Edberg Forehand-changes during his career

[fassin]

I noticed why watching a lot of Edberg videos that his forehand movement was changing during his career, sometimes quite drastically. This was already showed by somebody about the Edberg serve. While Edberg's coach once said that he would not change Edberg's forehand, obviously there were some tinkering with it during the years.
In 1984-1986 his arm is perceptively very straight when he takes back the recket, indeed it looks like a bit of Gustafsson, another Swede.
In 1987 there is a slight change as the arm is a bit more bend in the take back. This remains so until 1989. Then in 1990 and 1991 he had again a slight change. He holds his racket face down and it gives the effect that in a way it looks like he is "pushing" the ball. The racket always remains low in the take back, not as high as before and there is more bend in the arm, especially at the elbow.
Then in 1993 he had again a very high take back.
All in all as I perceive it he was making these changes, but he never changed his grip which was basically some mix of continental and eastern, and his finish remained the same for more flat shots (above the shoulder finish) and sometimes an almost strangely "hooking" finish (in 1990 semi in Wimbledon against Lendl in youtube video you can see that 4:13 plus the replay) and called wiped forehand by the speaker. Actually he could hit some quite wild topspin, especially cross court. Yes it was a liability, but when this forehand was on it was great to see it.

[morten]

i modelled my game and forehand after Edberg and you are right. I am struggling now though with the high bounces, and you are right about the changes. It is a myth that his forehand was so bad, it was reliable, had a great lob and placement around the court, he only missed power(of course one could argue this is important) he probably changed styles to better adapt and impart more topspin, but changing grip is really hard(and not too wise at older age, even pros struggle...)

[christo]

Edberg's forehand was a major liability, always an adventure, good thing he volleyed 90% of the time

[bluetrain4]

It was always better on the run (where he hit most of his minimal forehand winners), and many commentators pointed that out. It was a liability sometimes, but he obviously managed it very well.

It simply wasn't a strength. If it were a true and big liability, it would have never held up against decent players and they would always go there seeking errors or a wesk reply. But, that wasn't really the case He could stay in points for a while with it if he hadn't made it to net yet.

[latershow]

I remember during French Open, the commentators here in Australia were commenting on how Andy Murray's forehand is very similiar to Edbergs, in the way he just rolls over the ball.

[TheTsongaKid]

Why didn't they have the knowledge of the modern FH back then? Was it such a huge discovery?

[Devilito]

He could hit plenty of spin with it and he had one of the best topspin lobs of all time off the forehand side. Was it his strength? No. Was it a weakness? No. You don’t win 6 slams and become a solid long term Number 1 with weaknesses. Instead of looking at pictures and videos of his forehand, actually try and watch matches where it’s obvious his forehand was just fine. The only issue with it was sometimes he’d land it short and it turned into a shot people could attack.

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by TheTsongaKid

Why didn't they have the knowledge of the modern FH back then? Was it such a huge discovery?

"The modern forehand" already existed in Edberg's day. He just didn't hit one.