Roger's Five Set Matches

[GameSetAndMath]

It is well known that Roger's 5 set record is not very good. He currently has a record
of 22-19 in matches that goes to distance. He currently ranks at 155 in this category
among all players. In contrast, Rafa ranks 9th in this category with a record of 16-5,
Andy Murray is at position 12 with a record of 17-6 and Novak Djokovic is at postion
15 with a record of 22-8. Here is the complete rankings in this category. In view of
his recent loss to Novak, I decided to compile a complete list of his 5 set matches
that I am giving below.

I have not analyzed it yet completely yet. However, even in his peak years
(2004-7), his record is just 4-3 and so certainly the problem is not caused by
old age. The problem seems to be something more fundamental in his psyche.
In 2011-14, his record is 5-5 which is not too far away from his record when
he was at peak. The only point that we can make is perhaps that the frequency
of his five set matches has increased as he ages. Folks can peer into the data
and come up with their own conclusions and post those that you want to share
with the rest. Also, you can use this thread to reminisce
about particular 5 set matches that he "should have won" etc.

It is interesting that both his first loss and last loss are at Wimbledon and
both are to Novak . Now, on to pure data. The wins are highlighted.

1. 1999 Wimbledon R128: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (6-3, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2. 1999 Davis Cup QF: Christophe Van Garsse def. Roger Federer (7-6, 3-6, 1-6, 7-5, 6-1)
3. 2000 French Open R32: Roger Federer def. Michel Kratochvil (7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-7, 8-6)
4. 2000 Davis Cup: Roger Federer def. Vladimir Voltchkov (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 5-7, 6-2)
5. 2000 US Open R128: Roger Federer def. Peter Wessels (4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 3-4 ret.)
6. 2000 Basel F: Thomas Enqvist def. Roger Federer (6-2, 4-6, 7-6, 1-6, 6-1)
7. 2001 French Open R64: Roger Federer def. Sargis Sargsian (4-6, 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 9-7)
8. 2001 Wimbledon R64: Roger Federer def. Xavier Malisse (6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 4-6, 6-3)
9. 2001 Wimbledon R16: Roger Federer def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5)
10. 2002 Australian Open R16: Tommy Haas def. Roger Federer (7-6, 4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 8-6)
11. 2003 Australian Open R16: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 1-6, 6-3)
12. 2003 Gstaad F: Jiri Novak def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-3, 6-3, 1-6, 6-3)
13. 2003 Davis Cup SF: Lleyton Hewitt def. Roger Federer (5-7, 2-6, 7-6, 7-5, 6-1)
14. 2004 US Open QF: Roger Federer def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 2-6, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3)
15. 2005 Australian Open SF: Marat Safin def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 9-7)
16. 2005 Miami F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1)
17. 2005 Masters Cup F: David Nalbandian def. Roger Federer (6-7, 6-7, 6-2, 6-1, 7-6)
18. 2006 Australian Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-4, 6-0, 3-6, 4-6, 6-2)
19. 2006 Rome F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 2-6, 7-6)
20. 2007 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-2)
21. 2008 Australian Open R32: Roger Federer def. Janko Tipsarevic (6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 6-1, 10-8 )
22. 2008 Wimbledon F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (6-4, 6-4, 6-7, 6-7, 9-7)
23. 2008 US Open R16: Roger Federer def. Igor Andreev (6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 3-6, 6-3)
24. 2009 Australian Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
25. 2009 Australian Open F: Rafael Nadal def. Roger Federer (7-5, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-2)
26. 2009 French Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-7, 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
27. 2009 French Open SF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 7-6, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4)
28. 2009 Wimbledon F: Roger Federer def. Andy Roddick (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 16-14)
29. 2009 US Open F: Juan Martin del Potro def. Roger Federer (3-6, 7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-2)
30. 2010 Wimbledon R128: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0)
31. 2010 US Open SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (5-7, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 7-5)
32. 2011 Australian Open R64: Roger Federer def. Gilles Simon (6-2, 6-3, 4-6, 4-6, 6-3)
33. 2011 Wimbledon QF: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga def. Roger Federer (3-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
34. 2011 US Open SF: Novak Djokovic def. Roger Federer (6-7, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2, 7-5)
35. 2012 French Open QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3)
36. 2013 Wimbledon R32: Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau (4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-1)
37. 2013 Australian Open QF: Roger Federer def. J. Tsonga (7-6, 4-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3)
38. 2013 Australian Open SF: Andy Murray def. Roger Federer (4-6, 7-6, 3-6, 7-6, 2-6)
39. 2013 French Open R16: Roger Federer def. Gilles Simon (6-1, 4-6, 2-6, 6-2, 6-4)
40. 2014 French Open R16: Ernests Gulbis def. Roger Federer (7-6, 6-7, 2-6, 6-4, 3-6)
41. 2014 Wimbledon F: Novak Djokovic def. Rofer Federer (7-6, 4-6, 6-7, 7-5, 4-6)

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A 5-set match is not the only pressure situation in tennis.

Rankings of players in some other pressure situations such as
Performance in Tie-Breakers , Performance against Top 10 players
Performance in Deciding Sets and Performance in Finals are also available.
In these categories, Roger does not seem to be all that bad. In fact, in tie
breakers he is #1 among all players. Against top 10 players, Roger is #4 among
all players. In performance in deciding sets and finals, while his ranking is
respectable (33 and 15 respectively), he still lags behind other members of big four.

So, we cannot simply say Roger cannot handle pressure.

 

[Riotbeard]

I might have tunnel vision, but the only pattern I see, is that novak is undefeated against roger when it goes to 5

 

[Front242]

My main conclusion is he was never a player who won by fitness and fatigue often sealed the deal in 5th sets. His aggressive game style is more suited obviously enough to winning quickly, a lot quicker most of the time than some of his grinding compatriots. So when he finds himself taken the distance it comes down to serve keeping him in it, short points etc. Both himself and Roddick were trading aces non stop in that 2009 Wimbledon final and even this recent Wimbledon final, his serve kept him in the match and ultimately let him down when he started to fatigue in the end. Against a fitter opponent in that 2009 Wimbledon final he'd likely have lost that too.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I might have tunnel vision, but the only pattern I see, is that novak is undefeated against roger when it goes to 5

Yes, Novak is 5-0 against Roger (including Jiri Novak) .

 

[GameSetAndMath]

My main conclusion is he was never a player who won by fitness and fatigue often sealed the deal in 5th sets. His aggressive game style is more suited obviously enough to winning quickly, a lot quicker most of the time than some of his grinding compatriots. So when he finds himself taken the distance it comes down to serve keeping him in it, short points etc. Both himself and Roddick were trading aces non stop in that 2009 Wimbledon final and even this recent Wimbledon final, his serve kept him in the match and ultimately let him down when he started to fatigue in the end. Against a fitter opponent in that 2009 Wimbledon final he'd likely have lost that too.

That is probably true. However, to verify that we need statistics on how much percentage
of the 5-set matches that Roger played actually went to distance and the same parameter
for other players. I too suspect that this percentage must be very low for Roger in
comparison to other players.

Even assuming that is true, that does not answer the question of why his performance
in matches that go to distance is strikingly poor in comparison to other players.

 

[Front242]

My main conclusion is he was never a player who won by fitness and fatigue often sealed the deal in 5th sets. His aggressive game style is more suited obviously enough to winning quickly, a lot quicker most of the time than some of his grinding compatriots. So when he finds himself taken the distance it comes down to serve keeping him in it, short points etc. Both himself and Roddick were trading aces non stop in that 2009 Wimbledon final and even this recent Wimbledon final, his serve kept him in the match and ultimately let him down when he started to fatigue in the end. Against a fitter opponent in that 2009 Wimbledon final he'd likely have lost that too.

That is probably true. However, to verify that we need statistics on how much percentage
of the 5-set matches that Roger played actually went to distance and the same parameter
for other players. I too suspect that this percentage must be very low for Roger in
comparison to other players.

Even assuming that is true, that does not answer the question of why his performance
in matches that go to distance is strikingly poor in comparison to other players.

I just don't think he's ever been as fit as some of the other top guys. His game is more designed to waste opponents quickly and if it works great, but if it goes to 5 sets there's statistically backed proof he has a high chance of losing. Just look at the opening rounds though in most slams and his matches are often half the length or at the very least a whole hour shorter than many of the other top guys so he's not used to matches dragging on and on and if they do I guess it comes down to things like serve keeping him in it and potentially winning it as was the case against Roddick in Wimbledon 2009. Roddick was physically wrecked at the end of that and though they were naturally both tired, Roddick's serve let him down in the end. That match was a serve fest towards the end. Federer hit 50 aces in that so it wasn't as taxing a match as the huge scoreline would imply. But against a guy like Nadal, Djokovic or Murray I'd imagine if it went that far Federer would've lost because they make him run more than he usually does.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There are so many "mental midgets" ahead of Roger in this category that you know right off the bat, it has got nothing to do with mental power. Roger is pretty strong up there .

My only explanation about his record in 5 setters is that if he has not sent you packing in 3 or 4 sets, that means he is not playing up to his level and at that point anything can happen.

 

[Front242]

^ That 2nd paragraph just about sums it up alright, shank you very much

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I might have tunnel vision, but the only pattern I see, is that novak is undefeated against roger when it goes to 5

Come to think of it, all three of them are matches that Roger "should have won". :lolz:

 

[Kieran]

My only explanation about his record in 5 setters is that if he has not sent you packing in 3 or 4 sets, that means he is not playing up to his level and at that point anything can happen.

But that's true about most great players, right?

I think fifth sets are about many things, and physical endurance is only one of them. There's mental willpower, composure, clutch play, confidence. There can be no disputing Roger's mental toughness, but there are many forms of mental toughness too, and I think that when it gets to tight matches like this, Roger prefers if they're gone already. He doesn't like when players cling to him. In that sense, I think his fifth set woes are a matter of mental prowess working against him, instead of for him...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ I guess so , Kieran, but when you see guys like Rusedski and Tipsarevic have better TB records than Roger, trying to find an explanation seems useless...so I stick to "he was having an off day" scenario.

 

[Front242]

^ I guess so , Kieran, but when you see guys like Rusedski and Tipsarevic have better TB records than Roger, trying to find an explanation seems useless...so I stick to "he was having an off day" scenario.

Plus Rusedski was on Nandrolone

 

[GameSetAndMath]

A Tie-Breaker is a situation where the set could be won by either one of the guys.
In that Roger is at the top.

A 5th set is a situation where the match could be won by either one of the guys.
In that Roger is almost at the bottom.

What a contrast?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

A Tie-Breaker is a situation where the set could be won by either one of the guys.
In that Roger is at the top.

A 5th set is a situation where the match could be won by either one of the guys.
In that Roger is almost at the bottom.

What a contrast?

That's the thing...In a TB , every point is a break point. Roger seems to be handling those moments pretty well...

 

[Front242]

It's clearly fitness related.

 

[Kieran]

It's clearly fitness related.

How is it "clearly fitness related?" :laydownlaughing

You ever see Roger gassed? Ever see him cramp? Ever bent over double from exhaustion?

The chap is a superfit athlete. Stamina and fitness have never been an issue. He's the ultimate pro...

 

[Front242]

It's clearly fitness related.

How is it "clearly fitness related?" :laydownlaughing

You ever see Roger gassed? Ever see him cramp? Ever bent over double from exhaustion?

The chap is a superfit athlete. Stamina and fitness have never been an issue. He's the ultimate pro...

You see him not running after balls and shanking and missing serves. Watch the last game of the recent Wimbledon final.

 

[Front242]

Btw, Roger himself admitted to pretty much tanking 2 sets (sets 2 and 4) at the US Open 2010 to conserve energy for the 5th so clearly fitness has been issue for him. If he was the ultimate pro and physical specimen you claim he is, he wouldn't have done that but he obviously needed to and that was 4 years ago. If he gets to a 5th set now his chances obviously go way down. I was impressed he didn't lose set 5 against Novak at Wimbledon 6-1 or 6-2 to be honest. He had nothing left at the AO '13 against Murray in the 5th set either and it wasn't like Murray's level went way up either, Roger was just wrecked at that stage. Winners were flying past him from everywhere 'cos he couldn't rally anymore.

 

[Haelfix]

My only explanation about his record in 5 setters is that if he has not sent you packing in 3 or 4 sets, that means he is not playing up to his level and at that point anything can happen.

That's part of it.

Its hard to find many examples of 5 setters that Roger has played, where he wasn't simply outplayed the entire match. In almost all of his losses, the better player won the day. You could argue that it took a lot of mental strength to even keep things close!!! Perhaps the only two that I can think off were Rome 06 and the AO 09, both were to Rafa and both were close calls.

There was a stat a few years ago that of all the players in the top 10, Roger is the one who tends to hvae the smallest margin of point differentials in his defeats.

Here's how I think of it.

Imagine two players are exactly equivalent and play 100 matches. Their win/loss ratio is going to be about 50-50 to within the error margin, and you will see roughly a Gaussian curve on how well they play per match. Rarely a player will lose badly, but rarely will he win by a large margin. Still sometimes he plays out of his mind, and sometimes he plays way below his avg level.

Now imagine simply shifting over one of those players curves by making them significantly better. What you will see is that he will still lose (rarely) but when he does lose, it will always be close. You won't see blowouts. Conversely, you will see that player blow out the adversary much more frequently.

Now. The difference is that in the first scenario, the player has roughly a 50-50 distrubution of winning a game in the fifth set, whereas in the second scenario the player might be *BELOW* that chance, simply b/c if he is going to lose, its going to be a loss by a small margin (say a fifth set loss, or one by 3 tiebreaks etc).

The wrong conclusion to draw is that the second player is better or worse in the fifth set than the first player. Rather, its that he is facing a selection bias (indeed, almost all of Roger's great losses, have been b/c the adversary was having a historic performance in one sense or the other)