2013 French Open...Roland Garros, Paris, France

[julian1]

Who is Ferret?

This Nadal/Djokovic match does look like it could be a great one. I am very anxious to see how Djokovic deals with king of clay at the FO 3 of 5 format. I picked Fed to make the final, I whiffed on that one, but I still like Nadal in this one. He does have the biggest weapon on the court with his fh.

The other semi has gotten even more interesting. Brad Gilbert mentioned during coverage of the 2 men's quarters yesterday that Tsonga, during his post march win over Fed interview, said that he is bigger and stronger, hits the ball harder, and serves better than Ferret. All that is true, but I'm not so sure he needed to say it.

Who is Ferret?
Do you mean Ferrer?

[don_budge]

lobndropshot to tennis_chiro...

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...tolerance.html

Nice post lobndropshot, thank you...Elliot Teltscher writes a rather comprehensive piece. I wonder if Don Brosseau has anything to add. I certainly am curious...there seems to be another aspect of "shot tolerance"...perhaps another connotation.

Shot tolerance relative to attack and defense. tennis_chiro is correct to in saying that we don't give Ferrer enough credit in his ability to attack and exploit weak balls. He isn't seeded fourth hitting moon balls. Perhaps a little more in depth analysis of Tsonga's shot tolerance compared to Ferrer's. They play completely different games so how does shot tolerance apply to both of them. The other two...Nadal and Djokovic have incredibly high shot tolerance any way you slice it with perhaps the edge going to Djokovic in this category as well based on his superior movement and ability to neutralize points when they seemed to have tipped the balance to his opponents.

Give it some thought Don...you probably have some really good ideas here.

[tennis_chiro]

Great article by Elliot

I think Teltscher just about covered it completely. I would simply highlight a couple of points that he brought out.

First of all, recognize that it is not just a choice of going for winners or playing completely reactively; there is such a thing as aggressively trying to take control of the point without going for winners, but working for the position where you can go for a winner or draw an error. This is what he was talking about with Gimelstob. Another player for whom I thought this was very true was Todd Martin. You think, perhaps, that it is just a question of athleticism and mobility, but I remember watching Todd when he was first hitting the pro tour and Robert Van't Hof was coaching him and I had a conversation with Robert about Todd. It was clear to me that Todd was very good when he had something he was trying to do with the ball, when he had a clear objective for his shot: a passing shot, an approach shot or something to set up control of the point. But if he became the least bit passive or reactive, he was dreadful; he would make unforced errors on balls that he was in perfect position to hit. Of course, Todd proved to be a great player pushing a lot of players around the court with his game.

Second, Elliot makes a good point about hitting to a player's weakness, doesn't mean feeding them setups; it means "all things being equal, you'd be better off playing this shot". Feeding a setup or an easy ball is not "all things being equal".

What I saw in Tsonga in his match with Chardy was that he is demonstrating a lot more patience, playing within himself; that is, showing a willingness to hit a lot more balls that he can hit very consistently while he waits for the chance to be aggressive. And with his natural power, his regular shot is still enough to eventually give him the upper hand against most players, but probably not against Djokovic or Nadal. And almost definitely not against Ferrer. The question becomes whether or not Tsonga can push the level of fireworks up high enough where he becomes the more effective player. I like to say the way the more powerful player, A, beats the more accurate player, B, is A has to be consistent and accurate enough at his higher pace that he can push the weaker(although apparently more consistent and accurate) player into a pace where B is no longer the more consistent and accurate player. Djokovic and Nadal routinely do that to Ferrer, but I don't think Tsonga can do that to him on red clay. But it's close.

don

[bottle]

I vote for "Ferret"

Who is Ferret?
Do you mean Ferrer?

I knew dis girl named Juliet. "What's in a name?" she said. And then, "But Bot, I'm only thirteen!" Just then the cops arrived, carrying a boombox that was blaring an old song from the nineteen-fifties: "Seventeen-and-a-half is s-still jail bait..." They started to carry me off. "But I thought her name was 'Lolita,'" I said.

[don_budge]

Super article...great comments: Shot Tolerance

I really like this concept of shot tolerance as a tool to analyze tennis players, matches, growth etc. What's more is that I really like the fact that it is more or less a tactical concept that of course takes technique factors into consideration. Very interesting...this sort of concept can pretty much be taken to the nth degree as far as expanding upon the premises that Elliot writes about in his article.

This is a really good observation as a derivative of Teltscher's article..."I like to say the way the more powerful player, A, beats the more accurate player, B, is A has to be consistent and accurate enough at his higher pace that he can push the weaker(although apparently more consistent and accurate) player into a pace where B is no longer the more consistent and accurate player."

One thing that I constantly try to emphasize to any tennis student that will listen is that tennis matches are won on a sum total of different aspects of the game. Certainly technique aspects are very important...that is being able to repeat the same motion under a variety of different conditions.

Perhaps the most important of the physical aspects of the game, all things being equal, is the ability to get yourself in position to make a balanced swing at the ball. It appears to me that this is the thing that separates the players at the top level of the game. When you discuss the top players whether it be Agassi, Federer, Djokovic or Nadal in the modern game or if you discuss Connors, McEnroe, Sampras or Borg from the more classic era you realize that the top players were not only extremely quick and mobile but they were extremely nimble and had a knack for getting themselves into position to make a great swing at the ball even if they were off balance or late getting in position. Shot tolerance is an incredible concept when you consider all of the things that can effect the shot tolerance from one player to the next.

This is a good reason that your observations about Ferrer being able to take advantage of his opponent and seizing the initiative and how we may underestimate his ability in this regard. Afterall...David "The Ferret" Ferrer has a ridiculously high shot tolerance and probably only a handful of players out excel him in this regard. Shot tolerance is a tactical concept...in many regards. A tennis player must always be patient and not try to make shots that they don't KNOW that they can make yet they have to recognize when there is an opportunity to seize the initiative and then have the ability to do it. Thanks...don for your discussion and food for thought.

[don_budge]

Ladies and Germs...the match of the Century!!!

The Nadal/Djokovic semi could be the game of the century. If Djokovic gets it right and plays at the top of his game, he will win and there is nothing Nadal can do about it, unless uncle Tony has devised a game plan to combat Djokovic at his best.

It's a massive match. Both men know it. I can't think of a bigger match in the history of tennis other than Federer/Nadal at Wimbledon 2008 and Borg/McEnroe at Wimbledon 1980. The match is that BIG. And it's a semi.

Djokovic was unlucky last year at RG. He was wiping the floor with Nadal and that match was all over had it not been for that rain delay. I guess we cannot say for sure what might have happened...but it looked for all the world like Nadal was going to have his crown legitimately stolen from under nose.

It's quite possibly the most interesting match of the year...I will say that much. But licensedcoach is geeked...he sees something really special in this matchup. I do too...even though it is only the semi's...that only makes it all the more interesting. They are not playing for all of the marbles just yet...they are "only" playing for the right to play for all of the marbles. Last year's match was as compelling as it was riveting. Here are a couple of post's that I wrote and let's see how closely they adhere to the script or if somehow they start improvising.

I agree...Nadal was saved by the rain.

[don_budge]

The 2012 French Open Mens Singles Final...Part 1

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2085&highlight=french+open+2012&page=5

This is a great finish to an otherwise pretty dull tournament. The tennis is all the same. Pound...pound...pound the ball. It is like watching Tiger Woods play golf and using his driver on every shot. Monotonous. Boring.

But when these two heavyweights are going at it...modern tennis takes on its own definition. It is all about power and speed. Whether you like it or not...it is what it is and these two guys just happen to be the best in the world right now at doing this. When they are going at it toe to toe the results are really quite impressive and less predictable than the rest of the herd. They have effectively separated themselves from the herd.

I believed it was the first point of the fourth set that went something like 44 strokes. Quite an amazing point. Each player blistered shot after shot into the others court with neither player giving an inch. Talk about going at it toe to toe. This is when it makes sense to compare this kind of action to heavyweight boxing. When the first point of the fourth set was finally concluded...I thing Djokovic won it, both players were dazed and spent but they immediately were shaking off the effects on their bodies getting ready for the next point...the next exchange. This is after all...heavyweight tennis. No rest for the weary.

Nadal came out of the box in the beginning of the match very quickly and landed a series of thudding body shots on Djokovic. Each time Nadal got a hold of a forehand he made Djokovic pay the price. Like a Smokin' Joe Frazior left...he was repeatedly finding his mark and pounding the Serb into submission. Lucky for Nole...he knows how to take a punch and absorb the blows without submitting. He kept hanging around and persisting...hitting hard to the lefties strength to open up the weaker backhand, which by the way is no picnic to hit to anymore. The Nadal backhand looks to me to be noticeably stronger and it makes me wonder just what it was that he did technique wise to beef it up. Technique freaks? Any thoughts?

Before you know it Nadal is up two sets to none and he appears to have Djokovic on the ropes, setting him up for the knockout blow. Djokovic has become quite the wily competitor against Nadal though and in his mind if he can weather the initial storm the Spanish Conquistador will likely punch himself out after a while, then Djokovic can go to work with his strategy of exposing the weaker backhand of Nadal. He subtly will work the Spaniard over to the forehand then he follows up with a sequence of shots to the backhand pinning him to that side of the court, varying the depth and angle to open up the court for his knockout blows to either side and off either side...which he is very capable of administering as well.

The first point of the fourth set marked a turning point in the match. At this point the Serb has worked the Spaniard from side to side for a couple of hours and there is now just a little less juice on the forehand. After controlling the tempo and flow of the third set now Djokovic has his teeth in the match and he is like a pitbull and he is not going to let go. The fourth set appears to be controlled by Djokovic and some wet and heavy tennis balls, as he is up 2-1 and Nadal can consider himself fortunate to have been granted a reprieve by the rain...otherwise he looked to be on his way out. Djokovic had effectively done a bit of a rope-a-dope on Nadal...weathered the storm for two sets and had come out swinging away as if he had nothing to lose. Just like he said he would. Nadal got a lucky break from Mother Nature.

Going into the day...things could get a bit dicey for both players. Djokovic will need to secure the fourth set and he will have to do it with Nadal having his legs securely under him once again. Last night it appeared that Djokovic was rocking Nadal with everything he had and was about to knock out the Spaniards lights. It looked to be Goodnight Iran for Nadal. Now that he has his legs back under him however it changes things. If he comes out like he did in the first two sets when he was fresh as a daisy it may be the kiss of death for Djokovic. That forehand of Nadal makes an ugly sound off his racquet when he hits it flush...it sounds as if all of the air in the stadium is being sucked out of it. The vacuous forehand. Ugly as it looks and sounds it is at least as effective as a Smokey Joe left hook on his good days. Just ask Mohammed Ali how good it was.

Djokovic really has his work cut out for him. He worked really hard to set Nadal up for the knockout in the fifth set but now he will not have that luxury. He has to pick up right where he left off. There isn't any time for any cute stuff now. He has to play like he has nothing to lose from the get go and not let up. Neither of these guys thinks he is going to lose this match. I give a slight upper hand to Nadal...with his break from the overnight delay. But I wouldn't rule out the Serb...in his quest for a fourth Slam title in a row. He doesn't want to let that prize get away from him. He may never be in that position again and it took a Herculean effort to get there.

Stay tuned for Part 2. Finally some drama!

[don_budge]

The 2012 French Open Mens Singles Final...Part 2

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2085&highlight=french+open+2012&page=5

I think don_budge is right, the game is getting monotonously powerful. The only way I can think of to combat this would be to reduce the head sizes of tennis rackets...maybe by ten square inches each year until we get back to around 75 square inches. I cannot think of any other solution....can you?

The problem is there is no substitute for power. You have to take power away from the game if you want to have artistry and all court play back again.

I have to admit that I did not see the conclusion. Just in case you are interested I had to take the car to the garage for some bad news and I gave my golf coach a tennis lesson and then we had lunch before I had to return to the little club in the small conservative town Skultorp in Sweden...The Skultorp Tennis Club. It is a quaint little club...but it has a magic all of its own. I guess that I sort of have something to do with that. Do you believe in magic?

I am not so sorry that I missed the conclusion. The rain delay screwed up everything. Djokovic had Nadal on the ropes and the only thing that saved the Spaniard's ass...was the rain. The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain...but this time it fell on the Serbian Djokovic's parade or something to that effect. The match as it stood on Sunday evening was going to come down to a fifth set and wouldn't it of been something if it was even more exciting than the Aussie Final between the same two contestants. Each match between these two seems to get bigger and bigger. Fantastic stuff. I actually can appreciate the athleticism llll and 10splayer. Great stuff.

Let me say something about the tactical play of Djokovic. It was a very interesting question that my fellow Swede Mats Wilander asked him in an interview on his "Game, Set and Mats" program that airs on the ESPN of Europe...Eurosport. Mats was asking him about how he develops his tactics for matches against specific opponents and our Serbian Star gave him a nice account of his coach, some other advisors, studying films of previous matches and the like. But the concluding comment that he made was a tell all...he said that in the end...at the end of the day it is him who is on the court all by himself and it was he alone who would bear the responsibility for his tactical approach. Well this comment made me like the young man a bit more for his mature outlook on a very important aspect of our beloved game. Tactics.

Over the spread of a five set match I really admire his approach to taming the Spanish Stallion. It looks to me...and this is based on a spread of a number of finals that I have seen between the two, that Djokovic is very comfortable using a bit of a "rope-a-dope" against the left handed slugger. The "rope-a-dope" for those too young to know about this strategy, was employed by the legendary boxer Mohammed Ali against the likes of George Foreman and Joe Frazier. Basically Ali would lay back against the ropes in the boxing ring and more or less beckon his adversary to punch themselves out as he did nothing but deflect the majority of their punches into harmless deflections. After a number of rounds of throwing punches at the sly and hard to tag Ali, the fighters inevitably found themselves suddenly gasping for air and then found themselves horrified that a suddenly rejuvenated Ali was doing a tap dance all over there heads and bodies. Over the course of a fifteen round heavyweight boxing match if you somehow underestimate how much energy you have depleted while your opponent has somehow been pacing himself and saving his energy you might find yourself taking a terrific ass kicking when you discover you don't have any legs under you.

This is what it appears Djokovic sort of employs against Nadal. Usually early in the match he plays the ball to the forehand and strength of Nadal. He ends up taking it a bit on the chin as a result but he is getting a lot of "work" out of his opponent as well. But gradually once he gets Nadal leaning to his left to the forehand side, he starts to work the ball over to the backhand and then either back to the forehand or some combination of shots back on the backhand. Sooner or later he is able to pin the Spaniard down over on the backhand with a combination of angles, depth, spin and speed and as Nadal begins to tire a bit, now Nole has choices...he can choose which side he wishes to exploit. It is amazing how that later in the matches how much he actually exploits the Nadalian forehand. He is rather cunning...our boy Djokovic is.

Well the rain saved Raphael Nadal on Sunday. Djokovic had started slowly but he was employing some sound tactics at the same time. As in heavyweight boxing the object of the game of tennis it to be around when the final blow has been struck...match point that is. Djokovic was on track, I believe, to doing just that. He had Nadal on the ropes and he was tracking him with angles and deep balls on the backhand, just hanging around to apply the coup de grace, the knockout blow. Match point. Tactically he has taken modern tennis to a new level of efficiency. His ability to maneuver and manipulate his opponents makes him nearly unbeatable. Talk about his technique all you like...when it comes down to it...it's the tactics that make the final impression upon your opponent. That being said he has the soundness in his technique to carry out his objectives and the combination of the two T's make him virtually unbeatable. Tactics and technique...not necessarily in that order. Only Nadal can challenge him when he has his best stuff. Roger Federer is toast against him in a five set match.

I think that the final saved the tournament though. Up until that point it was as if you had to invent something interesting to think about to hold your interest. I kept thinking about what are they eating over there in Gay Paris. I kept looking at the girls, I mean the women. But just as in heavyweight boxing...here you had the two marquis names in the game (excluding an aging Roger Federer) and they really delivered. It would of been a different ending if the rain had not interrupted things on Sunday but that is afterall only my opinion. But even the fact that the rain did fall on their parade made it a bit more interesting to boot. Coming out today presented a whole different matrix of problems and possibilities after the rain delay. The end result was predictable. Nadal got his legs back under him and he was able to finish his business. He virtually knocked out the Wily Serb with a combination of blows...usually concluded with a forehand. Simple as that. And I didn't even see it today. Am I right? Of course I am.

[stotty]

I agree...Nadal was saved by the rain.

I have been steering around the words "agree" and "disagree" ever since you disagreed with their use....and then you go and agree with me.

I wonder which clay surface best suits Nadal and Djokovic best? The bounce is high and quite fast since the courts have been drying out. I wonder which player this suits most. I would have thought Nadal, but I'm not sure...thoughts?

[don_budge]

I said it...but I didn't really mean it.

It's true that I did say..."I agree" and you really impress me with your reading the details. Afterall...whatever I say can and will be used against me which is why I try to be as irrefutable as possible.

I agree...Nadal was saved by the rain.

But I did say this over a year ago...so technically I sort of took it that you were agreeing with me...so I was acknowledging your wisdom to acknowledge an irrefutable fact that I concluded upon. It rained. It bailed the Spaniard out. It gets complicated...unless you just state the facts as you see them. Let the chips fall where they may. State the case then hold your peace. But then again this is only my take on things here...nobody has to agree...or disagree. This is why it is meaningless to agree or disagree about things related to tennis. It's not a game of perfect afterall.

Well the rain saved Raphael Nadal on Sunday.

The whole business of agreeing and disagreeing is a mute point here where everyone enjoys the right to express themselves. The freedom of speech that we used to enjoy as a constitutional right in the United States of America...before the era of "political correctness". You are either with us or against us...he said. As if that made any sense at all.

[don_budge]

In the end...Nadal again.

After it is all said and done...it was Nadal once again. Was that final of Nadal and Ferrer anticlimactic or what? About as foregone as it gets.

Funny...I was watching something on youtube...some commented that Nadal isn't playing tennis...he is playing "forehand". A bit simplistic but true as well. Everything about his game is rock solid...solid enough to support the foundation of his game. The forehand.

I only got to see the beginning of his semifinal with Djokovic. Will someone please tell me what is the wisdom behind the seeding scheme? Once again...we are cheated out of the spectacle of what should have been the final by watching the match that should have been...in the semis. It must have been some kind of match...although it sounds like it was more or less a repeat performance of 2012 without the rain delay.

Tennis matches are not won or lost on the basis of one shot by the way. Perhaps one shot more or less exemplifies the theme of the match but in no way are tennis matches decided by one shot. Tennis players simply do not allow that sort of thing to happen. Blown opportunities are part of the game and are a part of every match. Perhaps not so dramatically as a rare falling into the net but nonetheless...they are all part of the ebb and flow of a match.

The real thing that lost the match for Djokovic was his inability to execute his tactical objectives effectively and this is because of his inability to play his forehand reverse crosscourt as well as he would have liked. I say this by the accounts that I have read about the match and from what I saw in the beginning. In the beginning Djokovic was unable to move Nadal over off of the backhand side to effectively exploit his weaker side. When you say weaker side and refer to something about Nadal's tennis game you understand that the term is only relative because there is nothing really weak or suggestively weak about that backhand. He hits amazing shots off of that side too. Djokovic was just not sharp enough to execute...but he battled. He was off just enough that the breaks tipped in Nadal's direction. In the end...Nadal finished him off in good fashion. Applying the loving touch as a matador planting the blade swiftly and mercifully between the shoulder blades straight into the heart.

There were those that wrote Nadal off when he lost in Monte Carlo but I saw in his post match words that he was merely saying to Novak...I will see you in Paris. For all of the marbles. That is exactly what he did. He measured his steps brilliantly all along the way...his team has managed his "comeback" brilliantly. Who knows...maybe the whole injury thing was contrived. It doesn't matter. The trophy is on the mantle. That match wasn't lost on one shot...that is really silly to even say. Djokovic was bludgeoned into submission by the forehand of Nadal because he was unable to execute his tactical mission. It wasn't his day.

Then the final was just a foregone conclusion. Now it is off to Wimbledon...watch for more brilliant preparation from the Nadal camp. They are taking a page from Djokovic's brilliant year...they are learning from each other. Much of the battle is won in the preparation. Two huge champions eyeballing each other every step of the way. Studying every move like a cat watching its prey.

[bottle]

Cool. Did you notice how no one else wanted to touch it?

[jbill]

Roland match analysis

Don_budge,

Would you mind explaining what you mean when you say Djokovic lost to Nadal because of his, "inability to play his forehand reverse crosscourt as well as he would have liked?" And could you explain a little bit more about what you believe Djokovic's tactics were in general to beat Nadal?

Yes, it is strange that tournament authorities put Nadal and Djokovic in the same bracket because I don't believe there was any rule that told them they couldn't do otherwise.

jbill

[tennis_chiro]

Flip of a coin on 3/4

Yes, it is strange that tournament authorities put Nadal and Djokovic in the same bracket because I don't believe there was any rule that told them they couldn't do otherwise.

jbill

They could have made a decision to seed Rafa #1 or #2 and disregard the ATP rankings. There wouldn't have been that much objection except from perhaps the Federer camp. The position of the 3rd and 4th seeds is determined by rule to be on a flip of a coin, one goes up or down on that flip and the other goes to the other side.

don

[don_budge]

The other side of Tennis...

They could have made a decision to seed Rafa #1 or #2 and disregard the ATP rankings. There wouldn't have been that much objection except from perhaps the Federer camp. The position of the 3rd and 4th seeds is determined by rule to be on a flip of a coin, one goes up or down on that flip and the other goes to the other side.

don

As much as I love the game...there is another side of it. The human side...where the usual dysfunctional thinking is prevalent. This seeding anomaly is abysmally stupid...a child could think this one through. Here's another one...another example of the human element of tennis.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20067663,00.html