Is this the end for the GOAT of tennis?

First topic message reminder :

Is Roger Federer on his way out of the game he has transformed to new heights?

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have a different theory to Roger's decline. I do not deny he is not as fit as he once was but I believe Roger was adamant his back was fine going into this tournament and his display against Nadal recently backed this up and he had no problems in his previous matches here. I say he is merely suffering from a total lack of belief and confidence brought about by many recent losses against players he used to beat for fun. I liken it to a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one blow too many. It means that if Roger meets a player who can be competitive from the get go and pressurises him then the doubts and lack of confidence leads him to miss shots or under hit them screwing his game plan. He still desires to play at the top and still believes he can but when the chips are down the self-belief and lack of confidence inhibits his game far too much.

Self-confidence is missing now, yes, but that's the result of the initial decline, not the cause of it.

Yes, apparently it was only confidence that kept him ahead of Brands, Robredo, Stakovsky etc.

There were many layers to Roger's domination. Obviously, his talent is one. Another was fitness and another being confidence and self-belief. Winning not only boosts ones own self-belief but helps to build an aura of invincibiliy - this aura was worth a heck of a lot in the mental stakes. Now when that aura of invincibility slipped which evidently it did when Rafa found the winning formula against him followed by Novak then the aura diminishes it happens in many sports and it happened to Roger. Nobody is denying back issues hindered him and played its part but just now Roger feels fine so what caused his defeat against Robredo? A total lack of confidence and self-belief.

Good pics and thanks TRuffin...completely agree he certainly looks better than 6 months ago from those. In which case I'm scratching my head a little and readily open to admit that. Can he be over training? Surely not. The mental slide is so marked the past few months...is it a sense of urgency, even panic, in matches because he knows time is running out? Is he trying too hard in matches, being too aggressive? It is very curious what has triggered the confidence issue.

JK, what are you going on about..,what is so surreal? I still think, despite the pics above, that he's a little too lean muscle wise. Perhaps the pics above are a work in progress and 6 months from now at AO13 we'll see a more Robredo type physique. Right now, he just seems a little weak in matches power wise...he should be blowing guys like Robredo off court easily with his FH alone. Maybe that racquet is a bigger issue than apparent. Decline aside, I'm at a loss why the decline seems to be accelerating mentally as much as anything. Perhaps his goose really is simply cooked?

But why the aura of invincibility appears to fade for most Champions around 30 years of age? Have you considered/ explained this further clue in your interesting theory?

Perhaps the mental decline acceleration is a snowball effect? With each painful loss and long run of form you can over-analyse and tweak things and perhaps those are in error and add to his problems rather than solving them. By that I mean instead of sticking to techniques that has served him well the self-belief issue causes him to question parts of his game.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have a different theory to Roger's decline. I do not deny he is not as fit as he once was but I believe Roger was adamant his back was fine going into this tournament and his display against Nadal recently backed this up and he had no problems in his previous matches here. I say he is merely suffering from a total lack of belief and confidence brought about by many recent losses against players he used to beat for fun. I liken it to a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one blow too many. It means that if Roger meets a player who can be competitive from the get go and pressurises him then the doubts and lack of confidence leads him to miss shots or under hit them screwing his game plan. He still desires to play at the top and still believes he can but when the chips are down the self-belief and lack of confidence inhibits his game far too much.

Self-confidence is missing now, yes, but that's the result of the initial decline, not the cause of it.

Yes, apparently it was only confidence that kept him ahead of Brands, Robredo, Stakovsky etc.

There were many layers to Roger's domination. Obviously, his talent is one. Another was fitness and another being confidence and self-belief. Winning not only boosts ones own self-belief but helps to build an aura of invincibiliy - this aura was worth a heck of a lot in the mental stakes. Now when that aura of invincibility slipped which evidently it did when Rafa found the winning formula against him followed by Novak then the aura diminishes it happens in many sports and it happened to Roger. Nobody is denying back issues hindered him and played its part but just now Roger feels fine so what caused his defeat against Robredo? A total lack of confidence and self-belief.

The length of Fed's time at the top was unprecedented. It's just a natural aging process and just a matter of time until the aura faded, not because of any one player. What would have been the alternative - 6 consecutive years at No. 1? That was never going to happen - it's more or less humanly impossible.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:But why the aura of invincibility appears to fade for most Champions around 30 years of age? Have you considered/ explained this further clue  in your interesting theory?

No it doesn't always fade at 30. Agassi won a slam older than Federer, Connors was still reaching slam semis at 39 and others lose the aura earlier than 30. There is no blueprint for it - as in the fact that players peak at different ages then the same applies that players can deteriorate at different ages.

So why only  little more than a couple of slams were won by over 30 in the modern era? have you considered this further clue in your interesting theory?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I have a different theory to Roger's decline. I do not deny he is not as fit as he once was but I believe Roger was adamant his back was fine going into this tournament and his display against Nadal recently backed this up and he had no problems in his previous matches here. I say he is merely suffering from a total lack of belief and confidence brought about by many recent losses against players he used to beat for fun. I liken it to a punch-drunk boxer who has taken one blow too many. It means that if Roger meets a player who can be competitive from the get go and pressurises him then the doubts and lack of confidence leads him to miss shots or under hit them screwing his game plan. He still desires to play at the top and still believes he can but when the chips are down the self-belief and lack of confidence inhibits his game far too much.

Self-confidence is missing now, yes, but that's the result of the initial decline, not the cause of it.

Yes, apparently it was only confidence that kept him ahead of Brands, Robredo, Stakovsky etc.

There were many layers to Roger's domination. Obviously, his talent is one. Another was fitness and another being confidence and self-belief. Winning not only boosts ones own self-belief but helps to build an aura of invincibiliy - this aura was worth a heck of a lot in the mental stakes. Now when that aura of invincibility slipped which evidently it did when Rafa found the winning formula against him followed by Novak then the aura diminishes it happens in many sports and it happened to Roger. Nobody is denying back issues hindered him and played its part but just now Roger feels fine so what caused his defeat against Robredo? A total lack of confidence and self-belief.

The length of Fed's time at the top was unprecedented. It's just a natural aging process and just a matter of time until the aura faded, not because of any one player. What would have been the alternative - 6 consecutive years at No. 1? That was never going to happen - it's more or less humanly impossible.

I am not denying that but also don't buy it being chiefly fitness issues. He looked great recently against Nadal and didn't look shabby in his previous matches at Flushing Meadows. Remember that Robredo was, himself carrying an injury into this match is also in his 30's and has a shocking record against Fed yet Fed got blown away. Fed wasn't struggling physically but he missed countless break point chances which he had created but lacked the confidence/self-belief to take the chances.

I can't really agree it was anything physical yesterday. I thought he looked much more powerful than Robredo. Robredo played probably as well as I can recall seeing him play. One of those hooked passes down the line was a thing of beauty. However, Fed was the better player for most of the match. Particularly, in sets 2 and 3 he was holding serve easily whilst applying constant pressure to Robredo's serve.

However, what cost him was the big points. 2 from 16 break point conversion tells its own story. In sets two and three he was 0/12. In contrast, Robredo was 2/2. In addition, those break points were spread over five different return games and most of them were lost with poor errors rather than saved. Similarly, on his own serve it was smooth sailing bar two games where he made numerous unforced errors to drop them to love.

I don't have an explanation for these lapses. It can only really be a lack of confidence in his game. Even winning half the big points would probably have been sufficient to turn a straights set defeat into a comfortable win. However, I can't see it as a physical issue.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:So why only  little more than couple of slams were won by over 30 in the modern era? have you considered this further clue in your interesting theory?

Where have I said age has nothing to do with his decline? It is a part of course but talking of his alarming hammering against Robredo is more than age as Tommy is not much younger himself and was carrying an injury. Did you watch the match and witness the countless missed chances, the shocking misses, the shanks and the other flaws at key times. That is a pure lack of self-belief and confidence. Age is not it as he made the chances (aged 31) but missed them that (aged 31) that is mental flaws in my opinion.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:But why the aura of invincibility appears to fade for most Champions around 30 years of age? Have you considered/ explained this further clue  in your interesting theory?

No it doesn't always fade at 30. Agassi won a slam older than Federer, Connors was still reaching slam semis at 39 and others lose the aura earlier than 30. There is no blueprint for it - as in the fact that players peak at different ages then the same applies that players can deteriorate at different ages.

He didn't say all, he said most. You have two players who had abnormal longevity. I think that since you always cite the same two you pretty much accept that most - indeed maybe almost all - players lose it over 30.

Geez give the guy a break. Now I have heard it all: he's gotten lazy, does it only for money, doesn't have the balls, mentally week etc. etc. all of this is bshit!! The guy got old. He's human after all. It has happened to all of them before and no doubt will keep going  like that. Fullstop.[/quote]

Quite agree JK, it wasn't that long ago when I put up an article saying Federer's time had come and should retire. Got pilloried and shot down for daring to say it was time to go, told it wasnt my place to give that kind of opinion and its up to Roger to make his own mind up. Now seems some people think he's chronically disabled by his own petard or skills and has lost the plot, hasn't got the physique to carry on and is a stubborn, unfit shadow of a man etc.

Far more reasons than anything I thought of, I just felt it better he went on a high instead of getting mauled by journeymen. Yes, its his choice, but don't knock the guys history and domination of a sport for near on 5 years. If you want to put Laver down as one of the GOATS, then surely without any hesitation, Federer must be up there next to his name.

Its just a label, not a God Symbol, but if Federer retired tomorrow, only we could cherish his talents, only we could understand what changes he made to the game and how other players had to chase the ever rising bar. To deny him his heritage to the kids of today is ignoring the facts of his achievements, and that pretty cheap considering everything he's given to the sport.

Of course players physically lose it but Federer's defeat against Robredo cannot be put down to physical issues. He said himself his back was as good as it has been in ages and his recent performance against Nadal backs that up plus Robredo is in his 30's as well, is carrying an injury and has a shocking record against Fed yet he blew Fed away? Roger created many break points despite being 31 but never took them and that for me is clearly a mental issue.

“It’s not that much of a disappointment at the end of the day,” Federer said. “If I'm playing like this, I'm not going to beat Rafa, or Kohlschreiber, for that matter… I was fighting with other things in my match today .  Not thinking too far ahead of myself, especially the level I was playing at."

I wonder what other things were/are?  

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/09/36/US-Open-Monday-Roger-Federer-Reacts-To-Robredo-Loss.aspx

Annacone, who is usually completely silent, but was very distressed watching the match, as was Mirka.

lydian wrote:Good pics and thanks TRuffin...completely agree he certainly looks better than 6 months ago from those. In which case I'm scratching my head a little and readily open to admit that. Can he be over training? Surely not. The mental slide is so marked the past few months...is it a sense of urgency, even panic, in matches because he knows time is running out? Is he trying too hard in matches, being too aggressive? It is very curious what has triggered the confidence issue.

JK, what are you going on about..,what is so surreal? I still think, despite the pics above, that he's a little too lean muscle wise. Perhaps the pics above are a work in progress and 6 months from now at AO13 we'll see a more Robredo type physique. Right now, he just seems a little weak in matches power wise...he should be blowing guys like Robredo off court easily with his FH alone. Maybe that racquet is a bigger issue than apparent. Decline aside, I'm at a loss why the decline seems to be accelerating mentally as much as anything. Perhaps his goose really is simply cooked?

I know-- in a way- it would be better if you were spot on about lack of fitness. THAT can be fixed... but if he's really training as hard or working on his physique like I believe the pictures are showing-- then it's not all that and maybe not fixed.. Now I think he didn't have time to completely get into perfect shape and do the proper core work... his back problems during Gstaad and Hamburg would have slowed that work down... So maybe he's in the midst of getting to the place he wants to be.. He gave some indications of that in his pressers-- esp the French portion...

I think he really had to generate intense power on his own with his raquet.. Cahill said this morning while talking to Everett that Federer was "literly flying out of his shoes trying to hit through the court" last night.. Courier in the Marranino match mentioned at one point that Federer "almost starts with a handicap against the rest of the field in every match with the racquet he uses" and said it was basically the same technology Courier used on tour.. AT one point - Marranino who used the Nadal racquet hit a shot running with his back to the ball and flicked it that just shot through hthe court and Courier said- Federer could never hit that shot with his racquet because he has to generate so much head speed on his own.......... So maybe there is that factor as well..

It ends for everyone though-- sometimes your time is just run out.. Federer has won more in certain areas and a much as all but a handful of others in other areas- so what more can we really expect?... That's also a factor for the athelete as well.. As much as one more Major prob makes him hunger... there might be a little part of his that is like "what does it matter, I have enough.. what's one more going to do for me" So maybe he doesn't have the drive that he once did, but I do think he's trying hard to get it back. will he is the question, but if he doesn't-- so what? He's had a hell of a run.

Interestingly, I do actually think that he was nearly at his best at various points in 2011-12, just not as consistently across the whole year as he was at his peak. And he was superior in different ways, relying slightly less on footwork and athleticism and more on tactical nous. See his matches at RG'11, US'11, AO'12 for examples of what he could still do - and let's not forget his performances at the WTF only last year. Yes, not peak Federer, but by no means poor. It's just that he didn't do it across a whole year, and got beaten by some spectacular performances at the slams at times.

It's only really this year that he's truly fallen off a cliff, and pretty much only had a handful of decent matches, let alone tournaments. His AO run prior to Murray, JJ at Rome...what else? Virtually nothing.

Still, he remains the GOAT for now and will always be in the discussion, even if his slam count is overhauled. His statistics elsewhere are exceptional, and just as crucial in years to come will be his style of play - pretenders are going to find that that's just as big a stumbling block as the numbers.

Yes he has lost a lot of confidence, why? because he isn't winning all the time, why? because he isn't as good, why? because he has a lost a bit of timing speed and endurance. They are all connected

banbrotam wrote:

CAS wrote:I think Nadal is Murrays final question mark, lets see if he answers it. I am very keen to see how that match would go down, hopefully Muzza can take him. That being said, Novak is quietly making his way through and I just have a feeling...

I maintain that the winner of this event will be whoever get's the furthest between Nole, Murray and Berdy

before you maintained that stan was in that list...

Federer: “Will Talk To My Team And Decide If I should Play More, Practice More Or Not Play at All. I don’t know what to Expect Right Now”
- Swiss Press .

Is this real? Can't find the source.

LuvSports! wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

CAS wrote:I think Nadal is Murrays final question mark, lets see if he answers it. I am very keen to see how that match would go down, hopefully Muzza can take him. That being said, Novak is quietly making his way through and I just have a feeling...

I maintain that the winner of this event will be whoever get's the furthest between Nole, Murray and Berdy

before you maintained that stan was in that list...

I actually still do think Stan has a chance, but earlier stated not as great as the others - simply because Rafa (if they both get that far) doesn't mind playing against SBH players.

Stan is a dangerous player, not to be dismissed lightly. He now appears to have more confidence. As this was always his weakness, if he's now more sure of himself then he is very dangerous, simply because he's a very good all-round player. Significantly, his increase in confidence has coincided with his countryman's worst year since 2002. He's also likely to overtake Roger in the O2 race and obviously has a chance of ending up the year as Swiss No.1

Hence, not to be scoffed at

Trust this clarifies  

Stan has no chance of winning this event. There is no way he has the mental fortitude to take out Nadal in a slam final and that's ignoring the physical impact he will face even to get there.

BS. I agree. But what I'm disturbed by is the dismissal of him, when he's poised to become the Swiss No.1 - albeit perhaps only temporarily. It could well be that Stan will now flourish, due to Fed's decline - if so, there is nothing to stop him doing a Ferrer and be a regular at all QF's and if you're doing this, then you can be a condender

I could be wrong and am a bit biased as I've always loved Stan's style of play

Some make the classic mistake on these boards of thinking that because a player has always been at a certain level, it means that they will always be at that level. It works both ways, so we had the ridiculous OTT Rafa as favourite at Wimbledon and now we have 'surprise' that the likes of Stan, Robredo etc can get to Slam QF's

All I'd say, is that it's a good job their opponents aren't as dismissive  

Some strawmen being built here...who's said its a surprise that Stan is reaching slam QFs on this or any other thread? He's been making QFs for a while, certainly since 2010.

Stan's YE ranking has also been steady the past 3-4 years...around the 15-20 mark. His highest ranking was #9 back in mid 2008 so I don't see how he's suddenly changed his level either given he's #10 now.
His slam run this year is very similar to previous years. His problem has always been mental strength vs. the very top players.
In that regard I'm still not sure I've seen any change there although hopefully the close shave vs Novak at AO13 will have changed that.
We'll see...he's always been a dark horse...a guy with talent in abundance and he's starting to get fitter and with age may come better mindset but I still don't see him beating a big name in SF or F. Those guys are so hard to take out over 5 sets.

Regarding the other Swiss - aka Stan the Man - he played a wonderful second set, but struggled mightily in the third, being broken twice while serving for the set. Berdych's mental demons let him down in the TB. He just faded in the fourth.

On surprising aspect of the coaching set-up for Stan, is Luthi and Norman. Norman supposedly left Soderling because of personal commitments and lack of desire to travel, but has now shown willingness to accompany Stan, which is interesting, in a positive way.

Bit OT, but Murray struggled in the first set against Istomin.

Jahu wrote:Federer: “Will Talk To My Team And Decide If I should Play More, Practice More Or Not Play at All. I don’t know what to Expect Right Now”
- Swiss Press .

Is this real? Can't find the source.

It is real and from his Swiss presser- but it was an answer to a direct question about whether he would add to his schedule before Shanghai in 5 weeks... So when you read it in that context= he's just talking about the next few weeks... People are taking it by itself and thinking he's talking about his overall carreer.

lydian wrote:Fair question, although I don't accept anyone as GOAT. Transformed the game to new heights? Not sure I agree with that either. Nadal has more of a case there actually. Depends on interpretation of "heights" and his legacy on the game that others now follow.

A typical Nadal fan gesture.  

On taking to a new height question? certainly yes, we see time and again how Today's top stars from Nole to Murray talk about it, but I would not give the credit there just to Fed alone but for both Federer and Nadal in taking the game to heights of unknown, can that be bettered?   certainly yes and will be bettered in the future, thats how the life cycle goes.

Yes privileged to have seen the Greatest player of all time until Nadal gets the title which is very much the possibility, in any case I have seen the top 2 greatest players of all time, I can say 3 since I watched Sampras too. Considering Sampras -Nadal CV I would rate Nadal ahead of Sampras as a more complete player/package.

Fed is adament to not retire, and yes its tiring to see him losing to players whom he would beat in the mid night sleep at his prime, and thats the penalty for not moving on.

However I like Nadal, I don't enjoy his game at all and I get bored watching him big time, however of late he is playing more aggressive which is reducing the boredom , my last hopes are Del Po and Murray, unless these two steps up I will really lose interest in Tennis big time.

I miss Söderling. He showed a few glimples of decent play, combating Rafa-Djoko boring game style.

Wow, that's aesthetically as good shape as I've seen him in. Muscle mass seems fine to me. Arms have always been puny. I do not see an upgrade in Robredo.

I didn't think he looked sluggish against Robredo, it was 90%a mental issue and a lack of the really instinctive footwork.

Now I do hate to say this but I must be consistent, is there any reason to suspect the use of PEDs? Never seen him in such shape before.

*Ridiculous disparity with lydian's comments  

Jahu wrote:I miss Söderling. He showed a few glimples of decent play, combating Rafa-Djoko boring game style.

Well has the game and mentality to combat this, unfortunately his stamina levels has taken a beating since his injury, while some how he has recovered his game but still struggles to get back his stamina levels. 

theslosty wrote:Wow, that's aesthetically as good shape as I've seen him in. Muscle mass seems fine to me. Arms have always been puny. I do not see an upgrade in Robredo.

I didn't think he looked sluggish against Robredo, it was 90%a  mental issue and a lack of the really instinctive footwork.

Now I do hate to say this but I must be consistent, is there any reason to suspect the use of PEDs? Never seen him in such shape before.

*Ridiculous disparity with lydian's comments  

You mean PID's? (Performance Inhibiting Drugs).

Normally you'd expect PEDs to live up to the middle word.