Nieminen losing to Nadal aura?
Vari L. Cinicke
RzR
> Refusing to let Nadal hit winners! ;)
is nadal boring everyone already?
SliceAndDice
He seems to be boring Nieminen for sure. Jarkko cannot wait to get off
the court. :)
Vari L. Cinicke
Didn't expect more UEs than Federer from Nadal. But he is moving well
and was completely untested.
Next up - Gasquet.
Patrick Kehoe
As you likely know, Rafa's going for more in an attempt to garner more
winnners of his racquet = more UEs... and it's getting interesting in
that at times he does go off the boil now and piles up errors... will
the clay level that off, one has to wonder? Against better players
will he just revert to all out defense and take those odd
opportunities as in the past, his career method of domination via
defensive inpenitrability? Because to go for more, as he's learned to
do for HC success, it does mess with his winning clay formula... Such
a fine balance looming for him, perhaps?
P
felangey
winnners of his racquet = more UEs... and it's getting interesting in
that at times he does go off the boil now and piles up errors... will
the clay level that off, one has to wonder? Against better players
will he just revert to all out defense and take those odd
opportunities as in the past, his career method of domination via
defensive inpenitrability? Because to go for more, as he's learned to
do for HC success, it does mess with his winning clay formula... Such
a fine balance looming for him, perhaps?<
My thoughts as well....shall be interesting to see unfold.
Court_1
Gasquet will do his normal choking routine, don't worry. No chance for
him.
Vari L. Cinicke
He didn't really go for extra mustard against Nieminen. He didn't need to.
He is not going to morph into a primarily attacking tennis player,
especially not on clay. He is still the best on red clay at frustrating
play makers. It takes a really on offensive game to push him out of his
comfort zone. And returning one of his bird shooters short still spells
doom.
Gasquet's goal is simple. Survive past the 90 minute mark. :)
Vari L. Cinicke
Will Gasquet play well enough to get a chance to choke the match? Seems
unlikely.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Probably true. He will be blown away I think.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
All true, but you didn't read my post carefully... that's OK, few do
undertandably... I was talking about the 'balance' of his game in
regards to his intentions generally... he is making more errors on
clay now than in the past and it's likely because he's attempting to
fuse his hc game - which is more given to the production of winners
and big serving - with his successful clay court game IN SO FAR AS HE
CAN 1) stay successful and 2) keep the production of winning across
surfaces to produce a more resiliant hybrid of a game, if you will
precisely so he doesn't have to make MAJOR alterations/adaptations...
This is exactly what Shakes and Whispers and some others either don't
understand or REFUSE to understand... dominance within hybridization
of technical application is the goal of VETERAN elite players...
Sampras and Laver and Federer all time greats at this kind of
technical facility of their elite games... Nadal can see the benefits
to being able to conserve resources (mental and physical) while
continuing to dominate on HIS surface... he's now attempting to make
the kind of fusions to make that happen... watch his 1st FO final win
and look at him today on the clay and it's amazingly DIFFERENT style
wise... the choices he makes, the shot productions and decisions he
makes on the kill shots now vs. in the mid 2000s... he's learned how
to carry over useful technical elements onto the clay while retaining
the basic intergrity of his backcourt to forecourt centred game...
P
Sakari Lund
<cin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Refusing to let Nadal hit winners! ;)
Nadal didn't have to do much in the begininng. Jarkko made far too
many UE's. He clearly tried to go for big shots close to the lines,
which was probably a right choice. You don't want to give Nadal easy
balls. Nadal found his game more and more as the match progressed, but
didn't look that great to me. But it was his first clay match after
all.
GOYLE
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:28:51 -0700 (PDT), "Vari L. Cinicke"
>
> >Refusing to let Nadal hit winners! ;)
>
> Nadal didn't have to do much in the begininng. Jarkko made far too
> many UE's. He clearly tried to go for big shots close to the lines,
> which was probably a right choice. You don't want to give Nadal easy
> balls. Nadal found his game more and more as the match progressed, but
> didn't look that great to me. But it was his first clay match after
> all.
I agree, Nadal didn't look great as compared to years past. I'm not
sure why that is other then possibly people are figuring out his game
or maybe he isn't putting his heart into it like before since he has
won so many clay tournaments,
TT
> On Apr 13, 6:43 am, "Vari L. Cinicke"<variesn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2011 9:10 AM, SliceAndDice wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 13, 8:39 am, RzR<2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13.4.2011. 14:28, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>>
>>>>> Refusing to let Nadal hit winners! ;)
>>
>>>> is nadal boring everyone already?
>>
>>> He seems to be boring Nieminen for sure. Jarkko cannot wait to get off
>>> the court. :)
>>
>> Didn't expect more UEs than Federer from Nadal. But he is moving well
>> and was completely untested.
>>
>> Next up - Gasquet.
>
> As you likely know, Rafa's going for more in an attempt to garner more
> winnners of his racquet = more UEs... and it's getting interesting in
> that at times he does go off the boil now and piles up errors... will
> the clay level that off, one has to wonder? Against better players
> will he just revert to all out defense and take those odd
> opportunities as in the past, his career method of domination via
> defensive inpenitrability?
False claim.
The answer to your question is that he will continue to play
aggressively, which leads to results as in 2008FO and 2010 clay
season...hardly losing games.
TT
Because it was his first match on clay. Also, it was way too easy.
TT
yes. If course Nadal if anyone has deserved his aura.
Nieminen was going for too much but the result would probably have been
the same if he'd chosen to Rally with Rafa.
Sakari Lund
TT
Thanks. That was very interesting. Also from his previous blog entry I
learned where the tombstone with Rafa's name and MC winning years is...I
thought it was just fan-art but it's right there on wall of Monte Carlo
Country Club, nice.
Shakes
You have brought up a good point, though I am not sure what you think
I do not (or refuse to) understand. So I assume that you think I do
not understand that limited hybridization of their games so as to
maintain their dominance across surfaces is the goal of elite players.
Well, that is something that is not hard to understand, or to disagree
with. I am not sure what it is that I said that makes you think that.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
That the elite games are not merely hybridized as to play the same
across all surfaces... they are constructed via facets of adaptability
so as to be successful across surfaces... the adjustments to elite all
court tennis techniques are more complex than was ever/has ever been
the case in tennis, performed by better athletes... some are not super
great tennis players analysised on point by point constructions but
the speed and over all athletic requirements necessary to be elite now
is greater... technical readaptations are constant now, normative,
even up to cases of players re-tooling complete fundaments, court
orientations or serving changes... that was almost unheard of
before... micro-adaptations now include fundamental technical changes,
game styles, etc... adaptive change IS core philosophy of elite tennis
players, where once it was 'just not done'... you don't change a
winning formula, etc... understand this is to re-learn the debate on
this board of the 1980s/1990s vs. today's tennis elites...
P
Shakes
My view on the changes/adaptability/extent-of-adaptation in the tennis
landscape is different, and it has everything to do with the grips
used - which had a lot to do with the surfaces, racquets. When viewed
from that angle, it disagrees to some extent with your view.
The 1980's till the mid-1990's were times when Eastern, Continental,
and SW/W grips co-existed. The surface disparity was such that players
using either of the grips could take home enough spoils. However, it
must be said that the Eastern grip was the more dominant. Because the
surfaces outside of clay were faster (and/or lower bouncing), it
allowed the player to hit ball late, and it also allows for enough
topspin to bring a decent level of consistency. The Eastern FH also
penetrates better through the court. All these meant that the SW/W
grips were at a disadvantage because they need the ball to be hit
farther out front, and you need to get under the ball to generate the
topspin. The faster surfaces,c combined with the flatter Eastern/
Continental grips, neither gave them the time nor the bounce.
On clay, especially with the advent of players from the Latin
countries, the Eastern grip practitioners faced problems dealing with
the high-bouncing shots from players using the SW/W grips (esp. on the
backhand side). The slowness of clay meant that the SW/W grip players
could hit the ball farther out front, and with enough RPM/topspin to
make the ball rise up to shoulder height.
So, this means that a great medium or fast-court player was at a
distinct disadvantage on clay. Because he was playing against guys
whose shots naturally suited the surface better. And vice versa, for
the clay court player on the medium-to-fast courts.
So, even within the micro-adaptation theory, certain limitations were
set as far how widely successful a player is, because of the grips
used across the surfaces. Guys like Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Edberg,
Stich all made subtle changes to their games/strategies (playing more
from the baseline, adding a little more topspin etc.) without
eschewing their main game, but they were up against guys whose strokes
suited the clay surface better.
Not so much today. Mainly because nearly all the players use the SW/W
grips, and on all surfaces. The slowing down of the surfaces, along
with the advent of lighter, stiffer frames, has caused this
transition. Sure, there are micro-adaptations by the top guys - mainly
based on the kind and depth of their shots, but the players are not
forced out of their comfort zones, because they do not have to deal
with top players with either the Eastern or Continental grips.
So, the adaptability required to be successful across different
surfaces is not as large as it used to be.
Seen in that light, I don't see how the adjustments required are more
complex, and how there are constant technical re-adaptations. A real
technical re-adaptation would mean a top player using an Eastern grip
in an era where the SW/W grip is pre-dominant.
Like I already said, I disagree on the athleticism of the TOP players.
The slower surfaces, combined with the use of SW/W grips and heavy
topspin, gives the players a lot more time to catch up to the ball.
The average player is fitter, and probably faster today, but the top
players then were no less athletic than today's guys.
Let's take the FH of Sampras and Nadal. Sampras' FH was a flat,
walloping monster. His flat, running FH has to be seen to be
appreciated. Nadal's FH is the best FH today, and it is a monster too
- huge topspin, high accuracy, and thanks to the strings, creates
great angles.
Now, between the two, which do you think hits the ground sooner on the
second bounce ? Answer: Sampras'. Why ? Because it has relatively
lesser topspin (being hit with an Eastern grip), meaning it usually
lands deeper into the court, doesn't bounce as high. And Sampras hit
the ball nearly as hard, if not harder, than Nadal.
THis means, when facing a Sampras FH, you have less time to hit a
reply. Because your time to hit a shot is very dependent on how soon
the ball hits the second bounce.
Consider Sampras' FH on the grass or HC or carpet of the '90's, and
Nadal's FH on today's surfaces. A flatter shot on a fast(er) surface
vs. a topspinning shot on a slow(er) surface. Which is *really*
faster, as in hitting the ground sooner ? Which gives you more time ?
And time is the most crucial factor.
Patrick Kehoe
Macro-techniques like equipment alterations/advancements are important
yes, though that pales beside the micro-specialization now employed in
creating a tennis player from the youth development stages, through
progressive advancement up to pro tennis... players are simply better
equiped to play better tennis because they are from inception the
beneficiaries of better training, coaching, mentoring and tournament
competitions all the way along (no need now to be an outliner)...
readaptations happen as a matter of progressive necessity NOT
happenstance as was the case for a young Connors, Borg and even
Sampras... though Agassi was more of post-modern type player...
Yes, except for one BIG element not mentioned... grips were for
decades (for ever) randomly acquired, or marginally passed down at
club level/via cultural traditions and the traditional idea was NEVER
change someone's grip... And I agree, yes, Sampras, Becker, etc made
few seminal changes because they lived at a time of linear tennis
point constructions and reflexive net play (which is archetypally
linear)... they didn't change grips BECAUSE of volley techniques were
just too difficult to alter mid-career NOT because of forehand or
backhand shotmaking... so the game was static from that discursive
viewing/way of looking at things...
> Not so much today. Mainly because nearly all the players use the SW/W
> grips, and on all surfaces. The slowing down of the surfaces, along
> with the advent of lighter, stiffer frames, has caused this
> transition. Sure, there are micro-adaptations by the top guys - mainly
> based on the kind and depth of their shots, but the players are not
> forced out of their comfort zones, because they do not have to deal
> with top players with either the Eastern or Continental grips.
No, I disagree... the spin of the ball, though 'manufactured' now by
string technology is far more difficult to handle than anything coming
off of an old racquet with say a continental grip... and it's not even
close... that spinning ball in play is also coming at players from so
many more angles than tennis up until almost the late 1990s, it's
almost a different game, as Agassi say 2 weeks ago... linear, flat,
power tennis was still structually SO much more predictable it would
be suicidal to play that way today... and thus they do not... oddly as
well, clay courts are typically faster today than 20 or 30 years ago,
due to the maintanence advancements, even if the grass at Wimbledon,
over seeded with Kentucky Blue Grass (a broader leaved grass) has
slowed the play slightly...
> So, the adaptability required to be successful across different
> surfaces is not as large as it used to be.
Shakes, adaptability is no LONGER defined by SURFACE adaptations as
much as all court athleticism of the elites... that's the point...
BECAUSE of some standarization of surface speed (though ask Nadal
about the O2 arean vs. USO vs. Miami and you might get a surprize) the
players have to find TECHNICAL and STRATEGIC varience within the all
court, hyper defensively athletic, power hitting, all court games
coming at them... adaptation is NOW in relation to TECHNIQUE not
surface... that's the point... that the post-modern game... thus, the
mirco-adaptations that go on virtually throughout a players career
now, if he/she wishes to attempt to win/dominate at the elite level...
and that's why all out athletic athleticism is becoming/has become
such a mantra to coaches and players... it is there that they have
identified how a player can create difference/an edge in relation to
ones peers... Federer was the first to truly MASTER this
differentiation and plug into and essentially recreate the concept on
non-linear tennis...
> Seen in that light, I don't see how the adjustments required are more
> complex, and how there are constant technical re-adaptations. A real
> technical re-adaptation would mean a top player using an Eastern grip
> in an era where the SW/W grip is pre-dominant.
>
> Like I already said, I disagree on the athleticism of the TOP players.
> The slower surfaces, combined with the use of SW/W grips and heavy
> topspin, gives the players a lot more time to catch up to the ball.
> The average player is fitter, and probably faster today, but the top
> players then were no less athletic than today's guys.
The game requires more athleticism to play at the elite level, the Fed
vs. Nadal level than was the case before precisely because the ball IS
IN PLAY longer and coming at players in randomized angles, spins and
speeds... look at the most compelling Sampras-Agassi matches and
there's nothing like the 2009 AO final... not even close as 'athletic'
contests... execution of shots under the hyper-reflexivity of today's
tennis is just much superior and again, Becker, Agassi, Edberg,
Rosewall, Wilander and McEnroe have all spoken on this countless
times...
> Let's take the FH of Sampras and Nadal. Sampras' FH was a flat,
> walloping monster. His flat, running FH has to be seen to be
> appreciated. Nadal's FH is the best FH today, and it is a monster too
> - huge topspin, high accuracy, and thanks to the strings, creates
> great angles.
Pete did have a howetzer for sure... I would still take Federer's
forehand over anyone's ever... he made his legend off of it, as Pete
did his serve...
>
> Now, between the two, which do you think hits the ground sooner on the
> second bounce ? Answer: Sampras'. Why ? Because it has relatively
> lesser topspin (being hit with an Eastern grip), meaning it usually
> lands deeper into the court, doesn't bounce as high. And Sampras hit
> the ball nearly as hard, if not harder, than Nadal.
>
> THis means, when facing a Sampras FH, you have less time to hit a
> reply. Because your time to hit a shot is very dependent on how soon
> the ball hits the second bounce.
Yes, but the patterning of Pete's game was SO PREDICTALE and both
Federer and Nadal are masters of hitting the low ball, right off the
dirt... we saw what a 19 year old Federer could do to Pete's best
shots on his favourite surface a year before they began to alter the
grass at Wimbledon... he didn't really have that much trouble... the
serve, that he had difficulty with... Pete spoke to Federer's ability
to hit the low ball after the Wimdledon final in 2009...
>
> Consider Sampras' FH on the grass or HC or carpet of the '90's, and
> Nadal's FH on today's surfaces. A flatter shot on a fast(er) surface
> vs. a topspinning shot on a slow(er) surface. Which is *really*
> faster, as in hitting the ground sooner ? Which gives you more time ?
> And time is the most crucial factor.
Sure... but Nadal is soooo much more difficult to read... where is he
going to hit the forehand? Players don't know... he can go either way
in an eye blink and can also flatten it out when he wants to OR hyper
spin it to bury you... Sampras was comparatively predictable... the
shot constructions of Nadal are just another generation from what
Sampras was producing... it's not close...
Thanks for the chat... enjoyed it!
P
Iceberg
I think you're talking solely about Nadal - he's the most adaptive
player ever from this perspective - nobody comes close. He was a
specific clay courter who was able to adapt his game enough to win
Wimbledon - that is staggering. He then adapted his strategies
somewhat to win the AO and then even more to win the USO, although
hugely impressive, that's simply not as big a jump as going from clay
to grass. Sampras, Federer etc had 'all court' games to start with,
they were automatically suited at a good level to all surfaces, Nadal
more like has specialised his game for the surfaces. Don't know about
Laver though.
TT
Nadal has 2 forehands, one where he lassoes his arm above his head and
one where he hits flatter, arm ending around his chest. He uses the
former shot much more and uses the latter shot usually during one or
couple last shots of the rally, when going for the kill...flatter shot
is used for example on mid-court-ish balls and off-forehands crosscourt
the most...
I do believe though that even his lasso shot has often more pace than
Sampras' forehands...and of course a heep more spin to make it even
harder for his opponents.
It's rather interesting if you follow closely how he instinctively knows
which technique to use at any situation. Watched this week some of
Nadal's practice clips and he practices mainly the flat shot, and is
still able to use lasso without trouble at match play. That makes Rafa
rather special, playing with 2 different forehands basically.
Pelle Svanslös
>
> Nadal has 2 forehands, one where he lassoes his arm above his head and
> one where he hits flatter, arm ending around his chest. He uses the
> former shot much more and uses the latter shot usually during one or
> couple last shots of the rally, when going for the kill...flatter shot
> is used for example on mid-court-ish balls and off-forehands crosscourt
> the most...
This is pinpoint analysis. Not used to reading things like this in RWT.
The flatter is the what is sometimes referred to as the "Millenium FH".
Basically exactly the same as Federer, Gonzalez, Roddick, ... but not
the same as Sampras, Agassi, and the rest of the 90s HCers.
Rafa couples the helicopter-finish FH with never shifting his weight
from the back foot, even falling back, which is what guys like Bruguera
also did when they wanted elevation.
>
> I do believe though that even his lasso shot has often more pace than
> Sampras' forehands...and of course a heep more spin to make it even
> harder for his opponents.
Don't know about this.
> It's rather interesting if you follow closely how he instinctively knows
> which technique to use at any situation. Watched this week some of
> Nadal's practice clips and he practices mainly the flat shot,
Yup. I also saw a Rafa teaching DVD and it's interesting that he did not
teach the helicopter FH. Every single FH was the what you call flatter
FH. Kind of funny.
> and is
> still able to use lasso without trouble at match play. That makes Rafa
> rather special, playing with 2 different forehands basically.
I agree. Although I do think that every player has several different FHs
depending on the situation that have a distinctly different feel to
them. In that sense I don't find Rafa's different FHs all that
revolutionary. They just are easy to tell apart.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
Shakes
>
>
> Macro-techniques like equipment alterations/advancements are important
> yes, though that pales beside the micro-specialization now employed in
> creating a tennis player from the youth development stages, through
> progressive advancement up to pro tennis... players are simply better
> equiped to play better tennis because they are from inception the
> beneficiaries of better training, coaching, mentoring and tournament
> competitions all the way along (no need now to be an outliner)...
> readaptations happen as a matter of progressive necessity NOT
> happenstance as was the case for a young Connors, Borg and even
> Sampras... though Agassi was more of post-modern type player...
>
>
IMO, the most important factor is the surface, followed by the racquet/
string technology. Micro-adaptation comes later. Consider this. Can
Nadal or anybody who plays with the SW/W grip today do what they can
do with a wooden racquet ? Or even the racquets available during the
'80's ? No, they cannot. Without the changes in the technology,
surfaces, the micro-adaptations wouldn't have happened.
That's why people always say that Fed changed his approach to the game
from the old-school approach BECAUSE of the changes in the surfaces,
strings. Fed re-adapted his game to suit the surfaces, not the other
way around.
Your statement about players being better equipped to play better
tennis is, IMO, only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin
is that, because of the very points that you have mentioned, the
players are required to produce quick and early results. That's
because endorsements, coaching availabilities, entries to tournaments
etc. are on the line. These are a lot bigger now than they used to be.
Sure, they therefore have better access to training methods etc. but
they are also limited by what sells. The players are forced to conform
to the coaches, instead of the other way around.
>
> Yes, except for one BIG element not mentioned... grips were for
> decades (for ever) randomly acquired, or marginally passed down at
> club level/via cultural traditions and the traditional idea was NEVER
> change someone's grip... And I agree, yes, Sampras, Becker, etc made
> few seminal changes because they lived at a time of linear tennis
> point constructions and reflexive net play (which is archetypally
> linear)... they didn't change grips BECAUSE of volley techniques were
> just too difficult to alter mid-career NOT because of forehand or
> backhand shotmaking... so the game was static from that discursive
> viewing/way of looking at things...
>
Again, like I said, grips are not always randomly acquired and are
very much dependent on the equipment and surfaces too (speed and/or
bounce). Try using a SW/W grip on carpet or slick grass of Wim, or
with a wooden racquet, or with any racquet from the '80's. You would
be at an immediate disadvantage. Grass meant low bounces and bad
bounces. Which meant low reliability from the baseline. You are better
off at the net. What are the best grips at the net ? Continental and
Eastern, or a variation of the two. What is the best grip for an
approach shot ? Again, Continental and/or Eastern, or a variation of
either.
Can you think of a better adaptation than that by Borg ? He played his
baseline game everywhere, but on grass he came forward a LOT. It was
forced on him by the surface.
Now, I do agree about your point that the point construction was
mostly linear back then. However, you failed to note that it was not
so much linear on clay. You watch a clay court match of the mid-90's
by the Spanish Armada - or any South American player (a Bruguera, for
example), and you get the proto-type of today's game and player. Lot
of topspin, lots of angles, less forays to the net etc.
Whereas the point construction then was linear outside clay, and more
like today's on clay, today it's the same across the surfaces.
You perhaps overstate the micro-adaptation theory. We don't see Fed or
Nadal or Djok switching grips across surfaces. That would be a real
micro-adaptation.
So, from the point of view of grips, the game is static even now.
>
> No, I disagree... the spin of the ball, though 'manufactured' now by
> string technology is far more difficult to handle than anything coming
> off of an old racquet with say a continental grip... and it's not even
> close... that spinning ball in play is also coming at players from so
> many more angles than tennis up until almost the late 1990s, it's
> almost a different game, as Agassi say 2 weeks ago... linear, flat,
> power tennis was still structually SO much more predictable it would
> be suicidal to play that way today... and thus they do not... oddly as
> well, clay courts are typically faster today than 20 or 30 years ago,
> due to the maintanence advancements, even if the grass at Wimbledon,
> over seeded with Kentucky Blue Grass (a broader leaved grass) has
> slowed the play slightly...
>
The ease or difficulty in using the Eastern/Continental grip (or the
SW/W grip) has more to do with the bounce, not the spins/angles.
Whatever the amount of spin on the ball, if the surface is such that
the ball bounces into your strike zone, you can deal with it much
better than with a ball outside your strike zone. Which is why the
same Sampras who loses to guys like Bruguera, Muster, Costa on clay
can beat them elsewhere. What has changed here ? Not the spins or
angles, but the bounce. And vice versa, for the clay courters.
Predictability does not always mean failure. Sampras' game was very
predictable. Didn't mean you could deal with it. Same goes for Agassi.
And these guys dealt with a variety of players, including the really
good topspinners like Bruguera, Costa, Muster, Moya etc. But, outside
of clay, they dealt with them quite successfully. Neither does variety
always mean success.
Winning in tennis has a lot to do with time. If you can consistently
rob your opponent of time, you will win, even if your core game is
predictable. Which is why, back then and even now, the greatest
threats to a Fed or a Nadal is a flat hitter in the zone. Because the
flat hitter in the zone robs you of time.
>
> Shakes, adaptability is no LONGER defined by SURFACE adaptations as
> much as all court athleticism of the elites... that's the point...
But athleticism is dependent on the surface. I don't think that a
Nadal could cover the same amount of court or play the same amount of
defense on the grass and/or carpet of the '90's. Nadal's athleticism
might be great, but it cannot make up for the surface. Which is what
people miss to see.
> BECAUSE of some standarization of surface speed (though ask Nadal
> about the O2 arean vs. USO vs. Miami and you might get a surprize) the
> players have to find TECHNICAL and STRATEGIC varience within the all
> court, hyper defensively athletic, power hitting, all court games
> coming at them... adaptation is NOW in relation to TECHNIQUE not
> surface... that's the point... that the post-modern game...
Like I said, I'm hardpressed to see which players change their shot
technique today. Fed's FH technique at the AO or WIm or USO or the FO
is within the same boundaries. Sure, he changes the depth of his shots
accordingly, but that was something that was there even in the '90's.
> thus, the
> mirco-adaptations that go on virtually throughout a players career
> now, if he/she wishes to attempt to win/dominate at the elite level...
> and that's why all out athletic athleticism is becoming/has become
> such a mantra to coaches and players... it is there that they have
> identified how a player can create difference/an edge in relation to
> ones peers... Federer was the first to truly MASTER this
> differentiation and plug into and essentially recreate the concept on
> non-linear tennis...
>
>
> The game requires more athleticism to play at the elite level, the Fed
> vs. Nadal level than was the case before precisely because the ball IS
> IN PLAY longer and coming at players in randomized angles, spins and
> speeds... look at the most compelling Sampras-Agassi matches and
> there's nothing like the 2009 AO final... not even close as 'athletic'
> contests... execution of shots under the hyper-reflexivity of today's
> tennis is just much superior and again, Becker, Agassi, Edberg,
> Rosewall, Wilander and McEnroe have all spoken on this countless
> times...
>
I will say the game requires a DIFFERENT kind of athleticism to play
at the elite level. The reliance on speed and reflexes has changed to
reliance on speed and stamina.
You are overstating when you say the Sampras-Agassi matches were not
athletic. Remember any time you take a knock at Agassi, you also knock
all those guys from Fed's generation that Agassi beat - Hewitt,
Roddick, Safin, Ferrero, Blake, Baggy.
>
> Pete did have a howetzer for sure... I would still take Federer's
> forehand over anyone's ever... he made his legend off of it, as Pete
> did his serve...
>
A very good choice, though it depends on what style of game you play.
If you are a S/V'er, Sampras' FH would suit you better. For a
baseliner, it's Fed's.
>
> Yes, but the patterning of Pete's game was SO PREDICTALE and both
> Federer and Nadal are masters of hitting the low ball, right off the
> dirt... we saw what a 19 year old Federer could do to Pete's best
> shots on his favourite surface a year before they began to alter the
> grass at Wimbledon... he didn't really have that much trouble... the
> serve, that he had difficulty with... Pete spoke to Federer's ability
> to hit the low ball after the Wimdledon final in 2009...
>
>
Well, you shouldn't be using a 2001 version of Sampras as an example.
I could use the 2010 version of Fed and say that the flat hitting
style of Berdych/Soda is the key to beating Fed.
Like I said, predictability is not always a recipe for disaster.
Sampras' predictability did not prevent him from winning 14 slams.
The Fed-Sampras 2001 match was a great match, and an indicator of
Fed's talent. BUt it was still a very close match, and it did not show
as much a chasm in their talent/game as you seem to imply. It went 7-5
in the fifth.
>
>
> Sure... but Nadal is soooo much more difficult to read... where is he
> going to hit the forehand? Players don't know... he can go either way
> in an eye blink and can also flatten it out when he wants to OR hyper
> spin it to bury you... Sampras was comparatively predictable... the
> shot constructions of Nadal are just another generation from what
> Sampras was producing... it's not close...
>
> Thanks for the chat... enjoyed it!
>
> P
Like I repeated myself, it's less to do with predictability and more
to do with the time you give to your opponents.
Joe Ramirez
>
> I think you're talking solely about Nadal - he's the most adaptive
> player ever from this perspective - nobody comes close. He was a
> specific clay courter who was able to adapt his game enough to win
> Wimbledon - that is staggering. He then adapted his strategies
> somewhat to win the AO and then even more to win the USO, although
> hugely impressive, that's simply not as big a jump as going from clay
> to grass.
"Solely"? "Ever"? "Staggering"? Borg accomplished the same transition
when the difference between clay and grass was much more pronounced
than in Nadal's era.
Patrick Kehoe
> On Apr 14, 8:59 pm, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Macro-techniques like equipment alterations/advancements are important
> > yes, though that pales beside the micro-specialization now employed in
> > creating a tennis player from the youth development stages, through
> > progressive advancement up to pro tennis... players are simply better
> > equiped to play better tennis because they are from inception the
> > beneficiaries of better training, coaching, mentoring and tournament
> > competitions all the way along (no need now to be an outliner)...
> > readaptations happen as a matter of progressive necessity NOT
> > happenstance as was the case for a young Connors, Borg and even
> > Sampras... though Agassi was more of post-modern type player...
>
> IMO, the most important factor is the surface, followed by the racquet/
> string technology. Micro-adaptation comes later. Consider this. Can
> Nadal or anybody who plays with the SW/W grip today do what they can
> do with a wooden racquet ? Or even the racquets available during the
> '80's ? No, they cannot. Without the changes in the technology,
> surfaces, the micro-adaptations wouldn't have happened.
++ You are labouring under a false impression... I am NOT tracing
causalities... but if pressed: technology happened (mostly for
commercial reasons that are too numerous to itemize herein),
progressive researched refined racquet compositions and string
materials and egronomy and court maintainence has changed, so has
synthetics for court resurfacing and ball constructions... fact...
thus the capacity of play was altered because what was possible was
broadened... thus the game was OPENED up/attenuated to include and
then demand greater physicality to sustain play... surfaces THUS HAD
to be reconditioned to respond to the hitting capasity of the players
UNTIL SUCH TIME as the athleticism caught back up... in effect... and
thus players have had to become mico-managers of adaptive schemes to
play elite tennis over a long period...
>
> That's why people always say that Fed changed his approach to the game
> from the old-school approach BECAUSE of the changes in the surfaces,
> strings. Fed re-adapted his game to suit the surfaces, not the other
> way around.
NO. Fed changed his game because suddenly the hitting capacity of
players from deep positions (baseline) and defensive corners was
rapidly enabled by string technologies and racquet redesigns which
also - in a parallel move - meant the sudden death of linear, to the
net attack tennis... because the ball was being hit so hard passing
became markedly more accomplishable for players farther down the depth
chart... Fed also understood that he could plug in one of his greatest
assets (all court defensive coverage and counter hitting power game)
with the advent of these developments... it was the old case of the
perfect man for the emerging times (new realities)... what also
changed was that where once specialization had once defined THE RETURN
GAME, ie only a few elite guys were big returners, the emerging
baseline and counter hitting game saw this specialization become a
broader phenomena/normative throughout the elite level of tennis...
and THAT profoundly changed tennis...
> Your statement about players being better equipped to play better
> tennis is, IMO, only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin
> is that, because of the very points that you have mentioned, the
> players are required to produce quick and early results. That's
> because endorsements, coaching availabilities, entries to tournaments
> etc. are on the line. These are a lot bigger now than they used to be.
> Sure, they therefore have better access to training methods etc. but
> they are also limited by what sells. The players are forced to conform
> to the coaches, instead of the other way around.
Exactly, that's been the characteristic of the times and in general
has heightened over all ability, given how good coaching is today...
> > Yes, except for one BIG element not mentioned... grips were for
> > decades (for ever) randomly acquired, or marginally passed down at
> > club level/via cultural traditions and the traditional idea was NEVER
> > change someone's grip... And I agree, yes, Sampras, Becker, etc made
> > few seminal changes because they lived at a time of linear tennis
> > point constructions and reflexive net play (which is archetypally
> > linear)... they didn't change grips BECAUSE of volley techniques were
> > just too difficult to alter mid-career NOT because of forehand or
> > backhand shotmaking... so the game was static from that discursive
> > viewing/way of looking at things...
>
> Again, like I said, grips are not always randomly acquired and are
> very much dependent on the equipment and surfaces too (speed and/or
> bounce). Try using a SW/W grip on carpet or slick grass of Wim, or
> with a wooden racquet, or with any racquet from the '80's. You would
> be at an immediate disadvantage. Grass meant low bounces and bad
> bounces. Which meant low reliability from the baseline. You are better
> off at the net. What are the best grips at the net ? Continental and
> Eastern, or a variation of the two. What is the best grip for an
> approach shot ? Again, Continental and/or Eastern, or a variation of
> either.
I agree.
> Can you think of a better adaptation than that by Borg ? He played his
> baseline game everywhere, but on grass he came forward a LOT. It was
> forced on him by the surface.
That was a classic simple (effective) maco-adaptation... but the game
was very rigidly linear then and that's the only adjustment he had to
make to be a counter acting agent in relation to the play/players he
encountered...
> Now, I do agree about your point that the point construction was
> mostly linear back then. However, you failed to note that it was not
> so much linear on clay. You watch a clay court match of the mid-90's
> by the Spanish Armada - or any South American player (a Bruguera, for
> example), and you get the proto-type of today's game and player. Lot
> of topspin, lots of angles, less forays to the net etc.
Yes... and now that template has been developed and expanded... and
more importantly it also includes GETTING TO NET... players get to net
on clay as well as all court (which is encluded in post-modern all
court tennis) so that's a great example of the FUSION of tennis styles
going on today... totalizing hybridization of styles is a requirement
to win at the elite level now and that's what Federer and Nadal, up
till now, have dominated with Fed dominating longest... Rafa realized
his limitations and the adjustments he need to begin to include...
> Whereas the point construction then was linear outside clay, and more
> like today's on clay, today it's the same across the surfaces.
>
> You perhaps overstate the micro-adaptation theory. We don't see Fed or
> Nadal or Djok switching grips across surfaces. That would be a real
> micro-adaptation.
Well, MY micro-adaptation theory :)) But, the changes and alterations
of the game go way beyond grips and get into mixed tactics, complex
counter strategies, game hybridizations and even re-tailoring
fundamental technical aspects to their established games/methods...
and it is the necessity for the contancy of change that demarcates
this era from any other even in tennis... surfaces don't dictate
adaptations as before... the relation of playing a player whose game
is in a state of constant evolution/refinement is what drives the
elites of today to constantly change up their 'elements'
> So, from the point of view of grips, the game is static even now.
>
>
>
> > No, I disagree... the spin of the ball, though 'manufactured' now by
> > string technology is far more difficult to handle than anything coming
> > off of an old racquet with say a continental grip... and it's not even
> > close... that spinning ball in play is also coming at players from so
> > many more angles than tennis up until almost the late 1990s, it's
> > almost a different game, as Agassi say 2 weeks ago... linear, flat,
> > power tennis was still structually SO much more predictable it would
> > be suicidal to play that way today... and thus they do not... oddly as
> > well, clay courts are typically faster today than 20 or 30 years ago,
> > due to the maintanence advancements, even if the grass at Wimbledon,
> > over seeded with Kentucky Blue Grass (a broader leaved grass) has
> > slowed the play slightly...
>
> The ease or difficulty in using the Eastern/Continental grip (or the
> SW/W grip) has more to do with the bounce, not the spins/angles.
> Whatever the amount of spin on the ball, if the surface is such that
> the ball bounces into your strike zone, you can deal with it much
> better than with a ball outside your strike zone. Which is why the
> same Sampras who loses to guys like Bruguera, Muster, Costa on clay
> can beat them elsewhere. What has changed here ? Not the spins or
> angles, but the bounce. And vice versa, for the clay courters.
It's not just the bounce... the game today is the ball coming at a
variety of speeds, with a variety of spins and bounce trajectories and
it is this triangulation of complexity that makes playing today/
striking the ball more problematic than ever... a flat low ball was a
form of predictable constancy which could be countered, certainly this
was shown by Hewitt and Safin at the start of the 2000s and their
careers extinguished the non-baseline game almost over night... though
Courier and Chang and Agassi of course were the apostles of the coming
tide... it's just they were too limited in their counter hitting
capacities for the dawning realities of the all court power game which
came to fruition and then redefination under Federer...
Predictability does not always mean failure. Sampras' game was very
> predictable. Didn't mean you could deal with it. Same goes for Agassi.
> And these guys dealt with a variety of players, including the really
> good topspinners like Bruguera, Costa, Muster, Moya etc. But, outside
> of clay, they dealt with them quite successfully. Neither does variety
> always mean success.
>
> Winning in tennis has a lot to do with time. If you can consistently
> rob your opponent of time, you will win, even if your core game is
> predictable. Which is why, back then and even now, the greatest
> threats to a Fed or a Nadal is a flat hitter in the zone. Because the
> flat hitter in the zone robs you of time.
There is a lot of way to rob players of time and flat hitting is only
one way... its not that they hit flat it's that they are big,
athletically powerful men doing it with technology to aid them... and
yet, the FO 2009 was a good example of how a master of all court
tennis can deal with pure flat pace... or Nadal vs. Berdych at
Wimbledon and the rematch against Soderling at the French for that
matter... Fed-Nadal power hitting counter hitting game with variety of
speeds and spins platformed via hyper adapative movement squashes
linear power more often that not...
>
> > Shakes, adaptability is no LONGER defined by SURFACE adaptations as
> > much as all court athleticism of the elites... that's the point...
>
> But athleticism is dependent on the surface. I don't think that a
> Nadal could cover the same amount of court or play the same amount of
> defense on the grass and/or carpet of the '90's. Nadal's athleticism
> might be great, but it cannot make up for the surface. Which is what
> people miss to see.
No. These guys ARE quicker and more agile and stronger in terms of all
out play over extended time periods: their strength to play at speed
ratios is beyond what was the case before and Agassi and McEnroe and
Cahill etc. have been very clear on this for years now...
Fed was 19 beating a 7 time defending champion... that can hardly be
overstated... but Fed didn't struggle running down the Sampras
forehand... it was the serve... Pete didn't have the point
constructions to play the emerging game against better athletes...
Safin showed us that... great as he had been... put Federer of 2005
back to 1995 and I think he would have LOVED it...
Sure... but Nadal is soooo much more difficult to read... where is he
> > going to hit the forehand? Players don't know... he can go either way
> > in an eye blink and can also flatten it out when he wants to OR hyper
> > spin it to bury you... Sampras was comparatively predictable... the
> > shot constructions of Nadal are just another generation from what
> > Sampras was producing... it's not close...
>
> > Thanks for the chat... enjoyed it!
>
> > P
>
> Like I repeated myself, it's less to do with predictability and more
> to do with the time you give to your opponents.
Take care!
P
Iceberg
that's why he's a legend of the game. I don't know enough about Borg's
early game to comment much more.
Superdave
It was totally AWESOME. Never saw anything like it. Before or afterwards.