I love the idea of the defensive V, and how well Nadal could dictate even from back there. I think Alcaraz, despite having the speed to cover these balls, can’t quite produce shots with the combination of margin and aggression that Nadal could from these positions, which is why I feel like he plays spectacular defensive points that he often loses (though he is getting better here, like at everything else).
I recall in Nadal's biography, he mentioned training for fast yet pliable muscles as opposed to bulking up. Alcaraz's weight training from two years ago looked more like the latter to me, so I have a suspicion that such subtle difference in approach made him less formidable among the legends.
Great thoughts Hugh. I remember early in Nadals career, he played Agassi, Agassi said something like I don't know what he is playing out there, but it is not tennis. Other players now get Rafa like rpm's on the forehand, but no one has ever been able to consistently bend the ball around out there to expand the opponents court, east and west, like Nadal. Of course, it is most evident when he hooks his forehand wide into the ad court, I introducing his opponents to part of the court they usually are not at. Of course, he also used his hook to bring the ball back in when he was going down the line. Using a thicker beam high swingweight racquet, he got from Moya. Moya used to play with a more extreme version, a Babolat Soft Drive, leaded up to about a 400 swingweight.
Hi Hugh, I would love to see you take on this same piece of analysis and apply it to the women's game. In particular, a lot of people talk about Iga Swiatek and her footwork and sheer athleticism. To an amateur's eye, her movement seems to mimic Djokovic a lot more but would be great to see your breakdown.
Hi John, I do have a forehand piece sitting in my drafts on some of the top women's players. Haven't isolated the footwork stuff yet but Iga, a bit like Clijsters was, seems to be a level above the field with her movement.
I love this! I feel like Nadal's athleticism almost gets glossed over nowadays. Everyone knows he was athletic, but... maybe recency bias? In his prime, he was every bit as quick as Monfils or Djokovic if not quicker. Mix in his ludicrous upper and lower body strength, pretty solid flexibility, explosiveness, and Nadal was a BEAST. The best athlete tennis has ever seen. I also love the shoutout to Nadal vs Berdych AO2012; maybe a bit of an underrated match but those who have seen it know it's phenomenal. And it was a match where Nadal changed tactics from his usual and chose to move up to baseline for the return after nearly being down 2 sets to 0, so it proves your third bullet point that Nadal had an offensive mentality and the versatility to move his return position, unlike Medvedev and Ruud at times.
Thank you so much for writing these articles, I’ve just discovered them recently and have found them fascinating and learned so much. I love the various inspirations you draw on as well both in tennis and beyond, really well done and some of the my favorite quality sports writing I’ve come across. Have you done Part III Movement on Djokovic yet? I don’t see it after searching around. Thanks again for sharing these.
There's one element which I think markedly enhances the connection between Nadal's footwork and his shot output: the more vertical forehand swing path. Of course, we know that it generates absurd amounts of spin (in combination with his tremendous full-body strength and the racquet weight). But I think it also allowed him to generate more power on "unstabilized" forehands.
In a textbook close-stance forehand, you push forward against the floor, transfering that leg push into your weight into racquet head speed. That sequence relies on a critical premise: a stable starting position close to your striking spot. Obviously, that does not help you on the run or when stretched, so you need different tools to generate power in those situations. You touched on "running through" forehands on the Federer piece, but there are other tools - e.g. long looping wind-ups like Medvedev (also present to a not-so-obvious extent in other players), brute-force "slapping", rotating-pulling with the core while sliding in open stance, and so on; someone like Djokovic proficiently combines multiple of those sources.
The more vertical swing path that Nadal mastered like no other (though it also had a powerful horizontal component) offers a lot in that aspect, because even if you are running or stretched (circumstances that limit your ability to push forward with the lower body) you can critically always _push upwards_ with your legs and also _pull upwards_ as well with your arm. You don't have to make an impossible 90º change in direction - you can continue the movement, whether it's running through (as in the RG 2005 point and many others) or sliding, and even if you lack the gas to fully recruit your legs and hips you still can do a lot with a powerful upper body. Thus, in a displaced situation, I'd argue that this kind of swing path allows you to generate more energy to put on the ball, even if a good chunk of that energy comes in the form of spin and vertical linear momentum rather than horizontal linear momentum.
We can of course watch Nadal employ this opportunity to the fullest extent, but other players sometimes exhibit diagonal/vertical swing features in certain situations as well (e.g. late Fed finishing many forehands over the head). Alcaraz often does it: with somewhat shorter levers than the Big 3 and clearly smaller than the "nimble giant"-class pretenders, he can't store as much inertia on looping shots or put up as much counterweight, so he often "rolls" the forehands upwards when pushed laterally or backwards. Of course, given that he wields a lighter racquet than Rafa's club, he can't store as much energy in the build-up to the shot so he does not get the same results even when swinging very fast. This is not very problematic from a static position, where he can punch forward with his whole body.
On a final note, while this goes a bit out of the scope of movement-related topics, another advantage of the vertically-leaning swing path is that it makes lateral shot direction easier, significantly improving defensive options. When you change directions, the strength of your shot influences the angle between your swing direction and the outgoing ball trajectory, with stronger shots aligning them to a great extent. Thus, on a situation where you can't recruit enough force to overpower the incoming ball (i.e. when displaced) you have to intuitively solve a hard calibration problem between strength and direction, which often leads to errors. If you rip the ball upwards, though, those issues are diminished and directional control is easier, compounding the inherent directional advantages of a shot that already has a lead in that aspect (a bit easier to reorient the racquet and perform last-microsecond wrist tweaks when compared to linear horizontal swings where you are already locking in your ball trajectory earlier in the acceleration sequence).
Although it is not directly related to movement I feel like the answer you give might have something to do with Nadal's movement. The current generation of tennis is definitely geared towards the whole "1080p topspin ready" groundstrokes with racquets and strings purposely engineered towards easier production of rpm's but something has bugged me. I can not understand why it is that today everyone regardless of the degree of topspin they utilize (but in this case specifically the topspin merchants such as Thiem or Ruud) will despite having really high rpms (higher than current Nadal) will not achieve the bombastic heaviness of the Rafael Nadal forehand. Why is it his is the unique one?
Why is it that Rafael Nadal groundstrokes have a devastating heaviness but spin oriented players of the new gen e.g. Thiem, Ruud, Berrettini or even prior (like Jack Sock) will not ever be able to create a ball that feels like a giant log dropped on ones stringbed despite high rpm count?
The spin from new-gen looks (and this probably is in part due to racquet and string tech) kind of fake, artificial and cheap where it's just the flick of the wrist is too prominent for that topspin generation and it would feel like powderpuff compared to when Nadal hits his forehand and he doesn't always need to go all out he hits really heavy as if it's second nature but if new-gen topspinners was to attempt the same they'd probs have to slug the ball every single time for something that could rival Nadal-level heaviness.
Other players are capable of this heaviness too (maybe not exactly at Nadal level but super close) such as Roddick (before 2006) when he used to whack his forehand topspin (the sound that came off his was actually peek) the ball would whizz so much and had too much action mid-air it made your racquet rattle too much on impact. Another example being Wawrinka when he hits the ball and his heaviness is less on the "action mid-air" compared to Roddick but his ball would feel like a grand piano slammed on your stringbed (The sound when he belts a topspin forehand is also uncanny). Why is their spin leagues apart in terms of the heaviness. Sampras as well his serve was devastating, just being able to read and catch it was one problem but the sheer power and spin all dropped on your stringbed made even arguably the best returner with in history fumble (and he had an oversized racquet to return with too so that says a lot).
Is my view on the "heavy ball" distorted and wrong or is this a correct take because a heavy ball should literally feel heavy on impact right, that's what people mean right?
Part of it i think is the fact that he is a lefty, so he gets to use that hard cross ball into the righty's BH.
You should read Cross and Lindsey's book on tennis physics. An excerpt;
“Hitting a tennis ball is an epic battle between player, racquet, and ball. The player ultimately wants to be able to swing the racquet as fast as possible and to change its direction in a split second, but he does not want the ball to be able to do the same thing to the racquet. He doesn’t want the ball pushing the racquet backwards, twisting it in his hand, or bending it out of shape and direction. But making it more difficult for the ball to move the racquet also makes it more difficult for the player to do so. For the player to achieve the most maneuverability, the racquet has to be light, but to prevent the ball from knocking the racquet all over the place, it has to be heavy. And if the ball is pushing the racquet around, power is lost. So, the player also wants the racquet to be heavy to get the most power. But if it is too heavy, he can’t swing as fast, and he loses power. What a problem!”
So whether you get 3000 rpm at 75mph from a 300gram racquet or 400g racquet, I don't think that matters.
But a heavier frame provides more power and control. So perhaps the magic is that Nadal is hitting as heavy but swinging slower and having more control.
Thanks for the reply. Do you think then this Nadal, Wawrinka and Roddick-esque heavy ball is possible with a very heavy wood racquet and gut strings? (provided you have the physique to pull it off too)
Not sure, probably. But it's the ability to be able to produce an outcome with consistency that is rewarded in tennis. Wide body frames and poly strings just allow more margin for error for heavy baseline trading
How much do you think the transition from conservative grips (that are more conducive to the forward V in the older generation of Becker, Sampras, Federer) to semi-western/western ones of Rafole Gen/Lost Gen/NextGen, has led to more backward V?
There are precious few western ones who can take the ball early (Nishikori, and I think the younger Djokovic), so there's surely some correlation between the grip and your confidence to come in and stay back?
That's a good question. I think there's a lot of factors that come into play beyond grips (overall style, surface you grew up on, racquet etc.) but yes, I would say as a broad statement it's easier to block/take the ball earlier with more conservative grips.
But someone like Tiafoe actually does a decent job taking the ball very early. Uses a very light frame reportedly and he's blessed with quick hands. He also does a good job moving forward IMO, and I think that reflects his hard court upbringing and general aggressive style.
I'm almost more inclined to think that whether you grew up on hard v clay has so many downstream consequences about how you play/where you feel comfortable hitting from. There's lots of extreme grips that can take the ball on the rise pretty well (Rublev, Sinner, Rune, Shapo, Foe, Mannarino).
I think tennis is just more baseline oriented now, so players are better playing deeper and worse coming forward compared to, say, the young players who were coming up 30 years ago. They focus their attention on different things now, and it's hard to work on everything; I think players gravitate to working on their strengths, so naturally we have seen a lack of forecourt merchants as Djokovic/Murray/Nadal showcased how valuable being solid from deep is.
I believe someone once asked Nadal what grip he prefers, and he said he has no clue what "western, semi-western, eastern" means. Can't find the exact quote. Perhaps it was a translation error, but I feel like Nadal and many other top pros just pick whatever grip they find comfortable. It would also explain why Nadal's and Djokovic's racket grips have shifted over the years as they likely aren't thinking much about it.
Not sure about Nadal but there is an interview with federer where he pretty much says this exactly. And yeah these grips can migrate a little over the years; both Nadal and Djokovic were a little more extreme when they came on tour and both nudged toward SW over their careers.
I love the idea of the defensive V, and how well Nadal could dictate even from back there. I think Alcaraz, despite having the speed to cover these balls, can’t quite produce shots with the combination of margin and aggression that Nadal could from these positions, which is why I feel like he plays spectacular defensive points that he often loses (though he is getting better here, like at everything else).
Agreed. Alcaraz is certainly quick, but his speed and game is more threatening in offensive ways I think
I recall in Nadal's biography, he mentioned training for fast yet pliable muscles as opposed to bulking up. Alcaraz's weight training from two years ago looked more like the latter to me, so I have a suspicion that such subtle difference in approach made him less formidable among the legends.
Great thoughts Hugh. I remember early in Nadals career, he played Agassi, Agassi said something like I don't know what he is playing out there, but it is not tennis. Other players now get Rafa like rpm's on the forehand, but no one has ever been able to consistently bend the ball around out there to expand the opponents court, east and west, like Nadal. Of course, it is most evident when he hooks his forehand wide into the ad court, I introducing his opponents to part of the court they usually are not at. Of course, he also used his hook to bring the ball back in when he was going down the line. Using a thicker beam high swingweight racquet, he got from Moya. Moya used to play with a more extreme version, a Babolat Soft Drive, leaded up to about a 400 swingweight.
There are some rallies from that match that showcase a young Nadal's extreme speed (and very loopy shots that were so contrasting to Andre's).
Hi Hugh, I would love to see you take on this same piece of analysis and apply it to the women's game. In particular, a lot of people talk about Iga Swiatek and her footwork and sheer athleticism. To an amateur's eye, her movement seems to mimic Djokovic a lot more but would be great to see your breakdown.
Hi John, I do have a forehand piece sitting in my drafts on some of the top women's players. Haven't isolated the footwork stuff yet but Iga, a bit like Clijsters was, seems to be a level above the field with her movement.
I tried so hard to emulate that forehand, and quickly learned the amount of fitness and coordination required to pivot off that back foot.
Also my wrist was destroyed from a tiny grip
I love this! I feel like Nadal's athleticism almost gets glossed over nowadays. Everyone knows he was athletic, but... maybe recency bias? In his prime, he was every bit as quick as Monfils or Djokovic if not quicker. Mix in his ludicrous upper and lower body strength, pretty solid flexibility, explosiveness, and Nadal was a BEAST. The best athlete tennis has ever seen. I also love the shoutout to Nadal vs Berdych AO2012; maybe a bit of an underrated match but those who have seen it know it's phenomenal. And it was a match where Nadal changed tactics from his usual and chose to move up to baseline for the return after nearly being down 2 sets to 0, so it proves your third bullet point that Nadal had an offensive mentality and the versatility to move his return position, unlike Medvedev and Ruud at times.
Once-in-a-lifetime player for sure
Thank you so much for writing these articles, I’ve just discovered them recently and have found them fascinating and learned so much. I love the various inspirations you draw on as well both in tennis and beyond, really well done and some of the my favorite quality sports writing I’ve come across. Have you done Part III Movement on Djokovic yet? I don’t see it after searching around. Thanks again for sharing these.
Coming soon. Thanks for the kind words and glad you'r enjoying the content!
There's one element which I think markedly enhances the connection between Nadal's footwork and his shot output: the more vertical forehand swing path. Of course, we know that it generates absurd amounts of spin (in combination with his tremendous full-body strength and the racquet weight). But I think it also allowed him to generate more power on "unstabilized" forehands.
In a textbook close-stance forehand, you push forward against the floor, transfering that leg push into your weight into racquet head speed. That sequence relies on a critical premise: a stable starting position close to your striking spot. Obviously, that does not help you on the run or when stretched, so you need different tools to generate power in those situations. You touched on "running through" forehands on the Federer piece, but there are other tools - e.g. long looping wind-ups like Medvedev (also present to a not-so-obvious extent in other players), brute-force "slapping", rotating-pulling with the core while sliding in open stance, and so on; someone like Djokovic proficiently combines multiple of those sources.
The more vertical swing path that Nadal mastered like no other (though it also had a powerful horizontal component) offers a lot in that aspect, because even if you are running or stretched (circumstances that limit your ability to push forward with the lower body) you can critically always _push upwards_ with your legs and also _pull upwards_ as well with your arm. You don't have to make an impossible 90º change in direction - you can continue the movement, whether it's running through (as in the RG 2005 point and many others) or sliding, and even if you lack the gas to fully recruit your legs and hips you still can do a lot with a powerful upper body. Thus, in a displaced situation, I'd argue that this kind of swing path allows you to generate more energy to put on the ball, even if a good chunk of that energy comes in the form of spin and vertical linear momentum rather than horizontal linear momentum.
We can of course watch Nadal employ this opportunity to the fullest extent, but other players sometimes exhibit diagonal/vertical swing features in certain situations as well (e.g. late Fed finishing many forehands over the head). Alcaraz often does it: with somewhat shorter levers than the Big 3 and clearly smaller than the "nimble giant"-class pretenders, he can't store as much inertia on looping shots or put up as much counterweight, so he often "rolls" the forehands upwards when pushed laterally or backwards. Of course, given that he wields a lighter racquet than Rafa's club, he can't store as much energy in the build-up to the shot so he does not get the same results even when swinging very fast. This is not very problematic from a static position, where he can punch forward with his whole body.
On a final note, while this goes a bit out of the scope of movement-related topics, another advantage of the vertically-leaning swing path is that it makes lateral shot direction easier, significantly improving defensive options. When you change directions, the strength of your shot influences the angle between your swing direction and the outgoing ball trajectory, with stronger shots aligning them to a great extent. Thus, on a situation where you can't recruit enough force to overpower the incoming ball (i.e. when displaced) you have to intuitively solve a hard calibration problem between strength and direction, which often leads to errors. If you rip the ball upwards, though, those issues are diminished and directional control is easier, compounding the inherent directional advantages of a shot that already has a lead in that aspect (a bit easier to reorient the racquet and perform last-microsecond wrist tweaks when compared to linear horizontal swings where you are already locking in your ball trajectory earlier in the acceleration sequence).
Love this series. Looking forward to the Djokovic analysis!
coming soon
Although it is not directly related to movement I feel like the answer you give might have something to do with Nadal's movement. The current generation of tennis is definitely geared towards the whole "1080p topspin ready" groundstrokes with racquets and strings purposely engineered towards easier production of rpm's but something has bugged me. I can not understand why it is that today everyone regardless of the degree of topspin they utilize (but in this case specifically the topspin merchants such as Thiem or Ruud) will despite having really high rpms (higher than current Nadal) will not achieve the bombastic heaviness of the Rafael Nadal forehand. Why is it his is the unique one?
Why is it that Rafael Nadal groundstrokes have a devastating heaviness but spin oriented players of the new gen e.g. Thiem, Ruud, Berrettini or even prior (like Jack Sock) will not ever be able to create a ball that feels like a giant log dropped on ones stringbed despite high rpm count?
The spin from new-gen looks (and this probably is in part due to racquet and string tech) kind of fake, artificial and cheap where it's just the flick of the wrist is too prominent for that topspin generation and it would feel like powderpuff compared to when Nadal hits his forehand and he doesn't always need to go all out he hits really heavy as if it's second nature but if new-gen topspinners was to attempt the same they'd probs have to slug the ball every single time for something that could rival Nadal-level heaviness.
Other players are capable of this heaviness too (maybe not exactly at Nadal level but super close) such as Roddick (before 2006) when he used to whack his forehand topspin (the sound that came off his was actually peek) the ball would whizz so much and had too much action mid-air it made your racquet rattle too much on impact. Another example being Wawrinka when he hits the ball and his heaviness is less on the "action mid-air" compared to Roddick but his ball would feel like a grand piano slammed on your stringbed (The sound when he belts a topspin forehand is also uncanny). Why is their spin leagues apart in terms of the heaviness. Sampras as well his serve was devastating, just being able to read and catch it was one problem but the sheer power and spin all dropped on your stringbed made even arguably the best returner with in history fumble (and he had an oversized racquet to return with too so that says a lot).
Is my view on the "heavy ball" distorted and wrong or is this a correct take because a heavy ball should literally feel heavy on impact right, that's what people mean right?
Well I think others actually do have forehands as heavy, but not as good overall. There's a bunch that have just as much spin:
Ruud, Berrettini, Kokkinakis, Sock, Thiem, Johnson, Verdasco are all in the ballpark.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/average-fh-bh-topspin-rate-of-atp-top-100-in-2018-season.747635/
Part of it i think is the fact that he is a lefty, so he gets to use that hard cross ball into the righty's BH.
You should read Cross and Lindsey's book on tennis physics. An excerpt;
“Hitting a tennis ball is an epic battle between player, racquet, and ball. The player ultimately wants to be able to swing the racquet as fast as possible and to change its direction in a split second, but he does not want the ball to be able to do the same thing to the racquet. He doesn’t want the ball pushing the racquet backwards, twisting it in his hand, or bending it out of shape and direction. But making it more difficult for the ball to move the racquet also makes it more difficult for the player to do so. For the player to achieve the most maneuverability, the racquet has to be light, but to prevent the ball from knocking the racquet all over the place, it has to be heavy. And if the ball is pushing the racquet around, power is lost. So, the player also wants the racquet to be heavy to get the most power. But if it is too heavy, he can’t swing as fast, and he loses power. What a problem!”
So whether you get 3000 rpm at 75mph from a 300gram racquet or 400g racquet, I don't think that matters.
But a heavier frame provides more power and control. So perhaps the magic is that Nadal is hitting as heavy but swinging slower and having more control.
Thanks for the reply. Do you think then this Nadal, Wawrinka and Roddick-esque heavy ball is possible with a very heavy wood racquet and gut strings? (provided you have the physique to pull it off too)
Not sure, probably. But it's the ability to be able to produce an outcome with consistency that is rewarded in tennis. Wide body frames and poly strings just allow more margin for error for heavy baseline trading
How much do you think the transition from conservative grips (that are more conducive to the forward V in the older generation of Becker, Sampras, Federer) to semi-western/western ones of Rafole Gen/Lost Gen/NextGen, has led to more backward V?
There are precious few western ones who can take the ball early (Nishikori, and I think the younger Djokovic), so there's surely some correlation between the grip and your confidence to come in and stay back?
That's a good question. I think there's a lot of factors that come into play beyond grips (overall style, surface you grew up on, racquet etc.) but yes, I would say as a broad statement it's easier to block/take the ball earlier with more conservative grips.
But someone like Tiafoe actually does a decent job taking the ball very early. Uses a very light frame reportedly and he's blessed with quick hands. He also does a good job moving forward IMO, and I think that reflects his hard court upbringing and general aggressive style.
I'm almost more inclined to think that whether you grew up on hard v clay has so many downstream consequences about how you play/where you feel comfortable hitting from. There's lots of extreme grips that can take the ball on the rise pretty well (Rublev, Sinner, Rune, Shapo, Foe, Mannarino).
I think tennis is just more baseline oriented now, so players are better playing deeper and worse coming forward compared to, say, the young players who were coming up 30 years ago. They focus their attention on different things now, and it's hard to work on everything; I think players gravitate to working on their strengths, so naturally we have seen a lack of forecourt merchants as Djokovic/Murray/Nadal showcased how valuable being solid from deep is.
I believe someone once asked Nadal what grip he prefers, and he said he has no clue what "western, semi-western, eastern" means. Can't find the exact quote. Perhaps it was a translation error, but I feel like Nadal and many other top pros just pick whatever grip they find comfortable. It would also explain why Nadal's and Djokovic's racket grips have shifted over the years as they likely aren't thinking much about it.
Not sure about Nadal but there is an interview with federer where he pretty much says this exactly. And yeah these grips can migrate a little over the years; both Nadal and Djokovic were a little more extreme when they came on tour and both nudged toward SW over their careers.