Nadal Federer Monte Carlo Final

[jhm36]

I haven't seen it yet, but any idea why Federer makes an insane amount of unforced errors against Nadal? Not only are the figures high for Federer but they're up there with the highest I've ever seen anyone make, higher than other players who go against Nadal, that's for sure. Is this just a mental thing, or is there something in Federer's strokes that cause him to make so many errors against Nadal's high-spin rate balls? Could this have anything to do with Federer's reluctance to attack second serves? Has he known for a long time, even before Nadal came on-stage, that he just doesn't have the storke to handle balls spinning at such a high rate of speed? Is he going for more difficult winners and missing the lines? Why not turn it down a bit. Other people have beaten Nadal without playing such low-percentage tennis. Why would Federer think that's the only way to beat him?

Just thinking out-loud here, trying to figure out why Federer makes more errors against Nadal than just about anyone else against Nadal and the most unforced errors Federer makes against anyone else.

UE stats from Nadal's foes at the 2005 RG

Puerta: 54 in four sets or 13.5 per set
Federer: 62 in four sets or 15.5 per set
Ferrer : 43 in three set or 14.3 per set
Grosjean: 50 in four sets or 12.5 per set
Gasquet: 46 in three sets or 15.3 per set
Malisse: 42 in three sets or 14 per set.
Burgmuller: 40 in three sets or 13.3

See what I mean? Federer made more unforced errors per set and in total than any other person Nadal went against. I don't track these things with other players, but that seems down-right bizarre to me. Anybody heard of this happening with Sampras or Mac or Borg of Lendl, etc? Any former number one who constantly commited a crazy amount of unforced errors against someone else? What about Agassi against Sampras? Did Agassi's unforced errors go up against Sampras? What about Sampras against Krajicek, lossing 6 of 10?

[stroke]

I saw the match, and my take on Roger is he is just going to make errors on clay. If you look at all the recent French Open champs, Muster, Moya, Kuertan, Sergui Brugera, Juan Carlos Ferrero, one time champs Albert Costa and Gaudio, and certainly Nadal, they are all at their best on clay, and play the typical grinding, war of attrition type on game on clay. Fed is not this kind of player, but as his best, as he was vs David Ferrer in the quarters, he almost reinvents modern clay court tennis. I don't know if he can play like that for 3 out of 5 sets against a nightmare clay court opponent like Nadal. Nadal is just the best at doing it right now. He is very solid off both sides, a lot of spin(room for error on his shots) and probably has the best court coverage of any pro, on clay or anything else. He is tireless and relentlessly fights for every point. That is a recipe for winning on clay. Federer really did not play badly. He had about 65 winners and 75 errors or so. Nadal had about 45 winners and 40 or so errors. Federer clearly is going to have to have to just have more winners than errors to have a chance against Nadal, probably significantly more, but a lot of those Fed errors are just the result of several succesive big shots from Nadal, Fed just gets to the point where he is going to hit a winner or a error, he knows Nadal will hit balls all day. You got to think if any non-traditional clay court player can ever win the French Open, it will be Federer. Sampras really had no chance.

[jhm36]

Hi Stroke,

Thanks for the detailed reply. Yeah, I guess we shouldn't be surprised that Federer would lose to such a clay court bull dog as Nadal. He's surely the best on clay, with Federer, from what I can tell the second best with his non-traditional style of clay court game. I actually like watching Federer and Gonzalez slug it out on clay, both trying to hit each other off the court rather than grind out the points.

In the French Open Federer had 41 winners to 62 unforced errors, while Nadal had 27 winners to 32 unforced errors, so it looks like both were going fot bigger shots this time around on clay.

I checked some more stats on the French Open and Federer did break Nadal more times than any other person, though Puerta had more chances, and Ferrer had the same number of chances. So in some way that style of play is producing results. But in a way it's not because Nadal is getting just about half his points off Federer from unforced errors. Hard to win a match with those kinds of numbers.

[mntlblok]

Federer vs. Nadal Monte Carlo

I haven't seen it yet, but any idea why Federer makes an insane amount of unforced errors against Nadal?

I've watched part of it. My sense was that Federer banged a ton of balls into the corners as approach shots that against most mortals would have set up easy putaways, if not clean winners. Nadal, however, not only ran a ton of them down, but often hit incredible passes off both sides.

Also, one thing that unforced error stats doesn't address is how many shots you hit that *weren't* unforced errors nor winners. Especially on clay, with many rallies lasting many, many strokes, the unforced errors could actually add up to a rather small percentage of the strokes actually hit. And, Federer, in the part of the match that I saw, was hitting a very high percentage of his strokes very aggressively, and *making* the vast majority of them. Anything even remotely short that he got on the forehand, he took what looked to me like a very risky whack at it. The results of those blasts were very often incredible defensive plays by Nadal. Federer also hit some dandy drop shots that Nadal ran down and did incredible things with.

Anyway, I thought Federer played great. Nadal is just a defensive monster.

BTW, Coria's yips with the serve is hard to watch. He served at 5-2 and 5-4 against Kiefer in the first set. At 5-4, he served *four straight* double faults. Incredibly, he still won the match.

Kevin

[stroke]

Jim,

Clearly, you are a stat guy, and one can't ignore the numbers. What I notice is in these top tier clay court wars, Nadal seems to end up with slightly more winners than errors, not particularly high in either, just brutal clay court tennis. His numbers seem similar to Agassi's hard court numbers, when he is/was at his best. Like Kevin said, he is a defensive monster, but it may be more appropriate to call him a clay court monster, kind of like Muster at his best, with much better movement. And even though Nadal's serve is not really a weapon, on clay, with a good amount of spin and kick, it is certainly adequately effective. Like Kevin mentioned, poor Coria. Coria is probably one of the best 5 clay courters in the world, even with that serve. If he could just serve as well as Nadal, who knows?

It just goes to show me once again how unbelieveably difficult it is to win all 4 of the majors on the 3 different surfaces, hard, grass, and clay, in modern tennis. That may be Agassi's single greatest achievement, the only player in modern tennis to do it. I really hope Federer can do it, he is such a great sportsman. I don't consider his plight to win the French reminiscent of Sampras, I just never felt he could win the French, and he only made the semi's one time. Federer's pursuit of the French reminds me of Lendl's pursuit of Wimbledon. Lendl really made a good run at Wimbledon. He lost 2 finals, and was in the semi's 3 times, he just could not get it done. I was pulling for him to win it, he really put in the effort. Another somewhat sad stat for Lendl was he won 8 Grand Slams, but lost in Grand Slam finals 11 times. His Grand Slam total clearly could have been more impressive.

[mntlblok]

Jim,

Like Kevin said, he is a defensive monster, but it may be more appropriate to call him a clay court monster,

After watching some more of the match, I'm in complete agreement. He showed some major *offense* against Federer, even volleying with complete confidence, and with what looked to me like excellent technique. His hands seem to be as quick as his feet. He even played a number of outstanding drop shots. Ain't nuttin' about him that looks like a 19 year old. Might he be the next Federer?

Kevin B
Savannah

[jhm36]

Stat guy, that's me! I had a baseball background before coming to tennis later in life, so numbers are in my blood.

Nadal just does not give up points with unforced errors. In his RG run of last year everyone had more unforced errors than him, some significantly more. Take Federer. 30 more unforced errors. Take Federer again, other than Gasquet, Federer ended up giving Nadal a high percentage of Nadal's total points at the French. You could argue that Federer gave Nadal a tougher match than anyone else that year Nadal stormed through, but it seems like you could also argue the tradition position that making fewer errors is a good thing, as it certainly is for Nadal. The dude just does not make many unforced errors. A bit like Federer at his best on grass.

So much about this Nadal Federer match up puzzles me. Surely Federer can look back at those dominating wins he's had on grass and the US Open and see how few unforced errors he made, and yet doesn't seem to think the way to beat Nadal is to try to make fewer of them. Or perhaps he is trying to play the same game he always has and just ends up making more either because of a mental thing or Nadal's heavy spin, or Fed's backhand just wearing down, or something.

Nadal as the Austrailian Open Agassi on clay. I like that analogy.

Lendl lost 11 GS finals!? Wow. What a sign of his endurance of will to keep going back over and over again and not breaking down. Thanks for the stat.

[stroke]

Jim,

I see you are really honed in on seeing someone have a lot more winners than errors in a top tier clay court match, and wondering if it is possible for someone like Federer to do this in modern clay court tennis. Actually, it happened in this Monte Carlo Masters Tournament, in the quarters, when Roger played David Ferrer, who I feel is a top 6 clay court player. He has a similar game to Nadal, but his forehand is not quite a heavy, his serve is not quite as good, and he is right handed, so he cannot attack Roger's backhand as well as Nadal. In that match, I felt like Roger reinvented modern clay court tennis for about a set and one half, he was hitting winners everywhere. Toward the end of the 2nd set, he started cooling off, and Ferrer almost got back in the match. His numbers at the end of the match were the best I have ever seen in a world class clay match. At RG, he would have to produce this type of tennis in a 3 of 5 format, a very tall order. If you get a chance to see a replay of Roger's match with Ferrer, do it. I think that is what you are looking for.