Can Roger win another Slam?

[Murat B.]

Fed fan wakes up from Coma to watch Roger play USO final after 10 years.

I was just reading that story. The guy does not even know who Nole is...and missed 13 of Roger's slams. He seemed happy though.

 

[DarthFed]

Luthi has announced recently that the coaching team is planning on evolving Roger's game further. In particular, he mentioned Roger can certainly improve his net play. Actually, with innovations such as SABR and his overall game becoming more aggressive, he always has a chance (perhaps better than any time since 2011).

Interesting as I think Roger's net game has improved a lot since Edberg came on board. Fed's volleys were always great but for awhile the approach shots were often poor and I'd also say he didn't adjust what he was doing vs. the other top players as in targeting the opponent's weaker shot when coming in. A good approach shot to Rafa's forehand, Djokovic and Murray's backhand is a worse shot than an average approach shot to their lesser sides. I think he's coming in off better shots now and has had a lot of success even against the other elite players.

I still think it's the forehand he needs to improve. It won't be like it was in his prime but he could be hitting it a lot better than he has the past few years and that may have made the difference in 1 or more of the 3 slam final losses to Djokovic.

 

[Murat B.]

Roger's volley is great. Timing, not so much. One volley that got lost in the shuffle during the US Open final was the defensive , wrong footing one that Roger hit where Nole fell down and scraped himself pretty good, at the beginning of the match. That volley was just an amazing one , maybe the best one I have seen him hit all two weeks.

 

[Haelfix]

Honestly I don't think Roger will win another. He's had three legitimate chances now, and he's been outplayed (both average level and peak level) in all of them (twice by Djokovic, once by Cilic) despite valiant physical and mental efforts.

In some sense its been the same problem for a very long time, really since 2008 when he was no longer the best athlete or one of the best athletes in tennis. The parts of his game that have declined, since his prime are the exact things that he needs to get over the hump and that's exactly what's not going to come back age 34.

I mean you can work on a particular shot, like hitting a backhand flatter, but you aren't going to get back the quick twitch return reflexes, or the 10% lost power off the forehand wing or on the serve. You could perhaps hit a shot with more accuracy with practice, but you aren't going to have the perfect balance to hit consistent baseline shots 50 times in a row, or the recovery stamina to be great deep into a 5th set, or the ability to turn defense into offense off a pure sprint.

Tennis was always a young mans game for these reasons, and even the greatest tennis talent the world has ever seen can't stop father time or make up for rather large athletic deficits.

I think the draw would have to be very favorable to him for a chance to win another, but even then, I don't think he has the peak level to beat either an in form Djokovic/Murray/Nadal or even an in form player riding a hotstreak like Wawrinka or Berdych. At this stage in their careers, you can't make up the athletic edge by tennis suave.

 

[lacatch]

Honestly I don't think Roger will win another. He's had three legitimate chances now, and he's been outplayed (both average level and peak level) in all of them (twice by Djokovic, once by Cilic) despite valiant physical and mental efforts.

In some sense its been the same problem for a very long time, really since 2008 when he was no longer the best athlete or one of the best athletes in tennis. The parts of his game that have declined, since his prime are the exact things that he needs to get over the hump and that's exactly what's not going to come back age 34.

I mean you can work on a particular shot, like hitting a backhand flatter, but you aren't going to get back the quick twitch return reflexes, or the 10% lost power off the forehand wing or on the serve. You could perhaps hit a shot with more accuracy with practice, but you aren't going to have the perfect balance to hit consistent baseline shots 50 times in a row, or the recovery stamina to be great deep into a 5th set, or the ability to turn defense into offense off a pure sprint.

Tennis was always a young mans game for these reasons, and even the greatest tennis talent the world has ever seen can't stop father time or make up for rather large athletic deficits.

I think the draw would have to be very favorable to him for a chance to win another, but even then, I don't think he has the peak level to beat either an in form Djokovic/Murray/Nadal or even an in form player riding a hotstreak like Wawrinka or Berdych. At this stage in their careers, you can't make up the athletic edge by tennis suave.

1. Roger lost in the finals 3x to Djokovic (Wimbledon 2x and US Open 1x); Cilic was '14 semi at US Open;
2. Did you watch the '15 US Open Final? Had Roger not overhit an "easy" forehand, he would've been up 2 sets to 1; who knows what would've happened then? (Djokovic said the same thing);
3. You seriously don't believe Roger couldn't take out Murray (whom he has DESTROYED the last several times they met) if Djokovic hadn't made the finals one time?
4. Roger doesn't play like many others so 34 is probably not his true "tennis age", AND he is retooling his ever more aggressive game. Certainly it gets more difficult as one ages, but if Djokovic got knocked out, I could CLEARLY see Roger win Wimbledon or US Open next year (barring some injury on his part and if he plays even more aggressively than this year).

 

[Front242]

^ He can definitely beat Murray and has already done so with quite a statement in Wimbledon this year. It'd be much more difficult at the AO and possibly even RG to beat Murray now that he's getting better on clay but at the USO and Wimbledon my money would be on Federer beating Murray greater than 60% of the time. Djokovic is clearly the toughest ask for Roger these days but a lot of it seems to be something of a mental block. Sure Novak's ROS is unreal but there were plenty of times in these 3 losses to Novak where it most definitely wasn't all down to ROS and just sloppy play from Roger that made the difference. I say mental block because he tends to hit a lot more sloppy shots against Novak and not the type where he overhits by miles like in the RG straight sets loss (where incidentally he was actually up by a break multiple times in each set only to give it back each time) because these are just lame netted forehands and not even ones where he's on the run. Just flat out poor.

As Darth and others (myself included) have said he needs to work on his forehand. A few less sloppy netted forehands at inopportune moments may have been the difference between Roger being 4/23 on break points in the USO final versus say 10-12 for break points. And that's huge. He can still beat Novak if he (a) improves the forehand, (b) cuts down on the amount of slop against Novak and (c) makes more of his break points. The poor break point conversion has been something that has plagued him for years now but it's getting worse. Surely it can't be that hard for Edberg to make him practice harder for crucial points. Make him hit a grenade instead of a ball. I don't care, just do something at least.

 

[DarthFed]

Honestly I don't think Roger will win another. He's had three legitimate chances now, and he's been outplayed (both average level and peak level) in all of them (twice by Djokovic, once by Cilic) despite valiant physical and mental efforts.

In some sense its been the same problem for a very long time, really since 2008 when he was no longer the best athlete or one of the best athletes in tennis. The parts of his game that have declined, since his prime are the exact things that he needs to get over the hump and that's exactly what's not going to come back age 34.

I mean you can work on a particular shot, like hitting a backhand flatter, but you aren't going to get back the quick twitch return reflexes, or the 10% lost power off the forehand wing or on the serve. You could perhaps hit a shot with more accuracy with practice, but you aren't going to have the perfect balance to hit consistent baseline shots 50 times in a row, or the recovery stamina to be great deep into a 5th set, or the ability to turn defense into offense off a pure sprint.

Tennis was always a young mans game for these reasons, and even the greatest tennis talent the world has ever seen can't stop father time or make up for rather large athletic deficits.

I think the draw would have to be very favorable to him for a chance to win another, but even then, I don't think he has the peak level to beat either an in form Djokovic/Murray/Nadal or even an in form player riding a hotstreak like Wawrinka or Berdych. At this stage in their careers, you can't make up the athletic edge by tennis suave.

I agree with most of this including the prediction that Roger won't win another one. One thing I do not agree with is that Roger is not "athletic enough" to get it done anymore. Sure he doesn't move nearly as well as he used to but I'd still say he is well above average overall. Certainly he moves better than the likes of Stan and Cilic who have won 3 of the past 8 slams.

Stamina is a big issue and was part of the reason the Wimbledon final turned real ugly this year. Against the elite players Roger has to get it done in 3 or 4 and because of that he pretty much needs to win the 1st set or it's probably over.

On top of the forehand I think Roger is having problems dealing with the pressure of the slam finals knowing in the back of his mind that each time he's there might be his last chance to win another. Novak is certainly a big problem for Roger (and everyone else) and he is rightfully the favorite in any best of 5 vs. Federer. With that said I think a big factor in the last 2 finals is that the moment clearly got to Roger (mainly at 4-2 up in the 1st set of Wimbledon when he donated the break back and at nearly every critical juncture of this past USO final). And that's the big worry to me. The way Roger played at USO final (critical mishaps and all) would've probably gotten by anyone but Novak but the way he played the Wimbledon final he would've been beaten by Murray (who he destroyed in the semis) and a host of others. So even if Nole is knocked out I still wonder if Roger can truly get past the nerves in a slam final again.

 

[Murat B.]

If Roger catches Murray in a final, I am betting on him, at least for the coming year.

 

[DarthFed]

When all is said and done id bet on Roger in that scenario too...but I'd be way more confident if it was a semifinal. A few years ago it was the opposite.

 

[lob]

I agree with most of this including the prediction that Roger won't win another one. One thing I do not agree with is that Roger is not "athletic enough" to get it done anymore. Sure he doesn't move nearly as well as he used to but I'd still say he is well above average overall. Certainly he moves better than the likes of Stan and Cilic who have won 3 of the past 8 slams.

Stamina is a big issue and was part of the reason the Wimbledon final turned real ugly this year. Against the elite players Roger has to get it done in 3 or 4 and because of that he pretty much needs to win the 1st set or it's probably over.

On top of the forehand I think Roger is having problems dealing with the pressure of the slam finals knowing in the back of his mind that each time he's there might be his last chance to win another. Novak is certainly a big problem for Roger (and everyone else) and he is rightfully the favorite in any best of 5 vs. Federer. With that said I think a big factor in the last 2 finals is that the moment clearly got to Roger (mainly at 4-2 up in the 1st set of Wimbledon when he donated the break back and at nearly every critical juncture of this past USO final). And that's the big worry to me. The way Roger played at USO final (critical mishaps and all) would've probably gotten by anyone but Novak but the way he played the Wimbledon final he would've been beaten by Murray (who he destroyed in the semis) and a host of others. So even if Nole is knocked out I still wonder if Roger can truly get past the nerves in a slam final again.

^ a good summary of the odds against Roger. We can break this down into individual factors that
matter:

1. Only Wimbledon or USOpen. The other two, AO and RG are much longer shots. He hasn't made a final in 5 years.

2. Not getting upset early to a lower ranked player: has happened at all slams. Seppi, Gulbis, Stakhovsky, Robredo.

3. Not losing to a big hitter such as Berdych, Tsonga and maybe a few other players that 'get hot' .

4. Not losing to Nadal IF he has to play him. He may not play Nadal but if he does, I think Rafa walks into the match as the favorite irrespective of his form. It's been eight years since Roger beat Rafa in a major.

5. Not facing Djokovic in the Final. Given the past 3 major finals between them, Novak will walk into the match with too much confidence in addition to his peak game. Roger will have conceded the mental edge even before the match starts.

6. First serve percentage. This used to bail him out when he was in trouble. But now, it inevitably drops in major finals. Even if it doesn't, he can't dial it in like he used to when he needed. Even Novak can't do that much against well placed first serves.

7. Not getting nervous, throwing breakpoints and big points away. This is really the elephant in the room. It is not as if Roger hasn't played well enough to win a slam. Of course he has, thrice in the past two years. IN 2015 USO, he didn't lose a set before the final, where as Novak did in both Wimby and USO. But Novak upped his game when he needed to. The problem for Roger is to bring his A game when he needs it most i.e. on the big points in a final.

8. Not sticking to an attacking game in finals. Although Roger has been able to transition to a much more attacking game plan with more/better net approaches, he has a tendency to revert back to baseline rallies in major finals. Again, it could be nervousness and confidence issues. But he cannot outplay the top players from the baseline.

9. Forehand unforced errors neutralizing the rest of his game. This is again something that happens with disturbing frequency on big points and break points in major finals. This also happens when he is in the lead when he should be consolidating his lead instead of giving it away.

10. Five setters and stamina. A strong opponent in the final walks in knowing Fed's poor fifth set record in finals and his possible stamina issues in the fifth set. So even if Roger outplays him, he can still make it a physical game of attrition if he is fitter.

11. Roger's waning 'opportunistic instincts'. When we look at RG 2009 and Wimbledon 2009, it can be argued that he "should not" have won them. Twice he came close to losing in RG09. Roddick "should" have won the Wimbledon 2009 final. But Roger rose to the occasion multiple tiimes when he needed it most. Haven't seen that happening in a long while.

12. His laid back approach. When he is playing well enough to make it to the final, Roger doesn't seem to take a step back before the final and consider all the possibilities long and hard. i.e. tactically preparing by going over past matches with coach or at least knowing the mistakes he made in the earlier major final. Even a clear knowledge of what went wrong in previous finals can prevent some mistakes. This also provides more confidence to the opponent because he knows the Roger will not systematically tailor his tactics to his weaknesses.

Many if not most of the above factors must swing the right way for Roger to win a major. What are the chances?

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with most of this including the prediction that Roger won't win another one. One thing I do not agree with is that Roger is not "athletic enough" to get it done anymore. Sure he doesn't move nearly as well as he used to but I'd still say he is well above average overall. Certainly he moves better than the likes of Stan and Cilic who have won 3 of the past 8 slams.

Stamina is a big issue and was part of the reason the Wimbledon final turned real ugly this year. Against the elite players Roger has to get it done in 3 or 4 and because of that he pretty much needs to win the 1st set or it's probably over.

On top of the forehand I think Roger is having problems dealing with the pressure of the slam finals knowing in the back of his mind that each time he's there might be his last chance to win another. Novak is certainly a big problem for Roger (and everyone else) and he is rightfully the favorite in any best of 5 vs. Federer. With that said I think a big factor in the last 2 finals is that the moment clearly got to Roger (mainly at 4-2 up in the 1st set of Wimbledon when he donated the break back and at nearly every critical juncture of this past USO final). And that's the big worry to me. The way Roger played at USO final (critical mishaps and all) would've probably gotten by anyone but Novak but the way he played the Wimbledon final he would've been beaten by Murray (who he destroyed in the semis) and a host of others. So even if Nole is knocked out I still wonder if Roger can truly get past the nerves in a slam final again.

^ a good summary of the odds against Roger. We can break this down into individual factors that
matter:

1. Only Wimbledon or USOpen. The other two, AO and RG are much longer shots. He hasn't made a final in 5 years.

2. Not getting upset early to a lower ranked player: has happened at all slams. Seppi, Gulbis, Stakhovsky, Robredo.

3. Not losing to a big hitter such as Berdych, Tsonga and maybe a few other players that 'get hot' .

4. Not losing to Nadal IF he has to play him. He may not play Nadal but if he does, I think Rafa walks into the match as the favorite irrespective of his form. It's been eight years since Roger beat Rafa in a major.

5. Not facing Djokovic in the Final. Given the past 3 major finals between them, Novak will walk into the match with too much confidence in addition to his peak game. Roger will have conceded the mental edge even before the match starts.

6. First serve percentage. This used to bail him out when he was in trouble. But now, it inevitably drops in major finals. Even if it doesn't, he can't dial it in like he used to when he needed. Even Novak can't do that much against well placed first serves.

7. Not getting nervous, throwing breakpoints and big points away. This is really the elephant in the room. It is not as if Roger hasn't played well enough to win a slam. Of course he has, thrice in the past two years. IN 2015 USO, he didn't lose a set before the final, where as Novak did in both Wimby and USO. But Novak upped his game when he needed to. The problem for Roger is to bring his A game when he needs it most i.e. on the big points in a final.

8. Not sticking to an attacking game in finals. Although Roger has been able to transition to a much more attacking game plan with more/better net approaches, he has a tendency to revert back to baseline rallies in major finals. Again, it could be nervousness and confidence issues. But he cannot outplay the top players from the baseline.

9. Forehand unforced errors neutralizing the rest of his game. This is again something that happens with disturbing frequency on big points and break points in major finals. This also happens when he is in the lead when he should be consolidating his lead instead of giving it away.

10. Five setters and stamina. A strong opponent in the final walks in knowing Fed's poor fifth set record in finals and his possible stamina issues in the fifth set. So even if Roger outplays him, he can still make it a physical game of attrition if he is fitter.

11. Roger's waning 'opportunistic instincts'. When we look at RG 2009 and Wimbledon 2009, it can be argued that he "should not" have won them. Twice he came close to losing in RG09. Roddick "should" have won the Wimbledon 2009 final. But Roger rose to the occasion multiple tiimes when he needed it most. Haven't seen that happening in a long while.

12. His laid back approach. When he is playing well enough to make it to the final, Roger doesn't seem to take a step back before the final and consider all the possibilities long and hard. i.e. tactically preparing by going over past matches with coach or at least knowing the mistakes he made in the earlier major final. Even a clear knowledge of what went wrong in previous finals can prevent some mistakes. This also provides more confidence to the opponent because he knows the Roger will not systematically tailor his tactics to his weaknesses.

Many if not most of the above factors must swing the right way for Roger to win a major. What are the chances?

Well said; and quite impartial! It's just the fact of the matter including Roger's fortune in '09; got so much help in those 2 wins in majors! I guess you can say thinking about it that Roger's "been done" since '08 when Nadal took ownership of the tour! Roger's played a few finals and goes years w/o a real sniff; 2012 being his last great year with Wimbledon, taking #1 ranking back, and winning Silver in the Olympics! It's been only cosmetic IMO ever since! He's won some Masters, but when it comes to actually finishing in major finals, he's come up short again and again! We shouldn't be surprised with all of us hoping someone will donate a GS his way and I just can't see it happening! The competition has been ferocious even though I've been calling them gutless for years coming up short until recently! I think we'll know all by the AO how well a season all of the BIG 4 will be having, but Nole's KING for now and well deserved! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[Haelfix]

I don't agree that Roger's losses have to do with the mental aspect. For me, its a level of play issue first and foremost. In all those finals and semis where he's had a chance but lost, he's been outplayed in all of them pretty much from the beginning to the end. I'd say on the contrary that he managed to stay in them, despite being outgunned and made the matches much closer than they would normally be. I'd contrast that with say, the AO2009 which was more of a gameplan/mental issue (there Roger was outgunning Nadal, but eventually lost b/c he got tight)

When I say athleticism, I mean the combination of size/stamina/speed/explosion/strength. Cilic and Wawrinka are much stronger, more explosive players with more stamina/recovery than Roger and are thus better athletes at this stage of their careers, even if Roger still has a step on them in the movement department. Roger isn't winning baseline wars, precisely for this reason.

 

[Great Hands]

I don't agree that Roger's losses have to do with the mental aspect. For me, its a level of play issue first and foremost. In all those finals and semis where he's had a chance but lost, he's been outplayed in all of them pretty much from the beginning to the end. I'd say on the contrary that he managed to stay in them, despite being outgunned and made the matches much closer than they would normally be. I'd contrast that with say, the AO2009 which was more of a gameplan/mental issue (there Roger was outgunning Nadal, but eventually lost b/c he got tight)

When I say athleticism, I mean the combination of size/stamina/speed/explosion/strength. Cilic and Wawrinka are much stronger, more explosive players with more stamina/recovery than Roger and are thus better athletes at this stage of their careers, even if Roger still has a step on them in the movement department. Roger isn't winning baseline wars, precisely for this reason.

The physical side cannot be the whole story, though, because look at the terrible break point conversions. That means Roger is playing well enough to get the break points - which means he's playing well enough to pressure his opponent, get breaks and thus win the match - but then playing less well on the actual break point, which suggests to me that it is partly mental. Yes, his opponent may be clutch in saving the break points, but to have such a poor break point coversion in, for example, the USO final this year is partly a sign of relative mental weakness in Roger.

I agree with others also that he gets tight in the slam finals because he doesn't know if it may be his last chance. Even allowing for Novak's superior game, Roger's play against Novak at WD and USO this year was not at the level he has produced at other times over the past couple of years, against other players, or indeed against Novak if it's not such a big match. Why? He gets tight. So it is mental. Despite the physical things you mentioned, if Roger executed his current A-game on the big points, he could beat Novak in a slam final.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't agree that Roger's losses have to do with the mental aspect. For me, its a level of play issue first and foremost. In all those finals and semis where he's had a chance but lost, he's been outplayed in all of them pretty much from the beginning to the end. I'd say on the contrary that he managed to stay in them, despite being outgunned and made the matches much closer than they would normally be. I'd contrast that with say, the AO2009 which was more of a gameplan/mental issue (there Roger was outgunning Nadal, but eventually lost b/c he got tight)

When I say athleticism, I mean the combination of size/stamina/speed/explosion/strength. Cilic and Wawrinka are much stronger, more explosive players with more stamina/recovery than Roger and are thus better athletes at this stage of their careers, even if Roger still has a step on them in the movement department. Roger isn't winning baseline wars, precisely for this reason.

In the first paragraph I think you are describing the Wimbledon 2014 final loss to a tee. Roger did pretty well that day and made it close at the end due to clutch play. The last 2 finals are a much different story. Nole came out pretty cold at Wimbledon and got down 4-2 and suddenly Roger played an absolutely terrible game to put it back on serve. Even after that Roger had chances late in the set before getting blown out in the tiebreak. Roger did well to steal the 2nd set but it took too much out of him and the war was already over. And at this recent final he outplayed Novak most of the 2nd and 3rd sets, he almost choked away the 2nd one and he did give away the 3rd.

I know what you meant by overall athleticism. Obviously Stan and some of the other big guys have an edge in strength and they also probably have the stamina edge too, but Roger, even at age 34, moves a lot better than those guys. If Stan and Cilic are considered better overall athletes it's by a hair. And Roger has won most baseline wars with those guys, the recent USO semi was lopsided in every way. Roger just isn't usually going to win a baseline war vs. the other elite players.

 

[Murat B.]

I think it always comes down to consistency with Roger. The number one reason in my mind he is not winning slams anymore is that he cannot maintain it as long as a Nole can. How much court time did Roger see at this Us Open until the final? I am positive it was less than everyone else. Even at his age, he had enough in the tank for the final, even a long one. And contrary to popular belief, I have always thought he is one of the toughest out there mentally. You cannot perform at the level that he has for over a decade with a big bulls eye on your back without being tough.

...but, he just cannot maintain the consistency. Does not matter against %99 of the field. Matters against Nole, who has the ability to get his consistency back even after losing it for half an hour or so. With Roger, once it is gone, so goes his game. He makes final pushes and such but too little too late for a slam.

 

[Fiero425]

I think it always comes down to consistency with Roger. The number one reason in my mind he is not winning slams anymore is that he cannot maintain it as long as a Nole can. How much court time did Roger see at this Us Open until the final? I am positive it was less than everyone else. Even at his age, he had enough in the tank for the final, even a long one. And contrary to popular belief, I have always thought he is one of the toughest out there mentally. You cannot perform at the level that he has for over a decade with a big bulls eye on your back without being tough.

...but, he just cannot maintain the consistency. Does not matter against %99 of the field. Matters against Nole, who has the ability to get his consistency back even after losing it for half an hour or so. With Roger, once it is gone, so goes his game. He makes final pushes and such but too little too late for a slam.

The thing is Nole wasn't at his best and he still won The USO over Roger! Federer had every opportunity to do well; in shape, no long drawn out matches in early rounds, and was on a winning streak taking Cincy just a couple weeks before beating Nole in the final! It couldn't have been a better opportunity for him at one of his favorite majors; winning it 5 years in a row and even more semi-finals! As well as Roger's playing and a legitimate #2 getting to 2 major GS finals, I still can't see him winning one unless there are some significant upsets of the other top players! :cover

 

[Murat B.]

I think it always comes down to consistency with Roger. The number one reason in my mind he is not winning slams anymore is that he cannot maintain it as long as a Nole can. How much court time did Roger see at this Us Open until the final? I am positive it was less than everyone else. Even at his age, he had enough in the tank for the final, even a long one. And contrary to popular belief, I have always thought he is one of the toughest out there mentally. You cannot perform at the level that he has for over a decade with a big bulls eye on your back without being tough.

...but, he just cannot maintain the consistency. Does not matter against %99 of the field. Matters against Nole, who has the ability to get his consistency back even after losing it for half an hour or so. With Roger, once it is gone, so goes his game. He makes final pushes and such but too little too late for a slam.

The thing is Nole wasn't at his best and he still won The USO over Roger! Federer had every opportunity to do well; in shape, no long drawn out matches in early rounds, and was on a winning streak taking Cincy just a couple weeks before beating Nole in the final! It couldn't have been a better opportunity for him at one of his favorite majors; winning it 5 years in a row and even more semi-finals! As well as Roger's playing and a legitimate #2 getting to 2 major GS finals, I still can't see him winning one unless there are some significant upsets of the other top players! :cover

I actually agree that Nole was not at his best in the Open final. But even when he is not at his best, he is consistently sending balls back. Maybe not hitting the trademark DTL backhand winners and stuff, but he gets it back in the court and deep. When ROGER is not at his best, he sprays shots all over the place and loses points. That has been the difference between the two in the recent finals I believe . Roger needs to attack and it has to work. Nole does NOT need to attack to win matches, even though it helps.

Nole will win the baseline rallies against Roger at this point in their respective careers, without attacking or redlining. Roger's Plan A has to work the whole match to beat Nole in a slam final.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I remember one fierce down the T serve by Fed. Against anyone, it would not come back. Novak somehow managed to get it back. Roger was doing S&V on that and came to the net. It was a short return by Novak. Roger had a easy put away, but overhit the forehand, perhaps because he was so surprised that the ball even came back.

 

[Fiero425]

I remember one fierce down the T serve by Fed. Against anyone, it would not come back. Novak somehow managed to get it back. Roger was doing S&V on that and came to the net. It was a short return by Novak. Roger had a easy put away, but over-hit the forehand, perhaps because he was so surprised that the ball even came back.

If any of us play the game, we get that feeling all the time; which is why they call them "gets!" That's what makes NOLE great; getting to and doing the impossible! So even though Roger's acknowledged as "THE GOAT," he'll have 2 players that have his number after all is said and done! :nono :angel: :dodgy:

 

[DarthFed]

Nole has had the number of geriatric Fed. Much different scenario than Rafa.