The Australian Open has delivered one of the most exciting fortnights of tennis in recent memory, with upsets and veterans resurging on both sides of the draw. Novak Djokovic went down to free-swinging Denis Istomin in the second round while Andy Murray misfired again and again under the pressure of journeyman serve-volleyer Mischa Zverev.
Roger Federer has danced through the draw and the forecourt with displays of aggressive tennis. Rafael Nadal’s forehand looks to have the bite and fright of his glory days. Much credit must be given to these two men themselves, who have comeback from injuries in 2016 to display their vintages at the back-end of a slam once again.
Yet it would be naïve to think they didn’t do this without the help of the unusually faster and bouncier conditions at this year’s Open. Federer, along with many other players, has noted the faster conditions at this year’s event, and much has been said of the balls playing ‘lighter’ or quicker through the air, especially during the day.
Patrick Mouratoglou, coach of Serena Williams (who will contest tomorrow night’s final against sister Venus), said prior to the open; “It will be an advantage for the players that play flatter, are aggressive baseliners or enjoy playing on faster courts, because they know how to use well their opponents’ pace.”
And so it has been, with players like Kei Nishikori, Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, David Goffin, Grigor Dimitrov and Mischa Zverev all having career-best results on faster surfaces, and all making this year’s quarter-finals. It’s not a surprise that Federer and Milos Raonic are fast court specialists, and including them means seven of the eight players in this year’s line up lapped up the conditions provided.
Nadal commented after his second-round win over Marcos Baghdatis that the conditions were totally different from the day and that the ball was quite heavy and slow. Baghdatis concurred, even raising his concerns to the chair umpire during the match citing how much quicker the outside courts were.
But slow as they may be at night, the conditions, overall, are faster and bouncier than in recent years ever since Melbourne Park got its blue face-lift in 2008, replacing the lime green courts of years before.
Five of Federer’s six matches this year have been played at night, and despite the night slowing the ball down, Federer has repeatedly stated how much faster the court is playing.
This has undoubtedly helped him in nearly every aspect of his game. It’s no secret he excels on fast surfaces, with seven Wimbledon titles from ten finals, five US Open titles from seven finals, and three of his Australian Open titles being claimed on the quicker lime green surface pre-2008.
He doesn’t have the power of Stan Wawrinka, but his swings are shorter and he uses the pace of his opponents by taking it earlier. He is not as fast as Nadal, but he stands on the baseline and cuts off angles. He doesn’t have the power-serve of Milos Raonic, but he has pinpoint precision and unmatched disguise, allowing him to hit a lot of his aces with relatively slow pace.
Nadal has benefitted from the new surface this year in his own way, with the court reacting to spin and taking on a high bounce, as noted by Mouratoglou again: “To be totally clear, when the players use topspin, the court responds well to it and the ball bounces high, but when you play flatter, the ball takes a lot of speed.”
And here in perhaps lies the secret, maybe even dependence; on the success they have enjoyed this year. Contrary to popular belief it is the bounce height, and not the speed that frazzles Nadal. He has no allergy to speed, only a lack of bounce, which thwarts his vicious-kicking forehands. The Spaniard has bagged many titles on quick courts, as long as the bounce was there for him, with multiple Masters wins in Canada and Cincinnati, and multiple Wimbledon titles when the grass provided more kick.
Compare that to his zero Miami Masters titles in the swamp-like conditions, where there is speed but not much bounce, similar to his zero World Tour Finals, where again the speed is medium but the bounce considered low.
Debates rage over who is the greatest. Some say Federer with his unmatched 17 grand slams. Some say Nadal because of his 14 and his head-to-head. Some say Djokovic because of his recent domination and favourable record against both Federer and Nadal. Some say Sampras, or Borg, or Laver, or Gonzalez or some other.
My point is that all these players are the greatest. They all have that rare mix of talent, belief, work ethic and a pinch of something you can’t really define but you can see it. How they perform over a career, then, given how close they are in abilities, sometimes comes down to the surface and the generation they were allotted in.
Nadal would likely have 20 slams if there were two clay majors a year. Federer the same with two Wimbledons. Djokovic has dominated on slow hard courts of recent years, would he have done so on quicker courts? When two greats clash it is the conditions, more than their will, that determine the outcome.
It is not for us to conclusively label one and shun the others. Perhaps that’s sitting on the fence, but you do see more from up here, and they are all the greatest in their own way.
If Nadal beats Dimitrov tonight and gives us a final we never thought we would see again, it won’t matter who wins to me. They are both two of the greatest players of all-time. It is the way they played the game; the style, intensity and skill they showed us, that made them legends. Their numbers are all good enough to confirm that.
Johnno
Guest
anon1 Fed has a winning record vs Nadal on grass/and indoors
anon1
Guest
"Against Federer, rafa would want the conditions heavier knowing that Federer dictates 99% of matches he plays i.e. – he is the aggressor, the faster you make conditions the more the pendulum swings in federer’s favour. " Completely disagree. Nadal was getting no kick from his forehand on Friday night in cooler conditions. No real penetration a lot of the times from his shots. Nadal will take those lively, baking hot Roland Garros conditions any day. --------------------------------------- To quote: When Nadal has to play in heavy conditions, like he did in Rome, that's when everything slows down. Here, he doesn't have to deal with that dramatic conditional change between day and night, when his shots don't have the same amount of spin when they come off of the surface." --------------------------------------- Nadal not winning the WTFs has as much to do with Nadal's body being in bad condition when that rolls around at the end of the season. Nadal's missed about 8 majors in his career and retired injured in another 4 I think. That's three years worth of majors. Federer didn't miss a major until last year. He's been very lucky with injury.
anon1
Guest
"Don’t you think Nadal’s wins over Federer have been ‘cheap’. He has the physiological advantage, so every time they have met in a final since 2008 he has the wood on Federer, who is a shot duck mentally." So if we eliminate the mental aspect of sports, double handed backhands, heavy forehands, and clay courts then Federer is better than Nadal? You build a psychological advantage by beating someone over and over. Nadal as a 16-year-old beat Federer the first time they met (which was on a hard court). Federer has never been able to improve his game over the past 13-14 years to overcome Nadal. If you're letting a guy who is just gone through puberty get the psychological advantage over you when you're at your peak as a player, then maybe you're just weak mentally.
anon1
Guest
"Contrary to what we’ve seen this week, with the likes of Misha Zverev troubling Murray on a court with a little speed." Sometimes players go out of tournaments early. I think the court speed at the AO is completely overrated. We saw Nadal struggling on a really slow court on Friday night. Shots had no real penetration routinely landing in the service court. "I hate when guys call titles in the early 2000’s cheap. A lot of variety, a lot of power players playing on stuff that is lightening quick compared to today." The courts were changed before 2002 and Federer didn't win one until 2003. The courts have been the same speed since then. And they are cheap in a relative sense because Federer was playing a lot of nobodies and flash in a pans in finals.
anon1
Guest
So what you're saying is that on surfaces that advantage Federer, he still has a losing record to Nadal. But on surfaces that advantage Nadal, Federer is uncompetitive. Plus don't forget the most of those matches were played when Federer was at his peak.
duecer
Guest
Don't you think Nadal's wins over Federer have been 'cheap'. He has the physiological advantage, so every time they have met in a final since 2008 he has the wood on Federer, who is a shot duck mentally. It would be interesting if he would've won all those titles against other players - probably most of them, but Djokovic may have snagged a couple more.
Johnno
Guest
For talent and mental strength Tracey Austin was a gun, but she faded due to a variety of reasons.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Contrary to what we've seen this week, with the likes of Misha Zverev troubling Murray on a court with a little speed. I hate when guys call titles in the early 2000's cheap. A lot of variety, a lot of power players playing on stuff that is lightening quick compared to today. Andy Roddick's game used to be monstrous until balls and courts slowed down a lot. He ended up slicing serves in basically. The poo on quick grass was tough and he even made the final on the slow er grass of 03 (grass type changed in 01).
Bandy
Roar Guru
Nadal's success has rarely come on a low bouncing court. Fast yes he can excel, but slow and he struggles. Against Federer, rafa would want the conditions heavier knowing that Federer dictates 99% of matches he plays i.e. - he is the aggressor, the faster you make conditions the more the pendulum swings in federer's favour. Federer's game gets neutralised in slow conditions a lot more than Nadal's. Just take a loot where both have the majority of their titles. 7 wimbledons, 5 us, 7/8 Basel titles (indoor hard), 7/8 Halle titles grass, Cincinnati titles maybe 5? Pre 2008 Aus titles 3. Compare that to Rafa - 9 French, 9 monte carlo, Barcelona, less madrid at altitude even though clay, Indian Wells, Aus open finals in 12 and 14. Rafa has NEVER won the world tour finals since he made them in shanghai - quick carpet LOW. OR London, medium-slow and low bounce. Federer and Djokovic dominate on low courts depending on speed.
anon1
Guest
"You’re missing the point – I’m trying to explain that it’s ignorant to label one of them the clear greatest, because it’s quite clear they are at the mercy of the conditions. You could say federer had cheap titles, or that Nadal got to play on the slowest/highest bouncing hard courts and grass in history. " I have just been hearing for the last week how the "faster" courts have benefited Nadal. Don't forget too that Nadal has had most of his hard court success on the faster and lower bouncing American hard courts, and has a superior win percentage on grass than hard courts. "And that he got all his finals at night when conditions were slower against federer. " Night conditions hurt Nadal. The ball is slower and bounces much lower in the cooler conditions. He has to work so much harder to generate any penetration on his shots.
anon1
Guest
I'm talking "cheap" in a relative sense. Compared to Nadal who on Sunday plays his 16th major final against Djokovic or Federer (they have 29 majors between them) out of 21 major finals he has competed in. Quite a bit tougher than a Philippossis, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Roddick, Safin woudn't you say? And don't forget that the Wimbledon grass was changed after the 2001 serve-volley final between Rafter and Ivanisevic. If the grass isn't changed after 2001, then Philippoussis with his massive serve probably beats Federer in 2003.
anon1
Guest
I agree. Federer is one of the best of all time, and he was only able to win 30% of his matches against Nadal. What does that say about Nadal? Agassi at 35 had bad knees and a bad back. He was in far worse physical condition than Federer is in today. If you want to use the argument that you can only beat who is in front of you, then Serena Williams is the best of all time with 23 majores. I don't include Court (on 24) because she won many before the open era and many Australian Open titles back in the day when the Australian Open wasn't taken seriously. Serena's 23 > Federer's 17
anon1
Guest
Nadal is long past his peak and isn't even in his prime right now. Federer was just entering his peak in 2005, and playing an Agassi in far worse physical condition than Federer is in today. Took 4 sets for a peak Federer to beat him. For Nadal it will be an amazing comeback from yet another serious injury in a career severely cruelled by serious injuries.
Ace
Guest
Laver was number 1 for the first 3 years of the open era and won his second grand slam. And he's still the only man to win an open era grand slam.
Johnno
Guest
The Rafa blowout on clay over head overshadows a lot of there rivalry. It's actually very even on hard court 9-7 in Nadal's favour. Fed has Nadal's measure indoors leads 4-1, so he has beaten Nadal more times indoors at the end of year masters. Fed leads Nadal on grass to.
me too
Guest
I agree with the author - leaving Court and Laver out of it (and Rosewall who missed the opportunity of 20 grand slam titles), here's little to separate the best since, and we see that in disagreement above as to who is the greatest. Each of Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic has one tournament in which they have racked up many titles - the Wimbledon, French, and Australian Opens respectively. Fed may have had lesser calibre of opponents early on, but you can only beat who is in front of you, and anyone on the day or in one particular tournament can play well above their average, which is why the slams are littered with titles to lesser knowns - a brief moment in the sun where they played as well as any champion. Personally I still see the Borg, McEnroe era as my favourite in tennis, but would have neither above those three. Sampras and Lendl deserve a mention, and for a while Wilander shone brightly. In the women's I do think Serena stands out as the greatest since Court. Seles is unfortunately just a question mark - would she have sustained her form over ten years? Graf the obvious contender, though Seles definitely had her measure until the stabbing. Would Graf have fought back? Another question mark. Navratilova is right up there, and Hingis delighted us all.
Johnno
Guest
I don't think beating Phillipouous on grass is a cheap title.
Anindya Dutta
Roar Guru
Great article! Loved reading it and your analysis is spot on as far as the t chemical aspect is concerned. And then there is the mind. I honestly don't know where The Serena Williams discussion came from into this Men's Tennis article though! She may well be the greatest women's tennis player and has walked on water, but let's just enjoy the unbelievable experience of once again watching two of the absolutely greatest Jens's players in Tennis history battle it out in melbourne on sunday. I for one, can't wait!
Bandy
Roar Guru
You're missing the point - I'm trying to explain that it's ignorant to label one of them the clear greatest, because it's quite clear they are at the mercy of the conditions. You could say federer had cheap titles, or that Nadal got to play on the slowest/highest bouncing hard courts and grass in history. And that he got all his finals at night when conditions were slower against federer. You could argue Pete's main rival agassi went missing for several years. You could argue Nole only plays well on slow low conditions. Every player has a strength and a weakness in their resumes, usually aided or hampered by conditions that they have no control of. When theta guys are all so good and what separates them is millimetres in one or two points (take last night's match for example) sometimes it isnt the fact that one is clearly greater, it's probably the conditions gave them that slight 0.1% edge.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Yes, not as fast as the old days.