What happened to Federer between 2001 and 2003?

sandy mayer

Semi-Pro
Federer's victory over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 is often called a changing of the guard. But it wasn't really because Federer didn't win a slam until 2 years later. In fact he didn't even reach a slam semi in that 2 year period. Given Federer's genius and superiority over Hewitt from 2003 onwards, how come Hewitt was the better player in 2001-2002? What held back Federer for 2 years?
 

Kralingen

Bionic Poster
I don’t know enough to give a detailed answer but he was a bit of a headcase apparently. It’s likely that he didn’t have the mental game to play the stylish attacking tennis he was used to for 3 hours. I also think he wasn’t much of a driven or professional guy at that point either, a few articles from that time reference that he didn’t train very hard or diet/exercise like a pro.

Look at this for example: seems like a completely different person to the one we know.
 
D

Deleted member 780630

Guest
Wasn't mentally or physically ready yet. The shotmaking and talent and racket skills were always there, but he didn't have the physical tools or the focus and game plan to consistently put it to good use over seven BO5 matches. Also needed some time to adjust to the racket and string change in 2002, which is why he was so bad in the last three slams that year.
 

BGod

G.O.A.T.
I remember this well because I became an insta-fan after the Sampras loss since I was a huge Agassi fan.

Fed was massively inconsistent. He skipped the USO warm-ups and lost in the R16 to Agassi in straights and I mean in beatdown fashion. So a bit of a flash in the pan that season really. Then in 02 he was expected to improve but fell back, in particular lost to Haas at AO after up 2-1 and REALLY winnable if not full choker that match although on paper looks like a grind, then the back to back opening round losses at his breakthrough Slams FO-WMB before Mirnyi at the USO again in R16. I didn't watch Madrid which he won but he lost to Agassi at Miami handedly and lost both opening round matches for the USO warm up. He did well at WTF but I didn't watch. Then with 03 he loses AO to Nalbandian in 5 where every set was not really competitive just having 1 guy run through the other, loses to Costa at Miami in a tight one which I only saw highlights but given how Agassi crushed him I wouldn't have expected Roger to do great. Wimbledon happens and then Roddick avenges his loss by beating Roger in Canada which is a match I watched and enjoyed.

He lost to Nalbandian in 4 sets at the USO that year but won the WTF although Roddick finished YE.

Not enough is made about the 2004 AO as his consolidation run. If he lost to Nalbandian (highly plausible) or even Hewitt (somewhat plausible) who the hell knows how well he does rest of the year and into 05.
 

Jonesy

Legend
It doesn't exist in the book of Fedfam. The first and only match he played before his first slam win was the Sampras Wimbledon match, which he won.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
Federer's victory over Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 is often called a changing of the guard. But it wasn't really because Federer didn't win a slam until 2 years later. In fact he didn't even reach a slam semi in that 2 year period. Given Federer's genius and superiority over Hewitt from 2003 onwards, how come Hewitt was the better player in 2001-2002? What held back Federer for 2 years?
He was busy doing his Marat Safin impression
 

SonnyT

Legend
Borg, Becker and Nadal are actually more the exceptions, winning in their teenage years. Two of them are heavy topspin players, they seem to mature earlier. Once the B3 era is history, we'll see a teenage Slams winner again.

Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Djokovic are more the norm, winning first Slams in their early 20's. Both Sampras and Federer won their first Slam at 22.
 
D

Deleted member 771911

Guest
Just developmental issues. That's vague I know, but he was still a work in progress and tbh he was always quite immature for his age mentally.
However, when he did get it together, the trajectory was sharp and consistent. No one has had a better sustained peak/prime. 2004-2007 was epic.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
Borg, Becker and Nadal are actually more the exceptions, winning in their teenage years. Two of them are heavy topspin players, they seem to mature earlier. Once the B3 era is history, we'll see a teenage Slams winner again.

Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Djokovic are more the norm, winning first Slams in their early 20's. Both Sampras and Federer won their first Slam at 22.

Sampras was 19 (USO 1990).
 

ark_28

Legend
Borg, Becker and Nadal are actually more the exceptions, winning in their teenage years. Two of them are heavy topspin players, they seem to mature earlier. Once the B3 era is history, we'll see a teenage Slams winner again.

Sampras, Agassi, Federer and Djokovic are more the norm, winning first Slams in their early 20's. Both Sampras and Federer won their first Slam at 22.
Pete won his first slam at 19 (US Open in 1990)
 
Top