Roger Federer

[Andras Nagy]

After watching Roger beat Djokovic, it occurred to me that Roger, of late, has been playing only as hard as he has to in order to win.

Does anyone else feel that Roger does not put his heart and body into it the way that Justine does? Justine plays every point as the most important one. Roger seems to feel that only the winning point is the most important.

[Sarc]

Why does Fed have to play every point like it's the most important? Look at where that's taken Nadal of late and Roddick (another player with a "physical" game) in the past--troubles with injuries. When was the last time Roger had a significant injury, was it the season ending masters event in '05?

Although she has similar game in some respects to Federer's, I think Henin has to play at 110% because or her size. Especially when facing the big hitters on the tour like Sharapova, the Williams', et al. Federer doesn't have this problem.

Besides, can you imagine how deflating it must feel as a Federer opponent to think you've got him beat, only to find him "flip the switch" on an win a match you thought you had. What a weapen to have.

I don't think there's many Tennis fans on this board, so this thread will probably head to page 2 pretty quickly. Maybe putting some eye candy up will keep it around a little.

[lendaddy]

I remember Agassi being quite open about this when he was in his prime. Not sure it was a strategy or a character flaw though.

[Sarc]

Originally Posted by lendaddy

I remember Agassi being quite open about this when he was in his prime. Not sure it was a strategy or a character flaw though.

True. In his early days, Agassi played with aloofness and played just enought to get by. Image was everything. I think it's fair to say that by the time of his resurchance in his late 20s and certainly into his later playing years, playing the point just enough was a strategy to concerve energy.
As Agassi before him, Fed is also (albeit much earlier in his career) limiting himself to amount of tournaments he plays in, all in an effort to conserve energy and prevent injury.

Looking at the big picture, it's not like Federer is just hoping for a C and that he makes it to the next grade. He did just enough to win another Major which now ties him for second overall with Rosewall and two behind Sampras--and he's only 26.

Imagine the potential if he stays (competitive and healthy) in the game, as Agassi was, unitl he's 35. With his style of play, fitness regimine, and schedule, it's certainly plausible he will surpass Sampras' record and then some.

[JonT]

I would say this is just a matter of interpreting Federer's style. He's just not running around the court grunting and trying to out muscle his oppenents like Roddick and Nadal. He does what the other's at the top of their game do--he makes it look effortless. However, ask his oppenents about the velocity of his shots and more importantly his placement and consistency. The guy is absolutely amazing and one could argue the most dominant pro in his sport.

[DARISC]

The best always make it look easy.

As quick as he is, his relaxed manner between serves, which can appear to be almost casual, and the fact that he displays very little emotion (and I've never seen him express anger) has led some to comment that his game is mechanical, ignoring, it seems, the often referred to as balletic movements that he manifests in his incredible athleticism, all while conserving energy which other players may squander with fits of anger or emotion - the guy is poetry in motion!

He always plays hard enough to try to avoid, to paraphrase him, "stupid five set matches".

Stirling Moss drew similar comments from some who watched races wherein drivers slipped and slid, sawing steering wheels back and forth with great vigor, while Moss motored calmly on by them, as if on a Sunday drive.

Afterthought - in boxing, a knockout is what counts; not how FAR out .

[SlowToady]

Or for another sports analogy, I imagine it being somewhat like cycling. You don't ride in every single event, and you don't try to dominate every single event. You strategically ride and dominate the events that are of greatest importance (whether by points or historical significance I suppose). For example, Lance Armstrong has won 7 Tours, but he didn't win all the stages in all the Tours. Or even most of them. He didn't ride balls to the wall every stage, every day. If he did, he surely would have won not a single Tour. Instead, he rode as hard as he had to to ensure that he stayed ahead at important times.

Back to tennis...I grew up watching both my brother and sister play tennis competitively in High School and a little bit at the college level. As near as I can tell, the serving motion is not natural for the shoulders, which leads to high rates of injury. In fact, I'd wager that most motions that occur in most professional sports run contrary to the design of the body due to their high intensity and frequency. In this sense, it makes PERFECT sense to only play as hard as you need to to win. At a professional level, it's about playing smart, not playing hard.

Why risk career ending injuries just to prove you played your heart out when you would have won either way?

[Scooter]

I think it just looks easy for Federer.

I also think it is difficult to be at the top of YOUR game if you are not routinely challenged by your competition. I think it takes Roddick or Nadal to really have their A game on to truly challenge Federer right now. There really is nobody else out there right now that I would expect to beat Federer.

He is much like Tiger was a few years ago, when everyone was basically playing for second place.

[Mo_Gearhead]

Djokovic should have won the first two sets in that match, it could have easily gone to five sets or Federer loosing in fewer! Federer was NOT playing his best early (everyone has an off day) with many unforced errors, but unfortunately the kid could not finish the chore. And as The 'Number 1' has shown in the past, he has this great ability to come back when down.

When Federer is playing well he dominates most players and just his reputation of being able to 'turn it up' a gear deflates many opponents (he gets in their head).

He is GOOD ...and he is certainly not shy about admitting it!

Edit: I find the debate concerning Tiger and Federer (who is the greatest in their field?) interesting. With all due respect to the golfers here, not even close! Lets see: Place ball on stationary tee, all quiet in the gallery (shhhh!),
hit ball, repeat as necessary. Golf = play the terrain, play the elements, play with your mind! Weigh 280 lbs? Drink some? No problem.

Amusing comparison IMO.

[}{arlequin]

are we missing the point that djokovic basically took himself out of the match at all the important (turning)points in each set??

don't think fed was playing just to get by. he makes it look effortless and easy, but those two sure were slugging it out. it's been a while since i've seen so many long rallies in men's tennis. either they all take on that style, or the new technology has slowly been phasing out edberg/sampras types of quick serve-n-volley points. maybe the racquets give so much power on returns that it makes serve-n-volley not as effective?

whatever it is, it reminded me of some of my favorite baseline battles between becker and ivanisevic. and those two HAD big serves as well.

[}{arlequin]

Originally Posted by Mo_Gearhead

Djokovic should have won the first two sets in that match, it could have easily gone to five sets or Federer loosing in fewer! Federer was NOT playing his best early (everyone has an off day) with many unforced errors, but unfortunately the kid could not finish the chore.

exactly! djokovic basically collapsed after 1st two sets. it could've gone very differently b/c he seemed to play w/ good confidence while things were going well in the set.

[DARISC]

Bottom line - Federer won - again .

[widgeon13]

I believe Roger and Tiger Woods have been making contact and discussing game strategy for some time. They are both tremendous competitors and the best at their sport, they both seem to have the capability to turn on to a higher level when necessary as well as the ability to concentrate when others lose focus. I think they are very similar. Federer also seems very mature and in control on the court and during interviews.

[jester911]

I have been watching and playing competitive tennis for many years. Roger Federer is the best player I have ever seen play. Even more so in person. Djokovic did have set points in the first two sets. The pressure got to him no question. Let us not forget he is only 20 years old. I predict he will be #1 in the world at some point. Probably when Rogers skills and body degrade some.

Nadal is the best on clay but his body will not hold up near as long because of the energy he needs to use in order to win. He already has knee and back problems at 21.
As for whether Roger is playing just well enough to win it is true to an extent for all players especially in a 5 set match. Knowing that you might possibly have to play 4 to 5 hours in one match you have to conserve energy no matter how good of condition you are in.

Pete Sampras did it all the time. He knew he could hold his own serve so he would usually cruise until it was 4 all and then he would go all out in one return game to break serve and then serve out the set. He knew that even if he got to a tie breaker he would probably win it much like Roger does now.

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "They are both tremendous competitors and the best at their sport".
__________________-

Well, here goes, I'll send this thread on a tangent now (here come the golfers ...DUCK!) but golf (IMO) is not a "SPORT. Golf is a recreational activity that people developed into a 'well paying venue' that some, like Tiger Woods excel at.

Golf = Bowling = Competitive Pistol/Rifle Shooting = Field Events (discus, shot-put, etc. = (insert your own activity) where other competitors actions DO NOT have ANY effect on YOUR performance ...other than the ability to 'mess with your head'.

If someone is not lined up across from you, attempting to counter your actions,
you are not participating in a 'sport'.

[jester911]

Mo, I agree with that to a point. It isn't a true athletic sport. However it helps to be a fit athlete.
Tiger is known to be one of the fittest on tour so it definitely helps. I don't believe Tiger is in the condition that Roger is though. There is a huge difference in playing 18 holes and going 5 sets. I do find it odd that golf and tennis are put in the same category so often. Apples and oranges IMHO.

[DARISC]

Darts - now there's a sport!

As for synchronized swimming, while challenging and a true athletic test of, of... I'ts only a matter of time until one swimmer messes up real bad and we have a case of synchronized drowning on our hands that the sport will be banned.

Curling - grueling! Should be a men only sport.

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "I do find it odd that golf and tennis are put in the same category so often. Apples and oranges IMHO."
_____________________

I think it's only been so recently, of these two greats (Federer - Woods) because of their similar ages, the number or tournaments won, Woods chasing Jack Nicklaus's record, Federer chasing Pete Sampras' record... etc.

After Sundays win: Four-time U.S. Open tennis champion Roger Federer says "he and golfer Tiger Woods are the world's only dominant athletes".

As I said earlier, modesty is not his strong suit. But hey, if you can back it up....!

[Tobra]

Mo, you are mistaken, what your opponent does in tennis does not affect your performance any more than it does in golf. What is the difference if your opponent hits a tennis ball past you, or a golf ball farther, or closer to the pin. In either situation, the opponent has performed better than you, but this has no impact on how well you perform. I have always found golf much more difficult than tennis.

Tennis and Golf are the big country club sports, maybe swimming too. I always figured that was why they got lumped together.

When you are really good at something, a lot of the time you don't look like you are trying that hard a lot of the time, because it is easier for you to begin with.

[Mo_Gearhead]

QUOTE: "you are mistaken, what your opponent does in tennis does not affect your performance any more than it does in golf."
_______________________________

A ridiculous statement!

Ok, lets see. If my performance (score) in golf is to shoot the lowest score, NO OTHER person on the course can effect MY SCORE. If so, please tell me how?

In tennis, my performance (score) is AWAYS effected by my opponent! He/she may hit an ace serve, passing shot, drop shot, lob over me, etc. to score points. I may hit a great service return and have my opponent hit an even better shot and win that point. He/she may win some games, some sets, even the match?

You think a defensive back, point guard, hockey goalie, etc. have NO EFFECT on their opponents performance?

Perhaps you are confusing 'performance' (the final score) with one's 'ability' (their inherent or aquired skills)? There we can agree.