Re: Fed adds Gstaad to schedule

by legendkillar Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:19 pm

Tenez wrote:
raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
By tricks I mean his shot selection, his direction of the server etc. Apologies if 'tricks' sounded a tad demeaning. Example: Fed's serve was once very difficult to read. His ball toss was so perfect that it was almost impossible to guess which direction would he go i.e. out wide with a low angle or down the T. But I see that the newer players simple read it better, they know better which way Fed would go. Djokovic guessed it right in USopen 2011 final saving the match point. That was just one occasion but I just see that they are better at guess where will he be aiming his serve. That allows them to return better..

Fed needs to build some disguise. Get a new kind of serve if possible. Add some to the forehand and backhand.

One just can't keep winning playing the 'same game' forever. It applies to everyone.

No need to apologise to speak your mind here.

But Djoko only guessed it right on MP down! So clearly he did not guess it right the whole match. It's simply a lucky shot like Djoko was not so lucky last year at Wimby 12 as he still coudl not read it.

Fed disguised very well 6 months ago in WTF final...what he lacked again was fitness enabling to sustain that level which allowed him to rule the first few games.

There is no easy solution I am afraid.....You know what I think....it's all about fitness. Like we saw yesterday, it's always the fittest who wins the slam nowadays...the shot making ability becomes less and less relevant.

Very much the case I am afraid.

I think Federer is one of the if not the smartest servers on the tour. You have to wonder what Federer can do. Shorter points against Stakhovsky had him chasing round the court unsure with how quick Stahk was coming into the net and drawing Federer in. Feds has been used to a tour playing from the baseline and at Wimbledon was caught off guard by someone playing a totally different brand of tennis. In a sense again similar to Nadal. He was left wanting at the net on so many occasions against Darcis.

You have to give Federer credit for adopting his game, bringing in Annacone, becoming a better volleyer but also adding the drop shot to great effect to his game.

I am with Tenez. Fitness has become the norm and unfortunately for Federer he cannot get fitter. For him to remain competitive would be for the surfaces to speed up and that doesn't look like happening any time soon. Sad

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:50 pm

Is Stakhovsky's 4 set win really due to fitness?

I think Federer has just naturally declined, he has been a pro now for many years and played many matches. His reflexes are not as sharp as they were when he was young. Against Tsonga and Stak, it's not as if he went to 5 sets and got tired. Also the matches before those two were hardly tiring, so I can't see why fatigue would be an issue.

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:56 pm

legendkillar wrote:
You have to give Federer credit for adopting his game, bringing in Annacone... adding the drop shot to great effect to his game.

I have seen him use drop-shots very effectively all throughout his career- especially RG 2009. Annacone came in from 2010.

legendkillar wrote:
becoming a better volleyer

Not too sure with this analysis either. I did not notice any great improvement in volleying after 2010.

by Tenez Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:29 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Is Stakhovsky's 4 set win really due to fitness?

I think Fed has returned much better in the past against much better servers. Whoever broke Stak in the next round is something Fed coudl have done twice as well before.

I simply think he does not (cannot rather) eject himself towards the ball the way he used to.

I have said many times but look at the way he returns Tsonga's serve in those first 2 sets of Wimby 2011 and look at the way he returned the last 3 sets. This is the most obvious difference happening under our eyes. It's not that subtle.

I reckon he is simply stiffer nowadays with maybe some rare better patches at times.

Of course it can evolve in either direction, I guess Federer is hopeful is can improve. If it does then we might be surprised by olf Fed one more time.

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:52 pm

It's more than just return of serve, his groundstrokes have also dropped in consistency from half a decade or so ago.

by luvsports! Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:13 pm

even from last year!

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:16 pm

luvsports! wrote:even from last year!

Yes, indeed.

Looks like Tenez bizarrely disagrees with us on this one.

by noleisthebest Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:23 pm

You cannot judge someone's ability by a few poorly played matches, especially not Federer's. He has had moments of utter brilliance this year, I was so hopeful he would do well in Wimbledon.
He does not play percentage tennis, so the word "consistency" applies to him in a completely different way from, say, Murray or Nadal.
I look forward to seeing him play next week very much.
As long as he wants to play, I'll enjoy his every shot.
Let's be honest, even his shanks look better than anything I saw in those first two games of Wimbledon FINAL (!!!) yesterday.
I really don't understand why people panic and almost enjoy talking about his retirement or "decline".
He needs every bit of encouragement to keep going in these conditions, and if he is willing to do it, we should all be ecstatic about it.

Go Fed, you show 'em how it's done diva

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:30 pm

noleisthebest wrote:You cannot judge someone's ability by a few poorly played matches,

Yes, but I have watched most of his matches this year, and for me his groundstrokes are not as good as they were during his prime (or even last year as LS suggested).

He has had moment of utter brilliance this year

Yes, but I'm talking about overall level of play.

He does not play percentage tennis, so the word "consistency" applies to him in a completely different way from, say, Murray or Nadal.

Or maybe even Djokovic?
And the word consistency does still apply to him. He is missing shots more often, especially with the forehand- compared to before.

I look forward to seeing him play next week very much.
As long as he wants to play, I'll enjoy his every shot.

Fair enough, I think many people agree with you there.

Let's be honest, even his shanks look better than anything I saw in those first two game of Wimbledon FINAL (!!!) yesterday.

Even Djokovic's shots?

I really don't understand why people panic and almost enjoy talking about his retirement or "decline".

Nothing to do with panicking or enjoying, I am just stating what I can see.

He need every bit of encouragement to keep going in these conditions, and if he is willing to do it, we should all be ecstatic about it.

We can be ecstatic about what we like, without you having to tell us.
Personally I am looking forward to seeing him back and hopefully playing good tennis, but I would not force that view on others.

by truffin1 Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:50 pm

Tenez wrote:
truffin1 wrote:
Tenez wrote:Clearly he needs to train on HC but that's why I think he needs points too cause he chooses to play on clay when the clay season is over.

Maybe clay is also tender to his back.

Not to go around in circles Tenez, but it still doesn't make sense for this to be about points in order for better seeding at US Open or majors.. According to the charts and discussion on the Federer website- because of the 500 tourney point penalty and when other tournaments drop off-- these two tournaments basically won't even count until later in the year... What they are saying is it will have virtually no affect on this seeding for US Open and barring a miracle sweep of Montreal and Cinci- he's surely going into the US Open 5th or 6th.......

so..........  why not train like a madman on cincy/ us open type courts and be 100% prepared for those..   then he has plenty of time and also room to add tournies the last part of the season to improve his seeding for WTF and Australian.. This just seems like a panic move that could potentially hamper his US Open campaign... Its is a transition both is speed, feel, and tactics to go from clay to hard...   other than fitness- training on clay right now will not help him at the Open imo.

I don't think it's about this USOin particular....but by traing to gain another 750 he increases his chances of a better seeding for the 3 slams after the USO.

If he was to train very hard for Montreal and Cincy he is most likely to arrive tired at the USO where the real points are.....and he like the Masters so he does not want to play too much in between USO and Masters either.

If yuo don't think it's about points what he is doing now on clay?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I don't know the answer that's why I keep struggling with this move he's making.   Some are saying that with the early loss at Wimby which he prob does not plan on happening again while he plays- he saw an oppurtunity to play some tournies that meant alot to him in his early years-- both to help the tournaments, get some match play in, and kind of a farewell to those tournies....      some think it's just about confidence as Annacone told I think Patrick Mcenroe or some commentator after Wimby that he felt the biggest issue was Federer was searching for confidence........       some think it's points.

I just think he could more easily add tournaments later in the year to gain points and seeding for next year without having to transition to a different surface and cram his schedule.. With travel time, et, assuming he wins Gstaad-- he's be in Montreal with 2, 3 days to practice on hards--- so he'll have played 4 weeks with just a couple of days rest after Cinci (which is going to be hot!) then 1 week and the US Open which is brutal conditions for older players Imo...........

then again, like you said- he knows what he's doing :-)

by N2D2L Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:00 pm

Truffin, for quoting try 'switch editor mode' button.

by Tenez Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:05 pm

truffin1 wrote:I don't know the answer that's why I keep struggling with this move he's making. Some are saying that with the early loss at Wimby which he prob does not plan on happening again while he plays- he saw an oppurtunity to play some tournies that meant alot to him in his early years-- both to help the tournaments, get some match play in, and kind of a farewell to those tournies.... some think it's just about confidence as Annacone told I think Patrick Mcenroe or some commentator after Wimby that he felt the biggest issue was Federer was searching for confidence........ some think it's points.

I just think he could more easily add tournaments later in the year to gain points and seeding for next year without having to transition to a different surface and cram his schedule.. With travel time, et, assuming he wins Gstaad-- he's be in Montreal with 2, 3 days to practice on hards--- so he'll have played 4 weeks with just a couple of days rest after Cinci (which is going to be hot!) then 1 week and the US Open which is brutal conditions for older players Imo...........

then again, like you said- he knows what he's doing :-)

Yes...there are good points here: playing for a last times tounaments he liked, confidence and points. I am not sure either.

However the more he waits to grab some points the more the pressure will be down the end of year to make upfor lost ground.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:42 pm

My take is still the same, better back and overall health may still not win Fed majors. He needs to evolve his game. He himself said once "Tennis changes after every 5 years" . Its been a decade since he won his first slams.

I think he needs to tune his game to the "changed" tennis. Develop some new shots. His same old great game was great once, but may not be enough now.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:50 pm

Looking at Fed's playing activity in 2013 and I see that he has only beaten 1 top-10 player this year till now, Tsonga in AO.

by luvsports! Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:03 pm

and of the top 10 he's lost to nadal, murray & berdych i think

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:12 pm

luvsports! wrote:and of the top 10 he's lost to nadal, murray & berdych i think

Lost twice to Nadal, Tsonga in RG and Berdych in Dubai.

He might have lost to more had he won against lower ranked players so that to reach later rounds and face them. Seemingly losing early has become a good thing with that h2h.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:49 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:My take is still the same, better back and overall health may still not win Fed majors. He needs to evolve his game. He himself said once "Tennis changes after every 5 years" . Its been a decade since he won his first slams.

I think he needs to tune his game to the "changed" tennis. Develop some new shots. His same old great game was great once, but may not be enough now.

Fed has the best game in the business, I feel with a few more matches played he could piece everything together again. Once his form starts rolling, he'll be dangerous.

You cannot be serious and expect Fed to degrade his tennis by turning into a beefed-up baseline rallying monster, because that's where the game has moved on in the last 5 years, it's actually almost got out of control so much so that they have started to panic a bit and enforced time between the points.

I hope they move one step further and speed up the balls as well, or at least stop adding sand into paint!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:36 am

Not talking about who has the best game. I'm talking about is the best game still good enough to win in the current tennis world? He may have the best timing, hand-eye coordination , feet movement, etc. but still with those too there have been players who have found some way to win. Nadal found out to break the back-hand with constantly plugging in high bouncing spinny balls. The plan was so effective that players too have adopted it.

One doesn't require the best game to win. But smart play. I don't expect or want Fed to become a rallying monster. No. But I think unless he addes something to his game, he is going to struggle.

example. In WTF 2010 final against his biggest nemesis, who had 3 slam wins, fianls on a blue but on a slowed down indoor court. But Fed played better, he played a lot more cross court short angled balls and many of those went for winners. Nadal was surprised with that tactic. Fed normally would slice backhands to keept it low but they have no effect on the Nadal's forehand which returns with so much whip. That was one innovation Fed tried and of course with some good-backhand-day, it worked for him.

That's what I'm talking about. Adding something to the already existing great game.

by luvsports! Wed Jul 10, 2013 10:47 am

I think feds was a better athlete at 29 than 31/32, so perhaps he can't do that again.

by Tenez Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:06 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:......Nadal found out to break the back-hand with constantly plugging in high bouncing spinny balls. The plan was so effective that players too have adopted it.

One doesn't require the best game to win. But smart play. I don't expect or want Fed to become a rallying monster. No. But I think unless he addes something to his game, he is going to struggle.

example. In WTF 2010 final against his biggest nemesis, who had 3 slam wins, fianls on a blue but on a slowed down indoor court. But Fed played better, he played a lot more cross court short angled balls and many of those went for winners. Nadal was surprised with that tactic. Fed normally would slice backhands to keept it low but they have no effect on the Nadal's forehand which returns with so much whip. That was one innovation Fed tried and of course with some good-backhand-day, it worked for him.

That's what I'm talking about. Adding something to the already existing great game.

I wish fed would be beaten by smart play.....a bit like when he was beaten by Stak. But we know those beating him, essentially the top 3/4 are not smarter and are just fitter. It's as simple as that.

In that London 2010 finals, he beat those who had beaten him elswhere not because he suddenly remembered he coudl hurt with his BH but because the low bounce allowed him to hurt a bit more with his BH.

His fitness and courts conds are key to his success. He learnt his game in the 90s with Nat string. he did very well to adapt to the new game but there are limitations to what he can do as the strings and courts conds have changed so much. Look at the Wimbledon final. It the one covering 20% more ground who won it.....not the shot maker!

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:55 am

So you want to say that Nadal's tactic to beat Fed isn't smart? I think its so smart, that even though Fed knows it well, his team knows it well, he still would struggle to counter it even after years of playing him. Smart doesn't always mean the idealistic beautiful game. If wrong footing your opponent so much that he doesn't have any clue about the ball is smart, tying your opponent into a chocking rally so much that he just can't get out of it and forcing him to attempt a make-or-break high risk shot is just as smart a play. Winning ugly doesn't mean its not smart. Smart is making the best of what one has and taking the maximum advantage of it.

Would you attribute Fed's win in WTF 2010 over Nadal only to low bouncing balls. I wouldn't. He played the match differently, trusted his cross-court backhand and mixed it up better. He didn't try to slice the back-hand because that slice had no effect on Nadal's forehand and returns continuously got shorter by the length of the rallys allowing Nadal to hit a point-winning shot. Nadal was shocked by that.

He can't change the court conditions. He can only get so much fit, he can't become a Nadal or Murray. But he wants to still win (slams essentially), so I feel his current game might not able game to get those. He has to find some new shots, some new play.

by Tenez Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:18 pm

Rotla - I just go by the definitions.

Smart = Having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

I do not see a quick-witted intelligence is applying a physical game. Nadal is that smart that when his physique is not at 120% his game is no better than top 100 ranked player.

Federer knows where the ball is going to land, Nadal knows, his team knows, and you and I know where Nadal FH is going to land 90% of the time. There is nothing I'd call smart about it.

Federer knows how to handle balls coming to his BH, many have tried, including many LHers but all have failed except when that ball has energy and spin, it;s harder to control....and that also depends on the surface, size of balls etc...

The only way he could control that ball is by developing a DHBH.

Would that be smart to change his game at 32?

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:44 pm

Tenez wrote:
I wish fed would be beaten by smart play.....a bit like when he was beaten by Stak. But we know those beating him, essentially the top 3/4 are not smarter and are just fitter. It's as simple as that.

In that London 2010 finals, he beat those who had beaten him elswhere not because he suddenly remembered he coudl hurt with his BH but because the low bounce allowed him to hurt a bit more with his BH.

His fitness and courts conds are key to his success. He learnt his game in the 90s with Nat string. he did very well to adapt to the new game but there are limitations to what he can do as the strings and courts conds have changed so much. Look at the Wimbledon final. It the one covering 20% more ground who won it.....not the shot maker!

I remember that match as I saw it live and close up, I totally fell in love with Fed's backhand then. It was absolutely sublime.
Nadal looked deflated, confused and lost .

It is no surprise he never won WTF or anything of any worth post RG and Wimbledon. The 2010 USO was a one-off "fluke", I call on doping experts here to throw some light on that one season Nadal both won USO and made it to WTF final. Never before and never after.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:14 pm

noleisthebest wrote: I call on doping experts here to throw some light on that one season Nadal both won USO and made it to WTF final. Never before and never after.

Right, I'm giving Fuentes a ring.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:15 pm

If all Nadal has to do is dope to win USO and reach final of WTF, then why can't he just do that every year?

It makes much more sense to say that he was playing with more confidence and thus could do better on surfaces which normally aren't his favourite.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:18 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:If all Nadal has to do is dope to win USO and reach final of WTF, then why can't he just do that every year?

It makes much more sense to say that he was playing with more confidence and thus could do better on surfaces which normally aren't his favourite.

Good point.
The only remaining question is where did that confidence come from?

by Tenez Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:26 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:If all Nadal has to do is dope to win USO and reach final of WTF, then why can't he just do that every year?

I'd say for Nadal's physical game its a sine qua non factor. It does not mean that doping woudl gurantee a win. I could dope too but that woudl still make it difficult to win Wimby....particularly if others do too.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:07 pm

Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:09 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:If all Nadal has to do is dope to win USO and reach final of WTF, then why can't he just do that every year?

It makes much more sense to say that he was playing with more confidence and thus could do better on surfaces which normally aren't his favourite.

Good point.
The only remaining question is where did that confidence come from?

Confidence can come from many things. It may even stem from feeling comfortable on a personal level- something we can't see.

by luvsports! Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:11 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

yes. Isner.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:13 pm

luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

yes. Isner.

Isner for me runs out of energy as the match goes on into a fifth set, but can survive as his serve his big enough (he's like 6'7 isn't he?), to cover that up.
I remember against both Matheiu and Mahut he looked really out of breath when it got to the fifth.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:16 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

The evidence is in the way players play the game.

Fitness is a complex thing and stamina is a crown of it.
Excellent fitness is definitely desirable in any athletic activity, especially tennis, as it allows you to play the game well during the entire match.
From that point of view all players are more or less fit. Some seem to be fitter than others and for selective parts of the year, though.

I suppose you are just trying to find a way to nail the argument that Nadal is all natural and all talent, by dragging other players into conversation.
Watch the clip LS posted on ITF thread, it's excellent and informative as to how various drugs work in tennis.
I still don't know much about it, but that link was very useful in pointing out that there are other things that work in tennis other than steroids which are the most obvious even to a complete ignoramus.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:17 pm

In my eyes it's bordering on unlikely for a player on PEDs to have worse stamina than one without PEDs, even if his is slightly less energy efficient on his shots.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:19 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Fitness is a complex thing and stamina is a crown of it.
Excellent fitness is definitely desirable in any athletic activity, especially tennis, as it allows you to play the game well during the entire match.
From that point of view all players are more or less fit.

Alright, can't disagree with that.

Some seem to be fitter than others and for selective parts of the year, though.

Has it occurred to you that some players are better on certain surfaces, compared to others. For me one of the best clay performances I have seen from Nadal is his Davis Cup thrashing of Berdych on clay in 2009. Yet a few days before that he was really bad on indoor hard.

I suppose you are just trying to find a way to nail the argument that Nadal is all natural and all talent, by dragging other players into conversation.

I can't remember saying anything even close to that.

Watch the clip LS posted on ITF thread, it's excellent and informative as to how various drugs work in tennis.
I still don't know much about it, but that link was very useful in pointing out that there are other things that work in tennis other than steroids which are the most obvious even to a complete ignoramus.

I haven't seen the clip, what was in it exactly?

by luvsports! Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:25 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

yes. Isner.
Isner for me runs out of energy as the match goes on into a fifth set, but can survive as his serve his big enough (he's like 6'7 isn't he?), to cover that up.
I remember against both Matheiu and Mahut he looked really out of breath when it got to the fifth.

my point is that if isner (who has poor fitness if you get him running) was on drugs, someone much smaller and lighter could be fitter for sure as they dnt have to carry around a 6'9 frame.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 2:27 pm

luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:
luvsports! wrote:
Julia Santamaria wrote:Is it possible for a player who is not doping to have better stamina than a player who is doping?

yes. Isner.
Isner for me runs out of energy as the match goes on into a fifth set, but can survive as his serve his big enough (he's like 6'7 isn't he?), to cover that up.
I remember against both Matheiu and Mahut he looked really out of breath when it got to the fifth.

my point is that if isner (who has poor fitness if you get him running) was on drugs, someone much smaller and lighter could be fitter for sure as they dnt have to carry around a 6'9 frame.

Ah yes, I understand.
Apologies didn't fully comprehend your point earlier, but to be fair on me your initial comment didn't explain it like you have done now.

Yes I agree, but I think this is a slightly extreme example. If you have two athletes who are of relatively similar size, and one is clean while the other has a lot more more RBC's in their blood, surely you have to assume that the latter player will have far more stamina (even if his play is slightly less energy efficient).

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:42 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:If all Nadal has to do is dope to win USO and reach final of WTF, then why can't he just do that every year?

Ha ha.. Oh Amritia, we have been through that road long back. I don't blame you for your ignorance or poor memory since it was I think 2 years back.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:45 pm

Julia Santamaria wrote:
I haven't seen the clip, what was in it exactly?

here it is:

luvsports! wrote:haha classic crazy aussie love his stuff .
FInally does a video on nadal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Eps8Lx1ki4
thoughts?

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:53 pm

Tenez wrote:Rotla - I just go by the definitions.

Smart = Having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

I do not see a quick-witted intelligence is applying a physical game. Nadal is that smart that when his physique is not at 120% his game is no better than top 100 ranked player.

Federer knows where the ball is going to land, Nadal knows, his team knows, and you and I know where Nadal FH is going to land 90% of the time. There is nothing I'd call smart about it.

Federer knows how to handle balls coming to his BH, many have tried, including many LHers but all have failed except when that ball has energy and spin, it;s harder to control....and that also depends on the surface, size of balls etc...

The only way he could control that ball is by developing a DHBH.

Would that be smart to change his game at 32?

Fine. Repeated use of the same tactic doesn't exhibit intelligence and hence smart-play. But why would one want to change it if its still very effective. Why should Nadal chnage his tactic fo beaking-down Fed's BH if its still working even after so many years of play. And what about Fed's smart play? He knows what will Nadal throw at him, everyone does. So why doesn't he work out a smart plan to counter it. I dn't see being unable to work a counter plan as any way smart/intelligent when the fact is he completely knows what is Nadal's plan going to be.

Do you want to say that its impossible for a SHBH player to counter Nadal's tactic that you are suggesting about a DHBH? Fed can't get a DHBH, but are you saying that's the only way? I see other SHBH players handle Nadal's balls better off that wing. Eg. Wawrinka, Gasquet, Almagro, even Haas has a more solid SHBH and doesn't break as easily.

Is it impossible for Fed to learn something looking at how those players handle Nadal's spinny balls on their BH? True the player I'm talking about may not have ever defeated Nadal, but their loss doesn't gets so singled out on break-the-bh tactic. For Fed, its mainly that.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:26 pm

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:I don't blame you for your ignorance or poor memory since it was I think 2 years back.

Well I've only known you for a few weeks, so you can't blame me at all.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:27 pm

Must admit, that Durian video was funny. The guy has a sense of humour.

by luvsports! Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:40 pm

He's great and he knows his stuff in terms of performance, the human body, diet, cycling, drugs etc.
Im guessing you don't agree with him right?

by N2D2L Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:44 pm

What he said applied more to tennis and testing in general, rather than just Nadal (apart from his arm- my friend has bigger arms than Nadal, and he is clean).

by Tenez Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:03 pm

Why should Nadal chnage his tactic fo beaking-down Fed's BH if its still working even after so many years of play.
------------------------------------
He should not of course....unelss he plays Murray, Djoko or a new federer.

But for Federer, the options are limited. He is the best middle weight out there but now he is facing heavyweight boxers. His shots don't hurt and can be retrieved by the better ones. He needs to get as fit and heavier to rival against them.

No easily solution and I do not see what new shots could help him. He needs to hit harder like Delpo, serve like Jerzy, etc...those are the guys who will take over on those slow conds.....not Federer.

by raiders_of_the_lost_ark Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:22 pm

So is it the end of the road for the Mighty Federer?

by Tenez Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:27 pm

I am afraid so. He is still very competitive and I am sure with a good back he can still beat anybody. He almost did beat Murray at the AO despite being clearly hampered with a very poor serve but it si certainly going to be much harder for him now.

I cannot see him developing those muscles and stamina now. Haas kept up with the trend...I am not sure Fed wants to.

by BlueClay Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:34 am

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Tenez wrote:Rotla - I just go by the definitions.

Smart = Having or showing a quick-witted intelligence.

I do not see a quick-witted intelligence is applying a physical game. Nadal is that smart that when his physique is not at 120% his game is no better than top 100 ranked player.

Federer knows where the ball is going to land, Nadal knows, his team knows, and you and I know where Nadal FH is going to land 90% of the time. There is nothing I'd call smart about it.

Federer knows how to handle balls coming to his BH, many have tried, including many LHers but all have failed except when that ball has energy and spin, it;s harder to control....and that also depends on the surface, size of balls etc...

The only way he could control that ball is by developing a DHBH.

Would that be smart to change his game at 32?

Fine. Repeated use of the same tactic doesn't exhibit intelligence and hence smart-play. But why would one want to change it if its still very effective. Why should Nadal chnage his tactic fo beaking-down Fed's BH if its still working even after so many years of play. And what about Fed's smart play? He knows what will Nadal throw at him, everyone does. So why doesn't he work out a smart plan to counter it. I dn't see being unable to work a counter plan as any way smart/intelligent when the fact is he completely knows what is Nadal's plan going to be.

Do you want to say that its impossible for a SHBH player to counter Nadal's tactic that you are suggesting about a DHBH? Fed can't get a DHBH, but are you saying that's the only way? I see other SHBH players handle Nadal's balls better off that wing. Eg. Wawrinka, Gasquet, Almagro, even Haas has a more solid SHBH and doesn't break as easily.

Is it impossible for Fed to learn something looking at how those players handle Nadal's spinny balls on their BH? True the player I'm talking about may not have ever defeated Nadal, but their loss doesn't gets so singled out on break-the-bh tactic. For Fed, its mainly that.

Yes precisely raiders! One can make a million excuses for why Federer could not make the proper changes to combat Nadal and what he knew was going to come every single time from Nadal. He is the supposed GOAT afterall. The truth is (and I say this as a Federer fan), Federer failed in that one area. That is probably Federer's only weakness on his very impressive resume. Plus you are right, why should Nadal change anything if it is working?

by Tenez Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:44 am

It's not an excuse blue, it's simply a constatation. You are the fan wanting Federer to win it all....I am just the admirer of Federer's game and see the limitation. You want Bolt to win at 100m races as well as marathons. I am just aware that Fed comes from a different time. He learnt tennis with a 85inch frame and nat gut, small balls, playing guys like Goran, Kraji and Pete. The technology evolves, the courts slow down the ball get bigger and above all all is facilitated for athletes to become ever bigger and powerful while developing a stamina a la Lance Armstrong.....and despite all that he still as many slams as Nadal in that same period (2006 +).

Those who know are happy with what Federer achieved and more importantly the way he achieved it. The rest is just a business show to increase the sport profitability.

by BlueClay Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:44 am

Tenez wrote:It's not an excuse blue, it's simply a constatation. You are the fan wanting Federer to win it all....I am just the admirer of Federer's game and see the limitation. You want Bolt to win at 100m races as well as marathons. I am just aware that Fed comes from a different time. He learnt tennis with a 85inch frame and nat gut, small balls, playing guys like Goran, Kraji and Pete. The technology evolves, the courts slow down the ball get bigger and above all all is facilitated for athletes to become ever bigger and powerful while developing a stamina a la Lance Armstrong.....and despite all that he still as many slams as Nadal in that same period (2006 +).

Those who know are happy with what Federer achieved and more importantly the way he achieved it. The rest is just a business show to increase the sport profitability.

No Tenez quite the opposite actually. I am delighted at what Federer has achieved and I do not expect him to win more slams. If he manages to do it, that is gravy for me.

That does not take away from Raider's point that Federer was not able to come up with a game plan at the slams since 2007 to combat Nadal's one-dimensional play. If you look objectively at Federer's incredible resume, that is his one failure. We can try and spin it six ways to Sunday but it won't change the reality. All of these greats have some weaknesses.

by truffin1 Sat Jul 13, 2013 6:41 pm

Fed actually has a tough draw at Hamburg... Brands,Gulbis,Janowicz, Haas. It's no gimme that he wins this event.

Pre tourney interview- Fed doesn't give much true insight into why he's playing on clay... says after Wimbledon he realized the only good thing about it was it would give him a chance to play some tournies he had missed playing over the years and also give him a extra holiday.............which doesn't sound like a truly motivated Fed..

Mr. Federer, first of all: How did you got over the early Wimbledon loss?

Roger Federer: After I was since 9 years all the time always at least in the QF of Grand Slams it was of course strange to pack the suitcase. Within 24 hours I had an idea though: That I would like to play Hamburg, that I could play in Gstaad, that I could do a bit of holidays now so that I don't have to do it that often later on.
You can't be sad or disappointed too long. I had a great run at the Grand Slams and it was about to happen one day. Of course I hoped that it wouldn't happen in Wimbledon.

Does such a loss bother you the same as 4, 5 years ago?

That's difficult to say. Sometimes you think that life goes on, no problem, I'm not in the first year of my career anymore. Sometimes it hits you a bit harder and you think that you won't be able to play in Wimbledon for 15 times anymore.
5 years ago, when I won 2, 3 Grand Slam titles in a season, such a loss would have hurt me much more because I would have been the main favorite back then.

You are out of the Top 4 of the world now for the first time in 10 years. What are your goals for the future?

I wan't to be able to hang around at the top for a long time, to win tournaments. The ranking will Show up then. I have never said that I have to get back into the Top 4 immediately or that I have to be in the Top 10 forever. Short-dated I have to see that I play better and that I can get over the Wimbledon loss. There's still much to achieve!

For example here in Hamburg, one of your favorite places in Germany, as you once said. What do you as a Swiss like about the North?

To be honest: At the beginning the cold weather wasn't really my thing. But the longer I was able to stay because I played good the more I liked it. You can spend more time in the town, talk to people and develop a connection to the fans. Hamburg is really a beautiful town, the Alster River, the people - I feel comfortable here.

In 2002 you celebrated at the Rothenbaum your first Masters title. Where do you classify this success?

It was very emotional and will stay in the memory. That victory was a main breakthrough for me and plays an important role because I came into the Top 10 for the first time with it.

You are the main attraction in Hamburg together with your buddy Tommy Haas. Everyone is looking forward to this final. How do you deal with it that you are the crowd favorite and the favorite for the title?

I'm searching for this pressure, otherwise I would just stay at home and practice or finish my career. This pressure makes me stronger and let me dreak of big things. I love it to be the crowd favorite, one who brings tennis forward. I played a lot of Masters 1000 and Grand Slam tournaments but I miss the smaller tournaments, so the joy is also huge from my side and the crowd will feel it.

You won in Hamburg 4 times, Haas never. Assumed you are going to play against each other in the final: Would you grant him the victory?

I already did it in Halle (at the Gerry Weber Open 2012) [laughs]. Of course the tournament in Hamburg is very special, I know that he lived here before and that a title would mean a lot to him. But I will give everything against any player and unfortunately you have to forget then that there is a buddy on the other side of the net. When he should win then though I would be happy for him.

How do you see Haas off court?

I got to know Tommy a lot better during the last years. Since he also got a daughter we are spending more time together with our families which is always great and a lot of fun. On the court Tommy is a bit differently. He needs his angry outburts, his energy, his personality on the court to be able to play good. He also needs this in his private life and I like to join then. I like to practice with Tommy but there were times when we didn't practiced that much together because we were both too much of hotheads and it didn't went well. But now we are both staidy and happy that we can still play.
I'm really happy for Tommy that he fought back that much, it's awesome! It's also an Inspiration for me to see that you can hang around with the others without a problem even at his age.

Source: http://www.mopo.de/sportmix/interview-roger-federer--31----hamburg-war-mein-durchbruch-,5067060,23706762.html

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31