Farewell, Roger Federer?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/federers-creaky-future/?ref=opinion

In my opinion, Fed still can beat most or all of players except Nadal. Nadal's game has improved so much. I don't think Fed was playing bad at all, it was just because Nadal's game is so powerful and his physical is so awesome forcing Fed had to go for more risky shots which leaded to many unforced errors. Just like the rest of us, when we play with a better player, we are always under pressure and try to find a way to beat that player.........and usually, it leads to ..........we don't play our natural game...........and most of the time..........losing the match.........are good words for it.
 

5263

G.O.A.T.
Fed can still beat Nadal and just did it on clay, at the end of Mono as well.

Fed just needs to take a page out of Nadals book and go at him harder to force more errors, which in turn will reduce Feds Unforced errors due to him going for less clean winners. It will also open up the court to make the clean winners easier.

Fed has never had to do this and has just been able to hit winners to beat most players. With Roddick he had to be more patient, but was not scared of Andy off the ground near as much as he is with Rafa. Oddly, nearly the same approach will work except to just stay aggressive with better safety margins and make Rafa earn it more.

Rogers weakness is that he can't stand to have winners and passing shots hit by him, but you must have some tolerance for this to play the right way. That is one thing Sampras was better about. He let you have your quota of winners, but still took the match due to overall play.
 

GeoffB

Rookie
good point, terrible title

The author of the link referenced is playing a game with words. People often do this when they want to make a stronger claim than they're ready to defend.

In this case, Sonny Bunch claims that "Roger Federer is done", but then quickly defines and defends the accusation of "done" as winning a few slams instead of "11 of 16 major tournaments".

This is an old rhetorical trick. Mr. Bunch defines the word one way, but he knows very well that he's harnessing the emotional impact of the phrase "Federer is done" in a way he can't defend.

I also think Mr. Bunch is too quick to diagnose an age-related decline for Federer. It's a possibility, but Federer's problems seem more related to the rise of Nadal than the breakdown of a 26 year old body. Look at Federer's record this year compared with last year. His australian open start - a semifinal, was worse, but he did have Mono. Aside from that, he has almost equalled his record last year - and almost certainly would have if it weren't for Nadal's truly amazing improvement. Federer cruised through wimbledon until the final. While he didn't dominate at the French quite as handily he certainly wasn't severely tested ntil he reached the final. I'd say that without Nadal in the picture, Federer would have Hamburg, Roland Garros, and Wimbledon in a year he started of with mono!

Nadal is exceptional, and this is awesome news for tennis. Federer may indeed only take a few more majors, but I think it's because Nadal's getting started, not because Federer is finished!
 

Mad iX

Semi-Pro
^ Agreed here. Federer's has more than a mental block against Nadal, who's clearly an improved player to last year.

In my eyes, Nadal is now #1, and it's more due to him taking it rather than Federer declining to #2.
 

akv89

Hall of Fame
you are all ******** on these boards
federer IS better than nadal
nadal didnt play well federers backhand was just terrible, his forehand was tight on crucial points and his first serve percentage was low..fed had control of the match the destiny of his hands and just because he screwed up this one time after winning 5 wimbledons in a row, which is amazing, that doesnt mean this rafa *** is better
I am a fan of Federer and I believe that Nadal is the best player out there on the tour. To say that Federer is better than Nadal because his backhand broke down is a self-contradiction. And yes, Nadal did play superbly.
 

iphoneman

Banned
no he didnt federer had a 2:1 winner error ratio and STILL lost..the stats dont lie..nadal didnt do anything special..nadal is a better clay courter but thats all..federer beat nadal once last year on clay in hamberg that doesnt mean hes better..nadal beat him on grass at wimby just now for the first time on grass that doesnt mean hes better..you people make no sence.
 
you are all ******** on these boards
federer IS better than nadal
nadal didnt play well federers backhand was just terrible, his forehand was tight on crucial points and his first serve percentage was low..fed had control of the match the destiny of his hands and just because he screwed up this one time after winning 5 wimbledons in a row, which is amazing, that doesnt mean this rafa *** is better
I have always been Fed's fan and I have always wanted Fed to win everytime he faces Nadal. If you are saying Fed's backhand was terrible, OK let's say it's true for that last 2008 Wimbly final. What about the scores of head-to-head between Fed and Nadal while Nadal is leading somewhere 12-6? and how come Fed's backhand weren't terrible at all when playing other players.....OH, ALL OTHER PLAYERS BUT ONLY NADAL?

I don't know how long Nadal will going to be lasted in this supreme both physical and game. But for now, he seems to be better than anyone esle. Let's face the truth........and I always love Fed. Fed needs to improve to better than Nadal especially like you said HIS BACKHAND when playing Nadal.
 

bad_call

Legend
imo - Nadal works harder than any other player. Fed can do the same if he chooses to do so. yes Nadal has improved and raised the bar but Fed can do more with his fitness and mental toughness. it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
 

bad_call

Legend
right...working hard doesn't mean better. but at the moment Nadal has all the shots AND works harder defensively as well. he has become a complete player within his style of play. if Fed wants it, he will have to get as hungry as Nadal. this may not come as easy to him since he already has quite a few titles.
 

akv89

Hall of Fame
no he didnt federer had a 2:1 winner error ratio and STILL lost..the stats dont lie..nadal didnt do anything special..nadal is a better clay courter but thats all..federer beat nadal once last year on clay in hamberg that doesnt mean hes better..nadal beat him on grass at wimby just now for the first time on grass that doesnt mean hes better..you people make no sence.
Federer's winner to unforced ratio was around 1.6 and Nadal's was around 2.2. As you say the stats don't lie.
Right now, Nadal is the better player. There's no way to get around that FO loss. The match at Wimbledon could have gone either way and even if Roger had won that, the fact that Nadal was able to push him that much for the second straight year on his best surface is an indication of Nadal's abilities. Nadal is at his peak right now and Federer is gradually getting slower (although he still has the ability to beat anyone on any given day).
 

iphoneman

Banned
its not an easy way it out
its the truth, and when the truth is confronted, no objections should be discussed. want proof that this is the truth? well look at the past and grand slam titles? you may argue that that was in the past and this is in the present and that nadal leads in their matches but they have played the most times on clay which is nadals best surface so id ont count that plus even nadals stats were lousy in the tournament alltogether
 

baek57

Professional
im interested to see how well he does at the us open. then i'll come to a conclusion about whether hes done or not. but for now, i dont think he's had a bad year at all. rafa has been playing extremely well though.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/federers-creaky-future/?ref=opinion

In my opinion, Fed still can beat most or all of players except Nadal. Nadal's game has improved so much. I don't think Fed was playing bad at all, it was just because Nadal's game is so powerful and his physical is so awesome forcing Fed had to go for more risky shots which leaded to many unforced errors. Just like the rest of us, when we play with a better player, we are always under pressure and try to find a way to beat that player.........and usually, it leads to ..........we don't play our natural game...........and most of the time..........losing the match.........are good words for it.
I agree, but we´ll see. If Fed keeps losing to Nadal on grass and then on hardcourt maybe this thread could have something to it. If he plays him at the USO and loses that this year as well and then loses a Wimby rematch to Nadal again maybe it could happen. I think he may start to feel what Roddick feels.
 
M

Morrissey

Guest
fed is the best right now, end of discussion.
The best of what? Losing to Joker and Nadal? I guess he was the best in watered down tournaments like Halle and Estoril where both Nadal and Joker were not playing in.
 

akv89

Hall of Fame
its not an easy way it out
its the truth, and when the truth is confronted, no objections should be discussed. want proof that this is the truth? well look at the past and grand slam titles? you may argue that that was in the past and this is in the present and that nadal leads in their matches but they have played the most times on clay which is nadals best surface so id ont count that plus even nadals stats were lousy in the tournament alltogether
I never said that Nadal is a greater player than Federer. Federer is definitely higher up in the history books currently. But Nadal's results have been untouchable recently and that makes him the best, for now. He has won 2 ATP masters titles, 2 majors, another grass title, and made it to a masters final. That was the kind of dominance that Federer had during his prime. That dominance may change during the hard court season.
And please point to me which of Nadal's stats were 'lousy' in the tournament.
 

tenis

Professional
Fed can still beat Nadal and just did it on clay, at the end of Mono as well.

Fed just needs to take a page out of Nadals book and go at him harder to force more errors, which in turn will reduce Feds Unforced errors due to him going for less clean winners. It will also open up the court to make the clean winners easier.

Fed has never had to do this and has just been able to hit winners to beat most players. With Roddick he had to be more patient, but was not scared of Andy off the ground near as much as he is with Rafa. Oddly, nearly the same approach will work except to just stay aggressive with better safety margins and make Rafa earn it more.

Rogers weakness is that he can't stand to have winners and passing shots hit by him, but you must have some tolerance for this to play the right way. That is one thing Sampras was better about. He let you have your quota of winners, but still took the match due to overall play.
Yes, 110%.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
iphoneman, i understand you dont want to admit nadal is playing better

i myself have, and always will, root for federer in any given match. but the fact is is that both players gave it absolutely everything they could, and in the end it was nadal who won.

you can blame fed's backhand all you want, but if you do, that means that he's not as solid on the ground as nadal. i think nadal also won a higher percentage of net points, and was also more successful on serve, volley, and returns.

and the past matches, federer was playing better against nadal

nadal has improved, while federer has not.
 

jmverdugo

Hall of Fame
The author of the link referenced is playing a game with words. People often do this when they want to make a stronger claim than they're ready to defend.

In this case, Sonny Bunch claims that "Roger Federer is done", but then quickly defines and defends the accusation of "done" as winning a few slams instead of "11 of 16 major tournaments".

This is an old rhetorical trick. Mr. Bunch defines the word one way, but he knows very well that he's harnessing the emotional impact of the phrase "Federer is done" in a way he can't defend.

I also think Mr. Bunch is too quick to diagnose an age-related decline for Federer. It's a possibility, but Federer's problems seem more related to the rise of Nadal than the breakdown of a 26 year old body. Look at Federer's record this year compared with last year. His australian open start - a semifinal, was worse, but he did have Mono. Aside from that, he has almost equalled his record last year - and almost certainly would have if it weren't for Nadal's truly amazing improvement. Federer cruised through wimbledon until the final. While he didn't dominate at the French quite as handily he certainly wasn't severely tested ntil he reached the final. I'd say that without Nadal in the picture, Federer would have Hamburg, Roland Garros, and Wimbledon in a year he started of with mono!

Nadal is exceptional, and this is awesome news for tennis. Federer may indeed only take a few more majors, but I think it's because Nadal's getting started, not because Federer is finished!

hmmm...it seems that the average IQ on these forum just got higher ;), I agree with you, good post.
 

Mick

Legend
nadal has improved, while federer has not.
it's easier to improve when you are 22 than when you are 26. Even if you did improve, you won't have the stamina to compete with a 22 year old at 7 all in the fifth set :)
 

iphoneman

Banned
federer said it was the light
now i know thats just an excuse but i happen to believe him
as people said in other posts, federer and nadal are friends and they would never make excuses that arent legit towards eachother..he even said that nadal deserved it even though i dont think he did that little dirty player..i beleive fed though i think that light issue was the reason at the end
 

Tennisguy777

Professional
federer said it was the light
now i know thats just an excuse but i happen to believe him
as people said in other posts, federer and nadal are friends and they would never make excuses that arent legit towards eachother..he even said that nadal deserved it even though i dont think he did that little dirty player..i beleive fed though i think that light issue was the reason at the end
In that case he's lucky there was a rain delay otherwise he would have been lucky to have not lost in straight sets. I don't know what he saw in the locker room but after the rain delay Fed was on fire all Nadal could do was hang on for dear life. So he was lucky to even be in it. Now had they had to play a 5th set tie breaker Federer would most definitely have won. Next year they'll have lights and a roof on center court. Nadal is a dirtballer but not DIRTY!!!
 

coloskier

Legend
I agree, but we´ll see. If Fed keeps losing to Nadal on grass and then on hardcourt maybe this thread could have something to it. If he plays him at the USO and loses that this year as well and then loses a Wimby rematch to Nadal again maybe it could happen. I think he may start to feel what Roddick feels.
Unfortunately I highly doubt that Fed and Nadal will meet again the rest of the year. Nadal will have to make it to the finals of a FAST hard court tournament before that can happen, and so far, except for Dubai a few years ago, he hasn't done it. There are too many people that can neutralize Nadal's game on a fast hard court by attacking because his heavy topspin is actually a negative on fast hard courts. And now that they have seen his 87 mph 2nd serve, they know that they can attack it much easier on hard courts.
 

Micky

Semi-Pro
Rogers weakness is that he can't stand to have winners and passing shots hit by him, but you must have some tolerance for this to play the right way. That is one thing Sampras was better about. He let you have your quota of winners, but still took the match due to overall play.
Hola 5263,

Reading your quote made me realize that I have the same problem. I hate it when somebody hits winners. You just gave me one of the best advice ever.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Unfortunately I highly doubt that Fed and Nadal will meet again the rest of the year. Nadal will have to make it to the finals of a FAST hard court tournament before that can happen, and so far, except for Dubai a few years ago, he hasn't done it. There are too many people that can neutralize Nadal's game on a fast hard court by attacking because his heavy topspin is actually a negative on fast hard courts. And now that they have seen his 87 mph 2nd serve, they know that they can attack it much easier on hard courts.
He made the final of MS Miami this year, Chennai and MS Paris-Bercy at the end of last year. What was that about getting to finals on hard??
 
Top