The Ugliest Shot in Tennis

I am truly amazed at the comments on this site and TV regarding the "legend" Nadal.

I have no axe to grind and congratulate Nadal on his success. He's a great player, with mighty groundstrokes, but in my (very objective) view others are clearly better and deserve the win more.

This latest final is almost a replay of previous finals vs Fed. Djokovic plays almost all the offensive tennis but just can't get the ball past Nadal.
On his forehand side when stretched out wide Nadal simply hustles sideways and with an open stance, gives the ball a flick back over the net. Over and over and over again. Surely this is the ugliest shot in the history of tennis.
One man is smashing the ball with all his might and is still able to control the ball with great skill, the other is literally just putting his racquet on the ball.
For me, this makes a mockery of the result and diminishes the entertainment.

I'm also amazed that Djokovic, Fed and Murray don't pressure the organizers into speeding up the courts.
They should give the French a miss for a year or two and send a message. They would actually increase their chances of winning in subsequent years.

Nadal adapts his game to other surfaces so shouldn't they ?

Lightbreeze wrote: I'm also amazed that Djokovic, Fed and Murray don't pressure the organizers into speeding up the courts.
They should give the French a miss for a year or two and send a message.

1. Why should clay be speeded up...its the last original surface left. Mr Tiriac has given you Teflon Smurf-Clay and Djokovic/Murray didnt win that!
2. Djokovic and Murray dont want the courts speeding up! Do you think these 2 are indoor carpet guru's or something? They are baseliners too.
3. Miss the French? Haha, nice one. The only message it would send is that they're scared of Nadal!
4. You wont get 1 ex-pro saying Nadal's FH is an ugly shot. Not one. Interesting why you pick Nadal out in a sea of agricultural FHs...e.g. Granollers.

Ugliest shot in tennis = Unforced Error

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins the point.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear what I meant in the post above (have edited it now). I meant when Nadal is stretched really far out on the forehand side.
Most players would play a stylish forehand "squash" shot from this position. Nadal however gives the ball a flick up into the air with open stance and then recovers. I'd call this a "grope" shot.

Lol sour grapes
Why release this article today? Because Nadal won.

Simple.

lol...this is getting more ridiculous.
So now you move the goalposts to be ugly on the outwide shot? Hey?
Why dont we talk about how a player looks at the changeover as well?

Besides which, the squash shot is a FH slice of almost hit and hope...a last shot of low % desperation.

It Must Be Love wrote:Lol sour grapes
Why release this article today? Because Nadal won.

Simple.

1. No sour grapes here, just like to see skill rewarded.

2. Because I watched it today (and yesterday).

The ugliest shot in tennis was that dreadful Jim Courier 2nd serve against Henman at Wimbledon in 1999.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Ugliest shot in tennis = Unforced Error

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins the point.

Ugliest shot in tennis = Andy Murray's second serve.

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins a point V Andy Murray.

lydian wrote:lol...this is getting more ridiculous.
So now you move the goalposts to be ugly on the outwide shot? Hey?
Why dont we talk about how a player looks at the changeover as well?

Besides which, the squash shot is a FH slice of almost hit and hope...a last shot of low % desperation.

1. rude
2. My point is that Nadal's out wide "flick up " is not a low percentage shot. It keeps him in the rally time and time again and allows him to win points that he has no right to win.

Lightbreeze: They should give the French a miss for a year or two and send a message.
------------------------------------
This gets more and more comical everytime I read it.

It's Wimbledon that should be speeding up, not the French
No offence but atleast Seifer made a better attempt at winding up the Nadal fans.

lydian wrote:

Lightbreeze wrote: I'm also amazed that Djokovic, Fed and Murray don't pressure the organizers into speeding up the courts.
They should give the French a miss for a year or two and send a message.

1. Why should clay be speeded up...its the last original surface left. Mr Tiriac has given you Teflon Smurf-Clay and Djokovic/Murray didnt win that!
2. Djokovic and Murray dont want the courts speeding up! Do you think these 2 are indoor carpet guru's or something? They are baseliners too.
3. Miss the French? Haha, nice one. The only message it would send is that they're scared of Nadal!
4. You wont get 1 ex-pro saying Nadal's FH is an ugly shot. Not one. Interesting why you pick Nadal out in a sea of agricultural FHs...e.g. Granollers.

1. Because the return of serve is too dominant now. Because the top players defend too well now. Because the matches last too long now.
2. Bet Murray does.
3. Why not, players used to skip tournaments all the time.
4. My mistake.

Are you Jersey's astrologer by any chance?

Lightbreeze wrote:...allows him to win points that he has no right to win.

Who decides which player has the 'right' to win a point?
If you keep playing shots that allow you win you the point, you deserve to win the point. It's tennis, not a beauty contest!

gboycottnut wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Ugliest shot in tennis = Unforced Error

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins the point.

Ugliest shot in tennis = Andy Murray's second serve.

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins a point V Andy Murray.

would you like a Murray mint?

For the record I think Nadal has the most beautiful forehand in tennis

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Lightbreeze wrote:...allows him to win points that he has no right to win.

Who decides which player has the 'right' to win a point?
If you keep playing shots that allow you win you the point, you deserve to win the point. It's tennis, not a beauty contest!

It's obviously subjective, but if you were playing Nadal and you kept pummeling powerful offensive shots within inches of each tram line you might think you deserved to win a point or two, instead of having the ball constantly chipped back onto your baseline.

You say you have "no axe to grind" not much you dont.. wrap it up in as many patronising phrases as you can like... you dont like Nadal´s game thats obvious.
The "ugly" shot you speak of many players wouldn´t even be able to reach it let alone do anything with it. Why would Djokovic want to speed the court up he was doing perfectly well when it was even too slow for Rafa. I agree with It Must be Love . Sour grapes

Haddie Nuff

Lightbreeze wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Lightbreeze wrote:...allows him to win points that he has no right to win.

Who decides which player has the 'right' to win a point?
If you keep playing shots that allow you win you the point, you deserve to win the point. It's tennis, not a beauty contest!

It's obviously subjective, but if you were playing Nadal and you kept pummeling powerful offensive shots within inches of each tram line you might think you deserved to win a point or two, instead of having the ball constantly chipped back onto your baseline.

You might think that - but you'd be wrong. Because you wouldn't have done enough to actually win the point. That's the nature of the game. It might even be the very essence of the game, especially on clay.

You tend to find WUMS get retarded with time.

LK, PM for you

Haddie-nuff wrote:You say you have "no axe to grind" not much you dont.. wrap it up in as many patronising phrases as you can like... you dont like Nadal´s game thats obvious.
The "ugly" shot you speak of many players wouldn´t even be able to reach it let alone do anything with it. Why would Djokovic want to speed the court up he was doing perfectly well when it was even too slow for Rafa. I agree with It Must be Love . Sour grapes

God, you're right. You know me better than I know myself !
Thank you for putting me straight. I thought I just wanted to see great shots rewarded, but now thanks to you I realize that I'm one of those immature haters.

Now we have established that fact can we now say bye bye
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>exit this way

Lightbreeze wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:You say you have "no axe to grind" not much you dont.. wrap it up in as many patronising phrases as you can like... you dont like Nadal´s game thats obvious.
The "ugly" shot you speak of many players wouldn´t even be able to reach it let alone do anything with it. Why would Djokovic want to speed the court up he was doing perfectly well when it was even too slow for Rafa. I agree with It Must be Love . Sour grapes

God, you're right. You know me better than I know myself !
Thank you for putting me straight. I thought I just wanted to see great shots rewarded, but now thanks to you I realize that I'm one of those immature haters.

If you can get to a shot that others can't reach and control your reply to the extent that you don't give your opponent an easy put-away, is that not a great shot?
I think you mean that you like to see aggressive tennis rewarded more than defensive tennis. Well, there's other surfaces for that. But why should great defensive tennis not be recognised as greatly skillful?

I've heard some crazy things on 606v2, but Nadal being criticised for having great retrieval skills is up there with the best of them!

How damn inconsiderate of him to keep getting balls back?!

Danny_1982 wrote:I've heard some crazy things on 606v2, but Nadal being criticised for having great retrieval skills is up there with the best of them!

How damn inconsiderate of him to keep getting balls back?!

I know, it's just not cricket!
Er, actually, it's not cricket, is it?

Danny_1982 wrote:I've heard some crazy things on 606v2, but Nadal being criticised for having great retrieval skills is up there with the best of them!

How damn inconsiderate of him to keep getting balls back?!

I know Danny it would hillarious if it were not so ridiculous. Rafa really should not go for those shots .. I mean really he should be warned.." you cannot retrieve those shots in that manner its not pretty tennis."

lydian wrote:

Lightbreeze wrote: I'm also amazed that Djokovic, Fed and Murray don't pressure the organizers into speeding up the courts.
They should give the French a miss for a year or two and send a message.

1. Why should clay be speeded up...its the last original surface left. Mr Tiriac has given you Teflon Smurf-Clay and Djokovic/Murray didnt win that!
2. Djokovic and Murray dont want the courts speeding up! Do you think these 2 are indoor carpet guru's or something? They are baseliners too.
3. Miss the French? Haha, nice one. The only message it would send is that they're scared of Nadal!
4. You wont get 1 ex-pro saying Nadal's FH is an ugly shot. Not one. Interesting why you pick Nadal out in a sea of agricultural FHs...e.g. Granollers.

Lydian. I agree with all the points, but if you think that a player, who's got virtually all his best results on the faster hard courts - wouldn't want them speeded up then you're clearly not thinking straight. (Murray's never ever going to moan about the courts again, after the crucification he got for the tour comments last year)

In Dubai, easily the fastest court this year, we saw both Murray and Federer, with Roger giving one of his best performances - looking far better than everyone else. Rafa, quite rightly, took one look and avoided the place

Murray has wins at nearly all the Masters hardcourts - all of which are faster than the current fastest Slam

Basically, give us some proper Slam fast hard courts and suddenly Fed and Murray are in the mix. Keep giving us the turgid stuff and they are not

It's only Paris, where my argument falls down - but if we consider since he became a 'player' that since 2008 he's being either coming back from injury (2009) or carrying an injury (last year) we can excuse him

All the players, other than Federer are baseliners, simply because that's what the slow turgid hard courts dicates that they must do this. Murray out of all his rivals would S&V more than the others, but he's not strtegically daft enough to try this against Rafa at, say, last years US Open. The fastest Slam hard court conditons around, that resmebled Paris in June

The OP is correct. Tennis is being destroyed by favouring a player like Nadal. A boring baseline weasel. Once upon a time Tennis was about shot making and ability. Not sitting about moonballing returns and being able to get to every single ball. Winning with the same flat annoying Poopie little tactic every damn game on every damn surface.

Ah, this is why I don't use the tennis forum. Thanks for the reminder

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ah, this is why I don't use the tennis forum. Thanks for the reminder

We're not all as bad as that CJ.

I find it frustrating as a Federer fan to see Nadal get his beautiful shots, Federer hits a ridiculous half volley form the baseline down the line which is then met with a push from Nadal, hits a ridiculous angle which Nadal just runs around, however on clay this is the one place I can except this, it is what the game on this surface is like and how it was always meant to be. Speed up the other courts yes, leave Roland Garros exactly the way it is.

I think there should be too clay slams, which are both very slow, Fast grass Wimby and fast HC USO.

Nadal moves much better in clay compared to HC, irrelevant of how slow it is. They should make AO slow clay And speed up Wimby and USO as I said.

Professional tennis players play the sport to win, to take home the dosh, to win trophies, to get the multi-million dollar sponsorship deal, the Ferrari sports car, the beach house in Malibu, the multi-million dollar book deal etc.

There is no point in berating professional tennis players playing to win.

If you want to berate someone then berate those in control of the game and in control of the tournaments.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Ah, this is why I don't use the tennis forum. Thanks for the reminder

We're not all as bad as that CJ.

Indeed some of us are worse

banbrotam wrote:
Lydian. I agree with all the points, but if you think that a player, who's got virtually all his best results on the faster hard courts - wouldn't want them speeded up then you're clearly not thinking straight. (Murray's never ever going to moan about the courts again, after the crucification he got for the tour comments last year)

In Dubai, easily the fastest court this year, we saw both Murray and Federer, with Roger giving one of his best performances - looking far better than everyone else. Rafa, quite rightly, took one look and avoided the place

Murray has wins at nearly all the Masters hardcourts - all of which are faster than the current fastest Slam

Basically, give us some proper Slam fast hard courts and suddenly Fed and Murray are in the mix. Keep giving us the turgid stuff and they are not

It's only Paris, where my argument falls down - but if we consider since he became a 'player' that since 2008 he's being either coming back from injury (2009) or carrying an injury (last year) we can excuse him

All the players, other than Federer are baseliners, simply because that's what the slow turgid hard courts dicates that they must do this. Murray out of all his rivals would S&V more than the others, but he's not strtegically daft enough to try this against Rafa at, say, last years US Open. The fastest Slam hard court conditons around, that resmebled Paris in June

Murrray's most succesful slam is on the Aussie Open slow rubber where he's made 2 finals. And there's no way Indian Wells and Miami are faster than the US Open or Wimbledon. They're probably the slowest Hard Courts on tour. Murray may generally play a more inventive game than the top 2 but he's as much a baseliner as anyone and was raised a counterpuncher. You keep throwing out these arguments about speed of surfaces to rationalize Murray's lagging behind the top 2/3 but your facts are often rather distorted. Claiming Nadal avoided Dubai because of the court speed is a somewhat spurious claim except you're somewhat privy to inside info from the Nadal camp. I may accept your argument for Federer but the if the top 2 had a clash with Murray on any slam surface, including pre-2011 US Open, I know where I'd lay my money - and it's not on the Scot.

gboycottnut wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Ugliest shot in tennis = Unforced Error

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins the point.

Ugliest shot in tennis = Andy Murray's second serve.

Best shot in tennis = Anything that wins a point V Andy Murray.

hahahah good one Gboy, i guess you love Andy so much

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Lydian. I agree with all the points, but if you think that a player, who's got virtually all his best results on the faster hard courts - wouldn't want them speeded up then you're clearly not thinking straight. (Murray's never ever going to moan about the courts again, after the crucification he got for the tour comments last year)

In Dubai, easily the fastest court this year, we saw both Murray and Federer, with Roger giving one of his best performances - looking far better than everyone else. Rafa, quite rightly, took one look and avoided the place

Murray has wins at nearly all the Masters hardcourts - all of which are faster than the current fastest Slam

Basically, give us some proper Slam fast hard courts and suddenly Fed and Murray are in the mix. Keep giving us the turgid stuff and they are not

It's only Paris, where my argument falls down - but if we consider since he became a 'player' that since 2008 he's being either coming back from injury (2009) or carrying an injury (last year) we can excuse him

All the players, other than Federer are baseliners, simply because that's what the slow turgid hard courts dicates that they must do this. Murray out of all his rivals would S&V more than the others, but he's not strtegically daft enough to try this against Rafa at, say, last years US Open. The fastest Slam hard court conditons around, that resmebled Paris in June

Murrray's most succesful slam is on the Aussie Open slow rubber where he's made 2 finals. And there's no way Indian Wells and Miami are faster than the US Open or Wimbledon. They're probably the slowest Hard Courts on tour. Murray may generally play a more inventive game than the top 2 but he's as much a baseliner as anyone and was raised a counterpuncher. You keep throwing out these arguments about speed of surfaces to rationalize Murray's lagging behind the top 2/3 but your facts are often rather distorted. Claiming Nadal avoided Dubai because of the court speed is a somewhat spurious claim except you're somewhat privy to inside info from the Nadal camp. I may accept your argument for Federer but the if the top 2 had a clash with Murray on any slam surface, including pre-2011 US Open, I know where I'd lay my money - and it's not on the Scot.

You've misunderstood the point as (per usual) you think I am protecting Murray, so you come up with incorrect comparisons.

I've already stated that, and I quote "All the players, other than Federer are baseliners" so by inference I must mean Andy!! You state he's a counterpuncher, I agree. However, a counterpuncher is going to like a fast surface simply because they have the 'grinding' ablity to 'stay in the rounds' (to use the Boxing analogy ) but also have the speed and reflexes to finish their opponents off, early, if the opportunity arises or of course slug it out

I dunno why you're using IW as an example as Murray's never won it and even at Miami (which is probably the next slowest HC Masters) he's done well once. I note you omit the summer swing ones and Shanghai - which just happen to be the fastest other than Paris

If Andy's merely just a baseline slugger how come his Clay results don't match his hard court ones?

Also, he arguably gave Nadal his best beating at US Open 08, a surface that was playing very fast until the storms arrived. In 09', he was basically injured against Cilic (wrist) and admittedley played rubbish against Wawrinka in '10 - but that doesn't mean it's not his best surface. Everyone, which included hasty half aplogies from the organisers, was very dismayed by the slow nature of last years US Open

I too am not convinced that a superfast Slam surface would gurantee him a victory over the Top 2. But it would do two things, give him and Roger a better chance plus
more crucially give us some variety

As for Wimbledon, well unless the weather is good, which it hasn't being since about 2006 - then it's barely better than RG.

You see the point that some of us made last year (and I criticised Murray for going off at wrong tangent) it's not the schedule that's at fault - it's the lack of variety of surfaces at Slam level

At this rate, we'll never really know whether you're right or I am!!

mthierry wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Lydian. I agree with all the points, but if you think that a player, who's got virtually all his best results on the faster hard courts - wouldn't want them speeded up then you're clearly not thinking straight. (Murray's never ever going to moan about the courts again, after the crucification he got for the tour comments last year)

In Dubai, easily the fastest court this year, we saw both Murray and Federer, with Roger giving one of his best performances - looking far better than everyone else. Rafa, quite rightly, took one look and avoided the place

Murray has wins at nearly all the Masters hardcourts - all of which are faster than the current fastest Slam

Basically, give us some proper Slam fast hard courts and suddenly Fed and Murray are in the mix. Keep giving us the turgid stuff and they are not

It's only Paris, where my argument falls down - but if we consider since he became a 'player' that since 2008 he's being either coming back from injury (2009) or carrying an injury (last year) we can excuse him

All the players, other than Federer are baseliners, simply because that's what the slow turgid hard courts dicates that they must do this. Murray out of all his rivals would S&V more than the others, but he's not strtegically daft enough to try this against Rafa at, say, last years US Open. The fastest Slam hard court conditons around, that resmebled Paris in June

Murrray's most succesful slam is on the Aussie Open slow rubber where he's made 2 finals. And there's no way Indian Wells and Miami are faster than the US Open or Wimbledon. They're probably the slowest Hard Courts on tour. Murray may generally play a more inventive game than the top 2 but he's as much a baseliner as anyone and was raised a counterpuncher. You keep throwing out these arguments about speed of surfaces to rationalize Murray's lagging behind the top 2/3 but your facts are often rather distorted. Claiming Nadal avoided Dubai because of the court speed is a somewhat spurious claim except you're somewhat privy to inside info from the Nadal camp. I may accept your argument for Federer but the if the top 2 had a clash with Murray on any slam surface, including pre-2011 US Open, I know where I'd lay my money - and it's not on the Scot.

Have you any other reason to explain his absence for the last 4 years?

banbrotam wrote:
You've misunderstood the point as (per usual) you think I am protecting Murray, so you come up with incorrect comparisons.

I've already stated that, and I quote "All the players, other than Federer are baseliners" so by inference I must mean Andy!! You state he's a counterpuncher, I agree. However, a counterpuncher is going to like a fast surface simply because they have the 'grinding' ablity to 'stay in the rounds' (to use the Boxing analogy ) but also have the speed and reflexes to finish their opponents off, early, if the opportunity arises or of course slug it out

I dunno why you're using IW as an example as Murray's never won it and even at Miami (which is probably the next slowest HC Masters) he's done well once. I note you omit the summer swing ones and Shanghai - which just happen to be the fastest other than Paris

If Andy's merely just a baseline slugger how come his Clay results don't match his hard court ones?

Also, he arguably gave Nadal his best beating at US Open 08, a surface that was playing very fast until the storms arrived. In 09', he was basically injured against Cilic (wrist) and admittedley played rubbish against Wawrinka in '10 - but that doesn't mean it's not his best surface. Everyone, which included hasty half aplogies from the organisers, was very dismayed by the slow nature of last years US Open

I too am not convinced that a superfast Slam surface would gurantee him a victory over the Top 2. But it would do two things, give him and Roger a better chance plus
more crucially give us some variety

As for Wimbledon, well unless the weather is good, which it hasn't being since about 2006 - then it's barely better than RG.

You see the point that some of us made last year (and I criticised Murray for going off at wrong tangent) it's not the schedule that's at fault - it's the lack of variety of surfaces at Slam level

At this rate, we'll never really know whether you're right or I am!!

I think we had this argument lasy year when I asked for factual backing to your claims about the quick Asian swing which was contrary to my own perception. At the time, you even made it out that the Australian Open was a quick HC . Shanghai wasn't a quick HC. Until Andy produces the goods at another US Open, I can't take his quick court credentials too seriously. Murray's HC credentials don't match his clay ones cos his movement on the dirt isn't as good or comfortable and more powerful players blow him off court.

I also think Murrray's most impressive big win at a GS came against Nadal in the 2010 Australian Open; even more impressive than the '08 US Open win. I do agree with you about making, at least, Wimbledon quicker and hoping last year's US Open mess was just a one-time anomaly. I'd like that if only to hear less people crow about court speed and just appreciate the tennis and the players.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Have you any other reason to explain his absence for the last 4 years?

It could come at the wrong time of his ideal schedule. Hasn't he won the tournament in the past? No point speculating as to the reasons if you don't know them.

He won it in 2006 IIRC.
It's not a compulsory tournament so Nadal is allowed to miss it- I don't believe it fits his schedule (doesn't want to overplay before the Clay season has started) which is a shame as he has a good record there.

I also think Murrray's most impressive big win at a GS came against Nadal in the 2010 Australian Open; even more impressive than the '08 US Open win.

Disagree there.

One because Nadal retired from the match in 2010.

Two, Nadal was at his absolute peak in 2008.

Murray would have won that match in Aus 2010 anyway, Nadal only got injured later on.

I think both victories are as good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5oRINrzyBI

The shot I'm talking about specifically is at 0:33. It is a squash shot but he bends down dramatically and reaches out whereas most other players remain more upright and go into the splits.
In the final yesterday there was no backspin on the shot though, it was just a flick back deep into the court.

Fair play to Nadal in this point for showing some great defence. However, now watch the point from Djokovic's point of view, he plays every shot perfectly and still loses.

The fact is that the attacking shots are being blunted by the slow conditions and unbelievable defence. It's like giving Roddick sponge balls to serve with, he can't do anything with them.
I appreciate that clay should be slower than the other surfaces, but you should still be able to win the points in a conventional manner. Otherwise we have "Tennis 2.0".

I heard it mentioned in the ITV commentary that something like 80% of a player's training time is spent on physical work. Maybe someone should give Bolt a racquet!

The master of the squash shot is Federer!

Bizarre that your criticising Nadal for this.

Have you watched tennis over the last few years?

Federer's success in 2009 was down to a squash like drop shot. He deemed this 'cheap' and has been using it since to maintain position and placing in long points.

How can you criticise that defending- Thats what it is unbelievable defence.
Other players would be beaten trying to retrieve it.. but he does and he gets a winner. .You say that other players remain more upright and go into the splits...so they get one shot back.. but no Rafa does it the second time.
Why should we look at it from his opponents point of view .. a winning shot is a winning shot.. thats what makes Rafa Nadal who he is. This is the man that Federer once said.. "you never know you have beaten Rafa until you play that last shot"
Im sorry I dont understand your reasoning you want conventional tennis then dont watch Rafa, dont watch Tomic and above all dont watch Dolgopolov.. what year are you stuck in.

On that particular point, Rafa's squash shot dropped inside the service line, but Djoko failed to do much with his next shot, i.e. did not play perfectly, allowing Rafa to get the lob in - which was the best shot of the rally and ultimately led to him winning the point.
I love a good lob - it's an under-used shot these days. Murray uses it perhaps more than most, usually to good effect.