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
Arul Singhi
Guest
Federer was 2 sets to 0 down in 2008 WIMBLEDON final and not up. Get your facts right...
jared
Guest
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.
Ana
Guest
I'm a huge Federer fan but I have to say i totally agree with you. It's true that he has won a few matches in five sets at the French Open 2009 but most of the time, you just have the feeling that he does not have any desire to fight in tight matches or when he has to come from behind. Apart from that, he is an extremely talented player, most certainly the best ever and i truly hope he'll win a few more Grand Slams even though i doubt it.
Shailesh
Guest
Totally agree, I think the writer has a very, very limited knowledge about Roger's career. And to think that he "possibly slept" during the Wimbledon 2008 final, pfft... Its therefore pretty ironic that history will never remember the writer of this article, but it will always remember Roger Federer :)
SSS
Guest
It's appalling to see how one loss can overshadow more than 6 years of sheer talent that changed the very game of tennis as it was known before the advent of the Federer Express. And Roger is certainly more of an all-rounder than Sampras. Dont forget that roger was the finalist at the French open for 3 yrs and the winner once - neither of the feats ever achieved by Sampras. Roger not a fighter? What abt the match against tipsarevic at the aus open a few years? Or the match against haas at wimbledon? Or the match against davydenko at the aus open 10? Who can forget the match between federer and roddick at 09 wimbledon? Get your facts right first, then decide whether the genius is flawed or not!
SCD
Guest
Not a fighter? What was the score in the last Wimbledon final he won? Silly article.
Rory
Guest
Did anyone happen to notice or point out that the in the 2008 Wimbledon final Federer actually lost the first two sets...oh.
laadlabakdaas
Guest
Winning 5 set matches doesn't necessarily mean somebody is mentally tougher. In fact someone who never even drops a single set in finals shows better toughness mentally because they are not afraid to go after shots. For someone like Roger who never gets any credit for playing the game the right way people fail to notice that he's never retired from any match in his career and this means he plays through mono, back problems and twisted ankle (TMF finals against nalbandian). Federer defeated Rafa in Miami after being 2 sets down. Ofcourse the bandwagon ppl would give out excuses like injury, being young and inexperienced, etc. Federer defeated Rafa right after his Australian open defeat in spain where Rafa's fan girls simply said Rafa was not Rafa. While Fed not being Fed since 08 due to lost form, illness, injuries, imminent fatherhood don't count as reasons for underperforming but Rafa having a bad 09 because of feigned injuries, parents divorce and loss of confidence is a valid excuse for not showing up to the party. Its easy being Rafa, its tough being Roger who goes for a winner every single shot. But the media and pseudo fans of tennis only like the never say die hard spirit aka a rabid dog running down balls taking them for bones. Give Roger a break, he played the game the right way all the time and dominated the sport like never before for so many years before law of averages caught upto him. Its one thing to keep moonballing and landing the ball onto the court infinite times, its totally another brand of tennis to go for a winner at every single opportunity.
Jude
Guest
It's like asking me to care about article on Lord Byron, after you mention his greatest soliloquy "to be or not to be"
Jude
Guest
I found article interesting, until egregious error regarding Wimbly 2008. The greatest match in history, and you had it so wrong. And I don't even like Federer. But after that error, I couldn't possibly read on. It's not a small mistake. It's like asking me to seriously consider the opinion about the Patriots loss in Superbowl 2008, after you state that the Giants held the undefeated record in the game.
Rory
Guest
Definitely no shame in losing. Djokovic was superb. But I'd like to think that Roger would reflect on a match like that and be prepared to take a different approach next time they meet instead of giving Djokovic balls with a pace and depth that he eats up. Would be great to see Federer take out his last couple of grand slams by mixing it up, displaying his full range. Would add to the legacy.
Rory
Guest
only if your not watching it for the tennis.
RAj
Guest
The content of this article itself contradicts with the title. It has more praise for the GOAT than a weak try to expose his weaknesses. It is the fact that federer is a great front runner and not the one who would be trailing in the big matches especially best of 5 ones and then try to come back just to satisfy the people like you who just want to pick up and stretch a point which is not worth talking at all especially in the context of federer. Like every individual has different set of qualities, federer has its own style and quality in his game which can not be compared just over a single criteria. I am glad that atleast you said that he is a genius - A genius is the one who has extraordinary intellectual and creative power which is clearly evident in his game. Unlike others he foresees the game right from the start. He is such an extraordinary talent with such a creativeness that he always remains couple of steps ahead of its opponents and hence he is very consistent with his game that he rarely falls in a position where he needs to dig himself out. I cant understand why writers do not write an article with consistency as a criteria to compare the players which is just because no one comes anyway nearer to federer in that department and correspondingly may not see their article being commnted more and more like this false article. Can you answer how many times did federer is pushed for a 5 setter over the proportion of matched he has played? how many times has he been pushed for a 5 setter on grass? Questions like these would make your article look even more full of flaws. The fact remains that he is great front runner and a flawless genius who will not change just because people like you write him off.
Bayman
Guest
On the upside Joe, all geniuses are flawed. It's part of what make them a genius. As the old saying goes, "Talent does what it can, genius does what it must!".
SportsFanGC
Roar Guru
Tony don't forget that this is an opinion site, I was simply commenting from what I saw happening during the Fed v Nadal games of the previous few years. Also I never claimed to read people's minds as you allude to, from the outside looking at the rivalry it seems that Fed can't get past Nadal at the moment and it probably did not help when he finally lost to Nadal on Grass. If you are so concerned about Nadal winning the majority of his games on clay against Fed then will you also look at Fed against any other mens top 10 player on grass because I guarantee he would have a great majority of wins on that surface also. But you would not discount that head-to-head record would you. All players have a surface they like/suits their game, Nadal and Fed are no different. You mentioned the players best years, Nadal is 24 years old so I would suggest that the best tennis is yet to come from him and he already has bagged 9 grand slams. You would have to concede that Fed has had his dominant patch and being closer to 30 is heading towards the twilight while Nadal, Djokovic etc are heading to their peaks.
robert
Guest
Mike - well said...I get up everyday and watch atleast 15 min of Fed on youtube.com. When he finally hangs his racquet , I will stop watching tennis for good until another Fed comes along....his game is soooo beautiful you can watch Fed practice than all the other grunting baseline robots play each other....nadal included
Ryan
Guest
You got the facts wrong. In 2008 Wimbledon, it was Rafa who won the first two sets and then won it in 5 sets. Roger didn't win the first two; he lost them and them won the next two sets in tie breaks, but eventually lost in five. Please correct it.
madeleine
Guest
What is unbelievable about this terrible piece of blogging from Joe Karsay is the fact that the greatest tennis match ever to be played, deserves a full research precis. Clearly, this guy did diddly squat research to come up with the incorrect...."fed led the first two sets...". How any person who knew anything about Federer, let alone being his "greatest fan"...yeah right, pull the other one - could get this so massively wrong. If this guy is to have any credibility with what he says about federer, then he needs to come on her and make a full apology to all federer fans. You got it wrong Joe. Big time. Unforgiveable. The mental fragility is on your part - for not doing your research properly. How could you get this wrong? It beggars belief. Fed is one of the toughest grinders out there. 8 years at the top, consistency unmatched. Joe. You need to go and work on a farm dude. Because writing properly is beyond your remit. Federer is the greatest. He is a mentalist. Plenty of moments where he has dug deep. And really. Pul-leaze do me a favour. He meets nadal in a final. Beats him and yet another target is set? He's got to beat rafa in another final? Really? Hasn't rafa got to reach a final first?
Doris
Guest
I think your facts are wrong about Wimbledon 2008. Fed almost came back from 2 sets love. Otherwise I think your ideas are pretty accurate.
aloysious
Guest
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.