why is volleying so bad?

bjk

bjk

Hall of Fame
Watching Roddick miss an easy volley for a 2 set lead, I wondered why volleying is so bad now. I watched a match between Becker and some nobody on TC, and the nobody (who beat Becker in a second round match) was routinely hitting volleyers that the best players today routinely miss. Watch an old match with wood rackets, they rarely missed easy volleys.

The problem is not the inability to hit the tough volleys, it's that so many players flub the routine volleys. When a low-ranker like Robert Kendrick or Gilles Muller routinely puts away a routine volley, it's almost a surprise. Why can't Djokovic or Murray do that (and don't tell me Murray can volley, he never volleyed during two weeks of Wimbledon)?

So what do people think . . . why is volleying so bad, and is it really worse, or is that just an illusion from watching only the best players from the past (McEnroe, Becker, BJK, etc)?
 
that volley roddick missed was a very difficult shot to make. The only thing he could do better was to get the ball back and wait for the passing shot, but he instead decided to take the risk and go for a winner, which he missed by a large margin.
 
Ok, not an easy volley. But Roddick missed it by ten feet, he wasn't even in the ballpark. Would Kenkrick or Muller have made that volley? Yes, because they've seen that volley thousands of times, and hit it regularly. Roddick never plays doubles and only occasionally comes in, so he's going to miss the non-routine volleys (and the routine volleys).
 
It was set point for him to go 2 sets up to 0 on the center stage at wimbledon vs. an opponent who has beaten him 18 times.

It was a tough volley and he got tight. He tried to do something with it (an extreme angle) and lost track of it. Even Sampras has missed easy volleys now and then
 
bjk said:
Ok, not an easy volley. But Roddick missed it by ten feet, he wasn't even in the ballpark. Would Kenkrick or Muller have made that volley? Yes, because they've seen that volley thousands of times, and hit it regularly. Roddick never plays doubles and only occasionally comes in, so he's going to miss the non-routine volleys (and the routine volleys).
Click to expand...

You could actually make a pretty good case that guys can't volley, but you're taking the wrong approach.

You're going to come in here and say that Kendrick wouldn't have missed a high-backhand overhead/volley (that he initially thought was going out) on set point to go up two sets to one in a Wimbledon final? Really? A guy that can come through in such moments like that should have maybe, I don't know, actually gotten to a final before?

When you're in a situation like that, especially when it means so much to you, it really doesn't have much to do with your technique.

Has Federer never missed forehands on match point against Nadal (on short balls he's seen thousands of times before)? Roddick missed first serves on match points? Nadal missed forehands on set points? Murray missed backhands on huge points?

So I don't agree with your argument at all as far as your Roddick example.

As far as volleying as a whole on the tour, no, I don't think it is as good as it used to be. I don't think you'd find anyone who knows anything about tennis that would say that it is.
 
There were extenuating circumstances, but he didn't miss a forehand, he missed a volley.

The question is, with every part of the game improving, why is the net game regressing? I think volleying is the most fun part of the game. Watch a good volleyer at net, and that is great fun to watch.

I've seen pros practice, and they mostly practice at the baseline. Only the doubles teams practice much at the net.
 
I read in a post-match interview that Roddick said he thought it was going out and that the wind affected it a tad and he changed his mind at the last second and decided to hit it.
 
You try handling a high floater like that with no pace on your backhand side while the wind is moving the ball around around...
High backhand volley= one of the hardest shots in tennis.
 
Even BreakPoint, one of the best volleyers in teh world today, said that high backhand volley is much more difficult than the low backhand volley.
 
1. Roddick missed it because he decided at the last instant that it was going to land in and tried for it. I doubt he'd miss that otherwise.

2. This doesn't mean Roddick or most others are great volleyers. Far from it.

3. WTA makes the ATP look like geniuses at net.

4. Go look at kids/high school/college players training, at least in the US. Most of them wouldn't know a volley if it hit them in the face. And it would if they ever dare approach the net.
 
FedFan_2009 said:
Yet Federer nails those 9/10.
Click to expand...

I BEG YOU TO STOP WITH POSTINGS LIKE THIS. I'M TRYING TO BE VERY NICE ABOUT IT BUT YOU ARE REALLY ADDING THE FUEL TO THE FIRE THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT OUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HATRED THAT HAS BEEN SPREADING AROUND THE FORUMS LATELY ABOUT THE "WHO'S THE BEST" OR "WHO ISN'T" NONSENSE. JUST ENJOY THE GAME.

 
3. WTA makes the ATP look like geniuses at net.


LOL. To paraphrase IL, most of the WTA is a backhand and a haircut.
 
bjk said:
Watching Roddick miss an easy volley for a 2 set lead, I wondered why volleying is so bad now. I watched a match between Becker and some nobody on TC, and the nobody (
Code: 
who beat Becker in a second round match)
was routinely hitting volleyers that the best players today routinely miss. Watch an old match with wood rackets, they rarely missed easy volleys.

The problem is not the inability to hit the tough volleys, it's that so many players flub the routine volleys. When a low-ranker like Robert Kendrick or Gilles Muller routinely puts away a routine volley, it's almost a surprise. Why can't Djokovic or Murray do that (and don't tell me Murray can volley, he never volleyed during two weeks of Wimbledon)?

So what do people think . . . why is volleying so bad, and is it really worse, or is that just an illusion from watching only the best players from the past (McEnroe, Becker, BJK, etc)?
Click to expand...

Peter Doohan?
 
Yeah Doohan, who is now apparently teaching tennis in Arkansas. I was too lazy to look it up.
 
Those of you who are not only fans, but players know that heavy spin added to power greatly complicates volleys. Volleying hard hit shots back in the early 90's before Luxilon and the crazy spin of today's game was much easier than it is today.

Now I'm not saying that volleying isn't effective in today's game, but players need to choose their spots more selectively than they did in the past if they want to have success.
 
Sure you can say Roddick missed a volley so he's bad. He also made some volleys, so he's good? And then it's not just Roddick who is bad because he missed that one volley but the entire ATP? So I don't get the point of this. :confused:
 
I don't think it should come as much of a surprise that general volleying skills around the tour seem to have eroded in recent history. I've gotten the impression that Andy has addressed his relatively weak transitioning and net skills right in the middle of his pro career. He has some shots now that he just didn't have a few years ago, but it makes me wonder what he covered as a junior.

Tennis gurus have been blasting the short sighted formula for success that's been taught to many players for a generation, which has been the "surf and turf" style of a big serve and a big forehand. Even without a more complete skill set, lots of up-and-comers can grab trophies in a hurry when they have those two powerful shots, but many critics think that this is a shortcut to success that too many coaches go for. They can build a good looking resume when they develop successful kids in less time, but down the road, these young sluggers don't have the well rounded games that they need to compete against stronger players.

Some future players will probably emerge with great all-court games, but they'll need extra dedication as well as guidance from teachers who understand that bigger picture. Some will also stick with the shorter, more simple formula, but I get the sense that at least the men's game is heading away from a focus on pure power and beginning to show more variety again. It's encouraging though, that those players who are hungry to be better are getting stronger in every aspect, including net play.
 
Put me in the camp of those who believe that the strings used these days have a lot to do with the general decline in net play. I think the effect of the strings is twofold:

1) the spin imparted on the ball makes it more difficult to volley and also gives the baseline player more options (angles that were just impossible form deep in the court back in the day) which does not allow the net player to be as confident in their positioning which allows for fewer authoritive shots.

2) Due to the issues stated in #1 players do not spend as much time in practice on volleys as they used to - instead they spend more time honing their baseline skills - which leads to less time practicing volleys - which leads to less effective volleying.

Just my opinion.....
 
I agree Roddick should have made that volley, but volleying is NOT so bad these days.

Back in the WOOD era, guys did not have to contend with heavily topspin passing shots dipping down at their feet, or topspins that are high and then dip into the court at the last minute, or sharp cross court topspin passing shots which were impossible in the wood era.

A deep slice approach down the line in the wood era won you the point 75-90% of the time. Now, guys like nadal, murray, novak can hit passing shot winners from 10 feet behind the baseline off these same approaches.

Put the best volleyers in the past in current situations and they will win a few more points at the net than current players. But playing the net all the time is not a winning strategy.
 
Last edited:
bjk said:
Watching Roddick miss an easy volley for a 2 set lead, I wondered why volleying is so bad now. I watched a match between Becker and some nobody on TC, and the nobody (who beat Becker in a second round match) was routinely hitting volleyers that the best players today routinely miss. Watch an old match with wood rackets, they rarely missed easy volleys.

The problem is not the inability to hit the tough volleys, it's that so many players flub the routine volleys. When a low-ranker like Robert Kendrick or Gilles Muller routinely puts away a routine volley, it's almost a surprise. Why can't Djokovic or Murray do that (and don't tell me Murray can volley, he never volleyed during two weeks of Wimbledon)?

So what do people think . . . why is volleying so bad, and is it really worse, or is that just an illusion from watching only the best players from the past (McEnroe, Becker, BJK, etc)?
Click to expand...

it's much harder to volley these days... the game has evolved to the point that it's becoming difficult to win matches with s&V..guys these days hit way more spin (windshield wipers + poly), making the ball dip, curl, angles hence what u think are routine volleys on TV may be anything but...watch some of nadal's passes, and no one 10 yrs ago can come up with these... plus the fact that the surface has slowed down, and the balls are now heavier is making approach shots much less effective, plus it's also making the 1st volley sit up more for the pass.... in the old days, percentage tennis = make a deep 1st volley, and then put away with subsequent volley doesnt work as effective anymore, you almost have to come in on a virtual winner, and put the 1st volley away..
 
It is definitely a lost art, seems like nowadays players rather come in the service line, wait for the ball to drop and smack it hard then taking it in the air.

I hope that missed volley does not discourage players from coming in at crucial points!!
 
bjk said:
Watching Roddick miss an easy volley for a 2 set lead, I wondered why volleying is so bad now. I watched a match between Becker and some nobody on TC, and the nobody (who beat Becker in a second round match) was routinely hitting volleyers that the best players today routinely miss. Watch an old match with wood rackets, they rarely missed easy volleys.

The problem is not the inability to hit the tough volleys, it's that so many players flub the routine volleys. When a low-ranker like Robert Kendrick or Gilles Muller routinely puts away a routine volley, it's almost a surprise. Why can't Djokovic or Murray do that (and don't tell me Murray can volley, he never volleyed during two weeks of Wimbledon)?

So what do people think . . . why is volleying so bad, and is it really worse, or is that just an illusion from watching only the best players from the past (McEnroe, Becker, BJK, etc)?
Click to expand...

Roger Federer missed a routine forehand last year to lose the Wimbledon title in arguably the greatest match of all time. By your way of thinking are we to say that players can't hit forehands anymore?

By the way, that was a very difficult volley that Roddick missed. It's true that players miss routine volleys sometimes but they miss routine forehands, backhands, smashes. They're called unforced errors and they happen all the time.
 
Yes it is more difficult to win volleying now, but that doesn't mean the current players are anywhere near as good at volleying as past players. Similarly, past players couldn't do the things that current players can do with groundstrokes. People learn what they are taught, and since volleying has not been seen as a winning formula (people are starting to realize its usefulness again, though) the current players were not taught volleys and the midcourt game to get to the volleys well and have not practiced it very much. In the old days maybe a guy would hit 50-100 pick-up half volleys in a match. Now, they maybe hit one or two. Practice makes perfect.
 
Bottle Rocket said:
You could actually make a pretty good case that guys can't volley, but you're taking the wrong approach.

You're going to come in here and say that Kendrick wouldn't have missed a high-backhand overhead/volley (that he initially thought was going out) on set point to go up two sets to one in a Wimbledon final? Really? A guy that can come through in such moments like that should have maybe, I don't know, actually gotten to a final before?

When you're in a situation like that, especially when it means so much to you, it really doesn't have much to do with your technique.

Has Federer never missed forehands on match point against Nadal (on short balls he's seen thousands of times before)? Roddick missed first serves on match points? Nadal missed forehands on set points? Murray missed backhands on huge points?

So I don't agree with your argument at all as far as your Roddick example.

As far as volleying as a whole on the tour, no, I don't think it is as good as it used to be. I don't think you'd find anyone who knows anything about tennis that would say that it is.
Click to expand...
Agree with the above post.

And even Federer doesn't volley as well now as he used to. Just watch his matches from 2003 and earlier for evidence (like his Wimbledon match versus Sampras in 2001).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

big ted
better volleyer - federer or nadal?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Sereger
Sereger
kragster
Why do people under/over estimate Rafa's volleying skills?
Replies
5
Views
841
RadicalMPfan
R
D
Why did Roddick seem like a better player in 2001?
Replies
23
Views
2K
Cenc
C
H
Why is Germany so bad at Tennis?
3 4 5
Replies
236
Views
12K
BorgTheGOAT
BorgTheGOAT
D
Why do pros have such terrible volleys?
Replies
27
Views
3K
Defcon
D
Back
Top