Anyone notice Jason Goodhall's excellent use of Hawkeye in the matches.It's fantastic.During Tim Henman's match he made a comparison of two serves of Tim's.

One from 2004 and the other 2007.Both were exactly 126 mph.The ball was bouncing 18inches higher.
Why is S&V dead?Why do they keep talking about it on commentary like former players like Sampras or Becker could walk through the draw?

I believe it would 50-50 now.S&V players could profit on the current grass,but they wouldn't dominate the draw as they once did.

Would spin (if applied) not have something to do with height as well? Or were they both flat serves?

Serve and volley wasn't of course dominant in the 80s-90s because it was nice to watch. It dominated because it was players' best chance to win matches, and therefore adopt whatever tactics will maximise their chances.

In fact serve and volley imo is nice to waatch only in moderation. Too much of it annd the game does become boring with too many rallies lasting for just 3 shots at the most

Serve and volley will still work on grass, with Mahut being a good example.

however, I feel that surface speed is only partly the issue. I think that racquet technology has been as great a contributor to the changing of the players' style of play as any change in speed of the surfaces. Greater sweet spots, better strings to grip the ball has added more venom to passing shots and raised the bar in terms of effective S&V techniques needed to win.

I like the notion of it maybe being 50:50 between all-court play and S&V, but wonder if the balance isn't quite so even, maybe 60:40 to all-court play?? :shrug:

Anyway, yes, the banging on about S&V is very tedious. Just as it would be if everyone did actually play S&V now ;)

I believe he tried to find two identical serves.He picked the serve down the T into the deuce court,which usually for a right-hander is a flatter serve.
They looked exactly the same in ball flight right up to the point of landing in the court,and then obviously one took a steeper angle.
Something else,Tim is not a player noted for high spin rates.His ball toss is the old school straight up,therefore he doesn't seem to generate any kick on his first serve.
All the best servers seem to have a parabola to their toss even if it's slight.This places it coming toward their head.I wonder if a player like Edberg or Sampras who could kick the ball like mules on their second serves should still have good odds on S&V.

I agree Petalp with this.Again last night on Wimbledon today Stich talked again about heavier balls and slower courts.
I remember Tenez liking to discuss this old chestnut.Anyway this for me like you say is the extra venom on the shots.When you have a manoeuvrable racquet with a high swingweight and 100sqinch head,then everybody can return and hit passing shots like Agassi and Connors.