Let's face it - Fed can't be arsed for ATP 1000! [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Let's face it - Fed can't be arsed for ATP 1000!

FedFan_2007
11-11-2009, 11:22 PM
Although in Cincy he really did care and took it to Murray & Nole to take the title! So I'm not absolutely certain that he won't pick his spots.

Sjengster
11-11-2009, 11:40 PM
It's funny how things change, I remember the days when Federer was pilloried for being great at the tour events and flopping time after time in the Slams. He was the king of winning small tournaments and then crashing and burning in the first round of the big ones, and now we've done a complete 180.

By the way, the guy who doesn't care about Masters Series is equal second this year for MS titles. As pointed out in another thread, this "doesn't care about the other events" rubbish has never once been offered as an excuse by Federer himself, and is simply a disguise for the fact that he's now average and extremely vulnerable over best of three sets.

Dini
11-11-2009, 11:45 PM
By the way, the guy who doesn't care about Masters Series is equal second this year for MS titles. As pointed out in another thread, this "doesn't care about the other events" rubbish has never once been offered as an excuse by Federer himself, and is simply a disguise for the fact that he's now average and extremely vulnerable over best of three sets.

This. :worship:

philosophicalarf
11-11-2009, 11:52 PM
He cares about clay masters, but the others......not so much. Since Sept06 he's made 5 indoors/hard masters finals, won three (21 events in that period). Same time he's made 12 slam finals, and won 7 of them.

leng jai
11-11-2009, 11:57 PM
Typical Fedtard logic, when he wins he was trying, but when he loses he wasn't and doesn't care.

Sjengster
11-11-2009, 11:58 PM
He cares about clay masters, but the others......not so much. Since Sept06 he's made 5 indoors/hard masters finals, won three (21 events in that period). Same time he's made 12 slam finals, and won 7 of them.

That's probably because hardcourts over best of three is the best possible scenario to face him, being the most equal surface, with the greatest number of contenders, over the shortest distance.

Typical Fedtard logic, when he wins he was trying, but when he loses he wasn't and doesn't care.

Blimey o'riley, I agree with you for once. He was actually fined for tanking in his early days, I doubt he wants to invite the same suspicion now that he's at the pinnacle of the game.

leng jai
11-12-2009, 12:04 AM
Blimey o'riley, I agree with you for once. He was actually fined for tanking in his early days, I doubt he wants to invite the same suspicion now that he's at the pinnacle of the game.

Some things are impossible to disagree on.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-12-2009, 12:52 AM
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41247000/jpg/_41247277_federer_2nd_gonzalez416.jpg

for people who think Fed never adjusts to other peoples games

hehehe- EVERYONE fears the GONZO FH

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41704000/gif/_41704776_nadal_federer1_416.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41704000/gif/_41704774_nadal_federer2_416.gif

kyleskywalker007
11-12-2009, 01:50 AM
Boring, don't come up with this crap because everybody knows he is losing because he is not as good as he used to be in best of 3 format. That's it. Still, he is much better than most out there.

Arkulari
11-12-2009, 01:57 AM
didn't he lose to Cañas back to back in IW and Miami a couple years ago? :p
not the first time, won't be the last
Next

kyleskywalker007
11-12-2009, 02:01 AM
didn't he lose to Cañas back to back in IW and Miami a couple years ago? :p
not the first time, won't be the last
Next

Well, that's the moment when Fed started declining in my opinion. He was still very good that year, winning 8 titles, but he never became what he was before those two losses to Canas.

Corey Feldman
11-12-2009, 02:03 AM
dont agree with that, there is no reason he shouldnt have given a good account of himself for this event as he'd played 1 tournament in the last 7 weeks and has the off season around the corner as well

for the #1 player to keep losing these 3 set matches from winning positions and in such gutless fashion is worrying - its a deeper problem than saying he doesnt care about the event. if that was case why didnt he just lose 6-3 6-2.

Corey Feldman
11-12-2009, 02:06 AM
far too many times when he wins the 1st set he goes to sleep in the 2nd... returning like an idiot - if he can even be arsed reaching for the serve in the first place

you cant put it all down to smaller events coz the signs of these kind of things started to show in the US Open Final as well

Arkulari
11-12-2009, 02:24 AM
To be honest, I'll worry when he starts losing in early rounds at Slams, but now? I enjoy his play and marvel when he plays well and enjoy his play and laugh when he's FedError :lol:

TheHawk
11-12-2009, 08:34 AM
for the #1 player to keep losing these 3 set matches from winning positions and in such gutless fashion is worrying - its a deeper problem than saying he doesnt care about the event. if that was case why didnt he just lose 6-3 6-2.
Spot on. And then he's too proud to do that. If he didn't want to play he would have stayed home and paid the fine, as a way to say, "I don't agree that we are forced to play tournaments we don't want to", in line with his proud character.

Sophocles
11-12-2009, 12:31 PM
I'm not sure about this whole being more vulnerable over best-of-3 thing, because that implies he can be outplayed for 2 sets before finding his groove. Yet in that case you'd expect him to have a strong 5-set record, whereas in fact he has one of the poorest such records of any great player. What is it, 15-13 or something? Barely above 50%. It's surely more accurate to say he peaks for the slams. Which he's probably done for a while, just that before he didn't need to be peaking to be winning tournaments.

zcess81
11-12-2009, 12:33 PM
Although in Cincy he really did care and took it to Murray & Nole to take the title! So I'm not absolutely certain that he won't pick his spots.

So, basically what you're saying is that when he wins he cares, when he loses it's because he doesn't care.

JolánGagó
11-12-2009, 12:35 PM
clownish thread, Mirka won't approve.

Jōris
11-12-2009, 12:37 PM
It's funny how things change, I remember the days when Federer was pilloried for being great at the tour events and flopping time after time in the Slams. He was the king of winning small tournaments and then crashing and burning in the first round of the big ones, and now we've done a complete 180.

By the way, the guy who doesn't care about Masters Series is equal second this year for MS titles. As pointed out in another thread, this "doesn't care about the other events" rubbish has never once been offered as an excuse by Federer himself, and is simply a disguise for the fact that he's now average and extremely vulnerable over best of three sets.

Excellent post, mate. Got to love it when the first reply destroys the OP's argument.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 12:43 PM
Although in Cincy he really did care and took it to Murray & Nole to take the title! So I'm not absolutely certain that he won't pick his spots.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like an excuse at all.

When he loses, he isn't trying. When he wins, that's the rare occasion on which he decides to put in some effort.

Whatever makes you feel better.

Sophocles
11-12-2009, 01:03 PM
Yeah, that doesn't sound like an excuse at all.

When he loses, he isn't trying. When he wins, that's the rare occasion on which he decides to put in some effort.

Whatever makes you feel better.

I refer you to my posting above. It's not that he's not trying, it's just that he PEAKS for the slams, just as, say, Sampras did, & has done for a while. Before, he was good enough to have a shot at winning any of the other tournaments, i.e., those he hadn't peaked for. Now, he isn't. This in my opinion is the only plausible explanation of his greater success at slams than at other tournaments in the last 3 seasons, since, as I say, his 5-set record is shit, & you would expect it to be better if his problems were caused by the best-of-3 format in Masters events. My previous posting puts it better.

Foxy
11-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Typical Fedtard logic, when he wins he was trying, but when he loses he wasn't and doesn't care.

Agree. Pathetic excuse. Be sure he is caring about every tournament he plays. His schedule is not that long either. So?
I am seriously thinking next year when he starts to suck in slams fedtards will say "he has 15 slams and RG, he doesn't care anymore..." :zzz:
AMS events are pretty important as well. He is so close to beating Drugassi's record. Had and missed also a chance to reach final in every AMS too. That's huge.

Sophocles
11-12-2009, 01:21 PM
Agree. Pathetic excuse. Be sure he is caring about every tournament he plays. His schedule is not that long either. So?
I am seriously thinking next year when he starts to suck in slams fedtards will say "he has 15 slams and RG, he doesn't care anymore..." :zzz:
AMS events are pretty important as well. He is so close to beating Drugassi's record. Had and missed also a chance to reach final in every AMS too. That's huge.

Fair enough, but how do YOU explain the discrepancy between his performance in slams & his performance in Masters events over the last 3 seasons?

Clydey
11-12-2009, 01:28 PM
I refer you to my posting above. It's not that he's not trying, it's just that he PEAKS for the slams, just as, say, Sampras did, & has done for a while. Before, he was good enough to have a shot at winning any of the other tournaments, i.e., those he hadn't peaked for. Now, he isn't. This in my opinion is the only plausible explanation of his greater success at slams than at other tournaments in the last 3 seasons, since, as I say, his 5-set record is shit, & you would expect it to be better if his problems were caused by the best-of-3 format in Masters events. My previous posting puts it better.

He regularly loses 2 sets in slams nowadays, which amounts to a defeat in 3 set matches. A few years ago, when he was dominating both the slams and the Masters, he rarely dropped sets. It's a regular occurence now, though. The slams merely offer him a chance to get back into the match. Look at the AO, the French, or the USO 2008. He has lost two sets on more than one occasion in slams over the past year or two, which coincides with the decline in his Masters results.

Secondly, there's an added pressure on those playing him in the slams. He has an aura of invincibility in the slams that he does not possess in the other events. Look at the Berdych match in Australia. The guy collapsed from 2 sets up.

shmeeko69
11-12-2009, 01:32 PM
I only seen the first set & he looked quite comfortable.

I could'nt believe it when I switched sky sports news
later on & seen that the Fed got beat in three sets.

Mind you, he has never got passed the quarters in this tournament.

Mark :mad:

Nidhogg
11-12-2009, 01:38 PM
He took both of his MS titles this year because the conditions at hand suited him. He got into a groove with his claygame with lots of dropshots while altitude also worked to his advantage in Madrid, and the fast Cinci courts suited his aggressive play.

Look at Fed's current strengths as a player and ask yourself where it's logical that he'd do better. Cincinatti or Bercy?

Naturally he has had some brainfarts, and he hasn't always given his absolute best, but it's not all about wether he cares or not.

Sophocles
11-12-2009, 01:53 PM
He regularly loses 2 sets in slams nowadays, which amounts to a defeat in 3 set matches. A few years ago, when he was dominating both the slams and the Masters, he rarely dropped sets. It's a regular occurence now, though. The slams merely offer him a chance to get back into the match. Look at the AO, the French, or the USO 2008. He has lost two sets on more than one occasion in slams over the past year or two, which coincides with the decline in his Masters results.

Secondly, there's an added pressure on those playing him in the slams. He has an aura of invincibility in the slams that he does not possess in the other events. Look at the Berdych match in Australia. The guy collapsed from 2 sets up.

True. But on the other hand, his 5-set record in slams is I believe better than elsewhere, & you could equally say the best-of-5 format gives his opponent a chance to get back into the match - e.g., Haas AO 06, Nadal at Wimbledon 07, Andreev USO 08, Roddick & Del Potro this year. There has obviously been an overall decline, reflected at both Masters & slam level, but he remains better in slams & there's more to it than the best-of-5 format. Even now he is taken to 5 sets less frequently than most great players at peak, & loses more often when he is. He is noticeably more sharp in the early rounds of slams than in Masters series, and wins more straight-set matches early on in slams than in Masters events.

Everko
11-12-2009, 01:56 PM
At lesst Nadal has a real reason, injury.

Clydey
11-12-2009, 01:59 PM
True. But on the other hand, his 5-set record in slams is I believe better than elsewhere, & you could equally say the best-of-5 format gives his opponent a chance to get back into the match - e.g., Haas AO 06, Nadal at Wimbledon 07, Andreev USO 08, Roddick & Del Potro this year. There has obviously been an overall decline, reflected at both Masters & slam level, but he remains better in slams & there's more to it than the best-of-5 format. Even now he is taken to 5 sets less frequently than most great players at peak, & loses more often when he is. He is noticeably more sharp in the early rounds of slams than in Masters series, and wins more straight-set matches early on in slams than in Masters events.

If he is less motivated to a degree that it affects his performance, it's not something he's conscious of. You don't react the way he did against Djokovic in Miami unless you care. And I certainly don't buy the OP's ridiculous claim that Federer cares when he wins and doesn't care when he loses. A lot of Federer fans want to have it both ways. He wins in Cinci and all of a sudden he's trying. He loses in Toronto and he's not trying.

Sophocles
11-12-2009, 02:08 PM
If he is less motivated to a degree that it affects his performance, it's not something he's conscious of. You don't react the way he did against Djokovic in Miami unless you care. And I certainly don't buy the OP's ridiculous claim that Federer cares when he wins and doesn't care when he loses. A lot of Federer fans want to have it both ways. He wins in Cinci and all of a sudden he's trying. He loses in Toronto and he's not trying.

I don't disagree with this at all. I'm not saying it's about caring or even primarily motivation. It's about managing his training & practice (& playing) schedule so he's in top shape for the slams. I completely agree that the tacit premiss that if Federer loses, he can't have cared, is patently false, & the Djokovic match is strong evidence that it is.

Itachi75
11-12-2009, 02:11 PM
Fed's record in 5 set matches is 16-13 but he is 14-7 in Grand Slam matches.

FedFan
11-12-2009, 02:26 PM
Fed has always profited from his talent and the fact, that he is a front-runner. He was not used to struggle.

Now that he has passed his peak, he should show more fighting spirit to win matches.

But this is difficult to realize for him. In general you are either an artist or a fighter.

Noleta
11-12-2009, 02:40 PM
Fed is human,he's allowed to lose every now and then:)

kaylee
11-12-2009, 02:53 PM
Fed is human,he's allowed to lose every now and then:)

Finally someone on here comes up with a sensible answer. Julian Benneteau can be an extremely difficult player. I read in his presser that there were no excuses and that he was beaten fair and square. Nuff said!

Gabe32
11-12-2009, 03:17 PM
Did Federer really get fined early on for tanking? Which matches?

Sjengster
11-12-2009, 03:33 PM
'Twas in Dubai 2002 when he lost in the second round to Schuettler, 3 and 1, and was docked his prize money for a performance that was "below our expectations", I seem to recall the tournament director said. So perhaps it wasn't a fine per se, but the accusation was definitely made. He didn't lose another match there for four years, the criticism obviously motivated him.

bizzle
11-12-2009, 03:58 PM
looooool

So when he wins, he cares. But when he loses, no matter by how tight of a scoreline, he doesn't care? Of course.

Orka_n
11-12-2009, 05:01 PM
At lesst Nadal has a real reason, injury.I heard once that Nadal hasn't lost a single match since he turned pro without being injured... true story.

Now, on topic - Fed isn't as reliable as he used to be. The reason is because he isn't in his prime anymore of course. But still, it's true that he doesn't pour his heart out for masters or lower tourneys right now. This is just my opinion but I believe he's pretty sick of tennis at the moment. I just hope he can recharge for 2010, finish that year with dignity, and then I wouldn't mind if he quit altogether actually. I'd prefer that, instead of seeing him become a top 20 random player.

Corey Feldman
11-12-2009, 05:11 PM
Fed is human,he's allowed to lose every now and then:)2 matches in a row - against 2 complete mugs, is unnaceptable.

SaFed2005
11-12-2009, 05:12 PM
I heard once that Nadal hasn't lost a single match since he turned pro without being injured... true story.

Since he turned pro? I thought he never lost a match unless he was injured since he held a tennis racket.

stebs
11-12-2009, 05:21 PM
He evidently does care though, he releases frustration and tries to win the matches which he loses. It's true he isn't about to die on the court to win a masters these days but there is a lot of room in between that and not caring.

Federer has always had a bad habit of second set blues and these days his return can often go awol, that's enough to cost you a match over three sets here and there. That was the case yesterday. It doesn't mean he wasn't trying just because he lost.

r2473
11-12-2009, 05:45 PM
..... the fact that he's now average and extremely vulnerable over best of three sets.

come on. Average?

nsidhan
11-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Federer of '09 is much better than Federer of '04-'07. Better serve, fh, bh, strategy...you name it. His focus is more on slams. Simple. If everyone translates that to "he doesn't care for ATP < 2000 events" then you are probably right.

Judge his performances on matches that really matter i.e. GRAND SLAMS.

Arkulari
11-12-2009, 06:28 PM
come on, better than the Federer of 06? the guy who only lost to two people that year and won 12 titles including 3 GS and 4 MS? :spit:

nsidhan
11-12-2009, 06:42 PM
come on, better than the Federer of 06? the guy who only lost to two people that year and won 12 titles including 3 GS and 4 MS? :spit:

Yes.

Sjengster
11-12-2009, 06:46 PM
come on. Average?

Average and vulnerable over three sets, I didn't put it as clearly as I could have. I don't mean average in general.

Orka_n
11-12-2009, 07:02 PM
Federer of '09 is much better than Federer of '04-'07. Better serve, fh, bh, strategy...you name it. His focus is more on slams. Simple. If everyone translates that to "he doesn't care for ATP < 2000 events" then you are probably right.

Judge his performances on matches that really matter i.e. GRAND SLAMS.Wow, sorry... you really don't know what you're talking about :lol:

r2473
11-12-2009, 07:07 PM
Average and vulnerable over three sets, I didn't put it as clearly as I could have. I don't mean average in general.

That's still a bit harsh.

I think he has 7 losses in 3-setters this year. Twice each to Murray and Joker. That weird loss to Tsonga. One to his countryman and the one yesterday.

Compared to his former self, I can see your point. But, compared to "the field", I just can't see him as average (and really not that vulnerable).

I mean, people are pretty surprised when he loses to a player outside the top 4. I do think he is average (evenly matched in general) and vulnerable when compared to the other guys in the top 4.

nsidhan
11-12-2009, 10:19 PM
Wow, sorry... you really don't know what you're talking about :lol:

Don't be. You really don't watch a lot of tennis.

Mechlan
11-12-2009, 10:36 PM
Federer of '09 is much better than Federer of '04-'07. Better serve, fh, bh, strategy...you name it. His focus is more on slams. Simple. If everyone translates that to "he doesn't care for ATP < 2000 events" then you are probably right.

Judge his performances on matches that really matter i.e. GRAND SLAMS.

He destroyed everyone in 06 and loses quite frequently in 09. Okay, we'll talk slams. He destroyed everyone in the slams in 06 and lost several sets in 09. Not only that, he was pushed far harder in 09 by the very same players that he crushed in 05-06. It's not that hard to see.

Stebs is right, it's not that Roger doesn't care. He could expend much less effort and lose 6-4 7-5 if he really wanted to just get off court. But he has patches of bad play where he's spraying everything. Then he gets to a final set where he's unsure about whether he should go for his shots or try and outlast his opponent. It's partially being less focused in 3 set matches and partially growing older. Like I said above, Roger's been taken to 5 sets in the slams a number of times in the past year, it's not like he can just flip a switch and play much better at the slams than he does in the MS. His game isn't as consistent, the field doesn't fear him as much, and the opposition is better. Maybe he doesn't quite care as much, but he still definitely wants to win.

paseo
11-13-2009, 01:05 AM
Fed is getting old (in tennis age), and his game is declining. He still cares and wants to win every time, but IMO only to a degree. He will put in the effort to win ATP 1000's and 500's, but he's not going to go all out like in the slams. He wants longevity in his career, he doesn't want to get too tired and injured himself for anything less than a GS. Notice how he always take a long break after a slam.

I have no doubt that Fed wants to win in bercy, but not at the cost of injury (cause by tiredness). He just played a 3 set final against the world #3 last sunday, he's tired.
Sure, he can go all out fighting like Nadal vs Almagro/Robredo, and MAYBE it can get him past Benneteau (only maybe, cause Benneteau played great & not choking), but Fed is not 23 and have a super-fit body like Nadal. His next opponent will make him more tired, and if he gets through, it'll gonna tire him even more, and maybe, just MAYBE he'll go on to win the title. But, at what cost? A super-tired body. The next week he gets injured playing the first match at WTF. And there goes his preparation for AO10, a GS.