BH Approach Shots: Slice v. Topspin?

[Cindysphinx]

I have a friend who plays a lot of singles. I play doubles.

She was telling me that the slice approach shot is the way to go, and she is working on the footwork to hit BH slice approach shot better.

She offered to teach this to me, but I have some reservations. The reason is that I am not sure why hitting a slice BH approach would be better than a topspin BH approach. Obviously the ball should stay lower with a slice BH approach, but it will also travel slower or -- God forbid! -- float.

Since she raised this, I started paying a bit more attention to what pros do with their BH approach shots. For the most part, pros seem to hit flat/topspin approach shots, not slice. Roddick seems to be a notable exception. I've been watching Nadal all week, and I think he uses mostly topspin. Is my observation correct?

Aside from the theoretical considerations, there is the small matter that we are 3.5/4.0-ish players. When we hit a slice, it often isn't a great slice. When we hit flat or topspin, the quality of the shot and consistency with it is probably a tad better just because we've been hitting those shots since the day we started playing.

In what situations is the BH slice approach superior to the topspin BH approach? For players our level, what makes the most sense? Is topspin or slice approach better for singles? For doubles? For clay v. hardcourts?

 

[Austinthecity]

In my opinion, the bh slice approach does two things:
It keeps the ball below the net when they contact it. This means they will have to hit up on the ball. They will either set you up for a winner volley or try to go for too much forcing the ball long.

It slows the ball down. While you mention this may be a bad thing (because it gives them more time), I consider it a good thing sometimes. To me, the most frustrating thing is to hit an amazing shot and have someone just stick out their racket and block it back. By slice approaching, you're making the other person hit a good shot. You can't just block back a slice.

 

[Falloutjr]

Approach shots aren't really a specific shots it's a shot you use to get to the net and put your opponent in a bad position. You use it to set up a volley really, so it can be any shot. Slice is generally better if your opponent didn't give you a weak ball and the low skid takes away their options but if they give you a high short ball, smacking the ball as hard as you can control will usually work. It's more of a situation-to-situation thing.

 

[OrangeOne]

In what situations is the BH slice approach superior to the topspin BH approach? For players our level, what makes the most sense? Is topspin or slice approach better for singles? For doubles? For clay v. hardcourts?

It's a generational thing.

Talk to someone who was coached in a year starting with 19, and you'll have someone who was taught to slice approach. Someone with a decent coach in a year starting with 20, well, they have likely been taught the opposite (or should have). Modern racquets, easier access to power and spin... hit it as hard as you can and put the pressure on. (Also, modern racquets aren't quite as good at slicing, old-school heavier frames slice much better..).

For the record, I think you've answered your own question. If your slice isn't reliable, and if it has a chance of sitting up... then approach off a flat/topspin ball. The key logic behind slicing approaches is to have them sit low & skid, and if you're not confident you can do that, far far better to hit a solid flat/topspin ball than a ball that sits up or floats.

As for singles / doubles - again, at your level, with your described abilities, my advice above is applicable to both. Current ethos in singles is that you really shouldn't be approaching until you have already setup the point - you've already got the easy ball, well inside the court, to hit hard to a spot and come in and finish off the point. Modern racquets and strings make passing / lobbing / hitting a ball at or near a player with speed & work so so easy.

 

[Off The Wall]

I have a friend who plays a lot of singles. I play doubles.

The reason is that I am not sure why hitting a slice BH approach would be better than a topspin BH approach. Obviously the ball should stay lower with a slice BH approach, but it will also travel slower or -- God forbid! -- float.

Yes! The great thing about slices (that don't float) is that they travel slower. Since it's an approach shot, you'll be striking the ball from inside the court. The netperson will be forced to stay put.

As stated, the ball will stay low, so your opponent won't have free reign to drill it. The low ball together with slower speed gives you more time to get into the optium volley position, instead of having to deal with annoying half volleys.

It seems to be an overlooked aspect of doubles: sometimes, you need to slow it down to recover/enhance your position.

I don't know how well that translates a 4.0 team; but a both up team would do that.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

I guess I'll go for the obvious answer and say you should learn to use both. Be one of the select few club players who actually works on their slice and uses it when the time is right.

 

[Cindysphinx]

That bit about generational differences seems on target.

And I hadn't considered the issue of slowing the flight of the ball with spin being an advantage of the slice approach shot. In practice, I guess this means you'd want to consider slice when you are farther from the net. If you are already pretty close to the net because the short ball is very short, then you don't need more time and should just hit topspin.

I always figured topspin was useful on an approach because it tends to back up the opponent, which gives me more time to react to the shot.

Alas, Djokovicfan4life, I need to prioritize. I only have so much time for practice and instruction. Every year, I put off learning a 1HBH slice because . . . well, I am still working on the basics. I mean, I can hit a 1HBH slice, but it's not a good one so I just use it for emergencies . . . .

 

[athiker]

I would echo most of what was said above. We played a 3.5 doubles match last week where one of the opponents was a benchmark 3.5. They smoked us. He consistently used a slice approach off the serve or very soon thereafter. They both came to the net very early in every point and played well there. It gave him time to come in and had us hitting up.

I find it harder to hit a good solid topspin reply off a slice than off a topspin ball. It requires changing the spin of the ball and often requires hitting up on the ball. Now if the topspin approach has me pushed back and off balance then that is certainly effective too.

In singles I use a slice approach off a short ball most of the the time, almost always when it is my backhand and often with my fh with pretty good success. I will also approach behind a loopy topspin forehand to their backhand corner. I hit my topspin bh when exchanging deep rally balls or if on a short ball then more of an angle shot than an approach shot.

For some reason I didn't use slice approach shots as much in doubles. By the end of that match mentioned above though I started copying him. We still got smoked, but I could see the value in doubles as well.

I agree with the comments above about heavier racquets making a good slice easier to hit. I am slicing much better since switching from my AeroPro to my Becker 11. I am more consistent and don't have nearly as many floaters as before. I have lost some topspin on my fh it seems however.

My best slices are when I don't try to cut under the ball too much...I don't want to frame it or pop a floater...but a modest racquet head angle or even flat and swing high to low but really hit through the ball so it has a flatter trajectory but still backspin. A short one can force them to hit up on the ball, but leaves you very little time to react to the reply, so I try to go deep if I can pull it off.

 

[naylor]

As another poster has already said, an approach shot is a shot that sets up a volley, and the better volleys to have are those where the opponent has to play the ball up to a volleyer who can punch down. Because it keeps the ball low, approaching on the backhand with slice fits with the above.

The problem with a topspin approach is that the topspin makes the ball bounce higher (than slice). If the topspin approach is a forcing shot (more putaway than approach) that goes past the opponent, then fine - but if it doesn't pass him and he gets to it reasonably well, the height of the ball gives him more options to pass you at the net (driven pass, topspin lob, short topspin ball at your feet that forces you to hit up, short topspin angled pass). It often means that if you approach with topspin, you have to aim reasonably close to the lines to make your opponent move a long distance to play it (so you can also err long and put the ball out) - if you leave it short, then you concede advantage straightaway, because he can step inside the court and into the ball, and either drill the ball past you either side, or straight at you. Whereas if you use slice, even in the ball is short and your opponent gets to it, he still has to hit up somewhat to clear the net.

Personally, if what I'm playing is an approach (rather than a forcing / puttaway attempt) shot, I will go slice. But it also helps that I play SHBH, so I can use slice for normal rallying and as an attacking rallying shot, and can switch from slice to topspin in a rally quite easily. What I find most important is where I place my sliced approach - namely, deep down the line about 90% of the time, unless my opponent is stranded in that corner when a cross-court sliced approach places the ball away from him and into an open court.

Roddick was mentioned as a slicer in his approaches. Roddick does slice his approaches, but most often he does that when he's rallying crosscourt and his opponent plays a shorter ball... he then does slice back and goes up to the net, but his approach is usually crosscourt. What often happens is because the previous rallying was crosscourt backhands, his opponent is still in the recovery position for that rallying, so Roddick's approach goes right back to him. The result is Roddick gets passed regularly - both crosscourt and DTL because, from the position he's approaching, Roddick can cover neither well enough before his opponent has played the pass.

 

[fruitytennis1]

In double since there isnt as much court to cover i would def. stick with the slice approach. In singles you've got the open corners to pound the ball into.

 

[Off The Wall]

I hadn't considered the issue of slowing the flight of the ball with spin being an advantage of the slice approach shot. In practice, I guess this means you'd want to consider slice when you are farther from the net. If you are already pretty close to the net because the short ball is very short, then you don't need more time and should just hit topspin.

I always figured topspin was useful on an approach because it tends to back up the opponent, which gives me more time to react to the shot.

.

Yes, the faster the ball arrives to your opponent, the faster it comes back. If you're close to the net, go ahead and pound it as hard as you want, as long as you can get to the net on time. (Maybe not 4.0s, but higher level players like a ball that's going to bounce up into their wheelhouses. Slices don't tend to do that.)

Slow developing approach shots, like a slice, is good for attacking a player with good strokes. I've even used drop shots as approach shots.

 

[jswinf]

I worry about hitting a slice in doubles, having it "float" for an opponent at the net to pick off, but I realize from reading other responses that the answer to that is to hit a decent slice to begin with.

 

[Dreamer]

Well I play with one hand I think it depends on the situation. Some opponents have issues with sliced balls and can't hit offensively. I also like the pace and direction of topspin. Ultimately it's great to have both options and mix it up in my opinion.

 

[Slazenger07]

The best approach in most situations is the slice, for several reasons.

1. It gives you a little more time to close the net.
2. It forces your opponent to have to hit up on the ball, this often gives you an easier shot to volley.
3. No need to change grips cause you should use Continental for both the slice and volley.

 

[Blake0]

The reason you're supposed to use slice approach is because the approach shot is a set up shot for your volley/over head. To make it a set up shot, you need to place it well, keep it below the net, and let it travel slow enough so you have enough time to get into correct position into net. The pro's and cons of slice shots are;
Pros- Below net level (opponent has to hit the ball up), travels slower (more time to get into correct court position, penetrating slices (really hard for opponent to control their shot perfectly for a pass/lob, meaning more of an opportunity).
Cons- Ball travels slower (opponent has more time to get to the ball), easy to make the ball float(giving your opponent an easier opportunity to pass depending on the situation). Although a little floating is okay, but if your slice just floats and sits at their power zone, thats when you're in trouble.

Hard topspin/flat approachs are used more often nowadays because it seems like more of a logical shot, which it can be. The mentality of approaching this way is, hit it so hard that your opponent can't control the ball well enough to pass (they'll hit it more toward the middle, because its harder to time to pass down the line/cc or lob). The pro's and cons are;
Pros- You can hit the ball harder/more spin (harder for your opponent to control the shot well enough to pass/lob), Ball travels faster (less time for your opponents to set up).
Cons- less time to get into position, less margin for error, must hit deep(not as effective if it's short, but for slices it could sometimes be more effective), must hit hard enough so that your opponent doesn't feel like he has many options open.

Both shots are good to use depending on what you get. I like to use slices when the ball has bounced and is at or below net level, because it's harder to hit hard topspin on it that's effective, and plus, you'll get more time to get into position. When the ball is floating above the net level, i'll crush it flat or with topspin and come up, although i sacrifice some court positioning, it'll be harder for my opponent to control so i'll get a easier volley (theoretically). But if my opponents able to control my flat/crushing spin shots well enough so that i can't win many points at net, then i'll start using slice approachs and vice versa.

 

[larry10s]

That bit about generational differences seems on target.

And I hadn't considered the issue of slowing the flight of the ball with spin being an advantage of the slice approach shot. In practice, I guess this means you'd want to consider slice when you are farther from the net. If you are already pretty close to the net because the short ball is very short, then you don't need more time and should just hit topspin.

I always figured topspin was useful on an approach because it tends to back up the opponent, which gives me more time to react to the shot.

Alas, Djokovicfan4life, I need to prioritize. I only have so much time for practice and instruction. Every year, I put off learning a 1HBH slice because . . . well, I am still working on the basics. I mean, I can hit a 1HBH slice, but it's not a good one so I just use it for emergencies . . . .

learning a backhand slice willimprove your backhand volley and how do you hit a backhand drop shot???
to answer your question as stated by many above. the topspin approach is more to drive the ball thru the court for a putaway. you go to net so if opponent gets to the ball you can finish. but it bounces up into their strike zone giving them an easier contact point to hit the passing shot. if the ball is short and you get to it while its still above the net go ahead and drive it
the slice works in all situations because it gives you more time to close (travels slower) and put the contact point in a less optimum position.


one more point about the slice approach shot. if you hit it short (on purpose around the service line) it will almost bounce twice by the time it reaches the baseline .VERY tough ball for opponent. if you hit your drive short it will definitely sit up nicely for opponent.

 

[papa]

There are so many factors to be considered here that its difficult to suggest a "one-way" solution. The beauty of a sharp cross court shot, especially in doubles, is that you have less net to be concerned with and any response will probably be weak and take your opponent off court.

DTL shots can be tricky if the opponents drift sideways to cover the alley otherwise your going to be threading the needle.

However, if the approach shot is a good one, which I would suspect it would be, than most of the time your choices are pretty limited.

 

[LeeD]

So many factors...
Slice is supposed to be the depth control, slow the time, give you a different shot that the opponent is not supposed to have seen.
Topspin gets there quicker and penetrates the court.
Wouldn't that depend how well your opponent responds to slice and topspin?

 

[Cindysphinx]

Dang. I watched a bunch Vesnina v. Wozniaki. No slice approach shots. None. Only topspin approach shots.

If the slice is so clearly better, why aren't male or female pros using it more? Is it that the benefit of slowing the ball down more is of less value to them?

 

[user92626]

Not really. Sam Querry and some other guy use approach bh slice in their clay match which seem effective. The key here is..don't force yourself with a stroke that is awkward in that situation, for instance bend low and overreach to hit a topspin with no time to wind up the racket when a bh slice is much easier. Slice shot is a bit slower then ts shot but it makes up in placement and opponent's need to "dig" it up -- not an easy thing to do if you're on the run.

 

[LeeD]

You cite 2 examples of pro women who never WANT to volley. Of course, both hit topspin "approaches". Meant to be winners, not to set up a volley.
Look at Fed and Haas. Murray and DJ, all use sliced approaches.

 

[Frank Silbermann]

Dang. I watched a bunch Vesnina v. Wozniaki. No slice approach shots. None. Only topspin approach shots.

If the slice is so clearly better, why aren't male or female pros using it more? Is it that the benefit of slowing the ball down more is of less value to them?

A player who normally hits with heavy topspin using a closed-face grip will be really good at hitting topspin and not so good at slicing. Such a player will therefore hit mostly topspin approach shots.

Back in the days when pros still used correct technique, topspin was difficult -- especially on the backhand -- and therefore most backhands in general were sliced. So of course you would slice your approach shots -- that was when sliced shots were at their most effective! On the backhand side, topspin was reserved for do-or-die situations, e.g. for when the opponent was at the net and therefore you had to try a last ditch gamble to have any hope of saving the point.

 

[Kevo]

Aside from the theoretical considerations, there is the small matter that we are 3.5/4.0-ish players. When we hit a slice, it often isn't a great slice. When we hit flat or topspin, the quality of the shot and consistency with it is probably a tad better just because we've been hitting those shots since the day we started playing.

Well, do you want to be a 4.0/4.5-ish player? Having a slice is a good way to get there. You see a lot of slicing in men's doubles. Many guys will slice a return and come in. The old chip and charge play. My former doubles partner used to do this all the time, and if you only get reasonably good at it, you can win a lot of cheap points.

Besides slicing is a lot of fun. The first time you manage to slice a ball where it only bounces an inch or two off the court and your opponent is forced to pop it up into the smash you have waiting for them, you will be hooked. The more tools you have the better.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I hit a few slices in doubles yesterday. They were Emergency Slices. Both went up the middle against two net players, and the net players hit them into the net. Hmmmm.

I think this could be one differences between men's and women's rec tennis. The women who hit slice hit miserable, floating slice. I've only faced one woman recently with good slice -- a 4.0. Even then, I felt comfortable S&V against her slice, as it gave me more time to get there to volley it.

I play with 3.5 guys in mixed, and not one hits a slice if they can hit 2HBH topspin instead. One 3.5 partner I have its 1HBH, but I wouldn't call it a proper or effective slice -- it's just kind of not a great shot.

I have only seen slice out of the 4.0 guys. They can hurt you with slice.

 

[jrod]

I'll assume we are talking about a DTL approach... There are a lot of variables here which can help to dictate whether to slice, drive or roll the ball DTL.Much of the selection process depends on your and your opponents position, strengths/weaknesses, as well as the height, pace and spin on the ball you are hitting.

Most approaches occur off short(er) balls. If the ball is short and low I'd tend to favor a deep, penetrating slice or a fading out-wide slice. If the ball is short and high then driving it is an excellent option and can rob your opponent of time. A mid-height ball can be sliced, driven or rolled deep with good success also. Regardless as to what you hit you should be prepared to hit another shot or two.

 

[GPB]

I think this could be one differences between men's and women's rec tennis. The women who hit slice hit miserable, floating slice. I've only faced one woman recently with good slice -- a 4.0. Even then, I felt comfortable S&V against her slice, as it gave me more time to get there to volley it.

I play with 3.5 guys in mixed, and not one hits a slice if they can hit 2HBH topspin instead. One 3.5 partner I have its 1HBH, but I wouldn't call it a proper or effective slice -- it's just kind of not a great shot.

I have only seen slice out of the 4.0 guys. They can hurt you with slice.

Can they hit a slice because they're 4.0, or are they 4.0 because they can hit a slice?

Food for thought...

 

[Nellie]

I would think that most better level doubles players would hit slice approach shots. It will give you an extra half second to move to the net. But as you say, it may not be what you spend your time working on. You may be more comfortable, for example, hitting a lower volley or half-volley (the consequence of a bad approach shot). Me - I really like having a slice back hand to use on low shots (too low to get the racquet under the ball for top spin). I find the slice backhand a pretty easy shot to learn/teach, where you can get the fundamentals in a one lesson and could develop a pretty decent slice with a couple of weeks of practice. The slice is pretty addictive, actually, because it is physically easy and reliable.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I would think that most better level doubles players would hit slice approach shots. It will give you an extra half second to move to the net. But as you say, it may not be what you spend your time working on. You may be more comfortable, for example, hitting a lower volley or half-volley (the consequence of a bad approach shot). Me - I really like having a slice back hand to use on low shots (too low to get the racquet under the ball for top spin). I find the slice backhand a pretty easy shot to learn/teach, where you can get the fundamentals in a one lesson and could develop a pretty decent slice with a couple of weeks of practice. The slice is pretty addictive, actually, because it is physically easy and reliable.

I think you're right that it is addictive. I know two ladies who learned to slice BH before they learned to hit topspin. Now they are trying to learn a 2HBH topspin drive and are struggling big-time. There's something about the set-up that is frustrating them, as they usually set up too far from the ball.

Which means that when I start learning a 1BHB slice, I will probably set up too close!

 

[LeeD]

And slice gives the most height control over the net, of ANY stroke.
So a low slice gives your opponent a ball they gotta dig out of their shins. Do you like hitting those balls? Almost nobody likes them, that's why you hit them!
As every old fart knows.

 

[Power Player]

I'll aproach on a good slice to test an opponent out. If they can lift and crush it back, then I know to just follow the ones that I crush to the corners.

 

[MNPlayer]

Either slice of topspin can be effective. At our level (3.5-4.0) I think you should use the shot you can execute most comfortably. As people have observed from the pros - I think this is true even for them. Which shot can you more reliably place deep in the corner and approach behind?

I have a OHB and can hit either topspin or slice. Which one I use depends on the type of ball I'm hitting. Usually it is easier to return a slice with a slice and a waist high ball with top. The most important thing on the approach is placement, not the spin.

When the height of the ball allows it I also try to hit approach shots (i.e. short balls) flatter than rally balls to take more time away. I only have enough control for this on the FH side though.

 

[Cindysphinx]

^That makes a lot of sense. I played a lady once who it short slice balls. Of course, since they were short, I figured I'd just run up and hit a topspin approach. Trouble was, my racket actually banged on the ground trying to get under them.

I decided the solution was to move my butt and get up to them sooner, and that worked. I think my success rate would have been 10% had I tried to slice those balls deep. And heaven help me if she was coming in also. Crunch!

One interesting thing, though. If slice makes for a good/better approach shot, how come no pros -- male or female -- slice their FHs to approach?

 

[LeeD]

One of the big reasons you slice an approach shot is to create DEPTH with minamal net clearance.
Allmost every pro today, male or female, use a strong side of SW grip, all the way to full W and strong W's. That's a mighty big grip change on the forehand side, unsupported by the oft hand.
On the backhand side, few pros use more than SW backhand grips, and lots use conti strong hand grips....already the volley grip.
Think, if you have to approach with a western grip, do you have time to ACCURATELY switch to conti while making your approach?
Then again, if you switched to volley conti grip before your approach shot, can you find that grip accurately and repeatedly?
And if you watched Murray take apart Nadal, AussieO, you'll see some sliced forehand approaches.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

One of the big reasons you slice an approach shot is to create DEPTH with minamal net clearance.
Allmost every pro today, male or female, use a strong side of SW grip, all the way to full W and strong W's. That's a mighty big grip change on the forehand side, unsupported by the oft hand.
On the backhand side, few pros use more than SW backhand grips, and lots use conti strong hand grips....already the volley grip.
Think, if you have to approach with a western grip, do you have time to ACCURATELY switch to conti while making your approach?
Then again, if you switched to volley conti grip before your approach shot, can you find that grip accurately and repeatedly?
And if you watched Murray take apart Nadal, AussieO, you'll see some sliced forehand approaches.

You're forgetting that when you get into western/near western grips you can just shift one bevel further and hit with the other side of the racquet. That's what Nadal does when he drop shots off the forehand.

 

[LeeD]

..and that DOES get you to conti grip for your volley!
But convention is switching the other direction.
I guess you do what you practice.
For 2hbh, would you go from W forehand strong hand to conti going the direction you said Nadal uses? I suspect even Nadal goes conventional direction when he switches grips from strongSW forehands to backhand.
Also, given the nature of the use of the approach shot...ie...that ball is not getting to you and you have to MOVE to it forward and wide....you might not have both hands on the racket moving to the forehand side!

 

[Frank Silbermann]

One interesting thing, though. If slice makes for a good/better approach shot, how come no pros -- male or female -- slice their FHs to approach?

But they do. Watch John Newcomb, Ken Rosewall, Cliff Drysdale, Illie Nastase, Arthur Ashe. Jack Kramer was famous for his side-spin slightly sliced down-the-line forehand approach shot.

 

[GuyClinch]

I don't like the slice approach in doubles because the ball travels too slow and the net man can poach it easier. I think too many people on this thread are applying single's strategies to doubles.

The Bryan Brothers seem to use alot of flat/topspin on both sides and approach on pretty much every single groundstroke. I never see them stay back..

The slice advocates will chime in and say but if you hit the uber slice it will work..<g> But that shot is HARDER to hit then a very nice topspin forehand.

In singles though - a slice backhand is fine - even preferred provided you have it.

 

[Djokovicfan4life]

But they do. Watch John Newcomb, Ken Rosewall, Cliff Drysdale, Illie Nastase, Arthur Ashe. Jack Kramer was famous for his side-spin slightly sliced down-the-line forehand approach shot.

Not that I'm one of these people who thinks forehand slices are useless, or that today's tennis is so much better, but you have to use current examples with the changes in technology/court speed and such. I do see Federer use this shot occasionally, as well as some other players, but for the most part it looks like they shy away from it because their forehands are so big.

Like someone else said, half of the "approaches" you see in today's pro tennis are designed to be winners.

 

[olliess]

I do see Federer use this shot occasionally, as well as some other players, but for the most part it looks like they shy away from it because their forehands are so big.

Like someone else said, half of the "approaches" you see in today's pro tennis are designed to be winners.

Yup. The traditional slice backhand approach on a short ball to the backhand is to get to the net and finish the point.

These days (and pretty much since Lendl played, in fact) it seems like if you get a short ball to the forehand the point is mostly ended by a forehand winner.

 

[Cindysphinx]

I am watching the first set of Querrey v. um . . . that Argentinian fellow who is not Del Potro.

Anyway, Querrey is consistently serving out wide, getting a slowish return, and then smacking the next ball in the corner with topspin FH. His foe then hustles across the court, by which time Querrey is at the net to knock the next ball crosscourt for a volley winner.

John Newcomb must be spinning in his grave. Or retirement home.

 

[xFullCourtTenniSx]

Dang. I watched a bunch Vesnina v. Wozniaki. No slice approach shots. None. Only topspin approach shots.

If the slice is so clearly better, why aren't male or female pros using it more? Is it that the benefit of slowing the ball down more is of less value to them?

One of those players is a counterpuncher who to my knowledge isn't too comfortable being at net. Generally, if you try to get a pure baseliner that never practices their transition game to come to the net, they won't use a slice approach. They simply don't know how to hit it effectively or lack the confidence to use it when money is on the line.

And on the men's side, their slices are far better than the women's. Also, many male players use it. The women's side is more one dimensional and is comprised mainly of baseline-only players. You'd expect to see few approach shots, and only a small percentage of those rare approach shots will be slices. If anything, you almost only see slice approaches off the backhand side in the men's game. It's actually quite rare to see a drive or topspin approach unless the other guy is already at net too.

One interesting thing, though. If slice makes for a good/better approach shot, how come no pros -- male or female -- slice their FHs to approach?

It's been done. But overall, it's far more comfortable to slice off the backhand side than the forehand side. Also, the forehand is far more versatile than the backhand side. Federer and Nadal can practically hit winners off of ball that should be responded to with slice approaches. Few people practice a forehand slice, and few people would actually opt to approach with a shot that they don't practice.

I am watching the first set of Querrey v. um . . . that Argentinian fellow who is not Del Potro.

Anyway, Querrey is consistently serving out wide, getting a slowish return, and then smacking the next ball in the corner with topspin FH. His foe then hustles across the court, by which time Querrey is at the net to knock the next ball crosscourt for a volley winner.

John Newcomb must be spinning in his grave. Or retirement home.

When the ball is above the height of the net, the general rule of thumb is smack that baby into the open court. The reason for that is that if the ball is above the height of the net, you can easily hit that thing hard because topspin will be used for depth control. If it's below the height of the net, you have to hit up to get it over and use even more topspin to keep the ball in.

Also, after you hit a serve, if you get a weak response it will generally be a high ball.

 

[Off The Wall]

I hit a few slices in doubles yesterday. They were Emergency Slices. Both went up the middle against two net players, and the net players hit them into the net. Hmmmm.

I think this could be one differences between men's and women's rec tennis. The women who hit slice hit miserable, floating slice. I've only faced one woman recently with good slice -- a 4.0. Even then, I felt comfortable S&V against her slice, as it gave me more time to get there to volley it.

I wouldn't recommend hitting baseline slices against net players. Chip it, if you can drop the ball in front of them. But, no slicing.

Approach shots must be weighed: topspin vs. slice. On the forehand side you're probably stronger and have better control. You can use those assets to hit harder and deeper, therefore taking time away from your opponent.

Backhands are typically not as powerful or controlled, therefore slicing can give you more time to set up.

In doubles, you usually aren't going to knock a ball into a corner without a player around. Therefore, you have to ask yourself, do you need the time? Are you hitting to a lobber? (They love topspin.)

So, as long as you know what type of shot your shot is probably going to ellicit, you should be comfortable hitting any.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

That bit about generational differences seems on target.

And I hadn't considered the issue of slowing the flight of the ball with spin being an advantage of the slice approach shot. In practice, I guess this means you'd want to consider slice when you are farther from the net. If you are already pretty close to the net because the short ball is very short, then you don't need more time and should just hit topspin.

I always figured topspin was useful on an approach because it tends to back up the opponent, which gives me more time to react to the shot.

Alas, Djokovicfan4life, I need to prioritize. I only have so much time for practice and instruction. Every year, I put off learning a 1HBH slice because . . . well, I am still working on the basics. I mean, I can hit a 1HBH slice, but it's not a good one so I just use it for emergencies . . . .

The fact that slice moves more slowly through the air also gives you the chance to CLOSE on the net, cutting down your opponents angles for the pass. BHBH

 

[MNPlayer]

One interesting thing, though. If slice makes for a good/better approach shot, how come no pros -- male or female -- slice their FHs to approach?

I saw a pretty decent college player in a recent tournament that sliced his forehand very frequently, not just for approaches. He got to the semis in the open singles and won the doubles. He's a obviously a doubles specialist.

Surprisingly, those slices were often kind of short, not as short as a true drop shot but still seemed to give a lot of guys fits, especially since he had an sweet lob to follow up with

Just goes to show that there are many ways to play this game. Watching that guy has inspired me to start practicing those off-speed shots more.

 

[skiracer55]

What they all said...

...and here's some other stuff to consider:

- Somebody mentioned that a good slice backhand can really help your backhand volley and your chip return. I look at it a slightly different way, which is that there are two keystone shots in tennis: the backhand volley and the overhead. If you have a good overhead, you have a good overhead, which something you may not need often, but it's nice to have it when you need it...and you also have the foundation for a good serve. If you have a good backhand volley, presto, it's an easy transition to a slice backhand and to a chip backhand return, which I use all the time against big servers.

- Yes, there probably aren't a whole lot of ATP/WTA pros who use a slice approach off either side a whole lot, but it's a useful thing to have. I guarantee you that Federer can slice his approach off both sides, and if you look at last year's Wimbledon final, I promise you he did so against Roddick at least a few times....and I haven't even gone back to watch the match to ensure that this is the case. Some players eat up slice approaches (or just slices in a rally), others eat up topspin shots. Very few players love either slice or topspin when they have to come up with a passing shot. So it pays, IMHO, to have both.

- The quality of the slice matters, absolutely. Slice backhand, either approach shot or in a rally, is one of my best shots. When I hit it cleanly, it has a lot of pace, good depth (or angle, if that's what I want...sometimes a short, angled slice that makes the opponent move is the best approach), tons of underspin, and stays low. I always thought it was a decent shot, but when I was coached by the CU Men's team coaches, my slice backhand was the one shot they never messed with. They felt like my slice backhand was one of the best they'd ever seen, and that I should use it a lot, because most players hate having to rally or come up with passing shots against my slice backhand. So, yeah, a slice backhand that floats and sits up, or whatever, is probably suboptimal. Again, to develop a good slice backhand groundstroke, tune up your backhand volley. It's a very similar motion.

- As somebody else mentioned, an approach shot is just something to get you up to the net. Yep, it'd be wonderful if you could always hit a winner off the approach, and then you wouldn't even have to volley, and sometimes this happens. If you work your opponent out of position and get a short ball, if you have a hole you can drive a truck through, hit a heavy, safe ball into the hole and wade into the net, just in case it comes back.

The next best approach shot is one where you force your opponent to give you the next ball in a spot where you can easily knock off the next volley. For example, you get a short ball, hit it deep down the line, come in and cover that lane, volley the next ball cross court for a winner. In this situation, you're really using smart court position to give you a volley where you want it. Maybe you've got a better chance of getting an error with a slice against some opponents or topspin against other opponents, but because you're trying to use good court position to turn the advantage your way, the most important aspect of the down-the-line approach in this situation is to get it in. I can generally direct a slice a little more finely than topspin, so if I want to thread the needle with an approach, I'll usually use slice. John Newcombe used to say that an approach is like a chip up to the green in golf...it's nice if you manage to hole it out for birdie, or whatever, but the most important thing is to get it somewhere near the cup so your next putt is a gimme.

Finally, the good thing about having topspin and slice is that a lot of times, when you get an opportunity to hit an approach and come in, it's a situation like a short ball you weren't expecting and that you just barely get to. Maybe the right answer is a heavy topspin shot to wherever, but if I'm late off the mark and I just get to the ball, I'll just use a soft dink or chip or whatever to pass the problem back to the other guy, and wade in and try to anticipate the return. As Peter Burwash once said, "Tennis is a series of controlled emergencies", and the more tools you have, the more chances you have to turn an emergency into a winning point...

 

[Cindysphinx]

OK, I decided to spend some time to learn this shot. I had a lesson, so we started from scratch to learn 1HBH slice.

After about 30 minutes, I kinda sorta had it. My problems are . . . you guessed it: Footwork. If I'm moving, the slice is pretty good. If I am static, the slice bites [edit: "bites" as in it sucks.]

I can see that this will make a nifty approach shot off of short and low balls. My homework is to practice, practice and then practice some more. Pro wants me to use the slice BH at every opportunity to get the hang of it. We have team practice on Saturday, so I will slice everything I can.

I still don't love the slice, but it will surely come in handy against super-hard serves, against players who don't move forward well and against players who can't handle low balls.

 

[skiracer55]

Good stuff....

OK, I decided to spend some time to learn this shot. I had a lesson, so we started from scratch to learn 1HBH slice.

After about 30 minutes, I kinda sorta had it. My problems are . . . you guessed it: Footwork. If I'm moving, the slice is pretty good. If I am static, the slice bites [edit: "bites" as in it sucks.]

I can see that this will make a nifty approach shot off of short and low balls. My homework is to practice, practice and then practice some more. Pro wants me to use the slice BH at every opportunity to get the hang of it. We have team practice on Saturday, so I will slice everything I can.

I still don't love the slice, but it will surely come in handy against super-hard serves, against players who don't move forward well and against players who can't handle low balls.

...stick with it, and you'll soon have a new weapon in your arsenal. New stuff is always hard, but usually worth it, in the long run. After an entire career of hitting basically Continental forehands, it took all kinds of teaching aids (including but not limited to Mass Quantities of Victoria Bitters with my Aussie coach...) to get me to hit two consecutive open-stance, semi-Western forehands over the net...worth every penny (and drop...) though...

 

[larry10s]

OK, I decided to spend some time to learn this shot. I had a lesson, so we started from scratch to learn 1HBH slice.

After about 30 minutes, I kinda sorta had it. My problems are . . . you guessed it: Footwork. If I'm moving, the slice is pretty good. If I am static, the slice bites [edit: "bites" as in it sucks.]

I can see that this will make a nifty approach shot off of short and low balls. My homework is to practice, practice and then practice some more. Pro wants me to use the slice BH at every opportunity to get the hang of it. We have team practice on Saturday, so I will slice everything I can.

I still don't love the slice, but it will surely come in handy against super-hard serves, against players who don't move forward well and against players who can't handle low balls.

it will come in handy when you face a serve and vollier and you chip your return at their feet.. it will come in handy as your backhand volley gets better.it will come in handy when you kill them with your backhand drop shot.

 

[In D Zone]

never hurt to learn a new weapon like the slice. I like to give my opponent different looks especially of approach shots.

Aside from being able to hit your shots on both sides (x or dtl), using different tactics really confuses your opponent.

as noted by others, learning slice will help gain more confidence with volleys. so its a win-win proposition.

 

[Slazenger07]

^That makes a lot of sense. I played a lady once who it short slice balls. Of course, since they were short, I figured I'd just run up and hit a topspin approach. Trouble was, my racket actually banged on the ground trying to get under them.

I decided the solution was to move my butt and get up to them sooner, and that worked. I think my success rate would have been 10% had I tried to slice those balls deep. And heaven help me if she was coming in also. Crunch!

One interesting thing, though. If slice makes for a good/better approach shot, how come no pros -- male or female -- slice their FHs to approach?

Some pros will slice their forehands and approach(watch Murray), Ive definitely seen it done. One reason I think its not done more often is forehand slices are generally not as penetrating as the backhand slice therefore, the ball sits up a bit more and gives the opponent a better look at the pass, and at the pro level a little better look is all these guys need to burn you on the pass.

At your level though slicing a forehand approach probably wont get you in trouble, if anything it will throw your opponents off balance a bit because theyre likely not used to seeing it. Good idea imo.

However if Ive got a choice between slice or topspin approach off the forehand, Im gonna go with the topspin 90% of the time. Backhand is a different story, numbers would be reversed, (90% slice approach) but thats because my backhand slice is better than my forehand slice(more control, more penetrating, just a better shot for me)