PDA

View Full Version : Michael Stich article about taking on Federer


Polaris
06-27-2006, 12:27 AM
Michael Stich has written a nice, readable article about a possible gameplan to trouble Federer at Wimbledon. An excerpt:

"You cannot wait for the perfect approach shot to come against him, you have to move in to the net and make a chance for yourself. You have to take the risk of being passed: if Federer passes you four times in a row, you have to congratulate him on great tennis."

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/wimbledon2006/story/0,,1806912,00.html

dandy2fast
06-27-2006, 01:09 AM
Well, Roddick should open stich's eyes and tell him what actually happens when a player facing Federer takes the net after a "not perfect approach shot"...

hoosierbr
06-27-2006, 01:27 AM
Roddick isn't a good example because not only does he tend to come up on poor approach shots but his net skills are still very mediocre, bordering on poor. Someone like Henman or Ancic who has stellar net play would be more successful.

Gasquet won a number of points at the net today, wonder if he'll continue to come up?

superman1
06-27-2006, 01:54 AM
Nice to hear someone say, "yeah, sure, Federer is one of the greatest ever but in my day I could have taken a match off of him." It's not healthy for players to say things like, "he'll have to be injured or off his game for me to have a chance." Only Nadal can say that and still win, because he doesn't really mean it.

But Stich obviously hasn't heard that Henman is playing from the back court these days. Henman will never serve and volley, but he will try to finish points at the net if he can.

unjugon
06-27-2006, 02:17 AM
But Stich obviously hasn't heard that Henman is playing from the back court these days. Henman will never serve and volley, but he will try to finish points at the net if he can.
You read the article? It seems like he watched the Henman-Hewitt match and knows full well how Henman plays these days.

35ft6
06-27-2006, 03:18 AM
This didn't quite make sense to me:But in my day, on grass, I definitely think I had the game to beat him. In 1991, when I won Wimbledon, I beat two of the best on grass at the time, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg, so I reckon I would have beaten Federer as well. He says to beat Federer you need to come in at every opportunity, make him pass you. But then he goes on to say that he reckons he could have beaten Federer because he beat Becker and Edberg, two serve and volleyers. Huh? Federer can pass better than Becker and wayyyy better than Edberg, so I don't really see his point. Oh well.

superman1
06-27-2006, 04:07 AM
He said in his day. If Federer played in his day, he'd serve and volley also. Hard to make comparisons like that across eras, but I guess his main point is that he'd be super aggressive against Federer.

unjugon...yeah, I read the article else I wouldn't have posted in this thread. He was talking about Henman charging the net and forcing Federer to come up with the passing shots. Henman doesn't charge the net very much anymore.

Brettolius
06-27-2006, 05:42 AM
Stich had a nice serve and all, but Federer would take him to school. Freddie Mercury would be getting passed ALL DAY!

alfa164164
06-27-2006, 06:30 AM
"Stich had a nice serve" - now that is a major understatement.
Simply put Stich is saying you have to play ultra aggressive to have a chance against Federer on grass. Staying back and rallying isn't going to work.
I think it was Brad Gilbert that said you could pass Edberg 19 times in a row and he would still come to the net on the 20th point. That's the kind of game that I think Stich is proposing that could trouble Federer. Problem is nowadays, apart from Henman and a few, no one really possess the skill set to successfully play that game.
I think he correctly asserts that "in his day" (Stich, Edberg, Becker, Sampras) there were players who could successfully play that style of game. Given Stich's record against Sampras, I think he has more than a clue on how to analyze and implement an appropriate and successful strategy.
Executing that strategy is of course the key to the victory.

LowProfile
06-27-2006, 07:32 AM
Is the current batch of players so bad that they need the previous stars (i.e. Wilander, McEnroe, Stich) to tell them how to beat the current dominating force in men's tennis?

Well now come to think about it, yes they do.

The tennis guy
06-27-2006, 07:58 AM
Simply put Stich is saying you have to play ultra aggressive to have a chance against Federer on grass. Staying back and rallying isn't going to work.
I think it was Brad Gilbert that said you could pass Edberg 19 times in a row and he would still come to the net on the 20th point. That's the kind of game that I think Stich is proposing that could trouble Federer. Problem is nowadays, apart from Henman and a few, no one really possess the skill set to successfully play that game.
I think he correctly asserts that "in his day" (Stich, Edberg, Becker, Sampras) there were players who could successfully play that style of game. Given Stich's record against Sampras, I think he has more than a clue on how to analyze and implement an appropriate and successful strategy.
Executing that strategy is of course the key to the victory.

Not sure if his plan works on today's grass. People who have very good volley like Henman and Ancic don't come in anymore. In his days, it was almost no other strategy besides coming in. The court is so different now. It dictates how people play.

ACE of Hearts
06-27-2006, 08:54 AM
Past players need to put a zip on their lips.Your not longer playing so hush!!!Michael Stich can talk all he want on how he would play Fed, i would take my chances on Fed.

Nyl
06-27-2006, 09:20 AM
mm... it's hard to compare players from one generation from another ...

but i thought fed was the one who ended sampras' era in wimbledon serve-n-volleying ? need more to say ?

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 11:16 AM
I agree with Stich. This has been discussed numerous times on TW board
during last couple of years by many intelligent psoters:
Federer would have problems with 2 types:
1. good lefties and 2. power serve and volleyers. Federer has been lucky
not to have many of these at present time.

One of them, lefty, has been proven by Nadal. But I don't think
he would have to face S&Ver in his career.

Golden Retriever
06-27-2006, 11:22 AM
I agree with Stich. This has been discussed numerous times on TW board
during last couple of years by many intelligent psoters:
Federer would have problems with 2 types:
1. good lefties and power serve and volleyers. 2. Federer has been lucky
not to have many of these at present time.

One of them, lefty, has been proven by Nadal. But I don't think
he would have to face S&Ver in his career.

By that notion Rudseski should own Federer.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 11:47 AM
By that notion Rudseski should own Federer.

yeah, yeah, all S&Ver's are same and all lefties are same....

Brettolius
06-27-2006, 12:07 PM
How come everyone keeps saying serve and vollyers would give him trouble like it is an absolute fact? You ASSUME that they would, depending on their quality, but stop stating it as fact! It hasn't been proven and that's seemingly the the only option left to beat him. Fastdunn, I think we all get it by now, you don't think the players today are as good as the players from the early to mid nineties. OK. You keep harping on that and WE GET IT. But unfortunately this is all we have so quit speculating so much about fantasy matches that are never gonna happen.
And I still say that if Stich or anybody wants to come in all match on this slow grass vs. Fed, then best of luck, but they are gonna get their teeth knocked out.

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 12:18 PM
Fastdunn, I think we all get it by now, you don't think the players today are as good as the players from the early to mid nineties. OK. You keep harping on that and WE GET IT.

No I never meant it. In fact, I clearly stated, many times, it would
be impossible to compare players in different eras.
In fact, I argued against people who are claiming Federer has
weaker competitions in other thread.
This is very wrongful accusations and defamations on what I'm posting.

It's all about the match-ups that I'm getting at.
I mentioned Federer is lucky because he only needs to deal with one style, basleiners
but that does NOT necessarily means he is also lucky in other aspects of competitions.
It's more like Federer fans getting overly sensitive about it
, read too much in-between lines and over-react to it, IMO.

Getting beaten by a power serve-and-volleyers is not a shame.
Even if you're Federer or Sampras or G.O.A.T., there is nothing you can do
if a power S&Ver plays like crazy one day. Why does Federer have to always
win to become G.O.A.T ? What is this irrational followings on Federerism ?

Brettolius
06-27-2006, 12:35 PM
I really don't get into the whole Fed fan, Nadal fan garbage, I leave that for the kiddies, I am a tennis fan. It just seems a vast majority of your posts have to do with so and so from '93 blah blah blah, throw in this match from 1990 whatever and tell me so and so wouldn't beat whoever today. Its not the one post today, just after the millionth time of reading the same insinuations from you it was just grating on me. Hey, I could be wrong, just my own observation.

Brettolius
06-27-2006, 12:36 PM
No offense intended, btw.

!Tym
06-27-2006, 01:19 PM
I think he's right. The courts don't play as fast nor bounce as low as they used to. I would never underestimate Stich at his best against anyone on any surface. This is a guy who mopped the floor with Muster in his prime (a Nadal clone if there ever was one) at the French.

Ljubicic gave Federer major problems on a fast indoor court and the indoor courts, like grass, just don't play nearly as fast as they used too.

With that said, Bruguera thinks Federer is a much better player than Sampras in terms of overall game except the serve, he also matched up well with Sampras, yet he even said that if were on clay at his best and had to face Federer, he would be thinking he would win. Whether he would or not isn't the question, but I can tell you this, just having that mentality could well make a HUGE difference in a competitive match coming down to the wire.

That's the real difference in mentality, the real difference in "quality," from today's players in my opinion. What I believe is that today's top players lack chutzpha, not talent. I mean look at Nalbandian. What does he do that's better than say peak Rios? In my opinion, nothing, not a single darn thing. Yet, he can challenge and occasionally beat Federer, even did it indoors. Why? It's not just match-ups. A HUGE part of it in my opinion is that Nalbandian isn't spooked by Federer, doesn't walk in already defeated like so many of his opponents do. Nadal also doesn't fear Federer. There's a difference between fearing a player, and greatly respecting a player as Nalbandian and Nadal do, heck even a healthy and confident Safin. Guys like Stich and Bruguera were basically half-time players during their day, half-time motivated and in Bruguera's case injury disseased, YET, they also were NOT afraid to take on an "iconic" figure like Sampras either.

Meaning, when Sampras and Bruguera played at the Lipton, they spoke of how Hrbaty had Sampras on the ropes earlier at the Australian but got tight in the end, but that you didn't get the feeling Bruguera would do that here. Why? Because, he's a "real champion this boy." Huh? Half-time player, injured, not even a hard court player, and? Didn't matter. They also knew that *when* he was fully engaged and all there physically and mentally, he had the INTANGIBLE factors you look for in tight matches.

The exact opposite is Moya. Today's top players to me are full of Moya's, Martin's, and Pioline's. Look at Coria, Gaudio...the French final, need I say more? Other than Nadal and Nalbandian, the other top players today, the big difference to me between this generation and the old one is that the old one was full of "half-time champions" as Moose Malloy once wrote.

In other words, and this is my interpretation, guys who *when* they were all there mentally AND physically, they were NOT afraid to take on Sampras. It's not that they didn't respect him, but they weren't afraid of him either.

Stich, Bruguera, Korda, Krajicek, even Muster though he didn't match up well with big servers, etc. Basically to me there were a lot of guys during that era who were in and out due to injuries and/or motivational issues, but when all there, they certainly weren't afraid, didn't mean they'd win, but definitely also not afraid.

To me, today you've got more Kafelnikov types, who may have great games against other top players who are merely just top players passing in the night (think Enqvist or Haas at the Olympics), but for the most part if an "iconic" figure is put in their way, they bow down and pay TOO much deference. You just can't get away with that against iconic figures, it's not even a question. So much of what separates them from most top players who are just passing through isn't just game or talent in my opinion, a lot of if is mental too. You've heard of the phrase, "Walk like a champion, talk like a champion?" That's what I mean. Iconic players have that air about them like a nauseating perfume from a woman born on Rodeo Drive. The cast of "half-time champions" from the old era weren't always factors due to various reasons, but on their day; they could match the iconic players in terms of intangibles and that's all you can ask for when you're talking about *a chance* to scalp an iconic figure. Today's guys don't have that, just as Pioline wasn't afraid of Stich in the semis of Wimbledon, but was of Sampras in the finals, just as Goran wasn't afraid of the clutch against Rafter, but he choked like a dog against Sampras when presented with the opportunity, just as Rafter wasn't afraid of Joe Blow in the clutch, yet he too, like Goran, choked when faced with an opportunity against Sampras in the Wimbledon finals. It's not that iconic figures are always unbeatable, they are. But like in a video game, when you face the "top" guy at the end of the game, the top guy is programmed to fumble for just a split second here or there, he CAN be defeated if you immediately seize these brief openings, but if you're too nervous to take them, too afraid of "da man," it's ALL over. You miss that one glimmer of light, it's like missing the boat, you're stranded and WILL lose. Sampras WILL close it out.

Tennis_Goodness
06-27-2006, 02:50 PM
Federer's going to end up as the best ever, people talk alot of big talk but at the end of the day, Federer's going to be king!

BiGGieStuFF
06-27-2006, 03:09 PM
Federer has such problems with heavy topspin to his backhand? Edberg and his super kick serve and volley would give him problems I bet. But I can only dream of a match up like that. 2 of the most beautiful tennis forms. Well except maybe that chicken wing forehand on edberg *teehee*

fastdunn
06-27-2006, 03:26 PM
I really don't get into the whole Fed fan, Nadal fan garbage, I leave that for the kiddies, I am a tennis fan. It just seems a vast majority of your posts have to do with so and so from '93 blah blah blah, throw in this match from 1990 whatever and tell me so and so wouldn't beat whoever today. Its not the one post today, just after the millionth time of reading the same insinuations from you it was just grating on me. Hey, I could be wrong, just my own observation.

I apologize if my repetition was grating on you. I did not exactly
mean to be repeated on same person, you know.
Although I repeated, I'm sure at least 50%(or more like 90%) of people here
actually never read my postings...

Anyway, I want to make sure you get the right insinuation I intended.
Did you get my idea right this time ?

Kobble
06-27-2006, 03:31 PM
I believe Stich is correct. The thing I never see anyone do is chip and charge on Federer's second serve. NEVER! I know he doesn't have a winning record against Federer, but I still say Krajicek would have pushed him severely on grass when in his prime. He had the forehand to smack winners from the baseline, the chip backhand to counter Federer's slice, the big serve, and the best drop volley I have ever seen when on. You don't get another passing shot against him. He gets his racket on the ball, and it is either pounded away, or dies before you can get there. Ancic should be coming to net on second serves, not hang back and hoping he finds an advantage before him. Keeping the pressure on is a must. Rafter would be another good match for him, and Rafter has a winning record. He just keeps coming, and you know he cannot be intimidated out of his gameplan. People like Rafter, Edberg and Krajicek believe in their volleys. Some other guys you can intimidate into hesitation, or cause a weak volley due to some previous brilliant passing shot. I wish someone would show up with that style and impose it like a champion, I am anxious to see the result.

Jack Romeo
06-27-2006, 09:11 PM
...the big difference to me between this generation and the old one is that the old one was full of "half-time champions" as Moose Malloy once wrote...

you talk about "half time champions" but what exactly does that mean? and with regards to today's players, would you consider safin, gaudio, hewitt, ferrero and roddick as "half-time champions?" why or why not?

jukka1970
06-27-2006, 09:27 PM
I'm sorry but Stich with only one grand slam title trying to say that he would beat Federer, if Federer played in his time, who owns 7 grand slam titles and counting, is beyond absurd.

There was a tiering system that someone came up with in another post instead of ranking players of all time.

Sampras, Federer examples of tier 1
Becker, Edberg examples of tier 2.

This guy wouldn't be any higher then tier 3, so he can dream all he wants, but Federer would have taken him apart.

hoosierbr
06-27-2006, 11:26 PM
Don't know how Edberg isn't in Tier I. 6 Slams plus the finals of the French, one set away from winning and completing the career slam. Sampras made one semi and gave up.

urban
06-28-2006, 12:08 AM
On song, Stich would make a difficult opponent for Fed. Had a great, easy service rhythm, good reach and volleys, and especially a great down the line backhand, which would trouble Federer.

jukka1970
06-28-2006, 03:01 AM
You know what this whole thing that Stich says reminds me of. When Rusedski made some stupid comment about Sampras. I can't remember it exactly something about Sampras was over the hill and that he'd never win another slam, and that He (being Rusedski) could beat him.

I've never been a fan of Sampras, but there's no doubt in my mind that this comment from Rusedski was also beyond absurd.

To me it's the perfect analogy of Stich saying he can beat Federer. One word Bull.

jukka1970
06-28-2006, 03:08 AM
Don't know how Edberg isn't in Tier I. 6 Slams plus the finals of the French, one set away from winning and completing the career slam. Sampras made one semi and gave up.

I actually just took this from the tiering that someone had written, and could only remember Edberg and Becker in tier 2, and didn't wan't to try and open another window to find the other post.

These are actually the two that I'm not sure where'd I put them in tier 1 or 2, but really the point of putting in the tiering thing was to show that Stich wouldn't have even made it into tier 2. And believe me I'm not a Sampras fan (I couldn't stand him), but he has to be in tier 1 for all he did.

brucie
06-28-2006, 03:11 AM
Yes Federer will pass you 4 times of either flank i mean think how many times he hits running bhs (his weak apparently side) banging it down the line landing on the line clean as that, he does it all the time, almost every time, and if you go to forhand he does what he wants!

Verbal_Kint
06-29-2006, 04:34 AM
Stich is not saying he would be beating Federer every time. He's saying hardly anyone (maybe no-one) has a chance on grass from the back of the court. If you want to trouble Federer, you have to do something special. Also, 'Fed ended Sampras' serve & volley reign'. Took him five close sets though, more than he has needed against anyone in his last two defences at the All England..

sliceroni
07-22-2006, 10:45 PM
The only player that I can think of who has credible knowledge of comparison (not just speculation) is Agassi, because he has played in different era's (against McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Edberg, Muster, Sampras) and now against Federer and he says Federer is the best he's ever played against. Agassi mentioned Sampras played you one way, there's a place where you can go with Sampras and have a slight chance but not with Fed. I would listen to Agassi, not Stich who has not played against today's tennis (Stich by the way has never beaten Agassi) What everybody else says is just speculation, it is fun and interesting, but still only speculation. On paper an all-courter or good power s&v game would give Fed more trouble on the speedier grass courts with lighter balls, but you can also argue that Fed does loves pace and a target at net so that would work against his opponents.

sliceroni
07-22-2006, 10:50 PM
Also want to mention that Nadal is not just a good lefty. Way more to it than that, it's his speed, mental tenacity and HEAVY high bouncing spin that makes it difficult to play against. Yeah it doesn't help that's he's a lefty but those other factors that makes it difficult as well, not just because he's a good lefty.

David L
07-23-2006, 04:18 AM
Stich is not saying he would be beating Federer every time. He's saying hardly anyone (maybe no-one) has a chance on grass from the back of the court. If you want to trouble Federer, you have to do something special. Also, 'Fed ended Sampras' serve & volley reign'. Took him five close sets though, more than he has needed against anyone in his last two defences at the All England..

When Federer beat Sampras, he was a shadow of the player he is now.

dmastous
07-23-2006, 04:56 AM
What Stich isn't taking into account is the ability of Federer, and many other players, to hit winners on the dead run, both backhand and forehand. When he beat Becker & Edberg it was a different game. If you hit a shot into the backhand corner the best they could do was try and chip it low down the line or lob it and hope for the best. Now Federer & Nadal (ets al) will not only get there, but they can drive that ball down the line or roll it cross court, or maybe they will hit an offensive topspin lob.
Yes, there is the added pressure of having to pass a guy at the net. You are taking time away and making them rush. But that's only effective at the lower levels. These guys can hit passing shots in their sleep. Their passing instincts are just too good.
I just don't think you can charge the net willy-nilly with todays baseline bashers. Even on grass.