David Ferrer's 2HBH vs Rafa

[johnyandell]

I've had to change my thinking about this. I did believe that the lefty forehand idea explained the technical model. Now I say they call it a two-handed backhand for a reason. The role of the front arm makes the torso rotation somewhere inbetween a one and a two. If you look at the shoulders and hips they are far more closed than on the forehand.

Having said that I still actually agree with you about teaching the stroke. It's like learning outside leg set up and neutral stance on the forehand and evolving to more radical open stances later. I think the way to teach the two is the same way. Outside leg set up and neutral. The lazy, reaching closed stance backhand is not the pro version. So I often have players do exactly what you say. Set up and learn to hit open. Again it is a pretty high level where the closed thing applies--but elite juniors probably yes.

[tennis_chiro]

Makes me feel a little better

I've had to change my thinking about this. I did believe that the lefty forehand idea explained the technical model. Now I say they call it a two-handed backhand for a reason. The role of the front arm makes the torso rotation somewhere inbetween a one and a two. If you look at the shoulders and hips they are far more closed than on the forehand.

Having said that I still actually agree with you about teaching the stroke. It's like learning outside leg set up and neutral stance on the forehand and evolving to more radical open stances later. I think the way to teach the two is the same way. Outside leg set up and neutral. The lazy, reaching closed stance backhand is not the pro version. So I often have players do exactly what you say. Set up and learn to hit open. Again it is a pretty high level where the closed thing applies--but elite juniors probably yes.

Thanks, John. That makes me feel a little better. But what about the idea that Rafa is doing something different when he comes up with those unbelievable defense-to-offense passes on wide balls to his bh where he sets up open and loads on the outside foot (as opposed to sliding further lateral in the air). I don't think he gets enough credit for how good his footwork is.

Also, watching them play on the red clay the last 2 weekends, it seems like they are just pummeling the ball so much harder than on the hardcourts where most of the film clips in archives come from. They seem to get just enough more time to really load. The sliding aspect on the clay may have something to do with that.

don

[johnyandell]

Yeah maybe Rafa is. We are going to have new high speed footage of him. One thing that may come into play though is his straight/straight hitting arm deal. People talk about his rear arm--but the front one is straight like Agassi--one of the very few. Does that play into it. Or maybe it is just Rafa--the old is it the player or the technique issue. Part of it is that--just Rafa being Rafa, that's for sure...

[nabrug]

Imo Nadal is not worried about Ferrer. He knows this. Nadal is worried about Murray and Djokovic (Gasquet is not there yet.). I think that he knows that he will loose the majority of matches against them even on clay. My opinion 7-3 Djokovic; 6-4 Murray.

Nadal is ever so lucky that Djokovic and Murray are at the other half of the schedule. In Rome but more important in Paris.

[tennis_chiro]

very high level

Nadal is ever so lucky that Djokovic and Murray are at the other half of the schedule. In Rome but more important in Paris.

He was certainly lucky they did to each other what they did today. I can't see Djokovic recovering enough to beat Rafa in Rome tomorrow, but the level he played at the beginning of the match was unbelieveable. And then Murray came back and matched him. But I am troubled by their inability to hold serve in the third set. To me, that was a bit of a mental flaw.

I don't think we will get the true test untll Roland Garros, but I will probably get up tomorrow to watch the Rome final.

But Nabrug, what exactly are the elements you see that give them both such an edge over Nadal?

don

[nabrug]

But Nabrug, what exactly are the elements you see that give them both such an edge over Nadal?

Well, that is simple. Look at the ball trajectories and all the Level Depending Factors (LDF). See the differences in ball trajectories and LDF when Djokovic and Murray play against others and than against Nadal. They break down his shot building patterns. Gasquet is trying to do that. (Federer is not adjusting at all.) Besides that they have the same reception skills as Nadal has. In much earlier posts I explained that the top 4 have hitting techniques which give them at least an extra 1,5 meters to both sides. (E.g. look at the amazing rushes from Murray from side to side and look at the amazing returns of Novak. They all share the same principles.) For a playing field that is 8,23 meters that is huge.

And than it is all about percentages. Tennis is about percentages. Shotmaking is about percentages. What can player A do with what percentage against player B in a given game situation. All very arbitrary. And you can think all you want but than there is reality. Like now in Rome. What influence does the match Novak-Andy have on the final? It will at least give me an excuse when Novak looses.

With the scouting experience I have at this moment I see that Novak is dominating the game situations around 70-30%.

[tennis_chiro]

Which posts

Well, that is simple. Look at the ball trajectories and all the Level Depending Factors (LDF). See the differences in ball trajectories and LDF when Djokovic and Murray play against others and than against Nadal. They break down his shot building patterns. Gasquet is trying to do that. (Federer is not adjusting at all.) Besides that they have the same reception skills as Nadal has. In much earlier posts I explained that the top 4 have hitting techniques which give them at least an extra 1,5 meters to both sides. (E.g. look at the amazing rushes from Murray from side to side and look at the amazing returns of Novak. They all share the same principles.) For a playing field that is 8,23 meters that is huge..

Nabrug,
Please point me to those earlier posts. I definitely see a higher level of play in what Murray and Djokovic displayed yesterday. I'm just about to tune in to the final on TennisTV.com and I am excited to see the difference against Nadal, although the fatigue factor is certainly a significant handicap for Nole. Is the increased hitting field you are referring to a function of their wider range of their shots or of their court coverage or both?

don

[nabrug]

Nabrug,
Please point me to those earlier posts. I definitely see a higher level of play in what Murray and Djokovic displayed yesterday. I'm just about to tune in to the final on TennisTV.com and I am excited to see the difference against Nadal, although the fatigue factor is certainly a significant handicap for Nole. Is the increased hitting field you are referring to a function of their wider range of their shots or of their court coverage or both?

don

Click on my username and you can find old posts. To save some time it will only tell what their techniques give you. It will give you a rough idea although the model of the techniques evolutioned drastically. I don't explain the techniques.

I don't understand your last question due to my english. Can you rephrase that?

[tennis_chiro]

Clarification

I don't understand your last question due to my english. Can you rephrase that?

What I was trying to ask:

Are you pointing to the difference in their ball striking technique that enables them to make the court wider for their opponents to cover because they can create greater angles on the court with their shots (increased spin)?

or

Do you mean that because of the way they move as well as the way that they are able to strike the ball (with an open stance), they can reach more of their opponents shots and turn defense into offense over a wider distance along the baseline, effectively increasing the amount of court that they defend effectively?

My sense is that it is a little bit of both, but I'm not sure which part of it sets these four players apart from all the rest.

don

[nabrug]

What I was trying to ask:

Are you pointing to the difference in their ball striking technique that enables them to make the court wider for their opponents to cover because they can create greater angles on the court with their shots (increased spin)?

or

Do you mean that because of the way they move as well as the way that they are able to strike the ball (with an open stance), they can reach more of their opponents shots and turn defense into offense over a wider distance along the baseline, effectively increasing the amount of court that they defend effectively?

My sense is that it is a little bit of both, but I'm not sure which part of it sets these four players apart from all the rest.

don

Nadal uses the first in his building patterns.

But it is the second option. Their reception area is so much bigger.