Barclays ATP World Tour Finals 2012...London, England

[julian1]

The beauty is eyes of the beholder

Jimmy Arias said at the conclusion of the match "that may have been the best straight set match I have ever seen". I would add that no one has ever looked as good as Federer does in losing a match. He really played well. In fact, Federer in his consolation speech, said "that's about as good as I can play".

Mr Stroke,
Just a thought.
Federer was leading 5-3 in the second set.
He lost LAST FOUR GAMES-so he was broken twice AT THE END of the set.
Say that you are a college coach and Federer is your college player.
Would you say that Federer gave his best in last FOUR GAMES?
I believe that Federer does some damage control here.

[julian1]

See the post #46

Great final...what a way to seal victory on the final point...stunning, sums Djokovic up. Federer couldn't have played any better....it was great to see him coming to the net and volleying so crisply at times. Those infrequent trips to the net shows that it can be done...and easily...the game is screaming out for a good net player.

Federer REALLY wanted that one...grr...it got away. Always with his eye on the history books, he wants to defeat the best of the era in his twilight years.

Great though Djokovic is, he cannot demolish Federer quite as emphatically as Nadal...doesn't batter his backhand quite as brutally.

Any post match analysis anyone? What splits the two players? Has Djokovic eclipsed everyone? Could he be the greatest player we've ever seen?

See my posts #46 and #50
see as well

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/8625102/top-ranked-novak-djokovic-tops-roger-federer-win-atp-finale

[stotty]

Federer

Julian,

Wonderful though Federer is, there is nothing he could have done more in those last four games. He could have got more first serves in perhaps, but then that's not something he always conjure up at will. I thought Federer played extremely well. He rallied better with Djokovic than I thought he could. He kept surprising Djokovic time and time again with surprising angles and cleverly placed shots. His backhand was superb and stood up well to the barrage. He really, really, really wanted to win that match.

At the end of the day Djokovic was a centimetre better. I even think Djokovic can play better than he did...I don't think Federer can play any better...not at 31...and I'm not sure he was any better at 25...he's holding his standard beautifully... undiminished to date.

The standard has just gone up...

[tennis_chiro]

When he's good, he's very, very good, but ...

I agree that Federer's good play could not have been much better yesterday. Some of those shots were absolute jaw-droppers. But he made too many unforced errors, especially off the forehand. He actually won more points than Djokovic in the first set and just 1 point less overall. I think the definition of what "Roger Federer playing well" is would be hard to define, but certainly it has to be a positive winner/error ratio. I can't find that number, but I think I saw it yesterday and it was something like negative 11. Sure, it is tougher against Djokovic, but there were still too many unforced errors at key points. To me, that's what sets Djokovic apart. He doesn't make those. Less winners, but inspite of the pressure from Roger, a lot less errors. I think he had at least 10 less than Federer. We tend to remember the highlight shots and forget the stream of unforced errors. Especially when Novak pulls off a winner on match point. But he won the match by making less unforced errors than Federer. If you want, I can put up my charts. I didn't bother with it yesterday. That's one thing about the Nole-Rafa matches: a lot less unforced errors; not as many highlight shots, but a lot less ue's. No question it was a fun match to watch and the quality was very high, but the ability to eliminate those ue's with steely determination is what sets Djokovic apart right now. There is no physical limitation that keeps Federer from exercising that kind of focus, but he rarely has it anymore. Fed's physical skills are still as good as anyone's though perhaps not his endurance, but that wasn't the issue. Just imagine, and I don't know, but how old do racecar drivers compete effectively. Certainly well into their 30's. Penalty for ue's is severe there. Pressure is significant. Golfers into their late 30's at the top of their game. I'm saying this because I don't think Federer's lag behind Djokovic is physical. If they played 5 hour matches, then you probably have to give a nod to Djoker. But even in the long matches at the US Open when Djoker came back from match points down, it was not physical loss of condition that lost Federer the match. Djoker broke him with those ridiculous returns. They could have been incidental if Fed had not let them bother him...but they did.

I agree with D_B, we aren't going to see Fed challenging for number one much longer, if at all. But it's not because he is no longer physically able. Consider the age comparison with Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. Their mental skills were not considered to have diminished because they turned 30 or 31. Why should it be true for a tennis player? What was it Robert Kennedy said? "here are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" No it's not the same thing, but in a way it is. Why should a player's ability to mentally and emotionally handle pressure diminish in their 30's. Fed has done the work. He is still better than the rest physically, or at least as good. (Personally, I always question the flip at the beginning of Fed's forehand.) These matches are being lost on the mental and psychological plane. Why?

don

[julian1]

Some numbers for Federer

I agree that Federer's good play could not have been much better yesterday. Some of those shots were absolute jaw-droppers. But he made too many unforced errors, especially off the forehand. He actually won more points than Djokovic in the first set and just 1 point less overall. I think the definition of what "Roger Federer playing well" is would be hard to define, but certainly it has to be a positive winner/error ratio. I can't find that number, but I think I saw it yesterday and it was something like negative 11. Sure, it is tougher against Djokovic, but there were still too many unforced errors at key points. To me, that's what sets Djokovic apart. He doesn't make those. Less winners, but inspite of the pressure from Roger, a lot less errors. I think he had at least 10 less than Federer. We tend to remember the highlight shots and forget the stream of unforced errors. Especially when Novak pulls off a winner on match point. But he won the match by making less unforced errors than Federer. If you want, I can put up my charts. I didn't bother with it yesterday. That's one thing about the Nole-Rafa matches: a lot less unforced errors; not as many highlight shots, but a lot less ue's. No question it was a fun match to watch and the quality was very high, but the ability to eliminate those ue's with steely determination is what sets Djokovic apart right now. There is no physical limitation that keeps Federer from exercising that kind of focus, but he rarely has it anymore. Fed's physical skills are still as good as anyone's though perhaps not his endurance, but that wasn't the issue. Just imagine, and I don't know, but how old do racecar drivers compete effectively. Certainly well into their 30's. Penalty for ue's is severe there. Pressure is significant. Golfers into their late 30's at the top of their game. I'm saying this because I don't think Federer's lag behind Djokovic is physical. If they played 5 hour matches, then you probably have to give a nod to Djoker. But even in the long matches at the US Open when Djoker came back from match points down, it was not physical loss of condition that lost Federer the match. Djoker broke him with those ridiculous returns. They could have been incidental if Fed had not let them bother him...but they did.

I agree with D_B, we aren't going to see Fed challenging for number one much longer, if at all. But it's not because he is no longer physically able. Consider the age comparison with Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant. Their mental skills were not considered to have diminished because they turned 30 or 31. Why should it be true for a tennis player? What was it Robert Kennedy said? "here are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?" No it's not the same thing, but in a way it is. Why should a player's ability to mentally and emotionally handle pressure diminish in their 30's. Fed has done the work. He is still better than the rest physically, or at least as good. (Personally, I always question the flip at the beginning of Fed's forehand.) These matches are being lost on the mental and psychological plane. Why?

don

Don,

someone at the TW forum quoted today that
Fed had 8 forehand winners and 24 forehand errors yesterday.
I believe majority of those errors were from baseline.
Questions:
how could you win a match having a statistics like that?
How come almost everybody here is NOT seeing those numbers-
Jimmy Arias saw it yesterday during the match

Next point-a lot of shots by Federer were too shallow.

Next point

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=0&y=0

shows Career Return Games Won.
Djokovic is #11,Federer is #44

regards,
Julian

[julian1]

In the interest of fighting insomnia...

It's pretty late to change that motion. Conventional wisdom says it is just fine. Like you d_b, I see some deficiencies. If he were 14 or 15, and we had about 6 months, well at least 3, I see some areas for improvement.

Andy serves quite a bit of the time in the mid 130's inspite of the fact you can see on the rear view

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/pro_men/andy_murray/am_serve/am_toss/am_toss.html?AM1stSDeuceTossRear1.mov

that there is not enough internal rotation. Check from 1 click before contact to 1 click after in that clip of Andy and compare to 5 clicks before to 5 clicks after contact in this high speed clip of Sampras and you will see part of what is missing:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/strokearchive/high_speed/High_Speed.html?PeteSampras1stServe.mov

Of course, he would never listen to me about my "Bubble" and "Burp" drills, but they do work. But it does take a lot of time. And ingrained habits are hard to change. Someone better have true belief to make the effort to make that kind of change.

But that's really incidental, unless you want to be the best you can be, because he can already hit it fast enough at over 130mph. Check his match stats from the ATP:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Finals/2012/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Andy-Murray.aspx?t=mf

or perhaps better yet, his match stats for the US Open he just won:

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/players/overview/atpmc10.html

or the Wimbledon stats, especially the final he lost:

http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/players/overview/atpmc10.html

Biggest match of his life, 6' 3" tall and he can only get in 56% of his first serves. I don't remember, was it terribly windy that day?

So, you and I, d_b, think there is a problem with the toss. Looks nice and rhythmic, but there is a sense of hesitation before he goes up to the impact and I don't think he really rolls up through the ball the way he could. I don't like to see the toss hand drop behind the front hip as much as Andy's does. I like to see the motion a little simpler as far as all the bending at the waist even in his initial starting position. I'd stand him up a little taller. I want the server to feel "regal", looking down upon his realm. I want him to stand as tall as possible at the start because then he stands a better chance of easily returning to that extended upright position when he meets the ball. I think perhaps today's biomechanists worry more about hip over hip and shoulder over shoulder rolling, but I want to see full extension up to contact.

When he rocks back, I don't want him to go past about 50/50 so that he almost bounces back to the front. And I want to synchronize the hands and arms with that weight transfer: hands down/weight back, hands up/weight forward. Very, very simple and repeatable. But I'd need to get rid of that little hesitation he has. To synchronize the hands for that, I'd bring the right hand up to the left in the starting position; now the left hand will start back up when it reaches the front of the left thigh. There will be no rush, but the pause will be eliminated and he will roll simply up to the ball. The right hand will have a little farther to drop and it will get a little more help from gravity. Gravity is a lot more consistent than anything else we have readily available. (Although I did once have a pacing wrist watch you could set to between about 50 and 200 beats per minute and I would set it to the rhythm of my golf swing. I would use it on the practice tee to slow me down. Sometimes I used it in actual play, but mostly because it absolutely drove my playing partners bananas! Never did try it on my toss-and-catch drill.)

Oh, Andy would also need to use a grip a little closer to the continental. He appears to be a little too far to the forehand side to get full internal rotation.

I'm not sure he would serve any faster (I think 135 would be more than adequate), but I actually suspect he could get a little more snap and certainly could be a lot more consistent than he is. Geez, if I had been 3.5" taller that would have increased my reach almost 6"; that's like dropping the net 3". I don't understand how they can struggle to serve just 60%.

But no one is going to listen to me on this one. It would have been nice to have someone like Andy before he had that motion ingrained. Talking about getting him to change anything now is an exercise in futility. Maybe the strategic approach might be possible, but it has to come from someone he respects. Doubtful!

And this is just about the simplest thing to change, that is something that you do when the ball is in your hand under your control. That absolutely can be changed if someone decides to do it. We have a whole different story when we talk about doing something different when you are in motion, something like going forward a little more. That you have to have accomplished for an elite player by age 16. Of course, Rafter didn't perfect his transition skills until he was about 25, but he was already better at it than almost anyone else of his generation when he was 18. But he didn't have groundstrokes and returns like Murray.

Nevertheless, ... what is it that you would do, don_budge?

don

Don,
a quote from Tom Perrotta

http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/blog/_/name/tennis/id/5082385

"Two years ago, when Djokovic won the Australian Open, he seemed on a sure path to multiple major titles and, eventually, a No. 1 ranking. His game was simple then. He was patient, he moved incredibly well, he ended points with his forehand, and he served remarkably well, especially on second serves. Today, his game is cluttered and, oftentimes, tentative. He has even lost touch with what was once a great strength, his serve. Djokovic reportedly asked Martin to help him change his motion in hopes of preventing a recurrence of shoulder pain he suffered last year. The result was an ugly motion that looked more likely to induce pain. Again, that's not Martin's doing. Changing the ingrained technique of a tennis player isn't as simple as laser eye surgery. What a coach tells a player to do is one thing; how a player executes those commands is another. Sometimes the best intentions produce bad results."

[tennis_chiro]

Mesmerizing winners

Don,

someone at the TW forum quoted today that
Fed had 8 forehand winners and 24 forehand errors yesterday.
I believe majority of those errors were from baseline.
Questions:
how could you win a match having a statistics like that?
How come almost everybody here is NOT seeing those numbers-
Jimmy Arias saw it yesterday during the match

Next point-a lot of shots by Federer were too shallow.

Next point

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfacts/Matchfacts-List.aspx?c=9&s=0&y=0

shows Career Return Games Won.
Djokovic is #11,Federer is #44

regards,
Julian

Most people are mesmerized by winners, especially spectacular ones like Federer makes. Even Federer was fooled a little. The true test of how well he is playing is whether or not he is keeping the ufe's to a minimum. He always makes a few unbelievable winners.

don

[tennis_chiro]

Djokovic went back to the simple motion

Don,
a quote from Tom Perrotta

http://espn.go.com/sports/tennis/blog/_/name/tennis/id/5082385

"Two years ago, when Djokovic won the Australian Open, he seemed on a sure path to multiple major titles and, eventually, a No. 1 ranking. His game was simple then. He was patient, he moved incredibly well, he ended points with his forehand, and he served remarkably well, especially on second serves. Today, his game is cluttered and, oftentimes, tentative. He has even lost touch with what was once a great strength, his serve. Djokovic reportedly asked Martin to help him change his motion in hopes of preventing a recurrence of shoulder pain he suffered last year. The result was an ugly motion that looked more likely to induce pain. Again, that's not Martin's doing. Changing the ingrained technique of a tennis player isn't as simple as laser eye surgery. What a coach tells a player to do is one thing; how a player executes those commands is another. Sometimes the best intentions produce bad results."

It was after parting with Martin that Djokovic went back to his original simpler motion. Martin was a great player, at least a very good one. But I wonder how many strokes he has developed and guided through the metamorphosis that eventually results in a great service motion and an effective delivery. He may have told Novak exactly what he needed to hear as Perotta suggests, but I think Vajda has done a great job with Novak. He's not going anywhere. That simpler motion Djoker went back to is much in line with the kind of thing I am suggesting for Murray.

don

[don_budge]

Drama Factor...or Fear Factor?

The drama factor was high...for both of Federer's matches against Murray and Djokovic. For Arias to make a comment like that is irresponsible and sensationalism. Typical...too much for television.

I had an email from a friend in Spain asking me..."Why is Federer always playing bad against Djokowitch, when he has matchpoint and setpoints?" Don't be misled by the spelling of Djokovic's name...this guy is an explayer and knows a thing or two about tennis. It's a good question.

Guess what my answer is...

[don_budge]

Response to tennis_chiro post #38...

In the interest of fighting insomnia...Nevertheless, ... what is it that you would do, don_budge?

don

That’s pretty funny tennis_chiro...you posted at 3:31am and my last edit was at 3:30am where I note about my exit strategy. I also feel that any advice that I have for Andy would fall upon deaf and unappreciative ears. But I know that I could solve a big part of his problem.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head about everything that comes to mind when I ponder his motion. The biggest tell is the spin in his serve and his inability to maintain an incredibly high percentage of first serves in, along with a sometimes tentative second delivery. He doesn’t seem to have much variation in his service either...whereas you see Federer using slice, kick and cannonballs at different targets to the receiver.

The fact that he hits serves at whatever mph is of very little concern for me except that it demonstrates that he can generate the necessary power to have a perfect serve. My issues are that of placement and variation of speed and spin and these are subtle things. Your observation about the grip may be the key. Regal he is not...and never will be until he possesses the skills and acumen necessary to build his confidence into a feeling of invincibility on his service game.

That won’t happen until all of the little imperceptible anomalies are resolved in his motion. One small deviation requires another small deviation to correct the motion while it is in motion. Why not just get it right in the first place? Why rely upon compensating moves that are just as unreliable as the move that needed to be compensated? All of your observations are really clear to me...if Andy had half a brain he too could see the merit.

If Andy would give me an hour of his time to take a look at his swing in person and in real time I am certain that I would come up with something that would help his cause. As soon as he gave me an opening into his psyche I would really go to work...boring into his confidence. I would give him the key to the universe...which is to overcome his fears.

That being said...Andy Murray is not my cup of tea and I would be making the aforementioned exit strategy very early on with our collaboration. The truth of the matter is that he bores me too. What is more his service motion is very uninteresting. So uninteresting that I have a hard time even watching it trying to analyze it. I think that I already did that once in a post from licensedcoach some time ago. I will look it up and decide whether to repost it next to yours...it is always interesting to compare notes with you.

I trust your analysis on the technical aspect and second your opinion about the grip but further assert that mph is not what makes a great serve. It is the number of different serves and the variety of effective deliveries that the motion can make that is the deal breaker. I would rewrite his tactical book on the serve...if I were Lendl's replacement. He is way too predictable at 135 mph...hard serves are even easier to return if they are within reach...at least according to Tilden, although that was pre supersonic speeds of service.

At the same time I would be writing my exit strategy... because life working with Andy would be much more boring than I could live with. All the money in the world...

[don_budge]

I found this post from "The Gold Medal Match...Federer vs. Murray"

Here's a thought...Murray's serve vs. Federer's serve


Notice how Murray finishes with his left wing flapping incoherently in the wind and behind him. Now he must collect himself for his opponents return.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...evelFront1.mov

See how Federer neatly catches his racquet with his left hand as he is finishing his service swing. Hmmm...is he already preparing for the next shot? Remember it is little things at this level of the game. The sum total of those little things spell the difference...between winners and losers. Men of destiny versus the also rans.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...evelFront1.mov

There seems to be much more balance to the Federer swing. Is it because he is tossing the ball a bit farther to the right. There is an almost imperceptible rhythmic flaw in Murray's motion and it seems to be related to his toss...it is as if he tosses the ball behind him so that he must make some compensating move to get his body out of the way. He seems to be a bit off balance. It is almost as if he is ducking out of the way at the last moment of impact. Even the way that Federer lands into the court after his delivery looks to be much more balanced and therefore purposeful than Murray who appears to really be struggling with his balance and sense of equilibrium.

Take both motions and stop them at the moment of impact. It appears to me that Murray has done much more rotating to the left than Federer. He has spent much of his rotational energy before he has made contact whereas Federer has delayed his rotation and timed it a bit more neatly with the total energy package of his motion. Look at the position of their left hands at impact...Murray has pulled his hand clear to the middle of his abdomen whereas Federer's hand is still chest high. Look at the position of their respective shoulders. It looks to me that Murray's motion tends to be a bit quick with respect to his rotation of his lower body and torso compared to Federer.

The fix for Murray? Throw the ball a tad more to the right and catch the follow through ala Federer. This will prevent the premature rotation that makes him to appear ever so slightly off balanced at impact. Result? Fewer faults in the net.

This may not look to be much of a deviation but under pressure on a windy day in front of a throng of hopeful, adoring Brits with demanding and astronomically high expectations...it may play havoc with the nerves of a man not made of steel. A little premature quickness in a golf swing can be the kiss of death. The same thing might just hold true for the service motion in tennis.

Just a thought. Anyone?

[stotty]

Here's a thought...Murray's serve vs. Federer's serve


Notice how Murray finishes with his left wing flapping incoherently in the wind and behind him. Now he must collect himself for his opponents return.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/...evelFront1.mov

Great post...

I've been saying this for years and in the forum. Sometimes the left arm looks like it's going to fly off his body. The poorer the delivery, the more exaggerated it becomes.

And, yes, he hits way too flat. I've watched him many times on centre court and had a birds eye view. The first serve is as flat as a pancake....rarely swings one down the middle to the ad court.

[stotty]

I agree that Federer's good play could not have been much better yesterday. Some of those shots were absolute jaw-droppers. But he made too many unforced errors, especially off the forehand. He actually won more points than Djokovic in the first set and just 1 point less overall. I think the definition of what "Roger Federer playing well" is would be hard to define, but certainly it has to be a positive winner/error ratio. I can't find that number, but I think I saw it yesterday and it was something like negative 11. Sure, it is tougher against Djokovic, but there were still too many unforced errors at key points. To me, that's what sets Djokovic apart. He doesn't make those. Less winners, but inspite of the pressure from Roger, a lot less errors. I think he had at least 10 less than Federer. We tend to remember the highlight shots and forget the stream of unforced errors. Especially when Novak pulls off a winner on match point. But he won the match by making less unforced errors than Federer. If you want, I can put up my charts. I didn't bother with it yesterday. That's one thing about the Nole-Rafa matches: a lot less unforced errors; not as many highlight shots, but a lot less ue's. No question it was a fun match to watch and the quality was very high, but the ability to eliminate those ue's with steely determination is what sets Djokovic apart right now.

don

I don't think Roger can do anything about his UE count. It's just him breaking down under severe, relentless pressure. He's the aggressor in all his matches and there has to be a limit, a breaking point. Exactly what happened against Djokovic we've seen happen countless times against Nadal...in the bigger matches...he breaks down when right when he cannot afford not to. It's always tight but Nadal and Djokovic are just that bit better...despite his 17 slam titles...when it gets right down to it, when Nadal and Djokovic are playing their best, Roger is not quite as good. And I think Roger is a better player now than he was in his twenties:

The standard just went up...

[stroke]

Julian,

Wonderful though Federer is, there is nothing he could have done more in those last four games. He could have got more first serves in perhaps, but then that's not something he always conjure up at will. I thought Federer played extremely well. He rallied better with Djokovic than I thought he could. He kept surprising Djokovic time and time again with surprising angles and cleverly placed shots. His backhand was superb and stood up well to the barrage. He really, really, really wanted to win that match.

At the end of the day Djokovic was a centimetre better. I even think Djokovic can play better than he did...I don't think Federer can play any better...not at 31...and I'm not sure he was any better at 25...he's holding his standard beautifully... undiminished to date.

The standard has just gone up...

I agree with this accessment by lc. Djokovic's defense, what he was able to put himself through physically in both sets while withstanding Federer's barrage(which to me is like no other) was really impressive. It is reminiscent of Nadal, but perhaps even more impressive because Djokovic does not have the get out of jail free card Nadal has in his hook forehand to Federer's backhand. And just as impressive was Novak's mental strength to stay in both sets, not give in, when he was getting pummeled.

[bottle]

Steely Face and Steely Eyes Do Not Necessarily Make A Steely Man

I used to play singles against a restaurant owner in Berryville, Virginia, a very nice guy named Nasser Kashani, who came to the United States from Iran around the time of The Shah.

One time I had him down 6-0, 5-0 and lost the match. I still ask, "What the hell was going on?"

Obviously, I fell apart, but there was a reason. Nasser reached down deep. He drew on a very old culture in which people don't fool around. Iran, Serbia-- both would qualify for a semi-mystical assertion like that.

If you were to go all the way back in Iranian history to the Scythians, you would find that, if their leader, under false pretenses, led the country to war, they would burn him up in a hay wagon.

You didn't want to get Nasser's back up. As Ambassador Bruce Laingen, head of the kidnapped American Delegation in Tehran, told a gathering of homeowners on the mountain in Virginia where my wife, my son and I lived, you don't want to get any Iranian's back up.

Don't get the Iranian's back up and you can deal with him quite nicely, he explained from his very real and very intense experience of 14-month imprisonment.

Obviously, not many of the people from Washington, D.C. who were there that day listened well.

Novak Djokovic is a tough character from a tough culture on which he can draw. As a person of Swiss blood, I can say we're not that tough unless you're down in the valley and we're up on the mountain pushing a huge boulder over the edge of a cliff.

Novak reminds me of Tom Wiswell, the former world checker champion. He would turn his billed cap backward and thrust his face in your face if he thought you were any good at anything.

He had beaten Bobby Fischer one time in one game in chess in which he, Tom, pushed his pawns in a certain way.

When my fellow reporter John Pekkanen and I played against him, we were part of a 25-person exhibition in Middletown, Connecticut. 23 people lost. There was one tie-- me. And one win, John Pekkanen, whose ancestors were Fins.

I imagine that Bobby Riggs was like Tom Wiswell or Novak Djokovic. But Roger Federer? Ultimately, when you come right down to it, he is a very nice guy-- a big part of why he may be most popular person on the planet.