What are the TIPS, TECHNIQUES for better VOLLEY?

[GuyClinch]

You are making this way to complicated.

1) When does racquet face open up more - at contact. (agree?)
2) does it always happen - no.
3) What explanations do we have for this frequent occurrence.
a) Ball hitting racquet (see Fed super slow mo) held with reasonable grip pressure and physics taking over.
b) Or some mystical form where the player opens his racquet right at contact.

And obviously if you are using a tight grip and actively closing the face - you won't this effect. But why do we care? Additionally we can chalk up the 'starting' close of the racquet face with the normal swing progression of a volley.. And then we can notice that compared to other strokes these events are not extreme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wlwj5XkuQ

Volley starts with racquet laid back sometimes - but it quickly flattens out - and keeps about the same angle - unless hit with the ball on the top part (which lets face it frequently happens).. SOmetimes they lay it back a lot - (high balls). Sometimes it holds pretty steady.. low scoop kinda volleys.

I suppose we can fight about this forever - but trying to manipulate the racquet face angle at contact and then after it is a fools errand IMHO. I think you would be surprised how much the ball effects racquet face angle if you really look into it.

Find me a volley where the guy hits the ball on the lower half or smack in the middle of the racquet - and I bet you see a volley where the racquet face either closers or does not open up.

 

[mntlblok]

You are making this way to complicated.

1) When does racquet face open up more - at contact. (agree?)
2) does it always happen - no.
3) What explanations do we have for this frequent occurrence.
a) Ball hitting racquet (see Fed super slow mo) held with reasonable grip pressure and physics taking over.
b) Or some mystical form where the player opens his racquet right at contact.

And obviously if you are using a tight grip and actively closing the face - you won't this effect. But why do we care? Additionally we can chalk up the 'starting' close of the racquet face with the normal swing progression of a volley.. And then we can notice that compared to other strokes these events are not extreme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wlwj5XkuQ

Volley starts with racquet laid back sometimes - but it quickly flattens out - and keeps about the same angle - unless hit with the ball on the top part (which lets face it frequently happens).. SOmetimes they lay it back a lot - (high balls). Sometimes it holds pretty steady.. low scoop kinda volleys.

I suppose we can fight about this forever - but trying to manipulate the racquet face angle at contact and then after it is a fools errand IMHO. I think you would be surprised how much the ball effects racquet face angle if you really look into it.

Find me a volley where the guy hits the ball on the lower half or smack in the middle of the racquet - and I bet you see a volley where the racquet face either closers or does not open up.

I like what Einstein supposedly said: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” And, I don't think of it as "fighting", but rather, at least for me, "learning". My thoughts on this subject and my understanding (or lack thereof) continues to evolve. I'm merely posting what I see. Show me the errors of my thoughts and I will change them.

I don't agree nor disagree that the racket face begins to open back up "at contact" or whether it is sometime afterwards. I just don't know and am not making much progress on figuring it out. It "feels" to me like it may start whilst the ball is on my strings, but I actually kinda doubt it. It *especially* feels like it does on my drop volleys, though (which I'm learning that I'm only likely to control when the incoming ball is coming very slowly or with excessive topspin).

It definitely does not always happen, but it's looking to me like there are specific, predictable situations in which it doesn't - like with "jamming" shots and maybe with heavily topspun incoming shots. That heavy topspin thing certainly seems to be a big factor in the sister shot, the slice backhand, for when the follow-through is more "on plane, down, and across".

I don't have good explanations for why the face opens. AAMOF, before I started freezing the action on slow-mo volley videos, I *also* thought the face was much more open at contact on volleys (and slices), because it "feels" like it is. Kinda hoping the perfesser or Brian Gordon will soon enlighten us.

I don't quite follow all of yer comments in the "grip" paragraph, but I'm thinking that a pretty firm grip is probably important to have in a volley, especially as compared to most other strokes.

Loved the video. Hadn't seen that one before. Too bad the freeze frames blur a bit.

I don't see the "laid back" part as (initially) quickly changing, or at least wouldn't describe it that way. I see it as very *suddenly* changing at the last second as a means of generating racket head speed via angular momentum. The "translational" "punch" thought that is so often taught just doesn't generate enough racket head speed to control the volley the way we want. Jim McClennan has recently been talking about this concept (angular momentum for racket head speed) I notice.

I can't say whether trying to manipulate the racket face angle after contact on a volley would be a good thing or not. I see an awful lot of poor volleyers, many of whom have had plenty of volley lessons, who *don't* attempt to manipulate the racket face angle after contact. *All* of the good volleyers that I see *do* make this manipulation, though I doubt that many of them (any?) realize that they're doing it. I suspect that practice and experimentation has brought all of them to what works - and what physics seems to allow - and demand.

Being a curious kind of guy, I've been on many a fool's errand, even on Quixotic quests. But, I'm still short on evidence to make me give up on this one. AAMOF, the collected evidence to date points directly in the opposite direction.

And, whilst I do understand that the ball, on off center hits, can affect the racket face, I've also seen how that face, almost miraculously, gets quickly back on its original plane in the rest of the follow through. Bet we could even find one where that very thing happens with a volley. I'll be keeping my eyes open.

Would love to hear if anyone finds that teaching such an "open to square to open" swing thought turned out to result in any better learning of volleying.

kb

 

[5263]

Oh, and pretty much the same stuff holds for sliced groundies. . .
https://www.flickr.com/photos/mentalblock/sets/72157648012949433/

I'm a teaching pro who agrees with what you've notice and also point out how a slice is normally just a longer volley or a volley is just a short slice Imo. Sometimes a slice can be short like a volley and a sitter volley can be longer like a slice Imo.

Do you agree that the shoulder turn is more important on the Fh volley?

Good stuff!

 

[mntlblok]

I'm a teaching pro who agrees with what you've notice and also point out how a slice is normally just a longer volley or a volley is just a short slice Imo. Sometimes a slice can be short like a volley and a sitter volley can be longer like a slice Imo.

Do you agree that the shoulder turn is more important on the Fh volley?

Good stuff!

Thanks. I'm not a teaching pro and probably have to disqualify myself involving anything to do with forehands because my wrist won't do what normal wrists do.

I also remain quite frustrated with my ability to pin down just what's going on with volleys and slices, especially with balls of certain heights and degrees of pace.

The toughest ball for me to volley is one that comes at me quickly with moderate height and *seems* like I oughta be able to give it a good whop. Unless I somehow remember that I need to get *above* that ball with my racket head, I whop it long. If I *do* remember to get above it so that I can knife downward, then I have a better shot at nailing it.

*But*, a significant percentage of the time, I find that I "mis-time" the subsequent "opening" of the racket face after (during?) contact and miss the shot into the net. It seems that there is not much of a margin for error for this situation - especially if one doesn't really understand all the variables - which I don't (yet ).

I also struggle with my slice groundies because of some shortcomings in my understanding of what I'm trying to do. The situation is a bit different with those. I utilize a *lot* of spin on my slices - so much so that the ball sometimes still has underspin after the first bounce, and gets a dirty spot on it from the clay.

*But*, sometimes with two swings that "feel" almost identical (typically return of second serves in doubles), when I'm trying to get a driving, knifing slice at the server's feet, it ends up as almost a drop shot. Haven't been able to determine whether this is more of a "swing path" issue or a racket face angle issue - or even whether it might be a contact point issue (too far forward or back in my stance).

To date, I've been too much of a cheapskate to upgrade to an iPhone 6, but the 240 fps video that it offers is looking mighty tempting right now. I'd *love* to pin down the variables on these shots, especially as it seems nobody else has. These seem to be neglected shots in the world of tennis. And, since the joints don't want to let me practice enough to become competitive on the senior circuit, maybe figgerin some of this stuff out could prove to be an adequate hobby - especially now that the director of tennis at our club who tried to stamp out video use by members has been dismissed. He even banned me from using a camera at the recent Challenger tournament. Kinda hope my complaints over same helped move him along. . .

Despite my wrist issues, I *may* have some minor insights on forehand volleys and slices. If turning the shoulders more helps with forehand volleys - and I suspect that it does - I would assume that it would be for anatomical reasons. As was pointed out in an earlier thread on volleys, "neutral" anatomical position has the palm pointing a bit "down", which would make it more difficult to "open" the racket face on the follow-thru of a forehand volley (or slice). Having the shoulders turned would help move the contact point further back in the stance and make it anatomically less difficult to open the racket face after contact, as I believe is needed on those lower forehand volleys - but often neglected. Note how many low forehand volleys are missed into the net - at *all* levels. And, that "out in front" thing ain't helpin none, neither.

My "wrist-necessitated" forehand slice groundies found some improvement after studying Nicolescu's technique against Serena. I haven't managed to duplicate her funny little footwork move on that shot, but for mid-height balls, I now try to go more "down and across" than just straight down the back of the ball, and miss fewer of them into the net. Still plenty of work to do on that one, too, though.

Well, looky there. I rambled yet again. . . :mrgreen:

kb

 

[fuzz nation]

Despite my wrist issues, I *may* have some minor insights on forehand volleys and slices. If turning the shoulders more helps with forehand volleys - and I suspect that it does - I would assume that it would be for anatomical reasons. As was pointed out in an earlier thread on volleys, "neutral" anatomical position has the palm pointing a bit "down", which would make it more difficult to "open" the racket face on the follow-thru of a forehand volley (or slice). Having the shoulders turned would help move the contact point further back in the stance and make it anatomically less difficult to open the racket face after contact, as I believe is needed on those lower forehand volleys - but often neglected. Note how many low forehand volleys are missed into the net - at *all* levels. And, that "out in front" thing ain't helpin none, neither.

You're right in terms of volleys benefitting from the shoulders being turned to one side or the other. I don't know whether I've brought it up much before, but the basic move we make with the racquet is either left-to-right or right-to-left in front of our chests. If the shoulders are turned, we can more effectively carry the racquet through the ball for that compact move we make for a decent volley. This space in front of our chests is about 18" wide.

That "out in front" advice can create problems with volleys because it might be interpreted as encouraging us to go out ahead of our bodies toward the net too far to make contact. The trouble with this move is that it takes the racquet outside of that 18" window in front of our chests. Reach too far toward the net for the ball when trying to volley with a continental grip and the racquet face can easily open up too much and slide under the ball.

Compared with a typical ground stroke where we're often better off going out ahead of our bodies toward the net for a stronger shot, volleys are sort of counterintuitive. We need to catch them more out beside us to generate better bite or zip on those shots (these volley contact points are more "beside" us while the net is out "ahead" of us). Once we're turned sideways though, the volley ideally happens "out in front of our chest".