Myth of Feds weak BH

[airforce1]

I keep looking for how Fed's backhand is losing matches against Rafa.
Seems to be the standard answer for why Fed has trouble beating Rafa.

Just re-watched the 4-5 game where Rafa held from love 15 to see if there was any evidence of how Fed's BH would stop him from getting this important break for the set.

First point goes to Fed with a BH winner on the rtn of serve.
2ond goes to Nadal after Fed had control of the point after hitting 2 BHs, then missed a gimme lob with Nadal in poor position.
3rd was a nice deep BH rtn wide to Rafa's BH, and Rafa hit a forcing shot to Feds FH and draws the error or winner, however you would like to score.
4th is a svc winner to Fed's BH, that was so wide that Fed is one of the few players in the world who would even get a stick on it. Just a great serve-not a BH deficit.
5th Fed wins with a BH svc rtn winner to Rafa's BH
6th Nadal finally holds when Fed, after taking control of the point (on Nadals serve to feds BH) earns the short ball after a mixture of BHs and FHs, but catches the tape with a BH rip to the open court with this short ball. Clearly a UE, not a product of having his BH manhandled.

So with Nadal Serving to stay in the set, Fed has no BH forced errors in the game, but 2 "BH" return winners for the 2 points he won. Nadal holds with one svc winner, one very big BH to Feds FH and 2 UEs from Fed, where Fed was in control of the point.

Yes, just one game, but an important one.
IMO, it is just more evidence that Nadal wins thru overall pressure and getting UEs from Fed by making him know it takes exceptional shots to finish points, and not so much by some perceived BH matchup.

disclaimer: none of this is based on clay court performance.

[airforce1]

Also went back and watched the next 2 games as Rafa broke, then held for the 1st set win.
I won't bother you with the blow by blow, but there was little one could point to about Fed's BH to support the idea it let him down in any of these critical games. In fact, there were more weak BHs by Rafa than Roger in those games.

My point here is not to say that Feds BH is equal or better than Rafa's, but to see if there is evidence that this theory of "Feds 1 hander BH being the difference maker" against him, really has any truth to it?

I'm thinking this idea has grown out of the way Rafa goes so often to the BH (along with the 1-2 shanks per set) on Roger. If Rafa keeps going there, he MUST think it is weak, right?

Well maybe it's just more out of respect for the Fed FH. You have to hit the ball somewhere, so maybe Rafa hits the ball somewhere he thinks he won't get blistered. As far as the shanks, well if you get that many balls to your FH or BH, you will get a couple of shanks there now and then, but it is still a tiny %. And maybe he wants to make sure that Roger never gets a great rhythm on the FH side, knowing that this could cause the FH to be more erratic; a way of getting more UEs from the FH side in the long haul.

[oliensis]

Airforce, I agree with you on your analysis of Fed's backhand at Oz. He played it pretty well. As I posted on another thread, the stats heavily favored Fed through 4 sets. He had more points and better W/UE ratio through those 4 sets. Most of his errors came when he was going for too much on his forehand because of N's great movement (even when tired from Verdasco match).

What N's strategy did do was put Fed is in a less offensive position throughout many points than he would like to be in. They put the points on N's terms. But F was dealing very well w/ that and turning the tide in many points in his favor, even after N has put them on his own terms initially.

My view of the final was that Fed had a brain/heart (courage) cramp, partly from N's persistence (which expressed itself in the assault on the F backhand, and has F playing patterns that are not his preferred ones...so F has to think at crunch time and make decisions, rather than playing instinctually in those moments--very tough to do), and partly because of the looming "#14" that's in F's head as well.

At Wimbledon I though Nadal's backhand was superior to Fed's, but I had much less that impression at Oz.

[airforce1]

I think most of us agree that Nadal's 2 hander (TS and drive) is superior to Fed's 1 hander to varying degrees on different surfaces. This is somewhat balanced by Fed getting the nod for the slice BH, which is seeing more importance in the modern game.

It seems you and I also agree that this is more of a shot tolerance issue,
and hustle issue,
along with a thinking issue,
opposed to a 1hander vs 2 hander issue.
That is my point here.

In simple terms, not only does Nadal get shots back that Roger doesn't expect, but he does it with quality, often even taking the offensive.
This gives Fed fits and unsettles his game and composure.
He is just not used to working and thinking that hard, for that long.

[airforce1]

"The problem for him is that he's never had to really adjust to anything. He's always been so good and so talented, he could just rely on his game and kind of figure it out when he gets out there. All of a sudden, he's playing a guy he can't do that against"

This quote from P Mac seems to agree with what is said above about Fed's real problems with Nadal.

[crosscourt]

It is certainly true that in Melbourne Federer got inside the court and took the ball earlier -- at times -- than he normally manages on his backhand against Nadal. As you rightly observe though, this is not a question of one-hander v two-hander per se. It is a question of how well Federer's backhand stands up to Nadal's. The two key weaknesses for Federer are (i) shot tolerance and (ii) return of serve -- in particular and crucially when Federer has break point. But the ramifications are quite wide. They go to things like resilience in Federer's game plan.

cc

[uspta146749877]

Plan vs plans

It is certainly true that in Melbourne Federer got inside the court and took the ball earlier -- at times -- than he normally manages on his backhand against Nadal. As you rightly observe though, this is not a question of one-hander v two-hander per se. It is a question of how well Federer's backhand stands up to Nadal's. The two key weaknesses for Federer are (i) shot tolerance and (ii) return of serve -- in particular and crucially when Federer has break point. But the ramifications are quite wide. They go to things like resilience in Federer's game plan.

cc

It is interesting that you used a phrase "Federer's game plan"
INSTEAD of a possible altertnative "Federer's game plans"

[crosscourt]

Not sure I follow you.

cc

[airforce1]

Not sure I follow you.

cc

I think he means it is a shame that Fed does not have a backup plan or two, that he can shift to if things are going poorly.

[uspta146749877]

For Crosscourt

Not sure I follow you.

cc

Please see a post by airforce1 above

[crosscourt]

Still too oblique for me.

cc

[crosscourt]

Leif Shiras said something about the Fed backhand with which I agree...

...it's that too often his arm gets too far away from his body. He loses leverage but gains some acute angles. Overall it seems to be more of a problem than a strength.

cc

[uspta146749877]

How come ?

...it's that too often his arm gets too far away from his body. He loses leverage but gains some acute angles. Overall it seems to be more of a problem than a strength.

cc

How come it was working so beatifully 2 years ago but it is different now?

[nabrug]

...it's that too often his arm gets too far away from his body. He loses leverage but gains some acute angles. Overall it seems to be more of a problem than a strength.

cc

Federer is using two techniques on the Bh and on the Fh. I call them Fh1/Fh2 and Bh1/Bh2. Fh1 is the normal technique. Fh2 is the technique with the straigt arm (see recent article). Federer is using the straight armed technique also on the Bh side. That is why you see the arm getting away more. Good observing though because on the backhand side it is much harder to see.

By the way you do not loose leverage if you use Bh2 technique. Because of the technique you loose a little power. You gain what you say a lot more angles with curved ball trajectories. The greatest advantage is that your strike zone will increase with at least 400%.

Nico Mol.

[airforce1]

The greatest advantage is that your strike zone will increase with at least 400%.

Nico Mol.

How do you figure this?
There are so many things that go into a CP ( i think that is what you are inferring) , I can't see how you would arrive at such a figure?