Live data from Hacker News

Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

leonardofed.io

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#21
post #3

This is hardly original, Nadal's game has been well-analysed for ages now. However, this is also why a lot of (most?) people prefer Federer to him: because Roger's game is more original and creative. It's a bit like Toyota vs Tesla: one will always sell more cars and make more money because it executes better, but that's not always the point.

Highly disagree with your analysis of why most people prefer Federer to him. Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first, then Nadal. So, people were used to seeing Federer dominate and then Nadal came in. Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. 2x Wimbledon champ, 5x finalist. 3 US open titles, 1 Aussie open title and 4x finalist. Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice.…

> Nadal is far from a clay court specialist.

If you take clay stats out of Nadal’s career, he’d go from being an all time great, to simply a very good player. His unrivalled dominance on clay is the defining element of his career.

Federer on the other hand has a much more well rounded career. He had more titles, more grand slams, and was dominant on both grass and hard courts. His clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#22
post #3

This is hardly original, Nadal's game has been well-analysed for ages now. However, this is also why a lot of (most?) people prefer Federer to him: because Roger's game is more original and creative. It's a bit like Toyota vs Tesla: one will always sell more cars and make more money because it executes better, but that's not always the point.

Highly disagree with your analysis of why most people prefer Federer to him. Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first, then Nadal. So, people were used to seeing Federer dominate and then Nadal came in. Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. 2x Wimbledon champ, 5x finalist. 3 US open titles, 1 Aussie open title and 4x finalist. Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice.…

> Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first

With that reasoning, we would still be worshiping Pete Sampras.

No, Federer's ball skills are just something else. Which is why his spiritual home is Wimbledon, where skill tends to win over doggedness, and why I suspect he will keep playing longer than Nadal - who is already struggling with serious physical injuries at a much lower age, because his game has to abuse the body more. That does not mean Nadal is not superb at what he does (his stats on returns are incredible), but it's something that's a bit harder to appreciate.

> Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice.

Toyota makes excellent and reliable cars, their production and distribution skills changed the history of manufacturing, and they periodically innovate in big and small ways. Anyone who knows anything about making cars, knows they are excellent at what they do and maybe the best manufacturer ever by a number of stats. They just don't warm the heart in the same way as more creative makers.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#24
I remember a Time magazine front cover article on Bjorn Borg in the late seventies (get off my lawn). One quote that stuck with me went something like this: "Borg's dominance is really exaggerated on clay courts. Borg v an average tour player on clay is like the Detroit Lions v a high school football team". Maybe there's something about clay that encourages individual dynasties.

Edits: not any tour player, an average tour player, plus typo plus late seventies. Sorry

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#25

Djokovic has a case for best tennis player ever with his winning record head to head over Federer and Nadal. Federer has a losing record against both. He racked up a lot of his titles before Nadal and Djokovic became world champion players. Of course Nadal is best on clay.

Federer is significantly (5/6 years) older than Nadal and Djokovic, which makes it difficult to compare them in "all time" terms based on head-to-head results.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#26
post #20

Funnily enough I think the best player of all time is Novak Djokovic. He has 15 major titles to his name and currently holds a winning record vs both Nadal and Federer. All three have comparable winning percentages over their careers. I think people pencil in Federer as the best just because he is older than Nadal and Djokovic.

They do it because he's currently won more majors than they have. A case can be made for each of them that they all should hold the GOAT title, but it's hard to settle right now.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#27
post #20

Funnily enough I think the best player of all time is Novak Djokovic. He has 15 major titles to his name and currently holds a winning record vs both Nadal and Federer. All three have comparable winning percentages over their careers. I think people pencil in Federer as the best just because he is older than Nadal and Djokovic.

I think age matters, if Djoker is playing at the same level at the age of 37 then he might be considered the best. The best player is the one who has won the most tournaments and that is Federer. Djoker has a really good chance of catching up though.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#28
Strange article. The point around controlling only 50% - what the heck does that even mean?! As a tennis player, you know there are many variables at play in each rally. This sort of simplistic analysis tells us pretty much nothing.

In my opinion, Nadal is great on clay because of his tenacity and ability to play the big points well. The slowness of the court helps him too as it prevents people hitting through him (I'll concede the article does mention that), and allows him to expose a less fit opponent (most are, when compared to Nadal) through extended rallies.

He also has a very reliable 2 handed backhand that he can impart a great deal of spin on (unlike Djokovic or Murray, who hit it relatively flat). This gives him consistency. He is also able to handle high bouncing balls on clay on the backhand much better than others, especially those with a single handed backhand.

For a baseliner, he has a very solid net game, and has a great sense of when to come in and finish the point. In my opinion, he has a better understanding of the "geometry" of the clay court, in that he knows when his opponent is at the point of no return. He then sneaks in to the net and finishes with a slice volley that drops dead on the clay.

Finally, he plays left handed (despite being right handed). Being lefty is a big advantage in tennis in general, because 3 of the 4 game ending point scores will, by definition, be served to your forehand side (40-0, 40-30, A-40). Then there's the southpaw spin, which is harder to handle for most right handed players. Combine the slower court, the point score advantage and Nadal's natural returning abilities (second only to Djok), and you make it very very tricky to win games.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#29
This - "In any tennis match, you can control roughly 50% of the game: when the ball is in your half of the court." - which is the main thrust of the post, seems very simplistic. There are lots and lots of things that you can do to control more than the time that the ball is in your court. For example, unusual spin, tactics during a rally, etc.

I'd recommend reading "Roger Federer as Religious Experience" by David Foster Wallace - https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20fed... - which, as well as being a superb piece of sports writing on its own terms, gives an excellent overview of the way that tactics play a huge role in tennis, rather than "the ball is only in your part of the court for 50% of the time, therefore that's what you can work with."

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#30
Besides being a little off topic for the site...

Another key and massively important point with clay is that you can slide. Sliding properly where you stop as you hit the ball is a really tough skill to learn. Rafa has absolutely mastered this and it's a beauty to see.

Sliding combined with the ball slowing and bouncing higher lets you get balls much further out. It makes it possible to defend more balls and not be out of court as much.

On other surfaces like hardcourt, and grass it's really hard to slide. If you sprint out to a ball on those surfaces you will hit it on the run and end up a couple of steps beyond where the ball bounced. On clay with sliding you can really minimize these plays and maintain your position on court. Also, you can run so much harder on clay without fearing having to stop really hard which hurts on hard courts and significantly increases injury risk.

Rafa's movement on clay just makes him unbeatable.

Post reply on HN