Serve and Volley: Tactical Components

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss Kyle's latest article, "Serve and Volley: Tactical Components"

[gzhpcu]

I would mention this old composite diagram from "The Game of Singles" by Billy Talbert, published in 1962 during the Golden Age of Serve and Volley.

The lower part of the diagram shows the server's first volley positions when serving to the forehand court. Important is that the volleyer gets close to the net, areas D and C. (he should have time to reverse himself in case of a lob...). Positions A and B are not good for the server.

The upper part of the diagram shows the proper aim points for the first volley. The angle volleys to T, are most effective when the volleyer is up close to the net. S is for a winning drop volley...

[stotty]

Dominate...

Good article.

I think the most important thing for the serve volleyer is to dominate with effective serving. He simply has to dominate or it's a lost cause. Once the returner starts getting hold of returns and seeing the ball like a melon, you're in trouble. It's a two way battle. The server versus the returner.

I served and volleyed all the time back when I was a player. I was most vulnerable at the start of a match before I had found my "groove". Once I found my groove and started to read things better, I developed more "time". Very important to have time as a serve volleyer. It makes all the difference...composure and time.

Once in the groove all that remains is not to lapse, and hope the returner doesn't get brilliant, or have lucky patch.

On the other side of the coin:

When we were kids, John Lloyd's father would shout "get the ball in to feet" of the incoming server and work out the point out from there...look for the pass. Back in the days of wooden rackets that was good advice..."ball in to feet". It was a good plan.

[klacr]

I would mention this old composite diagram from "The Game of Singles" by Billy Talbert, published in 1962 during the Golden Age of Serve and Volley.

The lower part of the diagram shows the server's first volley positions when serving to the forehand court. Important is that the volleyer gets close to the net, areas D and C. (he should have time to reverse himself in case of a lob...). Positions A and B are not good for the server.

The upper part of the diagram shows the proper aim points for the first volley. The angle volleys to T, are most effective when the volleyer is up close to the net. S is for a winning drop volley...

Great find Phil. So nice to look through some old literature and find some gems.
Keep uncovering some classic tennis documents and videos, your finds always are entertaining.

Interesting how "A" is the danger zone for the server however nowadays with the speed of the game and the serves and returns, it's tough to make it any closer than that. In today's game, for someone serving and volleying, it's almost a necessity they learn to hit half volleys. Speaking of half volleys....stay tuned for more in this series, there may be something on that (teaser)

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Connors vs Newcombe

,,,
Interesting how "A" is the danger zone for the server however nowadays with the speed of the game and the serves and returns, it's tough to make it any closer than that. In today's game, for someone serving and volleying, it's almost a necessity they learn to hit half volleys. Speaking of half volleys....stay tuned for more in this series, there may be something on that (teaser)

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

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

Check this clip from 1975 of the Australian Open final between Newcombe and Connors. Serving and volleying, usually inside the service line, but almost always taking their pause a little behind the service line and then moving forward to play their first volleys in that positive area in front of the service line. Newcombe was almost the premier practitioner of s&v in the late 60's and early 70's and Connors was perhaps the first great practitioner of the aggressive service return, even against good serves. We just don't have the evidence to show how well earlier players may have returned serve, but the general theory was that it was foolish to go for too many big shots on the return; rather, players tried to get the volleyer to make a good return and get the volleyer to hit up, at least against good servers.

I was hoping to find a clip of the big challenge match they played in Las Vegas, but I didn't get anything when I searched.

don

[stotty]

We just don't have the evidence to show how well earlier players may have returned serve, but the general theory was that it was foolish to go for too many big shots on the return; rather, players tried to get the volleyer to make a good return and get the volleyer to hit up, at least against good servers.
don

When we were kids, John Lloyd's father would shout "get the ball in to feet" of the incoming server and work out the point out from there...look for the pass. Back in the days of wooden rackets that was good advice..."ball in to feet". It was a good plan.

So Dennis (John Lloyd's dad) was right then? That's the way I remember it.

[gzhpcu]

Don, here is a better quality video of the Newcombe-Connors 1975 Australian final...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCRAY2Vh3E

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

In that 1975 Australian final between Connors & Newcombe, Newcombe beat Connors with great lobs that day. Yes, Connors had a dependable, accurate overhead, but it was not enough to deal with Newcombe's lobs that day. I have not heard Newcombe mentioned as a great lobber, but if you look at the entire final, you will see that Newcombe's consistantly good lobs were the winning keys.

Also -- about old-style versus new-style pro games: Certainly when Stefan Edberg almost beat an in-form, motivated Jo Willy Tsonga a couple of years ago, Edberg's old-style serve and volley play was working even against one of today's best players. If old-style Edberg had been in better practice form, Edberg's serve and volley play probably would have beaten Tsonga's new style play.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

And something I notice about many of the volley videos in this article......Often, we see the server serve, then the camera does not really follow the volleyer to the net. Instead, we see a different cam taking video of the volley. It is as though someone on the other side of the net was feeding easy volleys to the server, so the server would not make any volleying mistakes on cam.

Many of the volleys shown in this article have such bad technique. The cams don't show where the volleys land in the court, but it is easy to see that in real life games, the volleyer will miss many of those easy volleys, due to straight-armed technique that is also too caressing in follow through.

I appreciate the pages from Talbert's old books -- reminds me of when i was just learning tennis. I think I have those old singles, and doubles books, by Talbert and partner.

[worldsbesttenniscoach]

I think the books I have are The Game of Singles in Tennis, by Talbert and Olds, and The Game of Doubles in Tennis, by Talbert and Olds. The books I have also have similar drawings and statistics.

[klacr]

And something I notice about many of the volley videos in this article......Often, we see the server serve, then the camera does not really follow the volleyer to the net. Instead, we see a different cam taking video of the volley. It is as though someone on the other side of the net was feeding easy volleys to the server, so the server would not make any volleying mistakes on cam.

Many of the volleys shown in this article have such bad technique. The cams don't show where the volleys land in the court, but it is easy to see that in real life games, the volleyer will miss many of those easy volleys, due to straight-armed technique that is also too caressing in follow through.

I appreciate the pages from Talbert's old books -- reminds me of when i was just learning tennis. I think I have those old singles, and doubles books, by Talbert and partner.

WBTC,

I appreciate the critiques and respect all your posts and your opinions, different, controversial or otherwise.

I can tell you that I wrote the article but Mr. Yandell was nice enough to take the time out of his schedule to shoot video of Giancarlo and Scott showcasing the shots and what the article was about.

I love the videos and although I see what you mean by the editing, it's about ease of viewing for the reader and getting the proper shot on camera and I think most people understand the point that is being demonstrated. Shooting video like this is very tricky as I had the pleasure of finding out a few months ago when I shot video at my own club for a future article in this series (Stay tuned for that!) Getting the proper shots, timing and editing done is a real art and full time job in and of itself. After my experience with this type of filming, It deepens the respect I have for this site. But I digress...

As for your opinions on technique, Giancarlo and Scott are pretty good players according to their results and playing careers, whether or not their technique is proper according to your teaching systems, its all a moot point. The article was more tactical, not technical. Many players that may read this article may not be possessed with textbook volleys but can still learn something from the tactical side and try to implement it or at least grasp the idea. There are some great technical articles on this site dedicated to the crisp, clean, beautiful shots known as volleys (I share the same adoration and respect for this shot as you do) but the way this serve and volley series is laid out, the technical side of volleys will not be the sole focus. My apologies WBTC. Thanks for reading though

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[johnyandell]

Here is an excerpt from the Forum Guidelines:

"Trolls will be subject to ban."

"What's a troll? Someone who sows discord by posting inflammatory or inaccurate messages in an online community, with the intent of provoking readers. Someone who refuses who engage in discussion when his views are questioned and cannot offer evidence to support his or her views."

World's Best:

You are and have been trolling this site virtually from the beginning of your subscription. So knock it off. We have a great forum going here with honest give and take. Either get in line with this or I will cancel your subscription.

[gzhpcu]

I think the books I have are The Game of Singles in Tennis, by Talbert and Olds, and The Game of Doubles in Tennis, by Talbert and Olds. The books I have also have similar drawings and statistics.

Yes, those are the ones I have too. The diagram is from the first book...

[don_budge]

Dear Kyle...

Let's discuss Kyle's latest article, "Serve and Volley: Tactical Components"

A brave attempt to write about a dead art form. The metaphysical nature of it is impossible enough...let alone the fact that it no longer exists in the professional game of tennis.

tennis_chiro often writes about this form of tennis and what it would take in terms of time and commitment to implement it at the professional level. Reading your articles supports his thesis...the subject is deep. Such an intricate blend of technique and tactics.

To write about something so complex as "serve and volley tactics and technique" is indeed a brave endeavor. It brings back memories. There are so many tiny facets that go into making such play a success. It used to be such a huge part of the big picture of tennis. It used to be a prerequisite for any decent tennis player to be able to play solid serve and volley tennis on fast hard courts or grass courts. Many used it as tactics on the clay at Roland Garros...and won with it.

Many talk of the modern tennis game being a product of evolution. Well...I think you know how I feel about that miscalculation. I just can't get over how complicated a subject this is and I really admire you for putting yourself out on the line to tackle it. It's unbelievable. It's thought provoking. I don't know where to start. I guess I'll just keep reading. Thanks for your efforts...most interesting. Hovercraft...I like it.

worldsbesttenniscoach sort of misunderstood the supporting video material. He is flawed like so many of us...plus he isn't bashful...like the rest of us. If he accidentally puts his foot in his mouth...it's forgivable. What's the harm? His remarks certainly didn't influence my feelings one iota. Aren't we confident enough to stand tall and ignore something if it misses the mark?

I do agree though that the best way to approach posting on this wonderful forum is to support your remarks. Just state the case as best you can...it makes for interesting reading. And debate.

[gzhpcu]

Here is a Ken Rosewall video, with volleying at the end...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aUnSCp64S0

Talk about an elegant player...