Roger's stellar season (ESPN)

[Moxie]

What don't you buy? My reasoning is that if you show up to play then you think you're fit enough to play and shouldn't be able to fall back on ready made excuses. That doesn't mean you're 100% fit. Most players won't be 100% fit.

Did Nadal get injured to the point where he couldn't play during the Soderling match? No. Was he 100% fit? No, to that as well. Could he have played Wimbledon? Probably. He chose not to because he didn't think he was fit enough to have a chance of winning it and thought rest and recuperation would serve him better.

Federer was probably in a similar position at the USO this year but took a punt and played it, thinking he might improve as he tournament evolved, but in hindsight admitted that the he was going to be in trouble the first time he met a "live" opponent.

I could agree with that assessment. I actually thought you had a stricter opinion than that, so thanks for clarifying. As you rightly say: a player may enter believing s/he's fit enough, but can worsen during the course of the tournament, too.

 

[Busted]

Worth a read: "FedPorn."

One number that really strikes me is that 91.2 Win%. There's only been 22 player seasons with a winning percentage of 90% or higher in the Open Era. Fed's 2017 is #20 on that list. Andy Murray's 2016, at 89.66%, is #23.

Fed also owns four of those seasons. Here is how they break down.

5 - Lendl (1982, 1985-87, 1989)
4 - Borg (1977-80), Federer (2004-06, 2017)
3 - Connors (1974, 1976, 1978)
2 - Djokovic (2011, 2015)
1 - Laver (1969), Vilas (1977), McEnroe (1984 - highest ever at 96.47%), Nadal (2013)

Thanks. Pretty good numbers for an old guy the experts had written off...

 

[Fiero425]

Thanks. Pretty good numbers for an old guy the experts had written off...

I'd like to have written off Roger, but it appears Nole was the only person that kept him in check the last couple years beating him at Wimbledon twice, the USO in 2014, and at least once in Australia! It appears Federer's not stymied by his "owner," Nadal last season, but we'll see if he can keep it up with return of Nole, Stan, and Andy! I think that had a lot to do with his resurgence and confidence to beat Rafa the last several times they've played! :whistle:

 

[Federberg]

I'd like to have written off Roger, but it appears Nole was the only person that kept him in check the last couple years beating him at Wimbledon twice, the USO in 2014, and at least once in Australia! It appears Federer's not stymied by his "owner," Nadal last season, but we'll see if he can keep it up with return of Nole, Stan, and Andy! I think that had a lot to do with his resurgence and confidence to beat Rafa the last several times they've played! :whistle:

Stan and Andy? Bwahahaha! Good one..

 

[Fiero425]

Stan and Andy? Bwahahaha! Good one..

I know both are Roger's b!tch, but maybe they'll sneak up on the old man one of these days! :whistle:

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

It was indeed great stuff from Roger. To augment the BH, build confidence further, hit flatter and play good tennis all year long was good stuff.

 

[Front242]

To be honest, I thought his backhand was only great up to Indian Wells and Miami and after that, be it back related fitness issues or otherwise, it was just nowhere near as aggressive anymore. He rarely even went for his backhands with much power or aggression at Wimbledon either, not that it mattered.

 

[mrzz]

To be honest, I thought his backhand was only great up to Indian Wells and Miami and after that, be it back related fitness issues or otherwise, it was just nowhere near as aggressive anymore. He rarely even went for his backhands with much power or aggression at Wimbledon either, not that it mattered.

Very well observed. Maybe Shangai showed some occasional glimpses of what was there in the first three months of the year, but, yes, almost night and day difference. No one would speak of "backhand 2.0" if just the second half of the year had happened (even if it was still way more solid than in recent years).

 

[Busted]

Stan and Andy? Bwahahaha! Good one..

Awww...don't be mean to Stan. At least he's broken Roger's serve in the last 3 years. Andy Murray's vaunted as one of the game's great returners and the last time he broke Federer's serve in a tourney was Cincy in 2014. It's actually only 3 matches...but 3-going-on-4 years sounds so much worse. :lulz2:

 

[Carol]

 

[brokenshoelace]

Very well observed. Maybe Shangai showed some occasional glimpses of what was there in the first three months of the year, but, yes, almost night and day difference. No one would speak of "backhand 2.0" if just the second half of the year had happened (even if it was still way more solid than in recent years).

It is possible that the clay season layoff, while undoubtedly the right move, took away some of the sharpness.

 

[DarthFed]

I think people are overstating Fed's drop off a bit. He was still quite strong up until Montreal. After that I agree it was just some flashes of brilliance here and there like the Shanghai final and a couple others at Basel. But he did win 30 straight sets at Halle and Wimbledon (Dog retired in Wimbledon 1st round) and most of them were beatdowns. Even after Miami I thought the backhand still looked more imposing than pre-2017.

 

[mrzz]

Darth, point here is not the overall level (I agree there were some very good grass court matches), but the backhand only. The way he was attacking it in the first quarter of the year never came back at full swing.

 

[Federberg]

I think people are overstating Fed's drop off a bit. He was still quite strong up until Montreal. After that I agree it was just some flashes of brilliance here and there like the Shanghai final and a couple others at Basel. But he did win 30 straight sets at Halle and Wimbledon (Dog retired in Wimbledon 1st round) and most of them were beatdowns. Even after Miami I thought the backhand still looked more imposing than pre-2017.

I still say that Wimbledon title is the one in his career he’ll say was the biggest gift. He didn’t have to do much at all

 

[DarthFed]

I still say that Wimbledon title is the one in his career he’ll say was the biggest gift. He didn’t have to do much at all

Yeah he wasn't really tested but I still thought his level was very good. The final was a case where his opponent was so bad that it was hard for Roger to look good because he just had to put the ball in play after the first set.

As for the backhand I agree it was best up to Miami but it was still strong for most of the year aside from Montreal and New York.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah he wasn't really tested but I still thought his level was very good. The final was a case where his opponent was so bad that it was hard for Roger to look good because he just had to put the ball in play after the first set.

As for the backhand I agree it was best up to Miami but it was still strong for most of the year aside from Montreal and New York.

Roger was very fine at Wimbledon. It's not his fault that it looked like a gimme. He did beat M. Zverev, who has a very fine S/V game, and he beat Dimitrov in straights. And Cilic looked like the in-form guy to beat on grass. It's a shame that wasn't a better final.

 

[Front242]

Before Cilic started moaning about his foot he was actually looking VERY dangerous in that first set and I had a bad feeling about the result. That said, even fully fit he has the game to push anyone but almost always screws up at the tail end of sets which has been his undoing. He needs to fix that pronto.

 

[mrzz]

Still in fairness to Federer (poor, underestimated fellow), the Halle final was a very fine showing too.

 

[Federberg]

Still in fairness to Federer (poor, underestimated fellow), the Halle final was a very fine showing too.

That was the last match he played with fluid movement. He was able to execute running forehands. I’m still puzzled by his compromised footwork at Wimbledon, as I said to Darth and Front during Wimbledon he wasn’t quite the same anymore. Not many players on top form could have exploited that, Novak for one, I struggle to think of many others