Interesting article from the UK's The Guardian newspaper:

"There was a time, not so long ago, when every other rally during the latter stages of Wimbledon would go: serve-return-volley (if you were lucky).
Often points didn't last as long as that, especially when Pete Sampras, Boris Becker or Goran Ivanisevic were rattling down 130mph-plus howitzers on serve.

The Wimbledon fortnight was just as predictable. Spanish clay-courters with wristy top-spins and calves like fat jamons usually went out in the first round or didn't show up at all. All-rounders with nous and a decent pass usually fiddled through a few rounds before being bludgeoned aside by a 6ft 4in hulk with an Ivy League accent. And, apart from 1992 when a ponytailed Andre Agassi bucked the trend, a serve and volleyer always, always, ended up lifting the trophy.

What a refreshing change, then, to report that the first game of Rafael Nadal's quarter-final with Tomas Berdych lasted eight minutes and contained rallies of depth and guile, where the initiative went back and forth like an angry pendulum, two thumping back-of-the-court winners and a dazzling drop-shot.
The crowd on Centre Court, their North Face jackets zipped up tight against the icy wind and mid-teen temperatures, applauded enthusiastically. But Nadal was serving; rallies were to be expected. And then Thomas Berdych, a 6ft 5in beanpole from the Czech Republic, stepped up, rattled down a 130mph serve and ... stayed stuck to the baseline. Having meekly lost his first service game one elderly gentleman near me, clearly unimpressed, broke ranks: "There's no law against coming to the net," he grumbled.

"But there is!" you felt like retorting.
There is! There is!
Especially as none of the men's quarter-finalists serves and volley regularly. Not Federer, who has the best volley on the men's tour. Not Novak Djokovic, who serves big and is light on his feet. And certainly not Andy Roddick, who smokes his serve harder than any player in history, but only comes to the net reluctantly. The question, of course, is why.

1 - The demise of the serve-volleyer at Wimbledon is universally blamed on the grass being slowed a few years ago. There is a germ of truth in that (Hawk-Eye shows the ball bounces around 18 inches higher off the court from an average shot than it did in 2004) but it's not the only reason. Wimbledon now plays more like a hard court, but serve-volleyer supreme Sampras won plenty of US Opens.

2 - The growth of racket technology, which allows players to rip increasingly huge returns, also hurts the serve-volleyer. But rackets haven't improved that much since Sampras's day; he was able to handle the best that Agassi and others could throw at him too.

So we have to accept that a third reason is also to blame: the players themselves. Sampras, who started out with a wooden racket, spent years honing his volley. These days most players prefer to groove their groundstrokes. Again. And again. And again. I've heard that Djokovic, who has been rooted to the baseline more than most this Wimbledon, has employed Mark Woodforde as a volleying coach. Few others show signs of following suit.

A few have mourned the lack of serve-volleyers in tennis, and the lack of a classic puncher v counter-puncher rivalry like Borg v McEnroe or Sampras v Agassi. But those of us who sat through the many turgid Wimbledon finals during the 1990s have moved on. Watching an artist and cavalier like Nadal close up certainly beats the thrash-and-slash of a Todd Martin or David Wheaton

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any thoughts?

For me personally, and in other sports as well as tennis, the best attackers should edge out the best defenders.

I like those who are willing to take the risk in order to win. Watching a good serve volleyer play against a good counter puncher is one of the reasons I started watching tennis. For me, tennis is more entertaining and watchable when there is a good match up in styles.

Nowadays there are too many players who are content to just trade groundstrokes and to wait for their opponent to make an error.

We do need more serve volleyers but lets not forget that there are still some serve vollyers out there - Nicholas Mahut, Roberta Vinci, Mara Santangelo, Qarashi... It's just tough for them to pursue this style with the ability of players to hit better passing shots nowadays.

I agree with you Yorkshire, a contrast in style is what I enjoy - I mean I can still watch two baseliners play eachother so long as they have some variety in their games and mix it up.

What about Taylor Dent? I've not heard of him for a while though, don't know what he's been up to recently.

It's great to see players chip and charge sometimes as well. It's kind of laying down a challenge to their opponent - "pass me if you can".

I'd forgotten about Dent. He has groin and back injuries that forced him off the tour in 2006. Apparrently he had surgery in March of this year and hopes to be back this summer.

I also didn't name Henman as I thought that was a given.

Anyway yes I also like to see the chip and charge tactic. I love seeing Amelie using it amongst others. I guess it is now difficult for players to always to come into the net, but I hope more players include it in their selection of strategies.

The reason why it is almost impossible to play consistent serve and volley, is the fact that you're starting your approach from behind the baseline. As has been discussed during Wimbledon, it's not only the racket-technology that has changed, but also string-technology.

The difference in strings allows players to use their wrists much more to create short, dipping returns, because the ball remains "glued" to the strings for a fraction of a second more.

These things things all add up to make it only really effective to use a volley to end a baseline rally. I will however say that too few players are coming in behind good groundstrokes, thereby foresaking the chance to end the point early on a lot of occasions.

Can anyone say Todd Williams?
It's almost impossible to get in quick enough these days. No one likes watching the ball pass them. :wacko: