2 100 mph forehands.

[Third Serve]

OP should be locked up for not linking the videos but yeah he’s pretty much right. It’s gonna read like sour grapes (and tbh it probably is) considering Alcaraz’s recent success, but it is true that Fed just has way better fundamentals on the FH. And Alcaraz has a perfectly solid FH so it’s not a huge knock. It’s just that Fed was that good.

 

[Devilito]

Guns are juiced today due to where they measure the ball from. Pretty much every single player today serves faster than Pete. It's a complete joke. Pete hit rally forehands harder than some of these "100mph winners". Tennis stats are so inflated and juiced right now to levels never seen before.

 

[metsman]

1. The ball was seemingly more dead in the Alcaraz rally. This can be explained by what looks like a slower court in the Wimbledon final, compared to Cinci which still continues to be slick.

2. Fed himself used to have a longer take back and more prominent trunk rotation before 06-07. His FH was at his best in 05 too, perhaps not coincidentally.

Take back is irrelevant to this discussion as already mentioned as it happens before ball bounces (unless you're out of position, which peak Fed rarely was and Alcaraz is on every other ball). It's a function of how much time the feet give you to prepare, thus allowing the racket to build more momentum. Obviously as Fed's feet got worse, his takeback shortened and his FH got worse, this is common knowledge. But from ball bounce to ball strike, Federer's FH was just as short in 2005 as any other year.

 

[metsman]

Like you can critic Alcaraz game compared to Fed but not sure this point is the best example.

Both FH's ended in a ideal way.

It's not the point, it's the mechanics, which are present on each and every point. This is just a striking and similar set of points and has the added effect of eluding the "how dare you criticize a guy for hitting a 160 mph forehand" idiots in full flight.

 

[NeutralFan]

Fed was so dominant it didn't even feel like he had to focus on exposing Roddick's movement and backhand if he didn't want to. Could have probably been even more dominant in that matchup that he was other wise.

with movement and better defense to offense he could have changed the direction, angle and made it competitive.

 

[metsman]

Looking at those two 100 mph forehands, Alcaraz does NOT have a longer takeback. His hand moves about the same the same distance back as Fed.

Alcaraz does lag the racquet back more than Fed. But the Alcaraz takeback is very compact.

Not clear what the point of the original post is.

yes his takeback is compact because his footwork is worse, see above. If your feet put you in a position to hit the ball earlier, you can toss the racket in the air for all it matters and it won't make a difference. Takeback is not directly relevant to swing length after ball bounce. Federer's feet get him in position faster which is why Alcaraz is more off balance and wild, as he needs to get in position while swinging, and why he misses such FHs more often than he makes them.

 

[metsman]

If you want to invent stuff I’ve said, go ahead

Your post deserves to be caricatured when you claimed with a straight face that out of two straight as a string flat forehands, one had "a lot more topspin"

 

[Rosstour]

For anyone too lazy to find the clips

That vein looks totally normal and natural

 

[FeroBango]

https://x.com/spidersmorales/status/1817257151779184657?s=19
Wonder what speed this spectacular fh was

 

[FeroBango]

x.com

x.com

More crispy stuff

 

[Windsor2]

The impression I have is that you just don't know what you are talking about. Fed got the ball right in the hitting zone. Alcaraz had to deal with a much more difficult rally situation, a slower ball and court. Both forehands are superb, full stop. Juiced gun? You cannot be serious!

 

[FeroBango]

The impression I have is that you just don't know what you are talking about. Fed got the ball right in the hitting zone. Alcaraz had to deal with a much more difficult rally situation, a slower ball and court. Both forehands are superb, full stop. Juiced gun? You cannot be serious!

No we must compare different balls resulting in different forehand on different courts from different decades with the conviction of a judge.

 

[RS]

It's not the point, it's the mechanics, which are present on each and every point. This is just a striking and similar set of points and has the added effect of eluding the "how dare you criticize a guy for hitting a 160 mph forehand" idiots in full flight.

I got the point. I was just adding.

Alcaraz is not Federer level anyway said this multiple times but at this point he shouldn't be expected to be.

 

[Sudacafan]

2,100 mph forehands are very impressive. Almost mach 3, and faster than sound.

 

[Night Slasher]

2,100 mph forehands are very impressive. Almost mach 3, and faster than sound.

it is called evolution buddy

 

[Youngheart]

No we must compare different balls resulting in different forehand on different courts from different decades with the conviction of a judge.

Uhhh,...as my faithful mule Molisa urgently advised me in one of her hee-haw rants,... "Listen up Dude!! We must compare
different sleeping positions due to different moon phases, leading to different amounts of oatmeal for breakfast, after
first triming hoof nails to different lengths, which may result in different galloping speeds, to reach the different corners
of the tennis court, then producing different speeds of forehands, which may or may not lead to different winners, and so in
the end, may ultimately decide which different player takes the conclusive road trip to the ol' dog food factory!!!" Wuff Wuff
------ So Be It ⚜ ------

 

[RS]

with movement and better defense to offense he could have changed the direction, angle and made it competitive.

Oh yeah no doubt. That's not really Roddick's natural game though.

 

[helterskelter]

I don’t get the point of the OP. Of course Alcaraz isn’t on a par with Feddy. We ought really to be comparing him to someone like Llodra (#99 at year end in 2006) or Devilder (#98). (Even that isn’t like for like because #1 in 2024 = #150 in 2006, but I can’t find the rankings past 100 for 2006, so comparing him to low end top 100 players is as even a comparison as I can find).