Is the death of serve and volleying a good or a bad thing/ [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is the death of serve and volleying a good or a bad thing/

Haasfan
06-07-2004, 04:49 PM
I would like to say that I find claycourt rallies far too repetitive, monotonous, and on the whole boring.

So what do you guys think?? Do you think that variety, and net play is generally better to watch, or should the tour stick to baseline rallies?

*Ljubica*
06-07-2004, 05:40 PM
Personally - I am in completely the opposite camp to you Haasfan! I enjoy clay court tennis, and after only one day of the grass court season I am bored already!!! Got home from work in time to see one hour of Rusedski "serving and volleying" on TV and it was enough to drive me outside to mow the lawn :) Still I guess variety is the spice of life as they say - the grass court season is very short (mercifully for people like me!), and many people enioy it - so good luck to them!

Gonzo Hates Me!
06-07-2004, 05:48 PM
I dont think baseline and serve/volley should be compared. They're too different and if you like baseline, serve/volley is boring for you and vice versa. Baseline will be boring because it's never-ending and serve/volley will be boring to others because it ends to quickly. So, I think they are both just here to stay and neither of them should go and neither of them won't go. They are both alright with me

personally, I like players who mix it up--they can play from the baseline, and they dont necessarily serve and volley, but come to the net and are crafty there

Marine
06-07-2004, 05:57 PM
It's a bad thing of course !!!!!!!!!!!
When you see Henman on clay, like this year, it's magic, it's the most beautiful game.
I love watching serve/volley players on clay , and less on grass, i admit it's boring...and it's boring to see 2 claycourts rallyes on clay.

But in genral i really prefer a player like Henman than another players like Coria.
When 2 players play 2 meters behind the baseline, it's horrible, it's anti-game.
Of course it's my opinion. ;)

LCeh
06-07-2004, 06:00 PM
I agree, serve and volleying is a lot more exciting IMO. Just like when players come in the net, you can really hear the crowd getting excited even in a clay court match.

MisterQ
06-07-2004, 06:14 PM
Although some of my favorite players are baseliners (Agassi, Seles), nothing beats seeing them face off against a great serve-volleyer. We saw this in Coria/Henman, which was certainly one of the most interesting matches of RG.

So yes, while I don't think everyone should be playing serve-volley tennis, it is too bad that there isn't more of a balance between the styles out there.

shaoyu
06-07-2004, 06:15 PM
I would like to say that I find claycourt rallies far too repetitive, monotonous, and on the whole boring.

So what do you guys think?? Do you think that variety, and net play is generally better to watch, or should the tour stick to baseline rallies?

Why do people always see things that way? Haven't you seen the numerous dropshots and netplay in this RG? Maybe it's not as much as you would like, but I wouldn't call it monotonous baseline rallies. I think in general people are fixated by some prejudice and become blind to the fact that current generation players are mostly very versatile.

tangerine_dream
06-07-2004, 06:36 PM
Serve and volley will never die. It causes too many problems for the baseliners. :p

Havok
06-07-2004, 06:39 PM
I hate pure serve/volleyers. People who go there time after time makes me :timebomb: I do enjoy when baseliners go there during matches though, since they don't do it more than 15 times or so. it's neither a good thing or a bad thing imo. we need different styles of play to have some different appeals to matches and stuff

Vass
06-07-2004, 07:24 PM
I don't think serve-and-olleyers are dying out. Sure they are less in number, but smart baselines serve-and-volley and just volley too. That mix is pretty interesting, while pure serve-and-volleying and baseline games are a bit monotonous.

Marine
06-07-2004, 08:48 PM
Serve and volley will never die. It causes too many problems for the baseliners. :p

Maybe, but there are Henman and...and ???? :sad:

(ps: Escudé too)

Haasfan
06-07-2004, 09:22 PM
I think volleying takes more skill. Volleying is not easy at all, though thats not really the reason why people don't do it, the courts have been slowed down, returning has become the emphasis of the modern game. Baselining is much more basic, and as repetitive to people like me at least. Serve and volleying just spices it up. Of all the serve and volleyers on the tour now, I struggle to name a handful, Mirnyi, Karlovic, Henman, Rusedski, anybody else????

WyveN
06-07-2004, 09:36 PM
of course death of serve+volley is bad, the most exciting/classic matches over the past 20 years have been between baseliners and serve-volleyers

heya
06-07-2004, 09:37 PM
Henman's s/v misery was ended by Coria in RG semis. :yawn:
Without his self-proclaimed best volleys and rail thin body, Henman would do worse in the slams.

Sjengster
06-07-2004, 09:47 PM
At the top level in tennis every shot takes skill, it takes ability to hit strong and consistent groundstrokes as well as big serves and delicate volleys. I enjoy 'em both, personally, although the calendar makes the transition from clay to grass far too quick - as a viewer I don't mind since I get tennis on TV virtually everyday from Rome to after Wimbledon, but it's hard to adjust to watching a completely different style all of a sudden. Yes, it would be a pity to see serve and volley die out, the speed of the balls and certain courts need to be increased to get more attacking players back in the mix. With heavier balls the really big servers who stay at the baseline can still hit bombs, while players like Henman who follow their serve in have real problems getting enough power. The bottom line is, too much of anything is dull - endless short points and big serving would be boring, as would endless baseline rallying (which does feature a lot more net play than people imagine, there are serve-volleying and dropshot/lob combinations that break up the pattern considerably).

Lee
06-07-2004, 10:08 PM
Maybe, but there are Henman and...and ???? :sad:

(ps: Escudé too)


How about Miryni ? :)

Horatio Caine
06-07-2004, 10:22 PM
Serve and volleying is the only thing keeping some people interested in watching the sport. If all the matches on the ATP tour were contested between players who stand 3 feet behind the baseline and rally for past 90 seconds a point then spectators soon get bored. They want to see a variety in the game, quick points, volleys, smashes, drop shots, lobs, angles etc. With no serve and volleying fewer players venture into the net, there is the same monotonous play and anyone of any rank can win. That is not what most people want to see, including me. When the long rallies dominate the sport and the net is left unoccupied, i will switch my TV off.

Sjengster
06-07-2004, 10:39 PM
Jez, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that nearly everyone plays like that nowadays, there's only one Massu (thank goodness).

Horatio Caine
06-07-2004, 10:49 PM
Jez, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say that nearly everyone plays like that nowadays, there's only one Massu (thank goodness).


Yeah true i exaggerate but over 50% of the players seem to play like that and with the balls getting ever slower and the racquets more pwoerful, that is the only way the game is going to go. Like the reference to the Racoon by the way - he makes me laugh! :lol:

TennisLurker
06-07-2004, 11:23 PM
isnt a drop shot something rather stupid on grass? your opponents are never far behind the baseline, and if you are playing a serve and volleyer bringing them to the net is not wise (coria lost the 4 drop shots he made agaisnt henman)


Maybe you mean drop volleys?

YoursTruly
06-07-2004, 11:48 PM
Serve and volley isn't dead. It's just forsaken at the moment. Blame it on the technology and (over)speed of the game now. :mad:
I totally give credit to Tim, Max and others like them.