Why is "One-Dimensional" Bad? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why is "One-Dimensional" Bad?

Jairus
04-26-2006, 10:44 PM
This isn't really meant to be a belligerant discussion question...just a question that hopefully someone can answer well. Obviously, its nice to have multiple weapons of attack, but why is it necessarily bad to have just one weapon? I mean, if the weapon is really good, then you can do well, correct? Imagine if roddick's (95% of "one-dimensional" referred to him before Fed's comment) serve was 300 mph (or 500 kph or w/e)...that being his only dimension wouldn't be a problem, would it? It seems like the term "one-dimensional" is tossed around so that if you are one dimensional, then that dimension WILL get figured out by EVERYONE on tour, so you will be fucked down the road, guaranteed. Am I understanding its usage correctly, or just missing something?

betterthanhenman
04-26-2006, 10:46 PM
Karlovic is the only truly one-dimensional player that springs to mind. That said, compared to Roddick, Ivo is positively Edberg-like at the net :)

Rogiman
04-26-2006, 10:46 PM
Oh, come on, you can not be serious....

Jairus
04-26-2006, 10:47 PM
I can see why its worse than multi-dimensional, but not why its objectively bad.

ie. having a bad serve I'd consider objectively bad. Having a poor drop shot is objective worse than having a good drop shot, but I wouldn't consider it something that causes a player to be "bad." Its a fine line, but one that seems drawable...I'm looking for reasons why being one-dimensional is necessarily enough to make a player bad.

flyguydsl
04-27-2006, 12:14 AM
A lot of great players are "one-dimensional". It's more interesting to note that the "one dimension" of Nadal (whom I believe is the underlying subject here) is that of a defensive game whereas other "one dimensional" players are all aggression and bang bang bang. Maybe that's what throws off the big Fed.

rofe
04-27-2006, 12:57 AM
A lot of great players are "one-dimensional". It's more interesting to note that the "one dimension" of Nadal (whom I believe is the underlying subject here) is that of a defensive game whereas other "one dimensional" players are all aggression and bang bang bang. Maybe that's what throws off the big Fed.

Actually, if you really want to qualify Nadal's game as one-dimensional, that one dimension is his superb consistency. His level of play rarely drops and that is a big part of why he wins.

Sjengster
04-27-2006, 01:01 AM
As you say, it all depends what that dimension is, although since a 300mph serve isn't within the bounds of possibility on a tennis court that's not really worth including. Plenty of great players in the past have had a one-dimensional game, but that dimension can be very difficult to counter. Of course, it's arguable that within a single style there are many variations that make a player multi-faceted; Nadal is bracketed under "consistent baseliner", with a defensive connotation, but anyone who saw that backhand winner he hit to break for 5-3 in the third in the MC final will know that he can be aggressive when the scoreline demands it. The thinking of some seasoned tennis journalists that only serve-volleyers can be defined as aggressive players is ludicrous, look at Calleri or Gonzalez. I suppose back in tennis' heyday, with smaller racquets and quicker courts, most baseliners had to be defensive counter-punchers reacting to the netrusher rather than big hitters.

Deboogle!.
04-27-2006, 01:10 AM
it's so subjective, it all depends on how one defines a "dimension" - is speed a dimension? mental strength? heart? fight? desire? attitude? Someone like Hewitt doesn't particularly have a "weapon" but he's hardly someone I'd consider "one-dimensional" - even Karlovic can serve AND volley. Is "dimension" synonymous with "weapon"?

Is there a truly one-dimensional player in the whole top 100? someone who really can only do ONE and ONLY one thing well? Is that the criteria? Or is it that they always play one style of game? Is gonzalez one-dimensional b/c all he does is hit the ball hard no matter what he's doing (serving, returning, rallying, etc) - but yet because he's got a good serve, returns well, and overall pretty good groundies, I'd never consider him "one-dimensional" even though he has one style of play and only one.

So in conclusion I think it's entirely subjective.. people who just need to put down a player b/c they don't like him will just slap on a "one-dimensional" label on him so they don't have to actually say anything intelligent ;) And they will give it a bad connontation, but no I do not think it's necessarily a bad thing.

Sjengster
04-27-2006, 01:11 AM
Gonzo has good touch when he cares to use it, moreover.

Deboogle!.
04-27-2006, 01:12 AM
Gonzo has good touch when he cares to use it, moreover.Sure, and so do many other players who've been labeled "brainless bashers" - I guess that was my point, that I don't think you can make even the top 100 if you are *truly* one-dimensional.

federated
04-27-2006, 01:40 AM
Actually, if you really want to qualify Nadal's game as one-dimensional, that one dimension is his superb consistency. His level of play rarely drops and that is a big part of why he wins.

hear hear. Rafa fights for every point and has such great focus.

heya
04-27-2006, 01:44 AM
If they have poor footwork and bad stamina, and they're still able to improve every year on mixing up and adding dropshots, lobs and a net game....are they truly one dimensional idiots? Not anyone like Federer, clearly.

morningglory
04-27-2006, 02:10 AM
it isn't. :) ask Monica Seles

Jairus
04-27-2006, 04:17 AM
A lot of great players are "one-dimensional". It's more interesting to note that the "one dimension" of Nadal (whom I believe is the underlying subject here) is that of a defensive game whereas other "one dimensional" players are all aggression and bang bang bang. Maybe that's what throws off the big Fed.

Interestingly, I wasn't going for Nadal at all. I'm definitely in the Fed camp in this battle, but I wouldn't really call Nadal one-dimensional. Which leads me to...
I guess I would consider one-dimensionality to be a state where one skill is signifincatly better than another. It is not so much having a strategy that is problematic. I think Fed is truly unusual b/c he isn't just multi-dimensional, he also has multiple strategies, possibly deriving from his breath in skills. Contrast this to Agassi who has a very rigid approach, but a wide range of skills still (he's quite good at net and drop shoting, when he chooses to use those talents). Thats why I don't really consider it to be a negative label. Glad to see some people (seem to?) agree. I'm unsure of how I would consider something like Hewitt's drive as a dimension, possibly his dominant dimension, but I think thats oversimplying how his psychology plays a factor in his results.

ExpectedWinner
04-27-2006, 06:58 AM
To answer the question- because an opponent knows what to expect and has a great opportunity to adjust.

If someone constantly mixes spins, pace; slices, stays back, comes in, hits drop shot, has a great variety on serve and can hit every corner in the box, its very hard to concentrate on your own game and execute the shots because it breaks your rhythm are forces to guess all the time.

But it's the theory. In reality an O-d player can have a big serve that nobody can return, or a hard, flat fh. In other words, you know what to expect but you can't deal with this kind of game. On the other hand, a M-d player might have the ability to hit every shot in the book and not in the book, but has no weapons. This player will not be successful on the ATP tour.

jenanun
04-27-2006, 07:21 AM
no.. not bad at all... good enough to beat world no.1...

Mimi
04-27-2006, 07:28 AM
for me, it implies "lack of talents" :rolleyes:

jmp
04-27-2006, 09:51 AM
Jairus, I think that the term is often used in a negative light. Objectively speaking, however, being one dimensional works if you can rack up the wins. My sentiments mirror ExpectedWinners'. It depends on whether or not the field can counter your strengths and whether or not a player can maintain those strengths over time.

wimbledonfan
04-27-2006, 01:24 PM
Hewitt is an example of a player who is multidimensional but doesn't have any major weapons in him than can win him multiple slams . I think it's important to have a good serve more than anything else , and focus on shots that you think are most important for your game plan . For instance if you have good foot speed , then you can always run over to your forehand in case your backhand is a bit weaker . If you have a lot of upper body strength , then take advantage of gods gift to you and focus on your serve , because afterall all it is the most deadly of weapons to have in your arsenol .

You have to also understand your body's limitations before making your decision on what facet of your game you want to improve on . For instance , a short player would be wasting valuable time if he was constantly practicing how to serve and volley .

Fumus
04-27-2006, 04:29 PM
Being one-dimensional means that you really have one strategy to win. It's does not mean per say that you have one great shot, ie. serve or forehand. It's more or less that you are not willing or unable to adapt a multitude of strategies and tactics to defeat your opponent.

Example(1): Rafa Nadal uses his impressive speed and top spin from the back of the court to defeat all of his opponents. There won't be many matches where you will see Rafa hit a bunch of aces and try to over power his opponents with his flat shots or a match where Rafa is going to serve and volley more than 30% of the time. If you see a match like that it’s probably a match Nadal is going to lose because that’s not what he good at.

Example(2): Roger Federer uses a multitude of tactics to beat different opponents. Watch Roger against players like Hewitt and he uses shots with impressive pace and depth to bully his opponent around and then comes to net very often to finish points. Against players like Andy Roddick or Marat Safin, Roger uses his defensive skills from the back of the court and while returning serve and waits for his opportunity to strike and hit balls for winners when his opponents have hit themselves out of position. In some matches Roger might even switch tactics from defensive play, to serve and volley, to heavy topspin from the baseline, to flatter winner type hitting and vice versa…back again and again.

A player like Roddick or Nadal uses pretty much the same game to beat everyone, at the moment Roger can't figure what he should do to beat Nadals game because Nadal is so good at it. It appears that Nadal can beat Roger playing almost any style or tactic. James Blake on the other hand who has beaten Nadal twice uses a one dimensional power game to beat Nadal, ironic in a way. So in that way being one dimensional isn't bad because the few things Nadal does he can do really really well, to beat almost any other type of game, especially if the match is on clay.

The immortal Andre Agassi talked about changing his game to beat Federer he said "You can only make small adjustments, because when change your game to beat someone you become ordinary really quick". Not to beat a dead horse here but you have to dance with the girl you came with as a player and put your best shots against your opponents’ best shots and let the chips fall where they may. Someone like Karlovic, although he can do alot of things, he's going to play his big serve and volley game to win. That’s because if he tried to hit slower spinier serves for better court position and then try to out rally his opponents from the back of the court, he’s just not going to be as good as another player whose best game is from the back of the court. There are many ways to win at the game of tennis and as long as you keep the ball between the lines and you are consistently winning matches at the highest level, even if it's the same way every time, no one style is better or worse...only more fun or less fun to watch or to play.

heya
04-27-2006, 04:56 PM
Very talented, but lazy, overweight and stubborn players make less talented players look greater than they really are.

ExpectedWinner
04-27-2006, 04:59 PM
Very talented, but lazy, overweight and stubborn players make less talented players look greater than they really are.

Finally a fan of Labadze here.

helen phillips
04-28-2006, 04:00 AM
Hewitt is an example of a player who is multidimensional but doesn't have any major weapons in him than can win him multiple slams . I think it's important to have a good serve more than anything else , and focus on shots that you think are most important for your game plan . For instance if you have good foot speed , then you can always run over to your forehand in case your backhand is a bit weaker . If you have a lot of upper body strength , then take advantage of gods gift to you and focus on your serve , because afterall all it is the most deadly of weapons to have in your arsenol .

You have to also understand your body's limitations before making your decision on what facet of your game you want to improve on . For instance , a short player would be wasting valuable time if he was constantly practicing how to serve and volley .

I have to say if I was looking for an example of a multi-dimensional player Hewitt would not spring to mind. He does not play with a lot of variety in my estimation. For my money he is an excellent example of why being a one-dimensional player is not a bad thing. Hewitt is effective because he really doesn't have a lot of options out there - he sticks to what he can accomplish. He's not a player who will surprise you.

The list of guys with loads of talent who could never quite pull it together is a very long one - if anything it often appears being a multi-dimensional player is a bigger block to success than being one-dimensional player.

Jairus
04-28-2006, 05:59 AM
Being one-dimensional means that you really have one strategy to win. It's does not mean per say that you have one great shot, ie. serve or forehand. It's more or less that you are not willing or unable to adapt a multitude of strategies and tactics to defeat your opponent.

Example(1): Rafa Nadal uses his impressive speed and top spin from the back of the court to defeat all of his opponents. There won't be many matches where you will see Rafa hit a bunch of aces and try to over power his opponents with his flat shots or a match where Rafa is going to serve and volley more than 30% of the time. If you see a match like that it’s probably a match Nadal is going to lose because that’s not what he good at.

Example(2): Roger Federer uses a multitude of tactics to beat different opponents. Watch Roger against players like Hewitt and he uses shots with impressive pace and depth to bully his opponent around and then comes to net very often to finish points. Against players like Andy Roddick or Marat Safin, Roger uses his defensive skills from the back of the court and while returning serve and waits for his opportunity to strike and hit balls for winners when his opponents have hit themselves out of position. In some matches Roger might even switch tactics from defensive play, to serve and volley, to heavy topspin from the baseline, to flatter winner type hitting and vice versa…back again and again.

A player like Roddick or Nadal uses pretty much the same game to beat everyone, at the moment Roger can't figure what he should do to beat Nadals game because Nadal is so good at it. It appears that Nadal can beat Roger playing almost any style or tactic. James Blake on the other hand who has beaten Nadal twice uses a one dimensional power game to beat Nadal, ironic in a way. So in that way being one dimensional isn't bad because the few things Nadal does he can do really really well, to beat almost any other type of game, especially if the match is on clay.

The immortal Andre Agassi talked about changing his game to beat Federer he said "You can only make small adjustments, because when change your game to beat someone you become ordinary really quick". Not to beat a dead horse here but you have to dance with the girl you came with as a player and put your best shots against your opponents’ best shots and let the chips fall where they may. Someone like Karlovic, although he can do alot of things, he's going to play his big serve and volley game to win. That’s because if he tried to hit slower spinier serves for better court position and then try to out rally his opponents from the back of the court, he’s just not going to be as good as another player whose best game is from the back of the court. There are many ways to win at the game of tennis and as long as you keep the ball between the lines and you are consistently winning matches at the highest level, even if it's the same way every time, no one style is better or worse...only more fun or less fun to watch or to play.


See, I'm not a fan of defining Dimensions as the # of strategies, because I think there frankly aren't a lot of multi-strategy players out there. I can really only think of Fed off the top of my head. Maybe Sampras or Lendl or something, I don't know enough about Lendl but I heard he would SV on grass? Anyways, the point is, I think Fed's wimbly 04 finals style chance of attack plan is almost unheard of. Most people have a main game plan, even if they have multiple talents.
I might be wrong about that, but I really think thats the empirical case.

ExpectedWinner
04-28-2006, 06:32 AM
Being one-dimensional means that you really have one strategy to win. It's does not mean per say that you have one great shot, ie. serve or forehand. It's more or less that you are not willing or unable to adapt a multitude of strategies and tactics to defeat your opponent.



The limited choice of quality shots that player can execute consistently= lthe limited choice of strategies/tactics. The technical base comes first, not the other way around.

Nathaliia
04-28-2006, 08:06 AM
This isn't really meant to be a belligerant discussion question...just a question that hopefully someone can answer well. Obviously, its nice to have multiple weapons of attack, but why is it necessarily bad to have just one weapon? I mean, if the weapon is really good, then you can do well, correct? Imagine if roddick's (95% of "one-dimensional" referred to him before Fed's comment) serve was 300 mph (or 500 kph or w/e)...that being his only dimension wouldn't be a problem, would it? It seems like the term "one-dimensional" is tossed around so that if you are one dimensional, then that dimension WILL get figured out by EVERYONE on tour, so you will be fucked down the road, guaranteed. Am I understanding its usage correctly, or just missing something?
Depends on what 'bad' you mean. For the players or for the audience. I believe one-dimensional is a round enough word with a wide semantic category to pack there a player that his one weapon is seriously dominating all other weapons. As for the audience, it depends on what they like. There would be a lot of annoyed seeing a person who can (or want?) only kill from the forehand side while having mediocre backhand and being hopeless at the net with a wee bit of pathetic second service included. However, there will be fans of his as well, even from the simple fact of pitying the guy.

Roddick's service will never be that fast you mentioned, because it's above human abilities, but yet, his 240 km/h was a trap at the beginning, when he appeared, and now more and more players are finding a cure for that. But tactics can be found for every player, especially this one, who doesn't mix up the shots and behaviour during the match.

Generally, no I don't say having one main weapon is bad, but it's just me who doesn't feel happy by watching these players

Fumus
05-01-2006, 02:54 AM
The limited choice of quality shots that player can execute consistently= lthe limited choice of strategies/tactics. The technical base comes first, not the other way around.

ask Brad Gilbert about that....I think he wrote a book about winning with shots that aren't as good as your opponents. "Winning Ugly" is in book stores everywhere pick it up! It's a good read. :)

ExpectedWinner
05-01-2006, 04:12 AM
I think he wrote a book about winning with shots that aren't as good as your opponents.

1.Where did I say that shots has to be better than an opponent's shots?
2. My post wasn't about winning matches.

Give that book to certain WTA players and the only tactic they would be able to implement is taking a bathroom break. :p

nhissan
05-01-2006, 09:44 AM
Can we compare the one dimensional game of Nadal and Andy Roddick situation? Do you think Nadal could in a near future struggle like Andy?

Jairus
05-01-2006, 10:21 AM
Can we compare the one dimensional game of Nadal and Andy Roddick situation? Do you think Nadal could in a near future struggle like Andy?

I still don't feel comfortable calling Nadal's game one-dimensional. True, he doesn't bust out with all sorts of different tactics mid-match, but if you are hitting winners off the forehand and backhand, I think you are better than one-dimensional.

thrust
05-01-2006, 01:54 PM
I do not think Nadal^s game is one dimensional, he just does not have the variety of shots that Roger has. Sometimes, having too much variety can cause problems in a tight match, such as causing a player to think as to which type of backhand or forehand to hit. Years ago Arthur Ashe was describing the various types of backhands he could hit. He then said, but Rosewall has just one backhand-perfect.

binkygirl
05-01-2006, 08:26 PM
One dimensional is 'bad' because it means that a player will rise to a certain ranking level using one weapon and go no further, because it takes more than one weapon to keep rising in the rankings. It is also dangerous, because other players will figure out how to deal with the single weapon the player possesses and win.

Jairus
05-01-2006, 10:12 PM
Still, if that ranking is #1, top 10, or even top 100, is it so bad? I still say it is more appropriate to call it "worse" rather than "bad." ie. its better to be mulit-dimensional, but you can do just fine being one-dimensional.
In other words, this thread is back where it started. :p

heya
05-02-2006, 01:33 AM
Why don't you offer something to say other than so and so player has nothing but the serve? I'm sure you can imagine what it's like to rely on your own decisions without a real coach, and then try to expand on your game by totally changing your a serve at ages 16 or 20. I'm sure a sensible thought could enter your mind about coaching, training, desire, physique and fitness. No one's raised to do the same effing things. Deal with it.

connectolove
05-02-2006, 09:33 AM
Interesting Eurosport – Julien Carrasco (24/04/06)
Nadal, a “one-dimensional” or “monolithic” player? Nothing is less true. At Monte Carlo, Roger Federer was beaten by an extra-ordinary counter-attacker who masters every aspect of the clay court game, that fourth dimension of the tour that still escapes the Swiss…

« The more I play against him, the better because he has a rather monolithic game », uttered Federer in a blustering way before challenging Rafael Nadal in the final of the Masters Series of Monte Carlo. Just a matter of convincing himself that there does exist a solution to the problem posed by the Mallorcan. Because in reality, the more the Swiss plays against Nadal, the more he accumulates his errors.

In five encounters, except in an unexpected turnaround of the situation in Miami 2005, Roger has not found good answers to the multiple choice question that is Nadal. Maybe the world’s number one does not fully take the full measure of the problem into consideration?

Federer considers that Nadal is a wall and there is clearly a breach to exploit and to widen so that the entire building comes crashing down, last obstacle in front of him before Roland Garros. “I was asking myself many questions before arriving here and it was a very beautiful week », he reassures himself. “I have taken a huge step forward. Today, I was almost there and I believe that my chances for Roland Garros have gone up this week. It’s another stage. Playing against Nadal helps me to progress. Since he’s there, I have improved things and the more I play against him, the better. »

”I feel like an equal to him”

This new defeat? A step in the direction of future success. « I have played a good match even though I have some regrets about the number of occasions I could not cease an opportunity, at break points in particular. My total of errors? That statistic is of no interest to me. Nadal leaves me no choice; you have to take risks against him. Those who say the contrary are invited to try it in my place. Having lost three times in a row against him does not discourage me. »

In a way, Federer feels that this is something that will pass. In the mean time, you have to keep up appearances. The Swiss was doing the chasing all along the match and could only pull off three rebreaks to try his luck in a tie-break but he does not accept the superiority of his young rival: “Nadal too strong for me? I don’t agree. Today, the difference was made by little things so it would be wrong to state that. I feel like an equal to him.” Beyond the generosity of the two actors in that palpitating and promising final and the mutual respect they have for each other, an authentic rivalry broke out on that big day in Monaco.

A glorious rivalry

With the glorious claycourts of Roland Garros in the backdrop, the two men find themselves already face to face. And the opposing styles on and off court is remarkable: Federer handles it with humour and ends with a flourish" “the only small advantage I will concede is that he is a lefty and there aren’t many of them on tour. I’m not used to it and it explains in part my bad start of the match. I have a left-handed trainer (Tony Roche) but, well, he’s a bit old.”

Nadal modestly reminds people that he simply does what it takes to win: “It’s a very beautiful victory. You never get used to a win like that, certainly not if it’s against Federer. It’s very special to start the clay court season with a title. The match was very tough, I was very disappointed that I didn’t take my chance in the second set. After that, I had some difficult moments. I was broken in the third set but he then made a couple of mistakes which allowed me to make a new start. All things considered, I’m very satisfied with my performance, I was very aggressive with my forehand, very consistent and focused throughout the match. The only thing I'm not pleased about is my serve. I had a problem with the sand (note: it seems that some of the French journalists misunderstood Nadal. They use the word “sable” = sand but in English, he talked about having trouble with the sun) but that’s no excuse. My serve was, quite simply, bad."

The very harsh judgement the young prodigy has on his serve is proof of something that we don’t find with Federer : Nadal is human. He’s not made out of one solid piece of wood or stone, like an Iberean pilar planted in the middle of ‘court Philippe Chatrier’. He too can lose against Federer and the crude mistakes he made in the second and fourth set of the final are proof of that. But he too can improve.

On clay, against Nadal, Federer is no longer looking at himself. He, who has the potential to become the best player in the history of tennis, has to break that mirror. Learning how to play against a lefty will not suffice to win Roland Garros and win the ‘little grand slam’. He will have to be better than Nadal, who has yet to reach the age of 20 on the 3rd of June 2006 and who will improve even further….We have seen that on Sunday, Rafael often tried to smother his elder opponent by coming forward and firing volleys at the net…an attitude that is far removed from that of a simple returner.

A matter of instinct.

A fierce fighter, Nadal transforms any clay court into an impregnable deserted island, a fortress that looks like Manacor, his home town. His hunger for the victory does not cease. And Federer, for whom it took 4 years to get control over an impulsive temper to win his trophies, will have to go back to his instinctive hatred of defeat to get to the level of the Spaniard. “I loved our battles”, Roger admits after the confrontation, almost looking pleased, not for having been beaten but for having found those emotions back that were too strong to control just like when he was broken in the 4th set and he launched a ball wide over the public into the sea, after which he continued with newly found energy.

On the other side of the court, Nadal keeps on pumping his fist. Much more than a mere “supreme worker”, the ‘protégé’ of uncle Toni Nadal is developing into an exceptional champion, forged by the solid and continuous battle on clay courts, mixing pride with humility: “Every day, I can lose, even on clay. Well, at the moment, I’m at 100% and I know that I have a good chance to win but to be frank, there are plenty of players who can beat me.” This week, he's starting the challenge again: "sure, I’m happy with having won 42 consecutive matches. The record of Borg and Vilas (46 and 53)? Yes, I’m thinking about it. It’s already nice to be n°3 in the history. Now, to get beyond Borg, I will have to reach the final at Barcelona. That’s not easy.”

J. Corwin
05-02-2006, 09:58 AM
You'd be a poor dot. You can't even move sideways. :sad:

oz_boz
05-02-2006, 02:14 PM
One-dimensional is bad because that dimension can be figured out. (MTF favourite example: Roddick's serve-based game.)

Roger called Nadal's game one-dimensional, and had to eat his words after that. Btw someone with extremely good groundies off both wings, high first serve %, super anticipation and speed, tactical sense, shot-making abilities and stamina is NOT one-dimensional.

Tracy89
05-02-2006, 03:51 PM
One dimensional is bad becoz Roger can't find a way how to beat a one dimensional player ;)

MisterQ
05-02-2006, 05:15 PM
You'd be a poor dot. You can't even move sideways. :sad:

You would be a singular presence though! :cool:

rofe
05-02-2006, 05:47 PM
One-dimensional is bad because that dimension can be figured out. (MTF favourite example: Roddick's serve-based game.)

Roger called Nadal's game one-dimensional, and had to eat his words after that. Btw someone with extremely good groundies off both wings, high first serve %, super anticipation and speed, tactical sense, shot-making abilities and stamina is NOT one-dimensional.

I am not saying that Roger was right in saying what he said ( I would have preferred that he had let his tennis do the talking) but I think what he meant was that Nadal's game does not vary too much from match to match. Nadal does not have different tactics for individual players or he does not adjust mid-match if things are not going well (i.e he does not have a plan B).

Facts seem to support this assertion because he had no answer to Blake twice and no answer to Moya's flat groundies in Miami even though he knows Moya's game well.

heya
05-02-2006, 08:45 PM
Nadal's serve's a little weak and his immaturity/insecurity on hardcourt made him indecisive from the baseline. Blake was down 0-40; Nadal stood 5 feet behind the baseline and was afraid he'd miss passing shots near the net. Nadal could use some more footwork training on grass/hardcourt.
Nadal's pace isn't consistently big but Blake and Federer's serves bail themselves out of 0-40 holes.

Castafiore
05-02-2006, 08:57 PM
I am not saying that Roger was right in saying what he said ( I would have preferred that he had let his tennis do the talking) but I think what he meant was that Nadal's game does not vary too much from match to match. Nadal does not have different tactics for individual players or he does not adjust mid-match if things are not going well (i.e he does not have a plan B).

Facts seem to support this assertion because he had no answer to Blake twice and no answer to Moya's flat groundies in Miami even though he knows Moya's game well.
I think that Rafa has problems with Blake for other reasons (reasons well discussed here).

Rafa does tend to change to plan B if needed: just to give a couple of examples:
* Against Coria in Beijing after set 1
* Against Agassi in Montreal after set 2
* Against Ljubicic in Madrid after set 2
* Against Federer in Dubai after set 1 where he made some changes and adjustments (passing shots for example)
When talking about Nadal matches, I know that it's popular to say here in MTF that it's always the other player who does the changing: the choking, the increasing of the level or the decreasing of the level or whatever but watch Nadal in those matches for example with objective eyes and you'll see it

But let me use the words of the great Manolo Santana (said in 2004) to make my point:
He is rather intelligent on the court. What I like in Nadal is his way of planning the matches and the different ways he plays, depending on the opponent on the other side. He has at his disposal a variety of strokes, although he needs to improve many facets of his game, like the volley and the serve. But at his age you can't ask for more.

rofe
05-02-2006, 09:21 PM
You are being defensive here - where did I imply that Nadal wins only because his opponent does something wrong? You have to admit that every player (and that includes Federer) has opportunities when their opponent's level drops. Nadal and Federer (to name a few) seem to capitalize on it quite well. I see nothing wrong with that.

About the one-dimensional statement, I was actually just trying to guess why Fed could have said that though I disagree with what he said. I have to take issue with you about your passing shot remark against Fed in Dubai though. How is a passing shot plan B if the opponent is coming into the net? If your opponent comes into the net you have two choices, either lob him or pass him. It doesn't need a change in tactic. What else are you going to do?

This is a trend I see with a lot of Nadal fans on MTF. They get too defensive about their golden boy when there is no need to and lose sense of what another poster is trying to say.


I think that Rafa has problems with Blake for other reasons (reasons well discussed here).

Rafa does tend to change to plan B if needed: just to give a couple of examples:
* Against Coria in Beijing after set 1
* Against Agassi in Montreal after set 2
* Against Ljubicic in Madrid after set 2
* Against Federer in Dubai after set 1 where he made some changes and adjustments (passing shots for example)
When talking about Nadal matches, I know that it's popular to say here in MTF that it's always the other player who does the changing: the choking, the increasing of the level or the decreasing of the level or whatever but watch Nadal in those matches for example with objective eyes and you'll see it

But let me use the words of the great Manolo Santana (said in 2004) to make my point:

Castafiore
05-02-2006, 09:31 PM
Why are you giving me your little 'too defensive' lecture here? Don't get me wrong, it's cute to read this but I don't quite see the point.
I'm disagreeing with you on your 'no plan B' comment and since this is a message board, I thought I'd threw in my own comments about it.
Hey, maybe I misunderstand the purpose of a message board but to me, it's an ideal place to talk to people who don't necessarily have the same opinion as you (because what's the point in always talking to people who agree with everything you say).

Besides, the 'passing shot' is hardly the entire plan B but I was just giving one small example. :rolleyes:
Nadal specifically changed the direction of his passing shots in set 2, making it more difficult for Roger to execute his own plan of attack.

rofe
05-02-2006, 10:43 PM
I doubt you find my post cute - amusing maybe but certainly not cute. I have no problems with your disagreement but obviously you do with mine. Ok, since you know Nadal's passing shot plan B so well, lets have a rational discussion about it. What exactly do you mean by changing the direction of the passing shot and how exactly is it a plan B? As I see it, if you are passing someone, you can do the following things:

a) Passing with a DTL
b) Passing with a cross court

How do you change tactics and bring out a plan B in this situation? I just don't get how you can vary your tactics so much when you are passing someone that it can be classified as a plan B. In fact, I would contend that passing is one of the few times you don't need a plan B. You don't and can't come up with a whole new strategy for passing your opponent. You have a target and your ball has to be as far away as possible from that target while still falling within the lines. It is pure instinct at that point.

Why are you giving me your little 'too defensive' lecture here? Don't get me wrong, it's cute to read this but I don't quite see the point.
I'm disagreeing with you on your 'no plan B' comment and since this is a message board, I thought I'd threw in my own comments about it.
Hey, maybe I misunderstand the purpose of a message board but to me, it's an ideal place to talk to people who don't necessarily have the same opinion as you (because what's the point in always talking to people who agree with everything you say).

Besides, the 'passing shot' is hardly the entire plan B but I was just giving one small example. :rolleyes:
Nadal specifically changed the direction of his passing shots in set 2, making it more difficult for Roger to execute his own plan of attack.

Castafiore
05-03-2006, 05:03 AM
I doubt you find my post cute - amusing maybe but certainly not cute
let me reread your post....no, it was more 'cute' to me than 'amusing'. :)

I have no problems with your disagreement but obviously you do with mine
LOL...Yeah, sure.
Rofe. We're just having a different opinion. You write your opinion, I disagree. Stop making this so personal. It's no big deal.

. What exactly do you mean by changing the direction of the passing shot and how exactly is it a plan B? :rolleyes:
I did not say that the changing of the passing shot IS the entire plan B but I said that it was one of the examples of some of the changes he did after set 1 but you prefer to focus in on that detail instead. :shrug:
Tennis is about making a series of small adjustments within the match. Going to a plan B hardly ever means making huge adjustments. It's a matter of being more aggressive or defensive (if the case requires it), changing directions of shots, flattening out shots and/or adding more top spin, coming to the net more,...

Roger directed some of his shots in a particular way in set 1 for which Rafa did not have an answer. ONE of the things Rafa did was mixing it up a bit and changing the direction of the passing shots as ONE of the things he changed. That's not merely a matter of instinct but a conscious decision since it was an obvious difference from set 1.