Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[brokenshoelace]

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.

YES! That's the whole point. Nada's game, at least for the past 6 years (which you'd think is a big enough time span to forget about outdated notions of his 2006 game) is built around dominating with the forehand. This does not mean that he's always able to do it, but that's what he's always LOOKING to do.

He's very good at counter-punching, obviously, as are Djokovic (who I think is better than him at doing that this point, at least as far as handling pace goes) and Federer. Roger is actually awesome at counter-punching, and so were Nalbandian and Davydenko. I doubt anyone would describe these 3 as counter-punchers.

Being able to counter-punch very well, and being a counter-puncher are two different things.

Finally, putting labels on things only leads to pointless discussions like this one.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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..

Did he win AO 2009 by being reactive (Verdasco bullying him around was just Verdacso playing great aggressive tennis, not Nadal being willingly reactive. That's the distinction you're not making)? His 2 Wimbledon titles? His 2 US Open titles? His last 4 French Open titles? His 2008 FO title? That's what, 10 of his 13 major wins.

Nadal's first instinct is to take control with the forehand. That's the very opposite of reactive. He doesn't wait for his opponent to make a move. In fact, that's what he does best.

This is not some Nadal fan insecurity. Obviously defense is a huge part of his game, and it led him to immense success on clay, including his first 3 FO titles and his big undefeated run between 05-07 on the dirt. Obviously, he's still capable of defending very well, and does it when forced. However, his instinct is to try and take control of the rallies. Stick to your guns all you want, but it seems like you've been watching a different player.

If by "nature" you mean what he was like when he first broke through, then maybe. But then I could say Roger by "nature" is a head case, because that's what he was like in his early years. Obviously, this would be ludicrous since it ignores the bulk of his career. The same applies to Nadal.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Nadal's regular forehand top-spin shot is by itself an attacking shot. It creates issues for pretty much everyone.

 

[lacatch]

So about the court speed at Aussie Open 2014 and what it will mean for the tournie.....

 

[Front242]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

 

[brokenshoelace]

OK, I just thought of a few examples to highlight the misconception. Part of the original argument was that counter-punchers prefer slower courts and don't usually win indoors. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's what Luxilon said.

Let's look at the biggest indoor tournament in the world: The WTF in London. It's an indoor court. By your definition, "counter-punchers" like Nadal don't win there. Well, regardless of my disagreement with the term, that is true. Nadal hasn't done too well there, and neither has Murray for that matter. Yet, what is everyone's biggest issue with that court: IT PLAYS EXTREMELY SLOW! Since the tourney was moved to London in 2009, everyone criticized the courts, and how slow they were (well, most players).

So why isn't Nadal doing too good there if the courts are slow and that's what he prefers? It's because the ball bounce is so dead. The courts don't react well to his spin at all. With Nadal, the biggest misconception is that he prefers slower courts because he can defend. That's not true at all. It's all about how the courts react to his spin. The AO and Indian Wells don't suit his game because he can defend well, they suit his game because the ball kicks off the court almost like it does on clay (well not quite, but you get the point).

Did Nadal win Indian Wells this year with his defense? How, when he was just coming off his return and wasn't moving nearly as well? Obviously he CAN defend, and has more time to defend than he would at say, Cinci, but that's not why he's won that tournament 3 times. The conditions there just suit his spin.

Why does Murray do better against Novak on faster hard courts than slower hard courts? It's because he can't hit through him on slower hards. Why has David Ferrer done surprisingly well on fast hards and indoors (by his standards, not by the big 4's standards, of course)? Watch Ferrer vs. Djokovic at the AO, and how their matches are massacres in that tourney, then watch Ferrer play Djokovic in Shanghai 2007, on a quick indoor court. Obviously Novak wasn't the player he is now back then, but that doesn't change how the court speed changes things. Ferrer can't hit through Novak on slower hards or even medium hards like the AO to save his life. Yet on a faster surface, he has a slightly easier time getting something going.

What was Nadal's best stretch last year? Summer 2013. On fast hards. Hmmm... Nadal himself he said he prefers "faster hard courts, but not too fast." That's a direct quote, by the way. And it makes perfect sense. His forehand gets more work off the court that way. I'll use him vs. Novak as an example again. Nadal's chances are better against Djokovic at the US Open than the AO...why is that?

Obviously, clay is a whole different beast that warrants a different conversation. But the original point was regarding the speed of the AO and Lleyton Hewitt wanting them to be quicker.

Anyway, as I said first, Hewitt and Murray's results at Wimbledon and the US Open highlight my point.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

Yeah. Nadal really hasn't won the FO with defensive tennis in forever. His 2008 run speaks for itself. In 2010, he didn't drop a set all tournament and was playing pretty offensively in the second week. 2011 was odd in that he was actually in pretty poor form throughout, yet won it anyway. Till this day, I don't know WHAT he won it with, offense or defense. I thought he won it with slop to be honest. In 2012 he looked absolutely irresistible until the final. Didn't drop a set and completely hammered his opponents. Even better than his performance against Monaco was the semi against Ferrer. Last year, even though he wasn't in great form in the first week, he picked things up considerably, and it was his offense that won him the Novak match, without a single doubt.

 

[Front242]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

Yeah. Nadal really hasn't won the FO with defensive tennis in forever. His 2008 run speaks for itself. In 2010, he didn't drop a set all tournament and was playing pretty offensively in the second week. 2011 was odd in that he was actually in pretty poor form throughout, yet won it anyway. Till this day, I don't know WHAT he won it with, offense or defense. I thought he won it with slop to be honest. In 2012 he looked absolutely irresistible until the final. Didn't drop a set and completely hammered his opponents. Even better than his performance against Monaco was the semi against Ferrer. Last year, even though he wasn't in great form in the first week, he picked things up considerably, and it was his offense that won him the Novak match, without a single doubt.

His slop or Roger's ? A healthy dose of both I think.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

Yeah. Nadal really hasn't won the FO with defensive tennis in forever. His 2008 run speaks for itself. In 2010, he didn't drop a set all tournament and was playing pretty offensively in the second week. 2011 was odd in that he was actually in pretty poor form throughout, yet won it anyway. Till this day, I don't know WHAT he won it with, offense or defense. I thought he won it with slop to be honest. In 2012 he looked absolutely irresistible until the final. Didn't drop a set and completely hammered his opponents. Even better than his performance against Monaco was the semi against Ferrer. Last year, even though he wasn't in great form in the first week, he picked things up considerably, and it was his offense that won him the Novak match, without a single doubt.

His slop or Roger's ? A highly dose of both I think.

LOL yeah. But I wasn't strictly referring to the final. His whole run that tournament was shaky as hell. Even his press conferences were depressing. I remember he said he feels like he's been on tour for 100 years, and all hell broke loose on the old forums with paranoid fans speculating on whether he'll "Borg" his way out of the sport.

 

[Front242]

I meant to type a healthy dose of both. What typing skills! Yeah, I gathered you meant all tournament don't worry Definitely he was there for the taking that year but nobody seized the opportunity.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I meant to type a healthy dose of both. What typing skills! Yeah, I gathered you meant all tournament don't worry Definitely he was there for the taking that year but nobody seized the opportunity.

Well, thanks to your boy, the only one who had a chance to seize the opportunity was sent packing before getting a chance to.

 

[Front242]

God, it's killing me.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, being a counter-puncher and having the ability to counter-punch are two different things. Djokovic for example, is not a counter-puncher, yet he handles pace better than most players in history. Guys like Nalbandian, Davydenko and even Federer are awesome at counter-punching, yet none of them would qualify as counter-punchers.

And while Nadal is not purely 100% a "counterpuncher" much of what he has done over the years qualifies as such.

The AO 2009 final, for instance, featured a great deal of Nadal "counterpunching". In fact, loosely referring to Nadal as more of a "counterpuncher" makes just fine sense, particularly if you are comparing him to Federer. The fact that he steps in and hits some big forehands as "rally shots" does not mean he is not a "counter-puncher". Nor does the fact that he couldn't handle Peter Gojowczyk's forehands down the line in the 1st set mean that he isn't a counterpuncher - it just means he couldn't counterpunch those particular shots.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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..

Did he win AO 2009 by being reactive (Verdasco bullying him around was just Verdacso playing great aggressive tennis, not Nadal being willingly reactive. That's the distinction you're not making)? His 2 Wimbledon titles? His 2 US Open titles? His last 4 French Open titles? His 2008 FO title? That's what, 10 of his 13 major wins.

Nadal's first instinct is to take control with the forehand. That's the very opposite of reactive. He doesn't wait for his opponent to make a move. In fact, that's what he does best.

This is not some Nadal fan insecurity. Obviously defense is a huge part of his game, and it led him to immense success on clay, including his first 3 FO titles and his big undefeated run between 05-07 on the dirt. Obviously, he's still capable of defending very well, and does it when forced. However, his instinct is to try and take control of the rallies. Stick to your guns all you want, but it seems like you've been watching a different player.

If by "nature" you mean what he was like when he first broke through, then maybe. But then I could say Roger by "nature" is a head case, because that's what he was like in his early years. Obviously, this would be ludicrous since it ignores the bulk of his career. The same applies to Nadal.

Ok, now you are getting a little crazy by bringing Roger's JUNIOR temper into the picture...lol.

I am standing strong..you make lots of good points, and Nadal can crush the ball as hard as anyone...but given a choice he would rather not take the first risk.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Nadal's regular forehand top-spin shot is by itself an attacking shot. It creates issues for pretty much everyone.

That is good point. He may be one of the few players who hits countless winners when he is not going for anything..literally just trying to exceute for a rally ball.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Also, being a counter-puncher and having the ability to counter-punch are two different things. Djokovic for example, is not a counter-puncher, yet he handles pace better than most players in history. Guys like Nalbandian, Davydenko and even Federer are awesome at counter-punching, yet none of them would qualify as counter-punchers.

And while Nadal is not purely 100% a "counterpuncher" much of what he has done over the years qualifies as such.

The AO 2009 final, for instance, featured a great deal of Nadal "counterpunching". In fact, loosely referring to Nadal as more of a "counterpuncher" makes just fine sense, particularly if you are comparing him to Federer. The fact that he steps in and hits some big forehands as "rally shots" does not mean he is not a "counter-puncher". Nor does the fact that he couldn't handle Peter Gojowczyk's forehands down the line in the 1st set mean that he isn't a counterpuncher - it just means he couldn't counterpunch those particular shots.

Well we also need to ask who has played 2 out of the tree longest AO matches ever? Hmmm.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Best example of Nadal playing aggressive tennis? 4th round RG 2012 against Juan Monaco. The whole match isn't on Youtube but maybe someone has links to download it. Anyway, suffice to say you can't really win 6-2 6-0 6-0 playing defensive tennis. Strange as it may seem, Monaco actually didn't play that badly at all. Very tough loss for him. He was in good form up to then.

Uh...I have won MANY matches 2 and 0 hitting the ball down the middle of the court an creating a virtual defensive wall. I have also LOST badly to players who did not go for a single risky shot. Scores
do not tell any story. Sampras and Goran, just to name a few won and lost MANY sets 7-6 at Wimbledon and the open, were they pushing?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

So about the court speed at Aussie Open 2014 and what it will mean for the tournie.....

I have come to the conclusion that whomever gets to the second week will be those
with have the greatest focus..fast courts always require super human concentration for
consistency.

It will also show us who the best movers in the game are outside of the BIG FOUR.

 

[Moxie]

Nadal's regular forehand top-spin shot is by itself an attacking shot. It creates issues for pretty much everyone.

That is good point. He may be one of the few players who hits countless winners when he is not going for anything..literally just trying to exceute for a rally ball.

So, what the commentators call "turning defense into attack," you call "just trying to execute a rally ball?" If it looks like he's going for a winner, and it is one, what makes you certain that "countless" of these were just accidental winners?

 

[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.

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.

Let's get real about Hewitt. After his Wimby win, in which he played 5 baseliners btw..he was the FIRST champion in over 50 years to lose in the first round the next year. He got blasted off the court. He has NEVER gotten deep into the tourney again. Same for the US Open. After his win, he had one more final in which he was humiliated by an attacking player..a REAL attacking player.

He likes faster courts? Well that's pretty silly of him.