Roger Federer...The Living Proof

[don_budge]

The don_budge tennis coaching paradigm:

The Book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. The coach is Harry Hopman. Roger Federer is "The Living Proof".

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic...Shanghai Open 2014 Semifinals

The match of the day is Roger Federer versus Anybody. He is no longer in the house...yet his memory persists. At least with me. I find myself watching a lot of his old matches and missing him. Watching this match you can understand why. At this point in their head to head Roger was ahead by 19-16 or thereabouts. He has recently switched racquet frames and in this match he is taking advantage of every precious silly millimetre. Novak went on to dominate Roger in the waning years of his career and the reason was obvious. At that point...it was all about the legs. Feel free to pile on or pile in. Or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxX5EPHiqwM&t=496s

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic...Shanghai Open 2014 Semifinals

The match of the day is Roger Federer versus Anybody. He is no longer in the house...yet his memory persists. At least with me. I find myself watching a lot of his old matches and missing him. Watching this match you can understand why. At this point in their head to head Roger was ahead by 19-16 or thereabouts. He has recently switched racquet frames and in this match he is taking advantage of every precious silly millimetre. Novak went on to dominate Roger in the waning years of his career and the reason was obvious. At that point...it was all about the legs. Feel free to pile on or pile in. Or not.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxX5EPHiqwM&t=496s

I watched this thru completion and jeez...what a match. What a performance. Roger is rejuvenated with the new equipment and he makes a number of classic forrays to the net to maintain pressure on his rock solid opponent...Novak Djokovic. The takeaway here...Roger has left the stadium and there is no longer any "Living Proof" on how to actually play the classic game of tennis. Here he demonstrates how to execute serve and volley and approach and volley. Two dynamic elements of the game that are now officially extinct. There are the occasional instances but they are basically only to mop up or the element of surprise (shock).

Roger would have 33 years old and Novak 27 by my calculation. Roger is in the grey area where the legs are beginning to feel a bit heavier. Novak is in his prime. Year by year this will catch up with Roger against an opponent like Djokovic. He managed to keep his level up against all of the other competition...including Rafael Nadal. How many majors did he stiff himself out of? Interesting.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Thomas Berdych...Miami Open 2014 Quarterfinals

Roger v Berdych

At 6-5 in that final set tie-break Berdych needed one really good serve to seal the deal. He went for the boomer but missed it. Notice that Roger's service motion didn't let him down in the clutch once he made that mini-break. Berdych ended with a double. The difference between winning and losing lay in he service motions of the two players.

Berdych was playing some good ball during this time frame. He disappeared shortly afterwards. But here is a really nice match at the Miami Open in 2017. See what stotty had to say about it. I checked for my post but didn't find one. Not about this match anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbgh9a3gPBQ

[don_budge]

Roger v Berdych

At 6-5 in that final set tie-break Berdych needed one really good serve to seal the deal. He went for the boomer but missed it. Notice that Roger's service motion didn't let him down in the clutch once he made that mini-break. Berdych ended with a double. The difference between winning and losing lay in he service motions of the two players.

Well...they don't call him "The Living Proof" for nuttin. Do they? I just watched the end of this quarterfinal match between Roger Federer and Thomas Berdych. What an ending. What a comment by stotty. In just a few words he lays it on the line and hits it dead nuts on the square of the litmus test. "The difference between winning and losing lay in the service motions of the two players."

As so often is the case this is inherently true and is a major theorem/proof in the key to playing winning tennis. You are only as strong as your service motion. You are only as strong as your first serve percentage. You are only as strong as your second serve. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I wonder who klacr was rooting for in this match. He must have been torn. Did he go with his heart or did he go with his love for the game of tennis?

[doctorhl]

Anybody else in recent memory who was successful taking the ball on the rise and playing that tight on the baseline as Federer?

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Jack Sock...2017 Miami Open semifinals

Anybody else in recent memory who was successful taking the ball on the rise and playing that tight on the baseline as Federer?

Nobody comes to mind. But on the other hand...the match of the day was always Roger Federer vs. Anybody. Case in point here in the semis of the 2017 Miami Open is Jack Sock. Sock is not a very interesting player stand alone. But match him up against Roger and suddenly he is fascinating. In this match up it is interesting to see how the Jack "Sock it to 'em" Sock forehand matches up against the Federer game. See how Roger takes the big weapon and renders it neutered. Sock never gets his feet under him to take the swing he wants to. Why? It is because whether Roger adheres to it or not, he is a proponent of the Bill Tilden school of tennis that dictates..."never give your opponent the ball he wants to hit". As always a key to the match is controlling your service game. But it is an interesting match against an opponent who is not really even marginally interesting...but all of a sudden he is facing "The Living Proof" and he becomes something of a...spectacle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AdZgLtL2yE

[stroke]

Anybody else in recent memory who was successful taking the ball on the rise and playing that tight on the baseline as Federer?

McEnroe, of course who did it with a continental forehand, obviously producing a much different ball quality than Fed. Agassi and Marcelo Rios(when interested) were close.

[stroke]

https://youtu.be/s9pS0dgmr4A

This is an obscure Fed match that is one of my favorites to rewatch, vs the soon to be forgotten Tomic. Fed played great, and so did young 17 year old Tomic. He actually rushed Fed on some points, very difficult to do. One feels at the beginning of the match, Bernie thought he was the clever one out there.

[stroke]

https://youtu.be/jarGDxHZIWs

They played again in next year 2013. Tomic such an underachiever. He had such a nice game, made for a great shotmaking in the match by Tomic and the masterful Fed.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Francis Tiafoe...2017 Miami Open 2nd Round

Every match a masterpiece. No matter who he plays...it suddenly becomes interesting. So interesting that years later it supercedes anything current. Compelling Roger Federer. Pre equipment switch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVFsjFl8kL8

[don_budge]

https://youtu.be/s9pS0dgmr4A

This is an obscure Fed match that is one of my favorites to rewatch, vs the soon to be forgotten Tomic. Fed played great, and so did young 17 year old Tomic. He actually rushed Fed on some points, very difficult to do. One feels at the beginning of the match, Bernie thought he was the clever one out there.

https://youtu.be/jarGDxHZIWs
They played again in next year 2013. Tomic such an underachiever. He had such a nice game, made for a great shotmaking in the match by Tomic and the masterful Fed.

Amazing isn't it stroke? Both masterpieces. I guess that is the definition of a maestro. Masterpiece after masterpiece after masterpiece...until it is over. These matches are pre-equipment change for Roger and it makes them all the more fascinating. He sliced the backhand noticably more often with the old "Excalibur". But he was still sheer genius. He just had to work a little bit harder against players less talented than him than he should have. I often wonder how many more matches, tournaments and majors he would have won if he had switched when I told him to. Hindsight being 20/20. Tomic was a really talented player who just wasn't convinced that the price you pay is worth the price of admission. His forehand is rather curious and it did neutralize the Federer backhand up to a point. He had the nice little sidespin that carried the ball just a tad away from the opponent. That was a old school approach shot way back when. An obvioud left over from Tomic's Aussie heritage.

[don_budge]

Amazing isn't it stroke? Both masterpieces. I guess that is the definition of a maestro. Masterpiece after masterpiece after masterpiece...until it is over. These matches are pre-equipment change for Roger and it makes them all the more fascinating. He sliced the backhand noticably more often with the old "Excalibur". But he was still sheer genius. He just had to work a little bit harder against players less talented than him than he should have. I often wonder how many more matches, tournaments and majors he would have won if he had switched when I told him to. Hindsight being 20/20. Tomic was a really talented player who just wasn't convinced that the price you pay is worth the price of admission. His forehand is rather curious and it did neutralize the Federer backhand up to a point. He had the nice little sidespin that carried the ball just a tad away from the opponent. That was a old school approach shot way back when. An obvioud left over from Tomic's Aussie heritage.

Here is the 2012 and 2013 Australian Open threads on tennisplayer.net:

https://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/forum/tennisplayer/2087-the-2012-australian-open/page5#post24368

https://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/forum/tennisplayer/2319-2013-australian-open-melbourne-australia/page5#post30189

[tenniscoach1]

Interesting … explain what you see Tomic is doing … the sidespin …

[don_budge]

Interesting … explain what you see Tomic is doing … the sidespin …

The don_budge tennis coaching paradigm:

The Book is Bill Tilden. The model is Richard Gonzalez with the Don Budge backhand. The coach is Harry Hopman. Roger Federer is "The Living Proof".

Excellent question and a question that a true tennis coach is asking themselves...why? It appears to me that a young Bernard Tomic is borrowing a page out of the book of Tilden. "Never give your opponent a shot he likes to hit". So Tomic is throwing Federer...screwballs. A screwball is baseball lingo for a ball that is breaking away from Federer backhand in this case. Tomic is attempting to probe the Federer arsenal for a chink in the armor. In this case theorizing that that chink exists on a ball that breaks low and away while skidding due to the spin on the ball. It's an excellent idea but Tomic seems to be stumped on what to do with the Federer reply.

Tactical applications should be thought out in terms of possible replies to any given tactical question you ask your opponent. In this case...what does he anticipate that Federer will reply to his ball. The answers are wordy and complicated but are actually pretty simple in real time on the tennis court, if you have the necessary tools in the tool kit. Roger does and Tomic does not. As an example...if Bernard hits this "screwball" near the service line and towards the sideline he needs to pay close attention to what Federer's likely response will be. For instance if Federer returns with a similar shot Bernard has to examine what are his possible responses. If Federer comes deeper in the backhand corner...what are the Tomic possibilities? If Federer comes down the line to the Tomic forehand...what are the Tomic options?

I believe that by playing a ball short and wide skidding to the Federer backhand...the player should be looking for a ball he can drive deep into the Federer forehand try to stretch Federer out in his side of the court. He needs to create some space. If he successfully stretches Federer wide then he has opened up the backhand side of the court for a similar pattern or perhaps try to drive deep into the backhand or go behind Federer anticipating something to the backhand. If Tomic does not get the ball he can drive into the Federer forehand he might be looking to drive deep into the backhand. He has to throw effective combinations at the Swiss Maestro to be effective. Tomic has a good initial idea but he repeatedly plays the same ball to the Federer backhand and it isn't enough to provoke an error and Federer proves he can match Tomic ball for ball of similar tactics.

This is the genius of Federer. There are really no chinks in the armor. Deep on the backhand might be the weakest spot. To eploit this might require Tomic to hit the slider then follow up with something deep to the backhand trying to get a short ball on the return. It's all about permutations and combinations. Sort of like pitching to a batter. What are the likely responses from the batter to a pitchers choice of pitches. You see the infield anticipating what the batter's response will be before he actually hits or swings. Tomic would have done well to try and get a short ball where he could apply this sort of spin and direction as an approach shot...if he was skillful enough to follow it in to the net. Here is where the tactical strategy would fail for Tomic...does he have the skills necessary to get in close enough to the net to make this happen.

This is an excellent option for a player to have in his tool kit...the sidespin forehand. But it is not an end in itself...more like a means to an end. The idea is very sound in Tomic's case as he is giving something to Federer in an offspeed category...trying to break up his rhythm. But he will need a three shot combination to beat Federer at his own game and Tomic has a limiited span of attention as he demonstrates in repeatedly trying to make this shot work for him stand alone.