Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[Luxilon Borg]

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

And what would be wrong with that? When combined with his touch at net, superior smashing skills and probably the best passing shot in the game? You don't find his game aggressive enough?

Nadal CAN be very aggressive. His dominance at the French is mainly due to his passing shots, court coverage, and shrinking the court for his opponents, and the massive topspin.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

Luxilon, don't get bullied and agree to things you don't want to agree. It is ok to
disagree.

I think as you mentioned in another post, Nadal started primarily as a defensive
player. The attacking game was incorporated later. So, while we can no longer call
him as a purely defensive player, he for sure was a pure defensive player at the
start. In fact, I believe he won the first couple of French opens without any attacking
play. Basically, other players could not handle his top spin consistently and made
mistakes sooner or later.

Oh, I'm not being bullied. I am sticking to my guns..Nadal by nature is a reactive player..period..

What makes him sometimes tricky to define for some is that he is such a physically imposing player..and he is a POWERFUL reactive player...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

No, it's not a paradox. It's one kind of surface. It has benefits and down-sides. For all players. Same as every surface. I don't understand why people have to treat clay as some kind of "other." It's just another surface that they play tennis on. Some handle it better than others. Like fast HCs or indoors, or grass, etc. Yes, big hitters with a long wind-up like Soderling get the time they need on clay. That's not a surprise, or a paradox, it's a function of the surface and how it suited his game.

No, I totally disagree...clay is NOT just another surface. I grew up playing on clay in New York. When I moved to Socal ten years ago I found a club with clay courts. I convinced a bunch of California hard courters to play me on clay..

well...none of them could handle having to hit every ball over their shoulders when I loaded up on topspin. they were completely out of sorts not having the ball at hip level..none of could figure out how their rocket ground strokes were coming back..or how I was sliding in the corners to hit passing shots..

These were all better players than me overall..

no..clay is NOT just another surface.

As far as Soldering ..for me it is simple..he takes HUGE swings....that type of stroke production just needs more time...it is simple as that.

 

[Kieran]

Hey Lux,

Rafa builds points on his serve so well and so accurately to hem his opponent in and shrink the size of his own court, that nobody could describe this as "reactive". He boxes players off by taking control from the moment his pinpoint serve lands in.

Off the return, he hassles them into errors by making them go for too much. This isn't because his first-strike shot off the return is so lethal, but because they have little option but to try gain the centre before he does. Once Rafa gets his foot in the door, he's bowling them into oblivion off the forehand. This isn't reactive either. It's pro-active. He looks to control the rally, not to counter-punch, imho...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

Luxilon, don't get bullied and agree to things you don't want to agree. It is ok to
disagree.

I think as you mentioned in another post, Nadal started primarily as a defensive
player. The attacking game was incorporated later. So, while we can no longer call
him as a purely defensive player, he for sure was a pure defensive player at the
start. In fact, I believe he won the first couple of French opens without any attacking
play. Basically, other players could not handle his top spin consistently and made
mistakes sooner or later.

Bullying? I think not. Luxilon can hold his own, I'm sure.

GSM, it may be the case that Nadal, at 16-19 yrs old was a defensive player. He's 27 now, and his game has evolved a lot. Are you always going to paint him with the same brush? If so, you really haven't been paying attention.

I can hang! No worries... I am enjoying the debate.

Let me set the record straight..I have seen Nadal in person every year on tour since he turned pro..the first time as a chubby faced 16 year old at the Open with Moya. Then when I saw him at 18..I just could not believe what I was seeing..this kid had turned into A BEAST!!! He was taking massive swings at the ball..letting out that guttural shriek...and LOADING the ball with spin..he was ripped..but he was so far back behind the baseline..

As the years progressed I have been nothing but blown away by his development and I think he has the best forehand in the game, and his net play is nothing short of amazing, and he is the most ferocious competitor since Jimmy Connors I have ever seen.

He STILL has not won a year end title..had one indoor to his name..in Spain none the less.

Do you think he would EVER lose to Garcia Lopez on any other surface besides lightening fast indoor hard court? I think not.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Counter puncher: player who generally wins most of their points with defense, movement, and reacts to their opponents aggressive play the majority of the time.

Murray, Hewitt, Borg, Wilander, Change. Etc

As pointed out...stats by surface are all available on the ATP website.

Are you talking about Michael Change or Hope N. Change?

Cheers and Happy New Year!

TM

Hope, Change, and Chang!!! Who is now coaching Nishikori...interestingly.

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, Lux, Rafa is usually spent by the indoor season. It's not his best surface but for instance, he's skipped the WTF almost as often as he's played it. If there was a slam indoors, I think we'd see him win it...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Hey Lux,

Rafa builds points on his serve so well and so accurately to hem his opponent in and shrink the size of his own court, that nobody could describe this as "reactive". He boxes players off by taking control from the moment his pinpoint serve lands in.

Off the return, he hassles them into errors by making them go for too much. This isn't because his first-strike shot off the return is so lethal, but because they have little option but to try gain the centre before he does. Once Rafa gets his foot in the door, he's bowling them into oblivion off the forehand. This isn't reactive either. It's pro-active. He looks to control the rally, not to counter-punch, imho...

First, if Rafa was not a lefty, his serve would be among the worst in the top 50. I am absolutely convinced at that. It is problem for some players only due to the reverse spin and direction. It is shockingly wanting in technique as compared to the rest of his game.

Secondly, you contradict your self!!!!!

Off the return, he hassles them into errors by making them go for too much. This isn't because his first-strike shot off the return is so lethal, but because they have little option but to try gain the centre before he does.

The above is a definition of a reactive counter puncher!!!!!!

As I said, he is more difficult to define due this powerful forehand. And it is lethal when he is brimming with confidence.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

In fairness, Lux, Rafa is usually spent by the indoor season. It's not his best surface but for instance, he's skipped the WTF almost as often as he's played it. If there was a slam indoors, I think we'd see him win it...

"If there was a slam indoors, I think we'd see him win it..."

Oh, I doubt that... If there was an indoor slam Fed would have 25 by now.

I'm not buying he is "spent".. he has no trouble making millions of dollars on the exo scene.

 

[Kieran]

First, if Rafa was not a lefty, his serve would be among the worst in the top 50. I am absolutely convinced at that. It is problem for some players only due to the reverse spin and direction. It is shockingly wanting in technique as compared to the rest of his game.

Secondly, you contradict your self!!!!!

Off the return, he hassles them into errors by making them go for too much. This isn't because his first-strike shot off the return is so lethal, but because they have little option but to try gain the centre before he does.

The above is a definition of a reactive counter puncher!!!!!!

As I said, he is more difficult to define due this powerful forehand. And it is lethal when he is brimming with confidence.

I disagree on the serve. It's a great serve because it's strategically so great. If he was a righty, strategy wouldn't be affected.

I didn't contradict myself. When players go for too much against Rafa, it's not because they fear the sucker-punch: it's because they fear him gaining control of the rally and aggressively pushing them off the court. There's a difference.

But remember: every player who returns is by definition counter-punching from the first shot they hit. Some are looking to hit a knock-out blow and others to gain the centre. But all have to react to the serve, so returning the ball off the serve is to counterpunch.

But this doesn't mean that every player should then be defined as a "counterpuncher..."

 

[Kieran]

In fairness, Lux, Rafa is usually spent by the indoor season. It's not his best surface but for instance, he's skipped the WTF almost as often as he's played it. If there was a slam indoors, I think we'd see him win it...

"If there was a slam indoors, I think we'd see him win it..."

Oh, I doubt that... If there was an indoor slam Fed would have 25 by now.

I'm not buying he is "spent".. he has no trouble making millions of dollars on the exo scene.

He can make millions playing trick shots in the desert. I'm sure Rafa would love to win more indoor events but I'm equally sure he'd prefer to win more slams...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Interesting discussion. I wouldn't classify Rafa as a counterpuncher because his main strength is gaining control of the centre and lassoing the enemy out of sight with the whipped forehand. It's a basic, well-worn manouevre and essentially, he constructs rallies so precisely to give him the edge off his forehand.

That's not counter-punching. But like all players, he's forced into the counterpunchers role fairly often and from this I believe he's the best at turning defence into offence - which is what counter-punching is really about. Absorbing the blows then sucker punching your way into the superior, winning position. Novak excels at this too, but this is because they're great defensive players. I wouldn't classify them first and foremost as defensive players, though.

Murray used to be primarily seen as cautious to the extent that he'd wait for the other to lose control, before taking control himself, but Lendl has given him a more aggressive mentality. Counter-punchers wait in the hole, then turn their opponent's strength against them. It's a difficult art.

I'm not totally disagreeing with Lux or GS&M, but the top players games are too big to be confined by that definition, even on clay, or even on fast surfaces. The great players win by taking control, even in a Borg-esque way, but pinning the opponent back with such large and safe looping topspin that his opponent knew he'd never miss. Sometimes Borg's opponent's fell asleep waiting for him to miss one.

Rafa didn't beat Nole in Montreal and Flushing Meadows by laying back and counter-punching. Had he tried that, he'd have lost...

Good post. Essentially, today's "counter punchers" are hybrids, and that is because of the superior physicality and power. But you can still be powerful and reactive.

Ali was the greatest counter puncher in the history of boxing, but he has a helluva lot of knock outs.

As far Rafa taking control of the center and using the whipped forehand...you are correct..but have you noticed does this ONLY once he feels stronger than his opponent and he is into the match. He NEVER starts a match playing this way, where as Fed is ripping forehands and holding serve in 60 seconds from the opening bell.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

First, if Rafa was not a lefty, his serve would be among the worst in the top 50. I am absolutely convinced at that. It is problem for some players only due to the reverse spin and direction. It is shockingly wanting in technique as compared to the rest of his game.

Secondly, you contradict your self!!!!!

Off the return, he hassles them into errors by making them go for too much. This isn't because his first-strike shot off the return is so lethal, but because they have little option but to try gain the centre before he does.

The above is a definition of a reactive counter puncher!!!!!!

As I said, he is more difficult to define due this powerful forehand. And it is lethal when he is brimming with confidence.

I disagree on the serve. It's a great serve because it's strategically so great. If he was a righty, strategy wouldn't be affected.

I didn't contradict myself. When players go for too much against Rafa, it's not because they fear the sucker-punch: it's because they fear him gaining control of the rally and aggressively pushing them off the court. There's a difference.

But remember: every player who returns is by definition counter-punching from the first shot they hit. Some are looking to hit a knock-out blow and others to gain the centre. But all have to react to the serve, so returning the ball off the serve is to counterpunch.

But this doesn't mean that every player should then be defined as a "counterpuncher..."

I agree on your point concerning his serve being strategically excellent.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A counter-puncher is a player that feeds off his opponent's pace instead of generating his own (this is a very narrow definition, but bear with me). The two obvious examples in recent memory are Hewitt and Murray. And what two slams has Hewitt won? Wimbledon and the US Open. What 2 slams has Murray won? Wimbledon and the US Open. Counter-punchers prefer faster courts. It's one of the biggest misconception that they prefer slower courts. Slower courts produce balls that are more "dead," so the counter-puncher has very little to actually deal feed off.

I understand your definition, Broken, and accept it. Question here: I understand that counter-punchers feed off of pace, but is it really right to say that slow courts produce "dead" balls, because some types of HCs do, as well. And a clay-courter's spin produces quite a lively ball off of a slow court. Perhaps you meant to say that counter-punchers can't produce pace when they're not given it, and so they subsequently produce a rather 'dead' ball. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the notion of a 'dead ball.'

That's why I said it's not a black and white issue. Clay courts do not produce dead balls at all, at least not Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, and other big tourneys. I put "dead" in between quotation marks on purpose, because it really isn't meant to be taken literally.

I might have mis-spoke, but the "dead" ball is produced by the counter-puncher himself, as slower courts don't really eat up counter-punching as well. That's why Hewitt for instance, preferred lower bouncing hards, and fed off S & V players, by using their pace against them.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Would you believe rat face...errr Hewitt complained bitterly to Australian officials when slowed it down about 10 years ago?

Why isn't that believable? Hewitt is a counter-puncher who prefers faster surfaces to feed off his opponent's pace...

I would say the vast majority of counter punchers prefer slower courts. And the number prove it.

I would say, with all due respect, you don't really know what a counter-puncher is, especially if you think Nadal is a counter-puncher.

A counter-puncher is a player that feeds off his opponent's pace instead of generating his own (this is a very narrow definition, but bear with me). The two obvious examples in recent memory are Hewitt and Murray. And what two slams has Hewitt won? Wimbledon and the US Open. What 2 slams has Murray won? Wimbledon and the US Open. Counter-punchers prefer faster courts. It's one of the biggest misconception that they prefer slower courts. Slower courts produce balls that are more "dead," so the counter-puncher has very little to actually deal feed off.

Nadal ABSOLUTELY is a counter puncher, but a very, VERY modern one.

No he's not. He can counter-punch, but he's not a counter-puncher in the traditional sense of the world. His whole game at least for the past 6 years is built around moving people around with the forehand. That's why he struggles against guys he's not able to do that against as well. None of this diminishes his otherworldly defense, but even on clay, Nadal hasn't been a counter-puncher in ages. Maybe in 2006, though even then I'd take issue with the notion of him being a pure counter-puncher, but not today.

 

[brokenshoelace]

There are lots of issues involved here, which certainly will make things confusing.
Let me bring in a different but related issue. Someone like Soderling was able to
hit penetrating shots in the clay courts of Rolland Garros. What helped him?
Because of the slowness of the balls, he gets lots of time to line up behind the
ball and take a huge cut at it. Soderling was never that good in hitting penetrating
shots in hard courts? Why, he does not get enough time to plan and hit his shot.

In other words, what I am trying to say here is that the slowness of claycourts
is a double edged sword.

a. It gives lots of time for the opponent to handle the ball. So, the opponent
can line up and hit penetrating shots.

b. On the otherside of the coin, the slowness of the courts, generally speaking,
makes it very difficult to hit penetrating shots; you need huge power to hit
through the other guy on clay courts.

So, this is acutally a paradox.

Good post. That's why we've seen guys like Soderling, Berdych and Del Potro do well on clay recently. Despite the slowness of the courts (compared to other surfaces), they have time to take huge cuts at the ball, and they hit the ball so big, that even on a slower surface, it's still going to penetrate.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^ And this goes to show that traditional notions of what a counter-puncher is, or an aggressive baseliner is, or what courts suit which type of player are extremely outdated and it's useless to even discuss them.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Nadal is a 'modern counter-puncher?' What does that mean? And you juxtapose that with 8 FO wins. Does that mean you think only a counter-puncher can win one?

And Murray won the USO the 'year after' they slowed down the courts? By others' reckoning, they'd slowed them down earlier so that Nadal could win it. It's hard to keep up with the excuses for how the likes of Murray and Nadal win certain tournaments.

We could go on forever....but I will ask this...how many attacking players have own RG in the past 35 years??? I can think of TWO...Noah and Fed. I might be tempted to throw in Guga because of his forehand...

Well, Nadal. You'd be really wrong to think that Nadal's clay game is purely predicated on waiting for other players to make mistakes, or just feeding on their pace. His genius on clay is all over the court, and attack is built into it.

I agree totally concerning Nadal on clay, his genius is multi faceted...however the cornerstone is defense, movement, and topspin.

Luxilon, don't get bullied and agree to things you don't want to agree. It is ok to
disagree.

I think as you mentioned in another post, Nadal started primarily as a defensive
player. The attacking game was incorporated later. So, while we can no longer call
him as a purely defensive player, he for sure was a pure defensive player at the
start. In fact, I believe he won the first couple of French opens without any attacking
play. Basically, other players could not handle his top spin consistently and made
mistakes sooner or later.

1) Leeeeeeeeeeet's get something out of the way: Nobody is bullying anyone. I think we're all adults here and can handle disagreement on a tennis forum.

2) Defensive player =/= counter-puncher.

3) Yeah, Nadal did get gradually more offensive with time, but to say that he didn't attack at all in his early FO's is completely misguided. Watch videos of him back in the day. But yes, he relied more on his defense and passing shots, but with time, he was forced to change things, for the better of course.

4) This only goes to prove my initial point: Saying "counter-punchers prefer slower courts" is flat out wrong. It depends on the type of player, and the type of counter-puncher. And lumping together Muster, Borg, Nadal, Murray and Hewitt is shortsighted since most of them play nothing alike. Hewitt for instance, hits the ball flat as a pancake, and has very little in common with say, Nadal, other than great movement and passing shots.

5) Hewitt -- whom the original argument revolved around -- absolutely prefers lower bouncing/faster courts. He said as much, and his results prove it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, Wikipedia's definition of "counterpuncher" agrees with Luxilon's definition.
Moreover, the definition reads as though they are describing Nadal. The following
is an exact quote from wiki.

"A defensive baseliner, or counter-puncher or retriever, tries to return every ball and relies on the opponent making mistakes. He/she has consistent shots, makes few errors of his own while making it difficult for opponents to hit winners. The game of the defensive counter-puncher has more to do with physical endurance and determination to retrieve balls as well as mental determination to keep from getting bored or trying for too much. They tend to make relatively few errors because they don't attempt the complicated and ambitious shots of the aggressive baseliner, but the effective counterpuncher must be able to periodically execute an aggressive shot. Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. Returning every aggressive shot that the opponent provides is often the cause of further errors due to the effort required in trying increasingly harder and better shots. However, it is noted that for some faster players, including Gaël Monfils and Andy Murray, standing too deep behind the court can hinder their attacking abilities.

At lower levels, the defensive counter-puncher often frustrates their opponent so much that they may try to change their style of play due to ineffective baseline results. At higher levels, the all-court player or aggressive baseliner is usually able to execute winners with higher velocity and better placement, taking the counterpuncher out of the point as early as possible.

Counter-punchers often excel on slow courts, such as clay. The court gives them extra time to chase down shots and it is harder for opponents to create winners. Counter-punchers are often particularly strong players at low-level play, where opponents cannot make winners with regularity."

Wikipedia? Really?

Again, please name me counter-punchers, let's look at their games, and let's look at their results. Hewitt was seen as a pure counter-puncher. Does he fit the description above? Does Murray?

So I'm sorry for putting more emphasis on facts instead of Wikipedia, which last I checked, was far from a tennis bible.

As I said, the notion of counter-punchers, pushers, and the like is the biggest misconception in tennis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken, Wikipedia's definition of "counterpuncher" agrees with Luxilon's definition.
Moreover, the definition reads as though they are describing Nadal. The following
is an exact quote from wiki.

"A defensive baseliner, or counter-puncher or retriever, tries to return every ball and relies on the opponent making mistakes. He/she has consistent shots, makes few errors of his own while making it difficult for opponents to hit winners. The game of the defensive counter-puncher has more to do with physical endurance and determination to retrieve balls as well as mental determination to keep from getting bored or trying for too much. They tend to make relatively few errors because they don't attempt the complicated and ambitious shots of the aggressive baseliner, but the effective counterpuncher must be able to periodically execute an aggressive shot. Speed and agility are key for the counterpuncher, as well as a willingness to patiently chase down every ball to frustrate opponents. Returning every aggressive shot that the opponent provides is often the cause of further errors due to the effort required in trying increasingly harder and better shots. However, it is noted that for some faster players, including Gaël Monfils and Andy Murray, standing too deep behind the court can hinder their attacking abilities.

At lower levels, the defensive counter-puncher often frustrates their opponent so much that they may try to change their style of play due to ineffective baseline results. At higher levels, the all-court player or aggressive baseliner is usually able to execute winners with higher velocity and better placement, taking the counterpuncher out of the point as early as possible.

Counter-punchers often excel on slow courts, such as clay. The court gives them extra time to chase down shots and it is harder for opponents to create winners. Counter-punchers are often particularly strong players at low-level play, where opponents cannot make winners with regularity."

It sounds like wikipedia is describing a "pusher", not a counterpuncher. I disagree with the wiki definition.

Cheers

TM

Thank goodness somebody sees the distinction.