Serve and Volley: Three Critical Shots

[klacr]

The one shot that was perfected to perfection many years ago was the volley. Little more, if anything, needed be added.

The technique for good volleying should be the same now as it was back in Hoad's day. It's been lost. For all the talk -- and there has been much of it -- of modern rackets and strings it sure is comical how players in the fifties with far inferior equipment volleyed a far, far better than players do today.

I have seen players nail floating, dead balls for winners executed with conventional volley technique...and using wooden rackets. And believe me no one would get them back...no one. I grant you it isn't easy. A player must have immaculate technique, timing and weight transfer (weight transfer is so important) to be able to do it repeatedly and with security. It takes much practice.

I get the swing volley. I just think it's importance is grossly exaggerated. It's add on, nothing more...useful perhaps when the volleyer can't quite get his legs under him. But I still prefer the proper way of doing it.

I feel the drive volley in women's tennis has come to have greater use. It made a real difference to their tour.

Great points Stotty. No doubt the classic volley was perfected years ago and should not be changed. However, when I made use of the word change, I meant if from a technology/player context. Racquet technology is changing, players are changing as well. These issues But technically speaking, fundamentals and mastering the basics never change.

Swinging volley may in fact be grossly exaggerated, but as more and more players begin to hit them with sufficient results, does that mean we need to outlaw it? DFocus on teh fundamentals is correct. I'm a huge advocate in that. Knowing that a driven volley requires timing, flawless execution and loads of practice, you may be able to see why so many are choosing the swinging volley when they have time. It's a shot that is not for everyone and I have a hard time myself swallowing pride and losing a once vice-like grip on the old school, fundamentally sound, morally appropriate classic volley, however as mentioned by other contributors to the forum, that takes time to master and therefore quick results are not seen.

The great thing about tennis is you can choose whatever shots you'd like to play and whatever style you'd like to choose from. Choice is yours. I hit the drive volley the vast majority of the time but it's always good to have a new wrinkle or tool in your game.

I appreciate the passion and info Stotty. Keep it up.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Swinging v conventional...

Stotty,

Tennis evolves. Constantly. Times, they are a changing.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The one shot that was perfected to perfection many years ago was the volley. Little more, if anything, needed be added.

The technique for good volleying should be the same now as it was back in Hoad's day. It's been lost. For all the talk -- and there has been much of it -- of modern rackets and strings it sure is comical how players in the fifties with far inferior equipment volleyed a far, far better than players do today.

I have seen players nail floating, dead balls for winners executed with conventional volley technique...and using wooden rackets. And believe me no one would get them back...no one. I grant you it isn't easy. A player must have immaculate technique, timing and weight transfer (weight transfer is so important) to be able to do it repeatedly and with security. It takes much practice.

I get the swing volley. I just think it's importance is grossly exaggerated. It's an add on, nothing more...useful perhaps when the volleyer can't quite get his legs under him. But I still prefer the proper way of doing it.

I feel the drive volley in women's tennis has come to have greater use. It made a real difference to their tour.

[don_budge]

Power...as it relates to volleying

Power is always important, but it takes a back seat to consistency and accuracy when we are talking volleys.

Question to student...What is power? Answer...Control.

Power is always important but it should not be confused with speed. If you want power over someone...get control over them. In order to get power over your opponent...control them by controlling the ball. In order to control the ball...control yourself.

In the case of volleying...power is more often than not a combination of consistency and accuracy.

There is a lot more power inherent in the ball that has just passed over the net and hasn't suffered the loss of velocity associated with traveling the length of the court or losing 40% of its speed when it bounces on the court surface; I just need to redirect that power. And there is almost always a little underpin which improves my feel and control of the shot as well as allowing me to absorb some of the speed of the oncoming ball and keep the bounce a little lower.

To demonstrate this important fundamental I hit some volleys against the wall...quicker and quicker. Harder and harder.

I step back and look at the wall saying..."there is the worlds best volleyer (WBV) and I just threw my best volleys at him and what did he do? He did absolutely nothing."

Make yourself and your racquet into a wall with the weight distributed forwards and deflect the ball back into your opponents court using the speed of the ball coming at you. Not an easy thing to do considering the acrobatics involved to say nothing of the dipping bullet hurled into your court.

[GeoffWilliams]

Bigger racquets don't just favor ground strokes. B/igger sweet spot is just that, volleys as well. The technical improvements are the main reason, not equipment, for better passing shots. Yeah, string is edged now. Yeah, frames are more high tech. Yeah, sweet spots are bigger. All of that is over shadowed by: faster, bigger, more committed ground strokes, with more angles.

[klacr]

Yes, Yes, Yes, No.

My comments from Scott Murphy’s original article in the thread “The Swinging Volleys” dated 7-26-2012...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2109&highlight=swinging+volleys

Very interesting post from the licensedcoach in Great Britain.

Fundamentally speaking a swing volley is outside of the control limits. I never teach such a shot as it goes against all of the fundamentals of technique to properly play a ball out of the air. In the art of net play it is an unnecessary risk as more often than not such a swing will result in an error...and a costly error at that. This business of swinging volleys being an evolutionary attribute of tennis somehow is a vastly distorted myth. It is only engineering that makes such a "shot in the dark" a staple in the modern game.

Let's face it...this series of articles is an account of a extinct species. There no longer exists one single solitary serve and volleyer among the current crop of professional tennis players. To appreciate the serve and volley skills of the classic era of tennis one would have to be at least 60 years old at this point in time otherwise any account of it will be second hand or via youtube...which makes it difficult to get a real handle on the real thing. You see...at this point in time it has been delegated to the bin of "virtual reality". After the classic game was executed the new and modern game of tennis was off and running with "shock and awe" tennis which sort of took a lot of liberty with the fundamentals given the options for more area with the face of the racquet. Thus the bigger swings on the volleys.

But therein lies the danger of reinvention...the swinging volley still defies the rules of hitting a ball out of the air. Underspin is the correct motion to be used on a ball hit in the air and swinging at a volley creates all kinds of scenarios...most of them bad for the less than professional player. Even for professional players it bodes badly if they feel that they must resort to such technique. It shows that they do not have the confidence in their technique to get the job done. Nobody reflects this more than Roger Federer...for all of his super human ability to play tennis...that he still must resort to swinging volleys shows that he is not so confident in his volleying skills. It is reflected in his approach game as well. Much of this insecurity could be attributed to the engineering of the game as well.

The most interesting aspect of this discussion is this...this part of the game is dead. Not only dead but it is dead and buried. There are no longer any coaches around that can truly teach effective serve and volley. Swinging volleys never have to be taught...and I would venture to say that they should never be taught. If some player emerges that learns to play and master serve and volley...he may elect to "evolve" the swinging volley into his repertoire but it will not be necessary to teach him this. Better to teach him extraordinary touch and feel around the net with sound fundamentals and let the bells and whistles take care of themselves.

I teach that you never hit the ball harder out of the air than is necessary to beat your opponent. I love to beat my opponent with a soft volley into an open court. You know how fast he is...calmly place the ball out of his reach...or at least to a place where he is going to not be able to get set for another pass attempt. But when you need to...you must be able to "crisp" it. Crisp volleying...you don't hear that term much these days but that is how my dear old coach used to term it.

The whole concept of serve and volley or even approach and volley revolves around the concept of control. What is power I ask all of my students repeatedly? Power is control. Here is the ultimate expression of control in a tennis player...advancing to the net. Taking steps forwards in order to gain the advantage. Playing aggressively without throwing all caution to the wind. The odds are calculated and if the cards are all played accordingly the odds should be tilted to the aggressor...the advancing player. The problem is that his sort of tactical ploy has all but been engineered out of the equation...the synergistic equation of racquet size, strings and most importantly...the speed of the courts.

The crazy thing is...we are discussing a hypothetical situation now. This business of serve and volley and approach and volley. The use of swinging volleys vs. classic technique. It’s all hypothetical because the only volleys being played today on a regular basis in the professional game are on the back courts where the doubles has been relegated and trivialized. Even the professional doubles game has been drastically altered to reduce the matches from the full three out of five in the past to split sets and a super tie-break.

If there is one word that I object to in the discussion of tennis these days it is the word “evolution”. The definition of the word not only implies but stringently observes that man has not intervened with the process and what we are discussing is only engineering by definition. Most of the coaches today are merely scrambling to get credit for reinventing the wheel. Fundamentally there is nothing new under the sun tennis wise...there is only the specifications to be factored in. Bigger racquets equals larger margin for error equals bigger swings.

But even so...when teaching the game it is best to focus on the fundamentals and not get to carried away with those things that are made possible through the engineering of the game. If evolution is to be used in the language of modern tennis this is where it will be used correctly...grammatically speaking. Teach the player sound fundamentals and allow him to evolve into the game at present. A game based on solid fundamentals will be accommodating to any additional stroke or form that is necessary at any given time...and at the same time will be able to accommodate any more engineering that is monkeyed around with in the future...i.e. the speed of the courts are slated to be speeded up. Theoretically speaking...of course.

don_budge,

Always love to hear your comments. In fact, when I was producing this piece months ago, you were on my mind. Just guessing what your response would be. I was right about my hypothesis.

Many of your thoughts you bring up are preaching to this choir.
1. Bane of classic fundamentals
2. Engineering games/equiptment
3. True serve and volleyers remain with classic volleys.
4. Fundamentals.

However,
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

[klacr]

continued from the last post:

So now, what about a "drive" volley. A "drive" volley involves a much longer backswing, but still not nearly as long as a swinging volley. A "drive" volley would only be executed on a ball that was at least chest level and more usually shoulder or eye level; any higher than that and the option of a crouch overhead should come into play. For me, on a "drive" volley, your hand goes back as far as your rear shoulder, maybe a foot farther back than it does on a "full" volley, but not much beyond your rear shoulder. The racket, however, goes a couple of feet beyond the rear shoulder. But the restrictions of an extended or "cocked" wrist and no "SSC" are maintained. It is a straight back, straight forward swing just like a regular or "full" volley. You should be positioning the racket head behind the ball as you approach the "drive" volley so that as you arrive at the ball, you simply swing forward the 4 to 5 feet of the actual forward stroke which is also slightly downward. The ball is hit with just a little bit of underspin for control and feel. And while the followthrough may be slightly longer as you have generated a lot more power with that additional 2' of swing length, you still try to maintain the extended wrist position in the followthrough and resist letting the line of the racket shaft cross the midline of the body (in other words, you are trying to keep the racket parallel to the net as long as possible). And when you reach the proficiency of a world-class player, you can get away with allowing the followthrough on this shot to continue forward to your ready position, but when you are on my teaching court, you will control the followthrough and pull the racket back to the ready position. But the length of the stroke is just that 4 to 5 feet. It's a simple enough motion that you can get away with it on the move as you close and still maintain adequate consistency and accuracy, even if you have to hit it before your feet are able to establish a solid position, maybe even as you are airborne.

On the other hand, the "swinging" volley is a considerably longer and more complicated stroke. Most players will not be able to hit it with their volley grip and will need their forehand grip to execute the shot. In total, the path of the racket head for a swinging volley goes perhaps twice as long as a "drive" volley as the "swinging" volley includes a loop and an SSC. The racket head follows the elliptical pathway of a normal forehand, but at a much higher elevation as the shot is executed on balls at least at chest height. It's meant to be a concluder and the followthrough keeps the player from being able to move easily to be in position for a following volley. It's a great shot when it works, but I feel it is too difficult to employ it as a tactic in the situations where you don't have time to get your feet set to hit the ball as you transition to the net. If you are not accurate or powerful enough to put this ball away, you are left in midcourt completing the followthrough and vulnerable to your opponents passing shot.

The "swinging" volley is a good and necessary shot in the arsenal of today's complete player, but I don't think it is effective in the situations where you need a good "drive" volley as I have described it. I make a huge distinction between what I call the "drive" volley and the "swinging" volley and I think a complete player needs both. In the last 15 years, the only player I have seen who could adequately execute the drive volley and make the transition shot behind his serve while covering a full 23 to 25 feet of the width of the court was Pat Rafter. He didn't have the technique of a Stefan Edberg, but his fabulous athleticism allowed him to get away with it. Players who try to serve and volley today are really only able to cover about 18 to 20 feet of the 27' of width of the court. Sampras didn't cover quite as much court as Rafter, but he could get away with less range because his serve effectively made the court that much smaller for his opponents. No one can cover the full 27 feet of width of the court, especially with today's equipment and courts, but if you can't play a "drive" volley as I have described it on the balls floating on the edges of the court where you don't have time to execute a "swing" volley, you can't afford to try to serve and volley at all. And so very few even try, except as a surprise tactic.

Looking forward to your comments!

don

tennis_chiro,

Wow! Where to begin? Quite the post(s).

First and foremost thanks for taking the time to write such a lengthy and well thought out post on my article thread. I also appreciate the kind words in Post #14. "Indefatigable" heh? Not surprisingly, that word has been used to describe me in other areas as well.

In response to your post(s), there are many variables and shots related to playing the net. Different types of volleys, their uses and tactical reasoning for it are numerous. I understand your terms and definitions and I don't disagree...however, the vernacular that is used across the tennis coaching world could be unified to prevent language issues like licensedcoach is having. But thats a different issue and thread all together

I grew up with and fall more into line with what tennis_chiro describes in his posts for his regular, drive and swinging volleys. I find that volleys, due to the quick and aggressive nature and amount of improvisational skills have a huge variance in shots. half volleys, drop, block, reflex, regular, drive and swinging etc. The drive volley is an great shot, but like any other shot, it needs to be executed. To me, the drive volley is the classic well struck winning volley that you remember from the good old days.

The Swinging volley is a polarizing topic but one that cannot be ignored. Is it a true volley? Is it proper? Is it even worth attempting? These questions are legitimate. But however we feel about this shot, it does happen in the pro game and infiltrating into other levels. You may love it, you may loathe it. But it's a part of the game and we must recognize and learn from it. We don't have to teach it, but we should be aware.

It is very important for all players, at all ages, all abilities to understand that being the best at the basics is what truly allows for a player to grow and develop. Teaching players proper classic volleys may be all we need. In fact, a classic well struck volley can be more advantageous since the ball will stay low and force opponents to hit up. A swinging volley has a considerable amount of pace but also has ability to sit up, giving a clean look to an opponent for a passing shot.

tennis_chiro, the words you preach are far from blasphemous or heretical, in my opinion, they are basic and feasible for any coach and any student. There is beauty in the basics. Thats what truly needs to be established for any volley that is being learned.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

tennis_chiro post #14 and #15

Looking forward to your comments!

don

My comment? Absolutely all encompassing. Thanks for the effort! Like Stotty there is much to discuss.

I wrote mine before I read yours...for comparison's sake. This is going to be fun...I think.

[don_budge]

Swinging Volleys...the bane of Classic Fundamentals

My comments from Scott Murphy’s original article in the thread “The Swinging Volleys” dated 7-26-2012...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2109&highlight=swinging+volleys

From my campsite...not a stitch of wind or clouds, the sun blazing against the blue Swedish sky. The water still as glass, reflecting everything in its wake as a mirror image to the heavens. Is the world at peace or is it my imagination? Dream on...dreaming is for free, you know.

"Also due to the effects of poly, conventional volleys, even well placed volleys, have become more and more susceptible to the opponent’s heavily spun passing shots."

I wondered about this statement and would like some clarification from the author or some other knowledgeable source. It sounds as if poly perhaps imparts extra underspin as well...for example, on a conventional volley which may cause the ball to "sit up" inviting another whack at a passing attempt.

Swinging at volleys goes against the classic tennis player's grain. While Roger took care of most of the swinging attempts that he took at Wimbledon...I, like geoffwilliams question whether using this technique causes a bit of indecision on the part of a volleyer when one of the attributes of a good volleyer is decisiveness. When volleying speeding and dipping bullets there isn't much time to make decisions...one must merely react. I see some indecisiveness in the classic volleys of Roger Federer at times and it seems to have impaired his ability and effectiveness up and around the net. So the question is whether it is worth it to throw caution to the wind or to play the percentages.

Classic volley technique dictated that the first volley was to hurt or throw the opponent off balance and the follow up volley was the put away...to seal the deal. With the engineering of the strings and the courts that are being "velcro'd" up the swinging volleys are finding their way into the game as a legitimate option to hitting a ball in the air. That being the case...I still prefer classic volley technique and tactics and have yet to find a case among my students to introduce this concept to.

If one is going to use net approaching as a tactic on a regular basis it seems to me that the percentage play is in the classic approach. Taking a swing at a tennis ball in the air seems to be a lower percentage play but if a player is not approaching on a regular basis...and who does nowadays...it may just be the way to go on balls that fit the criteria. But it seems a shame to me that "touch" and the adept use of angles has been deemed to be obsolete. This is a great loss to the game...but who care's?

I have the same criticism of the modern approach of the net tactics. Even Federer is guilty of my contention that too often players opt to use overspin to approach the net...and of course the swinging volleys are merely an extension of this philosophy. It looked to me though at Wimbledon that Federer sort of came back to his roots a bit and was using underspin particularly in the finals to keep and throw his opponent off balance. I think that underspin, once you get closer to the net, offers more options in the approach game in terms of variety, concealed intentions and disguise as well as the ability to get the opponent to alter his passing attempts.

Interesting this swing volley business.

In the history of tennis, volleys became compact because anything other than compactness leads to errors. That's the evolution of the classic volley in a nutshell.

The swing volley is a very difficult shot to get right, and a player has to be above a certain skill level to be able to do it with any security. It really isn't easy from deep in the court.

I understand it has great use in the game but I've often thought it came about because weaker volleyers couldn't volley properly in the first place.

Very interesting post from the licensedcoach in Great Britain.

Fundamentally speaking a swing volley is outside of the control limits. I never teach such a shot as it goes against all of the fundamentals of technique to properly play a ball out of the air. In the art of net play it is an unnecessary risk as more often than not such a swing will result in an error...and a costly error at that. This business of swinging volleys being an evolutionary attribute of tennis somehow is a vastly distorted myth. It is only engineering that makes such a "shot in the dark" a staple in the modern game.

Let's face it...this series of articles is an account of a extinct species. There no longer exists one single solitary serve and volleyer among the current crop of professional tennis players. To appreciate the serve and volley skills of the classic era of tennis one would have to be at least 60 years old at this point in time otherwise any account of it will be second hand or via youtube...which makes it difficult to get a real handle on the real thing. You see...at this point in time it has been delegated to the bin of "virtual reality". After the classic game was executed the new and modern game of tennis was off and running with "shock and awe" tennis which sort of took a lot of liberty with the fundamentals given the options for more area with the face of the racquet. Thus the bigger swings on the volleys.

But therein lies the danger of reinvention...the swinging volley still defies the rules of hitting a ball out of the air. Underspin is the correct motion to be used on a ball hit in the air and swinging at a volley creates all kinds of scenarios...most of them bad for the less than professional player. Even for professional players it bodes badly if they feel that they must resort to such technique. It shows that they do not have the confidence in their technique to get the job done. Nobody reflects this more than Roger Federer...for all of his super human ability to play tennis...that he still must resort to swinging volleys shows that he is not so confident in his volleying skills. It is reflected in his approach game as well. Much of this insecurity could be attributed to the engineering of the game as well.

The most interesting aspect of this discussion is this...this part of the game is dead. Not only dead but it is dead and buried. There are no longer any coaches around that can truly teach effective serve and volley. Swinging volleys never have to be taught...and I would venture to say that they should never be taught. If some player emerges that learns to play and master serve and volley...he may elect to "evolve" the swinging volley into his repertoire but it will not be necessary to teach him this. Better to teach him extraordinary touch and feel around the net with sound fundamentals and let the bells and whistles take care of themselves.

I teach that you never hit the ball harder out of the air than is necessary to beat your opponent. I love to beat my opponent with a soft volley into an open court. You know how fast he is...calmly place the ball out of his reach...or at least to a place where he is going to not be able to get set for another pass attempt. But when you need to...you must be able to "crisp" it. Crisp volleying...you don't hear that term much these days but that is how my dear old coach used to term it.

The whole concept of serve and volley or even approach and volley revolves around the concept of control. What is power I ask all of my students repeatedly? Power is control. Here is the ultimate expression of control in a tennis player...advancing to the net. Taking steps forwards in order to gain the advantage. Playing aggressively without throwing all caution to the wind. The odds are calculated and if the cards are all played accordingly the odds should be tilted to the aggressor...the advancing player. The problem is that his sort of tactical ploy has all but been engineered out of the equation...the synergistic equation of racquet size, strings and most importantly...the speed of the courts.

The crazy thing is...we are discussing a hypothetical situation now. This business of serve and volley and approach and volley. The use of swinging volleys vs. classic technique. It’s all hypothetical because the only volleys being played today on a regular basis in the professional game are on the back courts where the doubles has been relegated and trivialized. Even the professional doubles game has been drastically altered to reduce the matches from the full three out of five in the past to split sets and a super tie-break.

If there is one word that I object to in the discussion of tennis these days it is the word “evolution”. The definition of the word not only implies but stringently observes that man has not intervened with the process and what we are discussing is only engineering by definition. Most of the coaches today are merely scrambling to get credit for reinventing the wheel. Fundamentally there is nothing new under the sun tennis wise...there is only the specifications to be factored in. Bigger racquets equals larger margin for error equals bigger swings.

But even so...when teaching the game it is best to focus on the fundamentals and not get to carried away with those things that are made possible through the engineering of the game. If evolution is to be used in the language of modern tennis this is where it will be used correctly...grammatically speaking. Teach the player sound fundamentals and allow him to evolve into the game at present. A game based on solid fundamentals will be accommodating to any additional stroke or form that is necessary at any given time...and at the same time will be able to accommodate any more engineering that is monkeyed around with in the future...i.e. the speed of the courts are slated to be speeded up. Theoretically speaking...of course.

[stotty]

Two countries divided by a common language...

continued from the last post:

So now, what about a "drive" volley. A "drive" volley involves a much longer backswing, but still not nearly as long as a swinging volley. A "drive" volley would only be executed on a ball that was at least chest level and more usually shoulder or eye level; any higher than that and the option of a crouch overhead should come into play. For me, on a "drive" volley, your hand goes back as far as your rear shoulder, maybe a foot farther back than it does on a "full" volley, but not much beyond your rear shoulder. The racket, however, goes a couple of feet beyond the rear shoulder. But the restrictions of an extended or "cocked" wrist and no "SSC" are maintained. It is a straight back, straight forward swing just like a regular or "full" volley. You should be positioning the racket head behind the ball as you approach the "drive" volley so that as you arrive at the ball, you simply swing forward the 4 to 5 feet of the actual forward stroke which is also slightly downward. The ball is hit with just a little bit of underspin for control and feel.
don

Shame I have so little time to dissect your post with meaningful replies. I shall have to tackle it in fragments over a couple of days, I'm afraid. I have so much on at the moment.

Let's tackle the language barrier first:

A "drive" volley where I come is hit with topspin, not underspin. Hence, the term drive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VokGUDA3szs

A swinging volley is termed as a volley...well...you swing at. I'll add the finer points to this one in another post.

The drive volley is the easier as it merely a compact forehand. It's better not to use too much wrist as it presents timing issues. A table tennis type swing works really well, certainly at club level.

but the stroke will still finish almost immediately at contact as all of the available energy of the shot is transferred into the outgoing ball; so I want the same look on the finish – no followthrough!

I am not sure about this stopping immediately after contact business on a "full" volley. There isn't too much evidence of this that I can see. Or maybe it players like Kramer and Rosewall were just dissipating the follow through after contact.

If a player is steering a high volley safely down then that may be different. There are so many nuances with volleying, which is why it cannot be easily learned mid-career. It takes a decade.

Fascinating post, tennis_chiro. I have much to add...keep popping back. We are going to have to thrash this one out.

[tennis_chiro]

continued

continued from the last post:

So now, what about a "drive" volley. A "drive" volley involves a much longer backswing, but still not nearly as long as a swinging volley. A "drive" volley would only be executed on a ball that was at least chest level and more usually shoulder or eye level; any higher than that and the option of a crouch overhead should come into play. For me, on a "drive" volley, your hand goes back as far as your rear shoulder, maybe a foot farther back than it does on a "full" volley, but not much beyond your rear shoulder. The racket, however, goes a couple of feet beyond the rear shoulder. But the restrictions of an extended or "cocked" wrist and no "SSC" are maintained. It is a straight back, straight forward swing just like a regular or "full" volley. You should be positioning the racket head behind the ball as you approach the "drive" volley so that as you arrive at the ball, you simply swing forward the 4 to 5 feet of the actual forward stroke which is also slightly downward. The ball is hit with just a little bit of underspin for control and feel. And while the followthrough may be slightly longer as you have generated a lot more power with that additional 2' of swing length, you still try to maintain the extended wrist position in the followthrough and resist letting the line of the racket shaft cross the midline of the body (in other words, you are trying to keep the racket parallel to the net as long as possible). And when you reach the proficiency of a world-class player, you can get away with allowing the followthrough on this shot to continue forward to your ready position, but when you are on my teaching court, you will control the followthrough and pull the racket back to the ready position. But the length of the stroke is just that 4 to 5 feet. It's a simple enough motion that you can get away with it on the move as you close and still maintain adequate consistency and accuracy, even if you have to hit it before your feet are able to establish a solid position, maybe even as you are airborne.

On the other hand, the "swinging" volley is a considerably longer and more complicated stroke. Most players will not be able to hit it with their volley grip and will need their forehand grip to execute the shot. In total, the path of the racket head for a swinging volley goes perhaps twice as long as a "drive" volley as the "swinging" volley includes a loop and an SSC. The racket head follows the elliptical pathway of a normal forehand, but at a much higher elevation as the shot is executed on balls at least at chest height. It's meant to be a concluder and the followthrough keeps the player from being able to move easily to be in position for a following volley. It's a great shot when it works, but I feel it is too difficult to employ it as a tactic in the situations where you don't have time to get your feet set to hit the ball as you transition to the net. If you are not accurate or powerful enough to put this ball away, you are left in midcourt completing the followthrough and vulnerable to your opponents passing shot.

The "swinging" volley is a good and necessary shot in the arsenal of today's complete player, but I don't think it is effective in the situations where you need a good "drive" volley as I have described it. I make a huge distinction between what I call the "drive" volley and the "swinging" volley and I think a complete player needs both. In the last 15 years, the only player I have seen who could adequately execute the drive volley and make the transition shot behind his serve while covering a full 23 to 25 feet of the width of the court was Pat Rafter. He didn't have the technique of a Stefan Edberg, but his fabulous athleticism allowed him to get away with it. Players who try to serve and volley today are really only able to cover about 18 to 20 feet of the 27' of width of the court. Sampras didn't cover quite as much court as Rafter, but he could get away with less range because his serve effectively made the court that much smaller for his opponents. No one can cover the full 27 feet of width of the court, especially with today's equipment and courts, but if you can't play a "drive" volley as I have described it on the balls floating on the edges of the court where you don't have time to execute a "swing" volley, you can't afford to try to serve and volley at all. And so very few even try, except as a surprise tactic.

Looking forward to your comments!

don

[tennis_chiro]

Swing volley vs Drive Volley!?

"Drive Volley" vs "Swing Volley"

First of all, let me say thanks to Kyle for a wonderful series on Serving and Volleying. I always enjoy reading his comments here on the forum. He is absolutely indefatigable in his effort to make whatever comment he makes in a constructive and positive manor. In that light, let me say I am trying to further delineate two different volleys that are generally bunched together in today's nomenclature as "swinging" volleys. Nevertheless, I am hoping and fully expect that my comments will generate some dissenting and alternative views.

For me there is still a real distinction between the "drive" volley and the "swing" volley. Without true mastery of the "drive" volley, a player can never truly master the transition game and move while in command of the point to a position where they can conclude the point with a final winning volley if they do not draw an error on the attempted pass off that well executed "drive" volley. (The animation of Federer's swinging forehand volley in the article shows him finishing the point to an open court; what if the opponent is in better position and he has to hit another shot.) Granted, you will get passed some of the time and a lot more with today's strings and rackets than in the past, but a well executed "drive" volley will stack the odds heavily in your favor. Mastery of the technique will allow you to employ the tactic on slightly floating returns that do not offer sufficient time to close and set up to hit a "swinging" volley; these balls are routinely played with big forehands after the bounce from deeper in the court. Thirty years ago or even less, we could get away with taking that ball out of the air and pushing it deep as we scurried to the net; today's passing skills don't allow such weak approach shots; you have to sting that "drive" volley probably at least 50% faster than we did. But I would argue that few players today have the skill with this shot or sufficient comfort level with the following shot that requires them to position themselves to intercept the next ball and volley it for a winner.

You can hit a "drive" volley on the move and in a hurry and even on a ball with a little bit of velocity, and you can do it with consistency and adequate accuracy to make the shot effective. I know players are getting better at the "swing" volleys, but I just don't think you can be consistent or accurate enough with a "swing" volley unless you get into position to hit it early enough to get your feet set, or at least in position with your shoulders in the necessary position to execute a full swing volley. In addition, there is a pretty long followthrough with a full "swing" volley and completing that follow through takes vital time away from your move to your next position to play the next ball.

So let me delineate what I mean by a volley, a "drive" volley and a "swing" volley.

A regular volley is a very short stroke. There is no "loop" or "SSC". (I realize I may be falling afoul of Geoff's "snap-back" theories. But for me, volleys are all about taking advantage of the time I have stolen from my opponent and and require ultimate consistency and accuracy. Power is always important, but it takes a back seat to consistency and accuracy when we are talking volleys. There is a lot more power inherent in the ball that has just passed over the net and hasn't suffered the loss of velocity associated with traveling the length of the court or losing 40% of its speed when it bounces on the court surface; I just need to redirect that power. And there is almost always a little underpin which improves my feel and control of the shot as well as allowing me to absorb some of the speed of the oncoming ball and keep the bounce a little lower.

A regular volley off a very fast ball is indeed a very short stroke. The volleyer's hand might move no more than a couple of inches and the racket head might move less than a foot from its most posterior position to contact point; and, ideally, I want to see the racket stop almost immediately at contact like a remote control holding the outgoing ball to its intended path. So, at completion of that volley, I ask my student's to keep the line of the shaft of the racket from crossing the net post; certainly, I want the "layback" in the wrist or the "cock" of the wrist or the extension of the wrist to be maintained through completion of the stroke. This is especially true if you are trying to "stick" a low volley on a fast ball just below net level or maybe on a ball at your shoe laces at the service line. One of my favorite metaphors is the cue ball stopping completely as it transfers all of its momentum to another ball.

A regular or "full" volley off a somewhat slower ball is going to take a somewhat greater backswing; that means the hand is going to move maybe 6" further back and the racket head will go back as far as my right (rear) shoulder, even perhaps 6 or 8 inches more than that; but the stroke will still finish almost immediately at contact as all of the available energy of the shot is transferred into the outgoing ball; so I want the same look on the finish – no followthrough! Perhaps JY's "u" will be maintained a couple of more inches extending forward, but I don't want to see the line of the shaft of the racket crossing the body. I want to see the recovery as a pull-back from the completion of the volley, not a continued swing to the midline of the body. I always tell my students, when they are looking for volleying models from the pros, to look at the doubles players first and to look only at balls they are hitting below the net on pretty well hit oncoming balls; the pros get away with way too much because of their athletic skills the rest of the time. Except that they don't really get away with the lack of those correct fundamentals when they try to handle really tough volleys; most simply don't have the skills anymore. So they say that today's higher velocities and spin rates make it impossible to volley; watch the top doubles players. It's no accident that so many of the top doubles specialists are in their middle to late thirties from a time when players routinely developed much better fundamental volleying skills as juniors.

Anyway, regular or "full" volley: hand moves little more than a foot, wrist maintains an extended or cocked position, there is no "SSC", the ball is hit with a slight bit of underpin, and the racket head moves, at most, three feet to the contact point when viewed relative to the front shoulder. When we include the movement of the step into the shot, the actual movement of the racket head might be 2 to 3 feet more, but most of that gross body movement is completed before the racket face starts its final movement/swing forward to the ball. I'd like to see that step into the volley completed and the foot on the ground just before the forward stroke is made. In reality, most of the time we are not afforded the luxury of that much time and the front foot is still in the air as we hit a lot of volleys; but it is not my intention to "lunge" into the shot. For my money, this would be another great myth for JY to debunk, but that is a whole other line of thought. Except that it is very much related to why a "drive" volley (my definition) will work when a "swinging" volley will not.

continued in the next post

don

[GeoffWilliams]

Soon someone will be taught to use the uni grip and the swinging volley over the continental.

[klacr]

Interesting this swing volley business.

In the history of tennis, volleys became compact because anything other than compactness leads to errors. That's the evolution of the classic volley in a nutshell.

The swing volley is a very difficult shot to get right, and a player has to be above a certain skill level to be able to do it with any security. It really isn't easy from deep in the court.

I understand it has great use in the game but I've often thought it came about because weaker volleyers couldn't volley properly in the first place.

Stotty,

As traditional as I am and love to preach gospel about classic volleys, there is no denying the impact of swinging volleys. I began teaching the swinging volley to some of my juniors along with the classic volley and they have a blast with it.

Swinging volleys were once the sign of a weak volleyer, now its a sign of a confident and attacking player. Serve and volley of the new generation perhaps. Tennis evolves. Constantly. Times, they are a changing.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

Good article!

However, I feel like all of these shots are great for pushing the opponent off the court and back. But, I think the drop shot is equally as important for serve and volley. There is nothing like pulling your opponent up to the net like a cat pulling a mouse on the end of a string.

Thanks for reading.

You do make an excellent point on the drop shot. It is a shot that can be used to great effect when up at the net and certainly much easier to execute. I do advocate using the drop shot to my students nor do I shy away from using it. But for the purpose of the article I wanted to focus on volley specific shots.

Excellent contribution to this thread though. The dropshot. Good thinking.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Swingers...

Interesting this swing volley business.

In the history of tennis, volleys became compact because anything other than compactness leads to errors. That's the evolution of the classic volley in a nutshell.

The swing volley is a very difficult shot to get right, and a player has to be above a certain skill level to be able to do it with any security. It really isn't easy from deep in the court.

I understand it has great use in the game but I've often thought it came about because weaker volleyers couldn't volley properly in the first place.