Serve and Volley: Three Critical Shots

[klacr]

I think this discussion is raising a few good questions.

Are there laws of tennis instruction like there are laws of physics? Has tennis discovered fundamental parts that can be broken down into extremely small parts like protons, neutrons, and electrons? If that is the case I would really like to read that book.

I think it is to easy for us to say that there are fundamentally correct shots and that is that and it is too early to say that technological changes are going to have a negative impact on the game of tennis. Maybe just like the universe the horizons of the game of tennis are expanding with new brand of serve and volley just waiting to be discovered.

The swinging volley is a relatively new shot with secrets and like all things new and a little different it is being met with discrimination. Its a shot that is not being given a fare shot by many coaches because of the times that they came from. I feel bad for the poor swinging volley.

One place I think the swinging volley performs better than a FC shot is on the short lob when you have to move forward to hit it. Traditionally the right thing to do would be to either hit a high volley or an overhead. Either traditional option I think is in fact harder to execute than the the topspin swinging volley. With the high volley you really have to place the ball well and with the overhead you have to make sure you are in perfect position to hit the ball. The swing topspin volley give you access to power like the overhead so you don’t have to play close to the lines and give more flexibility in positioning like the high volley.

Very nice post Lobndropshot! This thread does generate many great questions from numerous aspects of the swinging volley from the coaching/teaching of it to the tactics and technical.

There is a thread that was started some time ago on The Swinging Volley after an article by tennisplayer.net contributor Scott Murphy. here's the link.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin...?t=2109&page=2

The first post on this page by Scott Murphy pretty much echo's my thoughts on this topic as well. Is the swinging volley a real shot, absolutely. Should it be used on every single high ball around mid court? Absolutely not. There is a time and a place for this shot and although it may not be in the classic and traditional tennis textbooks it is still worthy of a great discussion and aplace in the game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[lobndropshot]

I think this discussion is raising a few good questions.

Are there laws of tennis instruction like there are laws of physics? Has tennis discovered fundamental parts that can be broken down into extremely small parts like protons, neutrons, and electrons? If that is the case I would really like to read that book.

I think it is to easy for us to say that there are fundamentally correct shots and that is that and it is too early to say that technological changes are going to have a negative impact on the game of tennis. Maybe just like the universe the horizons of the game of tennis are expanding with new brand of serve and volley just waiting to be discovered.

The swinging volley is a relatively new shot with secrets and like all things new and a little different it is being met with discrimination. Its a shot that is not being given a fare shot by many coaches because of the times that they came from. I feel bad for the poor swinging volley.

One place I think the swinging volley performs better than a FC shot is on the short lob when you have to move forward to hit it. Traditionally the right thing to do would be to either hit a high volley or an overhead. Either traditional option I think is in fact harder to execute than the the topspin swinging volley. With the high volley you really have to place the ball well and with the overhead you have to make sure you are in perfect position to hit the ball. The swing topspin volley give you access to power like the overhead so you don’t have to play close to the lines and give more flexibility in positioning like the high volley.

[klacr]

Shock!! I tend to think more along the lines of Don Budge on this one. After the basics, like to see students work on touch, or absorbing skills, so they have access to stop volleys, angle volleys, and mastery of shots hit from below the level of the net.

For most reading these articles, the swing volley is so far last in terms of importance...

Nice series though, and hopefully more to come.

Thanks 10splayer. Glad you enjoy the series. And yes, there is more to come.

The swinging volley should certainly not be taught first. The mastery of fundamentals on classic drive volleys, block volleys should always be set as the foundation...in a perfect world. But the swinging volley is a shot that is not going anywhere, it is here to stay. As traditionalists, its a hard pill to swallow but one we should accept and whether or not we choose to teach it is up to us, assuming we've already given our students a proper development in basic volleys. Having another shot in the arsenal is never a bad thing.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[10splayer]

Shock!! I tend to think more along the lines of Don Budge on this one. After the basics, like to see students work on touch, or absorbing skills, so they have access to stop volleys, angle volleys, and mastery of shots hit from below the level of the net.

For most reading these articles, the swing volley is so far last in terms of importance...

Nice series though, and hopefully more to come.

[klacr]

From the last week's Rome matches, I saw both Murray and Dimitrov repeat this pattern, or rather lack of pattern. Both got easy points by serving wide to Nadal, getting a floating backhand hack, and putting it away at the net into a completely empty court.

So, since that worked so well --- they didn't try it again for another set.

I understand the value of surprise, but you think when something else is failing, they'd try to repeat something that actually worked

I noticed that as well Jim. Such a tease. Players will think about it and maybe even do it once or twice. But no matter to what great effect it worked, they resist. Rather slug it out from the baseline even though their opponent is better from the baseline than they are.

I saw Milos Raonic spend the entire week bombing serves and waiting for the soft floating chip return back deep to the baseline and him having to practically begin the point over again with a ground stroke. You can lead a horse to water...


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[jimlosaltos]

Toes in water

Not dead and buried. It will take a player and a coach with the testicular fortitude to make serve and volley happen.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

From the last week's Rome matches, I saw both Murray and Dimitrov repeat this pattern, or rather lack of pattern. Both got easy points by serving wide to Nadal, getting a floating backhand hack, and putting it away at the net into a completely empty court.

So, since that worked so well --- they didn't try it again for another set.

I understand the value of surprise, but you think when something else is failing, they'd try to repeat something that actually worked

[klacr]

Thanks don_budge.

That's what this forum is about. Opening up discussion for sharing these ideas and improving ourselves. tennis_chiro is in fact putting on a great volley clinic in his text. I'm his biggest fan when it comes to the art of the volley.

stotty, keep the tradition alive and keep playing the way you want to play. The next article in this series you should love and hopefully takes your serve and volley game to the next level.

as for you don_budge, Thanks for reading my series. Even if we can agree to disagree, I hope you find some things in the series that you can at least use or try in your own game or with your students. Change may happen, buts it up to us to see it through. Let's do our part to teach our kids proper fundamentals and have fun with them as well. Our greatest teaching tool is our passion. Keep it up don_budge!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

jimlosaltos and tennis_chiro...et al

Or, to put it differently, he is super-aggressive -- but with his footwork and positioning, but not the stroke itself.

I was rereading your post on the Federer swinging volley...which by the way I thought was very good. I came across this line of yours which I like very, very much. This business about being aggressive with the footwork and positioning. When I am teaching or coaching a player before a match...I stress, "Be aggressive...with your feet!"

The more I write, the more I am convinced I have to get my students to master the shot I am talking about.

don

As long as you are writing...I am going to continue to read. You are really putting on a volley clinic!

I hate to hear that you think serve and volley is dead. I prefer the term "endangered". On the brink of extinction perhaps. In your opinion, it may be dead in the pro game as a fully committed game style. But still an effective game plan at lower levels.

Not dead and buried. It will take a player and a coach with the testicular fortitude to make serve and volley happen. Perhaps that player is not out there yet. You gotta believe in the game don_budge. Believe in the style, believe in the players, believe in the process and development. I hope my articles still give you something to ponder. I hope my articles inspire you. I hope my articles ignite a small fire within your tennis belly to embrace this crazy serve and volley idea once again. Give it a chance don_budge. I love your attitude and your respect for the teaching fundamentals, but lets not throw away the idea just yet.

I may need to visit Sweden in the near future so we can hash this out.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Oh...it's dead Kyle. So are the resources to teach it. Check for a pulse...you won't find one. I know that you have your classical leanings and yearnings...more the pity. Trapped in the box that is the USTA. Such a shame. The world of tennis was infected with this cursed plague.

But you know, Kyle...creativity starts with an idea. Then comes a thoughtful discussion followed by developing a strategy followed by some action providing the discussion is compelling enough and the strategy is feasible.

Virtually all of the kids in my program here in Sweden hit one handed backhands at some point. You know why? It's because I do...I use a one hand backhand. I start them off at the net so that it may become part of their tennis DNA...you know as in some old guy from America came here with some different ideas about tennis. The idea that the game should be taught Fundamentally Correct (FC) and then the student takes control of their own game at some point. They inherit the control when they are ready to assume the controls. I more or less teach that this is the whole point of the thing...it is up to them to make the decision.

In teaching the one hand backhand...I feel that I am opening up the "world of tennis" to the student where all things are possible and net play is certainly one of those things. When teaching the serve...I teach them to begin running to the net at first because I believe that fundamentally correct service motions are best molded to have the ability to follow it to the net if need be.

If you are taught to play fundamentally correct net play the "swinging volley" is looked upon as a "gimmick". This is a term that my dear old tennis coach...Sherman Collins introduced into my tennis teaching vocabulary many years ago. Of course things change...and not always for the better. The future looks to be a bit iffy...if you know what I mean. But Mats Wilander corroborated what I have suspected for a couple of years now...it looks as if they will speed up the courts incrementally. They cannot do it all at once because the average tennis playing professional will look to be too incompetent not being able to produce the style of tennis that will win on faster surfaces.

Do you know what also? They should also reduce the size of the racquet incrementally. Then the game might be restored to something that resembles the game the way that it was meant to be played. It is a funny situation...how to return the game to the perfect balance that it was at before they start monkeying around with it and engineering it beyond recognition. Eventually this voice in the wilderness may be recognized as the voice of reason.

Your articles? They are certainly opening the thing up for some interesting exchanges aren't they? It's wonderful to hear that you are learning from the open discussion...as I am. How about that tennis_chiro? He's putting on a clinic...don't you think so? Great stuff guys...all the way around. Don't forget Stotty...he's connecting with his classic roots. Wonderful to see.

[klacr]

It's a great shot if you can hit it anywhere in half the court not closer than 8' from any line and be rewarded with an outright winner,... I'd even say it's a necessary shot for today's player.

But what position does it leave you in after the shot if you are playing an accomplished player with a really fast pair of sneakers?! Against that player, the target area has to shrink considerably.

The more we go back and forth on this here in the forum, the more I think this is a lost skill that could still be effective today. Someone who knows how to hit the kind of "drive volley" (with underspin or almost flat and with an extended backswing on a normal volley stroke), can move to the ball very quickly and execute an effective "close" on a floater and still power the ball 50 to 60 mph to a spot within 3' of the lines on a consistent basis. I don't think you can generate that much more speed with the topspin swinging volley and you are going to miss too many of them when you start trying to hit smaller targets. (Missing that target includes hitting the ball too short and giving your opponent to run the ball down and pass you because you are out of position.)

Granted, today's players don't have the shot I am advocating and they have no choice but to hit a swinging volley, the only thing they know. I am convinced the lack of this essential transition element contributes greatly to the lack of enthusiasm for going to the net. Whether you are serving and volleying (rare these days) or trying to approach behind a forcing shot (less rare, but still infrequent) or trying to sneak into the net on a high ball or as a change of pace (still infrequent), you need to be able to switch to overdrive on the fly and close in a hurry and knock off a floater if you are lucky enough to get one; much harder to do with a swinging volley.

A topspin swinging volley tends to land relatively short. When a ball lands short that means it goes through that 40% deceleration on impact with the ground before it has traversed that last 15 feet behind the service line (hitting to 3' from the lines with a good drive volley). That could mean one or even two additional steps for your opponent to run down the ball; and the topspin will make the ball bounce higher and stay in the air longer.

The more I write, the more I am convinced I have to get my students to master the shot I am talking about.

don

Go for it Don!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

I think if you can hit a reliable heavy topspin groundstroke--a big if for many--this is not a high degree of difficulty shot.

It's a great shot if you can hit it anywhere in half the court not closer than 8' from any line and be rewarded with an outright winner,... I'd even say it's a necessary shot for today's player.

But what position does it leave you in after the shot if you are playing an accomplished player with a really fast pair of sneakers?! Against that player, the target area has to shrink considerably.

The more we go back and forth on this here in the forum, the more I think this is a lost skill that could still be effective today. Someone who knows how to hit the kind of "drive volley" (with underspin or almost flat and with an extended backswing on a normal volley stroke), can move to the ball very quickly and execute an effective "close" on a floater and still power the ball 50 to 60 mph to a spot within 3' of the lines on a consistent basis. I don't think you can generate that much more speed with the topspin swinging volley and you are going to miss too many of them when you start trying to hit smaller targets. (Missing that target includes hitting the ball too short and giving your opponent time to run the ball down and pass you because you are out of position.)

Granted, today's players don't have the shot I am advocating and they have no choice but to hit a swinging volley, the only thing they know. I am convinced the lack of this essential transition element contributes greatly to the lack of enthusiasm for going to the net. Whether you are serving and volleying (rare these days) or trying to approach behind a forcing shot (less rare, but still infrequent) or trying to sneak into the net on a high ball or as a change of pace (still infrequent), you need to be able to switch to overdrive on the fly and close in a hurry and knock off a floater if you are lucky enough to get one; much harder to do with a swinging volley.

A topspin swinging volley tends to land relatively short. When a ball lands short that means it goes through that 40% deceleration on impact with the ground before it has traversed that last 15 feet behind the service line (hitting to 3' from the lines with a good drive volley). That could mean one or even two additional steps for your opponent to run down the ball; and the topspin will make the ball bounce higher and stay in the air longer.

The more I write, the more I am convinced I have to get my students to master the shot I am talking about.

don

[johnyandell]

I think if you can hit a reliable heavy topspin groundstroke--a big if for many--this is not a high degree of difficulty shot.

[klacr]

In this clip Roger Federer appears to be only reacting to the ball after Juan Del Potro has made a rather acrobatic return from the most unbalanced of positions. If Roger had been playing classical net play for the past ten years or so he may have reacted to the shot that he hit and he already would have been in position at the service line to hit a smash or some other form of put away volley.

It's sort of odd that Roger had not reacted to this situation before it actually happened. It is as if it is an afterthought to take the ball in the air after a moment of indecision. Hard to tell specifically without seeing the whole court or the whole point. But I do see the swinging volley many times as a bit of indecisiveness...and lesser players often pay the price for it.

At any rate...regardless, the swinging volley from the midcourt not only represents a rather large deviation from the traditional technique of approaching the net which is not to mention the tactical side of things as tennis_chiro addresses both issues. Even in this clip it is rather obvious from the technique that Roger is employing on this ball what a shot in the dark this shot actually is. The risk of mishitting this ball for anyone less than the greatest player in the world is magnified exponentially. It is not a percentage play by any means...not for the average Joe.

But what I see here is the player who is often touted as the Greatest of All Time without the nose for the net that all great all court tennis players traditionally had in the bag...as a matter of fact. The argument is being made that this shot is a legitimate practice now in modern tennis and I am not so certain that is a valid claim. If the rest of the pieces are in place to play a solid net game this shot becomes superfluous and expendable rather quickly. It is discarded as too risky...particularly on big and important points. True...we see Roger pull it off but many times he actually finds himself at the net these days out of desperation and not because he is attacking with confidence on a consistent basis. He only uses the net play as a diversionary tactic.

The key operative words in traditional net play are CONTROL...as in consistency and accuracy as tennis_chiro mentioned in his earlier manifesto on volleying. The power is in the control. It is the percentage play that is going to win in the long run. A bunch of percentage plays strung together...tennis matches are unlikely going to be decided by a "shot in the dark" which is what a swinging volley is in lesser hands.



By the way...I certainly do appreciate the topspin coming off of the ball with today's strings. Not only that...I appreciate the fact that it is the slow courts that enable the players to execute the swings with the strings that allows them to get away with it on a consistent basis. Take the velcro out of the courts and the whole thing takes on new meaning. A good example was at the Australian Open where the courts were only incrementally speeded up and it absolutely played havoc with the current paradigm of modern tennis. It certainly at the very least disrupted some of the consistency of the baseline play.

Mats Wilander agreed with me in a discussion we had in Stockholm...speaking of Swedish meatballs.

Great point in the first paragraph! Agree. Should have seen the opportunity earlier and hit a proper volley.

Perhaps "swinging volley" is a poor term and choice of wording for this shot that we are discussing. An "out of the air groundstroke" may be more appropriate.

In lesser hands, a swinging volley may in fact be a shot in a dark. But how do lesser hands improve? Practice. The lack of comfort and understanding of true volleys nowadays have left a gap for players to experiment with a more natural (for them) type of shot. Whether you believe its right or wrong, it is a shot that exists and players are using it. The key is to think about getting ready for the future, not for the present and past. The swinging volley may be a bridge to many players to re-discover the net. And that's not a bad thing.

Loving this discussion. Valid points by all. Learning something every day. Thanks for keeping this thread alive.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Instinct for Net Play...or the lack of

In this clip Roger Federer appears to be only reacting to the ball after Juan Del Potro has made a rather acrobatic return from the most unbalanced of positions. If Roger had been playing classical net play for the past ten years or so he may have reacted to the shot that he hit and he already would have been in position at the service line to hit a smash or some other form of put away volley.

It's sort of odd that Roger had not reacted to this situation before it actually happened. It is as if it is an afterthought to take the ball in the air after a moment of indecision. Hard to tell specifically without seeing the whole court or the whole point. But I do see the swinging volley many times as a bit of indecisiveness...and lesser players often pay the price for it.

At any rate...regardless, the swinging volley from the midcourt not only represents a rather large deviation from the traditional technique of approaching the net which is not to mention the tactical side of things as tennis_chiro addresses both issues. Even in this clip it is rather obvious from the technique that Roger is employing on this ball what a shot in the dark this shot actually is. The risk of mishitting this ball for anyone less than the greatest player in the world is magnified exponentially. It is not a percentage play by any means...not for the average Joe.

But what I see here is the player who is often touted as the Greatest of All Time without the nose for the net that all great all court tennis players traditionally had in the bag...as a matter of fact. The argument is being made that this shot is a legitimate practice now in modern tennis and I am not so certain that is a valid claim. If the rest of the pieces are in place to play a solid net game this shot becomes superfluous and expendable rather quickly. It is discarded as too risky...particularly on big and important points. True...we see Roger pull it off but many times he actually finds himself at the net these days out of desperation and not because he is attacking with confidence on a consistent basis. He only uses the net play as a diversionary tactic.

The key operative words in traditional net play are CONTROL...as in consistency and accuracy as tennis_chiro mentioned in his earlier manifesto on volleying. The power is in the control. It is the percentage play that is going to win in the long run. A bunch of percentage plays strung together...tennis matches are unlikely going to be decided by a "shot in the dark" which is what a swinging volley is in lesser hands.

P.S. Regarding some comments on today's volleys, I'm not sure that we truly appreciate the effect of severe topspin possible with today's strings on the ball coming off the would-be volleyer's racket. I see some players apparently try to handle Nadal's forehand by severely cutting the ball, something that isn't normally in their repertoire. Just an observation, I don't understand the dynamics/ physics of it.

By the way...I certainly do appreciate the topspin coming off of the ball with today's strings. Not only that...I appreciate the fact that it is the slow courts that enable the players to execute the swings with the strings that allows them to get away with it on a consistent basis. Take the velcro out of the courts and the whole thing takes on new meaning. A good example was at the Australian Open where the courts were only incrementally speeded up and it absolutely played havoc with the current paradigm of modern tennis. It certainly at the very least disrupted some of the consistency of the baseline play.

Mats Wilander agreed with me in a discussion we had in Stockholm...speaking of Swedish meatballs.

[tennis_chiro]

Great clip

Jim,
that's a great example of a swinging volley, but as an approach, I think Federer would be too far from the net following this shot. He'd be rushing forward and if Del Potro could get to the ball, he'd have a good chance for a passing shot.

On the other hand, what I am advocating as a "drive volley" (a little underspin, classic volley with a bigger than normal backswing; what do you guys call that?) would have allowed Federer to run a little harder and take that ball 3 or 4 feet closer to the net when it was above his shoulders instead of just at the bottom of his chest. That's a very different shot from the topspin swinging volley and puts him in a better position to play the next shot. Fed might get away with hitting that shot against Delpo from that position, but I don't think it would be a percentage play against Nadal/Djokovic/Murray/Ferrer/Nishikori. What I am calling a "drive volley" could be hit with a lot less available time and more on the move than a swinging volley. The actual length of the stroke is half that of the swinging volley. Not many players know how to execute what I am talking about in today's game. This is not the heavy topspin ball that requires compensatory action to overcome the swing; this is a floater. I want to see that ball "thumped" (technical term) as the player makes his move forward almost on a full run; the ball would be hit deep in a corner or even right down the center where the lower bounce will draw a weaker return from the opponent. Hit correctly, this shot will be much bigger than a regular volley and will just explode off the racket. And the completion of the shot will put the player executing it in a better position to play the attempted pass.

don

[jimlosaltos]

Video: Swinging Volley as Approach Shot vs Meatballs

I edited a short video clip for you, grabbed from Tennis Channel, of Fed hitting a forehand swinging volley, Slowed it down and stopped the action in a few places. You might find it interesting (low rez, sorry).

http://youtu.be/EoL5ovB4VH8

A couple of points from an avid tennis spectator with no claim to expertise: Fed, like many, uses the swinging volley primarily as a form of approach shot. In this case, he takes the ball only about two steps into the court, so it doesn't seem like an alternative to a conventional volley. A player that lacked a SV, would have hit a forehand after the bounce, from behind the baseline, not a volley.

Fed hits many of his swinging volleys (most?) with lots of margin, often landing them around his opponents' service line, with the top spin giving him time to close on the net. I don't recall him being super aggressive with the SV, going close to lines, nor with great velocity. Or, to put it differently, he is super-aggressive -- but with his footwork and positioning, but not the stroke itself.

Tangentially, as I'm writing this, I remembered an ancient tutorial in Tennis magazine on how to hit one of Stephan Edberg's put-aways at the net, which they called "The Swedish Meatball". It was a SV near the net, or a high-low windshield forehand with a closed racket face. Revolutionary! <g>

P.S. Regarding some comments on today's volleys, I'm not sure that we truly appreciate the effect of severe topspin possible with today's strings on the ball coming off the would-be volleyer's racket. I see some players apparently try to handle Nadal's forehand by severely cutting the ball, something that isn't normally in their repertoire. Just an observation, I don't understand the dynamics/ physics of it.