PDA

View Full Version : Roger: Wake Up and Play More Serve & Volley!!


Marius_Hancu
06-16-2006, 05:49 AM
Wilander was correct, when he said that Fed didn't have cojones to come at the net (which was proven by his own experience in Rome to be effective with Nadal) in the RG final, and he still continues in his stubborn ways, even on grass.

----------
HALLE, Germany (AP) -- Roger Federer won his 38th straight match on
grass, edging Richard Gasquet of France 7-6 (7), 6-7 (7), 6-4 Thursday
to advance to the quarterfinals of the Gerry Weber Open.

"It was very close," Federer said. "It was played on a few points. It
was a grass-court match played from the baseline, and that was
difficult for me."
----------
Who in the hell forces him to stay there? I don't think Roche advises him so.

I mean, that tight a score can be reached much more economically with S-V.

Should he continue this way, he may well have a huge surprise at Wimbledon.

And that might come sooner, the match with O. Rochus in Halle is being very tight again.

TacoBellBorderBowl1946
06-16-2006, 05:56 AM
man, just wondering are you the all-time talk tennis post leader? Back to the original question I agree with you, he will get more points if he comes to the net more often. But I wouldn't doubt what hes doing since hes won 3 straight Wimbledons, he will beat players like Gasquet with a more forceful score once he gets more comfortable on grass.

ericsson
06-16-2006, 06:11 AM
exactly! it's the man his first match coming from the slow clay, just wait and see. when wimbledon begins he will be there ;)

Alexandros
06-16-2006, 06:22 AM
But... he won Halle and Wimbledon for the past two years from the baseline. Why change a winning formula just because he got beaten by one person on a completely different surface?

It's patently absurd to drastically change his playing style when it has brought him so much success, and continues to do so consistently against all but one player.

urban
06-16-2006, 06:33 AM
But serve and volley would still be the best thing on grass. But nobody of the top ten does it. The one, i saw at Halle, was an unknown Indian Botanna (Nr. 300 or something). But he came to the net behind his serve, and lost only 6-7 to the World Nr.1. Since Wim 2003, when he did come in, Federer has given up his offensive aaproach.

Fischer76
06-16-2006, 06:46 AM
But serve and volley would still be the best thing on grass. But nobody of the top ten does it. The one, i saw at Halle, was an unknown Indian Botanna (Nr. 300 or something). But he came to the net behind his serve, and lost only 6-7 to the World Nr.1. Since Wim 2003, when he did come in, Federer has given up his offensive aaproach.

As you know it already Federer is not a pure serve and volleyer. He is by definition a baseliner who has a more than decent volleying skills. The last pure serve and volleyer was Edberg. Sampras turned into a serve and volleyer during the later stages of his career but started out as a baseliner with superb volleying skills. Who knows, Roger might follow that same path. But right now he doesn't really need to. He can win from the baseline so, I don't see anything wrong with that

Ripper
06-16-2006, 06:54 AM
"Roger: Wake Up and Play More Serve & Volley!!"

Yeah... or get a 95 square inch head!!!

David L
06-16-2006, 06:56 AM
With the current quality of the return and baseline game, serve and volleying effectively is easier said than done. This is not 1980. People should get out there and try it themselves.

guernica1
06-16-2006, 07:01 AM
I have to agree with the others. Because of the balls, surface, etc., and also especially because Fed's serve lacks the kind of nastiness that Goran, Pete, or even Rafter's did, its harder for him to do it consistently.

David L
06-16-2006, 07:28 AM
Also, serve and volleying, today, is not percentage tennis. Federer is someone who likes to play the percentages. Serve and volleying is a risky play.

HyperHorse
06-16-2006, 07:32 AM
he's gotta work on his serve....
thats what i think in my mine worked against him against Nadal in FO final....
he has got to get more free points/aces off it...

urban
06-16-2006, 07:34 AM
I think no one is per defintionem a baseliner or a serve-and-volleyer. The Federer, i remember from 2002/3 was no baseliner, but an attacking player, who, at least on grass, came in on first and second serves. His matches vs. Roddick and Flipper at Wim 2003 were great examples of really offensive grass play.

raftermania
06-16-2006, 07:52 AM
Roger doesn't force anything in his game, that's why it's so natural and effortless. If he wants to serve and volley he will.

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 10:18 AM
IMHO, I don't think he is good enough at the net to be effective.
I never saw him using net game to the extent that it makes a difference
in a match. He basically throw in net plays here and there as a surprise
tactic. As Wilander says it not his comfort zone.

Last week or so, he repeatedly sounded like his forte is at the net.
I found it odd. More like he continued to comment he is getting closer
to beat nadal on clay. He keep saying his net play is good but where
is strong net play in his game ?

As I've been saying for last 2 years, if someone neutralizes his baseline
game(a la Nadal), he does not have much alternatives...



Wilander was correct, when he said that Fed didn't have cojones to come at the net (which was proven by his own experience in Rome to be effective with Nadal) in the RG final, and he still continues in his stubborn ways, even on grass.

----------
HALLE, Germany (AP) -- Roger Federer won his 38th straight match on
grass, edging Richard Gasquet of France 7-6 (7), 6-7 (7), 6-4 Thursday
to advance to the quarterfinals of the Gerry Weber Open.

"It was very close," Federer said. "It was played on a few points. It
was a grass-court match played from the baseline, and that was
difficult for me."
----------
Who in the hell forces him to stay there? I don't think Roche advises him so.

I mean, that tight a score can be reached much more economically with S-V.

Should he continue this way, he may well have a huge surprise at Wimbledon.

And that might come sooner, the match with O. Rochus in Halle is being very tight again.

ACE of Hearts
06-16-2006, 10:25 AM
Roger would have doned it if he was playing in the 90s,the guy doesnt need to do it but he should from time to time.

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 10:30 AM
Roger would have done it (in fact he did until 2001, like EVERYONE ELSE
at the time). I don't think he would have excelled like now with baseline
game. I don't think he would have fared well against big serve and volleyers.

He would have been more like Pioline who has good all court game
but without much of big oomp. Guys like Henman, Dent or Ancic are unlucky
ones since grass got slower and bouncier from 2002.

Moose Malloy
06-16-2006, 10:48 AM
By Richard Vach, Tennis-X.com Senior Writer

Hardcourts With Grass on Top

Before retiring with left shoulder pain Friday in the quarterfinals at Queen's against Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal showed that the transition from clay to grass is not that difficult these days.

Following a quarterfinal where even Tim Henman rarely made forays into the net, Nadal split sets with the former Wimbledon champ Hewitt, making the game appear that nothing had changed about the court except the color.

Those with an advanced enough age to remember grasscourt tennis from the late '80s and early '90s recall a brand of tennis where anyone with a serve and half-decent volley went deep into events, while the claycourters and baseliners struggled mightily. Players who didn't even attempt forays into the net were rightly ridiculed by commentators and students of the game.

But my how things have changed in the 21st century.

In response to the annual cries of grass being too dull, all serves and only one or two hits per point, or maybe some perverse desire to maintain the losing British mentality and make sure the net-loving Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski never win Wimbledon, the All England Club over the years has made the lawns more dense and packed the court to the point where it is now almost indistinguishable from a hardcourt.

On Friday watching Henman and Dmitry Tursunov, or Nadal and Hewitt regularly engaging in 10- to 15-ball rallies, and as a fan waiting for the next net approach which at the current rate might not be until the match-ending handshake, one has to ask, "What the hell have they done to grasscourt tennis?"

Wimbledon has all but put down a layer of cement over the courts over the last few years, and tournaments like Queen's, which can't afford to be out of sync with Wimbledon as a tune-up event, have to follow suit.

Most stupefying is the All England Club's efforts to make things more difficult for Henman and Rusedski to employ their net-changing technique, instead making it easier for baseliners to crack passing shots off balls sitting up nicely.

"I'm personally very disappointed the way they are making Wimbledon these days," said former No. 1 Mats Wilander. "We're slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley. We are slowly losing that because the grasscourts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower. I'm not sure what they are thinking in England because you have (British) players like Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski. England might be the only country in the world who don't actually try and (prepare courts to) suit them. It seems they are doing everything they can for them not to win."

Nadal is the king of clay, and has also showed his hardcourt abilities with Masters Series titles on outdoor hardcourt and indoors. Is it really such a burning question if Nadal can perform on grass, or someday even maybe win Wimbledon?

He's already reached the final at the Masters Series-Miami, which is now as much a warm-up for Wimbledon as Queen's.

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2006-06-16/c.php

sureshs
06-16-2006, 10:53 AM
Last week or so, he repeatedly sounded like his forte is at the net.

If I recall, he even said playing from the baseline is not his strong point. He is not being 100% honest.

Warriorroger
06-16-2006, 10:59 AM
Wilander should look at his own game and career. Just watched a RG match: you could do your nails in those rallies whilst retrieving a backhand down the line.

dh003i
06-16-2006, 01:47 PM
Moose,

I agree. It's ridiculous that they're making the courts at Wimbledon slower in order to help out the baseliner-grinders. They definately should make them faster, to make it more serve and volley. (I think Federer would fare just fine like that; after all, he beat Sampras on faster Wimby courts).

The grinders already have an entire freaking season designed especially for them: the clay-court season. Why the hell should Wimbledon be made easier for them?

It's very lame.

David L
06-16-2006, 04:14 PM
IMHO, I don't think he is good enough at the net to be effective.
I never saw him using net game to the extent that it makes a difference
in a match. He basically throw in net plays here and there as a surprise
tactic. As Wilander says it not his comfort zone.

Last week or so, he repeatedly sounded like his forte is at the net.
I found it odd. More like he continued to comment he is getting closer
to beat nadal on clay. He keep saying his net play is good but where
is strong net play in his game ?

As I've been saying for last 2 years, if someone neutralizes his baseline
game(a la Nadal), he does not have much alternatives...

Federer is an interesting case. He won his first Wimbledon, almost exclusively serve and volleying on first and second serves. The next year, he won it from the baseline. At some point between 2003-2004, he decided he was happier at the baseline. Two equally effective games, one of which appears to give him greater confidence.

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 04:36 PM
I think Federer would fare just fine like that; after all, he beat Sampras on faster Wimby courts).


He beat Sampras in 2001. And that's the year Wimbledon changed
its type of grass with thicker, slower, and bounceir "rye" grass, coincident?

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 04:41 PM
If I recall, he even said playing from the baseline is not his strong point. He is not being 100% honest.

IMHO, Roger's comments are getting a little stranger these days.
Straight-forwardness is good and confidence is good but
World #1 does not want to be as clueless and careless as Djokovic
about his match with Nadal.

joe sch
06-16-2006, 04:45 PM
Federer is the best fast court player today because he has the best weapons from the baseline. If he played during the Sampras era then he would have developed an allcourt attacking game more like Sampras. Its not necessary now because he can pretty much beat anybody from the baseline. Its really that simple. I think he has longer term plans to develop a S/V game and that is one of the reasons he hired Roche. I believe we will see his plan B game when needed but as long as he wins 1..3 slams per year with his current game, why make any match changes. I sure hope some young S/V players develop since I truelly believe that such players will always be able to compete for slams on anything but dirt.

fastdunn
06-16-2006, 05:02 PM
We never know. IMHO, it's more like Federer got the right type
of game at the right time. From the glimpse of net plays Roger
shows occasionally, it does not appear to be good.
You know, it's totally different mentality, S&V and baseliner.
Wilander, for example, tried to add net game but basically
failed to do that...

c_zimma
06-16-2006, 05:13 PM
Roger doesn't force anything in his game, that's why it's so natural and effortless. If he wants to serve and volley he will.

Exactly, he is the best tennis player on the planet (lets not start). He got there by playing his game. Why change now?

David L
06-16-2006, 09:41 PM
Federer is the best fast court player today because he has the best weapons from the baseline. If he played during the Sampras era then he would have developed an allcourt attacking game more like Sampras. Its not necessary now because he can pretty much beat anybody from the baseline. Its really that simple. I think he has longer term plans to develop a S/V game and that is one of the reasons he hired Roche. I believe we will see his plan B game when needed but as long as he wins 1..3 slams per year with his current game, why make any match changes. I sure hope some young S/V players develop since I truelly believe that such players will always be able to compete for slams on anything but dirt.

Yes, I think people forget this. The point is to win, which is what Federer does. Some people on this board elevate the S & V game, because that's what they prefer to watch, from a stylistic point of view. Well, Fedrerer's interested in titles, not in appealling to peoples aesthetic sensibilities, so people should just get over it.

By Richard Vach, Tennis-X.com Senior Writer

Hardcourts With Grass on Top

Before retiring with left shoulder pain Friday in the quarterfinals at Queen's against Lleyton Hewitt, Rafael Nadal showed that the transition from clay to grass is not that difficult these days.

Following a quarterfinal where even Tim Henman rarely made forays into the net, Nadal split sets with the former Wimbledon champ Hewitt, making the game appear that nothing had changed about the court except the color.

Those with an advanced enough age to remember grasscourt tennis from the late '80s and early '90s recall a brand of tennis where anyone with a serve and half-decent volley went deep into events, while the claycourters and baseliners struggled mightily. Players who didn't even attempt forays into the net were rightly ridiculed by commentators and students of the game.

But my how things have changed in the 21st century.

In response to the annual cries of grass being too dull, all serves and only one or two hits per point, or maybe some perverse desire to maintain the losing British mentality and make sure the net-loving Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski never win Wimbledon, the All England Club over the years has made the lawns more dense and packed the court to the point where it is now almost indistinguishable from a hardcourt.

On Friday watching Henman and Dmitry Tursunov, or Nadal and Hewitt regularly engaging in 10- to 15-ball rallies, and as a fan waiting for the next net approach which at the current rate might not be until the match-ending handshake, one has to ask, "What the hell have they done to grasscourt tennis?"

Wimbledon has all but put down a layer of cement over the courts over the last few years, and tournaments like Queen's, which can't afford to be out of sync with Wimbledon as a tune-up event, have to follow suit.

Most stupefying is the All England Club's efforts to make things more difficult for Henman and Rusedski to employ their net-changing technique, instead making it easier for baseliners to crack passing shots off balls sitting up nicely.

"I'm personally very disappointed the way they are making Wimbledon these days," said former No. 1 Mats Wilander. "We're slowly losing the style of playing tennis which is the serve and volley. We are slowly losing that because the grasscourts in Wimbledon are getting slower and slower. I'm not sure what they are thinking in England because you have (British) players like Tim Henman and Greg Rusedski. England might be the only country in the world who don't actually try and (prepare courts to) suit them. It seems they are doing everything they can for them not to win."

Nadal is the king of clay, and has also showed his hardcourt abilities with Masters Series titles on outdoor hardcourt and indoors. Is it really such a burning question if Nadal can perform on grass, or someday even maybe win Wimbledon?

He's already reached the final at the Masters Series-Miami, which is now as much a warm-up for Wimbledon as Queen's.

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2006-06-16/c.php

I happen to like the way grass plays now. Even Navratilova thinks it is better than it was. So it's a bit slower, it still plays like grass, not hardcourt, as the cliche goes. With the explosion of the power game, due to new racket technology, they had to do something to the courts to get the balance right. Baseliners winning Wimbledon is not a recent phenomenom. Have we forgotten about Borg, and Agassi in 1992? Also, I don't think Grand Slams should be in the business of slanting things in favour of their home players. I'm glad that the Ausralian Open did not cave in to Hewitt's pressure. I always thought such requests were idiotic, tantamount to cheating. This is not Davis Cup. Tennis is an international sport. My advice to any Brit or anyone else who wants to win Wimbledon is, learn to play tennis, very well. You are going to need more than a big serve to do it. We should be thanking Wimbledon that players like Rusedski struggle to win it.

sliceroni
06-16-2006, 10:18 PM
Too add to the courts, racquet and string technology have made it difficult for SV also. James Blake among other top players have said and even criticized that poly strings have changed the game, and I can't disagree with him because I don't (and nobody else on these boards) is a top player or plays with top players so he must know what he's talking about. As said in a previous thread he mentions you can hit winners anywhere and net rushers are basically like target practice now. Today nobody serves like Sampras, Goran or Becker, they were gifted not only kissed lines with amazing serves but backed it up. Also nobody today has the instinct, touch or athleticism at net as Edberg or Rafter. Fed had to change his game because its the game that evolving. He came up to net on both 1st and 2nd serves against Sampras, Fed had no trouble returning Phillipoussis' serve. Fed admitted that the attacking stragety did not work against Nalbandian because he loves that target and later said that he kept his game more simple against him, trading strokes from the baseline and came in only when necessary and that's when he started beating him. Fed is just adapting to whomever is in front of him, not that he can't serve and volley. He did against Sampras, game is just changing. A 120+mph well placed serve down the T would've been have easily been an ace 10 yrs ago, but today if it's read well or decent then most likely it can be crushed back for a clean winner or force the error.

fastdunn
06-17-2006, 12:34 AM
Baseliners winning Wimbledon is not a recent phenomenom. Have we forgotten about Borg, and Agassi in 1992?

Yeah, but they won it against S&Vers AND baseliners.
The issue here is that nearly everybody plays baseline.
We even have former S&Vers converting to baseliners
very drastic career moves...

urban
06-17-2006, 12:40 AM
I still think, that serve and volley would win on grass, rye as it may be, if properly executed. Fed was the clear better than Philippoussis, but could only one out of three sets win on breaks. Besides Flipper there is nobody out there with a decent serve and a well positioned and executed volley. Dent is not physically fit and injured now. I think, it is more the product of the Bollettieri school, which preferred the baseline-style since the late 80s.

fastdunn
06-17-2006, 01:03 AM
In 90's standard, Flipper would be considered as a sub-par volleyer.

Fischer76
06-17-2006, 02:04 AM
He beat Sampras in 2001. And that's the year Wimbledon changed
its type of grass with thicker, slower, and bounceir "rye" grass, coincident?

In 2001 corretja could have beaten Sampras in Wimbledon. Prior to the match with Federer, Pete was taken to 5 sets by Barry Cowan. Anybody heard of that guy before or since?

FedererUberAlles
06-17-2006, 10:18 AM
In 2001 corretja could have beaten Sampras in Wimbledon. Prior to the match with Federer, Pete was taken to 5 sets by Barry Cowan. Anybody heard of that guy before or since?

I've got the match, Sampras was playing totally different from the day before. 130+ MPH serves going on from Sampras, regularly. Federer just played out of this world too, and beat Sampras on his turf.

slice bh compliment
06-17-2006, 10:20 AM
In 2001 corretja could have beaten Sampras in Wimbledon. Prior to the match with Federer, Pete was taken to 5 sets by Barry Cowan. Anybody heard of that guy before or since?

Well, yes. Barry Cowan is one hell of a commentator.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-17-2006, 10:23 AM
Roger would have done it (in fact he did until 2001, like EVERYONE ELSE
at the time). I don't think he would have excelled like now with baseline
game. I don't think he would have fared well against big serve and volleyers.

He would have been more like Pioline who has good all court game
but without much of big oomp. Guys like Henman, Dent or Ancic are unlucky
ones since grass got slower and bouncier from 2002.

To suggest Roger in any era would have been the equivalent of a Cedric Pioline is an absolutely hilarious statement. Now I know the kind of logic that leads to a bet of money on Nadal winning Wimbledon in the next 5 years. :mrgreen:

tennus
06-17-2006, 04:05 PM
To suggest Roger in any era would have been the equivalent of a Cedric Pioline is an absolutely hilarious statement. Now I know the kind of logic that leads to a bet of money on Nadal winning Wimbledon in the next 5 years. :mrgreen:
Federer is world number 1 and deserves to be favourite for Wimbledon but I would rather take the long odds about Nadal winning Wimbledon in the next 5 years than take $1.33 return from a dollar invested on Federer winning this years Wimbledon !:mrgreen:

Maco_Andrej
06-17-2006, 04:15 PM
i think roger is doing good without serve volly.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-17-2006, 04:48 PM
Federer is world number 1 and deserves to be favourite for Wimbledon but I would rather take the long odds about Nadal winning Wimbledon in the next 5 years than take $1.33 return from a dollar invested on Federer winning this years Wimbledon !:mrgreen:

If you are talking about a bookies bet then I agree, since you can make more money from the Nadal bet then the Federer bet. I would buy a lottery ticket I could win $20 million, over one I had a 50% chance to win $2 as well.

fastdunn
06-17-2006, 05:53 PM
To suggest Roger in any era would have been the equivalent of a Cedric Pioline is an absolutely hilarious statement. Now I know the kind of logic that leads to a bet of money on Nadal winning Wimbledon in the next 5 years. :mrgreen:

I still stand by my statement that Federer reminds me of Pioline
in terms of playing style. I did not mean to suggests they're same caliber.
All around player with somewhat clay court style ground strokes
(exaggerated whips on backhand and forehand) with some
skills on net game. Pioline's serve was not big enough though
compared to big servers of 90's and his net game was not strong
enough to win Wimbledon in 90's... In fact, Federer is more of
baseliner compared to Pioline... Guys like Chang and Pioline
would do much better now, IMHO.

Rickson
06-17-2006, 05:57 PM
man, just wondering are you the all-time talk tennis post leader?
There are 4 of us Legends here. Marius is currently leading in post count.

federerhoogenbandfan
06-17-2006, 05:58 PM
Pioline managed to reach a Wimbledon final. Since no chance in he%l he wins Wimbledon playing today either, I dont see how he does any better today. As for Chang I doubt he gets past the quarters ever at Wimbledon even today, although I guess it is possable.

Also suggesting Roger has "clay court like groundstrokes" is totally wrong, outrageous, ridiculous. Roger's worst surface is clay by far, everybody knows it. Roger on clay has played his best and lost to a subpar(Nadal), Roger on clay has lost in early rounds in half the Masters and Slams he played in 04-05, years he dominated. He is so much weaker on clay then other surfaces, his game in every way is not clay court like.

fastdunn
06-17-2006, 11:11 PM
I'm not sure if Pioline would do better in today's
"practically-hard court like" Wimbledon.
(I'm sure Chang would do much better at WImbledon today).

What I meant is that Pioline/Chang would do better in today's
tour in general because it is less dominated by power.
Pioline got everything but often over-powered by
big players of 90's. This is era of defensive baseliners and clay courters.
Just look at top 20 now and compare them to 90's.
Chang would do better now, definitely.

I think Federer's ground strokes shows signs that he
grew up on this clay stuff. He has that extra whips
in ground strokes for extra spins. He is not flat hitters
like James Blacke who grew up on faster courts.

There's a chinese saying that goes something like
"Someone who prosper with fire will fail because of
fire". Roger prospered with his baseline game.
What he is getting from Nadal is the same baseline game
which is exactly what he benefited from.

Federer is basically getting that same "fire" he used.
I think he needs to use "water" this time because he might
fail with same reasons why he succeeded.
I think it is the point of whole thread.