Thoughts about Tennis Tradition...

[hockeyscout]

Wayne Gretzky. In his first seven years of pro hockey he outscored the second leading competitor in points by 22%, 44%, 58%, 63%, 54%, 53% and 69%. NO ONE with all due respect to Roger will EVER reach that level of dominance over peers. EVER.

In tennis we've seen Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Martina Navratolova, Pete Sampras, Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal (winning record, and career dominance over Federer in prime years).

We'll see another player of this type of ilk come along sooner or later.

Here is a guy who knows a thing or two about tennis commenting:

Andre Agassi told Singapore's Straits Times newspaper, via aljazeera.com: "I'd put Nadal number one and Federer number two. Federer separated himself from the field for four years. He separated himself from Andy Roddick and Lleyton Hewitt. Nadal had to deal with Federer, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray in the golden age of tennis. He has done what he has done and he's not done yet. He has won multiple (majors), every single one (more than once) except the Australian Open – and give him another year on that," Agassi said. "It's just remarkable to me what he has done, and he has done it all during Federer’s prime."

Its hardly the end of an era.

[don_budge]

When Brando dies…When Federer retires

"When Brando dies, everyone moves up one", Jack Nicholson once said.

Be wonderful if they could say the same about Federer upon his retirement. Be great if he could make number 1 again.

"I don't even want to start to think what the game will be like after Roger Federer leaves"…Mats Wilander after Roger's winning performance at the 2014 Davis Cup Finals.

[hockeyscout]

"I don't even want to start to think what the game will be like after Roger Federer leaves"…Mats Wilander after Roger's winning performance at the 2014 Davis Cup Finals.

You know, a long time ago my dad told me the hockey world in Detroit was lamenting the fact that Gordie Howe was approaching the end, and that the game was in decline in his thirties.

Well, at 41 he had his best statistical season ever of 44 goals. He retired at the age of 52 (yes, he played in the NHL at 52). Unquestionably he was the most durable athlete professional sports has seen, or ever will see!

Well Federer is a similar athlete. 6'1 like Howe. Mentality wise they were alike, both were very intelligent and while low key the most competitive players in their sports. Family men. No drama. No stress. Involved wife's who are low maintenance. I'd say his home life is the reason for his long run.

Federer isn't taking the beating Howe took at the old Olympia, so perhaps he just might have a chance at being as durable an athlete over the long haul with medical advances, science, recovery tools and scheduling.

I'd say 7 to 8 years may be a real possibility if he continues to keep the ankles in good working order. Those are always the first thing to go on any tennis player.

[don_budge]

Gordie Howe…at 86

You know, a long time ago my dad told me the hockey world in Detroit was lamenting the fact that Gordie Howe was approaching the end, and that the game was in decline in his thirties.

I saw Gordie Howe play hockey several times. At Olympia…the same place where I actually saw Richard Gonzales and the rest of the pro tour play tennis back…well way back when.

Olympia…what a place. My father took my sister to see the Beatles there. Not once…but twice. I saw Elton John play there on his "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road Tour".

That's all that I have to say about Gordie Howe. He was a truly great hockey player. Coincidentally he is the same age as my father.

Please don't anybody respond to this…I am writing my swan song. I will be struggling to keep my train of thought. Don't respond to any of it. Even if you are tempted. I'm dying. That's right…don_budge is dying. Thank you for respecting my dying wishes.

And don't get your hopes up…this might very well be a very slow death. But any rate…there is something or rather there are some things that I want to share with you guys here on the forum before I go. Just give me the latitude that you always have…that is all that I ask.

I am going to miss you guys.

[don_budge]

The use of language…that some might find offensive

It was brought to my attention that some of my language in this "reporting" was a bit off color. After thinking long and hard about it…that may just be right. I guess that I was going for some extra emphasis and trying to highlight some of the goings on. I guess that I do have this horrible sense of irony…I was more or less being more ironic than anything else. Normally…when I am trying to be funny I use an ironic sense of humour…which is why I am not particularly funny.

I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone. It made me reconsider some of my use of language here on the forum. I guess being brought up in the old Motor City of Detroit (Dearborn actually) and working at the Rouge Plant for all of those years left me with some pretty salty expressiveness that has manifested itself in my don_budge personna. Plus being a bachelor for the first fifty years of my life. You get the picture. You know…like "locker room talk"…and yet I was stating the facts. I was thinking artistic expression. Hmmm...

Well…stopping short of apologizing I make a case for freedom of speech and expression. But that being said…you have to watch what you say these days and I will. It's no lie…the thought police are listening.

I don't actually know any gay people. At least I don't think that I do. Well except for my sister who is actually a very strikingly attractive woman and she is married to a gal who bears a equally striking resemblance to John Goodman. Don't tell her that I said so…gee I hope this doesn't get back to her. I really don't have any serious thoughts on the matter and to tell you the truth…I really don't care too much for sexual orientation or labelling people in derogatory terms. I don't think that I did. If you think that I did…please forgive me.

[don_budge]

Words…are all I know and all that I have

Words…The Bee Gees (1967)

Performers…be them singers, athletes or teachers often get better with age…with time.

Barry Gibbs in 1972…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ-ic9MuoQA

Barry Gibbs in 1997….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g83IfdUzcg

Smile an everlasting smile
A smile can bring you near to me
Don't ever let me find you gone
'Cause that would bring a tear to me

This world has lost it's glory
Let's start a brand new story
Now my love, right now
There'll be no other time
And I can show you how, my love

Talk in everlasting words
And dedicate them all to me
And I will give you all my life
I'm here if you should call to me

You think that I don't even mean
A single word I say

It's only words, and words are all I have
To take your heart away

You think that I don't even mean
A single word I say

It's only words, and words are all I have
To take your heart away
It's only words, and words are all I have
To take your heart away
It's only words, and words are all I have
To take your heart away

Then there was this from 1968…the year that I began my love affair with tennis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPePasexF9w

[stotty]

Swing volleys...

Some thoughts about tradition....

I've been thinking about swing volleys. Some (me included) think the classic way of volleying is best because that's the way its been for a eighty years...and some. The shot has changed little (if at all) over that time despite all the changes tennis has been through. All the other shots have found themselves being reshaped while the good old volley has remained unaltered, probably because players have never found a better way to play them.

For me the swing volley gets played either because a player cannot quite get his legs under him or on odd occasions he cannot muster enough power conventionally. The shot has a "situational" place in the game but that situation is often a precarious one, one that deems the outcome of the shot a lottery because the player is off balance. You see far more fluffed swing volleys than ones that win the point...I've been watching and counting. I've also seen swing volleys played when a conventional one would have delivered a better outcome and been the better option.

The feeling seems to be that swing volleys have become a "recognised" stroke and therefore will become a much practised shot for the next generation of players, meaning ten years down the line players are likely to become very good at them.

The jury is out for Stotty, as I am not convinced. Others may think differently. For me the shot is a last resort, not something you would choose. Would you really want to play the shot over a conventional volley if you were balanced?

It's the origins that baffle me. When, how and why has the shot emerged? Has it emerged from poor volley education...as the art has been lost? Or is it because there is a fundamental need for it in today's game?

And here's the question for the believers...

Where is it's true place in the game and when should a player play it?

[klacr]

Some thoughts about tradition....

I've been thinking about swing volleys. Some (me included) think the classic way of volleying is best because that's the way its been for a eighty years...and some. The shot has changed little (if at all) over that time despite all the changes tennis has been through. All the other shots have found themselves being reshaped while the good old volley has remained unaltered, probably because players have never found a better way to play them.

For me the swing volley gets played either because a player cannot quite get his legs under him or on odd occasions he cannot muster enough power conventionally. The shot has a "situational" place in the game but that situation is often a precarious one, one that deems the outcome of the shot a lottery because the player is off balance. You see far more fluffed swing volleys than ones that win the point...I've been watching and counting. I've also seen swing volleys played when a conventional one would have delivered a better outcome and been the better option.

The feeling seems to be that swing volleys have become a "recognised" stroke and therefore will become a much practised shot for the next generation of players, meaning ten years down the line players are likely to become very good at them.

The jury is out for Stotty, as I am not convinced. Others may think differently. For me the shot is a last resort, not something you would choose. Would you really want to play the shot over a conventional volley if you were balanced?

It's the origins that baffle me. When, how and why has the shot emerged? Has it emerged from poor volley education...as the art has been lost? Or is it because there is a fundamental need for it in today's game?

And here's the question for the believers...

Where is it's true place in the game and when should a player play it?

Great post. Great questions. A true student of the game. Asking questions. Poignant Questions.

I'll try my best to respond based on my experiences and feelings but encourage others to give their thoughts as well.

I've a big fan of tradition. I have been labeled "old school" and stuck in a different era. I'm an old soul. But sometimes we can't be so dogmatic in our approach to shots. IMHO, I don't believe that the swinging volley is better than a classic volley. However, not everyone thinks like you or me. In fact, many don't. If they all did, this world would be a pretty banal place no?


Is the swinging volley the result of bad volleying skills due to bad teaching or understanding of a true volley. Perhaps. But we don't have the power to teach every single person that picks up a racquet. What we do have the power to do is adjust our own thoughts, feelings and prejudices and give our students the most effective strokes possible. So how does this relate to the swinging volleys you ask?

I do not teach the swinging volley to every student. But I do teach the swinging volley to students that are adverse to or shy away from the net. The swing volley for them is a transitional shot that allows them to hit a shot they are comfortable with (groundstroke with little if any grip change) but allows me the teacher to get them to the location I want. I am trying to lead the horse to water and although I may not make him drink, the horse just may enjoy the scenery and see the beauty and advantages of the pond. A baseliner may not buy into the classic volley paradigm no matter how much you try to convince them. But their recognition of the opportunities that lie ahead of them and their use of only 66% of the court when staying on the baseline.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners. There are those that enjoy the venture to the net. Tough to change the DNA of those players to go the other direction. Some students are happy to stay back and rally all day long. And there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are those who get to the net with reckless abandon. The latter students are more open to learning proper volley technique because it benefits them and they see the reasoning. The former are the ones that need some motivation, need some purpose and need some compromise. Forcing a player to go out of their natural tendencies and style can be disastrous. Allowing a player to grow, evolve and develop new strokes and possibilities is where the real joy is. But there is a fine line. A very fine line.

Yes, The swinging volley is situational. Hyper-situational.

Two situations I have my players look for are...
One, when they are playing a pusher. The ball is sent back high with no authority. They are not dominating, they are simply getting the ball back. As the ball floats or comes back high I encourage those players to move in quickly and take the swinging volley as they won't be comfortable taking a classic volley from 3/4 court but it still helps them stay aggressive and take time away from their opponent.
Second, when their opponents are pulled very wide off the court and that floating ball comes back. Baseline players biggest gripe and usually their natural inability to hit volleys with any authority or pace can sometimes prohibit them from attempting to come forward thinking they will be left vulnerable with a soft or weak volley attempt. I allow these players to swing their shots into the open court to give them the comfort of hitting their desired tendency.

One issue I have with what many players hit as a swinging volley is that they attempt to hit with too much spin to where the ball lacks the drive and penetration and just becomes a loopy ground stroke ripe for a bounce into the strike zone of an opponent. A classic volley is hit relatively flat with natural underspin to skid through the court. The swinging volley should be struck with the same idea, not a loopy swing providing a neutral or attackable shot. The better the swinging volley the easier the first classic volley can begin for this player, which will help build their comfort and confidence level to approach more.
I feel the origins of the swing volley began with a baseliner who hit enough balls from the back of the court to elicit a weak reply and suddenly found himself at mid court but ill-prepared to hit a classic volley. Lendl, Agassi come to mind.

That probably doesn't answer all your questions stotty, but I have a semi-final match to prepare for in Melbourne Berdych-Murray.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Great post. Great questions. A true student of the game. Asking questions. Poignant Questions.

I'll try my best to respond based on my experiences and feelings but encourage others to give their thoughts as well.

I've a big fan of tradition. I have been labeled "old school" and stuck in a different era. I'm an old soul. But sometimes we can't be so dogmatic in our approach to shots. IMHO, I don't believe that the swinging volley is better than a classic volley. However, not everyone thinks like you or me. In fact, many don't. If they all did, this world would be a pretty banal place no?


Is the swinging volley the result of bad volleying skills due to bad teaching or understanding of a true volley. Perhaps. But we don't have the power to teach every single person that picks up a racquet. What we do have the power to do is adjust our own thoughts, feelings and prejudices and give our students the most effective strokes possible. So how does this relate to the swinging volleys you ask?

I do not teach the swinging volley to every student. But I do teach the swinging volley to students that are adverse to or shy away from the net. The swing volley for them is a transitional shot that allows them to hit a shot they are comfortable with (groundstroke with little if any grip change) but allows me the teacher to get them to the location I want. I am trying to lead the horse to water and although I may not make him drink, the horse just may enjoy the scenery and see the beauty and advantages of the pond. A baseliner may not buy into the classic volley paradigm no matter how much you try to convince them. But their recognition of the opportunities that lie ahead of them and their use of only 66% of the court when staying on the baseline.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners. There are those that enjoy the venture to the net. Tough to change the DNA of those players to go the other direction. Some students are happy to stay back and rally all day long. And there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are those who get to the net with reckless abandon. The latter students are more open to learning proper volley technique because it benefits them and they see the reasoning. The former are the ones that need some motivation, need some purpose and need some compromise. Forcing a player to go out of their natural tendencies and style can be disastrous. Allowing a player to grow, evolve and develop new strokes and possibilities is where the real joy is. But there is a fine line. A very fine line.

Yes, The swinging volley is situational. Hyper-situational.

Two situations I have my players look for are...
One, when they are playing a pusher. The ball is sent back high with no authority. They are not dominating, they are simply getting the ball back. As the ball floats or comes back high I encourage those players to move in quickly and take the swinging volley as they won't be comfortable taking a classic volley from 3/4 court but it still helps them stay aggressive and take time away from their opponent.
Second, when their opponents are pulled very wide off the court and that floating ball comes back. Baseline players biggest gripe and usually their natural inability to hit volleys with any authority or pace can sometimes prohibit them from attempting to come forward thinking they will be left vulnerable with a soft or weak volley attempt. I allow these players to swing their shots into the open court to give them the comfort of hitting their desired tendency.

One issue I have with what many players hit as a swinging volley is that they attempt to hit with too much spin to where the ball lacks the drive and penetration and just becomes a loopy ground stroke ripe for a bounce into the strike zone of an opponent. A classic volley is hit relatively flat with natural underspin to skid through the court. The swinging volley should be struck with the same idea, not a loopy swing providing a neutral or attackable shot. The better the swinging volley the easier the first classic volley can begin for this player, which will help build their comfort and confidence level to approach more.
I feel the origins of the swing volley began with a baseliner who hit enough balls from the back of the court to elicit a weak reply and suddenly found himself at mid court but ill-prepared to hit a classic volley. Lendl, Agassi come to mind.

That probably doesn't answer all your questions stotty, but I have a semi-final match to prepare for in Melbourne Berdych-Murray.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks for the detailed reply...much appreciated. I am resting my case with your post and hope you don't mind. Basically what you are saying throughout the post is that a swing volley is taught to those players who cannot volley properly in the first place.

A coach local to me told me that he's unwilling to spend hours honing the net skills of his players because those hours could be spent building even bigger groundies instead. This maybe a logic that's become widespread amongst coaches around the world today...

[stotty]

Great post. Great questions. A true student of the game. Asking questions. Poignant Questions.

I'll try my best to respond based on my experiences and feelings but encourage others to give their thoughts as well.

I've a big fan of tradition. I have been labeled "old school" and stuck in a different era. I'm an old soul. But sometimes we can't be so dogmatic in our approach to shots. IMHO, I don't believe that the swinging volley is better than a classic volley. However, not everyone thinks like you or me. In fact, many don't. If they all did, this world would be a pretty banal place no?


Is the swinging volley the result of bad volleying skills due to bad teaching or understanding of a true volley. Perhaps. But we don't have the power to teach every single person that picks up a racquet. What we do have the power to do is adjust our own thoughts, feelings and prejudices and give our students the most effective strokes possible. So how does this relate to the swinging volleys you ask?

I do not teach the swinging volley to every student. But I do teach the swinging volley to students that are adverse to or shy away from the net. The swing volley for them is a transitional shot that allows them to hit a shot they are comfortable with (groundstroke with little if any grip change) but allows me the teacher to get them to the location I want. I am trying to lead the horse to water and although I may not make him drink, the horse just may enjoy the scenery and see the beauty and advantages of the pond. A baseliner may not buy into the classic volley paradigm no matter how much you try to convince them. But their recognition of the opportunities that lie ahead of them and their use of only 66% of the court when staying on the baseline.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners. There are those that enjoy the venture to the net. Tough to change the DNA of those players to go the other direction. Some students are happy to stay back and rally all day long. And there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are those who get to the net with reckless abandon. The latter students are more open to learning proper volley technique because it benefits them and they see the reasoning. The former are the ones that need some motivation, need some purpose and need some compromise. Forcing a player to go out of their natural tendencies and style can be disastrous. Allowing a player to grow, evolve and develop new strokes and possibilities is where the real joy is. But there is a fine line. A very fine line.

Yes, The swinging volley is situational. Hyper-situational.

Two situations I have my players look for are...
One, when they are playing a pusher. The ball is sent back high with no authority. They are not dominating, they are simply getting the ball back. As the ball floats or comes back high I encourage those players to move in quickly and take the swinging volley as they won't be comfortable taking a classic volley from 3/4 court but it still helps them stay aggressive and take time away from their opponent.
Second, when their opponents are pulled very wide off the court and that floating ball comes back. Baseline players biggest gripe and usually their natural inability to hit volleys with any authority or pace can sometimes prohibit them from attempting to come forward thinking they will be left vulnerable with a soft or weak volley attempt. I allow these players to swing their shots into the open court to give them the comfort of hitting their desired tendency.

One issue I have with what many players hit as a swinging volley is that they attempt to hit with too much spin to where the ball lacks the drive and penetration and just becomes a loopy ground stroke ripe for a bounce into the strike zone of an opponent. A classic volley is hit relatively flat with natural underspin to skid through the court. The swinging volley should be struck with the same idea, not a loopy swing providing a neutral or attackable shot. The better the swinging volley the easier the first classic volley can begin for this player, which will help build their comfort and confidence level to approach more.
I feel the origins of the swing volley began with a baseliner who hit enough balls from the back of the court to elicit a weak reply and suddenly found himself at mid court but ill-prepared to hit a classic volley. Lendl, Agassi come to mind.

That probably doesn't answer all your questions stotty, but I have a semi-final match to prepare for in Melbourne Berdych-Murray.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Thanks for the detailed reply...much appreciated. I am resting my case with your post and hope you don't mind. Basically what you are saying throughout the post is that swing volleys are taught to those players who cannot volley properly in the first place. I am not pulling you up here...just agreeing.

A coach local to me told me that he's unwilling to spend hours honing the net skills of his players because those hours could be spent building even bigger groundies instead. This maybe a logic that's become widespread amongst coaches around the world today...

[GeoffWilliams]

The day will come that the only volley hit will be swing volleys, as most top juniors are being taught the shot from day 1, thanks to Agassi, who developed it due to his lousy 4.5 volley. It's called evolution. The uni grip will be used, and the full western will use the same face on each side, without changing grips ala continental.

[klacr]

Thanks for the detailed reply...much appreciated. I am resting my case with your post and hope you don't mind. Basically what you are saying throughout the post is that swing volleys are taught to those players who cannot volley properly in the first place. I am not pulling you up here...just agreeing.

A coach local to me told me that he's unwilling to spend hours honing the net skills of his players because those hours could be spent building even bigger groundies instead. This maybe a logic that's become widespread amongst coaches around the world today...

Every student is capable of learning every shot. The key is patience and adaptation. For players in which the classic volley is a real bugaboo, the swinging volley is simply a bridge to get to that ideal destination. Giving players a bit of confidence in closing that gap and allowing them an opportunity. Is the swinging volley for everyone? No. Can the classic volley be hit by everyone from the beginning? Sadly, no. So we have to be flexible in our methods getting players to eventually do what we want while at the same time maximizing their own game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Fundamentally correct…versus Traditionally speaking

Some thoughts about tradition....

The jury is out for Stotty, as I am not convinced...

Where is it's true place in the game and when should a player play it?

Could someone who absolutely blasted swinging topspin first volleys get ahead in points far enough to shift the balance and attack regularly? I think it's very likely. Now the strings are working in favor of the attacker not against him (or her...)

And you can already see this intermittently with some of the top players. I saw both Novak and Andy serve and finish with a swinging first volley at Wimbledon. I have seen Fed do it too. Serena and Sharapova do it though off the ground. It's just that no one has taken the step of making it a consistent strategic option.

There are people that are ingrained to be baseliners.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's a question of fundamentals…which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with tradition. In this case the discussion more or less hinges on the size of the racquet as it is the racquet size that makes the thing "possible" in the first place.

This is the only statement by John that I can honestly say that I find it hard to believe that it came out of his mouth of his own free will. I wonder if is possible that there is "political pressure" on him to support the blasphemous swinging volley. (I'm joking…sort of)

Personally I have never hit a drive volley in my life…I attempted one in practice. It's not my thing. Fundamentally it doesn't make any sense in terms of consistent performance and something that could possibly be relied on over time. Particularly crucial moments in match play. Fundamentally this motion cannot be reliable enough statistically speaking for me to try to teach it to someone that is attempting to learn how to hit the tennis ball and learning to play the game of tennis.

Are his ideas and thoughts steeped in "traditional" and "old school" thought process like many may think? No. They are steeped in basic fundamentals.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

When teaching tennis or learning how to play the game there are an infinite number of sources one can reference and if you do it you will end up making your education in tennis an experiment…sort of like bottle. It's going to be an experiment anyways…so why not base it on some kind of investigation and try to rule out as much as possible to keep it relatively simple as opposed to incredibly complex. But on the other hand it's always a matter of different strokes for different folks…to a point.

For me the jury is not still out and Kyle says it best. When it comes to teaching tennis I limit my act to fundamentals…not to say I don't liberally leave room for individual interpretation for the art involved…the human touch. In fact…I encourage it. But when it comes to swinging volleys as a student of the game and an aspiring tennis aficionado/historian I ask the question…where is the precedent? The answer to that is of course…there really isn't one. Well…except for GeoffWilliams.

Recently Roger Federer has installed his old version of his game to include some classic net approach and volley along with the occasional serve and volley. Under the guidance and tutelage supposedly of Stefan Edberg it seems to me that there are far fewer swinging volleys coming out of Roger these days and for a very good reason. Consistency is nonexistent when you swing at a volley…you can not attain the pinpoint placement and CONTROL that you need when attacking the net and playing the ball in the air consistently.

It is a wonderful discussion though. It borders on the traditional thing…but it isn't a matter of tradition. It is one of fundamentals.

[klacr]

well said don_budge.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball

M.P.A.T.S.O.T.B. ...Now with regard to the match play in general (refer to "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" by William Tilden") never count your opponent out until the last point has been won. Especially if that opponent has won so many times right in front of you pulling out entire matches from seemingly desperate situations. This business of gamesmanship and Novak "acting" as if he is down and out is really beside the point and again…fire the coach. If Murray doesn't understand that what Novak did was completely within the rules then I don't know what to advise. Djokovic is a master at the ebb and flow of match play. He is a master at "letting the game come to him". There are times instead of knocking your head against the wall when your opponent is shelling you a good strategy is to "rope-a-dope" as Stotty said. Let your opponent swing himself out and then turn around when he relaxes his grip just a bit and knock him into next week. Djokovic may have been feeling a bit woozy. He seemed to have tweaked something in his foot or leg. Sure he may have been dramatizing a bit. Players are always doing that. Guess who does it the most? Andy Murray.

Match Play and the Spin of the Ball....what a book. One of the most remarkable paragraphs in the book, for me at least, is the one below. I suppose some would argue the meaning of pace and speed are the same...let them do so...it's not the point for me. When I read that paragraph I was bowled over. Surely Tilden had stumbled on the theory of the "heavy ball" in tennis...light years before anyone else?

Speed and pace are not the same. They are totally different. Speed is the rate at which the ball travels through the air. Pace is the momentum (rate of speed, plus the player’s weight) with which it comes off the ground. Thus a fast shot that has not the player’s weight in it does not carry pace when it comes off the ground. Conversely, some shots travel comparatively slowly through the air, but by virtue of the player’s weight behind them come off the ground with pace.