Technical question - landing on the right foot after serving (for a right hander)
Shakes
foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
(obviously on a smaller scale - like less shoulder turn, not so much
back facing the net, and not as much knee bend or jump), except the
landing part. I never can land on my left foot, unlike Sampras.
Inspite of that, I was astonished how my serve improved. The guy was a
genius.
My serving motion seems pretty natural and smooth to me, and I can
serve decently well for my size (5' 9.5" and 145). However, I find
that many coaches advise on landing on their leading foot (left foot
for right handers). When I tried this, it felt awkard.
The only intrinsic difference in serving motion as far as landing on
either foot, that I see, is that if you are landing on your racquet
foot, you will be facing the net more and maybe sacrifice a bit on
rotational torque. But for a recreational player, I thought this is
the more natural motion.
Your thoughts ?
Iceberg
how do you get your body behind and into the ball when you land on
your right foot? I too try to copy the Sampras serve, but left-handed.
Coach
For recreational players it's more natural to land on their right foot
because they don't bend their knees and jump as much as the pro's do.
If you jump and land on your right foot you "lose" the rotational
torque, and you'll have too much pressure on the left knee leading to
knee injury.
Only exception to this as I know is Becker. He managed to jump and
land on his right foot.
Ali Asoag
> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
> foot).
Ping-pong is maybe easier for you to try ...
> However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
> land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
Are you Whisper?
--
Say, how dumb are you, Whisper? Probably you are so dumb that you
can't realize that you are dumb.
Ali Asoag
> On 23 Oct, 07:03, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
>> foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
>> land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
> I too try to copy the Sampras serve, but left-handed.
LOL.
Shakes
As "Coach" explained below, I think it's because I don't do the knee
bend and jump. I realized that I just kind of step into it (like they
used to before when they had the rule that both feet cannot be off the
ground when hitting the serve).
Shakes
> On 10/23/2010 12:03 AM, Shakes wrote:
>
> > When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
> > foot).
>
> Ping-pong is maybe easier for you to try ...
>
Whatever this means. If you don't have anything to contribute, at
least you could stay away from the thread. Of course, the freedom to
do so is yours.
> > However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
> > land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
>
> Are you Whisper?
No. But, is Whisper the only Sampras fan ? I am both a Fed fan and a
Sampras fan.
Patrick Kehoe
> I am both a Fed fan and a Sampras fan.
Same here... loved Pete... amazing player... seemingly, the last
bombarding net player... ?
P
Rodjk #613
I have tried to land on the right foot, but cannot seem to do it.
Going through some changes in my serve now (talked about in a thread a
couple of weeks ago) so maybe that is something I can work on.
I was taught that you should land on the right foot to ease your way
into the net for S&V. I have not been able to work this out.
Rodjk #613
Shakes
Yes, the last of the elite level net players. And seeing how Fed is
finding it hard to master the volleys has made me respect Sampras a
lot more, considering how he started off primarily as a baseliner and
then successfully transitioned to a full-time, great S/V'er.
I love watching both Fed and Sampras. Though I will say that it is
easier to enjoy and appreciate watching Fed play. I didn't enjoy
watching Sampras as much when he was active. But it was only when I
started playing tennis a lot more seriously over the last yr or so
that I started to appreciate what Sampras was able to do on the tennis
court.
wkhedr
If the line connecting your two feet is making an angle that is bigger
than 90 degrees with the baseline (measured with the baseline
extending to your right while serving) and you are tossing the ball
above your head or a little behind your head, how is it possible you
can land on your right foot? Your right foot is already stuck far back
and it's your body and waist that is turning to face the court/ball
and reaching to the left to hit the ball. So the only way you can land
is on your left foot .
Shakes
Yes. I don't stand as much at an angle as Sampras did. I stand more
like Edberg (slightly side-on stance). However, I was curious if that
was normal (for recreational players) or do most of you land on your
leading foot ?
Shakes
One guy I know said that Becker would've had a bigger serve if he
didn't have this habit. It's to his credit that he was still a big
server inspite of this habit.
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 23, 8:51 am, Ali Asoag<Ali.Aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 12:03 AM, Shakes wrote:
>>
>>> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
>>> foot).
>>
>> Ping-pong is maybe easier for you to try ...
>>
>
> Whatever this means.
Table tennis.
> If you don't have anything to contribute, at
> least you could stay away from the thread. Of course, the freedom to
> do so is yours.
My contribution was to recommend you to play rather table tennis. It
seems to be easier for you.
>>> However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
>>> land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
>>
>> Are you Whisper?
>
> No. But, is Whisper the only Sampras fan ?
The way you post let one think ...
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 23, 11:33 am, Patrick Kehoe<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 23, 10:05 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am both a Fed fan and a Sampras fan.
>>
>> Same here... loved Pete... amazing player... seemingly, the last
>> bombarding net player... ?
>>
>> P
>
> Yes, the last of the elite level net players. And seeing how Fed is
> finding it hard to master the volleys has made me respect Sampras a
> lot more,
LOL. They are just different types of player. Sampras was a S&V player,
Fed is a baseliner. Fed may not be good at the net as Sampras like
Sampras is far worse than Fed at the baseline.
You can have respect for Sampras because of his net skills, but please
don't say that's because Fed "is finding it hard to master the volleys
...". That's just pathetic.
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't force the landing on a specific foot because the book says
so. It comes natural as the result of your body angle, where you toss
the ball, where the rotation comes from, etc.
If you are landing on your right foot, this means you are reaching
forward to the ball instead of rotating your body.
Try to toss the ball a little behind your head and increase your body
angle with the baseline if you really like to land on the left foot.
But please know that the timing and body stress will be more
difficult.
Shakes
It is clear that you have never watched Sampras play. He was never a
baseliner of Fed's capability, but he was a predominant baseliner. It
was only from 1998 on that he started becoming a S/V'er. WHen he came
on to the tour, he was an attacking baseliner with a big serve and
good volleying skills.
I never said "because". That's a cheap way to put it. Pls do not
project your emotions of Fed on to me. I appreciate a lot of qualities
in Fed's game, but I am not a blind worshipper.
My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
Ali Asoag
> On Oct 23, 3:13 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> On 10/23/2010 1:33 PM, Shakes wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 23, 11:33 am, Patrick Kehoe<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 23, 10:05 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am both a Fed fan and a Sampras fan.
>>
>>>> Same here... loved Pete... amazing player... seemingly, the last
>>>> bombarding net player... ?
>>
>>>> P
>>
>>> Yes, the last of the elite level net players. And seeing how Fed is
>>> finding it hard to master the volleys has made me respect Sampras a
>>> lot more,
>>
>> LOL. They are just different types of player. Sampras was a S&V player,
>> Fed is a baseliner. Fed may not be good at the net as Sampras like
>> Sampras is far worse than Fed at the baseline.
>>
>> You can have respect for Sampras because of his net skills, but please
>> don't say that's because Fed "is finding it hard to master the volleys
>> ...". That's just pathetic.
>
> It is clear that you have never watched Sampras play.
Clear to you? That doesn't bother me a tiny bit.
> He was never a
> baseliner of Fed's capability,
Did I say something different?
> but he was a predominant baseliner. It
> was only from 1998 on that he started becoming a S/V'er. WHen he came
> on to the tour, he was an attacking baseliner with a big serve and
> good volleying skills.
Sampras's game was rather S&V than baseline, considering his whole career.
> I never said "because".
But you said you had more respect for Sampras's volleys *considering how
Fed is struggling ..." or so which is like a reasoning.
> That's a cheap way to put it. Pls do not
> project your emotions of Fed on to me. I appreciate a lot of qualities
> in Fed's game, but I am not a blind worshipper.
What does a *blind* worshipper mean?
> My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
Every player has his own game type. At the end of the day, you must
convert your abilities into wins. Only that counts. Besides, people can
admire some player's style (like Fed's) and dislike some others' (??).
arnab.z@gmail
> My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
I think one can appreciate Sampras's volleying skills without
comparing them to Federer's. The conditions Sampras played in and the
ones that Federer plays in now are not the same. Federer was already a
good, competent volleyer back in the 2002-2003 period. He has been
asked many times by journalists why he didn't develop his volleying
skills even more or may be let them rust away. He has always hinted
that it's because it would have hurt him and cost him wins. I like his
reasoning. Peak Federer's winning record is close to impeccable.
Iceberg
> On 10/23/2010 4:18 AM, Iceberg wrote:
>
> > On 23 Oct, 07:03, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
> >> foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
> >> land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
> > I too try to copy the Sampras serve, but left-handed.
>
> LOL.
? obviously not an actual player yourself, plonk.
Iceberg
yeah I realise that now, tried a few in front of the mirror to
replicate and think Coach explains the problem well.
Ali Asoag
LOL.
> , plonk.
As if it interested me a tiny bit ...
RzR
> On 10/23/2010 4:18 AM, Iceberg wrote:
>> On 23 Oct, 07:03, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
>>> foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
>>> land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
>
>> I too try to copy the Sampras serve, but left-handed.
>
> LOL.
>
hehe poor things...i never had to copy anyone...1st time i hit a serve
in practice when i was 8, the coach told me, ah you already learned how
to serve, nice...and it was the very 1st time i did it...go figure ;)
Iceberg
well that's a remarkable natural talent to have, I've coached a fair
few kids and can't recall any 8 year olds being able to serve from the
baseline on their first go. was/is the rest of your game any good?
Iceberg
Fed's volleying has never been that great, esp his fh stomp volley,
I've said this from the early days, even at high risk to my own
personal safety from dangerous Fedfans. Henman, Sampras, Edberg,
Woodbridge, volleyers of a different league.
Shakes
> On 10/23/2010 11:18 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 3:13 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
> >> On 10/23/2010 1:33 PM, Shakes wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 23, 11:33 am, Patrick Kehoe<pke...@telus.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 23, 10:05 am, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> I am both a Fed fan and a Sampras fan.
>
> >>>> Same here... loved Pete... amazing player... seemingly, the last
> >>>> bombarding net player... ?
>
> >>>> P
>
> >>> Yes, the last of the elite level net players. And seeing how Fed is
> >>> finding it hard to master the volleys has made me respect Sampras a
> >>> lot more,
>
> >> LOL. They are just different types of player. Sampras was a S&V player,
> >> Fed is a baseliner. Fed may not be good at the net as Sampras like
> >> Sampras is far worse than Fed at the baseline.
>
> >> You can have respect for Sampras because of his net skills, but please
> >> don't say that's because Fed "is finding it hard to master the volleys
> >> ...". That's just pathetic.
>
> > It is clear that you have never watched Sampras play.
>
> Clear to you? That doesn't bother me a tiny bit.
>
> > He was never a
> > baseliner of Fed's capability,
>
> Did I say something different?
>
You said Sampras was a S/V player. I say he was a pre-dominant
baseliner to begin with, though not in the same capacity of Federer.
> > but he was a predominant baseliner. It
> > was only from 1998 on that he started becoming a S/V'er. WHen he came
> > on to the tour, he was an attacking baseliner with a big serve and
> > good volleying skills.
>
> Sampras's game was rather S&V than baseline, considering his whole career.
>
> > I never said "because".
>
> But you said you had more respect for Sampras's volleys *considering how
> Fed is struggling ..." or so which is like a reasoning.
>
It is a reasoning only in that it made my respect for Sampras grow,
not reduce my respect for Fed's game in general. That was how you
misunderstood my statement. Respecting two players of such talent as
these two is not mutually exclusive.
> > That's a cheap way to put it. Pls do not
> > project your emotions of Fed on to me. I appreciate a lot of qualities
> > in Fed's game, but I am not a blind worshipper.
>
> What does a *blind* worshipper mean?
>
It could mean someone who argues against anybody who points out a flaw
in the game of their idol; it could also mean someone who thinks their
favourite player is the best in every aspect of the game.
> > My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> > than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> > I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> > during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> > After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> > to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> > Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
>
> Every player has his own game type. At the end of the day, you must
> convert your abilities into wins. Only that counts. Besides, people can
> admire some player's style (like Fed's) and dislike some others' (??).
That is true. However, when the wins don't come as you expect, you
count on a player's ability to change his game to some extent to bring
a new dimension. And that is something I thought would be easier for
Fed than it was for some other players like Sampras, Lendl.
Shakes
> On 24 oct, 11:18, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> > than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> > I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> > during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> > After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> > to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> > Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
>
> I think one can appreciate Sampras's volleying skills without
> comparing them to Federer's. The conditions Sampras played in and the
> ones that Federer plays in now are not the same.
There is not a whole lot of difference between 2002 and now, as far as
the playing conditions are concerned.
> Federer was already a
> good, competent volleyer back in the 2002-2003 period.
Yes, but to indicate that he was as good as Sampras from the net
would've been an exaggeration.
It's a different point that Fed did better than Sampras by playing the
way he did. But that would be comparing apples to oranges. Sampras was
a pretty good baseline player who transformed himself to a great S/
V'er. And that is something that I have come to appreciate because how
many players can you think of who played two different style to a
great success.
> He has been
> asked many times by journalists why he didn't develop his volleying
> skills even more or may be let them rust away. He has always hinted
> that it's because it would have hurt him and cost him wins.
I wholeheartedly agree with him that it would've hurt *his (Fed's)
game*, given *his volleying skills*. I don't think he was ever elite
level in the net game.
> I like his
> reasoning. Peak Federer's winning record is close to impeccable.
I never said otherwise. And he made the right decision.
arnab.z@gmail
I have to say you are getting somewhat annoying with your verbal
gymnastics.
If Federer made the right decision by not developing a so-called
"elite level net game" à la Sampras (which to me sounds like a weasel
term to begin with), why are you whining so much about it? Why are you
making so many posts about Federer's "non-elite level volleying
skills" if his decision was right? Why does it bother you?
It's quite obvious that you are somewhat irrationally smitten with
Sampras, to the point of copying his every move, and there's nothing
wrong with it (although that explains the soft spot you have for some
of worst posters on rst, like Whisper). But why does the evolution of
Federer's playing style have to be just like Sampras's? Why does
Federer have to develop his net skills and "prove himself" to you?
Isn't that a too Sampras-centric view of the tennis world?
I would hate to put you in a box like Whimpy and other Sampras fanboy
trolls. But do realise that what you are saying is confusing. Your
heart wants Federer to be just like Sampras, but your brain says
Federer made the right decision. And as a result you keep complaining
about Federer's net skills and keep having these heated discussions
with Federer fans/fanboys that go round in circles and nothing comes
out of it.
arnab.z@gmail
> On Oct 24, 8:44 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 oct, 11:18, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> > > than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> > > I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> > > during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> > > After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> > > to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> > > Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
>
> > I think one can appreciate Sampras's volleying skills without
> > comparing them to Federer's. The conditions Sampras played in and the
> > ones that Federer plays in now are not the same. Federer was already a
> > good, competent volleyer back in the 2002-2003 period. He has been
> > asked many times by journalists why he didn't develop his volleying
> > skills even more or may be let them rust away. He has always hinted
> > that it's because it would have hurt him and cost him wins. I like his
> > reasoning. Peak Federer's winning record is close to impeccable.
>
> Fed's volleying has never been that great, esp his fh stomp volley,
Yeah, looking back I think Federer is regretting why oh why he didn't
develop the fh stomp volley to perfection. [rolleyes]
Iceberg
he lands so hard when doing that volley, I'm surprised he hasn't
broken his foot.
Shakes
Comon, what is there to be so sensitive about ? Okay, Fed is not in
the top leagues of volleyers. So what ?
arnab.z@gmail
? Are you confused? I don't care whether Federer is in the top league
of volleyers or not. It's you who has been whining about this
particular issue over the past few months. What's with the projection?
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ya... Pete and Roger are in the top level of major winners and that's
all that counts... how they got their - respectively - is moot... and
I look at that Pete-Roger Wimbledon 5 setter and Feds volleys look top
notch to me, every bit as good as Pete... in fact Pete missed a lot of
'sitters' or what looked like sitters... he wasn't used to that
velocity of return and that's a look into the way tennis turned in the
2000s... harder and harder returns (and higher quality passing shots)
from deeper and more angled defensive positions than Pete was used to
seeing come at/back (to) him...
P
arnab.z@gmail
Yeah
> I look at that Pete-Roger Wimbledon 5 setter and Feds volleys look top
> notch to me, every bit as good as Pete...
Absolutely. Federer's volleying looked very good in that 2001 match.
And he was 19 and still developing at that point. Too bad Wimbledon
changed their surface to a more slower one starting 2002.
Iceberg
oh pls, Sampras was about 47 in that match, it's not a good example
when comparing volleying skills, you might as well compare Madison Sq
Gardens couple of years ago, when his volleys were seriously off.
Fed's volleys were alright back then, but nothing like those of the
previous era.
Shakes
This is something I completely disagree with. For one thing in 2001
Wim, USO time-frame, Sampras was 30 yrs. That means, he was nearly a
yr older than Fed is now. And we ourselves are already claiming that
Fed is past his peak, even in 2009. Can't Sampras be given the same
benefit of doubt ? Secondly, Sampras' returns were never his strong
point. That's why he struggles against the big servers. To use Fed's
volleying skills against Sampras is not the best evidence.
To me, Agassi is the true barometer of the caliber of a S/V player. If
you can beat Agassi using the S/V game, you are very good. If you can
handle the low zingers to your feet and scoop off half-volleys from
your shoelaces off lasers, you are very good. Nobody, not Fed, not
Nadal, volleyed as well as Sampras did. If they did, they would've
ventured in to the net some more.
Sure, we all know that tennis now is played by people from Mars. It's
so advanced that 35 yr old Agassi was so good as to do better than
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin on HC slams between 2003-2005. Agassi beat
Blake, he beat Roddick, he beat Hewitt. He beat nearly every player of
Fed's generation between 2003-2005 except Fed himself. My point is, if
Agassi can do so well, Sampras sure as hell can do much better. And
further, except for Nadal, I don't see any new or revolutionary styles
or players from 2005 to now.
That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras. He chose
not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
How do we know ? Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
continued to use it and won.
No, it doesn't work that way.
Shakes
There's nothing to get annoyed about. It's probably because we are
going around in circles and we might probably never agree on this
issue.
> If Federer made the right decision by not developing a so-called
> "elite level net game" à la Sampras (which to me sounds like a weasel
> term to begin with), why are you whining so much about it? Why are you
> making so many posts about Federer's "non-elite level volleying
> skills" if his decision was right? Why does it bother you?
>
What bothers me is not that Fed didn't develop his net skills to the
elite level. What bothers me is people who claim that he didn't do so
because he foresaw/predicted that the net game is dead. People use
Fed's lack of net game as evidence that the net game wouldn't have
succeeded at the top level. Mind you, I am not talking about journey
man level talent here. I am talking about goat level talent of Fed and
Sampras. People seem to say, "Hey, if Fed can't volley in todays
conditions, Sampras sure as hell can't.". That's what bothers me.
People expect Fed to be better than every player before him in every
aspect of the game. And my rants are against that.
The truth is that Fed saw (esp. after his matches against Nalbandian
and Hewitt in 2003 USO and Davis Cup) that *he* wouldn't be as
successful playing the net game. He recognized that, for him, he was
better off being a baseliner than a volleyer. Yet, you would never
agree to that.
> It's quite obvious that you are somewhat irrationally smitten with
> Sampras, to the point of copying his every move, and there's nothing
> wrong with it (although that explains the soft spot you have for some
> of worst posters on rst, like Whisper). But why does the evolution of
> Federer's playing style have to be just like Sampras's? Why does
> Federer have to develop his net skills and "prove himself" to you?
> Isn't that a too Sampras-centric view of the tennis world?
>
I am not irrationally smitten with Sampras. I am smitten with both Fed
and Sampras. I don't copy Sampras' every move. I only copied his
service motion and it helped me immensely. And further, I am not
sympathetic with whisper. You know that I've been at loggerheads with
him every time Fed is brought into the picture. But I don't take the
opposing stand, thinking, "Oh, he is whisper and I have to disagree
with everything he says."
I disagree with Whisper when it comes to Fed and his underestimation
of today's players. However, I think I share some of his tastes too. I
liked the variety on the tennis scene from the mid-'80's to the
mid-'90's (please don't use Ivanisevic- Sampras as an example of the
'90's) a lot more than the styles (or lack of) on display now. I
prefer to watch attacking tennis and the net game. Growing up in
India, I always preferred the quick-strike tennis of Wimbledon/USO
rather than the endless rallies of the FO. So, we agree on a few
points. That's all.
Were it not for Fed, I probably never would've watched tennis this
decade. I have no problems with those who think otherwise.
> I would hate to put you in a box like Whimpy and other Sampras fanboy
> trolls. But do realise that what you are saying is confusing. Your
> heart wants Federer to be just like Sampras, but your brain says
> Federer made the right decision. And as a result you keep complaining
> about Federer's net skills and keep having these heated discussions
> with Federer fans/fanboys that go round in circles and nothing comes
> out of it.
I agree. Like I said earlier, my beef is not against Fed's evolution
of his game. Rather it is against fans who claim that Fed was a goat-
level volleyer but gave it up because volleying is not meant for this
era.
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you want to compare Agassi's passing shots (the action on the ball)
to Nadal's?! lol
Agassi hits flat, and easy predictable trajectory for the ball. While
Nadal's insane spin on the ball makes the ball crazy and it simplay
dips very quickly. Did you ever try to volley balls hit with a topspin
similar to Nadal's?
Also which players were super baseline players in Sampras' era? I know
your answer will be Agassi.
But Agassi was a flat hitter and he did well against similar flat
baseline players like Hewitt.
Time changed, now Nadal hits 130+ mph serves too.
In my opinion any player can reach 8/10 in volleying if he practiced a
lot (Edberg has a 10/10) but players don't practice s/v including
Federer.
Federer has a great-hand-eye coord. and no one doubts he can be a
great volleyer 9/10 if he focused on s/v but he believes he can
achieve more playing different style.
Was he right? may be, the guy won 16 slams at age 28 including the FO
and he is out there gunning for more.
arnab.z@gmail
>
> That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
> something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras.
No. Red herring. You've got it wrong. AFAIK, nobody apart from Fed
loonies is claiming that. Federer certainly had the potential to
become a very good volleyer. Whether he would have developed to be as
good a volleyer as Sampras, we'll never know. He abandoned playing S/
V.
> He chose
> not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
More or less. Playing a predominantly S/V style would have hurt a
player of Federer's caliber costing him big, important wins. You
youself have admitted the same thing, saying that Federer made the
right decision.
> How do we know ?
We can never know for sure how good a volleyer Federer would have
turned out to be. Fortunately, his game is great to watch as it is,
far more enjoyable than Sampras's game, and his success has been
phenomenal. Why bother about his net game or the lack of it?
> Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
> continued to use it and won.
>
> No, it doesn't work that way.
"Fed made the right decision." --- Shakes.
arnab.z@gmail
>
> I agree. Like I said earlier, my beef is not against Fed's evolution
> of his game. Rather it is against fans who claim that Fed was a goat-
> level volleyer but gave it up because volleying is not meant for this
> era.
Who are these so-called fans? Just ignore them.
This is a stupid issue to get irritated about. I don't like the term
"goat-level volleyer" to begin with. The term GOAT itself is a weasel
word, then you're piling something else upon it. Sampras was a great
volleyer, probably the best volleyer in the 1990s, and among the best
volleyers of all time. Federer has not won his slams by playing a S/V
game, so he doesn't even enter the picture. Let's just leave it at
that. You know this, I know this, the rational posters know this.
Don't get riled up by some fan remarks.
TT
>
> In my opinion any player can reach 8/10 in volleying if he practiced a
> lot (Edberg has a 10/10) but players don't practice s/v including
> Federer.
S/V is officially dead and buried - The final blow came from Berdych at
Wimbledon against Federer...it was brutal display of 1-2-tennis:
1. serve
2. hit an outright winner off the return
Winning strategy. No need to take the net and risk getting passed.
arnab.z@gmail
I don't know what people you are talking about. But net game wouldn't
have brought Federer so much success (16 slams). I am quite sure about
it.
> Mind you, I am not talking about journey
> man level talent here. I am talking about goat level talent of Fed and
> Sampras. People seem to say, "Hey, if Fed can't volley in todays
> conditions, Sampras sure as hell can't.". That's what bothers me.
> People expect Fed to be better than every player before him in every
> aspect of the game. And my rants are against that.
The question is not whether Federer's game is better than every player
before him in every aspect of the game. It doesn't have to be. But he
is very, very good in almost every department. His game as a whole was
almost perfect at one point, his peak success is unrivalled in
history. It's the success which counts the most. Why are you bothered
with irrelevant questions?
> The truth is that Fed saw (esp. after his matches against Nalbandian
> and Hewitt in 2003 USO and Davis Cup) that *he* wouldn't be as
> successful playing the net game. He recognized that, for him, he was
> better off being a baseliner than a volleyer. Yet, you would never
> agree to that.
No, I wouldn't agree with that. Because you are claiming to read
Federer's mind. Federer has great hand-eye coordination. Federer
played a good volleying game until 2003. Even in Halle 2004 you can
see him volleying quite well. However, playing predominantly a net
game was becoming progressively more and more difficult, because the
field as a whole was getting better and better at playing good defense
from the baseline. The new racket technology, and a higher level of
athleticism have made this possible. If you deny this, then you
haven't really seen tennis in the past few years.
Shakes
I am comparing pace. It's not so easy to handle flat lasers and stand
your ground and hit volley and half-volley winners. Look how Mac fared
against Lendl, for example. Not everyone can handle pure pace from
such close quarters. I never saw Nadal hit passing shots against
Sampras. Until he does, allow me to disagree.
> Agassi hits flat, and easy predictable trajectory for the ball. While
> Nadal's insane spin on the ball makes the ball crazy and it simplay
> dips very quickly. Did you ever try to volley balls hit with a topspin
> similar to Nadal's?
>
Well, I am not Sampras. :-) It's not just the passing shots. It's the
positioning. Nadal hits his passing shots from 5 ft behind the
baseline. Agassi hits his shots from on or inside the baseline. If
Nadal can do the same dippers taking the ball on the rise like Agassi
(essentially, hitting half-volleys), I would agree with you. Nadal
gets a lot more action on the ball, sure, but he also gives away a lot
more angles and room, and time.
> Also which players were super baseline players in Sampras' era? I know
> your answer will be Agassi.
> But Agassi was a flat hitter and he did well against similar flat
> baseline players like Hewitt.
>
Agassi did well against Hewitt, against Roddick, against Ferrero,
against Safin. SO he was able to handle quite a few playing styles.
There were quite a few baseliners who didn't hit flat during Sampras'
era. Bruguera was a very good baseliner, with great topspin and a
pretty big serve. So was Courier. Muster. Moya.
> Time changed, now Nadal hits 130+ mph serves too.
>
This is partly helped by the new and more accurate speed guns that
measure the ball as soon as it leaves the racquet. Earlier, they were
measured a little later. Otherwise we would've have to accept that
Nadal serves harder than Sampras, Becker, Stich, Ivanisevic, Krajicek
etc. But I don't think so.
> In my opinion any player can reach 8/10 in volleying if he practiced a
> lot (Edberg has a 10/10) but players don't practice s/v including
> Federer.
That is the sad part. Because how do we know how today's players
handle 9 or 10/10 volleying skills.
> Federer has a great-hand-eye coord. and no one doubts he can be a
> great volleyer 9/10 if he focused on s/v but he believes he can
> achieve more playing different style.
> Was he right? may be, the guy won 16 slams at age 28 including the FO
> and he is out there gunning for more.
The point is what worked in the past does not necessarily mean it
would work now when he is older, slower. Fed's game is a game of
precision. it requires supreme speed and footwork. When that goes down
due to age, the timing is off, and his game looks a lot more human.
So what do you do to counter that ? Do you continue playing that style
as best as you can ? Or do you try and develop weapons that are not as
affected by the erosion of speed ? It'll be interesting to see Fed's
take on this.
Shakes
> On 25 oct, 23:52, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
> > something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras.
>
> No. Red herring. You've got it wrong. AFAIK, nobody apart from Fed
> loonies is claiming that. Federer certainly had the potential to
> become a very good volleyer. Whether he would have developed to be as
> good a volleyer as Sampras, we'll never know. He abandoned playing S/
> V.
>
Point taken.
> > He chose
> > not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
>
> More or less. Playing a predominantly S/V style would have hurt a
> player of Federer's caliber costing him big, important wins. You
> youself have admitted the same thing, saying that Federer made the
> right decision.
>
There's the wording again. :-) Playing a S/V style would've hurt a
player of Fed's baseline caliber ... would've been more right. And,
yes, I did admit that.
> > How do we know ?
>
> We can never know for sure how good a volleyer Federer would have
> turned out to be. Fortunately, his game is great to watch as it is,
> far more enjoyable than Sampras's game, and his success has been
> phenomenal. Why bother about his net game or the lack of it?
>
Because I think that is the kind of game that would give him the edge
against Nadal. Watch their Rome 2006 F. Fed had that in the bag before
he lost it, on clay of all surfaces. And his main strategy in that
match was to approach the net. That was a winning strategy that Fed
did not pursue further.
> > Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
> > continued to use it and won.
>
> > No, it doesn't work that way.
>
> "Fed made the right decision." --- Shakes.
Yes, for him. Not for S/V in general.
arnab.z@gmail
> On Oct 25, 11:12 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 25 oct, 23:52, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
> > > something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras.
>
> > No. Red herring. You've got it wrong. AFAIK, nobody apart from Fed
> > loonies is claiming that. Federer certainly had the potential to
> > become a very good volleyer. Whether he would have developed to be as
> > good a volleyer as Sampras, we'll never know. He abandoned playing S/
> > V.
>
> Point taken.
>
> > > He chose
> > > not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
>
> > More or less. Playing a predominantly S/V style would have hurt a
> > player of Federer's caliber costing him big, important wins. You
> > youself have admitted the same thing, saying that Federer made the
> > right decision.
>
> There's the wording again. :-) Playing a S/V style would've hurt a
> player of Fed's baseline caliber ... would've been more right.
I disagree. Federer was a multi-talented player with great potential
in all areas of the game, including S/V (a cursory look at Wimbledon
2001 should provide enough proof). But how the conditions and the
nature of the field evolved in the 2000s shaped his playing style.
That's the truth.
> And,
> yes, I did admit that.
>
> > > How do we know ?
>
> > We can never know for sure how good a volleyer Federer would have
> > turned out to be. Fortunately, his game is great to watch as it is,
> > far more enjoyable than Sampras's game, and his success has been
> > phenomenal. Why bother about his net game or the lack of it?
>
> Because I think that is the kind of game that would give him the edge
> against Nadal. Watch their Rome 2006 F. Fed had that in the bag before
> he lost it, on clay of all surfaces. And his main strategy in that
> match was to approach the net. That was a winning strategy that Fed
> did not pursue further.
>
But you are making a crucial mistake here. Federer plays against the
field, not Nadal. He would like to maximize his chances against the
field in general. He has to take his matches one at a time. At the end
of the day, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer. And what's more,
Nadal is a pretty good player himself. There's no shame in losing to
Nadal on clay, and no shame in losing to him outside clay when you are
off your peak, which is what Federer did.
> > > Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
> > > continued to use it and won.
>
> > > No, it doesn't work that way.
>
> > "Fed made the right decision." --- Shakes.
>
> Yes, for him. Not for S/V in general.
Sure. I don't mind.
Shakes
That is true to some extent. But when Fed was growing up in the '90's,
S/V was still a force as evidenced by Sampras, Rafter, even Henman to
some extent. So it would be wrong to say that he did not want to
become a S/V'er. The playing conditions changed from 2001/2002
onwards. Fed couldn't have foreseen that in 1998-2001.
Again, I agree that Fed had great potential in all areas of the game.
But, as it stood in 2001-2003, he was not a elite level S/V'er is all
I am saying. Maybe he would've been one if he had practiced harder.
>
>
>
> > And,
> > yes, I did admit that.
>
> > > > How do we know ?
>
> > > We can never know for sure how good a volleyer Federer would have
> > > turned out to be. Fortunately, his game is great to watch as it is,
> > > far more enjoyable than Sampras's game, and his success has been
> > > phenomenal. Why bother about his net game or the lack of it?
>
> > Because I think that is the kind of game that would give him the edge
> > against Nadal. Watch their Rome 2006 F. Fed had that in the bag before
> > he lost it, on clay of all surfaces. And his main strategy in that
> > match was to approach the net. That was a winning strategy that Fed
> > did not pursue further.
>
> But you are making a crucial mistake here. Federer plays against the
> field, not Nadal. He would like to maximize his chances against the
> field in general. He has to take his matches one at a time. At the end
> of the day, Nadal is just a bad matchup for Federer. And what's more,
> Nadal is a pretty good player himself. There's no shame in losing to
> Nadal on clay, and no shame in losing to him outside clay when you are
> off your peak, which is what Federer did.
>
But there was a time, 2005-2007, when Fed was so far ahead of the rest
of the field that he could've developed a few more strengths to his
game while keeping his core game intact. It is not impossible. You
just have to look at Nadal for proof. Nadal changed his attacking game
while not losing his core retrieving skills. Fed should've opted for
that to meet the Nadal challenge. I think he could've done it.
Again regards to match-up, why is Nadal a bad match-up for Fed ?
Because of his lefty FH to Fed's BH. But then the reverse is true as
well. Fed's FH then goes to Nadal's BH. It is frustrating that it is
always Nadal who stamps his pattern on the match. Why does Fed not try
to make it a battle between his FH and Nadal's BH. The truth is Fed
allows that match-up to happen. It takes two to tango.
arnab.z@gmail
>
> > I disagree. Federer was a multi-talented player with great potential
> > in all areas of the game, including S/V (a cursory look at Wimbledon
> > 2001 should provide enough proof). But how the conditions and the
> > nature of the field evolved in the 2000s shaped his playing style.
> > That's the truth.
>
> That is true to some extent.
It's pretty much as true as it gets imo.
> But when Fed was growing up in the '90's,
> S/V was still a force as evidenced by Sampras, Rafter, even Henman to
> some extent.
Sure.
> So it would be wrong to say that he did not want to
> become a S/V'er.
Who said he didn't want to become a S/Ver? May be he did. May be he
didn't. We don't know. Who are you actually arguing with?
> The playing conditions changed from 2001/2002
> onwards. Fed couldn't have foreseen that in 1998-2001.
>
Sure.
> Again, I agree that Fed had great potential in all areas of the game.
> But, as it stood in 2001-2003, he was not a elite level S/V'er is all
> I am saying.
Well, who is claiming he was an elite level S/Ver back in 2001-2003?
He was still developing his game. Federer's game was, from the very
beginning, geared towards an all-court style. Federer has said this in
countless interviews, that his strategy was to have a very solid basic
game on which he can change and adapt to different opponents. I like
this strategy. Sounds more practical than a purely S/V strategy. And
how it has earned Federer the slams!
> Maybe he would've been one if he had practiced harder.
May be. Who cares? That would have been a different Federer for sure.
I liked the all-court Federer we had back in 2004-2006 very much.
Enjoyed his game a lot.
> But there was a time, 2005-2007, when Fed was so far ahead of the rest
> of the field that he could've developed a few more strengths to his
> game while keeping his core game intact. It is not impossible. You
> just have to look at Nadal for proof. Nadal changed his attacking game
> while not losing his core retrieving skills. Fed should've opted for
> that to meet the Nadal challenge. I think he could've done it.
May be. To me it's just wasting time on coulda wouldas.
> Again regards to match-up, why is Nadal a bad match-up for Fed ?
> Because of his lefty FH to Fed's BH. But then the reverse is true as
> well. Fed's FH then goes to Nadal's BH. It is frustrating that it is
> always Nadal who stamps his pattern on the match. Why does Fed not try
> to make it a battle between his FH and Nadal's BH. The truth is Fed
> allows that match-up to happen. It takes two to tango.
That makes no sense to me. It's not as simple as you are making it to
be. And it's a different issue.
Shakes
> On 26 oct, 01:04, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> That is true to some extent.
>
> It's pretty much as true as it gets imo.
>
>
> > become a S/V'er.
>
> Who said he didn't want to become a S/Ver? May be he did. May be he
> didn't. We don't know. Who are you actually arguing with?
>
On those who say Fed foresaw the development of new strings, slower
court conditions etc. and therefore decided that S/V would not be
successful *in general*, and thereby left that part of his game.
> > The playing conditions changed from 2001/2002
> > onwards. Fed couldn't have foreseen that in 1998-2001.
>
> Sure.
>
> > Again, I agree that Fed had great potential in all areas of the game.
> > But, as it stood in 2001-2003, he was not a elite level S/V'er is all
> > I am saying.
>
> Well, who is claiming he was an elite level S/Ver back in 2001-2003?
> He was still developing his game. Federer's game was, from the very
> beginning, geared towards an all-court style. Federer has said this in
> countless interviews, that his strategy was to have a very solid basic
> game on which he can change and adapt to different opponents. I like
> this strategy. Sounds more practical than a purely S/V strategy. And
> how it has earned Federer the slams!
>
Well, Patrick was claiming that just a few posts back, and he was
using Fed's 2001 match against Sampras as evidence.
Also, I was not talking about pure S/V. Just the net game. Did you see
Fed's matches against Murray in Shanghai recently ? He absolutely
flubbed some fairly easy volleys. He just appeared to be running
through the volley. There was no proper split-step and the instinct to
cover the pass is all but absent.
Again, I said the same to Wkhedr. If his game has worked until now
doesn't mean it will work in the future too. Fed's game is based on
razor-sharp timing, which again depends on razor sharp footwork and
speed. When he loses that edge of his speed and footwork due to age
and mileage, his game, as it is suffers. He makes a lot more shanks
and reduces his options. So I don't think he can play the same game as
he did between 2004-2007 and expect to win.
I take it that he has hired Annacone to work on other aspects of his
game, like his serve and net game. When he played in Toronto, Cincy, I
was heartened to see his new attacking game. The match against Baggy,
for example. However, he seemed to have gone back to his old game
again.
>
> > But there was a time, 2005-2007, when Fed was so far ahead of the rest
> > of the field that he could've developed a few more strengths to his
> > game while keeping his core game intact. It is not impossible. You
> > just have to look at Nadal for proof. Nadal changed his attacking game
> > while not losing his core retrieving skills. Fed should've opted for
> > that to meet the Nadal challenge. I think he could've done it.
>
> May be. To me it's just wasting time on coulda wouldas.
>
Well, if we are not allowed to speculate, then what do we have for
discussion on a tennis forum ? Just posting match facts and results is
hardly exciting.
> > Again regards to match-up, why is Nadal a bad match-up for Fed ?
> > Because of his lefty FH to Fed's BH. But then the reverse is true as
> > well. Fed's FH then goes to Nadal's BH. It is frustrating that it is
> > always Nadal who stamps his pattern on the match. Why does Fed not try
> > to make it a battle between his FH and Nadal's BH. The truth is Fed
> > allows that match-up to happen. It takes two to tango.
>
> That makes no sense to me. It's not as simple as you are making it to
> be. And it's a different issue.
Care to elaborate why it is a different issue ? Again the question is
why is it only Nadal who stamps the FH-BH pattern ? Why can't Fed give
the same medicine to Nadal ? I take it that Fed's FH is stronger than
Nadal's BH. As is Fed's serve. So, why can't he stamp his match
pattern ? Why does he allow Nadal to pick on his BH ?
I don't agree that Nadal can stamp his template irrespective of what
Fed does. IF that is so, he must be better than Fed. And I don't
believe that for one second.
arnab.z@gmail
> On Oct 25, 12:14 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 oct, 01:04, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That is true to some extent.
>
> > It's pretty much as true as it gets imo.
>
> > > So it would be wrong to say that he did not want to
> > > become a S/V'er.
>
> > Who said he didn't want to become a S/Ver? May be he did. May be he
> > didn't. We don't know. Who are you actually arguing with?
>
> On those who say Fed foresaw the development of new strings, slower
> court conditions etc.
Well, I am not one of those people. I am not interested.
> and therefore decided that S/V would not be
> successful *in general*, and thereby left that part of his game.
We just don't know when, why and how Federer decided all these. It's
futile to speculate. I don't know why you are wasting time on this. I
know I won't.
>
> > > The playing conditions changed from 2001/2002
> > > onwards. Fed couldn't have foreseen that in 1998-2001.
>
> > Sure.
>
> > > Again, I agree that Fed had great potential in all areas of the game.
> > > But, as it stood in 2001-2003, he was not a elite level S/V'er is all
> > > I am saying.
>
> > Well, who is claiming he was an elite level S/Ver back in 2001-2003?
> > He was still developing his game. Federer's game was, from the very
> > beginning, geared towards an all-court style. Federer has said this in
> > countless interviews, that his strategy was to have a very solid basic
> > game on which he can change and adapt to different opponents. I like
> > this strategy. Sounds more practical than a purely S/V strategy. And
> > how it has earned Federer the slams!
>
> Well, Patrick was claiming that just a few posts back, and he was
> using Fed's 2001 match against Sampras as evidence.
>
Alright, take it up with Patrick then. But it has to be said that
Federer's volleying was very good in that match.
> Also, I was not talking about pure S/V. Just the net game. Did you see
> Fed's matches against Murray in Shanghai recently ? He absolutely
> flubbed some fairly easy volleys. He just appeared to be running
> through the volley. There was no proper split-step and the instinct to
> cover the pass is all but absent.
>
What's the point of talking about Federer's net skills in 2010? I
don't get your point.
> Again, I said the same to Wkhedr. If his game has worked until now
> doesn't mean it will work in the future too. Fed's game is based on
> razor-sharp timing, which again depends on razor sharp footwork and
> speed. When he loses that edge of his speed and footwork due to age
> and mileage, his game, as it is suffers. He makes a lot more shanks
> and reduces his options. So I don't think he can play the same game as
> he did between 2004-2007 and expect to win.
>
Sure. That's your opinion. I personally think Federer's game has
reached a plateau. I don't think it will improve much.
> I take it that he has hired Annacone to work on other aspects of his
> game, like his serve and net game. When he played in Toronto, Cincy, I
> was heartened to see his new attacking game. The match against Baggy,
> for example. However, he seemed to have gone back to his old game
> again.
I think at this stage of Federer's career, we should focus on his
performance in slams.
>
> > > But there was a time, 2005-2007, when Fed was so far ahead of the rest
> > > of the field that he could've developed a few more strengths to his
> > > game while keeping his core game intact. It is not impossible. You
> > > just have to look at Nadal for proof. Nadal changed his attacking game
> > > while not losing his core retrieving skills. Fed should've opted for
> > > that to meet the Nadal challenge. I think he could've done it.
>
> > May be. To me it's just wasting time on coulda wouldas.
>
> Well, if we are not allowed to speculate, then what do we have for
> discussion on a tennis forum ? Just posting match facts and results is
> hardly exciting.
>
I don't know. Let's spend more time on tennis courts and getting
fitter. Take up a different, more productive hobby, like learning a
musical instrument. The possibilities are endless. :)
> > > Again regards to match-up, why is Nadal a bad match-up for Fed ?
> > > Because of his lefty FH to Fed's BH. But then the reverse is true as
> > > well. Fed's FH then goes to Nadal's BH. It is frustrating that it is
> > > always Nadal who stamps his pattern on the match. Why does Fed not try
> > > to make it a battle between his FH and Nadal's BH. The truth is Fed
> > > allows that match-up to happen. It takes two to tango.
>
> > That makes no sense to me. It's not as simple as you are making it to
> > be. And it's a different issue.
>
> Care to elaborate why it is a different issue ? Again the question is
> why is it only Nadal who stamps the FH-BH pattern ? Why can't Fed give
> the same medicine to Nadal ? I take it that Fed's FH is stronger than
> Nadal's BH. As is Fed's serve. So, why can't he stamp his match
> pattern ? Why does he allow Nadal to pick on his BH ?
>
> I don't agree that Nadal can stamp his template irrespective of what
> Fed does. IF that is so, he must be better than Fed. And I don't
> believe that for one second.
According to results, Nadal IS better than Federer in their particular
h2h encounters, especially on clay. But tennis is not just about one-
on-one matchups.
Look, at the end of the day, Nadal has gotten the better of Federer in
their h2h, especially on clay. That doesn't mean Nadal is
automatically a better tennis player than Federer. It doesn't work
that way. Success or betterness in professional tennis is not
primarily about individual matchups, but winning the big tournaments.
You know that.
PeteWasLucky
> Care to elaborate why it is a different issue ? Again the question is
> why is it only Nadal who stamps the FH-BH pattern ? Why can't Fed give
> the same medicine to Nadal ? I take it that Fed's FH is stronger than
> Nadal's BH. As is Fed's serve. So, why can't he stamp his match
> pattern ? Why does he allow Nadal to pick on his BH ?
>
> I don't agree that Nadal can stamp his template irrespective of what
> Fed does. IF that is so, he must be better than Fed. And I don't
> believe that for one second.- Hide quoted text -
>
Very good question and the answer is that Federer decided many years
back to balance his court coverage and fully depend on both of his
backhand and forehand. In other words he uses his backhand more than
most of the other players in long rallies and tries to reduce the
running around his backhand to hit forehands as much as he can
probably to preserve energy and have a longer career.
Nadal on the other side, transforms those matches to a life/death
battle and he simply puts all he's got into them.
arnab.z@gmail
Yes, and let me add that in terms of consistently attacking Federer's
weakness, Nadal is simply the best. He is just too consistent and
Federer finds it hard to contain him. Nadal exposed Federer's
weakness. Full credit to him.
TT
>
> Care to elaborate why it is a different issue ? Again the question is
> why is it only Nadal who stamps the FH-BH pattern ? Why can't Fed give
> the same medicine to Nadal ? I take it that Fed's FH is stronger than
> Nadal's BH. As is Fed's serve. So, why can't he stamp his match
> pattern ? Why does he allow Nadal to pick on his BH ?
First,
Nadal's backhand is stronger than Federer's.
Second,
Nadal can create more angle with his forehand than Federer, making it
harder for Federer to counter a cross-court exchange with his backhand,
well off the sideline.
Third,
When in his backhand corner, Nadal changes the pattern often with slice
or topspin backhand to fed's backhand corner - he does that better than
Federer, or better than anyone I think...which re-creates favourable
pattern for him.
Fourth,
Nadal's most deadly position on court is his backhand corner - when he
dances around the backhand and rips a MASSIVE off-/dtl-forehand, making
it impossible for his opponent(s) to cover the whole court. Finnish
expert commentator called it his "forehand nest". No doubt Federer can
do the same thing pretty well too, but Nadal does it better, better than
anyone imo. And of course Fed can't run around his backhand as
effortlessly because of angles Nadal creates.
>
> I don't agree that Nadal can stamp his template irrespective of what
> Fed does. IF that is so, he must be better than Fed. And I don't
> believe that for one second.
Nevertheless looks like you're on your way to acknowledge that
eventually. Now please continue your discussion with Arnab, but be
forewarned: when his analytic skill fails...he may call you a "troll" or
a "kid"...
:-P
--
"I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my
life God will give you blood to drink"
-Sarah Good, 1692
Patrick Kehoe
I didn't mention peak... he could still volley in 2001 Shakes...
Can't Sampras be given the same
> benefit of doubt ? Secondly, Sampras' returns were never his strong
> point. That's why he struggles against the big servers. To use Fed's
> volleying skills against Sampras is not the best evidence.
ALL I said was having watched the match 5 or 6 times (official video)
Fed was clearly at the same level as Pete in 2001 at the net... 5 sets
at center court Wimbledon for a 19 year old vs. the 4 time defending
champion, I'd say was Pete's advantage from a 'technical/applied
technique' point of view with respect to comfort of conditions,
experience, knowledge, adaptability etc... and yet, I at least,
consider Fed very good at net that day...
> To me, Agassi is the true barometer of the caliber of a S/V player. If
> you can beat Agassi using the S/V game, you are very good. If you can
> handle the low zingers to your feet and scoop off half-volleys from
> your shoelaces off lasers, you are very good. Nobody, not Fed, not
> Nadal, volleyed as well as Sampras did. If they did, they would've
> ventured in to the net some more.
Well, the USO 2005 final produced some great Fed shoe stringers at a
time he was almost a baseline full time... it's THERE on video to
see... I AM NOT SAYING FED was all time great at net, but, man he was
very good CONSIDERING he didn't play up there... the difficult volleys
he tended to make more than the easier ones, many times in big
matches...
> Sure, we all know that tennis now is played by people from Mars. It's
> so advanced that 35 yr old Agassi was so good as to do better than
> Roddick, Hewitt, Safin on HC slams between 2003-2005. Agassi beat
> Blake, he beat Roddick, he beat Hewitt. He beat nearly every player of
> Fed's generation between 2003-2005 except Fed himself. My point is, if
> Agassi can do so well, Sampras sure as hell can do much better.
Well, styles make fights and tennis matches... Fed might have had the
over all game to work Sampras over in ways Agassi couldn't and Agassi
may have had the game to put Fed under a power threat that Sampras
would have had to initiate from/off the serve... and we all know how
good Fed was a defusing big/accurate serving power hitters... WHO
KNOWS... it's just speculation but NOT an unreasonable one AND
certainly reasonable people can debate back and forth on the issue...
And further, except for Nadal, I don't see any new or revolutionary
styles
> or players from 2005 to now.
Federer, as I have expanded upon at lenght over the last 5 years here
at RST, changed the attack-defend ratios with a new geometry where
tennis was not mainly about 'the kill shot set up power tennis' any,
longer... winner could be hit from LITERALLY anywhere taking tennis
into a form of 'instantaneous' transitional attack optioning with
power hitting and angled returns and speed transition tennis hitting
winners to ALL quadrents of the court 'routinely'... and the word
routinely is key here...
Federer re-imagined the tennis court bi-passing the end line as the
primary 'kill shot finishing line for most points' to winners from and
to anywhere on the other side optionally via OUTRAGEOUS angled winners
from defensive positions, transitional positions and at the net...
that was HIS person revolution (revisualization of the game) to
"defend into attack tennis" with a genius level technical variety that
frankly had the tennis world IN AWE... the reaction to the early Fed
as amazing... he was labelled future legend after 2 majors AND NOT IN
JUST RHETORICAL TERMS either... etc... I see him as a revolutionary
figure, one which Nadal brilliantly morphed his physicality and
adaptive genius to combat and over take...
That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
> something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras. He chose
> not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
> How do we know ? Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
> continued to use it and won.
>
> No, it doesn't work that way.
Right. Fed never did get to Sampras' level at net like because he
correctly identified a new formulation to the all court game, which he
revolutionized, in my view...
P
arnab.z@gmail
I agree with most of this.
TT
> the difficult volleys
> he tended to make more than the easier ones
Note: poor players often make the hard shots and then fail at something
relatively easy.
Shakes
Yes, it could be true that Fed decided that he wanted to be an all-
court player with no *strong* preference to one side - either the FH
or the BH. But he surely knows that, inspite of all that, his FH IS
the stronger side, and he needs to use it more than his BH. And he
does too.
You are talking about playing styles. I was talking about the use of a
player's strengths to his opponent's weaknesses. You have still not
touched on why he allows Nadal to pick on his BH, when he knows he's
playing his weaker side to Nadal's stronger side. Surely, it's more
logical that he tries to stamp his stronger side to Nadal's weaker
side ? How is it possible that he can't do that against Nadal ?
Patrick Kehoe
sure... ???
whatever
lol
P
arnab.z@gmail
The simple answer is that Federer is not a perfect machine. Nobody is
invincible. That's why we watch tennis.
More analytical answers to these questions require a new thread and
good, rational posters and that ain't gonna happen on rst.
PeteWasLucky
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because Federer doesn't want to keep hitting forehands only may be b/c
this became his playing style or may be he doesn't have enough stamina
to keep running around his backhand to hit forehands.
arnab.z@gmail
Just put him in your killfile.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes and Nadal is relentless in his 'to the backhand'... in fact
Annacone and Fed might well take a page from Sampras moving forward
picking certain attack points to change the averages during service
games and return games... deconstruct the now 'normal' rallies of
their match ups... the question remains how percisely to best do
that... Annacone will be annalysising this for the coming 2 years of
match ups against Team Rafa... it's one of his primary tasks surely!
P
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
OR Annacone will try and piece together not how - so much - but
percisely WHEN, in what parts of the Roger-Rafa game patterning will
he want Fed to s/v, chip charge or run around the backhand... BUT if
the last 10 matches or so of Feds are any indication, Fed has been
working on his top spinning short cross court backhand when moving
quickly to his left... that's clearly the beginning of the answer...
he starting to find amazing angled winners off it... indoors
anyway :))
The down the line backhand hasn't really come back out of moth balls
just yet in any meaningful way... that might be coming out in London
and Melbourne... they are likely working on it overtime these months
in practice... much as Rafa unvieled his 130mph serving primarily for
the USO this summer...
P
arnab.z@gmail
Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I don't think things are going to
change too much between Federer and Nadal. I'd be surprised if they
do.
Shakes
Comon, Arnab. It's not that at all. After all, that is what Nadal does
every time Fed hits his FH to Nadal's BH. Nadal maneuvers himself,
either by hitting his own BH DTL or running around and hitting his FH
DTL, so that he puts it back to Fed's BH. But, again, Fed does not
have Nadal's consistency. I believe that it is better to go out of
your comfort zone, even if it means looking foolish at times, rather
than try to play out a losing pattern to the best of your abilities.
> More analytical answers to these questions require a new thread and
> good, rational posters and that ain't gonna happen on rst.
Oh, shucks.
BTW, here is a very good thread on another forum that debates this
issue somewhat.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=249580
Ignore that this was started around AO 2009, after Fed's loss to Nadal
at the AO, but just go along considering the bigger issue in debate -
handling grinders.
Read the posts by "!Tym" and "380Pistol". "!Tym" used to post here as
Dudewaba and he is very good, unbiased (he was a fan of Bruguera,
Rios), and has very good insights.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
You could well be right... if we can get a blending of Nadal at the
2010 USO and Fed from 2010 AO and Madrid 2009, well, at least we might
possibly have another absolute classic in store for us... I'm not that
hopeful however... Fed is trending down now and though less so, I
agree with Drew, in total terms, Rafa is more and more an offensive
threat as his defensive side begins to erode... Rafa will more than
lifely (saving injury) have a big 2011 and 2012 and then he'll likely
fade too... "early to bloom, early to blight"...
P
Shakes
To some extent, this is true. Because pulling off a difficult shot
does not require consistency. It only happens very rarely. Doing the
easy to medium ones, and doing it frequently, calls for consistency in
technique, in anticipation. It is harder.
For example, for recreational players, the OH is probably the hardest
shot to hit. Theoretically, it should be easy. BUt it is not. Because
you have so much time to think, you are worried to look foolish, and
you forget about the simple techniques, about using your non-playing
arm to track the ball, you forget to use scissor-steps in running it
down.
arnab.z@gmail
After having seen all the Federer-Nadal matches, I don't think Federer
can overcome this matchup. I don't want to waste my time thinking
about it. It's not like I have any control on it. Sorry.
> > More analytical answers to these questions require a new thread and
> > good, rational posters and that ain't gonna happen on rst.
>
> Oh, shucks.
>
> BTW, here is a very good thread on another forum that debates this
> issue somewhat.
>
> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=249580
>
> Ignore that this was started around AO 2009, after Fed's loss to Nadal
> at the AO, but just go along considering the bigger issue in debate -
> handling grinders.
>
> Read the posts by "!Tym" and "380Pistol". "!Tym" used to post here as
> Dudewaba and he is very good, unbiased (he was a fan of Bruguera,
> Rios), and has very good insights.
Ok I'll give it a read. Thanks.
TT
Sure. That's my personal experience from other sports...and why not
tennis too, anyone can make a good shot, it's the consistency and amount
of poor shots.
TT
You don't watch it to call other people trolls? Could've fooled me.
>
> More analytical answers to these questions require a new thread and
> good, rational posters and that ain't gonna happen on rst.
I already posted a full analysis on their backhand patterns.
TT
But he's having a good time, lolling in every other reply to me....
Shakes
You know what ? These are all good and valid points. Now my question
is, how do you play against it if you are a single-hander and if you
are not as fast as you were ? :-))
arnab.z@gmail
I tried to read "!Tym"'s posts. Looked interesting but too long-
winded. Don't have time for it.
TT
Thanks. :)
> Now my question
> is, how do you play against it if you are a single-hander and if you
> are not as fast as you were ? :-))
Slice is the natural way for Federer to counter it, but that either
doesn't work too well against Rafa.
One should try to take the ball on the rise or run around your backhand.
Easier said than done. Maybe hitting heavy topspin backhands, mixed with
zingers, Almagro-style.
Murray/Djoker have great backhands and can take the ball early dtl,
which causes trouble for Rafa.
I think fed's still really really fast...drop shot for example is still
not a tactic against him.
arnab.z@gmail
Also, some of these guys tend to talk a lot about 90s tennis. Seems
like they are stuck in that era.
Shakes
> On Oct 25, 10:52 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is something I completely disagree with. For one thing in 2001
> > Wim, USO time-frame, Sampras was 30 yrs. That means, he was nearly a
> > yr older than Fed is now. And we ourselves are already claiming that
> > Fed is past his peak, even in 2009.
>
> I didn't mention peak... he could still volley in 2001 Shakes...
>
Of course, but we are talking relative here. I mean, relative to the
other volleying greats.
> Can't Sampras be given the same
>
> > benefit of doubt ? Secondly, Sampras' returns were never his strong
> > point. That's why he struggles against the big servers. To use Fed's
> > volleying skills against Sampras is not the best evidence.
>
> ALL I said was having watched the match 5 or 6 times (official video)
> Fed was clearly at the same level as Pete in 2001 at the net... 5 sets
> at center court Wimbledon for a 19 year old vs. the 4 time defending
> champion, I'd say was Pete's advantage from a 'technical/applied
> technique' point of view with respect to comfort of conditions,
> experience, knowledge, adaptability etc... and yet, I at least,
> consider Fed very good at net that day...
>
Yes, he was very good, but not as good as Sampras was. Pls note that I
am not comparing their overall games. Just their net game.
Have a look at this:
http://www.splicd.com/s1kMjv8E4tc/213/238
Watch it in slo-mo.
One give away with Fed's discomfort with the FH volley is the swinging
volley. Agassi patented this shot and it is because Agassi was a
stooge at the net. True volleyers never, ever use this shot. Fed
always uses the swinging volley on his FH side, when it is high above
the net.
> > To me, Agassi is the true barometer of the caliber of a S/V player. If
> > you can beat Agassi using the S/V game, you are very good. If you can
> > handle the low zingers to your feet and scoop off half-volleys from
> > your shoelaces off lasers, you are very good. Nobody, not Fed, not
> > Nadal, volleyed as well as Sampras did. If they did, they would've
> > ventured in to the net some more.
>
> Well, the USO 2005 final produced some great Fed shoe stringers at a
> time he was almost a baseline full time... it's THERE on video to
> see... I AM NOT SAYING FED was all time great at net, but, man he was
> very good CONSIDERING he didn't play up there... the difficult volleys
> he tended to make more than the easier ones, many times in big
> matches...
>
He was good, yes. But there is a lot of difference in consistency and
reliability at the net between him and the other volleying greats. Is
all I am saying.
Yes, Fed has redefined the geometry of the court, given the slower
conditions and strings prevalent today. But now that the field is
playing catch-up and he himself is older, it's time to re-define it to
the earlier style. The best way to play Nadal is to rob him of time.
Which means hitting a little more flatter and deeper, and coming
forward.
arnab.z@gmail
It also means having razor-sharp reflexes at the net and playing with
authority there. What makes you think Federer will suddenly develop
that at this stage of his career?
Shakes
Yeah, I know. :-)
But you have to read this one, both the original post and !Tym's
reply.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3198847&postcount=14
Okay, I will post here some points that he made that I found valid
from that same thread.
Quote 1:
"Against Nadal, it's because on the very important points he knows
Nadal's going to chase EVERYTHING he throws at him, and he has to be
prepared to hit one more shot and inevitably he gets tight and doesn't
hit that next shot, he gets frozen as Rafa reels off another winner on
the run to the open court on a "big" point.
Anyway, EVERY player even Sampras has problem "style" matchups.
Sampras was NOT immune to this by any means. In fact, I'd say he had
MORE players he had trouble against than Federer. The difference is
that on the BIGGEST of occasions, Sampras didn't THINK about it so
much like Federer does. Sampras just had that attitidue that well, I'm
freakin' Pete Sampras, and I don't care what you did to me in the
past, because I'm freakin' Pete Sampras and what Pete Sampras wants,
he GETS.
I've seen Sampras in trouble many times, but when it got tight, his
superior sense of destiny and belief in himself would carry him
through more often than not, and it would be the other guy feeling
this unwavering sense of destiny and self-belief about him that would
inevitably fold in the tightest moments giving him the match."
Quote 2:
"As linear as Pete and Roger are, they are very different. Federer is
point construction, Sampras is point destruction. Federer loves to
rally, use spins, angles, work a point, use his defense and court
positioning to beat his opponents. Against grinders this becomes
problematic as all they try to do is keep getting balls back until you
throw uup. Thus unforced errors start to creep in for Roger. Pete on
the other hand would try and and end the point before it began.
Sampras would hit big come in and force you to pass. He might lose the
point or he might win it, either way, there is no rhythm for the
grinders.
It's style thing. And tennis is very much like boxing where styles
make fights. Federer is excellent at finding players' weaknesses or
soft spots and exploiting them. But when a player is going to do
nothing special but get the ball back to your BH, there really is
nothing to pick apart."
Shakes
Well, they do talk about all players, even today's. It's just that
this particular thread was about Sampras and Fed handling grinders. So
they were talking a bit about Sampras' contemporaries.
arnab.z@gmail
Nice descriptions. I have said the same things here. Federer is like a
cerebral chess player on court, Sampras is a gun-toting cowboy. I know
which player I like better.
Shakes
It actually depends on two-three things.
Firstly, I actually think it doesn't call as much for reflexes as for
technique. Nadal does not hit flat, hard, and straight, standing right
on the baseline, like Agassi. He stands way back, takes the ball at
it's apex or while it's coming down, and hits it with immense topspin
that dips low. So, rather than pace, you are actually dealing with
trajectory. Sure, he will beat you often. But he also gives you more
time, more room, more angles to work with.
Secondly, a lot depends on the quality of the approach shot. Fed does
the same mistake against Nadal that Roddick does against him. He
approaches off of topspin shots. Mostly, he hits a topspin FH, either
inside-out to Nadal's FH or inside-in (DTL) to Nadal's BH. This is not
a good approach shot at all. It bounces higher, lands a little
shorter, and so gives Nadal time and angle to go for the pass. The
approach shot has to be flat and preferably down the line. That way,
you force the opponent to hit up, you rob him off time because a flat
shot travels faster (not harder) than a topspin shot, and you don't
give him any angle to work with.
arnab.z@gmail
I have to say though that this Tym guy mythologizes Pete a bit.
Federer also has a lot of self-belief. Just because he doesn't have
the kind of outward swagger that Pete had doesn't mean he isn't as
assured of himself. Pete's serve action, that little "I'm coming at
you" gesture looks comically immature to me now. Federer plays a much
more no-nonsense, non-show-offy, matter-of-factly brilliant game. It's
much more cerebral, much more mature.
arnab.z@gmail
No, Nadal has much more variety than that. For example, from his
backhand side, Nadal doesn't make loopy, topspinny passes, he actually
makes very hard, flat bh cross court shots. Also, when he is running
around his backhand side, he can absolutely flatten an inside-out
forehand shot at about 100 mph.
On the forehand side, it has become routine to see Nadal do his famous
hook shots that starts from way beyond the tramlines and then the ball
somehow hooks in and kisses the opponent's court. How can any volleyer
deal with that. Nadal is just too fast. He reaches all the angled
volleys and then more often than not, he deals them with a deadly
point-ending shot.
> Secondly, a lot depends on the quality of the approach shot. Fed does
> the same mistake against Nadal that Roddick does against him. He
> approaches off of topspin shots. Mostly, he hits a topspin FH, either
> inside-out to Nadal's FH or inside-in (DTL) to Nadal's BH. This is not
> a good approach shot at all. It bounces higher, lands a little
> shorter, and so gives Nadal time and angle to go for the pass. The
> approach shot has to be flat and preferably down the line. That way,
> you force the opponent to hit up, you rob him off time because a flat
> shot travels faster (not harder) than a topspin shot, and you don't
> give him any angle to work with.
It all sound very nice in theory. But unfortunately I don't think
Federer (or even an imaginary Sampras) can do all that. Even if he did
all that, he would still be having a lot of problems. When Nadal is in
his athletic prime and in the zone, it's very hard to "rob him of
time". We have not seen a player like Nadal before, someone who just
engulfs the court with his amazing court speed.
Shakes
Yes, he's really fast still, but not fast enough to execute his core
game as well as he used to. Not consistently, anyway.
From my POV, the key is to deny Nadal, Murray any rhythm and to rob
them off time. Which essentially means hitting flatter, and coming
forward. Nadal thrives on rhythm, and time. If you use slice, I would
say you better do it to Nadal's BH, and come in.
Nadal, on his BH, loves to use the opponent's pace and angles. Case in
point was that sick BH winner he hit, falling down, in the 2008 Wim F
when Fed hit a huge topspin cross-court FH and came in. If he doesn't
get either, he runs around and hits a FH. BUt a deep slice not only
denys him pace and angles on his BH, it also stays low and forces him
to hit up if he does try and go for a FH. Also, it robs him of time -
not because of power, but because it stays low and goes for the 2nd
bounce more quickly than a hard, topspin shot.
Shakes
Like I said, it depends on the approach shot. Nadal, on his BH,
prefers to use the opponent's pace, bounce, and angles. You try to
deny him these. If he STILL beats you, you can say "too good". But you
want to see if he can do it consistently. For example, executing a
pass at 30-30, 1-1 is very different from executing the same pass at
5-5, 30-30 or 4-5 or 5-6 or in a t/b. That's the thing. Pressure makes
all the difference. Fed looks at a few awesome passes and doesn't use
the tactic any more.
> > Secondly, a lot depends on the quality of the approach shot. Fed does
> > the same mistake against Nadal that Roddick does against him. He
> > approaches off of topspin shots. Mostly, he hits a topspin FH, either
> > inside-out to Nadal's FH or inside-in (DTL) to Nadal's BH. This is not
> > a good approach shot at all. It bounces higher, lands a little
> > shorter, and so gives Nadal time and angle to go for the pass. The
> > approach shot has to be flat and preferably down the line. That way,
> > you force the opponent to hit up, you rob him off time because a flat
> > shot travels faster (not harder) than a topspin shot, and you don't
> > give him any angle to work with.
>
> It all sound very nice in theory. But unfortunately I don't think
> Federer (or even an imaginary Sampras) can do all that. Even if he did
> all that, he would still be having a lot of problems. When Nadal is in
> his athletic prime and in the zone, it's very hard to "rob him of
> time". We have not seen a player like Nadal before, someone who just
> engulfs the court with his amazing court speed.
Sure, I never said otherwise. But the problems are mutual. It has to
be, otherwise we cannot explain Sampras' success. That's the fun.
bob
wrote:
>When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the racquet
>foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving idol, Sampras,
>land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of Sampras' serve
>(obviously on a smaller scale - like less shoulder turn, not so much
>back facing the net, and not as much knee bend or jump), except the
>landing part. I never can land on my left foot, unlike Sampras.
>Inspite of that, I was astonished how my serve improved. The guy was a
>genius.
>
>My serving motion seems pretty natural and smooth to me, and I can
>serve decently well for my size (5' 9.5" and 145). However, I find
>that many coaches advise on landing on their leading foot (left foot
>for right handers). When I tried this, it felt awkard.
>
>The only intrinsic difference in serving motion as far as landing on
>either foot, that I see, is that if you are landing on your racquet
>foot, you will be facing the net more and maybe sacrifice a bit on
>rotational torque. But for a recreational player, I thought this is
>the more natural motion.
>
>Your thoughts ?
you are reaching for, and then hitting, the ball. you are not
literally "launching" yourself at the ball like a sampras or other
pro. that is it in a nutshell.
bob
PeteWasLucky
Pelle Svanslös
>
> After having seen all the Federer-Nadal matches, I don't think Federer
> can overcome this matchup.
If you have seen all these matches and all you have to say is the second
sentence you're a dumb fuck.
> I don't want to waste my time thinking
> about it. It's not like I have any control on it. Sorry.
"I'm trying to think but nothing happens!"
Look. These matches aren't carved in some "matchup" stone. Statistically
you can say that some individual shot does this and that and perhaps
could be an overall explanation of what happened.
But tennis matches don't work that way. There's always games, points
that are more important than others and what matters is what happens
during these, perhaps a handful of points. The "overall" line of
reasoning goes into the trashcan in these situations.
I'll do a recount of the 11th, deciding game of the 1st set of the 2009
AO final. You can check the events yourself if you're interested.
5-5 Fed serves:
Fed comes to the net off a timidly placed swinging volley. Hits a
routine FH volley, is afraid to put it into Rafa's FH, decides to go to
Rafa's BH but space is scarce there and ends up overcooking. Why the
point was lost? Pussyfooting, pressure, indecision or all of them. 0-15.
Federer S&Vs. The first FH volley just catches the net, Rafa makes a
good pass nevertheless and Fed lunges a volley out of jail. Good point.
15-15
Fed has the upper hand, despite Rafa's excellent ROS, up until Fed hits
his second groundie (second FH). That has excellent length and placement
and forces Rafa to loop a CC BH. NOw it's up to Fed, it's his point. But
what does he do? He hits a nothing FH into the middle which also opens
up the angle of attack to his BH side. Now he's in trouble, is forced to
strech a BH but leaves it short and the point is basically over right
here. Why the point was lost? The nothing FH. Why nothing? Pussyfooting,
pressure, indecision or all of them. 15-30.
Fed opens the point with a 2nd serve into the ad court, Rafa's return is
CC and *short*. Feddy has the DTL FH opened up, goes for it but freezes.
Overhits a shot he makes in his sleep. Once again, the pressure ... 15-40.
Fed serves to the deuce court, Rafa's FH CC ROS is desperately short.
Once again the point is Feddy's here. What does he do? He approaches
with a FH into the *middle* *of* *the* *court* and Rafa has a routine
FH pass. The pressure makes you do stupid things. Game Over.
To sum this up. There's five points here, Feddy wins one, loses 4. In
all of the four points he lost, the reason was not some overall weakness
in the BH side, not because he hits the BH with one hand, not because of
equipment, not a fault in the overall strategy, not because he doesn't
S&V, not because he S&Vs but ... POOR DECISIONS MADE ON INDIVIDUAL
POINTS. Which in turn is with 99% certainty caused by PRESSURE.
--
"Another opponent, exhausted and thin!
Is bludgeoned to death by endurance and spin."
-- Anonymous
RzR
> On Oct 24, 10:21 pm, RzR <2r4z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23.10.2010. 17:51, Ali Asoag wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/23/2010 4:18 AM, Iceberg wrote:
>>>> On 23 Oct, 07:03, Shakes<kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> When serving, I find that I land on my right foot (i.e., the
>>>>> racquet foot). However, most pros I see, including my serving
>>>>> idol, Sampras, land on their left foot. I copied every aspect of
>>>>> Sampras' serve
>>
>>
>>> LOL.
>>
>> hehe poor things...i never had to copy anyone...1st time i hit a
>> serve in practice when i was 8, the coach told me, ah you already
>> learned how to serve, nice...and it was the very 1st time i did
>> it...go figure ;)
>
> well that's a remarkable natural talent to have, I've coached a fair
> few kids and can't recall any 8 year olds being able to serve from the
> baseline on their first go. was/is the rest of your game any good?
i think it was alright, but since it was my second sport, i havent really
practiced as much as i should, and then i quit at 18 to go play basketball
:)
it was serve and volley mostly since i had the tools for it...now im
retired, a bit overweight guy charging the net...u can imagine :P
PeteWasLucky
Why does he do more mistakes against Nadal than he does against other
players?
Because he overthinks when he plays Nadal, he is thinking more than
playing, he has been hurt by Nadal many times and he thinks he has
learned new things from every loss he had. How much does he want to
learn to play a tennis match?!
why can't he just ignore what he learned and execute a normal tennis
match?
May be he did that already when played his last FO final against
Nadal :)
Who knows! Nadal matches very well against Federer, Nadal is a
grinder, Nadal gets everything back, Nadal is a fighter, and Nadal's
determination and stamina beats Federer's art. Simple like that.
Iceberg
> On Oct 25, 10:07 am, Patrick Kehoe <pke...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 9:51 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 25 oct, 21:52, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 25, 5:20 am, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 25 oct, 05:18, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 24, 8:44 pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 24 oct, 11:18, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > My point stands that it is a lot harder to learn top level volleying
> > > > > > > > than people think. And that's why my respect for Sampras grew. Because
> > > > > > > > I used to think that learning (or refining, if you will) to volley
> > > > > > > > during the middle of your career would be child's play for Federer.
> > > > > > > > After all, if Sampras could do it, why not Fed. But that doesn't seem
> > > > > > > > to be the case so far. And that's why I have begun to appreciate
> > > > > > > > Sampras more. But I will be more than happy if Fed proves me wrong.
>
> > > > > > > I think one can appreciate Sampras's volleying skills without
> > > > > > > comparing them to Federer's. The conditions Sampras played in and the
> > > > > > > ones that Federer plays in now are not the same. Federer was already a
> > > > > > > good, competent volleyer back in the 2002-2003 period. He has been
> > > > > > > asked many times by journalists why he didn't develop his volleying
> > > > > > > skills even more or may be let them rust away. He has always hinted
> > > > > > > that it's because it would have hurt him and cost him wins. I like his
> > > > > > > reasoning. Peak Federer's winning record is close to impeccable.
>
> > > > > > Fed's volleying has never been that great, esp his fh stomp volley,
>
> > > > > Yeah, looking back I think Federer is regretting why oh why he didn't
> > > > > develop the fh stomp volley to perfection. [rolleyes]
>
> > > > Comon, what is there to be so sensitive about ? Okay, Fed is not in
> > > > the top leagues of volleyers. So what ?
>
> > > ? Are you confused? I don't care whether Federer is in the top league
> > > of volleyers or not. It's you who has been whining about this
> > > particular issue over the past few months. What's with the projection?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > all that counts... how they got their - respectively - is moot... and
> > I look at that Pete-Roger Wimbledon 5 setter and Feds volleys look top
> > notch to me, every bit as good as Pete... in fact Pete missed a lot of
> > 'sitters' or what looked like sitters... he wasn't used to that
> > velocity of return and that's a look into the way tennis turned in the
> > 2000s... harder and harder returns (and higher quality passing shots)
> > from deeper and more angled defensive positions than Pete was used to
> > seeing come at/back (to) him...
>
> > P
>
> This is something I completely disagree with. For one thing in 2001
> Wim, USO time-frame, Sampras was 30 yrs. That means, he was nearly a
> yr older than Fed is now. And we ourselves are already claiming that
> benefit of doubt ? Secondly, Sampras' returns were never his strong
> point. That's why he struggles against the big servers. To use Fed's
> volleying skills against Sampras is not the best evidence.
>
> you can beat Agassi using the S/V game, you are very good. If you can
> handle the low zingers to your feet and scoop off half-volleys from
> your shoelaces off lasers, you are very good. Nobody, not Fed, not
> Nadal, volleyed as well as Sampras did. If they did, they would've
> ventured in to the net some more.
>
> so advanced that 35 yr old Agassi was so good as to do better than
> Roddick, Hewitt, Safin on HC slams between 2003-2005. Agassi beat
> Blake, he beat Roddick, he beat Hewitt. He beat nearly every player of
> Fed's generation between 2003-2005 except Fed himself. My point is, if
> Agassi can do so well, Sampras sure as hell can do much better. And
> further, except for Nadal, I don't see any new or revolutionary styles
> or players from 2005 to now.
>
> That's what my rant is against. It's a circular argument. It goes
> something like this. Fed is as good a volleyer as Sampras. He chose
> not to develop his volleys because the net game is moot in this era.
> How do we know ? Well, if it was a viable strategy, Fed would've
> continued to use it and won.
>
> No, it doesn't work that way.
Very good post, agree with just about everything in it. Top marks.
TT
Interesting points there, would probably work best on grass. When Nadal
and Federer play each other they use very few unforced slices...because
they're the best 2 players punishing slice shots.
TT
Very good post.
Iceberg
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> to Nadal's?! lol
>
> Agassi hits flat, and easy predictable trajectory for the ball. While
> Nadal's insane spin on the ball makes the ball crazy and it simplay
> dips very quickly. Did you ever try to volley balls hit with a topspin
> similar to Nadal's?
>
> Also which players were super baseline players in Sampras' era? I know
> your answer will be Agassi.
> But Agassi was a flat hitter and he did well against similar flat
> baseline players like Hewitt.
>
> Time changed, now Nadal hits 130+ mph serves too.
>
> In my opinion any player can reach 8/10 in volleying if he practiced a
> lot (Edberg has a 10/10) but players don't practice s/v including
> Federer.
> Federer has a great-hand-eye coord. and no one doubts he can be a
> great volleyer 9/10 if he focused on s/v but he believes he can
> achieve more playing different style.
> Was he right? may be, the guy won 16 slams at age 28 including the FO
> and he is out there gunning for more.
oh pls what planet are you on. Many players probably practiced as much
as Henman and co and just didn't have the knack.
TT
...a sound, not all common hypothesis supported by real life example.
Shakes
Bingo !! Excellent post. That's what I said earlier. The key is
whether the defensive player can thread the needle when his nose is on
fire. Sure, he can do it at 1-1, maybe 2-2, maybe 3-3, but how about
at 4-4 or 4-5, or 5-5 or 5-6 ? How about in the t/b ? A S/V player
relies on the percentages, not on winning all the volleys.
Shakes
Yes, that's what frustrates me about Fed when it comes to Nadal.
Now, do you agree with this post ?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3198847&postcount=14
"Players with variety, it's imo MUCH easier for them to get unglued on
important points. Muster, Nadal, Sampras (with his big serve),
Courier, etc. kept it simple, and more often than not usually won the
big points because of that. Because they didn't STEER the ball or act
UNSURE of themselves at the critical junctures. At the critical
junctures, the NUMBER ONE thing to remember is that whatever your
strategy, go at with AUTHORITY. Execute that strategy with AUTHORITY.
Whether that means predetermining yourself to sprint full bore after
any and every ball your opponent's planning to throw at you with GUSTO
like Muster and Nadal, or having the attitude that I'm going to smoke
you on this serve, you're not even going to be able to touch it, and
if you do by some chance manage to even get your racket on it, I'll be
right there waiting to knock off the easy volley winner into the open
court. Or, I'm going to kick it out wide to your backhand, and I don't
care if you know if it's coming, because I'm just going to make EXTRA
sure to beat the living bejesus out of your reply with my inside-out
forehand."
Shakes
> What matters is what foot you are landng on now :)
Seems like I am landing on both feet. :-)
Shakes
The problem with that is that he become too cerebral when it comes to
Nadal. Sometimes, being a cowboy is better. Fed thinks too much when
it comes to Nadal. Actually, Svanlos made some very good points
regarding their AO 2009 F.
Shakes
Nope. He made a very good point. Because I lived through that era. I
am talking about the belief when it comes to playing your nemesis.
Read Svanslos' post below. I also never felt that Sampras was "afraid"
of any particular player. And he was losing to a host of players -
Krajicek, Ferreira, Stich, Bruguera, Corretja etc. etc. But in the
important matches, he never choked. He never blinked. He lost because
he was outplayed, not because he slipped.
Fed does seem to be a little scared when playing Nadal. And it shows
up in the important points in their matches. Svanslos has perfectly
highlighted my frustrations in that match-up.
Again, it is not about winning or losing. It's about holding your
nerve. Fed tends to lose that against Nadal.
Shakes
> On 26 oct, 00:10, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The truth is that Fed saw (esp. after his matches against Nalbandian
> > and Hewitt in 2003 USO and Davis Cup) that *he* wouldn't be as
> > successful playing the net game. He recognized that, for him, he was
> > better off being a baseliner than a volleyer. Yet, you would never
> > agree to that.
>
> No, I wouldn't agree with that. Because you are claiming to read
> Federer's mind. Federer has great hand-eye coordination. Federer
> played a good volleying game until 2003. Even in Halle 2004 you can
> see him volleying quite well. However, playing predominantly a net
> game was becoming progressively more and more difficult, because the
> field as a whole was getting better and better at playing good defense
> from the baseline. The new racket technology, and a higher level of
> athleticism have made this possible. If you deny this, then you
> haven't really seen tennis in the past few years.
I knew it. :-) It's 2 + 2. Fed knows that he is not an elite volleyer
(by that I mean at the level of Sampras, Edberg, Rafter etc.). And
given the slower conditions, which essentially makes it appear that
today's players are faster, he knew that that is the level of
volleying it would take to punch holes through opponents. Fed has
great hand-eye coordination and he had good volleys, but he knew that
it didn't come naturally. He had to work at it. I can say that because
if he was really a natural volleyer, he wouldn't have lost his
bearings there so easily.
So, he must have figured it would be better to go with his more
natural game - the baseline game. It had to be. I don't have to read
his mind to know that the baseline game is his natural game. Because
all his creativity, all his genius shots come out from the baseline.
And none come from near the net.
Look at Mac. All his genius comes at the net. That was Mac's natural
game. From the baseline, he was very good, but not as good as he was
from the net.
Every player, even Fed, has a natural game, a natural mindset. The
game that he prefers.