Roger answers some of the questions that have been nagging at TTW Fed fans

[abmk]

Yet Rafa didn't play again after that match until 2.5 months later (skipped the entire grass court season) citing tendinitis in both knees.

No offense to Hewitt but by 2009 he was a complete non-factor and playing like any typical unseeded player in the Grand Slams.

Söderling was the first dangerous opponent Nadal faced at RG that year, and he exposed Nadal.

If you look at that match, Söderling played a good match but he didn't need to be extraordinary since Nadal was not up to his typical level.

Federer was always going to win that tournament. That's my opinion anyway.

Sod played extraordinary. Anyone who says otherwise either doesn't have proper observation skills or is being ridiculously biased.
Nadal was just not at his sharpest in that Sod match
But he had GOATed in that Hewitt match, even if Hewitt wasn't good at RG. Nadal had also played a pretty good 2nd round match.
Hewitt made QF of Wim playing well. gave fed a good match at USO ( only narrowly lost to delpo in NA HC tourney prior). So saying he was a complete non-factor by 2009 is inaccurate/

Nadal was fully fit.
He didn't mention one thing in the post match interview and was moving perfectly fine during the match.
He and his camp came up with a bunch full of garbage excuses afterwards.

 

[abmk]

One thing is for sure. There is a lot to be gleaned from what Roger doesn't broach...

Novak has definitely cast a bigger shadow on his mind than he's willing to let on just from the sheer lack of earnest opinions about him.

IMO Roger knows Nadal can be cast as a clay court specialist in thought circles that are sympathetic to him. Novak escapes such easy categorization and therefore, losses to him on hard courts/grass are harder to explain away.

absolutely disagree on the last part with respect to h2h. doesn't mesh with what happened.
fed-nadal simply had far more battles when fed was at his prime due to nadal being an early bloomer.
With djokovic's case, it was more the case of age gap.

I mean Wim 08/AO 09 by Nadal are better wins than any Djoko has over Fed at a slam by far and these are on grass/HC.
throw in RG 05/06/07/11 over good versions of fed.

Really the only slam win Djoko has had over a better than good fed in slams is USO 11,
Max those among 2014 encounters can be said to be good from fed, nothing great. (Wim 14/15/19 and USO 15)

AO 08 - mono fed
AO 11 - past prime fed and didn't play that good

these 2 can be said to be good at best.

RG 12 - past prime on clay, below par fed
AO 16 - below par fed
AO 20 - hampered fed

 

[Federev]

Really interesting straightforward answers from Roger. Picking Wimbledon 2003 as his most important GS title with no hesitation whatsoever is really sweet. I immediately remembered his emotional post-match interview. The way Roger still - almost 20 years and a bizarrely successful career later - has so much appreciation for his first dream win is really sweet. Federer just makes me love him more with every interview.

And for sure, L'Equipe aced this edition. The cover is amazing, the idea with the Q&A and the questions were awesome - great job all around!

Any ideas how to get a hard copy of this edition?

 

[ForehandRF]

3 more questions that could have been asked to him :

01. Who do you think would have ended up as the slams leader if you, Rafa and Novak were born in the same year?
02. Do you regret not changing your racquet in 2009-10 period?
03. How many slams would you, Rafa and Novak have won in the 1990s without Poly Strings?

That would be a total different tennis in the sense that 1981 born Djokodal would evolve in the S&V era and become diferent players (likewise 1986/1987 born Fed would be a different player), not to mention that without Fed's 2004-2007 to make them dig deep and improve, we would be talking about a different evolution as well.The safest to say is that neither of them would have won as many slams.To extrapolate what would have happened based on the current timeline is nonsensical

 

[Omega_7000]

In the end, it's your game more than your record that leaves a mark on the history of tennis.
Yes, I was surprised to see how much people talked about my personality or my game as being what will remain in the sport. I thought everyone was going to jump on the super records, what I did or didn't do, when in fact they didn't. The notion of longevity, the fact of having known the older generation is more important. After 2009, once I managed to break the record of Grand Slam titles, the situation changed. In fact, to a certain extent, I was playing against myself before the others (Nadal and Djokovic) joined me. The next 13 years were different. Like another career.

In 2009, Federer also had more than double the slams as the next active guy on tour. This was the slam count in 2009,
Federer = 15
Nadal = 6
Djokovic = 1

This is what I've been saying as well. Once the records were broken, the motivation dipped and it was a completely different career post 2009. As he said he was only playing against himself then and obviously the motivation will dip significantly as opposed to chasing someone in front of you.

 

[Fedforever]

Any ideas how to get a hard copy of this edition?

If you're in the UK it's on E*ay at about £20. Just type in L'equipe and Federer.

 

[ForehandRF]

In 2009, Federer also had more than double the slams as the next active guy on tour. This was the slam count in 2009,
Federer = 15
Nadal = 6
Djokovic = 1

This is what I've been saying as well. Once the records were broken, the motivation dipped and it was a completely different career post 2009. As he said he was only playing against himself then and obviously the motivation will dip significantly as opposed to chasing someone in front of you.

I think that by the time he won the AO in 2010, he thought that the slam record is safe and then took the foot from the pedal.Maybe he was also busy with parenting as his daughters were only a few months old so he "switched" to different priorities.

 

[Omega_7000]

I think that by the time he won the AO in 2010, he thought that the slam record is safe and the took the foot from the pedal.Maybe he was also busy with parenting as his daughters were only a few months old so he "switched" to different priorities.

Good point and one cannot blame him as well.

 

[catskillthunder]

Great read. Sad to see him go.

 

[T007]

Good interview by Fed but the “I would have won the French open one way or another” BS. LOL. How and when exactly if he didn’t win it in 2009?

Well his haters have very short term memory. 2011 FO he could have won that match if not for that choke in the 1st set.

Federer beat the man who beat Nadal in 2009. He was way better than Nadal in that event.

I still see some Nadal fans argue that Djokovic hasn't beaten a healthy mythical Rafa at French as he was injured in 2015 and 21. So this denial has stop that no one can beat rafa.

Who guessed Federer would spank Nadal in 2017 (4-0) but it happened.

 

[T007]

Most fans seem to think Fed was this unstoppable player when younger but anyone that watched tennis then knew he was a super talent kid lacking consistency, mental and championship experience and didn’t put it all together til late 21/22 years old.

Most unbiased fans who have watched 2005-16 would say Federer was unlucky to not have berrettini,Rudd,Medvedev,Tsitsipas as his opponents in the slam SFs or Final since 2010-16. Some are lucky enough to have them.

 

[MugOpponent]

Good interview by Fed but the “I would have won the French open one way or another” BS. LOL. How and when exactly if he didn’t win it in 2009?

Although I can see the logic behind say it's BS, I actually agree with Federer that he'd find a way. Great athletes tend to find ways when opportunities once thought out of reach become in play. Look at Djokovic winning a second Roland Garros. Nobody really though it'd happen. He really wasn't that great outside of one match but it happened. No doubt it was deserved because of the quality of his RG career. Same thing for Nadal at Australia in 2022. Nobody really thought it could happen but the stars kind of aligned and Rafa certainly deserved another AO based on his caliber and quality of play there over the years. Same applies to Roger. He's simply too great of a player for it not to happen.

 

[Sookas27]

I wish they asked about Nike/Uniqlo deal. Would be interesting to hear what was the real reason.

 

[ChrisRF]

Although I can see the logic behind say it's BS, I actually agree with Federer that he'd find a way. Great athletes tend to find ways when opportunities once thought out of reach become in play. Look at Djokovic winning a second Roland Garros. Nobody really though it'd happen. He really wasn't that great outside of one match but it happened. No doubt it was deserved because of the quality of his RG career. Same thing for Nadal at Australia in 2022. Nobody really thought it could happen but the stars kind of aligned and Rafa certainly deserved another AO based on his caliber and quality of play there over the years. Same applies to Roger. He's simply too great of a player for it not to happen.

But on a closer look what you say here isn't only positive. You say Federer would have won a later French Open if not in 2009. So then the question would be, why didn't he still win ANOTHER then? Didn't he try as much as if he wouldn't have won in 2009? I can't really believe that, because it was always about the Slam race, about winning as many Slams as possible. Just like he chased for more titles at the other 3 Slams he also tried at the French.

So I'm not convinced what you said is true, and in some ways I even hope it's not, because as I said, then he wouldn't have tried enough later. However, I always thought he deserved the RG title, because he was great on clay and in his best years only clay GOAT Rafa was his obstacle. I think he would have won as many RGs as Borg if they switched eras. And 2009 was essentially the year in which "the stars aligned", so Federer won the title despite that year he was actually far away from playing his best RG.