The Big Serve - Your Honest Opinion wanted

[Laurie]

I have been watching tennis for a very long time. In that time it appears to me the "big serve" and big servers have received a bad press and continue to receive a bad press. For instance it is more or less acknowledged that the big serve is responsible for the slowing down of courts all over the world, starting with Wimbledon in the mid to late 1990s, and they started tinkering with the Slazenger ball since 1995!

Also, there seems to be a perception that anyone with a really big serve is by default deficient in many other areas of the game, for example return of serve and movement around the baseline. I have been guilty of that, pointing out many times here that in the modern era, many of the big servers have been journeymen players, not destined to win Masters or major tournaments.

Furthermore, truly great players of the past who had all round skills, are now being lumbered in the category that they had a great serve so by default they couldn't have been that great in other areas of the game. For me players like Krajicek, Stich and Goran were talented players who used the serve as their foundation. Becker and Sampras were the next level up who had the serve and all round game. However, their serve is used as a stick to beat them with.

As a fan of West Indies cricket team in the 1980s and 1990s, I have seen this before, those great teams had a bunch of tall intimidating fast bowlers which many thought wasn't "cricket" and brought in rules such as two bouncers per over to negate that. It seems to be a consensus that people do not like the intimidating fast bowlers or intimidating big servers, almost as if it is an unfair advantage. Except Malcom Marshall, he was intimidating as hell but short, not sure how he did it!!

I noticed McEnroe pointed out today at the womens final that this kind of serving is an art form, takes a lot of practice and a lot of courage to hit certain types of serves at pressure moments. At the same time, a lot of people probably want Raonic to lose the Wimbledon final simply because his serve is so big and they see it as bullying almost.

So, really where do you stand on the big serve; do you like it? would you like to emulate it when you play, do you practice serving yourself? Or, do you hate it, see it as intimidation? See a person with a big serve and immediately make the assumption the rest of their game cannot be up to much?

I always loved the big serve. I love Serena's serve, I love the Sampras serve, the Krajicek serve, the Stich serve. I also like how Wawrinka took chances on his serve in his two major finals. Wasn't a fan of the Roddick serve due mainly to the abbreviated service motion which is not as pleasing on the eye.

 

[tennisplayer1993]

I am because serving was my strongest part of my game. Only the 1st serve. My 2nd serve was often far slower with tons of spin.

 

[TupeloDanger]

[GroundhogDay]Anything different is good.[/GroundhogDay]

 

[Robert F]

Who in the top 10 is there just because of their serve?

The game evolves, the servers surged for a little bit and then Federer neutralized them and Djkovic and Murray took it a step further and made the service return a weapon.

Currently you need a more complete game and few weaknesses to dominate.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Big serve/ WI style fast bowling gets a bad rap because casual observers think it's as simple as using their frame to just fling the ball as fast as they can, which shorter people can't. They don't realise that it still takes a lot of control to place the ball exactly where they want it to. On Friday, Raonic wasn't just serving 140 plus bombs, he was directing them into Federer's body, forcing him to almost fend off the balls the way a batsman would bouncers (contrast that with that famous Fed return off a Roddick bomb that was right in the slot). Being able to do that over and over also involves skill but it didn't go down well with fans in the 90s and it doesn't go down well even today. With that told...

"Furthermore, truly great players of the past who had all round skills, are now being lumbered in the category that they had a great serve so by default they couldn't have been that great in other areas of the game. For me players like Krajicek, Stich and Goran were talented players who used the serve as their foundation. Becker and Sampras were the next level up who had the serve and all round game. However, their serve is used as a stick to beat them with." - I have to sometimes do this in a devil's advocate kind of way because I get pissed off when Fed fans of all people start complaining about the likes of Karlovic. There's no doubt that Fed is so all round great but he too relies on a big serve to start the point. Would Fed still be as great with Simon's serve, wanna bet?

So in short, I have no problem with people disliking the big serve game but I do have a problem when they start saying it's nothing great, he's just using his height. No, it's not just about his height. Sure, the height gives him an advantage but he still has to use skill to serve so fast and in such great channels consistently. Otherwise how else does one explain how the taller Sharapova cannot serve anywhere near as well as Serena? I mean, leave alone variety, she can't even serve as hard as Serena. Myself, I enjoy it more than I did in the 90s because there are fewer of them now so it has almost become a novelty, except that Raonic has brought back the big serving game to the mainstream of tennis.

 

[Shaolin]

Big serves are awesome…especially when followed by this..

 

[70後]

anyone with a really big serve is by default deficient in many other areas of the game

Only people who are six foot eleven.

 

[ACE of Hearts]

Big serve/ WI style fast bowling gets a bad rap because casual observers think it's as simple as using their frame to just fling the ball as fast as they can, which shorter people can't. They don't realise that it still takes a lot of control to place the ball exactly where they want it to. On Friday, Raonic wasn't just serving 140 plus bombs, he was directing them into Federer's body, forcing him to almost fend off the balls the way a batsman would bouncers (contrast that with that famous Fed return off a Roddick bomb that was right in the slot). Being able to do that over and over also involves skill but it didn't go down well with fans in the 90s and it doesn't go down well even today. With that told...

"Furthermore, truly great players of the past who had all round skills, are now being lumbered in the category that they had a great serve so by default they couldn't have been that great in other areas of the game. For me players like Krajicek, Stich and Goran were talented players who used the serve as their foundation. Becker and Sampras were the next level up who had the serve and all round game. However, their serve is used as a stick to beat them with." - I have to sometimes do this in a devil's advocate kind of way because I get pissed off when Fed fans of all people start complaining about the likes of Karlovic. There's no doubt that Fed is so all round great but he too relies on a big serve to start the point. Would Fed still be as great with Simon's serve, wanna bet?

So in short, I have no problem with people disliking the big serve game but I do have a problem when they start saying it's nothing great, he's just using his height. No, it's not just about his height. Sure, the height gives him an advantage but he still has to use skill to serve so fast and in such great channels consistently. Otherwise how else does one explain how the taller Sharapova cannot serve anywhere near as well as Serena? I mean, leave alone variety, she can't even serve as hard as Serena. Myself, I enjoy it more than I did in the 90s because there are fewer of them now so it has almost become a novelty, except that Raonic has brought back the big serving game to the mainstream of tennis.

Why we don't see more servers serving to the body 's beyond me. It's a great tactic

 

[augustobt]

Big serves are awesome…especially when followed by this..

Oh man, those indoor courts without doubles alley look so cool!

 

[70後]

During the Tsonga Isner match, they were discussing the ratio of aces to double faults and saying how this stat is dominated by current players, Isner is supposedly number one here. So they said the accuracy of serving has improved. I thought this was interesting.

 

[BlueB]

Who in the top 10 is there just because of their serve?

Currently, Federer and Raonic.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Why we don't see more servers serving to the body 's beyond me. It's a great tactic

Absolutely. Even Fed used it only sparingly and I wonder why. When he did it to Murray last year at Wimbledon, the latter could only produce a weak return that he easily put away.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Why we don't see more servers serving to the body 's beyond me. It's a great tactic

Absolutely. Even Fed used it only sparingly and I wonder why. When he did it to Murray last year at Wimbledon, the latter could only produce a weak return that he easily put away.

 

[Thriller]

Laurie, put simply it is just jealousy.

Tennis is simple. Hit the ball into an area where your opponent cannot get to within two bounces. Obviously, the harder you can hit the ball into that space, the less time your opponent has, the better for you. That is what everyone tries to do. Some are simply jealous of those who can do that so well right from the first strike that the opponent cannot reply.

The thing is, hitting the ball hard isn't difficult. Hitting the ball hard while generating enough spin to control the flight is very difficult which is why only the most skilful players can do it.

Doubly so when talking about the serve. It is the toughest shot to master. From my observation of pros and amateurs, it is the weakest shot of 90% of them in terms of being able to accurately control placement. For most players it is a challenge just to be able to get the serve in at a decent pace, never mind placing it on a dime at speed on a huge point like Serena is able to do.

So those who cannot do it like to talk about "free points", "cheap points" etc out of jealousy as they lack the skills to be able to do the same thing.

The other thing that makes me laugh is the notion that. getting rid of the 2nd serve would help those who lack big serves. Seriously? Imagine Pete vs Agassi with both only allowed their second serves. It would be the easiest win of Pete's life. He could crack safe accurate 115mph serves all day with his perfect technique. Agassi's 90mph efforts would be demolished all day long.

So yes, I appreciate watching those who have mastered the most difficult shot in tennis, the one that requires the most skill, the serve.

 

[Thriller]

duplicate post, iPad went mad

 

[Thriller]

duplicate post in error

 

[Gazelle]

The other thing that makes me laugh is the notion that. getting rid of the 2nd serve would help those who lack big serves. Seriously? Imagine Pete vs Agassi with both only allowed their second serves. It would be the easiest win of Pete's life. He could crack safe accurate 115mph serves all day with his perfect technique. Agassi's 90mph efforts would be demolished all day long.

I don't think he could. Sampras' 115 mph second serves were not safe. He actually double faulted quite alot (obviously many aces too), so that would hurt him big time if he only had a second serve.

Agree on the perfect technique though.

 

[Gazelle]

The other thing that makes me laugh is the notion that. getting rid of the 2nd serve would help those who lack big serves. Seriously? Imagine Pete vs Agassi with both only allowed their second serves. It would be the easiest win of Pete's life. He could crack safe accurate 115mph serves all day with his perfect technique. Agassi's 90mph efforts would be demolished all day long.

I don't think he could. Sampras' 115 mph second serves were not safe. He actually double faulted quite alot (obviously many aces too), so that would hurt him big time if he only had a second serve.

Agree on the perfect technique though.

 

[Laurie]

Strange, few double posts, I wonder if there is a technical hitch?

 

[Laurie]

Strange, few double posts, I wonder if there is a technical hitch?

 

[Laurie]

Laurie, put simply it is just jealousy.

Tennis is simple. Hit the ball into an area where your opponent cannot get to within two bounces. Obviously, the harder you can hit the ball into that space, the less time your opponent has, the better for you. That is what everyone tries to do. Some are simply jealous of those who can do that so well right from the first strike that the opponent cannot reply.

The thing is, hitting the ball hard isn't difficult. Hitting the ball hard while generating enough spin to control the flight is very difficult which is why only the most skilful players can do it.

Doubly so when talking about the serve. It is the toughest shot to master. From my observation of pros and amateurs, it is the weakest shot of 90% of them in terms of being able to accurately control placement. For most players it is a challenge just to be able to get the serve in at a decent pace, never mind placing it on a dime at speed on a huge point like Serena is able to do.

So those who cannot do it like to talk about "free points", "cheap points" etc out of jealousy as they lack the skills to be able to do the same thing.

The other thing that makes me laugh is the notion that. getting rid of the 2nd serve would help those who lack big serves. Seriously? Imagine Pete vs Agassi with both only allowed their second serves. It would be the easiest win of Pete's life. He could crack safe accurate 115mph serves all day with his perfect technique. Agassi's 90mph efforts would be demolished all day long.

So yes, I appreciate watching those who have mastered the most difficult shot in tennis, the one that requires the most skill, the serve.

In the WTA tour, many of the girls have not practised their serve adequately and that has caused them huge problems. I am not a statistics man but I would love to know how often a WTA player serves for a set or match and gets broken. In fact, when I see a player serve out a set or match I am pleased because it seems rare. I remember Clijsters having a huge problem with that side of the game and she was one of the better players on the tour. Had Kerber being able to serve at 110mph instead of 90 to 99mph, it could have been an even better final because she was matching Serena in every other department.

I enjoy listening to Krajicek a lot during Wimbledon fortnight, he had a big serve so I notice each year he looks at how the matches unfold a bit differently to many of his co commentators who didn't play the game or the ex players who didn't serve as well.

 

[ibbi]

I like it in moderation. I wouldn't want to watch it all year round (it was thinking like that which transformed the game from Tennis into Pong) but at the same time it makes a terrific change of pace, and it's nice to sometimes see a shootout, where two guys are firing bombs at each other, and you wait to see who blinks first. At grand slam level such matches seem to be reduced to Wimbledon at this point, and if one of these players is playing against your favourite it is obviously, undeniably frustrating, but having a great serve (and by that I mean not just the BIGNESS of it, and the unreadablity, and what not, but the ability to pull it out in the clutch moments) is a massively admirable attribute. It is, as they say, the only part of the game of which you are in complete control.

 

[Robert F]

Today the big serve fell to the big serve returner.

 

[HipRotation]

It's because it's become kind of ridiculous now. There are men who are 6'11" playing tennis whose serves are for the most part unreturnable for at least 2 consecutive points making them impossible to break. It then just makes the whole game pointless until the tiebreak. Without a tiebreak you can only imagine what ridiculous scorelines we would get. It would make Gonzales v Pasarell look like a stroll.

A big serve used to be people like Tanner, Curren, Becker. They were big but they weren't monstrous. Most of the greats have all good 1st serves apart from say Connors or Hewitt. The "big serve" today is just too much at times and you get the feeling it might just get out of control with every player being 7'10" bomb droppers.