Miss Serve and Volley? Get Over It.

Comment by SteveO

Oh snap! You really threw down the gauntlet, didn’t you? I completely agree with you on this and I attribute it to players being so much stronger and faster, enabling them to get to balls that previously were winners and actually do something with them. Today’s players are physically far superior to those of even 10 years ago – do you think we would have seen a set with over a hundred games back then? No, the players would have been fainting.

Look at Taylor Dent – one of the only guys with the stones to serve and volley consistently any more. He has a HUGE serve and is very skilled at the net, probably more so than many guys in the top 10. He doesn’t even S & V every point and he is still not very highly ranked. The difference is physicality and movement. You just have to be perfect up there against the modern player and the pros know it’s just not worth the risk.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 24th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Good comments, Steve. Thanks for weighing in! No doubt about it, today’s players are ridiculous athletes.

[Reply]

Comment by ZakToscani

Thank you Ian. I have gotten sick of the old timers I play with telling me about how Fed should only S&V. It can be employed at times to throw your opponent off but other than that that style went out with the wood racquets. I also get tired of people saying Fed is stubborn about staying behind the baseline, oh I guess they must have forgot he can beat pretty much everyone from the baseline (well except one guy). I for one love this style of play the angles and spin used are all beautiful, and for me it becomes much more of a chess match with the longer rallies. The rallies test a players patience, shots, and point construction.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 24th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

I would definitely like to see Roger try the serve and volley more often, and I do think that he can be very stubborn tactically, I agree with those things. However given his success I don’t think anybody can say for certain that he should have been playing a totally different tactic through all of these grand slams.

[Reply]

Comment by Ian Westermann

Thanks for the input, Gary!

1. No, definitely not. At no point in my post did I say that serving and volleying is completely extinct, simply that people should understand it’s a whole lot more difficult than it used to be. I think that against certain opponents, those with weak or predictable returns, serving and volleying exclusively can still work great. Against others, even the best returners, it can still be used as a change up to keep them off guard. I think Roger should do more of that.

2. Good question. I think recreational players (non-pros) should absolutely learn this tactic and give it a try. It’s a whole lot of fun, I love using it. My post was only about pros, but I’d be happy to write another one about the rec players and serve and volley. You’re right, the people that you and I play don’t have nearly the same fire power or abilities, definitely a lot more room to use this tactic if it’s done correctly.

3. Every doubles player should learn how to serve and volley, at every level.

4. Yes, absolutely, both “should” and “must” situations occur at every level. I won’t list them all here

5. Depends on the age and specific physical abilities. Most of the truly old tennis players out there play a style of tennis centered around no-mans land. They’re not fast enough to cover the lob or change directions quickly while trying to close in for a put away. On the other hand I know personally plenty of middle aged tennis players who absolutely love grinding points out from the baseline, they love the fight. Your questions about prolonging careers etc are not black and white, it depends on the person, their body, and how they best get enjoyment out of the game.

As far as being one dimensional, I could easily argue the opposite, that current baseline players have more variety than the old school “serve and volley every point” tennis. Different spins, different angles, drop shots (which result in net points anyway), longer points which bring into play things like fitness and shot selection. I think we’re now starting to talk about a subjective thing, in other words, “which style do you enjoy watching most”? To that there is obviously no wrong answer. I personally enjoy most a combination of both. I love the net and can greatly appreciate serve and volley, but I love the excitement of a baseline battle as well as long as the players involved aren’t one dimensional and hitting everything flat/aiming for the lines.

[Reply]

Comment by Jacopo

I think you’re totally right technique-wise. It’s kinda funny hearing older players talking about how modern guys should come to the net or serve-volley a lot more often, because there’s so little evidence to back that up.

IMHO the biggest shame about this is that the balance of power is completely shifted away from serve-and-volleyers to baseliners.

If you watch a serve-and-volleyer vs a baseliner, it’s like two totally different styles tussling with each other for control. It’s very exciting to watch, even just occasionally, and it lends real character to the sport. It’s just a shame that there aren’t any tournaments left where that tussle can be enacted now, what with even Wimbledon having a slower court surface.

I guess that is subjective, like you say. But it’s still a shame IMHO. In another ten years, when there aren’t any Dents or Navarros around, I think that tennis will have lost something very important. The only players who will keep doing it will probably be giants like Karlovic, but seeing someone like him tap away desperate returns is hardly as entertaining as watching McEnroe or Edberg (or Dent or Navarro).

One other point: You mention that serve and volley can work a lot better at the recreation level, but there’s hardly any good instruction around on the net about how to do this and how to learn this (at least, from my hour or so of searching). I’d love it if you could address this in a podcast sometime, if it hasn’t already been! It’s so much fun to play when it works.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 11:52 am

I agree, losing serve and volley completely would really be a shame. I think it’s an exciting style of play to watch and I enjoy it very much myself! Podcast 90 talks a lot about how to correctly serve and volley, check it out!

[Reply]

Comment by Doug

One change you failed to mention that is driving the female side of the sport down the drain is the outrageous and merciless shrieks belched and hurled with every hit of the ball by more and more of the ladies.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 2:46 pm

While definitely not related to serve and volley, I do tend to agree with you on that.

[Reply]

Comment by fsilber

Serve-and-volley is nothing more than a tactic. So is playing from the baseline. Both are correct. What I find disturbing is that so many people who are upset over changes in tactics are completely undisturbed by the fact that just about everyone uses grips and swings that, according to virtually all teaching pros writing from 1930 to 1985, are downright incorrect.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 2:55 pm

That’s a good point! Thanks for the comment.

[Reply]

Comment by dropshot

I agree with you. To prove your point, there is this Junior player in the top 10 in the boys under 12 in Canada that has a serve and volley game. It’s quite unique. His ground strokes are no better than the other kids in his age group, but his serve and volley game is very well developed. Some old guy must have trained him. Most juniors are content to stay at the baseline and rally til the cows come home. This little guy serves and volleys and finishes and wins his matches quite quickly. I think as he progressess to the higher age groups, the baseliners that he is currently beating handily will increase in strength and coordination and will hit passing shots the likes of which he has never seen. He’ll have to adapt his game. So you are spot on with respect to this issue and juniors and club players who are not as physically fit as the pros; utilizing a serve and volley game could be very successful.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
June 29th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

Thanks for the comments! That’s interesting, 12 and under huh? I wonder how his overhead is, usually at that age it’s pretty tough for them to cover the court when the ball starts going up over them. Pretty cool though! I’m a big fan of serve and volley and I definitely don’t want to see it go completely extinct, I just think that fans should come to terms with the changes in the pro game.

[Reply]

Comment by Steve G

Yes, gone are the days of a s&v Boris Becker or Endberg, or even all courters. But I wonder if the men’s singles pro game will continue to be so interesting to watch on TV, or even begin to be subject to emulation by us rec players if mens serves soon begin to regularly EXCEED 130-150 mph (what’s stopping them from climbing from present levels…nothing), thus making mincemeat out of returns, and/or if big and bigger guys now start to dominate the game for the first time (Berdych; Isner; et al. Up to now, the 6′ 8″– 6′10″ guys were a bit slow and clumsy…no more!

[Reply]

Comment by James

I’ve got mixed feelings. Some great players today. But makes tennis entertaining to watch are battling styles and variety: Borg v. McEnroe was absolutely great, Sampras v. Agassi, Chang v. Rafter all great, but Borg v. Vilas (yawn), or Ivanisevic v. Krajicek, (double yawn) not too much.
.
ATP tennis is getting far too one dimensional. The Auzzie Open is now the SLOWEST Grand Slam by far, playing slower than the French Open. Five hours of watching Nadal and Verdasco do cross-court drills was like a visit to the dentist. Now, if Nadal had to hit passing shots against Sampras with a wood racquet, that would be worth watching. With his swing, hitting from 12 feet behind the baseline, the ball might not reach the net.
.
Also, the change between the French Open and Wimbledon was dramatic. Not any more.
.
Remember McEnroe sarcastically ridiculing Borg v. Connors at Wimbledon as “clay court tennis on grass”? Sadly, that’s SOP for EVERY match now. (OK, so we’ve got Tsonga and Dent as fossilized remnants.)
.
Borg was criticized by some for being one dimensional, but in his French Open match with Vilas (which included the famous / infamous 82-shot rally), both Borg and Vilas came to the net in 3 sets on clay MORE often than Nadal did in either of his Wimbledon 08/10 finals on grass. What does that make Nadal then if Borg was 1x?
.
As for the equipment’s impact being overstated, when McEnroe at 51 can serve 12-15 MPH faster than when he was number one in the world, the impact is perhaps understated. But the real impact of the equipment, as Andy Roddick has said, is the ability to swing full out on passing shots when the ball isn’t near your strike zone, say near your shoe laces. That’s what makes net play near impossible, and tennis duller, but rewarding the defender for being out of position.
.
Question: If Wilson went to the NFl with a new football that enabled 90-yard field goals, do you think the NFL would remotely consider its use?
.
P.S. The changes at Wimbledon included: Denser dirt, different grass, different balls (larger CSA and lower compression), plus the by-product that the service box isn’t dug up because it is largely unused. A BBC video compared identical 120 MPH serves by Fed from perhaps 2001 and 2008, the 08 serve went 12 MPH slower after the bounce and was perhaps 10 inches higher (that’s from memory, but ROM).

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 1:34 am

Great post, James! Thanks very much for your thoughts, I appreciate the time you put into it.

[Reply]

Comment by Quinn O'Brien

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you still can see the serve and volley being thrown in. Due to the increase of power and spin, many players have to resort to blocking returns back just to get into the point. This is creating an opening for players to OCCASIONALLY serve and volley, however that tactic can become useless if used to often.

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
July 8th, 2010 at 1:29 am

I agree, it’s all about using it at the right time these days. Hopefully it never goes away for good.

[Reply]

Comment by Vernon

I admit I love the serve volley game but I don’t disagree with your assessment. I think something that might be relevant is the ability to close out a point by coming to the net at an appropriate time during a rally. While I realize that the pros are not stupid, I am surprised that a baseliner will have the opponent on the ropes with a deep penetrating shot to his/her backhand and while they scramble to slice it back but without much on it (i.e. floater), the “aggressor” stays at the baseline and tries to cream the short ball after it bounces. But sometimes a good scrambler floats it back deep. Maybe more in womens tennis than mens, this often means the the point cannot be finished so easily. If they could just close into the net they would have an easy put away (think Schiavone vs Stosur in the French Open final who did this beautifully). I suspect that the death of serve volley tennis (for the reasons you mention) has resulted in a reduction in the skills or awareness of net play more generally – that ability to sense a likely weak shot from your opponent and sneaking.

Maybe a podcast on how to use net play more generally rather than just serve and volley if you have not already covered it – I haven’t got through all podcasts yet .

I am new to your website and I think it is great. Tennis has always been a third or fourth priority sport for me as I focused on others but now, at 45, I have decided to make my priority sport so I am trying to absorb as much as possible and you are a big help.

Cheers
Vernon
Sydney, Australia

[Reply]

Ian Westermann Reply:
July 25th, 2010 at 3:44 am

Thanks so much for your thoughts, Vernon! Very insightful.

[Reply]

Comment by ap

I miss one aspect in the discussion, and that is the fact that people are just taller than 10, 15 years ago (not to mention the time of John McEnroe). Taller people also have longer arms, and have therefore a longer reach. So for every extra cm in height the serving point increases by two cm. Despite these physical changes the height of the net has not increased. So serving deep and fast is just “easier”. Increase the net by a few cm and the likelihood of a fast, deep serve reduces considerable. Should be an interesting experiment, in practice sessions serving with a normal-height net, and one that is a few cm more

Whether I should stop whining: I find/found serve-and-volley more entertaining to watch; but that’s more a matter of taste I think.

AP

[Reply]