Federer: 5 and a Half Years On

[johnyandell]

Let's discuss William Skidelski's article, "Federer: 5 and a Half Years On"

[don_budge]

Let's discuss William Skidelski's article, "Federer: 5 and a Half Years On"

Five and a half years on...from the 2014 Wimbledon Men's Final where he lost to Novak Djokovic. I can see how the author makes that a focal point seeing as he was there to witness. Wasn't that the year that the courts were very dry and very slippery just beyond the baseline. If so...Roger did let that one slip away. But that being said he was dealing with one of the slipperiest of tennis players...perhaps ever. Another but though...perhaps Federer did not press his advantage at the net where Djokovic was most vulnerable as Radek Stepanek did in the round of 32. A tactical blunder by Roger? It could very well have been.

I really enjoyed the articles because it sort of opens up the discussion. The real discussion are the implications that the racquet switch had on the Roger Federer game and what the implications were before he switched. The most important point to remember is that for all those years leading up to 2014 Roger was handicapping himself with inferior equipment. Anyone that has ever hit with the racquet he was using before the switch can verify that. So the real psychological mystery thriller question is...why didn't he switch earlier. Colossal error on his part and on the part of his team. I don't want to hear anything other than his team should have held an intervention if he wasn't listening.

His record with Novak Djokovic is currently 23 wins and 27 losses. This is beyond respectable against a guy who's game is designed for the modern engineered conditions. There has been engineering on the game like never before ever since Roger defeated Pete Sampras way back in the 2001 Wimbledon quarterfinals. Every condition is neatly checked in Novak's favour and Roger using inferior equipment only served to illustrate the double indemnity. Couple these facts with the most important mitigating factor of age and there you have it. But most are not able to deal in multiple factored equations...they are dealing in a simplistic world of fawning sports fans.

The key to understanding the whole debacle is the rivalry with Rafael Nadal...and you shouldn't make any apologies for being rude to this monstrosity. He is the definition of rude. He shows it whenever he shows up and it is particularly apparent in contrast with any appearance he makes on any stage with Roger Federer. Since switching equipment Roger has only lost once to Nadal in how many tries. Seven...that is how many. How I would have loved to see a replay of that clay court loss at the French under normal conditions. They played that match in a howling wind like I have never seen before. Those conditions clearly favoured the clay court specialist but just to see them play under calmer conditions. The outcome might have been the same...but I would like to have seen it nonetheless. Roger also gives away five years to Nadal...you cannot underestimate those years and what effect they have on a player who has handicapped himself in terms of equipment.

Excellent series of articles William. Perhaps you would agree with me when I acknowledge Roger Federer as "The Living Proof" of my tennis teaching paradigm. William Tilden is the book. Richard Gonzalez is the model with the Don Budge backhand. Harry Hopman is the coach and Roger Federer is "The Living Proof"!!!

Thanks very much for your articles...we have really enjoyed them and the ensuing discussion. Viva Roger Federer!