Roger Federer is merely in transition
Giovanna
critics and fans alike have begun to wonder if the end of the Roger
Federer ‘Federa’ is coming to an end. Of course, this is not the first
time such a prediction has been made by those brave enough to write
him off.
Following defeats to Djokovic (again at the Australian semis) and
Nadal (Roland Garros & Wimbledon) in 2008 many thought Roger Federer
was a goner.
He had suffered a heavy defeat at the hands of Nadal as he tried to
win Roland Garros for the first time in his career. But worse yet, his
run of five consecutive Wimbledon titles had come to an end, following
a 4 hour 48 minute epic, widely thought of as the greatest match of
all time.
The following year, Federer once again lost to Nadal in five sets,
this time in Melbourne. The tears that ensued seemed to be symbolic to
many critics in the media. Federer was done. He would not win another
Grandslam.
The response was fairytale-like. After three consecutive final losses
at Roland Garros, Federer battled through some tough earlier rounds to
the final, where he dismantled Robin Soderling, attaining the career
Grandslam.
At that stage, it was hard to find an expert who didn’t consider
Federer to be the greatest male singles player of all time. He assured
any doubters with a sixth victory in Wimbledon and a fifteenth
Grandslam title.
How Federer came back to dominance cannot be fully known. Partly
perhaps, because his game was more complete, although that is a hard
thing to imagine.
He added the drop-shot to his arsenal, proving a killer blow on the
clay. It was his willingness to make necessary changes in his game
that saw him rise to power once again. We saw hints of it during the
American hard-court swing, but he was still not consistent enough with
his strokes.
As his new game became second nature, everyone witnessed the
devastating effects.
More recently, challenged with quarter-final losses at Roland Garros
and Wimbledon, again Federer faced criticism and predictions of an
“imminent fall from the top”.
In New York, at the U.S. Open, having hired new coach Paul Annacone,
we saw a different Federer who had been beaten by Thomas Berdych in
straight sets on the All-England Club’s lawns.
An attacking, aggressive style which overcame all of his opponents
until he reached the semi-finals with two match points. Federer lost,
but he was showing signs of great improvement. He was in transition.
Following the U.S. Open, there was no doubt who was the dominant
player on tour. Not Rafael Nadal, who had just become the eighth man
to complete the Career Grandslam, nor Djokovic, who had played some of
his best tennis at Flushing Meadows.
Federer reached the final of all but one of the last five tournaments
of the year, winning three titles, including a victory against Nadal
at The O2. But despite this great success, Federer found little in the
way of challenge, his improved “all-out attack” mentality had proved
good enough to overcome nearly every opponent.
A challenge did not arise until the Australian Open, this year. In the
second round, he met Gilles Simon, the Frenchman on his return from
injury, and whom Federer had failed to beat in their two previous
encounters.
With a comfortable two sets to love lead, Federer looked as if he was
about to beat Simon for the first time with relative ease. But Simon
stepped it up as Federer lulled in the third set, his speed and
ability to absorb Federer’s power proved too much to handle, and took
the next two sets, with Federer looking in deep trouble. He managed to
pick up his game at the right time and take the fifth set.
The real challenge however, arrived in the semi-finals, with Novak
Djokovic at the opposite side of the net. For the first time in years,
the Serb’s serve was a weapon to be fearful of, and he was coming into
this match hot.
He also had the knowledge of having beaten Federer at the very same
stage three years earlier. Djokovic was a daunting opponent. He took
the match in three close sets, blowing Federer away with a newfound
agression.
What proved vital in Djokovic’s win was Federer’s obstinate view on
his new game. This was mainly adopted to take on the likes of Nadal, a
defensive, almost passive player, not the new and improved Djokovic.
His aggression from the back of the court as well as incredible
defense was to be admired.
The odds are, even if Federer had been able to change his game
effectively, the match would have been almost impossible to call.
However, regardless, he was not able to change his game.
Federer was not quite comfortable enough with his new style to
implement the necessary changes. But he is getting there; he is in
transition. And when he does get there, he will be a very difficult
force to contend with.
For the first time in over six years, Roger Federer does not hold an
active Grandslam title.
Immediately after his exit from Melbourne, critics once again
predicted the demise of Federer, with headlines like “Federer will
never win a Major again” reappearing, and a strange feeling of déja vu
along with them.
He was “done” in 2009, and went on to claim his first French Open
title, and a record number of Grandslams. He was “done” in the middle
of 2010, and went on to dominate the second half of the season. He is
“done” again. What will he go on to achieve this time?
It is very dangerous, very dangerous indeed, to write off Roger
Federer.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/02/01/roger-federer-is-merely-in-transition/
uly...@mscomm.com
to say that he's in decline. I can't believe anyone would doubt this,
with his results from 2010.
Claiming Fed is in "transition" suggests that he somehow can get back
to his peak level. It's obvious he is never going to win three slams
in a year, as he did in his prime. From now on until he retires, he
will have to consider winning one slam a year as outstanding and lower
the bar for his expectations.
This would be a minority opinion, but I actually think his best
chance to win another major this year is at the FO... only if Rafa
loses first or is injured. If Nadal is out, I would really pick Fed as
the favorite. His clay game is outstanding, especially with the added
dropped shot. I don't see him ever winning the USO again unless he
gets a walkover in the semis or a cakewalk draw. He's too old now to
play quality back to back matches in the semis and final.
ocean
>
> He was “done” in 2009, and went on to claim his first French Open
> title, and a record number of Grandslams. He was “done” in the middle
> of 2010, and went on to dominate the second half of the season. He is
> “done” again. What will he go on to achieve this time?
Become the player with the most slams on HC? Right now he is tied with
Graf with 9 majors on HC.
ocean
Fed has to avoid Soderling and Nole to win the FO... Not just Rafa...
Vari L. Cinicke
Yes, the US Open will be tough if he gets a pair of youngsters on the
final weekend. Maybe he will get lucky and meet Hewitt in the SF and
Roddick in the final.
Any hard court slam is going to require his FH to be in fine tune. With
the loss of speed, his invitations to hit down the line to his forehand
are no longer lethal.
Wimbledon is doable. A slightly bigger 1st serve and more risk on the
2nd serve are keys, IMO.
--
Cheers,
vc
felangey
> final weekend. Maybe he will get lucky and meet Hewitt in the SF and
> Roddick in the final.<
Oh, tough. I hate when slam wins are tough. Give me the easy ones. :)
> Any hard court slam is going to require his FH to be in fine tune. With
> the loss of speed, his invitations to hit down the line to his forehand
> are no longer lethal.<
Seems to me that he has had a pretty good thing going on HC's of late. We
saw he was flat from the beginning of the AO and looked an unlikely winner
from the outset. Not sure why this was (besides play conditions), but let's
at least wait and see if he can dial it back in. You guys have a tendancy to
be 'over-realistic', like you are pre-preparing yourself for deflation. At
least have the bawls to believe! ;)
> Wimbledon is doable. A slightly bigger 1st serve and more risk on the 2nd
> serve are keys, IMO.<
Let's just see what happens. :)
Javier González
> On 2/11/2011 12:01 PM, ulys...@msomm.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > While I would love for this to be true, I think it's far more accurate
> > to say that he's in decline. I can't believe anyone would doubt this,
> > with his results from 2010.
>
> > Claiming Fed is in "transition" suggests that he somehow can get back
> > to his peak level. It's obvious he is never going to win three slams
> > in a year, as he did in his prime. From now on until he retires, he
> > will have to consider winning one slam a year as outstanding and lower
> > the bar for his expectations.
>
> > This would be a minority opinion, but I actually think his best
> > chance to win another major this year is at the FO... only if Rafa
> > loses first or is injured. If Nadal is out, I would really pick Fed as
> > the favorite. His clay game is outstanding, especially with the added
> > dropped shot. I don't see him ever winning the USO again unless he
> > gets a walkover in the semis or a cakewalk draw. He's too old now to
> > play quality back to back matches in the semis and final.
>
> Yes, the US Open will be tough if he gets a pair of youngsters on the
> final weekend. Maybe he will get lucky and meet Hewitt in the SF and
> Roddick in the final.
Maybe he can catch a break like the previous goat and draw Gonzalez in
the semi and Roddick in the final...
Vari L. Cinicke
>> Yes, the US Open will be tough if he gets a pair of youngsters on the
>> final weekend. Maybe he will get lucky and meet Hewitt in the SF and
>> Roddick in the final.<
>
> Oh, tough. I hate when slam wins are tough. Give me the easy ones. :)
>
There's Federer's for you. Looks so smooth that you think he should
always do everything right.
>> Any hard court slam is going to require his FH to be in fine tune.
>> With the loss of speed, his invitations to hit down the line to his
>> forehand are no longer lethal.<
>
> Seems to me that he has had a pretty good thing going on HC's of late.
> We saw he was flat from the beginning of the AO and looked an unlikely
> winner from the outset. Not sure why this was (besides play conditions),
> but let's at least wait and see if he can dial it back in. You guys have
> a tendancy to be 'over-realistic', like you are pre-preparing yourself
> for deflation. At least have the bawls to believe! ;)
>
From what I have seen, all it takes is a blind eye and a closed mind! :)
Agree on the positive outlook for game and the excellent HC performance.
AO was a bust once the temperatures stayed in the doldrums.
>> Wimbledon is doable. A slightly bigger 1st serve and more risk on the
>> 2nd serve are keys, IMO.<
>
> Let's just see what happens. :)
My plan exactly! ;)
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
I would also have no objections if he doesn't face anyone in the Top 16
for 3 additional Wimbledon titles! ;)
--
Cheers,
vc
TT
Manco
Open semis. Which means no more US Opens for Freddy!
uly...@mscomm.com
he owned at the USO. So he caught a huge break. Had Pete played Hewitt
or Marat in the finals, he would have been mowed over.
I think it's highly unlikely Fed can ever win another USO. His choke
against Del Potro looms ever larger, because that match was his to
win. He came within 2 points of doing it and then lost his way.
If Rog can get a semifinal opponent like Tsongas at the USO and a
finals opponent like Tommy Robredo or Ferrer, of course he will get
another USO. But what are the odds of these types of shitty opponents?
Slim to none.
CloudsRest
> Well, Pete won it when he was 30, but had Andre in the final, a player
> he owned at the USO. So he caught a huge break. Had Pete played Hewitt
> or Marat in the finals, he would have been mowed over.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely Fed can ever win another USO.
Especially if he continues to get scheduled in the second semifinal,
prime time TV slot. That's also negative for his opponent, as it
likely won't be a short match to earn victory against Federer.
best of five matches on consecutive days is something that should be
changed. Being unique is one thing, but you must be prudent about
it. 5th set tiebreak is actually nice, something I think all majors
should adopt. Not just because of that 70-68 match. A final set
tiebreak ensures fairness for all. The arguments I've read in favor
of the Sat-Sun, besides money, are things such as "tennis should be a
young man's game." Very odd.
Iceberg
you must be nuts, the 5th set tiebreak elsewhere would be an absolute
disaster for tennis, it's what makes some matches so exciting, fun,
close and unpredictable. It's why when Nadal won the AO it was such a
staggering achievement etc