Congratulations, Roger!

As a long time fan of Federer, I'm so thrilled at his resurgence in 2017.

It would have been so easy for Fed to retire after winning Wimbledon in 2012 and it's a real testament to his character and determination that he persevered in the face of bad health, bad luck and the hordes of "experts" writing him off.

Seems to have all come together in 2017, he's back to playing at a level I haven't seen for quite some time.

8 Wimbledons, 19 Slams and counting, Chum jetze, Roger!

Thank you for creating this thread reckoner. I will also like to congratulate Roger on a year which exceeded his expectations and confounded conventional tennis wisdom.

I cannot believe that I am considering the possibility that he can even add to his slam tally past his upcoming 36th birthday.

YVW kemet!

Isn't it absolutely crazy? I'm looking forward to the hard court swing, it's going to be amazing to see that new backhand fly!!

A multi-slam winning year at 35/36 is quite special I think. Confirmation that he is the best of all time, imo.

The AO victory, from a break down in the fifth, against Nadal, is probably the best slam he's won. He now owns the Wimbledon record outright, which is well deserved.

Guest82 wrote:A multi-slam winning year at 35/36 is quite special I think.  Confirmation that he is the best of all time, imo.

The AO victory, from a break down in the fifth, against Nadal, is probably the best slam he's won.  He now owns the Wimbledon record outright, which is well deserved.

I completely agree. That AO final completely shocked me, but after IW, Miami and his QF against Raonic I'm starting to accept the new normal... long may it continue (don't forget to take your cod liver oil, old timer)!

There could be some who argue that for a near-36 yr old to dominate as Fed has this year shows a dearth of young talent while others will say that the Slam wins are the result of his being arguably one of the greatest of all time.
   It could be said that both arguments are correct. Yes, the younger players have, largely, failed to step up and yes, Fed is the GOAT. You can also chuck into the mix the fact that while Rog has been able to see off Rafa when they've met this year, he's not been pressed - indeed has not even played - either Djoko or Murray who have been in the wars.
   You have to reckon that Fed has a good chance at the USO this year. A three-Slam year, perhaps? Just like old times.

I'm not sure the younger players haven't stepped up - Zverev, Thiem and Kyrgios have had a couple of pretty eye-catching results against the big 4 recently. It's just Roger, injury free and playing less nervously has found a much higher level of play. He's made that step higher for those coming through.

When all the greats are anointing Roger the greatest of all time and the likes of Murray (who used to get quite riled by Federer and for example sit in Djokovic's box when Nole played against Fed) is saying Federer does everything better than him, there is no longer a serious debate to be had on the GOAT front. That's without considering statistics don't tell you everything, they don't capture simply astonishing shots that are unique to the man or the way he has redefined how to be a world class sportsman and represent your sport without being a combative ****hole.

sirfredperry wrote:There could be some who argue that for a near-36 yr old to dominate as Fed has this year shows a dearth of young talent while others will say that the Slam wins are the result of his being arguably one of the greatest of all time.
   It could be said that both arguments are correct. Yes, the younger players have, largely, failed to step up and yes, Fed is the GOAT. You can also chuck into the mix the fact that while Rog has been able to see off Rafa when they've met this year, he's not been pressed - indeed has not even played - either Djoko or Murray who have been in the wars.
   You have to reckon that Fed has a good chance at the USO this year. A three-Slam year, perhaps? Just like old times.

Agree that there's an amount of both involved in Federer's success - Fed is an outstanding talent, and has a style that takes relatively little out of his body physically (plus being blessed with a body and physique that stands up to the rigours of the ATP tour better than most), and not overly-reliant on pure speed around the court. If you wanted a blueprint of a player who could continue to perform well into his 30s, you'd not go too far from Fed.

The other point is who can beat a fit and healthy (if rather ageing) Federer? The only players who have done so on a relatively frequent basis are Nadal, Djokovic and (to a lesser extent) Murray, two of whom are struggling with injury niggles and form this year, while Rafa has been excellent in the tournaments Fed skipped but a little behind when they have played. The rest of the players of the Djokovic generation have spent a decade or more losing to Federer, which leaves a lot of mental scars. The next generation of players (Raonic / Nishi / Dimitrov) really have failed to produce a champion capable of overturning the dominance of the preceding generation (could have been Del Potro but for injuries), and the Krygios / A Zverev generation is still a little way from getting to the top.

It was noteable that in the absence of 3 of the big 4 in the semi-finals this Wimbledon, that their places were taken by two 29 year olds and a 31 year old, not by guys who should be at their peak. Also, Rafa was knocked out by a guy who is older than him...

dummy_half wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:There could be some who argue that for a near-36 yr old to dominate as Fed has this year shows a dearth of young talent while others will say that the Slam wins are the result of his being arguably one of the greatest of all time.
   It could be said that both arguments are correct. Yes, the younger players have, largely, failed to step up and yes, Fed is the GOAT. You can also chuck into the mix the fact that while Rog has been able to see off Rafa when they've met this year, he's not been pressed - indeed has not even played - either Djoko or Murray who have been in the wars.
   You have to reckon that Fed has a good chance at the USO this year. A three-Slam year, perhaps? Just like old times.

Agree that there's an amount of both involved in Federer's success - Fed is an outstanding talent, and has a style that takes relatively little out of his body physically (plus being blessed with a body and physique that stands up to the rigours of the ATP tour better than most), and not overly-reliant on pure speed around the court. If you wanted a blueprint of a player who could continue to perform well into his 30s, you'd not go too far from Fed.

The other point is who can beat a fit and healthy (if rather ageing) Federer? The only players who have done so on a relatively frequent basis are Nadal, Djokovic and (to a lesser extent) Murray, two of whom are struggling with injury niggles and form this year, while Rafa has been excellent in the tournaments Fed skipped but a little behind when they have played. The rest of the players of the Djokovic generation have spent a decade or more losing to Federer, which leaves a lot of mental scars. The next generation of players (Raonic / Nishi / Dimitrov) really have failed to produce a champion capable of overturning the dominance of the preceding generation (could have been Del Potro but for injuries), and the Krygios / A Zverev generation is still a little way from getting to the top.

It was noteable that in the absence of 3 of the big 4 in the semi-finals this Wimbledon, that their places were taken by two 29 year olds and a 31 year old, not by guys who should be at their peak. Also, Rafa was knocked out by a guy who is older than him...

I am a massive Federer fan, so don't want to take anything away from him. But it feels to me like a case of the field going backwards. Before his injury Federer was the 2nd or 3rd best player behind Djokovic and possibly Murray. They've both gone away so he has stepped up and is now defacto number one.

Rafa has definitely improved mentally. He was losing a lot of close matches in 2015-16 and has started to win them now (especially at AO). He was probably the second best clay court player, behind Djokovic, in 2016. Again, Djokovic and Murray going away has left him to step up and become number one on clay. His level still hasn't been high enough on hard courts to beat Federer.

"His level still hasn't been high enough on hard courts to beat Federer."

It was pretty high in the AO final - he was a whisker away from taking that fifth set, y'know.

I think the difference this year is Federer not giving away points through nerves.

reckoner wrote:"His level still hasn't been high enough on hard courts to beat Federer."

It was pretty high in the AO final - he was a whisker away from taking that fifth set, y'know.

I think the difference this year is Federer not giving away points through nerves.

Yes, Rafa was certainly going toe-to-toe with Federer in their five-setter AO Final and came very close to edging it.

But then after his AO triumph, Fed's level seemed to go up another notch, such that Rafa could make no impression in either Indian Wells or Miami, where he failed to take even one set from him across both matches.

It's now 4-0 to Federer in their last four HC meetings.

Looking at the huge amounts written about Fed since the weekend, you are struck by the number of articles not only asking if Rog is the tennis GOAT but also if he is sport's GOAT.
   These things are arguable of course and have been debated, well certainly the tennis GOAT thing, perhaps ad nauseam. One article was particularly pertinent. It said people ought in some ways to resent Rog. After all, it said, he's highly successful, has a lovely playing style, is on kissing terms with royalty, has pots of money, promotes brands most people can only dream of aspiring to, can appear arrogant, has a loving family and not one but two sets of photogenic twins.
   Yet, the article went on, most adore him. Perhaps when Rog retires the question posed should not be "Was this the greatest sportsman of all time? but "Was this the best-loved sportsman of all time?"

I think after the AO final, Fed's confidence increased and perhaps Rafa's took a hit in that particular match up.

If you look at 2015-16 Federer was clearly playing better than Rafa. Rafa has certainly upped his game this year, probably more than Federer. But Federer is still the best player at the moment.

Will be interesting to see how Nadal does v the field in the hard court masters coming up.

sirfredperry wrote:Looking at the huge amounts written about Fed since the weekend, you are struck by the number of articles not only asking if Rog is the tennis GOAT but also if he is sport's GOAT.
   These things are arguable of course and have been debated, well certainly the tennis GOAT thing, perhaps ad nauseam. One article was particularly pertinent. It said people ought in some ways to resent Rog. After all, it said, he's highly successful, has a lovely playing style, is on kissing terms with royalty, has pots of money, promotes brands most people can only dream of aspiring to, can appear arrogant, has a loving family and not one but two sets of photogenic twins.
   Yet, the article went on, most adore him. Perhaps when Rog retires the question posed should not be "Was this the greatest sportsman of all time? but "Was this the best-loved sportsman of all time?"

I read that too @sfp.

Personally I think what saves Federer from looking like a total ponce is his dorkiness. There's a guileless quality to the man and a lack of calculation, so he doesn't tend to be seen as conceited or arrogant. As a commentator at the AO said (I paraphrase) "that man is 35 years old but he's jumping up and down like a 5 year old" - his genuine joy / anguish is what endears him to people all over the world.

lags72 wrote:

reckoner wrote:"His level still hasn't been high enough on hard courts to beat Federer."

It was pretty high in the AO final - he was a whisker away from taking that fifth set, y'know.

I think the difference this year is Federer not giving away points through nerves.

Yes, Rafa was certainly going toe-to-toe with Federer in their five-setter AO Final and came very close to edging it.

But then after his AO triumph, Fed's level seemed to go up another notch, such that Rafa could make no impression in either Indian Wells or Miami, where he failed to take even one set from him across both matches.

It's now 4-0 to Federer in their last four HC meetings.

Would you agree it's due to a mental readjustment (as much as an improvement in say backhand technique)?

I suppose as well that when you are a father there are bigger things to worry about than tennis matches or records.

reckoner wrote:

lags72 wrote:

reckoner wrote:"His level still hasn't been high enough on hard courts to beat Federer."

It was pretty high in the AO final - he was a whisker away from taking that fifth set, y'know.

I think the difference this year is Federer not giving away points through nerves.

Yes, Rafa was certainly going toe-to-toe with Federer in their five-setter AO Final and came very close to edging it.

But then after his AO triumph, Fed's level seemed to go up another notch, such that Rafa could make no impression in either Indian Wells or Miami, where he failed to take even one set from him across both matches.

It's now 4-0 to Federer in their last four HC meetings.

Would you agree it's due to a mental readjustment (as much as an improvement in say backhand technique)?

I suppose as well that when you are a father there are bigger things to worry about than tennis matches or records.

Probably a bit of both. His backhand has improved, but he also has to have the mental strength to continue to go for it, even when he misses.

I heard during commentary that during the AO, IW & Miami matches that Federer did not block or slice a single backhand return against Rafa. That's a big strategy change.

Oh I think there can be no disputing your points reckoner ........ the mental and technical readjustments, as much as the gradual change in perspective & sense of priority that four children would bring, are undoubtedly major factors in his resurgence. When he says in interviews that he is playing with a new-found sense of freedom, the evidence is there during his matches this year.

And then if we marry all the above to the two base ingredients -  a truly prodigious talent and a body seemingly computer-designed for the demands of the ATP Tour - his 2017 performances & results begin to make sense.

Although ...... must say, I do still find it all rather hard to believe .......

Worth adding that Federer must surely believe (in fact I'm convinced of this) that - for however long he chooses to continue to play the game - he will never again feel the same pressure and/or pain that would have characterised so many of his big battles of times past ; battles such as Wimbledon '08, AO '09, or that burning wish to capture an RG title.

Whenever he comes up against any of the talented aspiring young guys whose pro career has not yet been defined, the pressure is all on one side of the net. And it sure ain't Fed's side. His legacy was sealed long ago, and can henceforth only be further enhanced.

He will still want to win whenever he steps onto court of course. But from now on it's all about freedom of play, and enjoying the moment.

reckoner

Not sure dorkiness is quite the right description. I do think though that Federer exudes a love for playing the game. He's also normally a good winner, in that he shows respect for all his opponents - I do wonder if the fact that he is a properly fluent English speaker (did he learn from birth, owing to the South African side of the family?) helps him to appear more natural and humble to our media as well.

I also think that Mirka plays a big part in the image of Federer - He's obviously richer than God, and yet he is married to a lady he has known since he was a teenager and who is not a typical WAG. It all just seems like a good honest relationship, and fits well with Federer's broader image.

There is a bit more mental strength/confidence, but time will tell here. It would be interesting to see another tight 5 setter at the US Open against a major rival. I don't think we should judge too much on too little evidence too soon.

Federer hasn't absolutely dominated this year (although he looked pretty sweet at Indian Wells). He never felt a nailed on massive favourite for any tournament, and seems to have been only just ahead of the pack. (And yet the fact remains that he has won all four slams/masters entered this season.)

He won the Australian Open with three five setters including Niishikori, Stan matches. He did win Wimbledon in straights, but he had the benefit of an injured finalist and avoiding the other big four.

Federer should be favourite for the US Open, but not by a huge margin where everyone expects him to win. Just a little ahead of the various other contenders. I don't think Federer fans should lift the expectation too high for the rest of the season.

Amid all the talk of the 19th major it may have been overlooked that the latest Wimbledon triumph took Fed's total titles to 93 (five already this year). This is just one behind Lendl's 94 and second only to Connors' 109.
   While Connors' record may be out of reach, Fed should comfortably pass Lendl and I think the 100 is quite possible and would be pretty cool a figure to reach. 
   Saw somewhere also that Fed need only turn up at the USO to break Santoro's record of 70 Slams played IN TOTAL. Another impressive stat, showing fitness and longevity.

sfp - "Fed need only turn up at the USO to break Santoro's record of 70 Slams played in TOTAL ...."

I'd say that's a very appropriate choice of words if only because - for a large number of his Slams - that's exactly what Santoro did : he turned up !

Fabrice is a lovely guy, but I think his overall career performance at the Slams could be politely described as .... er ..... unremarkable. Of those 70 in which he played, his very best showing was one QF appearance. Yep, just one ! There were a total of 29 first round exits (Federer = 6)

Yes, the 109 title record held by Connors is probably a bridge too far. It's quite some achievement. Connors played beyond the age of 40, as I recall - although I also recall that he did play (and win) a good number of rather low-key events, with less-than-stellar fields, must be said. But that amazing SF run at the USO aged 39 was very special.

L72. Didn't realise Fabrice's GS record was so modest. But he was, at least, an entertainer. I think it was Pete S who dubbed him The Magician.
   As far Fed's first round exits were concerned, the big bullet he dodged, IMHO, was the opening-round Falla match at Wimbledon where he was mighty close to defeat. Can't think of a time when he was in so much trouble so early at a Slam since the Ancic defeat at SW19 in 2002.

To those saying Federer isn't a big dork I present :

All through Fed's career there's been immense pressure - tennis greats and media anointing him the best ever, the obstacle of Nadal at the French, upcoming records to break, winning streaks to defend.

The upcoming USO is no exception - if he wins it'll be 20 slams. The media circus will pepper him with asinine questions in the build up. I see a difference in how he deals with it now - he's already playing down his chances.

"That would be a joke, if I won three slams this year out of nowhere," said Federer, looking ahead to Flushing Meadows.
"I know if I stay in shape there are chances for me to do well at the US Open, but to win it? Yeah, at some stage I almost feel like I have to be realistic."
"I am not 25 anymore. I'm not sure I can win three slams in one year. Winning two is already pretty crazy and plenty good enough for me."

Quite right - it's good to see him take the pressure off himself.

Just thinking how close we came to another blockbuster Rog-Rafa final at Wimbledon. Still thought right to the end in the Muller match that Rafa would come through.
   If he had, it would have turned out that he he would not have had to play Andy, while, of course, Rog did not have to face Djoko. Having overcome his difficult match against Muller, Rafa would - in all likelihood - have advanced to a final with Fed. Those thinking they have been transported back 10 years in tennis terms would have had a field day. 
   All that is left for the rivalry is a long-awaited, and first, meeting at the USO.

It would have been an absolutely fascinating final, no doubt. After the AO so much would have been on the line for both players!

While Nadal looked, after a fantastic clay court season, to be right in the mix, his result was very much in keeping with his recent progress at Wimbledon:

2012: 2R
2013: 1R
2014: 4R
2015: 2R
2016: A
2017: 4R

These days there always seems to be an inspired performance that derails him before the business end of Wimby.

Fedal at the USO would be amazing. As the years have gone by I began to think it would be unfortunate for them to finally meet at the USO so late in Fed's career - but given his performance this year I relish the prospect. Can just imagine Fed's new backhand zinging through the NYC night!

Of course what could help facilitate a Rog-Rafa meeting in New York would be a ranking change that would see them occupy the top two spots. Looking at the points it could happen.
   When Rog was dominant at the USO and making finals, Rafa got knocked out early or earlier. Then when Rafa was waiting for Rog in the final in later years, the Swiss was squandering MPs and losing to Djoko! They seem fated never to meet in New York.

It's interesting you mention Djokovic (God those lapses by Roger were painful), as Nadal has thus far been convincingly dispatched one could say the Joker would make for an interesting yardstick against 2017 Federer. Of course as fate would have it Novak is unfit and in some chaos...

It's certainly getting tight at the top:

Murray 7750
Nadal 7465
Fed 6545
Djoker 6325
Stan 6140

I read Roger's probably not playing Montreal, limiting the points he can gain in the hard court swing. Could well end up on the same side of the USO draw as Nadal and meet him earlier than the final? Still as the great man says 2 slams in 2017 is incredible, anything else is simply icing!

Only a matter of time before Nadal overtakes Murray for #1.

Very likely that Nadal and Fed are YE#1 & #2. Don't know what order yet.

Murray is defending a final in Cincy, Fed has a very good record there as it tends to be fast. If Murray doesn't play or loses very early and Fed wins it he could be #2 (or even #1) after Cincy.

I heard Murray is going for a hip surgery and won't be playing for the rest of the season, is that news correct?

I haven't seen surgery confirmed anywhere - just that he's been to see a specialist in Switzerland.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I heard Murray is going for a hip surgery and won't be playing for the rest of the season, is that news correct?

If true it would mean Andy could be ranked outside the top 16 at the start of next year (his 2017 points total of 2290 would currently tie him for #17 with Jack Sock. Could make someone's AO draw hellish...

reckoner wrote:I see a difference in how he deals with it now - he's already playing down his chances.

"That would be a joke, if I won three slams this year out of nowhere," said Federer, looking ahead to Flushing Meadows.
"I know if I stay in shape there are chances for me to do well at the US Open, but to win it? Yeah, at some stage I almost feel like I have to be realistic."
"I am not 25 anymore. I'm not sure I can win three slams in one year. Winning two is already pretty crazy and plenty good enough for me."

Quite right - it's good to see him take the pressure off himself.

I have noticed and commented on the same thing. I am glad he is belatedly learning how to deflect pressure. I remember 10-11 years ago Rafa would be saying before RG that to him Fed was the favorite as the world #1 and Fed was silly enough to almost go with it.

Much better to put pressure on the rest of the field. But hopefully he will win the USO.

Unlike most of you here, I am not interested in Fed vs the Big 4 at the USO.  My preference for the semis would be Fed and three youngsters.  If you give me a choice of the USO final against Rafa, with a guaranteed win, or against Kyrgios, with uncertain outcome, I take the latter.

I have seen enough of Rafa, Nole and Andy over the years and I would much rather see new faces (but preferably younger faces than we had at W).

reckoner wrote:It would have been an absolutely fascinating final, no doubt. After the AO so much would have been on the line for both players!

While Nadal looked, after a fantastic clay court season, to be right in the mix, his result was very much in keeping with his recent progress at Wimbledon:

2012:  2R
2013: 1R
2014: 4R
2015: 2R
2016: A
2017: 4R

These days there always seems to be an inspired performance that derails him before the business end of Wimby.

Fedal at the USO would be amazing. As the years have gone by I began to think it would be unfortunate for them to finally meet at the USO so late in Fed's career - but given his performance this year I relish the prospect. Can just imagine Fed's new backhand zinging through the NYC night!

I think this stuff about an inspired performance can't be true. It must be at least in some cases Rafa not playing as well otherwise it would be an amazing coincidence. Rosol played a blinding 5th set, but the Muller match was overrated. I only watched the 5th set (well most of it) but Rafa was distinctly average.

As to the US Open, I think I'd take Federer-Nadal final as first choice. Their career deserves one encounter there. If they did, it would be the first time since Australian Open 2009 that a Federer win would lead to some kind of parity (or near parity, perhaps more realistically in the rivalry). In other words, the first match since then where the rivalry felt truly close and competitive and in play. Plus the match would be key, perhaps deciding, in the year end no 1 race.

Nadal does lead 23-14 overall but about half of that lead is due to his failing to reach finals on faster courts, while Federer showed up to lose on clay.

A Federer win at the US Open would put him ahead in two of the four slams, and only 4-6 down in slam finals overall. It would also give him the win in hard courts.

I'd argue it would no longer be clear that Rafa has "won" the rivalry, no longer "dominated" it and just had a slight edge. It would almost be a draw and allowing for the fact that Federer is the older and in tennis history the older is always beaten up by the younger great, perhaps I'd allow the rivalry to be a draw, at least a moral draw (not sure if you can have a "moral draw" in the way that you can have a "moral victory"?? Probably not but you get what I mean?)

On the other hand a Rafa win would give him the draw on hard courts, the lead at three of the four slams, 7-3 in slam finals...a clear victory! So all to play for.

It could be the last match in the rivalry at a slam (while they are both on top - who knows one of them could retire of fade at any moment), and it could be the decider. OK, that's exaggerating slightly, but I think it could be a good closer ala Agassi Sampras at the US Open. Swansong.

All matches: Nadal, 23–14
Clay courts: Nadal, 13–2
Hard courts: Federer, 10–9
Outdoor: Nadal, 8–5
Indoor: Federer, 5–1
Grass courts: Federer, 2–1

Grand Slam matches: Nadal, 9–3
Australian Open: Nadal, 3–1
French Open: Nadal, 5–0
Wimbledon: Federer, 2–1

Grand Slam finals: Nadal, 6–3
Australian Open: Tied, 1–1
French Open: Nadal, 4–0
Wimbledon: Federer, 2–1

Henman Bill wrote:... I'd argue it would no longer be clear that Rafa has "won" the rivalry, no longer "dominated" it and just had a slight edge ...

This is what you get when you try to simplify.  Just leave it as it is - that is their rivalry went through phases with Nadal always dominating on clay, Federer first dominating on the grass and hard courts, Nadal developing his game on grass and the hard courts - matching and then dominating Federer - followed by a falling away by Nadal, first on the grass and then on the hard courts - allowing Federer to overcome the Nadal challenge on those surfaces.  Part of the falling away by Nadal was associated with the rise and challenge of Djokovic - who ended up dominating Nadal and more or less everyone else on the circuit. This is still evolving.

Interesting pics of Grigor in the papers today:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/nicole-scherzinger-shows-honed-bikini-10825870


Little wonder he has so little energy left to take on the top guys on the tour.

I think Federer-Kyrgios (fitness allowing) would be a better match but Federer-Nadal for the sake of history! Come on USO...

Henman Bill wrote:

reckoner wrote:It would have been an absolutely fascinating final, no doubt. After the AO so much would have been on the line for both players!

While Nadal looked, after a fantastic clay court season, to be right in the mix, his result was very much in keeping with his recent progress at Wimbledon:

2012:  2R
2013: 1R
2014: 4R
2015: 2R
2016: A
2017: 4R

These days there always seems to be an inspired performance that derails him before the business end of Wimby.

Fedal at the USO would be amazing. As the years have gone by I began to think it would be unfortunate for them to finally meet at the USO so late in Fed's career - but given his performance this year I relish the prospect. Can just imagine Fed's new backhand zinging through the NYC night!

I think this stuff about an inspired performance can't be true. It must be at least in some cases Rafa not playing as well otherwise it would be an amazing coincidence. Rosol played a blinding 5th set, but the Muller match was overrated. I only watched the 5th set (well most of it) but Rafa was distinctly average.

I've been saying this for a while. They can't all play the match of their life, can they?

I think partly down to the way Rafa plays - excellent defensively, but when playing badly he drops a lot of balls short, this means they come in and put away winners, which makes it look like they are blasting him off the court. He often makes the matches close, just because of his will to win.

I didn't think Nadal was playing that badly against Muller, he lost a battle of nerves in the fifth is how I saw it.

Well, sometimes his opponents did play the match of their lives - Rosol in 2012 and Kygrios in 2014; sometimes it was Rafa playing aweful - vs Darcis in 2013 and Brown in 2015.

The Muller match, its Rafa's nerve that cost him the first set when he dropped serve, and from then he's chasing from behind, the whole match. It's not only a battle of nerve in the fifth set, but it's Rafa not making any adjustments in his ROS positions that's also a problem. Muller relied heavily on his serve, and his game was built around his serve, so when he's playing well, naturally he's serving well, and so he's more confident relying on his serves to hold on to his own service game. Rafa serving second in the fifth set also added to the pressure (for Rafa).

I got the impression Nadal was counting on Muller's level to drop and the expert opinion was on this becoming more likely the longer the fifth set went on. Instead... well.

How can he be counting on that when he himself was the one feeling the pressure? To me it's him feeling nervous, hence wasn't able to make any adjustments to his ROS position. Moreover he had many BP chances but couldn't take them because of Muller's great serving, so he ought to know he had to make some adjustments but was simply too nervous to do so.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree with you that Nadal was nervous. IMO this is when he tends to sit back, focus on getting the return in and try to capitalise on the attacking player's errors.

An 18-minute highlights of the Australian Open final, Federer v Nadal, this year.

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

It's high quality and has the benefit of including not just best shots but the story of the match including most or all of the key points like break points. Worth watching attentively with an eye on the score to appreciate the story of the match as well as the shot making.

Nice, thanks HB!

He's changed his game, I recall seeing an interview with Henman who watched him practice before Wimbledon started. And his practice sessions are like no one else's. He stands on or inside the baseline playing half volley ground strokes off both wings. Then once a rally starts within 4 or 5 shots he aggressively forces himself to end the point.

He's not as quick as he used to be and hasn't got the same stamina but if he builds his game around this clear and simple but aggressive game plan it keeps the points short and puts all the pressure on the opponent.

I don't think he changed much his game. I remember watching him after getting in Annacone as his coach. He was moving up to the net after that, and having some successes but no slam came his way. I'm not sure he won Wimbledon 2012 after Annacone left and before getting in Edberg, or was it during Annacone's time. Edberg had made him more confident when at the net; right now the difference to me was improving his BH and taking the ball earlier at that wing.

However, he moving up to the net to play that BH, had made him more vulnerable at his FH corner. A player who's good and daring enough to attack his FH, hit a passing shot to his FH while he's at the net anticipating a shot to his BH, would make him rush to cover his FH and he's slower now in covering that corner if he has to run for it. I saw Agut doing it to him a few times with successes during Miami, but Agut isn't a player who could trouble Fed all match playing that way. A top form Rafa and Djoko will be able to do that.