[Lamps08]

(Original post by f1mad)
The true greats always find a way back.

Yep

[ThatPerson]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
I think Del Potro will beat Ferrer. At times, it's easy to forget how good Del Potro is. After he won the US Open, he sort of disappeared. However, he's a top 10 player and, still, only 23 years old. If you look at Ferrer's and Del Potro's history, the furthest they've been at Wimbledon is the fourth round. Grass is not either player's best court by any stretch of the imagination, but I can only see one winner. The main difference will be Del Potro's height advantage. Clay suits someone of Ferrer's skill set more so than grass.


[I expect Ferrer to win 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 now ]

I'm not sure about that. I have a feeling that a Del Potro vs Ferrer match would be extremely close, especially if you consider how Ferrer was playing against Roddick in the later sets; I thought that was an amazing comeback.

I think Del Potro is an excellent player in his own right, and he gave a very confident and collected performance today against Nishikori, so I think it can go either way.

As a side note, I don't think I've watched a tennis match as tense as Murray vs Baghtadis outside of a semi-final/final. The atmosphere in the last set was incredible.

[Sgany]

I am curious to why Federer seems to use his backhand more than his forehand? According to my dad is because the other players are constantly forcing him on it due to the strength of his forehand?

[TheMagicRat]

It's pretty obvious that next year play has to start earlier on the show courts. I love the night matches; it creates a great atmosphere but it's not what the tournament is about.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Disagree. I'd put a match on centre starting at 7pm. Pretty unlikely it runs past 4 hours(roof would be closed prior) and if it does then conclude it at 11am the next day.

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Sgany)
I am curious to why Federer seems to use his backhand more than his forehand? According to my dad is because the other players are constantly forcing him on it due to the strength of his forehand?

The traditional way to beat Federer is by hammering his backhand. It is not the weak shot it is often made out to be, but it is weaker than his forehand. His forehand doesn't have the power that other players can get, but it has magnificent accuracy which means he can hit the balls at very difficult angles, so if you hit to his forehand he will probably find it easier to take control and hit winners than he will if you go for his backhand instead.

[Sgany]

(Original post by Bobifier)
The traditional way to beat Federer is by hammering his backhand. It is not the weak shot it is often made out to be, but it is weaker than his forehand. His forehand doesn't have the power that other players can get, but it has magnificent accuracy which means he can hit the balls at very difficult angles, so if you hit to his forehand he will probably find it easier to take control and hit winners than he will if you go for his backhand instead.

Thanks for clearing that up His backhand in my opinion is the most beautiful thing to see in tennis, just the way he hits it makes me drool.

[sc0307]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Lamps08 is a clueless Federer fanboy, take no notice of what he says

I would call him a fanboy but certainly not clueless. He's absolutely right about Rosol and I was so sure he'd lose his following match after Nadal as so many do after beating huge players. The golden word is consistency as it is in all the other sports. But I do believe Rosol would have blown any player including Roger or Novak off the court that night. No one can withstand 90-100 mph groundstrokes hit at a consistent level...

[Llewellyn]

(Original post by Sgany)
Thanks for clearing that up His backhand in my opinion is the most beautiful thing to see in tennis, just the way he hits it makes me drool.

I agree, Federer is majestic at his best. If you get the chance to see his forehand in slow motion, study how his wrist moves carefully, because it's absolutely incredible - the same is also true of Nadal - but Federer's timing is just sublime.

I mean if I was good enough to qualify for major junior competitions (which I'm not) I think I'd definitely like to study Federer's movements and styles, particularly during and approaching shots.

Del Potro v Federer should be an interesting game, I wouldn't be surprised by an "upset" by any means

[Straight up G]

(Original post by Bobifier)
The traditional way to beat Federer is by hammering his backhand. It is not the weak shot it is often made out to be, but it is weaker than his forehand. His forehand doesn't have the power that other players can get, but it has magnificent accuracy which means he can hit the balls at very difficult angles, so if you hit to his forehand he will probably find it easier to take control and hit winners than he will if you go for his backhand instead.

Ive read before though that Federer has the best backhand in the history of the game. Does this mean its on the wane or that backhands in general are weaker than forehands?

[Llewellyn]

(Original post by Straight up G)
Ive read before though that Federer has the best backhand in the history of the game. Does this mean its on the wane or that backhands in general are weaker than forehands?

The nature of the shot makes the backhand weaker in general. It's a lot harder to accelerate your arm away from your body than towards it. The backhand also has less reach if it is 2 handed, and if it is 1 handed then you need to have a solid base to get appropriate power or spin. It is also harder to hit a high bouncing ball on backhands compared to forehands (and Nadal hits the ball with so much topspin that it bounces REALLY high). There are other reasons also. People sometimes say that their backhand is relatively stronger; this probably isn't true and if it is true then they probably need to work on their forehand because modern tennis involves a lot of forehand attack and/ for development of the point.

Federer has a brilliant backhand, but the accuracy and angles he generates with the forehand makes his forehand a much more dangerous weapon.

[Chief Wiggum]

(Original post by Straight up G)
Ive read before though that Federer has the best backhand in the history of the game. Does this mean its on the wane or that backhands in general are weaker than forehands?

lol, Federer doesn't have the best backhand ever.

[Straight up G]

(Original post by Llewellyn)
The nature of the shot makes the backhand weaker in general. It's a lot harder to accelerate your arm away from your body than towards it. The backhand also has less reach if it is 2 handed, and if it is 1 handed then you need to have a solid base to get appropriate power or spin. It is also harder to hit a high bouncing ball on backhands compared to forehands (and Nadal hits the ball with so much topspin that it bounces REALLY high). There are other reasons also. People sometimes say that their backhand is relatively stronger; this probably isn't true and if it is true then they probably need to work on their forehand because modern tennis involves a lot of forehand attack and/ for development of the point.

Federer has a brilliant backhand, but the accuracy and angles he generates with the forehand makes his forehand a much more dangerous weapon.

Yeah, I was actually going to say that when I used to play squash, many of the coaches thought their backhand was faster and also stronger than their forehand. Surely attacking anyone and everyone's backhand must be the way to go then, given that it's essentially the weaker shot?

(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
lol, Federer doesn't have the best backhand ever.

Sorry, what I read was 'best forehand and best backhand slice ever', my mistake haha.

[Llewellyn]

(Original post by Straight up G)
Yeah, I was actually going to say that when I used to play squash, many of the coaches thought their backhand was faster and also stronger than their forehand. Surely attacking anyone and everyone's backhand must be the way to go then, given that it's essentially the weaker shot?

The backhand can be more of a whip, but in tennis accuracy and precision is so important that often going for a shot like that isn't advisable. But a really well timed backhand can swing the point in one players favour (but then the same is true of the forehand).

Generally, yes. It is different when facing a left-handed player though. The cross-court forehand is the bread and butter shot in tennis. It's so important for that to be working properly. Similarly, in a diagonal backhand to backhand rally, you never want to be the player that plays the first straight shot if you can avoid it. The extra speed that can be generated from the backhand to forehand receive would probably lose you the point.

I mean this is all quite general - the slice backhand and also the drop shot are really useful tools to have, but generally most winners are forehands and generally you will see players serve to the backhand. If a player has a really solid backhand (Nadal and Djokovic) that doesn't present a weakness then that is obviously a huge advantage defensively. The problem with the Federer 1-handed backhand is that it relys on timing and precision to be effective, both of those are hand to get right when someone is spinning a 95mph ball at an angle.

[Louis.]

Djokovic vs Troicki
Gasquet vs Meyer

Federer vs Malisse
Youzhny vs Istomin

Ferrer vs Del Potro
Murray vs Cilic

Tsonga vs Fish
Kohlschreiber vs Baker

----------------------------------------

I hate middle Sundays

[TheMagicRat]

(Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
Disagree. I'd put a match on centre starting at 7pm. Pretty unlikely it runs past 4 hours(roof would be closed prior) and if it does then conclude it at 11am the next day.

I think it would be irresponsible to purposely schedule a match to start that late when you have a curfew.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen though. They've backed themselves into a corner this week and people will demand night matches.

I'd still start play on show courts an hour earlier regardless.

[white_haired_wizard]

Nothing changes with Murray, as defensive and negative as ever. Good luck winning a grand slam with this playing style. His attitude on court and mood swings are also a massive liability.

As for Baghdatis, as much as he can be likeable, smiles, seems to be a happy personality, he all too often does what he did last night - chucked in the towel and stopped bothering, especially in the last set. Pretty unprofessional and pathetic really.

[member592149]

(Original post by white_haired_wizard)
Nothing changes with Murray, as defensive and negative as ever. Good luck winning a grand slam with this playing style. His attitude on court and mood swings are also a massive liability.

As for Baghdatis, as much as he can be likeable, smiles, seems to be a happy personality, he all too often does what he did last night - chucked in the towel and stopped bothering, especially in the last set. Pretty unprofessional and pathetic really.

Agreed on Murray not winning a slam playing like that. I've not seen him play that nervously in a long time. Maybe it was the fact his draw had opened or up (remember how nervous Feserer looked at French Open on '09) or the fact the roof has thrown up difficulties for Rafa and Federer and to a lesser extent, Novak. I'm sure he'll pick up against Cilci but if he doesn't improve then it's curtains.

[CJM13]

As much as I adore Federer and his playing style, I've got a feeling this is going to be a Tsonga/Djokovic final. I can't see Murray getting past the semis and Tsonga has been fantastic recently.

[bkeevin]

(Original post by Louis.)
Djokovic vs Troicki
Gasquet vs Meyer

Federer vs Malisse
Youzhny vs Istomin

Ferrer vs Del Potro
Murray vs Cilic

Tsonga vs Fish
Kohlschreiber vs Baker

----------------------------------------

I hate middle Sundays

Exactly. Why do they even do it? I don't think any other slam has a similar day of rest. It's so cruel to deprive us of any tennis during the wimbledon forthnight!!!