Federer's decline - physical or mental ?

S

shaft

Banned
In 2013 fed recorded just 1 win against top 10 ( Tsonga ).
but his decline started in 2008 but some how managed upto
AO 2010 . after that he just have won 1 slam but total 13
titles.
His slam results from AO 2010 to till USO 13 were disappointing .( just 2 finals in 15 tournaments

but I observed one thing about him when it was his day
he was unbeatable after decline also.
Just take RG 2011 he beat peak Novak on his WORST SURFACE but lost to nadal ( everybody knows reason , federer was better though) .
same for wtf 10 , 11 he beat nadal ,Murray , Novak in 10
and 6-3 6-0 over nadal was amazing .
( Don't say he is better on indoor hc , last year he lost
delpo twice , Novak in final at wtf)

Iw 12 beat nadal in straight sets , in Cincinnati bagelled Novak.
At Wimbledon beat Murray and Novak back to back
and in same tournament he stretched to five sets by bennetteu .


If he was declined , then how he produced such result?

TO ME HIS DECLINE IS JUST A BAD DAY OR LAPSE OF CONCENTRATION IF HE HAVE HIS DAY , HE CAN BEAT ANY
PLAYER ON ANY SURFACE .
SAME LAVER SAID , IF HE IS HIS DAY HE CAN PLAY AS BETTER AS 22 AT 34 ALSO.
HE IS GREAT PLAYER , HE DON'T NEED DOG LIKE TRAINING
AND COACHING BUT HE JUST NEEDS TO STOP HIS
MENTAL DECLINE.
 
It's both, but more mentally than physically.

His movement is nowhere as good as it was in his prime. He's much slower now.

On the mental side, he's lost his confidence because he knows he isn't as good as he used to be. The only way to get his confidence back IMO is for him to win a title, even if a 250 event.
 
Federer on his day can still beat any player but the problem is that those days are few and far between. And his decline is definetely mental. I mean this time around last year he was the number 1 and how much can one decline physically in the space of just one year. It's definetely mental.
 
Who Am I? said:
Federer on his day can still beat any player but the problem is that those days are few and far between. And his decline is definetely mental. I mean this time around last year he was the number 1 and how much can one decline physically in the space of just one year. It's definetely mental.
Click to expand...

I think you get my point !
How he declined physically in just 4-5 months?
Yes his days are few but it is due to mental decline only.
he needs mental trainer rather physical.
 
shaft said:
I think you get my point !
How he declined physically in just 4-5 months?
Yes his days are few but it is due to mental decline only.
he needs mental trainer rather physical.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to physically decline that fast..
 
shaft said:
I think you get my point !
How he declined physically in just 4-5 months?
Yes his days are few but it is due to mental decline only.
he needs mental trainer rather physical.
Click to expand...

His actual mental decline started in 2010 after having kids the previous year. He went from making 18 out 19 finals to just 3 slam finals in four years. He needs to see a sports psychologist who will help him gain that motivation again.
 
He has declined physically too. I wasn't that impressed when he was serving bagels to lesser ranked players at the USO.

I knew he wouldn't do well against a top player in form because of his slow movement. His offensive game was on but his defense was rather weak.

I thought Nadal would be the one to send him packing but Fed couldn't even beat Tommy.
 
He's unsure of himself and he plays safely and then is desperate to finish the point early which is bad. He needs to slow down a bit and grind it out unfortunately.
 
Unfortunately, Federer's decline is both mental and physical. He is 32 yo and has played near 1,200 ATP matches. He has already played more than Sampras and Agassi and almost everyone else who was a top 5 player. His back is causing him problems and he is maybe 1/2 step slower/reaction. Mental fatigue is caused by long grueling career and confidence is impacted by diminishing physicality.

His prime years were 2005-2007. He had good 2008 which was the mono year and he has flashes of brilliance since then. The late 2011 through Wimbledon 2012 was a fantastic run but he has not played to that level since then. At least not more than a match or two.

The question now is can he put together 2 magic weeks at a slam and win 1 more. I hope so but it isn't going to be easy.
 
largely mental and also physical IMO .
After2007 he continuously declined physically but this year
his mental decline was ------
 
Both. It is inevitable. As noted, his speed/quickness/movement is not where it was at his best. If we know it, then surely he does and with that would come the mental aspect of knowing you have lost a step.
 
I think he needs to breathe and relax more during matches.

Seems to be in a rush always now . I get that he is an aggessive player and much love for that but there is a difference between being agressive and rushing all the time

The guy needs to do some hardcore yoga
 
The drive/motivation isn't the same either. He has nothing more to prove, owns the most records and plus having a family isn't helping either.
 
60% physical and 40% mental I would say. There is some element of luck too. When you win a tough match vs a top player it gives you confidence and momentum when you are no longer the dominant force and havent been for 5 or 6 years. Alot of those matches went Federer's way last year. This year he hasnt been lucky in a few of those important matches, and he won 1 it could have sent him on a mini roll or resurgence of sorts. It didnt happen though.
 
Fed is more like spread too thin between his wife and twins. I would say he doesn't spend that much time as he used to. Maybe a third or even half of his time is devoted to his family more than anything else. And then, there's all that commercial/business aspects.
 
I watched all of Federer's match this year. By observing his play, two things are clearly missing from his game. One is his ability to grind to win points. Two is his overall stamina. As he age more next year and even he gets his confidence back, with these two key elements to his game missing I think he will struggle to win matches. He will be more and more like a dark horse at slams and masters.
 
A bit of both but more mental than physical in my opinion.

I just don't see why he should decline that rapidly. He plays a lot worse on bigpoints now for example. It's a lack of confidence. It was once his huge advantage, a reason why he played his best tennis in decisive moments and now it seems to be gone.

Of course he's also getting older and his movement isn't as good as it used to be. But as I said, I believe it's more mental but a bit of both.
 
Pete.Sampras. said:
I just don't see why he should decline that rapidly.
Click to expand...

Naturally, power and speed of reflexes slow down with age and time. He has actually been in "gradual" decline since 2007, especially in terms of his explosive movement and forehand, but he kept adapting. I've never seen a player hit the heights that Federer did in 2005 and 2006. Set after sublime set of tennis, seemingly touched by the gods, regularly interspersed by moments that made you gasp in disbelief. Sometime after Australian Open 2007, Federer started his inevitable transformation into the efficient, get-the-job-done-with-minimum fuss player, relying more on his variety to throw his opponents off their rhythm.

No great sportsman that I can think of has gone his entire career playing the exact same way. Federer's game and tactical approach kept evolving to give him the best chance of competing at the top (against opponents 5-6 years his junior) while his physical gifts kept gradually diminishing. Add to that, the stress of tour life, continuously being on top for so many years, and most importantly, the mileage i.e. the sheer number of matches he has played within the relatively short time-span of his professional career, more than any other top ranked player in (at least) the last 20 years, it's therefore no wonder that he has finally reached the end of his tether... the fact that he has already lasted as long as he has at the top is a testament to his greatness and perseverance. He can adapt no more. His time on tour assuredly draws to a nigh.
 
10is said:
Naturally, power and speed of reflexes slow down with age and time.
Click to expand...
Reflexes do not consistently generally within the age at all. The broader data shows that some people's reflexes remain almost unchanged at 80 from when they were 20, while others change a lot. Usage would likely play a significant role in this so there's no way you could even anecdotally, let alone as a broad strokes trend, attribute any decline in Federer's form to a slowing of his reflexes.

Most evidence is that reaction times (not reflexes) generally aren't affected until well past a person's physical prime - perhaps into the 40s. Factors like fatigue or distractions affect reaction times too - maybe having children adds another few percent of both and that contributes in some way to both concentration and reaction times.

10is said:
He has actually been in b since 2007, especially in terms of his explosive movement and forehand, but he kept adapting.
Click to expand...
This (the bolded) I agree with but the heights he attained in his prime I think made the following years look worse than they really were. His competition improved a lot and that is a huge component when judging form by looking at results - which is not always the best way to look at it.

He has played, many times since 2009, some peak level tennis easily as good as anything in his prime - it's just those days are less common. His French Open semifinal/final in 2011, his last few matches at Wimbledon in 2012, his WTF in 2011 and a few others in-between were truly amazing tennis. Some of these are so recent in history I struggle to believe his results drop-off in the past year can be put down to him simply being a year older.

I'd say it's more than likely a combination of many small things like his back issue preventing him making the most of long periods of the year - keeping him in maintenance mode rather than improvement mode as well as reducing practice time. Couple that with reduced matches or the random encountering of form players at times when he wasn't quite there form-wise suddenly a pile of knock-on things appear bad. But to attribute it to being a little bit older is little simplistic imo.
 
Last edited:
50% mental

30% decline in physical fitness

20% lack of sufficient drive


he still has the game. he just refuses to put it all together because it takes too much work.
 
Bobby Jr said:
Reflexes do not consistently generally within the age at all. The broader data shows that some people's reflexes remain almost unchanged at 80 from when they were 20, while others change a lot. Usage would likely play a significant role in this so there's no way you could even anecdotally, let alone as a broad strokes trend, attribute any decline in Federer's form to a slowing of his reflexes. Most evidence is that reaction times (not reflexes) generally aren't affected until well past a person's physical prime - perhaps into the 40s.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect (to put it mildly). Psychomotor reflexes (i.e. reaction time) decrease as a function of age and peak in early-mid 20s.

2q80buu.jpg


http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/schulz/JofGeronSchulzCarnow1988.pdf

This (the bolded) I agree with but the heights he attained in his prime I think made the following years look worse than they really were. His competition improved a lot and that is a huge component when judging form by looking at results - which is not always the best way to look at it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that sort of (competition/"weak era") argument, whereby one uses Federer as some sort of measuring stick against the field, won't find purchase with me. If he dominates, ergo the field must be "weak"; but if he struggles (during the latter past-prime part of his career), it automatically renders the field "stronger". :rolleyes:

That sort of reasoning is a classic example of circular logic with a flawed premise guised as fact. The level of competition argument is 100% perception and 0% substance. You can only judge a player on what they have actually won, and not what they apparently faced to get their wins. There are only 4 slams that can be won each year, so if one player wins 3 of them, all it says is that only 1 was won by the remainder of the field. It says ZERO about the competition.

Federer dominated the game not necessarily because his peers were not fantastic, powerful players, themselves, but because he was/is just that good. A person's merit need not always be judged relatively to legitimize their mark in a field. Rarely, one's skill or ability or what have you is so superior that it must be acknowledged in absolute terms.

to attribute it to being a little bit older is little simplistic imo.
Click to expand...

While it may not be a "necessary" condition, it certainly is a "sufficient" one.
 
10is said:
I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect (to put it mildly). Psychomotor reflexes (i.e. reaction time) decrease as a function of age and peak in early-mid 20s.

2q80buu.jpg


http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/schulz/JofGeronSchulzCarnow1988.pdf



I'm sorry, but that sort of (competition/"weak era") argument, whereby one uses Federer as some sort of measuring stick against the field, won't find purchase with me. If he dominates, ergo the field must be "weak"; but if he struggles (during the latter past-prime part of his career), it automatically renders the field "stronger". :rolleyes:

That sort of reasoning is a classic example of circular logic with a flawed premise guised as fact. The level of competition argument is 100% perception and 0% substance. You can only judge a player on what they have actually won, and not what they apparently faced to get their wins. There are only 4 slams that can be won each year, so if one player wins 3 of them, all it says is that only 1 was won by the remainder of the field. It says ZERO about the competition.

Federer dominated the game not necessarily because his peers were not fantastic, powerful players, themselves, but because he was/is just that good. A person's merit need not always be judged relatively to legitimize their mark in a field. Rarely, one's skill or ability or what have you is so superior that it must be acknowledged in absolute terms.



While it may not be a "necessary" condition, it certainly is a "sufficient" one.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you haven't seen Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars.....

I couldn't help myself!
 
bullfan said:
Obviously, you haven't seen Obi Wan Kenobi in Star Wars.....

I couldn't help myself!
Click to expand...

LOL! But you can clearly see how much Kenobi's reflexes have degraded over time, if you compare the short work he made of General "20 strokes per second" Grievous as a young Jedi... to his slow, ponderous movements in his old-geezer clash against Darth Vader. ;)
 
Last edited:
10is said:
I'm sorry, but that is simply incorrect (to put it mildly). Psychomotor reflexes (i.e. reaction time) decrease as a function of age and peak in early-mid 20s.
Click to expand...
Some of that item you posted is malarkey. They even state (in the same passage you highlighted) that tennis players peak in their early 20s which hasn't been the case since the 90s. It used a set of data (for males) from 1885 to 1978 to work out the distribution of the ages of players ranked #1 - a laughably flawed way to make any assumption at all with regards to reaction times specifically which is what I addressed - even if it was the case.

Coupled with the reaction-time issue is the ability to focus on the important aspects of a situation and not get distracted. That ability improves with maturity within a task and distraction is often noted as a key component of reaction times (along with fatigue, intelligence, gender and age). Heritability is also touted as significant component of reaction times (amongst other athletic and intelligence traits) which can't be discounted either, especially based on comparing a player's results across a time period.

There is not a credible study worth its salt which would demonstrate a measurable decline in reaction time between a male aged 27 and 32. They possibly could 25 and 50 but no way can reliable data show there is a decline drop in such a short time, especially if you consider that we're talking about people who are also pre-vetted as probably being amongst the very top echelon in this regards and who practice it in various ways day-in day out for many years while the average person (who comprise the majority of study subjects) do not.

Similarly, studies I've seen which do show clear changes exclusively compare groups of people who are 30+ years apart in age, they don't create a linear scale across a broad range of ages. Studies which are done across a broad range show entirely inconsistent results from the teens through till about 60 around whereupon reaction times start to show a consistent slowing down. Prior to around 60 no conclusion can really be made with credibility.

Studies done specifically on athletes in sprinting actually show reaction times improve with age into the late 30s although, again, you have to consider the devil in the detail (e.g. the older athletes who are part of the studies are pre-selected as being ahead of the curve which is why they still compete. Mentioned briefly here).

10is said:
...but that sort of (competition/"weak era") argument, whereby one uses Federer as some sort of measuring stick against the field, won't find purchase with me. If he dominates, ergo the field must be "weak"; but if he struggles (during the latter past-prime part of his career), it automatically renders the field "stronger". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If people are using his results as anecdotal evidence that his form is dropping are you discounting the significant influence the level of competition has on a player's results? That makes no sense, it has a massive influence regardless of fitness (or reaction) levels. People usually ignore the weak/strong era stuff for side-by-side comparisons because it is notoriously hard to quantify/qualify against any definitive benchmark - but doing it here ignores a salient part of the discussion because people are using his results as part of their argument for his failing form.

10is said:
That sort of reasoning is a classic example of circular logic with a flawed premise guised as fact.
Click to expand...
Touche, I agree. Read my comment immediately above this paragraph. It works both ways.

10is said:
Federer dominated the game not necessarily because his peers were not fantastic, powerful players, themselves, but because he was/is just that good. A person's merit need not always be judged relatively to legitimize their mark in a field.
Click to expand...
And similarly, he is not not dominating now purely because of changes to his own game. His closest competition has greatly improved their average ability in the past few years and that has a significant impact on his potential to win - again, this is independent to any changes to his own game.
 
Mostly physical. The mental thing is the result of the loss of physical ability.

Federer's movement used to be insanely good. Now it's a liability. Couple that with recurring back problems, and you have a guy who no longer seems able to string more than 2-3 good matches together in a row.

But he could make it a little easier on himself with more intelligent shot selection. His insistence on hitting short balls right back at opponents, rather than to the open court, has killed him more times than I care to remember.

Also, the "competition/era" argument vanishes when you just watch Federer play. The supposedly stronger opponents aren't making Federer move slower, hit less powerfully, or spray errors very early in the rally (unless you think it's a matter of him pressing to end points quickly, which I suppose would make sense in some situations...but then that's a mental problem with him, as he does it against everyone, not just the great defensive guys...and if he's as good as ever, he should be able to play the power players the way he did Safin).

A great example of the difference here can be found when watching Federer/Nadal matches from 2006. Nadal gives Federer everything he can handle, and wins many of their matches, but the level Federer shows in his losses is breathtaking. The amount of ground he was covering, the power in his ground strokes, the urgency and relentlessness in his attack off the ground. He would go down in a blaze of glory, not moving stiffly and threatening single match UE records while he's grunting for serves.
 
Last edited:
Who Am I? said:
Federer on his day can still beat any player but the problem is that those days are few and far between. And his decline is definetely mental. I mean this time around last year he was the number 1 and how much can one decline physically in the space of just one year. It's definetely mental.
Click to expand...

Its physical, its father time taking its toll
 
Physical and mental. Physical due to age and wear and tear and Mental due to consistently loosing so much to a faster, stronger athlete (Nadal).
 
Both sadly. His decline was so fast it's insane. After 2009 his goose was cooked. Maybe winning the FO that year hurt him actually, IDK. I hope he can get back to at least making slam finals.

Roger-Federer.jpg
 
OP: both. His strategy is no longer majors-worthy, but it would take a training miracle ...and time off before... to win another.He desperately wants another major, and has no distractions, so this current state must chew on his mind.

90's Clay said:
Nadal:)

10 char
Click to expand...

Yes, Nadal played a role in that over the years.
 
His aura of invincibility is gone! He can't make others uncomfortable as he used to. And to me he looks like a beacon of nervousness. In that last Robredo match Fed failed to convert 14 break points while Tommy had around 60% bp conversion...and Tommy is 31, managed to make 3 comebacks in a row at the FO and his game is very physical! Fed's game isn't based on running so i don't believe that such a supreme athlete can have such a drastic physical decline, his mental form is just inconsistent!

But i still believe there's fuel in him. He's extremely motivated and looking forward to next year impatiently. He believes and that means he's really capable of turning things around at least for few more tourneys!
 
It's pretty clear if you watch his current matches and his matches from, say, 5 years ago, that his reaction time (particularly on returns of serve) is just a little bit slower. He's not getting to balls the same way he was when he was younger.

But I don't think that's a dealbreaker for him. He still can beat anyone out of the top 30 and below pretty soundly. I think what he needs now is to adjust his game a little bit. He's so used to overpowering people that often times he does not play the high percentage shot. I've lost track of the number of times that Fed has played an approach shot or putaway volley straight to a guy. That may have worked before when he had a little bit more zip on his ball, but I think he needs to play a bit smarter. Rather than trying to overpower everyone, he needs to play more "open court" tennis. This is particularly the case against the top guys.

I think he still has it in him to win another slam. Physically I don't think he's as spent as people say he is.
 
10is said:
Naturally, power and speed of reflexes slow down with age and time. He has actually been in "gradual" decline since 2007, especially in terms of his explosive movement and forehand, but he kept adapting. I've never seen a player hit the heights that Federer did in 2005 and 2006. Set after sublime set of tennis, seemingly touched by the gods, regularly interspersed by moments that made you gasp in disbelief. Sometime after Australian Open 2007, Federer started his inevitable transformation into the efficient, get-the-job-done-with-minimum fuss player, relying more on his variety to throw his opponents off their rhythm.

No great sportsman that I can think of has gone his entire career playing the exact same way. Federer's game and tactical approach kept evolving to give him the best chance of competing at the top (against opponents 5-6 years his junior) while his physical gifts kept gradually diminishing. Add to that, the stress of tour life, continuously being on top for so many years, and most importantly, the mileage i.e. the sheer number of matches he has played within the relatively short time-span of his professional career, more than any other top ranked player in (at least) the last 20 years, it's therefore no wonder that he has finally reached the end of his tether... the fact that he has already lasted as long as he has at the top is a testament to his greatness and perseverance. He can adapt no more. His time on tour assuredly draws to a nigh.
Click to expand...

Such as losing to Safin and Nadal, both whom he could have beaten.
 
Jokes aside,

Federer's body didn't just decide this season that it was going to start losing to the likes of Tommy Robredo on fast hard courts.

It's mental people and with a good draw he still has slam potential. That is, if his mind can hold up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SABRvolley
Why was Nadal’s physical decline so much more drastic than Djokovic?
4 5 6
Replies
264
Views
14K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
kragster
Fed's decline - mental more than anything?
Replies
42
Views
5K
jackson vile
jackson vile
D
Best display of mental strength ?
2
Replies
68
Views
4K
gamelovergold
G
Spencer Gore
Why did Federer's grass game decline so badly after the 2008 final?
3 4 5
Replies
225
Views
13K
Headhunter_Tennis
Headhunter_Tennis
D
Do you think Nadal is in a slight decline??
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Deleted member 21996
D
Back
Top