Why is Federer so hard to put away?

#1
Technically, what is it that keeps up in the game long after he is physically wrecked?

The defensive slices? The drop shots?
There were a lot of loopy shots againt Coric today, like I've rarely seen him play.
 
#4
Technically, what is it that keeps up in the game long after he is physically wrecked?

The defensive slices? The drop shots?
There were a lot of loopy shots againt Coric today, like I've rarely seen him play.
Because he’s literally good or great at everything on the tennis court. It’s the same reason why he’s so difficult to thoroughly defeat.

He was outplayed today. This is the most he’s ever been outplayed and still won a match. Evens up a little for all the matches in which HE was the better player, won more points, won the dominance ratio and still lost the match.
 
#5
He's a significantly better player than Coric, even at his current age. The better question would be 'how did Coric get so close to putting Federer away'? And the answer is largely down to physical exhaustion on Fed's part
That's correct for the Coric match, but OP was speaking generally. Federer does have a ton of excellent comebacks and from the most unlikely places as well.
 
#6
Because he’s literally good or great at everything on the tennis court. It’s the same reason why he’s so difficult to thoroughly defeat.

He was outplayed today. This is the most he’s ever been outplayed and still won a match. Evens up a little for all the matches in which HE was the better player, won more points, won the dominance ratio and still lost the match.
Exactly. Even if he is thoroughly outplayed in one department, he still has many, many more limbs to stand on. You have to completely outplay him in all departments (or wait for him to slump in all departments) to record a comprehensive win against him. Best example I can think of would be that French Open final in 2008.
 
#12
Fed is physically wrecked.
"Physically wrecked?" :-D He's #3 in the world at almost 38. Has never retired from a match in his 21 years on tour. When he called an MTO today, Ted Robinson said, "Roger has never abused this feature of the tour, unlike his rivals. It's literally shocking for me a trainer is out there on court for Roger Federer."

Yeah... "physically wrecked." :unsure:
 
#14
"Physically wrecked?" :-D He's #3 in the world at almost 38. Has never retired from a match in his 21 years on tour. When he called an MTO today, Ted Robinson said, "Roger has never abused this feature of the tour, unlike his rivals. It's literally shocking for me a trainer is out there on court for Roger Federer."
How does that contradict the fact that he was so worn out in that tie-breaker that he stopped attacking on the last 5 points or so?
The guy was grunting at Nadal levels.
 
#22
I once heard a player say that the hardest thing about playing Federer is that if you find a winning strategy, he completely changes what he's doing and you have to work out how to beat him all over again.

It must be very hard to play someone who can move so seamlessly from defensive baselining, to offensive baselining, to servebotting, to S&V, to chip & charge, to junkballing. Makes it very difficult to target his weaknesses with your strengths (which is really the way you win tennis matches).
 
#23
How does that contradict the fact that he was so worn out in that tie-breaker that he stopped attacking on the last 5 points or so?
The guy was grunting at Nadal levels.
And won the match when he's 5 years older than Nadal and on his weakest surface. So yes, the fact he won a 2.5 match over a guy 15 years his junior contradicts the fact he was physically wrecked. Oh--- and it was his second match of the day as well.
 
#25
I once heard a player say that the hardest thing about playing Federer is that if you find a winning strategy, he completely changes what he's doing and you have to work out how to beat him all over again.

It must be very hard to play someone who can move so seamlessly from defensive baselining, to offensive baselining, to servebotting, to S&V, to chip & charge, to junkballing. Makes it very difficult to target his weaknesses with your strengths (which is really the way you win tennis matches).
This is why he's the GOAT.
 
#29
At this caliber of tennis, it comes down to the small things and one huge thing was his mentality and belief. He encountered many of these situations before, and Coric simply did not maintain his belief.

Talent of course but if we're talking about how Coric didn't win the third set being up tie break 6-4 I believe, then it was all mental fortitude.
 
#30
Because all players today only know to play ball-bashing from the back of the court.

They are allergic to the net, and if the other guy stands to their ball-bashing, they are out of sorts.

Think to it: 20 years ago there were still many serve and volley guys who knew their way from any place on the court: nowadays everyone is molded to be a robot from the service line.

To beat Fed you need to vary the length of your shots, don't give him any rhythm from the back, and keep him guessing. It's impossible to do if you just want to play one way.

He knows what's coming and he anticipates, always being one step ahead of you. He plays with his wrist, deflecting and chipping the power you send at him, feeding from it.

Nalbandian beat him so many times because he knew how to mix power with touch and drop shots.

Rafa, Novak and sometimes Murray were just a bit better from the back but still got dominated when they weren't on their A-game, because them too are/were allergic to the net and only learned to win strictly from the back.

Playing the net isn't that difficult, but you need to practice it from the start, and modern trainers just don't teach it anymore.

Stakhovski isn't known to be a wonder serve and volley player, but he dared to change his strategy after being beaten earlier by Fed and easily straight-setted him at W.

As i said, modern players are stuck into an one-dimensional style of play and refuse to learn the subtleties of the game, and that often makes for dreadful watching. Players like Fed knowing to anticipate will always gobble them up.
 
Last edited:

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#33
He's a significantly better player than Coric, even at his current age. The better question would be 'how did Coric get so close to putting Federer away'? And the answer is largely down to physical exhaustion on Fed's part
Federer is not better than Coric on clay. Coric won like 12 points more yesterday despite Federer serving more.

The simple answer to the question is

serve+1
slice
racket head skills (this accounts for slice, 1st serve return, reflexes, volleys, etc)

His court coverage is crap, but because his racket head control is the best in the game ever he can still hit good shots despite barely getting to a ball.
 
Last edited:
#34
Federer is not better than Coric on clay. Coric won like 12 points more yesterday despite Federer serving more.

The simple answer to the question is

serve+1
slice
racket head skills (this accounts for slice, 1st serve return, reflexes, volleys, etc)

His court coverage is crap, but because his racket head control is the best in the game ever he can still hit good shots despite barely getting to a ball.
You need to count in Boric's luck factor. Only match of the day while it was Fraud's second.
 
#35
Federer plays the same way in tight situations whereas players like Coric get nervous and stop playing as well. The reason that it works so often is that people need to play very well to beat Federer most of the time and it is often still tight so a small lapse can make a big difference.
 
#36
His court coverage is crap, but because his racket head control is the best in the game ever he can still hit good shots despite barely getting to a ball.
Wrong: his court coverage is only as good as it needs to be because his wrist play allows him to feed off his oponnent's pace without the need for him to generate any additional one.

That's been his bread and butter for the last 12 years.
 
#40
Federer is not better than Coric on clay. Coric won like 12 points more yesterday despite Federer serving more.

The simple answer to the question is

serve+1
slice
racket head skills (this accounts for slice, 1st serve return, reflexes, volleys, etc)

His court coverage is crap, but because his racket head control is the best in the game ever he can still hit good shots despite barely getting to a ball.
He's better in general, very clearly. He's won a masters this year; Coric hasn't. It's difficult to assess clay as Fed's sample size is so small. Coric made the QF of MC and 1R in Madrid. Fed made QF of Madrid and now Rome. Coric was better for most of yesterday but not overall. I guess that's what happens when you have to play 2 matches in one day
 
#43
He played badly in the first set when the light was tricky but noticeably improved as the light evened out. At his age the rest of the body is still working well due to training and conditioning but I suspect he has a harder time picking the ball out in bad light conditions due to deteriorating visual actuity. Happens to everyone as they age even hyper elite athletes.
 
#46
Because he’s literally good or great at everything on the tennis court. It’s the same reason why he’s so difficult to thoroughly defeat.

He was outplayed today. This is the most he’s ever been outplayed and still won a match. Evens up a little for all the matches in which HE was the better player, won more points, won the dominance ratio and still lost the match.
So true. Today Coric should take some pride in the fact that he got the Federer treatment. Winning a dozen more points and still finding a way to lose? That's classic Roger. Since Federer leads the tour (if that's the right word) in "Simpson's Paradox matches," losing a match against him while also winning more points is a special feat indeed.**

Just the other day, Borna posted a photo on social media of himself looking intently through a microscope with a self-deprecating caption about how he was trying to uncover a breakpoint, lamenting a rather lackluster 1-in-13 conversion rate. Whom does that remind you of?

With numbers like these, why call Dimitrov Baby Fed? Borna could be Roger's true 20-slam heir.

** I do wonder if you're right this is the lowest percentage of points won where he also managed to take the match. A story from five years ago about the "Simpson's Paradox" cites a 4-24 record. I'd imagine in that time that 24 has grown quite a bit (seems like he's suffered quite a few such losses the past few years) but the four has remained static or not grown by much. Any of you stat freaks have any more updates or insight on that factor?
 
#47
He played badly in the first set when the light was tricky but noticeably improved as the light evened out. At his age the rest of the body is still working well due to training and conditioning but I suspect he has a harder time picking the ball out in bad light conditions due to deteriorating visual actuity. Happens to everyone as they age even hyper elite athletes.
Acuity isn't as important as motion detection and peripheral vision, both of which are natural talents that deteriorate much more slowly.

It's not like you need to read the text on the ball :p
 
#48
Didn't see he fought off 2 MPs. Wow!

I have been calling him "Revengerer" this year as he has been settling scores with a lot of players who beat him recently, I believe this is his second win over Coric since Halle. He obviously took that loss personally.

Can he get revenge on Tsits for AO? My money is on yes.
 
Top