PDA

View Full Version : Why Federer won Wim


radical1
07-17-2005, 02:26 PM
Anyone see this site before? They claim to know why particular players have strengths due to their flexibility. Anyone know anyone who's done their treatment?

http://www.somaxsports.com/Wimbledon2005.htm

tricky nicky
07-17-2005, 02:32 PM
marius did this last week in health and fitness

edgy
07-17-2005, 02:36 PM
well roddick is known for being a very flexable player. On that site, they make him out to be one of the non flexable ones. If you watched wimbledon, the commentators often praised Roddick's conditioning and flexability. Anyone being compared to Federer is going to look horrible. He's such an incredible athlete. Though Roddick is in exceptional condition also, Federer is going to be in better condition. He is just a natural tennis player. In my opinion, he did not win the title on behalf of his flexability, but his great speed and composure.

Fedubai
07-17-2005, 03:08 PM
It's interesting, I'll give it that.

As is repeated over and over, you cannot really play tennis well if you can't get to the ball. Conversely, then, isn't it true that you can't really play tennis well if you can get to the ball but are then unable to do anything with it despite the fact that you are there?

While Federer is indeed one of the most impressive athletes I've ever seen, that is for certain, I don't think that flexibility is the only thing that won him that match. From what I've seen, he's pretty intelligent on a tennis court.

So while I grant that flexibilty and being a great athlete is certainly part of it, intelligence, determination, strength of mind, anticipation, talent...these things are certainly part of it as well. Federer seems to have great hand-eye, I've rarely seen someone so good in that department. He also has incredible eye sight, he says he actually watches the ball as it hits the strings before leaving the racket, something I've certainly never heard of before.

So yes, being a great athlete is important, but it's not enough, there are others factors, I think that that is pretty clear.

splink779
07-17-2005, 03:34 PM
Those ridiculous angle drawings make this entire site seem like a total joke.

edgy
07-17-2005, 05:06 PM
It's interesting, I'll give it that.

As is repeated over and over, you cannot really play tennis well if you can't get to the ball. Conversely, then, isn't it true that you can't really play tennis well if you can get to the ball but are then unable to do anything with it despite the fact that you are there?

While Federer is indeed one of the most impressive athletes I've ever seen, that is for certain, I don't think that flexibility is the only thing that won him that match. From what I've seen, he's pretty intelligent on a tennis court.

So while I grant that flexibilty and being a great athlete is certainly part of it, intelligence, determination, strength of mind, anticipation, talent...these things are certainly part of it as well. Federer seems to have great hand-eye, I've rarely seen someone so good in that department. He also has incredible eye sight, he says he actually watches the ball as it hits the strings before leaving the racket, something I've certainly never heard of before.

So yes, being a great athlete is important, but it's not enough, there are others factors, I think that that is pretty clear.
Very true, that is why Federer is so great. He has a nice blend of sense and intelligense for the game, mental toughness and composure, and of course his skill and athleticism.

splink779
07-17-2005, 05:29 PM
He also has incredible eye sight, he says he actually watches the ball as it hits the strings before leaving the racket, something I've certainly never heard of before.

A lot of pros and recreational players do this.

Andres
07-17-2005, 05:35 PM
This article is simply moronic.
The flat stomaches issue was soo great!! It almost made my fall down from my chair... LMAO!!

splink779
07-17-2005, 05:44 PM
This article is simply moronic.
The flat stomaches issue was soo great!! It almost made my fall down from my chair... LMAO!!

Thank you for agreeing with me

PusherMan
07-17-2005, 05:51 PM
Ya, something just doesn't seem right with the arguments on this site. Totally bogus, IMO.

alan-n
07-17-2005, 06:30 PM
That article seems like a advertisement for the microfiber reduction message. Ok, wheres the scientific evidence for this.

charles_boey
07-17-2005, 06:57 PM
now i know why federer didn't win the French. Nadal must have a wider stance...and santa's belly.

efice32
07-17-2005, 07:02 PM
You can make roddick's leg angle seem wider if you use a lower camera angle like they did with Federer. Also, since when is 40 50% less than 60? The last stomach thing is great! So basically people with beer guts should play tennis better than people with visibly strong abs? LMAO!

AAAA
07-17-2005, 07:07 PM
With respect to this angle theory I recall Edberg would receive serve with his legs very close together, angle less than 40, as he was poised to chip to charge at the merest hint of a chance, and Edberg has no flexibility or lateral movement problems at the net.

Max G.
07-17-2005, 07:48 PM
Well, the premise of the article is right. Additional flexibility is - no duh - VERY helpful in tennis, and is probably is a significant factor in what is overall known as "talent."

BUT -
1) They make conclusions based on TWO PHOTOS. I have absolutely no reason to believe that those two photos are at all representative.

And there are even flaws in their analysis of the photos. After all, I would guess it's pretty common for players to shift their weight to the right and back to the left before receiving serve, and this could make the angle seem different. Secondly, in their photo, FEDERER IS BENT FORWARD and this could clearly skew where they're calculating the angle from. (If you notice, they're using as their start point a point about midway up Roddick's back. They're using the same point for Federer - but since he's bent over, that point is LOWER, increasing the angle). And of course, their second photo, the one when they've "widened their stance" - it looks like Federer's just landed from his split-step, whereas Roddick is still totally flat-footed. Which to me indicates that the photos are from different portions of the service-return motion.


Also, even if their analysis is RIGHT, I think they are TOTALLY overblowing its importance. Yes, flexibility helps. No, it's not "the reason Roddick lost to Federer." Nobody's arguing that Federer is a better mover than Roddick, and yes flexibility is part of it, but so what? There are a lot of things at which Federer is better than Roddick, among which flexibility would be just one.

Max G.
07-17-2005, 07:51 PM
Also, since when is 40 50% less than 60?

Well, 60 is indeed 50% more than 40... they have few enough things right in that article, they need every correct statement they can get!

devila
07-17-2005, 10:12 PM
Federer with a little less agility, he would struggle a lot more. Those matches with Minar, Soderling, Ferrero, Roddick, Nadal and Ljubicic would be losses without his born flexibility.
Of course, on this forum, the world can't survive without tennis and everyone's supposed to bow down to Federer and declare him the most intelligent player and person of all time.

ctbmar
07-18-2005, 12:22 AM
If you stretch your legs wider apart, then you get a wider angle. So maybe we all should do Splits while receiving serve, in that way, we can be more flexible.
Yes, totally bogus. You got to have an optimum angle for yourself. Too little or too great, at opposite extremes will not have much flexibility. As long as the two players Roddick & Federer maintain their own optimum angles, near to average of all other players, it will be hard to say whose angle is better.

tennisgeek505
07-18-2005, 12:47 AM
federer is too good for any1 on grass the only time he gets beat is on clay and it was luck at french open

SageOfDeath
07-22-2005, 09:39 AM
Anyone see this site before? They claim to know why particular players have strengths due to their flexibility. Anyone know anyone who's done their treatment?

http://www.somaxsports.com/Wimbledon2005.htm

Eh..... flexibility is very important in tennis but abdominal strength and other core muscles are neccesary for power in all shots and abs protect your back.

I think its way too contreversial to say that flexibility is more important than strength.

doriancito
07-22-2005, 10:52 AM
very interesting about the stomachs thing! i wont work out my abs that much now

matchpoint
07-22-2005, 03:06 PM
Agree with splink779 and Andres Guazelli.

That's just the funniest analysis I've ever read.

How about Federrer is just simply more talented than Roddick, that's a no brainer. :)