US Open QF : Federer def Blake 7-6(7) 6-0 6-7(9) 6-4 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

US Open QF : Federer def Blake 7-6(7) 6-0 6-7(9) 6-4

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 03:27 AM
Wow what a match :rocker2:

Incredible effort from Blake to make it a contest. Totally blew that first set and looked dead, how he came back from 5-3 in the 3rd to win it on the tie break I'll never know. What a tie break that was, quite incredible stuff.

4th set, another awesome effort from Blake, down 5-1 30-0 and he comes back to 5-4 and has break point but shanks a backhand.

The match was full of 'ifs' and 'buts' for Blake :sad:

- What if he'd won the first set?
- What if he'd broken when he had 0-40 at 1-0 up in the 4th?
- What if he'd had landed the backhand and levelled at 5-5 in the 4th?

Federer looked totally rattled at times and will be hugely relieved to come through. His forehand looked shaky under pressure like it did in Rome. Hopefully we can get Roddick v Federer in the final now and give Federer some more of that crowd treatment :devil:

Flibbertigibbet
09-08-2006, 03:28 AM
choketastic match! :p

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2006, 03:28 AM
That's the entire goal for Blake.

Make it look competitive so everyone can praise you.

Once again, let's see him beat a top tier player prime time in a slam.

Action Jackson
09-08-2006, 03:28 AM
Major upset here.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:28 AM
The only word I need to say is

FINALLY

a 90 minute match squeezed into nearly 2.5 hours, just for fun of it.

Roger - DON'T DO THAT AGAIN.

Dirk
09-08-2006, 03:29 AM
What if Roger never let Blake back into that first set or blew his lead in the breaker? You are right Adam, the match is full of what ifs but I see all of them not just Blake's missed chances.

Rafa = Fed Killa
09-08-2006, 03:29 AM
Good work James, you surpassed my expectations.

Wish he had gotten the break to tie it at 5-5 in the 4th. Please stop brainfarting in the future.

Took a set so you deserve props :D

selesfan
09-08-2006, 03:30 AM
Congrats Roger :bounce: Nice match James. :worship:

federated
09-08-2006, 03:30 AM
choketastic match! :p

:lol:

hasanahmad
09-08-2006, 03:30 AM
Why roger why do u torture us!!! why do you always choke!!! BAD match federer, very bad. but Ill give u a cookie for that bagel

tangerine_dream
09-08-2006, 03:31 AM
Horrible match. Nothing but a battle of the chokers. :o

rofe
09-08-2006, 03:31 AM
What a choke job from both players. Federer sucked less today.

Thanks J-Block.

Jimnik
09-08-2006, 03:31 AM
This match demonstrates why Blake can never be a champion. He has absolutely no belief on the big points. Federer was clearly choking towards the end of the 1st and 4th sets but Blake couldn't capitalise. He missed so many easy returns on BPs and SPs.

Fedever
09-08-2006, 03:31 AM
What a match!! I was on the edge of my seat in the 1st, 3rd and 4th sets!!!
Federer RULES!!!!

GO ALL THE WAY ROGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D

Regenbogen
09-08-2006, 03:31 AM
The only word I need to say is

FINALLY

a 90 minute match squeezed into nearly 2.5 hours, just for fun of it.

Roger - DON'T DO THAT AGAIN.
Agreed. I was freaking out for awhile there. Thank god he won.

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 03:32 AM
Seen the best and worst of Federer in this match...
im getting fed up with him serving for sets, its getting :o to watch how nervous he is getting.
he'll be scitzo in 3 years time.

so after Fed's blows came Blakey's... had 6-4 in both TB's.
dont get in these positions v Roddick in the final Roger, he wont blow like you and Blake...
that is if you can drag yourself past Koyla.

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 03:32 AM
What if Roger never let Blake back into that first set or blew his lead in the breaker? You are right Adam, the match is full of what ifs but I see all of them not just Blake's missed chances.
Roger won, so his aren't really important....but yeah, he should've swept through that in 3 sets.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:32 AM
So, okay, after being quite happy for the crowd to do their best to put Federer off while serving and basically do whatever they could do improve James's score, James then apologises for them to Roger at the net?

He didn't seem that sorry 15 minutes ago is all I'm saying.

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 03:33 AM
Federer = the new Murray at serving sets/matches out :p

Dirk
09-08-2006, 03:33 AM
This match demonstrates why Blake can never be a champion. He has absolutely no belief on the big points. Federer was clearly choking towards the end of the 1st and 4th sets but Blake couldn't capitalise. He missed so many easy returns on BPs and SPs.

Roger's 2nd serves have lots of spin on them which makes them hard to control. James returned very well but Roger's 2nd serves were all sitters for him. Roger will step it up now with his nerves and be even more vicious.

ugotlobbed
09-08-2006, 03:33 AM
this should've been the finals, they shouldve put blake wiht nadal

nobama
09-08-2006, 03:33 AM
Thanks for being a mental retard tonight Roger. :retard: I'm glad you won but I really wanted to smack you upside the head several times tonight. :smash:

Dirk
09-08-2006, 03:33 AM
Roger won, so his aren't really important....but yeah, he should've swept through that in 3 sets.

GOOD BOY. :)

Polikarpov
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Alright! :D
Was it a great match?
Can't see the match because I'm in school right now. I'll just watch the replay in the afternoon.
Did Federer play well?

rofe
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
I haven't see Fed so rattled in front of the crowd. Get it together for the next two matches Fed!

shotgun
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Blake lost the match in the 1st set tie-break, when he missed that forehand with an open court in front of him. From then on, it was just a matter of time.

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
So why has fed turned into Mathieu in this last year with this serving for the sets stuff?
unreal :o

ugotlobbed
09-08-2006, 03:35 AM
u know thats what i love about nadal, when he wins a point he fistpumps into the crowd and it kinda scares em

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 03:35 AM
Alright! :D
Was it a great match?
Can't see the match because I'm in school right now. I'll just watch the replay in the afternoon.
Did Federer play well?
It was incredibly exciting, and both players showed flashes of brilliance.

Regenbogen
09-08-2006, 03:36 AM
So why has fed turned into Mathieu in this last year with this serving for the sets stuff?
unreal :o
I don't get it, he's gotten kind of bad at it recently :o At least he's still winning most of the time.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:37 AM
Both showed flashes of brilliance and of utter crap. Very uneven match.

Jimnik
09-08-2006, 03:37 AM
This match is proof that the New York croud can have a big effect on the outcome of matches. Every time Federer made a mistake, the croud reacted. It made him more nervous than ever before.

tangerine_dream
09-08-2006, 03:38 AM
This match is proof that the New York croud can have a big effect on the outcome of matches. Every time Federer made a mistake, the croud reacted. It made him more nervous than ever before.
This crowd was nothing compared to the one Roger faced in last year's final. He's a big boy, he can handle them.

Kip
09-08-2006, 03:39 AM
Great match!

Started well and ended much
more dramatically than I'd
have ever expect! :cool:

For Roger, he was really pushed today and i think that's
a great thing as it'll make him even more focused as he
continues. Granted, Blake stepped up his game but I
haven't seen anyone but Nadal before make him that
nervous in trying to close out a match and doing what
could've been his most MAJOR choke job and
most devastating ever!

Overall i thought he played well, not his best
but well. And again, I think it's only gonna make
him that much more focused.

For James, great 1st, 3rd, & 4th sets!
I imagined he'd have made it even better if he
didn't get so down and pissy at himself in that 2nd set.

I was happy to finally see that damn fight in him during a
BIGTIME Slam match against the likes of Federer. Despite
his epic with Agassi, Federer is a step or two up.

I was happy and annoyed with his post-match interview
court when he mentioned his fight and the crowd. Happy that
he felt the crowd lifting him prompting him to lift himself. Annoyed
because he depends too much on them. Had this not been the Open
and he not been American I think he would've lost in three with that
set being like the 5th set of Wimbledon this year against Max.

James needs to find that fight and motivation within himself
all by himself if he is ever gonna win a Slam or have the
opportunity to so long as you have the top players laround.

Anyways, entertaining match!

Congrats Roger! :cool:
Good fight James! :)

KaxMisha
09-08-2006, 03:39 AM
This might be one of the worst choke jobs I have ever whitnessed - and yes, I know Federer won the match.

Looking at the statistics, Federer totally dominated Blake. Looking at the overall gameplay, Federer totally dominated Blake. Looking at the important points, Federer was totally dominated by himself. I mean, what the heck?

Federer wasn't close to dropping serve any time in this match, unless he was serving for a set (I know he was down 0-40 in another game, but Blake never came close to breaking in that game anyway - he didn't even get the ball into play on the break points, I think). What's up with that. Usually, one expects Federer to perform his best in key moments like these, not his worst. In the third set, Federer was killing Blake basically as bad as in the second and only the odd point here and there kept the scoreline fairly tight (I mean, with a little luck, like - for example - breaking, when he had 0-40 the first time, which was by no means unrealistic, since he had opportunities, he could easily have been up like 5-1 in that set). Before Federer dropped his serve when serving for the match at 5-3, he had held to love in two service games in a row. After conceding that game, he again held to love in his next service game again. This match made it very clear that Blake doesn't have anything that could consistently trouble Federer, but it also showed that Federer is no longer as mentally tough as he used to be. Since losing to Nalbandian in the Masters Cup final last year, Federer has not been the same on the important points.

Kip
09-08-2006, 03:40 AM
This crowd was nothing compared to the one Roger faced in last year's final. He's a big boy, he can handle them.
Totally agree, Which is part of the
reason Roger is who he is.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:41 AM
Well he did handle them - in the end.

it became much harder than it should have been, though.

mickymouse
09-08-2006, 03:42 AM
I would have given credit to Blake under other circumstances but not tonight when I feel Federer was pushed by the crowd to 4 sets and not by him.

CmonAussie
09-08-2006, 03:43 AM
This match is proof that the New York croud can have a big effect on the outcome of matches. Every time Federer made a mistake, the croud reacted. It made him more nervous than ever before.
:wavey:
Yeah it`s also proof of why the US Open is the worst Slam :o !!!
Seriously the crowd there have to contain some of the most disrespectful fans at any major event :eek: ...You`d never see anything like that crap at Wimbledon or AO :worship: ... The FO can be a bit dodgy but atleast the French know when a big match is on the line to rein in their enthusiasm & let the winner take it fairly :cool: .

They should ban drinking at Flushing Meadows :devil: . Clearly New Yorkers can`t hold their beer :p

rofe
09-08-2006, 03:43 AM
I would have given credit to Blake under other circumstances but not tonight when I feel Federer was pushed by the crowd to 4 sets and not by him.

Well both of them choked so no one can say that Blake choked this match away.

Allez
09-08-2006, 03:44 AM
Rogi seems to have problems closing out matches lately. I have no idea wshy :shrug:

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:45 AM
It turned into a one-upmanship out-choking contest at the end.

Thank God Blake decided to play the grand slam in spades on chokes and let Roger get the last point.

victory1
09-08-2006, 03:45 AM
Now, I'm glad Roger played Blake because if he reach the final with Roddick, this match gave him a taste of wshat to expect. So in a way, it was great how rude and obnoxious the croud was because it will worse if Fed is facing Roddick on Sunday!!!

selesfan
09-08-2006, 03:46 AM
:wavey:
Yeah it`s also proof of why the US Open is the worst Slam :o !!!
Seriously the crowd there have to contain some of the most disrespectful fans at any major event :eek: ...You`d never see anything like that crap at Wimbledon or AO :worship: ... The FO can be a bit dodgy but atleast the French know when a big match is on the line to rein in their enthusiasm & let the winner take it fairly :cool: .

They should ban drinking at Flushing Meadows :devil: . Clearly New Yorkers can`t hold their beer :p

They are usually pretty good during day matches (except when Andre plays). The night crowd are all boozed up and they are a lot rowdier.

mishagirl
09-08-2006, 03:47 AM
great match by both men. i wish James hadnt fallen asleep during the 2nd set. its all good though, he put up a good fight and ended up playing very well. cant be disappointed.

selesfan
09-08-2006, 03:47 AM
Rogi seems to have problems closing out matches lately. I have no idea wshy :shrug:

He seems kind of out of it this summer hard court season. He better amp it up if he wants to threepeat

hasanahmad
09-08-2006, 03:48 AM
Rogi seems to have problems closing out matches lately. I have no idea wshy :shrug:

he knows he is one of the greatest ever tennis players, he wants to close it easily, he should learn to relax

rofe
09-08-2006, 03:49 AM
Now, I'm glad Roger played Blake because if he reach the final with Roddick, this match gave him a taste of wshat to expect. So in a way, it was great how rude and obnoxious the croud was because it will worse if Fed is facing Roddick on Sunday!!!

Yes, that is true. He will hopefully be better prepared.

hasanahmad
09-08-2006, 03:50 AM
All in All im glad Roger got a workout after some easy ass matches! this should pump him up

CmonAussie
09-08-2006, 03:51 AM
They are usually pretty good during day matches (except when Andre plays). The night crowd are all boozed up and they are a lot rowdier.
:wavey:
The night crowd at AO is also usually pretty colourful ;) ..When Aussies drink they get more into the match~ but we still know how to respect foreign players & simply appreciate the tennis :cool: . New Yorkers seem to have a much stronger disdain for a non-native taking the glory :sad:

nobama
09-08-2006, 03:53 AM
Now, I'm glad Roger played Blake because if he reach the final with Roddick, this match gave him a taste of wshat to expect. So in a way, it was great how rude and obnoxious the croud was because it will worse if Fed is facing Roddick on Sunday!!!Roddick doesn't have the JBlock though. And day crowds aren't nearly as bad as night crowds. Anyway Roger's dealt with these kind of crowds before. No excuse for being a mental midget.

selesfan
09-08-2006, 03:55 AM
:wavey:
The night crowd at AO is also usually pretty colourful ;) ..When Aussies drink they get more into the match~ but we still know how to respect foreign players & simply appreciate the tennis :cool: . New Yorkers seem to have a much stronger disdain for a non-native taking the glory :sad:

:wavey: I'm not sure about that, during women's matches the New Yorkers usually root for the better looking player over the American, ex Pierce over Davenport, I went to that matches a couple of years ago and you would have never guessed that linday was American. They do seem to root a lot for the American men though, especially Andre, Blake and Roddick/

I am the opposite, I like a lot of the American women but don't usually root for the men at least not the top men except for Blake (not against Roger though).

Jimnik
09-08-2006, 03:55 AM
This crowd was nothing compared to the one Roger faced in last year's final. He's a big boy, he can handle them.
I don't think so. Did you hear the scream after Federer double faulted in that last game? They weren't nearly that loud in last year's final.

helen phillips
09-08-2006, 03:55 AM
Federer has always had shaky moments - he's human after all. Considering the two dominating sets he played against Hewitt two years ago what happened in the middle? He has shaky moments but they usually happen when he is ahead so it isn't the end of the world. Should he play the final it isn't as if Roddick is playing out of his mind. I have seen a few of his matches and he is playing the same way he did a couple years ago when he was peaking. He still stands too far back, has a mediocre transition game and a passable backhand. Federer doesn't have to play out of his mind to overcome Andy. Youzny if he could handle the circumstances is probably the more dangerous opponent should Federer get past Davydenko.

selesfan
09-08-2006, 03:56 AM
Roddick doesn't have the JBlock though. And day crowds aren't nearly as bad as night crowds. Anyway Roger's dealt with these kind of crowds before. No excuse for being a mental midget.

Roger and Andy need to make the final first, its not a done deal. We might have an all Russian final

rofe
09-08-2006, 03:57 AM
I don't think so. Did you hear the scream after Federer double faulted in that last game? They weren't nearly that loud in last year's final.

I agree - the crowd was more rowdy but Fed should have called upon his experience to be more composed.

onewoman74
09-08-2006, 04:04 AM
Rogi seems to have problems closing out matches lately. I have no idea wshy :shrug:'

Someone needs to call Fed on closing out matches this year...it's getting ridiculous. He was fucking nervous and I don't know why. The Agassi final was much worse...the crowd only cared about Agassi, so why would he be affected by this year's crowd?

Something is amiss in Fed's game when it comes to closing out big matches recently...AND IT NEEDS TO STOP!!! :mad:

nobama
09-08-2006, 04:06 AM
I think this pic says it all. :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/alettey/tennis/sticktongueusopen06.jpg

bellascarlett
09-08-2006, 04:06 AM
Federer how could you choke so many times? :rolleyes:

Could have been an easier shorter match. That third set Blake took was kind of like a fluke even. Roger really eased up so many times. I dunno if it was the crowd getting to him or him just wanting to make it more competitive for the crowd.

onewoman74
09-08-2006, 04:07 AM
EXACTLY!!!!

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:07 AM
I think this pic says it all. :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/alettey/tennis/sticktongueusopen06.jpg

:haha:

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 04:09 AM
Roddick doesn't have the JBlock though. And day crowds aren't nearly as bad as night crowds. Anyway Roger's dealt with these kind of crowds before. No excuse for being a mental midget.exactly, these meltdowns have eben happening all over the place, all year.

that pic is roger :p to the J-Block ??
:lol:

World Beater
09-08-2006, 04:10 AM
Horrible match. Nothing but a battle of the chokers. :o

oh cmon...this was way more entertaining than roddick's match.

you have to give credit to blake, he kept fighting. nobody can go fh to fh with as much success as blake did today. He really played well except the second set, where he had a bit of a letdown...yeah he missed that crucial backhand, on bp in the fourth, but it was more due to serve.

The good news for fed is that nobody will be able to really push him around the baseline like blake, the bad, is that headcase fed looks to be back and worse than ever.

~*BGT*~
09-08-2006, 04:10 AM
:eek: Whoa! Fed was playing out of his mind in some parts of the match. Scary good. :eek:

yanchr
09-08-2006, 04:11 AM
:haha: at the pic. Cute Roger :hearts:

I think the crowd today was worse than last year's final...much worse

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:12 AM
:eek: Whoa! Fed was playing out of his mind in some parts of the match. Scary good. :eek:


He was awesome in the second set, nothing much James could do. He was hitting winners all over the place. I hope he can do that more often in the next 2 matches

Clara Bow
09-08-2006, 04:13 AM
:lol: at that picture Mirkaland. He did seem to be a bit relieved at the end.

Federer has been showing nerves a bit more this year than last. But I do think it was good for him to get a shaky match out of the way, and, as others have said- it was probably good for him to have a test drive in the rowdy crowd car.

I was glad for James that he did not slink away after that second set. I was expecting for the third set to be a beat down, but I am glad he stayed and fought. Taking his first set ever against Federer may be good for his confidence and choking problem with all players.

R.Federer
09-08-2006, 04:13 AM
First two sets were so good, quality sucked thereafter. All credit to James for not folding it in after suffering the dreaded bagel.

Roger, God knows what that was, choke, lack of focus, whatever, tune it up man! Great effort anyway (the conclusion was never in doubt anyhow :p )

rofe
09-08-2006, 04:14 AM
The funny thing is that when he was given balls to hit to the crowd, he was getting ready to hit a ball, saw that he would have hit the ball to the J-Block, moved his index finger from side to side to say no while smiling and then hit it to the J-block. :D

~*BGT*~
09-08-2006, 04:14 AM
He was awesome in the second set, nothing much James could do. He was hitting winners all over the place. I hope he can do that more often in the next 2 matches


How about this: I didn't even see the second set. I'm talking about when he held for 6-5 in the third set. :eek: :worship:

Clara Bow
09-08-2006, 04:15 AM
As an aside, I think Mirka is pretty no matter what her weight, but tonight she looked to me like maybe she has lost a few pounds.

nobama
09-08-2006, 04:15 AM
:haha: at the pic. Cute Roger :hearts:

I think the crowd today was worse than last year's final...much worseWas it? I had my mute button on most of the time since I can't stand JMac and he never shuts up. :lol:

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:16 AM
How about this: I didn't even see the second set. I'm talking about when he held for 6-5 in the third set. :eek: :worship:

I was trying to forget the 3rd set ;)

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:17 AM
Was it? I had my mute button on most of the time since I can't stand JMac and he never shuts up. :lol:

You know he is not usually that bad but tonight he was really annoying. I think he wanted Roger to lose so badly.

nobama
09-08-2006, 04:18 AM
As an aside, I think Mirka is pretty no matter what her weight, but tonight she looked to me like maybe she has lost a few pounds.I think maybe she has. She looks thinner in this photo.

http://home.mindspring.com/~jsnash/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/federer1720.jpg

mickymouse
09-08-2006, 04:18 AM
You know he is not usually that bad but tonight he was really annoying. I think he wanted Roger to lose so badly.

Imagine his orgasm if two American players get to the final.

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:19 AM
I think maybe she has. She looks thinner in this photo.

http://home.mindspring.com/~jsnash/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/federer1720.jpg

What a cute couple :)

Kip
09-08-2006, 04:20 AM
I think this pic says it all. :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/alettey/tennis/sticktongueusopen06.jpg
:lol:

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:20 AM
Imagine his orgasm if two American players get to the final.


Thats what he was hoping for. I hope Youzney takes care of Roddick tomorrow. ;)

jwoodrx
09-08-2006, 04:21 AM
I hope everyone who thinks Fed's matches are boring enjoyed this one. :D

trequartista
09-08-2006, 04:23 AM
The funny thing is that when he was given balls to hit to the crowd, he was getting ready to hit a ball, saw that he would have hit the ball to the J-Block, moved his index finger from side to side to say no while smiling and then hit it to the J-block. :Dhahaha cute, I didn't see that part. :)

onewoman74
09-08-2006, 04:24 AM
What a cute couple :)


I saw Mirka yesterday after Fed's match leaving Armstrong...I said "Hi and wished her luck for the next match." She looked very classy...I guess that's what happens when you have money! ;)

sawan66278
09-08-2006, 04:24 AM
After watching the match, a few observations:

1. While Roger is, in my mind, the more talented player-ability wise, I would still rank him CLEARLY behind Sampras. Sampras, in similar circumstances, never choked like Roger choked tonight...or how Roger choked to Safin and Nabaldian or Nadal this year...he couldn't even close out Nadal the first time he served for the match at Wimbledon...Sampras would have closed out the match in an easy three sets if he had the leads Roger had...Champions are not based solely on skill...but on intangibles like guts and heart..

2. A disturbing stat was shown about Roger as well...he is only 9-10 in five set matches...a losing record in five set matches...again another point which takes away from his rankings in my all time list...

3. I kept thinking, what if he were playing against Connors back in the day...Connors would have almost certainly have come back...and he and the rowdy, rude crowd would have won..

4. If Roddick makes it to the finals...Roger could be in big trouble...the crowd will be behind Roddick even more...and he will use them to his advantage...pumping his fists, waiving his arms...whatever it takes to turn them against Roger...If he serves like he did against Hewitt...while it may seem insane...he could (though probably won't) even lose in staight sets...

5. Blake played one of the dumbest matches in recent memory...trying to go through Roger time and time again...why not chip the backhand back on breakpoint at 5-4 in the fourth...make Roger beat you...not the other way around...

6. Still, a very entertaining match...but I really feel this may give hope to Roger's opponents down the line...if you fight, you may still have a chance because Roger may choke at critical moments....

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 04:26 AM
1. While Roger is, in my mind, the more talented player-ability wise, I would still rank him CLEARLY behind Sampras. Sampras, in similar circumstances, never choked like Roger choked tonight...or how Roger choked to Safin and Nabaldian or Nadal this year...he couldn't even close out Nadal the first time he served for the match at Wimbledon...Sampras would have closed out the match in an easy three sets if he had the leads Roger had...Champions are not based solely on skill...but on intangibles like guts and heart..

:lol:

Tommy_Vercetti
09-08-2006, 04:27 AM
Yeah, if only all the players could buy some tickets and pay for a group of tards to come and scream and act like morons at their matches.

Then again, he apologized to Federer after the match for the behavior, being the nice, classy, smart, friendly and completely genuine person that he is.

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 04:28 AM
I think maybe she has. She looks thinner in this photo.

http://home.mindspring.com/~jsnash/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/federer1720.jpgFed is thinking "Mirka, cant you hold this umbrella and do something for once! :("
of course he'd never tell her that :lol:

rofe
09-08-2006, 04:29 AM
After watching the match, a few observations:

1. While Roger is, in my mind, the more talented player-ability wise, I would still rank him CLEARLY behind Sampras. Sampras, in similar circumstances, never choked like Roger choked tonight...or how Roger choked to Safin and Nabaldian or Nadal this year...he couldn't even close out Nadal the first time he served for the match at Wimbledon...Sampras would have closed out the match in an easy three sets if he had the leads Roger had...Champions are not based solely on skill...but on intangibles like guts and heart..


Yeah Sampras would not choke, he would lose. Have you looked at his win-loss record on a yearly basis?

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 04:31 AM
1. While Roger is, in my mind, the more talented player-ability wise, I would still rank him CLEARLY behind Sampras. Sampras, in similar circumstances, never choked like Roger choked tonight...or how Roger choked to Safin and Nabaldian or Nadal this year...he couldn't even close out Nadal the first time he served for the match at Wimbledon...Sampras would have closed out the match in an easy three sets if he had the leads Roger had...Champions are not based solely on skill...but on intangibles like guts and heart..Its only a recent thing... he was solid like sampy for a few years in 03-04.
just a blip this year
i hope.

selesfan
09-08-2006, 04:31 AM
Fed is thinking "Mirka, cant you hold this umbrella and do something for once! :("
of course he'd never tell her that :lol:

Of course he wouldn't he is such a gentleman. She is one lucky woman :)

spencercarlos
09-08-2006, 04:33 AM
Wow what a match :rocker2:

Incredible effort from Blake to make it a contest. Totally blew that first set and looked dead, how he came back from 5-3 in the 3rd to win it on the tie break I'll never know. What a tie break that was, quite incredible stuff.

4th set, another awesome effort from Blake, down 5-1 30-0 and he comes back to 5-4 and has break point but shanks a backhand.

The match was full of 'ifs' and 'buts' for Blake :sad:

- What if he'd won the first set?
- What if he'd broken when he had 0-40 at 1-0 up in the 4th?
- What if he'd had landed the backhand and levelled at 5-5 in the 4th?

Federer looked totally rattled at times and will be hugely relieved to come through. His forehand looked shaky under pressure like it did in Rome. Hopefully we can get Roddick v Federer in the final now and give Federer some more of that crowd treatment :devil:
I canīt believe how mediocre and choker Federer was at the closing stages of sets 1,3 and 4 :o

Alan
09-08-2006, 04:37 AM
Still proud of Blake, and of course!---THE J-BLOCK!

sawan66278
09-08-2006, 04:38 AM
You can laugh, Freddi22cl...but you and Rofe...please explain Roger's wonderful five set record of 9-10...under .500...

And if you think my comment about Sampras is funny, tell me one match where he choked...please..I'm waiting...

spencercarlos
09-08-2006, 04:40 AM
Its only a recent thing... he was solid like sampy for a few years in 03-04.
just a blip this year
i hope.
Excuse me but Samprasīs best year does not come close to Federerīs best year. Take any year where Pete won 2 grand slams and compare it to Federerīs 2004 and 2005 where he is winning 5 of 8 grand slams and this year he has 2 already with big chances of 3, right now Fed has 3 straight great years with 7 grand slam wins out of 11 played. Samprasīs best 3 straght years are 93-94-95 winning 6 out of 12 played.. Already Federer has surpased that, and with a chance to get 8 out of 12 GS played, simply amazing.

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 04:40 AM
Its only a recent thing... he was solid like sampy for a few years in 03-04.
just a blip this year
i hope.


Not a recent thing at all, it's just been worse/more apparent recently. He's had trouble closing out matches for a long time now, which those who have been watching him a while can attest to.

Sampras was definitely better at closing out matches (that incredible serve!) but on the flip side, Roger plays fantastically well when trailing. One of the reasons he rarely loses in straights.

SaFed2005
09-08-2006, 04:40 AM
Federer played a great match! I was there and he hit so many spectacular shots as did Blake. They were both Amazing. I've been going there and watching matches all week and this has got two be one of the top 3 best. I also saw the Haas-Davydenko mathc earlier. The quality of this match was just so much higher, Even at the beginning the first 5 games there were so many amazing shots... 2nd set wasnt so great but that third set... especially the tiebreak omg that was so intense. That one long rally, I think everyone was on the edges of their seats...

World Beater
09-08-2006, 04:44 AM
After watching the match, a few observations:

1. While Roger is, in my mind, the more talented player-ability wise, I would still rank him CLEARLY behind Sampras. Sampras, in similar circumstances, never choked like Roger choked tonight...or how Roger choked to Safin and Nabaldian or Nadal this year...he couldn't even close out Nadal the first time he served for the match at Wimbledon...Sampras would have closed out the match in an easy three sets if he had the leads Roger had...Champions are not based solely on skill...but on intangibles like guts and heart..

2. A disturbing stat was shown about Roger as well...he is only 9-10 in five set matches...a losing record in five set matches...again another point which takes away from his rankings in my all time list...

3. I kept thinking, what if he were playing against Connors back in the day...Connors would have almost certainly have come back...and he and the rowdy, rude crowd would have won..

4. If Roddick makes it to the finals...Roger could be in big trouble...the crowd will be behind Roddick even more...and he will use them to his advantage...pumping his fists, waiving his arms...whatever it takes to turn them against Roger...If he serves like he did against Hewitt...while it may seem insane...he could (though probably won't) even lose in staight sets...

5. Blake played one of the dumbest matches in recent memory...trying to go through Roger time and time again...why not chip the backhand back on breakpoint at 5-4 in the fourth...make Roger beat you...not the other way around...

6. Still, a very entertaining match...but I really feel this may give hope to Roger's opponents down the line...if you fight, you may still have a chance because Roger may choke at critical moments....

pete choked against roger at wimbledon when he missed a running forehand passing shot on breakpoint in the fifth set...whoooops! :) his favorite shot too.

he tried to make roger beat him at 0-40 in the 4th but roger came up with 2 fh winners and one bh winner and some great serves...you have a selective memory dont you...

yeah pete probably wouldnt have choked nor would roddick either...but thats beside the point...has roddick beaten fed, or did pete, and yes i know its only one match, but pete had his chances...whatever roger may lack he clearly makes up for in other avenues...fed would have been a nightmare matchup for pete.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 04:44 AM
Not a recent thing at all, it's just been worse/more apparent recently. He's had trouble closing out matches for a long time now, which those who have been watching him a while can attest to.

Sampras was definitely better at closing out matches (that incredible serve!) but on the flip side, Roger plays fantastically well when trailing. One of the reasons he rarely loses in straights.

really, can you give me some numbers to your theory?

what percentage of his matches does he 'have trouble closing'?

you stated he has had this problem 'for a long time now'. Anxious to see these numbers--how far back are we going, 2005?'04?

tennisrocks123
09-08-2006, 04:45 AM
Not the best match from Fed, but great fight. Glad he's through

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 04:45 AM
pete choked against roger at wimbledon when he missed a running forehand passing shot on breakpoint in the fifth set...whoooops! :) his favorite shot too.

he tried to make roger beat him at 0-40 in the 4th but roger came up with 2 fh winners and one bh winner and some great serves...you have a selective memory dont you...

yeah pete probably wouldnt have choked nor would roddick either...but thats beside the point...has roddick beaten fed, or did pete, and yes i know its only one match, but pete had his chances...whatever roger may lack he clearly makes up for in other avenues...fed would have been a nightmare matchup for pete.


:worship:

World Beater
09-08-2006, 04:49 AM
You can laugh, Freddi22cl...but you and Rofe...please explain Roger's wonderful five set record of 9-10...under .500...

And if you think my comment about Sampras is funny, tell me one match where he choked...please..I'm waiting...

he choked against safin in toronto tms when he double faulted on matchpoint for safin in the third set tb...
yes pete choked, on his most important weapon, the serve...

the five set record is easy to explain....if you are playing well enough to get into five sets against fed, you probably are going to win the match. but how many people actually make it to five sets, thats right only 19 times. Fed is also nowhere near as fit as he is now, and his game relies on his speed and positioning more than sampras who could just serve bombs and coast. also, please note it was easier for sampy to do this because the court surface was faster.

im not trying to diminish pete's record, he was a great champion, and he has the records in the books. roger doesnt yet, so there is no comparison.

but if you compare at similar stages in their career, federer has the lead atm. at the end of the day pete will be known for his mental toughness and heart while fed will be known for his genius...everybody is happy

nobama
09-08-2006, 04:50 AM
I saw Mirka yesterday after Fed's match leaving Armstrong...I said "Hi and wished her luck for the next match." She looked very classy...I guess that's what happens when you have money! ;)Well look who her best friend is. ;)

http://www.tennis.com.cn/bbs/uploadFiles/2006-09/7_3825378_2.jpg

yanchr
09-08-2006, 04:51 AM
You can laugh, Freddi22cl...but you and Rofe...please explain Roger's wonderful five set record of 9-10...under .500...

And if you think my comment about Sampras is funny, tell me one match where he choked...please..I'm waiting...
You are a Nadal fan, which says it all. No need to make more comments :wavey:

spencercarlos
09-08-2006, 04:52 AM
You can laugh, Freddi22cl...but you and Rofe...please explain Roger's wonderful five set record of 9-10...under .500...

And if you think my comment about Sampras is funny, tell me one match where he choked...please..I'm waiting...
Sampras has choked too, its not like he never did, for example a bunch of his loses to Wayne Ferreira came when he was leading a set and about to win in the second set and lost it.
He choked against Safin at the Canadian Open 2000 too, with match point in the TB and double faulted, and also double faulted to lose the match as well.

But i agree that Sampras was better at closing the matches, his serve would simply click on those moments, still Federer is the better tennis player, more complete and more dominant, results are showing it, and i hope he can end up with more GS than Pete.

spencercarlos
09-08-2006, 04:53 AM
he choked against safin in toronto tms when he double faulted on matchpoint for safin in the third set tb...
yes pete choked, on his most important weapon, the serve...

the five set record is easy to explain....if you are playing well enough to get into five sets against fed, you probably are going to win the match. but how many people actually make it to five sets, thats right only 19 times. Fed is also nowhere near as fit as he is now, and his game relies on his speed and positioning more than sampras who could just serve bombs and coast. also, please note it was easier for sampy to do this because the court surface was faster.

im not trying to diminish pete's record, he was a great champion, and he has the records in the books. roger doesnt yet, so there is no comparison.

but if you compare at similar stages in their career, federer has the lead atm. at the end of the day pete will be known for his mental toughness and heart while fed will be known for his genius...everybody is happy
you got it first than me :p actually i was looking at a tape and saw that match, and watched the TB thatīs why i remmembered that one :angel:

BTW Sampras also choked in the fifth set against Korda at the Usopen 97 :p

rmb6687
09-08-2006, 04:54 AM
I got to say, I am usually against Federer...not because I don't like him as a person, but I'm just kinda of tired of him winning. But tonight, I was totally rooting for him. And against anyone but roddick...I will be rooting for him again...he showed a different side...a weak one perhaps that makes him a little more endearing. And for some reason, i can't get into James Blake...and his J Block has turned me off.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 04:55 AM
still Federer is the better tennis player, more complete and more dominant, results are showing it, and i hope he can end up with more GS than Pete.

;)

Pete in time your 14 GS will be passed......number 9 LOOMS on Sunday.... :cool:

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 04:56 AM
BTW Sampras also choked in the fifth set against Korda at the Usopen 97

where's sawan66278?....... :lol:

World Beater
09-08-2006, 04:57 AM
it always amuses me to see sampras complain about the lack of "great players" in this generation when you have a guy like hewitt and safin who on their day, made a bit%h of sampras.

Pfloyd
09-08-2006, 04:57 AM
T'was a good match, full of chokes as stated here. If Federer plays like this in the final against Roddick (probably Roddick), Roddick may have a chance of beating Fed. Highly Unlikley given the fact that Andy is Roger's bitch...

World Beater
09-08-2006, 05:00 AM
T'was a good match, full of chokes as stated here. If Federer plays like this in the final against Roddick (probably Roddick), Roddick may have a chance of beating Fed. Highly Unlikley given the fact that Andy is Roger's bitch...

highly unlikely because blake played about 5 times better from the baseline than roddick has in this tournment, forgetting about the bi$ch part.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 05:01 AM
it always amuses me to see sampras complain about the lack of "great players" in this generation when you have a guy like hewitt and safin who on their day, made a bit%h of sampras.

;) .......i do believe that Safin guy schooled Sampras at Arthur Ashe stadium in straights in the 2000 final..... ;)

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 05:02 AM
really, can you give me some numbers to your theory?

what percentage of his matches does he 'have trouble closing'?

you stated he has had this problem 'for a long time now'. Anxious to see these numbers--how far back are we going, 2005?'04?

1999? 2000? Really, haven't the faintest clue what percentage of sets or matches he's failed to serve out, but it's happened enough that I've noticed it. Just saw Sjengster's thread on the subject, which is a pretty impressive accumulation of data. It doesn't really get much attention since he's so good at breaking right back that it doesn't make a difference 99% of the time.

CmonAussie
09-08-2006, 05:02 AM
it always amuses me to see sampras complain about the lack of "great players" in this generation when you have a guy like hewitt and safin who on their day, made a bit%h of sampras.
:wavey:
Yeah I enjoyed seeing Hewitt & Safin bitchslap Sampras in the 00 & 01 ~USO Finals :worship: ...The problem with Pete is he`s still stuck with the God-complex :sad: ..! Then along comes Jesus-Fed :angel: & steals his thunder & all the records in seemingly quick time :devil:

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 05:06 AM
1999? 2000? Really, haven't the faintest clue what percentage of sets or matches he's failed to serve out, but it's happened enough that I've noticed it. Just saw Sjengster's thread on the subject, which is a pretty impressive accumulation of data. It doesn't really get much attention since he's so good at breaking right back that it doesn't make a difference 99% of the time.

impressive accumulation of data? huh? he provided 12 matches ONLY, and the rest of his wins? what % does he 'close'? what % does the average tour player 'close'?

his data is useless. Fed wins those matches that he posted.

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 05:08 AM
impressive accumulation of data? huh? he provided 12 matches ONLY, and the rest of his wins? what % does he 'close'? what % does the average tour player 'close'?

his data is useless. Fed wins those matches that he posted.

The point being made is that Federer fails to serve out matches, not that he fails to win them. And Federer is not the average tour player.

swissfed
09-08-2006, 05:09 AM
I guess Federer enjoys chocking sometimes, it seems that he can cut off his mind and raise up the level of playing.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 05:12 AM
The point being made is that Federer fails to serve out matches, not that he fails to win them. And Federer is not the average tour player.

nonsense. HE'S HUMAN, you damn right better believe he will fail to serve out matches now and again

IF you want to make that blatant statement back it UP WITH NUMBERS, or it's NONSENSE> I see you dont have the numbers, just selective matches.

dribble

bellascarlett
09-08-2006, 05:32 AM
Well look who her best friend is. ;)

http://www.tennis.com.cn/bbs/uploadFiles/2006-09/7_3825378_2.jpg
omg since when has mirka been socializing with anna wintour? :lol:

mirka really is settling down very well into her role as federer's other half. lucky her. ;)

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 05:37 AM
Excuse me but Samprasīs best year does not come close to Federerīs best year. Take any year where Pete won 2 grand slams and compare it to Federerīs 2004 and 2005 where he is winning 5 of 8 grand slams and this year he has 2 already with big chances of 3, right now Fed has 3 straight great years with 7 grand slam wins out of 11 played. Samprasīs best 3 straght years are 93-94-95 winning 6 out of 12 played.. Already Federer has surpased that, and with a chance to get 8 out of 12 GS played, simply amazing.I wasnt comparing each years achievements :retard: (not that there is alot of difference in some of Pete's all time great seasons compared to Fed's as you are seeming to say)
i was talking about how they served out matches.
roger has had his struggles lately, but this didnt happen in 03 or 04... of course the great thing is, he still wins most of the time anyway, like tonight despite monumental blows.
the main advantage for Sampras, obviously, was that huge first AND second serve he had.

Jlee
09-08-2006, 05:38 AM
Great match...for the most part.

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 05:39 AM
nonsense. HE'S HUMAN, you damn right better believe he will fail to serve out matches now and again

IF you want to make that blatant statement back it UP WITH NUMBERS, or it's NONSENSE> I see you dont have the numbers, just selective matches.

dribble

Sure he's human. He's just being compared to a very high standard because of who he is.

And the other thread has some numbers for you. You apparently consider that "useless" so I think we're through here. If you believe you're right, i urge you dig those numbers up yourself. Shouldn't be that hard. Simply find the average number of times a player is broken serving for the match and compare that to the number of times Federer gets broken serving for it over the last few years. And that's being generous, because as we've already covered, Federer is no ordinary player.

hasanahmad
09-08-2006, 05:48 AM
The problem with Federer is he tries to close matches too quickly. He was back serving for the match 2 minutes before time while blake just started his drink, then blake looked up and saw federer was checking the balls already and in serving position.


FEDERER NEEDS TO SETTLE DOWN!!!! He needs to relax!!!

Art&Soul
09-08-2006, 06:44 AM
I think this pic says it all. :lol:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/alettey/tennis/sticktongueusopen06.jpg

Hehehe Finally ROGER shut the crowd up, that's the matter. Go ROGER and make it three :)

Scotso
09-08-2006, 06:46 AM
Thanks for being a mental retard tonight Roger. :retard: I'm glad you won but I really wanted to smack you upside the head several times tonight. :smash:

It's so hard being a Federer fan! :sobbing:

Bagelicious
09-08-2006, 06:50 AM
It's so hard being a Federer fan! :sobbing:

It's torture my friend, try being one. The pressure gets so bad sometimes - everyone expecting our favourite to win all the time, it can be a huge emotional drain. :p

Seriously though, after Blake won that 3rd set, I was beginning to think that he might get his first 5 set win in style.

ServeAlready81
09-08-2006, 06:53 AM
People should go easier on James, yes he choked against Federer...but who doesn't except Nadal :shrug:

rrfnpump
09-08-2006, 09:00 AM
not a good quality match

but congrats Roger :D

Breakdown
09-08-2006, 10:05 AM
Can anyone tell me: :sad:

Who the hell is that woman sitting next to Mirka on the picture????????????
????Anna wintour?????
And what does it mean!!! :wavey:

Experimentee
09-08-2006, 10:06 AM
Exciting match, with some great quality tennis. Both palyers came up with amazing shots at times, and it was enjoyable to see Blake continuing to fight even though he was down so much.
You have to give credit to both of them. Federer couldnt take some of his chances, but that was because of the pressure Blake was putting on him by going for broke off the return of serve, and always trying to hit hard and dictate the points. Also Blake made some low percentage errors because of the way Federer was always making him play extra shots.
Another excellent result for Blake anyway, and I think he could have made the final playing like that if he'd been on the other half.

mtw
09-08-2006, 10:08 AM
Maybe Roger's second girlfriend ? Practical boy has two girls always.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 10:10 AM
Sure he's human. He's just being compared to a very high standard because of who he is.

And the other thread has some numbers for you. You apparently consider that "useless" so I think we're through here. If you believe you're right, i urge you dig those numbers up yourself. Shouldn't be that hard. Simply find the average number of times a player is broken serving for the match and compare that to the number of times Federer gets broken serving for it over the last few years. And that's being generous, because as we've already covered, Federer is no ordinary player.


me dig out the numbers? no, pal, YOU dig the numbers as it's YOU who is making the claim.

Either way I don't give a damn what you do. What I do care about, is whether he won and he did. 9 loses in a two yr span, NOW HOW IS THAT FOR A NUMBER?

:wavey:

Experimentee
09-08-2006, 10:11 AM
When Roger was broken serving for the match in the 4th set it was more to do with Blake's play than choking. Blake decided that he would go for broke on his forehand, and hit two clean winners on the return, there was not much Roger could do about that. Blake lifted his level a lot and you have to give Roger credit for still closing it out. Some people really expect him to be perfect all the time and not lose a game, but thats so unrealistic :rolleyes:

jmp
09-08-2006, 10:24 AM
Can anyone tell me: :sad:

Who the hell is that woman sitting next to Mirka on the picture????????????
????Anna wintour?????
And what does it mean!!! :wavey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Wintour

She's the Editor-In-Chief of Vogue. Jon Wertheim talked about her being one of unlikely celebrities who attend the US Open. He also went on to say how Roger is partial to Prada and that he is featured in the current Vogue issue.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 10:27 AM
Sure he's human. He's just being compared to a very high standard because of who he is.

And the other thread has some numbers for you. You apparently consider that "useless" so I think we're through here. If you believe you're right, i urge you dig those numbers up yourself. Shouldn't be that hard. Simply find the average number of times a player is broken serving for the match and compare that to the number of times Federer gets broken serving for it over the last few years. And that's being generous, because as we've already covered, Federer is no ordinary player.


oh, one more thing, since you're playing with 'choking' numbers:

of his 69 matches in 2006, can you please tell me how many matches he LOST WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO SERVE OUT THE MATCH?....

i'll help you here.......ZERO.

:wavey:

nobama
09-08-2006, 10:40 AM
oh, one more thing, since you're playing with 'choking' numbers:

of his 69 matches in 2006, can you please tell me how many matches he LOST WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO SERVE OUT THE MATCH?....

i'll help you here.......ZERO.

:wavey:Um what about last night?

scoobs
09-08-2006, 10:42 AM
he didn't lose last night. or did I dream that took-much-too-long win?

scoobs
09-08-2006, 10:43 AM
Although the answer definitely isn't zero, anyway - he served for the match in the Rome final in the fifth set and lost.

Neely
09-08-2006, 10:45 AM
This match was at its best at the end of these two close sets. I'm glad Federer 'choked' a bit and did not serve these two out or else we would not have seen these great tiebreaks. Damn, really everything in it! I'm glad Blake at least took one of them, he deserved this set as he missed these opportunities in the first tiebreak already. Great match, both players with incredible defensive skills in some exchanges! :yeah:

oz_boz
09-08-2006, 10:52 AM
:yeah:

I didn't watch it, but it must have been a nice effort from Fed (despite some lapses that are a trademark of his) with a bagel thrown in. Props to Blake for taking a set.

Two more matches for the threepeat. Allez Roger!

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 11:10 AM
Although the answer definitely isn't zero, anyway - he served for the match in the Rome final in the fifth set and lost.

no he didn't. He had break point, match point. Never served for the match.

anyway the point i'm trying to make is folks are lookign for his 'failures' as one poster called it--posting matches where he had a chance to serve out of the match, and 'failed', yet he is WINNING those matches. It's incredible. If he was losing them fine, but he is winning them. It's a credit to him, his ability, his mental strength to come back, not have his head down,etc

spencercarlos
09-08-2006, 12:49 PM
I wasnt comparing each years achievements :retard: (not that there is alot of difference in some of Pete's all time great seasons compared to Fed's as you are seeming to say)
i was talking about how they served out matches.
roger has had his struggles lately, but this didnt happen in 03 or 04... of course the great thing is, he still wins most of the time anyway, like tonight despite monumental blows.
the main advantage for Sampras, obviously, was that huge first AND second serve he had.
Yes there is a lot of diference.
During these three years Federer has won almost the amount of TMS that Sampras won in his entire carreer, lets not even talk about Federerīs 4th round, SF and F performances at the French Open compared to Sampras (QF, QF, 1R) during there three peak period years. 1 more Australian Open than Pete too.
Yeah the difference is HUGE.

almouchie
09-08-2006, 12:56 PM
as always Blake has chances but blows them
gives his opponent too much respect
& doesnt fight enough
he cant keep saying he played well but just lost to a better player
making himself believe its fine to lose
blake doesnt have the killer temperment or the champion mentality
he is playing better than he ever imagined & i just happy to enjoy it
he is not a grand slam winner or a top 8 player
even if his ranking says otherwise

he isnt always a factor in GS, not that many others are
Federer again looks shaky at times & flustered
but not enough high competition to bother him
i wonder what roddick can do

Fumus
09-08-2006, 01:53 PM
Damn, no win in 5 for Blake as much as Federer choked and tried to give Blake the 1st and 4th set. Blake just wouldn't take em'!

Anyways it was a good match and far more entertaining than I thought it might be after the second set. I am very proud of James for hanging tough...in the end he just didn't have enough.

sawan66278
09-08-2006, 01:57 PM
I guess it means the definition of choking...To start, while Nadal is my favorite player now, I personally feel that Guga was still the better player...even clay court player...and I know not many Rafa fans would even dream of saying that, so please, give me some credit for trying to be objective ;)

Anyway, as I was saying...Roger's record in five set matches is a pathetic 9-10...please don't simply mention the TMS match in Canada...who cares about that tourney really? No offense to the fans there...and even though Rafa won it last year, its not really that important...if people want to harp on the number of masters series and tourneys, etc...than forget even mentioning Roger as being in the class of Connors and Lendl...two men whose total amount of tourney wins Roger will probably never even get close to...Roger has 40 titles, Lendl (in second place) has 94 titles and Connors has 105 tourneys...

To me, choking is taking defeat or from the jaws of victory...its blowing leads...its failing to play one's game at crucial moments...Roger has, time and time again, shown a tendency to this...Davis Cup against Australia in 2003 ring a bell...how about last year's Aussie Semi...not good enough for you, how about Rome this year against Nadal...great victory for Roger, huh?

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 02:34 PM
To me, choking is taking defeat or from the jaws of victory...its blowing leads...its failing to play one's game at crucial moments...Roger has, time and time again, shown a tendency to this...Davis Cup against Australia in 2003 ring a bell...how about last year's Aussie Semi...not good enough for you, how about Rome this year against Nadal...great victory for Roger, huh?You are an idiot ... do you think the likes Lendl, Connors have never lost big 5th set battles in their life either? they did.. plenty of time... and Nadal himself lost a 5th set battle only last year against Hewitt in the Australian Open as well.
are you also forgetting that Federer has posted 5th set WINS over the likes of Sampras at Wimbledon, and Agassi at the US Open, nah of course you didnt.
just go and whine somewhere else.

Corey Feldman
09-08-2006, 02:37 PM
Damn, no win in 5 for Blake as much as Federer choked and tried to give Blake the 1st and 4th set. Blake just wouldn't take em'!lol i could see Mr 0-9 in fifth set matches and "EVERYone on the tour thinks best of 5 sets finals should be scrapped" Blake would have been awesome in a fifth set.

nobama
09-08-2006, 02:55 PM
he didn't lose last night. or did I dream that took-much-too-long win?You;re right. My bad. :o

Dexter_1986
09-08-2006, 02:56 PM
Entertaining match. :yeah:
I dunno what was that... more of James fighting spirit or Roger starting toying with James :lol: :o it should have been easier 64 60 63 victory for Roger, but instead we had 4 sets... maybe it's better ;)
Go Roger win it all! :yeah: :rocker2:

James :hug:

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:02 PM
no he didn't. He had break point, match point. Never served for the match.



Sorry, you're right. I dug my file out and had a look - he got to 4-2 then was broken and got to 4-4 then 5-4 and had match points at 5-4.

my bad.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 03:03 PM
I have to say, it is impressive that while Federer has these moments, he still rarely loses the match from a winning position.

magnoliaewan
09-08-2006, 04:20 PM
It's so hard being a Federer fan! :sobbing:

See, I find it amazing and really easy being a Federer fan. I've never been so confident about any player to win and he rarely disappoints. We Federer fans are too spoiled I think that we expect him to win ALL the time but he's only human. So the amount that he's actually winning is beyond comprehension already and instead of taking that for granted, I'm loving and basking in it.

I love being a Federer fan.

scoobs
09-08-2006, 04:24 PM
See, I find it amazing and really easy being a Federer fan. I've never been so confident about any player to win and he rarely disappoints. We Federer fans are too spoiled I think that we expect him to win ALL the time but he's only human. So the amount that he's actually winning is beyond comprehension already and instead of taking that for granted, I'm loving and basking in it.

I love being a Federer fan.

Abso-fucking-lutely :yeah:

adee-gee
09-08-2006, 04:29 PM
I have to say, it is impressive that while Federer has these moments, he still rarely loses the match from a winning position.
Players get tight when they have a chance against Federer. He's got an aura which only Nadal can deal with. Blake played so well last night (excluding 2nd set) when it looked like he was down and out, but when he got himself into good positions he blew it.

Fumus
09-08-2006, 05:28 PM
lol i could see Mr 0-9 in fifth set matches and "EVERYone on the tour thinks best of 5 sets finals should be scrapped" Blake would have been awesome in a fifth set.

I took your mom to a fifth set!

Oh, whatever, ya know you gotta say some crazy things sometimes. I got the urge to pick Blake in five, I was feelin' it.

sawan66278
09-08-2006, 07:06 PM
Escude, what grade are you in? Every time someone makes a salient point, you sadly resort to name calling. Again, as I stated, please attempt to defend Roger's 9-10 record in five set matches.

If someone could, please give me Sampras' win percentage in five set matches....

Speaking of clutch...look at Borg's percentage in five set matches: 24-4!!!! Now that is the mark of a true champion. :D

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 08:43 PM
oh, one more thing, since you're playing with 'choking' numbers:

of his 69 matches in 2006, can you please tell me how many matches he LOST WHEN HE HAD A CHANCE TO SERVE OUT THE MATCH?....

i'll help you here.......ZERO.

:wavey:

:lol:

Try reading my posts before you respond. You said the same thing last time and still somehow miss the point.

So what that he didn't lose those matches? It just means he was better than those players - not surprising since he's better than just about everyone else. Where it hurts him is against players who do have the ability to beat him. If he was better at closing out matches, he might have beaten Nalbandian at the TMC last year. :shrug:

The point is, as good as he already is, I think there's room for improvement.

stebs
09-08-2006, 08:57 PM
Now that is the mark of a true champion. :D
\You don't think Roger is a true champion? Over the last three years he has put together the most dominant stretch of tennis on the mens tour ever. He has won 7 slams in that time (soon to be 8?). He has won many TMS tournaments. He has been to 17 finals in a row. He has won 50+ matches in a row on hardcourts breaking the previous record. He has won 35+ matches in a row on grass breaking the previous record. He looks set to become the first player since 1969 to reach all the slam finals in a calendar year. He looks set to reach his 6th slam final in a row, if he wins it that'll make it 5 of 6 in that time. He has posted 30+ winning streaks. Multiple 20+ winning streaks. He has reached consecutive finals on hardcourts, clay and grass. He has won AMS events on clay, hardcourts and grass. He has won matches from matchpoints down (Rochus). He has dished out double bagels (Gaudio).

He has a record over a three year span that blows anything else completely out of the water and you don't think he;s a true champion. If that's the case then there's never been a true champion and I doubt there ever will be.

prima donna
09-08-2006, 09:15 PM
hm

Dirk
09-08-2006, 09:33 PM
\You don't think Roger is a true champion? Over the last three years he has put together the most dominant stretch of tennis on the mens tour ever. He has won 7 slams in that time (soon to be 8?). He has won many TMS tournaments. He has been to 17 finals in a row. He has won 50+ matches in a row on hardcourts breaking the previous record. He has won 35+ matches in a row on grass breaking the previous record. He looks set to become the first player since 1969 to reach all the slam finals in a calendar year. He looks set to reach his 6th slam final in a row, if he wins it that'll make it 5 of 6 in that time. He has posted 30+ winning streaks. Multiple 20+ winning streaks. He has reached consecutive finals on hardcourts, clay and grass. He has won AMS events on clay, hardcourts and grass. He has won matches from matchpoints down (Rochus). He has dished out double bagels (Gaudio).

He has a record over a three year span that blows anything else completely out of the water and you don't think he;s a true champion. If that's the case then there's never been a true champion and I doubt there ever will be.

Stebs, just tell that idiot that Roger isn't playing many 5 setters anymore since his awakening because he doesn't let them go that long. :)

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 09:39 PM
:lol:

Try reading my posts before you respond. You said the same thing last time and still somehow miss the point.

So what that he didn't lose those matches? It just means he was better than those players - not surprising since he's better than just about everyone else. Where it hurts him is against players who do have the ability to beat him. If he was better at closing out matches, he might have beaten Nalbandian at the TMC last year. :shrug:

The point is, as good as he already is, I think there's room for improvement.

:lol:

oh, so now its gone from your point being: he doesn't close enough matches at a high % compared to the average player (even tho you failed to provide numercial data to support), to NOW that there's room for improvement in his game.

whatevr u say, captain.

:rolleyes:

this just in--he WILL lose more matches in the future, just a hunch......

Mechlan
09-08-2006, 10:08 PM
:lol:

oh, so now its gone from your point being: he doesn't close enough matches at a high % compared to the average player (even tho you failed to provide numercial data to support), to NOW that there's room for improvement in his game.

whatevr u say, captain.

:rolleyes:

this just in--he WILL lose more matches in the future, just a hunch......

Nice try, but it's always been about Federer not being that great at closing out matches. And how many times have I said that Federer's not average and that we're comparing him to the greats? :lol:

Whatever, believe what you will.

~*BGT*~
09-08-2006, 10:13 PM
Escude, what grade are you in? Every time someone makes a salient point, you sadly resort to name calling. Again, as I stated, please attempt to defend Roger's 9-10 record in five set matches.

If someone could, please give me Sampras' win percentage in five set matches....

Speaking of clutch...look at Borg's percentage in five set matches: 24-4!!!! Now that is the mark of a true champion. :D
:p :) :) :) :p

radics
09-08-2006, 10:33 PM
Escude, what grade are you in? Every time someone makes a salient point, you sadly resort to name calling. Again, as I stated, please attempt to defend Roger's 9-10 record in five set matches.

If someone could, please give me Sampras' win percentage in five set matches....

Speaking of clutch...look at Borg's percentage in five set matches: 24-4!!!! Now that is the mark of a true champion. :D

As if the record in five set matches would decide who is a "true" champion and who's not. Every player has hes own qualities. This one might not be one of Federers... so what?

scoobs
09-08-2006, 10:38 PM
There's more than one way to be a true champion and having a strong 5 set record doesn't have to matter if you rarely ever get dragged to 5 sets.

Freddi22cl
09-08-2006, 11:10 PM
Nice try, but it's always been about Federer not being that great at closing out matches. And how many times have I said that Federer's not average and that we're comparing him to the greats? :lol:

Whatever, believe what you will.

nice try

where are the numbers? your comparing him to the greats, okay fair enough-- GIVE ME SOME NUMBERS YOU FOOL!!!

'not great at clsoing out matches'--- I need numbers!!! Connors % of 'closing out matches'? Sampras'? Borg's?

didn't think so. Anecdotel bullshit out of your ass. Your a bore. Bye bye

:lol:

tennisgal_001
09-08-2006, 11:11 PM
Fed should've won 6-4 6-0 6-3, but something got into him. Maybe next time?

Scotso
09-08-2006, 11:45 PM
See, I find it amazing and really easy being a Federer fan. I've never been so confident about any player to win and he rarely disappoints. We Federer fans are too spoiled I think that we expect him to win ALL the time but he's only human. So the amount that he's actually winning is beyond comprehension already and instead of taking that for granted, I'm loving and basking in it.

I love being a Federer fan.

Since you didn't seem to know, I'm not a Federer fan. I was making fun of mirkaland.

It is easy to be a Federer fan, that's why he has so many. People love to support a sure thing.

sawan66278
09-09-2006, 12:02 AM
Roger IS a true champion...don't misconstrue what I am trying to state...My point is is that Roger is now like Tiger Woods...his competition is not really against those he is playing against now...but is against the all-time greats...No doubt, few, if any, players have had the level of dominance he has over these three years...But in my mind, and again this is simply my opinion, one must look at the finer points when comparing the greats of all time...

However, in my mind, there is no clear greatest player of all time...but still, if I were forced to choose between Pete and Roger...Pete hands down...The greatest clutch player, the greatest career achievements...simply the best...

kronus12
09-09-2006, 12:14 AM
by the time roger finish his career he might prove that he is the greatest player ever to play the game, his own peers have said it time and time again that he's the greatest player to ever pick up a racket, Agassi was one of those guys saying that fed is the most all rounded player to play the game and he was better then the great sampras.
I think there words has more weight then some of you forum guys at least they can say they played the guy did you or are you taking your own views from the great armchair version.
Don't get me wrong everyone is entitled to their opinion but when great players are saying that about fed now and they are basing this on playing against him, well there must be something in what they are saying.

gogogirl
09-09-2006, 12:32 AM
Hey All,

First of all, Roger is like a ballerina out there sometimes. And he can be compared to Tiger - and Michael Jordan - even. He is that good. And sometimes using the word good is better than using the word - wonderful. Yet - he can be beaten. At one time he struggled. Players are trying to learn how to play him so they can beat him. No one can convince me that there aren't any players out there in the tennis world today that one day won't beat him. What goes up - must come down. He'll be beat - but as it stands now - he'll win more than he loses.

Most of the players - to include J. B. know, he is a hard nut to crack - but they have to keep on trying and fighting or they might as well quit the tour. They don't need to do that - because IMO and before too long - Roger is going to have some legitimate rivals.

James came up short - and was completly brain dead and clueless in the second set - but in the others - hot diggity dog - he was hanging tough. So my thing is - he can improve. ALL players should always be trying to improve. And it's not always about how to improve in order that you beat this or that player - it's about you and how you improve on technique - timing - patience - measurement of shots - concentation and some more stuff.

If one improves on the above fundamental things - then the being able to beat this or that player will be the payoff. Learning how to play smart tennis helps a lot, and having great shots is second. James has a nice variety of shots. And I like how he has incorporated the two handed backhand into his game - here lately. I said years ago, Venus & Serena should learn and employ the one hander. All players should be willing to try and learn it all.

The bottom line to my rambling post is that J. B. did well under the circumstances. He needs to improve in a lot of ways that have nothing to do w/Roger. If he learns to reign in his shots - play w/i himself - don't over hit and to keep the ball in play better - then he will improve - and one day he'll beat Roger. He finally got a win over Hewitt and Roddick - so if anything Roger is just another opponent that he has to learn how to play smartly against - and just like he has to learn it as it pertains to all of his opponents. They all do.

Mechlan
09-09-2006, 12:34 AM
nice try

where are the numbers? your comparing him to the greats, okay fair enough-- GIVE ME SOME NUMBERS YOU FOOL!!!

'not great at clsoing out matches'--- I need numbers!!! Connors % of 'closing out matches'? Sampras'? Borg's?

didn't think so. Anecdotel bullshit out of your ass. Your a bore. Bye bye

:lol:

I have better things to do than dig through years of data for your benefit since I could care less what you think. I've seen Federer and I've seen the greats before him and I know that if I had to put money on one player serving for the match to close it out, it wouldn't be Roger.

If you're so confident you're right, then obviously you have numbers to prove your side of it - that Federer's percentage of closing out matches is equal to or better than Sampras, Laver, Borg etc - right? And don't try and weasel out of it again by saying I'm the only one trying to make a point - you're trying to make the exact opposite point, so post that data and prove yourself right or shut up about the numbers.

atpSUPERMAN
09-09-2006, 12:38 AM
It appears that Blake and Agassi are even in their success against Federer. They both can rattle him but not quite finish him off. Although Agassi's 6-2 set in last year's final was perhaps more than anything Blake could do. And remember Agassi taking Federer to a 5th set in 2004 US Open. Agassi in his prime would dominate Federer. Nadal remains the only player who truly can get on top of Federer. Nalbandian could in the past but I don't see him troubling him recently.

scoobs
09-09-2006, 12:42 AM
:haha:

What with someone else getting Roger to rip his shirt off and stick his hand to his ear a la Hulk Hogan and this picture, I'm having hysterics :lol:

Corey Feldman
09-09-2006, 01:18 AM
Escude, what grade are you in? Every time someone makes a salient point, you sadly resort to name calling. Again, as I stated, please attempt to defend Roger's 9-10 record in five set matches.

If someone could, please give me Sampras' win percentage in five set matches....

Speaking of clutch...look at Borg's percentage in five set matches: 24-4!!!! Now that is the mark of a true champion. :DYour points are pathetic.
all your posts are the same, all about why Fed isnt as good as any the other legends you always mention.. you always find something, if Fed had a great 5 set record... then you'd be like "no player in history has ever lost as many second sets as Federer, he sucks... connors, lendl and agassi never did that"
"roger's ball toss is not as good as the legends, i always knew he sucked... you cannot be a legend with a bad ball toss"
:rolls:
you were doing all this shit around Wimbledon as well, can see through you, you just cant take the hard honest facts.
and you never answered before? if he's the worst 5th set player of all time how did he manage to beat Sampras at Wimbledon and Agassi at the Us open in 5 sets in his career???
Borg's record are great, but a totally different era so why compare, plus.... ask yourself if he ever won 3 of the 4 slams, nope only 2.

Corey Feldman
09-09-2006, 01:24 AM
And remember Agassi taking Federer to a 5th set in 2004 US Open. Agassi in his prime would dominate Federer. Nadal remains the only player who truly can get on top of Federer. Nalbandian could in the past but I don't see him troubling him recently.thats funny, most experts (and agassi himself?) said AA probably played the best tennis of his career in the USO final last year and he still went down in 4.
and the other 7 straight times Fed beat him... Agassi was a rank amateur then as well?
lol

and maybe Fed hasnt even reached HIS peak yet.
It is easy to be a Federer fan, that's why he has so many. People love to support a sure thing.Yes i know, everyone should follow your code and support the young cute players with nice asses.

World Beater
09-09-2006, 02:05 AM
Roger IS a true champion...don't misconstrue what I am trying to state...My point is is that Roger is now like Tiger Woods...his competition is not really against those he is playing against now...but is against the all-time greats...No doubt, few, if any, players have had the level of dominance he has over these three years...But in my mind, and again this is simply my opinion, one must look at the finer points when comparing the greats of all time...

However, in my mind, there is no clear greatest player of all time...but still, if I were forced to choose between Pete and Roger...Pete hands down...The greatest clutch player, the greatest career achievements...simply the best...

listen buddy, nobody is saying that pete isnt mentally tough, and it is clear that pete is better at serving matches out because his serve was his best shot. But a federer's so called chokes arent chokes because he didnt lose.

Pete lost way more than roger does, where was his mental toughness in those matches. I mean the guy lost to kucera ( no disrespect to kucera- he was good), but would federer ever lose to kucera, cmon man.

just because he has trouble serving out matches doesnt mean he isnt mentally tough. He bounces right back and wins the matches.

the reason fed has a bad 5 set record was already explained. why did pete lose more then? So i could make the argument that once pete got behind in a match, he couldnt come back and hence he loses matches in 3-4 sets. While it takes much more to beat federer. It took safin 5 mp's and 9-7 in the fifth to beat fed...he had a far easier time to beat sampras. And dont give me the crap about, he only wanted to win slams, cos if you use that argument, then we can talk about fed's amazing record in the last run of slams.

andre has played through three generations and played the best of each, and has already said that fed is the best of the best he has played...when fed came on tour and people compared him to pete, andre vehemently said there was no comparison, but until recently he changed his mind...so andre doesnt have a soft spot for fed, he is being honest in his thoughts.

World Beater
09-09-2006, 02:06 AM
thats funny, most experts (and agassi himself?) said AA probably played the best tennis of his career in the USO final last year and he still went down in 4.
and the other 7 straight times Fed beat him... Agassi was a rank amateur then as well?
lol

and maybe Fed hasnt even reached HIS peak yet.
Yes i know, everyone should follow your code and support the young cute players with nice asses.

i can understand mbf, his criteria for support is far better than adeegee...apparently if a player has a cool sounding name, he warrants support. also, the tennis itself is less important than the personalities.

as safin said, you want entertainment, go to a circus.

sawan66278
09-09-2006, 03:10 AM
First, I don't recall any experts stating that Agassi played his best match of all time against Federer. Please show me the references...

Escude, my point, if you actually chose to read my previous posts, is that there is no clear "greatest player of all time"...There are stats on all sides, and even though experts and former players state that someone is "the most complete, best" etc...does not necessarily mean they would win the most...The ultimate objective is victory...

True, Pete was not the most well rounded player...but his greatest weapons: his first and second serves allowed him to defeated even players who were more well rounded...Roger may look beautiful, but four aces in a row in a game still means a game to the server...In my mind, if you want to go by victories, Pete was the greater winner...Does this mean that Roger will not surpass him? Only time will tell. Roger has been in the top ten (including this year) only four years...Let's see what he does over ten to twelve years...Iverson in the NBA led the league in scoring for four years...does this make him a Hall of Famer? No...long term achievements do...

Now, I am sure there are those who will argue that Pete lost to Kucera and didn't dominate...why? Because he simply didn't care as much about the smaller tourneys...His goal was the majors...plain and simple...He was the number #1 player in the world for SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS...In my mind, an even greater achievement than the slams? Why? Because if Laver were allowed to play for the the five or six years between his slams, the discussion of who was the greatest would not even be an issue because he would have most likely won about 18 to 20 slams...And Borg, back in the day, the Aussie Open was barely a major...Borg only played it once or twice...and it was on grass...imagine if he really cared...

Again, when the heat is on the most, Roger's record is a pedestrian 9-10 in five set matches...Borg's? 24-4... :eek:

World Beater
09-09-2006, 04:39 AM
First, I don't recall any experts stating that Agassi played his best match of all time against Federer. Please show me the references...

Escude, my point, if you actually chose to read my previous posts, is that there is no clear "greatest player of all time"...There are stats on all sides, and even though experts and former players state that someone is "the most complete, best" etc...does not necessarily mean they would win the most...The ultimate objective is victory...

True, Pete was not the most well rounded player...but his greatest weapons: his first and second serves allowed him to defeated even players who were more well rounded...Roger may look beautiful, but four aces in a row in a game still means a game to the server...In my mind, if you want to go by victories, Pete was the greater winner...Does this mean that Roger will not surpass him? Only time will tell. Roger has been in the top ten (including this year) only four years...Let's see what he does over ten to twelve years...Iverson in the NBA led the league in scoring for four years...does this make him a Hall of Famer? No...long term achievements do...

Now, I am sure there are those who will argue that Pete lost to Kucera and didn't dominate...why? Because he simply didn't care as much about the smaller tourneys...His goal was the majors...plain and simple...He was the number #1 player in the world for SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS...In my mind, an even greater achievement than the slams? Why? Because if Laver were allowed to play for the the five or six years between his slams, the discussion of who was the greatest would not even be an issue because he would have most likely won about 18 to 20 slams...And Borg, back in the day, the Aussie Open was barely a major...Borg only played it once or twice...and it was on grass...imagine if he really cared...

Again, when the heat is on the most, Roger's record is a pedestrian 9-10 in five set matches...Borg's? 24-4... :eek:

how was pete the greatest winner? if you compare their careers at the same stage, federer has accomplished more.if he wins the uso, he will be ahead of pete in slams, the ultimate criteria in judging great players. all other criteria is secondary to this..also pete lost to kucera in aus open slam. next thing you are gonna argue is that pete didnt care about the ausopen.

using the five set record is ludicrous as a criteria. only a moron would use that as the primary measuring stick for great players. it is at best 6th or 7th tie breaker.

Again i never said andre played his best. I said andre admitted that roger was the best he has played. do you deny he said this or not? I would believe andre who actually played fed rather than some supposed experts who saw the match on tv, or were in the stadium.

im not arguing for federer to be the best ever. i am saying that you pointing to the five set record is silly because that shows how great roger is...he dominated his opponents better than sampras did. And when roger played an on fire opponent, he made it very difficult to win -safin, nadal. many times when krajicek was on fire, pete meekly went away.

federer has served 4 aces in a row against nalbandian, arguably the best returner at the moment at the ausopen at a critical juncture in the match.

he also served three aces in a row against roddick in toronto when down 0-40 at another important stage. he slammed three aces in a row against :scared: sampras in wimbledon too in the fourth set when he was down 0-40. he has served his way out of trouble many times. pete has probably done it more than roger, but roger doesnt need his serve to be as dominant because of his great all round game. roger's beautiful game is a bonus, but its effectiveness is the reason he has already passed pete sampras in consecutive weeks at #1.