Ye Of Little Faith!

All those counting the days until Federer's retirement should take note.

Federer looked pretty good against a Davydenko (back to his best and with something to prove) and he looked even better today with a convincing win against Del Potro to claim the Rotterdam title. He also said in an interview yesterday that he itends to play for another 5 or 6 years.

What I found particuarly telling was that both of his opponants had very different styles. Davydenko with his crisp baseline style is very similar to Djokovic or Nalbandian. Del-Potro a tall powerful player with good first serve and an ability to really crunch ground strokes is similar to other tall hard hitters such as Berdych, Soderling and maybe even Murray? (Murray as in his good first serve and ability to crunch his backhand). Federer could handle both styles.

He's also got into a bit of a winning habit recently. Its only after all those loopy spinny shots of one particular player that have (as ever) caused him trouble. These could all be good signs for this ageing champion in 2012.

Federer was lucky to escape from Davy. Davy's 'early' ball striking is a threat to many on the tour.

DelPo was impressive till the final. He missed chances. His BP conversion was 0/7 compared to Federer's 2/5.

Dubai should be interesting with Djokovic and Murray back.

laverfan wrote:Federer was lucky to escape from Davy. Davy's 'early' ball striking is a threat to many on the tour.

Agree. You always need some luck to win close matches. But they even out in the long run. You get lucky to win a close match, but at times unlucky to lose another. Davy's missed some easy volleys on important points. As good a shotmaker and baseliner as he is, his net play is very average. He also suffers from loss of mental toughness, especially after his comeback from injury he has lost many matches only because of his poor mindset. Tough road ahead for him. Very talented player, but just not able to stitch things together long enough.

laverfan wrote: DelPo was impressive till the final. He missed chances. His BP conversion was 0/7 compared to Federer's 2/5.

Very good win on Troicki. Though Troicki played far below his ability. Poor guy, is mentally extremely very fragile. Then played well to beat Berdych. It was a little surprise for me looking at the scoreline ( didn't get to see the match), Berdych himself was playing good coming into the semis. I was expecting a high quality close match. But Berdych too suffers from his mental daemons. Against Federer, Fed has far too much variety and weapons arsenal. Also playing in his 101th final, far too much experience to calm down those nerves in a final. Delpo needed a combination of many factors if he had to win this. Fed's level to drip and give him more than just those 7 BPs, his own game firing at all corners. Like it did when beat Fed 2 times but those matches were very close, could have gone either ways.

laverfan wrote: Dubai should be interesting with Djokovic and Murray back.

indeed.

It will be interesting to see how well Djokovic, Nadal and Murray do against Del Potro this year. Federer appears to have Del Potro's number. It will also be interesting to see how well Federer does against Djokovic - he beat him at the French and had match points against him at the US Open.

hawkeye I'm not so sure. Federer seems to have become a lost soul when it comes to playing Nadal. Worse still Novak knows he can beat him from matchpoint down whenever he needs to.

Even Andy will be getting in on the act soon and his days will be well and truly numbered. And no ( I hasten to add) I've not got previous form in dismissing Federer but merely stating the facts.

Federer looked pretty good against a Davydenko

I hope you are kidding...

It will be interesting to see how well Djokovic, Nadal and Murray do against Del Potro this year.

Delpo is clearly too much of a nice man on court to bother the top 4 these days. He's happy to be playing, without thinking about the end game.

newballs wrote: Federer seems to have become a lost soul when it comes to playing Nadal.

.

He always had a tough one against Nadal. If there is a weapon that can hurt Federer the most, its only Nadal who has it. So not sure what you mean by 'seems to have become'. And Fed didn't look any lost soul when he handed Nadal a Bagel last WTF. He just needs to keep his top level throughout the match in almost all departments, serve, returns everything. Its not easy, I know ( and Fed knows too), but not impossible either.

newballs wrote: Worse still Novak knows he can beat him from matchpoint down whenever he needs to.

Firstly Djo is not the only player Fed has lost after having match points, there are some more. Secondly, Fed is not the only player who has lost from match points. All most all players ( FYI: Djo and Nadal too ) at some points in their lives do. Djo is holding 3 slams, but he still doesn't look unbeatable. Troicki should have beaten him in Paris bercy ( poor nerves we all know that) and got a bagel from a Japanese player. Lost to Tipsy and Ferrer recently. Murray should have beaten him this AO. So apart from a match against Nadal, he looks like he can lose. Still his confidence is sky high and its a great thing to have.

newballs wrote: Even Andy will be getting in on the act soon and his days will be well and truly numbered.

What is the basis for this statement? Fed and Murray haven't played in a very long time. So how are you saying this?

Fed's days will be numbered??? What exactly are you trying to imply here? If you want to say that he will not win a slam then you are entitled to your opinion (but they aren't facts as you are saying ). Or you want to say that he will start losing to absolute average player soon and hence will have retire and save his face and hence go against his wishes to keep playing for some more years? Kindly make your points clear then we shall talk.

newballs wrote: And no ( I hasten to add) I've not got previous form in dismissing Federer but merely stating the facts.

This is exactly what you are doing, being too haste. But you are allowed to make your opinion, nothing wrong. But can you tell me how exactly are you stating facts? How does your opinion become facts?

Congrats to fed, he really fought hard against DAvy. Who quite frankly up a set and a break tanked and choked away the last 2 sets. Federer enjoys a mental edge over that entire generation of talent as they were too deferential to fed. Roger won and played well in the final. I have never been one for wanting to show Roger the door. As a Novak fan I still feel the most entertaining matchup in tennis now is not Rafa and Roger, but Roger and Novak. So I hope Roger plays well and sticks around as long as possible.

The sort of "take the ball early, relentless baseline play" of Davydenko and Djokovic have always caused Nadal problems particuarly on hardcourts (really big problems sometimes!) not so Federer. He can match them hitting the ball crisp and he doesn't mind the faster and flatter pace that they hit with. In fact he can use it and throw it back at them. Also his variety and net play can cause players like this problems. As for Djokovic beating him from match points down. IMO this makes Djokovic more vunerable to Federer... not less so.

Again the tall powerful hitters are less of a problem for Federer than they can be for Nadal. Their height can neutralise the destructive high bounce of Nadals ground strokes. What poor "diddy" Federer would do to be a little taller... He has one of the best slices in the game (tall players find it more difficult to get down to return such shots). He also has the variety to move them about... more difficult if your tall.

... and newballs throwing something like "Even Andy will be getting in on the act soon and his days will be well
and truly numbered" (the "he" being Federer) is the sort of comment that would get me into trouble if I were to respond...

I mean I don't know if I put too much stock in Fed's win here people. I have never been one who doubts his legitimacy as a threat at anytime to win. Yet, this is the Rotterdam open and not a masters or a grandslam. Roger was the #1 seed, he is supposed to win this tournament, I think if he didn't win this tournament there would be questions. And Davy should have won that match. He was the better player for a set and half and just stalled as usual at the finish line. So Fed won the thing and deserves credit it is never easy to win a tournament on the ATP tour. But with none of the other big names bothering to show up other than Del PO and Berdy then this win is of little use in gauging Fed's viability at another grandslam.

raiders you obviously don't concur with much I have to say but I don't really see how you can argue against the viewpoint that Federer can't beat Nadal when it really counts in slams. Apologies for not spelling it out that succinctly but (apart from his first two triumphs on grass at Wimbledon) Nadal has owned Federer (6-2 if you weren't sure on that one).

OK so you beg to differ about Federer's chances against Djokovic but don't hold your breath on that one as. The idea that all these players you quote beating him outside of slams or coming close to beating him in slams making him suddenly "beatable" is laughable. Take a look at his slam record where it really matters since (and including) last year's Aussie Open before responding on that one.

Finally if you take that statement regarding Andy that seriously then take it from me that was (believe it or not) not to be taken that way. I actually happen to think (and was trying to imply) that if Andy starts beating Roger when it really counts (and who am I to say that can't happen) then Federer may well think it's time to call it a day. Losing in slams to both Djokovic and Nadal on a regular basis is one thing but he would still expect (for the foreseeable future unless Andy really improves) to beat Murray when it counts.

Federer, of course, might be happy to play on regardless (as has say Hewitt) even when his powers have weakened but surely the idea that once the Olympics are over he is nearing the end can't be that outrageous can it?

newballs wrote:Federer, of course, might be happy to play on regardless (as has say Hewitt) even when his powers have weakened but surely the idea that once the Olympics are over he is nearing the end can't be that outrageous can it?

I think Fed just loves playing tennis too much to give up anytime soon. If he can get to the 1/4s or semis of slams, then he'll always have an outside chance of winning, even at his advanced tennis years. And even if he doesn't manage a slam win, he'll probably play on just to play the next match, wherever it is and whoever it's against. It will probably be his body that tells him when to quit.

Federer should continue as long as he wants.

He is still the most breathtaking player on tour when in full flight. He is still the most complete and possesses the most variety and range.

Every additional tournament that he wins, be it a 250 or a slam, will only add to his legacy. Currently he is fourth in the list of highest tournament wins, just five behind Mcenroe; that is yet another realistic goal for him to achieve. All of Federer's tournament wins have been against tough fields, all of them have been high profile ATP tournaments, unlike many of the tourneys that Connors or Mac played, where often the field comprised journeymen tennis players.

There are many longevity records that he is on the cusp of breaking. It is incredible that he is putting together a career in terms of longevity to rival the likes of Mac, Lendl and Connors, particularly given the disparity in physicality and the toll the tour takes on the body in this day and age compared to when those guys played. He may be the last of the true greats who both dominated and had longevity.



emancipator

I think Fed looked so comfortable this week in general. Quite similar to Paris and London where he just looked so far ahead of the field. His match with Davydenko was by far the match of the year so far. Davy actually looking in good nick in a match for once. You can't help but curse Davy because when he loses a couple of points on serve he goes to bits!

I think Delpo was massively exposed today for the lack of tactical nouse. Just looked bemused when the ball was coming back after he was blasting it. He looked like a fox in headlights when Federer was in control of points.

Federer looking very good. Delpo it is back to the drawing board.

Did you watch the Fed matches this week LK?
He was pretty poor up until the semis.
Improved in the semis with quite a good display- still davydenko troubled him more than usual but played well, especially tactically, in the finals.
He did not dominate the field like in Paris, but played well when it mattered.

emancipator difficult to argue against many of your points but if you take the examples of Sampras and Agassi ( the last two greats to retire) Pete basically retired after his last slam victory in 2002 when he was 31 and Andre three years after winning his last slam in 2003 - he was 32 at the time of his last slam triumph. Federer then may or may not have won his last slam but the stats show that he's unlikely to add many if even one more now that he has turned 30.

That would leave him playing for this history books in terms of tournament wins, longevity..etc. if he is motivated by those (and evidence would suggest he may well be) then he could play on at least a couple more years. Alternatively in could be one last throw of the dice in the Olympics that's motivating him now. Only time will tell.

hawkeye wrote: He also said in an interview yesterday that he itends to play for another 5 or 6 years.

Where did he say this?? I want to see

Newballs, Federer may not win another slam but he already has 16. His slam legacy is already secure. I think by playing on he can add another dimension to his legacy - longevity, a no mean feat considering the depth of the field and the physicality of modern tennis. People still remember Connors's feat of reaching the USO semi-final at the age of 39, and Agassi reaching the final at the age of 35. Federer, I believe, has the skills to produce similarly incredible performances in his latter years and they will only enhance an already atacked record.

I do wonder though if he will quit once the twins start regular schooling and the family is nolonger able to travel with him on tour.

Roger is still capable of playing some otherworldly tennis when he feels it. He still has the most elegant and complete tennis player, yet he can't create that brilliance for more than short spells. And the best guys right now are just too young, fast, and fit. At 31 Nadal and Novak are a big ask, and so is murray and some of the other guys as well. Roger as long as he can still thrill and he himself enjoys well then I am all for him sticking around.

newballs wrote:raiders you obviously don't concur with much I have to say but I don't really see how you can argue against the viewpoint that Federer can't beat Nadal when it really counts in slams. Apologies for not spelling it out that succinctly but (apart from his first two triumphs on grass at Wimbledon) Nadal has owned Federer (6-2 if you weren't sure on that one).

Firstly, I really don't see how can you argue that its only the slams that count. If it did Fed and Nadal would only be playing slams and none other tournaments. Secondly, Nadal hasn't won WTF and has only reached 1 final. This tournament is important when the parameters are compared for GOAT debates. Thirdly, getting a Bagel is not what a player ever enjoys, no matter what tournament it may be.

I know about that 6-2 h2h in slams, seen all matches. I already said if there is a weapon that can hurt the most, its only Nadal that has it. But despite that its not like Nadal swept through Fed in all those 6 wins. Many of them ( all in fact bar 1 ) were very close. A few shots that went out for Fed, had they gone in things could have been different. A missed volley if it had gone in, in the 5th set at w08 could have won Fed 6 consecutive Wimbys. There is always an element of luck which decides the outcome. And like I said, Fed needs to be firing all corners throughout the entire match the to beat nadal. He has done it at times, he can do it again.

newballs wrote: OK so you beg to differ about Federer's chances against Djokovic but don't hold your breath on that one as. The idea that all these players you quote beating him outside of slams or coming close to beating him in slams making him suddenly "beatable" is laughable. Take a look at his slam record where it really matters since (and including) last year's Aussie Open before responding on that one.

Last year its only Fed who beat Djo in a slam. He beat him playing a flawless tennis, it was a absolute high quality match. AT US open Fed was 40-15 up serving for the match. He missed those, I know. But on another day he could hit an ace and close it out like he did in FO, 2011. On another day that wild swing from Djo could go wide and it could close the end for Djo. It comes down to some good fortune too that decides the end result. If the matches are that close, I don't see any reason not hold my breath.

Why do you keep saying its only the slams that really matters. If its only the slam that matters then there is no body ahead of Federer. Djo hasn't even reached 1/3 of what Fed has. So if its only the slams that only matter, then better hold all your big talks till Djo or Nadal or anyone to get ahead of Fed.

If Nishikori, Tipsarvic, Ferrer can beat Djo, he is beatable for me. I agree has strung great consistency and success in slams recently, but just don't be haste on that. All top 4 have been very consistent at slams and look some distant ahead of the rest of the field. ( someone bring out the weak-era theory please ) .But Djo still hasn't reached the levels I have seen in some other players do in the past.

newballs wrote: Losing in slams to both Djokovic and Nadal on a regular basis is one thing but he would still expect (for the foreseeable future unless Andy really improves) to beat Murray when it counts.

Again the slams here. There are other countable tournaments as well dear. Apart from the 2011 and recently, Djo has been getting regularly beaten by lot of players in slams. Except for the 2010 FO onwards, Nadal was getting beaten regularly most slams, even Ferrer beat him. He is 0-7 recently against Djo. Their regularly losing in slams streak was bigger than what Fed has after AO 2010. They didn't retire. Murray hasn't won a slam till now, but I don't see him looking at retirement. 127 player in every slam go empty handed. Lots of player have not much realistic chance of winning a major ever. Do they retire because they get beaten regularly.

newballs wrote: Federer, of course, might be happy to play on regardless (as has say Hewitt) even when his powers have weakened but surely the idea that once the Olympics are over he is nearing the end can't be that outrageous can it?

A player like Fed is what keeps me and a lot of others to watching tennis. His game is the most beautiful even now. He is not a player of the current generation of players who only make tennis into a last man standing game. He belongs to a generation of great shotmakers who produce great matches. Want to know what am I talking , here is an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KbMYYzT8c0&feature=related .
So enjoy his game till he plays. He is one in a century player. A player like him won't come again, ever.

The playing on for another five or six years seems to have come from Fed saying that he hopes it won't be another seven years before he returns to Rotterdam.
OK, the other big four guys weren't playing but this was still a good win. Makes it all the more weird that Fed and Switzerland elected to play indoors ON CLAY against USA in the DC, when Fed has such an excellent indoor hard record. Made no sense at all.
Fed, IMHO, will look at things at the end of this year before deciding what to do. I think it would be a surprise - and a mistake - if he did not play at least throughout 2013. He's already got 1,300 points stacked up to take him into the first few weeks of next year. Staying top four is vital, amd I think as long as he can do that he's likely to carry on.
Lets' face it, the guy just loves it. He talked about getting continued standing ovations at Rotterdam. You're a long time retired, as no doubt ex-players, some of whom may have packed it in too soon, have been telling him.

raiders I take your point that there are indeed other events rather than slams but consider say Andy's view on this one then.

What are his priorities? Well slams naturally, then the Olympics. Nothing else gets a mention because to the top players even the master series events and the year end decider are secondary.

Djokovic was astute enough to realise that in his case prioritising then winning the Davis Cup with Serbia was a great tonic for his tennis but even he's had to give that a miss so far this time round. In fact look at the matches where he lost other than Federer in the French Open. Relatively unimportant events in the main and not always at his best in them. That's why I said"when it really counts" and that's why Andy so far hasn't been quite good enough to win a slam. Roger obviously has but at the moment his best isn't as good as either Nadal or Djokovic.

And that comes back to where I started. How much does winning ATP 500 and 1000 points mean to Roger or Andy? In Roger's case maybe it keeps him happy enough in but for Andy they have to be more of a stepping stone on to something bigger.

sirfredperry wrote:
Fed, IMHO, will look at things at the end of this year before deciding what to do. I think it would be a surprise - and a mistake - if he did not play at least throughout 2013. He's already got 1,300 points stacked up to take him into the first few weeks of next year. Staying top four is vital, amd I think as long as he can do that he's likely to carry on.

I’ve always been sceptical about the scenario of Federer to go on till his mid thirties, but not anymore. I actually think life as a professional is easier on him nowadays than it was in his hay days simply because winning now is a bonus, back than it was a must or a relief.
He walked around in Rotterdam with a smile from ear to ear all week for a reason. He enjoys his status, the challenge, the attention ect. too much to even think about quitting the game. And let’s not forget he still can win any best of three tournament he wants to and has a reasonable chance at the slams. I think it’s safe to say he’s genuinely intended to go on for at least 4 years

Couldn't watch this weekend while staying with non tennis fan friends, but so pleased to check in and see TMF took his 71st title.

He may not be able to string together great wins consecutively to take a grand slam in the manner of his younger days, but he still thrills on occasions, the crowd generally loves to see him play all over the world, and his passion for the game and the future of tennis make him a great thing for the sport in general. I hope he plays for as long as he really enjoys himself on court - he is still a very hot ticket.

newballs wrote:raiders I take your point that there are indeed other events rather than slams but consider say Andy's view on this one then.

What are his priorities? Well slams naturally, then the Olympics. Nothing else gets a mention because to the top players even the master series events and the year end decider are secondary.

Andy's top priority ( anyone's for that matter ) will have to be slams. Not sure about Olympics. Tennis in olympics is very new and certainly not the pinnacle tournament. It comes once in 4 years and still ATP only gives 750 points to the gold medalist, less than even a Masters ( 9 times every year ). Though off late media is trying to hype it up, but it still isn't as valued as some other tournaments. It may be important for Fed as this is one singles title he doesn't have and would only make his glittering resume glitter a few . more.

newballs wrote:
Djokovic was astute enough to realise that in his case prioritising then winning the Davis Cup with Serbia was a great tonic for his tennis but even he's had to give that a miss so far this time round. In fact look at the matches where he lost other than Federer in the French Open. Relatively unimportant events in the main and not always at his best in them. That's why I said"when it really counts" and that's why Andy so far hasn't been quite good enough to win a slam. Roger obviously has but at the moment his best isn't as good as either Nadal or Djokovic.

And that comes back to where I started. How much does winning ATP 500 and 1000 points mean to Roger or Andy? In Roger's case maybe it keeps him happy enough in but for Andy they have to be more of a stepping stone on to something bigger.

I was not trying to say whether Djo tried his best or not when he lost to some players last year. I'm just saying he did lose. If he can lose to them, he is beatable. Thats why I said he doesn't look as good as some of the other players in the past. And he certainly would not like bagel, what ever be the tournament. He looked strong against Nadal, but against him he knows Nadal doesn't have the game to hurt him. He now knows he has the stamina to even outlast Nadal. In today's tennis knowing this thing is a major advantage. He was definitely facing much more heat against Murray. But Murray is Murray.

Winning tournaments, any kind gives confidence. And confidence is a great thing to have.

raiders some interesting points which I'll try to take up at length later on a new thread. It seems to me anyway looking at the respective head to heads of the top 4 and then their slam match ups that the former is not a good indicator necessarily of the latter especially when you take into account different surfaces and the huge pressure that becomes apparent in slam matches. For example Djokovic struggled to get past Federer and/or Nadal until his recent run of form and Andy can beat Rafa but similarly runs into a brick wall against either Djokovic or Federer.

Winning tournaments of any kind gives you confidence yes. But it looks like it often takes more than that to win slams.

Raiders. What the winning of the "lesser" tourneys - and some would even put the WTF into this category - is doing is giving Fed enough points to maintain a high ranking that, invariably, takes him to a GS semi and a chance to go for Grand Slam glory.
It's ever been horses for courses with tennis. Rafa, for example, plays a very full clay court season cos that's where his strength lies. Absolutely nothing wrong with Fed opting for Rotterdam, as it's just the sort of tourney he can shine at.

Absolutely nothing wrong with Fed opting for Rotterdam, as it's just the sort of tourney he can shine at.

Only 6 career titles behind McEnroe, won't be catching Lendl or Connors though.

HarpoMars wrote:

hawkeye wrote: He also said in an interview yesterday that he itends to play for another 5 or 6 years.

Where did he say this?? I want to see

During the the Davydenko-Federer match, one of the ATP commentators mentioned that Federer talked to Becker and mentioned wanting to play till he was 36. I will post a link, if I can find it.

Nice, thanks Laverfan!

Wouldn't it be good if he did. With his style of play, tournaments schedule, and love for the game, I can't see him stopping for a while. Motivation wise, even after the Olympics (whatever the outcome), Davis Cup might keep him going for a while
Only thing that may change his mind is probably his kids, and if he decides to hang up the racquet for them then thats very honourable.

Here's to the next 6 years

Just as every Fed fan wants him to go on for as long as possible, surely no one wants to see him doing a Laver, who - unwisely - came to Wimbledon as late as 1977.
I was there and, sadly, saw him lose to.....Dick Stockton, an American who Rod would have annihilated in his pomp. I saw Laver three times live - and he lost the lot - to Roger Taylor, Tom Gorman and Stockton (all at SW19).

sirfredperry wrote:Just as every Fed fan wants him to go on for as long as possible, surely no one wants to see him doing a Laver, who - unwisely - came to Wimbledon as late as 1977.
I was there and, sadly, saw him lose to.....Dick Stockton, an American who Rod would have annihilated in his pomp. I saw Laver three times live - and he lost the lot - to Roger Taylor, Tom Gorman and Stockton (all at SW19).

I was at the Rotterdam Tournament last Friday, looking at a board with past winners on it, Dick Stockton was one of them

Actually looked Gorman and Stockton up yesterday and both had quite reasonable careers in terms of title wins and finals. But they weren't really in the same league as the Rockhampton Rocket.

sirfredperry wrote:Just as every Fed fan wants him to go on for as long as possible, surely no one wants to see him doing a Laver, who - unwisely - came to Wimbledon as late as 1977.
I was there and, sadly, saw him lose to.....Dick Stockton, an American who Rod would have annihilated in his pomp. I saw Laver three times live - and he lost the lot - to Roger Taylor, Tom Gorman and Stockton (all at SW19).

sfp wasn't he there just for the parade and photo shoot of past champions for the Queen's Silver Jubilee or did he also bring his whites?

A very naughty boy by the name of Jimmy Connors chose to practise (was it with the equally badly behaved Ilie Nastase from memory?) instead of attending that one.

newballs wrote:raiders some interesting points which I'll try to take up at length later on a new thread. It seems to me anyway looking at the respective head to heads of the top 4 and then their slam match ups that the former is not a good indicator necessarily of the latter especially when you take into account different surfaces and the huge pressure that becomes apparent in slam matches. For example Djokovic struggled to get past Federer and/or Nadal until his recent run of form and Andy can beat Rafa but similarly runs into a brick wall against either Djokovic or Federer.

Winning tournaments of any kind gives you confidence yes. But it looks like it often takes more than that to win slams.

newballs. You've done it again! Throwing in a statement that "Andy can beat Rafa" and then saying "he runs into a brick wall against Djokovic and Federer . Murrays H2H with Rafa is 5 - 13 (I could but won't say a lot about those 5 too), with Djokovic its 4-7 and with Federer its 8 - 6. The stats speak for themselves.

hawkeye as you well know since you're the only person who's bothered to post on my other thread I'm talking here primarily about slam match ups which (at the end of the day) are what really count.

I did post here before I saw your other post.

All NB said Hawky was that Andy can beat Rafa, which is true.

Only you can mis-interpret such statements.

I would love Roger sticking around till his mid 30s to give Novak a chance to slice into that head to head. I love watching Fed/Novak matches the most. So I hope the Rog sticks around for as long as possible. He is fun to watch, especially when he gets into playing really special like Fed can.