4 Tennis Tactics Murray Used To Outplay Nadal
Photo by AFP
Andy Murray played a smart tactical game when winning the semi-final match at the 2008 US Open against Rafael Nadal 6-2 7-6 (7-5) 4-6 6-4.
Nadal’s aggressive baseline game has been an unsolvable problem for Federer and most other players in 2008 but Murray found a crack in it.
Here’s how most players play against Nadal:
1. They play to his backhand since his forehand is a stronger shot. While this stops Nadal from attacking for a few shots, it doesn’t really win points. Nadal’s backhand may be weaker than his forehand but it’s far from being a weak shot especially if he doesn’t have to move much!
2. They position themselves at the normal spot when returning his serves – 1m or so behind the baseline. Nadal’s serve cannot compare to Andy Roddick’s rockets but it’s still a very good shot and keeps the returner on defense.
3. They force the shots since they know that Nadal will bring every ball back. Forcing the shots means playing with more and more risk and this eventually doesn’t work since the long term probability of winning the point goes to Nadal.
4. When Nadal attacks their backhand (for righthanders) they often play down the line to his backhand so that they avoid his forehand again. But this costs them the right position in the court since Nadal can make them run with his cross court backhand. Once in defense his opponents cannot hit a good shot and Nadal can now bring in the big forehand to finish the point.
And here’s how Andy Murray played his semi-final match:
1. His first shots in the rally were often directed to Nadal’s forehand which slightly surprised Nadal. Once Rafa moved to his forehand side, his backhand side was open. Murray then played to his weaker backhand side which was now really weaker since Nadal had to MOVE and HIT his backhand.
Murray also closed in on the net often after the down the line shot to Nadal’s backhand to create even more pressure since now Nadal had to MOVE + HIT + PASS.
Of course Andy also played some rallies keeping Nadal in his backhand corner which prevents Nadal from attacking. But Nadal is much more used to that and knows how to get out of such situations.
2. Andy positioned himself far behind the baseline for the return of the first serve. That way he had enough time to make a good contact with the ball. He also knew that Nadal won’t serve & volley to take his shot out of the air. That way Murray neutralized Nadal’s good serve and made it just an average one.
3. Andy did not force many shots and didn’t hit that many winners. He was confident in his abilities and calmly rallied with Nadal from the baseline. This often unsettled Rafael since he expects his opponents to eventually make an unforced error. Andy was willing to work hard to stay in the rally long enough to earn a short ball and gain the initiative in the rally.
4. When Nadal started his “lefty forehand against righty backhand” combo, Murray didn’t fall into the trap of hitting the ball immediately down the line to Nadal’s backhand. He played the ball cross court as is the normal shot in such situation. That way he cut away Nadal’s angles of attack and Rafa didn’t do much with those deep cross court shots.
These four smart tennis tactics helped Andy Murray eventually prevail 3:1 in sets against Rafael Nadal and brought him his first Grand Slam final.
And here’s what Joel Drucker had to say about Murray’s tactical game:
American coaches, developing players and their parents should watch Murray play — but not merely to imitate him. A coach once called the U.S. “a land of kids who hit on the ball machine.” Murray is the opposite. As a child, he studied much more than learning how to hit the ball. He studied players — tendencies, patterns, grips, spins, weaknesses and strengths — and thus has emerged as a masterful strategist and tactician.
Although far too many American instructors and coaches emphasize stroke production, what can be learned from both Murray and Federer — another player who’s adroit at putting opponents off-balance — is the need for a student to create a playing style, to grasp a principle American legend Bill Tilden articulated more than 50 years ago: “Never give your opponent a chance to make a shot he likes.”
So the next time a player says, “I’ve just got to play my game,” start wincing. Just like a pitcher facing a hitter, tennis is an interactive game. Murray and Federer grasp this magnificently.
- Related posts:
September 13th, 2008 at 2:05 am
As a Federer fan, I hope he took note of Murray’s tactics and use them in future encounters against Rafa. I especially agree that Roger should stand back a bit while receiving Rafa’s serve since I recall him missing a lot of seemingly easy returns in there recent matches.
How well would these tactics work against a less tired Nadal, especially on clay?
September 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
They are good tactics, however I feel a fresh nadal would have punished Murray a lot more with that forehand, and won’t work on clay attacking Nadal’s forehand….
February 16th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Anyone who has played this game understands that the imperative is to sometimes hit to the opponents strength, in order to open opportunity to the weaker side. As in Federer’s rivalry with Nada, Murray is a poor matchup for Rafa. Why. Murray has a diversified game, capable of keeping Nadal off balance. Critical is that Murray’s stronger side is his backhand, Murray is a tall man with two hands, has less difficulty handling the heavy ball up high. I agree completely that strategically it was wise for Murray to play deep on the return, again, he moves well enough, and secondly two-hands afford him more variety on the return, than Federer. However, in the final analysis I believe this match was rather more of an anomaly, than one that will lend to predictable results in the future. I believe Rafa played a poor match, for Rafa, and never really found his form. I believe the rain delays, and the extremely heavy conditions were also instrumental in this defeat. Having watched the match, what stood out most for me was Nadal’s inability to hit deep, his shots were predominantly landing in the service box or a foot beyond enabling Murray easy access to the net with penetrating approaches. I recall Nadal sending racket after racket off court in an effort to gauge the right tension, to accommodat the conditions, heavy air, heavy balls. Nadal never achieved any comfort in this match, and in my opinion never got his game in full flight. Granted Murray had much to do with this as Murray feasted off the short-ball time and time again. I don’t like to go beyond what is clearly present in a match, much prefering to simply view that which is the actual construct of the Match: without speculating as to injury or fatique, in this instance, in light of year Nadal had I would say there is a chance that he simply could not muster the needed energy to compete at a level we are accustomed, or he is accustomed to. If there is any validity to this assertion, it would be found evidenced b the fact that Nadal ostensibly withdrew from the tour for the remainder of the year, with rumoured shoulder and knee injuries. Ostensibly not returning until the Austrailian of 09. Therefore, though I agree the analysis of Murray’s “tactics” carry weight; I would also caution that this match and thus the Murray win, carry’s an asterisk*………the validity of this win will only be bourne out with a string of successes against Nadal by Murray. Though I have questioned this performance by Nadal, and have weighed it thoroughly, in the context of my prediction for 2009 that Nadal will be the first Man in Tennis History to hold all four titles on four different surfaces in a calander year. Aloha…..Mokibra