1. Courier's description of Nadal's forehand —- how he's able to do so much harm to his opponent with so much more safety margin for himself —- is absolutely on the mark.

    With elite athletes at the level of the guys being discussed here, any one of them could hit extremely hard. It's consistency over long periods of competition that counts most.

    Nadal's technique, again, just affords him more margin of safety, and yet still delivers very fast, powerful shots, with great kicks… Unfortunately, his out-and-out arm flexing style (a contrast to Federer's much more controlled swing) also is more prone to wrist, arm, & shoulder injuries.

  2. What? They went through talking about forehand and didn't bring up Jim's forehand. The guy who practically invented the 'Cover your backhand and hit Inside Out' forehand. Jim Courier and Agassi had one hell of forehands.

  3. I thought 1:50 was odd, he hits at a comfortable height (just below shoulder height) and almost hits a highly pressurizing shot… Seems like a good tactic as opposed to going in 5 feet to hit it at head height. Also, it's hard to believe the graphic at 3.50, it looks like Nadal's contact point is way higher than the other two, what exactly does 'average' mean, how many shots were analysed to come up with this?

  4. Federer hits an extremely heavy ball. It’s crazy how so many people thinks he hits flat which yes obviously on certain shots he will hit some flat but most of the time his shot is very heavy. Yes nadal hits a little more cause he does the biggie whip follow through all the time

  5. I get what the mean when they say "low to high", but it's actually a very poor way to tell a new player to do a forehand. You get these "windshield wiper" forehands that don't generate any actual pace.

  6. I agree with these guys, Nadal's forehand is absolutely the most effective tennis shot perhaps to ever grace the game, while Federer is definitely up there in the best forehands of all time, his forehand gets a lot of appreciation because it is aesthetically pleasing.
    Imo Federer's best shot is his serve, he has the all around game, while Nadal is mostly relient on his forehand and movements around the court.

  7. A great forehand is one thing but a complete game is the key to success & Federer is the master. Jimmy Arias blew into the pro ranks with his forehand but people soon figured out his weaknesses & were able to pick apart his game. Roger though has an equally amazing backhand & his complete game is the reason the man is a living legend.

  8. The one thing they didn't mention is the change is surfaces. Nadal's forehand is the best because it works so well on all surfaces, especially clay where it makes his opponent have to take so many balls out of their preferred strike zone and it also allows him to take some pace off of it and hit such sharp angles. If Nadal had just a slightly better serve and didn't stand so far back to receive serve he would be unbeatable. He almost is anyway.

  9. I don't now why these guys always forget Thiem….there is not one player who has such an advanced technique like him. He totally revolutionizes tennis technique. His forehand is way heavier then Federers and more dangerous then Nadals. Apart from the fact that he has the best backhand in the game. I do agree that when it comes to precision Djokovic is way up there. When it comes to power and explosiveness I will opt for Thiem.

  10. Most underrated forehand in tennis history is Djokovic's. Never misses, best in the game at changing direction, and has great variety – he can just as easily drive it as he can loop it.

  11. Me again, commented on the slice one too… My big beef with these is that all of the guys on the list or guys they mention will have many different ways to hit the ball depending on the desired tactical objective, the situation and the ball they are receiving. To say player X has to do this or doesn't do this, does not give enough respect to the many different balls and types of ways a player can hit and should hit (again depending on the situation, phase of play etc.). The comment on Zverev needing to take every ball at the peak is incorrect, there are many balls he should take at the peak and many balls he should let drop or take or the rise. Again it goes back to the ball being received, the phase of play the player is in and desired tactical objective. Less we forget, Wawrinka won a aussie and us open chipping every first serve return and absolutely unloading on the ball by letting it drop to give him more time… Not all the time but a lot of the time. There is no one right way 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *