The flaws of federe slowly starts to unravel.

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

I remember a few years back how people were saying how Federer had no flaws and he was perfect. They even made you tube videos showing how the supposedly flawed "backhand" was just magnificent. But it seems that the flaws were actual flaws! His backhand IMO is the pure pure weakness to his game. His backhand i believe is way to passive. The serve return on the backhand, the rally backhand just seems way way too weak. The confidence we use to see in the backhand seems to dissappear and is filled with shanks.
*Federer not federe

Nadal_Freak · Mar 24, 2009

Agreed. The backhand is definitely a liability. He should've gone with a two-handed backhand.

deltox · Mar 24, 2009

as far as 1h backhanders go his has rarely let him down. it lacks in speed but its placement was until this year so spot on it didnt matter

fed is getting the horns for getting older =( and suddenly being human

Tennis_Maestro · Mar 24, 2009

He has lost all confidence on his backhand, we know this. Is there really a need to create a thread pointing out the blimming obvious?

federerdomination · Mar 24, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Agreed. The backhand is definitely a liability. He should've gone with a two-handed backhand.

not necessarily

See Gasquet. He proves u can have a big one hander that is not a liability by any means

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

Tennis_Maestro said:
He has lost all confidence on his backhand, we know this. Is there really a need to create a thread pointing out the blimming obvious?

No im just mentioning even what the commentators doubted. Critics said long before he reached his prime that his Backhand was an issue. But when more people saw him, they said it was a reliable weapon, and that it was one of the best backhands on the tour. But, it seems that the critics were right all along. His backhand "seemed" beautiful and perfect because no one actually got on his nerves or put him out of his comfort zone until Nadal came along and just showed the flaws in his backhand.

T1000 · Mar 24, 2009

his backhand isnt that weak. nadal just pummels it with insane topspin forehands. anyone's one hander except for gasquet's and guga's would break down

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

federerdomination said:
not necessarily

See Gasquet. He proves u can have a big one hander that is not a liability by any means

Gasquet's backhand is a freak of nature.

kungfusmkim · Mar 24, 2009

T1000 said:
his backhand isnt that weak. nadal just pummels it with insane topspin forehands. anyone's one hander except for gasquet's and guga's would break down

LOL why is that gasquet's backhand and guga's doesnt? Doesnt that mean federer's that its a liability? Not weak? Are you truly telling me that federer can win a point against nadal with out his backhand slice and only with his backhand stroke?

LanceStern · Mar 24, 2009

Until 2008, Federer's backhand was a weapon. Now it's a weakness that can be fixed if he puts in the effort.

He used to do everything with the backhand... paint the lines, go down the line, hit extreme angles, drag the opponent offcourt, or blast it at your feet. Even hitting inside out winners with it!

But he's taken most of that away now for more passive shots to the opponent crosscourt, and he's got to find a way to break that habit. Take chances

edmondsm · Mar 24, 2009

Nice Engrish from the OP.

Federer's backhand took part in winning 13 slams. It's off now, because he's 27, and not the hot shot anymore. I can't wait until Nadal is dropping off and I can dig up the thread: "Does Nadal have and faults".........

TennisandMusic · Mar 24, 2009

edmondsm said:
Nice Engrish from the OP.

Federer's backhand took part in winning 13 slams. It's off now, because he's 27, and not the hot shot anymore. I can't wait until Nadal is dropping off and I can dig up the thread: "Does Nadal have and faults".........

Yeah but Nadal beat him in 2004 when he realized the backhand had deficiencies. I think it's always been there for people to see, just most of his fans didn't want to admit it. I mean no player is perfect, Nadal has his own issues. Not a big deal either way.

edmondsm · Mar 24, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
Yeah but Nadal beat him in 2004 when he realized the backhand had deficiencies. I think it's always been there for people to see, just most of his fans didn't want to admit it. I mean no player is perfect, Nadal has his own issues. Not a big deal either way.

Agree totally. Your weaknesses are relatively unnoticeable when you are dominating everything. Nadal has holes in his game, but you aren't going to nitpick a player who is winning.

iamke55 · Mar 24, 2009

I could make Roddick look like he has the best backhand in the world if I just picked all the best points from a variety of matches and uploaded it to YouTube.

AJK1 · Mar 24, 2009

I wouldn't mind having his backhand !!

AJK1 · Mar 24, 2009

I wouldn't mind having his weak backhand !!

edberg505 · Mar 24, 2009

iamke55 said:
I could make Roddick look like he has the best backhand in the world if I just picked all the best points from a variety of matches and uploaded it to YouTube.

I'm betting you would have to go through a plethora of his matches to get enough of them to make a vid.

luckyboy1300 · Mar 24, 2009

i was watching some several videos of federer matches a while back and i have noticed that he can hit his backhand dtl more effortlessly before. he needs to reincorporate that on his game to add another dimension to his backhand.

phoenicks · Mar 24, 2009

iamke55 said:
I could make Roddick look like he has the best backhand in the world if I just picked all the best points from a variety of matches and uploaded it to YouTube.

And I think Federer should thank Youtube for increasing his fanbase with all the highlighted " Perfect weapon " backhand. Without it, I doubt there would be so many people kissing Federer ass and licking his feet now.

phoenicks · Mar 24, 2009

LanceStern said:
Until 2008, Federer's backhand was a weapon. Now it's a weakness that can be fixed if he puts in the effort.

He used to do everything with the backhand... paint the lines, go down the line, hit extreme angles, drag the opponent offcourt, or blast it at your feet. Even hitting inside out winners with it!

But he's taken most of that away now for more passive shots to the opponent crosscourt, and he's got to find a way to break that habit. Take chances

I doubt so, his backhand has an inherent weakness in that he need to take 1 extra step to execute it, he'll always be slightly slower with it. And with him aging and having a slightly slower footwork, I dont think he can do anything to turn it around.

phoenicks · Mar 24, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
No im just mentioning even what the commentators doubted. Critics said long before he reached his prime that his Backhand was an issue. But when more people saw him, they said it was a reliable weapon, and that it was one of the best backhands on the tour. But, it seems that the critics were right all along. His backhand "seemed" beautiful and perfect because no one actually got on his nerves or put him out of his comfort zone until Nadal came along and just showed the flaws in his backhand.

Agreed, It can be a great weapon for him at his prime when he can get into position earlier with his great footwork and speed, he can create winner and drag opponent out of position to set up point with it, but if you constantly put pressure to it, and actually rally patiently to his backhand, he'll most likely break down 1st.

paulorenzo · Mar 24, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
LOL why is that gasquet's backhand and guga's doesnt? Doesnt that mean federer's that its a liability? Not weak? Are you truly telling me that federer can win a point against nadal with out his backhand slice and only with his backhand stroke?

firstly, a backhand slice is a backhand "stroke."

guga and gasquet had gamestyles that allow(ed) them to utilize their already great back hands effectively.
THEY PLAYED METERS BEHIND THE BASELINE.

ahah, there is a direct corelation, you know. back in his earlier years, fed didnt mind standing 3 or four feet behind the baseline to scramble a bit, and his backhand was quite good(circa 04-07) because he had time to set up.
but now, he doesnt want to run as much, so he camps on top of the baseline to take balls early. apparently, hitting balls on the rise doesnt bode well for his backhand.

LanceStern · Mar 24, 2009

He's definitely slower. But he can definitely change some things.

Like I said a down the line backhand would work wonders. Everyone knows now he'll either hit it to you or cross court. He's got to mix it up.

I think it's his back

kungfusmkim · Mar 25, 2009

paulorenzo said:
firstly, a backhand slice is a backhand "stroke."

guga and gasquet had gamestyles that allow(ed) them to utilize their already great back hands effectively.
THEY PLAYED METERS BEHIND THE BASELINE.

ahah, there is a direct corelation, you know. back in his earlier years, fed didnt mind standing 3 or four feet behind the baseline to scramble a bit, and his backhand was quite good(circa 04-07) because he had time to set up.
but now, he doesnt want to run as much, so he camps on top of the baseline to take balls early. apparently, hitting balls on the rise doesnt bode well for his backhand.

Um yes it is a stroke but a separate stroke from the backhand it self. Think of it this way. when you teaching a beginner how to do a One Handed Backhand, they dont teach one handed backhand SLICE, they teach the one handed backhand. As they get improve the slice is introduced to them. All i'm saying is that the problem was there. federer always had the problem. its just that no one around that time could figure out what that hole is. Until Nadal, a brilliant man btw, came along and found it. Its like episodes of House, they know there is a problem even if the patient looks fine, but they just can't seem to find it through tests. So what do they do? They run different tests and some tests over again.
* edit:
Also if you put it like that, does't that make federer look a bit thick headed? I mean, if having your backhand at baseline made you lose, isn't it smarter to move back and hit the backhand more effectively even if it means running more? Just because some one doesnt want to do something should mean they shouldn't, if they want to win ofcourse.

wilsondude · Mar 25, 2009

How many slams do you think Fed would have right now if he had a two-hander?

kungfusmkim · Mar 25, 2009

wilsondude said:
How many slams do you think Fed would have right now if he had a two-hander?

Depends. How good his backhand is. its pretty hard imagining him with a two hander.

lilycolefan · Mar 25, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Agreed. The backhand is definitely a liability. He should've gone with a two-handed backhand.

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with his technique. The shot is too wristy.

GameSampras · Mar 25, 2009

Nadal was EXPOSING Fed even way back in what is highly regarded as Fed's prime (04-07). So its not just now Fed is getting exposed. Nadal has always had the game to take Fed out and give him problems and now Murray is playing Fed in a similiar fashion.

Only difference now is Nadal is exposing Fed on every surface, now that he has become a big time player on all the surfaces. Even if Nadal, primed back in 05-06, the results would be similiar as they are today between these two

Nadal_Freak · Mar 25, 2009

lilycolefan said:
It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with his technique. The shot is too wristy.

It's a harder shot to perfect then a two-handed backhand. Not many of the pros got that shot down as well not many have it.

kungfusmkim · Mar 25, 2009

GameSampras said:
Nadal was EXPOSING Fed even way back in what is highly regarded as Fed's prime (04-07). So its not just now Fed is getting exposed. Nadal has always had the game to take Fed out and give him problems and now Murray is playing Fed in a similiar fashion.

Only difference now is Nadal is exposing Fed on every surface, now that he has become a big time player on all the surfaces. Even if Nadal, primed back in 05-06, the results would be similiar as they are today between these two

i agree. i feel like the situation with federer is with HIV. First people throw up for the first couple of weeks of new medication (early exposure of Federer's backhand by nadal). But after those couple of weeks, they feel normal again. Then through time, the CD4* T cells starts to lower weakening the immune system (Federer still wins the encounters, but nadal exposes federer's backhand as he becomes stronger and stronger). Then FULL BLOWN AIDS (Nadal is too strong for Federer loses his matches because his backhand is unable to handle Nadal). TADA! lol.

paulorenzo · Mar 25, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
Um yes it is a stroke but a separate stroke from the backhand it self. Think of it this way. when you teaching a beginner how to do a One Handed Backhand, they dont teach one handed backhand SLICE, they teach the one handed backhand. As they get improve the slice is introduced to them. All i'm saying is that the problem was there. federer always had the problem. its just that no one around that time could figure out what that hole is. Until Nadal, a brilliant man btw, came along and found it. Its like episodes of House, they know there is a problem even if the patient looks fine, but they just can't seem to find it through tests. So what do they do? They run different tests and some tests over again.
* edit:
Also if you put it like that, does't that make federer look a bit thick headed? I mean, if having your backhand at baseline made you lose, isn't it smarter to move back and hit the backhand more effectively even if it means running more? Just because some one doesnt want to do something should mean they shouldn't, if they want to win ofcourse.

hahaha. how is the slice backhand a separate stroke from the backhand itself?
if it is a stroke hit off of the backhand side, regardless if it was top spin, flat, or slice, it is still a backhand stroke. same thing with the forehand side.

anyways, i was merely pointing out that fed had a very decent backhand from the time he was dominant and it wasnt as much of a liablitity back then, as you claim, against most players. nadal was the one to capitalize the most on this, hitting virtually all of his shots to federer's backhand side.

and the point you made about being federer being thick headed, i actually agree with you. he is just overly hesitant to change. a guy named PETE SAMPRAS was like that too. but the reason fed doesnt want to move back away from the baseline is because he cannot run as much as he used to, not because he doesnt want to. he even admits he cannot keep up in long points with guys like murray and nadal anymore, so he has to stay aggressive on the baseline.

paulorenzo · Mar 25, 2009

GameSampras said:
Nadal was EXPOSING Fed even way back in what is highly regarded as Fed's prime (04-07). So its not just now Fed is getting exposed. Nadal has always had the game to take Fed out and give him problems and now Murray is playing Fed in a similiar fashion.

Only difference now is Nadal is exposing Fed on every surface, now that he has become a big time player on all the surfaces. Even if Nadal, primed back in 05-06, the results would be similiar as they are today between these two

agreed.
10

ESP#1 · Mar 25, 2009

I thought at the AO it was his first serve that let him down not his backhand. He also missed alot of break point chances, I dont have the stat but its something outrageous. The backhand was a factor against Murray the other day but this is not the reason for Federers recent slump

egn · Mar 25, 2009

GameSampras said:
Nadal was EXPOSING Fed even way back in what is highly regarded as Fed's prime (04-07). So its not just now Fed is getting exposed. Nadal has always had the game to take Fed out and give him problems and now Murray is playing Fed in a similiar fashion.

Only difference now is Nadal is exposing Fed on every surface, now that he has become a big time player on all the surfaces. Even if Nadal, primed back in 05-06, the results would be similiar as they are today between these two

agree with paragraph 1.
disagree with paragraph 2 i think fed would have clear advantage on faster courts and nadal would have clear advantage on slower courts. It would not nearly be as lopsided. Though clay could be so much worse, but I think Federer would hold his own on fast hcs, indoors courts and grass

kungfusmkim · Mar 25, 2009

paulorenzo said:
hahaha. how is the slice backhand a separate stroke from the backhand itself?
if it is a stroke hit off of the backhand side, regardless if it was top spin, flat, or slice, it is still a backhand stroke. same thing with the forehand side.

anyways, i was merely pointing out that fed had a very decent backhand from the time he was dominant and it wasnt as much of a liablitity back then, as you claim, against most players. nadal was the one to capitalize the most on this, hitting virtually all of his shots to federer's backhand side.

and the point you made about being federer being thick headed, i actually agree with you. he is just overly hesitant to change. a guy named PETE SAMPRAS was like that too. but the reason fed doesnt want to move back away from the baseline is because he cannot run as much as he used to, not because he doesnt want to. he even admits he cannot keep up in long points with guys like murray and nadal anymore, so he has to stay aggressive on the baseline.

I Agree with everything except the slice part. The slice is a complete seperate stroke by it self. It has a different starting point and technique involved doesn't it? Even though its hit on the backhand side i mean.

paulorenzo · Mar 25, 2009

kungfusmkim said:
I Agree with everything except the slice part. The slice is a complete seperate stroke by it self. It has a different starting point and technique involved doesn't it? Even though its hit on the backhand side i mean.

it is still referred to as the backhand slice, so it is a backhand stroke.

a backhand stroke is not only topspin or flat shots. a backhand slice IS a backhand stroke.

i think of it this way, on groundies, there are two basic categories: forehand strokes and backhand strokes. the strokes listed under each of the categories include: flat, slice, top spin.

TheTruth · Mar 26, 2009

GameSampras said:
Nadal was EXPOSING Fed even way back in what is highly regarded as Fed's prime (04-07). So its not just now Fed is getting exposed. Nadal has always had the game to take Fed out and give him problems and now Murray is playing Fed in a similiar fashion.

Only difference now is Nadal is exposing Fed on every surface, now that he has become a big time player on all the surfaces. Even if Nadal, primed back in 05-06, the results would be similiar as they are today between these two

I noticed that too.

Gen · Mar 26, 2009

It's not the matter of his backhand only. This is what John Newcombe and Fred Stolle think about his volleying:

"When he comes over the ball and leaves it short then he gets lost in the rally and Nadal just tees off. The other thing we (John Newcombe, Fred’s broadcast partner) noticed was when Federer came to the net he almost never came in a hurry. He has got to learn when he comes in to come in with urgency! You come in against Nadal you better come in fast and close that net hard and get two meters closer. Contrary to what most people think, we don’t think Federer is a great volleyer. Now when I saw that this is nit picky a little bit: he’s a good volleyer, but he’s not a great volleyer because he doesn’t consistently get behind the flight of the ball. He tends to bring the racquet face down and sometimes looks to where he’s hitting and when you’re volleying against someone who can dip the ball with that much spin as Nadal you must get that racquet behind the flight of the ball."

ALex Olmedo:

"Fred is right about the volley. The whole idea of net play is to hit the volley above the height of the net — don’t let the ball come down! Federer, in many cases, was hitting the volleys too low down around his knees and you can’t do that against Nadal, he is too good. He was a little bit late getting to the net. When he approaches he should use the slice more because the top spin backhand sits up and Nadal can drive it. Remember that fantastic running forehand pass Nadal hit it the fourth set? Federer’s approach has to be better and if you can catch the ball on the rise with slice deep and get tighter to the net that would help. He needs to punch the volley. You don’t take a swing at the volley, you punch it, and he was sometimes taking too big a swing on the volley, but look Nadal puts so much pressure on you because he hits so great on the run"

http://blog.tennisweek.com/?p=154

It looks that overrated Federer's volleying is a little bit deficient.

bet · Mar 26, 2009

Tennis_Maestro said:
He has lost all confidence on his backhand, we know this. Is there really a need to create a thread pointing out the blimming obvious?

Didn't say anything about it in the other thread, but quite frankly, a guy who writes a lengthy post with his tips to beat Nadal, which read like tips on how to play tennis in a pamphlet handed about by a park and recs department, really has no grounds to start whining about one line from another poster. Keep your fedfanboyism under control.

swedechris · Mar 26, 2009

edmondsm said:
Nice Engrish from the OP.

Federer's backhand took part in winning 13 slams. It's off now, because he's 27, and not the hot shot anymore. I can't wait until Nadal is dropping off and I can dig up the thread: "Does Nadal have and faults".........

True... All players have their ups and downs .. and peaks.

The flaws of federe slowly starts to unravel.

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Semi-Pro

Professional

Legend

Professional

Professional

Professional

Legend

TennisandMusic

Guest

Legend

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Professional

Banned

Professional

Rookie

Banned

Banned

Professional

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

Professional

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads