Originally Posted by Topspin Shot
I think there's a lot of strategy involved in serve and volley play. The placement of the serve is all the more important, along with the decision you face every point of where to go with the first volley. Just because the points are shorter doesn't mean there is less strategy.
Rafter and Edberg used a kick serve every single time they came in. Worked very well for them obviously, but I don't think a lot of strategy went into that. Jmac would often serve to the backhand, and even though the opponent knew it was coming, he was able to execute very well and made it work.
There's less overall strategy in serve and volley than baseline play, IMO. And I do think it's because the points are shorter. The 20+ shot rallies we see today in the pro game requires a lot of strategic thinking.
There are so many more ways to win a point at the baseline vs winning a point at the net. The baseline point will often require 5-6 shots before you can put the ball away. With S&V this isn't the case. You can hit every single first volley without exception into the open court and do very, very well given you have a decent serve/volley.
I can see why people are saying that S&V is hard to learn, but in terms of just strategy, I think baseline play is harder, even if it's by a little bit. This isn't to diss S&V play either. I like the simplicity of S&V and I often play better when I "just do it" and don't over-think
Originally Posted by HughJars
If S&V was easier to learn, then why does no one do it anymore?
My theory why:
1. It takes a person who is gutsy and isn't afraid to go for it. There are few people who are like this
2. People hit with a lot of topspin nowadays and it's difficult to volley back.
I wish there were more S&V players though. I saw two DI doubles players at an Open Tournament who often S&Ved and it was a breath of fresh air.