Observations from Federer v. Nadal 2006 Dubai Final

[lukman41985]

It seems to me that one of the shots Federer is trying to develop against Nadal is a high-topspin, high-trajectory down-the-line backhand. We all know how often Nadal likes to play his shots in to Federer's backhand. Well, Federer, I think, uses this shot effectively to switch the direction of the rally back in favor of his forehand. With all the topspin Nadal generates, it's impossible for Federer to hit the down-the-line backhand hard and flat, nor would it be wise because it would open up the crosscourt for Nadal's backhand. It's a great play. I just finished watching the first set, and Federer almost always made this shot. I'll look to see if Federer keeps making it. Did anyone else notice this play?

I am at 3-2, on serve, in the 2rd set. Federer has held convincingly. He converted a breakpoint down 2-1 by staying in the point and hitting that heavy top-spin DTL BH. I am convinced that this is the shot Federer needs to learn to consistently make and be confident in making in order for him to master Nadal. He struggled in the second set mostly because he was not making this shot or hitting backhands crosscourt, which allowed Nadal to come right back crosscourt into Fed's BH. There have been so many instances in the match where he has either missed this shot, sent the BH cross-court ill-advised, try to run around a BH to hit a FH when there wasn't time, etc. He needs to learn to hit this shot to stay in the rally and then, when the ball comes in to his FH, take control. He's not spraying as much as people were implying. He's missing volleys at times, which is inexcusable because most of the passes from Nadal aren't that great, although there were 2 when Nadal was stretched that were ridiculous. However, this is a rare case. I'm really, really sure of the fact that if Federer works to improve his high-trajectory, high-topspin DTL BH, that he can use to sustain rallies, that he can overcome Nadal.

Federer also needs to get better at putting away volleys.

Another problem Nadal causes for Federer is that Federer misses many short FH against Nadal, because in taking them early, he has to deal with Nadal's spin. But, Federer missed far too many short FH and even FH moving to wide balls that weren't actually that wide.

[lukman41985]

Fed's FH volley

I have to say, despite my posting in the forum critiquing Fed's FH volley and his apparent lack of a unit turn with that stroke, he did make most of his FH volleys. Mea culpa?

[shootermcmarc0]

I haven't seen the match, but a lot of people said that in the second set, fed started to attack more and was passed a lot.

[lukman41985]

Well, he was attacking a lot in the first set as well. From my vantage point, Federer just missed makeable volleys in the second and third sets that he wasn't in the first set. I don't think Nadal was passing all the well during the match. He had a couple awesome passes, but other than that, a pretty pedestrian night of passing.

I too read the comments on the TT message boards. I have a different opinion.

I really think Federer is onto something here with those loopy d-t-l BH's. If he can keep working on that and cut down on FH and volley errors, he will swing this rivalry back in his favor.

Oh, and for those of you on the forum who still think Federer has a weak backhand, Safin was asked to compare Federer and Sampras. I'll go ahead and paraphrase what he said, which was, that with Sampras, his backhand could let him down, whereas Federer has it all. His comments were similar to the ones made by Agassi after Andre and Roger dueled at the 2005 U.S. Open Final.

The fact that he has to work on this particular shot doesn't mean he has a weak backhand...at all. I don't know of any one-hander that can do this shot. Maybe Gasquet who has that more extreme grip. I guess Guga could as well. But again, having that extreme grip is a trade-off. If Rog had a two-hander, he could handle it better, but would probably have less variety, not slice as well, and not volley as well. All in all, he doesn't have too much to work on anyway, and I don't think he should feel like he's in some sort of crisis with regard to Nadal. Again, I think he just has to work on a couple of things. He's right there with him.

But, Nadal is a fighter, so I'm sure he'll counter the adjustments that Roger will make. Whatever happens, we are all in for a treat.

[CraigC]

NADAL FEDERER STRATEGIC INSIGHT, or lack thereof!!

Lukman and friends

Thanks for the requestsfor my insight. It appeals to my very humble ego and I am grateful that I can offer any useful advice.

I think you have made a great assessment of Federer's new tactic against Nadal. That backhand DTL is high and heavy and pretty effective. I believe Nadal will counter it by varying the depth of his forehand crosscourt so Fed cannot get a good read on how high it is going to bounce. Because the spin rates (shown this month in John's article on the Nadal forehand) are so extreme, it seems impossible for Fed to do much more than take it DTL using a loop. Additionally, while it does neutralize the rally momentarily, Nada seems better able to recapture the diagonal than Federer does after that shot.
I would have recommended he use the old Graf pattern (backhand chip angle, backhand chip line, to set up his forehand) however it appears that Federer simply cannot bring the ball down enough using the slice. The spin is just too big and the arc too high. If Fed can bring that ball down, I'd like to see a short slice DTL and see how Nadal does coming forward to his backhand side and approaching crosscourt to Fed's forehand.
I am sort of at a loss as to how Roger can avoid that high ball to his bakchand. Agassi said recently that the reason Nadal can beat Roger is that he is the only one that can get the ball up high to Fed's backhand side. I think John's analysis of the Nadal spin rates is more than timely.
So, I believe all matches between Fed and Nadal are going to be close for a long time.
Here are some of the tactical changes I expect in the coming years: Fed should win his serve on the deuce side most often, by using a wide slice. This forces Nadal to hit crosscourt to his forehand on most occasions and Fed can control the point from the outset. If Nadal chooses to hit DTL on the return, Fed is going to hit a slice cross and attack. This means he is hitting the slice off Nadal's backhand and not the forehand and won;t ahve to face the high spin. On the ad side, Fed is going to develop a very short angle kick serve in conjunction with a short slice down the T. The T serve should get him a forehand to start the point, and the very short kicker out wide will allow him plenty of room to switch the rally to his forehand diagonal on the first ball.
Next, on his return game, Fed MUST develop a solid inside-out backhand return on the deuce side. To me, he often hits this ball up the middle and Nadal immediately seizes the control of the diagonal, picking on Fed's backhand. If Roger can create a good inside-out backhand return, that drives Nadal into the doubles alley, it opens up a lot of options (albeit the toughest return in tennis)
On the ad side, Roger is facing Nadal's wide slice and is forced into the worst possible position to start the point. I believe Fed MUST take more chances on this side. Either chip and charge against the Nadal backhand, step back and wide in his return position and force Nadal to serve down the T, rip a backhand up the middle and attack the net, or simply go for the outright winner using his backhand up the line retrun. By concentrating on developing a good deuce side inside-out return, and getting Nadal behind in his service games, Roger sets himself up to try some of these plays.
Lastly, I think Fed should serve and volley more on the ad side using the T serve, Nadal likes the inside-out return and Fed can at least make Nadal pass using his backhand.
Now to Nadal. He is going to develop a great inside-out backhand return on the ad side, one he already hits well and this forces Fed to start that point on his backhand with Nadal in the middle of the baseline. Nadal is simply better at this return than Fed and I think it is a big reason he is getting more breaks.
If Federer is able to create that DTL backhand loop and put Nadal on the run to a high ball, Nadal is going to figure out how to put more spin on his backhand loop and hit it back DTL. OR he may step back and roll a tight angle, pushing Fed way out beyond the doubles sideline and opening up the backhand side for his next shot.
Nadal's onyl real issue is how to win the deuce side point when Roger is serving. He is currently returning that ball down the center but slightly to the backhand side. This is effective as it takes away Fed's angle and forces him to create some great shots (which he does with extraordinary regularity).

OK, sorry to be so long-winded but I had several requests for my take on the FED-NADAL matchup. Looking forward to round 5 at Indian wells.

Craig C

[jhm36]

Good informative posts, people.

I haven't seen Hewitt and Nadal play each other so I can't comment on that, but has someone else seen the matches and can he say if Federer has anything to learn from their head-to-head matches? It's a strange coincidence that the man Federer has beaten nine times in the row is 3-0 against Nadal. Hewitt must be doing something right to take three straight off of him. They weren't easy wins, but somehow Hewitt has been able to manage wins when Federer hasn't. I bet this is at the very least slightly puzzling to all three players. "If I can beat x why can't I beat y?"

Jim

Here are the Hewitt-Nadal results.

2005 Australian Open R16
Hewitt 7 5 3 6 1 6 7 6 6 2

2004 Canada AMS R64
Hewitt 1 6 6 4 6 2

2004 Australian Open R32
Hewitt 7 6 7 6 6 2

[lukman41985]

Good informative posts, people.

I haven't seen Hewitt and Nadal play each other so I can't comment on that, but has someone else seen the matches and can he say if Federer has anything to learn from their head-to-head matches? It's a strange coincidence that the man Federer has beaten nine times in the row is 3-0 against Nadal. Hewitt must be doing something right to take three straight off of him. They weren't easy wins, but somehow Hewitt has been able to manage wins when Federer hasn't. I bet this is at the very least slightly puzzling to all three players. "If I can beat x why can't I beat y?"

Jim

Here are the Hewitt-Nadal results.

2005 Australian Open R16
Hewitt 7 5 3 6 1 6 7 6 6 2

2004 Canada AMS R64
Hewitt 1 6 6 4 6 2

2004 Australian Open R32
Hewitt 7 6 7 6 6 2

Great point. But I think you can throw out the 2004 match-ups. Nadal has become a totally different player since the start of the 2005 season. A possible reason for why Hewitt matches up better against Nadal than Federer, and I'm crediting Craig for this explanation, is that Hewitt has a two-hander that allows him to better handle the high-ball into his backhand and makes it easier for him to return backhands inside-out. Hewitt's backhand is just rock solid. Plus Hewitt doesn't give Nadal the pace that counter-punchers love. Federer, in the Dubai finals, didn't give Nadal much pace either and it was, I think, the best he has ever played against Nadal, even including his only win against Rafael. Rafa just ran out of gas there and lacked the big match experience he now has.

Craig, thanks for your wonderful insights. You're insights have opened my eyes to point construction and strategy. There is so much to think about with not only Federer-Nadal, but in every POINT.

[jhm36]

Yep, you're probably right about the 2004 wins for Hewitt being problematic. The Canada win was his first hard court tournament in almost 4 months and came off a few clay court tournaments. The 2004 Australian Open, however, I think should still stay in consideration because it came right after Nadal made it all the way to the finals in Aukland. And let's not forget that Nadal did beat Federer in 2004.

And speaking of that first match up between Federer and Nadal, I just finished watching the frist set, which Nadal wins 6-3 with two breaks and facing no breaks on his own serve, that Federer was clearly out of sorts and not moving well. As usual, missing some relatively easy volleys or else punching the ball right back to him, and by the end of the set Nadal actually won more points at the net than Federer did.

And as Craig point out, that inside-out backhand return up the middle to Nadal's forehand is just a bad play that allows Nadal to really take control of the point. Even when Federer did try to take it out wide, it seemed like Nadal was expecting it and was able to run around and hit a big forehand back to Federer's backhand. He's got to get more pace on that return and a sharper angle. And Federer was certainly winning some points by setting up his forehand with backhands deep down the line as has been pointed out on the thread.

On the last break of of serve, I counted 4 unforced errors by Federer. Sound familiar?

I haven't seen the Dubai final yet, but just looking at the stats you can see that Federer won almost every statistical catagory. By most numbers he was out-playing Nadal, except in those obvious exceptions, the two 4-4 games when he was serving in the last 2 sets. From what I can tell by the stats and what's been writen about the match, this was the best he's played against Nadal. That's a good thing.

[lukman41985]

The 2004 Federer v. Nadal match-up shouldn't be given a lot of weight in terms of analysis. Federer was very sick that day. I don't know if you knew that.

Good point about Nadal being able to pick up the inside out backhand return from Federer off the deuce side. This kid is so aware, that it shouldn't surprise any of us.

Also, if you do get a chance to watch the Dubai final, Federer makes 3 unforced errors off the forehand at 4-4, and subsequently gets broken. No excuse for that when you have arguable the greatest forehand ever. Or is that too harsh?

It's nice to see some lively discussion about strategy for once. Again, I'll thank Craig for that.

[jhm36]

Oh yeah, I knew Federer was sick. He was clearly not feeling well in the Davydenko match just before this one. He also clearly had physical problems at the 2005 Nasdaq. Kind of unlucky that way.

Still, I do think we can learn a few things from this 2004 match about how Federer and Nadal play each other. Not brain surgery, as they say, but Federer is clearly trying to play to Nadal's backhand and Nadal is clearly going after Federer's. Federer is having trouble with returning to the lefty and he's also having trouble putting away points at the net, and making a fair amount of unforced errors with his forehand. Oh, and let's not forget that just prior to this match he and Allergo had just lost a doubles match against Nadal and Roberdo at Indian Wells, so they did know something about each other before this match. This wasn't entirely new ground being broken.

I'm about to watch the second set now and expect more of the same.

[lukman41985]

jhm,
Didn't know about the Nadal-Robredo vs. Federer-Allegro doubles match. Thanks for the info and some good points! Nice to see top players working on their doubles, huh? Which got me thinking about Craig's point about Federer needing to work on his inside-out backhand return from the deuce court. This is a shot that is important for doubles as well. So maybe Rog should be playing even more doubles?

[jhm36]

Just a quick note about the 2004 Miami match in case others haven't seen it. Nadal played great, serve at nearly 80 percent, won a high percentage of points at the net. He'd often come in behind one of those monster forehands to Federer's backhand and just knock that defensive slice cross-court for a winner.

Federer put no pressure on Nadal's serve and unless I missed it, he never had a break point or even a deuce game against Nadal! How many times can that have happened to Federer since the US Open of 2003? Two points was all he could manage in any Nadal service game. Federer was certainly not in good shape, poor footwork, and slowed down from illness.

The game Federer was broken in during the middle of the second set, he lead 40-0! How did Nadal manage to pull off the break? You guessed it: good defensive play getting the ball back making Federer hit extra shots and then a number of unforced errors from Federer. Nadal won five straight points that way.

Nadal looked good enough to beat a lot of players that day. If he was playing like that in his Hewitt matches of 2004 then Hewitt must have been playing pretty good tennis in order to beat him. Pure speculation at this point because we've yet to hear from anyone who has seen those matches.

[jhm36]

I think it's interesting that we have to do a fair amount of speculation as to how Federer can attack and beat Nadal on hard courts partly because of how few times Nadal has come up against the best of the hard court players. We're not sure what can work against Nadal because he hasn't meet a staggering amount of the best hard courters in the last couple of years. Anyone every really looked a list of people he has never played? Here it is: Safin, Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Haas, Davydenko, Kiefer, and just for the fun of it let's throw in Santoro as well.

On hardcourts he's played Roddick once and lost, but beat him on clay. Agassi once and beat him. Lost to Hewitt three times. Lost to Blake in their only meeting.

He is 2-1 against Ljubicic, but that probably should be 1-2 considering the conditions and collapse of Ljubicic in the best of five Madrid final in which Ljubicic only lost 5 games in the first two sets. I'll have to go back and take a look at that match.

I hope this year is different from the last and that Nadal plays more hardcourt events in which he meet the other best hardcourters. We'll get a better understanding of his hardcourt game and just where he may be heading as far history goes. Great player, no doubt, but there's also no doubt that he hasn't been fully tested on hardcourts yet, even if he is 2-1 against Federer on the surface.

[CraigC]

One Night Stands!!

I'm realizing more and more that these posts are like intense short relationships. Great for a few nights and then nothing left to say after the...well you know. C'mon heavy hitters...JUMP IN...we are talking about #1 AND #2 in the world. There must be more to say on this subject, even if it is total disagreement. UGH...perhaps you are just smoking the proverbial cigarette and relaxing.....

CC

[jhm36]

One night stands. Ha, that's funny. Let's see if I can do my part to keep this troubled relationship alive by making a phone call full of dry facts and general statements.

So here's my big general statement, and an obvious one at that: Federer has got to cut down on his unforced errors against Nadal. He's giving away too many points. Of course, giving away is a bit of an overstatement because Nadal's game, his heavy spin and ability to return balls that would normally win a point, cause people to mishit and go for tougher shots, and driving up the unforced error count.

I crunched some numbers this morning and in the Nasdaq 2005 and French 2005 Nadal won 50 percent of his total points off Federer's unforced errors. Federer on the other hand only got 31 percent of his points off Nadal's unforced errors.

I haven't see the Dubai final yet, the dude who was supposed to send me a disc of it hasn't yet, but from what I saw written about it on the net Federer's unforced errors really swung his own service games Nadal's way. Any one have the unforced errors stats for this match? Cut those out, and it seems like he had a chance to send the sets he lost to tie breaks.

Want more stats? Nadal's foe's ended up giving him on average 45 percent of his total points at the French on unforced errors, but Federer gave him a little more at 50 percent. Federer was committing a higher percentage of unforced errors than the other guys. What's up with that?

Here's an odd Nasdaq 2005 stat: Nadal won 60 percent of his points off unforced errors. Wow. I haven't counted beans like this before but that seems like a crazy high number to me, winning more points off unforced errors than he did at the French. Schuettler in a two set match, with tie-break, committed 56 unforced errors, or fully 70 percent of Nadal's points. Ljubicic committed 69 in a three set match (one tie-break) or 60 percent of Nadal's points. I've never seen a number unforced errors that high for a 3 set match. Federer gave up 74 unforced errors or 49 percent of Nadal's points, so even though it looks like he's making an insane amount of unforced errors in those first three sets, he ended up actually doing better than most

Seems pretty clear that to stay in a match with Nadal you've got to cut down on your unforced errors. I haven't seen any numbers for the Hewitt matches, but I've like to compare the unforced errors from those matches. I'd like to see how Nadal does when people can manage to cut down on the unforced errors. Are those the sets and matches he losses? I know Blake only had 27 unforced errors at the US Open, or 28 percent of Nadal's points? Connection? Why did Blake have half the percentage of unforced errors that Federer averaged at the French and Nasdaq 2005 matches? What can Federer learn from Blake, as well as Hewitt?