Strange article. The point around controlling only 50% - what the heck does that even mean?! As a tennis player, you know there are many variables at play in each rally. This sort of simplistic analysis tells us pretty much nothing.<p>In my opinion, Nadal is great on clay because of his tenacity and ability to play the big points well. The slowness of the court helps him too as it prevents people hitting through him (I'll concede the article does mention that), and allows him to expose a less fit opponent (most are, when compared to Nadal) through extended rallies.<p>He also has a very reliable 2 handed backhand that he can impart a great deal of spin on (unlike Djokovic or Murray, who hit it relatively flat). This gives him consistency. He is also able to handle high bouncing balls on clay on the backhand much better than others, especially those with a single handed backhand.<p>For a baseliner, he has a very solid net game, and has a great sense of when to come in and finish the point. In my opinion, he has a better understanding of the "geometry" of the clay court, in that he knows when his opponent is at the point of no return. He then sneaks in to the net and finishes with a slice volley that drops dead on the clay.<p>Finally, he plays left handed (despite being right handed). Being lefty is a big advantage in tennis in general, because 3 of the 4 game ending point scores will, by definition, be served to your forehand side (40-0, 40-30, A-40). Then there's the southpaw spin, which is harder to handle for most right handed players. Combine the slower court, the point score advantage and Nadal's natural returning abilities (second only to Djok), and you make it very very tricky to win games.
A bit off topic, but having followed tennis for the last 3 decades, i think the most striking thing on nadal and federer compared to previous generation is how much they improved technically throughout their career, even after their 30s ( after they both had won numerous grand slams). Nadal has improved on serve and volley, federer has improved on backend and serve. Watching young federer or young nadal vs today’s is extremely impressive.<p>i think that it’s something we should all take lessons from, and is actually very encouraging for everyone in every field: Age limits are being pushed in every dimensions, and no matter where you are in your career, there’s always new things to learn and new limits to overcome.
This - "In any tennis match, you can control roughly 50% of the game: when the ball is in your half of the court." - which is the main thrust of the post, seems very simplistic. There are lots and lots of things that you can do to control more than the time that the ball is in your court. For example, unusual spin, tactics during a rally, etc.<p>I'd recommend reading "Roger Federer as Religious Experience" by David Foster Wallace - <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20fed...</a> - which, as well as being a superb piece of sports writing on its own terms, gives an excellent overview of the way that tactics play a huge role in tennis, rather than "the ball is only in your part of the court for 50% of the time, therefore that's what you can work with."
Besides being a little off topic for the site...<p>Another key and massively important point with clay is that you can slide. Sliding properly where you stop as you hit the ball is a really tough skill to learn. Rafa has absolutely mastered this and it's a beauty to see.<p>Sliding combined with the ball slowing and bouncing higher lets you get balls much further out. It makes it possible to defend more balls and not be out of court as much.<p>On other surfaces like hardcourt, and grass it's really hard to slide. If you sprint out to a ball on those surfaces you will hit it on the run and end up a couple of steps beyond where the ball bounced. On clay with sliding you can really minimize these plays and maintain your position on court. Also, you can run so much harder on clay without fearing having to stop really hard which hurts on hard courts and significantly increases injury risk.<p>Rafa's movement on clay just makes him unbeatable.
It's all in the spin, and to a lesser extent Nadal's speed and mobility on clay. A high RPM top spin shot will kick forward and bounce high on clay to a greater extent than on a hard court, and it's extremely hard to deal with.<p>I have hit with some pro tour players on clay, once even a former world #1 player, and it's near impossible to play offensively against their spin unless you want to take every ball on the rise.<p>Also Nadal's flat serve is probably the weakest of the 3 greats, but the importance of a good flat serve is somewhat de-emphasized on clay.
I remember a Time magazine front cover article on Bjorn Borg in the late seventies (get off my lawn). One quote that stuck with me went something like this: "Borg's dominance is really exaggerated on clay courts. Borg v an average tour player on clay is like the Detroit Lions v a high school football team". Maybe there's something about clay that encourages individual dynasties.<p>Edits: not any tour player, an average tour player, plus typo plus <i>late</i> seventies. Sorry
Not sure how this is original enough to warrant a cross areas post to hn of all places let alone get up voted.<p>Every soccer fan on every corner ever has a theory as to why his fav player is the best ever.
This is hardly original, Nadal's game has been well-analysed for ages now. However, this is also why a lot of (most?) people prefer Federer to him: because Roger's game is more original and creative. It's a bit like Toyota vs Tesla: one will always sell more cars and make more money because it executes better, but that's not always the point.
"Players’ speed matters more on clay than other courts, and Nadal is the fastest on tour"<p>That's an odd thing to say. I would think that Djokovic is the fastest of the major players.
Djokovic has a case for best tennis player ever with his winning record head to head over Federer and Nadal. Federer has a losing record against both. He racked up a lot of his titles before Nadal and Djokovic became world champion players.<p>Of course Nadal is best on clay.
Funnily enough I think the best player of all time is Novak Djokovic. He has 15 major titles to his name and currently holds a winning record vs both Nadal and Federer. All three have comparable winning percentages over their careers. I think people pencil in Federer as the best just because he is older than Nadal and Djokovic.