It also gives the server an exposed target: a short ball with no speed, landing inside the service box.
The underhand serve exploits that geometry. It does not beat the returner through velocity, height, or a high RPM profile. It removes the assumptions on which the return position is built. The tactical question is simple. The cultural question is not.
The current underhand serve tennis etiquette debate exists because the stroke sits between two definitions of the sport. Under the ITF rules, it is a legal serve. Within traditional tennis etiquette, it can be read as provocation. The ball follows the rulebook. The gesture can still be judged by the audience.
The 1989 French Open: a serve used as a survival mechanism
The modern argument usually begins with Nick Kyrgios. The tactical precedent is older and more serious.
On June 5, 1989, Michael Chang was 17 years old and playing Ivan Lendl in the fourth round of the French Open. Chang was suffering from severe cramps. His movement was deteriorating. A conventional service pattern required a stable launch position, leg drive, and enough recovery capacity to defend the next ball. Those resources were disappearing.
Chang used an underhand serve.
The point was not theatrical. It was not designed to embarrass Lendl. It was a response to a physical problem that had altered the tactical value of the normal serve. A fast serve would not restore Chang’s movement. It would only begin another exchange under worse conditions. The underhand delivery forced Lendl to move forward, changed the contact point of the return, and disrupted the expected sequence of the game.
Chang went on to win the match against the world No. 1 and later became the youngest male Grand Slam singles champion in history.
That match is often treated as a justification for the shot. It is more useful as a distinction. The underhand serve did not become acceptable because Chang was suffering. It became legible as a tactical decision because the court position, physical condition, and match situation aligned.
A serve is not judged in isolation. Its meaning is assigned by context.
A player serving underhand from the first point of a match to an opponent standing deep may be exploiting a predictable return pattern. A player using it after losing the physical ability to repeat a conventional delivery is solving a different problem. The action is identical. The tactical explanation changes.
The underhand serve is not a breach of the rules. The dispute concerns the unwritten rules governing when a legal action is considered legitimate.
Chang’s example also demonstrates why the shot should not be analysed as a novelty. The underhand serve is a low-speed delivery with a specific purpose. It changes the returner’s first movement, the height of contact, and the server’s exposure after the ball crosses the net.
It can also fail immediately. A returner already positioned near the baseline can attack it. A returner with good recognition can move forward before the ball reaches its apex. The serve offers no protection from a clean, early strike. Its value depends on the distance between the returner and the baseline, not on the label attached to the shot.
The geometry of the return
The conventional service return is built around time management. A player standing several metres behind the baseline accepts a slower contact in exchange for more reaction time. The arrangement is common against high-velocity servers. It allows the returner to absorb pace and create a full swing rather than block the ball from inside the court.
The underhand serve attacks the distance.
The ball must still land in the service box. The server must still stand behind the baseline between the centre mark and the sideline. The ball must be released by hand in any direction and struck with the racket before it touches the ground. But the delivery can travel on a lower and shorter trajectory than a normal overhead serve.
That creates a different set of coordinates:
| Tactical variable | Conventional overhead serve | Underhand serve |
|---|---|---|
| Primary advantage | Pace, height, angle, or spin | Short length and altered timing |
| Returner’s deep position | Usually useful | Potentially exposed |
| Contact point | Often behind or near the baseline | Forward inside the court |
| Server’s margin after contact | Can begin from a protected position | Must anticipate an advancing returner |
| Main risk | Double fault or predictable direction | Attackable ball if recognised early |
| Best target | Returner’s body, corner, or weakness | Space created by excessive depth |
The important variable is not whether the ball is slow. Slow is not automatically effective. The important variable is whether the returner has enough time to move forward and establish balance before contact.
A returner positioned 5–6 metres behind the baseline must cover the distance to the service box while reading the ball’s direction. That is a different task from returning a conventional serve. The body must decelerate after moving forward. The swing must be shortened. The returner may need to hit the ball below shoulder height and closer to the net than expected.
This is why the shot can be tactically sound even when it looks technically unsophisticated. The underhand serve is not trying to win the point with its own speed. It is trying to make the returner’s starting position obsolete.
The server also gains information. If the returner begins moving forward before contact, the server has evidence that the tactic has been identified. If the returner remains deep, the short delivery may force a defensive reply or an extended sprint. The serve can function as a test of positioning as much as an attempt to win the point.
Its limitations are equally clear:
1. The returner can adjust position. Once the player stands closer to the baseline, the underhand serve loses much of its intended value.
2. The ball is attackable. A clean recognition produces a forward-moving return with a large court opening.
3. The server gives up conventional protection. There is no high contact point, no heavy kick, and no immediate pressure from pace.
4. The pattern can become predictable. Repeated use allows the returner to anticipate the delivery before the toss or release.
5. The shot exposes the server’s tactical preference. It announces that the player is willing to target court geometry rather than follow the expected serve sequence.
A useful underhand serve therefore needs uncertainty around it. It must exist beside conventional deliveries. Used rarely, it can change the returner’s position. Used as a default, it becomes a readable invitation.
The Kyrgios effect
Nick Kyrgios brought the underhand serve back into regular public discussion on the ATP Tour. His use of the shot against Rafael Nadal at the 2019 Mexican Open in Acapulco made the tactical action inseparable from the etiquette argument. He also used it at Wimbledon that year.
The court position was the central issue. Nadal was standing deep to receive. Kyrgios identified the space in front of him and served into it. From a purely tactical perspective, the logic was direct. A returner cannot stand deep to handle pace and then expect the server to ignore the space created by that position.
The controversy came from the contrast between the apparent simplicity of the shot and the status of the opponent. Against a player such as Nadal, an underhand serve can be interpreted not merely as a response to positioning but as a public challenge to the accepted hierarchy of the point. Nadal criticised Kyrgios’s court behaviour after the Acapulco match, arguing that it showed a lack of respect for the public, the opponent, and the player himself.
That criticism gave the stroke its modern cultural charge. The shot was no longer only a question of return position. It became a test of what professional tennis is supposed to look like.
Kyrgios did not invent the tactical idea. He changed its visibility. His version was attached to a larger playing identity: improvisation, disruption, and a willingness to make the opponent answer an unexpected question. That made the underhand serve more available to discussion, but it also made every use easier to classify as a gesture.
The distinction matters. A tactic can be legitimate and still be used theatrically. Those are not mutually exclusive descriptions. The error is to assume that a player’s motive cancels the tactical content of the shot. It does not. The ball still travels into the same area. The returner still has to solve the same geometry.
Other players have used the delivery without making it the centre of their public identity. Daniil Medvedev used an underhand serve against Alexander Zverev at the ATP Finals. His explanation, as reported after the match, was functional: the wide serve was not producing the desired result, while Zverev was returning effectively. Medvedev’s decision was presented as a response to the existing pattern, not as an attempt to insult the opponent.
The distinction is partly rhetorical. A player can describe the same action as a calculation or a provocation. The court does not record intention directly. It records the ball’s location, the returner’s movement, and the result.
Etiquette begins where the rulebook ends
The underhand serve rules in tennis are not ambiguous on the central point. The ITF does not require the server to use an overhead motion. The legal conditions concern position, release, and contact.
The server must be behind the baseline, between the centre mark and the sideline. The ball must be released by hand in any direction. The racket must strike the ball before it touches the ground. If those conditions are met and the ball lands in the correct service box, the delivery is legal.
There is no formal requirement that a serve be struck above the server’s head. There is no rule stating that a slow delivery is unsporting. There is no Grand Slam exception that transforms the stroke into an illegal action.
The objection is therefore cultural rather than regulatory.
Tennis has a strong etiquette tradition because the sport developed around controlled conduct, repeated rituals, and visible restraint. The serve is normally presented as a technical display. Players use a ball toss, a kinetic chain, and a recognisable service motion. The underhand serve removes that display. It replaces an established ritual with a direct tactical solution.
For some observers, that is the point at which sportsmanship is compromised. The serve is perceived as refusing the expected contest. The returner has prepared for a conventional delivery; the server changes the terms without using superior execution.
That interpretation has no technical force. Tennis is full of legal actions that punish an opponent for choosing a vulnerable position. A drop shot attacks a deep court position. A body serve attacks a returner’s swing space. A serve-and-volleyer forces the receiver to hit low passing shots. A heavy kick serve targets the backhand contact point. The underhand serve belongs to the same family. It attacks a structural decision.
The difference is that the underhand serve looks like a refusal to perform the normal version of the skill. Its visual economy makes it conspicuous. A 130-mile-per-hour serve can be tactically destructive without appearing personal. A short serve that travels slowly appears deliberate in another way.
This is why the question “is underhand serve disrespectful?” cannot be settled by legality alone. Legal and respectful are separate categories. A legal act can violate an informal code. An informal code can also be used to protect poor positioning from tactical punishment.
If a returner stands deep to gain time against pace, the empty space in front of that returner is part of the tactical position. It is not a protected area.
A comparison of the two arguments
The case for the underhand serve is strongest when the returner’s position creates a measurable opening and the server uses the shot as one option among several.
The case against it is strongest when the delivery appears disconnected from the match pattern and is used primarily to signal contempt. That judgment is difficult to prove because professional sport does not provide a reliable instrument for measuring intention. Analysts can identify the position, trajectory, and outcome. They cannot establish motive from the stroke alone.
| Argument | Tactical reading | Etiquette reading |
|---|---|---|
| The returner stands far behind the baseline | The server attacks the space created by the position | The server refuses the expected form of the contest |
| The conventional wide serve is failing | The underhand serve is a correction to an ineffective pattern | The change can look like a stunt if used without warning |
| The server is physically compromised | The stroke preserves a viable way to start the point | The context may make the action easier to accept |
| The shot is used repeatedly | The server is testing a stable weakness | Repetition allows the tactic to look like provocation |
| The returner moves forward and attacks | The tactic has been solved by court positioning | The exchange returns to ordinary competitive terms |
The table reveals the narrowness of the moral dispute. There is no general tactical category called “disrespectful serve.” There are only situations in which the delivery either answers the court or appears to address the opponent.
That difference is not always visible to spectators. A viewer sees a slow ball and a deep return position. The tactical analyst sees the cost of the returner’s starting distance, the server’s reduced protection, and the probability that the return will be struck while moving forward. Both readings can exist at once.
Professional tennis has always contained this tension. Its technical systems reward adaptation, but its traditions reward recognisable form. The underhand serve exposes the conflict because its legality is clear while its social meaning is unstable.
Why the shot will remain in the game
The underhand serve will not become a dominant replacement for the conventional serve. Its physical advantages are too limited. It does not generate the same free points, return difficulty, or protection on the next shot. A player who uses it against a correctly positioned returner is giving the opponent an attackable ball.
Its future value lies in selective deployment.
The serve is most useful when three conditions align:
- the returner is positioned unusually far behind the baseline;
- the server has established a credible conventional serve pattern;
- the short delivery can force the returner to move forward without a prepared contact point.
That is not a broad system. It is a conditional tool. The returner can reduce its effectiveness by moving closer. The server must then return to conventional patterns or risk offering an easy attack.
The history of the shot also shows why its reputation is likely to remain divided. Chang’s use in 1989 is remembered as a high-value survival decision. Kyrgios’s use in 2019 became a public argument about behaviour. Medvedev’s deployment was framed as an adjustment to a failing serve pattern. The action remained the same. The surrounding narrative changed according to the player, opponent, score, and perceived intent.
The rulebook has already settled the legal question. The underhand serve is allowed when executed within the formal requirements. The sport’s audience is still debating whether every legal option deserves equal cultural approval.
That debate will continue because the stroke attacks more than the return. It attacks the assumption that tennis must be played according to its familiar visual grammar. The server does not owe the returner an overhead motion. The returner does owe the court a position that can withstand tactical exploitation.
The definitive conclusion is therefore narrow. The underhand serve is not a breach of etiquette by definition, and it is not tactical genius by default. It is a low-speed countermeasure against excessive return depth. Used with a clear positional purpose, it is a legitimate part of elite tennis. Used without that purpose, it becomes theatre. The ball does not tell us which one we are watching. The court position usually does.