Serve and Volley: Summary

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Kyle's last piece in his serve and volley Series: "Serve and Volley: Summary"!

[gzhpcu]

Kyle's summary describes the situation well. It is a war of attrition. You will get passed often, but the pressure mounts on the receiver. If you serve and volley tentatively, get passed, you will stay back afterwards. It is easier for the receiver to pass you at the start of the match, but if you keep coming in, he will lose his rhythm and will feel the pressure, so his errors should increase.

[GeoffWilliams]

Why don't more guys stay back on fast firsts, looking to provoke a short fh, and come in on kick/twist seconds, ala the Wimby Nadal match when the american did it and almost beat him?

Another thing we don't do enough is to gauge the returners patterns before coming into net. Most can only hit to one side, with one type of return off a given type of serve, ie, a kick or a twist, or a fast slice or a flatter ball produces very predictable patterns with most returners.

[klacr]

Why don't more guys stay back on fast firsts, looking to provoke a short fh, and come in on kick/twist seconds, ala the Wimby Nadal match when the american did it and almost beat him?

Another thing we don't do enough is to gauge the returners patterns before coming into net. Most can only hit to one side, with one type of return off a given type of serve, ie, a kick or a twist, or a fast slice or a flatter ball produces very predictable patterns with most returners.

Great points Geoff.
The American I believe you are referring to was Robert Kendrick. He took Nadal to 5 sets and used serve and volley wisely. Had great command of a 2nd serve.

Nothing wrong with a huge first serve. I used mine often when I needed to reach back and deliver something extra. It just limits your time you need to get to the net and if not hit in the right spot can easily land in opponents strike zone. A great 2nd serve is just as big of a strength as a big flat first serve. I remember Richard Krajicek had a huge serve but it was his 2nd serve, an American twist corkscrew of a serve that gave opponents real fits. Just ask Sampras throughout their career encounters or ask the 6 other opponents Krajicek destroyed on the way to the 1996 Wimbledon title.

Returners do have specific patterns and shots they prefer hitting. Just like servers who have preferred locations that like to go to on a big point. An observant serve and volleyer can pick up on this and really make the returner suffer. With that said, a well executed serve can often negate any intentions of a good return, allowing you to have complete control and your opponent is rendered helpless.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Edberg and Rafter just went for a kick serve and the one-two combination. Weak return to set up a good volley.

[klacr]

Those are two excellent examples Phil. They didn't have the biggest serves, but no one ever complained their serves were weak either. Your serve is only as good as what you are using it for. It worked for their serve and volley games. Only players that would object to that were their opponents that had to deal with it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

It's been my experience, that good returners negate good servers. Mediocre returners (relative to level abilities) can negate mediocre servers. Great returners can negate great servers. ON the recreational level, people don't have the time to develop deadly serves, but they do have the time to develop deadly returns. Serving in a dominant way, recreational level, takes a heavy spin serve more often than not, as the flatter serve is out of that league of obtainable ability. Open levels, not withstanding, as the open level returners are often more talented than the servers.

To get the cork screw serve, the toss has to be behind your shoulder, so you can hit the left side of the ball and follow through across it towards the rear fence. Any mistake on the toss location will create a high sitter to their forehands. That serve can easily hurt your back. A less used serve, is the fast heavy kicking top slice, that curves in from the right, and kicks off to the right, but at heavy pace. That's where the spin strings come in handy. The server who can hit both of those to either side, is deadlier than the flat bombers putting the ball low in the strike zones of determined returners.

It's one thing to stick to your guns and continue coming into the net. It's another if you are broken doing it over and over again. My issue with it is this: if you can't find a weakness right away, you have to serve/volley a lot less, even on the 4.5 level, as they can all adjust and put the ball by your ankles, and by you period.

The most common weaknesses are not blasted aces. They are heavy kicking high balls, with weird spin, that they cannot run around. They are jamming heavy top slicers, that they cannot get away from to hit a strong return, and they get it back, but it's a sitter to your volley or your fh.

another issue is the missed volleys that are too easy to miss, vs. those you have no right to make and or put away. They correlate to the passing shots gone by that have no right to have been made, and those easy ones that they flat out put up or miss. That equation, even if it's a 50/50 one, means you will be broken half the time. The odds mean you will lose almost always, if you don't break more than half the time. The only way to do that, is to attack very well off those easy serves, that almost all weaker players hit all the time. To be able to come into net off the every day serves, and put a lot of pressure on the servers who don't have good (relatively) serves, and to be able to change up on your direction, on your aggressive index, how close to the lines can you change up and hit towards, on a serve that most don't really attack.

So every serve and volleyer has to be a returner and volleyer, given equal match up on the returner against your serve. That's the rub, to accept a high rate of errors, of passing shots, of missed easy volleys, only if you can return at a deadly level. If you can't, then you have to dump the sv routine and grind it out until short balls appear. Even then, a good player will pass you easily if you can't put enormous pressure on them with your approach returns.

A crafty serve/volleyer, will first test the returner, before showing his true colors. He will act as if he is not an sv guy. He will come in, with a fake attack, and stop short in no man's land, if he has seen the returner can put the ball short/ankle areas, and then take that short ball, and use it to attack dtl, and then stop at the serve line, if the opponent has an often lob. The guy who can fake come into net, is far more dangerous, esp. if he can double fake as a response to the strengths of the lobber/passer/returner.

The sv guy who has a deadly top slice, and a deadly twist, and a deadly flat slice, is going to be far more effective, than the one dimensional: only twist, only flat, only slice guy. Why? Because all good returners adjust very fast to your serves. Unless they are out of his strike zones, and he cannot tell what's coming or read what's coming next. The disguise has to be there

[don_budge]

klacr..."The Art of Serve and Volley"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/sp...ng-future.html

Don't get me wrong with what you are about to read...Kyle. I speak from the heart...without malice.

It was an interesting series. Interesting in the sense that it was written in the context of modern tennis. It is my contention that Stefan Edberg and Boris Becker were playing the first edition of "shock and awe" tennis...the game had lost it's definition.

The equipment had only changed in the several preceding years and this sort of tennis was a shock to the system for the "classic culture" of tennis. It reminds me of a "Paradise Lost".

It's an interesting attempt to revive an extinct form of tennis. It was engineered out of the game...possibly due to coaching influences as well.

This sort of series should invoke a lot of debate about the game and how it is being played today. But it doesn't. Once you speak of the classic game everyone gets all hot and bothered as if it is some kind of blasphemy to speak of the truth.

It makes sense though to me. It is like trying to explain to the now generation that once upon a time there was a life without cell phones. For instance in 1972 and 1980 there were no cell phones...but serve and volley tennis was thriving and tennis was "evolving".

So I am very curious Kyle...what have you to say to this comment. Without staying within the party lines if you please.

[klacr]

don_budge,

I may be filibustering but to be honest, I'm not sure where in your post you say anything that is out of line or what specifically you want me to comment on

No malice recognized.

First and foremost, I don't belong to any party. So I'm not fenced in as to what I can and cannot say. I have free reign to let loose. I do however follow the rules out of respect, sometimes begrudgingly, to always be considerate and professional. There is no one telling me to do so, that's me fulfilling my obligations as a man.


Thanks for the post and thanks for participating and sharing your viewpoints on all the threads from this series. Your contributions, polarizing as some may be are extremely worthwhile to all readers and fans of tennis.

All 7 of my articles on this topic have created a nice dialogue and whether you agree or disagree with the idea, it seems everyone has an opinion on it. And that's never a bad thing. These articles were not just intended to shed light on a style of play, but to also ignite a dialogue about what tennis was, where it is and where it is going. There was a deeper intrinsic purpose behind these articles and I'm happy that many people got that and reaped the rewards.

Take professional tennis out of it, serve and volley at the recreational level can still be used to great effect. I see it happen often and what a difference it makes. All coaches talk about creating a complete player but even those "complete" players lack the skills and understanding to serve and volley. Keep in mind that serve and volley can be a great tactic on a given point. Yes, it's awesome to serve and volley all the time, but it's statistically impossible for every player to want to do that. Just like it's hard to fathom every player wanting to stay on the baseline, yet somehow they do. And its sad. Because we know it's not right. Sometimes we have to know and understand the past to tolerate and accept the present and better prepare for the future. The future is where we are going. You and I can control the future of the game by our knowledge, influence and teaching choices to our students. What is old can be new again.

Hopefully in this series I gave you a nice blueprint for serve and volley. Make of it what you will. Take it for what it's worth. It may help you with a student in the future. Maybe it already has? Many of your posts have helped my students and I. I've received plenty of personal emails, lessons and exposure to see that these 7 articles clearly moved people to take action and ask my for assistance and consulting. It's been wonderful really. A bit overwhelming, but in a good way. The power of tennisplayer.net

We are cut from a similar cloth don_budge, I understand exactly where you are coming from. Many of our private messages on this site have proven that

Your argument is hard to counter. Has technology played a role? Of course? But that doesn't mean we give up on teaching our students the proper form, fundamentals and allow them to experiment with multiple styles. The Edberg and Becker era may been the beginning of the end for you, but as a 10 year old boy, I clearly did not have the knowledge or grasp of deep historical context like you since that was my first introduction. I guess we always remember our first loves with such ignorant bliss that nothing they could do was ever wrong. Until they crushed your heart and changed you forever. Edberg and Becker only broke mine when they retired.

Blasphemy? Is that a bad thing? Questioning the status quo and formulating an opinion contrary to the masses? In my experience, when you follow the herd, you only get led to the slaughter. A delicious, tasty and well seasoned slaughter presented on perhaps a nice charcuterie tray, But slaughter nonetheless. Keep speaking the truth. Whatever the truth is. It's an endless debate don_budge. Like religion, like politics. We can disagree on many things and I'm more than comfortable doing that. I will still sleep very well at night.

My series has taken up 7 months of tennisplayer.net subscribers time (and much more of mine). I'm blessed to have that interaction with them and devote that time to entertain and educate.

If I didn't get you the response you wanted I apologize. If you wanted a specific question answered or you just wanted me to give you my overall disagreement with your post than I probably failed miserably.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Manufacturers have done a great deal to help most people, and the pro game evolution has to do with technique more than equipment! Dedication, diet, cross training, severe head speed, crazy practice dedication, topspin supremacy, than bigger frames, better string. Anyone railing against progress for old times sake is: an old codger, a remnant, a cast off, an unlistened to voice of the past vs. the future. NOt just tennis: everywhere progress is evident, for those who remember no internet, and giant stereo cabinets and vacuum tubes, and no refrigerators, no tvs. Do you hear anyone voicing how much better the vacuum tube was than the transistor?

Edberg/becker/sampras/mac all played with the transistors of their time, not wooden frames. Those frames were about 85sq. in. Now the average is 98 sq. in. That's what they would have played with then if it was available! Passing shot artistry has surpassed net rush artistry, not due to equipment, but due to technique for the most part.

Frame advances have stopped injuries, have increased normal people's ability to keep the ball going, and have increased spin generation and frame head speeds, by allowing lighter more powerful materials to dictate. A model T woody? Please. Let's all go back to the Edsel. Anyone want that? Hell no, it won't go.

[don_budge]

Respect...

If I didn't get you the response you wanted I apologize. If you wanted a specific question answered or you just wanted me to give you my overall disagreement with your post than I probably failed miserably.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The word that my father always emphasized to me as a boy was RESPECT. I asked a question of you. You answered truthfully and thoughtfully. That is what I was looking for. Your unrestrained thoughts. Deep inside the man is the boy.

Life is the only game where the object of the game is to learn the rules. I enjoyed your series immensely. It provokes thought and meaningful discussion. I would personally like to thank you for your efforts for your contributions to tennisplayer.

You seem to conduct yourself with the same kind of class that the old classic rule of thumb of tennis etiquette would have demanded of you. The same could never have been said of me...being the rebel that I am.

But our differences are bridged by a mutual respect and love for the game of tennis...and perhaps even for each other. The true game of tennis.

[xradtpb]

Great Series

Clearly thought out, well written, and cogently presented, this was a commendable series of articles. The viewpoint and approach were didactic without being preachy or arrogant, something we readers and tennis hackers appreciate.

As I think I have said before, this represents a different kind of tennis journalism within this format. I believe it adds to and improves this site which already is, without argument, the best tennis reference on the net.

Great job. Hope to read more from the author.

[klacr]

xradtpb,

Wow! I should take your post and frame it!

Very generous comments. I appreciate it and glad you found the series worthwhile. Don't worry, I'm rather confident that tennisplayer.net and I have more collaborations in the future. Stay Tuned. I've taken up a big chunk of real estate on tennisplayer.net for 7 months with these articles. Time to let some other voices and outstanding coaches shine as well.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

don_budge,

First and foremost, I don't belong to any party. So I'm not fenced in as to what I can and cannot say.

Good statement. I hope you mean it.

Have you heard of Vivian Maier, the american photographer? She took thousands and thousands of photographs during her lifetime and was never recognised for her work. She was a brilliant street photographer.

The point is she never tried to be recognised. She did it for her own personal pleasure and sought no acclaim. She died unknown. Her work was discovered by accident after her death, and only then did the true brilliance and magnitude of her work become known.

But the real point is this: because she never sought recognition and chose to work in total anonymity, it gave her total freedom. No one was ever going to judge her or even give an opinion because no one knew she was even a photographer. This gave her incredible creative freedom...think about it. She pushed the boundaries with her work as you can imagine too.

The rest of us are so deeply influenced by the opinions of others it a job to keep a straight line.

[klacr]

Good stuff Stotty. Thanks. Not familiar with her work but I know what you are saying. I wrote this series because I'm passionate about it and I believe in it. Many others do as well. Serve and volley does not just relate to tennis, it relates to life. How we go about it and the actions we choose to take. Serve and volley may be extinct to some, but it is in our life. Just look around. You get it. Thanks for reading. Hope you learned something and it can help your students succeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton