Federer - is it the mind or the body?

One or both is not working as it should anymore. Last four slams:

FO. Goes 5-2 up in the first set but loses that set and eventually loses in 4.

W. Goes 2 sets up and loses in 5.

US. Goes 2 sets up and loses in 5 (after two match points on serve).

AO. Wins first set but loses in 4. Fails to hold any break advantage outside of tie break.

His career proves him to be a player of brilliance but he no longer seems capable of holding on to a lead. So what is letting him down now - the mind or the body? Or both?

Both.

HM Murdoch wrote:One or both is not working as it should anymore. Last four slams:

FO. Goes 5-2 up in the first set but loses that set and eventually loses in 4.

W. Goes 2 sets up and loses in 5.

US. Goes 2 sets up and loses in 5 (after two match points on serve).

AO. Wins first set but loses in 4. Fails to hold any break advantage outside of tie break.

His career proves him to be a player of brilliance but he no longer seems capable of holding on to a lead. So what is letting him down now - the mind or the body? Or both?

He went 2 sets down and lost in 5 at Wimbledon. Actually, that match was the reverse of what you're implying.

It's match-up, the change in the game and a bit of what happens to a person when they spend a long time untouchable, they don't develop the "Hewitt" thing.

EDIT: oh you're taking about Tsonga. That was injury inho.

emancipator wrote:Both.

The body can't be helped - time catches everyone up eventually. But the failure of the mind is so frustrating.

Hewitt proved this week that even with a totally ravaged body, sheer mental resilience can do damage. Even now, Federer has physical gifts that many can only dream of. But the mind stops him using them fully.

Mind mainly.

However a point i made years ago on the beeb board was that for Federer to play well, so many parts of his game have to function together to give him points and the result he wants. As you age you inevitably lose the ability to be super consistent all the time and so now we see a more sporadic Fed. I wrote about his longevity being a question when his was in his prime and to be honest i think to still be winning slams around 30, he has done extremely well. Compared to Agassi say who relied more on near-stationary hitting and grinding the opponents game, Feds has a game far more susceptible to errors and we see them now at crunch moments in matches. His serve also doesn't seem to win him as many cheap points as it used to.

He also went several years unchallenged and mentally never got pushed when he was younger (people used to crumble when he was 2-0 up) I don't think he is anywhere near say Nadal or even Djoko in terms of mental toughness when facing tough match situations, purely because his early career was not punctuated by them. This is unlike nearly everybody who had to develop while Fed was on top. Therefore i think that now, near the end of his career, asking for mental resilience development to a step too far.

The last thing is tho, even at age 34 if Fed could hold form for two weeks unexpectedly, he would probably still be capable of a slam dependant on who he runs into. If he carries on, many a commentator will be applauding the odd shot here and there by and older Fed that reminds them of the good old days.

Federer's physical conditioning entering this tournament was as good as it's ever been and I thought he played the best tennis along with Murray heading to the semis.

Rafa simply unnerves him and his decision making and timing suffers. His opponent who doesn't give an inch also deserves massive credit.

The cost of being an eccentric genius is that such loses of mental faculties are quicker in some cases.

As Tenez argues, 'talent' pays this price.

Sometimes, 'less' talent, and more application will produce better results.

It is still a joy to watch Federer play, though.

If Federer is the 'eccentric' genius, then Nadal is the 'perspiring' genius.

Good match, but not a classic, IMVHO.

Of course it's energy only. We shoudl all know that by now.

Don't you all see the difference in Nadal's weight of shots and running compared to November in London?

It's not at all in the mind. Federer with his genius makes it look it's close but it's psychology draining knowing you cannot afford mistakes cause your opponent plays with so much margins that you can only give him points unless you hit the perfect shot every time.

Can you imagine having to play someone where you need to hit the lines otherwise you are in for a tough run right and left which will take out your edge further? That very edge that made Federer 10 times better in the first few games but which cannot last after having ran a couple of 100m.


At our club level we have all been in similar situations...but Nadal is pushing it to absurd dimensions physically.

Djoko or Murray will not go for winners. They will rally and tire him down. The match will be won by the last one standing..like at the USO.



It woudl be ridiculous to risk winners on those conds.

Hopefully Murray and Djoko will be one sided one way or another so they can arrive fresh on court.

Psychologically draining... yes, in the mind in other words.

A traumatic match to watch for Roger fans - shanking and unforced forehand errors stewn all over the place against a beatable opponent.

Credit to Rafa for another great defensive performance.

Bjorn Borg Retired early because he didn't want to hang around and get humiliated by McEnroe constantly. This is happening to Federer with Nadal.

Jarvik wrote:Psychologically draining... yes, in the mind in other words.

A traumatic match to watch for Roger fans - shanking and unforced forehand errors stewn all over the place against a beatable opponent.

Credit to Rafa for another great defensive performance.

No, it's not traumatic anymore. We know the real Rafa woudl get bagelled. Federer knows that too. He knows there are 2 Rafas. The normal one...and the "slam-fit". Federer is teh same player all year long.

Tenez wrote:Of course it's energy only. We shoudl all know that by now.

Don't you all see the difference in Nadal's weight of shots and running compared to November in London?

It's not at all in the mind. Federer with his genius makes it look it's close but it's psychology draining knowing you cannot afford mistakes cause your opponent plays with so much margins that you can only give him points unless you hit the perfect shot every time.

Can you imagine having to play someone where you need to hit the lines otherwise you are in for a tough run right and left which will take out your edge further? That very edge that made Federer 10 times better in the first few games but which cannot last after having ran a couple of 100m.


At our club level we have all been in similar situations...but Nadal is pushing it to absurd dimensions physically.

On ESPN, there was a statistic, which stated that Nadal had run 208 miles, while Federer had run 205 miles, till the end of the third set, IIRC. I will try and find a video link.

How do you explain the DFs? Pressure again?

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day16/1602ms.html

W/UEs - Federer 46/63, Nadal 36/34.

Federer's FH and BH misses were rather strange. If he cannot sustain a match past 4-1 first set, against one player compared to another 127, what does it tell you?

I think it's both but more mental. Physical did not cause him to throw 2 double faults in a row when in most other matches in this tourny he had about 2 the entire match.

I think Tenez and I will have to politely agree to disagree on this though.

Tenez wrote:Of course it's energy only. We shoudl all know that by now.

Don't you all see the difference in Nadal's weight of shots and running compared to November in London?

It's not at all in the mind. Federer with his genius makes it look it's close but it's psychology draining knowing you cannot afford mistakes cause your opponent plays with so much margins that you can only give him points unless you hit the perfect shot every time.

Can you imagine having to play someone where you need to hit the lines otherwise you are in for a tough run right and left which will take out your edge further? That very edge that made Federer 10 times better in the first few games but which cannot last after having ran a couple of 100m.


At our club level we have all been in similar situations...but Nadal is pushing it to absurd dimensions physically.

lol.....just listen to yourself, Tenez

If somehow it could be proven that Rafa was doping I would admit Tenez has been right all along. But it's just suspicion. Someone has to find the evidence. I would give Rafa the benefit of the doubt. The curcumstancial evidence against him is weak.

W/UEs - Federer 46/63
___________________

Thanks LaverFan, and that's how it felt. When he's playing well it's much more even. Look at last year's semis in the FO, US and OZ against Djokovic, he was closer to 50/50 in all I believe.

At the WTF he actually had more Ws then UEs by a fair amount, that was impressive.

46/63 is never going to be good enough against Nadal or Djokovic.

Djokovic would have beaten today too.

Tenez wrote:

Jarvik wrote:Psychologically draining... yes, in the mind in other words.

A traumatic match to watch for Roger fans - shanking and unforced forehand errors stewn all over the place against a beatable opponent.

Credit to Rafa for another great defensive performance.

No, it's not traumatic anymore. We know the real Rafa woudl get bagelled. Federer knows that too. He knows there are 2 Rafas. The normal one...and the "slam-fit". Federer is teh same player all year long.

Ok, seriously. Someone needs his meds.

On ESPN, there was a statistic, which stated that Nadal had run 208 miles, while Federer had run 205 miles, till the end of the third set, IIRC. I will try and find a video link.
____________________________

208 miles in one match or in their whole rivalry? Can't you see immediately that that's way off? If they ran non stopp at a decent jog it would take them 4 hours to run a marathaon distance of 26 miles. On a tennis court in 4 hours, it's stops and starts and you would probably run about 2-12 miles in 4 hours I would guess.

Henman Bill wrote:On ESPN, there was a statistic, which stated that Nadal had run 208 miles, while Federer had run 205 miles, till the end of the third set, IIRC. I will try and find a video link.
____________________________

208 miles in one match or in their whole rivalry? Can't you see immediately that that's way off? If they ran non stopp at a decent jog it would take them 4 hours to run a marathaon distance of 26 miles. On a tennis court in 4 hours, it's stops and starts and you would probably run about 2-12 miles in 4 hours I would guess.

Crikey Laverfan, you're taking Tenez's arguement to an extreme

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:Of course it's energy only. We shoudl all know that by now.

Don't you all see the difference in Nadal's weight of shots and running compared to November in London?

It's not at all in the mind. Federer with his genius makes it look it's close but it's psychology draining knowing you cannot afford mistakes cause your opponent plays with so much margins that you can only give him points unless you hit the perfect shot every time.

Can you imagine having to play someone where you need to hit the lines otherwise you are in for a tough run right and left which will take out your edge further? That very edge that made Federer 10 times better in the first few games but which cannot last after having ran a couple of 100m.


At our club level we have all been in similar situations...but Nadal is pushing it to absurd dimensions physically.

On ESPN, there was a statistic, which stated that Nadal had run 208 miles, while Federer had run 205 miles, till the end of the third set, IIRC. I will try and find a video link.

How do you explain the DFs? Pressure again?

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day16/1602ms.html

W/UEs - Federer 46/63, Nadal 36/34.

Federer's FH and BH misses were rather strange. If he cannot sustain a match past 4-1 first set, against one player compared to another 127, what does it tell you?

That cannot be...not even since the beginning of the AO. Maybe 20.5 miles....but even that seems a lot.

mthierry wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Jarvik wrote:Psychologically draining... yes, in the mind in other words.

A traumatic match to watch for Roger fans - shanking and unforced forehand errors stewn all over the place against a beatable opponent.

Credit to Rafa for another great defensive performance.

No, it's not traumatic anymore. We know the real Rafa woudl get bagelled. Federer knows that too. He knows there are 2 Rafas. The normal one...and the "slam-fit". Federer is teh same player all year long.

Ok, seriously. Someone needs his meds.

I think he's suggesting he gets them.

Have to agree with emancipator it is both. Certainly, fed has lost some physical ability a little reaction time a little fitness and strength. The man is 3 years past what is the tennis player's physical prime. But even at his best Nadal owned Federer mentally and matchup wise. Case in point Roger's attrocious streak against Nadal on break points. There is no excuse for how tight Roger gets against Nadal on break points and at crucial stages late in sets. Even when Roger ran like a gazelle and had lightinening like reactions he had a lot of the same problems against Nadal. So it isn't just a physical thing.

If Fed had brought the level from the FO final or even one of his last 2 rounds Nadal would have been forced to raise his game or lose.

Yeah, you could see Fed didn't believe he could beat Nadal over five. He knew his only chance was to blow Nadal out of the water in 3. That rarely ever happens and usually only indoors. Fed's body language was defeatist right from the outset. He is so unsure of himself against nadal

That is more mental than anything else.

Why not over 5 though? He's had way less time on court. If that's what he truly believes then its not physical just mental. I think Fed's game is more mentally demanding and that's what he can't maintain over 5 sets.

These matches wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that we know Fed could have won today.

He had opportunities but failed to capitalise on them and that's the most frustrating thing about it. Should Fed really have been taken to a tie breaker in the first set? I really don't think so. Could he have won the second tie breaker? Without a doubt!

The only irony is that Djokovic has a similar mental advantage over Nadal and so although it is sad that Fed lost, I will be delighting with another Djokovic win over Nadal (should Djoko make the final). Coincidentally, that would mean that Djokovic's win rate in slam finals would go above Nadal's as well as Federer's and Nadal's would drop below Federer's (who would have thought that)?

Just to be clear, it's so patently clear to anyone who saw the match and was watching the body language of Federer that Nadal had the upper hand over him. It's not as if Fed has to say it, we can see it with the way he moves around the court.

Henman Bill wrote:If somehow it could be proven that Rafa was doping I would admit Tenez has been right all along. But it's just suspicion. Someone has to find the evidence. I would give Rafa the benefit of the doubt. The curcumstancial evidence against him is weak.

It's not quite right. The evidence is massive...however I agree there is no proof. It's quite different. That's why I don't think it's worth talking about doping here. I just note that there are 2 diiferent rafas. One who can get bagelled by Murray after having inflicted Lessons to Murray in the last 4 slams. or lose to Mayer or bagelled again by Federer despiute a 2 months rest...and there is the Rafa who clearly would not run out of steam in a 3rd set of a slam.

It's a basic observation. (That's evidence (comes from latin "video") as opposed to valid proof.

Agree with lucius, Fed has never had the mental edge on Nadal. Not when he was 25 and not now in his 30s. If anything physically Fed is holding up better than could be expected for his age. But this is a typical Fed v. Nadal loss. Not much different than what we would have seen in the mid to late 2000s either. Roger doesn't play the big points well against Nadal and doesn't have to do with age or big muscles he just never has.

luciusmann wrote:These matches wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that we know Fed could have won today.

Do you really believe that?

emancipator wrote:Yeah, you could see Fed didn't believe he could beat Nadal over five. He knew his only chance was to blow Nadal out of the water in 3. That rarely ever happens and usually only indoors. Fed's body language was defeatist right from the outset. He is so unsure of himself against nadal

That is more mental than anything else.

I despair! And in London Nadal did not want to win. He doesn't care, right?

Cahill and Federer analysed the 2009 AO final against Nadal. On ESPN, Cahill stated that they condensed all the BPs that Federer had in that match to 14 minutes of tape.

Cahill pointed out that Federer was very surprised when his lack of aggression was pointed out only on BPs.

Today, a very strange and suicidal strategy on BPs again and getting passed was evident. I will have to watch the 2009 from AO vault to confirm.


HB... I will watch today's match again and send you a screen shot of the statistic that I mentioned earlier.

Tenez wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:If somehow it could be proven that Rafa was doping I would admit Tenez has been right all along. But it's just suspicion. Someone has to find the evidence. I would give Rafa the benefit of the doubt. The curcumstancial evidence against him is weak.

It's not quite right. The evidence is massive...however I agree there is no proof. It's quite different. That's why I don't think it's worth talking about doping here.
.......
It's a basic observation. (That's evidence (comes from latin "video") as opposed to valid proof.

The most important part of this statement is there is no proof. I hate to be legalistic and pedantical, when you start your argument with there is "no proof" and then go on to contradict yourself by that the "evidence is massive" you contradict yourself and shoot yourself in the foot. There is no proof doesn't jive with the evidence is overwhelming. I am trained and licensed (although inactive) attorney in the state of California and your comment doesn't make any sense. If you have overwhelming evidence you have some proof. That is what evidence is. Opinions based on biased, non-objective, non-expert viewing of a video would not be considered proof or evidence of anything. Don't want to pick a fight with you but your terminology and evidence is lacking from a legal, logical, and rhetorical standpoint. If the evidence is massive you have proof that is what evidence is, proof of an inference that you wish to be drawn.

There are two of every player, myself include on my best days I beat players I have no business beating on my worst days I lose to players I have no business losin to; its the nature of sports. Didn't Barcelone lose to a mid-table Ukranian side in the champions league a couple of years ago?

Laverfan, agree again with your points but I have been saying this for years. Roger has an attrocious record against Nadal on break points. Remember 08 wimby he was something like 2 for 19 on break points.

well you right, don't be pedanticl cause law is typically about logic. So evidence is not automatically proof. The fact is even picture and clips cannot be used as proof in court. It helps a court t=case but it cannot the "proof it all".

For 17 years there was no proof that Agassi had tested positive. Some had evidence but in the public had no proof. You see the difference?

Yes I do. Look @ some the match stats:

a) Fed had 5 double faults, Nadal 1. Bearing in mind that Fed didn't start the match tentatively, whereas Nadal is well known for it, he even did it in the French, Fed nearly won that first set except for the missed drop shot (then he unraveled like I never seen before). Against other players Fed would wrap up the first set if gifted the opportunity (like he did in the first set against Tsonga @ Wimby but against Nadal, he never does).

b) Fed converted 3/10 break points, Nadal, 6/16. Fair enough Fed had less of them as we might expect with his age but he didn't convert more. If the comparison is with Wimby 2008, than yes, Fed is making progress (he only converted 1 back then) but Nadal won more this time too. At this rate we might be waiting till 2015 till Fed actually converts more break points than Nadal thereby having the chance to beat him in a slam match, provided he hasn't given up by then.

c) This isn't a match stat but anyone who has read up or studied body language (I have done both) will be able to see Fed's attitude was what caused the issues. As soon as his body language became that negative, the errors just burst through like water through a broken damn. It was that predictable but I seen it so many times in Fedal slam matches recently that it ceases to have an effect!

Tenez wrote:For 17 years there was no proof that Agassi had tested positive. Some had evidence but in the public had no proof. You see the difference?

Operacion Puerto is evidence, but still no proof, is that what you are implying, Tenez?

Also, each player's case is uniqiue, so comparing a player to Agassi is questionable.

luciusmann wrote:c) This isn't a match stat but anyone who has read up or studied body language (I have done both) will be able to see Fed's attitude was what caused the issues. As soon as his body language became that negative, the errors just burst through like water through a broken damn. It was that predictable but I seen it so many times in Fedal slam matches recently that it ceases to have an effect!

Right. So I woudl like to see you going on the ring versus Mike Tyson. Then I'll study your body language .

And you know what I'll tell you. C'mon Lucius...it's all in the mind!

It was worse than that socal, just 1 break converted out of 13. Nadal had exactly the same number of opportunities, but converted 4.

There's a mental aspect in boxing too tenez, a lot of it is done in attempting to use intimidating language before the match rather than during (and to be fair, it's harder to read body language in boxing when they have their hands protecting their heads and they need to keep their eyes on their opponents)? The swagger and c o c k i ness of Muhammad Ali was well known, you think that didn't make a difference?

What kind of moderators are on this forum where a bunch of losers hiding behind internet anonymity can post slanderous, libelous garbage on an article because they can't get over their bitterness.

Seriously, lines are getting crossed here and many react with apathy. Shameful!

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:For 17 years there was no proof that Agassi had tested positive. Some had evidence but in the public had no proof. You see the difference?

Operacion Puerto is evidence, but still no proof, is that what you are implying, Tenez?

Also, each player's case is uniqiue, so comparing a player to Agassi is questionable.

Evidence is what can be observed. We all observe the same thing. The energy level betwen slams and non slams is simply huge. Well it's certainly obvious to me and teh many players who play Rafa.

Do you think Federer or Murray havn't noticed the difference? Seriously.

mthierry wrote:What kind of moderators are on this forum where a bunch of losers hiding behind internet anonymity can post slanderous, libelous garbage on an article because they can't get over their bitterness.

Seriously, lines are getting crossed here and many react with apathy. Shameful!

You don't happen to have any recent info on Dr fuentes by any chance? Oh dear now I'm gonna get banned

Anyway chill buddy, your boy won, you should be happy, yet you sound so.. angry

That's the point. Those fans would love to be able to say teh difference was that Nadal is more talented. But that is something they'll never be able to give evidence for, let alone prove.

Only the die hand Nadal fans think Nadal is more talented. Not even Nadal seems to think he's more talented (according to his biography): what does that tell you?

Nadal doesn't have a particularly remarkable strategy or vastly superior tactics but the big difference between them is Nadal executes his flawlessly whereas Fed doesn't and therein do we see why Fed has lost the last 5 grand slam encounters.

The fact Fed has more slams alone is indicative he has more talent, until Nadal overtakes his haul, it's hard to argue he is....although talent is something which is far more subjective in nature than other things. You could easily argue if Nadal did over take Fed on the slam count he achieved more, but may not have had more talent? Again, highly subjective, depending on your perspective.

luciusmann wrote:It was worse than that socal, just 1 break converted out of 13. Nadal had exactly the same number of opportunities, but converted 4.

Exactly lucius if you play well enough to get 13 break points then physically and skill wise you should be good enough to convert more than one of those points. And this is no different than what fed at his physical best did against Nadal in the 07 and 08 wimbeldon finals. When the big points have come up against Nadal Fed has played below par while Nadal has raised the bar. Whether it is a 20 year old Nadal playing a 25 year old Fed or a 25 year Nadal playing a 30 year Fed. That is what leads me to believe that it isn't simply a physical issue. Fed is gifted a set by most players because deep down in their minds they know they aren't on Fed's level. Nadal just never had that problem. He may say fed is better and is the greatest ever because he is a nice guy but deep down he knows that in their matchup he has fed's measure and pretty much always has.

'Yeah, I think he has a clear plan and he follows that one very well.'

That's what Fed said in the interview (which I just been reading) and it kind of proves what I been saying, Fed doesn't think Nadal's plan is better but it has clarity and he executes it well.

Whereas Fed......I hate to be harsh...but you do wonder @ times...is there even a plan there...? Indecision, as was so evident during the match doesn't suggest so...but it's the execution of the plan, that's where the mental side affects his game.

I'm quite certain Federer doesn't have a plan whenever he comes on court. His idea is to do his stuff.

His problem is there's a player whose entire game has been constructed to counter his. Tough really.

Let me make it short, who cares?
Nadal uses his brains when he plays Federer. Federer leaves his brain in the locker room. Nadal to say is more intelligent than Federer.
Don't come to the net when you can't volley.

Lucius....c'mon....What kind of plan? Hitting the lines. Good plan!

You keep going on with the mental side but it has nothing to do with it. Even if Fed had won tat 4th set he woudl have lost teh 5th 62 like 2009. Knowing this is not going to help his shot making at key points.

Fed has to play great shots one after the other and even those come back...like this one on break back point falling on the line after having kissed a seagull. Can you work a plan to handle those?

We saw the plan at teh beginning of the match. Easy...just execute well like he did in the first 4 games....but to do that you need to upper fit. If you can rally with Nadal like Djoko does, then sure no need to go for suicidal shots.

That's teh dfference.