Roland Garros 2013

[djarvik]

To me, Roger never had a consistent anything: Forehand, Backhand, Serve... etc. His most consistent shot would be his slice. His footwork, anticipation, eyes, hands...are his biggest strengths.

As much as I would like him to win 20 Slams, I think his best shot this year and for 2-3 years to come will be Wimbledon.

And BTW - I very much like today's top 10, great bunch of players! (with Waw replacing Tipsy this week)

[SteyololBANNED]

To me, Roger never had a consistent anything: Forehand, Backhand, Serve... etc. His most consistent shot would be his slice. His footwork, anticipation, eyes, hands...are his biggest strengths.

As much as I would like him to win 20 Slams, I think his best shot this year and for 2-3 years to come will be Wimbledon.

And BTW - I very much like today's top 10, great bunch of players! (with Waw replacing Tipsy this week)

So you don't think Roger had a consistent serve?
What about his return of serve (nobody ever mentions)?

Both helped him win every slam he has. And both were more than consistent.

Especially Roger's serve. One of the most consistent shots.

[djarvik]

A relatively consistent, yeah. But then we need to define what is consistent or what is not...

I was speaking in terms of single shot production comparasing. ...and as such, he has a decent consistency on the serve with great placement. Even there you have to break it down a bit further, there are tons of consistent servers that are simply rolling the ball in....so you have to think in terms of consistency of well placed serves. There he is a bit higher up, and yet there are players (a decent bunch) that can do that part better.

So in a grand scheme of things, if you go for a direct comparasing, Roger loses in most departments. What "wins" is the total package, on a very strong tripod support of Feet, Hands, Eyes.

Its funny to me all the attributions people make to him: Best FH, Best BH, Best slice, Serve, Volley and so on. This shows mainly Fanaticism rather then knowledge.

...to your earlier question "Do any of you people actually watch/play tennis in real life?"

I play/coach tennis for 22 years now.

[SteyololBANNED]

A relatively consistent, yeah. But then we need to define what is consistent or what is not...

I was speaking in terms of single shot production comparasing. ...and as such, he has a decent consistency on the serve with great placement. Even there you have to break it down a bit further, there are tons of consistent servers that are simply rolling the ball in....so you have to think in terms of consistency of well placed serves. There he is a bit higher up, and yet there are players (a decent bunch) that can do that part better.

So in a grand scheme of things, if you go for a direct comparasing, Roger loses in most departments. What "wins" is the total package, on a very strong tripod support of Feet, Hands, Eyes.

Its funny to me all the attributions people make to him: Best FH, Best BH, Best slice, Serve, Volley and so on. This shows mainly Fanaticism rather then knowledge.

...to your earlier question "Do any of you people actually watch/play tennis in real life?"

I play/coach tennis for 22 years now.

If what you said is true, that would mean that Roger has in your own words the "total pakcage" that wins. But not a "one" shot that is actually consistent? So he is just.. overall good? But not consistent. That doesn't make sense.

If you coach tennis, I am sure you must realize that the Federer FH for example, is not consistent if you follow your advise?

I don't really understand your logic. Considering the Fed FH, serve, volley, return are all more than consistent and above average.

[djarvik]

You right, you don't follow me or understand my logic.

Answer this:

How do you define consistency? What makes his Serve or Forehand consistent?

In your own words.

[SteyololBANNED]

You right, you don't follow me or understand my logic.

Answer this:

How do you define consistency? What makes his Serve or Forehand consistent?

In your own words.

Take a look at this:

"Out of the times he has been stretched to a tiebreak in a title match, Roger Federer has dominated the competition.
He has an outstanding 19-6 record in these tiebreaks, winning 76 percent of the time.
Even when his serve percentage seems to drop off, his chances of winning because of his serve do not."

That is an example not only of consistency but the fact his serve is and was consistent.

Trying to say Roger has nothing consistent.. just makes zero sense.

[El Croato]

I have the feeling that those « Fed is finished » stories have always existed, in particular since Roger's loss against Nadal at the 2008 Wimbledon tournament. The thing is: Federer has always succeeded in silencing critical voices so far and it would not be surprising if he did so again in the upcoming major tournaments.

I like beautiful stories and I am pretty sure Roger still has quite much in store for us and will thus be able to further write what will be longly regarded as the most beautiful story in the world of tennis. The key for him is to remain motivated and his loss against Nishikori at the Madrid Masters will help him get re-energized.

Furthermore, we are not even at the half of the season so that I believe it is not the right time to draw foregone conclusions about Fed's future performance.

Wimbledon 2013 will be a telling indication on how Federer could look like in his coming years as a professional tennis player, so my suggestion is: wait and see.

[Corbon]

Fed isn't getting younger. He is close to 32 now. He hasn't won a tournament since Cincinnati '12, on one of the fastest surfaces on tour. He hasn't even reached a final this year. Of course you shouldn't underestimate him in Grand Slams but there's no way he can beat a healthy Nadal or Djoker on clay. As for Wimbledon, Murray can make it big this year, he has proven that he can beat all the big guys in a best of five match.

Edit: When I see posts by Steyolololol I really hope that "the best player ever" is going to retire soon without winning a calendar grand slam, a Davis Cup title, an Olympic gold medal in singles and a 10-19 or worse record vs Nadal so all his fantards will shut up for good.

[Vieira151]

You right, you don't follow me or understand my logic.

Answer this:

How do you define consistency? What makes his Serve or Forehand consistent?

In your own words.

Take a look at this:

"Out of the times he has been stretched to a tiebreak in a title match, Roger Federer has dominated the competition.
He has an outstanding 19-6 record in these tiebreaks, winning 76 percent of the time.
Even when his serve percentage seems to drop off, his chances of winning because of his serve do not."

That is an example not only of consistency but the fact his serve is and was consistent.

Trying to say Roger has nothing consistent.. just makes zero sense.

That quote has nothing to do with what you are talking about. If you are talking results consistency, then Federer is consistent and that quote shows that somewhat. If you are talking Forehand consistency, then show us some percentages, or if you are talking serve consistency, show us some serve percentages, if you are talking backhand consistency, then show us some percentages yadda yadda.

Federer is the total package because he as no true weakness (his backhand is exploitable, but its not really a weakness to most players) and he knows how to build points and finish them expertly. His shots aren't the most consistent, because he plays high risk tennis and he will miss a fair amount when he isn't 'on' his game. He gets consistent results, but that is because of a variety things not related to how consistent his individual shots are.

[Ali-Iqb93]

Again reading all this people are making assumptions that roger is finished, should retire blah blah blah.. Soo let's talk in another 6 months just like federer said once "people say that very quickly so let's talk in another 6 months"
Yesterday federer looked very motivated and played some good tennis.. I hope he keeps up that level

[Cro Morgan]

Yesterday federer looked very motivated and played some good tennis.. I hope he keeps up that level

The guy Federer beat (Potito Starace) is ranked 293rd. I think you might be jumping the gun a bit with regard to Federer's motivation and current level of play.

[Ali-Iqb93]

It's not about who federer's opponent was.. It was about the stats with federer serve % was above 80 .. His stats were impressive

[Cro Morgan]

When you're playing a guy ranked 293rd there's far less pressure to win points with your serve. If my memory is correct, I believe 12 of Federer's serves were of the underhand variety.

[Florian]

Murray probably injured so he might not play RG to be at 100% at Wimbledon. So Roger will stay N°2 seeded and Rafa N°4 ^^

[SteyololBANNED]

When you're playing a guy ranked 293rd there's far less pressure to win points with your serve. If my memory is correct, I believe 12 of Federer's serves were of the underhand variety.

Going to say the same when he killed Giles simon?

Face it. You have nothing good to say about Roger. You claim to be involved in tennis and the sport you love, yet deny the greatest player of the game any kind words? You are not at all smart in the head.

Haters gon hate, and this guy is one of them. Sad.