Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future

[Kieran]

It wasn't! It was the first year of his much interrupted prime. Year Zero for Wodger, in other words, cos he hasn't handled him at the top level since...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Clay, I agree the single hander is not as popular, but when you look at last 10 years, everything has been won by pretty much the same people anyways...and it is not because they have single or double handers, it is because they have been complete players. Single hander still has its uses and advantages, like better reach, in most cases a better slice, in most cases leads to a better volley and more racket head speed. If you think a double hander is more powerful, I would suggest you watch a guy like Almagro and you will see power has got nothing to do with how many hands are on the racket.

Stability though, yeah...that's why most people prefer the double hander these days.

 

[ClayDeath]

darth I still think that bass fishing tournaments are a lot easy to follow:

1. bubba catches fish
2. biff catches fish
3. they then weigh the fish

get the picture yet?

so easy and so little stress.



sooner or later I may just a post an acticle by so called the tennis insiders/true tennis experts who too said that roger was lucky to get that #17. that is how it works in sports. they all need a little bit of luck and just the right draw.

evidently you are having trouble believing what I have to say.


I gave you an example already. they all benefited from nadal not being around to make their lives miserable.

so if he is on the sidelines or he is upset early, that ends up being a great deal for somebody.

nadal has a winning record against not just roger but all of the top 30 players.

the word on the street is that nobody wants to face him on any surface.

even roger himself has said that the last thing he wants or needs is nadal across the net. or something to that effect.

it was after nadal took the RG crown in 2008. now I heard that with my own ears.

 

[ClayDeath]

Clay, I agree the single hander is not as popular, but when you look at last 10 years, everything has been won by pretty much the same people anyways...and it is not because they have single or double handers, it is because they have been complete players. Single hander still has its uses and advantages, like better reach, in most cases a better slice, in most cases leads to a better volley and more racket head speed. If you think a double hander is more powerful, I would suggest you watch a guy like Almagro and you will see power has got nothing to do with how many hands are on the racket.

Stability though, yeah...that's why most people prefer the double hander these days.

actually power has everything to do with why 2 hands are on the racquet old sport.


that is the nature of the game.


stability and the realiability are the added benefits.


so they can get the power as well as the consistency and the reliability.


any buffoon can hit a 95 MPH backhand with one hand at the atp level or even at the college level.


but can you do it for 4 hours and with machine like consistency?



I didn't think so.



the very best tennis academies are not teaching the stars of tomorrow the fine art of single handed backhands.

it is an old, stale, tired, unreliable, and a primitive tool at best in the modern game.


and zero reach is lost since they all have sliced backhands as well.

the future is now and you are seeing it. nobody with a single handed backhand is ever going to be allowed to win a single masters event, let alone a slam.

forget roger. he was the last of his kind and he was the ultimate outlier because his serve was so damn big and the rest of his game was so complete.

 

[DarthFed]

darth I still think that bass fishing tournaments are a lot easy to follow:

1. bubba catches fish
2. biff catches fish
3. they then weigh the fish

get the picture yet?

so easy and so little stress.



sooner or later I may just a post an acticle by so called the tennis insiders/true tennis experts who too said that roger was lucky to get that #17. that is how it works in sports. they all need a little bit of luck and just the right draw.

evidently you are having trouble believing what I have to say.


I gave you an example already. they all benefited from nadal not being around to make their lives miserable.

so if he is on the sidelines or he is upset early, that ends up being a great deal for somebody.

nadal has a winning record against not just roger but all of the top 30 players.

the word on the street is that nobody wants to face him on any surface.

even roger himself has said that the last thing he wants or needs is nadal across the net. or something to that effect.

it was after nadal took the RG crown in 2008. now I heard that with my own ears.

Yes, I am having a tough time believing what you are saying but I won't disclose the (obvious) reason why. So basically you are saying everytime a top player gets upset the winner of the event should be considered lucky that he won. It doesn't matter that the player lost to a mega clown in the 2nd round, Roger was lucky. And yes please name me one "tennis insider" who calls Roger's Wimbledon lucky. I'd be shocked if these "insiders" aren't fans of Rafa/Sampras. There is a reason he has 7. If anyone's been lucky at Wimbledon it is Rafa, just imagine if the surface played like the 90's.

 

[DarthFed]

It wasn't! It was the first year of his much interrupted prime. Year Zero for Wodger, in other words, cos he hasn't handled him at the top level since...

And 07 was the last year of Roger's as evidenced by his play in 2008, including one highly overrated performance that we won't get into :snigger

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Clay, I agree the single hander is not as popular, but when you look at last 10 years, everything has been won by pretty much the same people anyways...and it is not because they have single or double handers, it is because they have been complete players. Single hander still has its uses and advantages, like better reach, in most cases a better slice, in most cases leads to a better volley and more racket head speed. If you think a double hander is more powerful, I would suggest you watch a guy like Almagro and you will see power has got nothing to do with how many hands are on the racket.

Stability though, yeah...that's why most people prefer the double hander these days.

actually power has everything to do with why 2 hands are on the racquet old sport.


that is the nature of the game.


stability and the realiability are the added benefits.


so they can get the power as well as the consistency and the reliability.


any buffoon can hit a 95 MPH backhand with one hand at the atp level or even at the college level.


but can you do it for 4 hours and with machine like consistency?



I didn't think so.



the very best tennis academies are not teaching the stars of tomorrow the fine art of single handed backhands.

it is an old, stale, tired, unreliable, and a primitive tool at best in the modern game.


and zero reach is lost since they all have sliced backhands as well.

the future is now and you are seeing it. nobody with a single handed backhand is ever going to be allowed to win a single masters event, let alone a slam.

forget roger. he was the last of his kind and he was the ultimate outlier because his serve was so damn big and the rest of his game was so complete.

Double hander is not more powerful than a single hander Clay. That's just a simple fact. Consistency will depend on the player. Guys like Haas or Federer have gone hours without any problems with a single hander. Like I said, I will give you stability, which is hugely important in today's game.
I know you like dealing in absolutes and being wrong most of the time does not deter you, but you are wrong again. When Sampras dominated everyone with a single hander, he was the last of his kind...and now Roger is the last of his kind...Trust me , someone else will pick up the torch

 

[Kieran]

It wasn't! It was the first year of his much interrupted prime. Year Zero for Wodger, in other words, cos he hasn't handled him at the top level since...

And 07 was the last year of Roger's as evidenced by his play in 2008, including one highly overrated performance that we won't get into :snigger

Yeah, Rafa ended Rogers prime quite efficiently. He did very well against him during it, too!

Anyway, Roger was great, I'm just ribbing ya! Rafa will be older some day and the same ribbing will occur against me. Vamos Rafa! Let's enjoy him while we can!

 

[ClayDeath]

•generally easier to produce topspin, especially on balls met between waist and chest height
•requires less strength to generate power and keep racquet stable
•point of contact less forward than one-hander, which allows extra time
•shorter backswing generally makes returning serve easier
•easier to change direction of shot at the last second
•less strain on dominant arm


runaway speed and the power in the game today makes it imperative to be properly armed in battle. and you do that with a bullet proof ground game.

that, in turn, means a bullet proof backhand that does break down.

it is pretty much a given that you have to have a great forehand today.

finally with the direction the game is going, soon it will be near impossible to return serve with a single handed backhand. you will break your wrist at impact trying to return a 145-150 MPH serve.

you will have little or no control of your return, let alone do anything with it.

 

[ClayDeath]

Clay, I agree the single hander is not as popular, but when you look at last 10 years, everything has been won by pretty much the same people anyways...and it is not because they have single or double handers, it is because they have been complete players. Single hander still has its uses and advantages, like better reach, in most cases a better slice, in most cases leads to a better volley and more racket head speed. If you think a double hander is more powerful, I would suggest you watch a guy like Almagro and you will see power has got nothing to do with how many hands are on the racket.

Stability though, yeah...that's why most people prefer the double hander these days.

actually power has everything to do with why 2 hands are on the racquet old sport.


that is the nature of the game.


stability and the realiability are the added benefits.


so they can get the power as well as the consistency and the reliability.


any buffoon can hit a 95 MPH backhand with one hand at the atp level or even at the college level.


but can you do it for 4 hours and with machine like consistency?



I didn't think so.



the very best tennis academies are not teaching the stars of tomorrow the fine art of single handed backhands.

it is an old, stale, tired, unreliable, and a primitive tool at best in the modern game.


and zero reach is lost since they all have sliced backhands as well.

the future is now and you are seeing it. nobody with a single handed backhand is ever going to be allowed to win a single masters event, let alone a slam.

forget roger. he was the last of his kind and he was the ultimate outlier because his serve was so damn big and the rest of his game was so complete.

Double hander is not more powerful than a single hander Clay. That's just a simple fact. Consistency will depend on the player. Guys like Haas or Federer have gone hours without any problems with a single hander. Like I said, I will give you stability, which is hugely important in today's game.
I know you like dealing in absolutes and being wrong most of the time does not deter you, but you are wrong again. When Sampras dominated everyone with a single hander, he was the last of his kind...and now Roger is the last of his kind...Trust me , someone else will pick up the torch

I hate to break up your little dream but I am hardly ever wrong.


also I never ever say anything that some of the experts and the true insiders of the sport are not already saying.


I guess what you want is for me to post articles here from the damn experts. you will probably believe them.



well how about believing your own eyes. just watch what is happening.

give it up. single handed backhand is of no use in modern tennis.

it is useless even in the hands of the greatest player ever lived so what can an ordinary player do with it.


lets have the name of all the players who have won the masters events and slams in the last 10 years who also had single handed backhands.


remember that your sample size will have exactly one observation.

what does that tell you?

 

[brokenshoelace]

•generally easier to produce topspin, especially on balls met between waist and chest height
•requires less strength to generate power and keep racquet stable
•point of contact less forward than one-hander, which allows extra time
•shorter backswing generally makes returning serve easier
•easier to change direction of shot at the last second
•less strain on dominant arm

OK, so I read this post, and was utterly shocked that Clay Death provided actual tennis analysis. I knew he couldn't have figured that out by himself (even if the info provided isn't entirely accurate), and it seemed that he is just repeating something he had read. So, through the wonders of technology, I select the above, copy it, and paste it in the Google search bar...

The result? This:

Question: What are the main advantages of a two-handed backhand?

Answer:

easier to learn for most
generally easier to produce topspin, especially on balls met between waist and chest height
requires less strength to generate power and keep racquet stable
point of contact less forward than one-hander, which allows extra time
shorter backswing generally makes returning serve easier
easier to change direction of shot at the last second
less strain on dominant arm

Link: http://tennis.about.com/od/backhandfaq/f/faqbackhand1.htm

Word for word. Yup. Well, at least he removed the "easier to learn for most" part.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I hate to break up your little dream but I am hardly ever wrong.

With such bulletproof, irrefutable sources such as FAQ published on a random tennis website, how could you ever be wrong?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future
Clay, you are wrong most of the time, but sometimes you are even beyond that. I have seen Roger return Roddick's bombs with a single hander right back to his feet a million times. It is called using the opponents pace. Fell free to google that too. In the meantime, watch this video and understand what I am saying.


[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gcvLbtaNxM[/video]

 

[ClayDeath]

I think I just finished saying that I will start posting articles since obviously I have clowns like you here to deal with who don't believe a thing and want to argue about every damn thing.

didn't I just finish telling you that nadal and tony have said countless time that hard courts are very hard on him and they need to make some adjustments.


this is not rocket science. it is all very simple.

as for the double hander:


you need power and you need consistency and you need stability off both wings. double fisted backhand gives you that.

single hander is completely useless unless it happens to be in the hands of somebody like roger. and how many rogers have you known about in the last 60,000 years?




I have said that I am hardly ever wrong and I never ever say anything that a ton of real experts are not saying.

so there is little or no chance that I make up anything. it is all common knowledge and it can be found anywhere.


but leave it you---the real board genius here--- to peddle misinformation about me.

I am still waiting for you to produce the post where I said that nadal needs to take 7 months off each year.


come clean or just kick back and read. you might even learn a thing or two.


what is that stuff you are smoking again?


and of course the double hander is easier:

how many times I have to say that anyway?

I said very specifically that it has far fewer variables.


or put differently for you, single hander has too many variables. it is difficult it get it right and it is of no use in modern tennis anyway.

 

[ClayDeath]

RE: Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future
Clay, you are wrong most of the time, but sometimes you are even beyond that. I have seen Roger return Roddick's bombs with a single hander right back to his feet a million times. It is called using the opponents pace. Fell free to google that too. In the meantime, watch this video and understand what I am saying.


[video=youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gcvLbtaNxM[/video]

I did say that roger was the ultimate outlier.


why do you keep bringing up roger general murat?


he was the last of his kind. I did say he was the ultimate outlier.



Roddick had a huge serve but he also could not move it around the box.

roger anticipated it well and got a few right.


and who is Roddick exactly? he was a nobody.

Roddick was another one of those who got a huge mileage off his serve.

didn't roger own him completely everywhere.


stan wawrinka has the best single hander in the game today. he also has a 135 MPH serve.

he is also superb at the net. he pretty much has it all except for that one obvious weakness.

and he has a 100 MPH forehand. he has a fantastic game and I enjoy watching him play but you know he is likey to never win a masters event or a slam.

his backhand is good but not good enough for modern tennis.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I am still waiting for you to produce the post where I said that nadal needs to take 7 months off each year.

You want him to skip Indian Wells, Miami, Cinci, and the indoor season. Do the math.

 

[ClayDeath]

produce the post where I said he needs to take 7 months off a year or stop lying to these people here.






I said very specifically that he needs to cut back on some of the hard court activity and to start playing and practicing more on clay on year around basis.

and incidentally that is the same thing he and his camp said as well.

I also said that these small masters titles don't mean anything in the long run scheme of things. he has enough of them. its time to concentrate more on the slams. especially on the natural surfaces.

he can bag another Wimbledon or 2 with more intelligent training and scheduling. RG is a lock for next year as far as I am concerned.

but the time runs out in 2-3 years for him.

 

[Iona16]

Nole was sick that match? First I heard of it. And no version we've seen of Murray was beating Roger the way he played the last 2.5 sets of the Wimbledon final.

The version of Murray that turned up 4 weeks later was pretty good. What a difference a roof makes.

 

[ClayDeath]

either that or andy learned a lot in that final.

andy was so determined to do better. sooner or later something was going to break his way.

I think andy did not have sufficient belief in that Wimbledon final. roger played superb grass court tennis and it all worked out for him that day.

 

[DarthFed]

Nole was sick that match? First I heard of it. And no version we've seen of Murray was beating Roger the way he played the last 2.5 sets of the Wimbledon final.

The version of Murray that turned up 4 weeks later was pretty good. What a difference a roof makes.

That match was turned around in the 2nd set which was played outdoors. I have no problem with you having belief in your guy though! The "average" 2012 Roger at the time would have lost that match the way Murray played and we've seen that since then. Roger had to turn back the clock in a major way to beat him in the final last year. I knew after that match that Murray would win a major very soon.