Serve-and-Volley… Is it worth it?
As we discussed in class, tennis is one apt example where we can observe game theory. Even though one person technically makes a move, or hits the ball first, it’s a matter of seconds so the returner already has to start to anticipate where the ball will go. It’s hard for viewers unfamiliar with the game to notice this on baseline rallies, where both players are hitting the ball from the back of the court. From any angle on the court, there are certain high percentage shots that a player can hit and is most likely to make. Thus, the returner can position him or herself in a strategic position as to maximize their chance of hitting the ball back. For example, in the picture below, the dotted lines depict the range of court in which player 2 can return the ball made. Thus, after player 1 hits the ball, he or she are recovering to get back into position, so as to maximize their payoff and ability to stay in the point. Generally, if one were to make two categories (one for hitting inside the blue lines and one for hitting outside the blue lines), one would find that this is the dominant strategy, as the chances of hitting a shot and winning the point by hitting outside the blue dotted lines are very low. Thus over the course of a match, the payoff will be less.
However, an easier way to understand the application of game theory would be through serve-and-volleying. A once widely used strategy, serve-and-volleying refers to when a server serves the ball, normally fast or at a hard angle, and comes to the net to volley, or return the ball without it bouncing. The advantage of this strategy is that it catches your opponent off guard and shortens the time between the returner’s first shot and second shot they have to hit. At the same time, the tactic relies on catching your opponent off guard. Unless the serve is hit really well*, the returner has a wide angle to work with because all he or she has to do is hit it out of the reach of the server or lob the ball so the server can’t get to it. This form of play was popular in the olden days, in the time of John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Martina Navratilova, etc. because of the wooden rackets and playing style at the time. However, as tennis ushered into the new era, players began to develop a better baseline game and switched to heavier steel and aluminum rackets, which increased the ability of a player to hit a groundstroke or return better.
However, some players still prefer this tactic. Normally, large players who don’t have the stamina or the baseline game to go toe-to-toe with their opponents employ this tactic. Still, research shows it’s becoming more of a hit or miss game. One player, Mischa Zverev of Germany, described it as “flipping a coin 200 times a day and then [hoping] you win the majority of those coin tosses” (Reuters). He’s absolutely right, as at the end of the day, this is nothing but game theory. There is no dominant strategy or Nash equilibrium. If Zverev were to serve and volley, a few points in the opponent would just start to anticipate the approach and counter it with either an angle shot or a lob. Over time, the likelihood of Zverev winning a point with this strategy would be slim to none. Thus, he not only has to decide whether to come in or not but where to serve as well. Thus, the possibilities are endless, making it a mixed strategy game, where the server has switch his strategy up on any given point.
To hear more from Mischa Zverev about serve-and-volleying, click this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrUy_1SshO4
*Note: For the sake of argument, this analysis assumes that the serve hit is viable enough to employ this approach. In a real tennis match, there are numerous other factors that limit or enhance this strategy such as the player’s service strength, the court surface, weather conditions, the opponent’s court positioning, etc.
Links referenced: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-wimbledon-volley/tennis-not-extinct-but-odds-stacked-against-serve-and-volleyers-idUSKBN19R12L
Image: Courtesy of google images. I do not own the image and full credit goes to the original author of the image.