Has Serve and Volley Become Extinct?

Around 1979-1980, tennis was dominated by four big names—Bjorn Borg, John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors.

If these four names had played during different eras, they would have won at least 10 Grand Slams each, but fate had other plans.

It was very common to see these four men make it in the top four at almost every Grand Slam. Though there would be only one victor at the end of each event, the sport of tennis won every time.

That period can be regarded as the Golden Age of tennis.

Tennis was classy to watch. The short precise domination over their respective serves were interesting and even enthusiastic. You would quite often find 40-0 games and serve games. It's because of the evergreen serve and volley type of tennis, which made everyone say "Ah"!

John McEnroe was the major proponent of the serve and volley tennis in that period. He would serve without bouncing the ball (not as the likes of Roger, Rafa and Djokovic do these days) and would rush to the net even before the opponent realizes where the ball was pitched. When the opponent sees McEnroe coming, he misses the serve or hits it poorly, which makes the job look easy. It was always a treat to watch these four going head-to-head.

Later during early 1990's Stefan Edberg took over the serve and volley game. He was really successful volley player. He was no.1 in both singles as well as doubles. Then came Pete Sampras the best all round player the world has ever seen. He won 14 Grandslams, a record which still stays only because of his mesmerizing capability to serve and volley.

I'm not saying the tennis played today is not interesting. It's just...too boring to describe from a fan's view.

It's too boring to see players ending rallies from the baseline of the court like it's practice. It's more like playing against a wall. The wall sends the ball back to you with the same velocity, which you applied. Now where's the fun in that?

For instance, take the 2009 Australian Open Semifinal match between Rafael Nadal and Fernando Verdasco. People say that was a great match, which lasted around six hours and five sets. Is it the time period that makes the match better? No! It was a plain boring match played between two hard-hitting Spaniards who were afraid of rushing the net. I'm sure that the six-hour marathon had only 10-15 net points.

It wouldn't have lasted six hours if they only would take a risk once in a while.

Today's players are too afraid to take that extra risk in their game. Nadal stands a few feet behind the baseline, now what’s that? Why is he that afraid to face the ball in its initial stages?

Winning does not mean anything. It's the way in which you win games.

Yes, the pitches today are much slower than the courts during those times, but it's not that slow to make a player stand two to three feet behind the baseline. That's a hopeless argument.

Even the great Federer is very aware to take the step forward. He plays a beautiful serve and volley in grass courts, but not on any other surface. We can't complain though, he is the only player who at least tries to play serve and volley these days.

We saw six hours of a match, but if these practices continue, the time is not very far for us to see Grand Slam tournaments played for three weeks rather than two.

Players should come forward and show all the young budding minds a way to play the classy format of Tennis. If not, in a few decades, the word "serve and volley" will become extinct.