The difference between Federer and Nadal

[BorisBeckerFan]

As long as your opponent is not rushing the net, the slice not only throws of the opponents but more importantly buys him time to get back to neutral possition so that he can keep defending until he gets a ball which he feels comfortable going on offense with.

 

[jack_kramer]

Nadal's got cojones. Chickenerer is a sissy. End of.

 

[GetBetterer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqNR0KWzLMw

I don't know, looks like a working 2-handed backhand for me, and it looks possible in the French Open too.

 

[wozwoz]

Nadal is being adaptable...
That's like to say that a monster track is adaptable because when it is operable and the wheels don't hurt it can destroy everything on its way. As like it cares about the surface it's riding in, while in fact it moves with the same straightforwardness all the time.

 

[Messarger]

SNAP! I was thinking the same thing for a second and then I remembered that Federer won 16 grand slam titles. Yeah... that game plan failed so many times it's embarrassing huh!

Get back to banjo practice, your six-toed friends are waiting.

What a way to take the OP's post literally. What the OP meant by fail was coming up short against Nadal at the french for 4 years.

 

[Benhur]

It's much easier to switch from a 1HBH to a 2HBH than vise versa.

That makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of switching is from a two hander to a one hander, because kids naturally start hitting with two hands. Most of the players with one handers started out with a two hander and switched relatively late. Kuerten was about 13 when he did it. Sampras was of similar age. Most two handers already know from early on how to go to a one hander when stretched wide. Many others choose to add a one handed slice very late in their careers, as was the case with Wilander. Cases of switching from a one-hander to a two hander are virtually inexistent.

 

[P_Agony]

If winning the USO required a one-handed backhand, Rafa Nadal would have converted to using one. He would do whatever it takes to win. Conversely, if winning the FO over Nadal required Roger to use a two-handed BH, he would not switch. That is the difference. (I'm not implying a two-handed BH would be what he needed to do to beat Nadal from 05-08, it was just an example.)

Roger would only want to win on his terms, playing his game. This stubbornness is very frustrating for the Federer fan to watch as he year after year went in with essentially the same game plan only to see it fail time and again. Surely Roger was capable of doing something at a stage when Nadal was not yet fully developed, he was after all very close in FO2006 and in the epic 5-setter in Rome. A different game plan would surely have netted him a couple of FO over Nadal by now, and none of the talks surrounding Nadal as potential GOAT would be given any weight.

Unfortunately, Roger may now be paying the price for his stubbornness as Rafa Nadal is on a pace to eclipse many of Roger's records. That then is what separates the two tennis gods, one is adaptable, the other not. Evolution rewards only those that can adapt to changing conditions. Rafa Nadal is now at the forefront of tennis and may be there for many years to come. It's not too late Roger, you still have the immense raw talent that no one in the history of tennis could match, but you have to change and forgo your proudness. Once you do this, you will reap immense rewards.

I agree with this, but can we really blame Roger for being stubborn? I mean, that stubborn will to play his game won him 16 slams. Right now, he's at the point where he need to reinvent himself somehow, and I think he's trying to do that by getting a new coach. However, these things don't happen overnight (with the exception of Nadal who suddenly developed a massive serve after getting destroyed by Murray and Baggy a week before). Roger needs to be careful. Right now, his slam record is still safe, but this USO was the true indicator that Nadal is closer to passing it than most people think. If Nadal wins all 4 slams next year (very likely), he will surely pass Federer, he won't let this opportunity just slip away. Roger lost a bit of his confidence in the slams. All the 5-setters he used to win he now loses in 4 or 5. He needs to find his confidence again and reach more finals. When he's in a final he usually wins it against anyone not called Nadal.

 

[Clay lover]

That makes no sense. The overwhelming majority of switching is from a two hander to a one hander, because kids naturally start hitting with two hands. Most of the players with one handers started out with a two hander and switched relatively late. Kuerten was about 13 when he did it. Sampras was of similar age. Most two handers already know from early on how to go to a one hander when stretched wide. Many others choose to add a one handed slice very late in their careers, as was the case with Wilander. Cases of switching from a one-hander to a two hander are virtually inexistent.

Kuerten, one of the greatest one handers ever switched from a two hander, never knew that:shock: nice factoid.

 

[nippurr]

SNAP! I was thinking the same thing for a second and then I remembered that Federer won 16 grand slam titles. Yeah... that game plan failed so many times it's embarrassing huh!

Get back to banjo practice, your six-toed friends are waiting.

Interesting. ZhingJ takes the time to sit down and compose an insightful post that focuses on a difference in approach to tennis strategy between two of todays best tennis players.

ZhingJ may or may not be onto something. But he has certainly contributed more to this message board than:

Bobby "Get back to banjo practice, your six toes friends are waiting." Jr.

Thanks for your insipid contribution Bobby.

 

[Benhur]

Kuerten, one of the greatest one handers ever switched from a two hander, never knew that:shock: nice factoid.

I've read that many times. See for example:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/tennis/french/2005-05-31-one-handed-backhands_x.htm

The 28-year-old Kuerten, for one, played with two hands from 9 to 12. But his former longtime coach, Larri Passos, encouraged Kuerten — who has one of the sweetest and most powerful one-handers around — to switch because he thought the variety, range and power from the backcourt would benefit him long-term.

It makes sense that most players who begin playing as kids start out with two hands, since they don't have the strength for a one hander. Most keep the two hander for life. A few decide to change later on, usually because their coaches ask them to, and usually in their early to mid teens.

Players who start out with a one hander usually begin to play in their teens, and they never change to a two hander. But I would imagine very few of the current pros started playing in their teens.

I learned the game in my 20s, and never even attempted a two hander. I would have no idea at all how to hit with two hands.

 

[jackson vile]

If winning the USO required a one-handed backhand, Rafa Nadal would have converted to using one. He would do whatever it takes to win. Conversely, if winning the FO over Nadal required Roger to use a two-handed BH, he would not switch. That is the difference. (I'm not implying a two-handed BH would be what he needed to do to beat Nadal from 05-08, it was just an example.)

Roger would only want to win on his terms, playing his game. This stubbornness is very frustrating for the Federer fan to watch as he year after year went in with essentially the same game plan only to see it fail time and again. Surely Roger was capable of doing something at a stage when Nadal was not yet fully developed, he was after all very close in FO2006 and in the epic 5-setter in Rome. A different game plan would surely have netted him a couple of FO over Nadal by now, and none of the talks surrounding Nadal as potential GOAT would be given any weight.

Unfortunately, Roger may now be paying the price for his stubbornness as Rafa Nadal is on a pace to eclipse many of Roger's records. That then is what separates the two tennis gods, one is adaptable, the other not. Evolution rewards only those that can adapt to changing conditions. Rafa Nadal is now at the forefront of tennis and may be there for many years to come. It's not too late Roger, you still have the immense raw talent that no one in the history of tennis could match, but you have to change and forgo your proudness. Once you do this, you will reap immense rewards.

Very well put, it is very ignorant of Roger. You reap what you sew!

 

[urban]

The op is right. There is a clear difference. I think, all the praise and hype got into Federer's head. Despite all his talent, he laid back, stuck with the smooth reluctant game, and he had success with. This worked for a while. But ever since 2008 the writing, speak Nadal, was on the wall, and Federer stagnated, since he fired Tony Roche in 2007. Now it could be too late, to implement more volleys into his style. Its a matter of mentality, you have to believe in it, to go for it in matches, even if you lose some. Steffi Graf never handled the topspin backhand in matches, although she performed it well in training.
Nadal is improving, implementing new things, altering his style of play, even with the risk of losing some matches. One word to this crap about bad matchup. I for myself exspect of the best player of all time (whoever it is), that he gets rid of an opponent, of every opponent, on any surface, under any conditions. Exactly this makes him the best.

 

[dh003i]

Actually, this is the first year in which Nadal has won 3 Slams in a single year ('10 FO, '10 Wim, '10 USO). There has been no other full calendar year in which Nadal has won 2 Slams.

Federer has done it 3 times.
1. '04 AO, '04 Wm, '04 USO
2. '06 AO, '06 Wm, '06 USO
3. '07 AO, '07 Wm, '07 USO

You are right, but I said one-year period, not full year.

Nadal won 3 slams over a 1 year period from 2008 to 2009 (FO, W, AO) and now in 2010.

Federer won 3 slams over in a calendar year all those times you said; but he also won 3 slams over a 1 year period from 2008 to 2009 (USO, FO, W) OR 2009 to 2010 (FO, W, AO). We shouldn't count overlapping periods twice, so that is 4 non-overlapping 1-year periods where Federer won 3 slams row. (if you want to account for USO '08, FO '09, W '09, AO '10, that would be a 1.25 year period where he won 4 slams but not all consecutively).

2 non-overlapping 1-year periods where Nadal won 3 slams. 4 non-overlapping 1-year periods where Federer won 3 slams. (if you want to do just calendar years, it is 3 to 1 in Fed's favor...either way, Federer has 2 more).

I think that the "calendar year" is irrelevant in tennis because there is no offseason. If Nadal wins the AO in 2011 (a "non calendar year Grand Slam"), that would be just as impressive as the calendar year Grand Slam. There is nothing special about the arbitrary one year period from January to December; it is just a stupid human ritual with "Happy New Years" and other idiocy. Particularly in sports without a real offseason like tennis, calendar years are meaningless.

What if Nadal won the AO in 2011 and the FO in 2011? That would be 5 slams in a row, not just 4. 5 slams in a row would clearly be more impressive than Rod Laver's calendar year grand slams. Laver never won 5 in a row. But any 4 in a row is just as impressive as any other 4 in a row.

If you disagree, you're just being irrational ;-)

 

[dh003i]

The op is right. There is a clear difference. I think, all the praise and hype got into Federer's head. Despite all his talent, he laid back, stuck with the smooth reluctant game, and he had success with. This worked for a while. But ever since 2008 the writing, speak Nadal, was on the wall, and Federer stagnated, since he fired Tony Roche in 2007. Now it could be too late, to implement more volleys into his style. Its a matter of mentality, you have to believe in it, to go for it in matches, even if you lose some. Steffi Graf never handled the topspin backhand in matches, although she performed it well in training.
Nadal is improving, implementing new things, altering his style of play, even with the risk of losing some matches. One word to this crap about bad matchup. I for myself exspect of the best player of all time (whoever it is), that he gets rid of an opponent, of every opponent, on any surface, under any conditions. Exactly this makes him the best.

No, the best is determined by slams and ranking. There is absolutely no argument that every week Federer was ranked #1, he was the best player in the world over the trailing one-year period.

 

[TheTruth]

Interesting. ZhingJ takes the time to sit down and compose an insightful post that focuses on a difference in approach to tennis strategy between two of todays best tennis players.

ZhingJ may or may not be onto something. But he has certainly contributed more to this message board than:
Bobby "Get back to banjo practice, your six toes friends are waiting." Jr.

Thanks for your insipid contribution Bobby.

Agree. The OP made salient points and used a hypothetical situation. It is amazing how many people couldn't think outside of the box and took it so literally (not directed at you Bobby Jr.).

There are fundamental differences to their approach. It does appear that Nadal works on changing, evolving, and adapting more than Federer. He also doesn't rest on his laurels as much. When we see him at the Australian Open he'll probably have added a new dimension to his game, whereas with Federer it's the same business year in and year out.

Just looking at their games with the sound muted you wouldn't know what year it was, barring their fashions.

Fed has made few adjustments, is what I took the OP to mean, and I think they were spot on.

These topics are open for discussion, not right or wrong. People can prove their point by offering evidence to the contrary, but calling people *******s and *******s doesn't help the discussion in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Polvorin]

If you look at Nadal from 2005, and Nadal from 2010, it's like watching two completely different players. Federer from 2005 and Federer from 2010 are the exact same, except for maybe a slightly worse backhand.

Federer got 16 slams, so he obviously did something right. Just pointing out the differences.

But look at how much Federer improved from 2000-2005, when he was the same age as Nadal, and his game was still developing.

 

[OddJack]

Mr. Zhing,

With all due respect, your post shows you dont understand the difference between the two players at all. You assume they have the option to switch styles, going from one handed BH or vice versa, and go so far as comparing these extreme changes with improving serves. You blame his losses at FO to his stubbornness and reluctance to adapt.

You see changes in Nadal's game. e.g. changing his grip for a faster serve, and go Aha! Nadal adopted and won. What you dont see, or dont want to, is that what wins him the titles is still his physical game and his ability to go into long rallies and grind it out.
You forget that the same player reached the semifinal of USO last two years, while supposedly injured, and had he not meet the eventual champ or Murray, he could very well be in the finals, and that would be all without adaptations you are assuming here.
You compare Nadal with Federer who had reached the finals of FO four times and had said that he has a Nadal problem not a clay problem, and you're so naive to suggest that he could simply switch to a different style, or start grinding like his opponent for each point.

I remember I was at a conference where Stephen King spoke. Someone in the audience asked him why he writes only horror stories. His answer was: Why do you think I have an option?

How they play has roots in who they are and how they are built. Federer's almost frail structure is weaker against a lefty beast on clay and that has nothing to do with stubbornness as you would like to suggest. As if there is a secret solution to it and he has been resisting all along.

And even there Mr Zhing, how come Nadal's one win at USO is due to adaptation, but Federer's win at FO is not? If you say Nadal's absence in the final made it easy for Federer then with the same logic one would say Nadal did not meet Del Potro or Murray either.


It's easy for you to sit here and just say he did not adapt.
Saying things like " he would go to one handed BH" look good, but is BS basically.