The Blessed Curse of Roger Federer

Federers ability to adjust to any surface has made him arguably the greatest player of all time, however it at times has cost him against his biggest rivals. Its well known that his ability on clay has cost him greatly in his head to head with Nadal, had he been less of a player he may have a better record against his peers.

However, its starting to happen with Djokovic as well. I was thinking in it Dubai with the extremely fast courts, Federer had a chance to take down Djokovic but the serb struggled on the fast surface and fell short, then again in Madrid he adjusted incredibly to the slippery surface and awaited Djokovic in the semi-final, however the serb struggled the the conditions and fell short once again.

Now in Rome Federer adjusts again brilliantly, however now he is on Rafa and Djokovic's turf, he once again reached the semis but this time Novak likes the surface and ends up beating the Swiss.

My point being, he is always there. He always turns up against Rafa and Novak on their favourite surfaces, but they don't return the favour. And on the face of it, it looks like they are bettering him in their match ups, when the most incredible thing is Federer's ability to always be there, even when he's off form or a surface he's less effective. When Nadal and Djokovic are off form, very rarely do they reach the semis or the final where they would be picked off by the in form Federer or on his preferred surface.

Its what makes him Roger Federer but ironically will also be a thorn in his side when down the line people compare him with his rivals.

CAS this time Roger is smart, do you think he really turned up today? he don't wanna give a clue to Nole or Rafa what he gonna bring for them come RG.

Just wait n watch how Roger Federer lifts 2012 FO trophy, you heard it from here first.

Its a pre-calculated move from Roger , he has some game plan for Rafa on clay and he not gonna leak that out before FO, the weapons will be kept secret and will be executed to perfection. He needed a semifinal spot to keep Rafa tied to no.2 position for FO, he accomplished it in style.

This time losing to Nole is a blessing in disguise everybody know it.

invisiblecoolers wrote:CAS this time Roger is smart, do you think he really turned up today? he don't wanna give a clue to Nole or Rafa what he gonna bring for them come RG.

Just wait n watch how Roger Federer lifts 2012 FO trophy, you heard it from here first.

Its a pre-calculated move from Roger , he has some game plan for Rafa on clay and he not gonna leak that out before FO, the weapons will be kept secret and will be executed to perfection. He needed a semifinal spot to keep Rafa tied to no.2 position for FO, he accomplished it in style.

This time losing to Nole is a blessing in disguise everybody know it.

delusional

jersey wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:CAS this time Roger is smart, do you think he really turned up today? he don't wanna give a clue to Nole or Rafa what he gonna bring for them come RG.

Just wait n watch how Roger Federer lifts 2012 FO trophy, you heard it from here first.

Its a pre-calculated move from Roger , he has some game plan for Rafa on clay and he not gonna leak that out before FO, the weapons will be kept secret and will be executed to perfection. He needed a semifinal spot to keep Rafa tied to no.2 position for FO, he accomplished it in style.

This time losing to Nole is a blessing in disguise everybody know it.

delusional

As a Federer fan, I agree. This is pretty delusional. Roger is no longer the best player in the world and there are some who are going to have to come to grips with that.

Well IC I hand it to you your cup is three quarter full... I admire your optimism
at 30 yrs plus I cannot believe that Roger as good as he has been, and still may be ,can afford to play those sort of games. He acknowledged only recently Rafa´s superiority on clay. If you are right and I am wrong Ive just bought a hat I will willingly eat

In hindsight, Fed's recent run of great form would have tipped him for beating Djokovic. However, one thing I noticed and overlooked (and which others did too) is that although the H2H on clay between Federer and Djokovic is 3-1, Djokovic's sole win on clay came on the same court in Rome. Thus if we were expecting Federer to lose somewhere to Djokovic (on a clay court) it would have been there. Also, one thing we should also remember is that this is actually a title Djokovic has won, not once either, but one he has won twice before. It's those titles that Djokovic (and Nadal) typically have won more than once, that they find easiest to dispatch Federer at.

That doesn't change the fact that Federer only started performing late in the second set, when the damage had been done, but in many ways, this loss isn't as bad as it looks...especially if it comes to pass that Djokovic wins today. Fed will retain #2 and has a shot of Djokovic and Nadal playing in the semi. The latter may not happen, but having a shot @ it would be quite important for Fed.

Agree luciusmann.

This thread has a bit of truth, but it comes across in the same way Socal and hawkeye defend their hero's, I hope this style of thread doesn't become a recurring theme!

I think its quite similar to Agassi and Sampras, Sampras got the better of the rivalry but what would have happened had they met in 3 Aus Open finals, instead of 3 US opens, or a French Open final instead of a Wimbledon final?

It is called old age. He is 30.

Hard to say CAS...on clay they were 3-2 to Agassi (although Sampras beat Agassi at Monte Carlo for example), carpet was 5-2 Sampras, HC was 11-9 Sampras and grass 2-0 Sampras. Yes Agassi beat Sampras twice at AO but they were 1-1 at similar surface Indian Wells. I just think Sampras on his day was a better player...but not by much. We also know that Sampras' peak years were 93-99 (after 99 he fell off the cliff almost...just lost his desire for the game, etc.) Between 93 and 99 the H2H was 14-7...much more in favour of Sampras and Agassi's wins were much closer affairs.

CAS wrote:Federers ability to adjust to any surface has made him arguably the greatest player of all time, however it at times has cost him against his biggest rivals. Its well known that his ability on clay has cost him greatly in his head to head with Nadal, had he been less of a player he may have a better record against his peers.

However, its starting to happen with Djokovic as well. I was thinking in it Dubai with the extremely fast courts, Federer had a chance to take down Djokovic but the serb struggled on the fast surface and fell short, then again in Madrid he adjusted incredibly to the slippery surface and awaited Djokovic in the semi-final, however the serb struggled the the conditions and fell short once again.

Now in Rome Federer adjusts again brilliantly, however now he is on Rafa and Djokovic's turf, he once again reached the semis but this time Novak likes the surface and ends up beating the Swiss.

My point being, he is always there. He always turns up against Rafa and Novak on their favourite surfaces, but they don't return the favour. And on the face of it, it looks like they are bettering him in their match ups, when the most incredible thing is Federer's ability to always be there, even when he's off form or a surface he's less effective. When Nadal and Djokovic are off form, very rarely do they reach the semis or the final where they would be picked off by the in form Federer or on his preferred surface.

Its what makes him Roger Federer but ironically will also be a thorn in his side when down the line people compare him with his rivals.

I always find this point of view hilariously flawed. Scientifically, if you want to compare a players relative strength on a surface to their ability against another player, you must first fix a variable by discounting the results against the other player in order to first ascertain the strength of a particular surface. For example had Federer not had Nadal to contend with, he would in all probability have:

5 Aus opens
6 French opens
8 Wimbledons
5 US opens

In other words, its only Nadal relative strength on clay that make's clay 'appear' to be Federer's worst surface, not necessarily that Federer worst surface is clay. In fact he is nearly equally talented on all surfaces, but perhaps Federer's worst surface is in many ways the slow HC used at the AUS open, not clay - Federer is perhaps the 3rd/4th best clay courter to have played the game. Its just he happens to play during the time of the best clay courter in history. Likewise, were it not for Federer, Nadal may well have 4 Wimbledons by now and he would be incredibly comparable to Borg in record.

You can't just discount a players H2H record on a surface because they lose often to one player on that surface and then use those loses to choose the surface on which to discount a players H2H record. It creates a feedback loop that is unvalid - like the chicken and egg scenario

The truth is, averaged over all tournaments, both players have to play equally well to reach a particular round and to face each other is an accurate representation of their achievement/talent. In other words Federer and Nadals H2H deserves to be based around clay court rather than any other surface, because, taken together it represents their 'joint' best surface and is an incredibly common choice for a playing surface on tour.

Nadal and Federer Statistics (on Clay - Source Ricoh ATP Match Facts)

Service Record - Career

Player	Aces	Double Faults	First Serve %	1st Serve Points won	2nd Serve Points Won	Break Points Faced	Break Points Saved	Service Games Played	Service Games Won	Service Points Won
Nadal	466	286	71%	70%	57%	1,275	67%	2,702	84%	66%
Federer	1,238	377	60%	74%	55%	1,237	65%	2,684	84%	67%

Return Record - Career

Player	1st Serve Return Points Won	2nd Serve Return Points Won	Break Opportunities	Break Points Converted	Return Games Played	Return Games Won	Return Points Won	Total Points Won
Nadal	40%	59%	2,355	49%	2,688	43%	47%	56%
Federer	36%	51%	1,877	40%	2,628	29%	41%	54%

Numbers are better.

Interesting stats laverfan

So basically, they are both equally adept at winning their service games but the big difference is in breaking serve where Nadal is some distance ahead. Both in creating break opportunities and converting. Nadal has won 14% more return games...thats around 1 more game broken every 7 return games....or almost 1 more break per set. Also interesting how Nadal is slightly ahead on BPs saved and yet has a less fearsome serve...but then we know how strongly he can raise his overall game in those moments.

Would be interesting to see how these stats vary per surface type as well, to see if the same patterns are repeated.

I will post other surfaces. I am pretty sure Federer has better numbers on Grass.

Cool...maybe LF on grass but wouldnt surprise me if similar comparative picture to clay though either.

Tom, that's rather a bold claim, clay represents their 'joint best surface'. Just because they played on it more together (simply because there's more clay court tournaments, doesn't mean that at all. It just shows there are more clay court tournaments and being Nadal's favourite surface, means he beat Federer more. Simple.

An equal case could be made for grass being their joint favourite, after all, there may not be many grass court events in a year, but they got to 3 Wimbledon finals together (despite that) and even when they didn't meet each other, Nadal got to 2 further finals in total, and Federer 4.

There's no harm is pointing out the H2H is affected by the prevalence of particular types of court on the tennis circuit and that this can affect H2Hs, which is what I believe CAS is saying (in the case of Federer/Nadal). It would be unfair to take out clay court wins Nadal has over Federer in the H2H, but if you took out grass, then it's fairer and the picture shows it's far closer. However, let's not detract from the important stat: when it comes to Bo5 set matches, Nadal is superior. Typically, the big matches are Bo5 and even if Federer was closer in the H2H, losing so many of those big matches shows Nadal is a great match up for Federer.

On Grass...


Service Record - Career

Player	Aces	Double Faults	First Serve %	1st Serve Points won	2nd Serve Points Won	Break Points Faced	Break Points Saved	Service Games Played	Service Games Won	Service Points Won
Nadal	341	104	70%	76%	59%	276	67%	912	90%	71%
Federer	1,227	225	65%	79%	59%	473	71%	1,676	92%	72%

Return Record - Career

Player	1st Serve Return Points Won	2nd Serve Return Points Won	Break Opportunities	Break Points Converted	Return Games Played	Return Games Won	Return Points Won	Total Points Won
Nadal	27%	54%	519	40%	906	23%	37%	53%
Federer	30%	52%	947	43%	1,638	25%	39%	55%

Numbers are better.

luciusmann wrote:
An equal case could be made for grass being their joint favourite, after all, there may not be many grass court events in a year, but they got to 3 Wimbledon finals together (despite that) and even when they didn't meet each other, Nadal got to 2 further finals in total, and Federer 4.

Let us see what happens at Halle this year.

Ah yes, that would be something else.....!

Would you believe that these two who played the epic Wimbledon final of 2008 haven't played each other on grass since then? If they meet in Halle, would be a match well worth watching, and the winner might even gain something in the mental edge for Wimbledon.

Just looking @ the calendar and the final for Halle would only be a month away...

On Hard Courts...


Service Record - Career

Player	Aces	Double Faults	First Serve %	1st Serve Points won	2nd Serve Points Won	Break Points Faced	Break Points Saved	Service Games Played	Service Games Won	Service Points Won
Nadal	1,169	591	67%	72%	58%	1,851	65%	4,286	85%	67%
Federer	4,603	1,226	61%	77%	57%	2,577	68%	7,451	89%	70%

Return Record - Career

Player	1st Serve Return Points Won	2nd Serve Return Points Won	Break Opportunities	Break Points Converted	Return Games Played	Return Games Won	Return Points Won	Total Points Won
Nadal	32%	54%	2,928	42%	4,295	29%	41%	54%
Federer	33%	52%	4,754	42%	7,231	28%	41%	55%

Numbers are better.

Great stats work LF...it's striking how similar many of the stats are besides the ace counts....but all that better serving doesn't necessarily lead to much difference in % games won.

Stylistics aside, this just shows many ways to win in Tennis.

Yes...stats dont reveal everything...for we know in some matches that players can win similar numbers of points in total but that doesnt tell the story of the match.

I think we can see here that Fed has better serve stats, Nadal is good at return games and creating BP opportunities, especially clay...and they're pretty evenly matched in other stat areas. But then we know they're two of the greatest players to play tennis (the stats show that!) whatever you feel about the way they play the game.