The first time I watched Federer was the Wimbledon 2003 finals against the big serving Mark Philippoussis and I supported Mark to win that. Federer won it very convincingly but I just couldn't see the greatness in his game at that time. It was not until he won Australian Open 2004 when I really saw how far ahead his tennis was ; it was something magical about it I just couldn't resist that charm. And it was not just me, it seems everyone was captivated with his flair and elegance. I did earlier and even now hear the crowd so much warming up to him. Tennis gained popularity like never before and the true successor to the legend Pete Samprass had arrived.
Then there was a change in tennis. Federer I remember once said Tennis changes about every 5 years and he was right. With tennis changing, Federer who initially was a S&V player transformed his game to primary baseline play. Yet his skills and tennis was so remarkable it still appealed to a very wide audience. But as it always happened tennis changed again with the rise of a player that was never seen before, Nadal.
And with that something else was also seen which wasn't seen before. Tennis turning into a "show" and less like a sport. Changing courts, balls, playing conditions to allowing players to bend and break rules, gamesmanship, a suspected draw system. All trying hard to push certain players to win. This is now done so openly as we saw in the Roland Garros 2012 when the ball provider Babolat slowing balls to the limit so as to almost guarantee that the player who endorses their products wins. This is not a sports any more. A sport doesn't work like that. Its become a "tennis show".
Why is this happening? This no doubt this is definitely driven by the popularity of the kind if tennis and the players playing them. It has reached an extent that even umpires are losing their power to apply the rules of tennis on them. Are there more takers for Nadal's brand of tennis than there are for Federer's? Are there more people who want to watch Nadal take Federer's record of slams than see Fed being the greatest achiever of Slams?
Is Federer or his style of tennis has not enough takers? Isn't there enough people who would love to see him win majors like he did earlier. I don't remember anything at all being done to favor Federer like what's being done now to favour Nadal's wins by his sponsors, TDs and ATP themselves. Aren't there many people who would like to watch the old Fed win at least 1-2 slams before he hangs his racquet forever?
Has Federer's tennis lost his charm to Nadal's stamina lung busting game that no one is interesting in seeing Federer win? Why isn't there any Slam which can help his brand of tennis to succeed?
Is Federer's tennis an extinct art that has no value among the modern tennis fans?
My take on all this is perhaps yes. Its sad, but thats how I see it now.
Federer and his tennis.
posted on 22/6/12
Tennis gained popularity like never before and the true successor to the legend Pete Samprass had arrived.
----------------------------------------------------
I couldn't agree with this more. Fed is the reason that I strted to watch tennis again and I was so glad that he kept those uncouth roddick and Hewitt from winning anymore.
posted on 22/6/12
"That's the kind I mean...."Only in America".
that was baaaaaaaaaad, and depressing....
posted on 22/6/12
I think whilst a number of things have gone Nadal's way (especially the slowing down of courts), Federer whilst being mentally pretty tough (you don't win 16 slams without it), but probably isn't as mentally tough as a Sampras or a Nadal.
How often did we see a player miss break points against Sampras, yet when he had one, he was pretty clinical. Same case with Nadal.
Federer isn't as clinical when it comes to converting and saving break points (dating as far back as his wimbledon meeting with Sampras in 2001). In Federer's prime, he never really needed to be as clinical, as he was able to create so many opportunities to beat his opponent, but as his powers are waning (since 2007), it has become a real problem.
I genuinely beleive that (slow courts or not), Federer lost FO 2007, 2011 and AO2009 in the mind and not on the court. Had Federer been as clinical as a player like Sampras, I feel he would be sitting on at least 19 Slams right now (with 3 French Open wins) and Rafa on 8 slams with no career slam. There would be no comparisons between the legacy of Rafa in comparison to Federer. But so much sport is played in the mind.
posted on 22/6/12
I agree on some point JT (Pete being stronger mentally though it coudl be argued too) but above all I think it's impossible to differentiate the mind from the physical side..in tennis.
I actually think Federer is stronger mentally than Nadal at the beginning of a match. He is often the one starting stronger (even v Djoko in fact) but as the match goes on federer is being urged to close sets and Matches and that is tough mentally if you know you lose your physical edge and main weapon (brilliant timing) as the match goes on.
Nadal on the other hand takes heart as seeing Federer shanking more often, and extending the rallies cause Fed has no choice but to play safer as his edge gets blunt. It's exactly what happens when Djoko and Nadal meet. Th eone panicking as teh match extends is Nadal not Djoko.
So in that respect, I think teh slowing down of the court have affected Fed's chance physcally and therefore mentally.
There is nothing more depressing than having to pull 5 winners to get a point. On a faster surface, with no more than 3 or 4 shot rallies, Fed's edge can go on for ever but as soon as he is asked to play 7 or 10shot rallies, his chances of winning and of course his mental go down dramatically.
The problem Fed is facing nowadays is teh same that the problem he was facing prior 2007 v Nadal on clay.
They have made the game extremely physical and the mind intervenes very little in fact...unless you get 2 players of similar power and stamina.
posted on 22/6/12
There is nothing more depressing than having to pull 5 winners to get a point. On a faster surface, with no more than 3 or 4 shot rallies, Fed's edge can go on for ever but as soon as he is asked to play 7 or 10shot rallies, his chances of winning and of course his mental go down dramatically.
==========================================
I do agree with this point and has affected not only Federer, but pretty much every attacking player in the game and is one of the reasons why I get so irritated by the tennis in this era.
But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.
posted on 22/6/12
But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.
---------------------------------------------
Sampras had an excellent second serve and that certainly helped. In that respect I agree he was very string mentally cause it has nothing to do with physique, it was about taking a big risk on his second serve (something Murray can't do for instance).
However the quality of returning has considerably improved since 2001. Partly due to bigger balls slowing down towards the baseline and the luxilon string technology allowing returners to stand back and swing at the return with max power and spin....something which was not available for Pete and Fed in 2001. Well it was but they prefered both to play natural strings then. Hewitt already was showing what coudl be done returning Pete's serve by standing back and returning dipping balls in Pete's legs thanks to Luxilon.
In short I feel that Pete woudl have struggled to win a slam in Federer's time, especially after 2006. Look, he won 14 slams on fast conds and a fat 0 on clay. Nowadays they are all more or less playing like clay.
Interesting discussion anyway.
posted on 22/6/12
@ JT
But as I've mentioned before, Federer had so many break points versus Sampras in 2001, I'd never seen Sampras struggle so much on serve, but Fed never capitalised and could've lost that match even though he had 4 times as many break points. So I still feel that part of his game is not up there with Pete.
-------------------------
That was just 1 game JT, how can things be concluded based on just one game. Pete was a 7 time wimbledon champion, Fed was rookie in comparison. Fed just won the match even when it went to 5 sets itself shows his strong mental side. Though Fed had nothing to lose in that match, but its not easy getting over mentally when facing Pete on grass in wimbledon.
You say you never saw Pete struggle so much on serve, then you surely didn't see any of his matches at FO or clay and that too against opponents I won't even talk about here.
mental side is alright, but its highly dependent of what are the terms of the game. If the match is played on all terms favoring one player, he will have to appear mentally stronger. This is true for everyone, including Nadal and Federer.
posted on 22/6/12
mental side is alright, but its highly dependent of what are the terms of the game. If the match is played on all terms favoring one player, he will have to appear mentally stronger. This is true for everyone, including Nadal and Federer.
----------------------------
This is so true. Let's not forget that Federer has the best TB record in the history of the game. That is a real trait of mental strength.
posted on 22/6/12
You say you never saw Pete struggle so much on serve, then you surely didn't see any of his matches at FO or clay and that too against opponents I won't even talk about here.
==========================================
Yes, what I meant to say was I never saw Pete struggle so much on serve at Wimbledon.
I'm not denying the fact that Federer is strong mentally. He clearly is. You don't win the amount of slams he has won without being mentally tough.
What I'm trying to say is he was good enough in 2007 to beat Nadal even on clay had he taken his opportunities. How many break points did he have in that 2007 FO Final?
How many crucial double-faults did Federer make in the AO Final 2009. Yes, I do understand that the slower courts means he will make more mistakes in the later sets, but he had the ability to beat Nadal even on slow courts, but he hasn't taken his chances.
posted on 22/6/12
How many crucial double-faults did Federer make in the AO Final 2009.
-----------------------------
That's really a match of missed opportunities for Fed. He really should have won that one in 4 if not 3.
But teh amount of balls that came back and woudl have never come back on faster conds.
Weren't those dble faults in the 5th sets essentially? I remember him taking a couple of months break afterwards to rest his back.