Nadal Djokovic are NOT "defensive" players

[lendledbergfan]

I constantly read on these forums that courts have slowed down, rewarding defensive players like Nadal and Djokovic etc. etc.

I don't know whether the courts have slowed down or not, but I object to the point that Nadal and Djokovic are defensive players. They are NOT. They are aggressive (different from "attacking" players like Sampras/McEnroe but aggressive more like Agassi, looking to take control of the point. Ferrer may be considered a defensive player).

Nadal Djokovic are aggressive players with extremely good defense which allows them to track down balls like no one (save Borg, maybe) could do before in the history and thus extend rallies.

One player is defends so much BECAUSE the other is on the attack and vice versa.

Its high time a distinction is made between "defensive" players and players with great defense. These players are of the latter category.

 

[monfed]

Agassi used to play sometimes within the baseline and tried taking control of the rallies going for outright winners on most occasions, both Ralph and Novak especially the former try to win by outgrinding or extracting a UE from their opponent.

 

[big ted]

it seems nadal is more offensive than djokovic lately. djokovic just seems to react and deflect the ball alot

 

[BrooklynNY]

People who say likely have never seen a tennis match from the side of the court - much less Nadal hitting forehands during a match from the side of the court.

I agree, just because Nadal and Nole are freaks that can track down any ball, doesn't mean they are defensive, it means they are freaks with great defensive abilities.

 

[estigma2001]

both try to dictate the point but when they can´t they just use their awesome defensive skills

 

[dooknookem]

So many haters and non athletes here...smh...

They are just athletic enough to chase down every shot. Those here that don't understand that are too un-athletic to do that because otherwise they would play like that too. Same with the pros of yesterday who couldn't play D. Why wouldn't you play like that? What happens in basketball when you play someone who has no D, you take him to school. It's so simple, in tennis, if you can't get the ball past me, you can't beat me.

And before all the WTF supporters come out, Federer should be included in the same class as Djokovic and Nadal. In a primal sense, they all play the exact same way.

 

[LeftyRighty]

both try to dictate the point but when they can´t they just use their awesome defensive skills

Agreed. reminds me of a youtube video that showed to go from Defense, to neutral rally, to offense lol...ahhh good ole youtube

 

[RNadal]

Don't bother yourself with the TT experts, mate. Most of them have never stepped into a tennis court actually. Just biased and blind fans.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

There is nothing insulting about calling someone a defensive baseliner. Calling them moonballers is sheer stupidity though.

That said, I consider Nadal to be a powerful counter puncher. I think he is one of the best ever in turning defense into offense, but unlike most counterpunchers, Nadal has no issues generating his own pace and will brutalize any player that can't rally steadily with him.

 

[dominikk1985]

There is nothing insulting about calling someone a defensive baseliner. Calling them moonballers is sheer stupidity though.

That said, I consider Nadal to be a powerful counter puncher. I think he is one of the best ever in turning defense into offense, but unlike most counterpunchers, Nadal has no issues generating his own pace and will brutalize any player that can't rally steadily with him.

yes. nadal is somewhat defensive but he is not a guy that just redirects pace. if you hit a short ball he will crush it and he will also go to the net. novak is similar although he takes the ball a little earlier.

I would even call ferrer an offensive baseliner. he has no killer shot but he likes to step inside the baseline and dictate the point by moving the opponent around.

there are no real defensive baseliners left in tennis. of course there are guys who play a little more passive but a pure grinder that cannot win points on his own won't succeed in modern tennis.

 

[PSNELKE]

There is nothing insulting about calling someone a defensive baseliner. Calling them moonballers is sheer stupidity though.

That said, I consider Nadal to be a powerful counter puncher. I think he is one of the best ever in turning defense into offense, but unlike most counterpunchers, Nadal has no issues generating his own pace and will brutalize any player that can't rally steadily with him.

This.

/thread

 

[robert.s]

There is nothing insulting about calling someone a defensive baseliner. Calling them moonballers is sheer stupidity though.

That said, I consider Nadal to be a powerful counter puncher. I think he is one of the best ever in turning defense into offense, but unlike most counterpunchers, Nadal has no issues generating his own pace and will brutalize any player that can't rally steadily with him.

Great comment.

 

[Chico]

Agree with OP that Djokovic is not defensive player. Only biased haters can claim otherwise.

 

[90's Clay]

Nole is more or less a defensive player. The meat and potatoes of his game consists of turning defense into offense.

His game even relies more on breaking the opponents service games whether than hold his own.

Nadal can definitely aggressive strike first tennis. Nole on the other hand doesn't really do this especially first the top players. And he definitely can hold his serve to a degree that Nole can only dream of

 

[BrooklynNY]

There is nothing insulting about calling someone a defensive baseliner. Calling them moonballers is sheer stupidity though.

That said, I consider Nadal to be a powerful counter puncher. I think he is one of the best ever in turning defense into offense, but unlike most counterpunchers, Nadal has no issues generating his own pace and will brutalize any player that can't rally steadily with him.

Good post.

Although I do have to say Nadal does counterpunch, but he isn't a counterpuncher, to me Hewitt and Murray are counterpunchers.

Nadal does seemingly keep a rally going longer than necessary, or longer than some of the attacking players, but Nadal is dealing blows more than he is absorbing and sending back

 

[Incognito]

I don't know whether the courts have slowed down or not,

The courts are slow but the thing is that when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray play against each other, they make the courts look slower. Agassi has said this. Watch stan, berdych and isner play each other and tell me the courts are slow. They are blasting winners all over the place like there's no tomorrow.

 

[SafinIsGOAT]

Very rarely does Nadal or Djokovic, when they're set up nicely during the point, go for an actual winner or approach shot. They go for more of a "half winner" or "safe winner", giving their shot a little bit more angle and speed, but far from an all-or-nothing arrangement that looks like an intentional winning shot. And they avoid net play like the plague. No way are they offensive players. You can't be considered an offensive player when you don't try to capitalize on most of the easy balls that come to you. By the way, Agassi and Chang, while being extremely fit and agile players who could retrieve balls all day, still never missed a chance to approach or flatten out and hit a winner.

 

[The_Begum_of_Bhopal]

The whole purpose of Djokovic and Nadal's defensive is to get themselves back into a rally to give them another opportunity to be offensive.

 

[egn]

First of all why is "defensive" considered a bad thing. They both fall in the counterpuncher spectrum. Nadal clearly relies on his defense, which is not a bad thing. I don't understand why people get all defensive. Nadal is not an offensive player, he is not someone like a Tsonga/Berdych/Fed/Gulbis type. Nadal will wait for the right shot and go for it. Nadal doesn't look to make a winner most of the time on a shot that he can put back in play with good depth and pace that might get him a better look. It's evident in Nadal's much lower winner and UE count. Look at Soderling, that's an agressive attacking player when he is on.

 

[Bender]

For Djokovic and Nadal, almost every forehand is aggressive.

It won't be a winner every time - far from it - but it's something not easy to deal with, and forces errors.

That isn't the same as hitting passive balls and waiting for the opponent to make a stupid error.

To think that Nadal is a defensive pusher is laughable and shows more about the poster than anything else.

 

[Bender]

Good post.

Although I do have to say Nadal does counterpunch, but he isn't a counterpuncher, to me Hewitt and Murray are counterpunchers.

Nadal does seemingly keep a rally going longer than necessary, or longer than some of the attacking players, but Nadal is dealing blows more than he is absorbing and sending back

I think a lot of this may be deliberate. We know that at least a few of the top players find Rafa the hardest to beat, and TTW neckbeards make it a point to remind us all that Rafa is also a master of the psychological aspect of tennis.

Perhaps at least a.few of these points may be deliberately extended to run his opponents ragged or smash their mental into smithereens.

If I had his fitness, consistency and weapons I know I would deliberately toy with my opponent to absolutely demoralise the guy. Maybe I'll end up with an aura of invincibility next time we meet and he'll capitulate mentally even before the match.

Very rarely does Nadal or Djokovic, when they're set up nicely during the point, go for an actual winner or approach shot. They go for more of a "half winner" or "safe winner", giving their shot a little bit more angle and speed, but far from an all-or-nothing arrangement that looks like an intentional winning shot. And they avoid net play like the plague. No way are they offensive players. You can't be considered an offensive player when you don't try to capitalize on most of the easy balls that come to you. By the way, Agassi and Chang, while being extremely fit and agile players who could retrieve balls all day, still never missed a chance to approach or flatten out and hit a winner.

Lol Agassi, retrieve all day?

 

[Russeljones]

I constantly read on these forums that courts have slowed down, rewarding defensive players like Nadal and Djokovic etc. etc.

I don't know whether the courts have slowed down or not, but I object to the point that Nadal and Djokovic are defensive players. They are NOT. They are aggressive (different from "attacking" players like Sampras/McEnroe but aggressive more like Agassi, looking to take control of the point. Ferrer may be considered a defensive player).

Nadal Djokovic are aggressive players with extremely good defense which allows them to track down balls like no one (save Borg, maybe) could do before in the history and thus extend rallies.

One player is defends so much BECAUSE the other is on the attack and vice versa.

Its high time a distinction is made between "defensive" players and players with great defense. These players are of the latter category.

It's high time people watch more than 2-3 players for 2-3 years before they start lecturing about the sport.

 

[Sid_Vicious]

I think a lot of this may be deliberate. We know that at least a few of the top players find Rafa the hardest to beat, and TTW neckbeards make it a point to remind us all that Rafa is also a master of the psychological aspect of tennis.

Perhaps at least a.few of these points may be deliberately extended to run his opponents ragged or smash their mental into smithereens.

If I had his fitness, consistency and weapons I know I would deliberately toy with my opponent to absolutely demoralise the guy. Maybe I'll end up with an aura of invincibility next time we meet and he'll capitulate mentally even before the match.

Wow. You know what? Rafa is the Batman. He destroys people with his game as well inflict psychological trauma on his opponents.

 

[Bender]

Wow. You know what? Rafa is the Batman. He destroys people with his game as well inflict psychological trauma on his opponents.

That's why we have TDK on the forums :evil:

 

[Praetorian]

You are right. They aren't defensive players, nor are they aggressive players. They are well balanced players who play a defensive type of games. When and if the opportunity strikes, then they aggressively hit the ball. What i liked seeing about Nadal during the Hardcourt seaon, is he did start being a little more aggressive, and though it times it was probably a little uncomfortable for him, look what it resulted. A perfect HC season resulting in the USO. Djokovic, was a little more aggressive in 2011 as well, but not so much so since then, and look what happened, clearly not the same.

 

[mattennis]

Both Nadal and especially Djokovic CAN hit flat potent clean winners.

The thing is...they very very rarely try it. A flat potent shot to the corner is a clean winner (if it goes in) no matter how fast the rival moves. That type of ball moves 10 times faster than any man on earth, it is impossible to even get near the ball if it has been struck really hard and flat.

But that kind of shot is very difficult to hit when the incoming ball has so much top-spin in it.

Nadal and Djokovic very very rarely try to hit really flat shots. Djokovic does it sometimes, and when they go in they are clean winners.

They know it is much easier for them to win hitting potent super-top-spin shots, i.e. grinding. It is much safer, but you need to expend a lot of energy hitting with that much top-spin and with longer points. They seem to have enough energy.


Of course in the really faster hard courts of past decades with low and skidding bounce, a really flat shot didn't even need to be that potent to be a winner, because it used to skid and stay low through and after the bounce.


On todays slow, higher bounce and sandy hard courts, it is much more difficult to hit clean winners from the baseline, but still, a potent really FLAT shot to the corner, if it goes in, will be a clean winner. But it is a very low-percentage shot today (because of the amount of spin the incoming ball has, it is much more difficult to control that kind of flat winner shot).


For example, look at the three clean forehand winners Djokovic hit in the fifth game of the second set (at 5:30 more or less)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOK-vHLoC4M

When he decides to hit a flatter and potent forehand to the line, it is a clean winner, Nadal does not even have time to start to move...

But it is almost impossible to hit those shots all the time.


At 6:30 in the video Djokovic hits another potent flat forehand from the baseline, and again it is a clean winner (Nadal does not even have time to start moving to the ball).

Those shots will always be clean winners (the ball goes 10 times faster than any man on earth in that kind of shot), but they rarely try to hit those low-percentage shots on todays conditions.

 

[lendledbergfan]

Very rarely does Nadal or Djokovic, when they're set up nicely during the point, go for an actual winner or approach shot. They go for more of a "half winner" or "safe winner", giving their shot a little bit more angle and speed, but far from an all-or-nothing arrangement that looks like an intentional winning shot. And they avoid net play like the plague. No way are they offensive players. You can't be considered an offensive player when you don't try to capitalize on most of the easy balls that come to you. By the way, Agassi and Chang, while being extremely fit and agile players who could retrieve balls all day, still never missed a chance to approach or flatten out and hit a winner.

This. I agree they are not offensive (or attacking players -- I mentioned in my post). I mentioned they are aggressive players. Not defensive.

 

[yemenmocha]

It's a skewed description these days because the courts are so slow that it permits the chasing down of so many shots that would have skidded away at a much faster pace 20 years ago on normal/fast hard courts. That's another reason many of us want to bring back a BALANCE of court speeds like we had in the past. On faster courts, there's no point in trying to be a rabbit and run down everything (because you can't, even if you're Nadal). When you can't run down everything, then shot-making has a much higher priority and is rewarded more, unlike today.

Without a doubt, Djoke and Nadal are amazing slow court players.

 

[Shroud]

Because the courts are so slow these days, good defenses are easier to do and players look faster because the ball bounces higher travels slower, etc.

If the courts were like they used to be Joker, Nadal would appear to be more offensive with their shots and would hit more winners, but their defense would suffer.

I think the slow surfaces make us think that somehow guys are faster than they really are....

 

[kiki]

They are like Dibbs and Solomon, or Barazutti only that they are more powerful.Their bodies is their plus

 

[dooknookem]

players are faster courts aren't slower wake up

 

[Federer20042006]

Dkokovic mostly is. He's a backboard.

Nadal, on the other hand...there's nothing defensive about his forehand. He's trying to take control of every point with it.

 

[Indio]

They are like Dibbs and Solomon, or Barazutti only that they are more powerful.Their bodies is their plus

This is nonsense. The term "moonball" was coined for the types of shots these players, especially Solomon, hit. To suggest that the playing styles of those non-majors winners resembles those of Nadal and Djokovic is laughable at best. Check out some Solomon action on Youtube.

 

[Indio]

players are faster courts aren't slower wake up

The courts probably are slower, but not to the extent that the many exaggerators who frequent this discussion board would have everyone believe.

 

[yemenmocha]

players are faster courts aren't slower wake up

learn the facts before you offer an opinion please

 

[dooknookem]

learn the facts before you offer an opinion please

Lemme guess you think the WTF is the most important tournament in the world too?

 

[dooknookem]

The courts probably are slower, but not to the extent that the many exaggerators who frequent this discussion board would have everyone believe.

I'm sure they are a bit slower but my point remains. These players would be chasing down balls on any court in any era and are better athletes than all the tennis players that have come before them. "Fast" courts just help unathletic tennis players have a puncher's chance at winning.

 

[Messarger]

Very rarely does Nadal or Djokovic, when they're set up nicely during the point, go for an actual winner or approach shot. They go for more of a "half winner" or "safe winner", giving their shot a little bit more angle and speed, but far from an all-or-nothing arrangement that looks like an intentional winning shot. And they avoid net play like the plague. No way are they offensive players. You can't be considered an offensive player when you don't try to capitalize on most of the easy balls that come to you. By the way, Agassi and Chang, while being extremely fit and agile players who could retrieve balls all day, still never missed a chance to approach or flatten out and hit a winner.

not sure if serious.

 

[amx13]

I guess it all comes down to your personal definition of "aggressive", if hitting the ball hard is enough for you to call them aggressive, they are. If you think that a player must try to win the point in order to be aggressive, they're not. Also, playing high % tennis and waiting for an opponent's mistake is a perfect strategy (and a really effective one in today's playing conditions), no need to get offended and all riled up about the term.

 

[SafinIsGOAT]

not sure if serious.

Most of the "net points won/lost" are from being forced in by a dropshot.

 

[Shroud]

I'm sure they are a bit slower but my point remains. These players would be chasing down balls on any court in any era and are better athletes than all the tennis players that have come before them. "Fast" courts just help unathletic tennis players have a puncher's chance at winning.

That is a wild boast: "all the tennis players that have come before them"??

Its ridiculous to say that a pro tennis player is "unathletic". But please provide me a list of past champions you think were not athletic.

 

[dooknookem]

That is a wild boast: "all the tennis players that have come before them"??

Its ridiculous to say that a pro tennis player is "unathletic". But please provide me a list of past champions you think were not athletic.

Maybe I should have said "less athletic" but I doubt that would have made a difference. How about you tell me a past champion or even non champion more athletic than Nadal, Djokovic, or even Federer?

 

[jg153040]

I constantly read on these forums that courts have slowed down, rewarding defensive players like Nadal and Djokovic etc. etc.

I don't know whether the courts have slowed down or not, but I object to the point that Nadal and Djokovic are defensive players. They are NOT. They are aggressive (different from "attacking" players like Sampras/McEnroe but aggressive more like Agassi, looking to take control of the point. Ferrer may be considered a defensive player).

Nadal Djokovic are aggressive players with extremely good defense which allows them to track down balls like no one (save Borg, maybe) could do before in the history and thus extend rallies.

One player is defends so much BECAUSE the other is on the attack and vice versa.

Its high time a distinction is made between "defensive" players and players with great defense. These players are of the latter category.

I agree. Their style is more of a counter-punching. I think surfaces don't permit pure aggressive play anymore. It has nothing to do with them. They do what they have to.

 

[THE FIGHTER]

"no," they are "not"

 

[robert.s]

Both Nadal and especially Djokovic CAN hit flat potent clean winners.

The thing is...they very very rarely try it. A flat potent shot to the corner is a clean winner (if it goes in) no matter how fast the rival moves. That type of ball moves 10 times faster than any man on earth, it is impossible to even get near the ball if it has been struck really hard and flat.

But that kind of shot is very difficult to hit when the incoming ball has so much top-spin in it.

Nadal and Djokovic very very rarely try to hit really flat shots. Djokovic does it sometimes, and when they go in they are clean winners.

They know it is much easier for them to win hitting potent super-top-spin shots, i.e. grinding. It is much safer, but you need to expend a lot of energy hitting with that much top-spin and with longer points. They seem to have enough energy.


Of course in the really faster hard courts of past decades with low and skidding bounce, a really flat shot didn't even need to be that potent to be a winner, because it used to skid and stay low through and after the bounce.


On todays slow, higher bounce and sandy hard courts, it is much more difficult to hit clean winners from the baseline, but still, a potent really FLAT shot to the corner, if it goes in, will be a clean winner. But it is a very low-percentage shot today (because of the amount of spin the incoming ball has, it is much more difficult to control that kind of flat winner shot).


For example, look at the three clean forehand winners Djokovic hit in the fifth game of the second set (at 5:30 more or less)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOK-vHLoC4M

When he decides to hit a flatter and potent forehand to the line, it is a clean winner, Nadal does not even have time to start to move...

But it is almost impossible to hit those shots all the time.


At 6:30 in the video Djokovic hits another potent flat forehand from the baseline, and again it is a clean winner (Nadal does not even have time to start moving to the ball).

Those shots will always be clean winners (the ball goes 10 times faster than any man on earth in that kind of shot), but they rarely try to hit those low-percentage shots on todays conditions.

One of the finest posts around here. If you don't look to hit winners and decide points on your own, then you can't be named an attacking player. If you outlast your opponents in rallies, then you have mental strenght, consistence in keeping the ball on play, resistence, stamina and outstanding defensive abilities. Someone said that a possible explanation for Nadal's low number of winners in the USO final is that Djokovic is unbelievable at defending. It isn't true. A winner is a winner no matter what the guy from the other side of the net does, for reasons explained very well in the quoted post.

Plus, how come the best version of Djokovic was 48 to 49 in winners versus a rather ordinary version of Federer in the USO 2011 semifinal, and a decent version of Djokovic was 46 to 27 with the best version of Nadal on american hard courts?

Nadal is a player that doesn't usually go for shots. He's sort of like Murray. Djokovic is more like Federer. Name Nadal a warrior, a fighter, a never-give-up champion. Just don't name him an attacking player. He's not, not against the top players anyway.

 

[Benhur]

They do show extraordinary defensive skills, whether they are playing against others, or against each other. But in order to show great defensive skills, you need to be under attack. Which means that when you see that in their matches between each other, one of them has to be playing the role of aggressor, and this tends to be forgotten. Time and again, you see one of them retrieving very difficult shots and managing to bring the point back to neutral when most other players would have lost the point. So you conclude the are very defensive. They are not. Being able to play great defense when required does not mean you are playing defensively. What it means is that if two players with great defensive skills play each other, the points are going to be longer. How can it be otherwise?

Of course, when they play each other, they need to be a bit more careful about risks. When going for a winner against each other, the probability of missing the shot may be the same as if they were playing against a lesser player, but the overall risk of giving a free point this way is significantly higher, not just because their matches are tighter and almost every point is important, but also because, even if they don’t miss, the probability of the ball coming back, or even coming back with a vengeance, is higher.

So when they play each other, they may show a more controlled kind of aggression, more patience in waiting for the right moment to unleash, but still you cannot call that playing defensively.

These things have been going on for a long time between these two, especially in big matches, and yet people seem always surprised. If you check the boards after their last three slam finals, you will see an explosion of complaints about the scandal of "slow courts". After their last AO final, when chairs had to be brought to the court during the ceremony because they could barely stand on their feet, there were suggestions that an urgent intervention was needed on humanitarian grounds, to speed up the courts in order to prevent player’s bodies from disintegrating prematurely. Well, it’s not so much the courts. It’s mostly the unique matchup between two players with phenomenal defensive skills. Put Almagro against Berdych out there, or Haas against Stepanek, or countless other combinations, and you won’t get any impression of slow courts and the need for humanitarian interventions.

 

[Egoista]

well they sure as hell arent aggressive players the ..... pushers