23 forehand winners to 3 forehand winners: whose forehand is better?

[calitennis127]

Anyone want to explain that one? The much-vaunted "Nadal forehand" - ludicrously described by biased Nadal fans as if it is the tennis equivalent of the Eiffel Tower - produced a whopping 3 forehand winners on its best surface in the French Open quarters.

Now for all the people who have put Nadal's forehand in the same class as Federer's, can you ever remember a time when Federer's forehand looked so offensively impotent?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This whole idea that Nadal's forehand has been in a class above Djokovic's or that Nadal has won multiple slams primarily on the back of that overly praised forehand is nonsense.

 

[Federberg]

Welcome back Cali! Long time

Hmmmm.... I'm no Rafa fan as you know. But to me there are different types of offence. Roger uses (or more precisely used to ) Use his forehand as a point ender. Possibly the best we've ever seen in the game. Rafa's can be a point ender too, but that less frequent. Much more regular is his use of the forehand to push the opponent back and back and deny them any chance to be on the front foot. It's a more attritional shot, but you can't say it's any less effective. It's just a different way of skinning the cat. Granted the opponent is more likely to be forced into an error than see an unreturnable, but it's doing the same thing, achieving the same ends. I think it's difficult to say it's not a superlative weapon.

Because they are such different shots, it doesn't make sense to me to make a direct comparison. Novak's forehand is almost like a hybrid of the Fedal. It is no where near as offensive as Federer's was in his hey day, but it's a pretty powerful shot. And his consistency with it also forces the opposition into error. All 3 get the job done. But in terms of peak play I would rank Rogers first, Rafa's second, and Novak's behind the other two. The forehand is more clearly the main weapon for Fedal, under pressure Novak's (we're talking peak here), would be more susceptible to break down than the other 2

 

[calitennis127]

Welcome back Cali! Long time

Hmmmm.... I'm no Rafa fan as you know. But to me there are different types of offence. Roger uses (or more precisely used to ) Use his forehand as a point ender. Possibly the best we've ever seen in the game. Rafa's can be a point ender too, but that less frequent. Much more regular is his use of the forehand to push the opponent back and back and deny them any chance to be on the front foot. It's a more attritional shot, but you can't say it's any less effective. It's just a different way of skinning the cat. Granted the opponent is more likely to be forced into an error than see an unreturnable, but it's doing the same thing, achieving the same ends. I think it's difficult to say it's not a superlative weapon.

Because they are such different shots, it doesn't make sense to me to make a direct comparison. Novak's forehand is almost like a hybrid of the Fedal. It is no where near as offensive as Federer's was in his hey day, but it's a pretty powerful shot. And his consistency with it also forces the opposition into error. All 3 get the job done. But in terms of peak play I would rank Rogers first, Rafa's second, and Novak's behind the other two. The forehand is more clearly the main weapon for Fedal, under pressure Novak's (we're talking peak here), would be more susceptible to break down than the other 2

I don't see how you can put an attritional shot that at its best pushes people back in the same category as a point ender. There is no doubt that Nadal's forehand has been effective in many contexts, but saying that his forehand is the main reason for his success at the Slam level is a gross exaggeration.

As far as the comparison to Novak's - when Novak really starts letting it fly, he usually dominates Nadal in rallies. Look at the 2013 US Open final - a match Novak should have won in straightforward fashion - and how thoroughly he controlled many of the rallies with his forehand. His winner count was about twice that of Nadal's.

 

[Front242]

I'm no Nadal fan either but that seems like a very much on the money comparison of Rafa and Roger's forehands, federberg.

 

[Front242]

While you could say that and correctly imo too, cali, about Nadal's rally forehand, his forehand DTL when it's on form is a potent shot that wins lots of points. He's not hitting it deep enough much of the time this year due to losing a half step of speed and getting to the position to hit the shot a fraction late, same as Roger. I doubt anyone was claiming that was what wins him matches anyway. The whole premise of making the opponent hit one more ball and outlasting them physically has been the main thing that won him matches in his prime. Many opponents frustrate themselves into committing errors by pulling the trigger at inopportune times going this moonball, enough, let's try and end the point and misery already.

 

[Federberg]

^Winner counts aren't everything Cali. Even number of points won, otherwise Rogers h2h against Rafa would be different.

What would be your explanation of Rafa's success then. What do you see as his main strength? It ain't his backhand or his serve! There is a danger of confusing aesthetics or attacking style with meriting a win. I prefer reality. Rafa hasn't been effective by chance. And while mental fortitude explains part of his success, you need the skill to get over the line. The guy is an all time great. You don't have to like him to at least concede that point

 

[calitennis127]

I doubt anyone was claiming that was what wins him matches anyway. The whole premise of making the opponent hit one more ball and outlasting them physically has been the main thing that won him matches in his prime.

I agree, but I think many Nadal fans deny this and are offended by someone pointing it out.

 

[calitennis127]

^Winner counts aren't everything Cali.

No, but they are something. I have often been characterized as only caring about winners, but in reality it is the Nadal fans who are completely extreme in de-valuing winners. I'm sorry, but when a guy averages 3 or 4 winners per match in the World Tour Finals, that says something about his game.

Even number of points won, otherwise Rogers h2h against Rafa would be different.

And Nadal did not win more points against Federer because his forehand was better. There were other reasons that came in to play.

What would be your explanation of Rafa's success then. What do you see as his main strength? It ain't his backhand or his serve!

I would say these four things:

1) Stamina: You don't have to have a Ph.D. from the Front School of Doping to realize that Nadal has been able to maintain a high level or relatively high level for much longer than his opponents. There is an advantage in this. It simply means that when your opponent's energy fades - even if the match has been on even terms - you are probably going to win simply by virtue of having more energy.

2) Conscious gameplan for big points and big games: thanks to Uncle Toni, Nadal has a clear identity when matches get tight and points become crucial. You see him have a plan and stick to it.

3) Very high first-serve percentage: Nadal's first-serve numbers are often so high that they almost amount to an artificial advantage. When he won Wimbledon in 2008, he was serving at 80%. That was a huge advantage. He usually serves around 65-70% and that helps him win an extra 7-10 cheap points in matches, which is crucial, especially in best-of-3 matches. They may not seem like a big deal when they happen because they are kind of bland, but they still add up to be important.

4) Elite athleticism: Nadal is a great athlete and has great footwork. I won't take that away from him.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, good to see you back, but unfortunately plumbing sinister depths of rank stupidity and inconsistency, which isn't what I normally associate with you.

I think it must be down to over-abundance of under-used grey matter...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Brother, good to see you back, but unfortunately plumbing sinister depths of rank stupidity and inconsistency, which isn't what I normally associate with you.

I think it must be down to over-abundance of under-used grey matter...

Kieran, it's called SPAM

 

[the AntiPusher]

I'm no Nadal fan either but that seems like a very much on the money comparison of Rafa and Roger's forehands, federberg.

Front , You will always respond if it's anything to make Rafael look derelict or less accomplished than Roger, This is just a baited post

 

[brokenshoelace]

Anyone want to explain that one? The much-vaunted "Nadal forehand" - ludicrously described by biased Nadal fans as if it is the tennis equivalent of the Eiffel Tower - produced a whopping 3 forehand winners on its best surface in the French Open quarters.

Now for all the people who have put Nadal's forehand in the same class as Federer's, can you ever remember a time when Federer's forehand looked so offensively impotent?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

This whole idea that Nadal's forehand has been in a class above Djokovic's or that Nadal has won multiple slams primarily on the back of that overly praised forehand is nonsense.

Well, you see, a shot doesn't work in isolation. It depends on movement, footwork, other groundstrokes too...

That perhaps explains why in all of their past meetings at the FO Nadal hit more forehand winners than Djokovic, but not in their last meeting. Care to guess which one you put most emphasis on?

Why the one with a washed up Nadal, of course.

Welcome back.

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, Stan Wawrinka has a better forehand AND backhand than Novak Djokovic apparently. I know this because I saw the ludicrously lopsided winners count in the final, and Cali told me that this means Stan has better ground strokes.

You learn something new every day.

 

[nehmeth]

By the way, Stan Wawrinka has a better forehand AND backhand than Novak Djokovic apparently. I know this because I saw the ludicrously lopsided winners count in the final, and Cali told me that this means Stan has better ground strokes.

You learn something new every day.

Welcome back Cali... obviously you were missed.

 

[Front242]

I'm no Nadal fan either but that seems like a very much on the money comparison of Rafa and Roger's forehands, federberg.

Front , You will always respond if it's anything to make Rafael look derelict or less accomplished than Roger, This is just a baited post

Well done. Just reply to me and not the person who posted the comment. Maybe, his comment actually made a lot of sense.

 

[Puppet Master]

These last few months were the worst in Nadal's whole career. You took that as a sample and now you talk about those 3 winners as if he plays like that all the time. Just remember the 2014 RG final. This was just a year ago, but who had the better forehand then? And if you haven't noticed, a point can end in 3 ways: a winner, unforced errror or a forced error. Broken has already pointed out the flaw in you argument.
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to pull here, but it won't work, no one on this forum is that gullible. Rafa's forehand, although not as offensive as Fed's has been the second best if not equal to Roger's in terms of efficiency and quality. To evaluate a part of someone's game, you also have to consider their achievements.

 

[Federberg]

^Winner counts aren't everything Cali.

No, but they are something. I have often been characterized as only caring about winners, but in reality it is the Nadal fans who are completely extreme in de-valuing winners. I'm sorry, but when a guy averages 3 or 4 winners per match in the World Tour Finals, that says something about his game.

Even number of points won, otherwise Rogers h2h against Rafa would be different.

And Nadal did not win more points against Federer because his forehand was better. There were other reasons that came in to play.

What would be your explanation of Rafa's success then. What do you see as his main strength? It ain't his backhand or his serve!

I would say these four things:

1) Stamina: You don't have to have a Ph.D. from the Front School of Doping to realize that Nadal has been able to maintain a high level or relatively high level for much longer than his opponents. There is an advantage in this. It simply means that when your opponent's energy fades - even if the match has been on even terms - you are probably going to win simply by virtue of having more energy.

2) Conscious gameplan for big points and big games: thanks to Uncle Toni, Nadal has a clear identity when matches get tight and points become crucial. You see him have a plan and stick to it.

3) Very high first-serve percentage: Nadal's first-serve numbers are often so high that they almost amount to an artificial advantage. When he won Wimbledon in 2008, he was serving at 80%. That was a huge advantage. He usually serves around 65-70% and that helps him win an extra 7-10 cheap points in matches, which is crucial, especially in best-of-3 matches. They may not seem like a big deal when they happen because they are kind of bland, but they still add up to be important.

4) Elite athleticism: Nadal is a great athlete and has great footwork. I won't take that away from him.

I think there's a bit more to what Rafa does than that mate. You can't seriously think that's all there is to it. I don't like the guy's style, and I'm no fan of his behaviour. But you don't beat Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic with just that. Come on.. be serious

 

[brokenshoelace]

Things you need to be an all time great with double digit slam wins: Stamina, gameplans, high first serve percentage, and athleticism.

 

[calitennis127]

Brother, good to see you back, but unfortunately plumbing sinister depths of rank stupidity and inconsistency, which isn't what I normally associate with you.

I think it must be down to over-abundance of under-used grey matter...

Kieran, where exactly is my "inconsistency" here?

As for plumbing depths of inanity, how about your insistence last year that Djokovic did not have Nadal on the ropes in set 2? Isn't it funny how this year Djokovic won the second set and then pummeled Nadal in the third - because Nadal knew that he had no chance of coming back from 2 sets to 0 down?

That is exactly what I was telling you was the case in 2014 and I was proven right in 2015.

 

[calitennis127]

Well, you see, a shot doesn't work in isolation. It depends on movement, footwork, other groundstrokes too...

No, but a shot can be judged in isolation and should be. All things being equal in terms of set-up, who does more with their shots? That is the question. For as well as Nadal often sets himself up, he does very little with his shots compared to other top players - and you know it.

If you want to compliment how Nadal sets himself up, fine. But then ask yourself if he uses that set-up to maximal ends for maximum impact.

That perhaps explains why in all of their past meetings at the FO Nadal hit more forehand winners than Djokovic, but not in their last meeting. Care to guess which one you put most emphasis on?

The overall number of matches in which Djokovic's forehand has produced more winners than Nadal's is greater than the reverse.

Why the one with a washed up Nadal, of course.

Please don't overstate this.....it is predictable that you would, but Nadal's losses in the MS events and Slams were to players who all have the game to beat him. Djokovic has been on even par with him on clay since 2011 and is having the best year of his career. And Wawrinka and Murray just had the best clay seasons in their careers.

Welcome back.

Thank you.