PDA

View Full Version : *Federer: wrong strategy at French*


ferrari_827
06-12-2006, 07:46 AM
I wished Federer heard McEnroe's comments about changing a losing strategy.

1) Federer was coming over the backhand *far* too much and not mixing it up. Federer simply isn't used to hitting huge topspin one-handed backhands all day, not to mention the ncode 90 isn't designed for that.

2) The times Federer hit the occasional slices, Nadal made more errors, was forced up to the net where he bricked some volleys. Federer should have been hitting alot of severe sliced backhands. Critical error. This change alone could have won him the match.

3) Standing *too far behind the baseline*. What the hell ? When was the last time Federer stood that far back. And why on clay, where the ball loses speed. And worse, standing back on *second serve*, when he should have been punishing the weak Nadal second serve.

4) On numerous occasions, Federer should have come in and finished things off with volleys. The few times he came in, Federer was successful.

6) Nadal's second serve. Federer did *absolutely nothing* with it, partly because of standing so far back.

On top of all these strategic mistakes, Federer apparently just lost mental concentration and missed two easy points at the net which would have given him two critical games.

So disappointed more the way Federer played than at the final outcome. The first set Federer played brilliantly, then all of sudden changed his strategy to a losing one, what the heck ?

I still maintain that Federer has all the weapons to dismantle Nadal. He just doesn't seem to be able to use the right shots at the right time. For someone who I thought had one of the best tennis minds, strategically his play at the French open was just terrible.

sureshs
06-12-2006, 07:51 AM
not to mention the ncode 90 isn't designed for that.


Exactly. The stick is a hangover from the S&V days.

jamauss
06-12-2006, 07:56 AM
Federer should have been hitting alot of severe sliced backhands. Critical error. This change alone could have won him the match.


Easy now - don't get carried away. Slicing more backhands would not have possibly "won him the match" by itself. Keep in mind that on a few of his slice backhands he DID hit, Nadal just outright nailed them back for winners.

More slice backhands would have probably cut down his UE count, but that's about it.

ferrari_827
06-12-2006, 08:02 AM
Federer was making *alot* of errors on topspin backhands. Just reducing the errors by 15-20% would have made a big difference. Sure Nadal would have nailed a few here and there for winners, but there's no doubt it would have been far better for Federer.

Here's another thing.

It's easier to *open up the court* with slices than topspin. You can sharper angles, the ball stays lower, and hit shorter. Federer does this well and didn't use it enough.

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 08:03 AM
Fed lost because Nadal is simply better on clay. I believe their clay court head to head record is 4-0 !!!! COME ON!!!!

inyourface
06-12-2006, 08:03 AM
3) Standing *too far behind the baseline*.
I think that was because ha cant control the self backhand,and made a step far to take the ball more near the ground.
4) On numerous occasions, Federer should have come in and finished things off with volleys.
How?, he was far for the point 3 then the difficoult grow.
6) Nadal's second serve.How?Nadal make few seconds,almost 70% was first serves....

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 08:08 AM
3) Standing *too far behind the baseline*.
I think that was because ha cant control the self backhand,and made a step far to take the ball more near the ground.
4) On numerous occasions, Federer should have come in and finished things off with volleys.
How?, he was far for the point 3 then the difficoult grow.
6) Nadal's second serve.How?Nadal make few seconds,almost 70% was first serves....

excuse #7...he should of loosened his headband

excuse #8...he should have wore bobby pins so his hair would not have fallen in his face

excuse #9 ...he should learn how to breathe through his nose as well as his mouth

excuse# 10...he needed to cheat better and find better marks so the umps could make better calls

ferrari_827
06-12-2006, 08:29 AM
I haven't seen how Federer played in Rome, but I can bet he didn't play it the same way strategically as the French.

What disappointed me wasn't that he lost but his strategic game. Even if he played it right strategically, there's a good possibility of losing, but at least we would have seen a *good match* after all this hype, and getting up at 8AM in the morning. Instead, we got a subpar match for a grand slam final.

It's like Federer was thinking, "I'm good enough to play this claycourt style game way behind the baseline". Wrong.

The Pusher Terminator
06-12-2006, 08:39 AM
I haven't seen how Federer played in Rome, but I can bet he didn't play it the same way strategically as the French.

What disappointed me wasn't that he lost but his strategic game. Even if he played it right strategically, there's a good possibility of losing, but at least we would have seen a *good match* after all this hype, and getting up at 8AM in the morning. Instead, we got a subpar match for a grand slam final.

It's like Federer was thinking, "I'm good enough to play this claycourt style game way behind the baseline". Wrong.

Fed has tried attacking, staying back , standing on his head....but the score on clay is Nadal 4 and Fed 0.

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 08:44 AM
People assume it's a strategical/mental problem because Federer
is supposed to be all mighty.

But I think Federer does have technical/physical issues that are
exposed by good lefty Nadal. I think his backhand has problems
need to be improved to just do what McEnroe says, IMHO.

Also Federer needs to improve footwork/net game to beat Nadal
(even on hard court). Believe it or not, Federer is not all-mighty.

inyourface
06-12-2006, 08:55 AM
the difference with Roma was:he took the ball early,(like Blake),but if you have a bad day with your backhand versus Nadal you are death,you have to have a incredible touch to take the ball early but imagine...more than 30 C F.O. the last GS to win....You can do the GS since Laver nobody did....and Rafa in front you...to much for Roger.....then if you cant take the ball early you are deadth

skip1969
06-12-2006, 09:00 AM
People assume it's a strategical/mental problem because Federer is supposed to be all mighty.

But I think Federer does have technical/physical issues that are
exposed by good lefty Nadal. I think his backhand has problems
need to be improved to just do what McEnroe says, IMHO.

Also Federer needs to improve footwork/net game to beat Nadal
(even on hard court). Believe it or not, Federer is not all-mighty.
good points.

fed got to number #1 rolling over the opposition and in many ways he seemed untouchable. he is super-talented, true. but he isn't "all mighty", as fastdunn says. nadal has exposed the physical weaknesses in his game, obviously. that is the primary reason why he is kicking his a**. the other components - faulty strategy, mental weekness - those are still up for debate. after all, before the nadal beatdowns, fed was considered to have both strategical AND mental superiority over his opponents. his game falters against nadal's game, and that may lead to why fed seems strategically and mentally inept against him.

skip1969
06-12-2006, 09:16 AM
this is a post i wrote on another thread about fed's strategy:

"he does seem to shank a lot of balls when he plays nadal. i'm sure nadal's balls (that sounds bad) are tough as hell to get back. which seems to indicate that hitting fewer of them would be the preferred option. fed can approach, he can volley. i don't think he served particularly well today, but it seems he might to better if he were more aggressive.

easier said than done, i know. and clay isn't his thing. but standing back there and trying to grind it out with nadal isn't working - for him or anyone else on the tour. so i think the strategy has got to change."

heycal
06-12-2006, 09:26 AM
I love how we are all smarter than Federer and presume to know better than he what he should be doing out there on the court. I too was disappointed by his lame performance, but I try and remind myself that I'm a 3.5 hacker trying to Monday morning quarterback a 7.0 multiple Grand Slam winner who presumably knows a little bit more than I do about how to win tennis matches...

highsierra
06-12-2006, 09:43 AM
I love how we are all smarter than Federer and presume to know better than he what he should be doing out there on the court. I too was disappointed by his lame performance, but I try and remind myself that I'm a 3.5 hacker trying to Monday morning quarterback a 7.0 multiple Grand Slam winner who presumably knows a little bit more than I do about how to win tennis matches...


Exactly, these guys saying he should have sliced more, and come into the net more are basically saying there are these advantages if you do these, with everything else being equal, he would have fared better. If you slice more and volley more, how can everything else being equal? If you slice more, the slower ball just give more time for Nadal to , say hit a run around forehand (like Fed wants more balls from his forehand). If you come in more, you have to stand closer, and those backhand balls would be even higher. Furthermore, from what I read, Nadal at Rome could barely hit a quality passing shot. I'm sure Fed knew that's unlikely to happen again at RG. And he' probably right. After the 5th game of the first set, both Nadal's cross court and DTL shots had been very high quality and many of them were winners which Fed couldn't even chase at the baseline, how could he have been better off at the net? If you think slice shots would be harder for Nadal to return accurately then you should watch the match again.

yonex90
06-12-2006, 09:43 AM
Federer gave up and did not play in the final. It was rediculous to watch him strol to the ball and just take a random swing at the ball and watch it fly out of the court. He did not try to play. It doesn't matter if its his mental game or what it all comes down to terrible play.

KuramaIX
06-12-2006, 09:50 AM
where was his gameface??????

darkaug
06-12-2006, 10:04 AM
just wait for other grand slams , soon all talk about nadal kicking butt will be gone ;)

its time for other players like blake and monfils to rise as well :)

Taram_Nifas
06-12-2006, 10:06 AM
I love how we are all smarter than Federer and presume to know better than he what he should be doing out there on the court. I too was disappointed by his lame performance, but I try and remind myself that I'm a 3.5 hacker trying to Monday morning quarterback a 7.0 multiple Grand Slam winner who presumably knows a little bit more than I do about how to win tennis matches...

Well, with all due respect I think John McEnroe pointed that Federer should have used that slice tactic more often, most people are reacting to his comments during the match. I don't know if it would have mattered, but it would have saved us from cringing at seeing Federer spray backhands all over creation.

Rafa just owns Federer on Clay, and probably some hardcourst too.

rlbjr
06-12-2006, 10:16 AM
It wasn't strategy or errors. Grand Slam finals between top players are won in the will. Mats Willander got it right when he said that Nadal has an extra emotional gear to go to. Federer doesn't. Federer has the extra gears in his game, but not emotionally. The other players Fed has beaten in finals haven't been close to Nadal in their drive to win. At this point Nadal wants or needs it more than Federer and is less intimidated by Federer than Federer is by Nadal.

Hewitt had this going for him a couple years ago, but he doesn't have Nadals offensive ability. At least on clay, Nadal is the complete package and Federer just seems to wilt against him. In the 4th set breaker you could see it in some of the decisions he made and the shots he missed. When they play Federer always seems to start well and look like he's going to win, but at the same time he seems to be waiting for Nadals inevitable comeback and victory. Nadal really does seem to be deep in Rogers head.

Before you write Federer off though, think about McEnroe V Lendl. Lendl absolutely owned Mac, but after a conversation with Don Budge Mac was able to turn it around and beat Lendl 6 or 7 times out of the next 9 or so. Federer just has to clear his mind, develop a clarity of purpose in the match and match Nadals emotional level and he can turn this around. In short, he needs to want it as badly as Nadal does and understand what he has to do to beat Nadal as clearly as Nadal understands how to beat Roger.

grizzly4life
06-12-2006, 10:22 AM
Fed has tried attacking, staying back , standing on his head....but the score on clay is Nadal 4 and Fed 0.

pusher, do you have any other interests in life?

Kaptain Karl
06-12-2006, 10:26 AM
I love how we are all smarter than Federer and presume to know better than he what he should be doing out there on the court. I too was disappointed by his lame performance, but I try and remind myself that I'm a 3.5 hacker trying to Monday morning quarterback a 7.0 multiple Grand Slam winner who presumably knows a little bit more than I do about how to win tennis matches...Yeah. In another thread I commented that I surely play this game at a high level ... from the stands.

Seriously, though ... I see many posters remarking on what Roger was "thinking". I don't believe he was thinking much at all.

I've had matches when I couldn't seem to "get my head in the game." In a sick sort of way, it was nice to know Federer can play ... just like me.

(You know, when Tiger flubs a 2 ft putt, my first inclination is to say, "I can do that. I play just like Tiger.")

- KK

ferrari_827
06-12-2006, 10:50 AM
Karl, Federer clearly "lost his mind" in this match. A couple of very easy netted shots which cost him two critical games.

Maybe it is a bit humorous that the tennis god lost his marbles on this occasion. In a couple of years, Federer will watch a tape of this match and laugh at himself.

Instead of the "Federer funhouse", it will be called the "Federer outhouse" of shots.

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 10:57 AM
How long it would take for you guys to realize Federer is not technically
perfect ? It's almost like a religion, Federerism or something...

d70
06-12-2006, 11:04 AM
As soon as he started playing nadal's game, it was over.

monologuist
06-12-2006, 11:06 AM
I wished Federer heard McEnroe's comments about changing a losing strategy.

1) Federer was coming over the backhand *far* too much and not mixing it up. Federer simply isn't used to hitting huge topspin one-handed backhands all day, not to mention the ncode 90 isn't designed for that.


Federer needs to improve his strength and conditioning in order to sustain any sort of consistency with his topspin bh on clay, where he will be attacked with heavy spin incessantly, and over the course of 4-5 sets at Roland Garros or Masters finals. This shortcoming in his physical conditioning has been exposed over and over again now.


2) The times Federer hit the occasional slices, Nadal made more errors, was forced up to the net where he bricked some volleys. Federer should have been hitting alot of severe sliced backhands. Critical error. This change alone could have won him the match.


Mixing in more slices may have reduced his error count, but it would have also created many more offensive opportunities for Nadal. Nadal handles slice quite well on the FH wing for an extreme-western gripper. Federer's plan to beat Nadal has been to attempt to take control of points and to move forward as quickly as possible; slicing to him all day would not achieve this. First of all it is very difficult to slice the ball low AND deep off of heavy topspin shots, as so much energy is lost just reversing the spin of the ball...the times he used his short slice, Nadal's footspeed and anticipation allowed him to moveinto a position of advantage too often to make it a worthwhile play (against slower players or players who are not comfortable at net, Fed's short slice works well to set up passing shots). Also, Federer would have had to slice down the line to Nadal's backhand if he wanted to avoid the risk of putting himself in a defensive position, and slicing the ball deep and down the line is not a very high percentage shot, given that it is the highest part of the net, and the margin for error laterally is so little.


3) Standing *too far behind the baseline*. What the hell ? When was the last time Federer stood that far back. And why on clay, where the ball loses speed. And worse, standing back on *second serve*, when he should have been punishing the weak Nadal second serve.


Nadal really started laying into his shots starting in the second set...his shots off of both wings were landing fairly deep and with his tremendous heavy spin...I think Federer was forced to play farther back as the match wore on, b/c Nadal was hitting deeper and more aggresively.


4) On numerous occasions, Federer should have come in and finished things off with volleys. The few times he came in, Federer was successful.


Federer said himself after tha match that the opportunities to come in were scant during this match. Again, Nadal was hitting the ball deep enough with consistency that Federer was not afforded many opportunities to move forward. Federer has had success at times in the past at forcing shorter balls off of Nadal's backhand, but yesterday, Nadal's backhand after the frist set was extremely solid, even dangerous.


6) Nadal's second serve. Federer did *absolutely nothing* with it, partly because of standing so far back.


I've always wished that Federer would return more aggresively on Nadal's second serve. But for one thing, Nadal has actually markedly improved both his 1st and 2nd serve. Federer didn't get a look at that many second serves throughout the course of the match. Also, Federer has never excelled at aggressive returns...his backswing is pretty long, unlike an Agassi or a Blake who excel at returning with short fast, early, flat swings...plus most of the serves are going to his backhand. If you've ever tried to return a lefty spin serve with a 1-hhbh, you'd know that the only way is to take it early and crosscourt, right into the lefty's forehand...it is extremely hard to return down the line against a lefty serve b/c the ball is hooking away from your 1-hhbh. You can try to step around your bh and attack with a forehand, but again, the ball is hooking into your body, and it is very difficult to attack, very diifcult to nail it inside-out (and again even if you do, it is back to the lefty's forehand).


On top of all these strategic mistakes, Federer apparently just lost mental concentration and missed two easy points at the net which would have given him two critical games.


I don't know that it was a lapse of concentration so much as nerves. He had two matchpoint forehands sail on him in Rome....I think Federer is just not that great under extreme pressure...he rarely is in these positions, so we don't see him tested. Many of the times he's been tested in long close matches, he has lost. Lost vs. Safin at AO, lost vs. Nalbandian at Shanghai, Lost vs. Nadal at Dubai, Rome, Monte Carlo, Roland Garros. Worse, in many of these matches, he has been in a position to win and has choked. Of course, how many players in the world can actually push him into a long close match? Probably only those 3 players.


So disappointed more the way Federer played than at the final outcome. The first set Federer played brilliantly, then all of sudden changed his strategy to a losing one, what the heck ?


I think the first set was more of a function of Nadal playing horribly and nervously.


I still maintain that Federer has all the weapons to dismantle Nadal. He just doesn't seem to be able to use the right shots at the right time. For someone who I thought had one of the best tennis minds, strategically his play at the French open was just terrible.


I agree that Federer has all the weapons to beat Nadal. I don't think this loss was an issue of strategic error though...more of physical conditioning (in order to hit those high backhands), the pressure of the moment (the Grand Slam possibilities, the records, etc.), and the fact that Nadal has gotten into his head.

Arafel
06-12-2006, 11:22 AM
I wonder now whether this is a weakness in Fed's game that can be exploited by other players. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Blake or Nalbandian start going with hard topspin shots to Fed's backhand to wear it down. Maybe even Roddick, if he can ever get his forehand going.

Of course, there is something to be said for the strategy of breaking down your opponent's primary weapon first, something I know Gilbert has talked about, but I think Fed's forehand is too strong to be taken out.

monologuist
06-12-2006, 11:47 AM
I wonder now whether this is a weakness in Fed's game that can be exploited by other players. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Blake or Nalbandian start going with hard topspin shots to Fed's backhand to wear it down. Maybe even Roddick, if he can ever get his forehand going.

Of course, there is something to be said for the strategy of breaking down your opponent's primary weapon first, something I know Gilbert has talked about, but I think Fed's forehand is too strong to be taken out.

None of those guys are lefty so it wouldn't be as effective....the whole thing about Nadal is that not only is his forehand super heavy with topspin, but it has a side arc to it as well (spins into your body). Also, unless he rolls the dice and takes it down the line, his backhands go back to Nadal's forehand. IT is very difficult to hit the 1-hhbh down the line against a lefty forehand spin though...the ball is slicing away from your backhand, so you if you take it early, it will go crosscourt naturally.

Blake almost never hits with heavy top....he hits it very flat, fast, and early. Nalbandian usually works Fed over with extremely angled backhands, then tries to go down the line or moves forward.

Kevin T
06-12-2006, 11:53 AM
IMHO, Mary Carillo made the shrewdest comment concerning strategy. She mentioned that Fed should have been hitting to the middle of the court, especially when he had the opportunity to slice and approach, and cutting off Nadal's angles. Couldn't have agreed with her more.

araghava
06-12-2006, 11:53 AM
>First of all it is very difficult to slice the ball low AND deep off of heavy topspin >shots, as so much energy is lost just reversing the spin of the ball

Actually the opposite is true. When you slice of a topspin shot, the spin on the ball remains the same. So you don't lose energy. However there is a tendency for the ball to jump off your racquet with you try to slice a heavy topspin. This is because you're imparting more of the same spin.

ksbh
06-12-2006, 12:01 PM
Agreed. Did notice that on some of the clutch points, Nadal sent down some great first serves that Fed was barely able to return. His serving has improved considerably.



I've always wished that Federer would return more aggresively on Nadal's second serve. But for one thing, Nadal has actually markedly improved both his 1st and 2nd serve. Federer didn't get a look at that many second serves throughout the course of the match.

monologuist
06-12-2006, 12:05 PM
>First of all it is very difficult to slice the ball low AND deep off of heavy topspin >shots, as so much energy is lost just reversing the spin of the ball

Actually the opposite is true. When you slice of a topspin shot, the spin on the ball remains the same. So you don't lose energy. However there is a tendency for the ball to jump off your racquet with you try to slice a heavy topspin. This is because you're imparting more of the same spin.

yes...you're right about that now that I think about it....but I find that when I try to slice high topspin balls, it's hard to keep the ball low and deep. If I try to keep it low, it goes shallow b/c of the trajectory...if I slice it deep, it sits up too much to neutralize the return shot.

predrag
06-12-2006, 12:11 PM
IMHO, Mary Carillo made the shrewdest comment concerning strategy. She mentioned that Fed should have been hitting to the middle of the court, especially when he had the opportunity to slice and approach, and cutting off Nadal's angles. Couldn't have agreed with her more.

Well, I might now have seen the same match as Mary Carillo, but thought
that was exactly what Federer was doing in the 2nd and 3rd set.

And I think that was the biggest mistake of all.
Nadal likes to run around his backhand and hit high kicking topspin and attack
to Federer's Backhand or Forehand. Hitting the ball into the middle will be
playing into NAdal's hand.

What I think Fed should have done instead, was to slice cross court, deep or angle, drag Nadal to the forehand side and then try to attack backhand.
The key here is that Fed could not afford missing at any point. He had to
endure this kind of grinding for a loooooong time and maybe he would be
able to eventually get a good opening and finish with a volley.
Instead, he was way to quick to come to the net where he got passed left
and right.

Regards, Predrag

AAAA
06-12-2006, 12:15 PM
How long it would take for you guys to realize Federer is not technically
perfect ? It's almost like a religion, Federerism or something...

Along the same lines will you ever acknowledge Sampras isn't perfect?

Snooker
06-12-2006, 12:19 PM
Before you write Federer off though, think about McEnroe V Lendl. Lendl absolutely owned Mac, but after a conversation with Don Budge Mac was able to turn it around and beat Lendl 6 or 7 times out of the next 9 or so.
Well, actually the head-to-head was 21-15 to Lendl's favor.
The first 3 years Lendl owned Mac, than Mac owned Lendl for 3 years while Lendl took control again for the rest of the career.
Quite interesting how things are changing.

1980-1982: 7-2 Lendl
1983-1985: 12-4 McEnroe
1986-1992: 11-1 Lendl

Rob_C
06-12-2006, 12:21 PM
I think he should have definitely moved in closer to return serve. If he's able to return serves likr Roddick's & Phillippoussis' on grass, then he should be able to handle Nadal's on clay. Also, by standing as far back as he did, he allowed Nadal to pull him off the court more to start the point, which resulted in him being in a more defensive position, way behind the baseline and outside the singles lines. Also, he wasn't really hitting the one hander, he was more blocking them back, and flat too, with little pace.

I dont think he tried this, but I think he should try to bring Nadal into net more, especially on big points. Its alot easier to win points against Nadal when he's at net than when he's at the baseline. He cant volley, his grips are all wrong.

Moose Malloy
06-12-2006, 12:28 PM
Before you write Federer off though, think about McEnroe V Lendl. Lendl absolutely owned Mac, but after a conversation with Don Budge Mac was able to turn it around and beat Lendl 6 or 7 times out of the next 9 or so.

That's a good comparison. That's the last time I can recall a #1 being dominated by a #2 to this degree. Mac was #1 almost all of '81/'82 but Lendl owned him, beating him 7 straight times. It was quite an important turning point in Mac's career, turning it around vs Lendl.

1986-1992: 11-1 Lendl

McEnroe was basically a part-time player after '86.

dh003i
06-12-2006, 12:48 PM
Fed lost because Nadal is simply better on clay. I believe their clay court head to head record is 4-0 !!!! COME ON!!!!

Wow, what a jerk. You have the mentality of a moron.

Yes, Federer lost, Nadal won, and Nadal is better than Federer on clay, although Federer is obviously a great player on clay. The thing people are analyzing is why. Some place more emphasis on the technical aspects (Federer's backhand), others on the strategical aspects (Federer abandoning the strategy that creamed Nadal in the 1st set of the FO, and that almost won him the Rome finals), others on the mental.

But, according to *****hat Pusher Terminator, any analysis of why Federer is losing to Nadal amounts to "an excuse" or an attempt to downplay Nadal's achievements. Talk about an attempt to dominate the conversation.

You see, according to Pusher Terminator, all that anyone should talk about is why Nadal is so great, and why Federer sucks so much and is over-rated. If you say Fed has 7 grand slams, one of the longest streaks at #1, etc, well, that's just aside from the point -- which is that Nadal rules on clay.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-12-2006, 02:02 PM
ferrari 827, all above strategy analysys are good.

But we'd understand that his lack was not in strategy, at least he won 6:1 in the 1-st, he had breakpoints in the 3-d, he reached tie-break in the 4-th.

His lack was in his emotions, in his head. No need for Fed improve anything or change the strategy. Nadal is pretty primitive one-dimensional player. Federer must heal his head, psychology, to manage his emotions. This is much more difficult, especially at historical matches.

tlm
06-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Fed has played nadal 4 times this year,3 on clay,1 on hard.He can not handle nadal period,he has tried everything + it does not work!

Kaptain Karl
06-12-2006, 04:46 PM
More of the Nadalite "chip on the shoulder" stuff. Hey, tlm, your guy won.

(I've seen many sore losers ... but sore winners are even worse. Geez!)

- KK

AAAA
06-12-2006, 05:00 PM
More of the Nadalite "chip on the shoulder" stuff. Hey, tlm, your guy won.

(I've seen many sore losers ... but sore winners are even worse. Geez!)

- KK

I suspect many of the 'Nadalites' are Sampras supporters and Nadal's achievements are some how proof, to them, that Sampras is better than Federer. I mean Nadal beats Federer so logically Sampras is the better player. Simple logic wins the day.

dennis1188
06-12-2006, 05:18 PM
What is the area of the court that Federer neglect most to focus on?.
The Super All-courter vs Super Baseliner - In addition, to the +60 errors (RF most on the BH) vs only+20errors(RN). Seems RF did not 'play' enough points along the 'diagional axis' of the court. RN's just too strong w/ court coverage and angles frm the baseline w/ balls bouncing into his 'comfort zone'. RF may hv been more effective w/ BH slice (mix more long/short) diagional exchanges and LESS deep topspin (Right/Left) along the baseline exchanges w/ the potential of closer targeting Nadel (at a low ackward volley angle) moving along the diagional w/ a federer grd stroke at Nadel's feet and getting a short return to angle volley and 'close'.

jman
06-12-2006, 07:04 PM
I wonder why Federer doesn't apply more spin on his forehand to Nadal's backhand, just as Nadal pressures Federer's backhand side. It always seemed that Federer was trying to hit pass Nadal, which on a claycourt is very demanding and tough, cause he will retrieve everything.
He has to use his multi dimensional game to the max. Then he will win the French Open.

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 08:15 PM
What is the area of the court that Federer neglect most to focus on?.
The Super All-courter vs Super Baseliner - In addition, to the +60 errors (RF most on the BH) vs only+20errors(RN). Seems RF did not 'play' enough points along the 'diagional axis' of the court. RN's just too strong w/ court coverage and angles frm the baseline w/ balls bouncing into his 'comfort zone'. RF may hv been more effective w/ BH slice (mix more long/short) diagional exchanges and LESS deep topspin (Right/Left) along the baseline exchanges w/ the potential of closer targeting Nadel (at a low ackward volley angle) moving along the diagional w/ a federer grd stroke at Nadel's feet and getting a short return to angle volley and 'close'.

Who are you refering to by "Super all-courter vs super baseliner" ?
There was no "all courter" in yesterday's FO final.
There were two baseliners....

fastdunn
06-12-2006, 08:31 PM
Along the same lines will you ever acknowledge Sampras isn't perfect?

Of course, Sampras is not perfect. But he prioritized elements in his game
based on importance maximizing efficiency. I think his game is as good
as humanly possible.

People seem to hope Federer would implement the complete game
beyond what Sampras did. More balance between offense and defence.
Balance between serve, forehand and backhand. People are hoping
the holy grail. Balanced indeed his game, but he is not potent
enough in some of important element of the game.


I don't think he is the one (as always). It's not humanly possible
to master everything in perfect balance. You have to prioritize elements
in game.

Folks, he is not Neo who mastered Matrix and can fly...