Is Federer not 100%?

Federer: I feel good about myself, about my body. I've recovered. The last week, you know, was vital for me to recover from my groin injury. I feel like I'm almost back at 100% again, which is a really good sign for Wimbledon.

I must say that during the FO, even before the final, I saw Federer briefly touching his groin muscles while playing. We know that was his problem last year during the Halle final which prevented him to be 100% for Wimbledon. That coudl also explain his collapse in the final set of the FO too.

I find it bizarre that the player who does his best to hide injuries in GSs (don;t we all remember the "I am perfect" after his Falla match) is telling us here that he is "almost 100%".

Sure, it might be a polite way to confirm his excuse to the Halle organiser but who knows?

The fact he is not starting on Monday might confirm he wants to buy some time.

Hopefully the extra break/rest and not playing Halle will help, rather than hinder, his Grass play. Does he play CC tomorrow?

Well, I doubt anyone on tour is quite 100 percent at the moment. Andy is nursing a sore elbow, Djoko tendinitis in the knees, and Nadal always seems to have his fair share of niggles. I hope Fed stays healthy because I really think this is his best shot this season at a grandslam, and he isn't going to have too many more.

Starting to wonder if the top players are ever 100% injury free at any time during the year these days. Sometimes in the AO people have early year fitness issues, then after the clay court season every successful player is highly fatigued at the least. After wimbledon i think some players get back to energetic health and injury free, but by that point to the end of year its inevitable that some of the better players are out with injury or have issues of some kind.

generally speaking Federers excellent footwork has stopped him being heavily injured during his career, it makes me wonder how a serious injury would effect Federer at this stage of his career.

Out of the top 4 i would say Murray is the one whos had most to worry about over the last few months - even his lions roar might not have the same effect as usual with his broken tooth!

He wouldn't have started today anyway whether he wanted to or not as he's not the defending champion and on the other side of the draw. As to the injury I suppose we'll only find out when he plays.

Federer usually keeps things like that quite, so it could have something to do with his Halle withdrawal. But he also said that Murray had the perfect preparation, which implies he rather would have played a warm up event.

Anyway, the bookies have slightly shifted towards Federer the last couple of days. We have to assume that they're doing their homework...

Tomorrow we'll find out

It is hard to tell with Federer.

Last year he reckoned his back was hurting when he was beaten by Berdych.

This year he is saying that the reason he lost was because his confidence was shattered by Falla and he never really recovered from that.

So who knows?

Federer withdrew from Halle in 2009 and managed to win Wimbledon fine that year.

It wouldn't surprise me if Falla did shatter his confidence last year, could have been a combination? I remember watching that match and Federer was not moving well which could suggest issues with his back.

All players seeded on the opposite side from seed #1 play on the second day (@ least all key players on that side of the draw) so that's why he didn't start today.

I think we'll get a real idea of how he's playing and feeling about his game tomorrow. I really do hope he's playing well, Nadal certainly seems to be playing well so far.

icecold wrote:It is hard to tell with Federer.

Last year he reckoned his back was hurting when he was beaten by Berdych.

This year he is saying that the reason he lost was because his confidence was shattered by Falla and he never really recovered from that.

So who knows?

It was the groin injury he did in Halle's final. He says in his interview 2 days ago that he "was fighting something" and that clearly was the groin injury.

Fed played pretty cautiously in the first set against Kukushkin today.

"I was nervous going out in today's match really," admitted Federer.

On a different note...

"The conditions have slowed down immensely over the years," said Federer.

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Tenez,

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/aus09/news/story?id=386682

MELBOURNE, Australia (Jan 2009) -- Novak Djokovic abruptly surrendered his Australian Open title on Tuesday when he wilted in the Melbourne heat. But sympathy was in short supply from his fellow players -- particularly Roger Federer.


Novak Djokovic was visibly weakened during his match with Andy Roddick -- but that didn't win him any sympathy in some circles.
Djokovic, the No. 3 seed, threw in the towel midway through the fourth set of his quarterfinal with Andy Roddick, trailing 6-7 (3), 6-4, 6-2, 2-1. But in pointed comments, Federer, the No. 2 seed, noted that it wasn't the first time Djokovic has withdrawn midway through a match in a Grand Slam.
"He's not a guy who's never given up before ... it's disappointing," said Federer, who will face Roddick in the semifinals. "I've only done it once in my career ... Andy totally deserved to win that match."
"I'm almost in favor of saying, you know what, if you're not fit enough, just get out of here," Federer added. "If Novak were up two sets to love I don't think he would have retired 4-0 down in the fourth. Thanks to Andy that he retired in the end. Andy pushed him to the limits. Hats off to Andy."



So I think Federer is fine, he IS playing, therefore he is fit, no?

laverfan wrote:"I was nervous going out in today's match really," admitted Federer.

On a different note...

"The conditions have slowed down immensely over the years," said Federer.

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Isn't it a shame really? This is what killing talented players nowadays. It's all about stamina and lungs. The FO certainly looks faster nowadays.

I don't know why Federer talks alot about the surface changes. Was he this constant on this topic when he was winning many slams on exactly the same surfaces in his hay days? He should get on with it I feel.

Tenez wrote:

laverfan wrote:"I was nervous going out in today's match really," admitted Federer.

On a different note...

"The conditions have slowed down immensely over the years," said Federer.

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Isn't it a shame really? This is what killing talented players nowadays. It's all about stamina and lungs. The FO certainly looks faster nowadays.

Yes the FO looks faster yet Federer couldn't win it. If he was looking for an excuse for todays match, it's strange as he even won in straight sets. Kukuskan served really well and played a solid game for a world no.61. I don't know what Federer expected from the game, a triple bagel victory?

NITB,
That was one of the rare time Federer should have shut up. I agree. I have said it many times on 606. That was the worse peace of scheduling in a slam. If I remember Djoko had played a very long match v Baghdatis finishing at 3 or 4 in the morning and they decided to make him play the following day in the heat. In fact it was Roddick and Stefansky who asked for that schedule knowing it woudl increase their chance to win v Djoko. And that deprived us of one the best semi.

However Djoko is no angel and he certainly brought that reputation upon himself. First when he was 18 v Monfils at the USO and also in that DC match v Stan and that certainly did not go unnoticed in the lockerroom and with Federer who was part of the team then. This AO09 words from Fed were wrong but that was a case of cry the wolf too many times...

Simple_Analyst wrote:I don't know why Federer talks alot about the surface changes. Was he this constant on this topic when he was winning many slams on exactly the same surfaces in his ha[e?]ydays? He should get on with it I feel.

... and what part of the 'slowing down' did you not comprehend in his statement on the ATP link provided.

NiTB...

Re Dojokvic retirements, things have changed quite a bit, have they not? He played a wonderful match today against Chardy with two breadstick sets.

Slowing down you say Laverfan? Wimbledon was slowed down before Federer started winning, FO is a slow court getting faster, USO is as fast as it was in the 90s no changes. AO has a new rebound ace, all it is. Unless we access every single tournament surface, enough of the court slow
down pressers. He wasn't saying this when he was winning everything.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Slowing down you say Laverfan? Wimbledon was slowed down before Federer started winning, FO is a slow court getting faster, USO is as fast as it was in the 90s no changes. AO has a new rebound ace, all it is. Unless we access every single tournament surface, enough of the court slow
down pressers. He wasn't saying this when he was winning everything.

SA... Please read this again... "The conditions have slowed down immensely over the years"

Federer won his first Mens slam in 2003 Wimbledon Men's Singles, but he played on Wimbledon grass in 1998 as a Junior and won the Junior Title. This is the same year as Sampras's 11th Slam, beating Ivanisevic and [i]five years before Federer's first slam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Wimbledon_Championships

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

http://www.collegeandjuniortennis.com/wmbldn98.html

This is NOT a GOAT argument.

"A leopard cannot change his spots" - Old Swahili saying.

laverfan wrote:Fed played pretty cautiously in the first set against Kukushkin today.

That was exactly what i thought. Like he was playing on ice..
But it got better as the match went on. Eventually doing a bit of ..euh gallery play!

Lol GOAT argument? Laverfan, you are getting this confused, may be read what I first wrote again and understand. I asked a simple question, was Federer talking about slow down of surfaces in his dominant days?. Why not answer that simple question. You yourself point a link to the changes made in 2003, isn't it time he gets over it?

Fed's dominant years were from 04-07, I dont know whether he mentioned that the courts were playing slower at that time, however he's not the only player to state that the conditions in general have slowed down over the years. This is stated quite regularly by players and commentators.

Also, it probably takes a few years to notice equivocally that a trend is taking place. Fed may be comparing the conditions now to when he first came on tour, and in his opinion they seem slower.

Federer was simply so good that he coudl do well on fast and slow grass but recently it's turned into ridiculous physical battles.

Look at the way Nadal, Murray, Djoko won their first round. So typical of todays tennis and what makes those 3 players so solid!

Tough or balanced first set....then stroll in the park for the fittest.

We could of course include Federer's results there but it woudl be misleading as Federer is the one ususally trying to shorten the points so his domination in the later sets are just the result of his confidence growing and his opponent giving up mentally as opposed to both mentally and physically when v the 3 big athletes.

Look at the way Nadal played Russell. He tried to be agressive and found himself a break 2-4 down. Then look how he slows the game down the following game and engages in longer rallies. making sure he and his opponent do the running. After a couple of 100m races, Russell loses his sharpness and Nadal can again afford to be agressive.

Exactly same scenario with Murray v Gimeno and Djoko. The fact that they can actually slow the game down on grass is simply absurd.

Wimbledon used to be my favourite slam. I can't say it is now really with these types of games.

Murray upped his performance as he was very tentative in the first set. The moment he started to play more aggressive and Gimeno weighed in with his UE's it decided the match. It was hardily stamina.

Murray upped his performance as he was very tentative in the first set.
------------------------

Murray says the opposite and I saw the opposite too. He blocked Ginemo's return istead of going for winning retruns and that engaged in longer rallies.

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:I don't know why Federer talks alot about the surface changes. Was he this constant on this topic when he was winning many slams on exactly the same surfaces in his ha[e?]ydays? He should get on with it I feel.

... and what part of the 'slowing down' did you not comprehend in his statement on the ATP link provided.

NiTB...

Re Dojokvic retirements, things have changed quite a bit, have they not? He played a wonderful match today against Chardy with two breadstick sets.

Yes, Laver, they have changed...and I am so glad. It was hard to watch Nole struggle at that AO, and it's brilliant his doc managed to pin it down to his gluten allergy. Nole has also matured o top of that, almost near his full body development at the moment, so really starting to peak this year; for me personally it would be brilliant if he could win another slam this year, ideally Wimbledon, but USO wouldn't hurt either . Even if he wins none of them but ens as a number one at the end of the year, he will have had a tremendous year and set for his absolute peak in 2012, esp. with his enormous desire win gold olympic medal (did I tell you I won the men's singles final ticket for the olympics :beam: )

noleisthebest wrote:
Nole has also matured o top of that, almost near his full body development at the moment, so really starting to peak this year; for me personally it would be brilliant if he could win another slam this year, ideally Wimbledon, but USO wouldn't hurt either .

USO suits him well, and some of the HC tournaments is where he will do well.

noleisthebest wrote:
Even if he wins none of them but ens as a number one at the end of the year, he will have had a tremendous year and set for his absolute peak in 2012, esp. with his enormous desire win gold olympic medal

A good run now at W would help him better adjust to the Olympics in 2012 on grass.

noleisthebest wrote:
(did I tell you I won the men's singles final ticket for the olympics :beam: )

Yes, you did. It is a fantastic opportunity and you have time for planning your 'outfit's.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why not answer that simple question. You yourself point a link to the changes made in 2003, isn't it time he gets over it?

In case you glossed over this part in the ATP link, here it is again....

"I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. "

laverfan wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:Why not answer that simple question. You yourself point a link to the changes made in 2003, isn't it time he gets over it?

In case you glossed over this part in the ATP link, here it is again....

"I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. "

I actually don;t believe Fed's words one bit here. It's a bluff comment clearly. It sounds like his last year interview after Falla's match : "physically, I am perfect"!

It may have been true he enjoyed the time when he finally realised he coudl sustain rallies with Hewitt and break his will down but his 5 setter record shows how he regularly collapses in 5th sets of 5 setters. Against, Murray, Rafa and Djoko, I would not give him much chance playing many 20 rally points.

Who is he kidding? It's no hasard that he has been trying to be more aggressive lately. He knows he can't keep on rallying with the youngsters.

Lol so he is telling us now since 2003 he likes grinding out wins. You still haven't answered the question by the way. Why wasn't he complaining about slow conditions when he was winning everything?

His 5th set record shows much of a mental weakness most times in tight situations. That has been obvious for a while.

Simple_Analyst wrote:His 5th set record shows much of a mental weakness most times in tight situations. That has been obvious for a while.

He is not the only one showing mental weakness!

They're all 100% until they lose.

laverfan wrote:"I was nervous going out in today's match really," admitted Federer.

On a different note...

"The conditions have slowed down immensely over the years," said Federer.

"The surfaces are much slower now, so you need to find different ways of winning the point, which is fine. I like to grind it out and go through 10, 20 shot rallies sometimes to win the point and break the opponent's will down. The game has definitely changed with strings and balls over the last 10 years."

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2011/06/25/Wimbledon-Tuesday-Federer-Wimbledon-Destiny.aspx

Well that is yet another change of tune. In 2008 he said:

Q. How have the courts changed here from when you won first in 2003 until today?
ROGER FEDERER: Nothing. I really don't think so. It's been the same pretty much through. People are talking this year is slower. I completely disagree with that.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=50601


and this:

Q. Marat Safin, after his win a couple days ago, thanked the club for slowing down the courts. How have you seen the courts change here over the years, and how does the change affect your chances?
ROGER FEDERER: Well, I don't think it's that much of a difference since I played Pete here in 2001 really. So, I mean, it's not that extreme, you know, to the point where I need to thank anybody, I think, you know.
I think it's just also the way how players are playing today: more from the baseline, not as much serve and volley, chip and charge. That sort of gives you the feeling that it's slowed down, as well, you know.
Because 95% of the guys play from the baseline today, whereas before it was maybe 50/50. That is a big change, I think, and that's happened in the last, let's say, 10, 15 years.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=50521


So grass is much slower since 2008? Really? Is that what he means?

I also find it odd that people think that Wimbledon plays like green clay and yet the Williams sisters who neither of whom since 2003 have done anything at all on clay worth talking about, have dominated Wimbledon. Why is that the case if both surfaces play the same these days?

At their best they look unbeatable on grass and yet neither would make anyone's top 5 pick for a French Open title any more even though supposedly the surfaces all play the same these days?

Voice of reason as usual Icecold. Maybe Federer is getting old and realising how hard it is to play on the baseline against the younger guys. If he was concerned about conditions, he should have voiced it many times in his hay days.

Well I would suspect the courts havent slowed much after 2003...much of the slowing down was done 2001 (100% ryegrass) and 2002 (6% larger balls). After that not much has changed, maybe the base got a little harder and bouncier but not necessarily slower.

At their best they look unbeatable on grass and yet neither would make anyone's top 5 pick for a French Open title any more even though supposedly the surfaces all play the same these days?
--------------------------------
Wrong. They are not trying on clay half as hard and the other reason is that moving on clay is certainly harder for the heavy build that they are. Once they slide, they can't stop.

Pacewise, the courts of Wimbledon are certainly slower now with more rallies than at the French open 2011.

lydian wrote:Well I would suspect the courts havent slowed much after 2003...much of the slowing down was done 2001 (100% ryegrass) and 2002 (6% larger balls). After that not much has changed, maybe the base got a little harder and bouncier but not necessarily slower.

Let's use the Babolat balls on 100% reye grass and we are back in 1990! You'll see then that 100% or 30% reye grass doesn't make any noticeable difference.

Tenez, as often is the case you do not look at or understand the full picture.

If you change the grass, you change the moisture retention properties which changes the hardness of the base and the amount of weight that can be used to roll the lawns.

Changing to 100% ryegrass has made the bases MUCH harder as this grass type retains less moisture which makes the soil and base drier. This results in the lawns being rolled with much heavier weights than before making them even harder and bouncier.
So it makes a HUGE difference to the speed and height the ball comes through.

If you say different then you fly in the face of grass and soil experts, many of whom have commented directly on the change of grass to 100% rye at SW19. But we have come to expect that you always know better Tenez so I expect some form of denial to follow. As before, you're just talking balls.

So in short Lydian...if I understand correctly, you admit you were wrong as you finally acknowledge that the balls did slow the game down and now you are talking about details and how grass moisture retention changes the pace of the court.

Frankly you are becoming even more ridiculous here if you are saying that reye grass retains less moisture than the previous grass and that is what caused the courts to slow down. You are constantly changing your arguments to suit you agenda cause that something you must have read recently as you never said that before in the 100s posts we had on that subject.

And you are wrong...as usual cause what really contributed to a further slowing of the courts after 2003 was a constant increase in clay % in the loam to the point where it's essentially clay nowadays which can of course be rolled and harden at will especially when dried.

I do work on a weekly basis with the AE groundsmen! How much more expert are your experts???????

Think!

And regarding the poor moisture retention of reye grass, it did seem to have retained tons in 2001 as not a single player at Wimbledon that year compained of courts being slowed down. It was pretty fast despite the wet and rainy times...to the point that even Henman's serve looked like a weapon!

Admit I was wrong? Er, no.
Yes the balls were changed in 2002, I've never disputed that and referred to it in other threads.
I can dig out the same points (if they're still there) from the 606 discussions about harder bases, heavier weights, etc. You seem to have a selective memory.
I dont care what you do with the AE groundsmen (perhaps you make them tea and tell them how great Federer is?), many experts have commented on what happened with the changing of grass to 100% in 2001 and the changes in properties, dynamics and ground maintenance. Also - why does Federer himself say the courts have not slowed down after 2003 then?

Summary of changes:
1) Denser-packed dirt (from 2001 as ryegrass can take it, plus drier)
2) Different, thicker grass (from 2001)
3) Larger (8% CSA) tennis balls - type 3 Slazengers (from 2002)
4) First three points above mean grass inside the service box is not worn out, because no one volleys anymore, which means serves are slowed down

I presume you have a reference for the constant increase on % clay addition after 2003?

4) First three points above mean grass inside the service box is not worn out, because no one volleys anymore, which means serves are slowed down
---------------------------------

Oh Dear..keep digging! Explain to us how more grass and less dust does slow the serve.

I am afraid, this is a decent forum and I am asked to have a courteous discussion but I am not sure how to define the garbage coming from your posts. I am at a loss.

And by the way the type 3 balls were probably introduced in 2002 but That is not sure. What we know is that in 2002 they were bigger and my take is that they probably introduced type 3 balls (for sure bigger balls) and then they realised in 2002 that it was too slow and the final was too boring and therefore returned to type 2 balls in 2003 (that is my guess and I say it when I am not 100% sure). But they used larger type 2 balls than they used to, yet making them bigger but fast enough to allow Roddick and Philippousis to get to finals i 2003, 2004, 2005.

FYI, they are using type 2 balls today and not type 3 as you suggest, (another wrong from you) However type 2 is a range of size and the current type 2 Slaz balls are right at the larger limit and that is what makes them considerably slower than type 2 Babolat for instance as well as the quality of the rubber and pressure being softer.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol so he is telling us now since 2003 he likes grinding out wins. You still haven't answered the question by the way. Why wasn't he complaining about slow conditions when he was winning everything?

That is the crux of how bogus this slow conditions argument by certain Federer fans is. Roger federer won every single slam on slowed down conditions. The courts at wimby were slowed down in early 2000s by all accounts and the process may have even started earlier. New balls were introduced in the 2003 era. Luxlon strings came into play around the same time frame, (which federer uses by the way in a mix with natural gut like most other pros). All of these have contributed to the evolution of the modern power baseline game. And the biggest beneficiary of the slowed down courts and better string technology is you guessed, the guy who won 16 slams with slower courts, bigger balls, and luxlon strings; one Roger Federer. The players win with the tour they are given, and the competition they are given. Now that federer who is in great shape and lethally fast has lost a step we should change conditions to make the game faster, in my opinion that would in fact tarnish his legacy and not add to it. I personally like point construction, like great passing shots, enjoy lengthy rallies that feature both defense and offense not just one or the other. In short, I like the modern game, its fair because it has been fairly consistent over the last few years and Fed has done brilliantly with slowed down conditions.

Socal learn reading my posts with an open mind. You will learn quite a bit if you want to.

Tenez, I have been reading many of your posts, I admit when it starts getting into lawn care and the inertia of tennis balls I can only stand to read that stuff once or twice if it gets too repetive I don't like reading the same post over and over again. Tenez, I agree with you on certain things, but I feel like you aren't properly looking at the big picture. Roger federer was and is super fit and fast, he is probably the most successful practitioner of the modern power base line game that has slowly been superceding S and V tennis since the early mid 80s with the birth of larger head racquets made of composite materials. Roger has used his speed and defense to win matches just like Rafa, Andy, and Novak do. The difference is a difference of degree.

Federer is the one that suffered from a slow Wimbledon cause he only lost there to the king of clay since he reached his full potential. But as we saw on clay, he was also very good to win on slow courts and challenge the best player of slow courts, that doesn;t mean he benefited from the slow conds.

He won 5 USO which some considered still fast. Noone bothered him there either.

Ok Tenez, so you accept that the USO has had pretty much the same court for the last 30 years. Well he won 5 titles at the USO and 6 at the socalled green clay that I hear you talking about. Personally, i wouldn't want to watch what wimbeldon descended into at the end of the 90s and the early part of the millenium. The tennis was unwatchable frankly. Who is to say that if wimbeldon was as lightening fast now as it was lets say 20 years ago that Federer wouldn't lose to lets say Andy Roddick in 09 when their final was a hair away from going the other way. Or whose to say that other big servers who Roger has been able to handle with slower conditions wouldn't have knocked him off here or there. Roger has lost one final to Rafa, maybe if the courts were faster he would have lost the really close 09 final to Roddick. Its all hypothetical. These changes all took place prior to Roger's epic run, so obviously these changes haven't hurt Roger's game.