Raonic on Federer and Nadal

First topic message reminder :

The Canadian has said what I have noticed quite a few players say over the years, you know what you have to do against Rafa its just very difficult, against Federer you just don't know whats coming and is out of your hands.

Q. You played Nadal twice; you played now Federer. For you, who is the tougher opponent?

MILOS RAONIC: I think it's two different things. I think against Nadal, I feel like I just was able to sort of get more into the match. I feel like if Federer plays well he can just blow you out quicker.

I think Nadal might be tougher to close out just because of how adamant he is and how much he perseveres through things. Against Rafa, I feel like I had it in my hands. I had a few more opportunities in my hands that I didn't execute.

Against Federer, I feel like [that even] if you did the things right he could take it away from you pretty quickly.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=78312

Thanks for the kind words Amirtia, I like your posts as well.

Lydian good post, have to agree the ability to change defense into attack is a big deal and that is really the talent of the superb counterpuncher not just the good one or very good one. For example, Nadal has the best passing shots I have ever seen by a country mile. For me the most exciting shot in the sport is a great pass from behind the baseline and pulled out wide.

But I also agree that it is an overgeneralization to say that Rafa and Nole grind all the time against every opponent. Against most of the tour, in most matches these guys are dictating with their serves and forehands and trying to take control of the rallies to get off the court in the routine matches. All three of the counterpunchers can and do hit out for winners off either wing with ease when the opportunity calls for it. That is another problem I have with people who overly criticize the lack of variety in the modern game.

Simon beating Monfils (and a 60+ shot rally) is a great example of being able to absorb pace. Simon's five-set defeat at AO vs Federer is another good example.

Djokovic was fairly aggressive against Almagro today, not much counterpunching.

Dodig beating Nadal was the ultra-aggressor and took it away from Nadal with some fantastic net play and S&V.

socal1976 wrote:That is another problem I have with people who overly criticize the lack of variety in the modern game.

So who wins when two counterpunchers meet? A counterpuncher.

Murray lost to Nadal trying to be aggressive.

Was Djokovic counterpunching at MPs in USO 2011/12?

Does anyone remember what Raonic said?

bogbrush wrote:Does anyone remember what Raonic said?

Who's Raonic?

lydian wrote:Nadal does outsmart players - more so than Federer. Infact you contradict yourself because you say Federer just basically blasts people off court by taking the ball early and whipping winners left and right. Where's the outsmarting in that? Yes its clinical, effective tennis but its not outsmarting, thinking tennis. Nadal is the guy who builds the point, looks for the weakness and goes for the kill. After all, how many times has he outsmarted Federer now by breaking his game down, moving him around the court on a piece of string relentlessly, then creating the gap to put the ball away? Nadal's FH at the end of the day is an amazing shot, a unique shot. The thing really is that you would RATHER praise 50 other guys first because you cant stand the guy - maybe that's driven by the numbers 18 and 9 but hey I could wrong...

YOu really are a fan....and you expose yourself more and more I am afraid.
How can you say Nadal outsmarts? he keeps chasing balls and even has to climb the tribune to bring them back.

Outsmarting in tennis is about dictating. Once you dictate you can outsmart. You cannot outsmart chasing balls down. Nadal outlast, it's quite different. He says it himself but only after having covered miles.

Nadal gets bagelled when not "slam fit". Davydenko and Djoko make him look like a brainless ball basher. I honestly feel sorry for him at times. He even has that look of feeling ashamed by his tennis.

Look the point at 3mn06 and look at how gutted and clueless he is at the end of it. This whole video is about him scrambling right and left. The commentators even say they are sorry to see him scrambling that much. And yuo call this "outsmarting"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYkXZwhdRBk

Are you stupid? Obviously he wasn't outsmarting his opponent when he loses a point or a match, lydians not stupid enough to claim he is outsmarting someone when he is losing.
Nadal has a better win-loss ratio than federer
He is one of the best baseliners of all time and can dictate play from the back of the court. He hit more winners than Federer in the FO 2008 final, right.
He has hit more winners than his opponent in the majority of his matches, every match this tournament if we just take this week, he doesn't just depend on his opponent getting tired, he's gone to a 3-0 in all 3 matches so far this week.
He's just a great tennis player, whether you want to accept the facts or not is not my problem.

Tenez wrote:YOu really are a fan....and you expose yourself more and more I am afraid.

lol, yeah whatever Tenez.
^^^ this coming from the biggest known Federer fan outside his own mother

Tenez wrote:Outsmarting in tennis is about dictating.

Rubbish. That's just your definition to suit your construct.
Definition of outsmart = "get the better of" or "outwit".
You get the better of players in many different ways. Even you should know that.
For example, perhaps you can analyse the concept of a counterpuncher.
Does a counterpuncher consistently dictate play?
Or do they soak up the dictation of play before getting the better of the aggressor by turning defense into attack at the crucial moment to win the point, thus outwitting the opponent?

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:YOu really are a fan....and you expose yourself more and more I am afraid.

lol, yeah whatever Tenez.
^^^ this coming from the biggest known Federer fan outside his own mother

Tenez wrote:Outsmarting in tennis is about dictating.

Rubbish. That's just your definition to suit your construct.
Definition of outsmart = "get the better of" or "outwit".
You get the better of players in many different ways. Even you should know that.
For example, perhaps you can analyse the concept of a counterpuncher.
Does a counterpuncher consistently dictate play?
Or do they soak up the dictation of play before getting the better of the aggressor by turning defense into attack?

Oh dear. Why do you keep arguing with me? once again you will be proven wrong and have nowhere to go. Even Nadal contradicts you nowadays!

So, how do you "soak up" as you say? With legs and lungs. Not with the brain...so you cannot "outsmart" if you are being sent right and left and rely on legs and luns instead of your brain. And soaking up means you rely on the opponent to give you UEs. If those UEs don't come your Nadal might even lose versus a Dodig. How smart is that?

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:That is another problem I have with people who overly criticize the lack of variety in the modern game.

So who wins when two counterpunchers meet? A counterpuncher.

Murray lost to Nadal trying to be aggressive.

Was Djokovic counterpunching at MPs in USO 2011/12?

Exactly, Laverfan, you are making my point for me. I think people overgeneralize about the counterpunching tendencies of the Novak, Nadal, and Murray. All three of the guys hit some great aggressive shots when the situations call for it. Thank you for mentioning the "shot" by the way. Voted shot of the year by tennis channel here in the states, I am going for shot of the decade. Anytime someone mentions that I feel a smile come to my face. Thanks for that. Roger was not too happy in the post match interview and that makes it even more wonderful whenever someone mentions it.

laverfan wrote:Simon beating Monfils (and a 60+ shot rally) is a great example of being able to absorb pace. Simon's five-set defeat at AO vs Federer is another good example.

Djokovic was fairly aggressive against Almagro today, not much counterpunching.

Dodig beating Nadal was the ultra-aggressor and took it away from Nadal with some fantastic net play and S&V.

Got to agree with that Laverfan, I find simon to be a witch on tour. I hate whenever Novak has to play the guy. He gets everything back and hits a bunch of marshmellow balls back and then all of sudden he gets a short forehand cranks a winner. Or he will just grind the other guy to a pulp. I think maybe along with Nalbandian the only player to beat Fed, Nadal, and Djoko in the same season.

By the way I saw that Dodig match, I don't think people who watched that match from start to finish would dismiss dodig as readily or knock Nadal for that loss. Nadal lost two tiebreak sets, and if I remember he was up a break in one or both sets. And dodig is a talent, and played the best tennis I have ever seen from him. A helluva 3 set match.

Didn't read every comment.
Raonic's comments are correct, most people would agree them. It's clear that if we have 4 players
Best Federer, Best Nadal, Worst Nadal and Worst Nadal
that they would be ranked in that order.
Best Federer is better than Best Nadal (but not necessarily against Nadal) and Worst Nadal beats Worst Federer, but that's just a likely or inevitable condequence of their games.

I do think Raonic's comments are a bit harsh against Nadal even though broadly correct.

Tenez wrote:

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

Not sure that is correct. Let's see if that will stand up to any statistics.

So far in 2012 they both lost 2 matches with a 90% win rate.
In 2011 Nadal lost 15 to Federer's 12.
In 2010 Nadal lost 10 to Federer's 13.
In 2009 Nadal lost 14 to Federer's 12 (but the same % of 83%).

Hm. I suppose you could argue that you are only talking about 2011 and 2012, but it's a bit of a selective argument. More accurate to say that they both lose about the same.

As for the career win/loss, Nadal did much better in his early years and Federer much better in his mid years, so the question is will Nadal do as well as Federer in his later years.

To be honest there are a number of factors that effect win loss records (I saw quoted Naal .824, Federer .814) and make them not fully representative of a player's quality. I mean if Federer were to play all the 250s that Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray don't play, but not turn up to slams or masters, he would be getting maybe 95% win rates all season, but you'd be laughing at him. Actually the biggest problem with career win loss is that players get a big advantage by retiring early (e.g. Borg) but have their statistics really effected if they play on well into the 30s (e.g. Connors).

Also, come on, banana shots easy! Come on. I've barely ever seen anyone else pull it off, it's a brilliant signature shot.

Henman Bill wrote:...he would be getting maybe 95% win rates all season, but you'd be laughing at him.

For a second I thought you were referring to Wozniacki.

Henman Bill wrote:Also, come on, banana shots easy! Come on. I've barely ever seen anyone else pull it off, it's a brilliant signature shot.

This is the first shot they teach to kids. Which is easier? Higghest clearence over the net and spin to make sure it stays within the lines. The less confident you are the more you topspin!

That's a fact.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:

Tenez wrote:YOu really are a fan....and you expose yourself more and more I am afraid.

lol, yeah whatever Tenez.
^^^ this coming from the biggest known Federer fan outside his own mother

Tenez wrote:Outsmarting in tennis is about dictating.

Rubbish. That's just your definition to suit your construct.
Definition of outsmart = "get the better of" or "outwit".
You get the better of players in many different ways. Even you should know that.
For example, perhaps you can analyse the concept of a counterpuncher.
Does a counterpuncher consistently dictate play?
Or do they soak up the dictation of play before getting the better of the aggressor by turning defense into attack?

Oh dear. Why do you keep arguing with me? once again you will be proven wrong and have nowhere to go. Even Nadal contradicts you nowadays!

So, how do you "soak up" as you say? With legs and lungs. Not with the brain...so you cannot "outsmart" if you are being sent right and left and rely on legs and luns instead of your brain. And soaking up means you rely on the opponent to give you UEs. If those UEs don't come your Nadal might even lose versus a Dodig. How smart is that?

lydian. Why do you keep arguing with Tenez? Don't you know Tenez gets to choose whats right and whats wrong, who's talented and who isn't, who's good and who's evil (I tried to argue that particular one once but I know better now), who's ugly and who's not (I might be getting a bit confused with noleisthebest here...), what's smart and what's not, what counts as a win and what doesn't.... I could go on but by now you probably get the picture. Just don't argue with Tenez!

I though a banana shot was a down the line shot, where you curl it round so that it starts out heading out side the side line, just clears the top of the net and then it curls in and lands just inside the side line.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I though a banana shot was a down the line shot, where you curl it round so that it starts out heading out side the side line, just clears the top of the net and then it curls in and lands just inside the side line.

Whatever it is it's dead easy! Go down to any public court and you'll see gangs of eight year olds tediously hitting banana shots back and forth to each other... Zzzzzz.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I though a banana shot was a down the line shot, where you curl it round so that it starts out heading out side the side line, just clears the top of the net and then it curls in and lands just inside the side line.

Whatever it is it's dead easy! Go down to any public court and you'll see gangs of eight year olds tediously hitting banana shots back and forth to each other... Zzzzzz.

True, although Fed does them whilst blindfolded and sipping a glass of chardonnay, wearing a tux.

I am certainly not Nadals biggest fan, but even I have to recoil when this shot is said to be easy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

JuliusHMarx wrote:I though a banana shot was a down the line shot, where you curl it round so that it starts out heading out side the side line, just clears the top of the net and then it curls in and lands just inside the side line.

Doing it with today's racquets and strings it's pretty easy (high clearence and enough spin to bring the bal back within the lines) as long as you have legs to get to the ball and power in your arm.

Nadal does it pretty far back too meaning the timing of the ball is much easier thand done early after the bounce. It's a power shot, not a particularly skilled one. Doing it with old racquets and natural guts was considerably harder as teh ball needed to be hit flatter reducing considerably the target.

Why would it be the first shot they teach to kids - who wouldn't have the legs to reach it or the power to do it. Surely they'd start with something a bit more basic?

CAS wrote:I am certainly not Nadals biggest fan, but even I have to recoil when this shot is said to be easy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuXsWt53cHs

THis point proves exactly my point. Nadal moonballing no end, scooping the ball back into the court and waiting for then when back against the wall comes up with this pretty high percentage shot but he is so powerful, even after scrapping through right and left in a 15 ball rally and ends up with what is basically a slightly flatter moonball but certainly a pretty safe shot. More so is his inside out FH using teh whole diagonal of the court and its lowest net part.

Yes the shot gets the people excited but it's the physcal prowess which is impressive...not particularly the timing.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would it be the first shot they teach to kids - who wouldn't have the legs to reach it or the power to do it. Surely they'd start with something a bit more basic?

Because, it's simply a topspin shot and as explained above, it's the athletism which is impressive not the shot itself. I have said it many times. The harder you hit with todays' material teh safer the shot.

Now try to hit the same shot but flat and it becomes a very rsky shot. There we can see it's not.

It's a side spin shot more than a top spin shot - ignoring any specific examples i.e. a banana shot is supposed to be side spin, hit fairly low over the net, when you're near/in the trams. That's not what they teach kids first, surely? Especially if it requires athleticism that kids have yet to develop.

Hawkeye....yeah, I ask myself the same question. This thread is a perfect illistration of banging ones head against a wall.

A banana shot (as opposed to an ordinary topspin shot) has side and top spin so its curving in 2 dimensions - but hey Tenez knows best, this is the sort of shot they teach kids

Both my young sons have tennis coaching twice per week for past 18 months and I can tell you they havent even progressed to topspin yet, never mind banana shots!

Yes the banana shot is the first thing they teach in tennis, from 2 metres to the right of the baseline. Little kids can do it, no wonder it's so common in the ATP. My name is Tenez and Im a PC.

All topspin have some degree of side spin anyway! It's like cueing! It's actually extremely difficult to cue straight. Nadal's cross court FH has a huge amount of side spin too but I guess you two had not noticed!

There in this clip, Nadal's is stretched and the side/top spin shot is the natural one to curve the ball inside the court.

There is nothing very spectacular or even difficult about that, especially if you have big muscles like he has. It was much more risky to do them in the past with old strings and racquets.

I did 3 last night and I could do 40 for breakfast if I wanted to! What I cannot do is run as long and certainly not as fast as he does...plus my arm would tire much quicker.

Almost every single shot from Nalbandian carries more risk, has pace, depth and great precision. His margins are much smaller than a banana shot.

The amount of sidespin on most shots is negligible.
Tenez, the banana shot you played last night probably had 1rpm on both dimensions...you make it sound like anyone can hit these shots the pros do. And as always Nadal can only do these things due to his muscles...yawn, yawn...

What you cannot do, in your own words, is play at even 1% of the level of Nadal, or any top pro, in any dimension or facet. This isnt Thursday night club mixed doubles tennis followed by a Pimms & lemonade in the club bar. Stop deluding yourself you're on any comparable plane with these guys. BTW...1% means that for every 100 points you might win 1. Might.

I think the look on Verdascos face says it all, some of the angles Nadal is able to create are unreal. His passing shots even Federer says are spectacular, I think Federer hits more magical shots though. Nadals best shots are hit when hes out of position, whilst Federer can hit great shots from anywhere on the court.

Henman Bill wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Nadal does get beaten more often than Federer...even though Federer is 30.

Not sure that is correct. Let's see if that will stand up to any statistics.

So far in 2012 they both lost 2 matches with a 90% win rate.
In 2011 Nadal lost 15 to Federer's 12.
In 2010 Nadal lost 10 to Federer's 13.
In 2009 Nadal lost 14 to Federer's 12 (but the same % of 83%).

Hm. I suppose you could argue that you are only talking about 2011 and 2012, but it's a bit of a selective argument. More accurate to say that they both lose about the same.

As for the career win/loss, Nadal did much better in his early years and Federer much better in his mid years, so the question is will Nadal do as well as Federer in his later years.

To be honest there are a number of factors that effect win loss records (I saw quoted Naal .824, Federer .814) and make them not fully representative of a player's quality.

Of course a fine post by henman bill that debunks another line of reasoning propounded by a certain individual on this site. That there are two Nadals, and that Nadal loses to many average players outside the slams, much more so than other top ranked players. Over and over again we hear about the loss to Ivan Dodig, as if that one match was somehow monumental and career defining. Every top ranked player has a few losses over the course of the years to players that they have no business losing. Well researched post by Henman Bill, unlikely to sway those that have their minds made up.

It is actually much more difficult to replicate a Nadalesque forehand compared to a fed forehand. Fed has a much easier and less extreme grip. Now obviously I can't hit the forehand anywhere near approaching the quality of either player. But Nadal's forehand due to the extreme grip is very difficult. Just playing around one day and moved my grip to an extreme western like Nadal and had difficulty getting a single shot passed the service line and over 10 miles per hour. Fed is basically a eastern grip, very classical for the forehand. Nadal's grip is very difficult to replicate and it is not something that you can easily teach to a begginner. Where as the eastern grip Fed uses is the default grip they pretty much teach every six year old the first time they pick up a racquet. By far the easiest grip is the eastern, and that is why it has been the most common grip taught up until the last few years with most of the pros going western and semi western. I use the semi western myself, it gives you a good mix and doesn't feel as odd as the full western.

By thinking this shot is difficulting you are proving that you don;t understand much about what is difficult in tennis (though I knew that for some of you). This isn't! Remember I come from the table tennis world where spin is everything.

I know the difficulty of a banana shot and it not a difficult one. In princinple, no wants to be in a position to play one to start with. It means you have lost the centre of the court and therefore are in a difficult situation and you play it cause you have no other choice. We can see here like I demoed many times v Federer, that's it's Verdasco doing the hard work, hitting the corners while Nadal scraps through right and left, even scooping the ball back. This is why Verdasco smiles at the end cause he does all the work but on those ridiculous slow courts with such technology, dictating becomes a disadvantage.

For those who understand also how easy it is to topspin, they may have noticed that Nadal choses the soft slow slice from Verdasco to hit that shot, which makes it even easier cause the ball has no pace and is therefore much easier to control and apply that kind of spin than on a faster ball. And the proof is that Nadal hardly ever plays this shot out of a serve! It woudl be easy for him, but he is too scared to make a mistake. Like this rally shows, Nadal is gutless and pull the trigger when it's easy and off center cause he has that amazing power and stamina. That I agree. I am not sure where it comes from but I know that he has period where it's not there, and then he can be beaten, if not bagelled by anyone. Ask yourselves why!

I wouldn't say the eastern grip is the easiest, because it makes you hit flatter, while the western and semi-western creates more spin which is a safer shot. It just depends on what type of player you want to be.

If you have hit a certain way your whole life of course it will be difficult to try Nadals grip, which is like I rememeber Jimmy Connors describing as 'like holding a frying pan' I wouldn't say either is harder than the other, its just what you have been taught.

socal1976 wrote:It is actually much more difficult to replicate a Nadalesque forehand compared to a fed forehand. Fed has a much easier and less extreme grip. Now obviously I can't hit the forehand anywhere near approaching the quality of either player. But Nadal's forehand due to the extreme grip is very difficult. Just playing around one day and moved my grip to an extreme western like Nadal and had difficulty getting a single shot passed the service line and over 10 miles per hour. Fed is basically a eastern grip, very classical for the forehand. Nadal's grip is very difficult to replicate and it is not something that you can easily teach to a begginner. Where as the eastern grip Fed uses is the default grip they pretty much teach every six year old the first time they pick up a racquet. By far the easiest grip is the eastern, and that is why it has been the most common grip taught up until the last few years with most of the pros going western and semi western. I use the semi western myself, it gives you a good mix and doesn't feel as odd as the full western.

Oh dear. You make me feel smarter than I am! So Nadal is using a much tougher grip simply cause he can, right?

Lol Tenez I'm sure the banana shot is the easiest to play in the world, the first thing kids are taught and you can do 100 of them

CAS wrote:I wouldn't say the eastern grip is the easiest, because it makes you hit flatter, while the western and semi-western creates more spin which is a safer shot. It just depends on what type of player you want to be.

If you have hit a certain way your whole life of course it will be difficult to try Nadals grip, which is like I rememeber Jimmy Connors describing as 'like holding a frying pan' I wouldn't say either is harder than the other, its just what you have been taught.

No CAS if you go to any coach who is teaching young kids to play they always start with the eastern. That doesn't mean that it makes you a lesser talent to use an eastern. You can hit top spin with an eastern, fed hits quite a heavy forehand for the grip that he possesses. Right now I am sure Nadal has hit so many of those forehands that it really isn't difficult for him. But if you were to teach a beginner you would not start out with the frying pan grip that Connors so poetically referenced. However, my point is that people pretend that Nadal's shot is so easy because it has a lot of spin. The inverse is actually true, the fact that it is so extreme makes it very difficult at first to master, it is a very unnatural feeling to hold the racquet handle in that manner. It is also very difficult to handle low balls with a lot of slice but Nadal will pick the ball right off his shoestrings with it. It certainly, is not easy to hit that quote "bannana" shot that Nadal hits. It is especially not easy to hit low balls, and it is also not easy to generate the kind of pace he does with that extreme of a grip. Novak also is very western although not quite as extreme as nadal.

Tenez:
'This is the first shot they teach to kids. Which is easier? Higghest clearence over the net and spin to make sure it stays within the lines.
That's a fact.'

He's truly clueless.
Who gets taught a topspin banana shot as their first shot? You start by hitting the ball flat! God knows what dreamworld Tenez lives in.
And 'high' over the net. LOL. Does he know what a banana shot is? Nadals one against Kohli was low and around the net.
And he do finished by saying 'fact' this is embarrassing now.

My understanding is that Nadal, Murray and Djoko all have WESTERN grip. You either have eastern, semi-w, western or extreme-western (Hawaiian, like Berasetegui used to have). Federer and Nalbandian use semi-western. Sampras and Henman had Eastern grips. Eastern grips are hard to develop prodigous spin with but used to hit flat or block. Most pros have semi-western, and its the grip I also use having started with Eastern then went to western, finally settling on s-w (and it took me a long time and lots of hours ralleyinh with coaches and a ball machine to change!). I still slip to western sometimes if I'm not careful.

Agree with socal, they tend to teach Eastern to kids first as they;'re not strong enough in the wrists to handle the whip that a western grip generates. They can move to s-w or w later on, say 10/11 although I would encourage s-w ASAP as its really hard to change grips once adopted. Infact I'd start coaching them with s-w from the start as you can start to generate the whip effect employed using by the dynamics of stretch shortening cycles (SSC) later on to create more spin...and hence more control that is important when progressing.

Federer and Nadal are the greatest proponents of the SSC...its how they're higher than most with their FH rpm. And contrary to what Tenez will tell you to generate that degree of wrist "whippiness" and hit the ball in the way they do takes prodigous timing. Any pro or coach would tell you that. Its why the other pros dont rpm as high, its ridiculously hard to be that consistent at that rpm all the time. Read more about SSC here for example... http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=173305

Pros can still hit perfectly flat with a Western grip (Djoko does for example) but its harder to hit flat with a Western grip than Eastern...just as its harder to hit topspin with Eastern v Western. Guys like Nadal, Djoko do extremely well as they do to hit low bouncing shots from their western grips. But the ideal grip is semi-western in my opinion as it gives best of both worlds between W and E. It was also the grip Agassi had and he could hit flat or with huge spin.

But when we talk about Nadal, his FH technique is actually unique. Yes, shock horror...its a talent of his. It cannot be taught due to the way he generates the stroke from the outset and follows through. He's the only guy who can get anywhere near 4000rpm and trust me its not strength as there are plenty of strong guys on tour. Its due to the timing of combining wrist angle, core rotation, flexibility, whip effect and follow through. But he can also hit flat if he chooses and hit passing winners around 100mph. He just chooses not to. A beginner would crack open their skull if they tried to hit with his FH technqiue...and thats because alot of his FH ability comes from flexibility and rotation in his shoulder.

Spot on lydian, I think fed has an eastern, what I have heard is that he hits eastern, slightly modified grip. What that means is that his forehand grip is something between an eastern and semi-western. I to use the semi western on the forehand, I think it is the best grip in the modern game, as it gives you the versatility of both being able to generate big spin or hit flat. Agree that you can hit topspin or flat with any of these grips it is just that the more western you go the easier it is to hit with spin, the more eastern you go the easier it is to hit flat.

Have to concur again on Nadal, he has complete mastery of that shot, and it is an extremely difficult shot to replicate. What I find amazing that you mentioned is that he can hit it flat and over 100 mph, and then with his regular swing generating 4000 plus RPM and wicked bite. When I try to play around with an extreme western grip I can't even get any pace or depth on the shot. And while I am not a pro, I am not a novice or average club hacker either. So for me it is amazing that Nadal can generate flat pace at all with that grip. And maybe even more amazing how he can handle the low ball with that grip. Novak in particular has a lot of problems with low sliced shots to his forehand if the opponent gets the slice deep, a great deal of his forehand errors come off the low slice. Where as Nadal eats those low sliced shots up despite his western grip.

No Lydian, Social you're wrong, Tenez said that the banana shot is the 'first shot they teach to kids 'and he did 3 last night and could do 40 for breakfast if he wanted to!'

Yes socal, for Nadal its all in the angle of the wrist to compensate on low bounce so he presents the racquet to the face in a more "eastern" fashion...he just tends to use less ssc in practice when its low, and again it takes alot of timing to do that, and to make those adjustments from surface to surface. One of the reasons why Djoko is also so consistent from surface to surface and in his length is that oddly he doesnt really use the ssc technique. His FH is literally a much simpler stroke compared to Nadal's and Federer's...and because of that it doesnt break down the same or as often. Hence he can ralley with it from many positions of the court and still get good length, and not shank, underhit (Nadal), overhit (Federer), etc. But the simplicity at times does hurt him as Nadal and Federer's FHs based on ssc technique have greater variety and can do more creative things when pushed to the extreme...but sometimes variety isnt a good thing as it creates variability.

What is ssc? I don't quite get that terminology you are using so while I understand what you are saying general I lose some of the meaning of your last post.

Lol, amiritia I would love to watch tenez try to hit a cross court passing shot from behind the baseline and wide cross court like nadal. Would love to see if that shot is as easy as he claims.

lydian, there remains the possibility, of course, that other players could generate as much spin as Rafa (if they practiced, used the same strings etc), but choose not to, as it is not their preferred style of play.

Topspin I've never found easy myself, eventually my forehand naturally developed a small amount of topspin. To hit heavy top spin you have to hit the ball at more of an angle meaning you have less racket to hit the ball with effectively, and you need to be precise on fast moving balls to avoid mishits. I think it's actually quite hard.

Of course, once you've practiced it enough for sure you one could get reliable at it, and for sure I understand the benefit of the increased margin for error.

Personally, I don't like playing against top spin because it's annoying to deal with; I think a purer way to win is to go for your shots.

I watched Nadal at Indian Wells last year in the final from a highish corner position where I was able to sort of triangulate all the vectors of the movement. On the forehand side, there is quite a lot going on with it.

Yes, Henman bill it is a very difficult swing and technique Nadal has on that forehand which has taken a lot of work to develop and master.

I used to be a dead flat hitter with an eastern grip and now I hit much heavier myself. I have actually found that I hit more winners since switching my forehand. The spin opens up more angles and gives me more control that really lets me take big cuts. I still take the ball pretty early as well this combination of both good spin and good court positioning has worked well for my own personal game. I don't try to hit it completely spinny though, still like to have some pace and take it early.

JHM, quite possibly - but thats like saying all pros could serve at 140mph+ like Roddick if they wanted...but they cant. With Nadal/Federer being the top 2 players for years why wouldnt the other guys copy them RPM-wise if they could, if it was so easy to copy?

Socal...here's one way of describing SSC (stretch shortening cycle). Imagine there's an elastic band, you extend it so it stretches and becomes taught. Its storing elastic energy. When the tension is released the elastic band flies off in the opposite direction. Relating to muscles, you have paired muscles around the body. One flexes, extends (to put it very basically). If you flex a muscle it stretches the opposing muscle (creating tension) and when you release the flex (and start the extension) you release the stored energy (relating back to the elastic bands). The reverse also applies, i.e. extension of a muscle allows greater flexion.

So the idea behind stretch shortening cycles (and it is a modern sports theory/technique) is that elastic (dynamic) energy is only stored for a very brief amount of time (and this decreases exponentially) so you must use it whilst the muscle is still elastically stretching not statically stretched. To picture this, lets use jumping as an example. If you crouch down and then wait (statically) then jump as high as you can you will reach a certain height - lets call that "A". Now, if you crouch and jump in one flowing motion you should jump higher then "A". So lets call this "B". The theory actually can be furthered to say that the more dynamic the stretch the better the elastic energy stored and potentially released. So now if instead of just standing in one place we now step then crouch then jump (more dynamic, therefore more elasticity is generated) and we should go even higher than "B".

In relation to tennis the easiest example is the wrist on the multi-segmented forehand. To use SSC on the FH you need to keep the wrist loose, and then swing from the shoulder - this is not intiutive for many! This creates "lag" of the arm and especially the racquet. The racquet lag creates a dynamic stretch of the wrist - it is not a controlled extension by the player since the arm is now accelerating toward the ball and the racquet has no momentum. The racquet lags until the wrist is pulled by the arm which then causes the wrist to flex bringing the racquet through with a greater speed than those who have the wrist pre-extended.

The use of SSC creates more spin and power but it is also harder to time and execute so creates more errors. If you want more spin use it (and Federer and Nadal use SSC better than just about anyone) but it may result in more inconsistancy compared to using a more "standard" FH technique.

lydian wrote:JHM, quite possibly - but thats like saying all pros could serve at 140mph+ like Roddick if they wanted...but they cant. .

No. It's not at all comparable. I am sure you know why!

We could see in the CC FH slo-mo from Rafa early in teh second taht all his FHs are banana shots.