Start Volleying says Navratilova

[Yours!05]

Use your mentality, wake up to reality, and start volleying

Martina Navratilova
Tuesday June 28, 2005
The Guardian

It is time to develop the volley again. People are losing that skill in tennis because kids have not been taught how to play points, how to think about what to do next. They should be taught about moving into the court. The players today are great at moving from side to side but they're not coming forward. Tennis academies in the US have been focusing for years on teaching great ground strokes but they're not teaching the variety of shot or the structure of a point. It means that not many players volley nowadays so the contrasting styles is what I feel is missing from the game today

Roger Federer is the ideal player. He plays beautifully from the baseline, he can serve and volley when he feels like it or the situation calls for it, he can chip and charge or sneak in during a rally when he sees the opponent in trouble - in other words he can do it all. Mind you there used to be a bunch of players who could do it all, but they didn't do it as well as Federer.
Twenty years ago at least 10 of the top 20 women would serve and volley, and even more on the men's side. Now there are no women doing that while among the men only Tim Henman, Taylor Dent, Max Mirnyi and Jonas Bjorkman are true serve-and-volleyers - and none of them is in the quarter-finals.

Everyone on the circuit can return better. The rackets have improved and they help with the ground strokes. People can hit passing shots from 10 feet behind the baseline now. It used to be that if you played a very good sliced approach down the line you would win the point nine times out of 10. Now it's maybe 50-50. It's much easier to keep the ball down with a lot of top-spin, so you need to volley really well to be effective at the net.

That's something the next generation needs. They need to experiment more. Everyone hits great groundstrokes now, they've pushed that as far as they can, so you have to wonder where does the extra edge come from?

It's easier to put the ball away from the net than it is from the baseline but if you don't hit a good volley you're a sitting duck. Coming to the net is a calculated risk: the quality of your approach shot, the location of your opponent and how well you can volley decides how much of a risk it is.

I remember when I played Zina Garrison in the semi-finals at Eastbourne in 1983 and I was coming in on everything, real "banzai!" stuff. She was hitting spectacular passing shots from impossible angles, but I won 6-2, 6-3. I was taking calculated risks, and it worked.

Baseliners have a different mentality: if they come to the net and get passed they get all embarrassed and don't come in again. People have said tennis is a mental game and they are right, because you need the confidence and the ability to think on your feet about tactics as well as making technical adjustments. That is why it's easier to be confident if you've done things 100 times on the practice courts and you know you can hit the ball in a certain way in a certain situation.

Technically and tactically the top players are superior and that is one reason why they hold up better under pressure. But overall the playing field has levelled - when you take out Federer.

Slowing down the court at Wimbledon has affected that, because the ball sits up a lot more, bouncing slower and higher than it used to. They changed the courts because there were no rallies in men's tennis. Suddenly the women's game was getting better TV ratings, and we can't have that when we pay more prize money to the men's champion. But the change has definitely made the tennis better.

But what is the point of the prize money difference? Are they making a statement? It seems to me we might never have parity no matter how many superstars there are in the women's game.

With the Williams sisters around there is always drama. Apparently there was an uproar when Venus Williams said that Serena will not come back to Wimbledon, but she only meant this year. I think Venus is relieved about not having to play her sister -that's hell - but yesterday she was all business.

Even though Serena has missed out here, they're both too young for anyone to be calling this the end of an era. Maybe they don't bring the fear into their opponents that they used to.

Players used to turn up to play them hoping not to be embarrassed, and now they think they have a real chance of winning. Maybe Venus and Serena haven't lived up to the high standards they set earlier in their careers. It is certainly much more difficult to get that aura of invincibility than it is to lose it. But writing them off? Not yet - and certainly not me

 

[West Coast Ace]

Nice article - until she threw in the bitterness about the prize money. Deal with it Martina, men bring in more cash. 3 out of 5 means more TV commercials. And the early rounds of a ladies tournament are boring - if they held their Slams separately they'd have to seriously discount the tickets - only friends, family, and stalkers would show up. The men's would be sold out.

Maybe tomorrow she'll lecture us on going back to wood rackets and white balls.

 

[wildbill88AA]

easy to say when you were the quickest, strongest player of your era. but players should play more doubles and finish more points at the net. roddick had some nice volleys today. geez, no trashing of sharapova in the article?

 

[AndrewD]

Why shouldn't she bring up the prize money difference? Given her history with the WTA it would be shameful if she was just willing to let it slide. Navratilova is the last link to that past and, as the current players (with the possible exception of Davenport) fail to exhibit even the slightest understanding of the 'dark ages' and who they have to thank for their current financial status, then she has to keep banging the drum. She's right though, Wimbledon is making a statement or, in other words, they're being beligerent for the sake of being beligerent.

Simple solution on the women's front would be to allow X number of doubles results to count towards a singles ranking. Not only would it allow people to see the top women playing doubles it would lessen the chance that someone could play the minimum singles tournaments and maintain a top ranking.

 

[AngeloDS]

I feel what's more important is footwork. Volleys, Strokes, Serves, Returns... anything basically they all are weak without proper footwork and foot placement.

It'd be nice to see the finesse game.

 

[Exile]

I don't think they should be playing more doubles.

Charlie Hollis told Laver that he shouldn't be messing with that sort of thing, it takes away from what you would need to concentrate on.

Because no one remembers the double's team that won wimby, but the one man that takes it all is remembered forever.

Or something like that.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Why shouldn't she bring up the prize money difference?

Do you know what an editor does? He (or she) reviews articles and fixes errors - and checks to make sure the article stays on topic. Martina starts off with a nice discussion of tennis tactics. Then she makes a U-turn, takes a few Bitter Pills, and starts a rant about inequality in prize money.

 

[AndrewD]

Exile,

that sentiment is fine if, like Laver, you know how to volley and play an attacking, net-rushing game. He didn't need to learn how to finish points off. The women, on the other hand (and a number of the men - Hewitt is a prime candidate) do need the extra motivation.

Charlie Hollis was talking to possibly the greatest tennis player of all time, not someone who only goes to the net to shake hands. Laver and, later on, Edberg, Becker and Sampras didn't need to play much doubles in order to learn net play. They were attacking players who looked to finish points at the net, not retreated every time an opportunity arose.

 

[AndrewD]

Do you know what an editor does? He (or she) reviews articles and fixes errors - and checks to make sure the article stays on topic. Martina starts off with a nice discussion of tennis tactics. Then she makes a U-turn, takes a few Bitter Pills, and starts a rant about inequality in prize money.

I think I've got a vague idea of what an editor does. Sort of comes with the territory when you work in public relations as a writer. Do you know what an opinion piece is? That's where you give your opinion on one or a range of topics. Do you also realise that one article is most likely cobbled together from several pieces? That cut and paste is what an editor does.

 

[NoBadMojo]

i think, with all due respect to martina, you cant merely say come into the net more. it's just not that simple. players dont serve volley like they used to because you really cant win that way very much these days playing that style. also being at the net now isnt like it was in the 'old equipment days' when you made a good approach shot, you could get the player off balance, and that was all you needed to get an ue, or a ball you could volley away..now a days, with the gear the way it is, players can flick off winning passing shots hitting off balance and off the backfoot. watch nadal when he flicks a backhand passing shot winner with a very abbreviated swing. also the modern gear has benefitted the service return game far more than the serving game, so that makes serve/volley even less plausible. fed can certanly play serve and volley yet he oftens chooses not to, because the percentages just are no longer there, even for a serve/volley player...sure you have guys like dent and myrni playing serve volley, bt that is mostly because they arent so good from the backcourt. edberg had to learn to play more from the backcourt as the game changed and ditto for rafter..the service returns were simply passing their serves by. my .o2

 

[GrassCourtFan]

(and a number of the men - Hewitt is a prime candidate)

Hewitt is a former Grand Slam Doubles champion. 2000 US Open, with Mirnyi. He knows how to volley... he just doesn't have the serve or the power to make his way in much in singles, and knows that he can win from the baseline anyway.

 

[Andy Hewitt]

Oh man... w-w-we better do what he says...

 

[Yours!05]

NoBadMojo
Problem is, to me (and others), part of the game is missing and parts of the court are unused. If a player could use them, he/she would have more options - instead of being caught mid-court, volleying into net etc.
You describe the current situation perfectly, but will a middle ground arise? I can only think of parallels from Aussie sports - and I think I'll stay away from Baseball.
To topple Federer, who uses those skills, and who has employed someone to help develop them further, surely other serious contenders will need to do the same?

 

[Exile]

Exile,

that sentiment is fine if, like Laver, you know how to volley and play an attacking, net-rushing game. He didn't need to learn how to finish points off. The women, on the other hand (and a number of the men - Hewitt is a prime candidate) do need the extra motivation.

Charlie Hollis was talking to possibly the greatest tennis player of all time, not someone who only goes to the net to shake hands. Laver and, later on, Edberg, Becker and Sampras didn't need to play much doubles in order to learn net play. They were attacking players who looked to finish points at the net, not retreated every time an opportunity arose.

That's the problem, I understand that.
I know more work on volleys is needed, but going to play doubles at a grand slam event while being in the singles draw is not a smart thing to do, considering the level of the game these days.

Charlie literally taught Laver everything he knew, volleying wasn't a problem at all. These days, everything is taken care of from the baseline, and it's just harder to play the S&V game because of it.

So there is nothing wrong with practicing the stroke to enhance the game, just not at a GS playing 2 draws.

 

[urban]

When I saw yesterday the Federer-Ferrero match, I had to think that Federer - despite all his class - would not get away with his baseline game against a true attacking player like Edberg, Becker or Sampras, not to speak of lefthanders with a slice serve like Laver or McEnroe. There was so often an open court for Ferrero to follow up - it made me blink. Federer brings back a lot of returns, but many are floating tamely over the net - a perfect prey for a serve and volleyer. Two years ago against Roddick and Philippoussis Federer was much more aggressive and came into the net after first and second serves, using his great slice serve to follow up. Since last year he has given up on it.

 

[AndrewD]

Exile,

That's why I said, 'X number of tournaments'. I understand the top players might be unwilling to add doubles to their schedule at the major tournaments but it wouldnt be hard to work out, in conjunction with the players, which ones could be part of that 'x number'. Truthfully, the majors dont need them playing doubles as much as the smaller tournaments do so it would be better for all concerned if those matches were played at the smaller events. Of course, there would be no requirement that they play singles at the same event.

 

[jeebeesus]

tell her dont talk , show....

 

[NoBadMojo]

Yours. I agree with you, but the pros will play whatever style gives them the best chance to win, and that mot usually doesnt involve being at the net. 'm happy to have learned all of the shots and still try and find my way to net as much as i can, but serve volley just doesnt make sense full time. I would love to see more variety in the game. I cant even get some of my lessons to try and learn to volley.
Urban. Federer would adjust his service return accordingly if he was playing someone who was playng serve/volley. you dont think he returns serve the same way against everyone do you?

 

[Babblelot]

i think, with all due respect to martina, you cant merely say come into the net more. it's just not that simple. players dont serve volley like they used to because you really cant win that way very much these days playing that style. also being at the net now isnt like it was in the 'old equipment days' when you made a good approach shot, you could get the player off balance, and that was all you needed to get an ue, or a ball you could volley away..now a days, with the gear the way it is, players can flick off winning passing shots hitting off balance and off the backfoot. watch nadal when he flicks a backhand passing shot winner with a very abbreviated swing. also the modern gear has benefitted the service return game far more than the serving game, so that makes serve/volley even less plausible. fed can certanly play serve and volley yet he oftens chooses not to, because the percentages just are no longer there, even for a serve/volley player...sure you have guys like dent and myrni playing serve volley, bt that is mostly because they arent so good from the backcourt. edberg had to learn to play more from the backcourt as the game changed and ditto for rafter..the service returns were simply passing their serves by. my .o2

Good stuff!

 

[urban]

Indeed, Mojo, Federer would adjust and play different returns. But I think he changed his game since two years ago (not to blame Tony Roche). In 2003 he demolished Roddick and - in parts - Philippoussis by constantly attacking the net. Last year he began to stay back and run into trouble against Roddick, who plays essentially hard court tennis. The general problem is not the serve, but the death of the volley. Some reasons might be the increase of baseline power, the predominant western forhand grip, the doublehander on the backhand, the lack of doubles play. But the foremost reason is the influential philosophy of the Bollettieri school: Big serve, big forehand, walk around the backhand and go to the net to shake hands.

 

[bertrevert]

Federer did not S&V much against Ferrero because the latter hits high with much topspin. Volleying the constnatly dipping ball in low light to my mind would be a less safe game plan than the way he played it - from the baseline. I'd say it worked for him!

Navratilova is right though. But I think there is contrasts of styles and that there is classic match-ups and that they won't disappear just that the terms of the engagement have changed.

For instance Hewitt d. Dent was a real contrast. But then a Davenport d. Clijsters really wan't a contrast at all.

The contrasts are more subtle now. You have an all-court player playing antoher using the tactics and techniques that work on a point-by-point basis. No player would set themselves out in a strait-jacket of only S&V or only baseline because everyone else would study and own them far too quickly. Navratilova's analysis doesn't seem to say anything new or characterise today's situation very clearly.

 

[iscottius]

i think, with all due respect to martina, you cant merely say come into the net more. it's just not that simple. players dont serve volley like they used to because you really cant win that way very much these days playing that style. also being at the net now isnt like it was in the 'old equipment days' when you made a good approach shot, you could get the player off balance, and that was all you needed to get an ue, or a ball you could volley away..now a days, with the gear the way it is, players can flick off winning passing shots hitting off balance and off the backfoot. watch nadal when he flicks a backhand passing shot winner with a very abbreviated swing. also the modern gear has benefitted the service return game far more than the serving game, so that makes serve/volley even less plausible. fed can certanly play serve and volley yet he oftens chooses not to, because the percentages just are no longer there, even for a serve/volley player...sure you have guys like dent and myrni playing serve volley, bt that is mostly because they arent so good from the backcourt. edberg had to learn to play more from the backcourt as the game changed and ditto for rafter..the service returns were simply passing their serves by. my .o2

bingo---if they could win today doing it (S&V) they would focus more on it and Martina made my case when she said

"among the men only Tim Henman, Taylor Dent, Max Mirnyi and Jonas Bjorkman are true serve-and-volleyers - and none of them is in the quarter-finals"

 

[NoBadMojo]

urban, other players got better too, including Roddick..i think fed has done pretty darn well playing roddick..he had more problems earlier with the likes of nalbandian and a couple others than he ever did with roddick. I have no idea what the Roche influence has been. I found it ironic that when Roche and Fed first hooked up, Fed started including the drop shot in his game. i agree with you about nicks evil influence, but if the gear didnt best support that style of play, then his build your game around a weapon (the forehand) wouldnt have been successful. i think nick s just one of those anomolies that happen every so often that change the face of smething. reality is, it's much easier to hang at the baseline and win that way than to learn all the shots, so people take the path of least resistence. also agree with you about the effect of the lack of doubles play, but if you notice, there is more high level doubles being played with both back and even one up and one back which used to be a no no, so there is even less volleying in dubs these days. did you happen to watch the olympic doubles the last time?? if i couldnt play all court T and had to <just> hang at the baseline, i dont think i would even be playing tennis..it would be boring to me <but that's just my opinion>. also i always try and teach all the shots if the people are willing to learn them.tangential post..sorry.
oh..thanks for the good words Babblelot..exceedingly rare around here, where people would prefer to slam someone instead of having a fair reasoned conversation.

 

[North]

NoBadMojo - I think the observation that it's a lot easier to learn and play a baseline game, rather than learn all the shots, pretty much nails why most people are not eager to volley. It's just harder to get good at and maybe harder psychologically to keep getting passed but take the risk at the net anyway. I don't think it's possible anymore to win strictly with S&V but the game is more fun for me when I get up to the net and I love seeing it in the few pros who routinely go to net.

 

[Babblelot]

Patrick Rafter, one of my all-time favs, was a pleasant throw-back. But his star shined very briefly and burned out way too early.

Does it then follow that S&V is very grueling both physically and mentally???

 

[joe sch]

When I saw yesterday the Federer-Ferrero match, I had to think that Federer - despite all his class - would not get away with his baseline game against a true attacking player like Edberg, Becker or Sampras, not to speak of lefthanders with a slice serve like Laver or McEnroe. There was so often an open court for Ferrero to follow up - it made me blink. Federer brings back a lot of returns, but many are floating tamely over the net - a perfect prey for a serve and volleyer. Two years ago against Roddick and Philippoussis Federer was much more aggressive and came into the net after first and second serves, using his great slice serve to follow up. Since last year he has given up on it.

I agree with this. Federer plays a more agressive allcourt game than most of the other top contenders, which gives him the edge. If Edberg, Becker or Sampras were still around, I think Federer's game would have to be alot more agressive. He could not get away with all those bh slice returns, they would be volleyed away. The best SV players today are henmen and dent and they do not compare to Edberg, Becker or Sampras. I think that if Safin had the confidence to SV on grass, he would still be in the tournament and probably have a wimbledon title.

 

[NoBadMojo]

Edberg, Becker, and even Sampras are from a different game <era>..the game has changed that much that fast i think, so i dont think you can even compare. comparing then to know is never relative IMO...the metaphor is different. it is great to pull out old sampras and edberg and rafter matches though....edbergs volleys were so pure,and rafter is such a great athlete. tennis needs more athletes rather than trained tennis players IMO.

 

[Rabbit]

I don't see anything wrong with what Martina has said, including her prize money comments. She has a perfect right to say anything and is more than likely doing what a leader should do, she's trying to get as much as she can for her peers. I don't agree with equal prize money for the womens' game but don't think bitter applies here.

With regard to her comments about tennis. She kind of defeats her argument when she lists the serve/volley players and then says none of them are in the QFs. I don't disagree with her, but like some other posters have said, you have to stay with what wins.

She should also notice that most of the top pros are trying to come in more. Roddick has been the most notable of these players. The problem is not their net play, rather the transition or approach game which seems foreign to all of them. A player at that level simply cannot approach crosscourt the majority of the time and expect to win any points. There is too much court left open.

I also agree on the assessment of Federer's game. It does look like he's attacking less and staying back more. I don't know if it's because he feels he doesn't have to attack or he's just less motivated to attack, but I too thought he went to net more a couple of years ago.

 

[NoBadMojo]

i think fed stays back more because that is the right play which is my original point. service returns and passing shots (groundstrokes) have just gotten too good and have gotten better at a faster rate than the serve has gotten better. i think it is pretty hard to dispute what a genuis like fed does and with a little help from tony roche who is pretty yoda like in his wisdom i think..if fed could win easier by being at net more, he would do that..he certainly knows how. there really is almost no reason for an approach shot any more...short balls that used to be responded to with an approach shot, now routinely get put away

 

[Hartzy]

To compare serving and volley as well as ground strokes from past to present, one must also compare the lobb. Marat Safin, who oddly enough has good reflexes at the net, can hit a lobb that has so much spin that it can still retain speed. So even if you get a good approach shot and charge, many players can hit a lobb that actually is an offensive shot and not rather a shot to bail them out.

 

[ktncnttl]

Let them eat cake....... That's what I heard when people say start volleying more.

 

[fastdunn]

i think fed stays back more because that is the right play which is my original point. service returns and passing shots (groundstrokes) have just gotten too good and have gotten better at a faster rate than the serve has gotten better. i think it is pretty hard to dispute what a genuis like fed does and with a little help from tony roche who is pretty yoda like in his wisdom i think..if fed could win easier by being at net more, he would do that..he certainly knows how. there really is almost no reason for an approach shot any more...short balls that used to be responded to with an approach shot, now routinely get put away

It's an optimal play for Federer to stay at the baseline at this point
and I agree he might be able to adjust a bit in different situations.

But it's very tough to truely adept at S&V and baseline game.
It's a different mentality. Sampras was only player I've seen
who could really balance between two styles, switch between
two depending on surface, and evolved his game thru out his
career.

We'll have to see if Federer would really need to evolve.
If yes, would he really able to do that ?

 

[araghava]

It's an optimal play for Federer to stay at the baseline at this point
and I agree he might be able to adjust a bit in different situations.

But it's very tough to truely adept at S&V and baseline game.
It's a different mentality. Sampras was only player I've seen
who could really balance between two styles, switch between
two depending on surface, and evolved his game thru out his
career.

We'll have to see if Federer would really need to evolve.
If yes, would he really able to do that ?

I personally think that Federer served and volleyed 2 years back because he thought that one had to do so to win wimbledon. Remember that this was the end of the Sampras era. After that 1st victory, his confidence in his own game has soared. He won the Masters and the Australian open playing largely from the backcourt. So he's been playing wimbledon since then on his own terms. He's much more comfortable playing largely from the backcourt with the occasional serve and volley. I also think Peter Fleming encouraged him to serve and volley. Once he dropped Fleming as coach, he's been serving and volleying much less.

 

[Marius_Hancu]

I personally think that Federer served and volleyed 2 years back because he thought that one had to do so to win wimbledon. Remember that this was the end of the Sampras era. After that 1st victory, his confidence in his own game has soared. He won the Masters and the Australian open playing largely from the backcourt. So he's been playing wimbledon since then on his own terms. He's much more comfortable playing largely from the backcourt with the occasional serve and volley. I also think Peter Fleming encouraged him to serve and volley. Once he dropped Fleming as coach, he's been serving and volleying much less.

mean Peter Lundgren?

 

[BreakPoint]

I agree with Martina. I mean, I get sick to my stomach everytime I see Sharapova hit a groundstroke near or even inside the service line and then run backwards to the baseline. And she does it over and over again. I find myself screaming at my TV - "What's wrong with you? Get into the net!!!". I mean, she's a tall girl with long arms and lots of reach. It should be tough to pass or lob her at the net. So WTF is she afraid of? Oh, and when she does manage to be at the net, I have to say her swinging forehand volleys are pretty ugly looking. It's amazing she doesn't break her wrist doing that.

 

[TennisD]

She's right about the need to develop volleys.

I've worked hard on developing my volleys over the last while, and I win more points easier now, when I move forward.

And about prize money, let me say this, equality is just that, equality. I'm normally quite liberal, but I'm going to take the hard line here...

If the women want equal prize money to the men at the slams, the should be playing equal amounts of tennis. That's right, you want the cash, then you have to play 5 setters like the guys. And when they play best of 3, so do you, and you get payed just as much. Isn't that equality?

 

[wildbill88AA]

i just thank god martina is not in the announcer's booth anymore.

 

[Yours!05]

Such a good conversation

oh..thanks for the good words Babblelot..exceedingly rare around here, where people would prefer to slam someone instead of having a fair reasoned conversation. - NoBadMojo

A word of appreciation to all contributors for wise and considered thoughts. No zealots, no loonies, no show-ponies - so far...

 

[araghava]

mean Peter Lundgren?

you're right. i meant Lundgren.

 

[Gary Britt]

A word of appreciation to all contributors for wise and considered thoughts. No zealots, no loonies, no show-ponies - so far...

Ooops, just when you think its safe a damn show pony shows up!!!

Gary Britt

 

[Yours!05]

Onya Gary! (xpanding to 10 characters: shortened from goodonya, meaning good for you - an explanation you had to have because of the 10 ch....)

 

[Terre Battu]

I absolutely agree with you Breakpoint. I have been watching some uninspiring grass court tennis at SW19. For a while I thought I was watching a hard court tournament.
The most entertaining match I have seen is the Mauresmo vs Myskina. 43 net approaches for Mauresmo compared to an average of 15 times for each of the other quaterfinalists!

I'm disappointed that Venus or Sharapova are not coming in much to finish off points at the net.