Why doesn't every pro serve and volley on their first serve?

[LittleTinGoddess]

They may sound like a dumb question, but I don't understand why pros don't sneak into net when 90% of the time their opponent can't do anything besides block the ball on the first serve and then the return floats to the middle of the court. With the serves the top players have, couldn't they easily do this? It's basically a shortcut to winning the point.

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Few reasons off the top of my head:

- Slower courts are giving the returner more time to make contact with the ball after the bounce.

- Racquet and strings technology makes it easy for players to rip passing shots, even off of returns.

- Add all of those points together, the server is still in no-man's and the return is either zipping past him/her, or dropping in front of him/her with some absurd angle.

[LittleTinGoddess]

Originally Posted by Say Chi Sin Lo

Few reasons off the top of my head:

- Slower courts are giving the returner more time to make contact with the ball after the bounce.

- Racquet and strings technology makes it easy for players to rip passing shots, even off of returns.

- Add all of those points together, the server is still in no-man's and the return is either zipping past him/her, or dropping in front of him/her with some absurd angle.

I understand these points, but next time you watch a match pay attention to the return of the first serve when it isn't in the opponent's strike zone. It's almost always a floater that could be volleyed deep into a corner or sometimes even slam-dunked.

[El Diablo]

Agree with Say's comments, would also note that tremendous spin with poly in recent years means that even if you can't hit a passing shot, you can still force the guy to volley balls at his ankles, a difficult proposition at best.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by LittleTinGoddess

They may sound like a dumb question, but I don't understand why pros don't sneak into net when 90% of the time their opponent can't do anything besides block the ball on the first serve and then the return floats to the middle of the court. With the serves the top players have, couldn't they easily do this? It's basically a shortcut to winning the point.

It may seem like that, but I would argue that you have it backward. Returners are floating the return back because the server isn't serving & volleying.

If the server did follow it in, you can be damn sure the returner would step up & take a crack at it. But since there is no pressure, why risk it?

Federer was probably the first to realize this vs Roddick. No need to risk missing an aggressive return when blocking it back is (1) higher percentage and (2) restarts the point from a neutral position.

[mikeler]

Originally Posted by McLovin

It may seem like that, but I would argue that you have it backward. Returners are floating the return back because the server isn't serving & volleying.

If the server did follow it in, you can be damn sure the returner would step up & take a crack at it. But since there is no pressure, why risk it?

Federer was probably the first to realize this vs Roddick. No need to risk missing an aggressive return when blocking it back is (1) higher percentage and (2) restarts the point from a neutral position.

The real reason pros don't serve and volley is because they can't handle the low balls off their shoe strings on break points and hit half volley drop shot winners.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by mikeler

The real reason pros don't serve and volley is because they can't handle the low balls off their shoe strings on break points and hit half volley drop shot winners.

Well played...literally and figuratively...

[OHBH]

Originally Posted by McLovin

It may seem like that, but I would argue that you have it backward. Returners are floating the return back because the server isn't serving & volleying.

If the server did follow it in, you can be damn sure the returner would step up & take a crack at it. But since there is no pressure, why risk it?

Federer was probably the first to realize this vs Roddick. No need to risk missing an aggressive return when blocking it back is (1) higher percentage and (2) restarts the point from a neutral position.

Exactly, and to further illustrate this point just watch some off the top singles players play doubles. With somebody already sitting on top off the net you won't see Federer slicing all of those returns.

[Say Chi Sin Lo]

Originally Posted by El Diablo

Agree with Say's comments, would also note that tremendous spin with poly in recent years means that even if you can't hit a passing shot, you can still force the guy to volley balls at his ankles, a difficult proposition at best.

That may be the biggest reason why pros are no longer serving and volley. Polys are allowing balls to dip much more than before, picking up balls off of your ankles are no fun.

[ramos77]

because there aren't many natural serve and volleyers left on the circuit...

i dont think it works as well these days with poly's, but you cannot dismiss it IMO. it is a good tactic given the right situation and at the right time...

mixing it up only makes it harder for the returner IMO. if you are in two minds as to whether to float it back or drop it low when they serve volley, it will most likely cause the returner to make some errors.

[mikeespinmusic]

Sampras in his retirement can be seen playing fine with polyester strings, and he still comes to the net on these plexi-cushion aka flexi pave courts (slowed down rubber courts). That man's serve can't be tamed because his serve is just so dam heavy. He's even beaten federer a couple of times on these style of courts in exhibition matches to date.

They slowed the courts down because of money and to remove American dominance. Advertisment clients wanted more exposure. If a big hitter or server like Roddick or Blake was destroying opponents in a piddly 1:20 mins. The advertisement slots weren't exactly plentiful. And they demanded the games to go longer.

They even created phony backlashes from the "public" saying that racquet technology has become too powerful and is ruining the game.

Which is actually not true because pro players racquets are quite lower powered and its the average joe racquet (which pro's wouldn't even touch and hardly ever gets restrung for control) which are the over-powered ones launching balls into the back fence with no chance of returning serve.

Agassi was such a good returner generally - and it was further enhanced by using a hybrid of spin friendly kevlar and gut strings.

And Rafter with full gut setups was a tremendous spinner of the ball.

- I argue that polyester strings haven't changed the game as much as putting metal in the balls, and slowing down the courts... doing those two things created a gap in the market which is why polyester strings were able to break in.

[NadalDramaQueen]

I think the better question (one that I often ask myself) is why don't the pros simply hit winners instead of not hitting winners.

Originally Posted by McLovin

It may seem like that, but I would argue that you have it backward. Returners are floating the return back because the server isn't serving & volleying.

If the server did follow it in, you can be damn sure the returner would step up & take a crack at it. But since there is no pressure, why risk it?

Federer was probably the first to realize this vs Roddick. No need to risk missing an aggressive return when blocking it back is (1) higher percentage and (2) restarts the point from a neutral position.

I agree, which is why serve and volleying on occasion can be a good way to not only win a cheap point, but force the returner to hit riskier returns. As a standard play, however, you are just going to look like a fool at the net.

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic

Sampras in his retirement can be seen playing fine with polyester strings, and he still comes to the net on these plexi-cushion aka flexi pave courts (slowed down rubber courts). That man's serve can't be tamed because his serve is just so dam heavy. He's even beaten federer a couple of times on these style of courts in exhibition matches to date.

They slowed the courts down because of money and to remove American dominance. Advertisment clients wanted more exposure. If a big hitter or server like Roddick or Blake was destroying opponents in a piddly 1:20 mins. The advertisement slots weren't exactly plentiful. And they demanded the games to go longer.

They even created phony backlashes from the "public" saying that racquet technology has become too powerful and is ruining the game.

Which is actually not true because pro players racquets are quite lower powered and its the average joe racquet (which pro's wouldn't even touch and hardly ever gets restrung for control) which are the over-powered ones launching balls into the back fence with no chance of returning serve.

Agassi was such a good returner generally - and it was further enhanced by using a hybrid of spin friendly kevlar and gut strings.

And Rafter with full gut setups was a tremendous spinner of the ball.

- I argue that polyester strings haven't changed the game as much as putting metal in the balls, and slowing down the courts... doing those two things created a gap in the market which is why polyester strings were able to break in.

No.

[mikeespinmusic]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I think the better question (one that I often ask myself) is why don't the pros simply hit winners instead of not hitting winners.



I agree, which is why serve and volleying on occasion can be a good way to not only win a cheap point, but force the returner to hit riskier returns. As a standard play, however, you are just going to look like a fool at the net.



No.

Would you care to explain why you would say "No" without any intellectual thought. Any source?

Here's mine.
http://www.top-tennis-training.net/#...-te/4560451570

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic

Would you care to explain why you would say "No" without any intellectual thought. Any source?

Here's mine.
http://www.top-tennis-training.net/#...-te/4560451570

I'm sorry, but do you waste time entertaining any conspiracy theorist who comes a-knocking? I didn't think so.

First, exhibition matches count for nothing. Read the comments after the matches (and watch them) and you'll see that they are hardly serious. At the very least, they say nothing about what would occur in an official match. Not to mention that Sampras only beat Federer in one exhibition match, so "a couple of times" is pushing it.

The courts have been slowed down, but to suggest that it was done to hinder Roddick and Blake is a joke. Watch some of the matches between those two and Federer on some of the faster surfaces, they generally weren't very pretty. Any advantage Roddick would gain on serve would be negated by the advantage Federer would gain on his own serve. Federer would often out ace Roddick, no matter the surface.

Slowing down the courts was likely a response to the style of tennis that was being played on some courts in the 90s. Many people weren't fond of some of the brainless points that were being played, so they did something about it. There is nothing sinister about it.

The rest of your post can hardly be attributed to any kind of intellectual thought, so spare me the lecture.

Creating phony public backlashes? Show some proof before you make such a claim. Random internet websites aren't going to cut it.

The fact that the pros use "low powered" racquets doesn't mean they can't crush the ball, only that they must take a full swing in order to generate a lot of power, unlike the cheaper twenty dollar racquets which are designed to give low skilled players the ability to take slow swings and still push the ball where it is needed.

Nobody is saying you can't put spin on the ball with nearly any type of string, only that the current string setups are better at generating spin. There are many discussions about this (even on this forum) so save me and everyone else some time and do a search for yourself on why this is happening.

What is your source for putting metal in the balls? I have a few tennis balls that were used in somewhat recent professional matches. If it comes down to it, I have access to equipment (access to people who can do work like this in other departments) that could be used to determine the composition of one of these balls. It doesn't take a physicist to make balls heavier without resorting to some type of metal weighting system.

[mikeespinmusic]

I won't bother reading your stuff. Because you cannot find a credible source.

[mikeespinmusic]

...Actually no, I have read it. You're amusing,

Its totally natural to not like hearing or reading something that kinda dents the perfect auro of your hero

You're using personal attacks and dismissals to distract the fact you can't find a decent source.



Roddick wins the US open 2003, makes number 1. Then the courts slow down. Federer takes it from then on. I'm not saying federer's no good, but a lot of guys got shaken up and took years to get their racquet setups and strokes adjusted. (Polarised racquet setups)

And you if actually look on the net, sampras has played fed about 3 or 4 times. He's using the new toys. He's starting to like them ..cos he's winning.

Wilson Titanium balls are a prime example. Then they just changed the whole line to that setup.

Read this link http://www.top-tennis-training.net/#...-te/4560451570. - its all there buddy. Be sure to play the videos.

And then follow the other links to realise Nadal's racquet is actually 110 square inches... and thats no conspiracy.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic

I won't bother reading your stuff. Because you cannot find a credible source.

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic

...Actually no, I have read it. You're amusing,

Its totally natural to not like hearing or reading something that kinda dents the perfect auro of your hero

You're using personal attacks and dismissals to distract the fact you can't find a decent source.



Roddick wins the US open 2003, makes number 1. Then the courts slow down. Federer takes it from then on. I'm not saying federer's no good, but a lot of guys got shaken up and took years to get their racquet setups and strokes adjusted. (Polarised racquet setups)

And you if actually look on the net, sampras has played fed about 3 or 4 times. He's using the new toys. He's starting to like them ..cos he's winning.

Wilson Titanium balls are a prime example. Then they just changed the whole line to that setup.

Read this link http://www.top-tennis-training.net/#...-te/4560451570. - its all there buddy. Be sure to play the videos.

And then follow the other links to realise Nadal's racquet is actually 110 square inches... and thats no conspiracy.

I'm a Nadal fan with a username of NadalDramaQueen?

You do realize that Federer was up 5-1 against Roddick from 2001-2003, correct? This was before they immediately slowed down all the courts, right? Do you need me to post a source for this, or can you find it for yourself?

Also, it's interesting to note that two of Roddick's three wins against Federer came on what some say are the slowest hard courts (by a large margin) on the tour, Miami. This is hardly a statistically significant number, but there isn't much else to go on given that Roddick picked up only three matches out of twenty four.

Please read what I wrote about the Federer-Sampras exhibitions. I wrote that Sampras only won one match, even though they did play some more times with Federer winning. The main point is that exhibition matches (especially ones against aging greats) have no meaning when it comes to tour level matches. Sampras wasn't about to beat Federer in a real match, nor would Federer beat Sampras if Sampras was still playing on the tour and Federer was well retired. Their peak levels are simply not that much different.

[mikeespinmusic]

Congratulations you're a terrific troll. You've kept this going way longer than intended because I thought you were going somewhere with intellect. In the end, you keep making stuff on the spot and bringing up stuff out of context as a distraction for a lack of sources. That'll do troll. That'll do.

[LeeD]

I like this thread...having played my best tennis from '77 thru '79, S/V was a natural strategy for most men's players from B (4.5) on up.
Countered by....
Most of the top players today have been playing for over 14 years, and grew up playing baseline tennis, a workable strategy against other juniors. Once they got good, they stuck with what got them there.
Notion of big serve ='s big putaway is simplistic at best, almost not reasonable. Return of serve has been a science, and with better physical conditioning, it's much harder to put a ball away cleanly.
And when the returner get's to hit a passing shot, he hits much harder dipping passes than ever before, and his natural rallyball allows him to hit topspin lobs much more consistently.
Takes a much more all around athlete to play net, as you need to cover overheads and half volleys, low volleys and backhand overheads, all the while needing to be able to hold your own from the baseline on returns of serves.
More firepower takes longer to learn, and time is the enemy when everyone is already practicing as many hours as humanly possible.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by mikeespinmusic

Congratulations you're a terrific troll. You've kept this going way longer than intended because I thought you were going somewhere with intellect. In the end, you keep making stuff on the spot and bringing up stuff out of context as a distraction for a lack of sources. That'll do troll. That'll do.

Better luck next time.

Now we can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by ramos77

because there aren't many natural serve and volleyers left on the circuit...

i dont think it works as well these days with poly's, but you cannot dismiss it IMO. it is a good tactic given the right situation and at the right time...

mixing it up only makes it harder for the returner IMO. if you are in two minds as to whether to float it back or drop it low when they serve volley, it will most likely cause the returner to make some errors.

I agree that it can pay dividends when thrown in every now and then, but what kind of frequency are we talking about? Should it be once in a blue moon just to make the returner aware of the possibility (perhaps on a crucial point) or should it be on the order of once every few games? For me, it has become kind of like the drop shot, you're a genius when it works but when you get passed easily at the net on a big point, everyone is shaking their heads.