Breaking News
Home » Roger Federer » Roger Federer’s Best Points of 2014
Federer Best Points of 2014

Roger Federer’s Best Points of 2014

Hi guys, I've tweeted this video a couple of times already so some of you will no doubt have seen it but I thought I would post it here too. It's a compilation of all Fed's best points in 2014 expertly put together by blog regular Conal aka @rfswissmaestro on Twitter.

It took a lot of effort to compile all the clips and fuse them together but even longer to get the thing online as YouTube kept flagging up numerous content claims which meant lots of re-edits and uploading this large file. So kudos to Conal 5.0 for persisting and holding it together mentally. Clutch πŸ˜†

As for the content, there's some pretty special stuff in there, especially from Dubai, Shanghai and the Wimbledon final so enjoy, and if you do please comment the YouTube video, give it a thumbs up and share it if you can.

Roger Federer's Best Points of 2014 [HD]

Fed-Word Answers

Finally as promised here are the Fed-Word Crossword answers that I posted the other day. Hope you enjoyed playing.

Clue Answer
1 Connect Fed & Mary Jo Fernandez to get a Fed business associate ( 7 ) GODSICK
2 Fed probably met him at Basel as a ballboy and still the tutelage continues ( 6 ) STEFAN
3 Fed has 4 – 0 H2H with this player whose surname is also a country ( 6 ) MONACO
4 He ended Fed's Roman dream in 2014 saving a match-point in the third set ( 6 ) CHARDY
5 This Argentine is the only one other than Rafa to have beaten Fed in consecutive tournaments ( 5 ) CANAS
6 Fed hilariously asked his Twitter followers to photoshop him before he went to this country ( 5 ) INDIA
7 He has a 3 – 8 losing record to Fed the last being at the 2005 US Open finals ( 5 ) ANDRE
8 He is the last man Fed beat at Wimbledon to reach the finals which Fed lost ( 5 ) MILOS
9 The first man Fed beat at a Grand Slam tournament – a French Open winner to boot ( 5 ) CHANG
10 She has twins too but a boy and a girl, who have a famous uncle – Fed !! ( 5 ) DIANA
11 Fed beat this Argentine named after Vilas, thrice and has never lost to him ( 5 ) CORIA
12 This player is the greatest of all avers Fed. Its all within ( 5 ) LAVER
13 The first ATP no. 1 to be beaten by Fed in Feb 1999, though he became No. 1 in March ( 4 ) MOYA
14 Only one to beat Fed in a grasscourt final in straight sets apart from Murray ( 4 ) HAAS
15 Fed lost his first quarterfinal at Toulose in 1998 to ____ Seimerink who went on to win the title ( 3 ) JAN
16 A former singles world no 1 she was Fed's teammate in the IPTL – Team Indian Aces ( 3 ) ANA
17 Fed has a winning H2H against two players – one's surname is the first name of a great ( 5 ) NOVAK
18 Fed has won maximum double titles with him – answer in the clue itself ( 3 ) MAX

And if anyone wants the Excel version with answers you can download it here.

About Jonathan

Huge fan of Roger Federer - I'll pretty much try and watch all his matches from Grand Slam level right down to ATP 250. When I'm not watching or tweeting about tennis I play regularly myself and use this blog to share my thoughts on Fed and tennis in general.

Check Also

Federer Indian Wells Final 2017

Flawless Federer Wins Fifth Indian Wells Title

The comeback king reigns supreme as Roger Federer defeated Stan Wawrinka 6-4 7-5 to win …

72 comments

    • Watched that Video from early Tweet….Thats on my watch later playlist and got played now and then…Every time my wife raises same question as why you watch this so many times….LOL…..Very well done Conal…much appreciated for putting it together…

    • Back to winning ways πŸ˜‰

  1. Nearly first!

  2. I thought i am really late, but third?
    Where is everybody?

  3. Fourth, not bad for the other side of the pond.

  4. Thanks to Conal and Jon, great vid

  5. Thanks for the video, Conal.

    What’d you think of the Berdych – Nadal match. Berdych has improved. Was Nadal injuried…lol.

    I`m still watching the AO. Allez le Suisse.

    • Is that even a question Sue? πŸ™‚

      Was he injured? You do realise that nobody has ever beaten (let alone seen) a fully fit Nadal. Each and every loss of his can be attributed to some physical/ mental injury.

      Looks like it’s going to be Stan vs. Novak and Berdych vs Murray. I would love for Stan, Murray, Berdych in that order.

      • Sid TheCookieThief

        Hahaha! Gaurav, “let alone seen a fully fit Nadal”.

        I’m pretty sure all these modern, idiot coaches, every where, and out here in Dallas too, teach their disciples on how model themselves on Nadal. Moonball all the time. Never stay injury free. If you lose, you have a reason. If you win, you have tremendous fighting spirit.

      • EXACTLY! It’s fool proof.

      • Nadal was playing pretty poor in those first couple of sets, then someone from his camp delivered him one tiny pill and suddenly the vintage Nadal was back – sliding around the Plexicushion court like it was clay and celebrating like he had pushed the match to 5 sets. Glad Berdych managed to stay calm and finish Nadal off in the tiebreaker otherwise, it could have easily gone to a marathon.

    • Yeah I hope Stan wins, played good today vs. Nishikori. If he can keep up his game he is a handful on this surface.

  6. Thanks for the video Conal. Brilliant stuff as always. Thanks for sharing Jonathan.

  7. Thanks everyone, happy you guys enjoyed it! πŸ™‚ Please share it as much as you can, because this year I’m struggling with views and promoting the video is not easy by myself!

    This video was the hardest and most stressful one to make so far, so I’ll tell you my roller-coaster tale.

    I started the video sometime last year, was halfway through the editing process when disaster struck early December. I lost all of my all my downloaded video content on my computer somehow. Even the video clips from my 2013 video and other classic match highlights (from 2005-2012) disappeared!
    It took around another 10 hours to download the 2014 content. Probably 4 or 5 hours to select and trim the points that would make the final cut. Saving the entire video file (about 700-800MB) in HD takes 2.5 hours minimum. I had my first stab at uploading successfully to YouTube early January. At this point I was happy with my completed project. All the clips in my video had already been successfully uploaded online by other tennis fans, so I was highly confident that my video would pass the strict YouTube content ID filtering systems without hassle. The upload to YouTube depending on internet speed takes at least 2 hours.

    Turned out my over-confidence was a jinx as the upload failed immediately with two copyright infringement notices flashing on the screen for two separate points. I had to re-edit, re-save AND re-upload my video. Fail again. And so in the next fortnight, I’ve lost count of my failed attempts, it must have been at least 8! Can you guys calculate how many extra hours I’ve had to keep my computer running?

    The most frustrating thing was, at each attempt I would receive notices for a different points that were not noted the very first time I attempted my upload. So I literally had no idea which points were going to be classified ‘clean’ every time I had the opportunity to re-edit my video. All the US Open points were a massive gamble since I haven’t seen any other videos with points from Flushing Meadows. My original video was 38 minutes. I’ve deleted at least 12 points, majority from Indian Wells and Basel.

    Just before I left for Melbourne for the first week of tennis, I tried my final upload attempt. I was literally praying for my video to pass the scrutiny test and it worked! πŸ˜€ I’m very grateful now because I did consider giving up!

    I’ve got a fan story due sometime soon on this blog on my trip down to Melbourne, so stay tuned! πŸ™‚

  8. The ‘best” of Roger of 2014 doesn’t conceal a rather dismaying underlying reality: to my perception, for all his talent and ability to play individual points or games with the dazzle and flair of the Harlem Globetrotters he has a soft underbelly when it comes to battle. His loss to Seppi showed that he can be a disappointing fighter, coming as it did off some of the best form he has shown in years. To me, Djokovic doesn’t have quite the level of Roger’s sheer talent, but he is consistently the better competitor. You always feel the Serb will ‘guts it out’, even when he is not playing well. By contrast, Roger’s ‘effortless’ game seems to extend to when he is losing – under real pressure we don’t see the presence of steel in his character – he simply seems to give up. I preferred to watch him in the years when he knew how to win, rather than seeing he has become a player of ‘exhibition’ tennis in the tournaments that matter most, like the slams. The Globetrotters are not in the NBA. I don’t see Roger winning another slam.

    However, such disappointments notwithstanding, I can still watch tennis for the time being. Berdych ensured that, by unexpectedly and brilliantly disposing of the dubious Mallorcan (who will no doubt be back in full force in the clay season.)

    Incidentally, I don’t buy Murray’s astonishing comeback. For most of last year he was effectively a no-show, and by the year’s end it was unimaginable that he might win another slam. Yet only a month later he is clearly now in contention, moving and hitting like he is on rocket fuel. Maybe he is. It’s amazing what some of these players can achieve in 3 weeks in the off-season. His absolute demolition by Roger at the end of last year is a very distant memory. Murray says he is now “physically much stronger” than last year. I can believe it. I love the way some of these players can dial in form seemingly at will .

    • Not sure what you meant by Federer not giving much of fight against Seppi. I watched that final set and with all the ‘Come Ons’ I heard, even on Seppi shanks, it was pretty obvious Fed was having a bad day, but still trying to win the match.He even led in the tiebreaker, its not like he gave up at all. Nadal was similar against Berdych, despite playing his worst tennis still had the belief he could fight back in the third set and managed to push it into a tiebreaker. Just because you are competitive fighter, doesn’t mean you win every match that goes down to the wire. Federer is 33 now, for his age a lot of people would have retired because lack of motivation or consistency. He proved last year that he still had mentality and physical ability to beat the top guys. This loss was just a bad day. You cannot expect this guy to reach the quarters or semis consistently as he did a couple of years ago.

    • 100% agreed Conal. Fed has shown a ton of fight in the last 12 months or more. Some people just don’t get that, ever.

      • A HUUUUGE THANK to Conal for this invigorating compile – so MUCH more in this time without live-fed-food..
        And thanks to Jonathan too, for the effort to keep us alive. Not easy..
        Berdych has said somewhere that he had a special plan to beat Nadal, and stuck to it, to fine effect. Might be interesting to watch this match – for Roger as well? We will see, if there is a special plan vers. Murray tomorrow.
        As for the winner of AO this year, I don’t care, except please beat Djoko, someone.

      • Did Roger show “a ton of fight” in his loss against Seppi?

      • He won the third set playing way off his level, and then hit a very good forehand on match point only to get passed by a shot made 1 time in 10 if that. So I don’t think his loss was really down to lack of fight. He played poorly and looked mentally drained.

        It’s easy to pick matches in isolation and say a player lacks character.

    • 200% agreed Conal and Jonathan. You cannot judge a player from just one bad loss. Beside, those great points in the Conal’s video did lead to Fed’s many clutching victories in 2014.

      • Roger isn’t being judged “for one bad loss”, but for his tendency to fold when he isn’t playing well. Do you think he is a fighter, like Djokovic seems to be?

      • Sorry Richard. Gotta side with everyone else here. You don’t win as much as Federer has in his career, without being a fighter. If nothing else, the last one year have shown how under rated that aspect of his game has always been. Would you rather have him tear his shirt off like Novak, or mumble and groan and whine like Nadal and Murray? You’re mistaking his calm demeanor for a lack of resolve, and that, I feel, is very unfair. I’ve always admired him for being able to hide his emotions and not give in to the charades the likes of Nadal and Murray and everyone else to some degree or the other keep on resorting to.

      • The same Djokovic had a tendency to quit matches a few years ago. So it’s swings and roundabouts.

        Federer is clearly not myopic like Nadal which is one of the Spaniards biggest assets in being a ‘fighter’ but his mental game is pretty under rated. He beat Raonic two weeks ago for his 1000th win in a real tough one where he ground out the win. No finesse in that one, had to find a way to get over the line.

        No doubt he’s gone away mentally in matches before and folded cheaply, I have criticised it before for having a look of resignation on his face but I’ve seen him win far more matches by hanging in there till the end than he’s lost by not ‘fighting’.

        Just because you grunt louder and fist pump more doesn’t make you more of a tough competitor on court.

        I mean check this out – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gj15uqzW_I 15-40 8-8 in a Slam Final against one of the best servers of his generation.

      • “Just because you grunt louder and fist pump more doesn’t make you more of a tough competitor on court.”

        Exactly this. I’m sure if Fed snarled, did an obnoxious fist pump complete with hip thrusting and yelled like a barbarian after points he would he hailed as a great fighter.

        Though I don’t think I would support him as much.

    • Richard LOL! Your “analysis” of Roger is such BS. We will see how much “fight” those players have when they are Federer’s age assuming they are even playing at all. Being disappointed that Federer lost and not winning the AO after only having 8 days off is okay, but to say is no fighter is pretty ridiculous.

    • Sorry, Richard, I’m afraid I agree with the majority on this one. We saw it with nadal, and we have seen it with djokovic, murray, nishikori, you name it. Having the will to win is worthless if the game isn’t there to back it up. Did roger switch off on the tough points? No. It was his entire match that was disappointing. He simply looked drained. Even if he weren’t, it was definitely an off day.

      You say djokovic can somehow pull off the wins. This is true. Call it blasphemy, but I would call djokovic one of the few players in history who is mentally stronger than roger. And he’s backed up by the fact that his style implies the game doesn’t have to be there. He needs to hang on and hope his opponents miss. Which they do. But sometimes, they don’t. Fed isn’t equipped with the style or age to do that. His version of toughing it out is hitting the vital serves, playing the vital aggressive points. And among the aggressors he is the best under pressure. In my opinion, of course.

    • Richard, a tennis player who frequently ‘gives up’ doesn’t win three matches in a season having saved a combined 11 match points πŸ™‚

    • Roger always fights – just because he isn’t huffing/puffing/grunting like the Spanish cheater, doesn’t mean he’s not fighting. I still believe he was tired mentally and possibly physically. He was trying to pump himself up, but nothing was working that day, and that’s normal, especially as you get older. Watch that Mayer (Shanghai) match again, and then say he shows no steel.

      All players have ups and downs, problems with motivation, form etc. Murray is a good example: I believe he said the drubbing he received at Federer’s hands in the WTF was his recent motivation. You don’t forget how to play tennis and I noticed right from the start of the tournament that Murray was playing much more aggressively and looked totally focussed. He’s too good a player to ‘disappear’. These are human beings, not supermen.

      • @slamdunk “These are human beings, not supermen.”

        That’s the problem. So many of them do resemble supermen now. Murray is one of the most obvious. His extraordinary turnaround in form this month – shown especially by his becoming “physically stronger”, as he says – is just as easily explained by doping in the off-season as it is by saying he is more ‘motivated’. I am sure he was totally motivated to win as many matches as he could last year – he hates to lose – but desire is of itself not enough to get the wins. But a few weeks off in December – and hey, presto – the results are suddenly and dramatically there. Boosting will definitely do that. I know what I believe about the rise of the Dunblane Hulk.

      • Not a believer in doping theories – I’ve heard people (not here obviously!) suggest that Federer must dope, as how could he be No2 at age 33 otherwise. Confidence drained away from Murray last year with the losses he suffered, and maybe motivation was a problem also. The drubbing from Federer was a big wake-up call. Actually as I understand it, he has lost weight – with all the running he does, he needed to find optimum weight. I think he is now confident re his back also. Anyway, you believe what you want – my main disagreement was your contention that Federer didn’t fight, which I strongly refute.

  9. I did not watch that match with Seppi, but I so much prefer to believe in Conan’s and Jonathan’s opinions. My impression is, though, that Djoko is a great and perhaps the present most consistent fighter too, and very strong. Nonetheless Roger in 2014 has won 3 matches against Djoko’s 2 – unfortunately one of them Wimby. Still that was a tight match, as was the other final(?) in spring, where Roger was only 1 point behind!

      • Thanks Jonathan, ah yes, this it was!

      • Let me be clear, I think Roger is an incredible player – particularly with what he has been doing at 33 years of age. But his brilliance is part of the problem. I have been watching Roger play since he burst on the scene when he took out Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001. (I have also seen all the greats since Laver and Rosewall. I have never seen anyone play like Roger at his best.)

        But I have also seen Roger collapse in some of his matches. and it looks mental to me. In his peak years he beat everyone because he was simply so much better than they. You could see he believed it. But Nadal changed that. From his first significant defeat to the Spaniard, which was the Rome final in 2006, when Roger basically choked it away when he had match points, you could see some of that inner self-belief draining away. Over the years he has lost his aura of invincibility and his opponents know it. Even ten-times losers know it.

        Now, when Roger is in a struggle for his life out on court I have no confidence that he will find a way. Sure, he may be trying – as many of you have pointed out. But being a tough competitor involves more than trying. It’s about finding answers – and if you have the talent Roger so obviously has, it should be easier for him to find answers than it would be for a ten-times loser like Seppi – let alone Nadal. Winston Churchill once said, in a much more serious context than sport admittedly, that “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, you have to do what is necessary”. In sport we call it “having balls”, being “clutch”, or “raising your game when you have to”. (That was clearly Sampras. Or Connors.) A truly mentally tough competitor will do that when they are struggling and facing defeat. Yet I have often seen Roger hand victory to an opponent apparently on his way out. So talent is not enough. If I was a pro tennis player I would never want to face Federer at his best – but only his best. Equally, I would not want to be playing a losing Nadal – or Djokovic. You get my point.

      • I do, yes, but I would posit that there is no such thing as the mental strength you describe. You mentioned that aura roger once had, and the belief trickling away slowly over the years. That’s just aging. One day, djokovic will suffer a big fall, as will nadal, and you will see the cracks form as they age. Some might say nadal already has, and off clay, he certainly isn’t the player I’m sure he believes himself to be. Djokovic is in the middle of his prime right now, and he too will pass. The mental side will go, simply from diminishing desire, belief, or time.

        You put across your point, Richard, very politely and civilly. I appreciate that. So I want to make a couple of theories, no real proof, just hypotheses. Firstly, fed in his prime was good enough to barely ever need the mental strength. But he still came out on top of most of his tough battles. People underestimate that. It takes a different mental power to stay ahead of the pack, not just a match, and roger has it in abundance. Secondly, I think it is an influence on your opinion that fed is there to fight the battles. He is not at the age where he should get far enough to even be tested. The fact he is being edged out mentally is testament to the fact that he still has the nerve to fight those battles. Even if they are uphill ones, because of age. All the greats ended up losing tight matches to the up and coming. Roger is no exception. His era has moved on, and I would call him a mental behemoth for possessing the will not to do the same.

  10. Richard, a tennis player who frequently β€˜gives up’ doesn’t win three matches in a season having saved a combined 11 match points πŸ˜€

    • I haven’t said that Roger has no mental toughness. That would be an absurd claim. His record speaks for itself in that regard. I recall that after the 2007 USO final he said he often felt “invincible” (something, which he added, he felt only his “good friend” Tiger Woods would understand. A dangerous claim – as we see in retrospect. Poor Tiger.) Indeed, between 2004-7 Roger did seem invincible. His self-belief was so extraordinary that he often turned matches around that he appeared in danger of losing. He was then a great ‘clutch’ player, as he so frequently showed on the big points at the business end of matches, and in tie-breaks. Time and again he found his best when he needed it. He was that good.

      But it’s my view that that changed as the losses to Nadal mounted. We saw doubt, indecision, and even panic enter his game when he played the Spaniard. And there is nothing so corrosive as negative thinking. We can make excuses for him – that he is 33 years old and so on – but the truth is that for much of last year and certainly this month he has been playing some of the best tennis of his lfe. So how does he lose to a player he has owned like Seppi, who has no weapons to hurt him except a dogged consistency? There was nothing clutch in a loss of that order. Could it be, as some have suggested, that there was the paralysing anxiety that a little further down the road he would likely face his nemesis once more? How ironic that Nadal is ejected by a player that he himself had owned. But that, too, is about mental toughness – in this case, Berdych’s (who would have thought?), who, unlike Seppi, at least has the weapons to beat any player on his day – as he has often shown. Berdych beat Nadal early in their careers – he should have done it many times since. But he lacked the necessary self-belief.

      Roger was magnificently clutch when playing Raonic at Brisbane. But he was also playing sublime tennis. It’s easy to believe you can still do it when the shots are flowing. But on the days when Roger feels every one of his 33 years – and not 23 again – the self-belief palpably drains away. As many have noted, Roger has an almost feminine grace to his game. Perhaps that quality gets in the way of the need, every now and then, to ‘win ugly’ – which may be the only way to win that day ? Just not in his nature.

      • So Federer has a feminine game now because he lost Seppi who supposedly has no weapons. Also crap by saying Federer lost because he is scared to face Nadal who he hasn’t played in a year. Federer was down a set and a break against John Millman only to “fight” back to win in Brisbane.

      • It isn’t mental toughness, or its lack thereof that accounts for his losses to Nadal. It’s the matchup. You can be as tough in the head as is humanly possible, but at the end of the day a bad match up is just a bad match up. And nothing else.

        Slow courts, a game tailored to beat a single hander- it’s no surprise that Federer struggles against Nadal. He’s on the back foot 90% of the points he plays against him. He knows the odds are stacked against him each time he plays Nadal. He still walks out onto the court, ready to lose. Ready to win. At the end of the day it’s he who has the most to lose, not anyone else.

      • Roger’s grace is coming from talent and enjoyment of movement – not a special feminine doing – but a help to make precise shots and avoid injures – a wonderful addition to masculine physical power which Roger also has!
        Richard, your musing is interesting and inspiring for thought, but not totally convincing. Still it IS enigmatic, why he should lose to Seppi. I keep believing, something special must have happened. I mean – 9 double faults!

      • Er, John Millman? Who?

        So it’s not mental that Nadal owns Roger? It’s just ‘a bad match-up’? If it’s such a bad match-up for Roger it’s been strange to see him blow leads and even set points – match points! – against the Spaniard.

        At the highest level, where the difference in skill levels are so small, all sport becomes essentially a mental contest. How you think is the most important part of how you play.

      • There is no way he would have won 17 slams and broken all those records if he was mentally weak. Talent alone doesn’t explain the amount of success. There are many extremely talented players on the tour, but few have the mental ability to stay focused throughout the match and raise their level when under pressure. In his prime he always seemed to raise his level when he needed it the most. We’ve seen the same thing from Djokovic the last few years. It’s what separates the men from the boys.

        Though with age comes not only the loss of muscle mass and reaction time, but also the ability to maintain focus for a long period of time is degrading as well. So it’s to be expected that a player in his thirties will be much less consistent and prone to fatigue. There will be more slumps like the one against Seppi, especially if he plays so many matches in a short time. It does not mean he’s so fragile and gives up.

        The most recent example I remember where he showed great fighting spirit was in the last US Open against Monfils. He turned around the match and won after being down 2 sets. That was won due to resolve rather than flashy play.

        Sure, I’ll admit he’s not as mentally tough as Nadal, but then who is?

      • Richard wants us to believe Federer is both physically and mentally compared to Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. Djokovic and Murray have losing H2H against Federer. I love seeing Djokovic get frustrated when Federer’s “feminine” game keeps him guessing and Murray had no choice but to improve because he was embarrassed he only won 1 game against “girly” Federer. Mentally fragile Federer stills manages to play a whole season while mentally tough Nadal has only played the whole season just once since 2008.

      • A couple of days back, I saw a report saying that Roger’s supposed bee sting was actually a burst blood vessel in his little finger. Is there any reasonably authoritative source for that?

      • I am sorry, Karen, but I don’t recognise any of my arguments in what you have said, and I think the meaning of my comments has largely escaped you. But it doesn’t really matter. Clearly, we are seeing the same player through different eyes.

      • “Feminine grace” What’s that supposed to mean? πŸ˜†
        His game is brutish enough for you?

  11. On another issue, I spoke recently with a touring pro and asked him how much he and his fellow players work out in the gym. I mean, some of these guys/girls are seriously buffed. You would figure they are hitting the weights room daily, right?

    But, no. He said the only time they get to do gym work is in the ‘off-season’ before Christmas, or occasionally between tournaments. Not daily or even weekly. He said many pro’s don’t even like to hit the gym for that small window of 3 weeks or so before Christmas. They want to rest.

    So ask yourself, how do so many top players today build up the muscle bulk and strength they have when they don’t regularly go to the gym? In reality, they train no harder than the players of Borg and Connors era. Those guys used to do up to 6 hours daily on the court. Even more remarkably, how do certain players today transform themselves in the off-season – which is mostly about resting up – to appear at the Australian Open a month later with redoubled strength and stamina, and in the form of their lives? Some of them will be in the finals in a couple of days time.

    • This is SO interesting – how to win – no gymnastics – but depending on mental – and some other physical training of course? There IS something – Roger sometimes on the point of winning – and just missing! Not every time, but what happens when it is so?
      Roger – so grounded in spite of all extreme hype – are nerves getting to him in those minutes? How to handle that?

      • “He cries when he wins, and he cries when he lose – that’s why we love him” – I’m citing some watchful fan. He might be somewhat emotional sensitive, and he clearly does not like to be written off his chances from for instance cause of age. That’s part of the artistic temperament together with the talent for improvising and the urge to perfection, – AS important (but not more) as winning. But maybe some sore days come stronger to him, and he has more to overcome when that happens, than so many others maybe more hardboiled?

      • Well, nerves do get to him occasionally. I think we’ve all seen that. And I think generally they tend to get worse as you get older.

      • Alison, true, stress might be harder in older age, but Roger isn’t THAT old. But nerves is another case for an artist. Most performing artists gets better at handling their nerves with growing experience of being able to focus on the more important “game”. Of course there in sports is the stressing element of winning and an opponent trying to win as well..But Roger – like a true artist – has the love for the play, and hopefully this will support his performance a long time further.

  12. At the end of the day we need to appreciate Roger and all he has done for tennis and us fans.

    Sure he doesn’t always play at the level he can because of many reasons. Injury (unknown to us ), illness, a bad day on the court, not feeling the confidence you need at the time. Many of the loses we will never hear why and frankly Roger has probably forgotten what happened.

    I see Roger as a complex person and player. At times I scratch my head and other times, I’m in complete awe.

    • I have a lot of respect for Federer because he continues to play a full schedule on the ATP and all 4 GS. He continues to promote tennis and conduct himself professionally in his business relationships. The ATP tour and it’s sponsors have him to promote the game because he is always there. It’s takes a lot of guts for Federer to continue to play a full schedule and all 4 GS at his age while maintaining his family and business commitments. It’s called integrity even it means his chances of winning another GS diminishes.

      • Karen – hear, hear! I just hope he outbalances the growing hype and takes time to focus on more of whatever supports his love for tennis

  13. WOW, does this mean Wawrinka may drop out of the top 10 for losing in the semis of the Australian Open.

    • true, but he don’t have much points to defend rest of year(other than MC masters)…so he can get back if plays better, but based on today’s match its difficult to assume that…. Stan should have won this match considering Novak is sub-par… One telling stat on match for me is, Novak had total of mere 10 Winners at the beginning of 5th set yet he had two sets…

  14. Stan had his chances but made too many errors at critical moments: that’s what he does. Djokovic struggled – but still won. That’s what he does.

    • I hardly ever post but Richard your praises of a 27 year old Djoker are pretty annoying. Djokovic was huffing and puffing and quitting in the semi-finals of Wimbledon until 2010. Then came his Blood Spinning Machine and boom, he is a new man.

      Read the following article and get informed. And Djoker still lost 3 matches last year to a 32-33 year old feminine champion (as you put it, Get Real). It should have been 4-1 if Djoker had not pulled an MTO on Fed in 5th set at Wimby.

      Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal are 3 of the biggest cheaters tennis has ever seen, it’s too bad that almighty dollar rules ATP & ITF or these guys and the likes of that she-male Serena Williams would sucking air like Olympic Sprinters rather than winning slams.

      http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2013-01-22/11395.php

      • “It should have been 4-1 if Djoker had not pulled an MTO on Fed in 5th set at Wimby”

        Hey Mac, how have you been and where?? And thank you for also telling the ONE THING that I just cannot seem to get over. I cannot and will not EVER forgive Novak for pulling that gamesmenship 5th set MTO.

        As much as I don’t want Muzza to win the final, because he and Kim are lunatics… I would rather he win the final than Novak.

      • @mac alexander

        Your post amused me. I am glad I annoyed you. Because I agree wth everything you say. I am just glad that you are saying it and not me for a change.

        Before 2011 Djokovic was known as “The Quitter”, because he had bailed from quite a number of matches over the years. But then he went ‘gluten-free’ at the end of 2010 (and says he gained ‘confidence’ from Serbia’s Davis Cup win that December) and he suddenly became Super-Serb. This new version is as tireless as Nadal at his best(worst?) and has become a mental giant out there. Tennis is clearly a sport for miracles. But only for some. Watch Murray, too, in the upcoming final. 70 shot rallies, anyone?

      • Hi Katyani,

        I’ve been around, how are you doing? It’s so nice of you to reply to my post. I had limited my visits to the site because of that Troll, Pablo, it had really spoiled the conversations for me. I like Roger, his integrity, and what he stands for in life.

        And I really dislike Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray, all cheaters, all jerks, winning at any cost. I don’t follow tennis when Roger and Del Potro (my second fave) are out. do take care and hope that Roger wins Wimbledon for his 18th Slam.

      • Hi Richard,

        I always thought that you disliked dopers as much as I did, that’s why I was surprised by your recent comments about the Djoker.

        Glad to know that we are in agreement, tennis as is any sport now days is just a money machine, no integrity what so ever, wonder if it would some day catch up to NFL, where they allow convicted felons on the field as long as it helps them win and pile up the mighty dollars, just disgusting.

      • Hey Mac, Roger is not perfect, but he is a thousand times better than the other three. After Roger I like Delpo and Ferrer the most. And…. don’t think less of me for it…. I really like Berdych πŸ™‚

        And yes, here is to Roger winning his 18th slam at Wimby, but I have not given up on Roger winning RG πŸ™‚

  15. stil forever legend… all timess

  16. Last? πŸ˜€

    Well, I’ve only just managed to watch this in full, but I must say, Conal, you’ve done a marvellous job here despite all the trials and tribulations. Thank you – it was glorious.

    Hoping for many more this year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *