Whose 'hands' is it in for Nadal vs Berdych

Often before a match I hear tennis fans use the fans, 'ah this match is in Tsonga's hands' or 'this match-up is on Federer's racket' etc.

I would like to analyse what this actually means; using the example of Nadal and Berdych. Nadal is my favourite player, and Berdych is my second favourite atm (although long way behind Nadal)- but this means I've watched them quite a lot including live at the o2 last year.

The two players have quite different styles. Nadal is a baseliner who can turn defence into attack, while Berdych is probably one of the most aggressive players in the world with his style. Nadal leads the H2H pretty convincingly.
So, who has the match 'in his hands' or 'on his racket' ?

Let's go straight into an average point between the pair. Nadal hits forehands with velocity, but the high net clearance and high bounce means Berdych in most rallies will always have a chance to take the ball on and attack. Berdych has a 1st serve which puts him on the front foot better than Nadal's first serve, and the Czech can return very aggressively too. Berdych's most important shot is his attacking forehand, and when he connects with it well, it can travel at the speed of a bullet- and few of these in a row and even Nadal will be left struggling.
So based on that it appears- technically- that on a point by point basis the match is in Berdych's 'hands'. He is the one who is seemingly more in control than Nadal.

But I think that misses out a crucial element. Having watched and supported Berdych to quite an extent, I've become aware that he has a 'glass ceiling'. By this I refer to the fact he simply cannot, even if he's playing his 'best' in a match, go beyond a certain 'winner-unforced error' ratio or 'accurate aggressive shot-mistake' proportion.
For me if Nadal plays at his best, or even plays marginally below his best, (ie. is still playing well enough just to get enough balls back..can move quickly...can use his forehand to move Berdych around); then Berdych simply face a mountain to win. Because if Nadal can do that- the ratio of 'aggressive shot-unforced error' he would need is simply out of Berdych's reach over 3 sets.

So therefore for Nadal and Berdych matches, I actually see it in Nadal's hands and on his racket- if he plays best or just below his best- the percentages work out as such that it's a near impossible task for Berdych to win- despite being in control of individual points.

I suppose another way put that is "Whos got the highest level of play at their best?" thats nadal as far as I can see, even Berd at his best doesnt have the mind to keep applying it enough.

Berd is of course, the lesser version of JMDP. It will remain that way until he fizzles down the rankings and leaves. He doesn't know how to rally or play angles, once he goes out the top 8 it will be a victory for tennis.

temporary21 wrote:I suppose another way put that is "Whos got the highest level of play at their best?" thats nadal as far as I can see, even Berd at his best doesnt have the mind to keep applying it enough.

But I don't think people see 'whose hands is the match in' necessarily as 'who's got the highest level of play at their best'. Of course it's very closely related, but the factor of how long a player can sustain their best can come into play.

It's why I believe BO5 gives a more accurate reflection on the better player than BO3.

Lendl once said that in BO5 he knew he only had to win 1 of the first 3 sets and that he would be confident of winning the final 2 on fitness alone. I guess that would make him the better player, in terms of he would be the more likely to win.

IMBL

I think this 'it's in player X's hands' idea is often a bit lazy, and tends to simply be code for Player X hits the ball very hard but is a bit streaky.

It rather downplays the fact that the best players (Nadal in your example, but also Djokovic and to a lesser extent Federer and Murray) hit the ball pretty much as hard as the guys considered big hitters (indeed, I believe Rafa has the fastest ever recorded forehand on the ATP) but make fewer errors and so have more consistency of performance both match to match and within individual matches. Also, the best players usually have better court craft, and so frequently nullify any deficit in power they may have - it usually takes some combination of a big hitter having a very good day and (e.g.) Nadal having a bit of an off day for the big hitter to win .

Ultimately, there is a reason that Rafa has spent the last 8 years ranked between #1 and #3 (bar a couple of injury-affected spells at 4 or 5) while Berdych has never been higher than 5th, and has only spent about 5 years in the top 10. Rafa (when not ill as today...) is simply a better tennis player and will win the majority of their matches (as the 18:3 H2H shows). An average Rafa performance beats a good Berdych performance.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Lendl once said that in BO5 he knew he only had to win 1 of the first 3 sets and that he would be confident of winning the final 2 on fitness alone. I guess that would make him the better player, in terms of he would be the more likely to win.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic ?

But yes, fitness does come into the picture more in BO5; but I think my point does stand- that better players can tend to sustain their best level for longer.

dummy_half wrote:I think this 'it's in player X's hands' idea is often a bit lazy, and tends to simply be code for Player X hits the ball very hard but is a bit streaky.

I agree with this sentiment as well as the rest of your post.

But let me bring up a different comparison, let's say:
Del Potro vs Ferrer

Ferrer leads the H2H 6-3, and has been higher ranked for the majority of his career. However if these two both play and they are injury free, there is a part of me which says that despite Ferrer being marginal favourite for the match- Del Potro has the match in his hands.
He is dictating play, and the outcome of the match relies much more on him than it does on Ferrer.

Nevertheless this is where the glass ceiling I was talking about comes into play. If Ferrer plays his defensive/counter attacking best, can he push Del Potro to such an extent that the Argentinian simply can't produce the percentages of winners/UE over many sets to win the match.
I would argue not, so thus the match is in Del Potro's hand despite Ferrer maybe being marginal favourite for the match.

IMBL

Certainly a Del Potro v Ferrer comparison is a more interesting discussion.

The H2H is interesting in that Ferrer won their first 2 meetings in 2008 (as a 25 or 26 year old against a 19 year old), JMDP their next 2 in 2008/9, then Ferrer won 4 in a row in 2011/2012 (1 clay, 1 grass, 2 hard court) with JMDP winning their last meeting on grass at Wimbledon 2013. 7 of their 9 matches have been straight sets wins, with Ferrer winning their 2 close matches (a DC rubber on clay, over 5 sets and a WTF 3 setter).

It does tend to suggest that if Del Potro can bring his A game, he has enough power to blast Ferrer off court, but that he has struggled to play consistently at his highest level.

Another thing to look at is that Ferrer has won 21 titles in a 14 year career, while Del Boy has won 18 in a career half as long, including the only Slam title they have between them. Suggests that JMDP is capable of hitting higher heights but not as consistently.

Then again, I am always amazed at how well Ferrer does stand up to opponents that should physically overwhelm him - his record against all bar the big 3 is testament to his tenacity and consistency, given his fundamental lack of attacking weapons as a player.

dummy half wrote:It does tend to suggest that if Del Potro can bring his A game, he has enough power to blast Ferrer off court, but that he has struggled to play consistently at his highest level.

That is what I'm thinking too, Ferrer would probably be favourite but it's in Del Potro's hands.

What do people think about the next Cilic vs Nadal meeting ?

Good concept of a thread but a very lame comparison.

One is legend while other is the most boring player of the tour, hands down still the match is in Rafa's racquet.

On Del Potro - Ferrer match I won't say the match is on Del Po's hands, I would put Ferrer has 60-40 fav among the two, Del Po can still lose to Ferrer playing his A-game.

Ferrer is very underrated, just coz he don't have major weapons doesn't mean he is a underdog, Del Po's game matches well for Ferrer and Ferrer would like the matchup more than Del Po would.

For that sake Del Po has struggled against Hewitt as well, to beat Del Po you have to take a lot of pace of the ball and run all round the court and make him run all round the court specially towards the net, for some reason Hewitt and Ferrer found it more easy than the big 3. Murray is another one who can handle Del Po better than the big 3.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Good concept of a thread but a very lame comparison.

One is  legend while other is the most boring player of the tour, hands down still the match is in Rafa's racquet.

On Del Potro - Ferrer match I won't say the match is on Del Po's hands, I would put Ferrer has 60-40 fav among the two, Del Po can still lose to Ferrer playing his A-game.

Ferrer is very underrated, just coz he don't have major weapons doesn't mean he is a underdog, Del Po's game matches well for Ferrer and Ferrer would like the matchup more than Del Po would.

For that sake Del Po has struggled against Hewitt as well, to beat Del Po you have to take a lot of pace of the ball and run all round the court and make him run all round the court specially towards the net, for some reason Hewitt and Ferrer found it more easy than the big 3. Murray is another one who can handle Del Po better than the big 3.

You saw Ferrer would be favourite against Del Potro, but surely you acknowledge Del Potro is the one controlling play ?

In the context of this specific OP, some analysis in terms of Djokovic and Nadal:

-With Djokovic, I don't really see him radically change his gameplan mid match. He plays with controlled aggression, controlling the ball with laser-like precision, and that is so effective when he is on top of his game. He does come into the net when he hits a good approach, but with the exception of the Wimbledon final 2013 (which was poor from him), I haven't seen him charge the net without good reason. And in general I don't see him change his gameplay when down to go into the net more, if not anything when he is down in a match he tends to go into a shell and play a bit more safe.

Nadal I recognise is more of a counter-puncher than Djokovic, his play is more 'reactive'. But I think because of this, it is easy to ignore the things he does which makes it harder to beat him (and by default gives him a better chance of winning). There are subtle changes Rafa makes which means the risk play of an opponent has to be forced up a notch and sustained if he wants to beat Nadal, and this is why he's so tough to beat for most, even if they lead by a set. Because he's not the aggressor in the average point, I think people tend to ignore what Nadal is doing to induce his opponent into collapsing.

Well the Rafa-Berdych h2hs is 18-3 and, since 2006 17-0 so it certainly does seem to be "on Rafa's racquet".
Berdych, on the other hand, has beaten Fed six times which is one of the best records anyone's got against Rog. Two of those wins have come in Grand Slams, too.
Yet you would still reckon that if Rog was anything like on top form he would beat Tomas. Rafa, it seems from the h2hs, would win whatever form he was in.

Berdych hold his own this time.

Blew him away today.

Well for me getting into the tactics and strengths isn't as useful as simply letting the results dictate. A player who has lost 17 times in a row to the other guy has some glaring weaknesses vis a vis the match up and therefore he can't be considered to have the match in his hands. If you beat a guy 17 times a row probably something in the matchup determines that it is your match to win or to lose.

Difference between winning 1 match in 18, and the match-up being in your hands

Match up didn't matter at all. It was the form of the Berd that proved too powerful.