The Real Reason Serve and Volley Tennis has Disappeared

[tlm]

this "nobody" Llodra brought his team to the Davis Cup finals...

and as for Harrison, I'm rooting for him. He's not a bad all-court player, and plays baseline when necessary, but does attack the net, unlike other players...

Well thats great you are rooting for him, but that does not mean he is going to be a top 10 player.You say he does attack the net unlike other players, that is funny i see a lot of other players attack the net.Just because it is not used all the time does not mean no other player uses it.

These guys are playing for money they use what works best to make a paycheck. They dont give a damn about old time s+v tennis that worked back in the day.

If you watch the old s+v players like mac + the boys, their ground strokes were so weak the had to come in to get a ball by someone. Otherwise they would never hit a winner with their 50 mph weak ass ground strokes.

 

[Manus Domini]

sorry, I forgot S&Ving 40-something year old Edberg was getting destroyed by Safin. Oh, wait...didn't Edberg win in Grand Cayman?

Sorry to disappoint you, but had Mac and Edberg played today, they would be able to win even without playing solely baseline tennis.

The fact is, Edberg didn't use his forehand to hit a winner. He used it to set up for a volley. And their "50 mph weak @$@$ ground strokes" included Edberg's backhand, one of the best backhands to ever exist.

Just so you have an idea what their weak backhands were like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZnZlXWxQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6k2kpkKZQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoDFcHnWZR0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC3-0YX0m8U

 

[Manus Domini]

I forgot that Sampras, one of the best S&Vers, had one of the best forehands of his age.

And Bjorn Borg, known as a baseliner who hit with topspin, S&Ved at Wimby after his first serve

 

[Carolina Racquet]

I think it's all connected... I think the death of S&V started with the 70's when Borg and Connors started to win from the back court. Sure, you can name SOME players who used S&V successfully, but from what I recall S&V used to be the norm for the vast majority of players on all surfaces.

There's also no doubt that the racquet evolution benefited the back court and return game more than the volley game.

I'd like to see more top players S&V more, especially the bigger guys with great serves. It would reduce the wear and tear on their bodies and improve their volley when coming to the net on short balls. Perhaps I'm just "old school".

 

[tlm]

sorry, I forgot S&Ving 40-something year old Edberg was getting destroyed by Safin. Oh, wait...didn't Edberg win in Grand Cayman?

Sorry to disappoint you, but had Mac and Edberg played today, they would be able to win even without playing solely baseline tennis.

The fact is, Edberg didn't use his forehand to hit a winner. He used it to set up for a volley. And their "50 mph weak @$@$ ground strokes" included Edberg's backhand, one of the best backhands to ever exist.

Just so you have an idea what their weak backhands were like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZnZlXWxQw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OD6k2kpkKZQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoDFcHnWZR0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC3-0YX0m8U

These are your great examples? Wow that is the best you can come up with?
Just proves my point on how weak the old boys hit the ball. There were some
nicely placed shots, but it was the placement not the pace. A lot of those shots looked like 4.0 club players pace.

But hey like i said just keep watching that oldschool borefest you call tennis.
I will watch the modern baseline bashing game+thank God that s+v is dead!!!!

 

[LeeD]

tlm, you're a card ..
Yeah Vilas and Borg were moonballing women.
JohanKriek, all 5'9" of him, hit just like the modern 11 year olds......girls.
You'd smack DickStocktons forehand to the moon and back.
And those wimpy servers back then, like ColinDibley (145+), VictorAmaya (140+), RoscoeTanner (140+), are akin to underhand serves today.
And what, a mid '60's JohnNewcombe serving 130mph first flats? You'd just ramp it down his throat when he came in to volley.

 

[Manus Domini]

These are your great examples? Wow that is the best you can come up with?
Just proves my point on how weak the old boys hit the ball. There were some
nicely placed shots, but it was the placement not the pace. A lot of those shots looked like 4.0 club players pace.

But hey like i said just keep watching that oldschool borefest you call tennis.
I will watch the modern baseline bashing game+thank God that s+v is dead!!!!

yeah, this right here is definitely a boor fest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU

you are delusional, my friend.

Would you rather watch this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8zNApQuv4U

Dimitrov was too confident, way to out of place. Against any of the old boys, he would've gotten beat, badly

And remember the great baseliners you claim can beat old-school all-courters like edberg? Well Safin, the best HC player, lost to Edberg at Grand Cayman, and Safin isn't a poor player.

At a young age, a baseliner wins more than a S&Ver, and as LeeD says, people stick to what they are used to. Less people are taught to volley from the get go.

also, if you watched them, you'd know Edberg could hit winners off his fh

 

[Wilander Fan]

So Ryan harrison is going to be a top 10 player by playing s+v style tennis. We will see, but you can dream about it. You see Liodra play one good event indoors of course+ now he is going to be a force with his net rushing tennis. Wake up this guy will remain a nobody.

Llora had a bit of a renaissance this year. He went deep into tourneys in the HC season and got to the 4th round of the US Open taking out Berdych. He only went out due to injury in a match he was in control of. I think if he can play as well as he did on outdoor HCs, it is still possible to S&V. Most of today's players do not have the weapons though. Primarily, Llodra has a combination of a nasty slice wide and a hard flat one down the middle. He can dictate the return with these serves. Incidentally, Federer has been using the wide kick/slice more and more where in the past he would hit the wide serve flat and hard. He may have picked up something from Llodra who was virtually unstoppable on the duece side with that wide serve against Denko, Djokavich and Soderling....3 very good returners.

 

[Wilander Fan]

Well thats great you are rooting for him, but that does not mean he is going to be a top 10 player.You say he does attack the net unlike other players, that is funny i see a lot of other players attack the net.Just because it is not used all the time does not mean no other player uses it.

These guys are playing for money they use what works best to make a paycheck. They dont give a damn about old time s+v tennis that worked back in the day.

If you watch the old s+v players like mac + the boys, their ground strokes were so weak the had to come in to get a ball by someone. Otherwise they would never hit a winner with their 50 mph weak ass ground strokes.

I actually think they may have slowed the courts down so much that it makes sense to S&V again. It was unnecessary to S&V a few years back since you could put away short balls with a groundie more effectively. However, it seems like these shots are all run down now more and more. Against supreme defenders like Nadal, Murray and Djoker, I think S&V is a good tactic so long as you can disguise your serve.

 

[TheBoom]

I actually think they may have slowed the courts down so much that it makes sense to S&V again. It was unnecessary to S&V a few years back since you could put away short balls with a groundie more effectively. However, it seems like these shots are all run down now more and more. Against supreme defenders like Nadal, Murray and Djoker, I think S&V is a good tactic so long as you can disguise your serve.

I totally agree with you there!! It is something that if ryan harrison perfected (assuming he keeps up with his groundies etc.) he could make a breakthrough and be the next star

 

[Manus Domini]

Llora had a bit of a renaissance this year. He went deep into tourneys in the HC season and got to the 4th round of the US Open taking out Berdych. He only went out due to injury in a match he was in control of. I think if he can play as well as he did on outdoor HCs, it is still possible to S&V. Most of today's players do not have the weapons though. Primarily, Llodra has a combination of a nasty slice wide and a hard flat one down the middle. He can dictate the return with these serves. Incidentally, Federer has been using the wide kick/slice more and more where in the past he would hit the wide serve flat and hard. He may have picked up something from Llodra who was virtually unstoppable on the duece side with that wide serve against Denko, Djokavich and Soderling....3 very good returners.

I think you mean the ad side, to me a slice serve down the middle on deuce side would be more effective

 

[Manus Domini]

I totally agree with you there!! It is something that if ryan harrison perfected (assuming he keeps up with his groundies etc.) he could make a breakthrough and be the next star

watch, he uses strategems like that

 

[LeeD]

Slow courts make hitting baseline winners harder to make, yes.
Slow courts do not make volleying any easier. Slow down the courts so the ball slows upon bouncing, but passers pass you with a ball that doesn't bounce.

 

[Manus Domini]

But LeeD, Rafa's S&V on clay is unmatched!

 

[tlm]

Okay i guess that is it then, we have many experts here who claim that s+v is taking over. So be aware baseliners these s+v players are going to take you out.

 

[Camilio Pascual]

S&V as a strategy may have disappeared, but it has not, and will not, disappear as a tactic.

 

[yellowoctopus]

I think the OP is proposing a one way causal relationship based merely on a possible correlation between the decrease number of carpet tournaments and the number of serve-and-volley touring pros.

Possible assumptions that have to be adressed:

• Validity of the correlation: It could be a coincident
• Confounding factors: there could be another factor that is related to both the decreased number of tournaments and the S&V players
• Causal direction: If a causal relationship do exists, the decreased number of carpet tournaments could be a result of a decrease in the number of S&V players, rather than the other way around

However,

S&V as a strategy may have disappeared, but it has not, and will not, disappear as a tactic.

This, I like.

 

[Sherlock]

I think the OP is proposing a one way causal relationship based merely on a possible correlation between the decrease number of carpet tournaments and the number of serve-and-volley touring pros.

Possible assumptions that have to be adressed:

• Validity of the correlation: It could be a coincident
• Confounding factors: there could be another factor that is related to both the decreased number of tournaments and the S&V players
• Causal direction: If a causal relationship do exists, the decreased number of carpet tournaments could be a result of a decrease in the number of S&V players, rather than the other way around

Yes. I figured this post would degenerate into a typical S&V wish and bash list, but I was at least hoping to get a few responses on my point. At least I was successful in that. I know string technology is a major influence, but I think the lack of carpet courts may also be a major contributing factor which is largely ignored.

I do NOT wish for a complete return for S&V tennis. All I wish for is that the surface representation would be evened a little bit, and that the tour could sustain players who choose to S&V. If carpet courts can create a more advantageous environment for S&V tennis, I would like to see a short season on this surface. Maybe a 6 week season with 1 or 2 masters events. A grand slam on the surface isn't even necessary.

 

[dParis]

Just FYI - the Paris Masters isn't on carpet anymore - and hasn't been so since 2006. It's a semi-fast hard court surface. There are no more "carpet" events anymore - which is a shame IMO.

I watched a "classic" carpet match between Becker and Edberg on TC. It totally s*cked. I was thoroughly bored after ten minutes - and this is coming from an old fogey.

 

[BashTheMashIsBack]

10 chars. s. s.

 

[tlm]

I watched a "classic" carpet match between Becker and Edberg on TC. It totally s*cked. I was thoroughly bored after ten minutes - and this is coming from an old fogey.

That is why i dont understand these people wanting to watch this boring style
of tennis, like you said it totally sucked.A couple of years ago when fed +samprass played a few exhibition matches on fast courts it was a total
borefest.

Every point was a unreturned serve or weak return + put away volley.
This had to be some of the worst tennis to watch that i have ever seen.
I am just really happy that s+v is dead + not ever coming back.

 

[dParis]

That is why i dont understand these people wanting to watch this boring style
of tennis, like you said it totally sucked.

I forgot to mention that 95% of the points were 3 ball rallies or less.:-|

 

[borg number one]

The original point about there not being indoor carpet tournaments is a good one. See this footage of McEnroe and Borg at the Masters (MSG, New York, Jan. '80).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VHrjz2YGE

I think that the technology changes, especially since about 1983, have shifted the dynamics drastically. Yet, great volleying can still be a significant weapon for players. I just think that players have to be more choosy with forays to the net. I like watching a variety of styles in the top 10 for example. I'm a baseline player primarily, and my favorite player is Borg (the first pros I followed closely were Connors and Borg), so I don't have any "bias" in favor of serve and volleyers, but I must mention that I think there were some practitioners of serve and volley such as Laver, McEnroe and Sampras that could do it all, plus they were great volleyers. Those players faced off against great baseliners such as Rosewall, Connors, Borg, Lendl, and Agassi when those baseliners were at their very best and could often manage some great rallies. As for the serve and volley game, I like this video of Laver at the Australian Open in 1969. These points are beautifully constructed. These are some great points in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

 

[AndrewD]

Much has been made by classical tennis afficiandos about how the lack of grass court tournaments, and the change in the type of grass used (firmer, higher bouncing) leading to the death of serve and volley tennis.

People only use that argument when they discuss Wimbledon, not the tour in general.

 

[IvanAndreevich]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

I think even on that surface those two great players wouldn't have a chance against the modern players with modern racquets and strings. The simple fact is you can hit the ball so much harder with modern strings that passing shots are made so much easier. You can see them chipping the ball on return. No way modern players would chip the ball on return if they knew their opponent was S&V'ing.

 

[tlm]

The original point about there not being indoor carpet tournaments is a good one. See this footage of McEnroe and Borg at the Masters (MSG, New York, Jan. '80).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5VHrjz2YGE

I think that the technology changes, especially since about 1983, have shifted the dynamics drastically. Yet, great volleying can still be a significant weapon for players. I just think that players have to be more choosy with forays to the net. I like watching a variety of styles in the top 10 for example. I'm a baseline player primarily, and my favorite player is Borg (the first pros I followed closely were Connors and Borg), so I don't have any "bias" in favor of serve and volleyers, but I must mention that I think there were some practitioners of serve and volley such as Laver, McEnroe and Sampras that could do it all, plus they were great volleyers. Those players faced off against great baseliners such as Rosewall, Connors, Borg, Lendl, and Agassi when those baseliners were at their very best and could often manage some great rallies. As for the serve and volley game, I like this video of Laver at the Australian Open in 1969. These points are beautifully constructed. These are some great points in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

These are great constructed points? Hit serve rush net every time hit 1 or
2 volleys point over. Then repeat over+over, i dont see much constructing going on hear.

They hit some really nice volleys+ some good passing shots, but to me
this is boring to watch. But because the groundstrokes were so weak
back then you almost had to come to the net to hit a winner. They sure
were not going to hit very many balls by anyone from the back court.

Watching the speed on their groundies look like 4.0 club players today.
I know that with the equipment that they used they were very limited.
That is why i believe that the s+v style was so popular back in the day.

 

[LeeD]

Once again, JohanKriek, JimmyConnors (oh, too modern?), DickStockton, StanSmith, JohnNewcombe, RodLaver, all hit groundies like a pack of sissy's barely exceeding 50 mph, right?
And of course, you can beat them with a frying pan from the baseline.

 

[tlm]

Once again, JohanKriek, JimmyConnors (oh, too modern?), DickStockton, StanSmith, JohnNewcombe, RodLaver, all hit groundies like a pack of sissy's barely exceeding 50 mph, right?
And of course, you can beat them with a frying pan from the baseline.

Okay lee do you really think that connors+the other old boys hit the ball
with the same speed as the players today? Please you can not be serious.
Just watch the older videos+compare them to today, then if you cant see
the difference you need your eyes checked.

I know you have stated that their were a few players that hit at high speeds.
But overall there is absolutely no comparison.Anyone who says otherwise
is dreaming.

Where do you come up with i could beat them with a frying pan.Who said
anything like that? I have stated that they did what was best for their era.
Anybody reasonable can tell that their back court game was limited, so
it was natural to use s+v to be aggressive.

But that does not hold true today because of the power from the backcourt.
Remember the discussion was about s+v style tennis in todays game. I
know that their are some that keep hoping that s+v is going to come
back but it is not going to happen.

 

[eliza]

These are great constructed points? Hit serve rush net every time hit 1 or
2 volleys point over. Then repeat over+over, i dont see much constructing going on hear.

They hit some really nice volleys+ some good passing shots, but to me
this is boring to watch. But because the groundstrokes were so weak
back then you almost had to come to the net to hit a winner. They sure
were not going to hit very many balls by anyone from the back court.

Watching the speed on their groundies look like 4.0 club players today.
I know that with the equipment that they used they were very limited.
That is why i believe that the s+v style was so popular back in the day.

Well, maybe 5.0 nowadays. I am old , and remember my teenage days very well, the speed was slower. But was not that due to the racquets? Were the balls (then white) the same weight? Maybe the court was longer....

 

[LeeD]

Slower...
PanchGonzales was rumored to serve into the 120's, with one foot touching the ground.
ColinDibley was timed at 149 at the 1978 TransAm event in SanFrancisco.
LowellBarnhardt won the Amateurs, a B player, serving at 129.6 with HEAVY topspin.
JohanKriek was a 20 year old then, hit harder than most any 6.0 today.
Maybe your level of tennis was not quite what it is today, so askewing your perception of how hard players actually hit the tennis ball.

 

[Manus Domini]

Okay lee do you really think that connors+the other old boys hit the ball
with the same speed as the players today? Please you can not be serious.
Just watch the older videos+compare them to today, then if you cant see
the difference you need your eyes checked.

I know you have stated that their were a few players that hit at high speeds.
But overall there is absolutely no comparison.Anyone who says otherwise
is dreaming.

Where do you come up with i could beat them with a frying pan.Who said
anything like that? I have stated that they did what was best for their era.
Anybody reasonable can tell that their back court game was limited, so
it was natural to use s+v to be aggressive.

But that does not hold true today because of the power from the backcourt.
Remember the discussion was about s+v style tennis in todays game. I
know that their are some that keep hoping that s+v is going to come
back but it is not going to happen.

You know, if the rules weren't changed the players nowadays wouldn't be serving at the speeds they are. It used to be a rule that you had to keep one foot on the ground. Is it just me, or wouldn't that hamper the speed of a stroke?

And btw, I would much rather watch Laver/Rosewall/those guys than people nowadays. Watching JMac/Connors/Nastase and their antics and Borg/Lendl/Edberg would be fabulous tennis

 

[tlm]

Slower...
PanchGonzales was rumored to serve into the 120's, with one foot touching the ground.
ColinDibley was timed at 149 at the 1978 TransAm event in SanFrancisco.
LowellBarnhardt won the Amateurs, a B player, serving at 129.6 with HEAVY topspin.
JohanKriek was a 20 year old then, hit harder than most any 6.0 today.
Maybe your level of tennis was not quite what it is today, so askewing your perception of how hard players actually hit the tennis ball.

Well i guess it must just be the old film that makes the old players look
like they were hitting much slower than todays ball bashers. Can you really debate that those players could hit with the same pace as todays? I notice you keep talking about serve speed, not much about the groundies. I wonder why?
Let me guess they hit harder than todays players even with one foot on the ground.

 

[tlm]

You know, if the rules weren't changed the players nowadays wouldn't be serving at the speeds they are. It used to be a rule that you had to keep one foot on the ground. Is it just me, or wouldn't that hamper the speed of a stroke?

And btw, I would much rather watch Laver/Rosewall/those guys than people nowadays. Watching JMac/Connors/Nastase and their antics and Borg/Lendl/Edberg would be fabulous tennis

Ya thats what it is the rule changes.It has nothing to do with the newer
equipment + superior technique of the modern ground strokes.

 

[LeeD]

Gee, if you even play tennis, not only would you KNOW that jumping has improved the speed of serves, but that change to allow jumping was well before Connor's time.
I assume you also watch women's tennis. Women today also use the new graphite/fiberglass rackets. Watch the difference in Evert vs Austin and go to Wozniack vs Zvonerava. Now watch it again. Not all that different, eh?

 

[tlm]

Ya Lee i play tennis 5 days a week all year long. Again you keep talking about serves, just cant get on the ground strokes. But
when you do you start talking about the women's game. Seems
to be constant subject changing going on here.

But speaking of watching Evert vs Austin i did see some of that
moonball contest about a month ago. You have got to be kidding comparing them to todays women players. Watching
Evert+Austin was one of the biggest pusher contests that i have ever seen.

 

[LeeD]

It's being posted right now on another thread.
What's the difference between a flat hit moonball and a topspin moonball?
The rallies are almost indentical from the Evert's/Austin match as the Woz/Zvonereva match.
I don't talk about groundies because my game has always been S/V. You might say I'm backing your case because my overall rating has been slipping for the last 34 years. But in my defense, possibly my skills are failing from old age or injuries.
And you don't consider Woz a pusher? What planet are you from?

 

[tlm]

I never said that woz is not a pusher, but her pushing is a hell of a lot faster than Evert+Austin. So now let me see the old school moon balls are the same as todays loopy 3000 rpm plus ground strokes.

 

[Manus Domini]

I never said that woz is not a pusher, but her pushing is a hell of a lot faster than Evert+Austin. So now let me see the old school moon balls are the same as todays loopy 3000 rpm plus ground strokes.

that is just Nadal and Fed with 3k rpm plus

 

[tlm]

that is just Nadal and Fed with 3k rpm plus

How about Andreev+many others, there are more pro players than fed+nadal that can hit 3000 rpm groundies.

 

[LeeD]

Don't think Woz hits with 3,000rmp, especially her topspin moonballs.
Sure, they swing faster, but the ball is not going much faster, if at all.
And the sound of grunting might be what fools you into thinking the ball is hit much harder. Or shrieking, of course.
Look at court coverage, time of the ball going racket to racket, positioning, and court surface speeds.

 

[tlm]

Never mentioned a word about woz hitting 3000 rpms on her groundies.

 

[LeeD]

Read your post 89 again.
Can't compare Fedal's strokes to women's tennis.

 

[Manus Domini]

How about Andreev+many others, there are more pro players than fed+nadal that can hit 3000 rpm groundies.

where's the proof of that? I've just seen fed/nadal stats on it

 

[tlm]

Read your post 89 again.
Can't compare Fedal's strokes to women's tennis.

I was answering your prior post where you mentioned that that there is a thread being posted about the difference of a flat hit moonball+a topspin moonball. i did not mean to infer that woz hit monster spins, i should have specified better that i was responding to 2 different points you were making.

 

[LeeD]

Oh, sorry. I was as confused as usual.

 

[tlm]

where's the proof of that? I've just seen fed/nadal stats on it

So just because you have only seen the rpm data on fed+rafa does not mean that no other pro hits that rate.

 

[jester911]

This article posted in another thread shows the science behind the strings and how they have changed the game. Read it to the bottom and watch the video.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

For old timers remember spaghetti stringing and how it was outlawed in tennis? Well science in strings found a way around it and this explains how the newer string acts very similar to the spaghetti racket.

It is no coincidence that this string came around 15 years ago which also is about the time S&V started to wane.

Then as the next generation of tennis players grew up using the string they are using closer to its full potential.

 

[Carolina Racquet]

This article posted in another thread shows the science behind the strings and how they have changed the game. Read it to the bottom and watch the video.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-new-physics-of-tennis/8339/

For old timers remember spaghetti stringing and how it was outlawed in tennis? Well science in strings found a way around it and this explains how the newer string acts very similar to the spaghetti racket.

It is no coincidence that this string came around 15 years ago which also is about the time S&V started to wane.

Then as the next generation of tennis players grew up using the string they are using closer to its full potential.

I used that article to respond to another thread, but it makes sense that the combination of larger headsize, stronger frames and poly strings have essentially increased the "angles" of the game because of the impact of topspin.

If that's the case, S&V will be dead forever. Gone the way of the typewriter.

 

[Manus Domini]

Ok, well baselining still isn't super-interesting if that is all there is...

S&V died for a combination of the following reasons imo:

slower courts
more powerful rackets
more spin
larger racket head-size
less volleyers
more baseliners younger
2HBH (for most part, are exceptions)

 

[jester911]

Ok, well baselining still isn't super-interesting if that is all there is...

S&V died for a combination of the following reasons imo:

slower courts
more powerful rackets
more spin
larger racket head-size
less volleyers
more baseliners younger
2HBH (for most part, are exceptions)

I agree it is a combination but out of all those things you listed all but two are most effective because the string enhances that feature.

I guarantee if S&V tennis had a chance to win on a regular basis some would be doing it and coaches would be teaching it.

I never said the baseline game was more interesting