Brain game: Roger Federer exposes the biggest lie in tennis

[abmk]

@falstaff78 :

Thanks for those stats. That clearly shows the tendencies of the younger generation.

However there is a flaw in the SnV, net and baseline points part.

The SnV points are all on serve, majority of the net point are.

You would expect players to win > 50% of those easily.

The baseline points are on opponents serve as well as federer's serve. The analysis would make sense if the baseline points were only on the service points of opponents. Same for net points.

 

[SpinToWin]

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.

Sometimes I wonder how you manage to churn out GOAT poasts at an astonishing rate, while also closely following what seems to be even the most obscure youngsters, while also (presumably?) having a life...

 

[Sysyphus]

@Dolgopolov85 I agree with your inference that the S&V win % of today's players would almost certainly have to drop when they apply it beyond a certain threshold. Say, if someone who normally approaches behind 10% of first serves were to increase it to the 80–100% range, then we would have to imagine the win % drops as the returner adapts.

But I agree with @falstaff78 that it's only a conjecture when it comes to when such a drop-off would occur and to what extent, and we'd have to see this actually happen to conclude much. For what it's worth, the remarkable stability of the win % throughout the years suggests to me that the win % is perhaps far less dependent on frequency than we might at first expect. It yielded pretty much the same benefit when they approached 66%, 52%, 42% or 22% of the time. But of course, the seeming independence of win % from approach frequency could very well just be a mirage. I.e., that players kept gradually reducing the S&V frequency to precisely such an extent that the win % nearly almost stayed similar.

But imagine that someone increased their S&V frequency from 10% to 50%. It's not clear to me at all that their effectiveness would have to take a hit or that the returner would successfully adapt at that rate. That might be the case, but I don't think we can conclude a priori. At 50%, you're basically giving your opponent perfect uncertainty: he's equally unsure whether you'll rush the net or stay back. He might start to adapt his returns more toward net-rushing, but what we have to remember is that this may just result in more short balls to pounce on all the times you decide to stay back. They aren't perfectly separate variables: even if your S&V win % takes a slight hit, it might still be beneficial to your overall game.

withal, I do suspect the optimal frequency for most players is well under 50%.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

13 min into it Federer explains why he think grass game has changed
Fed talk a lot about the change in tennis style in this video.

 

[falstaff78]

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

Part 4/5

https://www.braingametennis.com/roger-federer-exposes-the-biggest-lie-in-tennis-part-45/

Time to pick your poison.

Tennis looks random, kinda like pinball. Players typically hit cross court, but sometimes they also go down the line. Every now and then they also venture to the net. Nothing seems guaranteed.

It all looks random, but it’s not.

Tennis is actually a game of repeatable patterns. And those patterns produce percentages, which is exactly how you figure out how to be successful at this game…

Look at the following three WIN PERCENTAGES. They are Wimbledon averages from hundreds of thousands of points over 16 years from three different strategies.

1. Strategy 1 – Wins 46%
2. Strategy 2 – Wins 64%
3. Strategy 3 – Wins 68%

You have to now make three picks. You know the win percentages, but what you don’t know is the strategy connected to it.

Pick 1 = you must practice this 90% of the time. It will dominate your tennis existence.

Pick 2 = This pick gets the remaining 10% of your practice time. It’s basically just a sideshow.

Pick 3 = You can dismiss this from your training altogether. Just throw it out the window.

How did your picks go? Which strategy did you pick first?


Three Strategies

I know which one you picked first

Like every sane thinking human being, you wanted as much of that 68% win percentage as you can lay your hands on. Smart.

Now… when we take the covers off and see what’s under the hood… you are going to be very, very uncomfortable. You see, 68% is the win percentage for SERVE & VOLLEY over 16 years at Wimbledon in the men’s draw. You chose the one thing that you consistently ignore.

The 64% win percentage is finishing points at the net. The 46% win percentage is baseline points won.

I just turned your world upside down…


Wimbledon 2002-2017 Win Percentages: MEN Baseline / Approach / Serve & Volley

Is it really that simple?
Serve and volley is a specific strategy that you must commit to before you even know if you really have the upper hand or not. The fact you are serving certainly helps, but you have no idea what’s coming back, or how uncomfortable your opponent is before you have to commit to sprint forward to the net. At least with approaching you can get the opponent really off balance first before coming in.

All too often we muddy the water with varied opinions about serve and volley. Let’s not make that mistake again here.

Let.The.Numbers.Speak.For.Themselves.

Serve and volley consistently outperforms. It consistently delivers. It has never abandoned you.

For wayyyy too long we have seen a massive decline in the amount of serve and volley . There was this general global assumption that the players must know what they are doing – it really must not work.

It does. The win percentages have never been looked at – and that’s where the real truth is.


Remember our 18-23 year olds?
In Part 2, I did an analysis of how much they the 18-23 year male players served and volleyed at Wimbledon this year. Here’s a little reminder.


Tournament Averages: Serve & Volley

• 7.2% (1,894/26,375) Overall
• 2.2% (103/4,638) Players Aged 18-23

They overwhelmingly avoided serve and volley on the lush grass courts at Wimbledon. But should they? Do the youth of today’s game also perform better at the net than the baseline – even though they go out of their way to avoid it?

Here’s the answer…

25 Players Aged 18-23: Win Percentages

Baseline

• Tournament Total = 46%
• 18-23yo = 47%

Approach & Volley

• Tournament Total = 64%
• 18-23yo = 64%

Serve & Volley

• Tournament Total = 68%
• 18-23 yo = 73%

What the…..?

How ironic. The age group that shuns serve and volley – only does it 2.2% of total serve points versus 7.2 percent for everyone else – WINS 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS MORE than the tournament average…

Kids these days




TOMORROW
On Friday we conclude this series with serve and volley stats from Roger himself, with some other cameos from the past (like Pete Sampras). Tomorrow we highlight serve and volley for what it is – a true champion of our sport!!!

See you then,

Craig

 

[falstaff78]

But I agree with @falstaff78 that it's only a conjecture when it comes to when such a drop-off would occur and to what extent, and we'd have to see this actually happen to conclude much.

For example, I could strongly argue that from 2% onwards, until quite a high number, there will be substantial returns to extra match S&V experience.

@Dolgopolov85

 

[Fedberg20]

Please read my post again. I said IF say Fed is winning 80% of net points, then there is room to INCREASE net approaches, i.e., go to the net more often because you don't need to win such a high percentage of net approaches but at below 60, there isn't much room to go for even more net approaches. I have said exactly what you did above.

That is one way to interpret it. The other is, the strategy was used less and less while achieving success %. And again, I have not argued against a moderate increase in S&V usage if you read what I said. My disagreement with Craig's article is specifically with these two statements:

"It does not matter if you do it a little

It does not matter if you do it a lot"

IMO the percentages do not prove THAT. But by all means, players should S&V more if they are doing only 10% because by the same logic as mentioned above, 71% is still pretty high and if the same player is barely winning 50% up by staying back, he would certainly benefit by increasing S&V.

Oh, I apologize, I re-read your comment and yes, I misunderstood you the first time. So then we are basically in agreement, although I must say I feel that coming to the net often is not a losing strategy by default. Naturally, at this time S & V and net rushing can't be the foundations of your game, but I see absolutely no reason for people not to come in much more often then they do, providing they can make a solid approach and are at least competent volleyers and also do it on the right surface/court. In short, I don't think that neither Craig (come in as much as you want and you'll still win the same) nor you (the more you come in, the less you will win) are completely right but it's rather somewhere in the middle with various factors influencing your success rate, especially the quality of approach and your net skills as well as who you do it against.

 

[falstaff78]

Part 4 has a flaw. He needs to compare S&V winning percentage to baseline winning percentage on serve. Because that's the next best alternative foregone.

It's likely still better - but need to show the numbers.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Part 4 has a flaw. He needs to compare S&V winning percentage to baseline winning percentage on serve. Because that's the next best alternative foregone.

It's likely still better - but need to show the numbers.

Unfortunately, no matches from Wimbledon or indeed the grass season seem to have been charted so far on TA. But I looked up Muller v/s Evans Sydney. Muller is a good exhibit because he is not a compulsive S&Ver like MZ and at the same time does do it a lot more than the tour as such. So, he won 75% when S&Ving and 83% when not. That is not very compelling evidence in favour of increasing S&V percentage (though it could be argued that given Muller S&Ved on roughly 35% of all serves, he had already optimised S&V).

On the other hand, in the Wimbledon 2015 final, Fed had a 71% success rate with S&V and 66% without S&V. Since he only S&Ved on 28 points as opposed to 110 non S&V, there was probably room to increase S&V. Interestingly, while he came in only on 10 second serves, he won 72% of them but only 47% when he didn't come in behind his second serves.

 

[-NN-]

Well at least we know the future of the game and its evolution will result in players coming to their senses and being generally more all-court than they are today. We can be grateful for that in 20 years time. Said it for years anyway.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

.

But I agree with @falstaff78 that it's only a conjecture when it comes to when such a drop-off would occur and to what extent, and we'd have to see this actually happen to conclude much.

Yes, we don't know that. I was only disputing Craig's assertion which I have quoted, the logical implication of which would be to suggest that there would be no drop off.

.
But of course, the seeming independence of win % from approach frequency could very well just be a mirage. I.e., that players kept gradually reducing the S&V frequency to precisely such an extent that the win % nearly almost stayed similar.

IIRC from the chart posted in Craig's article, there was a drop off in percentage of S&V used already in the late 90s when there were plenty of players still coming in. So, I lean towards it being a mirage.

.
But imagine that someone increased their S&V frequency from 10% to 50%. It's not clear to me at all that their effectiveness would have to take a hit or that the returner would successfully adapt at that rate. That might be the case, but I don't think we can conclude a priori.

Indeed, it's just a hunch on my part. In the sense that for somebody to go from 10% to 50% would be to go from being an offensive baseliner with all court skills to a S&V specialist. In practice, that doesn't look like something that could be easily achieved without a drop in effectiveness. Of course, I have no statistical evidence to show this, but neither has Craig produced any evidence that there is no drop off at all. If he produced evidence that players who still S&V 50% or thereabouts STILL enjoy the same success rate as those who only S&V 2%, it would be a more persuasive argument. On the other hand, I believe I mentioned that MZ managed 'only' a high 50s success rate against Murray, coming in as much as the 90s tour average. A young gun who currently gets stuck like a deer in the headlights at the net is not going to be able to S&V as successfully as MZ. So in practice, the assertion that it doesn't matter whether you S&V a lot or a little doesn't seem to hold true and certainly should have been argued with more evidence.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Oh, I apologize, I re-read your comment and yes, I misunderstood you the first time. So then we are basically in agreement, although I must say I feel that coming to the net often is not a losing strategy by default. Naturally, at this time S & V and net rushing can't be the foundations of your game, but I see absolutely no reason for people not to come in much more often then they do, providing they can make a solid approach and are at least competent volleyers and also do it on the right surface/court. In short, I don't think that neither Craig (come in as much as you want and you'll still win the same) nor you (the more you come in, the less you will win) are completely right but it's rather somewhere in the middle with various factors influencing your success rate, especially the quality of approach and your net skills as well as who you do it against.

I didn't mean it that literally. As in, I don't think there would be a steep drop off, if any at all, going up from 2% to 10% S&V. But going up to 50% from 2%, there is bound to be a drop off because as I have expressed in my reply to Ssyphus, it is not just a question of numbers but moving to basically a radically different strategy, becoming a different player altogether.

 

[maruzo]

I'm afraid it's you that missed my point. I didn't say Federer was asking players to sacrifice their ground game. I meant working on your net game comes with certain sacrifices, one of which is your ground game. Sure, you can work on both, but every training session you work on your net game is one less training session you can work on your ground game.

Djokovic managed just fine. And for better or worse, he's the modern archetype of a Tennis player, because you can't teach someone to play Federer's brand of Tennis or Nadal's brand of Tennis.

Again, Djokovic managed just fine with a not-so-special net game. The game is not what it used to be. I think the days are gone when you absolutely have to have a strong net game to be able to perform well on all surfaces.

Nope. I didn't miss Federer's point. On the contrary, I agree with his point entirely. And I think you must be better than Fed in terms of tennis IQ and accomplishments. Because you are going against him and saying ground game is supreme and should be the primary emphasis in today's game.

Truth is, to be at the very top, you need to have working net game. I don't think you need to sacrifice your ground game just to have a working net game.

But what do I know, you are clearly better then Federer.

 

[fednad]

Shame one can't unlike a post.

email him that you do not like his post

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Nope. I didn't miss Federer's point.

I didn't say you missed Federer's point. I said you missed my point. Looks like you're not even reading what's being said.

And I think you must be better than Fed in terms of tennis IQ and accomplishments.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you consider yourself to be better than them. Rod Laver and Roger Federer could have different viewpoints on something Tennis-related. That doesn't mean you consider yourself to be better than Laver or Federer if you side with one of them over the other. This is just a stupid argument from you. You're appealing to authority.

Because you are going against him and saying ground game is supreme and should be the primary emphasis in today's game.

Yes, I do believe that. And I think Federer did, too. He adopted a primarily baseline game during his peak years.

Truth is, to be at the very top, you need to have working net game. I don't think you need to sacrifice your ground game just to have a working net game.

Every professional Tennis player has a working net game. I'm saying you don't need a top-class net game, because all you need is a top-class ground game to get to the top, as Djokovic has showed.

But what do I know, you are clearly better then Federer.

Another appeal to authority. I assume you agree with McEnroe that Nadal has the best volleys in the top 100? Otherwise, you must consider yourself to be clearly better than McEnroe.

 

[smoledman]

Is it a lie what Fed said about #NextGen having no net skills? Look at Shap, virtually every time he came to net the last 2 matches he made a hash of it.

 

[maruzo]

I didn't say you missed Federer's point. I said you missed my point. Looks like you're not even reading what's being said.

Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you consider yourself to be better than them. Rod Laver and Roger Federer could have different viewpoints on something Tennis-related. That doesn't mean you consider yourself to be better than Laver or Federer if you side with one of them over the other. This is just a stupid argument from you. You're appealing to authority.

Yes, I do believe that. And I think Federer did, too. He adopted a primarily baseline game during his peak years.

Every professional Tennis player has a working net game. I'm saying you don't need a top-class net game, because all you need is a top-class ground game to get to the top, as Djokovic has showed.

Another appeal to authority. I assume you agree with McEnroe that Nadal has the best volleys in the top 100? Otherwise, you must consider yourself to be clearly better than McEnroe.

I noticed you've made the effort to steer away from disputing what Fed said.

I agree with him because he raised a very good point. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to a good point he brought up.

Just because i'm agreeing to a great player's view point doesn't mean I blindly appeal to authority.

I don't see how you can differentiate between a "working net game" to a "top class net game"

You either have a net game that help you win tournaments, or you don't. There's no point beating around the bush with useless word games.

In case you don't know, Fed already has a great net game before he decided to stay back and compete with the rest of the ground game clones. He already got the skills.

He's giving away the farm here, hinting to the ground game players to add to their repertoire the one skill almost all of them are missing in their playbook.

And I never said Novak is a bad net player. I mentioned Raonic.

 

[Mainsacross]

What is this "catching" technique he speaks of? I always have trouble catching the ball at net while the great volleyers I play against seem to have this down cold. Any tips or links to videos would be appreciated.

 

[maruzo]

What is this "catching" technique he speaks of? I always have trouble catching the ball at net while the great volleyers I play against seem to have this down cold. Any tips or links to videos would be appreciated.

The "catching" technique is reminiscent of the way a baseball player catching a grounder from the hitter. If you've ever played baseball you would know that you make a half circular turn with your wrist as you scoop up the ball into your glove.

Think about that "catching" motion as you handle the ball coming at you at the net. Make a similar half circle with your racquet by turning your wrist, you're almost scooping the ball in a catching motion, but as you complete that half circular turn, you've caressed the incoming ball almost 180 degrees. The ball's direction of travel is reversed and you finish by "throwing" back the ball. Think of the way you throw back a fish after catching it.

 

[Mainsacross]

The "catching" technique is reminiscent of the way a baseball player catching a grounder from the hitter. If you've ever played baseball you would know that you make a half circular turn with your wrist as you scoop up the ball into your glove.

Think about that "catching" motion as you handle the ball coming at you at the net. Make a similar half circle with your racquet by turning your wrist, you're almost scooping the ball in a catching motion, but as you complete that half circular turn, you've caressed the incoming ball almost 180 degrees. The ball's direction of travel is reversed and you finish by "throwing" back the ball. Think of the way you throw back a fish after catching it.

Never played baseball (have some cricket catching experience but that's two handed) but I dig the analogy. I am slowly getting better at curling my racquet under the ball to impart underspin but have trouble anticipating the ball and catching it in front of me. Will take lots of practice to perfect this to the level I have seen others display.

 

[TennisRookie]

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.

Are you talking about prematch warmups or actual practices? Because we have no idea how the top players practice, but whatever it is, I guarantee Federer does more than a few volleys each practice.

If you are talking about prematch warmups, of course they don't hit as many volleys as groundstrokes. Even if you serve and volley 1/5 of the time, groundstrokes are still going to be the more important shot to warmup.

 

[maruzo]

Never played baseball (have some cricket catching experience but that's two handed) but I dig the analogy. I am slowly getting better at curling my racquet under the ball to impart underspin but have trouble anticipating the ball and catching it in front of me. Will take lots of practice to perfect this to the level I have seen others display.

Always have your racquet out in front of you, reduces your preparation time and makes it easier to execute the shot. Racquet in front, eyes in front.

 

[Mainsacross]

Always have your racquet out in front of you, reduces your preparation time and makes it easier to execute the shot. Racquet in front, eyes in front.

I've gotten better at that, though I still sometimes drop the racquet after the first couple of volleys and sometimes get caught when a third ball comes back. The other issue is I tend to track the ball slower up at net and end up having to catch the ball at my side or even behind me instead of at front. You're right, it starts with the eyes watching in front vigilantly.

 

[Ignatz Tushwop]

So why is it frightening? I don't get it variety?
Sever volley on grass was more boring then baseline rallies by far.
Let's face it Fed is the best and he didn't win a slam for 4.5 years until his resurrection this season. Yea wimbledon looked weak but for me tennis on grass or clay doesn't count.: )

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I noticed you've made the effort to steer away from disputing what Fed said.

If you felt that way, you've once again missed my point.

I agree with him because he raised a very good point. I'm not appealing to authority, I'm appealing to a good point he brought up.

Just because i'm agreeing to a great player's view point doesn't mean I blindly appeal to authority.

Saying I'm wrong because I disagree with Federer is appealing to authority. It seems like the only way you can respond to my posts is by misrepresenting them.

I don't see how you can differentiate between a "working net game" to a "top class net game"

Can you also not differentiate between Isner's movement and Nadal's?

You either have a net game that help you win tournaments, or you don't.

Every professional Tennis player that is good enough to win tournaments and comes to the net now and then has a working net game.

There's no point beating around the bush with useless word games.

They're only word games if you lack the mental wherewithal to have basic discernment.

In case you don't know, Fed already has a great net game before he decided to stay back and compete with the rest of the ground game clones. He already got the skills.

Never said otherwise. I only said he prioritized his ground game over his net game, and rightly so.

He's giving away the farm here, hinting to the ground game players to add to their repertoire the one skill almost all of them are missing in their playbook.

I know he is. I just don't think adding that one skill will make much of a difference. Do you even know what we're talking about here?

And I never said Novak is a bad net player. I mentioned Raonic.

Raonic made a Wimbledon final, which is more than can be said for players with way better net games (like Stepanek, for instance). What does that tell you?

 

[maruzo]

Hey 18 slam. Are you a lawyer? Coz it hurts my eyes just looking at you replying to every single thing with a useless comment.

You win. Not because you're right on anything. But because you've successfully bored me to infinity and beyond.

Why don't you try to offer some constructive playing tips instead of more word plays which no decent tennis players here really care for anyway?

 

[Meles]

@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

Funny how same said NextGen players seem to be sweeping everything after *********'s mighty words.

 

[smoledman]

Fred wanted to light a fire under #NextGen and he's succeeded! Now that he's bagged his 8th Wimby, it's all gravy now.