Federer - realistic chances?

First topic message reminder :

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...

Ok, ok Craig don't get your knickers in a twist.

This isn't a Murray debate

BTW - I agree; Rafa at his best on clay is better than Roger. No amount of fudging the facts will change that. I think the best yardstick for measuring aptitude on a particular surface is to look at overall results, ie the results against the tour on that surface and not the results against one particular player. This takes out the inherent advantages that one player may hold against another due to match-up. With this in mind Rafa is clearly better than Roger on clay and Roger is better on the other surfaces.

A hypothetical situation of absolute best form vs best form doesn't exist in reality. Tennis is a one on one sport. The nature of such competition means that at any one point one of the players will hold the advantage and thus prevent the opponent from bringing their 'best'. However it is possible for both players to play at a consistently high level throughout a match. The best example of this in recent years was the AUS open semi between Safin and Federer which is easily the highest quality match (with brilliant consistent shotmaking and without any significant dips from either player) that I can remember.



emancipator

I think the BO5 format is starting to wear on Federer. You only have to look at the US Open last year and see that maintaining the high standards of that format for 2 weeks is physically demanding. While his form in a BO5 is more than enough for players below the top 2, Djokovic or Nadal still left standing in the tournament will always prevent Federer from another Slam.

And who is getting their knickers in a knot and who said it was a Murray debate. Not me. Just stating the obvious as I would if a Nadal fan were to be spouting the same stuff when Wimbledon comes around where Fed has been the master until last two years. Simples.

I agree that the BO5 matches are becoming more and more difficult for Roger. Despite the protestations of some that Roger is as physically as fit and durable as ever, it is clear to me that he now has to pace himself more than ever in these longer duels.

A clear example is the USO semi 2010 where Roger conserved energy for the final set after going down early breaks in the second and fourth sets iirc. He even alluded to this himself in subsequent interviews. Likewise the following year, after trailing Djokovic in the third and fourth sets he realised it would be too much of a task to fight tooth and nail for every point in those sets and thus saved himself for a final push in the fifth.

This is not something he would have done in previous years. In his prime he appeared to be indefatigable and was never considered out of a set even at two breaks down. This is clearly not the case anymore.

I also think that he has found a new equilibrium with his movement. He is noticeably a step slower than he used to be and thus appears to be more on the defensive. I think it took him a couple of years to acclimatise to this loss of movement and hence the results over the last couple of years have been relatively poor. He probably had to adjust his footwork and strokes to adapt to this new reality. The recent success is probably a reflection of the acceptance and adaptation to this new paradigm. However, which ever way you look at it, he is not as good as he was in his peak years. Of course this is all par for the course in the career of an ageing champion, even one as prolific as Federer.

Some people make the arguement that athletes actually can become fitter, particularly with regards to endurance, as they get older. There maybe be some truth to this in linear endurance and stamina tests. However the overall sporting fitness (requiring strength, speed, stamina, agility, flexibility, sharp reflexes etc) declines. Of course tennis is such a physical sport requiring all of the aforementioned elements and imo Federer overall is not as physically attuned as he was.



emancipator

Sets won on Clay (TB Sets)

Nadal v Federer Sets 32 - 13 (TB sets = 9)

RG 2011 3-1 (1)
Madrid 2011 (not blue clay) 2-1
Madrid 2010 2-0 (1)
Madrid 2009 0-2
RG 2008 3-0
Hamburg 2008 2-1 (1)
MC 2008 2-0
RG 2007 3-1
Hamburg 2007 1-2
MC 2007 2-0
RG 2006 3-1 (1)
Rome 2006 3-2 (3)
MC 2006 3-1 (2)
RG 2005 3-1

I agree there emanci.

I think that is where Annacone's experience with Sampras has helped him think more about the energy he consumes during matches in Slams.

Federer has used the squash shot more in rallies and that has helped his game during matches where the opponent tries to hit and hit through him.

If the conditions were more varied with a greater proponderance of faster courts than is currently the case, then the Annacone approach of shortening the points, attacking the net more etc would have paid dividends for Federer in his later years on the tour. Unfortunately, with the tour predominantly being played on slower, higher bouncing surfaces, this option is virtually obsolete. Thus Federer has not choice but to engage in protacted baseline rallies for which he is nolonger primed to compete in.

Jim Courier made the exact same point a couple of days ago. I think it's a real shame. We could have seen the evolution of the greatest player of all time, in a sense rolling back the years and going back to his roots, and achieving credible success with it. Instead we witness a great champion being slowly suffocated on court.



emancipator

I don't believe that Fed can win a final against Nadal unless the conditions and Nadal's health/form combine freakishly to support him. In short, for Fed to win Nadal has to lose before the Final. Even to get to the Final Fed most likely has to repeat the heroics of last year's SF.

He's also got a pretty tough draw facing whoever is in the best form of Berdych and Del Potro.

I don't think a win is going to happen, as a Fed Fan I would be pleased with a SF (I'd be disappointed with less I'll confess) and if he makes it to the QF and beyond I'll content myself with knowing that he'll have set records with pretty much every match - as well, no doubt, as having graced the Court with his style of play.

Jim Courier made the exact same point a couple of days ago. I think it's a real shame. We could have seen the evolution of the greatest player of all time, in a sense rolling back the years and going back to his roots, and achieving credible success with it. Instead we witness a great champion being slowly suffocated on court.

I think that is the starkest statement made so far. It is a cold fact of the tour at the moment. As you rightly say Federer has tried to evolve his game and it is wasted on conditions that no longer favour that style of play.

Yes LK, that's exactly my point.

And a shame too.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Jim Courier made the exact same point a couple of days ago. I think it's a real shame. We could have seen the evolution of the greatest player of all time, in a sense rolling back the years and going back to his roots, and achieving credible success with it. Instead we witness a great champion being slowly suffocated on court.

I think that is the starkest statement made so far. It is a cold fact of the tour at the moment. As you rightly say Federer has tried to evolve his game and it is wasted on conditions that no longer favour that style of play.

It's a tragedy for the viewer. We could have had something for the ages; a match up between styles where each had a decent chance, and as you say a player doing the incredible of re-evolving his game back to what he played when he first emerged. Instead we get 6 hour finals decided on health (I will never forget how destroyed Nadal and Djokovic were in that 4th set at USO 2011, and how Nadal - who I would have bet my house on after he took the 3rd) simply couldn't move for cramp in the 4th.

I believe it won't be long before this period is looked upon as an experiment that went too far, and deprived us of seeing the best from the latter years of the best player ever to hold a racquet.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Jim Courier made the exact same point a couple of days ago. I think it's a real shame. We could have seen the evolution of the greatest player of all time, in a sense rolling back the years and going back to his roots, and achieving credible success with it. Instead we witness a great champion being slowly suffocated on court.

I think that is the starkest statement made so far. It is a cold fact of the tour at the moment. As you rightly say Federer has tried to evolve his game and it is wasted on conditions that no longer favour that style of play.

It's a tragedy for the viewer. We could have had something for the ages; a match up between styles where each had a decent chance, and as you say a player doing the incredible of re-evolving his game back to what he played when he first emerged. Instead we get 6 hour finals decided on health (I will never forget how destroyed Nadal and Djokovic were in that 4th set at USO 2011, and how Nadal - who I would have bet my house on after he took the 3rd) simply couldn't move for cramp in the 4th.

I believe it won't be long before this period is looked upon as an experiment that went too far, and deprived us of seeing the best from the latter years of the best player ever to hold a racquet.

I think hence the reason a viewer would welcome a Raonic Slam success say to a Murray Slam success which I think would be looked on as un-spectacular copy of a Nadal or Djokovic.

I think this period of time will be looked back on when tennis pushed the limits to such unsustainable levels. I can't imagine that the ATP/ITF would be supportive to players who's knees will be made of titanium by the time they are 40!

True, good point.

I would be equally unsupportive of a tour that had no place for Nadal; some of the most admired players from the past were those brutal clay beasts who could grind the opponent into the baked earth.

Well yes BB...Borg for one comes to mind!
There are claycourters and there are claycourters...Borg and Nadal are not your common or garden "grinders"...they have shown adaptability to other surfaces. Ok they're slower/more similar now but nonetheless Nadal has to make adjustements...after all we dont see Lopez/Verdasco/Almagro, etc, making great runs at SW19/AO/USO. We cannot deny the talent that guys like Borg and Nadal have, its churlish to say different really when results speak for themselves in any era.
I'm all for the surfaces being specialities again...proper slow clay....proper fast grass and Decoturf at USO,...slow high bouncing Rebound Ace at AO...that was good for the game and made 4 in a row almost impossible...the guy who could do that would truly be a giant of the game...after all, it never happened!

I think the tour is putting too much on players physically to protect their ranking and then on top of that to compete at events at 100% conditioning.

Wimbledon I know for years had groans because of fast hitting and booming serves. They seemed to be more interested in the equilibrium that was the US Open and Australian Open that compensated baseline and S&V. Wimbledon got is hopelessley wrong by going for baseline and eradicating the S&V. Now all 4 Slams are trying to do the same which offers nothing to the viewer. When have an event like Doha which suits the hitters and then Paris which was beyond ugly and for the grinder.

Federer's legacy for me will be one of fond memories. His game suited conditions whereas with a Nadal or Djokovic the conditions suit their games. Whilst I don't condone the impact of Nadal on the game, if his long term health is affected by his style of play, what message would that send to up and coming juniors and the kids tennis is trying to attract? Tennis is already a short career and is likely to be even shorter with the current physical demands.

Nadal and Djokovic need Federer to help glorify their legacies. It strengthens their's and does not make their legacy seem ever so one dimensional.

Tweaking of conditions not only offers the chance for new champions but also a chance to current champions to adapt or change to blend in and further cement their claims to greatness.