Is Roger Just A Little Bored?

Watching Federer win through the latest round of his tough draw the commentators noticed his habit of hitting trick shots to the ball boys to save them from scampering about to fetch them. They speculated that it was perhaps his way of adding a little interest. Later in his (amusing) on court interview he speculated that it might be fun and/or a challenge to win a slam by winning all the matches in five sets. I don't think I have ever seen Federer so relaxed.

With his achievements and at his stage in his career it must be hard to get excited about reaching 30 odd slam quarters or x number of slam semi's. Even adding another slam to the list would be nice of course but would change little. Would Federer really be viewed any differently with 18 or 18 plus slams compared to his present 17? He has little to fear from anyone in the draw at this years AO. Not that he is unbeatable but rather a loss to a player he is clearly better than would hurt little (By better I mean in the broader sense).

I reckon there is only one big challenge that remains for Federer. It doesn't necessarily involve winning a title or breaking any records. It is the test of playing the one player that can equal him on a tennis court. The one player who can force him to play at his very best. The one player who remains a challenge. The one player that he is scared of.

Hopefully Nadal will be fighting fit for the FO and Wimbledon.

I should imagine the challenge of beating Murray in an Olympic final would also be of interest to him.

Kneesy does it.

If Federer started to beat Nadal, I would have no doubt in the slightest a new article would surface from yourself probably reading something like "Roger could never beat a pomp Nadal on Clay and that all results post kneegate are to be asteriked"

JuliusHMarx wrote:I should imagine the challenge of beating Murray in an Olympic final would also be of interest to him.

I don't suppose you heard what Federer said about the Olympic final today in his post match interview?

I still think the only person that can hurt Federer is Nadal. I don't usually agree with Mats Wilander but sometimes he is spot on. During commentary on one of Federer's matches (not todays) he said that the only player that Federer is scared of is Nadal. IMO I don't think Federer is scared of Nadal I think he relishes the challenge.

hawkeye wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I should imagine the challenge of beating Murray in an Olympic final would also be of interest to him.

I don't suppose you heard what Federer said about the Olympic final today in his post match interview?

No, what did he say?

JuliusHMarx

Oh dear you didn't hear? You should check out the full interview with Courier I'm sure you'll be able to find it somewhere. If I just tell you out of context you might see it the wrong way. Although it's nothing that we haven't talked about here.

Probably because he is saving himself and waiting for his semi final clash V Andy Murray which will be a huge titantic struggle for him. If Murray does win the semi final match, Federer is well aware that he Murray could go on and dominate the game as what Federer himself did after he beat the 1990's king of tennis Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001.

I missed that. Pray tell, I know it means the forum exploding but...........

gboycottnut. Federer may lose to Tsonga, Murray, Chardy, Berdych, Djokovic, Ferrrer or Almagro. He might be a little peeved... especially if he loses to Almagro in the final but he won't be hurt. Also no way is he scared of any of these players. Why should he be?

bogbrush. Ha ha! I would love to tell but no way do I want to get everyone shouting at me. You should watch the whole thing anyway it was quite funny.

Just watched it - turns out he said nothing that even HE could latch onto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFRsoTCnLjo

Bizarre. So because he felt it physically in London means another *

Go head HE, would love to hear what Fed said about Olympics to Courier.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Just watched it - turns out he said nothing that even HE could latch onto.

Just watched it myself, and nothing there that would possibly merit a HOLD THE FRONT PAGE

But then again, JHM .......if hawkeye happened to be the Editor in charge .......

hawkeye wrote:gboycottnut. Federer may lose to Tsonga, Murray, Chardy, Berdych, Djokovic, Ferrrer or Almagro. He might be a little peeved... especially if he loses to Almagro in the final but he won't be hurt. Also no way is he scared of any of these players. Why should he be?

bogbrush. Ha ha! I would love to tell but no way do I want to get everyone shouting at me. You should watch the whole thing anyway it was quite funny.

Can't really see Federer in his current high level of form losing to Tsonga as he did at Wimbledon in 2011.

Phew! I'm glad everyone likes Federer's interview. I honestly thought some would be upset about what he said about the Olympics.

That's because he didn't say anything that had me jumping from my seat about the Olympics.

hawkeye wrote:Phew! I'm glad everyone likes Federer's interview. I honestly thought some would be upset about what he said about the Olympics.

You mean when he admitted that Murray played better than him. Very upsetting. I may not sleep tonight.

hawkeye wrote:Phew! I'm glad everyone likes Federer's interview. I honestly thought some would be upset about what he said about the Olympics.

Did you by chance watch the 2010 AO interview with the 150,000 year reference and mistook it for yesterday's interview?

He also mentions Wawrinka-Djokovic match and his respect for both players.

You may want to watch Federer's press interview after the Tomic match, where he suggested respect for all players.

hawkeye wrote:Phew! I'm glad everyone likes Federer's interview. I honestly thought some would be upset about what he said about the Olympics.

Yeah.... right .....

Especially when he said "Murray was just too good for me"

HE exposed again. It must be indecent exposure.

Indeed CC.

Pity HE can't be as straightforward as Federer in giving credit/praise where it's due.

lags72 wrote:Indeed CC.

Pity HE can't be as straightforward as Federer in giving credit/praise where it's due.

Yup that is true. But hey-ho I am still waiting on a topic from her apologising for how wrong she was all those years across various forums for insisting Murray would never win a slam.

hawkeye wrote:With his achievements and at his stage in his career it must be hard to get excited about reaching 30 odd slam quarters or x number of slam semi's. Even adding another slam to the list would be nice of course but would change little. Would Federer really be viewed any differently with 18 or 18 plus slams compared to his present 17? He has little to fear from anyone in the draw at this years AO. Not that he is unbeatable but rather a loss to a player he is clearly better than would hurt little (By better I mean in the broader sense).

I reckon there is only one big challenge that remains for Federer. It doesn't necessarily involve winning a title or breaking any records. It is the test of playing the one player that can equal him on a tennis court. The one player who can force him to play at his very best. The one player who remains a challenge. The one player that he is scared of.

Hopefully Nadal will be fighting fit for the FO and Wimbledon.

He's said himself that he relishes taking on the younger players, seeing if he can still beat them - they provide Federer and others with new games to test themselves against. He's said before that he loves playing Djokovic due to the quality of the matches and how much of a challenge it is to play a guy who's the best 'offensive-defensive' player in the business. And I'm pretty sure he enjoys the intensity of his matches against Nadal too, I doubt he fears him nowadays, particularly now that his legacy is more or less secure.

Also, I think Federer would be viewed very differently depending on slams won. If he picks up another AO and FO, it may well be regarded as more impressive to some than picking up two more Wimbledons. There's plenty out there for Federer to play for, and we shouldn't forget that the better he does against the top guys in the twilight of his career, the bigger the dent he puts in their chances of catching him in the GOAT stakes! Seems like decent incentive to me, even if it means occasionally getting bored when matches fizzle out into a non-event

Silver

I wasn't saying Federer doesn't still love playing tennis because clearly he does. Also it's not that it wouldn't be nice to add a few trophy's to his collection and it's fun to play younger players... But I do think he's playing with nothing to lose. I'm not sure I agree that adding a few more trophies of any particular type would make much difference to how he's regarded. His legacy as an all time great is secure.

When I watch Federer now this to me is all apparent in his play. He is as always beautiful to watch but he is on the whole playing tension free. This is all very well but not particularly exciting either to watch or (and obviously I'm speculating) for him to play. Sport should be a little dangerous for it to be at its best and for it to bring out the best performances. There is one player who still has the ability to make it just a little dangerous for Federer and hopefully he will be back soon.

When Borg walked away from tennis it left McEnroe at a loss. Instead of relishing the prospect of winning titles without his main rival he lost motivation because his goal wasn't purely winning titles. His goal was to beat who he considered to be the best. I'm not saying this is the same for Federer and Nadal because it isn't for lots of reasons. But it does show that at the very top of sport the goals can be quite different.

hawkeye wrote:Silver

I wasn't saying Federer doesn't still love playing tennis because clearly he does. Also it's not that it wouldn't be nice to add a few trophy's to his collection and it's fun to play younger players... But I do think he's playing with nothing to lose. I'm not sure I agree that adding a few more trophies of any particular type would make much difference to how he's regarded. His legacy as an all time great is secure.

When I watch Federer now this to me is all apparent in his play. He is as always beautiful to watch but he is on the whole playing tension free. This is all very well but not particularly exciting either to watch or (and obviously I'm speculating) for him to play. Sport should be a little dangerous for it to be at its best and for it to bring out the best performances. There is one player who still has the ability to make it just a little dangerous for Federer and hopefully he will be back soon.

When Borg walked away from tennis it left McEnroe at a loss. Instead of relishing the prospect of winning titles without his main rival he lost motivation because his goal wasn't purely winning titles. His goal was to beat who he considered to be the best. I'm not saying this is the same for Federer and Nadal because it isn't for lots of reasons. But it does show that at the very top of sport the goals can be quite different.

Don't think that McEnroe lost motivation immediately after Borg retired/walked away in 1981. I think what did for McEnroe was that the game was changing from a touch based game to one of greater power due to new racket technology coming into the game around 1985. Also McEnroe never took physical fitness with any degree of seriousness which meant that he was always likely to get burned out early in the way that Borg was after 1980.

gboycottnut wrote:

.......................................
Don't think that McEnroe lost motivation immediately after Borg retired/walked away in 1981.
........................................................................................

.

gboycottnutt: Johnny Mac would seem to disagree with you on that particular point.

From his autobiography 'Serious' :

"Borg's leaving was a huge blow for the sport, and for me personally. It was unbelievable....... and now suddenly Borg was gone. It took the wind out of my sails. I had a very tough time motivating myself and getting back on track. It took me a couple of years to start improving again."

gboycottnut wrote: Also McEnroe never took physical fitness with any degree of seriousness which meant that he was always likely to get burned out early in the way that Borg was after 1980.

That is a disservice to McEnroe's game. He did rely on touch, but fitness did play an important role as indicated by the following matches (in the list of longest matches).

6 h 22 Davis Cup 1982, quarterfinal: John McEnroe def. Mats Wilander, 9–7, 6–2, 15–17, 3–6, 8–6 (1 day ; before tie-break).
6 h 21 Davis Cup 1987 barrage: Boris Becker def. John McEnroe, 4–6, 15–13, 8–10, 6–2, 6–2 (1 day ; before tie-break).

Notice, there is Wilander in one of them.

Buried in all of HE's comment are some interesting points - what does keep Federer motivated, and what achievements would seriously strengthen his legacy as the GOAT in men's tennis?

I think he probably does still have a desire to prove himself the best of today, so the challenge of taking on Djokovic, Murray and Nadal at the business end of the big tournaments is a drive. It's interesting that while all three would be considered as fundamentally defensive players, the challenges they offer Federer are different - Djokovic with his solidity and consistency on both wings, Nadal with the focussed attack on Roger's bachkhand and Murray with more variation in pace and spin.

As for his legacy, while another Wimbledon or USO would be nice to put him as outright record holder for titles, there's be something of a sense of 'so what'. I think another AO or two would be greeted similarly, but winning the French, especially by getting the better of Nadal, would add a bit more concrete to the GOAT foundations and would undermine the argument about the Fed v Rafa H2H weakness.

The only other thing that would be a serious plus would be to win a calendar Slam, and while Roger came within 1 match twice in his mid 20s, surely this is far too much to expect of a guy now approaching 32 and up against 3 proven very strong younger opponents.

dummy_half. So I can only get backhanded complements because I don't rate Murray as highly as some?

Anyway I am also interested in what keeps Federer motivated. To find out it helps to listen to what he says and that's why I linked to the interview. It also helps to watch how he plays. Do you agree he looks ultra relaxed? He also looks like he's having great fun. But no way does he look under any sort of threat? You say there would be a little sense of "so what" if were to win and I agree. But the other side of this is there would also be a sense of "so what" if he loses. What a luxury to be able to play with so little pressure. But don't you think Federer might miss the excitement of pressure just a bit. As a fan watching I must confess that I do. That was my reasoning for wondering if he could be just a little bored?

lags72. That's the quote about Borg from McEnroe that I was thinking about. But McEnroe is not exactly shy and as a commentator he's often made reference to it. There is also a quote from Nadal that hints at how motivation can be affected by a match up with a particular rival. I can't remember where I saw it so can't provide a link but it was after winning the Australian Open in 2009. He said something about having a dream about climbing a mountain and a sense of loss.

What makes me think that Federer still relishes playing Nadal is that he says so. He talks about it as a special rivalry and to perhaps the annoyance of Djokovic and Murray (and their fans) he refuses to give them the same sort of respect that he gives to Nadal. Obviously! Also there is a tension in Federer's play that isn't there when he plays anyone else. In this match up he still has something to win and something to lose.

Federer was funny in the Courier interview when he talked about his sleeveless vest and how it showed off his muscular left arm. Ha ha!

dummy_half wrote:Buried in all of HE's comment are some interesting points - what does keep Federer motivated, and what achievements would seriously strengthen his legacy as the GOAT in men's tennis?

This is a very interesting interview. It is worth the 20+ minutes. I think CAS or Emancipator may have posted this in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUl9Mz8ZjTw&feature=youtu.be

The question should be now is Almagro bored?

he : I agree that there will always be something special about Nadal/Fed clashes. They have both enjoyed important wins against each other over the years and few people need reminding of Rafa's very positive h2h.

However I can't agree as regards Federer having "something to lose". Not as regards his unique legacy that is. Any future matches would be contested within the context of a player at tennis retirement age versus one still in his prime.

laverfan wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Buried in all of HE's comment are some interesting points - what does keep Federer motivated, and what achievements would seriously strengthen his legacy as the GOAT in men's tennis?

This is a very interesting interview. It is worth the 20+ minutes. I think CAS or Emancipator may have posted this in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUl9Mz8ZjTw&feature=youtu.be

Thank you for providing this link laverfan. Maybe you could summarize what Federer said? It could have been the monotonous voice over but when I tried listening I just dozed off. Zzzz... It's not just Roger who can sometimes get a little bored.

HE, do you think Federer will be similarly bored when he plays Murray, Djokovic or even Tsonga in this tournament? I do wonder whether his apparent boredom and relaxation is because he knew that he had several extra gears to call upon if required in all of his previous matches. He looked fairly fired up when he won the pivotal second sets against both Tomic and Raonic, but after that he did seem to go into exho mode once the matches were virtually won.

When he plays someone that has a more genuine chance of beating him - basically everyone from here onwards - I think we'll see whether it's just lack of opposition or something else.

Edit: Ah yeah, missed that post. Cheers!

Silver. I think I answered your question in my 2.58 comment.

hawkeye wrote:

laverfan wrote:

dummy_half wrote:Buried in all of HE's comment are some interesting points - what does keep Federer motivated, and what achievements would seriously strengthen his legacy as the GOAT in men's tennis?

This is a very interesting interview. It is worth the 20+ minutes. I think CAS or Emancipator may have posted this in the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUl9Mz8ZjTw&feature=youtu.be

Thank you for providing this link laverfan. Maybe you could summarize what Federer said? It could have been the monotonous voice over but when I tried listening I just dozed off. Zzzz... It's not just Roger who can sometimes get a little bored.

https://sponsorship.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=307341&coid=279860&lang=EN

Enjoy!