Sampras did an interview about the Pacific Life Open. He made a comment, it's something I've always said. the article is here

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...240301/-1/RSS01

His comment is this:

Question - You were a serve and volleyer. Can a serve and volleyer like you succeed in the game today?You were a serve and volleyer. Can a serve and volleyer like you succeed in the game today?

"Sure. Absolutely. I always felt a great serve and volleyer could be a great baseliner. It's sad to see the way tennis has gone. There's a lot of great players, but they all play the same. They're not chipping and charging. It's sad to see there's no serve and volley players."

I've always said that all court players make the best serve and volleyers, in the 1990s there were people like Becker, Pioline, Todd Martin, Sampras who could play from the net and from the baseline. In today's game guys like Federer and Gasquet and now Tsonga would have made great volleyers if surfaces allowed. But baseline specialists only cannot make great volleyers. what are your thoughts on his comments?

My feeling is that players are afraid of a couple of things.Firstly the incredible amounts of spin that are possible,even Sampras mentioned that he wished he was less stubborn in this regard by experimenting with the strings and racket head size.
It's a real challenge to volley back a ball with a huge amount of topspin,because the angle of reflection is for the ball to pop up at a greater angle off the string bed of the incoming net player.

Secondly today's balls are heavier,which is a known fact and we know the surfaces are more even,except for clay.Look at San Jose which is fast,and a few other indoor courts.There's nothing of major significance apart from Paris and Madrid playing real fast these days which does reward high risk play.

I really do think though that a volley has to be learned from the start.The reflexes have to be trained,after all players are returning serves of 140 with regular occurence which travel to the reciever in less than half a second.Even though the ball covers half the court on a volley,a passing shot is hit with less pace.

From the evidence I have seen,a game played with a mixture of net rushing and baseline play could work as Federer and Safin in his heyday have shown.
Serve and volley though is a tough play these days,and I would think too many tie-breakers would mentally take it's toll.The speed on all the medium paced hardcourts,plus the slower Wimbledon court would make the approach shot have to be perfect.The ball just doesn't slide through the court like it used to.They sit up and give these western grippers too much time to pick a pass,which doesn't have to be a winner.

Basically seems to says theres more natural or instinctive skill in serve volleying than baselining , which can be learned .

Well we have gone that route already, haven't we?

"Chipping and charging" with today's spin and power game would be suicidal. It was for him on grass against a young Hewitt so now with guys like Nadal, Djoko, Federer, Ferrer Davydenko..all excellent returners, I can't see it happening....unless someone comes with twice as much eye/hand coordination than Mc and Sampras.

Haven't you said Laurie that Sampras most successful years were when he was mixing it up and staying on the baseline a bit more?

Very true. I'll add that the problem with added spin is that the ball comes off the racket with less power (and precision as you noted) than when the ball comes straight at you. So a less powerful volley can now be retrieved by faster players who punish any average volley with a winning passing shot. This is why we see more and more drive volleys where the player at the net doesn't simply position the racket in the right angle but plays it like a normal FH almost. to add power.

Tenez, I think Big Al has got it right about what Sampras was trying to get across.

Yes, Sampras had his best results when he didn't stay back a bit more as you say, but when he stayed back a lot more. In many matches up to 1996 he stayed back on first serve quite a lot (non grass surfaces) This has been discussed before, his change of tactics on all surfaces coincided with him getting older, suffering a herniated disc in his back which could have threatened his career in 1999 forcing him to pull out of the US Open when he was red hot favourite, and a down turn of fortunes after 2000 (actually a big downturn, in two years he only won 3 titles).

For instance in the 1999 Los Angeles final I have against Andre, in the first set Sampras stayed back on his second serve virtually throughout the first set and most of the 2nd set, and hardly chipped charged Andre. And yet, after the back problem just a few months later in Australia of all places when they were using those heavy Slazenger balls (Wilson balls since 2006) he played like it was Wimbledon (his words) but he lost (when he should have won in 4 sets) and then the rivalry kind of levelled out, at that stage it was 17-11 to Pete, almost a non rivalry - and the reason was that when they both played their best, Sampras matched Agassi from the baseline but when Sampras' game deteriorated 2000 and after, Agassi regained that part of their tactical matchup.

Sampras always said he prefers a medium paced court where you can come in or stay back. He thinks when you learn to play the game, you will learn the fundamentals of baseline play but net play takes longer to learn, and agents, academies, parents etc don't have that time.

Don't forget, Sampras changed his game when he was 14 and ditched the two handed backhand (which apparently was considered his best shot) to play an attacking game - but then had terrible results for two years. I've read that this caused quite a stir in the mid 1980s because there was a lot of talk, other parents were saying that his coach ruined his career, but Sampras and Pete Fischer persevered thinking that it will work in the long run. I don' think there are too many teenagers around today that would take that sort of risk with their potential career. So it's down to all of these things isn't it? Coaching, financial pressures from investing in young players at academies, surfaces playing at a similar pace - all means that there are not going to be any high quality attacking players anytime soon.

Jim Courier said three years ago on BBC that the indoor season on the ATP tour has been eroded which doesn't help. For instance, Madrid Masters which took over from Stuttgart is a slow high bouncing indoor hardcourt as opposed to a fast indoor carpet court which Stuttgart was. The end of year championships in Madison Square Garden New York and then Frankfurt and Hanover were on fast indoor carpet courts. So now there are hardcourt surfaces outdoors and indoors all through the year. The courts in San Jose are also and has been a indoor hardcourt, not carpet, also the court at Memphis. Jim said he enjoyed playing on indoor carpet.

Sampras has always said he prefer medium paced courts because he likes time to set up his shots, he has a long swing; he also said his movement is underrated and that's because the media always focus on 7 Wimbledons, but he won 36 hardcourt tournaments, most of the courts are medium slow - even in the 1990s there were not many fast outdoor hardcourts - that almost doesn't exist, besides the Arthur Ashe stadium - but he won 4 of his 5 US Opens on the medium paced court pre 1997. Sampras has always enjoyed staying back, despite what the journalists would write taking into account his 7 Wimbledons.

But with the decreased number of indoor carpet courts for instance, what it means is that whereas before you will see players playing different styles to suit the surface, now everyone plays the same way all the time regardless of the surface, so Tennis players all look similar and there are no contrasts. In the 1991 Australian Open final, Becker and Lendl had a baseline bash, but they also played Wimbledon and Becker would have come in on everything so the players played according to the surface. But now because no-one feels obliged to come in, they are not honing their volleying skills. I think the latest technology strings aids both the baseliner and the volleyer, if in the right hands.

I also think how Tsonga played Nadal is exactly how Sampras would have played Nadal. Sampras was the master of hitting the big inside out forehand to the backhand and ending the point with a stop volley when the opponent is out of position, he did that to Agassi countless times, and Kuerten, on those low dipping passing shots, exactly what Tsonga did in Australia. So it's also part tactics and belief in what you are doing. It's really a combination of factors. But I think exciting young players like Tsonga will help move mens Tennis on from the scaredy cat Davydenko, Blake, Ferrer, Robredo type of players. We also need to see Gasquet getting his act together, and this young Nikishori from Japan looks like he has real potential.

Just one thing Tenez, it's a bit ironic that Sampras played his best in two years at the Open in 02 when he got his baseline game (movement and ultimately confidence) back - his serve and volley game never went away.

Some very interesting posts.

I don't agree that every serve and volleyer will make a great baseliner. There are many players who when they stay back get slaughtered, they are simply better at the net. And also many great S&V players would be outlasted by Nadal like tactics in a rally. And we have seen what happened to Henman when he tried to play from the back. But I can see the point that it might be easier to learn baseline once S&V is established rather than the other way around. Especially as volley takes so much skill. But then again didn't Pete learn this later after ebign a baseliner?

Well yes Superbrat, part of the problem of when a player like Sampras gives his thoughts, he's basing his thoughts on his experiences - but not everyone is blessed with his sort of talent. As you say, someone like Henman would have no chance against Nadal on a medium pace court, but in the late 1990s Henman didn't have the power or movement from the backcourt either - hence the low titles count.

It's also a bit dangerous to use players like Myrni, Bjorkman, Karlovic, Taylor Dent, Wesley Moody as players who are having a hard time serving and volleying today because these are journeymen. The point Sampras is thinking is that in the past players of the calibre of Gasquet, Federer, Tsonga would have been honed to be able to serve and volley extremely well (mainly on grass) whilst been excellent baseliners. Federer showed his serve and volley capabilities on grass in 2001 and 2003, I saw him live against Fish in 2003 Wimbledon and he was superb.

But if we want to talk about pure serve and volleyers as opposed to all court players then it would be nice to even see players of the calibre of Rafter and Krajicek and Edberg in today's game. Back then even pure serve and volleyers had a trademark back court shot, Edberg had his world class backhand, Krajicek had a great forehand, Rafter a solid backhand. Phillippousis who's definitely an underachiever had a very good game at net and baseline. The Moody's, Dents, Myrnis, Bjorkmans have absolutely no trademark backcourt shot - they have nothing to offer from the baseline.

But anyway, let's see what happens over the next few years, we always hear the expression that things go in cycles so maybe more attackers will come on the scene in 5 years time, we'll see. Apparently the baseliners were incontrol of the game in the 1970s.

Interesting article...of course having both games is an advantage – that’s a no brainer. The question is, who is so talented that they can server & volley while being able to hold their own form the back of the court. Answer – very few.

In fact – only Sampras and Federer.

Hi Laurie - What do you make of the Ancic Murray match last week? Ancic serve and volleys are right up there. He hasn't got Sampras move but his serve power and reach make up for some of it. As you say Sampras baseline game helped him win a few more trophies. SV as we saw it in the mid 90s is gone for now and I am 100% convinced that with the millions of players training so hard to be successful that if there was a way to win by constantly going to the net, it woudl be implemented by a few by now. It took only one man with talent to end the baseline game schools that Borg had created....and there was many less players trying to become pros then than now. So the reason for people not training as much at the net is that they know it won't pay off. More and more though we see players suddenly SVing once every 20 points and that I think is that they are trying to break the opponent rhythm but they usually don't try to SV twice in a row cause the second time the returner is prepared.

In the 90s, if we had raised the net by 2 inches, SV would not have been successful either, This is roughly what we are seeing today excpet that it's not the net but the whole game that's changed.

And the funny thing is that even at my poor level I can see this. While I was able to have good SV matches in the 90s, now i get obliterated by the new generation of double handed BH who rip my serve like I was serving with a fishnet. I am certainly slower but no way I lost 2 meters in my venturing to the net. That's roughly how further away I am from the net when having a chance to volley compared to 10 years back when I was glued to the net cause the ball was not coming back half as fast.

Just to say that what we see on our screens, we see it in most tennis clubs.

I didn't see the Ancic v Murray match Tenez, but yes I agree Ancic still has the potential to be really good - he's had so many injuries and illnesses. I would like to see him play Murray again when he's 100% fit physically and mentally and match sharp - I think he just came back.

By the way, serve and volley on 1st and 2nd serve is not favourite type of play anyway - and no I'm not contradicting mself because Sampras is my favourite player. I got into him in 1993 when his game was quite different to 2002 - the most recent version which people remember most (understandingly)

I think the Tsonga's and the Gasquets are the ones that are gonna excite people in future, and this Nishikori kid!

As for Murray, he has potential but he will have to become more aggressive for me - and change his attitude! otherwise I will never support in any type of Tennis match. I've always been a fan of Nalbandian's game too.

Very good point. I'd add Becker and Edberg to that as well although to a lesser extent because I think Federer and Sampras are in their own league at being great players all around the court.

Yes except that I don't even think that Sampras and Federer are talented enough to play and win slams SV nowadays.

I agree. But I would say both would have adapted their game to suit the conditions, because both parts of their games were that good, which is what Federer has done to become so dominant these last few years.

Hmmm, not sure - I think Sampras could and I think Federer could, but only at Wimbledon...

The conditions certainly hamper S&V today, I wonder if things will change, after all it was mentioned that the baseline game of Borg was winning Wimbledon (and Connors's too) and that changed when Mac came along, now it has changed back again, maybe we will have yet another change :pray:

Sorry Sara. Not even Wimbledon I think. The balls are big, the courts are perfectly even for the baseliners, returners. We saw how Ancic even at his best 2 years ago, got destroyed by Federer-the-baseliner and I don't think Federer would have succeeded either venturing to the net.

Sampras and Federer are not THAT good that they could win by going to the net but they are fractionnally better than their opposition which allowed them to win more often than them. However, none of them brought a new style which allowed them to win against the trend. SV was already there when Sampras arrived, Baseline game was already de rigueur when Fed took over.

McEnroe on the other end was that good that it allowed the change of trend. But only because it was different times.

My personal feeling is that Sampras had a big enough game. We all speculate that he'd fall now at the hands of the baseliners... but are they that good? There are a huge number of of top players who just like to keep the ball moving at the baseline - without employing any particular skill.

An example I can think of is the Wimbledon final where Sampras thrashed Agassi - s&v specialist mauling a baseline returner.

Even this season, I've seen mediocre serve and volleyers trouble top baseliners - for example, Stepanek taking Djokovic to 5 sets in the USO.

If you've got a great serve and great volley, I still think you've got a good chance. I think that players are being trained now to almost think serve comes second to groundstrokes.

Sadly they are. I keep hearing folks go on about groundstrokes being so important. Of course you need to hit them but you shouldn't be relying on them as the best part fo your game and sadly many players that prefer to engage in long baseline rallies do.

Good points Sara. Agassi is a strange animal though. I have seen now quite a few of his matches and I would not classify him as a baseliner or a today baseliner rather. Today's baseliners don't make mistakes. They make you work hard for your points. Hewitt really is the first of the new baseliner generation, yet many are now more powerful and steadier. Agassi was a mixture of brio and easy mistakes. Looking at the matches Laurie posted, you will notice that he was going for his shots and were either winners or UEs. Typcically his baseline game had the same tempo as the SVers of his time. That is make or break with every shot almost. And I do think he was rather nervous in the tensed moments.

Ferrer, Federer, Nadal, Djoko would have imposed a rhythm Sampras would have struggled with. Was he born 10 years later maybe, difficult to say for sure, but we saw his record against guys who could return his serve and then engaged him in a rally. Chang when he was young and running fast got a 5/0 record versus H2H start v Sampras. Nadal frankly is a different dimension than Chang when it come to returning, and rallying. We saw last summer how difficult it was for Federer to win against baseliners like Nadal and even Ferrero on grass. I don't think Sampras could have rallied with Nadal that year. Can you imagine Nadal's FH on Sampras' BH?

When Sampras was at his top, he was still having tight matches versus Kraji, Goran and the best players. When Federer lost to Ancic in wimby in 2002, Ancic was in the same league as Goran. in 2006 the same Ancic was being destroyed by Federer. Same for Berdych. Same for Roddick. not close.

And Stepanek is certainly not mediocre when he is on top of his game but he is not a SVer, he is a smart player who places the ball very well.

I used to be a big fan of Sampras so this topic is very nostalgic to me :cry:

Pete Sampras was an incredible serve and volleyer, it's too bad there are no more SVs like him these days. Specialists say that this tactic is less efficient because there are better returners but on the other hand we can say that it's because serve and volleyers are less talented and/or less numerous. Nowadays tennis players play all the same (almost). It's not as exciting as it was : Michael Chang, Thomas Muster, Goran Ivanisevic, players had a very difference style, watching them play was :ok:

It's just my opinion ;)

I agree with you alot there is nothin like watching contrasting styles and this is something that never happens now.

Rafa v Federer are very contrasting in style and we have had the plaisure to see them play against each other on three different surfaces. The chances to have Sampras play Muster on grass were close to none. Same for seeing Pete's chance to play the FO later stages were not as bad but still pretty thin.

I am certainly not nostalgic of that time. The differences are for me as great as then with more subtleties. Before you had only SVers in Wimby and retrievers a la Wilander, Sundstrom, Nystrom, Boredom on clay.

Talking about serve and volleyers, Feliciano Lopez, one of the very very rare s&v is playing Andy Roddick at the moment. I don't know what the results will be but he's already won the first set ! So considering Lopez is only 40th, this proves that serve and volleyers have still their chances in today's tennis :) The only problem in my opinion is that we don't have today a serve and volleyer as talented as Sampras was. Serve and Volley is a frightening weapon when you control it 100% :darkangel: