The Bagman on Federer
wkhedr
difference from previous meeting in Indian
Wells in March:
MARCOS BAGHDATIS: I was ready today and
even though I had the great win yesterday I don't
think last night was a problem. He just played very
good. I was hitting the ball well, but he made me
feel like I had no solutions. He played really smart.
He played a lot differently tonight than Indian
Wells, where he was playing backhand to
backhand.
Tonight he came to the net more, and I
wasn't expecting that. He played really aggressive
and it wasn't my day today and I couldn't push him
to making mistakes.
Scott
memo to Bagman: the best way to beat Roger today is to hit him off the
court ala Berdych, Soderling or Del Potro.
you can't out-finesse him. just hit the shit out of the ball from
both wings.
wkhedr
Didn't work for Berdych is his last match.
Scott
Berdych lost in a 3rd set tie-break after both were at 5-5...
Ali Asoag
That would work against all players, not only against Fed. But the thing
is, you first have to be able to do it *consistently* throughout the
match which Sod or Bird is only able to do once (refer to FO2009,
FO2010, Wimby2010). That's the difference between those so-called
upcoming #1 and the true #1 (Fed, sometimes Nadal).
felangey
both wings.<
Pretty much.
The hope with Fed now though is that the adjustment will make them have to
hit it just a litte harder...a little tighter to the lines and a little more
consistent than they are able. Kinda say, like what he used to do! ;)
TT
This is wrong. You can out-finesse him if you don't have consistent
firepower. Murray has done this several times.
On a bad day he can lose to Montanes types too.
Baghdatis can outplay fed from the baseline fairly often using his own
game. The problem was that Baggy was serving poorly.
--
http://s4.postimage.org/DqPli-07bec5b30fb99d26898facc4e66e141e.jpg
TT
It's not easy to out-blitz anyone. Scott is suggesting a tactic for
Baghdatis that is not his own game. That's a losing tactic. I don't
doubt a bit that fedfans would like players go for too much against
Federer as his generation did for few year.
The truth is Baggy can outplay fed from the baseline using his own
natural game, as he did earlier this year. The problem in their last
match was difference in 1st serve/return on a fast court.
Learn to analyse the game. This is embarrassing.
TT
>> you can't out-finesse him. just hit the shit out of the ball from
> both wings.<
>
> Pretty much.
>
> The hope with Fed now though is that the adjustment will make them have to
> hit it just a litte harder...a little tighter to the lines and a little more
> consistent than they are able.
Yes this is what fedfuckers want. Too bad that pro players do not read
these forums.
It's rather embarrassing to be here. Seems like you guys have nothing to
offer for me on tennis analysis.
RzR
>
> Learn to analyse the game. This is embarrassing.
man...one can cut the irony in the air with scissors :D
felangey
Nuh uh. We are gonna need a plasma cutter to get throught this irony. :)
TT
>> man...one can cut the irony in the air with scissors :D<
>
> Nuh uh. We are gonna need a plasma cutter to get throught this irony. :)
>
>
No, seriously. I feel embarrassed having to explain everything to you
like to a child.
Maybe this problem is unsolvable, since you lack eye, wit and experience
to see what happens on the court. Maybe you should try looking at match
stats only? Then again you'd probably draw wrong conclusions even from them.
Perhaps the only solution is for you to keep quiet and listen, merely
making comments such as "I think Federer is great and will win his next
match" etc.
There are some knowledgeable posters here on tennis, but they normally
keep quiet and prefer not to analyze matches much. This newsgroup has
very little to offer tennis-wise and off-topic discussions are actually
most interesting for me. I feel like being on different level analysis
wise and being in midst of tennis newbies or less talented people.
Later
--
http://s4.postimage.org/DqPli-07bec5b30fb99d26898facc4e66e141e.jpg
john
"TT" <n...@email.org> wrote in message
news:wnoco.13824$136....@uutiset.elisa.fi...
Tennis analysis is not about hating a particular player.
RzR
> I feel like being on different level analysis
> wise and being in midst of tennis newbies or less talented people.
>
and then you go thinking that nadal is better than federer...that pretty
much shoots to shit all that babble i snipped from your traditionally
stupid post
ajdevise
> firepower. Murray has done this several times.
No, he hasn't you halfwit. I've never seen Murray out finnese anyone.
Murray has out-Canased him as Fed is troubled by players who can get
everything back with consitency. Murray also has a good serve when
it's on.
> On a bad day he can lose to Montanes types too.
on a bad day Nadal wins 1 game total against Youzhny types. What does
that say or prove? nothing. on a bad day anyone can lose to anyone.
> Baghdatis can outplay fed from the baseline fairly often using his own
> game. The problem was that Baggy was serving poorly.
No, he can't, not in the little game. He has to stand on the baseline
and hit it flat and rush Federer, which is fairly similar to bashing
ala Berdych. Unfortunaly for him (or Davydenko), he lacks a big enough
serve so Fed doesn't fear him like he does Del Potro or Berdych, and
that usually prevails.
Pounding fear into Federer is the best way to beat him, as his whole
game changes when he's in that state and he usually ends up beating
himself.
Not sure who mentioned Federer beating Berdych in the last match, but
Thomas has that match wone before deciding to give it away by 4 UE's.
most of them pretty wild, when serving for it.
I've noticed you've tried to flung insults in 3 of posts here, but
nobody gives a crap about them...that pretty much tells you where you
stand.
I on the other hand salute you. It's brave that you can keep coming
here embarrasing yourself with suck amazing consitency on daily basis.
Bravo sir. At least you've copied Nadal's tenacity. You being
completely unoriginal and all, i'm not suprised by that at all -
likely was the only option left to you, but you sure make the most of
it.
RzR
and since YOU ARE NOTHING, i think it is very fitting
felangey
Roffle.
kaennorsing
Good post. It's interesting how much Federer's game changed in
effectiveness when he's (out from) under the gun. He's clearly tighter
these days when under pressure from power players. Perhaps that grows
with age as well, but I thought one of Federer's main strengths was
how he historically handled the aggressive pressure from an opponent,
like a Berdy, Soda, Blake, Roddick etc. He was extremely efficient in
countering their power and turning the tables fast - evidenced in the
h2h stats with these players. He generally struggled much more with
the consistent counterpunchers/returners than the aggressive, risky
type players. That's changed somewhat as in recent years he's
struggled about equally with both of them. Probably because of being a
fraction slower but likely also related to him gunning for that
elusive FO title for years... Naturally, he had to sacrifice something
to get what he desperately wanted.
TT
>> This is wrong. You can out-finesse him if you don't have consistent
>> firepower. Murray has done this several times.
>
> No, he hasn't
Denial.
> you halfwit.
On your best day you're a half-wit.
> I've never seen
Yes you have, you just didn't understand it.
> Murray out finnese anyone.
Why not "out Scotese"?
> Murray has out-Canased him as Fed is troubled by players who can get
> everything back with consitency.
Scott claimed that "the best way to beat Roger today is to hit him off
the court ala Berdych"...which I disagreed with. Thus by you claiming
that Federer can be beaten by mere "consitency" (sic) - you agree with
my point of view and lose the argument.
> Murray also has a good serve when
> it's on.
>
That's now irrelevant to this discussion since you agreed with my
argument already.
>> On a bad day he can lose to Montanes types too.
>
> on a bad day Nadal wins 1 game total against Youzhny types. What does
> that say or prove? nothing. on a bad day anyone can lose to anyone.
>
This is still irrelevant since you agreed with my argument already.
>> Baghdatis can outplay fed from the baseline fairly often using his own
>> game. The problem was that Baggy was serving poorly.
>
> No, he can't,
Denial.
> not in the little game. He has to stand on the baseline
> and hit it flat and rush Federer,
Classic case of inconsistency - You already admitted that "consitency"
troubles Federer, thus Baghdatis doesn't "have to" "rush" Federer.
> which is fairly similar to bashing
> ala Berdych.
Unsubstantiated and irrelevant claim based on false premises.
> Unfortunaly for him
"Unfortunaly" indeed.
>(or Davydenko),
Most irrelevant, useless in fact.
> he lacks a big enough
> serve
Incorrect. His serve was "big" against Nadal.
> so Fed doesn't fear him like he does Del Potro or Berdych, and
> that usually prevails.
Unsubstantiated claim based on false premises.
>
> Pounding fear into Federer is the best way to beat him, as his whole
> game changes when he's in that state and he usually ends up beating
> himself.
>
Irrelevant and inconsistent, you already admitted that "consitency"
troubles Federer.
> Not sure who mentioned Federer beating Berdych in the last match, but
> Thomas has that match wone before deciding to give it away by 4 UE's.
> most of them pretty wild, when serving for it.
>
Irrelevant. What's a "wone"?
> I've noticed you've tried to flung insults in 3 of posts here, but
> nobody gives a crap about them...that pretty much tells you where you
> stand.
>
> I on the other hand salute you. It's brave that you can keep coming
> here embarrasing yourself with suck amazing consitency on daily basis.
"embarrasing" yourself with "suck" amazing "consitency"
How ironic.
>
> Bravo sir. At least you've copied Nadal's tenacity. You being
> completely unoriginal and all, i'm not suprised by that at all -
> likely was the only option left to you, but you sure make the most of
> it.
Typical ad hominem attack, laced with invective, as expected from
someone who lacks a logical argument, ajdevise.
jdeluise
>
> There are some knowledgeable posters here on tennis, but they normally
> keep quiet and prefer not to analyze matches much. This newsgroup has
> very little to offer tennis-wise and off-topic discussions are actually
> most interesting for me. I feel like being on different level analysis
> wise and being in midst of tennis newbies or less talented people.
So you've played tennis before? How long have you been following the
sport again?
Iceberg
this is the kind of reply TT was talking about, what a typical Fedfan.
Sao Paulo Swallow
or one of the last, pieces of the puzzle for him so it makes sense it
may be one of the first to go. And, no, I'm not saying he's not still
mentally tough, but his confidence drops in matches in now. I also
think fatigue is becoming more of a problem, not fatigue during any
given match, but fatigue from the grind of a tournament. I hope that's
not true because that doesn't bode well for slams, but we'll see.
TT
> Woof....weehhee...hhhhoooohoohahhaha.....your killing me man! :D
>
> Roffle.
Classic posturing.
tuan
wrote:
> I think if you asked Federer he'd say mental toughness was the last,
> or one of the last, pieces of the puzzle for him so it makes sense it
> may be one of the first to go. And, no, I'm not saying he's not still
> mentally tough, but his confidence drops in matches in now.
The clearest sign is the number of breakpoints wasted. He's still
doing it at Cincinati.
Scott
wrote:
it seemed that Roger was getting fatigued with the masters tourneys
until Cinci. i saw the final and he seemed pretty energetic.
jdeluise
On 23-Aug-2010, Scott <scot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> it seemed that Roger was getting fatigued with the masters tourneys
> until Cinci. i saw the final and he seemed pretty energetic.
One would hope so considering his 2nd and 3rd rounds:)
Superdave
wrote:
yeah and THAT really pisses me off too.
Superdave
To me all that means is he is seriously trying to peak for the USO. He wants #6
real bad I know.
Vari L. Cinicke
Bingo!
Federer is looking for ways to improve his game and is turning up the
aggression. Admitting there was a problem with his game plan (at his
advanced age :)) is a big step. Annacone may be the right person to help
with the aggression plan.
He still seems to get tentative against monster hitters and was lucky to
get past Berdych last week. He didn't meet anyone fitting that
description in Cincy.
I hope it is not an age issue and he can once again show the sweet
timing (at the US Open) that made him handle big hitters with ease.
Federer on song is what tennis ought to be. It has been a long while.
--
Cheers,
vc
Scott
> On 8/23/2010 7:32 PM, jdeluise wrote:
>
>
> >> it seemed that Roger was getting fatigued with the masters tourneys
> >> until Cinci. i saw the final and he seemed pretty energetic.
>
> > One would hope so considering his 2nd and 3rd rounds:)
>
> Bingo!
>
> Federer is looking for ways to improve his game and is turning up the
> aggression. Admitting there was a problem with his game plan (at his
> advanced age :)) is a big step. Annacone may be the right person to help
> with the aggression plan.
>
> He still seems to get tentative against monster hitters and was lucky to
> get past Berdych last week. He didn't meet anyone fitting that
> description in Cincy.
>
> I hope it is not an age issue and he can once again show the sweet
> timing (at the US Open) that made him handle big hitters with ease.
> Federer on song is what tennis ought to be.
well said.
RzR
lol...what are you gonna counter this with...bogus head2head score?
you guys are more fedhaters than any of us are fedfans
Sakari Lund
>It's rather embarrassing to be here. Seems like you guys have nothing to
>offer for me on tennis analysis.
LOL. Where do these posts come from now? You sound like Whisper.
drew
I was about to mention that also. Very Whisper-like...
TT
Guilty as charged.
It's the curse of being a tier1-analyst surrounded by tier5-analysts,
the burden of producing blue-chip-analysis amongst tune-up-analyses.
Sometimes it's lonely at the top, the price one has to pay for
excellence.
I can feel your pain, Whisper. <long sigh>
Sakari Lund
>Sakari Lund wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:16:55 +0300, TT <n...@email.org> wrote:
>>
>>> It's rather embarrassing to be here. Seems like you guys have nothing to
>>> offer for me on tennis analysis.
>>
>> LOL. Where do these posts come from now? You sound like Whisper.
>
>Guilty as charged.
>
>It's the curse of being a tier1-analyst surrounded by tier5-analysts,
>the burden of producing blue-chip-analysis amongst tune-up-analyses.
Don't talk so negatively about tune-ups. 18 Masters titles is not all
that bad.
TT
Patrick Kehoe
Drew... what did you think of Fed on Sunday against Fish... man, the
pop and sizzle is just that there any more... those legendary run of
points (games)... the magic shots out of nothing... it's more and more
pedantic execution on the day for Fed c.2010... he did move well
though, I thought... decent running forehands...
P
Shakes
Going by his match against Baggy, I think Fed (either by himself or by
Annacone) has decided to do a lot more chip-charge, and a lot more
serve-volley. Good for him and good for us. I think he realized that
he can no longer summon the magic whenever he wants to (as he was able
to do for yrs).
And I think that's because his reactions and footspeed have slowed
down. He himself admitted that his returns have fallen off the past
year or so, and that he was not happy with how defensively he was
playing in general. Good for him that he figured that it's better late
than never.
Just imagine if Fed again brings back a lot more net game in the
coming years, making the field adjust again (backwards, this time).
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ya... McEnroe was saying Fed should s/v more since 2007, as the USO of
that year neared... "Roger should do it while he still has the spring
in his step"... 'it would make life a lot easier for him"... It seems
Fed has discovered by a process of elimination, if nothing else, he
needs to change the mix of his 'up to net' percentages... but it's not
out right s/v, which doesn't work today, it's intergrated forward net
rushes which are situational and mixed into all court tennis... that's
why it works because it breaks the rhythm of baseline power hitting
via surprise and guile, rather than frontal assault net rushing ala
the 1980s/90s and before that... and because it's situational it gives
Fed command of the rhythms of the match, which means another form of
control of the constructions... sure there's a pressure element to it
but mostly its a form of asymmetry within the power game, if you
will... like yourself, I found myself hoping Fed would get to net even
more off the serve, just to see how these baseline brats would
react... perhaps we will see Fed step it up at the USO in certain
matchups... will be interesting to look for...
P
TT
Federer never was good on breakpoints.
FEDERER BREAK POINT CONVERSION RATE
2004 - 43%
2005 - ?
2006 - 43%
2007 - 41%
2008 - 41%
2009 - 41%
Breakpoint conversion rate in 2009 (so far)
1 Hewitt, Lleyton 49 30
2 Nadal, Rafael 47 59
3 Llodra, Michael 47 35
4 Ferrero, Juan Carlos 46 44
5 Chela, Juan Ignacio 46 38
6 Ferrer, David 45 55
7 Soderling, Robin 45 48
8 Djokovic, Novak 45 46
9 Montanes, Albert 45 45
10 Davydenko, Nikolay 45 31
45 Federer, Roger 39 49
TT
> tuan wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 2:40 am, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think if you asked Federer he'd say mental toughness was the last,
>>> or one of the last, pieces of the puzzle for him so it makes sense it
>>> may be one of the first to go. And, no, I'm not saying he's not still
>>> mentally tough, but his confidence drops in matches in now.
>>
>> The clearest sign is the number of breakpoints wasted.
>
> Federer never was good on breakpoints.
>
>
> FEDERER BREAK POINT CONVERSION RATE
>
> 2004 - 43%
> 2005 - ?
> 2006 - 43%
> 2007 - 41%
> 2008 - 41%
> 2009 - 41%
>
>
> Breakpoint conversion rate in 2009 (so far)
49-45% for top 10.
MBDunc
I have always found one big problem with these bp conversion ratio
stats.
0-40 and then returner wins the game with his 3rd bp. Stats then show
1/3 =33%. Which is correct but just does not feel "right".
So basically more bp changes you create, eventually stats for bp
conversion succee are lower. (same of course applies to saved bp
stats).
.mikko
TT
Illogical.
Vari L. Cinicke
The younger Federer was able to make the field adjust. Can he do it
again at this stage of his career?
It should be fun watching him try and it will be a refreshing change if
it were to happen.
--
Cheers,
vc
Javier González
I hope Annacone has made him understand that it's in his best interest
to keep the points shorter and not allow himself to stay in long
baseline rallies. He no longer has the blinding footspeed to flip
around rallies, he's easier to put and KEEP on the defensive, and that
these days is a losing proposition for him, due again to his
diminished speed.
bob
>felangey wrote:
>>> you can't out-finesse him. just hit the shit out of the ball from
>> both wings.<
>>
>> Pretty much.
>>
>> The hope with Fed now though is that the adjustment will make them have to
>> hit it just a litte harder...a little tighter to the lines and a little more
>> consistent than they are able.
>
>Yes this is what fedfuckers want. Too bad that pro players do not read
>these forums.
>
>It's rather embarrassing to be here. Seems like you guys have nothing to
>offer for me on tennis analysis.
embarrassing, yes, but i just put a bag over my head when reading RST.
bob