has Federer finally got the memo?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/21/Brain-Game-Rome-Federer-Nadal.aspx

This is a great in depth analysis of Federer's tactics against Rafa on Sunday, even though the scoreline was brutal his game plan was what people have been begging him to do for years. He had a poor one on Sunday, but he did try to put the match into his own hands. Roger on a better day perhaps with 5/6 best of 5 set matches on the surface on under his belt might not allow Rafa to be quite so comfortable next time.

Now, I am not saying he is going to go and beat Rafa in Paris but its on other surfaces that this analysis has caused my sudden optimism. Haven't many of us said for years, "why don't players just go all out against Rafa and take loads of risks? They are going to get beaten anyway so why not take a chance, they have nothing to lose?" This is what Roger actually did quite a few times on Sunday but the scoreline clouded it obviously.

Maybe he will get a crack at Rafa at Halle before Wimbledon to try this game plan on grass, I am very curious I have to say. And if he sprays loads of forehands? Well at least he is going for it, instead of the usual pattern of play we see that grinds Roger down.

It's a memo he needed to get about 8 years ago!

Unfortunately he spent his prime years convinced that simply playing his normal game very well would win any game.

Which, in fairness, was true against anyone except Rafa.

Had the Federer of, say, 2006-7 approached a match v Rafa in the same way as he did at the weekend.... well, that would have been very interesting.

What I like about Federer is that he's never obsessed with the short term. To be trying to develop a new plan - and taking a hiding while he does so - at almost 32 is very impressive.

Maybe the old dog has no plans to hang up the racquet for a while yet?

After the final on Sunday he said its very hard to stop Nadal dictating play because he takes time away from you. Its a good move by Federer - if that's what it is - but you feel any change of approach is 4-5 years overdue given he's been "led" by Nadal on court via the 12-4 H2H since 2008. Perhaps its also a tactic to combat the younger big 3 given he cant compete physically against them. Perhaps he realises he's no other options than to be ultra-aggressive now - like Sampras became. On faster surfaces it may work better, although he's always aggressive on grass/indoor anyway so not sure what will change there, but on clay I don't think it will make much difference and Roger will be somewhat scratching his head after Sunday. The problem is Nadal makes him pull the trigger when he's not really comfortable doing so...he needs to strike a better ralley/trigger balance. On Sunday he was way too trigger happy. However, on Sunday Nadal was way too good as well

Kudos to Roger for trying though - he's still out there battling and thinking - but to be blunt his stubbornness means this "change" is too long overdue.

By the way, in terms of being ultra-aggressive I liked this veiled shot at Gulbis by Nadal in response to Gulbis saying he was the better player in their Rome match.

“If you hit as hard as you can, and hit every ball at 216 or 220kph and then that means being the best player then perhaps he was the best player.”

Seems Nadal doesn't subscribe to the "hard-flat= talent" school of playing tennis. Gulbis also needs to learn the better player is the one who moves to the next round!

Ultra aggressive is good but hes gotta keep that convinction. Itll be hard for him to play that same way if they met at RG knowing last time he tried he got a complete hiding, and this time hell need to do it for 5 sets not 3.
To be fair he always starts like a house on fire, but Nadal wrenches the momentum away from him and he can't keep it up.

Don't agree with the ATP article. Plenty of stats in there but don't be fooled that the presentation of a lot of data necessarily implies that the conclusions drawn from said data are correct.

I didn't see that much of a change. His running round a serve to play a forehand winner down the line from the ad court was exactly like one he did at AO 2009, and the commentator, then, 4 years ago, guess what he said "He got the memo!" That's exactly what he said.

His performance game plan yesterday was very similar to one on a clay court, perhaps at Madrid in around 2010-2011 where he won the first set 7-5 with the same game plan. I didn't see a lot of change on Sunday. A lot of the missed forehands were from inside the baseline, and were very makeable. It wasn't like he was trying to hit winners low down from behind the baseline.

He was a little more agressive and went to the net a bit more because he could afford to, because the court was playing fast, faster than Paris anyway. His tactics will only work if he plays an absolute blinder, which is not that likely.

Talk about other surfaces....in London he already showed on a faster surface with the same agressive game plan what he can do already. Nothing new here.

I do think his form of the whole week was promising, and indicating that he is still not really in (swift) decline. But see nothing there to suggest he has better chances than in the past against Rafa on other surfaces.

It never seems ceases to amaze me how much positive spin can be given to a very disappointing Federer defeat

This article and the ATP's (who are, let's face it in love with Roger - just like they were with Roddick) is the ultimate definition of "clutching at straws"

I wonder when people will realise that at nearly 32, he's not quite the same player

And accept it, i.e. he's nowhere near Rafa on the dirt, but has a chance away from it. Which is pretty good for peak 27 year old, never mind 32

Quite right; in fact it's not that he's not quite the same player, he's well off the pace. However, he's still looking at ways to adapt to that new reality; sometimes it works (like at Wimbledon last year, where he played more aggressively and got the pay-off), sometimes it doesn't.

I don't mind this, it's part of the territory. And I stopped being anxious about his achievements once he got the 15th Slam. Since then it's just been bonus material. The only thing that I now dislike is seeing him lose against guys like Nishikori and so on; people who wouldn't have troubled him for a set in his prime.

The match itself reminded me of the last time that he went into a clay match with Rafa knowing he couldn't sustain a physical war; that was at RG in 2008, and it ended badly too, and in much the same way (shedloads of unforced errors caused by trying to end rallies very quickly).

bogbrush wrote:The only thing that I now dislike is seeing him lose against guys like Nishikori and so on; people who wouldn't have troubled him for a set in his prime.

The thing that bugs me about this is when these defeats are used to show that others are improving. As if 'Federer' is a fixed level of tennis that people are now starting to overhaul.

Every time his level of today is used to promote others, his brilliance of previous years is diminished.

CAS wrote:http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/21/Brain-Game-Rome-Federer-Nadal.aspx

This is a great in depth analysis of Federer's tactics against Rafa on Sunday, even though the scoreline was brutal his game plan was what people have been begging him to do for years. He had a poor one on Sunday, but he did try to put the match into his own hands. Roger on a better day perhaps with 5/6 best of 5 set matches on the surface on under his belt might not allow Rafa to be quite so comfortable next time.

Now, I am not saying he is going to go and beat Rafa in Paris but its on other surfaces that this analysis has caused my sudden optimism. Haven't many of us said for years, "why don't players just go all out against Rafa and take loads of risks? They are going to get beaten anyway so why not take a chance, they have nothing to lose?" This is what Roger actually did quite a few times on Sunday but the scoreline clouded it obviously.

Maybe he will get a crack at Rafa at Halle before Wimbledon to try this game plan on grass, I am very curious I have to say. And if he sprays loads of forehands? Well at least he is going for it, instead of the usual pattern of play we see that grinds Roger down.

Someone else pointed out this article to me, and that person treated it as though it was a Federer Rosetta Stone. It's nonsense. Federer serving wide to the Nadal BH in the Deuce court? This is new?? Hardly. I was in attendance at their Indian Wells match this year. Federer's first two serves to Nadal in the Deuce Court were wide to his BH. Nadal returned the first one deep to the Federer FH, the second deep to the Federer BH. The idea this tactic is something amounting to a revelation is just silly. Ditto this idea of comeing to the net. Federer has come in constantly over the last 9 years to Nadal. The problem isn't Federer coming in. The problem for Federer is that too often Nadal's passes are just too good. Serving? Federer has a tendency in Best of Fives vs. Nadal to hit a lot of Aces - racking up 25 of them in their 2008 Wimbledon Final. That's a whole set to Federer for simply hitting his First Serve unreturnably. Yet he still lost the match. To say that somehow Federer did something different serving on Sunday is just - well let's be charitable and call it wishful thinking. Federer only got 57% of his First Serves in at all. So the fact he won a slight majority of those points is irrelevant, given he had to hit a 2nd ball almost as much as he had to hit a first one.

Articles like this one harken back to the early years in their matches when so many in the press were writing what I called "Advice To Federer" columns much like this piece, advising him in basic Open Letter as to what he "needs to do" to stop what they saw as this confounding continual losing to Nadal. It was published pieces like all of those that had a basical fundamental flaw at its root: it gave Nadal virtually no credit for beating Federer. Such "Advice To Federer" pieces made the false assumption Nadal was simply an inferior player overall to Federer, and these writings were written more for those who wrote them. It's as though these authors of such pieces were in much greater distress over Federer losing to Nadal than Federer was. At least that's the whiff omitting from the subtext of such screeds. These Advisories to Federer infer the "Fedal" matches are essentially on the Federer racquet. It treats Nadal as though he really doesn't have much to say about the outcome of his matches against Federer. Not so. And given the career Nadal has cut out for himself since this rivalry blossomed in 2006, it should be obvious even to the author of this piece.

bogbrush wrote:

....................................................................................................................................

And I stopped being anxious about his achievements once he got the 15th Slam. Since then it's just been bonus material. The only thing that I now dislike is seeing him lose against guys like Nishikori and so on; people who wouldn't have troubled him for a set in his prime.

Whilst I can undoubtedly relate to the underlying point you make here bb, I also feel there is a bit of a contradiction in these comments.

Like you, I drew a mental line under Federer's stellar career some time ago - maybe around 18 months back, so well before his most recent Slam victory at Wimbledon which of course brought him yet another stint as World No. 1. Indeed, even on the old 606 I found myself posting several times that I considered his work was done, his legacy was totally secure and that any further achievements were little more than (as you say) "bonus material"

Losses to "guys like Nishikori" are only disappointing if you apply the former mercurial standards by which Federer was once measured ; but this, I feel, would be a harsh judgement given his age and total miles - or matches - on the clock. And if an up-and-coming guy like Nishikori, who let's remember has been a solid feature within the top 20 for around 18 months now and at 23 is still very young in comparative terms, cannot ever hope to beat the ageing maestro, then there really is little hope for the future of the game. I mean .... are all these promising 'youngsters' expected to wait until he is 35 before prevailing in a match versus Federer....? Surely not.

By way of contrast, the decline of Pete Sampras, who had already put his feet up before Fed's current age, would have been far more disconcerting to his fans at the time : in his final year or so on the tour he had been losing to all sorts of unheralded journeymen before calling it a day in the immediate wake of his USO swansong triumph.

Over the last 18 months Federer has lost on four occasions to players ranked outside the Top 10. The figures for such losses by the other big names make for an interesting comparison :

Djokovic : 4
Nadal : 5
Murray: 8

- Fed's "worst" loss was to Haas ranked 87. But of course Haas has since climbed well up the rankings and when he defeated Djoko recently he was up at 18
- Nadal's "worst" loss was to a player ranked 100 (don't think anyone needs reminding of the name....)
- Murray's "worst" loss was to a 92nd ranked Garcia-Lopez

We know that nobody is invincible and that anyone can lose to pretty much anyone (ie anyone good enough to get into the draw for a main tour event), on any given day. But I also think there is some irony that even at this age Federer will come under scrutiny for every loss he suffers to a non top ten player, when his much younger and still in-prime big four rivals have been suffering such losses with the same or even greater frequency.

In many ways, I guess that's a testament not only to his unique talent & ability, but equally to the expectations that many still have of him even in his advancing years.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:The only thing that I now dislike is seeing him lose against guys like Nishikori and so on; people who wouldn't have troubled him for a set in his prime.

The thing that bugs me about this is when these defeats are used to show that others are improving. As if 'Federer' is a fixed level of tennis that people are now starting to overhaul.

Every time his level of today is used to promote others, his brilliance of previous years is diminished.

Looking back and saying Kei wouldn't have troubled Fed for a set in his prime in an early round of a Masters is somewhat rose-tinted. Look at 2007, by common consent part of Fed's peak. He lost to Canas in both the spring hard court Masters and then to Volandri in Rome (and that was without the long break). Only 2006 could be described as free from defeats to lesser players at Masters level (and even that saw him shocked by baby Murray in Cinci). Its grand slam level where he has always been more or less untouchable by the lesser guys.

In relation to the article, I didn't really see any sign of a new game plan from Fed. Smacking forehands long at the end of decent rallies was a large feature of the 2006 Rome final. He just has no structured tactics which can successfully knock Nadal out of his rhythm on clay.

Yes, the above article was an exercise in "journalistic" fellatio of Federer (who has no desire to agree with what would be self deception to believe the article's points) and auto-fellatio to insulate the author from the truth; Nadal has long since had Federer's number and he's never going to forget it, certainly not on clay.

Just like I might have to accept someone writing the above sentence about a 31 year old Rafa in respect of Djokovic, history cannot be changed and tennis players do not age like fine wine. I hope Rafa can adapt his game to cope with Novak's winning tactics/impose his game in such absolute terms that he wins out against Novak but until it happens especially on a hard court, however, I cannot wish it to be true.

That would be in deep deep denial of the 2011 and 2012 seasons. Now, despite losing the AO in 2012, I actually think that did Rafa huge mental favours for himself because he can make the case that he lost the match in the 5th rather than Nole winning it, and then winning the FO was excellent too, but he then lost this year in Monaco, which could well have undone some of that hard earned confidence going forward.

We'll find out over the next month anyway and on the autumn hard court season too.

I love Fedal matches but I no longer have that feeling of uncertainty in my stomach that a partizan fan has during close rivalries, when the matches happen these days. And I don't like that. So Roger, feel free to scare the faeces out of me on the final Sunday in Paris!!!!!

Born Slippy, I didn't suggest younger Fed didn't lose.

I'm suggesting that recent defeats do not necessarily show people improving, merely Fed declining.

Yet frequently the headline and general hype takes the view that Federer is being caught up. A good example was the excitement that Andy beating Roger in a slam brought and how that was viewed as a sign of Andy's progress. Roger is nearly 32! A player of Andy's age and ability should be expected to beat him at this stage of his career!

In fairness to Fed since Annacone has been in his camp he has been tactically much smarter and he did beat Nadal with similar plan of attack at the WTF w 2010 or 2011 or both, can't remember right now. ON clay it will be harder to execute this level of aggression. Also I think in Rome 05 he played very aggressively and made a lot of trips to the net as well. The problem is that it is much harder to time the ball with that heavy spin slingshotting off the clay and less pay off as the flat shots will not penetrate the court quite as much.

He has been beaten at RG by Soderling and Novak...QF and SF, before that early on by Kuerten. He's done fantastically well getting to 5 finals on his worst surface, Sampras managed only a handful of QF's and a SF.

We should not lose sight of the fact that Nadal ate his dinner on clay, slept on it and bathed in it, its no wonder that he is so strong on the stuff. But having all you eggs in one basket of red dust have played havoc with his ability to get more slams on other surfaces.

Federer has always been the more versatile of the two, but I feel this year is Rogers last, for me, he should bow out at Wimbledon, the place he first won a slam and the most of his tally. A win there would be sublime, but not on the cards imo, if he gets to the final, I'd be amazed, seriously, but a QF or SF will be more realistic. No insult to him, he'll be more closer to 32 after SW19 that he'll feel comfortable with, his state of play at RG, Halle and Wimbledon will tell the tale that he got the memo, but ignored it cos....well, he's Roger.

I do think Roger is less stubborn against Rafa these days. For a guy who has struggled against Rafa for all his career he has actually done decently against him in the last 4 years. If we forget his Indian Wells back problems and obviously Sundays mauling.

He beat him 2012 Indian Wells, pushed him in Australia on court where he notoriously struggles on against the other big 4, thrashed him in London, had his closest French Open match with him in Paris, took a set off him in Madrid, and beat him in the London final

At ages 27 and 22 their head to head was 13-6 to Rafa, before this years meetings it was only 5-4 to Rafa since then, at 31-26. Strangely, Roger dealt with Rafa during the spaniards peak years better than he used to, whilst he was past his own peak years. Which tells me Roger was actually starting to perhaps master the game plan but he just did it too late and now he just isn't good enough anymore.

Considering it was 13-6 with Rafa just 22 and Roger 27 its actually a miracle Roger has managed to keep it from looking like Ferrer's H2H record with Rafa 4 years on

My only thought on that CAS is for Nadal and his knee problems. They were starting to affect his play back then and Roger had a flourish of wins over Nadal just as his knees went bust. Not all were down to that reason solely, but now that Rafa is back to his best, I can't see Federer making up the stats to anywhere near the best that they were.

Of course the more you play a guy, someone like Federer is going to work out better strategies to handle the talent on the other side of the net, I'm sure that came into play over the last 4 years.