Times' Magazine Article on Roger Federer

[bottle]

Hold your animus against The New York Times, especially you tennis Nazis. For there is a great article on Roger Federer in the New York Times Magazine this week. I know because my sister sent it to me. It is by Peter de Jonge, and here it is, maybe:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=article&_r=0 ,

The article is amazing on the degree of play (like kid's play) in a typical Federer practice. And on the difference between Roger's and Rafa's production of spin.

[klacr]

I don't come to this website to jump into the pool of political commentary so I hope I am spared. I do come for tennis insights, tennis wisdom and tennis facts which I have received with great abundance during my membership to this site. Therefore I hope this thread does not go into that rabbit hole of political discourse.

This is a great article! Anything with Federer is worth spending some time on as it is the most precious commodity and Federer's time to shine is getting shorter and shorter with each passing day.
With the US Open starting on Monday, NY Times magazine will be running numerous articles on tennis. There are several other ones that I highly recommend, such as "Miracle Man" about Gael Monfils and an article about Height of pro players and its effect on the pro tour.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/magazine/usopen-monfils-miraculous-shots.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/magazine/usopen-tall-players-zverev-tennis-future.html

I will be in NYC next week for some business related to US Open. Hoping I can get away and see some of it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[bottle]

Synthesis

A favorite part of mine is when the author talks about how late Roger is in his backhand preparation and how fast he then is as the racket comes through.

I mean, we've heard every inch of Roger's backhand, or seen it, or viewed it on film, but never heard "lateness" and "quickness" as part of one package.

All I am trying to say is that there is value in a sensitive person reporting honestly on what he sees, and he will probably have to use words to convey what he means.

Will have to use LANGUAGE, so unnecessarily maligned by tennis players.

Yes there is paralysis by analysis always and sadly likely to happen, but there is also-- as good possibility-- synthesis of much information which taken by itself would overwhelm with its excessive detail-- by an open verbal intelligence.

Follow? No? Didn't think so.

[stotty]

Synthesis

A favorite part of mine is when the author talks about how late Roger is in his backhand preparation and how fast he then is as the racket comes through.

I mean, we've heard every inch of Roger's backhand, or seen it, or viewed it on film, but never heard "lateness" and "quickness" as part of one package.

All I am trying to say is that there is value in a sensitive person reporting honestly on what he sees, and he will probably have to use words to convey what he means.

Will have to use LANGUAGE, so unnecessarily maligned by tennis players.

Yes there is paralysis by analysis always and sadly likely to happen, but there is also-- as good possibility-- synthesis of much information which taken by itself would overwhelm with its excessive detail-- by an open verbal intelligence.

Follow? No? Didn't think so.

Interesting. I wouldn't say it's late in terms of preparation. It's the around transition point at the end of the backswing into the forward swing that is incredibly quick. I love his spring-loaded returns off kick serves where he deliberately delays things to get that spring-loaded effect. Sometimes he's clean off the ground when he strikes those. I am not sure how Roger compares to other players in terms of 'lateness' and 'quickness' but the archive might tell us.

The article was long but fairly good. I think Roger has taken full advantage of Novak's demise, which opened a door that until then had been firmly locked. It will be interesting to see Nadal and Roger meet again at the US Open.

[bottle]

Yes, and you could be right in saying he isn't late and still be appreciative of the author's surprising, provocative statement, I'll bet. The distinction between being late and not being late could be pretty fine. I'm for provocative statements in general. And I know somebody else who is too-- he calls it "connecting the dots." I think that sometimes even if the analyst is slightly off, he does a service by going ahead and expressing his original thought. Which then gives a listener or reader something to bounce off of.