Roger's decline can be very clearly explained by one thing

[Agassifan]

He can't buy a big serve when in trouble and that piles on everything else, especially when trying to finish matches.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

He can't buy a big serve when in trouble and that piles on everything else, especially when trying to finish matches.

Fed's serve always fluctuated throghout the year, you just didn't notice that much it because he wasn't so dependant on it as he is today. Nowadays when Fed's serve goes more and more often his game goes with it.

[nikdom]

He's not served as good since the Nadal match. Got progressively worse since then.

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by zagor

Fed's serve always fluctuated throghout the year, you just didn't notice that much it because he wasn't so dependant on it as he is today. Nowadays when Fed's serve goes more and more often his game goes with it.

Exactly........

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

Exactly........

But I don't really agree, I don't think Fed's serve is really that much worse than before or anything, his game backing up that serve is worse.

He doesn't have that edge over guys like Tsonga on the baseline and ROS that he had.

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by zagor

But I don't really agree, I don't think Fed's serve is really that much worse than before or anything, his game backing up that serve is worse.

He doesn't have that edge over guys like Tsonga on the baseline and ROS that he had.

I think it is the other way - His game derives confidence by setting up clean and easy points on his serve. If he has to win a lot of rallies on his serve, his rhythm seems to be disrupted.

[chrischris]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

He can't buy a big serve when in trouble and that piles on everything else, especially when trying to finish matches.

I think its a bit early to say.

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by chrischris

I think its a bit early to say.

I am not talking about this match specifically

[nikdom]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

I am not talking about this match specifically

Alright bud, come back next year then. Happy New Year.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

I think it is the other way - His game derives confidence by setting up clean and easy points on his serve. If he has to win a lot of rallies on his serve, his rhythm seems to be disrupted.

We'll have to agree to disagree, on the return and from the baseline peak Fed won the majority of the rallies against anyone but Nadal (and old Agassi at times).

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

He got more returns into play(especially in slams) so his opponent felt more pressure and created more BP opportunities(he was always a lousy BP converter though).

His serve was a weapon on its best day and complemented Fed's overall game nicely but it wasn't crucial to Fed's performance, his game wasn't constructed around serve.

[AM95]

he bought 4 big ones at the end of the match today...

[Cesc Fabregas]

Federer's first serve % has often been up and down throughout his career. He's lost half a step, his serve is as good as ever.

[tennisenthusiast]

This thread needs to be closed.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Cesc Fabregas

Federer's first serve % has often been up and down throughout his career. He's lost half a step, his serve is as good as ever.

Yup, what I was trying to say as well.

[Sentinel]

^
First they agree, then they disagree over the same point, then disagree about disagreeing then agree to disagree.

[corners]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yup, what I was trying to say as well.

I agree with you guys. It's not so much the big points, but for whole matches. 2009 AO Final was a good example of his serve, on fire throughout the tournament, suddenly deserting him. In WTF, the serve was awsome, around 70% in first two matches and then downhill to under 50% in the final. He lucked out, gutted it out, against Tsonga.

The thing about Roger now is that he keeps hanging in there and working through weaknesses and mistakes of the past. One thing I think we saw in the WTF: after the first two matches (Tsonga and Nadal), where he played very well, he started taking pace off the ball if his timing wasn't with him from the start of the match.

It looked to me that in the Ferrer and Tsonga matches we could have seen an appearance from Roger Shankalot. But realizing that he didn't have his best timing on the day, he shifted down a gear. I think he could have lost either match as a result, but it shows a definite strategic/mental adjustment on his part to dial it down, hang in there and maybe eek out a win, rather than keep swinging and go down shanking, as we've seen in many matches over the past year.

[The tennis guy]

Originally Posted by zagor

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

It has more to do with other players improving than Federer's decline. Now players can put him in defensive position without giving up that advantage during a rally. The key to Federer today is he has to be more aggressive than he used to, in return, he will be less consistent. Federer has to accept this trade off, and be more aggressive than he used to.

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by zagor

We'll have to agree to disagree, on the return and from the baseline peak Fed won the majority of the rallies against anyone but Nadal (and old Agassi at times).

In his best years, against the field If the point starts from the neutral position, big advantage for Fed, if he starts from on the defensive he could still turn defense to offense in the blink of an eye(he's nowhere as good at doing this today), etc.

He got more returns into play(especially in slams) so his opponent felt more pressure and created more BP opportunities(he was always a lousy BP converter though).

His serve was a weapon on its best day and complemented Fed's overall game nicely but it wasn't crucial to Fed's performance, his game wasn't constructed around serve.

Sure... he has declined in more ways than one. But the single biggest thing in pressure situations is the serve and everything follows from that. Even today, in the second set, he needed a few boomers and didn't pull it off. He was able to do that while serving for the match in the third.

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by corners

I agree with you guys. It's not so much the big points, but for whole matches. 2009 AO Final was a good example of his serve, on fire throughout the tournament, suddenly deserting him. In WTF, the serve was awsome, around 70% in first two matches and then downhill to under 50% in the final. He lucked out, gutted it out, against Tsonga.

The thing about Roger now is that he keeps hanging in there and working through weaknesses and mistakes of the past. One thing I think we saw in the WTF: after the first two matches (Tsonga and Nadal), where he played very well, he started taking pace off the ball if his timing wasn't with him from the start of the match.

It looked to me that in the Ferrer and Tsonga matches we could have seen an appearance from Roger Shankalot. But realizing that he didn't have his best timing on the day, he shifted down a gear. I think he could have lost either match as a result, but it shows a definite strategic/mental adjustment on his part to dial it down, hang in there and maybe eek out a win, rather than keep swinging and go down shanking, as we've seen in many matches over the past year.

Not really. His serve was only good against DP and Roddick. Overall, he hit 21 DFs during the tournament. That's probably among his worse tournaments as far as serving goes.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by The tennis guy

It has more to do with other players improving than Federer's decline. Now players can put him in defensive position without giving up that advantage during a rally. The key to Federer today is he has to be more aggressive than he used to, in return, he will be less consistent. Federer has to accept this trade off, and be more aggressive than he used to.

Sorry but I don't buy that for a second, the only player who improved this year was Novak, Nadal was the same or worse than last year.

Players could always put Fed in a defensive position but the difference is before his transition from defense to offense was so good that it made every big hitter out there nervous, today he's more prone to losing to big hitters while that style of play was the one that suited him the most in his best years.

Some people will agree with you for sure but personally I never bought the evolution of the game theory, just don't believe in it.