PDA

View Full Version : Mentality of Federer


realplayer
06-10-2007, 11:49 AM
Federer is so talented but i don't see him win the French Open. He just doesn't seem to fight for every point and gives up when it's getting tough. If Federer had the mentality of a Connors, Nadal or Hewitt he would probably have won the French already. Very dissapointing!

helloworld
06-10-2007, 12:41 PM
You're underestimating the mentality of Roger Federer and for that, I know for sure that you're not a great fan of him. Federer said it clearly in an interview. He lost the physical match, but not the mental part.

lambielspins
06-10-2007, 12:43 PM
Federer is so talented but i don't see him win the French Open. He just doesn't seem to fight for every point and gives up when it's getting tough. If Federer had the mentality of a Connors, Nadal or Hewitt he would probably have won the French already. Very dissapointing!

I agree 100%. Alot of Federer fans, those who are being honest, would agree with you as well.

tlm
06-10-2007, 12:46 PM
Thats because he is so used to the rest of the weak chokers in the mens field folding to him like we saw davastinko do the other day.He cant handle the mental strenght of nadal because nadal doent wilt like everone else does, so instead big bad fed folds up!!!!

realplayer
06-10-2007, 01:03 PM
You're underestimating the mentality of Roger Federer and for that, I know for sure that you're not a great fan of him. Federer said it clearly in an interview. He lost the physical match, but not the mental part.

If that's true than Federer obviously didn't work hard enough to get in the best physical condition. Nadal works eight, nine hours a day to get in the best condition. Federer relies so much on his talent and probably thinks that should be sufficient. I doubt he has worked just as hard as Nadal.

FedSampras
06-10-2007, 01:03 PM
Federer is so talented but i don't see him win the French Open. He just doesn't seem to fight for every point and gives up when it's getting tough. If Federer had the mentality of a Connors, Nadal or Hewitt he would probably have won the French already. Very dissapointing!

Fed may not look like it but he is one of the most competitive and mentally tough champions I have ever seen. His unparalleled doimanace of men's tennis is proof of that.

tlm
06-10-2007, 01:07 PM
If he was that tough he wouldnt fold to nadal so many times.

WillAlwaysLoveYouTennis
06-10-2007, 01:11 PM
Federer's on court demeanour when he is playing Nadal (specifically) and frustrated, can be a letdown because it seems so different than the cool, confident person we see 99% of the time. But I think his mental strength and competitiveness will continue to make him adapt, and become stronger when playing Nadal each time.

Yet to say he will never win the French Open this early in his career, when he still has good years left, IMO is definitely premature. Certainly, he MIGHT never win it, but it won't be because he doesn't continue to try for perfection in every aspect of his game.

BigServer1
06-10-2007, 01:12 PM
If he was that tough he wouldnt fold to nadal so many times.

Nadal is shaping up to be the best ever on clay, and more than half of Fed and Nadal's meetings have been on clay. If Rafa continues to improve and make more HC finals, this h2h will even out over time. I do agree that many of Fed's matches are won in the locker room before they even set foot on court, and Nadal doesn't grant him that pleasure. The 4 times Fed has beaten Nadal, he's earned it.

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 01:36 PM
Federer's problem is that he is unwilling to transform his game on clay. He wants to have his cake and eat it to by playing the style we know him by on other surfaces. But it clearly doesn't work on clay.

I think this partly explains the Tony Roche firing. Roche, I theorize, wanted Roger to be a vastly different player on clay. Incorporate a more physical game. Roger refused. At first I thought it was a good idea after Hamburg, but I can see that as long as Federer's game is all about timing he will never be able to adjust to the high bouncing balls.

Borg was a vastly different player on clay and grass. Federer should be as well - I can't say for certain that he would succeed altering his game so drastically at his age, but he should have tried something after last year's failure. Seeing him make the exact same mistakes today is just painful to look at. It was just stupid. Redundant.

VolklVenom
06-10-2007, 01:40 PM
Federer's problem is that he is unwilling to transform his game on clay. He wants to have his cake and eat it to by playing the style we know him by on other surfaces. But it clearly doesn't work on clay.

I think this partly explains the Tony Roche firing. Roche, I theorize, wanted Roger to be a vastly different player on clay. Incorporate a more physical game. Roger refused. At first I thought it was a good idea after Hamburg, but I can see that as long as Federer's game is all about timing he will never be able to adjust to the high bouncing balls.

Borg was a vastly different player on clay and grass. Federer should be as well - I can't say for certain that he would succeed altering his game so drastically at his age, but he should have tried something after last year's failure. Seeing him make the exact same mistakes today is just painful to look at. It was just stupid. Redundant.

No, Rochey was just money hungry!

rwn
06-10-2007, 01:42 PM
Federer's problem is that he is unwilling to transform his game on clay. He wants to have his cake and eat it to by playing the style we know him by on other surfaces. But it clearly doesn't work on clay.

I think this partly explains the Tony Roche firing. Roche, I theorize, wanted Roger to be a vastly different player on clay. Incorporate a more physical game. Roger refused. At first I thought it was a good idea after Hamburg, but I can see that as long as Federer's game is all about timing he will never be able to adjust to the high bouncing balls.

Borg was a vastly different player on clay and grass. Federer should be as well - I can't say for certain that he would succeed altering his game so drastically at his age, but he should have tried something after last year's failure. Seeing him make the exact same mistakes today is just painful to look at. It was just stupid. Redundant.

Roddick tried to change his game for 1 player. Brought him much success didn't it?

CyBorg
06-10-2007, 02:35 PM
Roddick tried to change his game for 1 player. Brought him much success didn't it?

Yeah, but Roddick... you know... sucks.