ATP World Tour Finals - London

[don_budge]

The case for a bigger racquet...tactical and technique objectives

This business of playing the ball on the rise I feel is the key to Roger Federer reversing his results against Nadal. Since Roger plays a one handed backhand his bread and butter off the Nadal topspin is going to be slice or drive slice. John McEnroe made Björn Borg's life a bit less happy because of this tactical decision...he moved in on the short topspins and either drove him into the backhand corner or had him lunging forward or off to some acute angle. Listen up Roger...it has nothing to do with anything other than using your head. I can just see him taking that ball early and knifing it down the line Johnny Mac style...then Nadal is looking at either coming back into the Federer forehand or down the line opening up his forehand. If Nadal responds down the line...this is the game that Federer tactically wants him to play. Fed...you need to develop options. Just as Djokovic has created for himself.

It seems that one huge factor in the Novak Djokovic book of tactics on the Rafael "Fafa" Nadal game is his ability to take the ball on the rise when Nadal hits excessive topspin crosscourt into Novak's backhand. Djokovic's ability to step up to the plate and take the ball on the rise and to deliver a solid reply either down the line into the Nadal backhand or back crosscourt is one huge asset that Roger Federer does not have. Ok...so how can Roger use this little blast of white light to implement the necessary tactics in his struggle with Nadal.

A big factor is the racquet. Because Roger uses a racquet that is 10% plus smaller than either of his top three rivals he is at a decided disadvantage in any given situation...especially when an opponent starts to get the advantage in any give exchange. In the case of Nadal's topspin into the Federer backhand it is imperative that Roger somehow has the same ability to step forwards and take the ball on the rise ala Djokovic.

In Roger's case one extremely important scenario in said circumstance will be his moving forwards and using some form of slice or drive slice or even a chop into the Nadal backhand...or even back into the forehand. Since the ball is rising off of the bounce it is traveling somewhat faster than it would be after the bounce peaks where Roger is currently trying to play this shot even after giving up precious real estate by retreating backwards or by moving laterally instead of moving up and either attacking or even just playing somewhat more aggressively. The point being made about the slice aside...with a larger racquet he should be able to drive more effectively as well...especially if he draws Nadal off balance on either side where he get a lesser vicious swipe at the ball due to the neutralizing tactics. As witnessed by the success of Djokovic's tactics.

Since the ball is going faster on the rise you use the same logic as when you are volleying...since the ball is traveling faster you use a shorter and more compact swing in order to hit that ball in the sweet spot of the string bed. You use the speed of the rising ball to repel it back with speed and control...using a somewhat shorter swing. It only stands to reason that with more area to work with your chances of hitting said sweet spot are better. Remember how John McEnroe used to step up and play the backhand with virtually no backswing and knife the ball into the corners or at acute angles dissecting his opposition into muddled masses of confusion. He sometimes even seemed to use a volley like stroke.

You see...this is what Bill Tilden meant when he wrote: Never change a winning game and always change a losing game. Federer has been forever attempting to drive back into the scythe of the Nadal grim reaper of a forehand...and forever it has never worked. It's boring to watch him butt his head against the wall without truly considering other options. Stubborn is one thing...stupid is another. Well...it's an idea. An option. You can see that Djokovic has options and that is what tactics are all about.

Adjusting on any give day, in any given match to the relative strengths and weaknesses of your opponent as they relate to your own relative strengths and weaknesses. These adjustments are experiments in a sense until you find something that is viable and something that works. Federer has demonstrated that he still has game...I just wonder, does he still have an untapped reservoir of undeveloped potential. I believe that he does...based upon what I have observed.

Roger needs to take a page out of the book...How to Play Winning Tennis against Fafa Nadal by Novak Djokovic...and take the ball on the rise on the backhand side. Roger vs. Fafa Phooey is basically John McEnroe vs. Björn Borg playing in the mirror. Things are basically reversed...the one hand backhand artist is a right hander against a left handed topspin forehand robot with a two handed backhand. By accomplishing this he will add a plethora of tactical options into his strategy or at the very least realize them...but does he have the brain trust to advise him accordingly. Someone to connect the dots. John McEnroe...or don_budge. Take your pick.

Hey look Mom...no software!

[GeoffWilliams]

Why is joker better?

His movement and balanced footwork, and robotic calmness under pressure on important points has not been matched by anyone in the entire world. Berdych, take lessons! His feet are always so calm and still once he gets set, and his shots are so robotically controlled, in racquet path. He's the only guy I've ever seen able to improve while getting stiffer and more careful.

Federer's feet are bad by comparison, esp. his lifting bh hitting foot out front as it lifts up before hitting his shot, not after like Wawrinka, which lifts his head, degrounds him, robs power and consistency. He just does not stay planted, but lifts his heel up too soon! It's a sign of lack of confidence in the shot, just as it is on every other shot. Those who stay grounded (joker), until the ball is gone, are way steadier under awful pressure than those who don't.

[stotty]

Wawrinka's serve and Djokovic's most unique quality

Great analyses. To go back a couple of matches-- Wawrinka-Djokovic-- there was another weakness in Wawrinka's game along with the one cited by klacr: percentage of first serves in. 65 per cent, Djokovic, 40 per cent Wawrinka right in the middle of the match according to the two announcers who told me that. Wawrinka has a formidable serve but I wonder about the last-minutedness of all of his concentrated serious action. Power yes, but maybe this serve would be more reliable if more conventionally spread out.

Wawrinka has a strange serve...not much rotation compared to others. In a way it reminds me of Roscoe Tanner's but with a higher ball toss. Tanner's is actually far better as the weight transfer is more fluid in my view. One shudders to think how fast his serve would be moving with today's modern rackets and strings.

Djokovic is an interesting study. I was walking the dog earlier today and was churning Djokovic over in my mind. What makes Djokovic so exceptional? What characteristic sets him most apart from others...others in history even? I came to the conclusion it's about momentum. Momentum is what matches are all about, not statistics. Most matches with most players have a gradual ebb and flow. Not with Djokovic. Djokovic can stop momentum in its tracks and reverse it at warp speed. With most players we get ebb and flow. With Djokovic we get seismic shifts. We get huge shifts in momentum. I came to the conclusion this is remarkable and could think of no other player in the history of the game with anything like this quality.

[bottle]

Great analyses. To go back a couple of matches-- Wawrinka-Djokovic-- there was another weakness in Wawrinka's game along with the one cited by klacr: percentage of first serves in. 65 per cent, Djokovic, 40 per cent Wawrinka right in the middle of the match according to the two announcers who told me that. Wawrinka has a formidable serve but I wonder about the last-minutedness of all of his concentrated serious action. Power yes, but maybe this serve would be more reliable if more conventionally spread out.

[klacr]

To sum it all up...Djokovic was awesome.

Nadal was 2nd best.

Federer was entertaining and frustrating all at the same time.

Wawrinka gained more fans and reminded us of what a beautiful one-hander looks like. Also exposed the glaring weakness that is his forehand chip return

Juan Martin del Potro let chances slip away in that Federer match.

Ferrer and Gasquet were overmatched and looked tired.

Berdych showed his game...but not enough when it mattered against Nadal.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

I saw from 2-1 in the second...

Here are the links for the charts I made of the Rafa/Djoker match.

The dots are the approximate locations of the serves. Legend is at the bottom of the chart. After that it is pretty self explanatory.

Set 1:

http://imageshack.com/a/img199/5543/i8qq.jpg

Set 2:

http://imageshack.com/a/img543/756/t297.jpg

Hope this works!
don

Thanks for the serve location stats. If I understand it correctly...lots of serves to Nadal's backhand on the deuce court? I missed the first set due to work but saw from 2-1 in the second. I'll watch the first set on tape later.

From what I saw, Nadal was being strewn all over the place, just like in 2011. Novak did not retreat one iota from Nadal's' forehand in to his backhand. He took balls very early at time to ensure this, and missed none that I saw.

Nadal served brilliantly when facing break points down in the second set. His serving in the second set at critical moments stopped it being a complete rout. I thought Nadal was off and didn't play well at all. He was forced to play on instinct and ended up retrieving and in the end seemed to have no game plan. He kept fighting as usual and had a glimmer to break in the final game.

The bottom line for me was Nadal simply couldn't get a foothold in the rallies. Novak served really well and was utterly sensational. I saw none of the customary lapses he sometimes has. He served superbly in that second set. But Nadal's form seemed under par to me.

I agree with don_budges tactical assessment. Novak and his coaching team know exactly how to play Nadal. They know if Novak can execute x, y, and z the match is in the bag. I'm growing more respectful of Djokovic by the day.

[don_budge]

Dictating Play...How to Play Winning Tennis by Novak Djokovic

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article/music-videos/

How do you stop losing? You beat your opponent to the punch. You dictate play. That's how. Gee...maybe I should suggest to GeoffWilliams that in his "How to Stop Losing" thread. On second hand...I think I will skip it. I don't want to interrupt his train of thought. I hate it when someone interrupts me when I am listening to the birds sing anyways. Carry on!

It's unfortunate in a sense that Novak Djokovic is playing in the era of modern tennis because this guy really has some serious assets going for him. Unfortunate in a sense with regards to the discussion about his volleying...he potentially is a gifted player in the forecourt and the net. As it is he won 14 of 16 points at the net by opportunistically taking the initiative and seizing the moment to take matters into his own hands. Opportunity attacks.

Novak Djokovic has Rafael Nadal off balance before the match even began. In the preview interview with Fafa he didn't look so confident. He didn't look so confident in his customary stall for the coin toss. Djokovic has him intimidated...I think he cut down his water bottle juggling act just a tad. He was off balance and couldn't sustain the stalling while Novak was with the two officials glaring at him.

Nadal says that the difference was in the serving? Hey boy...take a reality check. The difference was in the tactics. Djokovic is what you call a tactician. Combine that with a God given talent to retrieve like a chocolate labrador retriever and what you have is The Human Wall. Everything comes back. No dumb shit.

He has an answer for every single ball and 99.9999% of the time it is the correct one. If he cannot seize the initiative he is neutralizing with the next shot in mind. He will always return a defensive shot where the opponents next offensive shot is already thought of and taken into consideration. He rarely spends more that two shots on the defensive...tactically he is a genius in reversal of fortune.

His strokes are incredibly sound of course but he doesn't try to make shots that he doesn't know that he can make. When Nadal is attacking him deep into the backhand with the other worldly topspin he doesn't panic...he calculates. He calculates just how much he can move forward in order to hit the ball on the rise before it gets into his discomfort zone. When he is making his move forwards he is gauging what he is going to do with the ball and he has options based upon his tactical plan and what he has Nadal suspecting he will do based upon his most recent shot history.

If he has played to the forehand he changes it up to the backhand. If he has played to the backhand he plays to the backhand. If he has played it deep he might play the angle. Or none of it will hold true and he is in the process of wrong footing him. He has options because it is him who is dictating play and he is dictating play because he has his opponent off balance...while he maintains his. Take for example some of the easier forehands that Djokovic might get during the course of a point...instead of pounding for a winner all of the time and becoming predictable he will roll a sharp angle to the Nadal backhand taking him completely off of the court...mixing up the depth and pace. He always has Nadal guessing and Rafael doesn't get his feet under himself nearly as often as when he is playing the rest of the opposition.

This is how you win...you tactically eliminate you opponents strengths and exploit his weaknesses. The weakness in the Nadal game...is the backhand. At the end of the match Nadal was reduced to harmlessly slicing at many of his backhands. What made it harmless slicing is that he was only slicing away with out any tactical objectives clearly in mind. He was on the run...playing pathetic defense. A losing proposition against the tactical objective of Novak Djokovic. Djokovic has tactically surgically reduced the Nadal forehand to of little consequence while the backhand was a mere shadow of what it was in the warmup when Rafael actually had some confidence in it. So you see...Djokovic not only physically beats Nadal...he actually outthinks him. Psych. Brains over brawn.

I remember that during the course of the match there was one play that I loved in particular...it was sheer genius. Nadal had Djokovic in total defense position on his forehand side so what does the Tactical One do? He slides an underspin forehand cleverly placed deep into the Nadal backhand court completely neutralizing things with one well placed shot. Without trying to knock the cover off of the ball. He almost volleyed the ball off of the bounce. He did it three or four times. Smart dude.

This business of playing the ball on the rise I feel is the key to Roger Federer reversing his results against Nadal. Since Roger plays a one handed backhand his bread and butter off the Nadal topspin is going to be slice or drive slice. John McEnroe made Björn Borg's life a bit less happy because of this tactical decision...he moved in on the short topspins and either drove him into the backhand corner or had him lunging forward or off to some acute angle. Listen up Roger...it has nothing to do with anything other than using your head. I can just see him taking that ball early and knifing it down the line Johnny Mac style...then Nadal is looking at either coming back into the Federer forehand or down the line opening up his forehand. If Nadal responds down the line...this is the game that Federer tactically wants him to play. Fed...you need to develop options. Just as Djokovic has created for himself.

Novak used the volley tactic perfectly. Sixteen trips to the net were instrumental in destroying any rhythm that Nadal hoped to get into during the course of the match. Even the one point that he served and volleyed served a purpose...putting just one more option on the table and one more thing for Nadal to think about.

Some might have been hoping for a longer match to draw out the foregone conclusion...but I was more that happy to get to bed early after watching a tactical clinic that was put on courtesy of Mr. Djokovic. He is still Meteoric! Cerebral too.

[tennis_chiro]

Charts of Rafa vs Nole

Here are the links for the charts I made of the Rafa/Djoker match.

The dots are the approximate locations of the serves. Legend is at the bottom of the chart. After that it is pretty self explanatory.

Set 1:

http://imageshack.com/a/img199/5543/i8qq.jpg

Set 2:

http://imageshack.com/a/img543/756/t297.jpg

Hope this works!
don

[tennis_chiro]

Djoker won 14 of 19 at the net!!!

I just got done watching the final. I charted it and I should be able to get a link up for the point by point chart shortly. Have to remember how I did that.

But the 14 of 19 points Djoker won going to the net were definitely significant. If he'd stayed back on a couple of those points, Nadal and he would still be running down those balls. The point for his second break at 3-4 in the first set was ended with a nice forehand volley. Unreal point. The histrionics was all before the volley, but the volley made the histrionics count. And by comparison, Nadal won just 4 of 6 points at the net. I also had Djoker down for a nice forehand volley to end the 15-15 point in the third game of the match when Nole actually served and volleyed!

Rafa said the big difference was in their serving and their certainly was a difference there(6 aces and 0 doubles vs 0 aces and 4 doubles). But Rafa made his first 12 first serves in the second set and was still down 1-3. Djokovic's depth was a critical difference. Rafa had a lot of unforced errors on his forehand, but Djoker's depth was a large part of the reason.

don

[klacr]

Let's just call it "artistic license".


Astute observations...from both different angles. Sharp and to the point. Crisp even. I would bet that both of you guys are pretty darn good volleyers. I should say all three of you guys...klacr, licensedcoach and tennis_chiro.

Touche!

Volley is the only thing I have anymore. And a serve. And a backhand. But really, that's all.

As for the volleys, I tell many of my students, both juniors and adults the importance of playing the net. Even the ones that refuse to go up and simply cannot hit volleys soon begin to understand its value. They may not go up as often as they should, but they do. For many of them, I try to get them to "Feel comfortable feeling uncomfortable".

My students may never be Edbergs, but as long as they have the option and see the advantage, it cannot hurt them. The volleys may not be ideal for them, but their presence up their and ability to manage lets them understand how crucial it is. They are out of their comfort zone (baseline) but ok with their new location because of the benefit it can produce. "Feel comfortable feeling uncomfortable".

I feel like this is what Djokovic is doing and starting to understand. It could be better quality but sometimes, its the thought that counts.Volleys will never be his game, but he knows it is a segment of the game that can yield great results if managed correctly.

And yes don_budge, you may have artistic license.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

But I do think he is finishing points off at the net a little better. When you soften up the opposition the way he does, almost anyone should be able to finish the point off, but he wasn't doing that. Agreed, Novak is in big trouble if he starts trying to force his way into the net, but he is actually a little more effective if he takes advantage of the gold plated invitations his shots create for him to take a final shot out of the air, at least part of the time.

And I do give him credit for trying. But, you are right; he better be careful about getting stuck in the front court against any other top players.

don

I do give Djokovic great credit for his exploits at the net. And your posts concur with what I point out in my post, actually.

Interesting the way players are willing to stick up high lobs now and then when Djokovic comes to the net. It's taken them a long time to realize his smash is less than world-class...seems the secret is out now though.

Djokovic served very intelligently against Wawrinka. At break point down in the second he rolled in a slow high kicker...smart...Wawrinka got caught and hit over the baseline. Djokovic placed his serve superbly throughout the match...throughout the last two months in fact.

I find Wawrinka's forehand return is a big weakness of his. He can only block back decent serves (rarely generates a healthy swing) which isn't enough against the top players. Last night Djokovic many times set himself up by serving to Wawrinka's forehand. Wawrinka blocked it back, then Djokovic took control of the rally.

Great thread this...thanks don_budge, tennis_chiro and Klacr.

[don_budge]

I put some words in your mouth...klacr

Let's just call it "artistic license".

If you didnt' say it I was going to. I agree on all points Stotty and tennis_chiro. Thank you.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA (with a little help from don_budge)
Boca Raton

Like any great champion of the game...or any great tennis coach today...Novak Djokovic must be reading tennisplayer.net. What Novak is demonstrating is the essence of the article below...remember this little dandy from August 2012. There was a stretch there starting in August with this article that this site was enjoying some really good writing and producing some really good food for thought. And I mean particularly good because this site has a very consistent high level of articles.

The Opportunity Attack

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...tunity-attack/

How to Incorporate the Approach

https://www.tennisplayer.net/article...-the-approach/

Within the context of Novak Djokovic’s game he has found a way to incorporate these concepts to make him even more effective as a tennis player. He is really becoming a dominant player and only Rafael Nadal looks to be able to seriously challenge him. You saw how routinely he set aside a fairly recent nemesis...Stan Wawrinka.

He just looked too good for Wawrinka today. And over the course of the year, you can see he is coming to the net more and more. Still looks a bit awkward when the reaction time becomes critical, but he is making better and better volleys, especially drop and angle volleys.

He basically is too good for Wawrinka. Stanislov has had a couple of golden opportunities on the big stage to take out the “Meteoric” Djokovic but has failed to do so. The reason? Djokovic is too good. He is too good at every facet of “his” game for Wawrinka to exploit any weakness over the course of any given match...complete to fruition. He cannot sustain the necessary pressure and Djokovic’s volley tactic is one of the many reasons why. He is holding too many cards and he can trump Wawrinka in every suit.

He is doing well at the net for a player who can't volley. I really mean that. He needs to be sure it's a gimme or he's likely to fluff it. Much is made of his success at the net, but it's purely down to him approaching on the right shots...giving him mop up balls...he can manage those.

That said, he is doing well at the net for one of the worst volleyers in living memory. It just shows, come in on the right ball and anyone can do it...

Now that being said...Stotty is absolutely correct too. And this is one of the major fallacies of modern tennis...just how good as tennis players are these guys? I cannot think of a more world's number one tennis player who is as fundamentally a weak volleyer in history as Djokovic. He doesn't even have a serve and volley game...but that being said he doesn't need it the way the game has been engineered. I don’t think that the modern tennis players are that good as in being complete players plus given some engineering changes in equipment, such as racquets and strings...and given some changes in court surfaces these guys just might look like something resembling human.

The grips and swings are not conducive to all-court tennis so it stands to reason that Novak Djokovic is not going to magically appear as some gifted volleyer once he manages a trip to the net for one of his “opportunity attacks”. But he can rather effectively "bunt" the ball into an open space when he gets the perfect "bunny" or "cupcake"...and that is all that he has to do. Nothing more...nothing less.

You know...taking some of this pipe dream into consideration it might be a wise ploy for one of the tactical geniuses on the ATP tour to get him to play balls in the forecourt as low as possible on purpose from time to time...that is if one can effectively get him to play outside of his wheelhouse. Plays such as low slice short to his two hand backhand might just open up some rare opportunities against "The Human Wall".

One must ask themselves what is the fundamental existential question when playing Djokovic...where is my opponent weakest? It certainly isn't on the baseline...is it with regard to Senior Djokovic? Perhaps he is weakest low and short to the two hander and the same to the forehand. So this is where you begin to attempt to exploit. Of course this has to be done with the right combination of shots...or punches if you will. Judiciously. He is just too good to work a one dimensional tactic against...tactics are of course multi-dimensional at this level of the game.

Can't we just give him a little credit for at least trying. No, I guess not. At this level... I've always said if you are going to serve and volley, you have to learn before you are 18 or more likely 16 even though you won't master the skill until well into your 20's. If anyone should be playing more doubles to improve their game, Novak is a good candidate.

And I do give him credit for trying. But, you are right; he better be careful about getting stuck in the front court against any other top players.

don

Djokovic will probably never look or behave instinctually as an avid volleyer in the classic sense but that is not to say that like Jeff Greenwald he will not develop sound tactical maneuvers that enable him to close and finish in his comfort zone. Speaking of comfort zones...I read someplace the other day that "life begins where your comfort zone ends". I liked that as you can well imagine. I guess sometimes I tend to make people uncomfortable which is part of the charm.

But credit aside...give him a nod for making due with what he does. He is simply making a tactical ploy when he goes to the net. Instead of concluding the point predictably from the backcourt as he probably could 99.999% of the time against his current limited competition he is adding an element of surprise that further keeps the opposition “off balance”...which in the end is the name of the game. Draw your opponent off balance and set him up for the knockout.

Astute observations...from both different angles. Sharp and to the point. Crisp even. I would bet that both of you guys are pretty darn good volleyers. I should say all three of you guys...klacr, licensedcoach and tennis_chiro.

Touche!

[tennis_chiro]

If you didnt' say it I was going to. I agree on all points Stotty. Thank you.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Can't we just give him a little credit for at least trying. No, I guess not. At this level... I've always said if you are going to serve and volley, you have to learn before you are 18 or more likely 16 even though you won't master the skill until well into your 20's. If anyone should be playing more doubles to improve their game, Novak is a good candidate.

But I do think he is finishing points off at the net a little better. When you soften up the opposition the way he does, almost anyone should be able to finish the point off, but he wasn't doing that. Agreed, Novak is in big trouble if he starts trying to force his way into the net, but he is actually a little more effective if he takes advantage of the gold plated invitations his shots create for him to take a final shot out of the air, at least part of the time.

And I do give him credit for trying. But, you are right; he better be careful about getting stuck in the front court against any other top players.

don

[klacr]

He is doing well at the net for a player who can't volley. I really mean that. He needs to be sure it's a gimme or he's likely to fluff it. Much is made of his success at the net, but it's purely down to him approaching on the right shots...giving him mop up balls...he can manage those.

His hands are hopeless at the net. Anything intricate and he's had it. He has to volley in straight lines because his hand skills are virtually zero. Murray couldn't believe his luck to see Djokovic wandering in to the net so often in their Wimbledon final. He just popped in low balls to Djokovic as he came in...job done...easy pass to follow.

That said, he is doing well at the net for one of the worst volleyers in living memory. It just shows, come in on the right ball and anyone can do it...

If you didnt' say it I was going to. I agree on all points Stotty. Thank you.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

He just looked too good for Wawrinka today. And over the course of the year, you can see he is coming to the net more and more. Still looks a bit awkward when the reaction time becomes critical, but he is making better and better volleys, especially drop and angle volleys.

He is doing well at the net for a player who can't volley. I really mean that. He needs to be sure it's a gimme or he's likely to fluff it. Much is made of his success at the net, but it's purely down to him approaching on the right shots...giving him mop up balls...he can manage those.

His hands are hopeless at the net. Anything intricate and he's had it. He has to volley in straight lines because his hand skills are virtually zero. Murray couldn't believe his luck to see Djokovic wandering in to the net so often in their Wimbledon final. He just popped in low balls to Djokovic as he came in...job done...easy pass to follow.

That said, he is doing well at the net for one of the worst volleyers in living memory. It just shows, come in on the right ball and anyone can do it...