Federer - realistic chances?

Rafa and Novak understandably come in as heavy favourites for this year's RG - and even as an adoring Federer fan it is undeniably hard to see past those.
Still, a Federer fan will never stop dreaming and after all he is widely acknowledged as the GOAT (for the time being at least).
Personally I think Federer could beat Djokovic or even Nadal (!) if he plays his best tennis here - I think it is still fair to say Roger's best is still better than anyone else.
I held a fair bit of hope for Rog after his victory over Nadal on a slow IW court and then gaining no.2 could have been crucial...
Yet as he is back to no.3 it means he is almost certainly going to have to play Nadal to win this and no matter how well Roger is playing he will never be favourite against Nadal in a slam.
Another reality check was the announcement that the fast-playing Babolat balls would be replaced by a more traditional heavier ball - which is bad news for him.
Would like to hear your thoughts on Fed's chances and if somehow he will win - how on earth he will do it?
I think it's best to have low expectations here as a Fed fan which almost did the trick last year...

A few things to pick you up on....

First up I would say Rafa is the only heavy favourite (as his record at Roland Garros testifies). Novak will probably give him his strongest challenge.

Secondly, sorry but Federer playing at his best on clay is not enough to beat Rafa playing his best on clay as Nadal is the greatest clay courter of all-time in my opinion.

The only hope for Federer and Djokovic is if Rafa comes a cropper to a big shock defeat. If Rafa reaches the semis in one piece it is game over in my opinion.

Federer will get an easy draw and still mess it up, in the opinion of every smart, blue collar, globetrotter (or in the opinion of Socal).

Only an injury will prevent Fed getting to the quarters, where he might struggle, imo.

To be honest I think Novak has been swept away a bit here - Masters victories don't usually mean anything in slams and I remember he was almost forgotten about for last year's Wimbledon just because he lost one match.
I mean Roger has been playing well against Nadal outside of slams but it doesn't really translate to slams at all - the comparison with Novak and Rafa is valid IMO here. Novak is actually still my tip for the title.

I actually do think if Roger played his very best, sustains it and doesn't choke on the big points as usual I think he beats anyone including Rafa on clay.

I think a Federer v Djokovic could be close. Federer had match points against Djokovic at USO 2011 and beat Djokovic at RG 2011.

It could be said that Djokovic is not playing as well as last year, while Federer is playing better. Hence, an argument can be given for Federer to beat Djokovic at this years Roland Garros. However, even when Federer was at his best he was never able to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. Hence, unless Nadal is impaired in some way, Federer has very little chance to beat Nadal.

However, the most important focus for Federer should be Wimbledon 2012, USO 2012 and AO 2013, where he will have better opportunities. If those courts play fast then it might even shift the balance in Federer's favour.

I've been thinking about that since the Rome final 'theslosty', maybe Djokovic didn't want to drain himself like he did last time around in slaying the clay lord, he certainly wasn't as aggresive or energetic as 2011 thats for sure. Saying that, he has never made a RG final, Del Potro could be a better bet on Paris clay.

I think I saw 1 in 8 as Federer's odds at the bookies. Factor in bookie profit margin and you've got 1 in 10 which is about right.

Wimbledon or the US Open might be more realistic.

Federers best will beat anyone, but he can't play his best against Nadal long enough to win, so even his best-possible won't beat him.

Basically, he can win this if he plays great, and Nadal has something go wrong.

Can anyone provide a link to the annoucement about the balls mentioned in the article?

Sorry HB I may have exaggerated - just remember reading a topic today and few posters appeared pretty certain there was to be a slower ball this year.

The balls played faster last year and that was noted e.g:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/general-sport/2011/05/23/french-open-andy-murray-hits-out-as-roland-garros-chiefs-change-balls-ahead-of-paris-major-86908-23150670/

Hence, if they are using the normal clay court balls, they will be slower compared to last year.

I have a feeling Fed is not going to overdo himself over wining the RG, I'm guessing a win over Djoko on SF and a easy Final loss to Nadal while conserving energy for W & Olympics should suffice for him.

HB - I posted a link on the "Balls" thread in which Federer indicates the balls are different to last year....given that he probably wouldnt mention it if they were faster I'd say he meant slower. Also, we know many players were unhappy with them last year and they are meant to be similar to the Dunlops used in the events in the run up to RG. This year is kind of Babolat bringing them into line after last years anomaly.

BB...I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes on other surfaces outside clay, when Federer turns it on just about everyone is in trouble. But clay is different...you're dealing the likely GOAT on clay here, its a different game and Nadal nearly always prevails...and some of the clay matches have been short enough for the time factor to be irrelevant. I dont see the problem in admitting a 6-time RG champion is better than Federer on clay.

Rafa is better than Roger on clay. Full stop.
Maybe I'm biased but I still think if Federer really does play his best (last appearance vs Nadal at O2) nobody can stop him. It's pretty much hypothetical anyway though...

If Fed plays his best he can beat anyone on any surface but can he play his best all the time? answer is no

If Nadal plays his best he beats anybody in clay including Fed, will he play his best if they had to meet in finals again? answer is yes.

So if Nadal and Fed meet in RG finals ,99% chance is that Nadal gonna win, but yes there is that 1 % hope.

Oftentimes has Mr Federer lost to Mr Nadal at Roland Garros.

Nore Staat wrote:Oftentimes has Mr Federer lost to Mr Nadal at Roland Garros.

Are you sure, NS - https://www.606v2.com/t29502-oftentimes-is-not-a-word?

lydian wrote:HB - I posted a link on the "Balls" thread in which Federer indicates the balls are different to last year....given that he probably wouldnt mention it if they were faster I'd say he meant slower. Also, we know many players were unhappy with them last year and they are meant to be similar to the Dunlops used in the events in the run up to RG. This year is kind of Babolat bringing them into line after last years anomaly.

BB...I'm not sure I agree with that. Yes on other surfaces outside clay, when Federer turns it on just about everyone is in trouble. But clay is different...you're dealing the likely GOAT on clay here, its a different game and Nadal nearly always prevails...and some of the clay matches have been short enough for the time factor to be irrelevant. I dont see the problem in admitting a 6-time RG champion is better than Federer on clay.

When Federer turns it on on clay they are too. I went on to say that this doesn't matter v Nadal because he can't sustain that level for long enough; Nadal will extend the match and prevail, much as he has said himself.

Only one RG match was short, and that was the year of GF anyway, where Federer knew he had no chance to play a long match and sprayed errors all over the place.

Whether he has the game to play Rafa on clay at Roland Garros is one thing.. does he have the stamina to play Rafa over five sets at Roland Garros is another.
Fed is playing well no doubt about that but even with that consideration he is 30 yrs old he will have played for two weeks on what is notably one of the most energy sapping courts on tour... would he last the pace ??? I leave you to answer that question...I dont think so personally

At the end of the day it's a very tall order for Fed to beat Nadal on clay...with the Babolat balls being 'off-spec' last year you felt that was his best chance. That said we're still waiting for a player to comment on the weight/speed of the balls this year. But from what I saw in the women's matches yesterday the balls were rearing up off the court when heavy spin was put on them...in which case beware 5000rpm!

Call me a geek but I'd say the chances of Federer (or any player) winning could be estimated as the chances of winning each round mutiplied together.
Chances of Federer winnig R1 96%
Chances of Federer winnig R2 95%
Chances of Federer winnig R3 93%
Chances of Federer winnig R4 90%
Chances of Federer winning QF 75%
Chances of Federer winning SF 50%
Chances of Federer winning F 35%

Huh and it comes out at 1 in 10 which is what I said before. Obviously when it comes down to each round and we know the opponent, the odds will adjust depending on who he's playing.

Let me have a go for Rafa
Chances of Rafa winning R1 98%
Chances of Rafa winning R2 98%
Chances of Rafa winning R3 97%
Chances of Rafa winning R4 96%
Chances of Rafa winning QF 93%
Chances of Rafa winning SF 85%
Chances of Rafa winning F 68%

Chance of Rafa winning - 48%

Let me have a go for Djokovic
Chances of winning R1 97%
Chances of winning R2 96%
Chances of winning R3 94%
Chances of winning R4 91%
Chances of winning QF 82%
Chances of winning SF 70%
Chances of winning F 55%

Hm according to that he only has a 25% chance. Suddenly, I can see where the bookies are coming from with their odds.

I think Rafa has the best chance because of his easy draw.

I think Rafa has the best chance because of his easy draw.

What would constitute a tough draw??

Feds draw is not as difficult as Nadal.

There is this conception that players like Raonic/Berdych could blast Rafa from the court and Raonic has not demonstrated enough form on Clay to suggest he can beat Rafa. Berdych has an outside chance. A slim one.

I think for once and all it's time to banish this silly 'easy draw' malarky. Bottom line is Nadal is that good on Clay that no-one can touch him. I wouldn't even fancy Djokovic on current form.

Some fair points there, but he has no tricky floaters early on...the easiest possible quarter and the easiest possible semi draw....Djokovic with Federer in the semi so a chance he might get lucky and Federer could eliminate Djoko...
It's a fair point though that he probably could have handled Berdych in the quarters , Federer in the semis had he been asked to so so.
I'm just saying, this makes it easier for him.
There is no doubt that Rafa has an easy draw, but it's also true that the difference between an easy and a hard draw is not a huge amount actually, but just enough to shift the odds a little.

I think once Djokoivc gets to the final, and so does Rafa, it's 50/50. I guess I'm more confident about Rafa in not slipping up though. Actually my round-by-round odds on Djokovic might be a bit harsh, since his odds have somehow come out a teensy bit low.

A tough draw for Nadal:

R1 - Soderling 2009
R2 - Kuerten 2001
R3 - Lendl 1984
R4 - Courier 1992
QF - Vilas 1977
SF - Wilander 1988
F - Borg 1978

The thing is HB the clay was always going to take from the players.

Raonic against Nadal on Hard, now that is a different prospect all together.

Look at the current Clay specialists. Monaco, Ferrer, Almagro, Bellucci whilst they are good clay courters, they don't have enough power to take out Nadal. Berdych has been the only player really to show he can play with power on Clay like he does on other surfaces.

It is a connundrum which has benefited Nadal for years on end. Federer/Djokovic/Murray may have better chances against Nadal on Hard/Grass, they struggle on Clay against Nadal because a longer length is not one that plays into their favour.

If Tsonga didn't have a game like a dyslexic trying to resite the alphabet, he alongside Berdych would be a dangerous prospect.

Haddie-nuff wrote:Whether he has the game to play Rafa on clay at Roland Garros is one thing.. does he have the stamina to play Rafa over five sets at Roland Garros is another.
Fed is playing well no doubt about that but even with that consideration he is 30 yrs old he will have played for two weeks on what is notably one of the most energy sapping courts on tour... would he last the pace ??? I leave you to answer that question...I dont think so personally

The answer to the question is emphatically "no".

The only guy with a realistic chance to beat Nadal here is Djokovic, but I don't think Djokovic 2012 is as good as 2011. However, should it be Federer and nadal in the final I still believ there is a route to Federer winning it, but it requires that he play very well without lapses, to put it away in three sets. Highly unlikely, to say the least.

Lets be honest here:- Federer at his very best on clay V Nadal at his very best on clay. One winner - Rafael Nadal the claymaster. Not really even worth a debate as both players clay court records demonstrate. On a different surface it would be different but not on clay.

For Nadal, at Roland Garros, all draws are easy.

Nore Staat wrote:For Nadal, at Roland Garros, all draws are easy.

Very much the case until someone comes along and provides a worthy challenger, unless of course the Clay turns blue

Henman Bill wrote:Let me have a go for Djokovic
Chances of winning R1 97%
Chances of winning R2 96%
Chances of winning R3 94%
Chances of winning R4 91%
Chances of winning QF 82%
Chances of winning SF 70%
Chances of winning F 55%

Hm according to that he only has a 25% chance. Suddenly, I can see where the bookies are coming from with their odds.

I think Rafa has the best chance because of his easy draw.

I knew you were an obsessive gambler



emancipator

You don't have to be a gambler to take an interest in the odds, it's just a way of discussing how likely people are to win. Having said that, using a bookie's website is one way of referencing/calculating the probabilities.

10 minutes on Betfair and I've turned their odds into % for those of you that don't understand bookies %, here they are:

Nadal 58%
Djokovic 23%
Federer 9.5%
Murray 2.3%
Ferrer 2.2%
Berdych 1.8%
Del Potro 1.4%

What does everyone think?

I think those odds suggest Nadal is very heavily favourite over Djokovic but I see it as a little closer. Not sure if Berdych or Del Potro should be below Ferrer. Ferrer might be the better clay courter most days but in terms of actually winning the tournament you just feel Berdych and Del Potro have a small chance to raise their game and beat Nadal, whereas Ferrer has almost none.

What does everyone think about those %. Everyone likes to discuss who might win, just wonder whether people would be interested to discuss it in such kind of detail. Possibly not, so if I get no further comments I will take a hint for next time.

theslosty wrote:I actually do think if Roger played his very best, sustains it and doesn't choke on the big points as usual I think he beats anyone including Rafa on clay.

I do not think so. Or, at the very least, I would not put it that way. I think in a match-up of an attacking player against a defender it is often easy to convince self that the attacker's "very best" will beat the defender, but I think it will often be an illusion.

As a way of example, consider - admittedly very simplified - case of an attacking player A and a defending player D. Say player D is very steady with few errors, does not take many chances and plays pretty much every point at the same level. On the other hand, player A likes to go for his shots and take chances. Suppose on any given point player A's attack against player D has about 45% chance of success and 55% chance of failure. Then, over a long match, far more often than not, player D will win - 55% to 45% is big enough cushion for that. However, there will often be stretches where player A will get on a "streak" and do quite well - 45% is good enough to give some good runs.

If you are watching a match between player A and player D you will see that player D usually wins but you will also see that when player A is clicking, there is not much that player D can do about it. You may end up interpreting it two ways:

(a) you can say that the stretches where player A is "clicking" are the true expression of his best play and if he can only sustain it, he will win, or
(b) you can say that those same stretches are simply the stretches where player A is having more luck than what he can reasonably expect in a long run, and that his best is really not good enough.

I am inclined to view (b) as the more correct interpretation in this case.

Ferrer has a better chance because he's got Murray in the quarter, and hes been giving Nadal matches on clay.

Berdy & JMDP get each other, then Fed, then Djokovic. They are accurately priced.

Henman Bill wrote:What does everyone think?

Delpo and Berdych have much tougher draws than Ferrer, so maybe that is enough to tip the odds his way.

Agree with you that at first glance I would give Novak a little better chance. In fact, if both Novak and Rafa make the final I would see it as pretty much 50/50 or at least not too far from there. However, I also think that Novak is far more likely to stumble early.

Reasonable arguments.

Summer Blues, I have often wondered about this.

I think an attacking player's best does beat a defensive player's best (players of equivalent calibre) but in reality this can and has been exaggerated.

When I saw Federer beat Nadal at the O2 I understood that Federer's best will beat Nadal's best...on this surface..on clay, it might be another story.

HB:

I guess the way I see it it depends on what one means by a player's "best".

If an attacking player is swinging for fences and does not miss there is little that defender will be able to do. On the other hand, the defender does not necessarily have a similar option. So from that perspective I would agree, attacker's "best" will beat defender's "best".

But I am not sure if that is a fair way of comparing players' "bests". I think if someone goes for big winners then I think one needs to include both the ones that work out and the ones that do not, and the player's "best" is really just whatever the best "hit/miss" ratio they can achieve when on good form. From this perspective I think it could well be that a defender's best is better than an attacker's best. And I think it is more fair to look at it this way. After all, the defender is consciously making their decision to defend preciesely because they think that no matter how well the attacker will play, the percentages will not be there for them.

But others may look at it differently.

Henman Bill wrote:When I saw Federer beat Nadal at the O2 I understood that Federer's best will beat Nadal's best...on this surface..on clay, it might be another story.

Just to be clear, I am not disagreeing with this. As far as Federer and Nadal go I was specifically giving my opinion for clay.

But each shot is not just the roll of the dice. When you are playing well you are "seeing" the ball better, hitting in the centre of the racket, and most of all it is about confidence. So what you say is only half the story. When the confidence is high and you are seeing the ball well, you might make 4 winners out of 6 instead of 2 out of 6, still an element of chance...

Watching Federer against Nadal at the O2 I said to my brother that I have never seen him play this well and it cannot last. And I was wrong because it did for the whole match. Would have been interesting to see a third set and see if it had carried on.

Look at Federer's match againt Nadal at Australia this year. Federer started playing excellently - just like at the O2 - but once he faltered, perhaps mentally, the match just went away from him, and you could feel the chance in the mood, it wasn't just about the statistical inevitability of a performance level.

Similar story at Indian Wells. He played better than Nadal, but again, the match was on the point of turning, but Federer got over the line that time before it did.

I think it's a mix of confidence and the emotional feel between the players as well as the roulette type odds. Federer has started so many matches well against Nadal, but rarely finished them in the same form.

Acccording to Tenez, physical is also an issue.

When Djokovic took a swing at the US Open, he made the winner and took the match. Same thing against Murray at the Autralian Open this year at something like 2-2 5-5 40-40. Someone like Berdych or Verdasco you just wouldn't back in the same way.

Mental strength on the key points is important here.

When Federer played Djokovic at the Australian Open 2011, I did a weighted analysis of points won on serve and found that when weighted Djokovic won only 1 point more. But took the match in straight sets.

HB:

I know it is not quite as simple as I make it out to be in my example.

But between Federer and Nadal on clay, I have come to view it as largely similar to my example. And not only because of me thinking of rolling dice or what not. Even when I watch them play, I get the feeling that Nadal just has enough options to make it work and that Federer would have to play better than I have ever seen him play to even make it really close.

As I said above, others can view it differently. No hard science this.

I agree with that. And Federer would surprise if he suddenly gets better at this age.

Federer can beat Nadal on clay by playing superb tennis, as he did in the first set at Madrid last year, but the margins are too fine for that to work for 3 sets. Which brings us back to the truth in your original argument.

However there is a small chance that he could do it - assuming Nadal doesn't play his best at the same time. And, with the possible exception of the first 4 sets of AO09, they aren't going to play their best at the same time anyway. Best vs best is largely theoretical, or at least unlikely, a more likely scenario is one player playing his best and the other not.

Federer best vs Nadal average could lead to a Federer win on clay, but I think Federer best vs Nadal best leads to a Nadal win on clay but a Federer win on other surfaces.

The real issue for Federer is that, although his best might be above Rafa's best (on all surfaces) his worst (FO 08, Miami 11) is WAY below Rafa's worst. Or Rafa just doesn't produce his worst against a major rival or in a semi or a final. Or, alternatively, Federer finds it more of a challenge, due to mental and matchup (e.g. spin to backhand) to produce his best against this opponent.

Nice chatting with you, by the way.

Stats and theories are all very well and they make up the previous few years history on clay. Going by those historic stats and facts. Nadal is by far superior to Federer on clay. There can be no debate on that matter - no mistruths or anything there. It would be akin to me arguing that Nadal is a better grass court player than Federer and trying to argue a case for it.

Look, I concede that my opinion may be incredibly blurred by my support for him, but if Fed could somehow throwaway the psychological grip which Nadal holds him in, and really played his very best (only happens about once a year) I honestly believe no one could stop him.
It is completely hypothetical as Fed can not achieve this against Nadal never mind maintain it.

However, my main reasoning comes down to the serve.
Even on clay, if you have someone who serves really well, they are practically unbreakable. When I play myself, against a much more accomplished opponent I always believe I have some chance if the my opponent's serve is not massive - and I serve my absolute best - the serve cannot be controlled by the opponent and it has been said "oftentimes" that the serve is the most important shot of the game.

Now, if Federer served ridiculously well and even just followed it up with pretty decent groundstrokes he could make himself "unbreakable". To do this he'd also need to play the big points well (mental block aside).
Nadal, on the other hand, simply does not have the same capacity to gain so many free points - even if he does get a fair share and serve cleverly and tactically, all it may take for a break is for this hypothetical on fire Fed to string a few forehands together to break serve.

THIS IS RIDICULOUSLY HYPOTHETICAL - and even in some alternate universe where it did happen it would still not make Roger a technically better claycourter - if both play poorly, average or fairly well Rafa will win.

This isn't really a Federer vs Nadal argument here it's just pointing out that I believe on clay, it is nearly always better to be a defensive player, but offensive players should have the upper hand on any surface when both they and their defensive opponent play their absolute best.

OK, but the ability do dominate on serve is dimished a bit on clay. On other surfaces, Federer's greatly superior serve vs almost any other top player can give him an advantage when he hits high % of good first serves. Federer's second serve in particular was forged in the Sampras/Ivanisevic era. It is light years ahead of, say, Murray, Ferrer or Djokovic, especially on a fast service.

But these days the majority of points in reality are won on rallies, not serves. And the serve can only win you the point on the first or second shot. These days, the defensive players are able to nullify the advatage with deep drifting returns if they can stay in the rally for more than 2 shots.

In the old days (90s) you could back up the serve with volleys, at least on grass, but nowadays it just doesn't work.

On clay not much has changed. A (second) serve has always just been the starting shot of a rally.

In fairness, SB's point - about a player's best not really involving hitting a winner every point, but rather their best realistic success ratio - is a fair one.

Upon (rather instant) reflection, the fact that even a very good serve can be drifted back, on clay it isn't as difficult to neutralise a rally.

Put it this way, we saw how Roger played against Nadal at the O2 - even on clay, is it seriously possible to defeat that sort of tennis (defensive or otherwise)?

I can dream.

SB's analysis leads to more of Rome 2006 repeats. Federer, at RG 2011, played three very close sets, but the breadstick fourth seems to support this.

The downside to defensive play is if the defensive player is not 100% (Soderling 2009, Verdasco 2012, or otherwise aka 'blue' clay), the attacking player stands a much better overall chance of winning, because the 'cushion' is gone.

Ferrer, as admirable as he is, was bagelled in the second set @Rome. Similar to Verdasco @MC.

theslosty - both players playing at their absolute best and Federer winning will only remain a dream.

Unless I have been fast asleep the last six or seven years, Rafael Nadal is the clay master and Federer just hasn't been able to compete with the Spaniard. What does that tell you? If it tells you we haven't seen Federer at his absolute best then we have to question his consistency straight away. Now we all know of Roger's consistency so we can factor that out straight away and say Federer has produced top tennis in the past on clay and still not come close to toppling Nadal.

Just accept it as it is that Nadal is king of clay and barring any massive shocks the title will be his in two weeks time.

I know if this were a Nadal fan on here trying to claim Nadal IS the GOAT (despite what stats saying) they'd have been ripped to shreds. In short Nadal is GOAT on clay and Federer isn't.