Federer's return tactic

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:34 pm

Now that Cininnati is over. Maybe this topic should have a thread of it's own?

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:39 pm

uh oh. Well it certainly warrants one.
May as well summarise my thoughts then
It can go both ways, one might say its a great way to get in the head of the opposition.

I think the opposite, it might send the opposition the idea, that Federer, is now using an almost kamikaze tactic to try and put them off. Now hes shown his hand that might encourage them.

Its like hooking a Mitchell Johnson bouncer for 6, the big stache is laughing.

Also to clarify, its a perfectly legit move, particularly the way he did it in the final. The Anderson type one im not soo sure how I feel about, more than anything its too easy to see anyway.

To conclude, Id rather he intimidate them by running round second serves a lot lot more, its a better odds play.

by Jahu Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:41 pm

Yes, also we need a thread where we can bash Djoko collectively, I''m getting tired here doing it all alone with no help from others. HELP!!!

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:44 pm

This is from the ATP rulebook

8) “Hindrance.” If a player deliberately or involuntarily commits an act which hinders his opponent in making a stroke.

2) Inadvertent or Deliberate event. A distraction occurring on-court may be ruled inadvertent (unintentional) or ruled deliberate.

b) Any distraction caused by a player may be ruled deliberate and result in the loss of a point (intentional or unintentional). Deliberate is defined as the player meant to do what it was that caused the hindrance or distraction.

Is it distracting for an opponent to move whilst a server is in the process of serving? Is it distraction that makes Federer's return tactic effective?

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:45 pm

Kamikaze? That was a largely unsuccessful, suicidal tactic employed by Japan against American ships that had no useful impact.

The Federer half-volley approach was quite successful, innovative, and almost Universally (except in pockets of 606v2) lauded tactic that was implemented over 5 matches.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:46 pm

hawkeye wrote:This is from the ATP rulebook

8) “Hindrance.” If a player deliberately or involuntarily commits an act which hinders his opponent in making a stroke.

2) Inadvertent or Deliberate event. A distraction occurring on-court may be ruled inadvertent (unintentional) or ruled deliberate.

b) Any distraction caused by a player may be ruled deliberate and result in the loss of a point (intentional or unintentional). Deliberate is defined as the player meant to do what it was that caused the hindrance or distraction.

Is it distracting for an opponent to move whilst a server is in the process of serving? Is it distraction that makes Federer's return tactic effective?

No, and no.

You know how I know it wasn't a hindrance as defined in the handbook? All the guys 2nd serves when he did it were right up to their usual standard.

Here endeth that debate.

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:51 pm

8) No, it doesnt affect the swing, shouting loudly might be hindrance because it makes the player jump.

b) Clearly not the intent of the move, though he meant to come in, hes not meaning to come in as a means to distract, the Anderson one an opponent might complain about, but thats because hes running in.

His tactics not effective for distraction, its just really surprising, its not a good tactic if theyre ready for it

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:55 pm

temporary21 wrote:

I think the opposite, it might send the opposition the idea, that Federer, is now using an almost kamikaze tactic to try and put them off. Now hes shown his hand that might encourage them.

I don't like it for that reason. It does look as if it's being used to put his opponent off no matter what the intention. Far from classy and not really in the spirit of the sport even if it can be argued that it doesn't break the existing hindrance/distraction rules. Although I'm a bit on the fence about whether it does.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 4:56 pm

Time will tell but I'm sure he'll appreciate the concern from 606v2.

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:00 pm

bogbrush wrote:

Here endeth that debate.

We don't have to debate things here. Just wait for your judgement chin

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:05 pm

hawkeye wrote:
temporary21 wrote:

I think the opposite, it might send the opposition the idea, that Federer, is now using an almost kamikaze tactic to try and put them off. Now hes shown his hand that might encourage them.

I don't like it for that reason. It does look as if it's being used to put his opponent off no matter what the intention. Far from classy and not really in the spirit of the sport even if it can be argued that it doesn't break the existing hindrance/distraction rules. Although I'm a bit on the fence about whether it does.

Spirit of the sport? Please elaborate.

It can't possibly be used as a hindrance/distraction. One because it's not. And no one has said otherwise. And two..i'll repost my.post from other thread around the logistics behind that particular phase of the game to show how the server is always in control of the situation.

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:13 pm

It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit. Perfectly legitimate and well within the spirit of the game, hence many of the great players past and present are applauding it. (Doing something different to win a point - imagine that! Surely it must be stopped!)

Will other players be ready for it? No more so than stepping out wide in the ad court and hitting an inside out return. It's just another option that the server now needs to cover. I think it made sense to try it out an Cinci - if it didn't work he'd have only potentially lost out in a Masters match. To try it out and potentially have it backfire in a slam would have been foolish - even if it had worked it would no longer have been a secret after round 2.

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:16 pm

Remember that if the returner is putting the server off, the server can pull out of the service motion if he feels hard done to. The server still always has control. So there's no harm done. Once the serve is in motion, he can't possibly watch the ball and his.opponent at the same time. So again, no problem.

Hawkeye, you have yet to supply us with information where this has been widely discussed in a negative context? As per your initial comment on another thread.

Is it only you that thinks it is a hindrance/distraction? If so fine. But I'm sure we'd all appreciate other views on it. Especially from players or other ex professionals or respected commentators. However I can't find anything.

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:18 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit. Perfectly legitimate and well within the spirit of the game, hence many of the great players past and present are applauding it. (Doing something different to win a point - imagine that! Surely it must be stopped!)

Will other players be ready for it? No more so than stepping out wide in the ad court and hitting an inside out return. It's just another option that the server now needs to cover. I think it made sense to try it out an Cinci - if it didn't work he'd have only potentially lost out in a Masters match. To try it out and potentially have it backfire in a slam would have been foolish - even if it had worked it would no longer have been a secret after round 2.

Precisely. Why is it ok to move side to side, even backwards when returning the serve? But moving forwards.....

by R!skysports Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:24 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit. Perfectly legitimate and well within the spirit of the game, hence many of the great players past and present are applauding it. (Doing something different to win a point - imagine that! Surely it must be stopped!)

Will other players be ready for it? No more so than stepping out wide in the ad court and hitting an inside out return. It's just another option that the server now needs to cover. I think it made sense to try it out an Cinci - if it didn't work he'd have only potentially lost out in a Masters match. To try it out and potentially have it backfire in a slam would have been foolish - even if it had worked it would no longer have been a secret after round 2.

Precisely. Why is it ok to move side to side, even backwards when returning the serve? But moving forwards.....

Murray always moves forward on every serve. Not thought of as a hindrance etc

by lags72 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:27 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:

........................................

Hawkeye, you have yet to supply us with information where this has been widely discussed in a negative context? As per your initial comment on another thread.

..................................................

I've tried hard on that one myself jj. Twice in fact. Have pretty much given up hope.

Short of persuading the Courts to issue a Subpoena, I don't think we're likely to get anything.

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:28 pm

Anyway, hopefully not in trouble with this link heres the Anderson one
https://www.facebook.com/TennisTV/videos/10153572871428958/

Its quite different and I could at least understand why you might feel thats too far a movement, its not a couple of steps, but a jog almost

dunno about lack of spirit though.

He nearly got lobbed though, the end product was a central approach but not much on it

Also never underestimate the kamikaze, had Japan had any real military strength left it could have been real dicey

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:29 pm

Riskysports wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit. Perfectly legitimate and well within the spirit of the game, hence many of the great players past and present are applauding it. (Doing something different to win a point - imagine that! Surely it must be stopped!)

Will other players be ready for it? No more so than stepping out wide in the ad court and hitting an inside out return. It's just another option that the server now needs to cover. I think it made sense to try it out an Cinci - if it didn't work he'd have only potentially lost out in a Masters match. To try it out and potentially have it backfire in a slam would have been foolish - even if it had worked it would no longer have been a secret after round 2.

Precisely. Why is it ok to move side to side, even backwards when returning the serve? But moving forwards.....

Murray always moves forward on every serve. Not thought of as a hindrance etc

Maybe we need another line!! Between the service and base line. A line the player returning serve can't pass.

Or better yet, he should be made to sit in a chair.

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:33 pm

lags72 wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:

........................................

Hawkeye, you have yet to supply us with information where this has been widely discussed in a negative context? As per your initial comment on another thread.

..................................................

I've tried hard on that one myself jj. Twice in fact. Have pretty much given up hope.

Short of persuading the Courts to issue a Subpoena, I don't think we're likely to get anything.

Haha maybe Fed can persue a civil claim against HE? For suggesting his actions are against the spirit of the game. Pretty damaging that. Especially in the public domain.

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:37 pm

temporary21 wrote:Anyway, hopefully not in trouble with this link heres the Anderson one
https://www.facebook.com/TennisTV/videos/10153572871428958/

Its quite different and I could at least understand why you might feel thats too far a movement, its not a couple of steps, but a jog almost

dunno about lack of spirit though.

He nearly got lobbed though, the end product was a central approach but not much on it

Also never underestimate the kamikaze, had Japan had any real military strength left it could have been real dicey

Thanks for the link Temp.

There is absolutely no way this is distracting to the server. Anderson is clearly looking up to the ball before Fed makes a move forward. He can't possibly be distracted.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:49 pm

In some ways this new play should have been expected. He's been celebrated for his half-volley baseline shots for many years, this is just an extension.

The more I look at it, the more I can see it being a real challenge for some players to handle. Look at Anderson - he doesn't have the speed of shot to handle the ball being back at him while he's yet to recover from the service motion. It's no wonder the game is s excited, it's such a long time since the last true innovation - I can't really remember one.

This is like the reverse sweep at cricket: when it was first done some traditionalists tut-tutted, now it's regarded as mainstream.

by lags72 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 5:55 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:

.........................................

Haha maybe Fed can persue a civil claim against HE? For suggesting his actions are against the spirit of the game. Pretty damaging that. Especially in the public domain.

Well who can say ....there might be all sorts of other (maybe high-profile ...??) individuals to be pursued in law, especially given that hawkeye told us that many people apparently "don't consider it sporting" and that such opinions are being "discussed widely"

Mind you ........the Courts would need to find out exactly who these people are first. Nobody here seems to know - least of all hawkeye. Headscratch

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:03 pm

lags72 wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:

.........................................

Haha maybe Fed can persue a civil claim against HE? For suggesting his actions are against the spirit of the game. Pretty damaging that. Especially in the public domain.

Well who can say ....there might be all sorts of other (maybe high-profile ...??) individuals to be pursued in law, especially given that hawkeye told us that many people apparently "don't consider it sporting" and that such opinions are being "discussed widely"

Mind you ........the Courts would need to find out exactly who these people are first. Nobody here seems to know - least of all hawkeye.

Yes, we'll be waiting a while I suggest.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:
bogbrush wrote:

Here endeth that debate.

We don't have to debate things here. Just wait for your judgement

by Jahu Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:24 pm

This is libel!!!

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:31 pm

Debate then HE.

Tell us why it is against the spirit of the game?

Tell us why it is ok to move sidewards or backwards...but not forwards?

Tell us who else is viewing this negatively?

Tell us how it is violating any rules?

These are questions that you haven't come close to answering or seem keen on debating. As you just remain silent.

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:34 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:

by hawkeye Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:34 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit.

If that was purely the case then why not move up to a position further up the court before the server serves. If Federer wants to stand at the service line to receive that is his choice. But why move when the server is in the middle of his service action? At this point it's not as if he can be making a judgement about where or how hard the serve is going to be hit. What does Federer gain by moving during the service motion? Intentionally or not it could be a hindrance or distraction. If the crowd moves behind the receiver the server will often catch the ball and start again.

I think it was bogbrush who said that no player had complained but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be judged as a hindrance. Federer is leaving himself open to a complaint and a complaint being upheld.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:43 pm

I think it was bogbrush who said that no player had complained but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be judged as a hindrance. Federer is leaving himself open to a complaint and a complaint being upheld.

:shock:In the words of JMcE...You cant be.......!!! Wink

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:47 pm

So the server can again choose to the catch the ball if he is distracted by the opponent. So no problem. The server can't complain about being distracted after the event, if he is in control of the situation...which he is.

Why does he move to a differen position on the court to where he was? Well, why does anyone?!

It is his prerogative where he chooses to hit the ball on his side of the court. Is it any worse than retreating to the back of a clay court (while the server is motion) to be in a better position to hit a shot? of course not.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:52 pm

Still no response from the Chuckle Sisters to my very clear and decisive point that........

IT CAN'T BE HINDRANCE IF THE SERVERS ALL SERVED PERFECTLY WELL.

Come on ladies, rather than cackle behind your huggies, respond.

by greengoblin Tue 25 Aug 2015, 6:54 pm

I also ask for HE to substantiate his comment on the other thread.

If a player moved around to hit a forehand, he would choose to start that move when the opponent has tossed the ball up for obvious reasons. What is the difference here?

by lags72 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:07 pm

I was just thinking how hawkeye's articles often resemble one of those press conferences where a politician comes in to the room, steps up to the lectern, makes a (contentious) announcement to a puzzled-looking audience, but then says ............

"I'm afraid I won't be taking any questions ....."

by **JuliusHMarx** Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:10 pm

hawkeye wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:It's not a hindrance. It's not designed to put people off. It's moving forward to hit the return of serve further up the court than it would otherwise be hit.

If that was purely the case then why not move up to a position further up the court before the server serves. If Federer wants to stand at the service line to receive that is his choice. But why move when the server is in the middle of his service action? At this point it's not as if he can be making a judgement about where or how hard the serve is going to be hit. What does Federer gain by moving during the service motion? Intentionally or not it could be a hindrance or distraction. If the crowd moves behind the receiver the server will often catch the ball and start again.

I think it was bogbrush who said that no player had complained but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be judged as a hindrance. Federer is leaving himself open to a complaint and a complaint being upheld.

Clearly the idea is to catch the server off guard - that's what he gains - that's not a hindrance, it's a tactic, the element of surprise. The same way players move to the outside the tramlines to hit an inside out forehand return - they don't stand there outside the tramlines waiting for the serve.

The idea that he might leave himself open to a complaint that would be upheld - I find it amazing that anyone with a decent knowledge of the game would think that.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:15 pm

bogbrush wrote:Still no response from the Chuckle Sisters to my very clear and decisive point that........

IT CAN'T BE HINDRANCE IF THE SERVERS ALL SERVED PERFECTLY WELL.

Come on ladies, rather than cackle behind your huggies, respond.

..Me ??? have an opinion??? Don't dare it might disagree with yours and that would never do.
Carry on ...whilst I cackle behind my huggy you are becoming quite the entertainer laughing

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:23 pm

Well I mean from now on as soon as the server sees him motoring up at the corner of his eye he can catch it now.
Going from behind the baseline, to the service line in about a second is quite extreme, the shortened one would both be better and mean the server cant see it, stop and then get Roger in some possible trouble by claiming distraction

I suppose a question would be. Say someone notices a big run up, stops and then claims distraction to the umpire? We wouldnt want it to turn into a game of guess the bluff serve.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:26 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Still no response from the Chuckle Sisters to my very clear and decisive point that........

IT CAN'T BE HINDRANCE IF THE SERVERS ALL SERVED PERFECTLY WELL.

Come on ladies, rather than cackle behind your huggies, respond.

..Me ??? have an opinion??? Don't dare it might disagree with yours and that would never do.
Carry on ...whilst I cackle behind my huggy you are becoming quite the entertainer

So still no answer then.

No surprise there.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:30 pm

temporary21 wrote:Well I mean from now on as soon as the server sees him motoring up at the corner of his eye he can catch it now.
Going from behind the baseline, to the service line in about a second is quite extreme, the shortened one would both be better and mean the server cant see it, stop and then get Roger in some possible trouble by claiming distraction

I suppose a question would be. Say someone notices a big run up, stops and then claims distraction to the umpire? We wouldnt want it to turn into a game of guess the bluff serve.

So we've gone from it being a hindrance, to worrying he's lost the surprise, to being concerned that he'll be passed, and now we've arrived at being worried someone might catch the ball (ignoring that nobody does that when a player runs around the backhand).

What next?

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:32 pm

Ok dare I say it I suppose.
Just because they got their serves in doesnt necessarily mean it could not have possibly been hindrance.
Its a bit like saying someones a good driver because they got you there, they could still be a dangerous driver but it just didnt show.

Its not hindrance because it happened to not seem to affect their serve,
That said it definitely isnt hindrance for many other good reasons though

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:33 pm

bogbrush wrote:
temporary21 wrote:Well I mean from now on as soon as the server sees him motoring up at the corner of his eye he can catch it now.
Going from behind the baseline, to the service line in about a second is quite extreme, the shortened one would both be better and mean the server cant see it, stop and then get Roger in some possible trouble by claiming distraction

I suppose a question would be. Say someone notices a big run up, stops and then claims distraction to the umpire? We wouldnt want it to turn into a game of guess the bluff serve.
So we've gone from it being a hindrance, to worrying he's lost the surprise, to being concerned that he'll be passed, and now we've arrived at being worried someone might catch the ball (ignoring that nobody does that when a player runs around the backhand).

What next?

I thought I addressed the hindrance thing, that was your misunderstanding.
BB its not one then the other, its all those things, not many people have ever done it because its not got much going for it after the first tourny you do it in.

by bogbrush Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:35 pm

It was YOUR word.

As for your last point, I'm sure he'll get by, though having all the former pros drooling might distract him from your truth.

by temporary21 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:38 pm

Not the point is it? Only one person has explicitly thought this was hindrance, and it wasnt me.

Remember Virignie Razzano v Serena Williams 1st round of the FO, serving for the match, Razanno screeched in pain and hindrance was called, didnt actually affect Serenas shot at all, and wasnt intended, but had to be called anyway.

It doesnt have to cause hindrance to be a potential one, its all lost anyway because im not saying it is, im suggesting the linked one might be flirting with it.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:43 pm

bogbrush wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Still no response from the Chuckle Sisters to my very clear and decisive point that........

IT CAN'T BE HINDRANCE IF THE SERVERS ALL SERVED PERFECTLY WELL.

Come on ladies, rather than cackle behind your huggies, respond.

..Me ??? have an opinion??? Don't dare it might disagree with yours and that would never do.
Carry on ...whilst I cackle behind my huggy you are becoming quite the entertainer
So still no answer then.

No surprise there.

No and you wont for temps sake. Anyone having a different opinion to yours is the declaration of war at the best of times .. even worse to even dare hint at the fact that your idol is anything short of the epitome of a sportsman will bring down hell and damnation upon oneself .I leave you the disciple to continue to spread the good word to all those non believers.... as I said carry on "we" are quite amused. Cool

by LuvSports! Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:48 pm

Do you think it is hindrance haddie?

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:52 pm

Oh very clever.. are you BB's sidekick LS ???
Not getting trapped in that one.. Ill leave you to make up my mind for me...
OH..by the way when you do be sure to tell BB.. but be gentle with him Wink

by LuvSports! Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:55 pm

It was a genuine question away from the squabbles. I asked because I would like to know. Simple. You inferred incorrectly.

by lags72 Tue 25 Aug 2015, 7:58 pm

Whoah !

People react to the most simple of questions in a very odd way.

Where's the trap .... Headscratch

It's a tennis forum, not a murder trial !

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 8:02 pm

Ok let me answer the question with a question.

Had such a tactic been employed by Djokovic or Nadal against Federer
do you not think that question would not have already been answered Wink

Im saying no more.

by Johnyjeep Tue 25 Aug 2015, 8:03 pm

lags72 wrote:Whoah !

People react to the most simple of questions in a very odd way.

Where's the trap ....

It's a tennis forum, not a murder trial !

It's unbelievable isn't it.

Not for the first time today, a simple question is asked..and get no answer and accused of all sorts.

by Haddie-nuff Tue 25 Aug 2015, 8:04 pm

lags72 wrote:Whoah !

People react to the most simple of questions in a very odd way.

Where's the trap ....

It's a tennis forum, not a murder trial !

Im being enticed into an argument with BB lags if you cannot see that scroll back Im having none of it

by Sponsored content