The press questioned Roger Federer to get illuminated by the 'great one'!

Roger Federer came up with a wishy-washy explanation which said nothing but kept his good boy of tennis image for the sponsors, made himself look good in front of his disgrace, that of his peers and the ITF, the ATP, ETA and many National Tennis Federations!

The Swiss said: "Have we become such incredible return players or can we not volley any more – or is it just a combination of slower balls, slower courts? It's definitely a bit of a combination. If I look back, we definitely had many more great volley players in the game back then. Because we don't have that as much, everybody's content at the baseline."

Applause for Federer, great political answer, he should run for office!

When I read that I was almost sick to my stomach! Yes and almost gagged!

Players and some less informed or perhaps even colluding sectors of the press want to make the wide world of tennis believe that and their arguments (that I will directly debase) include:

- Bigger Heavier balls - Slow Courts - My answer is; When asked by The Guardian newspaper, an All England Club spokesman said: 'Does serve-and-volley really exist anymore on the circuit? There has been no change in the preparation of the court or its set-up. It's been pretty hot and the top gets baked so the ball can bounce a bit higher.

There's also been no change in the compression of the ball since 1995, when there was a 2% change. It may be a perception thing. Atmosphere can be a factor, modern racket technology can affect the ball, there are many factors that make getting into the net more difficult. So it is nothing to do with court condition'.

Anyway, if a 2 percent change in the ball is what makes our prima-donnas of today not to serve and volley or go to the net, it only makes me wonder how could a Pete Sampras serve and volley when it rained and the balls hair stood up like Trolls hair (40% heavier and slower balls)?

Or win Basel Open Indoors serving and volleying in 1996 with the already infamous 2 percent bigger or heavier balls and the technology of 2010 in place!?!? (Yes destiny wanted me to be there as a Coach for Jim Courier in 1989 and as a Sampras guest for Sampras in 1996)

The answer to the technology is simply because in spite what the tennis industry says, rackets have changed cosmetically but play the same as in the last 25/30 years and some rackets have not changed at all! For example:

The racket Roger Federer uses (painted red or black or whatever color of the day) is the same racket frame Stefan Edberg (1980) Jim Courier (1980-1990ies), Pete Sampras (1980-1990ies) and best of all it is almost the same racket Andrea Jagger was using in 1976!

So, why can Roger Federer not serve and volley and attack more? Oh! Yes, I forgot he explained that!

Even more bewildering is, how could past players serve and volley so well with rackets that were almost as heavy as baseball bats and serve and volley like devils when it rained and the balls hair stood up like Trolls hair and were 40 heavier than today?

- Advances in string technology - My answer is; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You can serve and volley with any string and there are strings out there for all styles of play, I use a brand of synthetic gut called 'duraflex' and I volley and serve and volley better than ever! Professional players should do great at serve and volleying today!

- Surfaces are slower - My answer is; according to official reports at Wimbledon 'There has been no change in the preparation of the court or its set-up.' In Roland Garros neither, at the US Open the central court plays the same as in the last 30 years the outside courts are still fast and the courts at the Australian open are faster than the older surface rebound Ace!

Sure some tournaments may have slowed down their surfaces a bit but that is not what I've seen in Vienna, Stockholm Open, Basel Open, Paris Open, Key Biscayne and many others who have slight modifications from year to year but which end up being almost unnoticeable by the players.

- Athletic level never before seen in tennis - My answer is; I am almost falling on the floor with laugh, with the exception of a (Davidenko, Stepanek) and a Nadal who is truly super fit and has a work ethic to back it up, most of the others can not even compare to a John McEnroe at is best and he was considered unfit!

It is all in the semantics, if you consider being fit, body size and bigger muscles, players today win, but if you consider fitness the ability to play and run down every ball throughout a match, than only Nadal and Davidenko qualify the rest does not.

No matter how much anyone can try to convince me of the opposite, there is no one, Coach, Physio, Trainer, guru whatever, that can bring a player to the level of fitness (on and off court) that Harry Hopman did, and I tell you I know almost every top one out there!

- Incredible fast light powerful rackets - My answer is; Hogwash anyone that knows a bit about tennis ( I guess some in the press need to inform themselves) knows that today and for over 100 hundred years, top players have their rackets customized and the best of today want them to weight about the same as the clubs of yesteryear! Yes, not light but Heavy! Very heavy!

Take myself a mediocre player with decent tennis, in the 1970ies-80, had the 25 rackets I received a year customized to my specs at the Donnay manufacture in Couvin-Belgium, same balance, same grip, same weight!

So if things have not changed that much, what is really happening?

Of course things have changed, they will always change, but it should never be in detriment of the game, in this case the complete elimination of an entertaining and wonderful part of the game, the serve and volley and the attack, because everyone is looking at the MONEY ONLY!

The brunt of the responsibility of this sad happening goes especially to sponsors, Federations, Grand Slam and other Tournament organizers, TV, Press, players and parents as well!

The general public ignorant of the "Big money game" played behind the scenes, pay up, suck up, put up with often boring, unimaginative grueling hours of 'tennis' monotony under an unforgiving sun!

Tennis Coaches Parents Players:  

- Tennis coaches and teachers are under tremendous pressure to produce quick results. So what is the easiest way for them? Simple, put a bunch of kids on a tennis court and make them hit balls from the baseline.

It takes a lot longer sometimes even years to develop all the skills and athletic body of a decent serve and volley player. 

To give an example of how easy it is to develop baseline 'morons'; I have seen a teacher (from a 'famous' school in this area) with four kids on the court next to mine and she/he was having the kids hit balls from the baseline to each other, which would have been o.k. if around sixty balls were not spread all over both service boxes!

The most appalling is that this went on for almost forty five of a sixty minute lesson and the scene repeated itself for the next 3 or four hours with the next groups of youngsters every Wednesday afternoon, the whole forsaken winter long and the mothers where sitting and watching!

Mama mia! This is Switzerland, where people pays 80 to 150 Swiss francs an hour for a group of 4 training!

Do I need to tell you that those kids will never volley in their lives? I bet you they will not!

Sure that teacher is an incompetent and should be fired or re-trained, but the truth is that the lack of interest in giving youngsters the full package of tennis happens at the highest levels. Take for example:

 In international ITF and ETA tournaments that I've attended through the years, I have seen the unfathomable in doubles play.

Before I go on, one of my concerns when coaching Jim Courier was his inability to volley decently, so I made all efforts that Jim and Pete Sampras played as much ATP doubles together as possible to develop Jim's volley/confidence and to keep Pete doing what he already excelled at!

Continuing with the ITF and ETA tournaments, I have seen coaches allowing 14 and 15 year old boys and girls to play entire doubles matches with both players on the baseline wether they served or returned, as a team they both stayed on the baseline!

Coaches and players lack of vision! For example:

Tennis Federations and other organizations: 

Do you think Federation officials are not watching these things and are not responsible as well?! Hell yes! They are responsible! Read my article Tennis: Should You Trust Your Coach 100% in your tennis development??

Here is another aspect that helps players stay in the comfort zone and make the least possible to risk or try something new or even sweat their shirts:

- Some players get guarantee appearance money ('forbidden by the ATP') that is obscene like for example the Japan Open this winter is purported to be offering one Million Dollars to a given player! That is almost as much as the total commitment of the tournament of $ 1,226,500 for all other players prize money!

- Basel open for example had or has a three year or five contract with Roger Federer which apparently ads up to €500,000 (five hundred thousand euro) appearance money per tournament! It was all over the local papers sure how they formulate it is 'ATP legal' the reality is it's guarantee appearance money! Basel total Financial Commitment: € 1,755,000

Roger Federer gets more money to appear and lose first round in Basel than the winner of the tournament in the final!

Wonder why Roger Federer did not play Monaco this year a tournament with a total Financial Commitment: € 2,750,000 and no guarantees, to instead play Estoril a puny tournament (for Rogers level) with a total Financial Commitment: € 450,000! How much was the bounty in Estoril? Only the devil knows!

With this kind of attitude from some players, the ATP and some tournament organizers, who cares if player A or B serves and volleys? They rather have him on the baseline and win than serving and volleying and losing, obvious isn't it?

Some top players are spoiled brats and do whatever they want! For example:

Andy Murray withdrew from the 2010 Open13 in Marseilles and the tournament organizer Jean-François Caujoule said; 'Murray did the same thing to me last year, he can't know what it is to keep his word. A week ago, he asked me for a wildcard to play doubles with his brother Jamie and I gave him one.

'A few days ago he asked me for five hotel rooms and I gave him them. The No 1 seed of a tournament should have a sense of responsibility. If he does not respect his commitments, he should be suspended by the ATP.'   Daily Record UK

The press and media:

- They can be great, do fantastic stuff and many positive things.

- On the other hand they can be prostituted, bought out, miss-leading and miss inform people.

In the first instance I pretty much support the press one hundred percent and appreciate their job which and when is done with integrity and unbiased.

Nevertheless I have a huge problem with media reports like:

- A portrait of a tennis academy which sounds more like a commercial (infomercial) for the academy and its owners which often are some corporate sharks!

- In interview with an ex-pro who now has a tennis academy very likely tied to the same corporate sharks and once again the publicity plug goes along in the context.

- Another 'advertisement interview' with an baseline 'guru' who was trained by another baseline 'guru' which was a baseline 'guru' who should be saving American tennis and possibly the world. The 'IV Reich' of tennis!

How many Nadals do we want on the tennis courts?

The whole ATP and WTA tour?

Do we want monolithic tennis baseline only training for our most creative athletes or strategic plans that can destroy creative athletes and turn them into robots? Certainly not!

This and plenty more is thrown daily at our faces by all types of prostituted media people and some of us, uninformed souls, swallow it as the next coming of Christ!

Does this single mode tennis do any good for the game?

Take for example if one of these baseline tennis coaching morons, was training a Michael Jordan a Hershel Walker a Cassius Clay a Joe Montana a Terry Bradshaw a Dan Marino a Diego Maradona, Pele, Eusebio a Carl Lewis a Usain Bolt, what would we get? The destruction of the most creative and imaginative sports minds of all time!

Also, that is exactly what moronic prostituted journalism can do and is doing to tennis!

Is this 'monolithic tennis baseline only unimaginative training', what we tennis fans and lovers want to happen to the few talented youngsters who choose to play this great and fascinating game? I bet bet you no!

Now, before anyone starts thinking that I am some sort of a 'serve and volley maniac'! My philosophy of tennis is simple, players must develop all areas of the game, defense, attack, feel, tactics, game intelligence and so on to be equipped with an arsenal capable of facing every situation, to present new challenges to their opponents and to answer the questions presented on any match!

To end this little essay, if Roger Federer was right, if all the premises of; heavier balls, slower courts , better rackets, fantastic strings, great returns, unbelievable strokes, unequaled athletes, were correct, how in heavens does Radek Stepanek play this wonderful serve and volley game and even beats Roger Federer on clay the slowest of all surfaces, just doing that - serving and volleying and attacking!?????!

Sergio Cruz 

Some related articles: 

"ATTACK - THE LION EFFECT!"

Roland Garros Tennis Lessons - The Serve and Volley! http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/395/1/

The "BLUE-POINT" http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/207/1/

 Timing vs. Power! - "Making a case for hitting the ball early" http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/208/1/

Video Lessons - Tennis Forehand: head bio-mechanics!

Wimbledon - Roger Federer - Would John McEnroe and Rod Laver win? http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/425/1/

Would Rod Laver Have Made Mince Meat of the Top Tennis Players Today?

 

Questions About Tennis Anyone? Feel free to ask, if I can not answer myself, I will research and find the solution to your question. Write directly to me at, cruze (@) bluewin.ch

 Support the TennisCruz website, use our search link partners and purchase from them. Anything you would like to find on this website or anywhere on the internet? Be sure to find it, enter your search terms here:

Custom Search

Back from wimbledon-what-happened-to-the-serve-volley?! to Tennis Articles Main Section

Copyright © Tenniscruz.com®. All rights reserved.

---

User Comments

Comment by Nancy Richey on 2010-07-09 00:58:19 "Hi Sergio...i think it's just the evolution of the game...everyone is taught the power mechanics for the forehand--bent elbow, laid back wrist, western grip...back when i played most of the players with continental forehands were chip and chargers/serve and volleyers and was a good mechanical grip for the grass back then that the ball hung so low on and the ones with an eastern to almost semi western forehands usually were baseliners and did well on clay...i fell into the latter group and therefore didn't like the grass with bounces down at my knees...the grass back then was definitely a lower more unsure bounce than that at Wimbledon today...the US grass was pathetic at Forest Hills so volleying was definitely an advantage...that's not to say a groundstroker never won on grass back then but it was more rare...with world wide tv all the coaches are coaching the same so you have clones of Chrissie and Jimmy only with much more power...it is a shame that there aren't more serve and volleyers as it has become a little boring at times as they all look alike ...but then on the grass when i was playing there were no points to watch...it was a serve and a return--maybe--and a volley or maybe just a serve...so am not sure i long for those days either..."

Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-07-09 00:59:46 Nancy thanks for your comment, I completely agree with you and especially because of your last point I say in the essay, "A blend of 55 percent serve and volley mixed with 45 percent baseline!" would make perfect sense for tennis today and in the future.

Comment by Miguel Seabra on 2010-07-09 23:36:57 Serge, a few points  -- in 2003 Roger changed from a 85 to a 90 sq in racquet head, the smaller on tour these days... yet bigger than Sampras' and Edberg's Pro Staff (85 sq in)  -- ball cans at Wimbledon are open in advance... two weeks, I guess -- and that makes them less lively  -- no doubt in my mind that monofilament strings like Luxilon helped ... See Morethe returners a lot (hugely, in fact) since the mid to late 90ies  -- courts at Wimbledon are actually slower because they needed a brand of grass more resistent to the baseliners tear (and it became a vicious circle...)  -- the heat in this year's fortnight made the bounce higher, hence more to Nadal's liking (and more difficult to serve & volleyers)  -- athletic performance is at least way better in one sense: beforehand you couldn't have a guy above 1m95 that could move; now you have most of the guys at least 1m90 that are great movers and you have guys over 2m with great athleticism...

Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-07-09 23:37:33 Miguel thanks for your valuable input. But it still does not answer my essential question.    Iif all the premises of; heavier slower balls, slower courts , better rackets, fantastic strings, great returns, unbelievable strokes, unequaled athletes, were correct, how in heavens does Radek Stepanek play this wonderful serve and volley game and even beats Roger Federer ON CLAY the slowest of all surfaces, just doing that - serving and volleying and attacking?    Also if you look at the Wimby final tape your premise of movement is far lower than my expectation of a professional player. Berydich can not move to the sides and make a return on wide serves (Meaning, no speed, reactivity or proper movement).    Athleticism, a good athlete has good balance under pressure Berydich was more on his ass than on his feet when made to run (and the court was dry)

Comment by Frank Schulwolf on 2010-07-09 23:40:24 "I think one can lay some of the change at the feet of the Wimbledon marketers. They realized they were losing audience share with the quick points, serve and volley players. One of the reasons women's tennis is so popular is that spectators and TV viewers get to see long rallies. So the mandarins of Wimby now cut the grass a fraction higher and don't roll it as much. The result—baseline rallies. And yet worn out areas at the base line. Remember there was a time when one learned to serve and volley ( even the great Borg who was a clay court specialist had to learn.) if they wanted to win at Wimbledon."

Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-07-09 23:41:48 Frank, I ear you and I would be with you if Wimby did not say this; When asked by The Guardian newspaper, an All England Club spokesman said: 'Does serve-and-volley really exist anymore on the circuit? There has been no change in the preparation of the court or its set-up. It's been pretty hot and the top gets baked so the ball can bounce a bit higher.  What do you think?

Comment by Nancy Richey on 2010-07-09 23:42:32 I think perhaps he meant there hasn't been any change since they changed it from what it used to be when i played there...i do think there has been a change in the last 30 years or so somewhere in there...if i had to guess i would say that they use a pretty good size roller to make the under surface harder so the ball bounces higher but don't know for sure...seems i heard that one a few years back...

Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-07-09 23:50:44 Let's investigate Nancy, it could be a possibility!

Comment by Nancy Richey on 2010-07-09 23:51:26 Sergio...maybe you can find the answer for us...is interesting topic!!!

Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-07-09 23:53:05 In an hot summer like this one the guy could be right.  The reason was that guys kept constant pressure at the net and was no other chance but put away, pass, be passed, ace, winner.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Previous - Next »