Roger Federer : Can You Predict His Future

[Murat Baslamisli]

Clay, nobody wins a slam by luck, period. Plus way more slams have been won by single handed backhands than double. Don't forget Jmac, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, etc...It is not about how many hands you have on the racket, it is about how you use them. Guys like Gasquet, Stan or Haas, they are not NOT winning slams because they have single handed backhands. They have other flaws...single hander is not one of them.

 

[DarthFed]

Nole was sick that match? First I heard of it. And no version we've seen of Murray was beating Roger the way he played the last 2.5 sets of the Wimbledon final. Roger's 1HBH was only a liability vs. the greatest topspin we've ever seen. Aside from that it was excellent in his prime. Nowadays it is usually pedestrian, no doubt about that.

 

[ClayDeath]

nole had played too hard and spent much mental and physical capital prior to Wimbledon.

he played two 5 sets matches at RG for instance: one against seppi and one against Tsonga.

nole worked quite hard to chase his RG dream which did not pan out.

they said he had a cold and that he had been a little ill in that match against roger. but that is not really the reason why he lost.

roger played to win and it all worked out.


roger did not really have to deal with nadal and nole at their best as both of them are in their primes so to speak.

he got no nadal and a weaker version of nole.

nole may have been more mentally spent than physically spent. just guessing here.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^just guessing :huh:..you are making everything up..or just making excuses..

why even mention nadal when he got his arse kicked out of town by rosol before the grass had a chance to say hello to him.

you cant cope with Federer winning a major..that is your problem

SO MOTE IT BE.

 

[brokenshoelace]

^^just guessing :huh:..you are making everything up..or just making excuses..

Pretty much.

 

[jhar26]

I think that at this point his problem is mostly mental. I've seen all of his matches at the USO and he still can play some very good ball. In his first three matches he almost looked like the Federer of old. But the first time he played someone who managed to stay with him he panicked and choked like I have never seen from him before. So I think a lot will depend on what goes on between his ears. If he can get his confidence back I think he'll be fine for another year or two. He won't perhaps join Nadal, Djokovic and Murray again as part of a big four, but a place just below them with the likes of a Ferrer and del Potro is still possible for him I think. Roger has been God for a long time. He should just relax and realize that playing from the position of the underdog has it's advantages.

 

[El Dude]

I think that at this point his problem is mostly mental. I've seen all of his matches at the USO and he still can play some very good ball. In his first three matches he almost looked like the Federer of old. But the first time he played someone who managed to stay with him he panicked and choked like I have never seen from him before. So I think a lot will depend on what goes on between his ears. If he can get his confidence back I think he'll be fine for another year or two. He won't perhaps join Nadal, Djokovic and Murray again as part of a big four, but a place just below them with the likes of a Ferrer and del Potro is still possible for him I think. Roger has been God for a long time. He should just relax and realize that playing from the position of the underdog has it's advantages.

This is well put. If he does get some of his mojo back to remain in the top 4-8ish, the difference between him and Ferrer is that I could see Federer pulling an upset against one of the Big Three, or at least Novak and Andy, while Ferrer will never win a Grand Slam. Del Potro? Maybe, but he's looking more like a One Slam Wonder.

 

[jhar26]

I think that at this point his problem is mostly mental. I've seen all of his matches at the USO and he still can play some very good ball. In his first three matches he almost looked like the Federer of old. But the first time he played someone who managed to stay with him he panicked and choked like I have never seen from him before. So I think a lot will depend on what goes on between his ears. If he can get his confidence back I think he'll be fine for another year or two. He won't perhaps join Nadal, Djokovic and Murray again as part of a big four, but a place just below them with the likes of a Ferrer and del Potro is still possible for him I think. Roger has been God for a long time. He should just relax and realize that playing from the position of the underdog has it's advantages.

This is well put. If he does get some of his mojo back to remain in the top 4-8ish, the difference between him and Ferrer is that I could see Federer pulling an upset against one of the Big Three, or at least Novak and Andy, while Ferrer will never win a Grand Slam. Del Potro? Maybe, but he's looking more like a One Slam Wonder.

When I mention Ferrer and del Potro I mean it from a ranking perspective. I agree that a Fed who's confident still has a better chance at the majors or masters 1000 events than Ferrer, del Potro, Berdych or Tsonga. He needs a bit of luck and needs to be on at exactly the right time though. The odds of that happening are less likely than they have ever been, but they are still not impossible odds imo. But I do think that he will have to straighten himself out and get back on the right track pretty quickly now. If not I think he will go from bad to worse.

 

[ClayDeath]

Clay, nobody wins a slam by luck, period. Plus way more slams have been won by single handed backhands than double. Don't forget Jmac, Edberg, Lendl, Becker, etc...It is not about how many hands you have on the racket, it is about how you use them. Guys like Gasquet, Stan or Haas, they are not NOT winning slams because they have single handed backhands. They have other flaws...single hander is not one of them.

that was the game of the past.


name one player other than roger Federer in the past decade that has a slam to his name who also has a single hander.

and while you are at it, also name all the players who have won masters titles in the last 10 years while also having a single hander.

one weakness is all you need in this sport and somebody good enough can exploit it to death.


also the name of the game today is power and more power. you have little or no control with the single hander. far too many variables and it invariably crumbles under intense pressure. even under roger it crumbles. you simply cannot control near 100 MPH drives with it. and you sure as hell cant return 120-135 MPH serves with it well enough. and your arm gets worn down in a 4-5 hour match.


roger can and most likely will score a win or 2 over a top player on quicker surfaces but only in a best of 3 sets foremat.

roger was the last of his kind. his serve was massive and he controlled the points with it just like Sampras did. he could move it around the box and he dominated with the forehand. he was also the best net player in the game so he posed a huge threat at the net.

those days are gone now. now you cant win with a single hander.

how many players have won the masters events in the last 10 years with a single hander?

not many come to mind. robredo took hamburg once but there was nobody outstanding in the field.

even roger`s slam haul pretty much came to an end except for that last wimby title.



now days you need machine like consistency off both wings and you need some finishing power off both wings.

and if that is not enough, you need to be able to return like a demon, pass like a demon, and you need to be fairly good at the net.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Clay, if I offered Nadal Wawrinka's backhand, do you think he would take it? Would you be OK with that deal?

 

[ClayDeath]

stan`s backhand is no match for nadal`s backhand.


he did not win 13 slams that include 8 French opens with a forehand alone.

the guy serves with the wrong hand and he does not go to the net all that much.


that means only one thing: bullet proof ground game.


single hander is useless in the modern game. those who have single handers don't even win masters events, let alone slams. it is not reliable enough and it does not have consistent deadly finishing power. nadal would have chewed up destroyed stan yesterday.


roger was the last of his kind because the rest of his game was so complete. he also moved like the wind in his prime.

it is nice to be hold serve nearly 90% of the time. it can mask a weakness.

 

[DarthFed]

nole had played too hard and spent much mental and physical capital prior to Wimbledon.

he played two 5 sets matches at RG for instance: one against seppi and one against Tsonga.

nole worked quite hard to chase his RG dream which did not pan out.

they said he had a cold and that he had been a little ill in that match against roger. but that is not really the reason why he lost.

roger played to win and it all worked out.


roger did not really have to deal with nadal and nole at their best as both of them are in their primes so to speak.

he got no nadal and a weaker version of nole.

nole may have been more mentally spent than physically spent. just guessing here.

Roger didn't have to deal with Nadal and Nole in their primes? Remind me who beat Nole at a slam in 2011 and was 1 point away from winning their USO match? Roger's prime did not coincide with Rafa's or Nole's given the huge age difference if that's the point you are trying to make. One could easily mention that the first time Nadal broke through off clay against the weak Federer who was losing to damn near everyone in 2008.

 

[ClayDeath]

ferru is 32 and has no weapons. he took home 7 titles last year.

this year he was in the finals of RG.



slams become more difficult to snatch after 31 or 32 but players can keep winning smaller titles if they have the drive and if they love the sport.


we had at least 13 players age 30 or over win titles this year.

roger should set a goal of 100 titles and work to hard to make that happen.

that is assuming he absolutely loves the sport and wants to hang round a bit longer.


top rankings and slams is probably a thing of the past now.

you win what you can and keep your rankings reasonably high anyway.


roger is still plenty talented.

at least he has some weapons to work with.



chris evert has suggested that he needs to dig in and try to become a more of a grinder.

high risk tennis does not always work.

I don't think this bigger racquet is going to help. its the way he is waging war out there on the court. he has to be willing to change the style of play to some extent.

he is not patient enough. he has to be willing to craft points.

 

[ClayDeath]

nole had played too hard and spent much mental and physical capital prior to Wimbledon.

he played two 5 sets matches at RG for instance: one against seppi and one against Tsonga.

nole worked quite hard to chase his RG dream which did not pan out.

they said he had a cold and that he had been a little ill in that match against roger. but that is not really the reason why he lost.

roger played to win and it all worked out.


roger did not really have to deal with nadal and nole at their best as both of them are in their primes so to speak.

he got no nadal and a weaker version of nole.

nole may have been more mentally spent than physically spent. just guessing here.

Roger didn't have to deal with Nadal and Nole in their primes? Remind me who beat Nole at a slam in 2011 and was 1 point away from winning their USO match? Roger's prime did not coincide with Rafa's or Nole's given the huge age difference if that's the point you are trying to make. One could easily mention that the first time Nadal broke through off clay against the weak Federer who was losing to damn near everyone in 2008.

what is so hard to figure out here general darth?


he got a little bit lucky. he got himself a weak version of nole and there was no nadal to deal with.


that is how it works in all sports. everybody needs a little bit of a break and a touch of luck here and there.

this is not my opinion. this is universal truth and conventional wisdom. for example, they all benefited from injured nadal who sat out for 7 months. very simply put they did not have to deal with him.


that being said, the game is different even from a year ago. it keeps moving forward and it keeps getting harder and harder to stay at the top. so they all need a little bit of luck here and there.


nadal beat roger in his prime on grass. you see what he does to all the players. he has a winning record against all of the top 30 players.

do you really believe they want to face him?

 

[Kieran]

Roger was losing to damn near everybody in 2008? I don't think so. I know he wasn't getting the fellers he had before Rafa showed up but you have to expect a little resistance eventually...

 

[DarthFed]

Roger was losing to damn near everybody in 2008? I don't think so. I know he wasn't getting the fellers he had before Rafa showed up but you have to expect a little resistance eventually...

Last I checked he got blown out by Nole in AO, lost to Roddick, Stepanek, Fish, Blake, Simon twice, young Murray 3 times, and Karlovic. That new competition caused it all :angel:

 

[DarthFed]

nole had played too hard and spent much mental and physical capital prior to Wimbledon.

he played two 5 sets matches at RG for instance: one against seppi and one against Tsonga.

nole worked quite hard to chase his RG dream which did not pan out.

they said he had a cold and that he had been a little ill in that match against roger. but that is not really the reason why he lost.

roger played to win and it all worked out.


roger did not really have to deal with nadal and nole at their best as both of them are in their primes so to speak.

he got no nadal and a weaker version of nole.

nole may have been more mentally spent than physically spent. just guessing here.

Roger didn't have to deal with Nadal and Nole in their primes? Remind me who beat Nole at a slam in 2011 and was 1 point away from winning their USO match? Roger's prime did not coincide with Rafa's or Nole's given the huge age difference if that's the point you are trying to make. One could easily mention that the first time Nadal broke through off clay against the weak Federer who was losing to damn near everyone in 2008.

what is so hard to figure out here general darth?


he got a little bit lucky. he got himself a weak version of nole and there was no nadal to deal with.


that is how it works in all sports. everybody needs a little bit of a break and a touch of luck here and there.

this is not my opinion. this is universal truth and conventional wisdom. for example, they all benefited from injured nadal who sat out for 7 months. very simply put they did not have to deal with him.


that being said, the game is different even from a year ago. it keeps moving forward and it keeps getting harder and harder to stay at the top. so they all need a little bit of luck here and there.


nadal beat roger in his prime on grass. you see what he does to all the players. he has a winning record against all of the top 30 players.

do you really believe they want to face him?

It is not universal knowledge that Nole was winded. Nole certainly didn't play any worse in that semi than he did in the final yesterday. Undoubtedly both were weak efforts but the winner still had to go through him. Rafa was busy getting dusted by a powder puff in round 2. Hardly Roger's fault is it?

 

[britbox]

Darth, you must have noticed these young kids like Tommy Robredo coming through?

 

[Kieran]

Roger was losing to damn near everybody in 2008? I don't think so. I know he wasn't getting the fellers he had before Rafa showed up but you have to expect a little resistance eventually...

Last I checked he got blown out by Nole in AO, lost to Roddick, Stepanek, Fish, Blake, Simon twice, young Murray 3 times, and Karlovic. That new competition caused it all :angel:

Yeah, all top players. Who'd a thunk they could win a match! Shocking. But the real story in 2008 is Rafa, not Roger. I thought everyone knew that...

 

[DarthFed]

Roger was losing to damn near everybody in 2008? I don't think so. I know he wasn't getting the fellers he had before Rafa showed up but you have to expect a little resistance eventually...

Last I checked he got blown out by Nole in AO, lost to Roddick, Stepanek, Fish, Blake, Simon twice, young Murray 3 times, and Karlovic. That new competition caused it all :angel:

Yeah, all top players. Who'd a thunk they could win a match! Shocking. But the real story in 2008 is Rafa, not Roger. I thought everyone knew that...

They didn't win one before, why the change?? And I didn't know 2008 was Nadal's 1st year on tour