B game for Federer

With Federer finding himself less and less consistent these days and many an occasion finding that his timing isn't what it needs to be on a given day or even period of a match to play his best game, perhaps he should consider having a B game that resembles the more consistency based and as some would say physical games of the other players. I'm aware that I'm going to be told that Fed doesn't have the physicality and that's not his strength and so on. I'm not suggesting that he plays exactly like Nadal or Djokovic but instead when he finds that his timing and accuracy is off that he gives himself an option of hanging in there for maybe half a set or so until hopefully his timing comes back. This would be in contrast to what we've seen today where its pretty much all or nothing all the way. So for example when he's aware something is off, he could just play the ball up and down the middle of the court for a few games to hopefully regain his sense of timing. The intention would be to play like this for periods of a match as opposed to playing the whole match like this. Could this work? It would at least force his opponents to come up with the angles and win the points off him anyway. I think the risk of losing points like this would be at the most the same as going for broke with bad timing if not significantly less.

This game B idea is not saying that he should play his normal game with more patience but adopt a pushing game for short periods to regain the feel for his shots. I don't think physicality comes into this that much as long rallies up and down the middle can't be that gruelling. He wouldn't have needed in the early rounds of this slam but in others and other tournaments he may find his timing is off against other opponents.

All throughout the match, I kept telling myself, to just smack Federer, and ask him to slow down and play the two additional shots to move Nadal a bit further away from the center tram lines.

Patrick McEnroe on ESPN, also made a comment, as UEs started going up in the second set, to not go for 'broke' and just take deep breath.

Perhaps the ultra-aggressive win @WTF was what drove him to hara-kiri on the net and bad misses on volleys.

His drop shots were pretty good, IIRC, except one.

Game B? How about improving his volleying?

Well if Annacone takes your advice that won't be so easy.

LF, I think he needs his A game to win but I was proposing that when his timing is off that he acknowledges this and adopts a new mindset and basically pushes the ball a bit to get the feel back.

I don't think Federer needs a B game.

Just to mentally sustain his level of concentration and focus when in control of a match against Nadal.

He does it to the rest of the field.

But what does he do when he finds his timing or accuracy has just gone. Is it as simple as just deciding to have it back? If there was some method that would increase the chance of recovering his timing and accuracy while reducing the damage done in terms of points lost during this period then its worth considering. For the record I too think that if he'd played properly and Nadal's level stayed the same then he'd have won but then why didn't he?

Against Nadal a S+V approach is not feesable unless you have a great serve. Isner at the FO demonstrated that with a serve that is deep enough and kick serve to match, you can yield results from that if you have a game capable enough. I disagreed with some of Mats comments of 'that was a good point to lose' when is any point lost against Nadal on your serve a good thing?

I think Federer just needs to execute the shots when they are there to play. I think sometimes he goes for shots and you think, was it there to be hit?

The B game I was suggesting wasn't serve and Volley as I feel that's his A+ game. You're suggesting he needs to be more patient. Others would counter that by saying he doesn't have the physicality to be more patient. My possible solution is to then find a way to keep his timing optimal and restore it if necessary so that he can execute the spectacular shots that he needs just to win a point. I suppose that involves patience in its own way but it's more about being aware that the timing is off. He'd have to be very objective about this himself and have to decide that he was lucky to get through a service game for example.

Some of his ballooned BH's actually did him well in being able to control the point if Nadal couldn't flatten the ball out. I think it is something. Gasquet tried it against Ferrer and came up short because his FH was so wayward. I think Federer could stretch Nadal without needing to be ultra aggressive on every stroke.

Yeah he has a few untried options. He should realise WTF was a one off he'll win 1/10 matches against Nadal like that. He needs some go to percentage shots as well, its difficult when everything about his game these days is risk.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Game B? How about improving his volleying?

Time for me to dispel this myth about Roger's inability to volley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INE4Y5CzoBM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxeD9R-sMIU&feature=related

Please cease and desist from making such erroneous statements.

Roger served and volleyed quite fine against Sampras in 2001. Granted, he does not use this part of his game often enough, but he is certainly capable of volleying

Fed should of not wasted so much energy on trying to break Nadal, playing 5 minute games on Nadal server and not wining them, and then losing his own next serve in 1 minute.

He should of just held his serve, stay back, attack less and don't overdo the body, and wait for tie-breaks, then unleash hell serving and volleying.

He got tired and spent fighting stuff that he knows can not get him a victory over Nadal, and still keeps doing the same.

At this age his playing style might get him to Semi, and then he needs to conserve energy and change his play to suite the power players & runners.

Most players these days look like rank amateurs compared to the player of the 90s when net approach was 5 times more common so they had 5 times more practice. Tim Henman in today's era is still the best volleyer on tour. Ditto Edberg.

Llodra is a better player than Edberg or Becker but his name is subject to mockery in this era where only stamina and muscles get you respect.

Tenez wrote:Llodra is a better player than Edberg or Becker.

I think this post just sums up everything that Tenez says in a nutshell (or the accuracy of it anyway)

Tenez wrote:Llodra is a better player than Edberg or Becker but his name is subject to mockery in this era where only stamina and muscles get you respect.

Tenez you're a bit like Fed yourself! A lot of great points, but sometimes the inevitable shank

If you've read any of his other stuff, he's referring to how the game moves forward and if you put an average player from now in the past they would dominate though that wouldn't necessarily make them a greater player.

OK I see. I agree that players like Edberg and Becker wouldn't be winning Slams in today's conditions.

I thought Fed played Ok and it was a good match. I just felt Fed should have used more dropshots and short balls like he did against Delboy and Tomic.

This would take Rafa out of his comfort zone forcing him to come up with approach shots and volleys. Which has got to be better, in the long run, than trying to out run him in 15 - 20 shot rallies.

amritia3ee wrote:

Tenez wrote:Llodra is a better player than Edberg or Becker.

I think this post just sums up everything that Tenez says in a nutshell (or the accuracy of it anyway)

Inadvertantly you've proven the point he was making.

They couldn't cope with the balls that Llodra gets put to him. If they'd grown up now of course they would, but the equipment and courts have moved so far to the baseline that their standard of play wouldn't cope now.

prostaff85 wrote:

Tenez wrote:Llodra is a better player than Edberg or Becker but his name is subject to mockery in this era where only stamina and muscles get you respect.

Tenez you're a bit like Fed yourself! A lot of great points, but sometimes the inevitable shank

Well. I still stick to what I say. Of course you have to consider change in eras but Edberg and Becker as we know them woudl have offered much less resistance than Llodra to Murray last week. THat's all I am saying.

And by the way...Wilander said the same thing....and he is a moonballer...not a shanker!