Interactive Forum December 2013: Tim Henman Serve and Volley

[johnyandell]

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley

This month we continue with our look at pro tennis in the 1990s, following up Bruguera and Muster, with the antithesis of the emerging heavy topspin game. The gorgeous serve and volley style of a very young Tim Henman. It was a transitional era with Sampras still dominating at the net, and in these sequences we can see, possibly, some of the reasons why that was still possible. Yes, that's Muster on the other side. What do you notice though about Henman that is very different than serve and volley points today?

[johnyandell]

Quicktime version

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley

[stotty]

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley

This month we continue with our look at pro tennis in the 1990s, following up Bruguera and Muster, with the antithesis of the emerging heavy topspin game. The gorgeous serve and volley style of a very young Tim Henman. It was a transitional era with Sampras still dominating at the net, and in these sequences we can see, possibly, some of the reasons why that was still possible. Yes, that's Muster on the other side. What do you notice though about Henman that is very different than serve and volley points today?

Henman gets to the net so much quicker than players today...with sheer intention of getting to the net to win the point. He's looking for the one two punch. A good first volley then put away the second. It's nothing like today's serve and volley, which is just thrown in the mix now and then to give opponents a different look. Henman really knew how to close down the net; today's players are less proficient at this.

Henman was a great volleyer. He's right up there...in the top ten of all time in my book. If he had had a serve like Sampras, he'd have been really tough to beat at Wimbledon.

I like the first volley in the second point of the clip. He keeps the U structure intact nicely despite the volley being around his shoes laces.

This is a great clip, John. Thanks for posting one of Britain's best.

[klacr]

Great stuff...ahhh...The serve and volley.

Interesting to note that Tim Henman was considered a very good S&V player, and coaches are always talking about getting close to the net to hit that first volley, notice where Henman hits that first volley from in the 1st clip. It's a complete lunge inside the service line. Not too shabby. But the real interesting part to the first clip is notice where he actually makes that split step. He took 3 steps and while in no man's land made the move, then took another 2 1/2 steps before the lunge and contact. So many people think the split step happens, and the ball will magically be there on your racquet. There is still plenty of ground to cover after the split step and great volleyers know how to do it.

Incredible Henman got in that close to net to hit his first volley though. It's rare you see that nowadays. Krajicek could do the same thing at times. But then again, these guys had the right mindset. There was an urge to go after the ball, not let the ball come to you. On groundstrokes today, the tendency is to "receive" the ball. On volleys of yesterday, the tendency was to go after it! There are two types of people in this world, people that make things happen and people that things happen to. Players like Henman made things happen. There's much more I can say about this and will in due time. Trust me. But I'd love to hear other's opinion on this great Henman serve and volley.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

I have the 2nd point shown from Henman in the clip on heavy rotation. That low volley he hits is so clean and a perfect 1 inch over that net. Very important to aim low over the net on volleys. Many times, players try to give themselves too much height over the net and the ball sails long or stays high for the important to catch it in their strike zone.

The amount of space Henman covers from the contact on the serve to the contact on the first volley is really special. The closer you get to the net, the easier that volley should be. At the club level it's a bit different since too close to the net will almost always result in getting lobbed since the volleys are not executed as well or lack the bite seen on the pro tour.

Henman is playing Muster and this was a perfect opponent for him. Sadly for Muster, a former world #1, he never really excelled against serve and volleyers. His career H2H vs. Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Rafter, Krajicek and Henman was a sad 6-27. Serve and volley ate Muster up.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Yes, Klacr, that low forehand volley in the clip is a peach, a beauty. Hit low over the net and with pace. Henman could volley balls off his shoe laces. His was the last truly great volleyer. Great hands and as talented as they come.

From memory, Muster was purely a clay court player...but he was a really good one for a couple of years. He was appalling on grass and couldn't pass a net player to save his life, especially off his backhand wing. I saw him play. He lost in the first round. I'm not even sure if he ever got through a round at Wimbledon. He was so poor on grass when I watched him.

[tennis_chiro]

Yes, Klacr, that low forehand volley in the clip is a peach, a beauty. Hit low over the net and with pace. Henman could volley balls off his shoe laces. His was the last truly great volleyer. Great hands and as talented as they come.

Important to note that on neither of those two volleys does Henman's racket head drop below the wrist or the contact point after the hit. I try to teach my students the innate skill of making the ball "retrace its path". If they can learn that innate skill they can handle low volleys without having to worry how much to lift the ball to get it over the net while still keeping it in the court. In the aforementioned volley, Tim is volleying a little lower than the incoming path, but if he had sent the ball back retracing its path (for height), it would have produced an even more difficult ball for Muster to handle landing very near the baseline. The ability to hit that volley while keeping the racket head from dropping so much below the contact point on completion of the shot is getting lost by players who get away with hitting easy high volleys with essentially deficient technique. But they volley so few really tough balls, they manage to get away with just "massaging" the ball. And without that skill, they can't afford to find themselves at the net having to react in a hurry to a net skimming passing shot...so they don't go there.

McEnroe massaged a lot of his volleys, but he could stick it as well when it was called for. Edberg was more of a classic deep volleyer where you would see the kind of technique I am talking about on a regular basis. Of course, he could close and angle them off as well, but he is probably a better model to emulate.

don

[klacr]

That racquet head staying above the wrist is key. It gives the the leverage and kinesthetic feel for pushing the ball through the zone.

Large number of players still want to get wristy with those volleys, trying to add extra spins and angles and juice. Can't work that way. You have to the feel the ball first and send it back low.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

That racquet head staying above the wrist is key. It gives the the leverage and kinesthetic feel for pushing the ball through the zone.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Klacr, tennis_chiro, I say the same thing myself in post 3. In the UK we call it keeping the V or U shape as the player hits through the volley. Although the racket head must be lowered for low balls, it's still beneficial if a player can get the head of the racket above the wrist, as Henman manages in the clip.

The most important thing to achieve this is to get down to the ball, bend your knees a LOT. Federer NEVER gets down to low volleys like this and relies on his hands to do the work instead. Most players today don't get down to low volleys like Cash, Henman, or Edberg...yet it's an absolute requirement or the volley is likely to pop up.

[tennis_chiro]

... Most players today don't get down to low volleys like Cash, Henman, or Edberg...yet it's an absolute requirement or the volley is likely to pop up.

I don't think any of the singles players come close to that level in this skill today. Some of the French (Llodra, maybe Benneteau) and perhaps a couple of the older players like Nieminen or Stepanek are the closest. You would have thought that some of the sons of former tour players would have been handed down the skills, but they just never got it. I think some of the older doubles players still demonstrate those skills and that is one of the reasons they are able to do so well in a young man's sport even as they have passed their mid-thirties, but even the younger doubles specialists of today don't have those crisp volleying skills. Never learned it while they were pounding all those big forehands through their teen years. And that's the reason the topspin groundstrokes look too big to ever be answered with a play at the net; the players trying to give that answer simply don't have the necessary skill.

don

[klacr]

I don't think any of the singles players come close to that level in this skill today. Some of the French (Llodra, maybe Benneteau) and perhaps a couple of the older players like Nieminen or Stepanek are the closest. You would have thought that some of the sons of former tour players would have been handed down the skills, but they just never got it. I think some of the older doubles players still demonstrate those skills and that is one of the reasons they are able to do so well in a young man's sport even as they have passed their mid-thirties, but even the younger doubles specialists of today don't have those crisp volleying skills. Never learned it while they were pounding all those big forehands through their teen years. And that's the reason the topspin groundstrokes look too big to ever be answered with a play at the net; the players trying to give that answer simply don't have the necessary skill.

don

Certain skills are lacking in today's game. But I believe its not because they don't exist, its because the opportunity to get in and stay in seems to not be an interest.

We talk about this modern game all the time, but in doubles, you can still get away with an classic game and be quite successful. The striking of a crisp volley is one of life's simplest and sweetest pleasures, tragedy not enough players willing to gain that feeling more often.

Back to Tim Henman. Henman made it to top 5 in the world which was quite the accomplishment. His serve and voley game was classic. In the clips John has provided for this thread, its amazing to see some of the finer details Henman portrays at net. For one, he's very relaxed. You can notice this on the side view when he hits his backhand volley, he moves through the ball and his face and shoulders are relaxed. As opposed to today, when players approach the net, their whole body tenses up and they have a tendency to stop their momentum immediately upon contact, almost preparing and assuming they will be lobbed or passed.

Also notice the contact Henman makes on the volleys. It is not "out in front" like I hear so many coaches preach. I'd say with a slight shoulder turn, the ball is hit to the side of the body. A continental grip's ideal contact is much later than a regular groundstroke grip. Grip dictates contact point. Many players will change from a forehand grip to a volley grip without thinking about how it affects the true contact point. Hitting a ball on a volley slightly late with a minimal turn on the shoulders will give you enough feel and weight on the ball to stick it where you want. Hitting a volley far in front of you will result in a weak shot with nothing on it and certainly no penetration.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton.

[tennis_chiro]

Racket maintained parallel to the net

Love the way the racket stays parallel to the net a good 15 clicks after contact on the forehand volley and even longer on the backhand volley. He wouldn't be able to do that if he met the ball too far in front of his front shoulder. So as Kyle points out, the contact point, especially with a continental grip, should not be too far in front of the front shoulder/hip, if at all; just right next to it, or even a couple of inches behind so you can maintain that structure parallel to the net for a good 8 to 12 inches, even perhaps preferably hitting just a little inside out.

don

[stotty]

I get all the contact point and grip stuff, but I'm not sure the contact point is a late as is being suggested. And I guess it depends where you're aiming, doesn't it? Henman's contact point seems earlier than other players. The sequence below is helpful except that photo 5 doesn't reveal whether the ball is coming in or going out. I think photo 5 is just prior to contact....your call? I reckon Henman's contact is around 8 inches in front of the body. Would that be about right?

http://www.procomparetennis.net/media/sequence_images/640/uktj1234651784.jpg

Pat Cash's article on volleying are superb, and he stipulates the contact point on a backhand volley is further in front than a forehand volley.

I can't get any clips to play in the stroke archive today. Any of you guys having this problem?

interesting thread...

[10splayer]

Love the way the racket stays parallel to the net a good 15 clicks after contact on the forehand volley and even longer on the backhand volley. He wouldn't be able to do that if he met the ball too far in front of his front shoulder. So as Kyle points out, the contact point, especially with a continental grip, should not be too far in front of the front shoulder/hip, if at all; just right next to it, or even a couple of inches behind so you can maintain that structure parallel to the net for a good 8 to 12 inches, even perhaps preferably hitting just a little inside out.

don

im trying to visualize what parallel to the net means.

[klacr]

I get all the contact point and grip stuff, but I'm not sure the contact point is a late as is being suggested. And I guess it depends where you're aiming, doesn't it? Henman's contact point seems earlier than other players. The sequence below is helpful except that photo 5 doesn't reveal whether the ball is coming in or going out. I think photo 5 is just prior to contact....your call? I reckon Henman's contact is around 8 inches in front of the body. Would that be about right?

http://www.procomparetennis.net/media/sequence_images/640/uktj1234651784.jpg

Pat Cash's article on volleying are superb, and he stipulates the contact point on a backhand volley is further in front than a forehand volley.

I can't get any clips to play in the stroke archive today. Any of you guys having this problem?

interesting thread...

Stotty, true. It's not like the ball is behind him. But it's not as far in front as some players try to make it. And yes, it does depend on what you are trying to do with the ball and the amount of shoulder turn used.

That Pat Cash article on the volley in my opinion is one of the best nuggets of wisdom on this entire site. It should be required reading for all tennis teaching professionals


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton