Federer- the overlooked part of his game

It is a mistake to assess Federer just by comparing his forehand and backhand with those of others.

The key to the Federer game is taking the ball early, something whose advantage just cannot be quantified. This amplifies an already complete repertoire of shots, and this is exactly why he still causes Djokovic so many problems in spite of being well past is prime. This is an aspect of Federer which is ignored when people just look at his shots rather than also at how and when he hits them.

He is unique in this respect. Looking around, I wonder who the next player to play this aggressive style will be. Nadal is basically a retriever. Nole is more aggressive, but not as much as Federer normally.

This is also why Djoker handles Nadal easily. Although the Nadal forehand is good, he doesn’t take the ball early, giving Djoker plenty of time to retrieve it.

Against Federer, Djoker is rushed for time like most other players are. This is what a lot of players say when they play him, and this is what makes Fed so great. You just can’t settle down because Federer is always stepping into the court, and looking to dictate the points. You are never comfortable when playing Federer.

Here is Djoker after Federer beat him in the Masters Cup (WTF) last year about why it is so tough to play Federer:

How did it compare to the US Open semifinal against him?

NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, to me, he's maybe playing the best tennis in 2010. He's really stepping in, hitting the backhands and forehands all over the court, winners. Every ball kind of listens to him. Comes in, just close to the line. It's very hard. He doesn't give you a lot of free points. It's very hard to play him. He's always on top of you, make pressure, he's very aggressive. That's why he's there.

This is something that cannot be drilled without incredible talent, it's why some of us regard Rogers tennis as so much more than the more effective stuff coming from the top two right now, and why there's every chance he'll be around for a few years yet despite advancing years.

In all my time watching tennis I can only think of McEnroe who had the same talent.

And Agassi? He took the ball very early as well.

Hmmmm. I forgot him. Maybe, but I put him below the top 2 for virtuosity - what Mac and Fed have in common is that they match the early ball with variety and creativity. AA wasn't at that level imo but I take your point about the early ball for sure.

In terms of talent alone, I woudl not even put Agassi above Rios. I have seen Rios outplaying Agassi and that was pretty impressive. However Rios was never constistent and his mental strength was not that good.

McEnroe was certainly what we could call at the time a genius....but he would have had to work much harder cause his technique was very at a disadvantage when the younger generation who learnt to play with teh bigger frame arrived on board. McEnroe simply could not cope with the pace of the ball from 85. All his half volleys and pushing shots from the back of the court were very easy to handle for the new and fitter generation. McEnroe suffered from having learnt his game with a wooden racquet.

Glad to see Djoko say that in his view Federer played the best tennis in 2010. It doesn't that his 2010 tennis is better than than some of his previous years but that's how I see it. Of course the consistency was not there. But his game is more complete now and his timing better.

Tenez wrote:In terms of talent alone, I woudl not even put Agassi above Rios.

Interesting. I'd need your definition of talent to fully understand your thoughts behind that.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:In terms of talent alone, I woudl not even put Agassi above Rios.

Interesting. I'd need your definition of talent to fully understand your thoughts behind that.

Talent in tennis is essentially eye/hand coordination, which means in short timing and reflexes. Being able to take time away from your opponent, being one step ahead as Djoko says (not always the case though but in 99% of cases). Now what makes some players champions and others not is the ability to produce this talent consistently and more importantly under pressure. This is where Agassi was certainly better than Rios of course.

Just look at Federer v Nalbandian. Talent wise there is very little separating them. Yet one has 16 slams, the other none...worse only one slam final!

You cannot look at achievements to try to measure someone's talent. It's very difficult to measure talent in sport cause there are other factors but it can actually be obvious to the eye too if we don;t get into this fanship.

Indeed, BB and Tenez. The talent required to do this is comparable to that required to hit a great forehand. In fact, taking the ball early and hitting a normal forehand might be more effectiev than taking it late and hitting a vicious forehand. Of course, Federer both took it early and hit a magnificient forehand, when he was in form. No wonder people felt hustled, harried and bullied around when playing him. Federer rips you apart, Nadal wears you down and Djoker outplays you. That's the difference between the three of them.

Yes, that sounds like a reasonable definition of tennis talent.
Mental strength and physical fitness would be separate. Not sure where footwork and court awareness would be part of talent or not.

But anyway, I always thought Agassi's timing and reflexes were amazing, especially on his return of serve and his ability to rally from inside the baseline.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But anyway, I always thought Agassi's timing and reflexes were amazing, especially on his return of serve and his ability to rally from inside the baseline.

Yes they were certainly impressive but if someone can see the ball earlier than him and move a fraction earlier than Agassi, he might be more efficient in getting to the ball and retruning without this rushed factor and therefore look less impressive.

That in my view was typically Federer's case. He could return Sampras serve better on grass than Agassi. But it did not look as impressive cause Federer was simply seeing the ball and moving earlier than Agassi himself. Even more impressive when you see Fed returning Karlovic serve live on grass!!!! It's simply most of teh time too fast for people to really appreciate the amazing reflexes and timing skills of Federer....well certainly that he used to have until AO 10.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:But anyway, I always thought Agassi's timing and reflexes were amazing, especially on his return of serve and his ability to rally from inside the baseline.

Yes they were certainly impressive but if someone can see the ball earlier than him and move a fraction earlier than Agassi, he might be more efficient in getting to the ball and retruning without this rushed factor and therefore look less impressive.

That in my view was typically Federer's case. He could return Sampras serve better on grass than Agassi. But it did not look as impressive cause Federer was simply seeing the ball and moving earlier than Agassi himself. Even more impressive when you see Fed returning Karlovic serve live on grass!!!! It's simply most of teh time too fast for people to really appreciate the amazing reflexes and timing skills of Federer....well certainly that he used to have until AO 10.

I think you are saying that if what a player does looks effortless it's difficult to appreciate quite how well they do it - no?

During the USO a friend said that you should listen to a Federer match on the radio - you can hear his opponent's shoes squeaking away as the player gets into position for the shot, but he said that when the ball is on Fed's side there is comparative silence.

Exactly. You can see that very well when watching nalbandian, Mecir or Daventport on a good day for instance. Never rushed but they rush everybody else.

Agassi was a spectacular player but when faced with guys who were faster, he was the one being rushed. So obvious versus Medvedev in that FO final until Medvedev got the crowd against him or all the 3 matches I saw between Rios and Agassi.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:In terms of talent alone, I woudl not even put Agassi above Rios.

Interesting. I'd need your definition of talent to fully understand your thoughts behind that.

He also think Ivan ljubicic is more talented than Nadal. Tenez rates talent on how pretty you look when you swing the racquet based on his own subjective requirements.

There is a good case for that isn't it?

Old Ljubicic moving like a tree has beaten peak Nadal.

Tenez wrote:There is a good case for that isn't it?

Old Ljubicic moving like tree has beaten peak Nadal.

No tenez there is no case for that, none whatsoever. Talent without results is impossible to measure. You do realize that they keep score in tennis and it isn't figure skating or rhythymic dancing where judges rate you on how pretty you look or how technically pure your game is. Those numbers they have on the bottom of the screen that is the score and without wins or losses there is no quantifiable way to objectively measure greatness.

Tenez is very clear and consistent about this. What's your definition socal?

socal1976 wrote:

Tenez wrote:There is a good case for that isn't it?

Old Ljubicic moving like tree has beaten peak Nadal.

Talent without results is impossible to measure. You do realize that they keep score in tennis and it isn't figure skating or rhythymic dancing where judges rate you on how pretty you look or how technically pure your game is. Those numbers they have on the bottom of the screen that is the score and without wins or losses there is no quantifiable way to objectively measure greatness.

Do you realise that because you are blind to talent you are only having vague ideas about the sport? You only draw conclusions based on untangible parameters. So for you the most talented artist in the world is the richest? That's why you are not capable of actually having a proper tennis conversation cause you only have figures and numbers to discuss tennis and can't see the actually what makes a tennis player succesful or not.

Djokovic is better than Federer cause he won last time around. Full stop. Doesn;t matter whether Fed could have scored an another ace or not...it's completely irrelevant to you.

I have no problem with that. You can't build an eye for the game over night obviously but at least don't try to limit all interesting discussions to a record book we all know by heart.

Socal, do you really believe Novak '11, who has been struggling against grandpa Fed, is a better, more complete player than Fed '06?

This is a good article from the NYT about Federer's court positioning. His ability to take the ball so early allows him to sit on the baseline and dictate points, consequently rushing his opponent.

http://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/for-federer-its-all-about-court-position/

emancipator wrote:Socal, do you really believe Novak '11, who has been struggling against grandpa Fed, is a better, more complete player than Fed '06?

I think Novak 2011 takes fed on clay for sure. On grass he would get beat for sure and it would be a tough match on a hardcourt, depending if it is a fast hardcourt or a slower one like Australia.

socal1976 wrote:

emancipator wrote:Socal, do you really believe Novak '11, who has been struggling against grandpa Fed, is a better, more complete player than Fed '06?

I think Novak 2011 takes fed on clay for sure.

oh!...I forgot about Fognini of course....silly me.

Well why didn't Novak '11 take Federer this year on clay then! Novak just doesn't have the strategy or power to even reach a final at RG, nevermind achieve a victory!

[quote="socal1976] "I think Novak 2011 takes fed on clay for sure. [/quote]

I assume you are talking about Fed 2006, because we know what happens on clay vs. Fed 2011...

Yes, oh great he had one great match against Novak on clay. I would still take novak 2011 on any of the slow to medium surfaces over Roger 2006. You guys act like Novak got blown out 6-0 and 6-1. When did Roger beat Rafa twice in a season on clay and win two master? Oh never!

Disagree that results = talent. If that was the case we'd never even need to watch any tennis at all and could just go on the score. You could have an amazingly talented player who would only settle for playing spectacular shots. That may make a great display but lose him the match in the long run to the frustration of his fans. In my opinion such a player would be more talented than their opponent who won playing in a steady and formulaic manner. One thing that is easy to forget is that while winning is a major part of any sport, the sport itself is the chosen career for most of the participants and like any work place they will all have different approaches. For some winning at all costs is what's most important and for others the feeling that they've expressed themselves through their game is what they're looking for.

AGain if Novak was so talented; why does he have to wait until 2-0 down to start playing against a far past his prime Feddy?

Having more talent is when you are both at full strength i.e first 2 sets and seeing who is dominating, not waiting for the other player to get tired and lose intensity!

Nah JM that point of view overlooks the whole concept of changing to more favourable tactics and comebacks if you're only going to go on what happens in the first part of the match.

Yea, Novak is not talented enough to attack from the outset as he over relies on superior opponents getting tired, hell he even has to wait for Troicki to get tense

You are absolutely right about Federer's speed and rushing the opponents, that is his main weapon (coupled with a working serve).
Nole can hit it with him no problem, but of course it's not easy.
With Nole drastically improving his return game, the pressure is now on Federer to play even more aggressively which only lasted 2 sets as we could see in that SF match.
Federer has tons of game and plenty of tactical options, but with somebody like Novak across the net, the execution is under additional pressure. And that showed well, too.
It will be so interesting to see how they play at their next slam match (we're not expecting them to be in opposite halves, are we?)

Federer Djokovic will be in same half, likewise Berdych/Dolgopolov!

noleisthebest wrote:It will be so interesting to see how they play at their next slam match (we're not expecting them to be in opposite halves, are we?)

Why just slam? Their next match of any sort will be interesting, particularly if Fed manages to win by keeping up a high standard of execution for the shorter duration as you suggest he may be capable of. So far this year Djoko's record against Fed in best-of-three (2-0) is better than in best-of-five (2-1).

Murray is breathing down Fed's neck pointswise, Fed has a load of points to defend and, like all of them, he doesn't like losing period. He's also got unfinished business with the Paris TMS which he's never won but might suit his game if it's lightening fast like last year. Then there's whether Djoko can put together an overall year as statistically successful as Mac's 1984 or Fed's 2006. If you ask me there's plenty of interest left in 2011.

bogbrush wrote:Tenez is very clear and consistent about this. What's your definition socal?

Talent to me is not the end all be all to judging tennis players and it means little in life. I will show you people with 100 iqs who work their ass of and impact the world. I will show you people with 140 iqs working behind the counter of starbucks. I think talent as applied to a tennis player is much more broad than the narrow hands eye coordination definition that Tenez speaks of. That is one of numerous factors. Speed is one, power is another, and being able to deliver in crucial situation and maintain your poise is also a talent that some people have others don't. To me talent if unfilled is really speculative and subjective and matters little in the real world. Tennis isn't art tenez, art is subjectively judged by the viewer, in tennis we keep score and hand out trophies. Tennis is a sport, painting is art. Great tennis can be artistic and enjoyable to watch but sports are a whole different world than artistic endeavors.

Well no it's not an art anymore, due to the organizers putting in no effort whatsoever to have their courts different from another one. You've got to think Nadull had some input with that as he's talked about illegally fast surfaces in the past, thanks again Nadull for killing the game and having every slam near enough the same!

Josiah it has never been an art, guys in berets don't determine the winners and losers there are trophies, records, and they keep score.

socal1976 wrote:Yes, oh great he had one great match against Novak on clay. I would still take novak 2011 on any of the slow to medium surfaces over Roger 2006. You guys act like Novak got blown out 6-0 and 6-1. When did Roger beat Rafa twice in a season on clay and win two master? Oh never!

Federer 2011 would struggle to get a set against Federer 2005/6, so frankly if he even runs Djokovic close now he completely owns him from 2005.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes, oh great he had one great match against Novak on clay. I would still take novak 2011 on any of the slow to medium surfaces over Roger 2006. You guys act like Novak got blown out 6-0 and 6-1. When did Roger beat Rafa twice in a season on clay and win two master? Oh never!

Federer 2011 would struggle to get a set against Federer 2005/6, so frankly if he even runs Djokovic close now he completely owns him from 2005.

Nice to meet you, Mr Logic and thanks for putting Socal down a notch!

Yeah is that why Novak first beat roger in 2007, a month after Roger won wimbeldon and a month before he won the USO.

socal1976 wrote:Yeah is that why Novak first beat roger in 2007, a month after Roger won wimbeldon and a month before he won the USO.

They were playing on clay in Canada back then?

socal1976 wrote:Yeah is that why Novak first beat roger in 2007, a month after Roger won wimbeldon and a month before he won the USO.

Fed was 7-2 on Djoko from 2006-2008, losing in Canda 2007 as you point out and the famous 'mono' Aus Open SF in 2008. Pretty commanding.

Since then with Djoko ascending to his peak and Fed descending from his it's been 8-7 Djoko. For me the absolute peak Federer was probably January 2007.

Fed has a good match-up with Djoko and only this year has Djoko really taken charge against a much diminished Fed, but with some very tight matches, so for me if you could box peak Federer I'd take him to beat peak Djoko more often than not. One-off matches are always a gamble, but in a best of 3 series of matches, and more so with a best of 5 series of matches, I'd take peak Fed to run out the winner against Djoko 2011.

Barry star we are talking about today's Djokovic against peak federer. It is clear that in 2004-2007 Djokovic was nowhere near his peak and fed was at his absolute peak. Roger won his first 5 matches with Novak when Novak was but a teenager and fed was in his prime so it is a bit of double standard to claim that Novak only wins against a post prime fed. Well then one can argue that Fed can only dominate a teenage pre-prime Djokovic just as easily.

I think on slower hardcourts like the AO or on clay I would take Novak despite his one close loss to fed this year at the FO. Novak still had a much better clay court season overral than Roger did.

socal1976 wrote:Barry star we are talking about today's Djokovic against peak federer. It is clear that in 2004-2007 Djokovic was nowhere near his peak and fed was at his absolute peak. Roger won his first 5 matches with Novak when Novak was but a teenager and fed was in his prime so it is a bit of double standard to claim that Novak only wins against a post prime fed. Well then one can argue that Fed can only dominate a teenage pre-prime Djokovic just as easily.

I think on slower hardcourts like the AO or on clay I would take Novak despite his one close loss to fed this year at the FO. Novak still had a much better clay court season overral than Roger did.

I know what we are discussing and my point is that when you look at the two careers thus far given that peak Djoko does not find it plain sailing imposing his superiority over 2011 Fed, I think that 2006 Fed would have the edge vs. peak Djoko. It's subjective so we will never agree.

The first part of my post was resopnding to yours about Canada 2007, I think Fed did dominate during that period.

The second part of my post was the meat of my view that peak Fed vs. peak Djoko comes out with peak Fed on top because of the difficulty that Djoko on the way up and at his peak has had facing Fed on the way down and well past his.

If we say a peak Djoko is 2011 and peak Fed is 2007, my conclusion is that the two will never meet.

My own view is that Fed at his peak has played the best tennis I've ever seen (I wish it weren't so, I wish it was Tim Henman!), but who's to say that if Djoko 2011 was regularly playing Fed 2007, Djoko wouldn't be pushed to play even better then he is now.

Let's face it, it's all just a bit of light-hearted speculation (at least it should be!)

Well we will just have to agree to disagree because like you said it is a subjective argument. I think in the coming months and in the next couple of years Novak will continue to cement his own legacy in the game and I have no doubt that the RG title is in his sites and most likely he will get it. It certainly is no shame to lose to peak or post peak federer in my mind so it isn't something I worry about to much. I think it is to Novak's credit that unlike Roger's contemporaries he didn't completely capitulate to the guy, unlike Nalbandian or Safin he actually kept working to get better where those two guys never really put in the hard yards to the same extent. Hewitt was different he got injured and never really had the firepower to challenge a peak fed.

socal1976 wrote:Well we will just have to agree to disagree because like you said it is a subjective argument. I think in the coming months and in the next couple of years Novak will continue to cement his own legacy in the game and I have no doubt that the RG title is in his sites and most likely he will get it. It certainly is no shame to lose to peak or post peak federer in my mind so it isn't something I worry about to much. I think it is to Novak's credit that unlike Roger's contemporaries he didn't completely capitulate to the guy, unlike Nalbandian or Safin he actually kept working to get better where those two guys never really put in the hard yards to the same extent. Hewitt was different he got injured and never really had the firepower to challenge a peak fed.

I can agree with most of that - I am sure we've got a lot more to come from Djoko. I think you may be a bit unfair about capitulation and I don't agree if it's a shorthand for weak era. Who knows how life would have panned out had Djoko been an exact contemporary of Federer - I suspect that Fed would have beaten him pretty consistently even though Djoko would have worked harder to make the best of his talent than Safin and Nalbandian did.

Yes, barrystar, but I still don't believe the early 2000 guys were as strong as the champs that rose up immediately before them and immediately after them. Even before the rise of Roger and the slowing conditions in their best years they weren't particularly dominant but we have talked about that issue at length. I mean neither Safin or Nalby had a reputation as being particularly hardworkers and other then Roger they were the two most dominant players of that crop of guys. Safin in my mind is one of the most athletically and technically gifted tennis players who even at 2 slams was a huge underachiever and the same can be said about Nalby. I think both guys did pretty much capitulate, or if they didn't capitulate they refused to do the work to meet the bar that Roger had set. Maybe they could have never equalled Roger but they could have made it all lot more competitive.

I think the ups and downs of the H2H between Djoko and Fed cannot be easily explained through the young/mature/old cycle. Essentially because with Federer more than any other player, there is the day to day performance and the "zone" performance. As he relies heavily on his form of the day to produce his best tennis there is a big difference between his regular performance and the best ones, when he is in the "zone". Nole is more consistant in that respect though he has had bad years recently due to racquet change and personal issues it seems. Then more recently Djoko reached new levels of fitness and is a much more consistant player and much better defence than in his previous years. Fed's best days then were clearly better than Nole's.

However though the regular performance of Federer in the 2006-08 period was better than Djoko, it was already pretty close then. The USO 2007 could not have been closer despite being a 3 setter. That was not a one off cause Djoko had won a tight match the weeks before. Djoko was only 20 at the time!

Now it seems that Fed's regular tennis is probably not as good as Djoko's but that has more to do with Djoko's recent physical improvements than Federer going down physcally. It's just that nowadays Fed needs to have a good "zone" day to have a chance versus Djokovic. The Masters 10, FO and USO 11 were 3 of those days.

In short I am not convinced that "regular" Federer 2006-7 woudl have beaten Djoko 11. In fact looking at the close matches they had then despite Nole being 20, plus looking at how tough it was for Federer to shake off a few players like Ljubicic, Blake, and others we probably would certainly have had more losses from the Swiss had he met Djoko 11.

I really think some are underestimating the progress a player makes, here Federer, by just staying at the top....despite losing some footwork and explosiveness. I find the best performance of Federer today more impressive than his best in 2006/7 simply because he is given a tougher challenge, essentially a tougher ball to handle, but more so a ball that comes back much more often than then due to today's players mobilty. BUt despite that, his zone performance still holds the most efficient tennis out there. ...just that we have less of those performances nowadays.

I actually agree with Tenez on this one, I think Roger at his peak because of his serve and shotmaking ability does have maybe an extra half gear than anyone else that has ever played. But it is a bit of a high wire act that requires incredible timing and when he is even slightly off he can go into shanky mode and really start spraying. I also think that many people today seem to think Fed has fallen off dramitically in his game. I think in some respects he is a better player than he was in the early days but that maybe he has lost a step in terms of movement.

Another thing is that Roger held a big psychological advantage over his opponents from 2004-07. Tennis is the most mental of games and once you lose that mental edge it is difficult to get it back. The 07 USO final with Djoko is a perfect example Novak played great had a chance to win every set and squandered what seemed like a dozen set points. Part of that was to the fact that he really deep down in his mind didn't believe he could beat Roger in a USO final and he would get tight when the opportunity presented itself. I think the biggest damage the mono issues of Roger did to him 08 was as much psychological as physical. All of sudden Roger lost the aura of invicibility that caused so many players to tighten up against him crucial situations. And in a lot of ways he never got that aura back even after his successes in 09 and the AO of 2010.

Tenez wrote:
I really think some are underestimating the progress a player makes, here Federer, by just staying at the top....despite losing some footwork and explosiveness. I find the best performance of Federer today more impressive than his best in 2006/7 simply because he is given a tougher challenge, essentially a tougher ball to handle, but more so a ball that comes back much more often than then due to today's players mobilty. BUt despite that, his zone performance still holds the most efficient tennis out there. ...just that we have less of those performances nowadays.

That's a very fair point - if you want to stay at No. 1 in tennis you need to run to stand still, of that I'm sure.

It must be that just as Fed has lost some things from his game in 2006-2007, he has gained others. How what he's lost matches up with what he's gained is difficult to measure because success in tennis is relative and opponents change. To back that up, when I think about it, for me two of the best tournaments I've seen him play were Aus Open 2007 and London 2010 but a scientific comparison is almost impossible.

He was also pretty damn spectacular in the AO of 2010. I mean he didn't give murray a chance to breath and was hitting shots like the heyday of 2006 and 2005. And he was lights out at the WTF in london last year as well so I think again it becomes a matter of him being able to recreate his form enough to lift major trophies.

socal1976 wrote:He was also pretty damn spectacular in the AO of 2010. I mean he didn't give murray a chance to breath and was hitting shots like the heyday of 2006 and 2005. And he was lights out at the WTF in london last year as well so I think again it becomes a matter of him being able to recreate his form enough to lift major trophies.

Quite so - he'll probably need to avoid Nadal and, assuming Djoko will be there or thereabouts, have at least one really spectacular showing. I'd love to see it, I am expecting it less and less, and I'm just enjoying a great player who can still produce fantastic tennis.