Will losing be considered normal for Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Will losing be considered normal for Federer?

Black Adam
08-17-2009, 03:38 AM
Everytime he loses, even in the lower tournaments, there is so much commotion as if isn't allowed to lose. Will this ever change? Discuss!

straitup
08-17-2009, 03:43 AM
It pretty much is...with the way he's playing, he certainly doesn't have that aura of invincibility anymore. Now losing after being up 5-1 in the 3rd will never be considered normal for Federer,

jcempire
08-17-2009, 03:43 AM
Of course. It will change because Now we got Nadal, Murray, Del and Djok whom are catching Fed day to day.

And ROger looks off his best and he maynot his best tennis back because Now he is 28 years old and will only get older

Ilovetheblues_86
08-17-2009, 03:59 AM
Nope.
Federer isn´t supposed to lose.
before that happens he will retire.

jcempire
08-17-2009, 04:01 AM
Nope.
Federer isn´t supposed to lose.
before that happens he will retire.

maybe. I agree with you

cause He got everything that he wants to. So why not

And this maybe the best time for him to retire. because 15Gs and 15 masters and Golden GS and two pretty girls (happy father)

federersforehand
08-17-2009, 04:02 AM
According to the vast majority of MTF, no , fed isnt allowed to lose; and if he does so, even once, he is considered a mug and crap.

Arkulari
08-17-2009, 04:22 AM
he's getting older, losing is a very natural process, no one can be on top forever ;)

of course you cannot expect the MTFers to think about that, he's just done and screwed every single time he loses :rolleyes:

MIMIC
08-17-2009, 04:50 AM
It's only normal for Fed to lose against Nadal, Murray & Djokovic. Anyone else and it's considered a MAJOR upset.

Arkulari
08-17-2009, 04:52 AM
any loss from now on should be considered normal, he's being judged by the standards he set on his prime and you simply cannot expect the guy to lose only 4-5 matches a year like he used to do and there are upcoming players like Murray who can upset him a lot lately

I don't read anything special on the losses, I just cherish the small time left to watch him play until he decides to retire :shrug:

Skyward
08-17-2009, 05:22 AM
Will not talking about Federer every single day be considered normal for Black Adam? :rolleyes:

abraxas21
08-17-2009, 05:46 AM
in 2008 Fed played 19 tournaments and won 4 (Estoril, Halle, US Open and Basel) ==> 21% success rate.

This year he's played 10 tournaments and has won 3 (Madrid MS, RG and Wimbledon) ==> 33.3% success rate.

So, since the beggining of the 2008 season Federer has won 7 out of 29 tournaments in which he has played which makes a success rate of 24.1%.


By contrast, Federer won 11 out of 18 in 2005, 10 out of 15 in 2006 and 12 out of 17 in 2007 making a total success rate of 66%

obvious conclusion: Federer is not the same player he was before and you can note that not only in his game but also in his decline in the rankings and in the number of tournaments that he wins.

While in his prime he was winning about 2 thirds of the tournaments he played, now he merely wins about one fourth. Needless to say, that figure is very respectable (as most players would wish to win one fourth of the tournaments they play) but represents a big fall for him nevertheless.
Thus, if the past and the present year have proven us something is that Federer now loses much more often to many types of players. However, his prime years have kept his aura of invincibility through the years but at this point is clear that this aura is simply a remanent that comes from an amazing past of glory.

lessthanjake
08-17-2009, 07:46 AM
Losing IS considered normal for Federer at Masters events and lower. At Grand Slams, it is still not normal, because it still doesnt happen (except against very top players at semis or finals).

ballbasher101
08-17-2009, 07:51 AM
Losing IS considered normal for Federer at Masters events and lower. At Grand Slams, it is still not normal, because it still doesnt happen (except against very top players at semis or finals).


Well put. The guy is still a beast in the majors.

leng jai
08-17-2009, 07:52 AM
Black Adam's Fedclown OCD threads still occur more than often than Fedclown's losses.

abraxas21
08-17-2009, 08:12 AM
Losing IS considered normal for Federer at Masters events and lower. At Grand Slams, it is still not normal, because it still doesnt happen (except against very top players at semis or finals).

that's true but it should also be taken into account that federer was slightly lucky in RG and Wimbledon. In RG he was on the brink of defeat against Del Potro and Haas, and in Wimbledon he almost lost to Roddick, a player that he would have had no problems defeating on grass a couple of years ago. I would say that perhaps Federer wouldn't have won had he faced any of the top 4 in either RG or Wimby... especially in RG.

in any case, I don't deny that Federer gives the best of him in the GSs rather than in the MSs. It would be highly unlikely that Federer would lose to a guy like Wawinkra or Tsonga in a GS event.

sports freak
08-17-2009, 09:16 AM
Fed just wants Grand Slams,not many will remember the amount of smaller tournaments won compared to the amount of Grand Slams he has won and will win!

Sapeod
08-17-2009, 11:44 AM
Federer forum.

Skyward
08-17-2009, 11:51 AM
Federer forum.

Who the fuck on the Federer's forum needs threads started by Black Adam? Delete it.

Jaz
08-17-2009, 11:54 AM
It will probably be AFTER an early round exit at a grandslam.

Most people watch grandslams, and Federer always makes the final; as a result, when he loses in the TMS event people are shocked....

That said, usually people support the underdog, but Federer (and Nadal) and some of the few people who start to get a lot of support regardless, and when it gets tight...

MacTheKnife
08-17-2009, 12:19 PM
Best of 3, yes, best of 5, not just yet..

Sapeod
08-17-2009, 12:20 PM
Who the fuck on the Federer's forum needs threads started by Black Adam? Delete it.
Better yet. And delete Black Adam while they're at it.

Bargearse
08-17-2009, 12:46 PM
For me, Federer losing to the likes of Nadal in any tournament has always been normal, but when he started losing to guys like Karlovic, I could sense Fed was vulnerable at non-grand slam events. At slams however, even when he's been in trouble and on the verge of losing, I just knew he'd hang in there.

The recent 3rd set collapse against Tsonga in Montreal is out of character for Fed, but not so unusual considering it's not a slam. I doubt that would happen in a slam. If it does, or Federer loses early in a slam, he'll retire.

The Oracle
08-22-2009, 03:42 AM
Very hard to say........Federer seems to be getting used to it.....

I think he is losing his youth....along with his passion to play

vamosinator
08-22-2009, 03:54 AM
Of course. It will change because Now we got Nadal, Murray, Del and Djok whom are catching Fed day to day.

And ROger looks off his best and he maynot his best tennis back because Now he is 28 years old and will only get older

Nadal is 'catching' Fed? Nadal caught Fed in 2008 and hasn't let go. I can't say the others are 'catching' Fed, I'd be surprised if Murray, Del, Djok beat Federer when it mattered (slams).

Fiberlight1
08-22-2009, 04:08 AM
Nadal is 'catching' Fed? Nadal caught Fed in 2008 and hasn't let go. I can't say the others are 'catching' Fed, I'd be surprised if Murray, Del, Djok beat Federer when it mattered (slams).

Nadal caught and owned Fed the moment after he won Rome 06.

mark73
08-22-2009, 04:12 AM
Nadal is 'catching' Fed? Nadal caught Fed in 2008 and hasn't let go. I can't say the others are 'catching' Fed, I'd be surprised if Murray, Del, Djok beat Federer when it mattered (slams).

Actually Nadal now has to catch the number one player and wimby,french,us open defending champion.
And dont give me excuses...nadal was injured etc. :rolleyes:

vamosinator
08-22-2009, 04:28 AM
Nadal is 6-2 v Federer in slams. I'd say since 2008 Nadal has had complete control over Federer as that is when he beat Federer at Wimbledon and continued to destroy him at Roland Garros and then followed it up with Aust Open 2009. So the all-surface domination began around 2008. Yeah sure Federer has the crowns of RG, Wimbledon, US Open, but nobody would say Federer is a better claycourter than Nadal, and most people would think Nadal would either match or beat Federer on grass. Hardcourt, we just saw in the Australian Open. So despite the absences this year of Nadal, he is considered better than Federer, and he will end the year with the same number of slams as Federer plus a better win/loss record, hence the 2nd straight year that Nadal has outplayed Federer.

crazillo
08-22-2009, 06:18 AM
Federer certainly steps up his play at Slams. I mean, he's won everything so why would he be motivated at lower tier events? I can understand that quite well. Yet, he was VERY lucky in not facing a top 4 guy in either RG now Wimbledon. That certainly isn't his fault and he still had to use that opportunity well - he actually even had trouble with Haas at RG and Roddick at Wimby - but had Nadal not been injured, he wouldn't have won both. He probably knows that himself. Hats off to him, but although he's won two slams this year, he is not the best player in the world to me anymore.

FedFan_2007
08-22-2009, 06:23 AM
It's very simple people. From 2003 to Dubai 2007 he went after every title with gusto. Then he came to Los Angeles in March and met with Sampras. Sampras told him to "only focus on the slams, everything else is a meaningless tune up". Interesting since that meeting he's only won 13 titles, but 5 of them are slams more then any other player. So that slams-only approach is vindicated for now.

vamosinator
08-22-2009, 07:50 AM
Maybe Federer needed to focus on all those non-slams to play his best in slams, because the Federer I saw at Roland Garros and Wimbledon this year was nowhere near as good as previous years. He's getting worse every year in the slams. And really his game shouldn't go downhill fast, he isn't injury prone and he doesn't play a grinding type of game.

lessthanjake
08-22-2009, 07:59 AM
Maybe Federer needed to focus on all those non-slams to play his best in slams, because the Federer I saw at Roland Garros and Wimbledon this year was nowhere near as good as previous years. He's getting worse every year in the slams. And really his game shouldn't go downhill fast, he isn't injury prone and he doesn't play a grinding type of game.


You sound silly. You are saying that he shouldnt be going downhill "so fast" that he actually has some tough matches en route to WINNING SLAM TITLES. Thats absurd.

He is going downhill, and he is certainly not at his peak level. But he is certainly not going downhill faster than other players do if he is holding 3 of the last 4 slam titles.

tea
08-22-2009, 08:26 AM
Maybe Federer needed to focus on all those non-slams to play his best in slams, because the Federer I saw at Roland Garros and Wimbledon this year was nowhere near as good as previous years. He's getting worse every year in the slams. And really his game shouldn't go downhill fast, he isn't injury prone and he doesn't play a grinding type of game.
:lol:

Maybe Federer himself knows a little bit better where should he focus on? You know all these years he never made a single strategical mistake and it really wouldn't be smart to suppose that he is doing something wrong now.

Off-topic: Will you have a possibility to change username in September?:D