PDA

View Full Version : Federer: Will His Style Last 20 and 30 years


Conquistador
02-21-2009, 10:09 PM
20 and 20 years from now--will we see federer as the one looked at as a role model for younger generations of players. On a conflicting note--will the younger generation take after that of the scrappy barbarian style of Nadal. Will Nadal perhaps be the guy that opens up a fitter and more athletic brand of player. Or will it be a sophisticated technique oriented style of Federer that will prevail among the younger crowd. It is an interesting conflict of styles that will be something to watch in the future.

saram
02-21-2009, 10:12 PM
IMO, Roger is the end of an era for a long time. I think the strokes, strings and sticks today will tend to yield baseline bashing and topspin junkies for years to come.

VivalaVida
02-21-2009, 10:36 PM
How rude of you to call nadals game "scrappy barbarian style of Nadal". Federer's "beautiful strokes" are so overdone. Nadals game is by no means ugly.

Daized
02-21-2009, 11:00 PM
How rude of you to call nadals game "scrappy barbarian style of Nadal". Federer's "beautiful strokes" are so overdone. Nadals game is by no means ugly.

I like Nadal a lot as a player, but lets get real, Federer's style is much more beautiful than Nadal's. This is not to say that Nadal's style is not impressive or awe striking, but it just is not "beautiful."

VivalaVida
02-21-2009, 11:03 PM
I like Nadal a lot as a player, but lets get real, Federer's style is much more beautiful than Nadal's. This is not to say that Nadal's style is not impressive or awe striking, but it just is not "beautiful."
sure you are right, but calling it barbarian does not do nadal justice.

counter_puncher
02-21-2009, 11:09 PM
Na, I know a few up and coming players who try and copy Roger's game.

DoubleDeuce
02-21-2009, 11:12 PM
Here is my opinion on this matter:

Anyone who "takes after" someone else's style is the one who does not have serious talent. I see talent as raw material that needs to be shaped and nourished through hard work, practice, training and education. Best Federer and Nadal can do for people with talent is get them to pick up the bats and go out on the courts. If they have any material, it will develop according to their anatomy and mindset. Mimicking Federer or Nadal is like someone who loves watching movies and then wants to become Brad Pitt or Arnold.
In short, you are assuming that they have a choice. There is no choice. If they "choose" to be like someone is because there was no material in the first place.

Joker
02-22-2009, 07:22 AM
I hope you realize that Fed's techniques are hard to duplicate.

Conquistador
02-22-2009, 07:29 AM
I hope you realize that Fed's techniques are hard to duplicate.

Hes wrote the book on technique pretty much for all the instructional dvds and magazine articles that you will come across. Its just about getting the younger generation to look at his style and say-"I want to model my game around class and elegance--like that of Roger Federer."

080825
02-22-2009, 09:16 AM
Well said.
Here is my opinion on this matter:

Anyone who "takes after" someone else's style is the one who does not have serious talent. I see talent as raw material that needs to be shaped and nourished through hard work, practice, training and education. Best Federer and Nadal can do for people with talent is get them to pick up the bats and go out on the courts. If they have any material, it will develop according to their anatomy and mindset. Mimicking Federer or Nadal is like someone who loves watching movies and then wants to become Brad Pitt or Arnold.
In short, you are assuming that they have a choice. There is no choice. If they "choose" to be like someone is because there was no material in the first place.

stormholloway
02-22-2009, 09:21 AM
^^^Didn't Federer model his style after former players?

oneguy21
02-22-2009, 09:36 AM
That's a tough question. I don't think anyone can have clear answer to that. You gotta ask yourself would tennis fans in 1979 ever have predicted the way tennis was going to be played in 2009. Probably not. I kinda want to look at it this way. Back in those days the "unorthodox player" - the guy who was super effective and yet strange in style was undoubtedly Bjorn Borg. His heavy topspin grinding style has become the predominant style in todays game. Therefore, I believe that the secret to finding out the tennis of tomorrow lies in the "unorthodox but effective" player of today's game.

If you think about it, there is no top player who has an unorthodox style. I mean Nadal is as close as it gets and yet his style basically defines the tennis of this era. Therefore, I have a reason to believe that tennis in 20-30 years would be based around heavy topspin hitting from the baseline. Strings and racquets would be made that allow players to take massive cuts at the ball with super-human topspin and thus volleying = suicide. That's the kind of tennis we're in for. Careers may be cut short and fitness will matter more than ever. This style may be in favor of such fans like Nadal_Freak, but of course it would be quite disappoiting to the average tennis fan who wants to see variety.

jms007
02-22-2009, 09:42 AM
Here is my opinion on this matter:

Anyone who "takes after" someone else's style is the one who does not have serious talent. I see talent as raw material that needs to be shaped and nourished through hard work, practice, training and education. Best Federer and Nadal can do for people with talent is get them to pick up the bats and go out on the courts. If they have any material, it will develop according to their anatomy and mindset. Mimicking Federer or Nadal is like someone who loves watching movies and then wants to become Brad Pitt or Arnold.
In short, you are assuming that they have a choice. There is no choice. If they "choose" to be like someone is because there was no material in the first place.

I don't know if I agree with that. I think pretty anything starts with imitation, be it being a tennis player, musician, painter etc. I'm sure Fed, like everyone, else grew up imitating his idols.

NamRanger
02-22-2009, 10:30 AM
^^^Didn't Federer model his style after former players?


Yes, he modeled his playing style along the lines of Laver, Edberg, and Sampras, however his forehand technique is totally different from anyone except Nadal (ironically).

Staiger
02-22-2009, 10:42 AM
If you go on court now and see the young kids hitting the ball , you wont see any of them trying to serve and volley. Most of them today would just bash the ball from the baseline with fair amount of topspin. Also , most of them have a dbh which they were taught from young, I think this is the begining of the new era. It may be the end of the elegant single backhand

TheNatural
02-22-2009, 11:24 AM
I think Fed and Nadals game style are more similar than different. Fed relies on defense and scrapping a lot compared to someone like Pete Sampras/Becker/Edberg. check out the AO final and notice how much scampering along the baseline Fed was doing.

If I had to broadly group styles I'd put Sampras/becker/edberg in 1 category
and Nadal, Joker, Federer in the same style category.





20 and 20 years from now--will we see federer as the one looked at as a role model for younger generations of players. On a conflicting note--will the younger generation take after that of the scrappy barbarian style of Nadal. Will Nadal perhaps be the guy that opens up a fitter and more athletic brand of player. Or will it be a sophisticated technique oriented style of Federer that will prevail among the younger crowd. It is an interesting conflict of styles that will be something to watch in the future.

doublebreak
02-23-2009, 08:51 AM
I agree with the OP that it is an interesting question that many of us wonder how it will turn out.

It's amazing how some people get so worked up because some "offensive" words against their idols. I admire Nadals' talents and at the same time find his game somewhat barbaric. While you could debate whether or not is the right choice of words, the fact is that Federer has been very healthy for most of his career while Nadal has not. It is very likely that this is a direct consequence of their respective styles and I'm sure is a subject that we will talk for years. So, to me is not just about beauty vs. barbarian, it could very well be longevity vs. burnt out. We'll just have to wait and see how these youngsters turn out.

It's sad seeing serve and volleying disappear. It would be a real shame to see tennis across the board become a mindless ultra top spin baseline bash fest - i.e. WTA 2.0 -. Fed can be stubborn, arrogant, mentally weaker than Nadal, his bh is not great, but his overall technique is one of the best in the history of tennis. There's actually quite a bit of substance behind the "stylish" form. I hope some kids appreciate Fed's game and give it a try.

NamRanger
02-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Instructional tennis video and an actual match aren't comparable-agree but I disagree with you main point here that winning is all that matters.What attracts me to player is first and foremost if I enjoy his game and playing style so aesthetically pleasing tennis is much more important for me than winning.I would never be a fan of a player because of his results,that's bandwagon jumping as far as I'm concerned,a player can win all the tournaments in the world if I don't enjoy watching his/her tennis I still won't become a fan.

Fed could not win another tourney in his life and I would still enjoy watching his game the most on tour,same with guys like Tsonga and Nalbandian or Gasquet and Ancic,Gulbis etc. Being a fan of whomever is winning the most at the moment is kinda lame to me.I'm a fan of whomever's game appeals most to me the most at the moment,maybe that's why outside Fed all my other favourite players have usually been underachievers,when I became a Fed fan he was looking like he was going that road as well,never expected him to win more than 1-2 slams.



A fan of tennis differs on views from a tennis player. What she is trying to say is that a professional tennis could care less of how they look when they are playing. As long as they are winning, they really don't care how they do it.

veroniquem
02-25-2009, 11:20 AM
A fan of tennis differs on views from a tennis player. What she is trying to say is that a professional tennis could care less of how they look when they are playing. As long as they are winning, they really don't care how they do it.
Thanks for expliciting my thoughts :)

zagor
02-25-2009, 11:20 AM
A fan of tennis differs on views from a tennis player. What she is trying to say is that a professional tennis could care less of how they look when they are playing. As long as they are winning, they really don't care how they do it.

Of course,it doesn't matter to players how they win as long as they do,they're proffesionals and are playing tennis for a living.Tennis is much more than just a game to them,it's their career and life.I also agree with whoever said here that beauty is in the eye of the beholder,we all have different tastes.Some people enjoy Nadal's playing style,someone Federer's,someone Nalbandian's,Safin's,Santoro's etc. There isn't an universal rule of what constitutes for beautiful tennis,it depends on the viewer and his taste.

edberg505
02-25-2009, 11:24 AM
Yes, I do not take them for facts and I don't think tennis is about "pretty shots" or even "politically correct" shots, last time I checked it was still about winning. That's why a lot more people watch competitive tennis than instructional tennis videos. Competitive is the key word here, that's what makes it fun and puts the emotion in it. I'm sure one could be a wonderful tennis instructor and an absolute failure in competition. If you're in a deciding set and you're trying to play "beautiful" tennis, by the time you're done worrying about wether your shots were aesthetically pleasing or technically proper, your opponent will have run away with the match, no? I also think strategy is all important, that's why Gilbert called his book "winning ugly" and that's why the "killer instinct" tends to prevail over smooth technique.

Says who?

Instructional tennis video and an actual match aren't comparable-agree but I disagree with you main point here that winning is all that matters.What attracts me to player is first and foremost if I enjoy his game and playing style so aesthetically pleasing tennis is much more important for me than winning.I would never be a fan of a player because of his results,that's bandwagon jumping as far as I'm concerned,a player can win all the tournaments in the world if I don't enjoy watching his/her tennis I still won't become a fan.

Fed could not win another tourney in his life and I would still enjoy watching his game the most on tour,same with guys like Tsonga and Nalbandian or Gasquet and Ancic,Gulbis etc. Being a fan of whomever is winning the most at the moment is kinda lame to me.I'm a fan of whomever's game appeals most to me the most at the moment,maybe that's why outside Fed all my other favourite players have usually been underachievers,when I became a Fed fan he was looking like he was going that road as well,never expected him to win more than 1-2 slams.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. That's why I'm happy to see Dent and Pim-Pim back on the tour (and now Mahut is freakin MIA:(). I'm glad Tsonga came on the scene because I was missing that attacking type of tennis. Those guys can never win a slam but I will watching on TV whenever I get the chance because I like seeing that kind of tennis. I think that's what's wrong with some of the people on this board; they probably never watch anyone play outside of Federer or Nadal. I do get the feeling that a lot of these fans only cheer for winners. I wouldn't be too surprised that if those two started losing more, they would get tossed aside like yesterday's trash.

icedevil0289
02-25-2009, 11:32 AM
Instructional tennis video and an actual match aren't comparable-agree but I disagree with you main point here that winning is all that matters.What attracts me to player is first and foremost if I enjoy his game and playing style so aesthetically pleasing tennis is much more important for me than winning.I would never be a fan of a player because of his results,that's bandwagon jumping as far as I'm concerned,a player can win all the tournaments in the world if I don't enjoy watching his/her tennis I still won't become a fan.

Fed could not win another tourney in his life and I would still enjoy watching his game the most on tour,same with guys like Tsonga and Nalbandian or Gasquet and Ancic,Gulbis etc. Being a fan of whomever is winning the most at the moment is kinda lame to me.I'm a fan of whomever's game appeals most to me the most at the moment,maybe that's why outside Fed all my other favourite players have usually been underachievers,when I became a Fed fan he was looking like he was going that road as well,never expected him to win more than 1-2 slams.

I agree. I would never stop watching fed if he never wins a slam again and/or drops tremendously in rankings. I enjoy his game and I enjoy watching him play and will continue to do so until he retires.

zagor
02-25-2009, 11:37 AM
Says who?



Yeah, I'm with you on this one. That's why I'm happy to see Dent and Pim-Pim back on the tour (and now Mahut is freakin MIA:(). I'm glad Tsonga came on the scene because I was missing that attacking type of tennis. Those guys can never win a slam but I will watching on TV whenever I get the chance because I like seeing that kind of tennis. I think that's what's wrong with some of the people on this board; they probably never watch anyone play outside of Federer or Nadal. I do get the feeling that a lot of these fans only cheer for winners. I wouldn't be too surprised that if those two started losing more, they would get tossed aside like yesterday's trash.

I agree with you,the one reason I like that Fed,Tsonga,Gasquet,Nalbo etc. to be in top 10-20 is that they'll appear on TV more often so I can watch them play more.I honestly thought when I first became a Fed fan that the guy is going to have a career of a talented headcase,that he would put it all together for maybe 1-2 slams but underachieve other than that.

I like Pim-Pim and Dent as well,especially Pim-Pim.I have that Agassi AO match on DVD.The guy is just a freaking winner machine when he's on,too bad for his shoulder,he could have done more.He was just coming into his own in 2005.

edberg505
02-25-2009, 11:57 AM
I agree with you,the one reason I like that Fed,Tsonga,Gasquet,Nalbo etc. to be in top 10-20 is that they'll appear on TV more often so I can watch them play more.I honestly thought when I first became a Fed fan that the guy is going to have a career of a talented headcase,that he would put it all together for maybe 1-2 slams but underachieve other than that.

I like Pim-Pim and Dent as well,especially Pim-Pim.I have that Agassi AO match on DVD.The guy is just a freaking winner machine when he's on,too bad for his shoulder,he could have done more.He was just coming into his own in 2005.

Yeah, it's good that they are in the top 10-20 because that means more exposure on TV and I'm all for that. Taylor looks like he's slowly finding his form again. He beat some pretty tough people to get through the qualies but then lost in the 1st round. I just think he needs more matches.

As for Pim-Pim, he's back on tour now. Well, sorta. He's playing in a challenger in France. He won his first match in 3 sets. I think he plays again tomorrow. It kinda sucks for him because he retired so I don't think he's going to get a protected ranking so he'll have to work his way back up in the rankings the hard way. I'm just glad he's back on tour so that means I can see him play in person. And I also have that AO match on DVD. He was producing winners from every spot on the court.

Fiederer
02-26-2009, 12:05 AM
Hey all,

It's so simple. Federer is just more energy saving, and more elegant to watch, like a beach cruiser on lower gears.

Nadal is a high-octaned truck with great tactics, but prone to break down due to greater stress on his "parts".

Their court movement is different due to their difference in foot strides to the ball, and each have their own way of playing.

Lets just see in five years time, who will still be playing the better tennis.

Would you want to have a game lasting you into your 30s or a short, high-impact game lasting you to 25-27?

Your choice ;)

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Hey all,

It's so simple. Federer is just more energy saving, and more elegant to watch, like a beach cruiser on lower gears.

Nadal is a high-octaned truck with great tactics, but prone to break down due to greater stress on his "parts".

Their court movement is different due to their difference in foot strides to the ball, and each have their own way of playing.

Lets just see in five years time, who will still be playing the better tennis.

Would you want to have a game lasting you into your 30s or a short, high-impact game lasting you to 25-27?

Your choice ;)
I'd take exciting game for a limited period any time over standard game with longevity.

edberg505
02-26-2009, 01:20 PM
I'd take exciting game for a limited period any time over standard game with longevity.

LOL, really? And I didn't know that Federer's game was considered standard.

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 05:50 PM
LOL, really? And I didn't know that Federer's game was considered standard.
No I was talking in general. I actually admire Federer's game, it's beautiful. However I PREFER Nadal's. The main reasons are:
1- it's more entertaining (more intensity, energy, tension, drama etc)
2- it's more original (or unorthodox, different, unconventional, unique, whatever word you want to use is fine by me.)

Fed Kennedy
02-28-2009, 11:34 PM
Federer: Will His Style Last 4 and 5 sets

Kaptain Karl
03-02-2009, 06:27 AM
<Mod Mode> Thread cleaned of BUNCHES of Off-topic / Trolling / Train Wreck posts.

This thread is NOT about...
... Players' H2H records
... Strength of "X" eras
... Nadal / Fed
... Fed / Sampras
... or "inventing" some slight against your tennis idol so you can defend him like-you-do-in-every-thread-you-enter.

"Thank you" to the few recent TT-ers who actually posted on the discussion of Style ... and who have returned to the topic. </Mod Mode>

- KK

Leublu tennis
03-02-2009, 04:25 PM
How rude of you to call nadals game "scrappy barbarian style of Nadal". Federer's "beautiful strokes" are so overdone. Nadals game is by no means ugly.I don't particularly care for either Federer or Nadal. Federer is too boring and Nadal has such an odd fh stroke. It really looks strange if you see it from court level IMO. But I do like it that Nadal chases down a lot of balls. I used to do that when I was a lot closer in age to Nadal than father time.