This has been a burning question for some time now and whilst on leave I had the pleasure of watching the Wimbledon Final,The French Final,Shanghai and most recently The Battle Of the Surfaces,which in all its sham like nature was pretty good.

If we watch Federer against any other player when he is in full flight he is amazing.However having watched him in full flight against Nadal he seems to come off second best at the baseline.This is really peculiar coz he is the best by the largest margin in terms of talent and literally in points.He seems to create great angles,maitain great depth and yet Nadal still manages to hit 1 shot in the rally the seemingly from a position of no return,to turn it around completely and then dominates the point.Federer seems to be only as good as a short ball whereas Nadal is solid regardless.

If you guys watch Federer at Shaghai and Wimbledon and the French,he rallied up the middle.The idea to me was to take the the angles away from Nadal coz from side to side Nadal is deadly yet it still didnt pay divend.Also he tends to attack the Nadal backhand which I think is his stronger shot.Needless to say Federer just seems uneasy from the baseline against Nadal.

Is Nadal better?Im honestly stuck here between a rock and a hard place!

Federer never gets in full flight against Nadal DN.

Errr...Federer was very much in Full flight against him in Wimbledon and Shaghai....

I thought you were referring to clay more than anything else - both his forehand and backhand struggle with all the kick coming off the courts from Nadal's shots - Federer always looks a little bit like he is 'poking' at the ball on clay, and that is the last thing you want to be doing as a top tennis player! :blink:

On clay yeah,thats for sure.
However watch battle of the Surfacaes he did what I hope he does more often and thats slice really low and deep.That is what he needs to do more and more and more importantly approach that net with that slice.Its a Sampras tactic but its a great one.

Thats why Im baffled,coz Federer has all the shots and looks better from the baseline but Nadal does something else!

Federer does, generally, have the better of it on anything other than clay - Nadal's speed and atleticism is used a lot more on hard courts and grass to just keep him in it. And Federer is better at more shots than Nadal.

Clay is a different kettle of fish for the reason I stated above!

Im am very much aware of the difference of clay being a club player myself.But Nadal and his rallying ability is almost the same on all surfaces.He is just a split second slower on hardcourts but its barely noticeable and few players are able to expose him!

His rallying ability is very much the same and thats why I wanna know who is the better.Federer has too many options and as result he gets caught in his mind!

A decent serve volleyer should be able to beat Nadal on the fast surfaces. But how many players serve and volley nowadays? The game is set up for the grinders.

Yorkshire you are off topic!

I'm not convinced about Nadal on the faster stuff - towards the end of last year it was noticable that he had problems against players that had the guts to hit through the ball and blast holes through him. Blake has done this a few times, and Youzhny and Gonzalez (Murray when he was fit too) famously did so at the US and Australian opens.

I'm convinced that had Murray's fitness been what it should have, that he would have beaten Nadal in Australia. It was a great opportunity.

My line was a few players are able to expose it and those are the few you mebtioned and Berdych is the other!

I hope Murray is in Nadal's half of the draw at wimbledon!

One of the reason I very much like grass is that it is after all a very neutral surface due to the shortness of its season. This is to me where the real battles of talent operates. No player train on grass so they all arrive in Wimbledon with only their raw skills and aptitude to adapt quickly. And we know who has been the best at it for the last 4 years. Grass really shows who is the best player out there, especially now that players retrurn better and the conditions have slowed down a bit.

I still sincerely doubt that Nadal will win Wimbledon. He reached the final last year but also could have lost in the first round and I woudl not be surprised if he could not reproduce last year performance this year.

Regarding rallying, and who is the best, Federer mentioned many times that nadal carries the advantage of being used to play RHs while Federer and the others only come to play LHs once in a while. So just on that principle, it makes the comparaison sightly unfair.

On clay, what makes Nadal so dangerous, is that he has the time to inject a huge amount of spin and I think this and not his rallying skills that has mainly made him so unvulnerable. Any lower bounce and he is exposed to many hard hitters.

Most players are capable of doing it against Nadal - it's about guts, accuracy and stamina!

On clay though, you cannot hit through the court that well and this protects Nadal's weaknesses. It's nothing new, he's a clay-court specialist that is so exceptional at what he does and uses his strengths so effectively that he can win on other surfaces too.

Federer seems uneasy from the baseline against Nadal as nadal seems uneasy from the baseline against Federer. They have diferent weapons and the pose diferent problems to each other. On the baseline out of clay federer has the upper hand because he got more variation and can make more winners while nadal have the retrieving hability to make one more shot. In clay they are close to each other, what is a great achievment to federer as he is playing against a clay baseliner while he have an all around game. what makes the diference in clay it's the fact nadal it's a lefty player who plays high topspins to the one hand backhand of federer. And i think it's realy efective in the service of nadal, making so difcult to federer to brake nada's service in clay.
You say that out of clay just a few can expose nadal, but how many can expose federer?
i think the major problem with federer in the baseline against Nadal it's at the same time one of his strenghts, the variation. Nadal it's a machine playing 2 or 3 shots all the time while federer plays 7 or 8. with 2 or 3 shots it's easier to be steady and make less unforced errors, while with 7 or 8 you depend more of the ocasional inspiration and sometimes you become stuck in choosing wich shot to make. That's why nadal it's so regular in a match while federer make us feel in the roller coaster. of course in that the mental side plays a part, Nadal have a more courageous personality but he is helped in that by the fact he has nothing to loose, as he makes himself as the underdog while federer feels all the pression of the world in his shoulders as he have prove all the time he is the nº1. That mental edge permit to nadal to play more natural and take more risks,specialy on the big points.

Are you saying its a neutral surface due to the talent required to play on it?Coz for me a neutral surface is hardcourts coz the bounce is true!

Interesting post Tenez,but its still doesnt clarify who owns the baseline!

DN, stop being daft mate, there is no answer to "who owns the baseline"! roflmao

For me, i'd back Nadal on clay against Fed from the back, but i'd back Fed against Nadal on Hard and Grass.

Hard courts are the neutral surface for me - Grass is one where I think more skill is required, while Clay is more a test of patience and stamina. If you want Kids to learn tennis properly, I would suggest hard courts (preferable not too bouncy), and clay is good for technique when they are advanced.

I actually think you are being daft and should laugh at yourself because 10 yrs ago Sampras owned the net and Agassi the baseline.Nowadys there is less netplay and more baseline so its obvious that there has to be an owner especially between the world numbers 1 and 2.And by the way we arent talking surface specific and even if we were they both mainly play from the baseline.

Hardcourts are neutral but if you REALLY want kids to learn tennis grow them up on clay and hard.It must be balanced.clay will allow them to find their shots as they will have more time and hardcourt will allow them to develop fast hand techniques.

Obviously hard court can be perceived as neutral as is in between clay and grass. But this is not really true. My point was that you have guys playing and growing all year on clay and the same applies to hard, so those surfaces can't be neutral. You either are from spain and south america, or you have trained on hard. Ranking would be pretty different if tennis were only played in one of those surfaces. Grass however is neutral in the sense that no one develops his tennis on it. So it is a neutral field. One may argue however that those who train on clay are at a disadvantage on grass as the conditons are very different, but Nadal proved otherwise last year. We had something like 5 out of the 8 QF in the FO coming from the HC training camp.

I argue that hardcourt is a neutral surface because you get a true bounce.Clay and grass dont offer this and there is allows you to develop 2 different aspects of your game and not complete your game.

Clay offers you time and grass offers you action reaction.Hardcourts can be slow or fast and can offer you both of the above.Thats my reasoning as to why hard is neutral.Federer grew up on clay and advanced his tennis on hard and grass was natural for him underlining his talent!

Question Tenez,does grass develop your baseline game better than a hradcourt or a clay court?Or does it help you develop more of your naturall talents quicker!

My comment will be very short: You are underestimate a fact Darky (BTW happy to see you back here man ;) ) Rafa's ball, even the ones that look like the less dangerous they just have a lot of "work" on them, i.e. the spin this guy is able to impress to the balls it is just amazing...

I really guess FED is not used to receive this sort of balls very often in particular deep down there in the baseline. Now, look at the match he had last year with (a very competitive at the moment) Blake at the USO..

Blake was able to send the balls deep but still these balls were flat and did not have all the "work" you have to handle when you are facing Rafa so, at the end, FED Tennis might just always be implemented.

Now you can say why a player like Blake does not suffer Rafa on fast surface as FED is suffering :yikes: ?

For me the answer is simple: Blake and Berdy they are not searching to win points against Rafa by, if you want, accept Rafa "field' (or way to play), they are following a more short term strategy against him: Flat the ball and go 100% with the power and do that all the time; Keep short and hard.

FED way of playing Tennis is just not like that: IMO, he likes too much his variety (this guy likes great shots, he likes-might be even he needs- spectators "Whoaooo"- ), he likes too much playing with his opponent, to implement his vision of the game and not send , most of the time, "hard" balls without a lot of variety :) .

This is the source of the problem against Rafa: Against Rafa you need to be rude, use the power and keep all your Tennis as simple as you can :P : If you try to play nicely and enter on rallies even on fast he can take a lot of points out of you and therefore ultimately even beat you: Berdy is playing against Rafa from the junior and from the junior he is using always the same technique, i.e. keep short (max 3 shots) and simple each single game and put a lot of power.. :P

BTW: I saw lately Djiko match in Miami against Rafa..IMO it was also like that.

I hope it is clear for you.. :rolleyes:

I think one has natural talent or hasn't (as much) of it. Difficult to develop really.

Some have amazing reflexes, and of course you can develop them, but as all players roughly put the same amount of work nowadays, it is down to their natural skills. You can see fo instance someone like berdych being able to inject pace onto his shots but at the same time, if he is exposed to someone able to respond and send the ball back at him with pace (ex Gonzo), then his loses a bit of his timing and control/power. Grass and hard in that respect allow for a good evaluation of those who have the best power/reflex ratio, whereas clay kind of nullifies this timing/power skills ratio and the winner tends to be the one with the most stamina and most consistant.

Another key is that Hard will allow faster rallies hence is much more damaging than clay on the joints and muscles, and I do not think there will be long term good retrievers on hard. This is now a thing of the past I feel.

Nice post TV but yet again you are going down a road we all have been countless of times and thats explaining the work Rafa puts on a ball and the variety Federer has.The variety IMO is Federers problem because he is so creative he struggles with Rafa who is a 1 dimensional pony.

You fail to answer my question,I want you to measure the styles and tell me who owns the baseline between these 2 and why!

Too true and Tenez,this is why I missed you and the others guys fact and debate!

You cant develop talent but you can perfect what you have or better it.What is Nadals talent other than his speed which is natural for almost anyone,and other than his left hand?Are these the only 2 things that make him conrtrol the baseline?

Fed's the more attacking baseliner and Nadal's the more defensive, so naturally it follows that Nadal owns the baseline on clay and Fed owns it elsewhere. In terms of establishing a superior, I think the fact that Nadal has beaten Fed on a slow hardcourt and Fed has held matchpoints on a fast clay court is pretty good evidence that they're very evenly matched. In matches between the two, I'd say they 'share' the baseline but in a general context, Fed is the better baseliner because he has more variety and much fewer losses.

Having said that, I see Nadal's attacking game has been improving recently, as evidenced by his improvement on clay and his storming to the IW title. This can only be a good thing, because like Tenez says, the constant retrieving style which he uses on clay would cause him a lot of injury troubles if he adopted it on hard also. I'd like to see another match between them on grass, hopefully Wimbledon (I feel Nadal can definitely reach the final there again this year), which might swing the balance more in his favour.

I think Wise has just hit the nail on the head here and answered your question DN.

Welcome sensible Wise! Good Points there however that lobsided H2H is indicative that Nadal owns the baseline.But in retrospect it is Federer who literally does.Nadal is a modern Sanchez-Vicario.....

He did and its shocking that it came from him :P Very good points from him.Does anyone think that Pete and his aggressive maniac net rushing style could have troubled Nadal now had he been in his peak?We know we have had the debates about past and present so lets not go that route but I wonder with the technology now what Pete would have done to Nadal nowadays.Pete was never a baseliner as we all know so that change in style might pose a few worries!

You can find your shots on hard too DN - don't try and tell a coach otherwise! ;)

I am right - there is no definitive answer to who "owns" the baseline between Nadal and Fed, read the whole post ;)

And if DN had read my post properly, he would have seen that's what I had said too roflmao

As much as I loathe to say it Dark, I don't think the H2H is a dominant factor because of its reliance on clay court matches. The fact that Nadal keeps losing to big hitters and therefore failing to reach the hard court finals is possibly just evidence of Fed's baseline superiority. In terms of 'rallying', Nadal is superior but on the faster surfaces, rallying isn't such a necessity and Fed's attacking groundstrokes see him through.

On hard and grass, Sampras would nearly always have blitzed Nadal. On clay, I think Sampras would have suffered some pretty horrific maulings, but nonetheless, he beat nearly all the top clay courters of his era at some point and if everything came together for him, he'd certainly have troubled Nadal and taken the odd match off him.

Now now you know I can't agree with you that Pete was "never" a baseliner. Early in his career on hardcourts he mixed up his baseline game with his net game, it wasn't until much later he adopted the all net style on hardcourts. But as you say, no point in debating that. We just both see it differently.

I think Nadal would have stoked Pete on Clay every time. Federer plays better on clay than Sampras easily and hasn't beaten him yet so Pete would not have the game to match him. On hardcourst Pete would win more but not all, and I think on grass Nadal wouldn't get a look in against Pete.

It was a tactical appraoch to get you to fess up.... ;)

Agreed!

And I dint say you couldnt.If you bothered to read my post correctly ;) you would have read that I said a balance between the 2 to raise a child up on!Oh and your post was remote from Wise very remote ;)

roflmao
Thats all I can say to you and that!

:ok: :ok: Great post Wise :ok: :ok:

Still I do not see Rafa on the final SW19 this year: a top of his form Djoko can stop him on grass..As well Berdy and I have some other names that can do the job..But if he will be able to reach the final: Yes it will be a great match for sure B)

That smiley is overated.

This is my response....

Wise this was exactly my point

For me the answer is simple: Blake and Berdy they are not searching to win points against Rafa by, if you want, accept Rafa "field' (or way to play), they are following a more short term strategy against him: Flat the ball and go 100% with the power and do that all the time; Keep short and hard.

We agree man :yikes: :yikes: :yikes:

I have to laugh ta you coz I know just as well as you do where the last debate about that ended up 325 posts later....LOL! Also you are like a fish to bait,cant resist the bite!