2015 U. S. Open…ATP 2000…Flushing Meadows, New York

[don_budge]

The Loser…Roger Federer

http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/us-open-2015-federer-final-loss-reaction

Roger's thought about coming out on the short end of the stick…again. Perhaps his level of play is out of our reach but we can still aspire to have the kind of class that he exhibits. It's only a game…albeit a lot of fun when you win. When you lose…well it's a different story. His attitude is the right one. He speaks about learning of one's self. This is what it is all about in the end. Then we die.

It's fairly easy to look good when everything is going our way and quite a different matter when we come out on the short end. Show a little courage…what the hell…show a lot. Everyone makes that choice…that decision. It is afterall…a human right. How about a "human responsibility"? If there exists such a thing.

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

-Rudyard Kipling from "If"

[stotty]

I watched some of the highlights this morning. Both players are simply out of this world, aren't they?

When you watch a game like that where the players are so good and the standard so high, you come to the conclusion that it's all about coping with momentum shifts and playing the bigs points. Djokovic seems to edge the big points against Federer. He can be 15-40 on serve yet have no problem pulling the score back.

Djokovic is awfully good. His defence, movement and ability to get in position are simply amazing. I know some find him robotic but nonetheless I really love to watch him play. You just have to enjoy watching someone that good.

I love the Federer/Djokovic match-up. I find that it makes an attractive game to watch. Federer is tantalisingly close to winning at times. Maybe next time.

[klacr]

Dokovic vs. Federer

Federer was 4-23 in break point conversions.

Djokovic was unrelenting in his defense. Keeping points physical, not quick like Federer wanted.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

Slow conditions…advantage Novak Djokovic

Federer was 4-23 in break point conversions.

Djokovic was unrelenting in his defense. Keeping points physical, not quick like Federer wanted.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

All indications that the conditions were on the slow side. The rain undoubtably left the air a bit heavier and the balls were picking up moisture. It's all in the game and you didn't hear Federer complaining about anything. The 4 out of 23 is almost inexplainable…it's an indication maybe that Federer was not "on" his game. It is always a combination of conditions and the opponent…not to be confused with excuses.

Novak is the best in the world three out of five day in and day out on any given day. His defence is immaculate but it is interesting how mediocre his game is in the forecourt and at the net.

In the days when the racquets were first enlarged the advantage went to the server and the net player…it simply speeded up the game. But with the advent of the strings the advantage has swung back to the baseline.

But in the end it might just be a factor of youth and age. The legs of Djokovic have fewer miles and more spring in them. Federer for his part is technically past his prime although he did buy a couple of years in the game by switching to a bigger racquet just as the walls were caving in.

It's a great story. The classic game is about to disappear. Tennis metaphoring life…always. It seems that life as we knew it traditionally speaking is disappearing also. This story doesn't have such a happy ending.

[don_budge]

All-court Classic Game versus Backcourt Modern Game

Djokovic is awfully good. His defence, movement and ability to get in position are simply amazing. I know some find him robotic but nonetheless I really love to watch him play. You just have to enjoy watching someone that good.

Dramatically speaking it is a great match-up. Backcourt modern game versus the all-court classic game. The two best at their respective styles. Shades of Borg and McEnroe.

It's not that Djokovic is robotic…obviously he does tons of improvisational play, particularly against Federer. But he has some rather glaring deficiencies in his overall game. He looks almost amateurish at times when he is at the net.

The game has been over engineered as the artificial condition factors play too heavily in the way that the game is being played. Rest assured…you will not be hearing this kind of talk for long. Memories only go back so far.

[klacr]

Djokovic is #1 in the world for a reason.

Sunday night he systematically broke down Federer. Djokovic is great at getting players to play well below their levels. He made Fed play his B level game. Djokovic's defense and neutralizing capabilities garnered so much respect from Federer that the swiss maestro was pressing and missing routine balls in order to make them perfect. Fed's legs became a bit heavy, technique on the backhand began to get a bit sloppy. Even when it seemed Fed had an advantage in a point, he never truly did as Djokovic would bring it back to even.

Early in the match, Djokovic gained control and never gave that up.

Match stats were interesting though
Total Points: Djokovic 147
Federer 145
But won vast majority of critical points

Of the 23 break point opportunities Federer had. 11 of those came on 2nd serves. Ouch.

Federer's forehand winners 18 Errors: 56
Djokovic forehand winners 15 Errors: 37

And as for this half-volley off return of serve stuff (SABR) - Djokovic hit two pristine lobs right over top to humble Fed and make him second guess this tactic.

Love him or hate him, you can't deny that Djokovic is the #1 player in the world. Scary to think that he is playing, by my estimations, 85% of his true capacity. Just imagine if he actually learned to play the net?

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gsheiner]

I'm surprised that no one has commented on how passively Federer played the break points. I was literally screaming at the television imploring federer to come in and take his choices at the net.

As KL pointed out, 11 of his opportunities were on second serves. Once he attempted to run around and hit a forehand, got jammed, and missed.

All the other times he hit a return and retreated. Inevitably he played passively from the baseline and lost the point.

The only times Fed had Djokovic rattled was when he attacked quickly , either on the return or very early in a rally. You can see the expression on Djokovic's face when this happens, and he doesn't like it at all.

Why would he like it? He now has to hit a precise shot low over the neck against a pretty good volleyer. He can take his chances with a lob as well, but the slightest mistake and its an easy put away. It's so much more comfortable rallying to fed's backhand and waiting for the inevitable short ball or miss.

Can you imagine Edberg ( who was probably pulling out his hair) or Mcenroe or Sampras not chipping and charging on those second serve break points?

Its the same issue to a certain extent that Fed had against Nadal. He had matches where he had tons of break points and rarely converted. Then, as well, he stuck to strategies which clearly weren't working.

As much as I like Fed's game, he gets too passive on these break points.

I believe he won more than 50% of his net approaches if I recall the stats from yesterday's match. I'd take those numbers any day over a baseline rally with Djokovic or Nadal.

In my view, Fed isn't that far from beating Djokovic. He just needs to keep improving his attack game, and get a little more daring in rallies to come in even if the situation isn't ideal, just to pressure Djokovic.

[tennishacker36]

Federer was 4-23 in break point conversions.

Djokovic was unrelenting in his defense. Keeping points physical, not quick like Federer wanted.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

This. Federer Will Be Back!

[don_budge]

Tactics…attacking by forcing your opponent to attack

All indications that the conditions were on the slow side. The rain undoubtably left the air a bit heavier and the balls were picking up moisture. It's all in the game and you didn't hear Federer complaining about anything. The 4 out of 23 is almost inexplainable…it's an indication maybe that Federer was not "on" his game. It is always a combination of conditions and the opponent…not to be confused with excuses.

I'm surprised that no one has commented on how passively Federer played the break points. I was literally screaming at the television imploring federer to come in and take his choices at the net.

As KL pointed out, 11 of his opportunities were on second serves. Once he attempted to run around and hit a forehand, got jammed, and missed.

All the other times he hit a return and retreated. Inevitably he played passively from the baseline and lost the point.

The only times Fed had Djokovic rattled was when he attacked quickly , either on the return or very early in a rally. You can see the expression on Djokovic's face when this happens, and he doesn't like it at all.

Why would he like it? He now has to hit a precise shot low over the neck against a pretty good volleyer. He can take his chances with a lob as well, but the slightest mistake and its an easy put away. It's so much more comfortable rallying to fed's backhand and waiting for the inevitable short ball or miss.

Can you imagine Edberg ( who was probably pulling out his hair) or Mcenroe or Sampras not chipping and charging on those second serve break points?

Its the same issue to a certain extent that Fed had against Nadal. He had matches where he had tons of break points and rarely converted. Then, as well, he stuck to strategies which clearly weren't working.

As much as I like Fed's game, he gets too passive on these break points.

I believe he won more than 50% of his net approaches if I recall the stats from yesterday's match. I'd take those numbers any day over a baseline rally with Djokovic or Nadal.

In my view, Fed isn't that far from beating Djokovic. He just needs to keep improving his attack game, and get a little more daring in rallies to come in even if the situation isn't ideal, just to pressure Djokovic.

I have yet to see the match. But the 4 of 23 success ratio on break points was alarming to me and it could just be that as you say…he was too passive. Federer did not appear to be firing on all eight cylinders as they say in the final and this could be attributed to many factors. One is that he had been flying so high it was only a matter of time that he fell back to earth. Who knows…he may have been injured.

But its interesting nonetheless. What should he have done…he had in his possession so many chances even though he may not have been as sharp as he could have been. I have an idea.

Djokovic is such a great defender isn't he? So what is it that he doesn't do so well? One thing that I find Djokovic is very mediocre at (compared to the rest of his game) is his ability to transition from the backcourt to the net. He looks positively amateurish at times in his approach attempts and net play. Perhaps a daring play that would go hand in hand with his net rush on half volley return of serves would be to hit the ball so short with heavy slice that Novak would have no choice but to be drawn to the net therefore forcing him to play a game that he is less comfortable with.

It seems to me that of all of the strokes in the arsenal of Federer this is the stroke that he under utilizes. He used to make his living off of it…or the combination of it. He forced the likes of Robin Söderling to play his two handed backhand from a short angled heavily sliced ball and eventually he had his opponents playing one handed to his one handed backhand. Automatic advantage to Federer.

Many times Federer tries to drive that top spin backhand on the return and the ball falls short in the court leaving a player like Djokovic to mop up on it. Whereas he has much better depth control with the slice…his ability to play it deep and play it short is so much better controlled. So I wonder if he might have tried to bring Novak in…if he was alternating between the attack going forward and "attacking" by bringing Novak in…he may have been able to offset his being a bit off his game with some enhanced tactical acumen. By subtly keeping the opponent off balance…you gain control.

[stotty]

So near...so far

I think both Nadal (even at his best) and Roger are a little stumped when playing Novak. Over five sets it's a nightmare for both of them. Both men HAVE to change their game to beat Novak while Novak himself can within reason still play his normal game.

Nadal has to hug the baseline (somewhat against his nature) when he plays Novak or he gets moved around from pillar to post. He has also had to improve and use his DTL forehand more often because going constantly crosscourt (as with everyone else on the tour) is like going into the lion's mouth, and lands him in trouble. He cannot repeatedly swing his serve out wide (as he can with everyone else) to Novak's backhand either or Novak's sits there waiting to pick it off. While he can break Novak's serve better than Roger can, he has major trouble holding his own! Novak is Nadal's biggest nightmare.

Novak is also turning out to be Roger's nightmare too. While Roger is trying desperately to adapt to win another slam, it isn't working...well not against Novak anyway. SABR can backfire. I am not fond of the tactic. Nor I am fond of the way Roger returns against Novak. Parrying the return back and then going to work thereafter works against everyone else, but not against Novak. It just gives Novak a chance to grab hold of the rally. Every time they play Roger is covering more ground than Novak over the course of a match.

I think the same as don_budge about Novak's deficiencies in the forecourt. It seems obvious that Roger should use his sliced backhand to draw Novak in. So why doesn't he do it? If we can see it then for sure Edberg and Luthi can see it too? Could it be the tactic is just too intricate to employ? The danger of it backfiring is too great perhaps? Who knows....be nice to find out.

What I didn't understand from the highlights I have seen so far, is why Roger played so much to Novak's backhand. It's extremely difficult to win backhand cross court rallies against Novak yet they seemed to be having them all the time. Novak's backhand is the most secure in the game. I can see it's hard to change the pattern when it starts but they seemed to fall into these backhand exchanges all too easily and all too often.

On the face of things Roger seems close to being able to beat Novak, but deeper beneath the surface he's actually nowhere near it.

[don_budge]

It ain't the miles…its the terrain.

Novak is also turning out to be Roger's nightmare too. While Roger is trying desperately to adapt to win another slam, it isn't working...well not against Novak anyway. SABR can backfire. I am not fond of the tactic. Nor I am fond of the way Roger returns against Novak. Parrying the return back and then going to work thereafter works against everyone else, but not against Novak. It just gives Novak a chance to grab hold of the rally. Every time they play Roger is covering more ground than Novak over the course of a match.

I think the same as don_budge about Novak's deficiencies in the forecourt. It seems obvious that Roger should use his sliced backhand to draw Novak in. So why doesn't he do it? If we can see it then for sure Edberg and Luthi can see it too? Could it be the tactic is just too intricate to employ? The danger of it backfiring is too great perhaps? Who knows....be nice to find out.

What I didn't understand from the highlights I have seen so far, is why Roger played so much to Novak's backhand. It's extremely difficult to win backhand cross court rallies against Novak yet they seemed to be having them all the time. Novak's backhand is the most secure in the game. I can see it's hard to change the pattern when it starts but they seemed to fall into these backhand exchanges all too easily and all too often.

On the face of things Roger seems close to being able to beat Novak, but deeper beneath the surface he's actually nowhere near it.

Thanks for the excellent and thought provoking post…Coach Stotty. I say "Coach" because this sounds like it was written by a genuine coach of tennis players. Sure…discussions about technique can be fascinating and enlightening but in the end you have to play the game. These are the types of discussions that I have a lot with all of my students. Asking the question…what if?

First of all I think that Novak is Roger's nemesis for one basic reason and that is a question of miles…and the argument can be made that it isn't the miles, its the terrain. Roger, being 6 years the senior of Djokovic starts every match at a disadvantage from a physical point of view. Those 6 years have logged a millions miles and not only that they are tough miles. Playing endless tennis tournaments and all of the endless and required preparation that goes along with that will certainly age you and it is just beginning to show on our man Federer. The effort that he has made to salvage a couple of more years as an elite player has been super human and is testimony to his passion for the game. It is starting to show in his face and his hairline…and it leaves for him to explain how his body feels after the rigors of playing at break neck speed. Djokovic is going to be hard pressed to make it to where Roger is at. When Djokovic is 34 it will be very, very difficult to play his style of game with all of the gymnastics and contortions…the sliding braking on hard courts. Whereas Roger still appears to be ice-skating his way around the court. Gliding…like a Gretsky.

In the current matchup between these two…Federer's disadvantage is on Novak's service game. Again it is a question of youth and quickness. Being just a tad slower on the return diminishes the options and sharpness of Federer's returns. While Federer may be serving better and smarter or at least as well as at any point in his career…his return game is a bit more vulnerable to a cagey veteran as Djokovic who knows how to take care of his serve by delivering knockout combinations. While he isn't what you would call a great server classically speaking he knows how to back it up…with his tremendous backcourt game. He is on the attack as soon as he smells the opportunity. Once again he is right out of the book in this regard…maintaining pressure on his opponent.

Federer's tactic of the bum's rush on the return of serve is a disruptive tactic and its own right it is an excellent one but it is not a tactic to bet the house on. The tactic is only good enough to use a couple of strategic times and even in that case…Federer has to be feeling very sharp to pull it off. Once again it is a matter of youth…young eyes and legs…feeling good and alert. On a given day a 34 year old may just start to feel the gravity of Father Time beginning to pull him down…down to the Earth. Playing too defensively on the return against Novak is the Kiss of Death as he will leap on any opportunity as I mentioned earlier. The answer lies in somehow neutralizing the serve as quick as possible…and this is what makes Novak so tough on his service game. He doesn't give anything away.

I have yet to see the entire match and I hope that I will get that opportunity soon. I have this feeling from watching the highlights and from the stats that Federer wasn't feeling his best on this day. The toll of the tournament may have caught up with him. He did exactly what he wanted to do and what he needed to do…but I believe that he knows that even this is maybe not enough to catch the streaking Djokovic at this point in his career. The toll on Roger is not one of a single match as in this championship match but in the weeks and months leading up to it.

The amount of concentration and determination is depleting when you are at the level that Federer has maintained himself at for the recent weeks of the Western & Southern and the U. S. Open. It was just too much to expect…to be able to capture the magic once again in a best of five showdown on the biggest stage in the tennis world with the fittest and best current tennis player in the world. He said that his goal was to make the finals and he did just that. It was the most reasonable goal and it wasn't an indication that he would be happy to finish second to Djokovic. He was being realistic and therefore intelligent. By playing it smart he gave himself the chance and he put himself to win the whole kit and caboodle…but his 34 year old body was edged out by the younger version of Djokovic.

Tilden would say that "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" and if you examine the game of Djokovic if there is a weak link it is in his approach game and net play. You might just throw in his mid court play. Balls kept low, somewhat short and skidding to his backhand have a knack for somewhat disarming that wing of his. When Novak drops the other hand from his backhand he is playing from a lesser position of strength although his slice backhand is nothing to sneeze at. But this is where I would look for a tactical strategy against the likes of him. Perhaps you have to borrow a bit from Djokovic's strategy against Nadal where he attacks the strength of Nadal until he opens it up to the weaker side. Maybe you must attack the forehand first in order to really expose any "weak link" in Djokovic's chain. Deep and hard to the forehand…then looking to go short and low to the backhand. Maybe it might behoove Federer to look to develop something a bit more slithery off of the forehand and down the line as well. Something between his Federfore and his Federer Featherer.

Somehow drawing Novak in seems to be a good play at the most opportune of times. Break points might just be that time. Break points are a ticklish situation and if you get your opponent to play from a weaker position or from a position where they are not as comfortable it seems you are swinging the percentage incrementally in your favor. The interesting thing is there is no other tennis player currently playing the game that has this kind of play in their repertoire…only Roger. This is another aspect of the "book of Tilden". Its an aspect of tactics…a limited subject currently in the manner that the game is being played in the "modern age" of tennis.

This is the closest rivalry today that might even come within a sniff of that of the great John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg of yesteryear. But unfortunately it is a bit lopsided because of the age difference and therefore the mileage discrepancy. Federer is doing great that the head to head is even. Its further testimony…as to why he is the "Living Proof" in my paradigm of coaching tennis.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer post match interview...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3S97D5n5t4

Here is the post match interview. He deals with the break point questions…at least on the surface. The one question that would have been at the top of my list would have been about the conditions. Did the rain delay slow down the conditions and if so…how did that effect his chances? Roger does a exemplary job in facing the media after a disappointing defeat.

[stroke]

Copy that db. Ever classy Roger showing how it is done after a very, very, tough loss. I also really like how Novak post match interview responded to the question about how he felt about the overwhelming, to me unprecedented crowd support Roger received the entire match.

[stotty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3S97D5n5t4

Here is the post match interview. He deals with the break point questions…at least on the surface. The one question that would have been at the top of my list would have been about the conditions. Did the rain delay slow down the conditions and if so…how did that effect his chances? Roger does a exemplary job in facing the media after a disappointing defeat.

Copy that db. Ever classy Roger showing how it is done after a very, very, tough loss. I also really like how Novak post match interview responded to the question about how he felt about the overwhelming, to me unprecedented crowd support Roger received the entire match.

It's very important to know how to lose as well as win. Roger does both extremely well. He's the best example of how to conduct yourself the game has ever had.

Two factors slowed down the speed of the game in the final. 1) They played later in the day. 2) The atmosphere was moist after the rain had stopped. But these factors are all part of outdoor tennis and have be considered par for the course. Roger and Novak know this, and that it cuts both ways. Wimbledon 2014 was a very quick day and Novak still won...just more narrowly.

[don_budge]

The match…the difference

Two factors slowed down the speed of the game in the final. 1) They played later in the day. 2) The atmosphere was moist after the rain had stopped. But these factors are all part of outdoor tennis and have be considered par for the course. Roger and Novak know this, and that it cuts both ways. Wimbledon 2014 was a very quick day and Novak still won...just more narrowly.

Of course…both Roger and Novak understand all of the ins and outs. But it would be interesting to hear them explain these very factors to the less knowledgable…therefore my question to them about how the conditions effect the style of play for example…the attacking style of Federer and the defending style of Djokovic.

The condition favored Djokovic for the very reasons that you mention. The same is true for the 2014 Wimbledon…Federer let one slip away there as well.

Here is the match…finally. I am going to watch it and perhaps have a comment or two. It was a great tournament for Roger and for tennis general. I still believe that the difference in these two guys in the age difference and not in talent or any other related aspect. It is only about the legs. It's great that it is only about the legs now…at one point it was about the legs and the equipment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swD-grd-JWU