Federer fighting the changing game

The days of having just a big serve and big forehand having long been left behind. Who can hit the most winners has now been replaced with who will hit the least unforced errors.

Defending has become the biggest part of the game we watch today. It is a necessity to move well or you will be left behind.

Federer cannot do it this as well as the big 3, he is a great defender but he is a tier below in this category when compared to Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. His only option when taking them on is to go all out attack, playing this way will win him some big matches but its not something even he can sustain, especially over 5 sets back to back.

In his years of dominance he was excellent at controlled aggression, however he is now reluctant to play this way against the big 3, this is because he feels like he cannot exchange in longer rallies with these players anymore. Why can't he rally? because the game has moved on, he grew up in an era where you finished the point in 1-5 shots, its testament to him that with the game changing he has been able to adapt so well and keep up.

Many people claim that Federer benefited from the slower conditions because he won plenty of his slams on those surfaces, this is where I disagree. Federer is a fast court specialist, but he adopted the slower conditions because incredibly despite his attacking talent he was also the best defender in the world as well.

However, now he is trying to play the tennis of the 90s, finishing the points early because the generation that grew up and moulded their styles to the conditions changing are a new kettle of fish for Roger. They are superior athletes produced through the conditions slowing down, born to play long rallies, his game was/is his hands and timing not wars of attrition.

When Federer played someone in stunning form during his peak years he always had the advantage of relying on his defensive abilities to get him out of trouble, that combination of being able to attack superbly but then have the ace up his sleeve that he could defend when they attacked him was why he won a lot of matches, however now he faces something else, When I watch Federer against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal it reminds me of a line from Dark Knight rises, “Ah you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it."

Federer is also a great athlete, probably the best of his generation, but the following generation are a step above. He can hit 2/3 tremendous half volleys off the baseline, hit 10-15 shots half an inch over the net and still lose the point, while his opponents are able to take little risk by neutralising him, staying far back and being absolute beasts at the back of the court.

Rafas spin allows him to prevent his opponents from attacking him, and with his speed and defensive skills (which is an art in itself, running down shots is one thing, but where he puts it is another) behind that he is a brick wall, Novak is a rubber band that seems to be able to cover the court like if Mr. Fantastic could play tennis, Andy is a physical specimen like Rafa with awesome speed as well. The next stage of evolution is  6'6/7/8 monsters who can blast their way past them, which is on the horizon. It says a lot that a 'mini' athlete like Ferrer is able to get to number 3 by being a great defender, to those who say Ferrer has no weapons well imagine his forehand (which I think is underrated) with a 6'2/3 frame behind it.

Others slam contenders? Tomas Berdych 6'5 easy power, Del Potro 6'6 with a forehand that leaves a vapour trail, Tsonga 6'2 but 14 stone of pure athleticism. Federer out of genuine slam contenders is glaringly the odd one out in terms of game style and physique.

The one handed backhand is now a weakness for Roger, it was better back in the day of short points, now if you are going to have to go through 30+ rallies its a liability because its so much harder to control and time, especially when defending, the amount of times I see two handers use their other arm to drag the ball back in play, a single hander just can't do that. It was better in a time when you wanted to finish points at the net. Double handers are able to guide the ball better I find as well, move the ball around, Stan and Gasquet have stunning backhands but at the end of the day they are also susceptible on that side when they are defending, which you need to do more of.

I don't dislike the big 3s style, I actually quite enjoy longer rallies if I'm honest, more so than the 90s quick points, but not over 4/5 hours, I think thats one of the reason I liked Federer, he exchanges in long rallies but not all the time, he was a nice blend of what was good about the 90s and whats good about the game now. Unfortunately, the players are better than him at longer rallies.

When Federer plays the new generation the contest is decided by who wins one certain battle, Federer is a better offensive player than the big 3, all he can now control is being better than them at shortening the points, so, it becomes a battle of him trying to keep it to 5 shots and them extending it to 15+, whoever can do it best wins the match.

Good article. I especially liked the Bane quote, I did not think the two were so interchangeable!

Very good article.  , yea I am a huge fan of all Dark Night Villans and so do Bane and loved the quote.

CAS… you sound almost apologetic on Federer's behalf. He can still play grueling tennis with likes of Del Potro and many others for 2.5+ hours.

He tried a racquet switch, but went back to his attacking persona.

The other three grew up with 100 SQInch racquets with Luxilon and a retrieval machine, because it was the ONLY way to defeat someone of Federer's standing. (And I do like Ferrer a lot, too).

But you notice, one has had surgery, the second was out for 6+ months, the third could not keep up the consistency of 2011. As Qui Gon would say, there is always a bigger fish.

At 32, he is still standing, willing to compete, albeit a half step slower, as Djokovic has observed.

Has he ever retired? Has he been in surgery? Has he been absent when the tour was on? He is an inspiration to many who still cannot manage their playing schedules or want rankings changed.

Let us see what Brisbane brings.

Not apologetic at all not sure where it seems that, I hope he doesn't retire for many more years. Just an observation I have made is all, I loved his comment that he thinks all matches except for Roland Garros is on his racket, which I agree with. I also liked Raonics comment in commentary, where Rusedski said he thinks the locker room don't fear Federer anymore. Milos jumped to Feds defence and said "no, the feeling is that everyone knows he can do it, it's just about him clicking" Greg of course tried to argue the point, which was redundant because Milos is the locker room

What a terrific article. Very fair and pretty damn accurate.

Of course the 3 guys that you talk about are tremendous players with great ability, but you are right... What separates them is there ability to move and defend and produce shots on the back foot.

And what has hampered Roger is how his movement is not quite as good. He also shanks a lot more than he used to, but that is probably down to his movement and athleticism not being quite what it was too.

He still has magic though, watching him play Novak at the 02 was a treat as he can still come out with moments that can give you goosebumps. He's had a tough year but we don't know how much of that is Father Time and how much is down to his back.

I wouldn't completely rule out a fresh Federer making a sprint for one of the big trophies IF his back is better in January.

Whilst the content of the article is pretty much correct, I think it's more that he is fighting age rather than court conditions.

If you look at Federer's movement from 05-07, I think it is in the same league as Rafa, Novak and Andy. It's a different kind of movement certainly, but his ability to cover the court is pretty much the same.

Defensively, his peak game is probably behind the other three. But I think we need to view this as an arms race. Federer took attacking tennis to new levels. It is inevitable that his rivals would have to improve their defence in response.

I don't see this is negative terms. I think Novak in particular is breaking new ground in defensive skill. His return of serve must now be classed as a great attacking shot. And I've simply never seen another player be able to launch into the sliding splits and hit an attacking shot down the line from a defensive position!

I know defence doesn't have the same kudos as offence but I think that Novak and Rafa, in redefining defensive skill, have contributed as much to the modern tennis skill set as Roger. (Andy's defence is brilliant too but I see him as more of a great exponent rather than a revolutionary).

The only part of your article I disagree with is the bit about "his opponents are able to take little risk by neutralising him, staying far back and being absolute beasts at the back of the court".

Novak's usual court position is not far back, usually inside the court hitting on the rise, and Rafa this season has been aggressively positioned too. Andy has a tendency to slip back but tends to be less successful when he does so.

It's only Ferrer of the top 4 who tends to stay back but what is his H2H with Federer? 0-14.

Being a "beast from the back of the court" only has limited value unless a player has the shots to go with it. Novak, Rafa and Andy certainly have them. Let's not overlook that all the faster tournaments were won by Rafa or Novak this year.

Getting back to Federer, even now, there are only three players who would begin a match as a clear favourite against him. Even players as good as Berych and Del Potro find him difficult to beat.

And bringing it back to court conditions, I feel pretty sure that if you could transport the 26 year old Federer to today, he would beat Novak and Andy more often than he loses to them (the Rafa match up would still be a nightmare for him!). And he wouldn't be looking to end the rally after 5 shouts, he'd play on his own terms.

Age is the big problem, not the conditions.

Very good impassioned article. I agree with HM. The consistency is just not their anymore and age is a huge factor in it.

I agree yes I do enjoy watching longer rallies, but I am calling out for a variation in conditions as I hate watching tournaments and knowing what to expect from it. For new talent to come through it needs for the right conditions to allow that and the current standards and conditions don't allow for younger talent to breakthrough.

As for Federer, I think he has had his day. He can still compete, but winning the bigger tournaments I think are beyond him now.

HM - very good post. I'm enjoying this discussion, good original post and good responses.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I am calling out for a variation in conditions as I hate watching tournaments and knowing what to expect from it.

I agree but I must say that I've thought the conditions post USO have been very good.

Beijing/Shanghai/Basel/Paris and WTF have all been broadly in the "quick enough to hit through but slow enough for the best defence to pay off" category. There have also been a couple of low-bouncers in there too.

Federer has produced good stuff in these conditions, Del Potro and even Ferrer were able to get wins against Rafa.

Novak swept this period but it was very close on a few occasions - he's not been impervious by any stretch of the imagination.

As Murdoch has said it again goes back to Fed's age. And I agree with some of the article but disagree in the portion that claims that Fed didn't benefit from the slower conditions. Fed in his youth was as fast as any player on tour and his defensive skills up there with the very best. The edge he held over players like Nalby or Agassi was that he could defend against there superior groundstrokes and defend as well as attack where as the Roddicks, Agassis, Nalbys, and Safin's of the world where players who dominated only through the attack. It should be celebrated that Fed in his peak could play the most versatile game around. But I have seen him win as many matches with his feet and fitness as with his forehand. In fact we never heard this outcry to speed up the conditions till fed started losing to Nadal and later Djoko and murray.

I am for variety through minor changes to the balls and courts which would have a big impact on the game. Today's male players need a governor on their power to preserve the rallies that fans enjoy. Quick strike tennis is not particularly enjoyable to watch for the fans and at the end of the day it is a business. You can rest assured that if the tournament directors felt that faster conditions are what fans like they would give it to them.

socal1976 wrote: In fact we never heard this outcry to speed up the conditions till fed started losing to Nadal and later Djoko and murray.  

This is an interesting point.

I remember how lauded Federer was for hiring Paganini and really working on his fitness. It was this fitness that allowed his talent to truly flourish.

This is a good article:
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004

But when players came along who are even fitter, suddenly 'fitness' became a bit of a dirty word. Rafa, Novak and Andy get criticised for winning by being fit but people forget that Roger won diddly squat until he got fit.

(I'm not suggesting that this is what CAS was saying in the OP)

I agree HM

HM is right about Federer's reliance on his fitness, but the difference is more nuanced than HM's brief comment and reference to "dirty word" allows.  Fed's chief weapon has always been to attack, his fitness has been a platform to enable him to sustain sufficient defence to weather a storm which might otherwise sweep him away whilst looking to return to his attacking game (it also is indispensable to footwork, which is also indispensable to Fed's shot-making). With the other three the emphasis is different, defence and fitness are not there to get them over tricky patches before a return to the attack, but defence is the predominant game plan with attack fitted in when the opponent's sting has been drawn.  It's not easy, it requires great skill - whether you like it or not is largely personal - my preference in any sport that is funded by the paying public is for those who have what I consider to be the gumption to rely more on attack than on defence. Similarly, my preference is for conditions that marginally favour such play (not, please, a return to the Wimbledon of the 1990's).
 
The pendulum always swings about for a number of reasons, I hope that it swings back a little bit away from the current emphasis on long rallies and longer matches, I suspect in time it will.  However, whatever happens to conditions the problem for Fed is a combination of age and wear and tear on that back.  I like Raonic's comment, seemed bang on to me, but what he does not say is that increasingly quite a lot seems to have to to go right for Fed to click, and the question of how long he can maintain it and against whom is a far bigger one than it used to be.

Barrystar, I think that's too simplistic in the other direction!

I consider Nadal and Djokovic to be attacking players. If you look at their results, there's an abundance of 6-2, 6-1 and 6-0 sets in there. The figures in the winners column are usually pretty healthy and, of late, Novak has a lot of net points and a high % of success there.

Both players put great importance on the first shot of the rally - they want to grab the initiative early. I really don't see their patterns of play as defensive.

Being able to play great defence doesn't make a player defensive. I own a saw but that doesn't make a me a carpenter! 

Andy is the enigma of the bunch. Is he a defensive player who sometimes turns in performances like the Olympic final? Or is he an attacking player who reigns in his instincts and stays back a la USO12? I'd probably classify him as a counter puncher but I find him a tough one to pin down.

@HM… Lydian also loves to post this Paganini link. Many players from 1970-80s agree on the increasing physicality of the sport. Lendl and Borg should be credited with the increased physicality. It is the nature of the sport.

HM Murdoch wrote:But when players came along who are even fitter, suddenly 'fitness' became a bit of a dirty word. Rafa, Novak and Andy get criticised for winning by being fit but people forget that Roger won diddly squat until he got fit.

.

The even fitter is where a lot of questions in sustaining such fitness come from. I can post the AO video of players unable to stand during award ceremony, if you like. . Do you want to see a ritual annual surgery for the Top 4 in Tennis beginning 2015 for backs/knees/wrists/elbows?

Watching WTF 2013 and WTF 2010 shows a significant difference in a span of two years. This process repeats for every player to pick up a racquet.

I recall McEnroe at USO in later years, with McEnroe in 1990 v Sampras - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo3TGQNYk20
from his heyday of 1984 (82-3). That is 6+ years. 2007-2008 to 2013-14 is a very similar 6+ year difference. McEnroe was in the same boat, as say Federer, or Laver, before a 17-yo Borg showed up.

laverfan wrote:The even fitter is where a lot of questions in sustaining such fitness come from. I can post the AO video of players unable to stand during award ceremony, if you like. . Do you want to see a ritual annual surgery for the Top 4 in Tennis beginning 2015 for backs/knees/wrists/elbows?

I don't really see the link between fitness and injury though?

Novak has been involved in more long 5 sets brawls than most over the last 3 years and has been almost injury free.

Rafa's injury, as I understand it, is largely congenital.

Ferrer plays more tournaments than pretty much anyone.

In fact, I'd argue the other way. A fit player is more likely to avoid injury as they can sustain the correct technique for longer. Injury comes not because a match has lasted for 5 hours but because a player has become weary, slowed a step and is now lunging and reaching and putting extra stress on the body.

We don't seem to get this concern over fitness in other sports. Outside of tennis, I've never heard anyone say the participants are getting too fit. It seems crazy to me!

barrystar wrote:HM is right about Federer's reliance on his fitness, but the difference is more nuanced than HM's brief comment and reference to "dirty word" allows.  Fed's chief weapon has always been to attack, his fitness has been a platform to enable him to sustain sufficient defence to weather a storm which might otherwise sweep him away whilst looking to return to his attacking game (it also is indispensable to footwork, which is also indispensable to Fed's shot-making).  With the other three the emphasis is different, defence and fitness are not there to get them over tricky patches before a return to the attack, but defence is the predominant game plan with attack fitted in when the opponent's sting has been drawn.  It's not easy, it requires great skill - whether you like it or not is largely personal - my preference in any sport that is funded by the paying public is for those who have what I consider to be the gumption to rely more on attack than on defence.  Similarly, my preference is for conditions that marginally favour such play (not, please, a return to the Wimbledon of the 1990's).
 
The pendulum always swings about for a number of reasons, I hope that it swings back a little bit away from the current emphasis on long rallies and longer matches, I suspect in time it will.  However, whatever happens to conditions the problem for Fed is a combination of age and wear and tear on that back.  I like Raonic's comment, seemed bang on to me, but what he does not say is that increasingly quite a lot seems to have to to go right for Fed to click, and the question of how long he can maintain it and against whom is a far bigger one than it used to be.

I am sorry barry can not disagree more. I don't see either Nadal or Djokovic to be principally defense based, maybe more defense based than Fed who for sure is the most aggressive and attack minded of the big 4. But to say that other players particularly Nadal and Djokovic are classed as principally defensive players while Fed is classified as an attack player, at least by the explanation you provided. Nadal's ferocious spin and angles it create is used offensively and he hits almost 90 percent of his shots with that aggressive forehand. Djokovic is even more aggressive as he goes for more on serve, gets to net more, hits earlier than almost anyone else on tour etc. So it really doesn't square with me that Nadal and Djokovic are principally or heavily defenders. More so than Fed no doubt but I feel that is an unfair characterization of the way they play against 98 percent of the tour.

HM Murdoch wrote:

laverfan wrote:The even fitter is where a lot of questions in sustaining such fitness come from. I can post the AO video of players unable to stand during award ceremony, if you like. . Do you want to see a ritual annual surgery for the Top 4 in Tennis beginning 2015 for backs/knees/wrists/elbows?

I don't really see the link between fitness and injury though?

Novak has been involved in more long 5 sets brawls than most over the last 3 years and has been almost injury free.

Rafa's injury, as I understand it, is largely congenital.

Ferrer plays more tournaments than pretty much anyone.

In fact, I'd argue the other way. A fit player is more likely to avoid injury as they can sustain the correct technique for longer. Injury comes not because a match has lasted for 5 hours but because a player has become weary, slowed a step and is now lunging and reaching and putting extra stress on the body.

We don't seem to get this concern over fitness in other sports. Outside of tennis, I've never heard anyone say the participants are getting too fit. It seems crazy to me!

Absolutely Murdoch, what other major sport have you heard a certain segment of fans COMPLAINING that the stars are too fit. Every sport has focused more and more on fitness. What should tennis players be guys with the wrists of Pavoratti and his belly as well? This whole fitness obsession by Fed fans came about when Nadal first started to beat Fed up in the Mid 2000s, the court slowdown and luxilons came about in the late 90 and early 2000s.

Socal's Second Universal Law/Maxim: The more Federer loses the slower the courts become and the more terrifying the fitness epidemic in Tennis becomes.

Federer only loses because the courts have slowed and other players are nasty brutes who are very fit.

Rafa only loses when he is injured.

Novak only loses when his mind goes walkabout.

Andy only loses when he is Scottish. 

Donald Young only loses.

laverfan wrote: Do you want to see a ritual annual surgery for the Top 4 in Tennis beginning 2015 for backs/knees/wrists/elbows?

You speak as if getting serious injuries is a new thing. However we often see comments on these boards that the careers of various top level  players were blighted by injury. Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin and Haas (yes he had other unfortunate issues as well) are ones that come  quickly to mind. So I don't really think we are seeing anything significantly different on the injury front. Djokovic has so far had no major injury problems and I don't recall Ferrer having any either.

whether its age or the new generation are better defenders the point still stands, when he comes up against them he can't match them in these conditions.

HM, I agree with what you said about Novak, he is the most aggressive of the big 3 but even he defends just to frustrate Roger.

I actually think you see the best of Federers defence against Novak because he has too, its rare against Murray and Nadal you see him defending like he does against Novak.

This is a quote from last years final in London against Federer "I managed to get a lot of his shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline, coming into an aggressive position.  That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."

CAS wrote:whether its age or the new generation are better defenders the point still stands, when he comes up against them he can't match them in these conditions.

HM, I agree with what you said about Novak, he is the most aggressive of the big 3 but even he defends just to frustrate Roger.

I actually think you see the best of Federers defence against Novak because he has too, its rare against Murray and Nadal you see him defending like he does against Novak.

This is a quote from last years final in London against Federer "I managed to get a lot of his shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline, coming into an aggressive position.  That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."

Yes but your point that Novak and Nadal are principally defensive players is what I question. This in regards to one match against Federer on a very fast court, I think this quote you provided is from Novak at the WTF last year. How you play Roger or JMDP or Andy differs because of the match up. If I was Nadal I would hit at Roger's backhand with my heavy forehand all day. Or if I was Novak I would also try to get fed in long rallies and move him side to side. The quote you raised is about the matchup with one player who happens to be one of the most aggressive players on tour (ie federer) who also happens to be 32, that fact also colors the strategy for that particular matchup.

It wasn't that fast last year, in the past staying behind the baseline on fast courts would be seriously punished.

What I found fascinating in Madrid 2012 that when everyone struggled to move at the back of the court and defend, what does Roger do? He serves and Volleys against Raonic. Incredible change up, that showed me that had the conditions not slowed down he would have excelled in the fast conditions of the 90s, its just he was able to play so well on slowing conditions.

Glad some of you liked the article, got a bit carried away with how much I wrote!

CAS wrote:This is a quote from last years final in London against Federer "I managed to get a lot of his shots back into the court, being passive, a couple meters behind the baseline, coming into an aggressive position.  That was one of the goals tonight, to always try to get him into the longer rallies where I think I had the better chance."

Interesting quote, CAS, I hadn't seen that before. I must admit I'm surprised by it.

In fairness though, Novak does say he did that before moving into a more aggressive position. Which makes a certain tactical sense. Why engage in "who can hit the earliest winner?" with the master when holding off a little before striking can give you an advantage?

That said, I'm not convinced of how great a tactic that is. I'm always surprised at how cautiously Novak plays at the start of matches v Federer. I took it as nerves, but perhaps it's a tactic? Not a great one as he nearly always seems to concede the early momentum and has to dig himself out of a hole!

HM Murdoch wrote:I don't really see the link between fitness and injury though?

Is Murray unfit, or injured? Djokovic v Del Potro @DC? Nadal withdrawal with shoulder injury from Paris?

HM Murdoch wrote:Novak has been involved in more long 5 sets brawls than most over the last 3 years and has been almost injury free.

I am glad that he is almost injury-free.

HM Murdoch wrote:Rafa's injury, as I understand it, is largely congenital.

We are not talking about Knees only, are we? See my example above.

HM Murdoch wrote:Ferrer plays more tournaments than pretty much anyone.

I am very happy for the little man.

HM Murdoch wrote:In fact, I'd argue the other way. A fit player is more likely to avoid injury as they can sustain the correct technique for longer. Injury comes not because a match has lasted for 5 hours but because a player has become weary, slowed a step and is now lunging and reaching and putting extra stress on the body.

We don't seem to get this concern over fitness in other sports. Outside of tennis, I've never heard anyone say the participants are getting too fit. It seems crazy to me!

There is no such thing as being over-fit. Quite agree on that. I was referring to sustaining such fitness over the season.

socal1976 wrote:Socal's Second Universal Law/Maxim: The more Federer loses the slower the courts become and the more terrifying the fitness epidemic in Tennis becomes.

https://www.606v2.com/t49559p250-finally-the-final-world-tour-finals-final-thread#2383899

This is not about Federer losing. He will lose matches as he has done over the years.

CAS wrote:It wasn't that fast last year, in the past staying behind the baseline on fast courts would be seriously punished.

What I found fascinating in Madrid 2012 that when everyone struggled to move at the back of the court and defend, what does Roger do? He serves and Volleys against Raonic. Incredible change up, that showed me that had the conditions not slowed down he would have excelled in the fast conditions of the 90s, its just he was able to play so well on slowing conditions.

Glad some of you liked the article, got a bit carried away with how much I wrote!

I believe what you are missing or failing to address in my post is that this is how Novak plays Roger. In fact on a fast court, against an aggressive older player you want to get him to long rallies if like Novak you are younger, fitter, and faster. Novak doesn't play that way on a fast court against lets Ferrer or Berdych. He is giving a synopsis or breakdown of his game plan against one particular player who is more suited to the fast court and who he holds a fitness and speed advantage. Djokovic plays most of his points on all surfaces very close to the line and that is my main problem with your post. That you place him in the counterpuncher category even though he is a very aggressive player against 98 percent of the opponents in 98 percent of varying conditions.

For example if Novak or Nadal where playing Isner you would expect them to try to make Isner play a style they are comfortable with and he is not. You would not expect them to try to punch with the big puncher.

Think people are being unduly harsh on Novak and Rafa here. Once again, the only reason they seem defensive is because Federer himself is around. Without him on tour, they suddenly become far more 'balanced' between offense and defense in the public perception, I feel. They suffer in comparison to him. Anyone who watches Novak play will know that he stands up to the baseline and seeks to attack off an angle against the majority of players. We shouldn't judge Novak's overall game just off how he plays against Federer, because he'd have to be insane to play super-aggressively against him (even now, he would likely lose, and potentially lose badly on certain courts).

And shots like Novak's return and Rafa's forehand simply cannot be squared with the 'fitness carries them' opinion; elasticity, strength and fitness all assist, but shots like those are also brought to the court via a combination of talent and hours upon hours of practice. These are unbelievably skillful players, not just athletes.

That said, a lot of what CAS says is true, IMO. Particularly the point about Federer growing up and learning the game in a different era to the other three - just look at the equipment he uses now, considered extremely outdated. He grew up with faster courts and smaller tennis balls, and with a different style of play all around him. Honestly, it's to his credit that he's been able to adapt and stay at the top of the game; far moreso than nearly any other player. He doesn't get enough kudos for that, among other things. Good thread for debating

Calder106 wrote:

laverfan wrote: Do you want to see a ritual annual surgery for the Top 4 in Tennis beginning 2015 for backs/knees/wrists/elbows?

You speak as if getting serious injuries is a new thing. However we often see comments on these boards that the careers of various top level  players were blighted by injury. Hewitt, Nalbandian, Safin and Haas (yes he had other unfortunate issues as well) are ones that come  quickly to mind. So I don't really think we are seeing anything significantly different on the injury front. Djokovic has so far had no major injury problems and I don't recall Ferrer having any either.

I can understand Hewitt having Hip surgery, late in his career, but Murray's case is hopefully not a harbinger of things to come. Del Potro's wrist issues. Djokovic had surgery for his breathing issues, IIRC.

Some injuries are part and parcel of the game, no doubt. Some are related to long-term issues or genetics. Some injuries can be avoided, though.

Ferrer (the Energiser Bunny) is unique in that respect. His retirement-related losses are Beijing 2012 v Lu, Canada 2009 v Nadal, Valencia 2006 v Ascione, Brazil 2005 v Corretja, Buenos Aires 2005 v Martin .

Having a great defense is nothing to be ashamed of. It requires great anticipation, speed, balance, and a great amount of skill to produce shots from defensive positions. It's a lot tougher than producing winners or forcing errors from the middle of the court. It should be cherished by fans. As a Murray fan, I like nothing more than seeing him produce something from ridiculous positions.

Murray can sometimes play on the back foot still, especially early on in slams or masters, but he's mostly on the front foot in the big matches. I remember Wimbledon this year he hit 60-70% of his shots inside the baseline first set. That dropped dramatically to about 30- 40% second set, but he won both sets. It's a feather in his cap that he can win playing different ways.

Novak, Rafa and Andy being so spectacular in defence is what makes them so great to watch in my opinion. Going from defence to attack requires athleticism AND great skill.

I agree, like I mentioned in the article chasing down shots is one thing but it is where they managed to place it. Gael Monfils is a great athlete but that hasn't made him as good a defender as the big 3.

Exactly right, Danny.

Here are three shots from the last few weeks that stick in my mind.

Incredible passing shot from Rafa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX6q4hBDRII

Equally incredible pass from Novak:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7W6Xt5VzpA

Novak's transition from mad, scrambling defence into a clean winner two shots later is one of my favourite points of the year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-V0zaW03Ac

Federer can defend too… -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU0XJQP16Is

Might as well put up the 2013 collection - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGjInPpMjRM

The last one from Djokovic to get the break is fantastic.

I think Kingraf or BB highlighted this one a few months ago.

But check out the speed and coverage of Federer from 2007 in the point beginning at 7:14:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2noW7YgtOgQ

Actually, watch the whole video! Federer was incredible that day. Genius at work.

I wouldn't say these players beat Fed by great defence. They are less aggressive than Fed but beat him by having attacking gifts that can put hin under constant pressure. Nadal has the freakish leftie forehand and Murray/Djoko are atg returners.

If Murray gets bogged down in defensive mode then Fed eats him alive. The firdt two slam finals Andy was clearly extremely nervous and passive as a result. However when he attacks Fed with controlled aggression he has great success. Madrid 08, Doha 09, Shanghai 10 and the Olympic final are all great examples of matches where Murray used his first serve to dominate and was very aggressive on return of serve.

Lol, have to laugh at Rafa's FH being called freakish...if you mean likely atg FH then yes it's freakish that way...LH or RH. Federer changed his own FH later on to model Rafa's.

What has changed in the game anyway besides slowing conditions and Fed getting older? Fed has always struggled against guys who can aggressively and consistently attack his BH...be it Kafelnikov, Agassi, Nalby, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray...or even Berdych. All doublehanders...

HM… you reminded me of this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4XSukcNpOA

lydian wrote:What has changed in the game anyway besides slowing conditions and Fed getting older?

Personally I think a big change is most players having double handers, they are able to defend better with them. Stan and Gasquet have awesome single handers but can't defend off that side anything like they can attack on it. Even Delpo who struggles with moving at times, drags the ball back so well with his right arm on the backhand side, a single hander is forced to slice in that position.

Like you said Federers single hander was targeted even in his peak, it was already a dying art back then.

Defending with it is so tough, Federer being Federer managed to hit shots like this to almost compensate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s_e4lU9HGI (the 2nd shot) watch how he doesn't allow his right leg to cross over his left, like Novak does on his sliding backhand, as soon as that happens you lose ground, double handers are superb at that, Djokovic took it to even another level, as did Rafa originally.

If you imagine they are hitting a forehand in that position instead of a backhand, thats where their feet would be, here is example of Rafa and Novak doing it. Its incredible, they are able to not lose ground. Single handers are unable to do that consistently, the 'Federer flick, is the closest thing I have seen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzxA-TYr1og This is Novak returning the favour

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1PV-akTA-g and this is Rafa doing the same twice in a row starting from 2:53, if you then watch the 2 points after Nadal breaks, watch Federer in a similar position but how he has to put his right foot across, it really makes the difference (ironically he wins those points) but its like Rafa and Novak have two forehands when they defend, its an art they have beautifully perfected due to being in extended rallies, so tactically they learnt how to stay in points better.

Its not just the fact Novak having a double hander helps battle Rafas spin by getting over the ball, its that side step Novak does that prevents him being dragged out of court, its and advantage of having two hands, Rafa can pull Roger out of court further and further

I have said this myself that CAS that a single hander in today's game is pretty much a liability even if it is very flashy and a very good shot. The amount of stability you lose on the return alone makes it a very one dimensional weapon with all this talk of variety, having a good slice backhand does not make up for having to chip so many returns on the backhand or play as passively as most one handers do on the return.

Another weakness that you mentioned is that the single hander is weaker when pulled wide than the double hander, the reason being is that to have any chance of driving a single hander you have to hit the ball in front. I have a good two handed backhand at the lower level and even when I connect with the ball behind me I can still hit the passing shot either up the line or cross court from the baseline area. I don't need to chip that ball or throw up a defensive lob like the one hander has to. You can generate more power from an open stance double handed backhand while it is a near impossiblity to generate any power from a one hander in a more open stance, you have to get turned and you have to hit the ball in front of your body. Therefore when under duress and pulled wide you have to chip or lob those are your only two options.

@SoCal… watch the 2007 TMC final video. The SHBH has the ability to create angles cross-court that a DHBH may not be able to. If you take the ball early there is no need to lob/chip the ball.

Gasquet stands so far behind the base-line that all his BHs are in front of him.

All the advantages you point out should still be valid for a double-handed Forehand, but yet, you do not see too many DHFH (Santoro is perhaps the last of his kind).

Laverfan it is a completely mute point about a double handed forehand. Because with a forehand you are hitting the ball with your dominant hand and with a completely different set of muscles. You are hitting the ball on both sides with your right hand, whether backhand or forehand so your point is mute. For example on a chin up it is much easier to lift your body weight if you turn the inside of your  wrists around to face yourself on the bar. If you flip the inside of your wrists away from you it gets twice as hard. Basically, the one hand fh vs. one handed backhand is the same concept, you hit the forehand one handed because you use a stronger muscle group. Your point would be right if you were ambitextrous and hit your backhand with your left hand, and thus had no backhand. The same reason why boxer's punch either and don't backhand each other.

At some point in the next 100 years I predict a significant number of ambidextrous players - it's a logical step forward - players with 2 genuine forehands.

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan it is a completely mute point about a double handed forehand. Because with a forehand you are hitting the ball with your dominant hand and with a completely different set of muscles. You are hitting the ball on both sides with your right hand, whether backhand or forehand so your point is mute.

Think of players who do not use their dominant hands to play Tennis. Nadal, Hasse… Take a look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4byIouey-g

socal1976 wrote: For example on a chin up it is much easier to lift your body weight if you turn the inside of your  wrists around to face yourself on the bar. If you flip the inside of your wrists away from you it gets twice as hard. Basically, the one hand fh vs. one handed backhand is the same concept, you hit the forehand one handed because you use a stronger muscle group. Your point would be right if you were ambitextrous and hit your backhand with your left hand, and thus had no backhand. The same reason why boxer's punch either and don't backhand each other.

I am not sure I understand the weightlifting analogy well. Here you can see the advantages of a SHBH - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzkaVK04eIw

Perhaps Lydian can add his own SHBH view point.

PS: Personal peeve about the differences between moot and mute, SoCal.

JuliusHMarx wrote:At some point in the next 100 years I predict a significant number of ambidextrous players - it's a logical step forward - players with 2 genuine forehands.

I seem to remember this coming up once before... you might get a significant number of players that can do what Nadal has done .. but a significant number of  TRUE ambidextrous players I think not

No, not true, as in natural, but players who have been taught to play with a SH forehand on both sides. It's only a matter of time before someone who is capable of doing that is actually trained to do it - then others will follow suit if they can.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, not true, as in natural, but players who have been taught to play with a SH forehand on both sides. It's only a matter of time before someone who is capable of doing that is actually trained to do it - then others will follow suit if they can.

The Jensen Brothers - (Luke/Murphy) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqmRN4cgIns (1:30+)

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, not true, as in natural, but players who have been taught to play with a SH forehand on both sides. It's only a matter of time before someone who is capable of doing that is actually trained to do it - then others will follow suit if they can.

Until everyone can do it then how boring it will be. Once upon a time the big serve was the weapon that one or two players had...and then all the players realised that this was the thing they had to train to do.. now look at it.
So once we get players that have huge serves and have a SH forehand on both wings what comes next... Im all agog    

Who knows? Once upon a time players didn't have to be ultra-fit/stretchy/bendy either. So we'll get huge servers, with SH forehands on both sides (so thus great returners), with big muscles and superhuman stamina who can run forever, and slide and stretch and do the splits and hit winners while doing cartwheels.
The most popular of them will have also film star looks, the wit of Oscar Wilde, the ethics of Gandhi and the wisdom of Soloman (not to be confused with Harold Solomon).

JuliusHMarx wrote:No, not true, as in natural, but players who have been taught to play with a SH forehand on both sides. It's only a matter of time before someone who is capable of doing that is actually trained to do it - then others will follow suit if they can.

That effectively already happens right before our eyes. All DHBH players are basically guys with 2 x FHs. It's a completely different shot to SHBH. A DHBH for a right handed player is actually a left handed FH with the right hand employed to only giving guidance and control, is the non-dominant arm. It's why most of the recent top 6-7 players except Federer are all DHBHers...Djoko, Nad, Murray, Ferrer, Delpo, Berdy, Tsonga. The future is already here...essentially guys who play DHBHs are already ambidextrous and are showing us so...with Nadal a notable example in particular.

Also, just like in football tomorrow's successful players are those who are ambidextrous not just in ball striking ability but in movement skills. Foot eye as well as hand eye coordination is key to success and being equally adept on both wings is a massive advantage. People don't realise how important footwork is in tennis and the years of training needed to acquire it, it's not just innate. All I ever hear on tennis boards is yada yada yada about how great a ball striker someone is. Footwork and movement skills/talent are relegated as second class yet the best coaches train juniors who are 7-12yo on footwork 50/50 to their tennis striking skills. The best players are adept at hitting both sides, and moving left or right, not overly dominated by one side as was often the case yesteryear. Even the great Federer himself is likely dominant on his right side and now caught up by the class of ambidextrous guys who are equally strong both sides and move well too...no real weaknesses. Look at his H2H vs Djoko/Nadal/Murray.

We don't need to invent or train another Luke or Murphy Jensen, ambidextrous guys are all around us - we just call them double handed backhanders and the very best are likely the most ambidextrous guys on tour.