PDA

View Full Version : The real reason why Federer is so dominant in Slams


Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 07:57 PM
With Tennis Channel becoming more and more common in homes and tennis in general being televised more and more often, people are finally beginning to realize how vulnerable Roger Federer can be outside of slams.

I've had countless conversations as to why Federer is more dominant in slams than in any other tournaments, and I keep hearing essentially, "Great players play their best when it matters most."

While I don't necessarily disagree, I believe the real reason lies in Fed's level of fitness. In two-out-of-three set matches (non-slams), fitness, while obviously still being a huge component of the match, is not nearly as vital as it is in three-out-of-five set matches (slams). And Federer's level of fitness is astounding. The speed, grace, and endurance which he displays takes almost no toll on his body, and allows him to function at his fullest in fourth and fifth sets--sets when his opponent would love to stop and rest.

However, in two-out-of-three set matches, Fed loses this fitness advantage. His opponents have simply not been on court long enough to tire them out. Do you really think Marcos Baghdatis would have beaten Fed at Indian Wells, for instance, had it been a five set match? I don't.

Just a theory.

Sumo
03-30-2010, 08:06 PM
I think you've got something there.

forzamilan90
03-30-2010, 08:15 PM
he might be pound for pound the greatest singles slam player ever

mikro112
03-30-2010, 08:16 PM
With Tennis Channel becoming more and more common in homes and tennis in general being televised more and more often, people are finally beginning to realize how vulnerable Roger Federer can be outside of slams.

I've had countless conversations as to why Federer is more dominant in slams than in any other tournaments, and I keep hearing essentially, "Great players play their best when it matters most."

While I don't necessarily disagree, I believe the real reason lies in Fed's level of fitness. In two-out-of-three set matches (non-slams), fitness, while obviously still being a huge component of the match, is not nearly as vital as it is in three-out-of-five set matches (slams). And Federer's level of fitness is astounding. The speed, grace, and endurance which he displays takes almost no toll on his body, and allows him to function at his fullest in fourth and fifth sets--sets when his opponent would love to stop and rest.

However, in two-out-of-three set matches, Fed loses this fitness advantage. His opponents have simply not been on court long enough to tire them out. Do you really think Marcos Baghdatis would have beaten Fed at Indian Wells, for instance, had it been a five set match? I don't.

Just a theory.

http://i642.photobucket.com/albums/uu148/mikro112_2/ab9d5266.jpg

Wes_Loves_Dunlop
03-30-2010, 08:16 PM
Do you think if slams were 2/3 instead of 3/5, Fed wouldnt win 16?
The reason Fed doesnt work his hardest in slams is because he probably doesnt care as much as a GS.
Looking at the FO, he was down 2 sets against Haas, and he came back. I dont think its because of his fitness, but because of his passion to have a ton of Gs titles.

Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 08:22 PM
Do you think if slams were 2/3 instead of 3/5, Fed wouldnt win 16?
The reason Fed doesnt work his hardest in slams is because he probably doesnt care as much as a GS.
Looking at the FO, he was down 2 sets against Haas, and he came back. I dont think its because of his fitness, but because of his passion to have a ton of Gs titles.

Totally, and respectfully, disagree. If I've learned one thing from watching Fed throughout the years, it's always to give every ounce of your energy into every point of the match. I just truly don't think he is a better pure tennis player than many players on tour in two-out-of-three set matches because he doesn't attain the same fitness advantage. I certainly don't think he doesn't care as much.

edberg505
03-30-2010, 08:24 PM
With Tennis Channel becoming more and more common in homes and tennis in general being televised more and more often, people are finally beginning to realize how vulnerable Roger Federer can be outside of slams.

I've had countless conversations as to why Federer is more dominant in slams than in any other tournaments, and I keep hearing essentially, "Great players play their best when it matters most."

While I don't necessarily disagree, I believe the real reason lies in Fed's level of fitness. In two-out-of-three set matches (non-slams), fitness, while obviously still being a huge component of the match, is not nearly as vital as it is in three-out-of-five set matches (slams). And Federer's level of fitness is astounding. The speed, grace, and endurance which he displays takes almost no toll on his body, and allows him to function at his fullest in fourth and fifth sets--sets when his opponent would love to stop and rest.

However, in two-out-of-three set matches, Fed loses this fitness advantage. His opponents have simply not been on court long enough to tire them out. Do you really think Marcos Baghdatis would have beaten Fed at Indian Wells, for instance, had it been a five set match? I don't.

Just a theory.

But Federer wins a substantial number of his slam matches in straights.

svijk
03-30-2010, 08:27 PM
good point by op but w/o data its kinda half baked. most of fed's GS matches end in 3 sets so the stamina factor does'nt arise....also you always get a days break in the slams so niether Fed nor his opponent is really tired.....know-m-sayin?

mikro112
03-30-2010, 08:27 PM
But Federer wins a substantial number of his slam matches in straights.

Still, straight set victories in slams equal full-distance wins in non-slam-matches. ;)

martini1
03-30-2010, 08:36 PM
It's down to simple statistics. Winning 2 sets with TB on the last set is far more doable than winning 3 sets w/o TB on the 5th. A late break will get you a set and then all you have to do is hold serve and get lucky on a TB later on.
Top players don't make too many mistakes. So for them to drop 3 sets in a row is very unlikely.
There are plenty of younger players who can play 5-6 hrs A game no prob. The prob is their A game is not good enough.
Other than 1000 masters I don't think any 2 out of 3 format tournaments means that much to top players. They won't risk injury and miss a GS.

Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 08:36 PM
Still, straight set victories in slams equal full-distance wins in non-slam-matches. ;)

Stole the words right from my hands. ;)

Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 08:41 PM
Other than 1000 masters I don't think any 2 out of 3 format tournaments means that much to top players. They won't risk injury and miss a GS.

Are you watching Fed and Berdych's match at the Sony Ericsson in Miami!? If you are, to say the match doesn't "mean that much" to Fed would be absolutely ridiculous.

edberg505
03-30-2010, 08:44 PM
Still, straight set victories in slams equal full-distance wins in non-slam-matches. ;)

Well the question then becomes why doesn't Nadal reach the final of every slam he plays in? Sure his fitness is superior to that of Federer's.

Sentinel
03-30-2010, 08:48 PM
Anyway, Federer himself has said, iirc, that he's now interested in the majors only.

svijk
03-30-2010, 08:55 PM
Stole the words right from my hands. ;)

i think you are confused....your point is that players stay with Fed if its a 3 set match and not 5 due to stamina issues....if Fed wins a lot of slam matches 3-0 its got nothing to do with stamina...its just that he is good

DownTheLine
03-30-2010, 09:01 PM
Well the question then becomes why doesn't Nadal reach the final of every slam he plays in? Sure his fitness is superior to that of Federer's.
Federers game doesn't take such a tole on his body as does Nadals. Nadal may be faster, but I think healthy Federer has a higher fitness level then a healthy Nadal.

fireice
03-30-2010, 09:04 PM
i think you are confused....your point is that players stay with Fed if its a 3 set match and not 5 due to stamina issues....if Fed wins a lot of slam matches 3-0 its got nothing to do with stamina...its just that he is good

Right, because Fed'll win those 3-0 Grand Slammers in the first or second round against people not quite to his level. But if he's playing much tougher opponents in 1000 events in 3-set matches in best of 3 set matches, he can't use the fitness that he could if it were a 5-set slam match.

nikdom
03-30-2010, 09:07 PM
Dear "real reason",
We know you exist. We also know that all your brother and sister "reasons" are not as real as you. They may make sense, and look just as good as you, but we are in love with YOU and you alone. We cannot deal with multiple, equally valid "reasons" when we can just appoint you the sole heir of Roger's GS legacy. So "real reason", please stand up, please stand up.

MrFlip
03-30-2010, 09:08 PM
While I agree with all of the OP, I dont think its he dominant cause why he does so well in Slams. He can play well in Masters Tournaments but due to his lax attitude in the smaller tournaments now its no big deal for him to lose. In slams it is. He has a record he built himself he cant stand not to replicate time and time again so time come when a slam is on he plays like he means it and double. You wont see him miss much at a slam unless the other guy is playing phenomenal tennis or its Nadal.

If his ranking is slipping or hes in trouble of not winning a title for a while he will put more effort into the smaller tournament. He preserves his body for slams, thats a fact now. Back in the days of 2003-2006 he was fit enough to play hard at Basel, Shanghai, Houston, hale, etc etc etc.

fireice
03-30-2010, 09:09 PM
I sincerely doubt he loses to Berdych in a best of 5 set match.

Chezbeeno
03-30-2010, 09:18 PM
Well the question then becomes why doesn't Nadal reach the final of every slam he plays in? Sure his fitness is superior to that of Federer's.

Nadal's fitness level is not as good, I'm not sure if you've noticed the several weeks at a time Nadal is out due to injury but Federer has never been sidelined for that long with an injury, I remember one time he withdrew because of injury. Fed's body mechanics are just so much smoother and better than Nadal's meaning that his body doesn't pay the price for his time on court.

wangs78
03-30-2010, 09:22 PM
With Tennis Channel becoming more and more common in homes and tennis in general being televised more and more often, people are finally beginning to realize how vulnerable Roger Federer can be outside of slams.

I've had countless conversations as to why Federer is more dominant in slams than in any other tournaments, and I keep hearing essentially, "Great players play their best when it matters most."

While I don't necessarily disagree, I believe the real reason lies in Fed's level of fitness. In two-out-of-three set matches (non-slams), fitness, while obviously still being a huge component of the match, is not nearly as vital as it is in three-out-of-five set matches (slams). And Federer's level of fitness is astounding. The speed, grace, and endurance which he displays takes almost no toll on his body, and allows him to function at his fullest in fourth and fifth sets--sets when his opponent would love to stop and rest.

However, in two-out-of-three set matches, Fed loses this fitness advantage. His opponents have simply not been on court long enough to tire them out. Do you really think Marcos Baghdatis would have beaten Fed at Indian Wells, for instance, had it been a five set match? I don't.

Just a theory.

His fitness is one of his many advantages so I agree with you that his fitness has helped him win so many GS titles but I don't think it's the primary reason. He still has more talent than anyone out there as he ever has. Only two things have changed since his period of invincibility (2004-2007) (1) his consistency and (2) the quality/consistency of his opponents.

(1) His consistency. Since spring of 2007 (after AO 2007, arguably where we last saw "invincible" Federer) Fed has been prone to bouts of mediocre play. It's just that because he's so talented even when he plays mediocre he can win 80% of his matches (depends on who he's playing). In general, he won't play lousy for an entire match, generally just screws up one set then gets his act together and wins.

(2) Quality/consistency of opponents. After AO 2007 was really when a small flock of players began challenging Fed on a regular basis. You already had Nadal. Murray was getting started with annoying Federer with his style of play and Djokovic came onto the scene after Wimby 2007. All three of these guys have challenged Federer ever since. Prior to these guys the only regular challenger for Fed was Roddick so while I don't think Fed necessarily had weak competition prior to 2004 (relative to previous eras), but his competition in 2007-2009 has definitely been more consistent.

Anyway, back to your original point. Yes, fitness definitely gives Fed an edge, no question. But talent will always be the biggest reason.

samprasvsfederer123
03-30-2010, 09:24 PM
its starting to look more like the late 90s pete sampras, doing kinda horribly in the masters but owning the grand slams, or atleast the one he cared about, wimbledon, and us open he always made the final of that but failed miserably against safin and hewitt for various reasons, i just hope federer gets to 20 grand slams, and wins monter carlo rome and paris he can tank miami if he wants, which he doesnt.

and dam that was a great match vs tomas not for the quality of the match, dam did fed make so many errors, but because of the intensity of the 3rd set tiebreak.

what is that interview i heard of federer saying he shouldnt be playing tiebreakers? whyd he say that?

David L
03-30-2010, 09:31 PM
Totally, and respectfully, disagree. If I've learned one thing from watching Fed throughout the years, it's always to give every ounce of your energy into every point of the match. I just truly don't think he is a better pure tennis player than many players on tour in two-out-of-three set matches because he doesn't attain the same fitness advantage. I certainly don't think he doesn't care as much.
Well, it depends when you look at him. During the period he was winning 10 odd matches a year, he was winning all the 2 out of 3 matches as well. It's only really since 2008 that his matches in 2 out of 3 have been more mixed. Also, invariably in the 2 out of 3 matches he loses, his opponent has to practically play the match of their life. Opponents have to and do often play above their normal level, because they have nothing to lose, so play without pressure. It's a special occasion when they get to play Federer, so they aso have that special motivation and inspiration. I have lost count of the amount of times Federer has lost to an opponent, only for them to lose comfortably to their next opponent. The fact that they are playing without pressure and also have to give every ounce of their energy to every point to win, would suggest Federer is indeed a better pure tennis play, since he is not doing the same. That's not even to mention numerous examples of Federer clearly playing superior tennis to the rest of the tour.

David L
03-30-2010, 09:35 PM
Anyway, Federer himself has said, iirc, that he's now interested in the majors only.
No he hasn't. I've lost count of the number of times he has said this is not true. Fans say this, not Federer.

David L
03-30-2010, 09:38 PM
I sincerely doubt he loses to Berdych in a best of 5 set match.
He almost has already.

slicefox
03-30-2010, 09:38 PM
rofl what a ******** statement.

Fed wins most of his slam matches in straight sets, how can you blame it on fitness?

There are few people that have taken sets from Fed in slams, so even if they were best of 2 sets, he would still win.

noob

HunterST
03-30-2010, 09:39 PM
Fitness is certainly an aspect of Federer's strength, but it's not the biggest part.

Look at his record against Murray. He lost quite a few best of 3 matches to Murray, then in slams he has dominated him.

I think it comes down to two things: 1. Fed doesn't take masters nearly as seriously. 2. A lot of players can achieve extremely high levels of play for a short amount of time. In a best of 3, a half hour of amazing play can get you the match, in a GS you have to sustain it longer.

Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 09:50 PM
Well, it depends when you look at him. During the period he was winning 10 odd matches a year, he was winning all the 2 out of 3 matches as well. It's only really since 2008 that his matches in 2 out of 3 have been more mixed. Also, invariably in the 2 out of 3 matches he loses, his opponent has to practically play the match of their life. Opponents have to and do often play above their normal level, because they have nothing to lose, so play without pressure. It's a special occasion when they get to play Federer, so they aso have that special motivation and inspiration. I have lost count of the amount of times Federer has lost to an opponent, only for them to lose comfortably to their next opponent. The fact that they are playing without pressure and also have to give every ounce of their energy to every point to win, would suggest Federer is indeed a better pure tennis play, since he is not doing the same. That's not even to mention numerous examples of Federer clearly playing superior tennis to the rest of the tour.

Several solid, accurate points. I don't disagree with you, but I do think you sensationalize Roger's success in 2-out-of-3 set matches pre-2008. Just a few examples: Fed lost in three to Rafa at Dubai in 2006, lost in straights to Rafa at Monte Carlo in 2007, Djokovic in three at Montreal in 2007, Nalbandian in three at Madrid in 2007, and others.

Mdubb23
03-30-2010, 09:52 PM
rofl what a ******** statement.

Fed wins most of his slam matches in straight sets, how can you blame it on fitness?

There are few people that have taken sets from Fed in slams, so even if they were best of 2 sets, he would still win.

noob

Grow up.

10 char.

Still, straight set victories in slams equal full-distance wins in non-slam-matches. ;)

Mansewerz
03-30-2010, 09:55 PM
But Federer wins a substantial number of his slam matches in straights.

This. I also think it's a mental thing. People believe "Okay, all I need is two sets and i'm done!"

In the slams it's "Ok, i need to win 3 sets against this guy, that's gonna be tough"

TheTruth
03-30-2010, 10:13 PM
Look at his record against Murray. He lost quite a few best of 3 matches to Murray, then in slams he has dominated him.

A lot of players can achieve extremely high levels of play for a short amount of time. In a best of 3, a half hour of amazing play can get you the match, in a GS you have to sustain it longer.

I agree, but would add, sustaining and holding your nerves. That's the tough part.

David L
03-30-2010, 11:24 PM
Several solid, accurate points. I don't disagree with you, but I do think you sensationalize Roger's success in 2-out-of-3 set matches pre-2008. Just a few examples: Fed lost in three to Rafa at Dubai in 2006, lost in straights to Rafa at Monte Carlo in 2007, Djokovic in three at Montreal in 2007, Nalbandian in three at Madrid in 2007, and others.
I'm not saying Federer did not lose some best of 3 matches pre-2008, just that his record was better in those matches during that period. Everyone is going to lose their share of matches, whether in best of 3 or 5. As it stands, Federer has had more success in best of 3 matches than anyone currently playing on tour, so what does that tell us?

No one is arguing Federer is perfect or infallible, just that he's the best.

MotherMarjorie
03-31-2010, 12:58 AM
Federers game doesn't take such a tole on his body as does Nadals. Nadal may be faster, but I think healthy Federer has a higher fitness level then a healthy Nadal.
Mother Marjorie senses that you are onto something. Something which has been overlooked by many, many folks throughout the land of tennis.

Federers shots and his on-court movement on any surface is clean and crisp. No excessive topspin, no jerking forehands or wild backswings.

Athlete's like Nadal who hit with excessive topspin and run-down almost un-gettable shots are prone to injury. Nadal also over trains/practices which has lead to his knee problems.

Cardio fitness is essential for the top level of the mens game. Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl used to run with the wolves....figuratively speaking. In his top form in the late '70's, Bjorn Borg's heart rate rarely rose during his tennis matches.

billnepill
03-31-2010, 01:08 AM
Well, the fact that players know that they will be playing 3/5 sets at GS defines their strategy, tactics, fitness, preparation etc. Yes, definitely Federer is favored with his fitness, but this preparation is due the fact that Federer's main focus are Slams. If Slams were played 2/3, maybe Federer would have developed different regime.
So yes, his fitness is a big part of his success. Because he has adapted it to the reality. If the reality were different, his fitness would have been different.
There is a thing about Federer that is amazing - his ability to adapt. If Slams were player 2/3 sets, Federer would have adapted his whole lifestyle to it. Be sure of it.

piece
03-31-2010, 01:28 AM
Still, straight set victories in slams equal full-distance wins in non-slam-matches. ;)

No they don't. There's the same number of sets in both victories, but in one of those victories federer wouldn't have lost any sets.

Stamina doesn't have much to do with it because in grand slams fed barely loses ANY sets. If your (and the OP's) hypothesis were correct, fed would lose the early sets of slam matches just as often as he loses masters 1000 sets.

Can you explain, with your hypothesis, how fed almost always wins the first set of a grand slam match when his stamina (or his opponents) hasn't become a factor yet, but he will (more) often lose the first set of masters 1000 matches? It's definitely more to do with federer's attitude and deliberate regulation of his form so he peaks for the slams than it is do with stamina.

svijk
03-31-2010, 04:57 AM
the OP and mikro112 have got it all wrong ....the op actually contradicts his own point.....guys take a step back and think it through.

The Edberg
03-31-2010, 04:59 AM
Hate to say it... Federer is turning into Serena anymore. Maybe thats why is so dominant. Crap on the rest of the year, just bother with slams

Markov
03-31-2010, 05:07 AM
C'mon are you saying that he doesn't have as much skills to play tennis as guys like Berdych do, but manages to outlast them in GS matches? That doesn't sound like Fed.. more like Nadal, except Nadal has much more skills than Berdych or some other top 20 guys.

The Edberg
03-31-2010, 05:10 AM
In a way though its smart for his longevity of winning slams.. As long as he keeps in condition, and continues to the ability to peak in at slams, he can still rack up slams until he is 31-32 anyways. Like sampras

rovex
03-31-2010, 05:10 AM
In a way though its smart for his longevity of winning slams.. As long as he keeps in condition, and continues to the ability to peak in at slams, he can still rack up slams until he is 31-32 anyways. Like sampras

Who are you?

edberg505
03-31-2010, 05:12 AM
He almost has already.

Unfortunately, almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Tobias Fünke
03-31-2010, 05:41 AM
Fitness is certainly an aspect of Federer's strength, but it's not the biggest part.

Look at his record against Murray. He lost quite a few best of 3 matches to Murray, then in slams he has dominated him.

I think it comes down to two things: 1. Fed doesn't take masters nearly as seriously. 2. A lot of players can achieve extremely high levels of play for a short amount of time. In a best of 3, a half hour of amazing play can get you the match, in a GS you have to sustain it longer.

Exactly. Think of the most recent Australian Open. If that's best 2 of 3, he probably loses to Andreev (set points for 2 sets to 1 lead) and Davydenko (a set and a break up in the second). 3 out of 5 sets gives these guys something to think about and makes them sustain their level that much longer. That and the fact that he is so mentally strong in these situations makes him really tough in slams.

TheNatural
03-31-2010, 05:59 AM
Exactly. Think of the most recent Australian Open. If that's best 2 of 3, he probably loses to Andreev (set points for 2 sets to 1 lead) and Davydenko (a set and a break up in the second). 3 out of 5 sets gives these guys something to think about and makes them sustain their level that much longer. That and the fact that he is so mentally strong in these situations makes him really tough in slams.

Fed is overrated on hard courts in 3 set events. There's at least 3 or 4 ranked above him in these events including Nadal.

zapvor
03-31-2010, 06:06 AM
he might be pound for pound the greatest singles slam player ever

haha. i would drop the pound for pound but yes

*Val*
03-31-2010, 06:32 AM
No, it's not just because of his fitness. I can't believe anyone could actually seriously suggest the only reason Federer dominates slams is because he has a 'fitness advantage' over the five sets against other players. That's absolutely ludicrous. So, his ability, mental tougness, experience and natural talent have nothing to do with it?

The fact is that Federer brings his best to Slams, and the fact that they are played over 5 sets means that not only does his fitness give him the edge, but his mental fortitude, experience and of course ability. Federer gives more at the slams. As I said in another thread, the Federer that turns up at slams is different to the one that turns up at masters.

fireice
03-31-2010, 06:36 AM
No, it's not just because of his fitness. I can't believe anyone could actually seriously suggest the only reason Federer dominates slams is because he has a 'fitness advantage' over the five sets against other players. That's absolutely ludicrous. So, his ability, mental tougness, experience and natural talent have nothing to do with it?

The fact is that Federer brings his best to Slams, and the fact that they are played over 5 sets means that not only does his fitness give him the edge, but his mental fortitude, experience and of course ability. Federer gives more at the slams. As I said in another thread, the Federer that turns up at slams is different to the one that turns up at masters.

There's never just one reason for anything, but this was originally about why he's so much better in slams than masters, and yes, a big part of that is fitness (2 of 3 or 3 of 5)

kslick
03-31-2010, 07:28 AM
I do think his fitness and footwork do help in this respect but not the reason as to why he does better in GS. I mean look at his record in GS 5 set finals, not so good. Like any great champion in the latter years of their career, they really focus on the big ones. Many years back I remember reading where Lendl said he only really focused on the GS. Does that mean Roger doesn't care about the smaller tournaments...no. He's a competitor and wants to win but his focus in on the big ones.

jamesblakefan#1
03-31-2010, 07:39 AM
Fed is overrated on hard courts in 3 set events. There's at least 3 or 4 ranked above him in these events including Nadal.

Nadal? The guy who went winless at the YEC last year and hasn't won a HC event in over a year? Yeah he's ranked ahead of him...

Rippy
03-31-2010, 07:45 AM
Fitness is certainly part of it, but there are other reasons as well. I certainly think he tries harder at the slams, which some people have disputed in this thread.

swordtennis
03-31-2010, 08:04 AM
The poster OutBeyond said it in another thread: He should be saved for the Grand Slams. Kind of like tennis Royalty. Just roll him out when the time comes. They used to do that in the old days in a way.
It is time. He does not have much gas left in the tank anymore. But he would bring it to the slams. Win, lose, draw, tank, choke or shank. Be there in the 2nd week. He has to be beaten for anyone to win slams it seems.

Leonidas
03-31-2010, 08:10 AM
agreed with the OP. federer fitness is way underrated. For instance in FO he beat Delpo and Haas because he didnīt get tired throughout the match unlike his opponents. Some people say that Nadal is on drugs because he is really fit, and Heīs maybe quicker and stronger than federer, but federerīd stamina is up there, and nobody ever said that heīs cheating or something. I donīt know why you distrust nadalīs stamina but not federerīs ...

swordtennis
03-31-2010, 08:14 AM
agreed with the OP. federer fitness is way underrrated. For instance in FO he beat Delpo and Haas because he doesnīt get tired throughout the match. Some people say that Nadal is on drugs because he is really fit, and Heīs maybe quicker and stronegr than federer, but federerīd stamina is up there, and nobody ever said that heīs cheating or something. I donīt know why you distrust nadalīs stamina but not federerīs ...

Umm not that shocking. Not sure why its so shocking to people. Not been around the "stuff" much i suppose. But that is not the point. Time will tell on all that. No need to bring it up.
Fed is a natural athlete. He glides. He is built for tennis. Big difference.

bruce38
03-31-2010, 08:50 AM
the OP and mikro112 have got it all wrong ....the op actually contradicts his own point.....guys take a step back and think it through.

Yes he does.

bruce38
03-31-2010, 08:53 AM
The contradiction is this: OP says many players can beat Fed in 3 set matches because they are better overall for short matches and can hang with him in 3 set matches. It's only in matches that actually go beyond 3 sets that fitness comes into play and hence Fed wins those. Then why can't these same players beat him in straight 3 sets at slams if they are better overall talent wise?

bruce38
03-31-2010, 08:57 AM
Personally I think no one comes close to Fed in overall talent as for example Agassi has said. I think he loses these 3 set matches not because he doesn't care at all, but he does care less about them (he cared more about them in 04-07). And, I think he doesn't go all out in them, he essentially "practices" in these matches. This is not to say it's like a real practice session, but it's match play practice.

martini1
03-31-2010, 09:01 AM
Are you watching Fed and Berdych's match at the Sony Ericsson in Miami!? If you are, to say the match doesn't "mean that much" to Fed would be absolutely ridiculous.

Check your facts before smart mouthing. Miami is a 1000 event.

CMM
03-31-2010, 09:08 AM
agreed with the OP. federer fitness is way underrated. For instance in FO he beat Delpo and Haas because he didnīt get tired throughout the match unlike his opponents. Some people say that Nadal is on drugs because he is really fit, and Heīs maybe quicker and stronger than federer, but federerīd stamina is up there, and nobody ever said that heīs cheating or something. I donīt know why you distrust nadalīs stamina but not federerīs ...

Good point.

Jchurch
03-31-2010, 09:26 AM
Nadal? The guy who went winless at the YEC last year and hasn't won a HC event in over a year? Yeah he's ranked ahead of him...

You just don't see TheNatural's logic. But then again no one else does also :)

World Beater
03-31-2010, 09:47 AM
No they don't. There's the same number of sets in both victories, but in one of those victories federer wouldn't have lost any sets.

Stamina doesn't have much to do with it because in grand slams fed barely loses ANY sets. If your (and the OP's) hypothesis were correct, fed would lose the early sets of slam matches just as often as he loses masters 1000 sets.

Can you explain, with your hypothesis, how fed almost always wins the first set of a grand slam match when his stamina (or his opponents) hasn't become a factor yet, but he will (more) often lose the first set of masters 1000 matches? It's definitely more to do with federer's attitude and deliberate regulation of his form so he peaks for the slams than it is do with stamina.


i think the biggest refute to the OPs argument is Federer's TB record. It is the best in history, even better than Sampras.

coloskier
03-31-2010, 09:59 AM
I think the most important reason why Fed wins in the best 3 of 5 is that there are only two other players on tour that have the mental fortitude to stay mentally focused for 3 entire sets in best of 5. He has the edge mentally over everyone except Nadal (and maybe DelPotro) in a best of 5. It is much easier to keep a mental edge for other players if they only have to do it best 2 of 3.

Anaconda
03-31-2010, 09:59 AM
Federer is dominant in the slams due to the fact that.......

1) His competition isn't as strong as 2004/05; Guy's like Safin, Roddick, Hewitt were in their primes. Other than Nadal there are no guys out there who were better than these three in their primes. Like i said those guys still beat Federer's rivals like Murray, Djokovic and JMDP in slams.

2) Federer's main competition other than Nadal and JMDP are jokes at the moment. Djokovic doesn't seem to care and Murray doesn't have a lot of game.

World Beater
03-31-2010, 10:08 AM
Fed is overrated on hard courts in 3 set events. There's at least 3 or 4 ranked above him in these events including Nadal.

i agree. but sampras is even worse that all of those players combined.

:)

jamesblakefan#1
03-31-2010, 10:43 AM
Federer is dominant in the slams due to the fact that.......

1) His competition isn't as strong as 2004/05; Guy's like Safin, Roddick, Hewitt were in their primes. Other than Nadal there are no guys out there who were better than these three in their primes. Like i said those guys still beat Federer's rivals like Murray, Djokovic and JMDP in slams.

2) Federer's main competition other than Nadal and JMDP are jokes at the moment. Djokovic doesn't seem to care and Murray doesn't have a lot of game.

Fed owns Hewitt and Roddick in the slams. Has embarrased them both on some pretty big stages (Hewitt 04 USO, Roddick 07 AO). And Safin outside of that one AO victory was no contest either. The competition argument is irrelevant when comparing fields only 2 years apart.

Anaconda
03-31-2010, 03:20 PM
Fed owns Hewitt and Roddick in the slams. Has embarrased them both on some pretty big stages (Hewitt 04 USO, Roddick 07 AO). And Safin outside of that one AO victory was no contest either. The competition argument is irrelevant when comparing fields only 2 years apart.

What? Federer managed to beat a Safin in AO 2004 who could barely stand up after playing 1 4 set match and 5 other 5 setters. The others were at Wimbledon where Safin excepted defeat before he walked on court. And atleast Roddick and Hewitt got far to be cancelled out by Federer. They weren't losing to guys no the same level as verdasco or Kohlshreiber in their primes.

decades
03-31-2010, 03:22 PM
it's not just fitness. it's mentally far more difficult to win best of 5. Fed knows how to "git er done"...

Sartorius
03-31-2010, 03:29 PM
With Tennis Channel becoming more and more common in homes and tennis in general being televised more and more often, people are finally beginning to realize how vulnerable Roger Federer can be outside of slams.

I've had countless conversations as to why Federer is more dominant in slams than in any other tournaments, and I keep hearing essentially, "Great players play their best when it matters most."

While I don't necessarily disagree, I believe the real reason lies in Fed's level of fitness. In two-out-of-three set matches (non-slams), fitness, while obviously still being a huge component of the match, is not nearly as vital as it is in three-out-of-five set matches (slams). And Federer's level of fitness is astounding. The speed, grace, and endurance which he displays takes almost no toll on his body, and allows him to function at his fullest in fourth and fifth sets--sets when his opponent would love to stop and rest.

However, in two-out-of-three set matches, Fed loses this fitness advantage. His opponents have simply not been on court long enough to tire them out. Do you really think Marcos Baghdatis would have beaten Fed at Indian Wells, for instance, had it been a five set match? I don't.

Just a theory.

Don't think there's any "real reason" behind it. People tend to generalize and/or simplify things greatly when it comes to Federer's consistency in slams, and the recent lack of consistency outside of slams. Though people tend to generalize many things anyway, tennis or non-tennis.

Not that I disagree with what you said, it's a perfectly valid point. But I'd say it's a combination of many things. I mean, it must be. Winning that many matches in that sort of consistency probably doesn't have only one reason behind it. And one of the reasons is, without a doubt I would say, that he just plays a better, or at least much more tidier game in slams.

Tennis_Bum
03-31-2010, 04:03 PM
Well the question then becomes why doesn't Nadal reach the final of every slam he plays in? Sure his fitness is superior to that of Federer's.

He's younger but his fitness is superior to Fed's? Huh? How did you come up with that? Fed is pretty fit himself. Very rarely do you see him exhausted, very, very rare. I just don't get that remark, but to each his/her own.

jamesblakefan#1
03-31-2010, 04:15 PM
What? Federer managed to beat a Safin in AO 2004 who could barely stand up after playing 1 4 set match and 5 other 5 setters. The others were at Wimbledon where Safin excepted defeat before he walked on court. And atleast Roddick and Hewitt got far to be cancelled out by Federer. They weren't losing to guys no the same level as verdasco or Kohlshreiber in their primes.

Gilles Muller? Oh wait, that was another Roddick "slump" right?

Like I said, Fed owns Hewitt and Roddick in the slams. So bringing them up as examples of "stronger" competition is pretty much a wash.

In any case, the guys of this generation just got started, it's too early to pass judgement and say they're better or worse than Rod/Hew/Saf. If Djok wins RG, Murray wins Wimby, and JMDP repeats at USO (which I don't see happening, just sayin) this whole conversation changes. More time needs to play out is my point. And at this point JMDP/Djoker/Murray combined have more wins over Fed in slams than Roddick/Hewitt/Safin. So how can you say they are definitively not better anyways?

edberg505
03-31-2010, 05:45 PM
He's younger but his fitness is superior to Fed's? Huh? How did you come up with that? Fed is pretty fit himself. Very rarely do you see him exhausted, very, very rare. I just don't get that remark, but to each his/her own.

Just using some Nadal fan logic. Nothing to else to see here, carry on.

no1
03-31-2010, 06:14 PM
Dear "real reason",
We know you exist. We also know that all your brother and sister "reasons" are not as real as you. They may make sense, and look just as good as you, but we are in love with YOU and you alone. We cannot deal with multiple, equally valid "reasons" when we can just appoint you the sole heir of Roger's GS legacy. So "real reason", please stand up, please stand up.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHh... favorite post....

tenniskid567
03-31-2010, 06:22 PM
You don't win 80% of your matches for 7 consecutive years, going 508-65 (give or take a few, 03-09) by just winning the 3 of 5's....

fireice
03-31-2010, 08:27 PM
You don't win 80% of your matches for 7 consecutive years, going 508-65 (give or take a few, 03-09) by just winning the 3 of 5's....

Right, but a good chunk of those 508 wins are 5 setters and only a very small amount of those 65 losses are 5 setters.

tenniskid567
03-31-2010, 10:41 PM
Right, but a good chunk of those 508 wins are 5 setters and only a very small amount of those 65 losses are 5 setters.

His career record in slams is 195-27.
450-75 in sets at grand slams. He's won 156 consecutive matches when he wins the FIRST two sets, no need for extra fitness. He's won 86 singles titles, and only 16 of those titles are best of 5 matches. (I realize that doesn't include the 5 set matches from when he didn't win the final) He's only played around 20 five setters, and his record in those is around 50%.

I know thats a lot of numbers, but bottom line...while his fitness is definitely a huge advantage over his opponents, it is not by any means the main reason for his wins. He's just a better player. He wins GS matches in straight sets allll the time...

I'm not trying to sound angry or snappy or anything haha I promise. I'm just sayin.

TheNatural
04-01-2010, 04:08 AM
main reason is:
1/ Nadal is usually injured at slams.

Rippy
04-01-2010, 04:21 AM
main reason is:
1/ Nadal is usually injured at slams.

Usually? Seriously? So in the majority of slams since, say, 2005, Nadal has been injured?

Anaconda
04-01-2010, 04:30 AM
Gilles Muller? Oh wait, that was another Roddick "slump" right?

Like I said, Fed owns Hewitt and Roddick in the slams. So bringing them up as examples of "stronger" competition is pretty much a wash.

In any case, the guys of this generation just got started, it's too early to pass judgement and say they're better or worse than Rod/Hew/Saf. If Djok wins RG, Murray wins Wimby, and JMDP repeats at USO (which I don't see happening, just sayin) this whole conversation changes. More time needs to play out is my point. And at this point JMDP/Djoker/Murray combined have more wins over Fed in slams than Roddick/Hewitt/Safin. So how can you say they are definitively not better anyways?

Flawed argument. Hewitt, Safin and Roddick shared there primes with Federer's. Your crazy if you think Hewitt and Roddick can beat prime Federer with the games they have.

Secondly, i didn't see Hewitt, Safin or Roddick play Federer A) On a bad day or B) Federer riddled with monoglandular fever. Get me a match with either player against Federer where Federer was shanking forehands and serving under 50% like he does against those guys.

sh@de
04-01-2010, 04:35 AM
What? Federer managed to beat a Safin in AO 2004 who could barely stand up after playing 1 4 set match and 5 other 5 setters. The others were at Wimbledon where Safin excepted defeat before he walked on court. And atleast Roddick and Hewitt got far to be cancelled out by Federer. They weren't losing to guys no the same level as verdasco or Kohlshreiber in their primes.

Bullshi t. Safin played 3 five setters, not 5. :p

But yeah, you're right. Safin was obviously tired.

namelessone
04-01-2010, 04:51 AM
Real reason?

He's a pretty good player.

Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_tennis_records

Anaconda
04-01-2010, 05:15 AM
Bullshi t. Safin played 3 five setters, not 5. :p

But yeah, you're right. Safin was obviously tired.

Ok. But i know that he didn't win one match in straight sets. Even though he was tired he still put up a fight.

FlamEnemY
04-01-2010, 05:17 AM
Real reason?

He's a pretty good player.

Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_tennis_records

Roger Federer has the record of having the most records.

On topic, it's not only fitness, it's his general consistency and willingness to try his best @ the slams. How many times has he lost to a (much) lower ranked *hot* player in a slam? Yeah.

TheNatural
04-01-2010, 05:44 AM
Usually? Seriously? So in the majority of slams since, say, 2005, Nadal has been injured?

yes. Most of them.

AO 2006(foot, withdrew, surgery),

AO 07(leg/quadricep), WIM 07(knee busted end of 4th set in final while dominating-),USO 07(entered injured with knee injury )

USO 08, not injured, but totally fatigued and wasted as he sacrificed USO for the Olympic win.Fair enough no injury here, But Fed won USO due to the Olympic year and Nadal's dominance in the Olympics.


2009, FO 09(knee, out 3 months), Win 09(knee, withdrew),USO 09(abdominal tear).

2010 A0, (knee, retires- out 2 months)

SO here you have the reason for Fed's dominance in slams: Nadal's injuries.

jamesblakefan#1
04-01-2010, 08:07 AM
WIM 07(knee busted end of 4th set in final while dominating- out for months.

Nadal won Stuttgart the week after Wimbledon. He was not out for months.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4D61431F933A15754C0A9619C8B 63

If you're going to make stuff up, at least pretend it's halfway true.

TheNatural
04-01-2010, 08:55 AM
Nadal won Stuttgart the week after Wimbledon. He was not out for months.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4D61431F933A15754C0A9619C8B 63

If you're going to make stuff up, at least pretend it's halfway true.

That's right now that i recall, he tried to battle through the injury later, but he busted it badly at Wimbledon while he was dominating and on his way to the win.

statto
04-01-2010, 09:19 AM
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Federer has won one GS on clay, but five MS on clay, therefore Federer must be better in MS tourneys than slams. You can prove any theory you want just looking at numbers.

If we look at 2004-2006:
2004: 3/4 GS, 3/6 MS
2005: 2/4 GS, 4/5 MS
2006: 3/4 GS, 4/7 MS
So 8/12 GS and 11/18 MS, almost the same %.

Now 2007-2009:
2007: 3/4 GS, 2/9 MS
2008: 1/4 GS, 0/9 MS
2009: 2/4 GS, 2/8 MS
So 6/12 GS and 4/26 MS, waaay worse performance in Masters.

Because of this noticable drop in the last three years it seems to me that the truth of the matter is the opposite of what the OP is saying. As Federer gets older he can only gee himself up for a few tourneys, so he can't win tournament after tournament like a metronome any more. What he's incredibly skilled at doing is working out his schedule so that he's hitting those periods around slams.

TheNatural
04-01-2010, 11:01 AM
Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Federer has won one GS on clay, but five MS on clay, therefore Federer must be better in MS tourneys than slams. You can prove any theory you want just looking at numbers.

If we look at 2004-2006:
2004: 3/4 GS, 3/6 MS
2005: 2/4 GS, 4/5 MS
2006: 3/4 GS, 4/7 MS
So 8/12 GS and 11/18 MS, almost the same %.

Now 2007-2009:
2007: 3/4 GS, 2/9 MS
2008: 1/4 GS, 0/9 MS
2009: 2/4 GS, 2/8 MS
So 6/12 GS and 4/26 MS, waaay worse performance in Masters.

Because of this noticable drop in the last three years it seems to me that the truth of the matter is the opposite of what the OP is saying. As Federer gets older he can only gee himself up for a few tourneys, so he can't win tournament after tournament like a metronome any more. What he's incredibly skilled at doing is working out his schedule so that he's hitting those periods around slams.

Here's your stats analyzed:

2004-2006, competition was weak, so Fed won a lot.

2007-2009, competition tougher with Rafa, joker, Murray etc sharing the cake( unfortunately Rafa was usually injured in slams), so Fed won much less in MS, Fed overachieved in GS events due to Nadal always being injured in slams.

2007-2009 would be 2-3/12 slams for Fed instead of 6/12 if Nadal wasn't injured most the time in slams -then Feds slam % and MS % would be more balanced between 2007-2009.

NamRanger
04-01-2010, 11:09 AM
Here's your stats analyzed:

2004-2006, competition was weak, so Fed won a lot.

2007-2009, competition tougher with Rafa, joker, Murray etc sharing the cake( unfortunately Rafa was usually injured in slams), so Fed won much less in MS, Fed overachieved in GS events due to Nadal always being injured in slams.

2007-2009 would be 2-3/12 slams for Fed instead of 6/12 if Nadal wasn't injured most the time in slams -then Feds slam % and MS % would be more balanced between 2007-2009.




The competition was so weak from 2004-2006 that :


In 2008 Safin crushed Djokovic at Wimbledon

In 2008 Old man Roddick came out of nowhere and beat Nadal AND Djokovic back to back in Dubai

In 2009 Roddick steam rolls Djokovic at the AO

At Wimbledon, Hewitt, Roddick, and Haas show up Murray, Del Potro, and Djokovic



Yeah those guys are so weak that they were just capable of beating the top 4-5 players in the world at the slams.

abmk
04-01-2010, 11:45 AM
Nadal won Stuttgart the week after Wimbledon. He was not out for months.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E4D61431F933A15754C0A9619C8B 63

If you're going to make stuff up, at least pretend it's halfway true.

90% of his posts are

rafa was injured here blah blah blah ......that's why federer won ... blah blah blah

If rafa were to read his posts , he himself would wonder how he was able to stand up all these years at all ! :twisted::)