Why did Federer lose today ?

Since no-one had the balls or the racquet to put up a thread dedicated to the Gods demise, I though it fitting that a Murray fan should bask in the fallen angels light so quickly extinguished by a Journeyman today.

Ahh, sorry about that, couldn't stop myself.....ahem....start again.....what I wanted to say, seriously is, what did happen to Roger today ?

People have said he played OK and Good and Fine, but that is not the Federer we saw playing on Monday. What I saw was an old man trying to run down balls that he would have got two days ago.

Was it energy levels down, maybe time had caught up with him momentarily today or was it a lack of conviction, knowledge that he is vulnerable and that younger players are just quicker, that's it. He was slower than usual, not getting into position as he could do normally and it seemed as though time had slowed him down but not Stakky.

This is not a thread to find excuses and commiserate with him and his fans or smirk at his loss, but a thread to ask questions of what happened and does it have a short term affect or long term. As quickly as former pros were writing off Nadal, I don't hear the same song from them about Roger, do they see it differently, that a current player who is capable of winning slams, gets beaten early in the event but the two are somehow disconnected from Clairevoyeurisms. (although they may have changed their tune in the last 2 hrs, I've been away from the telly that long)

My own opinion is that Roger ran out of steam, steam that would normally have gotten him through a game of that nature. Stak played his best tennis, the score line was very close and Roger nearly nabbed the 4th set, but was let down by a horrid backhand DTL, it almost looked like he wanted the whole thing to end there and then, but not, of course.

Will he be back, I hope not, I don't want to see him go out like that again, but the tennis he loves so much will call out to him and he'll play devils advocate with fate as usual. I have a sneaky feeling we won't though, make no mistake, this was a humbling blow to Federer, his record of slam runs has ended, in spectacular fashion at the hands of a player he may well have thought to dare think beyond and as much as he played hard to stop the Stakky juggarnaut, at some point he must have seen the writing on the wall.

The end point, the deflation, the early walk back to the losers dressing room, is not something he is used to experiencing, will this be the catalyst that makes him slow down and think again, is this defeat as good as a debilitating injury ? what next for Federer ?

He got old. They all do.

From what I seen of the match Roger just never worked out the Stakhovsky serve. His returns weren't up to scratch. Apart from that his game was in pretty good shape. It may be that he was taken somewhat aback by Stakhovsky's largely serve-volley tactic. Also lets not forget how fantastic Stak played this evening - he was immense. He never faltered on the massive points and his volleys were superb. A deserved winner.

yip. and the other guy played better. no big deal. not end of the world. i am already wondering why i came back to messageboarding. BB, business going well?

bogbrush wrote:He got old. They all do.

I wonder who you've been watching for the last ten years Craig. That game wouldn't have got him past two games against his younger self.

Roger lacks penetration on the forehand now, and his movement is poor.

He's just past it. Fair enough. He's been that way or a few years now but it's just got too far to craft through.

coolpixel wrote:yip. and the other guy played better. no big deal. not end of the world. i am already wondering why i came back to messageboarding. BB, business going well?

bogbrush wrote:He got old. They all do.

Yes thanks!

As Bogbrush says; age.

I would add that probability plays a part too. Federer survived numerous close shaves in preceding years during the first week of slams.

Sometimes one's number is up.

bogbrush wrote:I wonder who you've been watching for the last ten years Craig. That game wouldn't have got him past two games against his younger self.

Roger lacks penetration on the forehand now, and his movement is poor.

He's just past it. Fair enough. He's been that way or a few years now but it's just got too far to craft through.

I've been watching Federer. Where did I say in any of my posts on the result that Stak would have beaten peak Fed? Truth is he deserved the win this evening even given Fed's aged condition.

My feeling was that his chipped BH return was poor - not low enough over the net, nor deep enough. Not enough bite on it.

Also, did he lob at all? There were several points when he had time to lob, but went for a passing shot that didn't work. A few well-placed lobs would have put doubt in Stak's mind about when to come to the net.

Those are the things I think he could have changed.

bogbrush wrote:He got old. They all do.

Overnight ?...c'mon BB, it wasn't just age today, it was something else, I've never seen Roger outplayed like that before, and it wasn't all down to Stakhovsky playing his best tennis. I generalise when I say he played a slow game today, it was more I suppose sluggish, in the sense that he purposefully paced himself, but it was not at the correct speed.

This defeat for me was spectacular in its excitement as much as it was seeing Federer put up so many flat shots and needless UE's. The match point he saved was almost a sign that he's woken up, but it was short lived and that last shot of his I think may be his epitaph at Wimbledon.

Stakhovsky played fantastic tennis.

One noticeable aspect in his game was the his serve.

Federer's good enough today was not good enough.

He will bounce back, as he has done many times. He loves the sport.

I couldn't beleive how poorly he played the big points. The 2 forehands in one game when he had 2 break points were just amazing (in how poorly he played them). Towards the end of the 4th set he'd actually won more points in the match. But it was the big moments.

For some unknown reason he just didn't seem to back himself. He hit this one volley (when his opp was no where), it was there to be put away and just tamely hit it into mid centre court from where Stak came and hit a winner.

Johnyjeep wrote:For some unknown reason he just didn't seem to back himself. He hit this one volley (when his opp was no where), it was there to be put away and just tamely hit it into mid centre court from where Stak came and hit a winner.

I remember that one Jj, he looked almost dazed and confused, a real plum for Stak to put away. But that told the underlying story today, slow reactions and thinking, it wasn't for the whole match, but like you say, the big moments let him down more often than not.

Roger Federer suffers earliest Wimbledon exit for 13 years

The headline from the BBC. Not sure its correct. Shouldn't it be 11?

However it's still and amazing sentence.

@JJ... 2002 Ancic is 11 years, not 13. You are correct.

There are certain facets of tennis that cannot be taught, they are just instinct. I suspect those instincts can fail on any given day for any number of biological reasons, of which age is one.
Maybe Fed's poor returning was because today he couldn't read Stak's serve, or it was bouncing at a height that he couldn't quite adjust to. Part of his fluidity and movement on court in the old days was because of his anticipation - almost playing the rally 2 or 3 shots ahead on a subconscious level. If age has taken that away, then he will look slow on the court, but not because of a fitness/physical issue.
Maybe he didn't lob because the instinct to lob didn't quite register strongly enough.
Possibly the mind cannot quite focus to absolute sharpness for every match after 1000 matches - the neurons are just too worn out.

But Stak played great and was hugely enjoyable to watch.

I think Federer came in and faced a guy who played a brand of tennis he has recently started struggling against. Sergey should have been off in three sets. I wouldnt say 2006 Federer would have beat this guy 0 0 0. He would have beat him, obviously, but I think it would have been a little closer. Maybe a break of serve a set. Im not going to delve much deeper, lest I come across as an "upset Nadal fan". But Fed will be back come USO.

JubbaIsle wrote:

bogbrush wrote:He got old. They all do.

Overnight ?...c'mon BB, it wasn't just age today, it was something else, I've never seen Roger outplayed like that before, and it wasn't all down to Stakhovsky playing his best tennis. I generalise when I say he played a slow game today, it was more I suppose sluggish, in the sense that he purposefully paced himself, but it was not at the correct speed.

This defeat for me was spectacular in its excitement as much as it was seeing Federer put up so many flat shots and needless UE's. The match point he saved was almost a sign that he's woken up, but it was short lived and that last shot of his I think may be his epitaph at Wimbledon.

Overnight? Did I say that?

I think you'd find I've been observing this process for a while.

Just seen the match stats and I think Fed was just unlucky to come up against an opponent in inspired form.

Federer had 57 winners to just 13 errors and a 1st serve at 72%.

That would normally be good enough to win.

Stakhovsky though had an amazing 72 winners to 17 errors. Incredible figures.

Pretty close match.

First set (Stakhovsky v Federer) ...

19  Winners 20
4  Unforced errors 5
43  Total points won 43

Second set

17  Winners 14
4  Unforced errors 1
40  Total points won 41

Third set

15  Winners 10
4  Unforced errors 6
39  Total points won 36

Fourth Set

21  Winners 13
5  Unforced errors 1
40  Total points won 41

Federer lost the fourth set with a 13/1 ratio??? The guy behind the computer was a little kind giving only one away...

Has to be said that the strength in men's tennis now is unreal. Stako has been having a poor year, yet he came out today and played tennis from the gods. Same with Darcis on Monday. Just makes you realise even more how remarkable Fed's SF/QF streaks are.

Also, I'm been saying for ages how a good serve volleyer could still win Wimbledon. Today we saw Federer and Hewitt struggle to find a way to deal with genuine grass court tennis executed well. Rumours that Wimbledon is green clay seem greatly exaggerated.

kingraf wrote:Federer lost the fourth set with a 13/1 ratio??? The guy behind the computer was a little kind giving only one away...

There is a forced-error category that W website does not have.

Stakovsky played great, Darcis didn't.

Perhaps Federer tanked because he had wanted to beat Nadal in his expected QF, which he wanted for his 37th.

kingraf wrote:Federer lost the fourth set with a 13/1 ratio??? The guy behind the computer was a little kind giving only one away...

The match point was clearly an UE so none in the set up to then? Seems unlikely.

Born Slippy wrote:

kingraf wrote:Federer lost the fourth set with a 13/1 ratio??? The guy behind the computer was a little kind giving only one away...

The match point was clearly an UE so none in the set up to then? Seems unlikely.

You are correct. In the fourth set TB, Federer shanks a BH return which makes it 5-2 (after the Federer challenge). Not sure if it is considered a UE or an FE. Will have to watch the replay later tonight.

Born Slippy wrote:Has to be said that the strength in men's tennis now is unreal. Stako has been having a poor year, yet he came out today and played tennis from the gods. Same with Darcis on Monday. Just makes you realise even more how remarkable Fed's SF/QF streaks are.

Also, I'm been saying for ages how a good serve volleyer could still win Wimbledon. Today we saw Federer and Hewitt struggle to find a way to deal with genuine grass court tennis executed well. Rumours that Wimbledon is green clay seem greatly exaggerated.

It never really was. Not even close. The green clay stuff only ever came up when a certain Spaniard had the audacity to actually to win Wimbledon. The upstart obviously didn't know his place.

The courts are playing very quick this year, so much that S&V can truly win matches. Fed isnt used to playing against ultra-aggressive players these days and Stakhovsky volleyed sublimely not allowing Fed to get any rhythm. Fed might not be quite 100%, a few shanks here and there but you have to hand it to Sergey...he was aggressive and Fed doesnt like playing against ultra aggressive net rushing guys, never has really...there's just been a dearth of them around and willing to stick to that game plan.

I give Stakovsky massive credit. Since Fed had to lose some time I'm more reconciled to this than anything else, especially like losing to some boring player.

He was rubbish on key points though, but Stakhovsky rolled the dice every time and played great.

HM Murdoch wrote:Just seen the match stats and I think Fed was just unlucky to come up against an opponent in inspired form.

Federer had 57 winners to just 13 errors and a 1st serve at 72%.

That would normally be good enough to win.

Stakhovsky though had an amazing 72 winners to 17 errors. Incredible figures.

I agree, Stak played lights out. He out feded fed. Roger played a pretty good match. But on grass against a guy who is serving and volleying like that and playing the big points you can get beat. Also lets remember last year Benny almost put him out in the earlier rounds as well. Is Roger older and not as good as he has been, I think that is fairly obvious. But this is what can happen to a top player on grass when he just can't get a foothold in his return games.

CaledonianCraig wrote:From what I seen of the match Roger just never worked out the Stakhovsky serve. His returns weren't up to scratch. Apart from that his game was in pretty good shape. It may be that he was taken somewhat aback by Stakhovsky's largely serve-volley tactic. Also lets not forget how fantastic Stak played this evening - he was immense. He never faltered on the massive points and his volleys were superb. A deserved winner.

CC do you live in dreams and myths? the other day you argued Nadal was injured when he and his camp clearly argued thats not the case, and here Roger is too old and found it difficult to even get to some balls and there was no power in his shots either and to add more the opponent played a very good game, but strangely you go on to say he looks in perfect shape.

All good things do come to an end, Federer is no GOD to break the age barrier and keep casting magical spells, it might come some time before he retires but to expect him to do day in day out is not an easy task.

Good article OP.

Comparing the 36 QF streak (2004 W - 2013 W), which shows obvious consistency, the current Top 5 are

Djokovic - 16 QFs - 2009 USO - 2013 RG - Still going...
Nadal - 11 QFs - 2009 USO - 2012 RG - Broken at W 2012
Murray - 9 QFs - 2011 AO - 2013 AO - Broken at RG 2013
Ferrer - 6 QFs - 2012 AO - RG 2013 - Still going...

Djokovic will have to reach QFs all the way to 2018 RG to equal this record.

JuliusHMarx wrote:My feeling was that his chipped BH return was poor - not low enough over the net, nor deep enough. Not enough bite on it.

Also, did he lob at all? There were several points when he had time to lob, but went for a passing shot that didn't work. A few well-placed lobs would have put doubt in Stak's mind about when to come to the net.

Those are the things I think he could have changed.

This. He stands so close to the baseline, even inside the court so there is no room for him to hit passing shots most of the time and a lob would have been much more effective. Because the other 3 stand further back, they might have had better luck with their passing shots.

I think all the top players, including Fed, have got too used to to the baseline and others playing from the baseline that this match just caught him by surprise. He probably didn't think much of his missed opportunities early on as he thought they'd come again and again when they were actually quite rare. I don't get the doom and gloom about being passed it and 100% disagree with the OP saying this should be the last time. Who cares if he loses, he has no divine right to win every match and the other players have trained all their lives to play too. Seeing him go out to bad performances then maybe you'd have a point but this was no problem.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:From what I seen of the match Roger just never worked out the Stakhovsky serve. His returns weren't up to scratch. Apart from that his game was in pretty good shape. It may be that he was taken somewhat aback by Stakhovsky's largely serve-volley tactic. Also lets not forget how fantastic Stak played this evening - he was immense. He never faltered on the massive points and his volleys were superb. A deserved winner.

CC do you live in dreams and myths? the other day you argued Nadal was injured when he and his camp clearly argued thats not the case, and here Roger is too old and found it difficult to even get to some balls and there was no power in his shots either and to add more the opponent played a very good game, but strangely you go on to say he looks in perfect shape.

All good things do come to an end, Federer is no GOD to break the age barrier and keep casting magical spells, it might come some time before he retires but to expect him to do day in day out is not an easy task.

Good article OP.

What are you waffling on about Ic?

Look through my countless posts on the match and where have I posted that I said this was peak Federer. I said he isn't the player he was but Stakhovsky played a brilliant game. For all that this wasn't peak Fed though he by no means played to even an average level - he played well. On this occasion though the better player won on the day.

If you are meaning, in some way, to equate this to the Nadal match the other day (for what reason I don't know) that panned out differently. Check out the stats alone and you'll get my point. Way too many unforced errors from Rafa than you normally come to expect from him in a three set match and pretty awful movement.

bogbrush wrote:I give Stakovsky massive credit. Since Fed had to lose some time I'm more reconciled to this than anything else, especially like losing to some boring player.

He was rubbish on key points though, but Stakhovsky rolled the dice every time and played great.

Agree absolutely.  I would rather have seen both Federer and Nadal go out to a young gun if given the choice - a laying down of a marker for the future in other words, rather than by an inspired performance from a guy that will probably disappoint from here.  However, as you say BB, massive credit to Stakhovsky for a really inspired and very committed performance.

This was coming - we Fed fans are hoping for semis now but expecting QF and sooner or later, it was statistically likely that a close early match would swing the other way.  The loss is not as much as a shock as the exit of the reigning French Open Champion.

Fed lost because he looked slow around the court compared to Stakhovsky.  Stakhovsky served immaculately which allowed him to come in behind his serve and volley brilliantly and he covered the net extremely well.  Fed looked at sea at the net - he just looked slower and his timing was off because he was slower to the ball.   Furthermore his serve is no longer the force it was which made it difficult for him to serve and volley in return if he wished because Stakhovsky was returning easily and keeping Fed at the back of the court.  When Fed did venture in, he was tentative and was passed easily.  How different than when he was playing Hanescu and he found it v easy to come in after his serve against a much less agile opponent.

Apart from a few glorious shots - a winning smash played backwards and the shot where he disappeared by the chairs to re-emerge and play a winner - he looked stiff, slow and rattled and he was missing lines because his timing had deserted him.  Was it a bad day?  Yes and there will be better, but there will also be far more of these now - 2012 was a supreme effort and it seems to have taken its toll both physically and mentally.  Interestingly, at the beginning of the match McEnroe was saying that Fed felt he had given so much energy to the Players' Council this year that it had distracted him from his tennis preparation a bit and that he was looking forward to prioritising that once more - he obviously still wants it, but as lydian has questioned - how much?  Enough to really put himself through the mill?

Can someone do an analysis on his stats yesterday compared to say his stats from a similar Wimbledon match from two or three years ago. Point is I have seen him play worse and win. Stakhovsky played to a consistently high level and never dipped or opened the door to Federer. The aspects of Roger's game yesterday I would criticise was his inability to return serve with any menace.

Fed's return of serve has been his weak spot for a while. Whereas Murray and Nole get themselves into the point and actually, most times, take it over immediately - Roger doesn't do that anymore

Ironically, despite his skill he's always been a player that is service led, i.e. if his service game is on, then he's unstoppable. If someone stops him dominating with, he's less sure of himself, which then affects his confidence. Then the weakness of his return is more prominent

This was hardly seen in the early days, but has become more prevalent in the last few years

The reason why his three rivals have such a good record against him, compared to any other players, is because they are great returners and I though Stakhovsky returned superbly

I don't know what you want CC - do you want people to say that Fed is at his best because none of his fans have felt that for a few years now, apart from some glorious matches, but rarely for a whole tournament as in the past.

All credit to Stakhovsky, and everyone has not only praised him but also commented on how much they enjoyed his style of play last night. However, Jubba asked a question and people are trying to honestly evaluate what they saw in Fed's game.

Saying Stakhovsky played brilliantly and Fed is past his best are not incompatible statements. When Fed beat Pete at W 2001, Fed played brilliantly and Pete was past his best - doesn't stop it being a wonderful match or great sporting moment.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Can someone do an analysis on his stats yesterday compared to say his stats from a similar Wimbledon match from two or three years ago. Point is I have seen him play worse and win. Stakhovsky played to a consistently high level and never dipped or opened the door to Federer. The aspects of Roger's game yesterday I would criticise was his inability to return serve with any menace.

I've pointed out on another thread where you quote stats that low unforced errors is characteristic of S & V tennis, where there are winners or forced errors. Unforced errors are all part of attritional baseline play.

To suggest very low unforced errors indicates near faultless tennis is just plain wrong, and if you deny you're saying that then what are you saying?

If there were countless shanks etc and netted volleys or whatever they count for unforced errors whatever style of tennis on show and there were very little unforced errors yesterday. Certainly not enough to claim Federer was 'far past his best'.

I did not get home until the start of the 3rd. I watched the 2nd set t/b and it was that one u/e that changed the match. Had Fed not made that error he may have won the 2nd set and possibly the match.

T/b sets can go either way. Its a lottery. A net cord here and there can change a match. He played okay but not sharp enough to get the job done. Stark did a Rosol i.e whoever in front of him on the day would not have won.

I think the top guys play week in week out against each other. We are 6 months into the year and these guys are probably worn out so how much more when you are 32.

Where Federer goes from here is anyones guess. Maybe he might put in a good performace at the USO.

It simples he lost the same way Rafa lost against Rosol.. or have you forgotten what that was.. He was out played by an inspired opponent who played the match of his life on the day ... it wasn´t what Federer didn´t do it was all about what Stahkovsky did do.  Thats what us Nadal fans have been told about Rosol for the last year and so all credit therefore must go to Stahkovsky

At nearly 32 Federer is in the terminal stage of decline of a tennis player. That's not difficult to understand. Deny it is ignorance of the basics of tennis. On the other hand Nadal is supposed to be at the end of his prime. But: experience teaches that players with similar style of Nadal, on average, decline quicker. Brugera, Courier, Wilander, Chang were all gone at 26.

FedsFan wrote:I did not get home until the start of the 3rd. I watched the 2nd set t/b and it was that one u/e that changed the match. Had Fed not made that error he may have won the 2nd set and possibly the match.

T/b sets can go either way. Its a lottery. A net cord here and there can change a match. He played okay but not sharp enough to get the job done. Stark did a Rosol i.e whoever in front of him on the day would not have won.

I think the top guys play week in week out against each other. We are 6 months into the year and these guys are probably worn out so how much more when you are 32.

Where Federer goes from here is anyones guess. Maybe he might put in a good performace at the USO.

I understand the age thing and have no doubt that's part of it but then again Ferrer who is 8 months younger has played many more matches already this year and still seems to be holding up ok (might have to eat my words after today). Could it be that he has just lost a bit of hunger. When he got to number 1 and won Wimbledon again he obviously had goals which he had set himself after the the 2011 USO. He achieved these (apart from maybe getting singles Olympic Gold). He got his 300 weeks at number 1 and 17th slam. It was a great achievement. So as was asked at the time what targets does he set himself now. Unless that focus is there it may be difficult to gain that extra motivation when things get tough. I don't think he is anywhere near finished yet but could see him just really targetting a couple big events each year.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:At nearly 32 Federer is in the terminal stage of decline of a tennis player. That's not difficult to understand. Deny it is ignorance of the basics of tennis. On the other hand Nadal is supposed to be at the end of his prime. But: experience teaches that players with similar style of Nadal, on average, decline quicker. Brugera, Courier, Wilander, Chang were all gone at 26.

Ferrer hasn´t neither has Robredo. Prior to this Tournament there were many of you saying that Federer would win and that he has X amount of slams still left in him... what a difference a day makes

Not me, I said Fed didn't have much chance after watching halle.

Just for curiosity how good at maths were you as a student?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

Calder106 wrote: I don't think he is anywhere near finished yet but could see him just really targetting a couple big events each year.

I don't think that will work though.

A player needs to play into top form. I don't think you can just produce top form because a particular tournament is a target.

He'll also lose (continue to lose?) the aura needed to win a lot of tight matches. When he focuses less on other events and more players beat him, more players will go into a match thinking they can beat him.

It's no coincidence that slam 17 occurred at the end of fantastic period of months, not weeks. Wimbledon was his 8th title in 9 months or so. It took a concerted effort to get into that position and I just can't see him turning it on at will with a narrower focus.

There is a world of difference between maths and statistics ... and what has that to do with the price of fish:headscratch:

statistics (st-tstks)

1. (Used with a singular verb) The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data