Is the reverse forehand a feasible way to teach some aspects of the ATP forehand?

[arturohernandez]

About ten years ago I spent the better part of the year hitting reverse forehands. It was so liberating I mean you can accelerate like crazy and the ball does not go out. Since then I have toned it down some, I still hit it at times but not ALL the time. However, I do notice that the independent arm movement and looseness seem to have stuck around for me.

I was watching Ash Barty hit shots either on the run or inside the court I noticed that she reverses her finish. This seems very effective on her inside in forehand. It keeps the line of the shot straight and the ball seems to accelerate.

I showed it to my daughter and then we tried it out on the court. It was like magic. Suddenly, she could accelerate on balls inside the court. Sometimes they would go out. But really they were barely out. Any ball she hit with a reverse finish inside the court was a winner.

At the end, I told her to just hit her regular across the body finish. It seemed heavier and deeper. It is as if she could accelerate more and create more topspin. Like she spliced the feeling of the reverse on to the regular forehand.

This left me thinking about the ATP forehand and whether the reverse might be a way to teach independent arm movement and acceleration.

Any thoughts?

[stroke]

My thoughts here are strictly quantitative. Some time ago, in the infancy of spin rates in tennis jargon, JY did a piece on this subject and said Nadal, the poster boy for spin rates at the time, had no more spin on his reverse forehands vs his across the body forehands.

[johnyandell]

Stroke good memory and true! Doesn't mean hitting a bunch of reverse forehand won't help...

[stotty]

It's a handy shot to learn for when a player is running wide and slightly late to the ball. It's not all that new. Borg did it a lot. It's not something I like to teach to the point where it becomes a player's basic shot. It works for Rafa but for most players it's a shot best resorted to under given circumstances.

JY and stroke's observations on spin levels are interesting. I didn't know that.

[stroke]

One thing that is intersest to me, even though Nadal's spin rates were the same regardless of which finish he uses, it certainly appears to me that when Nadal wants to get his hook spin on the ball, he uses the over the head finish. When he uses the across the body Fed type finish, it seems to me to be just topspin, not his signature hook spin.

[johnyandell]

Stroke, Probably true! Those spin rates are from years ago and don't break out topspin and sidespin.

[doctorhl]

It's a handy shot to learn for when a player is running wide and slightly late to the ball. It's not all that new. Borg did it a lot. It's not something I like to teach to the point where it becomes a player's basic shot. It works for Rafa but for most players it's a shot best resorted to under given circumstances.

JY and stroke's observations on spin levels are interesting. I didn't know that.

Stotty: A clip of Borg reverse finish: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVKMtge4aA

[stotty]

Stotty: A clip of Borg reverse finish: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7AVKMtge4aA

Thanks! That's a lovely clip and comparison. I still think Borg's movement is right up there.

It's interesting to compare Borg's forehand with Nadal's. Nadal has deeper loading and really sinks down and drives up. Borg's forehand is a lighter version. I think wooden rackets player's tended to have the racket mostly on edge throughout the backswing and forward swing...very different to Nadal's. Borg had some tilt to his racket face perhaps whereas McEnroe and Connors had none.

[stroke]

Thanks! That's a lovely clip and comparison. I still think Borg's movement is right up there.

It's interesting to compare Borg's forehand with Nadal's. Nadal has deeper loading and really sinks down and drives up. Borg's forehand is a lighter version. I think wooden rackets player's tended to have the racket mostly on edge during the forehand swing in the run up to striking the ball...very different to Nadal's.

I think the biggest difference is the lag, the angle of the forearm to the racquet shaft at its deepest point. To me, it is significant.

[arturohernandez]

Super interesting discussion. On the sidespin thing. Actually, this explains why Sampras used it on the run so much. He could hook it into the court when hitting down the line. This also explains why the inside in is so hard to get to. It spins away from the player.

The sidespin thing got me thinking about physics here. If the ball is moving down and across, is it not moving along a longer curve. If it is moving more up and down, then the curve is shorter. So it allows you to hit sidespin which throws the opponent off. It also follows a longer curve. This, I think means, you are buying even more space for yourself.

Maybe a bonafide physicist can give their opinion.

Meanwhile, do I have my physics right? Does the sidespin and topspin of a reverse give it a longer path in the air and thus create greater margin than topspin alone?

[arturohernandez]

Thanks! That's a lovely clip and comparison. I still think Borg's movement is right up there.

It's interesting to compare Borg's forehand with Nadal's. Nadal has deeper loading and really sinks down and drives up. Borg's forehand is a lighter version. I think wooden rackets player's tended to have the racket mostly on edge throughout the backswing and forward swing...very different to Nadal's. Borg had some tilt to his racket face perhaps whereas McEnroe and Connors had none.

My original question was whether the reverse teaches more independent arm movement, like the one used in an ATP forehand.

Looking at Borg, he seems to accelerate the arm more independently. To me it feels like it might be a good exercise to help teach independent arm movement.

Just wondering if you guys think that might be the case.

[stroke]

Super interesting discussion. On the sidespin thing. Actually, this explains why Sampras used it on the run so much. He could hook it into the court when hitting down the line. This also explains why the inside in is so hard to get to. It spins away from the player.

The sidespin thing got me thinking about physics here. If the ball is moving down and across, is it not moving along a longer curve. If it is moving more up and down, then the curve is shorter. So it allows you to hit sidespin which throws the opponent off. It also follows a longer curve. This, I think means, you are buying even more space for yourself.

Maybe a bonafide physicist can give their opinion.

Meanwhile, do I have my physics right? Does the sidespin and topspin of a reverse give it a longer path in the air and thus create greater margin than topspin alone?

That is an interesting question. I know one thing though, Nadal definitely expands the court for his opponent with his hook forehand, to me like no one else ever has. He sends players retrieving balls to areas of the court they are not familiar with. He uses it most obviously to go crosscut to his right handed opponents backhand, but he also uses it to bring the ball back in when hitting to the deuce side. Sampras and others do it on running forehands. Nadal stands alone to me using it more often that not, pretty much his standard forehand. My theory is the over the head finish is a necessary component to getting to the outside of the ball to get the hook spin.

[stroke]

My original question was whether the reverse teaches more independent arm movement, like the one used in an ATP forehand.

Looking at Borg, he seems to accelerate the arm more independently. To me it feels like it might be a good exercise to help teach independent arm movement.

Just wondering if you guys think that might be the case.

BG would probably have to answer that question. You may be on to something. Nadal is certainly to me the gold standard(along with Fed) of the independent arm action.

[stotty]

My original question was whether the reverse teaches more independent arm movement, like the one used in an ATP forehand.

Looking at Borg, he seems to accelerate the arm more independently. To me it feels like it might be a good exercise to help teach independent arm movement.

Just wondering if you guys think that might be the case.

To me, Borg is swinging the racket at the ball whereas with Nadal you can visibly see the shoulder joint engaging and the independent arm movement (in terms of a type 3) taking place. I am not sure Borg creates anything like the same torque/lag. I am not convinced learning the reverse forehand encourages more independent arm movement - probably more independent arm movement without engaging the body if you don't watch it. I can certainly see it going wrong if the player is not advanced enough.

The best guys to give definite answers to this kind of stuff are John and BG.

It's an interesting question you have posed, though. And a great video find by doctorhl.

[stroke]

To me, Borg is swinging the racket at the ball whereas with Nadal you can visibly see the shoulder joint engaging and the independent arm movement (in terms of a type 3) taking place. I am not sure Borg creates anything like the same torque/lag. I am not convinced learning the reverse forehand encourages more independent arm movement - probably more independent arm movement without engaging the body if you don't watch it. I can certainly see it going wrong if the player is not advanced enough.

The best guys to give definite answers to this kind of stuff are John and BG.

It's an interesting question you have posed, though. And a great video find by doctorhl.

Well said