A New Year's Serve

[stotty]

The wall

A great way to practice volleying is against a wall. When I was a kid, I practiced against a wall for at least 30 minutes a day. I would stand up quite close to the wall...maybe 6 to 7 feet away...and rat-a-tat-tat away for all I was worth. Ten volleys on the forehand, then ten on the backhand, then interchanging, then low ones, then high ones, then a high one and straight to a low one, then out of the body....faster, faster, faster until I would lose control of the ball. This is a great way also to develop time on the ball. A good volleyer simply must have time, like Mac and Mecir...notice how time stood still for them...and how it doesn't for Djokovic and Nadal.

I became a good volleyer by practicing against a wall. Best of all, it made my volleys firm and wristless...against a wall there is no time to break the wrist back...I learnt how for brace on fast balls...brace and stick...perfect...now we get closer to Rosewall. I say closer but still miles away.

No slinging the wrist when Rosewall hit those thudding backhand volleys, only on the drive did he do that. How wonderful to be able to separate the two. Perhaps he, too, practiced against a wall.

If I were you I would study Rosewall's backhand volley for all I was worth, as I did once myself. If you learn to hit it a quarter as well as he did, the exercise will be well worth it.

Work hard, bottle, and use that wall.

[bottle]

Double Rolls for Goose and Gander

I of course wrote this before receiving your new intelligence on wrist, Stotty, a tip that might change everything and all for the better.

The Gordon-Macci ATP Forehand doesn't exist in a bell jar somewhere. (See the autobiographical Sylvia Plath novel THE BELL JAR in which Sylvia aims her skis at the center of a fat tree while her boyfriend Buddy watches.)

No, once The ATP Forehand came out of the lab, we tennis inventors started looking for new applications.

Rosewallian slice seems one of the best. Roll this way then roll that way-- same idea but on other side of the body. And once one has mastered a reasonable facsimile of Ken Rosewall's full slice, one can shrink it and slightly invert for backhand volley to produce an upward blow.

An upward blow to produce the controlling backspin in a backhand volley? Absolutely though because of dying and death and funerals all over the place I haven't had time to try this yet. Ivan Lendl long ago talked about the upward trajectory slice of his youth in his joint book with Eugene Scott.

Why be interested in that odd subject now? Because I have gotten bored with my old backhand volley particularly in doubles poach even though my Detroit friend with beautiful sisters Sebastien Foka, who came up with Jo-Wilfried Tsonga as another mixed race junior in recent France, adjudged it the best of my strokes.

It served the 73-year-old me very well a couple weeks ago against a burly newcomer to the Detroit tennis scene, a left-hander with preternatural ability. Let's assume he's 24 years old and took up tennis when he was 22. If he'd started tennis at an earlier, more reasonable age, he would have known better than to hit the ball as hard as he could at my backhand volley.

I was so surprised that I froze. Clearly, this shot was faster than anything in Rome or Madrid. I barely had time to sidestep and hear the ball zing past.

Well, Burly Boy remembered and so did I. At the penultimate moment of the hotly contested set which my Australian partner Patrick and I won 6-4 having charged from behind, the left-handed drill bit came directly at my body again.

Did I get my arm straight? No. Did I do anything other than grip down tightly on my handle as if it was the lid on a Jif peanut butter jar? Nope. Best and fastest volley I ever hit and deep to the open court, and he didn't try that again although he should have.

But slower balls come to me, too. And that is why I'm looking right now to add new double roll to my game.

Note: For best way to produce both crossed slice and severe chop like the so-called "slice" of Roger Federer, see RACKET WORK: THE KEY TO TENNIS by John M. Barnaby.

[stotty]

Wristy versus wristless

In the clip of Rosewall's backhand...which is the finest clip of his backhand I have ever come across, the most noticeable thing, for me at least, is the way he slings the wrist at the ball. He's almost a slapping at the ball. Contrast this with McEnroe's sliced backhand in the archive which is entirely wristless.

[bottle]

Funny

Yes it is.

[10splayer]

Tennis and life are two games that are largely based on the decisions that we make. So the question is...what is there to be gained?

With 10splayer...he somehow has this incredible need to agree or disagree but then he tends to get a bit short with anyone that doesn't agree with him. His comfort zone tends to be the conventional wisdom of the day. He tends to be an "engineer" and feels more comfortable in like company. It's a stretch for him to get "artsy fartsy" with the artists around.

I remember back when I was living in the States and working at Ford Motor Company...the workers used to say "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" and me with my mirror mind and Alice in the Looking Glass way of looking at things...turned it around to "joke 'em if they can't take a fuck".

10splayer tried to call me out recently on some really piddley crap so I chose to joke him. Afterall...I have nothing to prove by trying to sink lower than the next guy. More often than not "the next guy" is 10splayer on this forum. Which is quite alright with me...there is plenty of room for everybody here. Afterall it would be really boring if everyone would be like me...the perfection of things would be overwhelming. He also told me to get over myself...which I assured him that would never happen. Unless monkeys started flying out of his butt first.

Now cue in 10splayer...accusing me of sticking up for my buddy Bottle. Guilty as charged. Cool it 10splayer. Take it down a notch. Just state your case and let things be. Your opinions tend to be good enough without having to shoot somebody down. I'm being serious in the last sentence...by the way.

I have to believe there is some hope for me. Please tell me there is. Was up all night, mulling this over, knowing I am the lowest rung on the tennis forum ladder. Self realization is a bitch.

All I can tell you and Bottle is that I'll try to do better. I'll pour through his endless posts of the almost hourly changes, to his game. Research his obscure passages/references/lingo to try to better understand his journey. I now really want to, I'm a changed man.


Hell, I'll fly to Detroit and take a tour of the old Ford factory, sing along to the lyrics you post...whatever's necessary to improve myself, and my status, in your guy's eyes.

I just want to be a better forum man.

[don_budge]

Tennis and Life...rich in Metaphor

Should I take a shot here at 10splayer? Nah-- too easy.

Tennis and life are two games that are largely based on the decisions that we make. So the question is...what is there to be gained?

With 10splayer...he somehow has this incredible need to agree or disagree but then he tends to get a bit short with anyone that doesn't agree with him. His comfort zone tends to be the conventional wisdom of the day. He tends to be an "engineer" and feels more comfortable in like company. It's a stretch for him to get "artsy fartsy" with the artists around.

I remember back when I was living in the States and working at Ford Motor Company...the workers used to say "fuck 'em if they can't take a joke" and me with my mirror mind and Alice in the Looking Glass way of looking at things...turned it around to "joke 'em if they can't take a fuck".

10splayer tried to call me out recently on some really piddley crap so I chose to joke him. Afterall...I have nothing to prove by trying to sink lower than the next guy. More often than not "the next guy" is 10splayer on this forum. Which is quite alright with me...there is plenty of room for everybody here. Afterall it would be really boring if everyone would be like me...the perfection of things would be overwhelming. He also told me to get over myself...which I assured him that would never happen. Unless monkeys started flying out of his butt first.

Now cue in 10splayer...accusing me of sticking up for my buddy Bottle. Guilty as charged. Cool it 10splayer. Take it down a notch. Just state your case and let things be. Your opinions tend to be good enough without having to shoot somebody down. I'm being serious in the last sentence...by the way.

[bottle]

Should I take a shot here at 10splayer? Nah-- too easy.

[stotty]

As per the second question, yes, the higher bouncing balls dictate an inclined (and high) backswing immediately.

"Sidespin" is not really an accurate term, IMO. (as in backspin vs sidespin) There is only an axis of rotation, on the horizontal plane. They both have backspin. The only difference is that, with a ball that curves, the axis is on a "tilted plane". And that is dictated by the racquet path. (down, and from outside/in, or not)

Now, what I think you see in today's game, is simply a player trying to control the enormous velocity and spin. By increasing the downward angle, AND, coming "across" the ball more, there is a "softening" agent built in. i.e control.

I share everyone's admiration for Rosewall's slice backhand. It's a thing of beauty, but, I think that sort of "slice drive" is long gone given the speed of today's game.

Thanks for this.

John Yandell concurs with you over Rosewall's sliced backhand and that it's debateable whether it's still a viable technique in pro tennis. I put the same question to John some time ago.

It's hard to imagine what it must be like to face balls struck at 90 mph and loaded with topspin as in the modern game. I've never had that experience...but it's easy to see why the sliced backhand has evolved the way it has..."high start and steep cut".

I was brought up on the Rosewall model (as were most of my contemporaries), and it worked great for me. Actually Rosewall's backhand didn't have that much slice, just a small amount. I know because I've witnessed it up close. It was more a flat shot.

It's still a great model for club players and I continue to teach it. The club player and regular juniors will never be faced with rocket-propelled, heavily topspun balls so the technique is still viable and makes good sense.

The game is so fast now, isn't it? Dimitrov was hitting one handed backhands at over 90 mph at times against Djokovic last week; some of his forehands were topping a 100mph...frightening.

[10splayer]

But if one is undismayed by judgments such as 10splayer's in # 1572, one can, I submit, discover considerable and perhaps unanticipated efficiency in slicing and dicing for the rest of one's existence.

And one can get ornery, if one wants, about the game of some of one's opponents. Pretty fast but not always consistent if you ask me.

And one can, if one cares to, begin to irritate by asking, "Well, just what is the basis of your judgment that Rosewallian slice is outmoded? Personal experience in trying to learn and understand and hit it or the conceptual overkill common to most tennis players?"

I think there are fewer open minds in tennis even than in politics. Another unfortunate area of overlap is the fashion industry.

Listen, rolled backhand slice like McEnroe's will never be old-- not so long as the strings go past the hand. And double rolled backhand slice like Rosewall or Hoad could lead to unbelievably good backhand volleys-- level in the Hoadian evidence, rising in the case of Rosewall to a rose wall.

Also, while I don't want to argue every single point, I think the view that Rosewall was slow is zany and requires substantiation. Double roll in Rosewallian slice is certainly no slower than the double roll in the current ATP forehand I love to talk about.

Finally, I think, a recreational player should put first interest in recreational tennis and relegate tour tennis for once to its proper place.

You're so self obsorbed...... I was asked what my thoughts on the pro game is,,,,NOT what you or any other club level hack does. The incoming ball characteristics dictate not only swing shapes, but the direction/evolution of strokes. It's just a little different then what you face or what those from yesteryear faced. The reason Fed doesn't hit a flatish, slice drive, ala Rosewall is because the ball is coming in at 95 miles an hour, with 2500 Rpm's of spin, and he is using a very powerful racquet compared to those in the 60's and 70's. That's my opinion. Got it?

[bottle]

But if one is undismayed by judgments such as 10splayer's in # 1572, one can, I submit, discover considerable and perhaps unanticipated efficiency in slicing and dicing for the rest of one's existence.

And one can get ornery, if one wants, about the game of some of one's opponents. Pretty fast but not always consistent if you ask me.

And one can, if one cares to, begin to irritate by asking, "Well, just what is the basis of your judgment that Rosewallian slice is outmoded? Personal experience in trying to learn and understand and hit it or the conceptual overkill common to most tennis players?"

I think there are fewer open minds in tennis even than in politics. Another unfortunate area of overlap is the fashion industry.

Listen, rolled backhand slice like McEnroe's will never be old-- not so long as the strings go past the hand. And double rolled backhand slice like Rosewall or Hoad could lead to unbelievably good backhand volleys-- level in the Hoadian evidence, rising in the case of Rosewall to a rose wall.

Also, while I don't want to argue every single point about everything at least right now, I think the view that Rosewall was slow is zany and requires substantiation. Double roll in Rosewallian slice is certainly no slower than the double roll in the current ATP forehand so many of us love to talk about.

Finally, I think, a recreational player should put first interest in recreational tennis and relegate tour tennis for once to its proper place.

[10splayer]

Don't most sliced backhands involve mostly outside/in sidespin? Higher and medium balls would inevitably have outside/in sidespin? Inside/out sidespin would require a lower ball and the wrist/racket to drop to allow the racket to carve inside the ball...to get some inside out swerve, correct? Pat cash did this well when approaching the net.

I am curious about your thoughts on the height of the backswing for sliced backhands. Players such as Cash and McEnroe lowered/raised their backswing slightly depending on the height of the incoming ball. These days players start so high on all balls and cut more heavily downwards. Why is that? Is it a forced issue due to the spin/power of today's game? Or have certain techniques of the shot been lost due to the sliced backhands being somewhat less necessary than in the past..

As per the second question, yes, the higher bouncing balls dictate an inclined (and high) backswing immediately.

"Sidespin" is not really an accurate term, IMO. (as in backspin vs sidespin) There is only an axis of rotation, on the horizontal plane. They both have backspin. The only difference is that, with a ball that curves, the axis is on a "tilted plane". And that is dictated by the racquet path. (down, and from outside/in, or not)

Now, what I think you see in today's game, is simply a player trying to control the enormous velocity and spin. By increasing the downward angle, AND, coming "across" the ball more, there is a "softening" agent built in. i.e control.

I share everyone's admiration for Rosewall's slice backhand. It's a thing of beauty, but, I think that sort of "slice drive" is long gone given the speed of today's game.

[stotty]

I'm influenced by Stotty's account of watching this shot up close at Wimbledon.

How about the idea that Rosewall's slice is the best in tennis history, but that his backhand volley is even better than his slice? Myth or reality? I'd heard it before.

To use Rosewall as model (which almost everybody for sixty years or so has agreed is a great idea), I'd like to concentrate here-- very simply-- on the backhand volley.

Here's the great clip-- the best we know of.

I recommend that the aspiring student (that would be I), a person who wants to beef up and make more consistent his sticked backhand volley, try the first two film versions where Ken slings his racket head at the ball, then lowers his perfectly vertical strings straight down a cascade.

This might be an example of what Don Brosseau calls "answering your own question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7kvBGntW8

Contrary to the video commentary, Rosewall was always fractionally later than would be desirable on a forehand volley. Rather like the ones he is hitting in the clip itself. Nevertheless it was a fine shot.

His backhand volley was a wonder, and off any ball, be it low, high, soft or hard. On this side he really did cut the ball off out in front of him. It was his timing that was so good...just better than anyone else's. And don't forget he was around 50 when I saw him hitting with Stolle at Wimbledon. The beauty of watching great players hitting from just a few yards away is that you see everything...the intricate things you never see on TV.

[bottle]

Rosewallian Backhand Volley

I'm influenced by Stotty's account of watching this shot up close at Wimbledon.

How about the idea that Rosewall's slice is the best in tennis history, but that his backhand volley is even better than his slice? Myth or reality? I'd heard it before.

To use Rosewall as model (which almost everybody for sixty years or so has agreed is a great idea), I'd like to concentrate here-- very simply-- on the backhand volley.

Here's the great clip-- the best we know of.

I recommend that the aspiring student (that would be I), a person who wants to beef up and make more consistent his sticked backhand volley, try the first two film versions where Ken slings his racket head at the ball, then lowers his perfectly vertical strings straight down a cascade.

This might be an example of what Don Brosseau calls "answering your own question."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7kvBGntW8

[bottle]

My Interest: Gaining Control Over Sidespin/Backspin Mix

This primarily in response to 10splayer but maybe addresses what Stotty is saying, too:

Okay, interesting, and I've thought plenty about these specific steering possibilities before, particularly in connection with Pancho Segura's advice to hit sidespun forehand approach shots down the line so that they will bounce off to the outside.

Mucho spin, sting, pace, direction, and lowness (assuming slice) all would be desirable, but I don't think you can have drastic sideways break and drastic lowness too-- there's a trade-off.

Anyway, my ideas in this case came very simply from a self-feed session ten minutes before my post.

Regardless of target (and with the same target for bounce on other side of net), I got some balls to break sharply from bounce, some to break a little with a lower bounce, and some to seemingly not break at all just stay (very) low.

Note: It might be a cop-out to say: "What does theory matter if something works?" Because it was fooling around with inside out swing concepts-- plus the double roll sling in anything that Rosewall starts on backhand side-- that changed the mix. And for sure, no shrewd person wants their cross-court slice to break back toward the center of the court (well, not in most cases). At the back of my mind is achieving inside out(ness) with arm roll more than arm trajectory. Experiments ought to build on idea of hand behind the ball, in my view. If this principle works on ATP Forehand, and it does, why not in application elsewhere?

Gets complicated quickly, I know, but in both Rosewall slice and Rosewall BHV there's clear sequence: The arm rolls backward and forward to combine in a sling, and then there's more of a block. Well, where does the ball get hit? On the cusp? A little before? A little after? Maybe it's best to be ignorant. Just give me my pure backspin and pure sidespin, please, and I most likely won't care if I lose the in between shot except maybe on a few droppers.

[stotty]

Most "slices" have a degree of sidespin on them. (esp as the contact point is lower) This happens as a result of a path that works down, but slightly outside/in. This "path" is pretty constant regardless of directional intent. That, (direction/shot line) is governed by racquet face angle at impact. So, your tip to hit the inside, or outside, or back of the ball really is a cue that helps direct the ball to different quadrants of the court. If a player is trying to hit an inside out shot, an image of attacking the inside part of the ball is a good one, as it promotes more "lag" in the racquet head. On the flip side, getting to the outside of the ball will promote more racquet head "lead" and a crosscourt shot line. At any rate, the outside/in path is more or less the same for both. So path dictates spin axis and racquet face dictates shot line.

Just my 02 cents.

Don't most sliced backhands involve mostly outside/in sidespin? Higher and medium balls would inevitably have outside/in sidespin? Inside/out sidespin would require a lower ball and the wrist/racket to drop to allow the racket to carve inside the ball...to get some inside out swerve, correct? Pat cash did this well when approaching the net.

I am curious about your thoughts on the height of the backswing for sliced backhands. Players such as Cash and McEnroe lowered/raised their backswing slightly depending on the height of the incoming ball. These days players start so high on all balls and cut more heavily downwards. Why is that? Is it a forced issue due to the spin/power of today's game? Or have certain techniques of the shot been lost due to the sliced backhands being somewhat less necessary than in the past..