 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
I guess it is not entirely true that the server and volley is less tiring as one has to quickly move upfront following a serve. If the opponent is good at lobbying then the serve and volley player would end up running bbackwards as well. 59.92.202.230 07:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC) BPCP
- It's just Jack Kramer's opinion -- others would disagree with him. Particularly these days. Hayford Peirce 15:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Intro
editI added a description of the style that should make it easier for a non-tennis player to understand the article. I removed the Context tag. The article still needs to be better organized. MrVibrating 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Rod Laver is missing from this whole conversation. Knmayh01 (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I meant Arthur Ashe Knmayh01 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Tilden's 'Theory'
editIt says here that Tilden maintained that a 'great' baseliner would 'by definition' (sic) beat a 'great' serve-and-volley player because the returns would be so good that the volleyer would be unable to volley them. But surely if the volleyer were as great a volleyer as the returner was a returner then he would be able to make the volley. The 'theory' does not stand up. Nicander (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)