Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[don_budge]

Leave it to Beaver...

Beavers...

https://vimeo.com/30613141

[don_budge]

The Book is Bill Tilden...

Because the player hits the ball so well and transfers the momentum of his racket to the ball so efficiently, it appears that he has not swung that hard and when the ball comes rocketing off his racket face at the same speed as a ball that comes off an inefficient swing that appears to be a much faster swing, we are deceived. True pace is deceptive speed. When you hit it, you know it.
don

In golf one might say that they "flushed" a shot that was hit so well. This is accomplished by perfectly timing the transfer of the weight of the player and all of the motion of the swing, the actual stroke, into the club head just as it is striking the ball. The truth is you don't swing harder…you swing better. The trick is to get the fastest part of the swing through the hit zone of the ball. This actually causes an accomplished golfer to appear to be swinging "slower".

The same might be said in tennis. When a student hits an unusually good shot for them…somehow by luck they have managed to flush it. They have managed to get all of the body parts lined up correctly (vectors tennis_chiro refers to them as) and they have timed the weight transfer perfectly. I immediately ask the student, "how did that feel?" to try and get them on the road to repeatable swings. This is of course the same principle that applies for golf…or any other sport for that matter. The transfer of weight into the ball.

It's a game of energy and balance. The duel between opponents is to battle over the energy being applied to the ball and this is accomplished more often than not when one player is superior in getting a balanced position from which to swing. "Get in position!!!"…is a frequent command that I give to tennis students. Get your ass in position…your head too!

"Match Play and the Spin of the Ball"…a must study for any serious tennis student.

[don_budge]

All arm…or get your weight behind your shots. Speed versus Pace...

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball....what a book. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the book, for me at least, is the one below. I suppose some would argue the meaning of pace and speed are the same...let them do so...it's not the point for me. When I read that paragraph I was bowled over. Surely Tilden had stumbled on the theory of the "heavy ball" in tennis...light years before anyone else?

"Speed and pace are not the same. They are totally different. Speed is the rate at which the ball travels through the air. Pace is the momentum (rate of speed, plus the player’s weight) with which it comes off the ground. Thus a fast shot that has not the player’s weight in it does not carry pace when it comes off the ground. Conversely, some shots travel comparatively slowly through the air, but by virtue of the player’s weight behind them come off the ground with pace."

Truly a great topic for discussion among knowledgable tennis aficionados. This somewhat brief statement has all kinds of implications when you begin to think about developing a tennis player.

I always tell a new student or a newcomer to the game…"Tennis is a game of balance and energy". Then I pause a moment to let it sink in…and to gloat just a bit as to how brilliant a statement that is. "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball is the most brilliant book ever written about tennis. Harry Hopman…the legendary coach of the great Australian dynasty passed this on to his players as the "Bible of Tennis". Sometimes I think of this great book with an alternative title…"Match Play and the Path of the Ball" or "Match Play and the Trajectory of the Ball". It is brilliant in its straight forward, no nonsense delivery and curiously it is void of any references to technology. Afterall it was written in…get this…1925. It is even older than me.

I can still remember the sound of my dear old tennis coach Sherm Collins voice in my head speaking to me of this or that. His lessons were often speckled with quotes of Tilden and references to Richard Gonzales. He called me "Pancho". But what you have quoted here is what you call one of those white light moments of inspiration quotes by Tilden…he talks about the difference between "speed and pace".

He further adds…"A player may hit a very fast drive by a wild swing of his arm, yet it will carry no pace, as his weight placement is out of the shot and not in it."

So there you go. All you tennis coaches…you can go from there with your teaching game.

Super post…by a super guy. Thanks for the superb quote. It doesn't get any more Fundamentally Correct (FC) than that.

I played in 1971 with Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Ralston, Emerson and Graebner that winter. Old Dick Savitt definitely had the "heaviest ball".

Murray actually said something without understanding exactly what he was saying (or maybe he did understand), when he said that the way Novak was hitting the ball, it didn't take as much energy for him to hit his big shots. Djokovic was hitting with tremendous "pace".

don

Great discussion regarding pace and speed. I get you. But what an amazing list of practice names. All of them Hall of Famers…classic tennis players. A "Who's Who" no less. Most interesting are your observations about Dick Savitt.

Around the same time in history I had the great privilege of knowing Don Budge. I was lucky enough to get to hit with him and play doubles with him several times. This man truly had the heaviest ball that I have ever experienced. It is tough to describe the sensation of being on the receiving end of his shots. I remember the serve in particular that had wonderful pace on it. His swing was so rhythmic and almost laconic but it really carried that "pace" that William Tilden is referring to. It didn't hurt that his old wooden racquet was unusually heavy…it certainly felt and sounded as if he was using a baseball bat.

I remember watching the last couple of sets of the Australian Open final between Novak Djokovic and Andy Murray. I took turns watching each of them individually and solely never taking my eyes off one or the other. There were subtle differences in how they were preparing for their shots and how they were moving to the ball and getting into position. The announcers at the beginning of the match were questioning whether Novak would be able to match the physical conditioning of Murray. I guess there must have been speculation about his conditioning and Murray had been very public about how hard he had worked. But it was Murray who seemed to be laboring just a tad harder therefore struggling just a bit more to get his weight behind his shots. The end result was very telling…a bagel in the fifth.

But it was Djokovic that was smoother transitioning to the ball overall. It was Novak who had the superior balance when he was playing his shots. As I have mentioned in the other thread he has this uncanny ability to regain his composure and balance even when it appears that he is hopelessly out of position. This discussion about speed and pace is not lost when you are discussing the outcome of that match. It sort of explains how Djokovic was able to completely dominate his opponents during the tournament. His pace was exceptional and it just wore down his competition.

[gzhpcu]

Swing speeds are faster today also because the rackets are lighter. In the old days the wooden rackets were much heavier, resulting in more mass at impact. The swingweight of the racket also plays a role.

[hockeyscout]

Swing speeds are much faster than when you were watching the two Panchos at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club. But a lot more of the energy goes into spin. The problem for a lot of players is they put too much energy into spin and not enough into horizontal speed. And you also have players like Ryan Harrison who, IMO, when they are faced with a short ball and a chance to hit a "concluder" try to just swing much faster with a lot more spin and some increased horizontal velocity because the ball is offering them an opportunity to attack; the better players know how to release the shot and just allow more energy to go into that horizontal velocity and hit their concluders with "true pace", i.e. deceptive speed which penetrates the court much more effectively. I saw this as a major shortcoming for Ryan even when he was breaking into the top 50; now he is struggling to stay in the top 200 (currently 165).

You are an engineer, Phil. You understand what I mean when I say make the vectors of the momentum of the racket head and the outgoing path of the ball the same. Obviously, there is a trade-off between spin and speed. Today's players manage to deliver the racket head to impact on a path closer to the outgoing path of the ball and yet create more spin by "wipering" off of that path as the ball leaves the racket. The modern, bigger, lighter rackets and more responsive strings made that possible; technique and grips as well. But you still have to learn to hit through the ball as well as generate spin. I think it is easier to learn the classic stroke first and add more spin later, but others would argue to start working on that "wiper action" early on (Oscar and MTM, and maybe Chris Lewit). I haven't done enough studies both ways to say which is right. I emphasize hitting through the ball first. Those of us that learned to hit through with a lot less spin may need to take just the opposite tack and really focus on getting spin to overcome our decades of classic stroke technique; I'm just happy when I get near an Eastern grip on my forehand, much less a semi-Western. I marvel at the way my students hit high balls and swing at short forehands near the service line with the energy I would use for an overhead. I know how to do it, but I can't!!! I imagine what I could have done if I had known 40 years ago what I know now.

don

Its neat to see an established coach like tennis_chiro holds top spin in the same ballpark as me! That's a great post from a guy who's ahead of the loop IMO.

Tennis is an interesting sport, lots of world class coaches who simply don't get a chance to work with elite players because maybe they don't kiss ass, move in the right circles, agree to go along with the establishments program and, or, simply have their kids poached by the Federations who generally have deplorable track records at developing players and should leave it to guys who are great grassroots coaches, dads, ex boxers, baseball and hockey guys, uncles, aunts, who have a love for the game and are willing to be BALLERS.

Guys like me, tennis_chiro, GeoffWilliams and Don_Budge we're all likely pure ballers, playing on the dilapidated courts and developing a deep love for sports. Now everyone thinks they need a boatload of cash to be a great player, and they bypass the coaches who are out their experimenting with new ideas, never playing on public courts, not playing other sports and all the rest, and totally focused on getting the best shoes, rackets, brand name coaches, extreme top spin, standing in one place, refusing to act a bit crazy and try jumping, exploding and exploring some non tennis techniques, playing at prestigious facilities and all this shit.

It will be interesting to see how my young one develops in the years ahead playing on dilapidated clay with no sponsorship or advice from associations, using non-tennis principals and setups and with guys who are true ballers who just love to play the game, hit the ball, watch matches and yap tennis.

The first month my daughter started playing Ryan Harrison came next to us and started playing out of the blue with his girlfriend. His GF kept getting mad at the young one shrieking at the top of her lungs and constantly mishitting balls onto her side!

Yes, I agree. No top spin in early stages of development. I am stunned with everyones focus in this area. Learn to hit winners first, hit the lines, penetrate, low, hard and deep. And when you can do that at a precocious level begin the live ball and rally. I don't think kids should be put into rallies for at least the first two years of their tennis career. I just don't see the sense in kids hitting big loopy balls and instructors even hitting worse balls. Just put it in their wheelhouse, and go. Focus on one shot at a time, balls coming to them in the air, from all different areas and have them hit flat out winners where they are being as athletic as possible and getting it on the rise. Yes, it is hard, and the difficulty level is extreme, however, that is how you get good. In the early stages of my young ones development I used black balls. So, she had to cheat, and watch closely what was happening in my hands and hips, as the ball is impossible to see. That develops feel, which is so important, and can be taught. I do not think kids should be put into competitions until 3-5 years of development.

Anyways, I have done it all backwards according to the establishment, and maybe that is good, and maybe it is bad.

You always wonder when you are setting up a program if its a bat shit crazy methodology you are using, and even if your player is destroying Under 10 competition and hitting like a Junior it's not guarantee that will be effective long term.

The issue with coaching is it takes you a good decade to see if you're on the right track, or off base, and anyone who says they know for sure is blowing smoke up your ass as the sport has a major evolution every 10-20 years and how in the hell can you really make sure you are ready for that or have a vision of what 2020 to 2030 will really be like?

[tennis_chiro]

So, in short, what is being said here? Just swing fast and hit flat?

Swing speeds are much faster than when you were watching the two Panchos at the Beverly Hills Tennis Club. But a lot more of the energy goes into spin. The problem for a lot of players is they put too much energy into spin and not enough into horizontal speed. And you also have players like Ryan Harrison who, IMO, when they are faced with a short ball and a chance to hit a "concluder" try to just swing much faster with a lot more spin and some increased horizontal velocity because the ball is offering them an opportunity to attack; the better players know how to release the shot and just allow more energy to go into that horizontal velocity and hit their concluders with "true pace", i.e. deceptive speed which penetrates the court much more effectively. I saw this as a major shortcoming for Ryan even when he was breaking into the top 50; now he is struggling to stay in the top 200 (currently 165).

You are an engineer, Phil. You understand what I mean when I say make the vectors of the momentum of the racket head and the outgoing path of the ball the same. Obviously, there is a trade-off between spin and speed. Today's players manage to deliver the racket head to impact on a path closer to the outgoing path of the ball and yet create more spin by "wipering" off of that path as the ball leaves the racket. The modern, bigger, lighter rackets and more responsive strings made that possible; technique and grips as well. But you still have to learn to hit through the ball as well as generate spin. I think it is easier to learn the classic stroke first and add more spin later, but others would argue to start working on that "wiper action" early on (Oscar and MTM, and maybe Chris Lewit). I haven't done enough studies both ways to say which is right. I emphasize hitting through the ball first. Those of us that learned to hit through with a lot less spin may need to take just the opposite tack and really focus on getting spin to overcome our decades of classic stroke technique; I'm just happy when I get near an Eastern grip on my forehand, much less a semi-Western. I marvel at the way my students hit high balls and swing at short forehands near the service line with the energy I would use for an overhead. I know how to do it, but I can't!!! I imagine what I could have done if I had known 40 years ago what I know now.

don

don

[gzhpcu]

So, in short, what is being said here? Just swing fast and hit flat?

[stotty]

Releasing the ball...

The vector momentum of the racket head is perfectly aligned with the outgoing path of the ball. And when you get the opportunity to hit a big shot, it's not a question of hitting harder; it is a question of releasing the energy of your swing in the direction of the target. The shot is going to have less spin and a lower margin of error, but it is going to have real "pace". There is so much emphasis on hitting topspin today that many players do not understand how to hit through the ball and release with speed. With today's equipment, they can get away with that shortcoming to a point. But understand, when Djokovic hit some of those zingers in the third and fourth sets, he was not swinging harder; he was just releasing the shot. Murray actually said something without understanding exactly what he was saying (or maybe he did understand), when he said that the way Novak was hitting the ball, it didn't take as much energy for him to hit his big shots. Djokovic was hitting with tremendous "pace".

don

Thanks for this piece of education. I had never thought of it like that in terms of how you describe Djokovic starting to release more powerful shots yet not swinging harder to do so. I can see your point and feel sure you are right.

A good friend of mine told me about Savitt and how hard he could hit a ball. Savitt was well known for his heavy shots during his time.

I do think it was amazing that Tilden was perusing these ideas all those years ago.

[tennis_chiro]

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball....what a book. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the book, for me at least, is the one below. I suppose some would argue the meaning of pace and speed are the same...let them do so...it's not the point for me. When I read that paragraph I was bowled over. Surely Tilden had stumbled on the theory of the "heavy ball" in tennis...light years before anyone else?

Certainly, a ball with more spin comes in "heavier" than one without it, but that was not what Tilden was referring to as he played in an era where most balls "with pace" were hit with very little spin. And yet, the physics is undeniable. The momentum carried by an individually struck ball is simply the product of its mass times its velocity. You could add its angular momentum for a ball with more spin, but remember, we are saying some balls with no spin have more "pace" than balls at the same speed without spin.

So we all know we have somewhat of a conundrum here, because we have all played against a "heavy" ball, and I mean besides the amount of spin it carried. The heaviest ball I ever played against off the ground was that of Dick Savitt. And that was a time when I was getting to practice with players getting ready to play Rod Laver on Sportface in Madison Square Garden. I played in 1971 with Laver, Rosewall, Ashe, Ralston, Emerson and Graebner that winter. Old Dick Savitt definitely had the "heaviest ball".

It is a simple point of physics that a given ball at a certain speed and the same amount of angular momentum can not be any different from another ball of the same speed, weight and angular momentum, but we know that they are "perceived" that way. And that is what true "pace" is all about. Because the player hits the ball so well and transfers the momentum of his racket to the ball so efficiently, it appears that he has not swung that hard and when the ball comes rocketing off his racket face at the same speed as a ball that comes off an inefficient swing that appears to be a much faster swing, we are deceived. True pace is deceptive speed. When you hit it, you know it. The vector momentum of the racket head is perfectly aligned with the outgoing path of the ball. And when you get the opportunity to hit a big shot, it's not a question of hitting harder; it is a question of releasing the energy of your swing in the direction of the target. The shot is going to have less spin and a lower margin of error, but it is going to have real "pace". There is so much emphasis on hitting topspin today that many players do not understand how to hit through the ball and release with speed. With today's equipment, they can get away with that shortcoming to a point. But understand, when Djokovic hit some of those zingers in the third and fourth sets, he was not swinging harder; he was just releasing the shot. Murray actually said something without understanding exactly what he was saying (or maybe he did understand), when he said that the way Novak was hitting the ball, it didn't take as much energy for him to hit his big shots. Djokovic was hitting with tremendous "pace".

don

[stotty]

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball

M.P.A.T.S.O.T.B. ...Now with regard to the match play in general (refer to "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" by William Tilden") never count your opponent out until the last point has been won. Especially if that opponent has won so many times right in front of you pulling out entire matches from seemingly desperate situations. This business of gamesmanship and Novak "acting" as if he is down and out is really beside the point and again…fire the coach. If Murray doesn't understand that what Novak did was completely within the rules then I don't know what to advise. Djokovic is a master at the ebb and flow of match play. He is a master at "letting the game come to him". There are times instead of knocking your head against the wall when your opponent is shelling you a good strategy is to "rope-a-dope" as Stotty said. Let your opponent swing himself out and then turn around when he relaxes his grip just a bit and knock him into next week. Djokovic may have been feeling a bit woozy. He seemed to have tweaked something in his foot or leg. Sure he may have been dramatizing a bit. Players are always doing that. Guess who does it the most? Andy Murray.

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball....what a book. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the book, for me at least, is the one below. I suppose some would argue the meaning of pace and speed are the same...let them do so...it's not the point for me. When I read that paragraph I was bowled over. Surely Tilden had stumbled on the theory of the "heavy ball" in tennis...light years before anyone else?

Speed and pace are not the same. They are totally different. Speed is the rate at which the ball travels through the air. Pace is the momentum (rate of speed, plus the player’s weight) with which it comes off the ground. Thus a fast shot that has not the player’s weight in it does not carry pace when it comes off the ground. Conversely, some shots travel comparatively slowly through the air, but by virtue of the player’s weight behind them come off the ground with pace.

[klacr]

well said don_budge.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Fundamentally correct…versus Traditionally speaking

Some thoughts about tradition....

The jury is out for Stotty, as I am not convinced...

Where is it's true place in the game and when should a player play it?

Could someone who absolutely blasted swinging topspin first volleys get ahead in points far enough to shift the balance and attack regularly? I think it's very likely. Now the strings are working in favor of the attacker not against him (or her...)

And you can already see this intermittently with some of the top players. I saw both Novak and Andy serve and finish with a swinging first volley at Wimbledon. I have seen Fed do it too. Serena and Sharapova do it though off the ground. It's just that no one has taken the step of making it a consistent strategic option.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's a question of fundamentals…which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with tradition. In this case the discussion more or less hinges on the size of the racquet as it is the racquet size that makes the thing "possible" in the first place.

This is the only statement by John that I can honestly say that I find it hard to believe that it came out of his mouth of his own free will. I wonder if is possible that there is "political pressure" on him to support the blasphemous swinging volley. (I'm joking…sort of)

Personally I have never hit a drive volley in my life…I attempted one in practice. It's not my thing. Fundamentally it doesn't make any sense in terms of consistent performance and something that could possibly be relied on over time. Particularly crucial moments in match play. Fundamentally this motion cannot be reliable enough statistically speaking for me to try to teach it to someone that is attempting to learn how to hit the tennis ball and learning to play the game of tennis.

Are his ideas and thoughts steeped in "traditional" and "old school" thought process like many may think? No. They are steeped in basic fundamentals.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

When teaching tennis or learning how to play the game there are an infinite number of sources one can reference and if you do it you will end up making your education in tennis an experiment…sort of like bottle. It's going to be an experiment anyways…so why not base it on some kind of investigation and try to rule out as much as possible to keep it relatively simple as opposed to incredibly complex. But on the other hand it's always a matter of different strokes for different folks…to a point.

For me the jury is not still out and Kyle says it best. When it comes to teaching tennis I limit my act to fundamentals…not to say I don't liberally leave room for individual interpretation for the art involved…the human touch. In fact…I encourage it. But when it comes to swinging volleys as a student of the game and an aspiring tennis aficionado/historian I ask the question…where is the precedent? The answer to that is of course…there really isn't one. Well…except for GeoffWilliams.

Recently Roger Federer has installed his old version of his game to include some classic net approach and volley along with the occasional serve and volley. Under the guidance and tutelage supposedly of Stefan Edberg it seems to me that there are far fewer swinging volleys coming out of Roger these days and for a very good reason. Consistency is nonexistent when you swing at a volley…you can not attain the pinpoint placement and CONTROL that you need when attacking the net and playing the ball in the air consistently.

It is a wonderful discussion though. It borders on the traditional thing…but it isn't a matter of tradition. It is one of fundamentals.

[klacr]

Thanks for the detailed reply...much appreciated. I am resting my case with your post and hope you don't mind. Basically what you are saying throughout the post is that swing volleys are taught to those players who cannot volley properly in the first place. I am not pulling you up here...just agreeing.

A coach local to me told me that he's unwilling to spend hours honing the net skills of his players because those hours could be spent building even bigger groundies instead. This maybe a logic that's become widespread amongst coaches around the world today...

Every student is capable of learning every shot. The key is patience and adaptation. For players in which the classic volley is a real bugaboo, the swinging volley is simply a bridge to get to that ideal destination. Giving players a bit of confidence in closing that gap and allowing them an opportunity. Is the swinging volley for everyone? No. Can the classic volley be hit by everyone from the beginning? Sadly, no. So we have to be flexible in our methods getting players to eventually do what we want while at the same time maximizing their own game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

The day will come that the only volley hit will be swing volleys, as most top juniors are being taught the shot from day 1, thanks to Agassi, who developed it due to his lousy 4.5 volley. It's called evolution. The uni grip will be used, and the full western will use the same face on each side, without changing grips ala continental.

[stotty]

Great post. Great questions. A true student of the game. Asking questions. Poignant Questions.

I'll try my best to respond based on my experiences and feelings but encourage others to give their thoughts as well.

I've a big fan of tradition. I have been labeled "old school" and stuck in a different era. I'm an old soul. But sometimes we can't be so dogmatic in our approach to shots. IMHO, I don't believe that the swinging volley is better than a classic volley. However, not everyone thinks like you or me. In fact, many don't. If they all did, this world would be a pretty banal place no?


Is the swinging volley the result of bad volleying skills due to bad teaching or understanding of a true volley. Perhaps. But we don't have the power to teach every single person that picks up a racquet. What we do have the power to do is adjust our own thoughts, feelings and prejudices and give our students the most effective strokes possible. So how does this relate to the swinging volleys you ask?

I do not teach the swinging volley to every student. But I do teach the swinging volley to students that are adverse to or shy away from the net. The swing volley for them is a transitional shot that allows them to hit a shot they are comfortable with (groundstroke with little if any grip change) but allows me the teacher to get them to the location I want. I am trying to lead the horse to water and although I may not make him drink, the horse just may enjoy the scenery and see the beauty and advantages of the pond. A baseliner may not buy into the classic volley paradigm no matter how much you try to convince them. But their recognition of the opportunities that lie ahead of them and their use of only 66% of the court when staying on the baseline.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners. There are those that enjoy the venture to the net. Tough to change the DNA of those players to go the other direction. Some students are happy to stay back and rally all day long. And there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are those who get to the net with reckless abandon. The latter students are more open to learning proper volley technique because it benefits them and they see the reasoning. The former are the ones that need some motivation, need some purpose and need some compromise. Forcing a player to go out of their natural tendencies and style can be disastrous. Allowing a player to grow, evolve and develop new strokes and possibilities is where the real joy is. But there is a fine line. A very fine line.

Yes, The swinging volley is situational. Hyper-situational.

Two situations I have my players look for are...
One, when they are playing a pusher. The ball is sent back high with no authority. They are not dominating, they are simply getting the ball back. As the ball floats or comes back high I encourage those players to move in quickly and take the swinging volley as they won't be comfortable taking a classic volley from 3/4 court but it still helps them stay aggressive and take time away from their opponent.
Second, when their opponents are pulled very wide off the court and that floating ball comes back. Baseline players biggest gripe and usually their natural inability to hit volleys with any authority or pace can sometimes prohibit them from attempting to come forward thinking they will be left vulnerable with a soft or weak volley attempt. I allow these players to swing their shots into the open court to give them the comfort of hitting their desired tendency.

One issue I have with what many players hit as a swinging volley is that they attempt to hit with too much spin to where the ball lacks the drive and penetration and just becomes a loopy ground stroke ripe for a bounce into the strike zone of an opponent. A classic volley is hit relatively flat with natural underspin to skid through the court. The swinging volley should be struck with the same idea, not a loopy swing providing a neutral or attackable shot. The better the swinging volley the easier the first classic volley can begin for this player, which will help build their comfort and confidence level to approach more.
I feel the origins of the swing volley began with a baseliner who hit enough balls from the back of the court to elicit a weak reply and suddenly found himself at mid court but ill-prepared to hit a classic volley. Lendl, Agassi come to mind.

That probably doesn't answer all your questions stotty, but I have a semi-final match to prepare for in Melbourne Berdych-Murray.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks for the detailed reply...much appreciated. I am resting my case with your post and hope you don't mind. Basically what you are saying throughout the post is that swing volleys are taught to those players who cannot volley properly in the first place. I am not pulling you up here...just agreeing.

A coach local to me told me that he's unwilling to spend hours honing the net skills of his players because those hours could be spent building even bigger groundies instead. This maybe a logic that's become widespread amongst coaches around the world today...