Whassup with Federer?

[airforce1]

Interesting to watch how much less smart Murray looked in the finals than in the semis. What I didn't see from Murray in the finals was the off-speed stuff that drew errors from Del Potro and from Nadal. Federer really controlled the way the points were constructed and at times looked to me like he has looked prior to this year.

Not the match I'd hoped to see, but interesting nonetheless.

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.

[oliensis]

Interesting to watch how much less smart Murray looked in the finals than in the semis. What I didn't see from Murray in the finals was the off-speed stuff that drew errors from Del Potro and from Nadal. Federer really controlled the way the points were constructed and at times looked to me like he has looked prior to this year.

Not the match I'd hoped to see, but interesting nonetheless.

[airforce1]

We can truly appreciate the artistry of either of these guys. I do give Fed the edge based on him seeming to find more patience in the last match or two. While I think Murray's variety bothers Roger, I don't think any of the individual shots are good enough to do much harm. It is more of a cumulative thing, which is much harder to put together, especially against Federer.

I'm thinking Murray's shorter TS shots don't quite have the bite, the drop shots will get a mixed result or worse and he can't be consistent enough when hitting for depth off Roger's spin and power. Murray's serve can keep this close if he is making them and the drop shots could put him over the top to win if he has one of his better days in that department. Even Roger will have a tough time defending the depth if the dropper is dialed in.

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.

[oliensis]

Given Murray's exception speed and lanky reach, if attacking on deep middle slices might not be a good play for Federer. (Like Ashe against Connors in Wimbledon final decades ago.)

Murray tends to run around his (better) backhand to hit his (less awesome) forehand in the middle of the court. So the play takes away the angles and gets Murray to make the one consistently questionable strategic decision I've seen him consistently make.

I don't suspect Federer will try it much, but i'll be watching for it.

[oliensis]

The thing about Murray that makes him tough on both Federer and Nadal, I think, is that his backhand is really his A1 shot. Fed's game especially is set up to capitalize on players whose weak side is their left side (backhand for a righty). The inside out forehand is his most exceptional weapon, and it's predicated on meeting with relative weakness in that corner.

Also, as with Nadal's forehand, the optimal target for Murray's backhand is crosscourt to Federer's weaker side (backhand).

That said, I think Federer's weapons are bigger weapons than Murray's...but Murray may actually have a more flexible and "bendable" (but not breakable) defense.

I'm looking forward to what may be one of the most interesting grandslam final matchups that I can remember. Rather than each player just bringing his game and counting on it to carry him through, both players may actually make adjustments of strategy within the match! (Remember when that was what tennis players did? I do. Fondly.)

[ochi]

afraid for Federer

My easy-for-me armchair observations:

If Murray continues to play the way he did against Nadal and others -- with twilight zone anticipation, Mecir-like unrushed movement, power without pressing, mastery of geometry, and ease of ROS -- I fear that Roger will lose, because he's gone back to making far too many forehand UEs, and, like Nadal yesterday, his serve isn't clicking well enough. He'd also better knife those rally-prolonging cross-court slices, too, and nail some backhands down the line.

This is scarey for a Federer fan. I hope I have it all wrong. Tell me that I do, or did.

[airforce1]

This is a great match-up. I'm really looking forward to it. I see this match-up as being a testament to multi-dimensional tennis. Both players have incredible variety. I think Murray actually has more variety. He changes pace, height, spin...takes the pace off on one shot, then cranks a hard flat one on the next shot.

I'm going to record this one. And I may actually root for Murray, at least somewhat.

We can truly appreciate the artistry of either of these guys. I do give Fed the edge based on him seeming to find more patience in the last match or two. While I think Murray's variety bothers Roger, I don't think any of the individual shots are good enough to do much harm. It is more of a cumulative thing, which is much harder to put together, especially against Federer.

I'm thinking Murray's shorter TS shots don't quite have the bite, the drop shots will get a mixed result or worse and he can't be consistent enough when hitting for depth off Roger's spin and power. Murray's serve can keep this close if he is making them and the drop shots could put him over the top to win if he has one of his better days in that department. Even Roger will have a tough time defending the depth if the dropper is dialed in.

[oliensis]

Fed vs. Murray

This is a great match-up. I'm really looking forward to it. I see this match-up as being a testament to multi-dimensional tennis. Both players have incredible variety. I think Murray actually has more variety. He changes pace, height, spin...takes the pace off on one shot, then cranks a hard flat one on the next shot.

I'm going to record this one. And I may actually root for Murray, at least somewhat.

[airforce1]

Fed seemed to be showing more patience in his match with Joker. Looked more like the ole Fed to me. Not fully of course, but seemed to be moving in the right direction. I felt Joker was playing top notch tennis till mid way thru the 4th, and Fed still kept him mostly under control, even with the high level of play.

Yes Roger had some incredible matches over the last 4 years, but he didn't just dominate every matchup. Some of the best victories were where he seemed to snatch the match from someone who was playing at an amazing level. Several of those events he sort of played his way into form, having to survive some scares to reach the finals. Towards the end he was starting to believe the hype and who wouldn't with his results. but the truth is he had to work hard for many of those wins and many of them he didn't dictate play.

He seems to be ready to roll up his sleeve and do what it takes again. That said, Murray is a tough guy to match up with and poses lots of threat.

[maahou]

Here is an interesting array of stats i've found on the net

http://www.sportvox.fr/article.php3?id_article=22339

It shows how players succeed in 5 set matches.

[airforce1]

Airforce,
I agree w/ your comments. As I was writing my last post I thought, Gee, did someone write something like this on this thread before?...turns out you did.

But, that impression was confirmed watching Federer/Andreev.

I suspect Federer needs an offseason break, and to lay a new foundation of offseason training in order to start to work more patiently again.

Food for thought: While they say that tennis at a high level is 90% mental, it's my view that "character" (the ability to perform at a very high level especially under pressure) is probably 80% footwork. Which is to say, if your footwork (and technique) are solid and thoroughly trained, then performing well under pressure will be much less difficult. So, while the game may be 90% mental, 80% of that 90% is physical/preparation...so, net net, if 80% of 90% of the game is physical/preparation, then (0.9 * 0.8 =0.72) 72% of the game is physical/preparation.

Speaking of footwork, did anyone else notice the stark contrast in footwork in the Roddick/Novak match?

It seemed Andy was often still in recovery from hitting his shot as Joker was blasting it back into his open court, while even the harder strikes by Andy seemed to find Joker having already moved to meet the ball. Joker seemed to set to hit and flowing right into recovery nearly every time.

Seemed to be the difference maker in that match.

[oliensis]

Airforce,
I agree w/ your comments. As I was writing my last post I thought, Gee, did someone write something like this on this thread before?...turns out you did.

But, that impression was confirmed watching Federer/Andreev.

I suspect Federer needs an offseason break, and to lay a new foundation of offseason training in order to start to work more patiently again.

Food for thought: While they say that tennis at a high level is 90% mental, it's my view that "character" (the ability to perform at a very high level especially under pressure) is probably 80% footwork. Which is to say, if your footwork (and technique) are solid and thoroughly trained, then performing well under pressure will be much less difficult. So, while the game may be 90% mental, 80% of that 90% is physical/preparation...so, net net, if 80% of 90% of the game is physical/preparation, then (0.9 * 0.8 =0.72) 72% of the game is physical/preparation.

[airforce1]

I think during the mono, he developed a bad habit of being impatient. His shot tolerance # (correct term??) seems to have gone down and he goes for more penetration earlier in points, thus too many errors.

Sort of an over confidence/underconfidedence thing going on.

Yes, I agree, as you can see from my previous posts above. I particularly liked what you said about how he never seemed to trying or needing to finish the point in the past.

Maybe the discussions by the commentators on how he needed to strike quicker against Nadal, coupled with the mono, brought on some bad habits on shot tolerance.

Also, look at how often he gets away with just blasting the winner on que. That can be the worst thing, as it makes a believer out of you when you can do something 7 of 10 times.
But those percentages are not good enough for tennis, at least not against Nadal.

[uspta146749877]

Fed

Watched Federer-Andreev yesterday. It struck me that Federer is feeling all kinds of pressure. And I think that expresses itself as a decrease in patience. It looks to me like he pulls the trigger on "put aways" much earlier than he used to, that his shot tolerance is decreased. In fact, if I remember right, during his "untouchable" period he rarely looked like he was trying to put the ball away. He was just hitting his shots. Now he looks like he feels as if he has to force the issue (too soon) and that's when he makes those errors.

Of course, this apparent difference could be a function of his perhaps moving less well than he has in the past...which (I know from experience) does make it feel that you have to do SOMEthing or else you're going to lose the point.

Food for thought.
AO

Please see

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/usopen08/news/story?id=3565200

[oliensis]

Shot Tolerance

Watched Federer-Andreev yesterday. It struck me that Federer is feeling all kinds of pressure. And I think that expresses itself as a decrease in patience. It looks to me like he pulls the trigger on "put aways" much earlier than he used to, that his shot tolerance is decreased. In fact, if I remember right, during his "untouchable" period he rarely looked like he was trying to put the ball away. He was just hitting his shots. Now he looks like he feels as if he has to force the issue (too soon) and that's when he makes those errors.

Of course, this apparent difference could be a function of his perhaps moving less well than he has in the past...which (I know from experience) does make it feel that you have to do SOMEthing or else you're going to lose the point.

Food for thought.
AO