Dispatches: Affronter Rafael Nadal

Roland Garros, or tennis' French Open, started yesterday.  Perhaps you've noticed; articles ran in most Sunday papers about it, quite extensive ones too, considering that the French has often been viewed as a third-rate (after Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) Grand Slam tournament, largely because it is usually won by a cadre of specialists instead of the best-known players.  Not only is this perception unfair, but, this year, Roland Garros will be the most important men's tennis tournament of the year.  Here's why.

The increasing specialization of tennis has meant that this tournament, the only Grand Slam played on clay, has a set of contenders that is quite distinct from those at the grass courts of Wimbledon and the hardcourts of Flushing Meadows, Queens.  Not only has it been won by players who have not been dominant on the other surfaces, but it has been very difficult for anyone to enjoy repeat success sur la terre battue.  Ten of the last twelve Wimbledons were won by Pete Sampras and Roger Federer; the last five winners of Roland Garros are Gustavo Kuerten, Albert Costa, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Gaston Gaudio, and Rafael Nadal.  I'm going to try to explain both phenomena (specialized success and lack of repeat dominance) below.

Why does it make a difference what surface the game is played on, and what difference does it make?  Basically, the surface affects three things: the speed of the ball after it bounces, the height of the ball's bounce, and the player's level of traction on court.  In terms of the speed of the ball and height of its bounce, clay is the slowest and highest, and grass is the fastest and lowest, with hardcourt in the middle.  This results in differing strategies for success on each surface, with grass rewarding aggressive quick strikes - with the speed of the ball and the low bounce, you can 'hit through' the court and past the other player with relative ease.  For this reason, the great grass-court players have mostly been offensive players, who use serve-and-volley tactics (i.e., serving and coming to net to take the next ball out of the air).  Clay, on the other hand, reverses this in favor of the defensive player: the slow, high bounce means it is very tough to hit past an opponent, and points must be won by attrition, after long rallies in which slight positional advantages are constantly being negotiated before a killing stroke.  Clay-court tennis is exhausting, brutal work.

Clay and grass, then, are opposed, slow and fast, when it comes to the ball.  How then did Bjorn Borg, perhaps the greatest modern player (he accomplished more before his premature retirement at twenty-five than anyone other than Sampras) manage to win Roland Garros (clay) six times and Wimbledon (grass) five but never a major tournament on the medium paced surface, hardcourt?  The third variable comes into play here: traction.  Clay, and, to a lesser extent, grass, provide negative traction.  That is, you slip when you plant your foot and push off.  Hardcourt provides positive traction - your foot sticks.  Consequently, entirely different styles of quickness are needed.  Borg didn't like positive traction.  On clay, particularly, players slide balletically into the ball, the timing for which skill is developed during childhood by the most talented players, most of whom grew up in countries where clay courts are the rule: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Brazil.  Grass is not as slidey, but offers less traction than the sticky hardcourts, and like clay, grass' uneven natural surface produces unpredictable hops and bounces, frustrating the expectations of the more lab-conditioned hardcourt players.

So, clay slows the ball and provides poor footing, both of which qualities means that it's ruled by an armada of players who grow up playing on it and mastering the movement and strategic ploys it favors.  Perhaps foremost among these is the dropshot, which works because the high bounce of the clay court drives players way back and sets them up for the dropper.  This explains the dominance of the clay specialists, but why has the title switched off among so many players lately?  For the most part, this is because of the grinding nature of clay.  So much effort must be expended to win a match (five sets on clay can take five hours of grueling back-and-forth; in contrast, bang-bang tennis on grass can be practically anaerobic), that players tire over the course of the tournament, and so much depends upon perseverance that a superhuman effort will often overcome a greater talent.  It just so happens that last year there emerged a player who combines the greatest clay talent with the greatest amount of effort, but more on him below.  For now, let me return to my claim that this edition of the French is the most important men's tennis event this year.

Historically, the greatest offensive players (meaning players who try to dictate play and win points outright, rather than counterpunchers, who wait for their opening, or retrievers, who wait for you to mess up), have been unsuccessful at Roland Garros, while the defensive fiends who win in Paris have been unsuccessful on grass.  (Borg, a counterpunching genius, is the great exception.)  The best attackers, namely John McEnroe, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, and of course Pete Sampras, have won zero French Opens, while Ivan Lendl, a three-time Roland Garros winner, narrowly failed in his endearing late-career quest to win Wimbledon (all of these players won major titles on hardcourts as well).  The only man since 1970, in fact, to win all four major titles (known as the Grand Slam tournaments), on the three disparate surfaces, is one Andre Agassi, a hybrid offensive baseliner.  This has made the dream of winning all four Slams in a single year, a feat also known, confusingly, as winning the Grand Slam--last accomplished by Rod Laver in 1969--seem pretty quixotic nowadays.  Until now.  The game's best current offensive player is also an excellent defensive player, and an extremely competent mover and slider on clay.  Roger Federer has the best chance of anyone since Agassi to win the career Grand Slam, and, as the holder of the last Wimbledon, U.S. Open, and Australian titles, could win his fourth straight major this month (a feat he is calling, with a little Swiss hubris, the "Roger Slam").  If he succeeds this year at Roland Garros, he'll accomplish something Sampras couldn't, and if he does I think it's almost inevitable that he'll sweep London and Flushing and complete the calendar Grand Slam as well. 

Standing in the way of Federer's c.v.-building efforts is the aforementioned combination of talent and drive, the nineteen-year-old Mallorcan prodigy Rafael Nadal.  He had one of the finest seasons I've ever seen last year, absolutely destroying the field on clay, winning Roland Garros, winning over Agassi in Montreal and over Ljubicic in Madrid.  He's now won a record 54 matches on clay without a loss.  Not only does Nadal's astonishing effort level intimidate opponents, but he is surprisingly skilled, a bulldog with the delicacy of a fox.  You can see him break opponents' spirits over the course of matches, endlessly prolonging rallies with amazing 'gets,' or retrievals, which he somehow manages to flick into offensive shots rather than desperate lobs.  When behind, he plays even better until he catches up.  His rippling physique and indefatigable, undying intensity make him literally scary to face on clay.  And yet, when off the court, he is a personable and kind presence at this stage of his young life.  All in all, a player this brutal has no business being this likable, but there it, and he, is.

Nadal and Federer have played six times: Nadal has won five, and held a huge lead in the other before wilting on a hardcourt.  Let me underline here just how anomalous this state of affairs is: here we have the world number one on a historic run of victories, and yet he cannot beat number two.  Federer has lost his last three matches with Nadal; with all other players, he has lost three of his last one hundred and nineteen matches.  Rafa is the only player on whom Federer cannot impose his will; indeed, Federer must try and quickly end points against Nadal to avoid being imposed upon.  In the final at Rome two weeks ago, Federer unveiled a new strategy, coming in to net whenever the opportunity arose, though not directly following his serve.  Federer's flexibility, his ability to adopt new tactics, made for a delicious and breathtaking final, which he led 4-1 in the fifth and final set, and held two match points at 5-4.  Here Nadal's hypnotic retrieving unnerved him once again, and two errors led the match to a fifth-set tiebreaker.  In a microcosmic repetition, Federer again led (5-3 and serving) and again let the lead slip away.  Nadal, after a full five hours, took the title and reconfirmed his psychological edge, even over the most dominant player of the last twenty years.  His confidence will be nearly unimpeachable, where Federer's will be shaken by losing a match in which he played the best clay-court tennis of his life.  If, as expected, they play again in the final of Roland Garros, for all the marbles, you're going to see the most anticipated tennis match in several years.

(Note: I have gone on for way too long without handicapping the women's field, for which I apologize.  I'll just say here that I am hopeful that France's glorious all-court player, Amelie Mauresmo, will win.)

See All Dispatches.

Comments

[Abbas Raza]

Absolutely brilliant writing. A pleasure to read. Thanks.

[Asad]

Thanks, man. Just following orders. By the way, I think the cat has you going soft--"If you don't get it, don't worry about it!" What?! Where's the stern explicator we know and love?

[Tassnim]

This weekend as the French Open got going, there were several reports in the newspapers about it. I enjoyed yours the most because it was so comprehensive and explained why this year the French Open may be the most important of the four Grand Slams. I am hoping Federer will get the French this year. He may not have too many chances in the future. Nadal is going to be around for a few years and other players will come along. Thanks for writing a very good essay.

[Abbas Raza]

Asad, it occurred to me that there might be a fourth fundamental difference in the game based on which surface it is being played on, and this also has to do with the traction (or friction coefficient) of the surface: it's affect on how fast the ball is spinning as it comes off the ground. What do you think?

And yes, I was in too lazy a mood to spend too much time on phase shifts! I'll be back.

[Asad]

Abbas, I think what you point to is an explanation to which my categories are epiphenomena. The increased traction of clay means, indeed, that the ball 'grips' the surface and jumps up higher. If the ball has topspin, this grip allows it to retain more of its topspin and jump forward and up; with a sliced, or underspun, ball, the clay's traction removes more of the spin by not allowing the ball to skid as easily off the court surface. Conversely, on grass, topspun balls do not maintain as much spin and jump less, while sliced balls retain more underspin and skid through the bounce.

Yet another clay specific effect has to do with the particles of clay that stick to the ball upon the bounce. By increasing the weight of the ball, they also slow it down after the bounce.

Let me make one more comment about Roland Garros, this time about ESPN's coverage of it. Yesterday, Andy Roddick, who is in a major slump, is terrible on clay, and has an injured ankle, retired down two sets to a middle-of-the-road Spanish claycourter, Alberto Martin. ESPN forced us to watch the entire match, the injury timeout, and then Roddick's press conference, all the while ignoring by far the most glamorous first-round match of the tournament, between two hugely talented and hugely charismatic players, Fernando Gonzalez and Marat Safin. I have nothing against Roddick, but I am happy he lost, so we don't have to have inferior matches shoved down our throats based solely on the nationality of one of the players. In fact, when watching tennis in a given country, the best possible outcome from the standpoint of televising the best matches, is for the players of that country to lose in the first round.

And speaking of Roddick, whose confidence continues to plummet, I think he has been a victim of this jingoistic sports culture as well. Following his major run of success, the 2003 summer hardcourt season in which he won everything and became number one very briefly, he was absolutely showered with attention and hence pressure by an American sports media desperate for a homegrown star to succeed Andre and Pete. Roddick hosted Saturday Night Live, started a charitable foundation, and other good-corporate-citizen initiatives that depended on his keeping a high tennis profile. Yet after his rivalry with Federer failed to materialize, and he was relegated to an also-ran, the fall was very far, given his premature coronation as the American face of tennis. Now he seems increasingly embittered, and I feel for him. Always doe-eyed, he now looks as if he's staring into the headlights.

[Palmer]

Hey Asad, just gotta say that I follow tennis like its my life, stay up to all hours of the morning to watch it, and your essay was very solid. I cant wait to see federer and nadal in the final, it just has to happen, cause it will be an instant classic. Also, just another possibility to add to the reason the French is so different for certain players: their mentality. It has been so engrained in everyone's head that you cannot win a by playin a certain way that they lose confidence, their game plan and aggressiveness. I agree that one must change their game plan to surfaces, but you cannot get away completely from what you do well. Clay has that ability to get the good players off of their game.

Cheers man

[shariq]

Gread piece Asad, although I think your comment on Roddick is slightly harsh.

I think he was a talented young player who had everything go right for him during that one glorious summer (wasn't he match points down against Nalbandian in the US Open Semi's?).

In any case, given the level of intensity that his game requires, the fact that his groundstrokes aren't perfectly honed and the pressure placed on him by the success of federer, its not surprising he's dropped of a bit.

Finally, while I similarly despise jingoistic sports coverage (even the bbc's coverage of wimbledon has grown steadily worse), Roddick has the personality to get the media attention. For example look at the coverage James Blake got after the US Open despite the fact that Robby Ginepri made it one round further.

In any case, hope we are treated to another tennis post before the final. I hope to have my own federer post ready by then as well.

[Asad]

Thanks Palmer and Shariq, for the kind words. Shariq, I *like* Roddick, and tried to emphasize that in my comment. All I meant by saying that I was happy he lost was that we can now see better matches between true contenders without the networks needlessly privileging American players. I honestly believe they are holding the ratings back by doing this instead of showing the best matches, and I also think that Roddick suffered from the excessive pressure placed on him purely because he was asked to be the savior of American tennis. I hope to check out the Federer post when you post it.

[shariq.]

Agreed regarding watching better matches on tv. Just as it seemed that the bbc's coverage would improve with henman and rusedski declining, along comes andy murray.

Just noticed that James Blake beat Almagro. Looks like your jingoistic coverage will continue for a while yet.

[Asad]

Well, beating Almagro makes Blake a contender, and he is undefeated against Nadal, so bring him on! There are other forms of bias in the match selection though: right now, Nalbandian is in a dogfight of a fifth set with Tursunov and what are they showing: Sharapova leading Molik 5-0 first set!

Speaking of Tursunov, his blog for the ATP was the funniest tennis stuff I've ever read. I love the guy. Here's a typical sample:

"By the way, fans don’t realize how much time tennis players spend online. Dinara probably has every song on the planet into her laptop. Marat downloads so many movies it feels like he is planning to open Blockbuster Video in Moscow. Gael Monfils is nuts over MSN. A couple of days ago he was sitting in the lobby and, I’m not kidding, talking on six MSN Windows at the same time. The guy is like Neo in Matrix. He has no idea what he is writing anymore or who he is writing to. He just puts “lol” and moves on to the next window. The girl is probably telling him that her kittens died and he just says, “lol.” At the same time he is listening to Bow Wow and tries to sing along. The funniest stuff on Earth. A French dude is trying to rap! Impossible to watch without a condescending smile!

"Then there is ATP trainer Michael Novotny. Sitting in a locker room staring at the screen from 30 cm. away. Hypnotized by Skype, Yahoo! and MSN. His computer is lighting up like a Christmas tree with all sorts of warnings, new message alerts, incoming calls, etc. Between his computer and sniffing all the glue for the taping jobs he is slowly turning into a zombie."

for more, check out http://www.atptennis.com/en/blog/tursunov.asp

(Nadal is writing an ATP blog during the French, but it's pretty uneventful - he plays a lot of playstation and eats meals, does press, hits, and goes to bed early.)

[aguy109]

I'm taking a ride on this post to wish Shahar Peer all the best for today's 3rd set in her match against Martina Hingis, at the French Open. Shahar is now ranked higher than any other Israeli player before her.

[Asad]

I'm sorry, aguy109, but the third set proved too much for Peer. Today's match between Hewitt and Nadal was also interesting, though Hewitt couldn't maintain the challenging level at which he played for the first two sets.

Wednesday brings us another interesting challenge to Nadal, this time from the young Serb, Novak Djokovic, who hits enormous forehands and generally plays with aplomb. I think he's still a little green to match up to Rafa, though.

[anthony]

Hello,
I thoroughly enjoyed this article:It was simply wonderful. I would like to read more. I understand you have written on Andre Aggassi.I can't seem to link to that though.
Yours
Anthony

[Asad]

Anthony, thanks for the compliment - the link to my little Agassi piece is extinct, but I'll be writing about him here on 3quarks in August, now that he's announced the U.S. Open will be his last tournament.

Meantime, let's see if he can make his third-round appointment with Rafa.