How does the tennis serve technique influence the serve-and-volley?

[julian]

How does the tennis serve technique influence the serve-and-volley?
J Sports Sci. 2012;30(11):1149-56. Epub 2012 Jun 6.

Martin C, Bideau B, Nicolas G, Delamarche P, Kulpa R.


M2S Laboratory, UFR APS, Rennes 2 University, Rennes, France. caromartin@numericable.fr
Abstract

In tennis, a high ball velocity and a fast run toward the net are key features to successful performance of "serve-and-volley" players. For the serve, tennis players can use two techniques: the foot-up (FU) or foot-back (FB) technique. The aim of this study was to determine if the running time toward the net after the serve and the ball velocity (V(ball)) vary between these two techniques. Moreover we analysed the angular momentum values of the trunk and of the arm holding the racquet. Fifteen expert tennis players performed six successful serve-and-volleys with both techniques. Running time to the net is significantly lower for FB, whereas V(ball) is significantly higher for FU. Trunk and arm angular momentums about the transverse axis are significantly higher with FU before ball impact. A significant correlation (r = 0.81, P < 0.001) exists between changes in the maximal trunk angular momentum and in running time to the net between the two serve techniques. A significant correlation (r = 0.84, P < 0.001) also exists between changes in the maximal trunk angular momentum and in V(ball) between the two serve techniques.


According to these results, FB is the best technique for moving as quickly as possible to the net because of a lower trunk angular momentum.

 

[julian]

How to get the full text of the article quoted above?

I was able to get the full text sending a request to the E-mail address provided
above-THE FOURTH LINE of the text

 

[LeeD]

I"m no scientist, but rather a dumb artist.
I assume foot back means platform stance?
Since I played back in the late '70's, I use pinpoint to get to net, with my momentum already started. I get to net late.
Edberg, Rafter, and Cash get to net early and deep, as did McEnroe. They all had slow serves compared to their peers.
Dr.Ivo, Roddick, and Milos have fast serves. They seldom get within 2' of their service line by the time they are forced to volley...talking first flat serves.
Now, is a moving start with feet together quicker than a static start with feet apart?
For sure, a wide reciever would choose feet apart, but he's required to be static stopped before the ball is hiked.
A base stealer in baseball needs BOTH to insure a stolen base.

 

[2ndServe]

can you post the entire study/text?

 

[julian]

Please request from the E-mail address

can you post the entire study/text?

THE FOURTH LINE of the text-post #1 above
A different E-mail address,NOT mine
Thank you

 

[julian]

Your difficult question

I"m no scientist, but rather a dumb artist.
I assume foot back means platform stance?
Since I played back in the late '70's, I use pinpoint to get to net, with my momentum already started. I get to net late.
Edberg, Rafter, and Cash get to net early and deep, as did McEnroe. They all had slow serves compared to their peers.
Dr.Ivo, Roddick, and Milos have fast serves. They seldom get within 2' of their service line by the time they are forced to volley...talking first flat serves.
Now, is a moving start with feet together quicker than a static start with feet apart?
For sure, a wide reciever would choose feet apart, but he's required to be static stopped before the ball is hiked.
A base stealer in baseball needs BOTH to insure a stolen base.

LeeD,
the full text has the following piece

"According to Elliott
and Wood (1983), some players bring the back foot
up to the front foot prior to pushing backward and
downward (‘‘foot-up [FU] technique’’), whereas the
others leave the rear foot back during the early
movement of the racquet and then swing this foot
around and forward prior to impact (‘‘foot-back [FB]
technique’’)."
I am NOT sure whether it will help
I do NOT think "foot back" is exactly pinpoint
but it close
I can investigate but it will take time
because I am slow.
Please let me know that you saw this post
Regards,
Julian

 

[LeeD]

Thanks.
As you might know, not only am I computer illiterate, but I'm on a cheap old version of a computer that barely allow me to download anything on goggle...
Bringing the backfoot up on serves is pinpoint.
Leaving the feet spread apart is platform.
I think it makes no difference as far as getting to net.
Case study of 12 players doesn't mean a thing.

 

[LuckyR]

How does the tennis serve technique influence the serve-and-volley?
J Sports Sci. 2012;30(11):1149-56. Epub 2012 Jun 6.

Martin C, Bideau B, Nicolas G, Delamarche P, Kulpa R.


M2S Laboratory, UFR APS, Rennes 2 University, Rennes, France. caromartin@numericable.fr
Abstract

In tennis, a high ball velocity and a fast run toward the net are key features to successful performance of "serve-and-volley" players. For the serve, tennis players can use two techniques: the foot-up (FU) or foot-back (FB) technique. The aim of this study was to determine if the running time toward the net after the serve and the ball velocity (V(ball)) vary between these two techniques. Moreover we analysed the angular momentum values of the trunk and of the arm holding the racquet. Fifteen expert tennis players performed six successful serve-and-volleys with both techniques. Running time to the net is significantly lower for FB, whereas V(ball) is significantly higher for FU. Trunk and arm angular momentums about the transverse axis are significantly higher with FU before ball impact. A significant correlation (r = 0.81, P < 0.001) exists between changes in the maximal trunk angular momentum and in running time to the net between the two serve techniques. A significant correlation (r = 0.84, P < 0.001) also exists between changes in the maximal trunk angular momentum and in V(ball) between the two serve techniques.


According to these results, FB is the best technique for moving as quickly as possible to the net because of a lower trunk angular momentum.

What was the difference in time, in distance, serve speed and did it matter if the preference of the player was one or the other?

 

[boramiNYC]

I'm with you leeD. these scientists should realize tennis is an art. there s lot of room to make up for technical variations for success.

 

[LeeD]

Well, I used to crack up watching a JayBerger play at the top of 7.0, serve and volley with success, and make his size and lack of whatever work for him.
So I know there are many many different ways to skin a cat.

 

[julian]

Difference in time to the net

What was the difference in time, in distance, serve speed and did it matter if the preference of the player was one or the other?

LuckyR,
difference in time to the net is 7/100 of second

Some comments of mine:
1.7/100 of sec translates into 1.4 foot of distance

2.The time to come to the net (IN ONE HOP) is 1.5 of sec (BALLPARK).

3.One may argue that IF one does serve and volley in TWO HOPS the gain is REDUCED to .7 of FOOT
(i.e A 1.4 of FOOT divided by 2)

4.A lean angle is NOT discussed in the paper

5.The duration of the FIRST foot-floor contact during the server's landing period is discussed in the paper.

6.The highest ranked ATP player analyzed in the paper was of rank 88

 

[Power Player]

I agree that tennis is an art, and you have to be comfortable and in a rhythm to be a strong server. But i still find it interesting since all modern footwork on groundies has been dissected to death and does make a huge difference in court coverage and balance. On serve it is not as discussed, but for a rec player one thing to think about is this : are you recovering fast enough after your serve to handle a ball being returned back at your feet?

In my experience this is something ignored by a lot of players, and while it is not serve and volley it is still an indicator of a stance or footwork issue on serve many times.

 

[boramiNYC]

nowadays jump became essential and universal part of serve technique in pros and landing is pretty much the same as well. really I don't think pinpoint or platform makes any difference in ability to come in quickly. it's all in the minds and tendency and habits and developed style and competence in volleying and footwork that are much more significant for S&V than serving technique IMO.

 

[julian]

Response to your post

nowadays jump became essential and universal part of serve technique in pros and landing is pretty much the same as well. really I don't think pinpoint or platform makes any difference in ability to come in quickly. it's all in the minds and tendency and habits and developed style and competence in volleying and footwork that are much more significant for S&V than serving technique IMO.

I will expand post #11
so you will get a response to your post as well

 

[LeeD]

What I see.....
Pinpoint, your momentum is already moving forwards...more so than with platform.
Platform, you can start moving forwards quicker with your feet already apart.
Result, maybe a tie?

 

[3fees]

Interesting, Bob Lutz(Stan Smith Dbl pard) is an acclaimed serve and volley tennis pro,,He uses a topspin serve and comes in behind it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lutz_(tennis)


:mrgreen:

 

[LeeD]

IF I remember correctly, Bobby could serve well into the highest 130's on flat first serves, used a heavily arched pinpoint service motion, and served every serve in the book.
The only match I watched of him, he double bagelled my friend, PeterPearson.
Guy was strong as a whip, gave no quarter, heavily muscled for a tennis player, and had the knee band around one of his knees.
I think he lost in the next round, the second, rather badly.

 

[purple-n-gold]

I vaguely remember seeing Lutz and Smith on TV, Mac and Fleming were coming into their own and taking the crown, Lutz did have a big serve, have to search some YouTube files.

 

[LeeD]

By the time Fleming and Mac came onto the scene, maybe '80's, Lutz must have been over 35 years of age, and body broken already 7 years. His game was wear and tear on his body, not simple elegance like a Rameriz.
Bobby was one macho guy, and played like it.

 

[LuckyR]

LuckyR,
difference in time to the net is 7/100 of second

Some comments of mine:
1.7/100 of sec translates into 1.4 foot of distance

2.The time to come to the net (IN ONE HOP) is 1.5 of sec (BALLPARK).

3.One may argue that IF one does serve and volley in TWO HOPS the gain is REDUCED to .7 of FOOT
(i.e A 1.4 of FOOT divided by 2)

4.A lean angle is NOT discussed in the paper

5.The duration of the FIRST foot-floor contact during the server's landing period is discussed in the paper.

6.The highest ranked ATP player analyzed in the paper was of rank 88

Was the paper able to say if the better distance covered with FB, was in additon to the effect of a slower serve speed with that technique, or merely because of it?

 

[LeeD]

But back to the original topic....
Makes no difference, as few player ALWAYS S/V or always stay back.
I still think platform is more accurate, while pinpoint can have more power.
Neither is better or worse for staying back OR S/V.
Plenty of examples to prove it.

 

[LuckyR]

Well, it makes perfect sense that one style would be better for getting closer to the net. The real question is: is it doing so by making the serve slower thereby giving more time to approach closer? If so then I don't need a different stance to hit slower, I can do that with my original stance.

 

[LeeD]

Here is where you should probably try both motions.
I just did that 1/2 hour ago. Platform is more accurate, pin more power, and get's you in a hair sooner, but maybe not in control that I can handle after serving pinpoint for 29 years.
Platform IS slightly slower.
You can extrapolate advantages and disadvantages any way you want, but it ends up a question of player preference.