Extinction of serve/volley tennis ?

[joe sch]

This is a very painful subject for me and I have alot of theories and observations on why S/V tennis has dissapeared ... I like to hear why what all of you think are the reasons ? I think that another top S/V'er could win slams in todays game and even a player like Taylor Dent has shown this potential if he could just be a little more athletic and injury free ...

[Jet Rink]

Simply put, in my opinion, it's not taught. The generation that knew it and learned to do basic things like "attack the short ball" do not constitute a majority of the teachers.

This, combined with no professional leading the way (who's worth his/her salt) has contributed significantly.

You've got to hand it to Dent for trying though...

Let's hope it's cyclical though, although this has surely been a long cycle. :(

See Joe, I got through the whole thread without mentioning technology! :)

Jet

[johnmcc516]

the better service returns and the ability to flick off passing shot winners from out of balance positions as part of the modern game/gear has made serve and volley not a viable strategy on any sort of consistent basis.

There ya go. Its not as hard to pass a volleryer as it may have used to be.

[kevhen]

You can hit groundies with more control and more power these days than back in the wooden racquet days. If it worked everyone would still be doing it. It doesn't work that well so less practice and focus is put on the volley.

[Venetian]

Many people still enjoy volleying and do regularly (it ends points quickly). People just don't base their whole game around it anymore, because of reasons stated by NoBad.

[Camilio Pascual]

Joe Sch - I remember as a 6 year old there was still a big outcry against Jack Kramer for popularizing the S&V game and ruining tennis.
Traditionalists were abhorred. Now, 50+ years later, our generation are the traditionalists who are decrying its demise.
A very frank way to look at S&V is that it was a successful strategy in the pro ranks for ~50 years by a minority of players and that minority has dwindled down to virtually nobody today.
The single major reason for its demise in the pros is that 1, not 3, Majors are played on grass now. Yes, some S&V players can be named that won Majors on non-grass surfaces and you will see that list becomes smaller as the Open Era goes on. I also think the decline in importance of doubles, with the consequent de-emphasis on volley skills, has a minor effect.

[troytennisbum]

I think it's kind of interesting that this strategy has, for the most part,become obsolete.

Although groundstrokes are hit with more power nowdays then ever before,
SERVES have ALSO become a lot more powerful. So I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that the serve and volley might be used a bit more than it is with everyone being able to serve the ball at 120 + mph
nowdays on the tour.

But for sure, simply trying to go to the net without FIRST forcing your opponent to hit a weak shot is suicide in today's game.

[Marius_Hancu]

Simply put, in my opinion, it's not taught.

No, and it's very easy to see why: life is simpler for a baseline basher and his coach. S-V is very demanding in terms of athleticism.

With the instability present in all aspects of life today, I'd say coaches presently have short contractual arrangements with their students, at all levels, including the junior ranks. As a result, they go for immediate results, not for the long-term development.

And it's certainly less taught in North America than in Europe. Federer, Henin, Mauresmo (although pure S-V), haven't been trained here. The North-American standardisation makes its influence felt. Line production of baseline bashers - that's what it is.

The early selection, including that based on genetic history, is not of good quality, part of it caused by a reduction of interest in tennis, thus by a reduction in the available pool of interested kids. Not enough pros are athletically talented or developed, just look at Fish, Ginepri and their generation, nothing special about them in this respect. This means, that in comparison with other sports, coaches must work with people with less athleticism.

[TennsDog]

Our #1 singles serves and volleys regularly and I will too as a kind of backup strategy when I'm feeling good and other times. There is no replacement for a slice serve wide in deuce court followed by an easy volley to the open court. Another thing, too, is that faster serves make it harder to get into good position fast enough to be ready for a good first volley, not to mention a harder serve automatically means a harder return (and thus, less time to return it). I think that on most levels (sub pro) a player who serves and volleys well can easily beat a baseliner of comparable ability. A good volleyer can really put a baseline basher into quite a fit.

[MegacedU]

I've actually been TAUGHT serve and volley recently. Like two months ago. I've always been a fan but never actually taught until like I said, recently.

Maybe you'll see meee on espn someday ;)

[Marius_Hancu]

Our #1 singles serves and volleys regularly and I will too as a kind of backup strategy when I'm feeling good and other times. There is no replacement for a slice serve wide in deuce court followed by an easy volley to the open court. Another thing, too, is that faster serves make it harder to get into good position fast enough to be ready for a good first volley, not to mention a harder serve automatically means a harder return (and thus, less time to return it). I think that on most levels (sub pro) a player who serves and volleys well can easily beat a baseliner of comparable ability. A good volleyer can really put a baseline basher into quite a fit.

Glad to hear you're on the right barricades:-)

[Marius_Hancu]

I've actually been TAUGHT serve and volley recently. Like two months ago. I've always been a fan but never actually taught until like I said, recently.


The more we hear that the better.

[scez]

yao ming with a longbody racquet would be a good serve + volleyer. Hard to get a lob or pass shot on him.

[farwellbooth]

Several of my group lesson teachers encourage us to get forward. When we play for points during the lesson if you come forward and score you get 2 points vs. 1 if you score from the baseline. Great incentive to get forward when first learning.

[MegacedU]

Yeah but it was also taught by my coach that handed me over to some other guy saturday because he's graduating (pfft who graduates?!). I'm very upset. He better pick up where my old coach left off.

[kevhen]

A bigger serve does not translate to a better serve and volley game. The faster you hit the ball, often the faster it comes back and the tougher volley it becomes. Adding spin (slice or top) to your serve can make the return more difficult and give you more time to get to net.

[joe sch]

The posts addressed the points I expected to read. I agree that its technology, teaching and less grass and fast hard courts that make S/V tennis more risky. The ultra light, stiff rackets make hitting winners from any spot on the court possible thus less time to approach and easier to blast baseline winners than volley winners. The Boletarri style academies and current coaches from the junior level up do not want to take the time developing S/V players since it takes more athletic ability for court coverage, volley and overhead training. Much fewer players (juniors) practice doubles which help produce better SV'ers. Slower hard courts and very little practice for most developing players on grass prevent the need to move forward. I believe that coaching SV and agressive allcourt tennis could produce some players that would be able to dominate tennis again because the style is now odd and most players have trouble beating good SV players. Taylor Dent is a prime example and his is not one of the most athletic guys on the tour but has a pretty good winning percentage when he is healthy.

[MegacedU]

This is true - though still a junior, I played doubles before I started my singles "career"/tournaments if you will.

[papa]

A bigger serve does not translate to a better serve and volley game. The faster you hit the ball, often the faster it comes back and the tougher volley it becomes. Adding spin (slice or top) to your serve can make the return more difficult and give you more time to get to net.

Yes. And another thing Kevhen is to vary your position along the baseline to prevent the returner from finding the grouve. Just moving a few feet can throw the receiver off a little.

[dewey4262]

My coach always noted the importance of volleying. Had volley drills everyday. He is an older guy though.

[Chanchai]

I guess I'm just a product of a different generation of tennis... but I would personally take All-Court over Serve and Volley anytime.

From my perspective, Serve and Volley in its purest form is an over-committing strategy. Hopefully nobody takes offense, but I feel it's more like going extreme with a tactic.

I also figure that even for players that developed towards serve and volley, their groundstrokes are strong enough that an all-court strategy flows naturally to them--and in the end, becomes a much more flexible (dare I say complete) outline for a winning strategy. And in the pro game, the players are more or less playing for results (in hopes of greatness of course).

As for factors... sport science, technology, stronger development programs overall (even if today's programs are considered weak, I'm sure they're stronger than they were 30 years ago), better fitness and dietary practices (we're talking pros anyhow)... all play a role in the direction the sport (I specifically refrain from calling it a "game") has taken. I personally feel the technology aspect is lower than the rest listed, but it definitely plays a role (At least for those consistently nailing sweetspots perfectly with good form).

-Chanchai

[Camilio Pascual]

From my perspective, Serve and Volley in its purest form is an over-committing strategy. Hopefully nobody takes offense, but I feel it's more like going extreme with a tactic.

I also figure that even for players that developed towards serve and volley, their groundstrokes are strong enough that an all-court strategy flows naturally to them--and in the end, becomes a much more flexible (dare I say complete) outline for a winning strategy. And in the pro game, the players are more or less playing for results (in hopes of greatness of course).
-Chanchai

Nicely put, that's one of the most insightful posts I've read here in months.
Your distinguishment of it as a strategy born of a tactic gone extreme is what interests me. I'd like to hear more about that.
I agree with your observation of it's usage in the pro game, why go extreme with S&V when one can incorporate it into a versatile all court game with a firm foundation of good, safe groundstrokes?
Once again, nice touch with the strategy/tactic analysis.

[paulfreda]

SV could make a comeback. Why ?
Because everyone can hit good groundies now. So an SVer takes away their game and forces a precision passing shot. If you have a serve that can draw a weak return, the baseliner is helpless and you will hold every time. Now all you need is one break and the set is yours.

I think it is a great opportunity for a player who wants to break out of the crowd and be a top 10er. This is also true for the ladies game, although few ladies have a serve that can draw a weak reply.

A good friend of mine calls SV tennis a low percentage strategy. I think this is true for most players because few of them have the talent (strong serve and good volley) to make it work.

[FiveO]

Junior tennis more than equipment or game style make it unlikely.
I agree w/ the notion that s&v vs. the baseline is part nature, but if it isn't nurtured, early, its unlikely to feel natural later. Factory tennis academies are trying to develop the next child prodigy, and throw their efforts into developing what a kid gives them to work with. Groundstrokes. The factories draw the most talented kids because the best competition breeds the best players. The pressure to be the top "puppy" is incredible. What does it mean? More groundstrokes, because that's what the kids win and lose with. Yeah, they learn, volleys and overheads. But is much time spent on s&v and transitioning? Doubtful, because kids don't win with that and there is so much pressure to get to the brandname instructor's court, let alone the pressure to win in the juniors from the 10s on up. Can the kid, or the instructor du jour, take the time to ingrain s&v in that junior? A game style, which probably won't become viable for, at least, another 5 or 6 years? No. So, groundstrokes, and how to make them better than the other 6 to 8 top juniors in camp, are what's worked on. Extreme grips can develop because the junior needs to win now. Those grips make it less likely s&v will ever feel natural.

The whole thing conspires to become a self-fulfilling prophecy: S&V can't win in the juniors so there's no time to work on it. As juniors, Pro Players didn't work on s&v, ergo, s&v can't work on the pro tour.

So unless you have a father to son handed down game style like the Dents, or a tremendously talented kid, born to patient parents with deep pockets, who search out and find a forward thinking pro, well versed in all facets of the game, with whom the parents and kid have a meeting of the minds, to work on a game which won't be viable until 3/4 of a decade from the start date...

Yeah, I think it sounds like hitting the lottery too. But maybe. People DO get struck by lightning.

[Morpheus]

I think it's kind of interesting that this strategy has, for the most part,become obsolete.

Although groundstrokes are hit with more power nowdays then ever before,
SERVES have ALSO become a lot more powerful. So I would think that it would be reasonable to assume that the serve and volley might be used a bit more than it is with everyone being able to serve the ball at 120 + mph
nowdays on the tour.


With a 120+ serve, the ball is returned so quickly that it is hard to get very far into the court, making the important first volley much more difficult. Recall Rafter's spin serve, which allowed him to get past the service line before volleying. It is more likely today that a hard server will hang back and then go for the winner if he gets a weak return.

[joe sch]

Junior tennis more than equipment or game style make it unlikely.
I agree w/ the notion that s&v vs. the baseline is part nature, but if it isn't nurtured, early, its unlikely to feel natural later. Factory tennis academies are trying to develop the next child prodigy, and throw their efforts into developing what a kid gives them to work with. Groundstrokes. The factories draw the most talented kids because the best competition breeds the best players. The pressure to be the top "puppy" is incredible. What does it mean? More groundstrokes because that's what the kids win and lose with. Yeah, they learn, volleys and overheads. But is much time spent on s&v and transitioning? Doubtful, because kids don't win with that and there is so much pressure to get to the brandname instructor's court, let alone the pressure to win in the juniors from the 10s on up. Can the kid, or the instructor du jour, take the time to ingrain s&v in that junior? A game style, which probably won't become viable for, at least, another 5 or 6 years. So, groundstrokes, and how to make them better than the other 6 to 8 top juniors in camp, are what's worked on. Extreme grips can develop because the junior needs to win now. Those grips make it less likely s&v will ever feel natural.

The whole thing conspires to become a self-fulfilling prophecy: S&V can't win in the juniors so there's no time to work on it. As juniors, Pro Players didn't work on s&v, ergo, s&v can't win on the pro tour.

So unless you have a father to son handed down game style like the Dents, or a tremendously talented kid, born to patient parents with deep pockets, who search out and find a forward thinking pro, well versed in all facets of the game, with whom the parents and kid have a meeting of the minds, to work on a game which won't be viable until 3/4 of a decade from the start date...

Yeah, I think it sounds like hitting the lottery too. But maybe. People DO get struck by lightning.
Very good explanation for the state of tennis today. The term "factories" is soo appropriate.

[snowpuppy]

Yea, the transition game i doubt is really taught or practice. Coming to the net really is a challeging thing. It is not like just hit a serve/grounder and run up. You have to really know how to narrow the other guy's return to a point where you don't have to leap to do a volley. Compare that to just camping out in the baseline, net play is simply discouraging. Another think i found is that big serve - big forehand tactic is a much safer and effective strategy. After the weak return, just need to set yourself to keep attacking with the forehand.

[joe sch]

Yea, the transition game i doubt is really taught or practice. Coming to the net really is a challeging thing. It is not like just hit a serve/grounder and run up. You have to really know how to narrow the other guy's return to a point where you don't have to leap to do a volley. Compare that to just camping out in the baseline, net play is simply discouraging. Another think i found is that big serve - big forehand tactic is a much safer and effective strategy. After the weak return, just need to set yourself to keep attacking with the forehand.
Yes, but I think there would be motivation for some lesser name, non "factory" coaches to develop exceptional S/V players since this style could beat many of the best currrent baseliners because its a style that many do not know how or have much practice defeating. Im sure its parential pressure for fastest success and least chance of defeats that do not allow this longer maturation process to develop (time, $$$ and rankings)

[theace21]

Juniors are not taught or encourage to serve and volley. Baseline is safe and the feel secure. When they come in the get passed or a lob goes over their head. They qucikly learn only come to the net to shake hands. Doubles is a lost art on the juniors, they are not "forced to learn" to have success at the net. If 3 of the 4 majors were still played on grass, we would see more Serve and Volleying in the pro game. Add a fifth major, indoor and the fastest carpet we can find. Those S and V guys and gals would have some success...

[MegacedU]

Juniors are not taught or encourage to serve and volley. Baseline is safe and the feel secure. When they come in the get passed or a lob goes over their head. They qucikly learn only come to the net to shake hands. Doubles is a lost art on the juniors, they are not "forced to learn" to have success at the net. If 3 of the 4 majors were still played on grass, we would see more Serve and Volleying in the pro game. Add a fifth major, indoor and the fastest carpet we can find. Those S and V guys and gals would have some success...

It might be different from section to section but I've always been encouraged to s&v. The net's my best friend and I've been somewhat successful in my USTA stuff.

[Serve-And-Volley]

I was taught to serve and volley religiously in every match I played but I have found it gets harder and harder. Just the other day I was playing another junior who really took advantage of my coming to net, I lost the match in the thrid set tie-break. But I still will keep my S&V because I feel that I am a dying breed in junior tennis. I say we need more McEnroes and Navratilovas, and it really does take some people by surprise.

[lude popper]

taking the net against a player with a wood racquet (on low skidding grass) is a S/V dream. the returner had to hit up on the ball without the advantage of spin or power, thus creating many slow pop-ups. today's clay and high bouncing hard courts, unlike grass, gives the returner both time and cushy waist high cherries.

topspin grips, higher slower bouncing surfaces and powerful racquets make S/V more challanging. of course sampras is proof that if done well, it ain't a bad way to go.

[hotcoffee]

At the tennis clinics around me they always encourage you to come to net as fast as possible and really grind into your mind that it's easier to end the point at net than at the baseline.

[Scheiner]

I am the only one that I have seen (so far) that S&V's, and I am a junior.

[Noelle]

I recently caught a broadcast of the 16th Mitsubishi Lancer International Juniors Championships (http://www.itftennis.com/juniors/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1100010766). Martin Sayer of Hong Kong and Abdullah Magdas of Kuwait got to the boys' singles final and were classified by one of the commentators as "baseliners."

Let me tell you, Sayer S&Ved on crucial points, and Magdas hit a lot of approach shots. His approach shots were winners, but he always followed them into net. Granted, these two might not have come from the factories, and so might be exceptions to the academy tennis trend.