does serve and volley have more of a place at the NTRP level? (as compared to pros)

[barnes1172]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the serve and volley game is obsolete at the pro level.

But I'm wondering if it might be more effective at the 3.5/4.0 NTRP level. Players at this level obviously hit with less pace and topspin than the pros, so it should be easier to volley your opponent's groundstrokes.

I'm really considering try to develop into a serve and volley player. I'm thinking this style would also work well against the pusher-types I seem to encounter in 3.5 singles.

Has anyone else had success with this style of play at this level?

 

[Nuke]

S&V is definitely a possibility at the 3.5 level. Even with modern frames and strings, lots of 3.5s don't have reliable passing shots or lobs. Then again, lots of 3.5s don't have reliable approach shots, volleys and overheads. Everything is up for grabs at the 3.5 level.

 

[SStrikerR]

Back in freshman year I played a guy who only used kick serves and serve and volleyed more than 70% of the time. He beat me 6-0 6-1. Granted he was their #1 and I was a #3, and had never dealt with kick serves before... But with how high and wickedly they bounced, it would've been tough taking them on the rise, and stepping back would just let him get on top of the net.

I figure that it depends on if your opponent has a weak return on either side. If you can force them to chip or float returns back enough on one side that you can move in and get a good a volley, go for it.

Ex. My 2h backhand return isn't as consistent as I would like it to be. As a tennis player, being a perfectionist probably isn't the best thing to be, but I am. Until I deem it acceptable, I dont use it much. Anyway, because of that, I slice many backhand returns. I've done it so much that it gives me options, deep, low, right, left, whatever. However some players pick up on the fact that I'm just slicing returns by moving in behind their serves (usually after I win the first set and their coach tells them to). I then am forced to either go for very low slices to give them tough volleys, or begin trying 2h returns. To this day only 2 serve and volleyers have beaten me, 1 freshman year and 1 junior year. I wouldn't recommend using it as your primary gameplan against better players, but if you think you can get a weak return, by all means use it occasionally as a surprise attack. It'll help expand your game and hopefully win you some easy points.

 

[Limpinhitter]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the serve and volley game is obsolete at the pro level.

But I'm wondering if it might be more effective at the 3.5/4.0 NTRP level. Players at this level obviously hit with less pace and topspin than the pros, so it should be easier to volley your opponent's groundstrokes.

I'm really considering try to develop into a serve and volley player. I'm thinking this style would also work well against the pusher-types I seem to encounter in 3.5 singles.

Has anyone else had success with this style of play at this level?

Serve and volley still has a place at the pro level, but, not as a primary tactic. Remember a few years ago how much trouble Philipp Petzschner gave Nadal at Wimbledon mixing in S&V on a regular basis.

Having said that, I don't think I agree with the notion that S&V would be more successful at the rec level. The reason is that, just as rec players don't have the return/groundstroke skills of a pro, they don't have the serve skills, volley skill, or the S&V skills that a pro has either.

 

[LeeD]

Would you believe, not all rec players play the same?
Some stay back and bash topspin groundies all day, or throw in a few slices.
Some slice only, all day.
Some can't do either (like me), so choose to approach net position and allow my volleys to maintain my 4.0 level.
Some 4.0's have weak overheads. Some have strong overheads.
That pretty much goes for almost all levels of tennis.

 

[MikeyBigShot]

I play a lot of S&V at my low level because:

1) I'm out of shape.

2) It allows me to quickly end points.

3) I have a better serve than most of the people I play.

4) A lot of people at my level have weak no pace ground strokes.

5) I'm quick to the net, but lack the fitness to hangout at the baseline.

My goal is to get into better shape, and become an all court player.

 

[rkelley]

I played serve and volley at the 3.5 level back in the 80's. It was USTA C at the time, but I think it's the same as 3.5 today. It worked well. I won a lot of sets. It forced me be learn to volley, half volley, and hit overheads. There weren't many players at that level that could hit all of those shots. It especially worked great in doubles.

Admittedly for me my serve made the whole thing work. I was just an OK volleyer. I played a lot of serve and intimidate honestly. I could also live off the scores of weak one-handed backhands I faced.

Even though S&V was popular at the time (Becker, Edberg, Mac), at the C level very few players would serve and volley. Even in doubles most C players couldn't/wouldn't do it, but there were a few.

I think it can still work today. Just look at Tsonga and Murray at Wimbledon. Tsonga was doing a great job of S&V. The 130 mph well placed first serve certainly helped. I personally haven't practiced it a lot since I've gotten back into tennis in the last few years. It does seem quite a bit harder to do now than back in the day because of the increased pace and spin, though I'm also older and I'm playing at a higher level now (yes, you can get better as you age), so it's hard to compare exactly.

 

[Orion3]

If I'm playing younger, fitter guys (more and more) I serve and volley regulary. I don't have the stamina to trade from the baseline. More often than not, I'm technically better than them from the baseline, but they outlast me 90%+ of the time. S&V gives me a break, often surprises them (to start with) and most of them have never faced it.

That said, I've a fairly big serve (despite being 5'7") and am a competent volleyer - years of being forced to play doubles as a junior. So many of my service returns tend to be floaters - its a lazy return but most returners aren't punished for it... so few people follow in their serve.

If I'm playing a fellow veteran - or someone closer in age/ability I will revert to a more baseline based, all-court game. I come in to finish points and S&V as/if needed.

I fully agree with Limp - S&V still has a place in the modern game; its just different than what it used to be.

 

[TeflonTom]

i play s&v at a lower college level

the whole s&v obsolete idea is a myth. if u have a serve designed for s&v, good volleys and approach smart, then u can be perfectly successful

realistically speaking u need to have damn good groundstrokes to regularly n consistently pass a good volleyer who knows how to s&v intelligently. at a certain level, no amt of volleyin skills will make up for passin ability but i think that is an extremely high level of play. i mean, there are plenty of guys who hold their own with s&v as a primary tactic on the challenger tour. heck, llodra is a s&v guy and he did pretty good for himself.

i dont play d1 but most of the players i meet dont have groundstrokes so killer that s&ving is futile as a regular strategy against them. occassionally i come up against players who can pass me pretty much at will, but they are inevitably much better players than me in general.

u are helped by the fact that most players rarely play ppl who are truly good s&vers (i.e. not just guys with a huge serve who follow it in). They may have good groundstrokes but they arent as familiar with passing shots n they havent much experience countering intelligent s&v tactics

Having said that, I don't think I agree with the notion that S&V would be more successful at the rec level. The reason is that, just as rec players don't have the return/groundstroke skills of a pro, they don't have the serve skills, volley skill, or the S&V skills that a pro has either.

u are assuming the relationship between all skills is linear n equivalent. they aint

 

[mightyrick]

For singles, at lower levels, S&V is almost non-existent. It simply requires too much skill. For example, I almost never see it at NTRP 3.5. I do see some NTRP 4.0s starting to try it, though. The same for a purposeful chip and charge.

Now, *net play* is different. I do see people trying to come to net if somebody pulls out side. But I don't consider that to be the same as pure S&V.

One 4.0 that I regulary play is pure S&V. But he didn't add it until he was bumped up. He's a taller, bigger guy and not as fit as some of the ultra skinny guys. So at 4.0... S&V was easier for him in singles. Less running, easier coverage.

 

[Larrysümmers]

I play a lot of S&V at my low level because:

1) I'm out of shape.

2) It allows me to quickly end points.

3) I have a better serve than most of the people I play.

4) A lot of people at my level have weak no pace ground strokes.

5) I'm quick to the net, but lack the fitness to hangout at the baseline.

My goal is to get into better shape, and become an all court player.

heyyy,. me too man

 

[Swissv2]

I actually have been playing around with S&V. One thing I noticed is a lot of the people I play with are unable to do passing shots against my serve, which has a bit of pace with it.

I think it is high time that lower levels play with S&V.

 

[mightyrick]

I actually have been playing around with S&V. One thing I noticed is a lot of the people I play with are unable to do passing shots against my serve, which has a bit of pace with it.

I think it is high time that lower levels play with S&V.

To your point, S&V is probably the most effective response to a pusher. Unfortunately, at low levels, most players don't have the skill to execute an S&V game.

 

[LeeD]

I'm another old timer who learned tennis playing S/V, chip and charge.
My groundies are strong, but inconsistent.
My low volleys, half volleys, and overheads are my strength.
Why would I want to baseline bash, with anyone?

 

[rkelley]

To your point, S&V is probably the most effective response to a pusher. Unfortunately, at low levels, most players don't have the skill to execute an S&V game.

The key for S&V against a pusher is that you don't have to be that good at it. You're going to get a lot of no pace shots that won't be too hard to volley, especially if you focus on angles and just keeping the ball in front of you when you volley it. Add in a overhead and you should give most pushers fits.

 

[mightyrick]

The key for S&V against a pusher is that you don't have to be that good at it. You're going to get a lot of no pace shots that won't be too hard to volley, especially if you focus on angles and just keeping the ball in front of you when you volley it. Add in a overhead and you should give most pushers fits.

I dunno, at low levels... pushers are pretty good. Very effective at lobbing -- which is ordinarily their only weapon outside of consistency. Unless you have a pristine overhead and great feet, a good lob will kill you in singles.

It isn't the volleying of a slow floater that is tough. It is volleying well enough to make a pusher miss. Most rec players don't practice volleys -- especially in singles. Most focus on forehand, backhand and serve.

I think at low levels, that S&V *might* be possible if the person has a good serve. But if you only have an average serve, I think you're just inviting baseline lobs.

 

[LeeD]

That's AWAYS been the case. No serve, no
S/V that works.

 

[GuyClinch]

There might be a sweet spot at 4.0 - 5.0 where serve and volley is effective. But for the 3.0 - 3.5/pretend 4.0s (this is where like 50% + player live) crowd its not that great..

It much easier to just hit a ball back from the baseline and wait for the other guy to screw up. Also the variety of shots and talent you need is much higher for serve and volley.

To baseline rally you need a decent forehand, backhand and a non-awful serve. But for serve and volley you still need all that - and you need to be able to track down lobs, hit overheads, hit half volleys and you need to be able to run much better and have MORE fitness - not less. You need far more overall athleticism, IMHO.

So yeah if you can play that game you are pretty good and can beat alot of players. Not bad for rec - because most rec players aren't going to get so good that you run into guys who can consistently pound forehands and backhands and beat a good volleyer.

But its a really tough style for most players - the amount of time to dedicate to it is much larger..

 

[InspectorRacquet]

I dunno, at low levels... pushers are pretty good. Very effective at lobbing -- which is ordinarily their only weapon outside of consistency. Unless you have a pristine overhead and great feet, a good lob will kill you in singles.

It isn't the volleying of a slow floater that is tough. It is volleying well enough to make a pusher miss. Most rec players don't practice volleys -- especially in singles. Most focus on forehand, backhand and serve.

I think at low levels, that S&V *might* be possible if the person has a good serve. But if you only have an average serve, I think you're just inviting baseline lobs.

Exactly. A volley can only go as fast as the ground stroke it came from because you're not supposed to swing at a volley. At low levels, like 3.5, volleying is difficult against pushers whose strokes are slow enough to allow them to run down anything.

Serving and volleying comes easier to me personally when the ball goes faster, and I'm just an average volleyer. However, at the pros, they hit so well that their ground strokes negate average volleying.

 

[LeeD]

Did you forget that when you volley, you only hit 2/3'rds the distance of a groundie, so the opponent doesn't have the time, regardless of how weak the incoming ball is.
Case in point. Try practicing all your volleys from the SERVICE LINE. From there, if you hit just 3' inside the baseline, solid volley, it's almost impossible for the baseliner to hit an effective shot!
If you face a fast pusher, HIT BEHIND THEM. Since they start early, they committed early.
And if the ball is INcoming slow, move forwards to volley it!

 

[mightyrick]

Did you forget that when you volley, you only hit 2/3'rds the distance of a groundie, so the opponent doesn't have the time, regardless of how weak the incoming ball is.
Case in point. Try practicing all your volleys from the SERVICE LINE. From there, if you hit just 3' inside the baseline, solid volley, it's almost impossible for the baseliner to hit an effective shot!
If you face a fast pusher, HIT BEHIND THEM. Since they start early, they committed early.
And if the ball is INcoming slow, move forwards to volley it!

Lee, that's tough for a 3.5 to do. It's a totally different stroke. It requires good footwork, a good eye, and solid racquet control. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's damn tough for a 3.0 or 3.5.

I'm a 3.5, too. Even though I'm in the upper-echelon bordering 4.0, I can safely say that most people in the 3.5 range have enough trouble trying to hit using forehands/backhands... without adding volleys into the mix. It is a highly nuanced shot.

 

[LeeD]

I was a C player, or 3.5, after my third year of tennis. In those days (1970's), you needed to learn to volley in order to take advantage of your serve. First and foremost, forehand and backhand, of course. After that, volley and overhead.
Perhaps you should practice your volleys from the service line.

 

[rkelley]

The key for S&V against a pusher is that you don't have to be that good at it. You're going to get a lot of no pace shots that won't be too hard to volley, especially if you focus on angles and just keeping the ball in front of you when you volley it. Add in a overhead and you should give most pushers fits.

I dunno, at low levels... pushers are pretty good. Very effective at lobbing -- which is ordinarily their only weapon outside of consistency. Unless you have a pristine overhead and great feet, a good lob will kill you in singles.

It isn't the volleying of a slow floater that is tough. It is volleying well enough to make a pusher miss. Most rec players don't practice volleys -- especially in singles. Most focus on forehand, backhand and serve.

I think at low levels, that S&V *might* be possible if the person has a good serve. But if you only have an average serve, I think you're just inviting baseline lobs.

Against pushers I'll set up for the volley maybe a foot inside the service line. Generally that's too far back, but for a pusher, by definition, their balls have no pace so they can't drill balls at my feet and make me pay for setting up so far back. So if they try to pass me I can close to the net and get to their no-pace ball. Keep the racquet in front and use angles, don't try to crush the volley. If they try to lob it's going to have to be a pretty good lob considering my position. Your overhead doesn't have to be perfect, but you need to be able to hit it out of the air. If I have to take the lob from the baseline I can usually get it and just come back in.

The biggest problem for me is that it's just boring and mentally taxing. I'd rather hit on the wall.

 

[rkelley]

Lee, that's tough for a 3.5 to do. It's a totally different stroke. It requires good footwork, a good eye, and solid racquet control. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's damn tough for a 3.0 or 3.5.

I'm a 3.5, too. Even though I'm in the upper-echelon bordering 4.0, I can safely say that most people in the 3.5 range have enough trouble trying to hit using forehands/backhands... without adding volleys into the mix. It is a highly nuanced shot.

I hear what you're saying. Lots of folks at that level don't volley, but I think it's easier than you're making it out to be. Just focus on keeping the racquet out in front with an open face. You're almost catching the ball. You don't want to hit the volley hard against a pusher, the opposite actually. Drop shot their no-pace junk over the net angling away from them. If they get wise to this and start following in their no-pace pass, do like Lee says and hit the volley from where they started (which will be behind them). Again, it doesn't have to be hard, though a bit harder than a drop shot.

A whole lot of volleying is just keeping your racquet out in front, keeping the face open, and using some angles.

 

[user92626]

I'd like to ask rkelley and others that... how do you learn volley if you don't like it, don't enjoy it, don't really need it in matches?

I wish I love volley half as much as I love groundstrokes.

 

[LeeD]

That's easy!
Just get injured, so you can't run 2 steps.
With net play, you only need to lunge ONE step, to cover alley to alley.
Lobs can be tough, but only if they land within 3' of the baseline, in which case a fit person would bounce anyways.
Or get old.
Or learn to volley as a challenge, but don't do it during a match.

 

[rkelley]

I'd like to ask rkelley and others that... how do you learn volley if you don't like it, don't enjoy it, don't really need it in matches?

I wish I love volley half as much as I love groundstrokes.

Hard to answer. I like and enjoy it. I find the angles really beautiful, and it's a thrill to take a ball off my shoe tops and get it back over.

If you don't like it and don't need it, then I'd say don't worry about it. We're all playing for fun.

 

[LeeD]

Nobody HAS to learn to volley.
The GAME of tennis doesn't say you need specific shots.

 

[Limpinhitter]

. . . u are assuming the relationship between all skills is linear n equivalent. they aint

Not at all. In fact, IMO, the gap between pros and rec players is even bigger for S&V skills than it is for groundies, making S&V all the less likely to be a successful tactic at the rec level. As I explained, there are serve skills, volley skills and S&V skills. Rec players are less developed in those skills individually and collectively than they are in groundstroke and ground game skills.

 

[LeeD]

Really?
There are at least 5 of us who say our volleys are better than our groundies. I guess we are the exception, in your eyes, rather than the norm.
Only the newbie players are better at groundies, and due to the fact they never practiced volleys, of course.

 

[tlm]

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the serve and volley game is obsolete at the pro level.

But I'm wondering if it might be more effective at the 3.5/4.0 NTRP level. Players at this level obviously hit with less pace and topspin than the pros, so it should be easier to volley your opponent's groundstrokes.

I'm really considering try to develop into a serve and volley player. I'm thinking this style would also work well against the pusher-types I seem to encounter in 3.5 singles.

Has anyone else had success with this style of play at this level?

S+V is very effective in amateur level tennis, much more than at the pro level. It is effective even at the higher levels, some of the best 5.0 players at my club come to the net often with very good success.

 

[mightyrick]

Really?
There are at least 5 of us who say our volleys are better than our groundies. I guess we are the exception, in your eyes, rather than the norm.
Only the newbie players are better at groundies, and due to the fact they never practiced volleys, of course.

Go to a USTA NTRP 3.5 tournament. Watch 10 matches. Examine how much S&V is used in each match. Then decide. I would be surprised if it was remotely prevalent in 1 out of 10 matches.

 

[TeflonTom]

Not at all. In fact, IMO, the gap between pros and rec players is even bigger for S&V skills than it is for groundies, making S&V all the less likely to be a successful tactic at the rec level. As I explained, there are serve skills, volley skills and S&V skills. Rec players are less developed in those skills individually and collectively than they are in groundstroke and ground game skills.

prolly because ppl practice it less

technique wise imo it is just as easy (if not easier) 2 be a competent s&v play than it is 2 be competent at passing shots etc at many rec levels.

imo it is very viable tactic once u get to a level of rec tennis with protracted rallies

 

[barnes1172]

I agree, you don't see it very much in tournaments. But my question is whether it could work.

I started thinking about this when I looked at the singles ladder on my own USTA 3.5 team. There is one guy who is a pure serve and volleyer, there is one guy who is a pusher/counter-puncher, and there is me (harder-hitting baseliner). I usually lose to the pusher/counter-puncher, but I narrowly beat the serve and volley guy. The serve and volley guy, on the other hand, easily beats the pusher/counter-puncher.

It is almost seems like rock/paper/scissors (rock beats scissors, but loses to paper, etc.)

 

[mightyrick]

I agree, you don't see it very much in tournaments. But my question is whether it could work.

I started thinking about this when I looked at the singles ladder on my own USTA 3.5 team. There is one guy who is a pure serve and volleyer, there is one guy who is a pusher/counter-puncher, and there is me (harder-hitting baseliner). I usually lose to the pusher/counter-puncher, but I narrowly beat the serve and volley guy. The serve and volley guy, on the other hand, easily beats the pusher/counter-puncher.

It is almost seems like rock/paper/scissors (rock beats scissors, but loses to paper, etc.)

I am at NTRP 3.5. There is nobody who does S&V at that range who can beat me. The S&V guys who maybe have a 50-50 chance of beating me are NTRP 4.0 S&V players. The guys at 4.0 S&V who I beat are the ones who do not have a decent "lunge" volley to cover the passing shot.

Bad S&Vers "lunge" and get the passing shot back over the net, but it is a short sitter. Easy putaway. The better 4.0 S&Vers are the ones who can lunge, but put the ball cross court or an excellent drop volley. But I see it rarely.

 

[BreakPoint]

Serve and volley works VERY well at the recreational level. I come up against serve and volleyers quite often and they are VERY hard to beat. You sometimes feel helpless against them because you often don't even get to touch the ball. I also serve and volley quite a bit.

 

[TeflonTom]

I am at NTRP 3.5. There is nobody who does S&V at that range who can beat me. The S&V guys who maybe have a 50-50 chance of beating me are NTRP 4.0 S&V players. The guys at 4.0 S&V who I beat are the ones who do not have a decent "lunge" volley to cover the passing shot.



Bad S&Vers "lunge" and get the passing shot back over the net, but it is a short sitter. Easy putaway. The better 4.0 S&Vers are the ones who can lunge, but put the ball cross court or an excellent drop volley. But I see it rarely.

sounds like more of a tactical problem on their part than anythin else

If u are hittin lunge volleys constantly either u aren't servin well enough for the tactic or u r approachin wrong

U cant really s&v effectively unless u have decent serve placement, some 3.5s struggle with that

 

[Limpinhitter]

prolly because ppl practice it less

technique wise imo it is just as easy (if not easier) 2 be a competent s&v play than it is 2 be competent at passing shots etc at many rec levels.

imo it is very viable tactic once u get to a level of rec tennis with protracted rallies

The problem is that, although volley skills may be easier to perfect than groundie skills, most rec players don't practice their volleys nearly as much as their groundies. Further, serve skills are harder than groundie skills, and S&V skills are harder yet. Sure, S&V could be a viable tactic for anyone who put in the time to develop those skills. But, the vast majority of rec players put most of their practice time into groundies, and then, not very effectively or efficiently.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I agree, you don't see it very much in tournaments. But my question is whether it could work.

I started thinking about this when I looked at the singles ladder on my own USTA 3.5 team. There is one guy who is a pure serve and volleyer, there is one guy who is a pusher/counter-puncher, and there is me (harder-hitting baseliner). I usually lose to the pusher/counter-puncher, but I narrowly beat the serve and volley guy. The serve and volley guy, on the other hand, easily beats the pusher/counter-puncher.

It is almost seems like rock/paper/scissors (rock beats scissors, but loses to paper, etc.)

If you put in the time to develope your serve, volley AND S&V skills, it could work. But, IMO, since most rec players have a very limited amount of time to devote to practice, they'll get more bang for the buck spending time on their serve, return and groundies, rather than volley and S&V skills.

 

[mightyrick]

sounds like more of a tactical problem on their part than anythin else

If u are hittin lunge volleys constantly either u aren't servin well enough for the tactic or u r approachin wrong

U cant really s&v effectively unless u have decent serve placement, some 3.5s struggle with that

Most 3.5s don't serve that well. Remember, we're talking a half point above 3.0 here.

I know we've got coaches and instructors and posters here who are at 4.0 or 4.5 level and above. But we should remember... most of the free tennis playing world is at 3.5 or below.

So most 3.5s don't have a great serve. Most 3.5s really don't volley worth a darn. Most 3.5s are pushers or unforced error machines. It is the nature of the playing level. I play a LOT of tennis at 3.5, and S&V does not exist. Because most 3.5s either have bad serve, bad volleys or both.

 

[TeflonTom]

Most 3.5s don't serve that well. Remember, we're talking a half point above 3.0 here.

I know we've got coaches and instructors and posters here who are at 4.0 or 4.5 level and above. But we should remember... most of the free tennis playing world is at 3.5 or below.

So most 3.5s don't have a great serve. Most 3.5s really don't volley worth a darn. Most 3.5s are pushers or unforced error machines. It is the nature of the playing level. I play a LOT of tennis at 3.5, and S&V does not exist. Because most 3.5s either have bad serve, bad volleys or both.

u dont need a great serve or great volleys to s&v.

u do need a solid serve u can place, which is kinda rare at 3.5. not cos its hard but cos most 3.5s dont really care much bout placement much with serving. its all about gettin the ball in as hard as possible, as often as possible.

i have a pretty hard serve now but when i was a jr, it was nothin special. but, i had a different servin philosophy to most other jrs. i wasnt a real tall n powerful kid but saw guys like edberg n rafter n admired how much they could do with spin n placement. my flat serve wasnt real hard but i had vicious lefty slice n also a decentish topspin 2nd serve. i could mix servin up real well - flat out wide in deuce, slice into the body or canopener, n topspin most anywhere in the box

i was never really seen as a 'great server' even for my level. barely ever hit an ace, n i got a lot less free pts on first serve than the hard hitters. but it was pretty much perfect for settin up s&v because i could manipulate where the serve was goin, n therefore the positioning of the return. n as long as i approached right, the volleys i was hitten were mostly pretty easy. i mean, 3.5s arent brilliant groundstrokers when they r returning a decent serve

i guess in summary what im sayin it that s&v is less about if u have a great serve, n more bout whether u have the right type of serve. n if u r serving right n playing tactically smart, u can get by with pretty average volleys.

 

[mightyrick]

u dont need a great serve or great volleys to s&v.

u do need a solid serve u can place, which is kinda rare at 3.5. not cos its hard but cos most 3.5s dont really care much bout placement much with serving. its all about gettin the ball in as hard as possible, as often as possible.

Exactly, that's 3.5 tennis.

i guess in summary what im sayin it that s&v is less about if u have a great serve, n more bout whether u have the right type of serve. n if u r serving right n playing tactically smart, u can get by with pretty average volleys.

Well any way you slice it, you are talking about being able to have the right "type" of serve (so different serves), placing your serve, playing tactically smart, and average volleys. You aren't describing 3.5 tennis. That's 4.0 tennis at a minimum.

It really isn't a question of whether S&V can work. It is a question of whether it can work at all levels. And 3.5 is one step above total crap tennis. At 3.5, most people still can't serve that well, they certainly can't place their serves, they can't think tactically very well, and they really can't volley.

Therefore, no S&V at 3.5. If someone at 3.5 was able to be successful using S&V, I guarantee they'd get bumped to 4.0 because they'd be crushing people in 3.5.

 

[TeflonTom]

i think ur bein a bit harsh on 3.5s. what im gettin at is that it depends less on how skilful u are overall, n more where ur skills are.

like take me. my serve was a bit of a powder puff at 3.5. thanks to placement i could neutralize the return but it wasnt a weapon at all. if i served n played groundstrokes i would get broken lots. i wouldnt get many free pts on serve, n once my opp got the return back and i hit my first groundstroke we'd be in neutral rallies

i had to s&v to take advantage of the only plus my serve had - placement. i knew where the return was comin so my best bet was to be aggressive, get 2 the net for an easy volley b4 i got into a neutral rally situation.

i agree with u - most 3.5s develop differently 2 me. i was always regarded as an unusually 'old school' player. for a 3.5 with different strengths n weaknesses 2 me it wouldnt make sense at all.

i'm just tryin to illustrate a situation where 3.5 technical skills can make s&v a good option. perhaps my tactics were a bit more advanced than u see usually at 3.5 but my skills definitely werent

 

[TennisCJC]

I have a friend who did very well at 4.0 singles with S&V but his whole game is based on his serve and volley. He has excellent pace and placement on his serve and rarely DFs. His volley is compact, firm and consistent. He won consistently at singles and even had a better percentage in doubles.

I think it is the rare player who has the skills for S&V. Most players just spend way more time practicing ground strokes than they spend practicing serves and volleys.

It also helped that my friend was a bit over 6' tall and a good athlete. Played 3rd string QB on D1 college team. Yea, 3rd string QB is not the Heisman winner but the guy was a good athlete. Good movement and hand eye. Oddly enough, he was not that quick but he was in his 40s - that was probably why he was 3rd string and not playing much.

 

[Ballinbob]

Meh, I don't think it should be used in singles as a primary tactic at the rec level, and this is coming from someone who loves and plays a lot of doubles. I S&V a ton in doubles, but in singles at the 4.0+ level I feel it becomes more difficult.

I won my first round match today in 4.5 singles tourney against a guy who doesn't S&V, but likes to come in after the 3rd or 4th shot. I didn't really have a problem putting the ball at his feet and setting myself up for an easy passing shot, and I'm sure other 4.5 baseliners can too.

Yes it CAN be done, and should be done against pushers, but I just don't see it as being super effective at the rec level. There is a good reason why you don't see a lot of people s&v in singles. There will always be those people who can make it work for them, but if we are talking in general, then no. As a mix up play I think it is excellent however and I myself use it a lot when I'm up 30-0 or whatever

 

[barnes1172]

seems to be working. . .

I experimented with this in the USTA tournament I played this weekend. I committed to coming in on about 90% of my first serves, and around 25% of my second serves. I made the semis of men's 3.5 singles (32 player draw), which was the furthest I've gone in a tournament.

A few observations:

I won two matches in 3rd-set tiebreaks, against pretty good players. In the past, I've had a pretty bad record in 3rd set tiebreaks. This time around, I did feel like playing a serve and volley game enabled me to take over the match when the points got important.

In the semis, I lost 2-6, 3-6 to a guy who returned very well, which causes me to wonder whether this style will work at higher levels. I have a fairly hard first serve for someone my height (5'7) and can hit a kick-serve second serve.

 

[mightyrick]

In the semis, I lost 2-6, 3-6 to a guy who returned very well, which causes me to wonder whether this style will work at higher levels. I have a fairly hard first serve for someone my height (5'7) and can hit a kick-serve second serve.

Yeah, this sounds about right. The upper echelon of 3.5 are usually decent returners. They hit much more deeply. Especially if they also play doubles where return of serve is so critical. So you'll either get low, deep returns or deep lob returns.

At that level of 3.5, I think if your first volley isn't interesting enough, you're probably toast.

I'm curious, how did opponent beat you in the semis? Lob returns?

 

[barnes1172]

He was hitting well-placed returns (not lobs), just out of my reach on either side. After the match, one of the spectators pointed out to me that I was giving my opponent narrow spots to hit, but he was hitting them. This particular guy had very good groundstrokes.

 

[rkelley]

i think ur bein a bit harsh on 3.5s. what im gettin at is that it depends less on how skilful u are overall, n more where ur skills are.

like take me. my serve was a bit of a powder puff at 3.5. thanks to placement i could neutralize the return but it wasnt a weapon at all. if i served n played groundstrokes i would get broken lots. i wouldnt get many free pts on serve, n once my opp got the return back and i hit my first groundstroke we'd be in neutral rallies

i had to s&v to take advantage of the only plus my serve had - placement. i knew where the return was comin so my best bet was to be aggressive, get 2 the net for an easy volley b4 i got into a neutral rally situation.

i agree with u - most 3.5s develop differently 2 me. i was always regarded as an unusually 'old school' player. for a 3.5 with different strengths n weaknesses 2 me it wouldnt make sense at all.

i'm just tryin to illustrate a situation where 3.5 technical skills can make s&v a good option. perhaps my tactics were a bit more advanced than u see usually at 3.5 but my skills definitely werent

I'm with Tom here. I played USTA C singles and doubles (about 3.5) 23 years ago. I doubt a lot has changed.

What I saw was that at that level players had decent games, not great but decent. They often did one thing really well, maybe a serve or consistency, but had some other weaknesses that prevented them from playing higher. A few guys just did everything OK with no glaring strengths or weaknesses.

For instance, lots of decent first serves - maybe 80-90 mph I'd guess with some placement. A few guys had bigger serves that they could get in. Lots of weaker second serves, but still a fair number of guys who could get some top/slice happening and get some pace on the ball. Lots of decent forehands. Lots of weaker 1hbh. Less volleys or overheads, but some. One guy, who won a tournament that I was in, had a lefty american twist serve, great volleys, and deep, well placed groundies. Super consistent, rarely hurt himself. But everything was slow. He never hit hard - it was almost like slow motion replay watching him. But at C that was good enough.

My thing was a big serve with a good percentage in, very good second serve with lots of spin (considering it was C level). Off that big serve I could S&V on both serves. My volleys were OK - the serve did most of the work. When I did have to volley I'd give it those weak one handers and I could usually get an error. I had a 2hbh even then, so when they'd try to approach on my bh I could hit legitimate passing shots. My big weakness was consistency. If you could give me 3 or 4 balls with decent-ish pace so that I couldn't approach then I was almost certainly going to gift you the point.

 

[LeeD]

I also played C back in the old days, like 1977. Had the biggest serve, was the fastest runner, dumbest strategist.
Lost in finals of a 64 draw first tourney, won a bigger draw C my second tourney to avoid having to play less than A afterwards...