Amazingly insightful analysis, as always. You provide an extra level of understanding of this game that I find nowhere else. Keep up the good work and thank you so much!
1) Do you think there is an interest for Alcaraz to change his backhand motion? As you said it is a game of tradeoffs and I feel like he is the best at redirecting / flattening high balls, he does that great so it’s hard to expose him backhand cross. I though he managed to turn around his backhand or go line way more in the second, but I might change my mind after rewatching and statting both sets.
2) You often compare Alcaraz’s backhand to Rublev’s but I can’t help but feel Alcaraz’s is just one or two tiers above his. Is it just the locked wrist feature that helps control you mentioned several times (and that I again saw in Alcaraz today especially when he tried going for depth or changing direction) or is there more ?
I don't think he needs to change his technique really (actually, if you watch videos of him when he was ~16/17, there are some challenger videos on youtube, his takeback was fuller and more like a djokovic, so maybe he shortened it to play his ultra-agreesive style up the court. I don't know). But his technique with that outside set up I don't think can be as consistent as Novak's, but he can probably take the ball a little earlier. I'm not sure that gets rewarded as much as it used to when Agassi swung his backhand like that.
2) It's not a great comparison because Alcaraz gets his racquet head up in the power position to allow for a big drop (unlike Rublev) to help kickstart the acceleration and yeah, he has that locked wrist follow through that is great for timing/direction (again, unlike rublev) so in every sense Alcaraz' is great, but setting up outside to "flip" the frame I don't think is necessary or beneficial on a backhand as you don't get the same range of motion as a forehand. This is a good explanation:
Wow, effectively. The rublev/alcaraz backhand came from the fact you used alcaraz clips in your rublev pieces so I never actually looked up and compared both backhands. From what I saw and as you said Rublev starts his backhand down and goes up instead of gravity assisted up to down
I haven't watched Ruud much this year, so I don't know if this is typical for him: he sliced a lot to give Zverev low balls. He seemed to draw in Z, hit a forehand right at his feet, and then get an easy passing shot if Z's volley wasn't perfect.
I think Ruud can make it interesting in rallies against Novak, but I am not confident in the Norwegian's serve over 5 sets.
I guess it's the idea that he doesn't seem to go close to the lines or really get a guy stretched, but he just moves you enough, and hits deep/hard enough to make the player uncomfortable and miss. Changing direction is risky, but for Novak it's just nowhere near as risky, so he can do it more often (I bet his % of change is much higher than most, especially on the backhand) and this forces players to not "cheat" as much on recovery, and exposes them when they do without him taking much risk. So he doesn't hit a lot of winners when he changes, but he changes often, and he changes enough to extract a lot of errors.
I was actually going to ask the same question as OP! When you say that subtle changes of direction extracts a lot of errors - what exactly in those changes is it that makes it so difficult for the opponent (if they are subtle)?
As an active player myself, I can relate to the riskiness of changing directions. And I can relate to how my strokes benefit from repetitions, due to the rhythm (e.g. hitting multiple forehands in a row). But unless the opponent’s change of direction pulls me wide, I don’t feel very hurt by the change itself. Elaborate a little deeper please?
I think it’s only subtle for the viewer; it’s hard to appreciate the pressure that Novak’s depth and rally ball speed coupled with a little width exerts on a player when done over and over again. It’s not the shot in isolation, it’s his ability to just do it relentlessly that eventually cracks everyone.
Absolute wordsmith. Well done. I relived the match again thanks to you!
Amazingly insightful analysis, as always. You provide an extra level of understanding of this game that I find nowhere else. Keep up the good work and thank you so much!
Thanks Jacob, much appreciated.
Two questions in one:
1) Do you think there is an interest for Alcaraz to change his backhand motion? As you said it is a game of tradeoffs and I feel like he is the best at redirecting / flattening high balls, he does that great so it’s hard to expose him backhand cross. I though he managed to turn around his backhand or go line way more in the second, but I might change my mind after rewatching and statting both sets.
2) You often compare Alcaraz’s backhand to Rublev’s but I can’t help but feel Alcaraz’s is just one or two tiers above his. Is it just the locked wrist feature that helps control you mentioned several times (and that I again saw in Alcaraz today especially when he tried going for depth or changing direction) or is there more ?
I don't think he needs to change his technique really (actually, if you watch videos of him when he was ~16/17, there are some challenger videos on youtube, his takeback was fuller and more like a djokovic, so maybe he shortened it to play his ultra-agreesive style up the court. I don't know). But his technique with that outside set up I don't think can be as consistent as Novak's, but he can probably take the ball a little earlier. I'm not sure that gets rewarded as much as it used to when Agassi swung his backhand like that.
2) It's not a great comparison because Alcaraz gets his racquet head up in the power position to allow for a big drop (unlike Rublev) to help kickstart the acceleration and yeah, he has that locked wrist follow through that is great for timing/direction (again, unlike rublev) so in every sense Alcaraz' is great, but setting up outside to "flip" the frame I don't think is necessary or beneficial on a backhand as you don't get the same range of motion as a forehand. This is a good explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEn5N8VDKXY
Wow, effectively. The rublev/alcaraz backhand came from the fact you used alcaraz clips in your rublev pieces so I never actually looked up and compared both backhands. From what I saw and as you said Rublev starts his backhand down and goes up instead of gravity assisted up to down
Yep. Not ideal but I couldn’t find a Rublev/Djokovic comparison so I used Alcaraz as a proxy, but yeah, subtle differences still (that matter).
Love this writeup. Your analysis is my favourite part of watching tennis
Appreciate the kind words Ryan!
I haven't watched Ruud much this year, so I don't know if this is typical for him: he sliced a lot to give Zverev low balls. He seemed to draw in Z, hit a forehand right at his feet, and then get an easy passing shot if Z's volley wasn't perfect.
I think Ruud can make it interesting in rallies against Novak, but I am not confident in the Norwegian's serve over 5 sets.
Can you expand on “subtle change-of-direction”? What does that look like? How does it differ from standard change-of-direction?
I guess it's the idea that he doesn't seem to go close to the lines or really get a guy stretched, but he just moves you enough, and hits deep/hard enough to make the player uncomfortable and miss. Changing direction is risky, but for Novak it's just nowhere near as risky, so he can do it more often (I bet his % of change is much higher than most, especially on the backhand) and this forces players to not "cheat" as much on recovery, and exposes them when they do without him taking much risk. So he doesn't hit a lot of winners when he changes, but he changes often, and he changes enough to extract a lot of errors.
I was actually going to ask the same question as OP! When you say that subtle changes of direction extracts a lot of errors - what exactly in those changes is it that makes it so difficult for the opponent (if they are subtle)?
As an active player myself, I can relate to the riskiness of changing directions. And I can relate to how my strokes benefit from repetitions, due to the rhythm (e.g. hitting multiple forehands in a row). But unless the opponent’s change of direction pulls me wide, I don’t feel very hurt by the change itself. Elaborate a little deeper please?
I think it’s only subtle for the viewer; it’s hard to appreciate the pressure that Novak’s depth and rally ball speed coupled with a little width exerts on a player when done over and over again. It’s not the shot in isolation, it’s his ability to just do it relentlessly that eventually cracks everyone.
That makes sense, thanks.
Fantastic. I will try to add that to my game. Yet again, so simple.. but not.
Yeah, as Roddick tweeted, reallllly hard to do.
Brilliant analysis. Novak’s biggest strength is definitely his control, added with his resilient mental strength. What a champion.