Great post thx Pete

The message from the Federer camp, mainly via Pierre Paganini, Federer's (and the Swiss tennis federation's) long-time conditioning coach, is that the move was genuinely prophylactic - which implies (to me) that Hart's long range diagnosis a few days ago at TW was spot on.

At Toronto last year, I spoke to a Swiss journalist, who said that Federer had to spend a lot of time last year on pure conditioning work to get into shape to play through the season after losing his early season conditioning blocks to illness. This season, he appears to have made a resolution not to sacrifice these blocks.

I honestly don't think there's a big red flashing "14" in front of Federer. I think he believes he's capable of playing tennis at as high a level as he played in 2005-2007 for several more years, and I don't think he's frightened of playing Nadal (or Murray or Djokovic). When you reach 18 of the last 23 GS finals, you have to think there's more than one or two more finals left in you. I think the explanation given is likely honest - Federer is trying to set up his fitness for the whole of the 2009 season.

This doesn't diminish the disappointment at not seeing him play in Dubai or the Davis Cup. Wawrinka has indeed grown stronger in the last year, but Federer is still the horse the Swiss team rides.

Interesting take, Pete. As a Fed KAD I've been screaming about the back daily here since the first time I saw him play in Doha: his service motion is *stiffer* than his usual fluid motion--less arch of the back and less bend in the knees. I'm assuming this caused the greater struggle we saw on serve against most of the players and larger number of double faults he hit, even against players like Korolev who put no pressure on Fed's serve whatsoever. At times he struggled to place his favorite serve down the T. My theory is that his back is essentially OK now but that the injury caused a change in his service motion--if I had to guess, I'd say that Federer took this time off to work on improving that. Generally his movement was quite good at the AO so the back injury or its aftereffects only had a visible effect on the serve.

It's very true that most players have some sort of injury and that doesn't form any kind of an excuse. Federer's play in winter/spring 2008 seems aberrational to me--his play at the AO 2009 does not. Despite the stiffer serve motion I still believe he had the game to serve and play better in the final than he did. That he didn't has to do with his opponent and his own level. The back is not an excuse, though I do feel he'd have been more confident in his serve had those issues not been there.

I wish Federer had not played exhibitions in November and January and instead worked on these issues then--if anything, that's really what I'd fault him with.

At a certain point, this many straight slams is bound to catch up with him. Sampras skipped the 1999 Australian Open (where he was the same age as Fed), a small part of me after watching his matches in Doha wished Federer would do the same.

Just one small point though: I'm not arguing that Roddick, Nadal, etc. aren't more committed to Davis Cup, but Federer is really the one of the top players who has to go out there and slug it out in all three matches, and does so almost every time he plays DC, even with Stan around. Stan isn't really comfortable on fast HCs and lacks mental strength--he eases the load against a team like Belgium and has certainly done more than his share in dubs at the Olympics but I don't think he'd win a singles point against any of the "strong" DC teams, at least on hards. When you ARE to a large part your DC team, that either evokes strong passion (Nalbandian) or apathy (Federer, though in his earlier years he was the DC team and did pretty well, isn't that how he became well known in the US first off?), especially when you have bigger fish to fry in the way of majors. The Spanish DC team was more than capable of winning the DC final with Lopez and Verdasco--a team of Robredo and Almagro probably could win it too.

ugh, did I really write that long of a post?

Good to see you, Andrew. We can fight the good fight.

You know very little.

Pete,
Interesting post!
WRT the third stage of Federer's career you mentioned i was just wondering if Federer is reconciling with the idea that he may not be able to win the French Open at all (specially with the recent Rafa assault). I get an impression that at this point in time TMF is only looking to sneak a big title to get to the number 14 (that should be great relief) and then may be sit down and decide how best to maximize the rest of his career.
Seems Rafa has had been able to (and may carry on in future too) make the single biggest impression on Roger's mindset and future plans as of now.... unless some years back this would be unthinkable.
I hope that may be with the help of a coach Roger is able to break the mental shackles.... should be good for the game and his own record.

Also, Sampras had a DC record of 19-9. Federer has a DC record of 35-11. When he was Fed's age especially he didn't play much DC at all.

Agassi was 30-6. Interestingly he never played a doubles match.

Hi, crazyone.

I'm less concerned by fitness issues than I am by the apparent diminution in Federer's ability to close out matches. So this speaks to the "head" side of Pete's post.

I don't see taking a pass at Dubai or the DC as any indication that Federer is "frit," as Margaret Thatcher might have put it. What I did see, in 2008 and 2009, is Federer letting players off the hook after taking the first set - Andy Murray four times, Gilles "it's just a set, nothing to be fussed about" Simon twice - and allowing Nadal back into sets from two break leads at MC and Hamburg.

I anticipate that the third stage of Federer's career will still feature wonderful tennis. I'd like to have the sense that he's still learning, rather than trying to hold onto what came before.

Your long post is spot on Crazyzone, I too wished he'd done some back strength building last November instead of going to exhibitions. But I'm sure what Pierre Paganini says now is the truth - that he needs to do all this physical shoring up now to avoid future problems.

There's no question that back and mind interact. I found when I developed chronic back trouble that it wrecked my tennis game psychologically as well as physically. You worry whether your back will stand up to the serving motion and of course, that affects your serve and your movement.

I also think Fed lost commitment somewhat to the DC after all the ructions and leadership issues in the Swiss team after his early period of enthusiasm. Perhaps he came to see that it was just too much hard work to shoulder it all on his own, and even now, there's still no evidence that Stan could win too many singles rubbers on hard surfaces.

But I do like Pete's description of the three stages of a champion, which seems very applicable to Roger: surely he is in the final, hard nosed stage where every commitment has to be ruthlessly scrutinised.

Andrew: I still have nightmares about that match in Hamburg. So I'm very well aware of the issue of which you speak.

In searching, I've only found *one* active player so far who's played more DC matches than Fed: Lleyton Hewitt, whose record is 38-11.

Andrew & crazyone,

What both of you say really rings true. While I think the psychoanalysis aspect of Pete's post is interesting, it seems like a shoe that doesn't quite fit. Anyone's motivation to perform at a high level is a complex recipe. It seems a bit cynical to reduce it all to calculating selfishness, money and vanity. These are real people, living their unique lives, and it is a bit much to paint such one-dimensional portraits.

BlueDog: to be fair, I don't think Pete is saying Fed is valuing money, or even being extremely vain over playing--I think he's saying that these kind of pullouts are part of the self-reckoning process most great champions have gone through.

I agree w/Andrew's post.

I also think the press is going so overboard with the whole "Nadal is in his head" meme. Can we ban that phrase, please! True, Nadal's game matches up very well against Federer. And Rafa know it. So he doesn't really have to do a whole lot different. It's Federer who has to find that other gear/level. He came very close at Wimbledon and the Australian Open.

If Federer were getting routined, like he did in RG, there might be reason for panic. It's come down to a few key points. Rafa won them, Roger did not.

I dislike the notion that Fed has ulterior motives for skipping Dubai and Davis Cup, re: his back. Charlie Bricker wrote some total rubbish, insinuating Rog was too emotionally fragile (real men don't cry!) I also dislike that Pete draws some conclusion to last year and the release of Federer's mono after the event, and his withdrawing from Dubai with a back issues. I mean why doesn't anyone think it is remotely possible that post-Australia he had back issues. It may not have affected him while in Melbourne, or during the finals. There have been hundreds of instances 9See *any* Serena Wlliams withdrawal announcement, of which there are MANY) about her level of fitness. But as Roger said it last year, he created a monster. Which really means perfection. SO every time he falls short of perfection, the knives are out for him.

Sure, I totally get it why Pete Bodo and the TENNIS staff are peeved at Roger. They put him on the March cover, and hyped the DC tie. In Birmingham (yawn!) It's a first round tie. If Switzerland were playing Croatia, this would have been a one line note in the Sports Digest section, and we'd have all been done with it.

Yes, I am disappointed he isn't playing Davis Cup. The US, and Davis Cup itself, needs Roger Federer to hold it up, pump it up, give it that necessary push to enlarge the competition. Lord knows Davis Cup doesn't suffer any other issues, such as insane schedule, and constantly shifting dynamics that makes it difficult for any non-diehards to follow or care about it.

I do hope Federer is taking great care to plan his schedule accordingly. Dubai is a "home" tournament for him. And he was in a very good place to make up some ground on Nadal, considering Fed lost in the first round last year. So his missing Dubai was not some willy nilly decision. I would venture to say Dubai was more important than some Masters Series events for him.

I am quite tired of the whole world's impatience, yes it really is impatience, with Roger for *not* breaking the record for most # of majors, so we can all gloat by being in the presence of the GOAT. I think that is why so many in the media have their knives out for Federer. Roger has set such high standards (how many major finals has he been in? Last time he *didn't* reach a major semi?) I think he deserves a break!

Andrew - I agree with your 1:32 post.

Fed did have an issue with closing matches last year. That happens to all the great layers. They get on cruise control, and expect the other guy to fold. It may seem strange, but it can be tough to close out what could be considered routine wins, or even some big matches. Instead of relying on confidence and experience, some play not to lose. The Fed loss to Simon last summer was a classic example. Roger thought Simon would just fold at the end. When he didn't it was as if Roger stopped thinking and playing.

It takes a number of losses for a players to come to terms with choking.

Crazyone/Andrew,

Nice posts from both of you. From the Australian Open, there were two things I took away from Federer's game -

1) He is moving very well. Both the rally forehand and the backhand are holding up quite well under pressure. I honestly believe that those 25 shot rallies with Nadal would've ended much sooner in 2008.

2) The reason he couldn't consolidate the double breaks at Hamburg/MC is the same reason he didn't win set 3 here and blew set 2 at Wimbledon. Plays aggressively to get to BP and then bunts back BH returns for Rafa to feast on. That pattern is so predictable that Nadal can script it in his sleep.

crazyone: I agree that's what Pete's point was, I guess it just seemed laced with a lot of implications about motivations that I don't think are really fair. If you re-read his post with that in mind, I'd be interested if you still think I'm being too harsh. For the record, I often agree with, and always value, Pete's take on all things tennis.

I do think Fed is at the third stage, and it will be fascinating to see how he proceeds. I sometimes wonder how Rafa (and his fans) will deal with the inevitable third stage. I'm sure he will handle it with grace, but it sure is the hardest stage of fandom.

BlueDog: I did see it in some places, but that wasn't the overall thrust of the piece, so I've let it pass. To be honest I was actually steeling myself for much worse.

I think that Federer is only making excuses for his losses. Last year mono, this year it is injured back. By the way when you have mono you are in bad for at least 3 months, and he was playing tennis. He has to put the blame for his defeat on something else, and to distract attention from his average game (I cannot say bad game, since he cannot play bad) to some medical reasons. After all Djokovic is honest enough to retire. He does not play this games with media. I do not want to diminish Federer's huge role in tennis, he is great tennis player, but also he is so vain that he cannot stand the fact that somebody is better that himself (I do not think about Djokovic because he is far from the good form, I mean Nadal)

I guess the bottom-line is Federer doesn't care about Davis cup. The injury sounds like it can be played on if the mind was up to it. Personally, I don't mind, because I don't care about Davis cup. The only people I feel sympathy for are the guys who bought tickets to see Fed.

Anyways, at this point in his career, Fed needs to do anything he can to get slams 14 and 15. Who knows...the rest from this layoff could serve him well at the USO. The slam window is closing. DC can wait.

tina, I see. So, when Rafael says that he is tired and limps around the court, we are to believe him? But, not Federer? Paganini has made it abundantly clear that he was not injured during Oz. What do you want him to do? Kiss the ground that Rafa walks on?

And, yeah, I admire Nole's honest for retiring. That only increases the validity of the opponent's win.

Gah, I feel kind of stupid...I just blithely assumed that Federer did not want to risk damaging his back/service motion/confidence any further by too much play.

Of course he probably *could* play through it, and therefore the decision not to displays a list of priorities in itself - but I would hate to see him aggravate an injury by playing on.

*Gah, I feel kind of stupid...I just blithely assumed that Federer did not want to risk damaging his back/service motion/confidence any further by too much play.*

Jewell, are you being facetious here? You're not stupid at all.

Clearly it is time for me to retreat back to the other thread. :)

btw, Pspace, I wasn't quite sure what Paganini WAS saying about the injury, what's your take?

Maybe a little, crazyone, but actually - genuinely - the whole thing of spinning an injury and making excuses for poor play had not occurred to me. Perhaps naive would've been a better word.

c1, Some guess work here. But, my take from Paganini's comments is that Fed felt some tightness in his back after Oz. And, was a little worried that he might get a recurrence of the fall back pain. Hence, the decision to sit out. I assume from the "purely prophylactic" comment that he could have played on it if he really wanted.

jewell, I don't think that assuming that Federer isn't a spinmeister is stupid, but maybe that's just my KAD addled brain.

http://www.xpress4me.com/sport/uae/tennis/20012102.html

In case anyone missed this, Pspace posted it on the other thread. An article where Fed says he doesn't work on his weaknesses but rather his strenghts (serve and f/hand). Thought it was relevant to this discussion.

Oh well...we all know by now how much I enjoy spoiling tennis.com with Fedadoration, etc. ;)

I also tend to assume that, for example, Djokovic was genuinely in pain and difficulty and couldn't play on at the AO, and that Rafa's knee injuries are all real and painful. *shrugs*

Seems to me that if you are the GOAT then this should include realistically playing Davis Cup. After all Laver and Sampras did. Nadal too.
I hope the Fed back injury is real. Bad karma if not. I am a big fan but it is hard to see how the back injury has surfaced 2 weeks after the Aus Open was over.

Stev137, is your criterion WINNING Davis Cup, or playing it? Because Federer has already played almost double the number of Davis Cup matches that Sampras had, and Federer's career isn't over yet (and if it does end now, it'll have been shorter than Sampras'). And as for winning it, it's a lot easier to win when your teammates include Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, and John McEnroe than when they're Stan Wawrinka and Yves Allegro. Of course, Fed's still no DC titan. But I'd argue despite the wins that it wasn't a big priority for Sampras most of the time either.

jewell, yeah, I agree with you, in case the sarcasm was not obvious in my post. However, I do believe that Novak deserves some criticism for retiring. We saw Rafa play through a lot in Rotterdam. And, Fed in TMC. Though it's not that big a deal. Being healthy is part of the job. Injury info is only useful if we want to predict future results.

I believe that Djokovic was in extreme discomfort at the AO too. What the outstanding question was there was whether the conditions that day were those that a top flight professional tennis player shouldn't have been able to handle. Djokovic and his camp were arguing that the conditions were unfit for play--Andy Roddick's unsweaty brow argued the opposite.

Crazyone, in Australia we regard Davis Cup really high. Winning is not the important thing but showing up and giving it all is. Hewitt is a legend here in DC even though he is not fed in GSlams. If Federer felt about Switzerland the way Hewitt feels about representing Australia he would be there. I believe It is not always about your own personal record, it is about character also. I love Federer but this just seems wrong to me. Maybe I am harsh but I am having trouble believing he is that injured he could not have showed for DC. IF he is really injured that bad then my apologies.

Djokovic is sure an interesting case. It almost seems like he has panic attacks, that manifest themselves as physical issues. I believe that he believes he can't physically continue, but it almost always seems the underlying problem is mental. I wish he would get back to his old form. I have actually started to miss him. Now I'm phsyco-babbling...

"Being healthy is part of the job."

I agree with this.

My worry about Djokovic is that he has underlying breathing problems which make conditions such as extreme heat more difficult for him to deal with. But I agree that that is his problem, if you know what I mean. He will either find a way to work them out, or he won't.

c1: i agree that djokovic seemed very weak and shaky during that AO match. my question was could he have hung on to play out the set instead of retiring? (i don't remember the exact scoreline) And, as defending champion i thought it was a shame that he wasn't in adequate condition. one of the commentators today during his Dubai mopefest was remarking that while his fellow top tier players were all training their butts off preparing for AO, djoko chose to stay in MC to party. I sometimes wonder if he's got the drive and mental toughness necessary for real tennis greatness.

stev, I'm not arguing that Federer doesn't prioritize Davis Cup to the extent that Lleyton Hewitt does. There were years when he was perfectly healthy and decided not to even play the World Group ties in March. This year he said he would and now pulled out--I genuinely think it's that he decided he'd be better served by strengthening his back and working on his game. Does that show he prioritizes the Slams over Davis Cup? Absolutely. We knew that already. But the fact that he's going back on his promise this year as opposed to his usual noncommitment to play indicates that he wasn't making this up and there was some issue he wanted to deal with. The reason I picked a bone with your post is because you compared him to Sampras who also made similar decisions to prioritize Slams over things like Davis Cup, the only difference is that by virtue of having stronger teammates in the years he did play, he had a few DC titles.

If you feel that not committing to Davis Cup is a character flaw in Federer then this is a feeling that should have come to you in 2005, by 2009 it is old hat.

I should've said, as well, that I have worries about Djokovic's commitment to tennis only - not condemning him for that, just that I worry about his seeming need to run tournaments and help his family out and how that impacts on his tennis and training, etc.

As for Fed's dropping out of DC, of course i'm disappointed for the obvious reasons. It would have made the tie more competitive. I think I fall in with pete's observation that the 3 day event would be good match prep for IW if nothing else. If he's taking it easy for "prophylactic" reasons it seems he could have honored the committment to the Swiss team. Heck, he could play and always be replaced by an alternate if he felt any twinges in his back. So it seems this just isn't an important enough priority for him right now. It's good to see that he plans on playing for many more years and that he thinks he's got "many" more slams in him yet. and probably more DC's.

I meant to say, as well, that I very much liked the 'stages of greatness' idea and roughly agree on Fed being in the third stage.

Annie - I replied to your email. Thank you. :)

Are DC matches still 5 sets? Maybe it's not so much that Fed needed three extra days of recovery, but more that he didn't want to play such a long string of consecutive matches.

Crazyone, I acknowledge your point re Sampras. (Even so he was much better than Connors in this regard). I also take your point that Fed has played DC more than others.
If we look back at all of our great Aussie champions then we rate them on their DC shows as well as their GS. Most of Mark Phillipoussis' bad press came here for not showing for DC once and he later won one DC almost completely off his own racquet. Laver would not be thought of as GOAT here if he did not show up for DC when he could have. THe man is still a legend 30-40 years later. Immortal. Maybe Switzerland without the long tennis history of Australia is different. I think when he is done he will regret this. They had a really good chance and I hope that Stan W can grow ten feet high and can pull it off. The feeling has come to me that it is a character flaw also. That is why the GOAT thing is no given

BlueDog: yes, DC is still 5 sets.

Hey i've got a question for anyone that can answer (maybe stev137). i was watching laver at the AO awards ceremony and was wondering if he is always or has always been that stoic. He never smiled at the crowd and sort of looked out of it to me. Did anyone else get that impression? Even the shots of him during the match he was just sort of staring off in the distance looking basically disinterested. I can't remember from his playing days what his personality was like.

don't know why i chose 3:40am to pose that laver question. there's no one around!

Thanks Annie.

Sadly I have no Laver insights, but aren't the aussies all up? I thought Laver teared up briefly during the Fed breakdown, but I can't be sure.

Off to bed.

Annie, Rod Laver I watched as a kid. Apart from being great, he was very laconic and humble. I don't recall him ever losing his temper or commenting on anyone else. It was considered really bad then. Maybe there was just less media? He has had a stroke some years back that was minor I think and does not have great health I believe. I remember him and Newk in 1973 wining DC in the USA. They were great. The game is not the same now but DC is still over 5 sets and I still love it.

Federer pulled out to protest blondie Scandinavian antisemitism.

stev, thanks for the info. i wondered if it was a health issue and surprised to hear he lives in california. picture him always down under. I saw laver and rosewall at a tournament in N.H. one summer in the early 70's. it was such a thrill. even as a 10 year old i knew they were legends.

hi guys, Gillu and Fab has started:
http://channelsurfing.net/watch-wabuk-1.html

On the subject of greatness...doesn't anyone find it inappropriate that Sampras didn't get the nod for that Wimbledon roof ceremony? They chose the grass flash champion (ok, and the female uber-alles) instead of the GOAT of the tournament. Just winning isn't enough, ever-lasting remainder...

Sometimes the reasons behind a person’s decision don’t matter as much as the simple fact of the decision.

I happened to look over at the ticker and noticed this edifying news: “ Juan Martin Del Potro, Argentina's top-ranked player, has chosen to sit out the claycourt tie to avoid having to change surfaces in the middle of a hardcourt swing.”

Now what do these two items have in common? Not much. Here are two guys at different stages in their careers, both pulling out of Davis Cup for entirely different reasons.

But on the other hand, what happened to the notion of making a commitment to something and following through on it?

There seems to be an assumption that by Federer not playing Davis Cup at this time, it will either help prevent problems with his back in the future, or help him attain his next major championship. I don’t think it is a foregone conclusion that skipping Davis Cup will automatically help him with either goal.

Greg Norman, who regardless of anything else you might say about him is a good businessman, recently suggested that prize money for professional golfers should be reduced. And that is the sport that is seen as a paragon of success compared to professional tennis.

I think it’s pretty obvious and only natural that Federer is in a third stage of his career. But it is also possible that professional tennis itself is going into a stage of decline, and in the long run the decisions that these players make to pull out of tournaments, and not honour commitments, may be viewed unfavourably in that context.

Since Jose Higueras said Fed had on/off back problems over the second half of 08, maybe this back problem is more chronic than we realise. Back problems lurk around and come and go and ruin your confidence in playing an ultra physical game like tennis, so it's crucial to take action to try physio and strengthening and everything possible.

To me this is more important than a DC first round and I'm an Aussi. I can't imagine Agassi or Sampras playing DC if they had work to do on a dodgy back.

I don't think DC is as important as it was in the old days of Laver etc and certainly a lot of top players like Agassi and Sampras have not put it first. I think Fed lost a bit of his early enthusiasm some time back when he realised he was a one man band - and still is, against the best nations. That makes it very tough to win the whole thing and also concentrate on collecting GS and beating Nadal in long gruelling matches, and especially so as you get older.

"...We saw what happened when Nadal pulled out of the Davis Cup final vs. Argentina late last year, although the temptation to question the legitimacy of Nadal's move simply didn't seem as compelling..."

Ahhh, the difference Bodo, is that Nadal's knee injuries have been very publicly broadcast every single time they become an issue. With Federer, we've seen the guy with one or two real injuries in a span of six years. That kind of conditioning is the real, underreported story, not the fact that he may or may not have a back injury. Like Borg, the man has earned the right to do or say whatever he pleases in regards to pulling out of tournaments he never gave a whiff about anyway.

Let the second tier kings have DC. The format renders it baffling and old school anyway.

Oh my God - so many text about nothing from Pete....

I understand the questioning about Federer's injury. Even if my very own impression is that he's, at the same time, the most low-key of the top players when it comes to publicizing his physical state, and one of the least injured players, period. Other players who keep blaring through the media that they were tired at tournament X, or that they had a super-duper injury which did not prevent them from playing tournament Y, but gabe a real good excuse for losing the SFs or the final, get a more lenient treatment.

Anyway, even if Federer's back injury was only an excuse, I would be happy he chose to pull out. I feel that the tennis institutions have behaved badly, constantly tweaking the surfaces to ensure that precisely all-around, classical players like Federer would be progressively kicked out of the game. Journalists have preyed upon every single loss of Federer since last year and have visibly enjoyed wallowing in his decline. Now all those happy fellas want Federer to come to the rescue and play whenever it's deemed important for "The Game". Well, if I were Federer, I would them to bugger off. Enjoy your Djokovics, Del Potro and Nadal, enjoy your robotic baseline rallies and your matches where players only come to the net to shake hands. That's what you wanted, that's what you get, and don't complain, after Federer's retirement, that tennis is boring. The tennis movers and shakers have brought this upon themselves.

wow what they say about you is true, that you write trash about Federer and wrap it with apparently nice sheets.
You just have to go this far to artfully put a negative spin in Federer's withdrawal, unable to hold yourself and hint however indirectly that Federer would make this decision to create for himself a smooth excuse to his AO loss etc etc. I wonder what it is that keep you from giving respect to where respect is earned and due.
Don't worry. I'm sure Federer is indeed self-assured enough to not bother himself with demeaning talks like this one.

"Enjoy your Djokovics, Del Potro and Nadal, enjoy your robotic baseline rallies and your matches where players only come to the net to shake hands. That's what you wanted, that's what you get, and don't complain, after Federer's retirement, that tennis is boring."

Nope - YOU're the one that's boring. And your text doesn't make any sense. Sorry

Good evening to the Twibe. I am new here, but think I will fit in just fine if lots of people are posting after 3am. Kenneth(black) is my bud and convinced me to post someday, so here it goes.

I agree with Pete about the third stage. A player's perspective has to change at some point, since their position on the bell curve of a pros career inevitably does. But if you've ever hiked up a long hill, you know that coming down is anything but easy. The gravity on the back side of the curve is your friend AND your enemy. It's a challenge in a completely different way. I think Roger always played for himself, but really enjoyed us coming along for the ride. One area that he already surpassed Sampras in.

Roger (and yes I am a fan because he plays tennis as I think it should be played, or at least find the most interesting) is one of those really smart, sensitive guys who counts on his intelligence as an advantage on the court. He believes, quite correctly, that knowledge is power - yes, just like the Saturday morning infotainment cartoon you might have seen re-enacted on Family Guy. He has gone through several coaches trying to discover the next lessons that Peter Carter was not around to give him. Lundgren (who shares my birthday) could first teach him to be on tour, Roche was a lefty who's only GS was the French, and Higueras is a clay specialist who worked with Sampras. Roger mastered grass, then HC...the clay is all that is left. When you are a champion driven to find the key to mastering a challenge, you just have to do it.

Take the AO. Chuck McKinley who won Wimby in 1963 and was ranked number one in 1962 & 3 said, "Show me a youngster who does not cry when he loses and I will show you a loser. I have seen some of the greatest players with tears in their eyes after being beaten. It is what made them champions." With his idol Laver standing there, I can imagine Roger felt like a youngster again. That childlike love of tennis is why he has so many fans. He is one of those guys who reminds us that the real joy of winning in tennis is because it is a game. Playing is fun, winning is way better.

Kenneth and I have debated the rivalry often as he is more of a Nadal guy. I remind him that Tilden didn't START his 6 year domination of the tour, and 7 years of DC wins, until he was 27. If Rafa's knees make it to 27, I will be very surprised. But Big Bill had Little Bill Johnston to contend with, the Nadal of his day. Tilden went away after a disturbing loss to Johnston, studied how to put all the pieces together to win, and came back to start his run that became legendary for almost 100 years now.

Roger has had some issues with all three areas of tennis, technique, tactics, and psychology on the clay courts. I think it has spilled over to the hard and grass. After all, Higueras is well known for his "learning by repetition" coaching. Playing on clay that much, especially when you don't quite get it, can really mess up your game on the other surfaces. At the very least, it can disrupt your confidence. What happens when a player has trouble in a big area like ground strokes? They tend to rely more on other strengths, like the serve. And what is one of the most common injuries in tennis? Back and hamstrings, strained the most by the serve. A delay after the AO may be cause for speculation, but he was lying on the court in Shanghai. I never saw that before from Roger. And a 26 point game is like a whole 'nother set. That's a lot of strain on a "senior citizen" of the fragile age of 27.

Laver, heck, none of the greats are really known for what they did at DC. Ok, Lacoste is because he finally found and used the magic bullet to beat Tilden and end his ownage of DC. Those guys only had to play on grass and clay anyway. Even poor Rosewall who went to Wimbledon finals 4 times and 20 years apart couldn't get himself a trophy. Some styles work on some surfaces. To be able to succeed on them all requires a magic bullet. Annacone, great guy that he is, doesn't have it btw.

I actually do. Roger's magic bullet. I'm one of those guys who just HAS to know the answer to a mystery. I've been working on it for years and one day it just jumped out at me. It's simple, yet connected to everything. It's not what you would think at all. And best of all, I can prove my theory on every shot of any clay match. I would love to show Roger how close he was to getting it in the famous Rome match too. If I can talk to him, you will really see that the Federer magic is not dead at all. Roger doesn't just need another set of eyes, he needs the last piece of the puzzle. No matter what happens, he is already the greatest I have seen.

So, I am putting that out there. Please have mercy, I am one of those sensitive guys too. You all seem to follow everything way more than I do. All of my posts will be 8 words or less from now on.

I'm still going two hours away to Birmingham, he is not missing anything. I want to see what tennis is like with horns moaning between every point, in person. What is that all about? It would be classic to see them doing that at a big golf tournament!

Holy crap that is a big post, Kenneth is going to kill me.

LOL at my friend Jonn! It's about ftime is all I have to say. And, true, this place does follow current tennis a little more than you, but we need more Kads who are familiar with the checkered past of our favorite sport.

"...At the very least, it can disrupt your confidence. What happens when a player has trouble in a big area like ground strokes?.."

Funny you should mention this, as it is a viable discussion to Tignor's piece on Roddick. It seems the answer (for these two players anyway) is to hire a new coach. But that really hasn't shoehorned into real, viable major titles for either party, has it? Federer's net gain of major titles w/o a coach is about the same as it is with one. Minus one for Roddick. But remove that single indicator of success, and both guys seem to be better off with a coach. The trouble has been finding the right fit. Perhaps the fit has been found.

I don't necessarily disagree with the assessment of the stages of a grat player's career. Pete's description seems accurate based on my informal observations over the past 25 years of watching the prfessinal game.

My reaction Federer's withdrawal from Davis Cup was far more simple. He pulled out of Dubai, a tournament in his second hometown, in the middle of the Israeli players' visa storm citing injury. It appeared he pulled from Davis Cup (which is right after Dubai) at the same time. Feel free to call me cynical, but my gut reaction was that he pulled from Davis Cup as a poublic relations move to legitimize his injury withdrawal from Dubai. I have nothing to back this up, but Federer would likely be hounded with questions about the visa issue and put in an uncomfortable spot given his connection to the emirate. The issue was ultimately resolved, but wasn't when he initially pulled and now he's stuck with his excuse. Again, I have nothing concrete to back this up, but that was my first thought.

Murray withdraws from dubai with a virus!

Joe
Say it isn't so!!! No Murray!?

Great post pete, and great posts everyone. I agree that Fed is entering the third stage of his career, and perhaps he has a little trouble at the moment, coping with the fact that the wins aren't going to come as automatically as they did during his remarkable, historical 4 year run.

I respect him to no end, and i believe he has earned the right to do anything he wants with his schedule,regardless of speculation by his fans and the media.

I've been struggling with a back injury since the last summer, and the hardest thing to do for me, is trust that its gone. You feel fine, amazing even for weeks at a time, then the smallest little thing, done incorrectly leaves you at square one. It can be horrifying.

I hope whatever he's doing will be helpful to him in the long run, not just for his tennis career, but to ensure that he'll have a long and happy life afterwards.

If he's in this third stage and evaluating his career, it makes more sense to me that he would actually put a little greater emphasis on Davis Cup, not less. In addition to the very good point that it would be a great lead-in to IW and Key Biscayne, the Davis Cup comes with no prize money, but in my opinion, glory at least equal to a Slam trophy. With Wawrinka's rise, Switzerland actually had a pretty good chance. And how old was Ljubicic when Croatia came over here and beat the US in the first round on its way to their surprise Cup? Ivan will clearly, at this stage, never win a Slam - this might be his last year. But as a true Davis Cup hero, I don't think he's too bothered.

Personally, I think that the next time Djokovic is ailing on court, he plays on until he needs to be carried off on a stretcher. Cynically, it would be a great PR move.

Muzza says he hasn't felt well since the Aussie open. Same virus apparently. That is not a good sign.

Macvirus hands Djoker 500 points on a plate - I blame all that pampering. It's boot camp muzz responds to, not holiday camps.

Apparently it was the same virus that was troubling him when he was playing Verdasco. It just hasn't gone away. I wonder if he'll be ready for Davis cup next week.

James, that was actually my first thouhgt too. I actually believe has also been dealing with back issues for some time, so this seemed like a perfect opportunity to rest his back/work on conditioning while staying away from the spotlight after the AO final and the visa fiasco in Dubai.

Re- Davis Cup. Probably a better chance of it now as it'll give his ankle more rest. Although that virus is gragging on a bit.

oooo - I have a stalker again! At 2:29, I was fast asleep.

bolox, fed has played more DC than our beloved namesake peter sampras.

just be grateful he's not coming so roddick n blake won't have to go through the ritual of defeat again

bolox, fed has played more DC than our beloved namesake peter sampras.

just be grateful he's not coming so roddick n blake won't have to go through the ritual of defeat again

Yikes, the Swedes are reporting about 10,000 Pro Palestinians protestors just waiting for the Israeli team. They intend to close two schools and send over police forces from other cities.

Smart desicion to have in Malamo, what can I say. Brilliant move.

Or: this is an On Topic thread. Best to put Israel-Sweden updates on the prior Your Call, I think.

LOL, I meant to do that :) Sorry, moderator.

Nice bit of speculative thinking, Pete.

And youy got me to thinking: as much as I love Federer's style and skill, and admire his professionalism and his manner both on and off the court, it seems he has not set foot on American soil very often over the course of his career, and certainly very rarely during his "dominant" years.

He plays the Masters Series event in Cincinnati nearly every year, Miami (Key Biscayne) and Indian Wells, and the U.S. Open, of course. But that about sums up his American tour. For that I am disappointed.

And yes, 2009 seemed to have bee ripe for the Swiss team to make an improbable run at the Davis Cup trophy, and now it will not happen. Federer may never get as good an opportunity again.

Of course, a player's health and conditioning must come first, especially when that player has aims on the stratosphere.

Reading back over this, this struck me:

"nobody ever confused Birmingham with southwest London."

Birmingham (England) City Council once confused their own cityscape with that of Birmingham, Alabama, and sent out some official literature with a nice picture of the wrong city on.

Sorry for the trivial but it did make me laugh. ;)

HOW CAN FEDERER GET MOTIVATED TO PLAY RODDICK? HE'S 16 AND 2 AGAINST HIM. I THINK HE FEELS SORRY FOR HIM AND DOESN'T WANT TO EMBARASS HIM IN FRONT OF THE U.S. FANS. WHAT WOULD HE GAIN BY BEATING HIM? NOTHING! I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT NO ONE PUTS THIS OUT. WHERE'S THE CHALLENGE FOR HIM?

Here's a rought translation of an interview with Jakob Hlasek, former swiss DC captain (and ranked no 7 when he was at his best). He speaks about Roger Federer :

How do you interpret the renouncement of Federer for Davis Cup?

Hlasek : I can not judge his decision. But we can wonder somewhat. Since 4 months, he says things and then does the opposite! That's what I had trouble understanding. In October, he has back pain and pulled out from a tournament. Then, nonetheless he played the Masters plus an exhibition Then earlier this year, he played 2 exhibition tournaments before the Australian Open and said he was "fit." It is quite possible that his back pain is hurting him today. But in this case, he doesn’t do everything to be in good health!

In principle, Federer must make his return to Indian Wells, a tournament which begins 4 days after the Davis Cup match USA-SUI. Don’t you think that this could be misunderstood?

Jakob Hlasek: Surely people will ask questions, actually. For 6-7 years, Federer said that Davis Cup is very important. If this is indeed the case, he should take it seriously and try for two years to win it. If he does not win, too bad but at least he tried.

Now it is impossible mission for Switzerland against the US.

Jakob Hlasek: It's true that the chances are minimal. When Federer renounced, I was very disappointed. I thought that Switzerland might have a chance to win the Davis Cup. Ok, that will not be for this year.

A word on Stanislas Wawrinka, his career so far.

Jakob Hlasek: This is a player who works a lot, he’s rigorous. He makes his way step by step, always a little higher. We can only make it Hats off to what he has already done.

USA - Switzerland, it should remind you of intense memories. What place the final of 1992 did in your career (3-1 defeat)?

Jakob Hlasek: The highest place in my memories for the team. I like to separate the individual career and Davis Cup, a competition that has always been a priority for me. I felt very well in this team with people like Georges Deniau, and I also wanted to give something back to the Swiss public. When we played at home, there were also fans, not necessarily tennis fans, who were present to support Switzerland.

In this finale, we remember especially the double, where John McEnroe was a little hysterical and had even insulted you ...

Jakob Hlasek: Yes, Agassi and McEnroe teased us. But we “small Swiss”, we didn’t get impressed. We also had to fight against the public but then we settled it between players and it was fine.

Despite the defeat, is it is still a good memory?

Jakob Hlasek: Yes, of course. But the whole year was extraordinary. First in the Netherlands and the victory in France, holder of the title. In the arena of Nimes, was particularly special for Georges Deniau, who was with us to beat the English. There were many emotions throughout the weekend.

Then there was this semi-final against Brazil before 18,000 spectators in Geneva. The atmosphere was really incredible. Then, finally, it faces a real "Dream Team" with Agassi, Courier, Sampras and McEnroe. Of course, there are 2-3 points that remain in my head when I tell myself that I could play better.

Fed is fine!!!! (I hope I hope I hope). His back will be fiiiiine... so will his "head"!!!! I am confident :) *worried inside*

Being a Roger fan, and I think a sane one, my feelings on the matter ran more or less like this: when things are going well, it's easier to ignore something that's bothering you. When they're going badly, they bother you more. This was my "Serena wants a bathroom break" analysis as well. Sometimes it really is that simple. Having fun? Don't notice that your feet hurt. Bored and having a hard time? Those feet really make their presence known. We've all been there, right?

Pete pointed out a lot of good reasons that this withdrawal is an important one, and was done enough ahead of time that you can raise an eyebrow. It just depends on whether you view this as clawing and kicking, or getting inside a protective bubble, so to speak. I agree that the trajectory of the story looks like last year's, but I really don't know that it's so much the same. I guess we'll see soon enough.

Fred - thanks for the Hlasek interview. I always loved him.

Ajde, Marin - give us a better match!

Fred: thank you for posting that Hlasek interview. :)

You're welcome! Jakob always been a nice guy. I miss him, along with Rosset.

What's Up with the Live Scores? Is someone falling down on the job???

I'm at work today, so I can't write as much as I'd like to on this topic, but I must say two things before students have the audacity to interrupt me. :)

First, I would like to borrow Pete's phrase (not just today but in the the future:)) and say that some people are being "wilfully naive" in their refusal to see the simple logic of many of the questions Pete has raised and the points that he has made.

Second, Fed's current situation reminds me of what my doctor (an internist who's a big tennis and Fed fan) said about his needing a new doctor or new doctors after the delayed diagnosis of mononucleosis in 2007. TWers who are more observant than I about Roger's movement have said that they've seen evidence of back problems for some time. This would mean that something serious is going on.

Why, then, was Roger not advised by his doctor(s) -- perhaps after the USO or, definitely, after the AO -- that he needed something similar to the kind of long layoff that Tiger Woods' doctors must have insisted he take after he came back from surgery, won a big event (cf Fed's USO win or AO final), but realized that he still had problems?

As Pete asked, can the little extra time that Fed gains from skipping the three-match DC really solve the problems that the post-AO layoff didn't? That seems unlikely.

Get a second -- or third -- opinion, Roger! Or, if you've been getting good advice and ignoring it, stop doing that! :)

are we done with the page numbers here? I will be so glad :)

crazyone has already said everything I would have liked to say at her 1:11 AM comment.

I just want to add, that Federer has always been the player who has prided himself on being fit and injury free. In fact, he has likely seen it as one of the key differences between him and Nadal. To suggest that he would use an injury as an excuse goes against the years and years of experience we have in watching how he normally acts in this situation.

Further, I'd like to add another emphatic agreement to crazyone's point that Federer hasn't had the Spanish armada or the like to back him up in the Davis Cup for years, and yet has remained commited to it.

Hi Pete,

As a physical therapist, I have seen many athletes not only recover from serious injuries, but also improve their performance as a result of a comprehensive conditioning program that is an integral part of rehabilitation. Thomas Muster is such an example. He sustained a very serious knee injury, potentially a career-ending one, worked very hard, and went on to become the number one tennis player in the world. Let us hope that Roger will improve not only his physical performance, but also his on-court performance, just as Rafa Nadal did. As I stated numerous times last year, Roger Federer is very capable of improving his backhand, serve, and footwork. Let us hope he does so. He will be greatly rewarded, and so will we!

Joseph Zohar
PT, USPTA certified

Ruth: I don't think Fed's injury is as serious as Tiger's. I think it's more like Rafa's persistent knee injury, which flares up at times. I don't think there's any cure for what Fed has and it's going to be something he has to manage for the rest of his career. His appearing stiffer than before while serving could be more because that's the service motion he's adopted to *prevent* further back injuries. My pet theory is that he's using the time off to try to tinker with his service motion...it's less "three more days" but an additional two weeks of training if you take Dubai and Davis Cup into account. That's substantial, I'd say.

I do think that Federer would have gotten a boost from playing with Stan in the doubles at DC like he did at the Olympics, which is just one of the reasons I'm sad to see him not play Davis Cup.

I share the same annoyance that Hlasek does about the exhibitions. It's hard to give players complete sympathy when they play more than they have to and then complain about it later.

And maybe I shouldn't type this, but I am sick of hearing how Federer's back injury is not really there because he hasn't had injuries before. During the 2006-2007 stretch, every commentator on earth was marveling that he doesn't have any major injuries, and when he finally gets some kind of health problems the immediate conclusion is that it's (a) psychological and, (b) strategical.

imHo, people need to wake up to the fact that the tennis tour is affecting his body as well as it affects other tennis players bodies. He doesn't float in a separate universe, he's out there playing on court like the rest of them and will periodically have an injury. And the world will not come to a stop when he withdraws from a tournament to rehabilitate his back.

Jonn,

Your enthusiasm is infectious, but really...

"To be able to succeed on them all requires a magic bullet. Annacone, great guy that he is, doesn't have it btw.

"I actually do. Roger's magic bullet. I'm one of those guys who just HAS to know the answer to a mystery. I've been working on it for years and one day it just jumped out at me. It's simple, yet connected to everything. It's not what you would think at all. And best of all, I can prove my theory on every shot of any clay match. I would love to show Roger how close he was to getting it in the famous Rome match too. If I can talk to him, you will really see that the Federer magic is not dead at all. Roger doesn't just need another set of eyes, he needs the last piece of the puzzle."

There are at least 100 posters here who have felt and thought the same for quite some time. The difference is that we actually share our "secrets to success" -- so come on... cough it up. Or go home.

-Slice

Having read Rene Stauffer's book about Fed,I know that he has never publicized his injuries,believing it to take away from his opponents victory.And he has had minor back problems on and off throughout his career which he takes care of by conditioning.

It was evident his serve was off during the Nadal match.He has looked stiffer in his serving motion for a few months,(since Madrid I think).I imagine he can go for so long ignoring the problem and then is forced to pay attention.

I think its a shame that he has to deal with so many strange accusations and denigrations.Maybe he should wear visible bandages like Nadal and frequently speak about physical problems so that everyone would just say,'oh yes he should take care of his injury', like they did when Nadal pulled out of DC.
And,by the way, before anyone gets exited, I thought it was ok for Nadal to take care of himself.

Crazyone- I wish Roger would stop playing these exhibitions too, but you know how stubborn he is! Disagree with Pete's assertion that Roger's Davis Cup "failure" will be a blot on his career. Switzerland doesn't have the strength in depth that the USA,Spain and Russia have. Anyway, Roger has to put his own health and career first in my opinion.

Tony Godsick announced that there would be none in 2009. I guess the one in Abu Dhabi didn't count.

Federer was in the hospital shortly before last year's AO, and anyone who saw his match against the Djoker, where he alternated from being pale white to beet red and could barely move by the end, couldn't help but notice that he was seriously ill. He did continue to play throughout the season, but what choice did he have? He wanted to stay at the top and had to keep playing to stay there even as long as he did. That's the system. There's no time to rest and recuperate. Federer has never given any indication that he is the kind of player who uses his physical condition as an excuse for anything -- just the opposite. He plays no matter what. So if he withdraws from a match or a tournament there is something to it. Give the guy a break! Yes, he is at a crossroads in his career and has to make some decisions about what he wants to do from here, but to accuse him of malingering just seems preposterous to me. Players like Djokovic and Monfils, who are endlessly retiring when they get a little tired or have a little stitch somewhere, aren't taking the heat that an honorable champion like Federer seems to be taking relentlessly any more. Why should he risk aggravating an injury, whether it's mild or advanced at this time, to play DC, which gives him nothing? Instead of complaining when some of the top players don't show, maybe those in charge of DC need to give it some scrutiny.

While I'm not unhappy to see Novak go through, I'm hoping Marinko brings his best against Chile next week. All those break opportunities - honey, come on!

Tomorrow against Simon should be interesting...

(Not on topic - but we don't have a YC thread today)

Thanks Joseph Zohar - I always appreciate it when you post here. And any mention of Muster the Iron Man is always a plus. There were people at the time who said he'd never play competitively again.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Roger will not be playing any exhibitions this year. Although Kooyong is an "exhibition" tournament, I don't think it can be viewed in the same light as the others he played last year with Sampras and Mac/Borg/Blake - it is a proper warm-up tourny for the AO.

Andrew, crazyone, Sher - like your posts, ALOT!!

crazyone: Yes, I realize that Tiger's condition, which involved major surgery -- and his probably returning from major surgery too soon -- must be quite different from Fed's. I was just referring to the damage that continuing to play with a serious or potentially serious injury or condition (even a chronic one) can do.

And I mentioned the three-day Davis Cup only because, as a DC/Fed Cup enthusiast (to put it mildly), I really would not have minded if Fed skipped Dubai (with its potential full week with 5? competitive matches) in order to be ready for DC (with its 2 singles matches against players he has beaten often plus a doubles match).