Fed Lacks Killer Instinct? (but does not need it often)

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm trying to figure the connection between "losing but won more points" and "killer instinct."

How about the connection between "won 1000 matches and 17 slams" and "killer instinct." It works a bit better for me that way...

That is why I was taking objection as well. The right translation into English of the
raw data has to be something like "Roger rarely wins Ugly" (as I said in Coban's thread)
or "Roger is not very good in tight matches" (as Darthfed said in Coban's thread).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As per the data Roger is excellent in tie-breakers and at the same time not too good in 5 set
matches. So, he has different kinds of performance in different kinds of pressure situations.

 

[Kieran]

I'm trying to figure the connection between "losing but won more points" and "killer instinct."

How about the connection between "won 1000 matches and 17 slams" and "killer instinct." It works a bit better for me that way...

That is why I was taking objection as well. The right translation into English of the
raw data has to be something like "Roger rarely wins Ugly" (as I said in Coban's thread)
or "Roger is not very good in tight matches" (as Darthfed said in Coban's thread).

I don't think Federer likes it when his opponent doesn't "go away." Nadal is the best example of somebody who shoves a gun in his mush and won't back down. Federer destroys people whose will isn't strong. So maybe in fifth sets he becomes less sure and more vulnerable. But still, most of his matches don't get that far...

 

[DarthFed]

I don't think Roger lacks a killer instinct at all. Roger's "clutch issues" are his 5th set record, particularly in the biggest of matches, and the times he has had really bad break point conversions in tight losses. On the flip side we are talking someone with the best career to date, a player who has a great career TB record, has come back from the dead tons of times, etc.

Prime example of a player who lacked a killer instinct was James Blake. You got the sense he just liked being out there at times and winning was just an added bonus instead of the only thing that mattered. I think being clutch is different from having a great killer instinct. James Blake had neither.

 

[britbox]

I don't think Federer lacks a killer instinct so to speak... but Nadal is the great white shark when discussing killer instincts. I've never seen a player on that level when it comes to smelling blood and executing.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't think Federer lacks a killer instinct so to speak... but Nadal is the great white shark when discussing killer instincts. I've never seen a player on that level when it comes to smelling blood and executing.

No, I see it the other way. Nadal has a "non-dying instinct". i.e., he would not go away
without doing all he can do to avoid dying. In that process, he often ekes out victories
in which he might have won less points than others (simpson's paradox). For example,
see what happened to Pablo Andujar in last year's Rio SF or Tim in this year's AO.

Fed has killer instinct for sure. But, if the opponent does not die quickly, Fed
does not seem to have wherewithal to engage in a dog eat dog fight and then
ending up as a winner. In other words, Fed likes to kill with a gun in a matter of
seconds, instead of killing after long physical fights.

 

[Kieran]

Yeah, to an extent Rafa's motto, or defining quality, could be "Resistance", where he just refuses to stop trying and forces his opponent to go to darker places than they wanted to, in order to win. It's still killer instinct, but it's a slow death, by strangulation, as opposed to fast and flashy one, by bullet...

 

[brokenshoelace]

I don't think Federer lacks a killer instinct so to speak... but Nadal is the great white shark when discussing killer instincts. I've never seen a player on that level when it comes to smelling blood and executing.

No, I see it the other way. Nadal has a "non-dying instinct". i.e., he would not go away
without doing all he can do to avoid dying. In that process, he often ekes out victories
in which he might have won less points than others (simpson's paradox). For example,
see what happened to Pablo Andujar in last year's Rio SF or Tim in this year's AO.

Fed has killer instinct for sure. But, if the opponent does not die quickly, Fed
does not seem to have wherewithal to engage in a dog eat dog fight and then
ending up as a winner. In other words, Fed likes to kill with a gun in a matter of
seconds, instead of killing after long physical fights.

Nadal has the best killer instinct I've ever seen. The guy has only lost three grand slam matches after winning the first set (Ferrer at the 2007 US Open, Djokovic at the 2012 AO, and Rosol at Wimbledon 2012).

Think about that. Of all the grand slam matches he's played, that's only happened 3 times, and he definitely wins the first set in the majority of them. That's just insane. Moreover, how many times in his career has Nadal blown leads? If some matches stand out, there's a reason they do, because they almost never happen.

The second paragraph in your post just boils down to playing style. You can still show killer instinct without aces and 1-2 punches. Also, what's the percentage of "long physical fights" that Nadal is in vis-a-vis his total amount of matches? The long physical fights may stand out more because well, they're just more memorable, but relatively, they're few and far in between.

I've never seen a player who can "create momentum" like Nadal.