Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and 'Total Tennis'

[CMM]

Wimbledon: Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and 'Total Tennis'

The Netherlands national team, two-time runner up at the World Cup, is beginning to look like it could finally win the big prize, and this has sparked comparisons to the country's beloved "Clockwork Orange" teams of the 1970s that became known for their groundbreaking "Total Football" approach.

As I understand it, Total Football has become, to one degree or another, the norm in top-level international soccer. But more to the point of this blog, the concept has spread its wings to other sports as well -- including tennis.

Total Football is a fluid, interlocking playing style in which each player moves naturally from one position to another -- defender, midfielder and striker meld into one another, with no specific skill or predilection taking precedence over another. So it goes for modern professional tennis, with racket and string technology helping blur the line like never before between offense and defense, fast court and slow court, service and return. The man who best represents the Total Football approach to tennis is, of course, Rafael Nadal, who has won majors on three surfaces.

You thought I was going to say Roger Federer, didn't you? Yes, Federer can do it all on a tennis court, but the fact is he doesn't want to. He is much more like the downtrodden -- and already eliminated -- England soccer team. He's stubborn and tradition-minded. He gets grumpy when things don't go his way and usually sticks to his guns rather than seeking out new solutions. The Swiss great doesn't want to adapt to changing conditions. How often have we heard Patrick McEnroe and Darren Cahill telling him (via the airwaves) to step around the backhand on his service return -- or at least to stop trying to hit topspin backhands from difficult positions? Over and over and over. But Federer keeps doing what he's doing. It annoys him that opponents think they can have success picking on his backhand, and so he keeps hitting it, even if it means doom. Remember how he avoided using the drop shot for years, viewing it as a sign of weakness? He came around eventually and now sports the best forehand "dropper" in the business, but he took some convincing. That shot helped him triumph at the French Open last year, and yet he still won that tournament primarily by playing fast-court tennis, by playing straight-ahead rather than laterally.

Nadal isn't nearly so stubborn. He can embody the traditional strengths of every kind of tennis specialist -- and, whenever necessary, he does. His gyroscope forehand is so distinctive that it's easy to view Rafa as an unchanging claycourt monster, but his playing style actually changes dramatically based on the conditions, the surface, the opponent. He likes to return serve from five feet behind the baseline, but you'll also see him crowding the server when the occasion calls for it, as if he's going to employ the anachronistic chip-and-charge. He flattens out his shots on Wimbledon's low-bouncing grass. He often comes to the net quite a lot and makes his opponent look at various different kinds of shots and angles. He thinks out there on court, far more than he's given credit for. And we all know that no one -- absolutely no one -- can hit winners from defensive positions like Nadal can.

To be sure, this does not mean Nadal has the advantage over Federer at this Wimbledon. Everything Federer does well -- which is pretty much everything -- is amplified on fast surfaces. Nadal, meanwhile, will never dominate with quick-point methods on grass the way he does with his ramblin'-man mindset on clay. But it does explain why Nadal could win three or four Wimbledons in his career, while Federer will have to make do with one Roland Garros title.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2010/06/wimbledon_roger_federer_rafael_nadal_and_total_tennis.html

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Interesting article.

But how many hard court slams will Rafa have to settle with? And how many will Roger eventually settle with? :-|

 

[Rippy]

Surely it's US Open for Nadal, and the French for Federer they should be comparing... As they're their respective weakest surfaces.

 

[miyagi]

Not another Fed vs Nadal Comparision! It only sets this place off!

 

[rocket]

But it does explain why Nadal could win three or four Wimbledons in his career, while Federer will have to make do with one Roland Garros title.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2010/06/wimbledon_roger_federer_rafael_nadal_and_total_tennis.html

great read!

i'm sure Nadal will treasure his one & only HC slam title, courtesy of Federer.

 

[CMM]

great read!

i'm sure Nadal will treasure his one & only HC slam title, courtesy of Federer.

I believe Rafa will win the US Open someday.

 

[Berundi]

I believe Rafa will win the US Open someday.

He might if Federer gets a knee "injury"

 

[TheTruth]

The point of the article is not saying who is better, they're talking about basic human traits. Stubbornness vs. the ability, or willingness to adapt.

Many commentators are starting to speak about Roger's stubbornness and saying he could be even better than he already is. I agree.

As he gets older he's going to have to abandon that stubborn spirit. The guys are younger and coming from a different generation. They are not going to respect achievements, they're going to be fearless. The young don't think, they react. Already we're starting to see this. It's in Roger's best interest to adapt.

Example? French Open quarterfinal against Soderling. He didn't change his game but tried to outhit Soderling from the baseline.

IMO, Soderling didn't play out of his mind. Roger just didn't change his game when he had so many options available to him.

 

[Justdoit10]

Nadal can be just as stubborn as Federer. Oh and lets not forget how irritated Nadal is when he isnt winning a match. Del Potro match at the USO, Roddick at Miami etc.

 

[Cyan]

I believe Rafa will win the US Open someday.

Agreed.

10 char.

 

[rocket]

I believe Rafa will win the US Open someday.

better hurry, cuz he only has about 3 years of top-notch tennis left and before Fed retires. DelPo, Murray & Co. won't just hand it to him like Fed does.

 

[CMM]

better hurry, cuz he only has about 3 years of top-notch tennis left and before Fed retires. DelPo, Murray & Co. won't just hand it to him like Fed does.

Sure. :roll:

 

[Cyan]

better hurry, cuz he only has about 3 years of top-notch tennis left and before Fed retires. DelPo, Murray & Co. won't just hand it to him like Fed does.

If he gets a draw like AO 2009 it can happen.

 

[rocket]

The point of the article is not saying who is better, they're talking about basic human traits. Stubbornness vs. the ability, or willingness to adapt.

Many commentators are starting to speak about Roger's stubbornness and saying he could be even better than he already is. I agree.

As he gets older he's going to have to abandon that stubborn spirit. The guys are younger and coming from a different generation. They are not going to respect achievements, they're going to be fearless. The young don't think, they react. Already we're starting to see this. It's in Roger's best interest to adapt.

Example? French Open quarterfinal against Soderling. He didn't change his game but tried to outhit Soderling from the baseline.

IMO, Soderling didn't play out of his mind. Roger just didn't change his game when he had so many options available to him.

i can't believe i agree with you.

7

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nothing against Rafa, he is fighter. He manages to change is playing ways between modern day clay and grass courts verfy well. Kudos for that. However, his modifcations to hard are surprisingly lacking when it comes to GS performances.

Roger may be stubborn, but that stubborness got him four straight finals at FO, seven straight finals at W, six straight finals at USO, and also four finals at AUS. Maybe now that he hasn't won the last slam, OMG what a calamity, he should stop being so darn stubborn. His stubborness has only won 16 slams for him...he could do a lot better if he wasn't so narrowed minded with the way he approached his matches.

 

[hoodjem]

He might if Federer gets a knee "injury"

Or fails to get beat by someone else before the finals.
Because if Nadal gets to the finals against Fed, it'll be the AO '09 all over again.

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal can be just as stubborn as Federer. Oh and lets not forget how irritated Nadal is when he isnt winning a match. Del Potro match at the USO, Roddick at Miami etc.

I'm sure he can, great people usually are stubborn. They're single-minded, determined, etc.

My post is talking about remaining stubborn in a situation that you could easily turn around. Irritation isn't one of my points. All players are irritated when they're losing.

I used the example of the French, because I couldn't believe Federer didn't change that match up and do something different. That's not to say he would have won,I don't know the answer to that, but to stick with it against all odds when it wasn't working doesn't bode well for the future if he keeps it up.

 

[TheTruth]

i can't believe i agree with you.

7

See, it's not so hard .

Ha ha ha. Just noticed your number. Cute.

0

 

[TheTruth]

Nothing against Rafa, he is fighter. He manages to change is playing ways between modern day clay and grass courts verfy well. Kudos for that. However, his modifcations to hard are surprisingly lacking when it comes to GS performances.

Roger may be stubborn, but that stubborness got him four straight finals at FO, seven straight finals at W, six straight finals at USO, and also four finals at AUS. Maybe now that he hasn't won the last slam, OMG what a calamity, he should stop being so darn stubborn. His stubborness has only won 16 slams for him...he could do a lot better if he wasn't so narrowed minded with the way he approached his matches.

No, Hitman. This isn't about what he has achieved with his game. His game is more than good enough for the rest of the field, but there are challengers lurking in the latter stages of his career that will not rest on his achievements. He can further extend his achievements by making a few adjustments, like he did with the drop shots.

 

[Justdoit10]

I'm sure he can, great people usually are stubborn. They're single-minded, determined, etc.

My post is talking about remaining stubborn in a situation that you could easily turn around. Irritation isn't one of my points. All players are irritated when they're losing.

I used the example of the French, because I couldn't believe Federer didn't change that match up and do something different. That's not to say he would have won,I don't know the answer to that, but to stick with it against all odds when it wasn't working doesn't bode well for the future if he keeps it up.

Hey TheTruth, I wasnt disagreeing with anything you said. I just was giving my quick view on the article. You made some solid points about RG match from this year. I remember when Federer broke Soderling at the start of the fourth set, he lost his service game at love. That was a terrible game, Federer tried to hit the most outrageous forehands ever and he missed all of them. Federer does prefer to play offensive tennis all the time but then again his game really isnt built around defense.

 

[lambros]

If being stubborn gets you 16 grad slams, I want to be stubborn.

 

[TheTruth]

Hey TheTruth, I wasnt disagreeing with anything you said. I just was giving my quick view on the article. You made some solid points about RG match from this year. I remember when Federer broke Soderling at the start of the fourth set, he lost his service game at love. That was a terrible game, Federer tried to hit the most outrageous forehands ever and he missed all of them. Federer does prefer to play offensive tennis all the time but then again his game really isnt built around defense.

I know. I was just trying to clarify what I was saying.

But, Federer plays defense so well. He should have ran Soderling all over that court, and you know he could. It was baffling to me.

I thought that was a brain cramp from Fed. I don't think Sod played out of this world. It just seems to me Fed could have won that match. He just didn't seem interested or intense enough.

 

[bizarre_opinion]

what a stupid article. The person who wrote the article clearly doesn't know what the term 'total football' means and to compare it to tennis and winning majors on different surfaces is even more stupid, you simply cannot use the term total football with tennis as its an individual sport. Also, nadal won his slams playing exactly the same style as he does on all surface's. Joke of an article.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

No, Hitman. This isn't about what he has achieved with his game. His game is more than good enough for the rest of the field, but there are challengers lurking in the latter stages of his career that will not rest on his achievements. He can further extend his achievements by making a few adjustments, like he did with the drop shots.

Yes, it is about what he has achieved, whether it is is directly stated or not. Stubborness and not being able to win is one thing, when you win 16 slams, break records like they are going out of fashion, you have something that works.

You contradict yourself as well TheTruth, like you stated, he added the dropshot to his arsenal and won the FO with it. He is adding things, like cranking up that serve to make up for other things that are not as good anymore.

And you're talking about one match, the Soderling match where for the first time he did not make a semi final since FO 2004. 2004 in tennis is a VERY long time ago. Sooner or later, no matter how much you think you can adapt, someone is going to come out red hot and beat you. Soderling played the perfect match, Roger for the first time in six years could not produce and lost. To take that and say he can't adapt is a little far fetched. He's a tennis player, not a God.

So respectfully, I will stick with my opinion and disagree with you.

 

[statto]

what a stupid article. The person who wrote the article clearly doesn't know what the term 'total football' means and to compare it to tennis and winning majors on different surfaces is even more stupid, you simply cannot use the term total football with tennis as its an individual sport. Also, nadal won his slams playing exactly the same style as he does on all surface's. Joke of an article.

I agree with you about the total football comparison, but Nadal plays distinctly different at Wimbledon than he does at Roland Garros.

 

[forehandshanker]

If being stubborn gets you 16 grad slams, I want to be stubborn.

LOL! This was the best!

Somehow the article conveniently ignores the servers full of YouTube videos showing Federer playing great defense.

 

[JustBob]

It's no secret that Federer can be stubborn and will sometimes stick to his gameplan when it's obvious another gameplan might be more successful. It's not like he lacks the abilities to do so.

Nadal isn't nearly so stubborn. He can embody the traditional strengths of every kind of tennis specialist -- and, whenever necessary, he does.

That however, is a bit of a stretch. While Nadal has shown recently that he can modify his style of play according to surface (standing closer to the baseline, flattening his shots on grass), he can't totally abandon his physical/grinder style of play. He just doesn't have the natural abilities that Federer has.

 

[TheTruth]

Yes, it is about what he has achieved, whether it is is directly stated or not. Stubborness and not being able to win is one thing, when you win 16 slams, break records like they are going out of fashion, you have something that works.

You contradict yourself as well TheTruth, like you stated, he added the dropshot to his arsenal and won the FO with it. He is adding things, like cranking up that serve to make up for other things that are not as good anymore.

And you're talking about one match, the Soderling match where for the first time he did not make a semi final since FO 2004. 2004 in tennis is a VERY long time ago. Sooner or later, no matter how much you think you can adapt, someone is going to come out red hot and beat you. Soderling played the perfect match, Roger for the first time in six years could not produce and lost. To take that and say he can't adapt is a little far fetched. He's a tennis player, not a God.

So respectfully, I will stick with my opinion and disagree with you.

Hopefully we always respectfully disagree, there's no point in doing it any other way, imo.

Personally, I don't see his achievements the way most people do, but that's another story.

He did add the dropshot, but that was after how many years? Pretty many I think, and that's not a lot of adjustments.

I definitely don't see him as a god. But, he hasn't adapted to the ball being hit to his backhand after all these years. Now other players are doing it.

Of course, sometimes someone will get red hot and win, but too many times when Fed loses people will say the other person played the match of their life. I disagree. To me, there are times he tries to beat the person at their own game, and sometimes it doesn't work.

 

[TheTruth]

It's no secret that Federer can be stubborn and will sometimes stick to his gameplan when it's obvious another gameplan might be more successful. It's not like he lacks the abilities to do so.

That was my point.

 

[fgzhu88]

great article and good points TheTruth!

However, it's not so much that Nadal adapts to different surfaces but that he has added more dimensions to his game, over these last few years, to be more of an all-surface player. It's not like he suddenly flips on his grass switch and plays more aggressive tennis.

In 2006 and 2007, he really was more or less a brainless backhand basher, but since then has developed his down the line forehand and has really amped up the backhand. And through doubles, is no longer afraid to finish points at net.

On the topic of Federer. I have to disagree that Soderling was playing "normally" in their FO 2010 encounter. He was absolutely demolishing every look Federer gave him, low slices, high toppers and hitting consistently deep. Also serving stats were off the charts. The only thing Federer could have done was try to have the match pushed off till the next day due to rain. And it was drizzling, pretty steadily so it hardly could have been considered unreasonable. Here, probably out of stubbornness, he chose to brave it out.

 

[piece]

Nadal has probably put more effort into adapting his game since he started winning slams than Federer has, but when he's getting beaten badly in a match there's not much he can do in the way of changing things up. He just keeps trying to retrieve everything, control points with his forehand, and hit great passes - and if none of that is working, he's screwed.

Federer doesn't adapt that much within individual matches either, but I find he's more capable of changing his play to break down his opponent than Nadal is. But Nadal is definitely the more dedicated adapter in the long term

 

[piece]

great article and good points TheTruth!

However, it's not so much that Nadal adapts to different surfaces but that he has added more dimensions to his game, over these last few years, to be more of an all-surface player. It's not like he suddenly flips on his grass switch and plays more aggressive tennis.

In 2006 and 2007, he really was more or less a brainless backhand basher, but since then has developed his down the line forehand and has really amped up the backhand. And through doubles, is no longer afraid to finish points at net.

On the topic of Federer. I have to disagree that Soderling was playing "normally" in their FO 2010 encounter. He was absolutely demolishing every look Federer gave him, low slices, high toppers and hitting consistently deep. Also serving stats were off the charts. The only thing Federer could have done was try to have the match pushed off till the next day due to rain. And it was drizzling, pretty steadily so it hardly could have been considered unreasonable. Here, probably out of stubbornness, he chose to brave it out.

Agree. It was the best I've ever seen him play. He was hitting forehand winners of every ball it was humanly possible to hit a forehand winner off.

 

[TheTruth]

great article and good points TheTruth!

However, it's not so much that Nadal adapts to different surfaces but that he has added more dimensions to his game, over these last few years, to be more of an all-surface player. It's not like he suddenly flips on his grass switch and plays more aggressive tennis.

In 2006 and 2007, he really was more or less a brainless backhand basher, but since then has developed his down the line forehand and has really amped up the backhand. And through doubles, is no longer afraid to finish points at net.

On the topic of Federer. I have to disagree that Soderling was playing "normally" in their FO 2010 encounter. He was absolutely demolishing every look Federer gave him, low slices, high toppers and hitting consistently deep. Also serving stats were off the charts. The only thing Federer could have done was try to have the match pushed off till the next day due to rain. And it was drizzling, pretty steadily so it hardly could have been considered unreasonable. Here, probably out of stubbornness, he chose to brave it out.

Now, I wish I hadn't gotten rid of the match between Fed and Sod. It looked rather ordinary to me. Maybe I expected Fed to change the game up and reverse what Sod was doing, but Fed didn't seem to be into it to me. He had no intensity and honestly, it didn't look like he cared. If it comes on again I will look at it again, but I did not see what others saw.

 

[mandy01]

Nadal has probably put more effort into adapting his game since he started winning slams than Federer has, but when he's getting beaten badly in a match there's not much he can do in the way of changing things up. He just keeps trying to retrieve everything, control points with his forehand, and hit great passes - and if none of that is working, he's screwed.

Federer doesn't adapt that much within individual matches either, but I find he's more capable of changing his play to break down his opponent than Nadal is. But Nadal is definitely the more dedicated adapter in the long term

Agreed.Against Sod I thought maybe the conditions negated some of Roger's weapons.He wasn't able to use the drop shot much,throw in a little bit of net play or even slice that well(his slice was sitting up a lot).
There's not much I remember from the match but I thought Sod himself played really well.He was able to clock his serve consistently high-something Roger wasn't able to do and that forehand was a monster.
He was pulling Fed wide on both sides making him play defense and not allowing him to take charge of points.
Fed actually played some really good defense but Sod-The guy just wouldn't step down

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Hopefully we always respectfully disagree, there's no point in doing it any other way, imo.

Personally, I don't see his achievements the way most people do, but that's another story.

He did add the dropshot, but that was after how many years? Pretty many I think, and that's not a lot of adjustments.

I definitely don't see him as a god. But, he hasn't adapted to the ball being hit to his backhand after all these years. Now other players are doing it.

Of course, sometimes someone will get red hot and win, but too many times when Fed loses people will say the other person played the match of their life. I disagree. To me, there are times he tries to beat the person at their own game, and sometimes it doesn't work.

I like reading your posts, and respect your opinion a lot.

However on this instance, it is best that we respectfully disagree. I see this as a shot at Roger. When in my mind, you can't win as much as he has without being able to mix things up. And if Rafa has made so many more adjustments, then the question begs to be answered, why does he get beaten by a player who hits the ball hard and flat at the US Open time and time again, surely if he was better at adapting than Roger, he would have found a way.

The truth is, no player is perfect, and sometimes when you go up against guys like Del Potro US 2009, or Soderling FO 2010 you just have to say "Too good". As a Federer fan I have no issues in accepting that he can be outplayed, and sometimes blown off the court. It happens to all of them. Yet when it happens to Roger the world axis has gone out of alignment.