I will not give you a long article or any reasons at all, just these facts:
2003:Federer wins wimbledon, having only been to qf before on the tournament. Many people said he would never win any grand slam at all and that he is a waste of talent before this.
2004:Federer wins both AO and Usopen having never won a hardcourt master series or been to a semifinal in a hardcore grand slam before. Many people said Roddick was the king on hardcourt and that Federer's tennis style only worked very good on grass.
2005:Federer has already won 3 master series on clay actualy but people are saying he can only play good in hamburg and that he will probably never win in RG and definetly not this year.
2003:Federer overcomes his weak results on grass.
2004:Federer overcome his weak results on hardcourt.
2005:Federer overcomes his weak results on clay?
This is not a good reason in itself actualy, but it is a good reminder to people who thinks Federer is 28 years old and desperately trying to do good on the surface he never overcame in his career. Federer is actualy only 23 years old and constantly developing and also overcoming his difficulties on different surfaces and against players (Hewitt, NAlbandian, Henman, Agassi, Ferrero) all the time. He is 41-2 this year, there is no reason why one can't belive he will overcome former difficulties in RG. Since the time he won his 1st grandslam he has only tried one time and failed against Guga and people are saying he is like Sampras? Or just slightly better?
Is that wishful thinking from people, or what?