The Forehand Volley

[johnyandell]

God it's great to see points end! With volleys! Nice find Stotty.

[nokomis]

I think there are myths about the volley when it comes to the swing. High paceless balls require a longish swing. Just look in the archive at how Kramer and Pancho followed through on many of their forehand volleys. More than any coaching manual would advocate. Henman's has a more compact volley, but even he has a longer follow through on high balls and even medium high balls sometimes. It seems to vary...probably something to do with how well the weight is distributed at the time of impact.

Perhaps the important thing is not to muscle the follow through but to relax the arm once you've penetrated the shot. It's hard to tell whether Kramer and Pancho are doing this from the archive clips (they seem quite muscular about it, actually), but it's certainly what I do...so the follow through harmlessly dissipates.

I notice from the archive that backhand volleys have a longer swing than forehand volleys with most players. Rafter and Henman have far more extensive swings on their backhand wing than their forehand.

I notice also that players from yesteryear have longer follow throughs than players of today. If you google British Pathe, then search for Frank Sedgman, you will see he has an extensive follow through on his forehand volley. Sedgman was widely considered to be the best volleyer of his day amongst his peers.

If you appreciate great volleying you have to go way back in time to see volleying done at it's best...to a time when volleying was the more dominant game style. I think the art has been lost...today's players aren't doing it right. Volleys are probably a little too restricted these days. Djokovic stabs...awful.

Here are two blokes whose volleys flow...look how comfortable they are at the net...look at the balls they pick up with their diddy little rackets...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc

The technique for volleying has not changed one jot since the days of Tilden, unlike like all the other strokes in tennis, which have evolved and changed significantly over time.

The best thing you can do to improve your students' volleys might be to look back in time, not forward.

Good points - well stated.

Can't help but ask the obvious though - what changes have come as a result of racquet and string technology or would you discount these changes.

Its been my experience that whenever the swing gets too big the consistency and accuracy suffers - these days anyway. In my opinion, when it comes to the volley, less is better. It seems that looking at old clips we tend to forget that the ball they are dealing with has much less pace and spin than what actually exists today. So, the question in that case would be, would that player (older) even be able to play the ball in a similar fashion - I think they would not but it would be interesting to hear what other might think.

[don_budge]

Oscar Wegner..."Simplicity makes it powerful"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC14zDk1z3s&feature=related

I naively posted some Oscar Wegner videos in the past before I was aware of the controversy between John and Oscar. I am posting this video for one reason and one reason only and that is for a little something that I gleaned from the video. It is related to our discussion of the volley here as a product of the article written for TennisPlayer.net.

The one thing that I took from this video is the action of the hand and arm. This to me has been the most difficult aspect of the volley to explain. See how Oscar demonstrates that the racquet comes across the ball for better and longer contact. He's actually right. I was able in five minutes solve this issue with a student standing in front of our new mirror at the little club in Sweden. While looking in the mirror I showed my student where the hand begins the swing and where it ends it. The combination of the mirror (ala don_budge) and Oscar Wegner's simple advice solved a problem with a boy in another part of the world. Now through the TennisPlayer.net medium I wish to share my find with anyone reading the forum. Rejoice in the glory of enlightenment!

The thing that he doesn't explain in the video is that this motion can and should be accomplished mainly in concert with the rotation of the shoulders towards the ball. There is actually very little independent arm and hand motion...certainly nothing with the wrist.

[tennis_chiro]

Strenuously Beg to Disagree!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC14z...eature=related

I naively posted some Oscar Wegner videos in the past before I was aware of the controversy between John and Oscar. I am posting this video for one reason and one reason only and that is for a little something that I gleaned from the video. It is related to our discussion of the volley here as a product of the article written for TennisPlayer.net.

The one thing that I took from this video is the action of the hand and arm. This to me has been the most difficult aspect of the volley to explain. See how Oscar demonstrates that the racquet comes across the ball for better and longer contact. He's actually right. I was able in five minutes solve this issue with a student standing in front of our new mirror at the little club in Sweden. While looking in the mirror I showed my student where the hand begins the swing and where it ends it. The combination of the mirror (ala don_budge) and Oscar Wegner's simple advice solved a problem with a boy in another part of the world. Now through the TennisPlayer.net medium I wish to share my find with anyone reading the forum. Rejoice in the glory of enlightenment!

The thing that he doesn't explain in the video is that this motion can and should be accomplished mainly in concert with the rotation of the shoulders towards the ball. There is actually very little independent arm and hand motion...certainly nothing with the wrist.

There are some nice parts to Oscar's little demo of the introduction of the volley and it is definitely much easier to volley by hitting across the ball. However, to volley really well, especially on the backhand volley, an elite player needs to understand how to create an inside-out path of the racket head to the contact point and a corresponding vector of momentum for their stroke. As I propose this as being necessary, I have to add that hardly any singles player can execute such technique today. I don't think a single player among today's top 20 executes this kind of shot even on the rare occasions when they do volley. You might see it with a few of the doubles specialists or someone like the Frenchman, Llodra. I thought I saw a little of it in Brian Baker's net game. But, by and large, the volleying skill demonstrated by players like Edberg and Cash is essentially a lost art. With the cutting, outside/in stroke that everyone uses today, it takes a much longer swing to generate the same power and "stick" on the volley. Players of the past could "stick" a fast ball with a very brief stroke that could still be executed successfully with some consistency against a fast ball; Bruce Lee's "one inch punch" if you will. It wasn't simply a block; there was actually some forward swing, albeit very short. But when over 50% of the power and momentum of the stroke is going away from the target and the shot is merely a glancing blow, you can't generate enough power to "stick" the volley accurately and consistently with enough speed to conclude the point on a tough passing shot. Just watch Cash's videos in his instructional piece on this site

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/pat_cash/developing_world_class_volleys_the_backhand_volley/

Although Pat advocates coming across the ball on his backhand volley, observe how much more he takes the rackethead along the intended path of the ball than the stroke Oscar demonstrates in his video. You can also see a little of this on the clip that Stotty posted of Newcombe and Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc

I feel like I am screaming in outer space, but I really believe the old technique allows for a piercing, surgically accurate volley that could be executed on even today's blazingly fast groundstrokes; in fact, I think it's the only way you can volley those balls successfully and the players don't know how to do it anymore...so the front court game has died. If you want to see this technique in action, you have to watch the best doubles players in the world (mostly the ones over 30), making sharp first volleys off returns on balls they are catching below their knees.

don

[don_budge]

tennis_chiro aka Don...i think that you misunderstood

My posting of the Oscar Wegner was by no means advocating the video as a means of volleying as a final say so.

My comment at the bottom meant to clarify that if the proposed hand motion is done with a proper shoulder turn and placement of feet that the path of this hand motion that he demonstrates from a full on frontal view becomes a viable part of the volleying process...a very good one I feel. When done sideways to the net with the shoulder rotation the motion becomes more linear and not simply hitting across the ball. In fact if you hold your hand out in a volley position to your side and rotate your shoulders you will find that this is the motion of the hand without moving your arm. It also comes from the inside.

Anything that I have seen from Oscar Wegner is an oversimplification of the whole enchilada which I find very helpful in getting beginners started or in trying to rectify old bad habits. I sort of use him by piecemeal...not as a final end product.

Great to hear from you again!

[johnyandell]

DB,

Don't worry I could care less if you post something from Oscar and if it's useful that's fantastic. I don't even have an issue with the technical disagreements I have with him. What two coaches agree on everything? It's obvious that he is way way off on a lot of things, but we all are at some point--that's why we try to improve right?

The fighting stuff with Oscar is about the fascist mentality and the nasty personal condemnatiions. "Agree to disagree" is not part of his world view.

[stotty]

Wooden swingers...

Good points - well stated.

Can't help but ask the obvious though - what changes have come as a result of racquet and string technology or would you discount these changes.

Its been my experience that whenever the swing gets too big the consistency and accuracy suffers - these days anyway. In my opinion, when it comes to the volley, less is better. It seems that looking at old clips we tend to forget that the ball they are dealing with has much less pace and spin than what actually exists today. So, the question in that case would be, would that player (older) even be able to play the ball in a similar fashion - I think they would not but it would be interesting to hear what other might think.

I really enjoy reading your posts, nokomis. They are always a good read.

I would never advocate swinging at volleys - definitely not. I just observed from the Tennisplayer archives and many of the British Pathe clips that players from the “golden era of volleying” perhaps take a bigger swing than many players today on higher, paceless balls or even more medium shots.

But players from that golden generation are very compact when receiving fast shots or when dealing with low balls that require intricacy and skill. And that hits the nail on the head for me….no player in the world today can do anything that requires intricacy at the net. Some even look decidedly jittery playing any volley.

And I can never get enough of this stuff...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePo6KcGQd4M

The higher, dead ball has not changed over time. It’s a high, dead ball and that’s it. No spin or pace to deal with here. There's nothing to trouble the volleyer other than the good technique it's gonna take to dispatch it. Today’s equipment is far more powerful and perhaps requires less swing than in years gone by when volleying with wooden rackets. Which in itselt begs another question. How come players today cannot volley nearly so well despite having superior equipment? Something technical has clearly eroded away.

Being able to kill a dead ball is the mark of a good volleyer - it takes good technique and excellent weight transfer to do it well.

The argument that the baseline game has become so powerful it’s impossible for a player with a volley game to succeed is a faulty one. Power works both ways. You can hit harder approach shots, bigger serves, and more penetrating volleys with today’s rackets….so that cancels the baseline-game-is-superior theory out for me.

The bottom line is it takes far longer for a junior to succeed as a serve and volleyer compared to becoming a baseliner. An awful lot of balls will whizz past them before they will learn how to cover the net correctly and read the game. It can be soul-destroying. I should know. I won few matches serve volleying as a junior...but plenty by the time I was 19. If you read Bill Tilden’s book How to Play Tennis (yes, don_budge I had a copy shipped from America) he states that players must go through many deflating losses in order to acquire/add and hone new skills to expand and develop their games….but ultimately players will become better and more complete for doing so. Perhaps Federer would be an even better player than he is today had he continued to serve and volley more as he did against Sampras in the one match they played at Wimbledon. He was getting good at it...

But there is an impatience about tennis these days. Players/parents want success quickly and coaches are under pressure to deliver that success NOW. Hence the dominance of the baseline game...at least that’s my theory.

[don_budge]

The hand action in the Oscar video...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/golden_legends/panchogonzales/panchogonzales.html?PGFHVFront.mov

Here is Richard Gonzales "sticking" a volley with the hand action demonstrated in the Wegner video.

[studini]

I can't play any of the Pancho video's on my macbook pro. Does that mean I need to download the quicktime pro-version to enable me to play them?
thanks for answering if someone knows the answer Most of the older videos don't play as well.

[tennis_chiro]

It's inside out!

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...PGFHVFront.mov

Here is Richard Gonzales "sticking" a volley with the hand action demonstrated in the Wegner video.

Take a good look at that clip, frame by frame around the contact. You'll see Pancho has the racket head moving right along the intended path of the ball. Oscar is advocating swinging across right from the beginning. But I don't have as much of a problem with high forehand volleys. You can get away with a little more there (but not on the low ones). But when it comes to the backhand volley, it seems to me something has really been lost from the game. Look at the shots Laver and Newcombe are making in Stotty's clip. Check the way those backhand volleys are dispatched even at full stretch. Today's players simply don't know how to do that. They have to use their big swings to generate enough "stick" on the ball to be effective and the balls are too fast for them to get away with that.

Pancho does have "stick" on that volley, but not because of the incidental follow through on a high ball; it's because he got the racket head going through the ball to the target at impact. He is not striking a mere glancing blow.

A great indicator for me of a good volleyer was the ability to poach with a backhand volley on a return from the ad court (right hander) and drive the ball crisply down the center of the court for a clean winner. Players who let the racket head drop would not have enough pace on the ball and were subject to a forehand from the returner once he ran down the ball. With good volleyers, the point was over.

Next, try to observe the way the best of the doubles specialists deal with 80 mph returns below their knees inside the service line. The volleyer has to get that ball up over the net on the same trajectory it came in or suffer the consequences. It's simply too tough to do with that standard outside in chopping backhand that predominates in today's game.

I really think it is a dying, if not utterly lost, art! Only the aging doubles specialists are keeping it alive. The younger doubles specialists are hitting bigger and bigger groundstrokes but they don't volley as well as the 30-somethings like the Bryans, Mirnyi, Paes, Bhupathi, Nestor, etc. Amazing that a game that relies so much on speed and quickness is dominated by players in their mid to late 30's!?! They are the keepers of the flame, but it is going to burn out pretty soon as they age out of pro tennis.

I was hoping for a little more reaction about my view, particularly about the backhand volley. But thanks, D_B. And Stotty.

Come on Kyle, Mahoob, Bottle, Nokomis, JY, Tennisplayer, Doug Eng, Julian, et al. You muat have an opinion about this.

thanks,
don

don

[don_budge]

Aussie volleying..."crisp" as a cool Autumn day in Sweden.

Take a good look at that clip, frame by frame around the contact. You'll see Pancho has the racket head moving right along the intended path of the ball. Oscar is advocating swinging across right from the beginning.

don

Actually tennis_chiro...it is a matter of perspective. As I mentioned a couple of times now Oscar is demonstrating from a full on frontal perspective and if you turn him sideways using that same hand motion...now study the frames closely in your wild imagination, the racquet is now passing through the path of the ball...not sliding across. And look how that hand motion is dictated by the rotating shoulders...this is my main detail that I gleaned from the video. That was the vision that I was summoning that you apparently strenuously objected to. My focus, as I mentioned early on, was on one tiny detail in the video and that was of the hand motion on the forehand side, which I may of not made clear...and not even necessarily the action of the racquet on the ball. Does that make sense to you?

Once again...it looks to me that the hand motion is very similar in the Gonzales video as the Wegner video, but the difference is that Gonzales is not fully frontal and the motion is accomplished with a turn of the shoulders...which is also a comment that I made in the original post. That hand motion also gets minimal and more minimal depending on the difficulty of the shot...but it seems to be a sound motion on medium to high volleys which is what I am starting the beginners on. Nothing to difficult...trying to keep it in the comfort zone and not to challenge the little ones with Davis Cup type stuff.

Other than that micro detail...we are in total agreement with the volley action. In my motto Hopman is the coach, not Oscar Wegner, and all of those wonderful examples you have cited are Hopman protégé's. Even Pat Cash is a derivative of him given the Aussie influences. He was a great volleyer...especially with the Prince racquet. But those other guys in the funny white clothes and tiny little racquets playing with those white balls in 1969...these are the pure classic volleyers. They happen to be extinct in this day and age of forehand and two handed backhand tennis. I believe the term that was used back then was a "crisp" volley...which meant solid contact with a very short stroke. You see...we agree!

Man...you should see the weather here today. A crisp autumn day, beautiful sun a bit of a nip in the air...just like those old Aussie volleys.

[stotty]

There are some nice parts to Oscar's little demo of the introduction of the volley and it is definitely much easier to volley by hitting across the ball. However, to volley really well, especially on the backhand volley, an elite player needs to understand how to create an inside-out path of the racket head to the contact point and a corresponding vector of momentum for their stroke. As I propose this as being necessary, I have to add that hardly any singles player can execute such technique today. I don't think a single player among today's top 20 executes this kind of shot even on the rare occasions when they do volley. You might see it with a few of the doubles specialists or someone like the Frenchman, Llodra. I thought I saw a little of it in Brian Baker's net game. But, by and large, the volleying skill demonstrated by players like Edberg and Cash is essentially a lost art. With the cutting, outside/in stroke that everyone uses today, it takes a much longer swing to generate the same power and "stick" on the volley. Players of the past could "stick" a fast ball with a very brief stroke that could still be executed successfully with some consistency against a fast ball; Bruce Lee's "one inch punch" if you will. It wasn't simply a block; there was actually some forward swing, albeit very short. But when over 50% of the power and momentum of the stroke is going away from the target and the shot is merely a glancing blow, you can't generate enough power to "stick" the volley accurately and consistently with enough speed to conclude the point on a tough passing shot. Just watch Cash's videos in his instructional piece on this site

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/pat_cash/developing_world_class_volleys_the_backhand_volley/

Although Pat advocates coming across the ball on his backhand volley, observe how much more he takes the rackethead along the intended path of the ball than the stroke Oscar demonstrates in his video. You can also see a little of this on the clip that Stotty posted of Newcombe and Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc

I feel like I am screaming in outer space, but I really believe the old technique allows for a piercing, surgically accurate volley that could be executed on even today's blazingly fast groundstrokes; in fact, I think it's the only way you can volley those balls successfully and the players don't know how to do it anymore...so the front court game has died. If you want to see this technique in action, you have to watch the best doubles players in the world (mostly the ones over 30), making sharp first volleys off returns on balls they are catching below their knees.

don

This a terrific post by tennis_chiro. I agree one hundred percent about the backhand volley and about getting "stick" on the ball. The Pat Cash article is very informative about volleying. It also demonstrates that not all volleys are hit off a compact swing...higher volleys can have a far longer follow through. Just look at Rafter moving through this backhand volley....

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/patrafter/pr_volleys_oh/pr_bh_volley/pr_bh_volley.html?PRBHVCourtLevelSide4.mov

[tennis_chiro]

So we agree to ... agree!?!

Actually tennis_chiro...it is a matter of perspective. As I mentioned a couple of times now Oscar is demonstrating from a full on frontal perspective and if you turn him sideways using that same hand motion...now study the frames closely in your wild imagination, the racquet is now passing through the path of the ball...not sliding across. And look how that hand motion is dictated by the rotating shoulders...this is my main detail that I gleaned from the video. That was the vision that I was summoning that you apparently strenuously objected to. My focus, as I mentioned early on, was on one tiny detail in the video and that was of the hand motion on the forehand side, which I may of not made clear...and not even necessarily the action of the racquet on the ball. Does that make sense to you?

Once again...it looks to me that the hand motion is very similar in the Gonzales video as the Wegner video, but the difference is that Gonzales is not fully frontal and the motion is accomplished with a turn of the shoulders...which is also a comment that I made in the original post. That hand motion also gets minimal and more minimal depending on the difficulty of the shot...but it seems to be a sound motion on medium to high volleys which is what I am starting the beginners on. Nothing to difficult...trying to keep it in the comfort zone and not to challenge the little ones with Davis Cup type stuff.

Other than that micro detail...we are in total agreement with the volley action. In my motto Hopman is the coach, not Oscar Wegner, and all of those wonderful examples you have cited are Hopman protégé's. Even Pat Cash is a derivative of him given the Aussie influences. He was a great volleyer...especially with the Prince racquet. But those other guys in the funny white clothes and tiny little racquets playing with those white balls in 1969...these are the pure classic volleyers. They happen to be extinct in this day and age of forehand and two handed backhand tennis. I believe the term that was used back then was a "crisp" volley...which meant solid contact with a very short stroke. You see...we agree!

Man...you should see the weather here today. A crisp autumn day, beautiful sun a bit of a nip in the air...just like those old Aussie volleys.

So we are saying the same thing on the forehand volley. OK. But you are making light of the emphasis that you yourself place on getting those shoulders turned. This is very important. When I start with the toss and catch drill learning the volley drill from scratch, I want the student to catch the ball with both hands so they get the feeling of turning that left shoulder.

As for the backhand volley, I am still waiting for some response, except for Stotty.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Check the racket head!

This a terrific post by tennis_chiro. I agree one hundred percent about the backhand volley and about getting "stick" on the ball. The Pat Cash article is very informative about volleying. It also demonstrates that not all volleys are hit off a compact swing...higher volleys can have a far longer follow through. Just look at Rafter moving through this backhand volley....

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...LevelSide4.mov

Thanks, Stotty. I don't feel so lonely. Please note that Rafter's racket head in the clip you linked never gets below his wrist and the racket head moves essentially in the direction of the target, albeit high to low, through the contact zone.

don

[10splayer]

There are some nice parts to Oscar's little demo of the introduction of the volley and it is definitely much easier to volley by hitting across the ball. However, to volley really well, especially on the backhand volley, an elite player needs to understand how to create an inside-out path of the racket head to the contact point and a corresponding vector of momentum for their stroke. As I propose this as being necessary, I have to add that hardly any singles player can execute such technique today. I don't think a single player among today's top 20 executes this kind of shot even on the rare occasions when they do volley. You might see it with a few of the doubles specialists or someone like the Frenchman, Llodra. I thought I saw a little of it in Brian Baker's net game. But, by and large, the volleying skill demonstrated by players like Edberg and Cash is essentially a lost art. With the cutting, outside/in stroke that everyone uses today, it takes a much longer swing to generate the same power and "stick" on the volley. Players of the past could "stick" a fast ball with a very brief stroke that could still be executed successfully with some consistency against a fast ball; Bruce Lee's "one inch punch" if you will. It wasn't simply a block; there was actually some forward swing, albeit very short. But when over 50% of the power and momentum of the stroke is going away from the target and the shot is merely a glancing blow, you can't generate enough power to "stick" the volley accurately and consistently with enough speed to conclude the point on a tough passing shot. Just watch Cash's videos in his instructional piece on this site

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/famouscoach/pat_cash/developing_world_class_volleys_the_backhand_volley/

Although Pat advocates coming across the ball on his backhand volley, observe how much more he takes the rackethead along the intended path of the ball than the stroke Oscar demonstrates in his video. You can also see a little of this on the clip that Stotty posted of Newcombe and Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q13_STOUBc

I feel like I am screaming in outer space, but I really believe the old technique allows for a piercing, surgically accurate volley that could be executed on even today's blazingly fast groundstrokes; in fact, I think it's the only way you can volley those balls successfully and the players don't know how to do it anymore...so the front court game has died. If you want to see this technique in action, you have to watch the best doubles players in the world (mostly the ones over 30), making sharp first volleys off returns on balls they are catching below their knees.

don

It's all about control in my mind.....With the speed of the current game, outside/in paths subtract from incoming ball speeds, which is a requirement.