Where are the little steps on the forehand, Roger

The major thing that I see with federer is that his footwork on the forehand is the worst I have ever seen for him. In the past his balance and offensive footwork was flawless. When in full flow there was almost a musical quality to watch federer on attack; squeak, squeak, squeak, and then boom. The little steps aren't there on the forehand. His footwork is lazy, there is nothing that is wrong with the swing. His balance is off because he doesn't give a good split step anymore and when hurried even a little bit he has lost the little steps in an around the ball to adjust. I have not watched federer for months, and I was shocked at how poor his spacing was on both wings but especially on the forehand. He is either lunging at the ball last minute or he is short arming the balls because he is not doing the hardwork to adjust his feet to the ball. The jump stops and the baby steps are crucial for hitting to maintain proper spacing with the ball and the balance in your movement. They are also the most tedious and gruelling part of movement. The long strides to get to the ball in between don't really have that much of an impact on how you strike the ball. It is the little adjustment steps around the ball that are important in giving you proper spacing. I have never seen the man hit the inside out forehand so close to his body. Getting jammed by the inside out ball in the center of the court is a tell tale sign that you are not shortening your stride and doing the hardwork to give yourself the space to get full extension and rotation on the shot. That is why he is either hitting the inside out forehand into the net or spraying it wide. He is not getting the proper spacing, which is not allowing him to take the proper swing, and get full rotation. His arms simply do not have the room to hit that shot the right way. Look at Del Po to illustrate this do you see how hard he works to get his body out of the way of that cross court backhand to crush his inside out forehand. Often his body is in the doubles ally when he hits the inside out forehand. To me his spacing right before he hits the ball is off on way too many shots.

Geez.. you just noticed this now?

I think to be fair it's right.

However I think what emancipator is feeling, like myself, is that we've been saying this for ages only to be shot down by others who don't like the idea that post-peak Federer can still beat his contemporaries (yes Craig, I'm looking at you).

I think when the book comes out we might learn he never got everything back after the 2008 problems. I knew when I saw him lose to James Blake at the Olympics that something very big had happened. James, after all, had always been his personal possession.

Yeah I've been bleating on about Fed's worsening movement for years but apparently it was all in my head.

Many times I've pointed out that he doesn't get into position quick enough anymore, gets cramped on his shots or has to lunge at balls and play that sqaush shot with his FH. And where is the big inside out FH? That used to be his biggest money shot. In the past when Fed ran around his BH you EXPECTED him to hit a hard flat winner. Now he gets stuck half way when attempting this and basically just punts it back with a loopy FH.

Anyway this is just old ground.

Yes BB Fed can still beat his contemparies but seemingly not in slams in the last six months and that is past peak Federer. However, pre-peak Murray and Djokovic can also boast of victories over peak Federer.

but in slams?

Does it matter? They showed they could beat Federer despite him being at peak and they were still developing.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes BB Fed can still beat his contemparies but seemingly not in slams in the last six months and that is past peak Federer. However, pre-peak Murray and Djokovic can also boast of victories over peak Federer.

That's why people judge the value of players from different eras, mainly, on the basis of overall achievments, and not on the basis of their H2h.

i do think it matters, feds and rafa peaked for the slams, i think there was a big difference from simply beating feds in a masters or 500 event compared to a slam.

Yes and that is fair enough but did Roger Federer burst on the scene to find another GOAT at his prime standing in his way? I say no. The current top players did have that hence the stuttering start to slam winning. Roger never had that problem and accordingly filled his boots and so now I would say it is Djokovic and Murray’s turm to fill their boots.

socal1976. An interesting observation. Next time I watch Federer I will watch his feet and check out your theory.

Why not just say what's on your mind Craig? You'll feel better for it.

If you just wanted to mean that in the next 3 to 4 years will be relatively easier for Murray to add to his slam record, I would tentatively agree.

Yup just like we could all agree that when Federer made his breakthrough it was easier. obviously, talent is a pre-requisite for winning a slam but circumstances such as the relevant competition etc also has a say in this.

You're still holding back. It's better out than in.

Roger Federer is seen as the GOAT (by me as well) on the grounds of his achievements which is fair enough. However, does that make him the most talented player ever? After all even a portion of his fans are junking his form and pointing to his shanking of shots looking ugly. Is that raw genius talent then that he should have all these flaws since 2008. I mean did Borg go through junk phases or was he a genius for the vast majority of his career?

Except Roger did have a GOAT in his path, albeit an old one, in AA.

Were it not for Federer we'd probably be talking about Safin, Hewitt and Roddick as potential GOATs.

In any case Murray and Djokovic had the advantage of chasing Federer and thus adapting their games to match him. Federer did not have the same against them. Hence one can only truly compare against peers. If Fed had grown up in the same generation as Murray/Djokovic undoubtedly he would have adapted his game somewhat to meet the challenge of his peers.

Most people would concur that he is the greatest talent ever seen in this sport. The most well-rounded and with the most demensions to his game.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Roger Federer is seen as the GOAT (by me as well) on the grounds of his achievements which is fair enough. However, does that make him the most talented player ever? After all even a portion of his fans are junking his form and pointing to his shanking of shots looking ugly. Is that raw genius talent then that he should have all these flaws since 2008. I mean did Borg go through junk phases or was he a genius for the vast majority of his career?

You do know when Borg retired, right?

Yeah, pretty much everyone recognises Federer as the most talented player of all time. I've watched since the early '70's and the only one to challenge for sheer virtuosity is McEnroe, but he wasn't as good.

What were saying - over and over again but you're not reading it - is that Federer has suffered from reduced mobility that has had a heavy impact on his game. Still good enough to in Sams, be #1, but not fully optimal.

The only reason I made this post was not to rub it in to federer fans. Chydremion asked me to look at fed's serve and to give the reason why I thought he was hitting it poorly. I told the man that I had not had a chance to view fed for many months as I had not seen him play at all in the early rounds. I certainly did not intend to stoke weak era or 2008 mono debates.

I do tend to agree with Craig, Roger had a more open playing field when he burst on the scene than murray and djokovic. I don't feel that this fact, which in my mind is plainly obvious tarnishes Roger's beknighted goathood, he deserves a great deal of credit for lifting the bar.

emancipator wrote:
Were it not for Federer we'd probably be talking about Safin, Hewitt and Roddick as potential GOATs.

Yeah...

Safin:
He won 2 Grand Slams.
He has only lost to Federer twice in either a semi-final, or final of a Grand Slam.
But sure.. if not for Federer this guy would have 10 Grand Slams.
He did not reach a Grand Slam final after AO 2005.

Hewitt:
He won 2 Grand Slams.
Has only lost to Federer three times in the semis or final of a Grand Slams.
He did not even reach a Grand Slam final after 2005.
And yet we are meant to believe if not for Federer he would be GOAT... yeah.

Roddick:
He is the only genuine player in your list who would have won many more slams if not for Roger, I think he lost to Federer in 4 Grand Slam finals.
But let's be honest, he didn't really have the groundstrokes to even come close to Federer. He had massive serve, but when that was returned how good was his game-play?
I'd his groundstrokes below Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Ljubicic etc. - to even say this guy would be a potential GOAT is ridiculous.

CaladonianCraig. I think I know what your trying to say.

Federer just got lucky didn't he? If Murray had been around at the same time... or rather had gained "belief" a little quicker then the truth wouldn't be hidden. Yesterdays match where Murray demolished (cough) Federer has at last exposed the reality. Murray not Federer (Who's Nadal?...) is the fairest of them all... What is poor Roger going to do now...

Or something like that anyway?

Well that is right IMBL the perception that those players only failed to achieve more is innaccurate, Roddick is the only one that such an argument could be made about. Frankly, I have never thought that he is a true all time great except for having a huge serve. Great research again IMBL.

PS Chydremion asked to look at fed's forehand, last post has a typo where I said serve. Off to work gents nice to see the resurrection of the golden era/weak era debate. Someone in the media really should give me a royalty for being the first to call the golden era.

With Nadal out of the game and Federer going downhill, with David Ferrer the #4, and nothing new penetrating the top 10 for many years now, are we still calling this Golden?

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:
Were it not for Federer we'd probably be talking about Safin, Hewitt and Roddick as potential GOATs.

Yeah...

Safin:
He won 2 Grand Slams.
He has only lost to Federer twice in either a semi-final, or final of a Grand Slam.
But sure.. if not for Federer this guy would have 10 Grand Slams.
He did not reach a Grand Slam final after AO 2005.

Hewitt:
He won 2 Grand Slams.
Has only lost to Federer three times in the semis or final of a Grand Slams.
He did not even reach a Grand Slam final after 2005.
And yet we are meant to believe if not for Federer he would be GOAT... yeah.

Roddick:
He is the only genuine player in your list who would have won many more slams if not for Roger, I think he lost to Federer in 4 Grand Slam finals.
But let's be honest, he didn't really have the groundstrokes to even come close to Federer. He had massive serve, but when that was returned how good was his game-play?
I'd his groundstrokes below Hewitt, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Ljubicic etc. - to even say this guy would be a potential GOAT is ridiculous.

It's not just about losing to federer, it's more than just that.

How must it have felt for those guys entering tournaments knowing that Federer was in the draw or that he was their potential next round opponent? Don't you think it would have dented their confidence?

And before you start rubbishing Fed's competition do I need to remind you once again of all the players who kicked Nadal's butt in the slams in that same period?

As usual your stats are cherry picked.

I did my own research.

It turns out Fed beat Hewitt in 5 slams up to the end of 2005 when Hewitt was still number two in the world.

Even if Hewitt had won just 3 of those slams he would be talked about as one of the greats of the game.

Roddick lost to Fed in 8 slams up to W 2009, all of those matches bar one were either in the semi or final, the exception being the quarter final match at the 2007 USO.

How must it have felt for those guys entering tournaments knowing that Federer was in the draw or that he was their potential next round opponent? Don't you think it would have dented their confidence?

Oh cmon Eman, are you having a laugh now??

After 2005 neither Hewitt or Safin were ever in the top 10.
Not even top 10.

And you're suggesting they would have been GOATs if not for Roger? It's a laughable argument.
Roddick got his arse kicked by Federer time and again, he came and stayed in the top 10 and kept on reaching finals to play Roger.
Should we consider him as braveheart?

As for your post on another thread on Nadal, I replied to it, but you then didn't reply.
I believe you listed some defeats Nadal encountered in slams. Good research.
I replied that I don't think when Nadal was young outside clay he was great. In 2005 he lost to Muller in Wimbledon, that shows quite a bit. Rafa sometimes played really good matches, but was so so inconsistent outside clay when he was young.

Excellent post Socal and I concur. As a Federer fan, I have been noticing this for years now and, like Bogbrush and emancipator, have been trying to make this point, although not a well as you have. You obviously know your tennis.

Roger's decline has been very gradual, but gradual all the same. It first started when he started spray his forehands long and mishitting shots that were effortless in the past. This is down to a millisecond slower in movement. This is why his weakness would have escaped the casual observer at first. However, as a fan who knows that his footwork forms the basis of his beautiful game, I knew that he was going to struggle in the future. It is very impressive that he can still make it to the second week of slams and get to quarter and semifinals. His return game, which was excellent in the past, is now merely adequate, and he tends to get bullied by players with intimidating physiques and groundstrokes such as Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011. If one goes back to 2004, when Andy Roddick was putting on the serving display of his life, Roger's superior movement and returning was able to negate Andy's power.

With that said, I still believe that Wimbledon remains his best chance of adding to his slam tally, since his serve is very effective on grass and there are not as many grass court specialists out there.

Eman, if a player loses to Roger in R16 of a slam we can't suddenly assume he would have won the slam.
That's why I showed the stats for semi-final and above, but even then assuming he would have won the tournament is a bit far fetched

No I think your deliberately missing the point.

It's all about results and perceptions.

I made the point that had it not been for Federer both Hewitt and Roddick may have had more slams and thus been considered to be great players (ok GOATs was a bit of a stretch - although in Roddick's case 6-7 slams was definitely doable without a Federer on tour). Safin admittedly was a bit of a maverick, but unquestionably an incredibly talented one.

What does it matter if Hewitt was not in the top ten after 2005; injuries caught up with him by then. The damage Fed did to him was all before then anyway. I said may have won more slams. Both he and Roddick were top contenders during those two respective periods.

What about Roddick? He lost an AUS semi to Fed in '09 and the W final. Don't you think he too would have ended up with multiple slams?

Well Roddick would have probably won 4 Wimbledons without Federer. That's pretty impressive stuff, just the one behind Borg, and ahead of Becker, McEnroe and Connors.

Probably an AO too, and another USO, maybe more.

I think he'd be being remembered as an important player.

bogbrush wrote:
I think he'd be being remembered as an important player.

Yes he would have been important.
And he would have won many slams if Federer wasn't there.

But great? His groundstrokes were seriously lacking, and once his serve was returned I wouldn't say he was as good as Baghdatis, Blake, Hewitt.
I think Federer is the one who was relatively lucky to face a player like Roddick in the finals of so many Grand Slams.

You probably didn't watch much of Roddick in his younger days. He used to have one of the biggest FH's on the tour and of course his serve is still immense but in the 2003-5 period at W he was regularly bombing down 140+ mph serves. He wasn't a Karlovic as some like to portray. He could move and rally and finish off points with his FH.

On the faster courts of W and the USO Roddick at his best would be a tough opponent for anyone.

Of course it's easy to rubbish players once they're past their best. People forget that at one point they were actually very good.

It'll be fun when the current crop enter their declining years to hear their supporters using the same arguements to defend them.

In the same way Roddick was lucky to make all those slam finals?

He had poor groundstrokes compared to the likes of even Blake, you may as well admit it Eman.
In 2006 in his prime he lost to a very young Murray.
Only when Stefanki took over in 2009 he got revenge, but I feel that tournament was a bit of a one-off in the context of things at that time.

Yet in 2009 he also reached the AUS semi.

Since when are groundstrokes the only measure of being a top player? And his FH wasn't poor by any standard in his earlier days. It's only when he started fiddling with it and applying more top spin that it became less effective.

It Must Be Love wrote:He had poor groundstrokes compared to the likes of even Blake, you may as well admit it Eman.
In 2006 in his prime he lost to a very young Murray.
Only when Stefanki took over in 2009 he got revenge, but I feel that tournament was a bit of a one-off in the context of things at that time.

A one- off, as in it didn't fit your view of the World. I've seen rationalisation before, but complete dismissal of facts?

4 Wimbledons constitutes a Wimbledon great. He was very unlucky in the timing of his career, both in Federer, and the neutralisation of his game by the court and ball developments.

Yeah good point BB.

The guy who had already reached 3 W finals as well a semi or two, and had won at queens was somehow flukey to reach another W final!

Flukey?
When did I say flukey?

Don't misquote me. I said in that year it was a bit of a one-off in terms of level of play at the time. To expand further, i think his level during Wimbledon was much higher than it was for the rest of the year.

It Must Be Love wrote:But sure.. if not for Federer this guy would have 10 Grand Slams

Where did I say Hewitt would win 10 slams? Perhaps you should take your own advice.



emancipator

Let's consider a point from the video scrapbook. A 25 year old (Murray's age) Federer exuding lucid but casual brilliance against one of his numerous bunnies - Davydenko:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy2DYUGN6Xw

Federer doesn't have the footwork, timing or dexterity to produce a rally of this virtuosity anymore and it's a real shame. I remember watching him when he was at his peak and trying to drink in just how bloody well he was playing a sport I love to have a hack at.

Roger's forehand used to be a weapon for the ages. Now it's more help the aged.

What about this shot, MIA now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CuXqNBr2c

emancipator wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:But sure.. if not for Federer this guy would have 10 Grand Slams

Where did I say Hewitt would win 10 slams? Perhaps you should take your own advice.



emancipator

You said 'potential GOATs'?

How can you be a potential GOAT unless you win 10 slams?

Jeez, just sound of the thing from the younger Federer is impressive.

There's no shot in the modern game like it.

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:But sure.. if not for Federer this guy would have 10 Grand Slams

Where did I say Hewitt would win 10 slams? Perhaps you should take your own advice.



emancipator

You said 'potential GOATs'?

How can you be a potential GOAT unless you win 10 slams?

Oh right thanks for that.

I didn't realise that was the cut off mark.

emancipator wrote:What about this shot, MIA now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CuXqNBr2c

Yep, I miss that forehand. That shot is haemorrhaging errors now, with only moderate success. It pains me to see the great man not be at the height of his powers.

Sorry but the clips posted are not better than shots I've seen him produce far more recently. Some of them were easy mid court putaways.

As for Roddick, almost every very good player like him, throughout history, has had to contend with a great beating him. If he'd had the fortune of having no great in his era, yes he could have won about 5 slams. Roddick would have losses had he fallen in the Sampras/Agassi era, or against Connors/Borg/Mcenroe.

Do u think he produces those shots with the same regularity?

Henman Bill wrote:Sorry but the clips posted are not better than shots I've seen him produce far more recently. Some of them were easy mid court putaways.
As for Roddick, almost every very good player like him, throughout history, has had to contend with a great beating him. If he'd had the fortune of having no great in his era, yes he could have won about 5 slams. Roddick would have losses had he fallen in the Sampras/Agassi era, or against Connors/Borg/Mcenroe.

They look like easy putaways because his movement was so much better than it is now. I agree that he still produces great shots. That magnificent drop volley against Murray in the Wimbledon 2012 final comes to mind. But there is so much more inconsistency now compared to before due to his overall slower movement.

For instance, would it have been possible for Tsonga to blast his way past Federer in a Wimbledon quarter after being down two sets to love during Federer's prime? I highly doubt it. Federer would have actually fed off Tsonga's power and probably finished the job in three or four sets. However, Federer's increasingly suspect return game is now a liability because he does not move nearly as well.

This discussion always returns to a point similar to Bill's comment that Fed still hit great shots. Yes, of course that's right. The issue is the regularity or reliability of it.

What also isn't there, imo, is the incredible fluidity of movement that we see from the young Federer in those clips. Now that age for you.