Myth of Feds weak BH

[synergy]

Fed

I think the backhand is killing Federer against Nadal. I think some of you are not getting the point. Fed is not losing because of error's on his backhand. He is losing to Nadal because he allows Nadal to hit from his comfort zone too much. I think by hitting over his backhand so much against Nadal he allows Rafa to be so comfortable in the rallies. Rafa's ball is hard to take early with the one hander so Roger gets content with rolling it giving Nadal shoulder height balls. Why not make Rafa bend down and hit up to him more often? Then take a crack at the ball. While this is easier said than done on clay, I'm amazed Roger hasn't knifed his slice to Rafa and make him hit up on grass and hard courts to give him a different look. He can't chip some 2nd serve returns and come in on grass anymore?? Nadal serve is not THAT good that he can't try some of these plays.

[airforce1]

I think the backhand is killing Federer against Nadal. I think some of you are not getting the point. Fed is not losing because of error's on his backhand. He is losing to Nadal because he allows Nadal to hit from his comfort zone too much. I think by hitting over his backhand so much against Nadal he allows Rafa to be so comfortable in the rallies.

You may have a point, as you are mostly repeating the standard thought on this. My point is that charting does not back up what you and others say about this, in the most recent matches, most importantly, Wimbledon 08, last year (the one event Fed should always beat him at).

Charting showed that in point ending sequences where someone was on the attack and forcing the issue, Fed was the one doing it on more than a 4 to 1 ratio!

So how can you say Nadal is more comfy in rallys when he is clearly on defense (where points being ended). Fed is the one drawing more short, attackable balls,
and given that Nadal is hitting nearly every serve, return and groundstoke, at Feds BH, It Must be holding up quite incredibly.

Do you propose that Nadal could be considered more comfy in rallys, while having his mid and short balls attacked at a 4 to 1 deficit ?
Maybe it is a false comfort then?

Charting shows Rafa to be a baseliner who rarely draw balls weak enough for him to come in and force the action, as well as he hits very few winners from the baseline, especially if you remove passing shots from the equation.
I'm eager to chart any of their matchups where Nadal has been forcing the issue more than Fed, other than just hitting very heavy rally shots.

*granted-
This is based on the sets I've been able to chart so far, and the 08 FO beatdown is not one of the ones I charted. Of course, I'm not concerned about that match, as fed was clearly off his game during that whole time frame in 08. (Probably due to the illness) I'm thinking that the illness affected his training efforts more than a direct effect on his play, meaning that he couldn't work as hard to be in shape and hit his normal swing rhythm, but still had an amazing year.

Also understand I have great respect for Nadal's aggressive rally shots, while maintaining extreme consistency! as well as his very impressive passing ability. His ability to win thru keeping Unforced Errors very low is proof of the old adage that tennis is a game of mistakes, Even at the highest of levels. Even if playing the GOAT if you can believe that!

I'm just not buying into the notion that Fed's BH is anywhere near a serious liability in this matchup (what most seem to think)
By charting the match, the evidence clearly tells me that Fed loses when his FH lets him down during attack sequences off mid and short balls. When this conversion rate is high like it normally is, he does not lose.

[synergy]

precisely my point airforce, Nadal is content to stay behind and bait Federer into forcing too much. Why not force Nadal to play a different style? You can't tell me making Nadal bend and dig out that nasty slice of Fed's with those extreme grips won't be beneficial to Fed being able to convert on those forcing shots.

[airforce1]

precisely my point airforce, Nadal is content to stay behind and bait Federer into forcing too much. Why not force Nadal to play a different style? You can't tell me making Nadal bend and dig out that nasty slice of Fed's with those extreme grips won't be beneficial to Fed being able to convert on those forcing shots.

If your point is only that Fed needs to find ways to integrate his knifing slice into rallys with Rafa more often, I would not debate against that, as I'm jazzed to see the comeback the slice has made in college and pro over the last few years. I've often discussed how it was a most underused and misunderstood tactic. I also think Fed has tried to do what you suggest to some extent, but didn't get his expected results. That does not mean you are wrong though. He may not be choosing the best moments to do it yet or just not doing enough of it.

My beef was the way you stated, "I think the backhand is killing Federer against Nadal"
which I don't feel is accurate as it is stated and was the point of my starting this thread. Paying attention more to how you mean it, it then makes more sense. But then it fits less in this thread IMO. The common contention out there is that Fed can't beat Nadal because his BH does not match up well enough, and Nadal goes after it so hard. My contention is that if Fed raises his conversion rate on mid ct and short ball attack sequences (which he did nicely in Madrid) that Fed wins and no one is talking about problems with Fed's BH.
In fact in Madrid, the BH rally errors per set were roughly the same as in some other losses to Nadal, but because he won that one, reports were that he had improved his BH. I guess they had to say that since they had reported previously it was why he couldn't beat Nadal on clay.

[nabrug]

Naive?

Is it not a little naive to suggest Roger Federer to slice a little bit more? Do you really think he doesn't know rule #1 in this game situation? C'mon guys we are talking about maybe the best player there ever was.

And by the way imo there is an other explanation. With the FH2/BH2 technique you have a much bigger contact point area. From above the shoulder till very low to the ground. Nadal will not have any problem with a low slice ball. He likes slow because that is his start point to built his ralley. He will be hurt by direction of the ball and a little with speed of the ball. But not anymore by height of the ball. He will maintain solid power if he can reach the ball in a "normal" way. That is why I see the FH2/BH2 technique as revolutionary. It is not all about more power anymore.

I can't think of examples with Nadal. But I remember a few moments in the third set Federer-Soderling (RG final). It was around 3-3. Robin played a few very flat FH strokes (incoming like a slice ball but than much faster) to the backhand of Federer. The ball was staying very low. Federer had really no problem to return these with BH2 technique. It happened at least twice after each other. I remember it so well because there was a very nice slow-motion behind the points exactly showing this low CP.

Possible answers lie in using FH2A/BH2A. Federer is only one step away. With his returns against Nadal he is only using BH1 technique. So experiments with BH2 returns are already possible. Djokovic is interesting because he is trying to produce the same ball trajectories like Nadal with the same contents. I hope his body will find the FH2A/BH2A technique.

Nico.

[oliensis]

Jeeezzzush H Chrrryyyyyst!

Narburt, If you're going to use a "private language" to talk about forehand and backhand technques, then no-one will understand you, and everyone will eventually become hostile toward you.

To be clear: You have never elaborated upon or elucidated what the "hail" these techniques are! To be sure, they are not new. Also, to be sure, if by FH2a you mean the reverse forehand, then a)it's not new, as I recently posted a picture of a German player hitting a reverse forehand in 1925 and b) the strike zone is not bigger just shaped differently. If the racquet is moving more vertically and less horizontally, then you'e simply traded height for depth in terms of the size of the strike zone.

Now, for the very very last time, if you are going to use your private language for stroke techniques, then define your terms, or else please know that no-one (or almost no-one) will respond positively to you.

This is not personal. I have no feeling about you personally. It's just a question of civility and common courtesey.

Private languages are not genuine efforts to communicate.

[airforce1]

Nabrug,

I really don't know how to say this differently than what has been said, but why won't you help us to understand what you mean by FH1 and fh2?

If you could take the time to share what you see in these 2 techniques, we could probably really appreciate what you have to write. As it stands, at this point it is mostly just perplexing.

I think you have several people here who are interested in what you have to say.

[nabrug]

Nabrug,

I really don't know how to say this differently than what has been said, but why won't you help us to understand what you mean by FH1 and fh2?

If you could take the time to share what you see in these 2 techniques, we could probably really appreciate what you have to write. As it stands, at this point it is mostly just perplexing.

I think you have several people here who are interested in what you have to say.

It is very simple. A little bit like with Brian Gordon. You believe him or you don’t. I believe a lot in Brian Gordon.

For instance you believe that Federer has 20-60 FH’s or you believe me. That he is using only two techniques with cross(?)-combinations.
You believe that every reverse FH is the same or you believe me. The reversing is only a caracteristic of Nadal’s FH. The essence, as I call it, lies in the FH2 technique.
You believe that Nadal can be beaten by slice or you believe me.

Besides tennis teacher I am a dance- and movement teacher for thirty years now and it was THE challenge to me to understand what Nadal and Federer are doing. It took me around 6-12 months (days and a lot of nights; I was obsessed)! That is why I know that there are two techniques. I can hit them and the origin of the movement is based on a different technique. Now I write this I realize that it is lucky for me that Nadal and Federer use the same different technique. There could have been three.

So don’t believe me. Fine. Do not read my posts.
If you believe me. Want to know more? Reread my posts. Verify my observations. All can be found at the Tennisplayer website. Mainly in the Advanced Tennis section or in the Stroke Archive. (What comes to my mind is in a one handed BH article about Federer about the “swoosh” and the FH comparison Federer with Philopousis in a straight arm article.)

Once you have accepted that there are two techniques you will see that I already gave you a lot of information and explained my discoveries in a clear way.

[oliensis]

Narburg,
You are the master who owns the simple secrets at the heart of the universal singularity/complexity that no-one in tennis history has been able to unravel.

I offer my apologies for having challenged your immutable authority with my ignoble ignorance.

Gee, you've taught movement for 30 years. Well, I've been studying, teaching, playing tennis, doing martial arts, teaching martial arts, tennis, water-skiing, snow skiing for even longer. I hope, though, even when I'm 80 I don't resort to snooty arrogance as you have.

Clearly YOU CANNOT DESCRIBE, EXPLAIN, ELABORATE, OR ELUCIDATE YOUR IDEAS. NO-ONE ON THESE BOARDS UNDERSTANDS YOU. SO YOU MUST BE A GENIUS! Either that or crazy like my cousin Sheldon.

[johnyandell]

How is Sheldon doing by the way?

[oliensis]

8-) re: the question.

However...

sadly, Sheldon passed away a couple of years ago, alone in what had been his mother's home.

[johnyandell]

Yeow, sorry. Did he explain his secrets prior to that?

[airforce1]

It is very simple. A little bit like with Brian Gordon. You believe him or you don’t. I believe a lot in Brian Gordon.

For instance you believe that Federer has 20-60 FH’s or you believe me. That he is using only two techniques with cross(?)-combinations.
You believe that every reverse FH is the same or you believe me. The reversing is only a caracteristic of Nadal’s FH. The essence, as I call it, lies in the FH2 technique.
You believe that Nadal can be beaten by slice or you believe me.

Besides tennis teacher I am a dance- and movement teacher for thirty years now and it was THE challenge to me to understand what Nadal and Federer are doing. It took me around 6-12 months (days and a lot of nights; I was obsessed)! That is why I know that there are two techniques. I can hit them and the origin of the movement is based on a different technique. Now I write this I realize that it is lucky for me that Nadal and Federer use the same different technique. There could have been three.

So don’t believe me. Fine. Do not read my posts.
If you believe me. Want to know more? Reread my posts. Verify my observations. All can be found at the Tennisplayer website. Mainly in the Advanced Tennis section or in the Stroke Archive. (What comes to my mind is in a one handed BH article about Federer about the “swoosh” and the FH comparison Federer with Philopousis in a straight arm article.)

Once you have accepted that there are two techniques you will see that I already gave you a lot of information and explained my discoveries in a clear way.

if you think you have properly described the fh1 and fh2 you often reference, then I guess that is all I need to know. No need to be concerned about something that you can't or won't describe in any meaningful manner.
thanks anyway, as several us were very interested

[oliensis]

No apology necessary. I brought him up.
He did explain his secrets...constantly. Problem was that, bearing some similarity to Narburg, he was in a minority of 1 in comprehending his explanations.

Anecdote re: Sheldon: When the attendent at the Greyhound bus terminal would not accept a personal check as payment for a ticket from New Jersey to Milwaukee (where my sister was getting married), Sheldon boarded the bus anyway. When, after much discussion with employees as to the inadequacy of his method of payment, no consensus could be achieved, the police were called. Sheldon was removed bodily from the vehicle, all the while screaming that the police were acting just like the Gestapo.

Sheldon's reality testing was "weak-ish."

Yeow, sorry. Did he explain his secrets prior to that?

[johnyandell]

Yeah I hate that when Greyhound won't take my check.