To underestimate the importance of Federer's illness in his loss would be a mistake. I am an exercise physiologist. I can tell you for certain that there is no way Federer was anywhere near 100% at the Aussie open, even if he said he was. He would have been physically and mentally hampered. As far as his uneven performance last year (he was not at his best at the U.S. open either), I think he is feeling the pressure a little. I also think that preparing for and losing the French demoralized him and affected the way he played most of the rest of the year. (especially considering that he had an adductor strain, a serious impediment to movement). He didn't show his best stuff until the Masters in November.

I do think he should get a coach, and I think he does to. But he should get the right one, and not someone who is going to completely retool his game or routine. He has been the most winning athlete in modern times. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". As far as his post Aussie routine, resting, so he would be COMPLETELY recovered was his best move. He is back on Dubai as of this posting preparing for the Dubai open. I think we'll see the old Federer there. He has less pressure now, and he should be 100%.

I don't underestimate the illness. I have been that sick before and it takes a couple weeks to be 100%. BUT I don't think this is the only reason he lost. As I mentioned, he has not been THE Federer for a long time. Djokovic might have taken the US Open if he hadn't choked.

As for the time off after the Australian Open...I don't get the idea from his statement that the time off was for health measures. As I said in the article, I think he just did it because he always does it. I can see not playing any tournaments - Nadal could take a few lessons on that score...but to not practice for 3 weeks or a month seems...excessive. I hope I'm wrong.

I know what your saying. I think, however, that Federer is just being a little coy when he makes comments like that. For instance, he's mentioned not studying his opponents game before a match, but people close to him have let it slip that he spends a lot of time with videos of his opponents matches. I think he likes to play it a little close to the vest. I will agree however that he has been uneven in the past year, I think, for some of the reasons I mentioned in the second half of my post. I hope he gets a coach, if for no other reason than to have someone to boost his confidence when a little self-doubt creeps in as it inevitably does, even in the best of us. Ultimately, I think he is still the best player, better than Djokovic. I just don't think he's played his best stuff as regularly as he used to.

I, too, have felt that Federer was off his game for a while given that he has lost to lesser ranked players twice each time. I have also felt that his great serve was saving him from some disasters, and that his running shots were a problem. There is no greater fan than I...I hope it's a temporary setback in a long and stressful run. After all, Tiger Woods has been off his game and the come back better than ever.

Harriet, I agree with you. I too think Federer has been relying on his serve to get him out of trouble....and that doesn't bode well for him. It will be interesting to see what happens on clay this year - on a surface that neutralizes his serve, he may well be in trouble.

Whoever wrote the original article is dense. I know people are happy to see roger loose but too say an era is OVEr based on one match is pathetic. That match is so irrelevant i could not be more aggrivated by the statement made. One match can hardly suffice for an era. Sampras lost in his prime and nobody brought that up. Federer is the best of all time as this generation has more surface bigger and better players like NAdal, Roddick Safin etc. As oposed to just aggasi and sampras.

Rogers domanice is still clear and his era is far from over. Imagine if he won tghe french and the other slams and the olypmics? Mate, all the federer hates owuld be coming up with excuses.

I make no excuses for his aussie open loss, he had his chances and blew them all - thats his fault. But because he lost one match DOES NOT MEAN AN ERA IS OVER
he is still the favorite in every match he goes into which therefore means; HIS ERA IS STILL AROUND

Aarons, right said. Its quite surprising to hear 'the end of the era' talk. There could have been many reasons for his defeat in the AO semifinal. Djokovic was too good this time to handle the pressure at the right time and Roger's illness might have affected his movement and the natural game he used to play. But, whatever the reasons are , its too premature to conclude that the era is over from just a one match loss! Roger lost to Gonzalez in the TMC last year, and what happened after that is known to all. Ofcourse, he was not at his best most of the last year, but again he has always managed to win the big matches at crucial times which includes the US Open final. He is just 26 and still a lot of sublime tennis left with him. That means his era of dominance is far from over!

I said that The Roger and Rafa Show era is over. I didn't say that Roger is "finished".

The era is over? Pardon me... he dropped 2 sets on his way to his fourth US Open title... and barely, lost those 2. His last tournament played before AO was the Masters series at Shanghai where after losing to an inspired Gonzo, he absolutely destroyed and dismantled Roddick, Davydenko, Nadal, and Ferrer. Hmmmm...yet, when he loses one hardcourt slam in the semis people are so ready to claim an end of era... why is it that people in this era of highspeed internet, phone, computers, and cars...expect time to move faster too... use some logic and common sense for a change... or perhaps even statistics...theyre quite telling