Tweet
John,
Your tennisplayer.net is fantastic. I rave about it to all my tennis friends and I have only had it a month.
Here is a suggestion and challenge to your marvelous technicians and analysts.
You obviously have focused a great deal on Federer and more recently on Nadal, two players who are taking tennis beyond what many of us thought possible.
So you can anticipate the question—why does Federer have so much more trouble with Nadal than with anyone else? Yes, of course, Nadal is a load especially on clay. The conventional wisdom suggests that Nadal’s heavy forehand topspin to Federer puts him at a disadvantage on his relatively weaker backhand.
Well, if so, how come both Blake (twice) and Youzhny (at the 06 Open) have been able to basically outhit Nadal and beat him decisively? They both have one-handed backhands that are not as good as Federer’s. Neither is as good a player as Roger (who is?) although Blake’s best is pretty close and Youzhny was obviously playing very well at the Open this year.
When I watch Roger play Rafael, I see that he wins when he is playing well even on clay. This was true in the 05 French semis where Federer served horribly in two or three of the sets. This year Federer destroyed players like Monaco and Ferrer in clay in Monte Carlo and Rome. He basically did as well with everyone on clay as he does on other surfaces except Nadal. Even there, he should have won the Rome final. Forget the two match points he missed on his forehand. He let him up in the second set tiebreaker when he could have put him the clamps on him. But he actually played more net in Rome than he did at Wimbledon and did so effectively. Same thing at Monte Carlo but he missed more and his backhand was not as good as in Rome.
So here is my question. What are the differences in Federer’s backhands when he is taking it to Nadal vs. when he is either missing or hitting weak returns that allow Nadal to gain control of the point? I would love to see these high speed analyses.
I started wondering in general about the differences between shots that are effective and those that are either misses or weak. You have mentioned that Federer severely mishits more forehands than anyone. Does he not watch the ball as well on those or does he move his eyes to the point of contact too soon and thus not track the ball all the way to the hit? Or is it footwork or indecisiveness (harder to see on film).
Now I am, among other things, a sports psychologist (most of my consulting is in business using these performance techniques) who believes that Nadal IS in Federer’s head in some way. But even if that is the explanation, there should be physical evidence that you can pick up. If someone is not confident, it shows up in timing of their shots and in footwork and follow through. I believe that if Federer plays Nadal enough, he will get used to him just like he has overcome previous nemeses like Hewitt, Agassi, and even Nalbandian (results the last three years much different from before then). I think the head stuff started with the first point in the 2005 French. Federer hit his patented inside out forehand for a winner, only to have Nadal run 20 feet outside the sideline and hit a winner. I think I saw him look up several times during that match, something I never see him do against anyone else. Now even spooked, Federer is pretty tough and he does not look up at Nadal anymore, but he does not play his normal shots all the time. As I said, when Roger is on, no one touches him, but Nadal is so relentless, fast, and talented that he demands 4-5 sets of that level tennis and even Roger has trouble with that.
In case, it is not obvious, I am a BIG Roger fan. My first hero was Tony Trabert, then Laver, Borg, McEnroe, and what I thought would be my all timer, Sampras. But Roger plays tennis the way it should be played. He impresses even non-tennis fans. And (remember I am old), when tennis goes back to normal sized rackets and/or bans two-handed backhands for men (hard to accept a man Safin’s size using two hands even though his backhand is pretty special), Roger will rule completely.
Thanks for what you are doing for tennis. Wish you had been around when I was young or even 15 years ago. Thanks for touting the beauty and flexibility of the one-handed backhand. You are good for our special sport.
Robin W. Pratt, Ph.D.
Your tennisplayer.net is fantastic. I rave about it to all my tennis friends and I have only had it a month.
Here is a suggestion and challenge to your marvelous technicians and analysts.
You obviously have focused a great deal on Federer and more recently on Nadal, two players who are taking tennis beyond what many of us thought possible.
So you can anticipate the question—why does Federer have so much more trouble with Nadal than with anyone else? Yes, of course, Nadal is a load especially on clay. The conventional wisdom suggests that Nadal’s heavy forehand topspin to Federer puts him at a disadvantage on his relatively weaker backhand.
Well, if so, how come both Blake (twice) and Youzhny (at the 06 Open) have been able to basically outhit Nadal and beat him decisively? They both have one-handed backhands that are not as good as Federer’s. Neither is as good a player as Roger (who is?) although Blake’s best is pretty close and Youzhny was obviously playing very well at the Open this year.
When I watch Roger play Rafael, I see that he wins when he is playing well even on clay. This was true in the 05 French semis where Federer served horribly in two or three of the sets. This year Federer destroyed players like Monaco and Ferrer in clay in Monte Carlo and Rome. He basically did as well with everyone on clay as he does on other surfaces except Nadal. Even there, he should have won the Rome final. Forget the two match points he missed on his forehand. He let him up in the second set tiebreaker when he could have put him the clamps on him. But he actually played more net in Rome than he did at Wimbledon and did so effectively. Same thing at Monte Carlo but he missed more and his backhand was not as good as in Rome.
So here is my question. What are the differences in Federer’s backhands when he is taking it to Nadal vs. when he is either missing or hitting weak returns that allow Nadal to gain control of the point? I would love to see these high speed analyses.
I started wondering in general about the differences between shots that are effective and those that are either misses or weak. You have mentioned that Federer severely mishits more forehands than anyone. Does he not watch the ball as well on those or does he move his eyes to the point of contact too soon and thus not track the ball all the way to the hit? Or is it footwork or indecisiveness (harder to see on film).
Now I am, among other things, a sports psychologist (most of my consulting is in business using these performance techniques) who believes that Nadal IS in Federer’s head in some way. But even if that is the explanation, there should be physical evidence that you can pick up. If someone is not confident, it shows up in timing of their shots and in footwork and follow through. I believe that if Federer plays Nadal enough, he will get used to him just like he has overcome previous nemeses like Hewitt, Agassi, and even Nalbandian (results the last three years much different from before then). I think the head stuff started with the first point in the 2005 French. Federer hit his patented inside out forehand for a winner, only to have Nadal run 20 feet outside the sideline and hit a winner. I think I saw him look up several times during that match, something I never see him do against anyone else. Now even spooked, Federer is pretty tough and he does not look up at Nadal anymore, but he does not play his normal shots all the time. As I said, when Roger is on, no one touches him, but Nadal is so relentless, fast, and talented that he demands 4-5 sets of that level tennis and even Roger has trouble with that.
In case, it is not obvious, I am a BIG Roger fan. My first hero was Tony Trabert, then Laver, Borg, McEnroe, and what I thought would be my all timer, Sampras. But Roger plays tennis the way it should be played. He impresses even non-tennis fans. And (remember I am old), when tennis goes back to normal sized rackets and/or bans two-handed backhands for men (hard to accept a man Safin’s size using two hands even though his backhand is pretty special), Roger will rule completely.
Thanks for what you are doing for tennis. Wish you had been around when I was young or even 15 years ago. Thanks for touting the beauty and flexibility of the one-handed backhand. You are good for our special sport.
Robin W. Pratt, Ph.D.
Comment