PDA

View Full Version : Why don't they S&V, chip&charge against Federer?


fastdunn
06-28-2006, 11:24 AM
99.9% of players have nearly 0% chances against Federer from
baseline anyway.

Chip&charge off of Federer's 1st serve or something like that.
Something wildely different. They are not going to beat Federer
from baseline anyway... Frankly, it's almost mysteric.

Just happy to be humiliated by bagel scores from baseline ?

Bogie
06-28-2006, 11:29 AM
because he has one of if not the best passing shots in the game and hes deadly accurate when he hits them. when hes playing well, either way, your getting humiliated whether your on the baseline, 10 feet behind it, or at the net.

subtleskeptics
06-28-2006, 11:31 AM
99.9% of players have nearly 0% chances against Federer from
baseline anyway.

Chip&charge off of Federer's 1st serve or something like that.
Something wildely different. They are not going to beat Federer
from baseline anyway... Frankly, it's almost mysteric.

Just happy to be humiliated by bagel scores from baseline ?

Much easier said than done...

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 11:36 AM
I know it's tough but do they have any other option?
99.9% of them keep losing to Federer from baseline.

If I were Henman, I would chip and charge both 1st and 2nd serve
(like his coach Annacone).

You get bageled from baseline anyway. Is there anything
they lose via playing this way ???

ACE of Hearts
06-28-2006, 11:39 AM
I rather see Roger chip and charge, so he can make it even more easier.He has the game on grass for it but he hasnt doned it as much.

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 11:39 AM
because he has one of if not the best passing shots in the game and hes deadly accurate when he hits them. when hes playing well, either way, your getting humiliated whether your on the baseline, 10 feet behind it, or at the net.

Yeah, that's my point. You lose either way, why not trying different thing?
It's mind-boggling no one at least try it and keep getting beaten like
a drum, again and again. And they call themselves a professional...

edberg505
06-28-2006, 11:41 AM
I know it's tough but do they have any other option?
99.9% of them keep losing to Federer from baseline.

If I were Henman, I would chip and charge both 1st and 2nd serve
(like his coach Annacone).

You get bageled from baseline anyway. Is there anything
they lose via playing this way ???


Being a S&Ver myself, I think it's far more humiliating to be passed time and time again. And like one of the previous posters here said, he can do it with staggering accuracy. You would have to have a Sampras like game to even hope to stay close to Federer S&Ving.

The tennis guy
06-28-2006, 11:43 AM
It's a tough decision. If you abondon your game completely, you pretty much are defeated already. I am not sure about chip and charge off Federer's first serve, it is worth a try on Federer's second serve for someone like Henman. But for other players who are not comfortable at net, the score would be worse if they come in too much. Annacone was a very good volleyer.

ACE of Hearts
06-28-2006, 11:45 AM
Hey Edberg, i an also a serve and volley player, i have had passing shots go by me but thats the case when u serve and volley.Henman used to beat Roger but Roger has figured him out.

ATXtennisaddict
06-28-2006, 11:45 AM
one of my favorite fed shots is the one-hand backhand crosscourt dipper that passes the netplayer. The angle's so sharp and it just dips after crossing the net.

newnuse
06-28-2006, 11:46 AM
It makes sense. You can't beat Federer playing his own game, from the baseline. The only chance would be to attack the net and force him to make great passing shots all day long.

Trying to beat Federer at his own game on grass is not very smart. Force the action, put pressure on Fed to make great shots... the only real chance. Unfortunately, I don't see any great S&V types playing these days.

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 12:06 PM
It's a tough decision. If you abondon your game completely, you pretty much are defeated already. I am not sure about chip and charge off Federer's first serve, it is worth a try on Federer's second serve for someone like Henman. .

That's what Chang did against Sampras. Chang was getting
humilated repeatedly after Sampras turned the table in 1994(?) US Open.

One day, Chang had enough of it, he chip and charged Sampras's
1st serve at semi-final of Master final (this was indoor carpet !).
That surprised Sampras. Chang ended up winning that 1 particular
match(he wouldn't be able to do it consistently) and went on to
the final of master's cup with Becker that year...

snoflewis
06-28-2006, 12:36 PM
99.9% of players have nearly 0% chances against Federer from
baseline anyway.

Chip&charge off of Federer's 1st serve or something like that.
Something wildely different. They are not going to beat Federer
from baseline anyway... Frankly, it's almost mysteric.

Just happy to be humiliated by bagel scores from baseline ?

happy to be humiliated by bagel scores from baseline? federer bageled henman and he's a S&Ver. he picked apart the guy that said he had a "chance" against federer and was convinced that he could beat him....

moral of the day: S&V does not work against federer

The tennis guy
06-28-2006, 12:53 PM
That's what Chang did against Sampras. Chang was getting
humilated repeatedly after Sampras turned the table in 1994(?) US Open.

One day, Chang had enough of it, he chip and charged Sampras's
1st serve at semi-final of Master final (this was indoor carpet !).
That surprised Sampras. Chang ended up winning that 1 particular
match(he wouldn't be able to do it consistently) and went on to
the final of master's cup with Becker that year...

I don't remember the match. I doubt Chang could chip and charge on Sampras' first serve unless Sampras didn't serve well.

Looked at the stat of that match in 1995, Sampras served 50% first serve, won 83% first serve point (25/30), obviously Chang didn't have success on chip and charge Sampras first serve. Sampras only won 42% second serve points. So Chang might have success on chip and charge Sampras' second serve. So the key was Sampras didn't serve well in that match, key #1. The other key stat off that match was Sampras only won 29% return point of Chang serve. So he didn't return well in that match, key #2. Was it because Chang chip and charge? I doubt it.

psp2
06-28-2006, 01:08 PM
RF moves his service locations very well. it's tough to c&c with kicking serves even if it's 2nd serves. Henman is great at c&c, but he'll get passed by more than win points, imo.

KBalla08
06-28-2006, 01:16 PM
happy to be humiliated by bagel scores from baseline? federer bageled henman and he's a S&Ver. he picked apart the guy that said he had a "chance" against federer and was convinced that he could beat him....

moral of the day: S&V does not work against federer
henman played alrite in the 1st set, and he didnt really S&V. for some reason he did in the 2nd and got bageld...

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 01:50 PM
I don't remember the match. I doubt Chang could chip and charge on Sampras' first serve unless Sampras didn't serve well.

Looked at the stat of that match in 1995, Sampras served 50% first serve, won 83% first serve point (25/30), obviously Chang didn't have success on chip and charge Sampras first serve. Sampras only won 42% second serve points. So Chang might have success on chip and charge Sampras' second serve. So the key was Sampras didn't serve well in that match, key #1. The other key stat off that match was Sampras only won 29% return point of Chang serve. So he didn't return well in that match, key #2. Was it because Chang chip and charge? I doubt it.

It was just one time act. I'm not saying Chang chaip-and-charged
Sampras' 1st serve all the time in that match. He just tried to do it just couple of times just to disrupt the rythm and pattern.
I don't think he actually won much points off of it.

Again, point was there was no point for chang to stay defensive
and get beaten like a drum by Sampras any more.
Chang took a "chance" in that 1 particular match and
he got what he wanted.

I think everybody except Nadal and maybe Nalbandian
is in same shoes as Chang's against Sampras at that time...

textbook strokes
06-28-2006, 01:54 PM
It makes sense. You can't beat Federer playing his own game, from the baseline. The only chance would be to attack the net and force him to make great passing shots all day long.

Trying to beat Federer at his own game on grass is not very smart. Force the action, put pressure on Fed to make great shots... the only real chance. Unfortunately, I don't see any great S&V types playing these days.

I completely agree... .To be an effective S&V player you need a reliable and hard enough serve, wich Heman lacks. Roddick has a huge service, but lacks the basics at the net. Rog is so damn good :mad: !!. Maybe Wimbledon could convince Patrick Rafter to come back :rolleyes: .

jasonbourne
06-28-2006, 03:41 PM
Federer is *unbeatable* when his 1st serve is above 50% because he wins around 80% of those points.
It is worse that he wins over 60% of his 2nd serve points. He can still win without his first serve! That is intimidating.
With these numbers the competition has a very slim chance of stopping Federer from lifting the championship's trophy.

edberg505
06-28-2006, 05:49 PM
I completely agree... .To be an effective S&V player you need a reliable and hard enough serve, wich Heman lacks. Roddick has a huge service, but lacks the basics at the net. Rog is so damn good :mad: !!. Maybe Wimbledon could convince Patrick Rafter to come back :rolleyes: .

The serve doesn't necessarily have to be big; look at Edberg and Rafter. But the serve has to have damn good placement. If I had a choice of a pro's serve I wouldn't pick Roddick. I'd go with somebody like Pim Pim or Karlovic. Heck I would take Ljubicic's serve over Roddick. I think Karlovic has the tools to be a really good S&Ver. The only thing he is lacking is movement.

fastdunn
06-28-2006, 06:49 PM
My point here is that everybody is in a situation that you'll
have to do something other than baseline game against Federer
whether you're Edberg or not.

Everybody's stake is so low compared to Federer's, they just
have to do "all in" to have any chance against him....

OrangeOne
06-28-2006, 07:11 PM
The serve doesn't necessarily have to be big; look at Edberg and Rafter. But the serve has to have damn good placement.

It all depends on what you refer to as big!

They both had big serves - in terms of work on the ball big. Big, looping kickers that gave them plenty of time to get in to the net, and forced the returner into hitting a weaker return from above shoulder-high.

The plenty of time thing is really important, anyone can try this even if they don't have a kick serve - just slow down your serve (place it well, as edberg505 says), and see how the extra time benefits you getting into the net. Also means the other player has to generate the pace themself, difficult esp. if they were expecting to return a faster serve by using your pace!

superman1
06-28-2006, 07:48 PM
You need a perfect serve and perfect volleys. On the points that Henman did get to net, his volleys usually weren't good enough. They sat up and Federer tracked them down. The drop volleys have to be perfect, the volley winners need to be perfect. You can't allow anything to sit up. Then you've got a shot. Much easier said than done, but there have been a number of players in the past who could have done it.

th41291
06-29-2006, 11:37 AM
one of my favorite fed shots is the one-hand backhand crosscourt dipper that passes the netplayer. The angle's so sharp and it just dips after crossing the net.

that's what gonzalez did to safin today.

araghava
06-29-2006, 11:41 AM
Check out this blog from Peter Bodo. It's a great article on why S&V might work against Federer.

http://www.tennis.com/blogs/tennisworld/entry.asp?ENTRY_ID=957

morten
06-30-2006, 12:14 AM
did you even see the match? Henman hardly approached the net!

shawn1122
06-30-2006, 09:49 AM
Does Mirnyi fit this description?

psp2
06-30-2006, 01:02 PM
Does Mirnyi fit this description?

perhaps, if and ONLY if max's 1st serve % is high. Fed took care of MM quite easily at the AO '06.

arnz
06-30-2006, 03:21 PM
I agree that people have to do something different against Fed to disrupt his rhythm. I've read somewhere that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result

Losing is losing, whether you lose the match from the baseline or at net, so why not try something different. People who say it wouldnt work are basically just saying give up to everyone out there. Let them attack and be positive, if they still get beat, then at least they know they gave it their all and werent afraid of moving forward and challenging Fed.