PDA

View Full Version : Remember the old days???


Jimmyk459
04-12-2009, 03:13 PM
I remember... in the old days (2 or 3 years ago) when I could watch Federer BLOW people off the court...



I propose this thread for anybody who feels that they ACTUALLY know what may have gone wrong with Federer's game and can actually contribute anything constructional to his game...

So, hopefully, only his changes (and evidence of said changes) can be addressed to hopefully change address the way that he has been playing recently... Basically... I want him to play like he did in the US open 2004 again when he absolutely CRUSHED opponent's... I just dont understand what happened??

Love to all that reply.

thanx guys.

-Jimmyk459

tenniko
04-12-2009, 03:15 PM
imo, he is slowing down. nothing wrong with his strokes or his game.

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 03:16 PM
Can we please stop it with the "what's wrong with Federer" threads? I mean, the guy is pushing 30 years old right now, and tennis is a young man's game. So it would figure that the younger guys like Murray Djokovic and Nadal would eventually catch him once his level fell. Just a thought.

Jimmyk459
04-12-2009, 03:36 PM
pushing 30 years??? HE IS 27!!! not 30... nor 35... yet again, Agassi survived and played miraculously through those years... Ur claim is invalid and frankly very stupid... Federer will rise again... maybe not to Number One but he will regain his strength... look to Monte Carlo... I strain my words...

Jimmyk459
04-12-2009, 03:37 PM
10 chars... said something stupid... ignore me... at this point

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 03:49 PM
pushing 30 years??? HE IS 27!!! not 30... nor 35... yet again, Agassi survived and played miraculously through those years... Ur claim is invalid and frankly very stupid... Federer will rise again... maybe not to Number One but he will regain his strength... look to Monte Carlo... I strain my words...

27 is still pretty old for tennis. And Agassi had 1-2 years where he was pretty much a non factor. That allowed him to get away from the stresses of constantly having to go out and defend his ranking. Fed hasn't had that luxury. You had to think he couldn't go on being #1 for 10 years, really?

RFtennis
04-12-2009, 04:05 PM
why do people have such high standards for Roger.
He may not be playing his best the last year but hes still making GS finals and still playing at a very high level.

Most players who go through a downfall fall to like rank 40 in the world.
Roger is at #2.

So all you people stop judging the guy because hes done more than any player ever.

Cyan
04-12-2009, 04:45 PM
Can we please stop it with the "what's wrong with Federer" threads? I mean, the guy is pushing 30 years old right now, and tennis is a young man's game. So it would figure that the younger guys like Murray Djokovic and Nadal would eventually catch him once his level fell. Just a thought.

Exactly. Fed is pushing 30, you can't expect for him to play like he did when he was 23....

mental midget
04-12-2009, 04:47 PM
it's not one thing. imo:

- he did have mono, and it threw his finely-tuned game off the tracks
- he is not old, but is not getting younger either
- his game used to exude flow and supreme confidence. repeated losses to nadal have eroded his self-belief just a little. how could they not?
- he set a standard for talented younger players to reach for. some have gotten closer to it
- he's obviously got a back issue at present

it's a lot of things. that's sports, that's life. it's amazing he kept so much, so consistent, for so long. he's currently one GS SF appearance away from semis or better in every major, 5 years running. that's pretty nuts.

Cyan
04-12-2009, 04:47 PM
All the old Australian players played competatively intotheir 40's..


When was that? Like 40 years ago? We are not in those times anymore....

GameSampras
04-12-2009, 04:52 PM
THe game takes it toll on the players today moreso than it would back in Laver, Rosewall, Tilden's, Pancho's time which is why you see those guys with the longevity. Hell if Nadal could have played in Laver's time, he could play well into his 30s as well winning slams. Its much more impressive to have longevity into your 30s in today's game than it was 40-50 years ago.


Fed's problem? A mixture of things. Lack of confidence, better players to contend with than before, a loss of step in his game, players not afraid and intimidated by him as much as they used to be etc.

27 is not a spring chicken in tennis. But again.. Fed only began to be a blip on the radar starting in 03 and never really began his dominance until 04. So its not that long of a time. And Fed at 27 years old shouldnt be considered some dicrepid old tennis player.

stormholloway
04-12-2009, 04:53 PM
It's mental. He got mono, lost a few matches, and now he's the second or third best player in the world. He just needs to get back on a roll. He looks frustrated with himself because he expects to just be in the zone and he isn't. I don't think the clay is going to help with that.

We'll see if he can turn it around on the grass.

People talking about him being slow are just being silly. He's in fine condition.

GameSampras
04-12-2009, 04:56 PM
You guys really think Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Connors, etc could have maintained that longevity today that they did back then? HELL NO!!

Challenger
04-12-2009, 05:03 PM
Fed may have lost a step, but I'm thinking it has more to do with the rest of the field catching up to him. Remember when Safin's backhand was one of a kind? Now every kid on the rise seems to have one just as good. They're faster, fitter, and more solid on both wings these days, so Rog is finally finding some competition to play with aside from Nadal.

TheNatural
04-12-2009, 05:08 PM
He just hasnt evolved. If you 've watched the big matches and listened to the experts commentate over the last few years you'd be aware that Fed hasnt addressed some parts of his game for a while.

I agree with this assessment(highlighted bits in particular) :


Roger Federer Loses Cool in the Heat of the Big Matches (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/262319.html)

Jon Henderson: Roger Federer's on-court behavior is getting worse as the pressure in the big matches increases

Roger Federer – the super-cool, fiercely focused, unbeatable-in-big-matches Roger Federer – has been behaving strangely. Like losing his cool, losing his focus, and like losing big matches as facilely as he once won them.

In fact, his behavior has become as retro as those knitted cardies, long whites and blazers that he has taken to wearing at Wimbledon, harking back as it does to the days when he did obnoxious as well as anyone; when in his own words: "I was throwing my racket like you can't imagine … I mean, I was getting kicked out of practice sessions when I was 16. I used to talk much more, too, and scream on court."

The tennis world is talking and asking why it is that, while still in (the latter end of) his prime at 27, he has been successful in only one of the five grand slams since the start of last year, having won 12 of the previous 18. Also, since he won the Masters Cup in Shanghai in November 2007, he has failed to win a single title in 11 Masters events and has reached only one final, losing to Rafael Nadal in Monte Carlo a year ago – the tournament at which most of the top players will start their 2009 clay court campaigns this week.

In particular, they have been talking in America, where Federer has just pulled up short in the Masters events in Indian Wells and Miami and headed home with the extraordinary statement: "Thank God the hard court season is over." When arguably the greatest hard court performer of the Open era says this – especially as he makes for European clay, the surface on which Nadal has dealt so brutally with him in the past four years – the idea that all is not right with His Swiss Eminence is compelling.

Pete Sampras, the great American whose record number of 14 grand slam titles Federer is one away from equalling, says he has been surprised by Federer's emotional fragility, most obviously his uncontrollable sobs after losing to Nadal in the Australian Open final on 1 February. "After a loss you just keep it together," Sampras says. "It hurt him more than I'd have thought."

Peter Bodo, a senior editor of the US magazine Tennis, thinks too much has been made of the emotional side and has admonished his colleagues of the tennis press for dwelling on Federer's bad behaviour, particularly a racket-mangling incident as he lost to Novak Djokovic in Miami nine days ago. Instead, says Bodo, they should be addressing the crisis from which this conduct emanates. "One thing I'm sure of is that it's not about the racket," he says. "That done broke already."

L Jon Wertheim, of Sports Illustrated, gets to the crux in an open letter – written in the guise of a crisis management consultant – that he has just addressed to Federer in which he says: "Yes, you're a veteran in this business and you've spent the fresh energy that characterizes a startup. And that pesky Spanish competitor represents the kind of curveball every successful enterprise must face at some point. But my analysis suggests that you've got plenty of room to manoeuvre and a lot you can accomplish in the next few years."

Wertheim then refers, indirectly, to a small omission from Federer's personal profile in the 2009 official men's tour guide when he writes: "End the hiring freeze and add staff. You can afford it." Whereas the personal profiles of Nadal, Djokovic and Andy Murray end "coached by…", Federer's omits any mention of the word coach. He has none, even is he does profess that the Swiss Davis Cup captain, Severin Luthi, fulfills that function. Really, though, Luthi is little more than a travelling companion and hitting partner.

The lack of a proper coach shows up every passing failure and every little emotional convulsion, be it a smashed racket, recourse to tears or despondent press conference. In Miami, says Bodo, Federer "thrust his chin so deep into the cowl neck of his white tracksuit that I feared he would disappear". He sacked Peter Lundgren as his coach in 2003 and then, two years ago, dispensed with the astute Australian Tony Roche. Earlier this year, he worked briefly with Andre Agassi's former coach Darren Cahill before ending the experiment.

Of course no one can tell Federer how to play a tennis stroke, but what a top coach brings is an overview and a more objective voice than the one that is seemingly talking in Federer's head. A coach recognises when one aspect of a player's game may be in need of greater attention than he or she is giving it.

Without experienced guidance Federer's game has not so much deteriorated as stood still and been overtaken by the skill and effervescence of Nadal's play and the multi-faceted game that Murray is developing. Federer's backhand is no better than it was some years ago and his volleying has not come on as much as it should have done. Lacking qualified help, Federer has fallen back on those parts of his game that he feels he can rely on. He has done little to expand his repertoire.

He revels in the friendship of Tiger Woods, but what he needs from the great golfer is a lesson in attending to his game. It has been an increasingly sorry sight – unedifyingly so in the case of Federer's behavior.


I remember... in the old days (2 or 3 years ago) when I could watch Federer BLOW people off the court...



I propose this thread for anybody who feels that they ACTUALLY know what may have gone wrong with Federer's game and can actually contribute anything constructional to his game...

So, hopefully, only his changes (and evidence of said changes) can be addressed to hopefully change address the way that he has been playing recently... Basically... I want him to play like he did in the US open 2004 again when he absolutely CRUSHED opponent's... I just dont understand what happened??

Love to all that reply.

thanx guys.

-Jimmyk459

Azzurri
04-12-2009, 05:24 PM
pushing 30 years??? HE IS 27!!! not 30... nor 35... yet again, Agassi survived and played miraculously through those years... Ur claim is invalid and frankly very stupid... Federer will rise again... maybe not to Number One but he will regain his strength... look to Monte Carlo... I strain my words...

there are some jerk Nadal fans and some jerk Fed fans.....

bluescreen
04-12-2009, 05:39 PM
imo, ive observed two keys differences between federer now and federer pre-2007. his footwork does seem to be a tad slower, and his forehand looks a little different. if u watch him in 2005 and 2004, he uses his whole body and his back swing is different. these days he doesnt seem to be using his whole body as much (his whole core used to rotate through the ball) and his back swing has changed a little.

this is just what ive noticed.

Josherer
04-12-2009, 05:41 PM
Those were the days :(

rubberduckies
04-12-2009, 05:48 PM
He was playing against a field that was very happy to lose to him. They went into matches expecting, even wanting, to lose just so they deliver their speeches (written and rehearsed over several days) about how amazing Roger is. Roger could basically play however he wanted because he knew that if he ever go into a hole, his opponent was there to lend a helping hand. If you guys actually watch a Fed match, as opposed to a highlight reel, from that time, you will see that this is exactly the case.

Finally, you had Nadal come along and overwhelm Fed on hardcourt with vastly superior talent and abilities. Others started to take notice. The biggest *******s, like Ljubicic, viewed Nadal as a blasphemer and stooped to verbally abusing the young genius. Eventually, the tour accepted that Nadal was able to beat only because he is a lefty and Fed has a magical mental block against Nadal. That allowed everybody to settle back into their fairytale land of Fed-idolatry.

Then Djokovic came along. He was different from Nadal. He was brash and talked the talk. He said he would beat Fed, then he went out and did it. His game was also more conventional than Nadal's. Players started realizing that their own cowardice is what had allowed Roger to do what he did. Suddenly you had Roddick, Fish, Blake exorcise their *******ism and just play their tennis, which prove more than enough to beat Fed's tennis.

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 05:50 PM
He was playing against a field that was very happy to lose to him. They went into matches expecting, even wanting, to lose just so they deliver their speeches (written and rehearsed over several days) about how amazing Roger is. Roger could basically play however he wanted because he knew that if he ever go into a hole, his opponent was there to lend a helping hand. If you guys actually watch a Fed match, as opposed to a highlight reel, from that time, you will see that this is exactly the case.

Finally, you had Nadal come along and overwhelm Fed on hardcourt with vastly superior talent and abilities. Others started to take notice. The biggest *******s, like Ljubicic, viewed Nadal as a blasphemer and stooped to verbally abusing the young genius. Eventually, the tour accepted that Nadal was able to beat only because he is a lefty and Fed has a magical mental block against Nadal. That allowed everybody to settle back into their fairytale land of Fed-idolatry.

Then Djokovic came along. He was different from Nadal. He was brash and talked the talk. He said he would beat Fed, then he went out and did it. His game was also more conventional than Nadal's. Players started realizing that their own cowardice is what had allowed Roger to do what he did. Suddenly you had Roddick, Fish, Blake exorcise their *******ism and just play their tennis, which prove more than enough to beat Fed's tennis.

So you're saying guys didnt try? I'm not buying that. Its just that the competition has caught up. Even guys like Gonzalez and Blake, who weren't beating Federer in the past, have beaten him over the past year or so.

rubberduckies
04-12-2009, 05:54 PM
So you're saying guys didnt try? I'm not buying that. Its just that the competition has caught up. Even guys like Gonzalez and Blake, who weren't beating Federer in the past, have beaten him over the past year or so.

That's exactly what I said.
It's not that they didn't try; it's that their mentalities prevented them from really believing they could win. This then prevented them from fully committing themselves to the match. Suddenly, Novak comes along and shatters Fed's aura, and the other players start to lose their mental block.

rubberduckies
04-12-2009, 05:58 PM
I wished I could make all of this crap my sig! lol...

You my friend get the award for dumbest post of the week...

It's just the truth. I'm sorry you blind Fedtadism prevents you from seeing that.

GameSampras
04-12-2009, 06:04 PM
Totally disagree...

In the days of Laver and Co. Movement and placement was the key to success with an all court game. Those gys ran each other ragged. And chased everything down with their 13-14oz woodies.

If you are going to tell me that the tennis played today is anything more than 2 guys trying to chop down a tree. Then I honestly think you are off your head..

More power doesn't equate to better!

Try getting hold of some old matches..



So laver would be winning slams in his early-mid- late 30s today much less win a calendar slam at what 31? Connors late 30s? Pancho at 40? Come on now. The game has evolutionized to the umpteenth degree. Players these days are more fit then in Laver's day. They have access to nutrionists, trainers, and a whole entourage of people yet the longevity of players being on have decreased compared to 40-50 years ago. If the game didnt take its toll on players today, we would be seeing Fed dominate into his late 30s, Nadal into his early to mid 30s. This just aint gonna happen.. And I can guarantee you, Nadal is more fit than anyone in Laver or Rosewall's day

jamesblakefan#1
04-12-2009, 06:07 PM
That's exactly what I said.
It's not that they didn't try; it's that their mentalities prevented them from really believing they could win. This then prevented them from fully committing themselves to the match. Suddenly, Novak comes along and shatters Fed's aura, and the other players start to lose their mental block.

This is complete and utter bulls... It's bad enough that everyone thinks that Fed is god and that its his birthright to be #1, now you're saying that guys basically threw matches against him, I don't believe that any player had the thought, "Oh, its not like I'm gonna win, so I might as well not even try" If that were the case, wouldnt guys just go double bagle against him?

sonicboi21
04-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Exactly. Fed is pushing 30, you can't expect for him to play like he did when he was 23....

typical nadal ******. Fed is not pushing 30. hes 27 and hes still got a lot of game left. look at the AO, the 2 sets he won, he won 6-2. how is that getting old and not playing well. nadal's method is just smart. attacking the backhand with high topspin shots. nothing more.

VivalaVida
04-12-2009, 06:15 PM
It's just the truth. I'm sorry you blind Fedtadism prevents you from seeing that.
It is not the truth. It is your opinion. "*******ism" has nothing to do with it.

BreakPoint
04-12-2009, 06:21 PM
I remember... in the old days (2 or 3 years ago)
Wow, I've never before thought of only 2 or 3 years ago as being "the old days". ;-) I thought this was going to be a thread about Laver or Kramer. :shock:

Anyway, here are some things that I think might have caused the slide in Federer's game:

1. He's just not as hungry as he was before he won almost everything.
2. He's never fully recovered from mono, nor the loss of training and conditioning as a result of his illness.
3. He's got a lot more than just tennis on his mind these days: e.g., a new baby, getting married, etc.
4. The pressure of being so close to breaking Sampras' record but not quite getting there is getting to him.
5. The incredibly high expectations of his fans and the media and the bubble and scrutiny he lives under is too much pressure for him to take.
6. After having played millions of hours of tennis and thousands of tennis matches in his life, he's just plain tired.

JoshDragon
04-12-2009, 06:45 PM
I remember... in the old days (2 or 3 years ago) when I could watch Federer BLOW people off the court...



I propose this thread for anybody who feels that they ACTUALLY know what may have gone wrong with Federer's game and can actually contribute anything constructional to his game...

So, hopefully, only his changes (and evidence of said changes) can be addressed to hopefully change address the way that he has been playing recently... Basically... I want him to play like he did in the US open 2004 again when he absolutely CRUSHED opponent's... I just dont understand what happened??

Love to all that reply.

thanx guys.

-Jimmyk459

From what I've seen his forehand has really lost it's bite. He doesn't seem to have the same desire to win win that he did before. I think he's just not as interested in winning as he once was.

Fed, has things in his life like marriage and kids, that weren't there, four and a half years ago. It's distracting him from winning the majors.

JoshDragon
04-12-2009, 06:56 PM
Can we please stop it with the "what's wrong with Federer" threads? I mean, the guy is pushing 30 years old right now, and tennis is a young man's game. So it would figure that the younger guys like Murray Djokovic and Nadal would eventually catch him once his level fell. Just a thought.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Fed is 27, that's not pushing 30 yet. James Blake on the other hand is pushing 30.

COPEY
04-12-2009, 09:12 PM
The pressure of being so close to breaking Sampras' record but not quite getting there is getting to him.


I thought there were other valid and sensible opinions posted in BreakPoint's post, but this one jumped out at me. In an interview, and I can't recall when it was, but Agassi, Sampras, and a host of others were talking about Fed and "when" he would pass Sampras' GS record. Moreover, they were all speculating about how many slams Roger would potentially win, and the numbers were like...19, 20 even. At the time of the interview, which was when Roger was seemingly invincible, it seemed as though the argument they were making was nothing short of very credible.

Now all that's changed, and I'm sure Federer, more than anyone, is well aware that tying Sampras' record is now going to be a challenge, let alone surpassing him. Personally, I think he'll pass Sampras, but I definitely don't see him capturing 18 or 19 slams like most people envisioned three years ago.

Blade0324
04-13-2009, 11:33 AM
why do people have such high standards for Roger.
He may not be playing his best the last year but hes still making GS finals and still playing at a very high level.

Most players who go through a downfall fall to like rank 40 in the world.
Roger is at #2.

So all you people stop judging the guy because hes done more than any player ever.

You should make a utube video defending roger and post it next to the guy defending Brittany.

Blade0324
04-13-2009, 11:36 AM
I in no way a Federer fan but in all seriousness I think that Fed. may be losing his eyesight a little bit. I think that this is contributing to the balls that he is mishitting so much. Also in a dubs match at IW i was watching he actually got hit by the ball while at net twice. He was not just a duck on an overhead by the other team or anything just routine shots that he missed and didn't even get a racquet on and they hit him.

Serendipitous
04-13-2009, 11:37 AM
Sigh.....I remember the kind-of-old days when Henin used to dominate......do you think she'll come back? :(

pepe01
04-13-2009, 12:06 PM
Federer has all the strocks than 3 years ago but is slow and has a mental wall that Rafa built.

Federer needs to put his feets on the grown and work hard to get again number one spot and win more slams, he needs a coach and be in great physical form, now he knows he can not win more tournaments with out be in great physical form and improve some part of his game.

Come on he is 27 years old, he is young, remember Agassi, Lendl, Sampras; ok he got marry, and going to be Father, great for him; but tennis as sport is demanding, if he wants to win couple of grand slams then he needs to work hard to do it.

What can i see on his game ( slow, failing back hand, fore hands, one step behinds) he needs to work HARD.


Regards

P_Agony
04-13-2009, 12:07 PM
It's just the truth. I'm sorry you blind Fedtadism prevents you from seeing that.

It's not the truth. It's a ******* talk, like every post of yours.

pepe01
04-13-2009, 12:08 PM
Sigh.....I remember the kind-of-old days when Henin used to dominate......do you think she'll come back? :(

I hope so, WTA tennis is boring, we need Serena and Venus in good form, Justine back and Steffi and gabriela Clons, then i want see WTA tennis games.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 02:10 PM
Jesus guys. Fed is making slam final after slam final and only loses to one player when it matters most. The same player that used to beat even back 3-4 years ago yet, people are still talking about this "fed decline", "fed old" crap.


Enough of the excuses. Nadal just peaked. End of story. Prime-Peak Roger or not. If Nadal primed back in 05-06, the results would be the same as they are now. Nadal has gotten better, Fed has not.

thejoe
04-13-2009, 02:16 PM
Jesus guys. Fed is making slam final after slam final and only loses to one player when it matters most. The same player that used to beat even back 3-4 years ago yet, people are still talking about this "fed decline", "fed old" crap.


Enough of the excuses. Nadal just peaked. End of story. Prime-Peak Roger or not. If Nadal primed back in 05-06, the results would be the same as they are now. Nadal has gotten better, Fed has not.

Wrong. If you can't see a difference, then I suggest you consult a medic.

Cesc Fabregas
04-13-2009, 02:17 PM
Wrong. If you can't see a difference, then I suggest you consult a medic.

Why? seventeen year old Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourts.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 02:58 PM
Why? seventeen year old Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourts.

Exactly.. Nadal before he even hit puberty was beating Fed. I dunno what people's problems are here. You had to assume if Nadal tweaked his game and hit his prime he would overtake Fed. IF pre-pubescent Nadal was the one of the ONLY PLAYERS to beat Prime Fed, why couldnt peak Nadal beat Fed now?

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 02:59 PM
Wrong. If you can't see a difference, then I suggest you consult a medic.

I see the difference.. And the difference is Nadal just got better and is now an all surface player whereas before he wasnt. Whats so hard to understand about that?

Nadal has always been a problem for Fed, no matter what age.

Pwned
04-13-2009, 03:01 PM
Exactly.. Nadal before he even hit puberty was beating Fed. I dunno what people's problems are here. You had to assume if Nadal tweaked his game and hit his prime he would overtake Fed. IF pre-pubescent Nadal was the one of the ONLY PLAYERS to beat Prime Fed, why couldnt peak Nadal beat Fed now?
Nadal didn't hit puberty until after he was 17?!? lol

Leublu tennis
04-13-2009, 03:02 PM
why do people have such high standards for Roger.
He may not be playing his best the last year but hes still making GS finals and still playing at a very high level.

Most players who go through a downfall fall to like rank 40 in the world.
Roger is at #2.

So all you people stop judging the guy because hes done more than any player ever.Thats well put. Federer is fading slowly. Thats all. Its tough on him. He is used to being the overwhealming #1. Something that Nadal has yet to achieve.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 03:02 PM
Nadal didn't hit puberty until after he was 17?!? lol


Whatever the hell. LOL.. Pre Puberty-Pre Prime. Whichever it is. Nadal was young and still beat Fed.

stormholloway
04-13-2009, 03:16 PM
Why are people making this about Nadal? Look at how many guys have beaten Fed that never gave Federer trouble in the past. Roddick beats Fed for the first time since 2003 least year. Coincidence? Did Roddick get so much better? Of course not. Federer loses in straight sets to Mardy Fish at Indian Wells? What does that have to do with Nadal exactly? Loses to Stepanek in Rome? Loses to Blake at the Olympics?

These are guys that Federer never had trouble with. Nadal deserves his credit but to reduce this to Nadal getting better is a shortcut to thinking, simply factually wrong.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 03:28 PM
Why are people making this about Nadal? Look at how many guys have beaten Fed that never gave Federer trouble in the past. Roddick beats Fed for the first time since 2003 least year. Coincidence? Did Roddick get so much better? Of course not. Federer loses in straight sets to Mardy Fish at Indian Wells? What does that have to do with Nadal exactly? Loses to Stepanek in Rome? Loses to Blake at the Olympics?

These are guys that Federer never had trouble with. Nadal deserves his credit but to reduce this to Nadal getting better is a shortcut to thinking, simply factually wrong.



Fed has had some uncharacteristic losses this past year or so but never at the slams. Who has beaten Fed at a slam outside of Nadal anyways? Djokovic? LOL. And he had mono at the time. So until I see Fed actually have some uncharacteristic losses at the biggest tourneys of the year, not some crap tournaments like Dubai, Cincy, Indian Wells, Miami, I dont consider Fed to be out of his prime. Its no skin off Fed's teeth at this point in his career if he doesnt win the Masters or some other tourneys that dont mean as much as the big ones. Its the slams is all that matters to me and Fed as well. And so far, Fed has not lost to anyone but Nadal and that one loss to Djoker at the AO. Its obvious Fed doesnt kick it into that extra gear unless its at the slams at this point.


Sure Fed may lose to Roddick, Fish, Karlo etc at the smaller tourneys but these guys sure as hell arent beating Fed at the slams.

Only players that have a chance of taking Fed out at the slams are the top 3. Murray, Djoker, Nadal. What does Fed have to gain winning every tourney he enters at this point in his career. Fed is now taking the "sampras route" of the late 90s. And that is, "Forget the rest, I want the SLAMS"


ALot of people will sit there and say Murray owns Fed just because of these wins at meaningless tourneys to Fed. Well... Not in my opinion. Murray will own Fed when he finally beats Fed at a slam. Murray can beat Fed at the small hardcourt tourneys he wants, but we saw what Fed did to Djoker and Murray at the USO when something big was actually on the line didnt we?

rubberduckies
04-13-2009, 04:07 PM
Why are people making this about Nadal? Look at how many guys have beaten Fed that never gave Federer trouble in the past. Roddick beats Fed for the first time since 2003 least year. Coincidence? Did Roddick get so much better? Of course not. Federer loses in straight sets to Mardy Fish at Indian Wells? What does that have to do with Nadal exactly? Loses to Stepanek in Rome? Loses to Blake at the Olympics?

These are guys that Federer never had trouble with. Nadal deserves his credit but to reduce this to Nadal getting better is a shortcut to thinking, simply factually wrong.

That supports my argument. Those guys had a huge mental block against Federer, far larger than any block he might have against Nadal. Once that was lifted (largely due to Djokovic and his bravado and his refusing to worship Federer), those guys were able to come out of their shells and finally play their own games against Roger. Roddick has talked about how Federer got into everybody's head. Even Federer has admitted, following his loss to Fish, that on any given day, any player can get hot and just dominate you. He expressed surprise and joy and some confusion that for the last few years it just hasn't happened. Basically, he admits that his rivals never really got hot against him, which is why he was able to be so dominant.

Watch an actual Federer match from his dominant years, and you'll see the same stuff you see today. He's good at putting away short balls. He loves to slice his backhand to extend and neutralize rallies waiting for an error (aka pushing). You see shanks and errors. The difference is that today there are actually some players willing and able to make Fed pay for his mistakes.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:25 PM
That supports my argument. Those guys had a huge mental block against Federer, far larger than any block he might have against Nadal. Once that was lifted (largely due to Djokovic and his bravado and his refusing to worship Federer), those guys were able to come out of their shells and finally play their own games against Roger. Roddick has talked about how Federer got into everybody's head. Even Federer has admitted, following his loss to Fish, that on any given day, any player can get hot and just dominate you. He expressed surprise and joy and some confusion that for the last few years it just hasn't happened. Basically, he admits that his rivals never really got hot against him, which is why he was able to be so dominant.

Watch an actual Federer match from his dominant years, and you'll see the same stuff you see today. He's good at putting away short balls. He loves to slice his backhand to extend and neutralize rallies waiting for an error (aka pushing). You see shanks and errors. The difference is that today there are actually some players willing and able to make Fed pay for his mistakes.

Great post!!

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 05:43 PM
Thats well put. Federer is fading slowly. Thats all. Its tough on him. He is used to being the overwhealming #1. Something that Nadal has yet to achieve.
Nadal is not the overwhelming #1? How is he not?

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 05:47 PM
[QUOTE=GameSampras;3315346]Fed has had some uncharacteristic losses this past year or so but never at the slams. Who has beaten Fed at a slam outside of Nadal anyways? Djokovic?




Yes and also Safin.

GameSampras
04-13-2009, 05:48 PM
[QUOTE=GameSampras;3315346]Fed has had some uncharacteristic losses this past year or so but never at the slams. Who has beaten Fed at a slam outside of Nadal anyways? Djokovic?




Yes and also Safin.

Ahhh yea youre right .. Safin as well.. But look at what Safin had to do. He played the best tennis of his life and still barely won.

tkauffm
04-13-2009, 05:52 PM
That supports my argument. Those guys had a huge mental block against Federer, far larger than any block he might have against Nadal. Once that was lifted (largely due to Djokovic and his bravado and his refusing to worship Federer), those guys were able to come out of their shells and finally play their own games against Roger. Roddick has talked about how Federer got into everybody's head. Even Federer has admitted, following his loss to Fish, that on any given day, any player can get hot and just dominate you. He expressed surprise and joy and some confusion that for the last few years it just hasn't happened. Basically, he admits that his rivals never really got hot against him, which is why he was able to be so dominant.

Watch an actual Federer match from his dominant years, and you'll see the same stuff you see today. He's good at putting away short balls. He loves to slice his backhand to extend and neutralize rallies waiting for an error (aka pushing). You see shanks and errors. The difference is that today there are actually some players willing and able to make Fed pay for his mistakes.

I'll admit they had a huge mental block. However, more importantly they had (and most of the time still have) an even larger skill block. Let's give Rog some credit now. He was light years better than them and he is still considerably more talented now.

So He won 13 grand slams by the simple fact that opposing players weren't hot? Boy is that some luck

I've watched numerous matches from his dominant years and what i saw was better footwork, smarter play, confidence and an overall whooping being given to inferior players.

veroniquem
04-13-2009, 06:00 PM
[QUOTE=veroniquem;3315708]

Ahhh yea youre right .. Safin as well.. But look at what Safin had to do. He played the best tennis of his life and still barely won.
You are right in the sense that even during his prime Fed played matches with a lot of UEs but still prevailed because of supreme confidence on the crucial points, you're also right about a lot of players (around 2006) not really believing they COULD beat Fed, saying so in their interviews and exhibiting that lack of self belief on court but it's equally undeniable that some of Federer's shots have lost their sharpness or accuracy, that his focus (and temper as well) has somewhat deteriorated and that he's a tad slower in his reactions and footwork.
Both points of view (or analysis) are not incompatible in my opinion.

TheNatural
04-13-2009, 06:21 PM
Regarding the Olympics, Fed has crashed out in 3 Olympics now, in the last 2 before this one he was in top form before the Olympics and then got booted out by other guys who outplayed him, so 2008 was not much different. So He's been booted out of 3 Olympics without a singles medal despite cherishing the Olympics so much.

In regards to a few guys beating Fed once or so who were not beating him before, Murray's assessment comes to mind when he thumped Fed in 2006. Fed said he had a bad day or something. Murray explained that the thing is that Fed probably had about 30 of those matches a year where he still wins even when hes not playing his greatest so those matches never made the news.Ive seen plenty of those. If Roddick or a few others stepped up a bit in some matches in the last year or 2 then it should be no surprise to see Fed lose some as Fed was never playing prime tennis in every single match even in 2005 or 2006 or whenever people perceive that his best ever year was due to his win/loss record etc.

If you actually watch the tennis and see the level of tennis guys like Fish, Stepanek or Nalby play when they crush Fed or whoever then it shouldn't surprise you to see Fed lose sometimes.

If you look at Murray and Nadal who are superior to Fed now, they also have matches where they don't play their absolute best and opponents capitalize.

The bottom line, is that if you keep having unrealistic expectations then you're gong to keep being disappointed.

Why are people making this about Nadal? Look at how many guys have beaten Fed that never gave Federer trouble in the past. Roddick beats Fed for the first time since 2003 least year. Coincidence? Did Roddick get so much better? Of course not. Federer loses in straight sets to Mardy Fish at Indian Wells? What does that have to do with Nadal exactly? Loses to Stepanek in Rome? Loses to Blake at the Olympics?

These are guys that Federer never had trouble with. Nadal deserves his credit but to reduce this to Nadal getting better is a shortcut to thinking, simply factually wrong.

stormholloway
04-14-2009, 01:49 AM
^^^ So your argument is that on all those occasions Fed simply had a bad day and his opponent was playing out of his mind? And that's basically my whole point: Federer has been having a lot of bad days lately. Great players are allowed to lose a couple matches they should definitely win. It happens.

Why you cite Murray in 2006 is beyond me. I watched that match. Federer tanked it. As I recall he had just won the previous tournament, probably in Canada, and visibly had no interest in that match. It still took a lot to beat him even when he wasn't trying that hard. Nowadays Federer is trying hard, and he's losing.

You can add two more losses against Gilles Simon in the mix also. That's another player he should never have lost to. I think my point is clear: Federer's woes in 2008 are not due to Nadal alone, despite what some are saying in this thread.