[Samer Kadi] Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

[brokenshoelace]

Hello everyone, here is my second blog for the site, discussing the dominance of forehand and movement in today's game.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/broken-shoelace/inside-out-the-era-of-forehand-and-movement/

Feedback is appreciated...

 

[coban]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Hello everyone, here is my second blog for the site, discussing the dominance of forehand and movement in today's game.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/?p=906&preview=true

Feedback is appreciated...

Nicely written, however i feel it builds up to something that is lacking. I think you're missing the point about why Federer runs around his backhand vs. Nadal (most people on this discussion board know why, but i dont think the average reader knows). Likewise i also feel you should have added some depth to the section as to why Djokovic dominates Nadal.

Otherwise a good read, ty for the write-up!

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Hello everyone, here is my second blog for the site, discussing the dominance of forehand and movement in today's game.

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/?p=906&preview=true

Feedback is appreciated...

Nicely written, however i feel it builds up to something that is lacking. I think you're missing the point about why Federer runs around his backhand vs. Nadal (most people on this discussion board know why, but i dont think the average reader knows). Likewise i also feel you should have added some depth to the section as to why Djokovic dominates Nadal.

Otherwise a good read, ty for the write-up!

I agree that I should have focused more on why it's almost always better to have your forehand as your better shot (you can mask your backhand weaknesses more easily, by running around it, slicing it, etc...).

The Djokovic/Nadal thing however, would have been out of place. That's a match-up related issue that requires an article on its own.

 

[tented]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Great blog, Broken. Well-written and insightful, as always.

I have to admit, I never thought of one of the key aspects of the current era being the forehand. You hear tons about movement, especially with the Big Four and a few others, but I don't ever remember anyone focusing so acutely on adding the forehand to the mix. If anything, you hear a lot of debate about the pros and cons of a one- or two-handed backhand.

The changes in technology, which champions from previous eras like McEnroe, Connors, Navratilova, etc. comment on frequently, do seem to have changed the game radically, as you also indicate:

"Increased racquet technology, homogenization of the surfaces, and the rise of a new breed of phenomenal athletes have altered the game considerably, with serve and volley taking a backseat to a noticeable shift towards baseline tennis. The change has been characterized by a strong emphasis on the forehand."

If anything, part of what you've written ties in with the poll Moxie began concerning the most aggressive players. With the growing realization that many of them are now older, if not retired, it's a demonstration that baseline tennis is what succeeds today, vs. the more aggressive style of serve and volley.

 

[Moxie]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Great blog, Broken. Well-written and insightful, as always.

I have to admit, I never thought of one of the key aspects of the current era being the forehand. You hear tons about movement, especially with the Big Four and a few others, but I don't ever remember anyone focusing so acutely on adding the forehand to the mix. If anything, you hear a lot of debate about the pros and cons of a one- or two-handed backhand.

The changes in technology, which champions from previous eras like McEnroe, Connors, Navratilova, etc. comment on frequently, do seem to have changed the game radically, as you also indicate:

"Increased racquet technology, homogenization of the surfaces, and the rise of a new breed of phenomenal athletes have altered the game considerably, with serve and volley taking a backseat to a noticeable shift towards baseline tennis. The change has been characterized by a strong emphasis on the forehand."

If anything, part of what you've written ties in with the poll Moxie began concerning the most aggressive players. With the growing realization that many of them are now older, if not retired, it's a demonstration that baseline tennis is what succeeds today, vs. the more aggressive style of serve and volley.

Interesting tie-in to my point, tented, and excellent blog post, Broken! I learned a lot from that.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You make strong points, Broken, but I do have some objections.

First of all, I think "revolutionized" is too strong a word for what Federer's forehand did to the game of tennis. "Revolutionized" would imply that he changed the way the game is played because of his forehand. I don't think that is the case. I see him as better than his predecessors in terms of talent and shotmaking ability, but I don't see him as someone who "revolutionized" tennis with a single shot. In fact, you end your piece by writing this: "A quick glance at the current crop of up-and-coming players shows no real candidate that fits the description of a modern day champion — a great mover with a world-class forehand."

So then how much of a "revolution" was there really if 10 years after this Federer forehand came on the scene no one in the up-and-coming generation has something like it (as you define it)?

Aside from that, I can clearly see the influence of our past discussions in your post when it comes to how the forehand relates to movement. I don't fundamentally disagree with why or how Federer and Nadal are more effective with their forehands than most other players; I do, however, take issue with how you define the issue.

For one thing, you seem to think that because Federer and Nadal's movement makes them able to hit a wider array of shots with consistency of off their forehand side (including non-winner, more or less boring/standard rally shots), this makes their "forehands" better than what their peers possess (and, apparently, your conception of forehand includes literally every single shot on the player's strong-hand side that is not a volley or overhead). Again, I think that how you name this is flawed. The "forehand" is a stroke of the racket and the manner of hitting the ball, strictly speaking. Immediate pre-shot footwork and stance are related to the effectiveness of a particular forehand shot, so they can be considered part of the shot as well. However, most Top 10 players have very similar footwork from the back of the court; for instance, does, say, Nicolas Almagro have poor footwork? No. But he has an erect back and subpar side-to-side speed that prevent him from being dominant in rallies with his power much of the time.

The thing is, when you get into the Federer-Nadal level of athleticism (in terms of court coverage) that you discuss, what you are talking about, strictly speaking, is not how they swing the racket or their immediate footwork in setting up particular shots. What you are directly referring to is simply getting to balls faster and with more ease than the rest, and therefore having more time to comfortably set up shots. I don't see how their particular "forehand" shots should be credited for this.

If you want to say that Federer and Nadal are different (which they are), then I would just keep it to the athleticism, speed, ease of movement, and quickness, as opposed to saying that their "forehand" shots are as special as you say vis-a-vis everyone else's. As I have said time after time, I have watched numerous Nadal matches in which his forehand was nothing special beyond the fact that it went in a lot and he was consistent with it. He didn't do anything extraordinary with it; he was just mildly effective over and over and over and over until he pulled out the win.

In such cases, his athleticism and stamina played much more of a role in him winning than his "forehand" shot. I think you and others have looked at a small handful of opportunistic points here and there from some of Nadal's matches when he hit an impressive winner (for once), and then in a frenzy of post-match victory joy, you all boast about awesome his forehand was. What you ignore are the numerous points (often the majority, especially on hardcourts) when his forehand truly wasn't anything special as a shotmaking weapon; the only sense in which it may have been special is that it went in constantly - but, once again, does that owe to his technique and ball-striking ability, or to his stamina and mental qualities? Clearly the latter applies more.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

The Nadal part...well, let's just say we've had enough conversations for you to know where I stand, and I know where you stand.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Well written and spot on, brother! And that video of Nadal hitting a ridiculous run-around forehand? Can only grimace and grin at the same time.

For me, Lendl was the first player to operate the inside-out forehand as an unselfconscious weapon of attack, as opposed to simply a way of shielding a weaker wing. Undoubtably his backhand was weaker, but his forehand was such a deliciously destructive shot, he approached it this way for the same reason as Federer and Nadal: as a point-breaker.

You can see typical Lendl manoeuvring here, and for his time, this shot was as original and potent as both Nadal and Federer's today. But they raised it to another level, with their footwork and aggressive pursuit of that backhand corner as a blast-off space for forehand winners...

 

[askh]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Thanks for the article, it was an interesting read.

Writing about Djokovic, you say: "Good as his backhand is, the basic mechanics of the forehand mean he has more options off that wing."

Would you (or anyone else) elaborate more on what these basic mechanics are that make forehand a greater weapon than backhand? I fairly recently started learning about the game (and also to play), and although I notice this greater potency of the forehand, I don't understand the reasons behind it.

 

[Front242]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Well written and spot on, brother! And that video of Nadal hitting a ridiculous run-around forehand? Can only grimace and grin at the same time.

For me, Lendl was the first player to operate the inside-out forehand as an unselfconscious weapon of attack, as opposed to simply a way of shielding a weaker wing. Undoubtably his backhand was weaker, but his forehand was such a deliciously destructive shot, he approached it this way for the same reason as Federer and Nadal: as a point-breaker.

You can see typical Lendl manoeuvring here, and for his time, this shot was as original and potent as both Nadal and Federer's today. But they raised it to another level, with their footwork and aggressive pursuit of that backhand corner as a blast-off space for forehand winners...

The pat on the ass at the end was well dodgy. Bad form of Becker to not apologize for the netcord at match point too. Not surprised really. When we were at the WTF a year ago I was actually looking the other way and didn't see he was walking by accompanied by 2 security guards as he was on crutches and he bumped into my girfriend (brushed off her shoulder) and didn't even apologize then either. I said what happened there and she said "Didn't you notice Boris Becker? He just bumped into me and didn't even say sorry."Looking at him here he's hardly recognizable from how bloated he is these days.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Yeah, Becker is bloated in more ways than one...

 

[Ricardo]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

front you noticed the size of his head right? he still insists the best players he played against were better than today's....

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

I did not say it is just "motion of the arm". Like I said, I distinguish between immediate pre-shot footwork and then covering every inch of the court athletically, all of the time. For instance, I distinguish between Federer covering 3 or 4 meters moving to his right from how he sets up in a closed or open stance (depending on the depth of the opponent's shot to his forehand) immediately before his shot.

I just don't see how Rafael Nadal's "forehand" should be credited when he goes into an all-out sprint from right to left before hitting a defensive passing shot. Fundamentally, his athleticism deserves much more credit for that than anything else.

 

[huntingyou]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Good read, agree with most of the content.................Federer/Nadal' as different as they might be hae rewritten the history books with their forehand as their "pen" of choice.

Like you said, Nadal even more so given his limitations vis a vis Federer.......a revolution of the game indeed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

I did not say it is just "motion of the arm". Like I said, I distinguish between immediate pre-shot footwork and then covering every inch of the court athletically, all of the time. For instance, I distinguish between Federer covering 3 or 4 meters moving to his right from how he sets up in a closed or open stance (depending on the depth of the opponent's shot to his forehand) immediately before his shot.

I just don't see how Rafael Nadal's "forehand" should be credited when he goes into an all-out sprint from right to left before hitting a defensive passing shot. Fundamentally, his athleticism deserves much more credit for that than anything else.

Yeah, because Nadal is always hitting forehands after a full sprint and has to hit a passing shot. Literally 5%-10% of the forehands he hits in a match fit that description.

Your previous post was sensible but this one is just you falling victim to your own bias.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

I did not say it is just "motion of the arm". Like I said, I distinguish between immediate pre-shot footwork and then covering every inch of the court athletically, all of the time. For instance, I distinguish between Federer covering 3 or 4 meters moving to his right from how he sets up in a closed or open stance (depending on the depth of the opponent's shot to his forehand) immediately before his shot.

I just don't see how Rafael Nadal's "forehand" should be credited when he goes into an all-out sprint from right to left before hitting a defensive passing shot. Fundamentally, his athleticism deserves much more credit for that than anything else.

Yeah, because Nadal is always hitting forehands after a full sprint and has to hit a passing shot. Literally 5%-10% of the forehands he hits in a match fit that description.

Your previous post was sensible but this one is just you falling victim to your own bias.

No, I was just giving one example, albeit an extreme one. There are a number of others when Nadal doesn't do anything special with the shot, besides prolong the rally when others would not have been able to get to the ball in time to do so.

This wasn't meant as a shot at Nadal (as you know, I know all about those).

But let me ask you this question, before I offer my own comments: who do you think has a better forehand - Nadal or Gulbis, and why?

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

But let me ask you this question, before I offer my own comments: who do you think has a better forehand - Nadal or Gulbis, and why?

...

 

[Ricardo]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

I did not say it is just "motion of the arm". Like I said, I distinguish between immediate pre-shot footwork and then covering every inch of the court athletically, all of the time. For instance, I distinguish between Federer covering 3 or 4 meters moving to his right from how he sets up in a closed or open stance (depending on the depth of the opponent's shot to his forehand) immediately before his shot.

I just don't see how Rafael Nadal's "forehand" should be credited when he goes into an all-out sprint from right to left before hitting a defensive passing shot. Fundamentally, his athleticism deserves much more credit for that than anything else.

Yeah, because Nadal is always hitting forehands after a full sprint and has to hit a passing shot. Literally 5%-10% of the forehands he hits in a match fit that description.

Your previous post was sensible but this one is just you falling victim to your own bias.

No, I was just giving one example, albeit an extreme one. There are a number of others when Nadal doesn't do anything special with the shot, besides prolong the rally when others would not have been able to get to the ball in time to do so.

This wasn't meant as a shot at Nadal (as you know, I know all about those).

But let me ask you this question, before I offer my own comments: who do you think has a better forehand - Nadal or Gulbis, and why?

Nadal, no question about it. Whoever does it with higher winning percentage consistently is better - consistency is king. So what if on occasion someone hits 50 fh winners in a match? takes a career to make a champion, one match or one tournament makes a one hit wonder.

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

You know my stance on this Cali, the issues you discuss are way too closely related to separate. You can touch on each of them separately, and I have in the past, but I can't separate them from the stroke itself (in this case, the forehand). And yes, I do think, technically speaking, Federer and Nadal have superior footwork than the Nicola Almagros of the world. Likewise, I just don't see how you can isolate footwork from their forehands. It's one big mechanic. In my mind, I can't limit the forehand to the motion of the arm.

I did not say it is just "motion of the arm". Like I said, I distinguish between immediate pre-shot footwork and then covering every inch of the court athletically, all of the time. For instance, I distinguish between Federer covering 3 or 4 meters moving to his right from how he sets up in a closed or open stance (depending on the depth of the opponent's shot to his forehand) immediately before his shot.

I just don't see how Rafael Nadal's "forehand" should be credited when he goes into an all-out sprint from right to left before hitting a defensive passing shot. Fundamentally, his athleticism deserves much more credit for that than anything else.

Yeah, because Nadal is always hitting forehands after a full sprint and has to hit a passing shot. Literally 5%-10% of the forehands he hits in a match fit that description.

Your previous post was sensible but this one is just you falling victim to your own bias.

No, I was just giving one example, albeit an extreme one. There are a number of others when Nadal doesn't do anything special with the shot, besides prolong the rally when others would not have been able to get to the ball in time to do so.

This wasn't meant as a shot at Nadal (as you know, I know all about those).

But let me ask you this question, before I offer my own comments: who do you think has a better forehand - Nadal or Gulbis, and why?

Cali, My good friend.. this is your easy question ever.. I will anwser it the same way I respond to IT security question .. "How important is your "property" is to you? Cali if you had someone to hit one forehand if your life depended on it? You tell me Gulbis or Nadal..

I am going with the 11 time GS and 24 MS titles champion

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Nadal, no question about it. Whoever does it with higher winning percentage consistently is better - consistency is king. So what if on occasion someone hits 50 fh winners in a match? takes a career to make a champion, one match or one tournament makes a one hit wonder.

But when I look at the reasons Nadal executes his forehand more consistently than Gulbis, I can't say it has to do with the shot itself. It has to do with the mind and the physicality issues.

I don't understand everyone's preoccupation with a shot-centered mindset. If someone is good, then they must have this or that incredible shot all the time. I simply don't understand why everyone has the need to say that. I have personally attended many Nadal matches when I had high expectations for what he would do with his forehand, only to see something quite dry, aside from the fact that he made it.

---

Cali, My good friend.. this is your easy question ever.. I will anwser it the same way I respond to IT security question .. "How important is your "property" is to you? Cali if you had someone to hit one forehand if your life depended on it? You tell me Gulbis or Nadal..

I am going with the 11 time GS and 24 MS titles champion

It depends where they are hitting it. If it is an inside-out at the French Open, I'll take Nadal. If it is a ball in the middle of the court at the US Open, I'll take Gulbis.