Whassup with Federer?

[uspta146749877]

Slow clay vs slower clay and a Roddick's serve

The Nadal puzzle for Federer...

A few years back there was a guy I played who had a fairly extreme western grip on his forehand and a very unusual backhand, in that he could pass like the dickens, taking the ball on the rise, absorbing pace, and, with a not-very-pretty stroke, fairly poor mechanics, and not moving well through the ball, pass either down the line or cross-court. (He also took his forehand pretty early and went cross-court especially well.)

I lost a number of times to him and finally one day I realized I had to think differently in order to have a shot at winning. It finally dawned on me that I should hit loopy, high, no-pace balls to his backhand, which would draw relatively short balls--he could absorb pace well with his backhand, but he didn't generate his own pace well at all with the stroke, and then, if a) he went cross-court w/ the backhand, I should slice my backhand down the line, or, if b) he went down the line w/ his backhand, then I should wack the ball hard w/ a heavy angle to his forehand.

Why? Because, w/ the western grip on his forehand in case (a) he would have to reply to a low sliced ball (not optimal for a western forehand) and in case (b) he would have to run very wide, which was, again, sub-optimal, given his western forehand. So he would either be hitting a low ball, probably changing directions and from out of his best hitting zone, or hitting a running forehand--tougher on the western grip again.

I didn't beat the guy in the most important match we played (club semi final), but I did take him deep into the match, deeper than ever before, finally losing either 6-4 or 7-5 (I can't remember) in the 3rd (split the 1st 2 sets).

Why bring this up? In the context of the Patrick McEnroe article recently posted, I'm thinking about patterns that Federer could play that could work against Nadal.

I have some ideas, but I'm interested in other people's thoughts as well.

Slow clay vs quick clay and the Rodick"s serve-please
read
Spanish Davis Cup team irked at federation president
Reuters

Updated: May 7, 2008, 9:18 AM ET
Comment
Email
Print
MADRID -- Spain's top players have rebelled against the head of their tennis federation (RFET) Pedro Munoz in a row over the choice of venue for September's Davis Cup semifinal against the United States.

World No. 2 Rafael Nadal, David Ferrer, Carlos Moya, Tommy Robredo, Nicolas Almagro, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Fernando Verdasco and Feliciano Lopez have all refused to do public and promotional events for the RFET while Munoz is still president.

"We feel obliged to make public our unease and disagreement with the president of the RFET and his management," the players said on Wednesday in a statement issued in Rome, where they are playing in a Masters Series event.

"We have been continually misled over decisions from the outset of his tenure."

Spanish media have reported that Madrid will be named as the venue for September's Davis Cup semifinal, although a decision has yet to be made official.

The players would reportedly prefer a venue at sea level that would be slower because the altitude in the Spanish capital would favor the big-serving U.S. team.

"This dispute isn't specifically about whether or not Madrid is the venue," the statement said.

"The players and Davis Cup team captain [Emilio Sanchez Vicario] have once again been misled, and a promise has not been kept to defend and approve the conditions established for us so as not to give our rivals an advantage.

"Also, other venues have not been given a real chance."

Spain is scheduled to play the United States on Sept. 19-21.

[uspta146749877]

Coach to be fired?

Nadal had a blister on his foot and that was problematic for him. But he didn't have the blister in Monte Carlo, did he? He got the blister playing Ferrero, who played flawless tennis in a very long first set.

I'm sure Federer is studying the tape of that match. He should be. Ferror played Nadal's backhand hard, until it opened up the court and then when balls out on the inside-out forehands.

Lots easier if you have a 2-handed backhand, but do-able w/ a one-hander, I think...esp. if you're Federer.

I thought Ferrero played a really smart match.

Stepanek beats Federer in straight sets; Blake loses
Associated Press

Updated: May 9, 2008, 12:41 PM

ROME -- Roger Federer has lost again, falling to 27th-ranked Radek Stepanek in the Rome Masters quarterfinals.

Federer was beaten 7-6 (4), 7-6 (7) by the Czech player Friday.


Tennis scores

Need the scores from any match played in this or any other tournament? Results

This was Federer's sixth loss of the year. The top-ranked Swiss lost only nine matches in all of 2007. He piled up a string of losses at the beginning of this year when he was diagnosed with mononucleosis.

The Rome Masters is a clay-court tuneup for the French Open, which begins May 25. Roland Garros is the only Grand Slam Federer has not won. He has also never won a title in Rome.

In other results Friday, Stanislas Wawrinka rallied past eighth-seeded James Blake 6-7 (5), 7-6 (5), 6-1 to reach his second semifinal in two weeks.

"It's my first Masters Series semifinal, so I'm very pleased," Wawrinka said.

Blake was coming off three-setters in his opening two matches, and the American appeared to lose energy as the match wore on.

Blake missed an easy volley to hand Wawrinka a break in the first game of the third set, and Wawrinka rolled from there.

Wawrinka called for a trainer to treat his lower back with a 6-5 lead in the second set, then again with a 2-1 lead in the third, but the problem did not appear to affect his play.

Wawrinka is ranked a career-high 24th this week after reaching the semifinals of the Barcelona Open last weekend, losing to David Ferrer.

His next opponent will be either Andy Roddick or Tommy Robredo, who were playing later.

Wawrinka said his back problem stemmed from the many matches he's played lately.

"I will try to be 100 percent for tomorrow," he said.

Roddick holds a 7-0 career record against Robredo.

The night match featured Australian Open winner Novak Djokovic against Spanish clay-court specialist Nicolas Almagro.

The Rome Masters is a clay-court tuneup for the French Open, which begins May 25.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

[oliensis]

Federer's loss in Rome

I watched the match on atpmastersseries.tv and Federer looked kind of shockingly passive. On numerous occasions he hit shots that he could have come in to net on, but he backed up after hitting them. Given the success that Stepanek was having by coming in, I would have through Federer would want to take the initiative and be the aggressor as a way of taking Stepanek's game away from him.

Federer looked bad on service returns as well. He rarely takes any initiative when returning.

His backhand went bye-bye for a while in the 2nd set as well.

He looked not terribly interested.

[lukman41985]

This will all pass when Federer wins the French Open.

Remember: He bettered his performance her compared to last year--so he gained points. Nadal failed to defend his 2007 championship, and those points--so Federer's lead in the ATP rankings is very safe and he moved up in the race. All in all, an okay week. Onto Hamburg where Roger's had tremendous success.

Again, I think the theme, which everyone seems to be missing, is that top athletes try to "peak" for certain events. Whereas Roger's dominated almost everything on tour, besides the clay season, the last few years, I think from now on, we're seeing Roger periodize his performance and likely his training to peek for the majors. He wants to break Pete's record and not be remembered for dominating what will starting next year be the defunct Masters Series, which will likely be forgotten by history. Majors live forever. The champions who win them do as well...

Perspective: the guy has more majors than anyone ever has, besides one man--Pete Sampras. Nadal has three. Djokovic has one. Roddick has one. Nalbandian has zero. Davydenko has zero.

Sigh...

Perspective people, perspective...

[lukman41985]

Nadal had a blister on his foot and that was problematic for him. But he didn't have the blister in Monte Carlo, did he? He got the blister playing Ferrero, who played flawless tennis in a very long first set.

I'm sure Federer is studying the tape of that match. He should be. Ferror played Nadal's backhand hard, until it opened up the court and then when balls out on the inside-out forehands.

Lots easier if you have a 2-handed backhand, but do-able w/ a one-hander, I think...esp. if you're Federer.

I thought Ferrero played a really smart match.

If you've watched any of Roger's interviews, he tends to talk about how much he enjoys watching all tennis matches. This definitely includes Nadal's matches with other opponents.

[crosscourt]

Nadal was reported in The Times as having a blister on his foot the morning before his match with Ferrero.

As for Federer, he didn't play well. Stepanek played very aggressively, focussed on Federer's backhand, got into the net, volleyed competently and hit some very hard slice. Federer looked out of touch.

[uspta146749877]

rome

Nadal was reported in The Times as having a blister on his foot the morning before his match with Ferrero.

As for Federer, he didn't play well. Stepanek played very aggressively, focussed on Federer's backhand, got into the net, volleyed competently and hit some very hard slice. Federer looked out of touch.

see as well

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/thewrap/2008/05/rome-no-anti-cl.html

[airforce1]

I tend to take mostly the view of Lukman, feeling that Fed had to play less rds to stay ready for the big events and not overwork by winning every event he plays in. That is just too much tennis.

Not sure Pete would go over this with him to help him break Pete's record, but sort of feel that on their little tour together it may have come more to Fed's mind how Pete did this. Then the mono thing really drove home how important it is not to overwork! That is a big part in how you get mono is by driving your bodys defenses down with overwork.

In some ways it will be harder to have the confidence to win the majors when u are not winning everything is sight, but in the more important ways, it will help him, especially in the longer haul of getting to play more majors in a more healthy state.

[uspta146749877]

Loosing in Hamburg

I tend to take mostly the view of Lukman, feeling that Fed had to play less rds to stay ready for the big events and not overwork by winning every event he plays in. That is just too much tennis.

Not sure Pete would go over this with him to help him break Pete's record, but sort of feel that on their little tour together it may have come more to Fed's mind how Pete did this. Then the mono thing really drove home how important it is not to overwork! That is a big part in how you get mono is by driving your bodys defenses down with overwork.

In some ways it will be harder to have the confidence to win the majors when u are not winning everything is sight, but in the more important ways, it will help him, especially in the longer haul of getting to play more majors in a more healthy state.

click

http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/hamburg_final.asp

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3394790

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3401952

Federer about Nadal:
"He had a great week and a great clay-court season," said Federer, who finished with 41 unforced errors to Nadal's 28.
The second link above suggests how to win against Federer.
----> French Open and Roddick
Banged-up Roddick (shoulder) pulls out of French Open
Associated Press
DUESSELDORF, Germany -- Andy Roddick, the highest-ranked American man, withdrew from the French Open on Monday because of a right shoulder injury.

The sixth-ranked Roddick, who lost in the first round at Roland Garros the last two years, pulled out of the semifinals of the Rome Masters on May 10. He then skipped the Hamburg Masters last week, but had been expected to play this week at the World Team Cup in Duesseldorf.

"Andy is pulling out with an upper back shoulder injury, the same thing that he had in Rome," said John Roddick, Andy's brother and the U.S. captain at the World Team Cup. "He's pulling out of here and he's also going to miss the French Open

John Roddick said he hoped his brother would be ready for the grass-court tournament at Queen's Club, a key warmup for Wimbledon.

"The shoulder doctor we use is out of New York City so he was right there, and Andy had an MRI and there's some inflammation so he pulled him from here and the French," John Roddick said. "I don't think it's going to be anything that's terribly long and I would be surprised if he was not ready to go for Queens. But as for now he needs to take a good 10 days, 12 days, just rest."

Andy Roddick won his only Grand Slam title at the 2003 U.S. Open. He has reached three other major finals, losing to Roger Federer twice at Wimbledon and once at the U.S. Open.

At the French Open, Roddick's best showing came in his debut in 2001 when he reached the third round. He reached the second round in 2004 and '05, but has lost in the first round four times.

His success this year in Rome had given Roddick hope ahead of the French Open, which starts Sunday.

"He's been playing well all year and he was excited to be playing on the clay and really had a good frame of mind in practice and in his matches," John Roddick said. "He felt really comfortable on the clay this year, so he really liked his chances of doing better than he has, and he did it in Rome. He was optimistic about his draw in France and wanted to come over and try to play well. So for him it's disappointing."

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

[lukman41985]

Rafa has all the pressure going into the French. Roger won't be scared--it can't be any worse than losing two matches when you have a big lead. Federer playing with no fear against a worn-out Nadal that has all the pressure? I think things are in favor for Roger to take his first title at Roland Garros.

[gsheiner]

Don't count on it.

Federer has to play great tennis to beat Nadal. He has to take the ball on the rise and attack as he did brilliantly at times today.

Nadal is a machine on clay because he doesn't have to play brilliantly to win.

[lukman41985]

Federer's Journey

Don't stop...

[uspta146749877]

Roddick and French Open

Don't count on it.

Federer has to play great tennis to beat Nadal. He has to take the ball on the rise and attack as he did brilliantly at times today.

Nadal is a machine on clay because he doesn't have to play brilliantly to win.

Please see my addition to one posts above.
It is NOT about Federer but it provides some extra info about French Open.
I hoped you would like to know about it

[oliensis]

Don't count on it.

Federer has to play great tennis to beat Nadal. He has to take the ball on the rise and attack as he did brilliantly at times today.

Nadal is a machine on clay because he doesn't have to play brilliantly to win.

I believe it was Schopenhauer who wrote that only stupidity creates the necessity for brilliance.

Not exactly transferrable to Federer's game, but I think it's in agreement w/ your comment the advanage afforded Nadal by not having to be brillian with his game to beat Federer on clay...he just has to play w/in himself.

After watching N beat F the last 2 times in the finals, I think F has to be less thin-skinned. Has to continue attacking through both brillian and less-than brillian stretches. Has to not get intimidated and passive when the attacking goes less well. Has to continue to try to force Nadal to be brilliant w/ counterpunching and defense in order to win.

I remember watching Rafter and Todd Martin play in Davis Cup. Came down to 5th set. Martin was playing really well, but I knew that Rafter would win the 5th because he knew exactly how he was going to play while Martin had to decide on his tactics point after point. So, when crunch time came, Rafter had a kind of kamikze serenity that alleviated any nerves. He was going to serve and volley, come hell or high water. And in the absence of any doub he performed up to his capabilities in the clutch. By contrast, Martin missed some easy shots because he was less clear about his game plan.

I think something similar is behind Federer's streakyness and occasional passivity when he plays Nadal on clay. Federer needs to commit to his game plan and only re-evaluate if he goes down a set and a break, or at some other pre-determined benchmark point in the match.

[gsheiner]

I agree with you guys ( oliensis and USPTA) and appreciate the comments and links.

I couldn't agree more that Federer has to attack early in the points and commit to that strategy for at least a set and a part of the second if he's losing.

The truth is he probably needs to commit to that strategy for the whole match, but that may be beyond his mental tolerance if he's losing.

As for Nadal's patterns and the opportunities they present for a talented and clever opponent.

In the matches that I've seen Nadal lose recently on hard court ( didn't see the Ferrero match on clay unfortunately, but I've wondered if Nadal didn't tank a little to rest), he's been beaten by guys talented enough to attack his shots early. Davydenko did this brilliantly in Miami ( of course, Nadal beat him in the rematch on clay).

David Ferrer did this brilliantly in the US OPen. What Ferrer did ( in my eyes) was to key on the fact that almost every Rafa forehand goes crosscourt. So, since he know where the ball was going , Ferrer decided to step in and hit his 2 hander up the line. He killed Nadal with this pattern.

I was yelling for my boy Rafa to hit more inside out forehands to the Ferrer forehand to keep Ferrer honest but he didn't do it.

And , in the link USPTA provided, Darren Cahill describes that Ferrero beat beat Nadal recently by using his two handed backhand up the line as well.

Of course, Nadal is much more vulnerable to this tactic on hard court versus clay.

Actually, that's my main criticism of Nadal's patterns. At times, he goes a little too much to his crosscourt forehand and doesn't take advantage of the fact that guys are overplaying that shot and giving him a lot of room to hit the inside out and down the line forehands.

Of course, on clay he hardly ever loses so why should he change? As Oliensis noted, it also keeps his mind calm in big moments.

But, if would be interesting if one were Nadal's coach, to chart his matches on hard court versus clay and see if there are numbers to support my theory that he should be hitting more inside out and down the line forehands on hard court.