The Greatest Groundstrokes of the Modern Era

[auto-pilot]

See 2013 US Open Final too, because Nadal's forehand down-the-line won that.

What match were you watching?

In the second and third sets, I believe the ratio of Djokovic forehand winners Nadal forehand winners was something like 3:1. There was no question who had the "better forehand" that day and there was also no question that there are much more significant reasons for why Nadal won that match than his forehand.

Remember that service game in the 3rd set when Nadal was down 0-40?
Well that game ended with Nadal hitting a stinging forehand down the line that was not credited as a winner, because Djokovic got a racquet to it (and the ball went sailing out of bounds and would be recorded as a 'forced error').

Nadal's forehand is so great that even if he hits it straight to his opponent its too hard to control sometimes.
So winners don't tell the full story, because Djokovic is the best retriever in tennis and a lot of Nadal's big forehands will be retrieved by Djokovoic (but they weren't balls that Djokovic could control).
This is where stats are meaningless and fortunately I saw the match.

And that's not to say that Nadal doesn't hit clean winners, as he clearly does at Roland Garros in particular, but other times he uses his combination of topspin, power and DEPTH to intimidate his opponent.
Nadal's version of depth is a far more dangerous weapon than anyone else's depth, because his ball leaps off the court more than other player's balls, so if its deep then the opponent will be rocked back to the fence (or forced to play an especially difficult half-volley on the baseline).

 

[Federberg]

I think part of the problem here is definitional, but part of it is stubbornness as well.

As an example I can well understand why most people would say that an Isner or Karlovic has a better serve than Federer, but I would also have a lot of sympathy to the following sort of argument. Because Federer (and Djokovic does this as well), often uses his serve to set up a specific play, his serve is far more effective than just simply looking at aces or unreturnables. He will often serve in such a way as to elicit a particular type of return which he then puts away for a winner. The stats will show that point as (most of the time at least) a forehand winner, but it's actually a set up based on a specific serve. You could argue for that reason that Federer's serve is even more effective than the stats suggest.

For a similar reason rather simplistically looking at forehand winner stats in Rafa's case, completely misses the point in my view. He sets up a pattern with his forehand that forces his opponent into errors. Everyone can see this, it's not in dispute. Does it really matter that he might hit (or so the stats would suggest) fewer outright forehand winners than a Roger Federer or Novak Djokovic? He is achieving the same ends in his own inimitable way. As someone I consider to be a tennis connoiseur I'm often puzzled that you don't recognise and applaud Rafa for his unique skill set. You don't have to love it (I confess I don't), but you must respect it

 

[tented]

I think part of the problem here is definitional, but part of it is stubbornness as well.

As an example I can well understand why most people would say that an Isner or Karlovic has a better serve than Federer, but I would also have a lot of sympathy to the following sort of argument. Because Federer (and Djokovic does this as well), often uses his serve to set up a specific play, his serve is far more effective than just simply looking at aces or unreturnables. He will often serve in such a way as to elicit a particular type of return which he then puts away for a winner. The stats will show that point as (most of the time at least) a forehand winner, but it's actually a set up based on a specific serve. You could argue for that reason that Federer's serve is even more effective than the stats suggest.

While watching Isner this weekend, I asked myself (half-jokingly, half-seriously): At what point is congratulating guys like Isner and Karlovic for having a great first serve the equivalent of congratulating them for being tall?

This brings to mind a post I wrote a couple of years ago, especially this part:

"I also think tennis will suffer more broadly with the influx of tall guys. It will be boring for the casual viewer to watch Isner/Karlovic-type finals, where serving is key ... Short of raising the net, and altering the effectiveness of the serve of guys 6'5" and over, things could become quite dull.

And why not raise the net? Consider the average height of men in the 18th and 19th centuries, when tennis was being standardized. The average was around 5'5" to 5'7" -- and they decided the net should be 3' in the center.

If you use 5'6" as the average, 3' was about 54% of their height. If you take 6'6" as the average, that's only 46%. For the net to be 54%, it would need to be raised approximately 6.25" -- to about 3'6".

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it."

Again, I'm only half-serious, but it bothers me every time I watch Isner and hear commentators gush about "Big John Isner"'s great serve. Should we also gush about his wearing large shoes? Extra long pants?

 

[Carol]

More and more we can see the old guard is still over the new one. The youngest ones are not so young anymore, most of them are already 25 years old without any MS and GS titles
Kei 26
Raonic 25
Dimitrov 24
Golfing 25
Janowicz 25

 

[auto-pilot]

I think the old guard will stick around a lot longer than planned because of the upcoming weak era.
Good chance to rack-up more titles (Murray can rack up Wimbledons, Nadal can rack up US Open/French Open, Djokovic can rack up AO, and Federer can rack up masters shields).

 

[calitennis127]

^ can you elaborate Cali? I'm no Nadal fan.. but there comes a time when you simply have to acknowledge the guy is a great great player. What are the reasons if it's not the effectiveness of his forehand?

A unique set of mental attributes combined with the highest level of naturally endowed stamina in any tennis player (including Ferrer).

The mental attributes are clearly constancy, persistence, consistency, stability, lack of idealism, pragmatism, a desire and willingness to constantly go back to the drawing board to tamper and refine how he handles certain situations (help from Uncle Toni on that), and the capacity to not be discouraged or affected by appearances of superiority in the opponents' shotmaking.

Combine all of that with the ability to play at or near your max level longer than any of your peers because of high stamina and you can win a ton of matches without having the best shots in the history of the game.

As Broken says, stop. You have been working for years at a narrative that explains Nadal's success, to your satisfaction. Stamina and mental strength. Except that almost no one else believes that that's the only way you get 14 majors. Talent is more than a little involved.

I never said that Nadal wasn't talented. What I have maintained is that neither you nor Broken understand the reasons for the scale of his success. There's a difference between being very talented and winning 14 majors.

Saying Nadal is a talented tennis player and then putting him in the class of Federer as a shotmaker are two entirely different arguments. Since you are the queen of the non sequitur, you have failed to understand my position no matter how many times I state it.

Is Rafael Nadal talented? Of course.

Did he win 14 Majors because he is that much more talented a shotmaker than his peers? No.

To take one out of a hundred examples, he didn't beat Juan Martin Del Potro in the IW final because he was a better shotmaker.

 

[auto-pilot]

^ The Del Potro forehand is more powerful than the Nadal forehand, but is it a better shot?

 

[brokenshoelace]

A unique set of mental attributes combined with the highest level of naturally endowed stamina in any tennis player (including Ferrer).

The mental attributes are clearly constancy, persistence, consistency, stability, lack of idealism, pragmatism, a desire and willingness to constantly go back to the drawing board to tamper and refine how he handles certain situations (help from Uncle Toni on that), and the capacity to not be discouraged or affected by appearances of superiority in the opponents' shotmaking.

Combine all of that with the ability to play at or near your max level longer than any of your peers because of high stamina and you can win a ton of matches without having the best shots in the history of the game.

As Broken says, stop. You have been working for years at a narrative that explains Nadal's success, to your satisfaction. Stamina and mental strength. Except that almost no one else believes that that's the only way you get 14 majors. Talent is more than a little involved.

I never said that Nadal wasn't talented. What I have maintained is that neither you nor Broken understand the reasons for the scale of his success. There's a difference between being very talented and winning 14 majors.

Saying Nadal is a talented tennis player and then putting him in the class of Federer as a shotmaker are two entirely different arguments. Since you are the queen of the non sequitur, you have failed to understand my position no matter how many times I state it.

Is Rafael Nadal talented? Of course.

Did he win 14 Majors because he is that much more talented a shotmaker than his peers? No.

To take one out of a hundred examples, he didn't beat Juan Martin Del Potro in the IW final because he was a better shotmaker.

Nadal isn't in Federer's league as a shot-maker. Very few, if any, are. Nadal's forehand is significantly better than Andy Murray's in any context. Those are two different things.

 

[Federberg]

Are you suggesting he's an inferior shot maker to JMDP? Come on man... I'm a big fan of DelPo, but we're not talking about someone with the variation of Roger, or Murray. I'm not even certain I can say Novak is a better shot maker than Rafa. Or am I missing something. What do you mean by "shotmaker"?

 

[Carol]

Federer best weapon is his serve, without that he couldn't be a good shot-maker
Nadal worst weapon probably is his serve (and it's not so bad but not enough to make more free points) due to play with his left hand which is easier for him thought he is natural right hand but not so good for the serve, maybe if he would use his right hand he would be better with that shot so important on HC and grass

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Federer best weapon is his serve, without that he couldn't be a good shot-maker
Nadal worst weapon probably is his serve (and it's not so bad but not enough to make more free points) due to play with his left hand which is easier for him thought he is natural right hand but not so good for the serve, maybe if he would use his right hand he would be better with that shot so important on HC and grass

A lefty serve to me is a good weapon,ask a right handed player?

 

[Carol]

A unique set of mental attributes combined with the highest level of naturally endowed stamina in any tennis player (including Ferrer).

The mental attributes are clearly constancy, persistence, consistency, stability, lack of idealism, pragmatism, a desire and willingness to constantly go back to the drawing board to tamper and refine how he handles certain situations (help from Uncle Toni on that), and the capacity to not be discouraged or affected by appearances of superiority in the opponents' shotmaking.

Combine all of that with the ability to play at or near your max level longer than any of your peers because of high stamina and you can win a ton of matches without having the best shots in the history of the game.

As Broken says, stop. You have been working for years at a narrative that explains Nadal's success, to your satisfaction. Stamina and mental strength. Except that almost no one else believes that that's the only way you get 14 majors. Talent is more than a little involved.

I never said that Nadal wasn't talented. What I have maintained is that neither you nor Broken understand the reasons for the scale of his success. There's a difference between being very talented

and winning 14 majors.

Saying Nadal is a talented tennis player and then putting him in the class of Federer as a shotmaker are two entirely different arguments. Since you are the queen of the non sequitur, you have failed to understand my position no matter how many times I state it.

Is Rafael Nadal talented? Of course.

Did he win 14 Majors because he is that much more talented a shotmaker than his peers? No.

To take one out of a hundred examples, he didn't beat Juan Martin Del Potro in the IW final because he was a better shotmaker.

Then according to you we also could say that Federer didn't beat Delpo in the USOPEN because he is.....what?
To win so many MS and GS during this tough Era they need to have a lot of talent and yes, strong mentality and perseverance like Nadal, Novak and Federer have, otherwise without all those three things they wouldn't be where they are.

 

[Carol]

Federer best weapon is his serve, without that he couldn't be a good shot-maker
Nadal worst weapon probably is his serve (and it's not so bad but not enough to make more free points) due to play with his left hand which is easier for him thought he is natural right hand but not so good for the serve, maybe if he would use his right hand he would be better with that shot so important on HC and grass

A lefty serve to me is a good weapon,ask a right handed player?

A lefty serve is good for a natural left handed but maybe it's not so good for a right handed

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Federer best weapon is his serve, without that he couldn't be a good shot-maker
Nadal worst weapon probably is his serve (and it's not so bad but not enough to make more free points) due to play with his left hand which is easier for him thought he is natural right hand but not so good for the serve, maybe if he would use his right hand he would be better with that shot so important on HC and grass

A lefty serve to me is a good weapon,ask a right handed player?

A lefty serve is good for a natural left handed but maybe it's not so good for a right handed

Hmmm Margaret Court was a natural left hander but chose to play right handed,also Ken Roswell was also a natural left hander but also chose to play right handed...they both won many GS titles,doubles titles etc.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

BTW I attended a luncheon with Margaret Court and she said in hindsight she should have played left handed she thought she could have won more titles.

 

[brokenshoelace]

"Nadal's forehand has been at best a good rally shot" or something along those lines might just be my favorite Cali-ism. That was five years in the making.

 

[Carol]

A lefty serve to me is a good weapon,ask a right handed player?

A lefty serve is good for a natural left handed but maybe it's not so good for a right handed

Hmmm Margaret Court was a natural left hander but chose to play right handed,also Ken Roswell was also a natural left hander but also chose to play right handed...they both won many GS titles,doubles titles etc.

Well, Rafa has won many MS, GS and some doubles titles but my point is that his serve is not so strong and efective like his forehand and backhand and maybe it's more difficult to do it for a natural right handed than a left handed which I heard about it several times :huh:

 

[auto-pilot]

When Nadal and Djokovic meet at Roland Garros, it looks like Djokovic's problem is the inability to hit clean winners in the decisive moments--
2012 4th set, Nadal hit key winners to win the match (but yes Djokovic hit winners in the set he won in the wet) and was the turning point when Nadal said "no more 6 hour finals for me".
2013 5th set, Nadal hit 22 winners in the 5th set, clearly more aggressive than Djokovic.
2014 4th set, Nadal cramping but still good enough to win the 4th set (hit 10 winners, while Djokovic hit 7).

 

[brokenshoelace]

When Nadal and Djokovic meet at Roland Garros, it looks like Djokovic's problem is the inability to hit clean winners in the decisive moments--

That's not the problem.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

A lefty serve is good for a natural left handed but maybe it's not so good for a right handed

Hmmm Margaret Court was a natural left hander but chose to play right handed,also Ken Roswell was also a natural left hander but also chose to play right handed...they both won many GS titles,doubles titles etc.

Well, Rafa has won many MS, GS and some doubles titles but my point is that his serve is not so strong and efective like his forehand and backhand and maybe it's more difficult to do it for a natural right handed than a left handed which I heard about it several times :huh:

Gee I have heard many people and tennis journalists comment on the fact regarding Rafa turning to play left handed was indeed a great idea for starters.Sorry I dont think Rafa has a great bhand at all,half the time he has to run around it.Personally the best I have seen Rafa's bhand was at the AO 09,especially in the s.final against Verdasco and in the final against Federer.I am a natural left hander by the way,my bhand has always been my weaker shot.My fhand is my stronger shot.In regards to the left handed serve I use it on the deuce court,I can take my serve out wide,most right handers have trouble returning this serve,I suggest you watch Rafa do this next time he plays to a right handed player.