the lessons that they taught us, however it’s time for everybody complaining about this shift in tactics to put away their whimsical thoughts of the good old days and accept the facts: the times they are a-changin’.

The last thing that I’d like to say about this is that we need to give current professional players more respect. To those of you who are detracting the tactical choices of these players: what is your conclusion as to why exactly the pros are neglecting the serve and volley game? If the grass is the same as before and serve and volley still would be the best strategy to use, then how can you possibly explain why it’s gone away almost completely? Are they just stupid? Do you really know more than they do about winning against the worlds best players in 2010? If it is in fact true that Sampras could come out of retirement right now and dominate the field with his serve and volley game then why doesn’t he? You really think he enjoys the couch more than winning titles? And if serve and volley is so far superior against the modern baseline game then how come not even ONE player on tour hasn’t figured this out yet and even made it to the round of 16 serving and volleying exclusively at Wimbledon, much less won multiple titles?

To those of you who disagree with me, I’d love to see your answers to those questions in the comments below. And if not, quit your whining.

Good Tennis Instruction, Poorly Applied

So often I see and hear tennis instruction that just doesn’t make any sense. Recreational players can latch onto this poor information without knowing the difference and I think it’s really a shame. Below is a post on the ET forums from a new member, he gives a perfect example of what I’m talking about and then I answer his question!

The “Mogul Move”

“The other day I was exploring one tennis website and came across the explanation of Mogul move:

“Contact Move: The body becomes elevated after the hit where the hips shift powerfully sideways and both feet turn and finish pointing in the direction of the target. Again, weight moves sideways after contact and spinning or rotating the hips will cause the ball to be dumped into the net. Hit off a moving unstable stance, the secret to the Mogul Move is staying down throughout the shot instead of jumping or lifting on contact. ”

So how to do it? Only hips should move sideways but the weight should not?

This move is mostly used for a wide forehand, which is a headache for me. I’d really like to master it. In my practice, more often than not, I either dump the ball into net or hit the ball very long. Can someone explain to me why weight moving sideways and rotating hips will cause the ball to be dumped into the net?”

Response From Ian

“You’re describing things that I often read online, things that just don’t make any sense. I think you’re asking a really good question: why will moving your weight sideways while rotating your hips cause the ball to go into the net? This is a perfect example of somebody online trying to teach something pretty advanced to recreational players, and claiming that it will fix a problem that is much, much more fundamental in nature.

Any groundstroke will only really hit the net for one of three reasons:

1. The racket face is too closed at contact, the strings are facing down towards the court.

2. The racket didn’t lift the ball enough, it didn’t start low enough before contact, or didn’t finish high enough after contact. The swing was too straight, or maybe even downwards.

3. The ball hit off the frame, poor contact, it didn’t travel as it should have.

That’s it. Put me in any position on the court, with my feet in any stance, my momentum traveling any direction, my hips turning either direction, using any grip, and I can make the shot. Period. Now, any of those things may cause good technique to become more difficult, and can INDIRECTLY cause you to miss a shot by throwing you into poor mechanics, but which direction your hips are turning, and which direction your weight is moving has nothing to do with the direction that the ball travels.

Is the footwork described a good thing, can it improve your game and be beneficial? Yes, absolutely, I’m not knocking the idea of the mogul move, or saying that it’s wrong. All I’m saying here is that you should be careful what results you’re expecting to get out of instruction like this, and saying that doing a mogul move correctly or incorrectly will either cause you to make or miss forehands is just plain wrong.”

Next time you read tennis instruction online simply ask yourself “does this make sense?”. If you can’t answer “yes” then leave it alone, the vast majority of differences between different levels of tennis players are the basic, fundamental parts of the game. Anything more complicated than that shouldn’t be paid attention to most of the time.