Is Fed mentally not the strongest?

As a Fed fan, I think it's correct to give the man his due, but also to criticize him if there is an objectve weakness in his game.

Now the two big finals made me wonder a lot on this issue. Wimbledon; Fed played unreal tennis against Murray and before that match, in all tournament serve was on fire, on par with the very best years. In the final: serve misfiring, few aces and easy winner. Overall Fed looked somewhat tight, fh and bh didn't flow as freely.

US final: again the serve let him down causing the loss of the first set. Many many opportunities wasted in the third and never able to capitalize when Djokovic dropped his level to get that important lead 2 sets to one. Overall Fed looked uncomfortably tight during these two finals, naver able to relax enough to let the fh flow and dictate.

Obviously , this is not the prime Federer of 2004-2007, whose edge was so vast during those years that he was able to possibly hide such weakness. On the other hand this is a player that at 34 can compete at the very top. Nadal and Djokovic certainly seems to have shown more mental fortitude on the most important matches, even when there was seemingly no edge between them.

Mental strength ebbs and flows.

It's easy to be "mentally tough" when you know you are better and/or stronger and fitter than your opponent.

For years Rafa was considered the prime example of mental strength. Now his form has dipped, suddenly we are hearing how he is lacking confidence.

Novak is getting lots of respect for the mental toughness he has shown this year. But where was that mental toughness when he lost 5 out of 6 slam finals in 2012 - 2014?

As for Federer, is he mentally strong? Having the best tie break record ever and his insane match record in 04-07 would suggest he is.

However...

It has stood out for a while that, in a CV full of incredible numbers, his record in 5th sets and deciding sets is comparatively modest.

I also think that low BP conversion in big matches has happened enough times over enough years to suggest that there is an issue there.

So to give a direct answer, no, I don't think Federer is the strongest mentally.

But he's no slouch either.

Perhaps I would diplomatically say that his mental strengths are not at the same level as his physical and technical strengths.

It's incredibly difficult from the outside to work out where the line between physical ability and mental strength is to be drawn, the former certainly feeds the latter; but I'd agree that Federer is not the strongest mentally, and I'd agree that his record in deciding sets is probably the best indicator.  That said, if we are right it's very much a relative weakness in one of the greatest players to pick up a racquet who carries on winning into his 34th year and has racked up 1000+ wins.  It's worth remembering that even though the rest of us thought that Nadal had his number, especially on clay, he never failed to back himself, nor faltered in SF's when I thought he was charging to the sound of the guns.

I'm not so sure that BP conversion is as good an indicator of a relative weakness in this area as the final set record.  It may be a better indicator of the option that a server has, especially a left-hander, to gain an advantage in the point by hitting a relatively risk-free heavy kick serve high to the SBH?

It is not easy to asses any player’s mental toughness, but to your question I can clearly say that definitely he is not.

My view comes from the matches with his biggest rivals, Nadal and Novak. I could see already at the beginning of his matches that he is not relaxed as he was before these matches. He seems to be very rattled and irritated when the things don’t go his way. He early loses his patience and calmness then. If he start loosing in these matches, he is only seldom to turn around the course of the match and start panicking.
The question is why? It surely goes out of his character and his previous sheer dominance on the courts. He used to be the master of the court and long period there was nobody else to match with him. He started believe just very much to himself and his ego grew up to some quite size. But when a new generation appeared and Nadal started beat him, his coolness had run away. Then he was aware that he needs to change something. But instead he firstly found a new coach, he did the opposite. He just got rid of his longtime coach, then changed his racket, only then he found a new coach. It shows that he is too stubborn, a very strong character, who just does not like when things don’t go his way.

Don’t take me wrong, he is a great player and mostly he can outplay his opponents easily with a great confidence, but when he is really challenged then he often loses ground under his feet and gets very frustrated.

Some interesting points being made.

"For years Rafa was considered the prime example of mental strength. Now his form has dipped, suddenly we are hearing how he is lacking confidence"

Attention, attention here is different. The main problem is that Rafa seems no longer able to play by his best standards, not that he cracks under pressure situations.

"his record in 5th sets and deciding sets is comparatively modest.
I also think that low BP conversion in big matches has happened enough times over enough years to suggest that there is an issue there"

Agreed, in particular the relevance of low BP conversion rate (even on Sunday) is very hard to deny.

"it's very much a relative weakness in one of the greatest players to pick up a racquet"

It is, relative to  players of that level.

"I could see already at the beginning of his matches that he is not relaxed as he was before these matches. He seems to be very rattled and irritated when the things don’t go his way."


I have the same sensation, of a very tense, nervous Federer in the big matches.

I think as he's achieved so much obviously mentally Federer is good, but perhaps if he was even better mentally he could have won a few more matches.
Even in his prime I feel on break points he used to have a low conversion ratio. Wimby 2008, FO 2007, as well as the USO final a few days ago are ones that immediately spring to mind.

One thing I don't understand is why he plays so defensively on the break points, surely it's not just me who's noticed he tends to just slice it on his backhand ? And when he does go for it, it's often not in the right moment- surprising for Federer who's a player who normally shows great judgement on when to attack.

Agree with the assessment of what most have said so far.

The discrepancy between his tie-break record and his break point conversion rate is certainly odd. Mentally very strong in the pressure of TBs, but relatively weak on the pressure of those single points. Hard to explain.
Be interesting to see what his BP save rate is.

Much higher I would think.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The discrepancy between his tie-break record and his break point conversion rate is certainly odd. Mentally very strong in the pressure of TBs, but relatively weak on the pressure of those single points. Hard to explain.
Be interesting to see what his BP save rate is.

My hunch would be that the tie-break record is result of his excellent serve.

If you don't concede on your own serve, you get several chances to take just one point on your opponents.

Isner, for instance, is third in the all time career tie break record (behind Federer and Arthur Ashe).

About to say what HM just said, Federer has one of the greatest serves the game has seen, so not surprising he has a great tiebreak record.

My hunch is that in tie-breaks he doesn't have a break point opportunity to mess up. And if he does get a "break" he only needs to win on his serve to confirm the break.

The serve is an interesting discussion. I don't actually know how much you can glean from it, but interesting nonetheless. For example, this year was the first year in the four years Nadal created less Break point opportunities than he faced. Which may go some ways to explaining why he played badly (and maybe suggests its less confidence at big moments and more not playing well). In fact this year is his worst ever BP created/BP faced ratio. Alternately, and maybe interestingly, this year Djokovic is only slightly below 1.00 in the ratio. does that mean he is playing a little worse than his opponent (generally) but stepping it up in the big moments? If that's true, though then that suggests a mentally strong player? Its intriguing because if you take Federer, 10 of his 17 years in tour have had him creating less BP than his opposition. In 6/9 years he won slams he has created less than he has faced. Indeed in his three best years, he had but a solitary Masters to show for it.

*Interestingly for Djokovic his last three years have all had him on a negative ratio. Does this suggest he's playing a little worse than he did 2011-12, and gotten a touch better in big moments?

HM Murdock wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:The discrepancy between his tie-break record and his break point conversion rate is certainly odd. Mentally very strong in the pressure of TBs, but relatively weak on the pressure of those single points. Hard to explain.
Be interesting to see what his BP save rate is.

My hunch would be that the tie-break record is result of his excellent serve.

If you don't concede on your own serve, you get several chances to take just one point on your opponents.

Isner, for instance, is third in the all time career tie break record (behind Federer and Arthur Ashe).

Yes, but you need to be mentally strong in a TB, to still serve well when the pressure is on.
Equally his receiving game is very good in order to create all those break points, but it fails when he gets to those pressure points.
So my argument still stands imho.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Equally his receiving game is very good in order to create all those break points, but it fails when he gets to those pressure points.

This is the part I find hardest to explain.

Against Rafa, one could argue that being a lefty enables him to serve out wide to the backhand on advantage points.

But that doesn't work as explanation when facing Novak.

As for the tie break, I don't think anyone is arguing that Federer is not mentally strong. He knows he can rely on his serve and can be confident when using it.

This isn't just in tie breaks. How many times down the years have seen Federer produce a great serve at an important moment?

The weakness does seem be pretty specific to taking break points and I'm mystified as to why that should be so.

I dont think hes mentally weak, he may be slightly below Novak and Rafa, but that still puts him in 3rd place overall, which is no disgrace.

His Achilles heel is the same one hes always had, his bp conversion against his closest contemporaries is quite bad. it was what 1/18 in 07 FO? and just as bad here.

A lot of that stems not from nerves but not commiting to a good return, he wont break them by just getting it in and trying to outdo them in a rally, but hes really passive on bp returns.

No example more prominent than on Sunday. 1/11 on bp with a second serve, and he had a lot of important ones. Not once on any of them did he try out his new Sabre move that was designed to make the difference, in fact he didnt commit much at all

Another thing seemingly at odds with not being tremendously mentally strong is that Federer is 2nd all time in coming back and winning matches from two sets down. That takes tremendous mental toughness to climb back from that deficit.

I would agree he's not the mentally strongest of the top guys but they've all had their moments. People tend to to look at things in '"the now" Djoko looks like a mental giant right now, but Djoko was known to wilt in the heat and retire for various reasons, Rafa has struggled closing out matches and coming back from deficits against all types of ranked players when his confidence and form wasn't peak. All in all, Federer is prob an all time great in the mental department because you just don't win at the rate he has for as long as he has, fight back from 2 sets down, win tiebreaks at an all time rate without being at the top of the mental department. Just all those semis, quarters in a row shows a mental resilency.

It Must Be Love wrote:I think as he's achieved so much obviously mentally Federer is good, but perhaps if he was even better mentally he could have won a few more matches.
Even in his prime I feel on break points he used to have a low conversion ratio. Wimby 2008, FO 2007, as well as the USO final a few days ago are ones that immediately spring to mind.

One thing I don't understand is why he plays so defensively on the break points, surely it's not just me who's noticed he tends to just slice it on his backhand ? And when he does go for it, it's often not in the right moment- surprising for Federer who's a player who normally shows great judgement on when to attack.

Agree with the assessment of what most have said so far.

Very good post, I mean this low BP conversion rate issue has been around for many years. Not just recently against Novak but also in big matches earlier on in his career against Nadal. I noticed the same thing and mentioned something similar about how passive he was on BPs against Djokovic in the final playing as if he is waiting for Novak to miss. And when a great like Nadal or Novak are given a chance to work a point with their ground strokes and superior consistency, speed, and fitness it is no wonder that you would not convert a high percentage of those points. He plays super aggressive to get BPs and then all of a sudden turns into Mats Wilander of the early 80s on BP.

I think obviously he is way mentally strong in comparison to the average on tour. But in terms of guys who have been number 1 and have won a handful or more finals I don't think he is particularly great at those intangible areas. Not if you are comparing to Borg, Connors, Nadal, Djoko, or Sampras. Sampras was money when he needed points or needed serves. Still he is way more mentally tough than lets say an average top ATP player. But in tennis the level of pressure keeps rising as you keep winning things and playing in the big matches.

Also agree with Murdoch in that mental strength ebbs and flows and is innately tied to how well you feel physically and how well you are hitting the ball.

Tactically, speaking Fed plays very poorly on BPs against his best opponents in big matches.

It is a fact, and for those of us who know it, there comes a point when however you choose to display, or tell the world differently, age brings with it vulnerability.. strength mentally and physically comes in short measure. harder and harder to maintain,.
It is not sustainable over long periods of time and under pressure.
It has come later to Federer... but the signs are  there. He may wish to tell himself differently.. but the time is fast approaching Roger. !!! Sorry Fed fans to  burst your bubble.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnATiDGqkLQ
heres a lttle blast from the past for you all.

Maybe the finest final they ever contested, and just look how much better BOTH played back then.
Age just getting to both a bit

Mental strength comes in all shapes and sizes. 

Big pressure moments, big match pressure or even longevity of a player's career. They all require some form of mental strength.

Connors for me kind of personifies mental strength in that he understood the value of it. It's all too easy to look at the guy with the most Slams and weeks at number 1 and say that's the guy who is the strongest mentally. When Federer's career is done and dusted, I am sure with more time to reflect I might put him in that bracket.

I've heard a theory that he is better than all his opponents so he gets break points without even trying, then when he has to think about it he messes it up, instead of playing on instinct.

I heard a stat once that he has lost more matches than any of the past greats having won more points than his opponents, meaning even in losing he's actually doinh better than them. It's when he has to think it affects his talents.

I don't always agree with Wilander but he said that while Federer doesn't always take his break points he seems to create an enormous amount which in actual fact is a great stat as he always has chances.

I think I heard Petchy say Novak has never faced more break points in a match on his career than that match on Sunday. It's bad he didn't take them, but incredible Federer gets to that position so many times

Here's a couple of links to stat-heavy articles on Federer's break point conversion rates recently and throughout his career:
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2015/09/14/break-point-conversions-and-the-close-matches-federer-isnt-winning/
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2014/01/14/roger-federers-break-point-opportunities/

That site/blog (tennisabstract) is really good btw if you like the stats side of tennis.

Temp21, if you can help, pls find the youtube highlights of Fed vs Nadal SF at Shanghai 2006. That match was really a wonderful match that showcased both their speed and power and Fed at his best. Thanks.

You can't be the best at everything so he probably isn't. He made his name with his crazy tennis, not his fortitude under fire.

That said, the tie break record is good and his big rivals aren't always so great (Novak has patchy mental strength, Murray is awful, Rafa is now supposed to be mentally poor / low confidence).

I think the issue right now for Federer is the knowledge that he cannot go very long with Djokovic so has to press, pure and simple. Novak can resist that and so there's risks. Against others Federer can press less, and gets more reward when he does.

If you're looking for the strongest player mentally I think you may go out to someone like David Ferrer.

Del Potro for me was so mentally strong too

bogbrush wrote:If you're looking for the strongest player mentally I think you may go out to someone like David Ferrer.

He's the perfect example of how confidence is linked to ability and fitness.

Against most of the tour, he fights and fights and fights. Rarely does he give anything away.

Against Roger, Rafa, Novak and Andy though, who all move better than him and have greater ability than him, he's frequently terrible. There have been some terrible chokes against them down the years.

Someone I'm always impressed with is Isner.

He usually produces his best tennis in the big matches. Of course, his best level is not usually enough to win against the top players but, relative to his ability, I think he often produces the goods. He rarely looks intimidated.

I also rate some of the old guard like Niemenen, Haas and Hewitt too. They always turn out ready for a fight and seem to relish a chance to take on the top guys.

True, he folds. Or is he just ordinary? He certainly runs a lot.

barrystar wrote:It's incredibly difficult from the outside to work out where the line between physical ability and mental strength is to be drawn, the former certainly feeds the latter.....

No I don;t think it is difficult at all. They are so dependant on one another that the question itself needs to be revisited.

What would be Novak or Nadal mental strength if they had no choice but to go for risky shots because their fitness was not allowing them to last?

I know the answer to that is very clear. Both Nadal and Djoko chose to become physical gladiators because they did not wish to rely as much on their talent and mental strength. Djoko was the one always faltering under pressure before becoming that fit in 2011. And we know what happened to Nadal as soon as his physical level was caught up by Djokovic.

If nadal and Djoko had more guts, they simply woudl have a different games.

Federer is the only player I know able to play with such risky shots and thin margins while able to accumulate 17 slams. Djoko has one of the safest game thanks to his fitness yet has a very poor slam final record.

It's not close.

Though I understand the frustration of fans seeing Federer wasting 20 or so BPs, I am not sure they realise how many risky shots under the toughest pressure Federer has had to pull to arrive those BPs.

Federer has also the best TB record of all time.....for those who have doubts. A much better indication of mental strength than a 5 setter record where fitness has so much of a say.

I agree re. Del Potro mental strenght. Strongly disagree on Ferrer's. I have seen him choking too many times against Nadal in the decisive points of otherwise very close contests.

Considering the elite club of open era all time greats Lendl has always stricken me as an example of not impressive mental strenght who has somewhat underachieved his (huge) potential. Some similarities with Edberg and now Federer imo. On the strong side Wilander (top pick for me), Connors, Borg, Nadal and now Djokovic. Agassi, Sampras, Mac, Becker somewhere in between these two groups.

bogbrush wrote:True, he folds. Or is he just ordinary? He certainly runs a lot.

In fairness, it's probably tough to be positive when 12 years of matches have yielded a 16-0 deficit in the h2h...

Federer is the only player I know able to play with such risky shots and thin margins while able to accumulate 17 slams. Djoko has one of the safest game thanks to his fitness yet has a very poor slam final record.

It's not close.

Another pure demonstration of Djoko lack of guts was at the FO final. he was there once again relying essentially on Stan making UEs. It was STan who had the guts to go for his shots and deliver them knowing that if he did not go for lines and corners he would be dragged to longer rallies and more games and sets.

Djoko clearly like the guts to send a faster, riskier ball forcing Stan to more mistakes.

Djoko will only be as string mentally as he is fit...he knows that Fed's BH is slower than his mouvement and that contributes considerably to Djoko's peace of mind. But he is much more nervous when facing a player with power from both wings.

TheMessi wrote:

barrystar wrote:It's incredibly difficult from the outside to work out where the line between physical ability and mental strength is to be drawn, the former certainly feeds the latter.....

Though I understand the frustration of fans seeing Federer wasting 20 or so BPs, I am not sure they realise how many risky shots under the toughest pressure Federer has had to pull to arrive those BPs.

Federer has also the best TB record of all time.....for those who have doubts. A much better indication of mental strength than a 5 setter record where fitness has so much of a say.

It doesn't explain why Fed is able to get so many opportunites to break, yet unable to capitalize them. It's quite obvious to me, that he plays these important point with some anxiety, some sort of mental block that affect his shot making ability.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

TheMessi wrote:

barrystar wrote:It's incredibly difficult from the outside to work out where the line between physical ability and mental strength is to be drawn, the former certainly feeds the latter.....

Though I understand the frustration of fans seeing Federer wasting 20 or so BPs, I am not sure they realise how many risky shots under the toughest pressure Federer has had to pull to arrive those BPs.

Federer has also the best TB record of all time.....for those who have doubts. A much better indication of mental strength than a 5 setter record where fitness has so much of a say.

It doesn't explain why Fed is able to get so many opportunites to break, yet unable to capitalize them. It's quite obvious to me, that he plays these important point with some anxiety, some sort of mental block that affect his shot making ability.

Of course it does. It is added pressure when it matters cause in fact fed cannot rely on his fitness to push for the long rallies when it matters.
He had a very poor record too versus Hewitt and Nalby when he was not as fit as them. He says it many times that he had to work hard physically to be able to have the choice when to attack on those big points. Once he got fitter, he completely reversed the H2H v Hewitt and Nalby. Unfortunately Nadal and Djoko have raised the bar higher where Fed simply can't go. If he was able to keep rallying he would just do that on those big points and wait for the right opportunity to attack but he knows he can't and yes there is more pressure cause those BPs are hard to get. They also require high risk. Fed is constantly under the pressure to execute the craziest shots. This is why 99% of the crowd is behind him, they can see he producing the most energy friendly game. Unfortunately, the added risk weighs a lot on one's mind.

You cannot compare the mental strength of a retriever relying on his fitness with the one of an attacker relying on risky shots.

TheMessi wrote:This is why 99% of the crowd is behind him, they can see he producing the most energy friendly game. Unfortunately, the added risk weighs a lot on one's mind.

You cannot compare the mental strength of a retriever relying on his fitness with the one of an attacker relying on risky shots.

US Open final - distance covered
Djokovic: 10,744 ft
Federer: 10,962 ft

Wimbledon final
Djokovic: 2967m
Federer: 3172m

Wimbledon semi final
Murray: 1972m
Federer: 2098m

Wimbledon Quarter final
Simon: 1716m
Federer: 1749m

Wimbledon 4th round
Bautista Agut: 1585m
Federer: 1673m

So why is the one playing the most energy friendly game covering more distance than his opponents?

Why are the ones "relying on retrieving" not running as far?

Why is the player who weighs a stone more than his opponent and is covering more distance, not the one playing in a way that relies on fitness?

HM Murdock wrote:

TheMessi wrote:This is why 99% of the crowd is behind him, they can see he producing the most energy friendly game. Unfortunately, the added risk weighs a lot on one's mind.

You cannot compare the mental strength of a retriever relying on his fitness with the one of an attacker relying on risky shots.

US Open final - distance covered
Djokovic: 10,744 ft
Federer: 10,962 ft

Wimbledon final
Djokovic: 2967m
Federer: 3172m

Wimbledon semi final
Murray: 1972m
Federer: 2098m

Wimbledon Quarter final
Simon: 1716m
Federer: 1749m

Wimbledon 4th round
Bautista Agut: 1585m
Federer: 1673m

So why is the one playing the most energy friendly game covering more distance than his opponents?

Why are the ones "relying on retrieving" not running as far?

Why is the player who weighs a stone more than his opponent and is covering more distance, not the one playing in a way that relies on fitness?

Excuse him, he just discovered tennis a few months ago the poor lad, don't go too hard on him.

Running to the net must account for some of that.

This thread is about Federer, so I don't want to go on about Rafa too much; but there area few things I can add.
Firstly I think his mentality and mental game has not cost him any matches after his loss to Raonic. His loss to Raonic at Indian Wells was because hof performance in some crucial moments, but after that his losses have not been due to anything mental as far as I can see.
For example I thought he was great mentally in his loss to Fognini, especially in the 5th set where he kept fighting back. He's pretty honest in his interviews, after his loss to Raonic he admitted the mental aspect cost him, after his loss to Fognini he said that he was mentally in the right position and kept fighting.

In terms of confidence, I think it's natural that when you're winning a lot you'd be confident, and you'd lose that confidence when you're not winning as much. Anything else would be delusional surely.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Running to the net must account for some of that.

That's a good point actually.

It gets more complicated though; as if Federer went to the net and finished off the point he probably would have run more than Djokovic; but if Djokovic could get a few balls back and make Federer play some more volleys, Djokovic would have probably made up for the run to the net and run more.

If you were right, that the retrivers' style of play was so much more effective of Fed's, he would simply be blown apart from game one, there simply would be no match. But that is not the case. The story that we are seeing again and again in those big finals is different. We see a Fed that can compete, that gets to the verge of gaining the lead but somewhat fail to capitalize his opportunities. If, like you say, "Nadal and Djoko have raised the bar higher where Fed simply can't go" why would he get to so many opportuities in the first place?

My take on this is very simple: Fed is having problems in finding his best tennis when it matters the most. He is playing those big points with some form of extra anxiety that prevent him to relax enough and hit the ball business as usual.

HM Murdock wrote:

TheMessi wrote:This is why 99% of the crowd is behind him, they can see he producing the most energy friendly game. Unfortunately, the added risk weighs a lot on one's mind.

You cannot compare the mental strength of a retriever relying on his fitness with the one of an attacker relying on risky shots.

US Open final - distance covered
Djokovic: 10,744 ft
Federer: 10,962 ft

Wimbledon final
Djokovic: 2967m
Federer: 3172m

Wimbledon semi final
Murray: 1972m
Federer: 2098m

Wimbledon Quarter final
Simon: 1716m
Federer: 1749m

Wimbledon 4th round
Bautista Agut: 1585m
Federer: 1673m

So why is the one playing the most energy friendly game covering more distance than his opponents?

Why are the ones "relying on retrieving" not running as far?

Why is the player who weighs a stone more than his opponent and is covering more distance, not the one playing in a way that relies on fitness?

I am well aware of those stats HMH. The reason is Djoko can dictate the game cause he gets on the ball quicker than Fed and his DHBH can send federer to corners. And this is exactly why he is rushed to shorten rallies even more.

After 3 sets with Djokovic, Fed had covered twice as many miles than versus Stan or Gasquet's match. Those stats confirm why fed has to shorten rallies and take the risk.

Energy friendly? Pusher? Novak no guts because he lost one slam match this year?
Cant compare the mental strength of a pusher to a risk taker?
No tennis fan would ever write such tripe...

Mental strength is NOT confidence, you can be mentally strong and still lose a match badly.
Mental strength is being able to think clearly and do what you want to do under extreme pressure, its the ability to not hand your opponent the win.

Confidence is your conviction to executing the shot, and comes not from "luck" or a "gimmick" or a good match up, that comes from hard word, reams of it, work thats not given anything like the respect it deserves because it isnt always pretty.

Fed might not do much running on his serve, but against the other best theyre clever enough to pull him side to side on theirs. Thats because theres different styles of attack and theyre good enough to use them

Mental strength is the ability not to give it away and stay true to your game plan. Confidence goes out and wins it

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:If you were right, that the retrivers' style of play was so much more effective of Fed's, he would simply be blown apart from game one, there simply would be no match. But that is not the case. The story that we are seeing again and again in those big finals is different. We see a Fed that can compete, that gets to the verge of  gaining the lead but somewhat fail to capitalize his opportunities. If, like you say, "Nadal and Djoko have raised the bar higher where Fed simply can't go" why would he get to so many opportuities  in the first place?

I am a bit puzzled by the question. Can't you see why? I'd advise you to watch the match again.

My take on this is very simple:  Fed is having problems in finding his best tennis when it matters the most. He is playing those big points with some form of extra anxiety that prevent him to relax enough and hit the ball business as usual.

Right so explain why Djoko's mental strength was more than average before he became that physical phenomenon, always being on the losing end of those tough matches v Fed and Nadal. Why suddenly he became very "very strong mentally" after 2011 which coincides with his gluten free diet and why Nadal was so string mentally when he had the superior edge and do we see him lose 5 setters against mental midgets nowadays he has lost some of his fitness?

I am looking forward your answers.

temporary21 wrote:Energy friendly? Pusher? Novak no guts because he lost one slam match this year?
Cant compare the mental strength of a pusher to a risk taker?
No tennis fan would ever write such tripe...

Mental strength is NOT confidence, you can be mentally strong and still lose a match badly.
Mental strength is being able to think clearly and do what you want to do under extreme pressure, its the ability to not hand your opponent the win.

Confidence is your conviction to executing the shot, and comes not from "luck" or a "gimmick" or a good match up, that comes from hard word, reams of it, work thats not given anything like the respect it deserves because it isnt always pretty.

Fed might not do much running on his serve, but against the other best theyre clever enough to pull him side to side on theirs. Thats because theres different styles of attack and theyre good enough to use them

Mental strength is the ability not to give it away and stay true to your game plan. Confidence goes out and wins it

If you are feeling confident, you may go for extra riskier shots. Doesn't that take more mental strength to attack?

I can buy the idea that Fed's legs get taken away from him and so the 5 set record is influenced by physical issues.

However, there is no logical explanation why physical issues would mean Fed wins 17% of break points compared to around 40% of other return points. That's nonsensical and can only be a mental issue.

It Must Be Love wrote:This thread is about Federer, so I don't want to go on about Rafa too much; but there area few things I can add.
Firstly I think his mentality and mental game has not cost him any matches after his loss to Raonic. His loss to Raonic at Indian Wells was because hof performance in some crucial moments, but after that his losses have not been due to anything mental as far as I can see.
For example I thought he was great mentally in his loss to Fognini, especially in the 5th set where he kept fighting back. He's pretty honest in his interviews, after his loss to Raonic he admitted the mental aspect cost him, after his loss to Fognini he said that he was mentally in the right position and kept fighting.

In terms of confidence, I think it's natural that when you're winning a lot you'd be confident, and you'd lose that confidence when you're not winning as much. Anything else would be delusional surely.

I would define mental strength as playing the most important points at your very best. Rafa used to be the master of this...perhaps combined with this was that his most important points often came against Federer.

Djokovic in 2011 did this better than Rafa, but not afterwards. Recently the gap between them has been so big that there hasn't really been any important points.

I think Rafa showed good fighting spirit (I guess he will never lose this) but he lost the biggest points to Fognini. I'd say he didn't play them very well. Fognini is not really known for his own mental strength either.

I guess a lot of it comes down to confidence. If you are feeling good and know you are the best you will have confidence on the biggest points. Think Djokovic has that this year.

Re people like Ferrer - I'd argue that he doesn't get to play too many massive points as he's just not as good as the top players. Djokovic/Nadal/Federer have played singular points which have determined the fate of grand slam titles.

TheMessi wrote:The reason is Djoko can dictate the game cause he gets on the ball quicker than Fed and his DHBH can send federer to corners. And this is exactly why he is rushed to shorten rallies even more.

After 3 sets with Djokovic, Fed had covered twice as many miles than versus Stan or Gasquet's match. Those stats confirm why fed has to shorten rallies and take the risk.  

Very true.

But relying on speed and relying on fitness are different things entirely. I think it's a stretch to say that the player who is a stone lighter and is doing less running is relying on fitness.

And, to check I understand your argument, you're saying that Federer is having to run further because Djokovic is sending him to the corners, but it's Djokovic who is the one doing the retrieving?

In relation to the debate on mental strength and risky shots. I know this is another sport, but Willis made this point on David Gower:

"It takes an enormous amount of mental strength to keep playing risky shots when under pressure when others would point out that it's a weakness in your game. I think David showed massive mental strength to play shots when the risk was there to nick off to the slips or caught behind"

I think one mistake that I am reading here, particularly from other Federer fans, is to believe that "mental strenght" shuld be considered, who knows why, the "signature" of a champion. Eg. the stronger he is mentally, the greater is the champion. Personally I see mental strenght as just one of the many qualities of a player, not necessarily the most important, in relative terms obviously (as you have to be mentally very strong to become a tennis champion in the first place).

It can give you an idea of how much a player has fulfilled his potential. Eg Wilander probably has achieved 100% of what he could. Lendl, a far greater player, around 80% etc etc.

@ LS - going for riskier shots doesn't necessarily require courage. In fact, its often going to be because the player lacks belief that he will be good enough to beat the opponent by standard tactics.

Born Slippy wrote:@ LS - going for riskier shots doesn't necessarily require courage. In fact, its often going to be because the player lacks belief that he will be good enough to beat the opponent by standard tactics.

Exactly, very good point. I've never seen someone like Gulbis who may just 'go for it' on a big point as particularly courageous.

Although if talking about Federer, I would say this; the guy is good enough to go for riskier shots and pull it off. Maybe it won't work all the time, but even 1/3 success ratio would mean he broke maybe double times than he did. But instead he went far too passive in general with the backhand slice. Doesn't make any sense.

So I agree with your point in general, but with Federer the guy is in another class to most attacking players; what he does just doesn't add up.