Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

If you compare expectations at the start of the year to results at the end of the year, there is a good case for this being viewed as one of his finest years.

It is Wimbledon and 300 weeks that catch the eye but the two events that impressed me the most were Indian Wells and Madrid.

Indian Wells was the point at which, for me, his results became more than a just a good run and I got the sense that this was a sustained higher level. In other words, what looked initially looked like a spike in the form chart now began to look more like it should be considered the norm. Beating Rafa along the way gave it an extra gloss.

Madrid was a classy result in that it came down to breadth of skill and intuitive tennis. The conditions were terrible, I believe even Fed said he wasn't keen, but rather than have a whinge (as I was a little embarassed to see Novak and, especially, Rafa do), he got on with it and won the thing! And not because it played to his strengths but because he had the range of ability to adapt.

Reading between the lines of recent interviews, I'm not sure Fed has more records in mind. I suspect he is now playing simply because he enjoys the game and enjoys the crowds.

My feeling for 2013 is that getting to #1 again is probably out of reach, especially if he has a reduced schedule. Winning slam number 18 is a possibility but I see it as a long shot. Strangely, I think his best chance of this may actually be at the French, although clearly the state of Rafa upon his return will have a bearing on that.

bogbrush wrote:The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final.

cough! I think you may have forgotten something... or someone.

Did you see the BBC interview with Federer before the WTF final? When asked who he thought was the best player this year (after giving credit to Djokovic and saying ranking points don't lie) he said there was an argument for it being Rafa. He was perhaps playing the best tennis for the half a season that he played.

But as things turned out I was happy to see Federer hold that Wimbledon trophy. Maybe to him one of the nicest thing may not be equaling Sampras and records but the fact that his daughters were there to see him do it. When they were born it was one of his wishes that they would remember him playing. That is perhaps a big enough occasion that it might stay in the memory of even young children. Although from the tweet I posted elsewhere it appears that his daughters are Rafa fans!

Ooh yeah! There's hindsight for you!! Apols to Rafa fans.

Yes, Rafa was going strong until then.

If we were to rewind 14 months to just after the USO 2011 and the crushing defeat by Djokovic and compare to where we stand today, then I think what Fed has achieved has been remarkable.

Most players would have been destroyed by that defeat and probably suffered a prolonged slump. Not Fed, he promptly went on a tear.

As you alluded to in your post, one of the most impressive things about him this season was his resilience in matches where he was losing. I've lost count of the number of matches he came back from behind to win. Something he just seemed to have lost over the previous couple of years.

I don't think we'll ever again see him consistently reach those levels of years gone by but overall his level of player this year was pretty high.

He can still mix it with the best and I think he'll be challenging hard in 2013.
The only question mark for me is whether his motivation will stay the same. There must come a point where he feels it's just not worth all the sacrifice or even subconciously starts to slide.



emancipator

Certainly a 9 out of 10. What I admired most is the way he fought back in quite a few mathches, which in some respects is alien to him (simply because he always used to dominate from the off)

And his Wimbledon indoors performance is up there with his best

I'm glad that he and Annacone have decided to become a bit more tactically astute and for that's the main difference to last year

No reason, why he can't win another Slam - although I do think he's now going to struggle the most with amount of energy needed. However, either a favourable draw or fast conditons makes him the automatic favourite in my eyes, i.e. at a hot Wimbledon

Fed had a great year, and I think he can go on to play well in 2013. Of all the players of the top 4 he impressed me the most. Murray's first slam only reaffirmed what I already knew and was way overdue. Djokovic underperformed as in his prime he should really be a two or more slam a year player, Nadal got injured but before then he looked great. Fed on the other hand exceeded expectations and his last match of the year left us all wanting more performances of that quality. I know there is no match on tour I enjoy more than Fed v. Djoko match.

It's true to say that the best matches usually involve Roger. I think that the best technically sophisticated matches are Roger and Andy when they play like they did at the two Wimbledon's. Lest we forget at the start of the third set (Olympic final) he threw the kitchen sink at Andy in a superb 30 minutes of Tennis which was some of the best of the year

He's motivated to keep the kids in their place or at least a bit quiet. Hence, we are getting a Fed who now fully respects all his rivals and hence we get a more intense version than a couple of years ago

An intense Federer is always a frightening thought for any opponent

Good summary.

I would be perfectly happy to see him repeat in 2013 this "poor" year by his standards.

banbrotam wrote:

And his Wimbledon indoors performance is up there with his best

"indoors"

banbrotam wrote:It's true to say that the best matches usually involve Roger. I think that the best technically sophisticated matches are Roger and Andy when they play like they did at the two Wimbledon's. Lest we forget at the start of the third set (Olympic final) he threw the kitchen sink at Andy in a superb 30 minutes of Tennis which was some of the best of the year

This is strange! I think I may be physic. Twice in one day I think I know what your thinking... Murray is outdoor King? Roger should thank Andy for making him look good by bringing out the best in him?

Am I correct?

Oh and there were two Wimbledons this year?

It has been a tremendous year - I didn't believe that he could carry the form he showed this time last year into 2012.

Don't know what else to add to BB's eloquent post - dare we hope for a good 2013, or was 2012 a brilliant swansong?

Time Please - Well I don't think Fed will ever win 70 matches in a season again but we should get a good, and probably full, year out of him.
The scheduling was always going to be a bit mad for everyone in 2012, with the Olympics and the rush at the end.
Fed's comments of late seem to suggest that he may be around for a while yet. He's still enjoying it, still successful well and even seems to be happy - or at least not too unhappy - to take the defeats as long as he thinks he's played well.
This last point is probably the most important if he's gonna stick around. He may have to face more defeats like the Djoko one at the O2 - where he plays well but still loses - from now on.

I think what some feds fan overlook is the fact that, yes federer was knackered but even if he is 100%, novak may still do the same thing to him what he did in the 02, in a bo5 match.
If novak can stay with him and not go away like he did at wimby, mentally that may take its toll on feds :/

The thing that impressed Fed most in the 02 final was what he described as Djoko's decidedly-aggressive defensive shots - that when the Serbian was on the back foot he was still getting in good shots.
We saw Fed at a loss in this way for quite a time in the Olympic final with Andy M. For a while in the second set Fed played poorly and lost a large number of games in a row. Then the Swiss started playing well and there was some terrific rallies - but Fed was STILL LOSING THE POINTS as Andy was playing out of his skin.
Maybe we'll saw more of this in 2013 with Fed's best, or near-best, still being too good for nearly all the players but not enought to beat Djoko and Murray. Wheteher it will be down to Fed being a tad past his best or the other two playing even more brilliantly it's hard to say.

Why is it that when talking about good play by Djokovic somehow Murray is given the credit also?

I think it's been pretty firmly established that Federer is past his best.

Still a very good player but certainly not the same player he was in 05-06.

Not as explosive in movement but better in other areas...on balance I don't think his game has particularly gone backwards.

lydian wrote:Not as explosive in movement but better in other areas...on balance I don't think his game has particularly gone backwards.

Perhaps not, but if he were younger I think his game would go forward considerably. It's very difficult when you're 28, 29 to raise your game yet again to match the best younger players who have had youth on their side to raise their game to match/surpass you. That's part of the fundamental cycle of tennis IMHO.

lydian wrote:Not as explosive in movement but better in other areas...on balance I don't think his game has particularly gone backwards.

Movement is the thing which seperates the top four from everyone else.

Even a loss of half a step can make a difference and Federer has lost more than that. Fed shanks and makes more UE's than he ever used to because he arrives late. I remember matches where he would play three sets and make just a dozen errors. Today that would be considered par for a set. Where is the inside out FH that used to be his staple, or the running FH? Nowadays if you get him out wide to his FH the point is virtually over. He just can't get into position quick enough. His defense used to be fantastic. It's still good but nowhere near where it used to be.

The only area of his game which has improved imo is his serve; it's probably better than it was in 05-06, but the rest of his game has clearly deteriorated in varying degrees.

I don't buy the nonsense that his net play is better. Federer won W in 2003 playing serve and volley for the most part. He demonstrated sublime net skills as far back as 2001 when he served and volleyed on first and second serves to beat Sampras at W. His BH has become a liability more often than not. It's nowhere near as sturdy as it was in his prime. He used to hit winners off the baseline from neutral positions for fun. Those are a rarity today.

Just watch some of the matches from that period and you can see a much cleaner, more efficient Fed. He must be the first player in the history of professional tennis to be playing at his top level after 1000+ matches.

The pundits may push this line that he is better than ever but of course they have a vested interest in doing so. To promote the idea that things are better than ever and of course it's normal tack nowadays to sensationalise and exaggerate everything. It's amusing to me that this is perhaps the only tennis forum on the net where people actually believe Federer is as good as he was. It's clear to me why also.

I do agree that he has adapted his tactics to counter these difficulties and of course the slower courts haven't worked in his favour, but in any case, overall he is clearly not as good as he used to be. It doesn't have to be a huge difference but all it takes is a few percentage drop in form and you can go from being the best player in the world to something less.

Indeed, Fed gave an interesting interview (after the WTF I think) wherein, for the first time as far as I'm aware, he acknowledged that he is past his prime. He was speaking about Novak and stated that he (Novak) is in his prime. That 23-27 is the absolute prime for a tennis player. It's when you are at your physical strongest and fittest and you have the right amount of experience to play your best tennis.

It'll be fun watching people rescind on these theories in a few years time when the current crop (Nadal, Djokovic) start to deteriorate due to the ravages of time. I expect their declines' to be sharper.



emancipator

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:Not as explosive in movement but better in other areas...on balance I don't think his game has particularly gone backwards.

Perhaps not, but if he were younger I think his game would go forward considerably. It's very difficult when you're 28, 29 to raise your game yet again to match the best younger players who have had youth on their side to raise their game to match/surpass you. That's part of the fundamental cycle of tennis IMHO.

That is a fair point.

You adapt to the prevailing conditions but there comes a point when it becomes too much to keep up. Old dogs and new tricks and all that.

emancipator wrote:Indeed, Fed gave an interesting interview (after the WTF I think) wherein, for the first time as far as I'm aware, he acknowledged that he is past his prime. He was speaking about Novak and stated that he (Novak) is in his prime. That 23-27 is the absolute prime for a tennis player. It's when you are at your physical strongest and fittest and you have the right amount of experience to play your best tennis.

Yes, I noticed that too. It was surprising as Fed usually quite studiously avoids the subject of "peak" or "past peak". But now he not only tacitly acknowledged he is past his peak, he says he is 3 or 4 years past it by his own estimate!

With regard to his decline, I don't think he has lost a thing in his shot-making. Not a thing. Some of the shots he produced at WTF were staggeringly good.

He has however, lost some consistency and that comes from a slowing of his movement, as has been acknowledged elsewhere on this thread. It's still better than most other players but it is below the rest of the top 4.

As a side note, I've also felt he has been much more effusive in his comments about Andy and, particularly, Novak in recent weeks. I wonder if they have perhaps gone up a notch in his estimation? Or perhaps now that he's had a great season and passed virtually all the significant remaining records and milestones, he doesn't feel like he has to defend his own position or ability in any way? i.e. the argument has been won? Or, of course, I could be reading too much into it!

Emancipator, I agree with some of the points in general but not specifically. Yes he's not as explosive off the mark as he was once. But my point is that he's able to make up, compensate, even move forwa for that in many other ways - in my opinion he's become a smarter player, and his technique is better. The converse of what you say also applies - in that there's also a vested interest in his fans saying he's not as good now and yet look how well he's doing, what a player, wow how good must he have been in his peak. And yet he can still compete and beat the current top3 in their prime...so are the current top3 not as good or similar to the players of early-mid 2000s, the statements would maybe lead to that conclusion if he's worse and yet holding his own.

I've watched Federer for many years too, and in my opinion he shanks much less on the backhand than he was doing in 07-09 period for example. That shot has improved. He's more aggressive, his serve, return of serve and net-play are also better. I also believe he's got mentally tougher, winning more 5 set matches than he used to. By 2008 he was around 11-11 in 5 set matches, he's now 20-16.

As I have written often elsewhere, slow surfaces help e older guys, Federer being one of them. He has more time to get to the ball than a few years back so his technique doesn't get rushed as much. Yes he's a tad slower but current conditions are not exploiting that thankfully for him - and he's improved his game elsewhere. But the proof is in the pudding...he's been holding his own against the other top 3 when you think he would have struggled much more as they hit their prime. This speaks to his game having got better. Besides which, can't they improve their game with age anyway...? Watson nearly won a golf Major in his late 50s...so technique doesn't need to slip. Only reflexes decline past 30...stamina doesn't, technique doesn't, outright speed doesn't (many 100m runners have reached peak in their 30s), mental agility doesn't...some f these things with dedication can improve...hence my comment that on balance he's at least as good as he ever was given the whole field has moved forward and he's still holding his own.

lydian wrote:Emancipator, I agree with some of the points in general but not specifically. Yes he's not as explosive off the mark as he was once. But my point is that he's able to make up, compensate, even move forwa for that in many other ways - in my opinion he's become a smarter player, and his technique is better. The converse of what you say also applies - in that there's also a vested interest in his fans saying he's not as good now and yet look how well he's doing, what a player, wow how good must he have been in his peak. And yet he can still compete and beat the current top3 in their prime...so are the current top3 not as good or similar to the players of early-mid 2000s, the statements would maybe lead to that conclusion if he's worse and yet holding his own.

I've watched Federer for many years too, and in my opinion he shanks much less on the backhand than he was doing in 07-09 period for example. That shot has improved. He's more aggressive, his serve, return of serve and net-play are also better. I also believe he's got mentally tougher, winning more 5 set matches than he used to. By 2008 he was around 11-11 in 5 set matches, he's now 20-16.

As I have written often elsewhere, slow surfaces help e older guys, Federer being one of them. He has more time to get to the ball than a few years back so his technique doesn't get rushed as much. Yes he's a tad slower but current conditions are not exploiting that thankfully for him - and he's improved his game elsewhere. But the proof is in the pudding...he's been holding his own against the other top 3 when you think he would have struggled much more as they hit their prime. This speaks to his game having got better. Besides which, can't they improve their game with age anyway...? Watson nearly won a golf Major in his late 50s...so technique doesn't need to slip. Only reflexes decline past 30...stamina doesn't, technique doesn't, outright speed doesn't (many 100m runners have reached peak in their 30s), mental agility doesn't...some f these things with dedication can improve...hence my comment that on balance he's at least as good as he ever was given the whole field has moved forward and he's still holding his own.

Your assertion that the slower conditions help Federer is wrong. The results this year show this. Virtually all of his success has come on the faster courts. In any case it doesn't require abstract reasoning to see that Federer is far more potent on the faster courts. It's those conditions that highlight his superior shotmaking. He's able to blow Nole off the court at W and Cincinatti but barely able to get the ball past him on clay and the WTF. There may be some truth in that the slower conditions enable him to get into position but that also applies to his opponent. The key point however is that these same conditions then nullify his greatest asset. Federer doesn't rely on great power to create winners and angles; it's about timing and taking the ball early and using the pace of his opponent, he essentially takes time away from his opponents and rushes them. Many players have commented on how Federer rushes them, makes them feel as if they have no time on the ball; the slower conditions nullify this. He has a fantastic skill set which allows him to shorten points; half-volleying off the baseline, coming to the net and so forth. The great attacking players have always been better on the faster courts and the grinders or safer players on the slower courts. Your assertion seems to be a reversal of conventional logic.

Comparing Golf (a purely technical sport with virtually no/little emphasis on physicality) to tennis is futile. How about other sports where movement, explosiveness, coordination, reflexes, endurance, power etc are all key opponents, such as football, basketball, rugby, etc? Was Zidane better at 31 than 25? or Jordan? or to be more specific, Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Macenroe, Navratilova, Evert and on and on?

Another element is the recovery between matches. Federer doesn't recover as well as he used to, as one would expect given his age. Do you think he could play 97 matches in a season now like he did in 2006? (when masters finals were BO5).

I agree that he employs better tactics than he used to but that's only because he is forced to. Prime Fed didn't need to make any adjustments, he just played the game on his own terms. There is some fantastic commentary from Agassi during the USO 2007 wherein he states that Federer is the only player he's seen who doesn't need to make adjustments to counter his opponent; he just has to execute his own game.

Outright speed on average does decline beyond 30. One only needs to look at the top sprinters; the vast majority are below 30 years old. For every example of a top sprinter posting better times post 30 years of age, one could probably find 5 more who's PB's occured in their twenties. In any case, the two are nor analogous. Sprinters dedicate their lives to speed. They are not as concerned with the other aspects of fitness. Maintaining all aspects of fitness is harder at 30 than at 25. Again it doesn't take a scientist to work that out. I'm sure all the 30+ year olds on the board will readily attest to this, as have countless sportsmen over the years.

But no, in Federer's case we're somehow expected to discard all conventional wisdoms. And yes, he was that good a player in 05-06. You don't dominate as comprehensively as he did without being extra special, and that is not intended as a slight against the current crop, it's just stating it as it is. What I find more apologetic is the need to beef up the current players (who are all magnificent anyway) by throwing in spurious claims that even Federer is better than he ever was. It's the mantra of the hyperbolic press, and I am yet to come across this pov on any other tennis forum.



emancipator

We even have a tacit admission from the 'innocently narcicisstic' one (as Tignor likes to call him), that he is nolonger in his prime.

emancipator wrote: The results this year show this. Virtually all of his success has come on the faster courts. In any case it doesn't require abstract reasoning to see that Federer is far more potent on the faster courts.

What reasons would you offer for Wimbledon being his least successful slam over the period 2010 - 2011? Or his most successful slams in that period being the slower courts - Australia (won) and RG (runner up)?

Apart from W 2010 where I think he was genuinely hampered by an injury, he lost to the better player on the day at both the USO and W in that period.

Over the course of his career 7 W and 5 USO v 1 FO and 4 AO I think tells it's own story.

HM,

Would you rather Novak play Federer on a faster court or on a slower court?

emancipator wrote:HM,

Would you rather Novak play Federer on a faster court or on a slower court?

Slower. I think Novak's defensive superiority is greater than Roger's offensive superiority.

But what about other players? Would Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga etc prefer to play Fed on a quick court? Fed is better than those guys both offensively and defensively but the gap is bigger defensively. Quicker courts may enable the big hitters to hit through Fed more often.

I don't think court speed is as big a factor as you. In his prime years, Roger could win on any surface and it is only the Rafa factor that makes his RG tally look relatively small.

From the time when age really started to become a factor (I'd say from 2010 onwards), his slams result have been better on the slow surfaces. At Masters level in that period he's won Cincy twice and Paris but also Indian Wells and Madrid, with runner ups at Toronto and Madrid. I don't see a huge skew toward the fast surfaces there (although statistically there are more slow surfaces available to win, so that will be a factor).

Intuitively one thinks of Fed being better on fast surfaces but his recent results suggest to me that nowadays there's not a lot in it.

The much bigger factor is his, as I think you agree, consistency. When he plays well he usually wins, when he's out-of-sorts he often loses, whatever the surface.

HM
Lydian

Ah well HM at least we both agree that there has been some decline.

As for the rest it can be argued both ways. I've never argued that he's incompetent on slower surfaces, he's pretty darn good on all of them. But given the preponderance of slower courts over faster ones, I think the difference in success may be significant. Madrid is the fastest of the clay courts by some distance. Besides the stats (even though they still favour the fast court prowess over the slower one) don't paint the whole picture. I think intuition in this respect is underrated. Federer plays attacking tennis. He comes to the net more than any other player in the top 10 bar maybe Taonga. He relies on cheap points off his serve. Such a game has traditionally been more suited to the faster courts (more being the operative word here).

As for the bigger hitters, it's a more nuanced point. Fed struggled to hit through soldering in the drizzle at the FO in 2010 whereas the Sod had no problem teeing off. A year earlier, on a sunny day, federer beat him in str8s. I think his difficulty in dealing with the bigger hitters in more recent years is further indication of his overall decline. In his pomp he dealt with them pretty comfortably (bar berdych, who's always been problematic).

Consistency is most definitely a bigger problem than it used to be. It is all very well to roll back the years every now and then but the key to winning the big prizes is the ability to maintain the appropriate level match after match.

The 25 yr old federer was clearly better at that.

It Must Be Love wrote:HM
Lydian

no for emancipator?

Emancipator

but do you really mean that eh

i just thought you didnt because you didn't agree, which is well within your rights of course.

Luvsports,

Cheerleaders only cheer for their favourite team



emancipator - intergalactic tennis historian
emancipator - Rival to Ama
emancipator - BOO00oo... hunter

HM Murdoch wrote:

My feeling for 2013 is that getting to #1 again is probably out of reach, especially if he has a reduced schedule. Winning slam number 18 is a possibility but I see it as a long shot. Strangely, I think his best chance of this may actually be at the French, although clearly the state of Rafa upon his return will have a bearing on that.

I almost agree everything what you said on this post ,even I do think his best chance will come on FO more than Wimbledon, yes Djoko is becoming better and better in clay but its really Rafa that causes trouble for Fed on clay , if Fed brings his A-game for the 2nd week in FO barring Rafa I don't think so anybody can beat him.

If Rafa not 100% fit and doesn't produce his level of performance and if somebody upset the champ midway of the tournament I do fancy Fed's chances.

Fed might even call it a quit if he gets the FO-Wim double.

no chance at all feds winning the FO, cannot see why people think this.
As his movement gets worse surely this is likely to hurt him more on clay, where rallies are at there longest?

Emanci summed up perfectly, Fed's complete game in my view has deteriorated, I see even his serve is no more the weapon he used to have, but the good thing is he perfected his serve on angles but doesn't have the speed in his serve anymore atleast not consistently.

On the other hand yes like Emanci mentioned, his running forehand, running backhand are gone, backhand breaks more easily and doesn't produces crazy winners anymore [barring a few here and there like the one we saw against Murray in the WTF semi's].

His defense is close to 20% of what he had at his prime, big gunners can penetrate it with ease, which was never the case at his prime, the same berdych,Roddick, Karlovic's , Phillipoussis who struggled can hit through his defense these days.

One aspect that improved with time is his will to win, he takes all equation of age and young guns as a challange and still outperforms them on lot of occasions.

He enjoys the challange and more than capable of winning it on some occasions but not possible on all occasions which he is known for before.

I have throughly enjoyed his career and I am excited I gonna see him for one more year atleast.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

My feeling for 2013 is that getting to #1 again is probably out of reach, especially if he has a reduced schedule. Winning slam number 18 is a possibility but I see it as a long shot. Strangely, I think his best chance of this may actually be at the French, although clearly the state of Rafa upon his return will have a bearing on that.

I almost agree everything what you said on this post ,even I do think his best chance will come on FO more than Wimbledon, yes Djoko is becoming better and better in clay but its really Rafa that causes trouble for Fed on clay , if Fed brings his A-game for the 2nd week in FO barring Rafa I don't think so anybody can beat him.

If Rafa not 100% fit and doesn't produce his level of performance and if somebody upset the champ midway of the tournament I do fancy Fed's chances.

Fed might even call it a quit if he gets the FO-Wim double.

I'm going to savour this, IC, as I don't think it's often we are in full agreement!

I also think a big factor at the French is that if Fed has an "off" day, I still think he can grind out a BO5 result against most players on clay. If he has an off day on grass and especially hard court, I think there are a lot more players who would fancy their chances.

Or, to put it another way, I think the gap between Fed and anyone who isn't Rafa or Novak is larger on clay than it is on other surfaces.

I just shake my head when folk try to push the line that as Federer heads towards his 32nd birthday in August he is as good as ever. Proponents hang onto Agassi as support but its such a wrong statement when you stand back and think it through. Top athletes just generally don't do that; there's a reason why so few Slam winners are over 30. There just is.

bogbrush wrote:I just shake my head when folk try to push the line that as Federer heads towards his 32nd birthday in August he is as good as ever. Proponents hang onto Agassi as support but its such a wrong statement when you stand back and think it through. Top athletes just generally don't do that; there's a reason why so few Slam winners are over 30. There just is.

It's because the decline has been so slow. He's never been "lots worse than last year" and it's easy to mistake incremental decline for no decline. It's only when you compare him to a few years ago that the difference jumps out.

Fair enough.

First of all, good article, good summary.

We've been over this a few times in great depth so perhaps not much need to repeat but only 2005 and 2006 were better years for Federer than recent ones. His results clearly show that his form and ability in 2009-2012 was on a par with 2004 and 2007 (look at the number of defeats to players outside the top 5 or top 10 for instance) and probably superior to certainly 2003 and maybe 2008. And Federer himself said he was playing as well now as ever.

If we exclude Rafa's injury and only consider the part of the the year that he actually played, you can make a case for all 4 of the big 4 having a very satisying year. Certainly for the other 3.

I think it's time for me to shake my head again.

2008 was a catastrophe, with losses all over the place to anyone.

2009-12 is a couple of levels below 2003-7; it's what happens when they get on a bit. Others have explained it better on this thread than I.

Let's not go over this same topic too often - nice article though.

HM Murdoch wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

My feeling for 2013 is that getting to #1 again is probably out of reach, especially if he has a reduced schedule. Winning slam number 18 is a possibility but I see it as a long shot. Strangely, I think his best chance of this may actually be at the French, although clearly the state of Rafa upon his return will have a bearing on that.

I almost agree everything what you said on this post ,even I do think his best chance will come on FO more than Wimbledon, yes Djoko is becoming better and better in clay but its really Rafa that causes trouble for Fed on clay , if Fed brings his A-game for the 2nd week in FO barring Rafa I don't think so anybody can beat him.

If Rafa not 100% fit and doesn't produce his level of performance and if somebody upset the champ midway of the tournament I do fancy Fed's chances.

Fed might even call it a quit if he gets the FO-Wim double.

I'm going to savour this, IC, as I don't think it's often we are in full agreement!

I also think a big factor at the French is that if Fed has an "off" day, I still think he can grind out a BO5 result against most players on clay. If he has an off day on grass and especially hard court, I think there are a lot more players who would fancy their chances.

Or, to put it another way, I think the gap between Fed and anyone who isn't Rafa or Novak is larger on clay than it is on other surfaces.

Fed has the experience of how to play in Clay and grass, specifically FO-Wimby, 2011 FO against Djoko and 2012 Wimby against Djoko/Murray are perfect examples, however good Djoko can be on clay he still have to come against the xp of Fed if they meet in the finals which won't be easy for him, the real deal will be if Rafa be fit enough for Fo 2013? if not FO will become an open tournament after 8 long years.

Yes we seldom agree HMM, but I have respected some of your post eventhough I would not have replied for it, finally in the mid of diverse views yes its good to have to some common view on some topic atleast

If people are saying Federer 2012 is way off the ability of Federer 2007 (say) and yet he won 6 titles and got to #1 this year...then they are basically saying 2011-12 is a "weak era" despite having Djokovic, Nadal and Murray around in their prime. Or rather, his 2007 prime was sooooo much better than these guy's 2012 prime. Personally I think not. Otherwise, the alternative is that Federer has improved many areas of his game to still be able to cut it with these prime multi-slam/multi-Masters guys...which is it?

It's a difficult one isn't it? Some people reckon he only got to No 1. because Djoko and Nadal were injured and that perhaps No 3 would have been the best Fed would have got to otherwise.
Personally, just from what I've seen Fed is overall not as good as, say 2007. He can play at the same level at times, but with different strengths and weaknesses. I don't think he's as consistent as he was back then or has the stamina to do it week in, week out. The mileage has taken its toll in that respect, as has the increased physical aspect of the game.

He's not as consistent as before?
Let's look at that further. His results for 2012 are:

+ Won 3 Masters - better than any stage since 2006
+ Won 1 slam, reacehd 2 SFs, 1 QF - better than 2010 and 2011
+ Won 86% of matches...only bettered in 2004-7 (2007 = 88%)
+ Played 83 matches...his highest level other than 2003. 2005, 2006
+ Won 6 titles...last time he did that was 2007.

So, where is this lack of consistency you speak given the 86% W:L???
Where is this lack of stamina??? He beat Del Potro in the longest ever 3 set match at Wimbledon at OG.
Where is the lack of recovery given he played 83 matches?

Sorry, I just dont buy that Federer's ability to compete and last the course has fallen off some kind of cliff when he's returning the kind of numbers shown above for 2012. The only counter argument for those stating he's declined is that he's playing in a much weaker era to enable him to return those sort of 2012 stats. So again, which is it?

1. Has he become a better player to cut it against prime Djokovic et al. to return these numbers?
or
2. Are the 2010-12 prime players worse than the prime guys he was beating 2004-7 given "he's declined"?

My take is that he's not the SAME player as 2004-7 - yes, he's not as explosive but surfaces are slower now so that doesnt count as much. IMO to return these 2012 stats he must have improved a number of areas given the field, again IMO, is stronger than 2004-7 when Nadal, Djokovic and Murray werent in their prime.

If you're saying that I'm arguing that Fed has fallen off some kind of cliff, then clearly I'm not stating my argument very well.
I'll need time to figure out how to make my opinion clearer.

Fair enough JHM...and its not just levelled at you. I want to hear from the Federer fans how he's able to return these stats after decline in various ways yet within arguably one of the strongest top 4's of the Open Era.

As I mentioned above, the only area of decline I can really spot is less explosive movement off the mark but surfaces are slower now so that doesnt count as much. This is also my argument why talented youngsters are not able to break through - this differential of youth doesnt count the same as before. For me he has focused on, developed and improved a number of areas in his game since 2009 whilst maintaining his stamina - I still dont believe there are fitter players than him on tour, his fitness training sessions in Dubai are almost the stuff of legend with Paganini, inc. burning out one player then another in practice!