Changes for Federer?

[rafanoy1992]

Although there is no clear favorite going into Wimbledon, I still think Federer and Murray are the top two favorites. Both of them are 17-1 in their last three grass court tournaments (Wimbledon, Olympics, and Queens/Halle). I would give Nadal as slight edge to Djokovic as the third favorite because of his form and grass is Djokovic's worst surface. Either way, it will be an interesting Wimbledon that's for sure.

Also, this will be the first major since last year's Wimbledon where all the Big Four are in the same major.

I think the key would be the draw this Friday.

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I didn't want to sell him short on grass. He's a fine grass court player with 5 wimbledon finals under his belt but historically he's struggled over the years in the first week of the tournament when the bounce of the ball is lower, the grass courts much faster and his ROS and top spin not as effective. He was taken to 5 sets by Kendrick, Soderling, Youzhny, Haase, Petzschner and Rosol over the years in the first week when his ROS suffers the most due to the bounce and his backswing motion.

As soon as he gets some grip on the courts when they start to evolve into partly dirt courts from the baseline with a much higher bounce, he's incredibly tough to beat. Then he's got the time to set up his topspin and to position himself in time to run around his forehand which makes his inside out so heavy and is just exploding off the court. From that moment on he never looks back. I don't think that's a myth or some "bizarro-world truism" (whatever that is) at all, just my opinion, but nevermind. Wimbledon starts in 7 days, soon we'll find out. It's off-topic anyway.

Didi, I don't think you were selling Nadal short on grass. I was arguing a linguistic fine-point which isn't totally fair to you. "Prone to" means likely to do it. As you say, above, he does struggle the first week, and you rightly account for why. I agreed he is "susceptible." My objection was that native-speakers before you, even, have said he's "prone to upset" the first week, and I thought that was in danger of creating a "truism." But, yes, he often struggles the first week. (If you read my translation of the interview with him from El Pais, on the front page, you'll see that even HE says he has to be "lucky enough" to get through the first few rounds.)

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

i think the Halle final had some nice examples for what's been discussed around here:

"the serve": obviously, this was crucial. Youzhny was returning unbelievably aggressive for most of the match (resulting in great pressure on Fed's second serve, but also in many, many wild wide/long returns). great serving was the backbone of Fed's win - while both served good in the opener, the Doc tailed off and Fed got into a groove - he didn't get broken in the match.

"return of serve": just as been discussed around here, Fed took the returns Very early. he was a good 3-5 feet further up than Youzhny was; and a lot of times, it cost him. there were MANY returns that he didn't put into play. he did, however, on the pressure points, and returning early meant that he had a chance to take control - since, somewhat shockingly, he rarely had that from neutral positions. while we see this more often lately, in this particular case, it was hardly Fed's fault. because the Doctor Whacked the ball like crazy. seriously, it was downright scary at times; i've rarely seen people (outside of the top 8) yank Fed around the back of the court like Youzhny did yesterday for a good set and a half. i was surprised that the balls were still yellow because i'd have expected that 1) youzhny would've hit their felt right off and 2) he'd have covered them in chalk thoroughly. anyway, moving on...

"hunger": that one cut both ways. i found that he was incredibly tight yesterday for most of the match, and it was very obvious how much he wanted this one. i think in the beginning, it cost him - he started strong enough to go up 0-40 on Misha's serve right away, but then played too tentative, too tight for the bps. in the long run, though, it was the hunger that kept him in. he didn't go for broke and didn't let himself get bullied either. he improved tactically in the match, and it paid off.

i found myself wondering what he'd do if he lost this final - i could've seen him pull out of wimbledon and go into hiding for half a year now, in turn, the question is: what does he take away from the tournament? is it pure satisfaction, horray, i'm still the winner? or is it the knowledge that yes, he can still win, but it'll also take a higher level than his current game, and that he'll simply have to put in some very hard work?
i think that's got to be one of the toughest things for a coach: to know when to just let your guy enjoy the moment, and when to say "well, you did win, but here's three things that we need to work on right now".

[.......]
Bookies have Djokovic as top favourite, which imo is ridiculous. I'd put Murray there.

Totally agree with you about the Fed-Murray final but I think you are a bit harsh here. To be fair to the bookies (or rather the people who put money on Djokovic and as a result making him the favorite) ...

back to the sidenotes, but i thought that this was an excellent, important point that should be noted and remembered everytime we talk about odds and the bookmaker's favorites, and it took me a while to realize it myself: the bookies don't put up the odds (as in likeliness) of someone taking the title or winning a match - they try to match that probability to the behavior of bettors; and the greater part of bets aren't placed by aficionados and tennis experts, but by regulars who play big systems, big names; important details of the game will only affect the numbers fractionally.

 

[Ricardo]

don't be silly, slower players don't want fast surfaces..the balls gone past then before they know it.

---

you are living in a dreamworld..the fact Federer has been better on slower grass dosnt mean he is going to be better on faster grass. he is not.

he would get destroyed. apart from being slower and unable to reach balls as much..his volleying isn't even all that great.

---

yes his timing is a bit slower sometimes so we get shankerer a lot more, that's the same reason he'd not win on old school grass or carpet..like I said in last poast..

Federer could win on any surface in his prime he was a super fit, quick, precise, mentally strong winning machine..only all time clay great nadal stopped him winning 2 or 3 year grand slams (along with kuerten in 04 :s)

---

---

Roger is slower than he used to be by a big margin but I wouldn't call him slow. The faster and lower bouncing the court, the better his chances against the other elite players. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Look how Roger played at Wimbledon with the roof closed last year when conditions were much quicker. Put this year's Wimbledon on 90's grass and he might still be the favorite to win it. Now compare that to AO or RG where he has pretty much no chance against Nadal or Djokovic at this point.

---

---

conditions wernt quicker..murray was spent, his level went down, and his serve went down the pan..he wasn't fully fit with his back problem and was tired from long qf and sf matches.

put Federer on 90s grass now and he would not win the title.

---

---

still don't get it? slow and attacking players want fast surfaces, they don't camp behind the baseline slugging it out in 20+ shots rallies. They pump out aces and hit winners any chance they got, the average rally doesn't last more 4-5 shots. What do you think slow players do? you think they excel when surfaces slow down? slow guys like Karlovic and Isner only know one way to win, they blow their serves or fh past the opponents for winners, and that works best when court is fast. Understand?

Secondly, what evidence do you have when you state it like a fact? have you seen Fed play in the 90s? or you really have to mouth off to feel smart?

---

---

we are talking about Federer, don't start dribbling on about isner, you are clueless enough on tennis as it is without expanding your lack of understanding other players,

I know big servers like faster courts..thats got nothing to do with a slower than prime Federer not reaching or being in position to hit the ball ??, DUH..wakey wakey sunshine :idea: get a clue, wow, what a dreary noise. :laydownlaughing

the fact remains you are wrong about Federer and feeling butthurt is not going to change anything, players just get slower and you having a wet dream about old players winning on fast grass/ hc is not going to change that..

Federer has a chance to win u s open / Wimbledon this year, fast courts would've meant nothing for increased chances of winning..

but you keep having fun being an unloved painting in the spare room, big boy.

---

---

lack of understanding of the game.... good for you to think of that. So a slower than prime Fed would prefer slower courts according to you now, that's really smart isn't it? then i suppose i should put money on him to go deep at AO/RG rather than Wimbledon/USO :laydownlaughing

all because i should follow the rule that 'slower players do better on slower courts', i know stupidity knows no bound but this is beyond that. Guess what, you show me one offensive player like Fed who plays better on slower courts in his twilight years and i'll look into it and learn from you

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

when you're both done with the attempts at ridiculing one another, we might get back on topic one of these days, no? also, you could try partially quoting, as this stuff is getting close to unreadable


alright, one question back on topic: who here thinks that the Halle tournament was a step in the right direction? and who thinks he was mainly lucky to avoid more stiff competition and that this might actually be a distraction from the changes that might still be needed?

 

[shawnbm]

Federer is looking okay, but I don't view him as a favorite at SW19 over Novak, Nadal or Murray.

 

[britbox]

Federer is looking okay, but I don't view him as a favorite at SW19 over Novak, Nadal or Murray.

I'd be inclined to agree, although I'm still not totally sold on Nole on grass. Federer's my third favourite going into Wimbledon (from a betting perspective) after Nadal and Murray.

 

[DarthFed]

when you're both done with the attempts at ridiculing one another, we might get back on topic one of these days, no? also, you could try partially quoting, as this stuff is getting close to unreadable


alright, one question back on topic: who here thinks that the Halle tournament was a step in the right direction? and who thinks he was mainly lucky to avoid more stiff competition and that this might actually be a distraction from the changes that might still be needed?

Halle is a step in the right direction because he actually played well which is something we haven't seen pretty much all year.

However, Halle is a very different court compared to week 2 of Wimbledon. I think if Fed plays Tsonga, Berd or Nadal in the QF's he is an underdog vs. all 3. His ROS just isn't good period and he can be blown off the court by Berd and Tsonga especially. But if he gets to the semis and plays Nole he has a very good chance to win like last year. I wouldn't fancy his chances vs. Murray but if he has a match like last year's final he would win again (not at all expecting him to turn back the clock again though).

 

[Front242]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAeFXIIq95A

 

[tented]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAeFXIIq95A

Nice.

I don't remember the Federer/Djokovic SF from last year, so I looked it up. Here's a high-def video of the entire match:

[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcxyGXlDreI[/video]

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

well if that's what we're doing, how about something recent.
[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVsS33l607g[/video]

go straight to 1:25:30 for a little magic.

 

[coban]

Genious stuff right here.

What happend to the actual discussion?