Analysis of Fed's strategic tanking [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Analysis of Fed's strategic tanking

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-23-2009, 07:48 PM
Two examples of matches which, in my opinion, he has deliberately tanked this year. Both with the same idea behind them.

1 vs Djokovic at Rome.

2 vs Tsonga at Montreal.

Both matches Federer was clearly looking the better player and then started playing absurdly poor tennis.

Both times he tanked one round ahead of the player he wanted to avoid facing. On clay this was clearly Nadal. Strategic tank, let Nadal burn himself out against Djokovic. Then Federer turned up all guns blazing at Madrid against a tired Nadal and got the win. The aim was to give himself the momentum going into the French Open. He can't have anticipated Nadal losing before the final - the aim was that by the time he got there, he would be tired and would have some slight question marks in his head after Madrid.

At Montreal he did exactly the same thing. He didn't want to try and win two Masters tournaments and the US Open all in one go - too risky and too tiring, especially now he's getting a bit older. This time, the threat was Murray. Deliberately tanks in the round before he meets Murray and lets Murray burn himself out. Then - just as he did in Madrid versus Nadal - he turns up all guns blazing against a tiring Murray at the pre-Slam MS - and takes him to school. And, just as he did at the French Open, he is going into the US Open with all the momentum. Let's see if the trick works this time...

chenx15
08-23-2009, 07:52 PM
if i'm not a roger federer fan i will say you are an idiot. but being a roger federer fan i have to agree. also an extra point is that it leaves the opponents scrambling because they expecet him to just lay down and lose when he comes with the guns and catches them with their pants down scrambling on what to do before the slam. Boy i hope you are right! come on Roger!

Burrow
08-23-2009, 07:53 PM
if i'm not a roger federer fan i will say you are an idiot. but being a roger federer fan i have to agree. also an extra point is that it leaves the opponents scrambling because they expecet him to just lay down and lose when he comes with the guns and catches them with their pants down scrambling on what to do before the slam. Boy i hope you are right! come on Roger!

:rolleyes:

Jaz
08-23-2009, 07:53 PM
I think this is nonsense.

He is human, he can tank mentally, emotionally and physically. There is no conspiracy.

Roddickominator
08-23-2009, 07:57 PM
Roger says himself that it is more important to him to feel like he is playing well in non-Slams than anything else. He obviously does not really care about winning the tourneys....I don't think this theory is very far-fetched at all.

Dini
08-23-2009, 07:59 PM
:bs:

chenx15
08-23-2009, 08:06 PM
:rolleyes:

He he he he

lessthanjake
08-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I think it actually makes some sense.

If you play a player in two tournaments before a slam, that player has more time to adjust to whatever new tactics you are bringing out to beat them with.

For instance, Federer jammed Murray with a lot of body serves in Cincinnati. If he had played Murray in Montreal and done that, then Murray might have figured out how to deal with that by Cincinnati, and certainly by the US Open. As it is, he won't necessarily know how to deal with that by the US Open, and that's the main goal.

Federer COULD play the Rome/Montreal tournaments without using whatever new tactics he plans on using, but that would be silly too. It would likely allow the other player to win and give them confidence.

Do I think Federer actually strategically tanked? No. But would I be hugely surprised if he did? No.

FedFan_2007
08-23-2009, 08:10 PM
:retard: Enough of this crap.

Sunset of Age
08-23-2009, 08:11 PM
:bs:
x 1000



How about the idea that he actually ran into a player who was playing BETTER than him in those particular cases? OK, of course not, JesusFed can't lose without him intending to do so. Yeah.

:retard:

Sapeod
08-23-2009, 08:14 PM
Federer lost those matches because he played poorly, or his opponent played better. Big fucking deal. He's done that around 160 times in his career. Are all of those strategic tanks as well?

Myrre
08-23-2009, 08:23 PM
I've been thinking the same thing. Especially after Federer said that having played Nadal so many times on clay in smaller tournaments have helped Nadal at the French Open. So maybe now he is avoiding his hardest opponents, so that they won't get used to playing him.

andylovesaustin
08-23-2009, 08:29 PM
I don't think Roger tanks matches.

However, I do think he conserves his energy. He might not "push" himself as hard to win certain matches or tournaments. At this point, there is no way Roger is going-out early in a best 2 out of 3--even playing at 75% anyway. And playing at 85% he can beat most players in a 2 out of 3 sets.

I think he steps it up when he want to prove a point--like against Murray and Nole today--or with Rafa in Madrid.

But then again against some other players, he just might feel he doesn't necessarily have to prove anything even if he happens to lose.

I don't think he "tanks" though. I don't think he goes out there with the idea he's going to throw a match. He goes out there with the idea he's going to win. I think it's more of a subconscious thing that he just doesn't necessary push himself to win against all players except in certain instances.

Chiseller
08-23-2009, 08:51 PM
It's pretty much a fact that he ain't playing as good as in Grand Slams which leaves a lot of interpretation. But I'm quite sure he doesn't lose them on purpose, that's not the attitude of athletes.

madmax
08-23-2009, 09:01 PM
we clearly saw what a motivated Roger has done with Murray and Novak - two overhyped young guns, being shoved down our throats all the time. You could see that he was pissed off after those earlier MS defeats to them and decided to bring his GS form...and we all know that when Fed is "motivated" or simply wants to prove a point he's almost unbeatable (barring Nadal who is horrible matchup for him).

abraxas21
08-23-2009, 09:02 PM
:retard: Enough of this crap.

+1

the whole concept of 'tanking' is ridiculous

Allez
08-23-2009, 09:07 PM
Nice theory but with hindsight everything can be turned into some kind of conspiracy. He lost those matches fair and square. Might he have benefited from those loses...possibly, but we can never say one way or another. One thing we can be sure of is that Roger NEVER throws matches away.

Quakes
08-23-2009, 09:25 PM
What about Rafael's 'tank' against JCF?

The important point is, you have to be THAT GOOD of a player like Roger or Rafael in order to LOSE matches DELIBERATELY. Even for players like Murray or Del Potro, a win is always better than a loss in whatever situation, because they cannot afford to tank while climbing the rankings. Federer and Nadal are entitled to tank matches because they are just so good that they think in the long term instead of about just one match. So whether deliberate or not, they have the right to tank their matches.

Should such 'tanking', if they are deliberate, be considered sportsmanlike or unsportsman like? My opinion is that tanking is sportsmanlike as long as there is no betting involved. We all know that tennis is a mental game as much as physical, so if mentally I feel like I WANT to lose this match and then why not loose it? At least Federer and Nadal, even when they 'tank' the match, are out there to take the full beating from an inferior player, unlike some players who come up with pathetic excuses of injury and withdraw despite all their fans cheering them on.

So, tank all you want, for all those players who could afford it are entitled to. I don't mind.

:cool:

samanosuke
08-23-2009, 09:26 PM
Two examples of matches which, in my opinion, he has deliberately tanked this year. Both with the same idea behind them.

1 vs Djokovic at Rome.

2 vs Tsonga at Montreal.

Both matches Federer was clearly looking the better player and then started playing absurdly poor tennis.

Both times he tanked one round ahead of the player he wanted to avoid facing. On clay this was clearly Nadal. Strategic tank, let Nadal burn himself out against Djokovic. Then Federer turned up all guns blazing at Madrid against a tired Nadal and got the win. The aim was to give himself the momentum going into the French Open. He can't have anticipated Nadal losing before the final - the aim was that by the time he got there, he would be tired and would have some slight question marks in his head after Madrid.

At Montreal he did exactly the same thing. He didn't want to try and win two Masters tournaments and the US Open all in one go - too risky and too tiring, especially now he's getting a bit older. This time, the threat was Murray. Deliberately tanks in the round before he meets Murray and lets Murray burn himself out. Then - just as he did in Madrid versus Nadal - he turns up all guns blazing against a tiring Murray at the pre-Slam MS - and takes him to school. And, just as he did at the French Open, he is going into the US Open with all the momentum. Let's see if the trick works this time...


if that is true then you must put on the list matches with

murray in Indian Well
djokovic in Miami

but if this is true why he did not tank against Hewitt two days ago ?

MacTheKnife
08-23-2009, 09:32 PM
Does anybody seriously believe any of the top guys tank matches. :lol: beyond words and certainly not worth wasting typing time on.

lessthanjake
08-23-2009, 09:36 PM
Maybe he didn't actually tank, but tennis IS to a large degree mental. And his loss to Tsonga was arguably a GOOD thing. Federer probably realized that would be the case, and mentally was not wanting to win as much as usual. That doesn't mean he was purposely tanking, but that he was not in the match as much as normal, resulting in a loss.

River
08-23-2009, 09:40 PM
FEDERER GOT HIS ASS KICKED.

Jesus christ LET HIM LOSE IN PEACE.

Why the hell would losing the THIRD TO LAST TOURNAMENT BEFORE A GRAND SLAM (Rogers Cup, then Cincy then New Haven if I recall) be called a STRATEGIC TANK. You tank on purpose on the LAST TOURNAMENT YOU PLAY BEFORE A GS.

And even then WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU TANK. You can't be the GOAT if you do that shit. I for one would revoke his GOAT status immediately for pussying out like that.

Play the whole fucking thing and lose like a man, which Fed did against Tsonga... sort of. If you weren't planning to win the tournament, then don't come at all.

Jeezus.

lessthanjake
08-23-2009, 09:41 PM
FEDERER GOT HIS ASS KICKED.

Jesus christ LET HIM LOSE IN PEACE.

Why the hell would losing the THIRD TO LAST TOURNAMENT BEFORE A GRAND SLAM (Rogers Cup, then Cincy then New Haven if I recall) be called a STRATEGIC TANK. You tank on purpose on the LAST TOURNAMENT YOU PLAY BEFORE A GS.

Jeezus.

So he can beat Murray at Cincinnati and give Murray less time to figure out a way to beat whatever new tactics he is trying.

Apemant
08-23-2009, 09:43 PM
I don't think Roger tanks matches.

However, I do think he conserves his energy. He might not "push" himself as hard to win certain matches or tournaments. At this point, there is no way Roger is going-out early in a best 2 out of 3--even playing at 75% anyway. And playing at 85% he can beat most players in a 2 out of 3 sets.

I think he steps it up when he want to prove a point--like against Murray and Nole today--or with Rafa in Madrid.

But then again against some other players, he just might feel he doesn't necessarily have to prove anything even if he happens to lose.

I don't think he "tanks" though. I don't think he goes out there with the idea he's going to throw a match. He goes out there with the idea he's going to win. I think it's more of a subconscious thing that he just doesn't necessary push himself to win against all players except in certain instances.

Excellent post. I don't believe Fed would deliberately tank a match either. Esp. the idea that he tanked against Tsonga is preposterous. If he wanted to tank, why go up 5-1 in the first place? :shrug: It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

But, I also agree on the second point. Yes - it's not like he goes into each match with the idea of playing to the very best of his abilities. Actually, most people do that; they don't try as hard in just about EVERY match. Roger is no exception here either.

River
08-23-2009, 09:46 PM
So he can beat Murray at Cincinnati and give Murray less time to figure out a way to beat whatever new tactics he is trying.

If Federer was so damn good he wouldn't need stuff like that.

And he is that damn good, even I admit it. He doesn't need to hide anything from Murray. Might as well crush his confidence sooner than later.

your_valentine
08-23-2009, 09:57 PM
Roger Federer doesn't tank matches. Sometimes people play better than him. Accept the truth and move on.

calvinhobbes
08-23-2009, 10:19 PM
I believe Tsongaīs medical break at Montreal was a very lousy trick, especially against Roger, who doesnīt have a smashing attitude towards his colleagues. Just he couldnīt concentrate again after he believed he was slaughtering a mentally and physically crunched victim. He gave up (in mind and body) all his aggressiveness and when he realized his mistake, he was already immersed in the mousetrap and couldnīt stop the revitalized Jo "Arnold" Tsonga.
This has happened several times during Rogerīs career, even against Nadal (Not sure if in Montecarlo), and Murray (in Masterīs cup. Forgive me if this is not accurate)....
Those tricks changed Rogerīs mode from Jesus-Fed to Jesus-Christ....

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-23-2009, 10:19 PM
I didn't mean to come across as someone who was annoyed at these defeats and is trying to explain them away. I didn't care that much when he lost either match...

Laba
08-23-2009, 10:35 PM
Absolute joke of a thread.

dijus
08-24-2009, 12:01 AM
sure, but his best tank was RG 2008 final, just excellent work by Maestro

Sapeod
08-24-2009, 12:04 AM
Absolute joke of a thread.
+1

danieln1
08-24-2009, 12:06 AM
If you stop and think, thatīs a sensible thought, and a smart move, since both times he had success the following tournament! Why use all your energy in one match if you can save a lot of energy for the next tournment?? Fed is so, so smart... The GOAT chooses carefully all his strategies

simplet
08-24-2009, 12:22 AM
So he can beat Murray at Cincinnati and give Murray less time to figure out a way to beat whatever new tactics he is trying.


Yeah man I can even picture it : Murray at a desk drawing diagrams of body serve trajectories, trying to find the solution to this enigma with all his coach-counsellors : "If only I had one more week! Just one more weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!!! !!!"

habibko
08-24-2009, 06:43 AM
x 1000



How about the idea that he actually ran into a player who was playing BETTER than him in those particular cases? OK, of course not, JesusFed can't lose without him intending to do so. Yeah.

:retard:

wrong, he was clearly better in both these matches and was in a winning position before unexplainably dropping his level to an insanely bad level.

I keep changing my mind on this matter all the time, it makes and doesn't make sense depending on which angle you look at it, what does Fed give the edge, his natural competitive spirit or the strategic vision on the long run? he has both these qualities and has shown both of them throughout his career, this is of course all speculation.

let's say that the Tsonga case was closer to a tank than the other matches and leave it at that, but honestly, who knows?

fast_clay
08-24-2009, 07:05 AM
if they were tanks, then they were 1st class, champagne tanks... nobody saw them coming... perhaps not even to the great man himself...

Mechlan
08-24-2009, 07:25 AM
What a joke. Players just don't think this way. If Federer wanted to tank, he could have been much smarter about it instead of waiting till he was 5-1 up in the third before tanking. Or was it only after he was 5-1 that he realized he needed to tank? :rolleyes:

HKz
08-24-2009, 07:37 AM
I really doubt that Federer has really ever purposely lost matches in his career, especially since he had become World Number 1 because like any true competitor out there, they HATE losing and LOVE winning. I mean even saying that he saves himself for Grand Slams is a little tough to say because if that was the case, I don't think he would really be playing enough tournaments to keep him at the top of the men's rankings. Well you can say that maybe mentally he does really step it up at Grand Slams, but I don't think it is to the ludicrous point people make that Federer absolutely doesn't care for the smaller events. I mean you could tell what it meant to him still when he won Cincinnati yesterday, he jumped up for joy just like any other player.

But if one day we were able to ever find out and he purposely did this tactic of tanking specific matches, I would just be WOWed.

Bargearse
08-24-2009, 07:52 AM
So, behind the scenes, Federer is carefully plotting out the weeks ahead, dissecting the draws and strategically planning when and where to 'tank' in an effort to throw his main competitors off?? :scratch:

Sounds like the wicked witch of the west looking into her crystal ball coming up with evil plans to destroy Dorothy and her little dog too!:scared:

Rather far fetched IMO, but maybe, just maybe Fed would use such a strategy to deal with Murray, but it wouldn't work with Nadal because for him, there is nothing to figure out. He will just hit forehands all day to Fed's backhand. It has worked many times for him and he won't change a winning formula anymore than he will stop adjusting his undergarments. :yawn:

Myrre
08-24-2009, 10:37 AM
Federer only cares for the slams (and he likes the no.1 position). It doesn't always look like he gives 100% and I wouldn't put it beyond him to deliberately lose a match if he thinks it can benefit him in the Slams.

miura
08-24-2009, 10:57 AM
Federer only cares for the slams (and he likes the no.1 position). It doesn't always look like he gives 100% and I wouldn't put it beyond him to deliberately lose a match if he thinks it can benefit him in the Slams.
No he doesn't.

ShotmaKer
08-24-2009, 11:02 AM
Absolute joke of a thread.

this

Goldenoldie
08-24-2009, 01:55 PM
Very sorry peoples I am just simple old man with simple old brain, and this all too clever for me.

I think most of time, Federer play better than opponent, so he win. Sometimes he play not so better than opponent so he lose.

All else is kackypoo. No?

Sunset of Age
08-24-2009, 02:01 PM
Very sorry peoples I am just simple old man with simple old brain, and this all too clever for me.

I think most of time, Federer play better than opponent, so he win. Sometimes he play not so better than opponent so he lose.

All else is kackypoo. No?

:lol: :yeah:

denisgiann
08-24-2009, 03:22 PM
I dont think Federer tanks.He just conserves a big amount of energy to use it when it counts.In those events he enters just to get a decent match play and uses about 80 percent or less of his ability to win.If that its enough for the day he wins...if not....he certainly wont take it to heart and move on.He wont risk getting himself injured when a slam looms ahead.These events are mostly warm ups(escpesially now that he has won so many of them) for the big show for him.

fred perry
08-24-2009, 03:35 PM
I think there is a lot of validity to this theory. he knew he had a better shot in Madrid than Rome. And he knew that winning the biggest tourney right before the US Open would give him ultimate confidence. Nice analysis.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 05:16 PM
wrong, he was clearly better in both these matches and was in a winning position before unexplainably dropping his level to an insanely bad level.

I keep changing my mind on this matter all the time, it makes and doesn't make sense depending on which angle you look at it, what does Fed give the edge, his natural competitive spirit or the strategic vision on the long run? he has both these qualities and has shown both of them throughout his career, this is of course all speculation.

let's say that the Tsonga case was closer to a tank than the other matches and leave it at that, but honestly, who knows?

You sound more and more like a delusional lunatic every day.

Federer waited until he was 5-1 up against Tsonga and then decided to lose? I wish people would fuckin grow up and accept that their favourite player can and does lose fair and square on occasion.

There was no tank. By suggesting that he tanked that Tsonga match, you really are making a fool of yourself. It makes no sense whatsoever.

rofe
08-24-2009, 05:20 PM
I don't think Fed tanks intentionally - ever. From what I have seen from him over the years, he hates to lose so tanking would not be in line with his strong desire to win.

stebs
08-24-2009, 05:57 PM
:lol: Yes, of course this is what happened. :rolleyes:

Federer is far, far, FAR too competetive to tank any match.

Dini
08-24-2009, 06:03 PM
I fully agree with stebs.

habibko
08-24-2009, 08:33 PM
You sound more and more like a delusional lunatic every day.

Federer waited until he was 5-1 up against Tsonga and then decided to lose? I wish people would fuckin grow up and accept that their favourite player can and does lose fair and square on occasion.

There was no tank. By suggesting that he tanked that Tsonga match, you really are making a fool of yourself. It makes no sense whatsoever.

you are getting more obsessed with me with every passing day it seems, you just came here to bash me again?

I clearly said that I'm not sure about that but Fed seemed like he wasn't even trying in that stage of the match except when he saved the 3 match points, I'd love to say that Fed is the ultimate competitor and he plays every single point like a match point and he is the ultimate warrior VAMOS!!?11! but I'm only analyzing what I saw with my own eyes, not some perfected image of GodFed in my mind.

if you have a problem with my view it's your problem, say you disagree and no need to constantly call me names every day dude.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 08:46 PM
you are getting more obsessed with me with every passing day it seems, you just came here to bash me again?

I clearly said that I'm not sure about that but Fed seemed like he wasn't even trying in that stage of the match except when he saved the 3 match points, I'd love to say that Fed is the ultimate competitor and he plays every single point like a match point and he is the ultimate warrior VAMOS!!?11! but I'm only analyzing what I saw with my own eyes, not some perfected image of GodFed in my mind.

if you have a problem with my view it's your problem, say you disagree and no need to constantly call me names every day dude.

As if you don't insult me all the time. I wouldn't even say a bad word about you if it wasn't for the fact that you doubt every single thing I say simply because I'm a Murray fan. I'm not trying to be a dick to you, but you used to come across as pretty reasonable. What the fuck happened?

The reality is that it's not even debatable whether or not it was a tank. You do not go 5-1 up, decide to blow the lead, go 3 matchpoints down, decide to save them, and then tank in the tiebreak. On what planet does that make sense?

I wish you would just admit that Federer lost fair and square. There was no tank, nor were there any excuses. He screwed up and blew a lead, just like every other player has. Seriously, I'm sorry for calling you names. I just can't help myself when I see hypocrisy. And that's not me calling you a name. That's just what it is, mate. You can't pick and choose which matches you think Federer tries in. You can't say he doesn't try when he loses to Murray and then randomly change your tune when Federer finally beats him again.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-24-2009, 08:55 PM
FYI Clydey this thread is actually quite complimentary to a certain Scottish player who doesn't exactly rival James Bond in the looks department. I didn't say he tanked his earlier losses to Murray and I said he tanked one round ahead of Murray at Montreal so he didn't have to play him.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 09:02 PM
FYI Clydey this thread is actually quite complimentary to a certain Scottish player who doesn't exactly rival James Bond in the looks department. I didn't say he tanked his earlier losses to Murray and I said he tanked one round ahead of Murray at Montreal so he didn't have to play him.

I know you didn't. I was replying to Habibko. Habib believes that Federer loses to Murray in MS events because he doesn't really try. As soon as Fed beats Murray at an MS event, Habib changes his tune. Apparently Federer tried in Cinci, but didn't try on the occasions that he lost. It's pure hypocrisy.

Fed=ATPTourkilla
08-24-2009, 09:10 PM
I don't think he's been tanking against Murray. He just has a tendency to "mug out" against good defensive play, especially over the last few years and at the smaller tournaments. We've seen it before against Canas. But against a hyper-aggressive player like Tsonga, who he matches up well against...

Clydey
08-24-2009, 09:15 PM
I don't think he's been tanking against Murray. He just has a tendency to "mug out" against good defensive play, especially over the last few years and at the smaller tournaments. We've seen it before against Canas. But against a hyper-aggressive player like Tsonga, who he matches up well against...

It was just a bad day at the office. Seriously, just think about it for two seconds.

Federer decides to go 3 sets, rather than lose in straights. He then goes up 5-1 in the final set, then decides to get broken twice to blow his lead. Then, inexplicably, he decides to save triple matchpoint. Then he changes his mind again and tanks the tiebreak.

How can that possibly seem plausible?

tennishero
08-24-2009, 09:19 PM
http://kilo.naurunappula.com/nn/0/425/285/o_490463.jpg

habibko
08-24-2009, 09:29 PM
As if you don't insult me all the time. I wouldn't even say a bad word about you if it wasn't for the fact that you doubt every single thing I say simply because I'm a Murray fan. I'm not trying to be a dick to you, but you used to come across as pretty reasonable. What the fuck happened?

nothing much, Fed has shown again that USO wasn't a fluke and that he knows how to beat Murray on hard courts and did it, that's what happened, and now you are having problems dealing with the new reality and taking your frustrations on me, from calling me a delusional fanboy, moron, retard, hypocrite, and now a fool and lunatic, the problem is with you not with me.

The reality is that it's not even debatable whether or not it was a tank. You do not go 5-1 up, decide to blow the lead, go 3 matchpoints down, decide to save them, and then tank in the tiebreak. On what planet does that make sense?

I wish you would just admit that Federer lost fair and square. There was no tank, nor were there any excuses. He screwed up and blew a lead, just like every other player has. Seriously, I'm sorry for calling you names. I just can't help myself when I see hypocrisy. And that's not me calling you a name. That's just what it is, mate. You can't pick and choose which matches you think Federer tries in. You can't say he doesn't try when he loses to Murray and then randomly change your tune when Federer finally beats him again.

of course he lost fair and square, when did I say that win doesn't count?!?!?!? Tsonga did incredibly well to turn around a match he was losing in a really clownish manner.

habibko
08-24-2009, 09:30 PM
I know you didn't. I was replying to Habibko. Habib believes that Federer loses to Murray in MS events because he doesn't really try. As soon as Fed beats Murray at an MS event, Habib changes his tune. Apparently Federer tried in Cinci, but didn't try on the occasions that he lost. It's pure hypocrisy.

I NEVER said he tanked against Murray.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 09:32 PM
I NEVER said he tanked against Murray.

I didn't say that you did. I said that you think Federer didn't really try in those losses to Murray.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 09:37 PM
nothing much, Fed has shown again that USO wasn't a fluke and that he knows how to beat Murray on hard courts and did it, that's what happened, and now you are having problems dealing with the new reality and taking your frustrations on me, from calling me a delusional fanboy, moron, retard, hypocrite, and now a fool and lunatic, the problem is with you not with me.



Mate, I don't care that Murray lost to Federer. I even voted for Fed in the match poll. He was due a win. I have never been in any doubt that Federer knows how to beat Murray. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that Murray can beat Federer when Fed tries.

You cannot accept the truth. If Federer loses, he didn't really try his hardest. If he wins, suddenly you change your tune and claim that Federer decided to try his best. Just accept that Federer has been outplayed on the six occasions that Murray beaten him. It had nothing to do with lack of effort. Hell, Federer was so pissed about losing to Murray in Doha that he didn't even shake the umpire's hand. I have no trouble accepting that Murray got outplayed when he lost. So why are you so obsessed with making up excuses and discrediting Federer's opponents when he loses?

habibko
08-24-2009, 09:53 PM
Mate, I don't care that Murray lost to Federer. I even voted for Fed in the match poll. He was due a win. I have never been in any doubt that Federer knows how to beat Murray. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that Murray can beat Federer when Fed tries.

You cannot accept the truth. If Federer loses, he didn't really try his hardest. If he wins, suddenly you change your tune and claim that Federer decided to try his best. Just accept that Federer has been outplayed on the six occasions that Murray beaten him. It had nothing to do with lack of effort. Hell, Federer was so pissed about losing to Murray in Doha that he didn't even shake the umpire's hand. I have no trouble accepting that Murray got outplayed when he lost. So why are you so obsessed with making up excuses and discrediting Federer's opponents when he loses?

I also voted for Murray to beat Federer but I sure as hell care if Fed lost to him, not sure how you can be that apathetic about it..

Fed has stopped trying his hardest in non-slam events for a while now, it has nothing to do with Murray, I've had enough debates with Fed fans and other fans about this.

I've told you before that Murray is a clear underdog against Fed whenever they will meet in a slam, and of course Murray is the favorite outside slams lately, but that doesn't mean he doesn't try to win against Murray in non-slam events, I have never said that and if you think I said that quote me saying that.

yes credit to Murray for all of his 6 wins against Federer, do I even need to say this? hope it makes you feel better now.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 09:59 PM
I also voted for Murray to beat Federer but I sure as hell care if Fed lost to him, not sure how you can be that apathetic about it..

Fed has stopped trying his hardest in non-slam events for a while now, it has nothing to do with Murray, I've had enough debates with Fed fans and other fans about this.

I've told you before that Murray is a clear underdog against Fed whenever they will meet in a slam, but that doesn't mean he doesn't try to win against Murray in non-slam events, I have never said that and if you think I said that quote me saying that.

yes credit to Murray for all of his 6 wins against Federer, do I even need to say this? hope it makes you feel better now.

Like I said in another thread, I was disappointed for like 2 minutes after Murray lost to Federer. It's a tennis match. It's not tough to get over.

If you say he doesn't try his hardest in non-slam events, you are saying he doesn't try his hardest when he plays Murray in those events. However, you changed your tune when Fed won in Cinci. Suddenly you were suggesting that Federer decided to try for a change.

If Federer doesn't try in non-slam events, why did he smash his racquet during one this year? Why did he snub the umpire after two of his losses this year? That's a clear indication that he cares.

habibko
08-24-2009, 10:03 PM
Like I said in another thread, I was disappointed for like 2 minutes after Murray lost to Federer. It's a tennis match. It's not tough to get over.

If you say he doesn't try his hardest in non-slam events, you are saying he doesn't try his hardest when he plays Murray in those events. However, you changed your tune when Fed won in Cinci. Suddenly you were suggesting that Federer decided to try for a change.

If Federer doesn't try in non-slam events, why did he smash his racquet during one this year? Why did he snub the umpire after two of his losses this year? That's a clear indication that he cares.

he cares, but not as much as he cares for slams, his mental and physical preparations are directed towards the slams where he tries to peak for, that doesn't mean at any given day he doesn't try and doesn't care to win the match he is playing, he is a professional athlete and a great competitor, but as it has been said for many years now: "in slams he is a different animal".

I think I can't be more clear about this point.

Vida
08-24-2009, 10:06 PM
fish loss last year was 80 per cent tank.

Dini
08-24-2009, 10:09 PM
He's a different animal in Slams these days because I believe the format suits him more. Best of 5: he has time to regroup and start thinking again about his shots to compose himself. In best of 3, he usually finds that the likes of Murray have taken charge and that his groundstrokes have broken down and before he knows it, he's a double break down in the 3rd set. If Slams weren't best of 5s you'd have probably seen Federer lose to Berdych at the AO, to Haas at the French etc etc.

He gives it his all. I have no doubts about that, if he didn't he would never have smashed that racquet in Miami - he cares and the frustration was so visible. The fact that Murray has been able to beat him 6 out of 8 times says a lot about Murray and his abilities and also his tactics: sensing frustration and using it to his advantage (attacks FH and BH when he sees the errors).

Federer is just not the same player as before - he's slower. I hate it when people try to come up with execuses for his losses when really he just got outplayed. It happens. He has plenty of bad days in the office but the good days have far out numbered the bad ones... hence why he's been at the top for so long.

Forehander
08-24-2009, 10:24 PM
You can't be more correct. I totally agree with the OP.

ballbasher101
08-24-2009, 10:53 PM
He's a different animal in Slams these days because I believe the format suits him more. Best of 5: he has time to regroup and start thinking again about his shots to compose himself. In best of 3, he usually finds that the likes of Murray have taken charge and that his groundstrokes have broken down and before he knows it, he's a double break down in the 3rd set. If Slams weren't best of 5s you'd have probably seen Federer lose to Berdych at the AO, to Haas at the French etc etc.

He gives it his all. I have no doubts about that, if he didn't he would never have smashed that racquet in Miami - he cares and the frustration was so visible. The fact that Murray has been able to beat him 6 out of 8 times says a lot about Murray and his abilities and also his tactics: sensing frustration and using it to his advantage (attacks FH and BH when he sees the errors).

Federer is just not the same player as before - he's slower. I hate it when people try to come up with execuses for his losses when really he just got outplayed. It happens. He has plenty of bad days in the office but the good days have far out numbered the bad ones... hence why he's been at the top for so long.


We need more posters like you, that was a very insightful post.

Certinfy
08-24-2009, 11:04 PM
I also agree with the OP.

Burrow
08-24-2009, 11:06 PM
He's a different animal in Slams these days because I believe the format suits him more. Best of 5: he has time to regroup and start thinking again about his shots to compose himself. In best of 3, he usually finds that the likes of Murray have taken charge and that his groundstrokes have broken down and before he knows it, he's a double break down in the 3rd set. If Slams weren't best of 5s you'd have probably seen Federer lose to Berdych at the AO, to Haas at the French etc etc.

He gives it his all. I have no doubts about that, if he didn't he would never have smashed that racquet in Miami - he cares and the frustration was so visible. The fact that Murray has been able to beat him 6 out of 8 times says a lot about Murray and his abilities and also his tactics: sensing frustration and using it to his advantage (attacks FH and BH when he sees the errors).

Federer is just not the same player as before - he's slower. I hate it when people try to come up with execuses for his losses when really he just got outplayed. It happens. He has plenty of bad days in the office but the good days have far out numbered the bad ones... hence why he's been at the top for so long.

He played the same in the slams it's just it's more difficult to beat him over 5 sets, he struggled royally at roland garros and struggled more in wimbledon, even without Nadal than he done in any of his other wins.

It's not like he magically becomes the Federer of 2004-2006 again.

Clydey
08-24-2009, 11:11 PM
He's a different animal in Slams these days because I believe the format suits him more. Best of 5: he has time to regroup and start thinking again about his shots to compose himself. In best of 3, he usually finds that the likes of Murray have taken charge and that his groundstrokes have broken down and before he knows it, he's a double break down in the 3rd set. If Slams weren't best of 5s you'd have probably seen Federer lose to Berdych at the AO, to Haas at the French etc etc.

He gives it his all. I have no doubts about that, if he didn't he would never have smashed that racquet in Miami - he cares and the frustration was so visible. The fact that Murray has been able to beat him 6 out of 8 times says a lot about Murray and his abilities and also his tactics: sensing frustration and using it to his advantage (attacks FH and BH when he sees the errors).

Federer is just not the same player as before - he's slower. I hate it when people try to come up with execuses for his losses when really he just got outplayed. It happens. He has plenty of bad days in the office but the good days have far out numbered the bad ones... hence why he's been at the top for so long.

Excellent post.

lessthanjake
08-25-2009, 12:14 AM
Like I said in another thread, I was disappointed for like 2 minutes after Murray lost to Federer. It's a tennis match. It's not tough to get over.

If you say he doesn't try his hardest in non-slam events, you are saying he doesn't try his hardest when he plays Murray in those events. However, you changed your tune when Fed won in Cinci. Suddenly you were suggesting that Federer decided to try for a change.

If Federer doesn't try in non-slam events, why did he smash his racquet during one this year? Why did he snub the umpire after two of his losses this year? That's a clear indication that he cares.

Okay I'm gonna give you an example from my life that I feel is extremely similar.

I did a lot of debate in high school. In debate, there were a lot of events during the year that were just normal tune up tournaments. They gave us all practice for the big events like States (I am from the US, so I am talking state championship here). I wanted to win those tune up events, but I also recognized that they didn't mean much. So I could never bring myself to prepare that much for them. I would generally do all my research around midnight the night before, which any debater can tell you is not a good plan for success. This led me to underperform in those tournaments. I would frequently lose to people who I shouldnt have lost to and was way better than. In fact, I think I only got 1st place in 1 small event in 4 years of high school. Does that mean I didn't care about those events? No. I still cared, and just like Federer breaking a racket at Miami, I would get upset with myself over losing in them. But when it came to really important events like States and National regionals (tournament involving the best debaters from multiple states in my region of the country), I was a completely different animal. I prepared heavily, focused more, and was just way better. The result was that I would easily beat people who had beaten me at those lesser tournaments. I won States every year I competed there and won the National regional once (and tied for first a second time).

I was definitely the best debater in my state while I was in high school. But I almost always lost in events that weren't that important. Is that because I "tanked" those less important events or didn't want to win? No, of course not. I would have rather won those events, but I didn't do that well in them mostly because the effort I was willing to put into them was not very high. I believe Federer is the same. He is the best tennis player in the world, but he doesn't get himself as physically and mentally prepared for non-slam events because they don't matter as much. Of course, he wants to win them when he is there, but it doesnt end up happening as much because he just doesn't put the same effort into them. When I debated, lesser debaters DID try their hardest in lesser events, because those were the ones they could win. This allowed them to beat me. I suspect that the same is true of less skilled tennis players. They try their hardest in lesser events too, and as a result, they can beat a Federer who is not putting in as much effort as he could.

This changes somewhat when you are going up against big rivals who you have lost to a lot. Again, this is like my debate experience. My biggest rival in my state in debate happened to be my longtime girlfriend. She tried her absolute hardest at every event, just like Andy Murray tries his hardest at Masters too. As a result, she beat me a lot, and I hated that because I felt I was better than her (just like Federer feels he is better than Murray). So eventually, when I knew I'd be going up against her, even in lesser events, I would put more effort in because I did not want to lose to her again. This is like Federer putting more effort in when he faced Murray, even though it was just a Masters event.

Also, the other reason Federer does better in slams, aside from putting more effort into it, is that they are 5 sets instead of 3 setters. Once more, I can draw a parallel with my own life. When I debated, the lesser events only lasted a single day. The bigger events involved far more debating and lasted two days. So in lesser events, a single lucky high score from a judge could win you the tournament. In the bigger events, that couldn't happen because you debated more, and so each individual score mattered less. I always thought that that helped me to not lose in bigger events to people who I was better than. Basically, the higher the sample size, the more the better player wins. This is how it is with Federer. He can lose 2 out of 3 sets, but he won't often drop 3 out of 5 sets to lesser players. This isn't a matter of effort, but a matter of probability.

So basically, I feel like I understand Federer's difference in performance in Masters and slams because I think I felt similarly about debate competitions in high school. So yes, it DOES actually make sense.

fast_clay
08-25-2009, 01:28 AM
it was that little mini murray that crawled in fed's ear and made a home in his mind last TMC, where The Tradesman busted himself and his title chances in a meaningless group match just to own federer and remove him from the tournament... mini murray sat there and held conversations about mono and other musings with fed early in the year which caused several subsequent meltdowns... one day shortly before the clay season federer went to the gym for a bit to work on his biceps and had surgery to remove mini murray later on... the removal resulted in some minor brain damage which then later resulted in some grand slams...

leng jai
08-25-2009, 01:43 AM
Some delusional people in this thread, and I'm not talking about the OP.

fast_clay
08-25-2009, 02:23 AM
Some delusional people in this thread, and I'm not talking about the OP.

while in fed's mind, mini murray came across a lad named mini rafa... they quickly became friends after mini murray learned that mini rafa has being lodging in fed's head rent free for a considerable number of years... slowly though, after also learning of mini rafa's nasty habit they didnt hang out much past a few weeks... both still continued heavy dialogue with roger however...

habibko
08-25-2009, 02:32 AM
Okay I'm gonna give you an example from my life that I feel is extremely similar.

I did a lot of debate in high school. In debate, there were a lot of events during the year that were just normal tune up tournaments. They gave us all practice for the big events like States (I am from the US, so I am talking state championship here). I wanted to win those tune up events, but I also recognized that they didn't mean much. So I could never bring myself to prepare that much for them. I would generally do all my research around midnight the night before, which any debater can tell you is not a good plan for success. This led me to underperform in those tournaments. I would frequently lose to people who I shouldnt have lost to and was way better than. In fact, I think I only got 1st place in 1 small event in 4 years of high school. Does that mean I didn't care about those events? No. I still cared, and just like Federer breaking a racket at Miami, I would get upset with myself over losing in them. But when it came to really important events like States and National regionals (tournament involving the best debaters from multiple states in my region of the country), I was a completely different animal. I prepared heavily, focused more, and was just way better. The result was that I would easily beat people who had beaten me at those lesser tournaments. I won States every year I competed there and won the National regional once (and tied for first a second time).

I was definitely the best debater in my state while I was in high school. But I almost always lost in events that weren't that important. Is that because I "tanked" those less important events or didn't want to win? No, of course not. I would have rather won those events, but I didn't do that well in them mostly because the effort I was willing to put into them was not very high. I believe Federer is the same. He is the best tennis player in the world, but he doesn't get himself as physically and mentally prepared for non-slam events because they don't matter as much. Of course, he wants to win them when he is there, but it doesnt end up happening as much because he just doesn't put the same effort into them. When I debated, lesser debaters DID try their hardest in lesser events, because those were the ones they could win. This allowed them to beat me. I suspect that the same is true of less skilled tennis players. They try their hardest in lesser events too, and as a result, they can beat a Federer who is not putting in as much effort as he could.

This changes somewhat when you are going up against big rivals who you have lost to a lot. Again, this is like my debate experience. My biggest rival in my state in debate happened to be my longtime girlfriend. She tried her absolute hardest at every event, just like Andy Murray tries his hardest at Masters too. As a result, she beat me a lot, and I hated that because I felt I was better than her (just like Federer feels he is better than Murray). So eventually, when I knew I'd be going up against her, even in lesser events, I would put more effort in because I did not want to lose to her again. This is like Federer putting more effort in when he faced Murray, even though it was just a Masters event.

Also, the other reason Federer does better in slams, aside from putting more effort into it, is that they are 5 sets instead of 3 setters. Once more, I can draw a parallel with my own life. When I debated, the lesser events only lasted a single day. The bigger events involved far more debating and lasted two days. So in lesser events, a single lucky high score from a judge could win you the tournament. In the bigger events, that couldn't happen because you debated more, and so each individual score mattered less. I always thought that that helped me to not lose in bigger events to people who I was better than. Basically, the higher the sample size, the more the better player wins. This is how it is with Federer. He can lose 2 out of 3 sets, but he won't often drop 3 out of 5 sets to lesser players. This isn't a matter of effort, but a matter of probability.

So basically, I feel like I understand Federer's difference in performance in Masters and slams because I think I felt similarly about debate competitions in high school. So yes, it DOES actually make sense.

very interesting post, that's what I've been saying for a while now, no excuses for Fed's losses and I'm not trying to make excuses for Fed, but that's just the reality of it, or it seems so anyway.

habibko
08-25-2009, 02:36 AM
it was that little mini murray that crawled in fed's ear and made a home in his mind last TMC, where The Tradesman busted himself and his title chances in a meaningless group match just to own federer and remove him from the tournament... mini murray sat there and held conversations about mono and other musings with fed early in the year which caused several subsequent meltdowns... one day shortly before the clay season federer went to the gym for a bit to work on his biceps and had surgery to remove mini murray later on... the removal resulted in some minor brain damage which then later resulted in some grand slams...

mini Murray :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

neme6
08-25-2009, 03:19 AM
lol, roger tanking matches while his his opponents are making 1 or 2 more rounds than him in the tournament? I mean it doesn't makes any sense at all to me

Roddickominator
08-25-2009, 04:06 AM
If any of you dummies seriously believe that Federer is in the same warrior mindset at MM tourneys that he is at in GS's....then you are completely delusional. He might "care" the same amount...but he is NOT mentally prepared at the same level.

Did you guys even watch the final at Cinci? Federer came out with a purpose, and imposed his will on Murray....which is something that he usually does not do.

Nadal_Fanatic
08-25-2009, 08:44 AM
I think Fed tries to be his fittest during the slams a la Serena Williams. He isn't super interested in every small tournament. He's won them plenty already. Prolonging his career by not going all out all the time. Only Nadal has been able to beat Fed at his best.

Taz Warrior
08-25-2009, 01:10 PM
Some people are reading way too much into a couple of defeats :rolleyes:

leng jai
08-25-2009, 01:36 PM
mini Murray :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

MiniMurray Vs MonoFed - the Ultimate showdown.

Beat
08-25-2009, 02:19 PM
threads are getting better and better on MTF :bigclap::bigclap::bigclap::smash: