Volley - Don't Blame It On Surfaces, Don't Blame It On Baselines, Blame It On The Players!

I had this thought about serve and volley. The slowing down of surfaces didn't kill it, it is just players technically unable to execute such a basic shot. It was ony during the Djokovic/Harrison encounter that Henman was commenting on that a pitch map was shown of rally hit point between Henman/Lopez 2007 and Djokovic/Harrison. 75% of Henman's shots were in the service boxes. About 4-5 shots in the Djokovic/Harrison match were in the service box.

I am sure Sampras, Rafter and Henman would've still continued to play the same way they had before surfaces were slowed down. You see I think today's player are not great at serving and volleying and are incapable of being able to play in such a manner. Yes we are blessed with some great servers in Raonic, Karlovic, Isner who hit a mighty serve, but cannot volley for taffy! Federer, Nadal, Djokovic are great volleyers, but don't have the potent serve to be able to follow into the net with a put away volley. Also Djokovic for me does not cover the net well.

I think even on Wimbledon grass there is room for a serve and volleyer. You could easily put a 115mph serve in and ghost in behind it with a volley. For me so many players in this championship have timed their runs to the net behind a serve or a FH up the line so poorly it makes you chomp. It seems when the baseliners came along in Hewitt, Safin and Federer and they had success that coaches were now telling their juniors sod volleying, baseline grind outs are the way forward for success. That now ushered a period of players that were baseline equipped and utterly net deprived. Yes it is simple to suggest that baseliners are now ranked by survival of the fittest, but I want coaches to be more bold. Take Roddick. When he was in his serving pomp, I think it was unknown as to where he should take his game. Do we improve the volleying or do we try to equip him with as many baseline variations as possible? I think that confusion in his early years from 2001-2003 condemned his game to such weaknesses that he was always going to be picked off by the better shot makers out there. I think had he gone for the volley, then he could've picked up a few more Slams.

Take today. You have Federer who is coming in behind serves. He is certainly an able and competent volleyer, but you see so many hesitations in his service games when he does hit a serve out wide or up the line and he follows it in 2-3 seconds too late. You see for me it is not that the top baseliners can't volley, it is just they don't commit to the play. Timing is out of sync and sometimes it can be painful to view. The shot should be in the mind before the player has served. In other words I am going to serve out wide and follow in with a cross court volley put away. I think if Federer was more comfortable with the idea of serve and volley and the execution of it, then I think he could easily experience more success.

So I urge all coaches out there, bring back the art of serve and volleying!!

I've heard Henman, Rusedski and other old S&V'ers often say how glad they are that they don't have to play in today's conditions (surfaces, strings etc.). It's such a high risk strategy that, without the element of surprise, you'd get passed most of the time.
So the occassional S&V tactic can work, but an overall S&V based game won't get you anywhere these days.
So why should players take that risk? And of course, if you don't do it all the time, you're not going to be as good at it as those who used to do it.

It is about timing Julius. Sampras didn't use the tactic with every shot, but if you done a pitch map of his serves and which ones he came in behind it would be the serves that are within 2cm of the lines.

It can work, but like I said it is poor execution as to why it is not a more prominant feature. If you kicked a 110mph serve out wide, the likelihood of a direct pass would about 10%!! No player would go for such a risky aggressive shot off a serve like that.

S&V is too low margin. The biggest servers have frequently been less good at their all-court game, the best Champions have always maintained a balance between a great serve (very rarely the best or the fastest in their time, usually just the tier under) and a great all-court game.

First, conditions have changed - undeniably they have moved to the middle from extremes of 24/7 365-day fast concrete/carpet vs. slow clay with practitioners on each surface almost playing on different tours to a tour when the top players see each other regularly under conditions which balance out their games. In the old days you could concentrate honing your game on one type of condition and put up with the fact that you'd be outgunned away from it - now you have to be an all-court player to get anywhere near the top.

Second, and possibly most importantly of the overall changes, the super-powerful racquets which changed tennis in the 1980's-1990's to favour the serve have been followed up with modern strings which so favour the returner that in order to attain the quality of serve to put them under pressure you need to focus excessively on it putting the balance out of kilter.

I'm sure that good s&v players could get better and make a decent living on tour and do much better during the grass and indoor seasons (Llodra is an example), but I can't see how they could do sufficiently well at Aus Open, RG, and the slower TMS Tournaments (IW through to Rome) to maintain a decent ranking and protect that with a decent seeding and so-on.

A few reasons for death of S&V

1. Lighter racquets = huge surge in topspin - a nightmare for volleyers
2. Bigger racquets = larger sweetspot - another nightmare, passing is easier and better returns
3. Poly strings = stiffer string bed = more power = nightmare...
4. Lower tensions used = trampoline effect = more power = nightmare...
5. Silicone spray on strings = quicker string alignment = more spin = nightmare...
6. DHBH technique = ...more consistent returning...nightmare
7. Slower surfaces = ...more time to pick shots and easily pass incomers...nightmare...get the picture?
8. DHBH technique = ...less adept at BH volleying or slice


The whole current game is geared to baselines and long ralleys. Racquets and strings make it nigh on impossible for S&V approach to be successful.

Sampras called Luxilon strings "Cheatilon". Technology is killing the game (already killed the women's game IMO)...turning it into a baseline war, the artistry of yesteryear has no place in the modern game.

Take John Isner. If he had a better touch at the net and the speed, that man would clean up. Part of the Sampras success was the 2nd serve and being able to come into the net behind the right serve.

Today's players lack that touch and the smarts to time their run to the net. Take Federer when he tried it against Nadal. He was far too slow coming into the net. Take the FH up the line. Federer is king of timing that play. Take Murray who takes too long to come in behind the shot and get's passed galore. Djokovic sometimes comes in behind it.

The art of volleying is a skill most of today's players lack. For me there is a gap there for someone to exploit.

They lack the touch because they dont and almost cant go up to the net anymore for the reasons I just listed. Volleying is a skill that isnt practiced because frankly it has no place in the modern game anymore other than killing off easy points. The power and spin in the modern game would challenge even the great volleyers of the past.

Agassi was generating 1900rpm FHs in the 90s - and he was thought to be a leading proponent of spin/power.
Now many are routinely over 3000rpm...and of course Nadal up to 5000rpm. Its simply too vicious to be able to handle point in, point out.

There's no way most of the modern guys are a patch on Agassi...yet they're getting 50% more spin...and probably 50% more power too - with less talent. Like F1, technology has changed the sport out of recognition.

Sorry lydian. A serve out wide is not going to get the treatment cross court if the player is covering that shot at the net. Kids I see coached can't execute winners from the wings of the court off a wide serve. You could use a racquet with 200in head and it wouldn't generate a winner.

For me the reason S&V is dead is because players can't execute the shots. It really is that simple. Timing and execution have killed it. Henman even post changes was still playing the same tactic and managed to stay within the top 100 of the world.

The RPM with groundstrokes is irrevelvent if your coming in behind the serve. If you cover the CC passing shot with a FH, it would need to take a DTL winner which with kevlar strings is impossible.

I am with Henman. Players lack the skill to execute such a play.

Yes they lack the skill but thats just looking at the symptoms, not the disease. WHY do they lack the skill?

These modern racquets and strings lack feel....they're all about power and spin. At the expense of control. Its why Federer will not move away from his 90sqin racquet.

Actually, I disagree about serving out wide...more of those shots are returned with interest than ever before. RPM on groundstrokes is highly relevant...you ask Stepanek playing Nadal!!! Have you played against people who whip the ball massively? Its a nightmare...your timing has to be even better than yesteryear to execute the shot back with the same placement. And these modern strings as I say lack feel too...so its a double whammy for volleying.

Henman post-2002 was having to play more and more baseline based tactics. I do agree volleying has a place in the game but not as an overt strategy. For me the real power era was probably from 2005+...with the advent of much lighter racquets and even better strings from Babolat et al. Henman simply couldnt compete the same from 2005 onwards with his volleying game.

Players dont volley because volleying as a strategy has been made obselete by power and spin. So they dont bother practicing it anymore...so yes they dont have the skills. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling thing. Federer can volley fine but you dont see him at the net much either...

Maybe this is a question for Lydian, but maybe others can also answer it too.

How many watch competitive swimming? Cast your minds back to the era of the super-suits - the all body encompassing suits. It revolutionised competitive swimming and hundreds to thousands of records were broken on a yearly basis (national and international records). The technology reduced water resistance so swimmers travelled more quickly through the water. The technology also supported and moulded muscles, better aligned the body, and provided elasticity for energy re-use in recovery. In the end it seemed that it was who was wearing the latest suits that was the talk in swimming circles rather than the athletes themselves. Eventually these swimming suits were banned because it was skewing the results.

The question I ask Lydian and others - do you think technological changes in the sport of tennis has had a similar effect?

Good points Nore - my answer is yes to that.
Technology has certainly killed tennis as it WAS.

HOWEVER, there is a caveat. This same technology does give more serving power outwide and to the body. There are still opportunities for players to come to net and make effective volleys. Many times we see a ralley develop and we scream at the TV..."you could have put that easy shot away at the net rather than follow it back to the baseline!!!".

So, with that point I do agree with LK. As I was discussing with socal on the DHBH/SHBH thread...coaches are lazy. They are!!! Or rather the system encourages them to be. And its all about system these days. They dont teach variety in the game anymore. I'm heavily involved with coaching and see kids go from Red-4 to Red-1, Orange-4 to Orange-1, etc...and even at a young age its mainly ralley based. Infact progression from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1 is based on length of ralleys sustained. Coaches are not teaching advanced volley technique. Because the game doesnt encourage it for a start...but also because we have more and more DHBHers. No will never find a great volleyer with a DHBH...it doesnt lend itself to great slice or volley technique, nor does it allow for quick transition from baseline to net.

So, the issues are multifactoral....but technology has played its part in encouraging DHBH...easier coaching styles...etc, etc.

As I;ve said elswhere I'd agree with some parameters brought into competition tennis:

1. No frames >98 sqin.
2. Strings no less than 50lbs (Raonic uses 42lbs!!!!! No wonder the speed he gets)
3. Racquet weight no less than 300grams
4. No silicone sprays.

And we need more speed on court surfaces too, more variety.
If we reduced the technology application we would also get more variety and an encouragement to teach volleying.

Rant over.

lydian wrote:Yes they lack the skill but thats just looking at the symptoms, not the disease. WHY do they lack the skill?

These modern racquets and strings lack feel....they're all about power and spin. At the expense of control. Its why Federer will not move away from his 90sqin racquet.

Actually, I disagree about serving out wide...more of those shots are returned with interest than ever before. RPM on groundstrokes is highly relevant...you ask Stepanek playing Nadal!!! Have you played against people who whip the ball massively? Its a nightmare...your timing has to be even better than yesteryear to execute the shot back with the same placement. And these modern strings as I say lack feel too...so its a double whammy for volleying.

Henman post-2002 was having to play more and more baseline based tactics. I do agree volleying has a place in the game but not as an overt strategy. For me the real power era was probably from 2005+...with the advent of much lighter racquets and even better strings from Babolat et al. Henman simply couldnt compete the same from 2005 onwards with his volleying game.

Players dont volley because volleying as a strategy has been made obselete by power and spin. So they dont bother practicing it anymore...so yes they dont have the skills. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling thing. Federer can volley fine but you dont see him at the net much either...

Take the 2002 US Open Final. IIRC Sampras came into the net 62 times over the match. If I were to hazard a guess at the toal points he won, it would be about 150 over 4 sets. 1/3 of his points he came into the net. Volleying is a dying art because players are chancing the odds at being a better baseliner than a safe baseliner and exceptional volleying.

Roger with the 90in racquet came through in the 90's when players still used that size racquet. It would be daft for him to consider any other racquet when it has served him so well.

Stepanek is not a power server. He focused on singles in 2002 6 years after turning pro. Similar to Bjorkman this is something that isn't so simple to do and achieve high results. I think Stepanek was a poor example. Take 2011 FO when against Isner, he was all at sea. Yes we could blame the balls, but it was the same for all players and Nadal struggled to pass Isner on his 2nd serve kicker out wide.

Yes conditions, surfaces, strings, racquets, diets, balls have all changed, but volleying is an art that for me can carry a player to that top level if they are able to execute it perfectly.

Nore Staat wrote:Maybe this is a question for Lydian, but maybe others can also answer it too.

How many watch competitive swimming? Cast your minds back to the era of the super-suits - the all body encompassing suits. It revolutionised competitive swimming and hundreds to thousands of records were broken on a yearly basis (national and international records). The technology reduced water resistance so swimmers travelled more quickly through the water. The technology also supported and moulded muscles, better aligned the body, and provided elasticity for energy re-use in recovery. In the end it seemed that it was who was wearing the latest suits that was the talk in swimming circles rather than the athletes themselves. Eventually these swimming suits were banned because it was skewing the results.

The question I ask Lydian and others - do you think technological changes in the sport of tennis has had a similar effect?

It's not the fact that different players are winning that concerns me unduly, it's the fact that the spectacle and nature of the game is changing with two ill-effects: (a) it's more wearing on the top players, who are getting injured more quickly and are asking for rule changes which favour them at the expense of the less successful players; (b) it's less entertaining to watch.

I suspect that the problem with swimming was a bit different because there was more of a difference between the haves and the have-nots at lower ends of the food-chain.

LK...I;m not sure if you're talking about serve or volley now.
I still think you're not making the discussion circular.
Players want to be baseliners because they're encouraged to be by technology...technology is changing the way coaches teach. Its changing the way the game can be played. It negates the need for volleying. It rewards low risk tennis because winners can be created from the baseline much more easily now...in yesteryear they volleyed at the net because that was the easiest place to win the point from. Thats not the case anymore. Its a vicious circle IMO...more power...more baseline...less net...less volleying...less risk...technology moves on...even more power, etc, etc.

There is a place for more volleying, I'll grsnt you that...but not volleying based games anymore. Unless something is done with tech and surfaces.

How do you propose coaches teach more volleying - whats their motivation to do so?

Lydian its a good job Sampras wasn't born 8/10 years later he would be this generations Mickael Llodra. A lot of people I know will say the turning point of mens players stopping volleys was Federer but before him it was Hewitt winning Wimbledon with hardly any volleys. I blame Hewitt for the terrible baseline only games of the top 2.

Good question NS.

Bigger and harder racquets have aided the baseliner. Take Ferrer, Fish, Roddick, Berdych as current players who are limited by the technology. I agree with lydian about the coaching and how it has become lazy and easy to teach a baseline game.

Look at McEnroe in the 80's with the wooden racquet. Once players got fitter, like in Lendl and Wilander and bigger serves in Becker came along, it made it impossible for him to compete. Once he got hold of a metal racquet in the late 80's he was making QF's and SF's of Slams!! It does show that technology like in any sport can take the most average of participants and give them a bigger fighting chance.

Volleying is difficult. So much relies on the touch and the timing of the shot. This is where I give Nadal and Federer so much credit for being able to put away BH and FH volleys at the net. Even Sampras was limited in his volleying only favouring his FH more than his BH.

So much of S&V relies on timing and I think players are guilty of mis-timing their run to the net. That split second is such a big factor.

The strings favour baseline, but if a Nadal is given time to read the serve and return without the pressure of a restricted area to hit into with someone covering the net makes it more effective. Look at Harrison yesterday. To every Djokovic 1st serve played a squash shot return. That is a volleyer's dream. Nadal on his BH always plays a mid court BH and takes pace off it. Now imagine being pressured to play a CC winner from the wings, the risk of lack of success goes up dramatically. Even a Nadal would struggle to find an effective way around that play.

Today's volley specialists in the singles games are doubles specialists. It is natural for them to be at the net. Imagine Raonic with a volley. Scary.

Going back to Ferrer, Fish, Berdych, Roddick. Stroke to stroke players. Nothing over expansive. Just hanging in the rally. Not having the depth in their shots to really hit winners in a 5-6 shot rally. The surface and strings have helped them to stay in points. Do just that.

Technology has killed variation, but so has lazy coaching.

2 more factors too..

1. Larger balls
2. Servers arent as good as before...you dont get pinpoint placement these days except for Federer. Its why Sampras was so lethal. Now its just about huge serving with speed...but not variety and pinpoint accuracy. That said we saw how much Sampras' serve was negated on slower surfaces...and thats what we have now.

Ultimately ATP have allowed the game to change...clearly they felt baseline tennis is what the crowds wanted so tech changes and surface speed reduction have been waived through. Even with the use of silicone spray the ATP say they are "monitoring the situation". They seem reluctant to act in my opinion....but the pressure is starting to mount from ex-players and media. Plus if we keep getting finals like USO11 and AO12...the clamour for change will increase.

barrystar wrote:...I suspect that the problem with swimming was a bit different because there was more of a difference between the haves and the have-nots at lower ends of the food-chain.

They were made to measure and the expense ran into thousands of dollars per suit. There were issues of access to technology amongst the "poorer" nations, as well as the fact the technology was moving quickly such that last years model was being superceded with later generation versions.

The reason why it took time to limit or to ban the technology was due to its constraint on trade and employment opportunities - peoples businesses and livelihoods were involved in it. However, the iniquities associated with the rate of technology change, and the expense of it was the ultimate argument in limiting the technology and banning certain aspects of it altogether.

It seems to me that technology has had similar effects in changing tennis, except that:
a) the rate of technological change has been slower.
b) it is less expensive and hence available to most people.
c) it is not necessarily made to measure (which links with b) - although at the top end, the top players can afford to get aspects of it made to measure (weight balances etc).

Modern tennis is about low-risk, its easier to hit winners from baseline or wear the other guy into an error through low-risk, albeit high power, ralleying. Volleying is high-risk (high reward) but isnt the weapon of choice anymore...the modern mantra of sports performance is "play the % shot"...coaches drill this to their students. Volleying doesnt fit with the modern approach to "winning".

Racquet tech, etc...is the basis of it all in my opinion though. The rest just follows on.

lydian wrote:LK...I;m not sure if you're talking about serve or volley now.
I still think you're not making the discussion circular.
Players want to be baseliners because they're encouraged to be by technology...technology is changing the way coaches teach. Its changing the way the game can be played. It negates the need for volleying. It rewards low risk tennis because winners can be created from the baseline much more easily now...in yesteryear they volleyed at the net because that was the easiest place to win the point from. Thats not the case anymore. Its a vicious circle IMO...more power...more baseline...less net...less volleying...less risk...technology moves on...even more power, etc, etc.

There is a place for more volleying, I'll grsnt you that...but not volleying based games anymore. Unless something is done with tech and surfaces.

How do you propose coaches teach more volleying - whats their motivation to do so?

Look no further than Federer. What is Annacone doing? Encouraging the volley. He can't compete on the baseline anymore, but from a volley perspective? He can.

I am not asking every player to volley every point. More a case of 1/3 of the game to be volley based.

Tell me where is the motivation to coach baseline when the rankings is littered with them? We would be going into Tenez's thought of being the fitter player and I know your views on that.

The power is now offset against the slower surface. Power is no longer the currency. Why does Federer struggle against Nadal at the net? Timing and execution. If he decided to time his run to net, he would yield greater success.

Isner v Nadal FO2011 was intriguing because not only was Isner coming behind his serve, but also his FH. Now would we argue that a fitter Isner would've dislodged Nadal? That's why the encounter was so prominent. People and fans were oh Nadal was poor, but Isner when at the net had Nadal in knots. Only when his volleying broke down that he went back to baseline rallies which only favoured Nadal.

If players can make the shots, they can defeat the baseliners.

I assume that the top players are very technology savvy. Perhaps they change the parameters of their racquet for different surfaces and conditions? I wonder if they would also change the parameters of their racquets dependent on the type of opponent they are playing?

The surface and the racquets and the balls have had a huge effect on s and v.

Isner only gives a crap for the match if its a top 3 player.

Ilike your title too legend. Only just realised you've ripped off an MJ classic

Don't blame it on the sunshine, Don't blame it on the moonlight, Don't blame it on the good times.

I had to rip it

I like the top 3 Isner. Wish he would show up more often

Some previous posters elsewhere were complaining about this article and mentioned ball size.

Karlovic won 53 out of 94 net points against Murray. His first serve average speed was 127 mph and second serve was 118mph.

If that guy could pick a volley below his knee, he would be immense!

I shall ask lydian, if Karlovic had a better slice and could reach low balls, how effective could he be at Wimbledon?