First!

Thanks for that post - very enlightening, I learned a lot.

Nice comparison. I neer thought about it that way.
First?

Sorry third! I know this annoys some people, but hey live with it. :)

You're going to have a hard time getting the ladies to stop staring at the picture long enough to read the article, Pete ;)

la Boheme,

Happy New Year! Hope that all is well!

Grant- you are right- LOL! Rafa's too young for me though. He's under 25. : )

Thanks, GVGirl, same to you. Hope to see you again at the USOpen, if not before.

It's funny, Grant, but he looks to me like one of Cowboy Luke's action-hero toys in that shot. . .

Yeah Pete, if you replaced the racket with a sword he'd be all set to vanquish the evil Skeletor.

Come to think of it, if they do a Conan the Barbarian remake, they could do worse . . .

hey! who photoshopped Rafa's face on my body? sheesh...

good god, rafa looks like the incredible hulk right there.

la boheme,
you too! Us Open is 7 1/2 months away. Wow!

Rafa the action figure! What would you call it?

That's funny... before I knew who the comparison was I thought when I saw the photograph that his eyes had that same wild intensity that Connors had when he approached a ball..both driven men alright.

Wow, thanks Pete! That was really informative and really helped me think through some things I have been wondering about. First things first, what a pic! He looks like a Bernini sculpure. Second, and more pertinently, I think Pete hit the nail on the head with his larger point about how Rafa's sometimes awkward technique prevents him from having greater success on all surfaces. What to do about it though? Is that kind of retooling possible at this stage? Are we talking fairly major changes or minor ones? Would a coaching change help? I'm just wondering aloud.

Smee, for all the analysis, I'm more in the "dance with the one that brung you" camp. But i do think that flattening out his shots some of the time might make Rafa more of a threat, especially if he had the inclination, and footwork, to come in. . .

PS - of course I mean "threat to use more of the court". Dude is plenty threatening in the cosmic sense. . .

Another difference also is that Connors was born a lefty, while Nadal was born a righty, and learned to play tennis as a left hander, thus his brain is wired to see things from a righty perspective. He's left-brain dominant, while Connors was right-brained.

Which basically is to say Nadal has an excuse for having a poor lefty serve, and Connors does not.

Also, I think the reason Borg had success on hard courts, where Nadal doesn't, has less to do with "the times" and more to do with two factors. No. 1, Borg was never caught out of position, while Nadal seems to be out of position all the time, despite his quickness afoot, and Borg had a bigger first serve that he could depend on to help him win easy points, and Nadal does not.

Great article. I love coming here because it is helping me develop as a tennis fan. Thanks!

Interesting subject. Too bad Bodo wrote it... In his posts I am tired of jumping back and forth lines halfway through the text, please leave this to Steve Tignor!!

Thanks for this, Pete. Lots to digest.

GV Girl - I'd call him the Spanish Thor in that pic. (Thoro?)

Rolo,

Good one or Mallorcan Muscle Man!

Gee, not so much Bernini... more Hulk Hogan action figure. I think Rafa is pretty attractive in a lot of ways, but that picture is DEFINITELY not one of them.

But the attendant article was really interesting reading.

the thing is, on occasion, when he flattens his forehand out, it is an incredibly effective shot on hardcourts, as is the backhand. but he doesn't use it nearly as much as i think he should. some of it with rafa seems to be mental-- he and toni seem to be aware of the adjustments but in the heat of battle retreats to the comfort zone, way behind the baseline. he's admitted as much. but that might not be giving enough credit to his opponents, such as nalbandian, who force him into that defensive crouch.
i do think you are right with the "dance with who brung you"-- rafa's results speak for themselves and he has had tremendous success on hardcourts.

Most astute comparison. I never really thought of the similarities between Rafa and Jimmy, but now that you bring them up, I can see them clearly.

Jimmy Connors was never one of my favorite players, but you can't deny his achievements. One that stands out in my mind is the fact that he won the US Open on three different surfaces--grass, hard & clay.

This is virtually a Grand Slam in my eyes. Jimmy would have been alongside Rod Laver in having a TRUE Grand Slam if he had not been banned from playing the French Open in 1974. He won every slam that year except the French.

As it has been noted, Laver's Slam was when 3/4 were played on grass. At least Jimmy proved himself as an all surface player.

Ummmm, I really can't read past that picture right now.

Pete: very interesting piece. As you said, one naturally compares Nadal to Borg, but as you have shown, it is instructive to compare him to Connors.

Why sure, Maestro, kindly allow me to delete this post and all the comments and make you something you appear not to be: happy.

this image has photoshop????????

those muscles can´t be real.

where do they come from? what is he doing?

the article is interesting too.

LOL, Jenn. :)

Well this photograph at least demonstrates graphically why the drug testing squads are waking him up at 7 am on a Sunday morning... and I'm not implying anything by this at all... he's probably genetically programmed for large muscle mass with exercise...wasn't his uncle Angel similarly built? Great photograph... really beautiful actually.

I wonder if Federer wishes he had all those muscles so he could go around without a shirt and wow people.

OK, I read it...really interesting analysis. I never would have thought to compare him to Connors. This makes me wonder what lessons Coach Connors would be able to teach Rafa if either were so inclined (as a consultant only... clearly Uncle Toni needs to stay)

Pete, some of the issues you point out that contribute to lack of a more effective transition game (ala Connors) I hear you relating more to technique and other fundamentals. How much do you think simply changing tactics, without undergoing any overhaul of his actual technique/strokes or game, would serve to improve the transition game and other weaknesses of his hard court game.

Also, it seems to me that Rafa is improving his serve and getting more free points on fast surfaces. I don't know if the statistics bear that out. If Rafa had gotten a few more free points on his serve in the Wimbledon final, he would probably hold that title right now.

Look it is Elena Dementieva

I wonder why people come on Pete's blog to read his articles if they don't like articles written by Pete?

Posted by Pete 01/17/2008 @ 5:14 PM

Why sure, Maestro, kindly allow me to delete this post and all the comments and make you something you appear not to be: happy.

__________________________

Hahaha alright! I guess I was just trying to say it is a little too wordy for me and I believe that a post is best written when it is kept to its simplest. Please accept my apologies.

I do see Nadal as a descendant of Borg because he can suit his physical-based game to the 2 surfaces Borg succeded the most on: clay and grass. Too bad there's some other Swiss guy whose game on every surface other than clay is nearly flawless (specially on grass) and has kept Nadal from achieving Borg-like sucess.

Both of these men were forces of nature. I think Nadal is stronger but Borg was fitter and had more endurance (didn't he beat some runner or something like that?). However, there are some differences... Nadal hits topspin much better that Borg and Borg had a much better serve and was less reluctant to come and finish a point at the net than Nadal.

If they both had the chance to square off in their primes on clay I'd take Nadal, easily... much more power and accuracy in his shots (going for the lines) than Borg ever did.

jejeje Ptenis. The resemblance is quite striking isn't it?

Ptenisnet: It took me a while. A long while. But I finally got it.

Maybe even better passing shots and a greater ability to go from defense to offense in the blink of an eye...

Jenn, the simple answer I would give is something I believe: Technique IS Tactic.

That is, your destiny is controlled by technique.

Maestro, no sweat.

Pete, that's a very interesting article. I enjoyed reading it,and of course, gawking at the pic!
swissmaestro, you are as arrogant as The Mighty Fed!
Being a fan must rub off on you,illusions of grandeur and all that...

Pete,

So what do you think would happen if Borg and Nadal had the chance to play each other on clay? and why...

Connors did not have an excellent claycourt record. The difference between green clay & red clay is huge, Jimmy took some serious beatings on red clay by no-names throughout his career. That tends to happen when you don't hit with any spin.

And Borg had a good transition game, he came to net a lot. I watch a lot of old matches & his forehand reminds me of Sampras, so often he crushes it & comes in to knock off a volley. And Omar is right Borg's serve was a huge weapon in the 70s, far more than Nadal's is today, he got a ton of free points off it. Was just watching the '77 W final, JC's serve looked like Chris Evert's compared to Borg's, the difference in pace was pretty massive. It says a lot about Jimmy that he was able to play the game at such a high level with such a weakness. Borg was hitting serves so hard that his racquet just completely shattered on one of them.

And Liz, when Connors won 3 of the 4 slams in '74, they were still on grass, the same circumstances that Laver had in '69. It seems odd to say Connors was an all surface player in comparison to Laver since he was lucky enough to be young enough to play majors on hard while he was in his prime, while Laver was not. I wonder what would have happened if Connors won the Grand Slam in '74 & never won a major on hard later in his career. We'd probably hear the same old, tired criticism of Laver(basically a criticism of just being born at the wrong time) for JC.
Laver won a ton of events on hard, many were quite big, at least on the level of a masters series today. Its just baffling to hear fans today constantly act like he was a grasscourt specialist or something. I really don't get it.

anyway here's some footage of Laver hitting inside-out forehands, clean winners on the return, etc like its 2007 or something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpdPX9avs1M

swiss, I think its pretty crazy to compare how Borg would fare vs Nadal, Borg played with wood racquets, while Nadal plays with a huge racquet today. Ginepri, Robredo & Djokovic all played with wood racquets earlier this year(the article is on this site) & were crying at how sore they were after hitting for 10 minutes, & saying that they could get no power or spin at all with them & that they would get destroyed if they tried to play a tour match with one. I saw some footage of Nalbandian playing an exo with a wood racquet a while back, he looked horrible. Food for thought in these how Player A would fare against Player B discussions.

I would love to see Fed or Nadal play an exo with a wood racquet, but sadly I know that will never happen, it could set the sport back quite a bit, since so many fans today have no clue about just how different the sport would be if they were used.

ok - is it the horse thing , Ptenis ?
Love the photo - does look like an action figure

I do wish Rafa had a stronger serve - you are so right - it would certainly help him win a few easier points
But , like omar pointed out - Rafa is a right handed person naturally - the service motion from the is awkward because of that fact
God help me if I were to try to serve left handed ( i am a rightie )
We would all be laughing so hard we would not be able to play

Posted by Tania 01/17/2008 @ 5:44 PM

Pete, that's a very interesting article. I enjoyed reading it,and of course, gawking at the pic!
swissmaestro, you are as arrogant as The Mighty Fed!
Being a fan must rub off on you,illusions of grandeur and all that...

__________________________________

Tania,

I am a Federer fan, of course but I don't consider myself to be arrogant nor Federer for this matter. His attitude is that of a true champion (on and off court) I also don't have a problem with Nadal. I don't like his game or attitude in the court (fist pumping, grounting, screaming and jumping) but I do admit this guys is the best on clay and I give him all the credit he deserves.

Illusions of grandeur? being a fan rubbing it off on me? All because I said that to me the article was little too wordy? Didn't you see I apologized for the misunderstanding? I suppose apologizing is extremely arrogant, right? How old are we again? Please...

should have proofread before I hit post
I meant to say
the service motion is awkward because of that fact

sorry

KP,

Federer played an exhibition set against a local champion in Germany previous to the grass tournament in Halle in 2006 with a wooden racquet and he mastered it right away. Blew the poor guy 6-1 or something like that...

You might be right about Nadal vs Borg though, the strings play an important role in the whole power-spin mix. I'd still put my money on Nadal, he's an athlete first and a tennis player second.

Can we move past two frequent comments that have no factual basis:

1. Laver won plenty of tournaments on clay, and hardcourts, and learned to play on a court made of cow dung. His resume includes far more than a few, key wins on grass, and suggesting otherwise does him a disservice.

2. Connors got rooked out of *playing* the '74 French, not out of winning it. As Pete's pointed out in a previous post, Connors' winning the French that year was not a given, not by a long shot. He may have won it, or not, and he might have gone on to win other Big Four tournaments that year, or he might not. All we know is what happened.

The Book Of If is very, very big, and ultimately not illuminating.

nadal can't flaten his fh, if he does more players will beat him, and if he does it on clay he will lose his ADV.

He can flaten his fh, just v mimi-mo players where he is totly in canrol, but V the really hard courts player he can't becouse in isn't in his hands and he just cna't do it, and for thiose flayers if he flatern his fh that will not make a diffrence for them.

what I mas or manos ticked about is Nadal easy draw that probly will mean he will reach the final or the semi final, such an easy draw, that them will have to hear the he is great hard court player 1 of the best, which he is not.

Give his draw to the guys on the other side of the draw in fed help you think they wouldn't reach the final:

King DAVID
DJOKO
Ferer

even bgdhadis, and safin

has anyone have douet they will reach the semi finals or the final with nadal kind of draw.

some players have the best luck in the world, but I don't like with junrlist agnore sicrmstnces.

Ahhh ptenisnet, you were just fooling with us.

What skip 1515 said. And other than some old recordings, no more than 20 in total I'd think, I have never seen Laver play - but the facts are there to be checked.

So, Pete, who would you take in a matchup between Borg and Nadal on clay, assuming we could neutralise the equipment issue and look at their physical/mental attributes?

Well, gee, mici, he has to get there first. Let's just see if he does. I've not heard anyone calling Rafa one of the greatest hardcourt players yet.

That Nadal, he is a lucky one. Good thing he didn't get Harfield and Santoro the first two rounds.

Swiss, athlete first, tennis player 2nd? I think that applies even more to Borg than Nadal. He outsprinted an Olympic hurdler in a superstars competition, regularly trained with soccer players(& wore them out) & had a resting heartrate on par with a Tour De France winner.

His training regime was pretty scary, more like an Olympic athlete not a tennis player.

Nadal is a great athlete, but I've read about his training methods, it doesn't sound like anything crazy, he's not killing himself like Borg was doing.

No wonder Borg burned out, I think he took it too seriously. Fed & Nadal seem to have fun off the court, while Borg lived on the court or the gym when he wasn't playing, slept at same exact time every day, ate the same thing(weighed himself daily to make sure hie didn't gain an ounce) the guy was kinda nuts. Nadal talked about eating donuts & chocolate every day at the French last year. I think Borg wouldn't have eaten that at gunpoint if he was playing a major.

and that's nice that Fed beat a club player with wood. that really doesn't say anything about the quality of tennis he played with it(unforced errors, serve % etc)

Hitting 2nd serves with wood is pretty damn tough, you can't get any spin with them. It would be a very different game.

Rosia - Borg over ANYONE on clay. To this day.

Oh, and BTW, a very informative and interesting article, Pete. I do think Rafa will have to take a good look at how he plays and make some changes, if possible, to extend his career. Oh, and love the photo.

mici: if Nadal can't flatten his FH, his twin brother Romulo who took his place at IW last year did an awfully good imitation of one against Roddick and (1st set) against Djokovic.

A disappointment for me in recent months has been seeing Nadal take a step backwards, both literally and metaphorically, in his hardcourt play. His evolution to more of an attacking style was a highlight (for me) of early 2007.

I'll have to think some more about Pete's suggestion that "the transition game is the grail for anyone who would enjoy great success on the hard courts that are so ubiqitious today." I'm not sure Djokovic or Roddick are masters of the transition game. One man is, and he does some other things quite well, too.

PS - Rafa would have made his life miserable, but all-in-all Borg was the leaner warrior and it was almost impossible to get him off balance. It would have been a compelling match-up that, oddly enough given the surface, would not be that diff from a TMF vs. Nadal match-up in terms of the basic qualities in play for both men.

Pete- intersting article...in particular I liked where you mentioned how Connors was moving forward after a point whereas Nadal is falling back...very true but I have not thought of that before.

Like others- I really do think that being naturally right handed is what is hindering him on his serve. I wonder if his serve would be more of a factor if he actually did his serving as a righty during his whole development and as a pro. Is he losing the lefty advantage so much with his serve now that maybe that would have been a better option?

mici- I grant you that Nadal's draw was very good for him. But I must ask, do you think Nadal's run in Indian Wells was just luck too? Do you not think any of his results can be attributed to his playing there? (That was the only tournament to me where it really felt like he served very well.) Or in your opinion was it just luck and not at all a reflection of his play? Do you ever think he deserves any accolades?

KP - this is the same guy who hung out at Studio 54?

noo he got serra, just useless useless, you really should go to other tennis board and see what people tought of how serra played, useless.

pete said santoro was having to much fun,

I like to know what he tought of serra, If I didn't know better by watching the match I would say he was beating on the match

did you see him even trying to reach some of the balls with his reqet, and they were just near him he didn't even try.

Yes I am sure nadal would love fed draw right?

who are you kidding, je wants:

tipsy
berdch
gonzo,
nalbandiam ferer, or djoko

he want that kind of draw?????????

Andrew, completely agree with you about the twin brother that showed up in IW ripping that flattened forehand. I miss him. I really hope to see him again over the next ten days.

I saw that twin brother Romulus too, Andrew. That guy was amazing. Where did he go? If Rafa could play like that more often, maybe those pesky journalists and commentators could start spewing the 'greatest hardcourt player' yada yada then? lol

"A disappointment for me in recent months has been seeing Nadal take a step backwards, both literally and metaphorically, in his hardcourt play."

Bravo, Andrew. Strangest thing I've seen. I wish I could see a graphic of his baseline placement at IW vs. the hard court summer series. Night and day to me. What is it with that?

KP, loved your posts today. Very, very interesting.

Pete: Great piece on the contrast in styles. Nice the way you put it in proper context. (Liked the Heroines piece yesterday, too).

I do, however have a small, pedantic point to be made, for those folks like Or, who are learning to play this game. You write:

> "...Connors played primarily from a closed stance on his forehand as well as his side (that is, given the time, he tended to set-up for his forehand, even when on the run, with his shoulders at a right angle to the net). Nadal is more prone to play "open stance", with his shoulders parallel with the net). But both men have significant rotation on the two-handed backhand..."

Nadal's shoulder's are not parallel with the net until he's actually striking the ball--when he's cocked, they're perpendicular. This is a trivial point for us tennis vets, but a student might miss the distinction. It might be better to say speak of the position of the feet (parallel or perpendicular to the net) instead of the shoulders, and then emphasize the differences in trunk turn (before hitting for Open stance; during hitting for the closed one).

Keep Smiling

I seem to remember an 05 Nadal beating Agassi in Montreal too, a Nadal that consistently beat him with a wicked DTL forehand. Didn't he flatten out that shot too?

Andrew- I am another who also has the sentiment of “where art thou, Indian Wells Rafa?” I was so pleased by his court positioning and strokes there. It seems like he finally got it and was able to play it. And then- alas, it went away.

Even though Nadal is a natural righty, there is a similarity in their backhands. Connors backhand (by far his more natural shot) was pretty much Pancho Segura's two handed forehand. Pancho coached Jimmy early in his pro career. Pancho's two handed forehand was at one time considered the preeminent forehand by players like Kramer and Gonzales.

Nadal's two handed backhand is a right handed forehand. One reason it is so good and flexible. It appears to me that the best two handed backhands like Safin's and Nalbandian's, Coria's and Kim C's are pretty much left handed forehands or have a lot of left hand in them. We know that Maria is a natural lefty and often hits with only her left hand when stretched wide. So, Nadal has gained a better backhand by his switch at the cost of a natural serve. That being said, he has learned how to use the lefty slice wide in ad court to his advantage (one of the reasons I hate lefties). McEnroe killed Borg serving in ad court. Otherwise, Borg would have played at least two more years because he would have won at least one USOPen against John Mc and not been so frustrated.

That being said, one wonders why Moya's backhand is not more of a force given his lefty nature. I think he has become so forehand oriented that he relegated his backhand to second place.

Mici, it wouldn't matter to you if Nadal had Agassi, McEnroe, Lendl, and Sampras the rest of the way.

Andrew: can you remind me of he draw in IW.

but to ansower you no , I don't think he can do it v most of the real hard court player those how have flat shots themself, he can only do it when he has time and cantrol, when he doesn his miss hit, how many times does he have to hit miss hits for people to see it.

I really hate when people just look at the score the result and doen't look at the all picture, the restult doesn't tell the story,

Iw IS A SLOW HARD COURT, it gives nadal time, roddick serve wasn't working when they played, so who do you think would win when nadal has time and roddick serve isn't working, he didn't beat roddick by flatrying his shot, he neat roddick from the bais line going for roddick bh, and he manged to get in the rellys becuse roddick serve wasn't woking.

Like i SAID IF THEY MET IN THE AUS OPEN, i WOULD SAY NADAL WINS, NO MUCH TIME THIS COURTS GIVES nadal, and

RODDICK DOESN'T HIT FLAT FH and doesn't have bh, so how can he take time from nadal? if nadal puts roddick serve in court roddick it tost.

if it was the Us open I will go behind roddick 100%.

about djoko match- I have read joko intrview after the match, and he said he had to ajest he tactics after seeing how to play nadal on hard courts

after he ajested what were the rsuly, you alredy know, the score in the 1 set v djoko wasn't becouse he flaten his shots, it was bad tactics from joko.

Carrie: yes, a result of the court and players don't knowing what is the tactic to play v nadal, at that point is wan't comen knowlege you have to go after his fh (I could have told them but it took them long enoght).

of clay, it isn't luck.

hard courts and grass, yes or yes.

"this is the same guy who hung out at Studio 54?"

He was SO committed to training that he actually invented extra hours in the day for when he needed some time off to party with the mini-spoon set.

Andrew- if I recall correctly, didn't you see Rafa live at Indian Wells?

I found this on another site, fun read:

Connors vs. Nadal: The Tale of the Tape

Mind: Mentally both players competed about as hard as any player in history. Each player's competitiveness served to intimidate opponents. This alone makes for a compelling match up. Each man would give and expect no quarter from the other.

Tactics/Stroke Production: This is a fascinating contrast. Nadal hits with massive topspin that gives him a large margin for error, but also hits with great depth and power. Connors hit the ball flat and at times used slice/underspin on his forehand and backhand. Nadal tends to stay behind the baseline allowing his foot speed and fitness to make up for any court positioning he surrenders. Connors took the ball on the rise and tried to command points by moving his opposition from side to side waiting on a short ball to attack. Connors attack was often predicated on establishing superior court positioning. Both men served in a way that was hard to pick on, but did not produce a ton of winners. Nadal plays a lot of doubles and has surprisingly soft hands. Connors was very effective at ending points at the net due to the high quality of the approach shots he hit after getting a short ball.

The Surface Splits

Slow Hard Court: Jimmy Connors never played on the slower hard courts of Melbourne Australia, but the surface would not have bothered him. His keen eye sight and return of serve would have benefited from a court that slowed down serves. Nadal has produced reasonable but not excellent results on this surface. Both men would likely take it to each other on this surface and have their successes. If Connors could produce enough short balls from Nadal he'd have the advantage, but the slower surface would allow Nadal to line up passing shots. Both guys would break serve often.
Prediction 5-5

Red Clay Court: This is Nadal's best surface, but Connors missed the French Open during his best clay court years. Anyone expecting Jimmy to go down 0-10 probably only saw Connors late in his career when he tried to end points quickly. Connors liked to attack, but he could bide his time as well. Jimmy beat Bjorn Borg in 4 sets on green clay at the 1976 U.S. Open and was runner-up at two other U.S. Opens on green clay. Still, Connors did not volley well when the passing shot dipped below the net. Nadal on clay would have time to force Connors to volley up more often than not.
Prediction Nadal 8 Connors 2

Grass Court: Nadal's two Wimbledon runner-up finishes prove that the Spaniard can play on grass. Connors won 4 grand slam titles on grass and finished as a runner-up at 5 grass court grand slam events. Connors ability to take the ball on the rise along with his flat and under spin ground strokes would frustrate Nadal. Connors would attack Nadal's serve and keep the ball low. Nadal bends well for low shots, but over three out of five sets the advantage goes to the player keeping the ball low. Nadal would retrieve well enough to have some success, but Connors would dictate play.
Prediction Connors 7 Nadal 3

Fast Hard Court: Nadal would not be plagued by the low bounces of grass court tennis, but Connors was a master of this surface. He invented the hard court tactics that served Agassi well over the years. Jimmy would attack Nadal's serve more than he liked. Even if Nadal had the goods to ward off Connors' attacks, he'd be faced with constant pressure. Once again, the aggressor would have the advantage on a faster surface. If the match was played in New York, Connors would thrive in an environment that has perplexed many European players including Nadal. My expectation is that any short ball Jimmy could attack would result in a put away volley and a raucous reaction from the crowd.
Prediction Connors 7 – Nadal 3

Fast Indoor Court: Similar to the previous two surface, Connors would likely dictate play by attacking second serves, keeping the ball low and moving Nadal from side to side. Nadal's superior height and upper body strength might serve him well on a surface that rewards raw power more than any other, but Connors flat ground strokes, foot speed and return of serve would still be very effective.
Prediction Connors 6 - Nadal 4

Final tally: Connors 27 – Nadal 23 In some ways, tennis strategies are cyclical. Nadal is playing a souped up version of the heavy topspin tennis that ruled the 1970's and early 1980's. Connors flat ground strokes are not the norm and have not been for a long time. However, flat ground strokes and taking the ball on the rise match up well with Nadal's style of play. A key to beating Nadal is not getting pushed behind the baseline. A player like Connors who launched his body into every ground stroke was hard to push backwards. If a player has Connors or Agassi type eye sight and can take the ball early, he may bother Nadal a great deal. The good news for Nadal is that no player has demonstrated that sort of timing other than Agassi and Connors.

Connors never won the French or any of the big European tournaments on clay. Is that was constitutes a 'great clay court record'?

marron: no.

the fact he beat agasii doesn't mean he did it by flatring his shot,

did you watch the match

he did it by runing every ball posible, agassi was in the midle of the court runing nadal from side to side and nadal got to every ball untill agasii either overhit, made UFE or nadal passed him

no faltring his fh.

his Bh is a flat shot anyway and I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BH.

Sherlock, I flove you. I'm so tempted to jump in with some other examples, but you know my adage about old "he is just lucky, always gets easy draws" debate. JSN!

But I like how Janko Tipsarevic has become a player used as an example of a monster draw. Classic. (do I remember Rafa beating him at the USO? Just sayin')

Jenn- I need to take your advice- JSN! It seems that for some every single win that Rafa has on a surface that is not clay is just because of luck. I need to remember that he has no skills and never deserves any praise.

LOL, Jenn. JSN, eh? Words to live by. :)

I heard they brought in a special paint crew to slow the USO court before that Rafa-Tipsy match. That's the only explanation.

So, Mici, in your opinion, Nadal has never played an effective match on hardcourts and when he beats people like Federer, Roddick, Djokovic and Agassi, it's because the surface is slow, or the other player was poorly coached and used the wrong tactic? And everyone now knows the playbook and so we shouldn't expect Rafa to really do well on hardcourts anymore?
And oh yes, Hartsfield, Santoro and Tipsy. That's one heckuva tough draw. I seem to remember a qualifier, qualifier draw for Fed at a GS no so long ago either.

mici- the IW 07 draw began with 16 of the world's top 17 ranked men- including Federer, Berdych, Nalbandian, Youzhny, Blake etc..

Rafa hit his forehand more aggressively/flatter in IW towards the latter stages of the tournament- it was especially evident when he would attack the Roddick serve with his forehand- he just put more into the shot- and if he had only been putting more top-spin on the shot, the ball projection would have been like a sideways "C" more than they were and his forehands would have lacked penetration- which for the most part they did not

I agree with about the Agassi match- Rafa ran everything down and top-spin looped most of those balls in to play

Jenn: As far as I have heard Rafa has been working hard at improving his serve over the break. He also has spoken about coming to net more, etc. so it seems like he and uncle Toni are aware of what needs improvement. It remains to be seen how much he can change in the next year.

Sherlock: nice :)

you can ignore the draw oll you like and say it isn't luck, and I never said he can't win matchs on hard court, there are mini mo players, there is players who are head case, there are players who chock etc etc.

and a daw isn't 1 match a draw in 5-7 matchs.

aNd I would love nadal have fed draw on hard court what do you say???

and tipsy was hurt in the us open.

but you would like nadla fasing tipsy, berdch, gonzo, ferer(king david, djoko) on hard courts.

he had exuse he was hurt after playing murry last year, so he would like a draw like that, oo right!!!!!!!!

Well, since any chance of an interesting and serious discussion has been derailed, I'm moving on to the new crisis center.

Zonie - I heard that, too. Rafa has excellent net skills, so I hope he will be putting them to more frequent use during the HC season. I already think that his serve has improved.

*following Zonie to new CC*
JSN people!!

Okay- so now Rafa can win on hard. But only if the player is not talented, is a head case or chokes. And I guess I should add injured. And there has never been a match where Rafa has played a good or effective match on hard courts. Thanks for the clarification.

"I need to remember that he has no skills and never deserves any praise."

Carrie, he's obviously a hack. We need to get over it. :)

Mici, please don't say Tipsy again. Your argument loses a lot of validity right there. Would I like Nadal to face Berdych, Gonzo, Ferrer/Nalby/Djoko? Of course not. But he's probably got Youzhny and Roddick coming up? Does it matter? Did anyone here ever say Nadal is the greatest hard court player to ever pick up a racket?

So, to cut to the chase, what exactly is your point? Nadal sucks? Ok, so noted. Can we move on?

"And oh yes, Hartsfield, Santoro and Tipsy. That's one heckuva tough draw. I seem to remember a qualifier, qualifier draw for Fed at a GS no so long ago either."

Yes, and people jumped all over that one too. It's almost as if haters of certain players love to jump all over their draws and should be ignored on the subject (except for Tim, of course, because he's funny about it).

well it's pretty late again, i need urgently to set the vcr and take a couple of more looks at your piece pete, connors-rafa ??? need to think about it !
the technical aspects you describe is like trying to get in fort knox to me :) but i enjoy the reading nonetheless.

sometimes a great spirit makes a great sportman, it was true for jimmy, and true for rafa... they can differ in tons of other things but that's for me the essence of being a champion. not everybody has that kind of spirit and knows how to build on it.

vamos rafa ! show simon that he can eat his plan to beat you, he said that in l'équipe because once in marseille 06 he did not give up the easy way against rafa... show him your not the same player, and like the french say : since then, the water has flow through the bidge

mici : true that the poor serra had no clue how to play him, he admit in the presser he could not play any shot that rafa could not handle... it's surprising you never complain when federer handles davy or roddick like a serra-toy ;) hehe, nice to see you around ;)
g' night all !

LOL, smee!
Here we all go with the draws-wars again? Oh, oh. Gotta say everyone gets a lucky draw once in a while, that's just the way of the world. I considered Roger's 07 Wimbey draw lucky. Or perhaps nowadays, all his draws are 'lucky', no? (just kidding)

Rafa hasn't been the only player in history to benefit from a little luck. Every player has.

mici- most people have said that Rafa has had a good draw here btw. I was not disputing that. I was just wondering if he has ever- ever- ever- played a good hard court match in your opinion. But it appears that the anser is no- and he only wins because his opponents are chokers, injured, no good, head cases, or the other player hadn't figured him out yet. I now understand that Rafa will never win a match against a good hard court player unless said player chokes or is injured.

btw, the best sculpture artist who could have made a great piece with rafa atonishing body is michelangelo... and no one else !
if you can look for a picture of the 2 slaves of michelangelo they are nadal like ;)

jenn(5:06) YEAH!!! good lord have MERCY!!!!

honestly, i have no interest in getting into a draw war. i just resent implications that rafa only wins when he has a good draw. i will be the first to admit he has a really great draw here. federer's had some easy ones too. the draw is what you make of it. i don't ever discount a federer GS win b/c of his draw, or anybody else's. you play whoever you are scheduled to play and you play your best.

"And there has never been a match where Rafa has played a good or effective match on hard courts. Thanks for the clarification."

On the plus side, every match he's lost he's been injured, so I suppose if we every get that magical combination of healthy Rafa + good opponent + hard court we'd end up with a match that could never end ;)

Grant- no...he would lose quickly because he is no good on hard courts. That is a constant. His suckiness underlies all- and will always make for a known result.

jenn, if you are still around, i did notice the new service motion at the point of contact and i am hoping it makes a difference. he served rather well against serra the other day and i am curious to see how he fares today. of course as someone said upthread, his serve suffers as a natural righty whereas his backhand benefits. i would love to see him win a few more cheap points. one area where he has improved significantly is in his volleying and all around net-play. it helped not only on hard-courts and wimbly last year, but also really helped him at roland garros as well. i think rafa and toni are well aware of the changes that need to be made too, it's a matter of execution, which is easier said than done.

Pete,

You have emphasized the point that most of the great champions have been stubborn. Hard to change a winning game.

Yes, Nadal can flatten out his forehand with considerable effect, but he seems reluctant to abandon the advantages that come from his unprecedented vicious topspin.

Borg could flatten his forehand and I have no doubt he could have been a force if he had grown up 20-30 years later. But I only saw him really flatten it out in one match and he simply blasted the Dibbs clone (blanking on his name, began with S, I think). But he was winning with the looping strokes (although he did change for Wimbledon). He stubbornly insisted on returning serve from way behind the baseline. McEnroe used that to take Borg way out of the court and then volley away most returns. Borg could have learned to return from the baseline, but did not want to put in the effort.

And even TMF seems to refuse to alter his game for clay. I resonate to his distaste for the drop shot, yet he has a fine one and occasionally uses it effectively. Many think he could throw off Nadal by more use of it, but, once again, it is hard to quarrel with his level of overall success.

One has to wonder if the stubborn belief in one's ability to play his game is not more important than chasing the new approach to the game. It is a fine line that even many executives must face. Do you "run with what you brung: as they used to say at the drag strip?