How can you possibly say your opponent has no affect on what you do. If that were true there would be no such thing as forced errors for one thing. The pace, spin and location of your opponents shot dictates to you what you can do with your shot. That is like saying a pitcher has no effect on the batters performance. The only time in tennis you have complete control of the ball is serving. Not to mention you have to move to the proper position in order to return the ball. You must not have played a very worthy opponent if you don't think he effects your performance.

In a tennis match your opponent can wear you down to the point of exhaustion just by simply moving you all over the court. Does this not effect your performance?

I did not say it does not effect what you do, I said it does not effect your performance. Whether it is a tennis ball or a baseball. You are confusing final score with ability(performance)

If they are simply better than you are, in better condition for example so their performance is less adversely impacted by fatigue, can put the ball someplace you are not quick enough to hit it. They have greater ability and perform at a higher level. This has little or nothing to do with their opponent's ability to perform at whatever skill level they happen to have.

Your score is a reflection of your performance(ability), not the other way around

QUOTE: "You are confusing final score with ability(performance)"
_______________________

Ahhh ...as I suspected, we are mixing our definitions. As in: "My performance was great, but I lost to a better player."

Where I was using the final 'score' to determine the 'performance' outcome.

But I still stand by my previous comparison: In events where you have no opponent "opposing your actions", it's all about individual "ability" (your definition) ...as in golf, bowling, archery, darts, ...etc.

I know what you said. What I am saying is if I make you run your ass off for many balls over time your performance will degrade, therefore I am affecting your performance. That is nothing like golf. Andre Agassi made a living making others run until they could no longer stay with him. There is no question he effected their performance.

All world class clay court players use the same tactic. They were you down until you physically cannot stay with them.

I disagree with your viewpoint -- the reason Djokovic didn't win those first two sets was because Federer hunkered down when he was behind and was able to play to win. Consistency wins matches -- not secret weapon hitting.

Back in the 70's and 80's, Bjorn Borg had a similar play type -- he was a baseline player that won not necessarily because he was such a good player, but because he was a consistent player. I read once that the reason that Borg was so good was because while his opponent was committed to playing baseline tennis for the next two days, Borg was committed to being out there for the next two WEEKS. Federer's play is very, very similar.

Sunday, he clearly outplayed Djokovic. Not in terms of the amount of energy he used, but in terms of the amount of energy he forced Djokovic to use. I believe that is the key to Federer's game -- wear down the opponent, while keeps as much energy as you could in reserve.

I honestly believe that if Djokovic would have won the first two sets, that Federer would have come back and won the last three sets. Easily. While Djokovic was near the end of his energy late in the third set, Federer was still going strong.

Another thing that I see in Federer is his ability to keep his emotions in check -- especially his negative ones. Djokovic twice was near being given a warning -- once when he slammed his racket down, and once when he threw his water bottle to the ground. I bet I know what Federer was thinking when those two things happened: "I GOT HIM NOW." Revealing your frustrations to the opponent in tennis simply gives him an "in." Your weak spot is revealed, and your opponent knows that your concetration is compromised, and that you're not at the top of your game. So he can come in and win. Game. Set. Match. Which is exactly what Federer did on Sunday.

-Z-man.

A big + 1

I agree Zman. The funny thing is that Djokovic played like this as well up until the final. He just let the moment get to him. Very few ever break thru on the first try. It usually takes while to get to that level of confidence. Federer used to let it get to him early on as well.

Djokovic has what it takes to be a champion though. I think we will see a lot of him in the years to come.

That is a fine point you make jester, it just is not really germaine to what I was saying. Running around is part of the game in tennis, like soccer or basketball, big cardio demands. If I am going to go out there and be competitive, my conditioning would never be an issue. I am more likely to be the one wearing out the other guy, not the other way around.

Unless you run into a guy who like Federer can hit any shot from almost anywhere and control or regain control of points and make you do the most running. Djokovic could probably run around with anyone but Federer had him on a string and after a long hot tournament on a hard surface it doesn't take much of an advantage to gain an edge.

Like Agassi said; To be the best you need to be the best in at least two or three aspects of the game. Federer is the best in at least 5 or 6.