Federer's Schedule 2018

[isabelle]

I too am glad that Fed dropped out of Toronto. I now believe that suddenly his chances of winning USO went up considerably.

are you sure that Toronto has something to do with winning USO ??? maybe I'm wrong but it' won't change anything

 

[GameSetAndMath]

are you sure that Toronto has something to do with winning USO ??? maybe I'm wrong but it' won't change anything

Nothing particular about Toronoto. Roger is just too old to play two Masters tourneys back to back right before USO.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Yes I'm aware of that but I had heard during Wimbledon that Roger told the Toronto tournament director that he would play there this year.

Yes, but it was the tournament director saying. It is not in their interest to say that Roger is in doubt at this time and he may or may not play.

 

[DarthFed]

are you sure that Toronto has something to do with winning USO ??? maybe I'm wrong but it' won't change anything

For Roger's chances at the USO the absolute worst thing that could happen is that he reaches the finals of both Toronto and Cincy. Looking back at 2014 he made the finals of Toronto and won Cincy and made the semis of the USO where he was blown out by Cilic. That was his 16th match in barely over 30 days. It was poor scheduling for a 33 year old and it'd be a disaster for a 37 year old.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For Roger's chances at the USO the absolute worst thing that could happen is that he reaches the finals of both Toronto and Cincy. Looking back at 2014 he made the finals of Toronto and won Cincy and made the semis of the USO where he was blown out by Cilic. That was his 16th match in barely over 30 days. It was poor scheduling for a 33 year old and it'd be a disaster for a 37 year old.

...... May be he should be getting rid of Stuttgart also from next year. I thought it would be OK considering he is coming off from a three month rest and the surface is grass. But, he had trouble in Halle itself after playing Stuttgart (not to mention Wimby).

 

[DarthFed]

...... May be he should be getting rid of Stuttgart also from next year. I thought it would be OK considering he is coming off from a three month rest and the surface is grass. But, he had trouble in Halle itself after playing Stuttgart (not to mention Wimby).

Completely agree he shouldn't play Stuttgart again. He was absolutely dreadful in Halle and 9 matches with many of them being tough was not ideal heading into Wimbledon. With that said I don't think he looked fatigued at all during Wimbledon, he lost due to mental issues, same as Indian Wells and even Miami to a certain degree. That is the worry going forward. With Roger when you see a few matches with total mental roundabouts and random drops in play it usually becomes a consistent problem.

He needs that ambition and greed back. There is nothing worse than a content athlete. The ambitious destroy the content

 

[herios]

Yes I'm aware of that but I had heard during Wimbledon that Roger told the Toronto tournament director that he would play there this year.

He is toying with them, being the star he is. They won't even get mad.

 

[lob]

.....
He needs that ambition and greed back. There is nothing worse than a content athlete. The ambitious destroy the content

Don't want to sound like a smart Alec but imo he is well past the ambition stage. To me it is now about winning that last slam like Sampras circa 2002. C'mon we suddenly saw TMF back between Jan AO 17 fifth set through July 2017. Even between 2007 and 2009 TMF sightings were rare. We are getting too greedy no?

 

[britbox]

Don't want to sound like a smart Alec but imo he is well past the ambition stage. To me it is now about winning that last slam like Sampras circa 2002. C'mon we suddenly saw TMF back between Jan AO 17 fifth set through July 2017. Even between 2007 and 2009 TMF sightings were rare. We are getting too greedy no?

Agreed. Although I think we already saw the last slam. (Hope to be wrong though)...

 

[DarthFed]

Don't want to sound like a smart Alec but imo he is well past the ambition stage. To me it is now about winning that last slam like Sampras circa 2002. C'mon we suddenly saw TMF back between Jan AO 17 fifth set through July 2017. Even between 2007 and 2009 TMF sightings were rare. We are getting too greedy no?

Totally different scenario here. Sampras didn't have someone breathing down his neck. Nadal and even Djoker to a degree have helped keep Federer's fire burning for a long time but it's not always going to be there. I remember thinking that he would have a lot of struggles after getting #1 back in Rotterdam. Because then it was more of a "what now" type of situation. Could he really get that pumped for Indian Wells, would it kill him to lose at Wimbledon? Will it hurt if he sucks at USO?

Well he can't afford to just ride off into the sunset right now. What's his career look like right now? Really amazing, unparalleled, etc. Now what happens if in 2-3 years from now Nadal breaks his record? The answer is Fed's career looks way way way way way worse. Fed's got to embrace the threat of the future and get back to winning the big ones.

 

[Moxie]

Totally different scenario here. Sampras didn't have someone breathing down his neck. Nadal and even Djoker to a degree have helped keep Federer's fire burning for a long time but it's not always going to be there. I remember thinking that he would have a lot of struggles after getting #1 back in Rotterdam. Because then it was more of a "what now" type of situation. Could he really get that pumped for Indian Wells, would it kill him to lose at Wimbledon? Will it hurt if he sucks at USO?

Well he can't afford to just ride off into the sunset right now. What's his career look like right now? Really amazing, unparalleled, etc. Now what happens if in 2-3 years from now Nadal breaks his record? The answer is Fed's career looks way way way way way worse. Fed's got to embrace the threat of the future and get back to winning the big ones.

It's true that Roger would have more motivation than Pete, given current Slam race and competition. But he's nearly 37. No matter how much you want it for him, he really can only do what's left in him. And all that "amazing, unparalleled" stuff won't change, even when Rafa passes him in the Majors count. You are a super-fan, but it doesn't really matter what you want for him. He's on his own path.

 

[DarthFed]

It's true that Roger would have more motivation than Pete, given current Slam race and competition. But he's nearly 37. No matter how much you want it for him, he really can only do what's left in him. And all that "amazing, unparalleled" stuff won't change, even when Rafa passes him in the Majors count. You are a super-fan, but it doesn't really matter what you want for him. He's on his own path.

Haha even when he passes him? So now it's a given? Anyways, you're on crack with that type of talk, who cares how old he is, his career is under attack. Motivation shouldn't be an issue and it won't be for long because who would care about 20 majors if someone in your era has 21. Roger would still be rich and happy but he's playing for more than that.

 

[Moxie]

Haha even when he passes him? So now it's a given? Anyways, you're on crack with that type of talk, who cares how old he is, his career is under attack. Motivation shouldn't be an issue and it won't be for long because who would care about 20 majors if someone in your era has 21. Roger would still be rich and happy but he's playing for more than that.

Oh, I had to say it like that. Why not? If only to crack your nut. But my point is that you don't distinguish between your ambition for Federer, and his own. Or what he's got left in him. Even Britbox says he thinks he may have seen him win his last Major. I take Roger to be a hugely ambitious person, and the races are clearly not lost on him. I'm sure he'll do what he can to keep you from being so put-out with him. Of course, you and Mirka have him by the short-hairs on what you want out of him.

 

[lob]

....., who cares how old he is, his career is under attack. Motivation shouldn't be an issue and it won't be for long because who would care about 20 majors if someone in your era has 21. Roger would still be rich and happy but he's playing for more than that.

The only issue is time. Roger passed up too many low hanging fruit in the past decade. That is not someone who had a sense of urgency to keep the slam-tally record.

Course correction has never been his forte, be it in a big match, or in his career. Let's see..five years on the tour to conquer his emotional outbursts and win his first slam. About four more to attempt 'winning ugly' if he must. About the same to accept that his return game can be improved. Another five to accept that a 90 inch racket is a liability on the 21st century tour. Four more to reach out to a friend and learn that he has everything to gain by Attacking with a nothing to lose attitude.

It all adds up.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

The only issue is time. Roger passed up too many low hanging fruit in the past decade. That is not someone who had a sense of urgency to keep the slam-tally record.

Course correction has never been his forte, be it in a big match, or in his career. Let's see..five years on the tour to conquer his emotional outbursts and win his first slam. About four more to attempt 'winning ugly' if he must. About the same to accept that his return game can be improved. Another five to accept that a 90 inch racket is a liability on the 21st century tour. Four more to reach out to a friend and learn that he has everything to gain by Attacking with a nothing to lose attitude.

It all adds up.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

This is an interesting review of Roger's reluctance to change. I'm wondering what is all of the low-hanging fruit that you think he failed to pick.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This is an interesting review of Roger's reluctance to change. I'm wondering what is all of the low-hanging fruit that you think he failed to pick.

It is very hard to change proactively when you are succeeding. One needs more than an year of sustained failure to initiate changes.
At least Fed changed. Pete had mentioned in interview after he retired that one of his regrets was not moving on to a larger racquet head while he was on tour.

The good thing about Fed is that he is neither superstitious nor a creature of habit. He is open to changes when personally convinced of it.

 

[Moxie]

It is very hard to change proactively when you are succeeding. One needs more than an year of sustained failure to initiate changes.
At least Fed changed. Pete had mentioned in interview after he retired that one of his regrets was not moving on to a larger racquet head while he was on tour.

The good thing about Fed is that he is neither superstitious nor a creature of habit. He is open to changes when personally convinced of it.

I get why Roger was reluctant to change, but @lob's synopsis is worth considering. Roger has been slow to change. And so I would say he was a creature of habit. Or believed in his game long after he should have affected changes.

I suspect that you're implying Nadal when you say "superstitious" and "creature of habit." You do understand that Nadal is not superstitious, I hope. He has said as much, many times. Creature of habit, however, he is.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I get why Roger was reluctant to change, but @lob's synopsis is worth considering. Roger has been slow to change. And so I would say he was a creature of habit. Or believed in his game long after he should have affected changes.

I suspect that you're implying Nadal when you say "superstitious" and "creature of habit." You do understand that Nadal is not superstitious, I hope. He has said as much, many times. Creature of habit, however, he is.

Nope, I was not thinking about Nadal at all. I don't understand why you always have to bring up things unnecessarily. Insecure?

 

[Moxie]

Nope, I was not thinking about Nadal at all. I don't understand why you always have to bring up things unnecessarily. Insecure?

It was just a question, dude.

 

[DarthFed]

The only issue is time. Roger passed up too many low hanging fruit in the past decade. That is not someone who had a sense of urgency to keep the slam-tally record.

Course correction has never been his forte, be it in a big match, or in his career. Let's see..five years on the tour to conquer his emotional outbursts and win his first slam. About four more to attempt 'winning ugly' if he must. About the same to accept that his return game can be improved. Another five to accept that a 90 inch racket is a liability on the 21st century tour. Four more to reach out to a friend and learn that he has everything to gain by Attacking with a nothing to lose attitude.

It all adds up.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

I understand why it took him awhile to switch racquets and there is no guarantee he would've done better overall if he made the change in say 2011 or 2012. The reason I say 2011 is that there was simply no way he would change it at a time when he was still winning majors on a consistent basis and by the end of 2011 he hadn't won a major since AO in 2010. But if he switched starting in 2012 would he have won Wimbledon, 3 MS titles, and gotten back to #1? Maybe, maybe not.

The recent change that should've absolutely come earlier is being aggressive on the return. Roger's ROS was almost always passive and as he aged he got less and less back in play. During Fed's peak a passive ROS wasn't as bad considering he got a ridiculous % of returns in play and was stronger from the baseline then. It took way too long for him to start going after it.