When tennis changed racquets in the 80s, the courts were never designed to hold the kind of power that could be generated with new equipment. Many people were complaining at the time that courts were too fast for such equipment. Think about it. People of every generation complain about things not being “the way they were” before. Look at Wimbledon in the early 80s with wooden racquets vs the 90s. Totally different game. People hated it, so they slowed the courts down (particularly Wimbledon in 2001)

@@mikemoggerson6651 I was happy in the 90s to see faster tennis, I do not recall people complaning about it. People complained about servebots and their crazy efficiency late 90s. To my recollection, that is because of servebots that the tour slowed down everything.

@@vgr112261 no they didn’t. Serve and volley didn’t get killed by surface speed. This year’s ATP finals were played on fast courts (CPI OF 45+). For reference, 45+ is considered a “fast court.” Not just a “medium fast” court…a literal fast court with extremely quick conditions. Even despite that, Novak dominated and the rallies were still quite long. We all know that he’s actually extremely good on quick courts. Some baseliners are actually extremely good on fast courts. Those that can take a low ball with a compact stroke, and also fantastic returners/counter punchers will generally be good on a fast surface. No one from the 80s/90s had remotely the same caliber of baseline skill the top players do today. I mean, just look at Sampras ground strokes…he would barely be able to take a point off Novak based on ground strokes alone on an extremely quick court. His only chance would be serve and volley, but we all know Novak is an elite returner. Better than even Agassi. Surely he breaks Sampras at least a few times in a match. But then how does Sampras break back when he’s getting utterly destroyed with his elementary ground strokes? Sure, aggressive returns and net approaches may work against an average player of the 90s…but today? Get real He cannot compete with Novak, or even many modern players from the baseline. Quick court or not. I know I’m writing a lot but in this hypothetical scenario I’m just telling you what would probably happen if Sampras tried to employ his regular tactics against an evolved superstar, regardless of surface speed. It wouldn’t work that well. Even a guy like Federer had to employ the widest variety to come close to beating a player like Novak on grass. And that’s someone with elite ground strokes AND net play…not a guy with elementary ground strokes like Sampras. Serve and volley as the sole tactic WOULDN’T work well on any speed of grass in the modern game. But it still has its place and is used occasionally (as it should be). For example, Novak used it a lot in the US open final. It still has its uses. As a singular tactic, returning is too good now. As I said, even at the ATP finals with very fast conditions and lighter balls, 130 MPH serves were still being returned to servers feet with ease. This never would have happened 25-30 years ago. What effectively killed serve and volley as the be all end all tactic was the racquet technology and subsequent returner skill. Good luck volleying when someone is pounding back your 120 mph serve with a 95 MPH topspin forehand. The game has changed regardless of surface speed. There’s some fantastic articles on tennis abstract that delve into the details of what I’m saying…There isn’t much evidence that courts slowed down that much. Wimbledon has in fact slowed down (but mainly in 2001). Outside of that, some courts may be slower, some are slightly faster (such as AO or ATP finals). The balls are arguably the biggest culprit in potential slowing down of the game.

Trust me, most people would not like it. Even at Turin we’ve seen tons of complaints about how fast courts are just Servebot central, particularly last year. Any faster and it would just about become impossible to return most top players’ first serves. Courts were slowed down for a bette product. People want athleticism, eye-popping rallies, winners that require a ton of power, net game as a changeup rather than the main play. Faster courts eliminate variety and turn every match into a battle of first serve percentage, and occasional volleys if you get a return in play (rare). Does anyone want to see Hurkacz become a top 3 player in the world? Grand slam finals of him hitting 45 aces? I don’t. Also net play hasn’t gone anywhere, we just happened to have a generation that was weak at net. Medvedev, Zverev, Rublev may be trash at net, but that’s also a huge weakness for them. Hence why Nadal, Djokovic, Alcaraz, Tsitsipas, Rune have all become great at the net to counter them, and even Zverev and Sinner have worked a lot on their net games and are getting better. Anyone who complains about lack of net play in the ATP just isn’t watching tennis. Or is only watching Medvedev vs Rublev matches.

​@@SJ-di5zuDjokovic great at the net? He's the poorest net player to be world number one since Lendl.

Even though Sampras owned Becker in the end, this is what a real big boy rivalry looks like. I would guess that witnessing one at the same level from another generation seems unlikely.

For the love of the game, bring it back

@@SobersRajakumar wawrinka is still here. his style is closest to what these players played

@@Alexander-dt2eqsorry my friend. The only thing he got is a single handed backhand. Serve and volley died somewhere around Sampras’s retirement

@@SobersRajakumar Patrick Rafter carried the S&V flag for a couple more years after Sampras retired. Last of the real serve volleyers.

My dear pal, the only point I'll have to agree with you is that Patrick Rafter was also a serve and volley player. I remember him retiring earlier than Sampras and by that virtue he got into Tennis HOF in 2006 while Sampras got into HOF in 2007. He may have done a comeback like many other players but, may not have had an impact in the rankings to unretire his status@@kweizi5712

Fed's style was def inspired by watching Pete

@@asud2571 I remember reading somewhere that when Roger was asked why single hand backhand he replied that Sampras and Becker had single hand backhand so two hand backhand was always out of the question !

@@asud2571more like Edberg. Serve and volley players was a true all around player. Their main attacking was to serve and volley.

more power...sure.....more accuracy....not a chance.

The surfaces were just faster, that’s the difference.

@@duncanferguson7814 I agree with you up to a point. There was more power in Pete's game, and even in Becker's. This is why they didn't always have to play close to the line, since the power in their shots was sufficient to generate winners. In today's tennis, two things happened: More spin meant more air and less power. Therefore they have to play closer to the lines, more surgical.

They recognize great players, wherever they are from.

No screaming? there were a few screams from Becker...

the constant fist pumping today, on the most idiotic points, is just repulsive.

​ @miiavega actually peterhammer want to says, everything was great back then and then came the evil djokovic🤣🤣 THANK YOU GOATkovic for this kind from coment

precisely, a few@@miiavega

​@@travisbickle5279 He almost said that hahahahha. The evil Djokovic who won everything, broke all the records and still makes these guys sad at 36 years old.

Casual viewers don’t understand how much skill is required to be so good at volley. They prefer to watch how 2 baseline players strike at each other for a period of time

I know the serve and volley game could be dull at times with the contracted points but the range of skills required was much greater. Some amazing volleying here, running banana forehands and, my favourite, the inside out one-handed backhands. So refreshing to see.

true

the passing shots

@@support_eu6397 Yeah and that's the exact reason why serve and volley isn't used as much anymore is because its so fucking hard to execute correctly. Todays "baseliners" would destroy these 2. You lot are stuck in the past. Not taking anything away from these 2 legends but the modern generation would toy with them. Move on.

the only significant clay title of his career.

@@huzcer Yes , though he also almost singlehanded won Davis cup in Russia on clay , winning all 3 matches ,one of them was against French Open winner Kafelnikov ! And beat every single FO champion on clay. Not that bad !

@@hassehougaard5120 Kafelnikov was not a noted clay player. Never won a single clay masters. made a career total of 2 French open semis as opposed to just one for sampras but went on to win it. Bagelled Sampras in straights in the semi.

He won the AO 94 because Agassi wasn t there.

@@huzcer Anybody who win the biggest clay court tournament is per definition a noted clay player ! Kafelnikov also won the French Open in doubles 3 times ....talk about talent on clay ! Pete also beat two times French Open winner Jim Courier on clay in the QF in FO , after beating another two time French Open winner Sergi Bruguera in second round ! Are they "a noted clay player " ? 😅 In fact Pete beat all the French Open winners on Clay ! And Between 1990-1998, Sampras had a "fairly" strong clay-court record. His clay-court record, (62-24), during that period was the 4th best. Only Muster (277-69), Bruguera (205-65), and Courier (74-25) managed to do better. You will notice that Pete's record on clay is overall superior to Agassi!!

Today players can rarely play serving and net approaching because they will be crushed with returns. Racket-made technology has been improved so much to help players in hitting the ball so strong.

@@vinnynguyen5399 Well , I know that's what everybody says , but I don't think it holds up ! Racket-made technology also made the serve faster ! Look at this ! Hubert hurkacz serve speed 1st Serve Average Speed 202 km/h 2nd Serve Average Speed 159 km/h Difference between 1. and 2. serve 43 km/h Novak Djokovic serve speed 1st Serve Average Speed 188 km/h 2nd Serve Average Speed 147 km/h Difference between 1. and 2. serve 41 km/h Pete Sampras serve speed 1st Serve Average Speed 191 km/h 2nd Serve Average Speed 175 km/h Difference between 1. and 2 .serve 16 km/h Those only 16 km/h in difference is why Jim Courier have said about Sampras "it is impossible to beat a guy with 2 first serve ! " And Pete often hit above 209 km/h on his 1. serve And Pete made these numbers with an old racket , Wilson Pro Staff 85 . I have taken Hubert hurkacz as an example of one of the biggest server nowadays who pushed Novak to the edge in Wimbledon , very hard to break . Now imagine a super fast player like Pete , with what is consider the best serve ever and a much better all around game instead of Hubert hurkacz ! My money would be on Pete , or Boris who is a very close runner up to Pete on fast court or grass! And last , Novak and others actually have begun to serve and volley at times ,and actually with winning %, so its not at all impossible ! But the quality of the volleying is very far from Pete and Boris , also the half volley and overhead ! Its a dead artform , Sebastian Korda have some skills , but most players look like robotic baseliners ! Of course it takes a very good serve,very high technical skills and natural movement to do it .... Pete and Boris had that 😎

@@hassehougaard5120 I think that racquet technology has made it easier for smaller players to generate more power, but agree that its probably not the most responsible for the disappearance of serve and volley. I think the main culprits are polyester string that allows players to easily generate more spin and reduced court speed. It has become easier with new string technology to dip the return at the server's feet and make dipping passing shots significantly easier than in the 90s before poly. Slower courts have also given the baseliners a fraction of a second longer and higher bounce to hit a passing shot. None of this is to say that someone can't be successful serve and vollying. There are still a few players in the top 100 (Max Cressy immediately comes to mind), but they are increasing rare. Using the tactic as a surprise or a way to disrupt the rhythm of a baseliner is still a great tactic (a lot of players are using this against Medvedev and his deep return position with varying levels of success). I'd love to see a few Edberg, Sampras, Beckers in today's game to provide variety. Sadly, I don't think they'd fare very well as the game has changed (see above), but I could be wrong. I definitely agree that the quality of vollying has diminished drastically. A lot of the oooh! volleys in today's game would have been very pedestrian in the 90s. I disagree about the overhead though. Nearly all the top players have solid if not great overheads. Djokovic is the notable exception. His overhead was inexplicably bad considering his baseline game was flawless. He's drastically improved his volleys in the last few years and his overhead has improved to being just bad and now aweful for a top 100 pro.

While it looks great in a tidy highlight package....the serve and volley tennis was so boring at the time compared to rafa fed djo matchups. Even as a fan of 90s tennis watching Henman Ivanisavic etc, its not as good as the era thar came after it....not even close

​@@duncanferguson7814Most people were moaning about the serve and volley, yet now it's the worst thing to be gone. If most actually had to sit and watch that again with no old racquets where you really had no choice, they'd scream besides a few. Highlights you can enjoy it since you're not watching a full tournament of it which people forget, but as a kid I remember people liked Agassi since he played like today besides service, return, and put away. Then the constant aces added to people getting tired of it until it changed. For me I'd say the speed of the Court's is what's missing by speeding some of them up so it's not all the same.

I just miss , seeing them screaming at the box each time they make an errow 😂😂..............................not !

or the best match of the 90ies.....

Unlike today...

@@user-of6tl9cd5z Pederer fan spotted 🤣

Indeed. Today's tennis is mainly a borefest.

@@matthewturner2803If you’re only watching De Minaur, Zverev, Medvedev, Rublev, and Hurkacz then sure. If you’re watching Alcaraz, Nadal, Rune, Tsitsipas, or Kyrgios and complaining about the variety, then I can’t help you. Net play is very much alive in modern tennis and it is the main reason that many top players without a good net game can’t quite break through.

@@SJ-di5zu Compared to Sampras I do find today's tennis mainly a war of attrition from the baseline. However I do agree some players do come to the net.

@@SJ-di5zu Compared to Sampras I do find today's tennis mainly a war of attrition from the baseline. However I do agree some players do come to the net.

​@@SJ-di5zuNadal take doping with wada permition minimum from 2011

Nah, 😂

Better

I hate that about today's players.

@@AS-js7kb Yes, me too. The worst are Sinner, Alcarez and Shapovalov.

@@hesch-tag sinner just raises his fist silently... it doesn't really seem to bad at all compared to what i've seen from sonego, shelton, tiafoe, etc.

they would not be even in top 10 now

@@miloraddjurdjic1695 That's because they are in their 50s. Nonsensical comment, as usual.

@@miloraddjurdjic1695 Not on the slow courts of today, they'd still be beasts with the same conditions.

​@@miloraddjurdjic1695of course, they are too old now.😂😂😂

I don't think Boris could be classified in all-time greats like Samprass, Agassi, MC Enrol, Borg, Stefan Edberg, Big3...

Bollocks. If its "boring baseline tennis" why do you even watch it? Go and watch baseball. Casual fan, you can't appreciate the EVOLUTION of a sport. It's quite obvious why serve and volley isn't used as much anymore is because its not as effective. Did you see how many points were lost in this video when the server served and volleyed? I'm guessing not cause you probably weren't paying attention. The modern generation of tennis players would destroy these 2. Move on.

You really can't highlight something you like without putting down the things you don't like right ? "Boring baseline" is such an easily degrading way to describe today's tennis.

serve and volley was also boring, can remember watching endless hours of serves N volleys from Edberg vs Becker. The best times was the transition, Agassi style (baseline tennis) mixed with all other styles.

"servebot and volley" and the "2 shot rallies" was so trite by the late 90's at Wimbledon that more tv viewers had decided to watch the WTA instead of all things 😂 That's the "exciting" it was compared to today!

😂

Some people are masters of finding something to complain about no matter how blessed they are.

*its

I guess he told Sampras that he (Becker) might be out of the tournament inspite of the win. Becker needed to win that match in straight sense to advance or hope for Michael Stich beating Andra Agassi. Of course Agassi won against Stich and in the end Sampras won the whole event.

The crowd was more than ok. Of course they cheered for Boris but nothing like US Open or RG.

Think it’s cuz this is the ATP finals which were held on Germany in those years.

All five of them are great 🙌 however I don't understand how someone can like Sampras and not like Federer ?

@@user-cy6xl3vd3f maybe 'cos Fed was so far up his own arse with his Wimby suit blazers and shorts combo poncing that he had a real pong off himself!

@@user-cy6xl3vd3f I didn‘t like that he broke all his records, especially at wimbledon

🙄