My Son's Backhand Volley

[klacr]

An excellent point. I have always preached the same. If a player's volleys are not technically good, they will get found out immediately when volleying from deep. If you can master that one, the rest is easy.

I do like to get students to practice the second volley too. It's good to practice gimmes and closing out. I also like them to practice the first volley, second volley, smash routine.

The best volleyer I ever coached is now in his 30s. I coached him three times a week. I spent a great deal of time teaching him to nail volleys from the service line. I use to feed him high, dead balls and taught him to move through his bodyweight through the ball to achieve greater power. I may post him in the forum at some point if he will agree to it. He also has the best serve of all the players I have taught.

Stotty

I gave a handful of presentations last year around the country at different coaching conventions on serve and volley, much of it from my popular series on this site, and I make that point about volleying from the service T. As I say it I see coaches eyes widen and the light bulb goes off that it makes sense to teach volleys from that position. Yet when I go to so many clubs and have to grade and review so many lessons and the subject is volleys, where do I see the student at, 3 feet from the net and making every volley with poor form or even worse, a false sense of hope that they can hit a great volley.

Sadly, you won't be able to hit volleys 3 feet away from the net if you can hit at least one from the service line. I'm all about giving the student confidence when learning a new shot, but giving them the wrong ideas about an effective and game changing shot when when understood is not in my lesson book. If its worth learning, its worth learning the right way. Looks like your boy learned the right way.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

... Yet when I go to so many clubs and have to grade and review so many lessons and the subject is volleys, where do I see the student at, 3 feet from the net and making every volley with poor form or even worse, a false sense of hope that they can hit a great volley.

Sadly, you won't be able to hit volleys 3 feet away from the net if you can hit at least one from the service line. I'm all about giving the student confidence when learning a new shot, but giving them the wrong ideas about an effective and game changing shot when when understood is not in my lesson book. If its worth learning, its worth learning the right way. Looks like your boy learned the right way.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

One of my pet peeves is seeing coaches in group classes with beginners lining them up not 3' from the net, but 1' from the net with the racket 1" from the net. This has nothing at all to do with learning to hit a volley. It drives me nuts. And this isn't just kids; I see it with beginner adult classes too.

What I try to do is the old progression with tossing and catching and then tossing and then having the volleyer bounce the ball, perhaps with a choked-up racket, back to the hand of the tosser. My point is they have to learn to make the ball "retrace it's path". Telling people that the racket face has to be 90 degrees to the intended path of the ball is too complicated, but asking them to learn the athletic skill of hitting the ball "square" so that the ball goes back in the same path makes sense kinesthetically and people can relate to that. If the ball retraces its path, then the ball that just came over the net will go back over the net and the student doesn't have to think about how much they have to open the face. And yes, I have the tosser put the ball below the level of the net, but then leave their hand there as a target. Once the student learns this simple principle, it is a lot easier to get them to volley deep into the court instead of just pounding it straight down as they invariably do in those classes I am referring to above. In addition, as they learn the basic volley, I am insisting on literal eye-level contact, using the knees to bring the eyes down to the actual level of the ball. And, of course, no follow through. Get those three concepts going from the beginning and you have a good chance of learning a decent volley.

I have the advantage of using ball machines, but once I get them hitting a decent simple volley from chest level deep into the court I drop that ball down to waist level and then back them up where they are 10 to 15' from the net and the ball is down near their knees, not immediately, but as soon as possible.

I appreciate the importance of what I call a "drive volley" that Kyle and Stotty are talking about at shoulder level near the service line, but I want my students to master the lower, shorter stroke before they start worrying about using a longer backswing to get the necessary power they will need for a floater at the service line.

don

[klacr]

One of my pet peeves is seeing coaches in group classes with beginners lining them up not 3' from the net, but 1' from the net with the racket 1" from the net. This has nothing at all to do with learning to hit a volley. It drives me nuts. And this isn't just kids; I see it with beginner adult classes too.

What I try to do is the old progression with tossing and catching and then tossing and then having the volleyer bounce the ball, perhaps with a choked-up racket, back to the hand of the tosser. My point is they have to learn to make the ball "retrace it's path". Telling people that the racket face has to be 90 degrees to the intended path of the ball is too complicated, but asking them to learn the athletic skill of hitting the ball "square" so that the ball goes back in the same path makes sense kinesthetically and people can relate to that. If the ball retraces its path, then the ball that just came over the net will go back over the net and the student doesn't have to think about how much they have to open the face. And yes, I have the tosser put the ball below the level of the net, but then leave their hand there as a target. Once the student learns this simple principle, it is a lot easier to get them to volley deep into the court instead of just pounding it straight down as they invariably do in those classes I am referring to above. In addition, as they learn the basic volley, I am insisting on literal eye-level contact, using the knees to bring the eyes down to the actual level of the ball. And, of course, no follow through. Get those three concepts going from the beginning and you have a good chance of learning a decent volley.

I have the advantage of using ball machines, but once I get them hitting a decent simple volley from chest level deep into the court I drop that ball down to waist level and then back them up where they are 10 to 15' from the net and the ball is down near their knees, not immediately, but as soon as possible.

I appreciate the importance of what I call a "drive volley" that Kyle and Stotty are talking about at shoulder level near the service line, but I want my students to master the lower, shorter stroke before they start worrying about using a longer backswing to get the necessary power they will need for a floater at the service line.

don

crazy right? A pet peeve for sure. Hitting from that close will just be a set up for failure in a match when only time they get that close to the net again may be to shake opponents hand after the match.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Minimize to Maximize...Linear Algebra

http://commerce.wazeedigital.com//li...ywords=sedgman

I like his description also of 'making a wall against the approaching ball'. I think this conjures up a really good image for a young player learning to volley. My son found he could really identify with that image.

Stotty

When the student is confronted with a difficult shot I ask them...what should you do? After briefly waiting for an answer I tell them..."as little as necessary". When confronted with a difficult ball at the feet you will see the beginner take a huge swipe at the ball with no possible positive outcomes. When the beginner sees a half volley for the first time you see the same reaction. When hitting the ball in the air...less is better. As in less motion. Use the most efficient motion.

Here is another interesting angle to the rhetorical question that I am constantly asking the student..."what is power?" When it come to playing at the net the answer changes somewhat when analyzing the aspects of the shot. Control is power...that never changes. Control being the sum of three different elements...speed, spin and placement. From the backcourt there may be more of emphasis on speed than the other two elements. Of course that changes from shot to shot. You see...it is all relative.

At the net and on the way to the net it seems to me that placement is the most important element. Put the ball in a place where you can get your opponent off balance in order that you might finish him with the next shot or draw an error out of him as he tries to make an aggressive pass on a net player that has blanketed the net effectively.

Enter Mr. Wall. So the beginner gets a demonstration as I may hit 15 or 20 volleys all in a row against the wall. Forehand side and backhand side. I say to the student after the short demonstration..."Mr. Wall is the world's greatest volleyer and he never misses...what did he do?" The answer..."He didn't do anything...he is a wall."

Since in the approach to the net you are getting a bigger advantage as you get closer it isn't necessary to do much more than use the speed of the opponents ball and deflect it into a position where he is not and don't forget that the ability to hit the ball softly and short is equally important as driving the volley. But at the same time the "one or two inch punch" effect can certainly give the impression of a "crisped" volley. At the moment of impact the best volleyers have always made themselves into a "moving" wall...that is there isn't much motion that is independent of the whole picture. The shoulders (collarbone) are performing a subtle rotation and the arm and racquet basically go along for the ride. The backswing is a swing...but one likes to see as little as necessary. Same is true for the forwards swing...follow through only as necessary.

I practice stationary volleying with my best players. I love doing this. I get them to aim for my racquet on the forehand or backhand side and with extraordinary control I am able to deflect their volleys back to them anywhere that I choose...just to the forehand, just to the backhand, alternating forehand and backhand. By doing this we are practicing the formation of the wall that must occur after the struggle to get in position. We emphasize the element of placement...the most important element of control in volleying. You can vary the distance between the practice partners...from close up to as far back as you want to push it.

Mix in an equal amount of effort and more as the players mature and advance in transitioning from the baseline to the net. Here you practice the whole ball of wax. One players is fixed on the baseline and both players have loaded up their pockets with balls and placed more balls at the net or in front of the baseline player. You don't want to stop to retrieve balls. The players moving forwards and backwards does exactly that...all the way behind the baseline and then all the way to the net...then back again and keep repeating until exhaustion. It won't take so long as you will find that this sort of movement is so much more intense than the baseline side to side. Moving backwards is an excellent exercise in balance and making oneself into a wall. The half volleys and low volleys will be excellent practice in the concept of less is better.

Stationary work is great because it is the goal of what you are trying to accomplish in getting to the net. You are trying to be balanced and in position with your weight under control. Getting there is a whole different story and by working forwards and backwards you learn how to arrive and also one of the greatest attributes of any volleyer is the ability to "CLOSE IN ON THE NET"!

A couple of thoughts...

[stotty]

Absorbing power....

Thanks, don_budge. I like the wall concept, it's a good one.

Another thing that sits well with tennis_chiro's method of teaching the volley, and your term deflecting, is the ability to absorb power. I think it was 10splayer who once raised the point that volleying is as much about absorbing power as it is about punching (never liked the term punching). Learning to absorb power is a key part of volleying. McEnroe did this superbly. He also broke a few rules in volleying. He didn't always get right down to balls and relied on his incredible hands instead. He is the only player in history to have got away with that. Roger relies on his hands at times but cannot away with it as McEnroe could. But for absorbing and steering, look no further than McEnroe. He is the true master.

For sheer efficiency Sedgman is incredible. Even on higher volleys he doesn't take that much take back. He hits directly through the ball. In the following clip, which I have posted a few times, all the players are incredibly comfortable at the net....very much at home.

http://commerce.wazeedigital.com//li...ywords=sedgman

Stotty

Note: I woke up at 3am this morning and pondered on "absorbing" and "deflecting'. They are a little different in that deflecting often uses paces and sends it somewhere else, especially when a player cuts inside a volley and skims it off the strings. Absorbing is deft business also. I think it is a skill junior players today perhaps aren't taught.

[don_budge]

Deflection, Driving and Absorbing the Volley Stroke...The Wall Continued

Absorbing power....

Thanks, don_budge. I like the wall concept, it's a good one.

Another thing that sits well with tennis_chiro's method of teaching the volley, and your term deflecting, is the ability to absorb power. I think it was 10splayer who once raised the point that volleying is as much about absorbing power as it is about punching (never liked the term punching). Learning to absorb power is a key part of volleying. McEnroe did this superbly. He also broke a few rules in volleying. He didn't always get right down to balls and relied on his incredible hands instead. He is the only player in history to have got away with that. Roger relies on his hands at times but cannot away with it as McEnroe could. But for absorbing and steering, look no further than McEnroe. He is the true master.

For sheer efficiency Sedgman is incredible. Even on higher volleys he doesn't take that much take back. He hits directly through the ball. In the following clip, which I have posted a few times, all the players are incredibly comfortable at the net....very much at home.

http://commerce.wazeedigital.com//li...ywords=sedgman

Stotty

Note: I woke up at 3am this morning and pondered on "absorbing" and "deflecting'. They are a little different in that deflecting often uses paces and sends it somewhere else, especially when a player cuts inside a volley and skims it off the strings. Absorbing is deft business also. I think it is a skill junior players today perhaps aren't taught.

Good stuff Old Boy...Stotty. Interesting that we have a thread in process about volley technique and tactics yet there isn't a single solitary player on the tour making a good living utilizing this. You see...whole integral parts of the game of tennis have been engineered out of the equation which have rendered the sport a FUBAR. Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition. Just another PSYOP on the "modern man". It's another example of the "NEW NORMAL" which everyone and his brother is so unabashedly running out to throw their arms around. Embrace it you idiots...I regard modern tennis as an imposter. Look where it has led tennis. Show me a birth certificate that hasn't been doctored...photoshopped.

Without having looked at tennis_chiro's stuff in any detail, I can still anticipate what his methods are. Sound fundamentals. At least what his goals are. I say go directly to the ball with the racquet head too initially (is that what he is saying?). Then one can gage how much backswing they are going to need to accomplish their intended shot. Whether it be deflecting, driving or absorbing. They are all derivatives of my three points of volley technique.

With regards to the "Wall Demonstraton" for the student...another important point to make is that about the speed from which the ball returns from the wall. When they are witnessing the demonstration it is difficult to discern whether the ball is actually losing any speed when it rebounds from the wall. This illustrates the point that you can use the speed coming at you to send it back at the same speed...if you form yourself and your racquet as a wall against the ball. There really isn't any sound reason why you would have to hit it back any harder or faster in many cases. We are talking about soundly hit balls at the net player.

[stotty]

Well, it's going to be interesting when my son comes back in March. I will film his low volleys and approach play to give a better all round impression of his net game. On low volleys, he doesn't take the racket directly up on the take back as tennis_chiro seems to suspect he might. He tends to lower the racket to the ball instead, not as well as the old school volleyers, but nevertheless he's does it better than most.

I would be interested on nickw's thoughts, as he is a Brit and I doubt he's seen anyone my son's age volley as well. And it's not necessarily that my son is so good, more that everyone else his age is so bad. Volleying has disappeared off the map over here.

I'm old school. I am not so good at shoulder-high volleys but good at lower ones. I am a placer when it comes to high volleys whereas my son can pulverise.

tennis_chiro's take on volleys is really interesting. He, like you, is a little older than me so can reach back further in time and I find that helps me connect the dots...so important to connect those dots.

Getting there is a whole different story and by working forwards and backwards you learn how to arrive and also one of the greatest attributes of any volleyer is the ability to "CLOSE IN ON THE NET"!

Many thought Borg was a lousy volleyer, and in some senses he certainly wasn't great, but he knew how to quickly close in on an easy volley to make it easier still. In this one sense he was a great volleyer.

Of all the clips I took of my son this is my favourite...a backhand smash. He makes it look easy. He plays it with good technique and it's exquisite.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x588wkh_g009_sport

Stotty

[nickw]

I would be interested on nickw's thoughts, as he is a Brit and I doubt he's seen anyone my son's age volley as well. And it's not necessarily that my son is so good, more that everyone else his age is so bad. Volleying has disappeared off the map over here.

Catching up on here, loved reading through this thread. So much great advice and information for teaching and understanding the volley, which is rare to find, but no surprise to find it here given the number of highly knowledgeable and experienced individuals.

I was particularly impressed with the 3rd video Stotty, your son was really getting into it there. It's true, coaches here in the UK have neglected volley technique for a long time now. I watch a lot of junior tennis at all levels, and never see any standout volleying skills. I worry that there could be many potential Mischa Zverev's here that coaches either won't be skilled enough to help develop them, or worse they will be discouraged from developing their skills by coaches.

Big swings on volleys are a big problem, so I really like the teaching idea from tennis_chiro of placing the racket immediately towards the ball, as a way to help correct this. If players can feel the other extreme with no backswing, that can only help to make their backswings significantly more compact. They can then incorporate bigger swings when the situation allows it on those slower and higher balls.

I have definitely picked up a few ideas from this thread that I look forward to using with my students.

Look forward to to more clips in March Stotty, and more good discussion.

[pvchen]

If you are really interested in seeing me go all through this with one of my students, you can download the following video of me working with a young junior in the summer of 2015. I was fortunate to have his mom, a professional photographer, doing the recording. It’s too much of a piece to post here, but if you want to download it, it will download fairly quickly with a broadband connection. However, be forewarned, it is about 1.7 Gb long. I really like the quality of the video and the way I was making some of my points to the young man. I think it does a good job of explaining what I mean by taking the racket to the ball as opposed to making a backswing away from the ball:

TaishiBHnet

https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/mkNmm

don

Hi, I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

tennis_chiro/don, I tried to click on the link to see your lesson with the junior, but the hightail website says not found, the page you're trying to view does not exist. Could you re-upload and post?

[tennis_chiro]

Hi, I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

tennis_chiro/don, I tried to click on the link to see your lesson with the junior, but the hightail website says not found, the page you're trying to view does not exist. Could you re-upload and post?

The posting from HIghtail. I have to figure out how to extend the expiration date. In the meantime, private message me your email and I will send you a download link. Probably won't get to it until tonight.
don

[tennis_chiro]

Okay, Peter. I uploaded the video on youtube. The Backhand Volley portion starts at 3:40 in.

https://youtu.be/Sk7mzI2cwf0

don

[bottle]

Okay, Peter. I uploaded the video on youtube. The Backhand Volley portion starts at 3:40 in.

https://youtu.be/Sk7mzI2cwf0

don

Pure gold. Very generous of you to do this, too.

[tennis_chiro]

Pure gold. ...

Really nice of you to say, Bottle. I really liked this clip. I was hoping it would spark more discussion than it did about my thoughts about correct technique on the backhand volley; that is, that classical volley technique did not include as much of a downward strike as is absolutely prevalent among today's players and that is one reason today's players cannot effectively volley the high speed passing shots they have to face at the net.

don

[bottle]

Really nice of you to say, Bottle. I really liked this clip. I was hoping it would spark more discussion than it did about my thoughts about correct technique on the backhand volley; that is, that classical volley technique did not include as much of a downward strike as is absolutely prevalent among today's players and that is one reason today's players cannot effectively volley the high speed passing shots they have to face at the net.

don

I remember Billie Jean King advocating level volleys in one of her early books. And even if her voice was a little screechy sometimes her volleys were great and maybe unassailable? I brought up this point once to criticize something Dave Smith was saying at TennisOne and he answered, "Oh well, you can't please all the people all of the time." I like that guy.

[stotty]

I remember Billie Jean King advocating level volleys in one of her early books. And even if her voice was a little screechy sometimes her volleys were great and maybe unassailable? I brought up this point once to criticize something Dave Smith was saying at TennisOne and he answered, "Oh well, you can't please all the people all of the time." I like that guy.

I think Billie Jean King had a great backhand volley. I tried to find a clip of it online but couldn't find one. I would like to see it again because I am going purely off my visual memory.