tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:46:57
From:
Subject: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.

Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
as well.

The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
surrendered with two more breaks.

On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhand
return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet on
the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the
break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.

Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
this out to him and make him change it.

Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movement
were much better than they were last year.







 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 03:53:33
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 2, 5:04=A0am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> Aimless wrote:
>
> > "RahimAsif" <RahimA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> >> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> >> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> >> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> >> player...
>
> > Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a grea=
t
> > tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of
> > first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is psychologic=
al.
>
> Rubbish. =A0Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he
> woulda tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is
> dumbest argument.

Then how come during the match you posted that you were surprised at
Fed's inability to capitalize on Rafa's
fatigue and that he should have won the match 6-3, 6-1, 6-2 type
scores?


  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 23:07:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
jasoncatlin1971@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 2, 5:04 am, Whisper <beaver...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> Aimless wrote:
>>
>>> "RahimAsif" <RahimA...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>>>> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>>>> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>>>> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>>>> player...
>>> Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a great
>>> tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of
>>> first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is psychological.
>> Rubbish. Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he
>> woulda tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is
>> dumbest argument.
>
> Then how come during the match you posted that you were surprised at
> Fed's inability to capitalize on Rafa's
> fatigue and that he should have won the match 6-3, 6-1, 6-2 type
> scores?



That's conditional on Fed being as great as rst claims, in absolute
terms. I never subscribed to this theory & his losses are no surprise
to me. The weaknesses I highlighted in his game yrs ago are very real.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:33:09
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 5:22=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:46=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:49=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 9:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadfu=
l.
>
> > > > Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in =
a
> > > > row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital tim=
es
> > > > as well.
>
> > > > The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> > > > surrendered with two more breaks.
>
> > > > On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer g=
ot
> > > > a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backh=
and
> > > > return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet=
on
> > > > the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand an=
d
> > > > went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on t=
he
> > > > break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal woul=
d
> > > > get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.
>
> > > > Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> > > > played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn'=
t
> > > > change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> > > > this out to him and make him change it.
>
> > > > Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movem=
ent
> > > > were much better than they were last year.
>
> > > As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve an=
d
> > > forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> > > lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> > > defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> > > player...
>
> > Saying that one player wins just because he is "better" strikes me as
> > braindead analysis. The better player doesn't always win, particularly
> > if the margin of superiority is narrow. You can be better and win 10
> > out of 10 times, or 6 of out 10 times. Sampras was better than Agassi
> > by most measures: better career results, better head-to-head, better
> > at rising to the occasion. But did Sampras alway beat Agassi? Of
> > course not.
>
> > To suggest that defeat is "inevitable" in this situation, as you do in
> > a subsequent post in this thread, is similarly inane. I would say that
> > the only situation in which an outcome comes close to being
> > "inevitable" is one in which one player has lost every match and has
> > barely demonstrated the capacity to win a *set*. For example, Borg was
> > 15-0 against Harold Solomon, who won a grand total of three sets in
> > those 15 matches. A large number of the sets Borg won were of the 6-2
> > or 6-1 variety. Perhaps, if you wanted to exaggerate a little, you
> > could call the result of a match in that rivalry "inevitable." Federer-
> > Roddick doesn't quite reach that level, and certainly not Federer-
> > Nadal (at least off clay), given that the last two matches have been
> > five-setters (not to mention Federer's outright wins in the series,
> > although I suppose you'll discount them for being too long ago).
>
> > What you call "rationalizing Fed's defeat" is actually understanding
> > and explaining it. That's the =A0purpose of a discussion group.
>
> > Joe Ramirez
>
> What I am trying to say is that we can similarly say Roddick can do so
> and so to beat Fed - but ultimately it comes down to the fact that Fed
> is just a better player than him and he has to do one of the
> following:
> (1) Improve his game to be a better player
> (2) Hope that Fed plays poorly and he plays well
>
> Otherwise, no amount of strategy would work. The same goes for Fed
> against Nadal in my opinion...

Roddick doesn't have the physical ability to do that even with the
right strategy - Federer does against Nadal


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:22:48
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:46=A0am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:49=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>
> > > Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
> > > row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
> > > as well.
>
> > > The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> > > surrendered with two more breaks.
>
> > > On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
> > > a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhan=
d
> > > return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet o=
n
> > > the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
> > > went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the
> > > break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
> > > get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.
>
> > > Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> > > played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
> > > change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> > > this out to him and make him change it.
>
> > > Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movemen=
t
> > > were much better than they were last year.
>
> > As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> > forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> > lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> > defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> > player...
>
> Saying that one player wins just because he is "better" strikes me as
> braindead analysis. The better player doesn't always win, particularly
> if the margin of superiority is narrow. You can be better and win 10
> out of 10 times, or 6 of out 10 times. Sampras was better than Agassi
> by most measures: better career results, better head-to-head, better
> at rising to the occasion. But did Sampras alway beat Agassi? Of
> course not.
>
> To suggest that defeat is "inevitable" in this situation, as you do in
> a subsequent post in this thread, is similarly inane. I would say that
> the only situation in which an outcome comes close to being
> "inevitable" is one in which one player has lost every match and has
> barely demonstrated the capacity to win a *set*. For example, Borg was
> 15-0 against Harold Solomon, who won a grand total of three sets in
> those 15 matches. A large number of the sets Borg won were of the 6-2
> or 6-1 variety. Perhaps, if you wanted to exaggerate a little, you
> could call the result of a match in that rivalry "inevitable." Federer-
> Roddick doesn't quite reach that level, and certainly not Federer-
> Nadal (at least off clay), given that the last two matches have been
> five-setters (not to mention Federer's outright wins in the series,
> although I suppose you'll discount them for being too long ago).
>
> What you call "rationalizing Fed's defeat" is actually understanding
> and explaining it. That's the =A0purpose of a discussion group.
>
> Joe Ramirez

What I am trying to say is that we can similarly say Roddick can do so
and so to beat Fed - but ultimately it comes down to the fact that Fed
is just a better player than him and he has to do one of the
following:
(1) Improve his game to be a better player
(2) Hope that Fed plays poorly and he plays well

Otherwise, no amount of strategy would work. The same goes for Fed
against Nadal in my opinion...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 18:31:21
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
RahimAsif wrote:

> What I am trying to say is that we can similarly say Roddick can do so
> and so to beat Fed - but ultimately it comes down to the fact that Fed
> is just a better player than him and he has to do one of the
> following:
> (1) Improve his game to be a better player
> (2) Hope that Fed plays poorly and he plays well

That is what we are trying to discuss in here, remember? Off clay the
matches between Federer and Nadal are most often extremely close. So
small things will matter - like match fitness, mental toughness on the
big points etc. So far Nadal has got the better of him in these
departments, but of course this can change another day.

PS.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:05:43
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:55=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 4:48=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 10:33=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve
>
> > > > Links? Even if he said that, I don't believe it; he's probably bein=
g
> > > > modest or just bluffing. I think he is a meticulous guy when it com=
es
> > > > to preparation. And his serve in general has improved over the past=
2
> > > > years, and that wouldn't have been possible without practice.
>
> > > Has it? In what way? =A0He served poorly most of last year - the matc=
hes
> > > against Murray and Simon all spring to mind.
>
> > I think he has improved his serve. On average, it now has more bite in
> > it, his odd bad-serving days notwithstanding. =A0He served very well
> > against Murray in the USO final last year. He served well in 2007 too.
> > I am pretty sure his serve has gotten better. Even Laver said that
> > about him in a recent interview. Moreover, it seems to be a general
> > consensus that his serve has improved from, say, 2005-2006. Of course,
> > it's nothing like the Sampras serve.
>
> > > Federer has never had an effective wide serve (ace) to the deuce cour=
t
> > > - he always relies on the one down the middle. I haven't seen any
> > > change in that.
>
> > > He said sometime last year that he hardly ever practises it. Who is
> > > going to make him? Sampras had Annacone standing there feeding him
> > > balls, grooving each of the serves to different spots. Who is doing
> > > the same for Federer?
>
> > > > - I would
>
> > > > > suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours groo=
ving
> > > > > his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big mat=
ch.
>
> > > > Federer himself says he had an off-day with his serve today. Surely
> > > > picked the right day to do that.
>
> > > It seems to happen a lot in bigger matches now - there's a problem
>
> > Not all big matches. But against Rafa it sure happens more often,
> > which tells me it has nothing to with the serve. It's the stuff
> > between the ears.
>
> > I just can't believe how blas=E9 he sounded in that post-match
> > interview. This was a very big match. Starting the year losing to Rafa
> > in a Grand Slam final, this is almost like changing of the guard. He
> > seems semi-resigned about Rafa.
>
> Almost?
>
> The guard changed last year - Federer is past it and Nadal is at the
> top of his game.
>

But with Federer winning the USO, things looked like going to the
opposite direction, or at least a stalemate.

I had a feeling that Nadal will do better this year. It took
ridiculous performances from Tsonga and Murray to stop him reaching
all 4 finals last year.

I always try to take lessons from great tennis players that I may
apply to other domains that relate to me. In Nadal, I guess the
biggest, over-arching lesson I see is "Have belief in your own game".
It's simply incredible how he has conquered almost all there is for
him to conquer, while never giving up his core style.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:01:24
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 4:29=A0pm, Lax <Lax.Cla...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>
> He never returns Nadal's serve well.
>
> This is the biggest difference between Murray and Fed (vs. Nadal).
> Murray gets almost every single one of Nadal's serve back deep with
> good pace (or a good slice deep). =A0 Nadal will have way more trouble
> vs. Murray than he does vs. Fed.
>
> Fed hates the kicking serves to his backhand.

Murray has a two-hander which gives him a huge advantage over Federer.

Nadal's second serves weren't kicking high - they were sliding into
his backhand. In my view, there's no point in Federer trying to drive
these back unless the returns are going to go very deep, since there's
not going to be huge pace on them. Federer tends to hit these onto the
service line which is not deep enough. He would be better just slicing
the returns deep, or gambling and running around the backhand to hit
an aggressive forehand.

Ironically, Federer chips his backhand returns against every other
player (when he really shouldn't) but almost never against Nadal
(when he should).


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:55:04
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 4:48=A0pm, "arnab.z@gmail" <arnab.zah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:33=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve
>
> > > Links? Even if he said that, I don't believe it; he's probably being
> > > modest or just bluffing. I think he is a meticulous guy when it comes
> > > to preparation. And his serve in general has improved over the past 2
> > > years, and that wouldn't have been possible without practice.
>
> > Has it? In what way? =A0He served poorly most of last year - the matche=
s
> > against Murray and Simon all spring to mind.
>
> I think he has improved his serve. On average, it now has more bite in
> it, his odd bad-serving days notwithstanding. =A0He served very well
> against Murray in the USO final last year. He served well in 2007 too.
> I am pretty sure his serve has gotten better. Even Laver said that
> about him in a recent interview. Moreover, it seems to be a general
> consensus that his serve has improved from, say, 2005-2006. Of course,
> it's nothing like the Sampras serve.
>
>
>
> > Federer has never had an effective wide serve (ace) to the deuce court
> > - he always relies on the one down the middle. I haven't seen any
> > change in that.
>
> > He said sometime last year that he hardly ever practises it. Who is
> > going to make him? Sampras had Annacone standing there feeding him
> > balls, grooving each of the serves to different spots. Who is doing
> > the same for Federer?
>
> > > - I would
>
> > > > suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours groovi=
ng
> > > > his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big match=
.
>
> > > Federer himself says he had an off-day with his serve today. Surely
> > > picked the right day to do that.
>
> > It seems to happen a lot in bigger matches now - there's a problem
>
> Not all big matches. But against Rafa it sure happens more often,
> which tells me it has nothing to with the serve. It's the stuff
> between the ears.
>
> I just can't believe how blas=E9 he sounded in that post-match
> interview. This was a very big match. Starting the year losing to Rafa
> in a Grand Slam final, this is almost like changing of the guard. He
> seems semi-resigned about Rafa.

Almost?

The guard changed last year - Federer is past it and Nadal is at the
top of his game.

Of course there is no reason why Federer can't still beat him, which
was the basis of this thread ...



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:48:52
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:33=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve
>
> > Links? Even if he said that, I don't believe it; he's probably being
> > modest or just bluffing. I think he is a meticulous guy when it comes
> > to preparation. And his serve in general has improved over the past 2
> > years, and that wouldn't have been possible without practice.
>
> Has it? In what way? =A0He served poorly most of last year - the matches
> against Murray and Simon all spring to mind.
>

I think he has improved his serve. On average, it now has more bite in
it, his odd bad-serving days notwithstanding. He served very well
against Murray in the USO final last year. He served well in 2007 too.
I am pretty sure his serve has gotten better. Even Laver said that
about him in a recent interview. Moreover, it seems to be a general
consensus that his serve has improved from, say, 2005-2006. Of course,
it's nothing like the Sampras serve.

> Federer has never had an effective wide serve (ace) to the deuce court
> - he always relies on the one down the middle. I haven't seen any
> change in that.
>
> He said sometime last year that he hardly ever practises it. Who is
> going to make him? Sampras had Annacone standing there feeding him
> balls, grooving each of the serves to different spots. Who is doing
> the same for Federer?
>
>
>
> > - I would
>
> > > suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours grooving
> > > his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big match.
>
> > Federer himself says he had an off-day with his serve today. Surely
> > picked the right day to do that.
>
> It seems to happen a lot in bigger matches now - there's a problem

Not all big matches. But against Rafa it sure happens more often,
which tells me it has nothing to with the serve. It's the stuff
between the ears.

I just can't believe how blas=E9 he sounded in that post-match
interview. This was a very big match. Starting the year losing to Rafa
in a Grand Slam final, this is almost like changing of the guard. He
seems semi-resigned about Rafa.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:46:10
From: Joe Ramirez
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:49=A0am, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>
> > Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
> > row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
> > as well.
>
> > The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> > surrendered with two more breaks.
>
> > On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
> > a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhand
> > return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet on
> > the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
> > went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the
> > break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
> > get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.
>
> > Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> > played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
> > change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> > this out to him and make him change it.
>
> > Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movement
> > were much better than they were last year.
>
> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> player...

Saying that one player wins just because he is "better" strikes me as
braindead analysis. The better player doesn't always win, particularly
if the margin of superiority is narrow. You can be better and win 10
out of 10 times, or 6 of out 10 times. Sampras was better than Agassi
by most measures: better career results, better head-to-head, better
at rising to the occasion. But did Sampras alway beat Agassi? Of
course not.

To suggest that defeat is "inevitable" in this situation, as you do in
a subsequent post in this thread, is similarly inane. I would say that
the only situation in which an outcome comes close to being
"inevitable" is one in which one player has lost every match and has
barely demonstrated the capacity to win a *set*. For example, Borg was
15-0 against Harold Solomon, who won a grand total of three sets in
those 15 matches. A large number of the sets Borg won were of the 6-2
or 6-1 variety. Perhaps, if you wanted to exaggerate a little, you
could call the result of a match in that rivalry "inevitable." Federer-
Roddick doesn't quite reach that level, and certainly not Federer-
Nadal (at least off clay), given that the last two matches have been
five-setters (not to mention Federer's outright wins in the series,
although I suppose you'll discount them for being too long ago).

What you call "rationalizing Fed's defeat" is actually understanding
and explaining it. That's the purpose of a discussion group.

Joe Ramirez



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:33:22
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
> > Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve
>
> Links? Even if he said that, I don't believe it; he's probably being
> modest or just bluffing. I think he is a meticulous guy when it comes
> to preparation. And his serve in general has improved over the past 2
> years, and that wouldn't have been possible without practice.

Has it? In what way? He served poorly most of last year - the matches
against Murray and Simon all spring to mind.

Federer has never had an effective wide serve (ace) to the deuce court
- he always relies on the one down the middle. I haven't seen any
change in that.

He said sometime last year that he hardly ever practises it. Who is
going to make him? Sampras had Annacone standing there feeding him
balls, grooving each of the serves to different spots. Who is doing
the same for Federer?

>
> - I would
>
> > suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours grooving
> > his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big match.
>
> Federer himself says he had an off-day with his serve today. Surely
> picked the right day to do that.

It seems to happen a lot in bigger matches now - there's a problem



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:29:13
From: Lax
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>

He never returns Nadal's serve well.

This is the biggest difference between Murray and Fed (vs. Nadal).
Murray gets almost every single one of Nadal's serve back deep with
good pace (or a good slice deep). Nadal will have way more trouble
vs. Murray than he does vs. Fed.

Fed hates the kicking serves to his backhand.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:26:13
From: arnab.z@gmail
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 10:09=A0pm, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 1, 4:06=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > RahimAsif wrote:
> > > As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve an=
d
> > > forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> > > lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> > > defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> > > player...
>
> > Yes, Nadal is at the moment a better tennis player. I don't think anyon=
e
> > in here (maybe apart from Haze/Giovanna) is arguing that. Rankings
> > clearly show that. Being a great tennis player demands a lot of you -
> > managing all the shots, being consistent, being mentally strong, being
> > physically fit etc. At the moment Nadal in sum is the best player. But
> > of course there are reasons for Nadal being the best. There are also
> > reasons for Federer being second best. What we are trying to do in here
> > is to analyze those reasons and maybe give Federer some advice for his
> > next meetings against Nadal. That doesn't mean that it is an easy fix
> > for Roger. Probably he has to work really hard to become the best playe=
r
> > again, and maybe he never will be able to.
>
> > The difference between AO and Wimbledon was that in AO final his serve
> > was off but his defense and backhand was a lot better. Those two parts
> > of the game obviously canceled out in this match.
>
> > PS.
>
> Well, there's an easy way to try to get your serve "on" - practice.
>
> Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve

Links? Even if he said that, I don't believe it; he's probably being
modest or just bluffing. I think he is a meticulous guy when it comes
to preparation. And his serve in general has improved over the past 2
years, and that wouldn't have been possible without practice.

- I would
> suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours grooving
> his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big match.

Federer himself says he had an off-day with his serve today. Surely
picked the right day to do that.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:09:43
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 4:06=A0pm, Petter Solbu <pettermann1...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> RahimAsif wrote:
> > As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> > forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> > lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> > defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> > player...
>
> Yes, Nadal is at the moment a better tennis player. I don't think anyone
> in here (maybe apart from Haze/Giovanna) is arguing that. Rankings
> clearly show that. Being a great tennis player demands a lot of you -
> managing all the shots, being consistent, being mentally strong, being
> physically fit etc. At the moment Nadal in sum is the best player. But
> of course there are reasons for Nadal being the best. There are also
> reasons for Federer being second best. What we are trying to do in here
> is to analyze those reasons and maybe give Federer some advice for his
> next meetings against Nadal. That doesn't mean that it is an easy fix
> for Roger. Probably he has to work really hard to become the best player
> again, and maybe he never will be able to.
>
> The difference between AO and Wimbledon was that in AO final his serve
> was off but his defense and backhand was a lot better. Those two parts
> of the game obviously canceled out in this match.
>
> PS.

Well, there's an easy way to try to get your serve "on" - practice.

Federer claims that he hardly ever practises his serve - I would
suggest that he should start doing that. Sampras spent hours grooving
his serves in practice, and they rarely let him down in a big match.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 08:08:04
From: kaennorsing
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On 1 feb, 16:46, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.

He served badly but I didn't think his returns weren that dreadful.

> Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
> row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
> as well.
>
> The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> surrendered with two more breaks.

Sure, but Nadal got the first break anyway and Federer just didn't
serve well enough to keep him at bay.

> On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
> a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhand
> return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet on
> the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
> went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the

Nadal's normally very clever about choosing to serve up the line on
break points. It's telling Federer to keep his ground. Of course he
should have taken a couple chances when he had multiple break points
in a row.

> break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
> get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.

Yep, I thought the same. If Fed gets a little time he becomes hesitant
and of course Nadal gives him plenty of time to hesitate. Still, if
the serve was clicking he'd have been swinging a little more freely on
the return.

> Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
> change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> this out to him and make him change it.

Hope he does and makes the right choice. A different physical trainer
perhaps as well. Reyes?

> Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movement
> were much better than they were last year.

Yes, the movement seemed fine. Still just lacking a little power to
really put Nadal on the defense from the start IMO.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:57:13
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 9:54=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> But I didn't think Nadal was at his best today and he was beatable if
> Federer could execute.

See thats where you are making the mistake. Think Roddick-Fed. There
are times when Fed is off, but we know the outcome, don't we. The
difference between Fed-Nadal isn't as huge, but its substantial, so
you know that if Fed played better, so would Nadal (just like he did
on most of the breakpoints). The result was inevitable, just the same
as Fed-Roddick...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:04:08
From: Aimless
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...

"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com > wrote in message :

> so would Nadal (just like he did
>in most of the breakpoints).

It's Federer who played worse in most of the break points.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:54:29
From:
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 3:49=A0pm, RahimAsif <RahimA...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>
> > Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
> > row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
> > as well.
>
> > The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> > surrendered with two more breaks.
>
> > On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
> > a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhand
> > return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet on
> > the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
> > went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the
> > break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
> > get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.
>
> > Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> > played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
> > change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> > this out to him and make him change it.
>
> > Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movement
> > were much better than they were last year.
>
> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> player...

I didn't say Nadal wasn't better - no-one can argue with results. I
wouldn't say that Federer's serve and forehand were "on fire",
certainly not the first part of the match.

But I didn't think Nadal was at his best today and he was beatable if
Federer could execute.



 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 07:49:35
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
On Feb 1, 9:46=A0am, gregor...@hotmail.com wrote:
> ... serve and return Nadal's second serve - both absolutely dreadful.
>
> Federer had 11 aces in 5 sets. At one point I counted 11 points in a
> row where he missed his first serve. He double-faulted at vital times
> as well.
>
> The first set should have been won with two holds from 4-2 but was
> surrendered with two more breaks.
>
> On most of those break points at the end of the third set Federer got
> a look at a second serve from Nadal, but yet again pushed the backhand
> return back half-court to immediately give away any initiative. Yet on
> the three or four other occasions when he ran round his backhand and
> went for a big forehand he hit straight winners - but not once on the
> break points did he try this. I was actually hoping that Nadal would
> get his first serve in since Federer returns better off it.
>
> Watching this match was like watching every other match they have
> played - the same things happen over and over again. Federer doesn't
> change the things which are not working - he needs someone to point
> this out to him and make him change it.
>
> Such a shame as the other parts of his game, e.g forehand and movement
> were much better than they were last year.

As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
player...


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 17:06:14
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
RahimAsif wrote:

> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
> player...

Yes, Nadal is at the moment a better tennis player. I don't think anyone
in here (maybe apart from Haze/Giovanna) is arguing that. Rankings
clearly show that. Being a great tennis player demands a lot of you -
managing all the shots, being consistent, being mentally strong, being
physically fit etc. At the moment Nadal in sum is the best player. But
of course there are reasons for Nadal being the best. There are also
reasons for Federer being second best. What we are trying to do in here
is to analyze those reasons and maybe give Federer some advice for his
next meetings against Nadal. That doesn't mean that it is an easy fix
for Roger. Probably he has to work really hard to become the best player
again, and maybe he never will be able to.

The difference between AO and Wimbledon was that in AO final his serve
was off but his defense and backhand was a lot better. Those two parts
of the game obviously canceled out in this match.

PS.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:55:24
From: Aimless
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...

"RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com > wrote in message

>As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>player...

Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a great
tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of first
serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is psychological.



   
Date: 02 Feb 2009 21:04:32
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
Aimless wrote:
>
> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>> player...
>
> Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a great
> tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of
> first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is psychological.


Rubbish. Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he
woulda tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is
dumbest argument.


    
Date: 02 Feb 2009 10:06:27
From: Stapler
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
"Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote in message
news:4986c530$0$18806$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Aimless wrote:
>>
>> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>>> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>>> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>>> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>>> player...
>>
>> Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a great
>> tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of
>> first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is
>> psychological.
>
>
> Rubbish. Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he woulda
> tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is dumbest
> argument.


You only hitch to the Nadal bandwagon to protect Sampras, but as soon as
Rafa starts threatening 14 slams you will concoct reasons why Nadal is
awful.



     
Date: 02 Feb 2009 22:44:13
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
Stapler wrote:
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4986c530$0$18806$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Aimless wrote:
>>>
>>> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>>>> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>>>> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>>>> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>>>> player...
>>>
>>> Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a
>>> great tennis player but just one break point decently played and a
>>> couple of first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is
>>> psychological.
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he
>> woulda tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is
>> dumbest argument.
>
>
> You only hitch to the Nadal bandwagon to protect Sampras, but as soon as
> Rafa starts threatening 14 slams you will concoct reasons why Nadal is
> awful.


It amazes me how many posters here think they know what I'll do in any
given scenario. I don't defend Sampras because I love him, but simply
believe he's a better big match champion than Federer or Nadal. He has
more power, net skill & guts than Federer & more ability than Rafa.



     
Date: 02 Feb 2009 11:15:40
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: The two things Federer needed to do well today ...
"Stapler" <d@d.com > wrote in message
news:DAzhl.701$eK2.537@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Whisper" <beaver999@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4986c530$0$18806$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>> Aimless wrote:
>>>
>>> "RahimAsif" <RahimAsif@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> As I have said before - it doesn't matter. At Wimbledon, his serve and
>>>> forehand were on fire - he still lost. today his serve was off, he
>>>> lost again. Nadal is simply better - no point rationalizing Fed's
>>>> defeat and attributing it to anything other than Nadal better tennis
>>>> player...
>>>
>>> Don't be a retard. Nadal is of course a bad match up for him and a great
>>> tennis player but just one break point decently played and a couple of
>>> first serves would have given Fed the match. The problem is
>>> psychological.
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. Had Rafa lost any of the big points you refer to means he
>> woulda tried harder on some of the other points he lost - this is dumbest
>> argument.
>
>
> You only hitch to the Nadal bandwagon to protect Sampras, but as soon as
> Rafa starts threatening 14 slams you will concoct reasons why Nadal is
> awful.

well you must just be a Sampras detractor then.