Serve and Volley: Three Critical Shots

[johnyandell]

Let's get your thoughts on Kyle's article, "Serve and Volley: Three Critical Shots"

[gzhpcu]

Great article Kyle. I especially agree on the swinging volley. I remember a friend of mine from Switzerland who used to teach at the Bollitieri academy recommending it to me in the mid-90's. Just like you, he said to use it when a slow floating ball would come back during an exchange, to go in and take it on the fly with a swinging volley, instead of staying back on the baseline and trying to generate pace off it.

Generating pace off semimoon balls can lead to timing errors after a while, since the timing is tougher for club players. The trajectory is slower and steeper, not the nice fast, more horizontal trajectory to get into the groove. So, getting used to take it on the fly and hit a swinging volley is much better.

[klacr]

Thank you for reading Phil.

The swinging volley is no doubt going to become a must have shot in the future. Let's prepare our students now! I feel like tennis' version of Paul Revere "The swinging volleys are coming! The swinging volleys are coming!". However, unlike Paul, I welcome them as I know it will be the dawn of a new age.

In all seriousness, it's a very effective shot and when serve and volley makes a comeback, this shot may be the instigator for it.

Stay tuned for the next article, I can't give away much, but I can say it's truly where "the rubber hits the road"

Staying on topic for this article, what other issues or ideas do you think you can use for your game and your students?


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

I use the uni grip, both sides, with swinging volleys, like a continental, the grip does not change, but the same side of the frame is used to hit both bh/fh shots.

[klacr]

Geoff,

Makes total sense to me. Serve than a slight change to a uni grip, followed by another slight change back to continental for a finishing volley or overhead.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[jimlosaltos]

Backhand Drive

Let's get your thoughts on Kyle's article, "Serve and Volley: Three Critical Shots"

Enjoyed your article, Kyle, as well the the linked one by Scott Murphy.

A couple of comments: To my surprise, I've recently seen a number of ATP players start hitting one-handed backhand drive volleys. How they get that kind of racket head speed with one hand is beyond me.

In particular, I recall seeing Richard Gasquet take a ball below the net in the service box, and rip it with a full backhand, getting it over the net and down somehow. Amazing. I believe Youzhny also hits (what is short-hand for a one-handed backhand swinging volley, since that is too long to type?), a singleton backhand drive on occasion.

Secondly, the first player I remember seeing hit drive volleys was Ivan Lendl. Since the regular volley seemed so alien to Lendl, simply hitting a forehand probably happened unconsciously at first. <g>

[lobndropshot]

Drop Volley

Good article!

However, I feel like all of these shots are great for pushing the opponent off the court and back. But, I think the drop shot is equally as important for serve and volley. There is nothing like pulling your opponent up to the net like a cat pulling a mouse on the end of a string.

[lobndropshot]

Enjoyed your article, Kyle, as well the the linked one by Scott Murphy.

A couple of comments: To my surprise, I've recently seen a number of ATP players start hitting one-handed backhand drive volleys. How they get that kind of racket head speed with one hand is beyond me.

In particular, I recall seeing Richard Gasquet take a ball below the net in the service box, and rip it with a full backhand, getting it over the net and down somehow. Amazing. I believe Youzhny also hits (what is short-hand for a one-handed backhand swinging volley, since that is too long to type?), a singleton backhand drive on occasion.

Secondly, the first player I remember seeing hit drive volleys was Ivan Lendl. Since the regular volley seemed so alien to Lendl, simply hitting a forehand probably happened unconsciously at first. <g>

I saw Gasquet do the same thing and I tried it myself and hit the ball into the back fence.

[klacr]

Enjoyed your article, Kyle, as well the the linked one by Scott Murphy.

A couple of comments: To my surprise, I've recently seen a number of ATP players start hitting one-handed backhand drive volleys. How they get that kind of racket head speed with one hand is beyond me.

In particular, I recall seeing Richard Gasquet take a ball below the net in the service box, and rip it with a full backhand, getting it over the net and down somehow. Amazing. I believe Youzhny also hits (what is short-hand for a one-handed backhand swinging volley, since that is too long to type?), a singleton backhand drive on occasion.

Secondly, the first player I remember seeing hit drive volleys was Ivan Lendl. Since the regular volley seemed so alien to Lendl, simply hitting a forehand probably happened unconsciously at first. <g>

Thanks for reading Jim. Glad you enjoyed it.

Good observations! You are correct on the one handed backhand drive volley. It's an awesome shot to witness for sure. How do they get that much pop on it? It's all about that deep shoulder turn that has been talked about in previous backhand articles by Chris Lewit. Also, it I feel it may be an easier shot, at least for my tastes as there is not so much forward rotation like on the forehand side. The backhand hitting shoulder is already in front and loaded up.

I remember watching Federer hit some backhand topspin swinging volleys in the 2003 Wimbledon final against Philippoussis. There is still in indentation in the wood from my jaw dropping and hitting the floor.

Expect to see more of this shot in the future as another wrinkle into the attacking game

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Swingers...

Interesting this swing volley business.

In the history of tennis, volleys became compact because anything other than compactness leads to errors. That's the evolution of the classic volley in a nutshell.

The swing volley is a very difficult shot to get right, and a player has to be above a certain skill level to be able to do it with any security. It really isn't easy from deep in the court.

I understand it has great use in the game but I've often thought it came about because weaker volleyers couldn't volley properly in the first place.

[klacr]

Good article!

However, I feel like all of these shots are great for pushing the opponent off the court and back. But, I think the drop shot is equally as important for serve and volley. There is nothing like pulling your opponent up to the net like a cat pulling a mouse on the end of a string.

Thanks for reading.

You do make an excellent point on the drop shot. It is a shot that can be used to great effect when up at the net and certainly much easier to execute. I do advocate using the drop shot to my students nor do I shy away from using it. But for the purpose of the article I wanted to focus on volley specific shots.

Excellent contribution to this thread though. The dropshot. Good thinking.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

Interesting this swing volley business.

In the history of tennis, volleys became compact because anything other than compactness leads to errors. That's the evolution of the classic volley in a nutshell.

The swing volley is a very difficult shot to get right, and a player has to be above a certain skill level to be able to do it with any security. It really isn't easy from deep in the court.

I understand it has great use in the game but I've often thought it came about because weaker volleyers couldn't volley properly in the first place.

Stotty,

As traditional as I am and love to preach gospel about classic volleys, there is no denying the impact of swinging volleys. I began teaching the swinging volley to some of my juniors along with the classic volley and they have a blast with it.

Swinging volleys were once the sign of a weak volleyer, now its a sign of a confident and attacking player. Serve and volley of the new generation perhaps. Tennis evolves. Constantly. Times, they are a changing.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Soon someone will be taught to use the uni grip and the swinging volley over the continental.

[tennis_chiro]

Swing volley vs Drive Volley!?

"Drive Volley" vs "Swing Volley"

First of all, let me say thanks to Kyle for a wonderful series on Serving and Volleying. I always enjoy reading his comments here on the forum. He is absolutely indefatigable in his effort to make whatever comment he makes in a constructive and positive manor. In that light, let me say I am trying to further delineate two different volleys that are generally bunched together in today's nomenclature as "swinging" volleys. Nevertheless, I am hoping and fully expect that my comments will generate some dissenting and alternative views.

For me there is still a real distinction between the "drive" volley and the "swing" volley. Without true mastery of the "drive" volley, a player can never truly master the transition game and move while in command of the point to a position where they can conclude the point with a final winning volley if they do not draw an error on the attempted pass off that well executed "drive" volley. (The animation of Federer's swinging forehand volley in the article shows him finishing the point to an open court; what if the opponent is in better position and he has to hit another shot.) Granted, you will get passed some of the time and a lot more with today's strings and rackets than in the past, but a well executed "drive" volley will stack the odds heavily in your favor. Mastery of the technique will allow you to employ the tactic on slightly floating returns that do not offer sufficient time to close and set up to hit a "swinging" volley; these balls are routinely played with big forehands after the bounce from deeper in the court. Thirty years ago or even less, we could get away with taking that ball out of the air and pushing it deep as we scurried to the net; today's passing skills don't allow such weak approach shots; you have to sting that "drive" volley probably at least 50% faster than we did. But I would argue that few players today have the skill with this shot or sufficient comfort level with the following shot that requires them to position themselves to intercept the next ball and volley it for a winner.

You can hit a "drive" volley on the move and in a hurry and even on a ball with a little bit of velocity, and you can do it with consistency and adequate accuracy to make the shot effective. I know players are getting better at the "swing" volleys, but I just don't think you can be consistent or accurate enough with a "swing" volley unless you get into position to hit it early enough to get your feet set, or at least in position with your shoulders in the necessary position to execute a full swing volley. In addition, there is a pretty long followthrough with a full "swing" volley and completing that follow through takes vital time away from your move to your next position to play the next ball.

So let me delineate what I mean by a volley, a "drive" volley and a "swing" volley.

A regular volley is a very short stroke. There is no "loop" or "SSC". (I realize I may be falling afoul of Geoff's "snap-back" theories. But for me, volleys are all about taking advantage of the time I have stolen from my opponent and and require ultimate consistency and accuracy. Power is always important, but it takes a back seat to consistency and accuracy when we are talking volleys. There is a lot more power inherent in the ball that has just passed over the net and hasn't suffered the loss of velocity associated with traveling the length of the court or losing 40% of its speed when it bounces on the court surface; I just need to redirect that power. And there is almost always a little underpin which improves my feel and control of the shot as well as allowing me to absorb some of the speed of the oncoming ball and keep the bounce a little lower.

A regular volley off a very fast ball is indeed a very short stroke. The volleyer's hand might move no more than a couple of inches and the racket head might move less than a foot from its most posterior position to contact point; and, ideally, I want to see the racket stop almost immediately at contact like a remote control holding the outgoing ball to its intended path. So, at completion of that volley, I ask my student's to keep the line of the shaft of the racket from crossing the net post; certainly, I want the "layback" in the wrist or the "cock" of the wrist or the extension of the wrist to be maintained through completion of the stroke. This is especially true if you are trying to "stick" a low volley on a fast ball just below net level or maybe on a ball at your shoe laces at the service line. One of my favorite metaphors is the cue ball stopping completely as it transfers all of its momentum to another ball.

A regular or "full" volley off a somewhat slower ball is going to take a somewhat greater backswing; that means the hand is going to move maybe 6" further back and the racket head will go back as far as my right (rear) shoulder, even perhaps 6 or 8 inches more than that; but the stroke will still finish almost immediately at contact as all of the available energy of the shot is transferred into the outgoing ball; so I want the same look on the finish – no followthrough! Perhaps JY's "u" will be maintained a couple of more inches extending forward, but I don't want to see the line of the shaft of the racket crossing the body. I want to see the recovery as a pull-back from the completion of the volley, not a continued swing to the midline of the body. I always tell my students, when they are looking for volleying models from the pros, to look at the doubles players first and to look only at balls they are hitting below the net on pretty well hit oncoming balls; the pros get away with way too much because of their athletic skills the rest of the time. Except that they don't really get away with the lack of those correct fundamentals when they try to handle really tough volleys; most simply don't have the skills anymore. So they say that today's higher velocities and spin rates make it impossible to volley; watch the top doubles players. It's no accident that so many of the top doubles specialists are in their middle to late thirties from a time when players routinely developed much better fundamental volleying skills as juniors.

Anyway, regular or "full" volley: hand moves little more than a foot, wrist maintains an extended or cocked position, there is no "SSC", the ball is hit with a slight bit of underpin, and the racket head moves, at most, three feet to the contact point when viewed relative to the front shoulder. When we include the movement of the step into the shot, the actual movement of the racket head might be 2 to 3 feet more, but most of that gross body movement is completed before the racket face starts its final movement/swing forward to the ball. I'd like to see that step into the volley completed and the foot on the ground just before the forward stroke is made. In reality, most of the time we are not afforded the luxury of that much time and the front foot is still in the air as we hit a lot of volleys; but it is not my intention to "lunge" into the shot. For my money, this would be another great myth for JY to debunk, but that is a whole other line of thought. Except that it is very much related to why a "drive" volley (my definition) will work when a "swinging" volley will not.

continued in the next post

don

[tennis_chiro]

continued

continued from the last post:

So now, what about a "drive" volley. A "drive" volley involves a much longer backswing, but still not nearly as long as a swinging volley. A "drive" volley would only be executed on a ball that was at least chest level and more usually shoulder or eye level; any higher than that and the option of a crouch overhead should come into play. For me, on a "drive" volley, your hand goes back as far as your rear shoulder, maybe a foot farther back than it does on a "full" volley, but not much beyond your rear shoulder. The racket, however, goes a couple of feet beyond the rear shoulder. But the restrictions of an extended or "cocked" wrist and no "SSC" are maintained. It is a straight back, straight forward swing just like a regular or "full" volley. You should be positioning the racket head behind the ball as you approach the "drive" volley so that as you arrive at the ball, you simply swing forward the 4 to 5 feet of the actual forward stroke which is also slightly downward. The ball is hit with just a little bit of underspin for control and feel. And while the followthrough may be slightly longer as you have generated a lot more power with that additional 2' of swing length, you still try to maintain the extended wrist position in the followthrough and resist letting the line of the racket shaft cross the midline of the body (in other words, you are trying to keep the racket parallel to the net as long as possible). And when you reach the proficiency of a world-class player, you can get away with allowing the followthrough on this shot to continue forward to your ready position, but when you are on my teaching court, you will control the followthrough and pull the racket back to the ready position. But the length of the stroke is just that 4 to 5 feet. It's a simple enough motion that you can get away with it on the move as you close and still maintain adequate consistency and accuracy, even if you have to hit it before your feet are able to establish a solid position, maybe even as you are airborne.

On the other hand, the "swinging" volley is a considerably longer and more complicated stroke. Most players will not be able to hit it with their volley grip and will need their forehand grip to execute the shot. In total, the path of the racket head for a swinging volley goes perhaps twice as long as a "drive" volley as the "swinging" volley includes a loop and an SSC. The racket head follows the elliptical pathway of a normal forehand, but at a much higher elevation as the shot is executed on balls at least at chest height. It's meant to be a concluder and the followthrough keeps the player from being able to move easily to be in position for a following volley. It's a great shot when it works, but I feel it is too difficult to employ it as a tactic in the situations where you don't have time to get your feet set to hit the ball as you transition to the net. If you are not accurate or powerful enough to put this ball away, you are left in midcourt completing the followthrough and vulnerable to your opponents passing shot.

The "swinging" volley is a good and necessary shot in the arsenal of today's complete player, but I don't think it is effective in the situations where you need a good "drive" volley as I have described it. I make a huge distinction between what I call the "drive" volley and the "swinging" volley and I think a complete player needs both. In the last 15 years, the only player I have seen who could adequately execute the drive volley and make the transition shot behind his serve while covering a full 23 to 25 feet of the width of the court was Pat Rafter. He didn't have the technique of a Stefan Edberg, but his fabulous athleticism allowed him to get away with it. Players who try to serve and volley today are really only able to cover about 18 to 20 feet of the 27' of width of the court. Sampras didn't cover quite as much court as Rafter, but he could get away with less range because his serve effectively made the court that much smaller for his opponents. No one can cover the full 27 feet of width of the court, especially with today's equipment and courts, but if you can't play a "drive" volley as I have described it on the balls floating on the edges of the court where you don't have time to execute a "swing" volley, you can't afford to try to serve and volley at all. And so very few even try, except as a surprise tactic.

Looking forward to your comments!

don