Scots and perhaps Serbs aside, the mood is pretty unanimous. As much as we all agree that Andy Murray is a potential winner of at least a handful of Grand Slam titles and lament the sad absence of Rafael Nadal, nearly every occupant of the Wimbledon locker room and all the former champions I speak to would be delighted to see Roger Federer win his 15th major in two weeks’ time.

Federer deserves the admiration he generates because he is one hell of a player. With the exception of the Olympic individual gold and the Davis Cup, he has won everything he set out to win in this sport. He moves so wonderfully and when things are firing on all cylinders has every shot in the book. He is resilient in that he rarely gets injured and invariably seems to prepare himself well. He is committed to his profession, forever prepared to make sacrifices. He is the perfect role model for youngsters and, after finally winning the French Open title a couple of weeks ago, seems pretty perfect.

This will be his 38th successive Grand Slam tournament and the past 20 have seen him reach at least the semi-final. That is some statement of durability. Federer’s confidence is sky-high again after Roland Garros and with his greatest rival, Nadal, forced out of contention, his belief must have multiplied. The way I see it, this fortnight is the perfect opportunity for Federer to get back to doing what he is beautifully equipped to do: play exciting, attacking grass court tennis.

I want to see him serve and volley as much as possible. I want to see him looking to chip and charge on the return. I want to see him changing his game plan to suit the opponent. Remember how he did that so brilliantly against Andy Roddick in his second Wimbledon final?

What I don’t want to see him do is play the majority of his tennis from the baseline. To me that is akin to Real Madrid buying Cristiano Ronaldo and then picking him to play a withdrawn role in midfield. I’m not alone. Around the dinner tables of the senior tour, the subject of Federer and the way he plays probably generates more discussion than any other tennis matter. To a man, John McEnroe, Mats Wilander, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic and Henri Leconte all agree with me. We want Federer to attack more, to see the offensive tennis he was playing before Nadal, Murray and Novak Djokovic came along.

Murray has stepped up a couple of levels since losing to Federer in last year’s US Open final, in which the Scot was attacked from start to finish. Murray has since beaten Federer in each of their four matches on the tour, but in those games I believe the Swiss played too defensively and stayed on the baseline too much.

Why has Federer become more conservative? Maybe it’s something to do with getting older. More likely it’s down to the fact that he hasn’t had a forceful coach since splitting with Peter Lundgren six years ago. It takes a coach with a strong will to tell the player many revere as the best the game has known that he can still improve. Nobody now seems brave enough to take on that task.

Given the way I know Roger has taken exception to some of my comments over the years, there’s probably more chance of me being employed as Ivan Lendl’s next golf caddie than the Swiss master’s coach. But I’d be ready to talk to him about where I believe he could improve.