A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand - Part 8: An Anatomical Comparison of the Federer and Nadal Forehand

Back when we started our series on the “Hall of Fame Forehand”, we asserted that the topspin forehand mechanics used by the two most decorated players of the last decade, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, and their combined 28 Grand Slam Singles Championships are very, very similar. This finding probably surprised many tennis enthusiasts and aficionados mainly because of the very obvious differences in their (perceived) general game styles, and because of clear differences in how each Champion uses their forehand to dominate their opponents.

To show you just how similar their two forehands really are from a technical perspective, this post will describe the movements used by each Champion using anatomical terminology (see our earlier post for an introduction to our “anatomical” perspective on tennis stroke mechanics).

Using this approach, you can see with your own eyes just how similar their forehand mechanics really are in terms of both what movements are used and when those (specific) movements are executed in the overall movement sequence used by each player.

Are their exact topspin forehand mechanics literally identical in that they are “perfect mirror images of one another”?  
No, they are not “perfectly identical”, yet at most key stages of the stroke, they use the identical types of movement (as defined anatomically) and vary as a function of when the particular movement is performed in the overall movement sequence according to the intent of the shot they want to produce—i.e. spin, speed, length, trajectory, angle, etc.—as dictated by the playing situation they face.

In this post, we were careful to make sure we would make this visual comparison with both players striking the shot under very similar conditions – paying special attention to their court positioning and the height of the ball at impact.

So without further ado, let’s take a closer look at the anatomical details of the Federer and Nadal forehands…

1. The Ready Position

Identical movements here…  Save for the fact that Roger is right-handed and Nadal is left-handed, and they use slightly different grips to hold the racquet.
 
Since the subject of grips was raised here, this is good a time as any to assert that—contrary to the opinion/beliefs of many—we have found that maximizing topspin production at high racquet and ball speeds may not be necessarily sensitive to what grip players use to hold the racquet. We’ll elaborate on that subject in a separate post down the road.

Let’s just say right now that the hand positioning/movements of the stroking motion appear to be far more important determinants of how much topspin players can generate on a given stroke—and that the choice of grip—is far less important than is widely believed.

2. Breaking the Triangle

Both players use virtually identical body movements to initiate their respective backswings… Except for the slight (left) Wrist Extension that Nadal shows here that results in the hitting surface of his stringbed facing more towards the sideline than the net. This wrist movement doesn’t appear to serve any practical purpose.  It’s more of an idiosyncratic movement that appears to appear, disappear and reappear at this phase of Nadal’s forehand stroke depending on the calendar year it’s recorded on video.

In fact, Nadal’s left wrist moves back to a neutral position by the next phase of his stroke.

3. Completed Backswing

Despite the clear difference in the stance each player is using in these images—Federer is using a much more open stance than Nadal, the anatomical movements used by both players is essentially identical yet again, except that it is unclear from this image if Roger’s left hip is externally rotated like Nadal’s due to the camera perspective.

You should also take notice that it as this stage of the stroke, as each player is still completing the backswing or preparation phase of the stroke – preparing to swing the racquet forwards to impact—that they begin straightening their racquet arm using Elbow Extension. It is at this relatively early stage of the stroke when they establish what many refer to as the “arm structure” that is used to deliver the racquet to impact.

In our own coaching experience, using a “straight” (e.g. Verdasco, below left) – or more accurately, “extended” – racquet arm enables players to consistently create more racquet speed and generate more topspin than players who use a “flexed” racquet arm (e.g. Nishikori, below right).  Just like Federer and Nadal.

We’ll explain in detail the advantages (and disadvantages) of delivering the racquet to impact using an “extended” versus “flexed” racquet arm in a future post.

4. First Forward Move (FFM)

Again, identical anatomical movements are used by both players at this stage of the stroke. So far there has been only one minor difference in the (anatomical) movements used by both players.

Now that we are reaching the point where the forward swing to impact is imminent, let’s see if the similarities continue…

5. 20 Frames (95.2 milliseconds) before Impact

Of the eight (8) key movements that occur at this stage of the stroke, there are two differences between the two champions: Federer has straightened his legs using knee extension which also triggers the (activation) upward movement of his pelvis (Hip Extension), whereas Nadal’s legs remained slightly flexed (i.e. he maintains “Knee Flexion” in both legs).

The (right) Knee and Hip Extension indicates that Federer has begun transferring/releasing the elastic energy (i.e. ground forces/lower body muscular forces) he created in his lower body-starting at the Ready Position-into his overall forehand movement sequence. Nadal will accomplish the same elastic energy transfer using the same movement sequence—using (left) Knee/Hip Extension—just a bit later in the overall movement sequence he uses to execute his topspin forehand.

6. 10 Frames (47.6 milliseconds) before Impact

Again, the movements used by both players are again identical as Nadal has begun “releasing” the elastic energy he stored starting at the Ready Position using left Knee/left Hip Extension. Nadal “releases” all that ground force just a bit later in his overall forehand movement sequence compared to Federer, yet isn’t it interesting that all that energy is released as the racquet is being swung forwards to impact—exactly where it’s needed.  To us, clear evidence of Nadal’s (and Federer’s) vast athletic talents…

7. Impact 

Again, the movements used by both players are virtually identical at impact.

8. 5 Frames (23.8 milliseconds) after Impact

Again –is this becoming redundant somehow? The key movements used by both players are identical in the moments after impact.

Take special notice of how both players close their racquet continuously—using Elbow Pronation and “amplified” using Wrist Flexion/Radial Deviation—throughout the Impact Zone (in the 15 frames or 71.4 milliseconds shown here) . This combination of forearm, wrist and hand movements is very useful, and perhaps very necessary to maximizing topspin production without trading off pure, straight-ahead ball speed.

9. Follow-Through (Arm at Shoulder Height)

And yet again, identical movements are used by both players here…  

10. End of Stroke

And, to top it all off, the movements they use at the conclusion of the stroke are essentially identical.

Overall, the nearly 40 core movements used by the two players to execute their respective topspin forehands are identical in that they both use the same types of anatomical movements in nearly the identical order at these 10 key phases of the forehand stroke. The only detectible (qualitative) difference between their forehand mechanics is a small difference in the timing of the transfer of the muscular forces/elastic energy to their upper body.

Finally, to address a question that no doubt most, if not virtually all of you have out there about the topspin forehand mechanics of these two Champions that goes like this:

If their mechanics are so darn similar, why do the shots they produce using their respective stroke mechanics often look so different? Especially in terms of the amount of topspin and the general trajectory of the resulting shot?

The main reason is this:

Nadal often swings on a much steeper upward path than Federer (especially on the clay) and this steeper path further amplifies the amount of topspin he generates by tilting his racquet face forward throughout his forward swing. Nadal’s steeper overall swing path (see below), combined with his extreme forward racquet tilt throughout his forward swing through impact, results in 25% higher topspin production, on average, compared to Federer, as well as a slightly higher launch angle off of the stringbed that creates a shot with a slightly higher trajectory.

Take homes?

Isn’t it interesting that the topspin forehand mechanics used by the two most successful competitors of this era – whom most tennis enthusiasts believe have diametrically-opposite game styles (clay court grinder versus shotmaker extraordinaire - although IMHO, the former can be an equally skilled shotmaker in his own right!) – are, in fact, so nearly identical in their actual execution?

And, it’s as intriguing to notice—as we have—that so few up-and-coming players (who are themselves trying to emulate the same performance and achievement levels as these two future Hall-of-Famers) do not use/have not developed (copied?!!) the very same, 28-time Grand Slam-proven forehand mechanics.


They may copy the superficial elements such as Nadal’s lasso-like, “reverse follow-through”, but rarely do they reproduce (all of) the crucial movements in Transition and during the forward swing to Impact as those great champions. 

Exactly why is that the case?

 I believe we’ve already outlined our case about why there aren’t legions of Federer and Nadal clones fighting it out in the Juniors, Futures and Challengers worldwide in earlier posts. (Hint: you can’t teach what you can’t see or understand…)

So, until next time, we wish everyone a happy, safe and prosperous Holiday Season!

TTFN!

A Roadmap to a Hall-of-Fame Forehand - Part 7: FHT-3 - The Past Lives On (But Only Barely)

At the end of our last post we mentioned that we have “uncovered” evidence of a “third” FHT type or “FHT-3”, for short...

However, as we drilled deeper down into our “discovery”, we began to realize that FHT-3 does not represent an “innovation” in stroke mechanics. It’s been in long use by many of the top players in the history of the sport - through the 1980s.

FHT-3 was arguably the dominant Transition type until the late 1980s when the top players began to understand that maximizing topspin production was the only practical way to keep pace (pun intended!) with the ever-increasing speed of play at the top levels of the sport. So, it seems that FHT-3 slowly gave way to the other two transition types (in combination with the use of more “western” grips – especially the so-called “semi-western” and “extreme semi-western” grips that dominate the sport we see today - we'll discuss the relationship between grips and FHT types in a future post) as players sought more topspin to control the increasing stroke speeds that were necessary to compete at a world-class level.

Bottom line is that as players sought more “extreme” topspin production, they found that these higher spin rates could be achieved using the movements that are characterized by FHT-2 and FHT-1 and FHT-3 gradually fell “out of use” or simply “out of fashion”. Either way, FHT-3 is therefore rarely seen in today’s players.

FHT-3 is the “old school” transition type that was common to the great players of the past who generated topspin using “classical methods” (summarized in the diagram below) where “just enough” elbow pronation was employed to close the racquet face—about 30 degrees closed—to compensate for the intrinsic supination of the racquet arm during the forward swing that otherwise creates an open—rather than vertical or closed—racquet face at impact.

 



This “racquet path geometry” creates a perpendicular racquet face at impact, which combined with a 30 to 60-degree upward swing path leads to “moderate” topspin production (ca. 1,200 to 1,800 RPM) that characterizes the topspin forehands used by past greats.

Now, let’s show you what FHT-3 looks like as used by these three (3) retired, but relatively “modern” Hall-of-Fame players:

First, a Hall-of-Famer who won “only” 14 Majors…

 

A second Hall-of-Famer who won “only” 11 Majors…

And, finally, a third Hall-of-Famer who “only” won 8 Majors.

 

All three Hall-of-Famers shown above use FHT-3 in their “base” forehand mechanics and use only moderate elbow pronation at FFM which results in a racquet face position that is nearly perfectly perpendicular at impact –i.e.  little or no forward tilt, again unlike Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and other players today.

Does this necessarily mean that they weren’t capable of generating the 3,000+ RPMs of topspin that we see in today’s game?

Absolutely not, they were perfectly capable of generating “modern” spin levels using their respective topspin mechanics. And we could easily argue or demonstrate that the topspin forehand mechanics we see in Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, et al. today are very likely the direct descendants of Bjorn Borg’s topspin forehand mechanics when he was dominating the sport in the late 1970s… Or Rod Laver’s topspin forehand mechanics when he was “The Man”, but that’s a whole another discussion we’ll save for later.

In fact, we were only able to identify two of today’s current top players (Top 20 or higher ranked) who use FHT-3: Juan Martin Del Potro and Richard Gasquet.  Currently, every other ATP Top 20 singles player uses FHT-2 to execute their topspin forehand—which is not surprising to you if you’ve been following this blog, correct?

Now, let’s take a more detailed look at how Del Potro and Gasquet execute Transition and ultimately achieve FHT-3 at the crucial FFM – “First Forward Move”—stage of their forehand mechanics.

 

@ 30 frames (~140 milliseconds) before FFM
 

@ 20 frames (~95 milliseconds) before FFM
 

@ 10 frames (~48 milliseconds) before FFM
 

 

What’s important to notice here is that both players move their entire racquet arm downward during Transition without changing/altering any of the positioning of their entire racquet arm from the upper arm down to their hand and wrist. The racquet arm seemingly moves as a single unit.

Later, let’s compare these movements to those used by a FHT-1 player in their forehand Transition.

@ FFM

 

At FFM, Del Potro and Gasquet pronate their elbows just enough to close their racquet fact about 30 degrees - and this "moderate" Elbow Pronation enables them to compensate/counteract the opening of the racquet face that results from the "natural" supination of the entire racquet arm during the forward swing. The extent of Elbow Pronation in FHT-3 players is significantly less than used by FHT-2 players (i.e. Federer and Nadal today; Lendl in the recent past).

 

Notice the considerable difference in the extent of Elbow Pronation (causing the clear difference in the orientation of their respective racquet faces – about 30 degrees closed for Del Potro versus nearly 90 degrees closed for Djokovic) shown here?
 

And, at the same time, FHT-3 players (left) still demonstrate Elbow Pronation – however “small" its actual extent – at FFM versus Elbow Supination (right) that’s used by FHT-1 players (right).
 

(Now, looking even more closely at the above image should trigger another question… If the elbow is supinated causing the racquet hand palm to face upward toward the sky, how is a closed racquet face—with the racquet face pointed toward the ground (the opposite direction)—achieved? This key question will be the subject of a future post.)

Next, let’s compare the movements that (top) players use to achieve FHT-3 at the end of Transition to those movements used to achieve FHT-1 or FHT-2 in more detail.

FHT-3 and FHT-1 Compared

First, let’s compare the movements (and positions) that are typically used by FHT-3 and FHT-1 players in their transition from the backswing to the forward swing.

@ 30 frames (~140 milliseconds) before FFM

 

 

@ 20 frames (~95 milliseconds) before FFM
 

@ 10 frames (~48 milliseconds) before FFM
 

 

@ FFM
 

What’s also both interesting and important to point out here is the stark difference in the movements Del Potro and Sharapova use in Transition respectively to create their racquet arm positions at FFM.
 

If you look closely at the 4-still sequence of each player’s Transition to FFM, Del Potro consistently maintains the position of the various joints of his racquet arm as he moves toward FFM.  


In stark contrast, Sharapova’s racquet arm undergoes considerable changes in terms of positioning of the various joints of her racquet arm, especially her hitting elbow.

Sharapova actively supinates her forearm - Elbow Supination - to achieve FHT-1 at FFM.

In stark contrast to her, when you look closely at Del Potro’s racquet hand and forearm, notice that in the 4 stills that his racquet hand and forearm stay in the same positions in Transition (slightly pronated) and they stay in this orientation because his racquet arm moves—“falls”—in a nearly straight line downward until he reaches FFM.

 

Compared to Del Potro's racquet forearm in the same 4-still sequence, notice that Sharapova's racquet forearm changes its orientation noticeably. Take particular notice of how the base knuckles of her racquet hand - the knuckles at the base of her fingers/top of the palm - rotate downwards toward the court such that they point at the ground.
 

 

This downward rotation of those knuckles simultaneously causes her palm to open skywards. The active Elbow Supination that Sharapova uses during Transition to FFM ultimately results in the palm of her racquet hand pointing upwards at FFM - the precise anatomical position that defines FHT-1.

 

FHT-2 and FHT-3 Compared

Next, let’s compare the movements (and positions) that are typically used by FHT-3 and FHT-2 players in their transition from the backswing to the forward swing.

@ 30 frames (~140 milliseconds) before FFM
 

@ 20 frames (~95 milliseconds) before FFM
 

@ 10 frames (~48 milliseconds) before FFM

@ FFM

In contrast to the Transition movements typically executed by FHT-1 Players like Sharapova, the movements used by most FHT-2 players during Transition are often very similar to those used by FHT-3 players during Transition (although, remember there aren’t that many FHT-3 players in the first place these days).

First, notice the very consistent positioning of the racquet arm “anatomy” during Transition that's achieved using the “falling” movement both players use to get to FFM. This type of movement maintains the optimal "racquet arm structure" used by both players (upper arm abducted and elbow pronated) as well as helps keep the racquet (face) moving in a very consistent position throughout Transition.

 

Second, notice how the base knuckles of Federer's racquet hand always face up toward the sky throughout his forehand Transition - which is achieved by the Elbow Pronation that Federer maintains throughout Transition. This Elbow Pronation enables Federer (and other FHT-2) to consistently achieve the diametrically-opposite racquet hand position - where the base knuckles are pointed downward towards the ground - that's used by FHT-1 players like Sharapova at FFM.


The top players who use FHT-3 like Del Potro today (and like Sampras and Agassi in the recent past) also maintain a consistent, but less extreme, more "moderate" Elbow Pronation through their forehand Transition such that the base knuckles of their racquet hands face behind them.


Therefore, FHT-3 players also enjoy the same biomechanical benefits as FHT-2 players as both groups avoid the early activation of the stretch-shorten cycles of the rotator cuff of the racquet arm (we discussed this benefit or "advantage" of having the possible stretch-shorten cycles of the racquet arm activated optimally in our last post).  and can therefore maximize force production - i.e. power potential - of those critical muscles used to sling the racquet arm forwards to impact.

Knuckling Down (or Is It Up?) - A Simple Method for Identifying and Modifying FHT

Here’s a relatively simple way to tell the 3 FHT types apart as well as provide you with very specific benchmarks for you to determine and/or modify your own FHT type :

To determine your FHT type, look at the position of the base knuckles of the hand—where the fingers are joined to the palm of the hand—at FFM.

 

If you use FHT-1 (Sharapova; below), your base knuckles will be pointing toward the ground - meaning that the palm of your racquet hand is facing upward towards the sky at FFM.

 

 

 

If you use FHT-2 (Federer; below), your base knuckles will be pointing at the sky - meaning the palm of your racquet hand is facing downward towards the ground at FFM.

 

 

 

If you use FHT-3 (Del Potro; below), your base knuckles will be pointing somewhere directly behind you at FFM (depending on the extent of your Elbow Pronation) - meaning that the palm of your racquet hand is facing the side fence.

 

 

Here are all three (3) FHT types shown side-by-side to illustrate the differences in the racquet hand base knuckle position:

 

 

Take Homes

The take-home message we want to leave you with is this - even though we’ve now identified a third type of FH - for all practical intents and purposes, the FHT type you should choose to maximize topspin forehand performance given the current (and likely future) state of elite tennis, is still FHT-2...
 

By far.


Using FHT-2 will enable you to generate the most topspin as you attempt to consistently generate supersonic racquet speeds, which means that you will maximize both racquet speed and racquet control, rather than having to choose between one (control) over the other (power).

 

Simply put, FHT-2 appears to be the simplest method to help you achieve the racquet motion that characterizes today's top forehands:

 

 

However, our discussion of how to achieve Hall-of-Fame performance on your topspin forehand has only just begun...

 

While your FHT type exerts the single most powerful influence on your ability to maximize both speed and spin - control - on your topspin forehand, there are still other movements in the forehand stroke that also have very significant effects on both speed and spin produciton as well.

 

Next time, we'll continue our discussion by describing and explaining how the movement of your Upper Arm by either Abduction or Adduction just after FFM may have a pronounced effect on forehand spin and speed production.

TTFN!