The Serve and Volley Mentality

[GeoffWilliams]

It's called: Sampras serve.

[stotty]

He ended the conversation by saying that there is definitely a time and place for the serve and volley and is extremely effective when used at appropriate times throughout the course of a match. For it to be used every time by a top player is going to take "a player with confidence, brains and big balls".


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Selective trips to the net are the only option for most players. Djokovic, who is a limited volleyer at best, has, statistically at least, had huge success by being selective. It's also been very costly (climax Aussie Open).

But, Klacr, the art has been lost. The link to learn it from fellow pro's has been lost...so osmosis cannot take place. The inside to out volleys, etc., simply aren't seen anymore.

It's going to be tough for serve and volley to reinstate itself as a constant game style. It certainly won't happen overnight.

[klacr]

Selective trips to the net are the only option for most players. Djokovic, who is a limited volleyer at best, has, statistically at least, had huge success by being selective. It's also been very costly (climax Aussie Open).

But, Klacr, the art has been lost. The link to learn it from fellow pro's has been lost...so osmosis cannot take place. The inside to out volleys, etc., simply aren't seen anymore.

It's going to be tough for serve and volley to reinstate itself as a constant game style. It certainly won't happen overnight.

Thanks for the post. I certainly respect your opinion Stotty and all your contributions to the forum. Nothing wrong with it and certainly hard to argue against it. Serve and volley has its back against the wall. I refuse to call anything dead as crazier things have happened in this crazy game called "Human Civilization". But I also have a hard time believing that tennis will be continued to be played on the baseline...forever. Forever is a long time. The game will evolve. The question is how? Time will tell.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[johnyandell]

It may or not be true that traditional volleys will never again be a routine strategy. But a gifted player could resurrect the technique. It's not a physical entity that was stolen from a closet. Someone developed it through feel and experimentation in the first place...

I have a completely different take on the next evolution of the attacking game--gonna share that in detail at some point.

At the bare minimum though the style Kyle is talking about can still be very effective at many levels...

[GeoffWilliams]

Swinging volleys, using the topspin uni grip, will become the norm, as soon as someone has the guts to teach it to a tall, big serving kid. We don't have time at the net to change grips, and no one changes the continental. The frying pan grip, string bed facing downwards, is the same for the bh as it is for the fh. Agassi invented the half volley with that grip. That's just a matter of time before someone starts using it at the net for all volleys, except for touch drops, but it can be used for that as well.

[klacr]

Swinging volleys, using the topspin uni grip, will become the norm, as soon as someone has the guts to teach it to a tall, big serving kid.

It's headed that way Geoff. Wish someone taught that swinging volley to me instead of figuring it out on my own.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[10splayer]

Swinging volleys, using the topspin uni grip, will become the norm, as soon as someone has the guts to teach it to a tall, big serving kid.

Perhaps there will be more use of swinging vollys, but at the end of the day the next generation of servie and volleyer's will just be more accomplished skill and athletic specific..... there are just too many difficult balls to believe that swinging volleys will be the stock shot...

As someone mentioned, it's a matter of honing the skill early (which isnt being done now)

But as Yandell states, it's a viable option for 99.5 percent of the tennis population

[stotty]

It may or not be true that traditional volleys will never again be a routine strategy. But a gifted player could resurrect the technique. It's not a physical entity that was stolen from a closet. Someone developed it through feel and experimentation in the first place...

I have a completely different take on the next evolution of the attacking game--gonna share that in detail at some point.

At the bare minimum though the style Kyle is talking about can still be very effective at many levels...

It will be great to hear your take on the next attacking evolution. I trust that will be in the way of a Tenniplayer article?

I just have to believe the best way to learn the art of serve and volley would be from watching your peers or the generation in front. Many autobiographies bear this out. With serve and volleying receding further and further in to the past, and with coaching, on the whole, being a young man's profession, you'd think the teaching skills might become eroded.

Who knows....?...the next five years are going to be interesting. Many former players/TV pundits are calling for faster courts, so it's likely to happen.

[GeoffWilliams]

It would be ground breaking to see an article filmed, using the uni grip topspin just as the continental is used.

[tntenniswhiz]

Did the victory Roger have over Djoker in the recent round robins prove anything? His serve diversity, his attacking style that included serve and volley kept Djoker from establishing a rhythm from which he establishes his dominance? Did Roger want to follow that same pattern in the finals and just wasn't able to find those openings, or was it a lack of the confidence necessary to do it? I can't answer that, but he won the earlier match, and lost the latter one.

[klacr]

Did the victory Roger have over Djoker in the recent round robins prove anything? His serve diversity, his attacking style that included serve and volley kept Djoker from establishing a rhythm from which he establishes his dominance? Did Roger want to follow that same pattern in the finals and just wasn't able to find those openings, or was it a lack of the confidence necessary to do it? I can't answer that, but he won the earlier match, and lost the latter one.

Good question. Roger did play much more aggressive in the round robin match vs. Djokovic. But in the 2nd match, Djokovic played much better, and with a purpose. The opportunities weren't there as often for Federer.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Serve…sort of let Federer down

Good question. Roger did play much more aggressive in the round robin match vs. Djokovic. But in the 2nd match, Djokovic played much better, and with a purpose. The opportunities weren't there as often for Federer.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

I would hazard a guess that Roger did not serve nearly as well in the finals. Nerves? Fatigue? A combination of both? At times he couldn't buy a first serve…these times just happened to be when he needed it most.

I believe that for Federer to complete his all court attack game he is going to have to come up with the slice backhand down the line. He has to be able to move Djokovic way over on that side of the court and he cannot seem to do it with his drive backhand. Not enough margin for error. The slice is like a laser…he can also hit it tailing away from his opponent. Obviously it is this shot that will enable him to manage Nadal as well.

Did Djokovic go to the net one single solitary time? I don't remember him doing that.

[klacr]

I would hazard a guess that Roger did not serve nearly as well in the finals. Nerves? Fatigue? A combination of both? At times he couldn't buy a first serve…these times just happened to be when he needed it most.

I believe that for Federer to complete his all court attack game he is going to have to come up with the slice backhand down the line. He has to be able to move Djokovic way over on that side of the court and he cannot seem to do it with his drive backhand. Not enough margin for error. The slice is like a laser…he can also hit it tailing away from his opponent. Obviously it is this shot that will enable him to manage Nadal as well.

Did Djokovic go to the net one single solitary time? I don't remember him doing that.

Agree on the serve issue.

Djokovic to the net. Nope. But he was winning the way he was. No need to change that winning game plan, not even to indulge you and I.

Djokovic puts the pressure on you to hit the perfect shot. Anything less won"t be adequate.

Slice down the line trailing away from the opponent is one of the most glorious shots a player can have in their arsenal.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

A single volley?

Djokovic to the net. Nope. But he was winning the way he was. No need to change that winning game plan, not even to indulge you and I.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Nope…I am not questioning whether or not he should go to the net. My question is simply…did he go to the net even once? I don't remember him hitting a single volley. If he did not hit a single volley to win the Tour Championships I find that noteworthy. In fact I would find that to be quite remarkable.

In the historical context of the game it would be a remarkable feat if he did not hit a single ball in the air. Students of the game would have to take pause and ponder such a remarkable feat.

The court at the O2 is really slow. Many coaches I know, with good judgement about these things, said it was the slowest court they had witnessed at the O2. You cannot come to the net on a court that slow, you simply can't.

Acrylic courts are soulless and don't favour artistry in any way, shape or form. A drop shot has to be perfect to be viable, as do short angled balls or any kind of touch play.

If Novak did indeed win the Tour Championships without hitting a single solitary volley…I will go one step further than saying the courts are soulless. If this is the case then tennis has become a soulless game. We have crossed the line…in more ways than one.

The game has been reengineered from the once vibrant and diverse "being" that it was. The life has been sucked out of it.

[stotty]

For me there are only two valid surfaces: clay and grass. These are the original surfaces. Grass is the best because it is a living court, literally. You start playing a 2pm and finish at 6pm and when you finish the grass was longer than when you started. Grass court characteristics change all the time depending on the weather. That still, sweltering day when Federer murdered Murray at this year's Wimbledon was the fastest the grass had played for years...but it wasn't the same two days later when Federer played Djokovic in the final...shame. But this is the lottery of grass court tennis. Twenty years ago, when the grass courts had the potential to be much faster, the lottery was even greater.

Clay is wonderful too. Again fluctuations in the weather make all the difference. Some days are damp and heavy; others dry and quick. I like the opportunity for artistry that clay court tennis presents.

Acrylic is as dull as hell. It has the same true bounce every time...complete predictabilty. Drop shots and the like will sit up unless excited perfectly. Good slice isn't rewarded as, again, it just sits there to be hit unless perfectly struck.

Sure they can adjust the speed of acrylic, but it's always going to have predictable outcome where the bounce is concerned and the player himself can do little to alter that. Built by robots...played on by robots...vorsprung durch technik. Were it down to Stotty, I would have them all painted over and turned into carparks.