Some observations on Federer

S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:

Roger Federer is the best player of all time, except, perhaps, of his own time.

From Bill Simons article on Federer (my select excerpts - other parts are flattering as usual):

His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

The lines on his maturing face may be deepening.

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.
 
J

jdubbs

Hall of Fame
sureshs said:
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:



His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

[
Click to expand...

FAIL
10 choking Murray's
 
N

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Federer's backhand is his ultimate weakness that did not allow him to dominate Nadal and clay during his prime.

With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect. He is simply, and humbly, the GOAT of this game to date, the strongest combination of footwork, precision, tactics & artistry, serve & forehand, and all-court play that we tennis fans have been blessed to behold.
 
Last edited:
BrooklynNY

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
Netspirit said:
Federer's backhand is his ultimate weakness that did not allow him to dominate Nadal and clay during his prime.

With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect. He is simply, and humbly, the GOAT of this game to date, the strongest combination of footwork, precision, tactics & artistry, serve & forehand, and all-court play that we tennis fans have been blessed to behold.
Click to expand...

who??? huh???? :D
 
Last edited:
jackson vile

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.
 
AM95

AM95

Hall of Fame
jackson vile said:
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.
When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.
Click to expand...

i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.
 
TennisFan3

TennisFan3

Talk Tennis Guru
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
TennisFan3 said:
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?
Click to expand...

That is why we say that he played in the weak era between 2 champions - Sampras and Nadal.
 
R

rfm29

Rookie
TennisFan3 said:
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?
Click to expand...

Or we could reverse that and ask how many slams would Novak and Delpo have, if they played Federer from 2004-2007? (I think Nadal would still have the same amount, which is why I am not including him here)
 
Bobby Jr

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
Netspirit said:
With a 2HBH, he would have been perfect. But there is no such thing as a perfect player, so he is not perfect.
Click to expand...
You're assuming if he had a 2HBH it would have been great which is not a given at all - in fact most players with a 2HBH aren't all that great. Also, the shortcomings of a 2HBH may have detracted from other areas such as reach,short balls etc not to mention the high probability his slice backhand would also only be half as good as his current one.
 
TennisFan3

TennisFan3

Talk Tennis Guru
rfm29 said:
Or we could reverse that and ask how many slams would Novak and Delpo have, if they played Federer from 2004-2007? (I think Nadal would still have the same amount, which is why I am not including him here)
Click to expand...

Yeah but Novak's won only 2 and Delpo only 1. So it's not like they would've lost a lot. And for Nadal, as you said, it wouldn't have mattered.

The fact is Novak is JUST entering his prime. Delpo isn't even CLOSE to his prime.

Both guys are getting better still, and will win a lot more slams in the next 3-5 years, as they improve and take tennis to new heights.

So we probably could have peak Murray, peak Djokovic, peak Nadal and Prime Delpo in the next few years. Slams will he HARD for everyone from now. If these guys would have been born 5 yrs earlier, and thus overlapped with Fed, it is likely that Fed would have won less slams. In any case definitely not 11 slams in 4 yrs (that he did from '03 to '07).

So in that sense Fed was fortunate.

As Napolean said, Fed's the definition of a great general: "One who's lucky with his enemies!"
 
Last edited:
S

Subventricular Zone

Rookie
TennisFan3 said:
Yeah but Novak's won only 2 and Delpo only 1. So it's not like they would've lost a lot. And for Nadal, as you said, it wouldn't have mattered.

The fact is Novak is JUST entering his prime. Delpo isn't even CLOSE to his prime.

Both guys are getting better still, and will win a lot more slams in the next 3-5 years, as they improve and take tennis to new heights.

So we probably could have peak Murray, peak Djokovic, peak Nadal and Prime Delpo in the next few years. Slams will he HARD for everyone from now. If these guys would have been born 5 yrs earlier, and thus overlapped with Fed, it is likely that Fed would have won less slams. In any case definitely not 11 slams in 4 yrs (that he did from '03 to '07).

So in that sense Fed was fortunate.

As Napolean said, Fed's the definition of a great general: "One who's lucky with his enemies!"
Click to expand...


Possibly less majors but he would still win a lot.

IMO peak Fed will still beat peak Djokovic more often than not:

He did have chances to win USO '10 (which he should have won had he not been thinking of the final the next day), AO (ahead in 2nd set, which would have changed the dynamics of the match had he won that), and IW (3rd set collapse after getting the momentum back). Not saying that he would have won all those, but still, this is a 29-going-30-year-old playing against a 23-yr-old entering/in his peak.

Ditto for Del Pony.

Obviously, we will never know, but talent (hard work) and luck got him to 16 majors, and that's all that matters in the end.

I will add to your Napoleon quote what Louis Pasteur said:

"In the field of scientific observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared."

And in that sense, Fed took his chances when the opportunities presented itself.

And you're right, it will be very difficult to win slams in the next few years with all these guys entering their peaks. Unless, of course, Nadal really steps it up and gets into an even higher level. Which I believe he can.
 
sonicare

sonicare

Hall of Fame
jackson vile said:
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.
Click to expand...

Dude..he beat pete sampras on centre court wimbledon serving and volleying. WTF are you talking about?
 
jackson vile

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
AM95 said:
i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.
Click to expand...



The point you are missing is that he is not using the volley to win big points, when it comes down to the line he reverts back to the baseline.

Best volleys on the tour??? How many times has Nadal out volleyed Roger directly at the net?
 
BrooklynNY

BrooklynNY

Hall of Fame
FedExpress 333 said:
Also, for those who complain about Rogers bad net game:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHLApwiYUw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4LvjSPePLM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOfUMrsXgjA&feature=fvwrel
Click to expand...
He is playing Ferrer, a clay courter on an indoor hard court, and Gonzalez, another clay court style baseliner on a hardcourt, he should be showcasing his volley game in these situations, providing there is something to showcase exists.

jackson vile said:
The point you are missing is that he is not using the volley to win big points, when it comes down to the line he reverts back to the baseline.
Click to expand...

This is true, when it gets down to crunch time, Fed retreats and doesn't force the issue unless he is dominating his opponent already. Run around forehand, inside out looper.

I don't think Nadal has the best volleys on tour, but he uses them intelligently. You really rarely ever see him miss a volley, but then again, he isn't really forcing an issue at net. Although, I must note, whenever he gets an overhead from the baseline, he most certainly always comes in off it, its like a serve-volley, in the middle of the point, and the ball doesn't need to go in the service box.
 
jackson vile

jackson vile

G.O.A.T.
sureshs said:
From the May issue of Inside Tennis:

In a letter to the Editor:

Roger Federer is the best player of all time, except, perhaps, of his own time.

From Bill Simons article on Federer (my select excerpts - other parts are flattering as usual):

His backhand, while still eloquent, occasionally reveals itself as a vulnerable (dare we say old-fashioned?) stroke in comparison to the two-handed power blasts of Nadal, Djokovic, Murray.

The lines on his maturing face may be deepening.

But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.
Click to expand...


I do have to wonder if Federer would have these kind of problems if he had a 2HBH?
 
Sentinel

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
sureshs said:
That is why we say that he played in the weak era between 2 champions - Sampras and Nadal.
Click to expand...
LOL, good joke, sureshs. Considering that Nadal only made it to Clay Champion/GOAT. But now even that is questionable.

So it should be the weak era between Sampras and Joker !
 
namelessone

namelessone

Legend
TennisFan3 said:
I think the question is valid.

Fed was unbelievable in his prime. But the guys he faced in his prime - insipid Roddick, charmless Hewitt and headcase Safin - was ANY of them as good as Djokovic of 2011 or Nadal of F.O 2008/UsO 2010?

How much would Fed have won if he had to play the current Novak, Nadal and Delpo UsO 2009, repeatedly for his slams?
Click to expand...

Charmless Hewitt?

What does this have to do with hewitt's ability?

Hewitt actually owned Fed for a bit but Lleytton's last good years(as in making slam final) coincided with Fed's first great years.

Safin was very good when on but Fed owned him. Those who doubt Safin should watch his dismantling of Sampras or AO 2005 SF.

Roddick is a incredibly easy matchup for Fed but Roddick was actually a very tough player to beat in 2003/2004 when he was serving big AND hitting the forehand offensively.

I don't think that these guys at their best were anything like Djoker of 2011 or Nadal 2008, but if we believe Fed fans, then Fed was already out of his prime post 2007 so why does it matter any way?

In this train of thought, only Djoker in USO 2007 and Rafa on clay 05-07', WB 06'-07' got a taste of prime Federer.
 
A

Agassifan

Hall of Fame
IvanisevicServe said:
Power 2-handed blasts from Nadal? Huh?
Click to expand...

Yep.

Some people can't sleep at night obsessing about Fed's records. Fed's combo of movement, precision and power (not to mention elegance) are simply unparalleled in the history of tennis. Way to wait until he is 30 to belittle him... GOAT. Suck it.
 
DeShaun

DeShaun

Banned
jackson vile said:
IMO his backhand never changed, it is just the fact that the guys playing now are good enough to show it's weakness.

Also Roger Volleys aren't the best either, people don't like to hear it but Roger is just another baseline basher with lower level backhand just like Nadal.

When Roger goes to the net it is of no service to his own game and is almost never something he should go to on big points.

Nadal + Roger = weak backhands.
Click to expand...

This assumes to be constant their stroke production capabilities from one generation to the next. This capability declines as the miles add up on the legs. Always rotating new competitors onto the ATP...guys nowadays do not seem any better at picking on/exploiting the very same baseline bashing games and/or low forehands that Roger and Rafa may be known for. Those games and strokes went unpicked on for so long simply because they were not exploitable when Roger and Rafa were at their best. Not because today's competitors are any better, but because everybody's strokes and game diminishes independently.
 
Last edited:
L

LanceStern

Professional
did you see nadals two hander at AO 09? those were ridiculous blasts.

it was frustrating because he's never hit the two hander so hard and out of nowhere as that night and ONLY that night
 
M

Magnus

Legend
namelessone said:
Charmless Hewitt?

What does this have to do with hewitt's ability?

Hewitt actually owned Fed for a bit but Lleytton's last good years(as in making slam final) coincided with Fed's first great years.

Safin was very good when on but Fed owned him. Those who doubt Safin should watch his dismantling of Sampras or AO 2005 SF.

Roddick is a incredibly easy matchup for Fed but Roddick was actually a very tough player to beat in 2003/2004 when he was serving big AND hitting the forehand offensively.

I don't think that these guys at their best were anything like Djoker of 2011 or Nadal 2008, but if we believe Fed fans, then Fed was already out of his prime post 2007 so why does it matter any way?

In this train of thought, only Djoker in USO 2007 and Rafa on clay 05-07', WB 06'-07' got a taste of prime Federer.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...Fed was not past his prime in 2007, but in 2008 he did show a major decline in his game, both mentally and physically. More importantly, Federer lost some of his movement, and him being a shot maker that relies on timing more than anything else, he started missing a lot more and that affected him. Nadal was always a bad matchup for Federer, even at his prime years, but I don't think it destroys Fed's legacy. I mean, Djokovic is now beating Nadal 4 times in a row, all in MS finals, and yet I don't think it does anything to damage Nadal legacy. The guy won 9 slams, 19 MS titles and plenty more titles and nobody can take that away from him.

I don't believe in saying stuff like "greatest ever" because every fish has a bigger fish. Eventually someone will come and beat Novak as well, that's the nature of the game. Fed had his fair share of good matches and excellent quality of tennis. The fact that he kept the #1 ranking most of the times despite losing to Nadal more often than not, proves that he was still beating all other players the Nadal sometimes did not. Fed lost the #1 spot when he lost that consistency and Nadal had his 2nd best year (2008).

Safin was a terrific player, he won two slams, beat Fed at his absolute best in the best match I've ever seen, so to say he didn't reach Djoko's level - I don't know about that. The game is a bit different I think, today we've got longer rallies, so it makes you think players are better today. But just look at recent years - Roddick has owned Novak for the most part, Davy owned Nadal for the past 4 matches or so, Roddick beat Murray at W09 SF, Baggy beat Nadal and Fed last year, Gonzo beat Murray at FO 09, Nalby had good success against Nadal for a while, and of course Hewitt had good wins against all of them I think.

Conclusion: All the old, "weak era" players didn't do so badly against the new era players and some of them are still doing pretty well. I actully think this is the weakest era in men's tennis right now, not what was going on in 2004-2007.
 
M

Magnus

Legend
Subventricular Zone said:
Possibly less majors but he would still win a lot.

IMO peak Fed will still beat peak Djokovic more often than not:

He did have chances to win USO '10 (which he should have won had he not been thinking of the final the next day), AO (ahead in 2nd set, which would have changed the dynamics of the match had he won that), and IW (3rd set collapse after getting the momentum back). Not saying that he would have won all those, but still, this is a 29-going-30-year-old playing against a 23-yr-old entering/in his peak.

Ditto for Del Pony.

Obviously, we will never know, but talent (hard work) and luck got him to 16 majors, and that's all that matters in the end.

I will add to your Napoleon quote what Louis Pasteur said:

"In the field of scientific observation, chance favors only the mind that is prepared."

And in that sense, Fed took his chances when the opportunities presented itself.

And you're right, it will be very difficult to win slams in the next few years with all these guys entering their peaks. Unless, of course, Nadal really steps it up and gets into an even higher level. Which I believe he can.
Click to expand...

I agree, Fed is a tough matchup for Djokovic more than Nadal is IMO. Djokovic was unlucky to meet Nadal mostly on clay, like Fed.
 
cc0509

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
ledwix said:
Lol......this thread lost all credibility when someone called Federer a one-dimensional ball-basher.
Click to expand...

LOL! Now that is the most inaccurate statement I have ever heard. I can understand that some people don't like Fed but to call him a one-dimensional ball basher? There are no words.........
 
Thud and blunder

Thud and blunder

Semi-Pro
But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

This is the bit that bugs me about watching Fed at the moment...he looks like he's being dragged off to the gallows, rather than living the dream...
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
Thud and blunder said:
But more often we get a certain peeved attitude: a quiet storm of denial, a simmering anger.

This is the bit that bugs me about watching Fed at the moment...he looks like he's being dragged off to the gallows, rather than living the dream...
Click to expand...

He has already lived the dream, now he is just irritated
 
mcenroefan

mcenroefan

Hall of Fame
AM95 said:
i disagree. i think that his net game is the next best on tour without a doubt, perhaps being behind michael llodra.

now one can argue that he is not as decisive at the net as he used to be, which is true to a certain degree (but technically he is still the best volleyer. . he does some stupid stuff at net now a days though, like hitting those useless dropshots when he could just drive the ball. but fed's entire net game was amazing from 03-06 and in the sampras match in 0-1.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on tour has a truly great net game ala Edberg. Rushing net no longer exists as it did in the past game b/c it's a suckers bet with these rackets and strings...hence, no one practices volleying and puts in the reps at net as they did in past generations.

There are many adequate volleyers but no one to match the master net players of the past. Fed's volleys are beatiful and can be masterful (purely b/c of his amazing hand eye) but he's too inconsistent...again, proibably b/c he doesn't spend hours and hours putting in reps at the net.
 
S

serengetisunset

Rookie
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.
 
W

Wilander Fan

Hall of Fame
serengetisunset said:
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Once he won the FO, all arguments about GOAT were resolved. Prime Federer was unbelievable to watch and even today's version is astonishing. Against everyone except Nadal, he seems to toy with his opponents. I also like watching Nadal's game simply for his speed and that forehand of his that looks like he is drawing a pistol. The difference between Nadal and the rest of the Spanish is that forehand. I think Djker's game is boring to watch he is basically Soderling on those rare days when Soderling gets everything in.
 
Q

Quite Please

Rookie
serengetisunset said:
I posted this comment to that article.

Let the man play to his heart's content regardless of his wins or losses. He has achieved so much in tennis, and has nothing left to prove. The same fools who said he was winning too easily in a weak era are now saying that he loses too often these days.

Even now Federer is the 3rd best player in the world and is having respectable results. As a fan it is frustrating to see his concentration waver, his tentative play causing errors, his stubbornness in hanging on to the baseline, losing matches he could have won, etc. But who knows what he is going through. This mortal version of Federer should open one's eyes to how difficult it is to sustain excellence day in day out for so long.

The day he won the French Open and completed the career Grand slam, I was very happy and felt that even if he doesn't win a single match for the rest of his life, it doesn't matter because he has already achieved so much. I still feel the same way. If he wins majors, it is gravy. If not, no problem. I don't believe in bestowing GOAT title on any player but to me Federer was aesthetically the most pleasing player to watch. Finesse, power, a little magic, he had it all.
Click to expand...

Great post, exactly my thoughts!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Russeljones
Wimbledon: Roger Federer's epic victory over Pete Sampras, 20 years on
2
Replies
66
Views
2K
mxmx
mxmx
RedClayFan
Fedal bros, it's time we have a talk...
Replies
40
Views
1K
Holmes
Holmes
Marius_Hancu
Marius Hancu: References for Moving in the Roger Federer Style
Replies
2
Views
585
J011yroger
J011yroger
Top