How does Fed keep winning?

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
I'm somewhat amazed that Federer at this age still has the know how and skill to keep winning and make it to the semis. I watched part of his match with Stan- just the first set, and was thinking "man this guy's gonna get blown off the court". Yet somehow, he managed to win and take advantage of mistakes stan was making. I think one of the reasons we habitually underestimate Fed compared to say Nadal or Djokovic is that we don't always see what Fed's doing with the ball- what he's trying to accomplish. With Nadal and Djokovic, because their games and tactics are so visible/outright- there is no mystery, and you can see when their tactics are succeeding. With Fed, his game is much more subtle me thinks.
 

Vcore89

Talk Tennis Guru
He visualises himself joinng the 18-slam club with Evert and Navralitova and that is perhaps the motivating factor?
 

caugas

Semi-Pro
I'm somewhat amazed that Federer at this age still has the know how and skill to keep winning and make it to the semis. I watched part of his match with Stan- just the first set, and was thinking "man this guy's gonna get blown off the court". Yet somehow, he managed to win and take advantage of mistakes stan was making. I think one of the reasons we habitually underestimate Fed compared to say Nadal or Djokovic is that we don't always see what Fed's doing with the ball- what he's trying to accomplish. With Nadal and Djokovic, because their games and tactics are so visible/outright- there is no mystery, and you can see when their tactics are succeeding. With Fed, his game is much more subtle me thinks.


because FED = GOAT
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
He visualises himself joinng the 18-slam club with Evert and Navralitova and that is perhaps the motivating factor?

Apparently... I just seems like he's facing guys much more physical than him, yet he's able to outmaneuver them and put himself in a winning position.
 

OrangePower

Legend
I'm somewhat amazed that Federer at this age still has the know how and skill to keep winning and make it to the semis. I watched part of his match with Stan- just the first set, and was thinking "man this guy's gonna get blown off the court". Yet somehow, he managed to win and take advantage of mistakes stan was making. I think one of the reasons we habitually underestimate Fed compared to say Nadal or Djokovic is that we don't always see what Fed's doing with the ball- what he's trying to accomplish. With Nadal and Djokovic, because their games and tactics are so visible/outright- there is no mystery, and you can see when their tactics are succeeding. With Fed, his game is much more subtle me thinks.

Fed is still serving very well. Holding his own service games and doing so without expending too much energy is key.

Then when returning, Fed still has the ability to string together a few good points in a row now and then. And that's all it takes.

So even though he looks like he will be outmatched at times during rallies, he wins enough short points to get a break now and then, which is enough to win as long as he is holding serve.
 

reaper

Legend
From a very young age Federer hoped that one day he would be good enough to be compared to Chris Evert.
 
He uses variety since he knows he can't trade ground strokes with the guys who hit powerful shots. If he had done that in the 2009 US Open final he would have won it.
 

Top Jimmy

Semi-Pro
Motivation, he still feels pushed to add another trophy against these guys and solidify his legacy and pad the major count.

Sampras after he won #13 had nothing left to prove and was sub-par for 2 years. Only when people started bad mouthing him did he get motivated to try and win that last one.

Same thing with Roger. It's always easier when your chasing, once you reach your goals, it's hard to stay focused.

Plus he has some talent too.
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Fed is still serving very well. Holding his own service games and doing so without expending too much energy is key.

Then when returning, Fed still has the ability to string together a few good points in a row now and then. And that's all it takes.

So even though he looks like he will be outmatched at times during rallies, he wins enough short points to get a break now and then, which is enough to win as long as he is holding serve.

Skill (Fed) and physicality (Nadal) are totally different things.

Yeah good points. This is why grass court play is so different than Hardcourt and Clay. It rewards attacking tennis and guile/craft- more so than sheer physicality
 

AngieB

Banned
Oh, it is not so unusual. Stan Smith, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, etc. etc. The greats of the game who play into their 30's find a way to go deep in the grand slam events. They rely heavily on their experience and a champions will to win...just one more time.

Given Roger's historical accomplishments, it would not be a surprise if he were to win another grand slam event.

AngieB
 

Charlemagne

Hall of Fame
Oh, it is not so unusual. Stan Smith, Jimmy Connors, Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, etc. etc. The greats of the game who play into their 30's find a way to go deep in the grand slam events. They rely heavily on their experience and a champions will to win...just one more time.

Given Roger's historical accomplishments, it would not be a surprise if he were to win another grand slam event.

AngieB

It seems like the stars are aligning for him to win 18 here. Just my honest opinion. If it's his last hurrah, it's only fitting that it's at Wimby.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
The advantage Fed has is, he's still unbelievably good against players below Top Twenty. Stakovsky aside (who played like God, to be fair), Fed seems to blow all comers out the water in the first week of any slam, even at the French. Mentally, he probably turns up to each event and isn't even thinking about anything other than who he might be playing in the fourth round.

I'm not sure the other three members of the top four have this to their bow, and they especially won't, you would think, when they get to thirty.
 

Devilito

Legend
najzgodniji-sportasi-Roger-Federer-3.jpg
 

Graf=GOAT

Professional
He knows how to serve, slice, play at the net and play attacking tennis instead of running, pushing, grinding and moonballing.
 

WhiskeyEE

G.O.A.T.
The advantage Fed has is, he's still unbelievably good against players below Top Twenty. Stakovsky aside (who played like God, to be fair), Fed seems to blow all comers out the water in the first week of any slam, even at the French. Mentally, he probably turns up to each event and isn't even thinking about anything other than who he might be playing in the fourth round.

I'm not sure the other three members of the top four have this to their bow, and they especially won't, you would think, when they get to thirty.

That is in part due to the fact that Federer is a fast starter. He's always ready to play from the first ball and crushes his opponent's confidence from the start. And by the time they start getting into the match, it's usually too late.

Players like Nadal and Novak are notoriously slow starters.
 
His mental toughness when he's losing/down is better than anyone's, although Djokovic now can walk in the same park.

Nadal usually gives up when a guy gets substantially ahead of him in a match, and Murray just doesn't have the belief.

The issue Federer has is when he gets ahead, as opposed to behind. He takes his foot off the gas when he's up, and he's developed this real dread for serving out matches.
 

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
Well, if you're talking about the stan match in particular, and this tournament in general I'd say the answer is complete capitulation, and cakewalk draw respectively.

In general the guy obviously works hard, and more importantly has a style of play that is easier on the body, thus easy to keep playing. He's also remained largely injury free for most of his career, and he's also got a terrific serve, which can bail you out of bad situations even if the rest of your game deteriorates.
 

mental midget

Hall of Fame
The advantage Fed has is, he's still unbelievably good against players below Top Twenty. Stakovsky aside (who played like God, to be fair), Fed seems to blow all comers out the water in the first week of any slam, even at the French. Mentally, he probably turns up to each event and isn't even thinking about anything other than who he might be playing in the fourth round.

I'm not sure the other three members of the top four have this to their bow, and they especially won't, you would think, when they get to thirty.

i think the accuracy of his serving has a lot to do with it. he really is unbelievably accurate with that shot, and i think those quick service games are pretty demoralizing to lower ranked guys.
 

Fed881981

Hall of Fame
He uses variety since he knows he can't trade ground strokes with the guys who hit powerful shots. If he had done that in the 2009 US Open final he would have won it.
I feel like I'm going to cry each time I'm reminded of this match. A wasted title with no doubt.

Well, if you're talking about the stan match in particular, and this tournament in general I'd say the answer is complete capitulation, and cakewalk draw respectively.

In general the guy obviously works hard, and more importantly has a style of play that is easier on the body, thus easy to keep playing. He's also remained largely injury free for most of his career, and he's also got a terrific serve, which can bail you out of bad situations even if the rest of your game deteriorates.
He was in the AO semifinal as well, and that was not a cakewalk draw.
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
I'm somewhat amazed that Federer at this age still has the know how and skill to keep winning and make it to the semis. I watched part of his match with Stan- just the first set, and was thinking "man this guy's gonna get blown off the court". Yet somehow, he managed to win and take advantage of mistakes stan was making. I think one of the reasons we habitually underestimate Fed compared to say Nadal or Djokovic is that we don't always see what Fed's doing with the ball- what he's trying to accomplish. With Nadal and Djokovic, because their games and tactics are so visible/outright- there is no mystery, and you can see when their tactics are succeeding. With Fed, his game is much more subtle me thinks.
Federer is just a better and more complete tennis player than either Nadal or Djokovic, who are both essentially one-trick ponies. Federer plays tennis the way it's supposed to be played.

Federer tries to hit winners, whereas, both Nadal and Djokovic just try to keep getting the ball back hoping their opponent will eventually hit the ball out or into the net. That's why Federer matches are so much more exciting than Nadal or Djokovic matches.
 

Calvin27

Rookie
Experience.

This guy has had more Grand Slam time than anyone else on tour. Most players can't maintain excellent attacking form for prolonged periods. All Fed has to do is attack the part when they are faltering. Obviously when this doesn't happen he loses. Also he has a lot of variety so can employ a weaker strategy if it means the opponent will be hugely disadvantaged by it.
 

90's Clay

Banned
He hasn't won much in YEARS. :shock:

He just continues to do well on grass courts because quite frankly the men's field on grass sucks and has sucked for the past decade. Fed could probably continue to do well on grass until his late 30s/early 40s if he truly wanted to.

Thats how pathetic and how much of lack of grass court depth and talent there is in the men's game now
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
The guy is the most experienced player on the tour right now. Plus, he has been keeping himself in excellent physical shape. There are players who were capable of playing into their 40s before you know.
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
he isn't really winning but he isn't losing either. He is still quite consistent

You're right. He has been making deep runs in most tournaments, but he hasn't won anything big for YEARS. Sampras's 2001-2002 was bad, but he did win the US Open. I'm not sure which one is better, winning many matches, but not winning any major title or barely winning matches, but win 1 major title.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
You're right. He has been making deep runs in most tournaments, but he hasn't won anything big for YEARS. Sampras's 2001-2002 was bad, but he did win the US Open. I'm not sure which one is better, winning many matches, but not winning any major title or barely winning matches, but win 1 major title.

that's a good question. what would you rather have?
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
that's a good question. what would you rather have?
I think any player, including myself would certainly choose winning a major over winning 100 matches, but not win the tournament. Fed is still playing and competing well, but he just couldn't beat the top guys in deep rounds.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
:confused: How do you know I can't remember such things?

I wasn't talking about you specifically.

I meant in general how it is possible that anyone doesn't remember them.

I was only replying to your post, because I had a feeling you were surprised that another poster did remember it, so I wanted to be clear that it's not surprising to remember such things.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
I wasn't talking about you specifically.

I meant in general how it is possible that anyone doesn't remember them.

I was only replying to your post, because I had a feeling you were surprised that another poster did remember it, so I wanted to be clear that it's not surprising to remember such things.

Oh, I see. I read it as a question to me, not as a rhetorical question....lol, hopefully not. I like to cling onto these sorts of memories, tbh.......:cry:
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
His mental toughness when he's losing/down is better than anyone's, although Djokovic now can walk in the same park.

Nadal usually gives up when a guy gets substantially ahead of him in a match, and Murray just doesn't have the belief.

The issue Federer has is when he gets ahead, as opposed to behind. He takes his foot off the gas when he's up, and he's developed this real dread for serving out matches.

You know Fed used to easily serve out sets against top 10 players in his prime. Against guys who are great returns by definition and it shouldn't have been that easy. Maybe that's more proof of his GOAT-ness. Sure the last 18 months or so have been brutal in that regard, but it's expected to have a decline.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
He hasn't won much in YEARS. :shock:

He just continues to do well on grass courts because quite frankly the men's field on grass sucks and has sucked for the past decade. Fed could probably continue to do well on grass until his late 30s/early 40s if he truly wanted to.

Thats how pathetic and how much of lack of grass court depth and talent there is in the men's game now

How many titles did Sampras win his last 2 years on tour?
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
He cried W03, AO 06, FO 09 as well.

True, but I wanted to highlight those three because losers cried in AO 09, AO 10 and W 12.

I was talking about Murray and Fed both.

But yeah, I remember those three. But the crying wasn't so big. Probably since it were wins and it was different type of crying.

Also, since it's winning, obviously we remember a bit less. We are wired to remember painful experiences more.

I bet we remember more when the boss is mean to us for example rather then all the times he was nice :).
 
Top