A Modest(ly) Insane Proposal for Fed

[Tennis Miller]

My working assumption: He can't do much worse in 2014 than this year. One title at Halle. With an inability to beat anyone at the top except Delpo, and slipping into irrelevance as a serious contender for slam titles, he needs to do something bold.

He can't even handle Djoker or Rafa on Fed's best surface indoors anymore.

He's not going to make any significant mark this year with just a few tweaks.

So here it is: Larger racket AND a 2-handed backhand.

Don't tell me he can't learn to hit it competently in a few months. Ten year olds can hit this shot.

Imagine how much fun it would be to see Rafa start that "Groundhog Day" pattern of pounding to Fed's backhand, and have Fed respond with a Djokovic-like rifled 2-hander x-court or up the line!

In my mind, the alternative is to watch Roger do the farewell tour thing, and slowly slip further into slam and Masters oblivion.

Com'on, tell me this wouldn't be something to see. He can still hit his patented 1-hand slice. And if it didn't work, what's the worst that could happen. He wins no tournaments instead of 1 ?

I'm mostly serious. There's little tennis now except DC, so I say now's the time to go bold or go home. What do you think?

Even if it didn't work, I think it might give him renewed motivation and focus. I also think most would applaud the effort, and it would certainly make his matches more interesting and watchable than the increasingly semi-sad shankfest spectacles we're getting used to.

Cheers

TM

 

[brokenshoelace]

Don't want to sound harsh, but this is indeed insane.

Ignoring the fact that he'll have to ditch years of muscle memory (and great success!) to completely revamp the mechanics and technique of a shot, it's still crazy, and I can highlight it with a simple question:

Let's say Roger can make the transition to a double handed backhand. What purpose does it accomplish? There's this misconception that double hander > two hander. That's not true. Who possesses a better backhand, Gasquet or Tsonga?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

It is not modestly insane brother, it is totally bananas. It is like learning a shot from scratch, training different muscle groups, adjusting your body and movement. To him, at this stage, it would feel like learning a different sport all together. It would be like trying to teach Shaq a different way to shoot a free throw...a futile exercise....

But I like the fact that you care.

 

[Tennis Miller]

Broken and Murat. I think his current backhand muscle memory already has a touch of Alzheimer's, judging by its ever-increasing shankitude . He could add a 2-hander to his repertoire for occasional use in a matter of months. You think Rafa didn't change his serve (and overcome years of muscle memory) in 2010 and win the US Open? Pretty sure he did.... You don't give this amazing athlete enough credit.

Besides, what else is he going to work on this year that would slow the inexorable decline into relative mediocrity (for him).

(By the way, I know it's a little insane, but it's not TOTALLY full-on bananas)

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Tennis Miller, what Rafa did was a TWEAK...What you are proposing is a fundamental change. Roger is not shanking because he lost the ability to hit that shot. He is shanking because he is not there in time to hit the shot. It's got to do with the legs, not the hand.

 

[Fastgrass]

Don't listen to this Turtle Head , Leave him alone .
Oh he is already alone.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken and Murat. I think his current backhand muscle memory already has a touch of Alzheimer's, judging by its ever-increasing shankitude . He could add a 2-hander to his repertoire for occasional use in a matter of months. You think Rafa didn't change his serve (and overcome years of muscle memory) in 2010 and win the US Open? Pretty sure he did.... You don't give this amazing athlete enough credit.

Besides, what else is he going to work on this year that would slow the inexorable decline into relative mediocrity (for him).

(By the way, I know it's a little insane, but it's not TOTALLY full-on bananas)

Nadal slightly modifying his serve (tweaking the motion a bit and changing the grip) is completely different that flat out switching from a one handed backhand to a double hander. I think Roger would stand a far better chance at improving with a few modifications (ie better movement, using his slice more, trying to hit through the backhand, etc...) as opposed to making any radical changes.

Again, my question is, what makes you think a double handed backhand is better? Who's to say he'll develop a GOOD double handed backhand?

 

[shawnbm]

Broken said something I believe is fairly close to a solution. Slice more and more UP THE LINE in matches against Rafa and cross court to Nole and Murray with lots of bite. Against Nadal, he must really work on movement to the FH side and hit the up the line FH better than in the last four years. He does not shank the slice. He should use it more as a strategic set up weapon. His drive BH is plenty good, it is just not able anymore to withstand the constant barrage of looping, spinny FHs at any angle. He can slice it at will practically anywhere and it not a shot too many guys hit a winner off of--no FLOATERS though. I think those two things would assist him, along with doing what he can to better place his serves; he lost a bit on service this year. See? I should be a top ten player! LOL

 

[DarthFed]

Well at this point his 1 handed backhand is a weakness outright. Everyone is munching on the weak shot it has become. But it is just too extreme to change to two hands. As Broken and Murat said, it'd be a totally different sport to him and it'd look downright silly. Even talented juniors (say age 14-16) probably won't change what they've done for 7-8 years, let alone a 32 year old soon to be retired that has hit a 1 HBH for 20+ years.

New racquet, possibly new coach, and a failure to accept "scrubhood" (for lack of a better term). That is what can turn it around for Roger. I get the strong sense that the losses don't bother him anymore and when that happens it affects the fighting ability when things are tight. In 2012 Roger played great in large part because he dug in and won the close sets, turned around matches that he was losing, etc. You saw no signs of that in 2013. That goes beyond 1HBH vs. 2HBH, goes beyond movement, etc. Roger has to fight hard like the rest of them, and do his best to pretend that he hasn't won enough.

 

[Tennis Miller]

Broken and Murat. I think his current backhand muscle memory already has a touch of Alzheimer's, judging by its ever-increasing shankitude . He could add a 2-hander to his repertoire for occasional use in a matter of months. You think Rafa didn't change his serve (and overcome years of muscle memory) in 2010 and win the US Open? Pretty sure he did.... You don't give this amazing athlete enough credit.

Besides, what else is he going to work on this year that would slow the inexorable decline into relative mediocrity (for him).

(By the way, I know it's a little insane, but it's not TOTALLY full-on bananas)

Nadal slightly modifying his serve (tweaking the motion a bit and changing the grip) is completely different that flat out switching from a one handed backhand to a double hander. I think Roger would stand a far better chance at improving with a few modifications (ie better movement, using his slice more, trying to hit through the backhand, etc...) as opposed to making any radical changes.

Again, my question is, what makes you think a double handed backhand is better? Who's to say he'll develop a GOOD double handed backhand?

Here is my answer to your question. He can try adding the two hander for higher balls. Yes, it's clearly better to hit a two-hander when the ball is above the shoulder. Even a 5'10" guy like Davydenko didn't get blown off the court the way Fed does by Rafa's high bounding FH to Davy's 2-handed backhand. So yes, I'm absolutely saying a two-handed backhand is BETTER for higher balls, for most people not named Wawrinka. And I'm saying Fed could add it to his repertoire in fairly short order. And I'm saying even if it's MEDIOCRE, it will be better than the 1-handed ducks he's been sending back to Rafa or anyone else who gets it high to his BH. And I'm saying why not even try something?

And by the way, where is the love for my comment that the muscle memory on his 1-hander seems to have Alzheimers?

Cheers

TM

 

[shawnbm]

New racquet, possibly new coach, and a failure to accept "scrubhood" (for lack of a better term). That is what can turn it around for Roger. I get the strong sense that the losses don't bother him anymore and when that happens it affects the fighting ability when things are tight. In 2012 Roger played great in large part because he dug in and won the close sets, turned around matches that he was losing, etc. You saw no signs of that in 2013. That goes beyond 1HBH vs. 2HBH, goes beyond movement, etc. Roger has to fight hard like the rest of them, and do his best to pretend that he hasn't won enough.

The part I quote above got me thinking. I don't know TMF's mindset or if it changed between 2012 and 2013. The results were certainly different and he beat a lot more of the same top five and top ten players. Now, IF the conjecture above could be shown to be true, then it may well be curtains for Fed. The sting of losing can be a powerful motivating factor--in some people. Does Roger feel that now? Has he ever (other than in Miami back in 2009 with the racquet smashing incident against Nole)? I don't know. Maybe he is a guy who likes winning more than hates losing. I think the topic has come up here in the past. I am not in a position to know, but it could be he has more "fear" as the years go by like Navratilova spoke of. One can't win forever; others inevitably step up and take what you once had.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Tennis Miller, there is no such thing as " adding to his repertoire in fairly short order" in tennis when you are talking about making such a fundamental change. Let me put it this way, you are not happy with his current backhand and THAT took him YEARS to develop. By the time his double hander is performance worthy, he will be teaching it to his grandchildren.

 

[DarthFed]

New racquet, possibly new coach, and a failure to accept "scrubhood" (for lack of a better term). That is what can turn it around for Roger. I get the strong sense that the losses don't bother him anymore and when that happens it affects the fighting ability when things are tight. In 2012 Roger played great in large part because he dug in and won the close sets, turned around matches that he was losing, etc. You saw no signs of that in 2013. That goes beyond 1HBH vs. 2HBH, goes beyond movement, etc. Roger has to fight hard like the rest of them, and do his best to pretend that he hasn't won enough.

The part I quote above got me thinking. I don't know TMF's mindset or if it changed between 2012 and 2013. The results were certainly different and he beat a lot more of the same top five and top ten players. Now, IF the conjecture above could be shown to be true, then it may well be curtains for Fed. The sting of losing can be a powerful motivating factor--in some people. Does Roger feel that now? Has he ever (other than in Miami back in 2009 with the racquet smashing incident against Nole)? I don't know. Maybe he is a guy who likes winning more than hates losing. I think the topic has come up here in the past. I am not in a position to know, but it could be he has more "fear" as the years go by like Navratilova spoke of. One can't win forever; others inevitably step up and take what you once had.

It's conjecture but it really isn't. You can tell over the years the losses that really stung based on body language and interviews. In 2013 despite some really ugly losses you aren't seeing the same things. It is more "going through the motions" and hoping he somehow starts playing well. There is a lack of focus resulting in the sudden drops in play and then there is a lack of fight resulting in a lot of easy straight set losses and poor record in decisive sets.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

oh but roger can do a lot worse than this season, seeing as he finished world no 6 rank this year.

he could finish 2014 as world no62 rank..near lleyton Hewitt, or 398 rank..near Christian garin.

 

[Fastgrass]

oh but roger can do a lot worse than this season, seeing as he finished world no 6 rank this year.

he could finish 2014 as world no62 rank..near lleyton Hewitt, or 398 rank..near Christian garin.

I think can do this 4 - 400

 

[DarthFed]

oh but roger can do a lot worse than this season, seeing as he finished world no 6 rank this year.

he could finish 2014 as world no62 rank..near lleyton Hewitt, or 398 rank..near Christian garin.

I think can do this 4 - 400

A very narrow range to put Roger at :lolz:

 

[Tennis Miller]

New racquet, possibly new coach, and a failure to accept "scrubhood" (for lack of a better term). That is what can turn it around for Roger. I get the strong sense that the losses don't bother him anymore and when that happens it affects the fighting ability when things are tight. In 2012 Roger played great in large part because he dug in and won the close sets, turned around matches that he was losing, etc. You saw no signs of that in 2013. That goes beyond 1HBH vs. 2HBH, goes beyond movement, etc. Roger has to fight hard like the rest of them, and do his best to pretend that he hasn't won enough.

The part I quote above got me thinking. I don't know TMF's mindset or if it changed between 2012 and 2013. The results were certainly different and he beat a lot more of the same top five and top ten players. Now, IF the conjecture above could be shown to be true, then it may well be curtains for Fed. The sting of losing can be a powerful motivating factor--in some people. Does Roger feel that now? Has he ever (other than in Miami back in 2009 with the racquet smashing incident against Nole)? I don't know. Maybe he is a guy who likes winning more than hates losing. I think the topic has come up here in the past. I am not in a position to know, but it could be he has more "fear" as the years go by like Navratilova spoke of. One can't win forever; others inevitably step up and take what you once had.

It's conjecture but it really isn't. You can tell over the years the losses that really stung based on body language and interviews. In 2013 despite some really ugly losses you aren't seeing the same things. It is more "going through the motions" and hoping he somehow starts playing well. There is a lack of focus resulting in the sudden drops in play and then there is a lack of fight resulting in a lot of easy straight set losses and poor record in decisive sets.

The first big loss where it weirdly didn't seem to bother him was the 2009 USO. Maybe just having won the French, which he probably thought was near impossible as long as Rafa had breath, while also just having won Wimbledon and breaking Sampras' GS record, took some edge off.. at least temporarily. He'd just achieved two monumental quests within two weeks of each other that summer. Possibly a bit overwhelming, and maybe he felt at the USO, I lost, but I can't complain. Plus he seemed to really like Delpo...

Cheers

TM

 

[Fastgrass]

oh but roger can do a lot worse than this season, seeing as he finished world no 6 rank this year.

he could finish 2014 as world no62 rank..near lleyton Hewitt, or 398 rank..near Christian garin.

I think can do this 4 - 400

A very narrow range to put Roger at :lolz:

Who in no 4 baby ?

 

[DarthFed]

New racquet, possibly new coach, and a failure to accept "scrubhood" (for lack of a better term). That is what can turn it around for Roger. I get the strong sense that the losses don't bother him anymore and when that happens it affects the fighting ability when things are tight. In 2012 Roger played great in large part because he dug in and won the close sets, turned around matches that he was losing, etc. You saw no signs of that in 2013. That goes beyond 1HBH vs. 2HBH, goes beyond movement, etc. Roger has to fight hard like the rest of them, and do his best to pretend that he hasn't won enough.

The part I quote above got me thinking. I don't know TMF's mindset or if it changed between 2012 and 2013. The results were certainly different and he beat a lot more of the same top five and top ten players. Now, IF the conjecture above could be shown to be true, then it may well be curtains for Fed. The sting of losing can be a powerful motivating factor--in some people. Does Roger feel that now? Has he ever (other than in Miami back in 2009 with the racquet smashing incident against Nole)? I don't know. Maybe he is a guy who likes winning more than hates losing. I think the topic has come up here in the past. I am not in a position to know, but it could be he has more "fear" as the years go by like Navratilova spoke of. One can't win forever; others inevitably step up and take what you once had.

It's conjecture but it really isn't. You can tell over the years the losses that really stung based on body language and interviews. In 2013 despite some really ugly losses you aren't seeing the same things. It is more "going through the motions" and hoping he somehow starts playing well. There is a lack of focus resulting in the sudden drops in play and then there is a lack of fight resulting in a lot of easy straight set losses and poor record in decisive sets.

The first big loss where it weirdly didn't seem to bother him was the 2009 USO. Maybe just having won the French, which he probably thought was near impossible as long as Rafa had breath, while also just having won Wimbledon and breaking Sampras' GS record, took some edge off.. at least temporarily. He'd just achieved two monumental quests within two weeks of each other that summer. Possibly a bit overwhelming, and maybe he felt at the USO, I lost, but I can't complain. Plus he seemed to really like Delpo...

Cheers

TM

Completely agree, but that was temporary back then. That ended up being a rather big loss in many ways and a weak as hell one at that. He would be the undisputed king of New York, the only one to win a slam 6 straight, and if he had won AO 2010 (pressure would have changed) he would have held the non calendar year slam. It was a massive loss. But at the time who could blame him for being content.

The question now is whether he will ever regain the hunger, and if it is even possible at this point?

 

[Tennis Miller]

Tennis Miller, there is no such thing as " adding to his repertoire in fairly short order" in tennis when you are talking about making such a fundamental change. Let me put it this way, you are not happy with his current backhand and THAT took him YEARS to develop. By the time his double hander is performance worthy, he will be teaching it to his grandchildren.

I'm not unhappy with his backhand overall, just his high backhand, which is really limited in his case simply by strength at the higher shoulder height. By the way, I'd be shocked if Roger doesn't already know how to hit a 2-handed BH.

By the way, I fully acknowledge that this is at least 30% crazy. But it's not full-on, dismiss out of hand stuff.

And I'm not sure why anyone would think he couldn't ADD the high 2-hander as an option with several months of practice. (I never meant to suggest he hit ONLY 2-handers all the time. He clearly can will continue to hit the 1-hand topspin and slice, but should think about the option of the 2-hander on high balls when the 1-handed BH side is serving up cream puffs.)

Anyone can hit it. It's not like it's some magical move that a super-gifted athlete like him couldn't learn to hit serviceably. It's just that no one has tried it before. Doesn't mean it's not worth playing with now.

There's nothing about 2013 that suggests 2014 is going to be much better without doing something pretty different... I think we're past "tweaking" his game.