Federer's match closing abilities [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer's match closing abilities

World Beater
04-15-2005, 06:43 PM
IT's a problem now!

Federer could well be undefeated. I have never seen a world #1 have so many leads, match pts in his career only to choke it away(save for kafel).

Gasquet played well and credit is due to him. But when federer has mp's on his own serve, he should win it. With his serve, there is no reason why he shouldnt have closed it out regardless.

Imagine roddick having mp's on his serve, and not winning a match. Cant say i remember a match where that happened.

Or how about sampras?

I don't care how many break pts federer saves with his serve, if he gets broken whenever he serves for the match. Then his serve is not as good as roddick's or sampras'.

I like roger and this may be an over-reaction on my part. But, its a bit weird to see roger make life difficult for himself as always. And then people come back and say that federer is so mentally tough, and that he has the best serve in the game.

I don't think so.


Roger , you seemed to lose your way a bit there. How did you get it back?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I'm used to it now, you know. It's happened a few times.

But, no, seriously, I thought, you know, I played all right again, but just couldn't close it out. So of course it is worrying, you know. But as long as I could still end up winning the match, everything is all right, you know.

So I had the feeling the conditions were getting really quick in the end, you know. I had the feeling for him it was better, you know, the shorter the rallies were.

So, you know, in the third it was different again because they put water on the court. I think that was, again, better for my game. But that was just the feeling I had.

PaulieM
04-15-2005, 06:46 PM
Imagine roddick having mp's on his serve, and not winning a match. Cant say i remember a match where that happened.

umm andy and roger's serves are hardly comparable. roddick holds serve easier than almost anybody.

Dirk
04-15-2005, 06:47 PM
If I could only lose two matches so far this year but the condition had to be me losing it after having match points I would take it. You are overreacting. Roger doesn't hit his serve as big has Pete or Andy. This was clay so serves get nullified most of the time.

Shy
04-15-2005, 06:50 PM
Yes, he is pretty tough mentally. If he wasn't, he would have lose more than two matches this year.

onewoman74
04-15-2005, 06:50 PM
Oh, stop it!! He beat Nadal In a five setter two weeks...people thought he couldn't even do that!! He got beat and the match was very close in points..He didn't just hand Gasquet the match...the better player won today. Let's leave it at that and give Gasquet his due.

I'm not going to run down Federer for not being mentally tough...yes, i think he could work on it, but everyone can. I'm not writing him off or questioning his mental abilities.

MissMoJo
04-15-2005, 06:51 PM
....and this may be an over-reaction on my part.
This the only part of your post i agree with. Calm down already. Furthermore, after the Miami Final, he's congradulated for his mental fortitude and now, after a close loss, he's labeled mentally flaky :confused:

ys
04-15-2005, 06:51 PM
Federer is on his way to burnout. Him playing Monte-Carlo was stupid, stupid choice. I hope this loss will make him rethink his approach and will only play tournaments which the player of his status
should play.

Lee
04-15-2005, 06:51 PM
:lol: The sky is crumbling down because Jesus Fed lost a match.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 06:52 PM
If I could only lose two matches so far this year but the condition had to be me losing it after having match points I would take it. You are overreacting. Roger doesn't hit his serve as big has Pete or Andy. This was clay so serves get nullified most of the time.

Ok, fine.

But, some on this board and many feel that federer has a better serve than roddick. Clearly you are not one of them.

i am not talking about federer's season. Its been incredible. But to me, he seems to squander so many chances in his matches. Even in the ones that he has won.

I wouldnt go so far, as to say serves get nullified on clay. Plus this is something abt roger on all surfaces, not just clay

World Beater
04-15-2005, 06:53 PM
I dont care abt the loss...its how he lost!

ys
04-15-2005, 06:55 PM
Ok, fine.

But, some on this board and many feel that federer has a better serve than roddick. Clearly you are not one of them.

:eek: Who feels that? Names please? :eek:

onewoman74
04-15-2005, 06:55 PM
I think a few people on this board need to take a chill pill. The man lost match #2 of the year...THAT'S RIGHT I SAID #2!!!!!! Get over it!!!!

Pea
04-15-2005, 06:56 PM
Roger has a mental block against younger talented players for some reason.

Dirk
04-15-2005, 06:57 PM
Roger is not the only number one to lose a match badly and closely. Give him credit for fighting and keeping it so so close. Roger needs a break and really did well for not having much time to train on clay. I expect a good showing at Rome and Hamburg when he comes back from two week break. You can't judge mental toughness by the result only by how much you keep trying out there. Roger just couldn't do it today and really he was very lucky to be in that breaker to begin with.

Dirk
04-15-2005, 06:59 PM
Pea he has beaten plenty of younger players that nobody knows and talks about. Everyone just seems to focus on Nadal lost and Richard one and the one to Thomas. Roger has had a great year so far this year and doesn't need to be ashamed of this loss.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 06:59 PM
Roger has a mental block against younger talented players for some reason.

Someone finally understands the point of the thread

Its not the loss, once again! Its the fact that he makes life difficult for himself whenever he is up.

David Kenzie
04-15-2005, 06:59 PM
I think this match just proved (again) that he is mentally strong. He could have crumbled in the 3rd set like most players would have but he saved match points and then had some of his own. Gasquet won those match points, Fed didn't loose them.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:00 PM
:lol: The sky is crumbling down because Jesus Fed lost a match.

Makro and Chloe had their time in the spotlight. Its time for mine :hearts: :kiss:

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:02 PM
I think this match just proved (again) that he is mentally strong. He could have crumbled in the 3rd set like most players would have but he saved match points and then had some of his own. Gasquet won those match points, Fed didn't loose them.

When you have a serve as good as roger's, you shouldt be getting broken when you serve for the match, as often as he does

Fumus
04-15-2005, 07:02 PM
The man, wins back to back master, 3 slams last year, only loses 2 matches this year and suddenly he has mental problems...blarg...I mean Roddick has lost 4 matches this year and I don't think he has mental problems. Damnit..lol..players lose it's just odds, eventually you are going to make an error at the wrong time, zig when you should have zagged etc. and you will lose. When Roger loses a bunch of matches in early rounds at big tournies, then you can worry.

tangerine_dream
04-15-2005, 07:02 PM
Yes, he is pretty tough mentally. If he wasn't, he would have lose more than two matches this year.

I agree. And although his confidence has been shaky this year he's still managing to win matches he should've/could've lost (the Nadal final at Nasdaq for instance).

In other words, even a less-than-brilliant Roger is still the player to beat.

Not only that but how many times has Roger met Gasquet before? It's easier to play opponents whose game you know than ones you don't know.

David Kenzie
04-15-2005, 07:04 PM
When you have a serve as good as roger's, you shouldt be getting broken when you serve for the match, as often as he does
He didn't serve for the match, he had one match point on his serve in the tie-break. It's not exactly the same thing.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:04 PM
Roger is not the only number one to lose a match badly and closely. Give him credit for fighting and keeping it so so close. Roger needs a break and really did well for not having much time to train on clay. I expect a good showing at Rome and Hamburg when he comes back from two week break. You can't judge mental toughness by the result only by how much you keep trying out there. Roger just couldn't do it today and really he was very lucky to be in that breaker to begin with.

This is not just abt one match...People can lose tough matches. But when roger loses them the way he does with his ability, it raises questions. Especially, when you are about to serve the match out, it seems he loses concentration always

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:06 PM
He didn't serve for the match, he had one match point on his serve in the tie-break. It's not exactly the same thing.

This match is an example of roger having match points and not coming through. But there have been several other matches where he has gotten broken while serving for it

RichardParker
04-15-2005, 07:06 PM
I dont care abt the loss...its how he lost!
That is so true. Having Mps and couldnt convert them. He is mentally tough. But physical tiredness affects its mind. He played a lot this year, and still 3 slams to come this year. Though lets just give the credit to Gasquet... He was THE ONE today.

PaulieM
04-15-2005, 07:06 PM
The man, wins back to back master, 3 slams last year, only loses 2 matches this year and suddenly he has mental problems...blarg...I mean Roddick has lost 4 matches this year and I don't think he has mental problems. Damnit people lose it odds, eventually you are going to make an error at the wrong time, zig when you should have zagged etc. and you will lose. When Roger starts losing in early rounds at big tournies, then you can worry.
:yeah:

as for this new habit of getting broken when serving for the match, it sucks, but he's been playing a lot, is probably tired, and sometimes shit happens. it worries me a little, but i don't doubt his mental toughness, more often that not he comes back to fix it in the end. if it keeps happening a lot, then you can worry.

David Kenzie
04-15-2005, 07:07 PM
As i said in another thread Roger has had 5 very close matches this year and won 3.
Safin in AO lost
Ljubicic in Rotherdam won
Ferrero in Dubai won
Nadal in Miami won
Gasquet in Monte-Carlo lost

not exaclty the end of the world

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:08 PM
I agree. And although his confidence has been shaky this year he's still managing to win matches he should've/could've lost (the Nadal final at Nasdaq for instance).

In other words, even a less-than-brilliant Roger is still the player to beat.

Not only that but how many times has Roger met Gasquet before? It's easier to play opponents whose game you know than ones you don't know.

Gasquet hasnt played roger either..

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:09 PM
It's far too soon to say that this is becoming a pattern, it's worth remembering that in both matches he lost, Federer only got to matchpoint when the scoreline was very tight and he was being pushed all the way - it's not like he's been cruising comfortably and then blown his chances and gone on to lose. As for the wider point about serving out matches, I agree that it's not his forte... the difference is that he usually manages to win them in the end these days, where in the past he lost (Miami against Costa and the DC match against Hewitt from 2003 both spring to mind). But it's not really relevant to this defeat because he was fighting from behind all the time, and there was no guarantee that he would convert a matchpoint on his serve in a tiebreak on clay when the rallies had been so hard-fought and nerve-wracking.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:10 PM
:yeah:

as for this new habit of getting broken when serving for the match, it sucks, but he's been playing a lot, is probably tired, and sometimes shit happens. it worries me a little, but i don't doubt his mental toughness, more often that not he comes back to fix it in the end. if it keeps happening a lot, then you can worry.

Thank you. At least you understand the point i am trying to raise here. Shit happens for all players, but it seems to happen for federer more often when he serves for the match.

Obviously roger is more mentally tough than many out there. But i am comparing him to the best players in the game and to best all times.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:12 PM
It's far too soon to say that this is becoming a pattern, it's worth remembering that in both matches he lost, Federer only got to matchpoint when the scoreline was very tight and he was being pushed all the way - it's not like he's been cruising comfortably and then blown his chances and gone on to lose. As for the wider point about serving out matches, I agree that it's not his forte... the difference is that he usually manages to win them in the end these days, where in the past he lost (Miami against Costa and the DC match against Hewitt from 2003 both spring to mind). But it's not really relevant to this defeat because he was fighting from behind all the time, and there was no guarantee that he would convert a matchpoint on his serve in a tiebreak on clay when the rallies had been so hard-fought and nerve-wracking.

ok what about zabaleta in miami....gonzalez in monte carlo

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:12 PM
The matches Federer has failed to serve out first time round this year:

Dubai R32 v Minar
Miami R32 v Zabaleta
Monte Carlo R32 v Montanes (but he had another break in hand)
Monte Carlo R16 v Gonzalez

That is too many, but I agree with others in this thread that once he has taken a break and recharged the batteries then he will not have these concentration lapses.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:13 PM
Henman last yr at USO

star
04-15-2005, 07:15 PM
I think it's a bit of an overreaction.

Maybe people have started to listen to the Fed worshipers a little bit too much. It is nearly impossible to win all the time on the ATP. At this point Federer is still dominating the tour. From his perspective, this loss is unimportant. I'm sure he wanted to win, but in the big picture it is unimportant. Much more important are his results in the slams. Also, clay is Federer's weakest surface, imo, even though he is very good on clay. That makes the loss even less important in terms of the big picture.

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:15 PM
ok what about zabaleta in miami....gonzalez in monte carlo

I was talking about losses from matchpoint up, which I now realise wasn't the point you were originally making. But the way he performs in Rome and Hamburg will show whether or not there is a long-term trend of failing to serve out matches properly.

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:17 PM
Henman last yr at USO

That was Henman prolonging the inevitable, I wouldn't read too much into it. Federer served out to love the second time round.

2003 chokes:
Miami QF v Costa, 6-7, 6-4, 6-7
DC RR v Hewitt, 7-5, 6-2, 6-7, 5-7, 1-6
TMC RR v Agassi, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6 (where he served for the match at 5-3 in the third but this time managed to come through in the tiebreak, a crucial win)

jacobhiggins
04-15-2005, 07:17 PM
I think Federer is most mentally tough player on tour, look at the two matches he lost, Safin and Robert were pushed to the limit, Federer still had a couple of gears to go to, just couldn't do it. The author of this thread has no idea what there talking about! No player ever has had the epxectations of Federer.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:18 PM
Federer has an unusual habit of blowing his chances away

I will come up with more examples..I would like to verify them first

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:24 PM
I think Federer is most mentally tough player on tour, look at the two matches he lost, Safin and Robert were pushed to the limit, Federer still had a couple of gears to go to, just couldn't do it. The author of this thread has no idea what there talking about! No player ever has had the epxectations of Federer.

Let me know when u find a top tier player who has blown as many leads as federer has...

Gaudio doesnt count, Safin is a headcase, but we all agree he is one... Federer is not

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:24 PM
Other matches he failed to serve out in 2004:

Hamburg SF v Hewitt, 6-0, 6-4
Gstaad QF v Stepanek, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4
Olympics R64 v Davydenko, 6-3, 5-7, 6-1
US Open R128 v Costa, 7-5, 6-2, 6-4 (but there was a ridiculous breakfest in that third set, Federer was double faulting a lot in windy conditions)

The point is, he ended up winning all of those matches. In neither of the losses he had this year did he serve for the match, in fact against Safin at the AO he was getting visibly frustrated in the fourth set because he couldn't get the break he needed to put the match away. True, it shows mental toughness to be able to close out matches the first time round, but it shows even more to be able to cope with that adversity and still win in the end.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:26 PM
thats more than a handful of matches...lets try to come up with ones for roddick or hewitt or coria. Coria had one episode...Federer has a whole series

oxy
04-15-2005, 07:26 PM
well its just a lost, he is still no.1 in the world and a great player.
all players will have a bad day.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:28 PM
yes i applaud federer for not giving up

Sampras once said..."I wont forgive agassi for going down to 121, but i appreciate what he did to get back up"

onewoman74
04-15-2005, 07:28 PM
Federer has an unusual habit of blowing his chances away

I will come up with more examples..I would like to verify them first

Will you email your findings to Roger or just bore the rest of the board?

Just joking!! ;)

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 07:29 PM
thats more than a handful of matches...lets try to come up with ones for roddick or hewitt or coria. Coria had one episode...Federer has a whole series

Fine, but the point is, since the Houston match against Agassi he hasn't ended up losing any of those matches. For all those examples there are plenty more of him coming through tough matches by holding his nerve at crucial moments.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:29 PM
Man my english must suck terribly. Everyone thinks i am talking ONLY abt the gasquet match...its merely an example

Skyward
04-15-2005, 07:29 PM
Federer is on his way to burnout.

I heard it last year after losses to Hrbaty and Berdych.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 07:31 PM
I heard it last year after losses to Hrbaty and Berdych.

Yes and he was lucky...the injury didnt keep him out for too long

makro120
04-15-2005, 07:33 PM
Cmon he fought until the end. Having serve on clay doesn't mean that much. You win like 55-60% of your serves on clay. This match reminded me of the amtch against Safin even if I didn't see this match. Federer saved himself in an incredible way in this match but then couldn't take the chanse to win the match when it was in his hands. Against Safin it was because Safin made some incredible risky shots when he was 0-30 in his serve and Fed couldn't do much. Don't know how it was in this match.

Skyward
04-15-2005, 07:36 PM
Yes and he was lucky...the injury didnt keep him out for too long

I think he'll skip some tournaments in fall, injury or no injury. Also he doesn't play a lot of tournaments during american hc summer, only compulsory ones. Playing less at the end of the year allows him to start fresh at the beginnnig of the new season.

Lee
04-15-2005, 07:38 PM
Man my english must suck terribly. Everyone thinks i am talking ONLY abt the gasquet match...its merely an example

It's your opening presentation ;) If your first post put in a bit more statistics to support your claim and this thread didn't come up right after his loss to Gasquet, you may have less negative responses.

And your first post in this thread looks very emotional to me.

btw, please don't take this post too seriously, it's just my 2 cents ;)

NATAS81
04-15-2005, 07:40 PM
Federer has shown the ATP you had better remain focues throughout the whole match.

He never folds 6-1 or 6-2 to close out a match.

You can only beat him in the deciding set, today in a 10-8 tiebreak no less.

This thread is such poppycock.

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 07:52 PM
Like I've said so many times , I feel that Rogers biggest weakness is his second serve and Richard took advantage of that by stepping inside the baseline and ripping winners. What makes Roger the # 1 player is how well he defends his points and can really rally with just about any player . That being said , I don't feel like he has tremendous mental strengths of some past champions as his 5 set and tiebreak records would indicate . Perhaps this is why he gets off to a great start everytime he plays .

Asmus
04-15-2005, 07:54 PM
Roger was tired today, mentally and physically. He looked tired as well in the Miami final and doesn't look recovered. Remember that he hasn't taken more than a week or two off since January and has won 5 titles. When you're far from your best with good reason and your opponent (who has been touted as a great player for years) plays the match of his life, it's not exactly a reason for a crisis.

Space Cowgirl
04-15-2005, 08:07 PM
Federer is on his way to burnout. Him playing Monte-Carlo was stupid, stupid choice. I hope this loss will make him rethink his approach and will only play tournaments which the player of his status
should play.
haha, you're taking the piss here, aren't you? :confused:
If a TMS is not a tournament which a "player of his status should play", should he only appear for the Grand Slams or something? :rolleyes:

NYCtennisfan
04-15-2005, 08:10 PM
Give the guy a break. He has WON this year when being behind against Ivan, Minar, and Nadal. He's only lost TWO times the entire year and both of those he could've won.

Skyward
04-15-2005, 08:12 PM
Like I've said so many times , I feel that Rogers biggest weakness is his second serve.

Not a bad statistic for a "weak" second serve

Points won on a second serve

Pos Player % Match

1. Federer, Roger 61 33
2T. Agassi, Andre 58 20
2T. Johansson, Joachim 58 20
4. Puerta, Mariano 58 17
5. Arthurs, Wayne 58 13
6. Nadal, Rafael 57 30
7. Acasuso, Jose 56 17
8. Haas, Tommy 56 13
9. Ljubicic, Ivan 55 32
10. Roddick, Andy 55 20

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 08:14 PM
Give the guy a break. He has WON this year when being behind against Ivan, Minar, and Nadal. He's only lost TWO times the entire year and both of those he could've won.

Don't forget Ferrero. Two matchpoints saved, instead of three matchpoints missed.

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 08:16 PM
haha, you're taking the piss here, aren't you? :confused:
If a TMS is not a tournament which a "player of his status should play", should he only appear for the Grand Slams or something? :rolleyes:

You will have to learn that ys only regards five tournaments as being of any value: the Slams plus Davis Cup. He shares that belief with his tennis playing compatriot, who also thinks only five tournaments are important - but would swap Wimbledon for TMS Paris in his list.

Space Cowgirl
04-15-2005, 08:19 PM
ah, ok, thanks for that Sjengster! :)

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 08:29 PM
Yes but points won on second serve doesnt give you an indication as how well Roger is serving . What makes Roger the number 1 player like I said is his ability to defend his points well and how he can rally with just about anyone from the baseline . He has a short second serve and he hits them about 90 mph which isn't bad but there are certainly better servers than Roger .

yanchr
04-15-2005, 08:41 PM
Well, I didn't read through the whold thread, just think it's really ridiculous to still think Roger is not mentally strong, and actually by a Roger fan :confused: What do you expect from him then :confused:

jacobhiggins
04-15-2005, 08:45 PM
It shows you how great Roger is, he only losses two matches and people think it's over for him, because they expect him never to lose. You people are the most wishy washy fans I have ever seen!

MissMoJo
04-15-2005, 08:49 PM
Well, I didn't read through the whold thread, just think it's really ridiculous to still think Roger is not mentally strong, and actually by a Roger fan :confused: What do you expect from him then :confused:Apparently, invincibility...oh and the tennis gods also promised immortality, so don't expect them to ever lay off him

Cervantes
04-15-2005, 08:51 PM
Well, I didn't read through the whold thread, just think it's really ridiculous to still think Roger is not mentally strong, and actually by a Roger fan :confused: What do you expect from him then :confused:

completely agree, I also didn't bother to read through it all, cause we've had the same discussion a number of times already. I thought it was settled after the Miami final, but Roger probably needs to win all his matches for five years to be considered mentally tough.

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 08:51 PM
Roger certainly has shown that he is mentally strong , especially his defeats over Nadal and Ferrero to name a few but I don't think he relies on his mental strengths to advance in tournaments like other past champions have done . However , Roger for the most part has the ability of not even making it a close contest by winning the points early on in the match which makes him difficult to beat .

Dirk
04-15-2005, 08:53 PM
Roger is one of the mentally toughest players and many other great champions have lost close matches too. Some fans need historical perspective here. It's just a match and for not playing on clay since Gstaad and not having much time to prepare Roger did very well this week.

ys
04-15-2005, 08:54 PM
haha, you're taking the piss here, aren't you? :confused:
If a TMS is not a tournament which a "player of his status should play", should he only appear for the Grand Slams or something? :rolleyes:

No, but he should plan his schedule with one and only goal - win Grand Slams. Other tournaments should only be considered as warmups. And Monte-Carlo is too early to be considered a decent warmup.

RichardParker
04-15-2005, 08:58 PM
About his late mental vacations on MPs or while serving for matchs and third set TBs and lately so many TBs he's having ... anybody thinks a part of him, in some wierd kind of way, enjoys it? It can be so routine for him to win and he's, in some very wired way, practicing his nerves or something? :o

sigmagirl91
04-15-2005, 08:59 PM
No, but he should plan his schedule with one and only goal - win Grand Slams. Other tournaments should only be considered as warmups. And Monte-Carlo is too early to be considered a decent warmup.

Now, this doesn't make much sense either. If Monte Carlo is not a "decent warmup", then it wouldn't be a Masters Series. Think about that. And...just because Roger lost here, it doesn't mean that his chances at RG are nil. He's still considered a threat although clay is not his best surface. What will you say if he does break through here, that he should just quit the circuit since he won all the Slams?

ys
04-15-2005, 09:08 PM
Now, this doesn't make much sense either. If Monte Carlo is not a "decent warmup", then it wouldn't be a Masters Series. Think about that.


Trying.. Still can't figure it out.. :lol: What kind of warmup Miami is then? It is also Masters Series.. Clear and simple. TMS is money first everything else second. Grand Slams is glory first, everything else second. As the second most talented player of last 25 years, Federer should only be thinking about winning Grand Slams and caring little about other stuff. Just like Sampras did. Federer is more talented than Sampras. He still can be bigger than Sampras. But he won't get there by winning bunches of useless tournaments.

RichardParker
04-15-2005, 09:12 PM
As the second most talented player of last 25 years.
Curious... Who do you think is the first?

ys
04-15-2005, 09:13 PM
Curious... Who do you think is the first?

John McEnroe, obviously, who else?

Dirk
04-15-2005, 09:14 PM
Did Pete skip all non slam events? Take a chill pill YS. Carlo will be there for him and he might win it one year. He has plenty of time left.

sigmagirl91
04-15-2005, 09:14 PM
Trying.. Still can't figure it out.. :lol: What kind of warmup Miami is then? It is also Masters Series.. Clear and simple. TMS is money first everything else second. Grand Slams is glory first, everything else second. As the second most talented player of last 25 years, Federer should only be thinking about winning Grand Slams and caring little about other stuff. Just like Sampras did. Federer is more talented than Sampras. He still can be bigger than Sampras. But he won't get there by winning bunches of useless tournaments.

You know, ys, your theory would hold water if he were still lacking any Slam titles. As winner of three of the four Slams, he doesn't have to prove his mettle in Slams as much. In fact, when he won his first Wimbledon, the proverbial monkey was off his back, and he could relax. I still believe that Federer can win the French. Maybe not this year, but he will win it eventually.
In order for Federer to continue to win Slams, he has to have some warmup. Going into a Slam with little preparation does not bode well for his ability to withstand seven matches-sometimes under adverse conditions. If Roger is ever going to master the clay and win the French, he must play more on the surface. Winning "useless tournaments" does not mean he can't win the French. The two are not mutually exclusive.

ys
04-15-2005, 09:19 PM
Did Pete skip all non slam events?


No, he didn't.. But after winning few Slams Sampras carefully planned his schedule to peak at Slams and not exhaust himself in meaningless tournaments.Sampras rarely if ever played any warmups before AO, rarely played more than Rome and WTC before RG, Queens before Wimbledon, three hardcourts events before USO. Think about it. Federer already played almost 40 matches this year. And it is not even 1/3 of the season. This is crazy. He is wasting himself for meaningless causes.

Carlo will be there for him and he might win it one year. He has plenty of time left.

Winning Monte-Carlo will not add anything to the legacy of a player of Federer magnitude. Monte-Carlo is a Masters Series bone for claycourters.

lina_seta
04-15-2005, 09:20 PM
Roger is one of the mentally toughest players and many other great champions have lost close matches too. Some fans need historical perspective here. It's just a match and for not playing on clay since Gstaad and not having much time to prepare Roger did very well this week.

so very true... sooner or later roger had to lose to someone... well i didnt expect it against gasquet.. but at least he held matchpoints.. the 2 matches he lost he held matchpoint

its like federer is not allowed to lose... or a great commotion will form... but when other top 10's loses its so much more normal... well against youngster i never put a bet... as we know that players outside the top 10 are much more likely to beat federer heheh

RichardParker
04-15-2005, 09:22 PM
John McEnroe, obviously, who else?
I thought that you would come up with a not obvious name actually after reading your posts...

sigmagirl91
04-15-2005, 09:23 PM
Oh, geez, ys, your arguments hold about as much water as a bucket with a hole in it. Hang it up, buddy.....

Space Cowgirl
04-15-2005, 09:26 PM
Oh, geez, ys, your arguments hold about as much water as a bucket with a hole in it. Hang it up, buddy.....
I agree completely sigma. ys, you're talking crap, sorry

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 09:26 PM
We all remember what happened to Ivan Lendle after playing so many tournaments. He was out of stamina for his finals matches .You make a good point ys , Roger playing in so many tournaments can hurt him in the grand slam events . It's winning the grand slams that matter the most .

AlexNYR
04-15-2005, 09:35 PM
thats why i respect federer...he tries to win EVERY tournament he enters no matter what....to me that gets more respect than trying to win just the big ones and tanking the smaller ones like sampras used to do....do you think sampras would have fought the way federer did today on clay no less?....grand slams are good but a real champion should always try to win every tournament he enters and federer does that more than anyone i can ever remember...it may not add to the legacy of the average tennis fan, but to the hardcore fans, fighting to win dubai for instance, a tournament that means nothing to him adds plenty more to his legacy because of his win everything attitude....and remember he has never lost a grand slam final either so its not like he doesn't care about those....also i love that his goal for the year is to remain no.1 for as long as possible and win everything, not just grand slams...thats why hees the man

ys
04-15-2005, 09:35 PM
We all remember what happened to Ivan Lendle after playing so many tournaments. He was out of stamina for his finals matches .You make a good point ys , Roger playing in so many tournaments can hurt him in the grand slam events . It's winning the grand slams that matter the most .

Miracle... Someone with common sense on these boards.. :lol: :wavey:

federer express
04-15-2005, 09:37 PM
No, he didn't.. But after winning few Slams Sampras carefully planned his schedule to peak at Slams and not exhaust himself in meaningless tournaments.Sampras rarely if ever played any warmups before AO, rarely played more than Rome and WTC before RG, Queens before Wimbledon, three hardcourts events before USO. Think about it. Federer already played almost 40 matches this year. And it is not even 1/3 of the season. This is crazy. He is wasting himself for meaningless causes.


good point i thought. except i dont agree with 'meaningless causes'

World Beater
04-15-2005, 09:37 PM
It's your opening presentation ;) If your first post put in a bit more statistics to support your claim and this thread didn't come up right after his loss to Gasquet, you may have less negative responses.

And your first post in this thread looks very emotional to me.

btw, please don't take this post too seriously, it's just my 2 cents ;)

Which part looks emotional? I provided an aritcle where roger feels worried about his closing skills. What more do u want when he even admits it?

There is no part of the post that cries, or smiles or whatever...

I posted it right after the gasquet loss because it relates to the trend roger is having.

If people dont want to read the whole thread, fine. But dont make presumptuous criticisms.

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 09:38 PM
Federer knows his own body better than people on these boards, considering one of the handful of people he has in his entourage is his physical trainer I don't think his fitness level will be a problem. He has two weeks off until Rome, that should be enough time to rest and recharge before the big onslaught of tournaments on clay and grass.

ys
04-15-2005, 09:39 PM
thats why i respect federer...he tries to win EVERY tournament he enters no matter what....to me that gets more respect than trying to win just the big ones and tanking the smaller ones like sampras used to do....do you think sampras would have fought the way federer did today on clay no less?

What will be remembered in 10 years for a player of this caliber is not who fought this or that way in some meaningless warmup, but how many Grand Slams a player won. Sampras won astonishing 14. All that matters. Federer is still in position to win just as much, because the only player who can truly challenge with him doesn't have a champion's mind. And there is no player of that caliber on the horizon.

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 09:42 PM
There is far too much depth in the men's game for Federer to win 14 Slams, I'd much rather go for variety over quantity. Wouldn't it be nice to have a player who managed to end up winning every Slam and every TMS event, rather than someone who notched up the Slam victories but didn't achieve as much as he could have done at different tournaments throughout the year? Not that I'm saying Federer will win all the nine Masters Series, but at least he'll give it a better shot than Sampras did.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 09:42 PM
It shows you how great Roger is, he only losses two matches and people think it's over for him, because they expect him never to lose. You people are the most wishy washy fans I have ever seen!

Where did I say its over with him?

I am worried about his closing abilities. This could cost him in the future, if he doesnt make reparations.

His season is fantastic, i dont dispute that

Skyward
04-15-2005, 09:43 PM
No, he didn't.. But after winning few Slams Sampras carefully planned his schedule to peak at Slams and not exhaust himself in meaningless tournaments.Sampras rarely if ever played any warmups before AO, rarely played more than Rome and WTC before RG, Queens before Wimbledon, three hardcourts events before USO. Think about it. Federer already played almost 40 matches this year. And it is not even 1/3 of the season. This is crazy. He is wasting himself for meaningless causes.





Pete's schedule in 1995

Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 1/16/1995, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Pozzi, Gianluca (ITA ) 95 6-3 6-2 6-0
R64 Kroslak, Jan (SVK ) 191 6-2 6-0 6-1
R32 Jonsson, Lars (SWE ) 100 6-1 6-2 6-4
R16 Larsson, Magnus (SWE ) 18 4-6 6-7(4) 7-5 6-4 6-4
Q Courier, Jim (USA ) 11 6-7(4) 6-7(3) 6-3 6-4 6-3
S Chang, Michael (USA ) 6 6-7(6) 6-3 6-4 6-4
F Agassi, Andre (USA ) 2 6-4 1-6 6-7(6) 4-6



Memphis, TN, U.S.A.
GP, 2/13/1995, I, Hard , Draw: 48


R32 Doyle, Grant (AUS ) 231 6-1 6-0
R16 Filippini, Marcelo (URU ) 58 6-2 6-2
Q Enqvist, Thomas (SWE ) 47 7-5 3-6 6-3
S Martin, Todd (USA ) 16 6-4 6-7(6) 4-6



Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
GP, 2/20/1995, I, Carpet , Draw: 32


R32 Filippini, Marcelo (URU ) 56 4-6 6-4 7-5
R16 Haarhuis, Paul (NED ) 47 4-6 4-6




Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.
Tennis Masters Series, 3/6/1995, O, Hard , Draw: 56


R32 Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE ) 44 6-3 7-6(5)
R16 Rafter, Patrick (AUS ) 22 6-4 6-7(10) 6-1
Q Martin, Todd (USA ) 13 6-3 6-4
S Edberg, Stefan (SWE ) 16 4-6 6-3 6-4
W Agassi, Andre (USA ) 2 7-5 6-3 7-5





Key Biscayne, FL, U.S.A.
Tennis Masters Series, 3/13/1995, O, Hard , Draw: 96


R64 Rostagno, Derrick (USA ) N/A 6-3 6-2
R32 Palmer, Jared (USA ) 42 6-4 6-4
R16 Karbacher, Bernd (GER ) 25 6-2 6-3
Q Medvedev, Andrei (UKR ) 14 6-1 6-7(5) 6-4
S Bjorkman, Jonas (SWE ) 44 4-6 6-0 6-1
F Agassi, Andre (USA ) 2 6-3 2-6 6-7(3)



USA V ITA QF, Italy
DC, 3/31/1995, O, Clay , Draw: 5


RR Furlan, Renzo (ITA ) N/A 7-6 6-3 6-0
RR Gaudenzi, Andrea (ITA ) N/A 6-3 1-6 6-3



Barcelona, Spain
GP, 4/10/1995, O, Clay , Draw: 56


R32 Gross, Oliver (GER ) 84 6-1 2-6 3-6


Monte Carlo, Monaco
Tennis Masters Series, 4/24/1995, O, Clay , Draw: 56


R32 Haarhuis, Paul (NED ) 33 6-4 1-1



Hamburg, Germany
Tennis Masters Series, 5/8/1995, O, Clay , Draw: 56


R32 Costa, Carlos (ESP ) 71 6-3 7-5
R16 Vacek, Daniel (CZE ) 53 6-2 3-6 6-2
Q Ferreira, Wayne (RSA ) 6 6-2 6-2
S Medvedev, Andrei (UKR ) 20 4-6 6-2 4-6




Rome, Italy
Tennis Masters Series, 5/15/1995, O, Clay , Draw: 64


R64 Santoro, Fabrice (FRA ) 39 4-6 3-6


Roland Garros, France


Roger's schedule in 2005

Doha, Qatar
International Series, 1/3/2005, O, Hard , Draw: 32


R32 Ferrer, David (ESP ) N/A 6-1 6-1
R16 Rusedski, Greg (GBR ) N/A 6-3 6-4
Q Lopez, Feliciano (ESP ) N/A 6-1 6-2
S Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS ) N/A 6-3 6-4
W Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) N/A 6-3 6-1


Australian Open, Australia
Grand Slam, 1/17/2005, O, Hard , Draw: 128


R128 Santoro, Fabrice (FRA ) 21 6-1 6-1 6-2
R64 Suzuki, Takao (JPN ) 0 6-3 6-4 6-4
R32 Nieminen, Jarkko (FIN ) 47 6-3 5-2
R16 Baghdatis, Marcos (CYP ) 76 6-2 6-2 7-6(4)
Q Agassi, Andre (USA ) 0 6-3 6-4 6-4
S Safin, Marat (RUS ) 0 7-5 4-6 7-5 6-7(6) 7-9




Rotterdam, The Netherlands
International Series Gold, 2/14/2005, I, Hard , Draw: 32


R32 Ulihrach, Bohdan (CZE ) 87 6-3 6-4
R16 Wawrinka, Stanislas (SUI ) 138 6-1 6-4
Q Davydenko, Nikolay (RUS ) 8 7-5 7-5
S Ancic, Mario (CRO ) 28 7-5 6-3
W Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) 7 5-7 7-5 7-6(5)


Dubai, U.A.E.
International Series Gold, 2/21/2005, O, Hard , Draw: 32


R32 Minar, Ivo (CZE ) 48 6-7(5) 6-3 7-6(5)
R16 Ferrero, Juan Carlos (ESP ) 52 4-6 6-3 7-6(6)
Q Youzhny, Mikhail (RUS ) 102 6-3 7-5
S Agassi, Andre (USA ) 16 6-3 6-1
W Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) 5 6-1 6-7(6) 6-3


ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, California, USA
Tennis Masters Series, 3/7/2005, O, Hard , Draw: 96


R128 Bye, () 0
R64 Fish, Mardy (USA ) 78 6-3 6-3
R32 Muller, Gilles (LUX ) 131 6-3 6-2
R16 Ljubicic, Ivan (CRO ) 4 7-6(3) 7-6(4)
Q Kiefer, Nicolas (GER ) 55 6-4 6-1
S Canas, Guillermo (ARG ) 29 6-3 6-1
W Hewitt, Lleyton (AUS ) 3 6-2 6-4 6-4



ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.
Tennis Masters Series, 3/21/2005, O, Hard , Draw: 96


R128 Bye, () 0
R64 Rochus, Olivier (BEL ) 14 6-3 6-1
R32 Zabaleta, Mariano (ARG ) 51 6-2 5-7 6-3
R16 Ancic, Mario (CRO ) 13 6-3 4-6 6-4
Q Henman, Tim (GBR ) 21 6-4 6-2
S Agassi, Andre (USA ) 8 6-4 6-3
W Nadal, Rafael (ESP ) 6 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1

Monte-Carlo

Rome

Hamburg

RG

Federer plays lot of matches because he's constantly winning. The number of tournaments played by Pete and Roger are almost the same.

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 09:44 PM
Alex fyi , Lendle has won almost 100 tournies throughout his career but couldn't get the job done in the grand slam finals . My concern is that the same thing may happen to Roger if he wears himself out in these smaller events . Yes it is a masters tournament but no one really cares how many masters tournaments you can win.

Just ask Lendle , otherwise he would be considered the greatest tennis player alongside with jimmy connors .

AlexNYR
04-15-2005, 09:47 PM
What will be remembered in 10 years for a player of this caliber is not who fought this or that way in some meaningless warmup, but how many Grand Slams a player won. Sampras won astonishing 14. All that matters. Federer is still in position to win just as much, because the only player who can truly challenge with him doesn't have a champion's mind. And there is no player of that caliber on the horizon.


again to the average fan maybe and to lazy historians....to me if federer retired tommorow he is still the best player of all time cause he was dominant more consistanntly than sampras nad has the best tools of any player...the most grand slams doesnt make you the best cause at the end pete was just holding on looking for one last grand slam and playing like garbage most of the time...his last 2 years he was looking for a grand slam only.so thats what a champions mind is? bringing your best game once in a while? federer brings the goods to every match...win lose or draw you know you will have to play your best to beat him no matter what

World Beater
04-15-2005, 09:49 PM
Well, I didn't read through the whold thread, just think it's really ridiculous to still think Roger is not mentally strong, and actually by a Roger fan :confused: What do you expect from him then :confused:

Did i say he is not mentally strong? I am merely questioning it, as it relates to his match closing abilities.

If you read the thread, then maybe you could more credence to your post

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 09:51 PM
Sampras played his best tennis when he needed it . Don't start saying that Roger is already the best player of all time just because he wins all these smaller events . I can argue that jimmy connors or Lendle were better players because they have won more tournaments than Roger will ever win in his career .

Does that make them better players than Roger ? hmmmm

AlexNYR
04-15-2005, 09:52 PM
Sampras played his best tennis when he needed it . Don't start saying that Roger is already the best player of all time just because he wins all these smaller events . I can argue that jimmy connors or Lendle were better players because they have won more tournaments than Roger will ever win in his career .

Does that make them better players than Roger ? hmmmm



its not only tournament wins but skill level....nobody has the skills roger has coupled with his determination....and he is a grand slam champion 4-0 in finals i might add

World Beater
04-15-2005, 09:54 PM
Fine, but the point is, since the Houston match against Agassi he hasn't ended up losing any of those matches. For all those examples there are plenty more of him coming through tough matches by holding his nerve at crucial moments.

Right, but i didnt question that. Only his match closing abilities which may or may not relate to his mental toughness at such moments.

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 09:56 PM
I disagree , I think Pete Sampras could have gave Roger a ton of problems with his serves and volleys . I think Lendle would have given Roger ton of problems . Don't already start declaring Roger the best player of all time as it is too early to say . I do know is that he'll probably have to win 15 slams to do it

federer express
04-15-2005, 09:56 PM
Right, but i didnt question that. Only his match closing abilities which may or may not relate to his mental toughness at such moments.

not sure you can question the match closing abilities of someone who has won more matches than anyone else this year and last.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 09:57 PM
well...i would say he has botched more matches, when he is serving for it, than the rest of the top 10 save for gaudio.

Of course the rest of the top 10 dont get to that stage as often as roger

AlexNYR
04-15-2005, 10:02 PM
I disagree , I think Pete Sampras could have gave Roger a ton of problems with his serves and volleys . I think Lendle would have given Roger ton of problems . Don't already start declaring Roger the best player of all time as it is too early to say . I do know is that he'll probably have to win 15 slams to do it

i agree he would have given him tons of problems but still would have won...federer returns serves really well dont forget and if they got into longer rallies forger about pete there....federer has more weapons than pete and if pete doesnt get the first serve in well or serves an ace the match is done against fed...and fed wins on most of the surfaces as well....he kills pete on clay by a wider margin than if pete won on grass....on clay pete loses in straight sets but on grass federer either wins or it goes the distance

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 10:05 PM
good post world beater .

I think Roger wins his matches not on his mental strengths but on his all around game . His serve isn't his biggest weapon but it is dependable . He has a consistent backhand but it is used to open up his forehand side which is lethal . I think once you can get into a tiebreaker with him then you have a 50 /50 chance of taking it . Definitely easier said than done , but players will usually play more tentitively in high pressure situations like in tiebreaks and this is where you have the best chance of beating him .

mangoes
04-15-2005, 10:08 PM
OOOHHHH PLEASE!! Roger is mentally very tough. It was more than obvious he didn't play his best tennis today, or he would have won. However, he didn't play good tennis, the kid played great tennis, and hence the result. Roger cannot play at 100% all the time. It's funny that this loss gets this reaction. It was just a loss, the second for the year.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:10 PM
OOOHHHH PLEASE!! Roger is mentally very tough. It was more than obvious he didn't play his best tennis today, or he would have won. However, he didn't play good tennis, the kid played great tennis, and hence the result. Roger cannot play at 100% all the time. It's funny that this loss gets this reaction. It was just a loss, the second for the year.

Read the thread

RogiFan88
04-15-2005, 10:10 PM
Don't forget Ferrero. Two matchpoints saved, instead of three matchpoints missed.

i see that as more juanqui choking -- rogi was actually lucky to get that one ;)

Sjengster
04-15-2005, 10:11 PM
Well, it's precisely because it's only the second loss that it got this sort of reaction - the more you win, the greater the shockwaves when you lose, and we've seen that with Federer over the past year. Back in the day, his losses were greeted with "Ah, Roger chokes again I see - better luck next time, Fed" when he was being dumped out of tournaments in 2002/early 2003.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:11 PM
good post world beater .

I think Roger wins his matches not on his mental strengths but on his all around game . His serve isn't his biggest weapon but it is dependable . He has a consistent backhand but it is used to open up his forehand side which is lethal . I think once you can get into a tiebreaker with him then you have a 50 /50 chance of taking it . Definitely easier said than done , but players will usually play more tentitively in high pressure situations like in tiebreaks and this is where you have the best chance of beating him .

50/50 might be too generous for federer's opponents considering his record in TB

ys
04-15-2005, 10:12 PM
I disagree , I think Pete Sampras could have gave Roger a ton of problems with his serves and volleys .


That I am not sure. If anything, Roger proved that he is really not bothered by big servers. And Sampras was not the best volleyer. I would rather love to see Roger against vintage Rafter, how Roger would handle exquisite volleying and that serve kicking high into his backhand.


I think Lendle would have given Roger ton of problems .


Lendl played pretty much like Agassi. Big from the baseline , great fitness, not much of a net play. But I agree here. That Federer now owns Agassi is just a matter of Aggasi being old.

Don't already start declaring Roger the best player of all time as it is too early to say . I do know is that he'll probably have to win 15 slams to do it

Not necessarily. Winning every Slam twice would put him into quite unique position already.

wimbledonfan
04-15-2005, 10:14 PM
First of all it depends on the surface they are playing . Sampras would be favoured on the faster courts and Roger would be favoured on the slower courts . I do believe however that Pete has the edge on mental fortitude and would win the match in a situation like in a tiebreaker . Pete also has the best 5 set record in a grand slam event than any player so I would give him the decisive edge there . Roger is a better return of server but you have to rememer all Pete needed was 1 break of serve and the match was his . Also , Roger doesn't have Petes second serve which is why he won 14 slams .

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:15 PM
Pete would beat federer indoors. This i think is where pete has the biggest advantage. Grass would be a little closer. Everywhere else, roger would have the upper hand

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:16 PM
pete played that unbelievable match in Hanover against agassi(final). Agassi was #1 at the time. Pete put some doubt into that

MalmöKrampan
04-15-2005, 10:18 PM
After Fed loses a match in like 10000 years, people think he's all done..soo

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks4.jpg

mangoes
04-15-2005, 10:18 PM
IT's a problem now!

Federer could well be undefeated. I have never seen a world #1 have so many leads, match pts in his career only to choke it away(save for kafel).

Gasquet played well and credit is due to him. But when federer has mp's on his own serve, he should win it. With his serve, there is no reason why he shouldnt have closed it out regardless.

Imagine roddick having mp's on his serve, and not winning a match. Cant say i remember a match where that happened.

Or how about sampras?

I don't care how many break pts federer saves with his serve, if he gets broken whenever he serves for the match. Then his serve is not as good as roddick's or sampras'.

I like roger and this may be an over-reaction on my part. But, its a bit weird to see roger make life difficult for himself as always. And then people come back and say that federer is so mentally tough, and that he has the best serve in the game.

I don't think so.


Roger , you seemed to lose your way a bit there. How did you get it back?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I'm used to it now, you know. It's happened a few times.

But, no, seriously, I thought, you know, I played all right again, but just couldn't close it out. So of course it is worrying, you know. But as long as I could still end up winning the match, everything is all right, you know.

So I had the feeling the conditions were getting really quick in the end, you know. I had the feeling for him it was better, you know, the shorter the rallies were.

So, you know, in the third it was different again because they put water on the court. I think that was, again, better for my game. But that was just the feeling I had.

Well I'm quoting your thread now, I think that after just the "SECOND" loss for the year, it is rediculous that this opinion is jumped to immediately. Everyone has a bad day. Roger had a bad day. I'm sure he is pissed at himself. However to question his mental strength because of today's loss is just plain dumb. Roger has already proven that he has the mental strength to win matches. Today, just wasn't his day..................plain and simple :)

RogiFan88
04-15-2005, 10:19 PM
There is far too much depth in the men's game for Federer to win 14 Slams, I'd much rather go for variety over quantity. Wouldn't it be nice to have a player who managed to end up winning every Slam and every TMS event, rather than someone who notched up the Slam victories but didn't achieve as much as he could have done at different tournaments throughout the year? Not that I'm saying Federer will win all the nine Masters Series, but at least he'll give it a better shot than Sampras did.

i subscribe to that also... if rogi ONLY won RG this yr and nothing else, i w be ecstatic... i don't care about the real gs... it's out of reach... let's see if marat can win it this yr... he wants to win rg [who doesn't -- and don't start on this one... ]

lee, i agree w you... nobody seems to know what this thread's about and now it's a free-for-all circus! :p

Skyward
04-15-2005, 10:20 PM
It's pointless. It seems Pete was dominating yesterday, but the game changed. At 1990 the USO final Pete served 122-123 mph, and commentators went gaga- it's unreturnable! Now players are returning 143mph with an interest. Just impossible to compare different generations.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:21 PM
Well I'm quoting your thread now, I think that after just the "SECOND" loss for the year, it is rediculous that this opinion is jumped to immediately. Everyone has a bad day. Roger had a bad day. I'm sure he is pissed at himself. However to question his mental strength because of today's loss is just plain dumb. Roger has already proven that he has the mental strength to win matches. Today, just wasn't his day..................plain and simple :)

A thread isnt just one post. Read on, you will see i dont refer to just one match.

Sjengster supplies some statistics that help my reason

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:23 PM
It's pointless. It seems Pete was dominating yesterday, but the game changed. At 1990 USO final Pete was serving 122-123 mph, and commentators went gaga- it's unreturnable! Now players are returning 143mph with an interest. Just impossible to compare different generations.

I always laugh when people said that pete had more firepower than federer.

Pete served in the 125-130 range, just like federer and henman today

mangoes
04-15-2005, 10:24 PM
A thread isnt just one post. Read on, you will see i dont refer to just one match.

Sjengster supplies some statistics that help my reason

Well, I have read on, I don't agree with your reasoning, but life would be dull if we all agreed. I put this match down in the category marked, "just wasn't your day".

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:24 PM
After Fed loses a match in like 10000 years, people think he's all done..soo

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks4.jpg

:haha:

I appreciate the picture, thank you for your contribution

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:26 PM
Well, I have read on, I don't agree with your reasoning, but life would be dull if we all agreed. I put this match down in the category marked, "just wasn't your day".

Oh boy what part do you not agree?

I never said federer wasnt mentally tough. Just that maybe, he isnt as good as some of the other players when serving for the match. He makes life difficult for himself. There are example of where he has done this.

World Beater
04-15-2005, 10:29 PM
Will you email your findings to Roger or just bore the rest of the board?

Just joking!! ;)

You are a moron

Just joking ;)

In_Disguise
04-16-2005, 12:04 AM
i agree he would have given him tons of problems but still would have won...federer returns serves really well dont forget and if they got into longer rallies forger about pete there....federer has more weapons than pete and if pete doesnt get the first serve in well or serves an ace the match is done against fed...and fed wins on most of the surfaces as well....he kills pete on clay by a wider margin than if pete won on grass....on clay pete loses in straight sets but on grass federer either wins or it goes the distance

I disagree, I think if Pete was at his best, no returner in the the world would have broken his serve more than once or twice on a medium paced court even. Pete is certainly right up there as one of the greatest servers of all time, and remember how the big servers use to dominate the grass and indoor courts in the 90s. The problem nowadays is that all the courts throughout the world are so slow, half the speed of what they were...Even Wimbledon these days, is considered slower than many of the clay courts, which means the big servers' huge advantage is significantly reduced. If the surfaces are what they were in the 90s, Pete would have beaten Roger at least 7/10 IMO.

People always say Roger would have dominated Pete from the baseline, but forget that Pete had arguably the best forehand in the game and held his own against the best baseliners - Agassi, Courier, Bruguera etc - of his generation

ys
04-16-2005, 12:18 AM
People always say Roger would have dominated Pete from the baseline, but forget that Pete had arguably the best forehand in the game and held his own against the best baseliners - Agassi, Courier, Bruguera etc - of his generation

Having a great serve and a great forehand is generally all one needs to be good on clay. Pete wasn't. His forehand was a good low percentage shot. Roger's forehand is a good high percentage shot. The best in the game.

In_Disguise
04-16-2005, 12:34 AM
Having a great serve and a great forehand is generally all one needs to be good on clay. Pete wasn't. His forehand was a good low percentage shot. Roger's forehand is a good high percentage shot. The best in the game.

It's hard to argue that Roger is the better player on clay, the results show that. But the only reason Pete never won RG was because of his backhand, which was the weakness is his game. On any other surface however, this was less of an issue: bombarding all the balls to his backhand like all the claycourters use to was effective on the dirt, and the slowness of the courts mean his biggest weapons - serve-volley, forehand - were taken away from him.

Roger's game is very different IMO, his serve and forehand are not as explosive as Pete's, but his overrall game and lack of an obvious weak stroke will make him a serious contender in RG

Skyward
04-16-2005, 12:34 AM
Having a great serve and a great forehand is generally all one needs to be good on clay.

Actually serve doesn't mean that much on clay. Patience, precision and commitment to run all day long do.

AlexNYR
04-16-2005, 01:36 AM
I disagree, I think if Pete was at his best, no returner in the the world would have broken his serve more than once or twice on a medium paced court even. Pete is certainly right up there as one of the greatest servers of all time, and remember how the big servers use to dominate the grass and indoor courts in the 90s. The problem nowadays is that all the courts throughout the world are so slow, half the speed of what they were...Even Wimbledon these days, is considered slower than many of the clay courts, which means the big servers' huge advantage is significantly reduced. If the surfaces are what they were in the 90s, Pete would have beaten Roger at least 7/10 IMO.

People always say Roger would have dominated Pete from the baseline, but forget that Pete had arguably the best forehand in the game and held his own against the best baseliners - Agassi, Courier, Bruguera etc - of his generation

thats why i love these who is better debates cause the opinions vary so much and the fianl answer is we will never know....cant use head to head cause they only met once....yes sampras had the best serve ever ide say, but the game is different today....even with the different courts the game has never been faster or deeper in terms of talent....petes power game was among the minority 10-15 years ago, now pace is much more mainstream...sampras now wouldnt be as effective cause the speed of tennis has increased exponentially in the last 10-15 years...and nobody hits winners from all angles and wings better than federer....slices drop shots and forehands and backhands..and i dont buy sampras was better at crunch time cause federer doesn't need to go 5 sets...people shouldnt look at federers 5 set record (althouh take a look at his last 5 set mach and how those 2 last sets went) they should see how many of the 5 setters are over in 3...the majority of sampras's 5 setters are to opponents that shouldn't have gone 5 sets....im looking at the list most of his five set losses arent so bad

Mlashtok
04-16-2005, 02:37 AM
<Originally Posted by ys>
Having a great serve and a great forehand is generally all one needs to be good on clay.


If that were all one needed on clay, then someone like Joachim Johansson would have a shot at winning Roland Garros this year. In fact, the best clay court players have often NOT had the best serves, rather, they just get it solidly into play and give themselves a tactical advantage. Then it's persistence, tactics, and tenacious groundstroking that count.

ys
04-16-2005, 02:46 AM
<Originally Posted by ys>
Having a great serve and a great forehand is generally all one needs to be good on clay.


If that were all one needed on clay, then someone like Joachim Johansson would have a shot at winning Roland Garros this year.

JJ is a better version of Verkerk. If he adjusts to the surface he can do a lot of damage.

Mlashtok
04-16-2005, 02:49 AM
The fact remains that Joachim will never be a top clay court player. Leave that to Nadal, Coria, Gaudio, etc. The players with the not so great serves. :)

Federerhingis
04-16-2005, 02:49 AM
If I could only lose two matches so far this year but the condition had to be me losing it after having match points I would take it. You are overreacting. Roger doesn't hit his serve as big has Pete or Andy. This was clay so serves get nullified most of the time.

No kidding, you cannot even begin comparing the Andy Roddick serve and the Federer serve, very different approach when serving. Roddick is full power at its best, Roger is mostly power but extremely well placed. Both are very effective but Roddick's seems more lethal just based on the sheer pace its hit with.

Federerhingis
04-16-2005, 02:53 AM
thats why i love these who is better debates cause the opinions vary so much and the fianl answer is we will never know....cant use head to head cause they only met once....yes sampras had the best serve ever ide say, but the game is different today....even with the different courts the game has never been faster or deeper in terms of talent....petes power game was among the minority 10-15 years ago, now pace is much more mainstream...sampras now wouldnt be as effective cause the speed of tennis has increased exponentially in the last 10-15 years...and nobody hits winners from all angles and wings better than federer....slices drop shots and forehands and backhands..and i dont buy sampras was better at crunch time cause federer doesn't need to go 5 sets...people shouldnt look at federers 5 set record (althouh take a look at his last 5 set mach and how those 2 last sets went) they should see how many of the 5 setters are over in 3...the majority of sampras's 5 setters are to opponents that shouldn't have gone 5 sets....im looking at the list most of his five set losses arent so bad


Yup they just love finding something to critique the guy on! Not only is he mentally weak, he cant win a 5 set match even if they paid him to, but on top of all this he's still the #1 now isnt that something?

JeNn
04-16-2005, 02:59 AM
I can't believe people are saying Federer choked. He was outplayed for the majority of the match. The only reason he was in a position to win at all today was because he such a great fighter and because Gasquet tightened up a bit and played loose games when he was a break up in the first and third sets.

ugotlobbed
04-16-2005, 03:00 AM
IT's a problem now!

Federer could well be undefeated. I have never seen a world #1 have so many leads, match pts in his career only to choke it away(save for kafel).

Gasquet played well and credit is due to him. But when federer has mp's on his own serve, he should win it. With his serve, there is no reason why he shouldnt have closed it out regardless.

Imagine roddick having mp's on his serve, and not winning a match. Cant say i remember a match where that happened.

Or how about sampras?

I don't care how many break pts federer saves with his serve, if he gets broken whenever he serves for the match. Then his serve is not as good as roddick's or sampras'.

I like roger and this may be an over-reaction on my part. But, its a bit weird to see roger make life difficult for himself as always. And then people come back and say that federer is so mentally tough, and that he has the best serve in the game.

I don't think so.


Roger , you seemed to lose your way a bit there. How did you get it back?

ROGER FEDERER: Well, I'm used to it now, you know. It's happened a few times.

But, no, seriously, I thought, you know, I played all right again, but just couldn't close it out. So of course it is worrying, you know. But as long as I could still end up winning the match, everything is all right, you know.

So I had the feeling the conditions were getting really quick in the end, you know. I had the feeling for him it was better, you know, the shorter the rallies were.

So, you know, in the third it was different again because they put water on the court. I think that was, again, better for my game. But that was just the feeling I had.

yea your right ,tennis is a hard sport, i wish i can figure it out. nobody has become invincible.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 03:07 AM
I can't believe people are saying Federer choked. He was outplayed for the majority of the match. The only reason he was in a position to win at all today was because he such a great fighter and because Gasquet tightened up a bit and played loose games when he was a break up in the first and third sets.

Nobody questions his fighting qualities, but rather his lapses of concentration, when he is trying to serve it out

JeNn
04-16-2005, 03:09 AM
Nobody questions his fighting qualities, but rather his lapses of concentration, when he is trying to serve it out

A tiebreak is a different situation though, than the usual serving it out scenario.

I don't think Federer has much trouble with the latter.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 03:14 AM
The matches Federer has failed to serve out first time round this year:

Dubai R32 v Minar
Miami R32 v Zabaleta
Monte Carlo R32 v Montanes (but he had another break in hand)
Monte Carlo R16 v Gonzalez

That is too many, but I agree with others in this thread that once he has taken a break and recharged the batteries then he will not have these concentration lapses.

Just for you

JeNn
04-16-2005, 03:24 AM
That's about 1 in 9 of the matches he has won this year. It seems quite a bit for someone with the serve he has but I'm not sure if that's a paticularly bad record in relation to other dominant servers now or in the past, I'd like to see some stats though. What were Pete's stats in his peak years?

Loss of concentration has always been a wekaness of Roger's though, even last year he would lose concentration at the end of a set and it would be gone.


Even the greatest, have their vices. I still think he is the mentally toughest guy out there and if I wanted someone to close out a big match for me it would be him.

Dirk
04-16-2005, 03:34 AM
Beater he does have problems serving out sets and matches along with opening service games. I just hope Sjengster is right and that he needs to reacharge because I would hate for him to have to learn the hard way and endure another tough loss (Hewitt DC).

JeNn
04-16-2005, 03:35 AM
Beater he does have problems serving out sets and matches along with opening service games. I just hope Sjengster is right and that he needs to reacharge because I would hate for him to have to learn the hard way and endure another tough loss (Hewitt DC).

You can't compare Federer of '03 to Federer '04-'05. One was still regularly a nutcase, the other is a cool, calm and collected champion.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 03:39 AM
This nutcase won wimbledon that year

JeNn
04-16-2005, 03:43 AM
This nutcase won wimbledon that year

Yes, he also choked away matches against Nalbandian, Hewitt and Roddick, players that he has toyed with in the last two years.

Not the same player at all, from a mental perspective.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 03:48 AM
which match did he choke against nalby?...The roddick match wasnt exactly a choke. He wasnt serving for the match. His serve wasnt as good then as it is now.

There is no doubt federer has one of the best serves on tour, and has the best game around. He shouldnt be throwing games around when he is serving for the match

World Beater
04-16-2005, 03:50 AM
Federer is much more confident now, but i dont think he was a nutcase in 03

JeNn
04-16-2005, 04:00 AM
which match did he choke against nalby?...The roddick match wasnt exactly a choke. He wasnt serving for the match. His serve wasnt as good then as it is now.

There is no doubt federer has one of the best serves on tour, and has the best game around. He shouldnt be throwing games around when he is serving for the match

He had him on the ropes after the fourth set at the AO and then went away in the fifth.

I just don't think there is much comparison between Federer '03 and Federer of '04 and so far this year. Look at all his losses that year. When was the last time Federer really choked away a match? I can't remember. A lot of the times he gets into a winning position even when his opponent has mainly been the better player simply by his greater mental fortitude than his opponents (that was the case in both losses this year IMO).

His lapses of concentration are the only weakness in his game. I even flagged this after miami that I thought Federer had thown in a few loose endings to sets so far this year and that he will have to tighten up his concentration on clay, where he is not so infinitely superior to his rivals. But I don't think his closing out matches in itself is a huge problem, because their is an implication in that that he tightens up, which I don't think he does.

JeNn
04-16-2005, 04:01 AM
Federer is much more confident now, but i dont think he was a nutcase in 03

Regularly a nutcase was what I said, not all the time;)

As in he showed more than a few glimpses of the frailty of '01-'02.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:03 AM
it becomes a problem, when you lose the most important match of the year in a TB where you have a lead, and then you shank a backhand and then go between the legs..

He had many opportunities in the 5th set against safin. On most of them safin delievered, but federer helped his cause.

I dont dispute the difference in confidence level, but i do dispute "nutcase" as he wasnt one that year

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:06 AM
4 Slams and 2 TMC not too bad for a guy who can't close out matches.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:06 AM
regurlarly would mean most of the time. He had a good year, won the masters. For anyone else it would be terrific, but he is a nutcase becos he didnt win everything in sight that year?

What does that make Safin, a mental patient...or Gaudio. Moya, the guy who hardly shows up in GS these days. I would be afraid to see your assesment of nalbandian after his losses in many finals

Dirk
04-16-2005, 04:08 AM
Beater he still has won 5 titles and has an incredible record this year. Maybe after he recharges and relaxes his body and mind he will come roaring back. Still a qrt showing for his first clay event of the year is good.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:10 AM
4 Slams and 2 TMC not too bad for a guy who can't close out matches.


:) Possibly more slams and advancement in DC, if he had taken more care when serving for it.

But the good thing for federer, is that this hasnt happened in the most important matches when looking at his career as a whole. So it will not matter in the end, as long as he remains steady in slams

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:11 AM
Beater he still has won 5 titles and has an incredible record this year. Maybe after he recharges and relaxes his body and mind he will come roaring back. Still a qrt showing for his first clay event of the year is good.

Qrt showing is good :)

Did i ever dispute his record or his achievements? No

ca1houn
04-16-2005, 04:16 AM
Give Federer a break he has one 5 tournament this years and has allow his fan to bask in the glory, gave many of us bragging right. Like my friend said it could be worse you could be a Roddick fan

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:17 AM
:) Possibly more slams and advancement in DC, if he had taken more care when serving for it.

But the good thing for federer, is that this hasnt happened in the most important matches when looking at his career as a whole. So it will not matter in the end, as long as he remains steady in slams

Very simple he wasn't good enough on the day to beat Safin. Considering they had to win the 5th match in DC and I doubt Kratochvil would have done that and it wasn't him serving for the match in the doubles that cost them.

It really matters in the big events, that's one thing that can be agreed on.

As soon as Federer loses, does that mean overreaction is acceptable?

JeNn
04-16-2005, 04:18 AM
it becomes a problem, when you lose the most important match of the year in a TB where you have a lead, and then you shank a backhand and then go between the legs..

He had many opportunities in the 5th set against safin. On most of them safin delievered, but federer helped his cause.

I dont dispute the difference in confidence level, but i do dispute "nutcase" as he wasnt one that year

I disagree. He was brought undone by bad luck in that tiebreak when Safin played an incredible once in a life time lob at an inopportune moment. Federer wins that point, he wins the match.

Safin lost many opportunities in that match as well, and overall he was the better player IMO, not just because he won the match either.

JeNn
04-16-2005, 04:19 AM
What does that make Safin, a mental patient...

yes, i thought that was a commonly accepted fact :p

Federerhingis
04-16-2005, 04:20 AM
4 Slams and 2 TMC not too bad for a guy who can't close out matches.


Dont you think? What a paradox right? :rolleyes:

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:20 AM
Very simple he wasn't good enough on the day to beat Safin. Considering they had to win the 5th match in DC and I doubt Kratochvil would have done that and it wasn't him serving for the match in the doubles that cost them.

It really matters in the big events, that's one thing that can be agreed on.

As soon as Federer loses, does that mean overreaction is acceptable?

If federer serves for the match in the third set and then loses in five in a GS final...I dont believe it would be an over-reaction. He has had this trend which sjengster mentioned, and it has not been seen on the grandslam stage in the most important times(2nd week).

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:22 AM
Dont you think? What a paradox right? :rolleyes:

Yes, just a bit.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:22 AM
Very simple he wasn't good enough on the day to beat Safin. Considering they had to win the 5th match in DC and I doubt Kratochvil would have done that and it wasn't him serving for the match in the doubles that cost them.

It really matters in the big events, that's one thing that can be agreed on.

As soon as Federer loses, does that mean overreaction is acceptable?

Bastl would have probably played the match you speak of...He nearly beat him in DC(In Switzerland)

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:24 AM
I disagree. He was brought undone by bad luck in that tiebreak when Safin played an incredible once in a life time lob at an inopportune moment. Federer wins that point, he wins the match.

Safin lost many opportunities in that match as well, and overall he was the better player IMO, not just because he won the match either.

The Oaf is the OAF. Who knows what he would have done had federer made him to hit the extra shot. Federer gave him too much respect by giving up.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:24 AM
If federer serves for the match in the third set and then loses in five in a GS final...I dont believe it would be an over-reaction. He has had this trend which sjengster mentioned, and it has not been seen on the grandslam stage in the most important times(2nd week).

Has that happened actually? It hasn't happened yet and yes there is always overreaction from some people when Federer loses a match. He loses a match then he needs a coach.

If he had Nalbandian or Gaudio's record for serving out sets and matches then it would be worrying, but if it consistently happens on a big stage then that would be different.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:27 AM
Bastl would have probably played the match you speak of...He nearly beat him in DC(In Switzerland)

No would haves about it. The Swiss were up 2 sets to love in the doubles, if they didn't win the doubles, they weren't winning the tie.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:28 AM
Right, but if Federer loses his serve when serving for the match in matches at the masters-series level. It would be something to worry about in GS. Unless federer is the PR person that YS speaks of and truly treats the GS more seriously than the masters.

Federer has said that he treats every match and every tournament seriously

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:29 AM
No would haves about it. The Swiss were up 2 sets to love in the doubles, if they didn't win the doubles, they weren't winning the tie.

You have that much faith in FLIP :lol: :haha: :haha:

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:29 AM
Players want to win matches that isn't too hard to believe, but the Slams are the ones that truly count and that's the bottom line and especially for the elite players.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:30 AM
Federer has said he treats every match equally

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:30 AM
You have that much faith in FLIP :lol: :haha: :haha:

The guy has won the DC twice for his country, something Rafter never did.

What ifs, and buts count for nowt.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:31 AM
Federer has said he treats every match equally

5 Wimbledons or 5 titles in Dubai what would you prefer?

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:34 AM
Give Federer a break he has one 5 tournament this years and has allow his fan to bask in the glory, gave many of us bragging right. Like my friend said it could be worse you could be a Roddick fan

Boo-hoo. Andy has won one slam, been #1. All by the age of 22. Really sucks to cheer him on since he doesnt win any matches.

Being a gaudio fan would be torture. Guy has so much ability but seems to have mental obstacles. Much kudos to GWH for tolerating gaudio's episodes

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:36 AM
5 Wimbledons or 5 titles in Dubai what would you prefer?

That has nothing to do with federer's statement. Why does he play all the tournaments? This goes back to YS point of whether federer is playing too much.

There is no dispute that federer prefers the GS. But he apparently approaches his match with the same seriousness which could explaing why he plays the tournaments he does.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:39 AM
5 Wimbledons or 5 titles in Dubai what would you prefer?

I would prefer 5 dubais.

Get to stay in the best hotel for the longest time, and play on helipad. :cool: :silly:

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:42 AM
That has nothing to do with federer's statement. Why does he play all the tournaments? This goes back to YS point of whether federer is playing too much.

Ys, doesn't make many sensible posts though he is right about the Slams and his precedence.

Considering Federer loves the game and as for playing too much that depends, he has 2 weeks off now and that'll be good. The way you make it he is like Kafelnikov playing singles and doubles every week, he managed it well enough last year.

There is no dispute that federer prefers the GS. But he apparently approaches his match with the same seriousness which could explaing why he plays the tournaments he does.

Why else is he number 1 in the world then?

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:43 AM
The guy has won the DC twice for his country, something Rafter never did.

What ifs, and buts count for nowt.

Flip needed 5 to beat JCF on grass!!! JCF is good , but lets not talk abt his record at wimby. I dont remember the other win.

Rafter never did a lot of things.? :scratch:

Bastl could have given him a handful on hard considering that he almost beat him indoors.

As you say, no ifs and no buts. FLip is no lock either. Doesnt help your cause

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:44 AM
Ys, doesn't make many sensible posts though he is right about the Slams and his precedence.

Considering Federer loves the game and as for playing too much that depends, he has 2 weeks off now and that'll be good. The way you make it he is like Kafelnikov playing singles and doubles every week, he managed it well enough last year.



Why else is he number 1 in the world then?

Because he peaks himself for the GS, which is why he allows himself lapses in the smaller events.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:45 AM
Flip needed 5 to beat JCF on grass!!! JCF is good , but lets not talk abt his record at wimby. I dont remember the other win.

Rafter never did a lot of things.? :scratch:

Bastl could have given him a handful on hard considering that he almost beat him indoors.

As you say, no ifs and no buts. FLip is no lock either. Doesnt help your cause

Clutching at straws I see , sadly Bastl and Kratochvil have both come very close in 5th matches and have for the vast majority of time not come through, Kratochvil did it against Verkerk, but has lost the majority.

1999 in Nice on clay if it wasn't for the Poo the Aussies wouldn't have won that Davis Cup final.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:46 AM
Because he peaks himself for the GS, which is why he allows himself lapses in the smaller events.

Isn't it you that is alarmed about his match closing abilities?

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:49 AM
Yes, it is me who is worried but his record in GS would suggest otherwise. Federer has expressed his worry for this trend. Go read his interview if you want. I am merely reiterating it.

Federer got injured, you do remember, dont you?

Fortunately he was not out long...He did say it was attributable to his long season

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:53 AM
Clutching at straws I see , sadly Bastl and Kratochvil have both come very close in 5th matches and have for the vast majority of time not come through, Kratochvil did it against Verkerk, but has lost the majority.

1999 in Nice on clay if it wasn't for the Poo the Aussies wouldn't have won that Davis Cup final.

Bastl did beat sampras. It is easy to choke away matches when you are faced with the prospect of the biggest win. I dont remember kratochvil coming through any match of that magnitude. Sampras is a mental giant, you need more than just game, or pete being "off" to beat him at his house

This would suggest that in a five-set match where the score is close, bastl would have a chance.

FLip was the fave, but it still is in the air....60-40 chance for flip

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:53 AM
Yes, it is me who is worried but his record in GS would suggest otherwise. Federer has expressed his worry for this trend. Go read his interview if you want. I am merely reiterating it.

Federer got injured, you do remember, dont you?

Fortunately he was not out long...He did say it was attributable to his long season

So he is not perfect that isn't a revelation, though to some on this board it might be.

Players get injured that isn't anything new either and what particular injury are you refering to? He can control his schedule and he knows what events he has to peak for, it's up to him to work that out.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:56 AM
i believe it was the thigh that forced him out of paris.

He tore a muscle i think. Players get injured, but federer's season is long. Its not the # of tournaments he plays, but because he wins so much, he plays a ton.

That is why there is a question of his schedule

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:58 AM
Bastl did beat sampras. It is easy to choke away matches when you are faced with the prospect of the biggest win. I dont remember kratochvil coming through any match of that magnitude.

Why are you still on with this line? For a guy who doesn't care about what ifs I am surprised.

This would suggest that in a five-set match where the score is close, bastl would have a chance.

FLip was the fave, but it still is in the air....60-40 chance for flip

I was at this particular DC tie and Kratochvil was playing a lot better than Bastl and I am sorry winning the DC away from home on your worst surface and getting outplayed by a brilliant player on Day 1 against someone who has consistently failed to win live 5th rubbers, well you can believe what you want.

It's irrelevant and 60-40 is not up in the air.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 04:58 AM
So he is not perfect that isn't a revelation, though to some on this board it might be.

Players get injured that isn't anything new either and what particular injury are you refering to? He can control his schedule and he knows what events he has to peak for, it's up to him to work that out.

It is far from perfect, even below average. Find a player who has a serve of the caliber of federer and still throws away leads when serves for it

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 04:59 AM
i believe it was the thigh that forced him out of paris.


He strained it in Basel and didn't tear it.

Players get injured, but federer's season is long. Its not the # of tournaments he plays, but because he wins so much, he plays a ton.

That is why there is a question of his schedule

Roddick, Coria and Hewitt have got injured as well recently, it happens.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:03 AM
Coria gets injured too often... his schedule is irrelavant. Cramps arent an injury remember. you said this!

Roddick is not like federer. He really doesnt care abt the smaller events. If he broke his nail, he would retire because it might jeapordize his chances at a GS.

Hewitt plays the type of game, where the body takes much punishment, more than other players. He is likely to get injured more often, just because of the strain he puts through it

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:07 AM
Why are you still on with this line? For a guy who doesn't care about what ifs I am surprised.



I was at this particular DC tie and Kratochvil was playing a lot better than Bastl and I am sorry winning the DC away from home on your worst surface and getting outplayed by a brilliant player on Day 1 against someone who has consistently failed to win live 5th rubbers, well you can believe what you want.

It's irrelevant and 60-40 is not up in the air.

You stated that Michel and George have played tough ones, but sadly didnt come through. I gave one example for bastl, that is all...didnt michel play the first rubber, arent we talking about bastl?

But yes, this is in the past, and i dont really care.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 05:07 AM
Coria gets injured too often... his schedule is irrelavant. Cramps arent an injury remember. you said this!

Yes, playing 3 claycourt events in a row winning them and he flying from Poland to Canada to play a TMS event, that is irrelevant yes I forgot about that. Any respected doctor will tell you cramp isn't an injury.

Roddick is not like federer. He really doesnt care abt the smaller events. If he broke his nail, he would retire because it might jeapordize his chances at a GS.

Yes, he plays Houston and doesn't care about small events. :)

Hewitt plays the type of game, where the body takes much punishment, more than other players. He is likely to get injured more often, just because of the strain he puts through it

There are forms of training that can help that, but they all still get injured as do many of the players, it's a fact of life on the tour.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:12 AM
Yes, playing 3 claycourt events in a row winning them and he flying from Poland to Canada to play a TMS event, that is irrelevant yes I forgot about that. Any respected doctor will tell you cramp isn't an injury.



Yes, he plays Houston and doesn't care about small events. :)



There are forms of training that can help that, but they all still get injured as do many of the players, it's a fact of life on the tour.

Coria has retired in too many matches. You gave one example where he had his schedule was the possible culprit. But you know well that there were other matches where he has to retire due to injury, and it was not due to his schedule.

Has he ever broken a nail at houston, or st.polten? I am sure Mattress mack is doing his best to prevent this. But if he does, he will not play on.

Why else did he play that exhibition with mardy, his injury was made to be more serious than it actually was and played an event he cared about

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:15 AM
Yes, playing 3 claycourt events in a row winning them and he flying from Poland to Canada to play a TMS event, that is irrelevant yes I forgot about that. Any respected doctor will tell you cramp isn't an injury.



Yes, he plays Houston and doesn't care about small events. :)



There are forms of training that can help that, but they all still get injured as do many of the players, it's a fact of life on the tour.

Hewitt plays less it seems than federer

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 05:20 AM
Coria has retired in too many matches. You gave one example where he had his schedule was the possible culprit. But you know well that there were other matches where he has to retire due to injury, and it was not due to his schedule.


Well kidney stones are good enough reason to retire from matches, considering that is known that Weasel King needs to increase his strength without losing his speed, that is obvious and this year he has been better with it.

You still miss the point the schedule is something they can control.

Has he ever broken a nail at houston, or st.polten? I am sure Mattress mack is doing his best to prevent this. But if he does, he will not play on.

Why else did he play that exhibition with mardy, his injury was made to be more serious than it actually was and played an event he cared about

He doesn't have a habit of retiring from matches like say Golmard, Gasquet, Dent for example, well lets say he likes playing and winning in North America, that's another issue.

Considering Hewitt will be out for 2 months it would make sense that he would play less than Federer this year.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:25 AM
Well kidney stones are good enough reason to retire from matches, considering that is known that Weasel King needs to increase his strength without losing his speed, that is obvious and this year he has been better with it.

You still miss the point the schedule is something they can control.



He doesn't have a habit of retiring from matches like say Golmard, Gasquet, Dent for example, well lets say he likes playing and winning in North America, that's another issue.

Considering Hewitt will be out for 2 months it would make sense that he would play less than Federer this year.


He played less than fed last yr too...Coria can control his schedule so that he doesnt get injured as often but still plays the big ones

Dirk
04-16-2005, 05:28 AM
Guys Roger lost one match, please get over it. You are thinking about this much more than he is. No need for all of this.

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 05:30 AM
Guys Roger lost one match, please get over it. You are thinking about this much more than he is. No need for all of this.

Dirk, it's not me. It's Worldbeater that is being alarmist. I have done nothing of the sort considering I am always bagging posters who think Roger should get a coach after he loses a match.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:30 AM
You need to read the thread. i believe we are officially off-topic

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 05:32 AM
He played less than fed last yr too...Coria can control his schedule so that he doesnt get injured as often but still plays the big ones

Are you that bored or something? Shoulder surgeries can do that to players. Actually that is an issue of off-court training for the weasel that is more important.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:34 AM
Dirk, it's not me. It's Worldbeater that is being alarmist. I have done nothing of the sort considering I am always bagging posters who think Roger should get a coach after he loses a match.

Yes, i have a tendency to bag posters to make presumptuous speculations of what this thread is about or what my point is, without reading it.

Yes, officer GWH, you have done a great job puting posters in their place. Even Mr. Perfect Federer would be jealous at your excellence ;)

Dirk
04-16-2005, 05:34 AM
GWH you are trying to reason with Beater but not even you can reach him. Beater he lost and if this trend of flakiness continues on his service games then you will have a point. Just give the guy a break. No legend dominates perfectly.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 05:35 AM
Seems like i am not alone in that regard

Action Jackson
04-16-2005, 05:38 AM
Yes, i have a tendency to bag posters to make presumptuous speculations of what this thread is about or what my point is, without reading it.

Yes, officer GWH, you have done a great job puting posters in their place. Even Mr. Perfect Federer would be jealous at your excellence ;)

You say he has a problem with closing out matches that is clear. What is not clear about that?

Sjengster gave some examples as to the matches he has failed to serve it out. If this became a problem in the most important matches consistently then there wouldn't be a problem agreeing with it, but he hasn't.

Dirk
04-16-2005, 05:40 AM
Also about him scheduling too many events in his year. I was worried about this too but Roger does listen to his body and if it gives him the red light he pulls out. He season will get lighter as the year goes on.

World Beater
04-16-2005, 06:04 AM
You say he has a problem with closing out matches that is clear. What is not clear about that?

Sjengster gave some examples as to the matches he has failed to serve it out. If this became a problem in the most important matches consistently then there wouldn't be a problem agreeing with it, but he hasn't.

You are among the minority who understood the point. If you read the thread, you would see countless posters bash me because they read the thread title, and not the thread.

You call me an alarmist, when all i have done is raise a point, and have you people descend on me like a pack of locusts.

Really, who is the alarmist there?

"Oh mi gosh, another poster posting a federer thread, federer is human and dont u dare question his game", because of this i obviously am overreacting according to majority :o

World Beater
04-16-2005, 06:05 AM
Also about him scheduling too many events in his year. I was worried about this too but Roger does listen to his body and if it gives him the red light he pulls out. He season will get lighter as the year goes on.

Yes i hope u realize we are talking abt more than one match. Many of your posts seem to imply that we are concerned only about this match.