Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

leonardofed.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#41

Post by brookside »

bsaul wrote: post #31

A bit off topic, but having followed tennis for the last 3 decades, i think the most striking thing on nadal and federer compared to previous generation is how much they improved technically throughout their career, even after their 30s ( after they both had won numerous grand slams). Nadal has improved on serve and volley, federer has improved on backend and serve. Watching young federer or young nadal vs today’s is…

There is also quite a bit of incredulity that both Nadal and Federer are performing as they do without performance enhancing drugs.

Nadal’s one-time doctor was nabbed, but his blood bags were ordered destroyed by Spanish court:

http://en.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/205055.html

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#42

Post by brandnewlow »

frereubu wrote: post #40
srib wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The linked piece is excellent. I had not read it before. Thank you sharing it!

I just love this bit: 'And there’s that familiar little second of shocked silence from the New York crowd before it erupts, and John McEnroe with his color man’s headset on TV says (mostly to himself, it sounds like), "How do you hit a winner from that position?" And he’s right: given Agassi’s position and world-class quickness, Federer had to send that ball down a two-inch pipe of space in order to pass him, which h…

It's a tremendous piece of writing I've enjoyed many times over over the years but a troubling one.

As best I can tell, this is the actual shot described in the excerpt you quoted. It's great but perhaps DFW embellished a bit in the retelling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDwG5rJVtdc

One writer reconsiders the piece: https://theoutline.com/post/7424/david-foster-wallace-roger-...

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#44

Post by thinkpad20 »

brookside wrote: post #41
bsaul wrote: post #31

A bit off topic, but having followed tennis for the last 3 decades, i think the most striking thing on nadal and federer compared to previous generation is how much they improved technically throughout their career, even after their 30s ( after they both had won numerous grand slams). Nadal has improved on serve and volley, federer has improved on backend and serve. Watching young federer or young nadal vs today’s is…

There is also quite a bit of incredulity that both Nadal and Federer are performing as they do without performance enhancing drugs. Nadal’s one-time doctor was nabbed, but his blood bags were ordered destroyed by Spanish court: http://en.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/205055.html

I’m curious to what extent this is just innuendo and FUD, and how much there’s legitimate speculation (if there could be such a thing) as to Nadal and/or Federer doping. I’ve never heard even a whisper of doping suspicion with Roger, and this is the first I’ve heard of Rafa, but I don’t follow the sport super closely so maybe there are storylines I’ve missed. I know there have been other high profile tennis players to get caught doping, but my impression was that it was uncommon among today’s athletes. The way your comment is worded suggests that many in the know suspect either or both of doping — is this accurate?

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#45

Post by ctchocula »

srib wrote: post #35
frereubu wrote: post #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 Fos…

The linked piece is excellent. I had not read it before. Thank you sharing it!

If you liked that piece, you will like David Foster Wallace's other piece on tennis as well [1]. It discusses how difficult it is to make it as a tennis pro.

[1] https://www.esquire.com/sports/a5151/the-string-theory-david...

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#46

Post by brookside »

thinkpad20 wrote: post #44
brookside wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also quite a bit of incredulity that both Nadal and Federer are performing as they do without performance enhancing drugs. Nadal’s one-time doctor was nabbed, but his blood bags were ordered destroyed by Spanish court: http://en.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/205055.html

I’m curious to what extent this is just innuendo and FUD, and how much there’s legitimate speculation (if there could be such a thing) as to Nadal and/or Federer doping. I’ve never heard even a whisper of doping suspicion with Roger, and this is the first I’ve heard of Rafa, but I don’t follow the sport super closely so maybe there are storylines I’ve missed. I know there have been other high profile tennis players t…

I will fully admit to having no inside knowledge, or any concrete beliefs about the subject, really! I only have read a few blog posts which seemed reasonable enough. Such as:

http://tennispurist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-curious-case-of...

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#47

Post by Moodles »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #21
likeabbas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> [Federer's] 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.

Clay is undoubtedly Federer's worst surface regardless of Nadal, but he has lost to Nadal in the French Open all 5 times they've met, and they've met in the final most of those times, so probably without Nadal he would have even more grand slams.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#48

Post by SubiculumCode »

osrec wrote: post #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…

Yes, the 50% control "analysis" was vapid, and said nothing new to the paragraph previous except for exchanging one noun for another. Then, I tend to read "moneyball" articles that are often quite good for baseball (e.g., on Fangraphs), and just expect more.

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#49

Post by Moodles »

likeabbas wrote: post #14
toyg wrote: 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.…

I love watching them both. They're both humble, great champions and ambassadors for the sport.

I would think the reason most people prefer Federer (if there's even concrete evidence to back this up -- has anyone really done a survey of this question?) is that Federer plays the most aesthetically pleasing tennis. It's obviously subjective, but I suspect most people who like tennis like Federer's elegant style of one-handed backhand (which most plays don't do nowadays), his movement, his serve is devastating because of it's accuracy, his fakes and drop shots. It's just elegant to watch.

Nadal of course plays elegant and great shots too, but just less so in my opinion. Nadal has got a lot of wins by steamrolling his opponents with power and athleticism, particularly on clay.

I'd rather watch Federer destroy an opponent than Nadal, basically

Re: Why Nadal is unbeatable on clay

#50

Post by billforsternz »

addicted wrote: post #33
billforsternz wrote: post #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…

Clay and grass to a lesser extent are more extreme surfaces, and they benefit certain types of players. Hard courts are far more neutral and allow for a wider range of styles to be competitive.

Indeed. And as the original article mentioned, clay rewards a player who can "be a wall" and just keep getting the ball back and not beat himself. The article mentioned Nadal's heavy topspin, and I think Borg actually pioneered that. It's the only way to to hit powerful strokes with a margin of safety. The ball clears the net easily but then dips and doesn't go long.
Post reply on HN