Credit to Edberg?

[Murat Baslamisli]

How much credit does Edberg deserve for the year Roger is having?

I think he deserves a great deal for convincing Roger that attacking and coming forward is going to pay off in the long run, even if you get passed here and there and miss volleys here and there. As long as you go forward, you will always have your opponents on their toes, so they will always try to hit deep to keep you from attacking and that will create mistakes, also they will always be under pressure to come up with a pass, which most players today are not comfortable with.

I also think this is helping Roger's longevity. It is a lot easier in tennis to run forward than side to side, especially as you age.

Roger beat the best player in the game today in Nole by playing fearless, attacking tennis. He put him under constant pressure. Roger always played the attacking game but I think not to this level since the early serve and volley days of his career and I think Edberg has a lot to do with it.

I think two of my all time favorite players have a good thing going so far.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Even though the net rushing of Roger gets a lot of media coverage, his amount of net
rushing is far far less than what it was in serve and volley days.

For example, in the final roger came in on 44 points (with or without success) out of
about 160 points or about 25% or so. Against Novak actually, Roger came in little bit
more, 48 times out of about 150 points or about 33% or so.

These percentages are nowhere near what Edberg himself did in his days. I believe
he approached the nut a whooping 190 times or so in a 5 set match in US Open.
But, I don't want Roger to go there that often. I would like Roger to keep it
somewhere between 25 and 40% in every match and vary it depending on
opponent's ability to pass him and opponent's strength in baseline game.

But, we should certainly give credit to Edberg for instilling faith in Roger on the
coming forward issue. The key thing he drilled in Roger is that coming forward
will involve losing the point also and you have to commit to it despite that.
When you go to the net and lose a point, typically players tend to shy away
from it. But, you got to stick to it despite losing and it will pay dividends in the
long run.

 

[Federberg]

I think we all underestimate how keen Roger has always been about coming forward. What Stefan has done is to show him HOW to do this. He made the point after the first few months of working with him. He used to run forward kamikaze style and get burned, so it was no surprise he got afraid of doing it. Now there is much more intelligence about his approach (I'm not talking about the approach shot itself, but the angle he runs forward), and it puts real pressure on the opposition because the target zone is much harder to find. In summary I think Stefan deserves a huge amount of credit in helping to show Roger how to pressure opponents. He's also helped him a lot with his technique

 

[Kieran]

From the matches I've seen Federer attack the net regularly, he's not doing it by playing high level tennis. Some of it is Roddick-like - hopeful shots hit vaguely into the region, and Federer wheeling into the net on as much a bluff, as any great netcraft. But he's nudged some players out of their comfort zone. I saw him play Tsonga and I thought, any decent player off the floor would murder him.

But this isn't the point. The point is the novelty and the attitude. Players nowadays aren't conditioned to play short points. They feed off rhythm, and a guy charging the net fairly often takes that away. Sampras always replied to interviewers about how he would try best todays players, and he said he'd try take their time away. It upsets lesser players much more, but it must have had an effect on Novak too, in Shanghai.

And not all Roger's netrushing is poorly executed, but we'd be missing something if we compared it to the great netcraft of previous generations. However, this is a different time, and so for a player to swivel his whole game around as Federer has done, and make this ploy a large part of his strategy, is noteworthy - and effective.

For this, I give credit to Edberg. Stefan can't teach Federer about how to do this, or how to play big matches - Roger is far advanced from Stefan on these things - but he's a perfect sounding board and a huge influence in rubber-stamping this policy. Plus, I imagine his company and general tennis expertise is something that Roger is very comfortable being around...

 

[Haelfix]

From the matches I've seen Federer attack the net regularly, he's not doing it by playing high level tennis.
And not all Roger's netrushing is poorly executed, but we'd be missing something if we compared it to the great netcraft of previous generations.

It's obviously pretty effective netrushing when you can have success against a historically great defender like Novak. I've said it before, Roger is the last person to win playing serve and volley, and he deserves to be ranked in the pantheon of great netrushers of the past. No not the Edberg/McEnroe stratosphere, but yes amongst the top 20 or so.

People completely underestimate how difficult it is to netrush in this day and age. The speed that's required, the fact that it's significantly harder to volley with today's racquets, the pace and spins of the return shots. Incredibly he manages to deal with those shots at a very high level, often by extremely difficult gets.

No he doesn't have a great approach shot game. Yes it has improved a little bit (which is why he has a little bit more success compared to say Wimbledon), but then it's always been a little bit clashy with his game. Roger hits with a lot of topspin, which is not necessarily ideal as an approach shot. Someone like Novak hits a much purer approach shot, and at times it leads to much easier putaway volleys.

 

[Federberg]

I actually think the approach shot is the bit that still needs a lot of work. What has definitely improved is the way he moves in to cut out the passing shot. Novak only appears to hit a better approach shot because his game is not geared to serve and volley. He's far more selective about when he comes in. It's a point ender versus the Roger's overall strategy

 

[mrzz]

Haelfix points are very good. But I'll add one thing about the approach shot:

It seems to me that the decision to go forward is being made well before the approach shot, probably just after the shot before, and according to the game plan of rushing forward at a given rate. This is quite different from following a good shot to the net, as some times the shot just does not comes out as expected, but he goes forward anyway, hence does strange points we complain here in the forum.

This, for me, is the great difference from Federer post 2012 from Federer pre 2012, that is, tactical obedience. The first time I noticed it that clearly was on YEC round robin match agaisnt Nadal in 2011. I cannot tell how "obedient" he was since then (it probably had its ups and downs), but the "stick to game plan" part of his game that people are talking now, at least for me, is there since those days.

Those days, in fact, are Annacone (did I spell it right? ) days, I would guess, where he also started to rush forward more. So I wouldn't credit that much Edberg for bringing these two aspects to his game, as IMO they were already there, but he could actually have helped to bring it to another level.

 

[Federberg]

I largely agree with this. That's the point I was trying to make. I think he recognised he needed to implement this strategy before Stefan started. It may actually be why he chose Stefan. What Stefan has done is help him a lot with the execution. The cutting off the open court for passing shots for example. At the margin his volleying technique has improved. There are occasions where he still relies on his reflex/ talent, but he's slowly improving. But as mrzz said, his approaches are planned in a way most others aren't, and therefore the premeditated nature of his approach shots are often poorly executed. I'm hoping this will improve over time as will the volleying. If that's the case, then he'll be an even greater threat next year

 

[mrzz]

^I went back to your post and now I understand it better. A lot of what I said was already implied there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I actually think the approach shot is the bit that still needs a lot of work.

Yeah, that's what haelfix was saying. I think it's too late for Roger to have really good approach shots. He actually never did.

 

[Federberg]

I actually think the approach shot is the bit that still needs a lot of work.

Yeah, that's what haelfix was saying. I think it's too late for Roger to have really good approach shots. He actually never did.

Yes he did. But I do feel that making the point that Novak's approach shots are better misses the point. There is a different dynamic involved. Novak's move to the net is opportunistic, reacting to a return shot that sits up for the ending volley. It's not true net rushing, it's tactical, versus the strategic game Roger is implementing.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I actually think the approach shot is the bit that still needs a lot of work.

Yeah, that's what haelfix was saying. I think it's too late for Roger to have really good approach shots. He actually never did.

Yes he did. But I do feel that making the point that Novak's approach shots are better misses the point. There is a different dynamic involved. Novak's move to the net is opportunistic, reacting to a return shot that sits up for the ending volley. It's not true net rushing, it's tactical, versus the strategic game Roger is implementing.

Well, Novak's approach shots are better. I get what you mean and agree with it, but Roger's approach shots are inferior to Novak's even when it's not a premeditated "net rush." If it's just a ball that lands in the middle of the court, Novak will generally produce a better approach shot off of said ball.

 

[Federberg]

As I said, different strategies. Minor point really. Novak isn't employing a net rushing strategy, it's opportunistic. It's no surprise it has a higher success rate. Roger is trying for something different, it's not just about winning the one point, it's about introducing uncertainty to the opposition. The pay off is not so immediate. I have no doubt that Roger could implement the same tactic that Novak does, as effectively.

 

[mrzz]

Well, Novak's approach shots are better. I get what you mean and agree with it, but Roger's approach shots are inferior to Novak's even when it's not a premeditated "net rush." If it's just a ball that lands in the middle of the court, Novak will generally produce a better approach shot off of said ball.

Although I understand the argument about Djokovic approach shots being better, in that sense I find hard to separate approach shots from shots in general, that is, I would guess that someone who hits better approach shots is just the better shot maker in general, even if I recognize that an approach shot is a specific kind of shot.

If you rephrase it to something like "the nature of the Djokovic shots make it easier for him to hit better approach shots" (because he hits deeper/flatter/harder or whatever), then it makes more sense to me.

 

[brokenshoelace]

As I said, different strategies. Minor point really. Novak isn't employing a net rushing strategy, it's opportunistic. It's no surprise it has a higher success rate. Roger is trying for something different, it's not just about winning the one point, it's about introducing uncertainty to the opposition. The pay off is not so immediate. I have no doubt that Roger could implement the same tactic that Novak does, as effectively.

If you put Novak and Roger in exactly the same situation, Novak is more likely to hit a better approach shot because his shots are flatter, deeper and more penetrating.

Now, if we're talking about change ups, surprise sneaks into the net, slicing the ball, craftiness, etc... then of course it's Roger. And yes, he does go to the net way more, so by default his approaches are going to be less clean, especially since unlike Novak or even Rafa, he's not only attacking "at the right moment" but he'll often take a far more "low percentage" net rush.

Nevertheless, my point is, if Roger were to adapt Novak's play style, and only go to the net exactly when Novak would go to the net (say such a thing was possible) his approaches wouldn't be as good. For starters, his backhand is just not as good nor versatile so he has to rely a lot on his slices (which is why you see him often approaching with half drop shot/half slice thing that he does) and his forehand is more spiny than Novak's, which is counterproductive on approaches.

What I'm discussing is not strategy, it's execution.

Keep in mind nobody was discussing success rate since obviously, guys like Nadal and Novak are going to have better success rate since they attack the net relatively rarely. We're just talking about the actual quality of the approach itself all things being equal (as in, if both players are put in the same situation and have to attack).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, Novak's approach shots are better. I get what you mean and agree with it, but Roger's approach shots are inferior to Novak's even when it's not a premeditated "net rush." If it's just a ball that lands in the middle of the court, Novak will generally produce a better approach shot off of said ball.

Although I understand the argument about Djokovic approach shots being better, in that sense I find hard to separate approach shots from shots in general, that is, I would guess that someone who hits better approach shots is just the better shot maker in general, even if I recognize that an approach shot is a specific kind of shot.

If you rephrase it to something like "the nature of the Djokovic shots make it easier for him to hit better approach shots" (because he hits deeper/flatter/harder or whatever), then it makes more sense to me.

Well not quite, because when you hit an approach, you're hitting it with the knowledge and expectation that you probably are going to have to hit a volley on the subsequent shot. That alone will alter the way you hit a shot. So being the shot-maker from behind the baseline won't automatically make you have the better approach shots, especially in today's game where approaches are increasingly less about touch and finesse and more about accuracy, power, penetration, etc...

Novak's ground strokes are flatter and deeper than Fed's, and doesn't have an obvious weaker side like Roger (the backhand).

A lot of this has to do with percentages and the amount of times players attack. Fed attacks far more so it is going to come off like his approaches aren't quite as foolproof, so that sways perception too.

 

[Federberg]

Let's agree to disagree BS. I sense we're not going to convince each other. I stand by what I've said. Novak doesn't hit approach shots per se. He's a base-liner who opportunistically volleys to end rallies. This is apples and oranges to what Roger is trying to do. Anyway.. we have different views, the world goes on

 

[britbox]

I'd say Roger's positioning at the net has improved since Stefan was in camp.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'd say Roger's positioning at the net has improved since Stefan was in camp.

I'd add to that overall movement and footwork on his volleys. Though he's always been great in that regard.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There was one point in the second set I think, where Roger had a break point against Nole, he chipped a nice approach to Nole's backhand. It would have been a good enough approach against pretty much anyone else, but Nole got under the ball, flicked a nice short passing shot that went cross court, bounced way inside the service box, a great passing shot. But the look Nole gave Roger after that point, if anyone can find it online...It was just priceless....It basically said " What are you doing ? Enough already! Stop with this attacking BS, let me PLAY !"...

I give credit to Stefan for creating that mentality where even a guy like Nole gets stressed out.