Incredible 2 hander, I still think Nalbandian’s forehand was better though.Nalbandian was one of not many players whose backhand was so good that he could dominate with it as much as with his (very solid)forehand.
I guess Nadal forehand is a complete package of power top sin as well as control so that's why he prefers it might be acc. to meIncredible 2 hander, I still think Nalbandian’s forehand was better though.
of course if you’re ranking his strokes versus the field his backhand would be ranked better than his forehand
WHAT????I WAS ANALYZING NOVAKS AND RAFAS GAMEPLAY A LITTLE BIT AND 1 COMMON THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THEY BOTH CONVERT BACKHAND BALLS AND HIT A FOREHAND BUT BOTH OF THEM HAVE A GREAT BACKHAND AND CAN EASILY DOMINATE THE OPPONENTS SO WHY THEY GO FOR CONVERTING OF SHOTS ?
thanks manMaybe this article will help the OP understand as the %s are higher to win the point when you hit an inside FH from the BH corner even for those with the best BHs.
A few weeks ago, I offered a “first look” at the down-the-line backhand. I offered a stack of Match Charting Project-based stats showing how often players opted to play that shot, what …www.tennisabstract.com
Not sure what that has to do with my post. Anyway, Nadal has one of the best forehands ever. So does Gonzalez. Neither have one of the best backhands, so no wonder both were choosing their forehand most of the time. But either way, forehands are just more dominant in general. People who had the best of the both worlds usually had a forehand as their dominant shot(Davenport, Agassi, Henin, Serena).I guess Nadal forehand is a complete package of power top sin as well as control so that's why he prefers it might be acc. to me