Believe me, I have watched Verdasco blast inside-outs that looked like they were from another planet. But he was also very error prone and hit it with way less, and I mean WAY LESS margin, even when he had time for it. Roddicks incredibly high margin of error is probably attributed to his greater top-spin (even when he hit it flatter at his peak). If Roddick had the perfect position it got in, and he usually gained the upperhand if he put enough cut on it (hardest clocked was around 170+khm). And he could do it from anywhere back in the court. Nadal has a great inside out forehand but more of grinding shot. Not as good in my opinion. and not a shot expecting to hit winners from way back in the court with just one shot.
Why then Roddick was a one time slam wonder with such a shot. I'll explain why. His cross court-forehand was not as good. It was as solid a shot you can ask for, but it didnt have the magic of an agassi passing shot, and cross-court forehands are more usual than inside-out ones. So the disparity between different parts of A-rods forehand was quite noticeable.
What about Gonzo? Well, Gonzalez was more top-spinny like A-rods but still very error prone, and more of a hit or miss shot. When he was in the "zone" he got it in more often, but he could still miss wildly and look like a slugger with no technique. I would never take his unreliable inside out forehand over Roddicks.
The reason A-rod did not employ it more often is: it's a time & energy consuming shot requiring good footwork. You leave the other side of the court open if it doesn't have enough venom in it. And three (which applies less to roddick but still universally) is techically more difficult shot to control and get in than a cross-court forehand.
Just for clarification, Roddick did miss inside-out forehands, but they were never due to inherent technical flaws, it was his sometimes sluggish footwork, not the technical delivery.
Agree or disagree? And if not Roddick then who? I have watched them all, at least of his own generation and the previous one...
Short memory? Watch this.
Why then Roddick was a one time slam wonder with such a shot. I'll explain why. His cross court-forehand was not as good. It was as solid a shot you can ask for, but it didnt have the magic of an agassi passing shot, and cross-court forehands are more usual than inside-out ones. So the disparity between different parts of A-rods forehand was quite noticeable.
What about Gonzo? Well, Gonzalez was more top-spinny like A-rods but still very error prone, and more of a hit or miss shot. When he was in the "zone" he got it in more often, but he could still miss wildly and look like a slugger with no technique. I would never take his unreliable inside out forehand over Roddicks.
The reason A-rod did not employ it more often is: it's a time & energy consuming shot requiring good footwork. You leave the other side of the court open if it doesn't have enough venom in it. And three (which applies less to roddick but still universally) is techically more difficult shot to control and get in than a cross-court forehand.
Just for clarification, Roddick did miss inside-out forehands, but they were never due to inherent technical flaws, it was his sometimes sluggish footwork, not the technical delivery.
Agree or disagree? And if not Roddick then who? I have watched them all, at least of his own generation and the previous one...
Short memory? Watch this.
