Why Roger Federer won't win another major
ocean
http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/04/why_roger_federer_wont_win_another_major.html
Why Roger Federer won't win another major
Monday, April 04, 2011, 10:13 AM
Douglas Perry, The Oregonian By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
"Saw many of the matches for the Miami Tournament. It sure seems
clear that barring injury to many of the top young tennis players –
Fed’s time at the top is over. I will even predict that he will NOT
win another major. Unlike Pete he can’t serve his way through a
tournament. Agassi could survive loss of movement because he stood
inside the baseline and cut off the angles. Fed’s movement and
agility were really his best weapons and he no longer has that edge.
Pete, even when he lost a step, was the best server in the game, and
although he couldn’t win consistently at the end – he could still
serve through anyone. Fed’s not even competitive with Rafa and
Djoker. He’s forced to take huge risk to compete -- it’s what I
remember others having to do to compete with him. If he’s red hot
with his serve and painting the lines with his forehand he can beat
Rafa and Djoker, but not consistently."
As much as I’d like to, I find this argument very difficult to
counter. Sampras had the big serve-and-volley game, a style that for
decades allowed the best practitioners to make some noise well after
their best years were behind them. (A 40-year-old Pancho Gonzalez
reached the semifinals at the 1968 French Open and the quarters at
Forest Hills.) Agassi could take the ball earlier than his opponents,
true enough, plus he got his last couple of major titles in the brief
2001-03 zombie era, when the other best players were a young Lleyton
Hewitt, an old Sampras and a party-boy Marat Safin.
Federer was so dominant for so long that logic would dictate that even
in decline he should be able to win a Wimbledon here and a U.S. Open
there. But that's not the way it works. The tour is so competitive now
that losing a half step in speed and motivation is probably all that
it takes to knock Roger out of serious contention for the biggest
titles. As our knowledgeable emailer points out, Federer used to
breeze to 6-0 and 6-1 sets against very good competition because his
opponents had to take huge risks if they wanted not just to compete
but to win. If those risks didn’t pay off -- and they usually didn’t,
because it’s difficult to hit the lines for an entire match -- the
result was a blow out.
I don’t rule out the possibility that Federer could get on a roll at
the right time, get a few breaks with the draw, and walk off with a
seventh Wimbledon title. He is, after all, Roger Federer. But he
looked decidedly overmatched and dispirited in his four 2011 losses --
three to Djokovic and one to Nadal. Federer is sure to give us
thrilling tennis for as long as he decides to stay out on court, but
like Connors and McEnroe in the late eighties and early nineties,
those last couple of wins in big tournaments are likely to stay just
out of reach.
-- Douglas Perry
Calimero
> http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/04/why_roger_federer_wont_win_...
What is "Oregonian"?
Max
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
The primary newspaper out of the state of Oregon, I would guess.
kaennorsing
> http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/04/why_roger_federer_wont_win_...
>
His whole argument is undermined by his own comment; "Fed’s not even
competitive with Rafa and Djoker". Those are just two players. So if
their level drops and/or his rises, he's right there to snatch a win.
Also, the argument "The tour is so competitive now" has always been
used.
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nah, I hate to say it, but I agree with the writer here. I don't think
Roger will win another major unless Djokovic and Nadal are hit by a
bus and Roger has an easy draw and some luck. I have been thinking
that it may be possible for Roger to win one more slam but I am not
even sure of that any longer. Run Roger run!
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why?
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why what?
John Liang
> http://blog.oregonlive.com/tennis/2011/04/why_roger_federer_wont_win_...
>
>
> Monday, April 04, 2011, 10:13 AM
>
> Douglas Perry, The Oregonian By Douglas Perry, The Oregonian
>
> "Saw many of the matches for the Miami Tournament. It sure seems
> clear that barring injury to many of the top young tennis players –
> Fed’s time at the top is over. I will even predict that he will NOT
> win another major. Unlike Pete he can’t serve his way through a
> tournament. Agassi could survive loss of movement because he stood
> inside the baseline and cut off the angles. Fed’s movement and
> agility were really his best weapons and he no longer has that edge.
> Pete, even when he lost a step, was the best server in the game, and
> although he couldn’t win consistently at the end – he could still
> serve through anyone. Fed’s not even competitive with Rafa and
> Djoker. He’s forced to take huge risk to compete -- it’s what I
> remember others having to do to compete with him. If he’s red hot
> with his serve and painting the lines with his forehand he can beat
> Rafa and Djoker, but not consistently."
I think this writer forgot the fact toward the end of his carere
Sampras' serve could not
really penetrate through Hewitt's return game and he lost 4 out of his
last 5 matches against
Hewitt. Hewitt was playing a style of game that was more troublesome
for Sampras than
Agassi. I was looking at some of Hewitt's return stats against
Sampras in Sampras career
after USO 2000 and in one of those matches Sampras lost Sampras was
only winning 56%
on his first serve only marginally more effective than 2nd serve.
Agassi managed to stay
around a bit longer because he had quite a few years when the
generation of players came
after Sampras and Agassi era were mainly great one surface players
like Kuerten and Moya.
None of them could mount consistant challenge to Sampras and Agassi on
non clay surfaces.
I think there are a few thing to take note that the hard court surface
in Indian Wells and Miami
were slow hard court.
>
> As much as I’d like to, I find this argument very difficult to
> counter. Sampras had the big serve-and-volley game, a style that for
> decades allowed the best practitioners to make some noise well after
> their best years were behind them. (A 40-year-old Pancho Gonzalez
> reached the semifinals at the 1968 French Open and the quarters at
> Forest Hills.) Agassi could take the ball earlier than his opponents,
> true enough, plus he got his last couple of major titles in the brief
> 2001-03 zombie era, when the other best players were a young Lleyton
> Hewitt, an old Sampras and a party-boy Marat Safin.
Agassi himself once said Federer was able to take the ball much
earlier than he did and in fact
it was the way that Federer was able to take the ball much earlier
than most that sort of rushed
the other players into errors.
>
> Federer was so dominant for so long that logic would dictate that even
> in decline he should be able to win a Wimbledon here and a U.S. Open
> there. But that's not the way it works. The tour is so competitive now
> that losing a half step in speed and motivation is probably all that
> it takes to knock Roger out of serious contention for the biggest
> titles. As our knowledgeable emailer points out, Federer used to
> breeze to 6-0 and 6-1 sets against very good competition because his
> opponents had to take huge risks if they wanted not just to compete
> but to win. If those risks didn’t pay off -- and they usually didn’t,
> because it’s difficult to hit the lines for an entire match -- the
> result was a blow out.
Well until today's loss Federer only lost to two players Nadal and
Djokovic.
>
> I don’t rule out the possibility that Federer could get on a roll at
> the right time, get a few breaks with the draw, and walk off with a
> seventh Wimbledon title. He is, after all, Roger Federer. But he
> looked decidedly overmatched and dispirited in his four 2011 losses --
> three to Djokovic and one to Nadal. Federer is sure to give us
> thrilling tennis for as long as he decides to stay out on court, but
> like Connors and McEnroe in the late eighties and early nineties,
> those last couple of wins in big tournaments are likely to stay just
> out of reach.
Maybe.
>
> -- Douglas Perry
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why would anybody believe a guy with a possible greatest talent that
managed to win many of them won't be able to win another one?
Djokovic had tough times and was lost for a while and he was never at
Federer's level now, but he found his way back. People don't
understand that having too much talent could be a big burden at times
when the player is not able to deal with it all, but once the whole
thing clicks (as Pete used to say) the player looks like a genius out
there. I have no clue if he will win one more, many more or nothing,
but I can't make a statement like this saying he won't win another
one. How many people here and how many times have they said the same
thing about him when he had nine or ten slams?!
The one thing I can say for sure, that he is not as hungry and
motivated as he was when he wanted to break Pete's record. Matching
and crossing Pete's mark for sure was not a piece of cake at least
mentally. What does he need to prove out there again?
Court_1
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has nothing to prove. He has done it all.
The reason I say it is different this time is due to his age. He will
be 30 shortly. He was able to pull a lot of miracles out of the hat in
the past because of his sheer talent but now it will be harder and
harder for him to do. Can he still have another streak or two and win
some titles? Possibly, but as time goes on it will become more
unlikely as he ages and goes further into decline. He is just off. His
footwork is off a shade or two, his serving is very inconsistent, etc.
etc. We will see. I never count Federer out completely.
wkhedr
>
> - Show quoted text -
He is not winning 2-3 slams a year any more but he will win one or
more slams.
Joe Ramirez
capability:
The first factor is his top-end tennis. When he's playing his very
best tennis -- meaning for a whole match, not just a few games -- is
the tennis good enough to win a slam, regardless of the potential
opposition? (Note that "good enough to win" does not mean "guaranteed
to win.") I think we saw at the 2010 YEC that the answer is still yes.
Federer remains capable of producing very, very strong tennis. It's
not quite as good as his top end from five years ago, because he's a
bit slower and doesn't seem to attack the ball as decisively, but it's
good enough to triumph at a slam.
The second factor is his reliability. How often can Federer product
his top-end tennis? How subject is he to distraction or long stretches
of subpar concentration? How much is he affected by fatigue or minor
physical ailments? Can he get through the two weeks of a slam without
hitting a fatal trough in playing level? Clearly, Federer's
reliability is greatly reduced from what it once was, to the point
that winning another slam now seems improbable. I wouldn't say that
it's impossible, though.
Both top end and reliability are affected by age, but generally the
second generally declines more rapidly. That difference seems to
account for the wildly divergent opinions here about how far removed
from his "peak" Fed is, or how much longer he's likely to be able to
compete at the elite level. People who insist that he's as good as, or
nearly as good as, he used to be are looking only at his top-end
tennis, when the more crucial performance factor is his plunging
reliability.
drew
>
> I think this writer forgot the fact toward the end of his carere
> Sampras' serve could not
> really penetrate through Hewitt's return game and he lost 4 out of his
> last 5 matches against
> Hewitt. Hewitt was playing a style of game that was more troublesome
> for Sampras than
> Agassi. I was looking at some of Hewitt's return stats against
> Sampras in Sampras career
> after USO 2000 and in one of those matches Sampras lost Sampras was
> only winning 56%
> on his first serve only marginally more effective than 2nd serve.
And had Sampras met Hewitt instead of Agassi in his final USO, he
probably
would have lost to Hewitt....but sometimes the draw unfolds in
fortuitous
ways.
I would have said Sampras couldn't win another major when he took the
last one
and clearly it was a combination of persistence and good luck that
gave him one
more shot.
The same could happen to Federer. But clearly he needs the help of
the draw now.
He's not going to get through and in form Djokovic and Nadal to win
another major.
kaennorsing
Well said. Fed's reliability has a lot to do with his deteriorating
ability to recover from matches as he ages along. He's notably stiffer/
less agile in his upper body (visible in his forehand movement
especially) after a couple of matches in short succession. What will
determine his chances in slams will therefore have to do with the way
he'll be able to move through the draw, not necessarily the perceived
difficulty of it.
Vari L. Cinicke
Fatalism?
Joubert
articles only if the author accepted to take a fire estinguisher up his ass
should his prediction turn wrong.
felangey
another major<
That is not a given either. Could happen.....at Wimby especially.
ocean
BTW, I think Fed can win 1 more slam, at Wimbledon. He just needs
stars to align one more time. Won't surprise if he wins Wimbledon this
year or next... And retires with 17 majors..
felangey
It's not like people have written Fed off before now is it....they have been
trying eggy-faced for years. This time they think they have him pegged. Once
more unto the breach...? :)
Katya
You conjure up a mighty image: the fields of a post-modern
Transylvania where the impalees have their own jetpack.
Most projections of how Fed will retire seem to be tainted by Pete's
last exploit. No matter the camp, there's some slam computation. And,
as with other guesses, the best seller for the masses is the doom
scenario.
TennisGuy
> You conjure up a mighty image: the fields of a post-modern
> Transylvania where the impalees have their own jetpack.
>
> Most projections of how Fed will retire seem to be tainted by Pete's
> last exploit. No matter the camp, there's some slam computation. And,
> as with other guesses, the best seller for the masses is the doom
> scenario.
You took the words right out of my mouth! :)
GOYLE
The mental image I get is a type of Lowbrow art or rather pop
surrealism.
ocean
Indeed.