Bouncing Roger

by Pete Bodo

By now, the narrative is well-established and has taken on a prominent place in the conventional tennis wisdom: On any surface that yields a medium to high bounce, Rafael Nadal enjoys a great match-up advantage over Roger Federer. That helps explain how Nadal, who has won 10 major titles (six of them at the French Open) compared to 16 by his rival, can lead the head-to-head by an impressive 17-9.

The theory evolved because left-handed Nadal's most natural (and thus most reliable) forehand goes cross-court (the default direction for either groundstroke for biomechanical reasons)—to Roger's backhand. That spells trouble for Federer, who struggles to get his one-handed backhand up high enough to cover and forcefully return a ball that leaps up at him.

That also holds true for Nadal's lefty kick serve, which upon contact with the court pops up and away like a scared jackrabbit, creating reach and timing problems for Federer. You want to be the genius on the bar stool at a tavern with a some not-very-expert tennis fans sitting around you? Just trot out that analysis to prep them for the Australian Open semifinal between those two men later tonight. Works every time. Rafa bounces Roger to death.

Like most dangerous ideas, there's truth in it. But to assign that facet of their match-up such overwhelming importance is fatuous. The disadvantage for Federer in that forehand-to-one-handed-backhand combination is most pronounced on clay, the surface that yields the most dramatic bounce (which is an even more important property than what is loosely called court "speed," and is usually the actual element that determines our opinion of court speed). And if you take the clay-court clashes between the two titans out of the head-to-head, the rivalry suddenly looks different—as in seven wins to five losses for Federer.

Federer has 15 titles at majors not called Roland Garros. Nadal has all of four. Federer has that many wins at the Australian Open alone, and he hasn't lost before the semis at the first major of the year since 2003. Nadal has been as far as the semifinals just twice.

That Federer sure must be some kind of bum if he's the only guy on the tour who can't handle Rafa's topspin or kick serve on a hard court that produces a relatively high bounce. Who was Nadal losing to all those years in Melbourne, lefties? Or maybe a bunch of guys with two-handed backhands own Nadal in Melbourne the way he's said to own Federer.

See—doesn't make much sense, does it?

Nadal lost to Lleyton Hewitt in his first two Australian Open outings (2004 and 2005, in the third and fourth rounds, respectively). Granted, Nadal was just a pup at the time, and Hewitt was a top player, albeit no longer at his peak. Now, Hewitt hits a two-handed backhand, but his advertised height of 5-foot-11 seems to be stretching it. And one of the main criticisms of the two-handed backhand is that it limits a player's reach (unless he's Gumby, or Novak Djokovic), especially when it comes to the need for quick reaction. And it certainly limits a player's options.

So. . . In his first two times out in Melbourne, Nadal lost to a little guy with a two-handed backhand. Perhaps it was just a matter of age and experience?

In 2007, Nadal was already No. 2 when lost in the quarterfinals in Melbourne to then-No. 9 Fernando Gonzalez. The Chilean won in straight sets, despite having a one-handed backhand with which he seemed to do just fine, both in rallies and when returning serve. Gonzalez is famous for his aggression, while Federer's killer shot is his forehand. However, I never heard anyone suggest that Federer's backhand stinks. Could Gonzalez's backhand be so much better than Federer's that he could handle Nadal while The Mighty Fed could not?

The following year, Nadal was crushed—in straights, again—by Jo-Wilfried Tsonga. The beefy Frenchman hits a two-handed backhand and, like Djokovic, he's got sufficient height to make it tough to get the ball up to the height of his shoulder on any surface, including clay. But he has a one-hander too, although I confess I don't recall how he uses it against Nadal.

Alright, so we come to 2009, the year Nadal finally won the tournament, beating Federer in the final. That one was a five-setter, and I respectfully suggest that there was more going on in that match than the Rafa forehand breaking down the Roger backhand. For one thing, Federer served miserably.

And last year, Nadal went out to compatriot David Ferrer in a straight-sets quarterfinal loss. In his two previous rounds, he barely survived brutal five-set encounters with Philipp Kohlschreiber and Ivo Karlovic, both of whom use one-handed backhands.

I suppose you can't discount the possibility that Federer has some sort of mental block when he has to hit his backhand against Nadal's forehand, but that's a tough one to sell, at least to me. The bottom line may be that nobody likes to have to hit balls at shoulder height, yet despite that, Nadal's rate of success Down Under under has been inconsistent at best (at least compared to his proficiency on clay and grass).

Nadal surely will use that No. 1 choice in his playbook tonight, but I think the more telling element in the match-up is that Federer's return game seems significantly less effective than his hold game. He just doesn't put his opponents under enough pressure, or at least under as much pressure as his general talents suggest is possible. And if you don't pressure Rafa, you might as well not even lace 'em up.

I think that larger issue will have a greater bearing on tonight's match; in fact, it will make that No. 1 Nadal play more—or less—viable. But I'll keep an open mind about it.