Interactive Forum December 2013: Tim Henman Serve and Volley

[klacr]

I was really hoping for more of a response to my comments about the volley in post #28. KLACR, don_budge, Stotty .... what do you think

don

don,

thanks for the post. The split-step, float steps or whatever else you want to call it is crucial. There are many ways to get to the ball with different types of footwork. Some being more or less effective than others. I don't think anything you said in the post was wrong or blasphemous by any means. I will be briefly touching on the "split-step" in a future article on my serve and volley series for tennisplayer.net (stay tuned).
The key is to get players to learn the timing and kinesthetic feel for any type of footwork, especially if approaching the net. In an ideal situation, one specific type of footwork pattern may be preferred, but how often do we get the ideal shot? There are many variables involved. The float step is a very cool maneuver, But Edberg and McEnroe did this the best. So smooth and elegant.

Can you master this without the basic and fundamental understanding and application of a regular split step and how that is supposed to work? Clearly, this comes down to the level of player but since this thread began from Henman's advanced serve and volley, I'll try to focus on that. The timing of the volley in conjunction with the footwork is critical and and don is right when he talks about the landing on the front foot. I doubt don was looking for a debate, even if he was, he won't find one with me. This footwork, timing and landing is something I wholeheartedly support and teach my players. I don't really get into the technical variations too much I just make sure they understand what should be expected and they can work within those parameters. I improve, adjust or evolve their footwork from there.

Also, don_budge is correct, the best volleyer in the world that I've ever played against was that tennis wall. It made me so much better but the more I improved, the more it improved. I could never surpass that wall.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

In lieu of the "Split Step"...

Split step...I don't believe that I have uttered those words.

Two things Tim exhibits here that I try to get students to buy into...

One is that the "weight shift" on volleys occur in a different manner then on groundstrokes. The net game is so dynamic that different stances, weight shifts, etc are used, but as a general tenant, the ball is struck in the middle of the weight shift, or midstride. (before the front foot lands) By doing so, the momentum continues to move forward. The legs can drive and propel through the shot.

On the groundstrokes, the weight shift occurs BEFORE the hit. Essentially, the front foot is established as an axis point to rotate around. Problem is, if one uses this fundamental on the volley, the front foot is used as braking mechanism...a real bad thing.

Secondly, Tim demonstrates perfectly one of the keys to hitting low volleys...which is to hit the ball on the descending part of the swing arc. If one thinks of the swing path as a slight high to low to high movement (smile pattern) it is important to strike the ball on the descending part of that path with an open racquet face so that ample backspin is applied.

30 years ago, Chris Burr was one of the best practitioners of this skill as he dominated SoCal senior tennis and carried me to a Sectional Championship and a number one ranking in 35 doubles. But I don't think any of us really completely understood exactly what we were doing. We didn't have the benefit of video slow motion to take things apart the way we do now.

One variation to the "float step" is to take lots of very little steps as the return is being struck so you can still change direction very quickly and I think that is what Tim is doing. But even then, it is not that he is landing in a "split position" and then exploding to the ball as he sees the return. He is actually floating on those little steps at the critical time and then making his move once he sees the return.

Now here is where I am going to disagree with conventional wisdom. In a best case scenario, I want that left foot to land and stabilize me before I strike the volley. Unfortunately, we only are able to get that foot down in a minority of opportunities and we usually have to hit the volley with that front foot stlll in the air. So it seems we are trying to step into the ball and create power from that lunge. And it does add some small amount of power, but not to the degree that "stepping in" is so emphasized. Much more important is balance and the degree to which I can get down to the low volley ala Edberg. I don't want to hit that volley with my foot in the air any more than I want to hit my forehand with my front foot in the air (when I do have time to step in and choose too which is less often in today's game) or any more than I want my weight to be transferring from back to front as I'm making contact with my forehand; I want that transfer to be at least 90% complete by the time I meet my forehand. Just like any other stroke, the body generates force with torques; in this case the right side of the body torques around a planted left foot and stabilized shoulder as the "u" structure (see JY's description of the "u" in the volley) tries to maintain the racket face perpendicular to the intended path of the ball. You are never going to be able to "stick" a low volley if you are trying to generate your power on the shot with your lunge forward.

I fully expect to get a lot of comments and disagreement on what I've just said. Look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

don

It's nice to hear of your association with cburr from the past. No doubt you two were a formidable team. It is also great to hear his comments...obviously this is a veteran student of the game and he has really delivered some gems here to the forum. I have a question for you too....why did you leave John McEnroe off of your list of all-time great volleyers? Mere oversight? Just curious.

As for this thread...let’s just say it has really blossomed as klacr observed. This particular video was really rich in content and I second the notion that it was a great choice by John for the sake of discussion. What a great discussion it has been too with some really solid observations about the stroke, the use of the body and tennis_chiro’s and 10splayer’s discussion of footwork. In fact it seems that all of the contributors to this thread have chimed in with some great insight into what the makeup of a good, solid volley technique consists of. In my estimation...it’s a really educational thread about a subject that no longer gets much attention in the tennis world. It’s too bad to...any worthy student of the game realizes at this point that there is something fundamentally fucked up in the tennis world when the dimension of hitting the ball in the air has dissipated into rather thin air.

“Float steps”. That’s a great concept. Brings to mind the greatest volleyer that I have ever witnessed to play the game...one John Patrick McEnroe. An acrobatic genius if you ask me. Approaching the net on tippy toes. That is precisely the impression that he always gave me...it was as if he was floating on into the net and into position to apply the knife. The stiletto. The surgeons scalpel. So many times he was able to get his feet under him under so many circumstances and under pressure too. As if his Nike’s actually were air cushioned. When the pressure is on that is often when the footwork goes to pot...but Johnny never shied away from the task at hand. And for him the task was taking the net. He floated like a butterfly...stung like a nasty little wasp.

The comments of tennis_chiro are not arguable...there is absolutely nothing to disagree with. In the dimension of net play there is no room for the concept of perfect on any sort of consistent basis when it comes to footwork. I am not certain what percentage of the time that the best volleyer ever was able to glide into that front foot perfectly as the racquet was knifing into the ball, but certainly it was probably less than fifty percent of the time. Certainly back in the days of Classic Tennis volleyers were more consistently successful in getting that front foot down as there was a bit more time when they were playing with bits of wood and not graphite howitzers. Since it is not a thing that one can expect to be perfect at most of the time, there must be some kind of axiom to follow when all is not perfect.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/music_videos/federer_fh_not_gone/index.html

My favorite music tennis video of all time. Roger Federer slamming forehands from less than perfect stability and less than perfect positon...yet on every single shot he is simulating perfect footwork and balance even if he cannot achieve it as he delivers the racquet to the ball. Here is the metaphor for volleying...getting the chest squarely over the spot where the front foot would have been planted had there been time to plant it there.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/music_videos/winning_edge/winning_edge_mcenroe_lendl_volleys_large.html

Volleying consists of three movements performed simultaneously. Just watch Johnny from basically a still position. The arm, wrist, hand and racquet action which is a rather short and descending action giving the ball spin and direction. The rotation of the trunk or shoulders which is bearing the bulk of the load that is the definition of power or speed to the shot. The placement of the feet that makes it possible to deliver the payload of rotation and arm action. See Johnny place all of his weight on his front foot when he is spoon fed the ball in the air. In all of tennis there is maybe no better feeling than “sticking” a volley as tennis_chiro likes to put it. My coach used to refer to this type of contact as “crisp”. Crisp volleying. If you are a crisp volleyer you are somehow delivering the payload on a rather consistent basis and this of course means from all sorts of positions, deviations, acrobatic stunts, leaping, pouncing, stretching. You are living on the edge if you are living and dying by the volley or the net attack. Nobody was better at living on the edge than McEnroe. Even in the sanity department. But of course nobody does it anymore...volley on a consistent basis that is. Another indication that something is “rotten in Denmark”...or all fucked up in the world of tennis.

If you cannot achieve all three of what I consider the fundamental objectives of a volley stroke of arm, body and feet...make like Meatloaf does in “A Bat Out of Hell” as he laments to his parting lover...two out of three ain’t bad. If you can’t get that front foot down make damn certain the other two actions are accomplished...rotating shoulders with accompanying arm and racquet action. You’ll be all right.

The last fundamental to get in place is that darned front foot tennis_chiro writes about and 10splayer refers to. If you cannot get that front foot down...do as the Swiss Maestro does. Make do. Simulate that foot being in position with the body as much as possible and get that chest on the ball. Get your center of gravity forwards and lean on that stroke as the forward momentum. Don’t run through it...don’t fall on it. Lean. Gather yourself just before or at impact and “Stop the World”...make yourself into a wall at impact. A structure of balance and solid integrity. Deflect that ball to your tactical objective. After all...the world’s best volleyer may not be John McEnroe at all. The worldsbestvolleyer may just be any old tennis wall...the wall never misses you know. Feet or no feet...just as tennis_chiro suggests.

[stotty]

I was really hoping for more of a response to my comments about the volley in post #28. KLACR, don_budge, Stotty .... what do you think

don

Cburr has some really interesting points...as does tennis_chiro. It's a fine art.


So many club players get the wrong idea about split stepping at the net. They come in a plonk both feet down...disaster. The best way is to think of both feet as "spring loaded" devices. The feet should be barely leaving the ground at the crucial moment. Stutter steps are good, but not like Connors, who I felt over did it, and who was not as "spring loaded" and ready to tilt forward as, say, Nastase or Edberg. Nastase was awfully quick at the net and always "camped" himself in the right place.

But it's not just about split stepping. It's about moving forward on to volleys and closing down the net, it's about reading, gaining split seconds, to make volleys as easy as you can. You cannot read the net without many years of practice. Top players seem to get passed so easily today because they don't read things. It's not just because of the blinding speed of the game that players get passed...it's because they don't read...read...read.

I like tennis_chiro's choice of word in "careen" in post 28 and agree with it

There is an art to split stepping when approaching the net. It takes years of practice to hone it to perfection. Doing it to perfection ensures you will reach more shots and be commanding at the net.

don, nice observation on Del Potro's serve...the elbow. You're right...

[tennis_chiro]

Don't want this to die

I was really hoping for more of a response to my comments about the volley in post #28. KLACR, don_budge, Stotty .... what do you think

don

[tennis_chiro]

The float step

Thanks Don Budge.

I wonder of your (and others') thoughts of the first split step after the serve. I think that could be called the moment of truth for the volleyer: if he manages that "split" he can hit an offensive volley even from a difficult position as in the second clip. Henman does, what I think most good volleyers do, a stutter step, in his case a right then left foot landing that allows him to maneuver to make the first volley: (as you point out in your comments) a balanced, beautifully-timed stinging backhand volley in the first clip and a difficult low forehand volley in the second clip. It seems to me that his first split or stutter step is a lower (in height) version of what the great ground-strokers do at the baseline in order to make a balanced but also turn-in-the-air move to accommodate the type of shot from his opponent.

Not so incidentally, I think Henman deliberately played the low forehand volley shorter crosscourt so that the lob would be almost impossible to make without telegraphing which allows him to squeeze toward the net to make the acrobatic move to make the put-away look easy.

Eleven years ago when I went through the USTA High Performance program in Key Biscayne, one of the other participants was the son of famous SoCal teaching pro Don Henson (and I don't remember his first name). He introduced me to the concept of a "float step" as opposed to a split step. Combining that concept with the work of the founder of Sports Split Step , Vic Borgogno whom I met at a subsequent USTA HP presentation by John Yandell(www.sports-split-step.com) made sense of the innate move that good serve and volleyers have to the net. Out of a normal split step on the baseline, Vic showed that it was the off side foot that came down first to push off in the direction you needed to go (left foot down first to break to the right); not that there was an actual split landing out of which you exploded as many of us had previously thought. Combining that idea with the idea of floating in towards the net as you closed as opposed to hovering at the baseline brought all the pieces together. Not too difficult to understand, but very difficult to time correctly to the return of your serve by your opponent. Well done, it looks easy. Not so well done, it looks pretty foolish. And it takes a lot of time to really do this well.

30 years ago, Chris Burr was one of the best practitioners of this skill as he dominated SoCal senior tennis and carried me to a Sectional Championship and a number one ranking in 35 doubles. But I don't think any of us really completely understood exactly what we were doing. We didn't have the benefit of video slow motion to take things apart the way we do now. But we made the move probably upwards of 100 times a day, day in and day out; after a while, some of us learned to do it well. Hardly any of today's players have really learned the skill as well as average pros of that time who spent so many hours honing that serve and volley skill.

One variation to the "float step" is to take lots of very little steps as the return is being struck so you can still change direction very quickly and I think that is what Tim is doing. But even then, it is not that he is landing in a "split position" and then exploding to the ball as he sees the return. He is actually floating on those little steps at the critical time and then making his move once he sees the return.

But the really great move is to be floating towards the net out of your explosion forward, both feet just barely off the ground as you careen towards the net, ready to immediately put either foot down as you push to the side of the opposite foot. So breaking to a ball to your right, you would put the left foot down just before the right and the right would stretch just slightly to the right as the left pushed you forward and to your right, and then you would spring much further to the right and forward as the left foot reached out to that side. If the ball was floating, you could get in an additional step or even two, but on a sharp return there was no time for more than a plant and a reach to the ball.

Now here is where I am going to disagree with conventional wisdom. In a best case scenario, I want that left foot to land and stabilize me before I strike the volley. Unfortunately, we only are able to get that foot down in a minority of opportunities and we usually have to hit the volley with that front foot stlll in the air. So it seems we are trying to step into the ball and create power from that lunge. And it does add some small amount of power, but not to the degree that "stepping in" is so emphasized. Much more important is balance and the degree to which I can get down to the low volley ala Edberg. I don't want to hit that volley with my foot in the air any more than I want to hit my forehand with my front foot in the air (when I do have time to step in and choose too which is less often in today's game) or any more than I want my weight to be transferring from back to front as I'm making contact with my forehand; I want that transfer to be at least 90% complete by the time I meet my forehand. Just like any other stroke, the body generates force with torques; in this case the right side of the body torques around a planted left foot and stabilized shoulder as the "u" structure (see JY's description of the "u" in the volley) tries to maintain the racket face perpendicular to the intended path of the ball. You are never going to be able to "stick" a low volley if you are trying to generate your power on the shot with your lunge forward.

I fully expect to get a lot of comments and disagreement on what I've just said. Look forward to hearing what you all have to say.

don

[cburr]

Thoughts on the split step made after the serve

Thanks Don Budge.

I wonder of your (and others') thoughts of the first split step after the serve. I think that could be called the moment of truth for the volleyer: if he manages that "split" he can hit an offensive volley even from a difficult position as in the second clip. Henman does, what I think most good volleyers do, a stutter step, in his case a right then left foot landing that allows him to maneuver to make the first volley: (as you point out in your comments) a balanced, beautifully-timed stinging backhand volley in the first clip and a difficult low forehand volley in the second clip. It seems to me that his first split or stutter step is a lower (in height) version of what the great ground-strokers do at the baseline in order to make a balanced but also turn-in-the-air move to accommodate the type of shot from his opponent.

Not so incidentally, I think Henman deliberately played the low forehand volley shorter crosscourt so that the lob would be almost impossible to make without telegraphing which allows him to squeeze toward the net to make the acrobatic move to make the put-away look easy.

[don_budge]

Pounce...leap...or drop step.

Once he has closed and hit the first volley, his split step has both feet landing at the same time. The function of this split step seems to me to allow a pounce or leap in either direction while still being low to be able to take a drop step to the overhead.

Nice...cburr! A fundamental volley technique observation. Pounce...leap...or drop step. Ready for anything in any direction. That's life when playing the net.

It's a risky play. Serve and volley. Rushing the net. Attacking. One must be committed and ready for any and all possibilities...under pressure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I

[cburr]

The "Split Step"

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.

What a generous and insightful post by the contributors; great idea John Yandell. I want to draw attention to the difference between the "split step" on Tim Henman's first volley and that of the second volley. On the first split step his right foot lands slightly before his left. Note that it doesn't matter whether he hits a forehand or backhand first volley i.e. his split step is the same in both clips. I think this first split step is similar to those i see on the baseline, thanks to the slow motion video, from Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray in which there is a looseness of ankle and lower leg which allows for a split second last decision on the first step to the ball so that, in the case of the volleyer, he can close maximally while adjusting to the height of the return.
Once he has closed and hit the first volley, his split step has both feet landing at the same time. The function of this split step seems to me to allow a pounce or leap in either direction while still being low to be able to take a drop step to the overhead.
No knock on Henman - he is a wonderful volleyer for all the reasons listed in these posts but one must mention any number of Australians: Sedgman, Cooper, Hoad, Rosewall, Roach, Newcomb, Stolle, Emerson then, of course, at least Rafter and Cash and, at least Gonzales, Kramer and Ralston of the great American volleyers. I mention the names just to jog the memory to remind us of the many great volleyers who have embodied some the rather wonderful descriptions in these posts.
Which leads one to consider: will the great volleyer Edberg help Federer to cast his fate to the volley a little more?

[10splayer]

Henman was so solid...a really technically sound game.


Two things Tim exhibits here that I try to get students to buy into...

One is that the "weight shift" on volleys occur in a different manner then on groundstrokes. The net game is so dynamic that different stances, weight shifts, etc are used, but as a general tenant, the ball is struck in the middle of the weight shift, or midstride. (before the front foot lands) By doing so, the momentum continues to move forward. The legs can drive and propel through the shot.

On the groundstrokes, the weight shift occurs BEFORE the hit. Essentially, the front foot is established as an axis point to rotate around. Problem is, if one uses this fundamental on the volley, the front foot is used as braking mechanism...a real bad thing.

Secondly, Tim demonstrates perfectly one of the keys to hitting low volleys...which is to hit the ball on the descending part of the swing arc. If one thinks of the swing path as a slight high to low to high movement (smile pattern) it is important to strike the ball on the descending part of that path with an open racquet face so that ample backspin is applied. This is counterintuitive for most, as the tendency on a low ball, is to "lift it up" or hit it on the ascending part of the arc. Unfortunately, the resultant shot tends to pop up, with no spin.

[don_budge]

Control is Power...Volleying and Love

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?

The Henman volley has 4 things that make every stroke beautiful. Balance, efficiency, rhythm and technique. Henman also has the eagerness to want to do it again and again and again. Relentless attacking and pressuring of their opponent. Great videos and thread indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Tim Henman: Volley technique

Yes...those are four outstanding words to describe the Tim Henman behavior with regards to hitting the ball in the air. AKA...volleying. His action is fluid...where does it begin and where does it end? It doesn’t. It simply is. It blends as it morphs...like mercury. It is mercurial. How sweet is that...I agree with Stotty too...it is one sweet volley technique. Top ten? With regards to who, what, when and where? Modern tennis? Ok...I can live with that.

I think that one of the things that is the acid test or the crux of the matter when hitting the ball in the air is the ability to balance on the point of a needle on any given ball. One needs to fit themselves to the incoming ball if you will. That is why volleying is such an acrobatic endeavor...the ball comes at various heights at different speeds and there is no time to significantly back up or go forwards. The only viable option is to go forwards as aggressively as possible...depending upon, of course, the circumstances of your own preceding shot and the capabilities of your opponent to reply.

From a teaching point of view and from my own point of view with regards to my own efforts to hit the ball in the air I feel that fitting ones self to a ball in the air is one of grip, foot position, body weight and balance along with some consideration to the head. Eyes on the ball. I hold a ball at various positions to a student and point to a target on the other side of the court and advise them to “fit” themselves to the ball.

First they put the racquet on the ball with the correct grip (and by no means is this grip fit in stone...it can slide a bit) and with the racquet on the ball I get them to balance and lean on the ball towards the target via their racquet and arm. The weight of the various parts of the body are nearly equally distributed (for balance) and should be noted during this exercise. The student must understand what must take place in order to achieve this position of balance and strength. At times it is more balance than strength and of course vice versa. You must form yourself into a version of a "human wall".

Catch and lean. Get the ball on the middle of the strings and lean on the ball with some short arm, hand and racquet action for placement, spin and power. Keep the “chest” on the ball to achieve the maximum benefits of the two worlds of balance and power. It is an acrobatic endeavor after all...an endeavor that clearly gives meaning to the phrase that “control is power”. Whether you are talking about love or volleying...control is power and this does not imply brute force. No...it is the control of all of the subtleties that make the difference. It's like leading a beautiful woman when dancing the tango...it won't do any good to try and shove her into position...she must feel beautiful and elegant to make her part in the dance convincing.

Control in terms of placement and spin...speed as power is not always the answer. Power when it comes to playing at the net is a placement question...that is always keeping the ball just out of reach of your opponent and to beat him by a mile is a mistake if it means taking an unnecessary risk in terms of percentage play. You know how fast your opponent is...place the ball safely out of his reach or as far out of his reach that it makes sense to do statistically speaking.

Backswings conveniently placing the racquet head behind and slightly above the ball with the length depending upon the speed of the incoming ball make the most sense. If you have a little more time take a bit more backswing but always keep in mind that moderation is the best policy when drinking and volleying. Both relatively risky behavior which can involve taking chances. Minimize potential mistakes by observing the policy of moderation...in terms of the backswing.

See how young “Tiny Tim” fits himself to each of the three radically different positions to volley from. The routine waist high backhand in right in his “wheelhouse” as 10splayer likes to say...while the two forehands require some real gymnastics to achieve a position of balance from which to volley from. The low forehand is perfectly custom fitted to young Henman as he gets himself low and fitted to the shot. The high forehand is a perfect example of drawing himself to full length and height to play a sound and safe putaway to an open court. No sense in taking any chances here as you can miss these volleys too...just as a golfer may miss a certain “gimme”. There are no gimme’s in tennis.

[klacr]

The Henman volley has 4 things that make every stroke beautiful. Balance, efficiency, rhythm and technique. Henman also has the eagerness to want to do it again and again and again. Relentless attacking and pressuring of their opponent. Great videos and thread indeed.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley...Part II

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?

Tim Henman: Backhand Volley

In my estimation this is perhaps the best interactive forum to date that we have viewed. With two different serves, a backhand volley and two forehand volleys we get not only a peak at the technique of a great tennis player but perhaps a bit of insight into his tactical process.

This particular clip appears to be that of the 1997 U. S. Open where Henman defeated Muster 6-3, 7-6, 4-6, 6-4. It leveled their rivalry at 1-1 where it appears it will remain for all of eternity. Henman was 23 at the time and Muster was 30. An old 30 if his car accident was behind him. He had some extra miles on him on account of that unfortunate mishap.

But it is the backhand volley of Tim Henman that has caught my eye as he illustrates why this particular stroke may be the most potentially powerful shot in tennis with the least effort expelled. The most to say the least...so to speak. It may not be the easiest shot in tennis, even though I always tell my students that it is...but in the end it is perhaps the simplest due to the arrangement of the human anatomy. The swinging shoulder is out in front of the body and the contact point is very short and minimal yet somehow it allows for an ample backswing. It all adds up...you know.

First of all, the thing to notice from a teaching point of view is the use of the off hand. The left hand in this case takes control of the racquet head before the receiver has made contact with the ball. Now Henman has firm control of the racquet head when he will instantly have to make a quick decision with the narrowest margin of time constraints...when he realizes it is a backhand or forehand he will need this hand on the racquet in order to get the thing in position to go to the ball in the most direct manner possible.

Henman gets his racquet into both hands probably just an instant before his opponent has struck the ball and it is no accident that this happens. Now that his hands are both on the racquet delicately placed he has only to turn his shoulders with the off hand assisting to make a stable and proper backswing. To set the racquet head behind the incoming ball.

In the case of this backhand volley, he turns his shoulders from a fully frontal position to the net to a 90 degree plus turn and his left hand only lifts the racquet head up to its striking position with the an upward motion that brings his left hand to a point just about that of even with his left shoulder. Same height and no further back than. The racquet head itself appears to be about even with his left shoulder as well...no surprise here as the left hand has it in full control. At first thought this might appear to be a bit of a extra lengthy backswing and it may be to a point...it appears that he has plenty of time to be sure of himself. While it may appear to be a big backswing notice that the position of his right hand is only at a position and level of the middle of his chest.

Going forwards...with the Tim Henman backhand volley, that is. As his right foot leaves the ground to go forwards to the ball his left hand releases the racquet head. The interesting thing here is that both the right foot and the racquet head will be traveling towards the same destination...the ball. From a teaching point of view there are a couple of very curious events here in this swing and one of them is the behavior of the racquet head.

Going backwards in the backswing the racquet head had an upward angled assent and at the point that it is going to go forwards it will begin on a downward descent towards the ball. The racquet head has been tilted back to a 45 degree angle at maximum and as he delivers the racquet head back to the ball it is perfectly squared on the ball with the racquet head somewhat in a higher position than the right hand...or is it as tennis_chiro suggests “parallel to the net”. Very interesting...but what happens immediately afterwards? The racquet head immediately reassumes its 45 degree angle tilt. I believe that young Tim Henman makes this subconscious move with his hand and wrist unit to carry the ball a bit deeper into the court...or perhaps some of the tilt is due to the impact of the ball. Trying to apply more backspin may also be a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon but I believe that the more likely case for this is placement...he wants the ball to carry a bit deeper into the court. The spin is properly regulated by his descending action from the back of his backswing to the completion of his follow-through which in this case is minimal compared to the ample backswing.

It is a beautiful finish to a well applied volley...everything in the picture seems to assume the angle of descent at the completion of his follow through. The relationship of his left hand to his right hand, the shoulders, the feet and even the band of his shirt seems to be applying an angled torque to the picture...right at the point where his right heel finally finds the earth again. Ole!

Which brings me to the next extraordinary point of interest...the footwork. The magic trick with regards to footwork in serve and volley...or in any approach to the net for that matter is the placement of the rear foot in the stroke. In the case of a right handed backhand volley of Tim Henman it is the planting of the left foot. Obviously all of his calculations are as perfect as possible on this given volley...it is the behavior of the right foot that really gets my attention. Once he has planted his back foot the right foot is swinging into position but he doesn’t have the time to get it planted on the ground as he impacts the ball. So he does the next best thing...he balances his weight so that at impact it is as close to being planted in simulation, as if his right foot was on the ground. What do I mean by that? I mean that his chest is actually over the point where his right foot would be if he had time to plant it there.

As it is...the swinging right foot will now be a big part of his follow through. I think that this is a rather incredible picture here. At impact his right foot is just about level with his racquet head...as he extends forwards with the racquet head it is traveling at roughly the same speed and distance as his right foot until they both cease to go forwards at that point where I noted earlier where the picture assumes the angled tilt...at least in my imagination.

His momentum going forwards is so strong that it carries his left foot behind his only recently planted right foot and he makes a rather eloquent placement of his feet to get himself prepared for the next shot...even though it may have been a clean winner he just hit. He almost gets tangled up with his feet but with a bit of a "Tango step" he manages to do what Al Pacino suggests in "Scent of a Woman"..."when you get tangled up you just Tango on!". He turns once more to face the consequences of his opponent...fully balance and in good position to seal the deal if need be.

[bottle]

He Crachits the ball.

You should see my 11-year-old hitting partner Maxine playing Tiny Tim's sister in 35 paid performances of CHRISTMAS CAROL.

Her job is to show that poor kids can be happy. Her smile is so sustained that it is eery. This may be the realism of poverty but the surrealism, too.

[don_budge]

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley...Part I

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?

Tim Henman: Serve and Volley

Regarding the history of serve and volley...this version is what you would call a hybrid of the original. John McEnroe closed out the classic era of serve and volley with a crescendo. That era went out with a very loud bang. Then they ushered in the new equipment and nobody batted an eyelash. Well...I did. My squawking left about as much an impression on the tennis world as the sound of one hand clapping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/sports/tennis/tennis-looks-to-mix-it-up-to-ensure-an-entertaining-future.html?_r=0

You cannot compare the serve and volley of the classic era with the modern game of tennis version of serve and volley. The equipment change was so radical that the game was changed by definition. The new racquets made volleyers out of nobodies. Brad Gilbert was absolutely correct when he analyzed the modern serve and volley game compared to the classic...it was boring. At Wimbledon the points were reduced to two shot exchanges and a possible third. Power to the fore! As Bill Tilden would have lamented.

Be that as it may...now some look back nostalgically at clips like this Tim Henman piece and moan about the loss of this most integral part of the original game. Rightfully so...but the classic era has been forgotten much as the age of dinosaurs was. Sure it existed...but so many millions of years ago.

After reading the comments of my esteemed colleagues here on the forum I had a few thoughts of my own with regards to this ancient art...the art of serve and volley.

At the beginning of the clip Tim Henman gives us a preview to his adherence to fundamental tennis in the classical mode. Before we even begin to discuss the volley aspect of this sequence we must first take a look at this service motion. Sure there has been a lot of engineering in the game of tennis with regards to equipment and court composition but something must also be said about the hijacking of the coaching. Service motions used to be designed to send the player surging into the court. Lack of emphasis on fundamentals in the service motion is just as much to blame as anything else and here Tim Henman gives us a very nice example of what a service motion should look like if the players’ intentions are to follow the serve to the net.

Just look at the classic setup position of young Tim...it reads like something out of the “Christmas Carol” doesn’t it? Weight and racquet poised over the front foot with the back foot balanced nicely on the toes...while the chest is directly over the front foot. He is an illustration of a relaxed body about to go into motion. Before he does anything with the hands and arms...therefore the racquet, he simply shifts his weight backwards squarely onto the back foot. Once he has assumed this position he is ready to go ahead with the service motion...this little weight transfer merely a prelude to the real thing. Now the racquet can swing into motion backwards into his backswing while the weight shifts and shoulders turn in rhythm and perfect cadence with the racquet motion. His whole body motion is engaged with the rhythm of his racquet head.

Notice how far into the court he is tossing the ball. This toss assures him that his motion is going to force him to surge forwards as he swings at the ball when he serves. It is designed to move him forwards...instead of retreating behind the baseline. The footwork is very textbook as he swings his back foot from his platform stance from nearly one meter behind the baseline until it once again touches ground nearly two meters into the court. Now that is the kind of longitudinal court coverage one needs to have in order to make an effective first volley.

Jumping around a bit now I am looking at the second sequence of shots...the serve, the first volley and the put away. He takes three steps into the court and begins to sort of shuffle his feet in choppy steps in order to get himself into position to make the first strike inside the service line...perhaps a meter inside the service line. He never comes to a stop...he is always moving forwards towards the net. He has the mentality of a net player.

With regards to the knee bend...sure that is important to getting low on the volley. But even more importantly it is imperative that the feet are spread wide apart...precisely as young Henman’s are. This makes it possible to get “deep” into the front foot to make this short and angled ball to the Thomas Muster backhand. This is a tactical decision which is a whole other book in itself. I love tennis_chiro’s observation about low volley’s and the necessity of following up on the path of the ball to get the ball safely over the net. On the second volley Henman makes the “move through the doorway” with his racquet going first to safely play the sitter into the open court. Even on his first volley he has aggressively gone “through the volleyer’s doorway” in order to take the ball incrementally higher than his shoe laces and closer to the net, which gives him a greater chance at a successful volley than if he had waited that split second and passively waited for the ball to come to him.

This is perhaps the most fundamental characteristic of a true serve and volley player...that instinct to go forwards. Without fear or reservation...fatalistically if you will. Look how Henman has balanced himself on both feet at the moment of impact for the second volley. It is as if he has transformed himself into a human wall to deflect the ball into the open court. I always say to my students after demonstrating the volley against the wall...Mr. Wall is the worldsbestvolleyer. Make yourself into this wall to volley whenever possible...at impact.

Back to the first sequence now. Once again he has taken the customary three steps into the court and he starts to “chop” his steps as goes forwards to get the first volley as close to the net as he possibly can. Notice how he has begun his forwards progression with both arms swinging as if he is in a sprint but he begins to collect himself as he approaches the service line. He deftly takes his racquet into his left hand as this hand is almost solely responsible for getting the racquet into position to go forwards. I emphasize to my students the importance of using the opposite hand to set the racquet up and behind the ball on a backhand volley.

As he closes in on this relatively high backhand volley he takes a deceptively broad backswing. I say deceptively because his hand never actually gets behind his front foot so in this regard he has kept the motion mostly in front of him. Textbook volleying in my book. Even though the racquet does get a bit further back it will easily catch up to his hand at impact as he rotates to the ball with his shoulders and a relatively short motion with his hand...and he does make contact with the ball clearly well in front of his right shoulder. Most interesting is the position of his feet. They are perfectly aligned to get him at least sideways to the ball and even to the point to get some of the back of his right shoulder turned to the ball. But his back foot is clearly off of the ground and continues to surge forwards even as he is making contact with the ball. What a wonderfully graceful and balanced position he is in when he finally makes contact with the ground with his front foot and his left hand trailing...he continues his surge forwards as only a well trained volleyer does. He immediately gathers himself into position to make a move on the next shot...although judging from his reaction to his first ball he has hurt his opponent and the ball may or may not be coming back. He is in position anyways...ready for the unexpected. As a great volleyer always is.

[kwilkinson]

Many moons ago I went to Newcombe's ranch for a week. The consensus was that he had one of the best forehand volleys ever and his mantra for volleying was 'bite the ball'.