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

[the AntiPusher]

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.

---

I disagree..part of BS accessment is that movement and positioning is so key, that being said , Its definitely Rafa.. no pun intend, but Hands Down.. When executing this shot footwork is key.. Rafa's margin of error is so much smaller than Gulbis.. Gulbis has too much going on with that funky wind up, he is hitting it open stance and he doesnt address or square to hit the ball correctly. Please someone correct me but trust I am pretty sure about this one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

---

You don't see how technically flawed Gulbis' forehand is? Because both he and his coach do, hence the change in motion, which looks equally shaky (by their own admission).

Nadal's hand eye-coordination on his forehand is superior, has more racquet head acceleration, it is far more diverse, has a better inside out forehand, a better rally forehand, a better cross court forehand, a better defensive forehand, better passing shots, better placement, more consistency, and less errors.Yeah, I'll go with him.

 

[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.

---

You don't see how technically flawed Gulbis' forehand is? Because both he and his coach do, hence the change in motion, which looks equally shaky (by their own admission).

Nadal's hand eye-coordination on his forehand is superior, has more racquet head acceleration, it is far more diverse, has a better inside out forehand, a better rally forehand, a better cross court forehand, a better defensive forehand, better passing shots, better placement, more consistency, and less errors.Yeah, I'll go with him.

---

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

---

You don't see how technically flawed Gulbis' forehand is? Because both he and his coach do, hence the change in motion, which looks equally shaky (by their own admission).

Nadal's hand eye-coordination on his forehand is superior, has more racquet head acceleration, it is far more diverse, has a better inside out forehand, a better rally forehand, a better cross court forehand, a better defensive forehand, better passing shots, better placement, more consistency, and less errors.Yeah, I'll go with him.

---

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

---

can't base every comparison on 'when it's firing'..... it's the same obsession people say about when someone is at his best..... mate you got to look at overall, when you make a 'conclusion'. Unless of course we look at a single shot in isolation, and question becomes: was that shot Gulbis just hit bigger than Nadal's biggest fh? in which case you may be right, but it's an entirely different question.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

can't base every comparison on 'when it's firing'..... it's the same obsession people say about when someone is at his best..... mate you got to look at overall, when you make a 'conclusion'. Unless of course we look at a single shot in isolation, and question becomes: was that shot Gulbis just hit bigger than Nadal's biggest fh? in which case you may be right, but it's an entirely different question.

I'm fully aware of that. However, when it comes to standard forehands along the baseline, Gulbis has shown over the years that his forehand is a serious weapon. The view I have expressed to Broken is that when you get into the realms of hitting on the run or "consistency" (in finding the court), I think you are talking fundamentally about athleticism and stamina more than actual tennis skill.

It stands to bear that if you have two guys of similar skill, but one is faster or in better condition, then he will play better. Does that mean the guy playing better has better shots?

Not in my view.

 

[Ricardo]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

can't base every comparison on 'when it's firing'..... it's the same obsession people say about when someone is at his best..... mate you got to look at overall, when you make a 'conclusion'. Unless of course we look at a single shot in isolation, and question becomes: was that shot Gulbis just hit bigger than Nadal's biggest fh? in which case you may be right, but it's an entirely different question.

I'm fully aware of that. However, when it comes to standard forehands along the baseline, Gulbis has shown over the years that his forehand is a serious weapon. The view I have expressed to Broken is that when you get into the realms of hitting on the run or "consistency" (in finding the court), I think you are talking fundamentally about athleticism and stamina more than actual tennis skill.

It stands to bear that if you have two guys of similar skill, but one is faster or in better condition, then he will play better. Does that mean the guy playing better has better shots?

Not in my view.

well then it's really about practice vs match play. If Gulbis and Nadal stand at a fixed point of the baseline blasting balls at each other, Gulbis would probably look more impressive and hit bigger. However when it comes to match play, they move each other so movement, athleticism, pressure-handling etc all come into play and can't be excluded. I saw how Gulbis blasted Nadal off the court for the first set and half, yet when it comes to closing it out and pressure comes in, Nadal keeps playing, fighting and defending at high level and struggled out a win. He's been doing it for years with that 'unimpressive' fh, how do you make out of it that it's not as good as Gulbis's? i am sure Gulbis hits it bigger and bags more winners (also more errors), but can't base conclusion on that alone.

Actually Djoker said before that when they played in practice matches, he couldn't beat Gulbis yet when it comes to playing 'real' matches he owns Gulbis. i suppose that makes Djoker > Gulbis don't you think?

 

[Moxie]

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.

---

You don't see how technically flawed Gulbis' forehand is? Because both he and his coach do, hence the change in motion, which looks equally shaky (by their own admission).

Nadal's hand eye-coordination on his forehand is superior, has more racquet head acceleration, it is far more diverse, has a better inside out forehand, a better rally forehand, a better cross court forehand, a better defensive forehand, better passing shots, better placement, more consistency, and less errors.Yeah, I'll go with him.

---

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

---

I've always wanted to ask: why do you put such a premium on flat hitting? I know you like offensive play, but why is flat-hitting the only thing that defines it? If play is strategically sound, yet requires more than a few shots, or involves spin shots, why would that be inferior? And if shots are effective, what makes them inferior? And what is the cut-off for finishing off points that makes you feel a player does it well?

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Well, Gulbis isn't the best example. His new technique is awfully awkward, but as you all know I place a very high premium on hitting flat and being able to finish points off. For that reason, Gulbis impresses me very much when his forehand is firing.

That said, Nadal certainly has more versatility being the better athlete.

can't base every comparison on 'when it's firing'..... it's the same obsession people say about when someone is at his best..... mate you got to look at overall, when you make a 'conclusion'. Unless of course we look at a single shot in isolation, and question becomes: was that shot Gulbis just hit bigger than Nadal's biggest fh? in which case you may be right, but it's an entirely different question.

I'm fully aware of that. However, when it comes to standard forehands along the baseline, Gulbis has shown over the years that his forehand is a serious weapon. The view I have expressed to Broken is that when you get into the realms of hitting on the run or "consistency" (in finding the court), I think you are talking fundamentally about athleticism and stamina more than actual tennis skill.

It stands to bear that if you have two guys of similar skill, but one is faster or in better condition, then he will play better. Does that mean the guy playing better has better shots?

Not in my view.

I don't agree that consistency is simply a matter of stamina and athleticism. It's not like many of the guys you deem to have superior forehands (or more damaging, flatter, etc...) don't miss for the first 2 hours and only start producing UE as they grow more tired. Sure, it can happen, but that's not the reason.

Obviously, it's hard to deny that Nadal's consistency has much to do with his stamina, but that is over the course of a long match or a long rally. For Gulbis, or even someone like say, Tsonga, they miss tons of forehands early in the rally or early in a match. Some of that is due to technique. We both agree about Gulbis in that regard, but even Tsonga, despite a very good FH, has at times a "pushy" forehand motion. Berdych for instance, uses far too much wrist on his cross court forehand (and again, he's got an excellent shot).

It's just a bit limiting to attribute someone's success/failure on that side to mere conditioning, stamina, or physical attributes.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

sorry for going astray a bit, but the "middle of the court at the USO" reminded me of something i've been meaning to praise about Nadal's fh for a while: he accelerates mid-court, short, slow and low balls like few others can. i'm talking below net level, when flat hitting actually isn't an option, geometrically. incidentally, these are also balls that Fed often likes to produce, and that put many others in uncomfortable postions, having to lift the ball over the net and just back into play, setting up to get passed - facing the same ball, Nadal will do some real damage, putting it deep and heavy into a corner (not for a winner, but still often forcing an error or putting a lot of pressure on to elicit an UE).

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

sorry for going astray a bit, but the "middle of the court at the USO" reminded me of something i've been meaning to praise about Nadal's fh for a while: he accelerates mid-court, short, slow and low balls like few others can. i'm talking below net level, when flat hitting actually isn't an option, geometrically. incidentally, these are also balls that Fed often likes to produce, and that put many others in uncomfortable postions, having to lift the ball over the net and just back into play, setting up to get passed - facing the same ball, Nadal will do some real damage, putting it deep and heavy into a corner (not for a winner, but still often forcing an error or putting a lot of pressure on to elicit an UE).

Yeah, Nadal is probably the best (now that Federer has become more inconsistent) at producing his own pace from the forehand side. It's part of the reason he deals with slices so well, and as you mention, those tricky low bouncing short balls in the middle of the court.

Federer used to use these low slices all the time earlier in his career. It's a play that used to kill Andy Roddick for example. That was never a viable option against Nadal, even with his suspect net play back then, as he was (and still is) so good at dealing with them.

 

[Denis]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Thanks Broken, informative and good piece to read.

 

[Ricardo]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

sorry for going astray a bit, but the "middle of the court at the USO" reminded me of something i've been meaning to praise about Nadal's fh for a while: he accelerates mid-court, short, slow and low balls like few others can. i'm talking below net level, when flat hitting actually isn't an option, geometrically. incidentally, these are also balls that Fed often likes to produce, and that put many others in uncomfortable postions, having to lift the ball over the net and just back into play, setting up to get passed - facing the same ball, Nadal will do some real damage, putting it deep and heavy into a corner (not for a winner, but still often forcing an error or putting a lot of pressure on to elicit an UE).

Yeah, Nadal is probably the best (now that Federer has become more inconsistent) at producing his own pace from the forehand side. It's part of the reason he deals with slices so well, and as you mention, those tricky low bouncing short balls in the middle of the court.

Federer used to use these low slices all the time earlier in his career. It's a play that used to kill Andy Roddick for example. That was never a viable option against Nadal, even with his suspect net play back then, as he was (and still is) so good at dealing with them.

Good post, Fed's inconsistency has a lot to do with the gradual slowing of his movement. There will come a day when Nadal's own fh comes down a notch when the same happens to him. Skill isn't the problem, it's a physical issue.

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

sorry for going astray a bit, but the "middle of the court at the USO" reminded me of something i've been meaning to praise about Nadal's fh for a while: he accelerates mid-court, short, slow and low balls like few others can. i'm talking below net level, when flat hitting actually isn't an option, geometrically. incidentally, these are also balls that Fed often likes to produce, and that put many others in uncomfortable postions, having to lift the ball over the net and just back into play, setting up to get passed - facing the same ball, Nadal will do some real damage, putting it deep and heavy into a corner (not for a winner, but still often forcing an error or putting a lot of pressure on to elicit an UE).

Yeah, Nadal is probably the best (now that Federer has become more inconsistent) at producing his own pace from the forehand side. It's part of the reason he deals with slices so well, and as you mention, those tricky low bouncing short balls in the middle of the court.

Federer used to use these low slices all the time earlier in his career. It's a play that used to kill Andy Roddick for example. That was never a viable option against Nadal, even with his suspect net play back then, as he was (and still is) so good at dealing with them.

Good post, Fed's inconsistency has a lot to do with the gradual slowing of his movement. There will come a day when Nadal's own fh comes down a notch when the same happens to him. Skill isn't the problem, it's a physical issue.

Yes, which is another reason why it's so tough to separate footwork from a ground-stroke.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Good post, Fed's inconsistency has a lot to do with the gradual slowing of his movement. There will come a day when Nadal's own fh comes down a notch when the same happens to him. Skill isn't the problem, it's a physical issue.

Yes, which is another reason why it's so tough to separate footwork from a ground-stroke.

What do you have to say about the times (e.g. Nadal's 2008 match in Madrid against Simon) when his footwork and court positioning were terrific - i.e. he gave himself time and was set up very well - but he couldn't hit through Simon to save his life in sets 2 and 3?

 

[brokenshoelace]

RE: Inside Out: The Era of Forehand and Movement

Good post, Fed's inconsistency has a lot to do with the gradual slowing of his movement. There will come a day when Nadal's own fh comes down a notch when the same happens to him. Skill isn't the problem, it's a physical issue.

Yes, which is another reason why it's so tough to separate footwork from a ground-stroke.

What do you have to say about the times (e.g. Nadal's 2008 match in Madrid against Simon) when his footwork and court positioning were terrific - i.e. he gave himself time and was set up very well - but he couldn't hit through Simon to save his life in sets 2 and 3?

Nadal's spinny forehand doesn't work well indoors. I thought that much is known, and it's his fault for failing to adapt. It's definitely a limitation and a shortcoming.

Naturally, I'm sure his forehand had pedestrian days on other surfaces, but those instances were few and far in between. The amount of matches where his forehand has been quite dominant far exceed them.