Federer's Schedule 2018

[Moxie]

You think the French crowd would root for Roger over Rafa? Wow what a concession...the only one I thought would be close in support would be the OZ but even last year was pretty one-sided in support. It's alright, y'all know I can't prove a negative, I can't prove Cilic doesn't get more support than Roger either.

As for Wimbledon 08 I'd say I'm much closer to the truth than your insistence that Roger played some kind of tremendous match. The defining moments from Roger are points littered with errors. And it's telling that he usually still easily exceeds that level in his mid 30's. I've never said it wasn't the greatest match I've seen, but Roger's game was a disappointment that day and pretty much the whole year

I do think the French crowd would root for Roger over Rafa. They haven't been especially kind to Rafa (as neighbors, they are rivals.) And Roger speaks very nice Swiss-German-accented French. They like that. You say Oz was one-sided, but I'm not sure how you judge that. This may not mean much to you, but, when Rafa decided to play Viña del Mar in 2013, Tennis Channel made a quick arrangement with them, and sent a team to cover it. Gimelstob had a sit-down interview with Rafa. They put a lot of money into a tournament they never cover. That's because they believe he has a big fan-base. It IS telling where tennis outlets put their money.

We will forever have to agree to disagree on that Wimbledon match. I will concede that it wasn't his finest match at Wimbledon, but I don't think he was that far from his best. The opposition was the largest part of his problem, and I don't think you'll ever concede that. If you blame it on the mono, then cop to it and admit it's an excuse. Roger was 26 when they played that match, and there aren't really many reasons that he wasn't at the top of his game. Other than Nadal. Or mono.

 

[BalaryKar]

The only problem for Fed at Wimbledon 2008 was the battering he took a month ago at FO finals. Such a beatdown can't have a turn around within a month, mono or no mono. Heck, if FO was to be held within a month after it was in May 2009, I don't think Nadal would have won that. Anybody, even ghost, other than Nadal and Fed would have won that final. That he had no problem in form is clearly evident that he reached finals without dropping a single set, including a straight sets beat down on a resurgent Safin in the semis.

 

[Andy22]

No can not see Federer, was not at the top of his game at Wimbledon 08, come back from 2 sets to love down and got close at winning 6 in a row., Federer was at his top level, Rafael nadal was just better on the day.

 

[DarthFed]

The only problem for Fed at Wimbledon 2008 was the battering he took a month ago at FO finals. Such a beatdown can't have a turn around within a month, mono or no mono. Heck, if FO was to be held within a month after it was in May 2009, I don't think Nadal would have won that. Anybody, even ghost, other than Nadal and Fed would have won that final. That he had no problem in form is clearly evident that he reached finals without dropping a single set, including a straight sets beat down on a resurgent Safin in the semis.

Safin was awful on grass. I watched most of Roger's 2008 matches there. His serve was great and it needed to be because he faced a lot of tiebreaks and his ROS and baseline play was putrid. I was worried going into the final and the hope was that he'd step up for a change...and he didn't. Roger's serve was alright and he played with proper aggression the last few sets with mixed results but his game, even the last few sets, was hardly impressive. A guy who won 65 straight on grass made a fight of it, nothing to really praise there when you have a very limited grass court player in Nadal. Rafa had improved but we are still talking a mediocre serve, a guy who was allergic to net, and a guy who could barely flatten a forehand to save his life. Roger wasn't facing Pete Sampras that day.

 

[Andy22]

Safin was awful on grass. I watched most of Roger's 2008 matches there. His serve was great and it needed to be because he faced a lot of tiebreaks and his ROS and baseline play was putrid. I was worried going into the final and the hope was that he'd step up for a change...and he didn't. Roger's serve was alright and he played with proper aggression the last few sets with mixed results but his game, even the last few sets, was hardly impressive. A guy who won 65 straight on grass made a fight of it, nothing to really praise there when you have a very limited grass court player in Nadal. Rafa had improved but we are still talking a mediocre serve, a guy who was allergic to net, and a guy who could barely flatten a forehand to save his life. Roger wasn't facing Pete Sampras that day.

Very limited grass court player Nadal? You do know Nadal made the Wimbledon finals 5 times between 2006/11 that's limited No way man, that's very unlimited. Now you are the one that's sounds like a troll, also Nadal great at the net, USO final last year 16/16 net points. Judge Rafael nadal at his best on grass not then he sucked 2012/17.

 

[britbox]

Truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[Federberg]

Truth lies somewhere in between.

Well... if Rafa's limited on grass then surely we have to say Roger's even more limited on clay too right? Rafa's 2w/3ru at Wimbledon vs Roger 1w/4ru at RG...

 

[DarthFed]

Very limited grass court player Nadal? You do know Nadal made the Wimbledon finals 5 times between 2006/11 that's limited No way man, that's very unlimited. Now you are the one that's sounds like a troll, also Nadal great at the net, USO final last year 16/16 net points. Judge Rafael nadal at his best on grass not then he sucked 2012/17.

He's good at the net now, not back then. And "limited" doesn't mean he wasn't good on grass, at least the Wimbledon grass anyways.

 

[britbox]

I don't think Federer is limited on clay... He's Top 3 over the last decade. Likewise Nadal is top 3 on grass. I don't think Federer is a natural claycourter or Rafa a natural grass courter...but great players find a way to get it done.

 

[Federberg]

I don't think Federer is limited on clay... He's Top 3 over the last decade. Likewise Nadal is top 3 on grass. I don't think Federer is a natural claycourter or Rafa a natural grass courter...but great players find a way to get it done.

I agree. I think DF is taking it a bit too far calling him limited. He's not a natural, and his performance in his later years has been poor at Wimbledon. In a relative sense we can say the same about Roger at the USO btw...

 

[Andy22]

Darthfed OK fair enough point taken, Nadal was not good at net back then. But I still would like to know that you mean by nadal limited grass court player.

 

[Federberg]

by way of explanation, I may not think much of Rafa's style on grass, but I was there at the final in '07. The guy was immense. It was only after the match that we realised that Roger was always ahead in the match. Watching it live, it didn't feel like that. It felt that we Fed fans were just hanging on for dear life until Roger got the break in the 5th set. So I had to develop a healthy respect for what Rafa brings at Wimbledon. That was also the match that forced me to accept that Rafa's not a defensive player at all. He threw the kitchen sink at Roger

 

[El Dude]

Rafa was a great grass court player. Not so much, though, since 2012.

Federberg mentioned the Slam results, but let's look at overall grass matches:

2006-11: 45-7 (86.5%)
2012-17: 13-8 (61.9%)

To put that in context, Rafa has a 86.3 win% over the last 52 weeks, so he was exactly as good on grass in 2006-11 (according to W%) as he's been over the last year, when he's been pretty damn good.

By comparison, the players with an overall ~62 W% over the last year are the ever-erratic Gael Monfils, Aljaz Bedene, a declined John Isner, and a much-reduced Milos Raonic, players ranked from 31-57.

So in other words, in 2006-11 Rafa was essentially a top 2 player on grass; from 2012-17, he's been more of a #40ish player.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Not to disrupt the off-topic conversation , Federer's scheduling decisions will be very crucial for reaching YE #1.
The YE #1 this year is important, not because he can wrestle the "Old Man YE#1" title from Rafa, but due to the fact that
it will let Roger tie with Pete on the most number of years finished as #1 record. Pete is currently in sole possession of that
record, although Pete's six years came in a row (and so Pete will still hold the record for most consecutive YE #1 finishes record).

 

[Federberg]

Not to disrupt the off-topic conversation , Federer's scheduling decisions will be very crucial for reaching YE #1.
The YE #1 this year is important, not because he can wrestle the "Old Man YE#1" title from Rafa, but due to the fact that
it will let Roger tie with Pete on the most number of years finished as #1 record. Pete is currently in sole possession of that
record, although Pete's six years came in a row (and so Pete will still hold the record for most consecutive YE #1 finishes record).

How dare you go back on topic?

In all seriousness it looks increasingly likely he’ll have a shot at it. I’m sort of agnostic on it personally. Nothing wrong with a great like Pistol keeping some records. For me the priority remains another title at Wimbledon and perhaps more important finally getting another title at Flushing

 

[DarthFed]

I agree. I think DF is taking it a bit too far calling him limited. He's not a natural, and his performance in his later years has been poor at Wimbledon. In a relative sense we can say the same about Roger at the USO btw...

My thought is that a poor or even average serve is usually a mountain too high to climb on grass, even the new Wimbledon grass. Rafa also has never been known for an aggressive ROS which has been a huge catalyst for Djoker's success at Wimbledon and even Agassi's if we go back a ways.

I do agree with you that in Rafa's younger years he did step up the aggresssion quite a bit and I honestly feel that caught Roger by surprise in 2007 and 2008. Roger took awhile to adjust in 2007 and then in 2008, despite being off all year he inexplicably still came out passive and played embarrassingly bad for 2.5 sets. Even in Rafa's best years on grass he was very beatable and it's not like he was out of his prime by 2012 when he started losing to everyone and their mother on grass. Roger has been disappointing at USO but not anywhere near how bad Rafa has been at Wimbledon.

 

[Federberg]

My thought is that a poor or even average serve is usually a mountain too high to climb on grass, even the new Wimbledon grass. Rafa also has never been known for an aggressive ROS which has been a huge catalyst for Djoker's success at Wimbledon and even Agassi's if we go back a ways.

I do agree with you that in Rafa's younger years he did step up the aggresssion quite a bit and I honestly feel that caught Roger by surprise in 2007 and 2008. Roger took awhile to adjust in 2007 and then in 2008, despite being off all year he inexplicably still came out passive and played embarrassingly bad for 2.5 sets. Even in Rafa's best years on grass he was very beatable and it's not like he was out of his prime by 2012 when he started losing to everyone and their mother on grass. Roger has been disappointing at USO but not anywhere near how bad Rafa has been at Wimbledon.

Rafa's serve remains one of the most remarkable mysteries in modern men's tennis. The fact that his 2nd serve stats are among the best in history (I think I'm right in saying that) makes me hesitate to be as dismissive as I would like to be. The problem is that it's a spinny bugger so it's not quite as easy to handle as you would imagine. Also Rafa's ROS is often underestimated, he doesn't do an Agassi, obviously, and blast the ball back but generally speaking it seems that the server is forced back to neutral or even defence because of the spin/ positioning from the ROS. I say all these things because I absolutely agree with you that how he played on grass shouldn't have translated to success just based on observation, but the fact is that he was doing something damned effective whether we like it or not. But for sure he wasn't cruising through the rounds with ease. I definitely agree he's not the same player on grass in the last half decade that he used to be. Perhaps folks have enough of a playbook now on how to handle him.

And yes Roger's USO underperformance has to be put in a relative context. There's absolutely no question that it's not on the same level as Rafa's at Wimbledon

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

alright kiddos, another break from lurking for two thoughts, one re: current events, another as general musing:

1) anyone up for estimating when roger is safe as a top (2/4) seed for Wimby? not that it seems to matter much - with Novak and Andy being where they are and fellow top 4 contenders like Dimitrov and Zverev being as reliable as ever, i think seeding hasn't mattered this little in quite some time. still, i couldn't help but wonder. with 2016 semis and the 2017 title (plus Halle), i guess he's already set up pretty high by now.


2) i caught myself thinking about how it'll be when Fed does retire. what do you guys'n'gals think: announcement (long) after his last match (a la Sampras, to the extreme), a little earlier (like Agassi) or way in advance, at the start of the season? i think there would be an interesting case to go with the early announcement. of course, on the one hand, he probably doesn't want a farewell tour where it's less about his competitive abilities and more about nostalgia. but on the other side, the appearance fees he could collect would be insane and it'd probably put the audiences even more firmly behind him (if possible) at every event, and put a lot of extra pressure on his younger opponents (if possible). of course, the pressure might be on him, too, and we know how sentimental he can get...

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa's serve remains one of the most remarkable mysteries in modern men's tennis. The fact that his 2nd serve stats are among the best in history (I think I'm right in saying that) makes me hesitate to be as dismissive as I would like to be. The problem is that it's a spinny bugger so it's not quite as easy to handle as you would imagine. Also Rafa's ROS is often underestimated, he doesn't do an Agassi, obviously, and blast the ball back but generally speaking it seems that the server is forced back to neutral or even defence because of the spin/ positioning from the ROS. I say all these things because I absolutely agree with you that how he played on grass shouldn't have translated to success just based on observation, but the fact is that he was doing something damned effective whether we like it or not. But for sure he wasn't cruising through the rounds with ease. I definitely agree he's not the same player on grass in the last half decade that he used to be. Perhaps folks have enough of a playbook now on how to handle him.

And yes Roger's USO underperformance has to be put in a relative context. There's absolutely no question that it's not on the same level as Rafa's at Wimbledon

I think his 2nd serve and 2nd serve return points won are more about his prowess from the baseline. And as you said, both of those on grass should in theory be a lot worse for him relatively speaking and that's where the Wimbledon grass has really helped him. Also he was able to flatten out the forehand ever so slightly on grass but yeah my point is that he was always very vulnerable on grass. And even in 2008 Roger should've had little trouble handling him at Wimbledon but he was already a basketcase every time he saw Rafa across the net.

 

[DarthFed]

alright kiddos, another break from lurking for two thoughts, one re: current events, another as general musing:

1) anyone up for estimating when roger is safe as a top (2/4) seed for Wimby? not that it seems to matter much - with Novak and Andy being where they are and fellow top 4 contenders like Dimitrov and Zverev being as reliable as ever, i think seeding hasn't mattered this little in quite some time. still, i couldn't help but wonder. with 2016 semis and the 2017 title (plus Halle), i guess he's already set up pretty high by now.


2) i caught myself thinking about how it'll be when Fed does retire. what do you guys'n'gals think: announcement (long) after his last match (a la Sampras, to the extreme), a little earlier (like Agassi) or way in advance, at the start of the season? i think there would be an interesting case to go with the early announcement. of course, on the one hand, he probably doesn't want a farewell tour where it's less about his competitive abilities and more about nostalgia. but on the other side, the appearance fees he could collect would be insane and it'd probably put the audiences even more firmly behind him (if possible) at every event, and put a lot of extra pressure on his younger opponents (if possible). of course, the pressure might be on him, too, and we know how sentimental he can get...

It's funny you mention the seedings because I was thinking the same thing recently. At this point top 2 or even top 4 hardly matters for draw purposes whereas it used to be enormous just 2-3 years ago. I also would imagine it is near mathematically impossible that Roger doesn't get a top 2 seed at Wimbledon this year.