- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 10,333
- Reactions
- 6,103
- Points
- 113
It is looking less likely. After 2013, it seemed like he couldn't. After 2014 it seemed possible, until Novak regained his best form and Roger seemingly can't compete against him at Slams (0-3 in their last three Slam meetings, hasn't beaten Novak at a Slam since 2012). As a Roger fan it is hard not to be disappointed, especially when it seems Roger's level drops whenever he faces Novak. I know, I know - it is largely due to the fact that Novak just out-plays him. Watching Roger play Wawrinka in the SF I saw how much his game disrupted Stan's, that a great player is able to make others play worse. Rafa was particularly able to do this. But anyone who saw Roger in earlier rounds saw a different player in the finals. For whatever reason, Roger looks like a different player against Novak - less confident, more prone to errors. I think what happens is that because it is so hard to hit a winner against Novak, Roger gets slightly flustered and starts making more errors. If he were able to hold his calm despite Novak's heroic defenses, I honestly think that Roger could defeat him. But that psychological edge is huge.
Actually, it is somewhat reminiscent of his play against Rafa. I think this is largely about confidence; Roger's weakness as a player seems to be that while he's as dominant as anyone in the history of the game against lesser players, he can't quite hold his own against his peers. Its like he's nigh invulnerable when he's ahead, but when he's challenged he folds. I wonder if this has something to do with him being so dominant in his prime, that he didn't really learn how to deal with adversity in the same way that, say, Rafa did coming up and being second fiddle, or Novak even more so; Novak was the third best for four years and no one ever really thought he could be Roger's or Rafa's equal, and now he's been better than them for five years.
The point being, that while on one hand Roger was gifted in 2004-07 with a span of unparalleled dominance, it actually hurt him in his later years because he didn't learn how to perform when being challenged in the way that Rafa and Novak have challenged him. So when those highest pressure moments come in the Slams, he ends up playing below his best level whereas Rafa and Novak had to play their best levels to get to where they are. They had to struggle from being the 2nd or 3rd best to get to the top.
Anyhow, back to the topic, for some reason the numbers "18-12" stand out in my mind - that this is how Roger will finish his career in Slam finals. That means two more runner's up, and one more win. I guess I hold out hope that he has one more title in him, despite his advanced age. Despite the last two disappointments, he remains the second best player on tour. But unfortunately he probably needs help. He needs an Andy Murray or a Stan Wawrinka to take out Novak in the semis. Of course for that to be the case, Roger would need to remain #2 across the aisle from Novak - which may be hard to do for that much longer. As it stands now he's #3 in the race to London rankings.
So what do you think? Can Roger do it?
Actually, it is somewhat reminiscent of his play against Rafa. I think this is largely about confidence; Roger's weakness as a player seems to be that while he's as dominant as anyone in the history of the game against lesser players, he can't quite hold his own against his peers. Its like he's nigh invulnerable when he's ahead, but when he's challenged he folds. I wonder if this has something to do with him being so dominant in his prime, that he didn't really learn how to deal with adversity in the same way that, say, Rafa did coming up and being second fiddle, or Novak even more so; Novak was the third best for four years and no one ever really thought he could be Roger's or Rafa's equal, and now he's been better than them for five years.
The point being, that while on one hand Roger was gifted in 2004-07 with a span of unparalleled dominance, it actually hurt him in his later years because he didn't learn how to perform when being challenged in the way that Rafa and Novak have challenged him. So when those highest pressure moments come in the Slams, he ends up playing below his best level whereas Rafa and Novak had to play their best levels to get to where they are. They had to struggle from being the 2nd or 3rd best to get to the top.
Anyhow, back to the topic, for some reason the numbers "18-12" stand out in my mind - that this is how Roger will finish his career in Slam finals. That means two more runner's up, and one more win. I guess I hold out hope that he has one more title in him, despite his advanced age. Despite the last two disappointments, he remains the second best player on tour. But unfortunately he probably needs help. He needs an Andy Murray or a Stan Wawrinka to take out Novak in the semis. Of course for that to be the case, Roger would need to remain #2 across the aisle from Novak - which may be hard to do for that much longer. As it stands now he's #3 in the race to London rankings.
So what do you think? Can Roger do it?
