Federer's hints about his poor form....

Federer: But you find a way to win when maybe someone is not playing so well or when your opponent is playing well, and that's what the beauty is of this game, I think, is trying to find a way when you're not feeling great That's what I maybe was able to do today.

That, imo, kind of confirms he is not 100%.

He didn't look great against Cilic, if Cilic played with a little more poise on break points in that match he really could have won. I guess that is one of the reasons he is cilic and Federer is federer.

I thought Fed started off brilliantly - the first game was a master class, but he began to look a little sloppy at times in the second set - but that's not so unusual nowadays.

Is it me, or does everyone else get frustrated with the lack of urgency he shows on break points? Though his record yesterday was good.

Hope TMF is okay, and the quarter streak at least continues.

time please wrote:
Is it me, or does everyone else get frustrated with the lack of urgency he shows on break points? Though his record yesterday was good.

His lack of urgency or ability to get a decent serve back is what annoys me. His return action is so slow! Either Tsonga or Fish most likely will beat him.

That, imo, kind of confirms he is not 100%.

He did look pale at the end of the match..

gallery play wrote:His lack of urgency or ability to get a decent serve back is what annoys me. His return action is so slow! Either Tsonga or Fish most likely will beat him.

The return is in my view one of the most violent mouvement in tennis nowdays. Agassi referred to it as to "exocet himself right or left". It's the starting off the blocks. A back problem or groin (last time he officially mentioned an injury) would certainly make him look sluggish on the return.

He used to be so good at returning. One of his last very impressive display of return was in AO09 Final v Murray. Of course I mean Murray's first serve, not second.

To me Roger won against Cilic because Roger played break points and the big points better. Cilic was the one dominating most of the back court exchanges and was serving better for most the match. Roger won that match on variety and experience. Cilic so far has been a very disappointing player as he has the kind of game where he should be a top 10 player, instead he just sort of hovers around 15-35 all the time and fails in most of his matches against big time players. Roger is still very capable but I agree with GP that his return of serve is not as good as it was and that is causing him great problems. Part of the problem is he is still too passive on the return. He chips way too many returns. At the WTF and in his semi against Novak at RG he went for the backhand return and really caused havoc. He has become very predictable the other guy knows if he hits the second serve to fed's backhand 90 percent of the time Fed is going to just chip it back.

I suspect when he packs it all in and the book comes out we'll learn that the biggest myth about Federer was that he was never injured. It's like his record on retirements and MTO's; he clearly feels that the smartest tactic is to keep it quiet, although sometimes (Wimbledon 2010) the pain of losing is so great that he has to say what he means. I always remember the interview after beating Falla that he was fine when anyone with eyes could see how his movement was apalling.

I doubt he will be able to win any more Slams because he just has to play too many demanding matches, and the game has been changed so much that physical excellence has never been more important. He may get a draw go for him and then come through but if he has to play lots of people who retrieve like mad and force him to use the movement that 5 years ago was effortless then it's beyond him now.

Still easily the 3rd best player, and probably 2nd best player on this surface. Crazy really.

bogbrush wrote:I always remember the interview after beating Falla that he was fine

Not fine! "perfect"! remember?

bogbrush wrote:I suspect when he packs it all in and the book comes out we'll learn that the biggest myth about Federer was that he was never injured. It's like his record on retirements and MTO's; he clearly feels that the smartest tactic is to keep it quiet, although sometimes (Wimbledon 2010) the pain of losing is so great that he has to say what he means. I always remember the interview after beating Falla that he was fine when anyone with eyes could see how his movement was apalling.

His service action during that Wimbledon was not fluid either - it was obvious to anyone who has observed him closely over the years, that all was not totally hunky dory. I agree bb - I think he feels it is best not to expose weaknesses to the opposition, but I am surprised that more commentators didn't pick up on his movement and serve during W 2010. The way he then moved at USO last year was completely different.

bogbrush wrote:I doubt he will be able to win any more Slams because he just has to play too many demanding matches, and the game has been changed so much that physical excellence has never been more important. He may get a draw go for him and then come through but if he has to play lots of people who retrieve like mad and force him to use the movement that 5 years ago was effortless then it's beyond him now.

Still easily the 3rd best player, and probably 2nd best player on this surface. Crazy really

I agree. I just have the philosophy now that it is a privilege to see him play and there are still some moments in the majority of matches where there are brief brilliant glimpses of the player he once was.

Cilic should have beaten him yesterday, but Federer's calm under fire saw him through

I think Federer in the first set was hitting everything near inch perfect. Everything was flat and a perfect length. After the first set the pace on the FH dropped off considerably and he was hitting most of it in the middle of the court. Cilic in the first set look uncomfortable and didn't know how to combat the barrage from Federer. The longer the points were the more it favoured Federer. Cilic did not have the conistency to keep up his attacking play all the time Federer was not giving out UE's.

I suspect, that this time, he might take a long break after the USO if his body hurts.

+1 lk

1st set contained a lot of vintage Fed.

I thought there might be a physical problem yesterday. Federer clutched his back on a number of occasions and the penetration of his shots seemed to drop after the 1st set.

I think BB's comments are spot on. I'm sure Federer has had many niggling injuries over the years, but he rarely advertises them. Contrast that with Nadal, who even if he has a mild toothache, will ensure that every one and his dog knows about it.

emancipator wrote: Federer clutched his back on a number of occasions and

Yes, I noticed too and that's why I was keen to read his interview cause I felt something was not quite right. But the bit I did not copy which I found worrying in his interview is that he says that it's so physical a sport that "it might be the last time you play (or was it win) the tournament".

He certainly doesn;t look over excited playing nowadays.

Tenez wrote:

emancipator wrote: Federer clutched his back on a number of occasions and

Yes, I noticed too and that's why I was keen to read his interview cause I felt something was not quite right. But the bit I did not copy which I found worrying in his interview is that he says that it's so physical a sport that "it might be the last time you play (or was it win) the tournament".

He certainly doesn;t look over excited playing nowadays.

That's exactly my impression. The beaming smile seems absent - he didn't even look happy after trouncing Robredo.

bogbrush wrote:
That's exactly my impression. The beaming smile seems absent - he didn't even look happy after trouncing Robredo.

You mean monaco?

On the other hand it can mean a sign of focus. But he knows what lies ahead...3 exetremely physical matches....including 2 in 2 days. No laughing matter!

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
That's exactly my impression. The beaming smile seems absent - he didn't even look happy after trouncing Robredo.

You mean monaco?

On the other hand it can mean a sign of focus. But he knows what lies ahead...3 exetremely physical matches....including 2 in 2 days. No laughing matter!

Robredo/Monaco, there's a reason why I got confused though.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
That's exactly my impression. The beaming smile seems absent - he didn't even look happy after trouncing Robredo.

You mean monaco?

On the other hand it can mean a sign of focus. But he knows what lies ahead...3 exetremely physical matches....including 2 in 2 days. No laughing matter!

Robredo/Monaco, there's a reason why I got confused though.

Are we mocking the former World No.5 which happened to be in 2006?

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:
That's exactly my impression. The beaming smile seems absent - he didn't even look happy after trouncing Robredo.

You mean monaco?

On the other hand it can mean a sign of focus. But he knows what lies ahead...3 exetremely physical matches....including 2 in 2 days. No laughing matter!

Robredo/Monaco, there's a reason why I got confused though.

Are we mocking the former World No.5 which happened to be in 2006?

Not mocking but certainly the point is that his strength was always extreme consistency and shot production rather than blazing shotmaking.

Always been room for Mr Consistencies near the top of the game.

The king of M. Consistencies is actually Nadal....and this one has occupied the top spot. In a year or two it will dawn on us how weak was his era. Just give a bit more time to Dolgo and other youngsters who actually have great shots and variety to expose Nadal's limitations like Davydenko and Djoko have done.

at least Robredo had a SHBH and that requires lots of talent to be top player in those slow conds. Robredo has often been mocked but frankly was much under rated. No brillance but a very solid AND complete game.

Tenez wrote:The king of M. Consistencies is actually Nadal....and this one has occupied the top spot. In a year or two it will dawn on us how weak was his era. Just give a bit more time to Dolgo and other youngsters who actually have great shots and variety to expose Nadal's limitations like Davydenko and Djoko have done.

at least Robredo had a SHBH and that requires lots of talent to be top player in those slow conds. Robredo has often been mocked but frankly was much under rated. No brillance but a very solid AND complete game.

Dolgo and other youngsters, davydenko, Djokovic all mentioned. Scratching my head as to why Federer is not on that list. I'm sure you think he is not talented enough to expose Nadal. No?

Robredo a world No.5, can't get my head around that one lol.

Probably a bit to do with him talking about the future, and him being 30?

You really need to think before you post.

bogbrush wrote:Probably a bit to do with him talking about the future, and him being 30?

You really need to think before you post.

An advice much needed by you and Tenez.
Anyway, who knows, Federer might get a chance when they both retire and decide to play on old age tour.

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Probably a bit to do with him talking about the future, and him being 30?

You really need to think before you post.

An advice much needed by you and Tenez.
Anyway, who knows, Federer might get a chance when they both retire and decide to play on old age tour.

You do know that you are not rattling anyone with your asides don't you? I'd hate you to waste all that energy for nothing

time please wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Probably a bit to do with him talking about the future, and him being 30?

You really need to think before you post.

An advice much needed by you and Tenez.
Anyway, who knows, Federer might get a chance when they both retire and decide to play on old age tour.

You do know that you are not rattling anyone with your asides don't you? I'd hate you to waste all that energy for nothing

I'm not rattling anyone with me aside don't i?
That sentence certainly rattles me

Has anyone every discovered what is the point of wasps?

I'm afraid I am going to have to agree with Simple_Analyst on this occasion.


He is definitely simple.

bogbrush wrote:Probably a bit to do with him talking about the future, and him being 30?

You really need to think before you post.

Surely it's not difficult to realise that S.A. was referring to the past rather than the future?

Nadal is one of the best shot-makers in the history of the game. That the shots in question lack much variety doesn't alter the fact that Nadal has changed tennis in terms of his ability in turning defence into attack. Putting his record, including against Federer, down to fitness and strength is just wishful thinking.

Jarvik wrote:Surely it's not difficult to realise that S.A. was referring to the past rather than the future?

Nadal is one of the best shot-makers in the history of the game. That the shots in question lack much variety doesn't alter the fact that Nadal has changed tennis in terms of his ability in turning defence into attack. Putting his record, including against Federer, down to fitness and strength is just wishful thinking.

I am afraid, you don;t understand modern tennis. Being 2m outside the trameline and being able to pull a topspin winner is a phsyical shot, not a particularly talented shot. In the past with natural guts, when you were in that same position, it was very difficult to generate pace to pass or pull a winner caue you had to hit a flat shot to generate the pace. That made the passing very risky and it also gave the volleyer an easier chance to cut a volley. This is why the main concern of a tennis player was to dictate and stay centred in the court. With today's technology and physics, being bossed around can actually give you an advantageif you are fit enough.

But I guess you did not realise that.

Nore Staat wrote:I'm afraid I am going to have to agree with Simple_Analyst on this occasion.


He is definitely simple.

Jarvik understands tennis and Nadal is an amazing ball striker it is. Tenez how many backhand cross court passing shots have you been able to hit from 3 meters behind the baseline? Nadal's passing shots are thing of wonder, and has nothing to do with physicality, getting there is just 1/4 of the battle.

Tenez wrote:

Jarvik wrote:Surely it's not difficult to realise that S.A. was referring to the past rather than the future?

Nadal is one of the best shot-makers in the history of the game. That the shots in question lack much variety doesn't alter the fact that Nadal has changed tennis in terms of his ability in turning defence into attack. Putting his record, including against Federer, down to fitness and strength is just wishful thinking.

I am afraid, you don;t understand modern tennis. Being 2m outside the trameline and being able to pull a topspin winner is a phsyical shot, not a particularly talented shot. In the past with natural guts, when you were in that same position, it was very difficult to generate pace to pass or pull a winner caue you had to hit a flat shot to generate the pace. That made the passing very risky and it also gave the volleyer an easier chance to cut a volley. This is why the main concern of a tennis player was to dictate and stay centred in the court. With today's technology and physics, being bossed around can actually give you an advantageif you are fit enough.

But I guess you did not realise that.

If the facts were in your favour then presumably there wouldn't be the need to bookend your argument in ad hominem comments. Leaving aside my supposed ignorance of modern tennis, is it really credible that other players on the tour lack Nadal's shot making ability because they lack his strength? Forget fitness, you simply don't see the quality of hitting from almost any other player on the tour even in the early games of a match.

Nobody is disputing the importance of strength and fitness in the modern game, but there are a multitude of fit strong players who are unable to replicate the shot making of the top guys (eg the current top 4) on anything like a regular basis because they simply lack the talent to do so.

Bravo Jarvik but you won't convince Tenez he believes that Nadal just has speed, lungs, and is not particularly good at hitting a tennis ball. That is his delusional view of modern tennis. If you came out and agreed with him, then he would compliment you.

socal1976 wrote:Jarvik understands tennis and Nadal is an amazing ball striker it is. Tenez how many backhand cross court passing shots have you been able to hit from 3 meters behind the baseline? Nadal's passing shots are thing of wonder, and has nothing to do with physicality, getting there is just 1/4 of the battle.

I agree - It is easy to forget just how good Nadal is until he really gets into gear. His ability to hit powerfully struck winners on the run is totally amazing. I agree he is not the same player when he lost some weight post 2009 problems, but having seen him at the O2 then it struck me that his issues were totally to do with confidence and that had if he had only stepped up to the baseline he would easily have won his matches. He is not my favourite player by a long way because I don't find his very muscular baseline game that enthralling, but when he is forced to fight and you see winners on the run and his deft touch (surprising for such a player) at the net then he is wonderful to watch and was a class apart last year.

Of course timeplease, do your remember at madrid after a marathon point he hit an on the run lob between his legs that passed Djokovic, maybe the shot of the entire season, or was it in miami? Nadal is a wonderful ball striker, but his style is different than what certain people like so they just focus on his speed and fitness. He is easily the best passing shot artist in the whole game. He isn't my favorite player either but I find some of the ridiculous arguments about his lack of tennis talent to be beyond all logic and reason.

Jarvik wrote:

Nobody is disputing the importance of strength and fitness in the modern game, but there are a multitude of fit strong players who are unable to replicate the shot making of the top guys (eg the current top 4) on anything like a regular basis because they simply lack the talent to do so.

So the consistency of shot making is done to talent and not physique? Have you tried to pull great shots when you are breatless? Not only you don;t know much about tennis but sport in general, it seems.

The way Nadal hits a tennis ball is talent - it doesnt even need discussion, like any guy in any sport stays in the top 2 for 6 years isnt talented?
Keep self-deluding yourself Tenez, the world does not revolve around physicality...otherwise we'd have every fit guy in the world battling to be a top 10 player!

socal1976 wrote:Of course timeplease, do your remember at madrid after a marathon point he hit an on the run lob between his legs that passed Djokovic, maybe the shot of the entire season

Well, the fact Nadal's tweeners always turn out to be lob shots, actually proves that he doesn't control this shot. In Madrid he was just lucky Djoko was out of position, Rafa did not know Djoko was too close to the net. This shot is simply too difficult for a guy like Rafa. He tried it quite often but he can't do it.
Uncle Tony would say: "If Rafa had the talent, i would tell him to hit flat tweeners"

He tried one against Nalby in his last match, didn't even reach the net!

GP makes a good point; the skill in a tweener is to hit it hard and keep it low and to control the general direction of the ball. If you manage to do all of those things then it truly is an exceptional shot. Nadal's tweener against Djoko was more like a backwards defensive lob, he was just luckiy that Djoko was so close to the net.

Exactly.
Federer is even able to wrongfoot his opponant from a shot like that, for Rafa it is hard enough to get his racket between his legs, let alone to do something with the ball

time please wrote:Has anyone every discovered what is the point of wasps?

I like wasps - they're the bees knees.

how on earth did an article about Federer's apparent lack of form turn into yet ANOTHER excercise in Nadal-bashing?

lydian wrote:The way Nadal hits a tennis ball is talent - it doesnt even need discussion, like any guy in any sport stays in the top 2 for 6 years isnt talented?
Keep self-deluding yourself Tenez, the world does not revolve around physicality...otherwise we'd have every fit guy in the world battling to be a top 10 player!

Your dogmatic approach doesn't prove anything, if anything it shows you have little to put forward to contradict what I have been saying. Nadal being a talented ball stricker or not is completely irrelevant. It's how talented compared to the rest of the field that matters and even more so how how much of this talent does he use to win as opposed to his phenomenal physique.

If Toni was concerned about using Nadal's talent, he woudl have asked him to play RH as his brain already had all the right connections with his right arm. But that wasn;t Toni's concern. Toni is a very smart coach and his plan was not to out-talent his opponents but to break their touch and timing by sending a heavy ball and make everybody play at Nadal's rhythm, bring the opponent into a rally so that Nadal's main strength his phyisque woudl make the difference.

This is so obvious for those who understand the modern game. Djoko and Murray clearly understood it and they chose the physical path too.

Why can't the term Stamina be more appropriate. 'physical' is too generic and applicable to all athletes in the world.

Nadal is a brute. Pure and simple. Has the shots to back up his conditioning.

I can't help think that over-analysis kills any discussion about players skills.

legendkillar wrote:Why can't the term Stamina be more appropriate. 'physical' is too generic and applicable to all athletes in the world.

Nadal is a brute. Pure and simple. Has the shots to back up his conditioning.

I can't help think that over-analysis kills any discussion about players skills.

Because to be able to pull 3000+ rpm shots one after the other over 5 sets one needs stamina AND power. Those big arms are of much use. They are not there just to look good. This extra time he takes between points is to allow this muscle mass to breath correctly.

Remember the discussion about Nadal's loss of weight in Fall 2009? Apparently the reason then was to ease the pressure on his knees. Regardless, it certainly took the sting out of his shots.

This is why I use the term physical as it comprises both stamina and power.

I too thought Cilic could be able to get the win socal, just the matter of him moving like a pig on ice was the main difference, had Fed been playing a speedy player he could've lost that round. Very surprised that he was able to demolish Monaco like that, I think he will now show that Tsonga's win over him on grass was just a one off (not counting montreal.)

The difference between Fed of today on grass and HC's is the return game.

Federer is still a very good returner on HC's, he broke serve 6 times in his opening match, 3 or 4 times against cilic and seven times against Monaco. On grass, his return game has deteriorated considerably since 2006. This is why the USO is still his best bet for another slam and not W. Unfortunately stupid sat makes the task so much more difficult, especially as he is likely to be made to play the second semi.

I seem to consider two different Fed's now, before his defeats to Canas (unplayable except Nadal on clay) and after those loss's to him.

Canas is a real tennis troll

The problem for Fed now is that he lacks a massive weapon with which he can consistently dominate matches with. His FH when on form is fantastic but it fizzles out, or starts spraying everywhere after a set more or less. His serve is good also but its not huge.
We saw Sampras roll out the dice a few last times at USO when 30/31 yr old and be successful but we have to remember Sampras always had THAT serve, THAT net game and THAT forehand which when on was also huge (& probably best running FH in history of the game). I dont see Federer having the weight of shot anymore to dominate his way through a slam, i.e. doesnt have a major single weapon he can rely on to carry him through matches, e.g. like Pete's serve often did, it seems Federer needs all parts of his game to be clicking to win through - and that just isnt going to happen much anymore - plus the other guys have big weapons now too.

Also, when I look at Federer now I dont see the hunger any more, its like he's going through the motions - like Sampras did alot - because he's not got much left to prove and a young family at home. You can point to his back, etc, but if you're not hungry "upstairs" then the body isnt going to follow suit either.

lydian wrote:Also, when I look at Federer now I dont see the hunger any more, its like he's going through the motions - like Sampras did alot - because he's not got much left to prove and a young family at home. You can point to his back, etc, but if you're not hungry "upstairs" then the body isnt going to follow suit either.

I think this is a good point. Hunger is not something you can conjour up at will.

I agree Fed has lost some pop on his FH and BH, but I think their effectiveness varies from match to match. Last night both wings looked very sharp. He still hits more winners per match than the other top 4 players. It was only 9 months ago that his weapons looked sharp as ever (WTF) and I thought he served brilliantly right throughout the FO. I think it is more a case of consistency.

However, I definitely believe that his movement is slightly slower, only slightly, but it makes all the difference. It means that he just isn't in position to crush his FH with full force. Also you may have notice that he doesn't have the ability to run around his BH as much as he used to, consequently we don't see him hitting inside out FH's and inside in FH's with regularity like he used to. The reduced movement also means that he can't protect his weaker wing as well as he could in the past. More players are now able to consistently find his BH. In the past only Nadal and Murray were able to do this.