Will Roger Federer recover mentally when he lost in the Wimbledon final 2019 against Novak Djokovic?

ForehandRF

Professional
I doubt you have a response for my previous post because you know it's true.

Fedfans constantly criticize RF's play. This is a fact.
Saying for example that Federer is not as good as x years ago is not criticism, it's just common sense.The real critics are the trolls and haters from the rival fanbases who always look for reasons to diminish what he has achieved in his career.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Saying for example that Federer is not as good as x years ago is not criticism, it's just common sense.The real critics are the trolls and haters from the rival fanbases who always looks for reasons to diminish what he has achieved in his career.
It is much worse than criticism, it is disrespectful when considering that Federer said this:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
It's easier to be cocky rather than saying something good, isn't it ? ;)
Nothing cocky about that remark, Forehand because let me remind you I don't get a single dollar from anything Djokovic wins. Federer is the 2nd best grass court player in the world behind Djokovic, so nobody is going to stop him until he gets to the final.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
2013 was insane difficulty wise.
Peak Stan at AO. Decent Murray/Berdych
Prime Nadal at RG
Prime Del Potro and Murray back to back
Prime Wawrinka and a Prime Nadal.
You cannot expect tougher than that lol.
Agreed, but I was talking about 2013-2015 as a whole rather than just 2013.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Saying for example that Federer is not as good as x years ago is not criticism, it's just common sense.The real critics are the trolls and haters from the rival fanbases who always look for reasons to diminish what he has achieved in his career.
You don't consider many Fedfans' criticism to be excessive?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
It is much worse than criticism, it is disrespectful when considering that Federer said this:

“I think I’m a better player now than when I was at 24 because I’ve practiced for another 10 years and I’ve got 10 years more experience,” Federer said. “Maybe I don’t have the confidence level that I had at 24 when I was winning 40 matches in a row, but I feel like I hit a bigger serve, my backhand is better, my forehand is still as good as it’s ever been, I volley better than I have in the past. I think I’ve had to adapt to a new generation of players again.” (August, 2015)


Question:

In 2003 you won your first title in Dubai. How much chances would the Federer of 2003 have against the Federer of today?

Answer from Federer:

Not many chances I believe. The game has extremely changed. It is more dynamic, faster and has become somewhat ruthless. The players are more athletic and the material makes the game faster. I myself have become better. In fact, I had to become better because I had new opponents and new challenges. Tennis on this level doesn’t allow you stagnancy. (March, 2019)
Come on ABCD, what's wrong with you? Quoting Fed's words like they matter. You should instead be scouring this forum for gems of insight on his current playing level, prime level, and peak level. Note how the dates for these landmarks keep moving further and further back. No reason for that I'm sure...
 

ForehandRF

Professional
You don't consider many Fedfans' criticism to be excessive?
If you are referring at the Wimbledon final, that is nothing compared with countless of troll threads started by the other fanbases in that period.I mean, maybe some of his own fans have been too harsh on him at that point but that is because they realized that he was so close to make history, silence the critics and it was probably his last chance to win a slam.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
If you are referring at the Wimbledon final, that is nothing compared with countless of troll threads started by the other fanbases in that period.I mean, maybe some of his own fans have been too harsh on him at that point but that is because they realized that he was so close to make history, silence the critics and it was probably his last chance to win a slam.
Absolutely not!

His fanbase has been putting him down since at least 2011.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
That's maybe true if it's personal things that people don't know about. But his matches are available for all to see and analyse. There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with his analysis.
That's not entirely correct. Only the player can tell you how he feels. You can tell to a certain degree by looking but you can't get it 100% correct. If anyone can analyze 100%, coaches should be able to make their wards unbeatable.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
That's maybe true if it's personal things that people don't know about. But his matches are available for all to see and analyse. There's nothing disrespectful about disagreeing with his analysis.
In tennis there is element of your performance and element of your opponents performance. These two elements together determine your inside feeling during the game. A fan can see performance and outcome of performance, but does not have inner feeling of the player. Player is the only one who knows what he feels, what is his level, what is the opponents level. The player can accurately tell you his best and probably opponents that played him over the years. I heard Djokovic with my own ears when he said in 2018 that the best hard court version of Federer he ever played was USO2015.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
In tennis there is element of your performance and element of your opponents performance. These two elements together determine your inside feeling during the game. A fan can see performance and outcome of performance, but does not have inner feeling of the player. Player is the only one who knows what he feels, what is his level, what is the opponents level. The player can accurately tell you his best and probably opponents that played him over the years. I heard Djokovic with my own ears when he said in 2018 that the best hard court version of Federer he ever played was USO2015.
It’s okay if you think that. But isn’t the idea of a tennis forum to get into discussions with people instead of repeating the same stuff.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
That's not entirely correct. Only the player can tell you how he feels. You can tell to a certain degree by looking but you can't get it 100% correct. If anyone can analyze 100%, coaches should be able to make their wards unbeatable.
What does it matter how he feels? It's completely irrelevant. People have irrational feelings all the time. Even people that a good at what they do.

And interesting that you bring up coaches. Because that argument also works against what you are trying to argue. If professional tennis players are the best at judging their own game then why do any of them have coaches?
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
What does it matter how he feels? It's completely irrelevant. People have irrational feelings all the time. Even people that a good at what they do.

And interesting that you bring up coaches. Because that argument also works against what you are trying to argue. If professional tennis players are the best at judging their own game then why do any of them have coaches?
Do you think that you should tell Federer when was his best? Do you think that your assessment of his play is better than his? Do you think that he can't judge whether he played better in his win against Baghdatis in AO final or in his loss against Djokovic 2019W.
 
Rafa vulturing slams at USO and RF at AO and Wimby... It's happened before.

Makes Novak seem very GOATish.

When the cat's away... When the GOAT's away...
Novak Djokovic ain't no GOAT mate. He was lucky to win this year's Wimbledon, being two match points down against a man about to turn 38. Were he the GOAT, he would've beaten such a man in straights.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
In tennis, as long as your body allows it you can improve and become a better player but when you start to decline physically, it doesn't matter how much experience you accumulate or improve some of the shots at an one point, you can't compensate the decline and if you do it it's just temporary.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Do you think that you should tell Federer when was his best? Do you think that your assessment of his play is better than his? Do you think that he can't judge whether he played better in his win against Baghdatis in AO final or in his loss against Djokovic 2019W.
No, why should I tell him that I disagree with him (and how would I even)? My reasoning for believing that he isn't as good is mostly based on data not feelings. I can't use the eye test because what I remember as an high/low level might not have been (same goes for Federer btw). Highlights can't be used either because they don't show the low levels in a match. So in the end I rely mostly on data and logic. Whether that's more valid or not can be debated but dismissing my assessment with "because Federer said so" and even calling it disrespectful is quite frankly ridiculous.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
No, why should I tell him that I disagree with him (and how would I even)? My reasoning for believing that he isn't as good is mostly based on data not feelings. I can't use the eye test because what I remember as an high/low level might not have been (same goes for Federer btw). Highlights can't be used either because they don't show the low levels in a match. So in the end I rely mostly on data and logic. Whether that's more valid or not can be debated but dismissing my assessment with "because Federer said so" and even calling it disrespectful is quite frankly ridiculous.
How would you compare Federer level of 2005 and 2015 using data?
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
How would you compare Federer level of 2005 and 2015 using data?
Here's how:

2005 - Great stats v Roddick
2015 - Great stats v Novak
Clearly a very similar level of play required to perform against very comparable opponents.

Feel free to fill in the details @Lew II
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
How would you compare Federer level of 2005 and 2015 using data?
Winning percentage? Exclude the other members of the Big 3 so the tougher competition is taken out of the picture thus reducing the chance of people screaming weak era.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Winning percentage? Exclude the other members of the Big 3 so the tougher competition is taken out of the picture thus reducing the chance of people screaming weak era.
For this to be suitable you need to have accurate assessment of the whole field. If not, this would be like comparing Fulham's results in Championship and Premiership. You are looking for absolute level of performance, not for level of performance in relation to the field. Only person trying to address this issue on the forum is Lew II. However, there are some elements that you can compare that are less dependent from the opponent. Speed of serves and accuracy of serves placements. Even that is tricky as it also depends on who is your returner. ELO?
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Novak Djokovic ain't no GOAT mate. He was lucky to win this year's Wimbledon, being two match points down against a man about to turn 38. Were he the GOAT, he would've beaten such a man in straights.
Novak beat one of the best ever grass player while being only at 80%, by his own admission after the match.

Saving 2 match points and numerous break points in the last set, after +5 hours of play.

Anyone else playing at 80% would have lost.

Rafa was petrified in the semis.

Novak's in Fed's head, while Fed's in anyone's else. That by itself qualifies him as a GOAT.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Novak Djokovic ain't no GOAT mate. He was lucky to win this year's Wimbledon, being two match points down against a man about to turn 38. Were he the GOAT, he would've beaten such a man in straights.
He did beat Fed in straights: 3 straight Wimbledon finals ;)
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Novak beat one of the best ever grass player while being only at 80%, by his own admission after the match.

Saving 2 match points and numerous break points in the last set, after +5 hours of play.

Anyone else playing at 80% would have lost.

Rafa was petrified in the semis.

Novak's in Fed's head, while Fed's in anyone's else. That by itself qualifies him as a GOAT.
Djokovic really said he was at 80%? Seriously? Think about that for one second. If true then that's just an example of why their feelings shouldn't be used to judge their level. If he truly played at 80% then all his numbers should be down by 20%. Which is ridiculous because he definitely would have lost then. He'd have lost to anybody ranked inside 200 if not higher. The margins are not that high on this level that you can play at 80% and yet win a slam final...
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
For this to be suitable you need to have accurate assessment of the whole field. If not, this would be like comparing Fulham's results in Championship and Premiership. You are looking for absolute level of performance, not for level of performance in relation to the field. Only person trying to address this issue on the forum is Lew II. However, there are some elements that you can compare that are less dependent from the opponent. Speed of serves and accuracy of serves placements. Even that is tricky as it also depends on who is your returner. ELO?
Well that's where I apply logic as best as I can. If his winning percentage is lower these days then one of two things can have happened. The field consisting of hundreds of players improved (and improved to such an extent that they out paced Federer's own improvements because as you claim his level is higher now) or Federer declined. Which one of these scenarios seem most plausible to you?
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Djokovic really said he was at 80%? Seriously? Think about that for one second. If true then that's just an example of why their feelings shouldn't be used to judge their level. If he truly played at 80% then all his numbers should be down by 20%. Which is ridiculous because he definitely would have lost then. He'd have lost to anybody ranked inside 200 if not higher. The margins are not that high on this level that you can play at 80% and yet win a slam final...
Straight from the horse's mouth at the trophy presentation: "I was hoping to be able to reach the tie-breaks".
Then in the press conference, he clearly stated he had 20% more to give and that wasn't his best performance because of this fact.

We understood precisely what he meant in the fall.
It wasn't empty talk.

Fed lost to a diminished player.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Well that's where I apply logic as best as I can. If his winning percentage is lower these days then one of two things can have happened. The field consisting of hundreds of players improved (and improved to such an extent that they out paced Federer's own improvements because as you claim his level is higher now) or Federer declined. Which one of these scenarios seem most plausible to you?
You are right, these are 2 major possibilities. In my opinion competition significantly improved and although Federer plays better his results are worse. This is what I believe to be the case. That Federer plays better I believe based on his statements and my personal assessment. However, this needs to be proved as hypothesis that Federer declined needs to be proved as well. So the main issue is how to asses the field. The only system I know that compares players of different eras is ELO system.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Feels like this isn't the first time people think he might have played his last Slam final. :D After how he played this year's Wimbledon, I wouldn't rule him out yet.
Federer this time is done, IMO. Even if he wins a slam AO 2018 style, it still won't feel the same as, in this case, he will not have proven anything wrong.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
If he recovered mentally from Wimbledon 2008 and Australia 2009 then he can recover mentally from this. The difference is that now he probably can't rely on his body to be there to back him up when that happens.
This loss is much tougher than Wimb 2008 and AO 2009.
 

Marfrilau

Rookie
Straight from the horse's mouth at the trophy presentation: "I was hoping to be able to reach the tie-breaks".
Then in the press conference, he clearly stated he had 20% more to give and that wasn't his best performance because of this fact.

We understood precisely what he meant in the fall.
It wasn't empty talk.

Fed lost to a diminished player.
Diminished sure but not by anything close to 20%. Think about it. His game would have to decline by 20% in all areas. 20% less speed on serve and shots. It's exaggeration.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
IMO, he won't.

But, even if he does, it won't make a single difference.

The guy is done. And an AO 2018-like slam won't change that.
 
Top