Approach shot vs the actual volley: which does the most work for you?

[d-quik]

Do you hit amazing groundstrokes and approach shots but can't deal with the opponents reply unless it's a floater (which if your approach was truly amazing, should float)

Or do you just hit marginally above average approach shots but find any excuse (or slight weakness in the opponents shotmaking or positioning) to come in where you have amazing net coverage and savage volleying

 

[JackSockIsTheBest]

For me I ain't roger so I try to hit good approach shots & majority of the time those are winners so I don't have to hit my worst shot. THE OVERHEAD.

 

[d-quik]

For me I ain't roger so I try to hit good approach shots & majority of the time those are winners so I don't have to hit my worst shot. THE OVERHEAD.

Big brain strat right there

Using outright winners as approaches!

+1

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I come to the net opportunistically and also when angels fear to tread. I like the goalie analogy because I get a lot of "stick save" volleys which turn into unintentional DV winners.

 

[d-quik]

I come to the net opportunistically and also when angels fear to tread. I like the goalie analogy because I get a lot of "stick save" volleys which turn into unintentional DV winners.

Username checks out

+1

 

[Cashman]

I’m old fashioned, I try and hit the earlier shots best

Good serves and returns make for easy approaches
Good approaches make for easy volleys

But I never underestimate the value of front court pressure - simply coming to the net off any old approach is enough to degrade the quality of most opponents’ shots

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

But I never underestimate the value of front court pressure - simply coming to the net off any old approach is enough to degrade the quality of most opponents’ shots

Unfortunately, I've found my ceiling for my game around mid-4.5; upper-level 4.5s and beyond have passers that I just can't beat consistently enough [of course, neither can I beat them from the BL so I still attack the net because it's fun].

 

[Cashman]

Unfortunately, I've found my ceiling for my game around mid-4.5; upper-level 4.5s and beyond have passers that I just can't beat consistently enough [of course, neither can I beat them from the BL so I still attack the net because it's fun].

Yeah, once you start to play guys who are comfortable with a target, you really need the ability to bully their returns a bit

You said you're working on your serve - I reckon with a bit more pepper you'll start to find those passing shots become a lot less reliable

 

[d-quik]

simply coming to the net off any old approach is enough to degrade the quality of most opponents’ shots

Underrated factoid! True even at pro levels, although to a much lesser extent obviously

 

[heninfan99]

If you shadow your approach well 65% of the time you win the point without even having to hit a volley.
That fact comes from Fabrice Sbarro from his Tennis Summit presentation.

 

[Fintft]

Do you hit amazing groundstrokes and approach shots but can't deal with the opponents reply unless it's a floater (which if your approach was truly amazing, should float)

Or do you just hit marginally above average approach shots but find any excuse (or slight weakness in the opponents shotmaking or positioning) to come in where you have amazing net coverage and savage volleying

The former, but practicing volleys to be also able to do the latter.

 

[Fintft]

Big brain strat right there

Using outright winners as approaches!

+1

Yeah and it works even against a coach 2/3 if she gives me a baloon on the T ( not a moonball, nor heavy ts, though)...Even if she expects me hit an IO to her BH corner.

 

[Fintft]

I’m old fashioned, I try and hit the earlier shots best

Good serves and returns make for easy approaches
Good approaches make for easy volleys

But I never underestimate the value of front court pressure - simply coming to the net off any old approach is enough to degrade the quality of most opponents’ shots

One should also come to the net at 30-0, 0-30 etc just not to give the returner a rhytm.

 

[cha cha]

When I hit a superb groundstroke I make absolutely sure to stay admiring it a metre behind the baseline. Approach shots, on the other hand usually end up being so soft that they leave me an absolute sitting duck at the net.
One more thing I noticed are my oponents. They cannot hit anything hard or accurate straight until I decide to approach. Then they magically turn into sir Andy Murray for one shot.

 

[Fintft]

When I hit a superb groundstroke I make absolutely sure to stay admiring it a metre behind the baseline. Approach shots, on the other hand usually end up being so soft that they leave me an absolute sitting duck at the net.
One more thing I noticed are my oponents. They cannot hit anything hard or accurate straight until I decide to approach. Then they magically turn into sir Andy Murray for one shot.

For the former: my coach would tell you to come to the net tin order to finish the point. Don't come in on soft, nor placed approach shot!

For the latter: It's even more frustratring when we practice BL rallies (such as the ones coach @Jake Speeed reccomended). It's called having a competitive spirit

 

[d-quik]

They cannot hit anything hard or accurate straight until I decide to approach. Then they magically turn into sir Andy Murray for one shot.

LOLLLL

 

[golden chicken]

Like a soccer goal, the court is far too big to cover it all, so I found I'd better have a good approach shot or it'll be a tough day for me.

Also, I can still accidentally hit volley winners even if it's not the shot I intended. If my approach execution is not as I intended, it becomes a bit of a kamikaze charge to the net hoping to pressure the opponent into a mistake, rather than already having the advantage in the point.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Like a soccer goal, the court is far too big to cover it all, so I found I'd better have a good approach shot or it'll be a tough day for me.

I think this is key: a lot of people avoid coming to the net because there's no guarantee they'll be able to reach the passer. I think those tend to be the same people who guard the alley in doubles.

I accept that I can't cover everything and play the percentages. If my opponent can beat me by consistently hitting low percentage passing shots, so be it. He's probably going to beat me no matter what I do.

 

[HuusHould]

I would say sometimes option A and sometimes B, for me. Obviously, ideally you would do both well, although of course if the approach shot is good, you aren't normally forced into the "goalkeeper like court coverage". I think the subsequent coverage of the net after the approach, is related to how smoothly you move through the shot. I've had to work on movement through the approach shot, as I'm naturally a pretty static ball striker.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Do you hit amazing groundstrokes and approach shots but can't deal with the opponents reply unless it's a floater (which if your approach was truly amazing, should float)

Or do you just hit marginally above average approach shots but find any excuse (or slight weakness in the opponents shotmaking or positioning) to come in where you have amazing net coverage and savage volleying

B: "The threat is stronger than the execution."

 

[d-quik]

static ball striker

10/10 relatable.

Been intentionally tryna hit with a closed stance and force myself to generate pace with weight transfer instead of just unit turn

 

[d-quik]

I accept that I can't cover everything and play the percentages. If my opponent can beat me by consistently hitting low percentage passing shots, so be it. He's probably going to beat me no matter what I do.

Yes yes. This attitude is both very humbling yet audacious AT THE SAME TIME. It is as if you "made a deal" with existence and came to those terms. Lotsa people nowadays (including pros) become so discouraged after being passed just once.

Its not as if 90s players NEVER got passed yet still kept charging. You know? (Blah blah i kNow, polyester and widebodies, i know)

Long live your username

 

[golden chicken]

At lower rec levels of tennis I found that my approach shots don't even have to be well-placed if I use a variety of spins (like, varying amounts of slice vs sidespin). As the quality of my opponents increased, my margins for error became smaller and smaller. I could predict the way the point would end by knowing if my approach shot was good enough. And then I met a couple of guys who were so good I couldn't even hold a neutral rally with them, never mind them giving up a shot I could attempt an approach on. And if I kamikaze'd it, they picked a target and passed me at will.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Yes yes. This attitude is both very humbling yet audacious AT THE SAME TIME. It is as if you "made a deal" with existence and came to those terms. Lotsa people nowadays (including pros) become so discouraged after being passed just once.

It is liberating because it frees you of self-doubt and recrimination. I rarely have to worry about "should I have approached?". I play the percentages and "que sera, sera".

I think a lot of people drawn to tennis want to believe they have more control over the situation than they really do.

I seem to recall a comment about either Rafter or Edberg that went something like "If he S&Vs 50 times and you pass him every time, he will S&V the 51st time."

I'm not that stubborn; 42 is my limit.

Its not as if 90s players NEVER got passed yet still kept charging. You know? (Blah blah i kNow, polyester and widebodies, i know)

Long live your username

@LeastExhaustingPlayer said I could keep it for another year.

 

[d-quik]

"If he S&Vs 50 times and you pass him every time, he will S&V the 51st time."

I'm not that stubborn; 42 is my limit.

LOLLLL

 

[golden chicken]

It is liberating because it frees you of self-doubt and recrimination. I rarely have to worry about "should I have approached?". I play the percentages and "que sera, sera".

I think a lot of people drawn to tennis want to believe they have more control over the situation than they really do.

“The great mistake is to anticipate the outcome of the engagement; you ought not to be thinking of whether it ends in victory or defeat. Let nature take its course, and your tools will strike at the right moment.” -- Bruce Lee

 

[d-quik]

Threads becoming more philosophical than expected

 

[Shroud]

Threads becoming more philosophical than expected

I approach, therefore I am.

 

[Shroud]

It is liberating because it frees you of self-doubt and recrimination. I rarely have to worry about "should I have approached?". I play the percentages and "que sera, sera".

I think a lot of people drawn to tennis want to believe they have more control over the situation than they really do.

I seem to recall a comment about either Rafter or Edberg that went something like "If he S&Vs 50 times and you pass him every time, he will S&V the 51st time."

I'm not that stubborn; 42 is my limit.



@LeastExhaustingPlayer said I could keep it for another year.

Its funny because its true about S&V 51st time. Personally I like to just keep coming even when getting passed. Its just easy to keep at it and relish the delusion...

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

Its just easy to keep at it and relish the delusion...

"Next time will be different!"

 

[golden chicken]

"Nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row!"

 

[Shroud]

"Next time will be different!"

I recall that in the epic Wimbledon Nadal/Fed match that Nadal won 5 more points. Something like 95-90. I recall thinking how cool it was that I could be passed 90 times and still win…

 

[nyta2]

because i don't have goalkeeper-like-coverage i tend do the dmg with my approach... which also means i tend to overcook the approach alot.

 

[golden chicken]

because i don't have goalkeeper-like-coverage i tend do the dmg with my approach... which also means i tend to overcook the approach alot.

It's a fun way to get your mind into a match if you're trying to figure out just how good do your approaches need to be for the particular opponent.