Why I Don’t Like to See Nadal At #1
Rafael Nadal has again won the final against Novak Djokovic, this time in Rome. Nadal already won in Monte Carlo against Djokovic and is of course the current #1 player in the world.
But I don’t like to see him there. It’s not that he doesn’t deserve his #1 spot.
He does, but not because he beats his opponents with better tennis, but because his opponents beat themselves.
I would like to see the best player in the world to be a better player than his opponents.
He should be able to attack and exploit all types of weakness and be able to win points in a variety of ways. Roger Federer is the perfect example of what a #1 player in the world should play like.
Roger Federer is able to play any tactic he wants and he can play any shot he wants – and of course he is a master of all of them.
But Rafael Nadal plays different tennis.
The tie-break of the first set in the Rome 2009 final is a great example how Nadal plays and how he wins. I’ll break it down shot by shot so that you can see what goes on…
I’ll look for two major things: what is the INTENTION of each player for each shot they play: is it offense or neutralizing?
Offensive shots mean, that the player is looking to hurt the opponent or finish the point. A player can hurt his opponent with a fast shot, with an accurate shot or looking to make a point.
Neutralizing shots on the other hand are NOT played to win a point directly. They are played to PREVENT the opponent from attacking and to come back from defensive situations.
This can show us who is looking to win points and who is looking to keep the ball in play.
I will also look at who has achieved a better situation in the ball exchange before the last shot - whether it was won or lost. This shows us who can better outplay his opponent and gain advantage in the point.
There were two points in the tie-break which included just the serve and a missed return so I we cannot analyze them in more detail…
0:0 Djokovic serves, Nadal misses a return
1:0 Nadal played 7 neutralizing shots (N) and 1 offensive (O), Djokovic 4 N, 4 O. In better position at the last shot: Djokovic
1:1 Nadal serves, Djokovic misses a return
1:2 Nadal 5 N, 0 O, Djokovic 3 N, 3 O. In better position – Djokovic
1:3 Nadal 2 N, 0 O, Djokovic 0 N, 2 O. In better position – Djokovic
2:3 Nadal 1 N, 1 O, Djokovic 2 N, 1 O. In better position – Nadal
2:4 Nadal 0 N, 3 O, Djokovic 2 N, 1 O. In better position – Nadal
2:5 Nadal 1 N, 1 O, Djokovic 0 N, 1 O. In better position – Djokovic
2:6 Nadal 1 N, 0 O, Djokovic 0 N, 2 O. In better position – Djokovic
Here’s what we can see from this analysis:
Nadal played 6 offensive shots and 17 neutralizing shots and Djokovic played 14 offensive shots and 11 neutralizing shots.
In the 7 points where the players rallied, Nadal played offensive shots in only 4 points. In the same 7 points, Djokovic ended up in a better position in the court 5 times but made unforced errors and missed the final shot.
Djokovic did not make tactical mistakes on those situations since he was inside the court and Nadal was far behind the baseline. It was correct for Djokovic to attack, but the missed the shot. The tactic was correct but the execution let him down.
(If you analyze your mistakes, always check whether you missed because the tactic was not correct or whether the execution was not good enough.)
This tie-break analysis is a great example of how Nadal wins matches and it applies to most matches he plays.
Nadal is not really a better player, he doesn’t really outplay Djokovic, Murray or Federer, but it’s their mistakes that win Nadal more points and he ENDS up winning.
And I’d like to see the number 1 player in the world to play tennis that wins points instead of profiting from unforced errors of his opponents.
So why is Nadal #1?
Because Djokovic, Federer and Murray MISS TOO MANY SHORT BALLS!
They are typically better in ball exchanges and gain advantage in the point but are unable to finish the point. Yes, Nadal passes them sometimes but they shouldn’t miss so many short balls.
Even if Nadal passes them here and there, these 3 guys can still beat Nadal if they would be deadlier on those short balls – like Agassi was for example.
I actually believe that Djokovic, Murray and Federer don’t practice finishing shots from inside the court or even close to the service line because they think they can already make these shots.
The reality is different though; just take a look at the above tie-break video and note what kind of shots Djokovic missed…
Then compare this with the tie-break that Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi played when they were in their prime. No unforced errors in the whole tie break and most points were won by someone!
So what are your thoughts? Do you think Nadal is a good example of the best tennis player in the world?
- Related posts:
May 5th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
This is an biest comment towars nadal….he has deserved his number one ranking….he has proven time and time again that he is the worlds best player..he has winning records against all of the top 10 players and if that does not show that he outplays the top players in tennis then i dont know what does…Rafael Nadal is a great number one.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Just wanted to say that I really like your analyses Tomaz. Both this analysis and that of the AO final Nadal v. Federer put the finger on a feeling that I’ve had, but which isn’t really discussed in media.
Of course, Murray has to a large extent won as many matches as he have lately, to a large extent following a similar defensive tactic as Nadal, wouldn’t you say? In both Miami and Indian Wells he was very content with just looping the ball back, scrambling along the baseline waiting for the opportunity that either 1) his opponent misses, or 2) the opponent attacks on an approach which is not 100%, leading to an opportunity for a good passing-shot.
Murray likes to describe this as ‘controlling the points in a different way’, I guess what he means by that is that you create a psychological advantage by getting so many balls back, that when the opponent does get a half-chance he tries to go for a little too much and misses. This tactic has obviously been extremely successful against Federer on his current erratic form.
What are your thoughts on this?
Otherwise, I hope you’ll keep these analyses coming, they’re really interesting!
May 6th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Hi Jonas,
Yes, Murray likes to play the same type of tennis. He enjoys very much if his opponent’s destroy themselves.
That’s his egoboost and he likes to feel smarter and mentally tougher and more intelligent than others – that’s why he developed such game style…
Nadal on the other doesn’t really seem to enjoy if his opponents destroy themselves, he is more concerned with not missing. I don’t see him as a brave guy, he just doesn’t want to miss and make a mistake. And I know that Tony Nadal KNOWS that and he is definitely not 100% happy with how Nadal plays right now…
He is a perfectionist as you can see from his behaviour: he puts his bags and racquets exactly the same every match, he puts two bottles on the ground EXACTLY at the same spots with the sign turned away from him, he is serving with so much deliberation and so on.
So you can imagine what this kind of thinking makes him play – he wants to be perfect and not miss. That’s how he developed his game style – just keeping the ball in play for the most of the match. That’s why Djokovic and others can beat him on faster courts – Djoko beat him twice on 2007 and twice in 2008…
May 6th, 2009 at 3:15 am
Yeah,I too agree with your analysis because for me style of play matters as much as winning or losing.No doubt,Nadal is on a winning roll thanks to his best defensive playing style.He is the best defensive player I have ever seen.The game becomes a joy only when you go for some wonderful and unbelievable shots which I think only Roger has got,maybe some other players also.But Roger is the best of all.He just needs to go into matches with a game plan and exploit the weaknesses of his opponents
May 6th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Hi Tomaz. I didn’t know that you also own the TennisMindGame site too!
I like this analysis because it gives us readers a different view of Nadal’s game. I’m all about the results when it comes to determining who’s a great player but when you put it like this:
“Nadal is not really a better player, he doesn’t really outplay Djokovic, Murray or Federer, but it’s their mistakes that win Nadal more points and he ENDS up winning.”
I’m inclined to agree with your point. However, I’d still give props to Nadal because at the end of the day, he’s still winning those matches and it’s not really his fault if his rivals are “missing too many short balls.” Nadal’s a great player but I won’t call him the GOAT yet.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Crazy points. You must be a Fed fan trying to make Rafa looks bad.
Rafa is a great talented tennis player who has achieved so much at such a young age. He has outstanding shots. I don’t know how much you know about tennis but to me Rafa has a very high percentage of playing effective and consistent. He knows when to risk and when not.
this year he keeps playing better and better. keep your analyse and see Rafa will win again and again. He is not only playing better but also smarter. Why showing all the weapons if he can win quite enough?
Rafa did make Djokovic had to play all his game at his best level and still lose the match. What I see is Rafa learnt a lot from that why his opponents still wonders why they played well but still lost. I am just so impressed. That guy is a genius.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Trish,
I don’t disagree at all with you. But many of you who comment have created in your mind a perception that I say that Rafa is not a good player. I never claimed that. Read my post carefully.
I am saying that I don’t like to see a player with his gamestyle at the #1 position. I have also proven my points that he doesn’t really beat other players but that they beat themselves – at least the top 3 guys.
That’s his style of play. It works. Again, I am just saying that I don’t like to see such a player at #1 in the world.
Do you?
May 6th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Steve, you are saying Nadal is winning because he allows his opponents time and opportunity to make mistakes, not that he outplays them…so you’re saying he’s smart, but not a better tennis player…Something that I think is often not really highlighted by the media…the whole time Federer has been #1, Nadal has been #2…so he’s sustained a #2 and now #1 ranking for 5 years. Despite the fact that he’s ‘injury’ prone…another media myth if you ask me…He manages to play more tournaments then most players, and he’s managed to be at the top as long as Federer…and now overtaken Federer….
So go ahead and keep analyzing points…but the results he’s shown, on all surfaces against all players, is not because they’re making too many errors…you just can’t sustain winning results that long without outplaying your opponents. He may not do it as ’stylishly’ as Federer has done it, but he’s a lot more exciting to watch!
May 6th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
An excellent analysis. Case in point: Tsonga’s destruction of Nadal in last year’s Australian Open.
Tomaz, you have articulated what I have been feeling but have been unable to put my finger on.
(My “worst” opponents: the ones that play excellent defense resulting in my “beating myself” through errors.)
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Tomaz,
I agree with you. I don’t like to see a player like Rafa at #1 spot, but it seems that he can stay there for a while if he’s healthy and if his opponents continues to make so many unforced errors. The question is, how to beat him ? What kind of game plan Federer, Djoko or Murray should uses ? Is there any weaknesses they can see in Rafa’s game ? Should they ask for some help from Jo-Willy (AO 2008) ? Any ideas Tomaz …
May 6th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I agree with Tomaz. I am also glad that there is someone out there who can put into words the difference between federer at #1 and nadal at #1. However, there is some right bull crap being posted here against tomaz and federer – gwyn for example, federer not exciting? the best player and shot maker of our generation and he isnt exciting? wow your deluded. also accusing tomaz of being a federer fan – excuse me? isnt this his god given right to support the greatest player in history? nadal is only at number 1 cause federers game and confidence fell apart so badly otherwise nadal would still be chasing him – i mean nadal inherited the number 1 ranking really, federer had an almost unexplainable self combustion out of nowhere, had it not of been for mono and this amazing drop in intensity, hed have won AO 2008, further cementing his #1 ranking, i also reckon hed have won wimbledon also that year – the minute roger gets his A game back, nadal, djoker and murray better watch out.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Excellent article!!
I have found my self on the same side of the fence and had to defend my opinion about Nadal so many times already! And the fact is that I love Nadal! He is a great guy, excellent sports man, and one of the best that is! At the same time, I hate his tennis!!
You highlighted several of the reasons why I don’t like his way of playing and I agree with all of them. One thing that you didn’t mention is that he purposefully decided to play with the left hand in mostly right handed world and that gives him and extra edge over most of the competitors. At least, against those that play with one handed backhand where this comes as a greater advantage. It is as clear as bell that it is very hard to return high balls with one hand on the backhand side, and that is something that he is using to his advantage a lot. But, it doesn’t work that well against the guys like Djokovic or Murray due to obvious reasons. Still, that is one of the smart choices that he made (or his uncle) earlier in his carrier and it gives him certain edge in most cases. But it doesn’t make his tennis techniques better, which is why I don’t like that fact!
Another thing that has to be mentioned here is also about what is the best way to play tennis! Since I am recreational player and I enjoy in good shots and their execution, I hate to see someone winning with neutralizing points. It reminds me of a pusher, but in highly modified and advanced way! I mean, nobody should take any pusher light since they will be punished for that mistake. In Nadals case, he is a modern pusher who does everything that pusher does, but in more effective way. How else to explain tons of balls that bounce high on the backhand side, which is exactly what pushers do!
So, there is no perfect world out there and since we are all humans, we all make mistakes. So, by accepting that fact, one of the tactics is to make fewer mistakes then your opponent! And Nadal is a master of that game!! And that is mainly due to his exceptional mental toughness and ability to keep things cool one shot longer then most of his opponents! And that is a great feature as well, which is one of the champions threats!
So, since this game at top levels is all about the winning (no extra points for pretty shots) those guys are all professionals and they go about their business the same way! Unfortunately, that is the nature of this sport (and most others) and unless something big change in the game it self, it is going to stay like that forever. And for that situation, Nadal is definitely choosing the best tactic and at this time his is the best out there! But, from the beauty of the tennis game, I hate to see his play and that is where you and I agree 100%.
Fedja
May 6th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Hey Tomaz,
Great points!
“He does, but not because he beats his opponents with better tennis, but because his opponents beat themselves.
I would like to see the best player in the world to be a better player than his opponents. ”
What I don’t understand is how making his opponents beat themselves doesn’t make him a better Tennis player? He’s number one, he’s beaten Federer on Federer’s domain, but he’s not a better Tennis player than him? That doesn’t quite make sense to me.. but I definitely agree with you when you say that you don’t like seeing that kind of player as the number 1 player in the world. However, each to their own, because Nadal has definitely earned his spot — no matter how he’s looked doing it.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Hi Tomaz.
Great comment of all.
My opinion is that Rafa are really well prepared and egzactly aware of his limit’s and don’t risk with offensive shots in unprepared situation. But when he has a chance he hit the ball so hard and with a lot of spin what make me believe that the #1 spot is in right hands. Of course, that style leaves a very little space for opponent great tennis, because after are great shot against Nadal you probably find yourself in position to defence a game after a passing shot or even offensive shot from Rafa. I think His speed give’s him a adventage of wonderfull preparation for next shot and he is very calm and focus in realization his best shot’s in a specific situation. So Rafa’s style is something we don’t like, but we all want to see ours players in the same position and no matters the style.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I appreciate all of your comments. At the end of the day, Rafa always (with rare exception) hit’s fewer errors. He may not seem to go for winners, but he usually sets up a winning combination of shots (and he can restart a point better than anyone), and he hits very penetrating balls that wear down his opponent (much as Agassi did). He is as good as anyone now in all-court play, including his volleys, slices, and ability to mix up his spins. Add on his mental toughness, his speed and defense, ability to step up on the big points, and desire to improve…..a perfect formula for many years at the top and many years to be a marvel for fans. Someone will have to match him on that list of assets to overtake him (or if his body or desire breaks down). It will be interesting to see how he plays in 5 or 10 years. And, by the way, I believe that who is number 1, or 2, or 100 is over emphasized. Don’t you ever love watching someone on the public courts play just for the love of it?
May 6th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Tomaz,
With all respect to your acumen on tennis and your brand of Tennis mind game,I feel you just got carried away by your ego and trying to de-value the talent of Nadal.Instead of saying ” I don’t like to see a player with his gamestyle at the #1 position” you should rather be appreciative of the fact that he is the mentally the strongest #1 ever,even better than Roger Federer, Nadal’s talent lies in producing consistently good performance be it defensive or offensive according to his ability.I think that is the most striking take away kids should learn from him,he does not boast of lucid style or classic form etc but he just sticks to what works on that particular day against that particular opponent and reaps success.Isn’t it a sign of the best? I think he is less egoistic than Roger Federer and more adaptable than Roger Federer.More over we need to see people like him to be role models as he is down to earth in his attitude.
As a coach you have free will to say what ever you want from a #1 but I think you are just trying to impose your mind and your style on him and rate him,don’t try to expect things from him that you could not or could have achieved.Rather if you want to propagate good thoughts on tennis try to see the good side of sports person and coach the good principles to your students and community.You can use all your knowledge to slice and dice any particular game as your doing it from your couch,so it is easy.
No offense please it is just my thought.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Tomasz, you have an uncanny knack of deep insight. It was a revelation for me to read this post of yours. It was like you were saying what I was feeling, but I didn’t even know I was feeling it.
Watching the Oz open and now Roma I had a feeling I couldn’t quite identify and I realize now it is exactly what you have posted in your analysis above, viz Nadal is not winning the match so much as his opponents are losing the match (at least against the Top10). Sure he hits some great winners, but for example, in the Rome final he had quite a few less winners than Novak. But half the unforced errors.
If this makes him the “best” player in the world or not is a subjective decision. Does he have the most ATP points and is he objectively the #1 player in the world? Yes
But would I rather watch Federer glide around the court and work his opponent into exactly the position he wants and then pull the trigger? Or would I like to watch Nadal scramble around the court and loop safe balls in for 20 shots until his opponent hits the net going for a winner? I prefer the former.
Thanks for sharing your analysis
Paul
May 6th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
tomaz,l am at your side 100% .
May 6th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Tomaz, very interesting points, ones I had not really considered. Without getting into the debate over whether Rafa is a deserved number one, I just want viewers to focus on the Agassi / Sampras tie breaker – now that is GREAT tennis. Agassi evolved into my favourite player to watch and his ability to put away the short ball was fantastic (as you rightly point out).
Thanks for the inteligent analysis Tomaz, very much appreciated and enjoyed.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I love to watch Rafael Nadal play. His matches are always exciting no matter who is his opponents. He brings the best out of others.
To me, he absolutely deserves the number one ranking. He has earned it by hard work and extreme talent. No any other former number one had to do fight so much to reach the number one.
You are entitled to your opinions. As you ask me if I want to see Rafa at number one, I will answer I don’t see anyone better than him at the moment. He gave me more pleasure to watch than any other tennis players. Thank you for your question so I can express myself more without too much opinions.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I cant agree with your thoughts on nadal. Yes he does play more defensive tennis than a lot of players do, but he also attacks. You say his opponents are better+have the upper hand on many of the points, then if they are so good they should win them.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda does not count for anything in sports.You are definitely a fed lover, making excuses for your hero’s downfall.One of the main reasons he did win so much was his competition was not very good+they would fold under pressure.
Nadal just proves that it is very difficult to attack him consistently. It also shows that even the top players in the world can not play that high risk attack tennis for an extended period of time.
Nadal wins because he is the superior athlete+stronger mentally than his opponents. But he also wins because of his unbelievable shot making.You definitely need to watch more of his inhuman shots that he makes match after match.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I believe the reason why these top players are “missing short balls” is because if they do not drive them aggressively, nadal will be likely to pass them with his great speed. That’s why djokovic and federer are aiming closer and closer to the lines (and missing more). Its because nadal is so great defensively.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I found your analysis very interesting and informative. I’ve never been big fan of Rafa though was a huge fan of Roger for a long time. But I have come to respect Rafa for his determination, focus, and burning desire to get every ball back over the net. Bjorn Borg was probably also not very well liked for the same reasons. Watching someone beat themselves against a brick wall can be frustrating. And I agree it’s frustrating watching players who seem to have more “talent” consistently crack under the constant pressure that Nadal puts on them. Knowing that he gets to almost everything with his lightning speed makes hitting those short balls that much harder. That’s because they all have been there many times where they hit what would be a simple winner against most humans only to have Rafa track it down like Roadrunner to hit some incredible passing shot down the line or ridiculous cross-court angle backhand winner.
We also have to remember that Rafa hits the ball with more spin than anyone who’s every played the game. It may be frustrating to watch, but I can understand why so many talented guys crack under the constant pressure that is Nadal. Not because he always dictates, but that he almost roper-dopes people into losing.
Nadal is No.1. Why? I break it down to these things… love em or hate em!
1. Sheer determination to get every single ball back on every single point no matter what the score is. I’ve never seen that kind of determination from anyone.
2. Ridiculous speed. The guy might even be on drugs. He runs circles around everyone else. This may also have a lot to do with 1.
3. Unconventional Quirky left-hander. How many right-handers do you know who play lefty? I think it has a lot to do with why his spin and style is unconventional and makes it more difficult for most players.
4. Mental/Emotional Strength. Nadal carries himself around the court like a cat stalking prey. He always seems to maintain a constant mood that seems positive. Very rarely do you seem him with negative body language or facial expressions. He is always ready to do battle. Always to the very last breath.
5. Consistency. I think most of us would agree that at just about any level of tennis, the player who is more consistent is usually the player who wins. Consistency makes you play with more and more confidence. After all, the simple rules of tennis is…. hit the ball over the net into the court just 1 more time than your opponent. Nadal has been able to do that more than anyone else right now and for that, we have to give him his props.
I’d love to see Fed, Djoki, or Murray take him out, or just about anybody else for that matter, just because I feel the same way you do deep down. It’s not as much fun watching him win as it is watching him make other people play their very best tennis. Time will tell how long his reign will last.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I used to dislike Nadal’s playing style, with his loopy shots and put one more shot in against your opponent mentality. But over the years my opinion of him has changed. Tennis is a beautiful game to watch when the shots are flowing effortlessly as in the case of Federer before he was mentally destroyed by Nadal. But you can only play beautiful flowing tennis when your opponent allows you to. Federer was able to do that against most players but not Nadal. At the end of the day if winning is your objective, I believe that you can use any style of playing even if it looks ugly on courts. I have come to appreciate how hard it is to deal with deep loopy shots that look so harmless compared to shots that are fast and skimming just over the net but landed short or 3/4 of the court. These kind of shots allow you to hit in your wheel house and comfortably too, whereas those loopy deep shots that pin you to the base line are not easy to handle. Hit them too hard and they land outside the court, too soft and they become easy sitters for your opponents. I have seen this times and again with Nadal. Yes, I agree with you that Nadal playing style is incongrous with the perceived play of the no 1 player in the world, but it is the required play to cement your place as the no 1 player in the world. I do wonder if Nadal begins to play beautiful tennis whether he can still be as dominant in his game. At the end of the day though, winning sure beats losing even if it looks like you are wielding a hoe on the tennis court instead of a racket.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Tomaz,
You have proven your opinion with facts. Those disagreeing with you are putting their feelings above the facts. Nadal is #1 because he has earned the points to reach the top poisiton; however, like you, I don’t like seeing a player with Nadal’s gamestyle at the #1 position. In fact, it’s become a challenge for me to watch a complete match with Nadal because of his gamestyle. I’d rather watch Federer, Djokavich and Murray because of their gamestyles.
While Murray does tend to play too defensively, compared to Federer and Djokavich, I do like his all-court play. When Murray becomes more offensive in his gamestyle I believe he will move higher in the ranking.
Thanks for the sharing your detailed analysis. Always thought provoking!
May 6th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Sorry, but I don’t agree with you.
To begin with, I think it is wrong to categorise who should and who should not be the #1 player in the world based on game style. As long as the player is not cheating, as long as he or she is playing fair, there is no reason to say he doesn’t fit. Next thing we will rule out people based on how they dress, e.g. saying Nadal was not suitable to be world #1 when he wore sleeveless shirts. Too childish, nah, not the style for a world #1…
Other than that, on a more technical level, I think taking the Rome final alone as an example to how Nadal plays is flawed. Novak is an extremely talented player, some may even say he is only second best to Nadal on clay, so obviously that dictated a very different game style from Nadal – with less risk and more control.
To me, the Rome final was not winning at all cost as you make it look, it was winning smart.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Tomaz,
I agree. Federer is a complete player. Still the best in tennis. He has the complete palette of skills. Nadal, on the other hand, is to be admired and respected for different reasons. He relies on his athletic ability to win. I agree, that he started winning the big games when he used that athletic ability to stay in the game and not to win. Earlier in his career when he tried to win…he lost. So he must be given credit. He is using what he has and he is winning. But there remains no doubt that Federer is a more complete player and Djokovic is on his way to being the same kind of player.
We are just fortunate to have such diverse champions who bring different skills to the game and continue to make tennis a great game to watch and an even better game to play.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Hi Tomaz,
I see your article doesn’t make Nadal’s fan very happy. You says Nadal is #1 because other guys miss too many short balls. I think if that is the case, none of other guys should be #1 either since they are unable to finish short balls.
You’re right about Nadal game, he usually try to neutralize opponents and then attack when he sees an opening, that is like a torture as Roddick said in a postmatch interview against Nadal. He likes to turn defense to offense but you want to see the #1 player to play offense most of the time (?).
Nadal’s neutralize shots as you point out in your analysis look more like aggressive shots to me. He uses lots of racquet head speed to generate topspin so the ball jump up very high after bounce. I bet Federer would prefer to return a flat offensive shot than Nadal’s neutralize shots. I played against one of this kind, it’s very difficult to have a good timing. it’s like you see a wave coming at you on the beach, it’s powerful enough to knock a person down but look peaceful from the shore.
For me, Nadal game is more exciting to watch since there’s usually lots of rally with angle shots, he uses the serve to set up his groundstrokes rather than to win the point right away. It’s better for tennis than to see players swiftly hold serve within 2 minutes. I think the reason that others can beat Nadal on hardcourt is they can get many free points from the serve. In last year Wimbledon final, if Federer doesn’t hit a service winner on his serve, it’s more likely that Nadal will win the point from the rally.
Another reason i think Nadal deserve #1 position is his attitude. If things don’t go his way, he will fight always and usually able to turn it around. This year, we already saw Federer falling to pieces a few times when he lost his game. I prefer a #1 who “bend but not broken” than a #1 who beat down his opponents but falling apart when he’s unable to.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Dear Tomaz,
I absolutely agree with your opinions on Nadal. Yes he is ranked number 1 in the world but he is NOT the best in the world in tennis. It is frustrating to me seeing best players like Federer and Novak beat themselves, because they belong to the best CLASS, though their FORMS are sometimes up and down.
In short, I do agree that he is ranked number 1 but I do not and will never like this type of player to be considered the best in the world. In men’s tennis, I believe that Roger Federer Pete Sampras are.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I think Nadal’s biggest weapon is his technique, speed, and his ability to precisely judge a ball bounce, rather than ball placement.
Nadal hits the ball with tremendous spins, which make returning his ball more difficult than it appears. His ability to move around the court so quickly puts a lot of pressure on his opponents to go for the extreme. His quick and precise judgement on ball bounce enables him to make very little mistakes, and prevail on clay, where funny bounces are not unusual. With all these in his arsenal, the best tactic for Nadal perhaps is to force his opponents to make mistakes, as he is using right now……. for those who does not have Nadal’s abilities, they either have to take more risks, or practice harder!
May 7th, 2009 at 12:56 am
Great analysis. I haven’t looked at it quite that way before. . .You make some good points. In my opinion, Nadal has a few things going for him. He can physically outlast anyone, which forces opponents to try to hit winners. They try to hit bigger shots than they should and it results in unforced errors. Nadal also is quick and can get to lots of seemingly impossible balls, making an opponent feel like they have to “win the point” two or three times before they actually win it. Also, Nadal is an excellent tactician in setting himself up to win points, and plays it like a chess game, luring people into traps and watching them take the bait time after time. He has great hands, and excellent touch with his volleys and drop shots. He also has improved his serve dramatically, and while he doesn’t hit bombs, he is perhaps the best at placing his serve where he wants it all day long. Finally, he is mentally stronger than anyone right now, and his opponents are already mentally down a set and a break before they take the court. Nadal is probably beating opponents on clay at probably 60-70 percent of his best effort right now. I’d like to see the others like Murray, Djoker and Fed push him. If they do, you may see Nadal start to really flex those bulging biceps again, and start punishing people more with his power. After all, they don’t call him The Ogre for nothing. Here’s hoping some of the other guys start challenging him and making him work. Until then, he really doesn’t have to.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:47 am
Travis (and many others),
You say:” What I don’t understand is how making his opponents beat themselves doesn’t make him a better tennis player?”
It does. He is the #1 player in the world. He wins against Federer, Murray and Djokovic and all the rest of the guys many more times than they beat him. I never disputed the fact the he deserves the #1 spot. My point is only the he is not an ideal representative of the best player in the world.
In my opinion, the best player in the world in the game of tennis should be a master of all strokes, should be able to play them all the time and should win matches by outplaying his opponents. That’s not how Nadal plays and that’s why I don’t like to see him at #1 representing the game of tennis as the best player in the world.
I welcome all opinions here but please keep it civil, don’t insult each other. Everyone has a right to an opinion and I will approve all comments that are posted with the intention of sharing the opinion whatever that is.
I am not a fan of any special person, but I am a fan of masterful tennis. If Nadal starts to play such tennis, I’ll become his fan.
If 90% of his tennis is just playing top-spin shots to his opponent’s backhands in order to neutralize their attacks, then I am not his fan.
Feel free to share thoughts!
May 7th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Hey Tomaz,
I think your analysis is good, but there is something missing.
Playing a guy like nadal with tremendous topspin is really tough. The ball bounces so high, that often many players can`t handle this spin (including Federer, Murray and Djokovic).
Another thing to mention is that Nadal is an awesome counter-player. Even if you hit a great offensive shot, he gets these balls back even better.
With that in mind you are forced to even hit harder, which produces more unforced errors.
Let me know, what you think about that.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Interesting and thoughtful analysis, Thomaz.
At this point Nadal is no doubt a better “tennis player” than Roger and the other “big two,” because he is able to find ways to consistently win against them. As noted, his athleticism and mental game is astounding. But that has nothing to do with his “game style”, which is what you’re pointing to here, and I agree with your assessment, that it is not as all-rounded as say Federer’s.
Personally, I think any consistent no. 1 is a good representative of the no. 1 seat regardless of their style. For example, the “serve&volley” style is less versatile than the “all around” style (one might even argue it is less versatile than the “aggressive baseliner” style), but I think it would be silly to say Sampras isn’t a good representative of the no. 1 seat.
As to whether he is interesting to watch or not, well, Nadal is the most interesting when confronted by offensive players like Fed and Djoko. To watch him chasing down impossible shots and win the point is just something else. So I am just hoping that the likes of Fed and Novak will be able to improve their mental and technical game, and really put on a display of flawless offensive game against Nadal, then, we will have ourselves a great match to behold!
By the way, I can see now why you’re more of an Agassi fan than Sampras fan : ) and your point by point match analysis system is very helpful and always appreciated.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:04 am
Your approach towards this whole situation seems to stem from the fact that you have your own interpretation of what a good tennis player is, and hence all your analysis will slant towards that angle. Yes, a good tennis player, especially at the #1 position should be able to hit all sorts of great shots and win the point as oppose to letting the other guy lose the point. But there are other components as well that will make a guy stand out.
However, with all your emphasis on making Nadal look like he isn’t quite as good as the other guys, you did not give credit to his absolute raw determination and discipline that has brought him to where he is today. You think it isn’t real tennis if he scrambles to get every ball back and lets the other guy make a mistake – why don’t you go out there and try doing that. Let’s see how long you can last. Nadal’s supreme fitness and brilliant work ethic is what brought him past all these other guys who thought that they could win on sheer talent. And yes, Federer is the most amazing player that I have seen in a long while, and even while I think that Novak is arrogant, he is a very, very good player as well. But Nadal is something different because he is able to surpass all their talent, and this shows that at the end of the day, you need both talent and great work ethic in order to be the best.
Moreover, Nadal has the most amazing spin that I have seen ever put on a groundstroke, and that itself is a huge weapon even against the top players. That should count as an outstanding shot because he can stun even Federer with the pace and depth that he can generate. If he was just average and only concentrated on getting the ball back, then he would not have as much success as when he “over-spins” his opponents to make life more miserable for them. He has started incorporating other shots into his arsenal, and you can see from all the recent tournaments that he uses them with greater success now. He is no longer just one dimensional; although he still sticks to his guns, the speed and the wearing down of his opponent that brought him to where he is today.
There’s so much more to say about why your comments are unprecedented, but I’ll leave it at that. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, and I don’t think that you’re wrong, but I feel that you have dismissed the power of work ethic and fitness in one article. You even ignored the strength of Nadal’s shots and shot selection, especially from his forehand. You have your own personal definition of “masterful tennis”, and that is NOT the general accepted definition. So you should have qualified that at the beginning instead of just saying that this is your own opinion. It is your opinion, but it is also your interpretation, and that makes a lot of difference in how you approach this discussion.
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Dear Tomaz,
I could not agree more with your analysis and had the same observation as you had you you said he is “perfectionist”.
Yeah, the way he did with every things are the same every times: the bottle placing, the towel, pulling his short and rubbing his hair around his ears (even no losen hair there et all), boucing the ball (I even tried to count how many bounce he had when winning or lossing the previous point. Although I did not have the fact as you did, but look like the number of bounces are in range of 6 or 7). for this observation , I even think Nadal is a bit superstitious and sometimes I do not like it at tall.
although I am a great fan of Nadal but I had to agree with other than Nadal #1 spot might not last as long as other such as Federer or Sampras. (the most admired player to me is Sampras)
May 7th, 2009 at 5:48 am
Hi Tomaz!
It’s great this you’ve started doing. It encourages people to talk of this or that point that offers to others, like me, a more satisfying sensitivity to the sport of tennis; not just something to swat a tennis ball with, with an outsize tennis racket to pile on points. I think that’s what Nadal does, just swat the ball to kingdom come, no finesse, just pure brawn- sheer physical strength (sans the outsize racket though). I get so tired watching him play. On the other hand, I think Federer typifies the Cassius Clay of Tennis, suave and
elegant. So much fulfilling watching him execute his smooth strokes. Regards, gil
May 7th, 2009 at 7:06 am
Tomasz, I do think that you base your viewpoints on a very subjective line of thinking and those “facts” are a specific selection of observations and facts made to fit that line of thinking.
How can you can watch a match like Wimbledon 2008 and still come to the conclusions you reach is beyond me but it’s your loss IMHO.
It’s your prerogative to have this opinion and to back it up with what you perceive as facts (which is appreciated even though I don’t agree with most of it) but one day, I do hope that you’ll sit down to look at Nadal from a different perspective.
For example:
If 90% of his tennis is just playing top-spin shots to his opponent’s backhands in order to neutralize their attacks, then I am not his fan.
–> Come on, man. With all due respect but this is exaggerated.
About the mistakes others make and your conclusion that Nadal doesn’t win matches, others beat themselves.
–> There’s reason why his opponents make so many mistakes and this has to do with Nadal’s game style. Action – reaction.
His shots are very hard to control for most opponents. Not all but many of those mistakes are triggered so that’s not a matter of opponents beating themselves.
May 7th, 2009 at 7:22 am
Excellent analysis, Tomaz. Thought provoking and fact-filled, I like it. Rafa is on top because he has oodles of patience, a will of iron and oak-tree legs fitted with propellors. No one else in world tennis today matches these 3 attributes. Roger has a better game, undoubtedly but as we saw in the AO, at the final lap, Rafa had a stronger ticker…
May 7th, 2009 at 7:25 am
He is just a muscled, brainless man with a bad behavior. He is not worth for the No.1 position.
May 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I think Nadal deserves to be #1, but I feel conflicted about his style. That is because I think he wins because of athleticism, not because of tennis skills. If he weren’t so mobile and agile at his defense, then he would certainly be losing. You have analyzed why he lacks the tennis strategy to be a more complete player.
I think similar criticism has been made of players like Venus and Serena who dominated through power and not finesse. Also Jelena Jankovitch has been criticised who reached #1 by playing so frequently (also defensively).
That said, I admire Nadal for his work ethic (ditto Jankovitch). I think he really puts a lot into improving his game (i.e. serve). People also criticised Chrissy Evert for lack of athleticism.
What about “pushers”? Do they deserve to win? I usually reply that if you are always winning, then you deserve it. However, I think a distinction can be made, as you have made, between winning through sheer athleticism and winning through better tactics or better stroke production.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Tomaz,
I agree that Roger Federer is the type of player you want to see at #1. Liked your analysis, it really brought some facts to the way I’ve been feeling about Nadal.
On the other hand, while Nadal hits neutralizing shots more frequently, they seem to have gotten stronger over time. A high looping forehand from Nadal is not quite the same as a high looping forehand from Mike Boysen
The only other explanation is that everyone is hitting more unforced errors and all things have remained equal.
BTW, nice effort in getting everyone mad at you!
May 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
You’re not only giving your opinion, you are underestimating the world’s best player and in fact, you’re spreading prejudices and ignorance with these types of comments. Fortunately, in sport, results and numbers most of the time speak for themselves so it’s impossible to keep forcing same stereoypes forever.
“just playing top-spin shots to his opponent’s backhands” – I assume you haven’t seen too many Nadal’s matches, or too many tennis matches in general?! It’s what a majority of complete players do to neutralize their opponent’s strength and create themselves enough space to attack and win a point.
If someone’s strongest side is forehand, why should anyone insist on playing to their forehand, and allow themselves to be outplayed?
Second thing, how is tennis that is filled with unforced errors – classy and exemplary tennis?! Just because it is “offensive”?
How is Nadal who outplayed Djokovic in every category (better net stats, better ue stats, better serve % stats etc etc etc) not a better player than him?
In fact, you really don’t know much about Nadal’s tennis at all, go watch the last shot of the match and then come and say that it is not masterful tennis.
Nadal doesn’t rely on his “athletic skills” as ignorants prefer to think and no, Novak and Roger don’t “beat themselves”.
Nadal beats them because his shots are more precise, because his mind works better and is smarter on the court, his footwork is better, his feeling and timing is better, he makes less unforced errors and his attacks are more efficient than theirs, plus with all this counted in, he’s got superb defense that unables them to convert their attacks and finish them as they can do against other players.
If it was that easy “only playing to his opponent’s backhands” don’t you think we would have more players with as successful results?
I wish you would leave your prejudices aside and then maybe you would be able to enjoy the game more, without hiding behind certain stereotypes and without writing wrong information about players’ game.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I have been thinking long time why Nadal is No. 1.
My thoughts are just like yours Tomaz. I like watching him, but the truth is that he is not playing the best tennis.
Djokovic is playing great tennis this season and Murray too, but Nadal is too clever for them ( not becouse he controls the points).
The thing I like in Nadal’s game is that he changes the deffensive situation into offensive.
We all know that Nadal will continue winning with his different game without making forces, he just makes his opponents beat them selves.
That’s a clever thought!
I am bored watching that he’s hitting top-spin waiting the opponent to make mistake on backhand.
I have also been thinking why I ejoyed Wimbledon 2008 final. I think Nadal played great, but I think it is becouse Federer was playing so great and he was making Nadal also play the best tennis not using this tactics.
Thanks for making this post, I learned a lot from this.
I am also happy to share this thoughts with all of you.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Well as you said those ”talented” offensive players CAN’T finish off the point when they get the short ball, so what exactly makes them better player than Nadal??? At least he finishes his points with a winner whenever he gets a short ball and a chance to do it.
Your article is just another Rafa bashing by a Federer worshiper. Why don’t you analyze the type of players who were his opponents in that weak era he ruled in??? Now that some decent players fill the top 10 his beautiful attacking tennis” looks like a mess and winning titles is not so easy.
I prefer a player with a plan B, someone who can change tactics, Rafa plays more aggressive when he needs to, at Wimbledon he plays his most attacking tennis and it’s beautiful. He’s got a huge advantage cause he can rely on his amazing defense to win him matches unlike Federer who just keeps on doing the same thing even when it’s obvious it isn’t working anymore. I’m happy I won’t have to watch Rafa fall apart in his matches when he starts going down.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Well, I have to say, I disagree with everyone who says you’ve proved it with facts – you didn’t take into account (in the Djokovic tiebreak analysis) who got in the first aggressive shot, as I feel this is an important factor in the number of aggressive shots in a ralley. The fact is, Nadal is very good at turning defense into attack, so if Novak hits 8,9,10 aggressive shots in a ralley while Nadal soaks up the pressure and then turns it around and hits 3 aggressive shots and wins the ralley, I don’t see how that means Novak played the better point. Surely the context of the points is important?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion about who is the best player, but for now, that player is Nadal. Until someone has better results, it will remain him. Maybe Federer’s best of a couple of years ago was better, maybe it wasn’t, but we are not in 2006/7.
I also think it’s unfair to say Nadal plays defensively (although he does at times, and admittedly, did a lot in the past). He is playing much more aggressively recently, especially when he is feeling well – did you see his stats through the first 4 or 5 round of the Australian Open? They were ridiculous – 50 plus winners against Haas to 8 UFEs? That was just that match – it was more of the same in the others – he had a diferential of plus 100 at one point.
Regardless, each to their own. I just happen to disagree with you (and I don’t like to see Federer at number one because I find his matches – not necessarily his tennis – boring as he doesn’t often have an opponent good enough to make him play, and I hate his attitude).
May 7th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Ah Tomaz, Maybe one day you will get your wish and one of the top players or a new up and comer will develope the consistency and tenacity to go along with the awesome skill required to solve Nadal’s game. It’s too bad that technology and athleticism has rendered the serve and volley game futile for that used to be a style that thwarted dirt ballers.
I think of the super skilled players as artists and as we have seen with Federer, the artist’s temperment surely tends to be a bit more flighty than a man who carries a lunchbucket to work like Nadal.
Rafa’s game is so unique ( who do you practice with to get ready for him? ) it will be difficult to dislodge him but a few years ago we couldn’t imagine anyone stopping Roger. Life goes on and Tennis just gets better.
May 7th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Thanks for sharing everyone.
Again, it’s very interesting to read comments and answers to something I never claimed. It’s an interesting experiment in how human perception works.
There are so many replies about how I don’t consider Nadal’s fitness and mental toughness and that he really deserves #1 spot. As if I claimed that he doesn’t deserve it.
On the contrary, the second paragraph of my post says:”It’s not that he doesn’t deserve his #1 spot. He does, …”
So all of you who want to convince me, that Nadal really does deserve the #1 spot are just wasting time and energy. We agree. I just don’t like his gamestyle to be a representative of the best player in the world.
Imagine a meeting of the best players in different sports: tennis, golf, basketball, soccer, volleyball and so on. And let’s say there’s someone who doesn’t know much about sports and you want to introduce to him the best players in each sport and what they are capable of and how they have mastered every aspect of the game – technique, tactics, mental and physical part.
Would you like to see Nadal as the perfect example of the best player in the world who has mastered everything possible in tennis or not? That’s my point.
For me, he is not a good example of that. He is of course a good example of many other things, but not as master of everything that is possible in tennis.
He is not Michael Jordan or David Beckham or Tiger Woods of tennis. He is a different kind of player and he bases his game on statistics. He served for example 1 serve to Gonzales’ forehand in the whole match in the semifinal. All the rest were served to his backhand. Who else plays like that?
I miss the risk, the play, the excitement, the variety, etc…
Nadal plays like a computer – he analyzes a weakness (or maybe Toni does that for him) and then he plays there until the end of the match. Does it work? Yes, it does.
It is interesting? Not to me it’s not. If he plays with Federer, he serves 90% of the serves to the backhand, and aims 90% of the shots to the backhand side.
If I have a junior tennis player that I am coaching and want to develop him as a player, what can I show him? Sure, mental toughness and physical stamina and total focus, but can I show him the variety of tennis when watching Nadal? Not really.
We need to take another DVD and find another player to examine serve and volleying, approaching the net, changing rotations and so on.
Is Nadal capable of playing most of those shots. YES, he is. Does he use them? Only against much weaker players.
He is like Steffi Graf who was perfectly capable of hitting a top spin backhand but almost never used it. That’s how I see Nadal; he plays the safest shots almost all the time.
Again, does that work? Yes, it does. Does he deserve to be #1? Yes, he does, because he wins more matches than the next guy. Do I like to see such game style? No, I don’t.
So when you comment in the future, try to see my point. It’s just my opinion of what kind of game style I like to see for the BEST TENNIS player in the world. It don’t even care whether it’s Nadal or Michael Chang or Emilio Sanchez. The gamestyle of these players is in my opinion not a very good example of what the master of tennis game can do.
I’d like to see the best player in the world play every shot in the book and win matches through much more offense than Nadal currently plays…
May 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
The reasons why Nadal should not be #1 is the same ones parents use when their junior gets beat by a player who does not play “pretty tennis”. My daughter or son can’t play against that person, they ruin their game. They just get the ball back and don’t really play tennis.
I am going to not let my player practice against them because it ruins my players game. In fact I am going to move my player to the next age level so they don’t have to play against them.
How silly???? Who says you have to play a certain way to be #1, does a boxer have to box a certain way to be a role model for #1, does a race car driver have to drive a certain way to be #1, does a basket ball player have to play a certain way to be a role model for #1.
What if we said I don’t like having Pat Rafter as a #1 role model because he only serves and volleys and that is not how we want our players to play. What if we didn’t want Connors to be #1 because he can’t serve and hits the ball too flat or Chris Evert to be a #1 role model because she plays a boring style of game I don’t agree with.
The fact that he can beat (or let them beat themselves as you describe it) everyone on every surface means he is able to stop opponents from hurting him, he neutralizes the points until you panic and make an error of he passes you or pulls you off the court so far that you make an error trying to get to the next ball. He made you make the error by the position he put you in.
Jay Berger, a former pro player, said he scouted his opponent by counting the # of shots they were willing to hit before they had to go for a winner and under pressure of the score, where did they like to hit. That was his main two criteria in scouting how to devise a game plan against the next opponent.
Nadal just has a higher threshold of pain before he feels compelled to “go for the big shot”. That is one of the characteristics we are usually trying to develop in our junior players who have no tolerance for more than 3-5 shots.
Nadal – not my favorite player, but he has earned my respect as the best competitor on the planet – at this time and truly #1.
Ken DeHart
PTR & USPTA Master Professional
May 7th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
When asked how anyone could be considered better than Rafa, if he’s the world number 1, Toni Nadal responded by saying:
“There is a difference between who is better and who knows more.
Better now is Rafael, he is No. 1 in the ranking. But who has the best game? Federer.”
Time magazine :Tuesday, January 13, 2009
I agree With Tomaz, Tony Nadal and Rafael Nadal himself when he said at Hamburg two years ago with his beautiful spanish accent : If i had to loose again , he is the man (speaking of federer)
I am not taking anybody’s side, I love watching Nadal fighting , and federer getting more and more artistic
I consider ourselves lucky to have such Great players at same time .
But I think that at this level ,the game between Nadal and Federer is becoming a mental game more than anything else. and for this Nadal is N.1
Every Player has an end , hope that federer will not let his ego kill him right now , and nadal will get more artistic so that in 3 years from now his fatigue will not kill him and could win without having to run and run endlessly
May 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I for one find this article to have a lot of merit! For several years now I am wondering why I don’t like the way Nadal plays and what is wrong about the picture that I dislike it this much. And I know lots of people in here do know what I am talking about.
I even tried with the comment on that above mentioned site, but I went too far and too wide and lost my compass all together! Since then I was thinking more about that and here is my final conclusion.
The main reason why I hate to watch Nadal’s game is because I don’t like that type of game. One of my friends that I play a lot with has decent forehand, but very weak backhand and most balls are just defensive slices one after another. Whenever I tried to play high looping top spin ball to his backhand he would suffer so much and I would win most of the points. But, I can’t do that kind of game because it is lame for me to win that way! And great part of Nadal’s game looks just like that!
Now, there is a huge difference between my perspective and Nadal’s and that is in why we do this! For Nadal, this all job that pays big bucks and all the rest that comes from winning the games and tournaments. In order to do so, people will do whatever works and if hitting every single ball through your legs would gain most points everybody would be doing it! And, for Nadal his type of game obviously works extremely well and get him his praises! And he might even enjoy what he does and for him that is the way to do it! And all of it is just the way it should be! Asking for anything different in Nadal’s case would be like asking Pete not to serve that well since most people have difficulty returning them. There is no difference for me between those two.
Now from my angle, I don’t play tennis for leaving and I don’t have to win all those matches to pay my bills. I play tennis because I enjoy hitting balls the right way (whatever is that for me). I enjoy hitting one handed backhand down the line or cross court even if I loose point after that. I enjoy hitting the serve well that goes in the corner where I wanted it too go regardless if my opponent returns it so well that he/she wins the point right there! Those are some of the things that make me to get out to the court and hit the balls!!
So, from that perspective, I don’t like Nadal’s type of game because I don’t like to do that myself. and when I do some of it the way he does it, the winnings that I get from it are bitter enough to make me not to do it again! If I would have to live like a samurai and loosing of the game would mean loosing your life, I would definitely do things differently. But, that is not the case, at least for me and those are my reasons for not liking his game.
What is your reason for liking or disliking Nadal’s game? How about Federer? Or anyone else? The point here is that all these guys are great athletes and we all have so much to learn from each one of them. Find out what you like and try to do it the same or even better. Recognize what you don’t like from them and make sure you don’t do the same. That is the best way to gain from this article or anything else around us instead of just plain calling names and unnecessary confrontations.
All the best!
Fedja
May 7th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
You said ‘I just don’t like his gamestyle to be a representative of the best player in the world.’
Great. Fine. Good fo you Tomaz. You’re completely entitled to your opinion. All these responses, therefore, to what you wrote don’t matter a damn. If this is how you feel, why is anyone here arguing about it? D’uh.
I say, ‘I like Nadal’s gamestyle to be a representative of the best player in the world.’ Pretty pointless to argue either postion, no?
May 7th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Tomaz says: It is interesting? Not to me it’s not. If he plays with Federer, he serves 90% of the serves to the backhand, and aims 90% of the shots to the backhand side.
That’s because it’s gotten good results.
May 7th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Valid points, Tomaz.
Let’s continue your idea…
How come that the coaches of the other tennis players don’t see it and don’t advise their players with a “right” tactics against Nadal?
How come that Nadal’s tactics works very well practically against any of the best tennis players?
What is the probability (in your view) that we’ll see some changes from the other big 3 (Federer, Djokovici, Murray) in the coming Roland Garros and/or Wimbledon tournaments, so they will stop “beating themselves” and will win matches against Nadal?
Because if they can not do this adjustment and continue to loose it really doesn’t matter in the end how Nadal wins – a win is a win and Nadal deserves it and maybe we should change our views and recognize its beauty!
I personally would agree even more with your point if someone would show how (using the “elegant” tennis) to beat Nadal! Until then it is really irrelevant!
Can you please share with us your thought about where the big tenis is going? Is Nadal style the one to prevail? Or we’ll see soon enough another way?
Thanks
May 7th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Interesting and detailed analysis Tomaz, and of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinion
But your post seems to beg the question: What is the criteria to consider someone to be a better player than another? Since you say you would like to see the #1 be a better player than his opponents, it suggests that your criteria for being the better player is NOT consistently beating your opponents over an extended period of time – because Nadal has achieved that, yet you don’t regard him as being “better” than his opponents at this time.
Sure if we take let’s say Federer from a few years ago and compare to Nadal as he is right now, it’s not clear who would win more in head to heads (not on clay of course we know Nadal was still dominant over Fed on clay even a few years ago).
But comparing the all the top guys as they are playing right now, I find it hard not to say that Nadal is the best player RIGHT NOW (and for the past 6 or so months) – and that as in, IS the BETTER player.
Mind you, I am a Federer fan, like his game and style a lot, but I also admire Nadal more and more as I see how ferocious a competitor he is, and man, can this get hit some of the most amazing winners off impossible gets. We haven’t really consistently seen Federer do this for at least 1.5 to 2 years now, so surely we have to concede Nadal is the better player than his opponents right now.
Just my view!
May 8th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Again, well said Tomaz. To those who pulled the “how dare you condescend Rafa” well, read the article again; and this time, all the way through.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:30 am
Marron: “All these responses, therefore, to what you wrote don’t matter a damn. If this is how you feel, why is anyone here arguing about it? D’uh. I say, ‘I like Nadal’s gamestyle to be a representative of the best player in the world.’ Pretty pointless to argue either postion, no?”
Exactly. What a person who carefully read my post would reply (if they wanted to share an opinion exactly on my point, would be simply: Yes, I like to see a player like Nadal to be a representative of the best player in world or No, I don’t like to see such player be on top of ATP and then elaborate on his / hers views.
But no problem, I am happy to read different views!
P.S. Check this Agassi – Nadal rally and see how Nadal defends, defends and defends. Nadal actually lost this point but WON the match. Again, my question to you, dear reader is: Do you like to see a player with such game-style be on top of ATP or not?
This is not a question of what is right or what is wrong, which style deserves the #1 spot and so on. It’s just a question of YOUR preference.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:46 am
Ken DeHart says:”How silly???? Who says you have to play a certain way to be #1, does a boxer have to box a certain way to be a role model for #1, does a race car driver have to drive a certain way to be #1, does a basket ball player have to play a certain way to be a role model for #1.”
Ken, you misunderstood. If I want to develop a junior player I will DEFINITELY NEED to develop ALL the strokes and tactics in the junior period. If you disagree with this, then this is a completely another topic and you’ll never win that argument with me or any top development coach in Europe.
But if you agree, that we should develop ALL strokes and ALL tactics for a junior player, then if I take a DVD of Nadal’s matches, there will be LOTS of offensive strokes and tactics missing - especially against the top 3 guys. I’ll need to take another DVD, most likely Federer’s to show the kid other ways to win points. Agree?
Also, if my junior player is winning matches with Nadal’s style of game, then that’s great. I am not talking what works (right now, although most players who were #1 played MUCH MORE aggressive tennis!), but whether I can use Nadal’s game to demonstrate and teach the complete game to a junior.
And secondly: it was exactly this kind of playing that got Nadal quite far but not to the final point until 2006 or 2007. He was so one-dimensional and played only top-spin shots left and right. Well, mostly to the backhand.
He is VERY LUCKY to be talented enough to be able to learn a slice and improve his volleys at the age of over 20. His game worked only on clay for many years.
Many players are now unable to add anything new to their game just because they used to play a game that worked for too long ignoring the development of all stroke and tactics. Davydenko comes to mind first…
Andy Roddick is another player whose development was not wide enough to cover the complete game of tennis and he also did well to add at least a backhand slice and better volleying skills later.
But these are exceptions and in most cases it’s too late to do anything significant after 20 years of age. Even now, Nadal reverts back to his favourite style of play which works right now. Why it works; because Federer lacks motivation, lost his confidence and because Djokovic and Murray still aren’t smart enough to outplay Nadal on clay. And because there aren’t many good players left out there…
The top 8 players without Nadal and Federer have won 2 Grand Slams (Djokovic and Roddick) so there aren’t many REALLY good players there. Compare this field with the top 10 of 1992 where top 10 players together won probably more than 40 Grand Slams. I’ll do some math and write a post about it soon…
May 8th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Thomaz,
Personally I think Nadal is a great representative of the No. 1 spot because 1) he is the perfect defender, 2) he points to the importance of the mental game of tennis. How does one become the perfect defender and possess perhaps the toughest mental game?–Great athleticism and an indomitable will, which I think are the two greatest aspects in any sport and why we as human race value sports so highly. To see Nadal exerting everything he has to chase down impossible shots and win the point is simply inspiring.
3) The third thing that is great about Nadal is his amazing sportsmanship–we often heard people disputing Djoko, or Roddick, or even Federer’s sportsmanship, but I think not even die-hard fed fans will dispute Nadal’s sportsmanship, and I think sportsmanship is the third most important aspect about sports after athleticism and an indomitable will.
To summarize, I think the three most important aspects of sports is great athleticism, an indomitable will, and sportsmanship. These three aspects are what make sports so great and are perhaps best summarized by the Olympian Spirit. Nadal is the perfect embodiment of these three aspects and of that Spirit, therefore, he is a great representative of the no. 1 spot in the sport of tennis.
PS, Thomaz, thanks for getting a heated and interesting discussion going
: ) Looking forward to hear your response.
May 8th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Great post mEmYSELF. I totally agree. This is why articles like this annoy me, they totally ignore Rafa’s game. Yes it is different to Federer but why is that bad??? You are so right when you say he uses his brain and doesn’t rush to the net every other point like Federer does and usually misses. If something doesn’t work then try something else, that’s what he does and what many other players don’t.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:17 am
@ mEmYSELF: You can check the first video of this post if you wish to see how Nadal THESE DAYS constantly plays a neutralizing game. The Agassi video is just a classic example of how Nadal plays (defensive) and still wins. Congrats for that, but he doesn’t look like the #1 player playing like that.
He has mastered the percentages and statistics game to the max and plays them. (serving 95% to Gonzales backhand, playing 83% of shots to Federer’s backhand – stats taken from live tennistv.com match)
I understand his tactics and game plan perfectly well, as you can see from my analysis. But you and most others are avoiding the real point and no one says it: Yes, I like to see a defensive player like to Nadal to be the #1.
That’s why the comments are enabled on this blog so that people can talk about it. Whether someone likes a defensive style to represent the #1 player in the world has been missed in 99% of the arguments above.
But again, I don’t mind. I do try to show that Nadal plays most of the time a neutralizing game which many of the commenters were unaware of. This has opened their eyes somehow and now more people can analyze Nadal’s and everyone other’s game through offensive and neutralizing shots and make it easier to determine the game style.
And while I agree that Nadal is now a more complete player (but still FAR from mastering it), he RARELY uses it. As soon as the situation gets tight, he plays the usual neutralizing top spin shots. And since the situation against the other top 3 guys is usually tight, that’s what we can see when he plays.
So, instead of arguing whether Nadal deserves the #1 and whether he is a good player, give me a straight answer: Do you like a player with Nadal’s gamestyle to be a representative of the best tennis player on this planet or not?
Jessey answered my post with good points why he likes to see Nadal at #1: “To summarize, I think the three most important aspects of sports is great athleticism, an indomitable will, and sportsmanship. These three aspects are what make sports so great and are perhaps best summarized by the Olympian Spirit. Nadal is the perfect embodiment of these three aspects and of that Spirit, therefore, he is a great representative of the no. 1 spot in the sport of tennis.”
Feel free to elaborate on your preference too!
May 8th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Dear Tomaz,
thanks for your reply. I’m not sure whose comments you’ve been reading or maybe did I miss somewhere because I keep seeing many people saying exactly that – they do like Nadal’s game and find it appropriate for n1 player of the world.
You seem to have a problem with defensive play yourself. Until you resolve that with yourself, you will never be able to get rid of prejudices.
What I disagree with you is that Nadal’s a defensive player. All positions in tennis are either tactical or induced. If Djokovic is seemingly in better position at 1:1 (and I take that with certain reserve because that is exactly what Nadal does, he makes you feel certain enough and it looks like he’s out of position and whoom, he’s in control all of a sudden – that’s not what a defensive player does) as he is constantly looking for space, and then (Djokovic) decides to play a drop shot and he fails that doesn’t make him “the supposed-to-be-winner-of-the-point” nor does it make him better player, nor does it make him more complete player.
Yes, I love when Nadal defends well , not because he “only gets the ball back in play” it’s not what he doesbut because he does it with such precision, and puts it back deep and in the end with Nadal, you never know where your shot is gonna end, you need to have the court fully covered as he is able to convert defense to offense in one shot and that is fantastic, the combination of both.
Also, you only take examples of when Nadal really got tight and Djokovic stepped it up. It’s what happens in high-quality tennis, when both players are excellent.
One’s level goes up, while another player’s level goes up, the thing is Nadal even when he reverts to his defensive game he still wins points because he is that good, I will quote british commentator:
“when Murray drops his level, it’s one-horse race, when Nadal drops his level , it is still very competitive”. That’s the difference.
So you take that one example of a couple of shots played, but why don’t you analyze the entire first set, where Nadal was:
1) unableing Djokovic to attack with his deep and penetrating shots, and keeping him far behind the baseline
2) was winning space to attack constantly, was playing offensive and scoring winners more than Djokovic.
Yes, then Nadal’s level dropped and Djokovic stepped it up and positions changed, but still throughout the whole match it was Nadal who was in control 70 % and that’s why he won in straight sets.
So, that’s what I told you in the first place about being SELECTIVE. You find one piece of a match where Nadal was vulnerable and you think it’s like that that it is supposed to be, but you ignore the rest of the match where Nadal’s level was higher and when he was playing better.
It’s normal that positions change and it’s normal that levels change and exchange during a match.
Like I said, Nadal is no Tsonga, or Nalbandian, but neither is Djokovic. Nadal is not an offensive player, but neither is he defensive.
He’s a complete player that has all and that’s why he is number 1 player of the world. Nobody “beats themselves”, better player beats you, it’s all.
And to be even more precise, I love Nadal’s style because it is top-quality, smart tennis.
I hope I made myself clear this time.
May 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Guys , Why are you so arguing about it …
I mean if you disagree with Tomaz , that’s ok
But then why you did enter and just aggress
Try to be more open, it’s just an analyze ,we all have seen generations and generations of tennis players
They were all great ..and now arguments are over
Myself I always took Agassi’s side , he was cute , gentleman, respectful, humble and above all had the passion for the game
That’s was a reason why I never gave myself the chance to see how great Sampras was, as he was the classical opponent of Agassi I always disliked him .. I was young
So criticizing Nadal here is not to say he is bad, if that’s what’s you get from the article .. you are a tennis amator which is ok
He is the GREAT, the best defensive player of all time. He can not be beaten, and he will not be beaten in the near future, he will eventually break lots of records.
But he is so predictable, he wins because he is the perfection of this kind of game ,he is physically phenomenal And he desperately puts everything to win
Or as Nadal puts it, “I’ve always liked the competition more than the tennis” “It’s only a game,” he says. “It’s not work. It’s hobby work.” Time magazine
I love Nadal , but I don’t think he needs lawyers, he admits it himself .. and that’s what made me like this guy
He know exactly where he is, he is hard worker, humble, know his weakness and forces then gives top players such respect that he protects his game against them
He deserves n.1 spot ..he is the one who wants it the most, but I would like to see in that spot a player who has this deep passion for tennis ..
Do someone know what I mean by TENNIS DEEP PASSION .. tennis should be your first concern in life to see what we see deceiving in Nadal’s game
For Soccer’s fan .. it’s like the difference between France and Brazil (unless you’re french who would you like to see playing and winning word’s cup?)
I still think that Nadal can be that player, if he keeps going on with his tennis by himself and face some loses while making some adjustments to his game to relieve the physical pressure he puts on his body.
Please read this article to develop a more general idea :
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870373-1,00.html
May 8th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
One of the great beauties of the sport of tennis, in my opinion, which is worth teaching to any new generation is that different gamestyles, at a given point in time against the best available competition, can be representative of the No. 1 best winning-est gamestyle in the world.
The number one player at different times have embodied different styles of play. As a tennis purist, for myself, I agree that I visually prefer to see a No. 1 player who has an elegant all-court attacking gamestyle such as Federer or Laver in his time, and in general (and for teaching) I do prefer that style as world’s best tennis representative for all the reasons mentioned here.
But I also think that other gamestyles, even if they are less pure and all-rounded and less offensive, can serve well as “best representative” of tennis for a given amount of time, as embodied by the No. 1 at the time.
For example, Sampras serve-and-volley gamestyle as “best representative” during his time. For example, Borg in his prime with his loopy topspin baseline game. For example, Connors with his super flat and deep baseline game in his day. For all the reasons mentioned by Jessey, Nadal for the current moment with his gamestyle (neutralizing, heavy topspin, high percentage) can be and is the best representative of tennis for now.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Wow! So many arguments from so many readers who are taking exception to one man’s viewpoint.
To begin with, there’s nothing biased against the world No. 1 that I found in the article. Secondly, there is analysis on the style of play – which, as observed by Tomaz – is rather unusual for a world No. 1; this is the premise of further analysis, comparisons have been drawn with past champions to elaborate.
Rafa’s varied styles of play against different opponents have been analyzed…in effect this really is a technical viewpoint and some candid observations that shouldn’t be taken offensively. Come one, folks, lighten up. I don’t even see a counter-analysis on the points provided in the article, just paragraphs defending Rafael Nadal who happens to be my idol too. Look at it with an objective mind.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Tomasz,
Whilst I appreciate that you have done some analysis, a few points with regards to the tie-break. Firstly, look at the news article on the Rome Masters official site: on the 1st of May entitled “Nadal: I have to try to be more aggresive”. He had already stated that he was not playing his best tennis. Something that the press also picked up on during that week.
Secondly, a tie-break is far from an ideal time to analyse whether a player is aggressive enough or not…it’s the one time when you need to play consistent tennis. Djokovic even built his name on it during the 2007 season beating Baghdatis and Hewitt in games involving grinding tie-breaks. Also Djokovics first two errors (particularly that insane drop shot attemp) came from positions where he needed one more shot. The problem here is that often when he is in severe danger Nadal manages to do the unthinkable and find a winner, particularly when on the run. He’s defensive to some extent, but more-so, he’s a counterpuncher which is more patient than negative. Djokovic makes the mistake before we find out whether Nadal would have hit a winner.
With regards to the Agassi Sampras tie-break these two players brought the best out of each other, the same way Federer and Nadal do. Nadal and Djokovic do not bring the best tennis out of each other, as with Queen’s club last year it’s more of a slog. You’re also comparing clay with hard court, which is naturally more given to aggressive players.
Also, your tie break analysis does not take into account building shots, where a player attempts to forge create an opening, but aren’t necessarily completely offensive. An example being the third shot (crosscourt backhand by Nadal) at 0-1, he’s been pushed back, but gets himself out of trouble and pushes Djokovic wide on his forehand, its not a massive stretch for Djokovic, but if he gets there much later than he does and plays it short as a result, Nadal has an attacking opportunity on his own forehand aiming at Djokovic’s backhand. Djokovic plays with good length, however and the rally is back to neutral.
An example of his counterpunching: 3-2 Nadal gets pulled wide on his forehand, pulls Djokovic even wider and opens up the court for a winner. What this says is when pushed Nadal will go for the point, but if he isn’t, he will wait for an opportunity. This is the mark of a great player, knowing when and how to attack as well as when to play consistent tennis.
This is more opinion than fact and is my own interpretation of your analysis. Neither my interpretation, or yours should be mistaken for factual as they are both opinion based on one tie-break in one tournament.
Yes, Nadal is frighteningly consistent when he’s on form, but to play some of the winners he does against Federer takes some talent. It also takes someone of equal talent to bring this out of him. Every champion should be measured by his greatest rival…Sampras and Agassi brought the best out in each other, Federer and Nadal do the same and at the moment Nadal is winning that battle.
May 8th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Why I like to see Nadal at number 1:
He puts forth a positive attitude on court, no matter the score. Great for young tennis players to learn.
He shows the importance of being physically fit. Youngsters can see this part of your preparation is necessary.
He carries himself with dignity and humility, win or lose. Off court, he’s obviously uncomfortable with the praises heaped upon him. Another great lesson for the kids.
He plays smart tennis. If 90% of your shots to the backhand of Federer work to get you a result, you don’t change up a winning formula.
When he loses a match, he goes back and figures out a way to beat his opponent next time. (Tsonga, Blake, Youhzny). Nice lesson for young players again, don’t let your losses defeat you, think of how you can do better next time.
He’s a role model for youngsters in that he wants to constantly improve, and says this repeatedly. Check out his performance in Wimbledon 06 and compare to Wimbledon 08, especially slice and volley shots.
He’s an entertaining player to watch – it’s thrilling to watch him reach what one thinks is an unreachable shot, and not only to get it back, but to get it back for an offensive winner. (banana forehand), (first point, RG semi 05), (AO 09 semi vs. Verdasco)( too many others to mention here.)
These are just a few reasons why I like to see Nadal at number 1.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
@Marron: Thanks, that was a very constructive and interesting response.
May 8th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
frankly, i don’t like nadal at all. i acknowledge the fact that he’s very good and very consistent, but seriously, nadal the number 1 in the world? that doesn’t even sound right. it sounds… wrong! federer IS NUUMBER 1! watching him play is exciting, it’s fun, it’s exhilerating. he’s a good rep of tennis in general to the public, and he is the best all time tennis player.
May 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
FOR MYSELF I AM BOTHERED BY RAFA BEING THE MODEL FOR TENNIS
HE IS GREAT , BUT NOT A MODEL FOR YOUNG TENNIS PLAYERS, SURE HE HAD A LOT TO BE LEARNED FROM, BUT NOT A MODEL TO AFFECT GENERATIONS TO COME …
“There is a difference between who is better and who knows more.
Better now is Rafael, he is No. 1 in the ranking. But who has the best game? Federer.” TONY NADAL
Time magazine :Tuesday, January 13, 2009
May 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am
This is an interesting discussion that can be easily compared with a football analogy of the two most successful national teams.
Who are the current world champions? Italy. They are defensively solid and clinical in attack, although not usually pretty to watch. They do have the ability to play beautiful attacking football, but this is usually against weaker opponents. They deserve to be world champions as football like all sports require you more than talent – organsation, discipline, tactics, focus etc…
Who are the ideal representatives of football? Brazil. They play with attacking flair and are the favourite team of neutrals and football romantics alike.
Nadal can be compared to Italy…deserved and undisputed kings of their sport. Although MOST fans would still prefer to watch Brazil or Federer (in the case of tennis) play.
I do like watching Nadal play, but love watching an attacking player like Tsonga or Verdasco try to break him down. That’s the beauty of the sport.
May 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
I don’t want people to undurstand me bad from my previous comment.
I watch Rafa and support him, but I’d love to see him doing more on the court.
I agree movement great, shots top-spin great…
I can’t wait for Roland Garros, who knows we’ll mayby see him in better light.
But as he won’t skip Madrid who knows…
Thanks again all, nice thoughts, different, but still I agree with Tomaz.
Which thoughts are based on what is real!
May 9th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
@Mario,
That’s exactly the right analogy. I also discussed this with my friend and he came up with the same example.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
TOMAZ asks me: “Do you agree that Djoko got into a better position more times? Doesn’t that mean he outplayed Nadal in order to get into a better position? Doesn’t that mean he is a better played in this VIEW?”
I can’t agree with that, because the position IMO doesn’t make anyone better player, just like the playing style doesn’t make you a better player. I can prefer one style over another but I can’t talk about – outplaying – if that person isn’t winning. The one who wins the point outplayed the other.
Sure, I can agree with you that at some points – he was in better position SEEMINGLY (I say – seemingly because I don’t know what would happen afterwards) because positions change and exchange during a point, especially with 2 baseliners like Nadal and Djokovic, however, that is completely irrelevant. But completely.
For example, he played that horrendous drop-shots, actually the majority of his drop-shots were awful, what does that say? That he outplayed Nadal?
No, you outplay someone by winning a point.
So, you do understand my point why I find your analysis weak? I mean, it isn’t weak, if it was your only intention to say that Djokovic was in better positions in tie-break (like I said, that is hard to say who was in better position, because Nadal’s forehand from running is one of his greatest strengths) but in classical sense – yes, BUT, that isn’t the standard, it’s not what happens on every point and it’s not how Nadal wins matches.
TOMAZ asks me:
“Can you please stop now and share your views? Do you like to see a player with the game like Nadal’s to be the #1 player in the world? Why?”
Yes, I do. Why? Because it’s top quality tennis. Because he’s a fantastic point constructionist, because all of his shots are strong and precise: forehand, backhand, volley, drop shots, lobs…
He is able to produce storming winners, he is a great defender and is able to do something very attractive: turn defense to offense in one single shot.
He’s got fantastic touch at the net, and even though he’s not a net-rusher, he’s got great skills there and produces them and shows them in every match.
He’s got a great feel for the ball and is able to change the direction, make a superb passing shot or simply return it with much power and precision.
He’s a great thinker on the court, who is able to change the way he plays if things aren’t working, who is able to find a solution and fight for the win instead of bowing to defeat.
He’s a great sportsman who shows much respect for his colleagues, he’s humble and fair in both victory and defeat, has great relationship towards the sport…
He’s an athlete who works hard, is dedicated to improvement, wants to learn, wants to incorporate more things in his game, is very ambitious and dedicated.
Is that enough both game-wise and personality-wise?
May 10th, 2009 at 1:10 am
I’ve moderated lots of posts from this point on because the discussion went into a completely wrong way; people nitpicking every word to prove me wrong (how can you prove wrong an opinion?
)instead of sharing their own views.
So to clarify, let me explain in different words what the article wanted to tell you:
1. In my opinion Nadal is not a good representative of the #1 player in the world.
Why?
2. Because he plays a different type of tennis (which is currently successful). What kind of tennis does he play? He plays lots of shots to neutralize the opponent, to tire them down physically and mentally so that they start making unforced errors.
Is this all he plays? No, but the majority of the game is based around this strategy.
3. To show you what I mean (and not to prove my point; I don’t need to prove anything to anyone), I analyzed a tie-break shot-by-shot and counted the numbers of offensive and neutralizing shots so that we’re not just talking about my feeling, but that you see actual numbers which demonstrated what I mean.
4. I also said, that Nadal is not a better player in a sense, that he doesn’t outplay his opponents and get into a better position in the court more often than they do. This is probably true for most of his top 10 opponents.
With the rest (I watched a match with Rochus in Barcelona and a few others), Nadal does get into a better position more times.
Here’s what I mean by a better position in the court:
Nadal definitely does NOT want to be in this position and thus is not deliberately playing counter punching tennis, but is forced to.
Thus, my analysis tried to show you who was in a better position before the last shot. This shows me who can get the upper hand in a baseline rally. A #1 player in the world should be getting into this position more often than his opponents.
That’s the whole point of tennis tactics: play closer to the line and push opponent back behind the line so that: he has less time to react and more court to cover – which increases the chances of a mistake.
It’s not a proof, it’s just shows a way to analyze tennis matches so that you know whether your general play was good and whether you missed because of wrong tactics or poor execution. Each reason needs a different approach in practice that’s why it’s important to know what really went wrong.
Therefore, Djokovic doesn’t have to change any tactics when playing Nadal next time on clay , but he has to improve his execution – which means, he’ll have to hit lots of shorter balls and become more accurate.
It’s NOT that Nadal is better than him and Djoko would have to find a solution to fight Nadal, but it’s just hitting the ball in the right spot which has nothing to do with the opponent (unless you make it so in your mind!) but with the game of tennis.
In summary: Nadal plays a lot of neutralizing shots (feel free to disagree
), he wins by frustrating his opponents and not by forcing mistakes with offensive shots which almost EVERY previous #1 did and that’s I feel he is not the best representative of the best player in the world.
The goal of the article was to show you different ways of analyzing the game (which you probably haven’t seen and have now learned something) and to offer you a chance to say what you prefer.
I’ve learned my lesson with some of the commenters and will not approve comments that miss the point of the article. If you’re a Nadal fan, feel free to express your feelings toward him or his game. I don’t mind at all.
May 10th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Living in Spain its difficult not to admire Rafa Nadal and what he has done for tennis here – but I grew up in the Bjorg/McEnroe and then as your video so brilliantly showed the Agassi/Sampras era.
I personally just hope that some day two guys can come out and give us a performance like the Agassi – Sampras match – the classic dual between the big serve and volleyer and the crushing baseline player – I believe that every thing comes around, and out there will come another Pete Sampras, and I truly believe that the change of racket technology/players fitness/speed of shots has nothing to do with there not being a new Sampras, just that coaches today look at Nadal etc and think – this must be the right way to play.
May 10th, 2009 at 7:16 am
I’m confused as to why you say Nadal does not want to be in that position (ie. on the baseline) so is not deliberately playeing counter punching tennis. He says all the time that he wants to be more aggressive (and in fact, Toni Nadal has said that Rafa was extremely aggressive as a kid, but moving up to play with the big boys at such a young age changed the way he played, because his serve was so weak) – whether he can do it consistently or not is a different thing.
One thing I like about Nadal is that he seems to save his aggressive tennis for when he is break point down – very often he will smack winners on these points. He is not afraid to go for it in these situations.
I guess at the end of day, it’s all down to what you prefer to see as opposed to which is better.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:19 am
wy nadal is # 1 in my point of view?
1-Nadal is true fighter runs after every ball
2-Nadal concentration somtimes runs over his opponent
nadal also played hi bouncing ball to his opponent that makes it difficult to them to return back if not well postioned
for the moment he is proving he is the best
May 11th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Tomaz, thanks for the article it was interesting and well thought out.
I was not expecting such a numerous reply to this article and the overwelming response has made this topic much more interesting.
I do not think that Nadal’s “defensive game” is a good representation of the #1 player in the world.
I do however think that Nadal is a good representation of the #1.
What I mean by this is that Nadal is mentally and physically an excellent role model for the game.
-He is a great role model for footwork and movement (critical for tennis)
-He has put an extra emphasis on physical conditioning
-Mentally he employs many great methods on center stage (Eg. in Wimbledon Toni emphasized that Nadal should always believe that he can win)
-Nadal keeps a high energy level from start to finish
-He is a highly motivated individual always looking to improve
His game though is not a good representation because a mostly defensive style is not a good ideal for players looking to improve their game.
Consistency is a great mold to build up one’s game but by no means is it ideal.
Playing defensive tennis may work but the player who is more aggresive is the one who is truely in control of the match. The one problem that aggresive player has is to make sure that they do not “beat themselves”. By mentally making bad descisions or not executing and making unforced errors the aggresive player “beats themselves”. If the more aggresive player does not beat themself mentally or through the tennis aspect of the game then they are going to win the match period. The defensive player can not do anything to change the match if they do not have a plan B.
A real life example of this is how I used to play tennis before I learned how to play. All I did was bunt back the ball deep and high. I would play matches against more experienced players who had form and more aggresive shots. They would win points through those shots but unlikely through me making errors. I would [[only]] win points based on unforced errors. The only reason I won matches was through those errors. If I played a better player who tightened up their game and did not give me free points then I would lose indefinantly.
My point here is that Nadal is not in control of many of the matches against top players although it seems like he is. If Federer, Djokovic, Murray etc. are playing more aggresively then it only depends on if they are able to keep their errors down and are tactically smart (Eg. Novak’s dropshot).
The ideal tennis #1 should be someone who is control of their matches through aggression and should win because they are playing well, not only because their opponent is not.
-Nick
May 11th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
[...] “Why I Don’t Like to See Nadal at #1“: An interesting entry written by a professional coach. It has generated mixed reactions so far. Check it out and share your thoughts. [...]
May 11th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
wow, i never thought about this. i agree with you!
great analysis
May 12th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Well put, Nick:
“I do not think that Nadal’s “defensive game” is a good representation of the #1 player in the world.
I do however think that Nadal is a good representation of the #1.”
It’s what caused so many defenses of Nadal because the Nadal fans are unable to listen and consider another look at Nadal’s game than their own conviction. As soon as there is a small hint of something negative about Nadal, then generalize the statement on the whole story and look for arguments.
There are ways to disagree politely and ways to disagree in a non-acceptable way…
May 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Tomaz,
I’m sorry that this discussion has gone to a different aspect than what your intention initially was. I do agree with you that I don’t want to see a player who plays like Nadal to be a representation of #1.
Don’t get me wrong, I really respect Nadal as the best tennis player, as I never see such a tough mentality in playing tennis matches and never see players winning both clay courts and grass courts so often (not even Federer). He is the perfect example of how tennis player should be in terms of the physical and mental aspect. But I have to say, it is not as fun to watch somebody playing defensive shots so often in top pro game. To me it’s like a repeat of Lleyton Hewitt when he was Number 1 in the world.
I know consistency is a key to win tennis matches, but I would really want to see someone who can show varieties in terms of game and tactics. I hope one day I will see Nadal come out of his comfort zone to play various attacking styles of tennis (such as serve and volley – I’ve seen him playing at the net and he has a very good touch and reaction, but he just seldom use it).
May 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
in my opinion what represents the sport in a good way or in a bad way is the quality of the game but not any playing style in particular.
i would rather watch a good defensive player than a bad offensive player and vice versa. of course it is best when the leading player demonstrates literally everything there is but it was rarely the case throughout the history.
was sampras a bad representative of the game because he couldnt win a lot on clay and didn’t demonstrate enough of his defensive skills? i wouldn’t say so.
i also dont agree that nadal lacks variety or offensive shots or tactics. he’s one of the best adapters on the tour and can change his tactics fast to adapt his game.
over the years he’s been developing his game and now demonstrates all the variety of the shots, i dont think its fair to him to say that he doesn’t use it enough.
i also don’t agree with the assessment of nadal routine forehands being “just a neutralizing shot.”
those balls seem awfully heavy and the other guy sweats his ass off to return them with enough depth and placement, you see how nadal is inexorably pushing his opponent to his left side until he can run around a short ball and hit an inside-out forehand. Is a bit like a sumo fighter slowly pushing his opponent out of the ring: not as flashy as a roundhouse kick, but aggressive all the same.
the fact that they are not whistling flat winners don’t make them less offensive, you are equally struggling to put them back on court.
Fair enough if you don’t find that kind of aggression aesthetically pleasing, but don’t misconstrue it for what it is not.
as i mentioned, nadal has developed his game a lot and has learnt to play a lot of new shots he didnt have before and theres so much to write about his skills that i think that this is unfair to even discuss whether he represents the game well or not.
May 17th, 2009 at 7:33 am
I agree with Anthony. I consider Nadal to be the most aggressive player among professional tennis players today. He is also the most disciplined. To neutralize the other player’s shot, while hitting it into an area that puts you in a position to take advantage on the court . . . that is a special skill that can be appreciated by knowledgeable fans. Some of my reasons for admiring Nadal as the ideal representative of professional tennis include his ability to use tactics and strategies generally associated with the game of chess. Don’t be fooled by Nadal’s generous comments about his opponents, he is a tough, macho, determined competitor. He, and his uncle Antonio, are very clever in preparing and preserving Rafael’s mind-set going into a game, during, and after a game. I cannot think of a better example for a beginning tennis player than Rafael Nadal. Even his family represents the best kind of support that a Number One tennis player should have.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:33 am
Well today the tables were turned, and the Fed got some revenge.
But I also have to agree with Ken DeHart – why does it matter that Nadal is number 1 – there are no rules,regulations etc that say a player must play in any particular style.
If Rafa had been born in the USA, I doubt whether he would have honed his clay court game as he did coming from the Island of Mallorca, where there are ONLY clay courts.
If Rafa had been born in the United Kingdom, I doubt that he would have made the No 1 spot either, having to learn to play on 4 different surfaces.
The way he plays is for everybody else to find the “key” to unlock his game – on my tennis planet here in Spain, I have an annual battle in the 55 age groups with a guy who just “hacks” everything back – but hacks really well – I know playing him is like going to the dentist – I will suffer – but its that suffering that makes it a great battle, and that suffering is what all of Rafa’a opponent have to take on board and find the key or lose.
May 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Tomaz, you have echoed my sentiments about Nadal regarding his style of play- I’ve never been a fan of Nadal’s game. I am a diehard Federer fan.I am very pleased that you have brought up this issue and it has raised a great discussion from reading all these opinions here. About the issue of not liking to see Nadal as the number 1 player- I get what you’re saying, I don’t like seeing Nadal as number 1 either, however , having said that, tennis like any other competitive one-on-one sport involves competitors with very different styles and approaches to the game- it is this variation that makes matchups in this sport so interesting and Nadal-Federer matchups are turning out to be the best going now. To actually come out and say that you don’t like seeing a number 1 player whomever it may be, as the number 1 player, is invalidating that players merit. I want nothing more than to see Federer return to number 1, but I do realize that this is something he’ll need to earn now by adapting his game,strategy and mental toughness on important points (which Nadal has done). The competition has evolved and so too must Federer-his tears at AO were exemplary of his realization that all the things that have worked so well for him for so long, are ineffectual vs. Nadal and that he really has lost his grip on beating Nadal b/c at AO there were no other explanations for this loss to Nadal as in past matchups (ie: recovering after long sickness, slow clay surface, poor visibility in the evening light of Wimbledon 08 etc).
June 18th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Do you think Nadal is a good example of the best tennis player in the world?
YES, I do! Tennis is not all about technics…it is also a mental sport! In general, Sport is a huge part mental! And Nadal is mental the strongest out there in tennis!
Sure..he doesn’t have a serve like Federer or del Potro which could save him but this guy goes for every point. Sometimes it seems like he doesn’t even know what the score is…he plays every point same.
Also notice that he doesn’t make a lot unforced errors like the opponent…
But in the end of the day, the result is all that matters.
I really hope to see him on no 1 for a long time, since I really love HIS style of play! I really do!
June 22nd, 2009 at 2:03 am
In my opinion, Nadal makes his oponents miss or make mistakes. Of course when they play Nadal, they have to put the ball in corners, etc, otherwise Nadal could easily reach it. At this point, his oponents might create the winners, otherwise the errors. Nadal ability to return difficult shots is spectacular. Mentally and phisically, he is the strongest. That’s why he is Number One…. He deserves the spot for sure… he is the quickest player in the tour, I believe. He does not have serve like Roddick or Federer, but he makes progress…. If he stays healthy he will be getting better and better. He can prove it by winning hard courts nowadays…
I do think Nadal is a good example of No 1 player.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I think there is no correct way to play tennis. I am glad that nadal was number 1 for a while, and i think he will be there again. Defensive tennis isn’t at all a bad style of play. I do agree that a number 1 must have some sort of aggressiveness, though. What I think got Nadal to the n1 is his development of his backhand. He became able to smack a really flat, penetrating ball with his backhand and he uses this to hit a lot of winners. He also developed his serve a lot while he was n2, and before the australian open win he was working on flattening out his forehand a little.
So I agree and I disagree with you I guess. You need to be versatile, which all number 1s, including Nadal, have been.
The main difference I see between n1s and everyone else is all mental. They all come up big when it counts. Their style of play doesn’t matter. It’s how a player handles intense situations on a match to match basis that separates a n1 from the rest.
January 23rd, 2010 at 9:49 am
ATP World N1 means best tournament performer. Like it or not, it could even be s.o like Karlovich. So to avoid the speculation Tomaz’s quiz must be redefined as “What is world N1″. By the way the same applies to all sports, so a good point from Mario (May 9th, 2009 at 7:17 am)
Apart from this I think Federer is the greatest phenomenon in sports ever. Yet I love to see Nadal as world N1 as he was the only one to consistently break Roger on all of surfaces, right in his apogee. This is a phenomenon of a matching caliber, like it or not. Nadal’s way is no easier than anybody else’s, so hats down and respect to both!
January 26th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Angel,
As so many before, you are debating the wrong argument which is obvious from the first sentence you wrote. My post was just my personal opinion why I don’t like to see Nadal at #1 and NOT why Nadal should not be at #1.
English is not my first language but I don’t think it’s possible to state it more clearly than I did.
Of course, feel free to share your thoughts why Nadal “should” be #1 but that’s not what the post is about. It’s just my personal preference of what kind of player I prefer to see at #1.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Tomaz,
Sorry if I failed to make it clear.
With all respect and gratitude for your amazing work (have also bought your books and they are awesome) I still think there is a reason why “so many before” have “debated the wrong argument” and it’s not just misunderstanding your post.
Yes, it does present a personal opinion which I find as clear and strong as the rest of your work, however you end with a quiz that opens to wider interpretation. This is actually great, but the reference to the ranking system allows for some confusion. To avoid it I tried to point out the difference between personal preferences and impartial objectivity so that we are all aware what exactly we are beating about I hoped it was helpful and never meant to disagree with your personal opinion…
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Hey Angel,
The ranking system is just my personal idea of how I would try to compare Federer and Sampras.
And I am always interested in hearing other people’s opinions and their views on the topic – hence the commenting is allowed and encouraged.
There is of course a huge difference in saying:
- I disagree with your system because …
- You are wrong!
The second always baffles me because how can I be wrong if I just share my own opinion?
I can be wrong stating a fact – like saying that Sampras won 10 Grand Slams when in fact he has won 12. That’s wrong.
But you can scroll up and check the comments here and you’ll find dozens of people telling me that my opinion or my ranking system is wrong. That’s arrogance.
An opinion is just an opinion. I just came up with the system one day when I was trying to compare Federer and Sampras. It IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL to me and that’s how I SEE things.
That’s why explicitly used “I” in the title of the post to remind the people that this is just an opinion of course and that there is no point arguing against it.
But the arrogant ego (I am so smart and you’re dumb) keeps coming out of people and it’s just plain sad.
I still approve many of these comments and also share a thought or two like I do right now so that people can learn to JUST DISAGREE with someone and LET THEM have their own opinion and NOT attack with the “you’re wrong” argument.
Some will learn from this, some will not…
February 5th, 2010 at 5:16 am
Hey Tomaz,
Thanks for your reply!
I know it’s completely off the point, but it has so much to do with mental issues that I can’t help but say it: upon explaining what being wrong means you did get wrong – about Sampras’ GST count. Note it’s nothing but the digit right before “That’s wrong!”. Isn’t it so ironic?
I know it’s just a typo yet after reading your manual I figure it has so much in common with some errors we make in the game and in life, doesn’t it?
February 12th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Tomaz,
Nadal has outplayed those three many times from baseline, especially Federer in Wimbledon 2007 + Murray in Wimbledon 2008. We’ve seen him play aggressive and hit more winners now and then (not counting the serve) against those three guys.