The Indian Wells Masters 1000 Thread

[temporary21]

First topic message reminder :

Well its both. Murrays physical style came from getting beaten by Nadal, who got his style partly to try and counter Roger. The end of the day theyre still brilliant tennis players, hence their style worked well against other people too. Rogers style was also the prevailing style of the time in 06, he was just the master at it, any counter would be effective against a lot of the tour.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Nah, Llodra when at his best, was a better player than Fed at the net. It's just that he's not consistently good. Llodra was beautiful at the net when his game was in full flow.

Stepanek too is better at the net imo but again he's too inconsistent so could not beat FEDAL even though he could give them a bit of trouble.

[banbrotam]

Away from the slam's Fed's taken advantage of Murray and Nadal's terrible inconsistency, due to them simply not been fit enough for long enough

Anyone who thinks Roger is playing as good as 2007 has simply not seen the 2007 footage

Novak is better than he was in 2007, but is arguably no better than he was in 2012/13 when at the start of 2014 he held no slams

The quality at the top isn't as good as it was in 2011/12 - which for me was the peak of men's Tennis so far

It is entertaining though

[bogbrush]

I think Messi's theory is probably right.

For instance, Rod Laver is playing better than ever, but Federer has raised his own game even further. It makes Rod look like he has lost a step.

I'm closing the book on post of the year.

[Haddie-nuff]

Yeahh brilliant

[HM Murdock]

Interesting graphic about the Dubai/IW surfaces...

[TheMessi]

Messi, if according to you, Fed has improved and he has not slowed down as he aged, how come he still shank or mishit his shots more often now? Slow down may mean slower in his reflexes, not exactly pure speed.  Fed could still sprint around the court relatively quickly compared to most guys, but his timing of his shots may be a bit off that he shank his shots more these days.

Are you serious? Do you really think Fed shanks more now than in 2007? remember he leads Djokovic 4/3 since 2014! And if IW was not so slow he could have been on a 5/2 lead. This is why I am so surprised to read posters saying it's obvious he was better in 2007. At least it is a matter for discussion. Nothing obvious considering how much progress Djokovic has made since.

So according to you Djokovic has improved but by not as much as Fed, so that now he couldn't trash Fed but could trash the Fed of 2007??

Why do you make me say things I have not? Djokovic did not and could not thrash Federer in 2007. But it was already one of Fed's tougher opponent. What I am saying is that Djoko progressed enormously in the last 7 years. Do you deny that? So if Federer had declined in the last 7 years, and Nole improved a lot then it should not be close at all in 2015..however it is still very close!

BTW, I agree with SoCal, that Fed is now a notch below his level of mid 2000, and so he lost 12 out of 19 times when he played against Novak from 2011, where in the past he won 13 out of 19 times they played.

As if Nole was a fixed, non-evolving entity. Nole used to lose to Nadal until he got to take the better of Nadal consistently. So it is not ALL down to Federer.

I have had enough of this discussion.

Good night![/quote]

[Jahu]

Interesting graphic about the Dubai/IW surfaces...

Missbehaved last night instead of sleeping, did you?

Was discussed last night

[Jeremy_Kyle]

So Messi, Fed has improved but what about Novak? Poor Novak, he could trash a 26 yo Fed but  couldn't trash a 34 yo Fed.  Life seems to be tougher for Novak, now that he's in his prime.

It takes 2 to tango. Djokovic needs other players to improve, at tennis you cannot improve too much on your own. you need someone on the other side of the net.

I noticed you did not put any  counter argument about the "obvious" slowing pace of Federer when I kind proved to you that you would struggle to see with a naked eye a player being 2/100th of a second late on the ball...and if you did it would be compensated by many other factors.

I agree with most of what you are saying but you will find a great deal of Federer myopia and anger at anyone who puts any perspective on Federer that is outside the party line. In many ways Fed is better his backhand in my mind is better especially in terms of being able to come over and hit with topspin a kicking serve. He also in my mind is more tactically astute and varied. And if is serve isn't better it isn't much weaker. And lets remember Fed was faster than 98 percent of the tour in his peak, but he never relied on his speed that much. It was a weapon in his game. But you don't all of sudden go from being blazing fast to slow over the course of few years. Especially without serious injury issues. Fed is still faster than 85 percent to 90 percent of the tour. He still gets to balls that players at 23 would dream of getting to. Tennis isn't sprinting, speed is a big weapon but you don't need world class sprinter speed.

Yep, Socal. Fans just want to hear their player is "best"....the details they don't care. they pick and choose what suits them.

I think you are new to the forum so I am going to offer you  my little piece of advice. If you see that a poster called Socal1976 is siding with you this is  something to be a little concerned about.  It might feel initially slightly flattering but it should not, trust me blindly on this regard.

[Haddie-nuff]

Ouch

[TheMessi]

Thanks JK...maybe Socal should also be concerned siding with me.

So far he is seems a very sensible poster.

[Jahu]

...true that Kyle, also if HN or IMBL gives you any kind of smiles & hugs, know that you are in grave danger to be repossessed

[Haddie-nuff]

My advice ??? look, listen then make up your own mind

[Jahu]

My advice ??? look, listen then make up your own mind

Taking advice from a GMO Nadal fan, is seriously unhealthy

[Henman Bill]

I think that the argument that Federer was better at his peak rests on 2 years only, 2005 and 2006. If you instead say that his peak was 2004-2007 then I think he was just as good in 2009-2012. Lost movement and some forehand consistency and awesomeness (perhaps partly due to court slowing), but gained on serve, flat backhands maybe and maybe some intangibles debatable. The thing is he has as many or more defeats to random lower ranked players in 2004 and 2007 as he did in 2011. I saw him play live in 2004 and it was worse than 2011 when I also say him play live.

In 2011 he was very very good, just unfortunately a notch short of Djokovic and Nadal. I honestly believe 2011 was his best FO, and who else did he lose too that year apart from his 2 main rivals? Hardly anyone. Tsonga at Wimbledon?

But move on to 2013-2015 and the argument changes. Unlike 2004-2011 when he was never losing before the semi final in a slam, or losing at any stage to anyone in a slam ranked outside the top 5, in 2013-2015 the losses in slams to players ranked 10-20 in the R4 and QF have been numerous. If that's not evidence of decline, I don't know what is. At the very least, it's evidence of lack of consistency.

I put his peak as 2004-2012 and his decline as 2013-present. The fact that he's still ranked 2 is rather bad news for Nadal and Murray at the moment I'm afraid. I also think 2011 Federer might have overhauled 2012-2015 Djokovic even, 2011 was really a quality year for all the big three. Even Nadal was no means playing badly, he just came up against a different machine.

In the rivalry against Djokovic, Federer still appears to be at 95% of peak, but it's the losses against the likes of Robredo that really stand out compared to previous years. But back to that rivlary against Djokovic, it's Novak that's winning the bigger matches and Rog the lesser ones. The last 6 matches are tied at 3-3. But Djokovinc won the Wimbledon and IW finals which were the biggest ones in there.

In theory, point for point, Federer seems to have an edge in the rivlary but on the big point, it's Novak. The inescapable fact in the last 6 matches is that Djokovic cannot beat FEderer in straights by playing him off the court while all Federer's last 3 wins have been straights. But go to a deciding set and it's always Novak. Some may say that's physical but it could also be mental. Novak's last 3 wins were in a final set.

Maybe I'm cherry picking a bit because those last 6 matches the trend was not always the same. But if we talk of critical moments then again only one of the two really walked the walk in US Open match points.

Strange to be saying this after a match in which Djokovic threw in double faults at any key moment and nearly threw away his superiority. That first double fault almost became a turning point in a match where he had the edge almost throughout. So, I admit, that last match isn't the best one to suppport the mental argument.

Federer's body does look old, though. I think years of top play take a strain. He looks like if he keeps playing 60 matches a year until the age of 40 he'll one day wake up and barely be able to get out of bed. I have to remind myself I'm older than him, and I have to consult the bare statistics of my age and his, and I can hardly believe it. That reminds me, great Rod Laver video and comment, I thought Rod looked in great shape.

[Belovedluckyboy]

1) Yeah, if Dubai and Shanghai weren't that quick, Novak would be 4-2 vs Fed! What's all these, blaming the surfaces for Fed's losses? But didn't Fed won IW as recently as 2012?
2) are you serious? Fed shanked as much in 2007 as he does now??
3) Prior to 2011, Fed was 13-6 vs Novak; thereafter Fed won only 7 out of 19 encounters with Novak, how's that considered close?
4) Novak of course isn't a fixed non evolving entity, but others too aren't fixed either, they can become better, or they can start to slowly decline due to aging.
5) if Fed had improved to lead Novak 4-2 from 2014 till now, I can also say that since AO 2012, Rafa had improved to be better than Novak, as he's 6-1 vs Novak since, right up to USO2013. And what if Novak beat Fed a few times more in 2015, so Novak has improved further?
6) well, if whoever moves ahead in the H2H is considered an improvement in his tennis, then OK they're all improving, by that definition.

Yeah, I've also had enough of this conversation. Good day!

[Belovedluckyboy]

Fed is still no. 2 isn't bad news for Andy and Rafa, but bad news for the others. Rafa was down with injuries and appendicitis last year, and missed a whole chunk of the second half of 2014 season so his ranking is affected naturally. Andy after his back surgery seems to be struggling to get back to his previous high level. We'll see how Andy and Rafa perform for the rest of 2015. The fact that Rafa playing only half a season last year and still was able to finish the year as YE no.3 is/was even more worrying for the rest of the field. While Fed fully capitalized on that, what about the rest? Andy ended 2014 as no.6 and now he's no.4 so he's gaining points to leapfrog some others. Rafa on a comeback trail is still able to hold on to his no.3 ranking so he's not doing badly.

[Belovedluckyboy]

Fed vs Novak, I feel it's more surface dependent. Of the recent six encounters, Novak won IW twice and won Wimbledon; Fed won twice on quick HC surface,Shanghai and Dubai, and one on clay at MC. So, Novak was 2-1 on slower surfaces, and Fed was 2-1 on quicker surfaces.

I think Fed played better in 2012 than in 2011, winning six titles in 2012 including Wimbledon but Novak still beat him for YE no.1 so no, I don't think Fed of 2011 was better than Novak of 2012.

[CAS]

I think people get confused by Federer's tactical awareness and intelligence improving maybe more than his peak. At his peak he didn't need to think, he was just better than everyone. I remember watching his match against Lopez at the '07 US Open, I remember the commentator making an excellent comment. "Lopez's backhand is significantly weaker than his forehand, but you would think Roger doesn't know that, he goes where he wants when he wants.' Basically Federer was so much better it wouldn't matter.

He now thinks more, I mean as years go by you will understand the game better. He probably knows how to prepare better before a match, knows his limitations so I can see why people feel he is better. In a sense he is, but you can't deny that at approaching 34 he isn't as fast and his timing isn't quite what he used to be.

When it comes to a surface thats purely on shotmaking Federer has shown he is still the best, when it comes to playing another all time great when a 34 year has to go up against a 27 year old the limitations are obvious, Federer might see what he has to do but can't anymore, theres a really obvious rally against Rafa in the Aussie Open where Federer clearly just had nothing left, his legs didn't move at all.

Novak, Andy and Rafa all say that their best shot is to get Roger into a rally, they know they can outlast him as they know they can't always outplay him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhrtiS0lwU watch the rally from 2:54 and tell me his legs didn't go at the end

[Belovedluckyboy]

Good post, CAS

[CAS]

I don't know how many posters follow the Premier League on here so this comparison may fall on deaf ears but in my mind Ryan Giggs was a better player at the end of his career than at his peak in a sense his attributes had improved, his passing, his crossing and positioning were all better, hence why he was often played as a playmaker more than a winger which he was in his peak. However, in his prime he was devastating, he could run all day, had electric pace, he would run across a puddle and it wouldn't ripple and scored goals for fun.

As he aged, he couldn't run for 90 minutes anymore so he had to change his game, he had to get into position earlier, he had to read the game better which comes with playing the game for 20 years that you don't have as a up and comer. However, you can't fight time, he couldn't play every match, his teammates couldn't place the ball too far in front of him and he could rarely last a whole 90 minutes anymore and the goals had dried up.

This is the same for Federer, he can play some really intelligent tennis and throws in some stunning shots but his body is older even though his mind is better, that must be incredibly frustrating, knowing what you used to be able to do and can't anymore and understanding the game even better and seeing players limitations and not being able to always exploit them.

I guess its like putting Lewis Hamilton in a Ford Fiesta vs an Amatuer driving a Formula One car

[TheMessi]

I think people get confused by Federer's tactical awareness and intelligence improving maybe more than his peak.

The confused ones are those who cannot consider Federer as whole, with all the added experience of playing players who keep improving.

At his peak he didn't need to think, he was just better than everyone. I remember watching his match against Lopez at the '07 US Open, I remember the commentator making an excellent comment. "Lopez's backhand is significantly weaker than his forehand, but you would think Roger doesn't know that, he goes where he wants when he wants.' Basically Federer was so much better it wouldn't matter.

Exactly...and without thinking he started to lose against the new generation...not his and "Lopez generation". He simply could not keep on playing like he was in 2007. His game was caught up by the new generation. His serve was being returned more, his then irretrievable FH was being retrieved but more importantly his bachhand was exposed by Murray Djokovic and Nadal.

He now thinks more, I mean as years go by you will understand the game better. He probably knows how to prepare better before a match, knows his limitations so I can see why people feel he is better. In a sense he is, but you can't deny that at approaching 34 he isn't as fast and his timing isn't quite what he used to be.

There you go. Do I need to add anything? It is certainly getting harder for him now but his footwork is not far off, his speed would be negligeably slower as I explained at 33. Linford Christie never ran as fast as when 32. Carl Lewis was 30...so at 33, yes but over 5m (as opposed to 100m), you'd hardly see the difference. His timing is actually improving, reflexes at least as good. Have you see the age of the top doubles players where reflexes at the net is everything? Paes, Brians, Nestor, all at around 40!!!!. But more importantly they anticipate better. more valuable that 1000th of a second loss if that!

When it comes to a surface thats purely on shotmaking Federer has shown he is still the best, when it comes to playing another all time great when a 34 year has to go up against a 27 year old the limitations are obvious, Federer might see what he has to do but can't anymore, theres a really obvious rally against Rafa in the Aussie Open where Federer clearly just had nothing left, his legs didn't move at all.

The 2007 version would lose even more convincingly v the current top players. It's so clear when watching old clips.

Novak, Andy and Rafa all say that their best shot is to get Roger into a rally, they know they can outlast him as they know they can't always outplay him.

That was starting to be true then when those guys were much younger and certainly not nearly as good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhrtiS0lwU watch the rally from 2:54 and tell me his legs didn't go at the end

Probably....but nowadays rallies are even more tiring now than then. a 26 shot rally is by far more exhausting now cause they are run at a higher pace. Even Nadal and Murray gets tired quicker nowadays.

[biugo]

I think people get confused by Federer's tactical awareness and intelligence improving maybe more than his peak. At his peak he didn't need to think, he was just better than everyone. I remember watching his match against Lopez at the '07 US Open, I remember the commentator making an excellent comment. "Lopez's backhand is significantly weaker than his forehand, but you would think Roger doesn't know that, he goes where he wants when he wants.' Basically Federer was so much better it wouldn't matter.

He now thinks more, I mean as years go by you will understand the game better. He probably knows how to prepare better before a match, knows his limitations so I can see why people feel he is better. In a sense he is, but you can't deny that at approaching 34 he isn't as fast and his timing isn't quite what he used to be.

When it comes to a surface thats purely on shotmaking Federer has shown he is still the best, when it comes to playing another all time great when a 34 year has to go up against a 27 year old the limitations are obvious, Federer might see what he has to do but can't anymore, theres a really obvious rally against Rafa in the Aussie Open where Federer clearly just had nothing left, his legs didn't move at all.

Novak, Andy and Rafa all say that their best shot is to get Roger into a rally, they know they can outlast him as they know they can't always outplay him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhrtiS0lwU watch the rally from 2:54 and tell me his legs didn't go at the end

I agree with you CAS. I remember an interview a few years ago (2, 3, 4? not sure really - I think it was around his first try to change his racket) where Federer was explaining he used to just not have a game plan when entering the court, that he just turns up and play his game. And that he started to feel the need to get a bit more prepared to face his opponent. At first, even against Nadal he would not try a game plan, but just go with his game (maybe the reason why we were all wondering why he wouldn't try different tactics... He just didn't have tactics at that time, and it worked 85-95% of the time)

And that's probably what he means to when saying he likes that against Djoko he doesn't have to change his game (and so does Djoko). He probably just don't like to follow a game plan. A thing that Nadal is very capable of on the contrary, to great success.

It's coherent too with the fact that Federer REALLY loves to play tennis, so I'd think he'd love to be able to keep it light and not apply plan X or plan Y - which confirms too that he may play for many more years (he wants his children to see him play and win, and understand what's happening to their father)

I won't be surprised he plays until 38 - Connors beware!

[CAS]

TheMessi, you've clearly completely misunderstood my post.

Are you saying Federer is being required to think more because of the improvement of Djokovic and Nadal?

If so lets go with that...lets say Nadal and Djokovic's peak was 03-07 he would have had to think more because they were around so by that logic he would be playing how he is now but in a 22-26 year old body so he would be even better, no?

Federer beats the majority of the field because he is just better, when he comes up against other greats he is giving them 5/6 years, remember he was regularly reaching FO finals so had no real issue with slow courts if you are saying 2007 Federer couldnt compete with Novak now, Federer's match against Novak at the F0'11 was one of the best matches I've seen, do you think Federer couldn't have done that on clay between 05-07?

[TheMessi]

I was just trying to question settled ideas. Answers I get are a mixed bag of "he is better but he is not..."

And yet no-one has explained here how come Federer still beats the top players who have hugely progressed since 2007 (at least no-one is denying that I believe) those same players who troubled him already in 2007.

[bogbrush]

I think Murdoch summed this ridiculous debate up wonderfully on the last page. Still, it's funny watch someone tie themselves up in ever-tighter knots trying to prove what is obviously so very mistaken.

[CAS]

I was just trying to question settled ideas. Answers I get are a mixed bag of "he is better but he is not..."

And yet no-one has explained here how come Federer still beats the top players who have hugely progressed since 2007 (at least no-one is denying that I believe) those same players who troubled him already in 2007.  

"he's better but he's not..." yep thats exactly what I said

[temporary21]

Variance is the reason Messi. Tennis doesn't have an overall skill level, where the most skilled one always wins. Fed stil beats them sometimes because he specialises more nowadays and it pays off sometimes because people don't cpunter it

[It Must Be Love]

Interesting debate.

I do think Federer has got  more inconsistent, but his best now is only marginally worse than his best during is prime.
Also agree with what Murdoch was saying about how he's changed his game- as well as racket of course.

Lastly I do think it's important to note that some of Federer's defeats lately can be explained due to injury. Many defeats in 2013, and he had back problems against Seppi in the Aus Open too.

[bogbrush]

Interesting debate.

I do think Federer has got  more inconsistent, but his best now is only marginally worse than his best during is prime.
Also agree with what Murdoch was saying about how he's changed his game- as well as racket of course.

Lastly I do think it's important to note that some of Federer's defeats lately can be explained due to injury. Many defeats in 2013, and he had back problems against Seppi in the Aus Open too.

First I've heard of that. Really?

[socal1976]

I think that the argument that Federer was better at his peak rests on 2 years only, 2005 and 2006. If you instead say that his peak was 2004-2007 then I think he was just as good in 2009-2012. Lost movement and some forehand consistency and awesomeness (perhaps partly due to court slowing), but gained on serve, flat backhands maybe and maybe some intangibles debatable. The thing is he has as many or more defeats to random lower ranked players in 2004 and 2007 as he did in 2011. I saw him play live in 2004 and it was worse than 2011 when I also say him play live.

In 2011 he was very very good, just unfortunately a notch short of Djokovic and Nadal. I honestly believe 2011 was his best FO, and who else did he lose too that year apart from his 2 main rivals? Hardly anyone. Tsonga at Wimbledon?

But move on to 2013-2015 and the argument changes. Unlike 2004-2011 when he was never losing before the semi final in a slam, or losing at any stage to anyone in a slam ranked outside the top 5, in 2013-2015 the losses in slams to players ranked 10-20 in the R4 and QF have been numerous. If that's not evidence of decline, I don't know what is. At the very least, it's evidence of lack of consistency.

I put his peak as 2004-2012 and his decline as 2013-present. The fact that he's still ranked 2 is rather bad news for Nadal and Murray at the moment I'm afraid. I also think 2011 Federer might have overhauled 2012-2015 Djokovic even, 2011 was really a quality year for all the big three. Even Nadal was no means playing badly, he just  came up against a different machine.

In the rivalry against Djokovic, Federer still appears to be at 95% of peak, but it's the losses against the likes of Robredo that really stand out compared to previous years. But back to that rivlary against Djokovic, it's Novak that's winning the bigger matches and Rog the lesser ones. The last 6 matches are tied at 3-3. But Djokovinc won the Wimbledon and IW finals which were the biggest ones in there.

In theory, point for point, Federer seems to have an edge in the rivlary but on the big point, it's Novak. The inescapable fact in the last 6 matches is that Djokovic cannot beat FEderer in straights by playing him off the court while all Federer's last 3 wins have been straights. But go to a deciding set and it's always Novak. Some may say that's physical but it could also be mental. Novak's last 3 wins were in a final set.

Maybe I'm cherry picking a bit because those last 6 matches the trend was not always the same. But if we talk of critical moments then again only one of the two really walked the walk in US Open match points.

Strange to be saying this after a match in which Djokovic threw in double faults at any key moment and nearly threw away his superiority. That first double fault almost became a turning point in a match where he had the edge almost throughout. So, I admit, that last match isn't the best one to suppport the mental argument.

Federer's body does look old, though. I think years of top play take a strain. He looks like if he keeps playing 60 matches a year until the age of 40 he'll one day wake up and barely be able to get out of bed. I have to remind myself I'm older than him, and I have to consult the bare statistics of my age and his, and I can hardly believe it. That reminds me, great Rod Laver video and comment, I thought Rod looked in great shape.

I pretty much agree with this I think Fed was very good from 09-12 but in that whole period of time we kept hearing about how passed it he was to explain away losses to his big rivals. And when his big rivals would lose to Fed the fact that they lost to the old man was used against them. Yes it is interesting how Djokovic seems to pull out the big matches recently in the rivalry (ie IW, WTF,and wimby) but has a 3-3 record in the last six against Fed.

And I also agree that when you see the early round defeats to much lower ranked opponents you can see a bit of decline. My only point on this topic is that the decline has been overstated and prematurely pointed to as a reason for Fed's losses to opponents. When part of the equation was just his opposition getting better like the case of Djokovic in 2011 or Nadal in 2010. A very good post can't really disagree with any of it.

[Born Slippy]

It seems to me that a fair assessment would be that Fed now is not dis-similar in level to his 05-06 peak (save for some stamina issues). How else could he possibly now be living with Novak? However, if he had challenging opposition in 05-06, then he would have had the capability of playing even better than now.

That strikes me as accurate, albeit whether he would have been prepared to alter his game at that age (when he generally seemed far more stubborn) I guess is questionable.

[TheMessi]

Federer's body does look old, though. I think years of top play take a strain. He looks like if he keeps playing 60 matches a year until the age of 40 he'll one day wake up and barely be able to get out of bed. I have to remind myself I'm older than him, and I have to consult the bare statistics of my age and his, and I can hardly believe it. That reminds me, great Rod Laver video and comment, I thought Rod looked in great shape.

To me it's more his game which looks old than his body. It was so obvious in last year's Wimbledon final, and again on a slow court like IW. There is simply no room at the top for a single handed BH. Regardless how talented one is. Not against such fit players who will relentlessly attack it, especially on the big points.

On slow courts Djokovic can actually force Federer to cover too much ground as he has the time to safely get to all Fed's shots but also send the ball back with sharp angles.

The larger racquet certainly helped Federer....but is it enough?

[temporary21]

There is one thing I noticed tactically that people do wrong against federer.
When rogers on the bh defence he employs a lobbed-ish slice into the bh corner to get back in it. Peoples response to this is always to run round and hit a weak forehand which fed counters on in the fh. Novak, Andy, Tomas all do this and its the wrong tactic, that play is Rogers main defensive out.
What they need to do is come in on good shots to his bh and punch that slice away on the volley. Doing so takes away Rogers slice defense a bit and forces him to drive it more, which isnt as good.

Its little tactical decisions like that, which are part of what keep roger competitive.

[Haddie-nuff]

I actually think that Fed's bh has improved immensely .. because so many have continued to exploit it.. he has worked hard on that aspect of his game  together with the change of racquet but I now I feel his forehand is not so good.  Novak won much of that match towards the end by serving to Roger's forehand forcing errors.

[socal1976]

There is one thing I noticed tactically that people do wrong against federer.
When rogers on the bh defence he employs a lobbed-ish slice into the bh corner to get back in it. Peoples response to this is always to run round and hit a weak forehand which fed counters on in the fh. Novak, Andy, Tomas all do this and its the wrong tactic, that play is Rogers main defensive out.
What they need to do is come in on good shots to his bh and punch that slice away on the volley. Doing so takes away Rogers slice defense a bit and forces him to drive it more, which isnt as good.

Its little tactical decisions like that, which are part of what keep roger competitive.

Great post I agree, Fed does chip a lot when pushed into the backhand corner and a great play is to come in an cut that off. The problem is that sometimes his chip backhand if it is biting will get below the net and once it does becomes harder and harder to do anything with and you are left volleying the ball up softly completely exposed. But I do agree and have wondered that myself in that knowing Fed is going to chip I wonder why people don't anticipate it and get in behind it.

[TheMessi]

Shame snooker is not as lively here as Tennis.

My last post here...I trust. Bye.

[temporary21]

There is one thing I noticed tactically that people do wrong against federer.
When rogers on the bh defence he employs a lobbed-ish slice into the bh corner to get back in it. Peoples response to this is always to run round and hit a weak forehand which fed counters on in the fh. Novak, Andy, Tomas all do this and its the wrong tactic, that play is Rogers main defensive out.
What they need to do is come in on good shots to his bh and punch that slice away on the volley. Doing so takes away Rogers slice defense a bit and forces him to drive it more, which isnt as good.

Its little tactical decisions like that, which are part of what keep roger competitive.

Great post I agree, Fed does chip a lot when pushed into the backhand corner and a great play is to come in an cut that off. The problem is that sometimes his chip backhand if it is biting will get below the net and once it does becomes harder and harder to do anything with and you are left volleying the ball up softly completely exposed. But I do agree and have wondered that myself in that knowing Fed is going to chip I wonder why people don't anticipate it and get in behind it.

True, is slice isnt the easiest to come in on, in that case Novak and co need to get to work on their drop volleys off of slice. Thats a huge chink in the armour that theyre ignoring.

[socal1976]

Shame snooker is not as lively here as Tennis.

My last post here...I trust. Bye.

Don't go away Messi we were just starting to get used to you. Snooker is great but I stink at it do respect the game though.

[lags72]

Interesting debate.

I do think Federer has got  more inconsistent, but his best now is only marginally worse than his best during is prime.
Also agree with what Murdoch was saying about how he's changed his game- as well as racket of course.

Lastly I do think it's important to note that some of Federer's defeats lately can be explained due to injury. Many defeats in 2013, and he had back problems against Seppi in the Aus Open too.

Back problems against Seppi.....???

Where do you get that from out of interest ....??  

I was at the RLA in Melbourne to see the match live. No hint of back problems at any stage of the match.

Seppi seemed to me to play the match of his life. Very impressive, great to watch and hard to believe he was ranked somewhere in the 40's. Federer didn't play TOO bad - but at times was missing stuff that he would normally make in his sleep.

Some of his post-match comments :
“I felt for some reason yesterday and this morning it was not going to be very simple today. Even in practice I still felt the same way. I was just hoping it was one of those feelings you sometimes have and it’s totally not true and you just come out and you play a routine match. Yeah, it was a mistake.”

Federer’s practical analysis of his performance was more prosaic: “When I maybe needed my serve the most, it wasn’t quite there, because my baseline game wasn’t there either. It went in phases. But at least I was able to iron out things a bit [in the third set] and able to play much more solid at the back end of the match. But it just broke me to lose that second set. And actually the fourth, I should win it, too. Just a brutal couple of sets to lose there … I’m on the plane and he’s not, so …”

[It Must Be Love]

Shame snooker is not as lively here as Tennis.

My last post here...I trust. Bye.

No, stay on, I didn't agree with your argument, but you argued your case well.

[It Must Be Love]

Interesting debate.

I do think Federer has got  more inconsistent, but his best now is only marginally worse than his best during is prime.
Also agree with what Murdoch was saying about how he's changed his game- as well as racket of course.

Lastly I do think it's important to note that some of Federer's defeats lately can be explained due to injury. Many defeats in 2013, and he had back problems against Seppi in the Aus Open too.

First I've heard of that. Really?

Yep, he was injured in the loss to Seppi.
Truffin at the time showed some quotes from Hewitt who was commentating during Brisbane, and Hewitt said when they were practicing before Brisbane, Federer had some real issues with 'back niggles'.
Also you could tell from the match that something was really hindering Federer, it was like in 2013 when he looked barely comfortable when the point was extended beyond 5 shots in a rally.
Furthermore in his press conference (Just checked and Lags even posted the full quote), Federer was saying 'I felt for some reason yesterday and this morning it was not going to be very simple today. Even in practice I still felt the same way.'
Why on earth would Federer randomly feel that he'd struggle against Seppi ? It's Seppi, he's the much poorer version of Ferrer.

[lags72]

You're inclined to cite injuries as an excuse way too often, IMBL.

Like I say, I was in the stadium (just a couple of rows above Mirka + Edberg ..... and Mirka seemed remarkably 'relaxed' after the defeat) and there was no hint whatever of niggles or injury. He just had a very bad day at the office. It can happen.

[bogbrush]

There is one thing I noticed tactically that people do wrong against federer.
When rogers on the bh defence he employs a lobbed-ish slice into the bh corner to get back in it. Peoples response to this is always to run round and hit a weak forehand which fed counters on in the fh. Novak, Andy, Tomas all do this and its the wrong tactic, that play is Rogers main defensive out.
What they need to do is come in on good shots to his bh and punch that slice away on the volley. Doing so takes away Rogers slice defense a bit and forces him to drive it more, which isnt as good.

Its little tactical decisions like that, which are part of what keep roger competitive.

Great post I agree, Fed does chip a lot when pushed into the backhand corner and a great play is to come in an cut that off. The problem is that sometimes his chip backhand if it is biting will get below the net and once it does becomes harder and harder to do anything with and you are left volleying the ball up softly completely exposed. But I do agree and have wondered that myself in that knowing Fed is going to chip I wonder why people don't anticipate it and get in behind it.

True, is slice isnt the easiest to come in on, in that case Novak and co need to get to work on their drop volleys off of slice. Thats a huge chink in the armour that theyre ignoring.

You really think that a bunch of amateurs on a site are spotting something the Worlds best players who actually go on Court with him haven't?

[bogbrush]

Interesting debate.

I do think Federer has got  more inconsistent, but his best now is only marginally worse than his best during is prime.
Also agree with what Murdoch was saying about how he's changed his game- as well as racket of course.

Lastly I do think it's important to note that some of Federer's defeats lately can be explained due to injury. Many defeats in 2013, and he had back problems against Seppi in the Aus Open too.

First I've heard of that. Really?

Yep, he was injured in the loss to Seppi.  
Truffin at the time showed some quotes from Hewitt who was commentating during Brisbane, and Hewitt said when they were practicing before Brisbane, Federer had some real issues with 'back niggles'.
Also you could tell from the match that something was really hindering Federer, it was like in 2013 when he looked barely comfortable when the point was extended beyond 5 shots in a rally.
Furthermore in his press conference (Just checked and Lags even posted the full quote), Federer was saying 'I felt for some reason yesterday and this morning it was not going to be very simple today. Even in practice I still felt the same way.'  
Why on earth would Federer randomly feel that he'd struggle against Seppi ? It's Seppi, he's the much poorer version of Ferrer.

I do recall that quote but put it down to a down feeling.

Dammit, I hoped he'd shaken this thing off. Bloody back has caused him vastly more problems that mono ever did.

[CAS]

Its a shame about his back, he's done incredibly well to manage it considering he's had a problem with it since he was 21. All male Swiss citizens were subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, in 2003 he was deemed unfit because of a long-standing back problem and was subsequently not required to fulfill his military obligation.

[It Must Be Love]

When Federer was younger the back injury was not such a big issue, then in 2013 it spoiled his season, and after that it periodically comes back and then goes away again quickly every 3-4 months or so.
The nature of his injury is that it could even go away after a few days, so the impact on the rest of the year may not be too bad; it comes down to luck really.

[socal1976]

There is one thing I noticed tactically that people do wrong against federer.
When rogers on the bh defence he employs a lobbed-ish slice into the bh corner to get back in it. Peoples response to this is always to run round and hit a weak forehand which fed counters on in the fh. Novak, Andy, Tomas all do this and its the wrong tactic, that play is Rogers main defensive out.
What they need to do is come in on good shots to his bh and punch that slice away on the volley. Doing so takes away Rogers slice defense a bit and forces him to drive it more, which isnt as good.

Its little tactical decisions like that, which are part of what keep roger competitive.

Great post I agree, Fed does chip a lot when pushed into the backhand corner and a great play is to come in an cut that off. The problem is that sometimes his chip backhand if it is biting will get below the net and once it does becomes harder and harder to do anything with and you are left volleying the ball up softly completely exposed. But I do agree and have wondered that myself in that knowing Fed is going to chip I wonder why people don't anticipate it and get in behind it.

True, is slice isnt the easiest to come in on, in that case Novak and co need to get to work on their drop volleys off of slice. Thats a huge chink in the armour that theyre ignoring.

You really think that a bunch of amateurs on a site are spotting something the Worlds best players who actually go on Court with him haven't?

Its tennis discussion BB, and we are wondering about a tactical issue. You know if you don't like a thread or a conversation within the thread you aren't obligated to tell those who are they are silly to talk about it.

[It Must Be Love]

You're inclined to cite injuries as an excuse way too often, IMBL.

Like I say, I was in the stadium (just a couple of rows above Mirka + Edberg ..... and Mirka seemed remarkably 'relaxed' after the defeat) and there was no hint whatever of niggles or injury. He just had a very bad day at the office. It can happen.

It's possible that it was just a bad day, but in my judgement very unlikely given what we know about Federer's circumstances in the last couple of years.
I may also add from the match, it's not just his ground game was so alarming, but his movement seemed stiff and his serve was hapless
I don't see injuries as excuses, they're part of the sport, and can be factors/ reasons for defeats.

[temporary21]

They probably do know about it bb. The likely reason they're not confident to do it is they don't feel comfortable on the volley. Feds playing good at the mo though and soo I think they should look to exploit what they can.

[temporary21]

Whilst I appreciate federes back trouble I think we're being disrespectful to seppi, who fully deserved his scalp. It's as though we feel he didn't deserve it which I don't think is trud

[Sponsored content]