Tactical Evolution:
The Middle Third

By Dave Hagler and Zbynek “Spin” Mlynarik

If you look at the history of tennis, you will see that tactics and strategies evolve as players seek and find the means to compete with a dominant player or a prevailing style of play.

Let's take a look at tactical styles over the last several decades in pro tennis and see how they have changed. Then let's address how players are trying to come to grips with the tactical challenges of playing one of the toughest—if not the toughest--defensive player in tennis history: Rafael Nadal.

Surprisingly perhaps, there are important implications for club players in the way the pros are seeking to figure out Nadal, so we'll take a look at how that applies in helping you develop new strategies against defensive players at your level.

The Role of Surface

Historically many players were “surface specialists.” There was a huge difference between playing on grass, carpet, hard and clay courts. The US Open was contested on grass until 1974, on clay from 1975 – 1977 and on hard courts (Decoturf) since 1978.

The Australian Open was a grass court tournament until 1987, on Rebound Ace until 2008 when the surface was changed to Plexicushion. Carpet, a fast, low bouncing surface, was the dominant surface of the indoor tour for 20 years, but has not been in ATP events since 2009.

A quick look at the results of some of the top players over the last 35 years shows the relationship between surface and results.

Even though Jimmy Connors had a great year in 1975 he lost in the finals of the 3 Grand Slams he played – to John Newcombe, Arthur Ashe and Manuel Orantes. In 2000, Gustavo Kuerten lost in the first round of the US Open to Wayne Arthurs and in the 3rd Round of Wimbledon to Alexander Popp – both of whom were outside the top 100. One of his clay court loses was a dead rubber in a Davis Cup match

But you get the idea. Occasionally a player was tough on all surfaces like Jimmy Connors in 1975. But you could get to the top (or pretty close, anyway) by dominating on either fast stuff (hard and carpet) or on clay. In 1996, Thomas Muster was 20-18 on surfaces other than clay and was still #5 in the world. Pete was number one in the world that year, but he avoided clay, just as Vilas had avoided hard courts in 1975.

You could argue that we are really talking about 2 different sports – clay court tennis and non clay court tennis. There just weren't or aren't enough grass court events for the surface to be a determining factor in the year-end rankings, but grass (and some indoor) courts were really fast and clay courts were really slow.

So a player might have holes, but these holes, which were readily exploitable on some surfaces, were “protected” by others. If you didn't like high balls you could play as much as possible on fast carpet. If you did like high balls, you could weight your schedule toward red clay.

All More the Same

Several recent trends have reduced the difference in playing on varied surfaces. Hard and grass courts are slower, balls used on fast or medium fast courts are slower, in some cases balls used on slow courts are faster, and there is no more carpet. Racquet and string technology have facilitated or accelerated changes in the game that favor power baseline play – even on grass.

So what does this mean? Because the difference in surfaces has been diminished, you do not find the same degree of disparity in surface related results. While players still pick and choose their tournaments because they want to play on their favorite surface, what you see today are players whose results are more consistent because carpet is gone, grass courts (and slower balls) reduce the server's advantage, hard courts are slower, and clay is clay.

A similar look at the results of the top 10 players from 2009 shows the differences:

But this greater homogeneity in results is not strictly surface related. Part of the explanation is in the development of more well rounded players with great variety of shot. All of the players above have skills that allow them to have success on a great variety surfaces.

Radek Stepanek is a fine volleyer, but he may play a match where he can only get to the net a few times. Roger Federer may have serve and volleyed virtually every point in his first Wimbledon, but the game has changed and he has adjusted. So, top modern players are very solid – all good or great movers and usually great ball strikers.

Some may have a relative weakness but it is generally offset by one or more weapons. If a player can find a way to minimize the exploitation of a weakness, or an opponent does not have the means to attack it then is it really a weakness?

It's not only the change in surfaces, rackets, and balls. Players today have the skills to have relatively more consistent results. Think for a minute of the huge difference in the results on clay for two of the great attacking players in history, Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

At the start of this article we suggested that the game evolves as players find a way to neutralize and compete with a dominant style. These led to the development of more complete modern players.

For example, when returns got bigger – servers adjusted and started staying back. Groundstrokes had to improve. Players learned to hit inside out forehands to open up the court against faster better defenders.

This started in the 1990's when we saw players like Thomas Muster, Sergi Bruguera and Alberto Berasategi dominate on clay hitting heavy topspin on the forehand, following the lead of Guillermo Vilas. Toward the end of that decade there were a lot of forehand players, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Carlos Moya and later Fernando Gonzalez who controlled the court with big inside out forehands, a trend probably accelerated by the rise of Ivan Lendl.

In reaction to the forehand game, players then developed big shots down the line to try to exploit the court position of the inside out forehand style. Others still moved up to the baseline to force the topspin players on time.

So we saw Gustavo Kuerten (from well behind the baseline) and eventually players like Marcos Baghdatis (from closer to the baseline) who hit backhands down the line to negate inside out forehands. Andre Agassi could also rail the backhand down the line, but beyond that stood in, took the ball early and drove it, taking time away from the opponent and not letting the ball go up out of his power zone.

Which brings us to strategic evolution of the game embodied by Raphael Nadal. If you read John Yandell's article on spin rates (click here), you will see that Rafael Nadal hits with his forehand with more spin than anyone else, a stunning average of 3200rpm (Click Here), yet with velocity equal to or greater than most of the other top players. No doubt Roger Federer has the record and history on his side, but even he has not been able to dominate a healthy Nadal.

How does Nadal's combination of athleticism, spin and velocity change things? Simply speaking he has taken defensive tennis to another level, and also found a way to turn it into offense in several ways.

First there is his speed and court coverage. If someone is faster than you, and you hit the ball wide and don't hurt them, then they have the option of going cross court and pushing you further out and/or back or going down the line behind you. What opponents have found is that it is almost impossible to hit the ball wide enough to consistently hurt Nadal.

Second, the topspin. A player who can hit significantly more topspin can hit even bigger angles, so the ability to hit more topspin creates the same advantages as better lateral mobility. A player like Nadal who is tremendous in terms of court coverage and can hit tons of topspin becomes a double nightmare.

So Raphael Nadal combines great court coverage with heavy, hard topspin to create bigger openings than opponents trying to attack him, then exploits the openings. When his opponents hit the ball towards the corners, Nadal's ability to use spin allows him to hit with lots of angle, he gets his opponent on a string and goes around or behind him.

Let's say you are a Top 20 player and you go out and try to beat Nadal off of the ground with spin and movement, you probably won't have a lot of success. If you hit the ball with angle against Nadal and don't really hurt him, then his ability to hit with spin and velocity means that you will have a wider court to defend than he will. Even if you move as well laterally as he, you will be at a disadvantage because topspin creates greater possibilities in terms of angles.

So the question is. Is it really possible to beat Rafael Nadal when he is healthy? He seems to have an invincible clay court game and, at his best, is almost equally formidable on other surfaces.

The answer is possibly it is, and here is where the game is evolving again. Some players are taking it the other way—rather than trying to out position Nadal with angle, they are trying to hit through him in the middle of the court.

They play more down the middle because the “wider” the play, the greater Nadal's advantage. The idea is to pound the ball – and go right through him. When you do hit angle it needs to be a big angle, a finishing shot driven somewhere near the side T.

Many of the players who have had at least some success against Nadal drive groundstrokes hard and relatively flat through the back of the court. Some players do this on one wing, others on both. One immediately thinks of younger players – Del Potro, Cilic and Djokovic with the firepower to do this.

All of these guys are tall (6'6”, 6'6” and 6'2” with a big wingspan), and you frequently see similar play from other tall/big guys (who are slightly older) like Soderling, Tsonga and Berdych. Soderling, remember, beat Nadal on both a clay and a hard court last year, even if Nadal was not at his absolute best, it was still an achievement.

And it's not just the tall guys. One reason for the improved play of 28 year-old Nikolay Davydenko is that he seems to be utilizing a similar style.

If you look at videos where these players beat Rafa, they have a different feel than a typical Nadal match. Nadal is a master at transitioning from defense to offense, but once these guys got him in trouble they almost always won the point. Players like Soderling and Delpo can do this because they hit with tons of velocity and depth.

When Nadal drove the ball to the corner, you expect the opponent to have to start scrambling just to stay in the point, but these guys frequently took the ball as early as possible and just crush it down the middle. Soderling would pound 3 or 4 balls deep in or near the middle third (width-wise) of the court, making Nadal react to pace and in many cases move even further back.

Then and only then would he pound a ball to a corner. If Nadal was not able to do much with the ball, then Soderling would unload, hitting huge winners behind Nadal or to the open court. Even Nadal can be time pressured – it's just it takes a lot to do so.

The frustration factor also can come into play. When Nadal can't respond to angled attacks, he can make uncharacteristic errors trying to create angles of his own.

So does any of this apply at the club level? Definitely. This strategy will work against virtually anyone – provided you have the skills, mobility and guts to execute. So let's take a look at some of the obvious and less obvious components that make this a viable strategy against almost all opponents:

Four Components

1.  The strategy works best when you take the ball relatively early. Taking the ball early takes time away from your opponent and this may allow you to push him back. Once you have him back you make him play a wider court. Tall players have high power zones, and can frequently drive balls that shorter players might not be able to. That applies in pro tennis, but even at the club level taking the ball closer to the baseline makes a difference.

2.  Driving the ball this way allows a player to use pace – and even at the pro level it is easier to use than to generate pace. This is definitely a huge factor in club tennis. How many club players lose trying generate too much pace against slower balls? Standing in helps overcome this problem.

3.  You miss fewer shots wide – your unforced error rate goes down. This is really key, because you are playing aggressively but in a sense, also playing safely. Players who try to angle the opponent off the court may end up missing a lot of shots by a small margin. Because you only big angle shots when you are in control they become lower risk and higher reward.

4.  You dictate play – your opponent has to deal with what you are doing more than the other way around. Virtually all great players are great at playing defense, but that does not mean that they would choose to play this way. It is relatively easy to regroup after an opponent hits a winner or forces you into an error, by reacting to continuous bombardment can have a cumulative effect, even for the most focused and mentally trained competitor.

If you are playing an opponent who hits heavy topspin or high trajectory balls your first instinct may be to back up. You find you are running around, well behind the baseline and even though you are winning some points you are working really hard and feel at the mercy of the opponent.

Since this seems a losing cause, more forward when possible, take the ball early and drive it. You may back the opponent up and you will be in position to run them, hit behind them or attack with swing or conventional volleys. ( For a drill I developed to practice this, Click Here.)

You have to commit to this strategy with your feet, head and heart. You also must be aggressive but realistic in terms of shot selection. What you will find is that the opponent now has to play more on your terms, and this can give you a big psychological edge. You turned the nature of the exchanges around and that urn the outcomes around as well.

Zbynek “Spin” Mlynarik (Left) Zbynek “Spin” Mlynarik played on the ATP Tour for 8 years retiring in 2007. He reached a career high ranking of 200, with wins over players including Marcos Baghdatis, Taylor Dent, Sam Querry, and Ivo Karlovic. He also won 10 Futures titles and played on the Austrian Davis Cup Team. Spin has a Level 1 certification from the USPTA, the PTR, has completed the USTA High Performance Training Program, and is a certified coach on the ATP Tour. Currently he works as a junior development coach in the San Fernando Valley area and is the Chairperson for the Southern California Tennis Association Junior Tournament Committee. For the past 5 years he has also served as volunteer coach for the Cal State Northridge women's varsity. Zbynek lives in Chatsworth with his wife Robin, his newborn son Gavin and his two step-daughters, Alexandra and Analyssa. Dave Hagler (Right) Dave Hagler is based in Los Angeles, California where he has developed numerous sectionally and nationally ranked junior players and has also coached Adult NTRP National Championship Teams. Dave is a USPTA Master Professional and was voted Pro of the Year in 2007 by the California Division. He is also a member of the PTR and a graduate of the USTA High Performance Coaching program. Dave has been a head college coach and has coached USTA Competition Training Center and Zonals Teams for the past several years. He has received service awards from the Southern California and Intercollegiate Tennis Associations, and spoken at coaching conventions across the country on a wide range of topics. Dave's articles have been translated and published in Italian, German, Spanish and Japanese. He is a member of the Head/Penn Advisory Staff.

Tennisplayer Forum Let's Talk About this Article! Share Your Thoughts with our Subscribers and Authors! Click Here

Contact Tennisplayer directly: jyandell@tennisplayer.net

Copyright Tennisplayer 2005. All Rights Reserved.