Djokovic's strategy against Nadal

Much has been said in the last week, about Djokovic's effective strategy against Nadal, namely that of attacking Nadal's forehand via short angled inside-out forehands, thereby exposing Nadal's relatively poor court positioning.

I think it seems to be the case that that is probably right, going by the match statistics. BUT if it is indeed true, then I am curious why Federer has not had greater success then against Nadal. After all, Federer has the best inside-out forehand by consensus. He could generate the best combination of pace and angle ever seen. Why then has he not had greater success against Nadal, his backhand "weakness" not withstanding? I just rewatched a fair bit of the old footages of Nadal vs Federer and even as recent as the last match at AO 2014, its clear Federer HAS BEEN / IS attacking Nadal's forehand. Yet Nadal seems to repel that with relative ease. Meanwhile Djokovic seems to be having so much better success with the same strategy. Why?

I am genuinely puzzled. What do you guys think?
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Doing it in masters events is one thing. Doing it in a major, particularly at the French Open, is another thing altogether. Besides, the clay season awaits and a lot of the current perception will probably change between now and late May.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
After all, Federer has the best inside-out forehand by consensus. He could generate the best combination of pace and angle ever seen. Why then has he not had greater success against Nadal, his backhand "weakness" not withstanding?

Djokovic can get Nadal on the stretch in terms of court positioning in a way that Federer struggles to do. Federer also struggled with high lefty topspin balls to his backhand in a way that Djokovic doesn't. The dynamics are just different. Nadal and Djokovic are very evenly matched man for man when both are playing well. Nadal can exploit the few Federer weaknesses in a way that nobody else seemed to be able to.
 

wangs78

Legend
Much has been said in the last week, about Djokovic's effective strategy against Nadal, namely that of attacking Nadal's forehand via short angled inside-out forehands, thereby exposing Nadal's relatively poor court positioning.

I think it seems to be the case that that is probably right, going by the match statistics. BUT if it is indeed true, then I am curious why Federer has not had greater success then against Nadal. After all, Federer has the best inside-out forehand by consensus. He could generate the best combination of pace and angle ever seen. Why then has he not had greater success against Nadal, his backhand "weakness" not withstanding? I just rewatched a fair bit of the old footages of Nadal vs Federer and even as recent as the last match at AO 2014, its clear Federer HAS BEEN / IS attacking Nadal's forehand. Yet Nadal seems to repel that with relative ease. Meanwhile Djokovic seems to be having so much better success with the same strategy. Why?

I am genuinely puzzled. What do you guys think?

You answered your own question. Federer has a key matchup problem against Nadal (his 1HBH) that Djokovic does not have. Plus Federer played Nadal when Nadal was at his physical peak from a speed/agility perspective. We are beginning to see an older Nadal who doesn't move as well, and it makes sense that Djokovic is having an easier time exploiting that for those two reasons (no 1HBH weakness and a slower Nadal).
 

spinovic

Hall of Fame
You can't just shrug off the backhand.

For the most part, Nadal's matches with both guys, win or lose, have been close. The backhand difference could easily account for the difference in success between Federer and Djokovic. Nadal has a clear weakness and strategy to employ. That isn't the case with Djokovic.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Nole struggles to beat old Federer at IW while he beat a 5 years younger Nadal convincingly at Miami is a testament of a matchup issue rather than Nole's strategy. If strategy is the reason of Nole's easy wins over Nadal, then shouldn't he and his team come of with the strategy of beating Federer easier instead of losing to him in Dubai and almost lost in IW ?


Fed would rather play Nole rather than Nadal.
Nadal would rather play Fed rather than Nole.
Nole would rather play Nadal rather than Fed.
Davydenko would rather play Nadal rather than Fed.
 

booson

Professional
Nole's backhand has more variety and is less susceptible against high bounces. How many times have you seen Federer hit a inside out... backhand to merely construct a point? Very few.

Nole struggles to beat old Federer at IW while he beat a 5 years younger Nadal convincingly at Miami is a testament of a matchup issue rather than Nole's strategy. If strategy is the reason of Nole's easy wins over Nadal, then shouldn't he and his team come of with the strategy of beating Federer easier instead of losing to him in Dubai and almost lost in IW ?
With comments like these, I wonder if people even think about tennis as a variable setting for a minute or they just think it's like a pokemon game. :-/
 
Last edited:

TheRed

Hall of Fame
You answered your own question. Federer has a key matchup problem against Nadal (his 1HBH) that Djokovic does not have. Plus Federer played Nadal when Nadal was at his physical peak from a speed/agility perspective. We are beginning to see an older Nadal who doesn't move as well, and it makes sense that Djokovic is having an easier time exploiting that for those two reasons (no 1HBH weakness and a slower Nadal).

While I agree with yours and the prevailing theory that it's a matchup problem, especially regarding the 1hbh, Fed for years had a massive "head" problem when playing Nadal. He simply refused to change tactics when playing Nadal. He never changed his court positioning when returning and too often, it seemed like he was out to prove that he could beat Nadal even when hitting lots of high backhands. That stubbornness/strategy simply didn't work in part because Nadal was far too close to Fed in skill level for Fed to give away numerous points from a flawed strategy. Here's my basic take on Fed's Nadal problem: He could have won many more more matches if he tried to hide his weakness, but he never tried to. He thought he was too good.
Djokovic, doesn't have the matchup issue plus he's willing to slug it out with Nadal. No one beats Nadal if they're not mentally prepared for an all out war (except on grass where you can just blow him off the court). To beat Nadal on most surfaces, you have to break down his forehand by repeatedly hitting hard and deep to it. Nadal will slowly hit shorter and start going for too much, which causes him to miss. But this is a long process and your ego has to be able to put up with Nadal's occasional spectacular winners even when you're following the game plan to a tee. Djokovic can and likes to do this. Fed never has. Fed always played under the assumption that if he hit a good shot, the ball shouldn't come back. It came back often enough with Nadal and I don't think Fed ever accepted until recently that he's not that much more talented than Nadal. That he would have to adjust his strategy.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I think its a combo of Nadal not being as fast as he used to be and backhand not troubling Djokovic. Even if Federer got the ball to Nadal's forehand and pushed him out wide the next shot would still be a high topspin shot to his backhand which is hard to pummel down the line like Djokovic does.
 

henryshli

Semi-Pro
When Nadal loses the court positioning against Federer, he simple plays a neutralizing shot to Federer's backhand. It is a high percentage shot for Nadal because he doesnt even have to hit it deep. The same neutalising shots are being spanked by Djokovic and so Nadal can't turn the rally in his favour.
 

stephenbbb

Rookie
not inside-out FH, but backhand

Novak beat Rafa with his angled cross court BH. many points Nadal did not even try to run for as the angle was impossible.
Fed does not have any of the baseline shots that Rafa and Novak have. He is a server and nothing else. When he cannot hit an ace whenever needed he loses as he cannot hit with them.
Only reason he won many slams is the lack of competition. Safin was the only good player during his prime and he beat him easily when he controlled his mental problems. Delpo also beat Fed from the baseline and he is nowhere near as good as the two top players.
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
You answered your own question. Federer has a key matchup problem against Nadal (his 1HBH) that Djokovic does not have. Plus Federer played Nadal when Nadal was at his physical peak from a speed/agility perspective. We are beginning to see an older Nadal who doesn't move as well, and it makes sense that Djokovic is having an easier time exploiting that for those two reasons (no 1HBH weakness and a slower Nadal).

This. People have short memory. They forget it wasn't that easy for Nadal to beat prime/peak Federer. Federer dominated many of their matches but Nadal was freaking fast and had no fear of anyone. He'd hang in the match with Federer and win the most important points. That's how he defeated peak Federer in their matches outside of clay.

The Nadal of 2007/08 would have made Djokovic play more shots in Miami final.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Novak beat Rafa with his angled cross court BH. many points Nadal did not even try to run for as the angle was impossible.
Fed does not have any of the baseline shots that Rafa and Novak have. He is a server and nothing else. When he cannot hit an ace whenever needed he loses as he cannot hit with them.
Only reason he won many slams is the lack of competition. Safin was the only good player during his prime and he beat him easily when he controlled his mental problems. Delpo also beat Fed from the baseline and he is nowhere near as good as the two top players.
Not sure if serious.....

Fed-Safin: 10-2. EASILY??????Safin barely won vs Fed at AO 2005. Had to save a MP

Fed-Delpo: 15-5. Delpo barely won vs Federer like.... ever
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Novak beat Rafa with his angled cross court BH. many points Nadal did not even try to run for as the angle was impossible.
Fed does not have any of the baseline shots that Rafa and Novak have. He is a server and nothing else. When he cannot hit an ace whenever needed he loses as he cannot hit with them.
Only reason he won many slams is the lack of competition. Safin was the only good player during his prime and he beat him easily when he controlled his mental problems. Delpo also beat Fed from the baseline and he is nowhere near as good as the two top players.
Right so you can just win 17 slams with no baseline game today.....
 

Backspin1183

Talk Tennis Guru
Novak beat Rafa with his angled cross court BH. many points Nadal did not even try to run for as the angle was impossible.
Fed does not have any of the baseline shots that Rafa and Novak have. He is a server and nothing else. When he cannot hit an ace whenever needed he loses as he cannot hit with them.
Only reason he won many slams is the lack of competition. Safin was the only good player during his prime and he beat him easily when he controlled his mental problems. Delpo also beat Fed from the baseline and he is nowhere near as good as the two top players.

This is true about 30+ old Federer but he used to be extremely good from the baseline too. If you think he's just a serve guy, you my friend haven't watched much tennis.
You cannot win multiple slams without being one of the best ever to play tennis. That is true about Federer, about Nadal and about Djokovic.
 
You can't just shrug off the backhand.

For the most part, Nadal's matches with both guys, win or lose, have been close. The backhand difference could easily account for the difference in success between Federer and Djokovic. Nadal has a clear weakness and strategy to employ. That isn't the case with Djokovic.

yes, i do acknowledge the backhand issue. But that doesn't fully explain what one observes in a match. Even those points where Federer specifically goes hard at Nadal's forehand side to exploit his positioning, somehow Federer can't exploit the space that's left.

personally I think there are 2 noteworthy aspects here which may explain the dynamics. Some of the posters have also alluded to them.

1) Federer does not have as good (or perhaps reliable is the better word) backhand DTL as Djokovic. So he can't exploit that space that's left behind.

2) Djokovic's court positioning vs Nadal is better than Federer's. Federer himself tends to protect his backhand a bit more than Djokovic. Hence when attacked on the FH, a deep DTL reply from Nadal opens up space relatively more against Federer, than against Djokovic.
 

THE FIGHTER

Hall of Fame
When Nadal loses the court positioning against Federer, he simple plays a neutralizing shot to Federer's backhand. It is a high percentage shot for Nadal because he doesnt even have to hit it deep. The same neutalising shots are being spanked by Djokovic and so Nadal can't turn the rally in his favour.

great. /thread
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
yes, i do acknowledge the backhand issue. But that doesn't fully explain what one observes in a match. Even those points where Federer specifically goes hard at Nadal's forehand side to exploit his positioning, somehow Federer can't exploit the space that's left.

personally I think there are 2 noteworthy aspects here which may explain the dynamics. Some of the posters have also alluded to them.

1) Federer does not have as good (or perhaps reliable is the better word) backhand DTL as Djokovic. So he can't exploit that space that's left behind.

2) Djokovic's court positioning vs Nadal is better than Federer's. Federer himself tends to protect his backhand a bit more than Djokovic. Hence when attacked on the FH, a deep DTL reply from Nadal opens up space relatively more against Federer, than against Djokovic.

this.
to supplement 1, when Nadal gets to the ball, he has a much easier time restarting the rally vs. Fed as he can simply hit a high ball to Fed's backhand. Djoko is better at attacking those.
 

TennisCJC

Legend
I think its a combo of Nadal not being as fast as he used to be and backhand not troubling Djokovic. Even if Federer got the ball to Nadal's forehand and pushed him out wide the next shot would still be a high topspin shot to his backhand which is hard to pummel down the line like Djokovic does.

This is it. Djokovic can handle the high topspin forehand reply better than Federer. Plus Federer is old.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
With comments like these, I wonder if people even think about tennis as a variable setting for a minute or they just think it's like a pokemon game. :-/

Haha.

And I'm glad we had this discussion, since it further show that H2H record is about match up problem, not because one is better tennis player than the other.
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
Fed always played under the assumption that if he hit a good shot, the ball shouldn't come back. It came back often enough with Nadal and I don't think Fed ever accepted until recently that he's not that much more talented than Nadal. That he would have to adjust his strategy.

There's some good discussion of tactics in this thread (despite the useless post by stephenbbb). I think your point is essentially correct. Federer came of age in the late Sampras era, and I think he carried the tactical expectations of that era with him for a long time. I.e., good offense should always beat good defense, except on very slow clay. I'd modify your observation about the "talent" factor a little, and generalize it: It has always annoyed Federer when what he regards as his superior talent (and let's face it, he's virtually always right) is neutralized by some other component of the game, be it sheer hustle and doggedness (Murray, or even Cañas), a simple but remorseless game plan (Nadal), or risk-taking behavior (Djokovic down match point at USO).
 

maxrenn

Legend
He [Roger Federer] is a server and nothing else.

Lol! That has to be the funniest thing I've ever read here by far, I don't even....!

As for the topic as others have stated the Novak Backhand is a great defensive/offensive weapon against Rafa's normal play. Slow hard courts really favour Novak in this match-up too just like fast, low bouncing courts favour Roger against Rafa.

These days Novak and Rafa are so close to eachother it is who ever brings their A-Game on the day. Personally I think Rafa is going to struggle to win anything from here, he is in decline, 2013 was a miraculous year for him and as a fan more than I could have hoped. The Spanish dirtballer has achieved way more than anyone was predicting after his first RG crown. On the other hand Novak still looks like the most dangerous and unbeatable player out there right now when he is focused, I think he will get his Roland Garros title this year.
 

noball

Banned
The OP just can't deal with the reality that Ralph has a massive matchup advantage over Fed which is why he's had an abnormal amount of success for a player with half the game and talent as Fed.
 

FreeBird

Legend
Hi FreeBird. Congrats on the Miami victory, I hope you had plenty of dal bhati choorma but not too much. ;)

Thanks. Oh now I get it. Whatever happened to your account, it was intentional. Nadal fans were rejoicing here. You toyed with them. This plot twist even transcends the endings of Shyamalan's movies. Glad to see you back. :)
 
Last edited:

noball

Banned
Thanks. Oh now I get it. Whatever happened to your account, it was intentional. Nadal fans were rejoicing here. You toyed with them. This plot twist even transcends the endings of Shyamalan's movies. Glad to see you back. :)

You're too kind, Freebird. Thank you for a nice warm swagatam. ;) Maybe it's a coincidence that The Sixth sense is my favourite movie. :lol:
 

FreeBird

Legend
You're too kind, Freebird. Thank you for a nice warm swagatam. ;) Maybe it's a coincidence that The Sixth sense is my favourite movie.

:lol: Seriously 'noball'? I think you could have come with something better than that. :oops: Anyway, this place has been kinda dull and boring post Miami. Time to bring some colors. ::twisted:
 

RoddickAce

Hall of Fame
Federer hits an inside out forehand to Rafa's forehand:

Rafa hits a heavy spin forehand to Fed's backhand. Rafa is in control of the rally.

Djokovic hits an inside out forehand to Rafa's forehand:

Rafa hits a heavy spin forehand to Fed's backhand. Djoker redirects it down the line or hits a heavy shot back cross court to set up another forehand.
 

wangs78

Legend
While I agree with yours and the prevailing theory that it's a matchup problem, especially regarding the 1hbh, Fed for years had a massive "head" problem when playing Nadal. He simply refused to change tactics when playing Nadal. He never changed his court positioning when returning and too often, it seemed like he was out to prove that he could beat Nadal even when hitting lots of high backhands. That stubbornness/strategy simply didn't work in part because Nadal was far too close to Fed in skill level for Fed to give away numerous points from a flawed strategy. Here's my basic take on Fed's Nadal problem: He could have won many more more matches if he tried to hide his weakness, but he never tried to. He thought he was too good.
Djokovic, doesn't have the matchup issue plus he's willing to slug it out with Nadal. No one beats Nadal if they're not mentally prepared for an all out war (except on grass where you can just blow him off the court). To beat Nadal on most surfaces, you have to break down his forehand by repeatedly hitting hard and deep to it. Nadal will slowly hit shorter and start going for too much, which causes him to miss. But this is a long process and your ego has to be able to put up with Nadal's occasional spectacular winners even when you're following the game plan to a tee. Djokovic can and likes to do this. Fed never has. Fed always played under the assumption that if he hit a good shot, the ball shouldn't come back. It came back often enough with Nadal and I don't think Fed ever accepted until recently that he's not that much more talented than Nadal. That he would have to adjust his strategy.

I 100% agree with you. But I think since 2010 or so he's been willing to wage a war of attrition as you describe it, but his 1HBH weakness makes it near impossible - except indoors - to overcome Nadal. Prior to 2010, I do think you are right Federer tried to beat Nadal without adjusting his game and he paid the price - which included at least 2 very closely contested grand slam titles (Wimby '08 and AO '09). Woulda, shoulda, coulda, but didn't.
 

wangs78

Legend
To add on my previous post, I must say you can hardly fault Fed for being stubborn. When he first started facing Nadal regularly in 2006-2008, Fed was having unprecedented success against the entire field. He made winning 3 Slams a year or 10 titles a year look like child's play. So can't really blame the guy for thinking that he could beat a 17 to 18yo clay court phenom without making significant adjustments. He obviously didn't realize how good Nadal really was and that was mistake he paid a heavy price for.

If you look at the top players today, ALL of them had big success as youngsters. Rafa won his first match against Roger. Djokovic beat Fed in the Rogers Cup (Canada) in 2007 before losing a very tight 3-set USO final to Roger. Murray had early success against Roger as well. It was critical in these players overall development to know, early on, that they had what it took to be the best. The confidence from those early wins against Roger were HUGE. The only "youngster" today who is showing signs of that is Dimitrov, but he's already 21 or so I doubt he will have the type of surge and sustained dominance that Rafa, Djokovic and Murray have had. He could have a strong 3-4 year run through, especially since he seems to have no competition in his age group. But early success is critical to become an all-time great. Roger himself defeated Sampras at Wimby, breaking Sampras 4-year Wimby streak, and that was when Roger didn't just think he had the goods, after that match, he KNEW he had it.
 

booson

Professional
While I agree with yours and the prevailing theory that it's a matchup problem, especially regarding the 1hbh, Fed for years had a massive "head" problem when playing Nadal. He simply refused to change tactics when playing Nadal. He never changed his court positioning when returning and too often, it seemed like he was out to prove that he could beat Nadal even when hitting lots of high backhands. That stubbornness/strategy simply didn't work in part because Nadal was far too close to Fed in skill level for Fed to give away numerous points from a flawed strategy. Here's my basic take on Fed's Nadal problem: He could have won many more more matches if he tried to hide his weakness, but he never tried to. He thought he was too good.
Djokovic, doesn't have the matchup issue plus he's willing to slug it out with Nadal. No one beats Nadal if they're not mentally prepared for an all out war (except on grass where you can just blow him off the court). To beat Nadal on most surfaces, you have to break down his forehand by repeatedly hitting hard and deep to it. Nadal will slowly hit shorter and start going for too much, which causes him to miss. But this is a long process and your ego has to be able to put up with Nadal's occasional spectacular winners even when you're following the game plan to a tee. Djokovic can and likes to do this. Fed never has. Fed always played under the assumption that if he hit a good shot, the ball shouldn't come back. It came back often enough with Nadal and I don't think Fed ever accepted until recently that he's not that much more talented than Nadal. That he would have to adjust his strategy.
100% agreed
 

moonballs

Hall of Fame
I think the key is Nadal's movement is not as good as before. If his speed was here he could have gone for broke with a DTL reply. Fed could not exploit this weakness because when he had the weapons and speed Nadal was a lot faster.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Novak beat Rafa with his angled cross court BH. many points Nadal did not even try to run for as the angle was impossible.
Fed does not have any of the baseline shots that Rafa and Novak have. He is a server and nothing else. When he cannot hit an ace whenever needed he loses as he cannot hit with them.
Only reason he won many slams is the lack of competition. Safin was the only good player during his prime and he beat him easily when he controlled his mental problems. Delpo also beat Fed from the baseline and he is nowhere near as good as the two top players.

Correct. Fed bails himself out with the serve time after time. When he is forced to play the point, he often just half-volleys the ball or hits it with a razor-thin margin. He cannot go mano-amano against mentally strong players.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Much has been said in the last week, about Djokovic's effective strategy against Nadal, namely that of attacking Nadal's forehand via short angled inside-out forehands, thereby exposing Nadal's relatively poor court positioning.

I think it seems to be the case that that is probably right, going by the match statistics. BUT if it is indeed true, then I am curious why Federer has not had greater success then against Nadal...
You only have it partially right. Hitting to Nadal's forehand corner down the line is what hurts him, or slightly off forehands. Djokovic was not successful simply because he hit inside out forehands to Nadal's forehand corner, he was successful because he hit to Nadal's forehand corner often when the intuitive play would be to hit crosscourt to his backhand.

This keeps Nadal both deeper in the court and also stops him camping out as far to his backhand corner. The effect of this means the gap to his backhand side is also bigger than normal too - so it's not so much a case of exposing his poor positioning, rather it creates the poor positioning. Nadal plays his best when he knows where the ball is likely to go. When he plays people who can chose either direction on a high percentage of shots, and can make those plays, he gets out of sorts quickly. (Soderling, Rosol, Djokovic, Wawrinka etc)

When Federer has beaten Nadal he has done it by disciplined hitting to the backhand corner until the opening to the forehand arises - not hitting cannon-balls to that corner (which would be to the backhand vs most opponents) and hoping for a short reply is it isn't a winner.

Generally Federer can't get enough backhands into Nadal's backhand corner off Nadal's cc forehand - that's where his issue lies. Sometimes I wonder if he might sometimes see more success by slicing Nadal's forehand down to the (Nadal's) backhand corner rather than trying to go back cc and play the Nadal forehand vs Federer backhand game. It would at least force Nadal to hit to Federer's forehand which on any given day is a better bet for a first strike hit than almost anyone's (easier said than done).
 
Last edited:
You only have it partially right. Hitting to Nadal's forehand corner down the line is what hurts him, or slightly off forehands. Djokovic was not successful simply because he hit inside out forehands to Nadal's forehand corner, he was successful because he hit to Nadal's forehand corner often when the intuitive play would be to hit crosscourt to his backhand.

This keeps Nadal both deeper in the court and also stops him camping out as far to his backhand corner. The effect of this means the gap to his backhand side is also bigger than normal too - so it's not so much a case of exposing his poor positioning, rather it creates the poor positioning. Nadal plays his best when he knows where the ball is likely to go. When he plays people who can chose either direction on a high percentage of shots, and can make those plays, he gets out of sorts quickly. (Soderling, Rosol, Djokovic, Wawrinka etc)

When Federer has beaten Nadal he has done it by disciplined hitting to the backhand corner until the opening to the forehand arises - not hitting cannon-balls to that corner (which would be to the backhand vs most opponents) and hoping for a short reply is it isn't a winner.

Generally Federer can't get enough backhands into Nadal's backhand corner off Nadal's cc forehand - that's where his issue lies. Sometimes I wonder if he might sometimes see more success by slicing Nadal's forehand down to the (Nadal's) backhand corner rather than trying to go back cc and play the Nadal forehand vs Federer backhand game. It would at least force Nadal to hit to Federer's forehand which on any given day is a better bet for a first strike hit than almost anyone's (easier said than done).

great analysis. i think you are right.

but on another note, see, there is still tremendous strategy involved, even when we are talking about match-ups of players of "similar style" on "homogenized surfaces". we don't need to have S&V vs baseliner to have interesting strategic variance!
 

THESEXPISTOL

Hall of Fame
Doing it in masters events is one thing. Doing it in a major, particularly at the French Open, is another thing altogether. Besides, the clay season awaits and a lot of the current perception will probably change between now and late May.

Evidence you're a seasoned tennis fan...
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I recently watched the 2005 Miami final again and Federer did have a lot of success hitting inside out into Nadal's forehand corner from set 3 onwards. I lost count of the amount of huge inside out forehands he ripped into the corner, sometimes it took 2 or 3 to win the point though. Many of them were over 90 mph. He also attacked the Nadal backhand a lot too.

I do think a younger Nadal would have forced Djokovic to play a couple of extra shots last Sunday. His defence isn't what it used to be.
 

dpli2010

Semi-Pro
Much has been said in the last week, about Djokovic's effective strategy against Nadal, namely that of attacking Nadal's forehand via short angled inside-out forehands, thereby exposing Nadal's relatively poor court positioning.

I think it seems to be the case that that is probably right, going by the match statistics. BUT if it is indeed true, then I am curious why Federer has not had greater success then against Nadal. After all, Federer has the best inside-out forehand by consensus. He could generate the best combination of pace and angle ever seen. Why then has he not had greater success against Nadal, his backhand "weakness" not withstanding? I just rewatched a fair bit of the old footages of Nadal vs Federer and even as recent as the last match at AO 2014, its clear Federer HAS BEEN / IS attacking Nadal's forehand. Yet Nadal seems to repel that with relative ease. Meanwhile Djokovic seems to be having so much better success with the same strategy. Why?

I am genuinely puzzled. What do you guys think?

To me, there is really nothing secret - Nole is a better grinder than Rafa who is better than Roger who has better chance turning a grinding match into a win with shorter rallies than when playing Rafa...
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
When Nadal loses the court positioning against Federer, he simple plays a neutralizing shot to Federer's backhand. It is a high percentage shot for Nadal because he doesnt even have to hit it deep. The same neutalising shots are being spanked by Djokovic and so Nadal can't turn the rally in his favour.

yes, and Fed has a habit of hitting that I/o deeper into the corner, then coming in creating the dtl target for Nadal. DJ hits the I/o and certain Bhs with more angle out and doesn't come in to net...so the angle pulls Nadal wide and he's in trouble even if he can get it.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
Federer came of age in the late Sampras era, and I think he carried the tactical expectations of that era with him for a long time. I.e., good offense should always beat good defense, except on very slow clay.

I wonder how many realize this?
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
When he plays people who can chose either direction on a high percentage of shots, and can make those plays, he gets out of sorts quickly. (Soderling, Rosol, Djokovic, Wawrinka etc)
.

I like the Idea here, but Nadal has an incredible record against Wawrinka and only lost in the AO due to injury, as he only lost to Soderling at FO due to family ordeal. He and DJ have been quite good battles all in all.
 

booson

Professional
Sometimes I wonder if he might sometimes see more success by slicing Nadal's forehand down to the (Nadal's) backhand corner rather than trying to go back cc and play the Nadal forehand vs Federer backhand game. It would at least force Nadal to hit to Federer's forehand which on any given day is a better bet for a first strike hit than almost anyone's (easier said than done).
I have seen him try that a few times. With bad results.
 

Start da Game

Hall of Fame
i see it a little differently......it's not that nadal-federer matches are down to "bad" matchups......in my opinion, bad matchups do not exist in reality......it is just in your mind that they exist......

every tennis player has a weakness or two.......federer's weakness is his pathetic overrated backhand.......it is good in style but lacks the substance.......he does not have the finishing power of wawrinka or the guile of haas or the outlasting strength of guga......

every tennis player tries to expose the weaknesses of other players......if djokovic was a bad match up to nadal, nadal would not have beaten him 22 times and lead the rivalry 22-18......

federer never tried to overcome his weakness by moving out of his comfort level and trying new things......he never did that......

much inferior players with single handers held great success against nadal......no bigger examples than youzhny, blake and gonzalez......that was possible not because they had bazooka backhands but because they overcame their weaknesses and found a way past nadal......

nadal does the same thing too......he just finds a way past players......against federer it gets a little easier for him because federer doesn't quite cover up his weakness against him, in other words fails to find a way past rafa......
 

JMR

Hall of Fame
much inferior players with single handers held great success against nadal......no bigger examples than youzhny, blake and gonzalez......that was possible not because they had bazooka backhands but because they overcame their weaknesses and found a way past nadal......

NONE of those players had "great success" against Nadal.

Youzhny is 4-10 vs. Nadal. That is a slightly worse winning percentage than Federer's. All of Youzhny's victories came on hard courts; the Colonel is 0-6 in clay sets against Nadal.

Fernando Gonzalez is 3-7 against Nadal, which is about the same winning percentage as Federer's. Nadal won the last six matches they played. One of Gonzo's wins came way back in 2003!

Blake has superficially the best record against Nadal, at 3-4. However, the two players never met on clay, and did not play at all after 2009. How well do you think Blake would have done if the two had played half a dozen matches on clay, and/or had met many times in the last five years?

Moreover, contrary to your principal argument, the reason these players had any success at all against Nadal is indeed because of their "bazooka" shots. All three are natural flat hitters, and they exploited that stylistic matchup to the maximum in their efforts against Nadal. Federer can hit hard, but he is not a natural flat hitter.
 
Top