Wimbledon in the 80s and 90s.Was it really a good tactics to S&V on second serve.

[BorgTheGOAT]

When I watch old Wimbledon matches with players predominantly serving and volleying I always wondered whether it was actually a reasonable tactic to come in after the second serve. Sometimes you have the impression that most players did it more because it was common and the general view was that a baseliner cannot win at Wimbledon, rather than because stats actually back it up.

For instance if you watch the 1989 Lendl vs Becker semi, Lendl gets passed left and right, Becker totally destroys Lendl's second serve with 17!! clear return winner only on the second serve. Nevertheless, Lendl is coming in relentlessly, which is quite strange given the fact that he was widely considered the better baseliner of the two. He ends up being 42% on second serve for the whole match which in the end turns out to be crucial for him loosing.

While this is only one match, I looked up stats from other Wimbledon finals or semifinals and rarely did I find matches where player serving and volleying on both serves won significantly more than 50% of their second serve points. Becker is something like 37% against Sampras in 1995, Sampras is 43% against Agassi in 1993 and even in one of his best matches, the 1999 Wimbledon final he ends up with a success rate of 49% ( with 50% on second serve return points).

I can fully understand that McEnroe played like that against Borg or Rafter against Sampras since they are considered inferior baseliners, but why the hell did Lendl stick to it against a guy like Becker? Given that he was better from the baseline and given that you start a second serve rally in a slightly advantageous position (combined with the fact that you hit fewer double faults since you don't have to take as much risk on your second serve as you had to if you play serve and volley) you would expect Lendl to go somewhere around 60% against Becker had he stayed behind all the time. Same I would expect for Sampras against guys like Henman or Rafter. The tactics coming in after your first and staying back after your second was successfully played on carpet back then, it was only in Wimbledon that players decided to come in behind both.

What is maybe an explanation is that staying back more often than not would not always have resulted in pure baseline rallies but most likely guys like Becker or Rafter would have chipped and charged or come to the net later in the rally. However even then, I can't see why there were not more players staying back on only the second serve against opponents with inferior baseline game.

 

[KG1965]

Interesting question.
I confess that I never understood it either.

It should be remembered that the game from the baseline was very complicated with the grass of those years.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Totally agree, there were a lot of uneven bounces but that should not have favored one player over the other so I would expect the same results had two players like Lendl and Becker engaged in some baseline rallies i.e., Lendl winning most of them.

 

[BringBackWood]

Very good points & I agree. Borg often stayed back on second serve and he didn't do too bad. Lendl was programmed to come in behind his serve, because he had been convinced he had to. But you have to play to your strengths as well as to the court surface.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In my opinion Borg was the greatest and most versatile player ever. In an era where polarization was at an all time high he won the Channel slam thrice. Winning the most opposite Slams 5 and 6 times respectively someone once described as being able to paint like Picasso and at the same time playing the piano like Beethoven. While this is exaggerated I can only agree that it is one of the most impressive achievements in tennis history.

What really amazes me is that other than Agassi, Fed, Nadal or djokovic he totally changed his game, grinding for hours in Roland Gaross and only one week later without any grass warm up switching to Serve and Volley game.

As you said he stayed back on most second serves and it was absolutely the best tactics for him. His serve was pretty underrated, while of course not as good as Tanner's it was far above average. His volleys were actually pretty good and his returns and passing shots were the best in the game. What also helped was that he was as clutch as you could possibly get, his 26-4 record in 5 set matches is simply out of this world.

Apart from grass and clay he was great on carpet as well (he actually has a positive head to head against JMac here). What people sometimes see as his weakness was his relative failure on hard courts but even that has to be put into context. Borg only played the US Open on Hard Court 4 times, reaching three finals and only succumbing against two US Open GOATs on their home turf. That is NOT a serious weakness, he actually straight settled Connors in the semi final in 1981. Would you call a guy average on clay, who reaches three FO finals in only four attempts while every time losing to Nadal?

While people say, that every GOAT candidate has some serious wholes in his resume, I cannot find any whole for Borg. His only whole and the reason why he did not settle this GOAT debates already in the 80s, was his burn out and that he called it a career to early. Other than that I really cannot see any real weakness or better said, the arguments against him are the weakest of all ATG ( he even has no losing H2H against any other great and there were plenty during his time).

All of the above is, of course only my opinion. While I admire Borg, I don't want to bring this annoying GOAT debates from the General pro player section over here.

 

[BTURNER]

When I watch old Wimbledon matches with players predominantly serving and volleying I always wondered whether it was actually a reasonable tactic to come in after the second serve. Sometimes you have the impression that most players did it more because it was common and the general view was that a baseliner cannot win at Wimbledon, rather than because stats actually back it up.

For instance if you watch the 1989 Lendl vs Becker semi, Lendl gets passed left and right, Becker totally destroys Lendl's second serve with 17!! clear return winner only on the second serve. Nevertheless, Lendl is coming in relentlessly, which is quite strange given the fact that he was widely considered the better baseliner of the two. He ends up being 42% on second serve for the whole match which in the end turns out to be crucial for him loosing.

While this is only one match, I looked up stats from other Wimbledon finals or semifinals and rarely did I find matches where player serving and volleying on both serves won significantly more than 50% of their second serve points. Becker is something like 37% against Sampras in 1995, Sampras is 43% against Agassi in 1993 and even in one of his best matches, the 1999 Wimbledon final he ends up with a success rate of 49% ( with 50% on second serve return points).

I can fully understand that McEnroe played like that against Borg or Rafter against Sampras since they are considered inferior baseliners, but why the hell did Lendl stick to it against a guy like Becker? Given that he was better from the baseline and given that you start a second serve rally in a slightly advantageous position (combined with the fact that you hit fewer double faults since you don't have to take as much risk on your second serve as you had to if you play serve and volley) you would expect Lendl to go somewhere around 60% against Becker had he stayed behind all the time. Same I would expect for Sampras against guys like Henman or Rafter. The tactics coming in after your first and staying back after your second was successfully played on carpet back then, it was only in Wimbledon that players decided to come in behind both.

What is maybe an explanation is that staying back more often than not would not always have resulted in pure baseline rallies but most likely guys like Becker or Rafter would have chipped and charged or come to the net later in the rally. However even then, I can't see why there were not more players staying back on only the second serve against opponents with inferior baseline game.

There is always something to be said for having no doubts on what you intend to do because the decision is already made up. Players like Edberg and Mac really had no decision to make on grass, no doubts before the motion what they ought or ought do and no questions in their minds to haunt them. If you are a baseliner trying to change tactics by even following first serves, those very doubts induce hesitation and that can kill someone who his not a great volleyer. Evert did exactly the opposite. She just plain refused to s/v, even though she did it constantly in doubles. She knew she would NEVER s/v before she stepped up to the line.

 

[suwanee4712]

I think the answer could depend upon the year and the condition of the courts. For instance, I think it was a very good idea for the men to serve and volley on second serve in 1987 when the courts were so dry and chewed up. That is the last year that I remember the courts being so bad which were in contrast to 1986 and 1988-1992 when conditions were different.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Well, what I find surprising is that a strategy which is followed by almost all title contenders actually guaranteed so little success rate. If everyone follows it, even players whose game is not suited at all for serve and volley you would expect that this strategy guaranteed a real advantage and that they regularly put up numbers around 60-70%, even more so as it was crucial to hold serve at 80s and 90s Wimbledon grass.

However, even the deadliest serve and volleyer like Sampras whose second serve is praised a lot here rarely came significantly above 50%. Given, that they all had coaches, tactic coaches and Lendl actually was known for his deep preparation, watching and analyzing matches of all his opponents, you have to wonder, why on God's earth they all played like it.

The only possible explanation would be, that while not the best strategy, it would still be better than staying back because then the other player would attack. But as I stated before, even if Becker would constantly have chipped and charged and relentlessly attacking the net on the return, i can hardly see Lendl going under 42% in baseline rallies against him even less with the slight advantage of starting the rally with a second serve.