RF: "No Need to Panic"/ gets WC for Gstaad

[El Dude]

I think this article is worth its own thread. Man, what a class act he is.

This quote is obviously worth discussion:

“I still have plans to play for many more years to come. It's normal that after all of a sudden losing early after being in the quarters 36 times, people feel it's different,” said Federer. “You guys hyped it up so much: me playing Rafa, and we're both out. So there's a letdown clearly. Maybe it's also somewhat a bit disrespectful to the other opponents who are in the draw still. I think it sends a message to you guys as well that maybe you shouldn't do that so often next time around.”

So if we take Roger at face value, which I see no reason not to, he's far from done. It might be that he's just content not to be the top player anymore. Despite his overall poor 2013, it remains to be seen whether he's slipped from the elite into the near-elite; his results certainly point in that direction. But from what he says here he's not ready to concede the point, and even if he is--or when he is--he may be content to be a #5-10 player and have a long-shot chance at Slams rather than being a primary contender.

Anyhow, his attitude gives me hope. I was really fearing that he'd be discouraged and call it quits after Barclay. Now I think that no matter what happens for the rest of the year, Roger wants to at least give 2014 a shot, and seemingly beyond that. From that quote above and the article as a whole I think we can believe that its Roger's intention, at least, to do what he said he wanted to do: play in the 2016 Olympics. Maybe that's still his plan, even a retirement at Wimbledon 2016 or the end of the year? Chances are he won't be in the top 8 by then, so I'd expect the retirement announcement to be at Wimbledon or the US Open, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

The main point is that Roger seems intent on forging on, which makes me happy. Even if Roger is no longer a top 3 player, I'd rather have a #8 (or whatever) Roger hanging around than no Roger at all. As I said before, I think as long as he thinks he has a chance at a Slam he'll continue to play, and that for me would be roughly equivalent with a top 10-15 ranking.

 

[calitennis127]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

In a way, this loss is a beautiful thing for Federer and the game of tennis.

For one thing, it will make Federer and everyone in tennis appreciate his future marches through tournaments much more and not take for granted early round victories. It will give him rest and it may give him a completely new and fresh perspective to come back invigorated.

In the short run, when it comes to just the Wimbledon tournament, this gives Murray and Djokovic a chance to further cement their status in the game with a Wimbledon victory. It also really opens the door for Del Potro to stake his claim as a serious player at the top of the game.

There is a major bright side to this loss for both Federer and the game. The negatives are clear enough, but I think people are forgetting the beneficial results that can (and will) come as well.

 

[ftan]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

I really think, this loss will light a fire in his belly.. if it doesn't then well...
I believe we will see his resurgence again in 2014.. not much points to defend.. get back to a good rank and win a slam (fingers crossed) and then retire with a high

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

In a way, this loss is a beautiful thing for Federer and the game of tennis.

For one thing, it will make Federer and everyone in tennis appreciate his future marches through tournaments much more and not take for granted early round victories. It will give him rest and it may give him a completely new and fresh perspective to come back invigorated.

In the short run, when it comes to just the Wimbledon tournament, this gives Murray and Djokovic a chance to further cement their status in the game with a Wimbledon victory. It also really opens the door for Del Potro to stake his claim as a serious player at the top of the game.

There is a major bright side to this loss for both Federer and the game. The negatives are clear enough, but I think people are forgetting the beneficial results that can (and will) come as well.

Good post. There is no doubt big upsets have been lacking in the game and are good for tennis. Obviously I wish it didn't come at Fed's expense but it is what it is.

As for positives for Federer...that remains to be seen. We have to see how he reacts to this loss before determining if it could end up helping him or if it was a clear sign that the end is near. The 2011 USO semi was a much different scenario but I think the disappointment from that match lit the fire under Federer that led to the resurgence in 2012. Maybe this could end up being similar in a way.

The question is how many "resurgences" can Roger have left. Comparing Roger now to 2011 he is just 2 years older and it is showing. But Fed has made many of us look really stupid in the past and here's to hoping he does it again.

 

[El Dude]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

Well it seems that Fed will either go the Sampras route or the Agassi route. Sampras retired shortly after turning 31, but had declined as an elite player a couple years before then, while Agassi had a resurgence in his late 20s and remained an elite player into his mid-30s. Let's take a look at both.

Pete Sampras was born August 1971, so is exactly 10 years older than Federer, so its easy to just dial back the clock a decade and we can see Sampras at the same age. Sampras was retired - his last Slam, which he won, was the US Open in 2002. Pete lost the #1 ranking in 1999, his age 28 season, but managed to win three more Slams, one each in 1999, 2000, and 2002. Roger, on the other hand, regained the #1 ranking in 2009, his age 28 season, although this was at least partially due to Rafael Nadal's struggles. Like Sampras, Roger lost his crown as the clear top player in the game the year before in 2008, when he lost Wimbledon to Rafa and the #1 ranking. While Sampras finished 1998 #1, he had obviously slipped a half-step, which is very common for players in their age 27 season (Rafa's 2013, by the way).

So with Sampras we see:
1990-92 (age 19-21): breakthrough to elite status
1993-97 (age 22-26): peak dominance
1998-00 (age 27-29): loss half-step, but still elite
2001-02 (age 30-31): decline and retirement

With Roger we see (so far):
2001-03 (age 20-22): rise to elite
2004-07 (age 23-26): peak dominance
2008-12 (age 27-31): loss half-step, but still elite
2013 - ? (age 32 - ?): decline

Obviously the demarcations are somewhat artificial, but that's the general pattern. The main difference between the two is that Roger has been able to maintain his "post-peak" elite status longer. What remains to be seen is whether he can revive it or whether he's in the first year of clear decline and post-elite status, like Sampras' 2001. Either way he's showing at least one year greater longevity.

In a moment I'll look at Andre Agassi.

---

Andre Agassi had a very different career than Federer (or Sampras) so is a less accurate comparison, but worth checking out. Agassi had a longer and more erratic career than Sampras; he is a year older, was on tour and a top 100 player at age 16 (1986), whereas Sampras was 17 and Federer 18 when making it to the top 100 (at least in terms of their age at the end of the year).

Agassi became an elite player by 1988 when he was 17, making it to the SF at two Slams and finishing the year #3. At the same age Sampras finished the year #97 and Federer #301. Agassi struggled throughout his youth and didn't win his first Slam until 1992 when he was 22. His early peak ended in 1996-97, when his year-end ranking dropped from #2 in 1994-95 to #8 in 1996 then #110 in 1997 when he played only one Slam. In 1998 he played all four Slams for only the third time in 13 years on tour and settled down with a new maturity, finishing #6. 1999 was his career year - he won two Slams and played in three Finals, and finished the year #1 - all at the ripe age of 29. This late second peak continued with three more Slam wins over the next four years and a top 10 ranking through 2005, his age 35 season. His last Slam win was the Australian Open of 2003, a couple months shy of turning 33. He remains the only player to have an ATP ranking of #1 after turning age 33.

Age-wise Roger Federer is where Agassi was in early 2002: a couple months shy of turning 32. In 2002-05, Agassi finished the year #2, #4, #8, and #7. It is almost a certainly that Roger won't finish this year #2; unless he does really well the rest of the year he's more likely to finish #5-6, and could finish as low as #8 or so if he really struggles. But he could also have strong last third of the year and make it back into the top four. But the key point about Agassi is that after turning 32 he finished four more years (including that year) in the top 10, won a Slam and four ATP 1000s, and made it deep into most Slams.

So what will it be for Roger? It remains to be seen, but again he's already out-lasted Sampras. Given Roger's un-grueling style of play I see no reason he couldn't stick around for another half decade or more if he really wants to - and if he's willing to be ranked in the lower half of the top 10, even slipping out eventually. I think the rest of the year will tell us a lot.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

We heard a lot of the same stuff after the Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga losses at Wimbledon in the previous years. The end of an era, the fall of the king, no more Federer etc.

Of the three, the only one that made sense to me was the Berdych loss, where he really looked a little old and didn't play up to his usual standards and might have been a little injured. The Rafa and Tsonga losses in Wimbledon 2008 and 2011 was perhaps a tiny step down from his peak levels, but you were still looking at a guy who was more than capable of winning the whole slam outright and who's odds you liked just as much as any of the other favorites. I mean it took one of Rafa's greatest matches of all time to win (and he was basically a single point from losing) and one of the greatest serving performances of the open era to beat him.

Likewise, I really didn't think Fed looked that bad in the loss. His game didn't look that much different than his 2007 style play (where the strange passiveness replaced the more aggressive shotmaking from his earlier years). Yes maybe a tiny half step slow on the running forehand, and a little less punch on the groundstrokes, but overall you wouldn't be able to notice much of a difference except on a few key points. In fact, I think it was more than good enough to compete for the slam final and good enough to at least challenge the top four.

Ok, the rest of the year has been mostly bad. I do think the narrative is qualitatively different on slow hards and especially clay (where I think his chances are realistically quite low), but I find it hard to buy that this is necessarily it for him

 

[Asmodeus]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

We heard a lot of the same stuff after the Nadal, Berdych and Tsonga losses at Wimbledon in the previous years. The end of an era, the fall of the king, no more Federer etc.

Of the three, the only one that made sense to me was the Berdych loss, where he really looked a little old and didn't play up to his usual standards and might have been a little injured. The Rafa and Tsonga losses in Wimbledon 2008 and 2011 was perhaps a tiny step down from his peak levels, but you were still looking at a guy who was more than capable of winning the whole slam outright and who's odds you liked just as much as any of the other favorites. I mean it took one of Rafa's greatest matches of all time to win (and he was basically a single point from losing) and one of the greatest serving performances of the open era to beat him.

Likewise, I really didn't think Fed looked that bad in the loss. His game didn't look that much different than his 2007 style play (where the strange passiveness replaced the more aggressive shotmaking from his earlier years). Yes maybe a tiny half step slow on the running forehand, and a little less punch on the groundstrokes, but overall you wouldn't be able to notice much of a difference except on a few key points. In fact, I think it was more than good enough to compete for the slam final and good enough to at least challenge the top four.

Ok, the rest of the year has been mostly bad. I do think the narrative is qualitatively different on slow hards and especially clay (where I think his chances are realistically quite low), but I find it hard to buy that this is necessarily it for him

I think this observation is essentially correct. I think one of the problems for Federer as he's aged is his reluctance to change his approach on ROS. He is pretty dismal in this area. Though, credit to the Shark for serving really great. I did like how he constantly attacked Federer's weak ROS block-backs by volleying these weak shots. That was a great strategy and one Federer seemed at a loss to adjust. Even with that point, Federer still kept the match close.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

I did like how he constantly attacked Federer's weak ROS block-backs by volleying these weak shots. That was a great strategy and one Federer seemed at a loss to adjust. Even with that point, Federer still kept the match close.

It's worth going back and watching prime Federer play some of the great Serve and Volleyers like Henman and others. It was very small adjustments in the ROS that made the difference. Accuracy more than anything else. Those block backs and annoyingly low slices became a real PITA for them, b/c they almost always guaranteed that Roger would have one good crack at a passing shot (and he used to hit them so well).

The difference then and now. Again its very small, but i'd say Roger used to be able to hit targets on the ROS where as for the past few years he hasn't had too, and could rely on just getting it back in the middle of the court.

 

[Mog]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

In a way, this loss is a beautiful thing for Federer and the game of tennis.

For one thing, it will make Federer and everyone in tennis appreciate his future marches through tournaments much more and not take for granted early round victories. It will give him rest and it may give him a completely new and fresh perspective to come back invigorated.



There is a major bright side to this loss for both Federer and the game.

Very well said Cali.
I wish he did not lose this match and this early. But all credits tto Stak for his great performance, it was a hard fought match.

I think Roger will continue playing tennis for two more years and not more. I will be happy if he wins one more slam/ if not two. He has done everything and created his position in tennis history and has nothing to prove. I am used to see him not winning everything and taking his losses in a right way.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

I did like how he constantly attacked Federer's weak ROS block-backs by volleying these weak shots. That was a great strategy and one Federer seemed at a loss to adjust. Even with that point, Federer still kept the match close.

It's worth going back and watching prime Federer play some of the great Serve and Volleyers like Henman and others. It was very small adjustments in the ROS that made the difference. Accuracy more than anything else. Those block backs and annoyingly low slices became a real PITA for them, b/c they almost always guaranteed that Roger would have one good crack at a passing shot (and he used to hit them so well).

The difference then and now. Again its very small, but i'd say Roger used to be able to hit targets on the ROS where as for the past few years he hasn't had too, and could rely on just getting it back in the middle of the court.

The ROS is the main weakness in Roger's game right now and it is naturally most noticeable on grass. You mentioned one of the differences. The other thing to note is the amount of serves Roger used to get back in play was ridiculous. On a surface that is so hard to break serve, that was one of the big reasons Roger used to be so dominant on grass (he wasn't giving up many free points).

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

So Melzer decided to trash Roger a bit today after the match. I think there is still bitterness after Melzer's lone win vs. Federer at Monte Carlo in 2010. Roger said something to the effect that he got no luck with let cords and stuff like that and Melzer was not happy.

Melzer on playing Stakhovsky: "Go out there & show him that I'm not Roger Federer & I can return his serve & make him play tough volleys."

Stakhovsky on Melzer "He was returning much better today than Roger."

The sad thing is its true at this point. Roger is still one of the top players but that's in spite of having many players below him who can return serve better. Stak won 51% of 2nd serve points today vs. 64% against Fed, probably the main difference between the matches. Hopefully comments like Melzer's will light a fire under Fed and I do look forward to them playing soon

 

[ftan]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

So Melzer decided to trash Roger a bit today after the match. I think there is still bitterness after Melzer's lone win vs. Federer at Monte Carlo in 2010. Roger said something to the effect that he got no luck with let cords and stuff like that and Melzer was not happy.

Melzer on playing Stakhovsky: "Go out there & show him that I'm not Roger Federer & I can return his serve & make him play tough volleys."

Stakhovsky on Melzer "He was returning much better today than Roger."

The sad thing is its true at this point. Roger is still one of the top players but that's in spite of having many players below him who can return serve better. Stak won 51% of 2nd serve points today vs. 64% against Fed, probably the main difference between the matches. Hopefully comments like Melzer's will light a fire under Fed and I do look forward to them playing soon

Provided he reads it But I do have to say apart from return of serve Roger's forehand let him down at most important points in the match, he was missing easy ones...wonder if he was missing his orange shoes uzzled

 

[tented]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

wonder if he was missing his orange shoes uzzled

One of the post-match questions was whether or not the change of shoes played a role. He quickly dismissed it.

 

[Front242]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

Don't suppose anyone knows any site that has a link to the full Fed match yet? Got home late from work expecting a straight sets Federer result and boy was I surprised to set Fed down 2 sets to 1 on tennis.com's main page livescore update and sadly I tuned in at a bad time right for match point. Gotta say though I was in absolute awe at Stakhovsky's post match stats. Ridiculously good. 61/96 points won at the net. Normally I don't watch matches after I know the scores but in this case and indeed Nadal v Darcis also I'd love to watch both.

Last 2 nights I went to bed early, watched a movie with my wife and went to sleep so I didn't post at all here so let me say to all Nadal fans I feel your pain and you feel mine. We both hoped/expected our favourite players to do much better than this but if it's any consolation the opponents both played absolutely superb and thoroughly deserved their victories in both cases. For that reason I'd love if someone had some links to both matches although it's probably too early for them to surface.

Worst thing about the Fed loss is the ranking issues for the US Open and beyond. Nadal on the other hand has potential to gain a ton from now so it's a whole different ball game. Anyway, they're both great champions and far from done. One just won another slam and the other is having a terrible year but it happens and next year may be better. Hope it won't be worse.

 

[herios]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

Don't suppose anyone knows any site that has a link to the full Fed match yet? Got home late from work expecting a straight sets Federer result and boy was I surprised to set Fed down 2 sets to 1 on tennis.com's main page livescore update and sadly I tuned in at a bad time right for match point. Gotta say though I was in absolute awe at Stakhovsky's post match stats. Ridiculously good. 61/96 points won at the net. Normally I don't watch matches after I know the scores but in this case and indeed Nadal v Darcis also I'd love to watch both.

Last 2 nights I went to bed early, watched a movie with my wife and went to sleep so I didn't post at all here so let me say to all Nadal fans I feel your pain and you feel mine. We both hoped/expected our favourite players to do much better than this but if it's any consolation the opponents both played absolutely superb and thoroughly deserved their victories in both cases. For that reason I'd love if someone had some links to both matches although it's probably too early for them to surface.

Worst thing about the Fed loss is the ranking issues for the US Open and beyond. Nadal on the other hand has potential to gain a ton from now so it's a whole different ball game. Anyway, they're both great champions and far from done. One just won another slam and the other is having a terrible year but it happens and next year may be better. Hope it won't be worse.

Front, you are in Europe, right?
In the US, ABC will show his match tomorrow entirely, so will Rafa's, in case anyone wants to rewatch.

 

[Front242]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

Don't suppose anyone knows any site that has a link to the full Fed match yet? Got home late from work expecting a straight sets Federer result and boy was I surprised to set Fed down 2 sets to 1 on tennis.com's main page livescore update and sadly I tuned in at a bad time right for match point. Gotta say though I was in absolute awe at Stakhovsky's post match stats. Ridiculously good. 61/96 points won at the net. Normally I don't watch matches after I know the scores but in this case and indeed Nadal v Darcis also I'd love to watch both.

Last 2 nights I went to bed early, watched a movie with my wife and went to sleep so I didn't post at all here so let me say to all Nadal fans I feel your pain and you feel mine. We both hoped/expected our favourite players to do much better than this but if it's any consolation the opponents both played absolutely superb and thoroughly deserved their victories in both cases. For that reason I'd love if someone had some links to both matches although it's probably too early for them to surface.

Worst thing about the Fed loss is the ranking issues for the US Open and beyond. Nadal on the other hand has potential to gain a ton from now so it's a whole different ball game. Anyway, they're both great champions and far from done. One just won another slam and the other is having a terrible year but it happens and next year may be better. Hope it won't be worse.

Front, you are in Europe, right?
In the US, ABC will show his match tomorrow entirely, so will Rafa's, in case anyone wants to rewatch.

Cheers herios. In Europe, yup. I actually downloaded both of them yesterday Thanks though! Woke up and went downstairs at 4am, it's so damn hot can't sleep!

 

[jhar26]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

In and of itself this loss shouldn't be a reason for major concern. He's played matches in the past where he was struggling but just managed to scrape through. This time he came up short, but it's inevitable that that would have happened sooner or later. The worrying thing for Fed is not him losing a match at Wimbledon but the fact that leaving aside the AO and his win in Halle the whole of 2013 has been disappointing so far if we judge him by his own incredible standards. So there's a pattern there. If his loss at Wimbledon was just an isolated incident there wouldn't be a problem, but it clearly isn't. But some months ago Bodo wrote in his blog that after his incredible 2012 Roger may feel that he has nothing more to play for. The only positive that may come out of his recent struggles is that he now once again may feel that he has something to play for.

....and he shouldn't have cut his hair. It didn't work for Samson and it didn't work for Fed either.

 

[Didi]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

I don't know about you but I expect a vintage performance from Roger at the US Open. The trophy has eluded him on many unlucky occasions since 2008 and I think he's simply due a bit of luck there given what he went through the last couple of years. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him lifting the trophy. It might be a hell of a task if he's seeded 5th but as long as his entire game is clicking, he's still the best on the NYC turf. It's a big IF of course but if anyone can pull it off with laser sharp first strike tennis, it's him. Would be nice to see him finish the slam season with a big bang. Guess Cincinnati will tell us a lot more about his shape heading into NYC. The outcome of the Canada Masters won't be telling as he will very likely return rusty after a break of 6 weeks.

 

[herios]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

I don't know about you but I expect a vintage performance from Roger at the US Open. The trophy has eluded him on many unlucky occasions since 2008 and I think he's simply due a bit of luck there given what he went through the last couple of years. I wouldn't be shocked at all to see him lifting the trophy. It might be a hell of a task if he's seeded 5th but as long as his entire game is clicking, he's still the best on the NYC turf.

For starters, it is a fact that he will be outside of the top 4, for USO. Current life rankings:

3 Ferrer 7040
4 Nadal 6860
5 Federer 5785 - 450 Olympic points = 5335 in a few weeks.

Ferrer could lose maximum 100 points in Baastad, ehere he defends 250 but those could be replaced by another 150 if he doesn't make the final.
In Canada neither defend anything but Roger cannot add more than 1000 points and in Cincy he cannot gain any so Roger cannot reach Rafa, never mind Ferrer.
So, at the USO his draw will be crucial, but his form will be more important than anything. The good news is he cannot meet Berdych

 

[Didi]

RE: Federer: "No Need to Panic"

Thank you herios, much appreciated as always. You really should be awarded the title of 'rankings guru'.

The good news is he cannot meet Berdych

that's not just good news, it's MASSIVE news