Is one of the best things about Nadal's forehand the fact that it bounces short?

[thomasferrett]

If Nadal hit forehands that bounced near the baseline, it would be possible (difficult, but possible) to stand near the baseline and hit it on the rise at a comfortable height.

However, Nadal's forehand instead bounces inside the service line, yet kicks up to neck-height by the time it reaches the baseline. This means that even if you have good, forwards, aggressive baseline positioning, you are forced to hit a neck-height ball.

The only two ways you can hit a waist-height ball are if you stand 15ft behind the baseline and wait for the ball to drop, or if you stand halfway between the baseline and the service line and half-volley it from there - and that is no-man's land. No-man's land is named as such for a reason - no-one wants to play tennis from there. It's too deep to comfortably approach the net from, and if you try to hit from there and run back to the baseline, Nadal always would have the option of hitting the next shot deep and at your feet whilst you're moving backwards.

So, some commentators criticize Nadal's forehand for landing short too often, but surely Nadal's forehand is at it's most deadly when it lands short, because it means you've got literally no choice but to hit the ball at neck-height from the baseline.

 

[RF-18]

If Nadal hit forehands that bounced near the baseline, it would be possible (difficult, but possible) to stand near the baseline and hit it on the rise at a comfortable height.

However, Nadal's forehand instead bounces inside the service line, yet kicks up to neck-height by the time it reaches the baseline. This means that even if you have good, forwards, aggressive baseline positioning, you are forced to hit a neck-height ball.

The only two ways you can hit a waist-height ball are if you stand 15ft behind the baseline and wait for the ball to drop, or if you stand halfway between the baseline and the service line and half-volley it from there - and that is no-man's land. No-man's land is named as such for a reason - no-one wants to play tennis from there. It's too deep to comfortably approach the net from, and if you try to hit from there and run back to the baseline, Nadal always would have the option of hitting the next shot deep and at your feet whilst you're moving backwards.

So, some commentators criticize Nadal's forehand for landing short too often, but surely Nadal's forehand is at it's most deadly when it lands short, because it means you've got literally no choice but to hit the ball at neck-height from the baseline.

Good points indeed. It may be a tactic of his as it happens too often.

But I happen to remember that during his post match interviews (like against soderling after FO) that he complained about playing too short. Now I don't know exactly what he meant specifically as his english is not clear often but seems like he was complaining about not getting enough length.

Still I think you are making an interesting point and it can be discussed weather its deliberate or not.

 

[Bender]

That's one way to think of things, but many players find it easier to thump a high ball than a low one. Guess pace is pretty important too.

 

[moonballs]

No, landing short with no angle is not good. Nadal only plays those kind of balls when he is on the defense or is not in form. What's good is his forehand short angled balls which pulls the right handed opponents off the court without getting punished by a DTL or an event sharper angled cc winner.

 

[Mr.Snrub]

No dude. You're underestimating how violent his forehand will be coming off the ground. It would not be easy to take it on the rise. If it has time to lose steam before it gets to you it's way easier to step in and rip it.

Didn't he add 3 grams to his racquet before the AO 2012 because he thought he was hitting his shots too short?

 

[merwy]

Nope, have to disagree. Rafa's big forehands are frickin' lethal when they fall deep. Seriously, when he plays Federer I almost **** myself everytime I see one of those bombs incoming, because I know Fed probably won't handle it well.

Nadal is a lot more beatable when he plays them short, he only does that on bad days. I actually think the biggest problem is his backhand. It's a great shot imo, but falls short waaay too many times, especially against Djokovic.

 

[Gary Duane]

On clay the short balls mixed with very deep balls throw of timing, and it means he is less likely to hit the ball out. The tremendous spin makes it all effective because players have to time the balls perfectly to prevent trying to make shoulder high returns, and of course this is way worse for a 1HBH. It is perhaps Fed's biggest problem, and he's not the only person to face it.

But on fast surfaces with a low bounce those short returns are totally ineffective. They become a terrible liability on HC, especially indoors, and on grass.

 

[fourtylove]

My coach is playing at the 1 Bundesliga in germany - when we practice he often plays a heavy spin ball to my backhand but he places it 1 foot behind the service line.

I asked him once why he is not aiming for the baseline and he said pretty much what you also said. There is almost no way to attack that ball - if it would land on the baseline you can try to crush it on the rise.

 

[TennisCJC]

I think your geometry is off a bit. Rafa doesn't land the ball inside the baseline and if he does, I don't think it is neck high if you wait back at the baseline. I also think the basic premise is wrong as Rafa is usually most vulnerable when he starts landing the ball near the service line. Rafa hit several short balls against Soderling when he lost to him at FO and Soderling basically used the opportunity to let the ball drop and crush it. Krygios and Rosol at Wimbledon also murdered Rafa's shorter shots at Wimbledon. Federer at WTF and Indian Wells also pummeled the short balls.

I think if you ask any of his opponents "would you rather Rafa's shots land near service line or within 8' of the baseline and they would all say near service line.

 

[CivicLx]

I've often thought the same thing about a ball with heavy topspin. It seems like if it lands short, it has more time/distance to get up high but if it lands deep, it's earlier to take it on the rise. Of course with the kind of chaos that Nadal puts on the ball, it's easy to see that it could be harder to take early.

But in general, it seems to me a heavy topspin ball is more effective when it lands shorter. And because one can't say exactly where the ball is going to land, it's hard to move up and take it early.

 

[slal1984]

You need to be tall and a big hitter to take down nadal on grass...like Rosol and Kyrgios.

Let me add consistent..haha