I clearly never said this was a main tactic, or even suggested that it was. So it seems to me that you realized right there that you were putting words in my mouth again.
Again? I warned you in advance that your contention should be put into perspective should you disagree with what I was saying my understanding about what your conversation was about (as outlined in my warning in post #18). You tried to get out of it, by in fact claiming that that was a talk about very
important tactic that you simply addressed. Since I asked you to prove your contention you even tried by providing posts that supposedly proved your point. I had to point out to you that you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued the importance the posters were attributing to that tactic
as opposed to what you were saying (i.e. that the posters were including it only as an element of a diversified approach as opposed to your contention that they meant it as a major point (copious amounts, hehe)).
In short: you talked about it as an answer to what you considered to be a major tactical point, so you considered it such. Your conversation in this thread with the other poster was as of such, so nothing indicates anything different. You wanted to sound smart.
It did not give him an advantage - that much is clear. The problem was many times it put Fed at a disadvantage in what was originally a neutral rally.
Jeebus. MOST OF THE TIME THE SLICE IS USED AS A DEFENSIVE SHOT (caps in the hope that this time it can get through your thick skull). Your contention that it was used as a
neutral rally shot, isn't even applicable for most cases when it is used. He WAS in disadvantage in overwhelming majority of the cases when he used it, that is why he used it (as another poster already addressed you, but you don't seem to take a hint or intentionally pretend to not understand). Also, you repeat like a parrot that it put him in disadvantage: you need to substantiate your claim: how did you know that he wasn't limiting Djokovic's options to unwind his more potent weapons by doing just that? I already gave you two examples of why that might be the case.
At first, you could think he succeeded in preventing Djokovic from going DTL with his BH. But I've watched all of Djokovic's matches in the tournament and he hasn't really been hitting that shot with any kind of authority. So in reality, Fed suppressed a shot that wasn't really there to begin with.
Really, Djokovic's DTL "wasn't there"? One of his signature shots with which he punished many of his most difficult opponents including Nadal?
I don't believe Fed was very successful in this regard, because that's exactly what happened anyway in many of those rallies.
I don't take seriously your statements about "many of anything" any more as it looks like you use it absolutely randomly with no substance whatsoever. I also know for a fact that you use it as a getaway card when you can't prove anything.
And what was the purpose of the slice DTL to Djokovic's forehand? Because that's the one I was criticizing the most when I made my first post.
Looking for a change of pace when Federer thought that he is in good position to play on his FH. Change when his BH is getting tentative.
I made an argument along the lines of "player X wins his matches despite having a poor BH return" and you claimed there is no such thing - all his shots are part of his game and the reason why he wins or loses matches
So, I was right that you don't even present the statement in its true context. The summation of the game is what wins or loses matches,
it pertains to the end result, not that players don't have strengths and weaknesses (that would be absolutely absurd). That is kindergarten level of representation of what I said.
It's very simple. In any match you can look at things that worked well (the positives), and things that didn't (the negatives). Sometimes the negatives are immediately obvious, and can be pointed to as the reason why you lost the match. Of course it isn't clear cut, because generally the pros are not going to execute any one thing so abysmally that it outright cost them match.
But as an example in this match, Djokovic's biggest problem was his return of serve, specially in the first 3.5 sets. He could not put any pressure on the Federer serve and allowed him to comfortably settle into the match. And even though Djokovic won the match, this still holds true. The return sucked for the most part. Same thing with Fed's slices. It was largely ineffective - him getting to 2 MP doesn't change that.
If you claim that you were talking about only the few instances where Federer was using the slice as an effort to gain an advantage, your claim is largely a figment of your own imagination. I don't think that you are able to make a call like that, seeing that you don't even make a difference between a slice borne out of necessity and one aimed to "create and advantage". Not only that, but you don't even properly analyse the the situations where he DID use it to change pace and patterns. The deficiency was not in the tactic, but in the execution, to be precise, that his FH was beyond atrocious with which Djokovic has almost nothing to do. One has to see the amount of UE on that wing to realise that Djokovic got away with it because Federer's FH wasn't clicking. Announcing as ineffective the slice because of it is something I already talked about when I told you that you are unable to comprehend the influence of the other parts of the game on the estimate about the effectiveness of the tactic.
Look at any of the neutral rallies where Fed introduced a slice BH. If the rally started to swing in Fed's favor, then it was good. If it remained neutral, it's a wash. If it swung in Djokovic's favor, it was bad. Add up all the instances of the slice and look at the balance sheet.
It is your claim. Provide the details.
Even after I pointed out the two are not connected, you are conflating two separate arguments I made. One, that Fed's slice was ineffective. Two, forum goers believe the slice to be a magic bullet against Djokovic.
I am not conflating anything. You
tried to conflate them by saying that his supposed ineffectiveness is the proof that they are wrong. On the way to that you sprinkled more conflations like what exactly is major and minor point, and which slice you were discussing (but only after it was clear that you don't even understand that most of the time the slice wasn't even used to gain an upper hand. Hell, to that moment you repeat that Federer was using it as way to gain advantage.) You are pretty much stuck on both counts that you mentioned. You haven't proven anything in regards with the the first (or rather, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about, which was the very first question I asked you about in this thread), and for the second I already showed that your use of the phrase is that of addressing a major point, including using the definition, which clearly points at a unsolvable problem you are yet to address.
