By Richard Lucas
Photo Credit: Julian Finney/AFP/Getty Images
(June 29, 2011) I like Roger Federer. I really do. I like the fact that he was ridiculously dominant, just like I like the fact that he is capable of hitting just about any shot in the book.
Then again, in the past, I have liked guys such as Paradorn Srichiphan and Marat Safin as well. Both guys possessed enormous amounts of talent, but they would have major mental lapses and injury problems.
I only mention those two players because I am starting to see a sad trend of underperforming at times with Federer. For the first time in a Grand Slam, Roger blew a two set lead, losing to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga 6-3, 7-6 (3), 4-6, 4-6, 4-6.
Federer remains a sentimental favorite in almost every tournament just because I enjoy watching his game much more than the boring two-handed backhand bashing of … well just about every single other player on tour.
He has nothing left to prove, he has earned the career Grand Slam, and at least for now he has the most Grand Slams. As much as it pains me to say it, I have to wonder what his motivation is now.
It’s no secret that Tsonga played incredible tennis, but that’s the thing; the days where incredible tennis would not be enough to beat Federer are gone. In his career, the Maestro was 692-52 after winning the first set heading into Wimbledon.
The difference in the match was the drive. Tsonga was out there looking ready to fight and claw his way through a tough match if need be. Federer on the other hand, seemed content to stick with his strategy and allow the result to come to him.
There is a definite difference in the Federer of today and the dominant one. His transition game has begun to weaken, allowing players to take advantage of a much more passive Swiss.
What I mean by the transition, is that during the reign of Roger, if an opponent would hit one ball short, Federer would immediately jump on it and the point would be over. In the matches that he has lost this year, there is a distinct lack of aggression, especially on those short balls.
Instead of running around the backhand and hitting a forehand winner from five feet inside the baseline, he appears content to plant at the baseline and roll a backhand over instead. This kind of consistent game is good enough to beat good players, but it gives players the belief that they have a chance.
Federer has said on multiple occasions that he believes he can still compete at the majors and has at least a few more in him. Unfortunately, major titles are won. It has been quite a number of years since one has been gifted to a player (see Andy Roddick US Open 2003).
So in my opinion, the only way Federer is going to win another major is to step up his aggression level. I am not proposing he should go to the “blast away on everything” strategy employed by James Blake, but reverting back to his previous best of really stepping up and taking advantage of the chances he gets would be a marked improvement in strategy.
While Federer’s backhand will always be his weaker side, I believe that he could mask it a bit by attacking more often. His forehand is good enough to force even the best players to hit short, but I do not believe that he will win a major without becoming a more aggressive player.