Federer's mental toughness in question again

Roger Federer losing yet another tight 5 set match brings back the debate that was on this board some weeks ago, mentally, Federer is not tough compared to the many greats of the past and most of todays players. His fans i'm sure will come and sugar court explanations as to why yet again he came up short in another close 5 set match but i'm afraid the truth is he is mentally weak. It has nothing to do with fitness or age, this has been the story throughout his career, when put under pressure, he sucumbs to it. once Tsonga who i have to congratulate for a great performance won the 4th set, they was only going to be one winner.

For a part, Federer believed to much in the media hype and everyone making him favourite. We hear about the great fast court condition player, the player who will excel the most under fast conditions but today once again shows other wise, he is just not that good a volleyer. He refused to come to the net when Tsonga was doing so more often and when he did he was fairly successful at 26/42 but still not great and how we would have won on faster grass which requires serve and volley on consistent basis, i have no idea.

Tsonga player really great and with more flair, hitting single handed backhand winners when he felt like ans serving really well but losing from 2 sets down must be hard for Federer. Sampras' 7 Wimbledon title is still safe i will say. Federer has his own mental weakness to blame, it has been his downfall many times. His career 5 set record is just too poor and not good enough. He is a great front runner but when the going gets tough against tough opposition when a players mental toughness is really shown.

As a Federer fan, I have to agree with you. However, I think this match was more a case of Tsonga having an unbelievable serving day and having nothing to lose. Also, remember that although he was two sets down, Tsoga was still playing really well and serving well.

The worrying thing for Roger is that he cannot seem to cope with powerful hitters anymore. That is really the thing that concerns me. There were glimpses of this in the Wimbledon 2009 final and now this worrying trend has continued this year.

Murray, Rafa, or Novak can more than deal with Tsonga's power.

You casually and confidently toss the phrases 'mental toughness' and 'mental weakness' around as though they're tangible entities, and as though you know exactly what constitutes those tangible entities. But it's sports babble.

I think to say he believed in the hype of his chances is a bit cheap. The guy to me comes across as cool as anyone I have seen and whenever I have seen him interviewed he has always said that if he plays his best tennis, he has a chance. I don't think that is something a guy who really believes he is the best ever despite the praise heaped on him from tennis players past and present would say. He has always spoken in a very humble manner when asked his opinion of his own legacy and has never been quick to hype himself.

In terms of the mental issues he may have with his game, today's match for example didn't strike me as someone who mentally lost his game. It was a case Tsonga upped his level set by set and by the 5th set was playing the best tennis he has played on Grass. Obviously between the 2 10 out of 10 people would say Federer is the better player. And accomplishments back that statement. When you are 2 sets up in a Grand Slam and then the opponent ups his level by some considerable margian, as player what do you do? Federer was in control of the match up and until the 3rd set.

A winning position is a much more difficult position than losing for me from a mental perspective. When you are losing, there is no choice but to improve and up your game. If you are winning and winning comfortably, what do you do? Do you up your performance a fraction? Do you stay in the same gear? If the opponent starts playing better, do you go defensive and invite them to go for their shots? I don't think in any way Roger lost the match through mental weakness, much rather that Tsonga put in a performance worthy of defeating any top player in the game.

I think there's a phenomenon in matches where players accept that they're going to lose: I think Tsonga was probably there after the first 2 sets. In that scenario all the pressure is gone and a player is able to hit freely and really find their form. If someone turns a match around having accepted their forthcoming loss, does that constitute mental weakness? Or toughness? I mean, it's a virtue accepting what appears to be a realistic assessment of a situation.

Federer needed to move faster and hit harder but he couldn't.

Tsonga on his day is capable of beating anyone. Did he not beat Nadal at queens this year?

But this is not the first time he has folded under pressure in 5 sets. I made reference to the media hype as almost all pundits were telling us how he will win based on his FO.

Granted he played really well at the French Open, but it is not to say he got 'carried' away with the hype surrounding Wimbledon. I think it just highlights how much improvement the rest of the field are making.

I agree droogle, he just wasn't moving as fast as he can/used to and hitting hard enough. If Fed hadn't lost his serve in any of those final 3 sets a tie breaker would have given Fed the match, of course tie breakers can go either way, but given how one sided the second set tie breaker was, I don't think it's likely Tsonga would have won any others. Although many say that Tsonga played brilliantly, I have to say that Fed unusually losing his focus during those breaks is what gave Tsonga the match. It's more a case of Fed losing the match rather than Tsonga winning it. Fed has said in his interview that he feels he played well, well had he played well during any of those breaks of serve, the match would have been his on the subsequent tie breaker.

In many ways, this match reminded me of the USO '09, in the last 2 sets of that match, you knew Fed wouldn't be able to break and as soon as he lost the tie breaker I knew he'd lost and he did. Just as I knew that Fed had to force a tie breaker in the 3rd or 4th set to win, he didn't, then I knew he was going to lose today.

I think the issue is more these occasional lapses Federer has, he displayed them @ the French and had he not had them in the French, he'd have beaten Nadal, and I don't think it's exclusive anymore to Nadal, it seems to be happening increasingly. It's definitely a mental issue that these lapses are occurring. If they happened when it didn't matter in the match, it would be fine but all to often they're happening at the crucial moment. Sadly I do agree with part of the thread, the lapses can only be mental.

I'm afraid Luciusmann to say Federer lost the match is wrong. He made 11 unforced errors 54 winners, Tsong won that match as it comes. He was more aggresive and came to the net alot. His serving was superb especially the 2nd serve.

How many unforced errors did Tsonga make? Double. Actually, Tsonga made 63 winners, but Federer himself managed only slightly less, 57.

Well if Tsonga beats Djokovic I'll happily agree that Tsonga won the match instead of Fed losing it, but I don't think Djokovic is going to play like he did last year like he did against Berdych, this is if Djokovic wins, I am more than certain it's Fed that lost the match. Aggressive he was, but as soon as he got broken (Fed), he started playing flat and making more errors, unusual for him and supports the idea he lost the match rather than Tsonga winning it. Having watched nearly the entire match except the first half of the first set, Tsonga played consistently well (apart from that bit I missed), he didn't up his gear, Federer tailed off, that's what I saw. I'm not sure what match you saw, but that's what I saw.

Really, he made a lot of errors why he lost? He made 11. Is that even much? You are jumping saying you watched the match and asking if I watched a different match? Funny, you'll have realised how Federer was outplayed then soon after game 2 in the 1st set when he got his one and only break point of the match. 1 break point. Tsonga made 4 of 5 errors in the tie break and gave it away, after that, he outplayed Federer. To be fair, the only thing that kept Federer in the match was how well he was serving. He was 2nd best in everything else.

luciusmann wrote:I agree droogle, he just wasn't moving as fast as he can/used to and hitting hard enough. If Fed hadn't lost his serve in any of those final 3 sets a tie breaker would have given Fed the match, of course tie breakers can go either way, but given how one sided the second set tie breaker was, I don't think it's likely Tsonga would have won any others. Although many say that Tsonga played brilliantly, I have to say that Fed unusually losing his focus during those breaks is what gave Tsonga the match. It's more a case of Fed losing the match rather than Tsonga winning it. Fed has said in his interview that he feels he played well, well had he played well during any of those breaks of serve, the match would have been his on the subsequent tie breaker.

In many ways, this match reminded me of the USO '09, in the last 2 sets of that match, you knew Fed wouldn't be able to break and as soon as he lost the tie breaker I knew he'd lost and he did. Just as I knew that Fed had to force a tie breaker in the 3rd or 4th set to win, he didn't, then I knew he was going to lose today.

I think the issue is more these occasional lapses Federer has, he displayed them @ the French and had he not had them in the French, he'd have beaten Nadal, and I don't think it's exclusive anymore to Nadal, it seems to be happening increasingly. It's definitely a mental issue that these lapses are occurring. If they happened when it didn't matter in the match, it would be fine but all to often they're happening at the crucial moment. Sadly I do agree with part of the thread, the lapses can only be mental.

Roger's problem is that he is simpy not good on the service return anymore. He used to be an extremely good returner. Now, he's just average. I also get the impression that he though he had the match won at the beginning of the 4th set. He just can't afford to take any match for granted these days. Tsonga is a very streaky player and I feared that today's result could happen.

I honestly can't see anyone stopping Nadal from defending his Wimbledon title, even if he ends up playing Djokovic in the final. I would tip Rafa (a two-time champion and 4-time finalist) over Novak any day (sorry NITB).

You're detracting, he still made half as many as Tsonga, how can you claim Tsonga played better if he made twice as many? That's totally illogical. I am entitled to ask if you watched the match, funny how you've mentioned the part of the match in the first half of the first set I've mentioned I didn't see, so I can't comment. All the commentators I've listened to (about that part of the match) have said Tsonga played below par in that period.

How well he served? He served reasonably well, the fact he wasn't able to make the shots was the problem, as I've said elsewhere. There's no way Tsonga would have won had the match gone to another tie breaker. The fact he was not put under more pressure on his serve or under the same pressure in another tie breaker is why he played as well as he did. Many players falter under pressure, it's the hallmark of the greats that they respond and keep their composure. Tsonga didn't exactly have a lot of pressure to deal with on his own serve or in another tie breaker.

Also he refused to change his game and did not try anything different in last 3 sets. He was just expecting Tsonga to make mistakes but that never happened.

BPs Federer - 1/1, Tsonga - 3/9
W/UEs Federer - 57/11 (+46), Tsonga - 63/22 (+41)
Net approaches Federer - 26/42 Tsonga - 37/58

The BPs say very clearly that Tsonga was the more aggressive player.

Fed became the passive player after the second set and never got to a BP after the first set.

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/stats/day17/1503ms.html

Luciusmann, you claim to not watch part of the 1st set, I doubt if you watched any of the match actually. Tsonga made 22 errors, that is incredibly low in a 5 set match especially when 4 or 5 of those came in the tie break. Federer just had no answer to Tsonga's ground strokes. His forehand was just too good. He hardly even got to deuce on Tsonga's serve. There is nothing which shows Federer lost the match instead of Tsonga winning it. He was just outplayed. Like Becker said; Tsonga came out on court and played the 1st 3 games as if he was just out of a fridge. After, it was all him.

Exactly, it was dreadful watching such a passive Federer: it was like watching a lamb for the slaughter house, I didn't know where to look (I say this as a Fed fan). I thought Annacone was meant to be helping him become more aggressive, not more passive?

luciusmann wrote:You're detracting, he still made half as many as Tsonga, how can you claim Tsonga played better if he made twice as many?

I assume you are talking about unforced errors?

Sadly unforced errors don't count towards the final result. I'd say Tsonga played better if he won more sets than his opponent

Excuse me, SA? I watched nearly all of that match, of course I would watch all of it, I'm a Fed fan, why on earth would a Rafa fanatic watch it all of it? I missed the first 3/4 games, some of us have jobs to do, so I can't just take time off to watch every single second of it. I doubt you watched every single bit of it, you couldn't even get how many winners there were right.

As I said, Tsonga was not put under any pressure after the second set and precious little throughout the match. There is plenty to show Fed lost the match instead of Tsonga winning it, There was a noticeable difference in Fed's game after Fed got broken in 3rd set.

I agree Davie that Tsonga played better, I'm just saying the result was affected by a drop in Fed's play.

OK luciusmann, I will now go away and ask Mr Johnsons heirs to rewrite the English dictionary and change the description of the word "Dominating" to "Donating" as if by your opinion Federer gifted the match to Tsonga.

Or you could bite the same bullet that Federer has chewed on and admit to yourself that he was roundly beaten by the better player on the day.

Where have I said that Tsonga played badly or worse than Fed: no where.

What's Johnson's heirs have got to do with it I don't know and it's irrelevant to the discussion. You certainly don't win matches if you play passive like Federer did, that's something which very few will deny.

I'll be interested to see what you say if Nadal loses, I don't even need to ask actually, (probably) injured. It's always the same/similar excuses.

Lol I couldn't get how many winners right? The stats are there to see, a mistake in saying 54 winners for Federer on my part does not make your absurd comment that Federer lost the match instead of Tsonga winning it any true. You did not watch 3 or 4 games of the match? I doubt you watched any to be honest because if you did you'll have seen besides the first 3 games in set 1 and set 2 tie break, Federer was convincingly outplayed.

Your comments read about as absurd as anywhere I've read thanks. Well why would I say in the first place I didn't watch them, because I'm honest. You're accusing me of lying? Your proof? None, as usual, claptrap, making up stuff, in this case, you would never know if I watched the match but unlike you I got witnesses, (i.e. my family who saw me watching it). Don't make allegations about me, it's got nothing to do with the tennis. You can't leave out the first 2 sets as if there a separate match SA, as usual, cherry picking what you want because it suits you.

Well Luciusmann if you indeed watch the match then it's even more absurd you claim Federer lost it.
How did I leave out the 1st 2 sets?

Absurd? SA, I DONT agree with you, I'm entitled to my views and I supported them reasonably well in my view. Nothing you've said has made me inclined to change my view, that's why I'm not going to agree with you on the basis of what you've said.

I've not gone on and on rubbishing your view or belittling you or patronizing you, so don't do that to me. I watched that same match and it's a well worn phrase in English (which you've said is not your first language) that, for example, Gordon Brown lost the election rather than Cameron winning it, used a lot in politics in the UK and perfectly transferable to sports. It doesn't detract from the fact that Cameron still is the Prime Minister (won the election).

Lol. I'll leave you to your opinion then. Pouring water on stone produces no result any ways.

He did lose it, in that his concentration had completely dissolved when he dropped the 3rd.

He started playing like it was a warm up rather than the real thing, but of course SA (or Catalan Power) wants to believe Federer is not a top 3 player, which is just stupid.

When you start making baseless accusations about me, yes, I would recommend you leave it.

It's totally uncalled for and completely unacceptable, have you got proof? No. Simply making it up, you have no basis for saying that, besides the fact you disagree with what I said which is shameful.

Should I start making up things about you SA because I don't agree with your rabidly fanatical Nadal postings? No, but you see nothing wrong with doing that to others, says more about you than me.

Guys can we calm down a bit? Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but lets not make assumptions on how people have come to that opinion.

Thanks

So it has nothing to do with Tsonga? I heard it all. Federer according to the rankings in a top 3 player, show me again where I said he wasn't.

luciusmann wrote:Where have I said that Tsonga played badly or worse than Fed: no where.

What's Johnson's heirs have got to do with it I don't know and it's irrelevant to the discussion. You certainly don't win matches if you play passive like Federer did, that's something which very few will deny.

I'll be interested to see what you say if Nadal loses, I don't even need to ask actually, (probably) injured. It's always the same/similar excuses.

"There is plenty to show Fed lost the match instead of Tsonga winning it"

So my question to you is this luciusmann, since Tsonga dominated the last two sets, you are now trying to say Federer handed them to him. Hence the mention of Dr Johnson who invented/compiled the English dictionary.

You need to look up the phrase in question SA, you're understanding of the English phrase is leading you to misinterrupt what's been written.

Jubbahey, no player hands sets away, you think Gordon Brown gifted away seats to Cameron? Apply your logic to politics and it sounds silly.

Funnily Luciusmann conveniently forgot who made reference to watching the match first.

What's that got to do with it? I said I didn't get the chance to watch the first half of the first set (I'm an honest person) and then you make up saying I didn't watch any of it, er, if ever I've heard making up baseless accusations, there it is. How on earth does referring to not watching the first half of the first set suddenly mean I watched none of it? Talk about making it personal without any proof.

Guys would you like a time out? It seems to be getting heated and I just think maybe just a chill out period. I won't lock the thread, but maybe you guys can take a 5 minute breather?

I only really watched the last set of this match, and I thought it was kinda 6 of one and half a dozen of the other (ie, I see valid points to both luciusmann and Simple_Analyst's arguments). Tsonga did play well, producing big serves when it mattered and was hitting big into the corners, forcing Federer to defend. However, what I saw of Federer's play was very disappointing, and was nowhere near his peak level of 06-07. He was slow around the court, missing relatively easy shots (there was one fairly crucial forehand approach near the end of the set that he blazed about 2 yards long that really stuck in my mind), and just could not put Tsonga under any real pressure on his serve. It was only really Federer's excellent serving that was keeping him in it, which is not really what I like to see (ie I'd rather him be playing stunning ground shots/volleys than simply serving his way to service holds). I would say it was more that Federer lost the match than Tsonga won it, as I believe that Federer playing anywhere above 85/90% can handle anything Tsonga can throw at him.

It's weird; Federer's renowned as a great grass-court player, but I've always been more impressed by his play at the US Open than at Wimbledon. Obviously Federer is fantastic on grass, but I'm not sure he is really any better on it than on a hard-court; I think his great streak at Wimbledon was more due to the fact that there were probably fewer good grass court players from 03-07 than there were hard courters.

I watched from the second set onwards and I always felt Federer was on top even when he lost the 3rd , I thought he would still win but then in the 4th when he got broken , I had small doubts starting to creep in, I thought Federer would save his energy for the 5th, then he got broken again in the 5th in an early game, I still thought Federer was going to come back and win but it just didn't happen. From what I saw Tsonga was just more hungrier than Roger was. I am still disappointed that Roger does not serve and volley, it would really help his game and make him more formidable but he persists in baseline ralleys and trying to prove a point. He needs to change his game if he's going to win another GS title.

Chaz
"I would say it was more that Federer lost the match than Tsonga won it, "

And I'd say that it was much more that Tsonga won the match by preventing Federer asserting any authority. To only face one break point in a 5 set match suggests a serving performance on a level not seen since the days of Stich, Becker and Edberg.

I do agree though that it is a worrying development that Federer is now losing to some of the big hitting players - this defeat, Berdych last year and Del P at the USO. In his prime, Fed did not get overwhelmed by his opponent's power in big matches (his losses to Nadal being through Rafa breaking his game down through consistency), but it has happened a few times in the last couple of seasons.

I think your last paragraph is correct - Roger's career performance at the USO is probably more impressive than his Wimbledon record because he's faced more competition on the hard courts and was probably even more dominant than on the grass.

I think some people missed the drop shots and net play that Tsonga brought to his "A" game yesterday. Federer had no answer to this tactic. He had great touch and good anticipation of Rogers game, and to honest, Tsonga outplayed Federer in every dept in the closing 2 sets.

But give the guy a break, he's not superman, we all have off days, but its doesn't help when the other guy is on an adrenaline trip.

Why is that very hard to accept that tsonga was just better on the day and beat federer by playing better?

Some are obsessed on doing a psycho analysis on everything related to federer.

I studied psychology, will tell you this Nadal is the weakest of all the players i have seen in the current crop.

Look at his body language and all the antics he is trying to pull. no other player in the current crop resorts to such tactics.

Now i have to go and get a proof a DR certificate and some other form of identification to satisfy all the moderators and admins here.

I would love for you to explain the antics he resorts to. 10 Slam titles suggests the guy has a strong mentality. Anyone that meets Moya who was number 1 in the world at the time and says 'I want to better than you' shows the mental determination.

But yes I would like your proof of Nadal 'faking' an injury. Please indulge.

The thing about Fed is that when he's winning and playing well it all looks so easy that one misses the 'hard miles' he's putting in and also how delicate the timing is.

His tennis is a bit like the action of a watch - put a bit of grit in one place and the whole damn thing can unravel making him look wan and error-strewn. Part of the grit yesterday was the way that Tsonga was playing.

Tom___ is right in that players can beat him by stepping up and challenging him and on the occasions when he can't match them it can look as though he's not up to it.

I'd hesitate to be so clear about it being a question of 'mental toughness' unless you saw a clear choke - something like double faults when serving at a crucial moment. Yesterday I saw Tsonga step up and get in Fed's face with a mixture of muscle and deft touch and Fed have no answer to that - it happens.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Roger Federer losing yet another tight 5 set match brings back the debate that was on this board some weeks ago, mentally, Federer is not tough compared to the many greats of the past and most of todays players. .

To say that the man who has won more than anybody else in tennis history is mentally weak, just because lost a match to a much younger player who happens to be one of the best grass court players around, put the writer at the risk of being loughed at

[quote="legendkillar"]I would love for you to explain the antics he resorts to. 10 Slam titles suggests the guy has a strong mentality. Anyone that meets Moya who was number 1 in the world at the time and says 'I want to better than you' shows the mental determination.

But yes I would like your proof of Nadal 'faking' an injury. Please indulge.[/quote]

All clear from the MRI is all the proof you require

just like you can say he has win 10 slams and he mentally tough because of that i can say the same thing for Fed who has 16 and still going strong and has not missed a slam because of health reasons.

i'm getting tired of all this ..

where is the logout button

parthi wrote:

legendkillar wrote:I would love for you to explain the antics he resorts to. 10 Slam titles suggests the guy has a strong mentality. Anyone that meets Moya who was number 1 in the world at the time and says 'I want to better than you' shows the mental determination.

But yes I would like your proof of Nadal 'faking' an injury. Please indulge.

All clear from the MRI is all the proof you require

just like you can say he has win 10 slams and he mentally tough because of that i can say the same thing for Fed who has 16 and still going strong and has not missed a slam because of health reasons.

i'm getting tired of all this ..

where is the logout button

So because the MRI was clear means the MTO was 'fake'? Not precautionary?

I have never questioned Federer's mental toughness. You are saying Nadal is weaker mentally than Murray so don't duck and dive your arguement.

The log out button is up the top, don't let the door hit you on the........

So i can take a precautionary one when it suits me?

he does take these precautionary ones at odd circumstances doesn't he?

Murray weaker??

he is under intense media scrutiny and you lot think he is a scott when he looses and when he wins he is made in England

in spite of all the pressure he is under he is still able to perform and prosper he hasn't won a slam yet so what?

where is this post reply button ??

parthi wrote:So i can take a precautionary one when it suits me?

he does take these precautionary ones at odd circumstances doesn't he?

Murray weaker??

he is under intense media scrutiny and you lot think he is a scott when he looses and when he wins he is made in England

in spite of all the pressure he is under he is still able to perform and prosper he hasn't won a slam yet so what?

where is this post reply button ??

I don't deny that the 'timing' of the one Monday was somewhat 'odd' but the umpire was well within his rights in the laws of the game to not allow the MTO and he chose not to. So for me the umpire should be questioned and not the player.

So you know what I think? So have you seen me post 'he is a Scot' after a defeat? Seems like you are throwing more accusations around because the arguement is not going in your favour.

Yes Murray has great media pressure when playing Wimbledon each year, but that alone doesn't make him a mentally stronger player than Nadal or anyone else for that matter.

why would it make him weaker?

what is that with admin/moderators here ? we are addressing them on every post?

if you ask me something i will answer, have i said anything regarding murray previous to your question?

Did i say legend killer you think he is a scott when he wins and not so when he looses ?

looks like you are trowing more accusations against me here.

why would i want anything to go in my favour in a internet forum?

legendkillar wrote:

parthi wrote:So i can take a precautionary one when it suits me?

he does take these precautionary ones at odd circumstances doesn't he?

Murray weaker??

he is under intense media scrutiny and you lot think he is a scott when he looses and when he wins he is made in England

in spite of all the pressure he is under he is still able to perform and prosper he hasn't won a slam yet so what?

where is this post reply button ??

I don't deny that the 'timing' of the one Monday was somewhat 'odd' but the umpire was well within his rights in the laws of the game to not allow the MTO and he chose not to. So for me the umpire should be questioned and not the player.

So you know what I think? So have you seen me post 'he is a Scot' after a defeat? Seems like you are throwing more accusations around because the arguement is not going in your favour.

Yes Murray has great media pressure when playing Wimbledon each year, but that alone doesn't make him a mentally stronger player than Nadal or anyone else for that matter.

Right so define who is lot?