Wimbledon Net Play

[solarflair]

Is it just me or...

Has serve and volley and approaching the net been dominant, in complete contrast to those who say those tactics are not worth using? This is my first time watching Wimbledon, and both s&v and approaches seem to be dominant (even with Kyrgios saying the courts are slower.) In their match right now, AA and Zverev are each at about a 75% win rate when they go to the net. I can see why these tactics might not do too well on clay, but I don't understand why both of these tactics (especially s&v), are going extinct and are considered a novelty, even on grass. What gives?

 

[solarflair]

And maybe I'm just a wishful thinker, but I can easily see someone with a big serve and some good height--a little athleticism sprinkled in there as well--being able to execute serve and volley at a high level if they trained for it. Like if I had the height and service speed of Isner... there's no way you could convince me to play baseline more than 50% of the time.

 

[NonP]

Is it just me or...

Has serve and volley and approaching the net been dominant, in complete contrast to those who say those tactics are not worth using? This is my first time watching Wimbledon, and both s&v and approaches seem to be dominant (even with Kyrgios saying the courts are slower.) In their match right now, AA and Zverev are each at about a 75% win rate when they go to the net. I can see why these tactics might not do too well on clay, but I don't understand why both of these tactics (especially s&v), are going extinct and are considered a novelty, even on grass. What gives?

And maybe I'm just a wishful thinker, but I can easily see someone with a big serve and some good height--a little athleticism sprinkled in there as well--being able to execute serve and volley at a high level if they trained for it. Like if I had the height and service speed of Isner... there's no way you could convince me to play baseline more than 50% of the time.

Glad another fan has seen the light. Yes I keep pointing out that for all the talk about poly making S&V obsolete % of points won at the net has budged hardly at all. If anything it's probably gone up a tiny bit because players aren't coming in as indiscriminately as full-time net rushers used to.

Case in point:

Federer's net stats in his Grand Slam finals

Official counts for net approaches. 2003 Wimbledon..........d. Philippoussis..........3 sets............20 of 29............69% 2004 Australian............d. Safin..........…….....3 sets............17 of 25............68% 2004 Wimbledon..........d. Roddick..........…....4 sets............27...

tt.tennis-warehouse.com

The received wisdom says Federer got burned time after time trying to attack the net vs. Nadal who boasts the best passing shots ever, but that's not what the numbers show, is it? In fact Fed's most # of approaches and 2nd highest % (up to 2013) came on clay of all surfaces, in the famed '06 Rome final which remains one of the best 5-setters of the OE. And he averaged a good 64% over the course of 8 years and 21 matches. Not too shabby if you ask me.

I've been trying to collect official net stats for every Open-Era GS match from the QFs (or SFs at least) on and hope to publish them someda. Most of you would be surprised at how little the %s have changed since '68. That's because it's practically impossible even for the best passers to average over 50% in their attempts day to day, and I've no doubt that great S&Vers/net rushers like Sampras, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg and Newcombe would still be able to dominate with their attacking style on the faster surfaces today. Yes it's a little tougher now with poly, but the extra spin also boosts your serve which all but cancels out the increased difficulty. In the right hands the good ol' big game is not only still viable but desirable. We just don't have 'em anymore.

 

[bnjkn]

I think s&v is out of the comfort zone of all players these days.

 

[ibbi]

The players who have the high success rates do so mainly because they come in sparingly (Felix won 31 points at net from 162 points won, that's less than 20%). The ball bounces higher, the players hit it harder and with far easier control than they used to. Serve and volley simply isn't practical 100% of the time. Go back to that Federer/Zverev match in Shanghai the other year and see what a god damn mess it was.

The problem is that as with most things there's no variety. It's all or nothing, when there should obviously be more mixing it up.

 

[solarflair]

The problem is that as with most things there's no variety. It's all or nothing, when there should obviously be more mixing it up.

So let's say there was a player that did the opposite of Felix. He goes to the net 80% of the time, whereas he opts to stay back 20% of the time. Does that mean he would see the same success, or even better? I agree, it's not at all good to serve and volley 100% of the time. Your opponent knows exactly what you will do. It's like a penalty shootout. If the player taking the penalty kicks the ball to the right side 100% of the time, the keeper knows exactly where to go. However, if the player only goes right 80% of the time, I would assume the goalie would be in quite a predicament. Could this strategy potentially work for a modern serve and volleyer? If they go in at between 50% to 90% of the time on the first serve, they can place doubt in the receiver's mind as to what he will do, and therefore that doubt could alter the quality and placement of the service return.

 

[Aabye5]

So let's say there was a player that did the opposite of Felix. He goes to the net 80% of the time, whereas he opts to stay back 20% of the time. Does that mean he would see the same success, or even better? I agree, it's not at all good to serve and volley 100% of the time. Your opponent knows exactly what you will do. It's like a penalty shootout. If the player taking the penalty kicks the ball to the right side 100% of the time, the keeper knows exactly where to go. However, if the player only goes right 80% of the time, I would assume the goalie would be in quite a predicament. Could this strategy potentially work for a modern serve and volleyer? If they go in at between 50% to 90% of the time on the first serve, they can place doubt in the receiver's mind as to what he will do, and therefore that doubt could alter the quality and placement of the service return.

You need an amazing serve to begin with, then footwork, as well as excellent volleys. And then if you do it too much players will be looking for those passes. It would force the other player to play go for broke tennis. Could it work? It depends on how comfortable the other player is painting the lines.

 

[solarflair]

Glad another fan has seen the light.

I mean it passes the eye test for someone who's watching their first Wimbledon haha. I'm testing s&v out as a viable strategy because my serve and volleys are far more developed than my groundstrokes (backhand especially.) I've dedicated time to improve my service return game as well, so chip and charge is also looking like an option.

 

[solarflair]

You need an amazing serve to begin with, then footwork, as well as excellent volleys. And then if you do it too much players will be looking for those passes. It would force the other player to play go for broke tennis. Could it work? It depends on how comfortable the other player is painting the lines.

For sure. It's definitely a gamble to s&v from what I've seen. As for approaching the net, I only saw a couple of passing shots during the entire Felix vs Zverev match. The rest went straight to them and usually ended up as a winner for the volleyer. I think there's a lot of potential there, assuming the player has solid footwork and positioning.

 

[Aabye5]

For sure. It's definitely a gamble to s&v from what I've seen. As for approaching the net, I only saw a couple of passing shots during the entire Felix vs Zverev match. The rest went straight to them and usually ended up as a winner for the volleyer. I think there's a lot of potential there, assuming the player has solid footwork and positioning.

Yes, I think an interesting match to check out would be one of the matches Fed played against Nole at the USO or Wimby.

 

[Milanez82]

Problem with s&v top spin allows returner to dip his shot right at servers feet making for a very difficult drop volley which if not executed perfectly gives a penalty shot

In the past even if you didn't put away that first volley you were still likely to win the point, nowadays you are a sitting duck on the net

I think Karlovic s&v but his game relied on bunch of aces and service winners and small percentage of volleys
And his serve was basically Goat serve

 

[Aabye5]

Is it just me or...

Has serve and volley and approaching the net been dominant, in complete contrast to those who say those tactics are not worth using? This is my first time watching Wimbledon, and both s&v and approaches seem to be dominant (even with Kyrgios saying the courts are slower.) In their match right now, AA and Zverev are each at about a 75% win rate when they go to the net. I can see why these tactics might not do too well on clay, but I don't understand why both of these tactics (especially s&v), are going extinct and are considered a novelty, even on grass. What gives?

I definitely think this is a good analysis, though, and it would be great if you could go beyond one or two matches.

 

[MurraysMetalHip]

It’s good that S&V has all but been eliminated. It removes the chances of lumbering one-dimensional giants like Karlovic from servebotting their way to major titles.

 

[skip1969]

It's not just pure serve and volley, either. It's that these current guys have no clue how to hit good approach shots and maneuver their way to the net. Then of course, it's what to do when you're up there. It's serve placement, it's angled volleys and approaches, it's sneak volleys, it's the entire arsenal that comes with being a true attacking or all-court player. None of these guys have that skill set. The stuff isn't taught or prioritized in any way anymore. Because everyone realized that you could win grinding from the back, no matter what the surface.

It'll take a generation of prioritizing those skills again until we see them routinely at the highest levels. And it will take great athletes with great balance and footwork and feel to get there. The pendulum has to swing that way, I think. I mean, tennis has become so dull and one-dimensional now. The Association of Tennis Grinders can't go on forever.

 

[AllPlayersAreGood]

It doesn't really make sense to play the S&V style nowadays. Why would anyone want to telegraph his intention to his opponent even before the opponent makes his shot? It has to be mixed.