Serve and Volley: Tactical Components

[GeoffWilliams]

I always derived more pleasure from putting away a difficult volley, than an opponent missing a pass, or putting up a sitter. I still remember a few half volley put aways at match point up, that normal people cannot hit. I was about 30 before I ever tried to come into the net, inspired by an Australian: Sharky, a local guy, who insulted me: "He's big, he can't serve, he can't volley. Why doesn't he learn how to hit a serve and come into the net?", and Sharky died of a heart attack, red faced and dead, the day he played me in 98 degree heat, a few years later, after I beat him 4 and 4, while serving and volleying, and running his asshole ass into the grave. Low and away, sliced, Sharky, low and away from you. (ONly sharky died after playing me the same day!) The only 4.5 tournaments I've won, have been serving and coming in, off a twist/kick.

The only thing that's fair in this life, is death.

[gzhpcu]

The experience I made playing tournaments with serve and volley was that initially, it took time to get into the groove, and, also, after a while the pressure of constantly appearing at the net caused the receiver to make more errors.

Even I try it out now and then (though I have gotten stiff and slow...):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY0u59ArtoI

[tennis_chiro]

I always derived more pleasure from putting away a difficult volley, than an opponent missing a pass, or putting up a sitter. I still remember a few half volley put aways at match point up, that normal people cannot hit. I was about 30 before I ever tried to come into the net, inspired by an Australian: Sharky, a local guy, who insulted me: "He's big, he can't serve, he can't volley. Why doesn't he learn how to hit a serve and come into the net?", and Sharky died of a heart attack, red faced and dead, the day he played me in 98 degree heat, a few years later, after I beat him 4 and 4, while serving and volleying, and running his asshole ass into the grave. Low and away, sliced, Sharky, low and away from you. (ONly sharky died after playing me the same day!) The only 4.5 tournaments I've won, have been serving and coming in, off a twist/kick.

The only thing that's fair in this life, is death.

Wow, Geoff! I don't think anyone should question your "Killer's Instinct".

See, ... I just can't imagine Ana Ivanovic saying anything like that. Or Petra Kvitova, who I said a couple of years ago was going to dominate. Or David Ferrer... Or Juan Martin del Potro. Too nice.

But you, Geoff, you must have real "Killer's Instinct"!

don

[tennis_chiro]

Edberg and Rafter in the last 25 years

He was even quicker moving forward I think. Never seen anyone move so swiftly and elegantly to the net behind his serve than Edberg. He's peerless in that department from what I have witnessed. Apparently Sedgman was quicker.

Speaking of being too nice, Edberg and Rafter are, imho, clearly the best practioners of S&V in the last 25 years, and Rafter is the last great one. You can certainly argue for Sampras, but he was a Server who finished with a volley if necessary. Pete also had one other clear weapon neither Stefan or Patrick possessed, a "concluder" forehand. Certainly, Pete was a good S&V player, but because of how good his serve was, as well as his forehand, he didn't have to volley that well. Overall, Pete has to be, and is, considered the better player, but Stefan and Patrick were better practioners of the art of S&V.

While Edberg won a junior Grand Slam in '83 and emerged on the pro scene very quickly winning Davis Cup and Olympics at 18 and his first major at the '85 Australian beating Lendl and Wilander before his 20th birthday, Rafter didn't break the top 30 until after his 21st birthday and he was no higher than 14 until winning the '97 USOpen three months short of his 25th birthday. From that point through his two finals losses in Wimbledon 2000 and 2001, when healthy, he was the best pure serve and volley player in the game. His epic matches pitting his style against the returns and passing shots of Andre Agassi were less noted than Andre's matches with Pete, but they were for me far more entertaining. (Well, maybe not far more; Pete vs Andre was always a pretty exciting show.)

Both Stefan and Patrick were supremely gifted athletes, but neither had a blistering first serve; they relied on heavy kickers that gave them an opportunity to get to the net. That kick service and the strain on his shoulder may have contributed to shortening Rafter's career; it was effective for him, but not a motion I would want anyone to copy. Similarly, Edberg's motion put a lot of strain on his back. As spectacular athletes as they were, they both should have been able to serve routinely into the mid 130's.

Rafter was generally regarded by the other players as the finest pure athlete on the tour in the late 90's. Patrick played Huggy Bears in '94 and '95 and I got to know him a little bit. He was as nice and down to earth as the reports about him say he was. But he needed those additional years to mature his serve and volley skills and learn how to cover his deficiencies in the backcourt. He relied on his exceptional athleticism and got away with pretty big swings on his volleys. On the other hand, Edberg had pure classic volley form as has been amply pointed out already in this thread. Edberg had that great backhand, but neither of them had a forehand weapon; and neither of them had the blistering serve you would expect from someone with their size.

To succeed as a serve and volleyer in today's pro men's game, someone is going to have to have comparable skills at the net to Stefan or Patrick and at least their kind of size (plus 6' 1" tall) and agility and speed. In addition he's going to have to have a better forehand than either of them had. A good first serve to go with the great second would be a plus too! That could have been Federer if his career had followed the tactical trajectory he seemed to be on when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, but the game went in a different direction with slower courts, slower balls and livelier strings and frames. You can't develop the skills of an Edberg or Rafter unless you utilize the strategy a lot. It took Rafter almost until he was 25 to master the skill; and he S&V'd all the time. It's too late for Federer to reprogram himself, even with Edberg guiding him (and I would argue that it is the only chances, slim as it might be, that Federer has of coming close to the dominant position he once held).

What was it RFK said, "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

Why can't there be a player developed with a serve like Krajicek, returns like Agassi, volleys like Edberg, a backhand like Wawrinka and a forehand like Federer? That guy would be able to serve and volley in today's pro game… at least 40% of the time! Of course, it will take him to at least 25 to develop all those skills. That's how long it is taking for a lot of players to mature now; but those guys are just getting real good at hitting groundstrokes and the occasional passing shot or winner. (And you don't get to practice passing shots much if no one ever goes to the net more than 5% of the time.)

don

[klacr]

Speaking of being too nice, Edberg and Rafter are, imho, clearly the best practioners of S&V in the last 25 years, and Rafter is the last great one. You can certainly argue for Sampras, but he was a Server who finished with a volley if necessary. Pete also had one other clear weapon neither Stefan or Patrick possessed, a "concluder" forehand. Certainly, Pete was a good S&V player, but because of how good his serve was, as well as his forehand, he didn't have to volley that well. Overall, Pete has to be, and is, considered the better player, but Stefan and Patrick were better practioners of the art of S&V.

While Edberg won a junior Grand Slam in '83 and emerged on the pro scene very quickly winning Davis Cup and Olympics at 18 and his first major at the '85 Australian beating Lendl and Wilander before his 20th birthday, Rafter didn't break the top 30 until after his 21st birthday and he was no higher than 14 until winning the '97 USOpen three months short of his 25th birthday. From that point through his two finals losses in Wimbledon 2000 and 2001, when healthy, he was the best pure serve and volley player in the game. His epic matches pitting his style against the returns and passing shots of Andre Agassi were less noted than Andre's matches with Pete, but they were for me far more entertaining. (Well, maybe not far more; Pete vs Andre was always a pretty exciting show.)

Both Stefan and Patrick were supremely gifted athletes, but neither had a blistering first serve; they relied on heavy kickers that gave them an opportunity to get to the net. That kick service and the strain on his shoulder may have contributed to shortening Rafter's career; it was effective for him, but not a motion I would want anyone to copy. Similarly, Edberg's motion put a lot of strain on his back. As spectacular athletes as they were, they both should have been able to serve routinely into the mid 130's.

Rafter was generally regarded by the other players as the finest pure athlete on the tour in the late 90's. Patrick played Huggy Bears in '94 and '95 and I got to know him a little bit. He was as nice and down to earth as the reports about him say he was. But he needed those additional years to mature his serve and volley skills and learn how to cover his deficiencies in the backcourt. He relied on his exceptional athleticism and got away with pretty big swings on his volleys. On the other hand, Edberg had pure classic volley form as has been amply pointed out already in this thread. Edberg had that great backhand, but neither of them had a forehand weapon; and neither of them had the blistering serve you would expect from someone with their size.

To succeed as a serve and volleyer in today's pro men's game, someone is going to have to have comparable skills at the net to Stefan or Patrick and at least their kind of size (plus 6' 1" tall) and agility and speed. In addition he's going to have to have a better forehand than either of them had. A good first serve to go with the great second would be a plus too! That could have been Federer if his career had followed the tactical trajectory he seemed to be on when he beat Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, but the game went in a different direction with slower courts, slower balls and livelier strings and frames. You can't develop the skills of an Edberg or Rafter unless you utilize the strategy a lot. It took Rafter almost until he was 25 to master the skill; and he S&V'd all the time. It's too late for Federer to reprogram himself, even with Edberg guiding him (and I would argue that it is the only chances, slim as it might be, that Federer has of coming close to the dominant position he once held).

What was it RFK said, "There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?"

Why can't there be a player developed with a serve like Krajicek, returns like Agassi, volleys like Edberg, a backhand like Wawrinka and a forehand like Federer? That guy would be able to serve and volley in today's pro game… at least 40% of the time! Of course, it will take him to at least 25 to develop all those skills. That's how long it is taking for a lot of players to mature now; but those guys are just getting real good at hitting groundstrokes and the occasional passing shot or winner. (And you don't get to practice passing shots much if no one ever goes to the net more than 5% of the time.)

don

Great post Don! Agree 100% with that first paragraph as well. Hit the nail on the head.

As for the player today with a Krajicek serve, Agassi return, Edberg volleys, Wawrinka Backhand and Federer forehand...It was supposed to be me. Still trying.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Sampras had a great serve, but I never saw him as a serve and volley player.

Thinking about current players, how about Llodra and Stepanek?

Llodra did pretty well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm5_iHLTvO0

(Think if it had been Edberg or Rafter....)

[klacr]

Phil,

Stepanek and Llodra are the last serve and volleyers today. Stepanek got a clinic this morning from Federer. Great clips of Llodra.

Sampras claimed to be serve and volley, but I'd label him more of a "server plus volley". Very interesting discussion on that whole issue. No doubt that serve was spectacular. Wishing his serve was not as dominant so his true "volley" skills could show. Not just his athleticism. Pistol Pete was something unique to watch for sure.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Sampras made the semi at the french once, early on. Seeding him #1 was ridiculous. There's a video of him with Langsdorf as a child, coming up to the net and killing his volley, faster than any other child I've ever seen volley.

Rafter and Edberg had slower spin serves. Sampras averaged 108mph on his second, although his first was just a faster slice, averaging 119mph. Becker was the only s/v expert, with that fh grip for the first serve, that hit flatter firsts.

All the other top s/v experts went first for accuracy with spun slices.

[gzhpcu]

I believe it was because Pete's game was built too much on a powerful serve aimed at making direct points (same as Roddick...), whereas Edberg and Rafter's game was built on a serve not to ace, but to get a weaker return in order to set up a good first volley... A one-shot guy versus two-shot guys...

[gzhpcu]

Thinking back a bit, there was a time when the courts were faster that serve and volley players were predominant. I remember way back where a Fred Stolle - John Newcombe final was criticised for the lack of play. Serve - ace, return error or first volley put away on the majority of points. Spectators complained that it was boring. Tournament organizers wanted longer exchanges. Today, they have better equipment and slowed down the courts.(grass in Wimbledon has really slowed down. Becker said he could not imagine having won Wimbledon on today's grass.)

So we have gone from one extreme to another. If only a balance could be found, make grass faster as it once was, for example...

[GeoffWilliams]

I believe it was because Pete's game was built too much on a powerful serve aimed at making direct points (same as Roddick...), whereas Edberg and Rafter's game was built on a serve not to ace, but to get a weaker return in order to set up a good first volley... A one-shot guy versus two-shot guys...

Listen to this guy.

[lobndropshot]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE

[gzhpcu]

Nice find, lobndropshot...

[klacr]

I believe it was because Pete's game was built too much on a powerful serve aimed at making direct points (same as Roddick...), whereas Edberg and Rafter's game was built on a serve not to ace, but to get a weaker return in order to set up a good first volley... A one-shot guy versus two-shot guys...

Phil, You'd be correct on this point. It's something I touch on in the 2nd article of my Serve and volley series when I discuss mentality. There is a section titled "Serve is not the Star".

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...ley_mentality/

Edberg and Becker personified this better than anyone.

As for Sampras, no doubt his serve was a star and dominant weapon all on its own. And as much as I love him, I should add Krajicek as well to that "server plus volley" list as well. Guy hitting 130+mph serves and coming in was a sight to behold. Winning H2H record against Sampras and 96' Wimbledon Champ.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SmrwGg1gE

lobndropshot,

Great video. I remember seeing this last year. Thanks for sharing this for every player's benefit and understanding.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton