Theory of defeating Roger Federer

sliceroni

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
Many of us said that only attacking tennis can give Fedex trouble. Henman once again proves that theory. Federer can neutralize big serves, big groundstrokes, but when you have a solid s&v attacker or all-courter it matches well against his game. If Henman troubles Federer then Sampras, Becker, Stich and Edberg in my mind would give Federer more than he can handle.
 
PureCarlosMoyaDrive

PureCarlosMoyaDrive

Professional
Actually only one match ever between the two. Fed won at Wimbledon 2001, ending Sampras' 31 match win streak, 7-6 5-7 6-4 6-7 7-5. Must have been an INSANE MATCH!! But ya, attack Fed a lot and you can probably beat him, but still, not everytime.
 
Markus Kaila

Markus Kaila

Rookie
.......is very simple. Hold your serve, just hold your serve! You really need nothing else.... Oh, still one thing more: you need luck in tie-breaks.
 
sliceroni

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
Yeah, that Federer/Sampras match was insane. I remember Sampras missed a crushing overhead on a crucial point. Federer was playing out of his mind, tight match to the end and it looked as if each were playing almost a mirrior image of each other. At that time Sampras was at the start of his decline, hadn't won a tournament since the Wimbledon before that.
 
prince

prince

Semi-Pro
i have seen matches before where fed got blasted off the court by patrick trafter in a hardcourt . but this was before he got out of his shell .
 
A

Ariel

Rookie
The postulate is true: You only can beat Federer with an attacking game. But you have to be REALLY extraordanary at it. Please look to the Safin-Federer AO final: Safin tried in his first 4 service games some S&V, and Roger nailed him every single time.
Or when Roddick tries to do the same, Roger often makes him look silly at the net.

So, hats off to Henman for that victory. Now Tim have to figure out how to win over his nemesis, Hewitt.
 
emcee

emcee

Semi-Pro
How does Federer return serve so well? He returns a lot better than the much-hyped returns of Hewitt and Agassi...Roddick can ace Agassi to death, but not Fed.
 
T

Tim Tiger Henman

Rookie
Now Tim have to figure out how to win over his nemesis, Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Actually Tim's arch nemesis is called "Men's Semi-final day at Wimbledon". Its a tough opponent and one that he may never beat. But I have good news - an Englishman will finally win the mens single at Wimbledon this year. Trust me on this one - I have inside knowledge.
 
N

Nosoupforyou

Rookie
emcee said:
How does Federer return serve so well? He returns a lot better than the much-hyped returns of Hewitt and Agassi...Roddick can ace Agassi to death, but not Fed.
Click to expand...

Agassi's serve return is hyped up man you gotta be kidding me he returned roddick's 149mph serve and won the point i dont think even federer could do that
 
G

g14

Guest
Sliceroni, its what we have been saying all along. Its quite true. By the way, there were 4 breaks in the first set in the Aussie Open final. So it was more about holding nerve.
 
@wright

@wright

Hall of Fame
Constantly attacking Federer can make you look very silly. I think it's being overanalyzed, you have to be VERY VERY good at attacking or VERY VERY good at counterpunching to beat him.
 
T

Tim Tiger Henman

Rookie
Has anyone considered - just the possibility that Fed had an off day, and maybe Tim got lucky? After all if you execute a bad game-plan often enough it will pay off eventually.
 
J

jun

Semi-Pro
I think serve-volleyer with decent groundies with reasonably big serve can give Federer trouble. Federer gets a lot of return back, but they aren't as forcing as Hewitt's or Agassi's. It tends to float, i think. So s-v can take advantage of these returns.

Henman's also very talented as far as eye-hand coordination and quickness. Just not as much fire power.

Agassi and Hewitt and Federer all have different returns. Federer might have biggest wing span of all. He get a lot of return back. He wants to start the point as neutral as possible.

Agassi does get a lot of ball back, take them early, and puts a lot of pace on the ball. He wants to start the point in offensive position.

Hewitt gets a lot of ball back, directs them very well, but not necessary hits hard..
 
M

Max G.

Legend
Tim Tiger Henman said:
Has anyone considered - just the possibility that Fed had an off day, and maybe Tim got lucky? After all if you execute a bad game-plan often enough it will pay off eventually.
Click to expand...

That wasn't luck. Henman is 6-1 against Fed, with the 1 loss being a retirement because of injury.

IMO - people that can give Federer trouble on a regular basis are those that can work the point. Those that don't go for any more than they need to on a given shot. Those that grind him to death in one way or another.

Henman is an agressive player - but he's not a pure serve volleyer like Rafter or Edberg in the sense that he doesn't come in off everything and anything. He sets up his volleys with whatever else he needs to - his serve or his groundstrokes.

Hewitt and Nalby - well, this has been discussed before. They just don't let Fed blast through them - or at least they try to.

Agassi - well, he's Agassi. The paragon of controlled agression, nowadays.

Who else has Federer's number? Anyone?
 
P

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
The one who holds the secret is Timmy, now leading Federer 7-1. Perhaps it's the mere thought of seeing more of Tim's feeble fist pumps and little hops that makes Federer just want to get off the court ASAP, in any way possible.
 
dozu

dozu

Banned
SV by nature is a high-risk game. Look at Dent, when he is on, he is hard to stop, when his serve isn't working, he crashes like a cheap car.

Yes, an SVer like Henman can give Fed trouble, as can any decent SVer, but to consistently outlast Fed in majors, that's another story.

Regarding Agassi's return, it was NOT overrated IMO, the era has just passed his game. Fed clearly has MUCH MUCH better return, Safin and Hewitt returns better than Agassi also.

New balls please.
 
G

g14

Guest
Tim, why talk yourself down like this? You have such a good record against Roger! But seriously thats the whole point. Those guys mentioned at the top were very very good attackers. In fact, thats why they are legends!
 
G

gofederer

Rookie
simply tim and roger are mirror images to each other with the small difference that henman comes forward to the net more. federer seems to me to feel a sort of little brother complex and getting good results in next couple meetings between the two will be crucial for him to get over his last nemesis.
 
P

polakosaur

Rookie
fed can lose all he wants now but when the time comes in a grand slam or year end event he's gonna go out beat the living crap out of anyone on the court he's proved various times over that past year
 
C

Classic

New User
O GOD!!!! Just because Federer, the "almighty god" loses his loyal little chimpy fans have to make an excuse for it.

O no, he had an injury

He had an off day

He wasn't taking it seriously

Whatever. He isn't perfect but this board talks about him like he is. If he was all his matches would be made up of nothing but golden sets.
 
Y

yee

Rookie
Every so called "loyal little chimpy fans" does that.

Fatigue, injuries for Ferreror loses; bad serves day, back injuries for Andy losses; to dedicate whole attention to Davis cup for Hewitt missing in action last year...don't you realise that??? It's not just Federer.

Yes he's not perfect and he still have many bad records vs lots of players, but he had played many amazing matches that had blown many fans away and left deep impression on lots.
 
Verbal_Kint

Verbal_Kint

Rookie
He DID pull out of his next tournament for a reason I think. I'm not saying he would have won against Henman, but it's just some extra info.

Marnix
 
B

BeHappy

Hall of Fame
interesting in light of the STepanek match, went very like a Henman-Federer match, Federer STILL has no answer for perfectly executed S&V tennis
 
H

HoVa

Rookie
Only the powers of all three gods combined can beat federer.

I call on the power of Triton! Zeus! and JEsus!
 
flyer

flyer

Hall of Fame
Not really, he for the most part loses to the great defenders, very rarley (although more recently) have big servers and agressive attacking players troubled him during his dominance
 
RestockingTues

RestockingTues

Banned
Ariel said:
The postulate is true: You only can beat Federer with an attacking game. But you have to be REALLY extraordanary at it. Please look to the Safin-Federer AO final: Safin tried in his first 4 service games some S&V, and Roger nailed him every single time.
Or when Roddick tries to do the same, Roger often makes him look silly at the net.

So, hats off to Henman for that victory. Now Tim have to figure out how to win over his nemesis, Hewitt.
Click to expand...

Err, I believe when Roddick attacks the net, he makes himself look silly. Anyone remember the drinking game, "take a shot everytime Roddick approaches Xcourt and gets passed!" I'll be drunk off my ass by the end of the first set :p
 
Nadal_Freak

Nadal_Freak

Banned
flyer said:
Not really, he for the most part loses to the great defenders, very rarley (although more recently) have big servers and agressive attacking players troubled him during his dominance
Click to expand...
I agree and to go further only lefties with massive topspin give Fed consistent problems. ;)
 
B

bangchu

Semi-Pro
BeHappy said:
interesting in light of the STepanek match, went very like a Henman-Federer match, Federer STILL has no answer for perfectly executed S&V tennis
Click to expand...

A chump dig out a 4 year old thread to have another shot at bashing Federer. I am really amazed at how low these chumps can go.
 
T

thejackal

Hall of Fame
the match was decided in 2 tiebreaks. the law of averages suggest that fed will lost some sooner or later (like against roddick in miami). maybe the odds are in favor of the better player 60-40 in tiebreaks, but federer's record is a lot better than that as it is, so of course he will lose some at some point. there are almost no answers to perfect s/v due to logistics - much easier to hit a winner volley than a running passing shot.
 
flyer

flyer

Hall of Fame
thejackal said:
the match was decided in 2 tiebreaks. the law of averages suggest that fed will lost some sooner or later (like against roddick in miami). maybe the odds are in favor of the better player 60-40 in tiebreaks, but federer's record is a lot better than that as it is, so of course he will lose some at some point. there are almost no answers to perfect s/v due to logistics - much easier to hit a winner volley than a running passing shot.
Click to expand...

the law of averages only applies to independent events, tie breaks are not

as for the volley, there is a perfect answer to the perfect serve and volley, its called the perfect return.....no chance for a volley there, just as the is no answer to the perfect serve and volley there is no answer to the perfect winner either, even considering the logistics of it, its a completely unreliable argument, there are so many other factors, actually the state of today's game suggests it is much harder to serve and volley than hit passing shot winners
 
T

thejackal

Hall of Fame
flyer said:
the law of averages only applies to independent events, tie breaks are not

as for the volley, there is a perfect answer to the perfect serve and volley, its called the perfect return.....no chance for a volley there, just as the is no answer to the perfect serve and volley there is no answer to the perfect winner either, even considering the logistics of it, its a completely unreliable argument, there are so many other factors, actually the state of today's game suggests it is much harder to serve and volley than hit passing shot winners
Click to expand...

in order to be a tiebreak the score has to be 6-6, which suggests that on that time of the day both players are at similar levels in terms of absolute effectiveness in their games.
 
J

johnny ballgame

Professional
Ariel said:
The postulate is true: You only can beat Federer with an attacking game.
Click to expand...

Eh? Fed has lost plenty of recent matches against more defensive type of players. Murray, Canas (twice), Nalbandian (twice), Nadal, Volandri, Ramirez Hidalgo (almost), etc. There is no specific type that works better over another against Fed. Whatever your type, you just have to come with your A+ game and hope Fed is off a little bit.
 
Last edited:
West Coast Ace

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Classic said:
O GOD!!!! Just because Federer, the "almighty god" loses his loyal little chimpy fans have to make an excuse for it.

O no, he had an injury

He had an off day

He wasn't taking it seriously

Whatever. He isn't perfect but this board talks about him like he is. If he was all his matches would be made up of nothing but golden sets.
Click to expand...
The flip side is the hysterical 'Fed is washed up' commentary from the other side. His year started off bad because of the mono and he's battling to regain his form. Nothing I've seen (barring more injuries) makes me think he won't remind everyone who is #1 once the grass and summer hard court seasons arrive.

BeHappy said:
interesting in light of the STepanek match, went very like a Henman-Federer match, Federer STILL has no answer for perfectly executed S&V tennis
Click to expand...
And your use of the word 'perfect' and the fact that Stepanek's ranking shows he doesn't play at that level too often... Nor would anyone who tried it against Fed. Look at Karlovic's record against him...

johnny ballgame said:
Eh? Fed has lost plenty of recent matches against more defensive type of players. Murray, Canas (twice), Nalbandian (twice), Nadal, Volandri, Ramirez Hidalgo (almost), etc. There is no specific type that works better over another against Fed. Whatever your type, you just have to come with your A+ game and hope Fed is off a little bit.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same think. If Fed is off and someone is willing to grind out points, he can be had.

And all this talk about S&V is just that, talk. There aren't a lot players who can magically switch to that style. As others have said, look what happens when Roddick tries it...



http://www.angrybackhand.com
 
flyer

flyer

Hall of Fame
thejackal said:
in order to be a tiebreak the score has to be 6-6, which suggests that on that time of the day both players are at similar levels in terms of absolute effectiveness in their games.
Click to expand...

which means nothing because they are still not independent with from past tie breaks....the players have recolection of past tie breaks and maybe will base their strategy on that, may be confident due to past success, etc

in order for the law of averages to apply the events have to be completely idependent of each other, because players have memory they are not, so the law of averages does not apply
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Match Stats/Report - Federer vs Henman, Indian Wells final, 2004
Replies
3
Views
648
mike danny
mike danny
UnderratedSlam
Ranking the greatest SLAM RUNS - in terms of number of defeated slam champs.
Replies
26
Views
647
UnderratedSlam
UnderratedSlam
George Turner
Assessing the quality of sampras/federer opposition
Replies
11
Views
650
George Turner
George Turner
1
My metaphor of Roger Federer
Replies
34
Views
4K
LameTennisPlayer
LameTennisPlayer
K
The Case for Federer to Join the Grand Slam Club
Replies
11
Views
1K
TahoeTennis
T
Top