Whassup with Federer?

[mntlblok]

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.

Haven't I read that Landsdorp told Pete that he had a crappy backhand??

Kevin

[johnyandell]

He said that not sure if to Pete. But he was referring to his slice. He wanted Pete to stop looping his drives and hit it like he did against Agassi when he won his first Slam.

[airforce1]

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.

I would also speculate that the charting I've been working with, would go a long way towards explaining the "how" of his conversion rate on svc returns, second serves especially and first serves to some extent when he was not serving a svc winner. So it is very possible that these charting points, are the fundamentals to your stat collection.

[oliensis]

dunno about anyone else, but I can't think of a more inviting match to watch than Haas/Federer in the Wimby semi.

Two one-handed backhands. Two of the most talented players, with the most variety that I can think of. Two guys who can S&V, who can drive or slice the backhand, who can serve pretty big, but mainly use the serve to develop patterns.

And they just played a 5-setter in Paris.

I'm in pig heaven. Hope Haas doesn't hurt himself before the match, and that he can play as well as he has been playing lately.

[airforce1]

Federer's inabilility to impose his game on Fish at Indian Wells was so incredibly at odds with what we've seen from him over a number of years that it strikes me as worth commenting on. And I'd love to hear other educated thoughts on the subject.

Fish handled Fed's serve (esp. the 2nd serve) like it was a floating bon bon. And given Fish's abysmal 1st serve % (well under 50%), Fed's inability to dictate play on Fish's 2nd serve was stunning...esp. when you consider how handily Fed deals w/ Roddick's serve (both 1st and 2nd) on both hard courts and grass.

The only thing I can see re-watching tape, is that maybe Fed doesn't really have his legs or his mind match sharp.

Granted, Fish played incredibly well, but Fed's complete lack of presence (or fight) is worth trying to break down and understand.

Thoughts?

AO

What a difference a couple of months makes!

Not really at the heart of things, but wow, winning a couple of the biggest slams in his career really changes the way everyone is looking at Fed now.

I do think that a big part of what makes him who he is on the court is his prep. Last year with mono (and a couple of back injuries) , he could never get his legs right, which probably led to his more "mortal" results over a time there.

Yes, Nadal's injury helped some, but Murry, DJ, and others were there to take advantage of that too. And no one was crediting Nadal's big year last yr to Fed's woes were they? (Well, maybe a few were)

I'm glad to have predicted that Fed would bounce back this yr and have a good one near some of his better years and catching a few breaks is a part of that usually. I never bought into the idea that he was too old to get a couple more slams, as many seemed to predict(although I was ready to waffle a little when he played Berdiych at the AO). I guess with getting the FO under his belt, this could already be his best yr in some ways, but if he adds a USO and/or a title at the end of the yr round robin affair, this one is over the top!

[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.

Looks like he has found it again.

[oliensis]

I've attached 2 images from the stroke archive of Federer hitting inside-out forehands. One is labeled "now." That is from the 2009 archive. The other is labeled "then." It is from the prior stroke archive of F. These 2 forehands are in about as similar a set of circumstances as I could find. Both inside out from outside the doubles alley. Both record the maximum knee bend and racquet take-back during preparation.

The black circle on the "then" image, with the arrow pointing to it, shows where F's right foot was in the "now" image. The ball heights in the 2 images are very similar, and the trajectory of the shots is very similar.

I think it's very apparent that there are a number of differences in the way F was setting up for the ball "then" and how he's setting up "now."

These images are emblematic of what I saw when I looked through the archives at length...what my impressions were.

Then: He seemed to fly around the court more. Spent more time in the air. His movement was more dynamic. His preparation was more severe: racquet back further, torso turned more, knees bent more, more connection of torque through the line of arm/shoulder/torso, more explosiveness from his legs. There was generally more freedom and exuberance in the physicality of his game.

Look closely at the "then" picture. It's truly astonishing. He's really practically in the "trophy" position for a serve (albeit with some elements altered since it's an open-stance forehand). But, you just don't see him this deeply committed, or quite in such a beautiful position anymore. He looks like the archer and the bow, at once together, as in a classical Greek statue!

Ah, the wages of age!

I bring this up because playing on hard courts it took my knees almost an entire set ('til 5-all) on Tuesday night to warm up before I began moving even reasonably well (for me). What does 10 years on the tour take out of a person's body?!

Of course, he's multiples and exponents better on his worst day than I could ever hope to be. But, I miss the abondon with which he used to hit the ball.

Now, you want to blow your mind? Watch Connors' forehand in the stroke archive. And watch Federer's forehand. The degree to which the stroke has evolved is astonishing. (And it ain't the straight arm that's the difference, as Connors hit with a straight arm too. It's the articulation/whip of the kinetic chain that's evolved.

[uspta146749877]

Attached files

I've attached 2 images from the stroke archive of Federer hitting inside-out forehands. One is labeled "now." That is from the 2009 archive. The other is labeled "then." It is from the prior stroke archive of F. These 2 forehands are in about as similar a set of circumstances as I could find. Both inside out from outside the doubles alley. Both record the maximum knee bend and racquet take-back during preparation.

The black circle on the "then" image, with the arrow pointing to it, shows where F's right foot was in the "now" image. The ball heights in the 2 images are very similar, and the trajectory of the shots is very similar.

I think it's very apparent that there are a number of differences in the way F was setting up for the ball "then" and how he's setting up "now."

These images are emblematic of what I saw when I looked through the archives at length...what my impressions were.

Then: He seemed to fly around the court more. Spent more time in the air. His movement was more dynamic. His preparation was more severe: racquet back further, torso turned more, knees bent more, more connection of torque through the line of arm/shoulder/torso, more explosiveness from his legs. There was generally more freedom and exuberance in the physicality of his game.

Look closely at the "then" picture. It's truly astonishing. He's really practically in the "trophy" position for a serve (albeit with some elements altered since it's an open-stance forehand). But, you just don't see him this deeply committed, or quite in such a beautiful position anymore. He looks like the archer and the bow, at once together, as in a classical Greek statue!

Ah, the wages of age!

I bring this up because playing on hard courts it took my knees almost an entire set ('til 5-all) on Tuesday night to warm up before I began moving even reasonably well (for me). What does 10 years on the tour take out of a person's body?!

Of course, he's multiples and exponents better on his worst day than I could ever hope to be. But, I miss the abondon with which he used to hit the ball.

Now, you want to blow your mind? Watch Connors' forehand in the stroke archive. And watch Federer's forehand. The degree to which the stroke has evolved is astonishing. (And it ain't the straight arm that's the difference, as Connors hit with a straight arm too. It's the articulation/whip of the kinetic chain that's evolved.

As you probably know USPTA members of this forum cannot see
your attached fiiles without DIRECT LINKS

[oliensis]

Images inserted.

I've inserted 2 images from the stroke archive of Federer hitting inside-out forehands. One is labeled "now." That is from the 2009 archive.

Here it is:


The other is labeled "then." It is from the prior stroke archive of F.



These 2 forehands are in about as similar a set of circumstances as I could find. Both inside out from outside the doubles alley. Both record the maximum knee bend and racquet take-back during preparation.

The black circle on the "then" image, with the arrow pointing to it, shows where F's right foot was in the "now" image. The ball heights in the 2 images are very similar, and the trajectory of the shots is very similar.

I think it's very apparent that there are a number of differences in the way F was setting up for the ball "then" and how he's setting up "now."

These images are emblematic of what I saw when I looked through the archives at length...what my impressions were.

Then: He seemed to fly around the court more. Spent more time in the air. His movement was more dynamic. His preparation was more severe: racquet back further, torso turned more, knees bent more, more connection of torque through the line of arm/shoulder/torso, more explosiveness from his legs. There was generally more freedom and exuberance in the physicality of his game.

Look closely at the "then" picture. It's truly astonishing. He's really practically in the "trophy" position for a serve (albeit with some elements altered since it's an open-stance forehand). But, you just don't see him this deeply committed, or quite in such a beautiful position anymore. He looks like the archer and the bow, at once together, as in a classical Greek statue!

Ah, the wages of age!

I bring this up because playing on hard courts it took my knees almost an entire set ('til 5-all) on Tuesday night to warm up before I began moving even reasonably well (for me). What does 10 years on the tour take out of a person's body?!

Of course, he's multiples and exponents better on his worst day than I could ever hope to be. But, I miss the abondon with which he used to hit the ball.

Now, you want to blow your mind? Watch Connors' forehand in the stroke archive. And watch Federer's forehand. The degree to which the stroke has evolved is astonishing. (And it ain't the straight arm that's the difference, as Connors hit with a straight arm too. It's the articulation/whip of the kinetic chain that's evolved.

[airforce1]

I'd say better balance in the newer pic.

[oliensis]

Watch the whole video clip.
You'd really take this: http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...eOutFront6.mov

over this?

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/rogerfederer/rogerfederer_forehand/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out/rogerfederer_fh_inside_out.html?FedererFHInsideOutFront3.mov

Much less loading in the '09 clip. Less exploding. He may look, in the moment, to be off balance in the older clip (red shirt). But his balance at impact is sublime and the greater lean during the load phase is deceptively balanced when viewed in context.

He's sublime any time...but in my view, much more so in the older videos (when he was a bit younger).

[airforce1]

Hey, what can I say.
I like the newer clip, where he is older better. Maybe cause I'm old. LoL.

He seems more under control and on balance; less harried. Also looks as though he finished the point, and I doubt it was a miss given his balance for the shot.
To me it's better tennis, although maybe not as exciting or athletic looking.
The younger Fed looks more extended, rushed and in a hurry to get back into position, as he didn't appear to finish that point.

[hyperwarrior]

I think the younger Fed is more flashy, more explosive!

[oliensis]

Look at Federer's movement here, in '04 against Coria in Hamburg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUnCOhMV-1U

Look at Roland Garros 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtc4_WVmkmc

Using these 2 examples because they're both on clay.

By no means is this intended to take anything away from Federer, but the way he moved in '04 was out of this world. Esp. the explosiveness in his first step AFTER he hit the ball.

I've seen other athletes whose movement has made me feel the same way as F in '04:

Barry Sanders
Adrian Peterson, esp. his rookie year.
Clips of the young Cassius Clay.
Sugar Ray Leonard
An 18-yr old Mike Tyson. (Everyone talked about his power, which was obvious, but not many studied his movement, both feed and head, which were otherworldy when he came up.)
Clips of both Rod Laver and Bjorn Borg. Laver, esp. on the move out of his split step when coming to net--he was so powerful in legs & core that often only one foot would touch the ground on the land, the first step out of it was that explosive (the one-foot landing was a passive RESULT of the explosive move, not a purposeful thing, and not "running through" the shot). And Borg bounced around on his recovery after hitting groundstrokes, in a way that Federer's movement is very reminisicent of.

Seems to me that F now plays many more of his points "on his own terms" than he used to. He knows that patterns that he wants to set up and he probably sets them up a much higher percentage of the time than he did years ago. And I"m not sure he was a better player in '04 than he is now. But, just as Cassius Clay's movement was more dazzling than was Muhammed Ali's (I know, it was the same guy, just reference "when" by using dif. names), I think the '04 Fed's movement was more dazzling/extra-terrestrial than the '10 Fed's.

Each is a joyful experience to behold. But for different reasons, and the '04 Fed's movement is certainly something to watch.

Congrats to '10 Fed on his 16th Slam.

[chuck62]

movement

Great comments on the superior movement. I would add that he always looks balanced. No matter how fast he is moving it looks like he could have a cup of water on his head and never spill a drop. Also, did he not turn the Davydenko match around by suddenly hitting some really hard flat shots reminicent of Del Po at the U.S. Open ? I think he won the Aussie open at that moment. Everything else was a foregone conclusion after that. Is it possible that he went back and retooled his famous forehand after the Del Po loss ?