Many posters noted the lack of serve-and-volleyers in the top ranks currently in men's tennis in the Sampras-Federer thread. In light of this, I thought it would be appropriate to reproduce the following post from Stephen Jaros of rec.sport.tennis newsgroup (StephenJ) that makes an attempt to explain the decline of S&V:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, i've decided to use this rain delay to explain this once and for all, so
pay attention. Note that because we are talking about the men's game as a
whole, these are general statements, characteristic of the game as a whole,
and may not apply to specific players who deviate significantly from the
norm. They also of course vary in applicability depending on surface.
Key idea: Volleying - other than putting away something extremely easy like
an overhead- is a *difficult* skill. A player who hasn't learned it cannot
just decide to "come into the net". A player has to practice volleying and
learn the skill, otherwise it's not a viable tactic for him.
Because it's a difficult skill, learning to volley well requires a
significant investment of a player's time and effort, so he'll only make it
if he believes the payoff will exceed the cost of the investment.
So the immediate answer to the question of "why do so few guys volley these
days?" is that so few take the time to learn how to volley when coming up as
juniors and then as young pros. That begs the question of "why do so few
bother to learn to volley"? Why do so few perceive a positive return on that
investment? And that takes us into more specific territory related to the
nature of different aspects of the modern game, largely related to the
emergence of modern racquets:
1) Why do so few guys follow their first serve with a volley?
answer: Compared to the wood era, when s/v was a common strategy, modern
rackets produce such powerful first serves that volleying is rarely needed
to win the point. First-serve speeds now regularly exceed 120 mph, and with
much more consistency and better placement than during the wood era. A
well-placed 120 mph serve is extremely difficult, even with a modern racket,
for the vast majority of returners to deal with. They usually must lunge
sharply to get their racket on the ball, meaning their footwork is such that
they can't produce an effective return.
Most of the time, the first serve is either not returned or is returned so
weakly that a "putaway" shot, wherein the server lets the return bounce
short, usually near the middle of the court, is playable. This is what i
call a "sweep" shot. Yes, letting a ball bounce short doesn't give the
server quite as high a chance to hit a clean winner as taking the ball in
the air on a volley does. But only slightly, because the modern racket
improves the deadliness of the sweep shot via much better power and
placement as well. A high-bouncing mid-court ball is easy pickings for a
server armed with a modern racket.
And, this slightly lesser chance of hitting a clean winner is more than
balanced by it being a much safer play - the odds of making an error are
lower on the sweep shot than hitting a volley.
And, since the volley is usually a directional shot or a touch shot, not a
power shot, the modern racket *doesn't* improve the lethalness of the volley
shot nearly as much as it improves the lethalness of the serve and the
follow-up sweep shot.
Summary: Compared to wood, the modern racket boosts the first serve
pace/placement significantly, it boosts the power of the sweep shot or any
follow-up baseline shots significantly, but doesn't improve the volley shot
nearly as significantly. All of this combines to make the volley play much
less desirable on the first serve.
2) What about volleying off the second serve?
answer: With the second serve, the huge boost in power/placement provided by
the modern racket is largely negated, because of the need to make sure the
ball lands in the return box. Now, the advantage shifts to the returner. A
100 mph second serve that lands well-within the confines of the box is
red-meat to a returner armed with a modern racket. Not even a mac or
edberg-level volleyer can hope to have much success against the ripping,
low, angled returns he is likely to face. Net-rushing isn't viable on the
second serve, except perhaps as the once-a-set surprise play.
3) What about the returner volleying off the return of serve?
In the wood days, The serve-and-volley play, volleying off either the first
or second serve was as much a *defensive* play for the server as it was an
offensive play. The server new that if he stayed back on either serve, there
was a good chance the returner would "chip" the ROS and "charge" the net,
and if the returner could seize the net, the server's odds of winning the
point fell dramatically. So that was an incentive for the server to play s/v
on both serves.
However, the chip-and-charge play is much less common these days, because
(1) the typical first serve is just too "big" to chip - it's almost
impossible for the returner to effectively "chip" a 115+ mph near-the-line
serve and rush the net when he is sprawled out to his right or left barely
trying to get a racket on the ball, and (2) on the second serve the "chip"
shot is rarely used because the returner can just as easily (thanks to the
modern racket) drive the return ball angled, powerfully and deeply, which is
usually an even more effective point-winner.
Basically, compared to wood, the modern racket has widened the advantage the
server has over the returner on the first serve, and narrowed his advantage
on the second serve. Each diminishes the "return on investment" of rushing
the net for both the server and returner.
4) Net-rushing during a baseline exchange:
In the old wood days, if a point happened to develop into a baseline rally,
the goal of each guy was still to get to the net. Baseline rallies largely
consisted of each guy trying to maneuver the other guy such that he could
hit an approach and close to the net for the volley-winner.
Why has this style of play largely disappeared?
Answer: Mats Wilander said it best when he described Boris Becker as
"changing the geometry of the court" during baseline rallies. We usually
think of Becker's contribution to the modern game in terms of his serving -
he inaugurated the modern "huge serve". But Becker was equally influential
as a baseline hitter. What Wilander was referring to was Becker's
realization -in practice if not conceptually- that the same modern racket
that could produce unprecedented huge-serving could also produce
unprecedented baseline power. Specifically, the ability to hit *clean
winners from well behind the baseline*. Wilander noted that before Becker,
if your rally opponent was a few feet behind the baseline, you just didn't
have to worry about a winner being hit. The wood and primitive metals didn't
permit even powerful hitters (for that day) to hit those kinds of shots.
That meant that to hit a winner, you pretty much had to get to the net.
But when Becker started to crack winners from behind the baseline, and it
changed the whole strategic-mindset of baseline play:
Instead of shifting the other guy back and forth, etc. to set up an approach
shot to be followed up to the net, it became one of shifting the other guy
back and forth such as to create enough open court to crack a winner from
the baseline, or to hit with such depth/power as to create a short ball that
could then be cracked for a winner from just inside the baseline.
And of course since the baseline shots are so powerful, rushing the net in
the face of them is far less viable than it was in the wood era.
Rushing the net isn't *needed* because winners can be hit from or behind the
baseline, and it isn't viable because the chances of getting passed are much
higher.
So add all this up and what do we get? The young guys coming up see that
there is very little to be gained by volleying effectively, so they don't
learn the skill................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, i've decided to use this rain delay to explain this once and for all, so
pay attention. Note that because we are talking about the men's game as a
whole, these are general statements, characteristic of the game as a whole,
and may not apply to specific players who deviate significantly from the
norm. They also of course vary in applicability depending on surface.
Key idea: Volleying - other than putting away something extremely easy like
an overhead- is a *difficult* skill. A player who hasn't learned it cannot
just decide to "come into the net". A player has to practice volleying and
learn the skill, otherwise it's not a viable tactic for him.
Because it's a difficult skill, learning to volley well requires a
significant investment of a player's time and effort, so he'll only make it
if he believes the payoff will exceed the cost of the investment.
So the immediate answer to the question of "why do so few guys volley these
days?" is that so few take the time to learn how to volley when coming up as
juniors and then as young pros. That begs the question of "why do so few
bother to learn to volley"? Why do so few perceive a positive return on that
investment? And that takes us into more specific territory related to the
nature of different aspects of the modern game, largely related to the
emergence of modern racquets:
1) Why do so few guys follow their first serve with a volley?
answer: Compared to the wood era, when s/v was a common strategy, modern
rackets produce such powerful first serves that volleying is rarely needed
to win the point. First-serve speeds now regularly exceed 120 mph, and with
much more consistency and better placement than during the wood era. A
well-placed 120 mph serve is extremely difficult, even with a modern racket,
for the vast majority of returners to deal with. They usually must lunge
sharply to get their racket on the ball, meaning their footwork is such that
they can't produce an effective return.
Most of the time, the first serve is either not returned or is returned so
weakly that a "putaway" shot, wherein the server lets the return bounce
short, usually near the middle of the court, is playable. This is what i
call a "sweep" shot. Yes, letting a ball bounce short doesn't give the
server quite as high a chance to hit a clean winner as taking the ball in
the air on a volley does. But only slightly, because the modern racket
improves the deadliness of the sweep shot via much better power and
placement as well. A high-bouncing mid-court ball is easy pickings for a
server armed with a modern racket.
And, this slightly lesser chance of hitting a clean winner is more than
balanced by it being a much safer play - the odds of making an error are
lower on the sweep shot than hitting a volley.
And, since the volley is usually a directional shot or a touch shot, not a
power shot, the modern racket *doesn't* improve the lethalness of the volley
shot nearly as much as it improves the lethalness of the serve and the
follow-up sweep shot.
Summary: Compared to wood, the modern racket boosts the first serve
pace/placement significantly, it boosts the power of the sweep shot or any
follow-up baseline shots significantly, but doesn't improve the volley shot
nearly as significantly. All of this combines to make the volley play much
less desirable on the first serve.
2) What about volleying off the second serve?
answer: With the second serve, the huge boost in power/placement provided by
the modern racket is largely negated, because of the need to make sure the
ball lands in the return box. Now, the advantage shifts to the returner. A
100 mph second serve that lands well-within the confines of the box is
red-meat to a returner armed with a modern racket. Not even a mac or
edberg-level volleyer can hope to have much success against the ripping,
low, angled returns he is likely to face. Net-rushing isn't viable on the
second serve, except perhaps as the once-a-set surprise play.
3) What about the returner volleying off the return of serve?
In the wood days, The serve-and-volley play, volleying off either the first
or second serve was as much a *defensive* play for the server as it was an
offensive play. The server new that if he stayed back on either serve, there
was a good chance the returner would "chip" the ROS and "charge" the net,
and if the returner could seize the net, the server's odds of winning the
point fell dramatically. So that was an incentive for the server to play s/v
on both serves.
However, the chip-and-charge play is much less common these days, because
(1) the typical first serve is just too "big" to chip - it's almost
impossible for the returner to effectively "chip" a 115+ mph near-the-line
serve and rush the net when he is sprawled out to his right or left barely
trying to get a racket on the ball, and (2) on the second serve the "chip"
shot is rarely used because the returner can just as easily (thanks to the
modern racket) drive the return ball angled, powerfully and deeply, which is
usually an even more effective point-winner.
Basically, compared to wood, the modern racket has widened the advantage the
server has over the returner on the first serve, and narrowed his advantage
on the second serve. Each diminishes the "return on investment" of rushing
the net for both the server and returner.
4) Net-rushing during a baseline exchange:
In the old wood days, if a point happened to develop into a baseline rally,
the goal of each guy was still to get to the net. Baseline rallies largely
consisted of each guy trying to maneuver the other guy such that he could
hit an approach and close to the net for the volley-winner.
Why has this style of play largely disappeared?
Answer: Mats Wilander said it best when he described Boris Becker as
"changing the geometry of the court" during baseline rallies. We usually
think of Becker's contribution to the modern game in terms of his serving -
he inaugurated the modern "huge serve". But Becker was equally influential
as a baseline hitter. What Wilander was referring to was Becker's
realization -in practice if not conceptually- that the same modern racket
that could produce unprecedented huge-serving could also produce
unprecedented baseline power. Specifically, the ability to hit *clean
winners from well behind the baseline*. Wilander noted that before Becker,
if your rally opponent was a few feet behind the baseline, you just didn't
have to worry about a winner being hit. The wood and primitive metals didn't
permit even powerful hitters (for that day) to hit those kinds of shots.
That meant that to hit a winner, you pretty much had to get to the net.
But when Becker started to crack winners from behind the baseline, and it
changed the whole strategic-mindset of baseline play:
Instead of shifting the other guy back and forth, etc. to set up an approach
shot to be followed up to the net, it became one of shifting the other guy
back and forth such as to create enough open court to crack a winner from
the baseline, or to hit with such depth/power as to create a short ball that
could then be cracked for a winner from just inside the baseline.
And of course since the baseline shots are so powerful, rushing the net in
the face of them is far less viable than it was in the wood era.
Rushing the net isn't *needed* because winners can be hit from or behind the
baseline, and it isn't viable because the chances of getting passed are much
higher.
So add all this up and what do we get? The young guys coming up see that
there is very little to be gained by volleying effectively, so they don't
learn the skill................