The Problem for Roger Federer

[El Dude]

I didn't watch the Final today, so don't know anything beyond the score, but something that came to mind for me is that I'm starting to doubt whether Roger really can win a big tournament anymore - meaning a Slam, Masters, or World Tour Final. The reason I doubt this is that while Roger's "floor" of performance is quite high (at least this year), his "ceiling" isn't nearly as high as it once was. When he plays a Novak or Rafa, he simply can't beat them if they are even just playing reasonably well - certainly not their "A game" and perhaps not even their "B game.

Roger can beat players like David Ferrer, but that's because Ferrer's range of play isn't that wide. Ferrer at his best is very good, but it isn't that different from his typical level. A player like Berdych or Tsonga or Wawrinka, however, while being far more erratic than Ferrer, has a higher peak level. A Tsonga, Berdych or Wawrinka at their best is an elite player. The problem with these three players in particular is that they haven't had the mentality to play at their best as frequently as the true elites of the game.

In that sense, Federer has become a kind of hybrid--in terms of results--of a Tsonga/Berdych/Wawrinka and a Ferrer, depending upon which day it is. He can have an erratic day and mix brilliance with shankery, or he can have a steadier, workman day and just do what he needs to do to win.

But the problem, again, is that he no longer seems able to produce a high enough level of play to either beat a Rafa or Novak--unless they have a terrible game--or to beat a streaking Wawrinka, Tsonga or Berdych. Now we might think that Roger could still navigate his way to a big tournament win if the chips fall right, but the problem is that in the finals of big tournaments you either end up meeting an elite player or a near-elite player who is streaking, like Tsonga at the Rogers Cup.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Roger will somehow pull out his magic tricks once or twice more, but
in the four big finals he's been in this year, he hasn't been able to do so. At this point I think he'd have to be extraordinarily lucky to win another big one. I hope I'm wrong!

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Dude.

Anyone expecting that Roger "should" still be the man he was hasn't been studying tennis history: all players reach this stage, if they're lucky. Roger is 33 and we ignore this at our peril. He's still setting an amazingly high level, and his fitness is otherworldly, given the mileage on his clock, but even still, with age come other problems, like loss of sharpness, and concentration issues, as well as the usual fitness stuff, though his recovery from long matches this week was noteworthy.

I think it's natural that we expect our hero to win big matches when they play, but eventually they start to lose, and sometimes the losses are inexplicable, except for the obvious reason, which maybe that he's losing his edge and getting older, even while he's fighting hard against this...

 

[Billie]

I have a solution for you Fed fans, just relax a little bit, don't overanalyze things, enjoy his play while he is still active and if he wins something big, it is an icing on the cake for him. If not, he has achieved so much already and you should be happy with that.

And some of you, like Front and Darth, please accept that there are other players on tour that can play well enough to beat him and also that Fed plays much poorer now than 8 years ago.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

This year along Fed is 2-5 in finals. He lost Brisbane to Hewitt, Indian Wells to Djokovic,
Monte Carlo to Wawrinka, Wimbledon to Djokovic and Toronto to Tsonga.

He should at least be 50-50 in finals.

What is worrying me more than that is the following fact; Rogers' own service games
used to last about 30 seconds to at most 2 minutes with an average of about 1 minute.
Today, he really needed to fight so hard just to hold serve with some games lasting
8 to 10 minutes. If this becomes a new feature of 33 yr old, that will surely be
the beginning of end.

 

[Billie]

I think it was a big problem for him today that he played all of his previous matches at night and after finishing his semi final match at 10:00pm last night and then having to come back and play a final at 3:00pm under very different conditions than he was used to, didn't help him at all. It is a hot day today as well, Tsonga was used to it and Federer wasn't.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Ya, sure; Fed played all night matches and this is his first day match in Toronto. Certainly
it was a factor. But, that is a lame excuse.

 

[Billie]

Ya, sure; Fed played all night matches and this is his first day match in Toronto. Certainly
it was a factor. But, that is a lame excuse.

Well I don't know what to tell you. It seems that all excuses (I see them as reality, really) are lame to you guys. I had to sit and watch Nole and Gael for almost 3 hours - just sitting - and I was tired, had a bit of a headache as it was in the middle of a day and it was hot.

You would be surprised how much little things make a difference.

 

[El Dude]

All professional sports are games of inches, so yeah, Billie, the little things add up - especially when you're 33 years old. But I agree with you and I'm enjoying watching Roger play, not stressing too much about it. I'd love to see him win one more Slam, or at least a WTF, but at this point I think it very unlikely. The field is just too strong right now.

Kieran, I have sometimes wondered if Andre's late career push was helped by the weak field. I don't want to take anything away from Andre the Giant, but his last Slam win--the 2003 Australian Open, when Andre was a few months younger than Roger is now--was a bit of a "gimme." He won in a field that was without Sampras and Andre didn't have to face any top players. The players Andre beat to win the title, with seeding, were: Vahaly, Lee, Escude (29), Coria, Grosjean (12), Ferreira, and Schuttler (31). In other words, the highest seeded player he faced was #12 Sebastian Grosjean. There is simply no way that Roger will ever get a chance like that.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, I have sometimes wondered if Andre's late career push was helped by the weak field. I don't want to take anything away from Andre the Giant, but his last Slam win--the 2003 Australian Open, when Andre was a few months younger than Roger is now--was a bit of a "gimme." He won in a field that was without Sampras and Andre didn't have to face any top players. The players Andre beat to win the title, with seeding, were: Vahaly, Lee, Escude (29), Coria, Grosjean (12), Ferreira, and Schuttler (31). In other words, the highest seeded player he faced was #12 Sebastian Grosjean. There is simply no way that Roger will ever get a chance like that.

My own personal view of Andre playing so long is that he had a virtual hiatus mid-career, so he had more juice in the tank when he was 30, 31, than Pete, who was always diligently peering about from the top of the game. Federer is unusual in that physically he's got an immense ability to stay fresh, regardless of how many matches he's played. He's played 200 more matches than Pete had played, though he's only 2 years older, and he's #3 in the world. Pete more or less left the game exhausted, and he even skipped Oz in 1999 because he was feeling burnt out, but Roger's stamina and fitness have been superhuman.

But he's 33 and time waits for nobody. It's not so much physical, since he seemed sharp this week, despite a couple of long matches. As GSM said, Fed is getting tardy in dispatching his service games. This can be a combo of nerves, concentration. The swagger and conviction he had when he was 26 is never going to endure a long life on the road, but even still, look at the guy! He's going to be maybe second or third favourite going into Flushing Meadows.

Also, you're right about Agassi, he slotted in fine to that post-Samp period, where the game was waiting for Fedal...

 

[Billie]

Thanks El Dude, I am glad somebody understands my points.

I liked you previous post, but honestly don't say never with Federer. He might surprise us all yet again. We just don't know. He made big finals this year, a major final, if he is healthy and has a bit of luck (everybody needs some of that), I would not be surprised at all if he wins another major.

 

[El Dude]

To be honest about Andre, even his previous Slam win, the 2001 Australian Open--when he was 30 going on 31, about the same age Roger's last Slam win at Wimbledon 2012--wasn't so difficult. Andre's final foe was another easy opponent, Arnaud Clement (seeded #15), although he did have to defeat Patrick Rafter and an aging but still dangerous Todd Martin.

The 2000 Australian Open was probably his last truly hard-won Slam: he beat a prime 2-seeded Yevgeny Kafelnikov in the Final, just after defeating his arch-nemesis, the declined but still dangerous 3-seed, Pete Sampras.

I just don't see Roger getting a Slam field like Andre did in 2003 or 2001. That would be like having to face a Kevin Anderson in the SF and Feliciano Lopez or Richard Gasquet in the Final.

The depth of the field right now, at least the top 10, does speak well of Roger's #3 ranking. Right now we have two super-elite players at or near their peak level (Rafa, Novak), another almost-elite but erratic player (Murray), a handful of near elite dark horse candidates (Wawrinka, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer, del Potro when healthy), and a couple of hungry young studs (Dimitrov, Raonic) - not to mention Roger himself, a still dangerous all-time great in his twilight years. It is actually a pretty interesting time to follow tennis.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks El Dude, I am glad somebody understands my points.

I liked you previous post, but honestly don't say never with Federer. He might surprise us all yet again. We just don't know. He made big finals this year, a major final, if he is healthy and has a bit of luck (everybody needs some of that), I would not be surprised at all if he wins another major.

Yeah, it is possible. As I said, though, he either has to get really lucky and the field to clear up through upsets and then face, say, a volatile Murray or Ferrer in the Final, or he has to pull out all the stops and play the game of his life against Rafa or Novak.

You know, when I watch Roger play I see him taking your advice and relaxing and enjoying playing the game. Maybe that is part of the problem for him, and something Kieran alluded to. I mean, I know that Roger really wants to win more tournaments, but he probably didn't want that title as much as Tsonga did. Roger has nothing more to prove. Even if Rafa storms by him and wins 19 Slams, Roger will still be in the GOAT discussion and go down as one of the top two or three players in tennis history. But Tsonga had something to prove, and I'm glad to see it. I just don't see the same hunger in Roger.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Thanks El Dude, I am glad somebody understands my points.

I liked you previous post, but honestly don't say never with Federer. He might surprise us all yet again. We just don't know. He made big finals this year, a major final, if he is healthy and has a bit of luck (everybody needs some of that), I would not be surprised at all if he wins another major.

Yeah, it is possible. As I said, though, he either has to get really lucky and the field to clear up through upsets and then face, say, a volatile Murray or Ferrer in the Final, or he has to pull out all the stops and play the game of his life against Rafa or Novak.

You know, when I watch Roger play I see him taking your advice and relaxing and enjoying playing the game. Maybe that is part of the problem for him, and something Kieran alluded to. I mean, I know that Roger really wants to win more tournaments, but he probably didn't want that title as much as Tsonga did. Roger has nothing more to prove. Even if Rafa storms by him and wins 19 Slams, Roger will still be in the GOAT discussion and go down as one of the top two or three players in tennis history. But Tsonga had something to prove, and I'm glad to see it. I just don't see the same hunger in Roger.

roger does not have a problem..you don't get it.

rogers only "problem" is being 32/33yrs old and unless he has a time machine he cannot do anything about that. all accounts say he trains hard and is as eager as ever to play/travel/prepare.

 

[britbox]

I have a solution for you Fed fans, just relax a little bit, don't overanalyze things, enjoy his play while he is still active and if he wins something big, it is an icing on the cake for him. If not, he has achieved so much already and you should be happy with that.

And some of you, like Front and Darth, please accept that there are other players on tour that can play well enough to beat him and also that Fed plays much poorer now than 8 years ago.

This.

*** LOWER EXPECTATIONS ****

Anything is gravy at this stage... Just enjoy it while he's still active. Personally, I think he'll win another Masters shield at the very least. Even a slam possibly if things align.

 

[El Dude]

roger does not have a problem..you don't get it.

rogers only "problem" is being 32/33yrs old and unless he has a time machine he cannot do anything about that. all accounts say he trains hard and is as eager as ever to play/travel/prepare.

I'm so glad that Jesus is around to clear my eyes and ears of the cobwebs. I feel illuminated! What was I thinking?

 

[DarthFed]

His main problem is that there are just going to be days where he plays poorly. That's the main thing about age, it makes the day to day consistency a lot harder, recovery time increases, etc. So there will be the bad early losses, simple as that (think Chardy at Rome and Nishikori at Miami). There will just be bad days at the office regardless of where and when the matches are and today fits that bill.

The only thing you hope for as a fan is that he brings it when he does reach the finals of the big events. That's been his "problem" this year. He isn't taking advantage of the opportunities. The 2 losses to Djokovic weren't bad (though he certainly had winning chances in both) but the other 2 big ones (Wawrinka and Tsonga) are always going to be bad losses. Call me greedy, delusional, harsh but I always will think that Roger should take care of their kind especially in the big time matches.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

Roger has played some excellent matches this year but none of them in finals. He's still capable of title winning performances and I don't buy that Federer can't still beat Wawrinka or Tsonga if he plays his best tennis. His problem is emulating his performances from earlier rounds of tournaments when he gets to the final. The fact that he hasn't done that at Indian Wells, Monte Carlo or Toronto (excluding Wimbledon because I thought he played alright in that final) can be down to many factors. I think there's a mental block beginning to come into play, but I hope I'm wrong.

 

[El Dude]

He's still capable of title winning performances and I don't buy that Federer can't still beat Wawrinka or Tsonga if he plays his best tennis.

I agree and didn't say that. If he plays his best tennis he can beat those guys. I don't think his best tennis now can beat Rafa's or Novak's even almost-best tennis, but it can beat everyone else's (including Andy's, imo, but who knows what Andy's best is anymore). But again, he is clearly beatable by guys like Wawrinka, Tsonga, and Berdych when he isn't playing his best and they're playing theirs or close to theirs, and the problem is when those guys get to a final it means that they're playing at their best, and now we have to accept the fact that Roger is an underdog against those guys in finals.

In the past he could out-match those types of players rather handily. In truth, the best of his generation were those types of players and he routinely dominated them. But he's kind of like a high mountain peak that had its tip shaved off.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

For Roger, the issue right now is putting everything together and sustaining for a reasonable amount of time. And it is not fair to expect that from him anymore.

Today, the loss of step was clearer than ever to me. How many times did he try to run around the backhand to hit a forehand and butchered it? I lost count. That was bad footwork, which you never associated with Roger but here it is. He had cement feet today. I have mentioned this many times before and I will mention it again: His passing shot quality has gone down the drain. And of course, it has got to do with footwork too...If you are not ready to hit one, you will not hit one.

Also, I don't think he is able to handle 15 hours turnaround time anymore. That is one reason I think he might win another slam before a Masters 1000. A whole day of rest feels essential for him to recover , which he likely will never get during a Masters 1000 event.

There will still be magic for a while longer I think, but not on a consistent bases and not sustained for long stretches. I will take what I can get. Plus I have memories...

I agree with Brit. Everything from this point on is gravy.

 

[atttomole]

As a Fed fan I do understand that he is older and his consistency is not like it was before. However, it is difficult to accept, having seen the kind of tennis he played between 2003 and 2008. Because of that, I still imagine watching the old Roger. It can be said I am (we are) in denial. Like other Fed fans, I still think that if he reaches a final he has to win it. I still think he deserves more for the kind of talent he possesses, even at 33. I mean he is Roger!!