Federer's Forehand Technique

First topic message reminder :

I was watching a replay of Federer's loss to Isner in the Davis Cup on youtube (don't ask me why), and it's interesting to see the number of forehands in which Federer whips the racquet over his right shoulder in a Nadal-like fashion, rather than across his chest and over his left shoulder as is normal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PABiHiqkJf8&feature=related

I don't remember him ever hitting a forehand like that back in 2006 / 2007, but I have noticed it coming more into his game in recent years. I don't know whether this is a deliberate change from Federer, but I'm undecided as to whether it's a positive move - his forehand already had plenty of spin on it as it is, and I think it's this spin combined with the power he generates that is what's made his forehand so effective. Putting more spin on the ball will inevitably lead to a reduction in pace, sending his forehand into Nadal territory; obviously still a great shot, but not for the kind of style Federer plays. Additionally, purely from an aesthetic standpoint, I really don't like the look of the Nadal-like whip forehand!

socal - I won't be getting dragged into this sort of nonsense for any prolonged spell. It's just not my scene to be honest and personally I'm at a loss to see what you get out of it yourself (although if it gives you a kick then no harm done, I guess.... )

My own interest, as a non-partisan objective follower of the sport, has always revolved much more around what players themselves actually do on the court and (sometimes) what they have to say - as opposed to any madcap excuses that some "fans" may choose to make on their behalf .

To briefly address your "explain to me the hole in my logic" request : I was doubting that you could find direct quotes from past postings where the full range of silly excuses you allege to have been used have actually been used. And I don't mean just the odd quote by a deranged poster or two, but used regularly by balanced and serious members of the forum .........

Anyway, I'll leave you to it.

Evenin' all

Well that is fine and I respect you for that Lags. I have my own quirks like everyone else, but I feel from my perspective like you feel that my logic is sound and I am very objective. You may disagree that is your prerogative.

socal1976 wrote:I love it the guy from the space beyond the milky way is calling me unhinged.

And BB of course I started that thread to show that my argument wasn't a radical argument that you tried to portray it as. How many foggy effect posts did you make and others insinuate before I wrote that thread? I know you live in a bizarro world of strange disconnect but surely even your limited little grey cells must be able to discern that.

Frankly, the Fognini delusion is a gift that never stops giving. Forgive me if I show my appreciation excessively.

Hello



Is it safe?



rotapicname

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote: yes indeed BB - you were much missed on your sabbatical socal, the forum definitely felt the lack of your passion and (sometimes inadvertent) humour

Timeplease, don't join the darkside I am much too old to play Luke to your Anikin. There is hope for you yet turn in your lowly private uniform in the FAS. Well oddly I missed u guys as well.

As to Kemet, I didn't like the fact that playing for a big record Foggy withdrew and then played the following week. And frankly the semi-gay love parade that surrounded Fed after that match needed some tempering. He did play great, but he got a real nice break with how things played out. I don't know how things would have worked if novak had not had the 5 day layover and the streak issues, possibly the pressure of playing for #1 and Fed's game would have still caused him to lose. But before the layoff he was razor sharp in sets 1 and 2 against Fed he was way below pre layoff standards.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, as long as you don't cry foul when a Federer fan offers a similar explanation for Roger's losses to Novak. It smacks of disrespect to how well Roger played in the match and then you go on a rant against Roger fans who do not respect Novak's efforts when he plays well, when you have done the same with regards to the Roland Garros match.

If you can't see where I am coming from, that's fine. However as far as I am concerned, when you label Federer fans as extremists, I can't help but see the irony in your accusation.

Anyway, this is my opinion on the matter

It's amusing how far this thread has drifted from the original topic.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:All Fed fans are psychopaths according to the bitter American. I believe it's called stereotyping.

JM, why would I be bitter is a beautiful 78 degrees and sunny here in southern california and my favorite player has won 4 out of the last 5 grandslams. I feel like a pig in Poopie.

reckoner wrote:I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

BB and socal explained it well, not much to add there. However, it is alo noteworthy that had Fognini been on Federer's side of the draw and Fed had still won, the Fognini effect would have referred to the unfair advantage gained by the player who gets extra two days off in a slam.

Federer had a w/o against Haas in 2007 W, but still beat Nadal in the final.

laverfan wrote:Federer had a w/o against Haas in 2007 W, but still beat Nadal in the final.

surely it wasn't the semi-final w/o?

laverfan wrote:Federer had a w/o against Haas in 2007 W, but still beat Nadal in the final.

Impressive that one. I always felt that was a great accomplishment

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer had a w/o against Haas in 2007 W, but still beat Nadal in the final.

surely it wasn't the semi-final w/o?

R16.

laverfan wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:Federer had a w/o against Haas in 2007 W, but still beat Nadal in the final.

surely it wasn't the semi-final w/o?

R16.

Knew it . Fed had his fair share of w/os, especially from Haas. At one stage it was embarrassing.