Gstaad 250

[lindseywagners]

What's head-scratching is how quickly Federer's deteriorated (aka "in a bad patch"). He was #1 at this time last year and even though he took a step down after Cincinnati, remained an elite player and one of the Big Four through the Australian Open, when he made it to the SF.

Then he started seriously slipping. From after the AO through the French Open he wasn't playing like one of the best, but he was still in the next tier down - making the QF at Roland Garros. But then after that loss to Tsonga, things really fell apart. He managed one ATP 250 title but has been swirling the drain since and doesn't even look like a top 40 player anymore.

Now obviously he can't really have declined this much, but what gives? This is more than a bad patch - its the worst spell of his career, at least in 10+ years. And he isn't just a little "off his game" - he's a complete train-wreck.

Just baffled.

I would say it's psychological, because as you said, it's unlikely one's physical skills deteriorate so quickly.

Let's look at it this way:
Human life is "a manifestation of a DNA molecule that has gone through competitive evolution and acquired an eccentric psychology that allows it to delude itself into the idea that it is accomplishing something." So, in other words, we people are all ego-driven machines.

Thus, when the ego takes a hit, everything starts malfunctioning and what was once pristine is now just an old, broken machine. It's like trying to run a car without oil and gasoline. The whole racquet thing that people are making a big deal about isn't an issue at all, I don't think. In fact, it's our egos that are deluding ourselves into thinking that the frame head size is going to change things or make things somehow "better."

I think Federer needs some serious mental repair (oil and gasoline) if he's ever going to win again. The racquet shouldn't even be a topic of discussion.

 

[Front242]

What's head-scratching is how quickly Federer's deteriorated (aka "in a bad patch"). He was #1 at this time last year and even though he took a step down after Cincinnati, remained an elite player and one of the Big Four through the Australian Open, when he made it to the SF.

Then he started seriously slipping. From after the AO through the French Open he wasn't playing like one of the best, but he was still in the next tier down - making the QF at Roland Garros. But then after that loss to Tsonga, things really fell apart. He managed one ATP 250 title but has been swirling the drain since and doesn't even look like a top 40 player anymore.

Now obviously he can't really have declined this much, but what gives? This is more than a bad patch - its the worst spell of his career, at least in 10+ years. And he isn't just a little "off his game" - he's a complete train-wreck.

Just baffled.

I would say it's psychological, because as you said, it's unlikely one's physical skills deteriorate so quickly.

Let's look at it this way:
Human life is "a manifestation of a DNA molecule that has gone through competitive evolution and acquired an eccentric psychology that allows it to delude itself into the idea that it is accomplishing something." So, in other words, we people are all ego-driven machines.

Thus, when the ego takes a hit, everything starts malfunctioning and what was once pristine is now just an old, broken machine. It's like trying to run a car without oil and gasoline.

I think Federer needs some serious mental repair (oil and gasoline) if he's ever going to win again.

They should send him to hypnotherapy and make him watch videos of himself at the height of his powers for hours each day and feed him seratonin on a drip 'cos he can surely use some cheering up right now!

 

[lindseywagners]

What's head-scratching is how quickly Federer's deteriorated (aka "in a bad patch"). He was #1 at this time last year and even though he took a step down after Cincinnati, remained an elite player and one of the Big Four through the Australian Open, when he made it to the SF.

Then he started seriously slipping. From after the AO through the French Open he wasn't playing like one of the best, but he was still in the next tier down - making the QF at Roland Garros. But then after that loss to Tsonga, things really fell apart. He managed one ATP 250 title but has been swirling the drain since and doesn't even look like a top 40 player anymore.

Now obviously he can't really have declined this much, but what gives? This is more than a bad patch - its the worst spell of his career, at least in 10+ years. And he isn't just a little "off his game" - he's a complete train-wreck.

Just baffled.

I would say it's psychological, because as you said, it's unlikely one's physical skills deteriorate so quickly.

Let's look at it this way:
Human life is "a manifestation of a DNA molecule that has gone through competitive evolution and acquired an eccentric psychology that allows it to delude itself into the idea that it is accomplishing something." So, in other words, we people are all ego-driven machines.

Thus, when the ego takes a hit, everything starts malfunctioning and what was once pristine is now just an old, broken machine. It's like trying to run a car without oil and gasoline.

I think Federer needs some serious mental repair (oil and gasoline) if he's ever going to win again.

They should send him to hypnotherapy and make him watch videos of himself at the height of his powers for hours each day and feed him seratonin on a drip 'cos he can surely use some cheering up right now!

Haha. Personally, I don't think there's anything that you can do though. You have to just naturally let the feeling have its way with you and if you come out of it, then good; if you don't, well then that's too bad.

 

[ftan]

Ok what the hell happened. I haven't seen him playing last couple of tournaments, I know he made a racquet change, but this is utterly ridiculous, I thought these tournaments were all about getting back into winning ways, he is losing to nobody s is he playing that bad.. certainly not everyone can be playing too good

 

[Front242]

Ok what the hell happened. I haven't seen him playing last couple of tournaments, I know he made a racquet change, but this is utterly ridiculous, I thought these tournaments were all about getting back into winning ways, he is losing to nobody s is he playing that bad.. certainly not everyone can be playing too good

He was hitting routine shots miles long, wide, into the net, volleys into the net with open courts (sadly a trend far before today), serve was so/so. Mostly he stinks up his own service games so often that a lone break is enough to lose a set like he did in set one as Brands has a decent serve. Never made anything of break chances, thus just compounding his opponent's confidence while at the same time crushing his own. In a nutshell, he'd be lucky to win challenger events playing like he did today.

 

[El Dude]

Lindsey, I agree with you that it is largely psychological (although completely disagree with your ontological assumptions about the nature of reality and human beings, that we're only "ego-driven machines" - but that's a different conversation).

The way I look at it is that let's say a player's physical peak is age 22-26, at which time they're at 100% of their physical ability. Around the age of 27, that number starts slowly declining due to physical deterioration, even if imperceptibly at first. Roger might have lost 1 point each year starting at age 27 (2008). So we might have something like this:

Age 26 (2007): 100
Age 27 (2008): 99
Age 28 (2009): 98
Age 29 (2010): 97
Age 30 (2011): 95
Age 31 (2012): 94
Age 32 (2013): 93

Different players decline at different rates, but that's the general trajectory. A 32 year old might only about 7% worse physically than he was at 26, but in professional tennis that's huge and makes the difference between a Grand Slam champion and retirement (for most). Even 3% is big.

Now psychology can fill the gap (or make it worse). The above is only physical ability, but how a player actually performs relative to that number depends upon their mental state. In 2012, even though Roger was at 94% (so to speak), he was able to fill much of the gap with a strong mental approach, so was probably more like 98%. This year, not only has he dropped a bit more physically, but he hasn't had the winning mentality.

I actually think the rate of physical decline increases at age 32, which is why most players retire or simply don't come close to their former greatness from 32 on, and why you see so many "last hurrahs" at age 31. Or it may simply be that 32 is the tipping point.

(Of course this is all just an abstraction and the reality is quite different, but I'm using this more as a descriptive analogy rather than a definitive model).

If I were Roger, I'd be on the phone with Andre Agassi and asking him: "What was your secret? How did you maintain a high level of play after that tipping point for a few more years?" Because, quite frankly, no one else has managed to do it--at least none of the greats--since Ken Rosewall, 40 years ago.

 

[Front242]

Lindsey, I agree with you that it is largely psychological (although completely disagree with your ontological assumptions about the nature of reality and human beings, that we're only "ego-driven machines" - but that's a different conversation).

The way I look at it is that let's say a player's physical peak is age 22-26, at which time they're at 100% of their physical ability. Around the age of 27, that number starts slowly declining due to physical deterioration, even if imperceptibly at first. Roger might have lost 1 point each year starting at age 27 (2008). So we might have something like this:

Age 26 (2007): 100
Age 27 (2008): 99
Age 28 (2009): 98
Age 29 (2010): 97
Age 30 (2011): 95
Age 31 (2012): 94
Age 32 (2013): 93

Different players decline at different rates, but that's the general trajectory. A 32 year old might only about 7% worse physically than he was at 26, but in professional tennis that's huge and makes the difference between a Grand Slam champion and retirement (for most). Even 3% is big.

Now psychology can fill the gap (or make it worse). The above is only physical ability, but how a player actually performs relative to that number depends upon their mental state. In 2012, even though Roger was at 94% (so to speak), he was able to fill much of the gap with a strong mental approach, so was probably more like 98%. This year, not only has he dropped a bit more physically, but he hasn't had the winning mentality.

I actually think the rate of physical decline increases at age 32, which is why most players retire or simply don't come close to their former greatness from 32 on, and why you see so many "last hurrahs" at age 31. Or it may simply be that 32 is the tipping point.

(Of course this is all just an abstraction and the reality is quite different, but I'm using this more as a descriptive analogy rather than a definitive model).

If I were Roger, I'd be on the phone with Andre Agassi and asking him: "What was your secret? How did you maintain a high level of play after that tipping point for a few more years?" Because, quite frankly, no one else has managed to do it--at least none of the greats--since Ken Rosewall, 40 years ago.

Don't forget the key to Agassi's success at such a late point in his career was he took a rather large amount of time off. Nothing much more to it really, just less accumulated wear and tear as a result. Much like Haas really. So his mileage at Fed's age was considerably less. Speaking of Haas I'd say he hasn't decreased anywhere close to the examples of Fed's decline you used. In fact if anything he's been playing better last year or so than much of his career (except for his poor results the last few weeks). So in that respect I guess every player is different. Mahut also has been playing his best tennis in the twilight of his career.

 

[ftan]

Ok what the hell happened. I haven't seen him playing last couple of tournaments, I know he made a racquet change, but this is utterly ridiculous, I thought these tournaments were all about getting back into winning ways, he is losing to nobody s is he playing that bad.. certainly not everyone can be playing too good

He was hitting routine shots miles long, wide, into the net, volleys into the net with open courts (sadly a trend far before today), serve was so/so. Mostly he stinks up his own service games so often that a lone break is enough to lose a set like he did in set one as Brands has a decent serve. Never made anything of break chances, thus just compounding his opponent's confidence while at the same time crushing his own. In a nutshell, he'd be lucky to win challenger events playing like he did today.

Oh wow.. that bad huh?? Did he say something after the loss.. blaming his stick ?
I still cant believe this result..am shocked..wonder where his head is at after all this

 

[Front242]

On tennis.com people are saying a Swiss local newspaper reported he nearly pulled out because of his back and they're saying here he was citing back pains that were limiting his movement. Playing extra tournaments isn't going to help but he took 2 months off at the start of the year and still has it taped so that's really not good news at all for the future Remember in Indian Wells he didn't even run many balls down and that was when he decided to take a large amount of time off. Still letting balls go by now and movement looks slow and rigid. I remember Agassi getting cortisone injections late in his career. Back problems ended it for him. Worrying times as back pain just doesn't fade away.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/slumping-federer-loses-brands-gstaad/48502/#.UfFkgay0SjM

 

[tented]

Confidence is huge in sports. When doubt creeps in, anything can happen. I think Roger has the game, he just does not trust it at this moment, for god knows what reasons.

A new racquet. It's still Roger Federer.

I've decided not to get worked up over these loses for now. If this is still happening in Canada, Cincinnati, and New York, then I'll get more worried.

 

[ftan]

On tennis.com people are saying a Swiss local newspaper reported he nearly pulled out because of his back and they're saying here he was citing back pains that were limiting his movement. Playing extra tournaments isn't going to help but he took 2 months off at the start of the year and still has it taped so that's really not good news at all for the future Remember in Indian Wells he didn't even run many balls down and that was when he decided to take a large amount of time off. Still letting balls go by now and movement looks slow and rigid. I remember Agassi getting cortisone injections late in his career. Back problems ended it for him. Worrying times as back pain just doesn't fade away.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/slumping-federer-loses-brands-gstaad/48502/#.UfFkgay0SjM

Well that's not really a good news, if it's the back, then he cannot just turn it around .
He is generally so god with managing his injuries and schedule.. wonder what happened here.. was it due to his new stick.. that he wanted to play matches instead of giving his back some rest

 

[Front242]

On tennis.com people are saying a Swiss local newspaper reported he nearly pulled out because of his back and they're saying here he was citing back pains that were limiting his movement. Playing extra tournaments isn't going to help but he took 2 months off at the start of the year and still has it taped so that's really not good news at all for the future Remember in Indian Wells he didn't even run many balls down and that was when he decided to take a large amount of time off. Still letting balls go by now and movement looks slow and rigid. I remember Agassi getting cortisone injections late in his career. Back problems ended it for him. Worrying times as back pain just doesn't fade away.

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2013/07/slumping-federer-loses-brands-gstaad/48502/#.UfFkgay0SjM

Well that's not really a good news, if it's the back, then he cannot just turn it around .
He is generally so god with managing his injuries and schedule.. wonder what happened here.. was it due to his new stick.. that he wanted to play matches instead of giving his back some rest

Quite possibly I'd say. Test it out and hope that he feels better before the hardcourt season kicks off. Apparently he's still unsure if he'll use the new racquet yet for hardcourt season. Find out soon enough I guess but regardless of racquet used something's just not right.

 

[lindseywagners]

Lindsey, I agree with you that it is largely psychological (although completely disagree with your ontological assumptions about the nature of reality and human beings, that we're only "ego-driven machines" - but that's a different conversation).

The way I look at it is that let's say a player's physical peak is age 22-26, at which time they're at 100% of their physical ability. Around the age of 27, that number starts slowly declining due to physical deterioration, even if imperceptibly at first. Roger might have lost 1 point each year starting at age 27 (2008). So we might have something like this:

Age 26 (2007): 100
Age 27 (2008): 99
Age 28 (2009): 98
Age 29 (2010): 97
Age 30 (2011): 95
Age 31 (2012): 94
Age 32 (2013): 93

Different players decline at different rates, but that's the general trajectory. A 32 year old might only about 7% worse physically than he was at 26, but in professional tennis that's huge and makes the difference between a Grand Slam champion and retirement (for most). Even 3% is big.

Now psychology can fill the gap (or make it worse). The above is only physical ability, but how a player actually performs relative to that number depends upon their mental state. In 2012, even though Roger was at 94% (so to speak), he was able to fill much of the gap with a strong mental approach, so was probably more like 98%. This year, not only has he dropped a bit more physically, but he hasn't had the winning mentality.

I actually think the rate of physical decline increases at age 32, which is why most players retire or simply don't come close to their former greatness from 32 on, and why you see so many "last hurrahs" at age 31. Or it may simply be that 32 is the tipping point.

(Of course this is all just an abstraction and the reality is quite different, but I'm using this more as a descriptive analogy rather than a definitive model).

If I were Roger, I'd be on the phone with Andre Agassi and asking him: "What was your secret? How did you maintain a high level of play after that tipping point for a few more years?" Because, quite frankly, no one else has managed to do it--at least none of the greats--since Ken Rosewall, 40 years ago.

I like this interpretation using the percentages. Quantifies things nicely.

Though like Front242 said, Agassi was in a different situation. I actually believe it useless to try to find other people's "secrets" and apply them directly to ourselves because we're all coming from a different angle (with regard to our DNA and experiences) and so the "secrets" will apply to us differently and give us a different result. I do think it useful, however, to try varying approaches of these "secrets" at varying degrees to try to create our own method. But if I'm being honest, I don't think there's a thing Agassi or anyone else could say to Federer point blank that would really change much.

 

[djmm]

barely past the hour mark. ouch. will he give back the cow now?

Thanks for the laugh!!

My poor Roger

---

Is Mirka pregnant again??

:huh:

 

[sid]

Roger's got done again,what's going on wow.

 

[El Dude]

I like this interpretation using the percentages. Quantifies things nicely.

Though like Front242 said, Agassi was in a different situation. I actually believe it useless to try to find other people's "secrets" and apply them directly to ourselves because we're all coming from a different angle (with regard to our DNA and experiences) and so the "secrets" will apply to us differently and give us a different result. I do think it useful, however, to try varying approaches of these "secrets" at varying degrees to try to create our own method. But if I'm being honest, I don't think there's a thing Agassi or anyone else could say to Federer point blank that would really change much.

I agree with you, but even though everyone is different, you can learn a lot about yourself through inference. In other words, if you tell me what your "secret" is for success and I understand the relationship between you and that "secret," I can then hope to extrapolate from myself what the corresponding "secret" would be to get to where I want to go. In other words, its a matter of being able to translate underlying (dare I say, universal?) principles to the particular.

In the case of Agassi (or Haas) and Federer, obviously Roger can't un-play some of the matches earlier in his career. The question would be, how to preserve his body and physical abilities as long as possible? He tried the approach this year of a reduced schedule and it was disastrous. Will he play more next year?

Another angle on this is why is there a tipping point at age 32? Its really quite remarkable how common it is for a player to play his best tennis between age 22-26, drop a half-step at 27-30, have a last hurrah at 31, and then sharply decline or retire at 32; if you add in a +/- a year, you cover the vast majority of tennis players.

Interestingly enough, age 32-33 is when a lot of baseball players start declining quickly, although due to the less athletic nature of the game it is easier for them to hold the necessary skills for longer.

I'm curious what sort of therapies and exercises Roger uses. I assume he gets massage therapy but does he do yoga or tai chi? Both are excellent for back issues. What's his diet like? Etc. It may be that many small factors can add up to an extended career.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

alright, there might be a translation coming up later, but as for now: apparently, Fed said that the back pain that we saw at IW is back, and that he's not sure whether he'll be playing Montreal (i'm guessing he won't, as this probably never was his favorite anyway).

he said that it started in Hamburg, had gotten better since then, but that he only decided to play today at the last minute, after the warmup. (he also says that it was not a factor in RG or Wimby - i guess he's afraid that Berdych would be mad at him again if he dared mention ailments in regards to a grand slam loss ).

 

[lindseywagners]

I like this interpretation using the percentages. Quantifies things nicely.

Though like Front242 said, Agassi was in a different situation. I actually believe it useless to try to find other people's "secrets" and apply them directly to ourselves because we're all coming from a different angle (with regard to our DNA and experiences) and so the "secrets" will apply to us differently and give us a different result. I do think it useful, however, to try varying approaches of these "secrets" at varying degrees to try to create our own method. But if I'm being honest, I don't think there's a thing Agassi or anyone else could say to Federer point blank that would really change much.

I agree with you, but even though everyone is different, you can learn a lot about yourself through inference. In other words, if you tell me what your "secret" is for success and I understand the relationship between you and that "secret," I can then hope to extrapolate from myself what the corresponding "secret" would be to get to where I want to go. In other words, its a matter of being able to translate underlying (dare I say, universal?) principles to the particular.

In the case of Agassi (or Haas) and Federer, obviously Roger can't un-play some of the matches earlier in his career. The question would be, how to preserve his body and physical abilities as long as possible? He tried the approach this year of a reduced schedule and it was disastrous. Will he play more next year?

Another angle on this is why is there a tipping point at age 32? Its really quite remarkable how common it is for a player to play his best tennis between age 22-26, drop a half-step at 27-30, have a last hurrah at 31, and then sharply decline or retire at 32; if you add in a +/- a year, you cover the vast majority of tennis players.

Interestingly enough, age 32-33 is when a lot of baseball players start declining quickly, although due to the less athletic nature of the game it is easier for them to hold the necessary skills for longer.

I'm curious what sort of therapies and exercises Roger uses. I assume he gets massage therapy but does he do yoga or tai chi? Both are excellent for back issues. What's his diet like? Etc. It may be that many small factors can add up to an extended career.

I'm also curious as to his routine. The most I've seen were some crunches on a yoga mat in a gym on his Facebook page and a video on YouTube from when he was younger, along with a pre-match stretch every now and then.

I'm torn though overall: "an extended career." Either way, we're eventually left here trying to scheme up ways to prolong the inevitable. I mean, we were lucky last year with what he pulled off. But that wasn't enough - we're not satisfied - and now we want more-more-more. That's why I think we're just ego machines. We're completely insatiable--and so is Roger sitting there with 17 GSs.

 

[tented]

In case you missed it, johnsteinbeck translated an interesting article from a Swiss newspaper concerning Federer's loss, and his back:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/moxies-translations/two-spoilers-from-nzz-ch/

And here's the thread to discuss it:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=628

 

[ClayDeath]

he said he was "not consistent enough". that and the back issue are hampering him.

I think he has some time to fix this.

u.s. open is 31 days away.

and I have a feeling that he will be ok after a few days of rest. so we will probably see him in montreal.