Inside In Forehand
- Thread starter reaper
- Start date
sportmac
Hall of Fame
You just gave me a headache.
I've heard that too and it's confusing. Is a forehand hit down the middle from the backhand side of the court an outside middle? Inside middle? A poorly executed inside out/inside in/outside in?
But I'll go with your "outside in".
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Cannot be outside in because if you ARE hitting a forehand down the line from the backhand corner, the ball is coming INTO you. If it was going AWAY from you, you'd be shaping up to hit a backhand. By converting, you have positioned yourself such that it now becomes an inside ball. You then turn the angle further inside whereas in an inside out shot, the ball would be changing direction to go away from you (outside). In a regular down the line forehand hit from the middle or the forehand corner, you are not hitting an inside ball inside. Rather, it's an outside ball and you go neither inside or outside but through the line. In cricket too, if a batsman drives a ball going away from him straight down the middle, it's called hitting through the line. And if he moves away from the wicket for a ball coming towards leg stump or further on the onside and hits the ball into the offside, it's called an inside out shot.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Well, that makes perfect sense. Inside in it is.
The ball may not be coming into you if you're hitting the ball from the backhand corner. The opponent may have hit their shot from their own forehand corner...or even outside the court on that side.
I had thought the term referred to the path of the racquet. You think it refers to the path of the ball?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Sorry, but if you are in the backhand corner and shaping up to hit a forehand (as opposed to a backhand), how would the ball not be coming into you? If the ball was going away from you, you would not be able to hit a forehand from the backhand corner. Simple as that. If you are talking about running up to a ball hit down the middle, you are no longer planted in the backhand corner.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Both. Because the racquet ideally finishes in the same direction that the ball is hit towards. When you hit inside OUT, the racquet too extends away from you. When you hit inside IN (or DTL from the BH corner, if you will), the racquet goes across your shoulder. I mean, it would still go across your shoulder on an inside out forehand but you would then be faced diagonally towards the net post on the right side. In an inside in FH, you would be standing parallel to the baseline when you finish. Maybe not exactly parallel but more that way than diagonally.
It's more likely the ball would be coming into you, but not always the case. Your opponent may have been stretched wide of the sideline on their own forehand side and hit down the line into your backhand corner. In that instance the ball would be going away from you.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
Assume both are right handed, if the opponent hits a forehand from say the forehand doubles ally and it's going toward the middle of the court and you slide over to hit a forehand return isn't the ball going away from you?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
OK, you are talking about the shot the opponent makes. BUT, for you to hit a forehand from the position, you need to still convert the angle. I get your point in that if the ball spins away from you after bounce, it would now be going away towards your right. But in no event would it be going across you to your left IF you have shaped up to hit a forehand. That is why it is called inside in/out depending on where you choose to hit it to.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And when you slide over, you are no longer in the backhand corner, is my point. Then you are just hitting a DTL FH from the middle.
If your opponents shot lands near the sideline on the backhand side and you take it on the forehand, you're not hitting it from anywhere near the middle of the court.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
I meant if the opponents return is coming to the backhand/middle and you slide over to the back hand side to hit a forehand. the ball is going from his forehand doubles ally to your backhand/middle and you slide over to hit the forehand. the ball is going away from you, not into you.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
That's not the situation sportsmac described, though. He talked about the opponent hitting a shot from his FH corner towards YOUR middle. In that situation, it IS nearer the middle than the BH corner. What you are talking about is a shot that is near YOUR BH sideline. To take it on your FH, you HAVE to be positioned to the left of the ball. That's why it's inside. Because it's inside the trajectory of the incoming ball. Whereas if you run to your right and hit a CC FH off a ball headed to your FH corner, you are outside the trajectory. The ball is leaving you with every instant in this case whereas when it's hit to your BH corner, it's not leaving you ONCE you have moved to the left to convert the BH into a FH. I think where you're getting confused is you're visualising a situation where you are positioned in the middle, the ball is hit to your BH corner and at that point it's outside you. But once you run across and convert the angle, it's inside. That's why it's a convert.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
But that is then a cross court forehand and not an inside in imo. Others may have a different take but imo if you position yourself such that the ball is headed away from you even BEFORE bounce, it's no longer an inside out/in shot.
sportmac
Hall of Fame
We need diagrams!
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
lol, it's splitting hairs over nothing. Let's leave it here. As long as the proper definition (or lack thereof) doesn't hinder somebody's shot selection, it doesn't matter.
He and I are both talking about shots hit by player A from outside the forehand (right) singles sideline into the backhand (left) corner of player B. If player B takes that on the forehand....it's going away from him...not at an acute angle, but still away from him.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
OK, in that case, I would classify that too as a DTL. If the angle is more to the right, then it becomes a CC (but you then probably have to move a step or two to get to the ball and vacate the BH corner). Technically speaking, it's not inside-in/out only because I am hitting a FH from the BH corner. Because the mechanics of hitting a ball coming into you are different from hitting a ball away from you.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I got confused earlier when you said towards middle of the court. Now I am able to visualise it perfectly and I would call it a DTL FH.
The cricket analogy is a useful one. The inside out shot is described that way irrespective of whether it's played off a leg spinner or off spinner. IE Its the trajectory of the bat that's the basis of the description, nothing to do with the incoming ball. I would have thought the same principle exists in tennis?
The reason I raised this issue...Robbie Koenig always uses the term "inside in" forehand, and until he started using it I'd never heard anyone else use it. It's now become a commonly used term...but I'm not convinced the shot exists other than in Koenig's imagination...with others copying him.
this^. A DTL FH optionally qualified with "from the FH/BH side".
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
Its used commonly and theres nothing wrong with the logic behind it. I myself have been using the term for at least 10 or more years.
I agree the term's in common use. What's the basis of the "inside" part of inside in?
Krish872007
Talk Tennis Guru
This is our basic diagram for a right-handed player. (Imagine we are standing on the baseline on the right hand side of this diagram, in position 3).
What Koenig and many others refer to as an "inside-in forehand" is basically a forehand hit from position 3 towards position 1 (running around the BH and then firing the ball down the "inside" line, i.e. the sideline in line with the body closest to us on the diagram). I think it's called "inside" because it is behind, or "within", the player's arc. The right far sideline is the "outside" line and we aim there if we are looking to hit an "inside-out forehand".
Last edited:
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
To me it makes perfect sense. As a righty, a fh from the Ad side hitting toward the ad court the ball goes out away from your body. From the Ad side sitting toward the Deuce court the ball/stroke path goes inward toward your body.
I get that. "Inside out" is described that way because the stance opens out through the motion of the shot with the racquet and ball projected from near the body on an outward plane. What I don't understand is the "Inside" part of inside in. To me the body motion tends to close on that shot with the racquet trajectory going away from the body and moving inward. To me it seems more "outside in" than inside in.
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
To me the term makes sense if you just think more of the flight of the ball…Inside-out the ball travels out away from the body at a 45 degree angle or so. Inside-in the ball travels inward toward the body, or even across the body if you hit a really sick one (thinking of one Verdasco hit in the epic Nadal AO SF, I believe first set).
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Oh no, it still has to do with the incoming ball. But you have to forget about the bounce/break for a bit and focus on the trajectory of the ball as it leaves the bowler's hand/opponent's racquet. In both off break or leg break, when the ball is headed towards leg stump before bounce and the batsman makes room to hit an off-drive, we call it inside out. Now suppose the ball was pitched on off stump or outside off and the batsman hit a cover drive. Then, irrespective of whether it's leg break or off break, we would not call it inside out because the trajectory of the ball through the air was not into the batsman. That's why if a batsman had to hit a cover drive against an off break pitched on or outside off, he would have to catch it very early BEFORE the ball turns in sharply. Likewise in tennis, we have to focus on the general direction in which the ball was headed and not the break after bounce (in a flat shot this would not be relevant anyway, only when there's heavy topspin causing the ball to sometimes change direction a bit after bounce). Whether you are hitting a cross court forehand from your forehand corner or inside in from the BH corner, the direction in which the racquet finishes is roughly the same but the shot isn't the same just as an inside out cover drive is different from a cover drive hit from outside off.
If you have a right arm bowler going around the wicket and wide on the crease pitching outside leg stump and the batsman drives through the covers, that shot is described as inside out. The trajectory of the ball from point of release is still away from the bat...IE outward.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
If it's pitched outside leg, he cannot hit it through the covers unless he makes room by moving away from the wicket. At which point, it is no longer an inside out shot. In fact, he is making room and freeing his arms. One thing, though, that is a slog shot and didn't exist in the good ol' days of cricket when all these terms were coined. If a ball was pitched outside leg by a bowler going round the wicket, the batsman would have hit it on the leg side in the days when only five day cricket existed. So maybe commentators just see a batsman making a cover drive from outside leg stump and call it inside out. But it's not because there's no inside happening in this case.
The inside is the position from which the ball is hit...IE from close to the line of the body in an outward direction.
You know, I've never thought about this before?
I'd always assumed the 'inside' component of it just referred to the player running around the backhand
In this way, it's a complement to "inside-out"... that's where the name comes from
The shot itself is just a regulation forehand 'down the line' - calling it "inside-in" just let's you know the guys run around his backhand to play it
If what we call the 'inside-out' forehand had popularly been known as a 'reverse crosscourt' forehand (a plausible description of the shot)... than what we call 'inside-in' would logically be called 'reverse down the line'
'Reverse down the line' sounds stupid because reverse of down the line is still down the line... the 'reverse' element would just indicate where the player is on the court and how he got there as he played the shot
I assume that's what's behind the name inside-in - it's the complement of inside-out.
not anything to with racquet trajectory or direction ball is coming to the shotmaker
(BTW, I personally think of a shot in terms of crosscourt or 'longline' rather than 'down the line'... In the same way as above examples, 'down the line' is just 'longline' plus information as to the players position as he makes the shot... you can play longline in the middle of the court but when you play it on from around the forehand corner, it becomes 'down the line')
---
If threads were sentences, this one would be a tongue twister
- I love it!You know, I've never thought about this before?
I'd always assumed the 'inside' component of it just referred to the player running around the backhand
In this way, it's a complement to "inside-out"... that's where the name comes from
The shot itself is just a regulation forehand 'down the line' - calling it "inside-in" just let's you know the guys run around his backhand to play it
If what we call the 'inside-out' forehand had popularly been known as a 'reverse crosscourt' forehand (a plausible description of the shot)... than what we call 'inside-in' would logically be called 'reverse down the line'
'Reverse down the line' sounds stupid because reverse of down the line is still down the line... the 'reverse' element would just indicate where the player is on the court and how he got there as he played the shot
I assume that's what's behind the name inside-in - it's the complement of inside-out.
not anything to with racquet trajectory or direction ball is coming to the shotmaker
(BTW, I personally think of a shot in terms of crosscourt or 'longline' rather than 'down the line'... In the same way as above examples, 'down the line' is just 'longline' plus information as to the players position as he makes the shot... you can play longline in the middle of the court but when you play it on from around the forehand corner, it becomes 'down the line')
---
If threads were sentences, this one would be a tongue twister
Yes I agree on 2 things...The thread's a tongue twisted, and inside in stems from inside out. I can see the logic of inside out being described that way....but inside in...not really.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yes, but somebody hitting a cover drive off a ball pitched on leg stump and bowled from round the wicket (so presumably going away from the batsman) would not be hitting from close to the line of the body. It LOOKS sorta similar but it's a very different shot. Since the ball is not coming into him, the batsman has more room to free his arms in such a case. This is even more so in cricket because batsmen let the ball come to the bat rather than hitting well in front a la tennis. A cover drive hit off the kind of ball you described is a much more flat batted shot (and as I said, unorthodox). An inside out cover drive on the other hand is still copybook so the batsman is not depending so much on width to hit it.
I have no idea why this topic warrants such a complicated discussion. As far as I know, an inside in forehand is when you go around your backhand (not necessarily but that is the textbook scenario) and then hit the ball to the left while giving it sideways topspin making it curl toward the left even more (Djokovic often used this spin when he goes cross court with his fh)
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Also when you stand on or parallel to the intersection of the sideline and the baseline while returning from the Ad side and hit a DTL forehand return off a serve coming into you.
Similar threads
- Poll
