Roger Federer is still in a slump, not a grand slam slump, but a slump nevetheless. This slump has to do with three set matches. For some reason, the "Great One" can't find a way to win these matches against decent competition.
He recently collapsed again in the third set of the Madrid semi-finals against US Open finalist Andy Murray. I have no doubt that if this was a Grand Slam and a five set match, the result would have been slightly different. Federer needs more than a Master series nowadays to propel him into the edge of his abilities. Three sets, it seems, isn't enough.
Tennis is a strange game. Mental freedom has a lot of affect on a person's shotmaking ability. With five set matches, it seems as if Federer feels he has all the time in the world to win a match. This is evidenced in his Grand Slam performances. However, without this freedom, he often cramps out and loses to a younger opponent.
Federer has yet to win a Masters this season. I don't know if he considers this a major black spot on his productivity this year, but it has to be surely puzzling or frustrating. We will never know whether his skills have truly eroded until he really starts to flop in Grand Slams.
Right now, we can only assume that his motivation level only simmers in non Grand Slam competition. But, imagine that the Wimbledon finals were only three sets. The score would have read Nadal 6-4, 6-4 and we would have been deprived.
Men's tennis needs to be out of five sets; that is the true test of a champion tennis player. Three set matches are like an abridged novel, okay, but not always enthralling.
For now, I can only consider Federer a great five set match player. His performance in three-set matches leaves more than a little doubt in this writer's mind.
16 comments Last one added 6 months ago — Leave a Comment
Long John Silver 8 months ago
WOW - really ?
I have no doubt that if this was a Grand Slam and a five set match, the result would have been slightly different.
- you have no doubt - correct me if am wrong, but no doubt means - absolute certainty
i did not know any human possessed the ability to predict with absolute certainty
---------------
For now, I can only consider Federer a great five set match player - WOW, amazing hah
-------------
just for the sake of argument - just for shits and giggles
did you ever consider the fact that Federer won and lose - is not entirely a FUNCTION of him alone - did you think about that
There is another person on court
and he actually played brilliant and better than Rodge .... that day
i think along those lines - but then again, am insane arent i ?
------------
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
Is Roger Federer no longer a force in three set matches?
Add - option C
1. did the opponent play better
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
so - wat, every time when federer loses a 3 set match, am supposed to assume that if it was a 5 set match, federer would ve won
what a load of crap !
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 8 months ago
if I were to consider everything that YOU think about , I wouldn't be able to write anything - nor would anybody else in this website - why don't we just let YOU write all the articles!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 8 months ago
'the result would have been slightly different'
of course it would be slightly different, it would be a five set lmatch wouldnt' i??? i didn't say that roger woudl have won!!
READ into the article!! you're not reading between the lines!! i'm not saying that roger would win five set matches all the time...i'm saying he's a different player when he plays five set matches...the opponent is the oppoonent...i can't speak for them...if you lose a match..the opponent obviously played better...but the question i'm tossing up is 'is roger the same force in three set matches' that's all
Your 'aggressive' criticism really puts off myself and others from contributing to this site...if you don't want our contribution say so...it's not like i'll be losing my meal ticket here...sheesh....
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
NO -am not saying that .... if i think something's crap. am gonna tell you that - take it or leave it, thats completely your choice
dont forget that everytime youve written somethin which is quality - i have always told you that
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
vinny - i have absolutely nothing against you or anyone else
if i came off too strong - then i apologise for that
----
so - by result - DID you really mean - 5 setter and not 3 setter (or) the actual result
i think you meant the latter - thats how it reads, i read it 3 times
+ criticism is the only way we improve as writers - by putting your work out there in front of hundreds, you gotta take the positives with the negatives
because - if we all said everything was fine and dandy - we wont improve
Edit Comment Cancel
Long John Silver 8 months ago
I have no doubt that if this was a Grand Slam and a five set match, the result would have been slightly different.
come on man - are you really telling me this meant - that you told its a 5 set match
you already preface it with - grand slam five set match, then why wud you say its gonna be a five set match again (by using the word result)
not buying it -
you know that too -
cheers mate - the last thing i wanna do is to discourage you, but you just cant say stuff ... you gotta back it up
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 8 months ago
alright - apology accepted
Edit Comment Cancel
Saraswathi Siriginia 8 months ago
Vinny, the problem is not as I see it a question of 3-setter or 5-setter, it is more a question of whether he ups his game only for the GSlams and lacks the drive to strive at all these Masters tournaments. My answer would be no the question that I mentioned...I guess, and this is just an opinion, Roger Federer does not have anything to prove to anyone anymore...he is just playing for himself...and that himself is not what he was a couple of years back...may be, just may be, he has different priorities than what his fans expect or what his critics think he should achieve to be called as best...he has a different parameter for himself and I don't think we are privy to his thinking...I see a more seasoned campaigner on court who is just adapting to change and evolving with it...the Federer product is not finished yet...he has his own barometer...so let's wait and watch as to where he wants to go or end up...that's entirely up to him, right!
Edit Comment Cancel
J.A. Allen 8 months ago
Hi Vinny - interesting point of departure. I think Roger himself feels that he is more difficult to subdue in 5 sets. The reality of tennis, however, is that most tournaments employ three sets because the wear and tear on players interrupts the scheduling. If the powers that be would cut back on the number and frequency of the tournaments - then I agree that 5 sets is the proper number!
I know Roger himself was saddened when the ATP Masters Series finals were reduced to three sets. They used to play five set finals. I think Roger succeeds much more often than he loses in three sets. We just aren't used to seeing him lose! But he will unfortunately! I think we can all look forward to 2009 and see exactly where Roger is...take care! jaa
Edit Comment Cancel
A J 8 months ago
How does the fact that Federer has 14 Masters titles, second only to Agassi's 17 square with your theory? Federer had a sub-par year by only his own incredible standards. In the past, he's been equally dominant in the best-of-three format. In fact, he has shown that he can even beat Nadal in best-of-3 on clay. If your view of tennis doesn't extend to any time before 2008, you might be correct, but the facts show otherwise over Federer's career.
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 8 months ago
the title says 'why can't roger federer win three setters 'anymore' - of course he could win in past years, but this year he hasn't won a title of any real prestige with three set matches
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob York 8 months ago
Many commentators have said that as Fed gets older, he's saving his best stuff for the majors because getting the Grand Slam record is more important to him than holding onto No. 1. It's not necessarily bad news if you look at it that way.
Edit Comment Cancel
Vinny Do 8 months ago
thank you - my viewpoint too
Edit Comment Cancel
Ali Shaw 6 months ago
I think it's two-fold. Roger has lost a bit of intensity as he's gotten older in non-grand slam tournaments. Though he is like "GOD" to me, he is, I hate to admit, still human. It's not possible for him to keep up what he did the last few years. The other side of the coin is that there is, indeed, as Long says, someone on the court. The young guns have nothing to lose, going for a win against one of the greatest ever, and in a three set match, they can squeak it out. But many of them who beat Roger this year can't play like that for 5 sets and someone as experienced as Roger can dig himself out of a hole and win in 5. I think that's why he performs better in Grand Slams. The young guys are not yet consistent enough both physcially and in the head to beat Roger in 5, and Roger can't bear losing in a grand slam and therefore concentrates much more. Also young ones not experienced in winning in a Grand slam tournament can succumb on a big stage to nerves. Roger is more immune which plays a huge part. He loves Centre Court.
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.