How High Can Roger Fly?

IMO Federer played the match of the year when he defeated Djokovic in the Dubai semi. If he can play like that not only is he capable of stealing another slam but is it possible for him to climb up the rankings. How good can Roger be this year?

Another W would be good, with some lucky draw and Rosol around.

Djokovic has not had much match play. Slight OT, but Murray also lost to Dimitrov.

Federer needs consistency, rather than brilliant flashes of his genius to claw his way back up the rankings. More than likely, he cares about playing rather than his ranking, which is wonderful to see.

If he can beat Berdych (on a fast court), it would help his confidence much more.

Happy to see that the old man still enjoys a scrap and aggressive play.

I've put 4 as my guess, but he could just as well get to 3 as 4 - there really aren't many points between the 3rd ranked and 8th ranked player at the moment.

It seems very unlikely to me he'll pass Djokovic - Djokovic amassed loads of points post-USO last year that will keep him far enough away for the first half of the year and although that means there's an opportunity for Fed to potentially make up ground if Djokovic fails to defend them, Fed does also have some decent points in the autumn to defend too. If he's serious about Davis Cup as well, then his schedule might need to be reviewed to accommodate it.

I'm not allowing for one specific player to fit in at 3 - I think those 3-8 slots will be quite fluid right through to Wimbledon and potentially beyond. The next couple of months should tell us more about players that look quite hot (Berdych, Cilic, Wawrinka) and players that look distinctly meh (Murray, Djokovic).

With the Dubai win today Rog has made a hot start to 2014 and with relatively few points to defend over the next few weeks he can get up the rankings.
  You also have to consider there are question marks about the fitness of del Potty and Ferrer, Murray is not quite 100% yet methinks and Djoko has had, for him, a quiet start to the year.
  If Rog can get up to number four - by no means impossible - he will obviously avoid the big two until the semis.

Well done old man    Not sure whether this is the sign of things to come.. to early in the season to judge imo.. but a great win for you Roger nonetheless.

I would rather say take it easy and enjoy the old man's effort to entertain tennis fans, really tennis will suffer the day he hands up his racket.

Life without expectation is lot of fun, I current have no expectation on Del Po either and would love to see him back and do something special some day.

dont know about ranking

but wimbledon 2014 seems like his last and only chance for a new slam

Tennis never suffers when a great hangs up their racquet. Always someone to replace them.

Only in the eyes of their fans is it seen as a sufference.

I'd have thought Roger should be number 4 after the IW/Miami double. He barely has any points to defend.

YvonneT wrote:I've put 4 as my guess, but he could just as well get to 3 as 4 - there really aren't many points between the 3rd ranked and 8th ranked player at the moment.

Well, well - number 3, it is. I'm quite surprised, given how well Wawrinka has done with his slam and masters title. Surely the only way for him to go higher though is for Nadal to be sidelined again for a significant period.

#3 it will be, though he did bugger all from here on in last year so can only add points. Rafa had a better 2nd half than he usually does, partly no doubt to not playing a full first half so he may suffer.

It's slightly possible that he could make #2.

BB really meant to say:

"#2 it will be...it's slightly possible that he could make #1"

Very impressive year from the old man. Shame he could not convert his summer to a slam win, but the year has still been much better than what I had expected.

Who wrote this fawning fan boy article about Fed when everyone was busy writing him off?

Federer makes it clear why he is in this lofty position

"Clearly Rafa hasn't played for some time, take advantage of that," Federer said. "Plus, I didn't win a Slam this year, so it shows even more so how consistent I've actually played and how much I played this year, so I guess I deserve it from that standpoint," Federer added. Federer has asserted to continue playing his complete best.

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/569152/20141010/roger-federer-rafael-nadal-atp-world-rankings.htm#.VDjcHRawS99

Well yes clearly he is just stating the obvious.

Stunning modesty from Federer, a complete answer to any of the charges of arrogance that sometimes get made.

Of course he kindly overlooks that missing large parts of the calendar has been key to Nadals success in recent years, often arriving at crucial events with far more rest and preparation than anyone else. In the end, the rankings never lie.

What conjecture... Let's look at how many players having multiple seasons with extended injury induced layoffs helped shall we?
Safin?
Nalbandian?
Hewitt?
Monfils?
Del Potro?

It's obvious; so much so there's no need to look at criocked players for comfort.

What is obvious is you, like so many others have decided against admitting you were wrong and in fact have no precogniscent ability, and were wrong about Nadal's longevity. Instead you've decided to create a storyline about how missing chunks of a season is in fact good for you. The lack of previous champions for this new age theory is not a problem, as it's actually obvious once you think about it. The reason it hasn't worked previously is unimportant, it's working now.

Federer: "Clearly Rafa hasn't played for some time, take advantage of that," Federer said.

Full credit to Federer for taking advantage, he deserves his number 2 ranking.

Clearly Rafa is better than those other players, and relies to a greatest extent his physical peak (not that others don't need fitness). It's obvious how playing parts of a year has helped him be at his best in the remainder. I really don't see the controversy there.

I think BB has a point, particularly wrt Nadal who, more than anyone else relies on his physical prowess.

In the following article Cilic attributes a lot of his success to the long lay off. Basically allowed him to rest up, recuperate and practice hard on the areas of his game that needed it. Came back a better player.

Playing 11 months of the year is likely not conducive to optimum performance - but the players are forced to do it to preserve their ranking.

Would Nadal have been as successful if he'd played non-stop for the last 10 years the way Federer has? personally, I think not. He'd probably burn out physically and mentally.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/09/taking/52865/#.VDl-4NEtDIU

This is how the article starts:

Q: You’re talking about the physicality of your game and it improving. I’m wondering if that break at the end of last year and have to be home, was it an intense training block in a lot of ways to catch up, get faster, stronger, maybe a blessing is disguise?

Marin Cilic: Absolutely. Yeah, I had maybe seven or 10 days off in four, four-and-a-half months, and I was working all the time. That, you know, helped me to build up my strength and to also heal some of the injuries I had before with my knee. Now I’m feeling really good on the court. So I used that time, you know, the best I could. It’s paying off.”

Cilic also hired Ivanisevic.

An informative extract from the article;

Cilic is a well-liked guy, but this statement probably didn’t win him any new fans among his fellow players. He was off the tour for so long, as we know, because he was serving a suspension for failing a doping test. Whatever we think of that unfortunate fact (he was largely exonerated by the authorities), the bigger point about Cilic's U.S. Open win is that time away from the tour, time to train and heal, can help in numerous ways.

Injuries don’t have to be carried from one tournament to the next. Psychological burnout can be kept at bay. And a player can make experiments and improvements in his or her game without having to worry about trying to implement them in a match the following week. Players have a better chance, in short, to reach their potential.

This will obviously apply to Rafa as well.

emancipator wrote:I think BB has a point, particularly wrt Nadal who, more than anyone else relies on his physical prowess.

In the following article Cilic attributes a lot of his success to the long lay off. Basically allowed him to rest up, recuperate and practice hard on the areas of his game that needed it. Came back a better player.

Playing 11 months of the year is likely not conducive to optimum performance - but the players are forced to do it to preserve their ranking.

Would Nadal have been as successful if he'd played non-stop for the last 10 years the way Federer has? personally, I think not. He'd probably burn out physically and mentally.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/09/taking/52865/#.VDl-4NEtDIU

Federer relies more on his physical prowess more than Nadal. Nadal's intermittent periods of genius are interrupted constantly by his bodies physical weaknesses. Federer by comparison is a physical beast. His consistent slam appearance record, his lack of injuries and being able to continue in this way at the grand old age of 33 is nothing short of remarkable. He has a body made of granite in comparison to Nadal who is a mere mortal.

There's no doubt Federer has the game suited to his body, hence his relative (not forgetting the back) health. Rafa is very much a construct based on extraordinary physicality, and he certainly needs these lengthy breaks to bring the bursts of excellent standard each year.

hawkeye wrote:Federer relies more on his physical prowess more than Nadal. Nadal's intermittent periods of genius are interrupted constantly by his bodies physical weaknesses. Federer by comparison is a physical beast. His consistent slam appearance record, his lack of injuries and being able to continue in this way at the grand old age of 33 is nothing short of remarkable. He has a body made of granite in comparison to Nadal who is a mere mortal.

They are superb athletes, but play completely styles of Tennis. Federer's is considered less taxing, because he wants to hit winners and keep the points short. You can watch the Djokovic v Federer SF from today. Edberg is much more forceful than Annacone was in pushing Federer to the net and relying on S&V.

One game was 47 seconds in todays, SF.

The reason for the renaissance is simple – he is attacking the net at will, making opponents have to constantly react to his mayhem. He has also found a way out of the “backhand cage” at the baseline by taking far more backhands down the line, which both surprised Djokovic and in return fed Federer’s stronger forehand.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/10/41/Shanghai-Saturday-Brain-Game-Djokovic-Federer.aspx

In contrast... from "Rafa" - Page 12...

Toni gestured, I took off the earphones. He said there was a rain delay, but for no more than fifteen minutes, they thought. I wasn’t fazed. I was ready for this. Rain would have the same effect on Federer as it would on me. No need to be thrown off balance. I sat down and checked my racquets, felt the balance, the weight; pulled up my socks, checked that both were exactly the same height on my calves. Toni leaned close to me. “Don’t lose sight of the game plan. Do what you have to do.” I was listening but I was not listening. I know at these moments what I have to do. I think my concentration is good. My endurance too. Endurance: that’s a big word. Keeping going physically, never letting up, and putting up with everything that comes my way, not allowing the good or the bad—the great shots or the weak ones, the good luck or the bad—to put me off track. I have to be centered, no distractions, do what I have to do in each moment. If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait. There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding; you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent. So be alert, be patient, don’t be rash.

You do realize what effort it takes to play the extra five shot style, don't you?

It's a helluva lot different for Cilic, a never was who got away with doping by throwing his mother under the bus, than it is for Rafa. His layoffs have seen him miss two Grand Slam title defences. Also, I would imagine that the mental states of a player who has an injury layoff for four months, and one who has a reduced sentence, essentially, is different.

1 - I'm not debating the potentially positive effects of having some time out. Im calling cowpat on having multiple injury layoffs in fact helping a player. The one is obvious, the other guesswork.

2 - Surprised this hasn't been brought up more... but Nadal hasn't actually had multiple half seasons... he's had one, in 2012. He missed Wimbledon in 2009, but he played 80 matches that season, which is only one less than in his magical 2010 season. So, really there's 2012, and this season.

@KR... as Nadal gets older, it will get tougher, and he being injury-prone, creates even more problems.

laverfan wrote:

They are superb athletes, but play completely styles of Tennis. Federer's is considered less taxing, because he wants to hit winners and keep the points short. You can watch the Djokovic v Federer SF from today. Edberg is much more forceful than Annacone was in pushing Federer to the net and relying on S&V.

One game was 47 seconds in todays, SF.

The reason for the renaissance is simple – he is attacking the net at will, making opponents have to constantly react to his mayhem. He has also found a way out of the “backhand cage” at the baseline by taking far more backhands down the line, which both surprised Djokovic and in return fed Federer’s stronger forehand.

Firstly Federer has a strong record against Djokovic. Djokovic doesn't have the ability to put him in a "backhand cage" and Federer has a good backhand down the line and Djokovic is not so good when players mix it up and come to the net. Djokovic can have days when his passing shots are not firing too. The times when Federer has really struggled against Djokovic are when he stubbornly tries to out rally him. He can't! Federer just hit's the ball too nicely    I'm sure his team must get frustrated watching when he tries. I know I do. Djokovic also has not been playing well so I certainly wasn't surprised by the result. Federer has a great first serve and if his opponent is not able to handle it he will have some quick service games. Sometimes I think Federer is guilty of fast serving his opponent too. That to me can verge on gamesmanship and I believe taking say 10 seconds between serves is more disruptive to an opponent than 27 but hey ho I'm not on the ATP board.

laverfan wrote:

In contrast... from "Rafa" - Page 12...

I think my concentration is good. My endurance too. Endurance: that’s a big word. Keeping going physically, never letting up, and putting up with everything that comes my way, not allowing the good or the bad—the great shots or the weak ones, the good luck or the bad—to put me off track. I have to be centered, no distractions, do what I have to do in each moment. If I have to hit the ball twenty times to Federer’s backhand, I’ll hit it twenty times, not nineteen. If I have to wait for the rally to stretch to ten shots or twelve or fifteen to bide my chance to hit a winner, I’ll wait. There are moments when you have a chance to go for a winning drive, but you have a 70 percent chance of succeeding; you wait five shots more and your odds will have improved to 85 percent. So be alert, be patient, don’t be rash.[/i]

You do realize what effort it takes to play the extra five shot style, don't you?

That's a great quote  

But when Rafa talks of endurance he's talking of mental endurance too. He's quite prepared to hit a winner earlier in the rally and will happily do so if the opportunity is right and he judges the odds to be in his favor. But if need be he will wait and play a few more shots to get the right opportunity. Of course when he does play a long rally he forces his opponent to do so too. If Rafa wins it not only will his opponent have put in the same effort (or more if Rafa can make him) he will have done so with no reward. Next time rather than be pushed about only to lose the opponent will be tempted to go for a winner earlier when statistically there is only a low chance of pulling it off.

How many times has Rafa won a close hard fought first set with an opponent fighting for every point then to run away easily with the rest of the match? Much to the frustration it looks like his opponents have just lost the plot as they snatch at balls and hit them out. The truth is they have lost the plot. They have been beaten mentally. To make matters even more difficult for his opponent's Rafa's simple rally ball with it's high top spin is tricky to take on for a winner this always gives him a few percentage points advantage in a rally in terms of getting a ball that can be killed off quickly. Same goes for Federer great as his attacking game is he so often loses control when playing Rafa. It's not just a physical battle it's a mental one. Putting in effort at the right time can pay dividends later. Of course we all remember the long rallys and not the self destructive errors later in the match that Rafa will often benefit from without even having to hit the ball.

Playing to the speed of the server is verging on gamesmanship? Right......

I found this bit quite on topic with the physicality talk here - from ATP site

ATP website wrote:“I haven't had a cramp since ‘99. That was my only time, in Davis Cup, when I was panicky. I was young. I'm very proud of that. Never pulled out. Never had cramps. Never lost very much because of fitness, especially later on in my career where I knew I've put in the hard work. I've done that. I've been very fortunate and clever as well to understand how I need to work, when I need to work. So I'm very happy to have stayed injury free for so long. I hope I can still maintain a few good years on the tour. I really hope so.”

This last sentence more in touch with the thread "when do you think Fed will retire"

I get the feeling he'll end it at Basel if he's dropped out of the top 8, or the YE if he's still up there, probably in 2016.

Or if by some miracle he's still playing great......

Either way, God help them on the seniors tour when he moves up, like McEnroe he'll have the beating of much younger players.

It was a couple years ago, so it would not be as true now, but I remember when commenting on the retirement of Roddick I think. He said he was a bit disappointed ARod retired so young, citing Hewitt as an exemple who was around the top 50.
I'm not clear, but from what I understand in Fed's declarations, it seems retirement will be more a question of age than a question of level. (for example, Rio is a goal, whatever his rankings - if it allows him to enter, of course)

I think if he's still around top 10 end of 2016, he will at least play Wimbledon 2017 (and thus, probably the other slams), so he can say it's his last appearance and he'd have a long interview with some tears. (I don;t feel 100% sure though - had he won against Djoko, it would have been a certainty)

hawkeye wrote:It's not just a physical battle it's a mental one. Putting in effort at the right time can pay dividends later. Of course we all remember the long rallys and not the self destructive errors later in the match that Rafa will often benefit from without even having to hit the ball.

Lopez v Nadal was lost physically, even though Nadal is mentally stronger, correct? Many  posters have managed to find some niggle/injury whether it be USO 2009 v DelPo or Ferrer at AO or Murray at AO. The question is rather what is the mix of physical v mental. It can be 80/20 or 50/50 or 20/80. That is the biggest factor. If you watch Rome 2006 carefully, Federer looks very muscular compared to what he is now. He lost several pounds (per Cahill @ESPN) when his back was causing problems in 2013. Look what it has done in 2014. He even tries to slide on HC (a la Djokovic) to compensate for his slowing down. Air Jordan commented during USO 2014, about competing with younger athletes as an athlete grows older, and his response to Mary Jo Fernandez was a simple one "focus". I saw Laver play DC @35+ yo (I think, pretty hazy memory from that far ago). The lack of relative speed was compensated by some very nice surgical returns and volleys. Even today, I have not seen such focus from the current generation of players (and I admit to being a bit biased).

If he gets to the point where he himself believes he can't win the big titles (Slams, Olympics, World Tour Finals) maybe that's time to pack it in.

We're looking at over 2 years since he won such a biggie however his level is decent and he looks like he could win one more.

laverfan wrote:

Lopez v Nadal was lost physically, even though Nadal is mentally stronger, correct? Many  posters have managed to find some niggle/injury whether it be USO 2009 v DelPo or Ferrer at AO or Murray at AO. The question is rather what is the mix of physical v mental. It can be 80/20 or 50/50 or 20/80. That is the biggest factor. If you watch Rome 2006 carefully, Federer looks very muscular compared to what he is now. He lost several pounds (per Cahill @ESPN) when his back was causing problems in 2013. Look what it has done in 2014. He even tries to slide on HC (a la Djokovic) to compensate for his slowing down. Air Jordan commented during USO 2014, about competing with younger athletes as an athlete grows older, and his response to Mary Jo Fernandez was a simple one "focus". I saw Laver play DC @35+ yo (I think, pretty hazy memory from that far ago). The lack of relative speed was compensated by some very nice surgical returns and volleys. Even today, I have not seen such focus from the current generation of players (and I admit to being a bit biased).

Good grief laverfan! I didn't mean that because Nadal is mentally strong he can somehow float above the game when he is ill or injured. I also think you are exaggerating the difference between Federer's standard of play in 2013 and 2014. Unlike many who were quick to write him off in 2013 I thought he was still playing well. In 2013 he did have a few confidence snapping meetings with Nadal that didn't help. Meeting him on his comeback in the quarters in Indian Wells when he hadn't planned to play Miami left him with just a handful of points from that particular part of the season and didn't help his rankings. Then being trounced in the final of Rome. There was also that very high quality match he played against Nadal in Cincinnati that was in my opinion as good as anything he has played this year. But again it was in the quarters so he had little reward in terms of points for his high quality play. Then he met Nadal again at his favorite tournament the WTF....

This year Federer has only met his biggest rival once back in Australia. If you remember Federer who is usually composed and focused lost control and started complaining about the scary noise that Nadal was making. At least he was suitably embarrassed when asked about it afterwords and at least he refrained from asking for Hawkeye to be switched off. There is no question IMO about who is on top mentally. As far as focus I agree Federer is good but I do think you are biased if you think he has better focus than Nadal. I also think you are wrong implying that Federer's focus is better this year than previously. I was thinking sometimes he looks more distracted than he did when he was younger.

If Nadal doesn't play again this season or comes back and struggles I think Federer has an excellent chance of getting the number one spot. It's all indoor now and even Djokovic might be busy elsewhere. But I've wrote about that "Rafa's Appendix And Novaks Baby And Their Impact On The Race For Number One". He will still have to be careful though because just like last year he's suffered some unexpected losses often from a leading position in the score line.

Yes his losses to Nadal were the things that caused Feds to have a bad 2013.
Not a back injury, or poor performances (losses to stak, robredo,benne, temporarily changing racquet and losing to players like brands, delbonis.
Feds has an ok chance regardless of rafa coming back.

LuvSports! wrote:Yes his losses to Nadal were the things that caused Feds to have a bad 2013.
Not a back injury, or poor performances (losses to stak, robredo,benne, temporarily changing racquet and losing to players like brands, delbonis.
Feds has an ok chance regardless of rafa coming back.

The height of Roger's flying depends upon Nadal. In the end, everything is Nadal, and Nadal is everything.

It is not out of the question Roger getting back to No.1 but you feel to do it he'd need to win the Australian Open. I do think it would be a brief re-appearance at the top spot as well but it is feasible.

Bad back ? Surely not making excuses for Federer losing. Thought that was something only Nadal fans did ?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

The height of Roger's flying depends upon Nadal. In the end, everything is Nadal, and Nadal is everything.

Ha ha! Julius but there is more than a little truth in what you say. Of course the height of Rogers flying is dependent on his ability to beat players at the very top. Djokovic has limited his flying height too but hardly to the extent that Nadal has because 23-10 is brutal. Nadal to Federer is like a glass ceiling and until recently it was only at the WTF that he had more than a small chance of breaking through. So to meet him at crucial times last year did affect his year. Meeting him at Indian Wells on his return in the quarters was particularly cruel and then again at the same stage in Cincinnati. When those draws came out I was furious. What were the draw fixes thinking! I believe they were also due to meet in the quarters at Wimbledon? Federer bombing out just after Nadal lost to Darcis was a big lost opportunity. Maybe he got carried away laughing at Nadal's 2nd early loss at Wimbledon? (For those who don't know Federer said he laughed for ten minutes when Nadal lost to Rosol in 2012)

Both this year and last year Federer has suffered unexpected losses. In fact he was in a tricky situation in the first round of Shanghai. He's continued to bring the sparkle out on occasions though but what has made the difference are just a few things. Nadal not being around is definitely one. He has even said so himself.

At what point should this get moved to the GOAT debate sticky?

It should get moved into the GOAT sticky when people start talking about who is the greatest of all time.

Arguments about why Fed failed in 2013 should not be moved to the GOAT sticky.

I think Hawkeye is right in saying that Federer did have some confidence denting losses against Nadal in 2013; but at the same time it was clear there were sustained periods throughout the year where Federer was struggling with back injury.

Why would the losses dent his confidence? Had he never lost to Rafa before?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Why would the losses dent his confidence? Had he never lost to Rafa before?

Of course he has lost to Rafa before, but I think any loss (especially one sided ones) will dent your confidence.

Not the ones to Murray, Benneteau or Berdych or Nishikori though? Assuming hawkeye is correct, it's only the losses to Rafa that matter, because Rafa is...well, he's everything - and there's more than a little truth in that.

I didn't say only losses to Nadal matter.

By the way I was thinking, despite Federer being world number 2, I would still not trade Nadal's year so far with Federer's years so far.
Obviously my opinion, but what do Federer fans think ? Would you trade Nadal's year with Fed's year ?