The Volley Step-Foot in the air or On the Ground?

[tennis_chiro]

I have a problem with the standard instruction to "Step into your Volley!". I was working with a nationally ranked 14 y.o. this weekend and starting my regular routines on correcting kids volleys. He was all over the place with his shots and showed very little ability to control where the ball was going. He was not just stepping into the volley, he was lunging into it. Now I think it is paramount that the player close as much as possible on their volley when they get the opportunity, but I think it is a mistake to think you have to have your entire body going forward to have any velocity on your volley, much less lunge into it. In reality, in singles, most volleys are played as you are moving forward to the net and you rarely get to get your feet down solidly as you hit a volley. But that doesn't mean you wouldn't like to. And when someone hits a big low return (let's say 70 or 80 mph), the volleyer is going to have a hell of a time making his volley if his head is still moving when he hits the ball. I always have told my players that they have to study the pros in their most difficult volleying positions when they are looking for examples of technique to copy because the pros are so good and can get away with a lot when they get a ball above the net or hanging just a little bit.

Anyway, I really believe when a player hits a forehand volley and steps out and across to the shot with his left foot (right-hander), he should have that foot on the ground before he makes contact with the ball and with most of the weight transfer completed (maybe 90%) just before impact.

There is no question in my mind this is the right way to learn the volley, but perhaps I am wrong about advance technique (I think I am right) when every article I look at has pros demonstrating a lunge through contact with only one foot on the ground (the back one). I can find video in the stroke archive that backs up what I am saying, but the vast majority of the pro volleys back up the opposite argument that the foot is still in the air.

When someone is having trouble learning the volley (advanced players and ranked players as well) it is a great help to take the foot work away from them completely. Then I try to get them to add the footwork back. And I am a stickler for learning good footwork on the volley and developing a habit of a crossover step even as I acknowledge you sometimes have time for 0 steps! But when you are learning the stroke, the footwork can get in the way, when it is actually supposed to be a help.

Bottom line is I am convinced you should complete the step and get it down on the ground before you contact the ball (whenever you can), just as a hitter takes his step before he swings and a golfer transfers the weight before contact, and a quarterback completes the step before he makes a throw and a pitcher gets the foot down way before he releases the ball. In an advanced play, you close on the net as much as possible and this can add a little stick to a volley that has no swing (largely because you are still moving so much), but that movement is primarily to get closer to the net, not to increase the speed of the volley. In fact, the advantage of closing is so great that we sacrifice some consistency and accuracy to do so, but we really would rather be able to close and have that foot on the ground.

What do you think? I need some feedback from some other coaches who are dealing with High Performance players. Crisp, clean, even surgical volleying is becoming a lost art, except to the best of the doubles specialists. I hate to see that happening.

[oliensis]

Volley footwork

I'm not a high-level professional coach, but I did study martial arts for the better part of 16 years. I studied T'ai Chi, an Indian martial art called Kalari Payatt, and Tae Kwon Do. I also taugh a fair amount of KP and TKD during those years.

In these very regimented Asian martial arts you learn very specific footwork, very classical, rigid forms, and, at the lower levels, there is heavy emphasis on the "right" way to do things, and conforming to that way with as little deviation as possible.

Then...as you work your way up the ladder of each art, form gives way to flow, until, finally, at the higher levels, the specific, rigid steps of the forms dissolve into much smoother, trained, but intuitive gliding, hopping, skipping, shuffling, and so on during free sparring.

A "reverse punch" (right cross for a right-handed boxer, and the equivalent of a forehand volley) can be thrown with the left foot either on the ground or moving forward in the air...but the essence of the weight shift and hip torque is the same either way. Which way you punch the other guy (L foot in air, or planted) depends on the distance and the setup into the strike. And if you're good, then it doesn't matter whether your left foot has landed or not when the strike is delivered. The same forces can be generated and focused at the point of contact either way...just like a forehand can be struck well in either neutral or open stance.

So, why would there be a "right" way to hit a volley, relative to the left foot's being planted? There may or may not be an "orthodox" way of doing it, but doesn't the last 30 years of tennis show us that orthodoxy is just that and not much more?

You may prefer teaching the volley with the left foot planted, but I just watched all the Mirnyi serve/volley videos in the stroke archives (I've always liked his volley technique) and, as you mention, it is the exception rather than the rule when his left foot has landed prior to striking a forehand volley. The only time I found his left foot on the ground when hitting a volley was on very low balls for which he was stretching way forward.

There's at least one article I've read by an old-timer who vociferously opposed landing on the left foot after serving...why? Because the serving greats of yesteryear swung the right leg through and landed on that leg, and they were great serve/volleyers...but he fails to mention that the reason they did that was because the rules at that time required that the server have one foot on the ground when serving. A rule that has since been changed.

If the best volleyers in the world are hitting 9/10 of their forehand volleys with the left foot not having yet landed, then it's pretty clear that ultimately that's where the game is headed. The only question in my mind is whether a particular student benefits from learning the "classical" form first, before dissolving that form in actual play.

[uspta146749877]

Stability vs mobilty

I'm not a high-level professional coach, but I did study martial arts for the better part of 16 years. I studied T'ai Chi, an Indian martial art called Kalari Payatt, and Tae Kwon Do. I also taugh a fair amount of KP and TKD during those years.

In these very regimented Asian martial arts you learn very specific footwork, very classical, rigid forms, and, at the lower levels, there is heavy emphasis on the "right" way to do things, and conforming to that way with as little deviation as possible.

Then...as you work your way up the ladder of each art, form gives way to flow, until, finally, at the higher levels, the specific, rigid steps of the forms dissolve into much smoother, trained, but intuitive gliding, hopping, skipping, shuffling, and so on during free sparring.

A "reverse punch" (right cross for a right-handed boxer, and the equivalent of a forehand volley) can be thrown with the left foot either on the ground or moving forward in the air...but the essence of the weight shift and hip torque is the same either way. Which way you punch the other guy (L foot in air, or planted) depends on the distance and the setup into the strike. And if you're good, then it doesn't matter whether your left foot has landed or not when the strike is delivered. The same forces can be generated and focused at the point of contact either way...just like a forehand can be struck well in either neutral or open stance.

So, why would there be a "right" way to hit a volley, relative to the left foot's being planted? There may or may not be an "orthodox" way of doing it, but doesn't the last 30 years of tennis show us that orthodoxy is just that and not much more?

You may prefer teaching the volley with the left foot planted, but I just watched all the Mirnyi serve/volley videos in the stroke archives (I've always liked his volley technique) and, as you mention, it is the exception rather than the rule when his left foot has landed prior to striking a forehand volley. The only time I found his left foot on the ground when hitting a volley was on very low balls for which he was stretching way forward.

There's at least one article I've read by an old-timer who vociferously opposed landing on the left foot after serving...why? Because the serving greats of yesteryear swung the right leg through and landed on that leg, and they were great serve/volleyers...but he fails to mention that the reason they did that was because the rules at that time required that the server have one foot on the ground when serving. A rule that has since been changed.

If the best volleyers in the world are hitting 9/10 of their forehand volleys with the left foot not having yet landed, then it's pretty clear that ultimately that's where the game is headed. The only question in my mind is whether a particular student benefits from learning the "classical" form first, before dissolving that form in actual play.

It is more or less a conversation about tradeoffs between stability and mobility.At some level of students one may teach to sacrifice one for another

[tennis_chiro]

Thanks, oliensis. Your response is right on the money, looking at the volley in the perspective of martial arts which has a much more developed sense of "proper" technique. I think you are on the right track with the idea that you need to develop the basic technique rather than lunging from the start. I know most volleys are hit with the foot in the air because we are trying to close, but when the ball starts going really quick, I think you need as much stability as you can get. In other words, if you are moving your head it cuts down on your consistency and accuracy. You need to hit the ball really well when it is low to hit it with "stick" and not pop it up. Very different from the ball you take above the net. But even when these players are moving into their volleys, it is a controlled forward motion, keeping the racket head moving in the plane of the intended shot. A good example of what I mean can be seen in Bob Hansen's description of volley footwork (under Footwork). The reason I emphasize the cross-over step is certainly not for power. It is for reach. The reach you have to have when you only have time for one step to your volley. If your habit is to make the crossover step, you have a couple of feet of additional reach. A lot of volleys get hit with no step or with the right foot (RH to FH volley). But I think very few volleys are hit by the pros with a lunge to gain power. It's has to be controlled as you try to control the path of the racket head.
But you are right. This is art, not science.

[yemenmocha]

Response to OP-

From a student player's perspective, I've been coached to not place that left foot down first on the forehand volley (right hander). Formerly I did, and it was incredibly hard to remain balanced, easier to hit the ball downard into the net, and promoted too much arm movement.

My pro is correcting me in a way similar to the way it is taught here on Tennisplayer.net, and it is far easier to have balance, to be lighter on my feet (especially after making contact), and my forehand volley seems to naturally go deep into the court (few errors in the net, as I had before).

Looking at the Sampras volley videos it seems to me that contact is made before the front foot lands or as it lands on first volleys. I'm not seeing the front foot plant, then the rest of the volley being executed.

Just my .02

[CraigC]

My $.02

The game has become so athletic that doing something the "right way" might prohibit a player from doing it in every way. Open stance is wrong. Neutral stance is wrong. Closed stance is wrong. Anyone who thinks any of these is wrong, is wrong!
The power and pace of the game is so fast that an athlete needs to be able to hit from all positions all the time. Dynamic balance is the critical issue in the game nowadays. M
y advice to Don, and I love the style he teaches since I've seen his players for the last ten years, is to teach them to put the foot down, pick it up, run through the volley, stand on one leg and hit it, stand on two legs and hit it, open stance, closed stance, using the opposite hand and any other variation you can think of. I'd focus much more on controlling the racket face and learning to make the ball control precise, regardless of body position. I might run through a volley, or stop and pop, or be standing at the net and step on that front foot, or any other of ten variations. Teach the warrior to use the weapon and let nature take its course.
--CC

[tennis_chiro]

Response to CraigC

The game has become so athletic that doing something the "right way" might prohibit a player from doing it in every way. Open stance is wrong. Neutral stance is wrong. Closed stance is wrong. Anyone who thinks any of these is wrong, is wrong!
The power and pace of the game is so fast that an athlete needs to be able to hit from all positions all the time. Dynamic balance is the critical issue in the game nowadays. M
y advice to Don, and I love the style he teaches since I've seen his players for the last ten years, is to teach them to put the foot down, pick it up, run through the volley, stand on one leg and hit it, stand on two legs and hit it, open stance, closed stance, using the opposite hand and any other variation you can think of. I'd focus much more on controlling the racket face and learning to make the ball control precise, regardless of body position. I might run through a volley, or stop and pop, or be standing at the net and step on that front foot, or any other of ten variations. Teach the warrior to use the weapon and let nature take its course.
--CC

Craig,
Again, I am in agreement with almost everything you say. It's the kind of response I was looking for in starting this thread. But I think we have lost a little skill in the devotion to the mantra of "athleticism". Everyone hits the ball so "big" now, a lot of the finer technique is lost. So we see players that hit what we thought was an approach shot like an overhead from waist level with their Western and even semi-Western grips, but they can't finish a simple angle volley at the net or maybe take a low volley a couple of inches below the net and send it deep into an open corner. The more I think about it and the more I look at the reality of the videos, I believe I am wrong about completing the step before hitting the ball. But the more I look at the kids I work with who can't control the ball in a simple volleying drill, the more I think I am right in insisting they learn basic technique. There's a great example of the kind of volleying I'm referring to about halfway down the Bill Mountford article on The Modern Volley (Tour Strokes) showing a Bryans doubles point above the caption "What if you want to play doubles?". It really is a lot easier to get the timing of the punch down without the impediment of having to worry about timing a step. I know this from teaching a lot of people over 40 years from beginner to advanced and tour level. But then they have to learn to let their feet help them as Craig is suggesting here.
There is no doubt in my mind (granted a small place) that players today on all levels hit the ball much bigger off the ground and on returns and on serves than players of 25 years ago (even more true of players of my model year). When I see a player nail one of those swinging volleys of a high forehand at the net, I am really impressed. However, when the ball is a little slower, I know players of my time (60's and 70's) would have hit the ball 50% faster and more accurately by bending down just a little bit and hitting a full overhead on the same ball and never have seen it returned. (My personal favorite was the overhead from one knee!). But as great as the skill is that they have developed with their groundies, they have a hard time demonstrating fundamental volley skills. Granted they are less necessary today, but they are still a requirement to be a complete player and be able to finish off a point at the net. Maybe they don't have to be as sharp as a Brian Teacher or a Stefan Edberg on a routine volley, but generally, the skill level is appalling.
A real "punch" volley with real "stick" has become a rare sight, but one that I feel is still necessary. Especially when passing shots have as much velocity as they do today. The majority of volleys in today's game are way to big (length of the stroke and particularly the follow through) to be effective when someone hits a ball in your direction at 80 miles an hour.
I try to make everyone do things really slow before I let them do them fast. Speed doesn't just kill. It comaflages and deceives. To be able to do something slow with the racket face, you have to know where it is and have it moving in the right direction. With good timing, you can deceive yourself into thinking you had the racket going in the right direction for longer than you actually did. That shortcoming will cost you consistency and accuracy when you start to add speed and pressure to what you are trying to do in the fire of competition. That means errors.
At the end of all this, so far the feedback is generally universal that I am wrong about completing the step and getting stable before making contact with the ball. At least, I wish I could get some agreement that the emphasis of the lunge is to get to the ball and to close on the net, and not to supply the impetus and speed to the shot (although it will certainly add to the speed of a volley that is missing the speed that should be supplied by a short backswing and a sharp punch).
Anybody else, please jump in!

[oliensis]

Purpose of the lunge.

Chiro,
I don't completely agree w/ you on the purpose of the lunge. In my view, the the point of the step/lunge is to get one's "center of gravity" moving forward through the volley. And I think it's best accomplished if the ball is struck after the mid-point of the stride (by which I mean after the weight is mainly or completely off the right leg from which it has been pushing). As with martial arts, whether the left foot has landed or not when impact is made, power will be greatly increased if one's momentum is moving through the object being struck. And whether the left foot has landed or not, it's important that the mass continue to move through the ball.

If there's a reason to complete the step before the ball is struck it's, in my view, in order to create a stable platform from which the volleyer can feel the solid hitting structure of legs/hips/waist/shoulders/elbow/wrist.

In martial arts you learn specific step/strike forms...but then as you go to higher levels, those change and become less obvious, so that you're striking w/ a fist while one foot's in the air, etc., but the standing leg and torquing pelvis (and sometimes even the sternum) function as the stable foundation, even when the look less architecturally obvious.

I think you're right to complete the step if a kid has a lousy understanding of moving his weight forward and hitting from a stable platform (on the volley), but then, of course, the trick is knowing when to free him up from that orthodoxy and when to encourage him to flow more freely.

[airforce1]

Another 2 cents from a MA instructor/ tennis coach-

My take is that getting the foot down is optimal for overall balance which is key for control, but that the speed of the passing shots makes getting that foot all the way down unlikely most of the time.

The cross step facilitates proper shoulder turn, along with balance. Shoulder turn is one of the biggest factors is getting that racket face aligned.

[tennis_chiro]

Oliensis and Air Force

Oliensis, I think your point about the stable platform idea about working from the ground up is critical. And, once you have mastered that, then you can try and close further and hit from the posterior leg with a lunge without losing the consistency and accuracy that are so important to all shots, but especially to volleys. In today's game, players hit so few volleys from below the net, the old volleying skills are lost.

Air Force, your 2 cents is much appreciated. That shoulder turn is critical with or without the step. And seriously undervalued in todays age of the swinging volley (which I don't think you can execute effectively when really transitioning to the net - you need a good drive volley!). The point about balance is just as important as good volleyers maintain their balance even when hitting the ball with their foot or even feet off the ground. And that may be the key thought: you need to maintain balance even when taking that stride to the ball.

I was working with one of my juniors, 16 y.o., today and asked him to tell me what he felt. He felt a lot solider and better when the foot was down. Of course, that is not scientific. Granted you can't always do that, but given a choice, I'd rather be stable than lunging. I'm trying to adapt my philosophy to what I'm hearing here. Anybody else?

[tennis_chiro]

Peter Smith's Two Step Volley

Just got done reviewing Peter Smith's article on Pete Sampras and the Two-Step Volley (Tour Strokes). I'd forgotten about having read that one earlier. Sometimes Sampras's foot is down, mostly it's not. But the movement and balance are really good in the clips. I like Smith's drill, but I wonder what the progression was that Easley used with Sampras.

[airforce1]

Air Force, your 2 cents is much appreciated. That shoulder turn is critical with or without the step. And seriously undervalued in todays age of the swinging volley (which I don't think you can execute effectively when really transitioning to the net - you need a good drive volley!). The point about balance is just as important as good volleyers maintain their balance even when hitting the ball with their foot or even feet off the ground. And that may be the key thought: you need to maintain balance even when taking that stride to the ball.

You are quite welcome. This thread keeps bringing to my mind another aspect of Martial Arts training we learned.

We would try to practice things as perfect as possible, with the best balance, foundation, angle and trajectory we could muster.(think foot on the ground) We would do them at different speeds and for many repetitions. All this training to try to approximate perfection, but for a reason of course. That big reason was that even though you would rarely have time or space to execute the whole technique from start to finish in a real world situation, the training allowed you to seek out just that little sliver of the correct path and balance to still execute effectively. I think we have all had that feeling many times in tennis, where even in odd positions, we were able to find that same type sliver that allowed us to execute the shot.

[tennis_chiro]

You are quite welcome. This thread keeps bringing to my mind another aspect of Martial Arts training we learned.

We would try to practice things as perfect as possible, with the best balance, foundation, angle and trajectory we could muster.(think foot on the ground) We would do them at different speeds and for many repetitions. All this training to try to approximate perfection, but for a reason of course. That big reason was that even though you would rarely have time or space to execute the whole technique from start to finish in a real world situation, the training allowed you to seek out just that little sliver of the correct path and balance to still execute effectively. I think we have all had that feeling many times in tennis, where even in odd positions, we were able to find that same type sliver that allowed us to execute the shot.

You're on the money. I think the we let the kids get away with what works too much of the time in practice, when it needs to be better than that in practice so that it still works in the fire of competition.

[mossback]

I've found that an almost simultaneous planting of the left leg with contact (along with the required amount of knee bend) works well when you have the time. Timing it this way allows you to adjust the amount of knee bend to the height of the
ball and the planting of the leg times the weight shift with contact for more depth on your shot. Obviously if the ball is coming extremely fast and you don't have the time, this doesn't apply...you just want to get the racket on the ball any way you can.

[tennis_chiro]

I've found that an almost simultaneous planting of the left leg with contact (along with the required amount of knee bend) works well when you have the time. Timing it this way allows you to adjust the amount of knee bend to the height of the
ball and the planting of the leg times the weight shift with contact for more depth on your shot. Obviously if the ball is coming extremely fast and you don't have the time, this doesn't apply...you just want to get the racket on the ball any way you can.

This is one of the big misunderstandings about volleying low balls. It is important to hit the low balls at eye level as much as possible, but it doesn't work to get down to the ball as you hit it. I went through this a lot 25 years ago with Paul Annacone. I wanted him to get down for his volleys, but it just didn't work for him. He messed up when he was dropping down for low balls as he was hitting them. If you remember, Paul was a relatively upright volleyer. He discovered that he was better off just having his head stable and reaching down for volleys rather than dipping down to get to the low balls. A great contrast was his doubles partner, Christo van Rensburg, who had one of the quickest bodies I have ever seen. He would hit instructional video demonstration form volleys with his knees scrapping the ground, even on reflex volleys. But the thing that is important is to have your head stable. If you want to be a good low volleyer, you have to be low to see the ball coming into you. It is not enough to get low just as you hit the ball. That's where I see a problem with what you are saying about the knee bend helping you with putting stick on your volleys. I think you will find you will hit them better if you get your whole carriage down low as the ball is coming into you. It still may be true that you are better getting that foot down just as you hit the ball. But for my money, I want to see that foot down just before you hit it, ... whenever possible... and that is only a small portion of the time.