Is Federer More Beatable? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Is Federer More Beatable?

SheepleBuster
08-21-2010, 05:12 PM
Here is a snippet from Baghdatis' interview last night:

Q. Talk about the match tomorrow and Roger. Last time you played him you beat him. Is he more beatable this year?
MARCOS BAGHDATIS: Yeah. I think so, yeah. He is, but, you know, I'm gonna concentrate on my game. I'm not gonna start thinking if I beat him or if he's beatable or not.
I think I'll just go out there and try to find the solution to win like I did last time, just to play very aggressive, serve very well like today, and basically play my game.

I don't believe Roger is more beatable but rather people are believing more they can beat him. For years people in winning position choked against him. Didn't Davydenko did it this year at Australian open? Roger is going to get old sooner rather than later but to say he is more beatable when Nadal and Djokovic don't say that, I don't know what to say.

Thoughts?

Source: http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2010-08-21/m.php

Sri
08-21-2010, 05:13 PM
Hmm.. Compared to peak Fed (2004-07), sure, he is more beatable.. Obvious isn't it!

SheepleBuster
08-21-2010, 05:15 PM
Hmm.. Compared to peak Fed (2004-07), sure, he is more beatable.. Obvious isn't it!

Well. Comparing the last time they played and Federer choked a match point. I am not sure. To 2007? Yes. But Nadal was still beating him then.

Singularity
08-21-2010, 05:17 PM
Well. Comparing the last time they played and Federer choked a match point. I am not sure. To 2007? Yes. But Nadal was still beating him then.
Nadal has always been able to beat him. The same can't be said for other players.

SheepleBuster
08-21-2010, 05:19 PM
Nadal has always been able to beat him. The same can't be said for other players.

I say because Nadal never got scared of Federer's name. He beat him when he was very young and that set the stage for this misrivalry. I still think Roger would beat him more often if he was 3 years younger now.

Sri
08-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Well. Comparing the last time they played and Federer choked a match point. I am not sure. To 2007? Yes. But Nadal was still beating him then.
Compared to the last time they played (earlier this year post AO), I'd say no. Roger will get past Marcos in straights.

Beforehand
08-21-2010, 05:43 PM
Of course he's more beatable. He's moving slower, and thus getting to shots later, and thus getting less sting in them. Hell, I'd argue that there's less sting in his shots, even when he's in perfect position to hit them, and I'm not sure how one could really miss that.

Arakasi
08-21-2010, 05:48 PM
Are you being deliberately dense? Of course he is more beatable than he was at his peak. He's arguably more beatable than he was in 2008.

Mechlan
08-21-2010, 05:56 PM
Is this a joke/troll thread? Of course he's more beatable. In the past couple of years he's been beaten by Benneteau, Davydenko, Tsonga, Karlovic, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, etc. None of them were beating him before. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's the definition of being more beatable.

Baghdatis72
08-21-2010, 06:15 PM
Federer loses more often than he used to for the following reasons:

1) He has reached his peak and is now declining slowly in form.
2) Competition is slightly more fierce that it used to be 4 years ago.
3) His aura of invisibility that scared opponents has faded a lot.
4) He is a father now.
5) His motivation has dropped a bit after winning the RG and beating Sampra's GS record.

Macbrother
08-21-2010, 06:25 PM
Players didn't wake up in 2008 and start believing in themselves more. Once Federer lost the edge that separated 'incredible' from just 'great,' then he started losing more matches, and as a result losing his aura.

SheepleBuster
08-21-2010, 06:27 PM
Is this a joke/troll thread? Of course he's more beatable. In the past couple of years he's been beaten by Benneteau, Davydenko, Tsonga, Karlovic, Blake, Simon, Stepanek, etc. None of them were beating him before. Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's the definition of being more beatable.

No. The title of this thread is misleading. Bagman claimed that Roger is more beatable. The last time I checked he had Baggy beat and had a match point. Of course Roger is on the decline. All I am saying is, is he more beatable from the last time he played Baggy for Bagman to claim what he did?

MacTheKnife
08-21-2010, 06:34 PM
I believe federer is more beatable than he used to be. He's not as focused, concentration wonders more often than peak years, and he's slowed down a bit. He's also had to deal with a few more minor injuries. Also a part of it is due to his opponents have more confidence.

Sophocles
08-21-2010, 06:36 PM
The question was, "Is he more beatable this year?" So far the answer is clearly yes.

viruzzz
08-21-2010, 07:02 PM
Bullshit. Fedex still strong.
But, you know, Rafa always have a pluspower with federer.
Federer is scared of Rafa's name.
But baghdatis is gonna fall, of course, don't talk bullshit.

Blackbriar
08-21-2010, 07:17 PM
You must also consider that many players are getting better and so there are more of them who can potentially beat him: Berdych, Soderling and Murray. the big advantage of these guys is to be in their prime while Fed is no more. "Older" players, those from Roger's generation, and lower ranked guys like the genius in my sig, are still clueless against him.

By the way, Roddick and Davydenko were the last remaining older-than-25 year players in top 10 along with Fed, and it is very much possible that Fed remains the only one by the end of the year.

sabina_RF_lee
08-21-2010, 08:26 PM
Remember Baghdatis`s tears when he won Roger in IW??? And now he is too confident:o, I would say to him "dont be so sure!"
If compare this years Indian Wells and now Cincy for example I think Roger is playing better and he isnt more beatable than in IW. But of course now he is not "more" but beatable than 2004-2007 when he was unstopable JesusFed. But he is still that Roger, so you never sure against him, so I dont know why Baghdatis answered like that

sabina_RF_lee
08-21-2010, 08:27 PM
So we will see what happens

Sapeod
08-21-2010, 08:36 PM
He is more beatable this year than ever, and much more than a few years ago.
That said, he still isn't easy to beat.

sabina_RF_lee
08-22-2010, 01:32 AM
and now after the match where Marcos was killed by Fedex, its evem more hillarious answer from Baggy

Infinity
08-22-2010, 02:54 AM
Is he more beatable? Yes, just look at his win-loss record through the years.
but this doesn't translate into him losing every match to Baghdatis types.

heya
08-22-2010, 04:38 AM
By the way, Roddick and Davydenko were the last remaining older-than-25 year players in top 10 along with Fed, and it is very much possible that Fed remains the only one by the end of the year.
At least Davydenko can play into his 30s. Roddick wins a Masters title, gets to 3 finals, which resulted in narrow losses. Yet he takes time off to catch Mono, or plays in exhibitions to escape the tour.

swisht4u
08-22-2010, 04:45 AM
Definitely more beatable, other players are saying it here and there, no secret anyway.
But even though his game has been dropping down for some time he was #1 just earlier this year, imagine playing pretty well below your best level and still being #1.
-

heya
08-22-2010, 04:53 AM
Nadal's the opposite of Roddick.
Why should he lose to Federer in tank jobs?
Many players win after they've sharpened their strengths to imitate Nadal's advantages.