I hope not to hear the injury excuses for Federers loss at tmc 2005 from now on [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

I hope not to hear the injury excuses for Federers loss at tmc 2005 from now on

marcRD
10-21-2007, 11:27 PM
Was I the only one who could see back then that Federer was simply beeing outplayed by Nalbandian in that final? He had some minor injury problems, the same kind Nadal had in the wimbledon final this year, it really disappointed me that Nalbandians surreal performance was not fully aknowledged by most people in MTF (not only the Fed tards). Can we from today on not make excuses to why Federer was outplayed for most of the match and simply get down to the fact that if you are not at the top of your game and Nalbandian is at his absolute best stuff like that happens, even if you are at the top of your game and your name is Roger Federer you can still lose a match against Nalbandian.

adee-gee
10-21-2007, 11:32 PM
Fat chance, Federer only loses for a variety of reasons, and none of them are due to him being outplayed.

RagingLamb
10-21-2007, 11:34 PM
It would be nice to agree with something like that.

However, we don't know for certain at what level each player performed today, and we can't really know that. We can say based on common sense that they were close to their best or not, but that's as accurate as it gets.

So there will always be those who will exploit this margin of error to argue that someone wasn't at their best etc. when they lost.

Nice idea though.

And I agree that Roger was outplayed, but was he at his best? Can't say for sure. Was he close to it? Maybe. Same goes for Nalbandian.

RagingLamb
10-21-2007, 11:36 PM
Fat chance, Federer only loses for a variety of reasons, and none of them are due to him being outplayed.

hey isn't that from some sort of encyclopedia?

Encyclopedia Fedtardica?

marcRD
10-21-2007, 11:38 PM
Fat chance, Federer only loses for a variety of reasons, and none of them are due to him being outplayed.

Well, it is rare to see him beeing outplayed. I mean he lost to Canas and Djokovic this year because he didnt take his chanses and lost important points, the same goes for Safin in AO 2005, he was not outplayed in that match. Federer actually can only be outplayed when he plays Nadal on clay (I think he was outplayed most of the match in wimbledon this year too) and when he plays Nalbandian on almost any surface.

Federer is quite lucky Nalbandian doesnt play up to his potential in grand slams, he could lose some grand slams outside RG if Nalby becomes more consistent.

World Beater
10-21-2007, 11:43 PM
federer played a different nalbandian that day. Nalbandian won 7-6 in a TB. So i really dont quite see it as being outplayed. Remember that federer also served for the match.

Federer did have some fitness problems as i recall but that is different. He had his chances and didnt take them

Today's nalbandian was better than that one, and today's federer was much better than the one that showed up at the TMC.

marcRD
10-21-2007, 11:44 PM
It would be nice to agree with something like that.

However, we don't know for certain at what level each player performed today, and we can't really know that. We can say based on common sense that they were close to their best or not, but that's as accurate as it gets.

So there will always be those who will exploit this margin of error to argue that someone wasn't at their best etc. when they lost.

Nice idea though.

And I agree that Roger was outplayed, but was he at his best? Can't say for sure. Was he close to it? Maybe. Same goes for Nalbandian.

Federer was not at his best, but he was not far from it. He played some of the most fantastic tennis I have seen him play this year in the first 2 sets, but Federer didnt really serve at his best which is cruscial against Nalbandian and he did some UEs too many even if most of them were becase he was feeling the pressure to end points quickly against Nalbandian.

Lets just say that Federer was good enought today to defeat Nadal or any other player than Nalbandian in 2 straight sets on this surface.

Even if Federer had been at his best I think Nalby would have a chanse to beat Federer.

R.Federer
10-21-2007, 11:48 PM
Fat chance, Federer only loses for a variety of reasons, and none of them are due to him being outplayed.

Nice qualification of chance here. ;)
Fat Dave knows how to play him, has a game style that can weather the offense and produce about as good or better defense as Federer. I think here on, it is going to be a tossup who wins. His game style certainly is not one which will always give him the edge like Nadal's does.

I would be happy to see Fit Dave back in the mix, you just don't know what you are going to get with him and Safin.

Whoever watched the match today can say without such a bother about it that the player who imposed his game, won. Federer had chances but could not take them, not by bad luck or bad day. He seemed to get impatient and seemed to be distracted in the third, maybe about the break chance back at 4-5 in the 2nd.

marcRD
10-21-2007, 11:48 PM
federer played a different nalbandian that day. Nalbandian won 7-6 in a TB. So i really dont quite see it as being outplayed. Remember that federer also served for the match.

Federer did have some fitness problems as i recall but that is different. He had his chances and didnt take them

Even in the 1st 2 sets Federer was having major problems against Nalbadian in the rallies but with his serve working and great mental strength he won 2 close tiebreaks. he lost the next 2 sets 2-6 1-6 and was losing 0-4 in the 3rd set when Nalbandian was playing superhuman tennis and Federer had some confidense and fitness problems. I have however to this day never seen anyone outplay Federer like Nalby was doing in these 2 and a half sets.

Today's nalbandian was better than that one, and today's federer was much better than the one that showed up at the TMC.

Agreed.

RagingLamb
10-21-2007, 11:50 PM
Federer was not at his best, but he was not far from it. He played some of the most fantastic tennis I have seen him play this year in the first 2 sets, but Federer didnt really serve at his best which is cruscial against Nalbandian and he did some UEs too many even if most of them were becase he was feeling the pressure to end points quickly against Nalbandian.

Lets just say that Federer was good enought today to defeat Nadal or any other player than Nalbandian in 2 straight sets on this surface.

Even if Federer had been at his best I think Nalby would have a chanse to beat Federer.

I personally agree with what you're saying. Even if RFed wasn't at his best, he was close enough to it, it would seem.

I'm just trying to point out that there is a margin of error in these statements, and that people will likely use this margin to argue against otherwise valid points.

GonzoFed
10-21-2007, 11:53 PM
I know it is totally out of topic, but i really think that "if a player X is at his best" concept is pure crap.

marcRD
10-21-2007, 11:55 PM
When Nalbandian plays Federer it is all about confidence. Both play aggresive tennis trying to hit the lines, so whoever is leading is often high on confidence and is more relaxed he is the one who will during a rally try the backhand dtl and take initiatives. That is why sets often end 6-1 to Federer or the other way around, when they are on a roll they become very confident and the other player starts to doubt and becomes afraid. I could see that in Federer in the end of this match, he was afraid of the Nalby returns on his 2nd serve, he was afraid to go to the net, to hit difficult shots. Nalby on the other hand in the end of the match was strikin the ball with the most incredible angles and with alot of pace and precision, Federer was doing the same in the 1st set which was the best set I have seen Federer play in a very long time.

tripb19
10-21-2007, 11:56 PM
Injury excuses are Defence 101 of supporting a tennis player. Doesn't matter, he proved that victory wasn't a fluke today.

GonzoFed
10-21-2007, 11:59 PM
Injury excuses are Defence 101 of supporting a tennis player. Doesn't matter, he proved that victory wasn't a fluke today.

Ok. What do you think of RG 2006 SF between these two?

marcRD
10-22-2007, 12:00 AM
I know it is totally out of topic, but i really think that "if a player X is at his best" concept is pure crap.

It is, only if it is used in a biased way only trying to lift your favorite. But it is a fact that level of tennis that you play is like a roller coaster, it has ups and downs but how high can you go and how low can you go?

Nadal can go very high and never gows low, Nalbandian outside clay can go higher than Nadal but also most often much lower.

I think it is crap when fans say that Safin at his best would defeat anyone or that Federer at his best would defeat Nadal at his best on clay. That is the kind of biased bullshit which has misused the term "if a player X is at his best".

marcRD
10-22-2007, 12:03 AM
Ok. What do you think of RG 2006 SF between these two?

That was much more clearly an injury, so much that the3rd set had not even ended and it was 1-1 in sets between them. Federer was fit enought in 2005 to play great tennis and come back in the 5th set from 0-4 to serving for the match at 6-5.

Jogy
10-22-2007, 12:05 AM
The Fedtards who only have collecting trophys in their mind can only make excuses if their God is simply that big owned. Nothing new. Just say well done Nalbandian, no chance for Federer and it's all good.

GonzoFed
10-22-2007, 12:10 AM
That was much more clearly an injury, so much that the3rd set had not even ended and it was 1-1 in sets between them. Federer was fit enought in 2005 to play great tennis and come back in the 5th set from 0-4 to serving for the match at 6-5.

Ok. I just mentioned because the Nalbo fans always mention that Federer got lucky there, if it wasn't for the abdominal injury Nalbanbian should have won.

MisterQ
10-22-2007, 12:23 AM
Sometimes it's only fair to acknowledge that someone was obviously hampered by injury, but in the case of this match, I have to agree with the thread starter. Nalbandian played brilliantly in TMC 2005; I didn't perceive injury to be a major factor in the win at the time.

Johnny Groove
10-22-2007, 12:28 AM
Ok. What do you think of RG 2006 SF between these two?

Are you really going to compare Federer's 05 TMC finals performance where injury was clearly a minor issue to a match where Nalbandian was thoroughly outplaying Roger and then a sudden shift occured, enough to cause Dave to retire and not even finish the match?

World Beater
10-22-2007, 12:31 AM
Are you really going to compare Federer's 05 TMC finals performance where injury was clearly a minor issue to a match where Nalbandian was thoroughly outplaying Roger and then a sudden shift occured, enough to cause Dave to retire and not even finish the match?

thats not the pt.

it was one set all when nalbandian retired. many nalbo fans point to that match saying fed was lucky.

so its really an excuse to say "oh nalby was kicking his ass. If he wasnt injured, he would have destroyed him!!1".

GonzoFed
10-22-2007, 12:34 AM
Are you really going to compare Federer's 05 TMC finals performance where injury was clearly a minor issue to a match where Nalbandian was thoroughly outplaying Roger and then a sudden shift occured, enough to cause Dave to retire and not even finish the match?

Federer, if my memory serves me correctly, came back in the second set before Nalle's abdominal injury.

Johnny Groove
10-22-2007, 12:34 AM
thats not the pt.

it was one set all when nalbandian retired. many nalbo fans point to that match saying fed was lucky.

so its really an excuse to say "oh nalby was kicking his ass. If he wasnt injured, he would have destroyed him!!1".

Nalby was up a set and a break before a noticable turn due to his injury that eventually led to his retirement :shrug:

Federer, according to the tards, was in a wheelchair the entire tournament, and yet won the first 2 sets in tbs before Dave came back

GonzoFed
10-22-2007, 12:35 AM
thats not the pt.

it was one set all when nalbandian retired. many nalbo fans point to that match saying fed was lucky.

so its really an excuse to say "oh nalby was kicking his ass. If he wasnt injured, he would have destroyed him!!1".

Thanks. You get my point. :yeah:

jcempire
10-22-2007, 12:38 AM
Was I the only one who could see back then that Federer was simply beeing outplayed by Nalbandian in that final? He had some minor injury problems, the same kind Nadal had in the wimbledon final this year, it really disappointed me that Nalbandians surreal performance was not fully aknowledged by most people in MTF (not only the Fed tards). Can we from today on not make excuses to why Federer was outplayed for most of the match and simply get down to the fact that if you are not at the top of your game and Nalbandian is at his absolute best stuff like that happens, even if you are at the top of your game and your name is Roger Federer you can still lose a match against Nalbandian.

I agree. This two are very close, Tought to say who is the winner every time

jcempire
10-22-2007, 12:39 AM
thats not the pt.

it was one set all when nalbandian retired. many nalbo fans point to that match saying fed was lucky.

so its really an excuse to say "oh nalby was kicking his ass. If he wasnt injured, he would have destroyed him!!1".

That was the point, Great post

Johnny Groove
10-22-2007, 12:40 AM
I dont disagree with you guys, im just thinking that I think the RG 06 match is a more valid injury excuse than the TMC 05 injury excuse :shrug:

Even though excuses in general suck

CyBorg
10-22-2007, 12:40 AM
You have to play a flawless ground game against Roger and hope that his serve is a little off and you have a really good chance. Canas beat Federer twice when he was able to run down everything out there, while making very few errors off either side. Meanwhile Roger's serve was slightly off and a few forehand errors weren't helping.

I don't think Roger has anything to worry about. This loss exemplifies the basic formula pulled off to perfection, with a touch of luck thrown in. Nalbandian is playing as well as ever. He was simply better and Roger couldn't do anything about it.

It will happen from time to time. Unlike in his peak (same time last year) Roger occasinally becomes error prone. This is going to be normal for him in the upcoming years and he will lose matches like this. Just accept it. He is still by far the best player on hardcourts and carpet.

GonzoFed
10-22-2007, 12:44 AM
I dont disagree with you guys, im just thinking that I think the RG 06 match is a more valid injury excuse than the TMC 05 injury excuse :shrug:

Even though excuses in general suck

You are moonballer tard...you search for excuses as your idol Nadal....naaaaaaah....just kidding...i was trying to do a lousy Glenn impersonation. It is all good here mate. No problem having a little civilized discussion about tennis here. :yeah:

Johnny Groove
10-22-2007, 12:48 AM
You are moonballer tard...you search for excuses as your idol Nadal....naaaaaaah....just kidding...i was trying to do a lousy Glenn impersonation. It is all good here mate. No problem having a little civilized discussion about tennis here. :yeah:

I got a little concerned there, i thought you were gonna be a dick for no reason :lol:

All good :yeah:

World Beater
10-22-2007, 12:52 AM
I got a little concerned there, i thought you were gonna be a dick for no reason :lol:

All good :yeah:

king kang ching...go back to the kitchen. :lol:
:p

Johnny Groove
10-22-2007, 12:54 AM
king kang ching...go back to the kitchen. :lol:
:p

Or the laundry room :p

Merton
10-22-2007, 01:08 AM
Excuses suck, even when you start with a fact excuses rely on hypotheticals and create an alternative history universe where the excuse maker envisions his/her wishful thinking to be reality.

Fact: Roger was coming from an ankle injury against David in the 2005 TMC.
Excuse: If Roger did not come from an ankle injury he would not have lost.

Fact: David got injured during the 2006 RG semi against Roger.
Excuse: If David did not get injured he would have won this match.

GonzoFed
10-22-2007, 01:13 AM
Excuses suck, even when you start with a fact excuses rely on hypotheticals and create an alternative history universe where the excuse maker envisions his/her wishful thinking to be reality.

Fact: Roger was coming from an ankle injury against David in the 2005 TMC.
Excuse: If Roger did not come from an ankle injury he would not have lost.

Fact: David got injured during the 2006 RG semi against Roger.
Excuse: If David did not get injured he would have won this match.

:worship: :worship: You rock Merton, as much as Black and Scholes :worship: :worship:

LocoPorElTenis
10-22-2007, 01:27 AM
Excuses suck, even when you start with a fact excuses rely on hypotheticals and create an alternative history universe where the excuse maker envisions his/her wishful thinking to be reality.

Fact: Roger was coming from an ankle injury against David in the 2005 TMC.
Excuse: If Roger did not come from an ankle injury he would not have lost.

Fact: David got injured during the 2006 RG semi against Roger.
Excuse: If David did not get injured he would have won this match.

I agree, but there's a huge different between both situations.

Roger's ankle injury happened before the start of the TMC. Roger chose to play it regardless, which means that he thought he was well enough to play competitively. Right or wrong, it was his choice, so it shouldn't be used as an excuse.

On the other hand, Nalbi's injure at RG 2006 happened during the match. So we can fairly say Roger won thanks to this unexpected injury (which is not the same as saying that Nalbi would have won without the injury - although for the record Fedex himself said that he was being outplayed before the injury).

In the end, injuries are part of the game, and both results are fair and the winner deserves full credit, in both cases.

Marek.
10-22-2007, 03:23 AM
Fat chance, Federer only loses for a variety of reasons, and none of them are due to him being outplayed.

Nadal only loses because he's tired or injured. :p

Forehander
10-22-2007, 04:40 AM
People like you will never understand what it feels like. You try playing on professional tour and suffer an injury that leaves you to be on crutches unable to do ANY sort of stamina/running etc improvement exercise for a fucking month. It's the same thing as for a professional 100m runner not being able to do any sort of exercise for a month. Lets see if you are still able to cope with playing a first to 3 sets Finals after 7-6 7-6 with intensive rallies contained within the scoreline if so. No doubt, Nalbandian was in the zone, playing his best tennis that night, he may would have defeated Federer anyway, but it was obvious Federer started to have jelly legs towards the end of second set. Federer didn't necessarily suffer the pain, but his physical stamina couldn't hold off that night as he said. It's not an excuse from Federer, it's the truth stated by a PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN who trains hours and hours per day. So shut the fuck up.

ReturnWinner
10-22-2007, 05:04 AM
People like you will never understand what it feels like. You try playing on professional tour and suffer an injury that leaves you to be on crutches unable to do ANY sort of stamina/running etc improvement exercise for a fucking month. It's the same thing as for a professional 100m runner not being able to do any sort of exercise for a month. Lets see if you are still able to cope with playing a first to 3 sets Finals after 7-6 7-6 with intensive rallies contained within the scoreline if so. No doubt, Nalbandian was in the zone, playing his best tennis that night, he may would have defeated Federer anyway, but it was obvious Federer started to have jelly legs towards the end of second set. Federer didn't necessarily suffer the pain, but his physical stamina couldn't hold off that night as he said. It's not an excuse from Federer, it's the truth stated by a PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN who trains hours and hours per day. So shut the fuck up.


we should remember the bad calls nalbandian got in both tiebreaks ;) -well he got a lot in both sets but in the tiebreaks were :o- he should ve won the second set for sure if that horrible bad call when serving *5-3 had no happened

barbadosan
10-22-2007, 05:13 AM
Was I the only one who could see back then that Federer was simply beeing outplayed by Nalbandian in that final? He had some minor injury problems, the same kind Nadal had in the wimbledon final this year, it really disappointed me that Nalbandians surreal performance was not fully aknowledged by most people in MTF (not only the Fed tards). Can we from today on not make excuses to why Federer was outplayed for most of the match and simply get down to the fact that if you are not at the top of your game and Nalbandian is at his absolute best stuff like that happens, even if you are at the top of your game and your name is Roger Federer you can still lose a match against Nalbandian.

I don't quite see your point. The TMC was the TMC, Madrid is Madrid. Federer, uninjured and losing today has no bearing on his being injured or not in the TMC. If you have a beef with the "acknowledgement" of Nalby's performance in TMC, that's something you have to deal with, but to suggest that dogs are animals, and cats are animals, therefore cats = dogs.....

Further, any time Fed loses to Nalbandian, is that supposed to reinforce your interpretation of the TMC results? If that's the case, what about when Nalbandian loses to him?

World Beater
10-22-2007, 05:30 AM
People like you will never understand what it feels like. You try playing on professional tour and suffer an injury that leaves you to be on crutches unable to do ANY sort of stamina/running etc improvement exercise for a fucking month. It's the same thing as for a professional 100m runner not being able to do any sort of exercise for a month. Lets see if you are still able to cope with playing a first to 3 sets Finals after 7-6 7-6 with intensive rallies contained within the scoreline if so. No doubt, Nalbandian was in the zone, playing his best tennis that night, he may would have defeated Federer anyway, but it was obvious Federer started to have jelly legs towards the end of second set. Federer didn't necessarily suffer the pain, but his physical stamina couldn't hold off that night as he said. It's not an excuse from Federer, it's the truth stated by a PROFESSIONAL SPORTSMAN who trains hours and hours per day. So shut the fuck up.

dayum. serious ownage :eek:

good post.

spencercarlos
10-22-2007, 06:38 AM
Was I the only one who could see back then that Federer was simply beeing outplayed by Nalbandian in that final? He had some minor injury problems, the same kind Nadal had in the wimbledon final this year, it really disappointed me that Nalbandians surreal performance was not fully aknowledged by most people in MTF (not only the Fed tards). Can we from today on not make excuses to why Federer was outplayed for most of the match and simply get down to the fact that if you are not at the top of your game and Nalbandian is at his absolute best stuff like that happens, even if you are at the top of your game and your name is Roger Federer you can still lose a match against Nalbandian.
What does this match (Madrid 2007 Final) has to do with the one played in 2005 TMC final?

Anyway Nalbandian has beaten Federer enough times before to make it clear that he is capable of doing it on a given day..

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 09:11 AM
Fed was not injured at this TMC finals... He was just being outplayed by a far superior player. Move on Fedtards and go learn the tennis basics!

FedFan_2007
10-22-2007, 09:26 AM
JMPower - pot kettle black. I make no excuses. Federer simply got owned.

bokehlicious
10-22-2007, 09:32 AM
Nalbandian is like Safin. They own the ego king and can beat him at will. Too bad they lack motivation most of the time...

KitinovRules
10-22-2007, 10:03 AM
I just think that Roger is bored on the court these days.

Eden
10-22-2007, 07:31 PM
I don't quite see your point. The TMC was the TMC, Madrid is Madrid. Federer, uninjured and losing today has no bearing on his being injured or not in the TMC. If you have a beef with the "acknowledgement" of Nalby's performance in TMC, that's something you have to deal with, but to suggest that dogs are animals, and cats are animals, therefore cats = dogs.....

Further, any time Fed loses to Nalbandian, is that supposed to reinforce your interpretation of the TMC results? If that's the case, what about when Nalbandian loses to him?

:yeah:

I think everyone who follows tennis and the Federer-Nalbandian rivalry for some years knows exactly the match-up issue between those two. Most often their matches are close and can go either way. No problem with this. That's what makes sports exciting.

sodman12
10-22-2007, 09:56 PM
hey isn't that from some sort of encyclopedia?

Encyclopedia Fedtardica?

HAHA OWNED

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-22-2007, 10:19 PM
Federer was injured at the TMC 2005. No doubt about that in my mind. Sorry Marc but a Nalbandian victory in 2007 doesn't change that fact. :)

Fed=ATPTourkilla
10-22-2007, 10:20 PM
Federer was injured at the TMC 2005. No doubt about that in my mind. Sorry Marc but a Nalbandian victory in 2007 doesn't change that fact. :)

I'll add: he still wasn't 100% by the AO 2006 - same ankle injury, I think - and Nalbandian could easily have beaten him in the final if he hadn't messed up against Baghdatis.