The Swinging Volleys

[tennis_chiro]

And in certain conditions

There's a place in the game for swing volleys...just a small place though. Very occasionally it's the right thing to do.

I agree. There is a small place where a swinging volley is appropriate. A no-man's-land floater from a moonballer would be a good example. But if the player has to move quickly to a spot to execute a swinging volley the percentages of making the shot well enough to win the point go way down. On the other hand, if you want to transition through no-man's-land and take a ball floating at the "T" and you are starting just inside the baseline, what you need is the now nearly extinct "drive volley". That is a volley stroke with a slightly larger backswing and still very little follow through, although more than a regular volley. This ball can be hit sharply enough by the adept practitioner (non-existent these days) to force the opponent to miss or give you a ball you can put away with your next volley. Of course, to be able to execute that next volley off a well struck ball, the net player better be an accomplished volleyer (also nearly non-existent, at least among singles players these days).

I think one of the main reasons that players today can't transition effectively and therefore do not try, is that they don't possess a decent drive volley to pick off the opportunities that float over the service line and then die deep in the court and challenge baseline players to overhit for advantage on a ball that has little or no pace on it. Yes, players today can do this in a way that players 30 or 40 years ago wouldn't have dreamed possible, but if someone could execute a decent drive volley from the service line when they were moving fast, that player would find a new dimension of offense that is largely overlooked today. No, the drive volley will not be as fast as a swinging volley, but as don_budge will quickly point out, it will not sit up the way a topspin shot will; furthermore, the degree of accuracy and consistency attainable with a drive volley outweighs the power of the swing volley in this instance when a player has to move quickly to the ball.

A swing volley will be effective if you are within one or two steps of your hitting position, but try to make an aggressive transition from the baseline to a shoulder high floater at the service line and your odds of success on a swinging volley will plummet; accordingly, today's players (without drive volley or even volleying skills) stay back and try to pound a ball with nothing on it. It's amazing how well they can do that, but a truly complete player would create so much more pressure on his opponents by giving them something they were not used to. I think this is a little bit of what Fish does when he is playing aggressively and getting to the net; but not as much as he could with his volleying skills. Also, I think there is a little bit of throwback to this tactic in the success of Brian Baker.

I must add that what really irks me is to see a player take a ball inside the service line above head height with a swinging volley when they could easily crouch just a little bit and hit a much more effective and accurate and powerful overhead (especially Sharapova). Of course, that assumes that the player has the necessary skill and comfort level with such a shot. It's really a lot easier to hit than a swinging volley. Drives me nuts. Sharapova does it even on balls she could hit an overhead on without crouching.

So, yes, a swinging volley has its place in the game, but that doesn't include displacing a true transition "drive volley" which is largely MIA in any case.

don

[stotty]

Small place

There's a place in the game for swing volleys...just a small place though. Very occasionally it's the right thing to do.

[don_budge]

Swinging vs. Classic...Volleys

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[pugs]

Confused

The only thing that confuses me about this article is that Roger's footwork on the swing volley is different than what is being taught by Scott. I'm not sure which one is correct. Fed's footwork looks much easier.

[GeoffWilliams]

That looks like court #5 at the Mill Valley Tennis club. I've spent so many years learning how to hit a normal volley. I wonder if I can learn this as well. Won't it cause brain cramp if you come in with a volley grip: continental, and then have to switch back to western?

[johnyandell]

Would love to get your thoughts on Scott's new article "The Swinging Volleys"!