Federer's return tactic

First topic message reminder :

Now that Cininnati is over. Maybe this topic should have a thread of it's own?

No and you wont for temps sake.

Which is what I have already said do any of you read a complete thread or just jump in at the deep end.

Still not really answering the question but hey ho. #timeoutfor606v2tennis

LuvSports! wrote:Still not really answering the question but hey ho. #timeoutfor606v2tennis

Really?

#timeoutfor606v2tennis

Ditto

Your point spoke of the forum more likely to criticise novak/rafa etc and not do the same for Feds right?

If that is the case then you still haven't offered your view if you think it is hindrance. If Rafa had hit that would you think it was hindrance.

Yes

Thank you. I've never known you to be that terse . 
Let's make conversing that easy always!

Yeah, it would be hindrance if Rafa did it. But ridiculous time delays, badly timed MTOs, coaching, barging opponents, those are all fine. Welcome to the strange world of tennis fans.

Meanwhile, the whole of the sport celebrates.

LuvSports! wrote:Thank you. I've never known you to be that terse . 
Let's make conversing that easy always!

But who other than you believes me anyway

I believe that you believe it's hindrance  .

Im sorry im too tired, bb and haddie please settle your differences without a war. No or else or anything, it would just be nice
To clarify one last thing, our difference are technical, not anything else

bogbrush wrote:Yeah, it would be hindrance if Rafa did it. But ridiculous time delays, badly timed MTOs, coaching, barging opponents, those are all fine. Welcome to the strange world of tennis fans.

Meanwhile, the whole of the sport celebrates.

You see what I mean...your preaching to the "uninformed" has lost all credibility
You have just endorsed everything HE said earlier Rafa is such a thorn in your side .. :

temporary21 wrote:Im sorry im too tired, bb and haddie please settle your differences without a war. No or else or anything, it would just be nice
To clarify one last thing, our difference are technical, not anything else

Settle what differnces Ive deliberately not got embroiled in an argument with anyone for your sake..did you not see I said that..well Im sorry your tired but don't blame me...Thanks temp..

I reckon HE is related to this guy

https://youtu.be/Q7naWlEesX4

Hey hey thats not what anyone meant, I appreciate the help but its settled now, ok?

Settled? It never started for me, just makes me laugh to be really honest.

then stop going to war, especially when we have the same opinion...

temporary21 wrote:Hey hey thats not what anyone meant, I appreciate the help but its settled now, ok?

I was not in a war I started no argument and I resent the implication, again how much of this thread have you followed?
Not much I would suggest if you are that tired..Ill leave you to read it at your leisure and perhaps you might see the real culprit...Ill leave you with the stirrers

bogbrush wrote:Settled? It never started for me, just makes me laugh to be really honest.

Touche

*sigh* shall we just underline today? We'll get back to it in the morning...

Remember temp, let it be

It will resolve itself

Murray has been hitting this kind of return for ages without it being in the least bit controversial. He's moving forward into the court as the opponent is serving.

Federer doing the same thing but going about 10 feet further forward.

If we are saying that someone doing a more developed version of the commonplace is an unfair distraction, then we may as well give up hope of seeing anything new.

I'd also be interested to hear at what point it becomes distracting. It's 18 feet from the baseline to the service line. Murray and Djoko regularly step in 4 feet or so. Is 6 feet OK? 8 feet? 10 feet? What's the tipping point?

I think the idea is that anything closer than 10 foot behind the baseline is disrespectful, and hitting the ball less that 6 foot over the net in normal rally mode is simply beyond the pale.

bogbrush wrote:I think the idea is that anything closer than 10 foot behind the baseline is disrespectful, and hitting the ball less that 6 foot over the net in normal rally mode is simply beyond the pale.

Watch the Anderson one and Murrays one side by side if possible, ones a small step in, the other a very large jog forward. No real further point to add, but I can understand people seeing a difference.

Yeah, one is a small step in and the other takes the ball tremendously early. I think a lot of other people noticed that too.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales

During this time Gonzales was known for his fiery will to win, his cannonball serve, and his all-conquering net game, a combination so potent that the rules on the professional tour were briefly changed to prohibit him from advancing to the net immediately after serving. Under the new rules, the returned serve had to bounce before the server could make his own first shot, thereby keeping Gonzales from playing his usual serve-and-volley game. He won even so, and the rules were changed back.

We need a rule to ban Federer's net rushing. It is too much for the current opposition to handle. What started as a joke, is now a matter of rules begin interpreted, even when the Chair Umpire does not see any need to call a hindrance or a distraction or any other word in the rule book.


Here is the 'hindrance' clearly defined.

wow just wasted my time reading this thread looking for some debate of the issue raised.

Applause to Hawkeye and Haddie nuff for some effective trolling.

Pat Cash ‏@TheRealPatCash 2 hours ago

Serve volley and net play back in fashion this week thanks to #federer loved seeing the confusion in his opponents eyes. Ah the memories

Pete Sampras at Nike steal the show event last night responding to question about the surprise return tactic:
" I think that type play has really been missing. Leave it up to Roger to bring it back. He'll know exactly when to pull it out of the tool belt again"

Agassi at same event "yeah listen, the way roger played last week once again just shows he's ageless, he's timeless and ageless. Yeah, I still think djokovic is the favorite for the open, but roger playing like that, it's up for grabs"

Marcy fish tweeting after one  of the returns against djolkovic:
"Anyone who thinks roger can't win another major doesn't know bleep about the game"

"That is amazing movement#brillianceatnet"

yves allegro ‏@yvesallegro · 2 hours ago

Impressive stuff! Playing his best tennis at 34?! #GOAT @rogerfederer please never stop playing tennis!!


There are so many more players,  commentarors , writers praising the tactics, the spirit of it, federers brilliance at pulling it off- both McEnroe's, Agassi, Gilbert, Cahill, courier, Lopez..... The list goes on and on.  
If nadal, Djoko, Murray pulled it off they would be getting the same praise for it, and the other side made up strictly of fans of other players or haters of that particular player would look just as silly and transparent in their bias and agenda.

What I don't see is these players, commentators who are former players, that actually made and make the spirit of the game praise the time wasting, mto's, frequent breaking of racquets to smithereens-   Maybe those players doing all that habitually should stop and just use Feds tactic. If they have the talent to pull it off, then they would get the praise too.

Completely unfair tactic designed to give himself some sort of advantage over his opponent. All the top players are equally talented which you can see especially if you factor competition into their results so of course the other guys could pull it off if they wanted. It's just that their conduct has always been better than Feds and they would never resort to this. They win with proper tennis, the like of which we've only seen the last decade.

greengoblin wrote:wow just wasted my time reading this thread looking for some debate of the issue raised.

Applause to Hawkeye and Haddie nuff for some effective trolling.

We learned everything we know from the master of WUMS BB

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Completely unfair tactic designed to give himself some sort of advantage over his opponent. All the top players are equally talented which you can see especially if you factor competition into their results so of course the other guys could pull it off if they wanted. It's just that their conduct has always been better than Feds and they would never resort to this. They win with proper tennis, the like of which we've only seen the last decade.

Exactly. To my mind I think we need to go further; this fast serving business just isn't sporting either, nor is hitting ground strokes too far away from your opponent. It hinders players from hitting their shots.

Wums? Is that what a difference of opinion is called these days?

TBH I don't see the need for a new thread for this. It was seen, applauded and was a right throwback to the days of yesteryear. There won't be a player who can execute quite like Federer did, but I am hoping this encourages other players on the tour to try the same thing.

TRuffin wrote:


There are so many more players,  commentarors , writers praising the tactics, the spirit of it, federers brilliance at pulling it off- both McEnroe's, Agassi, Gilbert, Cahill, courier, Lopez.....

and of course bogbrush. In other words it's an opinion and it doesn't make it correct. There are too many people who are invested in their opinions of Federer to perhaps be trusted to judge.

This is a quote from Federer about his tactic

“It can break somebody's rhythm. Maybe can play with the mind a little bit,” Federer said.

http://www.tennis.com/photos-video/2015/08/federer-stunning-half-volley-return-started-more-joke-video/56011/#.Vd1mF

If Federer had just wanted to use his ball skills he could stand well up on the court and hit the ball early. This would just demonstrate ball skills and not add hindrance or distraction. So why doesn't he do that? Not liking that statement at all. Sounds like gamesmanship to me.

From the same article.

Serving at 1-0 in the second set, Djokovic hit three double faults to drop the game and eventually the set.

Federer didn't win those points were Djokovic double faulted with quick ball skills. Something else was in play. Of course in the tennis world whatever Federer does he will come up "smelling of roses"  

Will you provide the links to lags and JJ's request?

It's all well and good saying you have other opinions on side with yours, but the links would actually help substantiate that. Unless of course it's just the usual hot air.

hawkeye wrote:Serving at 1-0 in the second set, Djokovic hit three double faults to drop the game and eventually the set.

Federer didn't win those points were Djokovic double faulted with quick ball skills. Something else was in play. Of course in the tennis world whatever Federer does he will come up "smelling of roses"  

Djokovic also hit 7 DFs against Goffin and 6 DFs against Dolgpolov who were returning completely conventionally. His serve was rotten the entire week.

The something else in play could've been that weed smoker from Montreal

Why on Earth would you stand up in the court to start with; that's just stupid. The whole point is that they don't know that shot is coming or that the return is going to be coming back at them so soon.

I could just imagine if Fed did this to Nadal he would adjust his serving position to 500m behind the baseline so he'd be able to retrieve the return. Then we could all admire that kind of "thinking" tennis.

Is a disguised drop shot gamesmanship? Is going to hit cross court and then at the last minute hitting it up the line   frowned upon?

Is running around your back hand to hit a forehand against the spirit of the game, either on serve or in open play? Is retreating to the rear of the court to strike the ball off serve (which wasn't your starting position) not on?

All these questions remain unanswered.

The truth is no one can say why this is an unfair tactic. It is not against the.rules. It is not against the "spirit" of the game. Nor is it a hindrance to the server. Who for the last time, if he is distracted can pull out of the serve. Why is this so difficult to comprehend???!!

It smacks of when people just panic and cry....Health and Safety when someone complains about a different way of doing things. You then ask what aspect of H&S this is breaching and you just get blank glazed over eyes. As in truth, there is a completely different agenda in play.

This has get absolutely nothing to do with it being Federer. I am looking forward to other players attempting it. Especially against Federer.

To just dismiss the vast vast majority of opinions because it is Federer, and therefore can't be trusted, is a cop out and not remotely correct. I for one can be more than critical of him when needs be. I'll never forget the embarrassing episode in China (I think) when he tried to get the roof closed against Andy Murray because it was raining in Western Europe somewhere.

Different isn't always a good thing but in this case it is.

The rationale I believe is because Djokovic then went on a DF run. Which Murdock then addressed when making the point he Df'd in previous matches in greater numbers.

Nothing like watching someone with a shovel.

It's called conflation.

The connection of two unrelated things to make something else appear true. In this case, hawkeye has taken Federers statement that he thinks the idea it will "play with the mind a little" and connected it to distraction. Of course Federer didn't mean that... what he means is that it has placed a seed of doubt in the servers mind that he might come in, so perhaps the server now has to press more, or take pace off, or whatever. Everyone knows that; all the pros and commentators and all but 2 or 3 people on here know it.

Whether it's deliberate conflation or accidental is open to opinion. I'm pretty sure which it is.

bogbrush wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Completely unfair tactic designed to give himself some sort of advantage over his opponent. All the top players are equally talented which you can see especially if you factor competition into their results so of course the other guys could pull it off if they wanted. It's just that their conduct has always been better than Feds and they would never resort to this. They win with proper tennis, the like of which we've only seen the last decade.

Exactly. To my mind I think we need to go further; this fast serving business just isn't sporting either, nor is hitting ground strokes too far away from your opponent. It hinders players from hitting their shots.

Of course we should. Let's add hitting the ball more than a couple of feet over the net, hitting the ball comfortably inside the lines, hitting the ball 30 times to someone's backhand, being able to frequently get to these ground strokes which a player thinks are too far away to hit, hitting a down line winner (sometimes referred to as a lucky slap shot) when match point down, having the stamina to outlast your opponent. All things that seem to be not very popular on this forum so should be banned.

I don't see Federer's rush in to be any sort of hindrance. The players will work out how to negate it. It didn't have much effect in the Murray match.

Nice thread, Hawkeye back to her prime has brought me back to this board which was unreadable for
a while. Keep up the good job at entartaining us all Hawky!!

bogbrush wrote:It's called conflation.

The connection of two unrelated things to make something else appear true. In this case, hawkeye has taken Federers statement that he thinks the idea it will "play with the mind a little" and connected it to distraction. Of course Federer didn't mean that... what he means is that it has placed a seed of doubt in the servers mind that he might come in, so perhaps the server now has to press more, or take pace off, or whatever. Everyone knows that; all the prod and commentators and all but 2 or 3 people on here know it.

Whether it's deliberate conflation or accidental is open to opinion. I'm pretty sure which it is.

I saw that too but couldn't be asked to comment. It's like when Fed lost at wimbledon in 2008 and he said it would have been nice to win "under the conditions". People immediately assumed he was complaining that it was too dark instead of seeing that the conditions he spoke of might have been having already won it 5 times in a row and going for a 6th.

Good morning everyone

Its just a difference of opinion, lk has knocked this one right out of the park, theres no need to be so guarded, certainly if if a difference of opinion is a WUM, then this might not be the place for you.

Conflation is something almost everyone here has done at some point in their lives and on this forum, its natural.

temporary21 wrote:Good morning everyone

Its just a difference of opinion, lk has knocked this one right out of the park, theres no need to be so guarded, certainly if if a difference of opinion is a WUM, then this might not be the place for you.

Conflation is something almost everyone here has done at some point in their lives and on this forum, its natural.

Well, yes, but it's deceitful.

That feels rather like the argument I keep hearing that women should have the right to breastfeed in public regardless of the reservations of others because "it's natural". In debating this with some friends I asked whether they'd mind if I just took a dump in front of them in my dining room "because its natural".

bogbrush wrote:

temporary21 wrote:Good morning everyone

Its just a difference of opinion, lk has knocked this one right out of the park, theres no need to be so guarded, certainly if if a difference of opinion is a WUM, then this might not be the place for you.

Conflation is something almost everyone here has done at some point in their lives and on this forum, its natural.

Well, yes, but it's deceitful.

That feels rather like the argument I keep hearing that women should have the right to breastfeed in public regardless of the reservations of others because "it's natural". In debating this with some friends I asked whether they'd mind if I just took a dump in front of them in my dining room "because its natural".

I agree it is only deceitful if someone takes a more deliberate stance to interpret something just to stimulate annoyance and disbelief amongst the masses.

about the breastfeeding. I can't say it's something that widely offends me. It wouldn't hold my attention that's for sure. As for dumping. Make sure it's someone else's dining room!

It doesn't bother me either (though it's possible it could hold my attention! ), it was the false logic I enjoyed exploring.

I would never be so rude as to dump on someone else's dining room. Etiquette demands one does that only in ones own home.

Natural, as in it tends to be done just by accident, with no malice involved. Hence its wrong to take offense at it as though its deceitful. If someone tells you an untruth that they dont know about, thats not deceit.

If someone doesnt share your view, that is not an automatic vote for dislike or hatred of what you stand for, they might just not be as interested or excited. Hence why the exasperation causes so much confusion to them.