Federers backhand - a professional coach answers on quora..

  • Thread starter Deleted member 55539
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 55539

Guest
Loved reading it.. thought i would share it..

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Feder...ak/answer/Lon-Shapiro?srid=Xlr&share=747dcf5a



Pungky, your question is based on the absurd fanboy arguments that echo through the world of social media. I’m sorry, but message boards on reddit, Quora, or Tennis warehouse are not the place for you to research the subject of tennis.

No former player, coach or tennis journalist - basically anyone who knows anything about tennis - has ever called Federer’s backhand weak. Players don’t become number one in the world by having a glaring weakness.

But let’s analyze Federer’s backhand to understand the nature of the weakness, how easy it was to exploit, and who could exploit it.

Technical checklist

Did he make unforced errors off the serve return? No. He was able to keep the ball low against the best servers in the world.

Was he able to stay in extended rallies with the best players in the world? Yes. As evidenced by his four French Open finals, he had a claim to being the second best player in the world on clay during his prime. Even an over-30 Federer beat Djokovic on red clay at the French in 2011, Djokovic’s greatest season (in 2015, Novak’s only real competition was a 34-year-old Federer).

Could he attack off his backhand? Yes. If opponents hit short balls, he could drive his backhand up the line and hit winners.

Could he hit passing shots when players came to the net? Yes. Watch his match at Wimbledon against Sampras.

Could he play amazing defense by reaching balls hit wide of his backhand? Yes. He is just as good as any two-hander on defense, as they are forced to play a one-handed slice backhand when they are stretched out.

The one difference between a one-handed and two-handed backhand

So what is the basis of this social media hot take? It’s the one technical disadvantage of a one-handed backhand vs a two-handed backhand: the ability to attack balls above the shoulder. If you look at all the great recent one-handed backhands (Wawrinka, ljubicic, Federer, Gasquet, Almagro, Theim, Kohlschreiber, Haas, etc.), only Wawrinka and the 6′4″ ljubicic were able to step in and attack these shots. Everyone else just backs up and tries to hit back a high looping topspin to stay in rallies.

Head-to-head match ups

Finally, let’s look at how this “weakness” has handicapped Federer’s career. If a player has an obvious weakness, we would assume the results would prove this out. Against every great right-handed baseline player he has faced the results have been far less than disastrous: 22–23 vs Djokovic, 14–11 vs Murray, 15–5 vs Del Potro, 20–3 vs Wawrinka, 16–0 vs Ferrer, 6–2 vs Simon, 17–6 vs Berdych, 11-6 vs Tsonga, 9–4 vs Monfils, 6–1 vs Cilic, 5–0 vs Almagro, 5–0 vs Goffin, 5–0 vs Dimitrov, 15–2 vs Gasquet, 11–0 vs Kohlschreiber, 13–3 vs Ljubicic, 5–2 vs Nishikori, 10–2 vs Safin, 13–3 vs Haas, 18–9 vs Hewitt, 11–8 vs Nalbandian, 10–3 vs Ferrero, 8–3 vs Agassi.

That’s not much of an indication of a real weakness. How does he do against the best left handed players in the world, whose most natural shot, the cross court forehand, attacks a right hander’s backhand? 6–0 vs Verdasco, 12–0 vs Lopez, 5–0 vs Muller, 3–0 vs Zverev. The rest of the modern lefties are outside the top 30, so this exercise is fairly pointless.

The nemesis

So basically no player in the modern era has been able to consistently find Federer’s one weakness on the backhand side, except for Nadal, who also happens to be the greatest clay court player of all time. And aside from Nadal’s dominance on clay, Federer in his prime (2004–2010) had a small edge against Nadal on grass (2–1) and hard courts (4–3).

What changed in Federer’s backhand?

If you’ve been watching Federer’s scintillating play this year, it’s clear that Federer is hitting more winners off his backhand. How does a 35-year-old champion suddenly improve his backhand after playing on the circuit for the last 17 years?

On the surface, the answer is nothing. Just look at Federer’s stroke in 2004:

Now watch his backhand from this year:

It’s really hard to see a technical difference.

But there have been some really big changes in Federer over the last three years:

  1. The new racket - Federer finally changed from a 90 square inch frame to a 97 square inch frame. This has reduced the number of mishits and given Federer a little bit more power. Jim Courier spoke about this change and gave the reason why he, Sampras and the other champions in the 1990s stuck with 85–90 square inch rackets when the larger heads were already available: “we were idiots.”
  2. New coach - if you look at the progression of Federer’s coaches, you can see how he was struggling to solve the riddle of Nadal. Annacone and Edberg were all about getting better at the net. But in 2016, he went to Ivan Ljubicic, looking for something different. As I mentioned earlier, Ljubicic was the only player with a one-handed backhand besides Wawrinka who could step in and attack high balls to the backhand. It’s clear that Federer has found the smallest edge with his new coach, possibly with some fine technical adjustment, and for sure in his strategy and mentality.
  3. The injury - Federer sat out the last half of 2016 due to injury. Sometimes, an extended period away from the circuit allows players to reinvent themselves. Bill Tilden (the champion from the 20s) took off a good part of a year and learned a new backhand. Australian Paul McNamee was remarkable for being one of the few professional players who took time mid-career to switch from a one-hander to a two-hander. Federer may not have made much, if any, of a technical change, but he was able to practice stepping in and attacking high backhands and driving his backhand off his return until it became part of him.
  4. Father Time - Along with the new coach and attitude toward his backhand, Federer’s age has forced him to let go of the results more than he ever did during his prime. He knows he doesn’t have the stamina of younger players, so playing extended baseline rallies leads to him breaking down much sooner. He is willing to take chances to win, even if it means making more errors. And because he knows that playing the old style mean a slower, but inevitable defeat, he has the courage to keep playing his new style for the entire match. Ironically, it is the ability to let go that gives people the chance to find that place of physical and mental harmony where peak performance can occur. If you are interested in learning more about how to create an ideal performance state, read the works of Tim Gallwey and sports psychologist Jim Loehr.
How has Nadal changed?

Finally, we need to look at the state of Federer’s one real nemesis, Nadal. As great as Rafa has been, the reality is that his physical abilities have deteriorated. He can’t play the style he used when he dominated the world of clay between 2005 and 2014. He has had too many stress-related injuries because he has to work so hard to play his absolute best. Because of that, his coach Carlos Moya has been working with Nadal to hit harder and flatter to shorten points and preserve his body. So while Nadal is regaining his old ranking after collapsing following the 2014 French Open, his new style actually hurts his results against Federer.

In AO17, when Nadal played more aggressively against Federer, his topspin forehand was only bouncing 4′1″ on average, meaning that most of his ball were only going chest high. Federer has always been comfortable hitting these balls, and he dominated the first set this way. In the second, Nadal dug in and returned to his heavy topspin game. On TV, there was a graphic that showed his balls bouncing 4′11″ on average - shoulder height, and it hurt “new” Federer, just like it hurt Federer in his prime. Nadal won the second set this way, then reverted to his new more aggressive style and lost the third set. Nadal dug in again, to win the fourth sets using heavy topspin, and even took a 3–1 lead in the fifth. But the physical toll was too great, and his shots either started to land to short, or he flattened out shots, and Federer stormed back, winning the last five games to win the match 6–3 in the fifth.

Most telling was the way Federer kept driving his backhand off the return of serve, as Nadal’s slice serve goes out wide, but stays low. Federer put so much more pressure on Nadal, he had break points in almost every game Nadal served in the fifth set, and broke three straight games. As I recall, he had 13 break points in the fifth set alone (remember he had only 13 break points in five sets in the 2008 Wimbledon final).

Indian Wells was even worse for Nadal. A graphic showed how he had increased the speed of his groundstrokes over the last five years in the tournament, but faster pace means a little less spin - you can’t have both. The balls were moving through the desert air very fast, and Federer consistently got to hit most of his shots chest high. In their history of matches, this was one of the worst beatings that Nadal ever suffered. He looked completely puzzled by what had happened.

Conclusion

Federer, like almost every player who hits a one handed backhand, can be pressed if you can hit a ball above their shoulders. (Only Wawrinka has been able to hit that shot consistently - Ljubicic is three inches taller than Federer, so a lot of balls that would give Federer trouble would still be in the strike zone for the Croatian.) But it is beyond ridiculous to characterize Federer’s backhand as a weakness, or question the competition of any particular time period considering he has maintained his status as a top 2 or 3 player long since turning 30.
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
Loved reading it.. thought i would share it..

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Feder...ak/answer/Lon-Shapiro?srid=Xlr&share=747dcf5a



Pungky, your question is based on the absurd fanboy arguments that echo through the world of social media. I’m sorry, but message boards on reddit, Quora, or Tennis warehouse are not the place for you to research the subject of tennis.

No former player, coach or tennis journalist - basically anyone who knows anything about tennis - has ever called Federer’s backhand weak. Players don’t become number one in the world by having a glaring weakness.

But let’s analyze Federer’s backhand to understand the nature of the weakness, how easy it was to exploit, and who could exploit it.

Technical checklist

Did he make unforced errors off the serve return? No. He was able to keep the ball low against the best servers in the world.

Was he able to stay in extended rallies with the best players in the world? Yes. As evidenced by his four French Open finals, he had a claim to being the second best player in the world on clay during his prime. Even an over-30 Federer beat Djokovic on red clay at the French in 2011, Djokovic’s greatest season (in 2015, Novak’s only real competition was a 34-year-old Federer).

Could he attack off his backhand? Yes. If opponents hit short balls, he could drive his backhand up the line and hit winners.

Could he hit passing shots when players came to the net? Yes. Watch his match at Wimbledon against Sampras.

Could he play amazing defense by reaching balls hit wide of his backhand? Yes. He is just as good as any two-hander on defense, as they are forced to play a one-handed slice backhand when they are stretched out.

The one difference between a one-handed and two-handed backhand

So what is the basis of this social media hot take? It’s the one technical disadvantage of a one-handed backhand vs a two-handed backhand: the ability to attack balls above the shoulder. If you look at all the great recent one-handed backhands (Wawrinka, ljubicic, Federer, Gasquet, Almagro, Theim, Kohlschreiber, Haas, etc.), only Wawrinka and the 6′4″ ljubicic were able to step in and attack these shots. Everyone else just backs up and tries to hit back a high looping topspin to stay in rallies.

Head-to-head match ups

Finally, let’s look at how this “weakness” has handicapped Federer’s career. If a player has an obvious weakness, we would assume the results would prove this out. Against every great right-handed baseline player he has faced the results have been far less than disastrous: 22–23 vs Djokovic, 14–11 vs Murray, 15–5 vs Del Potro, 20–3 vs Wawrinka, 16–0 vs Ferrer, 6–2 vs Simon, 17–6 vs Berdych, 11-6 vs Tsonga, 9–4 vs Monfils, 6–1 vs Cilic, 5–0 vs Almagro, 5–0 vs Goffin, 5–0 vs Dimitrov, 15–2 vs Gasquet, 11–0 vs Kohlschreiber, 13–3 vs Ljubicic, 5–2 vs Nishikori, 10–2 vs Safin, 13–3 vs Haas, 18–9 vs Hewitt, 11–8 vs Nalbandian, 10–3 vs Ferrero, 8–3 vs Agassi.

That’s not much of an indication of a real weakness. How does he do against the best left handed players in the world, whose most natural shot, the cross court forehand, attacks a right hander’s backhand? 6–0 vs Verdasco, 12–0 vs Lopez, 5–0 vs Muller, 3–0 vs Zverev. The rest of the modern lefties are outside the top 30, so this exercise is fairly pointless.

The nemesis

So basically no player in the modern era has been able to consistently find Federer’s one weakness on the backhand side, except for Nadal, who also happens to be the greatest clay court player of all time. And aside from Nadal’s dominance on clay, Federer in his prime (2004–2010) had a small edge against Nadal on grass (2–1) and hard courts (4–3).

What changed in Federer’s backhand?

If you’ve been watching Federer’s scintillating play this year, it’s clear that Federer is hitting more winners off his backhand. How does a 35-year-old champion suddenly improve his backhand after playing on the circuit for the last 17 years?

On the surface, the answer is nothing. Just look at Federer’s stroke in 2004:

Now watch his backhand from this year:

It’s really hard to see a technical difference.

But there have been some really big changes in Federer over the last three years:

  1. The new racket - Federer finally changed from a 90 square inch frame to a 97 square inch frame. This has reduced the number of mishits and given Federer a little bit more power. Jim Courier spoke about this change and gave the reason why he, Sampras and the other champions in the 1990s stuck with 85–90 square inch rackets when the larger heads were already available: “we were idiots.”
  2. New coach - if you look at the progression of Federer’s coaches, you can see how he was struggling to solve the riddle of Nadal. Annacone and Edberg were all about getting better at the net. But in 2016, he went to Ivan Ljubicic, looking for something different. As I mentioned earlier, Ljubicic was the only player with a one-handed backhand besides Wawrinka who could step in and attack high balls to the backhand. It’s clear that Federer has found the smallest edge with his new coach, possibly with some fine technical adjustment, and for sure in his strategy and mentality.
  3. The injury - Federer sat out the last half of 2016 due to injury. Sometimes, an extended period away from the circuit allows players to reinvent themselves. Bill Tilden (the champion from the 20s) took off a good part of a year and learned a new backhand. Australian Paul McNamee was remarkable for being one of the few professional players who took time mid-career to switch from a one-hander to a two-hander. Federer may not have made much, if any, of a technical change, but he was able to practice stepping in and attacking high backhands and driving his backhand off his return until it became part of him.
  4. Father Time - Along with the new coach and attitude toward his backhand, Federer’s age has forced him to let go of the results more than he ever did during his prime. He knows he doesn’t have the stamina of younger players, so playing extended baseline rallies leads to him breaking down much sooner. He is willing to take chances to win, even if it means making more errors. And because he knows that playing the old style mean a slower, but inevitable defeat, he has the courage to keep playing his new style for the entire match. Ironically, it is the ability to let go that gives people the chance to find that place of physical and mental harmony where peak performance can occur. If you are interested in learning more about how to create an ideal performance state, read the works of Tim Gallwey and sports psychologist Jim Loehr......
Conclusion

Federer, like almost every player who hits a one handed backhand, can be pressed if you can hit a ball above their shoulders. (Only Wawrinka has been able to hit that shot consistently - Ljubicic is three inches taller than Federer, so a lot of balls that would give Federer trouble would still be in the strike zone for the Croatian.) But it is beyond ridiculous to characterize Federer’s backhand as a weakness, or question the competition of any particular time period considering he has maintained his status as a top 2 or 3 player long since turning 30.
Great article. I think we all knew in our heart of hearts about Fed's changes, but that really put it together well. The discussion of Nadal versus Federer was very interesting, especially considering that Nadal's tactics aren't hurting him so much against the rest of the tour and he's been doing rather well on hard courts. Not sure the new Nadal game on hard courts will help him on clay so much.:confused:
 

NGM

Hall of Fame
Nadal was crushed at Indian Wells. Why didn't he get back to his massive forehand topspin to save himself in the second set if it works? And if the tactics he used in the second set of Australian Open final worked well for him why didn't he just keep it up instead of hitting flatter in the third? I think it's not that simple. Maybe it's up more to Federer than Nadal in both cases. In both matches the outcome always was dependent on Federer's racket.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
looks to be a good analysis on the surface, but not really ...

1. majority of the UEs of federer in the 2nd set were on the FH side, not BH side. Federer lost that set more than Nadal winning it.
4th set, yes, Nadal played really well and took it to federer...

2. Federer had 11, not 13 BPs in the 5th set ( out of which he converted 2)

3. In Indian Wells, they flashed a screen showing how much earlier federer was taking it on his BH , compared to IW 12. it was significant.

4. I'd like to see some proof for those average bounces part and also for the pace/spin at Indian Wells part.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
I ****ING CALLED THIS LIKE A BROKEN RECORD SINCE AO!

Sorry, I'm just glad that I'm not the only person who's seeing the Fedal matchup in this way. Interesting though that people are convinced now that a pro is saying the same thing.

But that's really my fault for posting that here, as he says.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
It was dull save for the nugget that Nadal has apparently increased his stroke speed over the last 5 years at IW presumably at the expense of some spin.

Obviously, Federer's backhand has changed (or at least his application), and Nadal is not as good as he was in applying pressure with his FH. I came to this thread expecting much more.

:( :(
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
I really enjoyed this. Is it as ultra-rational and definitive as it sounds, though? I'm not sure. I feel like there are unexpressed premises in the argument that are arguable but at least it makes sense and is coherent. I'm certain that the situation is more complex than the gurus on here claim, "Fed has transformed his backhand into a Lubi clone," or "It's all the new racquet," or "He's figured out Nadal's game at last," or "Nadal is a senile mug and not a fifth of his former self." The truth as with most things will be multivalent and highly complex and probably encompasses some of these "insights" but many others as well including age, mileage, style, surface, experience, mindset, injury etc.

What was really fun was how he started off by hammering the TTTW as a bunch of "absurd fanboy" know nothing, know-it-alls. Where would he get a bizarre idea like this?
 

Sereger

Hall of Fame
...I’m sorry, but message boards on reddit, Quora, or Tennis warehouse are not the place for you to research the subject of tennis...Lol
He def. has an invisible and silent acc in this forum.
Base on his analysis, seems like the change mostly comes from Nadal than Fed. And he just needs to reuse the super top spin FH to torture Fed's BH, again.
Thus makes me really hope for their F match next Sunday, if Nadal ever read his post.
 

lulzprime

Rookie
Funny how everyone loves his BH now but when he switched to a 97 sq.inch racquet a few years ago, people were saying how his backhand sucked even more.

Where the **** are you guys now?
 

Guitario

Rookie
It's interesting how the best players adapt their game in order to overcome a problem. Federer changed rackets, tried the SABR, shortened his points etc to combat age. Djokovic changed his mentality and diet to overcome his flakiness and stamina issues. Murray basically became the fittest player on tour, had a back operation and played deeper in order to catch Djokovic. Nadal is maybe the only one not to make any fundamental changes, but you could argue going from a clay specialist to beating a prime Federer at Wimbledon required a fair few adjustments.
 
N

Nashvegas

Guest
He makes the case that Nadal can still succeed against Fed when he whips out the old topspin stroke, but that he can't physically hold up playing that style. At the AO he used topspin to battle back but couldn't sustain that effort in the fifth set.

Nadal would surely know from that experience that it's still Fed's kryptonite right? So he couldn't play the heavy topspin game for even one set at IW? That's not all there is to the story.
 
S

Sirius Black

Guest
I ****ING CALLED THIS LIKE A BROKEN RECORD SINCE AO!

Sorry, I'm just glad that I'm not the only person who's seeing the Fedal matchup in this way. Interesting though that people are convinced now that a pro is saying the same thing.

But that's really my fault for posting that here, as he says.
Vulgarity is the fool's fig leaf
 

netlets

Professional
Great post - I would like to add one of the more important details - his positioning when he hits the backhand now is 18" more forward than where he has always been - so instead of being behind the baseline, he is inside the court, cutting off the ball and taking it on the rise before it gets too high. He can do this with his larger racquet more effectively.



Loved reading it.. thought i would share it..

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Feder...ak/answer/Lon-Shapiro?srid=Xlr&share=747dcf5a



Pungky, your question is based on the absurd fanboy arguments that echo through the world of social media. I’m sorry, but message boards on reddit, Quora, or Tennis warehouse are not the place for you to research the subject of tennis.

No former player, coach or tennis journalist - basically anyone who knows anything about tennis - has ever called Federer’s backhand weak. Players don’t become number one in the world by having a glaring weakness.

But let’s analyze Federer’s backhand to understand the nature of the weakness, how easy it was to exploit, and who could exploit it.

Technical checklist

Did he make unforced errors off the serve return? No. He was able to keep the ball low against the best servers in the world.

Was he able to stay in extended rallies with the best players in the world? Yes. As evidenced by his four French Open finals, he had a claim to being the second best player in the world on clay during his prime. Even an over-30 Federer beat Djokovic on red clay at the French in 2011, Djokovic’s greatest season (in 2015, Novak’s only real competition was a 34-year-old Federer).

Could he attack off his backhand? Yes. If opponents hit short balls, he could drive his backhand up the line and hit winners.

Could he hit passing shots when players came to the net? Yes. Watch his match at Wimbledon against Sampras.

Could he play amazing defense by reaching balls hit wide of his backhand? Yes. He is just as good as any two-hander on defense, as they are forced to play a one-handed slice backhand when they are stretched out.

The one difference between a one-handed and two-handed backhand

So what is the basis of this social media hot take? It’s the one technical disadvantage of a one-handed backhand vs a two-handed backhand: the ability to attack balls above the shoulder. If you look at all the great recent one-handed backhands (Wawrinka, ljubicic, Federer, Gasquet, Almagro, Theim, Kohlschreiber, Haas, etc.), only Wawrinka and the 6′4″ ljubicic were able to step in and attack these shots. Everyone else just backs up and tries to hit back a high looping topspin to stay in rallies.

Head-to-head match ups

Finally, let’s look at how this “weakness” has handicapped Federer’s career. If a player has an obvious weakness, we would assume the results would prove this out. Against every great right-handed baseline player he has faced the results have been far less than disastrous: 22–23 vs Djokovic, 14–11 vs Murray, 15–5 vs Del Potro, 20–3 vs Wawrinka, 16–0 vs Ferrer, 6–2 vs Simon, 17–6 vs Berdych, 11-6 vs Tsonga, 9–4 vs Monfils, 6–1 vs Cilic, 5–0 vs Almagro, 5–0 vs Goffin, 5–0 vs Dimitrov, 15–2 vs Gasquet, 11–0 vs Kohlschreiber, 13–3 vs Ljubicic, 5–2 vs Nishikori, 10–2 vs Safin, 13–3 vs Haas, 18–9 vs Hewitt, 11–8 vs Nalbandian, 10–3 vs Ferrero, 8–3 vs Agassi.

That’s not much of an indication of a real weakness. How does he do against the best left handed players in the world, whose most natural shot, the cross court forehand, attacks a right hander’s backhand? 6–0 vs Verdasco, 12–0 vs Lopez, 5–0 vs Muller, 3–0 vs Zverev. The rest of the modern lefties are outside the top 30, so this exercise is fairly pointless.

The nemesis

So basically no player in the modern era has been able to consistently find Federer’s one weakness on the backhand side, except for Nadal, who also happens to be the greatest clay court player of all time. And aside from Nadal’s dominance on clay, Federer in his prime (2004–2010) had a small edge against Nadal on grass (2–1) and hard courts (4–3).

What changed in Federer’s backhand?

If you’ve been watching Federer’s scintillating play this year, it’s clear that Federer is hitting more winners off his backhand. How does a 35-year-old champion suddenly improve his backhand after playing on the circuit for the last 17 years?

On the surface, the answer is nothing. Just look at Federer’s stroke in 2004:

Now watch his backhand from this year:

It’s really hard to see a technical difference.

But there have been some really big changes in Federer over the last three years:

  1. The new racket - Federer finally changed from a 90 square inch frame to a 97 square inch frame. This has reduced the number of mishits and given Federer a little bit more power. Jim Courier spoke about this change and gave the reason why he, Sampras and the other champions in the 1990s stuck with 85–90 square inch rackets when the larger heads were already available: “we were idiots.”
  2. New coach - if you look at the progression of Federer’s coaches, you can see how he was struggling to solve the riddle of Nadal. Annacone and Edberg were all about getting better at the net. But in 2016, he went to Ivan Ljubicic, looking for something different. As I mentioned earlier, Ljubicic was the only player with a one-handed backhand besides Wawrinka who could step in and attack high balls to the backhand. It’s clear that Federer has found the smallest edge with his new coach, possibly with some fine technical adjustment, and for sure in his strategy and mentality.
  3. The injury - Federer sat out the last half of 2016 due to injury. Sometimes, an extended period away from the circuit allows players to reinvent themselves. Bill Tilden (the champion from the 20s) took off a good part of a year and learned a new backhand. Australian Paul McNamee was remarkable for being one of the few professional players who took time mid-career to switch from a one-hander to a two-hander. Federer may not have made much, if any, of a technical change, but he was able to practice stepping in and attacking high backhands and driving his backhand off his return until it became part of him.
  4. Father Time - Along with the new coach and attitude toward his backhand, Federer’s age has forced him to let go of the results more than he ever did during his prime. He knows he doesn’t have the stamina of younger players, so playing extended baseline rallies leads to him breaking down much sooner. He is willing to take chances to win, even if it means making more errors. And because he knows that playing the old style mean a slower, but inevitable defeat, he has the courage to keep playing his new style for the entire match. Ironically, it is the ability to let go that gives people the chance to find that place of physical and mental harmony where peak performance can occur. If you are interested in learning more about how to create an ideal performance state, read the works of Tim Gallwey and sports psychologist Jim Loehr.
How has Nadal changed?

Finally, we need to look at the state of Federer’s one real nemesis, Nadal. As great as Rafa has been, the reality is that his physical abilities have deteriorated. He can’t play the style he used when he dominated the world of clay between 2005 and 2014. He has had too many stress-related injuries because he has to work so hard to play his absolute best. Because of that, his coach Carlos Moya has been working with Nadal to hit harder and flatter to shorten points and preserve his body. So while Nadal is regaining his old ranking after collapsing following the 2014 French Open, his new style actually hurts his results against Federer.


Indian Wells was even worse for Nadal. A graphic showed how he had increased the speed of his groundstrokes over the last five years in the tournament, but faster pace means a little less spin - you can’t have both. The balls were moving through the desert air very fast, and Federer consistently got to hit most of his shots chest high. In their history of matches, this was one of the worst beatings that Nadal ever suffered. He looked completely puzzled by what had happened.
 

frinton

Professional
Great article. I think we all knew in our heart of hearts about Fed's changes, but that really put it together well. The discussion of Nadal versus Federer was very interesting, especially considering that Nadal's tactics aren't hurting him so much against the rest of the tour and he's been doing rather well on hard courts. Not sure the new Nadal game on hard courts will help him on clay so much.:confused:

I am sure Nadal will adjust his game for clay as Federer will his to grass!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I am sure Nadal will adjust his game for clay as Federer will his to grass!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Arrogantererer is all about the grass and getting one more title while the US Open could be his easily. Hopefully this time around he takes his health as paramount given the rejuvenation of his game; he's got years left it appears. Achieving #1 at his age is another accolade that will await him if he manages his health properly.

I'm not entirely sure of this article as I recall the Auz Open final and Rafa's recent IW swoon. The lack of height over the net looks simply like Rafa hitting short in the old days; a classic sign of physical weakness. The author also fails to address the Nadal serving which was suspiciously high in the fifth set at Auz; 85% first serve rate. To me that sounds more like Rafa went Juan Monaco on his serving under the pressure of that fifth set; much like Folderer going baseline against Djokovic at 2015 US Open later in the match. Nadal needs to be watched very carefully at Miami.:oops:
 

Meles

Bionic Poster
I really enjoyed this. Is it as ultra-rational and definitive as it sounds, though? I'm not sure. I feel like there are unexpressed premises in the argument that are arguable but at least it makes sense and is coherent. I'm certain that the situation is more complex than the gurus on here claim, "Fed has transformed his backhand into a Lubi clone," or "It's all the new racquet," or "He's figured out Nadal's game at last," or "Nadal is a senile mug and not a fifth of his former self." The truth as with most things will be multivalent and highly complex and probably encompasses some of these "insights" but many others as well including age, mileage, style, surface, experience, mindset, injury etc.

What was really fun was how he started off by hammering the TTTW as a bunch of "absurd fanboy" know nothing, know-it-alls. Where would he get a bizarre idea like this?
Agh the weakeraerers glorifying the past.
200-6.gif
 

Oricus

Rookie
Federer in 2017 compared to 2012 at IW is hitting the backhand 3 MPH faster and hitting his shot 3 feet earlier. While I agree with a lot of the points, Federer's backhand has had some technical work in order to get those changes.
 

snvplayer

Hall of Fame
Here is an ESPN article with interview with Federer.

http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/...ot-turned-roger-federer-fortunes-rafael-nadal

Fed says...

"I used to shank balls often with my older racket," Federer said. "But then again, it helped me a lot with my slice and my forehand. But with this racket, I have easier power, and I gain confidence. And once you have the confidence, you step in, and once you step in, then it's easier to pull back again."

"Even though I could do that way back when as well, I am just able to step into the court much easier than I ever have."
 

snvplayer

Hall of Fame
I think his points are very valid.

I think coaching change very wise decision on Federer's behalf. Roddick made a similar comment about how commentators and so calledbeing aggressive by coming to the net (not with regards to Federer), but how this notion is thrown around too commonly, but this tactic is not quite as effective today.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
He disregarded Fed played many other players and had the same % success on his BH.
He disregarded Nadal destroyed Raonic and had an amazing Semi against a super in form Dimitrov.
On the other hand Fed has losses to Raonic at Wimby and Brisbane Open like Nadal so Rafa did well.
Easy to see Rafas form was amazing but Fed Bh figures toppled Stans even against him.
The figures telecast at IW that taking the AO and IW percentages of Feds matches that his BH is at
a level & consistency that is way above his career average. All the journos from the ATP predicted
his BH would collapse next time he played Nadal as Feds past figures show he never produced
high % of winners off that side in back to back matches vs his nemesis.

On another note Fed had plenty of five setters but none over 4 hours were his game seems to collapse
vs Nishikori - 3.39
vs Stan - 3.04
vs Nadal - 3:37
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
He disregarded Fed played many other players and had the same % success on his BH.
He disregarded Nadal destroyed Raonic and had an amazing Semi against a super in form Dimitrov.
On the other hand Fed has losses to Raonic at Wimby and Brisbane Open like Nadal so Rafa did well.
Easy to see Rafas form was amazing but Fed Bh figures toppled Stans even against him.
The figures telecast at IW that taking the AO and IW percentages of Feds matches that his BH is at
a level & consistency that is way above his career average. All the journos from the ATP predicted
his BH would collapse next time he played Nadal as Feds past figures show he never produced
high % of winners off that side in back to back matches vs his nemesis.

On another note Fed had plenty of five setters but none over 4 hours were his game seems to collapse
vs Nishikori - 3.39
vs Stan - 3.04
vs Nadal - 3:37
The Nishikori match was 3h and 24 min.
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
The stats back up what the eye tells us that Federer is just stepping in and cracking it a way more than he used to. Is it an established fact that hitting a flat hard ball is significantly more taxing than a more looping, higher spin ball? That's news to me. Surely Nadal's been hitting nothing but that since he was a nipper so you'd think it'd be relatively less taxing for him than others. Also didn't I see a stat that said his RPMs were pretty much where they've always been generally? Or did I imagine that?

 

kabob

Hall of Fame
The stats back up what the eye tells us that Federer is just stepping in and cracking it a way more than he used to. Is it an established fact that hitting a flat hard ball is significantly more taxing than a more looping, higher spin ball? That's news to me.

That's news to the OP and Lon Shapiro, too. Because he said the opposite of that in the above Quora article.
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
That's news to the OP and Lon Shapiro, too. Because he said the opposite of that in the above Quora article.

I should have said, "With regard to Nadal is it an established fact that hitting a flat hard ball is significantly more taxing than a more looping, higher spin ball?"

"Carlos Moya has been working with Nadal to hit harder and flatter to shorten points and preserve his body. So while Nadal is regaining his old ranking after collapsing following the 2014 French Open, his new style actually hurts his results against Federer.

In AO17, when Nadal played more aggressively against Federer, his topspin forehand was only bouncing 4′1″ on average, meaning that most of his ball were only going chest high. Federer has always been comfortable hitting these balls, and he dominated the first set this way. In the second, Nadal dug in and returned to his heavy topspin game. On TV, there was a graphic that showed his balls bouncing 4′11″ on average - shoulder height, and it hurt “new” Federer, just like it hurt Federer in his prime. Nadal won the second set this way, then reverted to his new more aggressive style and lost the third set. Nadal dug in again, to win the fourth sets using heavy topspin, and even took a 3–1 lead in the fifth. But the physical toll was too great, and his shots either started to land to short..."
 

kabob

Hall of Fame
I think you're still misunderstanding. The article was stating that hitting those high-rpm, high-bouncing topspin forehands is significantly more taxing than hitting hard and flat. Which is why Federer hits hard and flat more often than in the past. Nadal tried to hit his old style more often in the AO17 final but his body couldn't handle it and broke down. Again, you inferred the opposite of what the article stated.
 

Candide

Hall of Fame
I think you're still misunderstanding. The article was stating that hitting those high-rpm, high-bouncing topspin forehands is significantly more taxing than hitting hard and flat. Which is why Federer hits hard and flat more often than in the past. Nadal tried to hit his old style more often in the AO17 final but his body couldn't handle it and broke down. Again, you inferred the opposite of what the article stated.
No, I can see exactly what the article is saying - I'm simply questioning the premise. Is it the case that hitting the loopy Nadal ball is more taxing per shot or is the the fact that this style of game is more taxing? He seems to be saying the former. I bolded it in the previous post.
 

kabob

Hall of Fame
What? They both go hand-in-hand. If it's more taxing per shot, that play style will also tax the body more throughout a match.
 

chikoo

Hall of Fame
Young tennis grunters call Feds OHBH weak for it is not a 100+mph return. These folks could care less about accuracy, and placement.
 

Tennisanity

Legend
The AO analysis is a bit simplistic and wrong. Nadal spun the balls more in second set so he won it. 3rd set he stopped it, so he lost it. 4th set he did it again so he won it. Huh? Why would Nadal stop spinning the balls in any set if it works. In reality the sets Fed lost were because he played badly in them, not really anything Nadal did differently.
 

racquetreligion

Hall of Fame
Great videos posted and I agree with Tennisanity that Feds level in all areas was the overall telling factor if he won or lost sets vs Nadal not just the BH.

It has been evident Feds numbers on his BH are up thanks to hitting it on the rise stepping into it rather than waiting for it is the change.
His timing change, using earlier preparation and improved head stability is causing not just Nadal problems but all players.

The lower net clearance of the BH and increased speed usually spells disaster for average safety margins but if you look back at Feds
career on his BH, his improvised on the rise and halve volley passing shots on the BH have always been excellent and this is an
extension of this ability. Now for balls he has more time to hit for winners, he takes them early and it suits his natural mechanics.

Many remember that bh down the line vs Rafa at wimby were Rafa had match point and eventually won in 5 sets and that BH quality
Lube has isolated and applied to Feds currently with some tweaking to have it not only 10km hr faster but taking also a split second of time
required for the opponent to prepare, leaving them even less time to react. Ironic the man has less time left so uses this principle.

To think Rafa used his time wasting shenanigans for so long and that was cut down by an altruist Murray and here Fed cuts time down
even more time in his way to trounce Nadal....its just an awesome time and hope Dimitrov and picks up on it as the first to do this to
Nadal has been Djokovic maybe after studying Davydenkos past efforts?
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
looks to be a good analysis on the surface, but not really ...

1. majority of the UEs of federer in the 2nd set were on the FH side, not BH side. Federer lost that set more than Nadal winning it.
4th set, yes, Nadal played really well and took it to federer...

2. Federer had 11, not 13 BPs in the 5th set ( out of which he converted 2)

3. In Indian Wells, they flashed a screen showing how much earlier federer was taking it on his BH , compared to IW 12. it was significant.

4. I'd like to see some proof for those average bounces part and also for the pace/spin at Indian Wells part.
Agreed. It looked to me that Federer was very streaky at the AO. His confidence against Nadal must be greater than ever before at this point. This rivalry isn't very different than Evert/Navratilova, which, during the latter's peak years, was so one-sided she beat Evert over a dozen times in a row, until Evert turned it around at the end.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Agreed. It looked to me that Federer was very streaky at the AO. His confidence against Nadal must be greater than ever before at this point. This rivalry isn't very different than Evert/Navratilova, which, during the latter's peak years, was so one-sided she beat Evert over a dozen times in a row, until Evert turned it around at the end.

nah, I wouldn't compare the 2 rivalries that way. Navratilova had better peak level than Evert, except on clay
With Nadal-federer, its other way around. Federer has a better peak level than Nadal, except on clay.
The nadal-federer h2h had to do with a lot of the initial meetings being on clay as well ..

Also, Evert dominated Navratilova completely at the beginning, then the other way around and then it became competitive.

federer nadal was more competitive at almost every stage, except for 2013, with federer being injury-affected.
 

asif

New User
nadal didnt just starting throwing high bouncing forehands to beat fed in the 2nd and 4th

fed clearly has peaks and dips, and against nadal he cannot ever afford to dip like he can against anyone else

the 5th set is the clearest example of nadal playing his best- and federer dominaating and taking over at 3-1

people keep saying it was super close at the end?

REALLY??

federer had break points in every nadal game- if he lost it would ONLY HAve been BECAUSE OF A COLLOSAL CHOKE, NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING NADAL DID

the only thing that happened in set 5 was fed didnt choke like he did in 2009
 

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
Federer has a better peak level than Nadal
Not so sure about that. Nadal has dominated the entire tour, excluding no one, for periods of time, eg. 2018. Federer has dominated the tour excluding Nadal, for periods. Also, Navratilova switched racket tech a year earlier than Evert, which somewhat affects their results in the 1984-1985 time frame. When you're playing with small, flexible wood and gut against large, stiff graphite, you're at an extreme disadvantage in most situations.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
Sometimes what matters more than what IS happening- is what people THINKS is happening. Nobody may know for sure whats happening in this matchup, maybe not even Federer himself, but it does SEEM that he has an edge over Nadal at the moment, mentally and tactically. The fact that people believe it is sometimes enough to make it true, this does have an affect on the players mentality entering the match, and it affects their strategy, if everyone believes your opponent has your number you may be inclined to believe it too. If you dont, maybe you're a brick wall.

The reality, sometimes it is nothing more than blind luck. Unknowable factors that have nothing to do with the actual skill and tactics of the players. That could be the case here, it could not. But Nadal has a champion's mindset, and unless there's a serious problem in his game right now causing him doubts, he will probably be able to beat Federer again. He has shown many times that he can.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Not so sure about that. Nadal has dominated the entire tour, excluding no one, for periods of time, eg. 2018. Federer has dominated the tour excluding Nadal, for periods. Also, Navratilova switched racket tech a year earlier than Evert, which somewhat affects their results in the 1984-1985 time frame. When you're playing with small, flexible wood and gut against large, stiff graphite, you're at an extreme disadvantage in most situations.

its actually pretty clear when you've watched their play on slow HC, fast HC, grass, indoors - vs the field.
average level as well : 5 AOs to 1, 5 USOs to 2, 7 wimbledons to 2, 6 YECs to zero ....

each of federer's years - 04, 05, 06 was better than any of nadal's years domination wise .

I'm aware of the Evert Navratilova wood-graphite situation....the fact that Navratilova was quite clearly pre-prime when Evert dominated her earlier also comes into the picture..
in any case, doesn't change what I said, Navratilova's peak was better than Evert's except on clay.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Sure, but specific analysis of those results do reveal injuries as a large contributor, disproportionate in Nadal's case.

a) I don't think its that large. not going to win AO 06 , wim 09 - doubt he's going to win getting through a draw of hewitt, roddick, murray, federer, USO 12 - he'd be one of the 3 favs with djoko/murray. AO 13 - he's not getting through djokovic I think. OTOH, federer would've had a decent shot at AO 08 without getting sick due to mono.

b) major part of nadal's injuries are due to his own style.

c) that doesn't change anything with respect to peak level ..federer's clearly better on all surfaces, except clay.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Sure, but specific analysis of those results do reveal injuries as a large contributor, disproportionate in Nadal's case.
Nadal wasn't going to win all the slams he missed anyway. Which of them do you think would he have won? I'll jump in:

2004 FO. - NO

2006 AO - NO

2009 Wimb - unlikely with the draw he would have got consisting of Hewitt, Roddick, Murray and Federer. That would have been a nightmare draw.

2012 USO - possible

2013 AO - NO. He's not beating Djokovic.

2014 USO - possible. But could have been hit off the court by Cilic too.

2016 Wimb - NO
 
Top