PDA

View Full Version : Federer's problem...and his doom


wangs78
06-08-2008, 07:40 AM
Is his attitude. He has no "fight" in him. Anytime anyone, from Rafa, to Monfils to Djokovic, takes a lead against him, his entire body language changes incredibly to show how disgusted he is, and not in a good way. His body language conveys disgust with his own play and also in a perverse sort of way, that he doesn't respect his opponent's play because he just looks like he gives up. This only encourages his opponent to try to "finish" him off and gives them more confidence. When you look at Rafa, you see that he remains focused on how to outplay/outlast his opponent regardless of whether he's winning or losing. Have to say, even though I'm a Federer fan, and as beautiful as Fed's game is (or was, to be fair), I really don't like his attitude. He generally says the right things to the press for the sake of sportsmanship, but he definitely has this sense of arrogance about him that, I think, is detrimental to his ability to defeat opponents right now. And I don't see it changing. I think there's a 50/50 chance that he'll never win a GS again. Alright, I think he'll win at least one more, but after that, it's 50/50 whether he'll ever win another one unless he has a change of attitude.

rommil
06-08-2008, 07:42 AM
LOL the guy is vying for the best tennis player EVER and you are talking about doom?

greenfan
06-08-2008, 07:45 AM
I think that mentally he is loosing the game. And if he goes on like this, he won't win Wimbledon because he just doesn't believe it! If this happens, I think he might consider quiting tennis - while in No 1 -. After all he's 27 while all his biggest rivals are much younger....

wangs78
06-08-2008, 07:46 AM
His pending demise. Look, I'm a Fed fan, and I think that his 4-5 years of dominance are the greatest accomplishment EVER in tennis. Greater than Laver's calendar-year GSs, than Sampras' 14 Slams. But unless something changes inside his head, I don't see him winning more than 1 or 2 more Slams, especially with Nadal and Djokovic at 22 and 20 years of age, respectively.

Fedace
06-08-2008, 07:47 AM
Yea he has pending doom... Pending DOOM that he will LOSE wimbledon to Nadal

wangs78
06-08-2008, 07:47 AM
I think that mentally he is loosing the game. And if he goes on like this, he won't win Wimbledon because he just doesn't believe it! If this happens, I think he might consider quiting tennis - while in No 1 -. After all he's 27 while all his biggest rivals are much younger....

Yes, that is my opinion also. He just doesn't seem to deal with adversity well. And the adversity will only increase from here on.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 07:47 AM
His pending demise. Look, I'm a Fed fan, and I think that his 4-5 years of dominance are the greatest accomplishment EVER in tennis. Greater than Laver's calendar-year GSs, than Sampras' 14 Slams. But unless something changes inside his head, I don't see him winning more than 1 or 2 more Slams, especially with Nadal and Djokovic at 22 and 20 years of age, respectively.

4 years of dominance is not unprecedented.

ACE of Hearts
06-08-2008, 07:48 AM
I agree somewhat.He seems to lose fire when the chips are down.He basically went through the motions in that 3rd set.He looked defeated.I think Sampras had more fire and he was dull and had no expression on his face.

grizzly4life
06-08-2008, 07:50 AM
Yes, that is my opinion also. He just doesn't seem to deal with adversity well. And the adversity will only increase from here on.

i agree 100%...... i've thought his body language has been horrible for years. he didn't need the fight before and now it seems like he does.

what do i think, should i start a thread on bigger head size??

wangs78
06-08-2008, 07:51 AM
4 years of dominance is not unprecedented.

3 of 4 GSs in 3 of 4 years. 10+ titles in 3 of 4 years with 90% win rate. That is unprecedented. That and the beauty of his game is something we won't see again. The dominance could maybe be replicated, yes, agreed. With the grace and beauty of his game? Never again. Even he can't match his play from the last 4 years anymore.

NamRanger
06-08-2008, 07:51 AM
4 years of dominance is not unprecedented.



In the fashion he's done it, yes it is.

tennis_hand
06-08-2008, 07:52 AM
no the OP is wrong.

against the way Nadal plays today, nobody can beat Nadal.
Djokovic showed the same body language. When Nadal's shots are on, he can hit deep and he can hit almost 180 degree angles.

RoddickistheMan
06-08-2008, 07:53 AM
i believe its his racket. I really do believe its time to go with a bigger frame. his movement has slightly declined and his one handed backhand can use some extra power. It seems that federer has been abandoned his miracle precision shots and has opted for the safer ones. I think now he can use the extra power since he doesn't need the extra control anymore. once again the shanks jsut seem to be increasing as of late.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 07:55 AM
The strange thing is that Roger has no 'German' in him. And by German I refer to a kind of national stoicism and determined roboticism.

Roger is like a ming vase. Drop him, pierce him and he breaks. He can dominate you, of course, but he's not a 'come from behind'-type of player.

But, worst of all, in terms of the aforemention stoicism part I was talking about, Roger doesn't stick to his game plan. Muster would have stuck to it and kept grinding, robotically. Roger's groundies looked fine to me, a bit wild in places but the pace was good and the backhand was sharp.

But Roger gave up on his gameplan almost right away - right after falling behind 2-0 in the first set. He just said to himself "this isn't working" and foolishly started to improvise, which included a few half-assed volley attempts that didn't work.

Live and die by the gameplan. You have to do it. You'll probably still lose, but you won't look as foolish at least.

wangs78
06-08-2008, 07:57 AM
no the OP is wrong.

against the way Nadal plays today, nobody can beat Nadal.
Djokovic showed the same body language. When Nadal's shots are on, he can hit deep and he can hit almost 180 degree angles.

I hope I'm wrong. But Fed's been vulnerable since last year's Wimbledon. I'd love to be wrong, but it's very clear that his top rivals have been catching up, that he's getting older and that his last two Slam wins (Wimby and USO) were far from convincing. One could easily argue that he was outplayed in both the Wimby and USO finals last year and won by his opponent choking and him pulling out some great points at key moments. Sure, he deserved to win both, but they were EXTREMELY close.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 07:58 AM
In the fashion he's done it, yes it is.

It's not true. Let's look at Sgt John's list of top four events from 1966 to 1969:

1969
AO Laver (Gimeno)
RG Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Laver (Newcombe)
USO Laver (Roche)

1968
RG Rosewall (Laver)
Wimbledon Laver (Roche)
PSW Los Angeles Laver (Rosewall)
USO Ashe (Okker)

1967
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
World Pro Laver (Rosewall)
Wimbledon Pro Laver (Rosewall)
US Pro Laver (Gimeno)

1966
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
Barcelona Gimeno (Rosewall)
New York MSG Pro Rosewall (Laver)
US Pro Laver (Rosewall)

Laver won 12 of the 16, which betters Roger's feat of 11 majors between 2004 and 2007.

Players like Tilden, Gonzales and Rosewall also had sustained dominant stretches of several years. The advantage these guys have on Roger is longevity. Roger still has to prove he has the longevity to backup his peak years.

By SgtJohn's system, between 1977 and 1980 Borg won nine top-four events. He also has more longevity to his record than Roger.

taffymoon
06-08-2008, 07:58 AM
Yea he has pending doom... Pending DOOM that he will LOSE wimbledon to Nadal

Ditto - I think he's scared

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 08:00 AM
3 of 4 GSs in 3 of 4 years. 10+ titles in 3 of 4 years with 90% win rate. That is unprecedented. That and the beauty of his game is something we won't see again. The dominance could maybe be replicated, yes, agreed. With the grace and beauty of his game? Never again. Even he can't match his play from the last 4 years anymore.

See above.

ACE of Hearts
06-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Federer needs to answer the call now.His future ranking depends on this second half of the tennis season.It starts in halle and then wimbledon.

ACE of Hearts
06-08-2008, 08:02 AM
Hey wangs, maybe because the grass is being ****ed with.I still have confidence in Roger.He has looked better physically.He has better movement.

wangs78
06-08-2008, 08:06 AM
Hey wangs, maybe because the grass is being ****ed with.I still have confidence in Roger.He has looked better physically.He has better movement.

His movement is definitely not as good as in the past. He's lost the weightlessness that he had earlier in his career. With that said, his movement is still very good and among the best.

dh003i
06-08-2008, 08:07 AM
The strange thing is that Roger has no 'German' in him. And by German I refer to a kind of national stoicism and determined roboticism.

Roger is like a ming vase. Drop him, pierce him and he breaks. He can dominate you, of course, but he's not a 'come from behind'-type of player.

But, worst of all, in terms of the aforemention stoicism part I was talking about, Roger doesn't stick to his game plan. Muster would have stuck to it and kept grinding, robotically. Roger's groundies looked fine to me, a bit wild in places but the pace was good and the backhand was sharp.

But Roger gave up on his gameplan almost right away - right after falling behind 2-0 in the first set. He just said to himself "this isn't working" and foolishly started to improvise, which included a few half-assed volley attempts that didn't work.

Live and die by the gameplan. You have to do it. You'll probably still lose, but you won't look as foolish at least.

Huh? You think his gameplan was or should have been to duke it out with Nadal at the baseline? That's nuts.

No, he did the right thing in the 2nd set by really mixing it up. And when he played perfectly, he won games.

But Nadal was just too good today. It wouldn't have mattered what Federer did, unless he served aces every service point.

Sampras would have been destroyed today too. Any player, except maybe Borg where we can't make comparisons easily b/c of wood, would have been destroyed.

Nadal just played perfectly. That's no discredit to Federer. Look, he wasn't playing horribly. He was playing pretty good. Not great, but that's b/c Nadal didn't allow him to play great. He was hitting at or above his ears, and when he was at net, Nadal made some awesome passing shots, and even when right to Fed, he knew he had to put a lot on it to win there, and that of course makes more likely for errors.

As for "folding" under adversity, well, this wasn't adversity; Nadal was just better. Federer did try everything, nothing worked; nothing is going t o work on him against clay when he's playing absolutely at his best, just like nothing's going to work against Fed on grass when he's playing absolutely at his best there. I think Nadal basically improved his game on clay from last year, played his A or A- game the whole tournament, and played absolutely perfect in the final.

I am not disappointed Federer lost. He never had a chance to win with Nadal playing like this. I am extremely impressed by Nadal. We've been lucky to watch a guy playing this good on clay.

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 08:11 AM
Huh? You think his gameplan was or should have been to duke it out with Nadal at the baseline? That's nuts.

What his gameplan should have been is irrelevant.

But his gameplan was never to serve and volley. His was staying at the baseline and spraying the ball to all corners. At least he was trying to. Until he started to make dumb errors he was getting some good groundies in.

But his serve betrayed him and so did his footwork.

The plan would have worked to win him a set if he could execute it.

Mick
06-08-2008, 08:14 AM
federer's chance of winning the french open is getting smaller and smaller. he's not getting any younger (or better on clay)

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 08:14 AM
No, he did the right thing in the 2nd set by really mixing it up. And when he played perfectly, he won games.

No. Roger had an okay stretch in the second set for two reasons alone:

a) Nadal had a minor mental lull

b) Roger's balance improved, he got used to Nadal's spin a bit and hit some lines

Again, staying at the baseline does not mean that you don't 'mix it up'. But Roger screwed up big time by panicking and blindly making his way to the net, which Nadal exploited with nasty passing shots.

wangs78
06-08-2008, 08:15 AM
As for "folding" under adversity, well, this wasn't adversity; Nadal was just better. Federer did try everything, nothing worked; nothing is going t o work on him against clay when he's playing absolutely at his best, just like nothing's going to work against Fed on grass when he's playing absolutely at his best there. I think Nadal basically improved his game on clay from last year, played his A or A- game the whole tournament, and played absolutely perfect in the final.


You're right that Nadal had his A game today. But great champions raise their game when faced with an opponent who is playing well (i.e., when facing adversity). Roger has shown that he is unable to raise his game AT ALL against Rafa on clay in any way that would impact the outcome of the match. And he is showing signs of having the same problem with other opponents on other surfaces. Roger showed flashes of "fight" in the 2nd set today, but in the 3rd you could tell he had quit already by the easy misses he was making. The 6-0 3rd set says everything.

Stchamps
06-08-2008, 08:15 AM
i believe its his racket. I really do believe its time to go with a bigger frame. his movement has slightly declined and his one handed backhand can use some extra power. It seems that federer has been abandoned his miracle precision shots and has opted for the safer ones. I think now he can use the extra power since he doesn't need the extra control anymore. once again the shanks jsut seem to be increasing as of late.

Yea I'm no pro but I don't understand the significance of using such a small racket frame.

BlahDow
06-08-2008, 08:20 AM
Yea I'm no pro but I don't understand the significance of using such a small racket frame.

That's why you don't understand...you're not a pro like Federer ;D

hoodjem
06-08-2008, 08:34 AM
But Roger gave up on his gameplan almost right away - right after falling behind 2-0 in the first set. He just said to himself "this isn't working" and foolishly started to improvise, which included a few half-assed volley attempts that didn't work.

What was that original game plan? (I didn't see the first set.)

wangs78
06-08-2008, 08:34 AM
Another thing that surprises me is how Roger was remarkably upbeat in his interview with Mac. Sure, he gave credit to Rafa where it was due, but the fact that he said it was "a good match" seemed incredible. It was a mauling. Why doesn't he stay this upbeat DURING the match?

CyBorg
06-08-2008, 08:36 AM
What was that original game plan? (I didn't see the first set.)

He was staying on the baseline. Being patient. He wasn't going to attack in the way that Mac suggested. The idea clearly was to be strategic and to come in only when necessary.

The gameplan necessitated a highly precise baseline attack. Deep shots from both wings, generating angles. More topspin than in the past.

Mad iX
06-08-2008, 09:28 PM
Federer (and everyone else's) problem when it comes to RG is that Nadal is a beast on clay.
Nobody can win 3 out 5 sets against him when he's playing like that.
Especially with the conditions this year, humid conditions and a heavy ball, which makes it easy (relatively) for Nadal to whip it all day and keep it within the lines.

bluetrain4
06-08-2008, 09:38 PM
I actually don't think Fed has a problem.

Today was an incredibly bad performance, thanks in part to Nadal's incredible performance. It's a very surprising score, but even though I don't think Fed will beat Nadal at the French, I wouldn't expect to see a score that bad again.

Fed simply doesn't have the game to beat an on-form Nadal on clay. His tenure at the top coincides with the tenure of possibly the best (or at least one of the top 3) clay courters of all-time. Nadal isn't getting lucky. He's actually better than Fed on clay.

Furthermore, Fed is on the downside of his career, just over the peak point. A lot of Fed fans may be angry at that comment, but it is not meant to arouse anger. It is simply an acknowledgement that he will no longer dominate as in 2005 and 2006. It doesn't mean that he won't play spectacular tennis again. It doesn't mean that he won't win more Slams.

But, it does mean that he may get upset more, and that he may be tested more (as in the Monfils match) because he will not be playing as well as often as he has in the past.

AznHylite
06-08-2008, 10:06 PM
In the fashion he's done it, yes it is.

Exactly. The amount of titles he won in this time period is unbelievable.

rwn
06-08-2008, 10:18 PM
The strange thing is that Roger has no 'German' in him. And by German I refer to a kind of national stoicism and determined roboticism.

Roger is like a ming vase. Drop him, pierce him and he breaks. He can dominate you, of course, but he's not a 'come from behind'-type of player.

But, worst of all, in terms of the aforemention stoicism part I was talking about, Roger doesn't stick to his game plan. Muster would have stuck to it and kept grinding, robotically. Roger's groundies looked fine to me, a bit wild in places but the pace was good and the backhand was sharp.

But Roger gave up on his gameplan almost right away - right after falling behind 2-0 in the first set. He just said to himself "this isn't working" and foolishly started to improvise, which included a few half-assed volley attempts that didn't work.

Live and die by the gameplan. You have to do it. You'll probably still lose, but you won't look as foolish at least.

Federer has come from behind many times, silly troll.

anointedone
06-08-2008, 10:24 PM
Federer has come from behind many times, silly troll.

Sure. If he is playing someone named Ramirez Hidalgo he can pull it off.