I hope this isn't just another federer/nadal thread mcenroefan.
2008 FO? Miami 2004?
Certainly NOT at any of the wimbledon matches imo.
2009 AO might be interesting to check out.
How often does Nadal hit more winners than his opponent
- Thread starter mcenroefan
- Start date
I hope this isn't just another federer/nadal thread mcenroefan.
2008 FO? Miami 2004?
Certainly NOT at any of the wimbledon matches imo.
2009 AO might be interesting to check out.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
I think Nadal plays Fed the way he plays every other player....retrieving, margin of error, heavy topspin, etc. Against the lesser players, he will get more short balls which allows him more winners but he still never goes through the roof on winners b/c he just isn't that type of player.
Do you think Nadal is an offensive player?
What do you think the winner comparison would be againt the top 5 players over the last 5 years? Do you think Nadal would have more winners than his opposition when he faces the top 5 or 10 players.......or would he have far fewer unforced errors? I think he would have fewer winners, fewer unforced errors.....he goes for less and plays for margin of error....He often isn't in a position to be offensive b/c he's making a miracuolous retrieval from 5 feet behind the baseline. He retrieves everything and waits for the opponent to miss. Oftentimes, the oppoenents UE's come off semi-lobs that Nadal hits in making a miraculous retrieval. I think that is what the stats would show.
We could also look at stats like where the top players hit most of their shots from....in front of baseline, on baseline, 2 feet behind baseline, 5 feet behind baseline, etc....this would also be instructive as to mindset and style of their game.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
It's a discussion of Nadal's style. Any discussion about Nadal usually involves Fed-----they've collectively won almost all of the majors in the last 5-6 years so how could it not? I wish the game had more depth but, unfortunately, it hasn't for the last decade or so, IMO. Of course we should throw Murray and several others into the picture.
It's also an attempt to find and analyze alot of historical data, which apparently isn't readily available. We already have discussed alot of these issues with the typical hyperbole and conjecture....applying stats to the conversation might actually be interesting.
BTW, despite being a huge Fed fan, I am desperately hoping that the next decade brings a slew of great players and more depth than, IMO, we've seen for the last 10 years. Some of the youngf talent we've seen at this year's AO has me excited. I do not think that Fed and NAdal have played during a period where there has been great depth. I think the overall level of competiotion was greater in the 70's and 80's. Can't comment on the 50's and 60's because I didn't personally watch that era but it sounds like there were alot of elite players. We also seem to be in an era where there aren't any clay court specialists (maybe they are gone for good---I don 't know) and without real depth in the lefty category ala McEnroe, Connors, etc. These are all factors that affect both Fed's and Nadal's pool of competition. For instance, I think Borg faced tougher competion at the French Open than Nadal....just some thoughts if you care to comment.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
Tennis Warehouse would sponsor a central repository for this type of data!
whoopinstick
Rookie
Yeah, I am sure Nadal usually has the most forced errors. It is one of those stats that I wish they would actually keep track of.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
A lot of the time it is the service winers that make the difference. But not much talk about that because that would blow this bs theory that he is just a defensive player. So if this is supposed to be an accurate discussion leave out the serves+then see how much difference there is.
When you look at how few service winners he hits, but still hits a lot of real winners in the rallys it shows how much better of a player he is.
namelessone
Legend
Nadal is a player who started out very offensive, then became very defensive and nowadays he is sort of in the middle with a tendency to become defensive when he gets into trouble, especially on HC. But he is not overtly defensive, I don't agree with this point of view.
He moves you around, hits with a lot of clearance(hence the topspin), tries to angle shots away from you to get and opening and when he gets that opening he takes it. If at one point in this procedure, the other player turns the tables and attacks, taking time away, Nadal goes on the defensive until he can get back into the point. It's true that he can get into a defensive lull sometimes but nowadays I doubt defense is the first thing on his mind when the match starts. He always talks about getting the ball deep, this phrase is always spoken by Rafa "to keep him(the opponent) behind the baseline". What Nadal is trying to say is that if he hits deep enough consistently and angles the ball further and further apart from the opponent he will have an opening.
Nadal's troubles appear, on HC, when he meets big servers and guys who are great movers/great shotmakers who can break this left-right routine that Nadal tries to impose on others. I've rarely seen Rafa hit through people but very often I've seen him force them to make mistakes by driving them mad with spin.
He moves you around, hits with a lot of clearance(hence the topspin), tries to angle shots away from you to get and opening and when he gets that opening he takes it. If at one point in this procedure, the other player turns the tables and attacks, taking time away, Nadal goes on the defensive until he can get back into the point. It's true that he can get into a defensive lull sometimes but nowadays I doubt defense is the first thing on his mind when the match starts. He always talks about getting the ball deep, this phrase is always spoken by Rafa "to keep him(the opponent) behind the baseline". What Nadal is trying to say is that if he hits deep enough consistently and angles the ball further and further apart from the opponent he will have an opening.
Nadal's troubles appear, on HC, when he meets big servers and guys who are great movers/great shotmakers who can break this left-right routine that Nadal tries to impose on others. I've rarely seen Rafa hit through people but very often I've seen him force them to make mistakes by driving them mad with spin.
Consistent with the general trend nadal gets near cilic in terms of total winners 6 less (26 for nadal, 32 for cilic), but with about half the UE, 21 UE for nadal, 48 UE for cilic.
He is almost as good offensively but takes no where near the same amount of risk to get there.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
Actually, in the Cilic match, he would still trail Cilic in winners even subtracting the service stats....and this is a match that NAdal won in straight sets.
In the interest of full disclosure...I did not see the match.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
I think this is fair. He rarely if ever hits through people and waits for UE's by keeping the ball in play. Sometimes he is keeping the ball in play with heavy spin and sometimes he is simply in full retrieval and hitting deep chips with no spin. He generates plenty of errors off of the chips/slices as well b/c inevitably the player goes for too much.
The premise of Nadal's game is forcing long rallies b/c he feels his stamina is superior and his shots are more consitent and his retrievals skills are so good. He is very, very good at this type of game and it is very similar to how Borg played.
I wonder too whether alot of Nadal's winners are on his passing shots....In terms of his stroke quality, I think this is his true forte....he is very good and consistent with his passes.
It would be cool if they broke the stats down even further.....I would love to see how stats break down on alot of other players...not just Nadal.
Last edited:
namelessone
Legend
In essence we are saying the same thing but Nadal has changed over time. Look at Nadal from 2005. He was content to run around most of the time.
Nadal's game nowadays is basically this:
Try to control point by going deep with spin, left-right,left-right, angling away from the opponent if possible until the opponent makes a mistake or serves up a short ball. If the opponent breaks this cycle, retrieve like crazy to start the torture again. I believe it was Gilbert who said that rallying with Nadal was a lesson in pain. He'll either kill you with consistency and pounce on you or pass you when you come at him.
Yeah, most of Nadal's winners probably come of passes. That's why he's called the guy with two forehands, especially when it comes to passes.
In the cilic match, if you subtracted the service winners, Cilic would still be ahead as you say.
But the winner differential would close (from +6 to now only +1), and since the ue differential would remain the same, cilic would look even worse in the measure where you compare total winners and looking at the UE that were related to generating those winners. At this point cilic would only have one more total winner than nadal and 27 more UE.
One interpretation of that is that cilic was leaking UE left and right to produce that one extra winner off the ground. If you strictly care about offensive capabilities that interpretation is only partly right imo because nadal's defense and cilic's defenses aren't the same. What we are seeing in that ratio imo is both a difference in the levels of defense and a difference in the levels of offense. Imo, nadal generates pace more easily than cilic on his fh.
It's an interesting question about whether you want to remove aces from the winners total. When I made my 90% guess for nadal IN 2010 I was leaving them out, because until the 2010 US open, aces weren't an interesting offensive stat. for Nadal. But aces ARE a measure of offense (especially on fast courts) and so if you want to measure someones offensive capabilities you would want that in there. At the same time, is ivo karlovic an offensive player? ivo is better thought off as a serve-only player, so it's nice to have that distinction between Winners with and without aces, because there is real information in that separation for certain players like Ivo.
One question in this subtracting aces discussion is whether double faults are included in the UE totals.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
Regarding the passing shots, I think alot of players make unbelievable passes these days and I think it's a product of the ever increasing racket power and ability to spin from the latest strings.
NAdal's are just a little more special than some though b/c of the extra spin he generates off of the FH side and his BH, open stance, cross-court pass. I've noticed that more and more players are starting to pull the latter shot off but I think Nadal virtually invented the shot and he remains the best and most consistent at its execution. I've always thought that this is truly his signature shot and more impressive than the top spin cross court FH.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
After just watching the rafa - cilic match it would seem that anyone saying that rafa is a defensive player is a complete idiot.
He was running cilic all over the court. He took over so many rallys with his AGGRESSIVE forehand. Just because he is smart+does not trying hitting stupid shots when he is not set up does not make him defensive.
He was running cilic all over the court. He took over so many rallys with his AGGRESSIVE forehand. Just because he is smart+does not trying hitting stupid shots when he is not set up does not make him defensive.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
But Nadal is also content being run around himself waiting for an error knowing that he will generally win in the end. That's how he wins primarily and why he can't be considered a true offensive player either. He's more in the middle zone - not a pure defensive player but definitely not an offensive one either... His ranking sort of shows he's got the balance pretty nailed imo.
Cilic isn't exactly the most mobile of guys, nor the most intuitive movement-wise, so Nadal's winner ratio relative to him was probably higher than usual for a win of that margin.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
I didn't see but a small bit of the match but these are the questions I would ask:
Did the majority of Nadal's winning points end with a Nadal winner or a Cilic UE?
From where did Rafa hit most of his shots...behind, on, or in front of the baseline?
Did he take the ball on the rise quite a bit or was he letting it drop?
I'm not saying that the answers to any one of these questions are in and of themselves dispositive. A term such as "defensive" is subjective in nature so I'm attempting to look at quantifiable stats.
Maybe my point is best made by pointing to the Dolgopolov match last night. I thought he played relatively "offensively." I also think Fed plays "offensively." I'm not saying that one is better than the other for all viewers....that's subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Take into account also that the stats may enlighten us into appreciating something that we hadn't realized about a particular match.
I don't think using terms such as "complete idiot" add much to your argument.
Last edited:
namelessone
Legend
But Nadal is also content being run around himself waiting for an error knowing that he will generally win in the end. That's how he wins primarily and why he can't be considered a true offensive player either. He's more in the middle zone - not a pure defensive player but definitely not an offensive one either... His ranking sort of shows he's got the balance pretty nailed imo.
Cilic isn't exactly the most mobile of guys, nor the most intuitive movement-wise, so Nadal's winner ratio relative to him was probably higher than usual for a win of that margin.
Bingo. End of thread basically.
BrooklynNY
Hall of Fame
But Nadal is also content being run around himself waiting for an error knowing that he will generally win in the end. That's how he wins primarily and why he can't be considered a true offensive player either. He's more in the middle zone - not a pure defensive player but definitely not an offensive one either... His ranking sort of shows he's got the balance pretty nailed imo.
Sounds like Federer, Although people will claim he has 'mastered' serve and volley and what have you.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
But Nadal is also content being run around himself waiting for an error knowing that he will generally win in the end. That's how he wins primarily and why he can't be considered a true offensive player either. He's more in the middle zone - not a pure defensive player but definitely not an offensive one either... His ranking sort of shows he's got the balance pretty nailed imo.
Cilic isn't exactly the most mobile of guys, nor the most intuitive movement-wise, so Nadal's winner ratio relative to him was probably higher than usual for a win of that margin.
Did you watch the match? So because he is smart+ plays defense when he has to. But as soon as he can go on offense he does, which is the way any smart player plays the game.
I would bet that a lot of you here liked James Blake, a ball bashing machine. That style worked out real well for him.
You say because cilic does not move that well rafas winners were higher, so i guess now it only counts if he is playing a faster layer.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Exactly fed will play defense as well as anyone, then go on offense as soon as he can.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Nadal has 119 winners to 88 UE's (including service aces and double faults) in the tournament through the first four rounds.
The ratio is 1.35 (1.35 winners for every UE)
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/players/overview/atpn409.html
^^ (click on the 'statistics' tab)
- - -
Federer has 203 winners to 171 UE's (including service aces and double faults) in the tournament through the first five rounds.
The ratio is 1.19 (1.19 winners for every UE)
http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/players/overview/atpf324.html
^^ (click on the 'statistics' tab)
- - -
► So far, Rafa's winner to UE ratio is higher than Federer's
So much for the "Rafa plays all defense and waits for his opponents to make an error" theory
Last edited:
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Of course you did not watch the match but you know all about it. Then you ask Where did nadal hit his winners from behind, on or behind the baseline. Then you ask if he was hitting the ball on the rise or letting it drop. What in the hell does this have to do with anything.
Let me guess if he is letting the ball drop but still hitting a winner that does not qualify as aggressive. You have to be kidding or at least i hope so.
Now you use the dolgopolov match as an example of offensive tennis. Again you cannot be serious, this kid played defensively a high % of the time. I really enjoyed watching him play, he would play defense but when he got the chance he would go on offense. He hit more slices of the backhand+the forehand than i think i have ever seen, which obviously slices are not aggressive tennis.
Thanks for putting up the federer stats. Now we can get a sense of where federer falls relative to nadal at this AO in terms of offensive potential. It's not going to be perfect of course but no one is paying us to to do this so......
. As I have been saying we want to look at the ratio of W/UE AND the Total Winners since the W/UE ratio by itself can be misleading in terms of offense played.Now all we need is the total number of games or total number of points to adjust the total winners for each player. From the site you put up federer has played 154 games and 547 points. Nadal has played 89 games and 350 points. wow even without nadal not having played ferrer yet.
So federer hits about .37 winners per points played and 1.32 winners per games played.
Nadal hits .34 winners per points played and 1.34 winners per games played.
So AT THIS TOURNAMENT, with each facing a different set of players, Nadal has a better w/ue ratio and is producing about the same number of winners per game or winners per points played as federer. Interesting.
I would like to see a comparison of their wimbledon 2008, wimbledon 2010, USO 2008, USO 2009, USO 2010, their FO 2008, FO 2009, FO 2010 and their AO 2009, 2008, 2010 stats. Or maybe we can substitute federer's stats. from when he was 22-24 at those same tournaments. Throw in some random other players to get a feel for the potential range. Maybe soderling, berdych, monfils, ferrer, robredo, murray, djokovic and gasquet.
Last edited:
Hitting on the rise gets your juices flowing and slicing given how often federer does it IS OFFENSIVE. j/k.
Actually this is a good point given the amount of time federer slices with his bh he will be hurt by this in an good offensive potential stat. That slice limits the number of BH winners he will get compared to someone like davydenko maybe. But federer also sets up his fh with that slice so.....
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
The title of the thread is "winners" (not UE's) but you apparently have a tough time reading.
In any case, thanks for underscoring that Fed's hit almost twice as many winners as Nadal after facing much tougher competition (Simon). You've made my point.
By the way, I'm still waiting for that update..............
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
It's amazing to me that the *********s berate Murray for being a "pusher." You were all over the Murray match thread last night saying the Murray is a pusher, a bystander in the match, the match is in on Dolgo's racket, yada, yada. Maybe just defensive b/c he thrashes your guy around on hard courts???? I guess it doesn't matter that Nadal wins in that fashion.
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
This is dubious use at best of available stats to show a true picture.. (unless it somehow being used to demonstrate Federer's decline in form)The ratio is 1.35 (1.35 winners for every UE)
The ratio is 1.19 (1.19 winners for every UE)
So much for the "Rafa plays all defense and waits for his opponents to make an error" theory
Firstly, up to the point those stats were calculated Federer had had a couple of credible opponents and played averagely himself in a couple of matches. Nadal by contrast played complete bunnies including a 6-0 5-0 def white-wash which skewed the stats off the chart. (Rd1 25 winners: 10 u/f errors, Rd2 36 - 25).
Last year I did a thread on the winners to unforced error stats - with charts plotting the top player's ratios across a whole slam. In every case Federer had higher average ratios than Nadal - usually significantly. The standout factor in the charts was Nadal and Federer's consistency in form compared to the #3, 4, 5 etc. I did the same for the 2009 slams (to try to create a long-term slam history) and it was the same for that year too.
Last edited:
you need to standardize by the points or games played because federer has played a lot more games than nadal.
I did that in the post following bud's. Before each of their last matches, they are nearly identical in terms of total winners once you standardize for games or points but again with nadal having the better w/ue ratio.
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
ok so i scanned a lot of this thread and it again needs to be emphasized that playing offensively/aggressively does not necessarily result in winners. Nadal has brought this "forced error" element to a new level.
Singles in tennis is so mental. And Nadal's mental game is nearly unmatched even historically (I said "nearly"). I personally would rather hit unforced errors, as your opponent has some play on the ball but misses the attempt. Hitting service winners (which is actually a misnomer, since it's not a clean "winner") vs. hitting aces works the same to me. Sure I love aces, but service winners tend to **** off your opponent more, since they have a play on the ball but still miss.
What mcenroe seems to be missing here is that hitting forced errors qualifies as offensive tennis. You don't have to hit a clean winner to play offensively.
Last, I'll concede that Nadal started out being more aggressive, but has evolved (like few others) into an attacking player in no uncertain terms.
Singles in tennis is so mental. And Nadal's mental game is nearly unmatched even historically (I said "nearly"). I personally would rather hit unforced errors, as your opponent has some play on the ball but misses the attempt. Hitting service winners (which is actually a misnomer, since it's not a clean "winner") vs. hitting aces works the same to me. Sure I love aces, but service winners tend to **** off your opponent more, since they have a play on the ball but still miss.
What mcenroe seems to be missing here is that hitting forced errors qualifies as offensive tennis. You don't have to hit a clean winner to play offensively.
Last, I'll concede that Nadal started out being more aggressive, but has evolved (like few others) into an attacking player in no uncertain terms.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
How would you define a "forced error?" Would that be a virtually unreturnable shot on which the returning player somehow managed to get a frame....i.e., it wasn't a "clean winner" but, for all intensive purposes was unreturnable? I would agree that this type of shot might as well be counted as a winner.
If it's a shot that the players gets to, isn't on the full stretch, and either dumps in the net or hits it long or wide going for too much, that doesn't seem like a "forced error."
Throw some more examples out if you have the time.
Alot of this probably is best defined by how they keep the stats and it's possible that they don't keep them with sufficient detail to discover all that we want top know.
Also, there are other stats that are interesting but that are hard to find such as hit point on the court and depth of the shot hit.
Last edited:
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
Thanks Bobby. That's really interesting stuff.
If Nadal is standing on the baseline, has his opponent on the run, and Nadal keeps jerking him around side to side with deep topspin shots - that really isn't defensive tennis at all. Even if it doesn't end with a winner - it might count as an UE by the opponent when he misses, or it might not count as an UE and count as a forced error.
And yet, according to the winner/ue stats, that sort of point would make it look like Nadal is playing defensively unless he finishes the point off with a winner.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Exactly but good luck convincing these rafas haters of that.
mcenroefan
Hall of Fame
It all depends upon the statisticians and how they tally the points. It's pretty clear that the stats don't fully flush out all circumstances. The real key to your argument is the concept of a forced error. I'll look more closely at some classic match stats later.
The title of the thread has become a bit misleading in the sense that I'm interested in what the stats show about many players...not just Nadal.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
its pretty simple to figure out the # of forced errors. just subtract winners & opponents ue's from a players total amount of pts.
example:
Djokovic won 119 points. He hit 29 winners & got Fed 44 unforced errors from Fed. 119-44-29=46 errors he 'forced' from Fed. so 75 of his 119 pts(63%) were won by aggressive play.
Fed won 111 pts. made 35 winners, & got 35 unforced errors from Djokovic. 'forced' 41 errors. 76 of 111 pts won by agressive play(68%)
Its a shame forced errors are almost never mentioned, they often where the most amount of pts are won.
I have an article from tennhis magazine from 94 or so with some stats tracking aggresive play on various players at Wimbledon over the years(who knows where they got the info from) I think McEnroe circa 1984 was the most agressive player they had tracked in some 20some years.
here are Nadal's stats from the USO, if you want to figure out some of his forced error counts
http://2010.usopen.org/en_US/players/overview/atpn409.html
example:
Djokovic won 119 points. He hit 29 winners & got Fed 44 unforced errors from Fed. 119-44-29=46 errors he 'forced' from Fed. so 75 of his 119 pts(63%) were won by aggressive play.
Fed won 111 pts. made 35 winners, & got 35 unforced errors from Djokovic. 'forced' 41 errors. 76 of 111 pts won by agressive play(68%)
Its a shame forced errors are almost never mentioned, they often where the most amount of pts are won.
I have an article from tennhis magazine from 94 or so with some stats tracking aggresive play on various players at Wimbledon over the years(who knows where they got the info from) I think McEnroe circa 1984 was the most agressive player they had tracked in some 20some years.
here are Nadal's stats from the USO, if you want to figure out some of his forced error counts
http://2010.usopen.org/en_US/players/overview/atpn409.html
Last edited:
welcome2petrkordaland
Professional
great point, moose. shockingly simple but makes sense.
so determining whether a player is more offensive/attacking in nature or more defensive should be quite easy.
so determining whether a player is more offensive/attacking in nature or more defensive should be quite easy.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Yea, that is a good point. On top of that I don't like how they count aces, it is plain stupid and pointless. Really we should count all unreturned serves, you could have zero aces but if you got 20+ unreturned serves then you get your @$$ you are getting it done!
Similar threads
- Poll
