The Wise Mr. Lewit -- Digging Deep on the Return of Serve

[joeldrucker]

How fortunate the tennisplayer.net team is to have such a longstanding and wise contributor as Chris Lewit. Having spent decades breaking down the game, Chris this month has written a very thoughtful blueprint about the return -- from the split step to the grip, what it means to watch the ball, and much more. I'm curious to hear what others think of Chris' ideas.

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article/the-return-of-serve-blueprint-technical-and-footwork-foundations/

[stotty]

It’s a good article, as Chris’s pieces always are. All the key points are covered, and Novak is used to provide the perfect example. Most top players are executing these fundamentals, yet some return far better than others, so there has to be an element of innate ability too.

What’s missing for me (and in Tim’s article) is guidance on where to hit the return…what the options are. One year at Wimbledon, the BBC charted Novak’s return locations over the six rounds leading up to the final. The data showed that 68% of his returns landed deep through the middle third of the court, and not a single one was a clean winner. Now that is information worth knowing for aspiring junior players, for sure.

The problem with many juniors is that they miss far too many returns and don’t recognize that the returner’s main objective is to neutralize the server’s advantage and get the rally started on neutral footing.

[joeldrucker]

What a great question, Stotty: Where to direct the return? Deep middle seems the vogue these days, particularly given the margin, spin and pace contemporary returners can generate. But is that necessarily best for all players and styles? Back in the days when one-handed backhands were prevalent, Vic Braden used to say, "Make them go backwards for a backhand." Then there's the matter of netrushing, as was the case for how Jimmy Connors built his early, hard-hit return. And, then how does one take advantage of softer second serves? Roll it deep and crosscourt? Crack it down-the-line? Some of rip-charge or chip-charge and get to the net? And lets not overlook the drop shot return. Lots to practice.

[don_budge]

Where to direct the return?

Where? First of all...look at these mystical and most perfect lines. Look down from an airplane from a bird's eye view at a set of tennis courts. Anywhere in the world. To see these beautiful lines...so perfectly symmetrical. It speaks of order...as opposed to chaos. It speaks of the finite. The precise finite. God's gift to mankind in terms of recreation. Tennis...it used to be a Godly endeavour. It evolved for over a century. Even Leo Tolstoy played tennis. He loved tennis. So did I. I grew up believing in tennis. Until they started monkeying with it. The endless engineering. Remember...with every invention comes a curse.

But...yeah. Where to direct the return. This book, "The Game of Singles in Tennis" was one of three in a set written by William Talbert. Another one was, "The Game of Doubles in Tennis". The third was..."Stroke Production in Tennis". A wise guy...Mr. Talbert. But anyways...the return. In Bill Talbert's day the game was played going forwards. To the net! The serve was nearly always followed by a volley. Where to direct? In his book of singles, Talbert used the lines of the court to describe the good tactics of returning. Using the service line and create an "H" but using an area on both sidelines a meter in front of the service line and a meter behind the service line. Getting the ball at the feet of the approaching server or making him stretch to the sidelines was a popular tactic in those days. That is...for anyone fortunate to have read Bill Talbert's book. Frankly, I don't think that I recall anyone else having mentioned that. Clever guy. Wise guy.

Interestingly enough...while conventional wisdom might dictate that the modern return be deep, it might be worth considering using the Bill Talbert template. Since the modern player inevitiably play with a Western forehand and a two-handed backhand this part of the court opens up some possibilities. Modern players typically have no clue in how to get from the backcourt to the net. The approach tactics are non-existent. Of course, once they get to the net the mechanics suck in general. Why not bring him in? At least...don't give him the play or the shot he wants to play. Using Bill Tidlen's eternal theorem.

[nickw]

I love the focus on the return, STILL a neglected part of the game in 2026. Great articles. One area that I didn’t see mentioned was how return position varies between 1st and 2nd serve coupled with what sequence players use to produce their split step.

There seem to be 3 main sequences.

Ready position, step forward with one foot and then split step forwards
Ready position, then split step forwards
Ready position, then split step in the same place or backwards (most common when players are well back behind the baseline.

What is interesting is that sometimes players stand in for the 1st serve, and move back for the 2nd serve, but others do the exact opposite.

Also, some players use the split step forwards from further back in the court, and others use the split step in the same place from further forwards, though it tends mostly to be the other way around.

Players often use different sequences in the same match too.

There must be a mixture of personal styles, tactics, surface, opponent serving style, current score and other variables at play behind the players decisions of where to position and which sequence to use. How much is coachable is up for debate, but it’s a fascinating part of the game.