drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
2013 in Miami when I was working with P1.
Sudden disappearance of Serve and Volley with Sampras.
- Thread starter leodevlin
- Start date
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I'm learning today about the three sizes of balls. I knew they've played around with it, and I know tennis doesn't have stringent rules for a standard, uniform ball, but I didn't know that right now, there's three sizes for each surface. Just the Slams?
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I don't think you're that far off. Changes germinate among the juniors. S&V has to be encouraged as it's harder to perfect, and once the technology, ball, surface changes came - not only is it tougher for S&Vers in the first instance, but coaches are going to less and less encourage players to pursue that style.
While the number of pure S&vers has decreases a lot, it's always interesting to see that it is still utlilized on certain points. Changes to the game as also wrought that a not uncommon "stand way back" court positioning that can be taken advantage of at times.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Do you happen to know exactly when in 2004?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
How much was the strings I don't know, since Hewitt was already beating Sampras and Henman without poly.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
Well they did have stringent rules once upon a time about it, and that's why they made the change, to take different surfaces and conditions into account. I don't know that it's a hard and fast rule that you HAVE to use any particular kind of ball in any particular place, but they basically approved of the use of two different kinds of ball in addition to the regular one.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...s-of-balls-to-counter-power-game-9206610.html
NatF
Bionic Poster
Mid point I think before the grass but I can't remember exactly.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
All the change to poly in the tennis world actually hurt Hewitt. Hewitt thrived most against serve and volleyers and those who looked to attack the net. Only Karlovic seemed to give him a load of trouble out of that kind of player, and I think that was mostly to do with the trajectory of Karlovic's serve, similar to Nadal against Muller on grass.
Sampras once said that he thought Hewitt was going to dominate for a while (as did I), but that certain things changed to stop that happening. Sampras was clearly referring to the string technology changes most of all.
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Would federer play as well without poly? Would he play into hewitts strengths or stay back and overpower him with the old tech?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Good question. It's hard to know the answer. I think Hewitt does better against Federer in that scenario.
medieval_remnant
Rookie
Is court speed a function of bounce height? Genuinely asking
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Hewitt still won 3 straight matches against Federer in 2002-2003 after Fed had switched to poly
Galvermegs
Semi-Pro
Very true but federer only improved and hewitt may have still have played well 2004 and 2005, but was clearly now marching to the beat of the top dog.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
True. My point was that it was Fed himself improving that allowed him to turn the tables on Hewitt and others, not the strings
BauerAlmeida
Hall of Fame
And Llodra.
kevin qmto
Hall of Fame
Yep there were quite a few.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Did you hear Federer's comment in an interview at the FO (want to say in 2019) where he said it's actually not that slow and the ball bounces up quite fast, especially in the sun? That sounds like a very plausible explanation for how the FO and Wimbledon could have similar speeds. Surfaces were redone to create uniform bounces (Wimbledon being the clearest example) and that in combination with strings and balls, and the game being played almost entirely at the baseline rather than a mixture of volleying and backcourt play also contributes greatly to the homogenization of playing styles across surfaces. Back in Sampras's day you had to play differently across surfaces to succeed on them. Since the days of Fedal, have you seen anyone making significant changes from RG to Wimbledon?It’s total nonsense to claim that the courts were slowed down, the balls were changed and still are
You think Wim and USO are as slow as the FO, really??? How would that even be possible?
Also, how would they know the difference if it was the court or the balls, when we know for a 100% fact the balls have changed a lot and often as it very publicly expressed and known
“Oftentimes, a lot of courts are blamed for being slower, when it’s the balls that have undergone the major changes and not the courts. A lighter, smaller ITF-approved Type 1 ball will always be faster through the air, while a heavier, bigger ITF-approved Type 3 ball will always be slower through the air. (note: the differences between a Type 3 and Type 1 are minute). There have even been cases where the usual Type 1 or Type 3 ball had had further modifications, one being the use of the lighter Type 1 Babolat balls at Roland Garros 2011. Also, if certain balls are wound tighter, they don’t fluff up so much, and tend to move faster through the air. If they fluff up often, they will take more drag, and slow down.”
“The short answer is yes - tennis balls very much matter. For example, in 2011, the French Open switched to Babolat from Dunlop and players claimed that the balls bounced higher and played faster. That was the last time Roger Federer made the final in Paris, and Paul Annacone - his coach at the time - said, “The baseliners were complaining because it was a very quick ball.” Players also criticize the balls they have to play with from time to time as Nadal did in Shanghai when he found the quality to be sub-par. Andy Murray was irate when he found a ball used for the WTA matches in the mix during his match at the Miami Open a couple of years ago.
After doing some research, it was clear that even though we are passionate tennis fans who played at a high level (and can discern the difference in feel between Babolat and Slazenger balls, for instance) there was a lot we didn’t knowabout a major element of the game. This article aims to illuminate the most interesting aspects of tennis balls: their evolution, specifications and implications for how the game is played.”
What are the best tennis balls for each surface?
Are there different tennis balls for different court surfaces? Yes. Although there are tight regulations on the size and weight of the ball, there are specific balls for different surfaces, court speeds and altitude. Slazenger makes relatively heavy balls for Wimbledon that stay low and require...www.epiruslondon.com
“
According to the article in the Independent, three types of standard ball were to be introduced in 2002:
“Ball type 1 (fast speed) is identical in size to the standard ball except it is manufactured with harder rubber.”
“Ball type 2 (medium speed) is the standard ball”
“Ball type 3 (slow speed) is six percent larger in diameter than the standard ball and tends to move slower in flight” All are the same weight as a standard ball.
The article says that the introduction of different balls was designed to slow down the power and speed of serves on hard courts, but speed up the game on slower surfaces such as clay. It was also claimed that the larger type three ball flies off the racquet at the same speed as a standard ball, but will slow down during flight to give the receiver about 10 percent more reaction time.”
American No 1 Taylor Fritz also weighed in with his focus on the balls which he feels make it harder to hit winners or get a reward for a good strike.
He tweeted: “For me the balls make the biggest difference in speed, some of the slow/soft balls make the conditions so slow regardless of court speed… Lots of times with those balls it just doesn’t feel like tennis, there’s never a reward for taking a chance on an aggressive shot.”
“It is funny that balls are not spoken about, but they have a massive impact on a tournament and a player,” says David Taylor, coach of former U.S. Open Champion Sam Stosur. “Some find it very difficult [to adapt to changes from tournament to tournament.] The first thing we do when we get to the tournament is work out what tension [the racket] will be with that ball.”
The difference in balls dictates racket tension, but also style of play. Taylor says the heaviest ball on tour is the Slazenger, used at Wimbledon since the early 1900s. “It is quite heavy so it gets large, especially if it gets a little moist,” he says. “The amount of fluff makes a massive difference.”
Beyond the bounce: Different tennis balls mean varied player preparation
How different types of tennis balls are made and how their varied compositions change the way ATP and WTA players train, prepare and compete.www.si.com
Last edited:
bigbadboaz
Semi-Pro
Think about how bounce height affects point play.
Hard Court
Rookie
You can draw a line in the sand after 2001. The changing of the surface at Wimbledon changed everything. What a lot of people don't get is that it was not just the grass not being as fast. There were two other factors with the grass.
- The ball bounced lower. That also made it harder to get your return past the server rushing to the net.
- You had more bad bounces. This also made it even more difficult to return serve past someone coming to the net.
It was mentioned earlier that net play was declining in the 1990s. That simply is not true. In the 1980s, a serve and volleyer won a Grand Salm 18 times. A serve and volleyer won a Grand Slam tournament happened 22 out of 40 times in the 1990s.
Which lead us to why the sport used to be more interesting.
Yes a matchup between two serve and volleyers could be boring. Many of the points seem similar. But obviously so can one with two baseliners. Again, it sometimes seems like we are watching the same point over and over.
However, often we had matchups between one baseliner vs a serve and a serve and volleyer. And we got a much better variety of points.
Lastly, we should talk about how much the demise of the serve and volleyers hurt the depth of the game. It used to be that clay favored the baseliners, and grass favored the serve and volleyers. Once the grass changed at Wimbledon, it simply wasn't worth being a serve and volleyer. AS a result, we eventually lost about half the depth of the quality of players in the game.
If we take out all of the serve and volleyers in the 1980s or 1990s, the depth would have decline dramatically. Think how many more tournaments Lendl, Connors, Wilander etc would have won.
That is what happened in the 2000s. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were almost locks to make it at least to the semifinals. They didn't have to face any net players. The early to mid-rounds became boring. It is a shame.
- The ball bounced lower. That also made it harder to get your return past the server rushing to the net.
- You had more bad bounces. This also made it even more difficult to return serve past someone coming to the net.
It was mentioned earlier that net play was declining in the 1990s. That simply is not true. In the 1980s, a serve and volleyer won a Grand Salm 18 times. A serve and volleyer won a Grand Slam tournament happened 22 out of 40 times in the 1990s.
Which lead us to why the sport used to be more interesting.
Yes a matchup between two serve and volleyers could be boring. Many of the points seem similar. But obviously so can one with two baseliners. Again, it sometimes seems like we are watching the same point over and over.
However, often we had matchups between one baseliner vs a serve and a serve and volleyer. And we got a much better variety of points.
Lastly, we should talk about how much the demise of the serve and volleyers hurt the depth of the game. It used to be that clay favored the baseliners, and grass favored the serve and volleyers. Once the grass changed at Wimbledon, it simply wasn't worth being a serve and volleyer. AS a result, we eventually lost about half the depth of the quality of players in the game.
If we take out all of the serve and volleyers in the 1980s or 1990s, the depth would have decline dramatically. Think how many more tournaments Lendl, Connors, Wilander etc would have won.
That is what happened in the 2000s. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic were almost locks to make it at least to the semifinals. They didn't have to face any net players. The early to mid-rounds became boring. It is a shame.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
Hear, hear.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Poly strings discourage regular serve and volley play. Why? Because it's easier with poly strings to return better and rally better from the baseline, getting the necessary power, depth and authority in the shots on a consistent basis. It was simply harder to do that with gut strings, so it would encourage players to go to the net to finish points off faster.
Edberg in this era would simply have to play differently, such as rallying more from the baseline and waiting his chance to be aggressive, along with some serve and volley as a surprise tactic.
Go back even further to the wooden racquet days, certainly most-Kramer, and a huge number of male players were serve and volleyers everywhere. Kramer's defeat of Riggs on the 1947-48 World Pro Tour, where Kramer overcame an early deficit by charging the net constantly off serves to defeat Riggs, changed so much in terms of how tennis was played at the top level for a long time to come. It wasn't really until Connors that this changed. Connors was raised by women to conquer men, and was a boy playing a girl's game, with a lot of baseline play.
droliver
Professional
I've always though that the general increase in the mph on serves now common also played into this.
One of the paradoxes of S&V is that a return of very hard serves frequently puts you in awkward spots deeper on the court for first volleys. One of the things Rafter, Edberg, Llodra, etc. did so well was how much they could close on inside the box on their 95-105 mph spin serves vs players hitting 125-140mph fastballs. As more returns are now regularly in play with the poly, I would think a S&V player in 2024 would need to take something off the serve and be hitting more sliders/kickers and trying to jam the returner rather then aiming for corners at all times
One of the paradoxes of S&V is that a return of very hard serves frequently puts you in awkward spots deeper on the court for first volleys. One of the things Rafter, Edberg, Llodra, etc. did so well was how much they could close on inside the box on their 95-105 mph spin serves vs players hitting 125-140mph fastballs. As more returns are now regularly in play with the poly, I would think a S&V player in 2024 would need to take something off the serve and be hitting more sliders/kickers and trying to jam the returner rather then aiming for corners at all times
1974 Connors' "baseline" play at Wimbledon is nothing like what they do now. He just isn't s/v on every point. He and Rosewall had one 15 stroke rally in 6 sets of tennis where at least 1/3 of the points didn't start with s/v. But most of the points ended with one of the players at the net. Agassi was the first player to win in what I would define as from the baseline.
According to Joel Drucker's book, Gloria Connors based his game on Don Budge's, whose game she greatly admired.
OTOH, modern players equipped with poly strings would just crush kick serves for return winners. Kick serves are also not that effective as body serves because returners would have time to run around to hit FH returns.
On top of that, kick serves are sitters on fast courts because faster surfaces negate their bounces. And you know, you want to serve-and-volley on fast courtiers because volleying is always more effective there than on slow, high-bouncing courts.
Angrybirdstar
Semi-Pro
not sure this is true (or at least that any position can be taken confidently with the data that i know of). poly and larger frames seem to have boosted 1st serve % and 2nd serve win % (and also reduced df/2nd % as far as i can tell). we also know that 1st serve win % has remained fairly stable even as hold rates have slowly increased. less certain but worth noting for me is that the 1st unreturned % leaderboard on Tennis Abstract seems to have a pretty good mix of generations, while 2nd unreturned % features a disproportionate number of pre-poly s&v players at the top (Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich, Sampras, Edberg, McEnroe, Becker) and otherwise a solid mix throughout the rest of the list, which notably doesn't have a very large range (around 12% for the clay players to aggro servers at 19%, before you get into the servebotty outliers that break past 19%).
this suggests to me that 1. groundstroke +1s with poly on average help win more points than volleys pre-poly; 2. s&v probably helped boost unreturned serve % relatively more than the modern threat of groundstroke +1s, especially considering 2nd serve speeds have also increased; 3. purely focusing on a successful 1st serve's impact, even average players being able to hit 130 and 140 mph serves fairly consistently is balanced out by poly and larger frames boosting average returners' end-range capabilities. so the question looks to boil down to whether the 1st serve % increase and df/2nd % decrease outweigh the loss of 2nd s&v as a free point generator, and i'd tentatively lean towards yes, which would mean more unreturned serves and fewer returns in play.
I think, it has a lot to do with coaching. Today most coaches follow the Bollettieri school, favoring big serve, big forehand and double-handed backhand. The coaching for a good working volley tactics is imo pretty poor, because the coaches don't have the technique any more. The art of volleying was a whole system of shots (one could see that on old videos of the Aussies like Laver, Newk and Roche), You needed a good approach, a first volley near the T, and a finishing second volley, and you needed calmness and confidence to execute it. The doubehander limits the reach on the backhand volley, one could see that on Ivanisevic. Besides the now slower and higher bouncing grass courts. many carpet events were closed, so the old type of serve and volley players had not much opportunity for practicing the tactics. Then the deep, low slice approach vanished somehow, Today many attack on topspin forehands which give more room for the return passing shot (see Fed 2019 on 40-15). I still think, that a careful used volley on the base of a good slice approach shot, what Connors frequently used on his backhand side, would still be working very well on grass. Last year, Alcaraz had some fine and crucial winners from forerays to the net, even on deep volleys.
Last edited:
Vincent-C
Legend
All this- thank you.
droliver
Professional
Sure about that? Kick serves are common second serves on ATP and aren’t regularly being crushed for winners, particularly wide in the ad court. Good kick serves are still hard to handle with aggressive returns, even for pros.
My point was that if you were reimagining S&V in 2024 you’d have to choreograph the serve differently I imagine, with “less fastball, more breaking balls” to prioritize getting closer to the net and also take advantage of the trend of returners standing farther back. I think you’ve actually seen a little of this on tour recently to the point that it’s now part of the playbook on playing Medvedev (ie. throwing in enough serve and volley to make him cheat closer to the baseline on his return where he’s less effective)
