Reactivate
The time has come to blog again.
It's throughly appalling to admit, but I have TiVOed the French Open final and will watch it in my own damn good time later. Of course, Nadal wins in four sets, extending his run at Roland Garros to three, matching Kuerten, edging up on Borg.
I'm going to do a serious watch and try to figure out just exactly why Federer can't seem to crack Nadal's game. I suspect, strongly, that it has to do with serving. My theory is that there has been a slow erosion of Fed's serving prowess over the past five seasons, barely perceptible against other opponents, but exploited, almost organically, by Nadal on clay.
I noticed something similar last year. It seems strange that Fed's serving is his Achilles tendon, but it seems that it's a little like driving for Tiger Woods: If Tiger drives the ball well, he's hard to beat; if Federer serves very well, likewise. In the case of both players, the most "dramatic" aspects of their wildly versatile repsective games are strengths that can abruptly turn into big problems.
In today's final, Federer served extremely poorly in the first set. On clay, he almost has to win the first set against Nadal to have a chance. So in a sense, it wasn't his forehand that let him down--as was repeatedly pointed out during the NBC broadcast--it was his serving. Unsure of his own ability to hold serve, his was less able to take chances when, on numerous occasions, he had the chance to break Nadal.
Could it be that Federer actually has a fundamental, albeit extremely subtle, flaw in his game? If you take a look at how his game has developed since he was a junior, you can see a definite change in his approach to serving. Also, if you look at his motion, it has become less of a serve-and-volley or serve-and-attack action, and more of a extremely varied setup shot for his preposterously elegant ground game.
There were hints from the early rounds that Federer was planning to lean on his serve more this year, but it looks like Nadal prepared for that and successfully blunted the play by the time the final rolled around.
Upshot: Federer is still the man to beat at Wimbledon, but I sense vulnerability at the US Open. Here's a thought, however: Maybe currently coachless Roger should connect with restless Pete Sampras?
It's throughly appalling to admit, but I have TiVOed the French Open final and will watch it in my own damn good time later. Of course, Nadal wins in four sets, extending his run at Roland Garros to three, matching Kuerten, edging up on Borg.
I'm going to do a serious watch and try to figure out just exactly why Federer can't seem to crack Nadal's game. I suspect, strongly, that it has to do with serving. My theory is that there has been a slow erosion of Fed's serving prowess over the past five seasons, barely perceptible against other opponents, but exploited, almost organically, by Nadal on clay.
I noticed something similar last year. It seems strange that Fed's serving is his Achilles tendon, but it seems that it's a little like driving for Tiger Woods: If Tiger drives the ball well, he's hard to beat; if Federer serves very well, likewise. In the case of both players, the most "dramatic" aspects of their wildly versatile repsective games are strengths that can abruptly turn into big problems.
In today's final, Federer served extremely poorly in the first set. On clay, he almost has to win the first set against Nadal to have a chance. So in a sense, it wasn't his forehand that let him down--as was repeatedly pointed out during the NBC broadcast--it was his serving. Unsure of his own ability to hold serve, his was less able to take chances when, on numerous occasions, he had the chance to break Nadal.
Could it be that Federer actually has a fundamental, albeit extremely subtle, flaw in his game? If you take a look at how his game has developed since he was a junior, you can see a definite change in his approach to serving. Also, if you look at his motion, it has become less of a serve-and-volley or serve-and-attack action, and more of a extremely varied setup shot for his preposterously elegant ground game.
There were hints from the early rounds that Federer was planning to lean on his serve more this year, but it looks like Nadal prepared for that and successfully blunted the play by the time the final rolled around.
Upshot: Federer is still the man to beat at Wimbledon, but I sense vulnerability at the US Open. Here's a thought, however: Maybe currently coachless Roger should connect with restless Pete Sampras?
posted by Matthew DeBord at 10:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home