Djokovic is adjusting to Nadal

[nabrug]

Djokovic is adjusting

I am writing this the moment Djokovic won the first set 6-3 to Nadal (semi-final Madrid Open 2009). My Dutch commentator (Jan Siemerink, ex-professional) doesn’t know what is happening. I think it is pretty obvious. Djokovic is adjusting to the gameplay of Nadal. He is copying Nadal’s ball trajectories and he is waiting to end the rally with his better than Nadal’s all court strokes.

The final in Monte Carlo showed already that Djokovic was adjusting. The BH technique produced the same ball trajectories as Nadal. I think they are equal over there even though I can’t see if Djokovic is using BH1A or BH2A. Because of the double-handed technique I think it is not so relevant. With the FH he was already creating the same ball trajectories. But now they are more forcing. His body is more behind the shot. Although it is defenitely not a FH2 technique like Nadal. But he is reversing like Nadal. Maybe his body is “finding” the FH2 (Forms Follow Function)?! Like Nadal maybe once did. Till that time Djokovic will have the same shot but without the bigger contact point area which FH2 will give you.

One of the very few mental things I acknowledge is what I maybe saw in the Monte Carlo final. Djokovic hardly used the reversing technique in the previous rounds. Although he must have been training the shot for a while. Even in the final’s first set it was not that obvious. The second set he won mainly by creating the ball trajectories like Nadal always does for his opponents. (Like now it is funny to see Nadal missing the shots he always produces himself.) And than I thought I saw Djokovic realizing that he found the way to beat Nadal. That is what I recognize. You feel that you have found the solution to make a big step forward. But because it is so new it looks like you first have to convince yourself that you can do it.

But now Djokovic is getting used to the idea. You can see it. Now it is 5-5 second set and Djokovic is getting impatient. He makes a few “old” mistakes which almost cost him the second set. Even if he loses today he will review this match and will adjust before Roland Gaross. With that fine tuning phase to come I want to give you the advice to also put some money on Djokovic.

By the way Andy Murray is adjusting in the same way like Djokovic. He produces also the same ball trajectories like Nadal. But his reversing technique is not like Djokovic is at the moment.

Nico Mol

[stumphges]

Sir,

Do you have a technical/strategic explanation for Federer's win?

[airforce1]

Sir,

Do you have a technical/strategic explanation for Federer's win?

I'm sure he will answer your question, but I wanted a shot at it- without having watched it yet.

I'm guessing that if you used my charting approach that Fed was on the attack (having received a mid court reply) more often than Rafa, when the points ended. I expect Rafa defended these attacks solidly but that Roger's attacking execution %'s were much better than past matches with Rafa, meaning less UEs and more shots that forced errors from Nadal. I'm also guessing not so many clean winners though.

I'm guessing that Rafa was able to attack to a lesser extent from Roger's mid ct balls and that Roger defended better than usual in these situations.

Overall expecting that Fed was able to earn more point ending opportunities as usual, but more importantly was able to do more with less; meaning that he didn't press as much for clean winners to end points, while staying aggressive overall. Better shot tolerance, without losing the aggressive play. I'm guessing that Fed was able to avoid pressing to finish prematurely.

out on a limb,
Can't wait to see and chart this one.

[nabrug]

Sir,

Do you have a technical/strategic explanation for Federer's win?

He did not win because he made adjustments. I saw the same game styles like always. Federer always has chances if he has a good day, if Nadal has a lesser day (at the end Nadal had a few very unusual misses) or if both happens. The odds are imo very low 1:15 or 1:20. Do not put your money on Federer at RG.

[uspta990770809]

I'm sure he will answer your question, but I wanted a shot at it- without having watched it yet.

I'm guessing that if you used my charting approach that Fed was on the attack (having received a mid court reply) more often than Rafa, when the points ended. I expect Rafa defended these attacks solidly but that Roger's attacking execution %'s were much better than past matches with Rafa, meaning less UEs and more shots that forced errors from Nadal. I'm also guessing not so many clean winners though.

I'm guessing that Rafa was able to attack to a lesser extent from Roger's mid ct balls and that Roger defended better than usual in these situations.

Overall expecting that Fed was able to earn more point ending opportunities as usual, but more importantly was able to do more with less; meaning that he didn't press as much for clean winners to end points, while staying aggressive overall. Better shot tolerance, without losing the aggressive play. I'm guessing that Fed was able to avoid pressing to finish prematurely.

out on a limb,
Can't wait to see and chart this one.

Looking forward to seeing your stats.

[airforce1]

Looking forward to seeing your stats.

I think I'm getting it taped on Wed. and look forward to charting it.

I'm not betting on Roger at RG either, but Man, would it not just light up the tennis world if Roger came thru and won there!

I love to think about what that would do for tennis.

[airforce1]

Just charted the first set.

Fed with 8 rally UEs to Nadals 5
- only 3 shot difference for Fed is pretty good in this area, but made somewhat worse due to 6 winners/ errors forced here in the baseline Rally area, to Fed's 1.
This rally area advantage looks pretty good for Rafa,
till you see that it is mostly offset by Roger's serving advantage which was a +5 for Roger.
Considering those above areas to pretty much balance out, it leaves us with the area where the serious controllable differences exist.


Mid court or closer finishes - Fed Dominates

Fed with 14 winners/errors forced with only 4 UEs
Nadal with only 3 winners and 1 UE

big win for Roger here off the Mid ct balls and it supports the theory that here lies the Key to these matchups and I don't think it supports the weak Fed BH theory. How can Fed be so mis matched in rallys, but still be ending points more often off of short and mid court balls?

Roger clearly is able to get more attacking chances--
he is on the attack greater than 4 to 1 more than Nadal when points are ended in that element of the game in this first set.
( Wimbledon was a 3 to 1 advantage)
Roger also converted 78% of the attacking chances, (in this set)
even edging Rafa's high 75% conversion rate.

Seems the first set charting supports
- the Key for Fed is to execute at a high % off mid court and short ball pt ending chances. His % has been lower in matches I've charted Fed losing.

-The other key is to keep Nadal chances to attack short and mid ct balls to a min., as Nadal always executes these opportunities at high percentages.
On this second key, Fed has done well, Which probably accounts for the higher Rally UEs.
But on the first Key, it seems Roger often struggles against Nadals all-world defense.

I hope I got all the second set on DVR.

[airforce1]

Watched the second set, but have not charted yet.

I've got to admit, one stat really stands out again.

Nadal had 4 break points and made none.
(several in one game can be misleading cause it's not 4 different games he could have broke in)
Fed had 2 and made 2 in this match.
In past matches, I think that stat is usually reversed, with Rafa making each break pt count, along with Roger getting lots of chances squandered.

If you look at those games and situations (where breaks of serve occured or were close), Fed came thru and executed better; not great, but better, especially off mid court attack sequences.
And Rafa had some uncharacteristic attacking misses (UEs).

I think Roger will have to execute even better at RG and I don't expect those misses by Nadal in Paris.
But with all that said, this was on Clay, Nadal's surface, not Roger's best!
And Nadal did beat eveyone else here to make the final, so the elements were not that bad for him.

[airforce1]

I've been told that my post about 1st set charting was not easy to understand, and it was suggested that I improve it.

My charting looks at the sequence that takes place to end each point.
In it's most basic form, it is divided into 3 major aspects:

1. Serve/ return aspects- self-explanatory
2. Rally aspects- baseline shots, working for position
3. Mid-court attack aspects- attacking shots hit off replies around the svc line

Each point ending shot (or sequence if significant) is graded as
a clean winner (ace when serving),
a shot that "Forces Error", or
a shot that is an Unforced Error.
Unforced Errors count against all the winners and errors forced that a player makes.

It can also include sub aspects such as FH/BH, overheads, topspin/slice, and volleys, if they are helpful in a given case. For example in this 1st set at the Madrid final, I noted how many of Fed's Rally shot Unforced errors were BH (backhands). This was done to look at the theory of Fed's BH mis-match.
Roger was graded to have 9 rally UEs in that first set, of which only 4 were backhands. Given that Roger probably hit more Backhand Rally shots than forehands in this set, having fewer Rally BH UEs than he had Rally FHs UEs, does not support the BH mis-match theory.

[airforce1]

Serving/Return grades

Fed 8 ace/winner/error forcing shots to 3 UEs = +5
Nadal 3 ace/winner/error forcing shots to 3 UEs = 0

Rally shot grades

Fed 1 winner/error forcing shots to 9 UEs = -8
Nadal 6 winner/error forcing shots to 5 UEs = +1

Mid court attack sequences

Fed 14 winner/error forcing shots to 4 UEs = +10
Nadal 3 winner/error forcing shots to 1 UEs = +2

things that stand out here-

1. Roger was the attacker in over 81% of point ending attack sequences,
with Rafa doing this less than 19%.
2. Roger even had a better conversion rate for the point ending attack sequences than Rafa. 78% to 75%
3. Roger's serving/return stats nearly balance out his high Rally UE numbers
4. Roger maybe makes more Rally errors being aggressive, in an effort to start more attack sequences.

Hope these posts are clearer.

*conversion rate means to win the point after going on the attack from a mid court ball.

[airforce1]

Madrid Final 2ond set charting

This one looked a little different, but a lot the same.

Serve/Return aspects
Fed had 10 ace/winner/error forced to -- 2 UEs = +8
Nadal had 11 ace/winner/error forced to --0 UEs = +11

Rally shot aspect
Fed had 7 winner/errors forced to -- 8 UEs = -1
Nadal had 3 winner/errors forced to --4 UEs = -1

Mid court Attack aspect
Fed had 8 winner/errors forced to -- 2 UEs = +6
Nadal had 3 winner/errors forced to -- 1 UEs = +2

This set was different with Rafa doing more damage with the Serve/Rtn aspects, and actually edging out Roger's positive margins there.
And also with Roger matching Rafa's in the Rally shot aspect.

But it was the same in that the first two areas nearly cancel out and I see the deciding area again being the volume of Mid court ball attack sequences and their conversion rate.
Fed again is the attacker more often and enjoys a 3 to 1 margin in being on the attack off of mid ct balls. He also had a higher conversion rate of 80% to Rafa's 75%, almost the same percentages as the first set. Also, these were key in all the games where there were break points.

Another thought is that these high Mid Ct attack conversion rates have a great effect on Nadal's ability to defend. With Fed making such a high % of these attacking shots, it forces Nadal to make more and better defending shots. These shots may tend to falter in clutch situations under this kind of onslaught, as they did in Madrid. In past charting with Fed having lower conversion rates, his miss fires on these attacks tended to fuel Nadals confidence and demanded less execution from Nadal, while undermining Fed's confidence.

Another poster said there was no tactical changes, but I see it differently. Fed's attack shots were hit with greater margins of safety, which led to a higher conversion rate.
He also returned the favor of attacking backhands. He went to Nadal's BH more often with good success. Not hitting for winners there, but kept Rafa more honest and forced him into a few BH errors as well.
I also though Roger was much more picky about when he decided to attack a mid ct ball, while still doing it 3 times more often than Nadal did. He avoided charging in on short ball attacks that would leave him overly exposed for Nadal's lethal passing shots.

[airforce1]

I'm sure he will answer your question, but I wanted a shot at it- without having watched it yet.

I'm guessing that if you used my charting approach that Fed was on the attack (having received a mid court reply) more often than Rafa, when the points ended. I expect Rafa defended these attacks solidly but that Roger's attacking execution %'s were much better than past matches with Rafa, meaning less UEs and more shots that forced errors from Nadal. I'm also guessing not so many clean winners though.

I'm guessing that Rafa was able to attack to a lesser extent from Roger's mid ct balls and that Roger defended better than usual in these situations.

Overall expecting that Fed was able to earn more point ending opportunities as usual, but more importantly was able to do more with less; meaning that he didn't press as much for clean winners to end points, while staying aggressive overall. Better shot tolerance, without losing the aggressive play. I'm guessing that Fed was able to avoid pressing to finish prematurely.

out on a limb,
Can't wait to see and chart this one.

I was taking a look back to see how accurate this prediction was.

Looks like it was pretty spot on, with the exception of the sheer number of clean winners Fed hit. While I don't feel Roger "pressed" to hit clean winners, he was still able to hit quite a few, even with his better margins.
Also Rafa's serving numbers nearly matched Roger's in the second set, which was not expected, but points out that Fed can't just count on serving to bail him out.

It was pretty accurate with regards to Roger attacking more short and mid ct balls, and improving his conversion rate there as well. It also looked that his shot tolerance was better too.

[oliensis]

Great stuff, Airforce.

I noticed improved patience (shot tolerance). And that Fed's attacking game was effective, once he got the right opportunity.

One thing I did notice, though, was that Nadal made very few "unbelievable saves," which, say, in Australia he made a huge number of, and which I think affect the stats on efficacy of Fed's attacking game.

I went back to the '05-'07 French Open matches between Fed and Nadal (on youtube) and it's interesting to see that, IMHO, Fed was basically doing what we all want him to do (play w/ controlled aggression, a lot to nadal's backhand, attack the short ball, etc.). But Nadal has often forced F to hit 3 or 4 winners to win the points...and that seems to be when F breaks down some...when it gets to the point of, "Jeeze, what the hell do I have to do to win a point!"

It would be interesting to chart the "unbelievable saves" by Nadal and the points on which Fed has to hit more than 2 (what should be) winners, and to see how those #s stack up. (I'm not saying you should do it, just thinking outloud.)

[airforce1]

Thanks, I'm glad you liked the different approach to charting.
I think it gives more insight into the difference making moments of a match.

My feeling is that Roger has often pressed for clean winners, close to the line, early in the match. In this manner, he has missed and reduced the pressure on Nadal.
In the matches I've charted, Nadal only makes a few of those highlight saves, but they get burned into memory as more than they are. I would love to chart to see numbers on that. I just need the footage.

In the ones I have charted, yes Fed had attacked, but had also left the door open in the process, expecting Rafa to miss like everyone else under the big pressure of his attack. Rafa rarely does.
IN Madrid, Roger rarely left the door open and was Much more picky about his advances.

[airforce1]

My feeling is that Roger has often pressed for clean winners, close to the line, early in the match. In this manner, he has missed and reduced the pressure on Nadal.

IN Madrid, Roger rarely left the door open and was Much more picky about his advances.

In Fed's first adjustments to his trouble with Nadal (last couple of years), it appeared that he took the advice that he needed to be far more aggressive and take the offensive early. In doing so, he would press forward at his first opportunity, which added an element of risk/reward. Initially it may have seemed to work OK on the faster surfaces, but not so well on the clay. Lately it has even left him too open on the hard and grass courts as well.

I hope it is intentional, but it looks like Fed may be in a next gen approach to his attacks that still looks to go early, but to be more picky about his selection of when to go forward, to reduce the risk to some extent. Maybe he will look to make it more a habit in the matches leading up to the late rds at RG.

PS- thanks for the appreciative emails and questions sent to me on the charting.