Whassup with Federer?

[oliensis]

Given Murray's exception speed and lanky reach, if attacking on deep middle slices might not be a good play for Federer. (Like Ashe against Connors in Wimbledon final decades ago.)

Murray tends to run around his (better) backhand to hit his (less awesome) forehand in the middle of the court. So the play takes away the angles and gets Murray to make the one consistently questionable strategic decision I've seen him consistently make.

I don't suspect Federer will try it much, but i'll be watching for it.

[airforce1]

We can truly appreciate the artistry of either of these guys. I do give Fed the edge based on him seeming to find more patience in the last match or two. While I think Murray's variety bothers Roger, I don't think any of the individual shots are good enough to do much harm. It is more of a cumulative thing, which is much harder to put together, especially against Federer.

I'm thinking Murray's shorter TS shots don't quite have the bite, the drop shots will get a mixed result or worse and he can't be consistent enough when hitting for depth off Roger's spin and power. Murray's serve can keep this close if he is making them and the drop shots could put him over the top to win if he has one of his better days in that department. Even Roger will have a tough time defending the depth if the dropper is dialed in.

Plan to chart it to be more sure, but the match seemed to play out much as expected. Murray just couldn't pull out that second set. Would have thought Andy could have powered his way thru at least one of the sets as well as he was playing, but he just couldn't do enough to overcome Roger's attack on his shorter Topspin shots and he was forced to leave too many of them. Man, Roger was on fire in that first set, wasn't he.

[oliensis]

Interesting to watch how much less smart Murray looked in the finals than in the semis. What I didn't see from Murray in the finals was the off-speed stuff that drew errors from Del Potro and from Nadal. Federer really controlled the way the points were constructed and at times looked to me like he has looked prior to this year.

Not the match I'd hoped to see, but interesting nonetheless.

[airforce1]

Interesting to watch how much less smart Murray looked in the finals than in the semis. What I didn't see from Murray in the finals was the off-speed stuff that drew errors from Del Potro and from Nadal. Federer really controlled the way the points were constructed and at times looked to me like he has looked prior to this year.

Not the match I'd hoped to see, but interesting nonetheless.

I think that is what happens when the pressure is relentless. You just don't make as good decisions if thinking is required. Even with the 2ond set errors, Fed kept the onslaught pretty constant. Murray's camp underestimated the prep required for this match.

[hyperwarrior]

Plan to chart it to be more sure, but the match seemed to play out much as expected. Murray just couldn't pull out that second set. Would have thought Andy could have powered his way thru at least one of the sets as well as he was playing, but he just couldn't do enough to overcome Roger's attack on his shorter Topspin shots and he was forced to leave too many of them. Man, Roger was on fire in that first set, wasn't he.

I saw the first set from Fed and he played amazing. He was dictating and reminds us of his old self. I didn't expect him to play that good especially in the final after what he's going through this year. 2009 looks good for him and his fans!

[airforce1]

I saw the first set from Fed and he played amazing. He was dictating and reminds us of his old self. I didn't expect him to play that good especially in the final after what he's going through this year. 2009 looks good for him and his fans!

I think it could be, even if he is not quite at his best. Even in this US Open I didn't feel we saw his best except in a set here and there, but it was still enough for him to add another slam.

To me he used to have this quality of challenging others to play well enough to take it from him. He didn't raise his level until they proved it would take a higher level, and at that point, he was ready to do it. He was good and warmed up, and primed with what weaknesses to exploit as he bumped it up a notch.

If they didn't make him lift the level, he would just play real solid for 4-6 shots till he got the right position, then he would finish without forcing it. In both these scenarios, he was able to keep his UEs very low and seem invincible in the process. Only Nadal gave him trouble in those days, as Rafa does the same, but with even more patience. In simple terms, more shot tolerance.

[airforce1]

ROGER: What's the whole thing based on? Good form. That's based on the talent, the looseness of my shots and the ability to pace myself, to understand the situation. That's all under (the category of) talent, but I had to work very, very strongly to develop that and make it a pure weapon. Before it was there, but it was loose. It could be a loose cannon. I always tried to pick the most difficult shot. I had to start to understand the game and my shots and at times play it a little bit more easy and be a little bit more patient. The biggest improvement I've ever made was my mental ability, because it used to work against me. Years later, I'm famous for it. So it's incredible how you can change.

a quote I found above that I believe came from when Roger was in top form. He discusses how he had to learn that special patience and situational awareness.

[jeffreycounts]

ROGER: What's the whole thing based on? Good form. That's based on the talent, the looseness of my shots and the ability to pace myself, to understand the situation. That's all under (the category of) talent, but I had to work very, very strongly to develop that and make it a pure weapon. Before it was there, but it was loose. It could be a loose cannon. I always tried to pick the most difficult shot. I had to start to understand the game and my shots and at times play it a little bit more easy and be a little bit more patient. The biggest improvement I've ever made was my mental ability, because it used to work against me. Years later, I'm famous for it. So it's incredible how you can change.

a quote I found above that I believe came from when Roger was in top form. He discusses how he had to learn that special patience and situational awareness.

That's a great find. I have always been amazed at how Roger transformed his mental toughness. He went from being an underachiever and a "loose canon" to being one the smartest, mentally toughest and adabtable players of all time. It's interesting that he considers his mental transformation the biggest improvement he's made.

Loved reading that quote.

[oliensis]

I remember when I used to watch Federer (before his ascent to the top), I was pretty sure that he would never be great because he had too many options on every shot. So, he had to engage a kind of "discriminating" faculty on big points, rather than (ala Pat Rafter) just steeling himself to the moment with "conviction" in his way of playing.

Obviously, his "mental" improvement proved my old assessment wrong...I'd forgotten about it because it was so long ago...and I think that's part of what I have SO enjoy about watching him for the past few years--he HAS choices in his game, but, for years now, has found a conviction about how best to play, and has made SO MANY of the right choices so often, especially under pressure.

It's so rewarding to see him make those "right" choices with conviction when the ARE choices, and not just the limitations of his game (as is the case with so many one-dimensional players). (The clarity of the Master is different, more conscious, than the clarity of the novice.)

But Nadal's success (and presumably F's illness early in the year) had messed with F's conviction and esp. w/ his clarity under pressure. At the US Open he seemed to get at least some of that back (though he didn't have to play Nadal, so he didn't endure the ultimate test).

My favorite expression that F uses is "playing freely." the past 2 days I've experienced playing freely (obviously not anywhere near his level, but freely at my level), and it really is such a different sensation than playing "smart" or "winning ugly" or playing the percentages...of course it doesn't obviate the need to be smart or play the percentages, but when it comes freely, then it doesn't feel like you're making choices, you're just hitting the shots that kind of "appear" as obvious to hit.

Something to aspire to on a more frequent basis...

[airforce1]

That's a great find. I have always been amazed at how Roger transformed his mental toughness. He went from being an underachiever and a "loose canon" to being one the smartest, mentally toughest and adabtable players of all time. It's interesting that he considers his mental transformation the biggest improvement he's made.

Loved reading that quote.

Thanks Jeff.

[oliensis]

There's a video on youtube.com of a 45-stroke point played between Federer and Hewitt back a few years. I've watched it several times over the past few months because something struck me about Federer's movement in that video and how it's qualitatively different from most other players' movement. Even when he's running he doesn't exactly look like he's running. search "Federer Hewitt" on youtube.com and you'll find the video. Even though Hewitt's movement is fantastic, Federer's is different. Really different. The best way I can describe it is that he looks like a rabbit the way he moves to set up for his strokes. Or, he moves like some of the best martial artists I've ever worked out with. It's like he's on a pogo stick that propels him up off the ground when he alights on the court with both feet. He rarely looks like he's running. He always looks like he's setting up to "strike" (like martial these superb martial artists who can strike at any milisecond, and who don't seem to have to chamber their limbs in order to strike).

After I played a couple of sets of doubles today I played some hitting games with a couple guys and I got that feeling for about 15 minutes. And I played so far above my normal level that it was pretty startling.

It's hard to get a sense of how good Federer's movement is (or has been over the years--it may have fallen off a bit this past year) looking at the stroke archives where you see him hit one shot at a time. But I would submit that the character of his footwork in setting up between shots is a significant part of what's different about the look of his game, and the character and level of his game.

It bears further study, I think. It's a big part of what creates his capacity to strike aggressively at really unexpected times, from apparently defensive positions.

I know I'll be working on trying to get that feeling as often as possible on the court.

Food for thought.

[llll]

oliensis, since you are a martial artist do you not think your "playing freely" was being in the moment , not thinking just doing?the zen of tennis in a way

[oliensis]

oliensis, since you are a martial artist do you not think your "playing freely" was being in the moment , not thinking just doing?the zen of tennis in a way

llll,
Being in the moment is part of it, for sure...responding to what is actually happening without laying on it too much of one's preconceived ideas, but there's the being in the moment of the novice, and then there's the being in the moment of the "master" (or of the more advanced student). The novice is present, the advanced student is present with technique, and the master is present again, like the novice insofar as there is no conscious technique, but also at the far end of the spectrum from the novice insofar as the technique is still there but has "dissolved" into being "unconscious" or "2nd nature."

I think "2nd nature" is an important phrase in terms of getting to the level of having technique and playing in the moment, and freely. It's different than nature itself (the nature of the novice)...it's "2nd" and not "1st" nature...but it's also beyond the machinations of conscious thought..."2nd nature" is embracing what is "natural" but more consciously, and with the choices offered by greater knowledge and understanding (technique that's dissolved into the player, so to speak).

There's a great parable about technique being like a donkey. You need the donkey to get to the top of the mountain...but once you get to the top of the mountain, it's time to get off the donkey. Not that I'm in any way at the top of the mountain...but sometimes you get an opportunity to get off the donkey and look around, even if you're only at a nice vista half way up.

[julian]

Federer loses in Masters Cup

I think that is what happens when the pressure is relentless. You just don't make as good decisions if thinking is required. Even with the 2ond set errors, Fed kept the onslaught pretty constant. Murray's camp underestimated the prep required for this match.

see

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/index

tv schedule

http://www.tennis.com/tvschedule/tvschedule.aspx?id=67

see as well

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-edges-ahead-of-murray-1018878.html

[crosscourt]

I agree with Oliensis about Federer's movement. Whe you watch Federer play live it is the most exceptional thing about his game. If illness has interfered with that, then as he gets older, he will find it harder to compete on courts where point construction reuqires a longer rather than shorter strategy. But Federer has always had a problem in situations where his plan A for a particular point doesn't pay off. Most notably in the early years against Nadal. Without a plan B, as soon as Plan A failed he had nowehere to go. Thats said it took a player as good as Nadal to identify this as a weakness.

cc