Better player to emulate: Roger Federer or Alex Clayton?

EikelBeiter said:
LOL.

Who is Clayton anyway? Some college player?

I'm sure Clayton has a solid technique, but better than a 16 grand slam winner?
Federer shankes and whiffs when it counts? Again how did he get 16 grand slams?

The question by the OP was pretty funny, but some of the answers! You guys crack me up!

Oh wait, I hope you weren't being serious here.... ?
Click to expand...

I must admit I haven't seen much of either player, but I am certain I have never seen Clayton whiff a forehand on match point in a tournament final. If you have, please post a link. If you need me to post a link of Ferdeder whiffing a forehand on match point in a tournament final, please let me know - I'm sure there are some floating around on youtube somewhere.

The slam-counting is getting old. What does that have to do with solid forehand technique? Greatest players of all time may only have a couple of slams under their belt, yet far superior shotmaking ability.
 
Hmm. Difficult choice. Clayton: good D1 college player. Federer: arguably the best player of all time. I think I'll spend more time studying Federer's technique.

It probably doesn't really matter, as both are excellent players.

I don't think it is wrong to emulate another player's technique, as long as you don't focus on the affectations, but more on the technique. I sometimes think I'm hitting the way the pros do, but videos show me that what I think I'm doing, and what I'm actually doing, aren't exactly the same. Also, the way you are built and naturally move is going to influence how you hit your shots even if you use a pro as a model.

Personally, I think you should attempt to copy the best shots by multiple pros: Roddick's serve, Federer's forehand, Safin's backhand, etc.
 
SoBad said:
I must admit I haven't seen much of either player, but I am certain I have never seen Clayton whiff a forehand on match point in a tournament final. If you have, please post a link. If you need me to post a link of Ferdeder whiffing a forehand on match point in a tournament final, please let me know - I'm sure there are some floating around on youtube somewhere.

The slam-counting is getting old. What does that have to do with solid forehand technique? Greatest players of all time may only have a couple of slams under their belt, yet far superior shotmaking ability.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the whiffing of a forehand have anything to do with the difference in pace and tempo of grand slam tennis and college tennis?

Well if you think some college player has a better technique than Federer thats fine with me.
 
People who argue simply:'Fed better player, emulate Fed, duh!!' miss a key point. What if it only makes sense to emulate Fed if you have ungodly feel / timing / hand-eye coordination? There's a reason most good players don't try to emulate Fed - it's too damn hard. If you're a fraction off - shanksville. So Fed shanks the odd ball - try to emulate him, and you'll be whiffing and shanking a couple of balls a game...and since so much of his game depends on skills which are innate (feel, timing, co-ordination), you, Mr Armchair Athlete, are plain SOL. It may make more sense to work on techniques which are more related to practice than innate skills (I think most people could develop a decent SW WW forehand with practice, but few can develop decent Fed forehands, as the magic ingredients aren't really responsive to practice).

so yes, it can make perfect sense to try to emulate a lesser player if (a) their game is technically sound, (b) their game is less demanding.

There's a nuanced discussion to be had here - categorical ''Fed >>> Clayton' comments don't get to the heart of the matter.
 
Thud and blunder said:
People who argue simply:'Fed better player, emulate Fed, duh!!' miss a key point. What if it only makes sense to emulate Fed if you have ungodly feel / timing / hand-eye coordination? There's a reason most good players don't try to emulate Fed - it's too damn hard. If you're a fraction off - shanksville. So Fed shanks the odd ball - try to emulate him, and you'll be whiffing and shanking a couple of balls a game...and since so much of his game depends on skills which are innate (feel, timing, co-ordination), you, Mr Armchair Athlete, are plain SOL. It may make more sense to work on techniques which are more related to practice than innate skills (I think most people could develop a decent SW WW forehand with practice, but few can develop decent Fed forehands, as the magic ingredients aren't really responsive to practice).

so yes, it can make perfect sense to try to emulate a lesser player if (a) their game is technically sound, (b) their game is less demanding.

There's a nuanced discussion to be had here - categorical ''Fed >>> Clayton' comments don't get to the heart of the matter.
Click to expand...

orly.gif
 
I really think Alex's service motion is better than Federer's. Weight transfer and shoulder turn is more sound than Roger's. but Alex needs to work on placement and using his serve to set up his forehands better.
 
Fedace said:
I really think Alex's service motion is better than Federer's. Weight transfer and shoulder turn is more sound than Roger's. but Alex needs to work on placement and using his serve to set up his forehands better.
Click to expand...

Is it? Can you show it to me?
 
Thud and blunder said:
People who argue simply:'Fed better player, emulate Fed, duh!!' miss a key point. What if it only makes sense to emulate Fed if you have ungodly feel / timing / hand-eye coordination? There's a reason most good players don't try to emulate Fed - it's too damn hard. If you're a fraction off - shanksville. So Fed shanks the odd ball - try to emulate him, and you'll be whiffing and shanking a couple of balls a game...and since so much of his game depends on skills which are innate (feel, timing, co-ordination), you, Mr Armchair Athlete, are plain SOL. It may make more sense to work on techniques which are more related to practice than innate skills (I think most people could develop a decent SW WW forehand with practice, but few can develop decent Fed forehands, as the magic ingredients aren't really responsive to practice).

so yes, it can make perfect sense to try to emulate a lesser player if (a) their game is technically sound, (b) their game is less demanding.

There's a nuanced discussion to be had here - categorical ''Fed >>> Clayton' comments don't get to the heart of the matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what some other posters fail to realize.
 
EikelBeiter said:
Couldn't the whiffing of a forehand have anything to do with the difference in pace and tempo of grand slam tennis and college tennis?

Well if you think some college player has a better technique than Federer thats fine with me.
Click to expand...

Tennis is a combination of stroke production and understanding of the game, among other things. Nadal’s groundstrokes are items of beauty and the combination of pace and spin on the ball makes it very difficult to counter Nadal’s strokes on the rise, especially on clay which tends to accentuate the effect of topspin. Alex Clayton not only possesses a solid forehand technique, but also the sense to stay back against a vastly superior opponent and hit the ball from well behind the baseline where he knows he can time it to produce a serviceable shot. Much better path to follow than Ferender who thinks he can hack from between service line and baseline against a far superior player.
 
darthpwner said:
Exactly. That's what some other posters fail to realize.
Click to expand...

Actually what you and some other posters don't seem to realize is that if Federer shanks or whiffs it has nothing to do with bad technique. It has everything to do with the pace and especially the tempo of that level of play.

It is preposterous to say that a certain college player shanks less than federer therefore he has a better technique than Federer. By that logic a 55 year old hacker with a 135 inch racket who never shanks has a better technique than Federer.

But why emulate any player is the real question. Why don't you find your own style
 
EikelBeiter said:
Actually what you and some other posters don't seem to realize is that if Federer shanks or whiffs it has nothing to do with bad technique. It has everything to do with the pace and especially the tempo of that level of play.

It is preposterous to say that a certain college player shanks less than federer therefore he has a better technique than Federer. By that logic a 55 year old hacker with a 135 inch racket who never shanks has a better technique than Federer.

But why emulate any player is the real question. Why don't you find your own style
Click to expand...

I was referring to Clayton's style being easier to copy. Not Federer whiffing or shanking his forehands. I'm not copying any player exactly, but my game looks like a combination of Clayton and Federer. I use eastern forehand grip, 1 handed backhand, all-court game, and similar serve motion.
 
Honestly, you should be banned from this forum for even asking that.

Hmmm, I wonder, should I emulate the GOAT or Alex Clayton, hmmm, this is a tough one
 
Donny0627 said:
Honestly, you should be banned from this forum for even asking that.

Hmmm, I wonder, should I emulate the GOAT or Alex Clayton, hmmm, this is a tough one
Click to expand...

Roger is harder to emulate than Clayton because he uses much more wrist and his techniques are more difficult to copy. Do you even know who Alex Clayton is? I think you're a dumbass poster.
 
I hear a lot of ppl saying they emulate Fed's fh but I have yet to see anybody at the amateur level hit a ball in the motion remotely close to Fed (if you put it on video it is very obvious). I am not even talking about spin nor pace. Just the whole start to finish motion.

It is easy to picture Federer mentally but when it comes to emulating or copying his stroke it is not easy. I have seen some players who can emulate Djoko or Murray, but not Federer yet.
 
EikelBeiter said:
Actually what you and some other posters don't seem to realize is that if Federer shanks or whiffs it has nothing to do with bad technique. It has everything to do with the pace and especially the tempo of that level of play.
Click to expand...

I do agree with your comment to an extent. It has more to do with poor court sense, poor judgement, and lack of belief and consequent attempts at overly aggresive play in contesting a superior opponent, as detailed in post No. 59.
 
I think many rec players should emulate Agassi. :P The short backswing and the over the shoulder finish are good for rec players, IMHO. The two hand forehand is very reliable. I feel you can maintain these strokes without gigantic amounts of practice time.

I have found Feds WW style with LOTS of "door nob" twisting of the arm very hard to hit. FYB explained that Fed swings with a flatter trajectory but more of this door nob style pronation then most players. This is really really hard to emulate IMHO. His style with the Eastern grip combined with lots of pronation is TOUGH.


I would also say the OHBH is the more difficult shot compared to the two hander. Why? Well if you study Agassi there is an amazing symmetry (IMHO) with his forehand and two handed backhand. They are fairly close to being mirror images of eachother. This kinda of gives you double the practice. Whereas a one hand back hand is VERY different from a eastern grip "fed style" windshield wiper forehand.. The one hand backhand uses alot more linear power and much less rotational power. In fact over rotation is one thing that derails alot of OHBH. That is swinging around like a top on a OHBH..

If that wasn't enough like most pros Fed hits reverse forehands as well - which is a whole nothing thing to learn... This is shot that hasn't even been taught to me by any pros.. So good luck with that.. Then you need to learn an assortment of tough slice shots and lobs and a whole lot more..

The practice time involved in emulating Fed is GIGANTIC - and what is worse (and this is something few people talk about) Fed's great "variety" is a detriment to many players if they emulate.. That's right a detriment. Your not going to win being "okay" at dozens of shots. One dude who hits a nice simple topspin forehand - and backhand who can place the ball and hit with power is going to spank the fed wannabe 9/10 times IMHO.

Variety is only useful if every shot is hit at a very high level. Its all about execution. Mastering the basics is more useful then trying to mirror a master. Its like playing hoops - the dude with the sweet jumper and solid fundamentals is MUCH better to have on your team then the dude with the off-balance runners and funky "high release" jumpers who bricks half his shots..

Not sure who on the women's side you should emulate..Anyway fed emulation is likely bad for teh game much like how Johnny Mac emulation screwed up alot of players with his ridiculous serve stances and amazing touch..
 
Last edited:
There are too many retards on this forum who think that this question is ********, and it makes me laugh.

OT: Why can't you emulate parts of their play rather than the whole set? Surely there isn't a restriction forcing you to emulate the Federer backhand slice if you want to emulate him at all. Just take what you think will work better for you, try them all out on your next practice and make up your mind.
 
first step surely has to be looks, get his kit, racket, head band, without that then no point in having a stroke or strokes like him, people wont take you seriously.
 
I think it's fun to emulate different players, especially the ones you admire. For me, the critical thing is to avoid obsessing about trying to hit exactly like these players. There are things that you can pick up and use in your game, and then there are things that most of us simply cannot do.

So my best advice is: have fun experimenting with both players' styles, but don't forget to also believe in your own natural style and habits that come with it.

37e42a9cc70ecfa28880372e53205937_resized.jpg
 
Last edited:
Emulate federer. He's better, beautiful swing, efficient, and more talented.

That's my take at it. Why not give emulating federer a chance? You can go back and emulate the other guy if it doesn't work out. You'll obviously have to work harder to emulate federer. Copy the basics of it, not the really complex idiosyncrasies. I personally think federer's younger form (before 2006) is easier to learn then the one he use nowadays.
 
Fed of course.
Why make tennis more work that it already is?
And if you can actually copy a style, why not a succesful one, at the very top of the game.
 
darthpwner said:
I like both of these guys. Roger is the greatest player ever. Alex is a great college player. Both have some similar games. All-court games, big serves and forehands, and 1 handed backhands. Who's a better model?
Click to expand...
Does Alex have a brother named Chris who went to Harvard?
 
My advice in all of this is simply copy a style you 'can' copy. We all just look at the swing but there are so many factors going into a shot in terms of leverage, balance, contact point, flexibility that are hinged around genetics and build. Which means no matter how to try, somethings can't be emulated unless your a clone.

Look, I understand it's good to have role models in tennis but you need to be realistic. I went thru the same thing. I wanted to hit exactly like Safin but he's 6'4 and I'm 5'8. His contact point, length of limb, even where he perceives the ball is very different from me. So, a better role model for me is Olivier Rocchus. He's someone close to my size who's maximized his potential as a tour player of small stature. Chang would also be a good model for me.

Just because Federer is the best, (sorry Nadal) doesn't mean we can all rush out and try to be clones. Sometimes I think it's more Vanity then anything practical.
 
^^ right on... body type determines swing/ footwork patterns, which determines point construction patterns.
 
Due to this thread, i pulled up some Alex Clayton vids.
I was impressed with several important areas.

Starts with great defense and builds from there by having such good court coverage.
open stance helps greatly here.
Tries to make every shot.
Nice biting topspin, very modern swing.
Open stance Fh, with very obvious up and across the ball motion.
Quick to get to net at any good opportunity.

Not sucked in by the hit for the back 3 feet of the court myth and Avoids depth risks by hitting just past the svc line with good power, but still clears the net easily-getting it down in the court quickly with all that biting topspin. Makes him very consistent, even with his power.
 
Last edited:
work on contact point and efficient, consistent mechanics with your strokes, whatever that winds up looking like will be fine. copy pro movement if you can, great movement and workmanlike strokes beats trophy form and crap footwork every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ballinbob
Watched the most boring match of my life today
Replies
18
Views
2K
Rhinosaur
Rhinosaur
T
How many good servers have you seen?
Replies
30
Views
1K
tennis3
T
powerangle
  • Poll Poll
Better slow hard court player? Agassi or Djokovic?
Replies
43
Views
4K
Fiji
Fiji
T
  • Poll Poll
Higher peak level: Gasquet or Kohlschreiber?
Replies
9
Views
752
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
M
Is the forehand the only thing that made Court better than King
Replies
34
Views
2K
Verbal Volley
V
Back
Top