Federer fighting the changing game

First topic message reminder :

The days of having just a big serve and big forehand having long been left behind. Who can hit the most winners has now been replaced with who will hit the least unforced errors.

Defending has become the biggest part of the game we watch today. It is a necessity to move well or you will be left behind.

Federer cannot do it this as well as the big 3, he is a great defender but he is a tier below in this category when compared to Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Rafael Nadal. His only option when taking them on is to go all out attack, playing this way will win him some big matches but its not something even he can sustain, especially over 5 sets back to back.

In his years of dominance he was excellent at controlled aggression, however he is now reluctant to play this way against the big 3, this is because he feels like he cannot exchange in longer rallies with these players anymore. Why can't he rally? because the game has moved on, he grew up in an era where you finished the point in 1-5 shots, its testament to him that with the game changing he has been able to adapt so well and keep up.

Many people claim that Federer benefited from the slower conditions because he won plenty of his slams on those surfaces, this is where I disagree. Federer is a fast court specialist, but he adopted the slower conditions because incredibly despite his attacking talent he was also the best defender in the world as well.

However, now he is trying to play the tennis of the 90s, finishing the points early because the generation that grew up and moulded their styles to the conditions changing are a new kettle of fish for Roger. They are superior athletes produced through the conditions slowing down, born to play long rallies, his game was/is his hands and timing not wars of attrition.

When Federer played someone in stunning form during his peak years he always had the advantage of relying on his defensive abilities to get him out of trouble, that combination of being able to attack superbly but then have the ace up his sleeve that he could defend when they attacked him was why he won a lot of matches, however now he faces something else, When I watch Federer against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal it reminds me of a line from Dark Knight rises, “Ah you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it."

Federer is also a great athlete, probably the best of his generation, but the following generation are a step above. He can hit 2/3 tremendous half volleys off the baseline, hit 10-15 shots half an inch over the net and still lose the point, while his opponents are able to take little risk by neutralising him, staying far back and being absolute beasts at the back of the court.

Rafas spin allows him to prevent his opponents from attacking him, and with his speed and defensive skills (which is an art in itself, running down shots is one thing, but where he puts it is another) behind that he is a brick wall, Novak is a rubber band that seems to be able to cover the court like if Mr. Fantastic could play tennis, Andy is a physical specimen like Rafa with awesome speed as well. The next stage of evolution is  6'6/7/8 monsters who can blast their way past them, which is on the horizon. It says a lot that a 'mini' athlete like Ferrer is able to get to number 3 by being a great defender, to those who say Ferrer has no weapons well imagine his forehand (which I think is underrated) with a 6'2/3 frame behind it.

Others slam contenders? Tomas Berdych 6'5 easy power, Del Potro 6'6 with a forehand that leaves a vapour trail, Tsonga 6'2 but 14 stone of pure athleticism. Federer out of genuine slam contenders is glaringly the odd one out in terms of game style and physique.

The one handed backhand is now a weakness for Roger, it was better back in the day of short points, now if you are going to have to go through 30+ rallies its a liability because its so much harder to control and time, especially when defending, the amount of times I see two handers use their other arm to drag the ball back in play, a single hander just can't do that. It was better in a time when you wanted to finish points at the net. Double handers are able to guide the ball better I find as well, move the ball around, Stan and Gasquet have stunning backhands but at the end of the day they are also susceptible on that side when they are defending, which you need to do more of.

I don't dislike the big 3s style, I actually quite enjoy longer rallies if I'm honest, more so than the 90s quick points, but not over 4/5 hours, I think thats one of the reason I liked Federer, he exchanges in long rallies but not all the time, he was a nice blend of what was good about the 90s and whats good about the game now. Unfortunately, the players are better than him at longer rallies.

When Federer plays the new generation the contest is decided by who wins one certain battle, Federer is a better offensive player than the big 3, all he can now control is being better than them at shortening the points, so, it becomes a battle of him trying to keep it to 5 shots and them extending it to 15+, whoever can do it best wins the match.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Who knows? Once upon a time players didn't have to be ultra-fit/stretchy/bendy either. So we'll get huge servers, with SH forehands on both sides (so thus great returners), with big muscles and superhuman stamina who can run forever, and slide and stretch and do the splits and hit winners while doing cartwheels.
The most popular of them will have also film star looks, the wit of Oscar Wilde, the ethics of Gandhi and the wisdom of Soloman (not to be confused with Harold Solomon).

Thats what I like a well thought out answer

Soloman may have had some wisdom, but I don't think there was really any need to use it to create an orc army. And he wasn't very nice to Gandalf.

He also wasn't very nice to everyone in Star Wars.

laverfan wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Laverfan it is a completely mute point about a double handed forehand. Because with a forehand you are hitting the ball with your dominant hand and with a completely different set of muscles. You are hitting the ball on both sides with your right hand, whether backhand or forehand so your point is mute.

Think of players who do not use their dominant hands to play Tennis. Nadal, Hasse… Take a look at this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4byIouey-g

socal1976 wrote: For example on a chin up it is much easier to lift your body weight if you turn the inside of your  wrists around to face yourself on the bar. If you flip the inside of your wrists away from you it gets twice as hard. Basically, the one hand fh vs. one handed backhand is the same concept, you hit the forehand one handed because you use a stronger muscle group. Your point would be right if you were ambitextrous and hit your backhand with your left hand, and thus had no backhand. The same reason why boxer's punch either and don't backhand each other.

I am not sure I understand the weightlifting analogy well. Here you can see the advantages of a SHBH - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzkaVK04eIw

Perhaps Lydian can add his own SHBH view point.

PS: Personal peeve about the differences between moot and mute, SoCal.

My non-mute point (just kidding) is that you can't compare a SHB to SH forehand. The advantages of one don't apply to the other because forehand is hit with the stronger muscle set on your right hand. The Single handed backhand is hit with the weaker arm muscles of the right and. As lydian has correctly pointed the two handed backhand is a left handed forehand using your naturally dominant right hand for stability. The best two handed backhands start with a very loose grip on the left hand, the top hand. And with your right hand/bottom hand you want to start loose tighten up at contact and then loosen up with the follow. Then it serves its purpose perfectly as the lever of the action.

Also, whilst that clip Laver posted of Federer shows his genius, in reality it highlights the weakness of a one-hander. He struggles to cope with Nadal's forehand leading to an extremely poor dropshot. He then has to play a desperate lob which, due to his skills, pays off but, even for Fed, its a low percentage play. A two-hander would not have been in such trouble in the first place.

A DHBH is far superior to a one-hander in all conditions. The massive difference is on return of serve. Faster conditions just help to hide the weakness of the one-hander as rallies aren't really required.

Born Slippy wrote:Faster conditions just help to hide the weakness of the one-hander as rallies aren't really required.

The debate just got interesting with court conditions and SHBH v DHBH. There are many SHBHs still around. As a coach, what would your advice be?

Born Slippy wrote:Also, whilst that clip Laver posted of Federer shows his genius, in reality it highlights the weakness of a one-hander. He struggles to cope with Nadal's forehand leading to an extremely poor dropshot. He then has to play a desperate lob which, due to his skills, pays off but, even for Fed, its a low percentage play. A two-hander would not have been in such trouble in the first place.

A DHBH is far superior to a one-hander in all conditions. The massive difference is on return of serve. Faster conditions just help to hide the weakness of the one-hander as rallies aren't really required.

Federer himself has said that if his daughters were to play tennis he would teach them a two handed backhand. It just is a dinosaur, our club is known for its academy at least locally here in southern california, they charge kids 4500 dollars month plus room and board. Not a single one has a one handed backhand. The return is crucial, all the best returners in history for the most part are two handers. Borg, Connors, Agassi, hewitt, Djokovic etc. This alone would be enough to give the two hander the edge over the single hander. The only advantage I see with the one hander is when you have to hit a short low ball up in the court. For picking the ball up moving into the court and low the sbh is more effective as that low short ball is awkward for the two hander. I have a good two hander for a club player, sometimes running up to cut off that short low backand I usually have to slice that ball and sometimes I improvise and hit a punch/drive one handed backhand. Also one edge for the one hander is that you can hit great angle on the cross court backhand. But the advantages of the Dhbh far outweigh these remote advantages of the one hander.

I was going to say socal that a single hander can create some better angles than the DH, as it's an easier shot to generate loads of spin... You could maybe say that it's a bit easier to generate power off the SH if you're attacking a short ball... But apart from that all the SH has over the DH is it looks more pretty.

Basically, the SH is gorgeous to look at and pretty good on the front foot but very difficult to defend with. The DH might not be as pretty, but it's much better for defending and returning and is just more solid.

And if you can't defend very against the top 3, you're going to have a pretty tough time. Particularly on slower courts.

interestingly, Agassi said the best double handers use their right hands more than their left, and said the reason Roddick had a weak backhand was because he used too much left arm

Danny_1982 wrote:I was going to say socal that a single hander can create some better angles than the DH, as it's an easier shot to generate loads of spin... You could maybe say that it's a bit easier to generate power off the SH if you're attacking a short ball... But apart from that all the SH has over the DH is it looks more pretty.

Basically, the SH is gorgeous to look at and pretty good on the front foot but very difficult to defend with. The DH might not be as pretty, but it's much better for defending and returning and is just more solid.

And if you can't defend very against the top 3, you're going to have a pretty tough time. Particularly on slower courts.

The advantages are far outweighed by the disadvantages. The disadvantages are that you are not as effective when pulled wide, not as effective if you don't catch the ball out in front of your body, harder to hit the cross court pass, harder to go up the line with a flat or heavy shot, weaker in handling the high or heavy spinning ball and, return of serve.

That for me is the big one, the return is one of the 2 most important shots in the game. The other being the serve. Especially, as you move up in levels of play the serve and return get more and more dominant in the rallies. On the ATP tour despite all the talk about counter punching's increased value at the end of the day the player who gets on top of the point in the first 1 or 2 shots with the shorthand as lethal as it is in the modern game the player in front on the first ball in the rally wins a huge majority of the points. One handers chip an inordinate amount of returns and are forced into a passive mode too regularly. Look at Stan he has one of the best one handers on tour and is a pretty poor to mediocre returner. We also see how easily Nadal has beat Fed up on his own service games by kick serve to Fed's backhand, which especially in the past would result in a short chipped return, and Nadal would move in, cut it off and lace a heavy spinning angled winner that basically would end Federer's competition for that point.

CAS wrote:interestingly, Agassi said the best double handers use their right hands more than their left, and said the reason Roddick had a weak backhand was because he used too much left arm

I don't know about that but basically every coach I have had has told me that you have to get your pace and speed from your top hand. The right hand plays a crucial role as well, in that the way I have worked out to hit the best DHB's is to have both hands loose at the start, then tighten your bottom hand on contact a bit to give you control and power and then real loosening with the lower through the follow through. I have heard Agassi say that every great dhb has this feature. Basically you squeeze the wrist on the right hand to tighten that grip, while the top hand the other hand moves through the shot in a smooth and fast pace. It is sort of like in martial arts when they turn the punch over and snap their wrist. The control of bottom wrist in some ways is more subtle and gives you that little bit more of a lethal two hander so this is what Agassi maybe is mentioning. For my money you can't have a loose enough top hand.

I wonder if there will ever be a player that can hit both. DH for the return, defending, DTL and so forth... SH when inside the court attacking a shorter ball looking for more angle. I'm not sure you'd really need both as I agree that the DH is the far more effective shot for today's game, but you never know.

Nadal has a wicked SHBH slice! I reckon Federer is too proud to hold a tennis racquet with two hands. It would be a sign of weakness.

Rafa does have a very good SH slice, as does Murray. And Novak's and Delpo's have improved too.

But I meant would there ever be a player who could attack with either DH or SH... Someone equally proficient at both, and used both dependant on where they were on the court.

Danny_1982 wrote:I wonder if there will ever be a player that can hit both. DH for the return, defending, DTL and so forth... SH when inside the court attacking a shorter ball looking for more angle. I'm not sure you'd really need both as I agree that the DH is the far more effective shot for today's game, but you never know.

Its not that difficult to hit both I have also wondered why there is not a player who switches between the two and hits a topspin one hander and topspin two hander. When I mess aground sometimes I hit one handed and I can hit some nice shots from time to time with the one hander. But the complexity of training for both doesn't make much sense when clearly the two hander has a lot more important advantages.

socal1976 wrote:

Danny_1982 wrote:I wonder if there will ever be a player that can hit both. DH for the return, defending, DTL and so forth... SH when inside the court attacking a shorter ball looking for more angle. I'm not sure you'd really need both as I agree that the DH is the far more effective shot for today's game, but you never know.

Its not that difficult to hit both I have also wondered why there is not a player who switches between the two and hits a topspin one hander and topspin two hander. When I mess aground sometimes I hit one handed and I can hit some nice shots from time to time with the one hander. But the complexity of training for both doesn't make much sense when clearly the two hander has a lot more important advantages.

Tsonga does it very well.

Here is one advantage of an SH - https://imgur.com/3NSgsIh (should have posted this earlier )