Could a more talented player succeed S&V?

If a more talented all around player used S&V could they win?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 11 25.6%
  • Only if surface speeds up.

    Votes: 13 30.2%
  • No, it's dead because of poly strings, etc

    Votes: 19 44.2%

  • Total voters
    43
#1
I look at Karlovic and think to myself if he was a better all around player, surely he makes more than 1 quarter.

A lot of people looked at Mischa Zverev as a fluke but I saw a glimpse of a guy if he wasn't so riddled with injuries. He made a 4th Round run later that year.

Lopez made several quarters.

Thing is slowing down the courts and having Fed & Novak demolishing S&V specialists has scared most to even trying to carry such a game. Even on half of serves.

I think it comes down to matchups. Take Federer. If he's able to play differently against a strong returner like Djokovic but turn on the S&V against someone who is less able to return successfully.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
#2
If peak Sampras suddenly was 21 years old, with new racket strings/frame, he would still be HUGELY successful even with these slow-as-molasses court speeds of today. No player today (except Fed pre-2003) has ever played against a relentlessly attacking player who chipped and charged on every second serve and smothered their opponents with raw aggression.
 

Pistol10

Professional
#3
As long Mammies & Daddies are taking the lead in the career of their kids, things will remain the same....from bad to worse!

Not just because of the lack in the ability of training, but also as what Sampras said, parents DON'T invest in developing the game, all what they're interested in is match results, they don't sacrifice some matches in the early years for development.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
#5
As long Mammies & Daddies are taking the lead in the career of their kids, things will remain the same....from bad to worse!
I hear you! Look at how truly terrible volleying from young guys like Sascha, Tiufoe (cringe worthy), Thiem and countless others. Young Pete on tour now would decimate the field indoors and on grass. I don't care if racket technology allows for epic passing shots, Pete would still thump the baseliners into oblivion.
 
#6
If peak Sampras suddenly was 21 years old, with new racket strings/frame, he would still be HUGELY successful even with these slow-as-molasses court speeds of today. No player today (except Fed pre-2003) has ever played against a relentlessly attacking player who chipped and charged on every second serve and smothered their opponents with raw aggression.
Sampras would be dangerous in any era.
 
Last edited:

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
#9
If peak Sampras suddenly was 21 years old, with new racket strings/frame, he would still be HUGELY successful even with these slow-as-molasses court speeds of today. No player today (except Fed pre-2003) has ever played against a relentlessly attacking player who chipped and charged on every second serve and smothered their opponents with raw aggression.
But the new rackets would help Sampras way less than his opponents to counter his game. He couldn’t handle the spin at the net if the opponent isn’t in a helpless position before anyway.

Chip and charge these days would look like Sampras trying it at Roland Garros during his last years, but this time it would look this way ANYWHERE. The opponents could easily take a full wing swing through it in modern conditions, and then it’s game over at the net.
 
#10
I hear you! Look at how truly terrible volleying from young guys like Sascha, Tiufoe (cringe worthy), Thiem and countless others. Young Pete on tour now would decimate the field indoors and on grass. I don't care if racket technology allows for epic passing shots, Pete would still thump the baseliners into oblivion.
True, watched Tiafoe in mixed dubs for Hopman cup and it was pretty bad. Serena had some serious dude volleys too
 

Pistol10

Professional
#11
Sampras = Explosiveness. McEnroe = Ingenuity (can toy any baseliner, back & forth, left & right, before going to the net).

I don't care about how much courts are slow, or who is the opponent, a combination of those 2 players = Game Over!
 

Pistol10

Professional
#12
But the new rackets would help Sampras way less than his opponents to counter his game. He couldn’t handle the spin at the net if the opponent isn’t in a helpless position before anyway.

Chip and charge these days would look like Sampras trying it at Roland Garros during his last years, but this time it would look this way ANYWHERE. The opponents could easily take a full wing swing through it in modern conditions, and then it’s game over at the net.
But they (S&V players) wouldn't ship & charge nowadays, instead, they will return deep with angles (and attack second serve) & charge.
 
Last edited:
#14
I watched Sampras play for fifteen years. In my humble opinion, he would only be a threat on grass nowadays. At the Australian Open? Maybe, since the speed has increased.

But I honestly think he would have won 0 US Open titles since 2010.:giggle::giggle:
 
#16
I watched Sampras play for fifteen years. In my humble opinion, he would only be a threat on grass nowadays. At the Australian Open? Maybe, since the speed has increased.

But I honestly think he would have won 0 US Open titles since 2010.:giggle::giggle:
If Pete is 21 to start 2004 I think he wins 1-2 USO and 4 Wimbledons in direct competition with Fed.
 
#19
As long Mammies & Daddies are taking the lead in the career of their kids, things will remain the same....from bad to worse!

Not just because of the lack in the ability of training, but also as what Sampras said, parents DON'T invest in developing the game, all what they're interested in is match results, they don't sacrifice some matches in the early years for development.
In fairness to the tennis parents (and I'm kind of one of them even though my 13u kid plays only a few months a year), here's what you need to succeed at serve and volley. I know this because I'm constantly telling him to S & V and he gets beat every time he tries.

1. A great serve, which takes height which most kids don't have.

2. Incredible athletic ability to regain balance immediately after blasting the serve.

3. Incredible hand eye coordination to handle the return at mid court (no man's land) for the approach shot. If it's just bunted back because it lands at your feet, a six year old could pass you on the next shot.

4. if you do make it to the net, a superb volley because anything else will be lobbed over your short head.

5. The mental composure that even though you've done the near impossible by achieving all of the above, you will still lose most points.

6. A kid who has the ability to do all of the above and is not more interested in playing basketball with his friends on weekends and a parent who likes the cost of that activity ($0).

I love serve and volley. I preach it all the time, even when he gets beat 6-0 6-0 which has happened (nothing as pleasant as a teen who gets his a-- kicked because of your advice). But there's also something appealing to serving and bashing from the baseline until a winner comes organically. Plus, you get your money's worth at the tournaments instead of going home in 45 minutes on day one.
 

Pistol10

Professional
#20
In fairness to the tennis parents (and I'm kind of one of them even though my 13u kid plays only a few months a year), here's what you need to succeed at serve and volley. I know this because I'm constantly telling him to S & V and he gets beat every time he tries.

1. A great serve, which takes height which most kids don't have.

2. Incredible athletic ability to regain balance immediately after blasting the serve.

3. Incredible hand eye coordination to handle the return at mid court (no man's land) for the approach shot. If it's just bunted back because it lands at your feet, a six year old could pass you on the next shot.

4. if you do make it to the net, a superb volley because anything else will be lobbed over your short head.

5. The mental composure that even though you've done the near impossible by achieving all of the above, you will still lose most points.

6. A kid who has the ability to do all of the above and is not more interested in playing basketball with his friends on weekends and a parent who likes the cost of that activity ($0).

I love serve and volley. I preach it all the time, even when he gets beat 6-0 6-0 which has happened (nothing as pleasant as a teen who gets his a-- kicked because of your advice). But there's also something appealing to serving and bashing from the baseline until a winner comes organically. Plus, you get your money's worth at the tournaments instead of going home in 45 minutes on day one.
You're doing great by sacrificing at this stage for learning. I salute you sir.(y)

But S&V is advance, he must pick it carefully only when he feels it right. First step, teach him how to volley till he master it, and to be aggressive baseliner & good all court player. As what you said, he need a good serve, hard for kids, that's why S&V is advanced skill.

McEnroe probably the greatest Volleyer, he didn't have strong serve, but he know how to open the court with a good serve (kick or slice), or mastering the rally before going to the net.

Last advice, don't push your kid too much in learning, must be a combination of both, contentious learning and some good results, otherwise he will hate the game, lose confidence in himself, and the trust in you.

Best wish for his career...I wish to see a great Volleyer again :love:.
 

2good4U

Professional
#21
Sampras = Explosiveness. McEnroe = Ingenuity (can toy any baseliner, back & forth, left & right, before going to the net).

I don't care about how much courts are slow, or who is the opponent, a combination of those 2 players = Game Over!
You're absolutely right.

With lots of S & V, the singles game would become as unpopular as doubles, and it's heyday would be Over!

But hey, IF you can't hang from the baseline, there's always doubles, and plenty of S & V to enjoy. (zzzzzzzzz)
 

2good4U

Professional
#23
You're doing great by sacrificing at this stage for learning. I salute you sir.(y)
That's a tough road just to learn S & V is no longer a part of the modern game.

At least there's always doubles to fall back on.


Best wish for his career...I wish to see a great Volleyer again :love:.
How about watching doubles?

LOTS of that wonderfully exciting S & V you wish to see, with the added benefit of PLENTY of empty seats
to watch it from.
 

Pistol10

Professional
#24
Sampras = Explosiveness. McEnroe = Ingenuity (can toy any baseliner, back & forth, left & right, before going to the net).

I don't care about how much courts are slow, or who is the opponent, a combination of those 2 players = Game Over!

You're absolutely right.
With lots of S & V, the singles game would become as unpopular as doubles, and it's heyday would be Over!
You've got me wrong, which probably wont like, I would love to see someone like them or better a combination of both of them which can dominant the match...great all court game with explosiveness.
 

MLRoy

Hall of Fame
#26
I look at Karlovic and think to myself if he was a better all around player, surely he makes more than 1 quarter.

A lot of people looked at Mischa Zverev as a fluke but I saw a glimpse of a guy if he wasn't so riddled with injuries. He made a 4th Round run later that year.

Lopez made several quarters.

Thing is slowing down the courts and having Fed & Novak demolishing S&V specialists has scared most to even trying to carry such a game. Even on half of serves.

I think it comes down to matchups. Take Federer. If he's able to play differently against a strong returner like Djokovic but turn on the S&V against someone who is less able to return successfully.
I had this very same argument w/ another poster a while back. I was pro S&V. And a few days later, I was washing dishes, mind wondering BIG TIME, and thought about it and came to the conclusion that he was right. And this is why: because of the equipment, strings, the size of the court hasn't increased/the fast surfaces are slower than they were 30 yrs ago, etc., we have to redefine "serve and volley".

When I argued FOR S&V, I meant stay at the baseline, but approach the net on a short ball, if you're losing the baseline rallies. Which they don't do. I meant be aggressive, and come to the net and put some volleys away. I didn't mean serve then follow it to net, like they did in the 1970s, with wooden racquets, grass & fast hard courts. Not only wouldn't that work now -- unless you served bombs all the time -- but then you really wouldn't need to. It's also incredible tiring. I don't know how BJK, and the rest did it every match. Try serving and volleying for one set. It's equal to 3 long sets at the baseline.

Sorry to the guy who's tennis balls I busted. HAPPY NEW YEAR! ;^)B
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
But the new rackets would help Sampras way less than his opponents to counter his game. He couldn’t handle the spin at the net if the opponent isn’t in a helpless position before anyway.

Chip and charge these days would look like Sampras trying it at Roland Garros during his last years, but this time it would look this way ANYWHERE. The opponents could easily take a full wing swing through it in modern conditions, and then it’s game over at the net.
@ChrisRF Did you ever watch a Sampras match in Pete's era? We're not talking dusty Youtube videos. Did you ever watch Pete play a match in person or watch him practice?
 
#30
I had this very same argument w/ another poster a while back. I was pro S&V. And a few days later, I was washing dishes, mind wondering BIG TIME, and thought about it and came to the conclusion that he was right. And this is why: because of the equipment, strings, the size of the court hasn't increased/the fast surfaces are slower than they were 30 yrs ago, etc., we have to redefine "serve and volley".

When I argued FOR S&V, I meant stay at the baseline, but approach the net on a short ball, if you're losing the baseline rallies. Which they don't do. I meant be aggressive, and come to the net and put some volleys away. I didn't mean serve then follow it to net, like they did in the 1970s, with wooden racquets, grass & fast hard courts. Not only wouldn't that work now -- unless you served bombs all the time -- but then you really wouldn't need to. It's also incredible tiring. I don't know how BJK, and the rest did it every match. Try serving and volleying for one set. It's equal to 3 long sets at the baseline.

Sorry to the guy who's tennis balls I busted. HAPPY NEW YEAR! ;^)B
Sports today is all about the percentage or analytics if you prefer. As a former sport writer I was heavy on the stats and they made for good articles but it's not realistic. You cannot accurately predict nor account for a litany of variables every time. You're just hedging.

Now with regards to the energy required. Running up to the net and finishing the point off a volley is about the same as 3 maybe 4 points hit from the baseline as despite some perceptions out there you do have to move around and you have to put in more energy to hit the ball as oppose to volleying being about angles. So no, I don't think it's more tiring than a baseline game at all and Federer proved just that with his more aggressive play. Playing from the baseline typically means less breaks, if you're aggressive a double break can end a set quite quickly. Yes S&V becomes more tiring with marathon matches but if you look at the games you'll find a lot of those 5 setters back in the day were under 3 hours. Now a 5 setter is typical to hit the 4 hour mark.

Also, most S&V is done on 1st serves and depends on if you got the angle. Yeah if you got a great 2nd serve you can go in on that but that wasn't possible for a lot of players. Hitting a serve down the middle is approached less than a serve out wide.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
#32
The tactic can work on slower surfaces. You only need go back to the days when McEnroe makes it to the Roland Garros final, see the nice runs that Edberg, Boris, and Petros all occasionally had on clay to see that it is possible. You do have to factor in the new tennis tech and the way it has changed things, because that's certainly an 'advancement' in the sport that will have contributed significantly to the way the game has gone.
 
#33
The tactic can work on slower surfaces. You only need go back to the days when McEnroe makes it to the Roland Garros final, see the nice runs that Edberg, Boris, and Petros all occasionally had on clay to see that it is possible. You do have to factor in the new tennis tech and the way it has changed things, because that's certainly an 'advancement' in the sport that will have contributed significantly to the way the game has gone.
This sarcasm? Those guys didn't win precisely because the clay is too slow.

Right now Wimbledon and AO allow.
 

ibbi

Hall of Fame
#35
This sarcasm? Those guys didn't win precisely because the clay is too slow.

Right now Wimbledon and AO allow.
They didn't win, but they proved that you can have success playing that way on slower surfaces. If they were doing it as often as these guys do chances are they'd eventually get over the top, at 1000 level, if not the majors themselves.
 
#36
The tactic can work on slower surfaces. You only need go back to the days when McEnroe makes it to the Roland Garros final, see the nice runs that Edberg, Boris, and Petros all occasionally had on clay to see that it is possible. You do have to factor in the new tennis tech and the way it has changed things, because that's certainly an 'advancement' in the sport that will have contributed significantly to the way the game has gone.
Stefan played the final of the French and lost in 5 sets, won a clay tournament in Madrid beating Bruguera and beat Thomas Muster on clay.... you can serve and volley on clay, you just have to be good!
 
#37
Sampras would eat the current generations alive. It would be funny to see.

Minus Bull of course. Bull killed S&V. Not poly or courts.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
#38
@ChrisRF Did you ever watch a Sampras match in Pete's era? We're not talking dusty Youtube videos. Did you ever watch Pete play a match in person or watch him practice?
Not in person, but he was my tennis childhood/youth idol (in fact the only tennis idol other than Federer later) and I watched every match I was able to on TV. Surely I wasn’t one of those who thought he was “boring”. I liked his game very much, but realistically he couldn’t succeed with it in this era.

I believe Sampras was lucky to be born in the right era while Federer is the complete tennis genius who would have dominated everywhere in his prime.

In the Sampras era (and even more in the McEnroe era) the net player had the advantage, because the strings didn’t allow powerful passing shots from behind the baseline while the volley (especially drop volley) was not that much more difficult to hit.

It’s nothing against these players which did the right thing at the right time. But now their style would be as effective as staying back at every point in the 80s, no matter how good they are with their net-rushing.

A good approach shot in the right moment will always do the trick, and a player who can do that (like Federer) is superior to a one-dimensional player like Zverev, but something like chip-and-charge or generally approaching which a slice shot will be constantly eaten alive.

And by the way, I like 80s and 90s tennis very much and often re-weatch these matches. But I don’t like the unrealistic overrating of nostalgia. For example Edberg was nice to watch, but he would have no hope against today’s Big 3 and most likely against many others players.
 
#39
Would need faster courts to start with. At present it’s only valid as an occasional tactic in the way 14-15 federer used it.
Even 14-15 fed was enough for that crap field minus prime ATG nole...
What damage will sampras do to them!!!

Raonic did pretty damn well before 2018, so I'd say it's definitely possible.
Not everyone serves bombs like raomeme
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
#41
In fairness to the tennis parents (and I'm kind of one of them even though my 13u kid plays only a few months a year), here's what you need to succeed at serve and volley. I know this because I'm constantly telling him to S & V and he gets beat every time he tries.

1. A great serve, which takes height which most kids don't have.

2. Incredible athletic ability to regain balance immediately after blasting the serve.

3. Incredible hand eye coordination to handle the return at mid court (no man's land) for the approach shot. If it's just bunted back because it lands at your feet, a six year old could pass you on the next shot.

4. if you do make it to the net, a superb volley because anything else will be lobbed over your short head.

5. The mental composure that even though you've done the near impossible by achieving all of the above, you will still lose most points.

6. A kid who has the ability to do all of the above and is not more interested in playing basketball with his friends on weekends and a parent who likes the cost of that activity ($0).

I love serve and volley. I preach it all the time, even when he gets beat 6-0 6-0 which has happened (nothing as pleasant as a teen who gets his a-- kicked because of your advice). But there's also something appealing to serving and bashing from the baseline until a winner comes organically. Plus, you get your money's worth at the tournaments instead of going home in 45 minutes on day one.
Its worth it, definitely. Im glad youre teaching him this, because even if it doesnt pay off now, it will in the future. Its also a life lesson. We're out here to play a game, and improve. There are no shortcuts to getting better. (y)
 
#42
If peak Sampras suddenly was 21 years old, with new racket strings/frame, he would still be HUGELY successful even with these slow-as-molasses court speeds of today. No player today (except Fed pre-2003) has ever played against a relentlessly attacking player who chipped and charged on every second serve and smothered their opponents with raw aggression.
By the same token Sampras never played against anyone who can open up the court geometry angles due to the increased spin.
 
#43
No power Hewitt was ripping apart talented S&V players more than 15 years ago. Even before the advent of poly I think. No way S&V players can go up against the ferocious Fedalovic passing shots. Unless they speed up the surfaces significantly.
 

2good4U

Professional
#44
No power Hewitt was ripping apart talented S&V players more than 15 years ago. Even before the advent of poly I think. No way S&V players can go up against the ferocious Fedalovic passing shots. Unless they speed up the surfaces significantly.
Maybe IF they played on fricken' ICE!

Why S & V fanatics don't stick with doubles, and insist on inflicting such
boorishness onto the singles game I'll never know.

Can't doubles satisfy their S & V obsession??
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
#45
No power Hewitt was ripping apart talented S&V players more than 15 years ago. Even before the advent of poly I think. No way S&V players can go up against the ferocious Fedalovic passing shots. Unless they speed up the surfaces significantly.
You could argue that "No-power" Hewitt was able to succeed because he could place the ball well against an aggressive player. His results after the death of SnV suggests he specialized in facing serve and volleyers on fast courts, not baseliners on slow courts. Can todays players do that? Or would they dump their super powered topspin shots into the net, and miss outside of the lines? We don't know, because there is no serve and volley players anymore, and so, no need for serve and volley killing specialists either. All of todays players specialize in baseline vs baseline. To suggest that automatically means they blast serve and volleyers off the court makes no sense to me.
 
#46
Maybe IF they played on fricken' ICE!

Why S & V fanatics don't stick with doubles, and insist on inflicting such
boorishness onto the singles game I'll never know.

Can't doubles satisfy their S & V obsession??
Yeah the modern ball bashing game is much more exciting!
 
#50
You could argue that "No-power" Hewitt was able to succeed because he could place the ball well against an aggressive player. His results after the death of SnV suggests he specialized in facing serve and volleyers on fast courts, not baseliners on slow courts. Can todays players do that? Or would they dump their super powered topspin shots into the net, and miss outside of the lines? We don't know, because there is no serve and volley players anymore, and so, no need for serve and volley killing specialists either. All of todays players specialize in baseline vs baseline. To suggest that automatically means they blast serve and volleyers off the court makes no sense to me.
Well, seeing as giraffe Anderson was finding time to line up the pass well out of big Ivo's reach even on a decent paced court yesterday, I would say that slow/medium courts (especially if they bounce up high) would only give more time for the baseliner to pass the volleyer. Mind, I am not saying serve and volley can't work at all today but the court pace doesn't really help. Another thing is because players are used to hitting with so much topspin, even their approach shots have a lot of spin. And what spin does is it kicks up the ball into a nice hitting height to set up the passing shot. Why was Mischa able to beat the odds? Because his approach shots are so flat on both wings. Almost nobody on tour hits the forehand like him and that is exactly what complements his S&V based game. That is, the groundstroke and S&V game have diverged in a big way. This was not the case prior to poly. You had players hitting more flat groundies from the baseline which made their approach shots more conducive to coming in. Like Henman or Rafter, for instance. Add to that the much higher number of double handers and it has twin effects. It's both harder to attack the backhand wing while coming in and at the same time fewer players have a good slice approach.
 
Top