|
TennisOne Lessons 
The Stroke That Ended the Nadal-Federer Rivalry Paul Fein “Strokes are the weapons with which you fight your tennis battles. If you want to create the Perfect Player, you can learn crucial lessons from the Australian Open men’s final. The first lesson from Rafael Nadal’s 7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2 triumph over Roger Federer is the great and undisputable superiority of the two-handed backhand over the one-handed backhand. No matter how near-perfect a one-handed backhand is, and surely Federer and Justine Henin have stroked it superbly, the two-hander generates much more power, handles power better, requires a shorter backswing, boasts more control and a larger “strike zone,” can be uniquely hit with an open stance, and offers as much disguise and variety.
Double-handers have even overcome their only handicap, a shorter reach, and their solution created yet another significant advantage. They can also hit one-handed, slice backhands; but single-handers cannot hit two-handed shots (at least up to now). Indeed, two-handed exponents can often slice effective approach shots, rally consistently and execute deadly drop shots with one hand as skillfully as their one-handed-only foes. The biggest reason Rafael Nadal holds a 13-6 career edge over Federer, and Andy Murray has beaten Federer in five of their last six matches, and Novak Djokovic dethroned Federer in the 2008 Australian final, and pencil-thin Gilles Simon upset Federer twice last year is that their backhands are much stronger than the Swiss superstar’s. U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe astutely pointed out that what distinguishes Roger Federer from past champions is that “he combines exceptional offense with exceptional defense.” However, as the world has witnessed, even that awesome combination cannot offset a major limitation in stroke technique. The Two-Handed Backhand Advantage The women have profoundly learned this lesson. Only seven of the world’s top 100 women use a one-handed backhand today, and, tellingly, none is ranked in the top 20. Their lesser physical strength − aside from muscular Serena Williams who quipped that she had stronger biceps than Andy Roddick − convinced them that only a two-hander would give them the requisite power to slug backhands with consistency and control (viz., accuracy and depth) off both sides. Stylish and athletic Carla Suarez Navarro, a Henin-like, 20-year-old Spaniard who upset Venus Williams at the Oz Open, is doomed from ever achieving stardom because of her one-handed backhand. Just as coaches should and do teach two-handed backhands to almost every junior, parents can also do their part from the first day their beloved baby reaches for a toy. They should turn them into sinistral − not to be confused with sinister − boys and girls by inducing and training them to become left-handed. If they want to help develop a topnotch tennis player, in 15 years they’ll be glad they did.
Nadal learned early in his rivalry with Federer that whacking vicious, topspin lefty forehands crosscourt to Federer’s vulnerable righty backhand would pay big dividends on every surface. “[They] get into these rallies and as soon as Rafa hits the ball to his backhand, he’s in control of the point and it’s tough for Roger to keep up,” noted Pete Sampras, a 14-time Grand Slam champion whose own one-handed backhand was also his most vulnerable stroke. As a sectionally ranked lefty myself, I know from decades of first-hand tournament experience that sinistrality has blessed lefties with another (and even bigger) natural advantage. The most crucial points − ad-in and ad-out, which are the vast majority of game, set and match points − are played in the left or ad court. Left-handers almost always return serve better in the ad court, and that helps them secure service breaks. And they always serve more effectively in the ad court, and sometimes devastatingly like John McEnroe, Martina Navratilova and doubles star Bob Bryan. There, left-handers can pull opponents way off the court with slice and slice-kick serves and blast flat serves up the middle just as skillfully. That regularly helps them escape service breaks. In fact, saving break points has become one of the statistical hallmarks of the Nadal-Federer rivalry, which the No. 1-ranked Spaniard has almost ended by winning the last five matches on three different surfaces. Let's review the numbers in their last five Grand Slam finals. Federer converted only 1 of 17 break point chances in the 2007 French Open final, 3 of 8 in the 2007 Wimbledon final, 1 of 4 in the lopsided 2008 French Open final, only 1 of 13 in their 2008 Wimbledon classic, and 6 of 19 in the 2009 Australian Open final. Altogether, the no-longer Mighty Fed converted just 12 of 61 break point opportunities for an impotent 19.7 percent. (Nadal converted 27 of 67 for 40.3 percent.) After the heartbreaking and confidence-sapping Melbourne defeat, Federer ruefully confided, “Well, I wish I was a lefty, too, playing break points on the ad side. Sure, a great advantage for him.” Much like tigerish yesteryear champions Monica Seles, Steffi Graf, Jimmy Connors and Bjorn Borg, Nadal plays every point as if it’s match point, virtually a matter of life and death. Equally important, however, his steadily improving first serve has developed into a major weapon. It averaged 179 kmh (111.2 mph), only slightly less than Federer’s 183 kmh (113.7 mph), and often helped him escape service breaks as well as clinch service games.
Finally, Tennis Channel analyst Justin Gimelstob rightly pointed out how physically demanding big-time tennis has become. Historically, tennis has tested skill and will. However, in their 5-hour, 14-minute semifinal, Nadal and compatriot Fernando Verdasco took the sport to a new level of brute force and unrelenting aggression that demands almost superhuman stamina. Rafa got a taste of his own left-handed medicine against southpaw Verdasco. He was burned by Verdasco’s wide-swerving serves in the ad court. Rafa hurt his cause, though, by standing 10 feet behind the baseline to return serves and almost as far back during many rallies. That counter-productive tactic also put him way out of position to reach Verdasco’s crosscourt groundstrokes. To his credit, in the quarterfinals and semifinals, Federer earned an advantage over the exhausted Nadal by outclassing meekly uncompetitive No. 8 Juan Martin del Potro and determined No. 7 Andy Roddick efficiently and quickly. What Federer did not earn or deserve, however, was an extra day of rest, due to the outrageously unfair Australian Open scheduling. Federer is rightly known as a great frontrunner who grabs a lead and never looks back. The same can be said for the Mallorcan Matador who boasts an extraordinary 77-1 record when he wins the first set in Grand Slam matches. But Nadal is also reminiscent of legendary Bjorn Borg who relished outlasting opponents in five-set marathons. In fact, the normally modest Nadal once reportedly crowed, “If I stay with Federer, I beat him.” Can Federer Turn Things Around? What then can Federer do to turn the so-called “rivalry” around? Armchair critics from Joe Fan to Joe Expert abound. In the latter category, Patrick McEnroe asserted that for Federer to equal or break Sampras’ record 14 career Grand Slam titles, “He needs a coach so that he can come out with a game plan against Rafael Nadal.” Fair enough. But what would that coach tell or remind the clever Swiss that he doesn’t already know? Federer held serve 38 straight times going into the Australian final before Nadal broke his serve three times in the opening set. Federer simply doesn’t have the serving power or consistent volleying skills that Sampras displayed, and Nadal has formidable service returns and passing shots. So serving-and-volleying won’t work, except occasionally as a surprise and, ideally, on grass.
Should Federer go for bigger (i.e. more powerful and accurate) shots? Whoa! That works against most other players, but it’s much easier said than done against the incomparable Nadal. Why? First, Nadal’s blazing speed, amazing shot making and high-percentage game absorb and foil Federer’s offense most of the time. Second, the hard truth is that Federer is a baseliner with a vulnerable one-handed backhand that Nadal pummels mercilessly. That means Nadal, the sounder player technically, dictates most of the points so Federer is able to “go for bigger shots” far less often than he would like to. And his backhand lacks the power to crack outright winners the way Murray, Djokovic, and Simon often and effortlessly can. Federer did work on his down-the-line backhand with Jose Higueras (his former coach) during the off-season to reduce the number of crosscourt exchanges that pinned him in the backhand corner. But any improvement there proved negligible against Nadal. Third, going for bigger shots produces more errors as well as winners. Federer’s vaunted forehand sometimes breaks down, too, when he overhits it in order to compensate for his relatively weak backhand. It’s not easy for anyone to belt forehand winners from three feet behind the baseline, from the backhand corner, or on the dead run. Fourth, Darren Cahill, a former Australian Davis Cupper and now a perceptive ESPN analyst, urged Federer to attack Nadal’s second serve (which averaged a modest 143 kmh or 88.9 mph), particularly in the deuce court where it was predictably directed at Federer’s backhand nearly all the time. But it’s a lot easier to be brave with your weakest shot when you’re playing a lesser player and when you are leading which Federer never was. That tactic is even more problematic because of the combination slice and kick on Nadal’s serve as well as its pinpoint placement. Finally, Nadal’s passing shots boast power, accuracy, lowness and vicious topspin that thwart netrushers. What about changing pace more and throwing in nasty slice backhands and a few drop shots? Nadal anticipates and handles slice backhands better than ever. Federer once admitted that he wished he could hit better dropshots, but dropshots, unless almost perfect, often backfire on hard courts and are best saved for clay and grass and used sparingly. When counter-punching Nadal hugs the baseline (which he did much better against Federer than Verdasco), Federer can also get himself into positional trouble by “running around” to hit forehands that aren’t aggressive enough. (Interestingly, Nadal, whose backhand also has improved during the past year, “ran around” to hit forehands less than usual against Federer.)
Federer defenders argue that he experienced a rare bad serving day in the Oz Open showdown, perhaps due to the pressure he felt in going for Sampras’s coveted record. But Federer, whose service technique is perfect, felt another pressure, far more important. He felt the pressure to win lots of easy points with his first serve because once Nadal returned it reasonably well, the odds of winning the point shifted slightly in Nadal’s favor. Put another way, the imbalance in Federer’s game, caused by his backhand vulnerability, takes its toll here, too. Federer, who hit only 11 aces, also felt pressure to simply get his first serve in, which he did only 52 percent of the time. Why? Because he won only 45 percent of his many (82) second serve points. If Federer was the fresher player going into the final, why did he break down mentally rather than Nadal physically in the deciding set? It wasn’t “all about heart,” as ESPN analyst Brad Gilbert contended. Both Nadal and Federer are ultimate warriors. (Before their fifth set at Melbourne, Nadal was 11-3 in five-setters, while Federer was 13-11, on four occasions coming back from two-set deficits.) In truth, it was “all about” technique and nerves. In short, Federer’s erratic backhand really broke down, producing a plethora of forced and unforced errors. Nadal secured his first service break for a 3-1 lead when, at 30-all, Federer hit a
crosscourt backhand wide and then made a bad unforced backhand error. Nadal held serve at love for 5-2 when Federer committed four backhand errors. In the last game, Federer completed his self-destruction by making three backhand errors, two on service returns. Since Federer won one more point, 174 to 173, in the final, despite being greatly outplayed in
the fifth set, an important question arises: Did Federer play poorly in the deciding set because he was nervous? Or was he nervous because he played poorly? The answer is the latter. But the more accurate explanation is that he became nervous because his weak and vulnerable backhand had broken down and that made his game break down. Federer realized that and he also knew he could do very little about it. As noted coach and researcher Vic Braden once said, “Basically, the reason you choke is that you don’t have the strokes.” Braden’s maxim is applicable here, albeit strictly on the backhand and relative to Nadal’s superior backhand. Federer, 27 and not injury-prone, may sooner or later break Sampras’ record. But, if he does not, he may regret one bad shot in 2005 far more than his bad fifth set against Nadal. In another five-set Australian Open thriller, Federer had a match point against Marat Safin in the semifinals. He raced beyond his baseline for a Safin lob and opted for a 100-1, between-the-legs, back-to-the-net trick shot that missed badly. He should have gone for a high, deep lob return. If Federer had won that point, he would have been heavily favored to beat Lleyton Hewitt in the final. Instead, Safin beat Hewitt decisively. Your comments are welcome. Let us know what you think about Paul Fein's article by emailing us here at TennisOne.
Paul Fein Paul Fein, a USPTA teaching pro and former top 10-ranked New England men’s open player, has won more than 20 writing awards. His 2002 book, Tennis Confidential: Today’s Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies, published by Brassey’s, Inc., was listed No. 1 among tennis books by Amazon.com and BN.com. Information about the book and how to order it can be found at www.tennisconfidential.com. His second book, You Can Quote Me on That: Greatest Tennis Quips, Insights, and Zingers, was published by Potomac Books, Inc. (formerly Brassey’s, Inc.) in 2005 and was listed No. 1 among tennis books by Amazon.com and BN.com. For more information, visit www.tennisquotes.com. His third book, Tennis Confidential II: More of Today’s Greatest Players, Matches, and Controversies, was published April 28, 2008 and was featured on the home page of Amazon.com and has been listed No. 1 among tennis books there since for six months. |
