Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by Kratos, Apr 6, 2008.
What are the benefits? and another thing, not every pro does this right?
hitting the ball takes time away from your oponent and also u dont get pushed back into the court
hitting on the rise keeps you in points as it most of the time is a reactive shot that a player either has in his arsenal or not.
I have played opponentst that hit the ball so hard, that if u could not take the ball on the rise, you would never get the ball. You had to cut it off as it went past, cause by the time it started to drop, it would be 15 feet back and away, and you would be taken way, way out of court!
additionally, by stepping in and taking a ball early you keep more angles available to you, getting pushed back takes some angles away.
But wouldn't it be more risky or dangerous to step in closer in the court to play the ball?
Why would it be more risky.
You asked about the benefits, not about what is required to hit the shot, so I will assume you already know all that, or that you are just being curious. It seems to me if you know enough to ask the question, then you could also figure out the answers- anyway--
Obviously, there are pros and cons. Much of the benefit is based on your ability to handle the shot under the pressure of an actual match situation. If you can do that, then the benefits are very real.
If there is any uncertainty in your game- if your preparation, timing and stroke production are not up to it, then the strategy can become a dismal failure.
Also some playing styles are more suites to moving up and hitting on the rise than others. If you have long stroles that require big backswigs and follow-throughs, as opposed to short, compact, "no frill" technique, then hitting on the rise as your main thing may not be your best choice.
OK, assuming you can handle all the elements necessary to move up and take the balls on the rise- these are some of the benefits.
a) You rob the opponent of the element of time. He has less time to recover and react to your placements.
b) You reduce the effects of spins or kicks imparted to the ball by taking the ball before it bounces over your head and/or spins out wide.
c) Gravity and air friction have a reduced effect on the ball (due to less time and distance through the air), so your shot will arrive faster/harder than if you hit it from 6 feet back.
d) By standing in closer, you are able to hit wider angles than if you were way behind the baseline- also puttin added pressure on the opponent.
Of course, all of the benefits will be instantly negated it you cannot master the technique and your consistancy is lacking.
You will also get a fair amount more pace on the ball with the same effort, as there is more potential energy available from a ball on the rise, than from a ball on the down side of its trajectory. You can see this effect when pros take a serve on the rise and return it with blistering pace with little or no backswing or shoulder turn. Imagine a ball just after it has bounced has a great deal more speed than when it has reached its apex, and begins to fall. If you can meet that speed solid and out in front, you have the opportunity to really scream a shot without much effort.
There is also something I remember from Physics class about ten million years ago that states that you also will have some energy transfer from the bounce which you redirect into the shot. If you catch it on the rise, you are stealing some of the energy that would have made the ball rise higher, and redirecting it into forward motion.
All of this has obvious benefits, but one not so obvious one would happen later in a long match, when after "saving" all of this energy by taking a balls on the rise (rather than having to put more energy into forward motion on the ball, coupled with running farther to get angled shots) and cutting down the angles, you will be fresher.
The downside is that timing and racquet control is of utmost importance, and if you don't have it yet, the results will be disastrous and frustrating.
Hitting on the rise is better for everything if you can do it consistently, but 99.9% of tennis players (like myself) cannot do it consistently, and they're better off stepping back.
Even pros find it too risky (when they play against other pros), and you see some of them camping way behind the baseline.
Pros are basically always hitting on the rise, since especially on deep shots, the ball is still coming up at the back fence.
You have a point here. It is inconsistent because it isn't practiced.
Pros do not find it too risky. They hit on the rise as a staple of their game. Hitting on the rise is extremely important for returns and groundstrokes.
thanks for the great advice here! i will attempt to use and apply this technique in all of my shots
that's true, most players (pros) are well behind the baseline, and not always catch it on the rise, especially roddick, i've seen he gets it sometimes even when it's declining, and i also don't think he has a "rocket" forehand as many say, federer's is the best yet.
You'll need to learn to hit the ball on the rise anyway, unless you plan on staying 6 feet behind the baseline for your whole life.
Hitting the ball early on the rise means sending it back early which will cut your opponent's reaction time. If you can outquick him, he might not have time to prepare and time his return.
How are you Mahboob? How is your daughter doing? How are you doing? Are you still on the courts? Great to hear from you again.
That seems illogical to me Bagumba, could you explain that to me?
He probably meant you can hit wider out, or you can hit sharper angles.
that's what seems illogical to me.
How is it? It's like comparing volleying from the service line to volleying half way from the service line to the net.....which position gives you more angle?
"watermantra" nailed a really good point there; when the ball is rising up off the court, it still has some energy that you can redirect. When it tops out and starts to drop, that slower ball is more difficult to control if you want to give it a good smack. You just need to learn the timing and swingpath to deal with that rising ball, but when you catch on to it, it can seem almost effortless.
To me, the hard part of hitting the ball on the rise is not hitting the ball - its moving your feet fast and setting up quickly. It can be very tiresome because you have to be very actively moving and attacking the ball, rather than waiting for the ball to get to you behind the baseline. Sometimes, such as against a good topspin baseliner, you have to get aggressive and take the ball shorter and closer to the middle of the court, or you will be running side to side all day!
Andre Agassi hit the ball on the rise better than anyone out there. It requires great footwork, preparation, and positioning. Hitting the ball on the rise gives your opponent his time to recover after his/her shot. And you can use their power as the ball has more pace on the rise.
Davydenko also does this very well. He has tremendous footwork and excellent hand-eye coordination which allows him to crowd the baseline much more than most pros. It really paid off for him this week. He was playing out of his out mind.
...and, you've all read what Bagumbawalla said, correctly so, about why hitting on the rise is a Good Thing. So even though you may think it's beyond you, you need to buckle down and figure out how to make it happen. And how is that, exactly?
Lots of different routes, obviously, but consider this: I have a theory that there are two keystone shots in tennis, the backhand volley and the overhead. Let's start with the backhand volley...
If you can't hit groundstrokes on the rise, my guess is that your volley ain't real good, either. And possibly, your service return is a little inconsistent against anything except a helium ball. So go hit some volleys, starting with the backhand volley. Principles are, keep the hips low, move diagonally to the ball (don't jump up and down like a bunny rabbit...my favorite move to erase before the first tournament), racket in front and up, Continental grip, neutral ready position...short backswing, step into the court to put some stick on the ball (no big swings). As Dave Hodge, my former coach, and a former ATP tour player noted: "The best players in the world take very little backswing on the volley...and they take too much backswing." I'm giving you a general idea of what's important, there are tons of forum postings on the specifics of the volley.
Okay, you work assiduously on your backhand volley (and your forehand volley, of course...), and now you have it mastered. Guess what else you have? A slice backhand from the ground, which, if you don't already have it, you will want if you ever want to approach the net, break up an opponents rhythm, give fits to the people who love shoulder high balls, bring a new defensive shot to your arsenal, and so forth. You also have a clean, short motion on the service return that you can use against a big server...and will produce a return that ain't no fun to volley. What you have also developed is the timing and footwork you need to hit on the rise...either slice or over the ball. How do you make the link between a backhand volley and hitting on the rise. Simple, go practice some half-volleys, which I'm sure you can read about elsewhere in these forums.
Wanna know why the overhead is the other keystone stroke? Next topic, if requested...
Hmmm, I dont know. I am not sure how you are connecting this. At one time, I didnt hit on the rise and had excellent volleys and my return was pretty good as well. I was a doubles player. So hitting on the rise wasn't as important (at least for our team) as getting in and controlling the net.
So you would have to explain your logic on this one.
Fine, not true for you...
...probably true for most of the players I've observed. Consider this, however...in general, hitting on the rise *might* be considered as a general Good Thing for getting to the net, doubles or otherwise, right? Hitting on the rise isn't a stroke, it's an approach to multiple strokes. I don't play a lot of doubles any more, but when I played doubles regularly on the Colorado circuit, my game was serve and volley, chip and charge on the return. "Chip and charge", against a big serve, usually means hitting on the rise, right? And if you're going to serve and volley, the chances are you'll have to hit a half-volley sooner than later, right? And my best approach to a half volley is generally "hit it before it gets up around your ears"...
Well, I understand that half-volleys are hitting on the rise but the stroke is different then a groundstroke.
What I am having trouble is making the connection with a player not hitting on the rise and not having good volleys. A player can have good volleys but not hit their groundstrokes on the rise. There are many players like this.
Okay, let's agree to disagree...
...let me just note the following:
- A half volley IS a ground stroke. The fact that the ball bounces on the court before you hit it makes it so. The fact that you generally have less time to prepare for it...and therefore, ought to consider hitting it on the rise, or with a shorter backswing, or just block it, or whatever, just makes it a variation on the groundstroke. That's kind of like saying a slice and a topspin groundstroke are different. True, but they are still both groundstrokes.
- I don't have a great statistical sampling for what I said about players struggling with volleying and also with hitting on the rise. It's just a pattern I've seen quite a bit. Is it universal? Maybe, maybe not. I think my overall point was, IF you're struggling with hitting on the rise, but you feel like you'd like to improve your ability to hit on the rise, for whatever reason, back up and ask yourself why you're having trouble. My guess is, at least one of the reasons is that your preparation is late...which is, a lot of times, the reason why somebody's volleying skills are lacking. What's a path that MIGHT help you to help you get prepared sooner? Go back and hit some volleys. Even do the old Aussie drill with two guys on the other side, at the baseline or at the net, winging balls at you...the only person on your side at the net. You'll either improve your reaction time, prepare sooner, execute more cleanly, or you'll wind up wearing a few extra dents at the end of the day. Maybe that'll help you improve your general court quickness and stroke preparation. If not, try a half-volley drill. If not, there's a ton of other ways you can better learn to hit on the rise. Here's one: have your hitting partner feed you topspin moonballs, but ones that land short and right in the middle of the service line. Now you have a short ball, and it's rising, so the only way you can get pushed back is if you stand there and watch the ball go into orbit. Instead, even before the ball crosses the net, start moving forward, get your racket back, and so forth. Or just do some footwork drills, a la Pat Etcheberry, to get your feet moving...because if your feet don't move, it doesn't matter what you do with your racket, you ain't gonna hit on the rise.
There's obviously a state-of-mind change you have to make to start hitting on the rise, which is that you have to go after the ball, instead of waiting for it to come to you. One of the reasons I've never had any problems hitting on the rise is that my whole game is based on going forward...serve and volley, chip and charge, return, open the court up, hit an approach shot, and move in. Hitting on the rise is a natural extension of that, and just one more way to beat the other guy to the net.
It's like what happens a lot in my winter sport, Masters Alpine ski racing. I race all 4 events, and the speed events (DH and Super G) are where I do best...because I'm fairly big, but not tall, so I can get down out of the wind. Also, I like going 70 mph plus, and I have a lot of experience taking air, making slow-twitch, long radius turns, and getting in and out of a tuck. But I'd always like to do better in the tech events, including slalom, which I usually tell my coaches is a synonym for "too many turns." So I'm grinding away diligently at SL, training and perfecting my technique, and about mid-season, one of my coaches...who is about a 40 point skier in slalom says..."Nice skiing, Richard...now why don't you stop trying to ski pretty all the time and just go fast."
So that was kind of my overall point about hitting on the rise and volleying. IMHO, if you want to improve your skills in hitting on the rise, a lot of it is just plain old quickness and desire. You have to get faster, faster feet, faster prep, faster whatever...and you have to want to hit on the rise, because the ball isn't going to sit there all day and say "Any time you're ready, big guy...I'm just gonna hang here until you decide to come up and bop me a good one, because I LIKE getting punished..."... So skip what I said about a connection between a correlation between hitting on the rise skills and volleying skills...but if you go back and revisit your volley skills, it might help your ability to hit on the rise, too...
It depends on the ball and the players skills and style. There is a real trade off here. A trade off between space and time among others.
The Davydenko-Nadal final match in Miami was a good example of 2 masters going at it.
Davydenko gives up space in return for putting time to his use. He stands his ground at the baseline, takes the ball early and sends very offensive balls back to Nadal challenging Nadal's recovery and preparation.
Nadal gives up time in return for putting space to his use. He covers all that ground, uses the angles, and unloads all that top spin and pace on balls with a lot of margin of error. Even his short balls aren't short. They have such wicked spin and pace on them.
I dunno, I have found as you start hitting with higher level players, as others have already said, if you don't hit on the rise, you will be at the back fence, and well...good luck with that after about 5 minutes.
well...no, it's not.
You have to hit the ball shorter the closer you are to the baseline.You will have to hit the ball very short indeed to hit great angles from on top of the baseline.
All the great anglers of tennis like gasquet, nadal, murray etc play very far behind the baseline.
Hitting the ball very short indeed...
...is generally the point to getting major angles as you get closer to the net. With a volley, if it's up at shoulder height, no big deal...provided your technique is solid, you contact the ball early, and you know how to go for angles as opposed to just banging the ball. If the ball is below net level, it's a greater degree of difficulty, but a great volleyer can still get some incredible angles up close to the net. If you have any doubts, watch Tsonga in the 2008 Aussie Open Men's Final. As you get close to the net, even on ground strokes, big angles are still possible...if you have soft hands, fast feet, and, most often, can either generate a lot of underspin or a lot of topsin...watch Nadal hit groundstrokes very close to the net...his ability to hit short angles is improving with every tournament...
that doesn't make sense.When you volleying the ball above the net you can hit any angle you want because the net is no longer in your way.When you have to volley the ball below the net you have no angle, and would ahve to hit the ball with an inconcievable amount of topspin to generate any amount of angle.
The equivelant position from the baseline to volleying would be the serve, the equivelant to volleying below the level of the net would be the groundstroke, you get what I'm saying?
I think that is because they find it easier to time their strokes to create those angles. Nalbandian can hit some of the sharpest angles in the game, and he plays pretty much ontop of the baseline.
No, for angled volleys below the level of the net...
...it's underspin, not topspin. The Aussies, who were proponents of the S&V, grasscourt game, mastered this kind of shot many years ago. As you get lower on the volley, firm wrist, open the racket face up, very short stroke. On a ground stroke close to the net, if it's high, you have the angle, just as on a high volley. If it's low, either more topspin or more underspin. They both work, I do it all the time. The emphasis is that you're not trying to hit through the court, you're trying to finesse the ball. Soft hands, quick feet, use whatever available spin you can muster, and go for placement, not speed. Yes, Roger Feder and his ilk can rip a topspin ball close in and come up with some incredible angles. I can't rip the ball, but I can finesse it to a sport where most of the guys I play aren't going to reach...
Yes, but you would typically be hitting the groundstroke on the rise with a completely different grip than you would the half volley.
It's all very well saying that a slice half volley is an indicator of being able to take the ball on the rise, but who would aspire to take a forehand on the rise and slice it? Even on the backhand side I would think you'd be going for the more aggressive topspin rather than the slice.
You could argue that you could hit the half volley with a normal groundstroke grip, but I would say typically you'd be hitting these with your volley grip if you are at a half decent level.
Sorry if I misunderstood your point - I don't have much time so just skim-read it once.
Lol, please, I dont need a lesson on what a half-volley is. I am not talking about what the half-volley is, I am talking about the swing motion one uses for a half-volley compared to a typical groundstroke. I really don't want to split-hairs here, however, what I do not agree with is that a player that does not take the ball on the rise also is not a good volleyer. That is unfounded and borderline ridiculous.
Yeah, I see what you are trying to say. However, there is no way I will agree with you about hitting on the rise and not having good volleys. You are making an unfounded coorelation to two different strokes that are practiced differently.
There are many instances where a player is not very good at groundstrokes who happen to be excellent volleyers. Further, there are players who are excellent at taking the ball on the rise, but can't volley worth a darn!!!!
Agassi, who was so good at taking the ball on the rise, doesn't even matchup to what you are getting at. At his level, he should have been one of the best volleyers in the world if we went by your "theory".
The coorrelation you are trying to sell is extremely weak and not material.
I didn't mean to start this rock fight...
...so let me try to clarify:
- If I'm hitting a ball on the rise from the baseline or I'm hitting a half-volley, I can either hit slice or topspin. I'm not saying everybody can or should, but it's the way I've developed. I'm 5' 8", 59 years old, and I play down in age groups (Men's 50, Men's 45) or even Men's Open. I'm pretty fit, but I usually have to give away some speed/reach/flexibility and so forth to younger athletes. My former coach was Sam Winterbotham, Head Men's coach for University of Colorado at Boulder. He felt that, logically, I was in over my head playing in these divisions, but once I made the decision, he was behind me all the way to find a way to compete with the young studs. What he told me was..."Fine...you can bang the ball, too, and that's going to help some, but if you just play smash ball with these guys, they're going to eat you for lunch. You have talent, use it!" I've always had a lot of variety, and what he wanted me to do was expand it and use it to jerk other people around the court so I could find openings and hit easy winners without running all over the court. Kind of like Santoro does...
- So if I'm trying to hit on the rise from the baseline, what do I do? Slice or topspin? In general, it's whatever works. Meaning first, I have to be able to get the ball back. There was an old rule in tennis that you use the opposite spin on whatever spin you get, because you're going with, rather than changing the direction of spin on the ball. So if somebody hits me a heavy topspin ball, according to that theory, I'll hit on the rise with underspin. In fact, I do this a lot. If I get some 19-year old who blasts his forehand with heavy topspin, I'm not young enough and strong enough, on most points, to hit heavy topspin back. Besides, what if I do? He probably likes the ball to jump up in his hitting zone, so I'm behind the 8 ball again. Also, if a guy is belting heavy topspin at me, he'd probably love it if I try the same with him, because then the ball accelerates and takes time away from me. If I slice it back, I get more time to recover. Using slice breaks up his rhythm. And, yes, I can hit slice off the forehand...just use a Continental grip, and a volley stroke, and there you are. So on either side, yep, I'm using a volley grip.
- Let's say, however, that I try this strategy, and my opponent gets wise to it, and hangs out until my slice settles, and bangs it past me at the net. Okay, time to do some topspin on the rise. For this, I'd most likely use my semi-Western grip on both sides. Yep, I just described why this might not be the optimal move for me...but if it's what's called for, I'm game, and I've got the stroke in my arsenal.
- Half volley, similar deal. I doubt any of us go to the net thinking "Gee...this has been a really boring match. I'm tired of knocking off easy volley winners...sure hope my opponent knows how to bang a return at my shoelaces so I can show him how great my half-volley is!" What that means is, I dunno about you, but I use a Continental grip on the serve and volley, so when I'm coming to the net, I'm holding my racket in a...you guessed it...Continental grip. So with that grip I can slice, or block, or chip, or whatever you call it, a half-volley if need be. Is that optimal? Probably not, so if I have time, I'll switch to a semi-Western on either side and go topspin...unless my opponent really doesn't like low, sliced approach shots! In which case, I'm in the Continental grip for the duration, and all he's ever going to see is a slice ball that never gets more than 2 inches off the ground. If, on the other hand, he eats my slice half-volley alive...well, I'll just resolve to serve better, move my aging feet faster, and stay in the Continental grip so I can make an easy volley of a weak return!
Make sense? Yeah, I know...I coded us into this corner, so I'll shut up, now...thanks, all, for your patience...
Hitting topspin on a half-volley? How is the ball off the ground on this half-volley. Are you thinking of an approach shot?
Are you kidding me? It isn't a "whatever works" mentality meaning that you just blindly hit a ball back with a certain spin. We are playing a topspin game and the slice comes into play for a purpose. Even the topspin shot is for a purpose and is executed accordingly. What the heck are you talking about?
Dude, this is an old rule. With today's racquet technology, this is a VERY OLD RULE. Topspin is the name of the game even when your opponent feeds you a topspin shot. If you slice everytime your opponent gives you topspin - YOU DIE. Further, in this game, topspin is much easier to control.
Where in the world are you going with this.
You dont make sense at all. Your theory is unfounded and you have no clue what you are talking about. There is no relationship to players who can't hit on the rise and their volleying skills. Your theory is weak. END OF STORY.
Correlation does not imply causation.
A player who can consistently strike the ball on the rise against anyone must be really good. A really good player is typically pretty good at volley, too. Thus, a player who can consistently strike the ball on the rise is usually a pretty darn good volleyer as well.
However, none of the above implies that hitting on the rise and volley are directly connected.
Your key word is "typically" and even that needs to be considered. Agassi was an excellent player. One of the best in the world at hitting on the rise, however when he went to net, he looked lost and uncomfortable.
There is no relationship between someone hitting on the rise and being a good volleyer.
A player that hits good on the rise does not cause him to be a good volleyer. A person who is a good volleyer does not cause him to be good at hitting on the rise.
bagumba, way back on page 1 I asked you a question, I see you're online now so...
is it then possible to hit on the rise with an extreme western forehand grip?
Yeah, well, whatever...
...this is starting to sound like a personal attack, so I'm gonna try to clear the air one more time and then go away, not to return again. Y'all asked some questions, I made some observations, it didn't work for most of you so fine...here's what I think, last time:
- As I said in my last post, I give up on trying to correlate inability to hit on the rise with poor volleying skills. You got the part, okay? In that post, I wound up saying two things: (1) Hitting on the rise and making clean volleys...IMHO...both require quickness and commitment. If you wanna improve your ability to hit on the rise, one of the things you might try are some reaction volley drills. You don't wanna do it? Fine by me...
- When I say I use "whatever works", it doesn't mean I just blunder through every point. This is me talking about my tennis, but it might apply to others as well. What I'm saying is the opposite, which is that I've cultivated the ability to have sufficient variety in my game to at least attempt to pick whatever counter is appropriate to whatever the opponent throws at me. This is not, by the way, consciously thinking about every detail of everything I'm doing at every instant in every point. The best advice one of my coaches told me was "Don't try to think your way through a match, play your way through a match." I try to play more by what John Newcombe called "preacting." I try to set up a point so percentagewise I'm going to get a reply I want...but if it doesn't work that way, I've got enough flexibility in my game to deal with the other possibilities. Example: In the deuce court, at 30-30, I serve a wide slice to the forehand and come in to the net, cheating to that side. What I'm hoping for is a floater to my backhand volley that I can punch into the open court for a winner. If the guy throws up an overhead, fine, I can deal with that, too. If I get a low ball to my forehand, I can roll it on the half-volley into the open court...or behind the guy, if that's what's called for. If the ball comes right at me, I've hit enough reaction volleys to be able to deal with that. Peter Burwash once said "Tennis is a series of controlled emergencies." I've found that a lot more useful way to play the game than pretending it's a chess match.
- I don't know what to tell you about topspin on a half-volley, or hitting on the rise, or on a normal rally stroke except that I can do it, when it's called for, which it often is. And I believe everyone should seek that variety. One of the reasons Federer has been so successful is that he has so much variety relative to his competition. That may be changing, but he's still one of the few guys who can change gears and do something different to win a match when things aren't going well (think Wimbledon 2004 vs. Roddick). In the old days, we believed you had to learn all the strokes, because eventually you'd need to use each and every one of them. I can hit a backhand overhead, which I used to win a crucial game in a tournament last summer. Most juniors don't even know what a backhand overhead is...
...which sort of gets me to your next point, where you say "Topspin is the name of the game even when your opponent feeds you a topspin shot." All I can say is, tell it to Fabrice Santoro, or Pete Sampras, who in addition to having a great topspin backhand, had a great slice backhand he used to considerably advantage against people who were "big serve, big topspin forehand, that is all you need to know" like Boris Becker...
Personal attack? Are you kidding me?
This isnt about you. This is about what you said and your logic of players who do not hit on the rise tend to be lousey volleyers.
Bottom-line, you have offered nothing to show how this can be supported. Therefore, it is only your opinion and a weak one I might add.
....here's what I said in my last post: "As I said in my last post, I give up on trying to correlate inability to hit on the rise with poor volleying skills." Guess what? You win! Feel better now?
It is not about feeling better. It is about posting things that thousands of people read that makes sense and doesnt start more myths in a game full of mythical tips and insight.
It was never personal.
this is just so confusing =o
Year 2008 took us to Doha/Qatar, Abu Dhabi, Malaysia/Melaka, and Brunei Darussalam. In Doha, Sarah made it to the semi-final stage in doubles. In singles, Sarah lost in the first round at Abu Dhabi, Melaka, and 2nd round in Brunei. In Melaka, Sarah was up against No. 1 Malaysian girl, leading 3/0 in the final set and had a break point to go 4/0 but at this stage missed an easy volley and the match turned around. The Malaysian became steady, Sarah became erratic and lost the match 4/6 final set. The bad patch continued through Brunei where she lost in the 2nd round (first round bye), but then in Doubles she with her partner from Chinese Taipei did quite well and reached semi-final stage. When you spend so much money with so much to expect and then losing in the first round, it is quite painful. It hurts .. hurts at heart and pocket. In my absence the Coaching Camp suffered. Right now I am concentrating on my coaching camp that's why you do not see much of me at these Boards.
I know you have shifted to a new place but sure you must be doing ok.
In Pakistan, we have a new political government .. a coalition, but our President, Ex-General insists that he will continue. In the U.S. the President must change after 8 years, but the Bush Administration still supports Mush even after he has completed his 8 years and people have given verdict against his political base in the Feb Elections in which BB was assassinated in a public rally. Some people learn the hard way!
The new political Government wants peace in the United States but not at the cost of blood in our streets, and have called for dialogue with the socalled Terror Groups. Since policy of bloodshed has failed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, political dialogue should be given a chance. I think there's face-saving in it too!
Last night on CNN I was listening to General Petraeus and Amb Ryan Crocker saying, "There has been some stability in Iraq war but this is fragile and reversible". They are, once again, fooling the American public. There is a time for "straight talk" and honest solutions.
Separate names with a comma.