Time machine

First topic message reminder :

During the exiting final of Queens i was wondering what would happen if we send the current top 50 back in time 30 years.
So what would the top 10 ranking be if tennis was played with smaller and heavier rackets and balls?

I’d say the top 4 would survive. Ferrer, Berdych, Monfils are out, simply not handy enough. Sod had very good results on indoor courts, knows how to play under fast conditions but i chose Delpo instead.
Fish is an interesting one, i’ve seen him play live and was impressed with how clean the guy can hit a ball. He looks heavy on the screen but in real live appears to be a very decent player. But he just didn't made it..
I would say some single handed BH’ers would be more succesful and of course the attacking ones.
A big server has to be on my list too.

And now the difficult part, the ranking. BTW: I’m not judging upon the current form, just the bigger picture. My principles: Serve and netplay become more important, fitness and the importance of the DHBH: the opposite

10. Andy Roddick, how to break his serve under those conditions? He’s a top 10 player for 8 years now, so 30 years ago he would he would be one too

9. Youznhy. The guy wasn’t made for these times but would have been very competitive back then. His lack of power wouldn’t have been such a big deal. And i want an extra SHBH on the list.

8. Delpo, Probably the most talented of todays big hitters. Just recall the US open 2009 final and it’s hard to ignore him.

7. Tsonga. 2 words: Yannick Noah

6. Nadal. Week in week out playing on courts like Bercy or Cincy, AND faster balls? Ouch! But hey, there still would be clay and that’s where he would secure his top 10 position

5. Gasquet. See Youznhy, even more talented though. Plenty of room for artists early 80’s

4. Djoko. Two words: Jimmy Conners (don’t worry, i like Djoko much more than Jimbo!)

3. Murray. Under those conditions i rank him higher than Djoko: softer hands! His passive FH wouldn’t have been such a weakness. Even Borg was “placing” the ball with his FH like Andy does so often.

2. Nalbandian. The grinding got the better of his hips, wouldn’t have happened back then. Would have loved the carpet. Proved he can be too fast for my no.1 too on several occasions.

1. Federer. Remove Nadals FH crosscourt, what could have stopped Federer from winning 20 slams?

I know Davydenko should be on the list, but i don’t want to sacrifice Youznhy

Remember, pick your players from todays top 50. This is not meant to be a Nadal-Borg debate.

gallery play wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

You know what clubs do when they play against FC Barcelona? Longer grass. Moreover: Hard rain, wind, snow, hail, anything.. all will be welcome. The less true the conditions become, the better chance the "mortals" will have.

It obviously takes more skill to hit a fast traveling ball than a slow one

But then likewise it takes more skill to hit a slow ball in such a way to get it past someone - someone, who will clearly have more time to get and play it back at you than they would on the faster surface.

I.e on fast grass - harder to hit the ball, easier to hit a winner - clay: easier to hit the ball, harder to hit a winner

any of these type of arguments have a reflective point to consider.

gallery play wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote: There is no rule which says winning on fast surface means more talent.

You know what clubs do when they play against FC Barcelona? Longer grass. Moreover: Hard rain, wind, snow, hail, anything.. all will be welcome. The less true the conditions become, the better chance the "mortals" will have.

It obviously takes more skill to hit a fast traveling ball than a slow one

Barcelona win matches under any kind of condition, they are that talented.
Tell me how a fast travelling ball requires more skill than a slower ball. The likes of Soderling are the most talented then, they live of fast balls.

They wish they could play on faster surfaces where they didnt get moved around as much in a game of chess,

That is hilarious and says so much about your lack of objectivity. What's "chessy" about hitting always the same ball as hard as possible cross court? How come though everybodytries the same plan against Federer but only Nadal succeeds at it...on clay?

Of course nothing to do with the fact that on clay Nadal has enough time to bludgeon the ball senselessly with less requirement for eye/hand coordination due to the slower pace?

Tenez wrote:

They wish they could play on faster surfaces where they didnt get moved around as much in a game of chess,

That is hilarious and says so much about your lack of objectivity. What's "chessy" about hitting always the same ball as hard as possible cross court? How come though everybodytries the same plan against Federer but only Nadal succeeds at it...on clay?

Of course nothing to do with the fact that on clay Nadal has enough time to bludgeon the ball senselessly with less requirement for eye/hand coordination due to the slower pace?

So likewise Federer has more time to line up shots to land on/near the line on clay?

Does Nadal do the same thing to every player on clay? or does he just go for the one shot against Federer's BH, before the forehand winner, because that is tactically' the best method to win the point vs. federer?

Has Djokovic not succeeded in beating Federer in slams on HC. Has Nadal's tactics not worked on grass and HC?

So likewise Federer has more time to line up shots to land on/near the line on clay?
---------------------------------

Well Tom how long have you been watching and playing tennis?

Federer never had any trouble with his opponent's strategy. His problem is handling a ball carrying very high energy like Safin's weight of shots (when safin could cut out UEs) or Nadal's crazy spiny ball. It's putting this crazy ball away which is quite difficult to do. Much easier when the conditions are fast like in Shanghai...haven't you noticed? I am sre Nadal did.

I've seen the likes of almagro, Wawrinka, Gasquet played Nadal on hc and clay and they never seem to struggle with their SHB when topspin is played to them. Federer might just be lacking technically on the backhand side and after 7 years playing Nadal, still hasn't learnt.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I've seen the likes of almagro, Wawrinka, Gasquet played Nadal on hc and clay and they never seem to struggle with their SHB when topspin is played to them. Federer might just be lacking technically on the backhand side and after 7 years playing Nadal, still hasn't learnt.

Really? And do they have a better record than Roger v Nadal?

Tenez wrote:So likewise Federer has more time to line up shots to land on/near the line on clay?
---------------------------------

Well Tom how long have you been watching and playing tennis?

Federer never had any trouble with his opponent's strategy. His problem is handling a ball carrying very high energy like Safin's weight of shots (when safin could cut out UEs) or Nadal's crazy spiny ball. It's putting this crazy ball away which is quite difficult to do. Much easier when the conditions are fast like in Shanghai...haven't you noticed? I am sre Nadal did.

The points you appear to have missed here tenez, are firstly that if Nadal has more time to execute a shot, so does the opponent when directing a shot TO Nadal on clay - When you discuss nadal you always seem to think that every point starts with a mid-court shot from Nadal. The reality is that the other players in 50% of points have a chance to play a ball to Nadal. If we assume Nadal has more time on clay to hit his shot then naturally the opponent has more time to accurately/powerfully pick a spot for a winner or difficult get for Nadal. Secondly the argument is null, when Nadal has executed this gameplan to beat federer on faster courts in other slams. If you're argument is that most courts are too slow, then maybe Federer has his tactics and training wrong for the current circuit?

Separately to the above you may have noted (if you bothered to watch with any focus) that this year Federer won 17 of 29 rallies of 10 shots or more at the FO 2011, so maybe this time it was other areas of his game that faltered, or were simply outplayed by Nadal?

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I've seen the likes of almagro, Wawrinka, Gasquet played Nadal on hc and clay and they never seem to struggle with their SHB when topspin is played to them. Federer might just be lacking technically on the backhand side and after 7 years playing Nadal, still hasn't learnt.

Really? And do they have a better record than Roger v Nadal?

Do you mean record of wins?

The only way the H2H would be significant in determining whether playing topspin to someone's backhand is more effective against one player than another is if you think that one particular player only plays topspin to some ones backhand and nothing else. Now if a player were to be able to adopt several strategies to beat other players, then the success of any particular shot maybe very different even if the H2H records were identical for two different opponents.

Come on tenez, you've been watching tennis long enough to know the result of a match does not hold all the detail.

Whether those players have a better h2h record against Nadal compared to Federer is irrelevant to the main point here, the strength of their SHB against Nadal and many times they never seem to struggle against Nadal's cross court fh. They simply have a better technique.

The topic at hand "what would happen if we send the current top 50 back in time 30 years."

has turned into

"this year Federer won 17 of 29 rallies of 10 shots or more at the FO 2011, so maybe this time it was other areas of his game that faltered, or were simply outplayed by Nadal?"

Very interesting. So all reasonable(??) topics lead to a Fedal debate or should it be called 'Who is the GOAT debate"?

Clearly shows the limitations of ....

I agree with the point that Almagro, Wawrinka, and Gasquet handle the high ball better on the single handed backhand than Fed does. There is no surprise there, I would say all those guys have better one handers than Roger. Roger has a good single hander and is capable of some great shots with it but I wouldn't say it is overwhelming. Although his single hander plays better on the quicker lower bouncing courts because he has as good a slice backhand as there is on tour.

I agree with the point that Almagro, Wawrinka, and Gasquet handle the high ball better
---------------------------------
No, they do not. Like Federer, they hold it well at the beginning of teh match, for a set at best and then they also lose their timing there.....once they lose this vital physical edge so important to those who need that perfect timing.

If they were holding their BH better Nadal would play them differently but he doesn't. Same tactic. Senseless hammering until that BH breaks down.

Tom_____ wrote:But then likewise it takes more skill to hit a slow ball in such a way to get it past someone - someone, who will clearly have more time to get and play it back at you than they would on the faster surface.

I.e on fast grass - harder to hit the ball, easier to hit a winner - clay: easier to hit the ball, harder to hit a winner

But that's something different!
If that was the case players would consider to serve as slow as possible, just to prefend the opponant from hitting a winner..

If a baseball pitcher could find a way to throw 50 m/ph faster he certainly would do that. Even though it makes it "easier" to strike a homerun from that speed...problem is: how to clean hit a 150 m/ph travalin ball...

But then likewise it takes more skill to hit a slow ball in such a way to get it past someone - someone, who will clearly have more time to get and play it back at you than they would on the faster surface.

And that's plain wrong anyway....cause if the pace is slow, you can still make the pace but for that it's easier to have muscles. This is exactly where Nadal's big arms come into it....and even better, Soderling or Delpotro swings. That's why those two do well on slower courts cause their power compensate for slow pace and can still generate enough pace to make it impossible to get past their opponent without beng forced into making mistakes.

Tenez, when i watched Gasquet v. Nadal, Nadal was not pounding it at his backhand he was going after the Gasquet forehand just like everyone else on tour does and it was paying dividends and Gasquet was dropping the ball short. In general, Nadal does have a tendency to play his forehand cross court which is the safest foreahand, and if his opponent eventually breaks down like Roger does then why would he ever change, its a high reward low risk proposition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik3p2nNSBYI&feature=related

No he doesn't! I can't see on this clip what is troubling Nadal from those high loopy BH from Gasquet. Gasquet can only stay in the rally with those which clearly works against him as the match goes on.

And of course, Federer's FH is a little bit better than Gasquet so Nadal certainly is very weary of playing Federer's on his FH as often.

Tenez, no question Nadal would stay away from Fed's forehand that is the whole point, why would you play at your opponent's strength? Roger has a good but not great one hander, other one handers handle the high ball better, but it is generally harder to handle the high heavy ball on the one handed backhand and easier to handle with a two hander. There is nothing controversial here, it is plain as the eye can see. Sorry can't watch your youtube would take me a year to download it here not to mention youtube is filtered (although there may be ways around it). Nadal does what every single player who plays Fed want to do, which is to stay away from his forehand as much as possible. But since Nadal is lefty he has the added advantage of playing cross court to Fed's backhand and with his heavy spin it is even more of an advantage. Nadal is just better at it than everyone else but the playbook for playing Fed is to make him hit backhands, partially because he is more likely to breakdown, but also because you want to avoid his forehand like the plague.

it is plain as the eye can see.
---------------------

Yet, you can;t see the clip and what is plain to see! Nadal doesn't lose v SHBH. So instead seeing what is obvious on those clips, you fill your posts with banalities we all know. They can all pull winners with their SHBH, including Fed but it's a high risk strategy that doesn't pay off on clay and now doesn't pay off anywhere on those slow conds. Federer is the only SHBH that has beaten Nadal on clay since 2005! Gaudio is the only one that did before that...with the argentine crowd behind him v a younger Nadal. Fed coudl not ave done it if his BH wasn;t as good as the others. You are really underestimating hs BH, like many here...but frankly v Djoko and Nadal on clay it was better than any other BH I have seen. Certainly the one that scores most games and sets v Nadal!

gallery play wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:But then likewise it takes more skill to hit a slow ball in such a way to get it past someone - someone, who will clearly have more time to get and play it back at you than they would on the faster surface.

I.e on fast grass - harder to hit the ball, easier to hit a winner - clay: easier to hit the ball, harder to hit a winner

But that's something different!
If that was the case players would consider to serve as slow as possible, just to prefend the opponant from hitting a winner..

If a baseball pitcher could find a way to throw 50 m/ph faster he certainly would do that. Even though it makes it "easier" to strike a homerun from that speed...problem is: how to clean hit a 150 m/ph travalin ball...

Two points here

firstly on the home run thing, it isn't easier to hit a home run from a faster ball, purely because its harder to hit the ball cleanly, even though the rebound power is higher. Its still clearly advantageous to pitch faster to a batter, as the disadvantage to the batter outweighs the advantage.

With tennis, hit speed is not the only thing to considered, because normally the ball has to bounce before being struck. Its a simple matter of physics that if the courts slows the ball so it can be struck harder/more accurately on clay, then the opponent gets the same benefit when the ball hits the ground on their side of the net, so even though you have time to hit the ball harder/more accurately on a clay court, you face the disadvantage that it is harder to get the ball past an opponent, who it reaping reward of a slower surface. As the average rally length is higher on clay courts, it obvious that the slowing effect of the court has is such an advantage to the returner (batter) that far less winners (strikes) are struck (per stroke) on a clay court compared to a grass court. Therefore it is easier to hit a winner on a grass court than on a clay court, but conversely, its harder to strike (pitch) the ball accurately on grass or hit (bat) cleanly in the first place. Both surfaces provide the same level of difficultly to play on, but yield advantages to different skill sets.

With Federer and Nadal it appears Nadal could probably beat Federer in an basic curling and shoulder pressing, but i'd wager money that Federer could shift more weight when doing dumbell flies, such is his build - they have clearly trained towards strengthening their usual gameplan/natural abilities.

Therefore it is easier to hit a winner on a grass court than on a clay court, but conversely, its harder to strike (pitch) the ball accurately on grass or hit (bat) cleanly in the first place. Both surfaces provide the same level of difficultly to play on, but yield advantages to different skill sets.
----------------------------------

Eureka!!! One surface favours talent through those better at eye/hand coordination skills while the slower surface gives the advantage to the physical players.

Why on earth are we discussuing this when we have been knowing that since the invention of the game?

Tenez wrote:Therefore it is easier to hit a winner on a grass court than on a clay court, but conversely, its harder to strike (pitch) the ball accurately on grass or hit (bat) cleanly in the first place. Both surfaces provide the same level of difficultly to play on, but yield advantages to different skill sets.
----------------------------------

Eureka!!! One surface favours talent through those better at eye/hand coordination skills while the slower surface gives the advantage to the physical players.

Why on earth are we discussuing this when we have been knowing that since the invention of the game?

That's what i thought too . I had to read Tom's post twice, but then i realized he backs up my argument

I can't see how a fast surfaces favours players other than 1 dimensional flat hitters and big servers. When they play on slow surface where the pace of the ball drops and it requires more technique and ability to construct a point, work with angles etc, they come awfully short. why do people think Federer has such a great record against big server is flat hitters? He feeds of the pace of their flat balls which never changes. The likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic don't give him that luxury.

Tenez wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik3p2nNSBYI&feature=related

No he doesn't! I can't see on this clip what is troubling Nadal from those high loopy BH from Gasquet. Gasquet can only stay in the rally with those which clearly works against him as the match goes on.

And of course, Federer's FH is a little bit better than Gasquet so Nadal certainly is very weary of playing Federer's on his FH as often.

There is some real hilarity in that video clip you have chosen tenez.

On clay we are used to seeing Nadal go to Feds backhand, trying to open up a chance for a winner past the forehand. Yet on this clip the very first point we see NAdal go to Gasquet's forehand 6 times in a row, before hitting a winner past the backhand - an exact reflection of the tactic Nadal uses against Federer. This is simply Nadal choosing the correct tactics against a particular player. Had you watched this match in full, rather than just picked a highlight reel, you might have noticed Nadal often went to Gasquet's forehand to get into points, rather than to his (somewhat dangerous) backhand. Even in this highlight clip you see a mixture from Nadal going to forehand, backhand, hitting several winners and moving gasquet around the court, rather than powerful forehands into an opened court.

If you rewind to 2005 in the same tourny in the SF (you know... the one where Gasquet was up a set and a break on what was to become some of Nadals best clay???) - you might notice that Gasquet makes Nadal come up with far more variety to beat him. Gasquet in my opinion was a better player back then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNMRF6mF2Ts&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UB4qZpgl68&feature=related

Naturally there is the argument here that Nadal may not be as effective at this earlier stage in his career, but you should not only consider one match in any particular analysis.

Tenez wrote:Therefore it is easier to hit a winner on a grass court than on a clay court, but conversely, its harder to strike (pitch) the ball accurately on grass or hit (bat) cleanly in the first place. Both surfaces provide the same level of difficultly to play on, but yield advantages to different skill sets.
----------------------------------

Eureka!!! One surface favours talent through those better at eye/hand coordination skills while the slower surface gives the advantage to the physical players.

Why on earth are we discussuing this when we have been knowing that since the invention of the game?

I'd thought you'd go for that reply as it exposes your view of tennis, in that you appear to think that it takes more 'talent' to counter a fast pace ball using good reactions, than to hit a precise shot with power and accuracy multiple times. These things both require talent, only different types - it depends which you can appreciate. Personally i appreciate both equally, hence Federer and Nadal are both greatly talented in my view.

For example theres an age old argument in snooker asking who is more talented out of Hendry and O'Sullivan. I never liked Hendry much, but even though O'Sullivan clearly has some of the best shots and feel for the game, it very hard to argue that O'Sullivan is more talented, because Hendry's other talents, such as focus, determination and better ability to handle pressure largely outweigh O'Sullivans in terms of results.

If it were simply Physical strength that battered Federer on a clay court, you would see several other players able to challenge him on the surface over the years. In truth, Nadal is the only one consistently able.

Simple_Analyst wrote:I can't see how a fast surfaces favours players other than 1 dimensional flat hitters and big servers. When they play on slow surface where the pace of the ball drops and it requires more technique and ability to construct a point, work with angles etc, they come awfully short. why do people think Federer has such a great record against big server is flat hitters? He feeds of the pace of their flat balls which never changes. The likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic don't give him that luxury.

This is also why it has been argued that Federer is more of a counterpuncher than many of the current elite. Although Federer has obvious weapons and ability to place shots, he does rely far more than Djoko and Nadal on the opponents pace - this is why he has such a dominant H2H over Roddick imo. I think Murray also uses the pace of an opponents shot to a large degree, but he doesn't always choose to use it and becomes a very awkward opponent.

Simple_Analyst wrote:The likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic don't give him that luxury.

Watch the FO 2011 Fed-Djoko match.

Murray lost to Rafa @FO 2011 despite a DHBH. Djoko has a DHBH. Soderling has a DHBH.

Tom_____ wrote:I'd thought you'd go for that reply as it exposes your view of tennis, in that you appear to think that it takes more 'talent' to counter a fast pace ball using good reactions, than to hit a precise shot with power and accuracy multiple times. These things both require talent, only different types - it depends which you can appreciate. Personally i appreciate both equally, hence Federer and Nadal are both greatly talented in my view.

Exactly my point too. Tenez it always appears to me wants every argument to be polarised, he never seeks middle-ground. Talent clearly comes in different packages...its about winning tennis matches at the end of the day. Pro tennis isnt about a beauty pagent of stroke making, otherwise Gasquet should have 16 slams, its about winning titles and knowing what it takes to win them against different players. Federer. Nadal and Djokovic know how to win in different ways vs others on tour at the moment - there is not a right to win matches, nor should there be otherwise we would have a Top100 of players all playing exactly the same way. Great!

The beauty of tennis is in its variety, in the different skills sets displayed to us used to extract the wins. I dont know why people cannot appreciate styles of all types because at this top level, the skills needed are prodigous by any of them. They are all extremely fit, strong, talented and full of determination. Some of the top players use different tactics to win, and some of them are maybe better at exploiting weaknesses than others, some are better at flat-hitting, some are better at hitting precise shot after precise shot, some are great volleyers, some are great defensively, and on and on. Why should we only favour one style of play over another when that style is winning titles, matches, slams...these guys are going out to do what they do best, and thats win matches. If people dont like a certain player then fine, just say it, get over it and discuss something else. We dont need ad nauseum recanting of the same points over and over again.

It just seems to me that certain posters want to argue alot of the time to be simply contrary and need to be seen to win an argument from an almost narcissistic standpoint - kind of "I won that argument....na na, na na, naaaaa".

As Laverfan says, almost every thread seems to turn into a 'Fedal' debate, yes I had a few comments myself on pros/cons of mental approach, etc, but it seems to always to converge on a dig at the physicality of Nadal (and I wonder where Tenez wants to ultimately lead that discussion) and his 'lack' of talent.

I'm quite frankly bored of seeing the same discussions on here, its time to move the discussion on to other players outside Fedal surely...?

Tom_____ wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I can't see how a fast surfaces favours players other than 1 dimensional flat hitters and big servers. When they play on slow surface where the pace of the ball drops and it requires more technique and ability to construct a point, work with angles etc, they come awfully short. why do people think Federer has such a great record against big server is flat hitters? He feeds of the pace of their flat balls which never changes. The likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic don't give him that luxury.

This is also why it has been argued that Federer is more of a counterpuncher than many of the current elite. Although Federer has obvious weapons and ability to place shots, he does rely far more than Djoko and Nadal on the opponents pace - this is why he has such a dominant H2H over Roddick imo. I think Murray also uses the pace of an opponents shot to a large degree, but he doesn't choose to use it and becomes a very awkward opponent.

Is the highlighted part not a contradiction? Perhaps Simon should have won a couple of Slams by now.

What about Fed's H2h against Djoko?

lydian wrote:
As Laverfan says, almost every thread seems to turn into a 'Fedal' debate, yes I had a few comments myself on pros/cons of mental approach, etc, but it seems to always to converge on a dig at the physicality of Nadal (and I wonder where Tenez wants to ultimately lead that discussion) and his 'lack' of talent.

I'm quite frankly bored of seeing the same discussions on here, its time to move the discussion on to other players outside Fedal surely...?

There is so much tennis being played right now and should be appreciated. Eastbourne, Den Bosch... Let us have a Fedal debate after they both retire.

Tenez... read Icecold's comments again and appreciate talent on all sides.

I'd thought you'd go for that reply as it exposes your view of tennis, in that you appear to think that it takes more 'talent' to counter a fast pace ball using good reactions, than to hit a precise shot with power and accuracy multiple times. ----------------------------------

That's where you go wrong! As explained earlier, whacking the ball senselessly by clearing the net and the lines by a good safety margin, is not what you describe here. Nadal's shots are safe...and you may not have realised that the harder he hits them, the safer they get. This is exactly the opposite of a flatter hitter like Federer.

If you and Lydian don't want to admit that Nadal's shots are essentially about power and that he is focusing on taking the cloth off the ball instead of "accurate" placement as you would like us to believe, then it certainly cut short the discussion. On faster surfaces, things change of course as it gets more difficult for him to hit safely as th eball comes faster...so he also has less time to inject that spin.

Surely you know all that.

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:
Sure Nadal's topspin would be entirely toothless but he himself would be able to retrieve any ball and we would have endless rallies where only the fittest would stand at the end. And we know who that is.

As long he defends, no problem. It's the counterpunch which makes him so deadly. The attacker can't afford to hit one less lethal shot, because that brings Nadal back in the rally in no time. Rafa's swings his racket so fast, that there's always the possibility for Rafa to take over. Imo his shoulder would not have been able to swing that fast (and so long) with those rackets.

BTW: I'm not sure who it was but didn't a big server of recent times produced easily 140 m/ph serves with a wooden racket?

Left hander Roscoe Tanner who reached the Wimbledon Final in 1979 I believe could produce 140 mph serves using a Wooden Racket. What about the power that Jimmy Connors could generate of his metal/aluminium framed racket?

So in other words Tenez, if we agree with then you stop the argument. Funny for someone who appears to be quite bright that you fail to see the flaws in your debating style.

Oh, and in case you hadnt noticed, they all take the cloth of the ball. Its called modern tennis.

"Surely you know all that." - we all know that YOU know that...

Nothing new to see here, move along folks...

So Nadal should adopt flat hitting in his matches just because some critics accuse him of playing loopy topspin balls? Lol. Every condition calls for something different as we saw at the USO last year when Nadal changed his grip to eastern grip to serve and hit flatter especially on the backhand and down the line forehand all to devastating effects. You might think it's unfair he plays topspin to Federer but it's not, he is just being more sensible.

Tom, I agree with you, I watched Nadal play Gasquet in MC or Madrid? this year and like every other player he was hitting the ball way more to Gasquet's forehand, and guess what Gazza has a single handed backhand but handles that ball better than Fed. Everybody on tour tries to find Fed's backhand, not because it is deficient, I think it is a good backhand and capable of some great shots. They try to find his backhand because he has one of the top if not the best forehand in the history of the game. Also players who take the ball earlier, ie like Federer all are using the pace of the opposition against them, its not really counterpunching as we understand it, it is more like using the pace of the ball against the opposition. Generating pace on your own requires a bigger swing, and a later contact point (ie like Nadal, and Djoko's forehands).

Lydian, again makes a most astute point. The goal is to win, it isn't a beauty contest of shots. Players have different skills sets, different builds, and different talents. They have to craft a strategy and style that maximizes their ability to win. Afterall that is what they get paid for. Personally, I prefer one style over other types of style, but I don't think that we should denigrate players who play differently. Variety afterall is the spice of life. And for all the talk about homogenization most of the top guys are very well rounded and know that they have to have a plan A and a plan B.

We sometimes forget how good all these players are in, say, the top 50. Has anyone on the forum knocked up with a top 10 player? I havent but I've watched them practice from 5 yards away and its actually quite awe inspiring the amount of power and control they have. TV doesnt get it across at all. All these top guys are amazingly talented...they have to be to get where they are, because they have had to win their way to the top. There are no shortcuts.

Agree socal, it makes no sense to keep playing to someone's strength unless you are taking the very risky approach of trying to break that side down. Its human nature to do so, when you are trained in martial arts and enter kumite, as you circle around each other you probe for weaknesses, for limitations - and when you find them you go after them. This is sport. This is about winning. I too like some players over others but recognise they all bring something to the mix - following tennis doesnt have to be about fawning over one player and throwing muck at another who is a challenge to the one you fawn. Its actually quite childish.

laverfan wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I can't see how a fast surfaces favours players other than 1 dimensional flat hitters and big servers. When they play on slow surface where the pace of the ball drops and it requires more technique and ability to construct a point, work with angles etc, they come awfully short. why do people think Federer has such a great record against big server is flat hitters? He feeds of the pace of their flat balls which never changes. The likes of Nadal, Murray, Djokovic don't give him that luxury.

This is also why it has been argued that Federer is more of a counterpuncher than many of the current elite. Although Federer has obvious weapons and ability to place shots, he does rely far more than Djoko and Nadal on the opponents pace - this is why he has such a dominant H2H over Roddick imo. I think Murray also uses the pace of an opponents shot to a large degree, but he doesn't choose to use it and becomes a very awkward opponent.

Is the highlighted part not a contradiction? Perhaps Simon should have won a couple of Slams by now.

What about Fed's H2h against Djoko?

Well the highlighted part is one and a half sentences, so its naturally going to be out of context. Nice bit of tabloid selectivity there. Personally i don't think Federer is a sole counterpuncher, hence i brought up a contradictory point, whilst acknowledging that the other view (counterpuncher) is not solely without basis - surely its really quite obvious.

Not really sure why you wanted it, but Feds H2H against Djoko is 14-9. Compared to rivalries over the years this is quite close (swing of 3 matches). 3-1 clay (1 ret) 11-8 on HC.
Nadal is 17-8, Murray is 8-6. Overall against the others in the top 4 Federer is 28-34 down.

For comparison:

Nadal is 44-23 up
Djokovic is 26-28 down
Murray is 15 - 23 down

Federer has the 3rd best H2H record against the others in the top 4. Seems to me that these are the three guys who trouble him most consistently.

Socal

In table tennis the early shot using your opponents pace is described as counter-hitting, and I think that's a much better description of how Federer, Davydenko and previously Agassi approach the game.

I'd say one of the reasons for Nadal's effectiveness is because he is an extremely good defensive counter-puncher in the classic sense i.e. he only needs one opportunity (short ball or one not pushing him wide enough) to turn an unpromising defensive position into one where he is dominant in the rally and can then unleash the big forehand.

In the same way as most opponents steer away from Federer's forehand, they tend to do the same against Rafa because they know that a short ball that he can get the forehand on is probably going past them. The problem sometimes though is that they get so focussed on this that they forget the necessity to stretch Rafa wide to the forehand side initially so that they can target the backhand - yes, it's a strategy that does expose them to some risk, but it is necessary to prevent Rafa just holding ground somewhere near the right tramline and lining up the in-to-out forehand.

Now, with regard to the hypothetical question at the start of the thread, I think Federer's style would require less adjustment for the inferior racket technology than would Nadal's - I think Rafa would find it much more difficult to get any reward from his counter-attacking shots from behind the baseline with the older rackets, and also wouldn't get the same work on the ball. However, had they grown up playing with that type of equipment, both would have developed different games anyway, and Andy Murray would almost certainly be a serve-volleyer.

I agree DH....talent is talent and I believe that many of the top players in a different era would have applied their talent in a different way to still keep winning.
People might say that taking Nadal's 98sqin Babolat racquet and Duralast strings off him and giving him a wooden racquet would completely nullify his game but you'd be surprised at how he could still hit the ball. I remember they gave Mark 'Scud' Philopousis an old beat up wooden racquet and he was still timed at 130mph serving with it. The point is that if you have innate timing, you have innate timing - and all these top guys have unbelievable timing, and could apply that to any era. Ok, not in exactly the same playing style but they would adapt - some would have to adapt more than others of course. Fed less so due to his more eastern grips and smaller racquet.

It would be a good laugh actually to see a top 5 exho where they dress in long whites and play with the old wooden racquets...

Lydian

Let's be honest - you could give the top pros an old wooden squash racket with half the strings missing and they'd still be able to hit the ball better than you or me .

I've always thought that Andy Murray would be a great cricketer (as a lefty batsman) - he's probably the absolute best timer of a ball on the double handed backhand, and that's an inate ability that could be transferred to all moving ball sports.

Wasn't Jim Courier also a minor league baseball player, or at least very close to that level, but chose tennis instead?

I also guess that Rafa isn't the worst football player in the world - a little family history in that regard.

Tenez wrote:

I'd thought you'd go for that reply as it exposes your view of tennis, in that you appear to think that it takes more 'talent' to counter a fast pace ball using good reactions, than to hit a precise shot with power and accuracy multiple times. ----------------------------------

That's where you go wrong! As explained earlier, whacking the ball senselessly by clearing the net and the lines by a good safety margin, is not what you describe here. Nadal's shots are safe...and you may not have realised that the harder he hits them, the safer they get. This is exactly the opposite of a flatter hitter like Federer.

If you and Lydian don't want to admit that Nadal's shots are essentially about power and that he is focusing on taking the cloth off the ball instead of "accurate" placement as you would like us to believe, then it certainly cut short the discussion. On faster surfaces, things change of course as it gets more difficult for him to hit safely as th eball comes faster...so he also has less time to inject that spin.

Surely you know all that.

whacking the ball senselessly is not what any of the top tennis players do - you know that tenez

Nadal winning shots vs. Federer may appear safe, but the gradual narrowing of angles to the backhand requires focus, precision and usually leave balls spinning in close to lines

Power plus accurate placement on a faster surface as requested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9HV_swF_XY&feature=related

you may also note a highly accurate FH slice hit midpoint that did not require power at all that actually got Nadal back on level terms in the point.

Agree DH - these guys are good at most sports they choose to take up - timing and footwork are the essence of many sports.

For example, you see many ex tennis players becoming scratch golfers quickly. Indeed Lendl even tried to become a golf pro.

Although this didnt apply to Kafelnikov who gained 5 stone and took up poker...!

lydian wrote:Agree DH - these guys are good at most sports they choose to take up - timing and footwork are the essence of many sports.

For example, you see many ex tennis players becoming scratch golfers quickly. Indeed Lendl even tried to become a golf pro.

Although this didnt apply to Kafelnikov who gained 5 stone and took up poker...!

Part of the reason many sportsmen excel at golf is that much of their talent has been trained in such a way that naturally lends itself to golf.

Golf requires great focus, determination, accuracy, timing and to some extent power (any talent required there?). Tennis players and often racing drivers have such great hand eye coordination that learning golf only requires them to build up experience of hitting clean shots, whereas the other necessary attributes they already have in bucket loads.

lol...good points Tom___

Yes power in golf...Woods could hit it further than most others, must be that the guy had little talent, just physicality

lydian wrote:lol...good points Tom___

Yes power in golf...Woods could hit it further than most others, must be that the guy had little talent, just physicality

It must be like old times having Tenez on here.

Sadly nothing changes except it's now v2

Indeed sportslover...same old stuck record.

Lydian
Maybe if you were talking about John Daly rather than Tiger. Hits the ball a million miles, but most days most of that is sideways...

Nadal would struggle with a wooden racket.

The change in strings would reduce his trademark topspin hugely.

The smaller racket head and relatively thicker frame would result in a lot of mis-hit shots that come off the frame, particularly as he tries to hit up the back of the ball so much.

Ultimately, wooden rackets favour players with more touch and creativity.

Rafa, as good as he is, is more of an artisan than an artist.

I do not intend any disrespect to Rafa when I say this.

If, however, he could adjust to hitting the balls flatter, then I expect he would still be very difficult to beat on clay, as players would struggle even more to hit through him.

I think the players that would do the best with a wooden racket are Federer, Nalbandian, Murray

emancipator wrote:

...If, however, he could adjust to hitting the balls flatter, then I expect he would still be very difficult to beat on clay, as players would struggle even more to hit through him.

I think the players that would do the best with a wooden racket are Federer, Nalbandian, Murray

Hear hear!

As I said earlier, the players with Eastern grips would adjust best,,,stands to reason.

But talent at timing is talent at timing nonetheless, have you see Nadal hit flat shots in practice? You would be amazed. He just choses not to in match play,