Surprising Truth Behind Serve and Volley - With Craig O'Shannessy (2019)

Tennis' #1 Statistician Craig O'Shannessy gives his insights on serve and volley tennis.

Like always, Craig let's the numbers do the talking--and what they are saying may shock you.

[fastdunn]

It's surprising that no one talks about the surface changes on grass and hard courts from late 90s to early 2000s. That was crucial factor.

[stockton]

Isn't the test whether modern players can sustain the 65+ winning percentage if they increase the number of times they S&V? There seems to be an assumption here that if you can win 65% or more serving and volleying 10% of the time, then you can win 65% or more S&V 60% of the time. What if it's not as effective as it used to be because returners are better now, or balls are slower, or some other factor?

[slingshotchicken]

It is rare indeed that I find another who I agree with as frequently as Craig. Once again, I am quite sure people need to serve and volley more, they need to be brought up with the skill. Doubles as well, even more so. Now as far as when and how often, that will be a variable

[frontrowtennis]

Max Cressy would agree…he’s fun to watch. It will be interesting to see how high he can’t go in the rankings but he’s already top 60. The other unique thing Max does is hit huge 2nd serves and doesn’t mind more doubles

[dtienthanh]

It maybe fool people with statistic numbers. I guess at critical point, serve and volley does not work and players lose the match. Intuitively, they are not confident to do that and the percentage decrease. It maybe a surprise tactic but it does not work for a whole match. Be careful with the number even with expert.

[MelvinLew]

Most present day coaches never served and volleyed themselves and have limited understanding of it. Also the surfaced, even the grass at Wimbledon has been slowed down giving the baseliners a considerable advantage.
Even in doubles there is more baseline play.

[jerrywelsh]

Less people using S & V less frequently. This seems to be subjectively agreeable. How can the proficiency remain the same with less use?

[winstonlim]

Oh my god! The dinglydonglypinglypongliers are going to freak out hearing that 65% winning rate!

[jerrywelsh]

How can one explain how the frequency of charging the net after the serve decreased so dramatically over the years? Surely is this strategy was wining 62% - 66%, a player would ‘feel’ this success without having to be fed the statistics.

[daikayll]

Very interesting. Very inspiring too but any tips on getting younger so I can keep doing it Craig please ? Love your work man.

[nelsonluisfreire]

Totally disagree. If S&V is so effective why it's not used every time? So easy, right? Only....No. Try it. You'll be passed so many times and loose all matches you use such outdated strategy

[HaraldSchneider-mn]

So, I want to see Ruud rushing at the net and winning this way.... Good luck!

[schnooksdad]

serve and volley no longer works....that's why it has disappeared from the modern game...powerful groundstrokes and topspin
lobs have sent this tactic back to the wooden racket era...even doubles play exemplifies this trend...go to net and get your head
ripped off unless you have a huge positional advantage...not easy to volley 90mph

[marcomonti]

I think that looking at statistics we can compare the win percentage of s&v with the win percentage of baseline point...I think that we can discover that baseline point have better percentage, that's why players prefer playing that way. If not, they are a bunch of stupid people.

[alexandermayer]

#1 Tennis Analyst. A number’s guy is a data guy, not an analyst. And the reason going to net has diminished is that the pros can’t volley, i.e simple make the vast majority of volleys they get a racket on. The reason the pros can’t volley is that their coaches can’t hit or teach volleying. Worse than that the coaches learned to volley, by now, from several generations of coaches who learned from coaches who also couldn’t volley. Now that’s the word from this analyst. American tennis declined because quality coaching has disappeared and because of the advent of the tennis academy. Bolletieri could not play or teach and he was the HEAD guy. Tennis and golf can only be taught one-on-one in private lessons. Robert Lansdorp, anyone?

[jackquinnes]

Mind serving and volleying more in modern tennis would inevitably increase rushing the net on weaker serves and getting toasted more often (than not) decreasing the winning % of that tactics. Some Boris Becker would get killed in modern day Wimbledon with his one trick pony game. Pick your spots and find balance. Serve and volley with confidence but do not mimic the game of the 80s like a headless chicken!

[sebastiandomagala]

I am late to the party, I know.

But the assumtion that despite rare use s&v is "still" as successful as it was is just fundamentally wrong.

First of all, the drop from 33 to 5% means that s&v is only used by the true experts or as a surprise.

And if you leave it to these occasions and the success rate is still the same then the tactic is no longer really viable.

Example: Alcaraz has a success rate with his drop shots of 75% (let's assume it is that rate).

But if 33% of all shots were drop shots by now, the success rate would drop to nothing. Think of it the other way around and you have your "reigns supreme" crumble to pieces.

[jerrywelsh]

What would be the explanation for the decreasing use of the serve and volley when it works? Just a subjective ‘feel’ for this metric should suggest otherwise.

[arunjetli]

Thanks Craig an interesting theme is that the Europeans other than Czechoslovakians always had weak volleys save exceptions like Orantes, ,Pannata a and a few others . Since the Soviet methods of coaching were applied in tennis in Europe their pupils have totally dominated tennis, leaving the Americans behind, so now they question serve and volley and assume that that is dead, with th3 bogus arguments of modern racquets .Craig I want you think about this . The coaches have changed their mind on how to teach groundless but not how to teach volleys . Why don’t they study the great volleyers of today and see how they are slightly diffferent I. Technique thane the greAt volleyers of the past study McEnroe Edberg Sampras and Leander Paes . The biggest problem is lack of practice and understanding the nature of intelligent gambling at the net .

[anacap]

This doesn't really reveal anything except for the fact that when there's an opportunity to end the point at the net the percentages are still the same. However in the modern game with slower courts and access to more angles due to spin-friendly strings, the opportunities at the net aren't there anymore since the turn of the century. If professionals try to approach the net as much as players did 30 years ago you'd see a sharp decline in the win percentages at net. Again, stats don't lie, statisticians do.