Learning from the US Open Final 2006
The 2006 US Open was billed as the final act of the year in the growing rivalry between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal. Instead Andy Roddick rediscovered his “mojo” and produced his best tennis since winning the US title in 2003. The match however looked to be a mismatch, Federer held a 10 – 1 winning record over Roddick including two grand slam finals and Federer was looking ominous again, cruising through to the final losing just one set.
The transformation of Andy Roddick
It wouldn’t be a stretch to say Andy Roddick has had a horrible 18 months. He had dropped out of the top 10, lost the mantle as US #1 and lost in the early rounds of all the majors he contested since Wimbledon 2005. More concerning, he was churning through coaches and seemed unhappy and unsettled. His improved performance during the US hard court season culminated in a great US Open campaign.
Many respected observers had noted that Roddick was struggling to develop a transition game. He would hit that massive serve, and then sit behind the baseline struggling to hurt opponents due to poor court position. When moving forwards he had difficulty taking the ball on the rise, while his volleys remained suspect.
At the 2006 US Open he pulled it together, serving superbly, but playing a brilliant transition game moving up the court to win consistently at the net. In the final he attacked the net on almost 50 occasions – in the second set he won 85% of the points when he moved to the net. Although unable to maintain it, Roddick had matched Federer for a large portion of the final in a very encouraging performance.
What can we learn?
Developing a transition game is tough work – many frustrations will be experienced learning which shots to approach from; what type of approach shot should be executed; and how to anticipate at the net. Stick with it, the pay off’s of building an effective transition game are worth it.
Review the Volleys / Net section of our site and the Net Play e-book for a comprehensive list of drills to improve your students transition game.
New Coach – Fresh Ideas
Jimmy Connors is a big name in tennis, his new coaching partnership with Andy Roddick was the biggest news on the tour. Initially it seems to have been an inspired move, Roddick is playing well and has renewed enthusiasm on court. Remember though that Roddick experienced a similar surge when Brad Gilbert took over in 2003, winning the US Open and reaching world #1. The relationship was not enduring despite the success.
Tim Henman was another player who gained immediate benefit from a change of coach. Under Larry Stefanski, Henman had developed his consistency and “percentage” tennis, only attacking the net after out rallying his opponent. His poor results led him to hire Paul Annacone at the end of the 2003 season. Annacone immediately instructed Henman to return to his attacking game style and follow his instincts. His semi final results at the French Open and Wimbledon in 2004 were evidence of the success of a new coach and outlook.
What Gilbert, Annacone, Connors or any coach could not have achieved in such a short time was to model or re-shape a game. Perhaps they were able to give more confidence, motivate or provide a small insight which clicked in the player’s psyche and made the difference to their tennis.
What can we learn?
A new perspective and fresh ideas can do wonders for a player’s game at any level. A different set of eyes may pick a bad habit; a neutral observer may have noticed an area for tactical improvement; or bring better communication skills which gets message through to the player.
Don’t rush out and find a new coach, but a fresh outlook can always produce improved results. Ask your coach to video your strokes so you can watch them back in slow motion, or have another coach look at your game to identify any areas to improve on.
First Serve is King!
While Roddick demonstrated an improved all round game – it was still his serve that mattered most. During the six matches leading into the final he was able to serve at 70% first serves in and had won of over 80% when the first serve went in. They are incredible statistics. In the second set of the final he was able to maintain that level, but eventually Federer wore him down.
Federer’s serve was as imperious as ever and he won 84% of first serves throughout the match and managed to “out ace” Roddick 17 – 7, quite an achievement. Pace is not Federer’s weapon on serve, but his variety of spin and placement constantly confounds his opponents on both first and second delivery.
It was noticeable that Roddick had slowed down his serve during the US Open concentrating on higher percentages. This was a very effective move because opponents will always struggle to return an accurate serve at 200 km/h or 250km/h – by sacrificing some pace Roddick ensured he started more points in charge from the very beginning.
What can we learn?
By serving “within himself” Roddick showed great tactical strength. Opponents “blocked” back their returns and Roddick was usually waiting with a big forehand (from inside the baseline) and controlled the rally.
Review the Serving/Return of Serve of our site and the Serve Play e-book for a comprehensive list of drills to improve your students transition game.
Federer is too good!
By claiming his 3rd slam of the year and a 27 – 1 grand slam record for 2006 Roger Federer confirmed his position at the games pinnacle. Nadal had claimed some ascendancy during the middle of the year but Roger seems now to be competing with the past greats as much as his current adversaries. With 9 Grand Slams he could reach Sampras’ record in as few as two years.
It the US final he hit a staggering 69 winners and made just19 unforced errors. Roddick did well to compete for so long against such sustained brilliance. Having got so close to a Grand Slam this year Federer should remain motivated and focused on breaking more records in the coming years.
What can we learn?
Next time you play a practice set court the winners:unforced errors ratio. Write them down at the end of every change of ends including aces, net winners and baseline winners. Try to get the ratio with winners in the positive.
By Tina Dodd