2017 Australian Open...ATP 2000...Melbourne, Australia

[don_budge]

Serves it out at love. Don't you love that look in his eyes when he is serving out the set and then he gets to the final game. All focus...no dumb shit. The faster courts favor the milder grips. Anything extreme when the ball gets down low and shooting off of the surface becomes awkward. The two hand backhand is not as effective...it is the higher balls that two handed players prefer. Also that little extra court that the two handed player has to cover becomes just a tad larger. If tennis wants to change the paradigm...here is one of the factors. It's simple.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer serving for the match in the fifth set. The look is one of...well it is just unbelievable. Is it disbelief? 40-0 once again. My Good Lord...how does he do it? Game, set and match. Roger Federer. The Living Proof.

[klacr]

Women are crying, grown men are weeping, Djokovic fans are seething...the old man is in another Grand Slam final.

This Australian Open marks the first time in Federer's career that he has beaten two top 5 players in 5 sets in one grand slam event.

Andre Agassi was 35 when he reached the 2005 US Open final, lost to Federer.

Amazing to think that a Venus and Serena women final with 29 combined grand slam titles could be over shadowed by a Federer/Nadal final with 31 combined GS titles.

Federer injured, I pray for Dimitrov victory.


Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Handshake...

I just watched a replay of the final set after Federer broke Wawrinka at 2-3 to go up 4-2. After match point where Wawrinka's return was long at 40-0 Federer briefly raised his hands to the crowd, his box with one hand in a fist and the other with one finger pointed at the sky. He immediately started walking to the net. By the time he reached the service line he was trotting to shake hands with his long time friend and Davis Cup teammate. Once at the net they shook hands and briefly embraced and said a few words to each other.

One winner and one loser. The loser conceding to the winner in a professional and touching manner. The winner congratulating the loser on a great match and without a single hint of gloating moves on to the next round.

After five tough sets with plenty of drama and not word of complaining on either side. I guess in the world of sports this sort of behavior is becoming a thing of the past. What will the game be like without Roger? I think deep down inside everyone knows the answer.

[bdole]

So impressed with Grigor this morning and how far his mental game has come. Played Nadal tough right to the last point, with no lapses. A far cry from last season.

[klacr]

If you play Nadal's game, you end up being on his terms. Dimitrov has improved by leaps and bounds, but his frequency (or lack thereof) to the net cost him in the latter stages.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[klacr]

Federer has only beaten Nadal at Wimbledon. Federer is 0-8 in all other grand slam matches against Rafa.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

If you play Nadal's game, you end up being on his terms. Dimitrov has improved by leaps and bounds, but his frequency (or lack thereof) to the net cost him in the latter stages.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

Novak Djokovic is the only one that has consistently demonstrated that he has Nadal's number. He is the only one that can take it aggressively at the Nadal forehand from his backhand side so that he can expose the backhand. If you allow Nadal to camp out on the backhand side he can move around his backhand and he has two lethal options from the reverse cross court forehand (inside out as most call it). Dimitrov couldn't do it and Federer has the same problem.

[arturohernandez]

I have to agree. Nadal had perfect practice for Fed over the entire Australian Open. Fed has played no one like Nadal since, well, he last played Nadal. The only chance is that Fed serves lights out and just fires on all cylinders for three sets. Or Nadal feels the effects of the five-set match. It happened a few years ago. It could happen again...

Still I doubt that in five years Nadal will be playing finals again...

In that sense, we should watch Fed the way we watched Agassi in 2005.

[klacr]

I have to agree. Nadal had perfect practice for Fed over the entire Australian Open. Fed has played no one like Nadal since, well, he last played Nadal. The only chance is that Fed serves lights out and just fires on all cylinders for three sets. Or Nadal feels the effects of the five-set match. It happened a few years ago. It could happen again...

Still I doubt that in five years Nadal will be playing finals again...

In that sense, we should watch Fed the way we watched Agassi in 2005.

2009 semis Nadal played 5+ hours against Verdasco. Came back in next match and beat Federer in 5 sets for the title. Nadal will be amped for the final. Fed beware.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stroke]

Novak Djokovic is the only one that has consistently demonstrated that he has Nadal's number. He is the only one that can take it aggressively at the Nadal forehand from his backhand side so that he can expose the backhand. If you allow Nadal to camp out on the backhand side he can move around his backhand and he has two lethal options from the reverse cross court forehand (inside out as most call it). Dimitrov couldn't do it and Federer has the same problem.

Grigor played a great match, I thought it was a great match to watch, but Nadal obviously has made a real mark on the game with the war of attrition/slugfest tennis. Nadal's hook forehands to the Fed backhand are such a sweet spot for him. Nadal seems to get an unusual amount of movement on his sidespin/slice serve, most directed to the Fed backhand. And Nadal gets such action on his forehand that the low short slice that Fed uses to success with a lot of players not only does not bother Nadal, it just gives Nadal a short ball to pound. That being said, Nadal is just a very slight favorite per the oddsmakers.

[don_budge]

2017 Australian Open...ATP 2000...Melbourne, Australia...Men's Singles Finals

Grigor played a great match, I thought it was a great match to watch, but Nadal obviously has made a real mark on the game with the war of attrition/slugfest tennis. Nadal's hook forehands to the Fed backhand are such a sweet spot for him. Nadal seems to get an unusual amount of movement on his sidespin/slice serve, most directed to the Fed backhand. And Nadal gets such action on his forehand that the low short slice that Fed uses to success with a lot of players not only does not bother Nadal, it just gives Nadal a short ball to pound. That being said, Nadal is just a very slight favorite per the oddsmakers.

Amen stroke...amen. I watched a good deal of the first four sets...off and on. I cannot watch Rafael Nadal for any extended period of time. He is nauseating to watch. It just doesn't make any sense with all of his bull shit on the court. It reeks of gamesmanship...all of it. Conjured up over time to fuck with his opponents timing in a way that just within the rules. The definition of gamesmanship. But as you know...I have never once said that I agree or disagree...or I am right and you (anybody) are wrong. bottle imagines that I must be the most open minded man on the planet. He can't get his head around it.

Sometime in the middle of the fourth or thereabouts I looked out into the field just beyond the dog kennel and lo and behold the prize mare who is pregnant with the golden egg hopefully was sprawled out and it didn't look as if she could raise herself. I yelled for the wife to come and have a emergency look as I put on my farm gear and rubber boots to go rushing out to try and raise her. I approached her from behind as she was on the ground and she managed to get herself up and as soon as she did...she kicked. She got me flush on the forearm and I knew that I was hurt and it sent me into a near shock condition. I thought she had crushed my arm. I hobbled inside and took of my coat and shirt...my arm looked like it was horribly disfigured but what it was the horse had managed to kick me so hard that she left a "hoof print" on my forearm and it had ballooned up swollen on both sides of the hoof making it look like my arm was badly damaged.

My wife witnessed the whole thing and she didn't know if she should call the doctor or the veterinarian. I got in the car and drove my self to the healthcare facility some twenty-five minutes from the farm and got to see a Dutch lady doctor without much delay. She examined my arm and determined that there wasn't any break but the impact had caused internal bleeding and bruising. Although extremely painful it looked worse than it was.

I called my partner at the club to tell him that I had been kicked by a horse and I thought that my arm was broken and after the doctor examined me I called him to tell him that I would take my classes. I'm a tough guy. I played against my best guys for an hour as well. Didn't do that badly...for a one armed old guy. It was a challenge...a performance challenge. No big deal. Just some personal mental gymnastics.

Speaking of mental gymnastics. Think of the challenge Roger Federer is facing tomorrow. It's a conundrum for Roger. Isn't it? A confusing and difficult problem or question. How to unravel Nadal and take him out of his comfort zone.

Nothing New Under the Sun...Fedor borrows a page from "Beat Them at Their Own Game"

"Do not be mechanical or pigheaded about your tactics. Always keep an open mind, aware of the whole picture and ready to change plans at any time if it seems wise. Far too many players make up their minds to play a certain point, game, set, or even match in one way, and stick to it even when it's obvious that they're getting nowhere with it. That is neither courage nor determination-it is stupidity. There are two generalities of tactics which should be borne in mind in this connection:

Never change a winning game.
Always change a losing game.

The first seems obvious. You would think that anyone would know enough to follow that rule, but for some perverse reason it seems to work that other way with some players. A man will build up a winning lead by staying back and pounding his opponent's backhand. Then suddenly, for no understandable reason except perhaps a desire to finish in a blaze of glory, he begins to rush the net, starts losing points, and ends by being defeated. Perhaps the reverse takes place. He builds up his lead by going to the net constantly but, just as he should be finishing his man off, suddenly retires to the baseline and eventually loses. Perhaps he gains his lead by slow finesse and changes to speed for no reason, or vice versa. In each case he changes a winning game before he has won, and by doing so he gets just what he deserves-a licking.

Conversely, it is equally stupid to insist upon playing to the end a type of game that is losing badly. If you do, you are certain to lose. You might lose anyways, but you might better try to win with something else. If you can't win from the baseline, go to the net. If you have been going in and it hasn't been working, stay back and see if you can unsteady your opponent. Try out something new, if what you have previously been trying has failed.

There is another approach to this tactical problem, which is that your opponent is never completely beaten until you have broken his morale and made him conscious of his impending defeat. Pounding a weakness is one way to do it. It is the longest, often the surest, and certainly the most universally used method. A method I frequently prefer is quicker, more exciting, and perhaps more dangerous, but if it's successful it inflicts the most lasting of all defeats. It is to play your opponent's strength until you break it. (This, of course, is the exception to the tactical rule of not giving your opponent a shot he likes to play.) Believe me, once a player finds his favorite shot won't win for him his whole game collapses. If he can't win with his strength he can't win at all. Once a player admits defeat to himself he is through, even though he plays on gamely, and tries to hide it. Certainly, the very fact that you attack his strong point with assurance and confidence will shake him, if you get away with it a few times. It makes him aware of your strength of purpose and will to win, and keeps tremendous mental pressure on him that is worth much to you in a long match. It takes courage and determination on your part to attack his strength, but if you do it of your own volition you are prepared for his reply and you can tune your own game accordingly."

The above out of Bill Tilden's "How to Play Better Tennis". It's a brilliant essay on tactics and match play psychology. We might want to consider something from "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" as well. But we don't have time so this will have to suffice.

I think that in a nutshell this is what Novak Djokovic does to Nadal with great success. He attacks the forehand and this opens up the weaker side...the backhand. If you allow Nadal to camp out to comfortably in the middle of the court and perhaps cheat a meter to the backhand side he has you. He will pound that forehand into the backhand until the cows come home. Not only that but he has that lethal ability to reverse cross court the situation (inside out) which doesn't leave too much to choose from. Djokovic sort of takes that out of the equation with his attack of the Nadal forehand and he does it from the backhand side and the forehand side. One reason that he can do this is that he is one of the few that seems to be comfortable taking the crosscourt topspin on his backhand early. He simply moves way in court and redirects the energy back where it came from...with interest. Once he pins Nadal over on the backhand and Nadal starts to go crosscourt from there anything that has just a hint of weakness gets pounded down the line from the Djokovic forehand.

The question for Federer is does he have these shots to play this game with Nadal? He also must come up with some really good down the line backhands on anything short from Nadal. I think that Federer's backhand is somewhat better than it has traditionally been in the past. He has made a concerted effort to improve his down the line ball. It's the cross court backhand that is worrisome to me. When he is applying topspin it seems to come up short which is right into the teeth of Nadal's strength. Federer is wresting with a real tactical problem. Nadal's serving tactics have been the subject of a lot of discussion. John McEnroe was in the announcers booth and he had quite a bit to say in this regard...as if there has been considerable improvement in his serving tactics.

This match only interests me if Federer is winning. The rest of the tennis world can have Fafa Nadal...I don't like anything about him or his game. It's ugly and it's rodeo tennis. Only possible with a huge racquet and turbo strings.

[bottle]

2017 Australian Open...ATP 2000...Melbourne, Australia...Men's Singles Finals


bottle imagines that I must be the most open minded man on the planet... Oh sure.

He can't get his head around it.

No, none of us can get our head around either you or Donald Trump. You both are so complex and wonderful and intelligent that mere mortals should not even bother to try to understand. And if we are part of the media we should just shut up and listen, according to the other Steve (Bannon).

Sorry you got kicked by the horse, but if all your bones weren't destroyed the potential exists for a build-up of character.

[don_budge]

2017 Australian Open...ATP 2000...Melbourne, Australia...Men's Singles Finals
Amen stroke...amen. I watched a good deal of the first four sets...off and on. I cannot watch Rafael Nadal for any extended period of time. He is nauseating to watch. It just doesn't make any sense with all of his bull shit on the court. It reeks of gamesmanship...all of it. Conjured up over time to fuck with his opponents timing in a way that just within the rules. The definition of gamesmanship. But as you know...I have never once said that I agree or disagree...or I am right and you (anybody) are wrong. bottle imagines that I must be the most open minded man on the planet. He can't get his head around it.

I called my partner at the club to tell him that I had been kicked by a horse and I thought that my arm was broken and after the doctor examined me I called him to tell him that I would take my classes. I'm a tough guy. I played against my best guys for an hour as well. Didn't do that badly...for a one armed old guy. It was a challenge...a performance challenge. No big deal. Just some personal mental gymnastics.

Speaking of mental gymnastics. Think of the challenge Roger Federer is facing tomorrow. It's a conundrum for Roger. Isn't it? A confusing and difficult problem or question. How to unravel Nadal and take him out of his comfort zone.

"Do not be mechanical or pigheaded about your tactics. Always keep an open mind, aware of the whole picture and ready to change plans at any time if it seems wise. Far too many players make up their minds to play a certain point, game, set, or even match in one way, and stick to it even when it's obvious that they're getting nowhere with it. That is neither courage nor determination-it is stupidity. There are two generalities of tactics which should be borne in mind in this connection:

Never change a winning game.
Always change a losing game.

The first seems obvious. You would think that anyone would know enough to follow that rule, but for some perverse reason it seems to work that other way with some players. A man will build up a winning lead by staying back and pounding his opponent's backhand. Then suddenly, for no understandable reason except perhaps a desire to finish in a blaze of glory, he begins to rush the net, starts losing points, and ends by being defeated. Perhaps the reverse takes place. He builds up his lead by going to the net constantly but, just as he should be finishing his man off, suddenly retires to the baseline and eventually loses. Perhaps he gains his lead by slow finesse and changes to speed for no reason, or vice versa. In each case he changes a winning game before he has won, and by doing so he gets just what he deserves-a licking.

Conversely, it is equally stupid to insist upon playing to the end a type of game that is losing badly. If you do, you are certain to lose. You might lose anyways, but you might better try to win with something else. If you can't win from the baseline, go to the net. If you have been going in and it hasn't been working, stay back and see if you can unsteady your opponent. Try out something new, if what you have previously been trying has failed.

There is another approach to this tactical problem, which is that your opponent is never completely beaten until you have broken his morale and made him conscious of his impending defeat. Pounding a weakness is one way to do it. It is the longest, often the surest, and certainly the most universally used method. A method I frequently prefer is quicker, more exciting, and perhaps more dangerous, but if it's successful it inflicts the most lasting of all defeats. It is to play your opponent's strength until you break it. (This, of course, is the exception to the tactical rule of not giving your opponent a shot he likes to play.) Believe me, once a player finds his favorite shot won't win for him his whole game collapses. If he can't win with his strength he can't win at all. Once a player admits defeat to himself he is through, even though he plays on gamely, and tries to hide it. Certainly, the very fact that you attack his strong point with assurance and confidence will shake him, if you get away with it a few times. It makes him aware of your strength of purpose and will to win, and keeps tremendous mental pressure on him that is worth much to you in a long match. It takes courage and determination on your part to attack his strength, but if you do it of your own volition you are prepared for his reply and you can tune your own game accordingly."

The above out of Bill Tilden's "How to Play Better Tennis". It's a brilliant essay on tactics and match play psychology. We might want to consider something from "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" as well. But we don't have time so this will have to suffice.

I think that in a nutshell this is what Novak Djokovic does to Nadal with great success. He attacks the forehand and this opens up the weaker side...the backhand. If you allow Nadal to camp out to comfortably in the middle of the court and perhaps cheat a meter to the backhand side he has you. He will pound that forehand into the backhand until the cows come home. Not only that but he has that lethal ability to reverse cross court the situation (inside out) which doesn't leave too much to choose from. Djokovic sort of takes that out of the equation with his attack of the Nadal forehand and he does it from the backhand side and the forehand side. One reason that he can do this is that he is one of the few that seems to be comfortable taking the crosscourt topspin on his backhand early. He simply moves way in court and redirects the energy back where it came from...with interest. Once he pins Nadal over on the backhand and Nadal starts to go crosscourt from there anything that has just a hint of weakness gets pounded down the line from the Djokovic forehand.

The question for Federer is does he have these shots to play this game with Nadal? He also must come up with some really good down the line backhands on anything short from Nadal. I think that Federer's backhand is somewhat better than it has traditionally been in the past. He has made a concerted effort to improve his down the line ball. It's the cross court backhand that is worrisome to me. When he is applying topspin it seems to come up short which is right into the teeth of Nadal's strength. Federer is wresting with a real tactical problem. Nadal's serving tactics have been the subject of a lot of discussion. John McEnroe was in the announcers booth and he had quite a bit to say in this regard...as if there has been considerable improvement in his serving tactics.

This match only interests me if Federer is winning. The rest of the tennis world can have Fafa Nadal...I don't like anything about him or his game. It's ugly and it's rodeo tennis. Only possible with a huge racquet and turbo strings.

Federer is winning...first set 6-4. Brilliant tactics...much as I outlined in the Tilden/Djokovic mode. Keep up the good work...don't let this rat back in the door.

[bottle]

But he did. And although Nadal does look like a big rat, I take issue with all DB has said about a gaming Nadal. His tics etc. are natural to him, not contrived. But DB is consistently wrong about a number of things so we should not be surprised.

It's the third set, 5:15 a.m. Go, Fed!