It seems to me that Federer's main asset is his temperament. Although he has a beautiful game and brilliant shotmaking, it his ability to replicate this form day in, day out.

This seperates the 'greats' in tennis from the rest in my opinion. Yes, their games are probably a notch or so better than their competition but without consistency this proves nothing. Safin is such an example. His temperament means his vast potential has not been fulfilled.

In most, the cool, almost 'icy' temperament seems most effective leading to focus. You only have to look at the greats, Borg, Graf, Federer, Sampras, Serena to see this ability.

McEnroe despite winning 7 grandslams is said not to have reached his potential. Is this in main because of his oncourt approach? Most probably.

3 amazing seasons for Federer shows to me that he is able to keep this condition better than all others. It lets players keep calm in order to feel the form they require. Without it, he would only take a slam or two runs of form occasionaly at tournaments.

I'd have to disagree about McEnroe. He underachieved overall, but in his best years was a very consistent match winner. He only lost 3 times in 1984. His reign didnt last very long though with the power game emerging.
His temperament actually helped him focus, as strange as it sounds.
Theres other players who were far from icy calm like Connors and Lendl who were not as talented but tremendous matchplayers.

McEnroe is one of the greats anyway though...so it doesn't matter that much.

I can't think of any player that has earned themself the label 'great' who hasn't got a very strong mental attitude and who is pretty consistent.

Some greats like Fed himself and Martina Navratilova were more suspect and in consistent in their younger days but then became mentally strong afterwards.

Its amazing how the great players have that air of invincibility (to lesser players. )
They almost have a set on the scoreboard before they step onto the court.
We see it often , that once they get in front in a match, the opposition just seems to crumble. Federer does struggle to win a set sometimes, but then can win the next one 6-0. Match over very quickly.
I can think of a few 'turning points' in matches where it was the players sheer 'mental greatness' that got them through. Like Lendls topspin lob at match point down against Cash at the 84 US Open. But Borg was probably the player who had that quality most of all, and he was 'icy calm' as well. Thats probably the hardest thing to handle, the combination of sheer mental strength and showing no emotion at all... Connors said as much this year, that he could never get inside Borgs head.
I think Federers most like Borg in that respect .Seldom shows any emotion until its over.
Its true that Lendl, Borg , Federer and Navratilova took a while to develop this quality.

Borg makes Fed look like a serial choker. roflmao

I think Chris Evert is probably the most mentally strong player ever :D

the most stoic also SW19 :lol:

Seles was also as tough as they came :)

Never saw Chris Evert play but her records show she must have had some darn high mental steel. That w-l record is amazing.

Losing to Federer with his calmness means atleast he beats you prettily and you feel 'good' about it.

If I were to lose say to a Serena or Venus when they are in top form and mental fortitude would be terrifying. They seem to dismantle you by hitting extremely hard winners everywhere. And when they finish a point of with an all mighty grunt or roar 'brrr'. And especially when Venus bares her teeth which I notice sometimes when she is in top flight.

True I didn't think of Seles, I think mentally was part of the reason she used to beat Steffi in their slam finals a lot, as opposed to overwhelming Steffi with power and precision, I think Seles' mentality was the key factor there.

Serena used to have such a presence on the court it was worth a set before you stepped on. In her prime I would say she is even more intimidating to the other girls than Fed is now.

I would agree. They both dominate/d with different game styles. Both succesful yet Serena's slightly more aggressive harsh/game....i.e. powerful groundstrokes/winners everywhere....meant players were more scared.

Federer of course hits it hard but with such classic shots. And I'm sure that Federer's power margin over the other players isnt as high as Serena/Venus/Lindsays is over the rest.

True I mean Fed is obviously better at his peak than Serena was at hers but Serena is just much more agressive and hits a hell of a lot of winners and moved so well. She was literally just an overwhelming force. Where as Fed tends to outplay people more than overwhelm them.

Serena's game is much more high risk than Federer's. If Serena's timing is off then the radar on her forehand can espeically be a horror story to watch.. Federer's game is smoother, more like a silken decaptitation of his opponents rather than the more bludgeoning style from serena..

And McEnroe was certainly a 'great'. Incredibly natural ability and success with it. I'd heard that all of the bars at say SW19 and other tournaments around the world used to empty when word got round that Mac was on court.. He was a real crowd puller, and one of the artists of the game :)

Of course, I was a little too young to fully appreicate this at the time, and was more shocked at his bahaviour!! :lol: But saw plenty more of him play as I got older and really enjoyed what I saw.

Actually, Fed "bullies"in a different way: he can play such seemingly impossible shots even in matches, that his opponents don't feel they deserve to win anyway. He really gives a lot of fellow professional players an inferiority complex.