The Forehand Volley

[nokomis]

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

Yes, very true. I like using the floating down the stream and over the waterfall example. But again the shoulder turn is critical here.

[nokomis]

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

Well, I certainly agree with the shoulder turn - at least trying to get them to "about" 45 degree. If a player is moving forward (lets agree to call it a "serge" as one poster referred to it - I actually like the term) the legs can be very helpful.

I also like the exercise of catching with two hands and plan on using it. With younger players, its difficult at times (most of the time), getting them to use the shoulders on the volley and overhead as well. Some, get the turn but unfortunately rotate out of it way too early - I ran into this yesterday with a bunch of kids.

Great discussion & good article.

[don_budge]

What do you think...tennis_chiro?

So we are saying the same thing on the forehand volley. OK.
don

I really think that we were basically saying the same thing. Here is Boris Becker executing three forehand volleys about as well as I can teach it. The motion of his hand definitely has some similarities to the Oscar Wegner video within the context of the shot that he is hitting. It is the volley that you are advocating unless I am mistaken here too.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/borisbecker/borisbecker_volleys_oh/bb_fh_volley/bb_fh_volley.html?BBFHVCourtfront.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/borisbecker/borisbecker_volleys_oh/bb_fh_volley/bb_fh_volley.html?BBFHVCLSide.mov

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/modern_legends/borisbecker/borisbecker_volleys_oh/bb_fh_volley/bb_fh_volley.html?BBFHVCLSide2.mov

Again...I just want to emphasis that I was only borrowing the hand motion from the "Oscar" video which doesn't violate anything that I said repeatedly over and over in "My Thoughts on the Volley". I am, like you, an energy conservationist and would never advocate a swing that loses 50% of its energy by the time impact is achieved. I maintain that from an instructional view it was a very helpful tidbit as the hand motion has always been a difficult concept to instill in students that are not accustomed to going forwards and to the net...and hitting underspin.

In all of the volleys that I have viewed this same motion has been used in some derivative shape or form within the context of the shot being performed.

I think that in golf for instance...if you are trying to hit a slice you come over the top or outside/in and if you are trying to draw the ball you come from the inside or inside/out. But whether or not you are hitting either variation it is not a matter of hand motion but one of ball position and setup...it is not a product of the hand motion which is virtually the same in either case. The same can be said of the video...this hand motion can be used for hitting the ball on the inside or the outside. It is a matter of how you set up to the ball and where you strike it.

Boris appears to be hitting the back of the ball in all three of these volleys and he makes a bit of a compensation in his low volley but the basic motion of his hand is still there. His technique is just perfect from the way he gets the racquet into position, through the hit and then the short follow through. It is rather textbook it looks like to me.

[stotty]

Inside out...doubles.

IMO, the answer relates to the difficulty of the incoming ball.....we generally see on low balls more of the outside/in path for touch/control, and yet on easier balls perhaps more of direct linear transfer of energy..

I think it's important to note, that there are an array of "paths" needed to get the ball to behave...so it's not as simple as inside/out, outside/in etc....It just seems to me, that the sheer velocity and spin associated with the modern game, places the premium on more of an outside in path, that subtracts from incoming ball speed. At least that seems to be the bias.

I believe the inside/out path is more commonly used in doubles rather than singles. I use it frequently in doubles. You're only covering a narrow corridor of court when volleying in doubles so far more likely get volleys where you can play the inside/out.

[10splayer]

After thinking things over a bit...walking in the woods on a crisp autumn day.

Could it be that one's volleying philosophy might be...number one stick the first volley and number two angle or feather for the kill? Is it possible that it would be the reverse in other situations? Angle first...kill next. It appears that one must be able to use both sides of the ball and all points in between. There is no single right answer.

I am more convinced than ever that the motion of the arm, hand and racquet in the Oscar Wegner video coupled with the body and shoulder motion of the Gonzales first volley is the way to teach it. In the end you pray that the student ends up with the volleying instincts of a Cash, Laver, Newcombe, McEnroe, Nastase, 10splayer or Brosseau.

IMO, the answer relates to the difficulty of the incoming ball.....we generally see on low balls more of the outside/in path for touch/control, and yet on easier balls perhaps more of direct linear transfer of energy..

I think it's important to note, that there are an array of "paths" needed to get the ball to behave...so it's not as simple as inside/out, outside/in etc....It just seems to me, that the sheer velocity and spin associated with the modern game, places the premium on more of an outside in path, that subtracts from incoming ball speed. At least that seems to be the bias.

[don_budge]

One for the money and two for the show...

This is a fascinating thought...I think. So fascinating that I will need some time to think it over. When 10splayer's thought about outside/in for control is taken in context with tennis_chiro's contention of inside/out in order to "stick" we have a bit of a dilemma. Or do we?

After thinking things over a bit...walking in the woods on a crisp autumn day.

Could it be that one's volleying philosophy might be...number one stick the first volley and number two angle or feather for the kill? Is it possible that it would be the reverse in other situations? Angle first...kill next. It appears that one must be able to use both sides of the ball and all points in between. There is no single right answer.

I am more convinced than ever that the motion of the arm, hand and racquet in the Oscar Wegner video coupled with the body and shoulder motion of the Gonzales first volley is the way to teach it. In the end you pray that the student ends up with the volleying instincts of a Cash, Laver, Newcombe, McEnroe, Nastase, 10splayer or Brosseau.

[don_budge]

Nastase and McEnroe...

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.

Ille Nastase and John McEnroe are two players that come to mind when I think of the ability to come around the ball on either the forehand and backhand volley to caress it with an outside/in path.

These two characters sort of changed the landscape for volleying at the time and made the game more exciting...or course their behavior had something to do with that also. But in line with their unpredictable behavior was their ability to surprise their opponents and to disguise their intentions.

Up until their take on the approach and volley game the volleys tended to be more Hopmanesque and Australian style. The American volleyers also reflected this same style. The Bad Boys sort of raised the bar with their touch and control...and their continental grips.

[don_budge]

Very interesting...

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.

This is a fascinating thought...I think. So fascinating that I will need some time to think it over. When 10splayer's thought about outside/in for control is taken in context with tennis_chiro's contention of inside/out in order to "stick" we have a bit of a dilemma. Or do we?

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.