Conventional wisdom says that the semi-western forehand should not be as good as the eastern forehand on very low balls as the contact point is higher. However, Nadal's semi-western forehand is the best at attacking Federer's GOAT low slice. The reason is that the semi-western forehand can whip topspin on low balls, and thus hit them with pace as the spin will still bring the ball up over the net, then back down safely into the court. An eastern forehand would struggle to clear the net or would sail long when confronting a heavy and low slice. Conventional wisdom says that the semi-western forehand should not be as good as the western forehand for hitting heavy topspin. However, Nadal's semi-western forehand hits the most topspin ever seen in the game - more than many other players with more extreme grips than him. Maybe the reason for this is that the semi-western forehand allows a straight-arm swing path, which would be hard to recreate with a western forehand due to strain on the wrist. Having a straight arm forehand means more leverage and more spin on the ball. So here we have the semi-western forehand - and conventional wisdom says it should be a jack of all trades, master of none. The eastern forehand should be better at handling low balls. The western forehand should be better at imparting heavy topspin. Yet I present to you the semi-western forehand as jack of all trades, and master of all. It is better than the eastern forehand at doing the things the eastern forehand is said to be good at. And it is better than the western forehand at doing the things the western forehand is said to be good at. I know I'm basing my argument on Nadal's forehand. But Nadal is not a freak. He is not 6ft 10in tall - his biomechanics are rather average for a tennis player. He is not double jointed or insanely flexible like Djokovic is. He is not a straight up fast-twitch laden beast like Monfils. It suggests if you are an average professional tennis player, the straight-arm semi-western forehand is absolutely the way to go.