Nadal Forehand Extension

[sureshs]

This is a his trademark up-the-line forehand which catches the opponent by surprise. It requires immaculate timing and contact to send the ball to the sidelines from behind the baseline. The opponent is expecting the ball down the line or in the middle, instead it is angled away. It is very difficult to hit this, as the window is narrow from behind the baseline. To get enough power into the shot, he is off the ground and this is really like an aerial assault on the ball.

Unless you are a supremely good and fit player, don't try this.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Not sure what the mph was on that shot.

Watch the racket head the 3 frames after contact--when the ball is still visible through the strings.

If someone says hit 3 balls I think that can really help certain players. In my experience it's the lack of forward swing extension toward the opponent that is the most obvious failing in the basic drive of club players, and even many high level juniors.

Everyone is coming across sooner or later.

It is also pretty obvious in pro matches. Once in a while, someone (like Isner) will hit a backhand winner, and the commentator will point out how he drove through the ball instead of pulling up early. Then you realize, yes, that is what I was thinking of.

This Nadal video is pretty misleading. It shows an extraordinary stroke where a glancing sideways blow is used to direct a ball into a place that others do not dare to go to. Use of the legs is made to provide such power in the swing that even a sideways component is sufficient to be a winner. On the other hand, the ball could as easily landed out with a small change in timing.

I would not emphasize this video for anything other than how Nadal can hit such a shot. It is not a good example to emulate or teach. Few players can generate this much RHS to make a sideways glance this powerful. They are far better of learning to hit the ball solidly.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by 5263

I wouldn't say flexes it, as you can't swing like that and hold back the wrist
and longer.
With the hand having started across like in the vid, the centrifugal force working with the wrist loaded like that will bring the racket face out like that; unless you swing way slower,
but then it would have never laid back so far in the first place.
It's not that he flexes it out, but I can agree with - he gives it up- as there is no other choice here; but it is just how it is suppose to work.

Wow. I may have something *completely* backwards. . .

[JohnYandell]

suresh,

actually, disagreed. this is what all great drives look like from this reverse view.

[sureshs]

That is interesting. Though I don't see many drives barely catching a corner of the strings and going off to the side. Are these kind of drives limited to Nadal and Federer who use straight-arm forehands? Can they be seen in the women's game?

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Few players can generate this much RHS to make a sideways glance this powerful. They are far better of learning to hit the ball solidly.

IMO, you are overstating the "sideways glance" aspect of this shot and I agree with JY that there is plenty of plow thru here as well. We have all been discussing this blend along the way and the balance of elements is adjusted according to the intent of the shot for the good to great players.

[sureshs]

I said there was plenty of plowthru, that is why even a sideways glance had so much power. I am still skeptical of the reliability of a shot when hit in a corner as far from the sweetzone as possible. People do say that Nadal uses every square inch of his 100, and this is perhaps what they mean.

I finished watching Sharapova-Kvitova in Stutgart now, and I did not see a single forehand which even remotely came close to this. Most were solidly hit shots with moderate spin (could clearly notice the movement after the bounce) but nothing like this. A more spinnier Schiavone also never comes anywhere close to this.

As a side note, the latest issue of Inside Tennis has an article about how all manufacturers are converging on the 100 as the optimal size and focusing R&D resources on those models. Not 98, not 102, but 100. Bab seems like a visionary company now.

[Cheetah]

The ball in nadal's strike here was not hit far from the center of the racquet.
This is the contact point.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

As a side note, the latest issue of Inside Tennis has an article about how all manufacturers are converging on the 100 as the optimal size and focusing R&D resources on those models. Not 98, not 102, but 100. Bab seems like a visionary company now.

I agree that 100 is a size with all things considered.

[5263]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

The ball in nadal's strike here was not hit far from the center of the racquet.
This is the contact point. the ball was most likely struck on the inside of the ball so that is pretty close to dead center.

Good computer skill there and I agree with what you say here. Not for off the sweet spot at all.
Looks like it is very near the high serving sweetspot.

[JohnYandell]

Right, some of of video research indicating a tendency to hit a little higher toward the tip--especially Djok but for all we know this was the ideal spot for Rafa...certainly close enough to create a massive fh...

[sureshs]

You guys are right. I played the video frame by frame and Cheetah got the impact right. I assumed the impact was when the ball had just left the frame, but that was wrong from this point of view. The transparency through the back killed me here.

The ball is pretty much hit squarely near the sweetzone.

I see no extension through contact. Frame by frame, after impact, I mentally plotted the perpendicular to the strings and compared it to the ball direction, and they show a steady divergence, almost cone-shaped. It is as if a soccer player came running towards an incoming ball, kicked it towards his partner to the left, and then kept running to his right.

I am watching Nadal-Verdasco now, and Nadal has hit this several times already. He seems to have 3 forehands - this one, a cross court one, and a DTL one. This one seems to be his version of an inside-out forehand, but while others hit that closer to the baseline, this guy can hit it from way behind. In the CC and DTL ones, the racket path after impact seems to correlate much better with the ball path after impact. His backhand also seems to show more correlation. But I really can't tell for sure from TV - need frame by frame analysis.

BTW, I seem to have come up above with a scientific meaning of extension: the rate of change of angle between the path of the ball and path of the perpendicular to the strings after impact, normalized to the racket head speed in some way to compare across strokes and players. In other words, how slowly/quickly the two diverge, keeping the RHS the same.

[JohnYandell]

Suresh, that'd be a pretty cool way to measure it. How flat or curved is the curve and how fast does the racket move along it.

Again by extension I am talking about the movement of the hand and racket in the forward dimension. Obviously it's moving in 3 directions. To me extension is mainly the direction outward toward the opposite side.

[toly]

Originally Posted by sureshs

BTW, I seem to have come up above with a scientific meaning of extension: the rate of change of angle between the path of the ball and path of the perpendicular to the strings after impact, normalized to the racket head speed in some way to compare across strokes and players. In other words, how slowly/quickly the two diverge, keeping the RHS the same.

Your “scientific meaning of extension” can be easily defined by velocity (V) of the racquet point of contact (during impact) and orientation of the racquet string.

In 2D case, for example, if racquet face is perpendicular to the ground:

1. The Vnormal to the strings identifies the ball translational speed and direction which would be around perpendicular to the strings.

2. The Vtangential defines “across aspect” and can affect the ball spin.

[toly]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Suresh, that'd be a pretty cool way to measure it. How flat or curved is the curve and how fast does the racket move along it.

How flat or curved is the curve usually defined by curvature of the curve. If we know racquet point of contact trajectory we can easily calculate curvature of the trajectory.

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Again by extension I am talking about the movement of the hand and racket in the forward dimension. Obviously it's moving in 3 directions. To me extension is mainly the direction outward toward the opposite side.

Unfortunately your definition of the extension is not specific enough, that’s why nobody can clearly understand it. You once in awhile should listen to your potential and real customers, otherwise “positive feedback” never works. Good luck with that.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

The ball in nadal's strike here was not hit far from the center of the racquet.
This is the contact point. the ball was most likely struck on the inside of the ball so that is pretty close to dead center.

Ahh, but how far does the ball slide whilst on the strings? And, what percentage of that slide is on either side of the center of the strings?

Kevin

[Off The Wall]

Don't most of you who just hit the ball find that your contact point is in the same low/tip quadrant as Nadal's?

The good players I've observed have a string wear pattern right there.

[5263]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

Ahh, but how far does the ball slide whilst on the strings? And, what percentage of that slide is on either side of the center of the strings?

Kevin

That just could not be....all that movement on the strings. I started to mention it
as well, but decided not to open that can of worms about how the ball is on the strings
only 4 nano seconds or something. I've been told I can't feel that slide as well because the nerves transmit too slow, but I don't think it matters so much if you
feel it late... you still felt it and can develop feel based on how other similar
shots felt.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by JohnYandell

Suresh, that'd be a pretty cool way to measure it. How flat or curved is the curve and how fast does the racket move along it.

Again by extension I am talking about the movement of the hand and racket in the forward dimension. Obviously it's moving in 3 directions. To me extension is mainly the direction outward toward the opposite side.

Yes I realize it now. You do not necessarily focus only on the movement after impact but the full picture of the motion before it too. Others (like me) focused only on the movement after impact and could not find the 4 balls in a can. It is the root of the misunderstanding here.

[5263]

Originally Posted by sureshs

Yes I realize it now. You do not necessarily focus only on the movement after impact but the full picture of the motion before it too. Others (like me) focused only on the movement after impact and could not find the 4 balls in a can. It is the root of the misunderstanding here.

You can always count 3-4 balls if they are before impact and you are looking for them to hit the last one, but
that ruins the whole deal as they say that hitting any one of the line of balls is
ok, not just the last one. I'm not even sure it is totally technically correct for the last ball, as the racket has started across very briefly before contact even.