PDA

View Full Version : NO, he does not have to S&V!


Bottle Rocket
05-16-2009, 06:16 PM
"blank blank MUST serve & volley.", "If Roddick would learn to come in behind that serve, he'd be in contention for slams.", "Federer's only chance against Nadal is to Serve & Volley." "Blah blah blah blah blah."

You hear it all the time. You read it all the time.

These statements imply things which have absolutely nothing to do with why these guys win or lose, or why they hold serve or get broken.

The idea that certain players can be successful with this tactic, when they might not win otherwise, implies that they have the serving ability to put enough consistent pressure on their opponent. Enough pressure so that they will be hitting volleys that they are capable of putting away or using as a setup to finish with a second volley. So, to employ this tactic, you have to hit effective serves. Yep, fine.

So... If these guys are hitting serves that are effective enough and penetrating enough to earn consistently weak replies, do these guys really have an issue holding serve? Any top player who is serving this well is going to be holding serve. If you start talking about guys like Federer, I mean - come on. You're going to tell me Roger Federer cannot put away short balls? Ok, maybe he's missed a few lately, but give me a break. He doesn't need to constantly rush the net. It's pretty obvious which play is more effective for him.

Federer loses to Nadal because he can't hold serve? I don't think so. Roddick loses to Federer because he can't hold serve? I don't think so. Does Karlovic lose to Federer and Nadal because he can't hold serve? Do these guys really have an issue holding serve? Is that really the problem? No!

As described above, if they can serve well enough to successfully take a winning position at the net the majority of the time, they are going to be holding serve. If they aren't serving as well as needed to use this strategy, I don't think repeatedly getting passed and/or making errors on the volley is going to be help anyone win matches.

If they are not serving well, they will feel they have a greater chance of winning the point by staying back. Their feelings are correct. If they are serving well, there is no need to S&V. They are going to hold serve, still putting constant pressure on the opponent.

The bottom line? The problem is breaking serve. The guys who repeatedly get advised to S&V against a certain opponent are not normally losing because of the effectiveness of their own service game. When they don't hold serve, I can gaurantee you, it wasn't because they weren't at the net to put away easy volleys. They are losing because they cannot break serve.

My point?

STOP TELLING EVERYONE THEY NEED TO S&V and attack CONSTANTLY on their own serve. They don't.

Alright, those are my thoughts. What are your thoughts?

Toxicmilk
05-16-2009, 06:19 PM
Don't forget, Fed also needs a 100sq inch racquet along with a 2handed backhand. lolllll. i totally agree, btw.

fortunecookiesjc
05-16-2009, 06:25 PM
yeah learn from novak's match. Crush those 2nd serves!

TsongaEatingAPineappleLol
05-16-2009, 06:30 PM
It's all about developing an all-court game. Coming from Federer is not unusual. He is the perfect example of an all-court player. No matter which way you win, like it or not, coming in behind that serve is necessary for any player at any level.

BreakPoint
05-16-2009, 06:50 PM
Federer loses to Nadal because he can't hold serve? I don't think so. Roddick loses to Federer because he can't hold serve? I don't think so.
Yes and yes.

Federer lost the '09 AO final to Nadal because he couldn't hold serve and was broken twice in the final set, losing 6-2.

Roddick lost to Federer yesterday because he couldn't hold serve and was broken twice in the final set, losing 6-1.

Ask Edberg why serve and volley works and why it doesn't allow your opponent to get back into a point they had no business being in. Nadal gets himself off of the hook so many times because his opponents don't put pressure on him by attacking the net, especially after their 1st serves.

Bottle Rocket
05-16-2009, 07:00 PM
Federer lost the '09 AO final to Nadal because he couldn't hold serve and was broken twice in the final set, losing 6-2.



Thank you for missing the entire point of this thread, BP, while also ignoring the context in which I made those statements. You're my favorite.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
05-16-2009, 07:10 PM
I half agree with you. Players do need to S&V at the right time as either a way to attack an opponent's weakness (maybe he can't handle 1st serves effectively and a serve could end the point quickly) or as a change-up play to keep him guessing. It's just a part of being a complete player. But I do agree with you that S&V isn't the way everyone has to play in order to win. Those who think that are mostly older guys who want us to play in long khakis and sweater vests with wooden rackets and gut.

BreakPoint
05-16-2009, 07:15 PM
Thank you for missing the entire point of this thread, BP, while also ignoring the context in which I made those statements. You're my favorite.
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is that if a player has a big serve, he doesn't need to serve and volley at all to hold serve. I totally disagree. If you have a big serve and don't follow it up by coming in behind it then you are wasting your big serve. You are letting your opponent off the hook by allowing them to just block the balls back into play. Just watch Nadal. He does this all the time. He stands 10-15 feet behind the baseline to receive serve and just floats returns back or hits them way high over the net because most of his opponents do not come in to cut off those returns.

By serving and volleying, you don't allow your opponent to scramble and grind his way back into a point. What's the point of a big serve if you don't knock off the weak reply with an easy volley into the open court or behind your opponent or dropped at the net? It makes your opponent feel helpless and that he's not in control of what's going on. Ask ask Agassi after one of his numerous spankings by Sampras.

dataseviltwin
05-16-2009, 07:26 PM
But... just as Wilander proved "back in the day..." - it's an effective means of making a guy take a crack at your return instead of just floating it back. Can't serve and volley all the time with todays games/frames, but you can move in on key points - especially if it keeps them guessing. It's working well for Mardy, and it can work well for the other guys too. Fed needs both cheeks into his serve (whether he's bombing it, or kicking it) and he needs to be spending more time moving forward, rather than boo-hooing at sick returns from you-know-who. Put the pressure on... you'll get some misses. Make 'em work for it...

Yeah... I'm one of those "get yer @$$ to the net" posters... Andy's needed a net game since he was 17. Too bad he didn't realize it 'till he was 25 and an also-ran... The clue bird finally landed - he and Mardy are playing doubles, and Andy is learning how to close... that's a good thing... especially for Davis Cup...

Bottle Rocket
05-16-2009, 07:47 PM
I didn't miss your point at all. Your point is that if a player has a big serve, he doesn't need to serve and volley at all to hold serve. I totally disagree. If you have a big serve and don't follow it up by coming in behind it then you are wasting your big serve.

You ever heard of a groundstroke winner?

By serving and volleying, you don't allow your opponent to scramble and grind his way back into a point. What's the point of a big serve if you don't knock off the weak reply with an easy volley into the open court or behind your opponent or dropped at the net?

You're making the assumption that those with the serving ability also posess the ability to put these volleys away - with the same, no, MORE consistency than they can put away mid-court/fore-court short balls. This is not something you can assume and not something I would agree with.

The point of a big serve is to get win the point outright or earn a short reply. I wasn't aware that the only point of having a big serve was to follow it up with a volley. I guess those that can't volley well have no reason to practice their serve. There is no point.

It's just a part of being a complete player. But I do agree with you that S&V isn't the way everyone has to play in order to win. Those who think that are mostly older guys who want us to play in long khakis and sweater vests with wooden rackets and gut.

Yep. I do agree that the ability to S&V is part of being a complete player, but the ability to win is independent of whether or not you are a complete player. But yes, definitely not the way everyone needs to play.

Put the pressure on... you'll get some misses. Make 'em work for it...

Yes.

dataseviltwin, you make a good case, and I agree completely that on key points, if you have the ability, it is an important tactic and an important tool.

BreakPoint
05-16-2009, 07:53 PM
You ever heard of a groundstroke winner?
And how many people are able to consistently hit groundstroke winners against Nadal?

You're making the assumption that those with the serving ability also posess the ability to put these volleys away - with the same, no, MORE consistency than they can put away mid-court/fore-court short balls. This is not something you can assume and not something I would agree with.

The point of a big serve is to get win the point outright or earn a short reply. I wasn't aware that the only point of having a big serve was to follow it up with a volley. I guess those that can't volley well have no reason to practice their serve. There is no point.
Then these people need to get up off their butts and practice their volleys. :)

raygo
05-16-2009, 07:57 PM
I think it was a Tennis.com article that summed up Roddick as the game's ultimate paradox: biggest serve in the game, then pure defense afterward.

S&V isn't an all-purpose solution to any dilemma, but I do agree that big serves are wasted if the server can't continue the offense afterward, whether it be volleys or big groundstrokes.

The_Punisher
05-16-2009, 09:07 PM
I think it was a Tennis.com article that summed up Roddick as the game's ultimate paradox: biggest serve in the game, then pure defense afterward.

S&V isn't an all-purpose solution to any dilemma, but I do agree that big serves are wasted if the server can't continue the offense afterward, whether it be volleys or big groundstrokes.

perfectly put.

big serves are good but only if you have necessary weapons to back it up.

if you're bad volleyer, rip it from the service line.

if you're a classic style player, crush it at the net.

in federer's case, he shouldn't just be committed to either S&V (where he can get passed) or going all out on short balls (where he can make unforced errors). you need to be able to do both against a player like nadal.

sh@de
05-16-2009, 10:10 PM
perfectly put.

big serves are good but only if you have necessary weapons to back it up.

if you're bad volleyer, rip it from the service line.

if you're a classic style player, crush it at the net.

in federer's case, he shouldn't just be committed to either S&V (where he can get passed) or going all out on short balls (where he can make unforced errors). you need to be able to do both against a player like nadal.

And the thing is, I don't think it's just he needs to be able to pull off both. He actually needs to DO it, not just be able to. He needs to mix it up, and he can't be afraid of coming up even if he gets passed a couple of times.

It's true though that he shouldn't S&V on every single point. Anybody who thinks that isn't thinking clearly. I mean have a think, if staying back on every point is incorrect for someone who has a good net game, then why does somebody who have a great baseline game have to S&V every point? The logic is the same really. If you're good at the baseline, stay there. If you're good at the net, go up. It just happens that most people are more comfortable at the baseline than at the net, hence it is advisable to stay at the baseline.

Cenc
05-17-2009, 01:11 AM
well, its way tougher to execute against a low slice from the baseline than to execute a high volley, right?