2014 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals…ATP 1500...London, England

[stotty]

Bummer...built my whole day around being home to watch the final. But, yes, that's life. If he could have played, he would have done.

[hockeyscout]

Bummer...built my whole day around being home to watch the final. But, yes, that's life. If he could have played, he would have done.

Christ, glad I had to stay back in Ukraine! The young one would have cried for months if she was their, and learned Roger couldn't play in the final. Anyways, next year, and hopefully Grigor will step it up finally!

[klacr]

Bummer...built my whole day around being home to watch the final. But, yes, that's life. If he could have played, he would have done.

Ditto Stotty. Got to work at 5:15am. had to set up for USPTA testing today plus a full morning of private lessons. Carved out some time to watch Fed-Djokovic but it was a no go. Back to work, work and more work.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Stanislas Wawrinka Service Motion…failed to get the horse in the barn

The freaking dumbum in the umpire chair overruled on a Wawrinka ball that he had hit wide…the idiot called it in. But Roger didn't seem to be aware of the overrule and he lost the count in the score.

It was interesting too to see how Stan Wawrinka reacted to the goings on. Roger was visibly upset and this could have played havoc on Stan's nerves if he should have let his guard down. He could have gotten sucked into Roger's plight as well. To his credit he maintained his concentration and his pressure on his opponent. His pressure was relentless as he kept pounding away.

Ironically it was the serve of Stanislas Wawrinka that cost him the match. With any amount of first serves in at crucial times and points in the match he certainly would have concluded things. His service motion remains to me one rather convoluted motion…not that it won't "work"…it is only that when the chips are down there is going to be some timing issues. Not always but quite possibly at inopportune times…like on Saturday night. That match was his for the taking but he couldn't get the infernal horse in the barn. She kept balking at the stable door…refusing to go it. You cannot force it either. You saw what happened as he tried to force it harder and harder. He was met with resistance. Stubborn thing…wouldn't go in.

The Serve...of Stanislas Wawrinka

It’s an odd motion and it doesn’t make any sense to my eye. The back foot moving forwards when the weight should be shifting backwards totally screws up the timing when the whole package should be unwinding and the racquet head screaming towards the ball.

From the set up position he has set himself up to go in the wrong direction. Stan has the racquet set forwards but his weight is almost entirely on his back foot. His front foot is balanced fully on the heel. The hands go down together and up together with a real sense of synchronicity...but that is where the synergy ends. My God...it is a strange motion. Once his hands are risen to shoulder height, his front foot has now planted itself squarely on the ground which indicates that the weight transfer has gone forwards...also evidenced by the right heel up in the air. At this point deep into his backswing his weight should be following the head of the racquet and the weight should be squarely on the back foot. So what strange compensating move must he make to go forwards now?

Ok...the strange plot thickens. Now the back foot has made a rather unorthodox move into the pin-point stance and he is standing virtually straight up with absolutely zero rotation of his shoulders. Without any discernible further rotation of his shoulders from a position where he is perpendicular to the net he starts to rotate forwards as his racquet is dropping into position behind him. As a result of his unorthodox footwork he is in a position with his racquet dropped behind him and he is virtually in a full frontal position. I have always had the sensation that there was something disturbingly wrong with this service motion but without studying it frame by frame it was never clear as to what was actually wrong with it.

Here is just one more top elite tennis player in the modern game of tennis with some rather glaring deficiencies in the service motion. You know what a big part of the problem is...of course you do. Service motions nowadays are not designed or engineered to be followed to the net. As a result there is a lot of room for liberal interpretation as to what constitutes an effective motion.

The fix for Stanislas is to change to a platform stance. In this manner he will shift his weight back to the back foot as the racquet backswings into position at the top. By assuming a platform stance he won’t have the ass-backwards concept of weight transfer going on so he can more effectively rotate his body backwards...as a result of a more effective rotation backwards he will have stored up enough potential energy to go forwards that will entirely change his way of thinking how he delivers the racquet head to the ball. He will get his legs under him. Once he is there...he will have more effective capability to spin the ball in various ways which will open up his book of service tactics. Interesting that there is so much potential to be realized in one of the world’s most elite players.

When working on my students service motions I have come to the conclusion that it is very important that they are designed as if the player will be following the serve to the net...even though in most cases they will not be. So I have them train in serve and volley mode as a drill to get the proper rotation and feeling that they are rotating into the ball properly. It certainly is ironic that I believe that the champion of this years 2014 Australian Open could benefit from a thirty dollar tennis lesson from a displaced American who is coaching at a small little club in the middle of nowhere of Sweden. Am I hallucinating again?

Stan did an admirable job of keeping to the task at hand while Roger was fighting off the demons. But Stan had a monkey of his own on his back…a first serve that wouldn't cooperate. He only missed one double fault down the stretch to his credit. This also illustrates what happened when he tried to force the issue that his motion wasn't capable to the task at hand.

When he eased back just a bit for the second serve it was quite reliable. The problem is that the service motion should be designed and engineered to get even better when the chips are down. The serve should get better when you swing harder and are aiming closer to the lines. Roger was having his share of problems to in this regard…it was obvious that his timing was off just a little from the very onset and he was struggling to get the inner clock calibrated.

Roger adapted just a tad better to the difficult situation. charlesdarwin was absolutely right in this regard…in this particular situation. Wawrinka's inability to deliver a key first serve prevented him from evolving beyond this point.

[stotty]

It was interesting too to see how Stan Wawrinka reacted to the goings on. Roger was visibly upset and this could have played havoc on Stan's nerves if he should have let his guard down. He could have gotten sucked into Roger's plight as well. To his credit he maintained his concentration and his pressure on his opponent. His pressure was relentless as he kept pounding away.

Ironically it was the serve of Stanislas Wawrinka that cost him the match. With any amount of first serves in at crucial times and points in the match he certainly would have concluded things. His service motion remains to me one rather convoluted motion…not that it won't "work"…it is only that when the chips are down there is going to be some timing issues. Not always but quite possibly at inopportune times…like on Saturday night. That match was his for the taking but he couldn't get the infernal horse in the barn. She kept balking at the stable door…refusing to go it. You cannot force it either. You saw what happened as he tried to force it harder and harder. He was met with resistance. Stubborn thing…wouldn't go in.



Stan did an admirable job of keeping to the task at hand while Roger was fighting off the demons. But Stan had a monkey of his own on his back…a first serve that wouldn't cooperate. He only missed one double fault down the stretch to his credit. This also illustrates what happened when he tried to force the issue that his motion wasn't capable to the task at hand.

When he eased back just a bit for the second serve it was quite reliable. The problem is that the service motion should be designed and engineered to get even better when the chips are down. The serve should get better when you swing harder and are aiming closer to the lines. Roger was having his share of problems to in this regard…it was obvious that his timing was off just a little from the very onset and he was struggling to get the inner clock calibrated.

Roger adapted just a tad better to the difficult situation. charlesdarwin was absolutely right in this regard…in this particular situation. Wawrinka's inability to deliver a key first serve prevented him from evolving beyond this point.

That first serve of Stan's just wouldn't go in all night. From start to finish it let him down. His second serve by contrast seemed to go exceptionally well and had plenty of depth and kick. It set him up enough to be able to boss the rallies. Unfortunately, without his big first serve there were no cheap points to be had. It's important for Stan to get the cheap points in matches like that one as it makes him even more assertive and even bossier still.

I think every players needs some bigs serves and cheap points to close out as big a win as that would have been. In my heart, I felt Stan deserved to win.

[stotty]

It was interesting too to see how Stan Wawrinka reacted to the goings on. Roger was visibly upset and this could have played havoc on Stan's nerves if he should have let his guard down. He could have gotten sucked into Roger's plight as well. To his credit he maintained his concentration and his pressure on his opponent. His pressure was relentless as he kept pounding away.

Ironically it was the serve of Stanislas Wawrinka that cost him the match. With any amount of first serves in at crucial times and points in the match he certainly would have concluded things. His service motion remains to me one rather convoluted motion…not that it won't "work"…it is only that when the chips are down there is going to be some timing issues. Not always but quite possibly at inopportune times…like on Saturday night. That match was his for the taking but he couldn't get the infernal horse in the barn. She kept balking at the stable door…refusing to go it. You cannot force it either. You saw what happened as he tried to force it harder and harder. He was met with resistance. Stubborn thing…wouldn't go in.



Stan did an admirable job of keeping to the task at hand while Roger was fighting off the demons. But Stan had a monkey of his own on his back…a first serve that wouldn't cooperate. He only missed one double fault down the stretch to his credit. This also illustrates what happened when he tried to force the issue that his motion wasn't capable to the task at hand.

When he eased back just a bit for the second serve it was quite reliable. The problem is that the service motion should be designed and engineered to get even better when the chips are down. The serve should get better when you swing harder and are aiming closer to the lines. Roger was having his share of problems to in this regard…it was obvious that his timing was off just a little from the very onset and he was struggling to get the inner clock calibrated.

Roger adapted just a tad better to the difficult situation. charlesdarwin was absolutely right in this regard…in this particular situation. Wawrinka's inability to deliver a key first serve prevented him from evolving beyond this point.

That first serve of Stan's just wouldn't go in all night. From start to finish it let him down. His second serve by contrast seemed to go exceptionally well and had plenty of depth and kick. It set him up enough to be able to boss the rallies. Unfortunately, without his big first serve there were no cheap points to be had. It's important for Stan to get the cheap points in matches like that one as it makes him even more assertive and even bossier still.

I think every player needs some bigs serves and cheap points to close out as big a win as that would have been. It's so difficult to do it the hard way.

In my heart, I felt Stan deserved to win.

[GeoffWilliams]

HIs objections to the crowd, and to Mirka's comments, also cost him. His lack of volley skill cost him. His missing 8 of 9 first serves in the game to win cost him. His forehand breaking down in that game cost him. It's called: choking. All fed had to do was make him hit another ball. Fight with your mind first and your strokes second, always at all times, and he let his mind tank the match.

[stotty]

HIs objections to the crowd, and to Mirka's comments, also cost him. His lack of volley skill cost him. His missing 8 of 9 first serves in the game to win cost him. His forehand breaking down in that game cost him. It's called: choking. All fed had to do was make him hit another ball. Fight with your mind first and your strokes second, always at all times, and he let his mind tank the match.

His volley failed him...nothing else really. He got to match point after all. He served and volleyed on a match point and just had to ease a backhand volley over the net to win the match. The volley was a tad intricate but nothing a true volleyer would have been troubled with. The match was lost right there...

[don_budge]

You are confused...

HIs objections to the crowd, and to Mirka's comments, also cost him. His lack of volley skill cost him. His missing 8 of 9 first serves in the game to win cost him. His forehand breaking down in that game cost him. It's called: choking. All fed had to do was make him hit another ball. Fight with your mind first and your strokes second, always at all times, and he let his mind tank the match.

Theo lost the first set at love but battled back to take the second set 7-5. In our series we play a "Super Tiebreak" if the players split the first two sets...for all of the marbles. The first to ten and winning by two wins the match.

The two opponents battled back and forth in what turned out to be an epic struggle. Theo won the 9-9 point to go up 10-9 but could not capitalize. They went back and forth...until Theo's opponent took advantage of a short ball and placed it squarely in Theo's backhand corner where he could not manage to return it. Final score 18-16 in the Super Tiebreak.

Theo managed to stay composed on his way to the net for the obligatory handshake but when that little piece of business was squared away he collapsed sobbing into his hands...and he was unable to stop. I was watching from behind the glass partition behind the courts as his father trotted over to console him. After a couple of minutes I went over to see if I could shed a little light on the subject.

The whole experience sort of shocked Theo. He'd never been there before. He was in uncharted waters. The drama really piled up. All of us tennis players know what it is like to lose a close one. You survive. You find a way.

Djokovic with a hiccup in 2nd set but let's be honest, was this match ever in doubt?

Federer vs. Wawrinka. A gorgeous forehand vs. a gorgeous backhand. Who wins? Fed has been in scary form, wawrinka not so much. Swiss friends turn into swiss enemies today. I'm picking Roger in straights.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Hmmm....4-6

A tight second set to boot. Wawrinka serving to stay in the second misses a backhand volley wide by an inch….0-15. He moves in behind a nice crosscourt backhand slice approach and forehand volleys deep into Roger's forehand but Roger cuts it off in the air and Wawrinka misses. Then Wawrinka misses a fairly easy overhead in the net and he nets a backhand to lose the set.

The most exciting set of the week…said Peter Fleming.

What kind of an overrule was that! My final is in jeopardy again...

It was a terrible overrule. We shall see what Roger is made of. Wawrinka has been the more aggressive player for the match. It will make it difficult to have the confidence to pull this out.

While Wawrinka's 1st serve percentage remains low, there must still be hope,

4-5 in the third...crunch time

There certainly were some moments when it was in doubt last night. Stan Wawrinka had his doubts…he thought he had it in the bag. Roger Federer had his doubts as he felt it slipping through his fingers. What drama. When one says that tennis is a unique game and somebody doesn't understand…show him a replay of this little dandy. What a game.

You are confusing choking with being human. Stan Wawrinka made mistakes as all human beings do. He missed shots here and there. Roger Federer actually may have been "choking" worse than Wawrinka was. Afterall…what is choking? Not playing up to your capabilities? Federer was heavily expected to win…and dominate this match.

Going into this match against Federer, Wawrinka was a paltry 2-14. His win at the Monte Carlo was a little tainted or suspect in the sense that Roger had just returned to the tournament from the hospital after his wife gave birth to twins. His head and soul was clearly not in that game. What happened to Stan was merely that he had reached a "Resistance and Breakthrough Point". I remember comforting my little boy Theo after he had lost a monumental tie-breaker and he broke down crying.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=1964&highlight=theo

There were no losers in this tennis match. They were both fighting and battling their emotions. You could see the strain on both players. Afterwards Roger could barely speak he was so consumed by the effort that he had made to win this match. It was a super human effort too. Wawrinka was playing awesome tennis from the backcourt. He was beating "The Man" himself. His hero. His friend. His partner. That night they were mortal enemies battling over the same prize. Like some cosmic Death Dance.

Stan really played over his head in many respects. He had to deal with the upsetting nature of the overrule in the third set. Afterall…he didn't want to beat his Davis Cup partner on account of a bad judgement by the umpire. But he didn't let himself become distracted by that…no, he kept fighting and battling. Never giving an inch to Federer and he never asked for one either.

What cost Stan the match were deficiencies in his technique which interfered with him implementing the strategy and tactics that he needed to utilise in order to get the job done. Plus there is the small variable on the other side of the net…Roger came up with some miraculous shots when he had too. Wawrinka's game took him to the stable door but he just couldn't get the horse in the barn and he knew it. That is why he gambled and went in to the net when it wouldn't seem appropriate on match point…he didn't have the confidence to conclude things because he had reached the "Resistance Point"…that point where he was out of his comfort zone. How many times must he be there before he lets himself in? Answer…as many as it takes.

That was one great tennis match last Saturday night. Both players were completely spent after a three set match. It was emotionally draining to watch as well. The O2 crowd had to be mesmerised by the spectacle. I would guess that not a single person there would have said that Wawrinka choked. He may have missed a couple of shots where one may have thought he might have made them…but so did Federer.

Think about the form of Roger Federer from the couple of nights before when he had beaten Andy Murray. Think about how far his level of play had dropped in 48 hours. Then ask yourself…did he play a great match against Murray? I would say that he did not. He played flawlessly…but not a great match. Why? Because he didn't have to. He did however play a great match against Wawrinka in a sense…because he didn't have his "A game" and he may have won with his "C game". He hung on with everything he had. Right in front of everyone and their brother. His heart was dangling on his sleeve and everyone there could see it. But he fought tooth and nail…against his Davis Cup partner.

Don't forget that this was a long time friend, the bad call, the monumental nature of the match. The conditions all added up to something of a perfect storm emotionally speaking. For both players. Wawrinka's wife was even there and she usually isn't. As for the little emotion that Wawrinka showed at a late stage in the match…he's a human being for God's sake. The argument afterwards? So fucking what? Maybe John McEnroe should have kept his mouth shut about that. Husbands and wives argue. Brothers argue. The Middle East is in flames. Who cares…it only was part of the dynamics. I say let Stan and Roger work it out themselves…in private. It is certainly none of my business or concern.

That was one great tennis match. The drama and the variables created a special moment in time. Nobody in their right mind would say that either player choked. They went up to the net and shook hands afterwards…there is where my concern is ended. Well played…I admire both of them for the spectacle that they created. The energy was electric. Right down to the end.