The Forehand is a Function

Imagine you’re at the eye doctor, staring at the vision chart. You can see every single line in perfect acuity, even the tiniest line at the very bottom. You have excellent vision, right? Not quite – there’s one more thing we need to check.

What if you turn your head, and the image stays the same? You try to look at the eye-doctor, but you can’t, because you’re still seeing the eye-chart, fixed in place, its little characters as clear as ever. What if, no matter where you look, no matter what light hits your eye, all you see is the chart?

Despite the crystal clear acuity, you would be, in a very real sense, totally blind.

Because vision is more than the ability to perceive a single image – vision is a process in your brain that produces an image based on the incoming light, and it is only as efficacious as its ability to change that image as the incoming light changes.

Your forehand is the same way. It is not a swing, but rather a neurological process in your brain that produces swings based on sensory input, and your Forehand Function, just like your vision, is only as good as its ability to change its output when its input changes.

The Forehand Function: (Senses) → Movement

The inputs to the Forehand Function are sensory. Primarily, your:

  • vision on the ball
  • sense of your body’s location, motion, and balance
  • vision on your opponent

These inputs often need to be processed further:

  • project the ball’s future flight
  • project your own set of movements
  • anticipate the moves of your opponent

Then there’s further, goal-oriented processing:

  • how should I send the ball back, tactically speaking?
  • what strike will create that desired ball flight?
  • how do I produce that strike at the ball’s eventual location?

After all of it, the output is a set of motor commands which, hopefully, produce a forehand swing that sends the ball back how you wanted to, and we judge the Forehand Function by how often and how well those motor commands win us tennis matches.

Losing Pretty vs Winning Ugly

If you were to stand still and reproduce a swing that looked exactly like Roger Federer’s, in an artistic sort of way, that would be impressive, and yet the ability to do so would be far from sufficient to play at Roger Federer’s level.

Actually, this isn’t really a hypothetical. Alexa and I have both worked with many students whose swings look amazing, in a naive sense of the word, and yet they don’t… well, actually work. Despite the aesthetic appeal, the strokes don’t produce the desired effects on the ball, and their owners can’t win tennis matches. At first, it seems like a paradox, but it’s not, because the forehand is not a swing, it’s a neurological function, whose output must, necessarily, vary based on its inputs, and whose very usefulness as a function only persists insofar as its sensitivity.

Losing pretty occurs precisely because the Forehand Function is miswired. It’s been optimized on creating a pretty stroke, regardless of the situation, rather than on striking the actual ball effectively. If you are losing pretty, there is a part of your Forehand Function that’s deficient. It is NOT the biomechanical piece – not the piece that sends commands for rotational power, or relaxes the forearm to facilitate topspin, or keeps your chest in-line. Those biomechanics are present; they’re what create the aesthetic appeal.

Typically, it’s an issue before that, during the processing steps:

  • project the ball’s location
  • decide how/where to send the ball
  • identify what kind of a strike to attempt
  • design a swing that will create that strike, at the ball’s location

The success of this process, which must take place intuitively, in mere milliseconds, is absolutely required for the Forehand Function to succeed, and it’s why, paradoxically, uglier swings are often more effective. The swings aren’t ugly as a first-principle, they are ugly because they were adjusted, correctly, during these processing steps. Typically, for an ugly swing, there was some moment of recognition, where the athlete realized:

“Hey, my perfect swing isn’t going to go through the location where the ball will end up. Or maybe it will, but it’ll send the ball out (or wide, net, whatever). I need to take a different, less perfect swing instead.”

And so even though the swing becomes ugly, it successfully strikes the actual ball, at the location where the ball did, in fact, end up, in a somewhat desirable way (not out). So even though the swing was ugly, the Forehand Function that produced it was actually quite beautiful, and effective. It categorically, overwhelmingly succeeded in its role, because it successfully altered its outputted movement pattern to accommodate the novel sensory input.

Anatomy of the Forehand Function

We want to develop an elite Forehand Function, which is a distinct entity from an elite forehand swing. The first ingredient is something we’re all aware of:

1. Biomechanical Efficiency

When your Forehand Function outputs movement commands, we want those commands to actually produce effortless racket head speed. This is certainly a critical ingredient for an elite Forehand Function, but it is just that. One, single part of the function.

2. Understand Your Own Contact Point

Where, in space, does your racket physically end up when you swing? This knowledge is absolutely critical to an effective Forehand Function. You must know where your swing will end up in order to put that swing through the ball.

3. Correctly Track the Ball’s Position and Velocity

You must correctly perceive both where the ball is and how it’s moving. This is both anticipatory and reactive. You can see the ball, of course, but you can’t directly observe velocity. It’s an inference your brain makes as you track the ball across time.

4. A Whole Bunch of Other Stuff

Those are the three big ones, and yet they alone are far from sufficient for a competent Forehand Function.

You must be physically able to produce the forehands you want to produce. Your brain must have enough ATP to actually run the Forehand Function, and your muscles enough to run the commands the Forehand Function produces. Your circulatory system must deliver that ATP to your brain and body, and your respiratory system must continuously re-oxygenate you to continue the process. Your muscles, tendons, ligaments, and fascia must not only be strong enough and resilient enough to produce forehand movements, but also sensitive enough to signal their position, velocity, stretch, and fatigue back to the Forehand Function, such that it can make precise use of them in the future.

You need to learn what your strikes on the ball actually do. What produces topspin? What hits the ball flat? Faster, slower? Higher, lower? A truly elite Forehand Function is in a state of constant calibration, whereby each output is then fed back, as an input, into the next iteration of the function to produce better results.

The entire decision making process must be trained as well, both tactically and strategically. What am I good at, what am I not, and then, on this particular shot, where and how should I hit the ball?

And much, much more – too much to go into right now.

Implications for Development

We cannot access our forehand swings directly – we only have access to the Forehand Function. That distinction is critical for forehand development. What is physically happening is not always relevant to how we program our Forehand Function. Physical reality often informs how we adjust our Forehand Function, but just because, physically, your body should move in a certain way, does not necessarily mean that thinking about that fact will have a beneficial effect.

Missing Sensations

The most quintessential example of a physical reality which doesn’t help when verbalized is the “hip-shoulder separation” cue, which tends to, paradoxically, have the exact opposite effect on the kinetic chain as intended. Physically, the pelvis does outpace the trunk for a very brief period early in the swing, but since that minuscule timing window is all but impossible to feel, when players try to implement “hips → trunk,” they typically create a far longer delay than what works, leading to the power transfer between hips and trunk totally breaking down.

(Full breakdown of this critically important situation coming soon.)

Subjectivity

Similarly important, sensory experience will vary from student-to-student. This is relevant with both drills and cues. A drill which unlocks an “aha” sensation for one student might fall completely flat for another. A verbal cue, something like “press your shoulder” might have similarly disparate impact. As a coach, it’s your job to engage with each student. Try to get inside their head, try to reverse engineer their personal Forehand Function, and avoid, although it’s quite difficult, over-generalizing from your own. If you’re able to do it successfully, that’s when the interventions really become magic.

Decoupling is Critical

We must decouple the Forehand Function from the forehand stroke itself. Drills, cues, and everything we do in practice can only, ever, effect the mechanics of the Forehand Function, the neurological process which produces swings. We can never directly modify the swings themselves, and in fact, individual swings themselves are far less relevant than they initially appear. The Forehand Function is what your player will be running, over and over again, as they play a match, and therefore it is the Forehand Function that must be optimized.

Rafael Nadal moments before passing Alexander Zverev with a down-the-line forehand winner.

What’s so impressive about Rafael Nadal’s banana passing shots is not that he is physically able to produce that swing – what’s impressive is the process that produces it. In mere moments, he processes his opponent’s position, the ball’s position and velocity, his own movement. Maps out a strike that can pass his opponent, maps out how to create that strike, at the exact location the ball will end up, right when it ends up there. His Forehand Function takes all of that, and then has the precision to produce an elegant set of biomechanical movement commands which create effortless racket head speed from a compromised position. All of it goes well, the strike goes as planned, and the result is the banana-shot winner.

It’s so much more than just a swing.

7 Comments

  1. Murtaza Khalil
    July 1, 2025

    Can you elaborate on striking a little bit more? Personally, I find that probing the ball is the single most important thing I can do for my striking, assuming I have time to probe the ball for the shot I want to hit. I find that focusing too much on strikes can, at times, impede my forehand. The reason I believe is that I focus too much on how I want to hit that it takes me out of flow. Like, in my head, I could think, “okay, opponent’s approaching net, time to hit a passing shot, now I should deliver a strike along X side of ball for it to go X direction.” Obviously, the majority of the time I do this decision making, it’s non verbal and more instinctual. However, when I have more time or the gall to be more flashy, I think more about how I want to hit and now literally thinking about it has taken my mental ability to continue probing, preparing, and so on. So, from a third person’s perspective, I look like I’m stuck in quicksand, and just glaring intently at the ball(in my mind, I’m processing some complex vector, to deliver some shot that could theoretically work but moreso serves my own ego than actually gets me to win due to its sheer complexity). Instead, of reacting instinctively and moving. My question is, to what degree, is the process of striking a matter that we should focus on as opposed to other equally important aspects of the forehand. Or, do these processes give way to each other? “I must probe here to deliver x strike” What’s the optimal way to perform this process? Do I see what my opponents hits, and I immediately decide my ball? Now, everything from there is focused on probing and preparation to deliver such a strike? When does striking become a mental resource drain? I hope this question makes sense. One more question, and I think it’s something I’ve always wondered about your philosophy, throughout my whole tennis journey, you are the only person from among a multitude of individuals that have talked about striking vs. swinging. I think partly the reason why is the whole Roger Federer aesthetic romance fans have with trying to make a stroke look like his. But, also, striking is easier to employ on some strokes versus others. The forehand being the hardest, maybe the serve as well. I find that when I want to dropshot or lob or some other shot that requires some level of finesse on the ball, I find myself far more likely to watch the ball deeper into my contact zone, mentally determine the strike I wish to deliver, focus on delivering that strike, executing, and then see if I make. With the forehand, especially since it’s taught as a swing, it is far more likely that focus will be taken away from striking and more on how a swing looks. This rings true in my mind from the “Inner Game of Tennis” when the coach tells a player to see what’s wrong on his forehand by seeing himself in a mirror. What is your experience with striking being more intuitive on some shots vs. others? Extremely long post. Thanks for reading.

    Reply
    1. Johnny (FTF)
      July 1, 2025

      Very good question, thanks for posting. Let’s get one thing straight from the start:

      This is an intuitive process, not a verbal process. So if your perception of “striking” is “thinking about how to hit the ball on X side for X reason” then “striking” is NOT something you want to do.

      It’s always difficult to convey these ideas in articles, because in articles I must verbalize, since it’s a verbal medium. Those processing steps I listed in the anatomy section – they’re non-verbal. They’re vague sensations, formless thoughts that could only be articulated into words after-the-fact.

      My guess is that the process that you label “probing” is very similar to the one I tend to label “preparing for a strike,” and so it will be very effective for you to focus on “probing” as you play. Probing is a phenomenal emphasis, and you’re likely not going to plateau because that is, intuitively, how you see the game.

      Here’s where players tend to get stuck – focusing on the other side of the court. That’s most of what I’m trying to communicate with the “striking” idea, especially on something like a passing shot. You need to strike the ball in front of you. That is your goal. Yes, you want to pass your opponent, but your locus of attention needs to be on the ball in front of you, not on the open space up the line. For you, personally, you are focused on probing the ball, so your locus of attention is correctly on the ball in front of you, and I expect you’ll succeed with that.

      Reply
      1. Murtaza Khalil
        July 1, 2025

        Yeah that makes a lot of sense. I forgot for a while the importance of adequate preparation, until I saw your video on trusting your forehand and probing was a whole section. I tried it out for myself, and oh my God, the difference was night and day. I am a naturally good ball striker. When I was in position and tracking well, I could blast winners with good margin. But, somewhere along the way, I got cocky and didn’t focus on positioning anymore, probably because I saw videos of Fed warming up. Now, I am really focusing on movement and preparing for the strikes I want to do bia proper spacing and body orientation. It’s night and day truly. Probably the most critical link for someone if they have a good forward swing is then an intuitive understanding of desired contact points. And how to adjust with their trunk via tilts of shoulder and torso.

        Reply
  2. Hal
    July 2, 2025

    What does this even mean ? Is hitting a forehand really that involved and difficult? Don’t think so
    .

    Reply
    1. Johnny (FTF)
      July 7, 2025

      No, but coaching the forehand in a way that produces meaningful, match-ready improvement is.

      Reply
  3. Colin
    July 3, 2025

    “(Here’s our full breakdown of this critically important situation.)”

    Was this intended to be a hyperlink?

    Reply
    1. Johnny (FTF)
      July 7, 2025

      Oh yeah, I should probably take that out until I finish the next article haha.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *