Even though I do like Roger Federer an awful lot, because of
certain small flaws that he has (weaknesses), players from other eras would easily exploit
and put Roger under extreme pressure, therefore I have a hard time putting him
at the top of my list as the best player ever.
The reason why I have such a hard time with this is because I understand the challenges a player
like Roger would face with someone who is a real grass court player and in this
era there are none, zero! So, are the amassing of grass court titles a case
of 'in the land of the blind, he who can see is king?' Possibly.
To aid in better understanding this let us look at the net approach statistics* of some of the
Wimbledon 'grass court' matches.
Quarter Finals
|
Murray (GBR) |
Ferrero (ESP) |
|
3 sets - 1 hour and 41 minutes |
| Attacks Won 10 of 13 = 77 % |
13 of 18 = 72 % |
|
Karlovic (CRO) |
Federer (SUI) |
|
3 sets - 1 hour and 43 minutes |
| Attacks Won 14 of 35 = 40 % |
13 of 16 = 81 % |
|
Hewitt (AUS) |
Roddick (USA) |
|
5 sets - 3 hour and 50 minutes |
| Attacks Won 29 of 47 = 62 % |
28 of 42 = 67 % |
|
Haas (GER) |
Djokovic (SRB) |
|
4 sets - 2 hour and 44 minutes |
| Attacks Won 31 of 49 = 63 % |
24 of 33 = 73 % |
Semi-Finals
|
Roddick (USA) |
Murray (GBR) |
| 4 Sets - 3 hours and 11 minutes |
| Attacks Won 48 of 75 = 64 % |
15 of 20 = 75 % |
|
|
3 Sets - 2 hours and 20 minutes |
| Attacks Won 21 of 37 = 57 % |
38 of 43 = 88 % |
FINALS
|
Roddick (USA) |
Federer (SUI) |
|
5 Sets - 4 hours and 16 minutes |
| Attacks Won 42 of 69 = 61 % |
38 of 59 = 64 % |
net approach statistics* It means how many times these players
went to the net with either serve and volley or approached the net with an
attack.
To make it simple I am going to concentrate on the final, but first I will
make a comment on Andy Murray. Here is a player that is spearheading the hopes
and dreams of British tennis and at Wimbledon on grass in a match against a Spanish
clay court specialist, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy goes less to the net then
Ferrero! (13 versus 18 times, Wow!)
If Andy continues to play this way at Wimbledon he might as well just hope
all of his competition dies for him to win! Fat chance!
Let us take a blatant case of why Federer can succeed against today's players
and why he would not against a John McEnroe or Rod Laver and others.
The return!:
- If you watch the whole final once more, you will realize that all Federer did
against Roddicks first serves and many second serves (and does it with almost
all players) was to block the returns. Federer rarely hits over the ball on
the return.
So what? You may say.
- Well those returns are safe, not very well placed (mostly around the center
of the court) high and deep most of the time, but the flaw is they are slow floating
sitters.
Today's players wait for them to bounce and then engage in a
rally.
John McEnroe, Rod Laver and many others I know, would have been
relentlessly unforgiving and would have punished those returns over and over
with all sorts of winning volleys and not give Roger a chance to get to them! This is grass court tennis Roger! (That
would be the message)
This is what Roddick did to Murray's second serve in the semis and had to do to ALL second serves
throughout the match against Federer (making it or not!) and that is what John McEnroe and Rod
Laver would do to all second serves and follow up with an attack whenever the
opportunities arose! Do not think I am exagerating for a second, I am speaking
for the attackers mind I was one and this is Wimbledon grass court tennis!
What would this do to Roger?
- It would force Roger to be a lot more accurate, place the ball closer to
the lines, or hit over the ball more
often and therefore make a lot more mistakes on the return. I am sure you
are starting to get the picture.
Backhand and forehand floaters!:
- Roger absolutely dislikes to be put on the run. Players like John McEnroe and
Rod Laver who were well know for their pin point accuracy, would not be doing
anything else but keeping Roger on the run!
- On the run, Roger Federer often plays defensive slices on both wings which
often are floaters, while today's players limit themselves at waiting for those
slow high floating balls to bounce and then engage in a rally or try to hit a winner off the
ground (giving time for Roger to recover and get back into position), John
McEnroe and Rod Laver would move in and take the easy pickings with volleys
before Federer even made his first recovery step.
- If you consider that in the whole final only 10 points separated Andy Roddick
from Federer, put your imagination at work, re-read the two paragraphs above and
start counting points in Andy's favour for the plays I mentioned. (By now he would have already won the match in 3
sets! Now, imagine John McEnroe or Rod Laver who really knew how to play on
grass!
Second Serves!:
- Whilst most players just play passive tennis on Roger Federer's second serves,
John McEnroe and Rod Laver would be aggressive, relentless and get inside the
court, attack and put enormous pressure on all of Rogers second serves.
- If you think back at the final between Roddick and Federer, a timid Andrew
Roddick did a simulation of that in the first set and drew a couple of double
faults and managed a couple of attacks down-the-line followed by winning points.
But then did not sustain this fundamental grass court tactic and fell back into
passive returning. Imagine if he did what I am saying!
- John McEnroe and Rod Laver would not limit themselves at stepping to the
baseline, they would get inside of it and punish severely anything of lesser
quality that came their way.
What happens if this is done well?
- As the match and points get tighter those opportunities arise no matter
who is serving. This is not a case of marvelous Roger, in my view he gets away
because these players do not have the guts or the know-how to execute the right
shots at the right time. Great for Roger!
Head sideways at volleys:
- Many think oh Roger does not go to the net because he does not
want to! Not true, he does not go to the net more often because he is not
challenged by his opponents to do so and also because his volleys are not as
good as most think.
- John McEnroe and Rod Laver who would attack Roger relentlessly would leave
Roger with one single and only option-go to the net, serve and volley, attack
and take the net away from his opponents.
Here is another twist to the story!
John McEnroe and Rod Laver who had high quality passing shots and were very quick
with
their reactions as well as foot speed, the following scenario would happen:
- First they would force Roger to move around the net to
low balls which he does not like. Easier balls would result into punishing
passing shots.
- Second they would exploit Roger's sideways head position
to virtually to every ball he hits, making him hit balls later and later and
opening opportunities for passing-shots!
- Federer would not sustain the serve and volley cadence,
since he complaints about getting tired when he serves and volleys (we saw a big
physical lull on the 4th set with Andy Roddick even without serving and
volleying - Yep, Roger served and volleyed once the whole match if I am not
wrong!)!
- Federer would be uncomfortable because he would have to play a game he does
not like to play and no one dared to upset the 'king'.
The attacks of the ground:
- Unlike today were most of the time anyone approaches the net they do it
with the run of the mill mediocre cross-court attack, John McEnroe and Rod Laver
were natural born attackers and knew were to go with the slice deep or short,
the drop shot or the angles plus finish with top class volleys.
- While with a clumsy Roddick, Federer had/has the luxury of luring him to
the net with the cross-court short backhand slice, draw the mistake outright
or the above-mentioned 'attack' and pass. With John McEnroe and Rod Laver
it would be tantamount to suicide, because these individuals would be
unforgiving and would win point after point in that situation.
John McEnroe and Rod Laver were both lefties (left handers):
- These two gentlemen had a wide swinging serve that
bounced low and sped away in a hurry from you on the ad side. As servers they
were as much masters of disguise as Roger is. No need to elaborate on the
the leftie advantages and how much Federer does not like to play Nadal, a leftie
himself.
- Another very important factor his that the best passing shot of Federer,
when attacked, is the cross backhand pass and that would be faced with the
punishing forehand volleys of both John McEnroe and Rod Laver! (instead of the
very weak backhand volley from Roddick).
Constant pressure:
- Unlike Roddick who tried to utilize the principle of constant pressure and
failed because his guts and execution are not up to par with the needs,
John McEnroe and Rod Laver who thrived on pressure and loved to play the
constant pressure game and had the technique and speed Roddick does not have,
would have been a real nutcracker for Roger.
- Roger would not want anything to do with it! Roger likes to play at his own
pace and hates a real challenger who applies constant pressure and makes him
work for his wins. Roger simply will not fight like in the Roland Garros final
2008 were the pressure from Nadal was relentless and a listless Federer
surrendered 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 5-7.
Statistics:
Now, if we analyze the final statistics between Roger Federer and Andy
Roddick, other factors must be added into the equation, the final score; 5/7, 7/6, 7/6, 6/3,
16/14, for a grand total of 87 games and 436 points that were played!
Roddick went to the net 69 times versus Federer 59 times, Roddick won
42 points and Federer won 38.
John McEnroe and Rod Laver would have gone to the net at least three
times as much as Andy Roddick or 207 times in the course of such a match
and as we all know, they both volleyed, moved and attacked 50 percent
better then Roddick, now put the two and two of the statistics together and see
who would have won!
If we keep the statistics as they are: 207 attacks at Roddicks rate of
success of 61%, which is low in relation to the ones from John McEnroe and
Rod Laver at the net, they would have won a whopping 126 points or an extra 84
points on top of the 42 Roddick won in attacks.
Now remember that in the whole final Andy Roddick was separated
from Federer by only 10 points! Now give John McEnroe and Rod Laver the extra
84 points or a 74 point difference and boy would that have been a mother of
all beatings!
From my point of view I think I made a strong case for all experts to
consider. Statistics do not lie, I believe someone said it once.
Roger Federer is a great player and I rate him among the top five without a
question, but I look at his competition today and I find them a lot less skilled
than other players from the past and on a head to head, I do not find Federer
capable of coming out the winner as he does today.
Amassing tournament win after tournament win against a competition that does
not validate the tournament is meaningless for me. Like for example Roger
Federer winning Roland Garros or Wimbledon without facing Rafael Nadal.
For me it is definitely a case of 'in the land of the blind he who sees can
easily be king!' With the statistics of the Wimbledon final there is no
doubt in my mind that John McEnroe and Rod Laver would have won at Wimbledon
with relative ease against Federer and if Roddick had doubled his attacks he
would have won too!
I rest my case.
Sergio Cruz
Support the TennisCruz website, use our search link partners and purchase from them. Anything you would like to find on this website or anywhere on the internet? Find
it here:
|
Comment by jrb6060 on 2009-08-04 12:27:39
You don't have to go back all the way to Mac & Laver to see what an attacking style can do on the faster surfaces.
Pete obviously had huge success, but he was also a supremely talented natural athlete, so let's forget him for a moment.
But look at some others:
Henman - an average athlete, but very stubborn, and willing to keep coming in point after point after point. As a result, he made it to the Wimbledon semis 4 times and quarters 4 times in a 9 year stretch.
Pioline - a graceful mover with solid groundstrokes, Cedric could stay back and win on clay (Monte Carlo winner + 2 more finals), but knew he MUST move forward on fast courts; a beautiful volleyer, he made it to the finals of US Open and Wimbledon, and would've won both majors if Sampras was not so great. Pioline is one of only a few pros ever to win titles on hard, clay, grass and carpet.
And he did that because he accepted that he must change his game to match the conditions.
Rafter - another very good (but not great) athlete, who understood his own weaknesses (mediocre groundstrokes, especially the forehand) and knew his only chance was to take his opponent out of his comfort zone by rushing him; Rafter won 2 US Opens and should've won Wimbledon in 2001, because he understood the statistics ... that even though he would get passed a lot, he would still win far more points coming in than he would lose.
I think there are 2 main reasons why today's coaches and players are not willing to work hard to develop the serve and volley game:
1) believing the myth - somebody started a rumor years ago that the more powerful modern rackets and the bigger stronger athletes make it impossible to serve and volley; as the story goes, you can't come in and be successful because the returns are too good, too fast. Bull$hit! The faster game makes it more of a challenge for sure, but does not make it impossible. What coaches and players need to understand is that you cannot bomb the serve 130 m.p.ph. and expect to come in behind it.
You must study the games of those who were great S&V players ... McEnroe, Edberg, Becker ... and understand WHY they worked so well. Only then will you understand the absolute necessity for an effective slice serve ... and for an effective kick serve. When you S&V, you must close inside the service line for the 1st volley, and move in even closer for the 2nd volley. The only way to get that far into the court is to use the entire service box, concentrate on placement over power, and serve between 100-115 mph with a HIGH % of first serves IN. Yes, it CAN be done, but you must be willing to completely re-think the way you use your serve. When it comes to power, sometimes less is more.
2) instant gratification - we live in a world where the younger generation is greedy. They want it all, and they want it right NOW! When a kid shows promise as a talented young player, the tendency is to pound balls from the baseline, hour after hour after hour, and further develop those groundstrokes.
It is quite difficult and awkward at first to develop the serve and volley game because the movements do not come naturally. They must be practiced diligently and mastered over a period of years, and the player and the coach must both accept that the rewards do not come today or tomorrow.
They come years down the road. Peter Fischer understood this, and he recognized that Pete Sampras possessed the talent to make it work. Pete completely sacrificed his junior career and rankings (instant gratification) for the possibility of much bigger successes later.
I remember watching Chang completely destroy Pete 6-1,6-1,6-1 at Roland Garros early in their careers. And Chang beat him the first 4 times they played on hard courts too. But Pete stuck with his plan, and in 1990 everything started to click and the rest was history.
All the top players work hard physically and practice many hours.
But they must start working harder with their BRAINS ... change their games when the surface changes ... and begin approaching the game with a new strategy of "What can I do that will take my opponent out of their comfort zone??"
jrb6060 |
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2009-08-04 00:29:11
JB, further more, you are right on! :-))))
Pitty that coaches and players themselves are afraid to even try to go to the net. Shame on them.
Just can not see in the future athletes above 6 feet 3 trying to compete and run around the baseline against shorter and much faster players.
Sam Querrey is an example of such disaster he still wins some because most of the others play the same old baseline game and are as slow as he is, but once things step up a notch or two Sam is out!
Carsten Ball a qualifier with 7 matches in his mind and body but, who can serve and volley and attack with a good slice backhand, clearly showed that BIG guys have to and must attack!
Inspite of all hullaballooba from the American press, Sam Querrey either learns to attack more or he will be a consistent early exit at the Slams.
His coach David Nakin should know that, I trained him just before he got to his only quarter finals of Wimbledon once! |
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2009-08-04 00:11:06
JB,
Great comment! Indeed in the land of baseliners the "ATTACK - THE LION EFFECT!"
http://tenniscruz.com/content/view/206/90/ works wonders! :=)))) |
Comment by Renato Vasconcelos on 2009-07-10 01:36:36
Dear Sergio,
regarding your latest article on Federer. I do understand your reasoning but can one blame Federer for the overall change in game, where baseliners are predominant?
And, have you questioned yourself that, maybe, Roger did/does not develop other "weapons" because he cannot? You play what you oponents ask for and, throughout his whole career, Roger has been developing the weapons he needs in order to beat current players.
Why do you assume that, if challenged by truly attacking players, he would lose? Maybe not. Maybe, it would only mean that he would have had the chance to develop the shots required to beat them!
I understand it theoretically but I think it does not make a lot of sense to make an argument such as the one you have developed in this article.
And... is Roger also to be blamed for Nadal's defeat in RG or his injuries?
I understand you. We should ask more from more talented people but it seems that your goal is only to pick on Roger and is very difficult to believe that you like him "an awful lot"!:)
Best wishes,
Renato
|
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2009-07-10 01:41:39
Dear Renato,
Thank you for your comment. You must be a die hard fan of Roger, good for you! :-))
The main point of my article is to show that if either player had played grass court tennis at Wimbledon instead of clay court tennis, either of them could have won much easier and we as spectators would not have been subjected to the long and boring affair we were subject to.
Another point is, indeed if you can not volley, you do not go to the net and this is an instructional site and my goal is to I inspire people especially young people, to develop themselves in the full range of tennis possibilities and not to limit themselves to one mode games. (So keep your eye on the volley!)
Therefore the need to show that even though a Roger Federer is a great player, nevertheless by limiting himself to serve and volley one single time in a 4 hour and 16 minutes match on a grass court is making a dis-service to tennis even though he wins.
During Wimbledon, I had more fun watching Jesse Levine play (a qualifier) than all the matches together from Federer. Why? Simple Levine played just the right amount of baseline tennis, combined with serve and volley, other attacks, with a rather varied and intelligent game, which made it entertaining to watch and inspiring for others. Federer could have easily done that for us and play grass court tennis for once.
Take for example the revival of the drop-shot and the backhand slice (I wrote about it years ago admonishing Federer for not doing it often) that won Roger Federer, Madrid, Roland Garros and led to a confident Federer at Wimbledon.
Finally indeed players like Rod Laver and John McEnroe would get Federer out of his lazy ways, would stiffly challenge him and in fact they would have beaten him as well as many others such as Lew Hoad just to mention one. The reason being is that they knew how to play grass court tennis and how to volley, Federer plays clay court tennis on grass courts and has a mediocre volley in comparison to those players. Just ask Tony Roche, who coached him!
Sergio
PS- Remember my job is not to be anyone players fan but rather your fan.
That means helping you and others learn as much as possible about the game including the need to keep the volley and the serve and volley alive as they are integral part of playing good tennis.
|
Comment by JRB6060 on 2009-08-04 00:06:57
Wimbledon - Roger Federer - John McEnroe or Rod Laver?
I find it amazing among the statistics you listed that ANDY RODDICK was the most aggressive player of the bunch!!
No wonder he did so well at Wimbledon this year.
Not only was the attacking style affective because it robs the opponent of time, but it also keeps the opponent from getting comfortable if you don't know what to expect each and every point.
Regarding the question of how effective Laver or McEnroe would be against Federer on grass ---
Certainly Federer has a combination of speed and shot-making ability that nobody else has had, BUT (and this is a very big BUT ... much like the one on Serena Williams!) ... Federer has shown the tennis world very recently how vulnerable he is to a relentlessly attacking game. When you say? Against Pete Sampras in those 3 exhibition matches. Federer was getting whipped soundly in Pete's service games on a fast indoor carpet because he never had time to use his best weapon - his speed. Roger was consistently late in getting to Sampras' first volley, and hit very few successful passing shots in the two matches I saw.
Perhaps Roger's intensity was not at Wimbledon level, but his body language sure told me that he was trying to win, and he looked very frustrated and unsure of himself on several occasions. Pete was constantly rushing Roger, and never let him get into a groove because the points were over so quickly.
Anyone who truly understands tennis and had a chance to see McEnroe play on grass in his prime would agree that John's game would have presented huge problems for Roger.
He could slice the serve away to the backhand in the ad court much more effectively than Rafa, and could then back it up with perhaps the greatest volleys ever seen.
And McEnroe was a master at spinning his lefty serve into the body of the right hander in the deuce court, which often resulted in weak, defensive returns that were punished on the first volley. Roger would regularly be left scratching his head simply because he has never faced that style before.
Could 2006 Roger beat 1983 McEnroe on grass?
YES, but not from the baseline. To beat McEnroe, he would have to go back to the grass court style he was using in 2001 when he beat Sampras in 5 sets ... serving and volleying on both 1st and 2nd serves. And even then, he would not beat McEnroe every time.
As for Laver, I cannot comment with any authority, since the only times I got to see him play were in 1973-74 when he was slowing down quite a bit.
But given the Rocket's superior record on grass, and his attacking style, you would have to think that he too would give Roger fits in his prime.
In the land of the baseliners, he who volleys well can easily be king!
jrb6060
|
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2009-08-26 08:18:05
Agree with you JB having no clue on how to go to the net plus very mediocre volleys are great handicaps.
On my articles I mention Laver or McEnroe because they are marquee names, but I can name at least ten guys out of my head that would give Federer a hell of a time:
Lew Hoad, Roy Emmerson, Tony Roche, John Newkombe, Arthur Ashe, Pat Cash, Boris Becker, Setefan Edberg, Patrick Rafter and even "little" Cliff Richey who was a "Buldog" would have torn Federer apart!
|
Comment by Genanker on 2010-04-16 04:05:42
A slightly skewed argument given that McEnroe for all his talent at the net, was still not the juggernaut that Borg was. S&V vs Baseliner. McEnroe thus should have more Wimbledon titles.
I will agree in that Federer's net game has declined in that he is not up to scratch on low volleys, drop volleys and his backhand volley is shocking sometimes as he chops down on it so much and botches them into the net. He does not have the stretch volleys that Sampras had and he is hesitant to do the backhand volley down the line either off serve-volley on the deuce side or when wrong-footing Nadal.
He is capable of serve-volleying well but given the slower surfaces these days and his ability to win from the baseline, there is no pressing need to.
Yes, McEnroe and Laver would have given him much competition and forced him to improve just as the current crop has forced him to improve his backhand.
As for McEnroe's and Laver's lefty serve, given that Sampras was able to beat Ivanisevic on grass 4 times to 2 and on fast carpet 6 wins to 2, with an inferior backhand and especially return of serve to Federer's, I am sure that Federer would have adapted.
As for Roddick's separation from Federer by 10 points in the Wimbledon final, this was not due to his lack of approaching the net or his serve volley. It was because Roddick's serve is faster and harder than Laver's and McEnroe's! Thus, Roddick won his points differently to them and therefore was able to keep it close.
Faced with a slower serve and a better backhand return than Sampras and reflexes just as equal to Agassi, Federer would have been able to make headway against Laver and McEnroe's S&V! After all, Borg did, no?
Thus, you cannot rely on extrapolation of Roddick's total points won tally because even though Roddick cannot volley, Laver and McEnroe cannot have served as hard, thereby ending points with just one serve just as Roddick did.
If Roddick serve-volleyed every point or came to the net as often as McEnroe or Laver, then perhaps it would be prudent to extrapolate from his statistics and compare!
Statistics may not lie but they can mislead! |
Comment by Sergio Cruz on 2010-04-16 04:25:30
Good comment Genanker.
There are major weaknesses in it:
1- Roger Federer just can not serve and volley well enough to do it consistently and under pressure (Laver and McEnroe could)
2- It is not the number of wins that counts but rather the quality of opposition, Roger's opposition has no idea how to play on grass, neither do they know how to attack or handle/counter a low slice.
3- Tim Henman a far inferior player to Laver and McEnroe (until he got injured in the back and handicaped) simply beat the "best player of all time" RF with ease.
4- Rod Laver and John McEnroe served far better then Roddick on grass. Serving on grass is about intelligence variation and understanding the surface. All Roddick understands about grass are the dry cow pastures of Oklahoma.
5- But even the "bronco" from Oklahoma would have won had he gone to the net just 20% more :-)
...and ah!...Bjorn Borg... http://www.tenniscruz.com/content/view/30/1/
|
Comment by Genanker on 2010-04-16 04:52:47
1. Federer cannot serve and volley well enough to do it consistently under pressure because he has no need to. In Wimbledon 2001, he did and he did well!
3. Henman did not beat Federer with ease in Wimbledon 2001, he did beat him fairly straightforward in Basel however when Federer was still off with the fairies.
4. Laver and McEnroe may have served with more intelligence and variation than Roddick on grass but Roddick's power on his serve is such that he still wins many cheap points/service games, thus keeping it tighter.
5. The 'bronco' from Oklahoma would have won had he made just one crucial backhand volley!
After all, Laver got a drubbing when he first turned professional before he started to tighten up his game and play more calculated attacking tennis! Give Roger the same hurdles and I am sure he would have risen to meet the challenges of facing McEnroe and Laver on grass! Taking out 7-time Wimbledon champion Sampras at 19 in their first meeting ever and on grass is testament to this! |
TENNIS BLOG 
