US Open

[hoops4kings]

Federer is an awesome player. It would be quite interesting to see him play in the era of regular size and wood tennis rackets against the likes of Borg, McEnroe, Connors and even lendl.

That was truely the golden era of tennis.

The new era is akin to pro baseball going with aluminum bats.

Roger is still great though.

 

[Bricklayer]

Federer will be the greatest to play the game, the guy simply has no weaknesses.

Actually that second part isn't true, and the most surprising thing about that final was how Andre was able to rather badly expose Federer's backhand again -- thought he had that problem corrected. But looks like if you attack it with spin and offspeed stuff he can still be had on that side of the court. Roger also wasn't doing much of anything on the returns against Andre's second serve. Kept waiting for him to start running around them and start whacking forehands but he just sat back there and kept on chopping back weak backhand returns. Shakiest I have seen Federer in some time, and I'm wondering now about the clay court issue -- certainly looked like Roger needed pace pace and more pace to feel comfortable, and the more Andre slowed it down, the more spin to the backhand in particular, the more error prone Federer was. And that of course happens all the time on clay.

In fact Andre probably should have won that match, but he blinked at a critical moment -- up a break 4-2 in the third set, and 30-0 in his service game. All he has to do is win two measly points to go to 5-2 and very likely close out the third set. But he played a couple of loose points, Federer broke + that revitalized Roger. After that it was all downhill. Of course that's the probelm with playing a guy as good As Federer -- you're only going to get that one chance. But it was right there, and Andre just picked a very bad time to come down off his high.

 

[Kajun]

Actually that second part isn't true, and the most surprising thing about that final was how Andre was able to rather badly expose Federer's backhand again -- thought he had that problem corrected. But looks like if you attack it with spin and offspeed stuff he can still be had on that side of the court. Roger also wasn't doing much of anything on the returns against Andre's second serve. Kept waiting for him to start running around them and start whacking forehands but he just sat back there and kept on chopping back weak backhand returns. Shakiest I have seen Federer in some time, and I'm wondering now about the clay court issue -- certainly looked like Roger needed pace pace and more pace to feel comfortable, and the more Andre slowed it down, the more spin to the backhand in particular, the more error prone Federer was. And that of course happens all the time on clay.

In fact Andre probably should have won that match, but he blinked at a critical moment -- up a break 4-2 in the third set, and 30-0 in his service game. All he has to do is win two measly points to go to 5-2 and very likely close out the third set. But he played a couple of loose points, Federer broke + that revitalized Roger. After that it was all downhill. Of course that's the probelm with playing a guy as good As Federer -- you're only going to get that one chance. But it was right there, and Andre just picked a very bad time to come down off his high.

Despite the fact the backhand is Federer's weakest wing, his backhand has improved alot during his transformation into the number one. At this particular tournament, Federer's backhand was off. He made quite a few simple errors, and he wasn't particularly confident on that, in contrast to Wimbledon, where his backhand was actually better than his forehand.

Andre will have the upper hand in backhand-to-backhand rallies in the majority of the times. Sure, when Fed is at his absolute best, then Fed will even win those, but generally speaking, Andre has a better backhand, period. His tactic is always to take advantage of this, and until '03 Masters Cup or so, it had always worked, until Federer got a stable enough backhand.

Andre doesn't hit with particularly much spin in his strokes. In fact, it's safe to say that Americans grow up on hardcourt, and usually have flatter strokes than Europeans, for instance. I agree with the fact that Fed handles pace much better, and spin much worse, but I don't think it was the reason for him being weak on the backhand (because Andre doesn't hit with all that much spin). On clay, topspin balls tend to sit up even more, which is why Federer does have problems on his backhand side (but honestly -- it is a trait many, if not all, one handed backhand players share). Pete had it even worse -- prime reason why never won the French.

That is also a reason for why he had 'weak returns'. I think you can have two types of 'good returners':
- The first type is Agassi-like: the guy who will try and crack a big winner off the second serve, or any weak first serve. The mindset here is to score with the return, or at the very least, starting the rally on your terms;
- The second type is Federer-like: the guy takes advantage of the pace of the serve, and is able to block any serve back. A different approach is used here: the ball is put back into play, only as a mean to start playing the rally.

This is why Agassi is a great returner against weaker serves, but not as great against bigger serves. You'll see him pounding on weaker serves, scoring the biggest winners you'll ever see, but he'll have immense trouble facing bigger serves (Sampras, Philippoussis etc etc). The fact that he has a relatively short wingspan does not help either.

In contrast, Federer is able to get anything back into play. Look up the stats. Any big server will have HUGE difficulties in trying to serve ten aces in a best-of-five match. Roddick's serve gets completely neutralized by Federer. His power, or say, Scud's power, will leave Fed completely unfazed.

On the match itself -- Agassi had a fantastic opportunity, I agree. The problem is, of course, tha you have to play a picture-perfect match for the whole and whole match only, despite the fact that Federer's slightly off his game. Andre made some loose errors in that game where he was re-broken, but he played very much faultless tennis in the set before. It is extremely hard to keep that up; he clearly started moving worse as well. Having played so many five setters definitely took its toll.

I was so impressed by his play. Seeing him play like that instantly reminded me of the Andre in his prime, which was '95. That Agassi could make life tough for Federer (though not quite beat him).

Agassi said some interesting things at the pressconference. Said Fed was the best he's ever played against. I don't know if that's honesty or just post-match emotion (which he's exhibited more than just a few times), but I was surprised to hear that. He also said he was 'safe in a zone' whenever he played Pete, and you never were safe with Federer. I think he might be referring to the backhand rallies, but honestly...Pete's serve and aggressive play completely takes Andre out of his game. There's just no comparison.

Federer's peak results trump Sampras's though (see www.tennis28.com). Federer at 24 still lags Sampras at 24 (as far as results go), but he's still on his way to becoming the greatest ever.

 

[KingKong]

Actually that second part isn't true, and the most surprising thing about that final was how Andre was able to rather badly expose Federer's backhand again -- thought he had that problem corrected. But looks like if you attack it with spin and offspeed stuff he can still be had on that side of the court. Roger also wasn't doing much of anything on the returns against Andre's second serve. Kept waiting for him to start running around them and start whacking forehands but he just sat back there and kept on chopping back weak backhand returns. Shakiest I have seen Federer in some time, and I'm wondering now about the clay court issue -- certainly looked like Roger needed pace pace and more pace to feel comfortable, and the more Andre slowed it down, the more spin to the backhand in particular, the more error prone Federer was. And that of course happens all the time on clay.

In fact Andre probably should have won that match, but he blinked at a critical moment -- up a break 4-2 in the third set, and 30-0 in his service game. All he has to do is win two measly points to go to 5-2 and very likely close out the third set. But he played a couple of loose points, Federer broke + that revitalized Roger. After that it was all downhill. Of course that's the probelm with playing a guy as good As Federer -- you're only going to get that one chance. But it was right there, and Andre just picked a very bad time to come down off his high.

Federer wasn't near his best the entire tournament, including the Finals. But you could see midway through the foruth set and the last set, he turned it up to his "normal level" just when it was needed. He did a mumber of a times in his last few matches. His backhand has been pretty bad all tournament, as well, but it is really one of his strong suits. He usually has pin- point accuracy with it (as well as his forehand), which is why opponenents don't like coming into to volley against him because he can just destroy you with a killer back hand pass. I guess I should have said "Federer simply has no weaknesses against his current opponents."

 

[Kajun]

Federer wasn't near his best the entire tournament, including the Finals. But you could see midway through the foruth set and the last set, he turned it up to his "normal level" just when it was needed. He did a mumber of a times in his last few matches. His backhand has been pretty bad all tournament, as well, but it is really one of his strong suits. He usually has pin- point accuracy with it (as well as his forehand), which is why opponenents don't like coming into to volley against him because he can just destroy you with a killer back hand pass. I guess I should have said "Federer simply has no weaknesses against his current opponents."

Opponents do not like to come to the net because their approach shots and volley suck. Let's face it, we see very few capable volleyers out there at the moment; the ones who can hit a decent volley only do it sporadically.

Fed does have weaker points in his game; but I think they're just so small they can't be called 'weaknesses'.

Sorry for these long replies, as I guess it will instantly scare people off, but I felt it was worth sharing.

- He has a tendency to a hit groundstrokes that fall well short from the baseline, some times at or even for the service line. Sometimes he relies too much on those loopy topspin balls to make up for the lack of length in the strokes. A guy like Safin (AO SF), Agassi (US F obviously), and even Hewitt (US SF) can take these balls earlier and dictate rallies with it. Safin in particular will kill those balls -- with his power even Fed's outstanding defense won't be enough.
- He is missing a 'real' running forehand. For a guy who can get pinned to his backhand side, he needs to be able to counterattack more effectively when the opponent hits the ball to the open court. Having said that, at Wimbledon and US Open he's shown to be more capable as far those running forehands concerned. I still think he could be better; imagine if he had Sampras's or Lendl's running forehand.
- Although he has a great transition game, Federer is not that confident at the net. Rochey is helping him as far as that concerned, but Federer -- too often -- misses these makeable volleys, particularly on the forehand side. So, I think he still has some improvements to make. I don't understand why people say he volleys better than Sampras.
- He's most vulnerable when you don't let him be the aggressor. Obviously easier said than done, but guys like Safin -- and even Roddick in '04 Wimbledon -- have proven that it is possible. I do feel sometimes Roger is a little bit too passive, for whatever reason. Sampras actually got more aggressive as he got older, so we may see some changes in gear in Fed's game as well. He should make or miss the point, and dictate the momentum of play -- not his opponent.

I think you can say Fed has a great backhand for different reasons than with Agassi, Safin etc. It is extremely versatile -- can hit over the ball, under the ball, flat...In particular, the slice backhand these days is a lost art (though some players really seem to kill those balls, like Safin). It is one aspect I truly enjoy of Federer -- his slices are pure joy to watch.

His backhand pass, as LondonKing, is also fabulous. His backhand was also very weak when he came on the tour, and now it's proven to be rock solid.

But his backhand is not that great as a weapon -- yes, he can hit the backhand down the line. Yes, he can hit those sharp angled cross court ones. That's not the point -- in a backhand rally, there are several players who have the upper hand, simply because their backhand is a real powerful weapon. Again, a guy like Safin deserves a mention here.

Safin has the game to go toe-to-toe with Federer (Mr. Mats Wilander even thinks because of his power, Safin could have the edge actually). Too bad he does not have the mindset that is required for it.

 

[fishgirl]

^^ I agree. Safin has the game to challenge Federer - and triumph. But he's Marat Safin - we know how he is. I'm hoping Peter Lundgren will be able to help him with his issues (for lack of a better word).

Speaking of Safin and Feder, I really liked this article after their semifinal match at the Aussie Open early this year.