guys, first off, its REALLY ridiculous how some people, being so used to Roger winning all the time, being spoiled by it all, is so fast pulling the trigger on statements such as "Roger is declining" "Roger should focus on winning", etc etc. uhm, the guy has WON 3 GRAND SLAMS THIS YEAR. PERIOD. THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL IT ALL. ENOUGH SAID... BUT, it seems some people need some "explanation" for it all.. so here goes what i personally observed which i hope will put things in perspective. Obviously, Roger has been more focused on Grand Slams in recent years, and doesn't put much of himself in Masters and lower-level tournaments. In fact nothing has changed. Think about this: Last year he won 3 Slams, and so many tournaments with only 5 losses.. BUT... in reality, how did he win some of those "lesser" tournaments? Let's see... He was involved in a 3-set/all-tiebreaker match with Ljubicic.. which COULD HAVE GONE EITHER WAY...He ALMOST LOST TO ROCHUS ON GRASS (No LESS!!) at Halle, with the match going 3-sets on a 3rd set tiebreaker which Rochus lost, and Federer won unconvincingly... He ALMOST LOST TO PARADORN at Basel, again taking 3 sets, with the 3rd set tiebreak almost going Paradorn's way.. and finally HE WOULD HAVE LOST his round robin match with Roddick at the TMC 2006 if Roddick had not self-destructed.. SO what do I want to establish with these observations?? He could have just as easily compiled 9 or more losses last year, if not for a bit of luck and self-destruction by his opponents in lesser tournaments (Masters, etc).. The point is, its clear that Roger focuses solely 100% in Slams (where he IS the Roger we all know), and performs just "pretty well" on other tournaments. It seems he "forces" himself to always win in Slams (that's why he is so in awe also of Nadal on clay, because even he struggles with Nadal at Roland Garros even when he is at 100% focus and level), BUT is always in "cruise control" at other tournaments, and is more content not to force the issue and win, but sometimes just to perform "pretty well" and just wait for his opponents to self-destruct. In other words, it seems that at Slams, he really WANTS to win at all cost (this is why he is invincible in slams....except at RG.. again, the reason why he always has high praise for Nadal.. because only Nadal beats a focused Roger at RG..), and does his utmost best... but, when it comes to other tournaments, even Masters level, he seemingly just says to himself "Well, if my pretty good enough is good enough to win, then ok.. if not, then ok". The whole point is that.. what so different this year is that some guys who beat him at non-Slam tournaments, aren't self-destructing as much anymore, and so, instead of Roger winning even on "pretty good mode", he loses while on that mode. But haven't you all noticed NO ONE and NO ONE except for Nadal EVEN EVER COMES CLOSE to beating THE "real" Roger in Slams? Nothing has changed, guys.