What the 4 Players did to beat Fed that others need to do?

[Mr Topspin]

It's amazing fed finished the year with 81-4. I give him all the credit for that sort of streak. However, its not all doom and gloom for the ATP if you look at what the 4 players that beat Fed had in common to upset the world no 1.

The 4 players namely, Safin, Nadal, Gasquet and Nalbandian all have good all court games. All four utilised all court tactics and came in to the net to finish points off. Both Nalbandian and Safin performed extremely well at the net. So for the next budding giant killer you better brush up on your net play. Nadal and Nalbandian both utilised the drop shot which was able to disrupt Fed's play. Fed tends to hit a lot of underpin BH to draw in players to the net and thus he can hit his patented BH or FH passing shot; Roddick always falls for this and plays into Fed's hands. But both Nalby and Nadal utilised the drop shot on these shots from Fed which totally threw fed off as he was expecting a kamikaze approach shot ala Roddick and was contantly surprised by the backspin dropshot.

All four players are equally strong on both sides and can hit equally well DTL and crosscourt. I believe this is one of the key areas that is needed to beat Fed. Safin, nalbandian and Gasquet can hit glorious BH DTL or crosscourt. This weapon was used well by all three mentioned players and played a big part of there win as the DTL BH if used well can negate the huge Fed FH. Nadal as he is a lefty also score DTL on numerous occassions.

Ironically only Safin has a huge serve out of the quartet but all four players protect there serve so well with their solid groundies. Therefore, it is not a given that a huge serve is needed to get the job done as we see with Fed's success against big servers this year; Roddick and Ljubicic anyone?

So in conclusion, from the results this year if players want to beat Fed in 2006 they will need the following:

SOLID FH AND BH

COMPETENT VOLLEYS

SOLID ALL COURT GAME

COMPETETENT DROP SHOTS

ABILITY TO ATTACK ON BOTH SIDES.

Unfortunately, that rules out a few of the current top ten, namely Hewitt, Roddick, Agassi, Davydenko and Gaudio unless they really improve in 06'.

The reasons are: Roddick (poor volleys and weak BH.

Hewitt: (can't attack effectively on both sides)

Agassi (can't really volley and hates the net)

Davydenko (like Agassi gets a nosebleed at net)

Gaudio (FH can break down and does not have the sting of his BH).

Theres my two cents.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I pretty much agree with you. A player who is similarly strong off both sides from the baseline, and is comfortable transitioning to the forecourt a reasonable amount as well, are definitely essential for players who have even a slim chance to beat Federer. That rules out Hewitt, Roddick, and Agassi though. Also keep in mind Federer has match points in 2 of his 4 losses, and was 2 points away from another. Even if you all those things right you still might lose. I agree those are the tools a player who has a fighting chance has to have though.

 

[Matias]

I agree, i think those things are needed in order to stand a chance against roger. But i think the most important thing is to be consistent all the way from the begining to the end. You can't relax against him.

 

[Match Point]

Excellent assessment on how to beat Fed. I agree. I am kinda of concerned that Fed will be injury prone for 2006 since his ankle seemed not to heal. He's movement in the first round of TMC showed rust, with Coria his movement wasn't that great. It definetly showed again either conditioning or ankle acting up or both at the end. He ran out of gas. If Fed stays healthy, I don't think anyone can touch him in 2006.

 

[35ft6]

To me, these guys are all quite different from each other. I don't look at these four names and see a pattern (of how to beat Federer) emerging at all. And two of his losses were on clay, his weakest surface. Nadal beating him on clay is no surprise at all. Gasquet, is a bit of a surprise but not like Gasquet beating Roger on grass. They're all fabulously talented either physically (Safin, Gasquet, Nadal) and/or mentally (Nadal and Gasquet), but aside from that, no real similarities IMO.

 

[35ft6]

I agree on the down the line thing. Being able to change the direction of the ball effectively against Federer is probably key. With that said, it's equally effective -- no, more effective -- on every other player as well. So nothing new there. Agassi can do it as well as anybody and it didn't help him at the US Open.

edit: at the US Open, what really hurt Agassi was when he suddenly tried to hit through Federer on his serve and groundstrokes... when he was mixing up the pace and height of his serves and groundies, he was very effective against Federer...

 

[Grimjack]

Gasquet beat him the way he's most vulnerable -- by getting to Fed before Fed figures him out. This seems to be the surest way to beat Roger, but also the one most doomed to a lack of long-term success.

Safin beat him by simply playing at his best. And when Safin plays at his best, history shows that there's probably never been anyone alive who can beat him. Of course, he's only played that well a few times in his career, but that's no knock on his Aussie effort. He won because when he's playing his best, he's better than Fed, just as he was better than Sampras when he was playing his best. He'll never be considered a "better player" than either, because he plays that well about one out of every hundred matches. But no sense digging too deep to find out the reasons. It's just the case that when he's firing on all cylinders, strategy becomes irrelevant.

Nadal and Nalbandian beat him because he played like #### -- and he still gave both guys fits.

I saw nothing during the year that screams of vulnerability. Just that he's human, and therefore he has occasional letdowns.

 

[supremebeing]

Keys to sucess against the Rog

Play with inspiration without any lapses. Use all available shots. Get him when he is rusty, bored, and injured. Don't **** him off. (That leads to disaster, look at hewitt.) After all he has to lose sometime, just hope you are in front of him when he does.

 

[pound cat]

Playing Federer is like playing chess. Talent + smarts wins. Game plan helps. Get him while he's down..marginal help.

 

[ondray]

I guess it takes an all courter to beat another all courter.

 

[35ft6]

Gasquet beat him the way he's most vulnerable -- by getting to Fed before Fed figures him out. This seems to be the surest way to beat Roger, but also the one most doomed to a lack of long-term success.

If Agassi (Agassi was owning him for about a set and a half at the US Open...) and Nadal are any indication, off speed shots mixed in with penetrating ones, mixing up the height and pace of shots seems to give Roger problems when he's not at or above 95%. Arbitrary number, yeah, but I've also seen Roger destroy guys who try to play a Greg Maddux style of tennis, so it's definitely not a surefire way of beating him.

 

[InTheFlesh_not]

Random players have troubled Federer this year who did'nt have all the "must-have" characteristics to beat him. E.g. Soderling came very close at Halle. The match ended in a final set tie-breaker. Ferrero who is a sub-par volleyer had match-points in Dubai. Ivo Minar also took him to a final set breaker a match earlier. Gonzalez came close in Monte Carlo. Who knows what may have happened had Agassi closed out the 4-2 game at the US Open.
I suppose the result depends on that particular day. Sometimes even pros do n not have all thier shots working and it depends if the other player can expose those not-so-strong/weak points. Federer at times can get quite erratic and blow away a lead. Though I do agree that being an all-courter is a plus against Federer. Kiefer is a good example. Too bad he is not mentally strong enough.

 

[Phil]

A Federer article from the British Press:


Federer defies his own belief
By Mark Hodgkinson in Shanghai
(Filed: 22/11/2005)
Though his year may have ended with defeat, a five-set epic against Argentina's David Nalbandian in the final of the Masters Cup on Sunday night, Roger Federer said yesterday that the result had not taken the edge off what he described as "an incredible season" during which he had occasionally "felt invincible".
A modest man, Federer did not mean to sound boastful when he said there were times when he sensed that he was unplayable and unbeatable. That was simply the truth for much of the 2005 calendar, and if Federer did not always believe in his aura of invincibility, the rest of the locker room probably did. The shock felt here after Federer's defeat, only his fourth of the season, showed what he has achieved. A Federer match is newsworthy enough if he drops just the one set, and if he loses then planet tennis is jolted from its orbit.
"The year was just incredible because I went on so many winning streaks and I hardly lost a match. I know, looking back at the year, that there were definitely times when I felt invincible. That is a very hard feeling for a tennis player to get," Federer said.
The 24-year-old Swiss was understandably proud of what he managed with the cultured swishes of his racket. He finished as the year-end world No 1, won 11 titles, including defending his Wimbledon and US Open crowns, and came within one win of replicating John McEnroe's Open era record, set in 1984, of 82 victories and three defeats in a year. Before Sunday's 7-6, 7-6, 2-6, 1-6, 6-7 defeat, Federer had been on a 35-match unbeaten streak, and had won his previous 24 finals.
But there was more to Federer this season than just cold statistics. In the minutes after the US Open final in September, the beaten finalist, Andre Agassi, argued that Federer was "the best ever". There could be no finer compliment from within the locker room. As Agassi said, Federer plays with an extraordinary class and flair. As well as pleasing the statisticians, Federer also keeps the aesthetes purring. His tennis is a thing of beauty, a rarity in a sport filled with baseline sluggers.
Perhaps the only slight quibble is that last year Federer won three grand slam titles - the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open - while this season he managed only two. He also failed to defend the Masters Cup title. But such talk would be unfair on Federer. "I guess last year was better, as I won three grand slams, but I think it would be difficult to have more success than I did last year," Federer said.
If Federer lost a match this season, he never did so easily. His first defeat of the year came against Marat Safin, the eventual champion, in the semi-finals of the Australian Open. He held a match point but instead of tracking back and playing a regular groundstroke when he was lobbed, he attempted to play a trick shot through his legs. Maybe it showed that even a tennis genius can have moments of gross stupidity.
Federer's second defeat was in the quarter-finals of the clay-court event in Monte Carlo when he was visibly tired and Frenchman Richard Gasquet was hitting every shot bang off the sweet spot. But even then Federer held three match points.
The third defeat was to Rafael Nadal, the Spanish teenager, in the semi-finals of the French Open. Like Safin, Nadal was celebrating his birthday on the day he defeated Federer and had a strong sense of occasion.
Federer's main priorities next season are to remain as the world No 1, claim a fourth successive Wimbledon title and win the French Open for the first time.
Federer already has six grand slam titles, and the debate about his place in history could start to become quite meaningful if he achieves his aims for 2006. "There are still plenty of things that I would like to achieve in my career," Federer said, which sounded ominous for the other players.

 

[VictorS.]

I think that is essentially the ingredients to challenge Club Fed. A strong backhand is a must in addition to an all-court game as well. Unfortunately, besides the guys who have beaten him, I really don't see anyone else with all the qualities you just mentioned. Maybe JC Ferrero if he ever gets back into top form? Perhaps Blake as well if his backhand continues to be a weapon like it was at Flushing Meadows.

 

[bluegrasser]

The dropper ! I think DN won because he brought Federer into the net with balls he couldn't put away/

 

[spinbalz]

He won because when he's playing his best, he's better than Fed, just as he was better than Sampras when he was playing his best.

You are free to have your own opinion, let me just say, that you present it more like a fact than just your opinion. I think you already guessed I disagree with your statement, but it is only my opinion also...

 

[spinbalz]

I guess it takes an all courter to beat another all courter.

Nadal and Nalby are not allcourters.

 

[nswelshman]

Nadal and Safin were at their best on their best surfaces- Fed was beaten by these two because they are players who can play at and beyond Federer's level on occasion.

Nalbandian got Federer out of form, matchplay and fitness, whilst playing with everything he had. The next time they play, Fed will exert his dominance again.

Gasquet got Federer exhausted after the month in the desert, where Gasquet played inspired tennis hitting all his big shots all the time.

Lesson from all this? Safin and Nadal are the only two current players with the skills to match Federer when they and Fed are at their best. Everyone else to win needs to get Federer either injured, exhausted, out of match play and they have to play the match of their lives...

 

[35ft6]

From Tennis.com:

Those four slip-ups came against Marat Safin, Richard Gasquet, Nadal, and now Nalbandian. Does that lineup tell us anything about what it takes to beat Federer? Two possibilities emerge: (1) Other than Safin, these players don’t have huge serves. It isn’t essential because, no matter how much pace you generate, Federer gets more of them back than any other player. (2) What does seem essential is having a very strong ground stroke on your left-hand side, which allows you to counter Federer’s most important shot, his inside-out forehand. That’s the backhand side for Safin, Gasquet, and Nalbandian, and each of them is outstanding from that wing (another player with an excellent backhand, Ivan Ljubicic, nearly beat Federer in the round robin last week). That’s the forehand side for the lefty Nadal, and we know how good he is with that shot. It’s telling that Federer says he doesn’t like to play Nadal primarily because he’s left-handed.

Oh, one other thing: It helps to play the match of your life (only Nadal didn’t). Last week Nalbandian began to tree in his round-robin match against Ljubicic and never came down.

 

[Galactus]

'What the 4 Players did to beat Fed that others need to do?'

Ensure that:
a) Federer has been on crutches due to injury just three weeks earlier, then...
b) try and take the match over 3-4 hrs in duration which will...
c) inflame the Fededer injury again.

Simple logic.

 

[ondray]

Nadal and Nalby are not allcourters.

Ok, wrong guess.

 

[janipyt05]

'What the 4 Players did to beat Fed that others need to do?'

Ensure that:
a) Federer has been on crutches due to injury just three weeks earlier, then...
b) try and take the match over 3-4 hrs in duration which will...
c) inflame the Fededer injury again.

Simple logic.

hmmmm fed was not on crutches wen safin beat him nor when gasquet and nadal beat him

Are u implying that feds is not fit. Thats a bit much

Injury yea well if he was not fit he shouldn't hav shown if, he played so that simply goes out the window, u cant then use that excuse, wat would u say if fed won would u say he won becasue he was injured No, so y use it becasue he lost.

The players that beat fed didnt fear him, they knew what they needed to do and beat him and didn't fear he best shots. The confidence they had helped them believe they could win. Feds never gets to show his weakness because he never gets tested but with these 4 ppl managed to show his weakness and take advantage. There is no science to it.

 

[Galactus]

hmmmm fed was not on crutches wen safin beat him nor when gasquet and nadal beat him

Are u implying that feds is not fit. Thats a bit much

Injury yea well if he was not fit he shouldn't hav shown if, he played so that simply goes out the window, u cant then use that excuse, wat would u say if fed won would u say he won becasue he was injured No, so y use it becasue he lost.

The players that beat fed didnt fear him, they knew what they needed to do and beat him and didn't fear he best shots. The confidence they had helped them believe they could win. Feds never gets to show his weakness because he never gets tested but with these 4 ppl managed to show his weakness and take advantage. There is no science to it.

Yeah, I was pushing the injury-issue a bit!
I hope what you say is true: tennis would be damaged if Federer were to have a run like he's had throughout 2006-2010.

Him losing is a good thing - I hope the rest of the ATP now 'up' their game accordingly...

 

[janipyt05]

its only 4 loses with massive gapes bewteen each loss, i think ppl are worrying over nothing unless they really actually want feds to lose in some twisted way.

It makes good tennis for ppl to catch up which mind u they still hav a bit to go b4 they even get to half way, I hate to say this because it almost bares no comparison but this is close, look at the william's sisters the time when all the had to do was walk on court and the others would get blown of court but now look at the womens game u can't say only 1 person will dominate. Which is good for the game, its great wat feds has done and he will continue to do for a while i cant see feds losing all the time suddenly.

pls folks dont get on me for the willimas comparison i know the mens game it different i couldn't find anything close 2 it.

 

[Rabbit]

I think the answer may lie in phonetics. You see, each of the four players who beat Federer have an even number of syllables in their names. Federer has an odd number. The first three players to beat him have two syllables each. The last has four syllables, but this is easily explainable as it was the last match of the year. Federer will not lose to anyone with an odd number of syllables in his name. A good example of this is Agassi. Agassi has come close, but just can't get over that last vowel. Using this method, we can see that there are some players with a chance to dethrone him.

Four matches in a year? What does it take to beat Federer? I don't think that Jose Higueras is scouring the world for a prototype player right now. I think he lost four matches because he's almost human. Federer is still adding to his game, most notably the drop shot that he has implemented. He's got Roche in his corner as well.

 

[Grimjack]

You are free to have your own opinion, let me just say, that you present it more like a fact than just your opinion. I think you already guessed I disagree with your statement, but it is only my opinion also...

We've only seen Safin play his best a handful of times. His scatterbrained head, or lack of focus, or whatever you want to call it is renowned for disallowing it most of the time. But the USO final against Sampras was one of those times. And Sampras might as well have been a big-serving 6.0. He had no more shot out there than the 200th ranked guy would have. He was thoroughly outclassed.

We've seen Safin really "on" only a handful of times, but he's collected the heads of some GOAT candidates during those few times. And on the biggest stages, where those guys were supposed to be at their most invunlnerable. He didn't do it when those guys came onto the court doomed to play like hell. He took their best, and he said, "I've got more than that." In Pete's case, when he faced Safin on one of those on days, Safin proved to have way more.

So of course I presented it more like a fact than opinion. It is, naturally, my opinion, but it's far more than "just" an opinion. Because the observational evidence is borderline conclusive. It's my opinion that an MIT physics prof is likely to score better on a mathematics exam than a 3rd grader. Still a matter of opinion, ultimately, and entirely dependent on how you define "better", but to hold the contrary opinion would be absurd, and I'd be damn likely to present that opinion as fact as well.

Here are some more opinions:

- No player will go undefeated the entire 2006 season.
- Taylor Dent will not win the French.
- Quito, Ecuador, will not have over 100 inches of snowfall next year.
- The ancient Egyptian gods will not return to Earth, pissed that they've been forsaken, and exact bloody revenge from the whole human race for our infidelity.

All just opinions, mind you. Sorry if they come off as facts.

Sort of like the first one. The whole point of which was, there's no point trying to gather any important strategic data on Fed's weaknesses from this loss to Safin. Here, he lost to a guy who absolutely smoked Sampras in the USO final, in Pete's prime. A loss to an in-form Safin is like a loss to an in-form McEnroe in his prime must have been. When you lose, you don't lose sleep wondering what went wrong. You accept that you were opposite a tennis god at the height of his powers on that day, and you move along.

 

[doriancito]

federer is not super human....he is a complete player...no matter were you play him at he will respond...thats why you need to get him into a timing....for about 5 secs...then you rush up the next ball and you make him lsoe it....or play like gay nadal....he just responds all fed balls and makes fed try to make a winner and loses it

 

[callitout]

Although the best Safin is amazing, on his very best day Fed is just as good. IMO Fed has to be a little off to be beaten. Though at his peak Safin is close. But when Fed is at his best serving, there's really no hope against his serve. And 7/10 times I'll take Fed over Safin when theyre both playing well.

 

[spinbalz]

We've only seen Safin play his best a handful of times. His scatterbrained head, or lack of focus, or whatever you want to call it is renowned for disallowing it most of the time. But the USO final against Sampras was one of those times. And Sampras might as well have been a big-serving 6.0. He had no more shot out there than the 200th ranked guy would have. He was thoroughly outclassed.

We've seen Safin really "on" only a handful of times, but he's collected the heads of some GOAT candidates during those few times. And on the biggest stages, where those guys were supposed to be at their most invunlnerable. He didn't do it when those guys came onto the court doomed to play like hell. He took their best, and he said, "I've got more than that." In Pete's case, when he faced Safin on one of those on days, Safin proved to have way more.

So of course I presented it more like a fact than opinion. It is, naturally, my opinion, but it's far more than "just" an opinion. Because the observational evidence is borderline conclusive. It's my opinion that an MIT physics prof is likely to score better on a mathematics exam than a 3rd grader. Still a matter of opinion, ultimately, and entirely dependent on how you define "better", but to hold the contrary opinion would be absurd, and I'd be damn likely to present that opinion as fact as well.

Here are some more opinions:

- No player will go undefeated the entire 2006 season.
- Taylor Dent will not win the French.
- Quito, Ecuador, will not have over 100 inches of snowfall next year.
- The ancient Egyptian gods will not return to Earth, pissed that they've been forsaken, and exact bloody revenge from the whole human race for our infidelity.

All just opinions, mind you. Sorry if they come off as facts.

Sort of like the first one. The whole point of which was, there's no point trying to gather any important strategic data on Fed's weaknesses from this loss to Safin. Here, he lost to a guy who absolutely smoked Sampras in the USO final, in Pete's prime. A loss to an in-form Safin is like a loss to an in-form McEnroe in his prime must have been. When you lose, you don't lose sleep wondering what went wrong. You accept that you were opposite a tennis god at the height of his powers on that day, and you move along.

All your what you say about "look at what happens when Safin plays his best, so he is obviously the best when he plays his best", is almost pointless, because the few big wins were not obtained against players who played their best, let's take what we can call the best best days of Safin life <US-Open Final against Sampras, Aus-Open Semi-final against fed>, can you say that his opponants also had the 2 best days of their life that same days? Obvioulsy no, so Safins victories truely don't say if he is the best when at his best. I'd even had that Safin just defeated a sub par Sampras (way past his prime and best years, and tired from the few rounds before), and also a sub par Federer (foot injured).

So the only way to see who plays the best at his best level, is to have 2 players facing each other on a day where they both have one of their best days, and it did not happened during the US-Open final against Sampras, and the AUS-Open Final against Federer, which are probably the matches that you have for reference when you think about Safin at his best. I'd even add that I saw plenty of matches where a focused, determined, and on fire Safin still finally lost against an opponant who simply played better (most of matches between Safin and Federer, Safin was clearly focused and brought his A game, but still lost most of these matches against Federer).

So truely you have to accept that your opinion is only an opinion like mine, no more, no less, and not a fact in any way.

The whole point of which was, there's no point trying to gather any important strategic data on Fed's weaknesses from this loss to Safin. Here, he lost to a guy who absolutely smoked Sampras in the USO final, in Pete's prime

Wake up Grimjack, Sampras was clearly past his prime when he lost the 2000 US-open final against Safin, and it is not just my opinion, it is a fact, everybody with a brain and who follows tennis since the early 90' knows that, just check Sampras career records if you doubt it. Stating that Sampras was in his prime during the year 2000, is just ridiculous, and you lost all credibility by stating something like that, sorry.

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

If the Australian Open semis was Safin's best, it in no way shows Safin is gauranteed to beat Federer whenever he plays extremely well, it only shows he is one of the few people, perhaps the best on non-clay surfaces, to have any chance at all vs an even reasonably in form Federer. People forget that in that match Federer had the better stats, more winners, fewer unforced errors, more points won, and still lost. Federer had a match point in the 4th set tiebreaker, the match was nip and tuck the whole way, and could have either way. One different shot choice, one different placement, could have changed the result. That match does not even come close to showing Safin at his best is a sure beat to beat Federer, even if you believe Federer was playing his best that day(which some have opined wasnt anyway).

 

[federerhoogenbandfan]

I'd even add that I saw plenty of matches where a focused, determined, and on fire Safin still finally lost against an opponant who simply played better (most of matches between Safin and Federer, Safin was clearly focused and brought his A game, but still lost most of these matches against Federer).

So truely you have to accept that your opinion is only an opinion like mine, no more, no less, and not a fact in any way.

You are right, and a good example of that is the indoor season of 2004. Safin did play his best that entire indoor season, he was on fire, determined, overpowering, focused, and hungry. He ended up with Two Masters titles indoors, the only two Masters events indoors, Madrid and Paris as a result. He still lost twice to Andy Roddick(semis of Bangkok, round robin of year-end Masters), and once to Federer(semis of year-end Masters), in fact was a combined 0-3 vs those two players, and 2-3 when you add his head to heads with Hewitt and Agassi that fall to it. At his best Safin is brilliant, exceptional, extremely dangerous, and capable of huge titles. However he is not completely unbeatable even at his best, as much as some people seem to have that perception.

 

[spinbalz]

AUs-Open 2005 1/2 final, Safin on fire and playing his best wins a 5 sets match and save match point against a handicaped Federer (it is notorious that Federer had a slight foo injury and felt some arm soreness). So it absolutlely does not say that Safin at his best is the best player possible, it rather says that even when he plays his absolute best, Safin is still in danger against a handicaped Federer... Conclusion Federer at his best should be better than Safin at his best.

 

[legolas]

what they did was play beter than roger

 

[156MPHserve]

The year was just one match too many... otherwise I think Fed may have been able to pull a win from the 5th set.

However, I remembered something Agassi said about playing Fed. Every point is a big point. If you're even ahead a point, that's good because every single point counts... you just never know when he'll turn on his game and destroy you.

Also, the thing you need to beat Fed... that's basically saying you need to play like Fed consistently throughout the whole match. Which means being able to do everything in tennis.

 

[opiate]

What they did was capitalise on every possible opportunity that presents itself. It's a blink and you miss it affair, all the way.

It's knowing when not to blink, and make it happen.

Having a good-sized arsenal of tennis weapons (and that includes the body and the mind) helps too.

 

[Xevoius]

I like the blink and miss it observation.

I think you have to stay as focused as Federer is the entire match and even if you are getting served a beating, you have to stay in the match down to the very last point.

Once the Federer's opponents get frustrated, it is usually where they pass the point of no return and lose all chances of winning.

 

[mctennis]

Getting Federer OUT of his comfort zone and NOT letting him set up is the key. If you keep him moving and upset his rhythm of his shots he can't get set up very well. Knocking off shots at the net upsets him too. You can't give him an opening either if you do he'll make you pay. Cut his angles away and he's more playable NOT vulnerable BUT playable. IMHO

 

[bb47]

I think that in most cases Fed needs to be a bit off the boil to be defeated by anyone right now. Safin might be an exception as he is able to apply constant pressure while maintaining a solid all court game. At his best he can keep hitting early, heavy groundstrokes right to the baseline. Last year in Australia he managed to push Fed far behind the baseline and Fed got frustrated and eventually crumbled. Roger does not like it. With most heavy hitting guys Fed finds his way out easily. Safin has something in his game ( well, power + skill, what else) that allows him at his very best to control the rallies and the rhythm. And Fed likes it even less.