TheFifthSet
Legend
So, in the wake of the worst year of Rafa Nadal's career, a downtrodden year where the demoralizing losses have obscured the awesome victories, I thought I'd flip the script a little and focus on something positive: the astonishing traits that made Nadal so formidable on clay in his prime. Forgive the obvious navel-gazing, I'm bored and I've had this on file for a long time
I realize this is likely a fruitless endeavor, but wutevs....Nadal fans, consider this my tribute to Rafa....feel free to post your thoughts of course.
Now, I'm an ardent fan of Federer's, whom I believe is the greatest of this era, maybe the greatest of all time. To boot I'm also a big fan of Nole. And 60-65% of the present-day tournaments are played on non-clay surfaces, where Federer and Djokovic dust Nadal in accomplishments. Federer's all-surface, all-court dominance, elegant strokes and age-defying exploits appeal to me far more than Rafa's counterpunching style and clay-heavy resume. So I've gotten my Fedkovic bias out in the open.
But even I cannot dispute Nadal's unique single-surface supremacy. If tennis was confined to this one surface, Nadal would be the unquestioned GOAT of the sport. I would go so far as to claim that Nadal on a clay court is as great as anybody on any playing surface/condition, in any sport EVER. I believe his clay court pedigree compares favourably to Jordan's ability on a basketball court....Messi/Pele's artistry on the pitch....Montana's coolness in the pocket....Ali's greatness in the ring....and what have you. All of those men had rivals, even if their flame didn't burn quite as hot. Nadal had none on clay. He was several standard deviations better than his nearest rival on it, whether we're talking contemporaries or past greats (a la Borg).
He's racked up accolades aplenty: a run of 9 French Open titles in 10 years, a 344-30 career record on the surface (won 96% of his matches on clay from 2005-2014), 8 Monte Carlo and 7 Rome titles (the two biggest non-French tournaments), a sparkling 27-7 record against Federer and Djokovic (11-1 at the French), and a famed 81 match win streak. In the 2007 and 2008 French Open, he lost one out of 43 sets. He's 94-2 in his career in best-of-5 sets matches on the red stuff, with only 4 of those 94 victories going to a deciding set.
His brutal mauling of Federer in the 2008 final is the stuff of legend. Nobody is less susceptible to beatings than Federer; the man has gotten bageled (lost a set 6-0) only four times in his career out of at least (very conservative estimate) 3000 sets of tennis, and likely closer to 4000. Three of those bagel sets came in 1999, when he was a 17-going-on-18 wunderkind. The fourth came in the third set of the Roland Garros final. That's it! 4 blanks in a 17 year career is unprecedented. Nadal, Sampras and Djokovic by comparison have gotten bageled 11, 9 and 8 times (off the top of my head), all having played hundreds of less matches than Fed. So, only 4 times has RF gotten whitewashed in a set, once in the past 16 years...and that one bagel was dished out in a grand slam final, where all-time greats are supposed to peak. The final score was 6-1 6-3 6-0, which left pundits wondering whether they just witnessed the greatest fortnight in the history of tennis.
I could go on for days, but these are all the things that could be looked up with a few strokes of the keyboard. What is equally or more fascinating is the factors that make Nadal so great on clay, the blueprint behind his game. After having followed essentially his entire career, I daresay I can give the 'bare bones' assessment better than many.
Firstly, his game is tailor-made for the surface and he has incredible weapons that are augmented by clay court conditions. His forehand is one of the best shots ever. He has great variety, hits it with pace, defends it very well, can go down-the-line, cross-court, inside-out, you name it. His forehand passing shots and running forehand are fantastic....basically the TL;DR version of his FH is: its freaking amazing. His strong suits make him a nightmare on ANY surface.
BUT...what also helps is that, for as great as his forehand is on its own, it is aided by the slowness of a standard clay court and the high bounce it produces. Now, Nadal hits with an almost unfathomable amount of spin. He averages about 3500 RPM's on his forehand, which is the highest for any player in the top 100, save for maybe Jack Sock. Spin is something tennis players must harness and use to their advantage, but shouldn't use in excess. It's a delicate balancing act. Generally speaking, the more topspin a player has on their strokes, the more margin for error they have. If a player hits a ball flat, they have less net clearance and thus will, well duh, net a lot of balls or just have less control overall. The trade off is that more spin/control usually equals less pace, and more short balls that an opponent could take advantage of. Nadal is able to bypass this by having both a huge AND safe forehand.....he pretty much has one of the heaviest forehands on tour and almost NEVER misses. Think of it like Nolan Ryan having Greg Maddux's control. Unstoppable. He can play the forehand safe, safe, safe, safe and then....BOOM...pull the trigger AT WILL when his opponent gives him a weak shot to work with. Because he defends so well, there's almost no compromise.
Right, but even the mighty Nadal isn't TOTALLY immune to dropping the ball short. That's where the clay swoops in to save the day. Clay is slower than all other surfaces, and the ball bounces higher on it than on it than on grass or hard court. Since Nadal's forehands clear the net by so much, the high bounce that a clay court elicits benefits Nadal more than anybody else. So, even if he hits a cross-court forehand short, unless it is in the middle of the court, it cannot be exploited very well because a) it kicks up to shoulder-height and b) Nadal is a lefty, so a safe cross-court forehand usually goes to his opponents backhand, a less offensive wing than a forehand. This dynamic is particularly devastating against players with one-handed backhands. The match-up issue that Nadal creates is precisely why Federer and others hasn't been able to make many inroads on clay versus Nadal (and has had his difficulties on hard courts and grass too. One tennis writer once quipped that Nadal was made in a lab specifically for the purpose of beating Federer). On other surfaces, like indoor hard courts, Nadals spinny forehands don't bounce as high and aren't as much of a menace to the opponents backhand. This is a big reason Nadal hasn't won an indoor title in 10 years, and is 13-11 at the World Tour Finals, which is the biggest non-slam tournament in tennis. Additionally, his win% on ALL hard court matches against the top 10 players is barely over 50, and his record in tournament finals on hard courts is 15-18 (compared to 40-6 on clay, or something like that). Stark contrast, that, which makes it all the more remarkable that even on his weaker surfaces he amassed 5 slams and 8 Masters titles.
His forehand, while probably his biggest weapon, is not his only one by any stretch of the imagination. Prime Nadal might be the greatest defender of all time, and on a clay court almost surely is. His footwork is sublime, and as recently as last year was one of the fastest players on tour. While I have never played on a red clay court (far too few of those in Canada), it is a surface that has stymied many a great player...you have to slide into your shots sometimes. This vexed Pete Sampras, who, for all his talent, could not slide worth a damn, and was 24-13 at the French. Nadal can slide into his shots with the best of them, and even when you pull him wide he can hit howitzers from defensive positions. There are so many things you need to be able to do to be considered a great mover on clay (same with grass)....you have to be fast, quick, must know how to slide, must be able to defend and hit shots on the run....and Nadal gets an A+ in every single category. His movement worked in tandem with his great shotmaking....against other grinders (like Coria, Gaudio or Ferrer) he could engage in monotonous, no-blink rallies but COULD ALSO use his firepower to blast them off the court if he wanted to end the point. Against huge groundstrokers, like Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Gulbis and others, he could turn on the jets and retrieve every single ball if they were looking to end the points quickly. Against complete players like Federer, Djokovic and Murray, the combination of these two things would often leave them in no mans land on clay versus Nadal.
His backhand, while lacking the offense his forehand has in spades, was impenetrable. What he lacked in pace (compared to the FH), he made up for in defense. Don't get me wrong, it is clearly his weaker wing, but he defended off the BH just as well if not better, and had incredible passing shots. His net game is another plus. While a good volleyer, his real strength lies in his expert approaches to the net. When given a short ball on clay, he will often go crosscourt to set up a foray to the forecourt. This is because, as outlined earlier, his forehand is so heavy. This heaviness and the use of angle means that a strong cross court forehand to a righties backhand will pull an opponent wide and they will usually elicit a tame reply (as the opposing player is on the run) that can be bunted into the open court. Yet one more thing to consider is his overhead, which is the second best in the top 10 to Federer's. He's so consistent at putting away overheads.
Now, I'm an ardent fan of Federer's, whom I believe is the greatest of this era, maybe the greatest of all time. To boot I'm also a big fan of Nole. And 60-65% of the present-day tournaments are played on non-clay surfaces, where Federer and Djokovic dust Nadal in accomplishments. Federer's all-surface, all-court dominance, elegant strokes and age-defying exploits appeal to me far more than Rafa's counterpunching style and clay-heavy resume. So I've gotten my Fedkovic bias out in the open.
But even I cannot dispute Nadal's unique single-surface supremacy. If tennis was confined to this one surface, Nadal would be the unquestioned GOAT of the sport. I would go so far as to claim that Nadal on a clay court is as great as anybody on any playing surface/condition, in any sport EVER. I believe his clay court pedigree compares favourably to Jordan's ability on a basketball court....Messi/Pele's artistry on the pitch....Montana's coolness in the pocket....Ali's greatness in the ring....and what have you. All of those men had rivals, even if their flame didn't burn quite as hot. Nadal had none on clay. He was several standard deviations better than his nearest rival on it, whether we're talking contemporaries or past greats (a la Borg).
He's racked up accolades aplenty: a run of 9 French Open titles in 10 years, a 344-30 career record on the surface (won 96% of his matches on clay from 2005-2014), 8 Monte Carlo and 7 Rome titles (the two biggest non-French tournaments), a sparkling 27-7 record against Federer and Djokovic (11-1 at the French), and a famed 81 match win streak. In the 2007 and 2008 French Open, he lost one out of 43 sets. He's 94-2 in his career in best-of-5 sets matches on the red stuff, with only 4 of those 94 victories going to a deciding set.
His brutal mauling of Federer in the 2008 final is the stuff of legend. Nobody is less susceptible to beatings than Federer; the man has gotten bageled (lost a set 6-0) only four times in his career out of at least (very conservative estimate) 3000 sets of tennis, and likely closer to 4000. Three of those bagel sets came in 1999, when he was a 17-going-on-18 wunderkind. The fourth came in the third set of the Roland Garros final. That's it! 4 blanks in a 17 year career is unprecedented. Nadal, Sampras and Djokovic by comparison have gotten bageled 11, 9 and 8 times (off the top of my head), all having played hundreds of less matches than Fed. So, only 4 times has RF gotten whitewashed in a set, once in the past 16 years...and that one bagel was dished out in a grand slam final, where all-time greats are supposed to peak. The final score was 6-1 6-3 6-0, which left pundits wondering whether they just witnessed the greatest fortnight in the history of tennis.
I could go on for days, but these are all the things that could be looked up with a few strokes of the keyboard. What is equally or more fascinating is the factors that make Nadal so great on clay, the blueprint behind his game. After having followed essentially his entire career, I daresay I can give the 'bare bones' assessment better than many.
Firstly, his game is tailor-made for the surface and he has incredible weapons that are augmented by clay court conditions. His forehand is one of the best shots ever. He has great variety, hits it with pace, defends it very well, can go down-the-line, cross-court, inside-out, you name it. His forehand passing shots and running forehand are fantastic....basically the TL;DR version of his FH is: its freaking amazing. His strong suits make him a nightmare on ANY surface.
BUT...what also helps is that, for as great as his forehand is on its own, it is aided by the slowness of a standard clay court and the high bounce it produces. Now, Nadal hits with an almost unfathomable amount of spin. He averages about 3500 RPM's on his forehand, which is the highest for any player in the top 100, save for maybe Jack Sock. Spin is something tennis players must harness and use to their advantage, but shouldn't use in excess. It's a delicate balancing act. Generally speaking, the more topspin a player has on their strokes, the more margin for error they have. If a player hits a ball flat, they have less net clearance and thus will, well duh, net a lot of balls or just have less control overall. The trade off is that more spin/control usually equals less pace, and more short balls that an opponent could take advantage of. Nadal is able to bypass this by having both a huge AND safe forehand.....he pretty much has one of the heaviest forehands on tour and almost NEVER misses. Think of it like Nolan Ryan having Greg Maddux's control. Unstoppable. He can play the forehand safe, safe, safe, safe and then....BOOM...pull the trigger AT WILL when his opponent gives him a weak shot to work with. Because he defends so well, there's almost no compromise.
Right, but even the mighty Nadal isn't TOTALLY immune to dropping the ball short. That's where the clay swoops in to save the day. Clay is slower than all other surfaces, and the ball bounces higher on it than on it than on grass or hard court. Since Nadal's forehands clear the net by so much, the high bounce that a clay court elicits benefits Nadal more than anybody else. So, even if he hits a cross-court forehand short, unless it is in the middle of the court, it cannot be exploited very well because a) it kicks up to shoulder-height and b) Nadal is a lefty, so a safe cross-court forehand usually goes to his opponents backhand, a less offensive wing than a forehand. This dynamic is particularly devastating against players with one-handed backhands. The match-up issue that Nadal creates is precisely why Federer and others hasn't been able to make many inroads on clay versus Nadal (and has had his difficulties on hard courts and grass too. One tennis writer once quipped that Nadal was made in a lab specifically for the purpose of beating Federer). On other surfaces, like indoor hard courts, Nadals spinny forehands don't bounce as high and aren't as much of a menace to the opponents backhand. This is a big reason Nadal hasn't won an indoor title in 10 years, and is 13-11 at the World Tour Finals, which is the biggest non-slam tournament in tennis. Additionally, his win% on ALL hard court matches against the top 10 players is barely over 50, and his record in tournament finals on hard courts is 15-18 (compared to 40-6 on clay, or something like that). Stark contrast, that, which makes it all the more remarkable that even on his weaker surfaces he amassed 5 slams and 8 Masters titles.
His forehand, while probably his biggest weapon, is not his only one by any stretch of the imagination. Prime Nadal might be the greatest defender of all time, and on a clay court almost surely is. His footwork is sublime, and as recently as last year was one of the fastest players on tour. While I have never played on a red clay court (far too few of those in Canada), it is a surface that has stymied many a great player...you have to slide into your shots sometimes. This vexed Pete Sampras, who, for all his talent, could not slide worth a damn, and was 24-13 at the French. Nadal can slide into his shots with the best of them, and even when you pull him wide he can hit howitzers from defensive positions. There are so many things you need to be able to do to be considered a great mover on clay (same with grass)....you have to be fast, quick, must know how to slide, must be able to defend and hit shots on the run....and Nadal gets an A+ in every single category. His movement worked in tandem with his great shotmaking....against other grinders (like Coria, Gaudio or Ferrer) he could engage in monotonous, no-blink rallies but COULD ALSO use his firepower to blast them off the court if he wanted to end the point. Against huge groundstrokers, like Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Gulbis and others, he could turn on the jets and retrieve every single ball if they were looking to end the points quickly. Against complete players like Federer, Djokovic and Murray, the combination of these two things would often leave them in no mans land on clay versus Nadal.
His backhand, while lacking the offense his forehand has in spades, was impenetrable. What he lacked in pace (compared to the FH), he made up for in defense. Don't get me wrong, it is clearly his weaker wing, but he defended off the BH just as well if not better, and had incredible passing shots. His net game is another plus. While a good volleyer, his real strength lies in his expert approaches to the net. When given a short ball on clay, he will often go crosscourt to set up a foray to the forecourt. This is because, as outlined earlier, his forehand is so heavy. This heaviness and the use of angle means that a strong cross court forehand to a righties backhand will pull an opponent wide and they will usually elicit a tame reply (as the opposing player is on the run) that can be bunted into the open court. Yet one more thing to consider is his overhead, which is the second best in the top 10 to Federer's. He's so consistent at putting away overheads.
Last edited: