The Forehand Volley

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[johnyandell]

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

[stotty]

Follow through

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.

[nokomis]

This might sound a little strange but I like my players to track the ball into their racquets as if they were holding a fly-swatter - keeping the racquet up, out in front of the plane of the body and completely to right of the right hand (obviously left handed players). If you track the ball this way, your opponent has no idea where your going to hit, your consistency will increase and you'll find it a lot easier to play the ball. Same method works well on both sides but I'm somewhat reluctant to endorse using two hands - yes, I know some are very good at it and I've had a couple but for most, I suggest just using one hand.

Too many players, especially at the lower levels, try to take way too big a swing, run completely through the ball and end up either netting the ball or flying it long as a result.

[johnyandell]

And now back to the forehand volley. I loved Paul's emphasis on the left arm in the preparation! The modern player who did that brilliantly was Rusedski.

But check out the high speed forehand volley archives and see that not every player does that.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/high_speed_archive/volleys/forehand_volley/forehand_volley_high_speed.html?TimHenmanFHVWarmUpFront-001-0001_Tennisplayer440.pct

Personally I think it's huge for solid early contact and maybe Paul is right that this explains in part why the forehand volley isn't a key shot in the modern game.

The other guy on the site that stresses the left arm but in a slightly different way is Pat Cash:

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

[johnyandell]

Nokomis, Papa,

Sure I remember you!

Yeah it's funny they just keep generating new threads. I posted there again recently, but so far the worst of the disciples have stayed away. I think it's good in life sometimes to have to figure out how to deal with crazy stuff people are saying about you. I think I grew quite a bit by learning to desensitize myself and just stick to being me, matching intensity with critics, stating my thoughts clearly, and letting others think as they wish.

[nokomis]

Tw

Thought I'd check about the current content on TW site these days - still a lot of talk about Oscar, his modern tennis theme, etc. Maybe they have come back like a bad penny.

[nokomis]

Nokomis,

That was brutal over there at TW but the good news is that the two biggest zealot disciples quit or were forced to quit posting. I take at least partial credit for making that happen.

They left in a hail of nasty messages but neither they nor Oscar have been heard from since. The one disciple left there also backed way off his constant sales promos and personal attacks. He just seems like a harmless crank now.

Fighting with those guys for the last year or so I considered somewhere between a hobby and a form of free group therapy. The really interesting thing is that the more they were challenged the more they were willing to distort and fabricate the facts and the more personal they got in their attacks on anyone who dared to disagree--until I guess their heads finally exploded. It was a very interesting example of cult behavior though and the implications went way beyond tennis.

Oscar is an interesting personality type in the way a lot of would be cult leaders are interesting psychologically. I knew from previous experiences that that surface nicey nice thing wasn't real and I know a lot of other people in the various organizations and tennis media who had had nasty experiences with him similar to mine. It was really interesting watching him slowly reveal himself. The whole weird experience definitely backfired as part of his master plan to sell dvd's, take credit for world coaching development, and become the czar.

That was the scary wider point. If this wasn't tennis and Oscar was czar how would that have boded for people who dared to stand up to him?

John,

I know they really attacked you but you held your ground well. I'm certainly glad they (TW) stepped in and made some changes - however, they left it go on for way to long - one post had something like 100,000 responses many of which came from that group. I wrote TW on a couple of occasions but figured it was a hopeless cause. I think they started on those that supported you and your site.

I never could quite figure out their point but it sure got bad - I even started getting email outside of the web site so I figured I'd give it a rest. I think you remember me, I'm the Harvard guy who jabs you once in a while with the Yale thing.

There was one or two in particular that really seemed odd and another that had to be Oscar using a different name. Whenever cornered they would just blitz the site with numerous other mindless arguments to try to change the subject. I did get the impression that his followers were want-to-be types that for some reason wanted to be connected to the sport but couldn't qualify for certification though existing organizations like USPTA or PTR. They just never let up but TW seemed, to me anyways, to allow it to continue - I think it must have driven most away from the site. I used to buy a lot of stuff through TW for my teams and just went elsewhere.

Years ago I had a couple, perhaps several, conversations with Oscar when he was residing in Florida - never met him in person just phone calls. At that time, I did not get the feeling he was radical or off the wall. To be honest with you, I don't even remember what the subject was - probably related to his first book but I really don't remember.

[makhan67]

Papa and John: Let's keep the dialogue rolling. Together, we can make a world of difference!

Mahboob Khan