Developing volley feel / fluidity / contact time

[gzhpcu]

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

Still, he got two US Opens... And he knocked out Agassi at Wimbledon...

[GeoffWilliams]

Rafter never won Wimbledon due to two reasons: not enough stick on blocked volleys, and not enough stick on kick serves. These gave his opponents confidence that they could break him under pressure, which they both did. Sampras and Ivo were able to put more on their serves and volleys in the end and to believe that he could not. If he were playing in today's game, he would win many matches, let alone a slam. Great guy with consistent volleys, and a model for the blocked volley trainer. No stick, no trophy.

[GeoffWilliams]

The snap back is beyond a 4.0 ability anyway, and it is certainly not a shot in the dark, as Budge said. What I've come to expect from him: nothing too thinly disguised, and I would bet he has never hit a single snap back. Like I said, it takes years to develop and learn. Much simpler to stick with a rigid/blocked volley and I use those most of the time any way. It has not been food for thought. It's been food for vomit. The game is filled with guys the world over who have not learned nor listened to any new shot technique. Part of the reason so few kids coming up are world class from the US: most coaches are old school and won't train any thing new or exciting. One exception is the swing volley, a shot that no one espoused before Agassi. Now all doubles pros use it. And all the best doubles players use the snap back off higher balls. Anything said to the contrary is ignoring reality. Head in the sand deserves reality checks.

[don_budge]

Fundamentals versus "The Gimmick"...

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.

Trust me…if this is a serious student he got his money's worth. The back and forth has been extremely enlightening as well as the material that has been cited. Comments by tennis_chiro and 10splayer are always worth careful consideration…whether you "agree" or "disagree" with anything that they say.

Points by klacr and Stotty are true to wisdom as well…at least from my perspective. That perspective is that of a teacher. I teach volleys and I teach them early on and I never stop teaching them. I teach how to get to the net too…I teach approach shots. I also teach baseline tennis and I teach patience. So there you have it…the student must learn the patience that it takes to duel from the baseline and play the last shot or he must take things into his hands at the first sight of opportunity and conclude things at the net.

Personally I found it particularly gratifying that Stotty remembered my post way back in position #6. That was quite a thread too. I put my heart into that one…as much as my heart is breaking now. But that is part of it too…isn't it? It's something that we all can agree on now…something we all have in common. Differences of opinion aside.

Regarding the tone of the thread and such…the likes of GeoffWilliams and his "gimmick" the slap shot or whatever else you want to call it. It's fun to read about his wacky sense of tennis…wacky in the sense that he is mostly wacking the ball or whatever it is that he does with it. It's a game that I am unfamiliar with…the one that he writes about. Funny enough…Bobby Jones said the same thing about Jack Nicklaus. He said that he is playing a game that he was unfamiliar with. My dear old tennis coach was one good teacher and he stressed fundamentals to his students and warned against gimmicks…as did Bill Tilden. Gimmicks have a nasty habit of letting you down when you need them the most. So many matches have been blown right on the precipice of victory by the unwise selection of a "gimmicky" shot when a fundamentally sound if less glorious rendition might have gotten the job done.

In this way I will always be in the corner of guys like tennis_chiro, 10splayer and Stotty. Whereas klacr makes allowances for swinging volleys and this other creation…the slap shot volley or whatever it is. I'm in his corner too. Statistically speaking it is a poor selection and you won't win year in and year out with it. It won't stand the test of time or the heat of the battle for that matter. Not against any player worth his salt. Personally I don't give a twit if one player uses it or not. If a student of mine insists on using the like…what do I care? They end up being the captain of their own ship anyways.

This says it all..I can't wrap my head around the fact an accomplished volleyer cant hit the ball hard enough without snapping the racquet head forward..

Amen…you go snapping that racquet head at anything you are asking for trouble in my book. And you know what the book is…it's Tilden.

Take Roger Federer for instance. He has tried to resurrect his serve and volley and his approach and volley game somewhat. It seems that Stefan Edberg has been hired as a consultant in this regard. Do you know what I see as a result of that collaboration? I see more fundamentals being emphasized and less of the flashy "swinging volleys" and do you know what? His net game is vastly improved…perhaps an even bigger thanks are owed to his bigger racquet. Federer's fundamental volley motion is much more through the ball than it is slicing down across the ball that it has been recently prior to his resurgence.

But this is a student…this faultsnaces person. If I am any kind of teacher worth my salt I don't go bandying around a shot in the dark to him. I stress the fundamentals. The resource on this site are quite vast in this regard. The articles that Stotty cites plus the articles by johnyandel contain a wealth of information not to mention video support. For me…it is always about the student and my students don't happen to be the most gifted in the world so I have no choice as far as I am concerned. I stress the fundamentals and I repeat myself over and over again. I shy away from the gimmicks and the more "obtuse form" of tennis that GeoffWilliams writes about. As far as I am concerned the "equipment guy" stuff is obtuse as well.

I am not certain that any of that stuff really matters all that much in the end. I sort of lump it in with all of the twitches and superstitious behaviour along with the endless towel fondling and the like. Hype and hyperbole. Checking the batch of balls before every point. All of the shenanigans during the changeovers. The suitcases and luggage taken to the court for a simple tennis match. It seems to me that the professional game is rather gimmicky in it's promotion and the lust for attention. It has become wacky and obtuse in it's own right…to say nothing of the lack of net play.

Even so…I refrain from saying whether or not I disagree or agree with this one or that one. For me it is all interesting…even though my mind is pretty much made up already. Not to say that it is closed. I learned a thing or two about volleys in this discussion. I thought the articles by John were particularly good. Welby Van Horn sums it all up quite nicely. My thread deserved an honourable mention…which I got from my good buddy Stotty. Do you want to develop feel, touch, fluidity and contact point? Well…you better damn well practice the thing moving forwards…and backwards. You cannot just camp out at the net and practice half heartedly swinging…or punching at the ball. You gotta be in motion…man. If you are in motion you are going to realize real quick that all of this wrist snapping business is tantamount to a shot in the dark.

Life is good. Live to play another day. If you lose that thing that you love most in life…go out and find something you can love even more. Never quit. Never surrender. It's not over…until the last point has been played. You'll have to excuse me now…I must get back to my Frankie.

[10splayer]

faultsandaces and Klacr...Good point about not neglecting the student's initial request in the the post...and very important we give the right advice wherever possible.

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.


https://www.tennisplayer.net/articles/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...acking-volley/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...acking-volley/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...ckhand-volley/

http://www.tennisplayer.nethttps://www.tennisplayer.net/article/the-approach-and-volley/

In my view there is no need for snap back volleys....or swing volleys for that matter...whatever the situation. If you look back to the classic era where many of the players were outstanding at volleying, you will see no snapping or swing volleys.

The volley is a stroke not a punch in situations, meaning there is significantly more follow through that many think. I personally think if you snap the wrist you will interrupt the follow through and ruin the stroke. Snapping the wrist is cheap way to get power but a disaster for consistency. It's a club players mistake.

Don't take my word for it by any means. Go into the archive and watch those old school clips from the best and purest volleyers you will ever see. If you are the type of player who learns "visually" it will be the best lesson you have ever had.

This says it all..I can't wrap my head around the fact an accomplished volleyer cant hit the ball hard enough without snapping the racquet head forward..

[GeoffWilliams]

This thread is something else.
First off, I'd like to thank Frank (faultsnaces) for starting it and opening up this dialogue.

It really shows the passion of our forum contributors when they can take an innocent post like the one above and turn it into a colorful debate on a shot that some would consider dead.

Geoff, 10splayer, tennis_chiro and all the others...
I hear what you are saying. I understand it. Fact is, you guys are not wrong nor right, just speaking in different dialects.
I'm all about the basic fundamental volley technique. But when I play I always find myself using this "snapback" volley technique. Why? It's all situational. Much like a forehand reverse finish is evident in lobs and late balls. Getting a volley at your shoelaces or below the height of the net requires a different mentality and technical nuances than a volley that is above the net. For many players that are comfortable up at net, they don't even think about it. I don't. It's just natural.

All that has been said in this thread is accurate, but coming from two different POV's. Ask a great volleyer and they will tell you all sorts of shots and reactions that they can create and manipulate. Will the classic volley ever go away? Not if tennis wants to advance into higher forms and include more of a snapback volley. These two shots play off one another. It's a heavy, deep blistering forehand that sets up the short ball. It's the firm, fluid and purposeful first volley sent deep in the court that can set up the snapback.
Modern volleyers still have roots in the classics... Bryan Brothers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9qQbRitBRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWLI14pN_QI

The game and shots can advance, but only if the player knows how to get there and has the foundation for it.
Geoff talks about the uni grip and how it could take over tennis. It may, it may not. But Geoff's level of interest and loyalty in the shot and all other shots should not be undermined. there was a player that had the Uni Grip...Alberto Berasategui about 20+years ago. No big change or revolution after him...Maybe one day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Frank does ask the question about the pro volley and thats fine. But how can he incorporate those elements into his game. But he also shared with us his own issues. Lack of soft hands, control and depth. No mention of pace or ultra aggression. He needs to develop the feel first, the basics. from there, as he advances, the snapback could in fact become a critical weapon in his arsenal. But let's put one foot in fron of the other. Walk before you can run. Let's help Frank's game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Good post. I'd say listen to this guy. The snap back is only useful for most at high balls sitting. I have learned only after years of trying, to use it on lower balls, which most cannot, as it is too difficult to manage the timing. A 4.0 definitely can't manage it. It's best for them to stick only with blocking volleys using only their feet and body to hit the ball without follow through. Those volleys will sit and lay up for easy passes but you got to walk before you run to the net. Agassi only invented the swing volley due to his 4.0 normal blocking volley was so bad he was useless at net. Now every coach is teaching that shot! Berasetegui only used it on clay, where it is not possible to serve and volley any more nor was it ever, Tim Henmans' semi aside.

[bottle]

Oh good, another dude revolutionizing/reinventing the the wheel...But seriously, very little of what you're saying has anything to do with how to volley well.

Oh, and you're right, Rafter sucks as a volleyer. Can't think of anything one could learn from him..

I have a whole book on volleying somewhere written by a former Dartmouth varsity tennis coach-- John Kennerly or something like that. Sorry I don't have time to go down in the basement and look for the book and get the author's name right and I didn't immediately find it on the internet either. This laziness is all part of my approach to tennis however. Entertain (and steal where appropriate) the ideas and screw scholarship and attribution and very literary don't you know good manners. Who cares where the idea came from if we're all tennis players and every idea in tennis belongs to us.

One of this volley coach's ideas is to hit balls above the net cord with some wrist but never use wrist on balls below the net cord. This might be too reasonable for me but the idea has always stayed with me. It is perhaps a case where one does better trusting impulse over reason.

[bottle]

Just look at Pat Rafter's volleys and decide for yourself....

https://www.tennisplayer.net/tp_player/pat-rafter/

I love this one especially (rear 3), see arm start first and then his shoulders finish the job.

[bottle]

http://youtu.be/Lfk4wRP9gvI?list=PLD0FE460FD37E5D04

What do you think of this?

I love it. This man is one of my favorite polymaths whether he is coaching Robert Redford or anyone else.

[stotty]

faultsandaces and Klacr...Good point about not neglecting the student's initial request in the the post...and very important we give the right advice wherever possible.

It's tough to add to what these articles so eloquently teaches anyone interested in learning to volley better. Plus, don_budge's thread he posted a link back to in post #6.


https://www.tennisplayer.net/articles/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...acking-volley/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...acking-volley/

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...ckhand-volley/

http://www.tennisplayer.nethttps://www.tennisplayer.net/article/the-approach-and-volley/

In my view there is no need for snap back volleys....or swing volleys for that matter...whatever the situation. If you look back to the classic era where many of the players were outstanding at volleying, you will see no snapping or swing volleys.

The volley is a stroke not a punch in most situations, meaning there is significantly more follow through that many think. I personally think if you snap the wrist you will interrupt the follow through and ruin the stroke. Snapping the wrist is cheap way to get power but a disaster for consistency. It's a club players mistake.

Don't take my word for it by any means. Go into the archive and watch those old school clips from the best and purest volleyers you will ever see. If you are the type of player who learns "visually" it will be the best lesson you have ever had.

[klacr]

Lost in the shuffle

Hi all,
I'm a (tenaciously struggling) 4.0 player, and I've been working on my volleys lately; I'm realizing that I just don't have the feel, and (consequently or also) it seems to me that the ball is really just bouncing off the face of my racket in a super short ricochet - not at all fluid, and I lack control of both depth and angle.

The advice and things I read on the volley seem so conflicting: it's a short swing, don't follow through, but don't punch it; firm grip but soft hands??

Great pro volleys really look so effortless, so super fluid - I really get the feeling they are getting a much longer contact time, carrying the ball a bit, even though they are dealing with a lot more pace, etc.

So, my question(s): what's really going on with the pro volley, and how do you develop this short-but-not-punched stroke?

Thanks for any and all advice and pointers....
-frank

This thread is something else.
First off, I'd like to thank Frank (faultsnaces) for starting it and opening up this dialogue.

It really shows the passion of our forum contributors when they can take an innocent post like the one above and turn it into a colorful debate on a shot that some would consider dead.

Geoff, 10splayer, tennis_chiro and all the others...
I hear what you are saying. I understand it. Fact is, you guys are not wrong nor right, just speaking in different dialects.
I'm all about the basic fundamental volley technique. But when I play I always find myself using this "snapback" volley technique. Why? It's all situational. Much like a forehand reverse finish is evident in lobs and late balls. Getting a volley at your shoelaces or below the height of the net requires a different mentality and technical nuances than a volley that is above the net. For many players that are comfortable up at net, they don't even think about it. I don't. It's just natural.

All that has been said in this thread is accurate, but coming from two different POV's. Ask a great volleyer and they will tell you all sorts of shots and reactions that they can create and manipulate. Will the classic volley ever go away? Not if tennis wants to advance into higher forms and include more of a snapback volley. These two shots play off one another. It's a heavy, deep blistering forehand that sets up the short ball. It's the firm, fluid and purposeful first volley sent deep in the court that can set up the snapback.
Modern volleyers still have roots in the classics... Bryan Brothers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9qQbRitBRE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWLI14pN_QI

The game and shots can advance, but only if the player knows how to get there and has the foundation for it.
Geoff talks about the uni grip and how it could take over tennis. It may, it may not. But Geoff's level of interest and loyalty in the shot and all other shots should not be undermined. there was a player that had the Uni Grip...Alberto Berasategui about 20+years ago. No big change or revolution after him...Maybe one day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78

But the most important issue on this thread is the one we have drifted far away from. That issue is the lifeblood of our knowledge and our purpose... THE STUDENT!!!

Frank does ask the question about the pro volley and thats fine. But how can he incorporate those elements into his game. But he also shared with us his own issues. Lack of soft hands, control and depth. No mention of pace or ultra aggression. He needs to develop the feel first, the basics. from there, as he advances, the snapback could in fact become a critical weapon in his arsenal. But let's put one foot in fron of the other. Walk before you can run. Let's help Frank's game.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[10splayer]

Some reasons the point 10sPlayer is trying to make is valid.

Once the ball gets above the net, the pros can do anything. Any ball at the net and above the level of the net, it is the equivalent of a slam dunk (assuming you had the hops!) for any professional player, even the groundstrokers. Once the ball gets a little further away from the net, it's not quite as easy. That's why we see so many players failing trying to transition forward with swinging volleys.

Even more than that, remember that the critical elements of volleying success are accuracy and consistency. You don't need to accelerate the return of a passing shot; just return it at the same speed and you have effectively doubled the speed of the shot as you cut your opponents' available recovery and reaction time almost in half; in fact, because you cut off the part of the ball's path (after the bounce) when it is traveling more than 40% slower, you have actually almost tripled the effective speed of the shot. You don't need any "snapback" technique to achieve that effect; you just need to meet the ball early and close to the net.

As correctly pointed out, the real challenge is when the ball is net height or below and traveling at good speed (and that could be anything over 50 mph), much less at pro passing speeds into the 70's and above. When you hit a ground stroke, you have an intended contact point and a margin of error within which you can hit and propel the ball effectively. No matter what you do, the ball is gone in 4 thousanths of a second. So we try to create a swing structure that has a "hitting zone" which is somewhat larger than the space that includes that distance covered during those 4 thousanths of a second because none of us is perfect. In fact, JY has shown repeatedly with his video work that one of the defining differences in Federer's forehand is the length of time he goes through the hitting zone on his forehand without "snapping back".

Now take that concept to the challenge presented trying to hit a volley on a 70 mph passing shot that is a just a couple of inches below the net, much less at ankle height. The timing challenge is not just a little more difficult: time is cut in half, the ball is going more than twice as fast as it is when you hit a groundstroke behind the baseline, and your target area is much shorter than the target area you have from the baseline. You must control the power you apply to the shot as you "absorb" the speed of the oncoming ball and reverse that ball with a good portion of the oncoming speed. There is no need to hit that ball at 100 mph. There is a great requirement to be consistent and accurate with that shot with a lot less time to set up and execute this shot. When the ball is going halfspeed back at the baseline, I have a lot simpler challenge of timing my shot and creating almost the exact contact point that I want. But when the ball is traveling so fast and I have so little time and the reward is so great for me being accurate and consistent, I need a little more margin for error. If the racket face is "snapping back", it is by definition not at the correct angle relative to the intended path of the ball either immediately before or immediately after the contact with the ball. I want a volley stroke that gives me a greater margin of error; in other words, I want to create a "wall" that is moving towards the intended contact point in such an alignment that if I hit the ball an inch or two either early or late, the shot still works.

That doesn't happen with a "snapback" volley. The fact pros may hit "snapback" volleys on high volleys and sitters has nothing to do with an appropiate model for someone trying to develop effective volleying technique. Watch how the Bryans hit the volleys when they are hitting tough volleys at the level of their knees 10' from the net, especially approach volleys coming behind a serve or a return of serve when they are on the move and they need to hit a sharp volley deep and low into the court. Their level of difficulty on that shot is approximately equivalent to the degree of difficulty for an open player on a medium pace volley on a ball a couple of inches above the net; and for someone trying to learn the game, well that is a whole other ballgame.

The point is, to deal with 70 mph passing shots, you need to have a volley stroke which allows you to deal with one very basic reality, our humanity. And the last time I checked, that humanity includes the fact that we do not have perfect timing.

don

Exactly Don!! Maybe the Thomas Edison's of tennis instruction will be open to the opinion of a guy who played pro level back in the day when guys could actually volley. I'm not getting my hopes up though.

[tennis_chiro]

No one advocating blocking the ball

Only pros deal with 90mph passes, and even then, if the ball is above the level of the net, they use the snap back on poaches, ie. Returns have half as many rps as passing shots do, due to the abbreviated strokes used by pro returners off pro paced serves. Even then, if the shot is high, the snap back is used to put the poach away! Players who only receive and block the volley are incomplete. Lower level play gives us more chance to use the snap back, as the passes are higher/slower/lower rpms. Volleying is so difficult as is, that it's fun to learn a new technique, although blocked volleys are easier to learn and it's a far more likely technique to be used by most. Same was true for the extreme top spin when Borg arrived. Now look at the land scape of top fh. Borg would be considered to have a weak fh now a days. Progress always will include more coil, more head speed and new technique scoffed at. If I were to stay on the base line against 170lb 25 yr. olds, I would be the one losing and looking bad and cursing.

It's always the same guys who preach older technique as if the new is flawed and worthless. One day we will see someone use a uni grip top spin instead of the continental. Imagine what these guys will say then. Only a few of the guys here can beat 4.5+ players serving and volleying. Klacr. Me. A few others. I am the only one doing it with snap backs. Nothing like the feeling of hitting a short extreme snap back at 85mph that stays about 12" off the ground, whereas everyone else is blocking or using the swing volley. Look at old video, and you will see the fastest shots hit, were volleys, faster than their serves were. Due to long follow throughs and solid body and yes, snap backs.

I guess we agree to disagree. But no one here is advocating blocking the volley, just using a stroke that has enough of a backswing to reverse the ball and be completely accurate and consistent. One of the three keys I was taught 40 years ago to always examine in the warmup was the nature of the opponent's volley; not as important anymore because players volley so little, but it still holds.

1) If they only block the volley, don't give them speed; slow the ball down and pass them with the second ball

2) If they have a sharply descending stroke, get the ball down low to them; they won't be able to do anything with the ball

3) If they have a big backswing, fire right at them; they won't be able to keep the ball in the court consistently. (I think your "snapback" volley will fall into this category.)

Frankly, today's "volleyers" (it's not really fair to call them that) mostly fall into one of the above categories and can't really be considered a major threat at the net.

Rackets may be lighter than 40 years ago (significantly) and strings and frames may be more responsive, but I think these principles still hold true. True, a 4.5 player may not be able to exploit these weaknesses, but if you are building a player to play at a higher level, they better be able to hold up at the net against someone who can. In this case, I am definitely one of the old guys advocating the techniques of the past. On the other hand, I would also tell you that those old guys could "bludgeon" their volleys with a very short, crisp, accurate and consistent stroke. That short stroke could take a 60 mph ball and hit it back, under control, at 70 mph. That was old school.

PS: the other two parts of that initial warmup analysis:

1) do they hit with rhythm or timing (see my article in Classic lessons). Most players hit with rhythm and can be easily exploited with subtle changes in depth, speed and spin

2) figure out whether or not the player has any real rhythm to their toss that is repeatable under pressure and fatigue; a lot don't. If not, you must really press forward on the second serve to make them feel that pressure. You'll be rewarded with extra free points on double faults as well as opportunities to take advantage of weak second serves.

And if none of the three easy areas of weakness was obvious after my initial analysis, I knew enough to bring lunch - I would be in for a long day at the office.

don

[GeoffWilliams]

Only pros deal with 90mph passes, and even then, if the ball is above the level of the net, they use the snap back on poaches, ie. Returns have half as many rps as passing shots do, due to the abbreviated strokes used by pro returners off pro paced serves. Even then, if the shot is high, the snap back is used to put the poach away! Players who only receive and block the volley are incomplete. Lower level play gives us more chance to use the snap back, as the passes are higher/slower/lower rpms. Volleying is so difficult as is, that it's fun to learn a new technique, although blocked volleys are easier to learn and it's a far more likely technique to be used by most. Same was true for the extreme top spin when Borg arrived. Now look at the land scape of top fh. Borg would be considered to have a weak fh now a days. Progress always will include more coil, more head speed and new technique scoffed at. If I were to stay on the base line against 170lb 25 yr. olds, I would be the one losing and looking bad and cursing.

It's always the same guys who preach older technique as if the new is flawed and worthless. One day we will see someone use a uni grip top spin instead of the continental. Imagine what these guys will say then. Only a few of the guys here can beat 4.5+ players serving and volleying. Klacr. Me. A few others. I am the only one doing it with snap backs. Nothing like the feeling of hitting a short extreme snap back at 85mph that stays about 12" off the ground, whereas everyone else is blocking or using the swing volley. Look at old video, and you will see the fastest shots hit, were volleys, faster than their serves were. Due to long follow throughs and solid body and yes, snap backs.

[tennis_chiro]

Some reasons the point 10sPlayer is trying to make is valid

Some reasons the point 10sPlayer is trying to make is valid.

Once the ball gets above the net, the pros can do anything. Any ball at the net and above the level of the net, it is the equivalent of a slam dunk (assuming you had the hops!) for any professional player, even the groundstrokers. Once the ball gets a little further away from the net, it's not quite as easy. That's why we see so many players failing trying to transition forward with swinging volleys.

Even more than that, remember that the critical elements of volleying success are accuracy and consistency. You don't need to accelerate the return of a passing shot; just return it at the same speed and you have effectively doubled the speed of the shot as you cut your opponents' available recovery and reaction time almost in half; in fact, because you cut off the part of the ball's path (after the bounce) when it is traveling more than 40% slower, you have actually almost tripled the effective speed of the shot. You don't need any "snapback" technique to achieve that effect; you just need to meet the ball early and close to the net.

As correctly pointed out, the real challenge is when the ball is net height or below and traveling at good speed (and that could be anything over 50 mph), much less at pro passing speeds into the 70's and above. When you hit a ground stroke, you have an intended contact point and a margin of error within which you can hit and propel the ball effectively. No matter what you do, the ball is gone in 4 thousanths of a second. So we try to create a swing structure that has a "hitting zone" which is somewhat larger than the space that includes that distance covered during those 4 thousanths of a second because none of us is perfect. In fact, JY has shown repeatedly with his video work that one of the defining differences in Federer's forehand is the length of time he goes through the hitting zone on his forehand without "snapping back".

Now take that concept to the challenge presented trying to hit a volley on a 70 mph passing shot that is a just a couple of inches below the net, much less at ankle height. The timing challenge is not just a little more difficult: time is cut in half, the ball is going more than twice as fast as it is when you hit a groundstroke behind the baseline, and your target area is much shorter than the target area you have from the baseline. You must control the power you apply to the shot as you "absorb" the speed of the oncoming ball and reverse that ball with a good portion of the oncoming speed. There is no need to hit that ball at 100 mph. There is a great requirement to be consistent and accurate with that shot with a lot less time to set up and execute this shot. When the ball is going halfspeed back at the baseline, I have a lot simpler challenge of timing my shot and creating almost the exact contact point that I want. But when the ball is traveling so fast and I have so little time and the reward is so great for me being accurate and consistent, I need a little more margin for error. If the racket face is "snapping back", it is by definition not at the correct angle relative to the intended path of the ball either immediately before or immediately after the contact with the ball. I want a volley stroke that gives me a greater margin of error; in other words, I want to create a "wall" that is moving towards the intended contact point in such an alignment that if I hit the ball an inch or two either early or late, the shot still works.

That doesn't happen with a "snapback" volley. The fact pros may hit "snapback" volleys on high volleys and sitters has nothing to do with an appropiate model for someone trying to develop effective volleying technique. Watch how the Bryans hit the volleys when they are hitting tough volleys at the level of their knees 10' from the net, especially approach volleys coming behind a serve or a return of serve when they are on the move and they need to hit a sharp volley deep and low into the court. Their level of difficulty on that shot is approximately equivalent to the degree of difficulty for an open player on a medium pace volley on a ball a couple of inches above the net; and for someone trying to learn the game, well that is a whole other ballgame.

The point is, to deal with 70 mph passing shots, you need to have a volley stroke which allows you to deal with one very basic reality, our humanity. And the last time I checked, that humanity includes the fact that we do not have perfect timing.

don