The Underarm Serve: Tennis’ Unfairly Vilified Tactic
Tennis, a sport steeped in tradition, has always had a peculiar relationship with innovation. From the introduction of the tiebreak to the evolution of racket technology, every shift has been met with resistance. But one tactic, the underarm serve, continues to spark outrage—and it’s time we questioned why.
Take Nuno Borges’ recent victory at the Barcelona Open. With cramps and a leg issue hampering his movement, Borges pulled off an underarm serve to clinch the final point. The crowd booed. His opponent, Tomás Martín Etcheverry, looked away in disdain. But here’s the thing: Borges didn’t cheat. He didn’t break the rules. He simply outsmarted his opponent.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how the underarm serve has become a litmus test for tennis’s willingness to embrace strategy over spectacle. Personally, I think the backlash against it says more about the sport’s outdated purism than the tactic itself. Tennis has always been a game of cat and mouse, where surprise is a weapon. Yet, when a player uses the underarm serve, it’s labeled as unsportsmanlike. Why?
If you take a step back and think about it, the underarm serve is the ultimate equalizer. Players like Alexander Bublik and Nick Kyrgios, with their cannon-like serves, force opponents to stand far behind the baseline. The underarm serve exploits this very position, turning their strength into a liability. It’s not just a trick—it’s a calculated move.
One thing that immediately stands out is how the underarm serve challenges the notion of what’s ‘fair’ in tennis. Critics argue it’s underhanded, but isn’t the entire sport built on outmaneuvering your opponent? A drop shot, a well-placed lob, even a net cord—all are accepted as part of the game. So why is the underarm serve treated like a cardinal sin?
What many people don’t realize is that the underarm serve isn’t new. Michael Chang famously used it to defeat Ivan Lendl at the 1989 French Open. Pablo Cuevas won a match with it in 2017. Yet, it’s still seen as a desperate move, a last resort. This narrative is not only outdated but also dismissive of its strategic value.
From my perspective, the real issue isn’t the underarm serve itself but the culture of tennis. The sport thrives on narratives of power and dominance—big serves, blistering groundstrokes, and relentless athleticism. The underarm serve disrupts this narrative. It’s a reminder that tennis is as much about brains as it is about brawn.
On the WTA side, the underarm serve is even rarer, partly because players don’t stand as far back to receive. But when Sara Errani used it after developing serving yips, she faced similar criticism. Her response? ‘Not liking my serve? Write to WTA or Santa. I am tired!’ Her frustration is telling. Tennis needs to stop policing creativity and start celebrating it.
What this really suggests is that the underarm serve isn’t just a tactic—it’s a symbol of tennis’s struggle to evolve. The sport must decide whether it wants to remain a bastion of tradition or embrace the unpredictability that makes it so captivating.
As Daniil Medvedev aptly put it, ‘It’s a fair tactic.’ But fairness isn’t the issue. The real question is: Are we ready to accept that tennis is a game of surprises, not just power?
In my opinion, the underarm serve isn’t underhanded—it’s underrated. It’s a testament to the ingenuity of players who dare to think differently. Tennis doesn’t need to apologize for innovation. It needs to applaud it.
So, the next time a player pulls off an underarm serve, don’t boo. Cheer. Because in a sport that often feels stuck in its ways, every bold move is a step forward.
