Yeah, you guys were right, serve and volley doesn't work in modern tennis

TennisandMusic said:
I was talking about ANY masters dude. :lol: Serve and Volleyer players do not win.

Why do you think Federer doesn't do it anymore? The answer is so obvious, it's kind of unbelievable that you don't get it.

And yes, they were mickey mouse tournaments by ATP standards.
Click to expand...

Isner beat Djokovic in the BNP Paribas final. He's not a true S&V as he mixed it up more on hard courts than grass.
 
Stakhovsky showed that if you have a clear game plan, stick to it and have nothing to lose, you can pull off the upset at Wimbledon since no one has much grass practice prior. He played with absolutely no fear. So what if he S&V'ed and lost? He was suppose to lose anyway. Brilliant performance that reminded me of Boris Becker when he was young and reckless.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that back when the big servers where winning Wimbledon, everybody was crying that the tennis had no grace and that it was just big serve, ace, big serve, ace, big serve, one volley, etc. Most of the clay court guys weren't even showing up and one shot wonders like Ivanisevic could win it. Not good for business, so the AEC needed to make changes to lure all the top players back. Lo and behold, the courts seemed to slow down a bit, bounces were more consistent, the grass at the net stayed pristine and suddenly everybody was coming back to play baseline rally tennis. I don't care what the official party line out of the AEC about the courts is or isn't, the equipment alone didn't make that sudden change happen.

-k-
 
TennisandMusic said:
It doesn't. Otherwise this would be the rule rather than an absolute miracle. How is that not clear?

If a pure serve and volleyer wins this tournament, or even a masters anytime soon, then let's start talking. There is a reason why this doesn't happen.

You are taking one data point and trying to extrapolate it to some greater truth. And it's completely off.
Click to expand...

That is not true imo. We don't see s&V tennis because most of the players are not proficient at it not because it does not work. That is why when people say Sampras would not do well at Wimbledon today, I have to laugh.
 
jm1980 said:
When was the last time a serve-and-volley player won Wimbledon? Oh that's right, more than 10 years ago.

And I have no doubt a baseliner is winning it again this year.
Click to expand...

There are only four out and out serve and volley players in the top 100.

Slijsling, Llodra and Dodig all in serve volley action tomorrow, all of them with a good chance.
 
Personally as a Tennis fan, I am ok to see Federer losing to “Serve and Volley”er than a 2HBH in Wimbledon. At least an elegant style won the match.
The statistics are awesome both played very Good, Except Federer missed his chances.
 
These courts are playing extremely fast and low this year.

The one I'll be watching is Michael Llodra. He's the best S&Ver in the ATP and has always played an exclusively S&V style. He is a throwback to Sampras' era.

I think he will have a good chance to go very deep.
 
You know what a player ranked 115+, who had never beaten a top 20 player, suddenly beating a top player using S&V means? Diddly squat. It's called anecdotal evidence.
 
JustBob said:
You know what a player ranked 115+, who had never beaten a top 20 player, suddenly beating a top player using S&V means? Diddly squat. It's called anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

36 QF streak being broken by Stak's serve and volley means squat! don't tell him that. :|
He was only broken once in the entire match you know. :|
The only reason I took such a interest in the match was because of the way Stak was playing, you could tell right from the off his tactics would cause Federer headaches, clutch serving like Brown earlier helped to relive some pressure and his volleying was superb.
 
BreakPoint said:
I loved seeing Stakhovsky serve and volley and attack fearlessly on every point. Federer had no answers. Maybe he could have gone straight at Stakhovsky at the net more but it was obvious Federer was not comfortable playing against someone who attacked so much since hardly anyone does that any more.
Click to expand...

Thumb up to this.
 
rainingaces said:
36 QF streak being broken by Stak's serve and volley means squat! don't tell him that. :|
He was only broken once in the entire match you know. :|
The only reason I took such a interest in the match was because of the way Stak was playing, you could tell right from the off his tactics would cause Federer headaches, clutch serving like Brown earlier helped to relive some pressure and his volleying was superb.
Click to expand...

My point was that one player winning one match using S&V means squat. Everytime (meaning extremely rarely) it happens, some posters go into a frenzy about how S&V works in the modern game! About how Sampras and Edberg would tear through the field! Etc... etc... etc... It's just bloody nonsense based on anecdotal evidence.

Here, let me make it clear:

S&V is (almost completely) dead because it does not consistently work as a main strategy in the modern game.
 
JustBob said:
My point was that one player winning one match using S&V means squat. Everytime (meaning extremely rarely) it happens, some posters go into a frenzy about how S&V works in the modern game! About how Sampras and Edberg would tear through the field! Etc... etc... etc... It's just bloody nonsense based on anecdotal evidence.

Here, let me make it clear:

S&V is (almost completely) dead because it does not work as a main strategy in the modern game.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong about that.
 
BreakPoint said:
Yeah, right. :???:
Click to expand...

Ohh yes you are so right, because S&Vers have how many titles in the last decades against baseliners and all around players?
Some threads and some people are just hilarious silly of me to watch arrested development for a good laugh, i should come to the forums more often and that is all I need...
 
JustBob said:
S&V is (almost completely) dead because it does not consistently work as a main strategy in the modern game
Click to expand...

Yes it does. S&V players in general do better then baseliners on fast indoor hardcourts and grass courts, on all other surfaces I agree with you.
 
Last edited:
jm1980 said:
Fed was only broken twice in the entire match.

If you watched the match Fed had many more easy service games than Stak
Click to expand...
What match were you watching? If you saw the entire match, Stakhovsky had more easy service games than Federer did! Federer was down 0-30 or in trouble in numerous service games during the match.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
...Which lends itself to ripping the foolish theory that Federer would do well against the S&Vers of the 90s, as all of the top S&Vs were in another talent and technical class over the very man who defeated Federer today.
Click to expand...

The problem with your logic has to do with an incredible lack of familiarity with this style of tennis. No one is serving and volleying these days. His opponents sees Roger's style of tennis all the time, while Roger NEVER deals with those sorts of tactics. Your theory is off.
 
I have been really annoyed with announcers saying technology is why serve and volley is dead and technology is to blame.

NBC have been on this kick lately, crying bloody murder over it. The players are so much better now, its no even funny. Look at all sports, its not all the technology, give the players some credit. Give them 20 year old racquets and strings, I bet the game will be somewhat similar to what it is now. You can still hit the crap out of the ball with old racquets.
 
JustBob said:
My point was that one player winning one match using S&V means squat. Everytime (meaning extremely rarely) it happens, some posters go into a frenzy about how S&V works in the modern game! About how Sampras and Edberg would tear through the field! Etc... etc... etc... It's just bloody nonsense based on anecdotal evidence.

Here, let me make it clear:

S&V is (almost completely) dead because it does not consistently work as a main strategy in the modern game.
Click to expand...
Um...what two players just won the warm-up tournaments last week? :oops:

How did Haas beat Djokovic, the best returner of all time, TWICE in back-to-back tournaments in 2009? By serving and volleying!

How did Llodra straight set Djokovic at the Paris Masters a couple of years ago?
 
We don't need no proof. 100% sure S&V will come back if we make surfaces
quicker and lower bouncing, (and use lighter balls, like in the past).
 
hersito said:
Ohh yes you are so right, because S&Vers have how many titles in the last decades against baseliners and all around players?
Some threads and some people are just hilarious silly of me to watch arrested development for a good laugh, i should come to the forums more often and that is all I need...
Click to expand...
Um...could that be because only 1% of pros today are serve and volleyers while 99% are baseliners?

If 99% of pros were serve and volleyers, don't you think they would win more titles?
 
BreakPoint said:
What match were you watching? If you saw the entire match, Stakhovsky had more easy service games than Federer did! Federer was down 0-30 or in trouble in numerous service games during the match.
Click to expand...

Your memory fails you. Federer had numerous love holds, many more than Stak did.

Fed had 8 BP to Stak's 7, and in spite of winning the match in four sets with one more break than Fed, he only won one more point overall (161 vs 162).

BreakPoint said:
Um...could that be because only 1% of pros today are serve and volleyers while 99% are baseliners?

If 99% of pros were serve and volleyers, don't you think they would win more titles?
Click to expand...

This is like the 1HBH vs 2HBH argument. All that proves is that fewer pros use it because it isn't as good.
 
BreakPoint said:
Um...what two players just won the warm-up tournaments last week? :oops:

How did Haas beat Djokovic, the best returner of all time, TWICE in back-to-back tournaments in 2009? By serving and volleying!

How did Llodra straight set Djokovic at the Paris Masters a couple of years ago?
Click to expand...

You need to look up the meaning of "anecdotal evidence" and "consistently work".
 
It's obvious to me that many of you guys have never played against a good serve and volleyer. Because a good serve and volleyer makes you feel completely helpless on the court and takes the game right out of your hands. They dictate the play and have you on a string. For example, watch the 1999 Wimbledon final between Sampras and Agassi.
 
jm1980 said:
Your memory fails you. Federer had numerous love holds, many more than Stak did.

Fed had 8 BP to Stak's 7, and in spite of winning the match in four sets with one more break than Fed, he only won one more point overall (161 vs 162).
Click to expand...
How many times during the match was Federer down 0-30 on his own serve as compared to Stakhovsky?

jm1980 said:
This is like the 1HBH vs 2HBH argument. All that proves is that fewer pros use it because it isn't as good.
Click to expand...
Tell Nadal and Federer right now that opponents with 1HBHs aren't as good.
 
JustBob said:
Here, let me make it clear:

S&V is (almost completely) dead because it does not consistently work as a main strategy in the modern game.
Click to expand...

If the surface at Wimbledon continues to be like this, then skilled S&Vers will win it (at least in the men's game). Fast, slick, low-bouncing surfaces favor serve and volley. That is just the way it is.

I for one welcome it. It would be nice for players to actually have to develop all-court skills if they want to win all four majors. That is how it used to be in the 1990s and earlier.
 
rainingaces said:
Mahut and Stepanek got owned out there today...
Click to expand...

It took a one hand back hand to beat Mahut. :) Or he would have made the final :lol:

As for Stepanek, he is a two hander, besides, he retired because he is no doubt reserving his energy for "other activities".
 
mightyrick said:
If the surface at Wimbledon continues to be like this, then skilled S&Vers will win it (at least in the men's game). Fast, slick, low-bouncing surfaces favor serve and volley. That is just the way it is.
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that you managed to develop S&V players with the skills of Sampras or Edberg, they still would not enjoy nearly the same level of success even on grass. Furthermore, what would be the point of developing such players for two grass tournaments a year? The incentive for coaches to develop such players is close to nil.

I for one welcome it. It would be nice for players to actually have to develop all-court skills if they want to win all four majors. That is how it used to be in the 1990s and earlier.
Click to expand...

I love S&V and I would welcome it too, but this isn't the 90's. Not gonna happen.
 
BreakPoint said:
Call up Federer right now and tell him that his loss was just "anecdotal evidence" and that serve and volley doesn't really work.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what "anecdotal evidence" is.

There's really only one player affected by this loss, and that's Federer. In the grand scheme of things it means very little.
 
jm1980 said:
Fed was only broken twice in the entire match.

If you watched the match Fed had many more easy service games than Stak
Click to expand...

That is actually a good point.

But Stak later stated in his interview,
his strategy was concentrating on his service game and get to the tie-breaker.
He probably made very limited efforts on a few returning games only.
 
JustBob said:
In the unlikely event that you managed to develop S&V players with the skills of Sampras or Edberg, they still would not enjoy nearly the same level of success even on grass. Furthermore, what would be the point of developing such players for two grass tournaments a year? The incentive for coaches to develop such players is close to nil.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you here. I think it would take at least a couple of Masters tournaments on truly fast courts to give coaches and players the incentive. The WTF would be perfect for this. I swear they should bring back wood and use it as the WTF surface.

Two majors that are fast and low-bouncing -- Wimbledon and WTF.
Two majors that are slow and high-bouncing -- French Open and Australian Open.
One major that is somewhere in between -- US Open.

I like it.
 
I enjoyed watching it today. That being said it won't work against guys like Murray and Djoko. It is nice to see but it's a hopeless strategy vs guys who pass and move really well. That's why no one outside of challengers is really investing in the s and v tactics anymore.
 
The thing is that players now have near zero chance against top players
playing baseline.

What choices do they have now from baseline ? So go like Haas trying his varieties,
or even Federer trying S&V against Nadal on clay at Rome final this year.
 
Well, Federer has neglected for several years his S-V game, which has deteriorated seriously vs what it was when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon over 10 years ago, barely a 19-year old.
Just watch the tapes.

He lost today to a warrior of that style, and I am glad for the lesson administered. He's paying Annacone for nothing, as he doesn't listen to him.

I mean, at one point in the first set:

Federer 2/4 at the net
Stakhovsky 16/20

Proper ending.
 
That person who lost to Darcis (who really was injured), was completely exposed. Challenger level in the 90's. If barely. The highlights were so enjoyable to watch.

Oh, and the smooth talker who lost to the guy (who is still saving up for his Ferrari), also deserved exactly what he got. He was also a big beneficiary of the humbug that is called grass court tennis today played from the backboards. In the 90's he would be lucky to be making a qf once in a while.
 
It takes a full spectrum of tennis to win in fast, unpredictable dynamic conditions. That is how it should be played. Not by never getting tired in a sandbox.

btw, Stakhovsky would only be considered a fair if not particularly remarkable serve volleyer in the 80's and 90's :lol:
 
Last edited:
PennAlum said:
None of these TV analyst can analyze the obvious! Fed cannot consistently pass off his backhand side against a decent serve & volleyer on grass! Fed has been chipping backhand returns for the last 15 years. He has no confidence making a backhand pass. Stahkovsky served & volleyed to Fed's backhand ALL DAY! Tennis is about match ups and this is a bad match up for Fed on grass. They are no S&V'ers anymore so no one had the tools to apply this game plan against Fed at W.

The TV analyst are pedestrian- stupid.
Click to expand...

serve and volley on day to his bh on grass as parallel to spamming top spin lefty fh all day to his bh on clay :lol:

2001 Roger would be serving and volleying all day to Fed's bh today....

hahaha
 
I think we've always known that serve-and-volley will work on very fast low-bouncing grass. There just aren't many tournaments like that to make it worthwhile to get good at it.
 
So Jelena Gencic was right about serve volley making a come back after all. If only for one day the old school masters the pretenders, Gencic is a prophetess.

This is a field day, so to speak. :lol:
 
the green god said:
As a Federer fan, I can't tell you how much I enjoyed that match:)
Click to expand...
Yup, same here. Even though Federer lost and as everyone knows, I'm a big Federer fan, I loved seeing how Stakhovsky was taking it to Federer and proving to all the naysayers that serve and volley still works even on the biggest tennis stage in the world. :)

That was some awesome tennis that Stakhovsky played today. And, yes, it does take an awesome performance to beat Federer at Wimbledon. Just ask Roddick, Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. ;-)
 
sandiegoman said:
Federer should have done more serve n volley - he could do it better than Stakhovsk
Click to expand...
I disagree. Federer USED to be able to serve and volley very well. But since he hasn't done it regularly for so many years, he's just not very good at it anymore. He misses a lot of easy volleys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Smecz
Serve and Volley
2
Replies
66
Views
3K
S&V-not_dead_yet
S&V-not_dead_yet
S
Serve Volleyers an outdated game?
Replies
25
Views
1K
GuyClinch
G
MasturB
90's wasn't power tennis?
Replies
8
Views
1K
TimeSpiral
TimeSpiral
L
Tsonga: the savior of serve and volley
Replies
44
Views
4K
ImageIsEverything
I
S
  • Poll Poll
How many of you serve and volley nowadays?
Replies
19
Views
3K
andreh
A
Back
Top