Myth of Feds weak BH

[airforce1]

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

He has always struggled with Murray and Nadal, even when you would not have expected it when they were so new to the tour.

Now they are meeting more often in the late rounds.
It is still working pretty good for Fed on the rest of the field, although some of them are learning from what works for Nadal and Murry.

[nabrug]

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?

Empiric experience.

Is CP contact point? Maybe strike zone are not the right words. How do you call it that without adjusting your postion you have 400% more contact points to choose from?

[oliensis]

It's not just who he's playing. Fed's game is just not where it was, say in '04.
e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7EDb-tPpSw

There's a level of eagerness in his footwork in '04 that I don't sense anymore...an eagerness to move to the ball. (listen to his feet in the video. you don't hear the same thing these days.) And the dif. in that eagerness translates into a diminished eagerness to really smoke the ball on the backhand side (and to less consistency on forehand, I suspect). There was an aggression in the way he exploded through the hitting zone in '04. It reminds me of a young Mike Tyson in the sense that the speed in the hitting zone is sort of shocking. (I don't know if it's age or back pain that has slowed him down, or just miles on his legs, or just the difference between being 27 and 22-3.)

Granted the opposition in this match is Hewitt, and not Nadal or Murray, but I don't think you can compare the levels then and now.

Regarding the straight-arm forehand, Narburg, please explain why you think the contact point or strike zone is larger w/ straight-arm forehand than double-bend forehand. I actually suspect that it's the other way around for a # of pretty obvious bio-mechanical reasons. (Most conspicuously, that the straight-arm forehand is usually struck with a contact point further forward and near the front of the zone that would be the optimal zone in double-bend forehand...shortly before the "wiper" action begins...so the hitting zone is delimited by the beginning of the racket's move across the body.) I'd sure be interested to hear why I'm wrong, because I'm always eager to learn from anyone who can show me specifically what's right.

[nabrug]

It's not just who he's playing. Fed's game is just not where it was, say in '04.
e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7EDb-tPpSw
Regarding the straight-arm forehand, Narburg, please explain why you think the contact point or strike zone is larger w/ straight-arm forehand than double-bend forehand. I actually suspect that it's the other way around for a # of pretty obvious bio-mechanical reasons. (Most conspicuously, that the straight-arm forehand is usually struck with a contact point further forward and near the front of the zone that would be the optimal zone in double-bend forehand...shortly before the "wiper" action begins...so the hitting zone is delimited by the beginning of the racket's move across the body.) I'd sure be interested to hear why I'm wrong, because I'm always eager to learn from anyone who can show me specifically what's right.

First of all I want to have clearity about defenitions. I do not mean the strike zone of just one stroke. The lineair part of a stroke in which it doesn’t matter if you hit a ball early or a little later. (One reason why we start teaching an Eastern grip and not a Western grip.)

I can best explain what I mean with the service. There is an area up in the air from where your service will be in. Imo that has the size of a small shoebox. It doesn’t matter if your toss is a little to the left or right or more in front or a little more back. That is what I mean with strike zone!/? (Is there an other name?).

Now back to the Fh/Bh. If the strike zone of the classic Fh1/Bh1 is two bigger shoeboxes (IMO) than the strike zone of Fh2/Bh2 is at least four times bigger. The strike zone is not only 30/40 cm wider because of the straight arm possibilities but also you can hit the ball closer and lower to your body. And ofcourse you can hit much more in front but also more backwards! At Tennisplayer you can see a lot of examples with Federer and Nadal doing that. Federer uses Fh1 and Fh2. So he can combine the strike zones of both techniques. And that is why some people see 20-60 Fh variations with Federer. I see the same variations on the Bh side with Federer with two techniques as basis.

I think what you describe is the straight-armed Fh1 and not Fh2. I can’t recall that I saw Roger hit a straight-arm Fh1. Like I tried to explain earlier the straight arm belongs to Fh2 in principle.

Like communication tennis is about sending messages but also about reception of your opponent’s message. In the previous decade the sending reached his top. The reception skills are IMO underdeveloped. Maybe that is why players with better developed reception skills become the better players. For example the tennis programmes Evolve9 (in Holland we call it Tenniskids)-Mike Barell (England) and MTM-Oscar Wegner (influence in Russia and Spain) emphasize the reception skills. Murray (England, okay Scotland) spent 4-5 years in Spain.

Federer and Nadal improved their reception skills with a new technique. Their reception area is much bigger than all the other players. The reception area in which they can maintain maximum power. Nadal with the reverse Fh2 (I call that Fh2A) and the same technique on the Bh (Bh2A) has increased his reception area even much more than Federer. I estimate that his reception area is 2/2½ times bigger than Roger’s. Imagine that you have a ten time bigger area in which you can maintain your maximum power while others have to turn to other techniques and/or adjusting their position. (Especially with e.g. wind (final Indian Wells) this is very obvious to see).

My statement is that Nadal will be the winning (not the best) player if his reception area advantages will be maintained.

Nico Mol.

[airforce1]

It's not just who he's playing. Fed's game is just not where it was, say in '04.
e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7EDb-tPpSw

There's a level of eagerness in his footwork in '04 that I don't sense anymore...an eagerness to move to the ball. (listen to his feet in the video. you don't hear the same thing these days.) And the dif. in that eagerness translates into a diminished eagerness to really smoke the ball on the backhand side (and to less consistency on forehand, I suspect). There was an aggression in the way he exploded through the hitting zone in '04. It reminds me of a young Mike Tyson in the sense that the speed in the hitting zone is sort of shocking. (I don't know if it's age or back pain that has slowed him down, or just miles on his legs, or just the difference between being 27 and 22-3.)

Granted the opposition in this match is Hewitt, and not Nadal or Murray, but I don't think you can compare the levels then and now.

Regarding the straight-arm forehand, Narburg, please explain why you think the contact point or strike zone is larger w/ straight-arm forehand than double-bend forehand. I actually suspect that it's the other way around for a # of pretty obvious bio-mechanical reasons. (Most conspicuously, that the straight-arm forehand is usually struck with a contact point further forward and near the front of the zone that would be the optimal zone in double-bend forehand...shortly before the "wiper" action begins...so the hitting zone is delimited by the beginning of the racket's move across the body.) I'd sure be interested to hear why I'm wrong, because I'm always eager to learn from anyone who can show me specifically what's right.

I can agree that Fed is not playing with the confidence and inspiration of 04, but I "DO" think it is primarily who he is playing. It affects everything. It affects play in matches leading to matches with these tough challengers. He is working on things and testing how they might work against Nadal or Murry.

I also think we all have a large tendency to remember him in his magical runs, but forget the tight and seemingly lucky scrape-by matches he had in those days of 04.

IMO, I really think if you take Nadal, DJ, and Murry out of the mix, then you have Fed out there smiling with confidence and passing Pete's GS mark rather quickly.

[airforce1]

First of all I want to have clearity about defenitions. I do not mean the strike zone of just one stroke. The lineair part of a stroke in which it doesn’t matter if you hit a ball early or a little later. (One reason why we start teaching an Eastern grip and not a Western grip.)

I can best explain what I mean with the service. There is an area up in the air from where your service will be in. Imo that has the size of a small shoebox. It doesn’t matter if your toss is a little to the left or right or more in front or a little more back. That is what I mean with strike zone!/? (Is there an other name?).

Now back to the Fh/Bh. If the strike zone of the classic Fh1/Bh1 is two bigger shoeboxes (IMO) than the strike zone of Fh2/Bh2 is at least four times bigger. The strike zone is not only 30/40 cm wider because of the straight arm possibilities but also you can hit the ball closer and lower to your body. And ofcourse you can hit much more in front but also more backwards! At Tennisplayer you can see a lot of examples with Federer and Nadal doing that. Federer uses Fh1 and Fh2. So he can combine the strike zones of both techniques. And that is why some people see 20-60 Fh variations with Federer. I see the same variations on the Bh side with Federer with two techniques as basis.

I think what you describe is the straight-armed Fh1 and not Fh2. I can’t recall that I saw Roger hit a straight-arm Fh1. Like I tried to explain earlier the straight arm belongs to Fh2 in principle.

Like communication tennis is about sending messages but also about reception of your opponent’s message. In the previous decade the sending reached his top. The reception skills are IMO underdeveloped. Maybe that is why players with better developed reception skills become the better players. For example the tennis programmes Evolve9 (in Holland we call it Tenniskids)-Mike Barell (England) and MTM-Oscar Wegner (influence in Russia and Spain) emphasize the reception skills. Murray (England, okay Scotland) spent 4-5 years in Spain.

Federer and Nadal improved their reception skills with a new technique. Their reception area is much bigger than all the other players. The reception area in which they can maintain maximum power. Nadal with the reverse Fh2 (I call that Fh2A) and the same technique on the Bh (Bh2A) has increased his reception area even much more than Federer. I estimate that his reception area is 2/2½ times bigger than Roger’s. Imagine that you have a ten time bigger area in which you can maintain your maximum power while others have to turn to other techniques and/or adjusting their position. (Especially with e.g. wind (final Indian Wells) this is very obvious to see).

My statement is that Nadal will be the winning (not the best) player if his reception area advantages will be maintained.
Nico Mol.

I like the idea of reception and what I think you are getting at, but can't agree that they keep Max power with all these adjustments. If you replace with good power or solid power, I can see it, but not Max pwr.

[nabrug]

I like the idea of reception and what I think you are getting at, but can't agree that they keep Max power with all these adjustments. If you replace with good power or solid power, I can see it, but not Max pwr.

You are right. Fh1 produces the fastest strokes. Fh2A (Nadal) a little less but a lot more spin and curved trajectories. He almost never makes a mistake with Fh2A (reverse technique). While his opponents make the mistake with a fast flatter Fh1 stroke. Because he has a ten times bigger strike area he can maintain HIS maximum power. IMO it is much easier to just give all your energy than have to differentiate on several shots.

In this reception era you just need good power or solid power. The odds are in favor of Nadal.

Nico.

[oliensis]

Airforce, that's what I thought too, until I actually watched the video of the '04 match against Hewitt. Did you watch that? The quality of movement/footwork, and the acceleration of his racket-head in that video are just flat-out recognizably different, even compared to highlight videos of his '08 US Open victory over Murray.

Compare the quality of "hitting out" in the '04 video linked in my previous post to the '08 video here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwCDdK1iEuo&feature=related

This is not to dis TMF, I yeeearn for him to play at his peak level. It's an amazing thing to behold! There was more aggression in his first step, giving it a "syncopated" quality in '04. There was more brashness in his aggression...esp on his backhand.

Some of it's the opposition, but a big chunk of it is what he's bringing to the table. Remember, in '04 Hewitt's only Grand Slam and Year-End Masters Cup losses were to the eventual champions. And he was ranked #1 as late as mid '03, so he wasn't far past his peak in '04.

One more thing: in '04 and thereabouts, Federer appeared arrogant on the court in the best athletic sense. His visage was surly. His demeanor was calm but had a "get the hell out of my way" quality to it. Now, he appears vulnerable and sullen oftentimes. (Entitled by some accounts.)

I don't think it's a good idea to minimize the differences in attitude and approach...though opposition is clearly part of the equation.

I can agree that Fed is not playing with the confidence and inspiration of 04, but I "DO" think it is primarily who he is playing. It affects everything. It affects play in matches leading to matches with these tough challengers. He is working on things and testing how they might work against Nadal or Murry.

I also think we all have a large tendency to remember him in his magical runs, but forget the tight and seemingly lucky scrape-by matches he had in those days of 04.

IMO, I really think if you take Nadal, DJ, and Murry out of the mix, then you have Fed out there smiling with confidence and passing Pete's GS mark rather quickly.

[crosscourt]

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

It wasn't really any different then. Nadal has shown how to attack Federer and others follow. Federer's confidence is less than it was, others are more confident.

I also wonder whether Federer's eyesight is what it was. He used to have amazing eyes and when hawkeye first came in I recall that he was way ahead of the rest in making challenges that were sustained. But that is no longer the case.

cc

[nabrug]

Does anyone know statistics of Bh returns of Federer and Nadal?

About a year ago I discovered the two Fh techniques (Fh1/Fh2) and how to hit them. A few months later I discovered how Nadal can produce the reverse Fh (Fh2A). Very short after that I discovered that Federer is using the same techniques at the Bh side (Bh2). Than around four months later how great was my surprise to discover that Nadal was using the Fh2A technique also on the Bh side (Bh2A) besides the other technique (Bh2) he uses.

So Federer uses Fh1/Fh2 and Bh1/Bh2. Nadal is using Fh2/Fh2A and Bh2/Bh2A. They use slice in the same way everybody is using.

In my own game I didn’t use the two techniques for several reasons till recently. Now I am getting time to implement the new techniques and I recently discovered the vision technique (eye jump/saccade) Federer and others are using. Today I trained the return of serve with Fh2/Bh2 (not yet Fh2A/Bh2A) technique for the first time. For me the results are much better. My percentage is much higher and I don’t have to use my block return anymore. Maybe that says a lot about my block return. But in general the main advantage to the block return versus the Fh2/Bh2 return is that the last one will have a nice pace and will not be a sitting duck. This combined with the curved trajectory the Fh2/Bh2 return is a much better alternative for me.

After this training I wanted to see how Federer and Nadal are returning in the SA at Tennisplayer especially on the Bh side because of this thread. I never watched those clips (I think I have watched all the clips now.) Nadal is using Fh2A/Bh2A to build a ralley. So it was no surprise that besides of the slice returns he returned with Bh2A. I only saw one Bh2 return! However Federer, besides the slice returns, was only using the Bh1 technique. He never used the Bh2 technique! I think that is amazing. He can hit Bh2! Why is he not using it? With Bh2A you can even hit balls a little above your head. With Bh2 you can not get so far but till around the chest. This can take care for a lot of returns.

Okay maybe the clips are not representative. So I am going to watch a few Federer matches tomorrow. Than I want to know stats about returns of Federer and Nadal. I hope there are specific Bh stats. I am especially interested in the error percentages of Federer and the winners Nadal produces with a return. Can somebody help me?

Nico Mol.

[crosscourt]

I am sorry to say that I do not undertsand much of the previous post. But if you want to understand the problem that Federer has on his backhand against Nadal you need to observe not merely backhand errors per se, but also the frequency with which, for example, Federer loses court position through trying to defend his backhand, or the number of times that a weak Federer backhand shifts the momentum of a point in Nadal's favour. You also need to do more than look at video clips on websites like this. For entirely understandable reasons the clips selected show a stroke working well rather than working badly.

cc

[nabrug]

I just reviewed the first set of RG 2008 (6-1 Nadal) and Wimbledon 2008 (6-4 Nadal). No real surprises.

RG 2008.
Nadal made 1 mistake out of 16 Bh returns. That was the one time that he choose Bh2. All the other returns he used Bh2A technique.

Federer made 2 errors out of 20 Bh returns. In all the Bh returns he used Bh1 technique. The two errors were made on services going wide on the ad-court. Imo Bh2 technique is especially demanded in this game situation. In the 2-3 situations that Federer could walk around his Bh return he used Fh2 technique.

Wimbledon 2008
Nadal made 2 Bh2A errors out of 14 Bh2A returns and 1 winner. One slice return went wrong.

Federer made 6 Bh1 mistakes out of 33 Bh returns. He hit no winners but two returns were so forcing that Nadal made an error. He sliced three Bh returns. The same Fh2 returns could be seen here.

I am puzzled. Why is Federer not using Bh2 technique more? It is the more defending technique. I also saw many mistakes with his Bh1 technique during the ralley. I know that he uses Bh2. I only can’t figure out exactly when? Or under which circumstances? In my memory he uses it a lot when he is under pressure and the ball stays low and is moving away from him. The only answer I can think of is that he is unaware of what he is doing. It matches with the genius’gifts he has. His body adapted to a game situation without knowing that he invented a new technique.

Till yesterday I thought that Federer was one step away (from Fh2/Bh2 to Fh2A/Bh2A) from being the number one again. Now I know that he is not using Bh2 in a lot of game situations which scream for that technique maybe that step is not necessary.

By the way imo Nadal is not taking advantage of the sitting ducks the Bh1 returns produce. A lot land around ¾ court. In all the cases he used Fh2A/Bh2A (3rd shot) to start building the ralley and never Fh2/Bh2 to make a winner. Like he is accepting the situation. It looks likes he wants to get over with the service and the return and than tennis is just beginning for him.

Nico Mol.

[nabrug]

I am sorry to say that I do not undertsand much of the previous post. But if you want to understand the problem that Federer has on his backhand against Nadal you need to observe not merely backhand errors per se, but also the frequency with which, for example, Federer loses court position through trying to defend his backhand, or the number of times that a weak Federer backhand shifts the momentum of a point in Nadal's favour. You also need to do more than look at video clips on websites like this. For entirely understandable reasons the clips selected show a stroke working well rather than working badly.

cc

Fh1 is the classical double bend technique.
Fh2 is the straight arm technique only Federer and Nadal use. Not Philipousis or others. They use Fh1 with a straight arm.
Bh1 is the classical Bh.
Bh2 is the same technique like Fh2. Harder to see because Bh1 is also with a straight arm. Till now I saw Federer, Nadal, Haas and Kohlschreiber using this technque.

Fh2A is a variation of Fh2 technique.
Bh2A is exactly the same variation.

Fh1/Bh1 give most power also because of the flatter trajectories but also the most errors. Under pressure you soon have to adjust the power you are giving.
Fh2A/Bh2A give the most curved (round) trajectories. You can hit these with YOUR maximum power.
Under pressure you need to shift towards Fh2A/Bh2A if you can. Nadal is hardly making any mistakes at his returns.
__________________________________________________ ____

If you understand that there are more techniques it is very important to start analysing with which technique the player is making the errors!
__________________________________________________ ____

Ofcourse it is right what you say about that it is more complex! But like with other research you try to simplify things a little.

What I just saw in the first set Wimbledon 2008 (windy atmosphere) he made a lot of Bh1 errors. He hardly ran around his Bh. He didn't produce any weak Bh. It was either (very) good or an error.

Nico Mol

[oliensis]

Well, now at least we're getting dribs and drabs of distinctions among FH1, FH2, FH2a, BH1, and BH2.

Please elaborate on the distinction between FH2 and FH1 w/ straight arm, which you say Philipousis uses.

Re: Federer today in Miami, I thought he looked better and better in his match against Kiefer. He actually hit several backhands with the kind of authority and fluid follow-through that we commonly saw from him in '04-'06 esp.

[stickman]

This is what i think the problem is , #1 federer has a great backhand return of serve, he gets a very high percentage of them back in play and he is very accurate with his return.

As we have talked about in the past, federer and nadal loose most of the points when they start the point hitting backhands when they are serving.

did you watch federes return, almost allways to nadals backhand... am i right? great accury, great placement, great {k} ontrol.

ovisly federer new that stastisic , how ever what he didnt realize is that if you REVIEVE A GOOD BALL YOU CAN GIVE A GOOD BALL!!!!!

Federer was hitting these perfect balls to nadals backhand , it was basicly a fed ball drill.

So federer made 2 return mistakes every game on return game...

And hit all the others ooooo... so nicely!! To world class althlete, world class tennis player. tell me how federers going to win?

i bet you nadal would have more troble if fredere hit a soft slice to nadals backhand on his return every time them what he was doing.

how many people hit great 2 handers on soft balls at there knee level ? Probily nadal does, does but not like he plays balls at waist hight.

I mean what options does nadal have ... well lets look low slice option #1 crosscourt- nadal is hitting a difficult ball to drive, to the best shot in tennis.
HELLO MICKFLY!!!
option #2 down the line- nadal is again hitting a ball that is hard to drive, only know its to federes backhand. good idea right ? wrong! nadal is hitting to a shorter court over the high part of the net. while out of posision to federes backhand... federer has a very good cross court back hand, i counted countless times he riped it cross court,when nadal went down the line, only to have nadal hit a running forehand that landed short directly after.