Federer's mental toughness in question again

First topic message reminder :

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.

English media

parthi wrote: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.

So is Murray not in the current crop?

Yes he is and he much better then rafa on his mental side.

Winning alone does not make you strong. its how you loose as well. he does not resort to any questionable tactics when he is loosing.

go and have a look at the quarter finals of Aus open against DF, only thing missing from rafa was his puppy dog eyes, where as any other player in the current crop will accept he is getting beaten and just get on with it, but he makes a show out of it.

Really? So Rafa's post match conference where he said DF played brilliantly and did not comment on his own performance or 'injury' for his defeat?

So Rafa has never been gracious in defeat or for that matter learnt from defeat and won titles as a result?

What are the questionable tactics he resorts too?

What is this 'show' of things? Murray himself has said that Nadal plays every point like it is his last and that is what generates his respect for Nadal.

Aspects of this thread are comparable to watching someone picking a scar with dirty fingernails.

yep as long as he is all praises off the court all can be excused what he does on the court

It would appear we've found the Godwin's Law for the tennis forum on 606v2; 'as a 606v2 tennis discussion grows longer, the probability of Nadal's poor sportmanship being mentioned approaches one.'

So what does he do on court that is un-sportsman like compared with other players?

The time in between points? He isn't the only one that violates this rule.

MTO's? He isn't the only player that takes them.

So what else apart from the above does he do that discredits him as a player apart from everyone else on the tour?

justification these days, I'm not the only one who does that.

please read https://www.606v2.com/t8069-nadals-conduct-not-exemplary

i dont want rafa or any other player to violate any rule.

more then anything i want them punished for it and for the tennis federation of any kind to show some backbone to these kind of attitude.

I have read that thread and contributed. Like I said there, the umpires should enforce the laws. If the player pushes the boundaries and breaks the law, he should be punished. Like I said maybe a more creative or innovative punishment may need to be brought in to get players to 'tow' the line.

'So what does he do on court that is un-sportsman like compared with other players?'

He wins too often. A true sportsman would let the other players have a chance once in a while. I think Federer showed his amazingly unselfish nature by letting Tsonga win yesterday.

how on earth did this thread descend into yet another debate about Rafa's "questionable tactics"? Can we get back on topic please people?

Bitterness MFC

hahahaha

yeah he wins too often.

i want him to loose, i want a person who has dedicated and devoted a life time and gave up so much in his life to loose.

well there are people in this world who are cruel like that but i'm not one of them.

Tsonga beat federer by playing better.



legend killer

unfortunately we don't live in a world where fairness is a norm, it needs to be enforced with rules and laws that suits the business need of the sport rather then the motto.

barrystar wrote:Aspects of this thread are comparable to watching someone picking a scar with dirty fingernails.

I have to agree with you barrystar. I think that it seems like there are a lot of despondent Federer fans (myself included) posting.

Oh well, these things happen. This may turn out to be a wake up call to Roger as I got the feeling that he began to take appearing in the Wimbledon final and winning for granted.

If he wants another shot, he's going to have to simply work on his game (ESPECIALLY, the return).

The only consolation for me is that he lost to a player who played very aggressive old school grass court tennis.

Personally, even as a Fed fan, I can't see him winning Wimbledon again. I think his best shot of another Grand Slam is the US Open.

It was interesting to hear Neil Harmans comments as he seems to think Federer won't win at the US Open. Very bold statement from him.

I agree with you Chaz that he's got more chance of winning the USO than Wimbledon, I've always thought that his record there is better (he's only won one title less there).

I think Fed has got one more shot @ Wimbledon next year and that's it, I really can't see it happening again. He needs to be be at least making the finals in the future to be winning a fluke win like Sampras did with his final USO title, but Fed can't even make it to the Wimbledon semi finals let alone the final @ the moment, so how could he win a fluke? All I can see is one more Wimbledon title, at the rate Fed's going, who knows when that will be (his motivation might be stronger next year for the Olympics).

I agree Kemet, I am a despondent Fed fan, not because he's lost (that's part of the reason) but because that match he lost could have been won. I was more upset last year when he went out of the USO semi final against Djoko than when he went out of Wimbledon that year, you knew he wasn't up to scratch when he was pushed so far early on @ Wimbledon. Against Djokovic, he had match points, the losses, where he could have won hurt more.

'I was more upset last year when he went out of the USO semi final against Djoko than when he went out of Wimbledon that year, you knew he wasn't up to scratch when he was pushed so far early on @ Wimbledon. Against Djokovic, he had match points, the losses, where he could have won hurt more.'

What added to my annoyance with the Djokovic loss was that I knew Djokovic would fold in the final and hand the title to Nadal (Djokovic was still partly in awe of Nadal at this point), whereas Federer would have given Nadal a much tougher match, and may well have won.

luciusmann wrote:I agree with you Chaz that he's got more chance of winning the USO than Wimbledon, I've always thought that his record there is better (he's only won one title less there).

I think Fed has got one more shot @ Wimbledon next year and that's it, I really can't see it happening again. He needs to be be at least making the finals in the future to be winning a fluke win like Sampras did with his final USO title, but Fed can't even make it to the Wimbledon semi finals let alone the final @ the moment, so how could he win a fluke? All I can see is one more Wimbledon title, at the rate Fed's going, who knows when that will be (his motivation might be stronger next year for the Olympics).

I agree Kemet, I am a despondent Fed fan, not because he's lost (that's part of the reason) but because that match he lost could have been won. I was more upset last year when he went out of the USO semi final against Djoko than when he went out of Wimbledon that year, you knew he wasn't up to scratch when he was pushed so far early on @ Wimbledon. Against Djokovic, he had match points, the losses, where he could have won hurt more.

Yeah USO 2010 was a tough loss, but at least he wasn't two sets to love up against Novak. The thing that I am still struggling to come to terms with is how he lost from 2 sets to love up. That is the most troubling aspect of this loss. Against Berdych last year, he was always playing from behind and you could kind of sense that he wasn't going to win.

It would be interesting to see how the other top three would deal with Tsonga's power. They are all better returners than Roger and would find a way into JWT's service games (espcially Rafa, who seems to get 90% of his returns in play, regardless of the power of his opponent's serve).

I am still appalled at the extent to which Roger's return game has atrophied.

Interesting point Kemet. Do you or Chaz think that Fed's confidence went down gradually after the third set or stayed the same?

That USO semi-final loss was awful, I also forgot, what made it even worse at the time was that after two quarter finals in a row @ RG & Wimby, he missed the final of a tournament he'd reached 6 times in a row and he easily could have made that final, there's no excuse.

I'll be interested to see how Djokovic deals with Tsonga's power but if Tsonga losses, it just confirms what I already seen, Fed went off the boil yesterday after the third set. I'm also careful about all this new 'hype' about Tsonga, the media did it last year with Berdych, and what happened to him since? Er, yeh, exactly, absolutely nothing, not a single title last year. The guy's won no major tournament, not even a series 1000 tournament, talk about hyped up, he couldn't even get to the quarters this year. One hit wonders come around all to often. Can they even be called one hit wonders if they haven't done anything but put out a top player but still don't win the tournament?!

Has anyone been to the BBC website and seen Becker's view on Federer? I think they are quite extreme.

Not very well written, that's for sure.

I'm reading it now LK, thanks for the tip.

What Becker says is exactly on the money, Fed has lost his mojo. I couldn't put it better myself. I can't disagree with that and the possibility his motivation is perhaps lacking is a fair assessment.

I'm aware a lot of tennis players do all the positive talk, even after losses but after seeing Fed play, how can he be (so positive)? I certainly didn't see the tennis player who's won 16 grand slams and never (until then) lost from 2 sets to love up in a grand slam. He needs to re-group & fast for the summer hard court stretch, otherwise it will be painful watching for the USO.

Well I am amazed at the lack of respect he has shown to Tsonga and that he is now calling Roger the best of his 'generation' when in 2009 at Wimbledon he was calling him the GOAT. I thought it was very brutal. I remember McEnroe before the US Open in 2008 said Federer would be lucky to equal Sampras's record.

They're tennis pundits, what do you expect?! They're paid to talk and that talking needs to excite so of course hype is something both of them will engage in and equally, knocking players down too (that generates interest too).

As for his disrespect for Tsonga, I'm not sure it's disrespect, I think more caution until he beats Djokovic or wins the final. Otherwise it'll be like last year with Berdych when the media went into Berdych hype mode and he produced precious little else since.

I just read Becker's article (I assume you mean this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/9526464.stm?) and I don't think it's too unfair on anyone. What I will say is that it really didn't say anything that anyone didn't know already (ie Federer may lose motivation due to having kids etc). Also, the bit where he wrote 'I felt that on his best day and on my best day he was better than me, and psychologically it was difficult for me to then carry on' implies that the situation is the same for Federer, which I don't think is true. I'm still of the opinion that when Federer is at his best, absolutely noone can stop him; I predicted to a mate a few months ago that only Federer could defeat Djokovic while he was on his streak, and so it proved.

I also felt Federer could beat Djokovic when he was on the streak. It shows he is still capable of such tennis. Shows how high Federer has set the bar with the players behind having to play the type of tennis (Tsonga in the final 3 sets) to beat him on his day.

I still think he is motivated because he wants that Gold Medal in the Olympics. There is fire in there, just that Nadal and Djokovic namely have closed the gap in the mens game.

I thought it not just disrespectful to Tsonga, it was as though he hadn't watched the match. Tonga's serve was unplayable, his groundstrokes so strong that Federer simply didn't have any time on the ball and his net volleys perfect. A younger Federer would have been that bit quicker to the ball which would likely have made the difference.
So the Sampras/Becker firepower analogy is a little weak, though of course the issue of whether a Fed who feels his chances of winning are severely diminished being motivated to continue is a real one.

Chazfazzer wrote:'I was more upset last year when he went out of the USO semi final against Djoko than when he went out of Wimbledon that year, you knew he wasn't up to scratch when he was pushed so far early on @ Wimbledon. Against Djokovic, he had match points, the losses, where he could have won hurt more.'

What added to my annoyance with the Djokovic loss was that I knew Djokovic would fold in the final and hand the title to Nadal (Djokovic was still partly in awe of Nadal at this point), whereas Federer would have given Nadal a much tougher match, and may well have won.

I felt exactly the same! I felt the same about the French Open this year too but in reverse! I thought Djokovic would have had a chance of beating Nadal in the final. Federer played superb tennis in the semi to knock Djokovic out but I just knew he wouldn't reproduce it against Nadal in the final.
I actually didn't agree with much of the praise Federer got for his final performance. To be 5-2 up in the first and lose 7-5 is very poor and to lose 6-1 in the fourth is also pretty shabby. I think many people were so relieved that it wasn't a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 mauling like 2008 that they took any improvement on that to be a good performance.

I felt exactly the same! I felt the same about the French Open this year too but in reverse! I thought Djokovic would have had a chance of beating Nadal in the final. Federer played superb tennis in the semi to knock Djokovic out but I just knew he wouldn't reproduce it against Nadal in the final.
I actually didn't agree with much of the praise Federer got for his final performance. To be 5-2 up in the first and lose 7-5 is very poor and to lose 6-1 in the fourth is also pretty shabby. I think many people were so relieved that it wasn't a 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 mauling like 2008 that they took any improvement on that to be a good performance.

I was pretty apathetic about Federer's performance in the final. I think I was in the camp represented by your final sentence; I knew he was going to lose, and while I was annoyed by the way he threw away the first set, the fact that he lost the match didn't bother me too much. I think it's because I pretty much regarded the match vs Djokovic as the final, and also as the more important match overall. If Federer had beaten Nadal as well then it would have just been the icing on the cake. And yes you're right, there's no doubt in my mind that if Djokovic had been in the final instead of Federer, he would have won it.

If you think Becker is bad, see this:

http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2011/06/29/federer_era_comes_to_an_end_97344.html

It makes some salient observations but a bit hasty, there is one slam left and his record there is in many ways better @ the USO than @ Wimbledon. I think because people and fans are so used to seeing Fed winning 2 or more slams a year, that now he struggles to be able to win one, it's a surprise. Samrpas won four more after his final duo of slams in 1997 (but he was younger) and Aggassi won three more after his duo.

I agree, the French Open performance was okay if your comparing it to the trouncing he got in 2008; he had his chances & he squandered them as he often does against Nadal. It's interesting, if Djokovic makes the final & Nadal does, how do we rate Nadal's chances of hanging on to the USO? It might be the most open slam in quite a while for the top 4 players.

I really liked that article actually luciusmann; what he said about Federer's movement was spot on. Nowadays Federer on the backhand side when pressured will normally just resort to slicing the ball, which can be easily hammered away on the volley by an opponent who has come into the net. If you watch the rally starting around the 4:50 in this video, where Federer glides across and hits an insane down the line backhand passing shot, I think you can see the contrast between his play now and then. I'm pretty sure in that situation nowadays Federer would have sliced the ball, or put up a defensive lob.

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

Sampras five set record 33-15(a 69 winning percentage)
Agassi's five set record 27-22(55 winning percentage)
Federer's record 18-15 (55 winning percentage)

In short, Federer's game is pretty fragile despite his huge talent. So mentally he is extremely strong cause despite that fragile game, he is very often the one starting well, putting pressure, able to win versus popular players like AGassi and Roddick on the USO Centre court despite being young. With confidence I think he is actually the strongest player out there. In comparison you see Nadal starting his game excessively nervously, panicking, even being scared of being injured when no injury is being noticed.

But then as tennis is an extremely physical game, sorry for those who have heard that before, the trend reverses. The one who is prepared to run the distance gains confidence as the match drags on, becoming mentally stronger as he knows he can rely on his superior stamina, while the other player with a fragile game starts to slow down and accumulating errors chipping away his confidence.

Considering 5th setters to assess mental strength is frankly absurd. 5 setters assess essentially the stamina.

The article is not all bad, just I'm not convinced by 'Federer era over', Federer's dominance was over last year, nothing this year convinces me otherwise and using this match as an example of his 'era' being over is silly. Fed isn't finished, but he's got to do something, he hasn't been dominant since early 2010 and was only dominant in 2009 because Nadal was injured (but that's not Fed's fault).

Some great points from Lucius and other posters as well. Faust in particular hit it on the head, Fed's rather pedestrian 5 set record when compared to other great players shows that Roger is a great front runner but when put into a tight match or one that he has to fight from behind he simply isn't as strong. I don't think Federer is mentally weak or anything of that nature, he couldn't have gotten the success that he has with a fragile nature. However, what bodes poorly for federer is that he benefitted greatly during his peak years from the awe that he was held in by his opposition. Most of the guys in the top 10 or 20 who could beat him didn't think they had a chance. Fed was almost gifted a break of serve by his opponents before he came onto the court, that would be usually enough for him to win the first set and then dominate the match from there on out. Nowadays with the losses starting to increase Fed doesn't have the same fear factor when playing the top guys. This loss of the intimidation factor along with half a step of movement has allowed his opposition to really believe that they can beat him regularly.

Faust wrote:Sampras five set record 33-15(a 69 winning percentage)
Agassi's five set record 27-22(55 winning percentage)
Federer's record 18-15 (55 winning percentage)

Do we know what is teh percentage of 5 setters on clay for Sampras when he was asked to a bit more?

Tenez that is a bit of an unfair argument. Pete never even played on clay courts till he was a high rated junior a couple of years before he turned pro. That just wasn't Pete's strength, and there is a reason for that. Outside of Jim Courier the US has never really produced a great clay courter, while Roger grew up on the stuff. Besides you said it yourself, with the big differences in the court conditions the hardcourts and grass courts played a lot faster and the clay courts slower. Pete grew up playing just on hardcourts, Roger grew up playing on clay. The speed of the game was prefaced on an attacking game and winning on all the surfaces was much harder as you yourself have stated Tenez. Therefore your own arguments of the past undercut the current one you are making today.

A player who ranks 92nd on all time 5 set record, might fall lower after yesterday points to mental fragilities under pressure, can't see any way around it.

Sampras 7-2 (78%) in French Open five
set games Tenez

luciusmann wrote:If you think Becker is bad, see this:

http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2011/06/29/federer_era_comes_to_an_end_97344.html

It makes some salient observations but a bit hasty, there is one slam left and his record there is in many ways better @ the USO than @ Wimbledon. I think because people and fans are so used to seeing Fed winning 2 or more slams a year, that now he struggles to be able to win one, it's a surprise. Samrpas won four more after his final duo of slams in 1997 (but he was younger) and Aggassi won three more after his duo.

I agree, the French Open performance was okay if your comparing it to the trouncing he got in 2008; he had his chances & he squandered them as he often does against Nadal. It's interesting, if Djokovic makes the final & Nadal does, how do we rate Nadal's chances of hanging on to the USO? It might be the most open slam in quite a while for the top 4 players.

The problem with those comparisons is that those two dictated play in different ways. Sampras on robust serve and volley and Agassi, by taking the ball incredibly early and not really having to move much himself. Federer dictates play by going for aggressive winners. However for him to do so he has to be in the exact right position on court - he relies on his footwork to do this. I remember when i first saw Federer play i thought his anticipation and footwork was excellent and that he set himself up perfectly to hit great shots. Now as he ages his ability to always be in the right position will diminish and therefore so will his ability to dictate play. Very often yesterday i saw Federer being defensive. I feel if he really has lost a little pace or lost a little bit of that anticipation, then his whole game is in trouble. For Federer to win a slam these days, hes going to probably have to go through two of NAdal, Murray and Djokovic, not to mention floaters like Tsonga. Its a big ask you have to feel for some one so slight in build to dictate play in their 30s. So for me i don't see him taking the extra handful of slams, like we saw from Sampras and Agassi. Maybe he has 1 left in him, but that could have already been the AO 2010. The FO 2011 may have been the blip of great play for this year and even that ultimately wasn't enough.

Belief plays a big part from now on - its going to have been a year and 3/4 come the USO

parthi wrote: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.

Some people are incredibly bitter about Federers loss this Year. Maybe it just confirms last year was not a rare occurrence. I think people should try to be more level headed when their favourite player loses, because it will gradually ruin this forum with poor attitude.

I can think of so many times when the strength of Feds resolve came into question, but perhaps the biggest one of all was the crying after the AO loss. That for me was the sign of some one who couldn't allow himself to cope with losing and so i think in these crunch situations he simply doesn't embrace the battle in the same way he embraces the chance for a convincing victory.

luciusmann wrote:Interesting point Kemet. Do you or Chaz think that Fed's confidence went down gradually after the third set or stayed the same?

That USO semi-final loss was awful, I also forgot, what made it even worse at the time was that after two quarter finals in a row @ RG & Wimby, he missed the final of a tournament he'd reached 6 times in a row and he easily could have made that final, there's no excuse.

I'll be interested to see how Djokovic deals with Tsonga's power but if Tsonga losses, it just confirms what I already seen, Fed went off the boil yesterday after the third set. I'm also careful about all this new 'hype' about Tsonga, the media did it last year with Berdych, and what happened to him since? Er, yeh, exactly, absolutely nothing, not a single title last year. The guy's won no major tournament, not even a series 1000 tournament, talk about hyped up, he couldn't even get to the quarters this year. One hit wonders come around all to often. Can they even be called one hit wonders if they haven't done anything but put out a top player but still don't win the tournament?!

To be honest i could see Tsonga beating Djoko, but then losing to either NAdal or Murray. As Djokovic needs to be able to dictate play, if he cannot do that convincingly, i can see him losing.

I'm a Fed fan and I'm definitely not bitter about Tsonga. I just remember very keenly the last guy (Berdych, remember him) who beat Federer @ Wimbledon and unlike Nadal (who'd made the final and taken 3 years to beat Federer), he was hyped up and the same media pundits said the great under achiever had 'arrived'. He's arrived so well that he didn't even make the quarters this year, better still, he won nothing last year, nor this year, in fact, he won more in 2009 (1) when he didn't even reach the Wimbledon quarters! That's not bitter, that's just my conclusion from what we seen from Berdych.

So forgive me if I don't want to get carried away with the media bandwagon that somehow Tsonga is the best thing since sliced bread or that we are looking at a new future champion, I'd like to see him do it before I applaud him for his success, just like I waited for Berdych (and I still am waiting for him). That's why I'm tipping Djokovic, but if Tsonga plays like yesterday, for sure it's a tough match for Djokovic, but he's that tiny bit faster and a great returner, both of which Fed was lacking. I don't want to detract from his great achievement, very few have had the pleasure of beating Federer @ Wimbledon, let's just see more tomorrow!

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

Top of the all-time record for 5-set % W:L just proves how mentally weak he is

From Becker's article....

"I knew that my time at the top was up when Sampras came along and I knew he had more firepower than me.
I felt that on his best day and on my best day he was better than me, and psychologically it was difficult for me to then carry on. I just wasn't happy with quarter or semi-finals."

Federer has played 2 QFs at W (2010, 2011) after the 2009 W. He can stop playing whenever he wants. He clearly said he did not like the loss to Tsonga in his interview.

Becker @W played 1995 F, 1996 R32, 1997 Q, 1999 R16.

This is an eternal situation with any tennis player at these levels.

Fans of Federer's should realise what he has done so far.

"And Federer is partly responsible for the fact that men's tennis is in such good shape. He put it all on his shoulders about five years ago and he has inspired Rafael Nadal to take it to another level."

Very well said Boris.

Indeed laverfan. I dont see Federer winning Wimbledon again, and if he doesnt win USO this year I think there's good money on him never winning another slam period. I think there are now inconsistencies in his game and mental focus during matches that others who have upped their level are exploiting with better firepower.

It happened to Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras and now Federer. Thats the way the game goes.

laverfan

I admit it's hard to see Fed winning any slams again @ the moment but I remember after he lost the Australian Open in 2009 that I thought he would never win any more while Nadal is around (in fact, many people must have thought that). Nadal was injured through part of 2009 but in the time since then, Fed has made 5 grand slam finals and won 3 of them. So I certainly don't agree he won't win a slam again, he very well might, but immediately after a loss it's hard to see, especially when he was 2 sets up to love.

His record over the recent period isn't as good as it was the years prior to the Australian Open 2009, i.e. he made finals consistently, but that doesn't mean he's unlikely to win more slams. I do agree he needs to do something about his mental focus. What though, I'm unsure. There are various aspects he needs to focus on.