PDA

View Full Version : How to find out whats wrong with Federer and his results!


flyer
04-14-2008, 02:37 PM
Depending on what wrong with Federer he will have either a better or a worse clay season. There are two most common arguments to what is missing in Federer now when compared to the Federer of the past few years.

1. Federer's movement is off and its affecting the rest of his game.

2. Federer's strokes are off, as in less penetrating, less consistent, etc just all around not as effective. And it is due to this is delining results.

So...I actually had a quite heated exchange with Drakuline, who I respect, about this and I think it is his strokes, he thinks it is the movement which in term if effecting his strokes, kind of seems like the chicken and the egg I know

so...If it is in fact the strokes that are off and the movement is still in tact than he will fare better on clay because the clay game is less about strokes and more about movement and defense.
but...if it is the movement than he would far even worse on the clay than on hard courts

I think this seems perfectly reasonable and a good way to judge what is off in Federer's game, your opinions please....

ninman
04-14-2008, 02:39 PM
Federer has had a good start to the year, 2 semi's and a quarter in 4 tournies. I wish people would stop posting this crap.

stormholloway
04-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Yeah, but it's not good for his standards. It's never good when you level of play goes down, regardless of how the results look on paper.

drakulie
04-14-2008, 02:49 PM
Just look at Agassi.

At the very end of his career he was hitting cleaner, harder, and more consistent than at the beginning or any other time in his career. However, because of his back and resulting lack of movement, his strokes began to suffer.

Same goes with any player. Once they lose there legs/movement, the strokes suffer.

Chang was a monster because of his ability to move around the court, but once he lost the movement, he went down hill.

Guga>> same thing.

etc,etc, etc.

even recreational players lose there strokes when the legs/movement tire.

Djokovicfan4life
04-14-2008, 04:47 PM
Just wait till the end of the season to post threads like this. Maybe if Fed doesn't win a major and struggles even in all of the small tournaments I'll believe you, but until then all this talk is just rumors, and nothing more.

P.S. Wow, 1000 posts! Watch out BreakPoint, there's a new kid in town! :wink:

CyBorg
04-14-2008, 04:54 PM
Correct about the feet, but his serve is also less effective, nowhere near as penetrating. I think he's close though.

daddy
04-14-2008, 04:59 PM
I think that this is not exactly your egg and chicken discussion because you have no solution for that one. In tennis it is a bit more straight forward, since movement sets up the position and enables you to hit good so if the strokes are not there it is all down to movement. One more view can be that his overall strenght level dropped because he did not recover fully so his movement and strengh of strokes is affected.

757tennis
04-14-2008, 05:45 PM
sure everyone is saying that mono was an excuse for federer's less than stellar performance in the last few months but if his movement is off then of course his strokes will not be as effective because the timing and everything is thrown off track. He was hitting the ball the way he always has been during the masters series and in the early rounds of the AO, then he gets mono and all of the shot preparation has to be altered to fit his condition. It will take some time to recover from mono, but also take into consideration the adjustments hes had to make to his game in order to cope with mono while still playing tennis. He's NOT on a decline, he's just in a slump partly because of mono and because of alterations hes had to make to his game



He'll be back.

flyer
04-14-2008, 05:53 PM
I think that this is not exactly your egg and chicken discussion because you have no solution for that one. In tennis it is a bit more straight forward, since movement sets up the position and enables you to hit good so if the strokes are not there it is all down to movement. One more view can be that his overall strenght level dropped because he did not recover fully so his movement and strengh of strokes is affected.

Yeah see i here that a lot but how do you explain when he is in perfect position and he frames it, misses the court by feet, or dump the ball half way down the net, as has been the case many times the last few months, watch the match vs fish his shots especially in that one just are not effective even when in perfectly normal, good position

Andres
04-14-2008, 05:55 PM
From what I've seen, his strokes are still intact. He's reacting slower, and his footwork became somewhat sloppier.

daddy
04-14-2008, 06:54 PM
Yeah see i here that a lot but how do you explain when he is in perfect position and he frames it, misses the court by feet, or dump the ball half way down the net, as has been the case many times the last few months, watch the match vs fish his shots especially in that one just are not effective even when in perfectly normal, good position

From what I have seen he is usually out of position when he misses the shots. Sometimes he moves well and still misses but I think a machine would miss a couple, let alone a human. Hell, Roddick misses a dosen sitters in every match. Federer framed the ball even when he moved perfectly. He is as near perfect as you can be but not perfect. He had a bad backhand days thru his career, on those days he could not hit any balls from bh side.

In the matches he lost he was not way off. He was just a bit slower but against inspired Fish/Roddick/Murray/Djokovic that was just not good enough. Compared to for example - Nadal vs Davy in Miami - Nadal did not find any rhythm and yes - he lost to excelent Davydenko but he was way off with his shots. That is how you look when your shots are not working, you move great but can not control anything, as if you are not there. He missed a lot from both wings although his movement and perception were great.

flyer
04-14-2008, 07:32 PM
From what I have seen he is usually out of position when he misses the shots. Sometimes he moves well and still misses but I think a machine would miss a couple, let alone a human. Hell, Roddick misses a dosen sitters in every match. Federer framed the ball even when he moved perfectly. He is as near perfect as you can be but not perfect. He had a bad backhand days thru his career, on those days he could not hit any balls from bh side.

In the matches he lost he was not way off. He was just a bit slower but against inspired Fish/Roddick/Murray/Djokovic that was just not good enough. Compared to for example - Nadal vs Davy in Miami - Nadal did not find any rhythm and yes - he lost to excelent Davydenko but he was way off with his shots. That is how you look when your shots are not working, you move great but can not control anything, as if you are not there. He missed a lot from both wings although his movement and perception were great.

I just keep seeing that Fish match in my head when his strokes were just completely ineffective even when Fish hit the ball right at him, which happened enough to make a judgment as to were his strokes are now compared to two years ago

daddy
04-14-2008, 07:49 PM
I just keep seeing that Fish match in my head when his strokes were just completely ineffective even when Fish hit the ball right at him, which happened enough to make a judgment as to were his strokes are now compared to two years ago

We can go back to that match if you want. If you are looking at the first 30 - 40 mins of it, you will see that he is playing good but Fish is hitting way better that he should hit. Even if he was 20th not 90th or so, he was hitting out of his mind, giving it everything. Those do not come back, no matter what's your name. Latter when Federer saw that Fish can and will keep up he lost a mental edge and, it seems so, he just gave it away. I am sure you watch tennis enough to understand that when a 100mph fh is going towards you, there is little you can do and Fish hit every ball he could as hard as he could - addmited by him in post match interview.

flyer
04-14-2008, 07:59 PM
We can go back to that match if you want. If you are looking at the first 30 - 40 mins of it, you will see that he is playing good but Fish is hitting way better that he should hit. Even if he was 20th not 90th or so, he was hitting out of his mind, giving it everything. Those do not come back, no matter what's your name. Latter when Federer saw that Fish can and will keep up he lost a mental edge and, it seems so, he just gave it away. I am sure you watch tennis enough to understand that when a 100mph fh is going towards you, there is little you can do and Fish hit every ball he could as hard as he could - addmited by him in post match interview.

Yes but Federer used to win those matches, even when the other guy seemed to be on an unbelievable run, such as Gonzo and Bags at the Aussie, he was always the end of the road, unless it was Nadal on clay, they lost, no matter how well they were playing, who knows maybe hes just simply not as good and its both his movement and strokes that are not quite what they used to be

lambielspins
04-14-2008, 07:59 PM
His movement is off which leads to his strokes being off. If you are half a step slower then usual, or a split second off in your movement, it affects all your strokes except the serve.

crazylevity
04-14-2008, 08:11 PM
Depending on what wrong with Federer he will have either a better or a worse clay season. There are two most common arguments to what is missing in Federer now when compared to the Federer of the past few years.

1. Federer's movement is off and its affecting the rest of his game.

2. Federer's strokes are off, as in less penetrating, less consistent, etc just all around not as effective. And it is due to this is delining results.

So...I actually had a quite heated exchange with Drakuline, who I respect, about this and I think it is his strokes, he thinks it is the movement which in term if effecting his strokes, kind of seems like the chicken and the egg I know

so...If it is in fact the strokes that are off and the movement is still in tact than he will fare better on clay because the clay game is less about strokes and more about movement and defense.
but...if it is the movement than he would far even worse on the clay than on hard courts

I think this seems perfectly reasonable and a good way to judge what is off in Federer's game, your opinions please....

If you are a scientist of any sort, you would know that designing such an experiment will only yield results which are inconclusive. The only way you can interpret these results with any certainty is if your two variables, in this case movement and stroke production, are mutually exclusive and dissociable. This, as any tennis player knows, is impossible in a match setting. Unless you test the variables independently...e.g. measure federer's footspeed and test for a significant difference, then measure the power of his forehand/backhand etc and test for significant difference, otherwise there is no way to eliminate the interaction effect.

tenis
04-14-2008, 08:46 PM
He should stop playing show matches (Sampras) and focus more on his prime job. From the time he was playing last year in Pete's home before I.Wells, his game went to the "south". Comooon Roger, leave the Pete matches when you'll be out of ATP!!!!
Hope, the new coach (if that is thru),will help.

flyer
04-14-2008, 08:50 PM
If you are a scientist of any sort, you would know that designing such an experiment will only yield results which are inconclusive. The only way you can interpret these results with any certainty is if your two variables, in this case movement and stroke production, are mutually exclusive and dissociable. This, as any tennis player knows, is impossible in a match setting. Unless you test the variables independently...e.g. measure federer's footspeed and test for a significant difference, then measure the power of his forehand/backhand etc and test for significant difference, otherwise there is no way to eliminate the interaction effect.

Idk if being that scientific would show you anything, there is more to movement in tennis than foot speed, such as making the little adjustment steps, changing direction, possitioning etc; secondly I would want to measure the effectiveness of the strokes which is nearly impossible, just because they are fast does not make them accurate, penetrating, consistent, your proposed experiment does not cover nearly enough of any of that to be at all significant

what we do have is results, and we know what is effective on clay vs. hard, clay is more about movement and less about shot making as opposed to hard, and using the results....if he is more successful on clay then it is due more to movement and hence his movement is in tact and that is not what is missing from his game(in this case his shots would be) as opposed to before, if he does worse on clay then it is indeed his movement that is the problem because that is what is most necessary to succeed on clay in comparison to strokes/shot making....you seem to think yourself a very learned man, so surly you can understand the ration behind using facts that we can measure(results on both surfaces) and comparing them as opposed to ones we cannot

1970CRBase
04-14-2008, 09:01 PM
I'll say again, I believe Federer has lost his 2003-2006 physical strength due to whatever reason, maybe his recent illness, and therefore he isn't hitting the ball with anything like the same dominating force he had in those years. Like Connors said of Lendl after their 92 US match, that Lendl wasn't hitting the ball hard anymore, just bunting it.

1970CRBase
04-14-2008, 09:10 PM
And also his movement. Federer used to be so explosive because he was so strong, but there's nothing there now.

thalivest
04-14-2008, 09:22 PM
Yes but Federer used to win those matches, even when the other guy seemed to be on an unbelievable run, such as Gonzo and Bags at the Aussie, he was always the end of the road, unless it was Nadal on clay, they lost, no matter how well they were playing, who knows maybe hes just simply not as good and its both his movement and strokes that are not quite what they used to be

Baghdatis would never have been in the 2006 Australian Open final if Nadal had played, as well if Nalbandian did not choke in the semis. He is not a slam final caliber player, I am not in awe of Federer's subduing him, and in fact Federer's performance in the first half of the final was pretty blech anyway, but since he was playing Baghdatis he still won of course. Even though he is young I bet he never makes another slam final.

Even though Gonzalez was on fire at the 2007 Australian Open he also is a weak opponent for a slam final, basically another guy probably in his only ever slam final.

I find it more impressive how Federer used to be able to dismantle guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and even an old Agassi in a slam final, then one-time fluke finalists like Gonzalez and Baghdatis.

flyer
04-14-2008, 09:28 PM
Baghdatis would never have been in the 2006 Australian Open final if Nadal had played, as well if Nalbandian did not choke in the semis. He is not a slam final caliber player, I am not in awe of Federer's subduing him, and in fact Federer's performance in the first half of the final was pretty blech anyway, but since he was playing Baghdatis he still won of course. Even though he is young I bet he never makes another slam final.

Even though Gonzalez was on fire at the 2007 Australian Open he also is a weak opponent for a slam final, basically another guy probably in his only ever slam final.

I find it more impressive how Federer used to be able to dismantle guys like Hewitt, Roddick, and even an old Agassi in a slam final, then one-time fluke finalists like Gonzalez and Baghdatis.

point well made

daddy
04-15-2008, 05:58 AM
Yes but Federer used to win those matches, even when the other guy seemed to be on an unbelievable run, such as Gonzo and Bags at the Aussie, he was always the end of the road, unless it was Nadal on clay, they lost, no matter how well they were playing, who knows maybe hes just simply not as good and its both his movement and strokes that are not quite what they used to be

Arguably only Fish is not as good as Gonzalez or Baghdatis but he played a match of a top 5 player for sure. He played way above his head. Murray/Djoko/Roddick in my view are a tough draw even for healthy Federer ( Djokovic and Murray proved it, Roddick is pure unlucky not to have won more, and Fed has his number ).

Anyways back to the point. He lost 4 matches to 4 great oponents during this year. Thats it, he is a bit off. Now the fact he did not lose those in previous years, that is amasing by itslef. This is a normal tennis player mode - he can lose when faced with top ranked talented and motivated oponents.

MAX PLY
04-15-2008, 06:19 AM
The truth is that he has not played poorly. He has just not been at the level he spoiled us with and has lost to some opponents, each of whom had career-type days (e.g., Fish and Roddick (Andy, by the way, is playing some of his best tennis lately). Granted, in the past, he has generally won those matches but I think whatever malady he contracted affected the amount of practice time he was able to put in. As a result, his fitness, his footwork and his timing have all suffered a bit. As he gets physically fit and works with Jose on strategies, I think we will see things correct themselves. I actually think the clay court season is coming at the right time for him--it's a great surface for building fitness and timing. Despite a little lost luster, I still suspect no one is really looking forward to seeing him on the other side of the net. I expect Nadal to have a better clay season but I would rather have Fed's knees than Rafa's right now. Let's all hope the two of them continue to have some great matches on many surfaces.

artvandaley
04-15-2008, 07:58 AM
Watch his play at Estoril right now..

This is not Federer I know..

He is no good..

scineram
04-15-2008, 09:06 AM
Correct about the feet, but his serve is also less effective, nowhere near as penetrating. I think he's close though.

17 on clay against Rochus is double penetration.:)

But wasting breakpoints is back again.

joeri888
04-15-2008, 09:19 AM
Not much wrong with his results. If he'd won that few close important points against Djoko at AO, WITH MONO, he'd surely won the AO (yes, Tsonga would have been beaten, just like Gonzo and Baghdatis were), and nobody would have been talking, because he lost two times to Guillermo Canas last year and also to VOlandri I believe. Fed'll come back. If he doesn't reach the Wimbledon final, than you could start talking bout a lost year.

daddy
04-15-2008, 09:34 AM
Not much wrong with his results. If he'd won that few close important points against Djoko at AO, WITH MONO, he'd surely won the AO (yes, Tsonga would have been beaten, just like Gonzo and Baghdatis were), and nobody would have been talking, because he lost two times to Guillermo Canas last year and also to VOlandri I believe. Fed'll come back. If he doesn't reach the Wimbledon final, than you could start talking bout a lost year.

Well I usually do not use this way of expressing myself but just to prove the point this time I will. If he lost a few close and important points against the very same Djoko in USO final, he would have lost a match and one more slam. HEALTHY. Remember the 5 set points in the first and 2 set points in the 2nd set? Arguably the match would finish the same as the one in AO.

Fact is the same thing was possible in his Wimby final vs Nadal where he was on the edge and would probably lose a match if he went 1-3 down ( saved 2BP in that very game ). Yet another slam he could have lost on his very best surface, HEALTHY.

flyer
04-15-2008, 09:46 AM
^^^good point daddy, you cant just pick and choose which matches you want to use the "a couple points" analogy with, if you say it for one you have to be fair and say it across the board, fact is tennis is a game of "a couple points," a few break points here a double fault there and almost any match is a different match, the champions step up and win those points, and this year Federer has not done so

daddy
04-15-2008, 09:51 AM
^^^good point daddy, you cant just pick and choose which matches you want to use the "a couple points" analogy with, if you say it for one you have to be fair and say it across the board...

He he. Fact is I am not a 'mature' 15yr old. More like 'immature' 27 yr old, that makes my posts immune to teenage misinterpretation of common sense.

fastdunn
04-15-2008, 10:11 AM
It's all about confidence. His confidence has been shaked a bit with all these recent losses to players to whom he used to beat like a drum. I think the uncertainty of mono situation also hurted his confidence at least a bit. It's a good move from Roger to have Higueras and play Estroil to have his confidence back.

drakulie
04-15-2008, 12:43 PM
Yeah see i here that a lot but how do you explain when he is in perfect position and he frames it, misses the court by feet, or dump the ball half way down the net, as has been the case many times the last few months, watch the match vs fish his shots especially in that one just are not effective even when in perfectly normal, good position

flyer, FYI, regardless of how good a player is, they are never perfect. They miss easy shots, sitters, they double fault, etc. No one is perfect. The Fish match was very apparent that Fed was simply not playing well. Period. He was not doing anything very well in that match. On the other hand, Fish played out of his mind.

I know this may be something new to you, but in tennis, there is usually one player that loses a match. Fed's movement has not been the same this year, which has resulted in him not dominating the way he has in the recent past.

Seriously, move on.

flyer
04-15-2008, 01:59 PM
flyer, FYI, regardless of how good a player is, they are never perfect. They miss easy shots, sitters, they double fault, etc. No one is perfect. The Fish match was very apparent that Fed was simply not playing well. Period. He was not doing anything very well in that match. On the other hand, Fish played out of his mind.

I know this may be something new to you, but in tennis, there is usually one player that loses a match. Fed's movement has not been the same this year, which has resulted in him not dominating the way he has in the recent past.

Seriously, move on.

idk i guess we'll see, maybe its a bit of both, because he used to hit winners on those strokes i speak of and everyone was amazed, obviously no one is perfect but he frames, misses, nets, etc more and by more, i think his clay results is a very good indication of what exactly is wrong with him, seriously though if you want to move on you can, no one is begging you to comment, i still want to know whats different, and i still think its his strokes and his clay results will tell us to an extent

drakulie
04-15-2008, 02:07 PM
i still want to know whats different,

and you have already been told. Most people on this thread agree it is his movement.

If his strokes were the problem, he wouldn't be out-hititng his opponents when it comes to winners, etc. If he can't consistently get into position like he use to, then you will not be able to see the the old Fed that dazzled us with amazing impossible shot after shot.

flyer
04-15-2008, 02:17 PM
and you have already been told. Most people on this thread agree it is his movement.

If his strokes were the problem, he wouldn't be out-hititng his opponents when it comes to winners, etc. If he can't consistently get into position like he use to, then you will not be able to see the the old Fed that dazzled us with amazing impossible shot after shot.

you still have yet to explain his errors, at times extreme errors that are far more common, even when in perfect position, that are far more common then they used to be, you just say the same thing(no body can be perfect all the time), obviously, but they are more common and he misses by much more

Djokovicfan4life
04-15-2008, 02:21 PM
flyer, FYI, regardless of how good a player is, they are never perfect. They miss easy shots, sitters, they double fault, etc. No one is perfect. The Fish match was very apparent that Fed was simply not playing well. Period. He was not doing anything very well in that match. On the other hand, Fish played out of his mind.

I know this may be something new to you, but in tennis, there is usually one player that loses a match. Fed's movement has not been the same this year, which has resulted in him not dominating the way he has in the recent past.

Seriously, move on.
Yeah, come on guys, Fed may have had a few bad matches, but I would wait till the season's over before giving up on the guy. He's still number one and he still will be for some time IMO. You can't just single out one match were he was off and his opponent was on (not just on, we're talking AO Kohlschreiber on) and say that he's done.

NoBadMojo
04-15-2008, 02:22 PM
I think the jury is out on what fed's problem is. I said months ago <before the mono> that he may only win one major or no majors in 08 and that he aint a cinch to break the sampras record altho I think he likely will.

I think this year will be revealing for Fed in regards to his future.

The elements at play other than his movement include.:

-because people are beating him he lost the intimidation edge which is huge, especially at crucial times of a match. players are playing him more confidently and hitting harder and harder at a pretty rapidly increasing levels

-while i agree that his movent doesnt seem quite the same, it could be more a matter of his opponents hitting harder robbing him of time. Fish came out and overwhelmed him and he;s Fish!

-his less elegant movement could be a loss of confidence thing....i remember when fed started to dominate, compared to earlier his movement became more fluid and confident if you will

-his groundstrokes and serve may no longer be penetrating enough anymore. the game aint played in a vacuum..maybe he just doesnt play big enough anymore....that would make it easier for opponents to get him on his horse, making him seem as though he isnt moving well

-personally i think it's a combo of all these things.....any slight drop in ball speed or footspeed at this level can be huge...the difference between winning and losing

drakulie
04-15-2008, 02:26 PM
you still have yet to explain his errors, at times extreme errors that are far more common, even when in perfect position, that are far more common then they used to be, you just say the same thing(no body can be perfect all the time), obviously, but they are more common and he misses by much more

Again, everyone makes errors. Yes, even when they are in perfect position. Fed did this all the time when he was absolutely dominating. Are you that blind to think he didn't net shots, or shanks shots, or flat out missed easy put aways when he was dominating everyone??????

The only difference is now he is losing more frequently, so his "errors" are magnified by people like you trying to find out what is wrong with Fed when it is right under your nose.

It's the same thing as what happened last year when most everyone was saying Fed shanks more than any tour player. The fact is, he doesn't. I did several matches of Fed vs Nadal, Moya, etc. Everyone of his opponents shanked more than he did in the matches. The only reason it seemd Fed shanked more was because he is under a microspcope, so every little mistake he makes is magnified.

To add, most posters seem to think Fed's backhand let him down in the french Open last year. Fact is, it didn't. His BH was rock solid. It was his FH that let him down. Again, I did stats for that match, and he hit way more BH's than FH', yet, hit fewer errors on the BH side than he did on the FH.

Bud
04-15-2008, 03:01 PM
Federer has had a good start to the year, 2 semi's and a quarter in 4 tournies. I wish people would stop posting this crap.

For Federer, that is not a good start.

daddy
04-15-2008, 05:05 PM
Actually, didn't mention the match, because I couldn't see it.

Well I could. Ask me ?

Or maybe go to match results and see 100 posts Ive made in Estoril thread about his frameballs and 48 winners and 53 errors. I posted a ton there. There is something strange happening but you know, he is usually well positioned and frames a lot and mishits a lot and wierd thing is that he misses his shots for a foot or more at least. Yet he still seems slow, at least 1/2 step slower but not always. I dont know, strange but I need to see more matches on clay. Rochus is short and not a good indication of Feds form. Every shot Fed made that was in was a winner.

daddy
04-15-2008, 05:31 PM
yeah it def got out of hand, i'll ask though, how did todays match and what did you see out there today as the problem, he still won though, and i did actually mention that we both could be right

Just calm down go to ProMatchResults and read the Estoril thread with a poll. I post much there and I was kind of broadcasting the match for the usa guys who could not watch it. He won but he sucked. Eurosport comment - 'scrappy beggining of clay court season for Federer, he lost the first set, dig deep to win 2nd and managed to raise his level a bit to win. His terrible run in 2008 continues .. '

This is all I am saying.

fgzhu88
04-15-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm not sure what's wrong with Federer.

I just miss the old Fed and hope he comes back :(

flyer
04-15-2008, 06:05 PM
Just calm down go to ProMatchResults and read the Estoril thread with a poll. I post much there and I was kind of broadcasting the match for the usa guys who could not watch it. He won but he sucked. Eurosport comment - 'scrappy beggining of clay court season for Federer, he lost the first set, dig deep to win 2nd and managed to raise his level a bit to win. His terrible run in 2008 continues .. '

This is all I am saying.

There is a lot there, would you be kind enough to sum up your thoughts about the match and his form, especially what you saw in regards to the two aspects of this thread as indicated in the first post

daddy
04-15-2008, 06:14 PM
There is a lot there, would you be kind enough to sum up your thoughts about the match and his form, especially what you saw in regards to the two aspects of this thread as indicated in the first post

Yes of course. When asked like this, I can not refuse.

The match started ok for Fed and he had some 6 break points in first two games. Wasted all of them. He managed to lose the 7th game and that was really his only bad service game thsu the match, and lost a set to it. 2nd set was a fight all over and until he managed to use his 9th break point in the match and take Rochus's serve for the first time, it was a fight. He closed up that one and next one with 2 more breaks of serve. That is short.

Stats - impressive for me was that he framed the ball 8 times in first two sets. Also he managed to hit at least 7 misshits during the match, that is huge. His overall serving was so awesome that he was virtually unbreakable - serving 17 aces and many more unreturned serves, winning 90% of first serves. But other than that, he had 53 unforced errors, which is huge. 48 winners do not cut it for me, errors of his were just unbelievable.

Conclusion - he served lights out and managed to get thru. He made too many mistakes incl framing and mishiting and some doubles ( all so uncharacteristic in that qty ) yet he looked great on service game and from time to time produced great tennis. His serve and shotmaking got him out of this one, but with this many errors and serve not up to this standard he might have been on the receiving end. None of the top players would give him a pass today by any means, but having in mind he is rusty every time he plays first clay court match in the season for years now - he may improve. Bottom line - he was lucky his friend Rochus was the oponent with his 167cm height and not so good form ( hit only one winner in complete 2nd set and 9 errors just as an example ) , he is ranked just in top 100 now, and he used to be top 25 player.

flyer
04-15-2008, 06:47 PM
thanks..............

flyer
04-27-2008, 06:21 PM
i think my theory is working out well...i think Fed's Monte Carlo result shows his movement is just fine...

How is the movement looking Drakulie?