Theory: Fed lost the match because he really didn't want to lose to Nadal in final [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Theory: Fed lost the match because he really didn't want to lose to Nadal in final

Riosreigned
09-13-2010, 03:06 AM
Fed losing a tight match to Djokovic in five sets in SF is a whole lot better for his confidence than a straight set shellacking from Nadal in the final. This way he can still continue with the outside hope that he can get Nadal in the future, esepcially if Nadal hits a dip or gets injured. A bad loss to Nadal in the US Open final would be clear and convincing evidence that Nadal is superior player - won career slam four years faster than he did, and has defeated him in slam finals of three different surface slams - clay, grass and now hard court.

I know this is assuming Nadal would beat Fed, if Fed had beat Djok, but come on, there's no way Fed would have won vs. Nadal, especially with their recent head to head record and a fatigued Fed vs. a totally fresh Nadal.

The match with Djokovic was odd in that Fed always had the set up lead, but always seemed to jsut give it away. It's almost like Fed's subconscious wanted to lose to Djok in five sets, then face the very real probablity of losing to Nadal something like 64 63 62 which would ne devastating to his psyche. Now Fed can rationalize, hey I just lost a close match, basically a coin toss. His confidence is still strong. But a total beatdown by Nadal would have devastated him.

I know this is total theory and hard to articulate but wanted to post it anyway. I am in no way biased for Nadal or against Federer, this is just the way I read what happened this weekend. Hope to start an intelligent discussion, not any namecalling...

SheepleBuster
09-13-2010, 03:09 AM
Fed losing a tight match to Djokovic in five sets in SF is a whole lot better for his confidence than a straight set shellacking from Nadal in the final. This way he can still continue with the outside hope that he can get Nadal in the future, esepcially if Nadal hits a dip or gets injured. A bad loss to Nadal in the US Open final would be clear and convincing evidence that Nadal is superior player - won career slam four years faster than he did, and has defeated him in slam finals of three different surface slams - clay, grass and now hard court.

I know this is assuming Nadal would beat Fed, if Fed had beat Djok, but come on, there's no way Fed would have won vs. Nadal, especially with their recent head to head record and a fatigued Fed vs. a totally fresh Nadal.

The match with Djokovic was odd in that Fed always had the set up lead, but always seemed to jsut give it away. It's almost like Fed's subconscious wanted to lose to Djok in five sets, then face the very real probablity of losing to Nadal something like 64 63 62 which would ne devastating to his psyche. Now Fed can rationalize, hey I just lost a close match, basically a coin toss. His confidence is still strong. But a total beatdown by Nadal would have devastated him.

I know this is total theory and hard to articulate but wanted to post it anyway. I am in no way biased for Nadal or against Federer, this is just the way I read what happened this weekend. Hope to start an intelligent discussion, not any namecalling...

Theory: our world is like Matrix. It does not exist out of our minds. The sooner you take the blue pill, the sooner you become free. Just pick the phone up. It ain't gonna ring forever.

oranges
09-13-2010, 03:15 AM
:rolleyes: Only someone who has not played sports competitively can come up with an idea that a multiple champion would prefer to lose earlier rather than give himself a chance to win a title and add to his collection even more. No chance part is not even worth a comment.

Snowwy
09-13-2010, 03:17 AM
:retard:

Lalitha
09-13-2010, 03:17 AM
:banghead:

sco
09-13-2010, 03:17 AM
Federer lost because he was conservative on his match points and hoped that Nole would choke. Nole won because he was aggressive and went for it. Fortune favors the brave.

Still don't get why Fed served so poorly. If he had served anywhere near his usual 60+%, he would have been able to attack the net more and probably would have won comfortably.

Mechlan
09-13-2010, 03:20 AM
Damn this Fed is good. Able to toy with the #3 player in the world like that and choose the desired outcome.

fed invented god
09-13-2010, 03:26 AM
yeah so if he really wanted to lose this match, wouldn't it have been safer say... not to go to match point????
and by the way, match points were on nole's serve, federer came up with some great defense, I'm not too sure he had the possibility to attack. nole saved them just fair and square.
and saying a 5 time champion had no chance against a player who had never even been in the finale before is just pure moronism

careergrandslam
09-13-2010, 03:29 AM
to face rafa in the final, u have to get the permission of uncle toni.

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 03:29 AM
Mods, take this thread outside and... you know what to do.

Riosreigned
09-13-2010, 03:30 AM
I also felt Fed's subconscious might have threw the IW match to Fish, a few months after he lost to Djok at Australian Open. My theory is Fed did not want to suffer another loss to Djokovic in the final as it would have really given Djok a mental edge and huge confidence, don't forget Djok was playing incredible back then at that time. Fed knew the immature Djok would implode and he did.

Then in Miami, Djok parties with Sharapova and Camille belle and lost first round to Kevin Anderson and he went into a tailspin. Actually believe toop players may duckk certain other players at certian times. Tennis is a psychological sport. Hey, I know this sounds pretty abstract, but what the heck, I gonna put it out there anyway. Tennis is a fascinating sport, there are many games within the games.

kjo
09-13-2010, 03:42 AM
Well maybe Rafa's subconcious made him throw the Cincy QF to Bags as Fed was playing well and Rafa's HC game wasn't quite ready to take him on in Cincy.

hilluis
09-13-2010, 03:45 AM
Federer lost because he was conservative on his match points and hoped that Nole would choke. Nole won because he was aggressive and went for it. Fortune favors the brave.

Still don't get why Fed served so poorly. If he had served anywhere near his usual 60+%, he would have been able to attack the net more and probably would have won comfortably.


Agree. I dont understand why Rog's serve went missing. I was wondering how long it would be before someone came up with a ridiculous thread like this one.

oranges
09-13-2010, 03:54 AM
I also felt Fed's subconscious might have threw the IW match to Fish, a few months after he lost to Djok at Australian Open. My theory is Fed did not want to suffer another loss to Djokovic in the final as it would have really given Djok a mental edge and huge confidence, don't forget Djok was playing incredible back then at that time. Fed knew the immature Djok would implode and he did.

Then in Miami, Djok parties with Sharapova and Camille belle and lost first round to Kevin Anderson and he went into a tailspin. Actually believe toop players may duckk certain other players at certian times. Tennis is a psychological sport. Hey, I know this sounds pretty abstract, but what the heck, I gonna put it out there anyway. Tennis is a fascinating sport, there are many games within the games.

:haha: An even better theory. Veritable CG Jung

Riosreigned
09-13-2010, 03:55 AM
Franklin JOhnson of tennisnow.com explains it better than I did...

Opinion: Why Roger Federer Fell To Novak Djokovic

By Franklin L. Johnson
© Natasha Peterson/Corleve

(September 12, 2010) Stop for a moment, like Rafa going through some pre-point primping and priming before serving on set point, and please proceed through this piece with caution at your discretion. That's a fair warning: many of you aren't going to like my analysis of what we witnessed in that roller coaster ride of a spectacle that was Novak Djokovic snatching away a semifinal heist over Roger Federer in Saturday's US Open semifinals.

Let's be clear: many of you won't like what you're about to hear, but I gotta call it the way I see it when it comes to Federer's failure to convert two match points.

Federer blew this match because he knew, deep down in his psyche and competitive soul, he didn't have enough juice and legs left to deal with both Nole and Rafa back-to-back.

So, Roger, the man who has taken offensive baseline play to aggressive, artistic ascendancy seldom seen in New York City since the days of Martina and Mac (and Johnny Mac could never crush the forehand with the authority of Roger) tried to slide by The Djoker.

The moment demanded you make a stand and take the Djoker and the moment on the rise, but Roger tried to bob-and-weave, slip-and-duck and play the pressure game to prey on Djoker's tendency to tighten up slightly as he did in Roger's wins over Nole in their last three Flushing Meadows meetings.

The man whose shotmaking skills on this court are as precise as the Rolex brand he represents tried to win this match on the cheap rather than collecting on the one set, and two-set-to one leads he built before Djoker fought off match points with forcing forehands.

"Can't turn back time, but look, obviously (I) had to come up with a couple of good shots on match point, so I don't feel I have that many regrets in that regard," Federer said after the match. "Obviously you feel like you have left something out if you lose the match having had match point."

If you accept the fact that winning a match is not just managing the match you're present playing but playing your mind and body like a violin to tune up and perform in seven best-of-five set matches over a two-week span then you know winning a major is more than just match management.

One of these days you're going to get religion and agree how often Federer feels he needs to bank rest when playing these young lions. Federer has long played with aesthetically-pleasing efficiency, but now he's playing with mental and physical economy and trying not to expend too much energy before staring down the Bull from Mallorca.

Federer did just enough to sneak a one-set lead set by jumping on Novak at the end of the first set. Instead of putting on the afterburners, however, he took his foot off the gas, expecting Nole to go away.

This didn't happen.

Instead, he got dusted in the second set. Federer duplicated play in the third by jumping on The Djoker at the end of the set to establish a two-sets-to-one lead. Again, he tried to win without expending too mcuh effort. And again he allowed Novak to hang around when he should have stuck the shiv in this young bull.

Spare me the hype. Here's how Federer fell in this match: he waited for The Djoker to cave, but it didn't happen.

No disrespect to The Djoker because he came up large with those two mammoth forehands down match point and showed the heart he highlighted tapping his Head racquet against his chest.

But the reality is this match was always in Federer's hands, even up to the very end.

Federer had two match points. He tried to out-rally Novak but he couldn't do it because his legs started to give out. He continued running around his backhand, but his timing was off due to stiffening legs. He did not attack his forehand on those match points. Was it fatigue or something else?

"I don't blame it on my forehand," Federer said. "I played a good first match point. Second one I tried to be more safe on it because you never know if you're gonna get another one; I didn't. (I) played a good forehand under pressure. It's not easy to hit a winner. So that's the way it goes."

By this time, I'm sure Federer knew he was in trouble. Novak knew he was. If you think that's a reach The Djoker didn't. He knew Federer had played the nerve game like a vise in their past matches and this time he didn't let Federer use the moment to unnerve him.

"I just knew I have to be patient and not lose my emotions too much because that was the case in the past when I was losing the momentum with him," Djokovic said. "He uses that nervousness of the opponent. He feels it."

Federer simply couldn't put Novak away, in part, because he relied on Djokovic cracking enough to give it to him. He wanted to win on the cheap, and it proved to be costly.

Young legs won this match. If Federer was at his best and fully confident, this match would've been three and out for Fed. No question in my mind.

Here's the story behind the loss: I truly think Roger tried to look past The Djoker because he already knew Rafa was waiting for him.

If Federer was confident and really trying to get at the Raging Bull, he would've tried to bury Nole. He didn't do it because deep down inside he knew he couldn't beat Rafa, who cruised in straight sets, right after a five-set rumble with Nole.

In fact, I suspect he believed another serious beatdown was in the offing at the hands of Nadal. So, he wanted to hold on to as much of his court cred as he has left to give it one last go next season.

At present, the king is dead. Long live the king!

It is now the time of the young lions in today's final.

If the rain stops — and it's raining here now — I'm picking Rafa in three because Novak has a gimpy right quad and is outta juice after the five-set fight with Roger. However, if the match is postponed until tomorrow, give The Djoker his due and a shot at the upset.


Tennis Now contributing writer Franklin L. Johnson is a writer, poet and avid tennis player based in New York. He has covered professional tennis for three decades. His recent columns include Open Observations: Only The Strong Survive, Champs Can Sow Seeds of American Tennis Growth, The GOAT Game Changer, What Do Roger Federer and Andy Murray's Coaching Changes Mean? American Anthem Needs New Tune, Tomas Berdych Played Tame Final and A Case For Vera.

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 04:00 AM
A truly dreadful article.

wackykid
09-13-2010, 04:01 AM
here we go again... i'm totally expecting such threads AGAIN in this forum...

can we have a nadal-federer FREE day in MTF... where there shall be NO threads/posts regarding nadal or federer...? i'm sick of fed/nadal tards and haters posting new thread here...


regards,
wacky

sco
09-13-2010, 04:01 AM
Don't know why anyone would ever tank a match. All the points are important. Tanking could cost big time - like Federer being 1 week short of tying the all-time record weeks at #1.

oranges
09-13-2010, 04:02 AM
How so? From what I skimmed, it's just an account of the semi match. No psych theories, stemming to the past otherwise. Unless you consider the observation that Federer was passive when it mattered, waiting for Joker to cave in for some obscure reason reminiscent of your pysch theory.

careergrandslam
09-13-2010, 04:07 AM
Franklin JOhnson of tennisnow.com explains it better than I did...

Opinion: Why Roger Federer Fell To Novak Djokovic

By Franklin L. Johnson
© Natasha Peterson/Corleve

(September 12, 2010) Stop for a moment, like Rafa going through some pre-point primping and priming before serving on set point, and please proceed through this piece with caution at your discretion. That's a fair warning: many of you aren't going to like my analysis of what we witnessed in that roller coaster ride of a spectacle that was Novak Djokovic snatching away a semifinal heist over Roger Federer in Saturday's US Open semifinals.

Let's be clear: many of you won't like what you're about to hear, but I gotta call it the way I see it when it comes to Federer's failure to convert two match points.

Federer blew this match because he knew, deep down in his psyche and competitive soul, he didn't have enough juice and legs left to deal with both Nole and Rafa back-to-back.

So, Roger, the man who has taken offensive baseline play to aggressive, artistic ascendancy seldom seen in New York City since the days of Martina and Mac (and Johnny Mac could never crush the forehand with the authority of Roger) tried to slide by The Djoker.

The moment demanded you make a stand and take the Djoker and the moment on the rise, but Roger tried to bob-and-weave, slip-and-duck and play the pressure game to prey on Djoker's tendency to tighten up slightly as he did in Roger's wins over Nole in their last three Flushing Meadows meetings.

The man whose shotmaking skills on this court are as precise as the Rolex brand he represents tried to win this match on the cheap rather than collecting on the one set, and two-set-to one leads he built before Djoker fought off match points with forcing forehands.

"Can't turn back time, but look, obviously (I) had to come up with a couple of good shots on match point, so I don't feel I have that many regrets in that regard," Federer said after the match. "Obviously you feel like you have left something out if you lose the match having had match point."

If you accept the fact that winning a match is not just managing the match you're present playing but playing your mind and body like a violin to tune up and perform in seven best-of-five set matches over a two-week span then you know winning a major is more than just match management.

One of these days you're going to get religion and agree how often Federer feels he needs to bank rest when playing these young lions. Federer has long played with aesthetically-pleasing efficiency, but now he's playing with mental and physical economy and trying not to expend too much energy before staring down the Bull from Mallorca.

Federer did just enough to sneak a one-set lead set by jumping on Novak at the end of the first set. Instead of putting on the afterburners, however, he took his foot off the gas, expecting Nole to go away.

This didn't happen.

Instead, he got dusted in the second set. Federer duplicated play in the third by jumping on The Djoker at the end of the set to establish a two-sets-to-one lead. Again, he tried to win without expending too mcuh effort. And again he allowed Novak to hang around when he should have stuck the shiv in this young bull.

Spare me the hype. Here's how Federer fell in this match: he waited for The Djoker to cave, but it didn't happen.

No disrespect to The Djoker because he came up large with those two mammoth forehands down match point and showed the heart he highlighted tapping his Head racquet against his chest.

But the reality is this match was always in Federer's hands, even up to the very end.

Federer had two match points. He tried to out-rally Novak but he couldn't do it because his legs started to give out. He continued running around his backhand, but his timing was off due to stiffening legs. He did not attack his forehand on those match points. Was it fatigue or something else?

"I don't blame it on my forehand," Federer said. "I played a good first match point. Second one I tried to be more safe on it because you never know if you're gonna get another one; I didn't. (I) played a good forehand under pressure. It's not easy to hit a winner. So that's the way it goes."

By this time, I'm sure Federer knew he was in trouble. Novak knew he was. If you think that's a reach The Djoker didn't. He knew Federer had played the nerve game like a vise in their past matches and this time he didn't let Federer use the moment to unnerve him.

"I just knew I have to be patient and not lose my emotions too much because that was the case in the past when I was losing the momentum with him," Djokovic said. "He uses that nervousness of the opponent. He feels it."

Federer simply couldn't put Novak away, in part, because he relied on Djokovic cracking enough to give it to him. He wanted to win on the cheap, and it proved to be costly.

Young legs won this match. If Federer was at his best and fully confident, this match would've been three and out for Fed. No question in my mind.

Here's the story behind the loss: I truly think Roger tried to look past The Djoker because he already knew Rafa was waiting for him.

If Federer was confident and really trying to get at the Raging Bull, he would've tried to bury Nole. He didn't do it because deep down inside he knew he couldn't beat Rafa, who cruised in straight sets, right after a five-set rumble with Nole.

In fact, I suspect he believed another serious beatdown was in the offing at the hands of Nadal. So, he wanted to hold on to as much of his court cred as he has left to give it one last go next season.

At present, the king is dead. Long live the king!

It is now the time of the young lions in today's final.

If the rain stops — and it's raining here now — I'm picking Rafa in three because Novak has a gimpy right quad and is outta juice after the five-set fight with Roger. However, if the match is postponed until tomorrow, give The Djoker his due and a shot at the upset.


Tennis Now contributing writer Franklin L. Johnson is a writer, poet and avid tennis player based in New York. He has covered professional tennis for three decades. His recent columns include Open Observations: Only The Strong Survive, Champs Can Sow Seeds of American Tennis Growth, The GOAT Game Changer, What Do Roger Federer and Andy Murray's Coaching Changes Mean? American Anthem Needs New Tune, Tomas Berdych Played Tame Final and A Case For Vera.


:haha:

sco
09-13-2010, 04:10 AM
Why would Federer not try to win because he thinks he has to play Rafa the next day? Anything can happen - Rafa could get injured, rain has delayed the finals one day. Now everyone thinks Nole has a chance on 2 days' rest.

Lalitha
09-13-2010, 04:11 AM
What if nole had choked and made an error when fed had match point??? what would Mr.Franklin L.Johnson say then??

Forehander
09-13-2010, 04:23 AM
This is utter garbage lol

MalwareDie
09-13-2010, 05:43 AM
Oh my.....

straitup
09-13-2010, 05:45 AM
What a truly horrific article :lol: This is the first time I've ever heard this theory :p

Forehander
09-13-2010, 06:16 AM
Can't believe somebody actually wrote a serious article on this :lol:

nole_no1
09-13-2010, 06:21 AM
You just can't accept the fact that Nole beat Federer in a GS SF, can you? :lol:

Clay Death
09-13-2010, 06:41 AM
mods:


drag this thread outside and have a stray dog shit on it.

Ivanatis
09-13-2010, 06:53 AM
:hysteric:a mess

Commander Data
09-13-2010, 07:17 AM
I also felt Fed's subconscious might have threw the IW match to Fish, a few months after he lost to Djok at Australian Open. My theory is Fed did not want to suffer another loss to Djokovic in the final as it would have really given Djok a mental edge and huge confidence, don't forget Djok was playing incredible back then at that time. Fed knew the immature Djok would implode and he did.

Then in Miami, Djok parties with Sharapova and Camille belle and lost first round to Kevin Anderson and he went into a tailspin. Actually believe toop players may duckk certain other players at certian times. Tennis is a psychological sport. Hey, I know this sounds pretty abstract, but what the heck, I gonna put it out there anyway. Tennis is a fascinating sport, there are many games within the games.

To make this as simple as possible:

NO

nadal_slam_king
09-13-2010, 07:18 AM
Federer only lost matchpoint because of Djokovic's great passing shot, so its impossible to say Federer lost because of scary Nadal. But the 6-1 and 6-2 sets did look suspicious and I definitely thought he was tanking at that point in the match. Maybe he flirted with tanking but in the end was trying to win.

Commander Data
09-13-2010, 07:25 AM
Here is the proof:

RF: "Obviously it's a bit of disappointment. But just being there and losing, that wouldn't have been nice either. "

nadal_slam_king
09-13-2010, 07:32 AM
^^ Yeah, but why did Federer let it get to the stage of having 2 matchpoints? If Djokovic made an unforced error on either of those points then Federer would have won. I think in the end Federer was trying to win.

Commander Data
09-13-2010, 07:36 AM
^^ Yeah, but why did Federer let it get to the stage of having 2 matchpoints? If Djokovic made an unforced error on either of those points then Federer would have won. I think in the end Federer was trying to win.

Becasue it is madness to assume Fed lost on purpose.

Roddickominator
09-13-2010, 09:21 AM
Federer has every important record in the book...all he has left to preserve is his legacy. Losing to Nadal to give him his career Slam would drive a nail into the coffin of Fed's GOAT claim. It's pretty obvious that he was scared to play Nadal.

pica_pica
09-13-2010, 09:36 AM
Ridiculous theory. People who come up with such theory either:
1) Did not watch the match
2) Are too saddened and have to invent an excuse
Did you see how Federer fought? They both fought hard, only that Nole wins in the end :shrug:
I don't think Federer himself is happy with his fans coming up with such idea. It's an insult.
Stop making excuses :hug: And cheer up.

Mimi
09-13-2010, 09:51 AM
this thread is as ridiculous as the one Rafa scares of Nole .......

If roger is scaring of facing nadal and lost to Nole on purpose, why didn't he lose in 3rd set instead of 5 hard fought sets? why not to save his energy

Roddickominator
09-13-2010, 09:54 AM
this thread is as ridiculous as the one Rafa scares of Nole .......

If roger is scaring of facing nadal and lost to Nole on purpose, why didn't he lose in 3rd set instead of 5 hard fought sets? why not to save his energy

A 3-set tank would be way too obvious. He at least had to look like he was trying.

manadrainer
09-13-2010, 10:01 AM
Yeah... then why get to the point you have 2 match points? What if Djokovic double faulted match point down? What if Djokovic big FH landed out? Fed would have been in trouble then. Stupid theory.

scoobs
09-13-2010, 10:04 AM
Evolution has failed us.

The ability to type sentences and post thoughts reasonably coherently should be paired naturally with not being so alarmingly stupid.

But alas, it isn't. Weep for the future.

Commander Data
09-13-2010, 10:15 AM
Here is the deal: federer said in a swiss interview that he tried to conserve some energy because of the outlook of playing Nadal next day. He said that in the context of explaining why he kind let set 2 and 4 slip away. I'm not really sure if it is true nor do I find it a good approach if Fed indeed thought about the final while playing Nole.

Federer certainly did not lose on purpose and he certainly believes he can beat Nadal. But I think the outlook of playing Nadal next day might have had a slight effect on him. Keepin in mind he just need one more point, he might have won if he would have played Youzhny in the final. But what does it matter? what is done is done and I for one think Nole deserved to be in that final more then Federer because he played better fought like a lion and left it all out there.

tennis2tennis
09-13-2010, 10:16 AM
I think it's really disrespectful to both nole and roger to say he tanked...he had 2 match points but they were on nole's serve not his...had he F@cked up 2 match points on his serve people can raise the question! And more importantly why would he get himeself to matchpoint?

asmazif
09-13-2010, 10:33 AM
he planned losing those two match points mightily well.

or NOT

A_Skywalker
09-13-2010, 10:40 AM
^^ Yeah, but why did Federer let it get to the stage of having 2 matchpoints? If Djokovic made an unforced error on either of those points then Federer would have won. I think in the end Federer was trying to win.

He wanted to tire Djokovic so his friend Nadal can win easily. :)

tennis2tennis
09-13-2010, 11:36 AM
He wanted to tire Djokovic so his friend Nadal can win easily. :)

I love this forum

holagirl56
09-13-2010, 11:48 AM
Federer has every important record in the book...all he has left to preserve is his legacy. Losing to Nadal to give him his career Slam would drive a nail into the coffin of Fed's GOAT claim. It's pretty obvious that he was scared to play Nadal.

If he wanted to preserve his legacy he could just, you know, retire....

romismak
09-13-2010, 12:28 PM
There is no way that Federer lost because he wants to- he wants to be agian No.1 in the world and he needs points- so be in Final and loose or just be in SF is about 480 points- and Federer knew that. My guess is that Roger wants to defeat Novak very fast because he knows he will face Rafa next day- so he won 1st set and in 2nd when Novak broke his serve Roger think- i must now play more than one hour this set to try to break him again and then eventually in tie- break i can still loose- and ai think that happened again in 4th set- he didn´t want to play long rallys with Novak and still loose the set after one hour long set so he just didn´t fight for this reasons 2nd and 4ht set after one break being down. But in 5th set it was pretty even match and Roger just like Novak was getting more exhausting after every rally- I think in last games of 5th set Roger was thinking i have only 20 hours for regeneration to play Rafa in final- he will be fresh after easy match with Youzhny and few hours more to regeneratioon- i think that factor make that Roger was not 100% mentally in the match and why Novak beat him. Roger must 100% knew in last games in 5th set that after he win he will not have enought time- i think if Roger knew that final will be on Monday he would not thinking about regeneration and beat Novak- who play hell good match yes but still Roger has matchpoints and should win that match.

habibko
09-13-2010, 12:36 PM
the only effect Nadal had on Federer in this match is Federer's attempt to save himself mentally and physically by not going all out in the 2nd and 4th sets and waiting for Djokovic to hand him the set with minimum effort, which didn't happen and he eventually lost the match when Djokovic believed in himself in the 5th (credit to him), but this is because he wanted to beat Nadal in the final, not because he was scared of him :retard: that's not the mentality that makes a player the most successful player of all time or the only one who has beaten Nadal twice on clay since Nadal became Nadal, going all the way to finals time and time again despite all his previous losses to him on that surface.

born_on_clay
09-13-2010, 12:51 PM
Damn this Fed is good. Able to toy with the #3 player in the world like that and choose the desired outcome.

+1 :confused:

andylovesaustin
09-13-2010, 12:56 PM
No.

Roger lost because Nole beat him.

I think Roger believes he can come-up with a strategy to beat Rafa. And even if had played the final and lost, I think he would have still kept trying.

I read something here that after his loss to Nole, he was thanking the everybody, saying he'd be back next year...while sucking on a lollypop! So I don't think he's devastated or would have been devasted. Roger has made lots of comebacks lately, so.. I don't think he's afraid of losing if he ever was.

Forehander
09-13-2010, 01:01 PM
lol people actually answering seriously

laurie-1
09-13-2010, 01:03 PM
Very strange thread indeed. If Federer lost in straight sets you may have an argument, but he had two match points - you can't get closer to victory than that.

Stange thread but then again Mens Tennis Forum can be a strange forum...

Persimmon
09-13-2010, 01:48 PM
Well, Nadal owns Fed at the slam finals, no matter the surface. So yeah.

Jaz
09-13-2010, 01:55 PM
Absolute bullshit.

Federer is a great grand-slam winner. Do you REALLY, REALLY I mean seriously REALLY think he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa?

I mean this is Federer we're talking about, he wants EVERY opportunity to play Nadal and beat him. He's the kind of player who doesn't believe he should be beaten by anybody, and that it's only a matter of correct execution and tactics.

Persimmon
09-13-2010, 02:10 PM
Absolute bullshit.

Federer is a great grand-slam winner. Do you REALLY, REALLY I mean seriously REALLY think he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa?

I mean this is Federer we're talking about, he wants EVERY opportunity to play Nadal and beat him. He's the kind of player who doesn't believe he should be beaten by anybody, and that it's only a matter of correct execution and tactics.

Losing to Berdych at Wimbledon was really odd. Berdych then lost r1 at the USO:o

Myrre
09-13-2010, 02:55 PM
I guess it's pretty damn hard for some people to comprehend that Federer can actually lose a close a match.

Riosreigned
09-13-2010, 03:58 PM
Absolute bullshit.

Federer is a great grand-slam winner. Do you REALLY, REALLY I mean seriously REALLY think he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa?

I mean this is Federer we're talking about, he wants EVERY opportunity to play Nadal and beat him. He's the kind of player who doesn't believe he should be beaten by anybody, and that it's only a matter of correct execution and tactics.

as great as Roger is, he is 7-14 vs. Nadal. deep down, how could he really beleive he would have won this time? he may even be psyched out - or pretty close to it.

it's not easy thing to do to beat Rafa, especially for a guy like Fed who has tried and failed SO MANY TIMES.

Jaz
09-13-2010, 04:02 PM
as great as Roger is, he is 7-14 vs. Nadal. deep down, how could he really beleive he would have won this time? he may even be psyched out - or pretty close to it.

it's not easy thing to do to beat Rafa, especially for a guy like Fed who has tried and failed SO MANY TIMES.

He might be psyced out a little, but seriously, the entire premise of this thread is that Roger is deliberately throwing games to avoid Rafa.

Federer knows he has to play rafa in order to beat, if you don't get there is no way of finding out.

peribsen
09-13-2010, 04:03 PM
the only effect Nadal had on Federer in this match is Federer's attempt to save himself mentally and physically by not going all out in the 2nd and 4th sets and waiting for Djokovic to hand him the set with minimum effort, which didn't happen and he eventually lost the match when Djokovic believed in himself in the 5th (credit to him), but this is because he wanted to beat Nadal in the final, not because he was scared of him :retard: that's not the mentality that makes a player the most successful player of all time or the only one who has beaten Nadal twice on clay since Nadal became Nadal, going all the way to finals time and time again despite all his previous losses to him on that surface.

+1.

Merton
09-13-2010, 04:08 PM
Suppose that it is true that Federer lost on purpose. Then Roger Federer would never be Roger Federer. Contradiction.

Now please, shut down this thread, it just represents unecessary pain for my eyes. Thank you in advance, etc, etc. :hatoff:

PistolSampras
09-13-2010, 04:10 PM
This theory is just ridiculous, if Fed wanted to lose the match to not face Nadal in the final, he just had to drop the serve during the fith set, then he just had to wait Nole to serve for match and finish the match, however the fith set was a fight between this two, IMO Roger wanted to win without a doubt, he just let go away the two chances to win the match he had, then Nole pushed hard, broke Fed's serve and won the match.

If you want to lose a match, you don't lose it in 5-sets , it seems to me a absurd thing.

Kolya
09-13-2010, 04:16 PM
Federer NEVER wants to lose to Djokovic.

@Sweet Cleopatra
09-13-2010, 04:19 PM
I don't think so. Federer is a champ and he doesn't tank he said before that he respects every one but fears no one.

fed invented god
09-13-2010, 04:34 PM
seriously, the absolute mornoism of some people here scares the shit out of me! of cpurse he didn't lose on purpose! however, this tendancy of the rafatards not to believe that federer could just have lost shows that they have a huge respect for federer's habilities on a tennis court^^

tennis2tennis
09-13-2010, 04:58 PM
seriously, the absolute mornoism of some people here scares the shit out of me! of cpurse he didn't lose on purpose! however, this tendancy of the rafatards not to believe that federer could just have lost shows that they have a huge respect for federer's habilities on a tennis court^^

:rolls:

sosolid4u09
09-13-2010, 05:22 PM
yea federer must have been real stressed out when he had them two match points. bet he breathed a sigh of relief after those LONG rallies where Djokovic played an outstanding shot to save both match points

NJ88
09-13-2010, 05:31 PM
That theory is ridiculous. There's no way a player of Federer's stature would deliberatly cost him an opportunity to be in another Slam final, no matter who the opponent.

sco
09-13-2010, 05:45 PM
After "The King is dead" comment by Nole's mom after 08 AO, there is no way Federer would ever deliberately lose to Nole.

And why would Fed give up a chance to finally play Rafa on the surface that most suits Fed?

Sophocles
09-13-2010, 05:50 PM
I think the problem we have here is that certain Rafatards lack the powers of comprehension required to understand that professional tennis players care more about winning tournaments than about their individual records against particular players.

Persimmon
09-13-2010, 06:00 PM
Federer NEVER wants to lose to Djokovic.

Fed tanked to Djokovic at Rome 2009 SF:wavey: