It is great to hear this from Annacone. And this is just the biggest asset in Rogers game..,
"Quite the opposite. He says 'Great, another challenge!' That?s what makes him optimistic and enthusiastic. And, quite simply, he loves the game, the travel. He adores tennis. He?s 30 and he?s in great shape. At his age, he still belongs among the best. So, why not aim for another Grand Slam?"

If this is also how Roger is remebered then it surely will add to his resume. It is after all not only titles we remember but also the myth the magic and the ongoing apreciation of the game.
Certainly Roger playing the game at the moment is loving it more then others whoe seem spend or wairy and look like they are out of touch with tennis. It is with this ongoing appreciation of tennis and its history where Fed is unique among others

Btw I believe Anacone has a great influence on Federer, They might not have won a slam together but I feel he is more and more a factor in Feds tennis now. Last year it was only wioth the big ones but now you see him constantly around and he gives a lot of slef belief and trust.
Also I like to think the gameplan they come up with works als against topcontenders.
It takes time to get to know eachother and next year they hopefully can take his level up a notch and stay yhere for a longe period of time, I feel that is required to be succesfull at slams. Peaking fitness wise and staying there physiq and mental a fraction longer then this year,

I don't Nole necessarily overplayed from poor management in terms of entering tournaments at the start of the season. He just won an unnatural amount of matches.

Annacones a pretty special coach, and he's doing some pretty good work with Roger atm. I think he missed a trick or two when he was coaching Sampras, but experience has made him wiser perhaps.

Sienna agree completely. I think many tennis fans will appreciate the level Roger is still able to mantain when nadal, djokovic, murray reach their 30's.

Tennis is becoming more and more of a physical game. The players winning slams after 30 will be a rarity. For Roger to still be among the best at 30 is remarkable.

Would anyone argue that Fed's level of fitness and his lack of injury is extraordinary at 30?

There is another record up for grabs.
Agassi at age 33 was the oldest player to be at No.1

deuce, All I'm saying is that people maybe don't take enough notice of how hard it is to be 30 years old and keep playing at high level against the best.

This has been Roger's wrost year since 2002 of course due to age. But still it was Roger who stopped djokovic's winning streak in RG (nadal played djokovic twice on clay before), reached 1 slam final and 2 semis.

All I'm saying is when we see nadal and djokovic play when they're 30 then we'll be able to compare.

Bleck: I think you will find plenty of people are sitting up and paying attention to Roger's prowess at the age of 30+ and smiling that the sceptics who predicted his imminent demise when his results started to dip have been proved wrong.

As many have said, many times, Roger is blessed with a suberb physique and has long been one of the fittest players on the circuit. This coupled with his style of play and careful planning is why he is virtually injury free and the force he is.

By the same token, I doubt you will find many people prepared to lay a bet now on either Nadal or Djokovic replicating his performance when they reach 30. You have to be fairly blinkered not to accept their attritional style of play and the ever increasing intensity of tennis leads to injuries which will reduce this likelihood.

Note, i am speaking generally - not about the to and fro 'my man is better than your man' discussions which rage here and on other fan sites.

No wonder he's everyone's favorite player, including mine...a class act in every way!

I loved this article! I have felt concern for the "over the top" "grind and whomp" styled players. I have always thought that Roger plays beautifully, is an artist at tennis, and a strategist. I think the other players approach tennis with the "I have something to prove" attitude rather than for the love of the game as Roger. It gets difficult to watch MOST of the other players play against each other as they just beat down the ball as hard as they can hoping for an error on the other side. It gets boring. Crash, Slam bang, point after point - rather than hard hits interspersed with finesse! "Gosh, we just love Federer!" (she gushed!) Love, Your Colorado USA fans!

@ed, unfortunately, it is the Djoko-Nadal style of tennis that is winning slams, for obvious reasons. For much of the talk of how Roger is amazing at 30, he hasn't been winning the slams of late. I think those guys will be more content winning slams along the way than playing to reach 30 and winning a few tournaments here and there. I never knew being competitive at the age of 30 was meant to indicate anything. There are enough players who have won slams post-30, maybe Roger needs to replicate this feat before we start talking about how good he is at this age. Staying competitive isn't the same thing as winning after all.

I think this whole business of how mostly everyone else plays to induce errors and Federer hits the winners is wholly exaggerated. Yes, Federer is the most spontaneous shotmaker of the lot, but it doesn't mean that the rest in the top 4 don't play with finesse or strategy, or make the jaw dropping plays themselves. The only reason it seems like Federer is not "grind and whomp" is because he doesn't (or can't?) get to the extra ball anymore.

I am surprised that I actually agree with samprallica and believe that he has provided a much needed perspective here. Look at who is winning slams now - Rafa and Djoko. If their playing shortens their careers, then so be it. Meanwhile, Rafa has accomplished so much at such a young age. It's quite extraordinary. I can live with him maybe not playing as long as Fed with all that he had done and will do.

I think that Rafa, Djoko and Murray are not being given the respect they deserve for their weapons, fitness and court savvy.

Yes agree with samprallica and NNY. After all it's the slams that defines players's achievements these days. Santoro played till 35-36? but nobody talk about his greatness.

I also agree that Rafa, Nole and Murray all are capable of jaw dropping shots and do hit many winners too, not just capable of inducing errors only. I like their athletism, speed around the court and good footwork too. I feel one aspect of Fed's game that's above them is his serves. We can see how well Fed can serve and many times his serves get him out of trouble. Maybe that's one aspect of his game that helps preserving his fitness for the long haul.

Vitality, how can you tell that others don't love tennis, and how do you know Fed doesn't play because he loves to win too? If not how come Fed trains so hard and engage the help of a coach even at this stage of his career? Don't you think you generalize things too far?

Great post Sampra.

Vitality: I can think of only one true 'grind and wallop' player in the top 50 at the moment and he is out injured! Speaking personally, my interest drops sharply when the ace-machines are playing - particularly if they cant keep the ball in play when their serve is returned.

For Roger to keep training hard and travelling 11 months of the year, especially with the daughters, is because he believes he can still win GS.

He has won it all, bare olympic gold (singles) and davis cup and a couple masters, he has won dozens of millions of dollars so why does he keep playing. I think he believes he can win slams and why should we not?!

He reached one final on his worst surface and didn't play that bad given that the match was against the clay GOAT. He was one point away (twice) from reaching the finals of the US Open, playing against the man thta has had one of the best seasons ever. He lost in 5 sets in Wimbledon quarters.
This results give me an indication that he can in fact win a slam next year.
It's not like he lost in the quarters in all slams or lost in the early rounds.

Of course Roger won't win 10+ titles anymore or dominate like he did in 2004-2007, no one expects that.

I'm just happy I get to see him play and of course still win a couple of titles.

In the WTF Roger will go against the best. Let's see how he fares.

me too ed. me too. In fact one of my best tennis moments is when Fed beat Sampras at Wimbledon. Only to fall next round to Tiny Tim...but that's another story..;)

I think all samprallica did was restore some perspective to the discussion. I personally have never liked ace machines. I don't like to see someone just bang a big serve, hit a forehand and point over. That is not tennis to me. Why should the other top players be considered the "grind and whomp" style of play? Are we to believe that Rafa, Djoko and Murray do not have an aesthetically pleasing style of play?

No one has said that Fed will not win a slam. All people have been saying is that it is less likely now than it was a year or two ago. I know Fed's resume and his accomplishments quite well. He can play for as long as he wishes. I think it's great.

I happen to love the style of play of the other three top players.

The ace machine concept is a bit exaggerated too. I personally think Sampras, Becker, Krajicek et all were brilliant all-round players with big serves (Krajicek was perenially injured unfortunately). Ivanisevic was more of a huge serve and not much else, but the serve is still the hardest shot to hit in tennis.

You can only play with conditions presented to you. Tennis would be a completely different game today if we still had 4 surfaces that were considerably different to each other for the slams, or if we had strings that stayed in place when a player brushed the ball. Nowadays, playing opportunistic defense is how players will win slams. Its funny because that was how Federer used to beat players like Agassi, Nalbandian, Safin etc in the first two years of his domination - he was slightly ahead of his time because he defended better than all of them.

He's coming back full circle as well Samps as his rallies are getting a bit longer nowadays & he's playing a little more defensively, if you can't beat them & all that.
I think Roger always had excellent defense but according to some tennis analysts he became the `super attacker` in response to the `super defender` Rafa.
I don't agree that Murray is a baseline grinder anymore however in the same way
that Rafa & Novak are. His game is definitely veering towards the all court approach ie he will hit considerably more winners than Rafa & come to the net way more than Novak. But the 3 of them dominate the return games stats together which
tells one something about what gets it done nowadays as well as (of-course) the slowness of the conditions.

Nope, Murray never really was a grinde who stayed many feet behind the baseline and wal always on the run, its a more case of the fact that he used to junkball a LOT. I think that has a lot to do with his forehand. When his forehand clicks, it can be deadly but I don't think he quite had the feel on it to be continuously aggressive.

As for Nole, I disagree with the outright statement that he's a grinder. Relies on the defensive abilities and return, but he can hit pretty huge from the backof the court, throw in touches of finesse when he needs and has volleyed well. I don't think he needs to come to the net as often because he can switch gears from defense to offense a lot better from the back of the court.

I think it would be fairer to describe him as a streamlined rhythm player who doesn't stray away from his bread and butter too often but can throw in the touches when he needs to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2FX4l6zizQ&feature=related
http:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCT91QgbLG4&feature=related
http://www.youtu be.com/watch?v=Eh9k5WqxVa4

The element of physicality and playing the extra ball is there in Nole 2.0 but it isn't that straightforward. You simply don't beat Rafael Nadal 6 straight times if you are a "grinder".

And yes, the point about Federer coming full circle is right on the mark. The guy is being forced to stay a lot longer in points against Djokovic these days; always has been the case against Nadal. Haven't seen him play Murray lately, but the all out attacking approach failed in Shanghai last year.

He can play 'til he's 40 as long as he's contented with having only 3-4 minor titles in a year. But where's the fun in that? It's better to give it your all in the remianing 1-2 years and leave the tour in a blaze of glory rather than fade into the sunset 'til your twilight years career-wise.

Agreed, agreed,
I must say that Murray's forehand over the last few months has now become an offensive weapon of serious measure. it was a joy to see in Shanghai and he may have finally turned the corner there along with his first serve, both always promised to be major weapons.
Novak, yeah its the combination of backhand & forehand winners that has given him the decisive edge over Rafa the last 9 months he can hang with him all day it seems @ the baseline but then close it off from either side when in position (or when Rafa is out of it) far more effectivley, the key to playing these 2 is to try not to go there in the first place by shortening the points removing/changing the rythmn pace etc.
It shall be very interesting to see if Nadal has it in him to do this next year or something else Uncle T has come up with, because more of the same but a little better might not be an option.

I think when Novak began his pro career in 2003 Roger became his template for success as he was the dominant player & he played a very good all court game. Now Rafa (& the beating of) has clearly & understandably become the priority but there has been something a synergy of the 2 approaches nuanced more towards the latter than the former rather than a complete u-turn from the past, with incredible results. But clearly the `Rafa template` is the dominant element of novak's game.

Um, a "junkballer" that's someone who gets the ball back over the net and in play, right?
Fed was right on the money against Berdych, took all the time away from him by taking the ball so early. He can't seem to do that consistently, even within matches sometimes, these days.
And that sure is the way to play Nole and Rafa. No-one is going to beat either of those from the baseline.

A junkballer more or less reacts and does nothing creative with his shots; even when he is in a position to do so. And I must say that has been the infuriating aspect of Murray's game in the past, because there have been times when he's shown that he can do a lot more (especially with his forehands) instead of just putting no pace balls in play. Case in point: Australian '07 against Nadal and USO '08 against Nadal come to mind.

@Deuce, I would agree with you on that regarding the gameplan for faster surfaces, i.e. take time away from Nole and Rafa. The plan kind of backfires on a slower surface though - as was evidenced in Nole's win over Federer at the AO 2011, and Rafa's wins this year at Miami and RG 2011. It is also interesting to note that Federer was doing a lot of defending against Nole during his RG win. Lots of defending, and lots of slicing, keeping the ball low, changing pace.

Change of pace is a tactic you can use against Nole. Against Nadal, you just have to be very fit, because you need to throw in the offensive plays in between a lot of neutral balls and point construction. Of course, players have been Nadal by going all out attacking, but its taken a day in a different zone to achieve that, e.g. Tsonga AO 2008 or Soderling FO 2009. You can't expect them to go for so much and not miss everyday.

Its definitely easier to beat these two on faster courts with balls keeping lower. Something like how the surface at the WTF plays.

One major shot that works against djokovic and is terribel against nadal is the cross court backhand slice. Roger slices the balls to djokovic's backhand which prevents him from being agressive but against nadal it's worthless because he can play a top spin forehand easily and be agressive.

I know that Rafa has been called a "junk-baller" in the past. Given the definition provided by samprallica, I would certainly disagree. But I believe it was just meant to disparage his game.

On forums, I have heard people say too many times that Rafa just puts the ball in play and waits for his opponent to make an error. I don't agree with that, either.

I think people throw around terms just because they don't like a player's game. That is something entirely different.

I thougth he was called a moonballer?

well it is his natural reaction when it gets hard. But I must admit that his slams won on esp HC happened with a big serve and attacking play. against his nature he attacked a litle more so cudos for him. ( is how you say if you appreciate something dont you?)
But he stays the best goalie in the world except in a final against Djokovic.

I think they called him the 'moonballer' because of the way he plays on clay. However, he doesn't play that way on grass and hard court slams. He is more aggressive on grass, if not how can he almost beat Fed in that 2007 Wimbledon final, and actually beat Fed in 2008 Wimbledon? Also, he reached five Wimbledon finals in a row, there's no way you can defend all your way to five finals on grass.

He won his AO slam by playing a good brand of defence and offence, especially in the semifinal against Verdasco. He won his USO by playing good attacking tennis, helped by his big serve then. Rafa is capable of playing attacking or aggressive tennis, especially on grass and hard courts. His Miami tournament this year is a good example. However, he has a bad habit of retreating to his 'shell' once he's not confident with his own game and he'll then play defensively.

A moonballer/junkballer cannot construct points the way Nadal does. He relies on heavy spin, which naturally slows down the game - but moonballer he is not. In fact, there have been instances on clay when Nadal was quite offensive, e.g. against Federer in the 2008 FO final when he was literally spanking the daylights out the ball into corners with his forehand.

Michael Chang used to moonball a lot more than Nadal, but even he (as always players with substantial time in the top 10) had more than one aspect to his game.

I just have to say thank you to samprallica for his post @ 5:49 AM. Rafa has been called both a moonballer and a junkballer. It has always infuriated me, because the implication is that there is no thought involved. Rafa is one of the great thinkers out on the court, brilliant at changing it up on court and problem solving.

I do remember Michael Chang and that term might apply more to him, but he definitely had other weapons in his game.

I appreciate that there are some who have an appreciation for what Rafa does when he is on court.

I remember Michael Chang from only 1 action or incident. The humiliation of Lendl was complete by his underhand service at Garros. Lendl should have stuffed the ball down his f,,,,, throuth. To speak with th words of Serena.
him and Rafa of course is not a moonballer like him. And he defintely has learnt to play aggressive but sometimes and this year a lot more he tends to fall back at old patterns. Remenissent of a moonballer.

Why should Lendl have stuffed the ball down Chang's throat? Chang was barely able to walk when he did that, and he did something perfectly legal, and bloody intelligent given the circumstances. Its not often that a dimunitive Asian can win the French and he played some spectacular matches in order to win it. Probably the most physically gruelling tournament anyone has ever won.

Chang did have some great matches through the course of his career when he blasted opponents away without moonballing - a great example to me was his match against Agassi at the 1996 AO semis. Agassi of course claimed later that he tanked the match so he wouldn't have to face Becker (huge load of tosh to me), but Chang absolutely ripped through him with no mercy.

Before Hewitt and Nadal after him, Chang was the speediest, most determined player on tour in terms of playing the extra ball.

I watched that Lendl-Chang match in its entirety. Chang wasn't pulling a Hingis; it wasn't gamesmanship. His legs were so cramped, he couldn't push off them at ALL to serve. He served underhand because that's all he could do at the time. The fact that Lendl was incapable of taking advantage of a severely incapacitated opponent is on him, not Chang.

Why would Serena stuff the ball down the throath of the linejudge just because she felt like it at the time. So was I. Didnt you noticed the crowds behaviour? If he could not serve anymore then he should have forfaited the game. He did ok after that and could run again. I belief he had a litle cramp but do not overreact he played the crowds with it and I call that poor gamesmenship.