Whassup with Federer?

[bottle]

Dream Match

As a Hawthorne major, I'd like to see an exhibition match between Roger Federer and Roger Chillingworth.

[julian]

A next year schedule of Fed

Federer to play in just two clay-court events prior to 2009 French Open
Associated Press

Updated: December 3, 2008, 10:10 AM ET
Comment
Email
Print
BASEL, Switzerland -- Roger Federer will play only two clay-court tournaments before the 2009 French Open, the only Grand Slam tournament he has never won.

Federer will head to Paris on May 24 after playing Masters series events in Rome and Madrid on his least favorite surface, according to a schedule published on his Web site.

Federer played four clay-court events ahead of the 2008 French Open -- Estoril, Portugal; Monte Carlo; Rome; and Hamburg, Germany. He lost to Rafael Nadal in the French Open final.

"I am really pleased with the season the way we have planned it and I am looking forward to an exciting year," Federer said.

Federer had a tough 2008 season marred by illness and a back injury. He surrendered his Wimbledon title and No. 1 ranking to Nadal, but won the U.S. Open for his 13th Grand Slam title.

Federer's agent, Tony Godsick, told The Associated Press in October that the Swiss star would play a 2009 schedule "that works for him physically."

"He is not going to overplay next year," Godsick said. "He is just going to try to make sure that he peaks for the tournaments that mean the most to him."

Federer has won five U.S. Opens, five Wimbledons and three Australian Opens but never captured the French, where he has lost to Nadal in the final three straight years.

Federer will start the year on hard courts at an invitation tournament in Abu Dhabi, then play events in Doha, Qatar, and Kooyong, Australia, before the Australian Open starts Jan. 19 in Melbourne.

His grass-court schedule is unchanged, with a single warmup for Wimbledon in Halle, Germany.

Federer will defend his U.S. Open title after playing Masters events on hard courts in Montreal and Cincinnati.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press

[oliensis]

Airforce,
I agree that at least some of the dif. betwen Federer now and when he's been at his absolute best is decreased patience. That said, in Shanghai there were numerous 20+-stroke rallies w/ Murray.

I think the unforced-error problem on his forehand is at least partially a patience question--pulling the trigger perhaps earlier than he did at his very best. And maybe explicitly going for winners where he used to just keep forcing, forcing forcing, until a winner emerged; like the dif. in baseball between a) going for home runs and b) just trying to hit hard line drives and letting homers emerge on their own.

[airforce1]

There's a video on youtube.com of a 45-stroke point played between Federer and Hewitt back a few years.

Good luck seeing Roger in a 45 stroke rally these days. I don't think he has near that shot tolerance lately. Maybe this has been brought on by change in footwork as you mention, and/or a combination of sickness/injury as I've suggested, but either way, if he hits 3-5 balls now, then he is ready to finish if he gets a sniff of a target.

[crosscourt]

I agree with Oliensis about Federer's movement. Whe you watch Federer play live it is the most exceptional thing about his game. If illness has interfered with that, then as he gets older, he will find it harder to compete on courts where point construction reuqires a longer rather than shorter strategy. But Federer has always had a problem in situations where his plan A for a particular point doesn't pay off. Most notably in the early years against Nadal. Without a plan B, as soon as Plan A failed he had nowehere to go. Thats said it took a player as good as Nadal to identify this as a weakness.

cc

[julian]

Federer loses in Masters Cup

I think that is what happens when the pressure is relentless. You just don't make as good decisions if thinking is required. Even with the 2ond set errors, Fed kept the onslaught pretty constant. Murray's camp underestimated the prep required for this match.

see

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/index

tv schedule

http://www.tennis.com/tvschedule/tvschedule.aspx?id=67

see as well

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/federer-edges-ahead-of-murray-1018878.html

[oliensis]

oliensis, since you are a martial artist do you not think your "playing freely" was being in the moment , not thinking just doing?the zen of tennis in a way

llll,
Being in the moment is part of it, for sure...responding to what is actually happening without laying on it too much of one's preconceived ideas, but there's the being in the moment of the novice, and then there's the being in the moment of the "master" (or of the more advanced student). The novice is present, the advanced student is present with technique, and the master is present again, like the novice insofar as there is no conscious technique, but also at the far end of the spectrum from the novice insofar as the technique is still there but has "dissolved" into being "unconscious" or "2nd nature."

I think "2nd nature" is an important phrase in terms of getting to the level of having technique and playing in the moment, and freely. It's different than nature itself (the nature of the novice)...it's "2nd" and not "1st" nature...but it's also beyond the machinations of conscious thought..."2nd nature" is embracing what is "natural" but more consciously, and with the choices offered by greater knowledge and understanding (technique that's dissolved into the player, so to speak).

There's a great parable about technique being like a donkey. You need the donkey to get to the top of the mountain...but once you get to the top of the mountain, it's time to get off the donkey. Not that I'm in any way at the top of the mountain...but sometimes you get an opportunity to get off the donkey and look around, even if you're only at a nice vista half way up.

[llll]

oliensis, since you are a martial artist do you not think your "playing freely" was being in the moment , not thinking just doing?the zen of tennis in a way

[oliensis]

There's a video on youtube.com of a 45-stroke point played between Federer and Hewitt back a few years. I've watched it several times over the past few months because something struck me about Federer's movement in that video and how it's qualitatively different from most other players' movement. Even when he's running he doesn't exactly look like he's running. search "Federer Hewitt" on youtube.com and you'll find the video. Even though Hewitt's movement is fantastic, Federer's is different. Really different. The best way I can describe it is that he looks like a rabbit the way he moves to set up for his strokes. Or, he moves like some of the best martial artists I've ever worked out with. It's like he's on a pogo stick that propels him up off the ground when he alights on the court with both feet. He rarely looks like he's running. He always looks like he's setting up to "strike" (like martial these superb martial artists who can strike at any milisecond, and who don't seem to have to chamber their limbs in order to strike).

After I played a couple of sets of doubles today I played some hitting games with a couple guys and I got that feeling for about 15 minutes. And I played so far above my normal level that it was pretty startling.

It's hard to get a sense of how good Federer's movement is (or has been over the years--it may have fallen off a bit this past year) looking at the stroke archives where you see him hit one shot at a time. But I would submit that the character of his footwork in setting up between shots is a significant part of what's different about the look of his game, and the character and level of his game.

It bears further study, I think. It's a big part of what creates his capacity to strike aggressively at really unexpected times, from apparently defensive positions.

I know I'll be working on trying to get that feeling as often as possible on the court.

Food for thought.

[airforce1]

That's a great find. I have always been amazed at how Roger transformed his mental toughness. He went from being an underachiever and a "loose canon" to being one the smartest, mentally toughest and adabtable players of all time. It's interesting that he considers his mental transformation the biggest improvement he's made.

Loved reading that quote.

Thanks Jeff.

[oliensis]

I remember when I used to watch Federer (before his ascent to the top), I was pretty sure that he would never be great because he had too many options on every shot. So, he had to engage a kind of "discriminating" faculty on big points, rather than (ala Pat Rafter) just steeling himself to the moment with "conviction" in his way of playing.

Obviously, his "mental" improvement proved my old assessment wrong...I'd forgotten about it because it was so long ago...and I think that's part of what I have SO enjoy about watching him for the past few years--he HAS choices in his game, but, for years now, has found a conviction about how best to play, and has made SO MANY of the right choices so often, especially under pressure.

It's so rewarding to see him make those "right" choices with conviction when the ARE choices, and not just the limitations of his game (as is the case with so many one-dimensional players). (The clarity of the Master is different, more conscious, than the clarity of the novice.)

But Nadal's success (and presumably F's illness early in the year) had messed with F's conviction and esp. w/ his clarity under pressure. At the US Open he seemed to get at least some of that back (though he didn't have to play Nadal, so he didn't endure the ultimate test).

My favorite expression that F uses is "playing freely." the past 2 days I've experienced playing freely (obviously not anywhere near his level, but freely at my level), and it really is such a different sensation than playing "smart" or "winning ugly" or playing the percentages...of course it doesn't obviate the need to be smart or play the percentages, but when it comes freely, then it doesn't feel like you're making choices, you're just hitting the shots that kind of "appear" as obvious to hit.

Something to aspire to on a more frequent basis...

[jeffreycounts]

ROGER: What's the whole thing based on? Good form. That's based on the talent, the looseness of my shots and the ability to pace myself, to understand the situation. That's all under (the category of) talent, but I had to work very, very strongly to develop that and make it a pure weapon. Before it was there, but it was loose. It could be a loose cannon. I always tried to pick the most difficult shot. I had to start to understand the game and my shots and at times play it a little bit more easy and be a little bit more patient. The biggest improvement I've ever made was my mental ability, because it used to work against me. Years later, I'm famous for it. So it's incredible how you can change.

a quote I found above that I believe came from when Roger was in top form. He discusses how he had to learn that special patience and situational awareness.

That's a great find. I have always been amazed at how Roger transformed his mental toughness. He went from being an underachiever and a "loose canon" to being one the smartest, mentally toughest and adabtable players of all time. It's interesting that he considers his mental transformation the biggest improvement he's made.

Loved reading that quote.

[airforce1]

ROGER: What's the whole thing based on? Good form. That's based on the talent, the looseness of my shots and the ability to pace myself, to understand the situation. That's all under (the category of) talent, but I had to work very, very strongly to develop that and make it a pure weapon. Before it was there, but it was loose. It could be a loose cannon. I always tried to pick the most difficult shot. I had to start to understand the game and my shots and at times play it a little bit more easy and be a little bit more patient. The biggest improvement I've ever made was my mental ability, because it used to work against me. Years later, I'm famous for it. So it's incredible how you can change.

a quote I found above that I believe came from when Roger was in top form. He discusses how he had to learn that special patience and situational awareness.

[airforce1]

I saw the first set from Fed and he played amazing. He was dictating and reminds us of his old self. I didn't expect him to play that good especially in the final after what he's going through this year. 2009 looks good for him and his fans!

I think it could be, even if he is not quite at his best. Even in this US Open I didn't feel we saw his best except in a set here and there, but it was still enough for him to add another slam.

To me he used to have this quality of challenging others to play well enough to take it from him. He didn't raise his level until they proved it would take a higher level, and at that point, he was ready to do it. He was good and warmed up, and primed with what weaknesses to exploit as he bumped it up a notch.

If they didn't make him lift the level, he would just play real solid for 4-6 shots till he got the right position, then he would finish without forcing it. In both these scenarios, he was able to keep his UEs very low and seem invincible in the process. Only Nadal gave him trouble in those days, as Rafa does the same, but with even more patience. In simple terms, more shot tolerance.

[hyperwarrior]

Plan to chart it to be more sure, but the match seemed to play out much as expected. Murray just couldn't pull out that second set. Would have thought Andy could have powered his way thru at least one of the sets as well as he was playing, but he just couldn't do enough to overcome Roger's attack on his shorter Topspin shots and he was forced to leave too many of them. Man, Roger was on fire in that first set, wasn't he.

I saw the first set from Fed and he played amazing. He was dictating and reminds us of his old self. I didn't expect him to play that good especially in the final after what he's going through this year. 2009 looks good for him and his fans!