Aussie Open 2014: Ball and Courts faster...

[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.

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?

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

 

[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?

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

 

[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.

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?

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

Nope, that is not exactly what I meant either.

Hopefully this will clarify:

Nadal hits a LOT of out right winners off his back foot or while backing up. This is absolute proof he is not trying to end the point. He can do this because he is a physical phenom. There is nobody like him.

This makes him seem more aggressive than he really is IMO.

Neither Fed, Djoker, Murray, or Del Po can do this except the odd lucky shot.

The only one I have seen do this is Berdych, on occasion...and he is another monster physically.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Nadal's rally forehand (the main essence of his game) is not a counter-punching shot. It's quite the opposite. He intends to dictate. Whether some can handle it is a different issue. And why do we have to compare him to Federer? You're either Federer or a counter-puncher?

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

Yeah, it's silly of him! Of course YOU know better which courts he should prefer, it's not like he's the one out there playing, and it's not like his results directly contradict your points. Tell me something, what has Hewitt done on slower surfaces? Clay? Slower hards? Other than that one AO final? Good grief...

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

So length of matches is now an indication of counter-punching? At first I thought this would be a meaningful conversation, but it's obvious by your arguments that you're completely off base in everything you're saying.

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?

 

[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.

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.

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?

Geez man, here is middle ground between crushing and pushing,

Just because a player is counter punching does not mean they are pushing!

 

[Moxie]

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?

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

Nope, that is not exactly what I meant either.

Hopefully this will clarify:

Nadal hits a LOT of out right winners off his back foot or while backing up. This is absolute proof he is not trying to end the point. He can do this because he is a physical phenom. There is nobody like him.

This makes him seem more aggressive than he really is IMO.

Neither Fed, Djoker, Murray, or Del Po can do this except the odd lucky shot.

The only one I have seen do this is Berdych, on occasion...and he is another monster physically.

OK, that's an interesting point. But what does it mean to you? You kind of say it like it's a bad thing, or a knock on his tennis. There are several things about Nadal's tennis that basically only he can do, because he's very strong, has loads of spin and weird lefty-shots. I realize that his style of tennis doesn't appeal to everyone, but it IS effective. Do you have a beef with it, or are you admiring it in its strangeness? :angel:

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?

Geez man, here is middle ground between crushing and pushing,

Just because a player is counter punching does not mean they are pushing!

Uh dude, read again... When did I ever say pushing? Let me quote what I said: "So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?"

Nobody brought up pushing.

 

[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.

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

I don't play at "country clubs" sorry. I play against ranked juniors, Usta ranked players, and college female players.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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.

So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?

Geez man, here is middle ground between crushing and pushing,

Just because a player is counter punching does not mean they are pushing!

Uh dude, read again... When did I ever say pushing? Let me quote what I said: "So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?"

Nobody brought up pushing.

And again, there is middle ground between blasting the ball and counter punching. You seem to think it is black and white.

 

[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.

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.

...against a top 20 professional tennis player? Your argument now involves what you have done, as a country club tennis player? Wow.

And it's not the score that's indicative. Perhaps you should bother watching the match he's referring to before responding.

I don't play at "country clubs" sorry. I play against ranked juniors, Usta ranked players, and college female players.

None of them are professional tennis players in the top 20, so that argument, in addition to being ridiculous, is completely irrelevant.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

 

[brokenshoelace]

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.

So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?

Geez man, here is middle ground between crushing and pushing,

Just because a player is counter punching does not mean they are pushing!

Uh dude, read again... When did I ever say pushing? Let me quote what I said: "So wait, let me get this straight, you either CRUSH the ball, or you're a counterpuncher?"

Nobody brought up pushing.

And again, there is middle ground between blasting the ball and counter punching. You seem to think it is black and white.

I'm the one who seem to think it's black and white. Literally my second or third post on the topic explained how IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE, and it's pointless to put labels, and said that by lumping players like Muster, Nadal, Borg, Hewitt and Murray together, who play NOTHING ALIKE, you're the one who's making it black and white. In fact, I explained the differences between their games...

Again, I'm done with this... Nice talking to you.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

Yup, I retired due to boredom.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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?

Nope, that is not what I said or meant. I meant that MANY of his winners are accidental rally ball winner but for CERTAIN he goes for a lot of winners and makes them, especially inside out.

Maybe I know where you're going: certainly, everyone gets lucky at times when a ball they expect to come back doesn't due to various errors by the opponent. Nadal does win points by "forcing" errors, too, if that's what you mean, but I don't think that's accidental, and I don't think he's "just trying to execute a rally shot." I do think it's part of a strategy to press players into going for too much. This has a benefit over time, too, as it's mentally and physically taxing. So, yes, if he's not finding the opening for an outright winner, he will hang with them as much as possible, which can, and often does, force errors. However, he's been doing less of that in the last couple of years, which has seen his own error count go up, though the overall cost-benefit is worth it.

Nope, that is not exactly what I meant either.

Hopefully this will clarify:

Nadal hits a LOT of out right winners off his back foot or while backing up. This is absolute proof he is not trying to end the point. He can do this because he is a physical phenom. There is nobody like him.

This makes him seem more aggressive than he really is IMO.

Neither Fed, Djoker, Murray, or Del Po can do this except the odd lucky shot.

The only one I have seen do this is Berdych, on occasion...and he is another monster physically.

OK, that's an interesting point. But what does it mean to you? You kind of say it like it's a bad thing, or a knock on his tennis. There are several things about Nadal's tennis that basically only he can do, because he's very strong, has loads of spin and weird lefty-shots. I realize that his style of tennis doesn't appeal to everyone, but it IS effective. Do you have a beef with it, or are you admiring it in its strangeness? :angel:

Let me clear.. I sit in amazement at what he does.. I am BIG fan.

I have tried to implement many things he does into my game...

I absolutely admire his game's quirks and uniqueness.

He reminds me SO much Of Borg it is scaredy. A 21st century one for sure.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Wait wait, so the argument now has turned into "Nadal hits accidental winners"?

I'm out of this thread...

You have been defaulted...:clap

Yup, I retired due to boredom.

Challenge match!