Federer's Forehand Technique

I was watching a replay of Federer's loss to Isner in the Davis Cup on youtube (don't ask me why), and it's interesting to see the number of forehands in which Federer whips the racquet over his right shoulder in a Nadal-like fashion, rather than across his chest and over his left shoulder as is normal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PABiHiqkJf8&feature=related

I don't remember him ever hitting a forehand like that back in 2006 / 2007, but I have noticed it coming more into his game in recent years. I don't know whether this is a deliberate change from Federer, but I'm undecided as to whether it's a positive move - his forehand already had plenty of spin on it as it is, and I think it's this spin combined with the power he generates that is what's made his forehand so effective. Putting more spin on the ball will inevitably lead to a reduction in pace, sending his forehand into Nadal territory; obviously still a great shot, but not for the kind of style Federer plays. Additionally, purely from an aesthetic standpoint, I really don't like the look of the Nadal-like whip forehand!

I think he just plays with things to try them on for size.

I once saw a statistical analysis that Federer has over 30 distinct different variations of his forehand.

Not just him altering the way it looks because of circumstance, but actual thought out technique. Amazing

TRuffin wrote:I once saw a statistical analysis that Federer has over 30 distinct different variations of his forehand.

Not just him altering the way it looks because of circumstance, but actual thought out technique. Amazing

Now that's what I call 'subtle technical precsion'!

I also watched that match and did not observe the forehand so much as Fed's helplesness when returning.

Isner's serve was bouncing so high to Fed's backhand it was at his eye level almost, not nice to see, I've never seen Fed with that kind of facial expression: highly anonyed and helpless.
I think he utterly despised the court, but had to shut up because it was Swiss

That forehand may have just been trying to get himself out of the hole.

I've mentioned this in a couple of other threads. I watched that match live and Fed seemed to be doing it just for the hell of it, not defensively at particular moments. If he'd being wondering about trying to get into Nadals shoes, to see how things looked from that perspective, it was a strange opponent to try it against. The high bouncing balls were crushed by the ridiculously tall man.

The court had some bad bounces, and Federer was trying to clear the net because he could not flatten many shots. The Topspin was keeping the ball from going long, but was allowing the ball to bounce higher and hit Isner's strike zone. Contrast this with Federer-Isner at IW (yes they are different surfaces, but the bounce is predictable at IW).

Since Fed hits with spin he must be a talentless moonballer.

socal1976 wrote:Since Fed hits with spin he must be a talentless moonballer.

Yes. In your book.

Learn an appreciation of sarcasm RAider. You are wound to tight.

socal1976 wrote:Learn an appreciation of sarcasm RAider. You are wound to tight.

Was that sarcasm? I thought this is what you really believe.

Was that sarcasm? I thought this is what you really believe.

The Fognini effect.

I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

Federer's and Nadal's FHs are actually quite similar. I've written a few times on here about them and SSC principles. It's why they're both at the top of the current players RPM "league table" on FH spin.

lydian wrote:Federer's and Nadal's FHs are actually quite similar. I've written a few times on here about them and SSC principles. It's why they're both at the top of the current players RPM "league table" on FH spin.

Another one with a similar FH is Dolgopolov.

reckoner wrote:I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

It's on Wikipedia under "fanboy excuses for hero losses".

As is tanking, too tired, too old and not interested. Those in the Fed fanboy excuse book.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As is tanking, too tired, too old and not interested. Those in the Fed fanboy excuse book.

"...improving every year..."

No bickering please. Respect for players and fans across the net.

Those that dish it out should be able to take it!

reckoner wrote:Those that dish it out should be able to take it!

What happened to the kinder, gentler, civil society? Did I drop it somewhere along the daily grind of life?

One can always walk away from petty bickering.

What happened to the Big Society, that's what I want to know!!



You're quite right lf, I shall try to rise above such petty bickering in future...

reckoner wrote:
You're quite right lf, I shall try to rise above such petty bickering in future...

Thanks.

reckoner wrote:I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

Fogninni effect comes the french open 2011. Djokovic as a result of the foggy withdrawal from the quarterfinals had a 5 day gap in his french open. In addition, we must remember the streak that was going on at the time. If Foggy played his quarter Djokovic would have tied Mac's all time record for consecutive wins to start a season in the quarter against Foggy. But instead Foggy withdrew, played next week at queens, and Djokovic had a 5 day layover in the middle of the tournament and instead of tieing the all time mark against Foggy had to play Federer in the semi to tie the record. And on top of that if he beat federer he would have gotten the #1 ranking and final spot at RG. In effect the foggy effect ended up icing and breaking up Novak's timing. He played a crap first two sets, played much better in sets 3 and 4. By the way I never said he lost to fed because of the layover and the streak but that it effected his preparation and he didn't play as well. Fed played a great match and even if Novak had been in top form he might have still lost.

Since then the Foggy effect has taken on a life of its own, it has become the battle cry for the IQ challenged and the extremist fed fan.

All Fed fans are psychopaths according to the bitter American. I believe it's called stereotyping.

socal1976 wrote:Since then the Foggy effect has taken on a life of its own, it has become the battle cry for the IQ challenged and the extremist fed fan.

I guess Murray seems to think that too much rest could have hurt his game. It seems that many people seem to think that too much rest or rustiness can impact your play in a big match.

https://www.606v2.com/t27203-murray-a-proponent-of-the-raodal-effect#1113168

It did get repeated here too.

We do need to leave this behind though.

socal1976 wrote:

reckoner wrote:I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

Fogninni effect comes the french open 2011. Djokovic as a result of the foggy withdrawal from the quarterfinals had a 5 day gap in his french open. In addition, we must remember the streak that was going on at the time. If Foggy played his quarter Djokovic would have tied Mac's all time record for consecutive wins to start a season in the quarter against Foggy. But instead Foggy withdrew, played next week at queens, and Djokovic had a 5 day layover in the middle of the tournament and instead of tieing the all time mark against Foggy had to play Federer in the semi to tie the record. And on top of that if he beat federer he would have gotten the #1 ranking and final spot at RG. In effect the foggy effect ended up icing and breaking up Novak's timing. He played a crap first two sets, played much better in sets 3 and 4. By the way I never said he lost to fed because of the layover and the streak but that it effected his preparation and he didn't play as well. Fed played a great match and even if Novak had been in top form he might have still lost.

Since then the Foggy effect has taken on a life of its own, it has become the battle cry for the IQ challenged and the extremist fed fan.

Ad hominem attacks aside (which detract from your argument), this makes you sound as if you're making excuses for Djokovic's loss. No matter how much you try to rationalize it, that's what it sounds like to me.

If it makes me IQ challenged, so be it....

kemet wrote:

If it makes me IQ challenged, so be it....

Is there a sign-up sheet for the 'extremist Fed Fan' club? Does Kemet qualify?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As is tanking, too tired, too old and not interested. Those in the Fed fanboy excuse book.

Don't mix up things yet again. Tanking versus Roddick, Lopez or Nishikori certainly happens to the best players. Nadal, Fed and Djoko don't tank against each others though, certainly not in the latest stages of tournaments. No-one bar you and Socal are finding excuses when they meet such as "Murray had a bad day at the office" or "Fognini".

On a good day the words shock and awe come to mind, but of course, there are the bad days as well.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As is tanking, too tired, too old and not interested. Those in the Fed fanboy excuse book.

My personal recent favourite is 'his game is in transition'.

socal1976 wrote:

reckoner wrote:I still don't understand this Foginini effect. Would someone kindly explain it to me?

Fogninni effect comes the french open 2011. Djokovic as a result of the foggy withdrawal from the quarterfinals had a 5 day gap in his french open. In addition, we must remember the streak that was going on at the time. If Foggy played his quarter Djokovic would have tied Mac's all time record for consecutive wins to start a season in the quarter against Foggy. But instead Foggy withdrew, played next week at queens, and Djokovic had a 5 day layover in the middle of the tournament and instead of tieing the all time mark against Foggy had to play Federer in the semi to tie the record. And on top of that if he beat federer he would have gotten the #1 ranking and final spot at RG. In effect the foggy effect ended up icing and breaking up Novak's timing. He played a crap first two sets, played much better in sets 3 and 4. By the way I never said he lost to fed because of the layover and the streak but that it effected his preparation and he didn't play as well. Fed played a great match and even if Novak had been in top form he might have still lost.

Since then the Foggy effect has taken on a life of its own, it has become the battle cry for the IQ challenged and the extremist fed fan.

A kind of weirdly inverted logic at the end, but always a very funny read. Thanks.

yes indeed BB - you were much missed on your sabbatical socal, the forum definitely felt the lack of your passion and (sometimes inadvertent) humour

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:As is tanking, too tired, too old and not interested. Those in the Fed fanboy excuse book.

My personal recent favourite is 'his game is in transition'.

Yes I love this quote. Its one of the often used these days.

Yup certainly a lot of excuses abound for Fed eh? You could write a book on them. Could double as a joke book.

CC..., Raiders... are you sure you really want to travel down this road of caustic sarcasm and acerbic wit with a dash of condescension?

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yup certainly a lot of excuses abound for Fed eh? You could write a book on them. Could double as a joke book.

Oh dear, I should have known irony may be lost on you.

It's Murrays game which seems to be 'in transition', according to your good self. At least after every defeat anyway.

Err sorry laverfan and please post a similar type warning to bogbrush as he is the one that started this 'excuses' bandwagon rolling. I shall now stop.

Okay CC, can you explain how is Murray's game in a transitions? When do you expect this transition to be complete? And what will Murray or his game turn into after the completion of this transition?

time please wrote: yes indeed BB - you were much missed on your sabbatical socal, the forum definitely felt the lack of your passion and (sometimes inadvertent) humour

Timeplease, don't join the darkside I am much too old to play Luke to your Anikin. There is hope for you yet turn in your lowly private uniform in the FAS. Well oddly I missed u guys as well.

As to Kemet, I didn't like the fact that playing for a big record Foggy withdrew and then played the following week. And frankly the semi-gay love parade that surrounded Fed after that match needed some tempering. He did play great, but he got a real nice break with how things played out. I don't know how things would have worked if novak had not had the 5 day layover and the streak issues, possibly the pressure of playing for #1 and Fed's game would have still caused him to lose. But before the layoff he was razor sharp in sets 1 and 2 against Fed he was way below pre layoff standards.

It is pretty funny though the fed fans laughing up on Novak and Murray fans for excuse making. That is like the midget laughing at the dwarf. Fed fan's are notorious excuse makers, they can fill up whole encyclopedias on a shady spanish doctor, and the global conspiracy for slow courts and big fluffy balls.

Non-exclusive list of fed loss excuses:
-he got tired
-courts to slow
-balls too slow
-his oppoent took too long between points
-his opponent took an MTO
-his opponent has too good of a modern racquet
-modern strings
-his babies were crying and kept him up
-his opponents are all doped
-he is still feeling the effects of mono in 2012
-he felt sorry for his opponent
-he got bored


Etc, etc, etc, Fed fan making fun of people for excuse making is about the funniest thing I have ever heard.

socal1976 wrote:

time please wrote: yes indeed BB - you were much missed on your sabbatical socal, the forum definitely felt the lack of your passion and (sometimes inadvertent) humour

Timeplease, don't join the darkside I am much too old to play Luke to your Anikin. There is hope for you yet turn in your lowly private uniform in the FAS. Well oddly I missed u guys as well.

As to Kemet, I didn't like the fact that playing for a big record Foggy withdrew and then played the following week. And frankly the semi-gay love parade that surrounded Fed after that match needed some tempering. He did play great, but he got a real nice break with how things played out. I don't know how things would have worked if novak had not had the 5 day layover and the streak issues, possibly the pressure of playing for #1 and Fed's game would have still caused him to lose. But before the layoff he was razor sharp in sets 1 and 2 against Fed he was way below pre layoff standards.

'semi gay'?

Ooh! Get you!!

socal1976 wrote:It is pretty funny though the fed fans laughing up on Novak and Murray fans for excuse making. That is like the midget laughing at the dwarf. Fed fan's are notorious excuse makers, they can fill up whole encyclopedias on a shady spanish doctor, and the global conspiracy for slow courts and big fluffy balls.

Non-exclusive list of fed loss excuses:
-he got tired
-courts to slow
-balls too slow
-his oppoent took too long between points
-his opponent took an MTO
-his opponent has too good of a modern racquet
-modern strings
-his babies were crying and kept him up
-his opponents are all doped
-he is still feeling the effects of mono in 2012
-he felt sorry for his opponent
-he got bored


Etc, etc, etc, Fed fan making fun of people for excuse making is about the funniest thing I have ever heard.

Ironic as many of those are, I still don't see one as stupid as 'got a bye'.

BB, that is because as I explained to you that you are a binary thinker who lacks any ability to understand a case by case analysis. You are the kind of guy who likes hard and fast rules that you believe always are the case, well unfortunately there are exceptions to the rule and a lot of variations in life. Not everything can unfortunately be reduced to 0 or 1.

Meaningless twaddle.

Look, you're an avid fan of the guy. I get that, it's cool. The RG defeat hurt you a lot. I get that too, but you've got to let it go; it's burning you up, making you talk like a fool.

Just accept that the better man on the day won, nobody died, they all lived to fight another day and Djokovic is just fine and dandy. The bye made no difference unless you think Djokovic is a mental pygmy, crushed by a run (as if that mattered a jot compared to a maiden RG final to anyone but a fanboy) which I certainly don't.

Take a tip from NITB, she was fighting the good fight for Djokovic before you'd heard of 606v1 or 2 and she took it on the chin.

socal - how disappointing to see you trot out a lot of "excuses" that for the most part look like a fantasy creation of your own, rather than genuine quotes from others.

I've read a lot of silly stuff both on the old 606 and here too, but can't remember too many of the "excuses" you quote actually ever having been used by fans. Maybe you have evidence to prove me wrong....?

I honestly think you've let yourself down here socal. Doesn't do you any favours. Not sure what makes you write this sort of stuff. If you genuinely feel that Djoker and Murray fans do something similar - then why stoop to their level ....??

And IF by some chance the excuse of "babies were crying and keeping him up" was ever used by a fan then it would surely have either been as a joke (in which case hardly worth using it to make counter-allegations) OR it was (weirdly) meant to be serious and hence clearly wasn't from a proper tennis follower - in which case why involve yourself in such nonsense ? You run the risk of making yourself look just as silly and uninformed.

Don't you think you've got this all wrong socal ? I would respect you for admitting you just got carried away here .......

Yes because I have never heard the fed moaners make those excuses after a typical loss to Nadal lags. What I find even more shocking than anything I have posted is the kings of excuse making, and those who want us to admit that the better man won that day, are the very people who refuse to do the same thing after numerous federer losses principally to Nadal.

And of course the baby crying thing was a joke, babies cry is that something to get out of sorts about me mentioning. Occassionally, I am sarcastic in some of these posts.

To answer your question no I dont think I got it wrong Lags. Explain to me the hole in my logic.

As for BB, buddy I have more than let it go. I never even mentioned the french open. On this thread go back and check who brought up foggy, not me. You are the king of bring up fogninni and then claiming I need to let it go. I didn't talk about foggy forever, others, namely you kept bringing it up. And as you see I am not ashamed of my opinion and if people ask me about it or bring it up will happily defend it.

So...... you've let it go but are holding onto it?

This thread must have been started by another poster then.

www.606v2.com/t27203-murray-a-proponent-of-the-Randal-effect

I'd get on to Gav about that, must be a security thing he has to handle.

Oh child Socal, I see that despite your sabbatical, you still remain a little bit unhinged.

Very good post from Lags - always makes some sensible and pertinent points.

Socal your churlish reactions are quite dissapointing. I would expect that level of retort from a teenager, not a supposed grown man.

Anyway, the wall grows weaker day by day. He is already here, in the East. As yet chained and bound, but soon he will be let loose.

Oh minions... the darkness approaches.



emancipator

I love it the guy from the space beyond the milky way is calling me unhinged.

And BB of course I started that thread to show that my argument wasn't a radical argument that you tried to portray it as. How many foggy effect posts did you make and others insinuate before I wrote that thread? I know you live in a bizarro world of strange disconnect but surely even your limited little grey cells must be able to discern that.