Reasons for decline of Serve and Volley

[AAAA]

Sampras was so successful as a "s and v-er" because his serve was almost the ideal serve for that style. Not incredibly fast but according to a study I once saw in Tennis magazine, the most potent combination of speed and rpm's. Basically, he had the "heaviest" serve on tour. Perhaps, the heaviest serve in history. He wasn't necessarily proof that "s and v" is inherently superior, it's just that with that serve of his, it just didn't make sense for him to stay back. His fitness wasn't the best.

I almost get the impression that some people think S and V is inherently superior. Am I wrong? If everybody started playing serve and volley tennis would we be having discussions on how to get more people playing baseline tennis? Just wondering. I certainly think S and V should be a part of a top player's arsenal, but only to mix things up, as I think the days of pure S and V tennis dominating are probably gone. Sure, there will always be exceptions, but to me to cite perhaps the greatest player of all time, and most certainly the possessor of the most potent serve of all time (IMO) as being proof that S and V is still viable just doesn't cut it. Sampras was a freak. His serve was supernatural. Let's not look to him as being an example of what everybody can achieve if they adopted his playing style.

With wooden rackets you were simply better off at the net. Now with modern rackets, people don't have to be in position to rip a passing shot, they can hit a passing shot falling down with their pants around their ankles and a pigeon pecking out their eyeballs. And they don't have to be that precise. If they hit it hard enough and with enough top spin, that's almost as good. These are things that just aren't possible with wooden rackets. Again, I think it's putting the cart before the horse to suggest that there's less S and V-ers out there ONLY because less people are teaching it. Why are less people teaching it? I think tennis has evolved so that baseline play has more reproductive fitness. It's simply more effective, and people copy it and there are more baseliners because they're copying what's proven to be successful. I don't think the tennis coaches of the world arbitrarily decided that they were going to stop producing S and V-ers. In fact, if this board is any indication, everybody seems to want more S and V play if only for the variety it offers the tour.

Call me, Captain Obvious. Yo, I'm bored. And hung over. Indulge me.

A good post. I particularly like the line

'I almost get the impression that some people think S and V is inherently superior. Am I wrong?'

The styles of play that succeed (obviously?) depend on the ability of the player, the racquet technology, the balls used and the court surfaces. If very slow clay was the only surface ever used for tennis I doubt many would feel s&v was a superior style of play. No style is inherently superior.

 

[Tchocky]

This is a great thread...wish I had the time to read all of it. Yes...it's true. The volley is probably the least practiced shot...that's why you don't see a lot of great volleyers. I think a good serve & volleyer will usually triumph over a good baseliner. Peter Lundgren, Federer's former coach, said when he started with Roger...it was the volley that they worked on most. The only way to be a great volleyer is to practice it as much as your groundstrokes.

 

[Indiantwist]

Let me pose this question.
It is entirely possible to win a match by staying with the baseline and never even coming closer to the net. (great baseliners Agassi,Nalbandian,Nadal....etc etc)
Can one win the match by just staying near the net all the time?. No chance. Even Sampras came in to the net after properly setting up the point.

So one has to learn the Baseline game regardless. The ability to do S & v is really upto the players skill/capability and etc.

 

[araghava]

'I almost get the impression that some people think S and V is inherently superior. Am I wrong?'

I don't think its a question of S&V being superior. It a question of tennis being a spectator sport and hence having to provide entertainment value. If tennis want to attract fans to watch the game, it needs to provide an entertaining package. A game where 99% of players play 6' behind the baseline is not my idea of entertainment. S&V needs to be encouraged (by tinkering with the rules/equipment) to bring back a balance to the game.

 

[fastdunn]

And before someone argues that Sampras career was too long ago to draw valid comparisons, keep this in mind: He played his entire career against the best returner of all time AND played S&V a higher and higher percentage of the time on all surfaces as he aged, and as more and more return bangers armed with even larger heads and wider bodies were arriving.
.

Sampras's game showed glimps of this games evolution, IMHO.
His newly evolved S&V game with higher pace &rpm worked fine
with everyone except Agassi. Against Agassi, Sampras won most
points from serves and ground strokes. He served bigger and went
for aces even for 2nd serves against Agassi. Sampras won surprisingly
low number of S&V points against Agassi especially on hard courts.
He got lots of service points but not as many volley points
as against other players.

Rafter started out with old school Assie S&V game but couldn't
really make big dent into modern game. Later he converted his
game with bigger serves and more stout groundies. He finally
started to win more and ended up wining US Open's and so on.
But he couldn't really solve Agassi. Sampras could solve Agassi
because he had ground strokes and could hang with
Agassi from baseline pretty well, in addition to potent serves.

Agassi with oversize graphite racquet does symbolize the extinction
of S&V game last 10 year or so. In 1990's, S&V did survived with
more venomeous serves and volleys AND strong ground games
(a la becker and sampras).
I also think S&V will evolve again and re-emerge.
But when you see a ultra talented top guy like Federer stays
on baseline all the time and women's doubles are played
from baseline("singulouble"), you have to wonder whether
S&V will ever the same prosperity of past....

 

[35ft6]

I agree that volleying is not that difficult to learn if you learn early. What is difficult is positional sense.

...

A good net player has similar instincts. He knows to play the court correctly and recover quickly for the next pass to cut it off. If you look at any 19 year old Sampras matches from his 1990 US Open win, you'll see a kid who had an extraordinary instinct to play at net against some real hard hitters like Muster, Lendl and Agassi he met along the way.

Edberg had an even better net play instinct than Sampras. Edberg was always closer to the net. They were both very very athletic but in different ways.

And Edberg said he volleys with his feet, which basically goes along with what you're saying, Laurie -- it's all about positioning. You're right, learning to hit volleys isn't all that difficult. During warmups, when balls are being hit right to them, everybody looks like a decent volleyer. It IS like goalkeeping, and I wonder if you can teach that at a late age. You would think the coach could scout the opponent and tell, say, Roddick where the passing shot is most likely to be hit, but, yeah, Roddick seems to guess wrong a lot. Like you said, I think, the biggest difference between a good volleyer and a bad volleyer is their footwork, not their racket work. Everybody has decent racket work.

 

[andfor]

............
I agree that volleying is not that difficult to learn if you learn early. What is difficult is positional sense. You see, I'm not sure how easy it is to teach that. Some people have an instinct for that sort of thing. A good example is forwards in football. The best ones know when to time their runs to get into a good position to receive a pass and have a shot on goal. Thats an instinct which is hard to teach. Good midfield players will also say they love to play with strikers of that ability. It makes their life as playmakers easier. If they make a good pass, they know the forward will be sharp of mind and onto the possibility.

A good net player has similar instincts. He knows to play the court correctly and recover quickly for the next pass to cut it off. If you look at any 19 year old Sampras matches from his 1990 US Open win, you'll see a kid who had an extraordinary instinct to play at net against some real hard hitters like Muster, Lendl and Agassi he met along the way.

Edberg had an even better net play instinct than Sampras. Edberg was always closer to the net. They were both very very athletic but in different ways.

Roddick is a prime example of someone who does not have a good instinct at the net. His positional sense is very poor. He finds it hard to read where to position himself. For instance, if you play a volley wide and a player has to run onto it and maybe stretch a little, then your instinct must be to cover the line, like a goalkeeper covering angles. However, Roddick in the past has taken up postions more in the middle of the court and that means he gets burned by a player who can hit good passing shots.

Good coaches have to see if their pupils have an instinct for net play and then encourage them. My nephew is nine years old and he loves the net. He also loves wrong footing shots. But then through me he loves to watch attacking players.
..............

You make a lot of really good points here. True, really good S&V'rs spent a lot of time coming in as youngsters. During that time they honed those net instincts we all find to be fun to watch by coming into the net repeatedly, got passed a ton and lost a bunch of matches. The toughest thing about becoming a S&V'er is to become a good one you have to get passed a lot and that's mentally draining. That then means probably taking some/a bunch of losses you might have avoided by staying back. It's a price many kids/coaches avoid today. It's also another pretty good reason Roddick is not that great instinct wise at net. He never had to come in as a kid and now as a pro has the smarts to finally have figured he needs some net play to adjust to the ever changing demands of the pro tour. Guess what, it aint gonna happen overnight. He'll need to work a ton on it. He may get it he may never get it, only time will tell.

 

[SageOfDeath]

I know the reasons for decline of S&V players but I don't think those reason are good enough. If someone does invest enough time learning how to S&V well they can control the game. Maybe not as much as the days with wood racquets but I still think they would.

So many professional players are tall and fast, and they need to be to keep up since the new racquet technology. Tall and fast are desirable traits for a player to S&V. And of course the only way to beat a good S&V player is to pass them or lob them. Passing them by hitting past where they can reach if they are positioned well is a low perecentage shot. Lobbing them does work but if the player is truly a good S&V player then they will put their opponent is a position when at best he can hit a defensive lob. Then the S&V player will finish the point with an overhead assuming he doesn't miss.

Pros do come to the net and often win points. Its been seen many times, a pro comes the the net, hits a volley away from the opponent. The opponent hits a lob, the player hits an overhead and the point is finished. Although they do get passed, its a low percentage shot so unless you are playing a world class tennis player, getting passed is hard.

 

[Morpheus]

I know the reasons for decline of S&V players but I don't think those reason are good enough.

But the reasons are the reasons, so they must be good enough, if they are truly the reasons.