The Greatest Groundstrokes of the Modern Era

[GameSetAndMath]

I know this is ATP thread, but I am in sheer awe of Justin Henine's backhand. So beautiful,
So smooth, wild angles, opening up the court.

 

[brokenshoelace]

When I think of Djokovic, none of his shots are the best on the tour. I'm not saying he's average, but none of his shots blow you away like Wawrinka's backhand or Berdych's forehand. But he retrieves balls likes nobody I've ever seen. It's uncanny. The ball just keeps coming back and that's gotta ear on you after a while. Like the Murray meltdown in the Australian Open.

His backhand is the best backhand on tour by a comfortable margin. It might lack the aesthetics of Wawrinka's backhand, but it is a better shot on a game to game basis. I'd also say his return of serve is the best. Part of what makes his defense that you alluded to above so great is his backhand being such a versatile shot to where he can hit it well from obscene positions.

 

[Kirijax]

When I think of Djokovic, none of his shots are the best on the tour. I'm not saying he's average, but none of his shots blow you away like Wawrinka's backhand or Berdych's forehand. But he retrieves balls likes nobody I've ever seen. It's uncanny. The ball just keeps coming back and that's gotta ear on you after a while. Like the Murray meltdown in the Australian Open.

His backhand is the best backhand on tour by a comfortable margin. It might lack the aesthetics of Wawrinka's backhand, but it is a better shot on a game to game basis. I'd also say his return of serve is the best. Part of what makes his defense that you alluded to above so great is his backhand being such a versatile shot to where he can hit it well for obscene positions.

Yes/. Agreed. It's very obscene.

 

[calitennis127]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

 

[auto-pilot]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

Gulbis lost, so I wonder how many unforced errors Gulbis hit with that forehand.
If Gulbis' forehand was good enough he'd have made Nadal have to play aggressively - the way Djokovic made Nadal have to play aggressively at 2013 RG semi-final (Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set).
Nadal isn't going to try to hit winners if his opponent is handing him the match.
Quite often even Agassi used to play safe tennis when the opponent was trying to hit him off the court, and won because of the opponent being too error-prone.

 

[Federberg]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

Lol! Cali you're relentless.
I recall a match Federer played in Miami (?) against Novak where he couldn't put a forehand in court.. the one where he ended up smashing his racquet. Does that mean - from that one sample - that we should impugn Roger's forehand?

You may not like the guy, but come on man... Rafa's forehand is just plain spiteful! It's a different weapon to Roger's but no less effective :clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

...a match that will no doubt define Nadal's legacy and the quality of his forehand, you're right.

PS: Remember when you said Andy Murray has a better forehand than Nadal after the 2011 Wimbledon semi final? Yeah, good times.

 

[calitennis127]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

...a match that will no doubt define Nadal's legacy and the quality of his forehand, you're right.

PS: Remember when you said Andy Murray has a better forehand than Nadal after the 2011 Wimbledon semi final? Yeah, good times.

Uhhhh no, that was just one of many examples of matches where Nadal's forehand was constipated. Do you want me to go through the litany of hardcourt matches where that was the case?

And yes, Murray absolutely should have won that 2011 semifinal against Nadal. He gave it away.

The fact is, you'll never understand why Nadal attained the level of success that he has. In your mind, it actually is because of the skill of the forehand. Frankly I find that view to be laughable. There are much deeper and frankly less appealing reasons (from an analytical viewpoint) for his success that you either refuse to acknowledge or are just incapable of understanding.

 

[Federberg]

^ can you elaborate Cali? I'm no Nadal fan.. but there comes a time when you simply have to acknowledge the guy is a great great player. What are the reasons if it's not the effectiveness of his forehand?

 

[calitennis127]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

Lol! Cali you're relentless.
I recall a match Federer played in Miami (?) against Novak where he couldn't put a forehand in court.. the one where he ended up smashing his racquet. Does that mean - from that one sample - that we should impugn Roger's forehand?

That is a preposterous comparison. Federer's forehand is a shotmaking weapon. At best, Nadal's forehand has mostly been an effective rally shot (and "rally shot" is a term used far more by Broken than me to describe Nadal's forehand). When Federer's forehand has been off, his unforced error count has generally been very high. When Nadal has gotten hosed on 50 different occasions on hardcourts, you will notice that a) he has had low unforced errors and b) he has had low winner counts.

Nadal's forehand impotence goes well beyond one extreme example, and if Broken was as sophisticated a tennis analyst as he considers himself to be, he would ask himself a) why Nadal was able to win matches like the Gulbis match despite being utterly dominated from a shotmaking perspective, and b) what that means in the larger scheme of things when you evaluate the fundamental and most important reasons for the scale of his success.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set of his 2013 RG win over Djokovic.
He'll knock you off HIS court if you dare push him.
That's not just a "rally shot", its the best down-the-line forehand in tennis (and maybe ever).
See 2013 US Open Final too, because Nadal's forehand down-the-line won that.
Its the very reason why Djokovic can't beat Nadal anymore at the slams (which he only did on 3 occasions out of 12 anyway).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

...a match that will no doubt define Nadal's legacy and the quality of his forehand, you're right.

PS: Remember when you said Andy Murray has a better forehand than Nadal after the 2011 Wimbledon semi final? Yeah, good times.

Uhhhh no, that was just one of many examples of matches where Nadal's forehand was constipated. Do you want me to go through the litany of hardcourt matches where that was the case?

And yes, Murray absolutely should have won that 2011 semifinal against Nadal. He gave it away.

The fact is, you'll never understand why Nadal attained the level of success that he has. In your mind, it actually is because of the skill of the forehand. Frankly I find that view to be laughable. There are much deeper and frankly less appealing reasons (from an analytical viewpoint) for his success that you either refuse to acknowledge or are just incapable of understanding.

No, you flat out said "Murray's forehand is superior to Nadal's forehand" after that match. Not that it was superior during the match (which it wasn't) but that it was a better shot in general. Don't dodge the argument, and accept that you said something dumb, especially when you literally, a sentence later, accuse me of "not understanding why bla bla Nadal bla bla bla success."

 

[brokenshoelace]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

Lol! Cali you're relentless.
I recall a match Federer played in Miami (?) against Novak where he couldn't put a forehand in court.. the one where he ended up smashing his racquet. Does that mean - from that one sample - that we should impugn Roger's forehand?

That is a preposterous comparison. Federer's forehand is a shotmaking weapon. At best, Nadal's forehand has mostly been an effective rally shot (and "rally shot" is a term used far more by Broken than me to describe Nadal's forehand). When Federer's forehand has been off, his unforced error count has generally been very high. When Nadal has gotten hosed on 50 different occasions on hardcourts, you will notice that a) he has had low unforced errors and b) he has had low winner counts.

Nadal's forehand impotence goes well beyond one extreme example, and if Broken was as sophisticated a tennis analyst as he considers himself to be, he would ask himself a) why Nadal was able to win matches like the Gulbis match despite being utterly dominated from a shotmaking perspective, and b) what that means in the larger scheme of things when you evaluate the fundamental and most important reasons for the scale of his success.

I may not be a sophisticated tennis analyst, but I'm definitely not an idiot. Guess which one the above post makes you sound like.

 

[calitennis127]

...a match that will no doubt define Nadal's legacy and the quality of his forehand, you're right.

PS: Remember when you said Andy Murray has a better forehand than Nadal after the 2011 Wimbledon semi final? Yeah, good times.

Uhhhh no, that was just one of many examples of matches where Nadal's forehand was constipated. Do you want me to go through the litany of hardcourt matches where that was the case?

And yes, Murray absolutely should have won that 2011 semifinal against Nadal. He gave it away.

The fact is, you'll never understand why Nadal attained the level of success that he has. In your mind, it actually is because of the skill of the forehand. Frankly I find that view to be laughable. There are much deeper and frankly less appealing reasons (from an analytical viewpoint) for his success that you either refuse to acknowledge or are just incapable of understanding.

No, you flat out said "Murray's forehand is superior to Nadal's forehand" after that match. Not that it was superior during the match (which it wasn't) but that it was a better shot in general. Don't dodge the argument, and accept that you said something dumb, especially when you literally, a sentence later, accuse me of "not understanding why bla bla Nadal bla bla bla success."

I don't think that if you go strictly by technique and effectiveness that Nadal has had an outright "superior forehand" to Murray. I just think Nadal is so superior to Murray in terms of explosive athleticism and psychological mentality that the skills hardly matter. Nadal's explosive movement combined with his ability to really assert himself when he wants to win a match puts him in another class above Murray.

 

[calitennis127]

Hey broken - how awesome was Nadal's forehand in that Rome match where Gulbis hit 59 winners to Nadal's 13? Did Nadal's forehand win him that match?

Gulbis lost, so I wonder how many unforced errors Gulbis hit with that forehand.
If Gulbis' forehand was good enough he'd have made Nadal have to play aggressively - the way Djokovic made Nadal have to play aggressively at 2013 RG semi-final (Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set).
Nadal isn't going to try to hit winners if his opponent is handing him the match.
Quite often even Agassi used to play safe tennis when the opponent was trying to hit him off the court, and won because of the opponent being too error-prone.

This is a silly argument that doesn't have anything to do with what started the thread. The purpose of this thread was to praise the forehands of Federer and Nadal. No one was talking about how some players are effective by letting their opponents self-destruct with errors. We all know that some matches are won that way.

Now the reality of the matter here is that Nadal's forehand is not in the same class of Federer's in terms of being some kind of heavenly shot, standing on its own as a tennis skill. Federer's forehand translates to all surfaces as a shot that can dominate. I have never watched a Federer match (except when he was playing Nalbandian) when he did not possess the best groundstroke weapon in the match with his forehand, regardless of whether the match was at the French Open or the World Tour Finals. Can you say the same about Nadal?

His forehand at a place like Miami is quite possibly in the 10-20 range in terms of top forehands in the tournament. At the World Tour Finals, it has consistently been the worst forehand or one of the two or three worst in the field. At Cincinnati, he has had matches where his opponent had 20 winners before he had 3.

Show me an example of Federer's forehand ever looking on any surface like Nadal's did in the 2013 World Tour Finals championship, when I think Nadal had only 4 total winners in the two sets. Is there anything analogous in Federer's career to that?

 

[calitennis127]

See 2013 US Open Final too, because Nadal's forehand down-the-line won that.

What match were you watching?

In the second and third sets, I believe the ratio of Djokovic forehand winners Nadal forehand winners was something like 3:1. There was no question who had the "better forehand" that day and there was also no question that there are much more significant reasons for why Nadal won that match than his forehand.

 

[calitennis127]

^ can you elaborate Cali? I'm no Nadal fan.. but there comes a time when you simply have to acknowledge the guy is a great great player. What are the reasons if it's not the effectiveness of his forehand?

A unique set of mental attributes combined with the highest level of naturally endowed stamina in any tennis player (including Ferrer).

The mental attributes are clearly constancy, persistence, consistency, stability, lack of idealism, pragmatism, a desire and willingness to constantly go back to the drawing board to tamper and refine how he handles certain situations (help from Uncle Toni on that), and the capacity to not be discouraged or affected by appearances of superiority in the opponents' shotmaking.

Combine all of that with the ability to play at or near your max level longer than any of your peers because of high stamina and you can win a ton of matches without having the best shots in the history of the game.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Uhhhh no, that was just one of many examples of matches where Nadal's forehand was constipated. Do you want me to go through the litany of hardcourt matches where that was the case?

And yes, Murray absolutely should have won that 2011 semifinal against Nadal. He gave it away.

The fact is, you'll never understand why Nadal attained the level of success that he has. In your mind, it actually is because of the skill of the forehand. Frankly I find that view to be laughable. There are much deeper and frankly less appealing reasons (from an analytical viewpoint) for his success that you either refuse to acknowledge or are just incapable of understanding.

No, you flat out said "Murray's forehand is superior to Nadal's forehand" after that match. Not that it was superior during the match (which it wasn't) but that it was a better shot in general. Don't dodge the argument, and accept that you said something dumb, especially when you literally, a sentence later, accuse me of "not understanding why bla bla Nadal bla bla bla success."

I don't think that if you go strictly by technique and effectiveness that Nadal has had an outright "superior forehand" to Murray. I just think Nadal is so superior to Murray in terms of explosive athleticism and psychological mentality that the skills hardly matter. Nadal's explosive movement combined with his ability to really assert himself when he wants to win a match puts him in another class above Murray.

Stop, it's OK. You said something silly at the time (that you didn't really believe) because you were emotional that Nadal won the match. You don't have to justify it by digging a deeper hole. This is not up for debate.

 

[Moxie]

^ can you elaborate Cali? I'm no Nadal fan.. but there comes a time when you simply have to acknowledge the guy is a great great player. What are the reasons if it's not the effectiveness of his forehand?

A unique set of mental attributes combined with the highest level of naturally endowed stamina in any tennis player (including Ferrer).

The mental attributes are clearly constancy, persistence, consistency, stability, lack of idealism, pragmatism, a desire and willingness to constantly go back to the drawing board to tamper and refine how he handles certain situations (help from Uncle Toni on that), and the capacity to not be discouraged or affected by appearances of superiority in the opponents' shotmaking.

Combine all of that with the ability to play at or near your max level longer than any of your peers because of high stamina and you can win a ton of matches without having the best shots in the history of the game.

As Broken says, stop. You have been working for years at a narrative that explains Nadal's success, to your satisfaction. Stamina and mental strength. Except that almost no one else believes that that's the only way you get 14 majors. Talent is more than a little involved. And a certain gift. You will never acknowledge that both Federer and Nadal have a certain "duende" or genius for tennis that eludes most of their contemporaries. (OK, maybe Djokovic, too.)

 

[britbox]

Uhhhh no, that was just one of many examples of matches where Nadal's forehand was constipated. Do you want me to go through the litany of hardcourt matches where that was the case?

And yes, Murray absolutely should have won that 2011 semifinal against Nadal. He gave it away.

The fact is, you'll never understand why Nadal attained the level of success that he has. In your mind, it actually is because of the skill of the forehand. Frankly I find that view to be laughable. There are much deeper and frankly less appealing reasons (from an analytical viewpoint) for his success that you either refuse to acknowledge or are just incapable of understanding.

No, you flat out said "Murray's forehand is superior to Nadal's forehand" after that match. Not that it was superior during the match (which it wasn't) but that it was a better shot in general. Don't dodge the argument, and accept that you said something dumb, especially when you literally, a sentence later, accuse me of "not understanding why bla bla Nadal bla bla bla success."

I don't think that if you go strictly by technique and effectiveness that Nadal has had an outright "superior forehand" to Murray. I just think Nadal is so superior to Murray in terms of explosive athleticism and psychological mentality that the skills hardly matter. Nadal's explosive movement combined with his ability to really assert himself when he wants to win a match puts him in another class above Murray.

a) It doesn't have to be an "either or" argument. I'd agree that Nadal is superior in terms of explosive athleticism and mentally.

b) Nadal's forehand is superior to Murray's in any context.

c) Ranking one's forehand on shotmaking ability alone, is a fools errand.