Rafa Nadal's Forehand

Many people think the world of Nadal's forehand.

Some even proclaim it the best in history.


I disagree.
Yes, that shot has won him many tournaments, but when you analyse it, it's like opening Pandora's box or a cupborard full of skeletons.

It's as natural as the face of Michael Jackson: thriller!

Aww mean to MJ

I don't think it's that shot that earned him all those slams.....it is his footwork and stamina that did. Same FH with a step slower and he would have struggled to just win one slam.

That FH however kept him in the rallies by being difficult to attack (due to the spin, high bounce) and therefore forced a physical game.But it's the fact nadal could last the distance which forced his opponents into UEs. UEs were due to nadal's ability to cover the ground and giving very small targets. And as the match went on those targets were more and more difficult to aim at due to tiredness.

Nadal's matches were hardly ever won by the number of his FH winners...but by his opponents' UEs.

I woudl be reluctant to attribute those UEs to this FH but more to Nadal's stamina and footwork.

But above all a good FH has to have a very high winners/FH ratio.....and this is certainly not the case of Nadal as he says himself "why going for a winner when you can prolong the rally and wait for a 85% chance to pull a winner". That sentence simply sums best what I wrote above. Cause what it doesn't say is that the opponent was forced to attempt a winner before he got too tired allowing Nadal to pull that easy FH winner.

luvsports! wrote:Aww mean to MJ

I know...MJ did have talent...
The song sums up Nadal's FH "beautifully", though!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xIx_HbmRnQY

Tenez wrote: I don't think it's that shot that earned him all those slams.....it is his footwork and stamina that did. Same FH with a step slower and he would have struggled to just win one slam.

That FH however kept him in the rallies by being difficult to attack (due to the spin, high bounce) and therefore forced a physical game.But it's the fact nadal could last the distance which forced his opponents into UEs. UEs were due to nadal's ability to cover the ground and giving very small targets. And as the match went on those targets were more and more difficult to aim at due to tiredness.

Nadal's matches were hardly ever won by the number of his FH winners...but by his opponents' UEs.

I woudl be reluctant to attribute those UEs to this FH but more to Nadal's stamina and footwork.

But above all a good FH has to have a very high winners/FH ratio.....and this is certainly not the case of Nadal as he says himself "why going for a winner when you can prolong the rally and wait for a 85% chance to pull a winner". That sentence simply sums best what I wrote above. Cause what it doesn't say is that the opponent was forced to attempt a winner before he got too tired allowing Nadal to pull that easy FH winner.

Not in the traditional sense where it's the attacking weapon that WINS a match.

Nadal's FH is the final link in the artificial chain which would never exist without his excellent footwork (the only natural thing in Nadal's game) allowing the bicep to execute the safe, asphyxiating game.

I am beginning to strongly dislike modern strings allowing all this spin... they have killed the soul of tennis.

It must be a very hard shot to handle. Not a killer but a bother. The most disconcerting about this FH is that it comes back safely over the net and requires a good footwork adjustement after the bounce. Worse of course on hot bouncy clay. But if Nadal could use that power to shorten the points, it woudl be deadly. The fact he can stand 5m behind the baseline without having his FH losing in power (thanks to his own power) is a huge advantage. When everybody else has to take the ball earlier and "risk it", Nadal simply can hit a slow, easy safe ball thanks to his great mouvement.

Nothing new here as I said...Wilander won his first FO like that.

I know it's nothing new..to you.

This post prompted me:

luvsports! wrote:I will not say that Coric was better than Rafa but it is a great point to acknowledge.

1) Nadal raised the bar higher than ever before fitness wise and took the game by storm. If you swapped places with Coric maybe they would have had a very similar trajectory (I think not quite as Rafa imo was faster, aided by crazy spin, better fh and fitter). 
2) Just looking at someone's results, in this instance, is irrelevant, much like it is comparing era's - a futile task. The bar has been raised but ever so slightly, back then it was like the difference in height between a high jump and a pole vault!

I don't know if it's just me, but feels like a lie repeated hundred times becomes a truth when it comes to Nadal's FH (not to mention the rest: the Wimbledon 2008 final proclaimed "the greatest match of all time" etc).

It's just my stand against the sea of commentators' brainwashing that so many buy.
So I say, no, Nadal's forehand is not great, it's a cowardly shot enabled to exist by doping. Without it he wouldn't have won anything.



Federer may whisper it on his death bed, but as a "nobody" I can say it now.

Tenez wrote:It must be a very hard shot to handle. Not a killer but a bother. The most disconcerting about this FH is that it comes back safely over the net and requires a good footwork adjustement after the bounce. Worse of course on hot bouncy clay. But if Nadal could use that power to shorten the points, it woudl be deadly. The fact he can stand 5m behind the baseline without having his FH losing in power (thanks to his own power) is a huge advantage. When everybody else has to take the ball earlier and "risk it", Nadal simply can hit a slow, easy safe ball thanks to his great mouvement.

Nothing new here as I said...Wilander won his first Wimbledon like that.

But he can't.
I am sure he'd love to.
Murray in his "attacking" short-lasting stretches mode comes closest to that.

We saw in that clip from 2004 against Hewitt, how Nadal fares when he plays on the baseline, the true position for testing the FH esp in this era.
I think one would need to be a genius to be able to take the ball on the rise, apply that crazy spin/muscle and not play percentge tennis.
Thiem's FH is like that a bit - very physical, but so limited at the same time. Tennis is just not meant to be played like that.

Hypothetically speaking, maybe some new techonlogy will allow it one day (God forbid!), but as things are, Toni/Rafa team have managed to achieve the closest possible thing and squeeze blood out of stone with their joint effort.

The way I see it, not much can be done about it now, but at least I am not going to lie down and pretend I'm dead.

Tenez wrote:It must be a very hard shot to handle. Not a killer but a bother. The most disconcerting about this FH is that it comes back safely over the net and requires a good footwork adjustement after the bounce. Worse of course on hot bouncy clay. But if Nadal could use that power to shorten the points, it woudl be deadly. The fact he can stand 5m behind the baseline without having his FH losing in power (thanks to his own power) is a huge advantage. When everybody else has to take the ball earlier and "risk it", Nadal simply can hit a slow, easy safe ball thanks to his great mouvement.

Nothing new here as I said...Wilander won his first Wimbledon like that.

You mean the French right? He never won Wimby.

Nadal for me has the best forehand of all time, in terms of how effective the shot is.

luvsports! wrote:

Tenez wrote:It must be a very hard shot to handle. Not a killer but a bother. The most disconcerting about this FH is that it comes back safely over the net and requires a good footwork adjustement after the bounce. Worse of course on hot bouncy clay. But if Nadal could use that power to shorten the points, it woudl be deadly. The fact he can stand 5m behind the baseline without having his FH losing in power (thanks to his own power) is a huge advantage. When everybody else has to take the ball earlier and "risk it", Nadal simply can hit a slow, easy safe ball thanks to his great mouvement.

Nothing new here as I said...Wilander won his first FO like that.

You mean the French right? He never won Wimby.

Indeed....corrected.

noleisthebest wrote:I know it's nothing new..to you.

This post prompted me:

luvsports! wrote:I will not say that Coric was better than Rafa but it is a great point to acknowledge.

1) Nadal raised the bar higher than ever before fitness wise and took the game by storm. If you swapped places with Coric maybe they would have had a very similar trajectory (I think not quite as Rafa imo was faster, aided by crazy spin, better fh and fitter). 
2) Just looking at someone's results, in this instance, is irrelevant, much like it is comparing era's - a futile task. The bar has been raised but ever so slightly, back then it was like the difference in height between a high jump and a pole vault!

I don't know if it's just me, but feels like a lie repeated hundred times becomes a truth when it comes to Nadal's FH (not to mention the rest: the Wimbledon 2008 final proclaimed "the greatest match of all time" etc).

It's just my stand against the sea of commentators' brainwashing that so many buy.
So I say, no, Nadal's forehand is not great, it's a cowardly shot enabled to exist by doping. Without it he wouldn't have won anything.



Federer may whisper it on his death bed, but as a "nobody" I can say it now.

I do not see 18yo Nadal as having a better FH and footwork as Coric......we simply have got used to the wow effect. It's like saying Safin's FH is better than nishi or Nalby's. When Safin came along, his BH had teh wow effect...nowadays many have as good a BH. Same with Pete's serve and many other shots.

Kim Jong-Un wrote:Nadal for me has the best forehand of all time, in terms of how effective the shot is.

Yes, "effective" could be the word to describe it.

ehhh..no. It's anything but effective. Karlo's serve is effective. Nadal's mouvement is effective. If you need amazing footwork, big lungs and 5 FHs to win a point.....that FH is not effective...according to my definition.

Tenez wrote:ehhh..no. It's anything but effective. Karlo's serve is effective. Nadal's mouvement is effective. If you need amazing footwork, big lungs and 5 FHs to win a point.....that FH is not effective...according to my definition.

"effective"
1.
successful in producing a desired or intended result.


You keep misunderstanding me, not sure why. I explained clearly in a few posts in what way Nadal's FH is effective.

I never said it was good.

I believe I replied to Kim originally.

In tennis, effective would mean winning the point. However why woudl Nadal choose to hit 5 FHs if he coudl make the point with one, saving his knees, some stress and everything else?

To reach those 85% winning rate he needs and refers to he has to produce 3 or 4, if not more shots, so I can't call this "effeective". What is effective is that he is so good at running for ever than he has an option of winning over the distance.....which he has done in many of his matches.