An observation on Roger Federer - the flaw in his mental game

[El Dude]

First of all, this is a great day for Federer and his fans - it has been over three and a half years (!)--since the 2012 Indian Wells--that Roger has defeated Rafa. So that's the good.

The bad? And why am I writing this now? Because of a nagging observation that was furthered from watching (part of) the match. As an aside, Rafa seems 90% back. In fact, he now seems relative to his peak 2008-13 form somewhat similar to what 2014-15 Roger is to his peak form. It remains to be seen whether he can go even higher, but the last month has been a huge improvement for the Spanish Bull.

Back to Roger. What I saw is what I see every time he faces Novak and Rafa, and pretty much only those two: he is less confident, gets more easily flustered, makes stupid mistakes, and looks like an overall inferior player than he does against lesser opponents. Look at Roger in the Wimbledon and US Open semifinals vs. how he played against Novak in the finals. Now of course this has everything to do with the other guy across the net, but here's the thing: Both Rafa and Novak tend to play their best against other top opponents (especially each other). In other words, they rise to the challenge while Roger seems to wilt a bit.

Why is this? My theory - as I think I have shared before - is that Roger attained greatness when he was the only big dog. He utterly dominated the tour from 2004-07, except for a little gnat named Rafa, and the occasional lapse against another opponent. But the crucial bit is this: When he was coming into his own in the early 00s, there were no truly great players to vie against. Yes, there was some excellent players - Agassi was in his second prime, Safin was at his best, Roddick, Ferrero and Nalbandian were all rising stars, and of course Hewitt was the best game in town for awhile. There were a half a dozen stars but no true superstar out there.

Rafa and Novak, on the other hand, grew up in the shadow of Roger. For them there was always an all-time great player at the peak of his powers. For Novak it was two-fold, the perennial #3 behind Roger and Rafa. Can you imagine how disheartening it must have been for him until his breakthough in 2011?

But the thing is, while Rafa and Novak haven't had the continuous dominance that Roger had for four years, they became better players for it. Because they grew up in the shadow of a great(s), they had something to shoot for, they knew how to fight from behind and become better and better. Not so for Roger, who developed in a field in which talent was more evenly distributed. He never had to develop that immense strength of will and determination that we saw from Novak in 2011, or Rafa at various points of his career.

This is NOT a variation on "weak era," mind you. Actually, the first half of the 00s had a ton of talent, more so than the late 90s imo, it was just more widely distributed. I've said before that while Roger's generation doesn't have the top tier talent of Rafa, Novak, and Andy, the second tier was--in my opinion--stronger than the Rafa/Novak generation.

Anyhow, just a theory, a perspective, if you will. The bottom line is that I rarely see Roger play his absolute best against Rafa and Novak, while I often seem them play their best against him and each other. As I said above, I think this has a lot to do with the context in which they came into the game and worked towards their peak.

This is also not a way of making excuses for Roger. If anything it points to a weakness in his mental game, a way in which both Novak and Rafa are greater players.

But yeah, a great victory!

 

[Kieran]

I agree with you, and I also think that because he faced (let's say) "not so big dogs", he didn't have to develop his game to counter any huge opposition. I remember back in 2006 the blurb still was that he'd figger Rafa out and then the youngster would fall into place. He did make changes, and tried things, but generally he believed in his own game too much against Nadal, because it usually brushed aside lesser players.

Both Rafa and Novak have constantly innovated and developed their games to counter improvements and innovations by the other.

But it's a good theory and I believe, a sound one...

 

[Riotbeard]

I agree with you, and I also think that because he faced (let's say) "not so big dogs", he didn't have to develop his game to counter any huge opposition. I remember back in 2006 the blurb still was that he'd figger Rafa out and then the youngster would fall into place. He did make changes, and tried things, but generally he believed in his own game too much against Nadal, because it usually brushed aside lesser players.

Both Rafa and Novak have constantly innovated and developed their games to counter improvements and innovations by the other.

But it's a good theory and I believe, a sound one...

Agreed. Federer was more of a monarch that came into power naturally. Rafa and Novak had to cause a revolution, which is a different mentality!

 

[herios]

I agree with you, and I also think that because he faced (let's say) "not so big dogs", he didn't have to develop his game to counter any huge opposition. I remember back in 2006 the blurb still was that he'd figger Rafa out and then the youngster would fall into place. He did make changes, and tried things, but generally he believed in his own game too much against Nadal, because it usually brushed aside lesser players.

Both Rafa and Novak have constantly innovated and developed their games to counter improvements and innovations by the other.

But it's a good theory and I believe, a sound one...

Great comparison!

Agreed. Federer was more of a monarch that came into power naturally. Rafa and Novak had to cause a revolution, which is a different mentality!

 

[DarthFed]

It is a good observation and there may be a lot of truth as to the cause (Roger was so dominant that he didn't handle close matches well because he rarely played them). One thing I will add is that I don't think it is just about Rafa or Nole.

Roger has a really poor five set record for someone of his stature and it has featured losses to a lot of 2nd tier guys or worse. At the end of the day Roger flat out isn't good in the super tight matches. I don't think it's all about endurance, I just think he gets tight. Sometimes watching him you can see predictable patterns play out deep in decisive or pivotal sets even if it's against lesser opponents. The third set of the USO final this year is something that's played out quite a lot, finding every way possible not to break and close out the set and then losing serve easily to drop it.

Sounds weird to say about the most accomplished player ever but it is what it is. Speaks to how talented and overall great he is to have been as successful as he is despite his struggles in tight matches.

 

[mrzz]

Completely agree with DarthFed's post above.

His serve, from all his weapons, is the one which suffers less in tight matches (but still does), and is what saved him in yesterday's final. People will say that it is what the other guy does that causes this, which is a part of the story for sure, but you just need to look at how many UFE's, and I mean really unforced, showed up in the second half of the second yesterday to see that. People would say "oh, but he was looking for that little extra", but the fact is that he DOESN'T needed that little extra. He just missed a ton of easy winners.

 

[Riotbeard]

Completely agree with DarthFed's post above.

His serve, from all his weapons, is the one which suffers less in tight matches (but still does), and is what saved him in yesterday's final. People will say that it is what the other guy does that causes this, which is a part of the story for sure, but you just need to look at how many UFE's, and I mean really unforced, showed up in the second half of the second yesterday to see that. People would say "oh, but he was looking for that little extra", but the fact is that he DOESN'T needed that little extra. He just missed a ton of easy winners.

MRZZ and Darth,

I think though Dude makes an important causation argument. Rafa and Novak had to adopt a different mindset to think they will breakthrough to the top that Federer never had to do until late into his career, and I think it was hard to change after such extreme success, so Roger never really adapted mentally to expectation that winning big titles would consistently be a grind (not in terms of style, but in mental approach).

 

[shawnbm]

I have read somewhere the theory that Roger enjoys tennis and winning, whereas Nadal and Djokovic operate from a fear and hatred of losing. Those are different ways of approaching the game. It does not mean Roger loses and moves on--he hurts when he loses. I have watched Federer overplay against Nadal mostly, even when not necessary. He has stood toe to toe with Nole and fights with Nole and pushes him, but he has rarely done that with Rafa--fought hard to win--until this Sunday in Basel. I think that was a victory of grit for Roger, something Nadal is all too familiar with. I agree that for so long, against all but that gnat from Spain on clay (almost exclusively until 2008 Wimbledon), Fed was simply flying above all the rest and rarely was forced to dig deep. It is an interesting theory, but some players are great for different reasons.

 

[DarthFed]

Completely agree with DarthFed's post above.

His serve, from all his weapons, is the one which suffers less in tight matches (but still does), and is what saved him in yesterday's final. People will say that it is what the other guy does that causes this, which is a part of the story for sure, but you just need to look at how many UFE's, and I mean really unforced, showed up in the second half of the second yesterday to see that. People would say "oh, but he was looking for that little extra", but the fact is that he DOESN'T needed that little extra. He just missed a ton of easy winners.

MRZZ and Darth,

I think though Dude makes an important causation argument. Rafa and Novak had to adopt a different mindset to think they will breakthrough to the top that Federer never had to do until late into his career, and I think it was hard to change after such extreme success, so Roger never really adapted mentally to expectation that winning big titles would consistently be a grind (not in terms of style, but in mental approach).

I understand that but at the end of the day it's arguable that Roger being almost "too dominant" is truly the cause. Certainly Roger has not been the dominant force in tennis since AO 2010 so you'd think maybe you'd see improvement in tight matches over that time period since he is in them a lot more often.

But I think the problem has just gotten worse. I won't try to figure out Roger's 5 set record the past 6 years but it can't be good and I know offhand he hasn't beaten anyone remotely great in a 5th set since DP and Roddick in 2009 (next best player he's beat would be Tsonga at 2013 AO). Meanwhile he has lost all of the 5 setters against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray since the start of 2008, some of which were in ridiculous fashion.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Completely agree with DarthFed's post above.

His serve, from all his weapons, is the one which suffers less in tight matches (but still does), and is what saved him in yesterday's final. People will say that it is what the other guy does that causes this, which is a part of the story for sure, but you just need to look at how many UFE's, and I mean really unforced, showed up in the second half of the second yesterday to see that. People would say "oh, but he was looking for that little extra", but the fact is that he DOESN'T needed that little extra. He just missed a ton of easy winners.

MRZZ and Darth,

I think though Dude makes an important causation argument. Rafa and Novak had to adopt a different mindset to think they will breakthrough to the top that Federer never had to do until late into his career, and I think it was hard to change after such extreme success, so Roger never really adapted mentally to expectation that winning big titles would consistently be a grind (not in terms of style, but in mental approach).

I understand that but at the end of the day it's arguable that Roger being almost "too dominant" is truly the cause. Certainly Roger has not been the dominant force in tennis since AO 2010 so you'd think maybe you'd see improvement in tight matches over that time period since he is in them a lot more often.

I guess their point is that Roger got already set in that habit and so he could not change it
in later parts of his career (after AO 2010 when the grit and fight was needed). They claim that if
he was forced to fight from the beginning, he would have been a good fighter.

 

[El Dude]

I won't try to figure out Roger's 5 set record the past 6 years but it can't be good and I know offhand he hasn't beaten anyone remotely great in a 5th set since DP and Roddick in 2009 (next best player he's beat would be Tsonga at 2013 AO). Meanwhile he has lost all of the 5 setters against Djokovic, Nadal and Murray since the start of 2008, some of which were in ridiculous fashion.

I'll do it for you (us).

I looked at only Slams, although I know Masters used to be best-of-five.

Roger is 21-13 in five-setters, a 61.8%. Compare that to his overall 85.8% record in Slam matches, including 78.1% in 4-setters and 91.6% in 3-setters.

He didn't play any five-setters in 2015, but was 1-2 in 2014, 2-1 in 2013, 2-0 in 2012, 1-2 in 2011, and 1-1 in 2010 - overall 7-6 over the last six years, or 53.8%. It is a bit worse than his overall record in 5-setters but within a margin of error that would make me think it is mainly small sample size (if he had won one of those he'd be at his career average).

I'll crunch the numbers for Rafa and Novak and see how they compare.

 

[El Dude]

OK, here we go.

Five-set Slams
Roger: 21-13 (61.8%)
Rafa: 14-5 (73.7%)
Novak: 24-7 (77.4%)

There, my friends, lies the difference.

Here's an amazing stat: Since 2011, Novak is 14-3 in five-set Slam matches, an 82.4%.

 

[DarthFed]

MRZZ and Darth,

I think though Dude makes an important causation argument. Rafa and Novak had to adopt a different mindset to think they will breakthrough to the top that Federer never had to do until late into his career, and I think it was hard to change after such extreme success, so Roger never really adapted mentally to expectation that winning big titles would consistently be a grind (not in terms of style, but in mental approach).

I understand that but at the end of the day it's arguable that Roger being almost "too dominant" is truly the cause. Certainly Roger has not been the dominant force in tennis since AO 2010 so you'd think maybe you'd see improvement in tight matches over that time period since he is in them a lot more often.

I guess their point is that Roger got already set in that habit and so he could not change it
in later parts of his career (after AO 2010 when the grit and fight was needed). They claim that if
he was forced to fight from the beginning, he would have been a good fighter.

Not to nitpick but I don't think it's a matter of Roger not being a good fighter. Roger is a great competitor and it's possible to be a great fighter who just struggles to win the tight "50-50" matches. We've seen Roger dig deep numerous times with his back against the wall and claw his way back into the match. But staying alive in a 3rd or 4th set is a different pressure than when it comes time to win or lose in a 5th set.

 

[El Dude]

I hear you, Darth, but I think the numbers show that he can't handle the five-set pressure as well as Rafa and Novak. One could argue that's an endurance thing, of course. Regardless of why it is, Novak and Rafa are better in longer matches and fifth sets than Roger is.

 

[mrzz]

Fifth sets are only part of the story. Some crucial moments in earlier part of matches also come to mind. Even in sunday's final, it seemed that he had Nadal on the ropes for most of the second set, just to falter when it got a little bit more competitive...

Anyway, Riotberd's theory fits the data very well...

 

[dante1976]

Better player(s)/competition/mismatch/call it whatever you like, just showed up and that's it It happen(ed)s in every sport on this planet... sometimes it takes even decades but sometimes it's sooner

Talking about "weak era/competition/dominance, etc..." I stumbled upon another interesting stat...

Playing against top 10 players career wise:

Novak - 230/822, Roger - 295/1290 , Rafa - 202/920... That's every 3.57 match played for Novak, every 4.37 match played for Roger and every 4.55 match played for Rafa... Novak played 22% more than Roger and 27% more than Rafa against top 10 players career wise
Win percentage against top 10... 151-79 (66%) for Novak, 193-102 (65%) for Roger and 133-69 (66%) for Rafa. This last stat actually shows their tremendous dominance against top 10 players. On the other hand Feds "small" percentage of matches played against top 10 players shows a lot He played much more "lesser" (Atp 250) tournaments than Nole and Rafa and won 24 Atp 250 titles Rafa won 9 Atp 250 titles and Novak won 6 Atp 250 titles.
Like I said, call it whatever you like but fact is that better players/competition/mismatch/whatever... just showed up and that's it

 

[nehmeth]

I like those numbers dante, thank you.

 

[DarthFed]

^ Except they're irrelevant to this thread. Roger's 5 set problems extend past Nadal and Djokovic and include losses to guys like Tsonga, Gulbis, Safin, Murray, Del Potro, etc.

As for the top 10 numbers themselves, it's not surprising Roger has that many more 250 level tournaments than the other two. He has won 8 at Halle alone. It's also not surprising the % he played was much lower as it took Roger a lot longer to become great than it did Rafa and Nole. It's also not surprising his win % is lower since he's been past his prime for 5+ years. Compare his win % at age 28 with Nole and Rafa and it'd look ugly for them.

 

[BIG3]

It is very interesting topic. I didn't remember many matches that Fed was outplayed in winners category. He lost more (if not most) due to his uncontrolled UE, many of them out of nowhere. Rafa and Nole's defense push him extra shots and eventually out of limit. I don't know whether it is mental weakness or simply he can't sustain high percentage attack game against Rafa and Nole in best of 5.