"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?