Federer's problems

There is now little dispute in the tennis community that Roger 'shanky' Federer won his titles in a weak era. If the likes of Nalbandian and Safin had fulfilled their potential, then we would no doubt had many classic finals and Roger would have 'deserved all he got'. However unfortunatly for Roger (and he knows this) he won his titles facing one dimensional lightweights. This of course does not automatically diminish Roger's brilliance (he can only play what's in front of him) but it means he can not be accuratly compared with past and future greats. To put further doubts into his claims for greatness are his is seemingly mental problems when a genuine challenge is presented. It is my opinion that Federer's overweening vanity causes him to collapse when facing adversity. Australian 2009, Us open 2009 and his dismal record against Raphael Nadull support this hypothesis. Why is he so bad at taking breaking points? Even on Sunday, he had to rely on rare rafa shanks to convert break points. He always looking vunerable the game after. His arms tightening as he struggles to come to terms with the fact he's not facing Roddick. In conclusion, is it time for the tennis world to consider asterixing those slam titles they deem unworthy of top class tennis?

Someone call a mod

Why? Because I'm expressing an opinion which you don't share. What on earth is the point of a forum if everone holds the same opinion?

What is the point in deliberately writing a post to antagonise Federer fans? And don't even try and defend it as an opinion!

legendkillar wrote:Someone call a mod

No need to call a mod. The mods AND admins monitor as many threads as we can and these come to our attention without the need for "calling us"

Boromir has his own opinions (I happen to DISAGREE with them) - but he is just as entitled to his opinions as anyone else as long as it doesn't descend to abuse or anything libellous.

I happen to think he is talking rubbish (that is me talking as a MEMBER not an ADMIN) but while rules are adhered to, there is nothing wrong with the article.

Debate him or ignore him - that is your choice, but please do not try to tell us what is suitable for the forum

Davie wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Someone call a mod

No need to call a mod. The mods AND admins monitor as many threads as we can and these come to our attention without the need for "calling us"

Boromir has his own opinions (I happen to DISAGREE with them) - but he is just as entitled to his opinions as anyone else as long as it doesn't descend to abuse or anything libellous.

I happen to think he is talking rubbish (that is me talking as a MEMBER not an ADMIN) but while rules are adhered to, there is nothing wrong with the article.

Debate him or ignore him - that is your choice, but please do not try to tell us what is suitable for the forum

I don't see anything wrong with expressing my opinion about what I think is suitable.

If you want quality and you want to avoid a 606 re-repeat of of slanging, then please continue, but don't try and imply this forum is different to the last which closed!

I'm a diehard Fed fan and find his post in no way insulting or trying to aggrevate Federer fans. I'll post up a reply later though to prove exactly why the OP in my opinion is wrong though. 8)

BTW OP do you go on MTF? Some of the phrases you're using are quite often used on there.

Legendkiller. You too are entitled to your opinion as long as it doesn't break any of the rules I mentioned in my last post.

Debate Boromir or ignore him - that is your choice. But don't ask mod or admin help against something that is essentially a personal opinion however ridiculous you deem it to be

I agree LK, when posters start talking about 'weak' era and 'strong' era, lay members of the public and 99% of people must have no idea what the person is on about!

Nor do I, it just seems pointless, semantics really, it's a very nostalgic way of looking at the past, the distant past, that was the 'strong era' and the recent past oh well, that's the 'weak' era.

It seems the same logic in 606 exists here.

The same 'shanky' beat Djokovic of (41-0 fame) at FO in 2011 AD.

The same 'shanky' who lost FO 2008 6-1 6-3 6-0 to Rafa, lost to Rafa in 2011 7-5 7-6 5-7 6-1 again. Must be the 'Golden Era' of tennis.

Deja vu we are back on 606.

Davie wrote:Legendkiller. You too are entitled to your opinion as long as it doesn't break any of the rules I mentioned in my last post.

Debate Boromir or ignore him - that is your choice. But don't ask mod or admin help against something that is essentially a personal opinion however ridiculous you deem it to be

Davie is alias of Boromir

I have the shortest nick on this forum.

sportslover wrote:Deja vu we are back on 606.

According to some we are not.

Wawrinka will win queens.

boromir wrote:There is now little dispute in the tennis community that Roger 'shanky' Federer won his titles in a weak era. If the likes of Nalbandian and Safin had fulfilled their potential, then we would no doubt had many classic finals and Roger would have 'deserved all he got'. However unfortunatly for Roger (and he knows this) he won his titles facing one dimensional lightweights. This of course does not automatically diminish Roger's brilliance (he can only play what's in front of him) but it means he can not be accuratly compared with past and future greats. To put further doubts into his claims for greatness are his is seemingly mental problems when a genuine challenge is presented. It is my opinion that Federer's overweening vanity causes him to collapse when facing adversity. Australian 2009, Us open 2009 and his dismal record against Raphael Nadull support this hypothesis. Why is he so bad at taking breaking points? Even on Sunday, he had to rely on rare rafa shanks to convert break points. He always looking vunerable the game after. His arms tightening as he struggles to come to terms with the fact he's not facing Roddick. In conclusion, is it time for the tennis world to consider asterixing those slam titles they deem unworthy of top class tennis?

Three names come to my mins- mariana puerta, soderling, berdych. The three pillars of strongest era.

I remember reading the posts on the BBC 606 Forums and it was a joke, it absolutely wasnt allowed that you insult an individual (which shouldn't be allowed) but you're allowed to insult and do to death a player's record, even when the evidence suggests otherwise! It's a bit illogical but there you have it, it's allowed here too.

Actually, I disagree with the MOD, I do not think people should be allowed to air their opinions if they are excessively offensive (or too personal against a player), would the BNP be allowed to raised their views on immigration or on Islam (not racist)? Probably, after all, it's within the rules, even if it's not within the rules of decency of most people in this country. Would it be reasonable to discuss Ryan Gigg's private life as a stain on Man Utd? After all, it's not breaking the rules as fair as I'm aware of? Personal criticism of players is perfectly allowed, even if unfair!

luciusmann wrote:I remember reading the posts on the BBC 606 Forums and it was a joke, it absolutely wasnt allowed that you insult an individual (which shouldn't be allowed) but you're allowed to insult and do to death a player's record, even when the evidence suggests otherwise! It's a bit illogical but there you have it, it's allowed here too.

Actually, I disagree with the MOD, I do not think people should be allowed to air their opinions if they are excessively offensive (or too personal against a player), would the BNP be allowed to raised their views on immigration or on Islam (not racist)? Probably, after all, it's within the rules, even if it's not within the rules of decency of most people in this country. Would it be reasonable to discuss Ryan Gigg's private life as a stain on Man Utd? After all, it's not breaking the rules as fair as I'm aware of? Personal criticism of players is perfectly allowed, even if unfair!

Agree

Davie wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Someone call a mod

No need to call a mod. The mods AND admins monitor as many threads as we can and these come to our attention without the need for "calling us"


Debate him or ignore him - that is your choice, but please do not try to tell us what is suitable for the forum

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

wow wrote:"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

"Stay on topic and you'll be fine. Disagree with a mod or admin and you'll be banned" --- Davie

Davie wrote:

wow wrote:"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

"Stay on topic and you'll be fine. Disagree with a mod or admin and you'll be banned" --- Davie

Who are you trying to scare? I haven't even seen you posting on this forum as a member. Go ahead and ban. It is not difficult to form multiple ids or is it?

Secondly, which topic are you talking about?

I should have said "disagree with a mod or admin about forum moderation...."

The topic in question is the title of the thread - not what you would or wouldn't like to see posted here

Davie wrote:I should have said "disagree with a mod or admin about forum moderation...."

The topic in question is the title of the thread - not what you would or wouldn't like to see posted here

I have no problem with getting moderated or getting banned. It is the heavy handedness or 'take it or leave it' tone which cannot be agreed to.

How come you are moderating a tennis forum, when you do not even take part in it? ( I am not patronising, just inquisitve)

Davie wrote:Legendkiller. You too are entitled to your opinion as long as it doesn't break any of the rules I mentioned in my last post.

Debate Boromir or ignore him - that is your choice. But don't ask mod or admin help against something that is essentially a personal opinion however ridiculous you deem it to be

So anyone coming onto this forum especially wums from 606 can post ridiculous personal opinions.

Am I reading this correct?

Under that Davie, my post falls foul of what you've said!

It's a bit hard not to comment on the provocative nature of the post, it's what capture's most people's attention so saying they must stay on topic without reference to it (the provocative nature) is rather hard and unlikely.

boromir wrote:There is now little dispute in the tennis community that Roger 'shanky' Federer won his titles in a weak era. If the likes of Nalbandian and Safin had fulfilled their potential, then we would no doubt had many classic finals and Roger would have 'deserved all he got'. However unfortunatly for Roger (and he knows this) he won his titles facing one dimensional lightweights. This of course does not automatically diminish Roger's brilliance (he can only play what's in front of him) but it means he can not be accuratly compared with past and future greats. To put further doubts into his claims for greatness are his is seemingly mental problems when a genuine challenge is presented. It is my opinion that Federer's overweening vanity causes him to collapse when facing adversity. Australian 2009, Us open 2009 and his dismal record against Raphael Nadull support this hypothesis. Why is he so bad at taking breaking points? Even on Sunday, he had to rely on rare rafa shanks to convert break points. He always looking vunerable the game after. His arms tightening as he struggles to come to terms with the fact he's not facing Roddick. In conclusion, is it time for the tennis world to consider asterixing those slam titles they deem unworthy of top class tennis?

My point here is that someone is entitled to make claim about someone personally without knowing them?

Sounds like 606 to me!

Didn't you see the 5 little words before the ones you highlighted?

Davie wrote:Didn't you see the 5 little words before the ones you highlighted?

So if I then wrote "in my opinion that the author has little knowledge or logic" that this would be acceptable?

If you limited it to that, then yes that would be acceptable.

Now can we PLEASE return to the OP topic?

Davie wrote:Didn't you see the 5 little words before the ones you highlighted?

There is another way of saying this specially if it is coming from an Admin, e.g. OP stated that it was his opinion.

Another question. Who made you admin?

What I find bemusing is how is this topic thread positive in any way? The vast majority of the posts will be complaining about how such a post can be allowed and rightly so, what's the point in having the post? I can't see the logic, all in the name of freedom of speech? This is stretching things.

Final warning to all.

Any further posts not addressing the original subject will be removed and the poster(s) in question will face a ban

This is concerning that in the last couple of days ill feeling is being allowed to spread in this section. Having been to other sections of this site including the football section, there is no ill-feeling amongst people as there seems to be respect, which was far lacking in 606. I can see the what the 'nature' of this thread is intended for and I am sure it is not debate.

I wonder if VMP has read this topic

boromir wrote:Why is he so bad at taking breaking points? Even on Sunday, he had to rely on rare rafa shanks to convert break points.

Rafa BPs 7/15, Fed BPs 5/15.

Rafa shanks, very interesting. Did you catch one of the Rafa or Roger shanked balls for an ebay auction?

sportslover wrote:Deja vu we are back on 606.

Not until Catalan Power joins.

laverfan wrote:

sportslover wrote:Deja vu we are back on 606.

Not until Catalan Power joins.

Heaven forbid but wow reckons he has already come and is amongst us

To get back to topic; I think it was difficult for Federer to hone his combative skills - until he faced the emergent Nadal (Rafael Nadal - not Raphael Nadull btw - let's not be disrespectful). Nadal's motto seems to be improve - and of course, in Federer, he could see the standard he had to aspire to. He was a willing student: not in emulating him but in analysing what he needed to do to match/outdo Federer's evident prowess and honing his strengths to do that.
However for Federer, out front, he didn't see the need for that...perhaps until it was too late.

I feel that ironically Federer's extraordinary career has played against him at this point. So many commentators, tenistas etc have lauded him devotedly for many years. Others - and most notably Nadal have had to have their every effort/achievement questioned - because they haven't fitted the Federer mould. That seems to have build greater perspective for them and they expect and cope with being challenged better.

There are holes in this I know - but i don't want to make it too long, so maybe I'll write more later if you folks have other ideas...

To the OP, you bring up an interesting perspective applicable to virtually all sports, excepting those where the measure is the tape or the clock and not just the competition. I perceive Federer as arrogant and doubt I'd like him as a person. His post match interviews often carry barbs inflicted even after praising a player, so no I'm not keen on him.

To devalue a slam though, when entry has been open does not imho hold credibility. You can only beat the guys who show up and just as there are lucky breaks in a game there is also luck with entrants, injury and the draw. When you play for as many years as Federer then there are bound to be weaker and stronger periods. Right now with Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Soderling, DP, et al it has become a strong period. Federer still regularly gets to the semis of the GS events, he still looks effortless in many games and his shot capability is incredible (sorry to have to admit it). If he now looks vulnerable then yes, he has pretty tough competition and like all of us he cannot halt the march of time. Reactions and speed will slow, he will tire earlier.

What I will accept is the musing that he may not have dominated if the competition was always so strong throughout his career, but that is hypothetical and no-one can control it. Do we want to say Borzov didn't deserve the 100m gold in the 1972 Olympics or Brazil won a weak Football World Cup in 2002 (which are equally valid under this argument).

I don't like him but cannot deny it's been good to have a master craftsman to watch all these years - I do think Nadal is going to win more GSs though if he stays fit.

sportslover wrote:

laverfan wrote:

sportslover wrote:Deja vu we are back on 606.

Not until Catalan Power joins.

Heaven forbid but wow reckons he has already come and is amongst us

I was just poking fun, please do not take any offence.

Boromir... can you write an article on Federer's DC record as well, I need a good laugh.

I think there's some validity to those points in that Nadal has changed his game greatly to be a challenger on all surfaces. He is a continual improver but Federer isnt. The fact Federer didnt have a coach for much of his prime period is revealing - he thought he knew the best way to coach himself, but its hard to improve yourself with no external input and hence he could have perhaps made greater gains in his game if he had chosen to.
I think this is due to Federer's psychological profile which has a strength for winning but the flipside is that he doesnt take criticism well and doesnt take advice easily - hence he preferred to go it alone for a long time.

Here's an interesting article by DR. ROLAND CARLSTEDT, chairman of the American Board of Sport Psychology, written a while back:

My research on over 1,000 athletes, including hundreds of ranked tennis players, has isolated three psychological factors that are the most critical factors in driving peak and critical-moment performance, choking tendencies and overall mental toughness. The measures — hypnotic susceptibility, neuroticism and repressive coping — work together to mediate brain-mind-body processes that underlie technical performance.

The ideal athlete’s profile is high or low hypnotic susceptibility, low neuroticism and high repressive coping, whereas the worst profile is high hypnotic susceptibility, high neuroticism and low repressive coping.

If I were to assume that Roger Federer has the ideal profile, there are still minor vulnerabilities associated with this profile, including the tendency to know it all, lessened coachability and annoyance with those who dare challenge or contest athletes with this profile. These characteristics may explain why Federer has been without a coach for much of his career — something that could eventually haunt him by preventing him to conceptualize ideal game plans and also prevent him from accessing psychological interventions that can help all athletes enhance recovery, sleep and immune function.

The best way of increasing the odds that a player could beat Federer would be to prime him psychologically through advanced mental training techniques to carry out a meticulously and scientifically based game plan that is designed to expose Roger’s minute weaknesses. By engaging in sophisticated and high-tech approaches to motor training and mind-body control, procedures that I have validated through extensive testing, a player who can last and go toe-to-toe with Roger or even pull ahead of him has a chance of winning.

The ability to stay with Federer game after game is something that can impact a player with the ideal athlete’s profile, since they are not used to being tested or having their high level of self-confidence and self-esteem attacked head-on.

lydian wrote:I think there's some validity to those points in that Nadal has changed his game greatly to be a challenger on all surfaces. He is a continual improver but Federer isnt. The fact Federer didnt have a coach for much of his prime period is revealing - he thought he knew the best way to coach himself, but its hard to improve yourself with no external input and hence he could have perhaps made greater gains in his game if he had chosen to.
I think this is due to Federer's psychological profile which has a strength for winning but the flipside is that he doesnt take criticism well and doesnt take advice easily - hence he preferred to go it alone for a long time.

Here's an interesting article by DR. ROLAND CARLSTEDT, chairman of the American Board of Sport Psychology, written a while back:

My research on over 1,000 athletes, including hundreds of ranked tennis players, has isolated three psychological factors that are the most critical factors in driving peak and critical-moment performance, choking tendencies and overall mental toughness. The measures — hypnotic susceptibility, neuroticism and repressive coping — work together to mediate brain-mind-body processes that underlie technical performance.

The ideal athlete’s profile is high or low hypnotic susceptibility, low neuroticism and high repressive coping, whereas the worst profile is high hypnotic susceptibility, high neuroticism and low repressive coping.

If I were to assume that Roger Federer has the ideal profile, there are still minor vulnerabilities associated with this profile, including the tendency to know it all, lessened coachability and annoyance with those who dare challenge or contest athletes with this profile. These characteristics may explain why Federer has been without a coach for much of his career — something that could eventually haunt him by preventing him to conceptualize ideal game plans and also prevent him from accessing psychological interventions that can help all athletes enhance recovery, sleep and immune function.

The best way of increasing the odds that a player could beat Federer would be to prime him psychologically through advanced mental training techniques to carry out a meticulously and scientifically based game plan that is designed to expose Roger’s minute weaknesses. By engaging in sophisticated and high-tech approaches to motor training and mind-body control, procedures that I have validated through extensive testing, a player who can last and go toe-to-toe with Roger or even pull ahead of him has a chance of winning.

The ability to stay with Federer game after game is something that can impact a player with the ideal athlete’s profile, since they are not used to being tested or having their high level of self-confidence and self-esteem attacked head-on.

So that clears that up then

Lydian, what year was then article written?, anything pre 2008 would be impressive

Many might argue, to use the OP's thread title, that Federer's problems are mainly Nadal as discussed in this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/5111757/The-great-wall-of-Nadal-so-beautifully-built

Tom_____ wrote:Lydian, what year was then article written?, anything pre 2008 would be impressive

Dates to August 2007 at the latest.
Here's the article in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/sports/27iht-27tennis.1.7279223.html

lydian wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:Lydian, what year was then article written?, anything pre 2008 would be impressive

Dates to August 2007 at the latest.
Here's the article in the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/27/sports/27iht-27tennis.1.7279223.html

Lydian, this article is written by a Nadal fan. He is saying that Nadal is better than Fed in overall achievements which only a Nadal fan would say.

Nadal is a bad match up for Fed and Djoko is turning out to be same for Nadal. Who knows if Nadal will be able to add another slam to his kitty?

This does explain his losses, but what about his wins.


"why Federer has been without a coach for much of his career"

BTW, he had a coach starting with Peter Carter (from age 12 to almost 2000), Peter Lundgren (2000-2003), Tony Roche (2005-2007), Jose Higueras and now Paul Annacone+Severin Luthi (who has always been there). Staubli played a role as well. Paganini has been around Federer since his Swiss academy days.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/187744-the-team-behind-roger-federer