Federer- the overlooked part of his game

First topic message reminder :

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.

barrystar wrote:It must be that just as Fed has lost some things from his game in 2006-2007, he has gained others.

Exactly. he seems to time the ball better than then. And that is very important. He had to get used to those more spinny ball. It took some pace off of his FH but gained so much in consistency.

Barry, I think Roger will have difficult time of winning another slam as long as Rafa and Novak are healthy. People remember the swan song that Pete had in 02 or the rebirth that Agassi had in his early 30s, but in the early 2000s there weren't two great players of the stature of Nadal and Novak standing guard at the grandslams. I mean both these guys are so consistent at getting to the working end of slams. I think Roger needs to play great and hope for one of the top two guys to go out early. I put his shots at another slam right around 50/50 but he is going to need to play great and a couple of breaks with the draw.

socal1976 wrote:Barry, I think Roger will have difficult time of winning another slam as long as Rafa and Novak are healthy. People remember the swan song that Pete had in 02 or the rebirth that Agassi had in his early 30s, but in the early 2000s there weren't two great players of the stature of Nadal and Novak standing guard at the grandslams. I mean both these guys are so consistent at getting to the working end of slams. I think Roger needs to play great and hope for one of the top two guys to go out early. I put his shots at another slam right around 50/50 but he is going to need to play great and a couple of breaks with the draw.

Sampras is a good example - he got swatted away in the finals of 2000 and 2001 against the then best players in the world. In 2002 Haas was the top player he met before his USO bunny Agassi in the final. You can't see Federer doing something similar if he faces both Nadal and Djoko in a slam, and of those two his best chance is clearly vs. Djoko - but that would still be a taller order than 2002 Haas or Roddick for Sampras.

As I say, I'd love it, and I don't dismiss it, but I believe it's increasingly unlikely. Oddly enough, I think Aus 2012 might be his best chance next year. My theory for Nadal is that he needs to crank up a bit more slowly in the year to be at his best for his key period of April-September which means that Aus Open is usually Nadal's weakest slam and Fed is usually in pretty good nick for it (Djoko's not bad there either...). I accept that 2009 was exceptional for Nadal for many reasons, but it is the one year where he did well at Aus Open but was weaker for the rest of the year.

socal1976 wrote:Barry, I think Roger will have difficult time of winning another slam as long as Rafa and Novak are healthy. People remember the swan song that Pete had in 02 or the rebirth that Agassi had in his early 30s, but in the early 2000s there weren't two great players of the stature of Nadal and Novak standing guard at the grandslams.

No you get that wrong again I am afraid. It will be tougher for Fed than Sampras cause unlike then you need to be much fitter than then to win a slam. Nadal and Djoko are only "great players" cause they are the fittest out there. When everybody on the tour is as fit as them, they won;t be seen as "great" as much. What is happening to Nadal now, can easily happen to Djokovic, like it happened to Hewitt. Hewitt was great because he was fit.

Fed's chance however is actually that because Djoko and Nadal are using their physique so much, they are not guaranteed to arrive healthy at the end of a slam. Fed has a more economical game...but still pretty tough to win a slam nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Barry, I think Roger will have difficult time of winning another slam as long as Rafa and Novak are healthy. People remember the swan song that Pete had in 02 or the rebirth that Agassi had in his early 30s, but in the early 2000s there weren't two great players of the stature of Nadal and Novak standing guard at the grandslams.

No you get that wrong again I am afraid. It will be tougher for Fed than Sampras cause unlike then you need to be much fitter than then to win a slam. Nadal and Djoko are only "great players" cause they are the fittest out there. When everybody on the tour is as fit as them, they won;t be seen as "great" as much. What is happening to Nadal now, can easily happen to Djokovic, like it happened to Hewitt. Hewitt was great because he was fit.

Fed's chance however is actually that because Djoko and Nadal are using their physique so much, they are not guaranteed to arrive healthy at the end of a slam. Fed has a more economical game...but still pretty tough to win a slam nowadays.

I think you are agreeing on the point in issue - if Fed faces Nadal and Djoko and they are fit he's in trouble, if he faces neither or just one of them in good condition he's in better shape to win.

People often refer to Sampras' losses against Hewitt and Safin at USO finals in 2000/1 but then dont state that in 2001 he beat Safin in straights in the USO semis, and in 2000 beat Hewitt in straights in the USO semi's also....

Anyway, I was reading earlier in the thread about early ball taking. Taking the ball early no doubt relies on good coordination, but good coordination isnt just about hand-eye synchronicity. I'd like to offer a slightly different and expanded viewpoint on this in that we shouldnt just think about hand-eye coordination, but also foot-eye coordination - the two are different, and the difference is important. Many people can have great hand-eye movement but not as good foot-eye coordination (and vice-versa). So with this in mind....my opinions are:

Best ever at Hand-Eye coordination - Agassi
His natural talent for seeing a ball early and getting his racquet on it was simply staggering...Rios is mentioned as a talent but there is no way Rios could have done what Andre did at SW19 1992 against the biggest server in the game at the time - when he not only returned those massive serves of Goran on quick grass but blasted them back to his feet often. Do people not remember the way he could drill a half-volleyed backhand down the line off a hard-driven forehand into his backhand time and time again (probably the best DHBH of all time IMO)? However, was Agassi the best mover ever....? No.
McEnroe is another great hand-eye guy who was probably not one of the best movers....great hand-eye coordination can win alot of slams but these guys will be ultimately restricted by movement if thats not as good.

Best ever at Foot-Eye coordination - Federer
This is where Federer really excels in my opinion - his movement to the ball is amazing, enabling him to take shots on the rise, etc, from difficult positions. Sure his hand-eye co-ordination is also excellent but its his movement that sets him apart. Sampras was also particularly great at foot-eye coordination too - and I also believe Nadal and Djokovic have amazing foot-eye coordination.

It was Arthur Ashe who said in his 1981 book, Off the Court, "Foot-and-eye coordination is more important in tennis than hand-eye coordination." and "It's the great feet that win Grand Slam titles." So with Federer on 16 slams I would suggest he's maybe the best mover of all time - but not necessarily the best hand-eye coordination of all time. But its the foot movement and coordination that is the true determinant of the most successful players in tennis history, and I posit that its this that sets the greatest multi-slam winners apart.

No. very much disagree with that Lydian. Young Fed returned Sampras' serve better than Agassi. He also returned Karlo's serve better than anybody else I have seen on grass. Young Federer has also an excellent record versus Goran and Krajicek, 2 huge servers yet he never lost a set against them and more importantly broke them a minimum of once in each set without ever getting to a TB.

I think you are mixing up "spectacular" returning with pure anticipation and talent. Fed could see the ball earlier than Agassi that's why he doesn't have that "rushed" and spectacular factor that Agassi had, typical of those great athletes like Pele, Messi, Maradona who seemed to have more time than anyone else.


But good try!

Tenez, when the rest of the tour is as fit as nadal and djoko they won't be that great seriously you make no sense as usual. If they win all the time because of fitness why exactly hasn't the rest of the tour caught on since Nadal won his first slam nearly 7 years ago? See this level of disrespect for two obviously talented tennis players is what drives me bonkers, you make completely irrational and logically fallacious arguments and continue to make them no matter how much you get debunked.

If Djoko wins on fitness how come most of his wins on tour are in 2 measly sets? Do the world class athletes of the ATP keel over and lose their games in 90 minutes? You never answer this question because of years of posting this ridiculous drivel you have no answer.

On one side you say talent is irrelevant to you and on the other you are trying to push down our throats at every post that Nadal and Djokovic are th emost talented players out there. Make up your mind!

Tenez, when you say Fed 'never' lost a set to Goran, you mean all those 4 sets that they played when Goran was ranked 50 - 150 in the world?
Likewise for Krajicek.
I'd have used Roddick and Rusedski myself.

Tenez wrote:On one side you say talent is irrelevant to you and on the other you are trying to push down our throats at every post that Nadal and Djokovic are th emost talented players out there. Make up your mind!

Talent isn't important for me in judging tennis players when compared with results. But you keep posting these ridiculous contrafactual arguments that play well to a certain faction of fed fans. You still haven't answered my question. About 85 percent of Novak's wins this year are in two sets, most get decided in the first half hour when he breaks the guy and takes command of the first set. Does he win the first set of matches because the world class athletes of the ATP tour die after 40 minutes of work?

If it was only based on fitness than any idiot without a medical condition can get fit, the secret go on strict diet and work your ass off. Fitness is important but it is not what seperates these two players from everyone else. They are not just some random top 50 guys who are just fitter than everyone else.

Socal, even you have to admit that just about every commentator, journo and most players have talked about Nadal's fitness over the last few years and how it sees him through some tight matches i.e is the reason he wins some tight matches. Even Djoko called him 'the fittest player on the tour' a few days ago.

Tenez wrote:No. very much disagree with that Lydian. Young Fed returned Sampras' serve better than Agassi. He also returned Karlo's serve better than anybody else I have seen on grass. Young Federer has also an excellent record versus Goran and Krajicek, 2 huge servers yet he never lost a set against them and more importantly broke them a minimum of once in each set without ever getting to a TB.

I think you are mixing up "spectacular" returning with pure anticipation and talent. Fed could see the ball earlier than Agassi that's why he doesn't have that "rushed" and spectacular factor that Agassi had, typical of those great athletes like Pele, Messi, Maradona who seemed to have more time than anyone else.


But good try!

Well I had no idea you would disagree with that, you caught me unawares there ;-)
I'm not saying Fed hasnt got great hand-eye co-ord but its his foot-eye coord that's particularly good, and is what gets him into position so well. He doesnt have to be the best at everything you know - and he's not the best reflex-touch volleyer on tour which can be another gauge of hand-eye cord! For example, I would place Murray above him there.

What does your reference to "spectacular" returning mean? Agassi's returning was spectacular because he saw the ball so early! He's commonly (along with with Connors) referred to as the best returner in history. Against massive servers he didnt have much time to move his feet, he simply had to get his racquet on the ball ASAP and get it back! But he returned with interest, often walloping the ball past the returner - you dont see Federer doing that very often.

Then you say Agassi had that rushed look in returning that Federer doesnt have - so why is that then?! Because Federer moves his feet better - i.e. the link between seeing the serve and moving his feet to get into position is better so can make a cleaner/less rushed return, whereas Agassi had to rely more innately on pure hand-eye coordination to make the same return from a less optimal body position - and because his body didnt move into position as quickly due to him not being as good a mover as Federer this meant his hand-eye coordination had to be even better to give himself the opportunity of making those amazing returns. Thanks for reinforcing my point Tenez!

JuliusHMarx wrote:Socal, even you have to admit that just about every commentator, journo and most players have talked about Nadal's fitness over the last few years and how it sees him through some tight matches i.e is the reason he wins some tight matches. Even Djoko called him 'the fittest player on the tour' a few days ago.

Julius when have ever said fitness isn't important it is particularly important in five set matches. But you have a problem with my logic when tenez claims that Djokovic and Nadal win with only big lungs.

Since your hero doesn't answer my question if Novak and Nadal are such average top 50 players how come they win the first set of like 80 percent of their matches? How come the vast majority of Novak's wins are in two sets? I am sick of this ridiculous argument backed up by zero logic and the peanut gallery of fed apologists who bah like sheep at this garbage, and that is what it is just pure garbage. Maybe you can answer this question since Tenez after millions of words on the subject has never provided even a remotely convincing answer.

Socal, I'm sure you know I'm not as scathing in my view of Nadal as Tenez, so I can't really answer on his behalf. But fitness has perhaps more important to Nadal's success than it has for any other top player, because a) he is fitter than anyone else and b) he deliberately uses that advantage as a tactic i.e. to outlast the opponent.

Djoko realised that, got fitter, took away that advantage (and improved his serve and mentality etc) and you can now see the result. I'm not saying Djoko uses it as an advantage over other players, but he knew he needed it to overcome Nadal. Just as Murray, and probably many other players, now says "I need to get physically fitter".

When you say "If it was only based on fitness than any idiot without a medical condition can get fit, the secret go on strict diet and work your ass off. " - Tenez would probably say that's exactly what Nadal did.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Tenez, when you say Fed 'never' lost a set to Goran, you mean all those 4 sets that they played when Goran was ranked 50 - 150 in the world?

Yes, that year, you know the one when he won Wimbledon!

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Tenez, when you say Fed 'never' lost a set to Goran, you mean all those 4 sets that they played when Goran was ranked 50 - 150 in the world?

Yes, that year, you know the one when he won Wimbledon!

Yep, right after his embarassingly poor performance at Queen's led to cries of 'Goran, please retire now before you look like even more of an idiot.'

Yes but JHM, why could only Nadal do it then, why not loads of other players all playing to the level Nadal and Djokovic are?
Yes sure physicality is important, but so is technique, skill, mental strength, etc. The pure physicality argument is too naive, too black and white. Fitness and skill will always be defining aspects of tennis success...but they're not mutually exclusive...their is no law saying players cannot become more fit AND more skilled. But clearly in todays tennis world averagely fit guys wont make it...as in most areas of sport. Tennis is not snooker or golf (dont tell me Lee Westwood is fit!) where its just about pure skill.
Some of the ralleys they were playing in that USO final were breathtaking from any skill-based you reviewed them from.

Lydian, I've never said anything about 'pure physicality' and I've never claimed Rafa isn't also very talented. I've also never claimed that Djoko uses his fitness to defeat players, other than to take away the physical advantage that Nadal had over him. Once he evened that up, he could let his greater skill, technique, whatever you call it, earn the victories we've seen.

None of what you posted directly address my points in my previous post. Why did Djoko feel a need to be fitter? Why does Murray now feel a need to be fitter?

Not everyone can reach the same level of fitness. It's entirely possible that just as Isner was born to be taller, Rafa was born to be fitter.
Alternatively I'm pretty sure that players like Gulbis can't be bothered to get that fit. Maybe only Rafa had the inate ability and the motivation to get that fit.

Tenez,
I love the passion and heart with which you defend and support Federer.
Although I don't agree with everything, I appreciate the extra angles you add to Federer, because only a close fan can observe those details.
You know you are a fan when you admit to yourself you may have a few blind spots but you just don't give a damn, allez!

lydian wrote:- and he's not the best reflex-touch volleyer on tour which can be another gauge of hand-eye cord! For example, I would place Murray above him there.

Really???? Stepanek is much better than Murray in that department to start with. But the thing with Federer and what made him such a good and gracious player to watch is that he has extra time. He has extra time to make a difficult volley, extra time to control the ball during the impact on it's racquet. He even says that he can see the strings being deformed while the ball gets hit. You are talking about a quality of "nerves" pretty special and this is essentially what has allowed him to have an economical game on his body. He was born with a clear advantage over his peers. This is why he can keep close to the baseline, even more remarquable that he has a SHBH with a pretty tiny frame with a pretty tiny sweet spot. Agassi had the advantage of the light head racquet and dhbh. Davydenko takes it as early if not more than Agassi. Federer hasn't got to be the best at everything but when it comes to benefiting from eye/hand coordination, I can't see who can get past him.

What does your reference to "spectacular" returning mean? Agassi's returning was spectacular because he saw the ball so early! He's commonly (along with with Connors) referred to as the best returner in history. Against massive servers he didnt have much time to move his feet, he simply had to get his racquet on the ball ASAP and get it back! But he returned with interest, often walloping the ball past the returner - you dont see Federer doing that very often.

No you don't see Federer doing that very often cause Federer played on slower conds so he could give himself more choice when the ball was in play. At Agassi's time you had different strings and if you were not standing close smashing the ball back, the volleyer would simply bully you off court. As said Hewitt was also known to be a great returner had he also could return Sampras serve but against Karlovic he found himself aced out of Wimbledon. Federer played Karlo 3 times I believe at Wimbledon, and never lost a set against him and again I saw live those returns against karlo! Out of tihis world! Agassi did not win a set versus Sampras at Wimbledon. Big difference!

Then you say Agassi had that rushed look in returning that Federer doesnt have - so why is that then?! Because Federer moves his feet better - i.e. the link between seeing the serve and moving his feet to get into position is better so can make a cleaner/less rushed return, whereas Agassi had to rely more innately on pure hand-eye coordination to make the same return from a less optimal body position - and because his body didnt move into position as quickly due to him not being as good a mover as Federer this meant his hand-eye coordination had to be even better to give himself the opportunity of making those amazing returns. Thanks for reinforcing my point Tenez!

Same thing, it's not the feet only. it's the whole body reacting faster. You are trying to dissect the moves of Agassi and Fed in a very complicated way as if they had different pace from top to bottom. Look at Nalbandian, he doesn;t look very quick on his feet either does he? yet he returns better than Agassi, without this rushed, spectacular movement cause like Federer Nalbandian is a very special talent who can see early and take time from his opponent.

noleisthebest wrote:Tenez,
I love the passion and heart with which you defend and support Federer.
Although I don't agree with everything, I appreciate the extra angles you add to Federer, because only a close fan can observe those details.
You know you are a fan when you admit to yourself you may have a few blind spots but you just don't give a damn, allez!

Thanks NITB....But honestly I am not as much a fan of the player as one might think. If a player comes along with as good skills or better I'll be the first to point it out. I just see the talent and try to explain it as rationally as I can.

I am not making things up, I explain what I see and try to back it up as honestly as possible. I was a fan of many players in my youth but those days are over, I watch tennis like someone goes to the opera to hear what I believe is beautiful musique. And when someone sings better than anybody else, I say it and essentially the voice turns me into a fan, not the singer as much...though it is a whole package.

lydian wrote: Fitness and skill will always be defining aspects of tennis success...but they're not mutually exclusive....

They are not ALWAYS mutually exclusive but they actually tend to be. The fact is put Nadal on clay on a hot summer v Federer and you will not see much finesse coming from federer....even less so after 4 sets. Put Federer on a fresh green fast grass versus Nadal and nadal would get bagelled like he was in 2006 first set. It;s obvious that the more a player tire, the less he can express his talent. It's no coincidence that on clay Federer can rival versus Nadal for 1 set or 2 but no more.

I don't understand why you refuse to see what was the clear strategy of Toni. They even say themselves now in their book. The goal was taking away the edge from players who could do more with the ball. And the way to take it away is to bring the game into a boxing ring. Novak had the same talent last year in that USO but what made the difference this year is that he coudl last the distance (semi and Final). Andything less physical and Nadal would have made him run to asphyxiation.

Tenez's extreme obsession with fitness is counter to any logic its like trying to argue that water moves uphill. Supposedly, Nadal and Djokovic aren't particularly great and win principally on big lungs. Then how does he explain that this year both these guys win about 80-90 percent of the first sets they play? How does he explain that most of Novak's and Nadal's wins are in exactly two sets? He can't explain, his argument makes no sense whatsoever and what is more mind boggling is how so many sane and rational people on this website actually couldn't figure out that he is trying to dress up a pig. Actually, they don't want to figure it out, it is willful blindness to try to rationalize away federer's defeats and trash the success of his two principal rivals. Really, quite pathetic.


Julius, I actually don't have a problem with your views now that you have clarified it. Of course, in a close five set gruelling match fitness becomes more important. But the vast majority of Novak's and Nadal's wins this year have come in exactly 2 sets, if there is no skill difference between them and the rest of the tour how do they pull that off?

lydian wrote:Yes but JHM, why could only Nadal do it then, why not loads of other players all playing to the level Nadal and Djokovic are?
Yes sure physicality is important, but so is technique, skill, mental strength, etc. The pure physicality argument is too naive, too black and white. Fitness and skill will always be defining aspects of tennis success...but they're not mutually exclusive...

Precisely, Lydian. If it just came down to being fit, then every tennis tournament would simply be won by the guy who happened to have trained harder and was the healthiest in terms of injury. But that isn't the case two guys have won everything this year. Have you seen the hundreds of people that turn up for marathons and iron man competitions, what exactly would preclude bjorn phau and David Ferrer or kei nishikori or Michael Russel from winning grandslams then if it is all about fitness.

I still would like to know if Novak and Nadal win on fitness alone or principally why exactly are both players winning approximately 80-90 percent of the first sets they play? Are we to really assume that the world class athletes of the ATP tour can't play a few longer points over the course of a measly 30-60 minutes? Because that is what nonsense you would have to believe for Tenez's silly arguments to make sense.