[Scoop Malinowski] Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Source: http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/scoop/jack-kramer-explains-federers-fade/
Source: http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/scoop/jack-kramer-explains-federers-fade/
[Scoop Malinowski] Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
- Thread starter britbox
- Start date
ClayDeath
Multiple Major Winner
shawnbm
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reactions
- 1,085
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Very interesting perspective from an all time great of the game. It makes sense to me; when playing at the top things just happen automatically. He calls it spontaneity, but it seems to be one and the same. Maybe that is what we were seeing when Roger was "free flowing" TMF or when McEnroe was rolling everyone with his game.
Very interesting perspective from an all time great of the game. It makes sense to me; when playing at the top things just happen automatically. He calls it spontaneity, but it seems to be one and the same. Maybe that is what we were seeing when Roger was "free flowing" TMF or when McEnroe was rolling everyone with his game.
Murat Baslamisli
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,336
- Reactions
- 1,051
- Points
- 113
- Age
- 51
- Location
- Aurora, Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.drummershangout.ca
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
There might be a point there. "thinking" as opposed to just "being" can definitely effect someone's game.
There might be a point there. "thinking" as opposed to just "being" can definitely effect someone's game.
scoop
Major Winner
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2013
- Messages
- 1,417
- Reactions
- 172
- Points
- 63
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Thanks for commenting on the article. Hard to argue with Jack Kramer, if you read his book "The Game" you quickly realize his knowledge about the intricacies of the sport and the mind of a great champion are extremely keen. Kind regards, Mark Scoop Malinowski
Thanks for commenting on the article. Hard to argue with Jack Kramer, if you read his book "The Game" you quickly realize his knowledge about the intricacies of the sport and the mind of a great champion are extremely keen. Kind regards, Mark Scoop Malinowski
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Very hard to argue with Kramer - a pioneer and a very astute mind.
Good to see you posting Scoop!
Very hard to argue with Kramer - a pioneer and a very astute mind.
Good to see you posting Scoop!
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,079
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Great article Scoop! I like the way you think here, placing things in context and locating Roger's predicament as being a problem not unique to him. He's having to work at what came natural, and he's having to think about what came instinctively.
When Pete re-hired Annacone in 2002, part of the quick fix Paul managed was the remind Pete of who he was - and to question why he was trying to re-learn the sport, complicate things too much, where previously his gut instinct was to bind the serve to the T and dispatch swiftly whatever was leftover. He reduced Pete's game to its core, because in his decline and his search for answers, Pete tried to over-think, complicate and change.
It'll be harder for Roger because his game is less straight-forward than Sampras, but one thing Annacone told Pete that struck a chord with that great man: remember this, you're Pete Sampras and the other guy ain't!
Great article Scoop! I like the way you think here, placing things in context and locating Roger's predicament as being a problem not unique to him. He's having to work at what came natural, and he's having to think about what came instinctively.
When Pete re-hired Annacone in 2002, part of the quick fix Paul managed was the remind Pete of who he was - and to question why he was trying to re-learn the sport, complicate things too much, where previously his gut instinct was to bind the serve to the T and dispatch swiftly whatever was leftover. He reduced Pete's game to its core, because in his decline and his search for answers, Pete tried to over-think, complicate and change.
It'll be harder for Roger because his game is less straight-forward than Sampras, but one thing Annacone told Pete that struck a chord with that great man: remember this, you're Pete Sampras and the other guy ain't!
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
I like the idea of over-thinking, but I don't understand this:
"Maybe Federer losing to Djokovic at the U.S. Open, with the two match points was one of the final nails in the coffin, though Federer did rebound, unlike Smith, to win Wimbledon last year."
How can it possibly be "one of the final nails in the coffin" when he went on the tear that he did following that loss? It doesn't add up.
I like the idea of over-thinking, but I don't understand this:
"Maybe Federer losing to Djokovic at the U.S. Open, with the two match points was one of the final nails in the coffin, though Federer did rebound, unlike Smith, to win Wimbledon last year."
How can it possibly be "one of the final nails in the coffin" when he went on the tear that he did following that loss? It doesn't add up.
El Dude
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reactions
- 5,041
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
True, this. Its tough being an athlete because by the time you're 30, in most cases your best years are behind you. Most other vocations involve peaks in the 30-50 range, some--those more intellectual or psychological--even later. Look at Mike Trout in baseball - he just turned 22 and he's had two of the greatest seasons ever by a 20-21 year old.
I actually think Rafael Nadal helped Roger's overall career and longevity. Imagine if Rafa had never been, or become a soccer player or something. Roger would have had no one to seriously challenge him in 2005-07, and would still have dominated in 2008-2010 as Novak and Andy developed. But would he have been able to keep his edge? He probably would have won all four Grand Slams in 2006 or 2007 - maybe both. But Rafa was always there, at least from 2005 on, and Roger could never become complacent.
Different sports have different decline ages. In baseball a lot of players start declining after 30, while most decline steeply after 33. But some don't, or some can slow their decline or adjust their game so that they stay at a high level until they're 40 or so. Tennis is more like 27 for the first slight decline, then 31 for the steep decline. Its so rare that players maintain a high level after 31, so if Roger does it he'll be one of only a very few - only Andre Agassi, Ken Rosewall, and Jimmy Connors in the Open Era. I hope he does.
True, this. Its tough being an athlete because by the time you're 30, in most cases your best years are behind you. Most other vocations involve peaks in the 30-50 range, some--those more intellectual or psychological--even later. Look at Mike Trout in baseball - he just turned 22 and he's had two of the greatest seasons ever by a 20-21 year old.
I actually think Rafael Nadal helped Roger's overall career and longevity. Imagine if Rafa had never been, or become a soccer player or something. Roger would have had no one to seriously challenge him in 2005-07, and would still have dominated in 2008-2010 as Novak and Andy developed. But would he have been able to keep his edge? He probably would have won all four Grand Slams in 2006 or 2007 - maybe both. But Rafa was always there, at least from 2005 on, and Roger could never become complacent.
Different sports have different decline ages. In baseball a lot of players start declining after 30, while most decline steeply after 33. But some don't, or some can slow their decline or adjust their game so that they stay at a high level until they're 40 or so. Tennis is more like 27 for the first slight decline, then 31 for the steep decline. Its so rare that players maintain a high level after 31, so if Roger does it he'll be one of only a very few - only Andre Agassi, Ken Rosewall, and Jimmy Connors in the Open Era. I hope he does.
GameSetAndMath
The GOAT
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2013
- Messages
- 21,141
- Reactions
- 3,398
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
The "spontaneity" that the article is referring to is
what psychologists call by the term "flow". The psychologists
use the term "flow" whenever the person involved in the
activity basically forgets himself, surroundings and time,
and is completely engrossed in the activity. It is a much
wider term, used for all sports and not just to sports.
The activity might be singing, lecturing etc. "flow" is
often associated with "excellence" and there are lots of
research articles in psychology on this.
The "spontaneity" that the article is referring to is
what psychologists call by the term "flow". The psychologists
use the term "flow" whenever the person involved in the
activity basically forgets himself, surroundings and time,
and is completely engrossed in the activity. It is a much
wider term, used for all sports and not just to sports.
The activity might be singing, lecturing etc. "flow" is
often associated with "excellence" and there are lots of
research articles in psychology on this.
tented
Administrator
El Dude
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reactions
- 5,041
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Exactly. And this in turn is what Taoists have been calling "the Way" for thousands of years, except whereas great athletes find it in moments within their chosen sport - aka "the zone" - the Taoist masters looked at the entirety of life.
Zen, which is derived partially from Taoism, has an archery practiced called kyudo. When you start practicing, you often don't take your "first shot" for days, weeks, even longer, because the idea is that you don't take a shot until you can shoot without intending to do so--or not intending to do so, that is full spontaneously. Tricky stuff!
GameSetAndMath said:
Exactly. And this in turn is what Taoists have been calling "the Way" for thousands of years, except whereas great athletes find it in moments within their chosen sport - aka "the zone" - the Taoist masters looked at the entirety of life.
Zen, which is derived partially from Taoism, has an archery practiced called kyudo. When you start practicing, you often don't take your "first shot" for days, weeks, even longer, because the idea is that you don't take a shot until you can shoot without intending to do so--or not intending to do so, that is full spontaneously. Tricky stuff!
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,079
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
That's a good post, El Dude, reminds me of Christian mysticism and negative theology - not negative, as in bad, but negative as in, what a thing isn't, as opposed to what it is. Example, God is not good, if we only use our limited notion of good as a definition.
In a sense, what great players do in the zone is remove themselves from the process and let their instincts kick in. They don't need to think - things occur automatically. The zone doesn't last! And trying to recapture it involves a thought process and tinkering which can never replicate the real thing, and in fact is a sign of diminishment...
That's a good post, El Dude, reminds me of Christian mysticism and negative theology - not negative, as in bad, but negative as in, what a thing isn't, as opposed to what it is. Example, God is not good, if we only use our limited notion of good as a definition.
In a sense, what great players do in the zone is remove themselves from the process and let their instincts kick in. They don't need to think - things occur automatically. The zone doesn't last! And trying to recapture it involves a thought process and tinkering which can never replicate the real thing, and in fact is a sign of diminishment...
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
^ Just giving this a bump for those who didn't read it first time around. Seems more relevant than ever.
^ Just giving this a bump for those who didn't read it first time around. Seems more relevant than ever.
the AntiPusher
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 15,934
- Reactions
- 6,212
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Thanks Britbox for the article. Very interesting to hear from Champions.
But we will never know the real reason. We just reason.
Thanks Britbox for the article. Very interesting to hear from Champions.
But we will never know the real reason. We just reason.
El Dude
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,708
- Reactions
- 5,041
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
I missed this Kieran way back when. Yeah, I'm familiar with negative theology, which is very similar to Jnana Yoga or Zen Buddhism where you try to find the "right view" (Zen) which is, in a sense, a no-view because all views are "in-correct" or at least partial. In Jnana Yoga, in searching for the Self you negate all that you are not ("neti, neti") and find that anything or aspect of self that you think you are, is not you, or not primarily who you are (e.g. "I have a body but am not the body").
As far as Federer and the Zone goes, I think what happens is that when the physical skills start to erode, the player falls out of the Zone and gets into a head game in which it is virtually impossible to get out of. The Zone is spontaneous and you can't manufacture or "do it" in the same way that you can, say, lift a hammer and strike a nail. There is a natural spontaneity that must arise, and the skill erosion distracts one from this, makes it harder and harder to back there.
My sense is that for Roger to get back to a high level of play he's going to have to work more on this psychological level - find a way to transcend his obvious mental angst and find that natural spontaneity. We see it at times; certainly, in the first few rounds he was there, but something slipped against Robredo.
Its like there's no margin of error for him. Once he starts missing shots there's a snow-ball effect and he digs himself into a hole and goes from being a top 5 player to a #40 or so, with no in-between.
I suppose the good news is that its still possible for him to play at a high level, but the bad news is that it is going to take something different to get there than what he's been trying. Its like that old saying, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. This is why I advocate for Roger taking a break - stepping back, clearing his head, maybe reading some Zen
.
Kieran said:
I missed this Kieran way back when. Yeah, I'm familiar with negative theology, which is very similar to Jnana Yoga or Zen Buddhism where you try to find the "right view" (Zen) which is, in a sense, a no-view because all views are "in-correct" or at least partial. In Jnana Yoga, in searching for the Self you negate all that you are not ("neti, neti") and find that anything or aspect of self that you think you are, is not you, or not primarily who you are (e.g. "I have a body but am not the body").
As far as Federer and the Zone goes, I think what happens is that when the physical skills start to erode, the player falls out of the Zone and gets into a head game in which it is virtually impossible to get out of. The Zone is spontaneous and you can't manufacture or "do it" in the same way that you can, say, lift a hammer and strike a nail. There is a natural spontaneity that must arise, and the skill erosion distracts one from this, makes it harder and harder to back there.
My sense is that for Roger to get back to a high level of play he's going to have to work more on this psychological level - find a way to transcend his obvious mental angst and find that natural spontaneity. We see it at times; certainly, in the first few rounds he was there, but something slipped against Robredo.
Its like there's no margin of error for him. Once he starts missing shots there's a snow-ball effect and he digs himself into a hole and goes from being a top 5 player to a #40 or so, with no in-between.
I suppose the good news is that its still possible for him to play at a high level, but the bad news is that it is going to take something different to get there than what he's been trying. Its like that old saying, that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. This is why I advocate for Roger taking a break - stepping back, clearing his head, maybe reading some Zen
.RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
This is all very much in the vein of fhe 70's classic, "The Inner Game of Tennis", by Tim Gallwey. Zen tennis.
I think one reason that Roger has such a hard time with Rafa (in addition to the FH to one -handed BH issue) is that Nadal's entire game is designed to disrupt "flow". Each point is it's own universe. Each point is its own self-contained mini-war, beginning with the loooong time between each point, even between first and second serves. This mindset is kryptonite to getting into a flow.
On a different point, how many players besides Roger with 1-handed backhands have wins over Nadal?
Cheers
TM
This is all very much in the vein of fhe 70's classic, "The Inner Game of Tennis", by Tim Gallwey. Zen tennis.
I think one reason that Roger has such a hard time with Rafa (in addition to the FH to one -handed BH issue) is that Nadal's entire game is designed to disrupt "flow". Each point is it's own universe. Each point is its own self-contained mini-war, beginning with the loooong time between each point, even between first and second serves. This mindset is kryptonite to getting into a flow.
On a different point, how many players besides Roger with 1-handed backhands have wins over Nadal?
Cheers
TM
brokenshoelace
Grand Slam Champion
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 9,380
- Reactions
- 1,334
- Points
- 113
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
Off the top of my head: James Blake, Fernando Gonzalez, Feliciano Lopez, Steve Darcis, Philip Kohlschreiber, Gaston Gaudio, Mikhael Youzhny, Nocholas Mahut...
Mahut, Lopez, Darcis and Kohlschreiber have all gotten their sole wins over Nadal on grass. Meanwhile, Blake and Gonzalez have gotten theirs early in Nadal's career (Gonazlez's win came in early 2007, to be fair), ditto for Guadio (who has actually done it on clay).
In recent years, his record against one-handed backhand players has been incredible.
Tennis Miller said:
Off the top of my head: James Blake, Fernando Gonzalez, Feliciano Lopez, Steve Darcis, Philip Kohlschreiber, Gaston Gaudio, Mikhael Youzhny, Nocholas Mahut...
Mahut, Lopez, Darcis and Kohlschreiber have all gotten their sole wins over Nadal on grass. Meanwhile, Blake and Gonzalez have gotten theirs early in Nadal's career (Gonazlez's win came in early 2007, to be fair), ditto for Guadio (who has actually done it on clay).
In recent years, his record against one-handed backhand players has been incredible.
RE: Jack Kramer Explains Federer’s Fade
And Nadal has a great chance to improve that record with Robredo tonight and Gasquet on Saturday.
I'm just wondering is this the first time that Nadal or any other player for that matters might face three straight one handed backhand player in a Grand Slam? That would be a rare feat for any player to face three straight one handed backhand player.
Broken_Shoelace said:
And Nadal has a great chance to improve that record with Robredo tonight and Gasquet on Saturday.
I'm just wondering is this the first time that Nadal or any other player for that matters might face three straight one handed backhand player in a Grand Slam? That would be a rare feat for any player to face three straight one handed backhand player.