Are MODERN VOLLEYS missing anything?

[Kylo Reed]

From generation to generation, the play styles, strategies, and techniques that are most effective in tennis change as science and technology advance (Example: The decline of the one-handed backhand).

That said, while the greatest forehands, backhands, serves, and much more can be observed by the top modern players (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, etc.), the best volleyers (Edberg, McEnroe, Laver, etc.) are considered to be from the classic era where serve & volley was prominent.

Granted, they were playing in an era more suited for volleying - faster courts, weaker groundstrokes - and granted, the modern volley has had to adapt to this,

Is anything we could learn from the classic volleyers that could not be observed and implemented otherwise in modern volleyers.

 

[MasturB]

There was 4 one hand backhands in the top 10 last year.

Fedr
Stan
Dimi
Thiem

Shapo and Tsisipas will be in Top 10 in a few years as well. One Handers are still thriving.

 

[Kylo Reed]

There was 4 one hand backhands in the top 10 last year.

Fedr
Stan
Dimi
Thiem

Shapo and Tsisipas will be in Top 10 in a few years as well. One Handers are still thriving.

From 1970-90, single-handers won more than 60% of Slams, but in the last 10 years, this has completely reversed. And if you take out Federer, that drops to under 10%.

Also,
As thrilling as it is to watch Thiem’s down-the-line one-hander, that shot is never going to be as consistent as Murray or Novak Djokovic’s two-handers. And while Dimitrov is 16-1 in 2017, his one-hander can still break down under pressure, and remains his most vulnerable spot.

 

[fedtennisphan]

From 1970-90, single-handers won more than 60% of Slams, but in the last 10 years, this has completely reversed. And if you take out Federer, that drops to under 10%.

Also,
As thrilling as it is to watch Thiem’s down-the-line one-hander, that shot is never going to be as consistent as Murray or Novak Djokovic’s two-handers. And while Dimitrov is 16-1 in 2017, his one-hander can still break down under pressure, and remains his most vulnerable spot.

The OHBH is not an inferior shot, it’s the person hitting it that is inferior. Thiem’s and Dimitrov’s whole games can break down under pressure not just their BH.

 

[metsman]

Yes, everything. Even Federer's volleying is pretty technically deficient compared to the greats of old, and no other player worth a damn volleys. Net play is dead, throw it in the gimmick bin with the underhand serve and the two handed forehand.

 

[Shaolin]

They are missing quality in general.

 

[Thomas195]

And while Dimitrov is 16-1 in 2017, his one-hander can still break down under pressure, and remains his most vulnerable spot.

Well, you know, Dimitrov cannot even hit proper passing shots from his BH side, but the same cannot be said with his FH.

 

[citybert]

Strokes are mostly going to follow the direction of racquet tech and the game. All the modern strokes take advantage of the strings and frames of today. Players will continue to move in that direction.

As for the volleys I think you may need to watch more dubs to see how they have evolved there. The singles net game is mostly built around put away volleys with a strong approach shot or an overhead. I know djokovic overhead jokes aside

 

[nikdom]

Can't compare classical volleys to today's when weight of shot and ball spin are so different.

The balls dips viciously at net with the kind of topspin players are able to put on passing shots. Lots of stab volleys which would've been easy putaways in a bygone era land in the net these days.

The best technique still remains playing in front, not letting the wrist drop and bending at the knees but there's no guarantee the ball won't sit up on landing.

 

[Kylo Reed]

Yes, everything. Even Federer's volleying is pretty technically deficient compared to the greats of old, and no other player worth a damn volleys. Net play is dead, throw it in the gimmick bin with the underhand serve and the two handed forehand.

Exactly Metsman! That is the foundation of this discussion.

However, it would be counter-intuitive to extract everything the classic greats did because of stuff like their take back. In the past, the average racquet swing weight was higher, and therefore they could retain control over the ball even with a short, minimal take-back. Modern volleyers, on the other hand, have to make up for their generally lighter racquets with a large take-back.

So my question more specifically is, what are the aspects of the classic volley that we can use, and what are aspects of the modern volley that are required to have in a modern tennis game.

 

[nikdom]

Modern volleyers, on the other hand, have to make up for their generally lighter racquets with a large take-back.

There is a take-back on volleys? Are you talking about swinging volleys?

 

[Kylo Reed]

Can't compare classical volleys to today's when weight of shot and ball spin are so different.

The balls dips viciously at net with the kind of topspin players are able to put on passing shots. Lots of stab volleys which would've been easy putaways in a bygone era land in the net these days.

The best technique still remains playing in front, not letting the wrist drop and bending at the knees but there's no guarantee the ball won't sit up on landing.

Yes, Nikdom. I agree that it is unfair and inaccurate to compare modern and classic volleyers because the game is so different.

But you could see even players like Federer who constantly look to improve their game implementing stuff that the classic volleyers did.

Here is a video of Mats Wilander explaining exactly this:

 

[nikdom]

Yes, Nikdom. I agree that it is unfair and inaccurate to compare modern and classic volleyers because the game is so different.

But you could see even players like Federer who constantly look to improve their game implementing stuff that the classic volleyers did.

Here is a video of Mats Wilander explaining exactly this:

Yeah, I've seen this video. I like what he says about getting lower and not having an open stance, which have always been volleying fundamentals. Players seem to lose them because they don't volley so often these days.

But about playing in front - that's a modern day reality. The ball dips a lot really quick inches past the net cord when an opponent hits a heavy shot designed to do exactly that. Watch Nadal's shots to someone up at the net - he doesn't try to outright pass them but make them volley on a violently dipping, heavy ball.

Classical technique does not help there because you have to take the ball lower and lower the farther behind the net one takes it. And unless one imparts perfect direction and uses soft hands, the ball will sit up even if it makes it across.

The biggest difference I see in Roger's volleying is not so much the technical improvements (which are undoubtedly present), but patience. He used to try to get the first volley to be perfect. These days he'd rather make a good enough first volley and trust himself to close the deal with a second volley or smash.

That's what made his forays to the net much more effective.

 

[AiRFederer]

Yeah, I've seen this video. I like what he says about getting lower and not having an open stance, which have always been volleying fundamentals. Players seem to lose them because they don't volley so often these days.

But about playing in front - that's a modern day reality. The ball dips a lot really quick inches past the net cord when an opponent hits a heavy shot designed to do exactly that. Watch Nadal's shots to someone up at the net - he doesn't try to outright pass them but make them volley on a violently dipping, heavy ball.

Classical technique does not help there because you have to take the ball lower and lower the farther behind the net one takes it. And unless one imparts perfect direction and uses soft hands, the ball will sit up even if it makes it across.

The biggest difference I see in Roger's volleying is not so much the technical improvements (which are undoubtedly present), but patience. He used to try to get the first volley to be perfect. These days he'd rather make a good enough first volley and trust himself to close the deal with a second volley or smash.

That's what made his forays to the net much more effective.

Not trying to be a smartass, but isnt this the basic lesson of volleying? You never try to put it away on the first ball, you set it up for an easier second volley.

 

[Kylo Reed]

There is a take-back on volleys? Are you talking about swinging volleys?

By "take-back" I mean like a slice would have a take-back. In fact, on volleys transitioning to the net, I've seen Fed take his racket into his slice prep position.

 

[nikdom]

Not trying to be a smartass, but isnt this the basic lesson of volleying? You never try to put it away on the first ball, you set it up for an easier second volley.

Not necessarily. If you can put away the first ball, then of course you don't want to have to hit another shot.

The difference again is surfaces. On the slick grass of yesteryears, the ball would slide more and not sit up as much. A second volley, if it did happen at all, would be a sitter.

If you watch highlights of Roger's matches, count the times he backpedals to hit an overhead smash from somewhere in the middle of the court to end the point after *making* a first volley. Those are not easy shots at all. But Roger being Roger, he can do that and he decided he'd rather do that than run along the baseline playing extended rallies.

 

[nikdom]

By "take-back" I mean like a slice would have a take-back. In fact, on volleys transitioning to the net, I've seen Fed take his racket into his slice prep position.

Again, this could be me, but I don't understand what you're talking about.

There is no take-back on a volley. Turning the shoulders yes, but the shot is still played more like a punch/block.

The only time I've seen a take-back, like in a baseline shot, is when someone is hitting a swinging volley.

I'd have to see a video to understand what you're talking about.

 

[Kylo Reed]

Strokes are mostly going to follow the direction of racquet tech and the game. All the modern strokes take advantage of the strings and frames of today. Players will continue to move in that direction.

As for the volleys I think you may need to watch more dubs to see how they have evolved there. The singles net game is mostly built around put away volleys with a strong approach shot or an overhead. I know djokovic overhead jokes aside

That is a great suggestion. I had actually been looking into players who were prominent players in dubs and also played a singles serve and volley game. Mainly, Radek Stepanek. What do you think about his volleys in context to volleyers in the past?

 

[Kylo Reed]

Again, this could be me, but I don't understand what you're talking about.

There is no take-back on a volley. Turning the shoulders yes, but the shot is still played more like a punch/block.

The only time I've seen a take-back, like in a baseline shot, is when someone is hitting a swinging volley.

I'd have to see a video to understand what you're talking about.

By take back, I am referring to the motion that occurs prior to contact. The arms get into a certain position and like you said, the shoulders turn, which causes the racquet to move back. It would be difficult to find a real "take-back" on youtube practice videos because he is not turning his shoulders as much. However, when he is more aggressive with his volley, he will turn till his chest is facing to about sideways, and the upper body would look similar to when he hits his slice backhand.

 

[Sudacafan]

There was 4 one hand backhands in the top 10 last year.

Fedr
Stan
Dimi
Thiem

Shapo and Tsisipas will be in Top 10 in a few years as well. One Handers are still thriving.

What makes you think Tsitsipas will reach top ten, apart from hope?

 

[MasturB]

What makes you think Tsitsipas will reach top ten, apart from hope?

His game has so much offense. Comes to net a lot on all surfaces. His movement isnt great but he's still a teen. I think his forehand is more deadly than Zverevs.

 

[metsman]

Exactly Metsman! That is the foundation of this discussion.

However, it would be counter-intuitive to extract everything the classic greats did because of stuff like their take back. In the past, the average racquet swing weight was higher, and therefore they could retain control over the ball even with a short, minimal take-back. Modern volleyers, on the other hand, have to make up for their generally lighter racquets with a large take-back.

So my question more specifically is, what are the aspects of the classic volley that we can use, and what are aspects of the modern volley that are required to have in a modern tennis game.

Primarily footwork at the net. Split stepping and closing. Guys like Edberg and Sampras were masters at that. Woefully deficient these days. Big takeback really doesn't have much to do with control of the ball, and passes come in harder today so wasting time with a takeback is a recipe for disaster. You want to be as quick to the ball as possible at net. Obviously for a putaway volley or one well above the height of the net where you need some more pop, you might want more of a takeback there. But in general, keeping it short helps redirect it and cut off angles. You're going to have less control these days anyways because of more spin on the passes and larger/lighter rackets, poly strings, but that's not an excuse for how bad everyone is at volleying compared to guys in the past. It's just not a means of play anymore, and no one practices it.

Probably helps to be a little more crouched on the volley today because passes will come in lower, but honestly the older guys did pretty much everything better at net (and moving to net because that's just as important.)

 

[Wander]

Again, this could be me, but I don't understand what you're talking about.

There is no take-back on a volley. Turning the shoulders yes, but the shot is still played more like a punch/block.

The only time I've seen a take-back, like in a baseline shot, is when someone is hitting a swinging volley.

I'd have to see a video to understand what you're talking about.

You can see that Federer - as an example - has quite an obvious take-back on his backhand volleys. It's not as pronounced with many other players, though.

With forehand volleys, take-back tends to be more minimal/limited to shoulder turn.

 

[metsman]

You can see that Federer - as an example - has quite an obvious take-back on his backhand volleys. It's not as pronounced with many other players, though.

With forehand volleys, take-back tends to be more minimal/limited to shoulder turn.

most of the balls in that video are floaters above the net. On more serious balls, you can see him making things a bit more compact.

 

[Wander]

most of the balls in that video are floaters above the net. On more serious balls, you can see him making things a bit more compact.

The point remains that take-back in volleys is a thing.

 

[metsman]

The point remains that take-back in volleys is a thing.

I mean sure in an absolute sense, but when people say "don't have a take back" they mean unnecessary motion beyond the natural motion you will have just by turning your body hitting the volley because you're not a robot. No unnecessary movement is the better term probably.

 

[Gary Duane]

most of the balls in that video are floaters above the net. On more serious balls, you can see him making things a bit more compact.

Yes, but Edberg hit volleys with more "take-back" than that for put away shots at the net. Almost no backspin happens with very hard shots hit right at the player, hard, with spin. It varies according to the ball hit.

 

[Unforced_Youzhny]

His game has so much offense. Comes to net a lot on all surfaces. His movement isnt great but he's still a teen. I think his forehand is more deadly than Zverevs.

I don't think he will reach Top 10, just my impression on his overall talent. But hey, the potential is there.

 

[Unforced_Youzhny]

To answer the OP: nothing is missed until Benoit Paire is in the tour.

 

[Tshooter]

Wilander can be a real numskull. Federer has great volleys. Federer’s volley technique is something Wilander could only dream of.

 

[junior74]

Volleys are suffering with new technology. It's almost impossible to volley with a 100 square inch racquet.

Try a PS85 at the net, and you're laughing at how easy and fun it is to hit crisp, presice volleys

Then switch to a PD100 and be disgusted at how they float of your fluttering racquet, and force you to hit to big targets just to keep it inside the court.

 

[Bender]

They're missing nostalgia

Also everything else other posters mentioned

 

[smoledman]

Yeah no stick on doz volleys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Sudacafan]

Volleys are suffering with new technology. It's almost impossible to volley with a 100 square inch racquet.

Try a PS85 at the net, and you're laughing at how easy and fun it is to hit crisp, presice volleys

Then switch to a PD100 and be disgusted at how they float of your fluttering racquet, and force you to hit to big targets just to keep it inside the court.

Please a video comparing modern volleys to ancient volleys.
If smaller frames is the answer, I believe we’ll see them hit with wooden tablespoons.

 

[J011yroger]

From 1970-90, single-handers won more than 60% of Slams, but in the last 10 years, this has completely reversed. And if you take out Federer, that drops to under 10%.

Also,
As thrilling as it is to watch Thiem’s down-the-line one-hander, that shot is never going to be as consistent as Murray or Novak Djokovic’s two-handers. And while Dimitrov is 16-1 in 2017, his one-hander can still break down under pressure, and remains his most vulnerable spot.

What about the 18 years from 1990 to 10 years ago?

J

 

[nikdom]

@Wander @Gary Duane @Kylo Reed

Ok, I see what you're talking about on BH volley slices.

For the most part though, take back for me has always meant putting the racquet in a position behind the body before starting forward momentum. So it could be a terminology thing.

 

[junior74]

Please a video comparing modern volleys to ancient volleys.
If smaller frames is the answer, I believe we’ll see them hit with wooden tablespoons.

Are you for real? Have you never compared volleys with smaller frames with modern?

It's like two different worlds

It's a tradeoff, and the baseline qualities win in today's game.