Why Federer won?

[El Dude]

That may be so, Moxie. I like the "above the tree line" image - that well describes what I meant about the best of the best all being similar in terms of overall talent.

I think we're dealing with a problem of semantics. When I speak of "talent" I'm basically talking about what a player can do on the court - the depth and breadth of their skill-set. It is the physical aspect of the game. I am differentiating it from "mentality," which is the psychological aspect of the game. The two combined, talent and mentality, make a player's overall ability or performance level, thus:

(physical) talent + mentality = performance level/ability

Maybe we need to add other factors, like fitness level, which are more flexible over time and depending upon the situation and period in a player's career. And then there's match-up, and other things could come into play. In the end it is all too complex to put into any formula, but the main thing here is to differentiate the physical and mental aspects of the game.

I personally feel that Roger Federer is the most physically talented player I've ever seen. He can do more with a tennis ball than anyone else. Rafael Nadal is the most mentally gifted player, again in my opinion. If we use a scale of 1-10, with 9 or higher being "great," maybe Roger is a 10/9, and Rafa a 9/10, and then Novak is a 9.5/9.5...so in the end, these three are all pretty similar - 19 total score. Maybe someone like David Nalbandian was a 9/6, while David Ferrer is a 7/9.

(These numbers are rather arbitrary and, in the end, meaningless...I'm only using them to illustrate what I talking about)

 

[Moxie]

That's so "you" to try to quantify it with numbers. Cute. But can you agree with me that there's a level after which talent is rather meaningless for top players? I do think Roger is incredible. (Literally, at this stage of his career.) But he could have fallen off long ago, for any number of reasons. It's not just his talent that keeps him in the game.

 

[atttomole]

Good to see you buddy - happy days for us Feddies

Rafa definitely looked heavy legged but Roger also stayed in the moment in the fifth set... he definitely seemed to have a different mentality than in some of their previous encounters. A break down in the fifth v Rafa.... not many would have imagined him reeling off five straight games to win the title... particularly based on past evidence against Rafa.

Great to see you brit. I never thought Fed would win a match like that against Nadal again, but he surprised us all. Now he may have some confidence to win more grand slams.


Sent from my iPhone using New Forum mobile app

 

[Federberg]

That's so "you" to try to quantify it with numbers. Cute. But can you agree with me that there's a level after which talent is rather meaningless for top players? I do think Roger is incredible. (Literally, at this stage of his career.) But he could have fallen off long ago, for any number of reasons. It's not just his talent that keeps him in the game.

I agree Moxie. Federer's mentality is terribly underrated. In his own way he's right up there with Rafa. As for Rafa, talent wise... playing left handed when he's a right hander, it's hard to say enough about how talented he is. There's not much between the two of them in my opinion. Where I'm sure you'll disagree with me is that I think Roger is a better (or maybe it's just better to say more successful) player, because his numbers tell me that. Yes he has a match up problem against Rafa, but that doesn't hide the fact that his numbers are better. Now obviously that can change when all is said and done. That's the fun tennis journey we're on...

 

[Moxie]

I agree Moxie. Federer's mentality is terribly underrated. In his own way he's right up there with Rafa. As for Rafa, talent wise... playing left handed when he's a right hander, it's hard to say enough about how talented he is. There's not much between the two of them in my opinion. Where I'm sure you'll disagree with me is that I think Roger is a better (or maybe it's just better to say more successful) player, because his numbers tell me that. Yes he has a match up problem against Rafa, but that doesn't hide the fact that his numbers are better. Now obviously that can change when all is said and done. That's the fun tennis journey we're on...

I absolutely think it is, and it's part of the distinction I'm trying to make. And it's underrated by his fans, as much as anyone. Probably because they believe so much in his talent, that they think that's what gets him along. As if you can just coast on it, because you have so much. I actually will agree with you that Roger is the "better" player, in terms of success. That's undeniable. Now you're talking in terms I can live with.

 

[Federberg]

I absolutely think it is, and it's part of the distinction I'm trying to make. And it's underrated by his fans, as much as anyone. Probably because they believe so much in his talent, that they think that's what gets him along. As if you can just coast on it, because you have so much. I actually will agree with you that Roger is the "better" player, in terms of success. That's undeniable. Now you're talking in terms I can live with.

It's more than just his fans making that mistake. The media and non-top players do the same thing. The first player who really talked about Roger's mentality being an absolute strength was Novak. He said that it was Roger who taught him that he needed to toughen up mentally. I expected him to say Rafa, but no...

 

[Moxie]

It's more than just his fans making that mistake. The media and non-top players do the same thing. The first player who really talked about Roger's mentality being an absolute strength was Novak. He said that it was Roger who taught him that he needed to toughen up mentally. I expected him to say Rafa, but no...

When Andy and Novak went out of the AO, it opened up the options for the field. But I don't think it was just talent that got Roger and Rafa back into the final. Both Stan and Grigor had real opportunities to win those SFs. There's an old saw that says that the 5th set isn't about tennis is about the head. Roger and Rafa got through because they're fantastic competitors and opportunists. The door was open and they were absolutely going through it. Of course, they're two of the best ever, but they're aging, and had both been out with injury. Stan was the winner of the last Major. Grigor is the constant next-best-thing-in-waiting. Roger and Rafa have a sense of "won't be denied" that few have. In the final, wall hit immovable object, and it was Rafa that hit the wall, and Roger was the immovable one.

 

[mrzz]

A guy opens a thread just to write a punchline in the last item of the poll and people start having real conversations on it...

 

[Federberg]

A guy opens a thread just to write a punchline in the last item of the poll and people start having real conversations on it...

Serves you right!

 

[Ricardo]

so that 6 month break did set Fed's head straight. in many matches Nadal could've played much worse and still won, which is imo a big deal this time.

 

[isabelle]

where is the poll option "because his friends Nole and Andy decided to make him a welcomeback present and lost vs Istomin and Zverev "??? isn't the "real" reason of this win ??? or is it just a coincidence ?? if Murray had beaten Zverev as he normally should have would he have lost vs Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ? if Nole had beaten Istomin and reach final, would he have beaten Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ?? a lot of "if" I know but that's a main question

 

[mrzz]

where is the poll option "because his friends Nole and Andy decided to make him a welcomeback present and lost vs Istomin and Zverev "??? isn't the "real" reason of this win ??? or is it just a coincidence ?? if Murray had beaten Zverev as he normally should have would he have lost vs Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ? if Nole had beaten Istomin and reach final, would he have beaten Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ?? a lot of "if" I know but that's a main question

hmmm... I could indeed well have added the option "because early round losers lost early", but it happens all the time, doesn´t it?

Majors are a game of survival. The last man standing deserve the honors.

But obviously the real reason is the last option. The part that it is yet hidden is the fact that Twisted wanted to grab two rabbits with one shot and make a lot of money by placing a large bet on Federer on the final. He even tried to conceal this fact stating on the boards that he is not a gambling man. But the odds for Federer were surprisingly high, so the return he got on his bet was exactly the same as the interest he payed on a million dollars loan. You can´t trick the devil...

 

[Carol]

Bah, too much blah blah blah because after I don't know how long Roger has been able to beat Rafa in one GS....and? clearly some factors has benefited him, playing every time at night, much faster surface (Rafa has showed before that he also plays well in fast surfaces though) two days resting which makes a huge difference in the legs plus two MTO, one playing with Stan and next one playing with Rafa after to lose the fourth set .
IMO Rafa should have won that match but there were too many ups and downs, I don't think both played their best but yesterday watching the replay more relaxed and looking all the details Rafa played better than Roger most of the match but that fifth set was odd, he started very sharp 2-0 but in the most critic moments his legs and serve unfortunately didn't work so well and he paid for that.
Anyway I'm glad that he reached the finals with all the credit, he is playing much better than these last two years because he got back his confidence and I'm sure he is going to do much better this year, this is just the beginning

 

[Carol]

where is the poll option "because his friends Nole and Andy decided to make him a welcomeback present and lost vs Istomin and Zverev "??? isn't the "real" reason of this win ??? or is it just a coincidence ?? if Murray had beaten Zverev as he normally should have would he have lost vs Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ? if Nole had beaten Istomin and reach final, would he have beaten Mr Vavrinec ? or the contrary ?? a lot of "if" I know but that's a main question

Definitely Novak and Muzz didn't have to do anything with the final result, they lost very fairly because their opponents played much better than them, period

 

[DarthFed]

Bah, too much blah blah blah because after I don't know how long Roger has been able to beat Rafa in one GS....and? clearly some factors has benefited him, playing every time at night, much faster surface (Rafa has showed before that he also plays well in fast surfaces though) two days resting which makes a huge difference in the legs plus two MTO, one playing with Stan and next one playing with Rafa after to lose the fourth set .
IMO Rafa should have won that match but there were too many ups and downs, I don't think both played their best but yesterday watching the replay more relaxed and looking all the details Rafa played better than Roger most of the match but that fifth set was odd, he started very sharp 2-0 but in the most critic moments his legs and serve unfortunately didn't work so well and he paid for that.
Anyway I'm glad that he reached the finals with all the credit, he is playing much better than these last two years because he got back his confidence and I'm sure he is going to do much better this year, this is just the beginning

Roger outplayed him the vast majority of the match not that I expect to convince you. I think Rafa's level was fairly consistent throughout yesterday but he clearly played better vs. Dimitrov than he did yesterday, no reason to deny that. I think the match vs. Dimitrov was the best he's played since at least 2014, maybe even 2013. It may end up being the best match we see all year, in fact I'd bet on that.

But Roger was the one who was up and down as he fought off a ton of nerves and years of demons vs. Nadal. He was broken 4 times yesterday and any somewhat reasonable Nadal fan would say he broke himself 3 of those times with extremely bad errors. I know Fed like everyone else isn't going to play a perfect match but even if he was merely "bad" a couple of those games we might be talking a breezy 3 or 4 set win. He left the door ajar and Rafa busted through and made it razor tight. Rafa was almost always in trouble on his serve while Fed breezed through a lot of games. Rafa was up against it all last night and did well to seize his opportunities and he briefly held the lead in the 5th set but Roger played a brilliant 5 games to take the match away from him. It obviously has not happened much at all in their careers but Fed closed the deal in a big way yesterday.

 

[Carol]

Roger outplayed to whom? Rafa simply lost because his own serve and his legs while Roger was running like a greyhound

 

[DarthFed]

73% first serve is never bad. I know Rafa usually sacrifices power for getting a high % in play but still. And Rafa also saved a lot of BP's yesterday with big serves. It wasn't his best serving day but it was a heck of a lot better than the mess it's been the past couple years.

 

[El Dude]

That's so "you" to try to quantify it with numbers. Cute. But can you agree with me that there's a level after which talent is rather meaningless for top players? I do think Roger is incredible. (Literally, at this stage of his career.) But he could have fallen off long ago, for any number of reasons. It's not just his talent that keeps him in the game.

Well, I tried to be very clear that I was NOT trying to quantify it with numbers; I was simply using numbers to illustrate a point.

I would partially agree with you. There's a level after which the talent is very, very close - just hairs. I do still think there are distinctions that can be made. And yes, I agree that it isn't only his talent that keeps him around. What applies for all of us also applies to tennis players: you can remain in to physical form deep into their 30s and even your 40s, but you have to work harder for it. And I think you need two underlying ingredients: a love of playing and a love of competition. Fed has both.

 

[El Dude]

It's more than just his fans making that mistake. The media and non-top players do the same thing. The first player who really talked about Roger's mentality being an absolute strength was Novak. He said that it was Roger who taught him that he needed to toughen up mentally. I expected him to say Rafa, but no...

Of course Roger's mentality is a strength in terms of his overall career, but it goes out the window with Rafa and has weakened overall during the last 5+ years, at least as I see it.

This is what I've observed, time and time again over the last half decade: Roger looks like the dominant player in a given match, but let's his foot off the pedal and/or starts making lots of errors. This usually happens only when he's faced by a player of similar ability. I don't think Roger c. 2004-09, was doing that as much - except against Rafa, and that's probably because he was the only one who was close to him. That's my observation: he's become more prone to mental lapses.

Now it might also be physical too, in that maybe he has a bit less reserves to draw from so that when he gets to the final of a Slam, he's lost something. Look at his finals in 2014-15. He looked great up until he got to the finals and then lost something. Now we can't entirely blame him - certainly Novak's excellence had something to do with it. But take 2015 Wimbledon - Roger looked unbeatable against Andy in the semifinal, and then started making more errors in the final.

In the grand scheme of things Roger's mentality is a strength - especially his ability to keep his cool, at least outwardly. But I don't think he is as mentally strong as Rafa.

 

[Federberg]

Of course Roger's mentality is a strength in terms of his overall career, but it goes out the window with Rafa and has weakened overall during the last 5+ years, at least as I see it.

This is what I've observed, time and time again over the last half decade: Roger looks like the dominant player in a given match, but let's his foot off the pedal and/or starts making lots of errors. This usually happens only when he's faced by a player of similar ability. I don't think Roger c. 2004-09, was doing that as much - except against Rafa, and that's probably because he was the only one who was close to him. That's my observation: he's become more prone to mental lapses.

Now it might also be physical too, in that maybe he has a bit less reserves to draw from so that when he gets to the final of a Slam, he's lost something. Look at his finals in 2014-15. He looked great up until he got to the finals and then lost something. Now we can't entirely blame him - certainly Novak's excellence had something to do with it. But take 2015 Wimbledon - Roger looked unbeatable against Andy in the semifinal, and then started making more errors in the final.

In the grand scheme of things Roger's mentality is a strength - especially his ability to keep his cool, at least outwardly. But I don't think he is as mentally strong as Rafa.

That's because you tend to look at things quantitatively which I have nothing against in general, but there is a qualitative aspect to mental strength that you and others often miss. Put simply there are different types of mental strength. In certain situations a player like Rafa is able to shut out his opponent because they don't present him with match up issues that take him outside of his comfort zone. Does this make Rafa mentally stronger than another player who is not taken out of his comfort zone? Not really in my view. That's not to say that Rafa doesn't have tremendous mental strength, of course he does, but to an extent it's possible that we exaggerate it. He is incredibly resilient and doesn't give up. How many times has he come back from impossible situations? How many times has Roger? And Novak and Andy? They all have. The point I'm trying to make is that the advantages that certain players have over others is sometimes credited to mental strength when there are better explanations. When you look at these top players at their peaks and their ability to go on streaks the numbers are incredible, but there are differences. Novak and Roger have been able to really stamp their feet on the necks of the rest of the tour in a way that Rafa rarely has, in part I think, because they have a belief in their dominance that perhaps Rafa never has. He has always seemed more comfortable with being the hunter not the hunted. But as dominant as Novak has been, he hasn't had it to the same extent as Roger. Just look at how people give Novak a pass on his most dominant year when he fell away at the end while Roger went on and crushed the field right the way to the ATP finals. Similarly with Murray, the British press are giving him a pass in this recent slam because of the tear he was on at the end of last season. Need I remind everyone that Federer went 3 years virtually unbeaten against anyone not named Nadal? Anyone thinking that he was always in peak condition is kidding themselves, I'm not sure we'll ever see that kind of mental application again. But I often get the impression that some think that Novak is mentally stronger than Roger when a far simpler explanation is match stamina. Anyway my larger point is that there are many facets to mental strength: concentration; belief; never say die, never give up etc. In some Rafa is clearly superior, but in others it's not so clear to me that he is.

You make the point about Roger's performance in the Wimbledon final against Novak. I'm a little disappointed at that. I find that extremely simplistic to put that down to mental frailty. It's become so easy to lay that charge at Federer's door and I think it's largely media generated. Go back and watch that match again and you'll see that the biggest problem that Roger faced was Novak's return of serve. He simply had no answer for it and wasn't able to adjust. That's not a mental issue. Novak did what he had to do to take Roger out of his comfort zone and he won, credit to him. Sometimes it happens. That wasn't a choke job at all