Best Forehand: Nadal or Federer

[tcuk]

I have had a long-standing argument with a friend of mine over who has got the best forehand, Nadal or Federer. I say Federer's has the edge, it's such a probing shot, the way he pulls opponents around the court with it is fascinating, and in the midcourt he's simply devasting.

My friend likens Nadal's forehand to Borg's in that it is so consisitent. I'd agree with that, but Federer hits more winners. Nadal's forehand can also be a weakness on those days when he is not finding a length, like at the French Open against Soderling.

I open this argument to tennisplayer members to be laid to rest. Who do think has the best forehand, Nadal or Federer?

[airforce1]

I have had a long-standing argument with a friend of mine over who has got the best forehand, Nadal or Federer. I say Federer's has the edge, it's such a probing shot, the way he pulls opponents around the court with it is fascinating, and in the midcourt he's simply devasting.

My friend likens Nadal's forehand to Borg's in that it is so consisitent. I'd agree with that, but Federer hits more winners. Nadal's forehand can also be a weakness on those days when he is not finding a length, like at the French Open against Soderling.

I open this argument to tennisplayer members to be laid to rest. Who do think has the best forehand, Nadal or Federer?

I have no problem going with Fed when he is in shape and not compelled to finish points too quickly like he did most of last year after having Mono.
Clearly Nadal has an outstanding FH as well and may be the best at finishing off a short ball.
my 2 cents

[CraigC]

Too Different to Compare

The forehands are so well suited their individual styles that it's hard to answer.

Here's a cool scenario for comparison:

Give Roger Rafa's forehand and give Rafa Fed's forehand.

I think Rafa's game gets much better but Federer's does not. That would indicate that Fed's forehand is better. However, the reason Rafa's forehand wouldn't help Fed as much is because his gamestyle requires something different than the performance characteristics of Rafa's forehand. Given Rafa's forehand, Fed would obviously be a completely different player.

As for Rafa, he'd still have his speed, the lefty advantage, but now he'd be taking the ball earlier and hitting harder. That's a scary proposition.

CC

[oliensis]

I've always liked Federer's forehand better. But there is something about Nadal's forehand in the first link below that is really incredible. This perspective (from behind the players) shows the flight of the ball, and Nadal's forehand looks like it would be almost impossible to miss with.

Both are awesome, but these clips give me a newfound appreciation of what Nadal's forehan does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KB6EY7FxgUg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_yWePjInF8&feature=related

[tcuk]

Thanks for those clips, Oliensis. I agree with the 'unmissable' look you point out. Borg's had that same can't miss look about it too. The only problem with Nadal's forehand is that he has the odd day when he hits a poor length. Borg had the same problem but he could get away with in those days.

I guess you could say Federer's forehand is a little wristy, which tends to make it go awry at times.

I really like Fed's forehand, though. I think it's one of the greatest tennis shots of all time.

[10splayer]

I actually think Nadal's forehand is kinda cool, in a strange sort of way. But the fact that fed can use basically an easternish grip and achieve spin rates comparable to 4/4 sw grippers, just makes the shot so versatile.

The ability to hold his ground and easily hit through the court, but at the same time widen it like a clay courter, makes this stroke so difficult to defend. It has to be considered superior.

[oliensis]

Glad the links are appreciated.

Both forehands are awesome.
Fed's is so darn versatile...but Nadal's would have to be incredibly wearing on an opponent.
I'd be overjoyed to have 20% of either one.

[bottle]

A Stroke for the In Betweens

What interests me much more than which of these amazing forehands is better, is which can I (you) learn from more easily and maybe even do?

So who is you (I)? "The masses?" Players who are not on any tour or circuit? Players who haven't yet been juried into some imaginary but still highly snooty country club?

The main trends in neuroscience and physiology, let's call them "research momentum," indicate that in tennis (and elsewhere) there is a large population that falls through the cracks, people who could be really good if they weren't stupidly excluded from it by others or by themselves.

Brain, nerve and muscle function, in other words, is more free will and less determinism than ever presumed in the history of science-- e.g., brain cells, if properly cued, will regenerate at any age. For all of my life you were stuck with what you got in childhood. Just goes to show you should never believe anybody.

In three decades of looking for strokes that are better than the ones I grew up with, a single discovery transcends all others.

I describe it in more detail in the New Year's Serve thread. The simple version
here is that in hitting a Roger-like forehand you should get your arm straightened in the slot but way back, so that your smoothly rotating body gives the racket a slow but powerful "wide ride."

I've tried to describe what happens next both schematically and through the analogy of a shortcut across the curve (to the left) in a mountain trail. If you place two imaginary spots on the broad circle your racket is creating, and then bowl, with mondo, from first spot to the second, you'll achieve effortless acceleration of your racket tip rotating up on relaxed forearm to the right as your hand resumes original speed and direction on the big circle.

Reader, is this a simple or complex idea? Complex to describe, I'd suggest, but very simple to do.

If I sound bitter that no one in this website has reacted in any way, shape or form to this IDEA, I'm not. And I'm not surprised. And I don't want credit for brilliance since I made the discovery quite by accident. (I will give myself a Bryan brothers chest bump for persistence, however.)

As Theodore Roethke, greatest of all Penn State tennis coaches, has opined, You can't spend ten years in coming up with some personal discovery and then be surprised that other people don't immediately get it.

There are two reasons people should try this. 1) The sudden ability to hit a dime anywhere on the court; 2) The understanding that "wiping" or "unfurling" is now being done by a pair of changes of direction in the stroke path rather than from any axle-like twist from muscles in your hand or arm. (WINDSHIELD WIPER, begone, thou churlish knave, if thou willst wipe to my left. Nay, by my troth, hand to the left, wipe to the right as be-bowled.)

TCUK, I've heard other knowledgeable people besides yourself say Roger's forehand is wristy, but I wouldn't believe them unless they are speaking about wrist closure after contact.

[tcuk]

Nice reply, Bottle...had to read it twice to get the gist, but managed it in the end. I find Roger's forehand wristy all around the contact point myself, and the reason it occasionally breaks down. I guess the wrist also makes it a better shot in some ways too.

I remember Steffi Graf had a late backswing that could make the wheels come of the stroke for spells at a time. At the same time her late preparation made it hard for opponents to read the stroke. Sometimes a slight weakness inadvertently becomes a strength.

[sejsel]

Answer long coming...

What interests me much more than which of these amazing forehands is better, is which can I (you) learn from more easily and maybe even do?

So who is you (I)? "The masses?" Players who are not on any tour or circuit? Players who haven't yet been juried into some imaginary but still highly snooty country club?

The main trends in neuroscience and physiology, let's call them "research momentum," indicate that in tennis (and elsewhere) there is a large population that falls through the cracks, people who could be really good if they weren't stupidly excluded from it by others or by themselves.

Brain, nerve and muscle function, in other words, is more free will and less determinism than ever presumed in the history of science-- e.g., brain cells, if properly cued, will regenerate at any age. For all of my life you were stuck with what you got in childhood. Just goes to show you should never believe anybody.

In three decades of looking for strokes that are better than the ones I grew up with, a single discovery transcends all others.

I describe it in more detail in the New Year's Serve thread. The simple version
here is that in hitting a Roger-like forehand you should get your arm straightened in the slot but way back, so that your smoothly rotating body gives the racket a slow but powerful "wide ride."

I've tried to describe what happens next both schematically and through the analogy of a shortcut across the curve (to the left) in a mountain trail. If you place two imaginary spots on the broad circle your racket is creating, and then bowl, with mondo, from first spot to the second, you'll achieve effortless acceleration of your racket tip rotating up on relaxed forearm to the right as your hand resumes original speed and direction on the big circle.

Reader, is this a simple or complex idea? Complex to describe, I'd suggest, but very simple to do.

If I sound bitter that no one in this website has reacted in any way, shape or form to this IDEA, I'm not. And I'm not surprised. And I don't want credit for brilliance since I made the discovery quite by accident. (I will give myself a Bryan brothers chest bump for persistence, however.)

As Theodore Roethke, greatest of all Penn State tennis coaches, has opined, You can't spend ten years in coming up with some personal discovery and then be surprised that other people don't immediately get it.

There are two reasons people should try this. 1) The sudden ability to hit a dime anywhere on the court; 2) The understanding that "wiping" or "unfurling" is now being done by a pair of changes of direction in the stroke path rather than from any axle-like twist from muscles in your hand or arm. (WINDSHIELD WIPER, begone, thou churlish knave, if thou willst wipe to my left. Nay, by my troth, hand to the left, wipe to the right as be-bowled.)

TCUK, I've heard other knowledgeable people besides yourself say Roger's forehand is wristy, but I wouldn't believe them unless they are speaking about wrist closure after contact.

Thanks Bottle, don't worry, what you have written has been read, seen and "monitored" for some time.
The answer is almost done and coming in next few hours.

It always seemed to me that the key to Fed's forehand is what it has evolved in since I saw him and recorded way back in 1999. or 2000. until today. And that is the way he almost "throws" the racquet head into the ball in a very controlled, yet at the same time uninhibited way.

The stroke altogether has been modeled according to Boris Becker forehand (high take-back noticeable in both), but the part of the stroke from pointing the but of the racquet handle towards the ball, throughout the contact and futher is something special there.

As well as his immense technical variation altogether in forehand.

Having said that, let us not forget his head to head stats with Nadal...

[bottle]

Thank You, Both

And I look forward to hearing what you're going to say, Sejsel. For me it will go in the context not only of the threads here, but in "How to Hit the Roger Federer Forehand," which got 27,000 hits at Talk Tennis before that thread was deleted, without warning, because of some tough (and unnecessarily mean) remarks that a few people made. For a while-- it was for a couple of years I think-- I really had a lot of fun hearing from pros and players from all over the world, most of whom were not afraid to have an actual discussion of something that was new and mysterious and for which no one person (maybe not even Roger himself) had all the answers.

This probably is still true. But as a friend recently said, "It (Roger's forehand)
couldn't be too complicated or it wouldn't work." This has seemed true ever since Roger first came on the scene. Too often, people want to mythologize
the latest hero by saying of some stroke, "Don't try this at home." And they're right in many cases (Fred Perry's whole game, Andy Roddick's serve, Ivan Lendl's forehand and maybe his backhand, too, considering the weird way he used the freakishly long fingers of his left hand to get the racket tip low).

I just think Roger's forehand is in a different category. Why? Just a hunch
in the beginning. But as I've kept working within this convention or form, I've
been constantly rewarded, and the stroke has slowly gotten better and better (which is interesting since at the same time I've gotten older and older). Could the improvement have come more quickly, through better information?
Undoubtedly.

Some personal breakthroughs: 1) Viewing the body movement not as the pieces of a kinetic chain but rather as a single, dynamic throw from outside foot to in for the best of all repositionings to the center of possibilities. Those shoulders start moving early and smoothly and just keep going. All kinds of smaller moves are hung on this central action, but just how detailed do we want to become about them (at least today)? 2) Everything that JY said about pointing across with left arm to get the shoulders fully wound, although I must say, it took me a long while to realize that this move REPLACES some of the classic stuff about getting the racket back through keeping left hand on frame. 3) JY's instructions about Roger's cyclic three changes in pitch. 4) Eric Matuszewski's explanation that the two basic parts of mondo (wrist layback and forearm twisting down) occur simultaneously. 5) Jeffrey Count's insistence on the inside to out racket-work in this stroke over the objections of some critics, myself included, 6) Everything that OW has ever said about coming up slow to the ball or feeling for it, and also on the subject of changes of direction. 6) A million other things that people have said, which unfortunately may make one's self-cultivation seem more complicated than it need be.

If feel is more important than detail in learning a tennis stroke, then the feel of passing another car and returning to one's previous speed isn't bad analogy for precisely spun Federfores (in my opinion, but you knew that already). The most recent breakthrough includes a realization that the acceleration occurs in a shorter piece of the overall tract than I previously thought. I'm sure many other people have had a similar series of realizations.

As I was hitting forehand winners all over the place in a match at 6:30 this morning, I thought once again, what am I supposed to do with the new information? Sit on it? Keep it a secret? Deny it? Why?

TCUK, if loose grip means being wristy, then Roger is wristy. Mr. Peredo, if
turning elbow up generates wipe, it has to be during contact, and elbow turns up a LOT MORE after contact. TCUK, if wrist closes during contact, it closes
a LOT MORE after contact. Bottle, just keep hitting the ball the way you're doing it and don't change anything, ever.

[gsheiner]

OK Bottle I'll bite. How about a video to demonstrate what you're discovering?

[jperedo]

Bottle - if ever you started a blog on the federfore, i'd definitely subscribe

[nabrug]

And I look forward to hearing what you're going to say, Sejsel. For me it will go in the context not only of the threads here, but in "How to Hit the Roger Federer Forehand," which got 27,000 hits at Talk Tennis before that thread was deleted, without warning, because of some tough (and unnecessarily mean) remarks that a few people made. For a while-- it was for a couple of years I think-- I really had a lot of fun hearing from pros and players from all over the world, most of whom were not afraid to have an actual discussion of something that was new and mysterious and for which no one person (maybe not even Roger himself) had all the answers.

This probably is still true. But as a friend recently said, "It (Roger's forehand)
couldn't be too complicated or it wouldn't work." This has seemed true ever since Roger first came on the scene. Too often, people want to mythologize
the latest hero by saying of some stroke, "Don't try this at home." And they're right in many cases (Fred Perry's whole game, Andy Roddick's serve, Ivan Lendl's forehand and maybe his backhand, too, considering the weird way he used the freakishly long fingers of his left hand to get the racket tip low).

I just think Roger's forehand is in a different category. Why? Just a hunch
in the beginning. But as I've kept working within this convention or form, I've
been constantly rewarded, and the stroke has slowly gotten better and better (which is interesting since at the same time I've gotten older and older). Could the improvement have come more quickly, through better information?
Undoubtedly.

Some personal breakthroughs: 1) Viewing the body movement not as the pieces of a kinetic chain but rather as a single, dynamic throw from outside foot to in for the best of all repositionings to the center of possibilities. Those shoulders start moving early and smoothly and just keep going. All kinds of smaller moves are hung on this central action, but just how detailed do we want to become about them (at least today)? 2) Everything that JY said about pointing across with left arm to get the shoulders fully wound, although I must say, it took me a long while to realize that this move REPLACES some of the classic stuff about getting the racket back through keeping left hand on frame. 3) JY's instructions about Roger's cyclic three changes in pitch. 4) Eric Matuszewski's explanation that the two basic parts of mondo (wrist layback and forearm twisting down) occur simultaneously. 5) Jeffrey Count's insistence on the inside to out racket-work in this stroke over the objections of some critics, myself included, 6) Everything that OW has ever said about coming up slow to the ball or feeling for it, and also on the subject of changes of direction. 6) A million other things that people have said, which unfortunately may make one's self-cultivation seem more complicated than it need be.

If feel is more important than detail in learning a tennis stroke, then the feel of passing another car and returning to one's previous speed isn't bad analogy for precisely spun Federfores (in my opinion, but you knew that already). The most recent breakthrough includes a realization that the acceleration occurs in a shorter piece of the overall tract than I previously thought. I'm sure many other people have had a similar series of realizations.

As I was hitting forehand winners all over the place in a match at 6:30 this morning, I thought once again, what am I supposed to do with the new information? Sit on it? Keep it a secret? Deny it? Why?

TCUK, if loose grip means being wristy, then Roger is wristy. Mr. Peredo, if
turning elbow up generates wipe, it has to be during contact, and elbow turns up a LOT MORE after contact. TCUK, if wrist closes during contact, it closes
a LOT MORE after contact. Bottle, just keep hitting the ball the way you're doing it and don't change anything, ever.

Two questions:

1. Would you describe this as a different technique compared to the "old" one?
2. Did you try it on the BH side?

[bottle]

Thanks, jperedo and gsheiner

But no video. I'm not set up to make one, don't even have a cell phone with a camera in the back (which will no doubt be taken by some as cowardice as already happened at the Talk Tennis website). More pertinent, would a video by anyone show something as subtle as "bowl shallowly from one intersection to the next?" A scientific illustrator could show it. She (they're usually women in my marital experience) exists in research hospitals, national science museums and other institutions unique in realizing that photos and movies, wonderful as they are, have shortcomings.

Also, gsheiner, while I like your word "discovering" since that's what I try to do all the time, in this case I FOUND something really good, and it works, and I suggest that you try it. Get the visuals of Federer hitting forehands from this website. When you've got the general pattern down well enough to mimic it like Bjorkman or Djoker having fun, apply the "kernel" of what I'm saying, which is about contact area itself.

Set up a big slow body swing, i.e., a circle. Then bowl ahead of the swing from one intersection to the next. Do you understand that at the second intersection you've achieved the same big separation and body leverage you already had? In addition, if you relax the forearm, you can hit a lot of easy wipes pretty much at a right angle to the line on which the ball will depart.

Personally, I take this as the "throwing the racket head at the ball" which sesjel has written about. He is not the first to wonder if maybe Roger's forehand was a serve in disguise.

In physics, I guess the buzzword is "acceleration-deceleration" since the hand just then is returning to road speed (but the strings take off).