Where's serve and volley now?

[atp2015]

After Zverev-Murray match the serve and volley was going to make a roaring come back.
What do people say now after Zverev-Fed match?
I think serve and volley as the primary style has no place any more- it can only be a surprise attack given the evolution of player physical fitness, power, racket technology, strategy etc. It's easy to beat the net guy if the opponent is equally sharp in terms of strokes and strategy.

 

[TennisCJC]

I think S&V could be used much more effective and much more often than it is by ATP players. I think most don't use it because they aren't comfortable with it. When returner backs way up to return, I think a highly skilled S&V player would be better off attacking the net at least a high percentage of the time to take away the high rolling or high chip return. I think S&V can still also be very effective on grass.

I think S&V could be used much more. Ivo Karlovic uses it a lot and is still very effective. Also, I wonder if Isner, Andersen, Querry and other tall big servers wouldn't have had better careers if they had played 90% or more S&V behind first serve. Isner loses a very high percentage of rallies on his serve. Wouldn't he have been better off taking those balls as volleys and ending the points quickly instead of getting into baseline rallies only to lose 5 or 6 shots later? How many times has Isner lost to little guys who do nothing more than block back returns to get into a rally. I think Isner is perfect example of guy who should have played almost exclusively S&V.

The prototype baseliners are Roger, Rafa, Murray and Djokovic. They are all between 6' 1" and 6' 3". These guys typically tie the tall guys up in knots in baseline rallies. No tall guy has a good record against them. I think the big servers would have had a better shot at winning majors to play like Sampras and attack everything.

 

[LeeD]

I find S/V works great against peers and lesser player's, but a superior player, and Fed IS a superior player over Zverev, will win most times. The reason the superior player wins most time is because ...... you fill in the blanks.

 

[atp2015]

I think S&V could be used much more effective and much more often than it is by ATP players. I think most don't use it because they aren't comfortable with it. When returner backs way up to return, I think a highly skilled S&V player would be better off attacking the net at least a high percentage of the time to take away the high rolling or high chip return. I think S&V can still also be very effective on grass.

I think S&V could be used much more. Ivo Karlovic uses it a lot and is still very effective. Also, I wonder if Isner, Andersen, Querry and other tall big servers wouldn't have had better careers if they had played 90% or more S&V behind first serve. Isner loses a very high percentage of rallies on his serve. Wouldn't he have been better off taking those balls as volleys and ending the points quickly instead of getting into baseline rallies only to lose 5 or 6 shots later? How many times has Isner lost to little guys who do nothing more than block back returns to get into a rally. I think Isner is perfect example of guy who should have played almost exclusively S&V.

The prototype baseliners are Roger, Rafa, Murray and Djokovic. They are all between 6' 1" and 6' 3". These guys typically tie the tall guys up in knots in baseline rallies. No tall guy has a good record against them. I think the big servers would have had a better shot at winning majors to play like Sampras and attack everything.

What's if the returner starts doing more than just block? In fact, it's easy to swing at fast incoming ball than just block (you will miss some, but also will get some winners or forced errors).
If Isner starts moving in, you are likely to see more returns hit to the feet etc than just block. The returner will block if he knows the server is going to stay back, otherwise will do more. I'm no ATP player (surprise!), but I'm just thinking what I would do to counter someone who follows to the net.

 

[LeeD]

Sometimes, it's not what YOU do that really matters. You say you can drive a heavy topspin to the netplayer's feet. Can you do that when his approach is within a couple feet of your baseline, you're running wide to your backhand side to cover his approach, and he just hit a spin you haven't seen in 3 shots?
Can you return his serve to his feet, even though he serves wide enough you have left both feet off the ground to lunge at trying to return his serve?
Are you passing shots so accurate they usually clear the netman's reach and still drop in?
Are your lobs always clearing his highest reach while dropping inside his baseline?
While he's not nearly perfect, I can assume your competition knows YOUR not nearly perfect also.

 

[Dan Huben]

Still a viable tactic. Just not the only one.

Loved seeing Murray go down.

Absolutely cannot wait for the Swiss Miss maych


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

S&V_not-dead-yet

 

[Deleted member 23235]

i watched the murray/zverev matched a couple times... loved it.
I think the big diff between murray and fed, was that fed was willing to the first shot to zverev, soft and low (mixed with hard), then pass on the 2nd shot, where murray was trying to pass immediately (and/or not taking pace off to keep it low).
while pure s&v is dead for the upper ranks in tennis, it's a viable/fun for the rec level...
and at the upper levels, and useful tool to keep returners honest (ie. keep them from just floating back returns)

 

[TennisCJC]

What's if the returner starts doing more than just block? In fact, it's easy to swing at fast incoming ball than just block (you will miss some, but also will get some winners or forced errors).
If Isner starts moving in, you are likely to see more returns hit to the feet etc than just block. The returner will block if he knows the server is going to stay back, otherwise will do more. I'm no ATP player (surprise!), but I'm just thinking what I would do to counter someone who follows to the net.

News flash, it is not easy for even ATP players to return a 130 mph serve that is placed well at all much less to keep it low. If the returner plays deep and tries to keep it low, they will also miss more into the net. Plus if you mix S&V say 50% of the time and the returner plays a low return while you stay back, you will basically have a short ball to attack. I think S&V is totally viable on fast court for big servers. In fact, I think the super servers that are tall might be better off taking the Ivo Karlovic approach of using lots of S&V to maximize their strength.

 

[atp2015]

i watched the murray/zverev matched a couple times... loved it.
I think the big diff between murray and fed, was that fed was willing to the first shot to zverev, soft and low (mixed with hard), then pass on the 2nd shot, where murray was trying to pass immediately (and/or not taking pace off to keep it low).
while pure s&v is dead for the upper ranks in tennis, it's a viable/fun for the rec level...
and at the upper levels, and useful tool to keep returners honest (ie. keep them from just floating back returns)

I thought so too and wondered about it before the Fed match. Murray was trying to pass right away instead of hitting right at him. It's difficult to get out of the line of the ball than lunge side ways to get a racket.

 

[atp2015]

News flash, it is not easy for even ATP players to return a 130 mph serve that is placed well at all much less to keep it low. If the returner plays deep and tries to keep it low, they will also miss more into the net. Plus if you mix S&V say 50% of the time and the returner plays a low return while you stay back, you will basically have a short ball to attack. I think S&V is totally viable on fast court for big servers. In fact, I think the super servers that are tall might be better off taking the Ivo Karlovic approach of using lots of S&V to maximize their strength.

sure, not easy to return 130 MPH serves. If they go in and well placed, I think the point is over 95% of the time no matter what the returner tries to do.
Raonic came to the net quite a few times against Nadal today and got passed easily. Nadal won 88% of his net approaches (22/25), but Raonic has 27 out of 52 (52%) to show for his net exploits.
Raonic had more success with one-two groundies than volley attempts. Unless the ground strokes are considerably weak (like Karlovic), net rushing often is no recipe for success. I do believe Isner would have been less successful with net rushing.

 

[TennisCJC]

sure, not easy to return 130 MPH serves. If they go in and well placed, I think the point is over 95% of the time no matter what the returner tries to do.
Raonic came to the net quite a few times against Nadal today and got passed easily. Nadal won 88% of his net approaches (22/25), but Raonic has 27 out of 52 (52%) to show for his net exploits.
Raonic had more success with one-two groundies than volley attempts. Unless the ground strokes are considerably weak (like Karlovic), net rushing often is no recipe for success. I do believe Isner would have been less successful with net rushing.

I don't think one match establishes a pattern. Raonic is not comfortable S&Ving. He came up trying to play the typical baseline topspin power game which probably isn't best suited to his skill set and physic. What if Raonic had been playing S&V since he was 13 years old and had a much better net game. You are also looking at one match with one of the all time great topspin players vs a tall player who is still more comfortable playing the baseline power game. I guarantee you a prime Pete Sampras would win a lot more than 52% of his net rushes against even Nadal on a moderately fast court.

 

[Nellie]

I think S&V could work very well, but it is not being taught to juniors. Imagine a 12-13 year old who is a great talent (coordinated, fast, good size...). That kid is going to get crushed playing S&V even against less talented players because that kid cannot serve big and has limited size/coverage. Most kids cannot take losing (and won't get support if they lose too much), so they gravitate to an aggressive baseline game that allows the more talented kids to dominate opponents.

 

[sureshs]

I find S/V works great against peers and lesser player's, but a superior player, and Fed IS a superior player over Zverev, will win most times. The reason the superior player wins most time is because ...... you fill in the blanks.

By the rankings, Murray was the superior player, but he lost to Zverev.

I watched the Fed match, and he was lucky that some of his precision shots made it (either close to the lines or in the space available for passing). Fed on a 90% day would have been unable to pull those shots off.

I also noticed that Fed responded to many serves and volleys with short high balls, which Zverev did not put away properly.