The Non-Swinging Drive Volley

[10splayer]

Hope I don't get yelled at for trying to define terminology, but in my vernacular, a drive volley uses "volley mechanics" and a swinging volley uses, "groundstoke mechanics.

"Volley mechanics as in, both ends of the racquet moving at the same speed in a descending path. In the case of a "drive" volley, just a longer, more pronounced "line" to the ball, as demonstrated by the video.

"Groundstroke" mechanics, as in, a forehand groundstoke hit in the air (ascending) .....whereby the end of the racquet is moving much faster then the handle..

[don_budge]

A great man once said...

Hope I don't get yelled at for trying to define terminology, but in my vernacular, a drive volley uses "volley mechanics" and a swinging volley uses, "groundstoke mechanics.

"Volley mechanics as in, both ends of the racquet moving at the same speed in a descending path. In the case of a "drive" volley, just a longer, more pronounced "line" to the ball, as demonstrated by the video.

"Groundstroke" mechanics, as in, a forehand groundstoke hit in the air (ascending) .....whereby the end of the racquet is moving much faster then the handle..

If you wish to speak with me…first you must define your terms.

http://liamscheff.com/2007/08/voltaire-and-the-scientists/

[don_budge]

The Drive Volley vs. The Swinging Volley

This thread could easily have been a post in the "Criticism of the Modern Tennis Player" thread…Newcombe says that you must learn the "art" of volleying at an early age.

This is indeed a classic drive volley as you have appropriately labeled it. He follows up an "opportunity attack" with a clean finishing volley. He wins with the proper elements of control: speed, spin and placement. In a word his volley was a "crisp" placement. Not overdone. Minimal motion to accomplish the task. You can't baby a high forehand volley. It's no time to be feathery…no time to be cute. Yet the temptation is there to swing at it. It's betwixt and between…between a volley and a smash. It's a tweener.

http://youtu.be/xGRabfFItzU

It's my contention that this shot is not part of the repertoire of 90% or more of the current players, even at the highest levels. Of course, if you do play this shot, it will not always be a winner as in this situation and you have to be prepared to play a legitimate volley off the following passing attempt; unfortunately, that skill is largely absent for most of today's players as well. It's also important to be able to hit it with great accuracy and move behind it in a hurry to be positioned to intercept that attempted pass. Both of those things are much tougher to do with a swinging volley.

I'm interested in your comments.

don

And it is still a swing…by definition. A small swing. A pitch shot…compared to a full swing. Golf jargon.

[tennis_chiro]

I yell bravo!

Hope I don't get yelled at for trying to define terminology, but in my vernacular, a drive volley uses "volley mechanics" and a swinging volley uses, "groundstoke mechanics.

"Volley mechanics as in, both ends of the racquet moving at the same speed in a descending path. In the case of a "drive" volley, just a longer, more pronounced "line" to the ball, as demonstrated by the video.

"Groundstroke" mechanics, as in, a forehand groundstoke hit in the air (ascending) .....whereby the end of the racquet is moving much faster then the handle..

10splayer,
I think that is an excellent delineation of the difference between the drive volley and the swinging volley. The problem remains getting the general population (at least of teaching pros) to recognize the difference. It seems too many don't acknowledge the fundamental difference in mechanics that you have so clearly defined.

don

[stotty]

Over this side of the pond a drive volley is viewed as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzHvXQhf95k

[don_budge]

The Future...

Over this side of the pond a drive volley is viewed as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzHvXQhf95k

Yes…and some say it is the future of the attacking game in tennis.

[10splayer]

Yes…and some say it is the future of the attacking game in tennis.

Yeah, I can't get on board with that. The problem (as I see it) is the first volley. As you've mentioned time and time again, the racquets allow a player to hit the ball so hard with so much spin, (decreasing reaction time, increasing angle defense) the first volley skills (which separate the men from the boys) are just not up to snuff....They haven't evolved enough.

It would be hard to convince me that, a swinging volley is going to be the answer on this (what i consider) to be the pivotal shot (first volley) in the sequence. All the great serve and volleyers I've every seen, were exceptional in this transition shot. It is of the highest skill set. And the boys today just can't do it enough on a consistent basis to justify the strategy.

Future generations may use the swinger, a bit more often, but at the end of the day, I see the evolution and improvement in the transition skills. Not power or finishing skills.

Just my 02 cents.

[stotty]

Two nations divided by a common language

I showed tennis_chiro's clip to a few coaches over here and we just see the shot as a conventional high volley and not a drive volley. We found the backswing quite tiny, compensated for by momentum and good weight transfer. We found the follow through long but acceptable.

I mention this because it seems there is clearly a different way of looking at this shot on this side of the pond. Our interpretation of this shot is very different from yours. I am not saying we are right, just that we view it differently.

[tennis_chiro]

I showed tennis_chiro's clip to a few coaches over here and we just see the shot as a conventional high volley and not a drive volley. We found the backswing quite tiny, compensated for by momentum and good weight transfer. We found the follow through long but acceptable.

I mention this because it seems there is clearly a different way of looking at this shot on this side of the pond. Our interpretation of this shot is very different from yours. I am not saying we are right, just that we view it differently.

Tiny?! Without the footwork, it is at least 3 feet back of the contact point. With the footwork, about 5 feet. And I wouldn't want to see the followthrough any longer, but I could see it a little shorter, but not much.

I don't think this is a regular volley, but you did say a conventional "high" volley and that perhaps distinguishes it from a lower normal volley. I am having trouble coming up with a situation where you would hit a "high" volley with anything other than a longer backswing which I am calling a conventional drive volley.

The point is, I want to distinguish this shot from what you call a "Drive Volley" and what I call a Swinging Volley. Terminology aside, it seems you and your fellow coaches are willing to agree with me on that.

What I am trying to say is that we don't see this shot nearly as much as we should and most players don't have the skills to execute it whether you call it a conventional high volley or a classic drive volley. And the situation that presents itself where this shot is appropriate is not really appropriate for a swinging volley or your Drive Volley because there is too much risk with little additional reward for taking that big swing.

My player has taken as big a swing as he needs to decisively conclude the point and to take a bigger backswing would be foolish. And I note again, if the ball was higher, he would hit an overhead, which in my view is far superior to hitting a swinging volley.

don

[hockeyscout]

Over this side of the pond a drive volley is viewed as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzHvXQhf95k

Its easy to make that drive volley when you are not under pressure, as Roger was here. This point was uncontested from the time Federer served the ball, so I am not sure I'd use it as a real time example. Over here, in a third world country thats referred to as a gopher ball, and an Armageddon rally (you'll fool people into thinking you are a beast, when in fact, the other player was VERY bad). MURRAY was awful in this point, and Roger simply cat and moused him. Roger's serve is very underrated. He could have won that point on the rally's 3rd or 5th ball if he wanted to easily, as well. Roger was patient, and played psychological warfare on an overmatched opponent who was out of this point from the beginning.

[don_budge]

Gopher balls...

Its easy to make that drive volley when you are not under pressure, as Roger was here. This point was uncontested from the time Federer served the ball, so I am not sure I'd use it as a real time example. Over here, in a third world country thats referred to as a gopher ball, and an Armageddon rally (you'll fool people into thinking you are a beast, when in fact, the other player was VERY bad). MURRAY was awful in this point, and Roger simply cat and moused him. Roger's serve is very underrated. He could have won that point on the rally's 3rd or 5th ball if he wanted to easily, as well. Roger was patient, and played psychological warfare on an overmatched opponent who was out of this point from the beginning.

Gopher balls are what batting practice pitchers serve up during batting practice. It is a pitch that is so well grooved to the batters liking that he is more than likely to send it into orbit out of the park. The Armageddon rally just might be apropos in your neck of the woods given the posturing of NATO and the Russians with their backs to the wall.

[hockeyscout]

Gopher balls are what batting practice pitchers serve up during batting practice. It is a pitch that is so well grooved to the batters liking that he is more than likely to send it into orbit out of the park. The Armageddon rally just might be apropos in your neck of the woods given the posturing of NATO and the Russians with their backs to the wall.

Exactly, a gopher ball. An relatively easy to handle ball that will result in the rules, strategies, mathematics, analytics and techniques of the game being thrown out the window. What Federer did was absolute nuclear Armageddon on that point. Armageddon at its finest (catastrophic - extremely destructive point construction, power, athleticism, cat eat mouse, control of center of gravity and change of pace). Get the opponent playing conventional 2014 tennis (like Murray did in this point), and step in and dictate it all like the Armageddon tennis boss man. That serve set that whole scenario up for him in the point. Or, maybe his serve is so good because return to serve is something that isn't worked on night and day by tennis players like it should, who knows. Better practice the hell out of both so you can deliver the goods in any scenario.