Federer: I know why I lost the match the moment I sat down

mightyrick

Legend
Federer is kidding himself. He actually thinks that the thing he did wrong was make errors on long points? And the solution to that is working harder to be able to finish shots on long points? Get better at long points? Wow. I just lost a lot of respect for his tennis IQ.

Perhaps Federer should look at what Wawrinka did to Djokovic at the French Open. Wawrinka certainly wasn't trying to win long points.

Now I know why Federer will never beat Djokovic in best-of-five and has consistently lost to Nadal in best-of-five exchanges. It is Federer's inability to believe that there are better grinders out there than he is. It is mere pride and the inability to accept his own weaknesses.

Prepare yourselves Federer fans. He isn't winning an 18th slam. Not with that kind of attitude and strategy.
 

plum

Rookie
I also think that Federers problem is a psychological one, he wants it so badly thereby creating too much pressure and tension plus a lack of confidence. 54 unforced errors in 4 sets, and I thought that Fogninis 57 UEs in 5 sets were a rather high number.
You may have heard Federer say he has been in the "Zone" all week.
This has to be completely Mental let's face it.
I agree he was/is too attached; he wanted it too much.
This was lurking in the subconscious even if he wasn't thinking about the Trophy.
And of course Playing Djoker creates more pressure obviously but I was too disturbed watching those forehands into the net that I had to occasionally turn it off for 3 minutes.
 
Remember, the AO wasn't really a Major of significance in Borg's day, didn't much matter.
Borg was also a noted arachnophobe and in particular was absolutely terrified of this obnoxious beast.​

The Sydney Funnel Web Spider
 
I can't remember another match where Federer's backhand has seemed more reliable than his FH.His movement has declined a lot ,i can recall several points when he tried to run around his BH to hit a FH and ended up making an UE or hitting it in Djokovic's strikes zone and losing the point in the next 2 shots.

Regarding the return,the aggressive BH return worked perfectly,I didn't understand why he hesitated to hit it on Bps.His shot selection,especially on the second serve return on bps is what costed him the third set and perhaps the match IMO.He was content with sending the ball back.Also,I don't think he won more than one point when he tried to run around his BH on a second serve return,and that was at the end of the 4th set,when it was pretty much over.

I can't see any reasons for chipping the second serve from now on.Old habits die hard I guess.Even if that doesn't improve his return stats,which i doubt will happen,at least he'd expand less energy.
 

coloskier

Legend
One thing that hasn't been brought up is that if they had played the match 3 hours earlier in hot, fast conditions, Fed would have won 9 more break points because Djoker wouldn't have gotten to those balls in faster conditions. That is how much of a difference the match meant by playing 3 hours later in slow, cold conditions versus hot, fast conditions. 9 more break points. Go back and look at those break points and imagine a ball moving only 5 mph faster, and Djoker doesn't reach those balls 9 times. 9 breaks of serve more for Fed. Fed wins in straight sets.
 

Boom-Boom

Legend
One thing that hasn't been brought up is that if they had played the match 3 hours earlier in hot, fast conditions, Fed would have won 9 more break points because Djoker wouldn't have gotten to those balls in faster conditions. That is how much of a difference the match meant by playing 3 hours later in slow, cold conditions versus hot, fast conditions. 9 more break points. Go back and look at those break points and imagine a ball moving only 5 mph faster, and Djoker doesn't reach those balls 9 times. 9 breaks of serve more for Fed. Fed wins in straight sets.
Probably true indeed.

RF himself reckons: “In Grand Slams, the conditions are not as fast,” Federer said. “Take tonight. These were the coolest conditions I’ve had for a month. I’m not saying I lost because of that, but it’s a fact."

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/s...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Let me see if I can find a larger wall of text to copy and paste, format a whole soup of fonts, and sprinkle it with nonsensical thoughts of my own.
Seeing as you somehow believe federer had control of that, you've already achieved this. I can concede fed played the match on his terms and played the way he should have, but he was NOT in control of that match. He had opportunities. He couldn't convert them. That's because tactically novak had a clear defined plan to follow on those break point second serve points.

Yet federer didn't have an answer for novak. He just didn't. He was pressing the whole match. Which is why he lost; not high percentage plays, and succumbing to novak's pressure.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Probably true indeed.

RF himself reckons: “In Grand Slams, the conditions are not as fast,” Federer said. “Take tonight. These were the coolest conditions I’ve had for a month. I’m not saying I lost because of that, but it’s a fact."

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/14/s...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
One thing that hasn't been brought up is that if they had played the match 3 hours earlier in hot, fast conditions, Fed would have won 9 more break points because Djoker wouldn't have gotten to those balls in faster conditions. That is how much of a difference the match meant by playing 3 hours later in slow, cold conditions versus hot, fast conditions. 9 more break points. Go back and look at those break points and imagine a ball moving only 5 mph faster, and Djoker doesn't reach those balls 9 times. 9 breaks of serve more for Fed. Fed wins in straight sets.

I don't know if I would say fed would have won, but it *could* have helped him. The colder conditions are going to also slow novak's serve and forehand down too. Which novak's groundies are quite flat... they gave fed problems at wimby too so we cant really say that quicker lower bouncing conditions favor roger entirely.

We have to face it. Roger is 34. His bag of tricks just isn't what it once was. He still won only 2 less points in total than novak. So that's incredible.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Djokovic was basically rolling in 3.0 ladies level 50mph serves while Federer was standing inside the service box taking wild swings at the 65yo+ beginner clinic puff balls.
Their average first serve speeds were identical. The second serve speed of novak was only 5mph less than roger.

I wouldn't be surprised if you think you could have won those break points.
 
according to grantland.com (and I think they are right), here is a recipe of Novak's tactic :

"..he knows how to push you, how to goad you, how to make you your own worst enemy. You have limits — of pace, power, tenacity, endurance — and he knows not just how to find them but how to drive you past them, with minimal risk to himself. He hits safe shots a little deeper than you’d like. He drags you wider, makes you run harder to chase down the ball. His drop shots flop over the net with slightly more wicked backspin. His ground strokes fly at you with a little more force. To stay with him, you always have to do a little more than you are capable of doing comfortably — not necessarily a great deal more, because again, his mind-set is basically cautious, he’s not trying to go for too much, but a bit more, all the time — and doing more than you are capable of doing comfortably eventually makes you doubt your own capabilities. You start pressing. You aim for the outsides of lines instead of the insides, or you put a little extra juice on your serve, or you try to kill the point with a ludicrous cross-court winner instead of putting the ball back in play. You make mistakes, even when he isn’t forcing you to make them. He gets in your head, and even while he destroys you from the outside, he helps you beat yourself from within."

and I agree with this.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
according to grantland.com (and I think they are right), here is a recipe of Novak's tactic :

"..he knows how to push you, how to goad you, how to make you your own worst enemy. You have limits — of pace, power, tenacity, endurance — and he knows not just how to find them but how to drive you past them, with minimal risk to himself. He hits safe shots a little deeper than you’d like. He drags you wider, makes you run harder to chase down the ball. His drop shots flop over the net with slightly more wicked backspin. His ground strokes fly at you with a little more force. To stay with him, you always have to do a little more than you are capable of doing comfortably — not necessarily a great deal more, because again, his mind-set is basically cautious, he’s not trying to go for too much, but a bit more, all the time — and doing more than you are capable of doing comfortably eventually makes you doubt your own capabilities. You start pressing. You aim for the outsides of lines instead of the insides, or you put a little extra juice on your serve, or you try to kill the point with a ludicrous cross-court winner instead of putting the ball back in play. You make mistakes, even when he isn’t forcing you to make them. He gets in your head, and even while he destroys you from the outside, he helps you beat yourself from within."

and I agree with this.
So basically, he's doing the same thing to Fed that Nadal has always done?
 

HoyaPride

Professional
I can't remember another match where Federer's backhand has seemed more reliable than his FH.His movement has declined a lot ,i can recall several points when he tried to run around his BH to hit a FH and ended up making an UE or hitting it in Djokovic's strikes zone and losing the point in the next 2 shots.
I remember a couple of points like that but I didn't think it had anything to do with Federer's movement. I thought it had more to do with the depth of shot.
 

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
I don't know if I would say fed would have won, but it *could* have helped him. The colder conditions are going to also slow novak's serve and forehand down too. Which novak's groundies are quite flat... they gave fed problems at wimby too so we cant really say that quicker lower bouncing conditions favor roger entirely.

We have to face it. Roger is 34. His bag of tricks just isn't what it once was. He still won only 2 less points in total than novak. So that's incredible.
Novak is playing very well. Even a 2008 Federer may not have won against a 2015 Novak.

Federer still seems to be moving very well at 34. Age may not be the primary factor as to why he is losing.
Novak has improved and may just be the slightly better player.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
Novak is playing very well. Even a 2008 Federer may not have won against a 2015 Novak.

Federer still seems to be moving very well at 34. Age may not be the primary factor as to why he is losing.
Novak has improved and may just be the slightly better player.
That's what I think as well. Novak and Rafa present a certain type of challenge to Roger that no other players can (maybe Murray).

If you look up the threads for any of the Federer-Nadal losses between 2005 and 2009, it's the same talk about him playing scared, poor tactics/strategy, playing too aggressive, etc. Those threads take on the same tenor as this one only posters bring up the clay court issue.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
That's what I think as well. Novak and Rafa present a certain type of challenge to Roger that no other players can (maybe Murray).

If you look up the threads for any of the Federer-Nadal losses between 2005 and 2009, it's the same talk about him playing scared, poor tactics/strategy, playing too aggressive, etc. Those threads take on the same tenor as this one only posters bring up the clay court issue.
I think a 2008 Federer would've won but only because he would've had that mental focus that he now lacks against Djokovic. Against Nadal I agree. But a 2008 Federer would've broken and taken that third set and never would've been broken thrice down 40-15. Federer has absolutely no focus on the big points now. Just goes AWOL expecting Djokovic to make a mistake.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
I think a 2008 Federer would've won but only because he would've had that mental focus that he now lacks against Djokovic. Against Nadal I agree. But a 2008 Federer would've broken and taken that third set and never would've been broken thrice down 40-15. Federer has absolutely no focus on the big points now. Just goes AWOL expecting Djokovic to make a mistake.
Well, I guess we'll never know and none of us could ever say for sure. I was only pointing out that the same frustrations being expressed now are the same ones expressed after Federer losses against Nadal. There's always that Monday morning Quarterbacking about what Federer could have done, should have done, how he chumped out, played too stupidly, etc.
 
I remember a couple of points like that but I didn't think it had anything to do with Federer's movement. I thought it had more to do with the depth of shot.
It has a lot to do with his movement. The running forehand and the inside out forehand are the shots that declined the most IMO.That's because it's much harder to hit a forehand winner when you're legs are not in the right spot.A step or even half a step makes a crucial difference.Prime Fed's movement was/is underrated imo.

10 years ago everytime Federer would have a chance to hit a running FH I was expecting a winner,now I expect an UE.Really hard to beat an all time great like Djokovic in BO5 format like that.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
Well, I guess we'll never know and none of us could ever say for sure. I was only pointing out that the same frustrations being expressed now are the same ones expressed after Federer losses against Nadal. There's always that Monday morning Quarterbacking about what Federer could have done, should have done, how he chumped out, played too stupidly, etc.
No argument there. It's always something these days. His BP conversion has always been bad against Nadal but at least he had his serve under control. But yesterday he was just creating opportunities and shooting himself in the foot. Can't do much there. At least a young Federer would be more proactive and explosive. Would've capitalized a lot more and even if he didn't there is no way he would've lost serve being up 40-15 three times.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Federer is kidding himself. He actually thinks that the thing he did wrong was make errors on long points? And the solution to that is working harder to be able to finish shots on long points? Get better at long points? Wow. I just lost a lot of respect for his tennis IQ.

Perhaps Federer should look at what Wawrinka did to Djokovic at the French Open. Wawrinka certainly wasn't trying to win long points.

Now I know why Federer will never beat Djokovic in best-of-five and has consistently lost to Nadal in best-of-five exchanges. It is Federer's inability to believe that there are better grinders out there than he is. It is mere pride and the inability to accept his own weaknesses.

Prepare yourselves Federer fans. He isn't winning an 18th slam. Not with that kind of attitude and strategy.
Federer is right. He lost like 90 % of all the long rallie points. he made some mistakes there but I thought Novak really forced him into those mistakes on most part. Next time Roger could rallie longer and see what happens like in Australian open 2016 final if they both get there,,,,,but Novak has that down the line backhand he ripps out of nowhere for clean winners during long rallies so Roger has to take that into account.
In my opinion, roger should come to net on every chance he gets and take his chances... but roger has to come in on great approach shots so that is easier said than done as well.

But Roger is correct ,,, he did lose most of the Long rallie points by making errors, pressured errors or what but Roger could improve that I suppose but not sure who he could practice with to improve that aspect ??
 

HoyaPride

Professional
It has a lot to do with his movement. The running forehand and the inside out forehand are the shots that declined the most IMO.
Federer was always a little vulnerable moving to his right. I'll have to watch the Aussie '09 Final and identify the exact quote, but there's a point in the match where Patrick McEnroe remarks on how well Federer was hitting his running forehand, and then says something to the effect of "...and that's always been a bit of a weakness, moving to his right, hasn't it?" There are also older threads from 2005-06 where posters make the same observation. Whether this has gotten even worse over time is hard to say (without using something like Statvu, which they use in the NBA to calculate speed and distance covered), but stretching Federer wide to the forehand has been an effective strategy for those able to do it.

Federer moved exceptionally well against Wawrinka and had no trouble moving around that backhand to rip forehands. Against Djokovic, I think it's very different because he's getting the ball deep consistently. I don't think there's enough appreciation of the impact that Djokovic has on Federer's game.

10 years ago everytime Federer would have a chance to hit a running FH I was expecting a winner,now I expect an UE.Really hard to beat an all time great like Djokovic in BO5 format like that.
I never expected a winner on every running FH. His running forehand wasn't a weakness but it wasn't great. When stretched wide, he would often resort to a squash shot.

I was actually going through this match and keeping a record of the types of errors Fed committed in this match. Lots of sprayed forehands so far.

 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
ROGER FEDERER: Because of the mistakes I made. I have to get better at that. It's just pretty simple.
When has Fed ever been so open about any loss? He's generally not the world's greatest loser, think back to 2010 USO or other losses in the past.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
But Roger is correct ,,, he did lose most of the Long rallie points by making errors, pressured errors or what but Roger could improve that I suppose but not sure who he could practice with to improve that aspect ??
Nishikori? He seems second best at drilling that backhand up the line (if not the best at times).
 

dunlop1975

New User
I see what you're saying, I think I remember the point? The crosscourt FH break point in the fourth? 5-4? He hit it wide and long of the doubles alley.

I personally don't think there's anything anyone can do to fix that at fed's level... It's not like the guy doesn't practice and prepare for matches lol. I think that's just the age thing. I mean yeah 10 years ago he probably wouldn't miss even half of those. That's why I think it's silly to focus on that. How do you change that? 18 years on tour, not like there are kinks that need to be worked out. Not like a time machine exists. Unless all that nike money has figured out how to warp space time. And all the EPO/Roids/HGH in the world won't make you not have UE.... Nerves possibly? Who knows. I think it's hard for Fed because he can't even afford to play many five set matches. I mean yes he's played 3 set after 3 set after 3 set against good people. But who else is on the level Djokovic is? To be able to sustain that level for so long? Maybe that's it. Either way, I think he could have worked novak's backhand. Early in that match novak was making dtl backhands, as the match went on, he got gun shy of them. Deep into big matches, for years now novak has been gun shy of the DTL BH. I'm not sure why, because back in 2008 he had an insane DTL backhand. But since then he doesn't really use it. It's cost him against Waw especially considering his forehand is the side to break down, and against Kei last year too. He probably doesn't want to go dtl to feds forehand often, but I think that is probably the shot that he's least comfortable going for. Novak had some real gimme's in the fourth 5-2 going up the line, that he just missed.

It's hard to get that shot off, because he's so eager to step around midcourt balls, so I think the slice low and wide would work well. But hey what the hell do I know. I don't even have a point on the ATP tour.
It's clearly not his age or did you miss the 6 previous matches he played in NY? Fed can improve as he's proven this year. Djoker has his number in the slams, no doubt about it. Much the same way that Nadal had his number and Djoker's too at one time (and vice versa) - players go up and down in a career, ask Nadal. Djoker's on top now but he won't be in a year or two. Fed was steady as a rock until the final - his first serve percentage was down in the final from previous matches, he missed a lot more first serves. All due to Djoker, he's in Fed's head. And Fed has to win that first set or he's done. He's a much better front runner.
 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
When has Fed ever been so open about any loss? He's generally not the world's greatest loser, think back to 2010 USO or other losses in the past.
My guess it that he's usually really bummed out because he feels like he just couldn't beat the opponent because he was just too good. But this time he may have felt like he had an off day and that if he had just played a little better and the conditions were more in his favor, he would've won. That maybe the reason that he has a "back to the practice courts" feeling instead of feeling all sad and defeatist.
 
Whether this has gotten even worse over time is hard to say (without using something like Statvu, which they use in the NBA to calculate speed and distance covered)

I think that's definetely the case,but I agree,without stats is just pure observation and I could be wrong.

Federer moved exceptionally well against Wawrinka and had no trouble moving around that backhand to rip forehands. Against Djokovic, I think it's very different because he's getting the ball deep consistently. I don't think there's enough appreciation of the impact that Djokovic has on Federer's game.
The decline in this shot is the most obvious when Federer is trying to pull the trigger on a second serve return.In his prime years this was a much more reliable shot.Djokovic has a great second serve but nowadays he is having trouble hitting those kind of returns even against players with much less impressive second serves.






I never expected a winner on every running FH. His running forehand wasn't a weakness but it wasn't great. When stretched wide, he would often resort to a squash shot.

I was actually going through this match and keeping a record of the types of errors Fed committed in this match. Lots of sprayed forehands so far.


It wasn't on Sampras's level,yes,but again,it was much better than it is now IMO.I watched the highlights of the USO 2008 SF today and it looked like a night and day difference to me.
 
So basically, he's doing the same thing to Fed that Nadal has always done?
I don't want to involve Nadal here, I rather stick to topic. I want to talk about how Roger made so many UE vs Novak, while having a perfect results vs anyone from the start in NY.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
I don't want to involve Nadal here, I rather stick to topic. I want to talk about how Roger made so many UE vs Novak, while having a perfect results vs anyone from the start in NY.
But it's a similar pattern. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Nadal.

At USO '15, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Djokovic.

Perhaps he just has bad luck on Sundays.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
according to grantland.com (and I think they are right), here is a recipe of Novak's tactic :

"..he knows how to push you, how to goad you, how to make you your own worst enemy. You have limits — of pace, power, tenacity, endurance — and he knows not just how to find them but how to drive you past them, with minimal risk to himself. He hits safe shots a little deeper than you’d like. He drags you wider, makes you run harder to chase down the ball. His drop shots flop over the net with slightly more wicked backspin. His ground strokes fly at you with a little more force. To stay with him, you always have to do a little more than you are capable of doing comfortably — not necessarily a great deal more, because again, his mind-set is basically cautious, he’s not trying to go for too much, but a bit more, all the time — and doing more than you are capable of doing comfortably eventually makes you doubt your own capabilities. You start pressing. You aim for the outsides of lines instead of the insides, or you put a little extra juice on your serve, or you try to kill the point with a ludicrous cross-court winner instead of putting the ball back in play. You make mistakes, even when he isn’t forcing you to make them. He gets in your head, and even while he destroys you from the outside, he helps you beat yourself from within."

and I agree with this.
Yeah his shots are so flat and have so much pace. At the AO fed/nadal/waw all had about 75mph average forehand speed, and novak's was 81 (at one point of the tournament). It's hard to see that with the camera angle we get at home, but it really does push oppenents back a little bit further, and a little wider... He does that to guy's forehands who aren't used to it (nadal/fed). He likes to attack strengths like agassi does. He's very good at what he does. He plays probably the most intelligent tennis out of anyone in the open era, yet he has so many options with his basically all court game. He can beat you with sheer offense if you give him too much, he can grind you into the ground, he can out return you, he can out serve you... Where as fed was probably the most clever in his tactics, and the most awe inspiring, and nadal made it so physical. Novak is really under appreciated simply because his game looks so un-assuming.
 

duaneeo

Legend
I also think that Federers problem is a psychological one, he wants it so badly thereby creating too much pressure and tension plus a lack of confidence.
I think that's it in a nutshell. It's why he couldn't take advantage of a rattled Djokovic at 2014 Wimbledon after snatching the 4th set, why he lost in straight sets to Cilic (who only had a 1st-serve percentage of 57%) at the 2014 US Open, and why he choked against Djokovic yesterday. Is the 4/23 BP conversion the worst ever in a slam final? I wouldn't be surprised.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
But it's a similar pattern. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Nadal.

At USO '15, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Djokovic.

Perhaps he just has bad luck on Sundays.
Good point. You notice how Federer there squandered a bp up 4-3 in the fifth where he could serve for the match? I mean against Nadal it's always been abysmal but against Novak he's usually been able to capitalize like in Wimbledon 2012 but yesterday was just Wimbledon 2012 if he hadn't taken those chances.

And it's also weird how Federer falters every time he cruises to the final. In Wimbledon 2012 he was almost out in round 3 down 2 sets and had a back injury and then he handily beat Novak and Murray.
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Novak is playing very well. Even a 2008 Federer may not have won against a 2015 Novak.

Federer still seems to be moving very well at 34. Age may not be the primary factor as to why he is losing.
Novak has improved and may just be the slightly better player.
I definitely think 2015 novak is a complete enough player to beat a 2006 federer. Or at least make for a very tight 5 set match on anything other than 2006 grass.

I think the age thing might be the reason for missed shots... Maybe a little bit of that incredible hand eye coordination may have deteriorated. Or it could be nerves. Hard to know. Fed played well. I think he had a couple of lapses. But even though it was a four set loss, he's proven he's still in that mix. He played big boy tennis. He tried. He lost, but to be quite close actually with novak at his age is very impressive.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I also think that Federers problem is a psychological one, he wants it so badly thereby creating too much pressure and tension plus a lack of confidence. 54 unforced errors in 4 sets, and I thought that Fogninis 57 UEs in 5 sets were a rather high number.
Everyone in this forum needs to read this. It's not the tennis and it's not the physical aspect. It's THIS!
 

RanchDressing

Hall of Fame
Good point. You notice how Federer there squandered a bp up 4-3 in the fifth where he could serve for the match? I mean against Nadal it's always been abysmal but against Novak he's usually been able to capitalize like in Wimbledon 2012 but yesterday was just Wimbledon 2012 if he hadn't taken those chances.

And it's also weird how Federer falters every time he cruises to the final. In Wimbledon 2012 he was almost out in round 3 down 2 sets and had a back injury and then he handily beat Novak and Murray.
I have to imagine it has something to do with the way fed plays. I mean he's not going to change his patterns so much if it worked through the tournament. I think that would be something Novak or Nadal etc would look at, and help them make a plan. To me the biggest difference is that Novak and Nadal always have plans to execute when they play fed, and fed never has seemed to have a solid execution or play style he wants to use on them.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I have to imagine it has something to do with the way fed plays. I mean he's not going to change his patterns so much if it worked through the tournament. I think that would be something Novak or Nadal etc would look at, and help them make a plan. To me the biggest difference is that Novak and Nadal always have plans to execute when they play fed, and fed never has seemed to have a solid execution or play style he wants to use on them.
Well he did in Cincy. And he usually always does against Novak. And he was ahead yesterday with two bp's. If you don't capitalize on them then there's nothing that can be done.
 
But it's a similar pattern. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Nadal.

At USO '15, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Djokovic.

Perhaps he just has bad luck on Sundays.
Or perhaps the 3 of them are so far above the rest of the players that only Rafa and Novak can capitalize on Federer playing less than 100%.
 
But it's a similar pattern. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Nadal.

At USO '15, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Djokovic.

Perhaps he just has bad luck on Sundays.
I agree about similar pattern, and bad luck in couple of his UE. IDK, IMO what Roger lack is durability and stamina. Only that will enable him to be competitive in longer rally and in best of 5 GS's. And that will remove the urge to short the points, which make him nervous during long match. So, instead of "back to the practice courts", maybe "hitting the gym" is a cure? On the bright side, last night I didn't noticed that he was tired and exhausted after 4 sets. Maybe he already work on that?
 

mightyrick

Legend
Federer is right. He lost like 90 % of all the long rallie points. he made some mistakes there but I thought Novak really forced him into those mistakes on most part. Next time Roger could rallie longer and see what happens like in Australian open 2016 final if they both get there,,,,,but Novak has that down the line backhand he ripps out of nowhere for clean winners during long rallies so Roger has to take that into account.
In my opinion, roger should come to net on every chance he gets and take his chances... but roger has to come in on great approach shots so that is easier said than done as well.

But Roger is correct ,,, he did lose most of the Long rallie points by making errors, pressured errors or what but Roger could improve that I suppose but not sure who he could practice with to improve that aspect ??
He can't. That's the whole point.

He simply needs to play highly aggressive first-strike tennis. He has the shots. Here's the funny thing. If it is MURRAY on the other side of the net, Federer turns into Wawrinka/Berdych. He rifles hard aggressive shots left and right. Puts Murray back on his heels. Then Federer gets the short ball and crams it into either corner. Federer refuses to grind with Murray. He plays first-strike tennis.

But you stick Djokovic or Nadal on the other side of the net (who are even better grinders than Murray) and Federer for some reason wants to become a grinding baseliner. I just don't get it.

Federer has the tools already. He uses them actively against some of the best grinders in the game (Murray/Simon). But you put Djokovic or Nadal on the other side, and he becomes the second-coming of Murray. It's so weird.
 
Also, I found ironic that loud cheering might harm him more then Novak in crucial points/BP's. He was the one in charge to please the audience expectations, not Novak.
 

duaneeo

Legend
But it's a similar pattern. At Wimbledon 2008, Federer smoked everyone on the way to the Final. Then he struggled against Nadal.
I don't think this is a good analogy. Roger struggled in the first 2 sets, but then it was game on. The level of play in those final 3 sets was amazing by both players. I think he was unlucky that year, as the rain delays caused the match to finish late and the darkness made it impossible for him to maintain his level of play. The younger player with the better eyes won. ;)
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
As if 4/23 wasn't bad enough.

1/11 on second serve BPs...
Seriously???? How in the f***ing world is that even possible. More SABR's on BP's next time. Or more half SABR's, where he hits an offensive BH or forehand right on the get go

Also, in the last three sets, Fed hit 97 first serves (including the ones he didn't make). Novak hit 129.
That's a MASSIVE difference and tells you how many, many more games that were closely contested when Novak was serving than the other way around.


At the end of the day though, Fed failed to win his share of the close games - partly due to Novak not missing (and sometimes hitting a great serve/great return), but mainly due to Fed not taking his chances.
(a rough guess would be that Fed won 30 % or possibly even less of the games that went to deuce - falstaff, you surely have data on this).
 
Last edited:

rh310

Hall of Fame
You seriously need to watch Agassi play Federer if you think Djokovic is superior. Better serve, perhaps, but otherwise Agassi is to my mind far superior to Novak.

Djokovic is great, but Aggassi covers the court just as well and does more with the ball when he gets there.
 

HoyaPride

Professional
I don't think this is a good analogy. Roger struggled in the first 2 sets, but then it was game on. The level of play in those final 3 sets was amazing by both players. I think he was unlucky that year, as the rain delays caused the match to finish late and the darkness made it impossible for him to maintain his level of play. The younger player with the better eyes won. ;)
It's a good analogy to the extent that he obliterated all of his competition except for the guy in the Final.
 
Top