Whassup with Federer?

[uspta1976603328]

Use of Backhand Slice

John,
I was watching again the Madrid Final between Nadal and Federer when I began to wonder about Federer's use of the slice against Nadal's high bounce to his backhand. While he pulled it out on occasion, he seemed to prefer to either block it high, or attempt a topspin stroke pattern instead.

In your opinion, should Federer use the slice more often to neutralize the heavy topspin ball to his one hand backhand that seems to bother him so much?

[airforce1]

At least in Madrid we saw no signs of Fed falling apart, even when getting himself down in several svc games.

On the other hand, he was never down a break either.

[johnyandell]

You know I think it's presumptuous for me to give advice to Roger Federer. I did see a couple of hard crosscourt slices get results in last year's final.

For whatever reason Roger hasn't turned that into a regular play. It would be fascinating to be close enough to hear his thoughts on this, if he has them.

But one thing I've learned is that how players play and who they are and their confidence in how they play tend to all be woven together. Sometime I'll tell the story about showing Paul Annacone the video of Pete's backhand and what Annacone told me in that regard.

[airforce1]

But one thing I've learned is that how players play and who they are and their confidence in how they play tend to all be woven together. Sometime I'll tell the story about showing Paul Annacone the video of Pete's backhand and what Annacone told me in that regard.

I've seen bits and pieces of this,
enough to know how true it is.
I look forward to that story when you get around to it.

[oliensis]

I would also love to hear that story (about Annocone and Sampras' backhand).

[johnyandell]

Let me do this then before I get caught up in the next issue...

Toward the end of Pete's career you may remember he started missing more and more backhand drives and sometimes the swing looked, well, just weird technically.
Looking at film I noticed that Pete had a tendency to lead with his elbow--exactly like many club players. Going back to as far a 1997, you could see the tendency had always been there, but at times was significantly worse, and this seemed to correlate with his errors.

I had video of two consecutive backhands in a match. One he made, the second he missed. You could see the elbow stay bent signifcantly longer in the second one, leading until just before the hit--it wasn't really clear if he truly got the arm straight before contact.

So one year at Indian Wells I asked Paul if I could show him and he said sure. We looked it over, and basically Paul said he agreed with that analysis. I said well, if you want, I'm happy to show it to Pete.

Paul's answer was really interesting. "Oh, I'd never show Pete this," he said. I said "Do you mind if I ask why?" Paul's answer was "Pete thinks his backhand is fine. This would blow his mind."

In the ensuing conversation I got an insight into the mind set of a truly great player. Paul explained that Pete believed he simply had more ability than the other players and if he just kept hitting his shots, eventually he was very likely to win--even if he had some bad errors.

So I think that what Paul was saying was that showing Pete that his backhand might have a serious technical flaw was too risky and could undermine his confidence and cause more damage than the potential gain of improving the technical shape of the stroke. He believed that it was better for Pete to miss a few backhands, even if it cost him, so long as he still believed he was going to win. That attitude was probably why he got that last Open.

[airforce1]

Let me do this then before I get caught up in the next issue...

Toward the end of Pete's career you may remember he started missing more and more backhand drives and sometimes the swing looked, well, just weird technically.
Looking at film I noticed that Pete had a tendency to lead with his elbow--exactly like many club players. Going back to as far a 1997, you could see the tendency had always been there, but at times was significantly worse, and this seemed to correlate with his errors.

I had video of two consecutive backhands in a match. One he made, the second he missed. You could see the elbow stay bent signifcantly longer in the second one, leading until just before the hit--it wasn't really clear if he truly got the arm straight before contact.

So one year at Indian Wells I asked Paul if I could show him and he said sure. We looked it over, and basically Paul said he agreed with that analysis. I said well, if you want, I'm happy to show it to Pete.

Paul's answer was really interesting. "Oh, I'd never show Pete this," he said. I said "Do you mind if I ask why?" Paul's answer was "Pete thinks his backhand is fine. This would blow his mind."

In the ensuing conversation I got an insight into the mind set of a truly great player. Paul explained that Pete believed he simply had more ability than the other players and if he just kept hitting his shots, eventually he was very likely to win--even if he had some bad errors.

So I think that what Paul was saying was that showing Pete that his backhand might have a serious technical flaw was too risky and could undermine his confidence and cause more damage than the potential gain of improving the technical shape of the stroke. He believed that it was better for Pete to miss a few backhands, even if it cost him, so long as he still believed he was going to win. That attitude was probably why he got that last Open.

What a fine line coaching can be. Could be that is what got him that last slam and critical to getting all those he won, but also could have been what cost him a couple of extra slams with maybe a FO tossed in there.
Sad thing is, No one ever knows for sure.
Great insight into some of the things going on at that level of the game.

[oliensis]

Great story.
It's tantalizing to consider if Annacone's decision was the better one or not. Obviously arguments can be made on both sides.

That Annacone would make the choice he did may be one among a number of reasons that he had some longevity as Sampras' coach. He would have fit right in on the White House staff from '01-'09. 8-)

[johnyandell]

I think it was less a decision that an acquiesence... Paul knew Pete well enough to know that for better or worse Pete just wouldn't be receptive--and I'm quite sure he was right.

Other players at that level have taken opposite approaches. Justine Henin with Carlos R., for example. I know because Carlos actually used the Advanced Tennis high speed video to reshape her forehand and serve. I played a small part in that doing some filming for them one year at Indian Wells.

And then there is my experience with McEnroe and that famous serve--the story is written up in Teaching Systems. He was a guy with seven slams working back and forth off the video to regain his previous technical form...

So that may be part of the art of coaching--the art of the possible as opposed to the arbitrary tyranny of "truth..."

[bottle]

Figuring out Stuff for Yourself

Some need more help from the outside than others, but if the player CAN figure the thing out all by their lonesome, isn't that better every time? For all we know, Pete did figure out the solution but on the more unconscious level where things really count.

[hyperwarrior]

Let me do this then before I get caught up in the next issue...

Toward the end of Pete's career you may remember he started missing more and more backhand drives and sometimes the swing looked, well, just weird technically.
Looking at film I noticed that Pete had a tendency to lead with his elbow--exactly like many club players. Going back to as far a 1997, you could see the tendency had always been there, but at times was significantly worse, and this seemed to correlate with his errors.

I had video of two consecutive backhands in a match. One he made, the second he missed. You could see the elbow stay bent signifcantly longer in the second one, leading until just before the hit--it wasn't really clear if he truly got the arm straight before contact.

So one year at Indian Wells I asked Paul if I could show him and he said sure. We looked it over, and basically Paul said he agreed with that analysis. I said well, if you want, I'm happy to show it to Pete.

Paul's answer was really interesting. "Oh, I'd never show Pete this," he said. I said "Do you mind if I ask why?" Paul's answer was "Pete thinks his backhand is fine. This would blow his mind."

In the ensuing conversation I got an insight into the mind set of a truly great player. Paul explained that Pete believed he simply had more ability than the other players and if he just kept hitting his shots, eventually he was very likely to win--even if he had some bad errors.

So I think that what Paul was saying was that showing Pete that his backhand might have a serious technical flaw was too risky and could undermine his confidence and cause more damage than the potential gain of improving the technical shape of the stroke. He believed that it was better for Pete to miss a few backhands, even if it cost him, so long as he still believed he was going to win. That attitude was probably why he got that last Open.

What an interesting story John@ Thanks for sharing this with us. Growing up as a teenager, Pete was my idol...

[oliensis]

Stats on Federer's "peak"

There's a discussion on the Tennis Warehouse message boards about whether Federer is past is peak (or prime). There was some mention over there of charting his unforced erros in matches. I thought that would be of some interest. But I didn't have access to that data. So I went to the atp website and did something a little less rigorous, using the stats that were easily available.

I figured that Roddick has been about as consistent as anyone on the tour, and that stats against R might be of interest. So I charted the head-to-head (F vs R), looking at just 2 different numbers: First, the winning% on 2nd serve for Federer; second, Fed's W% on Roddick's service points.

From Houston in '03 through Shanghai in '07 each of those stats averaged about 5% better than during the periods outside of that time. However, for 3 matches in '05-'06 there was a notable dip in 2nd serve W%.

It does look, though, like that '04-'07 period is, so far, overall, identifiable, at least on this very limited statistical basis, as a "peak" period. (Of course, this is just at all a rigorous study, but just a whimsical, sort of "clinical trial."

Roddick won in Miami in '08 and in Montreal in '03. In those 2 matches Fed's W% on Roddick's service points were 31% and 29% respectively. Those are 2 of the lowest in that category. In those Ws for Roddick, F's conversion rate on his own 2nd serve points were 61% and 43%, respectively. So, of R's 2 Ws over F, in one of them, F had a good 2nd serve conversion rate, and in one of them F had a very poor 2nd serve conversion rate. But in both of R's Ws, F had a very poor W% on R's service points.

Obviously 2 cases do not a statistically significant data-set make. But on this very very preliminary basis, R can't beat F w/out a very good W% on his own service points.

[llll]

can anyone beat anyone without a good W% on their service points????

[airforce1]

interesting choice of looking at 2ond serve winning %, as well as return pts won.
While Roddick may be a good choice if you have to choose only one player, I don't really like the one player approach.

What about if you looked at the numbers when Fed is in a Final?
Presumes opponent who is playing well, and in a match that matters. Also these are matches that have a big effect on how we are perceiving Roger's play.

Nice chart.

[oliensis]

Agassi beat Sampras at times w/out having a good W% on Sampras' service points (30% or even less).

http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Sampras%2C+Pete&player2=agassi

I agree that the approach I took is very limited. It was a "quick & dirty" study. Nevertheless, I thought several things were interesting: how relatively consistent was F's W% on Roddick's svce pts compared to F's conversion rate on his own 2nd serve. Also how, during late '03-'07 F really did have better stats on these limited terms than before and after that period (at least so far). And that the small fluctuations in W% on R's serve were probably more correlated to W vs. L than 2nd serve conversion %, although there aren't enough iterations of F L's to give that conclusion much veracity.