Rafa / Roger: Single minded determination

First topic message reminder :

I just got 'Rafa' biography (actually my wife did) and I started reading it. I was amazed at the single minded determination of these guys. Remarkable on the way he mentions how he shuts himself out from all thoughts, audience reactions etc etc.

And today morning after Fed beat Tsonga, he was asked about his thoughts on the next match with Novak and Fed had no clue on when it is scheduled. He had to ask whether it is on Sunday and the interviewer told him about the semis and finals schedule - we as fans fret about who is scheduled when and the in-built advantages and disadvantages but these guys are made from different mould... they simply can shut themselves off. Fed came to win the match and he put in his best to do only that.

Oh an by the way, do read 'Rafa' - very honest book not as gripping as 'Open' but it is a good account of the man and how he learned to fight. That should also stop this petty fighting as time and again in the book, Nadal mentions that there is no match between him and Fed in talent - specifically mentions that Fed's serve, volleys and movement are all superior to anybody and the only chance he had to beat Fed was by fighting for each point and thus they devised the way of going for his most natural and easiest shot (top spin forehand) to Fed's weakest link (high on the backhand side) and be patient till infinity for errors. If there is a temptation to go for winner with a 70% chance of making it, dont do it and instead wait for 5 more shots till the probability becomes 85%!

Toni had forseen and Rafa says he understood that he cannot beat Fed on talent alone. As mush as I dislike Nadal's tennis, I can totally understand him as I am made up of the same mould - I would die on court before not putting in my 100%.... with no talent, I would huff and puff and dive and throw myself with all 'comeons' etc (but yeah, I win sometimes because at 6'2" and strongly built, I serve and hit faster than anybody at club:)). But coming back, I just wish I had someone like Toni on my side - he would have made a tennis player of me! Nadal admits that Fed seems to have born as a freak of a nature to play tennis while guys like himself had to develop a way to win against Fed and be patient if that freak of a nature goes on a run - as on talent alone, he is un-catchable!! I respect Nadal for being so frank and saying that he does what he has been taught to do and needs to do to win a match and not to become a guidebook for tennis play - that surely belongs to TMF!!!

Ok - So there is now a chance that my argument woudl hold water if Federer were not to have lost 5 setters against what we can call non physical players, right?

If I remember correctly, from Wimby 2003 to 2009, his best years in terms of fitness, he lost very few 5 setters. Outside Nadal, I can only remember 3 in fact. And only one at a slam. Not a bad record. Excellent I would say.

1 Hewitt DC in Australia: Hewitt was another physical player and certainly had the crowd on his side there.
2 - Safin in AO 05. Could be attributed to mind but Safin was a pretty good player and let's not forget that Federer had MP in the 4th.
3 - v Nalbandian at Shanghai's masters where we know he was not sure to participate cause he was on clutches a few weeks before.

So to me there is really one possible mental loss there versus Safin...in 6 years.

Not bad considering that at 20 he faced Sampras on Centre court wthout previous experience and won that 5th set against the player who til then was known as the strongest player mentally with his highest TB W/L ratio.

Tenez, I'm not getting into the 2001 Sampras match, we've been there done that - and anyway why compare 2 players TEN years apart in age?

Federer has lost 5-setters in 03-09 to Jiri Novak, Hewitt, Haas, Nalbandian, Safin, Nadal and Del Potro. Most of these could not be thought of as being fitter - and why would you assume Hewitt was fitter anyway? He may have a "physical" type game (but was talented too...his grass record shows that) but that doesnt make him fitter than Federer, thats your assumption.

I dont believe he's losing these matches due to fitness issues. The guy is simply one of the fittest on tour, everyone knows that. Look absolutely no further than the Rome 2006 match vs Nadal, that match told you all you needed to know about Federer's fitness. Also, that 2009 loss to JMDP was not due to fitness - you cant say a 6'6' Juan Martin was fitter than Federer.

If he's not losing many of these matches due to fitness then what is he losing them too?

lydian wrote:Tenez, I'm not getting into the 2001 Sampras match, we've been there done that - and anyway why compare 2 players TEN years apart in age?

Who said I was comparing. I am afraid they are not very comparable anymore. I was just saying how strong someone must be to hold his own versus Sampras on grass. Beyond Federer's grass skills winning that 5 setter simply shows the character of this player.

He lost to Del Potro because he was stupid enough to allow himself to get angry and try to outhit Del Potro rather than to carry on bamboozling him. That's not an excuse, it's what happened and it was bad matchplay from Federer.

vs. Nalbandian he was just back from injury, but I guess he should have closed the deal.

Others - well he lost them.

Tenez, I dont dispute that Federer has strength of character. Anyone winning 16 slams simply has it in abundance.
However, I think he has a consistency issue with it. Most of Federer's matches are won without going the distance, he has played much fewer 5-setters than the other greats so this points to him being a strong frontrunner/quick out of the blocks. Maybe 5-setters kind of surprise him and he doesnt know how to play them...

However...SOMETIMES Federer has a tendency to panic when it gets close and his shot selection becomes poor. Federer is well known for having psychology training early on because he paniced in match situations. He has also said that he paniced when he went into the net to volley. He does have this "panic" gremlin deep inside him and sometimes it surfaces in 5-setters....and especially against Nadal.

barrystar wrote:He lost to Del Potro because he was stupid enough to allow himself to get angry and try to outhit Del Potro rather than to carry on bamboozling him. That's not an excuse, it's what happened and it was bad matchplay from Federer.

That match was actually the consequence of the super Saturday. Federer would have never had the need to lose his temper in the first place had he not played that tough 3 setter v Djoko while Delpo had the easiest semi and 20% more rest. That's a case of the "real champion is not holding the trophy"! (Federer's yesterday quote).

Lydian - losing to Haas was before 2003 and Novak was just the week following his first Wimbledon win... in Gstaad!

So my list is more correct, certainly more relevant. Only 4 losses (including Delpo) and 3 of those were Federer may not have been 100% or other factors.

lydian wrote:However...SOMETIMES Federer has a tendency to panic when it gets close and his shot selection becomes poor

But you could say this of all players who take the game in their own hands instead of waiting for the opponent to make a mistake. They have a W/L ratio per shot and when it matters those shots will seem to be "panicked shot" and if winners they would be labelled courageous and brillant. It's those same shots that gave him 16slams. The same shot that allowed him to win that 5 setter v Haas at the FO09 in probably the most important tournament of his life. Same when his 5th Wimbleodn was at stake and that at 0-30 downs 5th set finds like Sampras the nerves to pull the trigger.

Federer is actually a very gutsy player but certainly with a very relax attitude. When Nadal is confronted to a player that can challenge him physically, he tends to lose all those pressure points. Remember the game he played at 5/4 in that first set Wimby this year? That's what I call panick!

2002 it was vs Haas indeed. But you cant claim strength of mind for 2001 and then not include it for 2002...

Tenez, you are still failing to realise that "panicing" was part of Federer's fundamental psychological make-up!
Indeed he was a combustible teenager. Do you not think panicing stills flare up within him sometimes to affect his performance when things arent going his way? i.e. in 5 setters

http://www.tennispsychology.com/tennis_psychology_tips/tennis_tip_16.php3
Federer said his career finally went golden when he learned not to panic on the court when he was down or under pressure - and that rather than giving up, he now "hangs in there and hopes for the best whenever things are down".

Hopes for the best? Fair enough but once you have the potential for anxiety/panic within you, its always there to come to the surface under pressure. No matter how much sports psychology you have you wont stop it from surfacing all the time when its an innate part of your make-up...

Are you saying that Federer learnt how to become a champion? I wonder why the other players haven't bought that book yet.

I actually read Fed's interviews where he mentions how he learnt how "to remain calm and not panic" in matches and important points. He actually doesn't talk about physchology. In fact he never says he went through study the mind or work with a psy. However he says he understood he had to work hard PHYSICALLY and knowing he coudl sustain rallies v guys like Nalby and Hewitt gave him more choices for shot and helped him remain calm, not panic and pick his shots better.

I am afraid I don't think you read that bit correctly.

No I'm not saying he learnt how to become a champion.
Federer is known for having seen a sports psychologist when he was a teenager actually.
But all in all, he's had mental and physical training...

I know all about the bit about sustaining ralley's - remember it was I who posted the Paganini article! But you seem to dunk your head in the sand about what he says....

Cause it doesn't really matter how hard you train nowadays. It's was you take to recuperate that really matters and according to Fed's 5 setter record, I am not convinced he is taking the right stuff.