Video: Federer's FH was definitly flatter, more powerful, less spin and a very scary weapon!!
wkhedr
can't finish and keeps spinning it back?!!
http://download.yousendit.com/FE6F6D3C62877D43
Look at the depth, speed and the power of his FH!!
RahimAsif
I agree - thats why I think Djokovic will dominate him provided he is
fresh if and when they meet in the final. Federer has a lost a LOT of
power in his groundstrokes - not sure why and how this happened. This
was most visible during Wim and especially the final against Nadal -
Nadal was actually striking the ball harder than Fed and dominating
the rallies...
Lax
Starting in Dubai/IW/Miami Fed was spraying many groundstrokes. He
lost confidence in his BOOM forehand. He adjusted by scaling back on
his groundstrokes to get them under control (just in time to win
WImbledon).
arnab.z@gmail
I disagree. To say Federer's lost the power would be overstating it.
He's definitely more conservative and plays the percentage these days.
But, once in a while he can and does unleash big forehands, and use
them mainly as surprise weapons.
RahimAsif
I disagree - take a look at the AO SF and F. In the SF, Fed was
hitting flat and hard. But in the final against Gonzales, he was
playing very conservative. Its hard to believe lack of confidence has
anything to do with it - given the Roddick SF in the AO was probably
the best he has ever played!
RahimAsif
But the question is why - he was doing fine with percentages the last
few years. Why change a winning strategy? Its made him a lot more
vulnerable than before - Nadal outplayed him for the better part of
the match at Wim - that is not a good sign...
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because of f???ing clay!!
RahimAsif
Memo to Fed: The clay season is over :) Bring back the power!!!
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
He screws up with his serve also for the FO!
arnab.z@gmail
You cannot expect Federer to maintain the same level of play every
year, every month, every week. It was his 5th Wimbledon final. And at
the end of the day, he won. That's what matters.
Not sure why you are reading so much into it. Federer is not getting
any younger. So his strategy will evolve as he ages. Over the course
of the last 6 months, Federer has increasingly improved his serve, and
is getting a lot of free points with them. Is that a good sign, bad
sign, medium rare, well done?
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
When he gets older, he needs to shorten the rallies by hitting winners
if he can instead of getting into long rallies!!
This is what he used to do in USO 2004!!
Manuel Munoz
Easy answer:
cost-effective choice.
Federer is "downsizing" his game, for months now.
Downsizing has to be understood this way: less energy needed.
It's a very clever choice (one wich almost all vehicule
companies but Lotus should try)...
"Just add the lightness" as used to said Colin Chapman.
Federer claimed a long time ago that he was hoping to play
untill the next Olympics.
He don't want to get old too quick, and knows how costly a
season can turn (check Nadal!).
He obviously choose to spent as few stamina as possible in
*any* match.
Who wants to go far... you got the picture for sure.
The video you choose was from another age.
The age when Roger *still* had to put as much distance as
possible between him & the rest of the pack.
He wanted & would be pleased to destroy Hewitt (and was
highly successfull: double baggel, that's *very* rare for a
slam final).
He had to put the first bricks to his own legacy doing so.
He does no longer need such demonstration, showcase!
He *is* chasing the Sampras record, before creating his own
footprints.
So I guess he only does the minimum effort for each step
that separates him from his 15th tittle.
Younger he was very "show off", he needed *much more* to
have people think that he was an extremely talented played,
than to have them think that he was a serious pretender for
finals.
He was playing to let you know how versatile he could be...
was gaving matches for few good (incredible sometimes) points!
He calmed things down, he started to use his skills with
more intelligence.
He learned to consider (love?) the match in its whole, not
just points.
He has realized that the gap was so huge versus anybody
(until Rafa came) that he didn't need such strokes as often.
What was hard for him, to me, was to wake up from this
routine, because of Nadal.
I was even thinking while the Wimbledon final that he was
doing even less than the minimum!
He *was to lost* to Nadal at the begining of the 5th set,
for he was playing so... boringly (if that word exists!).
He suddenly realized that he wasn't going to equal Borg, and
bing! few shots later Nadal had nothing more than hidden
tears to wear.
To me, Roger played beautifully & effeciently (*both are the
very essence of his game*) for not more than 2 or 3 games in
the final set.
And I feel that beating Nadal while he was misplaying for
most of the match could be a huge relief.
He could realize that he has not to play out of his mind to
defeat Rafa, he "only" has to want it more than Nadal wants
to beat him.
His "natural" (if anything natural can be found in the
tennis gestures) skills will always prevails over Nadal's
actual skills (but beware, Rafa learns, and not slowly)...
One big thing that is hard to admit for esthetes, is to win
playing "badly".
I hope that Federer has accepted that.
In a slam final, you are not supposed to give a tennis lesson.
You are supposed to fight for a win.
That's fantastic if you can do both (see the 6/0 7/5 6/0 to
Hewitt), but legacy won't remember much more than the number
of slams: see how whiskey is raving about Sampras 14 slams,
forgetting clowns Pete had to play (Pioline, Chang to name few).
Only other esthetes will care about the beauty of the play...
And I feel we are fewer any day.
--
Share & Enjoy,
Manolo
deuce
Thanks for posting this, wkhedr. Could you post highlights of this/ or
the entire match?. I am sure many others in this newsgroup would love
to see this match as well. Thanks again.
Carey
Another beautifully perceptive post. Thanks, Manuel.
Lax
Conventional wisdom suggests otherwise - that it's probably more cost-
effective to end points quicker and not bother with "almost losing" 5
setters against Nadal.
Manuel Munoz
How faster do you wanted Federer to get rid of Isner?
To send out Lopez?
To froze Roddick?
Explain me how *any other player* would have done better
job. Even more cost-effective.
Conventional wisdom suggests me that you are idiot, or biased.
What is actually costing much to any player (even bad payers
like me) is hardly physical (do you know we're talking about
pros?)
What costs us the more is the tension, to have the gameplan
working.
Federer seems to be expanding as much as possible his
confort zone.
No matter if he has to play two, three or five more shots,
for they won't be unsecured shots.
Hope you'll understand now the very first point of my post;
and if yes, read the rest... for it's the best of the post :-) !
Voice of Reason
could you post it again possibly -- it says *you* ran out of download
limit
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't agree on this post, and I don't think it's very planned to be
this way!
Cost-effective choice is simply finish the point early.
Where is the cost-effective choice when he has to go to duece, lose
games, sets and matches?!!
The Real Tennis Expert
Actually it is much easier to hit top spin forehands than huge flat
rockets.