Roma!!

[tennis_chiro]

Jerzy on Youtube

This has been a great thread. Just sorry not to have seen tennis_chiro's hot tip for the future, Jerzy. I keep missing this guy.

....

Stotty,

I just looked and there are a number of clips as well as the full Gasquet and Tsonga matches from last week. You may have to turn down the sound unless you speak Spanish or Polish, but there is enough to see what this kid could be two years from now.

He definitely blinked against Federer. Should have had the second set. But he showed his style and current proficiency is good enough to hold up against Federer. His mind, however, is a long way from being ready for this level. But give him another year, ...

AS For the match against Federer, the following comment didn't quite make it in at 10sBalls:
I wasn't far wrong. But Fed's tactics didn't really work, just his maturity and experience. Jerzy should have held in that first set and he should have served out the second. He's got to get used to the competition, but his level once again proved it could hold up against the very best. He just needs to get a little more comfortable in his own skin so he stops trying to do too much in pressure situations. Because his regular shots are big enough to press his opponents and create opportunities for him against anyone. He needs to serve and volley a little more, just a bit.

I just hope Jerzy is not about to have serious arm troubles. He keeps grabbing his elbow. He was averaging over 135 on his first serve and over 115 on his second. That could create a strain on your arm. And each time I see Janowicz play, I am more impressed with his proficiency at the net. I'm even more convinced we'll see him in the top ten before the end of the USOpen.

As I feared could happen, injudicious use of the drop shot and ill-timed double-faults worked against Jerzy at just the wrong time. But those problems can be addressed and overcome. And then lookout.

[tennis_chiro]

About Roger

About Federer

I still haven't gotten around to watching the Federer semis or final. From what I am reading here, I kind of don't want to watch it. But in a broader sense, do I think Federer can maintain a spot in the top 4, much less challenge for another major, most likely at Wimbledon.

To me, an over 30 athlete has to try a little harder than his younger competition. He has to be better about everything: training, nutrition, adequate rest, intelligent scheduling. He has to be the absolute best his physical body can be. That's not always a lot of fun. It's not even the most fulfilling or satisfying life. It requires almost the ascetic lifestyle of a Shaolin monk to achieve the level of physical perfection that one needs to be one of the very best against competition that is a good 5 or more years younger. You also need the clarity of mind and purpose that we associate with someone isolated from society.

It is always said that Federer enjoys the responsibilities he's taken on the last few years as the leader of the tennis world, responding politely to endless requests for interviews, answering the same questions over and over again in different languages. On top of that, he is a major brand and he spends a considerable amount of energy fulfilling his commercial commitments. Certainly, he is very well compensated for that aspect of his professional life. But it does take time and energy.

And then there is his life as husband and father of two young girls. That is a commitment and responsibility he honors and savors. And even as it balances out his life and gives him much needed distraction from his tennis life, it still takes again more time.

On top of this, he has multiple commitments to philanthropy that are certainly uplifting and reinvigorating, but they also take time and energy.

Pretty amazing that he's been able to accomplish all that he has and still stayed even in the top 4 all these years. In fact, he entered the top 3 after winning Wimbledon 10 years ago this July and has only spent 6 weeks in October and November of 2011 out of the top 3 at number 4 in over 500 weeks!!! But when we look at athletes in their 30's who excel, they usually look physically harder and tougher than their younger opponents. Think Andre Agassi coming back in the second part of his career. Think of Jerry Rice. Agassi and Rice were both famous for a training routine that no one could keep up with. Think of Kobe Bryant. These guys defied the aging process. But they did it paying a very high price. And when you looked at their bodies, you had no doubt they were the physical equal of their younger counterparts. Perhaps they might not recover as quickly, but they started out in such great condition that it neutralized any disadvantage they bore because of their age.

When you compare Federer to anyone else in the at least the top 6 current ATP players, Roger "looks" soft. I know he still trains very hard and is in great shape, but I don't get the sense that he is in the absolute best shape that he could possibly attain. If he were willing to pay that price and did get into that kind of shape (and that assumes his body could handle it and would not fall apart), it would still be no guarantee that he could reclaim the top spot in the rankings. I do think if he made that kind of commitment, he could stay firmly in the top 3 for another 2 to 4 years. That would mean he would have to step away from some of his other commitments and significantly alter his lifestyle. The rest of the current top 6 all appear to be paying that kind of price. With their chiseled physiques, they could all be featured in an article in Muscle and Fitness about their training routines and not be the least bit embarrassed by the accompanying shirtless photos. Don't get me wrong. Roger still looks great and it is probably healthier in a lot of ways to be carrying the weight he does than to be running around down at 6% body fat with no reserves in his system. Federer looks like an extremely fit 30-something. But Rice and Bryant and Jordan never looked like a 30-something. Their fitness routines and the resultant physiques made them look fitter than their younger competition. Maybe they had lost a half a step, but they more than made up for it with their preparation.

Doug Eng is absolutely right; Roger has to be willing to try something different and some of the tactics he presents should at least be attempted. But if Roger just continues to go along as he "appears" to have been doing, I think he will have a tough time staying in the top 5 much beyond this year. All the distractions are taking their toll. Now, we don't know the true nature of his injuries after Indian Wells or the state of his recovery and rehabilitation from those injuries. He didn't really get tested in any long matches at Rome or Madrid. We'll find out a lot more at Roland Garros.

In many ways, it would be a great loss for the tennis industry for Roger to step back from any of his ancillary activities that promote the game. But I am selfish. I want to see him play more at the highest level in the style that only he seems to be able to bring to the table. I think he could still be great for a couple more years. I don't want to watch him age gracefully and have a whole new generation of newcomers cut their teeth getting a "win" against the legend.

Come on, Roger. Be the best that you can possibly be. Reorganize your life so that you can make the necessary commitment. You can afford it. Then open your mind up to alternative approaches. Maybe a little bigger racket. Certainly sharpen the old serve and volley skills that have grown rusty; you need some of those shorter points. Make your body the best that it can possibly at the moment. And then, in the inimitable words of Gunnery Sergeant Tom Highway in Heartbreak Ridge: "You adapt. You overcome. You improvise." It's time!

don

[GeoffWilliams]

He's gained a little weight. It's called: 2-15 against nadal on clay. That's 15 trophies lost, enough to weigh anybody down.

[don_budge]

Weight...or brace?

He's gained a little weight. It's called: 2-15 against nadal on clay. That's 15 trophies lost, enough to weigh anybody down.

Speaking of weight...I thought that it appeared that he had developed just the initial signs of a "paunch". But then I kept looking at him and I couldn't decide if it was paunch or some kind of brace around his midriff.

[tennis_chiro]

Now that I've watched the Federer/Nadal match

I just got done watching a good deal of the Federer semis and almost all of the finals from Rome last weekend. I think the prevailing sentiment here that Federer mailed in his performance in the final is a little off the mark. I said in an earlier post that one of the most important things you must take out of the first set is a strategy on how to win the second set. Federer has played Rafa 15 times on clay and is a dismal 2-13 having won two finals, Hamburg in 2007 and Madrid in 2009. The Hamburg match is a bit in the distant past; Madrid was the day after Nadal won a 243 minute, 245 point marathon against Djokovic; he failed to recover losing 6-4, 6-4 in 86 minutes. Rafa took his sole Roland Garros loss at the hands of Robin Soderling two weeks later and had to miss the entire grass court season, failing to defend his first Wimbledon title. In Hamburg, Nadal was trying to run the table for the clay court season having won Monte Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome. The air is a little heavier in Hamburg and the balls are a little heavier and stay lower. Federer got his only really legitimate win on clay against Rafa there; but even there, it was clear Rafa ran out of gas as he went down 2-6, 6-2, 6-0.

It can be legitimately argued that Roger has never beaten a healthy Nadal on clay. Not only does Roger not know how to win the 2nd set, he is at a loss for a suitable strategy to try to give him his best chance against Nadal on the dirt. If you do not know what strategy to employ against your opponent, you certainly can't commit to it. If you can't commit to some strategy and the associated tactics, no matter how good your intentions, you will look like you have mailed in your performance! And no wonder, all the conventional tactics have been rendered totally useless against this greatest clay court player of all time.

You can't play on the baseline with him, or at least Federer can't. He is basically impervious to anything less than the very best groundstroke winners and even those won't do the trick unless hit in combination. Trying to hit deep to keep him at bay simply plays into his deep court position. He is perfectly content to trade groundstrokes with you from 15 feet behind the baseline and he will put you on the end of his yoyo should you allow him to move up to the baseline where he can really attack.

Trying to play aggressively and approach the net merely gives him a better target to hit to, and if there is an opening, he can hit it. Where a deep, sound approach shot would create some significant advantage against ordinary mortals, Nadal is strong enough to pass from 15 feet behind the baseline after that nice approach shot has slowed down and transformed into a "hit me" invitation. So normal good approach shots simply are not enough; they have to be exceptionally aggressive and near winners to hold up against Nadal's withering passing shots.

Hitting a second serve is a waste of time against Nadal. Nadal won 69% of the points when Roger put his 2nd delivery in play. The last 4 times they have played on clay since that upset in Madrid in 2009, Nadal has won 69%, 60%, 60% and 51% on his receiving points on Federer's 2nd serve. Furthermore, as Roger naturally ages, Nadal appears to be returning better and better and more aggressively and holding his own serve even more comfortably than ever before. In his match with Berdych on Saturday, he won 10 of 10 points where he himself was hitting a 2nd serve. The pressure this creates on the opponent is enormous.

What I am getting at is Federer needs to try something completely different! If he is going to adapt, improvise and overcome, he's going to have to do some things that take Rafa by surprise. He has to make Nadal play from positions from which he is not accustomed to playing.

Nadal likes to be the one hitting the passing shots and he only comes to the net when he has complete control of the situation or to run down and pummel a foolish dropshot. Turn the tables. Hitting drop shots off those 3000 rpm missiles Rafa offers his opponents is a losing proposition in the long run. But if Roger hits a short, low slice return crosscourt to Rafa's backhand where he is forced to approach even though he doesn't really want to, now Roger can play his passing shots against Rafa's net play. Rafa volleys well to finish points where he is in complete control, but reacting to a passing shot when he is forced to come in off a short, low backhand that has him moving to get into position behind an approach that he can not hit as aggressively as he would like is an entirely different proposition. Playing that ball to Nadal is not a simple proposition, but it's a lot easier than pulling off a successful dropshot against Rafa. A few well executed lobs will create even more discomfort for Nadal at the net and make this tactic even more effective.

Nadal's eyes get wide with anticipation when he sees someone approaching and coming into the net. He harbors not even a shred of doubt on how to react. But what if you approach short down the middle taking away the angles and forcing Rafa to hit up. Roger better sharpen his somewhat rusty volleying skills to pull this off, but the way Nadal plays so far back in the court, this tactic is at least worth a try.

Finally, give up the second serve. The math just doesn't add up. It really doesn't take anymore effort to hit a first serve than a second. Certainly, there will be more double faults, but when you are hitting that second serve immediately after hitting the first, your odds on making the second one should improve with the feel and feedback you got from your miss on the first ball. If you are winning just 30% of your second serve points, you have very little to lose. Assuming Roger can make a little better than his regular 60+% average on first serves when he hits a first serve as a second as well; let's just say 70% for argument's sake; if he wins just 60% of those points, he's significantly increased the number of second serve points he wins in the match. And he completely changes the dynamic of being completely on the defense when he hits a second serve. He deprives Rafa of the opportunity to attack that he so clearly relishes.

These are some radical ideas, but Roger needs something radical. Adapt, improvise, overcome. He's not going to do it by hitting a little deeper or a little steadier or serving and volleying on red clay, although that should be a tactic that could be used more often as a change of pace. He's got to take Rafa out of his comfort zone. If he can do that, then some of the more conventional tactics will gain back some of their traction as Rafa is forced to adjust his position in the court. It will still require Roger to play his very best, and that still may not be enough. Federer will have to sharpen his considerable skills and resurrect some of his previous serving consistency and the volleying prowess he demonstrated when he first appeared on the scene upsetting Sampras at Wimbledon, but he does have the capability to do those things if he really wants to make the commitment. But without this kind of somewhat drastic change in his tactics, Roger is not going to experience any success against his nemesis on clay and every time he steps on a clay court to play Nadal, even before the strike of the first ball you might as well play the words of the immortal Chick Hearn, "The game's in the refrigerator, the door's closed, the light's out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the jello's jiggling."

don

[don_budge]

Short and wide slice crosscourt...The Key Angle

Doug and don_budge's thoughts on Federer's tactical approach, or lack of it, are interesting. The business about angles is interesting. The two handers seem to get acute angles of their backhands in ways a one-hander player can't. Paire hit some lovely angled backhands when he played Federer in the round before.

Bit late in the day now but maybe Federer should have opted for the two-hander when he was young...might have made all the difference in his match up with Nadal.

This brilliant comment from licensedcoach in the McEnroe vs. Wilander thread earlier this year is applicable to Federer's current plight. Federer needs to be like McEnroe in this regard.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?p=19743#post19743

The great genius of McEnroe is that he always played the correct shot in any given situation. I don't think any other player has ever done that.

One of the big advantages of the one hand backhand over the two hand is the flexibility. The ability to hit topspin or underspin off of the same stroke.

Funny thing about two handed backhands...they are more difficult to read when used to hit passing shots. Backcourt exchanges do not present the same problem.

In the blue print that I developed for a tactical strategy against the Nadal game with the Federer game one of the big pieces of the puzzle is the ability to slice low and wide to the Nadal forehand. If Federer can move Nadal to the backhand side and out of position to tag his backhand Federer may get a reply to his backhand that he will have options on...perhaps either a slice low and wide or a drive deep in the corner. Federer used to make a rather comfortable living with this shot against the two handed backhand. His plethora of wins agains Söderling come to mind. He alternated driving and then slicing to the Söderling backhand until the Swede would falter just a bit as he switched to hitting one handed in response...then Roger had him. Many times running around a weaker response to tag a forehand.

The key to using this shot against the left handed Nadal is different. I have been saying for a couple of years that Roger needs to play the backhand side with much more intensity. He cannot do it by accident. Once he has Nadal pinned over there or anticipating a bit too much then it is time to either slide or shoot one of the angled cross court slice backhands. It doesn't matter if he uses a Rosewall facsimile, the McEnroe variation or his own concoction. The sole point is to move the Spaniard as much as possible and once he is at the destination, retrieving the tennis ball on one bounce, to present him with a slightly more difficult shot than setting him up with a nice juicy high ball that he relishes. Then guess what...the whole backhand side of the court is open. Go back to work...use the whole court.

One more time...consult with either McEnroe or Laver or Roche or don_budge. A left handed strategy is needed to come up with the mirror image blueprint to defeat Nadal. If Federer can somehow induce Nadal to play this cat and mouse game he will neutralize somewhat the physical and conditioning aspect of the variables. It will be much more taxing on Nadal and less so on Federer if somehow he can get the Spaniard to play the game of his choice. Never give your opponent the ball he likes to hit...right out of the Book of Tilden.

Federer should be using all of the shots and variations that he has at his disposal and not just attempting to match the Spaniard from the baseline. Serve and volley on the dirt is out of the question...but perhaps if he can get a good rhythm and serve intelligently he can use it as a sneak attack to further disrupt the rhythm. The key to defeating Nadal is to subtly disrupt the rhythm. Novak Djokovic has demonstrated this on numerous occasions. Even so it is no walk in the park...you are going to have to persevere with all of your heart. This is the line of demarcation if you dare to cross it. You are going to have to be committed heart, sinew and soul. Anything less...you're catfood.

[don_budge]

Rosewall, McEnroe or Federer...Which is better?

They are all good. A combination of all three is the best of all worlds. If I am me (and I think I am) which is best for me? Well since I am not Rosewall or McEnroe or Federer...I have to find what suits me. It's like yesterday...I was watching my protege Gustaf cracking his backhand and I asked him to show me where he perceived that he was taking his backswing to. He showed me and he asked me if I thought that it was too high. My answer was it certainly seems like he is gaining confidence in it so that it must be correct. Each individual will arrive at their own conclusion. Such is the nature of the game and the common misperceptions about technique...as if mimicking or copying is the only way to arrive at the solution.

I am not suggesting that Roger Federer use solely underspin in his tactical objectives. I am not suggesting that he use any one form of underspin. I am suggesting that a full range of his capabilities may just be enough to even the playing field against a younger and more "energetic" opponent. Federer has the wherewithal to use all of the elements of the past, present and future for that matter. He can be Rosewall, McEnroe and Federer all wrapped up in one supreme package. Slice, underspin drive, topspin drive, flat drive, short balls and deep balls. Tactical dropshots. Bring him to the net...bring him into the forecourt. Do it wisely...judiciously. Throw in the kitchen sink...there you have it. A workable strategy.

While "soft balling" alone will not win against Nadal either...judicious use of specialty shots during the course of the match is what is needed here. Hit the "bottom" of the ball a couple of times and see if you can get the ball to back up over your side of the net with Nadal sliding into the net. Make him feel bad...somehow. Wilander said of McEnroe after a defeat in the finals of the Senior Tour last winter..."John has a way of making you feel awful on the tennis court". Borg said..."I never knew what he was going to do with the tennis ball".

Federer possesses this range of shots...minus the net and approach game. Too bad he chucked these elements of his game into the mulch pile throughout the years. It certainly would have come in handy now. He could retool in a matter of weeks if he took some time off...but that would take some grey matter and I question what the braintrust behind him has in this regard. Come to think of it...maybe playing doubles would sharpen his tactical acumen.

McEnroe did not defeat Borg using one shot or another...he pulled out his whole arsenal and matched his opponent shot for shot during the course of the whole match never once letting up and maintaining pressure on his opponent. The same is true for the famous Wimbledon final of Arthur Ashe against the younger and bigger hitter, James Scott Connors. He matched him on a shot by shot basis. Death by a thousand cuts!

In todays world of Big Time Wrestling...I mean Professional Tennis much of this comes down to the braintrust that surrounds the player. Someone on the team has to come up with an idea and then the team must go to work and come up with something that is concrete. Why is everyone so challenged to think outside of the box these days? A sign of the times? The object of the "politically correct" paradigm. As if using the whole court is some new and novel idea that I cooked up sitting out here in the woods.

[jbill]

Motivation and Commitment?

Gentlemen, I find your tactical discussion about what Federer could do to defeat Nadal simply fascinating! Well thought out!

The big question for me, though, is motivation and commitment. At this point in his career does Federer really have the motivation and commitment it would take to do what any of you are suggesting? Unfortunately, I think not.

I think that is what we are starting to see in his lackluster performances now: lack of motivation and commitment.

At this point in the season his mind is probably set on Wimbledon. That is the one slam he thinks he may still have a chance for. Other than that it's over.

jbill

[don_budge]

Commitment to the Game Plan...What is the Game Plan?

Gentlemen, I find your tactical discussion about what Federer could do to defeat Nadal simply fascinating! Well thought out!

The big question for me, though, is motivation and commitment. At this point in his career does Federer really have the motivation and commitment it would take to do what any of you are suggesting? Unfortunately, I think not.

I think that is what we are starting to see in his lackluster performances now: lack of motivation and commitment.

At this point in the season his mind is probably set on Wimbledon. That is the one slam he thinks he may still have a chance for. Other than that it's over.

jbill

Your question of commitment and motivation is a good one. It isn't difficult to have some doubts about either in the Federer camp. It has been one lackluster performance after another against Nadal. It sort of makes one wonder if perhaps one of the big reasons for Federer's numbers in terms of Grand Slam Titles is that he didn't have much competition in the early part of his career. It also makes one question what it is exactly the "braintrust" that he employs is doing to earn their keep.

But it is a truly fascinating and compelling discussion. For me...much of the reason is because of the fact that I have cited a number of times regarding the similarities of the McEnroe vs. Borg rivalry which is arguably one of the greatest of all time...if not the greatest. Here we have a player that is largely regarded as an artist (or magician as his coach labels it) versus a player who is predominately mechanical (or an engineer in my jargon). It has the makings of classic but it falls short because of the one sidedness.

Given that the McEnroe versus Borg matchup had some of the same interesting characteristics only though viewed in a mirror image. The artist is right handed and the engineer is left handed. The artist plays a one handed backhand and the engineer plays two handed. The artist plays "all court" tennis and the engineer likes to plant himself on the baseline. It has the potential. But it is falling short because of the two things that you cite as missing...motivation and commitment.

Employing a strategy as I am suggesting...or as McEnroe implemented takes full on commitment. To every conceivable shot and variation of. Federer as an artist tends to fall short in this regard...he is satisfied to hit his backhand topspin drive into the teeth of the Nadal strength even though he repeatedly gets hammered as a result. Federer is seeking to end the points quickly when in reality he needs to draw them out. He will actually expend less energy playing a game of his choice then he would trying to beat Nadal at his game. He isn't going to beat Nadal at his game so why not seek another avenue. Who is motivating him?

[stotty]

Rivalries and Nadal

The one feature about the Federer/Nadal rivalry over the Borg/McEnroe rivalry is that Federer has at least been a strong enough contender to get to clay court finals. Borg and McEnroe never met on clay because McEnroe just wasn't good enough on the surface to make the finals, save one masterful performance against Lendl. Borg by contrast made plenty of hard court finals despite it being his least favoured surface and despite having to play key matches under floodlights, in the case of the US Open, which was something he hated.

I think Doug made some good points about aggression to beat Nadal. The bigger, flatter hitters can do it. Del Potro should have won in Indiana and had the match in the bag. Soderling knocked him off at RG. Rosol knocked him off at Wimbledon. When Djokovic gets rolling he can knock Nadal clean off a soggy clay court! Last year's RG was a travesty for Djokovic.

Only extreme aggression has ever beaten Nadal on clay. That is not to say more intricate tactics couldn't work, it's just I have never seen them employed by anyone yet.