Why was Blake's backhand effective against Nadal's forehand?

[tennis_hack]

Blake wasn't exactly renowned for his backhand, yet it was surprisingly effective against Nadal. This is evidenced by his respectable 3-4 h2h against Nadal, one of the best h2h's by a lower-ranked player against Nadal.

See this rally;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Z1eQIf3Hx8

He's taken sets off of Nadal on high bouncing hardcourt as well.

Flashier backhands that get way more accolades such as Gasquet's, Almagro's and Wawrinka's have not even managed a solitary win against Nadal.

What makes Blake's backhand able to stand up to the Nadal forehand?

 

[President]

Blake's backhand WAS really good at taking the ball early consistently, it was very good on service returns for instance. James was/is just a great ball striker with phenomenal timing who took the ball very early before it could kick up. Yes, those other BH's you mentioned are probably better but they stand too far back to really do damage to Nadal. Blake takes it early and hits it very flat, Nadal doesn't do great against such balls on his backhand.

 

[ibbi]

Well, based on that rally he's hitting it consistently deep, and as he did with his forehand he's taking it mostly on the rise. Ultimately that period just after Nadal burst onto the scene as a major player and Blake used to dominate him was mainly on account of the forehand.

 

[cork_screw]

I think Blake caught nadal when Nadal wasn't a great hard court player in their early meetings when Blake was winning against Nadal. Blake hit some nice flat groundies, but Nadal never developed the heavy ball we see today, nor his really effective strategy or coming into net with good volleying or pulling them off court. Remember when people said Nadal's volleys sucked and that was a big item to improve upon? People don't say that anymore. And if you look at vintage videos between the two. Nadal used to hit in the center of the court a lot. Like he was just rallying instead of strategizing.

In other words. If Nadal today/currently played Blake circa 2004/2005. Nadal would break apart Blake in bite size pieces for lunch despite Blake's 'awesome' forehand.

It's not so much his forehand as it's Nadal's change from clay courter to better hardcourt player.

 

[tennis_hack]

I think Blake caught nadal when Nadal wasn't a great hard court player in their early meetings when Blake was winning against Nadal. Blake hit some nice flat groundies, but Nadal never developed the heavy ball we see today, nor his really effective strategy or coming into net with good volleying or pulling them off court. Remember when people said Nadal's volleys sucked and that was a big item to improve upon? People don't say that anymore. And if you look at vintage videos between the two. Nadal used to hit in the center of the court a lot. Like he was just rallying instead of strategizing.

In other words. If Nadal today/currently played Blake circa 2004/2005. Nadal would break apart Blake in bite size pieces for lunch despite Blake's 'awesome' forehand.

It's not so much his forehand as it's Nadal's change from clay courter to better hardcourt player.

Washed up Blake was taking sets off absolute prime '08 Nadal in high-bouncing Indian Wells.

 

[jackson vile]

I am sure a Federer fan could make up a great excuse for you. Let's be honest, a lot of 1hbh players played just fine against Nadal.

 

[zagor]

I am sure a Federer fan could make up a great excuse for you.

This thread has nothing to do with Fed LOLville, stay on topic, focus.

Let's be honest, a lot of 1hbh players played just fine against Nadal.

Actually Blake is pretty much the only one, he took Nadal's time away off that wing by taking the ball early and was very good at punishing weaker (relatively speaking) serves on the return off the BH side.

 

[travlerajm]

Blake strung his 98" 18x20 frame with full poly at 68 lbs.

When you play with a paddle, the ball does not sink into the stringbed as much.

When the ball does not sink into the stringbed (and is flattened instead), there is no moment arm (no deflection from the stringbed plane) to allow the ball (which, in the case of Nadal's shots, possesses high high incoming rpm) to exert a torque on the racquet.

With minimal torque on the racquet, the racquet does not twist when the ball impacts the stringbed.

When the racquet does not twist, it is easy to control the rebound angle.

When it is easy to control the rebound angle, Nadal's weapon of slow but unusually high rpm heavy ball is neutralized.

Other guys that string tight with dense patterns have good records against Nadal.

Conversely, if you string in the 40s with a soft gut hybrid (like Federer) a ball like Nadal's is problematic to deal with.

 

[abmk]

I think Blake caught nadal when Nadal wasn't a great hard court player in their early meetings when Blake was winning against Nadal. Blake hit some nice flat groundies, but Nadal never developed the heavy ball we see today, nor his really effective strategy or coming into net with good volleying or pulling them off court. Remember when people said Nadal's volleys sucked and that was a big item to improve upon? People don't say that anymore. And if you look at vintage videos between the two. Nadal used to hit in the center of the court a lot. Like he was just rallying instead of strategizing.

In other words. If Nadal today/currently played Blake circa 2004/2005. Nadal would break apart Blake in bite size pieces for lunch despite Blake's 'awesome' forehand.

It's not so much his forehand as it's Nadal's change from clay courter to better hardcourt player.

well past his best blake took rafa to 3 sets every time they met in 08-09 ....

 

[tennis_hack]

Blake strung his 98" 18x20 frame with full poly at 68 lbs.

When you play with a paddle, the ball does not sink into the stringbed as much.

When the ball does not sink into the stringbed (and is flattened instead), there is no moment arm (no deflection from the stringbed plane) to allow the ball (which, in the case of Nadal's shots, possesses high high incoming rpm) to exert a torque on the racquet.

With minimal torque on the racquet, the racquet does not twist when the ball impacts the stringbed.

When the racquet does not twist, it is easy to control the rebound angle.

When it is easy to control the rebound angle, Nadal's weapon of slow but unusually high rpm heavy ball is neutralized.

Other guys that string tight with dense patterns have good records against Nadal.

Conversely, if you string in the 40s with a soft gut hybrid (like Federer) a ball like Nadal's is problematic to deal with.

SO - what's the disadvantage of stringing tight then? You can't generate the topspin well yourself?

Doesn't Nadal create very high topspin despite very tight stringing?

 

[Blitzball]

Blake strung his 98" 18x20 frame with full poly at 68 lbs.

When you play with a paddle, the ball does not sink into the stringbed as much.

When the ball does not sink into the stringbed (and is flattened instead), there is no moment arm (no deflection from the stringbed plane) to allow the ball (which, in the case of Nadal's shots, possesses high high incoming rpm) to exert a torque on the racquet.

With minimal torque on the racquet, the racquet does not twist when the ball impacts the stringbed.

When the racquet does not twist, it is easy to control the rebound angle.

When it is easy to control the rebound angle, Nadal's weapon of slow but unusually high rpm heavy ball is neutralized.

Other guys that string tight with dense patterns have good records against Nadal.

Conversely, if you string in the 40s with a soft gut hybrid (like Federer) a ball like Nadal's is problematic to deal with.

This actually makes a lot of sense. That crazy topspin from Nadal is harder to hit through, but that extremely high tension and tight string pattern seems like a sensible way to effectively counter huge spin/pace.

 

[Blitzball]

SO - what's the disadvantage of stringing tight then? You can't generate the topspin well yourself?

Doesn't Nadal create very high topspin despite very tight stringing?

I think Nadal's tension is around 55lbs. That's not too high.

 

[Lukhas]

To begin with, he isn't afraid of attacking Nadal's FH with his BH. This is something a lot of players hate to do.

 

[tennis_hack]

To begin with, he isn't afraid of attacking Nadal's FH with his BH. This is something a lot of players hate to do.

Why would they be afraid of this? Nadal is going to be sending 999 out of 1000 balls to your backhand anyway, it's not like you have a choice to hit backhands or not, so why not put something on those backhands to Nadal's forehand?

 

[Lukhas]

Why would they be afraid of this? Nadal is going to be sending 999 out of 1000 balls to your backhand anyway, it's not like you have a choice to hit backhands or not, so why not put something on those backhands to Nadal's forehand?

Because then he hits with even more spin and pace and cooks you well and nice. Rallying=!attacking. Blake was aggressively trying to take down Nadal's FH. While most players go DTL to change the rally and expect Nadal will hit his BH to their FH. Djokovic likes this tactic: he'll go DTL with his BH to attack Nadal's BH. Blake is actually able to force Nadal to change the direction of the rally on his preferred CC rally, something he rarely does, which is remarkable.

 

[Mustard]

Washed up Blake was taking sets off absolute prime '08 Nadal in high-bouncing Indian Wells.

How was Blake "washed up" at 2008 Indian Wells? Blake reached the quarter finals of the 2008 Australian Open. And Nadal wasn't in prime form at that stage.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

the nadal was injured, of course.

 

[Tennis_Monk]

JBlake hasnt won against RNadal since 2006. Not exactly sure JBlake was very effective.

2009 Hard R32 Nadal, Rafael 6-2, 6-7(4), 6-4
2009 Hard R16 Nadal, Rafael 7-5, 6-7(4), 6-3
2008 Hard Q Nadal, Rafael 3-6, 6-3, 6-1
2008 Hard Q Nadal, Rafael 7-5, 3-6, 6-3
2006 Hard RR Blake, James 6-4, 7-6(0)
2006 Hard S Blake, James 7-5, 6-3
2005 Hard R32 Blake, James 6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 6-1

 

[Lukhas]

JBlake hasnt won against RNadal since 2006. Not exactly sure JBlake was very effective.

You either misread or ignored the thread's title.