PDA

View Full Version : Do you consider Federer consistent?


joeri888
06-04-2012, 11:22 PM
THat's my question. I struggle with it for quite a few years now. I am just baffled by the fact that he made 32 Grandslam quarterfinals in a row, and keeps performing so consistently well in Slams. He just never has a 'terrible' Slam, except for maybe Wimbledon 2010, but that's also by his standards only.

What amazes me though is that I wouldn't consider Roger a consistent player at all. In 2004-2007 he was consistent, yes. But the last few years he so often seems in and out of matches. He can hit 3 great winners to go up 15-40, than dumps for 2nd serve returns into the net. He can come up with a great game with 4 unreturnables, than drop his serve with 4 ugly errors the next time he serves. I never feel secure with Roger, every backhand he hits could be a godlike shot, or it could be way out. It also goes in patches like in the Goffin match, where he did nothing until 5-7 5-5, then went 7-5 6-2 3-1, than played halfdecent again.

With matches in a specific tournament you never know as well. Take RG 09 for instance. Roger played an okay first round, then played subpar versus Acasuso and Mathieu, but played very well for the first set versus Haas, than played a really poor tiebreak and never really played well again. Very poor match from him in general. The Quarters on the other hand, he played well. Then the semis again? A very ugly, dirty, grinding performance from Roger. Only to play so clean again in the final.

What is it with Roger and consistency? He seems so consistently inconsistent but good enough

Russeljones
06-05-2012, 01:46 AM
THat's my question. I struggle with it for quite a few years now. I am just baffled by the fact that he made 32 Grandslam quarterfinals in a row, and keeps performing so consistently well in Slams. He just never has a 'terrible' Slam, except for maybe Wimbledon 2010, but that's also by his standards only.

What amazes me though is that I wouldn't consider Roger a consistent player at all. In 2004-2007 he was consistent, yes. But the last few years he so often seems in and out of matches. He can hit 3 great winners to go up 15-40, than dumps for 2nd serve returns into the net. He can come up with a great game with 4 unreturnables, than drop his serve with 4 ugly errors the next time he serves. I never feel secure with Roger, every backhand he hits could be a godlike shot, or it could be way out. It also goes in patches like in the Goffin match, where he did nothing until 5-7 5-5, then went 7-5 6-2 3-1, than played halfdecent again.

With matches in a specific tournament you never know as well. Take RG 09 for instance. Roger played an okay first round, then played subpar versus Acasuso and Mathieu, but played very well for the first set versus Haas, than played a really poor tiebreak and never really played well again. Very poor match from him in general. The Quarters on the other hand, he played well. Then the semis again? A very ugly, dirty, grinding performance from Roger. Only to play so clean again in the final.

What is it with Roger and consistency? He seems so consistently inconsistent but good enough

The obvious answer to your misgivings is this. How long is he a pro? Is the form of '04-'07 a representative chunk out of his career?

I think the evolution of his game (in some ways he has even reverted to his youth) and the strategy he employs of preparing for later rounds of a Slam tournament during the earlier rounds can make one wonder. But to me he is playing on a level very few can approach and even fewer can maintain. But none for as long as he has. It is a matter of perception but like I said, ask yourself if you can judge him on those stellar years or on the career as a whole (to date).

joeri888
06-05-2012, 01:49 AM
The obvious answer to your misgivings is this. How long is he a pro? Is the form of '04-'07 a representative chunk out of his career?

I think the evolution of his game (in some ways he has even reverted to his youth) and the strategy he employs of preparing for later rounds of a Slam tournament during the earlier rounds can make one wonder. But to me he is playing on a level very few can approach and even fewer can maintain. But none for as long as he has. It is a matter of perception but like I said, ask yourself if you can judge him on those stellar years or on the career as a whole (to date).

For the record, I am a huge Federer fan, and I applaud his every achievement. But doesn't it seem strange to you too that he is so consistent on a Grandslam basis, but so inconsistent between matches and within matches, or so it seems?

chrischris
06-05-2012, 01:52 AM
For the record, I am a huge Federer fan, and I applaud his every achievement. But doesn't it seem strange to you too that he is so consistent on a Grandslam basis, but so inconsistent between matches and within matches, or so it seems?


I think it has to do with his very precise game. He hits every shot with a purpose and due to that he can misfire a bit here and there.

Other players hit deep and/or crosscourt for longer periods of time until something 'happens'...

Bobby Jr
06-05-2012, 02:10 AM
I think it has to do with his very precise game. He hits every shot with a purpose and due to that he can misfire a bit here and there.

Other players hit deep and/or crosscourt for longer periods of time until something 'happens'...
Requoted for truth.

Federer plays on the knife edge moreso than his closest peers. He also generally plays this way no matter what the point - backing himself that much but sometimes it doesn't pan out and you wonder where he went for a couple of games within a match. His closest peers are more consistent but choose generally, as Chrischris says, to wait for something to happen.

Federer came through a different era than those guys - only a five year difference but eons apart in how he approaches the game strategically. Federer's strategy has a bundle of different tactics available which he can pick from at various times, usually with success but sometimes backfiring badly. Nadal and Djokovic on the other hand play with almost no variation in their tactics - but what they miss out on in tennis "problem solving" they make up for with how fine-tuned their game is. More often than not it works against most players but is also the reason you see Djokovic and Nadal suffer more uncreative losses than Federer where they basically stood back and got beaten through lack of tactical options or ones they'd practised enough (e.g. Nadal and Djokovic at Indian Wells, Nadal and Djokovic in Madrid).

Variety backed up by solid play is Federer's strength, but also his weakness at times.

Sartorius
06-05-2012, 02:25 AM
Yes, Federer is very consistent. The dips started a few years ago and I don't think it was strange to see; what goes up must come down.

The really strange period was 04-07. I can barely remember a match during this period where I might say he played bad, even the matches he lost. And I always thought that was his main strength, rather than the game he had. No matter where or when he played, he played well, and often he played his best (and it showed in his results). This was strange also because of the player (or the 'headcase') he was before this period. And ultimately this is what intrigues me most about Federer, he totally disciplined himself and visibly matured, and the rest was beautiful to witness.

tata
06-05-2012, 03:05 AM
Federer lives by the sword and dies by the sword. Go big or go home buddy!

above bored
06-05-2012, 03:36 AM
THat's my question. I struggle with it for quite a few years now. I am just baffled by the fact that he made 32 Grandslam quarterfinals in a row, and keeps performing so consistently well in Slams. He just never has a 'terrible' Slam, except for maybe Wimbledon 2010, but that's also by his standards only.

What amazes me though is that I wouldn't consider Roger a consistent player at all. In 2004-2007 he was consistent, yes. But the last few years he so often seems in and out of matches. He can hit 3 great winners to go up 15-40, than dumps for 2nd serve returns into the net. He can come up with a great game with 4 unreturnables, than drop his serve with 4 ugly errors the next time he serves. I never feel secure with Roger, every backhand he hits could be a godlike shot, or it could be way out. It also goes in patches like in the Goffin match, where he did nothing until 5-7 5-5, then went 7-5 6-2 3-1, than played halfdecent again. It's not just about the winners and errors, it's about all the shots hit in between that keep you in the point to.

With matches in a specific tournament you never know as well. Take RG 09 for instance. Roger played an okay first round, then played subpar versus Acasuso and Mathieu, but played very well for the first set versus Haas, than played a really poor tiebreak and never really played well again. Very poor match from him in general. The Quarters on the other hand, he played well. Then the semis again? A very ugly, dirty, grinding performance from Roger. Only to play so clean again in the final.

What is it with Roger and consistency? He seems so consistently inconsistent but good enough
Federer is very consistent. Fans sometimes seem to only see the errors with players, but if you think about the number of balls hit in a tennis match and how aggressive Federer is, his consistency is extraordinary. It's not just about the winners and errors, it's also about the balls hit in between that keep you in the point. The stats don't record them, but they are in the 100s and 1000s. Even to make 50 errors in a match would be good by most standards. These guys typically make a lot less.

Sometimes fans want perfection, but perfection is not possible. Humans will err. You also have to give the opponents credit for forcing play and strategies employed to disrupt Federer's rhythm and balance. They are all world class players, including those who spend most of their time on the Challenger Tour. Plus most players play with significantly less pressure when they play Federer, so they play freely.

I don't think Federer played poorly against Acasuso and Mathieu at Roland Garros in 09. He might not have played his absolute best, but he played reasonably well. I thought they played extremely well. They took it to Federer and he did well to come through. I thought the quality from them was high. The same with Goffin this year. He pressured Federer and kept him off balance. Federer did well to come through. Fans should realise how good all of these players are. Matches are rarely easy affairs.

chrischris
06-05-2012, 03:44 AM
Fed is mr.Consistent.

The OP may have missunderstood the meaning of the word but if consistent in this threads context means winning matches on a regular basis well .. enough said.

joeri888
06-05-2012, 03:47 AM
Fed is mr.Consistent.

The OP may have missunderstood the meaning of the word but if consistent in this threads context means winning matches on a regular basis well .. enough said.

No, I don't think I misunderstand the meaning. I acknowledge in the OP that he is mr. consistent by winning matches. But don't you agree that you have no clue whether the Mahut-match or Djoko in Rome-match Federer, or the one that won indian wells and Madrid will come out against Delpo today? That's what I mean, maybe I don't pay enough attention to players like Nadal, etc. Nadal just doesn't miss some types of balls as well. With Federer, I feel he can make every shot, but he can also miss every shot.

Sartorius
06-05-2012, 03:53 AM
But don't you agree that you have no clue whether the Mahut-match or Djoko in Rome-match Federer, or the one that won indian wells and Madrid will come out against Delpo today?

Today, yes.

Some years ago, no.

chrischris
06-05-2012, 03:54 AM
Nadal and Feds game cant be compared due to the almost complete opposite aims they have with their game plans.

joeri888
06-05-2012, 03:57 AM
Today, yes.

Some years ago, no.

Exactly, and that is why it's so mindboggling, strange, and amazing that with the seemingly kind of unreliable game, he still ALWAYS makes the end stages of a grandslam.

merlinpinpin
06-05-2012, 03:57 AM
Hugely.

In fact, the question might very well have been "Has there ever been a more consistent player at the top?"

However, you have to make the distinction for consistency career-wise and during a match.

Magnetite
06-05-2012, 03:57 AM
Everything is relative. If you look on a per match basis and compare him with Novak or Rafa, he may seem inconsistent. That's because he plays a higher risk game of tennis. Also, he's older and quite obviously cannot keep that same level of focus throughout a match like he did during his prime.

However, on a macro scale, even at his advanced tennis age, it's good enough to beat most players on the tour, and his tournament results are thus, consistently good.

He's also been losing a lot of first sets recently. I'm assuming, because it takes him longer to warm up and get a feel for the match in the early rounds. Although, when he plays a good opponent he definitely comes out firing like he used to.

Magnus
06-05-2012, 04:05 AM
Results-wise he's the most consistent player ever.

Ball striking wise he's not so consistent anymore.

above bored
06-05-2012, 04:08 AM
No, I don't think I misunderstand the meaning. I acknowledge in the OP that he is mr. consistent by winning matches. But don't you agree that you have no clue whether the Mahut-match or Djoko in Rome-match Federer, or the one that won indian wells and Madrid will come out against Delpo today? That's what I mean, maybe I don't pay enough attention to players like Nadal, etc. Nadal just doesn't miss some types of balls as well. With Federer, I feel he can make every shot, but he can also miss every shot.
That's because Nadal plays safer and with more margin for error, same with Djokovic. Federer is a completely different type of player. He is much more aggressive, which will result in more errors all being equal.

The other thing is that Federer has intimate knowledge of what is happening on the court that the viewer doesn't. He will be aware of conditions, his limits, those of his opponent and will manage his game accordingly. Against less dangerous opponents, he has more scope to explore options and make errors, so may take the liberty, but against a different type of opponent he may choose to play a little safer. To some degree he is in control of how regularly he makes errors by managing the risk/benefit of each decision he makes. The disconcerting thing for the fan is that he or she will not know exactly what is happening or why. That's where you just have to trust that he knows what he is doing, but is not perfect and will lose from time to time. I mean, his record speaks for itself.

chrischris
06-05-2012, 04:09 AM
In a way , to compare Fed and Rafas games is like comparing a 800 meter hurdles runner with a 1500 meters runner.

Fed gets more challenged on his own terms , selfinduced , enroute to his goal and has to overcome hurdles but finishes earlier.

joeri888
06-05-2012, 04:10 AM
That's because Nadal plays safer and with more margin for error, same with Djokovic. Federer is a completely different type of player. He is much more aggressive, which will result in more errors all being equal.

The other thing is that Federer has intimate knowledge of what is happening on the court that the viewer doesn't. He will be aware of conditions, his limits, those of his opponent and will manage his game accordingly. Against less dangerous opponents, he has more scope to explore options and make errors, so may take the liberty, but against a different type of opponent he may choose to play a little safer. To some degree he is in control of how regularly he makes errors by managing the risk/benefit of each decision he makes. The disconcerting thing for the fan is that he or she will not know exactly what is happening or why. That's where you just have to trust that he knows what he is doing, but is not perfect and will lose from time to time. I mean, his record speaks for itself.

I agree with all you say, and yet it does not really explain why Federer's level seems to vary from match to match and even within matches, so much more than with some others.

above bored
06-05-2012, 04:18 AM
I agree with all you say, and yet it does not really explain why Federer's level seems to vary from match to match and even within matches, so much more than with some others.
Your level will always fluctuate because one day or moment will be different from the next, that's just natural, but I don't think Federer's level fluctuates more than others who play as aggressively as him. He is more consistent than anyone else I can think of. Who with his game style displays more consistency?

chrischris
06-05-2012, 04:22 AM
Your level will always fluctuate because one day or moment will be different from the next, that's just natural, but I don't think Federer's level fluctuates more than others who play as aggressively as him. He is more consistent than anyone else I can think of. Who with his game style displays more consistency?

Dimitrov, in that he loses consistently.

IvanisevicServe
06-05-2012, 04:28 AM
THat's my question. I struggle with it for quite a few years now. I am just baffled by the fact that he made 32 Grandslam quarterfinals in a row, and keeps performing so consistently well in Slams. He just never has a 'terrible' Slam, except for maybe Wimbledon 2010, but that's also by his standards only.

What amazes me though is that I wouldn't consider Roger a consistent player at all. In 2004-2007 he was consistent, yes. But the last few years he so often seems in and out of matches. He can hit 3 great winners to go up 15-40, than dumps for 2nd serve returns into the net. He can come up with a great game with 4 unreturnables, than drop his serve with 4 ugly errors the next time he serves. I never feel secure with Roger, every backhand he hits could be a godlike shot, or it could be way out. It also goes in patches like in the Goffin match, where he did nothing until 5-7 5-5, then went 7-5 6-2 3-1, than played halfdecent again.

With matches in a specific tournament you never know as well. Take RG 09 for instance. Roger played an okay first round, then played subpar versus Acasuso and Mathieu, but played very well for the first set versus Haas, than played a really poor tiebreak and never really played well again. Very poor match from him in general. The Quarters on the other hand, he played well. Then the semis again? A very ugly, dirty, grinding performance from Roger. Only to play so clean again in the final.

What is it with Roger and consistency? He seems so consistently inconsistent but good enough

I actually thought he played well vs. Mathieu in 09 FO. He hit 30-something forehand winners...or in that vicinity. I think you just have to give Mathieu credit for taking the first set. He's a tough player at the FO on his day. Took a set off Nadal at RG 06, after all.

But yes, "Roger ********" is a post-prime phenomenon. Well, he made his debut in the 06 FO final, but it wasn't until 2008 that he became a regular performer on the circuit.

Sartorius
06-05-2012, 04:42 AM
I actually thought he played well vs. Mathieu in 09 FO. He hit 30-something forehand winners...or in that vicinity.

Federer's performance in 09 FO is quite underrated because of the 5 setters he played against Haas and Del Potro (not to mention the irrelevant reason: Nadal losing early). These two, including Mathieu and Acasuso all played very well against him. Federer went through patches of poor play but he always has those in FO. He was using the drop shot much more and especially his movement was very sharp in those two weeks which people seem(ed) to overlook; later in a couple of interviews Federer confirmed he worked on his movement before Madrid that year.

Federererer
06-05-2012, 05:32 AM
Roger is simply not as consistent as he was against the top 10 as he was from 2004-2007. Period.

SwankPeRFection
06-05-2012, 05:48 AM
I think it has to do with his very precise game. He hits every shot with a purpose and due to that he can misfire a bit here and there.

Other players hit deep and/or crosscourt for longer periods of time until something 'happens'...

DING!!!

Watch him play closely and you'll soon recognize some of the patterns he has when it comes to setting up points or counterpunching to go into offense instead of defense. Others just seem to counterpunch all the time until someone makes an error. He also doesn't have the time to keep running around after everything and put unnecessary wear and tear on his body. Actually, he's never had that time... that's one of the reasons why he's been physically healthy for such a long time. Others will fight for a set being 2-5 down and try to win it. He'll take a set loss and make it up on the next one. Generally speaking this works well for him unless he's in a matchup where the other player really pushes him a lot and this option doesn't always pan out in the end. That's when he loses. I can't think of any match where someone "killed" Federer off the court.... can you? Not once has he ever been beaten by a lot or so badly that he looked like he was way outmatched.

keithfival
06-05-2012, 06:41 PM
I think it has to do with his very precise game. He hits every shot with a purpose and due to that he can misfire a bit here and there.

Other players hit deep and/or crosscourt for longer periods of time until something 'happens'...

Yeah, his game is more old school bang bang tennis, goes for his shots and doesn't sweat missing a bunch and feels like, in the end, he'll get it done. I think it appears more inconsistent now especially because the new breed of top players are so steady and rarely take much risk, it seems like they never miss in comparison. It is amazing that he's had such consistent results with that style of play- must be nerve-wracking for his fans!

keithfival
06-05-2012, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE=SwankPeRFection;6597954 I can't think of any match where someone "killed" Federer off the court.... can you? Not once has he ever been beaten by a lot or so badly that he looked like he was way outmatched.[/QUOTE]

2008 French Open final for sure. It's happened a couple times but not often.

OddJack
06-05-2012, 06:55 PM
Seems like consistent to you means winning everything everytime,

Then no, he is not, nobody is.

Defcon
06-05-2012, 07:11 PM
Federer's perfection has raised expectations and redefined how we view his games. His prime years, when he barely lost games and was expected to win every single point with an elegantly constructed winner, is how we view his game now.

Thus, anything less is not considered 'consistent'. However, look at the numbers and Fed has been the most consistent player probably ever. Even at his best, Fed was always a 'percentage' player - he knew when to take risks, how to maximise returns, when to step up his game. It's just that he was so far above anyone else that it was never apparent that the guy who won everything was in fact doing so well within his comfort zone.

Seth
06-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Is rain wet?

Polaris
06-05-2012, 07:24 PM
Requoted for truth.

Federer plays on the knife edge moreso than his closest peers. He also generally plays this way no matter what the point - backing himself that much but sometimes it doesn't pan out and you wonder where he went for a couple of games within a match. His closest peers are more consistent but choose generally, as Chrischris says, to wait for something to happen.

Federer came through a different era than those guys - only a five year difference but eons apart in how he approaches the game strategically. Federer's strategy has a bundle of different tactics available which he can pick from at various times, usually with success but sometimes backfiring badly. Nadal and Djokovic on the other hand play with almost no variation in their tactics - but what they miss out on in tennis "problem solving" they make up for with how fine-tuned their game is. More often than not it works against most players but is also the reason you see Djokovic and Nadal suffer more uncreative losses than Federer where they basically stood back and got beaten through lack of tactical options or ones they'd practised enough (e.g. Nadal and Djokovic at Indian Wells, Nadal and Djokovic in Madrid).

Variety backed up by solid play is Federer's strength, but also his weakness at times.

One of the best posts in TT in recent times. Well said. The part about playing on the knife-edge with low margin for error is absolutely true, and basically the explanation for mid-match slumps that you don't see someone like Nadal have. In fact, I have always been amazed that, in today's game, this type of precision-tuned artillery works at all. It is one of the main reasons why I am a Federer fan, Grand Slams and No.1 ranking be damned.

wangs78
06-05-2012, 07:30 PM
Fed plays attacking tennis and he's done it better than anyone on tour for the last 10 years, maybe ever (well you can say the S&Vers of yesteryear attacked even more). When you attack, you're taking a risk because you're more likely to hit an UE, or if you are coming to net, you could get passed. The question is, what is your attack SUCCESS RATE? Fed's success rate in attacking is higher than anyone's. Let's say he attacks 70% of the time, and his success rate when he attacks is 70%, that means that he'll win 49% of a game's points when he attacks. Add in the points he wins when his opponent makes an UE and when he wins hitting a defensive shot and voila, he's won more than 50% of the points and, against weaker opponents, much more. But because he attacks we'll see a lot of UE's, sometimes many in a row, making him seem inconsistent within a match.

TopFH
06-05-2012, 07:34 PM
Federer is really consistent. Just watch today's match.

mcenroefan
06-05-2012, 08:03 PM
Considering that he plays a very aggressive game, taking most balls on the rise, stays on the baseline, and has very timing oriented-strokes, yes, he's pretty darn consistent. Not as consistent looking as someone who stays far behind the baseline and virtually never takes the ball on the rise.

Bobby Jr
06-05-2012, 08:16 PM
One of the best posts in TT in recent times. Well said. The part about playing on the knife-edge with low margin for error is absolutely true, and basically the explanation for mid-match slumps that you don't see someone like Nadal have. In fact, I have always been amazed that, in today's game, this type of precision-tuned artillery works at all. It is one of the main reasons why I am a Federer fan, Grand Slams and No.1 ranking be damned.
Thanks. Sometimes I read stuff here and wonder if I'm watching the same matches as some people. People are great at praising individual shots or looking at score-lines but few appreciate the strategic and tactical nuances different players display.

above bored
06-05-2012, 08:55 PM
Thanks. Sometimes I read stuff here and wonder if I'm watching the same matches as some people. People are great at praising individual shots or looking at score-lines but few appreciate the strategic and tactical nuances different players display.
Yes, this. I think it has something to do with the fact this board is populated with a lot of new fans who just started watching tennis in the past few years. Most, probably don't play either and if they do they obviously are not going to have had enough time to get to a decent level or develop a good understanding of court craft. That's not a slight. It is what it is.

10is
06-05-2012, 08:58 PM
Federer plays on the knife edge moreso than his closest peers. He also generally plays this way no matter what the point - backing himself that much but sometimes it doesn't pan out and you wonder where he went for a couple of games within a match. His closest peers are more consistent but choose generally, as Chrischris says, to wait for something to happen.

Federer came through a different era than those guys - only a five year difference but eons apart in how he approaches the game strategically. Federer's strategy has a bundle of different tactics available which he can pick from at various times, usually with success but sometimes backfiring badly. Nadal and Djokovic on the other hand play with almost no variation in their tactics - but what they miss out on in tennis "problem solving" they make up for with how fine-tuned their game is. More often than not it works against most players but is also the reason you see Djokovic and Nadal suffer more uncreative losses than Federer where they basically stood back and got beaten through lack of tactical options or ones they'd practised enough (e.g. Nadal and Djokovic at Indian Wells, Nadal and Djokovic in Madrid).

Variety backed up by solid play is Federer's strength, but also his weakness at times.

Good insight!

Swissv2
06-05-2012, 09:14 PM
...few appreciate the strategic and tactical nuances different players display.

Mr. Spock, is that you? :eek:

I have noticed Fed's tactics as well as noticed he has been speaking more and more about his tactics in interviews lately. He definitely understands the patterns of play for each type of court (hard, grass, clay, indoor, etc.) and adjusts his game according to the player and the surface. Unfortunately, he has been trying to adjust his patterns to how well he is able to play the game compared to his younger years meaning a more aggressive offensive stance, and more risky defensive stance.

jokinla
06-05-2012, 10:17 PM
THat's my question. I struggle with it for quite a few years now. I am just baffled by the fact that he made 32 Grandslam quarterfinals in a row, and keeps performing so consistently well in Slams. He just never has a 'terrible' Slam, except for maybe Wimbledon 2010, but that's also by his standards only.

What amazes me though is that I wouldn't consider Roger a consistent player at all. In 2004-2007 he was consistent, yes. But the last few years he so often seems in and out of matches. He can hit 3 great winners to go up 15-40, than dumps for 2nd serve returns into the net. He can come up with a great game with 4 unreturnables, than drop his serve with 4 ugly errors the next time he serves. I never feel secure with Roger, every backhand he hits could be a godlike shot, or it could be way out. It also goes in patches like in the Goffin match, where he did nothing until 5-7 5-5, then went 7-5 6-2 3-1, than played halfdecent again.

With matches in a specific tournament you never know as well. Take RG 09 for instance. Roger played an okay first round, then played subpar versus Acasuso and Mathieu, but played very well for the first set versus Haas, than played a really poor tiebreak and never really played well again. Very poor match from him in general. The Quarters on the other hand, he played well. Then the semis again? A very ugly, dirty, grinding performance from Roger. Only to play so clean again in the final.

What is it with Roger and consistency? He seems so consistently inconsistent but good enough

Yes he's consistent, the proof is in the results, and just look at your examples above, he won all those matches, so he plays consistent enough to get the job done, nobody is going to play a 5 setter and not have ups and downs, but the bottom line is, do they come out on top, and he's been there, semis or at least quarters of slams, for years now, that's consistency.

joeri888
06-05-2012, 10:18 PM
Federer is really consistent. Just watch today's match.

Did you consider him consistent today? That first set was just awful, no? Dont think he was consistent within the match. Thankfully or he'd gone home in straights

above bored
06-05-2012, 11:07 PM
Did you consider him consistent today? That first set was just awful, no? Dont think he was consistent within the match. Thankfully or he'd gone home in straights
He was more consistent than Del Potro and has been in their last 6 encounters now.

joeri888
06-06-2012, 12:05 AM
He was more consistent than Del Potro and has been in their last 6 encounters now.

He's been BETTER than Del Potro, not necessarily more consistent.

above bored
06-06-2012, 01:26 AM
He's been BETTER than Del Potro, not necessarily more consistent.
Well, they both made 43 unforced errors each, but Federer had 59 winners to Del Potro's 33. As for past recent encounters, just see below. And he achieves all this despite taking the ball much earlier than Del Potro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzr2pZ1i2G8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo50qnvmQvI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1lD73osv2k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOMV8kntSPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqoRGR4aMS8

joeri888
06-06-2012, 01:28 AM
Playing crap for 2 sets, than playing well for 3 sets is just as inconsistent as the other way around.

It's about the fact that he doesn't play well throughout and the fact that the difference between his crappy level and his great level seems so big to me. Which is mostly due to the high level of his good level. To me, his high level is still higher than Nole's or Rafa's, his low level much lower though.

But I guess that's hugely due to his aggression, as suggested earlier in this thread.

abmk
06-06-2012, 02:21 AM
^^

I thought federer was mediocre in the first set, but played pretty decently in the second set tbh ...

SLD76
06-06-2012, 03:15 AM
well according to Delpo, Fed started playing great in the third....

Swissv2
06-06-2012, 07:40 AM
Watched the match. Fed was playing horrible the first two sets. But, the consistency we are talking about is attributed to results at the end of the day.