PDA

View Full Version : I am sorry, but does anyone else find Serve and Volley tennis really boring?


Reuchlin
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:17 AM
I watched the Jean King 1970ish final that they have on the USopen website, and I must say that I was really, really bored. All it was, was Jean King rushing up to net after hitting one ball and the other girl hitting a wild shot out. Is this the type of tennis that Martina wants back?

I think that--depsite what Martina says-- the game of tennis requires a greater variety of shots then it ever did. Federer, Justine, Amelie and now even Nadal are showing that in order to be at the very top you have to know how to volley and rally (one or the other no longer cuts it).

Pureracket
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:21 AM
You found tennis in the 70s boring? Go figure.

Maybe you should stick to trolling Serena threads.

iPatty
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:35 AM
what a coincedince.

mauresmo wins wimbledon by serving and volleying, just happening to beat henin-hardenne along the way.

that wouldn't be influencing your opinions, now would it?

Fingon
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:36 AM
No, I find men's claycourt tennis boring. Two guys hitting the ball 200 times to the exact same spot.

I don't know what match you saw, but I find serve and volley really exciting, players like Pat Rafter or Novotna were a pleasure to watch.

Yes, Justine or Amelie have variety, but except for Wimbledon, they are staying more and more on the baseline, they go for the angles, they change the pace but often are limited to exchange power shots because they don't have time for anything else.

Federer is an exception and that's because he is probably the most gifted player ever. Federer doesn't come to the net because he doesn't need to, but he does when he has to, remember Wimbledon 2004 against Roddick, he was being blown off the court by Roddick and then he started to come to the net a lot more and changed the match, but only he can do that because he isn't human.

It wasn't not too exciting when two serve and volleyers played each other, but a Sampras - Agassi, or a Lendl - Edberg, or Rafter - Agassi, or Navratilova - Evert were fantastic matches. Now they try to win the point on the serve, it's often a service winner or a single volley, that's not too exciting. True serve and volleyers would use the serve to set up the volley, would half volley and would be prepared to cover the net because they would expect the ball to come back after the first volley, that was normally used as an approach shot rather than a winner.

darrinbaker00
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:39 AM
No, I find men's claycourt tennis boring. Two guys hitting the ball 200 times to the exact same spot.

I don't know what match you saw, but I find serve and volley really exciting, players like Pat Rafter or Novotna were a pleasure to watch.

Yes, Justine or Amelie have variety, but except for Wimbledon, they are staying more and more on the baseline, they go for the angles, they change the pace but often are limited to exchange power shots because they don't have time for anything else.

Federer is an exception and that's because he is probably the most gifted player ever. Federer doesn't come to the net because he doesn't need to, but he does when he has to, remember Wimbledon 2004 against Roddick, he was being blown off the court by Roddick and then he started to come to the net a lot more and changed the match, but only he can do that because he isn't human.

It wasn't not too exciting when two serve and volleyers played each other, but a Sampras - Agassi, or a Lendl - Edberg, or Rafter - Agassi, or Navratilova - Evert were fantastic matches. Now they try to win the point on the serve, it's often a service winner or a single volley, that's not too exciting. True serve and volleyers would use the serve to set up the volley, would half volley and would be prepared to cover the net because they would expect the ball to come back after the first volley, that was normally used as an approach shot rather than a winner.
Amen, especially that last paragraph. Variety is the spice of life, and it's the contrasting styles (Evert-Navratilova, Borg-McEnroe, Sampras-Agassi) that make for great matches.

Dawn Marie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:48 AM
No. I find S@V style exciting to watch. Players using finesse to close out a point at the net is exciting to see. My favorite style is the all-court game though.


I know many top players hit hard and deep and use alot of pace and power but when I see those all-court players play tennis, I find the tennis actually to be more enjoyable to my eye.

I mean I like to see Ai,Henin,Hingis,Momo,Jana,Zvereva and yes even Tauziat play tennis. I like to see angles,spins and slices. I love the dropper and the stab volleys. I enjoy watching players who know how to hit every shot in the book play tennis. The thing is they usually lose earlier then most.

UDACHi
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:52 AM
i like power tennis. :)

Andy.
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:53 AM
Terribly, i hate watching serve and volley i would much rather watch 2 baseliners slugging it out.

Volcana
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:02 AM
Pagliacci - Do you actually play tennis?

darrinbaker00
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:04 AM
Terribly, i hate watching serve and volley i would much rather watch 2 baseliners slugging it out.
Surprise, surprise, surprise.....

IceHock
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:06 AM
Well,watching 2 players slug it out on every point is boring as hell because it usually ends in an error,that's why I like variety,if Amelie and Justine weren't on the tour I think it would be kinda boring because of all the variety they bring.

PatrickRyan
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:07 AM
do you have a link to the video?

Reuchlin
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:45 AM
Pagliacci - Do you actually play tennis?

I do. I played for my high school and played at a club. I'm a 5.0 player. How does me saying serve and volley is boring to watch have anything to do with how much I play :p :p :p .

Reuchlin
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:47 AM
what a coincedince.

mauresmo wins wimbledon by serving and volleying, just happening to beat henin-hardenne along the way.

that wouldn't be influencing your opinions, now would it?

Oh ya, so clever-- considering Justine had more net approaches in the match :o :o :o

selesfan
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:48 AM
It depends, if it is serve and volley that is over in one shot ala Pete or Goran it is boring. If it is the traditional serve and volley of the older players I like it. I also like Rafter and Henman because they were classic serve and volleyers

Kworb
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:49 AM
I don't mind serve and volley.. as long as they don't do it every single point

GrandSlam05
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:50 AM
Terribly, i hate watching serve and volley i would much rather watch 2 baseliners slugging it out.
Then why do you like Maria? She's practically the 2nd coming of Navratilova with her style of play.

iPatty
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:50 AM
Oh ya, so clever-- considering Justine had more net approaches in the match :o :o :o

and she lost, another reason for you to find it boring. :D

metamorpha
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:55 AM
Ivo Karlovic, Goran and Nadal's opponent at 2nd round Wimbledon..... they're really boring to watch as they relied on serve and cheap volley too much. Most points finished on just two or three strokes.

They can't do well even on a short rally.

tennisvideos
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:06 AM
I watched the Jean King 1970ish final that they have on the USopen website, and I must say that I was really, really bored. All it was, was Jean King rushing up to net after hitting one ball and the other girl hitting a wild shot out. Is this the type of tennis that Martina wants back?

I think that--depsite what Martina says-- the game of tennis requires a greater variety of shots then it ever did. Federer, Justine, Amelie and now even Nadal are showing that in order to be at the very top you have to know how to volley and rally (one or the other no longer cuts it).

If you watched the 1971 Final between King & Casals then yes, that match wasn't a particularly high standard match. But did you see the 74 USO with King & Goolagong? Now there was some stunning S&V tennis and there are heaps of examples of great S&V and all court matches from the 60s and 70s I have that show how exciting it was. A few for example were: 64 Wimbledon Final Bueno, 70 Wimbledon Final Court v King, USO Finals 73 and 74, 69 Wimb Final Laver v Newcombe etc.

My favourite clashes have usually been when a S&V player or an all court player has been matched up with a baseliner eg. Navratilova v Evert. But when two good all court players go head to head that's pretty exciting too. There can be lots of great rallies still.

trivfun
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:10 AM
has anyone see the team of Virginia Ruano-Pascual and Paola Suarez? They mix in baseline play and net play very effectively. I find it entertaining because it appears chaotic but they have such incredible kinetic intuition for where one is.

Mother_Marjorie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:45 AM
You found tennis in the 70s boring? Go figure.

Maybe you should stick to trolling Serena threads.

SWOOP!

Pureracket
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:47 AM
SWOOP!Not tonight, Julia. . . not tonight. :bolt:

Mother_Marjorie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:38 AM
Not tonight, Julia. . . not tonight. :bolt:

Run Forrest....Run!

jbeacinu
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:44 AM
to me all of Serena's shots are boring...except when she pumps her fist that shit scares me

ToeTag
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:01 AM
I found ppl who played S/V badly to be boring. Natalie Tauziat was always boring to me...her S/V was always so ugly,and awkward to watch. Also, I didn't care for two S/Vers in the same match unless it was on clay.

delicatecutter
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:03 AM
No.

Zauber
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:13 AM
power tennis is boring.
That is why I prefered women's tennis for the past ten years, except on clay.
Variety has reappered in Men's tennis with Federer and Nadal.
Big servers like Roddick are totally boring, coparatively speakin they cannot do much else. That is why they cannot win on clay. At least in the past they could serve and volley which required skill.
I find good ralies with offence and defence the most exiting thing in tennis.
Nadal is just a joy to watch.
long live rallies.
Men's two shot tennis almost made me stop watching tennis.
Well right now there is variety again however we still have the big servers in mens tennis who cannot do much else.
That is really boooooring.
I hate pure power tennis. It is one dimensional and boooooooring.

delicatecutter
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:15 AM
Roddick is truly the devil when it comes to tennis. :evil:

treufreund
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:26 AM
Roddick is truly the devil when it comes to tennis. :evil:
I like an all court player who can play from baseline, mid-court and net. Pure serve and volleying is not boring per se but comes in 2nd place to an all-court game. Pure baseline Agassi-tennis does not excite me too much. Variety is the spice of life.

rottweily
Sep 3rd, 2006, 10:59 AM
Oh ya, so clever-- considering Justine had more net approaches in the match :o :o :o

Indeed, Mauresmo won that match with the S and not with the V.

Marcus Jordan
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:08 AM
Over the years I've found Martina Hingis extremely entertaining when she serve/volleys. But I find Henman to be very boring.

crazillo
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:11 AM
No, I find men's claycourt tennis boring. Two guys hitting the ball 200 times to the exact same spot.

I don't know what match you saw, but I find serve and volley really exciting, players like Pat Rafter or Novotna were a pleasure to watch.

Yes, Justine or Amelie have variety, but except for Wimbledon, they are staying more and more on the baseline, they go for the angles, they change the pace but often are limited to exchange power shots because they don't have time for anything else.

Federer is an exception and that's because he is probably the most gifted player ever. Federer doesn't come to the net because he doesn't need to, but he does when he has to, remember Wimbledon 2004 against Roddick, he was being blown off the court by Roddick and then he started to come to the net a lot more and changed the match, but only he can do that because he isn't human.

It wasn't not too exciting when two serve and volleyers played each other, but a Sampras - Agassi, or a Lendl - Edberg, or Rafter - Agassi, or Navratilova - Evert were fantastic matches. Now they try to win the point on the serve, it's often a service winner or a single volley, that's not too exciting. True serve and volleyers would use the serve to set up the volley, would half volley and would be prepared to cover the net because they would expect the ball to come back after the first volley, that was normally used as an approach shot rather than a winner.

Very weell said, exactly my thoughts, too. :)

rottweily
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:13 AM
Consistent serve and volley is a bad choice nowadays. For Justine it certainly is, she's too small.
The surprise serve and volley can be good.

Wayn77
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:15 AM
YES - it is why I initially came over to the women's game in the early 90s and have stayed there solidly ever since. A rationed diet of S&V is a wonderful skill to behold - Amelie Mauresmo against Henin in the Wimbledon final being a good example. Don't get me wrong - Sampras was a tennis god, but man aside from Agassi, it was boring to watch the men during that era. Give me two baseliners slugging it out on clay any time. It was great on Monday night to see Lopez hammer a S&V bully like Ljubicic with inspiring flair tennis on a hard court - the crowd were going nuts and so was I.