S&V Whingers

[silent bob]

Everybody is, of course, entitled to their own opinion about what they prefer to watch. Personally, I prefer longer points, but that's just my opinion.

Likewise, to each their own regarding the style of tennis they choose to play. S&V is more than viable at most levels, and I, too, chuckle when I see an older, chubby S&V'er frustrating a young hotshot baseliner at the club.

However, I draw the line when I (frequently) see today's pros denigrated on the basis that they don't have to face any serve and volleyers. This is pure nonsense! First, there are some S&V'ers, but it is blatantly obvious that if S&V worked well at the pro level, we would see more of it. It doesn't. The reason today's pros face so little S&V is because the S&V players usually get knocked out in the early rounds, if not the challengers and futures. The notion that the geniuses on the TW board have discovered an exploitable gap in the mens pro game that has gone unnoticed by everybody with pro-level skills is laughably absurd - and yet very popular here. Face it, the facts speak for themselves; the game has moved on at the pro level. (Henman has perhaps demonstrated the bounds of this strategy - nice ranking, but no tournament wins this year and few in the past.)

I really do not see how there can be any objective, logical dispute about this. If there is room for debate, it would be regarding WHY this is the case, not IF it is the case.

On the question of why, I think it boils down to the return. For whatever reason (further debate on athleticism, racket technology, coaching etc), today's pros simply return too well. If a pro bombs a serve in today, it will came back too often at a pace that does not allow the server to move forward a get positioned for a solid volley. If he spins it in to give himself more time, the returner will crush it for a winner all too often.

Again, it is all about the skills at the pro-level. Our experiences at the club are not that relevant. So by all means keep coming in. Plenty of you can kick my all-court-wanna-be ***. But, don't denigrate the best in the game; it is not their fault that the S&V'ers cannot keep up.

 

[Golden Retriever]

You are absolutely right. At the pro level, the passing shot has a tremendous advantage over the volley. You simply don't have the time to hit a good volley at the kind of pace you see at the modern game, whereas being at the baseline you have a bit more time to setup for the passing shot. Thats why you see bad volleyers even at the pro level but you seldom see any pros who can't pass. A pro can hit any shots in the book if there is ample time for him to setup the shot. If you think Andy Roddick can't volley, try giving him a passing shot which he could setup for, even at 100mph, I would bet everything that he could divert it back for a winner 99 times out of a 100. Unfortunately, at the pro level, you simply don't have the time to setup for the volley. Just a fraction of a second makes a whole lot of a difference at that level. It is easier to react than act and that particular holds true for the pros. I don't think there is any way to change that, it is just plain physics and statistics.

 

[Datacipher]

I disagree Bob.

It is absolutely true that it is much harder to play SV in today's game. Once considered to have the advantage over the baseliner, now perhaps the baseliner may have a slight edge. Nevertheless a really talented SV could still get to the top. As you point out Henman still shows SV can get you into the top 10. However, you seem to think Henman has pushed the envelope....no offense to Henman fans, but Henman was always considered 2nd compared to the Sampras, Edberg, Rafters of the world. A very good and solid 2nd...but 2nd.

Other's like Mirnyi, Rusedski and even Taylor Dent(who moves like John Mcenoe trapped in an elephants body) show that it's still a viable world class strategy. We certainly have seen Federer make it work, even though it's not his 1st tier game!

I believe that it was Lendl then Agassi/Courier etc. who popularized the power baseline game and made it "cool" to the youngsters and many coaches. For a while, it did seem that they might make SV obsolete. Fortunately, I think there's clear evidence that this is not so. You can still play SV in today's game and I think if we get a truly talented SV'er to come along, he will prove that you can still win slams that way.

I think that once again, the power baseline style has proven to be a phase. This is not the 1st one...in fact baseliners and SV'ers have been trading "domination" and being labeled "the way to play" for a long long time. At the very least, I am hoping Fed is bringing back into fashion an all court game for the up and comming.

 

[PusherMan]

Nice post, Bob.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

Well said, Bob. Especially about ROS being the bane of present day S&V.

 

[AAAA]

People should remember s&v tennis has been in decline ever since most of the world's grass courts were torn up and replaced by synthetic hard courts. Also with changes in racquet technology and the increasingly widespread use of slower courts both outdoors and indoors the preference for baseline play may well last longer than some expect.

 

[Russell Finch]

I saw a quote from Tim Henman a day or two ago saying that compared to 10 years ago the courts were getting slower. It's generally accepted that Wimbledon deliberately slowed them but TH seems to think they're slowing up in most places. If true, that's been helping the returners against S&V players too.

 

[JohnThomas1]

I really really think that in the coming future we will see a serve volleyer better than any we have seen before, due to evolution. He will have to have a great serve, penetrating approach shots and sensational athleticism. Time however has proved that these things go in cycles and rest assured we will see another. Let's not forget that only 2 short years ago Sampras was winning the US Open while coming to the net on a regular basis. Tennis hasn't changed that much in two years, noway. Hewitt is pretty much back to being the second best in the world and a peak Sampras would beat him most times. Apart from possibly Federer no one today would beat Pete on a consistent basis. Agassi is still right up there and on his best days Pete owned him.

 

[NoBadMojo]

IMO to play s/v tennis, you have to play flawlessly and expect to have a bad patch here and there. it isnt possible to play it on any sort of consistent basis for some of the reasons mentioned above, mostly that the technology has benefitted the service return and not the serve (tanner could get it up into the 130's back in the 70's; flipper could serve almost as hard w. wood as he could w. a tricked up modern frame)...alot harderr to return serve w. a 65in frame as opposed to a 100sq in frame. i dont see this condition changing..i see the trend going even more baseline...they slowed down wimby and made the ball bounce higher, the game is more western and more about net clearance w. spin for safety, and the trend is away from even learning to volley....a serve like rafters and edbergs would get eaten up these days, and those guys even had to learn to stay back more as their careers advance to be able to win....i think we cand agree fed is a genuis and can play good s/v and is a good strategist. anyone notice he used to play s/v more than he does now? things arent always cyclical IMO..sometimes they are linear....my .o2

 

[NoBadMojo]

and please allow me to complete thought process even though morphing into somewhere else...so couple w. the larger headed frames aiding the service return but not the serve, they also more readily lend themselves to western grips which lend themselves to even more play from the back. ever try hitting western w. a woodie? aint so easy...borg could do it...the angle of attack is just to steep for such a small hitting area..even borg would frame alot of balls off the forehand wing, and he arguably had the best hand/eye you could have. think the answer <on the pro tour anyway> is to reduce allowable headsize..weight and materials arent so much the issue w. the pros, altho many of the pros are going lighter too..my .o2

 

[lanky]

Dont forget the double handed backhand return of recent years -generally stronger and better than SH. Modern racquets=easier for returner.Finally as a player brought up on grass courts-they dont make them any more .modern courts nullifythe serve a lot -even wimbledon.I have played on the ryegrass type of court now laid at wimbledon-guess what- it plays like a hard court not like a low bouncing skidding type of grass court.I think the powers at be have gone too far in slowing the game down S&V can ve really boring but so can identical type of baseliners bashing away for hours

 

[Kevin T]

I'm a S&V "whinger". I'll give you a few reasons, some likely unpopular.
1. instant gratification: It takes time and patience to development a serve and volley game. It's an "I want it now" era. Kids start out as baseliners, develop as baselining juniors. Who wants to change their game and get their rears kicked for years and years?
2. mini-trampolines: People with a complete lack of proper stroke mechanincs are hitting the ball at remarkable speeds (also see racquetball, squash). Bad strokes aren't punished, the ball still seems to go in and with decent pace. Not like the days of wood.
3. serve and volleyers are better athletes: No question about it. And the best athletes don't go for tennis these days, at least not in the USA. That's a hard, cold, indisputable fact.
4. Trends: I agree with Data. If Dent would put down the hoagies and lose 20#, he would be a tough nut to crack. Henman had a great year and he's no spring chicken. Tennis is more and more popular in South America, Spain, Eastern Europe, Asia. Not sure about Asia but the other area are chock full of red clay. Red clay=baseliners.
Just IMHO.

 

[Datacipher]

I really really think that in the coming future we will see a serve volleyer better than any we have seen before, due to evolution. He will have to have a great serve, penetrating approach shots and sensational athleticism. Time however has proved that these things go in cycles and rest assured we will see another. Let's not forget that only 2 short years ago Sampras was winning the US Open while coming to the net on a regular basis. .

I agree John. I don't believe SV tennis was given any kind of fair chance through the last generation in that when I used to go to high level junior tournaments, I didnt' see baseliners and serve and volleyer's fighting it out. I saw baseliners, baseliners and some more baseliners. It was completely in vogue....it is easier to have success initially with baseline play...it is psychologically/mentally secure. Of course it's hard for a 15 yr old kid with a 95 mph serve who is 5'7 and playing against other 15 yr olds who have nearly world class pace on their groundies. Now in 3 years that kid may be 6'3 with a 130mph serve, but meanwhile he's getting pounded into the ground.

Even Dent, converted to SV very late, motivated by the realization that he was not going to win from the baseline. Find a world class talent, great moving, 6'3 player, train him for SV/all court play, he'll be just fine. We still see many examples of this, as I've cited above.

 

[NoBadMojo]

kevin T is all over this IMO. all valid points i think maybe except for dent....a dent minus the krispy kremes would be a better faster dent, but i ust dont think you can get to the top playing s/v and the stats sure support this..and like i said before even serve/volleyers of the not too distant past like rafter and edberg, had to learn to win by staying back and fed doesnt s.v now as much as he did before.. i would love to eat these words, but until you get someone winning lots of tourneys playing this way, i gotta think s.v will not be done..and sadly, i dont see a trend developing for the juniors to change this (not that it could be changed anyway).......not when as kevin sez, you can go and have a trained forehand game..just go to bollitierri's who has based his stuff on developing a weapon and out emerges pure drive forehand tennis..it's the quickest way to produce results...and also agree that you have lots more 'trained' tennis players these days then 'athletic' ones....when i learned to play, there was a bunch of us who played all kinds of sports..we were jocks and we loved and played many sports and loved them all...now kids seem to stick more to one, and the best jocks sure dont seem to be playing tennis IMO..shame because it's hard to play hoops well when in your 50's.

 

[ty slothrop]

Ed, do you read the NYT? You will love this, from their weekly Sunday mag. Let me know if you don't have a password (it's free), and I'll email it to you.

It's a lengthy article about IMG/Bollittieri's and how kids these days - even those with no chance to turn pro or even earn a low level scholarship - are specializing in various sports at extremely early ages and how this specialization kills their all around athletic development. Not that you need journalism to validate your point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/28/magazine/28ATHLETE.html?oref=login

 

[NoBadMojo]

thanks ty..i dont get the times because i dont know how to read ..seriously thanks, i will go read this. i know the bollitierri place is no longer just about tennis.. they've branched out into other sports including team sports and kids stay there a semester at a time and go to their school...i get kids before they go and after they've returned every rare while..they'll take your money..lots of it. they;re a factory..kids do come out of there fit and trained and babysat..it's really no longer a school for the 'kids with a shot' altho they do have some kids there getting that special treatment.....the carlos goffi tournament tough camp is more for the kids that have a shot...he'll take kids that already have strokes and games and teach them how to win..only a few get in there, and they dont emerge one dimensional for the most part. thanks for the post ty.

 

[Kobble]

I think Bolletieri has plenty to do with the demise of the S&V game. Most of his teaching is the serve and the forehand. I have seen many lesser known players that have come from his camp, and they are the stereotypical Sonic Serve combined with the Killer Forehand. It also makes sense business wise for him to promote it, because like Kevin T said, it is instant gratification. That keeps the clientele happy, which keeps the money coming in.

 

[Datacipher]

1. instant gratification: It takes time and patience to development a serve and volley game. It's an "I want it now" era. Kids start out as baseliners, develop as baselining juniors. Who wants to change their game and get their rears kicked for years and years?
.

Heh, I agree Kevin T, as you can see by the post I made at the same time!

 

[!Tym]

I don't think it's THAT much harder to develop. Look at Roddick and Safin, they were abysmal volleyers when they first came on tour, but both are now at the very least competent and at times even brilliant...as are many other baseliners who are capable of brilliant volleys at times.

Volleying is an instinct, not so much technique in my opinion. Assuming you are reasonably athletic to close the net, have good reach and hand/eye coordination; it's not THAT difficult to make improvements in this part of your game. Hewitt, is another example of a guy who didn't start off with great volleys but he developed them by playing pro doubles. Guys like Robredo and Nadal may be baseliners, but in doubles they can hold their own more than reasonably well. It's not impossible to volley by any means. I believe the biggest roadblock is mental, to tell yourself that you're going to live and die by the sword, i.e. at the net. It's a mental commitment most aren't willing to make, and also many people enjoy the bashing sensation from the baseline...in other words, actually find tennis is more fun playing that way. I base this assumption on the fact that when most players hit the ball around for fun, they'd prefer to bash away at the baseline and get into rallys. There's more gratification in that for some people than points that end in one or two shots over and over.

I've played with a former satellite pro who was a serve and volleyer. Abysmal groundstrokes, but his serve and volley game was superlative. With that said, I stood a better chance of playing some good net points than he did of hitting a single big, Bolletieri style forehand.

It's like Edberg said, there's no chance he would have made the top 100 had he struck with trying to be a baseliner. It's all about the individual, and I think personality and more importantly body type. Oliever Rochus may be gifted like Earl Boykins, but you wouldn't ask Earl Boykins to play center and swat shots now would you? Look at Scott Draper and Takao Suzuki, PHENOMENAL serve and volleyers, but they don't have the reach to play that kind of game at the pro level as successfully as they'd like.

With kids starting earlier these days, they won't want to approach the net simply, because they know they're a sitting duck with their reach. This mentality becomes engrained in them, causing a net phobia. I see TONS of great players who are decidedly mediocre at net, and it's not because they're not talented; it's because they've been conditioned to become afraid of the net. I used to be like that too, then I decided hey, volleying isn't hard at all technique wise...just close in more. So now, I force myself to not hesistate and be afraid, and just close in. It's amazing how if you get close to the net, how even simply wildly stabbing at the ball has a way of being effective (see Roddick vs. Nadal yesterday). The reason I believe you see most struggle at net is that they're too timid, they simply don't close deep enough because of this. If someone closes in deep, the technique on the volley becomes pretty simple, and it becomes more about instincts and hand-eye coordination. If you've got those qualities at the baseline, you can have them at the net too.

Also, I believe that baseliners are too often equated with being less talented. It's said that everyone's a baseliner these days, because it leads to immediate success. Perhaps, but I subscribe to Robert Landsdorp's view. So many players use this western style of baseline hitting, and people don't realize that the guys like Ferrero who have taken this style to the top of the rankings are truly elite talents. His reasoning is that they have SOOO much competitition with this style growing up since EVERYBODY hits that way these days. For a guy like Ferrero to be able to execute this style so well that he can distinguish himself from the crop is nothing short of amazing. There's a million guys trying to perfect this "generic" style, and yet through it all, there's a guy like Ferrero who does it better than all. That's impressive. And I believe in giving credit where credit is due.

I'm not like most on here in that I'm not a fan of any particular style. Each style requires to me the same attributes of hand-eye coordination and skill. It's just that they are utilized in different ways is all. So, in short, I equally respect each style of play...though the mileage may vary for each style, they are all to me equally difficult and hence deserving of equal respect.

For example, tell Mark Philipoussis the easiest thing in the world is to push the ball like a pusher, and he'd tell you you're right. Then ask him to play one match that way and see how quickly he falls apart.

That's why there's different styles, pick to taste, and perhaps more importantly, pick to surface (i.e. if you grew up on clay vs. grass like Henman) and physique (hard to not encourage guys of Stich and Krajicekesque stature not to serve and volley).

Also, remember that Todd Martin was a pure baseliner before entering Michigan for college. When he left, they turned him into a more than just competent serve and volleyer. So, it is NOT impossible by any means to acquire at the very least sound volleys. I believe that the difficulty is greatly exaggerated, but that few try to ever really work on their volley game (hence, their timid, tip-toeing, already conceded the point, forays to the net).

The thing is Martin had a few ingredients working for him that allowed him to fairly seamlessly and quickly add a net game to his repertoire. They are his considerable height and wingspan, and excellent hand-eye coordination/reflexes. Obviously, qualities that are fundamental to any quality stroke or style of play. It's not some big secret. If you've got the fundament talent and physique, there's no reason why you can't develop a decent net game...you just have to try.

This to me is where most fail, not that their talent level is not good enough or that volleying is literally THAT difficult. Because really, it inolves much the same kind talents needed to hit a running forehand, which many baseliners are quite adept at.

 

[!Tym]

Also, to go back to that Ferrero/Landsdorp example, look at a guy like Pozzi. He stayed reasonably competitive even as an old fogie playing a strictly chip and charge serve and volley game. This WITHOUT a big serve or physique or Rochus like athleticism/speed.

Pozzi's old school style was still competitive even though he lacked the athleticism, youthful legs, wingpspan, and powerful serve and/or at the very least huge kicking serve (a la Rafter/Edberg). He lacked all those things, but his style still gave many guys problems simply because they weren't used to playing a complete throwback style of player anymore.

And the thing is, back in his youth, Pozzi was no world-beater either. He is/was a poor man's McEnroe.

Now, put it this way, if you separated tennis players soley based on pure talent, and say raised Moya up on grass, do you think he would be a better serve and volleyer than Pozzi? I think so. I think Pozzi was able to hang on tour for so long, not because he had literally taken his style of play to the max of its capabilities, but rather because he was the only one of his kind left on tour, and because of that he gave other players fits as they weren't used to playing against that sort of style.

It's like with Santoro. This guy is getting OLD, yet he still seems pretty much as effective as in his prime. I think it's primarily, because he's the only one who plays his style on tour. This gives others fits. Just imagine, however, if everyone adopted the Santoro philosophy of playing, that everybody played this style. Suddenly, Santoro may no longer be able to cast his magic wand over people.

Just imagine if everyone played this style, and there was only one guy on tour who decided, heck, forget this. I'm gonna just try and pretend, I'm one massive bowling ball, and I'm gonna bowl everyone over wrecking ball style...go for broke power on every shot. Hmm, can you imagine how shell-shocked everyone would be? What are you doing? You're breaking the rules!

Also, as far as it taking longer to develop a serve and volley game, I'm not so sure. To me, it could just as likely be that it takes longer for serve and volleyers to shore up their groundstrokes enough. Case in point, Rafter. Some argue that he was a late bloomer because serve and volleyers bloom later, because it's innately more skillful. Others argue that Rafter was always a great volleyer, but his groundstrokes weren't solid enough. I subscribe to the latter.

Rafter first made a splash on tour, because he was a superb athlete who covered the net like a blanket and had great stab volleys. I believe that is far more likely than attributing his early "promise" and success (i.e. "ATP Newcomer of the Year" award) to his unbelieavbly solid volleys.

When Rafter made his move in 97, what changed most of all was that he was able to become more steady from the baseline and also to add a bit more of an agressive cut on the forehand now and then to keep the opponents honest. From 97 onward, Rafter was able to hold steady at the baseline and keep the point in neutral vs. virtually any tour basher. Didn't really do anything flashy, but his groundies didn't break down, and he'd just wait his turn to pounce the net on the right ball.

This to me is what resulted in him taking that jump from merely a good player to a great player. His volley instincts were always there. I have a match where he plays Edberg in the semis of the Legg Mason, and his volleys were definitely pretty darn equal to the task. He could always volley--period.