Keys to beating Roger Federer?

kingdaddy41788 said:

The faster a serve is the harder it is to get to the net. The better placed it is, the easier it is, savvy?

Click to expand...

Mr. Sean said:

We'll find out how good sampras' tactics will be against fed this fall. Cant wait. I guarantee sampras will win a set. Should be exciting. As for Roddick I dont think he has the discipline to serve and volley at wimbie. Chances are he will go back to his 8 feet behind the baseline game if conners doesnt fix him up again.

Click to expand...

War said:

On hardcourts and grass?

Pete Sampras: "I mean, great a player as Nadal is, you put a really good serve-and-volleyer against him and you have got to feel pretty good about it."

Q: So you would fancy your chances against him on grass?
Pete Sampras: "Oh yeah, even today. If I worked at it.... But seeing how everyone's playing, staying back on grass like it's almost like Roland Garros...Roger Federer is a legend in the making, he's such a great mover and can go from defence to attack in an instant. Regardless of whether he stopped tomorrow, he's dominated his generation more than anyone has. Nadal is a great player, but the rest I look at are just really 'good' baseline players.
But even Roger's staying back at Wimbledon. When I played him, he came in on every ball. I have always felt the best tennis was a contrast: Borg and McEnroe, Becker and Edberg, me and Andre, someone stays back, someone comes in. Now it's just guys banging from the back courts. When I watch Roger freewheeling, so confident, it's such a great feeling, but if I was playing him now, I would still try and take his time away, come to the net first and second serve, attack his second serve, same as with Andre. Nobody takes his time away. I'd just come at him and keep coming."


My question to the posters here: of all today's big-servers being able to send down 135-150mph bombs, why can't any of them go to the net or employed any form of serve-n-volley game?
Are today's servers just big on power and speed and not enough on placement?
Example: does Andy Roddick honestly think he's going to get passed time-after-time at the net when he's served a 145mph bomb 'down-the-T'?
Of course he doesn't - but you see him approach the net and his volleying looks terrible - it appears that he, like a good % of the ATP havent been taught how to volley correctly, IMO.

Sampras is right on the money his comments. I also feel that using some form of serve-and-volley game is the main key to knock out Federer out of the comfort-zone, with a first serve average of say, 130mph and second serve of 100-110 mph, which kicks high.

Tactics
1 - A guy who can serve well at this speed has the options of a high kick-serve to the Federer backhand - which Rafael Nadal has consistently shown to be a BIG weakness for Federer cos he employes the one-handed backhand. He'd will block the big one back, hard volleys into the open court is one option, cos Federer is so quick to work your game out, this drop-volley shouldn't be done too often, cause Federer is real fast around the court, too.

2 - With return games, you have to attack the second serve of Federer, cause it dosent have much speed but it can kick - it's usually around 90-100mph.

3 - The trickier option but real key to beat Federer by baseline game is to force him to hit that backhand on the run. Federer has a good running forehand, but I've witnessed many times, that he has a real shaky backhand on the run.

For proof of the above three tactics, just watch what Marat Safin did to Federer in the Australian Open semi-final in 2005. Safin seems to hits the ball flatter, harder and cleaner together than anyone else on tour and employed this tactic over and over again....result was that Federer, playing awesome tennis himself that night, was pegged back on the defense for a lot of the match cos Safin never let up with hitting big 135mph bombs (with a solitary double-fault!), served-n-volleyed at big points and crushed the ball back to Federer's backhand all night.

I think that's the key: constantly attack behind a big serve and force him to hit backhand on the run.

I might be on thin-ice with my thoughts and tactics here , but feel free to chip-in with your own views or correct me if I'm way off target!

Thanks.

Click to expand...

J-man said:

I've only followed the game for about 2 years so tatics are probably not my biggest forte so to speak. But from what I've seen of players the only consistant tatic you can use against Federer is to serve and Volley. If you stay at the baseline you can only do so much, unless you're Nadal. Even if you try to approach the net off an approach shot you in trouble (it's got to be a damn good approach shot). To take time away you need to have something bigger, like a serve. If you can serve big and have good volleys (listen up Roddick) you can take loads of time away from him.

Click to expand...

maec allamerican said:

The game has definitely changed. It's really naive for people to say serve and volley is the way to beat Federer.

Let's look at this scientifically. Who has beaten Federer? Nadal and Canas. How did they do it? Serve and volley? Nope. They did it by doing nothing spectacular. They just kept the ball in play. Lendl, Wilander, and Mecir would easily beat Federer.

Guys are just intimidated and so they lose their nerve or try to hit winners too quickly.

If you watch carefully, Federer gives guys lots of chances to attack, for christsake he routinely slices the ball back without even coming in. He learned this tactic from Roche. Roche made Lendl do it. And Wilander starting doing with his three grand slam run in 87 or 88. Graf did it on the women's tour. Guys don't have to do anything special, all they have to do is keep the ball in play. Make Federer hit winners. He'll miss. Everyone misses.

Tennis is not about hitting winners, its about commiting less errors.

Click to expand...

War said:

Thing is, I re-watched a couple of sets of the Safin - Federer match and when Safin employed a combination of all these tactics:
* big-serve
* deep, powerful shots on either flanks
* coming to the net (especially his S&V-ing)

Federer was troubled with Safin's 1st-serve to the body or the heavy kicking 2nd-serve - he just chipped it back as deep as possible and waitied for the basleine exchange to commence.

Where he did get into trouble was trying to match Federer, shot-for-shot on the baseline exchanges...

Awesome match though!

Click to expand...

David L said:

Well, Hewitt stays back and used to routinely beat Sampras on grass and hard, leading the head to head 5-4. On the occasions Sampras did win, they were very close matches. Sampras would'nt have it as easy as he thinks against Nadal. Players these days pass opponents at the net, in their sleep. It's easy to say everyone should serve and volley today, try actually doing it and see how well you fair. With the ball not skidding through these days, serve and volleying is a risky strategy, where you are pretty much a sitting duck at net more often than not, even if you have a good serve. Here's what Bjorkman had to say at the French.

Q. When you're a veteran like you are, do you think that helps or hurts you to be playing serve‑and‑volley tennis as opposed to say baseline tennis? What are the things that start to go a little bit soft first, the things that work for the clay court game or fast court game?

JONAS BJORKMAN: Well, I can't play in a serve and volley anymore. It's impossible on the surface we have these days. I stopped. I think, in general, you've seen Henman, myself, most of the guys who have been playing serve and volley before, we all stopped, because, you know, it's just not possible to do that anymore purely because the competition is so good. All of the players are hitting it stronger. But then the strings, racquets, the heavy balls, slow surfaces, obviously making it more or less impossible.

So I wouldn't say that has something to do with age. I feel if I have a quick court, I can still play a great serve and volley. But it's just you've got to have some benefits. Especially when you hit a volley, you need to see that the ball takes off and not just sits up.

Q. Do you think the courts ought to be speeded up? Do you think it's unfair now toward the slow court players?

JONAS BJORKMAN: No, I wouldn't say it's unfair, really. It's part of the game to have ‑‑ you know, I think, what was it, midnight is when we had this lightning courts. It was not so much fun to watch Becker, Ivanisevic hitting 45 bombs each. But sometimes we can look for what is the medium. I think like on clay, we have really heavy balls in Hamburg, but it makes no sense. It's only going to be 7, 8° every day. So maybe we can have a quicker ball in Hamburg, a little bit slower one in Monte Carlo. So you're just finding a better balance sometimes. Or if you have a slow court, you can have a quicker ball.

That's more that you can work on. Because I think it's good to have a variety of different type of player styles.

http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/news/interviews/2007-06-04/200706041180968201484.html

Click to expand...

War said:

Not to cause any issue here but:
1 - Hewitt is a far more aggressive returner than Federer and one of the best in the game.
2 - Bjorkman....isn't what I'd call 'stellar opposition'

Click to expand...