Federer would have won Wimbledon if he were using his K90. The RF97 extended his career but muted his aggression....

asifallasleep

Hall of Fame
IDK if I really believe this completely, but he was ripping the ball with his K90 while his strokes with the RF97 are basically half volley groundies. Of course the RF97 has gobs more power and he really did need to rip it with his tiny 90.......but the 90 still did have serious plow. He uses his opponents pace more nowadays and that has for sure extended his career due to less wear and tear. Thoughts?
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I think Federer used the slice even more than usual in the final since he wanted to deprive Djokovic of rythym, and since Djokovic sometimes has minor trouble with it. Which was a good idea but it made it harder to be uber agressive on the ball when he had to be.
 

BlueB

Legend
Never. He was able to often hang with Nole in BH CC exchanges. With his old stick, no chance.

Half volley groundies come from playing even closer, or tight on top if the baseline then before. He needs it to compensate for slight loss of speed and to rush his opponents more. Bigger frame helps him there too. He seems to serve better eith it too.

Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
I think Federer used the slice even more than usual in the final since he wanted to deprive Djokovic of rythym, and since Djokovic sometimes has minor trouble with it. Which was a good idea but it made it harder to be uber agressive on the ball when he had to be.
He definitely overused the slice in this match, specially DTL to Djokovic's forehand. It didn't really bother Djokovic
 

powerangle

Legend
He definitely overused the slice in this match, specially DTL to Djokovic's forehand. It didn't really bother Djokovic
He probably counted on several cheap errors from Novak with that tactic. Don't think Novak coughed up even one error from that slice to the FH. At least iirc.
 

powerangle

Legend
Not only that, but many of Novak's replies put Fed in a worse position than before the slice
Yes, Novak's most common reply to that was a semi-pacy CC FH to Roger's FH...and Roger had a difficult time running to that side and still control the FH. In fact, ironically, Roger coughed up the error himself on several occasions because of that.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
It's pretty clear the past 5 years that its hurt him a ton when playing Novak. Almost as much as its helped against Nadal.

All the abuse Fed took on the BH side against Rafa made the switch worth-while in that match-up, even with the losses on the FH side. But against Novak the BH wasn't as much of a liability in the first place. So all the change did was lose his ability to move Novak around the court with his FH and actually hit through his defense.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Yes, Novak's most common reply to that was a semi-pacy CC FH to Roger's FH...and Roger had a difficult time running to that side and still control the FH. In fact, ironically, Roger coughed up the error himself on several occasions because of that.
Novak also neutralised the CC slice pretty well

Just goes to show slicing is not the magic bullet to beat Djokovic as many forum goers still believe
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Okay, do illuminate me
The slice is a limited in its usefulness shot as far as its offensive characteristics are concerned. The idea that Federer's main tactic on the BH side was to slice Djokovic and rely to win rallies that way is ludicrous. I know that now your bureaucratic response will be "I didn't say main tactic", but really, you have been gloating about the perceived Djokovic "success" in several posts now. Also, the idea that someone ever said that that is "the magic bullet" against Djokovic is so deeply suspicious, that I want to see quotes. Care to provide any, or should we just rely on your word that "many people said that in the past"?

:cool:
 

beltsman

Legend
Regarding the slicing, to be fair, it's not necessarily used to end the point right there with a Djokovic error. It's to slow the pace and get Djokovic to hit a CC FH to Fed's FH (his strength). Now, that didn't always work, but it is a safe way of resetting the rally out of a BH-BH exchange.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The slice is a limited in its usefulness shot as far as its offensive characteristics are concerned.
Indeed.
The idea that Federer's main tactic on the BH side was to slice Djokovic and rely to win rallies that way is ludicrous. I know that now your bureaucratic response will be "I didn't say main tactic", but really, you have been gloating about the perceived Djokovic "success" in several posts now.
What would you say the purpose of the tactic (when applied) was? Because it didn't give Federer any discernible short or long term advantage. In fact, on several occasions it put him at an immediate disadvantage

Also, the idea that someone ever said that that is "the magic bullet" against Djokovic is so deeply suspicious, that I want to see quotes. Care to provide any, or should we just rely on your word that "many people said that in the past"?

:cool:
Sure:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/so-how-does-federer-beat-djokovic.648253/

A bunch of Fed fans on the thread suggesting copious use of the slice.
 
Last edited:

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Here Fed should still be focused on baseline, but there should be a lot of variety thrown in. BH Slices that prolong rallies but also ask tough questions. The courts are low bouncing. Switch to BH topspin from slices within the rallies to get an advantage and set up the FH.
Serve well, obviously. He'll also need to return deep, like yesterday, to deprive Djokovic of free points. Slice works much better against Novak than Rafa so he needs to implement that, although with a good proportion of top spin backhand too. Maybe come to the net a bit more than yesterday, although not in kamikaze style.
Balls are bouncing low so the slice backhand could be good
Roger should slice a lot, junkball a lot, serve well, be offensive, don't get into protracted rallies as it gives Novak a rhythm and then approach the net a lot.
On the backhand he’s gotta hit way more short, knifing slices cross court to Nole’s backhand as opposed to driving everything like he did vs Rafa.
Fed needs to slice and slice.

I think s&v'ing a lot gassed him in 2014 and 2015. He doesnt need to play extended rallies with Novak but he's gonna have to play more riskier constructed points. I would suggest drop shot Novak a lot. Novak can slide on all surfaces but sliding on grass is still more difficult because of the full sprint leading into the slide and the recovery after are more difficult than hard and clay. Get into Novak's head with drop shots and winning all those putaway volleys after the droppers.
That's just from one thread
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
So, what are you talking about when you talk about "magic bullet"?

What would you say the purpose of the tactic (when applied) was? Because it didn't give Federer any discernible short or long term advantage. In fact, on several occasions it put him at an immediate disadvantage
I see that you ask questions, but continue with the BS. OK, enlighten me, how did you measure the "short and long term advantage"? Federer reached two MPs while playing like that, and squandered none of them by playing slice, so, on balance the "short and long term advantage" was there.

Sure:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/so-how-does-federer-beat-djokovic.648253/

A bunch of Fed fans on the thread suggesting copious use of the slice.
Only two of the posters suggest slice and slice, and one of them also suggest mixing the tactic with more offensive approach. None of the others even noted that as a major focus of Federer's game. Do you want to go through every post there to see it?

:cool:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
So, what are you talking about when you talk about "magic bullet"?
The belief from some forum members that BH slices somehow discombobulate Novak, and should be employed as an important part of the gameplan when playing against him.

I see that you ask questions, but continue with the BS. OK, enlighten me, how did you measure the "short and long term advantage"? Federer reached two MPs while playing like that, and squandered none of them by playing slice, so, on balance the "short and long term advantage" was there.
Short term advantage would be gaining the upper hand in what was originally a neutral rally after you employ the slice (e.g.: if a slice drew an error, or a short reply that could be attacked). But I'd be willing to wager Fed ended up losing most of the rallies where he introduced a BH slice in a neutral rally.

Long term advantage could be something like any evidence that the BH slices are disrupting Djokovic's patterns of play in the match, or any advantage that doesn't immediately materialize, but is a result of Fed employing the slice.

Only two of the posters suggest slice and slice, and one of them also suggest mixing the tactic with more offensive approach. None of the others even noted that as a major focus of Federer's game. Do you want to go through every post there to see it?

:cool:
From all the opinions you quoted only one recommended that (somewhat) as a major tactical point. Do I need to bold for you what you intentionally left out?

:cool:
Seems to me that many of them believe BH slices should have been an important part of the gameplan.
 

mightyrick

Legend
IDK if I really believe this completely, but he was ripping the ball with his K90 while his strokes with the RF97 are basically half volley groundies. Of course the RF97 has gobs more power and he really did need to rip it with his tiny 90.......but the 90 still did have serious plow. He uses his opponents pace more nowadays and that has for sure extended his career due to less wear and tear. Thoughts?
How about win one match point?
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Federer reached two MPs while playing like that, and squandered none of them by playing slice, so, on balance the "short and long term advantage" was there

:cool:
What is this argument anyway? Unless you believe Fed played an entirely flawless match, there are going to be positive and negative aspects to the performance, regardless of the result. The slicing was one of the negatives
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
What is this argument anyway? Unless you believe Fed played an entirely flawless match, there are going to be positive and negative aspects to the performance, regardless of the result. The slicing was one of the negatives
The slicing along with everything else got him to two MPs. The slicing didn't lose him any of those, so I don't know how you can conclude something like that.

:cool:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
The slicing along with everything else got him to two MPs. The slicing didn't lose him any of those, so I don't know how you can conclude something like that.

:cool:
Lol, I'm not surprised someone who doesn't believe players have weaknesses and strengths believes this, too
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The belief from some forum members that BH slices somehow discombobulate Novak, and should be employed as an important part of the gameplan when playing against him.
You talked about "magic bullet" as though it is a main strategy. Nothing like that was being discussed, let alone in a manner that you found necessary to specifically address. It was employed as a part of his game plan and would have led to him winning, if he was able to execute other elements of his game better.


Short term advantage would be gaining the upper hand in what was originally a neutral rally after you employ the slice (e.g.: if a slice drew an error, or a short reply that could be attacked).
I told you that you have no idea what you are talking about. As you agreed with me, the slice is mostly a defensive shot, so in that capacity it is used to neutralise the rally, not to gain an advantage


But I'd be willing to wager Fed ended up losing most of the rallies where he introduced a BH slice in a neutral rally.
More proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Even the context in which you are discussing your speculations is wrong, as evidenced by my previous comment.

Long term advantage could be something like any evidence that the BH slices are disrupting Djokovic's patterns of play in the match, or any advantage that doesn't immediately materialize, but is a result of Fed employing the slice.
More BS. Long term advantage is if the player is able to reach a point where he can gun for the win, which is what happened. The game of a player works as a sum of its parts, so, unless you can isolate one part of the game from everything else and prove without a doubt that it was both ineffective AND had no positive influence on other parts of the game that helped the player reach the stage where he is able to win the match, you are making a faulty conclusion.

Seems to me that many of them believe BH slices should have been an important part of the gameplan.
That is not what you discussed, and it seems to me that now you are backtracking from your original statement about the "magic bullet" and also the very conversation you was leading.

:cool:
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
I wonder if we should just pencil in the US Open finals already. Suddenly I'm getting a 2015 feel to the season. Will Roger unleash the SABR?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
What is this argument anyway? Unless you believe Fed played an entirely flawless match, there are going to be positive and negative aspects to the performance, regardless of the result. The slicing was one of the negatives
You are gradually shrinking form discussing something as a definite main negative to "one of the negatives", and you are yet to prove your claim.

:cool:
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
You talked about "magic bullet" as though it is a main strategy. Nothing like that was being discussed, let alone in a manner that you found necessary to specifically address. It was employed as a part of his game plan and would have led to him winning, if he was able to execute other elements of his game better.
The "magic bullet" comment refers to a belief held by forum goers. I don't think Fed shares that belief, or that he attempted to implement it as a main strategy (although it was clearly part of his strategy on some level)

I told you that you have no idea what you are talking about. As you agreed with me, the slice is mostly a defensive shot, so in that capacity it is used to neutralise the rally, not to gain an advantage

More proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Even the context in which you are discussing your speculations is wrong, as evidenced by my previous comment.
I'm not questioning its usefulness as a defensive shot, but its usefulness when employed in a neutral or even advantageous position in the context of this match

More BS. Long term advantage is if the player is able to reach a point where he can gun for the win, which is what happened. The game of a player works as a sum of its parts, so, unless you can isolate one part of the game from everything else and prove without a doubt that it was both ineffective AND had no positive influence on other parts of the game that helped the player reach the stage where he is able to win the match, you are making a faulty conclusion.
Trolling again?

:cool:
That's exactly what I was referring to. We had another discussion where you claimed a player never wins or loses because of individual weaknesses or strengths, but because of their game as a whole. Well, that is just not right.

As a recreational player, If I lose a match, and in retrospect I realize I missed 90% of my backhand returns, but everything else looked good, then I can definitely say the backhand return was the main reason why I lost the match. Of course it's not always that clear cut, and it's not always a single factor. But many times, there are one or two BIG problems I can immediately place the blame on. It's not too dissimilar with the pros

You are gradually shrinking form discussing something as a definite main negative to "one of the negatives", and you are yet to prove your claim.

:cool:
Not at all backtracking - that's just you putting words in my mouth. I never claimed Fed held this belief, or that the BH slices were the main reason for Fed losing. I said forum goers believe the slice is a magic bullet against Novak, and that the BH slice was a liability for Fed in this match. These statements are independent from one another.
 
Last edited:

Rabe87

Professional
Do you know why he was ripping the ball - full-bed natural gut strings.

Nobody uses that set-up anymore because it can't produce enough spin but in terms of power it is unbeatable, hence why so many players use it in a hybrid with a poly.

And no, he wouldn't have won using a 90 square-inch frame, best evidence I have for that is he lost the match thus reality trumps fantasy.

Learn something from this.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
That is not what you discussed, and it seems to me that now you are backtracking from your original statement about the "magic bullet" and also the very conversation you was leading.

:cool:
You were the one who butted in the conversation already twisting my words - "the idea that Federer's main tactic on the BH side was to slice Djokovic and rely to win rallies that way is ludicrous." WTF was that?! I never made anything even remotely resembling this argument
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The "magic bullet" comment refers to a belief held by forum goers. I don't think Fed shares that belief, or that he attempted to implement it as a main strategy (although it was clearly part of his strategy on some level)
Hahaha. See my comment in the first commmentary explaining what you would do (post #18) once the going gets going.

As for whether Federer "shares that belief". Even if you now deny why you were talking up that point, you are clearly wrong, as he, in fact , used the slice to one degree or another. Of course that is normal, but since you said that you wasn't talking about main strategy, surely, now you are talking about using it at all, so you are clearly wrong.

I'm not questioning its usefulness as a defensive shot, but its usefulness when employed in a neutral or even advantageous position in the context of this match.
You demonstrate that you don't understand why it is used. Since you agreed that its main purpose is as a defensive shot, you must have been confusing why Federer used it in the first place, from where comes the confusion why at all he used it. I told you that even the frame of your speculation is incorrect. You suggest that it was a futile strategy to gain advantage, when there is no a hint that that is true at all (at least not in the overwhelming majority of cases). Federer was keeping the ball low to not give Djokovic an opening and pace to Djokovic to use his BH to redirect the ball and attack his FH DTL as he usually does and which was a weak side for Federer in that match, or to control Djokovic's CC BH from getting too angled.

That's exactly what I was referring to. We had another discussion where you claimed a player never wins or loses because of individual weaknesses or strengths, but because of their game as a whole. Well, that is just not right.
Link to the discussion. Your incompetence usually prevents you from even understanding what is being said, and that one is no exception.

As a recreational player, If I lose a match, and in retrospect I realize I missed 90% of my backhand returns, but everything else looked good, then I can definitely say the backhand return was the main reason why I lost the match. Of course it's not always that clear cut, and it's not always a single factor. But many times, there are one or two BIG problems I can immediately place the blame on. It's not too dissimilar with the pros
Do you actually have 1) numbers to support your claim in that match and 2) to explain how something "looks" good? I see that you are so aware that you are talking BS,that you immediately offset it with the disclaimer that 1) it is not a clear cut situation and 2) not always a single factor, in effect escaping any possible situation where you are responsible for the speculation you are making. You haven't done the necessary to support the things you say in advance and now are back-pedalling to a safe situation where, if it turns out that you are wrong, you just say "well, I said that that is not always clear/the case". However, I will still want to see where you are coming from, how you measure the effectiveness of the slice, and how do you measure it in isolation. Please, do that.



Not at all backtracking - that's just you putting words in my mouth. I never claimed Fed held this belief, or that the BH slices were the main reason for Fed losing. I said forum goers believe the slice is a magic bullet against Novak, and that the BH slice was a liability for Fed in this match. These statements are independent from one another.
You do understand that after all the BS you and the other poster said about how the slice is not a "magic bullet" you put an undue amount of emphasis on that tactic, right? Why would you discuss in such a way a tactic which is marginal in the grand scheme of things at best? You cannot even make up your mind as you tried (unsuccessfully) to imply that other posters saw it as a major point in his plan (unsuccessfully, because some of them merely suggested that it is used as a way to diversify his strategy, which was the major point they were making and you also didn't understand).

Your last response:

You were the one who butted in the conversation already twisting my words - "the idea that Federer's main tactic on the BH side was to slice Djokovic and rely to win rallies that way is ludicrous." WTF was that?! I never made anything even remotely resembling this argument
actually shows the very reason why I intervened. You now have reduced your big talk to the case where the slice is used as an offensive shot (very limited use), and from them you limited it further to the case of whether he was successful and to what extent (but that one you will have to substantiate, of course). When I read your exchange about "magic bullet" I was like, does he even know what he is talking about.

Here is what Merriam-Webster says about that phrase:

: something providing an effective solution to a difficult or previously unsolvable problem

So what were you talking about at all, since you now has pretty much reduced your claims to a very very minuscule number of cases?

:cool:
 
Last edited:

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
You can hit more successful halve volleys with the K90 than the RF97

My problem was always that he should have redesigned the K90 by
giving it 3 inches to 5 max not 7, it actually looks quite ridiculous
to see such a big head with his style and technique.
3 inches larger head and not the 21.5mm / 21.5mm / 21.5mm beam width
but 19mm / 19mm / 21mm like the Bridgestone x-blade 93 a real beast.
 
The new racquet has helped him immensely. Had he not made the switch, he would have been sitting in the commentary box for the final, and all of his career discussions would have been relegated to the “ Former” section of this forum.
 

davced1

Professional
I think it's just the opposite, he would have won more had he switched earlier, he probably would have won Wimbledon 08, USO 09, 10, 11, AO 09 just to name a few.
 

jga111

Hall of Fame
He definitely overused the slice in this match, specially DTL to Djokovic's forehand. It didn't really bother Djokovic
The slice wasn’t always out of his choice - it is also his shot when he feels the pressure more in a clutch-point scenario - less room for error. It is the safer shot.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Hahaha. See my comment in the first commmentary explaining what you would do (post #18) once the going gets going.

As for whether Federer "shares that belief". Even if you now deny why you were talking up that point, you are clearly wrong, as he, in fact , used the slice to one degree or another. Of course that is normal, but since you said that you wasn't talking about main strategy, surely, now you are talking about using it at all, so you are clearly wrong.
I clearly never said this was a main tactic, or even suggested that it was. So it seems to me that you realized right there that you were putting words in my mouth again.

You demonstrate that you don't understand why it is used. Since you agreed that its main purpose is as a defensive shot, you must have been confusing why Federer used it in the first place, from where comes the confusion why at all he used it. I told you that even the frame of your speculation is incorrect. You suggest that it was a futile strategy to gain advantage, when there is no a hint that that is true at all (at least not in the overwhelming majority of cases).
It did not give him an advantage - that much is clear. The problem was many times it put Fed at a disadvantage in what was originally a neutral rally.

Federer was keeping the ball low to not give Djokovic an opening and pace to Djokovic to use his BH to redirect the ball and attack his FH DTL as he usually does and which was a weak side for Federer in that match, .
At first, you could think he succeeded in preventing Djokovic from going DTL with his BH. But I've watched all of Djokovic's matches in the tournament and he hasn't really been hitting that shot with any kind of authority. So in reality, Fed suppressed a shot that wasn't really there to begin with.
or to control Djokovic's CC BH from getting too angled
I don't believe Fed was very successful in this regard, because that's exactly what happened anyway in many of those rallies.

And what was the purpose of the slice DTL to Djokovic's forehand? Because that's the one I was criticizing the most when I made my first post.

Link to the discussion. Your incompetence usually prevents you from even understanding what is being said, and that one is no exception.
I made an argument along the lines of "player X wins his matches despite having a poor BH return" and you claimed there is no such thing - all his shots are part of his game and the reason why he wins or loses matches

Do you actually have 1) numbers to support your claim in that match and 2) to explain how something "looks" good? I see that you are so aware that you are talking BS,that you immediately offset it with the disclaimer that 1) it is not a clear cut situation and 2) not always a single factor, in effect escaping any possible situation where you are responsible for the speculation you are making. You haven't done the necessary to support the things you say in advance and now are back-pedalling to a safe situation where, if it turns out that you are wrong, you just say "well, I said that that is not always clear/the case".
It's very simple. In any match you can look at things that worked well (the positives), and things that didn't (the negatives). Sometimes the negatives are immediately obvious, and can be pointed to as the reason why you lost the match. Of course it isn't clear cut, because generally the pros are not going to execute any one thing so abysmally that it outright cost them match.

But as an example in this match, Djokovic's biggest problem was his return of serve, specially in the first 3.5 sets. He could not put any pressure on the Federer serve and allowed him to comfortably settle into the match. And even though Djokovic won the match, this still holds true. The return sucked for the most part. Same thing with Fed's slices. It was largely ineffective - him getting to 2 MP doesn't change that.

However, I will still want to see where you are coming from, how you measure the effectiveness of the slice, and how do you measure it in isolation. Please, do that.
Look at any of the neutral rallies where Fed introduced a slice BH. If the rally started to swing in Fed's favor, then it was good. If it remained neutral, it's a wash. If it swung in Djokovic's favor, it was bad. Add up all the instances of the slice and look at the balance sheet.

You do understand that after all the BS you and the other poster said about how the slice is not a "magic bullet" you put an undue amount of emphasis on that tactic, right? Why would you discuss in such a way a tactic which is marginal in the grand scheme of things at best? You cannot even make up your mind as you tried (unsuccessfully) to imply that other posters saw it as a major point in his plan (unsuccessfully, because some of them merely suggested that it is used as a way to diversify his strategy, which was the major point they were making and you also didn't understand).

Your last response:



actually shows the very reason why I intervened. You now have reduced your big talk to the case where the slice is used as an offensive shot (very limited use), and from them you limited it further to the case of whether he was successful and to what extent (but that one you will have to substantiate, of course). When I read your exchange about "magic bullet" I was like, does he even know what he is talking about.

Here is what Merriam-Webster says about that phrase:

: something providing an effective solution to a difficult or previously unsolvable problem

So what were you talking about at all, since you now has pretty much reduced your claims to a very very minuscule number of cases?

:cool:
Even after I pointed out the two are not connected, you are conflating two separate arguments I made. One, that Fed's slice was ineffective. Two, forum goers believe the slice to be a magic bullet against Djokovic.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I clearly never said this was a main tactic, or even suggested that it was. So it seems to me that you realized right there that you were putting words in my mouth again.
Again? I warned you in advance that your contention should be put into perspective should you disagree with what I was saying my understanding about what your conversation was about (as outlined in my warning in post #18). You tried to get out of it, by in fact claiming that that was a talk about very important tactic that you simply addressed. Since I asked you to prove your contention you even tried by providing posts that supposedly proved your point. I had to point out to you that you intentionally or unintentionally misconstrued the importance the posters were attributing to that tactic as opposed to what you were saying (i.e. that the posters were including it only as an element of a diversified approach as opposed to your contention that they meant it as a major point (copious amounts, hehe)).

In short: you talked about it as an answer to what you considered to be a major tactical point, so you considered it such. Your conversation in this thread with the other poster was as of such, so nothing indicates anything different. You wanted to sound smart.

It did not give him an advantage - that much is clear. The problem was many times it put Fed at a disadvantage in what was originally a neutral rally.
Jeebus. MOST OF THE TIME THE SLICE IS USED AS A DEFENSIVE SHOT (caps in the hope that this time it can get through your thick skull). Your contention that it was used as a neutral rally shot, isn't even applicable for most cases when it is used. He WAS in disadvantage in overwhelming majority of the cases when he used it, that is why he used it (as another poster already addressed you, but you don't seem to take a hint or intentionally pretend to not understand). Also, you repeat like a parrot that it put him in disadvantage: you need to substantiate your claim: how did you know that he wasn't limiting Djokovic's options to unwind his more potent weapons by doing just that? I already gave you two examples of why that might be the case.

At first, you could think he succeeded in preventing Djokovic from going DTL with his BH. But I've watched all of Djokovic's matches in the tournament and he hasn't really been hitting that shot with any kind of authority. So in reality, Fed suppressed a shot that wasn't really there to begin with.
Really, Djokovic's DTL "wasn't there"? One of his signature shots with which he punished many of his most difficult opponents including Nadal? :rolleyes:

I don't believe Fed was very successful in this regard, because that's exactly what happened anyway in many of those rallies.
I don't take seriously your statements about "many of anything" any more as it looks like you use it absolutely randomly with no substance whatsoever. I also know for a fact that you use it as a getaway card when you can't prove anything.

And what was the purpose of the slice DTL to Djokovic's forehand? Because that's the one I was criticizing the most when I made my first post.
Looking for a change of pace when Federer thought that he is in good position to play on his FH. Change when his BH is getting tentative.


I made an argument along the lines of "player X wins his matches despite having a poor BH return" and you claimed there is no such thing - all his shots are part of his game and the reason why he wins or loses matches
So, I was right that you don't even present the statement in its true context. The summation of the game is what wins or loses matches, it pertains to the end result, not that players don't have strengths and weaknesses (that would be absolutely absurd). That is kindergarten level of representation of what I said.


It's very simple. In any match you can look at things that worked well (the positives), and things that didn't (the negatives). Sometimes the negatives are immediately obvious, and can be pointed to as the reason why you lost the match. Of course it isn't clear cut, because generally the pros are not going to execute any one thing so abysmally that it outright cost them match.

But as an example in this match, Djokovic's biggest problem was his return of serve, specially in the first 3.5 sets. He could not put any pressure on the Federer serve and allowed him to comfortably settle into the match. And even though Djokovic won the match, this still holds true. The return sucked for the most part. Same thing with Fed's slices. It was largely ineffective - him getting to 2 MP doesn't change that.
If you claim that you were talking about only the few instances where Federer was using the slice as an effort to gain an advantage, your claim is largely a figment of your own imagination. I don't think that you are able to make a call like that, seeing that you don't even make a difference between a slice borne out of necessity and one aimed to "create and advantage". Not only that, but you don't even properly analyse the the situations where he DID use it to change pace and patterns. The deficiency was not in the tactic, but in the execution, to be precise, that his FH was beyond atrocious with which Djokovic has almost nothing to do. One has to see the amount of UE on that wing to realise that Djokovic got away with it because Federer's FH wasn't clicking. Announcing as ineffective the slice because of it is something I already talked about when I told you that you are unable to comprehend the influence of the other parts of the game on the estimate about the effectiveness of the tactic.


Look at any of the neutral rallies where Fed introduced a slice BH. If the rally started to swing in Fed's favor, then it was good. If it remained neutral, it's a wash. If it swung in Djokovic's favor, it was bad. Add up all the instances of the slice and look at the balance sheet.
It is your claim. Provide the details.

Even after I pointed out the two are not connected, you are conflating two separate arguments I made. One, that Fed's slice was ineffective. Two, forum goers believe the slice to be a magic bullet against Djokovic.
I am not conflating anything. You tried to conflate them by saying that his supposed ineffectiveness is the proof that they are wrong. On the way to that you sprinkled more conflations like what exactly is major and minor point, and which slice you were discussing (but only after it was clear that you don't even understand that most of the time the slice wasn't even used to gain an upper hand. Hell, to that moment you repeat that Federer was using it as way to gain advantage.) You are pretty much stuck on both counts that you mentioned. You haven't proven anything in regards with the the first (or rather, you have proven that you don't know what you are talking about, which was the very first question I asked you about in this thread), and for the second I already showed that your use of the phrase is that of addressing a major point, including using the definition, which clearly points at a unsolvable problem you are yet to address.

:cool:
 
Top