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.