Brain game: Roger Federer exposes the biggest lie in tennis

[falstaff78]

@Meles @stringertom @Sysyphus @-NN- @PeteD @Gary Duane @TheGhostOfAgassi

Freddy bear lobbing grenades from atop the mountain. Craig O'Shaughnessy going to kill it on follow up with stats in a 5 part series. Get your popcorn.

#MemoToMoney'sCoaches


Part 1.
Below. Summary of Roger's original presser.

Part 2
Here's part 2 of the series. Showing the frequency with which young guys used S&V in Wimbledon 2017. And showing that S&V was the most winning strategy vs. Federer.

Part 3
Here's part 3 of the series. Showing decline of S&V at Wimbledon from 1997 to 2017, and showing that win% on S&V were constant throughout the decline.

Part 4
Here's part 4 of the series. Showing that the relative win% of baseline, approach & volley, and S&V have been roughly constant at 46%, 64% and 68% respectively since 1997. And the same is true of 18-23 yr olds in 2017. (Unfortunately didn't share win% for baseline on serve)


PART 1/5

https://www.braingametennis.com/roger-federer-exposes-the-biggest-lie-in-tennis-part-15/

What frightens Roger Federer?

A week ago today, Roger Federer walked into an interview room at Wimbledon to talk about his historic eighth title. These Monday “day after” interviews are meant to be very fluffy, lots of fun, and mostly reflective on what it’s like to win the biggest prize in our sport. A continuation of the celebration…

It certainly started that way, and then we got some serious “straight talk” from the Swiss champion. He touched on strategy and player development. He talked about coaching philosophies.

He then exposed the greatest lie in tennis… that the net does not work any more in our sport.

In his own, subtle, sophisticated way, he called out coaches, and he called out players. He especially shook his head at the strategy of younger players, who hope to be successful at Wimbledon against the greats – with a one-dimensional baseline game. He called it how he saw it.

Let’s go through the interview and clearly understand Roger’s point of view. Just a reminder that very few players speak this openly about our game. Comments like these carry a lot of weight, and don’t come along that often.


Quote 1 – Celebration
“My head’s ringing. I don’t know what I did last night. I drank too many types of drinks, I guess. After the ball, we went to a bar and there were almost 30 to 40 friends that were there, so we had a great time. I got to bed at 5am, then woke up and just didn’t feel good." - Roger Federer

If you can’t celebrate winning a record EIGHTH Wimbledon title, what can you celebrate?




Quote 2 – Not Strong Enough
"Every generation definitely is different. Since my generation and Rafa’s generation, the next one hasn’t been strong enough to push all of us out really, so that has been helpful for us to stick around." - Roger Federer

Roger is just warming up here. He correctly asserts that players younger than Roger and Rafa have not been able to remove them from the pinnacle of the sport. He does not get into the “why” yet. He is just laying down the groundwork…




Quote 3 – If You Can’t Volley
“They can choose not to play that way, too, if the coach has taught them to play differently. I know you can easily get sucked into that mode when you don’t want to attack, but if you can’t volley you aren’t going to go to the net." - Roger Federer

“IF YOU CAN’T VOLLEY”

Bang. Take that #NextGen. Right between the eyes.

Think of it like this. Roger, Nole, Rafa & Andy sit at the top of the tennis mountain. They only look down the mountain, seeing player after player after player trying to climb up to their lofty heights to dethrone them.

These players are simply not fully prepared/equipped for the task. They are trying to do it with an incomplete set of tools. This next generation of players loves to slap a forehand and a backhand from the back of the court… but finishing points at the net is much more a weakness than a strength.

Interesting that Roger mentions coaches here (of which I am also one). Globally, the coaching community fixates much more on the back of the court than the front of the court. Tons of forehand and backhands. Precious few volleys. What is universally lacking is the development of the correct continental volley grip, fundamentally sound “catching” technique, and the high percentage strategies to transition from the baseline to the net.

When a player finally reaches “The Big 4” for a shot at the title, they think they are ready. They are not ready. They can’t volley. They don’t have 10 years of volley work under their belt, so they completely shy away from the net under the bright lights.



Quote 4 – It’s Frightening To See

"I have played almost every player here that wouldn’t serve and volley. It’s frightening to see this at this level. I look at the stats and go into whichever round it is and see that the guy I’m going to face is playing 2 per cent of serve and volley throughout the championships. I’m going, ‘OK, I know he’s not going to serve and volley’, which is great." - Roger Federer

If Roger Federer is frightened, then we should all be frightened too.

The new generation of players are too one-dimensional. They have spent their entire junior careers mindlessly, endlessly hitting groundstrokes. They love to grind. They boast about it. They are completely missing the point.

You really think you are going to out-grind Murray, or Djokovic, or Nadal, or Federer, or Thiem, or Nishikori, or Goffin, or Ferrer? Come on now…

The new generation can’t serve and volley. Period. The reason is simple. From ages 10-18, during the formative growth/improvement years, they overwhelmingly dismissed it. Coaches can also get more “wins” on the board quicker for juniors by developing the baseline. It turns into complete overkill, and incomplete players are now flooding our game.

It is frightening, Roger. The youth think they are prepared. Far from it.




QUOTE 5 – Good Things Do Happen There

“Then we are talking about grass, it was playing fast this week [compared with the first week]. I wish that we would see more players taking chances up at the net because good things do happen there. You want to be there and have to spend some time up there to feel confident and good there.” - Roger Federer

Of course they do! It does not matter if you serve and volley, or approach and volley. The average tournament win percentages at the front of the court for both men and women are ALWAYS higher than the win percentages from the baseline.

We have bred a generation of “1/2 court players”. They specialize in the 1/2 of the court from the baseline to the back fence. Whatever happened to the area from the baseline to the net? It never stopped producing a winning percentage, even as players and coaches overwhelmingly lost faith in it.



QUOTE 6 – Good Luck

Federer then responded to a question that maybe players were following the lead of Murray and Djokovic, who seemingly dominate from the back of the court.

“They are very different. Andy has a lot of variety in his way but, yes, a slugfest with Andy and Novak from the baseline, or Rafa for that matter, good luck. If you are No. 50 in the world, it is not so simple to take them out.” - Roger Federer

How in the world are you going to out-hustle, out-run, out-work, out-maneuver, or out-hit Novak or Andy or Rafa from the baseline? That’s their sweet spot. You have got to find other areas to attack… such as the net.


Summary

When Roger says it’s frightening to see players not have the ability or confidence or know-how to serve and volley on grass at Wimbledon, it’s high time to sit up and take notice. Now is the time to re-adjust our global tennis development paradigm.

The net worked yesterday. It works today. It will work tomorrow as well.

Speaking of tomorrow, Part 2 of this 5 part Blog series will focus on the following:

• Wimbledon 2017. Players aged 18-23. There were 25 of them. How did they perform serving and volleying?
• Is Roger really correct to call them out for a lack of serve & volley?

See you tomorrow.

Craig

 

[-NN-]

That whole presser is extremely poignant and it's good to see it summarised and highlighted appropriately here.

Not heard these statements? Take a listen.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I think Federer was being a little short-sighted here. After all, it wasn't until his own ground game declined that he started approaching the net more often. If the younger players are still in their prime and have a relatively better ground game to work with, maybe their chances are better from the ground than at the net.

Now, I'm not saying having a good net game isn't helpful. But the question is if it's worth sacrificing your ground game to get a better net game. Under current tour conditions, I don't think it is. Even Federer who's had the most success with his net game in recent years got his net game exposed at times by Djokovic at his best at Wimbledon. Maybe the times really have changed.

 

[Fedfan34]

I think Federer was being a little short-sighted here. After all, it wasn't until his own ground game declined that he started approaching the net more often. If the younger players are still in their prime and have a relatively better ground game to work with, maybe their chances are better from the ground than at the net.

Now, I'm not saying having a good net game isn't helpful. But the question is if it's worth sacrificing your ground game to get a better net game. Under current tour conditions, I don't think it is. Even Federer who's had the most success with his net game in recent years got his net game exposed at times by Djokovic at his best at Wimbledon. Maybe the times really have changed.

I don't think you have to sacrifice your ground game to have a good net game. Federer's youthful years were marked by his excellent transition from baseline to net, usually to finish the point on a simple put-away volley, and mix in the occasional serve and volley 1 out of 10 times. If more players could that now, especially transition for the put away volley there would be more shake up in the results.

 

[kramer woodie]

Serve and Volley is ALIVE. S & V where are you. Thought you would be the first to say hallelujah, it's finally been said out loud! It's been stated by the Maestro. Who would have thunk Serve and Volley was not dead, but very necessary, especially in todays game. Who would have thunk? ME!

Aloha

 

[Fedberg20]

I don't think you have to sacrifice your ground game to have a good net game. Federer's youthful years were marked by his excellent transition from baseline to net, usually to finish the point on a simple put-away volley, and mix in the occasional serve and volley 1 out of 10 times. If more players could that now, especially transition for the put away volley there would be more shake up in the results.

I agree. I also think Roger is not saying that youngsters should just rush the net, but that they are completely unable to even go up there and so something, which means they don't have a plan B, and their execution of plan A (the ground game) is simply lacking behind the top guys. And he is completely right, because how many times do we see younger guys bashing endlessly from the baseline only to either miss a sitter, go for too much because they aren't making much progress or, very occasionally, make a foolish approach or simply miss a fairly easy volley? For me Roger's point is that they should be able to change it up from time to time.

Craig's articles are quite cool and he provides valuable insight with some great stats - what happened to the ATP site? Their stats now don't even include basic figures such as winners or UE, let alone any advanced stats. The Grand Slams have a good stat coverage but all other events basically copy these stats which are almost worthless.

 

[reaper]

That's an interesting article. I guess coaches in the formative years are preparing junior players. They probably lose more than they win when going to the net. If you get a player good enough to then graduate to the circuit, it's tough to experiment with net play when they're desperate for wins in the short term. Some guys...If they can afford it, probably need to go through 2 years of beat downs to develop a net game. It takes a leap of faith that you'll be rewarded in the end.

 

[Nitish]

I think Federer was being a little short-sighted here. After all, it wasn't until his own ground game declined that he started approaching the net more often. If the younger players are still in their prime and have a relatively better ground game to work with, maybe their chances are better from the ground than at the net.

Now, I'm not saying having a good net game isn't helpful. But the question is if it's worth sacrificing your ground game to get a better net game. Under current tour conditions, I don't think it is. Even Federer who's had the most success with his net game in recent years got his net game exposed at times by Djokovic at his best at Wimbledon. Maybe the times really have changed.

True, Feds net play is good because he did have a solid net game to begin with. He grew up in a setting where S & V was the norm at Wimbledon.Maybe if the young guns see a Serve an Volley player win Wimbledon they might consider coming to the net more often .

Having said that Fed is saying to mix things up a bit,his point is basically you are not going to beat Murray and Djokovic from the back of the court.Some of the young guns have really poor volleying skills, Zverev jr whenever he comes to the net looks awkward. Having a decent net game will make him finish points much more quickly and help in the longer run. Rafa for all the comments he gets for being too defensive has a solid net game and rarely misses smashes and volleys.

 

[Jackuar]

as mn

I think Federer was being a little short-sighted here. After all, it wasn't until his own ground game declined that he started approaching the net more often. If the younger players are still in their prime and have a relatively better ground game to work with, maybe their chances are better from the ground than at the net.

Now, I'm not saying having a good net game isn't helpful. But the question is if it's worth sacrificing your ground game to get a better net game. Under current tour conditions, I don't think it is. Even Federer who's had the most success with his net game in recent years got his net game exposed at times by Djokovic at his best at Wimbledon. Maybe the times really have changed.

My thoughts and I believe fits as a reply to your opinion.

Look at that statement from Fed!
"I look at the stats and go into whichever round it is and see that the guy I’m going to face is playing 2 per cent of serve and volley throughout the championships. I’m going, ‘OK, I know he’s not going to serve and volley’, which is great."

-- And that means the Big 4 immediately knows that they can safely aim for a good (just good, not even great or better) serve return. Do we know what that means? It means they're not bothered about losing the point within first two shots! Damn, that's 25% of the entire flow of a particular point!

Secondly, any sane person who knows a bit of tennis easily knows that the serve is the launch pad of your game. And what do they do? They lose it promptly, throw that strength point right away out of the window and then hope to win against the legends. Seriously, they're both kidding and indeed, kids.

I remember Federer mentioned in the same interview something like, that he wants the younger players to serve and volley, just by a mere few% more, probably another 5% more. That very little bit of uncertainty is more than enough to de-stabilize the receiving player and make him think. And when a player is thinking, he isn't playing! (I remember Steve Tignor wrote a column in tennis.com after the AO17 that the difference Fed had which helped him win against Nadal was that, he sorted out his backhand, he longer had to "think" what to do through the game, but simply "play" the game. It helped him to get immersed in the game rather than working out the technicalities). The same thing applies to anybody. You sort out your tools, sharpen them and keep ready and then you play. The moment you make your opponent "think" rather than "play" you've won half the battle. And one method to do that is keeping it uncertain.

When Fed says "I know they won't SV", he basically says brutally, "You know what... I know you're not gonna rattle me even by as much as a leaf's move"

 

[The_18th_Slam]

My thoughts and I believe fits as a reply to your opinion.

Look at that statement from Fed!
"I look at the stats and go into whichever round it is and see that the guy I’m going to face is playing 2 per cent of serve and volley throughout the championships. I’m going, ‘OK, I know he’s not going to serve and volley’, which is great."

-- And that means the Big 4 immediately knows that they can safely aim for a good (just good, not even great or better) serve return. Do we know what that means? It means they're not bothered about losing the point within first two shots! Damn, that's 25% of the entire flow of a particular point!

Secondly, any sane person who knows a bit of tennis easily knows that the serve is the launch pad of your game. And what do they do? They lose it promptly, throw that strength point right away out of the window and then hope to win against the legends. Seriously, they're both kidding and indeed, kids.

I remember Federer mentioned in the same interview that he wants the younger players to serve and volley, just by a mere 2% more. That very little bit of uncertainty is more than enough to de-stabilize the receiving player and make him think. And when a player is thinking, he isn't playing! (I remember Steve Tignor wrote a column in tennis.com after the AO17 that the difference Fed had which helped him win against Nadal was that, he sorted out his backhand, he longer had to "think" what to do through the game, but simply "play" the game. It helped him to get immersed in the game rather than working out the technicalities). The same thing applies to anybody. You sort out your tools, sharpen them and keep ready and then you play. The moment you make your opponent "think" rather than "play" you've won half the battle. And one method to do that is keeping it uncertain.

When Fed says "I know they won't SV", he basically says brutally, "You know what... I know you're not gonna rattle me even by a leaf's move"

I think the bit about mixing it up is a fair point. It was part of why the SABR was ingenious.

 

[Jackuar]

I think the bit about mixing it up is a fair point. It was part of why the SABR was ingenious.

Of course. SABR was a great innovation from him.

Honestly, I think more people should do even the underarm serve, false serve etc. Its not wrong according to the rules, why the uncalled "gamesmanship" in that? I say feel free to mix it up, give the opponent a head ache..!

 

[canta_Brian]

Do juniors play much doubles these days?

 

[ChrisRF]

@OP
Good post!

IMO there are two reasons why the new generation is so one-dimensional

1) It is too difficult to be successful with variety these days (in the poly era). You almost have to be a Federer to do so. Otherwise topspin and grinding will seal the deal. But you cannot learn to be a “new Federer”, while a game like Djokovic’s is rather the result of constant physical and hitting practice. Both players were very successful, so their role model is the one they can try to copy.

2) They never wanted to outgrind Nadal, Djokovic or Murray, but rather they just wanted to be the next Nadal, Djokovic or Murray when the originals are too old to grind anymore. They wanted to dominate the new generation in the same fashion N, D and M dominated theirs (apart from Federer), and were a bit surprised how long they lasted. And for Federer, most likely they just hope there will never be another one (which should be true, at least not in the next generation).

It’s possible Federer has the same thoughts, but of course he cannot say: “No chance to copy me because I’m unique”

 

[clayqueen]

@OP
Good post!

IMO there are two reasons why the new generation is so one-dimensional

1) It is too difficult to be successful with variety these days (in the poly era). You almost have to be a Federer to do so. Otherwise topspin and grinding will seal the deal. But you cannot learn to be a “new Federer”, while a game like Djokovic’s is rather the result of constant physical and hitting practice. Both players were very successful, so their role model is the one they can try to copy.

2) They never wanted to outgrind Nadal, Djokovic or Murray, but rather they just wanted to be the next Nadal, Djokovic or Murray when the originals are too old to grind anymore. They wanted to dominate the new generation in the same fashion N, D and M dominated theirs (apart from Federer), and were a bit surprised how long they lasted. And for Federer, most likely they just hope there will never be another one (which should be true, at least not in the next generation).

It’s possible Federer has the same thoughts, but of course he cannot say: “No chance to copy me because I’m unique”

Shame one can't unlike a post.

 

[underground]

I think the reason this is the case with the Lost Gen and Next Gen is because they probably grew up practising during the 2008-2013 years, where baseline play became more and more important. I think it wasn't until 2014 when Fedberg and Djokovic-Becker came round before the world started to realise that there's more to the baseline game (incidentally I think also around 2014 certain courts started speeding up again, I remember Rafa that year mentioning AO was much faster compared to 2012). I think we'll see more all Court players in the "next next gen".

 

[ChrisRF]

Shame one can't unlike a post.

Also a shame you cannot stay on topic.

If you are afraid that my post could have debased your beloved Rafa, then calm down. He is by far the best in history concerning topspin and grinding, and because of that he has the most effective style to win on high-bouncing courts these days.

This guy did many things right in his career, I would never deny that. And why did he so in first place? Because he knew thatt even if his game is almost too hard on his body, there is no other way for him to succeed on the top, because he is no Federer.

So what is your problem? That is something you can be proud of as a fan. Or do you really want to hear he is also more variable than Federer? Do you really want to fool yourself so much?

 

[gn]

Players are paying the coaches and this guy is giving away the farm for free. It is also nice to hear Federer say that these guys are not good enough
to dismantle the old farts instead of saying he is playing better than ever.

 

[-NN-]

I don't think you have to sacrifice your ground game to have a good net game. Federer's youthful years were marked by his excellent transition from baseline to net, usually to finish the point on a simple put-away volley, and mix in the occasional serve and volley 1 out of 10 times. If more players could that now, especially transition for the put away volley there would be more shake up in the results.

Precisely. And Federer used the net plenty enough for the opposition to know he was very handy there and grew up with the complete game, as did many of his peers. The gen that followed him were baseline huggers but they still had serviceable net skills. Now it's all much of a muchness and too many young up and comers are clueless in the forecourt. None of them will be winning big events if they don't at least become quite proficient up there, like Nadal was even in his early Slam winning years. These guys can develop said skills and their lopsided order of development might end up being fine but they're still going to actually need to produce that development before becoming elite. Progression looks very staggered these days rather than holistic.

 

[Gary Duane]

Precisely. And Federer used the net plenty enough for the opposition to know he was very handy there and grew up with the complete game, as did many of his peers. The gen that followed him were baseline huggers but they still had serviceable net skills. Now it's all much of a muchness and too many young up and comers are clueless in the forecourt. None of them will be winning big events if they don't at least become quite proficient up there, like Nadal was even in his early Slam winning years. These guys can develop said skills and their lopsided order of development might end up being fine but they're still going to actually need to produce that development before becoming elite. Progression looks very staggered these days rather than holistic.

I wrote elsewhere that young players copy the guys who are winning, but that should probably be corrected to something else: coaches teach their young players to do that.

When you have the concept of Big Four, and the only one of those top players who is reasonably aggressive in contrast to the rest of the field and who WINS is Federer, and his main competition way back before 2008 is a guy who appears to be winning from the baseline, that's what people are going to copy.

For just this reason it appeared that everyone young was going to try to use a 2HBH at the time that Connors, Evert and Borg were dominating the tennis scene.

I believe that Federer's game, while beautiful, began to look like "yesterday's tennis". He couldn't win majors. Everything today is measured by majors.

I'm wagering that his success this year will reset things more than most people imagine. Suddenly his way of playing looks like success, and bashing from the baseline is now looking more like the way to lose. If a young player adopts Federer's game style and then dominates, I think the whole thing will swing the other way.

 

[-NN-]

@Gary Duane. Absolutely - coaches have a LOT of say in this. I agree that what's winning has a huge say in the direction coaches and players take, but it's always the individual who rises regardless of his paradigm providing they have the talent. The racket tech and playing conditions do skew it though, otherwise Nadal and co. would probably use the net more often and it would open the door a bit for other players. The talent will always rise though and they set the tone.

 

[guanzishou]

Well,
Llodra beat Djokovic.
Mischa beat Murray.
Müller beat Nadal.

Long live S&V !

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Everything has to be fast.

Juniors have to start winning matches as fast as possible.

They have to develop technique fast.

They have to develop physique fast.

They have to adapt to gruelling tour conditions fast.

They have to challenge the top players fast.

All with a promise that it is the only right way.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I wrote elsewhere that young players copy the guys who are winning, but that should probably be corrected to something else: coaches teach their young players to do that.

When you have the concept of Big Four, and the only one of those top players who is reasonably aggressive in contrast to the rest of the field and who WINS is Federer, and his main competition way back before 2008 is a guy who appears to be winning from the baseline, that's what people are going to copy.

For just this reason it appeared that everyone young was going to try to use a 2HBH at the time that Connors, Evert and Borg were dominating the tennis scene.

I believe that Federer's game, while beautiful, began to look like "yesterday's tennis". He couldn't win majors. Everything today is measured by majors.

I'm wagering that his success this year will reset things more than most people imagine. Suddenly his way of playing looks like success, and bashing from the baseline is now looking more like the way to lose. If a young player adopts Federer's game style and then dominates, I think the whole thing will swing the other way.

Even peak Fed didn't spawn many imitators though barring Dimitrov. Nor Nadal. Maybe their forehand is harder to imitate (Mischa Zverev did say it is harder for the volleyer to read Fedal's forehands compared to Murray).

As for nextgen volleyers, I haven't seen much of them in the pro circuit but when Luke Saville won Wimbledon in juniors, both he and Liam Broady seemed to be comfortable at net. But neither have done well on the tour yet. Pouille has good hands at net but again doesn't look like the kind of player who could dominate the tour, not even close. Fed is right in prodding young players to come to the net but then he has had the best forehand in the game and it's still one of the best. Easier to set up the volley with a forehand like Fed and add to that his slice. Only Zverev among the youngsters has a good combination of power and consistency from the back court and he is sadly lacking at net. But just one player. My point is the young ones aren't even playing the grinding game all that well and most seem to lack the shot tolerance of the big four. When Safin beat Sampras at USO he didn't just overpower him, he was also rock solid from the baseline. There was one point where he just pushed against Sampras, like telling him he couldn't hurt him from there and had to come to the net.

 

[Jonas78]

@Meles @stringertom @Sysyphus @TheGhostOfAgassi

Lets hope Casper and his team read this.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

@Meles @stringertom @Sysyphus @TheGhostOfAgassi

Lets hope Casper and his team read this.

First of all Casper needs to return better before he can dip into any of that.

 

[Jonas78]

First of all Casper needs to return better before he can dip into any of that.

Probably watching too much Rafa...

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Probably watching too much Rafa...

Not really, Rafa is a great returner Should prob watch him more.

 

[Jonas78]

Not really, Rafa is a great returner Should prob watch him more.

Probably shouldnt copy his distance to baseline though

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Probably shouldnt copy his distance to baseline though

I know many in here have a big hangup on that...Casper loves clay. If you want him to become like Federer you will be very dissapointed. Try to like Casper for what he is and focus on realistic improvements that fits his game. Casper hates grass... a lot!

 

[Jonas78]

I know many in here have a big hangup on that...Casper loves clay. If you want him to become like Federer you will be very dissapointed. Try to like Casper for what he is and focus on realistic improvements that fits his game. Casper hates grass... a lot!

Of course, but i hope he is aiming to develop a game thats competetive on HC. I dont think Casper is suited to play like Nadal, not many players are. Neither should he play like Federer. Maybe he doesnt know exactly what "he is" yet himself? Taking advice from the top players would probably be smart

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Of course, but i hope he is aiming to develop a game thats competetive on HC. I dont think Casper is suited to play like Nadal, not many players are. Neither should he play like Federer. Maybe he doesnt know exactly what he is yet himself? Taking advice from the top players would probably be smart

I think thats what he is doing too.
He trained 3 days w Rafa in Manacor before Monte Carlo. Casper loves clay so its likely he wants to play that.
I hope too he develop in hard, which he wants to. He plays in Citi open w a spendid line up. Hope he is up for it and has a good draw.
Its filled w fun players
http://www.citiopentennis.com/en/players/atp-players

 

[KINGROGER]

I remember watching A. Zverev vs Kyrgios and Kyrgios came to the net. Zverev successfully lobbed him but then for some reason stood still on the baseline which allowed Kyrgios to float one back to the baseline, which Zverev then ball bashed outside the lines for an UFE.... painful viewing.

 

[Sysyphus]

I think one of the main problems is that coaching and player development most places is designed with the purpose of making players that compete and have results very early. If you don't get results already in the early juniors, you don't get the best coaching or opportunities. This way of player development encourages short-cuts and solutions that are beneficial for early success but may hinder ideal long-term development. The American system is maybe the most obvious example, where everything is so closely tied to results and competition from an early age (regional rankings, making the high school starting line-up or whatever), and I think it shows in their players. You get all these fugly full-western forehands that's surely a response to dealing with shoulder-high top-spin balls during junior competition, but it may not be ideal when they mature. Same with net game: it takes long to develop it into a winning strategy, so it's often just neglected to prioritize short-term benefit.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a single tennis club in Moscow, whose philosophy is to hold young players back from early competition and focus on ingraining fundamentals, has churned out a truckload of top players and slam champs. This weekend we saw another one from their ranks win his first tour title, a player whose forehand technique is drastically different from the bent-arm full-western variants that so many of his peers use. (granted, his net game still sux, lol)

 

[falstaff78]

I think one of the main problems is that coaching and player development most places is designed with the purpose of making players that compete and have results very early. If you don't get results already in the early juniors, you don't get the best coaching or opportunities. This way of player development encourages short-cuts and solutions that are beneficial for early success but may hinder ideal long-term development. The American system is maybe the most obvious example, where everything is so closely tied to results and competition from an early age (regional rankings, making the high school starting line-up or whatever), and I think it shows in their players. You get all these fugly full western forehands that's surely a response to dealing with shoulder-high top-spin balls during junior competition, but it may not be ideal when they mature. Same with net game: it takes long to develop it into a winning strategy, so it's often just neglected to prioritize short-term benefit.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a single tennis club in Moscow, whose philosophy is to hold young players back from early competition and focus on ingraining fundamentals, has churned out a truckload of top players and slam champs. This weekend we saw another one from their ranks win his first tour title, a player whose forehand technique is drastically different from the bent-arm full-western variants that so many of his peers use. (granted, his net game still sux, lol)

Some times a like button isn't enough

 

[Enga]

If you watch most pro players practice, even Federer, its funny. They hit 80% of their shots from the baseline, sometimes kinda lazy, just going through the motions. Then they transition to the "net" part of the practice. They hit a nice approach shot, move into the net. 1, 2, 3 volleys. Then "alright!", I'm done, give me something to smash, then lets get back to the real game, hitting from the baseline. 50 baseline warmup shots vs a few volley warmup shots.

Federer to be honest, is the same as most players. He barely practices volleys. But he has the history of practicing volleys in the past, and even being a serve and volleyer for a small portion of his career, so he can get away with it. But younger players don't have that experience.

Most players also don't play any doubles on tour, for fear that they will lose out on practice for the singles.

So yeah, even to fans just spectating the sport, it's painfully obvious that younger players aren't comfortable at the net.

 

[ibbi]

If he was learning to play the game now he'd be the same. Why would anyone teach their students to play that way when he himself saw fit to stop playing that way, and went on to achieve unparalleled success?

I wish it would happen, but realistically it's a waste of time to work as hard as you would have to in order to succeed in an area that's only going to come in real handy maybe 4 weeks out of the whole year.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

If he was learning to play the game now he'd be the same. Why would anyone teach their students to play that way when he himself saw fit to stop playing that way, and went on to achieve unparalleled success?

I wish it would happen, but realistically it's a waste of time to work as hard as you would have to in order to succeed in an area that's only going to come in real handy maybe 4 weeks out of the whole year.

I agree. Why focus on grass.
Grass is now for the players that accidentally likes grass and plays good on it.

 

[HipRotation]

I don't know why Federer would say that he is happy people don't S&V him, he has an easier time returning that kind of game than he does against baseliners.

 

[stringertom]

I think thats what he is doing too.
He trained 3 days w Rafa in Manacor before Monte Carlo. Casper loves clay so its likely he wants to play that.
I hope too he develop in hard, which he wants to. He plays in Citi open w a spendid line up. Hope he is up for it and has a good draw.
Its filled w fun players
http://www.citiopentennis.com/en/players/atp-players

It won't be an easy fun ride if he hasn't
improved his HC skills (i.e. basic understanding of the laws of court geometry) since getting schooled at Miami 2&1 by veteran Rendy Lu, his last opponent on that surface.

@Sysyphus and I both saw the big flaw in his game in his matches last fall after his Seville Challenger title run. He's just way too far back in the court and makes it easier for his opponents to open up the court by playing in and creating angles to end points quickly. He adjusted that a bit during his great run on the Golden Swing, playing on probably the slowest of slow red clay in the world. Still, there were too many one-break or TB sets against journeymen clay court grinders (Dutra Silva, RCB, and Monteiro) and plain rookies (Santillan and Soto). The good to great clay court players in that run (PCB, Delbonis and Souza) all beat him because they could stand inside or at the baseline and exploit his poor positioning. In PCB's case, he wore Ruud down and exploited the nerves of the inexperienced teen in the crucial second set and then put him down mercilessly in the third.

The same has happened now on Euro clay, usually a bit faster, and at Challenger level no less. Since RG, he is a mediocre 6-5 in MD Challenger matches, not exactly the progression his team was looking for to regain his lost confidence.

I watched one of those losses from first ball (Kolar 2R Poznan) and the only aggression on display was from his opponent. The last game, an attempt to stay in the match on serve in the second set, was a microcosm of his current dilemma. Kolar became the aggressor from his return and was looking to move to net to close and succeeded while Ruud did little to move his serve around or step in instead of back after serving.

You can't win with that strategy, even on clay unless you are an elite specimen like Nadal. On HCs it will be total failure.

 

[BeatlesFan]

The gist of what Roger said applies to both A-Zverev and Thiem. I know they're touted to the sky here, but Zverev never ventures near the net and Thiem does so rarely. Neither have the variety, the experimentation or the fearlessness to attack and vary their game. Z is only 20, but said at Wimbledon he'll never play serve-volley or feel comfy at net. This is a big reason why I think Shapovalov is the sounder pick for a future great player.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

It won't be an easy fun ride if he hasn't
improved his HC skills (i.e. basic understanding of the laws of court geometry) since getting schooled at Miami 2&1 by veteran Rendy Lu, his last opponent on that surface.

@Sysyphus and I both saw the big flaw in his game in his matches last fall after his Seville Challenger title run. He's just way too far back in the court and makes it easier for his opponents to open up the court by playing in and creating angles to end points quickly. He adjusted that a bit during his great run on the Golden Swing, playing on probably the slowest of slow red clay in the world. Still, there were too many one-break or TB sets against journeymen clay court grinders (Dutra Silva, RCB, and Monteiro) and plain rookies (Santillan and Soto). The good to great clay court players in that run (PCB, Delbonis and Souza) all beat him because they could stand inside or at the baseline and exploit his poor positioning. In PCB's case, he wore Ruud down and exploited the nerves of the inexperienced teen in the crucial second set and then put him down mercilessly in the third.

The same has happened now on Euro clay, usually a bit faster, and at Challenger level no less. Since RG, he is a mediocre 6-5 in MD Challenger matches, not exactly the progression his team was looking for to regain his lost confidence.

I watched one of those losses from first ball (Kolar 2R Poznan) and the only aggression on display was from his opponent. The last game, an attempt to stay in the match on serve in the second set, was a microcosm of his current dilemma. Kolar became the aggressor from his return and was looking to move to net to close and succeeded while Ruud did little to move his serve around or step in instead of back after serving.

You can't win with that strategy, even on clay unless you are an elite specimen like Nadal. On HCs it will be total failure.

One should think him and his team are well aware of his flaws and not winnable court position. Its just that for now he cant do it differently. Hopefully with practice he will do better.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

If he was learning to play the game now he'd be the same. Why would anyone teach their students to play that way when he himself saw fit to stop playing that way, and went on to achieve unparalleled success?

I wish it would happen, but realistically it's a waste of time to work as hard as you would have to in order to succeed in an area that's only going to come in real handy maybe 4 weeks out of the whole year.

idk, even Wawrinka does the occasional serve-volley and approaches net off and on. I don't think Fed is necessarily suggesting anything more than that and certainly not a Zverev like strategy on coming in on almost all first serves and some second serves. If the player mixes up baseline play with S&V and net approaches, it will keep the other guy off balance. Muller played this to near-perfection against Nadal, for instance. Of course, Muller can only beat players of that caliber on grass with his groundies but say a young player with strong groundies could be winning more with a better serve and better volleys.

 

[stringertom]

The gist of what Roger said applies to both A-Zverev and Thiem. I know they're touted to the sky here, but Zverev never ventures near the net and Thiem does so rarely. Neither have the variety, the experimentation or the fearlessness to attack and vary their game. Z is only 20, but said at Wimbledon he'll never play serve-volley or feel comfy at net. This is a big reason why I think Shapovalov is the sounder pick for a future great player.

Also look at Kuhn as a decent all-surface player, maybe less than Shapo on grass. His mindset displayed at the Braunschweig Challenger was to aggressively end points more quickly than other youngsters. He also must have decent comfort at net with his triumph in Boys dubs at RG this year as an example.

The other Young Spaniard Fokina also just won Wimby Boys singles. He has a big game already and is versatile enough to have also made the RG SFs just weeks earlier, losing to eventual champion Popyrin.

 

[nikdom]

Modern racquets have a big part to play too. Racquets influence game style and modern racquets combined with polys traded in feel for a lot of juice and spin.

I grew up with wooden racquets laying around the house and back then no one thought 12 oz was too heavy for kids or women. You just choked up on the handle or used two hands. Later when I did start playing it was with thin-beamed, high flex, tight-pattern racquets like the ProStaff 85.

What these old school racquets did is give a lot of stability and contact time so one could hone in on the "feel" of the racquets. Hitting against a wall or simply even bouncing a ball in the air with the racquet (bored kids needs something to do hehe) over time developed a 'racquet sense' if you will that I think kids these days simply don't have.

These modern sub 11 oz, 100+ sq in racquets with thick beams and 'spin' friendly open patterns are practically useless unless you're swinging them from low to high (or whatever it is they teach kids these days) like madmen from the back of the court.

Forget volleying at the net, a lot of players can't even slice from the back of the court because they never got comfortable working the face of their racquets - putting it through different angles and contact points on slice and volley and I understand why - they're just not designed to be very good at that.

Even today when I occasionally pull out my old PS85 and hit a few backhand slices with it, it's like using a scalpel. Sure, it's not going to win the contest trading high-bouncing groundstrokes but then you adapt your game to the strengths of the racquet (if you prefer that kind of game that is) - take balls off the bounce, be aggressive, use variety - slices, different heights and depth of shot, and take time away from the opponent instead of aimlessly pounding a 'heavy' ball back and forth.

I think one of the main problems is that coaching and player development most places is designed with the purpose of making players that compete and have results very early. If you don't get results already in the early juniors, you don't get the best coaching or opportunities. This way of player development encourages short-cuts and solutions that are beneficial for early success but may hinder ideal long-term development. The American system is maybe the most obvious example, where everything is so closely tied to results and competition from an early age (regional rankings, making the high school starting line-up or whatever), and I think it shows in their players. You get all these fugly full-western forehands that's surely a response to dealing with shoulder-high top-spin balls during junior competition, but it may not be ideal when they mature. Same with net game: it takes long to develop it into a winning strategy, so it's often just neglected to prioritize short-term benefit.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a single tennis club in Moscow, whose philosophy is to hold young players back from early competition and focus on ingraining fundamentals, has churned out a truckload of top players and slam champs. This weekend we saw another one from their ranks win his first tour title, a player whose forehand technique is drastically different from the bent-arm full-western variants that so many of his peers use. (granted, his net game still sux, lol)

 

[Tennisanity]

This is saying volley because you can't match the big 4 from the back. But why not? If Novak, Andy and Rafa can do it, then playing amazing from the backcourt is just another viable approach. Nobody has done it yet (not including Stan because he attacks more). Surely someone will come along that can match them. Andy did it. Is he so special?

 

[JMR]

I don't know why Federer would say that he is happy people don't S&V him, he has an easier time returning that kind of game than he does against baseliners.

He's happy that they are predictable, however they play. If Fed knows that an opponent will virtually never come to the net, he will adjust his return game accordingly. If he knows that an opponent will almost always come to the net (granted, few such specimens remain extant), he will adjust his game accordingly. Players who mix up their tactics deftly are few and far between these days, but clearly they would create an extra problem for Fed to solve.

 

[Dilexson]

Good read.

 

[metsman]

I think one of the main problems is that coaching and player development most places is designed with the purpose of making players that compete and have results very early. If you don't get results already in the early juniors, you don't get the best coaching or opportunities. This way of player development encourages short-cuts and solutions that are beneficial for early success but may hinder ideal long-term development. The American system is maybe the most obvious example, where everything is so closely tied to results and competition from an early age (regional rankings, making the high school starting line-up or whatever), and I think it shows in their players. You get all these fugly full-western forehands that's surely a response to dealing with shoulder-high top-spin balls during junior competition, but it may not be ideal when they mature. Same with net game: it takes long to develop it into a winning strategy, so it's often just neglected to prioritize short-term benefit.

I don't think it's a coincidence that a single tennis club in Moscow, whose philosophy is to hold young players back from early competition and focus on ingraining fundamentals, has churned out a truckload of top players and slam champs. This weekend we saw another one from their ranks win his first tour title, a player whose forehand technique is drastically different from the bent-arm full-western variants that so many of his peers use. (granted, his net game still sux, lol)

this is a correct poast.

The Yung Money has some decent touch out there though even if he mostly hugs the baseline.

 

[PeteD]

Ah for the good old days!

 

[Dolgopolov85]

This weekend we saw another one from their ranks win his first tour title, a player whose forehand technique is drastically different from the bent-arm full-western variants that so many of his peers use. (granted, his net game still sux, lol)

Even so, he did seem to get to net a lot against both Fognini and Lorenzi and was decent with putting away overheads/swing volleys. Saw some good volleys on the HLs. Anyway, the point is once a player's game is structured to be taking, he will come forward a lot more if only because there will be many more short balls to put away and many more opportunities to finish at the net. Rublev is still raw but he does have talent and, yes, an amazing forehand. Didn't look so amazing though when Murray was expertly moving him around at the AO earlier this year. Let's see how he shapes up against the big boys. When he gives a clinical display against an aging great ( a la Fed-Sampras W 01), that's when I'll know somebody is finally ready to take over the mantle.