Why do people always say Federer has better footwork than Nadal?

[Cesc Fabregas]

Posters on TW always say Nadal is faster than Federer but Federer has better footwork. I never understand this and it always comes across as a blanket statement to me. Federer frequently lazily trys to run round his backhand to hit a forehand and misses the shot because he isn't in the right position but Nadal always seems to be in the right position when he runs round his backhand. Nadal's footwork is much quicker and sharper to me, when he wants the ball on his forehand he gets the ball onto his forehand. I have seen matches where I can't remeber Nadal hitting a backhand, its much harder to get the ball onto Nadal's backhand than Federer's. In conclusion this lazy sterotype that Nadal gets labelled with being fast but having average footwork has to stop, when in actual fact he has better footwork than Federer.

 

[Carsomyr]

Numerous analysts who know way more than me about tennis always say Nadal is faster than Federer but Federer has better footwork. I never understand this and it always comes across as a blanket statement to me. Federer frequently lazily trys to run round his backhand to hit a forehand and misses the shot because he isn't in the right position but Nadal always seems to be in the right position when he runs round his backhand. Nadal's footwork is much quicker and sharper to me, when he wants the ball on his forehand he gets the ball onto his forehand. I have seen matches where I can't remeber Nadal hitting a backhand, its much harder to get the ball onto Nadal's backhand than Federer's. In conclusion this lazy sterotype that Nadal gets labelled with being fast but having average footwork has to stop, when in actual fact he has better footwork than Federer.

Fixed for you.

 

[akv89]

I would say Federer "had" better footwork than Nadal. A couple years back he was not only quicker but rarely off balance. His ability to take the ball on the rise and use his opponent's power against them because of his footwork allowed him to take him to take balanced swings while remaining on the front foot. His footwork has declined since and as a result he's had to move further back in the court in recent years.

It's only natural. Speed and footwork are generally the first things to go with age.

 

[Bud]

I would say Federer "had" better footwork than Nadal. A couple years back he was not only quicker but rarely off balance. His ability to take the ball on the rise and use his opponent's power against them was because of his footwork that allowed him to take him to take balanced swings while remaining on the front foot. His footwork has declined since and as a result he's had to move further back in the court in recent years.

Agreed. The federer of the past had excellent footwork... but is now slowing down and having to compensate by going for (and many times missing) bigger shots.

Currently, Nadal's FW is excellent! He seems to be right back to where he was in 2008-early 2009

Fixed for you.

It's not wise to change someone's quoted post. I hear you can be banned for that

 

[canuckfan]

I would say Federer "had" better footwork than Nadal. A couple years back he was not only quicker but rarely off balance. His ability to take the ball on the rise and use his opponent's power against them because of his footwork allowed him to take him to take balanced swings while remaining on the front foot. His footwork has declined since and as a result he's had to move further back in the court in recent years.

It's only natural. Speed and footwork are generally the first things to go with age.

There is a disturbing amount of logic in this post. Surely Fed hasn't lost anything and Nadal is just so awesome that he is the greatest. I mean, to understand the quote above you must have watched and understood federer's game from 2004-2007. That's like ancient history on a message board. It must have all been a myth.

 

[RoddickAce]

There is a disturbing amount of logic in this post. Surely Fed hasn't lost anything and Nadal is just so awesome that he is the greatest. I mean, to understand the quote above you must have watched and understood federer's game from 2004-2007. That's like ancient history on a message board. It must have all been a myth.

LOL nice post. Sarcastic but subtle enough to sound serious .

 

[yellowoctopus]

I sympathize with OP's point and believe that these so-called 'analysts' that supposedly know much more than any of us are equating elegance with 'better footwork'. There are many players that get the label of being 'fast' rather than having great footwork because they appear to be grinding to get to the ball.

Mr. Federer just happen to be one of the few that looks good doing it.

 

[Carsomyr]

I sympathize with OP's point and believe that these so-called 'analysts' that supposedly know much more than any of us are equating elegance with 'better footwork'. There are many players that get the label of being 'fast' rather than having great footwork because they appear to be grinding to get to the ball.

Mr. Federer just happen to be one of the few that looks good doing it.

Or maybe there is biomechanical evidence behind the assertion that Federer has better and more efficient footwork.

 

[abmk]

LOL ! ha ha ha.

 

[cork_screw]

Nadal is faster than fed, but better footwork doesn't necessarily translate to speed. Someone who is good at ballet probably has excellent footwork but ballet dancers don't need to be fast in order to be good at what they do. Fed has great balance, pivots well and gets into position very well for balls. Because fed runs around his backhand doesn't mean that he lacks footwork to hit a backhand, it means he prefers to hit a forehand on his backhand side because his forehand is the stronger of the two, has nothing to do with footowork. And he doesn't miss those run-arounds like you state. If he would routinely miss them, I think he would stop doing it.

Also, you state that it's harder to get a ball into nadal's backhand than fed. Actually that has something to do with the fact that nadal is lefthanded. It's easier to hit to someone's backhand if they're righties and you're a righty. Even with this people do hit to his backhand, but people target fed's backhand because it's a "known" weakness. People don't target nadal's backhand because he has no problem with it. That's why you see more balls going to fed's backhand than nadal's.

Fed is anything but lazy. This whole thread and your statements are very error filled. I understand if you don't like fed for whatever reason or if you're in love with nadal, but think through things before you post.

Posters on TW always say Nadal is faster than Federer but Federer has better footwork. I never understand this and it always comes across as a blanket statement to me. Federer frequently lazily trys to run round his backhand to hit a forehand and misses the shot because he isn't in the right position but Nadal always seems to be in the right position when he runs round his backhand. Nadal's footwork is much quicker and sharper to me, when he wants the ball on his forehand he gets the ball onto his forehand. I have seen matches where I can't remeber Nadal hitting a backhand, its much harder to get the ball onto Nadal's backhand than Federer's. In conclusion this lazy sterotype that Nadal gets labelled with being fast but having average footwork has to stop, when in actual fact he has better footwork than Federer.

 

[Justdoit10]

I agree with you. Nadals footwork blows Feds footwork out the water.

 

[NamRanger]

Posters on TW always say Nadal is faster than Federer but Federer has better footwork. I never understand this and it always comes across as a blanket statement to me. Federer frequently lazily trys to run round his backhand to hit a forehand and misses the shot because he isn't in the right position but Nadal always seems to be in the right position when he runs round his backhand. Nadal's footwork is much quicker and sharper to me, when he wants the ball on his forehand he gets the ball onto his forehand. I have seen matches where I can't remeber Nadal hitting a backhand, its much harder to get the ball onto Nadal's backhand than Federer's. In conclusion this lazy sterotype that Nadal gets labelled with being fast but having average footwork has to stop, when in actual fact he has better footwork than Federer.

Statements like these only reinforce my belief that half the people here don't play tennis.

 

[dmt]

Federer definately moves better on hardcourts then Nadal does.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Or maybe there is biomechanical evidence behind the assertion that Federer has better and more efficient footwork.

So Vic Braden can calculate the G forces on Nadal's and Federer's knees? That sounds completely absurd to me. Why is Vic specifically "researching" Nadal anyway? I would question that entire thing really, but who knows? I don't. Just the entire concept sounds....strange.

Notice how they say in the first sentence that hard courts contribute to the stress on the body.

You know, just because it's written on the internet, or stated by someone, doesn't make something necessarily true.

 

[Falloutjr]

Federer DOES have better footwork than Nadal. Federer's footwork is so good, he doesn't even look like he's moving to the ball. He gets perfect space between himself and the ball and he moves about the court with almost no effort, and he's always in position to hit the ball. Nadal gets to the ball with speed. If you watch Nadal play you'll notice he's quite often off-balance when he hits the ball, or on the run. This isn't sound footwork by any means, he just overcomes it with phenomenal shot-making and because he uses an extreme open stance FH, which requires less balance than Federer's closed stance FH. Watch Nadal play, you'll see that he gets to the ball and hits it VERY early off of both sides, which, along with his topspin, allows him to hit such sharp angles. His shots are more about timing than footwork. The quicker he gets to the ball, the more time he has to set up.

 

[jigar]

Look at Fed's balance on his shots. Watch nadal, how many times he is lunging for the ball.
THis is footwork.

 

[Carsomyr]

So Vic Braden can calculate the G forces on Nadal's and Federer's knees? That sounds completely absurd to me. Why is Vic specifically "researching" Nadal anyway? I would question that entire thing really, but who knows? I don't. Just the entire concept sounds....strange.

Notice how they say in the first sentence that hard courts contribute to the stress on the body.

You know, just because it's written on the internet, or stated by someone, doesn't make something necessarily true.

Just so we're clear, you're accusing Vic Braden, world renowned and published tennis instructor who has already produced a video on biomechanics in the game of tennis before this article was written, of fraud?

 

[Speranza]

Statements like these only reinforce my belief that half the people here don't play tennis.

Watson: I'd go one stage further NamRanger;

Statements like these only reinforce my belief that half the people here aren't allowed out to play tennis.

 

[Polaris]

Statements like these only reinforce my belief that half the people here don't play tennis.

+1 What he said.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

I think Fed has average foot work on the return of serve,and that's why he is so defensive on the return. If he had better foot work on the return he would get himself into better positions to regularly attack returns.

 

[Ray Mercer]

Nadal's got great footspeed but he's only won one wimbledon and aussie open which is pretty sad. 75% of his majors have occurred at one of the four slams which is pretty one dimensional. He doesn't have any balance in his slam wins.

 

[Falloutjr]

I think Fed has average foot work on the return of serve,and that's why he is so defensive on the return. If he had better foot work on the return he would get himself into better positions to regularly attack returns.

Federer is defensive on the return because his game is built around his forehand. Federer is not aggressive in any aspect of his game except his forehand. He chips serves back, he focuses on placement and consistency on the serve, and doesn't often attack with his backhand. He knows his best weapon is off the ground, and his best chance to win is by constructing points properly. He has a set gameplan when he goes into his matches. This is why when he's losing, people often accuse him of not making adjustments. He is one of the best on tour at constructing points and executing a predetermined strategy, and if I'd won 16 grand slams, I wouldn't change my gameplan either.

 

[aceX]

Does it matter what "other people" say?

Watch each players' feet and decide for yourself.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Just so we're clear, you're accusing Vic Braden, world renowned and published tennis instructor who has already produced a video on biomechanics in the game of tennis before this article was written, of fraud?

I know who Vic Braden is. Just because someone is a "name" doesn't make them infallible. Are you suggesting people that are just like you and me are infallible?

I distinctly said in my post, I don't REALLY know what's going on there (i.e. I could easily be wrong, or Braden right), but the idea of someone saying they can "calculate the g forces" going on in someone's knee joints is quite odd to me. I would really like to know the methodology of what he's doing. Or is that sacrilegious?

I got news for you, if you believe this out of hand. I know first hand, for a fact, that plenty of incredibly well respected people in their field will make results up to suit whatever their purpose may be. It's disappointing, but you really can't trust anyone, no matter what their supposed "stature" is.

 

[dh003i]

I know who Vic Braden is. Just because someone is a "name" doesn't make them infallible. Are you suggesting people that are just like you and me are infallible?

I distinctly said in my post, I don't REALLY know what's going on there (i.e. I could easily be wrong, or Braden right), but the idea of someone saying they can "calculate the g forces" going on in someone's knee joints is quite odd to me. I would really like to know the methodology of what he's doing. Or is that sacrilegious?

I imagine the methodology would be something like this: determine players weight, figure out speed and acceleration/deceleration at which they're moving their legs an, determine the necessary g-force upon impact with round that their movement produces.

It probably isn't accurate to within 1%, but might be accurate to within 20%.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I imagine the methodology would be something like this: determine players weight, figure out speed and acceleration/deceleration at which they're moving their legs an, determine the necessary g-force upon impact with round that their movement produces.

It probably isn't accurate to within 1%, but might be accurate to within 20%.

Well it's something, but that still seems rather nebulous. "determine the necessary g-force upon impact with ground that their movement produces?"

How do you quantify movement? How do they know what force he is really stopping and changing direction with? Again, I am not saying he (or you) are WRONG, I just...don't get it at all. I don't see how you can quantify these numbers. Sounds like a bunch of tom foolery, but again I could be totally off. I just want to see his explanation for such a thing.

 

[dh003i]

Well it's something, but that still seems rather nebulous. "determine the necessary g-force upon impact with ground that their movement produces?"

How do you quantify movement? How do they know what force he is really stopping and changing direction with? Again, I am not saying he (or you) are WRONG, I just...don't get it at all. I don't see how you can quantify these numbers. Sounds like a bunch of tom foolery, but again I could be totally off. I just want to see his explanation for such a thing.

This is just physics. G-force upon impact with ground depends upon three things: your final speed the moment of impact to the ground, your weight, and how you are distributing your weight while moving. Given a certain weight, distribution of it while landing on the right foot, and the weight of the player, a G-force upon impact with the ground can be calculated.

Absent a controlled laboratory environment with measuring devices, it won't be perfect, but it will be a good approximation. The difficult thing is in quantifying speed upon impact based on watching this on TV and in determining distribution of body weight upon movement.

Might need some kind of complex 3D modeling.

I think there is nothing objectionable about the kinds of models to do this stuff. This isn't anything new, the basic principles for it go back to Newton. The "bottleneck" is in getting good enough data on distribution of body weight and final speed upon impact with the ground to tell. This could be "calibrated" by recording someone moving via videocam and also putting various measuring devices on them to more directly calculate speed, etc. Then you can figure out how best to determine speed & distribution of body weight from video by comparing to direct measurements.

 

[NamRanger]

Well it's something, but that still seems rather nebulous. "determine the necessary g-force upon impact with ground that their movement produces?"

How do you quantify movement? How do they know what force he is really stopping and changing direction with? Again, I am not saying he (or you) are WRONG, I just...don't get it at all. I don't see how you can quantify these numbers. Sounds like a bunch of tom foolery, but again I could be totally off. I just want to see his explanation for such a thing.

It's called physics and rough estimations. I'm sure Vic Braden probably has alot more credibility and evidence then most people. I mean, what reason does he have to make up all this stuff anyways?

 

[yellowoctopus]

Or maybe there is biomechanical evidence behind the assertion that Federer has better and more efficient footwork.

So Vic Braden can calculate the G forces on Nadal's and Federer's knees? That sounds completely absurd to me. Why is Vic specifically "researching" Nadal anyway? I would question that entire thing really, but who knows? I don't. Just the entire concept sounds....strange.

Notice how they say in the first sentence that hard courts contribute to the stress on the body.

You know, just because it's written on the internet, or stated by someone, doesn't make something necessarily true.

Notice also that the article is only featured on USA Today, the newspaper that usually features intellectual discussions such as...

 

[kraggy]

This is just physics. G-force upon impact with ground depends upon three things: your final speed the moment of impact to the ground, your weight, and how you are distributing your weight while moving. Given a certain weight, distribution of it while landing on the right foot, and the weight of the player, a G-force upon impact with the ground can be calculated.

Absent a controlled laboratory environment with measuring devices, it won't be perfect, but it will be a good approximation. The difficult thing is in quantifying speed upon impact based on watching this on TV and in determining distribution of body weight upon movement.

Might need some kind of complex 3D modeling.

I think there is nothing objectionable about the kinds of models to do this stuff. This isn't anything new, the basic principles for it go back to Newton. The "bottleneck" is in getting good enough data on distribution of body weight and final speed upon impact with the ground to tell. This could be "calibrated" by recording someone moving via videocam and also putting various measuring devices on them to more directly calculate speed, etc. Then you can figure out how best to determine speed & distribution of body weight from video by comparing to direct measurements.

Great explanation, thanks for the analysis! I do agree though with T&M's point of view that you can't necessarily take what one expert says as the unquestionable truth. However, 1 expert > no expert , so I think it is fair to say there is more evidence to suggest Fed has better footwork than Nadal than the other way around

 

[NamRanger]

Great explanation, thanks for the analysis! I do agree though with T&M's point of view that you can't necessarily take what one expert says as the unquestionable truth. However, 1 expert > no expert , so I think it is fair to say there is more evidence to suggest Fed has better footwork than Nadal than the other way around

No one ever said "you should believe Braden's theories because IT'S 100% TRUE". However, Braden's theories are PLAUSIBLE, and he is a credible tennis source. Yes, he can be wrong. That doesn't mean that the majority of the information that he provides is wrong (because it isn't; dude is a friggin genius when it comes to tennis biomechanics, along with Yandell).

 

[deltox]

the way i define it is

nadal uses brute force , pure muscle for his movement, which is great for him and his style of play no doubt.

federer is defined as covering the same gorund but with minimal effort. thus making him not faster but with overall better movement. he also makes super fast decisions about his shot selection which allows quicker set up on shots making it more fluent.

 

[West Coast Ace]

Statements like these only reinforce my belief that half the people here don't play tennis.

And in his case: don't play and are *******s. The last week he's started a number of Fed bashing threads; he is to *******s what davey25 is to the Williams Sisters...

 

[roundiesee]

Federer DOES have better footwork than Nadal. Federer's footwork is so good, he doesn't even look like he's moving to the ball. He gets perfect space between himself and the ball and he moves about the court with almost no effort, and he's always in position to hit the ball. Nadal gets to the ball with speed. If you watch Nadal play you'll notice he's quite often off-balance when he hits the ball, or on the run. This isn't sound footwork by any means, he just overcomes it with phenomenal shot-making and because he uses an extreme open stance FH, which requires less balance than Federer's closed stance FH. Watch Nadal play, you'll see that he gets to the ball and hits it VERY early off of both sides, which, along with his topspin, allows him to hit such sharp angles. His shots are more about timing than footwork. The quicker he gets to the ball, the more time he has to set up.

I think this is a good analysis, well done! But really, deciding on who is better is really splitting hairs; IMO they are both awesome! Which explains why they are invariably numbers 1 and 2 (or vice versa )

 

[Mr_Shiver]

Can't you Fed and Rafa fans put your differences aside to antagonize a common enemy: Andy Murray's mother.

 

[himynameisNIKE]

Can't you Fed and Rafa fans put your differences aside to antagonize a common enemy: Andy Murray's mother.

lol QFT :lol:

 

[himynameisNIKE]

Can't you Fed and Rafa fans put your differences aside to antagonize a common enemy: Andy Murray's mother.

lol QFT :lol: :lol:

 

[dennis1188]

I watched Federer, during a 2 hr practice session at Thailand Open (few months after he won his first Wembeldon). I was standing on the sideline less than ten feet from the court and could barely hear his footwork (IMO dancer like) on the indoor court. Meanwhile, I could hear all the loud noisey footwork of the others from the nearby practice courts. BTW he won Thailand Open that year.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

My ideal combination

Federer's footwork + Nadal's speed.

 

[ViscaB]

Nadal's superior footwork is key in his extreme low amount of unforced errors.

 

[Carsomyr]

I know who Vic Braden is. Just because someone is a "name" doesn't make them infallible. Are you suggesting people that are just like you and me are infallible?

No. But his opinion has far more weight than yours or mine, so forgive me if its his opinion I defer to and not yours.

I distinctly said in my post, I don't REALLY know what's going on there (i.e. I could easily be wrong, or Braden right), but the idea of someone saying they can "calculate the g forces" going on in someone's knee joints is quite odd to me. I would really like to know the methodology of what he's doing. Or is that sacrilegious?

Here you go, as stated by another poster.

This is just physics. G-force upon impact with ground depends upon three things: your final speed the moment of impact to the ground, your weight, and how you are distributing your weight while moving. Given a certain weight, distribution of it while landing on the right foot, and the weight of the player, a G-force upon impact with the ground can be calculated.

As other posters are said, it's impossible to say his results are definitive, but given that he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT on the subject, his views are more important to the majority of tennis observers than the horde of ****s that exclaim "ZOMG NADALS FOOTWORK IS BETTER" simply because he is a faster mover.

I got news for you, if you believe this out of hand. I know first hand, for a fact, that plenty of incredibly well respected people in their field will make results up to suit whatever their purpose may be. It's disappointing, but you really can't trust anyone, no matter what their supposed "stature" is.

:lol:

What are you doing on a tennis forum, Fox Mulder? The truth is out there, after all.

 

[TennisandMusic]

No. But his opinion has far more weight than yours or mine, so forgive me if its his opinion I defer to and not yours.



Here you go, as stated by another poster.



As other posters are said, it's impossible to say his results are definitive, but given that he is a CREDIBLE EXPERT on the subject, his views are more important to the majority of tennis observers than the horde of ****s that exclaim "ZOMG NADALS FOOTWORK IS BETTER" simply because he is a faster mover.



:lol:

What are you doing on a tennis forum, Fox Mulder? The truth is out there, after all.

Look...you can "laugh" and mock all you want, but you don't really know where I work, or who I work with. I am right. Period. People, even those in "very high" places lie, or make things up while actually believing their own BS. Plenty of people have an agenda. Plenty of people also have massive egos and believe certain things are true, when they clearly are not. And I'm talking about people way more internationally renowned than a tennis coach (unless of course, you consider tennis the most noble profession you can be in! ) If you don't have experience with these kinds of personalities, then you are the lucky one.

The other posters explanation of how to "calculate G forces in someone's knee" is still not really correct. I just want to know how he supposedly does it simply by OBSERVING someone running around. The onus is on Braden to prove these kinds of assertions, not those asking how he came to those conclusions.

I think it's clear that Federer is lighter on his feet than Nadal. That certainly seems to be the appearance of things. But to start throwing around scientific numbers, especially something like G forces (which you know, I normally associate with people like pilots or astronauts) in terms of something going on inside someone's knee...I simply want to know the exact provable, and reproducible methodology. Not guesses, not estimates, I want hard data. So where is it exactly?

"Vic Braden said it, it must be true!" Totally absurd.

 

[TennisandMusic]

You know C, I was curious about your age and see you are 21. I am not surprised, but I don't mean that in a bad way. I totally understand your perspective of trusting "experts" more than a "layperson." I think one thing you will learn (I hope) as you get older is that you really can't trust many people to do the right thing, or to be totally honest. It's unfortunately true. I think at 21 most people still tend to have some kind of faith in most people older than them, or those that are a "name".

I'm gonna tell you right now...don't. No one is perfect, no one tells the truth all the time, almost everyone has an ego or agenda of some sort and even "experts" can be incredibly wrong, quite often. This is not directed at Braden in particular, but if what he claims is true, he should be able to lay out the methodology easily, and clearly and leave no question regarding his findings.

You will save yourself a lot of disappointment in the future, if you don't look up to people too much. Just keep your head down and try to get results for yourself and you'll do well.

 

[Carsomyr]

Hey, I never said Vic Braden and his conclusions were infallible. But you seem insistent on some conspiracy theory that Vic Braden is making this up to further a hidden agenda. I'm sorry, but I don't see the motive.

Yes, g-force is typically concerned with mechanical principles such as those involved in flight, but we're talking about biomechanics, which wasn't made up by Braden.

Maybe I'm young enough to not be cynical about everything, but Vic Braden is a credible enough source on the topic of tennis that in the absence of any other contradictory evidence, he has my faith.

 

[The-Champ]

Just so we're clear, you're accusing Vic Braden, world renowned and published tennis instructor who has already produced a video on biomechanics in the game of tennis before this article was written, of fraud?

well, informal logic says we should believe him.

However, this claim is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam.

Yes, we go to the doctor when we get sick. But do doctors always give the right diagnosis?

 

[The-Champ]

My own observation is that Federer indeed has the better footwork, but it seems to me that Rafa is a bit faster when on the move.

 

[Omega_7000]

Hey, I never said Vic Braden and his conclusions were infallible. But you seem insistent on some conspiracy theory that Vic Braden is making this up to further a hidden agenda. I'm sorry, but I don't see the motive.

Yes, g-force is typically concerned with mechanical principles such as those involved in flight, but we're talking about biomechanics, which wasn't made up by Braden.

Maybe I'm young enough to not be cynical about everything, but Vic Braden is a credible enough source on the topic of tennis that in the absence of any other contradictory evidence, he has my faith.

Well what T&M is trying to say is that as you age, you discount anything & everything that does not favor you or your opinion or favors someone you strongly hate with every fiber in your body!

In other words you only see what you want to see...

 

[NamRanger]

well, informal logic says we should believe him.

However, this claim is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam.

Yes, we go to the doctor when we get sick. But do doctors always give the right diagnosis?

No one ever said that the doctor is always right, however who would you rather believe, a doctor, who has devoted his life and spent YEARS training and honing his skills in the field of medicine, or yourself, a person who likely has no training in first aid let alone the training of a doctor.



That's what second opinions are for, and that's why you ask other "experts" in the field. The point is that Vic Braden, a well known biomechanical expert in tennis, is a much more reliable source on biomechanics, than say..... a Nadal fan who posts on the TW forums.

 

[The-Champ]

No one ever said that the doctor is always right, however who would you rather believe, a doctor, who has devoted his life and spent YEARS training and honing his skills in the field of medicine, or yourself, a person who likely has no training in first aid let alone the training of a doctor.



That's what second opinions are for, and that's why you ask other "experts" in the field. The point is that Vic Braden, a well known biomechanical expert in tennis, is a much more reliable source on biomechanics, than say..... a Nadal fan who posts on the TW forums.

well I never said he was wrong, did I?

 

[Anaconda]

Posters on TW always say Nadal is faster than Federer but Federer has better footwork. I never understand this and it always comes across as a blanket statement to me. Federer frequently lazily trys to run round his backhand to hit a forehand and misses the shot because he isn't in the right position but Nadal always seems to be in the right position when he runs round his backhand. Nadal's footwork is much quicker and sharper to me, when he wants the ball on his forehand he gets the ball onto his forehand. I have seen matches where I can't remeber Nadal hitting a backhand, its much harder to get the ball onto Nadal's backhand than Federer's. In conclusion this lazy sterotype that Nadal gets labelled with being fast but having average footwork has to stop, when in actual fact he has better footwork than Federer.

- Federer has better coordination on his feet than Nadal, or any player around today for that matter.

- Nadal is faster, that's all. Technically he's got very good footwork but not as good as Federer's.

- The only person who actually comes close to prime Federer in terms of footwork was prime Hewitt; not now as Hewitt's footwork has declined.