Does anyone DISAGREE with Laver's assessment of Federer's game?

[PETEhammer]

So your take on the best of all time being able to keep improving into his mid 30s is that Djokovic is great. It’s an illness at this point, get help.

Might wanna take a look at your avatar before you go call someone out on their fandom, bud

 

[canta_Brian]

Might wanna take a look at your avatar before you go call someone out on their fandom, bud

Thanks for pointing out I was still on a 2020 image. I’ve updated it now.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Well, I'm no expert on Federer's game, so I am open to Laver's opinion. About the backhand, it makes sense to me that Federer's would improve. After all, he's a tennis pro and had a weak side versus a certain style of opponent and so it was only natural that he would work on that shot, especially as he needed to find and develop the strengths in his game he could while time took its toll on other areas- and it took him about a decade to finally fix that backhand so he could get to the ball earlier on that side and negate the spin coming at him. Credit to Federer for continually working on his game and it paying off, especially in that 2017 AO final. That was a real effort and that start to the season was formidable, all the way to Wimbledon.
Was it the best ever Federer? No, not in my view, which is far less educated than Laver. But still, it is my view. The best Federer would play a full Clay season and not cherry pick his best tournaments where he would not stand up to as much scrutiny. 2017 was also a drop off in the performance of Djokovic, the reigning No.1 Murray was injured and there was no group of younger players ready to take the mantle. Nadal was also coming back and Federers' backhand fix was perfect to help Federer beat Nadal on hard courts where he already had an advantage. Indeed, there was a void at the top and it made sense Federer, in hindsight, with a revamped backhand and that attacking modified 2015 game in full flight would be the one to fill it.
Federer in 2017 was very good, but he was slightly less strong than in 2006. That Federer could play a full season, take the blows, dust himself off and keep at it. He was also by virtue of youth, quicker and more explosive. The backhand may have been stronger in 2017, but there was a lot of things that were as good and better in 2006.

 

[wangs78]

Federer in spring-summer 2017 seemed to be on par with his previous peak levels. His game was obviously different but it seemed like he still had quite good movement and with the power his new racquet gave him, he was an unstoppable force in the six months after AO 2017. For whatever reason, by the end of that year, he slowed down, and has not been the same since. He will always have a chance at Wimbledon if he's healthy and match-fit, but his days of having long stretches of brilliance are long gone. Let's hope he can still win another Halle, Basel, maybe sneak in another Masters and if somehow fortune grants him another Wimbledon title, he (and his fans) will get to have one last huge hurrah.

 

[canta_Brian]

More ad hominem. If you would kindly address the argument without attacking me as a poster, thanks

Apologies if my addressing of your point was too nuanced for you to understand.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Staying in points by utilising fully the tech at your disposal can earn you opportunities that certainly would make you look play better. That has nothing to do with the statement "his BH was better", when you otherwise wouldn't even be able to hit such a backhand, because the point would have been over.

I advise anyone with short memory to go and rewatch some of the longer points from the AO final that ended with spectacular BH winners from Federer and count the number of times Federer would have been out of the point with his old racquet tech. I estimate that on average that would have been at least 2-3 times for any point over 12 shots. Hitting his BH good is only possible, if he can get to the point to have enough time to position himself good for it, and one should make note how many times that wasn't the case, before the "good BH" came.

Like I said, people that do not understand tennis should not try to interpret what players like Laver say: they don't have a tennis player's perspective to do so.

 

[aldeayeah]

If we reduce tennis to hitting the ball inside the lines, Fed was indeed playing his best tennis ever.

As someone who watched young Fed flying around the court while absolutely crushing the ball, I beg to differ though.

 

[PETEhammer]

If we reduce tennis to hitting the ball inside the lines, Fed was indeed playing his best tennis ever.

As someone who watched young Fed flying around the court while absolutely crushing the ball, I beg to differ though.

There seems to be this misconception that hitting the ball harder or looking more impressive equates to being a better player, while neither is necessarily true. Federer may look better and hit harder than Nadal on Clay, but he is obviously inferior.

Federer fixed a significant hole in his game in 2017 that allowed him to take Nadal out 3 times consecutively in the first 3 tournaments of the year, twice in straight sets. He could hit his backhand with relatively less pace than in his 20s because it was simply so much better, more stable, better timed, and more consistent. He was always hitting a heavy, hard to attack shot off that side and could rip clean winners either crosscourt or down the line off of rally balls that were less than solid rather routinely, whereas in his 20s he often needed a short ball to do the same, especially in 2004, and 2007 onwards.

Many other parts of his game showed this unique sense of effortless potency: his serve, his volleys, and to a degree even his forehand. His serve was undoubtedly a few mph slower on average than in his 20s but because of the weaponized mindset Roger had behind it, he could now effortlessly place heavy slice serves out wide to give him effortless putaways into the open court, or get aces and unreturnables up the T. His aggressive footwork and improved timing meant his forehand could similarly dictate rallies as did his 20s forehand, but with far less effort or power needed behind the shot: he was always wrongfooting or pressuring the opponent by robbing them of time. There was no need for flashy, lengthy rallies or explosive winners because he was simply suffocating you every shot in every rally. He didn't have to punch your guts out because he'd already choked you. Lastly, this improved, aggressive footwork also meant there was no need for highlight worthy dives into the net with ridiculous punch or reflex volleys because he was closer to the net, and better able to gauge when to approach, generally leading to easier, more effective volleys executed with more textbook rather than improvised technique.

So all in all, Federer's game in 2017 did not require nearly the effort and explosiveness of his 20 year self, especially in the 04-06 period because it was simply so much more effective and intentional. Notice that he was making similar adjustments to his game in terms of more easily achieving the same results as early as 2007, and that many of his fans felt his form dropped because he was no longer running around the court and explosively ripping winners. What they failed to realize back then and now is that had Roger continued that high energy gamestyle he wouldn't have his trademark consistency and would have dropped off a long time ago. Roger of 17 had all the excess fat trimmed off his game and was a laser like knife of surgical precision, effortlessly cutting through his opponents and leaving scar tissue behind after his work was completed.

 

[Jason Swerve]

There seems to be this misconception that hitting the ball harder or looking more impressive equates to being a better player, while neither is necessarily true. Federer may look better and hit harder than Nadal on Clay, but he is obviously inferior.

Federer fixed a significant hole in his game in 2017 that allowed him to take Nadal out 3 times consecutively in the first 3 tournaments of the year, twice in straight sets. He could hit his backhand with relatively less pace than in his 20s because it was simply so much better, more stable, better timed, and more consistent. He was always hitting a heavy, hard to attack shot off that side and could rip clean winners either crosscourt or down the line off of rally balls that were less than solid rather routinely, whereas in his 20s he often needed a short ball to do the same, especially in 2004, and 2007 onwards.

Many other parts of his game should this unique sense of effortless potency: his serve, his volleys, and to a degree even his forehand. His serve was undoubtedly a few mph slower on average than in his 20s but because of the weaponized mindset Roger had behind it, he could now effortlessly place heavy slice serves out wide to give him effortless putaways into the open court, or get aces and unreturnables up the T. His aggressive footwork and improved timing meant his forehand could similarly dictate rallies as did his 20s forehand, but with far less effort or power needed behind the shot: he was always wrongfooting or pressuring the opponent by robbing them of time. There was no need for flashy, lengthy rallies or explosive winners because he was simply suffocating you every shot in every rally. He didn't have to punch your guts out because he'd already choked you. Lastly, this improved, aggressive footwork also meant there was no need for highlight worthy dives into the net with ridiculous punch or reflex volleys because he was closer to the net, and better able to gauge when to approach, generally leading to easier, more effective volleys executed with more textbook rather than improvised technique.

So all in all, Federer's game in 2017 did not require nearly the effort and explosiveness of his 20 year self, especially in the 04-06 period because it was simply so much more effective and intentional. Notice that hebwas making similar adjustments to his game in terms of more easily achieving the same results as early as 2007, and that many of his fans felt his form dropped because he was no longer running around the court and explosively ripping winners. What they failed to realize back then and now is that had Roger continued that high energy gamestyle he wouldn't have his trademark consistency and would have dropped off a long time ago. Roger of 17 had all the excess fat trimmed off his game and was a laser like knife of surgical precision, effortlessly cutting through hisb opponents and leaving scar tissue behind after his work was completed.

All of that 'beautiful,' explosive movement was essentially wasted, unbalanced movement that took away from his power potential. Another disadvantage of a weak field is that you don't see what the lead's weaknesses are as clearly- not until a proper rival finally shows up and pounds those weaknesses into dust.

 

[PilotPete]

Elbow

When did that start?

 

[PETEhammer]

All of that 'beautiful,' explosive movement was essentially wasted, unbalanced movement that took away from his power potential. Another disadvantage of a weak field is that you don't see what the lead's weaknesses are as clearly- not until a proper rival finally shows up and pounds those weaknesses into dust.

Yes. I think Rafa took advantage of the backhand obviously, but I think the other parts of his game which he had the potential to improve e.g. the overall net game and serve, were also indirectly exposed because he used neither to end points quickly which would have won him a fair share more of his matches imo. Nole to me took advantage of the wasted movement. All that dancing around the backhand to hit forehands resulted in an exposed forehand court that opened him up to Nole's deadly BHDTL. This also resulted in weaker inside out forehands because he couldn't commit as fully to that side because he had to be wary of that BHDTL. So in summary, Rafa exposed the Backhand's poor technique, and Nole exposed the result of that poor technique: an exposed forehand side and weaker and even ineffective inside out forehands that made it easier to attack it.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

When did that start?

Early to mid 2016.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Yes. I think Rafa took advantage of the backhand obviously, but I think the other parts of his game which he had the potential to improve e.g. the overall net game and serve, were also indirectly exposed because he used neither to end points quickly which would have won him a fair share more of his matches imo. Nole to me took advantage of the wasted movement. All that dancing around the backhand to hit forehands resulted in an exposed forehand court that opened him up to Nole's deadly BHDTL. This also resulted in weaker inside out forehands because he couldn't commit as fully to that side because he had to be wary of that BHDTL. So in summary, Rafa exposed the Backhand's poor technique, and Nole exposed the result of that poor technique: an exposed forehand side and weaker and even ineffective inside out forehands that made it easier to attack it.

How would you compare the solidity of the Sampras groundstrokes to Federer's? He obviously didn't have the same kind of pushback against whatever holes in his form.

 

[Nole_King]

As part of our celebrated, "Does anyone DISAGREE..." series on Roger Federer's ever improving game, we will now take a look at an assessment from none other than Rod Laver himself on the matter. Often considered the greatest player of all time, the winner of the still unmatched Calendar Grand Slam, Mr. Laver's opinion certainly comes from an informed perspective. Following Federer's route of his long time nemesis Nadal at the Miami Open in 2017, a season he began with a sterling 19-1 record, and winning the Australian Open-Indian Wells- Miami Open triple, Mr. Laver had this to say about his favorite current pro player:

"He’s playing so well at the moment. I might venture he’s playing the best tennis of his life. He was playing like this 10 or 15 years ago, but his timing is perfect at this juncture. He used to mis-hit a lot of balls at varying times, with chances to break serve. (In the Miami final vs. Nadal) I think he mis-hit one ball, a forehand that went out about 5 or 10 feet. It’s uncanny. It’s (the backhand) night and day. It’s like he found a totally new backhand. (Nadal) has that left-handed forehand that goes into Roger’s backhand, so he usually starts the point behind. Now he’s capable of holding up under the pressure Rafa puts him under.”

Source:
(

https://www.**************.org/tenn...derer-is-playing-the-best-tennis-of-his-life/

)

Federer would go on to win Wimbledon later in the year, without dropping a set.

So, once again, our "GOAT" assessment from Laver comes with a detailed breakdown where a number of factors of improvement are given:

1) Much improved timing leading to fewer mishits on breakpoints

2) A much improved backhand, "totally new", that allows Roger to stand his ground against whatever pressure Rafa's infamous forehand puts him under, as opposed to starting behind as he did 10-15 years ago in his "prime"

In part 2 of our series, we examine in details the stats behind Rocket's claims. Stay tuned.
-----

*****PART 2 IS POST #4*****
**PLEASE VOTE IN POLL ABOVE**

Federer's form from the Berdych match at AO till Wimbledon was imperious. No doubt he turned the clock. But fact is that he was not able to sustain that for full year. Even in 2017, with that kind of form, he rested himself from the clay swing because sustaining that level for long at that age was not easy.

His IW demolishing of Nadal was simple awesome. Even better than his 6-3, 6-0 win against him at WTF.

 

[PETEhammer]

How would you compare the solidity of the Sampras groundstrokes to Federer's? He obviously didn't have the same kind of pushback against whatever holes in his form.

Fed's are obviously better from the consistency standpoint, and obviously the technical standpoint on the backhand side: I've commented a few times on Pete's terrible backhand form after '96 essentially. I won't belabor the specifics. I think the power on the forehand is actually bigger from Pete, but Fed's is more precise and better for generating angles generally.

From the standpoint of how those groundstrokes are integrated to support the gameplan, I would argue PETE's are actually better honed/integrated into the overall strategy. Pete's game is to suffocate you. He's not trying to "construct" a point and build favorable patterns like Federer, Nadal, Nole, and even Agassi. He's trying to end points before they even begin. Pete's serve was obviously weaponized from day 1, everyone knows that, but the follow up game: the explosive, stalking movement on the court, the ability to hone his focus and find his best form on the most important points the retrieval of shots in an offensive manner that didn't turn defense into offense, but defense into winner. He not only could twist around his backhand to hit forehands and cover that side, but he intentionally did that to open up the forehand court so he could blitz you with his running forehand when you tried to expose it. He found a way to weaponize a vulnerability, which is amazing. Pete's volleys were solid, but he rarely opted for the feathery touch, he usually hit solid returns that would either push you back or force you to run, everything designed to prevent you from getting into a rhythm. Even Pete's relatively poor consistency on the return, and his poor stamina was used to his benefit: sometimes he'd tank on the return games and put all energy into dominating on the serve to unnerve the opponent into playing weak service games because the opponent knew they wouldn't break him. If it went to a tiebreaker, Pete knew he'd cover his bases on his serve, and get that one amazing reflex return to win the point and the tiebreaker. The Sampras set in full motion.

I think that's why he dominated Wimbledon so thoroughly; the slick fast grass was the perfect complement to his low margin game that could decide matches by either a straight sets domination, or 3 shots that would decide the sets he won in a 5 set battle. Clay was the only surface where it was harder for him to suffocate the opponent, and even there he had the game to win, but not the stamina. He couldn't overcome the stamina issue because of the surface's slowness and the lack of modern medicine. Otherwise, as Wilander said, you basically had to hope he was off because if he wasn't, you knew exactly what was coming and there was nothing you could do about it.


So TLDR; every part of Pete's game, even his weaknesses were honed into a well-oiled machine suited for nothing less than the destruction of his opponent's game and soul.

 

[Nole_King]

Gee, I wonder what allowed Federer to shank less.

Any ideas?

I thought that AO win simply made him play with an abandon that was missing for long time. His IW match against Nadal was out of the world. Seemed like those old HDDs that suddenly used to get their mojos back once reformatted.

 

[Nole_King]

Fed's are obviously better from the consistency standpoint, and obviously the technical standpoint on the backhand side: I've commented a few times on Pete's terrible backhand form after '96 essentially. I won't belabor the specifics. I think the power on the forehand is actually bigger from Pete, but Fed's is more precise and better for generating angles generally.

From the standpoint of how those groundstrokes are integrated to support the gameplan, I would argue PETE's are actually better honed/integrated into the overall strategy. Pete's game is to suffocate you. He's not trying to "construct" a point and build favorable patterns like Federer, Nadal, and Nole, and even Agassi. He's trying to end points before they even begin. Pete's serve was obviously weaponized from day 1, everyone knows that, but the follow up game: the explosive, stalking movement on the court, the retrieval of shots in an offensive manner than didn't turn defense into offense, but defense into winner. He not only could twist around his backhand to hit forehands and cover that side, but he intentionally did that to open up the forehand court so he could blitz you with his running forehand when you tried to expose it. He found a way to weaponize a vulnerability, which is amazing. Pete's volleys were solid, but he rarely opted for the feathery touch, he usually hit solid returns that would either push you back or force you to run, everything designed to prevent you from getting into a rhythm. Even Pete's relatively poor consistency on the return, and his poor stamina was used to his benefit: sometimes he'd tank on the return games and put all energy into dominating on the serve to unnerve the opponent into playing weak service games because the opponent knew they wouldn't break him. If it went to a tiebreaker, Pete knew he'd cover his bases on his serve, and get that one amazing reflex return to win the point and the tiebreaker. The Sampras set in full motion.

I think that's why he dominated Wimbledon so thoroughly; the slick fast grass was the perfect complement to his low margin game that could decide matches by either a straight sets domination, or 3 shots that would decide the sets he won in a 5 set battle. Clay was the only surface where it was harder for him to suffocate the opponent, and even there he had the game to win, but not the stamina. He couldn't overcome the stamina issue because of the surface's slowness and the lack of modern medicine. Otherwise, as Wilander said, you basically had to hope he was off because if he was, you knew exactly what was coming and there was nothing you could do about it.


So TLDR; every part of Pete's game, even his weaknesses were honed into a well-oiled machine suited for nothing less than the destruction of his opponent's mind and soul.

That line in bold. Glad you agree with what I said in response to one of your post in another thread.

It was simply too tough to handle Pete on that grass. You needed three sets where you can make inroads on his serve. In addition, I fail to remember him losing a set after being a break up. He was simply too strong a front runner on grass.

Dont know what Krajicek ate before that semi final ...

 

[xFedal]

Fed did compensate a lot. Thats how he was able to be over 54% of all points won in many years after turning 30.

 

[mike danny]

Fed did compensate a lot. Thats how he was able to be over 54% of all points won in many years after turning 30.

He wasn't even able to push Djokovic to 5 in a slam in 2015. Don't care about him beating the lesser players with relative ease.

 

[xFedal]

He wasn't even able to push Djokovic to 5 in a slam in 2015. Don't care about him beating the lesser players with relative ease.

Thats true, it was Djokoviks most winning est year . Federer won 55% of all points with no CLAY to skrew .

 

[PETEhammer]

He wasn't even able to push Djokovic to 5 in a slam in 2015. Don't care about him beating the lesser players with relative ease.

Nole was just too good for him. The Wimbledon smack down was particularly shocking

 

[PilotPete]

Early to mid 2016.

Didn't he win Roger's Cup in late 2016? Wow, with a bad elbow! What a warrior

 

[PETEhammer]

Didn't he win Roger's Cup in late 2016? Wow, with a bad elbow! What a warrior

Didn't Rodgi win two majors two years after 2015, the year he was a decrepit old man? What a champ

 

[chut]

Part 2: The Stats

In order to test the veracity of Rocket's observation, let's examine stats on Backhand performance against Rafa from Roger's 20s versus his 30s:

Miami Open 2005 (5 sets):
Backhand UFE: 22
Winners: 12
Differential -10

Miami Open 2017:
Backhand UFE: 6
Winners: 5
Differential: -1

We can see that Federer's 2017 performance against his 2005 self is superior as his differential per set in 2017 is -1 v -2, in other words, twice as good.

Roger did not play Rafa at Indian Wells in his 20s, so we must default to his 2012 performances for comparison against his 2017. 2013 is omitted because Roger was injured:

Indian Wells 2012:
Backhand UFE: 12
Winners: 6
Differential: -6

Indian Wells 2017:
Backhand UFE:6
Winners: 5
Differential: -1

We see a much improved differential of -1 in 2017 over a sad -6 in 2012.
-----
AO 2009:
Backhand UFE: 30
Winners: 20
Dif: -10

AO 2017:
Backhand UFE: 20
Winners: 18
Dif: -2

Once again, Federer's 2017 differential makes his 2009 seem pitiful in comparison.
(source:

Tennis Abstract: Roger Federer ATP Match Results, Splits, and Analysis

)

So as we can see, the facts clearly testify to the veracity of Rocket's claim.

We have seen Rocket's assessment, as well as the stats.

The only question left is: What do you think?

Talking about 6 matches and taking definitive conclusion about "Fed 2017>Fed2005" is kinda strange no?

But we can also talk a bit about those matches.
First of all, Nadal himself was better in AO09 than AO17, i wonder if anyone would disagree with that. Most notably his movement on the FH side was way worse in 17. Also yes, Federer's BH was really good at this AO and he finally found a plan against Nadal which made a good difference. Yet, despite this completely out of the ordinary performance (see Here ), it took him 5 sets to beat Nadal and the match was as close as their AO09 final. In 2009 Nadal was really, really better than in 2017 (absolute peak form of his career i'd say) and yet Federer won one more point overall.
So, Federer had to be better at AO09 overall than at AO17. Maybe his BH was better in 17 but it's debatable.

IW 12 vs IW17: once again, Nadal was much better in 12 than in 17. The 2012 match was played in a lot of wind, so it contained many UE. Number of winners are similar. No conclusion can be taken from this sample on how Federer could have been better in 17.

Miami 05 vs Miami 17: interesting comparison! Miami 05, Federer luckily escaped the Nadal by barely surviving in the 3rd and then rolled over a gassed opponent. In 17, it was a routine win in 2.
Certainly, Federer was certainly not prepared for the challenge Nadal represented for his BH side in 05 while their 3rd meeting of 17 was another opportunity to prove he had finally came up with a new approach (12 years later..). I think (i don't remember the 05 match well TBH) that Federer approach was a bit more conservative in 17 which explains the overall lower number of UE. Once again those numbers don't prove anything about how Federer would be better in 17 than in 05, except maybe on the BH side.

So overall, everyone knows well that Fed 05 >>> Fed 17. Fed 05 is one of the best season ever in the history of the game, while Fed 17 isn't. you proved nothing, but thanks for trying

 

[PETEhammer]

Talking about 6 matches and taking definitive conclusion about "Fed 2017>Fed2005" is kinda strange no?

But we can also talk a bit about those matches.
First of all, Nadal himself was better in AO09 than AO17, i wonder if anyone would disagree with that. Most notably his movement on the FH side was way worse in 17. Also yes, Federer's BH was really good at this AO and he finally found a plan against Nadal which made a good difference. Yet, despite this completely out of the ordinary performance (see Here ), it took him 5 sets to beat Nadal and the match was as close as their AO09 final. In 2009 Nadal was really, really better than in 2017 (absolute peak form of his career i'd say) and yet Federer won one more point overall.
So, Federer had to be better at AO09 overall than at AO17. Maybe his BH was better in 17 but it's debatable.

IW 12 vs IW17: once again, Nadal was much better in 12 than in 17. The 2012 match was played in a lot of wind, so it contained many UE. Number of winners are similar. No conclusion can be taken from this sample on how Federer could have been better in 17.

Miami 05 vs Miami 17: interesting comparison! Miami 05, Federer luckily escaped the Nadal by barely surviving in the 3rd and then rolled over a gassed opponent. In 17, it was a routine win in 2.
Certainly, Federer was certainly not prepared for the challenge Nadal represented for his BH side in 05 while their 3rd meeting of 17 was another opportunity to prove he had finally came up with a new approach (12 years later..). I think (i don't remember the 05 match well TBH) that Federer approach was a bit more conservative in 17 which explains the overall lower number of UE. Once again those numbers don't prove anything about how Federer would be better in 17 than in 05, except maybe on the BH side.

So overall, everyone knows well that Fed 05 >>> Fed 17. Fed 05 is one of the best season ever in the history of the game, while Fed 17 isn't. you proved nothing, but thanks for trying

I used stats and reasoning, you used Eyetest. I feel pretty good about my case.

 

[PilotPete]

Didn't Rodgi win two majors two years after 2015, the year he was a decrepit old man? What a champ

That's cause Djokovic was out. Proved what a weak era Djokovic is playing when old man Fed could still win so much.

 

[mike danny]

Talking about 6 matches and taking definitive conclusion about "Fed 2017>Fed2005" is kinda strange no?

But we can also talk a bit about those matches.
First of all, Nadal himself was better in AO09 than AO17, i wonder if anyone would disagree with that. Most notably his movement on the FH side was way worse in 17. Also yes, Federer's BH was really good at this AO and he finally found a plan against Nadal which made a good difference. Yet, despite this completely out of the ordinary performance (see Here ), it took him 5 sets to beat Nadal and the match was as close as their AO09 final. In 2009 Nadal was really, really better than in 2017 (absolute peak form of his career i'd say) and yet Federer won one more point overall.
So, Federer had to be better at AO09 overall than at AO17. Maybe his BH was better in 17 but it's debatable.

IW 12 vs IW17: once again, Nadal was much better in 12 than in 17. The 2012 match was played in a lot of wind, so it contained many UE. Number of winners are similar. No conclusion can be taken from this sample on how Federer could have been better in 17.

Miami 05 vs Miami 17: interesting comparison! Miami 05, Federer luckily escaped the Nadal by barely surviving in the 3rd and then rolled over a gassed opponent. In 17, it was a routine win in 2.
Certainly, Federer was certainly not prepared for the challenge Nadal represented for his BH side in 05 while their 3rd meeting of 17 was another opportunity to prove he had finally came up with a new approach (12 years later..). I think (i don't remember the 05 match well TBH) that Federer approach was a bit more conservative in 17 which explains the overall lower number of UE. Once again those numbers don't prove anything about how Federer would be better in 17 than in 05, except maybe on the BH side.

So overall, everyone knows well that Fed 05 >>> Fed 17. Fed 05 is one of the best season ever in the history of the game, while Fed 17 isn't. you proved nothing, but thanks for trying

Fed's BH held pretty well in the 2009 AO final as it was. The BH wasn't the reason why he lost.

It was a combination of factors like the mental block, Fed having a sub par serving day and Nadal getting to fricking everything with Federer having a harder time hitting through him on the slower surface.

A better BH wouldn't have won Federer the match against 2009 Nadal anyway if he still serves like dogsh*t, the court is still slow and Nadal still runs down everything.

As for 2005, well, 2005 Nadal would eat 2017 Fed alive in Miami. Even if 2017 Nadal is a better HC player than 2005 Nadal, 2005 Nadal played just the right way to beat Fed even as a worse HC player.

 

[SinneGOAT]

Compare his 2017 Australian Open run to many of his older slams and I think his backhand has improved.

 

[mike danny]

Compare his 2017 Australian Open run to many of his older slams and I think his backhand has improved.

But Fed played with that kind of BH at only 1 slam: AO 2017. It was also aided by the faster surface.

 

[PETEhammer]

But Fed played with that kind of BH at only 1 slam: AO 2017. It was also aided by the faster surface.

He's been playing with a much, much improved backhand everywhere since 2017. AO 2018, French 2019, Wimbledon 2019 all come to mind as obvious candidates.

 

[SinneGOAT]

But Fed played with that kind of BH at only 1 slam: AO 2017. It was also aided by the faster surface.

Perhaps, I feel he drives it more now as he is older compared to his 20’s and early 30’s where he didn’t use it as a weapon. It can also possibly be attributed to the racquet switch.

 

[mike danny]

Perhaps, I feel he drives it more now as he is older compared to his 20’s and early 30’s where he didn’t use it as a weapon. It can also possibly be attributed to the racquet switch.

It's precisely because of the racquet switch.

 

[PETEhammer]

It's precisely because of the racquet switch.

And also because the backhand form and commitment is much, much better.

 

[SinneGOAT]

It's precisely because of the racquet switch.

His backhand from 2015 compared to say 2013 or 2012 definitely penetrates and drives through the court faster. Miami and Indian Wells 2017 he definitely had a backhand to be reckoned with compared to a year for example like 2010, but I’m pulling a random year so I could get that wrong.

 

[Start da Game]

As part of our celebrated, "Does anyone DISAGREE..." series on Roger Federer's ever improving game, we will now take a look at an assessment from none other than Rod Laver himself on the matter. Often considered the greatest player of all time, the winner of the still unmatched Calendar Grand Slam, Mr. Laver's opinion certainly comes from an informed perspective. Following Federer's route of his long time nemesis Nadal at the Miami Open in 2017, a season he began with a sterling 19-1 record, and winning the Australian Open-Indian Wells- Miami Open triple, Mr. Laver had this to say about his favorite current pro player:

"He’s playing so well at the moment. I might venture he’s playing the best tennis of his life. He was playing like this 10 or 15 years ago, but his timing is perfect at this juncture. He used to mis-hit a lot of balls at varying times, with chances to break serve. (In the Miami final vs. Nadal) I think he mis-hit one ball, a forehand that went out about 5 or 10 feet. It’s uncanny. It’s (the backhand) night and day. It’s like he found a totally new backhand. (Nadal) has that left-handed forehand that goes into Roger’s backhand, so he usually starts the point behind. Now he’s capable of holding up under the pressure Rafa puts him under.”

Source:
(

https://www.**************.org/tenn...derer-is-playing-the-best-tennis-of-his-life/

)

Federer would go on to win Wimbledon later in the year, without dropping a set.

So, once again, our "GOAT" assessment from Laver comes with a detailed breakdown where a number of factors of improvement are given:

1) Much improved timing leading to fewer mishits on breakpoints

2) A much improved backhand, "totally new", that allows Roger to stand his ground against whatever pressure Rafa's infamous forehand puts him under, as opposed to starting behind as he did 10-15 years ago in his "prime"

In part 2 of our series, we examine in details the stats behind Rocket's claims. Stay tuned.
-----

*****PART 2 IS POST #4*****
**PLEASE VOTE IN POLL ABOVE**

fully disagree.........his best tennis was from 2006 - 2011.........laver sounds like nadal always maintained the same level, too much fed in his head........nadal post-2014 is a joke to what he was before, especially in the mental department.........

 

[mike danny]

His backhand from 2015 compared to say 2013 or 2012 definitely penetrates and drives through the court faster. Miami and Indian Wells 2017 he definitely had a backhand to be reckoned with compared to a year for example like 2010, but I’m pulling a random year so I could get that wrong.

Yeah, his BH got better due to having better equipment.

But the rest of his game was better with the older racquet.

His most complete game (though not necessarily better) would probably be if you combined his 2004-2006 features with his 2017 BH. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how devastating this kind of Federer would be.

But I do think Rafa would have a much harder time against a peak Roger Federer with the bigger racquet.

 

[PETEhammer]

Yeah, his BH got better due to having better equipment.

But the rest of his game was better with the older racquet.

His most complete game (though not necessarily better) would probably be if you combined his 2004-2006 features with his 2017 BH. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how devastating this kind of Federer would be.

But I do think Rafa would have a much harder time against a peak Roger Federer with the bigger racquet.

His backhand got better because it got better. He was never hitting it so well and aggressively and technically perfect as in 2017, and it remains in far superior form to his younger self even to this day

 

[Third Serve]

Yeah, his BH got better due to having better equipment.

But the rest of his game was better with the older racquet.

His most complete game (though not necessarily better) would probably be if you combined his 2004-2006 features with his 2006 BH. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing how devastating this kind of Federer would be.

But I do think Rafa would have a much harder time against a peak Roger Federer with the bigger racquet.

Fixed

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Didn't he win Roger's Cup in late 2016? Wow, with a bad elbow! What a warrior

I’m not sure what your point is bud. It’s well documented that Djokovic had elbow surgery to heal the problem.

 

[mike danny]

Fixed

Yeah, good point. The guy was going toe to toe with speedy Gonzales Nadal on clay, so his BH must have been elite to compete with that.

 

[PETEhammer]

Fixed

Unfixed you mean

 

[Third Serve]

Unfixed you mean

nah im good

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Fixed

The same BH Nadal pummelled over and over on clay, leading to 3-0 record on the diet

Give 2006 Fed his 2017 BH, and he probably wins Dubai and Rome at least, with Monte Carlo going to the wire, RG 5 sets most likely.

 

[PETEhammer]

nah im good

You seriously think Roger was driving his cross court and especially up the line backhand as solidly, consistently, and aggressively in 2006 as he did in 2017?

 

[Third Serve]

The same BH Nadal pummelled over and over on clay, leading to 3-0 record on the diet

Give 2006 Fed his 2017 BH, and he probably wins Dubai and Rome at least, with Monte Carlo going to the wire, RG 5 sets most likely.

Give 2017 Nadal 2006 Nadal's footspeed and forehand (he switched to a flatter FH in 2017 w/ less topspin) and Fed doesn't win any of their 2017 matches except IW

Fed's problems with Nadal that year can't be completely chalked down to the BH. It's Nadal on clay lol. And Fed did just fine there. And here where his backhand was really firing.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Give 2017 Nadal 2006 Nadal's footspeed and forehand (he switched to a flatter FH in 2017 w/ less topspin) and Fed doesn't win any of their 2017 matches except IW

Fed's problems with Nadal that year can't be completely chalked down to the BH. It's Nadal on clay lol. And Fed did just fine there. And here where his backhand was really firing.

Your point being? 2017 Nadal with a better FH and more speed wins more because of his improved serve, BH and experience too. Thanks for proving my argument.

No on clay the BH was a problem, especially in MC/RG. Rome to be fair it held up fairly well, the FH cost him on the MPs. I feel with an even better BH he might win that in 4 sets the chances he had.

RG he got bullied all match on that side.

Low bounce fast indoor. His Bh has always been good there.

 

[PETEhammer]

Your point being? 2017 Nadal with a better FH and more speed wins more because of his improved serve, BH and experience too. Thanks for proving my argument.

No on clay the BH was a problem, especially in MC/RG. Rome to be fair it held up fairly well, the FH cost him on the MPs. I feel with an even better BH he might win that in 4 sets the chances he had.

RG he got bullied all match on that side.

Low bounce fast indoor. His Bh has always been good there.

2006 Nadal is also a significantly weaker Nadal forehand btw. He hadn't yet amped up the revs to 2008 or hell even 2007 level. It was relatively tame off-clay

 

[TMF]

Was Djokovic better at AO2011 or AO2017?

He was even better at AO2007

 

[ForehandRF]

Give 2017 Nadal 2006 Nadal's footspeed and forehand (he switched to a flatter FH in 2017 w/ less topspin) and Fed doesn't win any of their 2017 matches except IW

Fed's problems with Nadal that year can't be completely chalked down to the BH. It's Nadal on clay lol. And Fed did just fine there. And here where his backhand was really firing.

Fed did struggle when the bounce was high.He never really had issues with the backhand when the ball stayed low and the lower the bounce, the deadlier his slice was.
With the bigger racket, he was able to take the ball on the rise even on the bouncier courts, as proved by his 2017 Indian Wells performance.The problem is that as he aged, his consistency also dropped.

 

[mike danny]

Fed did struggle when the bounce was high.He never really had issues with the backhand when the ball stayed low and the lower the bounce, the deadlier his slice was.
With the bigger racket, he was able to take the ball on the rise even on the bouncier courts, as proved by his 2017 Indian Wells performance.The problem is that as he aged, his consistency also dropped.

Still, AO 2009 wasn't lose because of the BH. It was actually one of the rare instances when his BH help up well.