Is Fed mentally not the strongest?

First topic message reminder :

As a Fed fan, I think it's correct to give the man his due, but also to criticize him if there is an objectve weakness in his game.

Now the two big finals made me wonder a lot on this issue. Wimbledon; Fed played unreal tennis against Murray and before that match, in all tournament serve was on fire, on par with the very best years. In the final: serve misfiring, few aces and easy winner. Overall Fed looked somewhat tight, fh and bh didn't flow as freely.

US final: again the serve let him down causing the loss of the first set. Many many opportunities wasted in the third and never able to capitalize when Djokovic dropped his level to get that important lead 2 sets to one. Overall Fed looked uncomfortably tight during these two finals, naver able to relax enough to let the fh flow and dictate.

Obviously , this is not the prime Federer of 2004-2007, whose edge was so vast during those years that he was able to possibly hide such weakness. On the other hand this is a player that at 34 can compete at the very top. Nadal and Djokovic certainly seems to have shown more mental fortitude on the most important matches, even when there was seemingly no edge between them.

So basically BB was a slacker and proud of it Do you celebrate the same quality in your employees

bogbrush wrote:
I used to take great pleasure in never doing any revision, or even much homework, at school, yet still getting very good grades. The pleasure wasn't in the grades, but in rubbing other peoples noses in it when it suited me. I took it to the max in my Economics A level when my teacher soberly advised me to do no work and concentrate on other subjects as an "F" was inevitable. I took his advice, but got a "B" (this was a long time ago when a B was quite a high grade). He was quite unhappy as it happened, especially when I sought him out after results were issued to remind him.

Pretty sure a B in 1925 doesn't beat A* 97 UMS in 2014. Or does it

For me it's bery simple, no ? Keep working hard, keep practicing, stay colm, try to do your best performance and you can have chances to do well, no ?

#stayhumblebogbrush

It Must Be Love wrote:stay colm

Meaney

LuvSports! wrote:Come on LK, let's do this to BB!
http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/scrubs/images/c/c7/2x19_Hanging_wedgie.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090720010519

Indeed.

It deserves a Stonecutter like paddling!

I forgot to mention I used to lie continuously as well. The arrogant little sh1t that was me back in the day really needed a punch in the face. Thank God I've developed into the humble, modest guy I am now! (seriously, I know I can still be a bighead but, I'm tempered by experience and reality so understand I need to work hard too).

The joke's on me though, because my youngest son is a carbon copy and he drives me crazy. Mrs B says it's karma.

Regarding JHM's question; I happily tell people that I want to pay for contribution, not hours. I've told many people that if they can do great things with their feet up all I'll do is offer them more money for a bigger job.

legendkillarV2 wrote:That was almost said with a Piers Morgan like smugness BB

The saving grace was the "almost". Morgan is very close to the top of my list of people I would pay money to have to opportunity to punch in the face.

bogbrush wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:That was almost said with a Piers Morgan like smugness BB

The saving grace was the "almost". Morgan is very close to the top of my list of people I would pay money to have to opportunity to punch in the face.

It was on par with his Twitter/Talksport exploits when he manages to take a dominant stance in any stick he gets by either making fun of 'grammar' in Tweets or just using random stats and quotes of others and basking in that. He does it with quite a disdained arrogant grace, which was almost like your statement

I would appreciate if you could pay for my Piers Morgan face punching fee

I can relate to that BB though I did my exams not as long ago as you did. I used to believe that everyone had the same ability but didn't know it and that I was making it look effortless because I was using my mind more effectively or in the right way. It was all in the same way that I see Federer as playing properly or playing the right way. I was also pretty arrogant about it but more towards teacher who just basically said I couldn't be doing what I was doing instead of trying to find out how I was doing it. I see memorising stuff the same way as running or fitness in tennis and figuring things out you've never seen before or not practiced is like shot making. I look down on memorising and don't really care for games based around fitness though in both worlds we're told to accept the styles equally.

Unfortunately for me, uni was trying to make everything pure memory and at a way larger volume than before. Though I could do it, I didn't see the point and had already outgrown having the best grades from school. I see parallels in the way tennis has slowed and I see Federer facing the same thing with none of the conditions favouring him. Just as I was able to memorise but didn't base my game around it, he can run and do the fitness stuff pretty well but does not base his game around it. I think he's at a disadvantage to players whose games are naturally based more around running even if ultimately he can run as well as them (I don't think he can in this case).

BTW I'm not suggesting I'm anywhere near as good as Federer in other things; I just like looking for analogies.

Although having a good memory and memorisation helps it doesn't get you the high grades. Open book exams, problem solving, critical thinking, diagnosis, research, requires more than memory. I suppose having your coach communicate with you while playing tennis is equivalent to the open book exam or dare I say "cheating".

bogbrush wrote:The fitness thing is a bit like the "hard work" thing was for me at school.

I used to take great pleasure in never doing any revision, or even much homework, at school, yet still getting very good grades. The pleasure wasn't in the grades, but in rubbing other peoples noses in it when it suited me. I took it to the max in my Economics A level when my teacher soberly advised me to do no work and concentrate on other subjects as an "F" was inevitable. I took his advice, but got a "B" (this was a long time ago when a B was quite a high grade). He was quite unhappy as it happened, especially when I sought him out after results were issued to remind him.

At this point I imagine that posters will be shocked virtually to disbelief to hear that the young bogbrush behaved in this sort of way, but it's absolutely true!  

My point is that for me it was a badge of honour that I did this without resorting to the grubby business of studying, and anyone who got very good grades (or, shock, better than me) was immediately dismissed as a "hard worker". Similarly, us Federer fans can point to a 10-Slam winner like Djokovic and shake our heads regretfully, muttering "runs a lot" while celebrating the one pure way to win Slams.

I'm sure that a lot of people on here can relate to this in their own lives. Myself included as I was hopeless at studying. Where it falls down is that a "B" however high a grade it was at the time is not an "A". IMO it is bit like the players who frequently get close to the sharp end of the slams but never get to the final or win them. They are obviously very good players but not the best. Maybe they just aren't quite good enough or maybe with a bit more work on their weaknesses they could move higher. Federer has huge amounts of natural talent but I'm sure that he practices and plans every bit as much Djokovic. That is why he has remained at the top for so long.

bogbrush wrote:My point is that for me it was a badge of honour that I did this without resorting to the grubby business of studying, and anyone who got very good grades (or, shock, better than me) was immediately dismissed as a "hard worker". Similarly, us Federer fans can point to a 10-Slam winner like Djokovic and shake our heads regretfully, muttering "runs a lot" while celebrating the one pure way to win Slams.

I've discussed before my theory of how people's favourite tennis players are often emblems of a world view or philosophy, and I think that comes out again here.

I think fans of Federer tend to admire the talent rather than the results. That he is the most successful player ever is a very nice bonus but I suspect people would still love him even if his slam tally were much smaller. As long as he still gave the same sense of doing things really well with seemingly little effort, he'd still have a big fan base. He just appeals to that kind of person.

I tend to get frustrated with that kind of person. I love the talent but part of me always wonders how good they could be if they combined it with hard graft too.

When I see Usain Bolt producing incredible times but spending the last 5 strides with his arms in the air celebrating, I want to scream at him. Think how amazing his times would be if he pushed himself in a more disciplined way!

BB got a B in his economics with little effort. If he'd done some studying, he might have got an A!

I'm more inclined toward talent combined with hard work. The sublime, effortless talents are kind of of like a circus act for me. But talent (even a smaller talent) backed up with with a lot of effort is what I tend to get more invested in.

That's probably why, although I consider Usain Bolt and Roger Federer to be the most incredible sporting talents I've seen, it was Michael Johnson and Novak Djokovic whose careers I really got into.

There are some things that don't require thinking, where taking your time and thinking can actually lead to a worse result. Fiddly soldering - I find best results are achieved when done quickly and boldly. For art and expression best results are often achieved when one acts quickly and boldly. Bold strokes. A firm hand at the tiller. A forehand down the line.

I'm all about hard work, no talent at all.

I am the Brad Gilbert of talent and I am a massive doper.

Nore Staat wrote:There are some things that don't require thinking, where taking your time and thinking can actually lead to a worse result.  Fiddly soldering - I find best results are achieved when done  quickly and boldly.  For art and expression best results are often achieved when one acts quickly and boldly.  Bold strokes.  A firm hand at the tiller.  A forehand down the line.

I think with art, that although the initial inspiration has to be captured quickly I think a lot of work can then be done to refine it, crystalize it and make it a lot better as a finished product. The inspiration followed by the craft, if you will.

I had both. Took a lot out of my mental health but the result is in nearly a doctot of mathematics...  Sport requires both I guess

I think Federer has a different kind of mental strength, he never seems to have baggage. He's come back from really tough defeats like nothings happened when many would forgive him for having a bad spell after. Think after losing the French in a beating, a crushingly close match at Wimbledon that he could pick himself up and win the US open!

In 2011 after the defeat to Djokovic with 2 match points he goes on an absolute tear, not losing a match until mid January!

At 32 in 2013 how many players would pick themselves up at that age and come firing back, he seems to shake of losses like no one I have ever seen

In Golf there is something called the "yips".  Is there anything similar in Tennis?

PS: checking Wikipedia it mentions Guillermo Coria and Elena Dementieva developing the yips in their service motion.

Not relevant to tennis. I would like to add though. That Japan have just beaten South africa...

CAS wrote:I think Federer has a different kind of mental strength, he never seems to have baggage. He's come back from really tough defeats like nothings happened when many would forgive him for having a bad spell after.

I have been thinking along similar lines (and may have even mentioned it here before).  I even wonder whether it goes hand in hand to some extent.  That the guys who seem to be toughest in individual matches may be more likely to succumb to the cumulative pressure and crack at one point - like maybe Borg or Wilander.

HM Murdock wrote:I think fans of Federer tend to admire the talent rather than the results. That he is the most successful player ever is a very nice bonus but I suspect people would still love him even if his slam tally were much smaller.

For me it is more about style rather than talent.  While they may go hand in hand, I do not care one iota for talent per se.  In fact, if two guys played much the same style and if I somehow found out that one of them got there through more talent and less work and the other one through more work, if anything, I would prefer the work route.

I find the focus on talent somewhat puzzling and to some extent "perverse".  In any walk of life, I would look for talent to discern ahead of time what a person may be able to do down the road, not the other way around.

HM Murdock wrote:My hunch would be that the tie-break record is result of his excellent serve.
If you don't concede on your own serve, you get several chances to take just one point on your opponents.
Isner, for instance, is third in the all time career tie break record (behind Federer and Arthur Ashe).

It Must Be Love wrote:About to say what HM just said, Federer has one of the greatest serves the game has seen, so not surprising he has a great tiebreak record.

It is not obvious to me that a good serve should improve one's chances in a TB in particular.  Sure, the better your serve the better your chances to win a match, but I see no obvious reason why it should help in a TB in particular.  I wonder if it is mostly an urban legend - similar to the notion that serving first in a set is an advantage (which I do not think is backed up by stats).

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:My point is that for me it was a badge of honour that I did this without resorting to the grubby business of studying, and anyone who got very good grades (or, shock, better than me) was immediately dismissed as a "hard worker". Similarly, us Federer fans can point to a 10-Slam winner like Djokovic and shake our heads regretfully, muttering "runs a lot" while celebrating the one pure way to win Slams.

I've discussed before my theory of how people's favourite tennis players are often emblems of a world view or philosophy, and I think that comes out again here.

I think fans of Federer tend to admire the talent rather than the results. That he is the most successful player ever is a very nice bonus but I suspect people would still love him even if his slam tally were much smaller. As long as he still gave the same sense of doing things really well with seemingly little effort, he'd still have a big fan base. He just appeals to that kind of person.

I usually agree with your points as I find them logical, but I disagree with this completely. Federer without the results would be Dimitrov or Gasquet. Why isn't Gasquet adorned with love for his pretty backhand, his magical feel and touch with his fans. If Federer wasn't a consistent winner he would not be loved. People don't remember now because Fed is so loved across the world and in America. In America until really late 2005 when he beat Agassi in the USO final people didn't warm to Federer. Some said he was too cool, too perfect, had no fire, was too European. Sports fans like winners that is why Real Madrid is the biggest club in the world. If they were simply a team that played great football, ala Arsenal and never won anything they would have a fan base of purists but would not attract 80 percent of the fans outside of Madrid that they do now. The same goes for Federer and for all athletes. Yes style, attitude, and personality can boost your appeal or bring it down. But the meat and potatoes of why people like Roger Federer or Novak or Nadal or Murray is because they win. Benoit Paire is super fun to watch, Tsonga is fun to watch, Gasquet, and Dimitrov play stylishly and prettily but they don't win enough. I mean does anyone but a true tennis fan remember Henri Leconte?

I mean I like Arsenal because they play pretty football, I started liking them though in the early 2000s when they were winning and playing good football. Without those two together I would have never even heard of Arsenal growing in southern California. Style and personality can only enhance or take away from the foundation that winning provides.

summerblues wrote:

CAS wrote:I think Federer has a different kind of mental strength, he never seems to have baggage. He's come back from really tough defeats like nothings happened when many would forgive him for having a bad spell after.

I have been thinking along similar lines (and may have even mentioned it here before).  I even wonder whether it goes hand in hand to some extent.  That the guys who seem to be toughest in individual matches may be more likely to succumb to the cumulative pressure and crack at one point - like maybe Borg or Wilander.

I do find this to be the most impressive aspect of Fed's competitive greatness. He doesn't get so down and recovers from big losses. He is always able to see the positive and doesn't let the negativity get to him. Plus I also think as Murdock has said before that these things go up and down with confidence. Just like you can go up and down in form with your shots at times in certain matches you compete better you focus better and make better in match decisions. I mea we saw this from Novak as well after 2011 in 2012 and 2013 he was still the same player but for some reason he made the wrong moves and wrong decisions in the big matches. Not every match is worth the same so in 2012 and 2013 Djokovic was making the right decisions in most matches but in a couple of matches in the year (FO final, Wimby Semi, USO finals) he simply didn't out fight and out compete his big 4 rivals in Murray and Nadal in those situations.

Federer without the results wouldn't be Federer.

Yeah Fed with no results or the mental strength is Dimitrov, and a lot of fed fans dont like him so much

No way! Feds has goat talent.

Nore Staat wrote:Although having a good memory and memorisation helps it doesn't get you the high grades. Open book exams, problem solving, critical thinking, diagnosis, research, requires more than memory.  I suppose having your coach communicate with you while playing tennis is equivalent to the open book exam or dare I say "cheating".

Did Maths at uni, none of those things were there and problem solving was never part of the assessment. There were only exams at the end of the year that counted for 90-100%. If you actually tried to reason or use problem solving skills you'd run out of time that you needed to regurgitate everything.

Though I admire Federer for his talent, I know that he works hard too. I don't see myself as a talented person who doesn't work either. I see Federer as someone doing things the right way while conditions favour the wrong way but not in as dogmatic a way as that sounds.

Also as summerblues said its more the style than the pure talent though I'd agree that without the results I probably wouldn't like him as much or maybe anywhere near as much. It would be like playing nice looking shots that go out or into the net all the time. His results are like validation that all those crazy shots aren't just luck but him playing within himself. It sounds like talent I guess but maybe just superior application of his mind as his goal is to win the point as quickly as possible which could be the result of hard work as much as talent.

I think with Dimitrov, his style is commended by Fed fans but the excessive comparisons to Fed aren't really warranted and are seen as lazy. He has at most 1 or 2 things in similar to Fed but is missing the rest.

socal1976 wrote:I usually agree with your points as I find them logical, but I disagree with this completely. Federer without the results would be Dimitrov or Gasquet. Why isn't Gasquet adorned with love for his pretty backhand, his magical feel and touch with his fans. If Federer wasn't a consistent winner he would not be loved.

I think Gasquet is gets way more love than his results would suggest.

In fact, I think the guy really gets free pass on any discussion of talent. His court position is staggeringly defensive and his forehand is unremarkable. His movement is far from balletic.

And yet because he has a backhand that is a) single handed and b) good looking, the consensus he is a talented player.

As for Federer and his results, I don't think I explained myself very well. If he had no success, I agree he wouldn't have popularity. But if you halved all his career achievements (so 8 or 9 slams), I still think he'd have the same level of adulation. The way he wins counts for more than the fact he wins.

Consider too that Federer has won only 1 slam in the last 5 years but his popularity is as high as ever. If winning were the primary reason for his support, it would have declined.

People talk about Federer and Nadal being in a league of their own for popularity but Federer is way more popular than Nadal. And the difference isn't down to him winning 3 more slams. It's down to the fact that Federer is viewed by many as "doing it better".

I dunno. You have to consider noise as well. Federer is certainly more publicly and openly cheered. I wouldnt say though hes way more popular though

HM Murdock wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I usually agree with your points as I find them logical, but I disagree with this completely. Federer without the results would be Dimitrov or Gasquet. Why isn't Gasquet adorned with love for his pretty backhand, his magical feel and touch with his fans. If Federer wasn't a consistent winner he would not be loved.

I think Gasquet is gets way more love than his results would suggest.

In fact, I think the guy really gets free pass on any discussion of talent. His court position is staggeringly defensive and his forehand is unremarkable. His movement is far from balletic.

And yet because he has a backhand that is a) single handed and b) good looking, the consensus he is a talented player.

As for Federer and his results, I don't think I explained myself very well. If he had no success, I agree he wouldn't have popularity. But if you halved all his career achievements (so 8 or 9 slams), I still think he'd have the same level of adulation. The way he wins counts for more than the fact he wins.

Consider too that Federer has won only 1 slam in the last 5 years but his popularity is as high as ever. If winning were the primary reason for his support, it would have declined.

People talk about Federer and Nadal being in a league of their own for popularity but Federer is way more popular than Nadal. And the difference isn't down to him winning 3 more slams. It's down to the fact that Federer is viewed by many as "doing it better".

Yeah but that one slam in five years is after he won 16 slams to begin with. I don't think we are far off maybe splitting hairs. I agree style and personality can certainly inflate your standing among fans. But the basis is winning and winning a lot over time. And Gasquet gets about as many fans as you would expect for a guy who has been around for years and been pretty good but not great for that time period, sure he gets some style points but he will never have a huge number of fans because he isn't a multiple slam winner. And I think that if Fed had 8 or 9 slams and didn't own every record in the book you would see that some significant percentage of his fans would not be as religiously devoted to him.

People talk about Federer and Nadal being in a league of their own for popularity but Federer is way more popular than Nadal.

What total rubbish and Federer propaganda... really !!!

I personally do not hold much store by these figures, but not finding anything to the contrary I give you
Facebook Federer 14,385,054
Facebook Nadal  14,554,313

Never thought I would ever see the day that Facebook determines popularity

Sad really.

For me popularity is determined by the people who watch the respective athlete.

Its also abou type of fan.
A lot of purists like Roger and theyre very noisy,
but theres a lot of general sporting fans who really like Rafa

I think its true though that, as with Borg, there is a large female fanbase for Rafa over the world, based on his looks. Federer isn't in any danger of that!

My observation is that Fed gets feted a lot more wherever he goes, almost to Ali proportions, but his critics (fell free to chip in socal!) will argue that that is based on a carefully constructed public image that has fooled almost everyone.

Its sort of both, but I find the idea that his fanbase is based mostly on looks a huge insult, hes enormously respected by the sporting community.

When youre a fan of one player you become deaf to the support of others.

Besides isnt this just a game of my dads bigger than your dad? Fan response makes no difference rally, besides I can assure you that MY dads bigger then any dad, unless hes an elephant.

I dont think Fed is 'way more' popular than Nadal. Hes more popular no doubt but not 'way more'.

Im surprised by the support that Nadal gets at Hamburg this year, when he hardly played there and never since 2008 till this year.

I also dont think Nadal's female fan base like him because of his look only. Most of the Nadal fan forum Ive being to have fans way more concerned about his tennis than his looks. Yes, its an insult to his fanbase that people think his fans like him because of his looks. If Nadal isnt the Nadal with his kind of passion and competitive spirit, I doubt he'll have a fanbase as large as it is now despite of his looks.

Fed has a good three to five years headstart over Nadal and Djoko. I think if Nadal/Djoko came before Fed and started a good rivalry, Fed who came later wont be as popular as what he is now. Fed may not win as many slams,for he may be losing to both of them and I doubt then that he would have a cult following despite him playing 'beautiful' tennis.

temporary21 wrote:Its sort of both, but I find the idea that his fanbase is based mostly on looks a huge insult.

Good job that's not what I said then
But surely you have to admit that he has a number of female fans that like him for his looks. Same as Lopez or Sharapova.

JHM, the same could be said of Fed. He has female fans who like him for his look too, not so much of good look but more his stylish image.

Could be - I suspect guys and gals may have bought into Fed's image. It's not an insult to anybody to suggest Rafa has female fans that like him for his looks, and I'd guess that he has more than his fair share. It was the same with Borg or Beckham. I'm not sure why the suggestion seems to cause people to bristle.

Well because its inferring that somehow sections of nadal fans are less "noble" than Rogers fans, only liking him for looks. Both are liked for looks by some but to make an exception to those who maybe fancy him is snobbish tbh

Crikey - I'll stick to Borg's fans then - can we all agree that he had large numbers of screaming girl fans? But I'm not the one implying those girls were less 'noble' than other tennis fans of the period. It's just an observation, that's all. Perhaps other Borg fans would deny it, and take offence at the suggestion, but it happened. Quite how anyone interprets that as snobbish is beyond me.

I would probably hedge a bet most of Nadal fans are of the day dreaming female persuasion. Why is that such a dirty concept? 

I would say other popular media figures also attract an intense following not directly linked to their profession

Fans are fans, dont single out a section of them as though they are buffing the stats if you dont want to p*ss people off, people who fancy him can like his game as well...

Plently of players have their screaming fanboys and girls too

But equally don't keep harmless, off-the-cuff observations off the forum for fear of upsetting the faint-hearted. Otherwise the forum drifts into nothingness because everyone is too wary to say anything.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I think its true though that, as with Borg, there is a large female fanbase for Rafa over the world, based on his looks. Federer isn't in any danger of that!

My observation is that Fed gets feted a lot more wherever he goes, almost to Ali proportions, but his critics (fell free to chip in socal!) will argue that that is based on a carefully constructed public image that has fooled almost everyone.

Whats the "though" for then? The only way someone can take this is that these people are somehow an exception a means of explaining away some of his fans. Off the cuff it might be but you said yourself that if you say it you can be criticised.

My point stands, I consider it a snooty viewpoint to view them this way, a fan is a fan, theres no different types you shouldn't view either Rafas or Borgs fans like that.

The other point you make is that for some reason Federer doesnt have fans like that either, again pretty narrow minded thinking, but thats just my off the cuff observation...