Originally Posted by scotus
Well, he did not say "serve and volley" or "serving and volleying".
Which makes it very likely that his phrase "serve and volleying" refers to the S&V strategy rather than taking away both the serve and the volley from Sampras' arsenal.
But why am I analyzing someone else's sentence (After all, he is no Immanuel Kant)?
Let him come up with his own reply.
I know, he said "serve and volleying."
Step 1: Refute content of argument. If that fails, Step 2: question intelligence of the author. If that fails, Step 3: demonize the messenger.