Not only is high level emotion physically draining it is incredibly psychologically draining.
This becomes a perpetual cycle of the more emotional you get the more physically fatigued you become and the more physically fatigued the more emotional.
For me the difference that is Federer is his ability to control his emotions, to be able to leave behind him bad plays and to stay focused on moving forward with objectivity.
If you watch the players that get emotionally attached to lost points they spiral out of control and away from the initial game plan. The secret is to learn from the play and move on, you can’t change the play that has happened however you can change the play yet to happen.

Federer est un joueur surdoué mais dont l’attitude hautaine le trahit face a des joueurs dont la mentalité l’esprit de combat est irreprochable
ainsi quand le joueur adverse est mentalement au meme niveau que federer il perd (pour diverses raison comme l’experience en finale de grand chelem comme bagdhatis, djokovic, murray, gonzalez ou le trop grand respect envers le “meilleur joueur de tous les temps”)

Nadal a ce quelque chose en plus qui lui permet d’affronter un tel joueur
certes avec murray il est le seul a etre positif en confrontations face a federer mais seul nadal a gagne 5 finales sur 7 !!!!

Being second best is perhaps a British thing.

I don’t think Murrary really believed he could win this match. So he played not to lose and Federer just stayed focused and consistent.

Arturo

It was great to receive another very interesting email from you. I enjoy
your analyses of matches that teach us to better understand the many
complexities of players from so many aspects, i.e. stategy, endurance,
psychology, technique, etc., etc. I agree with all of your remarks on this email. However, I continue to be confused about your opinion on Fed’s backhand and one handed vs. two handed backhands in general. I apologize for bringing this up, since you stated that you really don’t want
to get into this debate. However, you did send many of us a statement paper written by a teaching pro from an eastern European country who
made some very strong arguments for the superiority of the two hander
for drives and topspin over the one handed backhand, although the two handed backhand player would also require a one handed slice. I believe you said you agree that 99% of touring pros will be using two hands in the near future for the backhand drive and topspin shots and that they would be better off for doing so. Do you still feel that way?
When I consider the vast complexities of tennis and tennis players and study players like Kuerten, Sampras, Fed., Henin, Wawrinka, Haas, Gonzalez, Budge, Laver, Vilas, Rosewall, Graf, and so many more outstanding pros that the one handed backhand inabled them to use one
arm for all the backhand shots including transitioning so smoothly into backhand drop shots , volleys, sidespin slices, approach shots, and probably so much more, and to make it easier to return those balls to the backhand that might be out of reach for two hands, I can’t help but think that there will be many more great one handed backhand players who will dominate in the future. I do agree that it is easier to teach beginners the two handed backhand and this could account for more advanced players sticking with it, unlike what Sampras did. I also think that we are going to see a greater majority of top athletes going back to an all court game.
Please let me know where I am wrong. Thank you very much for your help and comments.
Sincerely,
Larry Buhrman