tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 03 Feb 2009 12:30:17
From: Shakes
Subject: Some good points here ...
From another forum:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3091426&postcount=57


"...what Fed really needs is to be 3 or 4 years younger.

Barring that he needs to lose from his game, which is biased toward
stubborn patience which works against everything else, his overriding
quality of "risk aversion".

Simple, very easy to say, but very tough to do. It may be so far
outside Fed's comfort zone it may be too jarring to his tennis and
general psyche overall as to make it impossible.

When watching Fed, and then Fed v. Nadal, I'm reminded of what he is
not.
He is not an intuitively aggressive player. It think the stats of his
break opportunities vs. breaks demonstrates this.

Reading Connors and his relationship with his mentor in his prime
Pancho Segura they described the obvious, the importance of returning
consistently to maintain pressure on the server. How constant pressure
seems, in the server's mind, to increase as sets and matches progress,
simply due to perception, but how that perception has a palpable
effect on the server's mind and performance. This is Fed. This is Fed
to a fault.

The distinction being while Fed very, very, very rarely comes out of
that consistency cocoon, Segura/Connors clearly believed and put into
practice, the belief that there were times to go higher risk, based on
score. IOW temporarily suspend practicing the axiom of returning
consistency to go for it, with slimmer margins, i.e. a higher degree
of risk. In the Segura/Connors mindset, they truly believed that on
that point, win or lose, it was a win/win proposition. Win = break.
Lose = planting the seed, that if a server misses the next first serve
in that situation he was going to pay. Result of the latter was more
often than not: a) more second serves as the server reaches for too
much, or b) 1st serves more akin to 2nd serves as the server took
something off not willing to risk giving the returner a 2nd to tee off
on.

That's just one example. Connors/Segura identified different spots not
just on the return where higher risk was beneficial.

While I agree that Fed v. Nadal appears to be a mental thing, I think
the mental thing stems from the physical, Nadal is better at what Fed
does best, patience and outwaiting his opponent, including Fed. It's
deeper than that in that Fed's best patterns of play are totally
blunted or made worse by Nadal's strengths. And Nadal's best pattern -
high ball's into the right hander's bh pins Fed badly and once in it,
he is forced to play lower percentage tennis.

What's more frightening is that Nadal, motivated to improve results
and better cope on hardcourts physically, is adding selective higher
risk, more aggressive elements to his game in the mean time. Most
noticeably his willingness to flatten out his x-court bh in the right
situation.

Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.

Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
tools some are suggesting."





 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 20:53:05
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 3, 8:39 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 8:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> From another forum:
>
> >>http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3091426&postcount=57
>
> >> "...what Fed really needs is to be 3 or 4 years younger.
>
> >> Barring that he needs to lose from his game, which is biased toward
> >> stubborn patience which works against everything else, his overriding
> >> quality of "risk aversion".
>
> >> Simple, very easy to say, but very tough to do. It may be so far
> >> outside Fed's comfort zone it may be too jarring to his tennis and
> >> general psyche overall as to make it impossible.
>
> >> When watching Fed, and then Fed v. Nadal, I'm reminded of what he is
> >> not.
> >> He is not an intuitively aggressive player. It think the stats of his
> >> break opportunities vs. breaks demonstrates this.
>
> >> Reading Connors and his relationship with his mentor in his prime
> >> Pancho Segura they described the obvious, the importance of returning
> >> consistently to maintain pressure on the server. How constant pressure
> >> seems, in the server's mind, to increase as sets and matches progress,
> >> simply due to perception, but how that perception has a palpable
> >> effect on the server's mind and performance. This is Fed. This is Fed
> >> to a fault.
>
> >> The distinction being while Fed very, very, very rarely comes out of
> >> that consistency cocoon, Segura/Connors clearly believed and put into
> >> practice, the belief that there were times to go higher risk, based on
> >> score. IOW temporarily suspend practicing the axiom of returning
> >> consistency to go for it, with slimmer margins, i.e. a higher degree
> >> of risk. In the Segura/Connors mindset, they truly believed that on
> >> that point, win or lose, it was a win/win proposition. Win = break.
> >> Lose = planting the seed, that if a server misses the next first serve
> >> in that situation he was going to pay. Result of the latter was more
> >> often than not: a) more second serves as the server reaches for too
> >> much, or b) 1st serves more akin to 2nd serves as the server took
> >> something off not willing to risk giving the returner a 2nd to tee off
> >> on.
>
> >> That's just one example. Connors/Segura identified different spots not
> >> just on the return where higher risk was beneficial.
>
> >> While I agree that Fed v. Nadal appears to be a mental thing, I think
> >> the mental thing stems from the physical, Nadal is better at what Fed
> >> does best, patience and outwaiting his opponent, including Fed. It's
> >> deeper than that in that Fed's best patterns of play are totally
> >> blunted or made worse by Nadal's strengths. And Nadal's best pattern -
> >> high ball's into the right hander's bh pins Fed badly and once in it,
> >> he is forced to play lower percentage tennis.
>
> >> What's more frightening is that Nadal, motivated to improve results
> >> and better cope on hardcourts physically, is adding selective higher
> >> risk, more aggressive elements to his game in the mean time. Most
> >> noticeably his willingness to flatten out his x-court bh in the right
> >> situation.
>
> >> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
> >> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
> >> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
> >> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
> >> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
> >> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
>
> >> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
> >> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
> >> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
> >> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
> >> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
> >> tools some are suggesting."
>
> > Excellent post - this is much better than a lot of we have to wade
> > through here ...
>
> True, but overall it's not very good. It's just his opinion which isn't
> backed up strongly by any of his arguments.

Why ? I think he has made some valid points. He says that fed needs to
be occasionally aggressive on some of nadal's serves, instead of just
looking to return them and get into a rally (like he usually does with
other players). He says fed has to make a crucial decision going
forward: either tinker with his game to adjust to nadal and murray -
not very exciting considering that he is at the home stretch of his
career OR keep the same game bcos it's good enough for the rest of the
tour, but end up losing to nadal more often than not.


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 22:20:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
Shakes wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:39 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
>>>> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
>>>> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
>>>> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
>>>> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
>>>> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
>>>> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
>>>> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
>>>> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
>>>> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
>>>> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
>>>> tools some are suggesting."
>>> Excellent post - this is much better than a lot of we have to wade
>>> through here ...
>> True, but overall it's not very good. It's just his opinion which isn't
>> backed up strongly by any of his arguments.
>
> Why ? I think he has made some valid points. He says that fed needs to
> be occasionally aggressive on some of nadal's serves, instead of just
> looking to return them and get into a rally (like he usually does with
> other players).


Fed *is* occasionally aggressive on returns v rafa - watch last
Wimbledon final if you don't believe me - he was ripping fh's all over
the place. The thing is that just isn't going to cut it over the course
of 5 sets.



> He says fed has to make a crucial decision going
> forward: either tinker with his game to adjust to nadal and murray -
> not very exciting considering that he is at the home stretch of his
> career OR keep the same game bcos it's good enough for the rest of the
> tour, but end up losing to nadal more often than not.


It's too late for Fed to become a great net player now - shoulda done it
in 2006 like I suggested. There is nothing Fed can do now but play his
best & make Rafa earn every point - rest of it is out of his control.
If Fed changes his strategy & has some success, then Rafa has the knack
of responding to that & winning points a different way.

The only type of game that would start fave v Rafa is Sampras game.
Federer can't play that way & is reduced to playing the whole match
largely from the baseline - tough to beat Rafa from there.



 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 04:29:39
From:
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 4, 6:20=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Shakes wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 8:39 pm, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >>>> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference an=
d
> >>>> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
> >>>> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
> >>>> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep th=
e
> >>>> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
> >>>> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
> >>>> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
> >>>> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
> >>>> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
> >>>> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
> >>>> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re=
-
> >>>> tools some are suggesting."
> >>> Excellent post - this is much better than a lot of we have to wade
> >>> through here ...
> >> True, but overall it's not very good. =A0It's just his opinion which i=
sn't
> >> backed up strongly by any of his arguments.
>
> > Why ? I think he has made some valid points. He says that fed needs to
> > be occasionally aggressive on some of nadal's serves, instead of just
> > looking to return them and get into a rally (like he usually does with
> > other players).
>
> Fed *is* occasionally aggressive on returns v rafa - watch last
> Wimbledon final if you don't believe me - he was ripping fh's all over
> the place. =A0The thing is that just isn't going to cut it over the cours=
e
> of 5 sets.
>
> > He says fed has to make a crucial decision going
> > forward: either tinker with his game to adjust to nadal and murray -
> > not very exciting considering that he is at the home stretch of his
> > career OR keep the same game bcos it's good enough for the rest of the
> > tour, but end up losing to nadal more often than not.
>
> It's too late for Fed to become a great net player now - shoulda done it
> in 2006 like I suggested. =A0There is nothing Fed can do now but play his
> best & make Rafa earn every point - rest of it is out of his control.
> If Fed changes his strategy & has some success, then Rafa has the knack
> of responding to that & winning points a different way.
>
> The only type of game that would start fave v Rafa is Sampras game.
> Federer can't play that way & is reduced to playing the whole match
> largely from the baseline - tough to beat Rafa from there.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm not so sure that's the only type of game that *would start fave*
against Rafa off of clay.

Are you so sure that in a year's time Murray won't be hot fave against
Rafa on a hard court?


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 18:04:45
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 3, 6:58=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 4:37=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Shakes wrote:
> > > I think Fed realizes that now. I think this loss was so devastating
> > > for him because he HAD put all that work in, HAD regained his 2007
> > > form and it wasn't enough. Not nearly. Instead of his coronation it
> > > became his Waterloo and he knows it. Unless he takes the spring as a
> > > second off season to re-tool under someone else's watchful eye, he
> > > knows the next true off season is nearly a year away, when he will be
> > > nearly a year older. He also needs someone to help inject a healthy
> > > portion of self belief and confidence back into his soul.
>
> > I think the guy is repeating himself a lot, but this is in fact a good
> > point. His 2007 was not even close to 2006 although he still found a wa=
y
> > through to win 3 GS titles. I think this was bad for Roger in the end,
> > because he became overconfident, like the poster says. No one was there
> > to put their finger on the flaws in his game. 2008 he became hampered b=
y
> > his illness unfortunately so he didn't have the chance to dig deeper
> > into his game and improve further. In 2009 he is determined to strike
> > back and regain his 2007 form. Unfortunately that is not enough in 2009
> > when Nadal especially has improved a lot.
>
> > Of course all this is speculation. It will be exciting too see what
> > Roger will do in the next months. If he wins IW and Miami by beating
> > Nadal twice I guess we all will shut up. Until that I guess we have to
> > give this poster right. He needs a new perspective and realize that he
> > needs to improve himself.
>
> > PS.
>
> I also believe that it was in 2007 that Fed started losing confidence
> in his groundies and became a more defensive player. That was when I
> started losing confidence in Fed when rallies started - seemed to me
> that he was waiting for his opponent to make an error more than trying
> to go for the winner himself. Another thing I noticed also was his
> inability to put away mid court balls. I think the poster is correct
> in saying that it hurt Fed in the long run - he thought his new B-
> game was good enough for the rest of the tour...

Here is the post I made regarding this way back in Aug 2007...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/browse_thread/thread/524b45=
20be5c7270/654e303b3ecf1118?hl=3Den&lnk=3Dgst&q=3DWas+it+just+me#654e303b3e=
cf1118


 
Date: 04 Feb 2009 00:58:23
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 4, 2:49=A0am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 3, 12:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > From another forum:
>
> >http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3D3091426&postcount=3D57
>

IMO, this is way overblown stuff. Federer needs to focus on one
tournament at a time, one slam at a time, keep improving, get rid of
the half-arsed at tuneups concept, keep physically fit and maybe
increase his mobility, keep all his strokes sharp, may be add a few
more tools, keep giving himself chances. He doesn't need to do
anything drastic. Nadal is playing overdrive at the moment, he will
inevitably cool down, and Federer will have to reap the harvest when
that happens.

If he goes berserk just because of this loss to Nadal, he will lose
even more in the future.

I think Federer needs to keep faith in his core game, which is mainly
a baseline-oriented game with precise placement, good shotmaking, and
pulling the trigger at the right moment. One thing Federer can work on
is his patience and steadiness during a long rally. He needs to
practice how to keep rallying without breaking down. His backhand just
breaks down a lot, and he needs to address that. Forehand not so much,
may be he pulls the trigger at the wrong moment or something like
that, but it doesn't break down. He needs to make his ground-strokes
really polished, dependable weapons.


  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 22:21:21
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
arnab.z@gmail wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2:49 am, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 12:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> From another forum:
>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3091426&postcount=57
>
> IMO, this is way overblown stuff. Federer needs to focus on one
> tournament at a time, one slam at a time, keep improving, get rid of
> the half-arsed at tuneups concept, keep physically fit and maybe
> increase his mobility, keep all his strokes sharp, may be add a few
> more tools, keep giving himself chances. He doesn't need to do
> anything drastic. Nadal is playing overdrive at the moment, he will
> inevitably cool down, and Federer will have to reap the harvest when
> that happens.
>
> If he goes berserk just because of this loss to Nadal, he will lose
> even more in the future.
>
> I think Federer needs to keep faith in his core game, which is mainly
> a baseline-oriented game with precise placement, good shotmaking, and
> pulling the trigger at the right moment. One thing Federer can work on
> is his patience and steadiness during a long rally. He needs to
> practice how to keep rallying without breaking down. His backhand just
> breaks down a lot, and he needs to address that. Forehand not so much,
> may be he pulls the trigger at the wrong moment or something like
> that, but it doesn't break down. He needs to make his ground-strokes
> really polished, dependable weapons.


You're asking for a lot there - can't see Fed improving to that extent
at age 28.



 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 15:27:13
From:
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 3, 8:30=A0pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> From another forum:
>
> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3D3091426&postcount=3D57
>
> "...what Fed really needs is to be 3 or 4 years younger.
>
> Barring that he needs to lose from his game, which is biased toward
> stubborn patience which works against everything else, his overriding
> quality of "risk aversion".
>
> Simple, very easy to say, but very tough to do. It may be so far
> outside Fed's comfort zone it may be too jarring to his tennis and
> general psyche overall as to make it impossible.
>
> When watching Fed, and then Fed v. Nadal, I'm reminded of what he is
> not.
> He is not an intuitively aggressive player. It think the stats of his
> break opportunities vs. breaks demonstrates this.
>
> Reading Connors and his relationship with his mentor in his prime
> Pancho Segura they described the obvious, the importance of returning
> consistently to maintain pressure on the server. How constant pressure
> seems, in the server's mind, to increase as sets and matches progress,
> simply due to perception, but how that perception has a palpable
> effect on the server's mind and performance. This is Fed. This is Fed
> to a fault.
>
> The distinction being while Fed very, very, very rarely comes out of
> that consistency cocoon, Segura/Connors clearly believed and put into
> practice, the belief that there were times to go higher risk, based on
> score. IOW temporarily suspend practicing the axiom of returning
> consistency to go for it, with slimmer margins, i.e. a higher degree
> of risk. In the Segura/Connors mindset, they truly believed that on
> that point, win or lose, it was a win/win proposition. Win =3D break.
> Lose =3D planting the seed, that if a server misses the next first serve
> in that situation he was going to pay. Result of the latter was more
> often than not: a) more second serves as the server reaches for too
> much, or b) 1st serves more akin to 2nd serves as the server took
> something off not willing to risk giving the returner a 2nd to tee off
> on.
>
> That's just one example. Connors/Segura identified different spots not
> just on the return where higher risk was beneficial.
>
> While I agree that Fed v. Nadal appears to be a mental thing, I think
> the mental thing stems from the physical, Nadal is better at what Fed
> does best, patience and outwaiting his opponent, including Fed. It's
> deeper than that in that Fed's best patterns of play are totally
> blunted or made worse by Nadal's strengths. And Nadal's best pattern -
> high ball's into the right hander's bh pins Fed badly and once in it,
> he is forced to play lower percentage tennis.
>
> What's more frightening is that Nadal, motivated to improve results
> and better cope on hardcourts physically, is adding selective higher
> risk, more aggressive elements to his game in the mean time. Most
> noticeably his willingness to flatten out his x-court bh in the right
> situation.
>
> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
>
> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
> tools some are suggesting."

Excellent post - this is much better than a lot of we have to wade
through here ...




  
Date: 04 Feb 2009 15:39:56
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 3, 8:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From another forum:
>>
>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3091426&postcount=57
>>
>> "...what Fed really needs is to be 3 or 4 years younger.
>>
>> Barring that he needs to lose from his game, which is biased toward
>> stubborn patience which works against everything else, his overriding
>> quality of "risk aversion".
>>
>> Simple, very easy to say, but very tough to do. It may be so far
>> outside Fed's comfort zone it may be too jarring to his tennis and
>> general psyche overall as to make it impossible.
>>
>> When watching Fed, and then Fed v. Nadal, I'm reminded of what he is
>> not.
>> He is not an intuitively aggressive player. It think the stats of his
>> break opportunities vs. breaks demonstrates this.
>>
>> Reading Connors and his relationship with his mentor in his prime
>> Pancho Segura they described the obvious, the importance of returning
>> consistently to maintain pressure on the server. How constant pressure
>> seems, in the server's mind, to increase as sets and matches progress,
>> simply due to perception, but how that perception has a palpable
>> effect on the server's mind and performance. This is Fed. This is Fed
>> to a fault.
>>
>> The distinction being while Fed very, very, very rarely comes out of
>> that consistency cocoon, Segura/Connors clearly believed and put into
>> practice, the belief that there were times to go higher risk, based on
>> score. IOW temporarily suspend practicing the axiom of returning
>> consistency to go for it, with slimmer margins, i.e. a higher degree
>> of risk. In the Segura/Connors mindset, they truly believed that on
>> that point, win or lose, it was a win/win proposition. Win = break.
>> Lose = planting the seed, that if a server misses the next first serve
>> in that situation he was going to pay. Result of the latter was more
>> often than not: a) more second serves as the server reaches for too
>> much, or b) 1st serves more akin to 2nd serves as the server took
>> something off not willing to risk giving the returner a 2nd to tee off
>> on.
>>
>> That's just one example. Connors/Segura identified different spots not
>> just on the return where higher risk was beneficial.
>>
>> While I agree that Fed v. Nadal appears to be a mental thing, I think
>> the mental thing stems from the physical, Nadal is better at what Fed
>> does best, patience and outwaiting his opponent, including Fed. It's
>> deeper than that in that Fed's best patterns of play are totally
>> blunted or made worse by Nadal's strengths. And Nadal's best pattern -
>> high ball's into the right hander's bh pins Fed badly and once in it,
>> he is forced to play lower percentage tennis.
>>
>> What's more frightening is that Nadal, motivated to improve results
>> and better cope on hardcourts physically, is adding selective higher
>> risk, more aggressive elements to his game in the mean time. Most
>> noticeably his willingness to flatten out his x-court bh in the right
>> situation.
>>
>> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
>> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
>> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
>> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
>> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
>> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
>>
>> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
>> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
>> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
>> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
>> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
>> tools some are suggesting."
>
> Excellent post - this is much better than a lot of we have to wade
> through here ...
>
>


True, but overall it's not very good. It's just his opinion which isn't
backed up strongly by any of his arguments.



 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 16:58:54
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 3, 4:37=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Shakes wrote:
> > I think Fed realizes that now. I think this loss was so devastating
> > for him because he HAD put all that work in, HAD regained his 2007
> > form and it wasn't enough. Not nearly. Instead of his coronation it
> > became his Waterloo and he knows it. Unless he takes the spring as a
> > second off season to re-tool under someone else's watchful eye, he
> > knows the next true off season is nearly a year away, when he will be
> > nearly a year older. He also needs someone to help inject a healthy
> > portion of self belief and confidence back into his soul.
>
> I think the guy is repeating himself a lot, but this is in fact a good
> point. His 2007 was not even close to 2006 although he still found a way
> through to win 3 GS titles. I think this was bad for Roger in the end,
> because he became overconfident, like the poster says. No one was there
> to put their finger on the flaws in his game. 2008 he became hampered by
> his illness unfortunately so he didn't have the chance to dig deeper
> into his game and improve further. In 2009 he is determined to strike
> back and regain his 2007 form. Unfortunately that is not enough in 2009
> when Nadal especially has improved a lot.
>
> Of course all this is speculation. It will be exciting too see what
> Roger will do in the next months. If he wins IW and Miami by beating
> Nadal twice I guess we all will shut up. Until that I guess we have to
> give this poster right. He needs a new perspective and realize that he
> needs to improve himself.
>
> PS.

I also believe that it was in 2007 that Fed started losing confidence
in his groundies and became a more defensive player. That was when I
started losing confidence in Fed when rallies started - seemed to me
that he was waiting for his opponent to make an error more than trying
to go for the winner himself. Another thing I noticed also was his
inability to put away mid court balls. I think the poster is correct
in saying that it hurt Fed in the long run - he thought his new B-
game was good enough for the rest of the tour...


 
Date: 03 Feb 2009 12:49:17
From: Shakes
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
On Feb 3, 12:30 pm, Shakes <kvcsh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> From another forum:
>
> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3091426&postcount=57
>
> "...what Fed really needs is to be 3 or 4 years younger.
>
> Barring that he needs to lose from his game, which is biased toward
> stubborn patience which works against everything else, his overriding
> quality of "risk aversion".
>
> Simple, very easy to say, but very tough to do. It may be so far
> outside Fed's comfort zone it may be too jarring to his tennis and
> general psyche overall as to make it impossible.
>
> When watching Fed, and then Fed v. Nadal, I'm reminded of what he is
> not.
> He is not an intuitively aggressive player. It think the stats of his
> break opportunities vs. breaks demonstrates this.
>
> Reading Connors and his relationship with his mentor in his prime
> Pancho Segura they described the obvious, the importance of returning
> consistently to maintain pressure on the server. How constant pressure
> seems, in the server's mind, to increase as sets and matches progress,
> simply due to perception, but how that perception has a palpable
> effect on the server's mind and performance. This is Fed. This is Fed
> to a fault.
>
> The distinction being while Fed very, very, very rarely comes out of
> that consistency cocoon, Segura/Connors clearly believed and put into
> practice, the belief that there were times to go higher risk, based on
> score. IOW temporarily suspend practicing the axiom of returning
> consistency to go for it, with slimmer margins, i.e. a higher degree
> of risk. In the Segura/Connors mindset, they truly believed that on
> that point, win or lose, it was a win/win proposition. Win = break.
> Lose = planting the seed, that if a server misses the next first serve
> in that situation he was going to pay. Result of the latter was more
> often than not: a) more second serves as the server reaches for too
> much, or b) 1st serves more akin to 2nd serves as the server took
> something off not willing to risk giving the returner a 2nd to tee off
> on.
>
> That's just one example. Connors/Segura identified different spots not
> just on the return where higher risk was beneficial.
>
> While I agree that Fed v. Nadal appears to be a mental thing, I think
> the mental thing stems from the physical, Nadal is better at what Fed
> does best, patience and outwaiting his opponent, including Fed. It's
> deeper than that in that Fed's best patterns of play are totally
> blunted or made worse by Nadal's strengths. And Nadal's best pattern -
> high ball's into the right hander's bh pins Fed badly and once in it,
> he is forced to play lower percentage tennis.
>
> What's more frightening is that Nadal, motivated to improve results
> and better cope on hardcourts physically, is adding selective higher
> risk, more aggressive elements to his game in the mean time. Most
> noticeably his willingness to flatten out his x-court bh in the right
> situation.
>
> Watching Fed in comparison to Verdasco one can see the difference and
> yes Verdasco was too aggressive at times and sometimes in the wrong
> situation, but it works overall on many levels. By incorporating
> higher risk in spots where it makes sense, it also serves to keep the
> opponent off balance physically and mentally. Against a rhythm guy
> like Rafa I believe it is even more potentially beneficial.
>
> Also, to my eyes, Fed is clearly less mobile and covers a smaller
> radius on court than two years ago. That was inevitable. A strategic
> employment of higher risk, within and throughout, his highly
> consistent game will also serve as a way to prevent opponents from
> exploiting Fed's loss of range and explosiveness, w/o the massive re-
> tools some are suggesting."


Another very good post by the same poster:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=3095838&postcount=5

"Viewing Fed's last three years 2007 to 2009 one can see how a
champions self-belief, a trait inherent to all great champions can
become their own undoing.

Fed's '07 was what his prior three years were. Some, myself included,
saw some chinks that first started to appear in the summer of '06, but
his bottom line results could not be argued with.

Come 2008. I am one who believes that the mono thing was true. Not to
detract from the successes of Fed's competitors but in seeing his
reaction to his first real slide, defined as a "slide" only in
comparison to himself the prior 4 years. By the USO '08, I believe Fed
recovered enough, to suck it up, expend it and re-assert himself. I
think this is where the real problem began. I don't think was fully
recovered yet, and more importantly, I believe Fed knew he hadn't.
What happened following that title is why I think so. I believe Fed
took his foot off the pedal for the remainder of the year. I don't
think he tanked but I don't think he reached for 6th gear. 4th or 5th
maybe but not 6th. There was no point. #1 was gone, and if 4th or 5th
gear wasn't good enough, so be it. He could use that "wiggle room" in
'09 when fully recovered and re-charged, to regain #1 if needed, plus
he was affording himself of saving his energy and body for the push he
would make in the off-season.

There's is where it kept going wrong. I think Fed set the bar too low.
What I think he did, was set his sights on regaining his prior form.
He aimed for Fed version 2007, when he should have been aiming at Fed
2009, likely a Fed who was likely to be a fraction of a step less
quick than he had been at his best and one that would have to be
dealing with a Nadal and Murray 2009, not their 2008 versions I fully
believe he convinced himself he could beat if he regained his form of
2007.

I truly believe he underestimated just how much tougher Nadal, and the
what I believe the Murray of 2009 would be. I think he is a victim of
overconfidence in not only his playing abilities, but his abilities to
see what he needed to do to prepare for 2009. By over-confidence I
don't mean that Fed didn't work as hard as he could, but that he
trusted his own judgement too much, and miscalculated where his work
should be focused. It's like the star musician making all the
decisions for him/herself, shunning the value of calaboration with
other qualified professionals, regarding song selection and
production, a choice which generally leads to the artist repeating
themselves.

In response to his "failed" '08 Fed re-dedicated himself to recovering
prior form. He worked hard and probably attained that. Unfortunately I
think he believed that would be more than enough. Instead Fed needed
more, to change his mindset slightly, because the reality of this is
Nadal is better at what Fed does best and Nadal has skills which
dovetail perfectly into Fed's to thwart Fed's best or to exploit Fed's
worst. He needed to re-invent himself to a degree. Not to become a
serve and volleyer, or net crusher or to transform into a first strike
minded player, but certainly to incorporate those elements into his
game. He wasn't going to outsteady Nadal this year. He also failed to
anticipate that Nadal would incorporate more aggressive elements into
his game when the situation and score dictated.

He didn't see it. He probably should have, but he shouldn't have taken
on that job. He should have trusted someone else to anticipate it,
recommend the changes needed to address it, and set the plan for his
off season to make those changes second nature. IMO he needed someone
else to set the route. He needed a fresh look and guidance.

I think Fed realizes that now. I think this loss was so devastating
for him because he HAD put all that work in, HAD regained his 2007
form and it wasn't enough. Not nearly. Instead of his coronation it
became his Waterloo and he knows it. Unless he takes the spring as a
second off season to re-tool under someone else's watchful eye, he
knows the next true off season is nearly a year away, when he will be
nearly a year older. He also needs someone to help inject a healthy
portion of self belief and confidence back into his soul.

Whatever it is that Gil Reyes and Agassi's camp did for Verdasco that
resulted in what can only be described as a metamorphisis, Fed needs
something akin to it. He needs to trust an outsider, objective
analysis, and recommended re-tools to overcome the challenge presented
not by the Nadal of right now, the one Nadal will be by the end of
this year and into next. Fed is behind Nadal's curve he needs to get
ahead of it. It starts by turning his mind and game over to someone
with the skills to help him, Fed trusting and embracing those tweaks,
and the faith to bring it to the court. He needs a coach.

At this point he has nothing to lose by making that change and
everything to lose if he doesn't. He is behind. He won't get ahead by
doing what he did as well as he did it in the past. At this point, I
see Fed with three choices, turn himself over to someone who will tell
him the truth, continue with the errors he made in preparing for this
season or pack it in."



  
Date: 03 Feb 2009 23:37:54
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: Some good points here ...
Shakes wrote:

> I think Fed realizes that now. I think this loss was so devastating
> for him because he HAD put all that work in, HAD regained his 2007
> form and it wasn't enough. Not nearly. Instead of his coronation it
> became his Waterloo and he knows it. Unless he takes the spring as a
> second off season to re-tool under someone else's watchful eye, he
> knows the next true off season is nearly a year away, when he will be
> nearly a year older. He also needs someone to help inject a healthy
> portion of self belief and confidence back into his soul.

I think the guy is repeating himself a lot, but this is in fact a good
point. His 2007 was not even close to 2006 although he still found a way
through to win 3 GS titles. I think this was bad for Roger in the end,
because he became overconfident, like the poster says. No one was there
to put their finger on the flaws in his game. 2008 he became hampered by
his illness unfortunately so he didn't have the chance to dig deeper
into his game and improve further. In 2009 he is determined to strike
back and regain his 2007 form. Unfortunately that is not enough in 2009
when Nadal especially has improved a lot.

Of course all this is speculation. It will be exciting too see what
Roger will do in the next months. If he wins IW and Miami by beating
Nadal twice I guess we all will shut up. Until that I guess we have to
give this poster right. He needs a new perspective and realize that he
needs to improve himself.

PS.