Roger's reaction to Djokovic defeating Nadal at Wimbly

https://2img.net/h/i15.photobucket.com/albums/a355/Emily-b/3-1.jpg

speaks volumes...

What is amusing is that Novak, the person Roger doesn't get along with is probably the guy that is going to guarantee that Roger holds his 16 slam record.

Do not think that Novak is doing it for anyone else but himself.

Certainly, Laverfan, but I think it is ironic, if not for Novak Rafa would most likely win another wimbeldon and would be sitting on 11 slams including 3 wimbys. This year he has been to the finals of every tournament but 2 that he has entered. Without Djokovic bestridding the tennis world Nadal would be having another dominant year. What is ironic is that Novak and Roger do not like each other.

Well I think Likewise, Rafa can thank Federer for at least 2 slams by defeating Djoko at the last FO and weaken him for the USO10.

Tenez you know I will be a very interested spectator to see if Roger gets put into Nole's half again! If it happens for the sixth time in a row 606v2ers are going to be sick of my mathematical analysis and dark plots.

It is a tough battle at the QF/SF/F stage of slams.

What-if scenarios are always tricky and are subject to fans' wishful thinking.

If Novak had been in Rafa's quarter at USO 10, things could have been different.

Tricky to get the #2 and 3 seeds in the same quarter

socal1976 wrote:What is amusing is that Novak, the person Roger doesn't get along with is probably the guy that is going to guarantee that Roger holds his 16 slam record.

I am pretty convinced Nole and Rafa don't get along either. It was so obvious in that Final and in the presentation ceremony.

The thing is though, Federer will not be interested in who can protect his 16 Slam haul record. If anything he would want to win more and not stay on 16. Novak and Rafa will want to set records for their legacies. I don't mind players having a needle with each other to add spice, provided insults are not thrown at each other.

I think that if Rog gets to 17 f.i at the us open or the next aussie open, it would mean that Nadal didn't get closer during one of his peak years. This would likely break Nadal's will to chase the slam record.
But frankly, i can't see Federer win another slam. Slams are 1 or 2 matches too long for him nowadays

Imagine a year like 2010 GP with Djoko and Nadal off form like all the other players were off form that year....I coudl still see Federer win three in a year....fingers crossed!

That would be a dream come true, 3 in a year......!

I think Fed can still get 1 or 2 more, for sure, no?

This is a guy who used to win 3 slams a year easily and make the final for the other slam, he can definitely win 1 or 2.

But even if he doesn't, beating Djoko like he did in Paris last month was amazing to watch...worth a slam or two to me....like his last London O2 run....magic!

The only player still able to beat those gladiators essentially with talent.

People do realise the picture is shopped, don't they?

What do you guys think of what Annacone said last year: "our goal is 20 slams..."
I don't think he would say this again.

Mmm, no harm in having goals gallery play. 20 slams is possible, but with the caveat that he's still at a similar level to where he is at now for the next 3 years or so.

Borg thinks Federer will keep going till 2013, which I agree with so that's a possible 13 further slams he will be competing in(if plays to the end of 2013). Winning 4 of them would be challenging but 2 is certainly possible. He's still a strong contender on hard courts (he still gets to the semifinals with ease) so that's 7 of those 13, so I'd say he's got a good chance of picking up 2 of those and that's not even half of the hard court titles, less than a third of them! He could even pick up an unexpected win on grass in one of those years, so maybe even 3, so that's close to 20.

I agree, 20 is a stretch, but I can easily see him on 18 which would be too hard a target even for Nadal to reach and easily a record safe for a decade if not longer.

I think he'd say it again. The question is whether he'd mean it. Or whether he meant it last time.

As Tenez says, all that would be needed is for injuries to continue as now, but for Nole/Nadal to be the unlucky recipients and Federer will be hot favourite for a Slam or two. Everyones career is the benefitiary of some of this stuff and it wouldn't be outlandish for Fed to pick up some late on.

20 is indeed a stretch considering he's not done it in the last 6...
i definitely don't see him staying on 16 either, it's not as if Djokovic dominated him at the AO in January either, he was 5-2 up in 2nd set before Nole got out the jail.. he will win 1 of the next 4.

gallery play wrote:What do you guys think of what Annacone said last year: "our goal is 20 slams..."
I don't think he would say this again.

LOL! Exactly.

The problem is Federer is faced in the late stage of his career with players that have pushed the physical bar beyond his reach. A bit like Hewitt, Roddick and Safin did v Pete....except that the bar is considerably higher cause there was no guarantee then for anybody to reach the later stages of a slam in 1990-2003. Whereas now we know that the 3 physical players Murray, Djoko, Nadal are going to be there if fit. They are really a few levels above the rest.

Its funny tenez everyone who starts having success against roger you instantly call them a physical player and use that to diminish them. I can't see Roger getting past 17 frankly. He is an otherworldly talent but at this stage he needs to have the draw open up for him and to have one or the other of Novak or Nadal drop out before he has to play. Could definetly see him winning one more slam, more than that can't see it.

I disagree in calling Djokovic "physical player" he's got a very nice range of low hit shots varied with speedy reactions, i remember when his backhand used to fade away much like Roger's but it is much better last 2 seasons and he relishes taking on Rafa (another thing that Roger lacks).

socal1976 wrote:Its funny tenez everyone who starts having success against roger you instantly call them a physical player

Actually Djoko is the top player Federer has still the upper hand against and that's why you fear so much of having them in the same semii again.
I call Djoko a physical player cause it;s obvious his last success is done to his ability to rally with Nadal and to do that you need to be physically very fit. Then his shots can make the difference but first he needed to be super fit for that.

So you're saying Federer ISNT a physical player? That tennis isnt a physical sport...? Makes me laugh these black and white discussions about physical vs talent, like Federer is all talent and Djokovic is all physical. It denigrates these players greatly.

Of course, as a Djoko fan after he beats Nadal 5 times, of the top players Federer is the most difficult matchup for him. Roger is a great champion and he is still in very good shape and form for his age. I think you overlook the improvements Novak has made in his game over the last 3 seasons in terms of technique and shot making. 3 years ago his volleys were slightly worse than my volleys, yet when he plays Nadal he aggressively comes in and wins a good percentage against the toughest retriever and passing shot artist on tour. His forehand is a completely different and better forehand than the one he had 3 years ago, he had a good forehand and now he has one of the best. His serve is incomparable over the last 7 months to the serve he had in 2010 and half of 2009.

Have to agree with lydian, you denigrate the talent and technique of all the top players by simply dismissing them as being physical. If tennis is just about fitness why don't we go an find a triathlete and send him to tennis camp for 6 months and tada watch him dominate the tour?

No one will get passed Federer's 16 Majors. He's never missed a Major or rarely gets severe injuries. Nadal has injury concerns with his knees and Djokovic also seems to have some knee issues. Federer will be safe even if he retired tomorrow

No one will get passed Federer's 16 Majors.

agreed. I looked at Nadal in that Wimbly final and his passion was not as high as before (even when winning key points in 3rd set). He might get 2 or 3 slams more but I wouldn't expect something else..

Josiah Maiestas wrote: I looked at Nadal in that Wimbly final and his passion was not as high as before

But that's the Djoko effect. Nadal always looks like that when he deep down does not believe he can win.

Lebron's Homie, I think if novak hadn't emerged Roger's sixteen would have been in big danger. Nadal showed that when he was unchallenged he could snap up 2-3 slams a year like Roger could. Well, at that rate he would need just 2 or 3 more seasons of 2010 or 2008 form to break fed's record. It looks though as if the tennis gods have clicked the light on for Novak. And if Novak is healthy and playing any where near this form for the next 3 years it will be next to impossible for Rafa to break the record. A measure of Novak's quality is that even Roland Garros on clay is no longer viewed as a safe slam for Rafa come next year.

By the way Kobe is way better than Lebron 5 rings to zero.

socal1976 wrote:Lebron's Homie, I think if novak hadn't emerged Roger's sixteen would have been in big danger. Nadal showed that when he was unchallenged he could snap up 2-3 slams a year like Roger could. Well, at that rate he would need just 2 or 3 more seasons of 2010 or 2008 form to break fed's record. It looks though as if the tennis gods have clicked the light on for Novak. And if Novak is healthy and playing any where near this form for the next 3 years it will be next to impossible for Rafa to break the record. A measure of Novak's quality is that even Roland Garros on clay is no longer viewed as a safe slam for Rafa come next year.

By the way Kobe is way better than Lebron 5 rings to zero.

With regards to the French Open, Nadal has 6 of them, whether he wins 7 next year is in the hand of the man above.

ps no one is better than King James!!!

lydian wrote:So you're saying Federer ISNT a physical player? That tennis isnt a physical sport...? Makes me laugh these black and white discussions about physical vs talent, like Federer is all talent and Djokovic is all physical. It denigrates these players greatly.

You are making it look like black and white. I am just stressing what is the players strengthes. Federer's strength v Nadal and Djoko is certainly not his physique. It's his creativity and great timing.

Is that diffciult to understand?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

No one will get passed Federer's 16 Majors.

agreed. I looked at Nadal in that Wimbly final and his passion was not as high as before (even when winning key points in 3rd set). He might get 2 or 3 slams more but I wouldn't expect something else..

And the passion came back in that 3rd set when Djoko gave him some hope but when Djoko came back Nadal knew the game was not in his hands. There is so much he can do by running right and left.

to be honest Tenez...Roger had to be quite physical to escape Roddick in THAT final 2009.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:to be honest Tenez...Roger had to be quite physical to escape Roddick in THAT final 2009.

They were both on their knees. Can't say one was fitter than the other. And they did not run much though did they?

Arguably Fed won on fitness (in terms of pure stamina) that day. Certainly with only one break in a very long match it wasn't until Andy faded that he got a look in. He'd had a very tough quarter (which I was priviliged to be at No 1 Court to watch), and 4 sets against Murray while Fed had trundled to the final.

Another reason why I smile when I see posters trying to say that Federer was back to peak in 2009. Peak Federer....... well we know what he does to Andy.

He'd had a very tough quarter (which I was priviliged to be at No 1 Court to watch), and 4 sets against Murray while Fed had trundled to the final.
------------------------

I was there too.
Federer's match v Haas was great and pretty fast.

That 2009 final was very windy and it worked as a leveler cause Federer could not find his timing. He played better in 2011 v Djoko than in 2009 v Roddick.


It's impossible to judge the level of a player on one match. The way he beat Karlovic in 2009 at Wimbledon a couple of rounds earlier (also seen live) was really impressive.

gallery play wrote:What do you guys think of what Annacone said last year: "our goal is 20 slams..."
I don't think he would say this again.

Well maybe Annacone plans to buy 4 slams on ebay and give them to Federer.
As for the article, don't see how Federer could cheer over Djokovic's victories over Nadal when he never tasted much success against him. It will be like me cheering if Djokovic and Murray makes USO final this year and I cheer on Murray for winning and stopping Djokovic adding more slams. Can't see the point of that. Actually it just shows Federer was just never good enough to consistently beat Nadal. Like Djokovic is showing now, regardless of surface he is good enough to consistently beat Nadal so actually highlights Federer's own failings at this stage. Having said much, Djokovic has only really stopped Nadal winning 1 slam. He will have to do more. It would have been more effective in the big picture if Djokovic had stopped Nadal at USO last year. There are still many matches to play and Djokovic is still 1-5 down in slams. Unless they play every final in the next 2 years, it will be hard for Djokovic to stop
Nadal winning more slams and that's assuming Nadal doesn't find a way and start beating Djokovic.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

gallery play wrote:What do you guys think of what Annacone said last year: "our goal is 20 slams..."
I don't think he would say this again.

Well maybe Annacone plans to buy 4 slams on ebay and give them to Federer.
As for the article, don't see how Federer could cheer over Djokovic's victories over Nadal when he never tasted much success against him. It will be like me cheering if Djokovic and Murray makes USO final this year and I cheer on Murray for winning and stopping Djokovic adding more slams. Can't see the point of that. Actually it just shows Federer was just never good enough to consistently beat Nadal. Like Djokovic is showing now, regardless of surface he is good enough to consistently beat Nadal so actually highlights Federer's own failings at this stage. Having said much, Djokovic has only really stopped Nadal winning 1 slam. He will have to do more. It would have been more effective in the big picture if Djokovic had stopped Nadal at USO last year. There are still many matches to play and Djokovic is still 1-5 down in slams. Unless they play every final in the next 2 years, it will be hard for Djokovic to stop
Nadal winning more slams and that's assuming Nadal doesn't find a way and start beating Djokovic.

Sleep tight! Sweet dreams! ...UE!

bogbrush wrote:Arguably Fed won on fitness (in terms of pure stamina) that day. Certainly with only one break in a very long match it wasn't until Andy faded that he got a look in. He'd had a very tough quarter (which I was priviliged to be at No 1 Court to watch), and 4 sets against Murray while Fed had trundled to the final.

Another reason why I smile when I see posters trying to say that Federer was back to peak in 2009. Peak Federer....... well we know what he does to Andy.

This is my problem with some of the logic of fed fan's in regards to slow courts. The assumption being that Roger loses to players who just have more speed, fitness, and physicality. As lydian has pointed out, and I have as well on countless occasions Roger is incredibly fit and fast. Roger has won many, many, matches due to his speed and fitness. We keep hearing about how Fed just gets tired or worn down against Nadal, I honestly have never seen Federer tired in a match, or at least I don't remember it. If the conditions were faster and the balls were slower, wouldn't that help a power player like Roddick playing his peak game in the 09 final? What I am trying to get at is that many say fed lost wimby 08 because of slow conditions and balls, well maybe he won wimby 09 against lumbering big serving Roddick because of slow conditions and his superior speed and fitness?

Roger has won many, many, matches due to his speed and fitness.
-----------------------------------
That's not the point, though he is certainly not as fit (stamina) and fast as the other 2. Federer's disadvantage against Rafa, Djoko and Murray is that those three can retrieve shots that woudl have been winners against anybody else and send the ball back on his BH until he is forced into a mistake. They can retrieve those shots cause the conds are slow and those 3 are extremely fast and can run for ever. Federer is fit and fast, though not as much, but more importantly he doesn;t benefit from running around like Djoko and Nadal. He never based his tennis on long rallies. He learnt the game for winning on fast surfaces..
That's what you and Lydian can't understand. The FO is a good example of what faster balls allowed Federer to do, he cannot with slower ones. And yet it was very close between betwen him and Djokovic.

Those same balls on grass or HC and it's a one way traffic for Federer.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Arguably Fed won on fitness (in terms of pure stamina) that day. Certainly with only one break in a very long match it wasn't until Andy faded that he got a look in. He'd had a very tough quarter (which I was priviliged to be at No 1 Court to watch), and 4 sets against Murray while Fed had trundled to the final.

Another reason why I smile when I see posters trying to say that Federer was back to peak in 2009. Peak Federer....... well we know what he does to Andy.

This is my problem with some of the logic of fed fan's in regards to slow courts. The assumption being that Roger loses to players who just have more speed, fitness, and physicality. As lydian has pointed out, and I have as well on countless occasions Roger is incredibly fit and fast. Roger has won many, many, matches due to his speed and fitness. We keep hearing about how Fed just gets tired or worn down against Nadal, I honestly have never seen Federer tired in a match, or at least I don't remember it. If the conditions were faster and the balls were slower, wouldn't that help a power player like Roddick playing his peak game in the 09 final? What I am trying to get at is that many say fed lost wimby 08 because of slow conditions and balls, well maybe he won wimby 09 against lumbering big serving Roddick because of slow conditions and his superior speed and fitness?

I've seen him withdraw from tournaments afterwards because he's knackered, and I've seen him fall away. Don't forget that Fed is the one player who always tries to cover up on court any defect or deficiency; the trainer came out ONCE for the bad back (which is unavoidable, a bad back is a crippler as anyone who's had one will know) and never again. Federer even if exhausted would try to bluff through, that's how he handles handicaps.
We are so used to players, especially the other top 3, doing it the other way - limping around, MTO's, holding legs/groins/shoulders - that we think anyone who doesn't do it can't be feeling the pain. That isn't so.

Oh, and Federer lost W08 because of a very strong opponent and his GF inspired travails that beset him throughout that year.

Agree socal, Federer loves slow conditions - he always did well at Hamburg for example, and after all he was brought up on clay. But he's adept on faster surfaces too.

Most players deal with bad backs, its par for the course for a tennis player, they crippled Sampras for much of his later career and arguably cost him at least 2 slams, he didnt moan about it either...and all the players have withdrawn from events afterwards due to being tired, again its nothing unique to Federer. All these players feel it when they get to th business end of events every week.

But we also have to understand that Federer works very hard on his fitness and has done so for years. Here's an article from: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/2004 - quoted below.

" Federer’s 2000 season—his second as a professional—taught him the bitter lesson that spectacular strokes and talent by themselves weren’t enough to win tournaments and get to the top. He had to work on his physical fitness. Although fitness training was something he didn’t particularly like, he hired a fitness coach, Pierre Paganini, an old acquaintance from his time with the Swiss Tennis Federation at Ecublens, to join Lundgren as part of his team. Training with the 43-year-old Paganini 100 days a year proved to be a stroke of luck.

The bald, bespectacled man (Paganini) was a former soccer player as well as a smart, professional and unobtrusive worker—and he quickly deduced what Federer was lacking.

“Athletically, he had great shortcomings. There was enormous po­tential for improvement, especially in legwork and body building,” Paganini recalled. “His problem was that his enormous talent allowed him to cover up his athletic shortcomings.” At the same time, however, he also had to defend his position in the world rankings and he could not afford to just work on basic conditioning. “I had a time table of three years to bring him up to the best physical condition.”

Paganini’s goal, however, was not to transform Federer into a muscle-man. “A tennis player is not a sprinter, a marathon runner or a shot-put thrower,” he said. “But he does have to have something from all of them and he does have to be able to summon all of these qualities when playing.” Because Federer was a creative player who often improvised many different shots dur­ing a match, he had to be able to execute many different movements, unlike a player like Hewitt, who tended to play the same style and hit the same type of shots repeatedly. Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a “coordinated creativity,” high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play. “Roger couldn’t be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons,” Paganini said.

Every day brought fresh challenges for Paganini to keep the young firebrand’s morale high. “Roger is not a workaholic that you can hit 3,000 backhands to and he hits them and feels good doing it. Training has to be fun for Roger,” said Lundgren.
“He wants to work hard but he needs a lot of variety,” Paganini said. “He has to see that an exercise is useful to him. He is an artist. If you motivate him, then he turns into a training animal.”

In Biel in December of 2000, Federer received a two-week preview of what his new training work would entail. Paganini developed special exercises for him that he termed “integrated fitness training.” Federer, for example, ran on the side of the court until he was exhausted and then immediately ran back onto the court to play tennis. “The natural reflexes and all the bad habits that are the hardest to break kick in when one is in an exhausted state,” Paganini said, explaining his method. “And then the coach goes to work on them.”

While many tennis players only concentrated on building fitness in December, the only tournament-free month of the year, Federer punctually worked on his fitness training the entire year. Paganini was immediately en­thused by the professional dedication shown by his protégé. “He was really motivated for such exercises and this surprised me,” he said. “But he is, after all, a natural athlete.” Paganini, who called Federer “naturally coordinated,” said Federer accepted the fact that fitness work and practicing would not al­ways be fun. “He noticed that he was there to acquire something that would later serve him on the tennis court.”

Paganini’s three-year plan proved successful. “Today, Roger can reach a maximum speed of 20 km/h (12 mph), which means that he can keep up with a regional sprinter for the first 30 meters,” he recollected in 2003. Federer could run 3,300 meters in 12 minutes, 9,300 meters in 40 minutes and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends. This was an im­mense improvement from before.

Federer found it easy to motivate himself for these goal-oriented training sessions because they broke up the routine. “Just a little bit of change does me a lot of good,” he said. “Once I’m out on the court, I don’t have any problem getting motivated. If I want to be No. 1, I have to give my all in training.”

Thanks to Paganini, he understood why he was training so hard. He quickly noticed that his improved fitness was helping him to increase his self-confidence. “I feel mentally really good because I know that I am physically prepared and that I can compete,” he said after the first extended training session with Paganini. "

As another poster added - two months after starting work with Paganini, Federer won his first ATP tournament. To be the best, Federer understood that he needed to be the fittest, the fastest and the strongest and he worked harder than everyone else to succeed. Same as it ever was, same as it always will be.

Federer is no lightweight ballerina, he worked as hard physically as any other player. Its not just about talent in tennis anymore, hasnt been for years - all the players know this.

I honestly have never seen Federer tired in a match, or at least I don't remember it.

This is a joke or you have a very poor sense of observation. Federer has teh worst 5 setter record despite having a very economic and fluent game.

He lost Winby 08, AO09, USO 10 and Wimby 11 because he could not last the distance!

Amazing what you can read on those forums.

He Also lost the YE masters v Nalbandian because of exhaustion.

Tenez wrote:He lost Winby 08, AO09, USO 10 and Wimby 11 because he could not last the distance!

Didn't you know T? He lost those because he's mentally the weakest person ever to hold a racket

gallery play wrote:

Tenez wrote:He lost Winby 08, AO09, USO 10 and Wimby 11 because he could not last the distance!

Didn't you know T? He lost those because he's mentally the weakest person ever to hold a racket

Of course! sorry I keep forgetting!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-5th-Set-Record-Career-List.aspx

Federer ranked 100th in 5setter record! Worse than Wally Masur!

and he could press 150 kg (330 lbs) while doing knee-bends.

This exercise shouldn't have been part of his fitness programm imo. Even if you do it properly, it causes disc abrasion

And Federer did all that to keep up with Nadal and Djoko. But we hear from Nadal that he doesn;t like doing training and all his fitness is acquired while hitting the ball. I personally never see a player with such arms such through hitting the ball.

Lol Federer fans, a player who ask the link by Lydian has the military regime of a Navy seal loses 5 set matches from exhaustion? Mentally toughness has never been Federer's strength, you can convince yourself other wise. Pete Sampras, never known for his fitness but that did not stop him from a very good 5 set record. He lost Wimby 11 because he last the distance, lol more like he could put racquet to Tsongas balls, panicked and lost.

Simple_Analyst wrote:Lol Federer fans, a player who ask the link by Lydian has the military regime of a Navy seal loses 5 set matches from exhaustion? Mentally toughness has never been Federer's strength, you can convince yourself other wise. Pete Sampras, never known for his fitness but that did not stop him from a very good 5 set record. He lost Wimby 11 because he last the distance, lol more like he could put racquet to Tsongas balls, panicked and lost.

aah, finally a few "lol's" again, i thought you were getting grumpy