My first point is that I don't see him as contructing points that well. I see him hit fairly similar shots fairly relentlessly, usually with a fairly low margin of error, and tough it out from the baseline, at his best when he turns things into a mano-a-mano sluggathon, usually resulting in his opponents being unable to keep up with the standard of ball-striking, and eventually lose their footwork and willpower as a result. Those things are not point construction.
The fact that he takes longer to finish points suggests that one of his key strategies is wearing his opponent out, and also that he is not able (or chooses not) to manoeuvre his opponent well enough to create a winning shot earlier in the rally.
Federer is able to finish the points so much more quickly, that leaves so much less to chance, in terms of his opponent being able to hit surprising shots or wrest control of the rally, and this is important because point construction in part is about taking control away from your opponent. It also suggests that Federer in the first instance is hitting more penetrating shots, therefore opening up the court in one direction or another, which is a key part of point construction, creating space to the other side, and secondly has a better idea of where his opponent is going to be hitting the ball, since he often seems to be in the right position to hit the next shot to finish the rally. Short points suggest more penetration and an ability more quickly to see where his opponent does not want the ball to go, and to exploit that, which is what excellent point construction is all about.
I suggest you don't respond to this post with flippancy or sarcasm, as it will make you look like a fool.
