Why Roger Federer is a flawed genius

Joe Karsay Roar Rookie

By Joe Karsay, Joe Karsay is a Roar Rookie

 , , , , , , ,

104 Have your say

Popular article! 9,866 reads

    Roger FedererAs a huge fan of Roger Federer, I regret having to write this article. Federer is the most talented player I have ever seen – my hero. His record would suggest that he is the greatest ever. However, he does not have one vital ingredient that most champions possess.

    He is not a fighter. Unlike other recent greats, Sampras, Agassi and Nadal, Federer does not play his best tennis in tight matches. He is a front-runner who finds it hard to scrap and come from behind.

    In his early career Federer was identified as someone with a huge amount of potential and extraordinary technical talent, but he was an easy beat. He was mentally flaky and at times he would appear to lose interest in matches when he fell behind on the scoreboard.

    The best example of mental fragility in the young Federer was when Hewitt came back from two sets down to win in five and knock Switzerland out of the Davis Cup in 2003.

    Federer was a late bloomer, but when he did bloom his game (always beautiful) went to the next level. Maturity combined with his pure shot production brought consistency to his game, and for a period he was virtually unbeatable.

    His dominance in his first few years as number one was magnified by the fact that there was daylight between himself and the next rung of players. He played near flawless tennis to crush Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 in the 2004 US Open final and went through Roddick 6–2, 7–6(2), 6–4 in the 2005 Wimbledon final.

    Federer got in the habit of winning easily. Some would say a good habit to have but a challenger was always going to emerge, someone who could push Federer and expose not just the weaknesses in his game (if any) but also the depths of his character.

    The only person who provided any resistance in these years was a young Rafa on clay. In 2006 and 2007 Federer had the chance to hold all four majors by beating Rafa in the final of the French Open. He lost both times despite winning a set in each match and having several good opportunities. There were signs in these matches that the fragility of the young Federer still lingered although most people put it down to the Spanish bull being himself unbeatable on the red surface he had grown up on.

    Since 2008 Federer’s dominance of men’s tennis has been eroded and I would suggest his mental weakness exposed. I realise that some people will find it a hard argument to accept – that a player with 16 Grand Slam titles to his name could be mentally soft. The evidence is mounting.

    The match that most people describe as the best Grand Slam final of the modern era was perhaps Federer’s darkest hour. He had beaten Rafa in the two previous Wimbledon finals. Grass is Federer’s best surface and at that time was considered Rafa’s worst. It suited Federer for many reasons, primarily because he, unlike most of his contemporaries, could serve volley when he needed to. In fact, in his early years Federer quite often serve-volleyed on grass. It is a surface which rewards the dominant server who can come in and finish off the big points quickly. Sampras had been a master of it. Its low bounce also neutralised Rafa’s biggest weapon, his heavily top spun forehand.

    The Fed took the first two sets 6-4, 6-4 and most people assumed he was on his way to yet another Wimbledon title. At the time we did not know that on the other side of the net was the toughest, most determined and fittest player the game has ever seen. In many ways the Spaniard is Federer’s mental antithesis.

    Rafa ended up taking the match 9-7 in the fifth set. The match should have been Federer’s. He had chances to beat Rafa, as he has in all their big clashes. The common theme being that Rafa concentrates better and attacks more on the big points. Many believe Federer would have won this match if he had the courage to serve volley deep into the fifth set.

    It was the second time Roger had squandered a two-sets-to-love lead. It’s the type of loss that you don’t recover from quickly, nor your rivals forget. In 2009 Roger again lost to Nadal in five sets in the Australian open final. It is a match that will be remembered for the uncontrollable tears that ran down Federer’s face when he was presented the runner’s up plate by his idle Rod Laver. We can only speculate why Federer wept that night. The tears themselves were revealing. Federer is a gentleman in the true sense of that word. If he was ruthless like Sampras he would have been the complete player.

    In the last eighteen months it has not only been Rafa who has had some big wins over Federer at the Grand Slams. Novak Djokovich beat him in last year’s US Open semi after surviving a match point. Federer fell to the wiry young Serb again on Thursday night, this time more meekly.

    Federer can be a frustrating man to support. There is a palpable difference in intensity between he and Nadal or Djokovich prior to big points. You can see his opponents concentrating yet harder and stealing themselves for what is to come, emotion pouring out of every pore, whereas the Swiss master stays calm… too calm.

    Federer is not good at arresting the momentum when matches swing against him. Plan A is that he is too talented for his opponent and there is no Plan B. His unwillingness to use his net play and variety against his younger more powerful opponents is curious at times. His single handed backhand (a thing of great beauty, like an antique) has become a weakness.

    Federer’s impeccable CV will be complete if he can beat Rafa in hard fought five set Grand Slam final, but his time is running out.

    Latest Post: 2 Feb 2011 – Roger Federer is merely in transition

    Do you find yourself logged out of The Roar?
    We have just switched over to a secure site (https). This means you will need to log-in afresh. If you need help with recovering your password, please get in contact.

    This video is trending right now! Submit your videos for the chance to win a share of $10,000!

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (104)

    • January 31st 2011 @ 5:44am
      Anonymous said | January 31st 2011 @ 5:44am | ! Report

      “The Fed took the first two sets 6-4, 6-4 and most people assumed he was on his way to yet another Wimbledon title” – It was actually Nadal, who took the first two sets. Roger fought back and won the following two in tiebreaks.

      • February 1st 2011 @ 3:32am
        aloysious said | February 1st 2011 @ 3:32am | ! Report

        You really should get your facts correct before writing such a blog. After losing the 1st two sets, Federer won the next two in tiebreakers.
        Your account of that match is so erroneous, it makes the rest of your blog irrelevant.

    • January 31st 2011 @ 5:45am
      Matt said | January 31st 2011 @ 5:45am | ! Report

      You are wrong, In that 2008 Wimbledon Final, Federer got down 2 sets to love, not up! Nadal won the first two sets, and Federer fought back to win the two tiebreakers in the 4th and 5th sets, saving match points! It was a great battle from Federer, he just couldn’t keep Nadal back long enough!

      • June 11th 2011 @ 7:00pm
        jared said | June 11th 2011 @ 7:00pm | ! Report

        I agree with Matt that Fed will fight when down. I think the challenge he faces is he tightens in those key moments which is what can get him behind in the first place. Once he is almost down and out, he is able to swing freely and then his best tennis comes out. Alas, often by this stage it is often too late.

    • January 31st 2011 @ 5:55am
      allie said | January 31st 2011 @ 5:55am | ! Report

      The scoreline of that epic 5 set loss to Nadal – *Nadal* took the first 2 sets and Federer fought back, ultimately to lose 9-7 in the 5th set, when it was clearly so dark the match should have been called. And by the way, Federer did beat Nadal in a 5 set grand slam final – in 2007.

    • January 31st 2011 @ 5:56am
      j. brown said | January 31st 2011 @ 5:56am | ! Report

      Still trying to cope with semis. Thank you for maybe telling me why I’m in agony watching Federer lose. It’s because he could have won them all! Totally off the subject, but if you’re a writer…might want to watch…this always…between HIM and so and so…between ME and so and so HER, THEM, US…NEVER I, he, she, we.

      • January 31st 2011 @ 6:18am
        clipper said | January 31st 2011 @ 6:18am | ! Report

        Also Laver might be idle now, but he’s probably still Federers idol. Federer is still a great player, but I think the bout of mono took quite a toll and gave other players more confidence against him.

        • January 31st 2011 @ 2:05pm
          Loyal Fedfan said | January 31st 2011 @ 2:05pm | ! Report

          I’ve been thinking the same thing about the mono situation. It also put doubt in Roger’s mind for the first time in a long while that he could/would win. Now, the natural degradation of his game is coming into play which exacerbates his doubt. Federer fans had gotten so used to Roger winning that it is so frustrating to watch him lose to opponents that he used to have for lunch.

          • February 1st 2011 @ 12:44am
            Thamin said | February 1st 2011 @ 12:44am | ! Report

            Yes, he has not been the same since that virus attack…sigh!!

      • January 31st 2011 @ 7:30am
        aceagain said | January 31st 2011 @ 7:30am | ! Report


        • January 31st 2011 @ 1:54pm
          clipper said | January 31st 2011 @ 1:54pm | ! Report

          aceagain, I was illustrating that Joe Karsay should’ve used idol instead of idle in the article – I presume that’s why you replied with a ‘!’

    • January 31st 2011 @ 6:05am
      Anonymous said | January 31st 2011 @ 6:05am | ! Report

      In recent times, Federer has been beaten by nadal and Djokovic because he got outplayed, not because he was mentally weak. Mental toughness can’t beat a better player. I am a huge Federer fan, but he hit his peak from 2003 to 2007. Since then there have been flashes, but he is not “the old Roger”. Oh, and Roger has come from behind 2 sets to love to win countless times. (2010 Wimbledon-Alejandro Falla, 2009 French Open-Tommy Haas, 2009 Australian Open-Tomas Berdych, and countless others)

    • January 31st 2011 @ 6:07am
      Steve said | January 31st 2011 @ 6:07am | ! Report

      Not a bad article but flawed nonetheless. Two points:

      You assert that Fed won the first two sets, 6-4 6-4, in that famous Wimbledon final. You are wrong. Nadal won the first two sets, 6-4 6-4. it was Fed that came back and almost won. Nadal’s win was probably more due to his better eyes in near-darkness than Federer’s. The Fed did scrap and fight. When you miss basic facts like this your credibility as an observer of the game and thus of your article plummets. Of course, getting the facts wrong helps your alleged hipothesis, but your premise is incorrect and therefore your hipothesis as well.

      Second, I believe that Fed has a different kind of game. Yes, he does not like to waste himself on one game, as important as it might be, because he knows there is another coming around the corner. Nadal will waste himself in one gane and then not make it to the next. So who has the best strategy? I would suggest we count the number of grand slam titles.

    , , , , , , ,