Anybody else unsatisfied with the way Federer played that fifth set against Simon? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Anybody else unsatisfied with the way Federer played that fifth set against Simon?

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 05:33 PM
Sure, he won and that's the important thing but judging by the way in which he played that final set, I think he was a little bit lucky. Instead of going back to a more aggressive style of playing (indeed, Federer's own style), he resorted to a passive and very conservative strategy, almost as if he was afraid of going for the winners. At the end, Simon comitted some crucial mistakes and Federer was good enough to take advantage of them and break his serve in the sixth game but would that same strategy be enough to beat someone like Nadal who's especially clutch in fifth sets? I think not.

In the presser, Federer said that when the match goes to a fifth set you just trow tactics and gameplan "out of the window" and basically just try to win. Well, you need the tactics to win, esp. when it comes to win a fifth set, imo. At the end, Federer got the win here but for me it wasn't that convinicing at all.

Nekromanta
01-20-2011, 05:38 PM
Sure, he won and that's the important thing but judging by the way in which he played that final set, I think he was a little bit lucky. Instead of going back to a more aggressive style of playing (indeed, Federer's own style), he resorted to a passive and very conservative strategy, almost as if he was afraid of going for the winners. At the end, Simon comitted some crucial mistakes and Federer was good enough to take advantage of them and break his serve in the sixth game but would that same strategy be enough to beat someone like Nadal who's especially clutch in fifth sets? I think not.

In the presser, Federer said that when the match goes to a fifth set you just trow tactics and gameplan "out of the window" and basically just try to win. Well, you need the tactics to win, esp. when it comes to win a fifth set, imo. At the end, Federer got the win here but for me it wasn't that convinicing at all.

He should have tanked that 5th set. He looked like a toothless lion in that match and I don't want to see a suffering Fed in this tourney anymore. I'm a philanthropist:awww:

Elbarto
01-20-2011, 05:38 PM
in the fifth set if Simon had a better serve ( his main weakness ) he would probably win this match

rofe
01-20-2011, 06:00 PM
Fairly decent analysis posted by ApproachShot in the Fed-Simon thread


Straight Sets - Tennis Blog of The New York Times
January 19, 2011, 5:00 pm

Analysis: How Federer Survived Simon
By GEOFF MACDONALD

After coming back from a two set deficit to force a fifth set, Gilles Simon looked brazenly confident as he outhit Roger Federer from the baseline. He kept the ball deep to Federer’s backhand, and when Federer changed direction and went down the line, the quick Simon laced into a forehand cross-court that moved Federer hard to his right, and also opened up the backhand side again. He had the tactical hook deep in Federer’s side, and the momentum was on his side.

How, then, did Federer escape? It wasn’t any one tactical change, but a series of subtle variations that allowed him to wrest control of the match from Simon and his inspired play. Serving at 1-1 in the fifth set, Federer fell behind, love-30, on his serve. Brad Gilbert calls this point a “hidden ad” for Simon because if he can win one of the next three points he will have a break point.

Federer was on a dangerous precipice here. His response? A great serve wide, and an inside out forehand drop shot that fooled Simon. It was a gutsy, creative shot, and it required a quick grip change — from a semi Western to a continental — and perfect touch. The shot selection signaled a tactical shift in Federer’s game plan, an attempt to mix in touch with his usual power baseline game.

At 15-30, Federer hit a hard slice up the middle for a service winner. Another first serve at 30 all gave him a short ball. The drop shot two points ago forced Simon to play closer to the baseline, and this time Federer ripped an inside out forehand approach that Simon couldn’t touch. He won the game with an ace at the T.

The next critical game came with Simon serving at 2-3. Rather than trade explosive groundstrokes, Federer began to vary spin on his backhand, slicing the ball to slow the point down and force Simon to work harder and play with patience. Federer very subtly shifted the pressure of the match on to Simon. When he finally got a break point, Federer ran down a Simon drop volley, covering the court in four breathtaking strides to flick a forehand down the line past Simon. Once again, this required a shift to a continental grip.

After holding serve to go up, 5-2, Federer quickly moved to love-40 on Simon’s serve. He played two drop shots –one off of each side- to get the first two points. His use of touch had changed Simon’s baseline rhythm, and he moved to triple match point. But Simon hung tough, holding off a net rushing Federer and salvaging the match with a courageous hold.

Here Federer used his main weapon, his serve, to try and put this match away. Federer relied on his favorite serve — the wide slice to the deuce — to maneuver Simon well outside the sideline as he made his return. He quickly moved to match point at 40-30. After a long rally, Federer moved forward to attack a short forehand. Remarkably, he tried the inside out forehand drop shot again. This time the ball caught the tape, hung in the air for a second, and fell back. Deuce.

This point showed Federer’s genius more than any other in the fifth set. He once again went wide on his first serve, but netted it. Now, at deuce, having just lost a match point, Federer prepared to hit his second serve.

The percentages shifted in favor of Simon, who moved forward, looking to take the return early and put Federer on his heels. For the entire match, Federer was only winning 43% of second serve points. In the fifth set, the numbers were even bleaker. Of 11 points on his second serve, Federer had won only 3 of them.

He hit another wide slice to the forehand, with a bit more spin for clearance but with plenty of pace, and Simon hit a good return deep crosscourt. Federer unloaded on a down the line forehand that landed a foot inside the lines. Simon defended well, blocking back a backhand that kept him in the point.

Here Federer burst forward, moving with desire and urgency to close in and volley a backhand angle crosscourt for a winner. With three decisions to play to win – the big second serve, the attacking forehand, and the sprint forward to play a volley- Federer put himself once again at match point. He took intelligent risks to put Simon away. His final service winner was almost anticlimactic.

Start da Game
01-20-2011, 06:00 PM
in the fifth set if Simon had a better serve ( his main weakness ) he would probably win this match

had he at least served first, he would have won........federina was in total shock mode.......simon served second in all the 3rd, 4th and 5th sets........

Lleyton_
01-20-2011, 06:11 PM
Save your suggestions to yourself because they are not more valuable than a player's opinion. You need to do blah blah blah. What do you know about playing a 5th set? Nothing.

In case you don't remember, he was 0-2 vs Simon before the match. This time he won.

Dr.Slice
01-20-2011, 06:15 PM
had he at least served first, he would have won........federina was in total shock mode.......simon served second in all the 3rd, 4th and 5th sets........

I know I will regret asking this, but please do amuse me and explain how Simon would have won had he served first?:D:D:D

Start da Game
01-20-2011, 06:17 PM
I know I will regret asking this, but please do amuse me and explain how Simon would have won had he served first?:D:D:D

when was the last time that federina served second in the fifth set in a slam and still won?

Nekromanta
01-20-2011, 06:18 PM
he was 0-2 vs Simon before the match. This time he won.

You know what? If we take the fact that Fed is a primordial fossil into consideration, this is a nice win. Shame on Simon for screwing this up...:o

Bobby
01-20-2011, 06:20 PM
I know I will regret asking this, but please do amuse me and explain how Simon would have won had he served first?:D:D:D

That's how it is. When Federer wins, it's never because he was the better player. It's because his opponent was tired, Fed was lucky, umpire was biased, somebody forgot to wear a pair of lucky underwear, opponents coach had one too many egg in the hotel buffet and couldn't create a proper game plan. The list is endless.

Tenez2010
01-20-2011, 06:23 PM
had he at least served first, he would have won........federina was in total shock mode.......simon served second in all the 3rd, 4th and 5th sets........

How did he win in 3rd and 4th sets serving second but not in 5th :confused: Oh whatever suits your clownish excuses. By the way do you think AO organizers had something to do with Who's serving first or second in Federer - Simon match to prevent Nadal winning AO:devil:

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 06:24 PM
silly me, i wasn't expected these many nadaltard responses

Dr.Slice
01-20-2011, 06:27 PM
when was the last time that federina served second in the fifth set in a slam and still won?

:D
Just as I expected, an incoherent rambling response that in no way answered my question.

Dr.Slice
01-20-2011, 06:31 PM
That's how it is. When Federer wins, it's never because he was the better player. It's because his opponent was tired, Fed was lucky, umpire was biased, somebody forgot to wear a pair of lucky underwear, opponents coach had one too many egg in the hotel buffet and couldn't create a proper game plan. The list is endless.

You got that right.

Federer is a fraud and has lucked to all of his 16 majors, 67 tournament wins.
His 23 GS semis in row was a fluke run, he only did it because he had such easy draws (unlike Nadal who always faces the toughest opponents).

That sad thing is that some fanboys actually would believe that.

Commander Data
01-20-2011, 06:41 PM
I was not extremely impressed by Fed int he 5th, especially having in mind sets 1 + 2.
But lets be fair. Fed said that conditions slowed down and he could not play as aggressive as in sets 1,2. also Simon was getting tired. you don't want to lose the match because you overplay. Fed might have felt that.
Fed nearly won that set 6:2. we can't say he did bad here.

Blackbriar
01-20-2011, 06:44 PM
Nadalmongoloids were unsatisfied for sure. Simon had his chances but he was burned out and couldn't try anything more, he only hoped for mistakes and they never came.

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 06:48 PM
I was not extremely impressed by Fed int he 5th, especially having in mind sets 1 + 2.
But lets be fair. Fed said that conditions slowed down and he could not play as aggressive as in sets 1,2. also Simon was getting tired. you don't want to lose the match because you overplay. Fed might have felt that.
Fed nearly won that set 6:2. we can't say he did bad here.

that's true and i totally agree. but i'm just saying, if a fifth set situation appears vs. Nadal or even against Simon himself in a future match in another GS, he should just go for the shots and play the way he likes to plays. He was very passive in that fifth set. I'd dare say he was even more passive than in the 2 previous sets. In the game in which he broke, it was more Simon making errors and Federer counterpunching rather than Federer imposing himself with his attacking style. Yet, it worked. He got the win last night but I wouldnt be confident on his chances of getting the win in a future five setter against a player of simon's caliber with a similar passive strategy.

Sophocles
01-20-2011, 06:51 PM
Except that Simon is a superb counter-puncher, so in theory, aggressive play short of anything but the very highest level will play into his hands.

Roger the Dodger
01-20-2011, 06:57 PM
I was more impressed by Roger in the 5th than in the 3rd and 4th. :D

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 06:57 PM
fed obviously needs to play well to beat simon but i don't think he necessarily has to play at his best to do so.

in any case, tennis is about imposing your own playing-style on the court in order to win. in the last 3 sets of the match in question, fed was playing exactly the way simon wanted him to play.

Blackbriar
01-20-2011, 07:03 PM
Federer will squash Malisse and everybody will calm down.

Roger the Dodger
01-20-2011, 07:03 PM
fed obviously needs to play well to beat simon but i don't think he necessarily has to play at his best to do so.

in any case, tennis is about imposing your own playing-style on the court in order to win. in the last 3 sets of the match in question, fed was playing exactly the way simon wanted him to play.

That's the whole bloody thing I was trying to explain Dougie on the other thread. Fed was playing into Simon's hand, and that would never work against an athlete who feeds off pushing and punching. Its how the level dropped after set 2 thats purely mystery. For me, its just nerves: you begin to anticipate hell, because things are going far too well!

Commander Data
01-20-2011, 07:04 PM
that's true and i totally agree. but i'm just saying, if a fifth set situation appears vs. Nadal or even against Simon himself in a future match in another GS, he should just go for the shots and play the way he likes to plays. He was very passive in that fifth set. I'd dare say he was even more passive than in the 2 previous sets. In the game in which he broke, it was more Simon making errors and Federer counterpunching rather than Federer imposing himself with his attacking style. Yet, it worked. He got the win last night but I wouldnt be confident on his chances of getting the win in a future five setter against a player of simon's caliber with a similar passive strategy.

passive playworked against Roddick too and won him the 6th Wimbledon title.

I basically agree with you though. that kinda play will not win against somebody like Nadal or Djokovic/murray when they really play good. I haven't seen the US Open 2009, but maybe he made the same mistake there too?

Anyway Fed recently pointed out that he must go for it also on the BH when playing Nadal. I think that is spot on and I like to believe that he would have played more agressive vs Nadal in a 5th but, yeah, that Simon match was not all good. i think he should also go for the shots against any player actually. In my opinion too, Fed was too passive. Because I believe that Fed playing agressive like sets 1,2 or WTF is unbeatbale when on.

NadalesDios
01-20-2011, 07:06 PM
That level won't be enough to beat djokovic and even less Nadal.

luie
01-20-2011, 07:09 PM
Except that Simon is a superb counter-puncher, so in theory, aggressive play short of anything but the very highest level will play into his hands.
+1.
There is a reason hewitt has such a good record against the aggressive players of the 90s.
Simon troubles fed but is abused by nadull/Murray/Novak, what does that tell you being more aggressive is not always the best strategy so early in a tourny when your game is not in full rhythm yet.
Fed played the right way in the 5th set,the problem is his game crumbled when simon became consistent from the baseline. This will not cut it against nadull in a best of 5.
Thankfully the courts seem to favour slice, so this might help take some presure of feds bh,especially if he can direct it more to nadull bh.

Roger the Dodger
01-20-2011, 07:13 PM
I basically agree with you though. that kinda play will not win against somebody like Nadal or Djokovic/murray when they really play good. I haven't seen the US Open 2009, but maybe he made the same mistake there too?

Not really. Del Potro blew off the court in that match. Credit to the Argie.

Sophocles
01-20-2011, 07:16 PM
+1.
There is a reason hewitt has such a good record against the aggressive players of the 90s.
Simon troubles fed but is abused by nadull/Murray/Novak, what does that tell you being more aggressive is not always the best strategy so early in a tourny when your game is not in full rhythm yet.
Fed played the right way in the 5th set,the problem is his game crumbled when simon became consistent from the baseline. This will not cut it against nadull in a best of 5.
Thankfully the courts seem to favour slice, so this might help take some presure of feds bh,especially if he can direct it more to nadull bh.

And there's a reason he had such a good record against the younger Federer.

All good points.

Bobby
01-20-2011, 07:17 PM
That level won't be enough to beat djokovic and even less Nadal.

That's an other issue entirely. Those who have played competitive tennis know that sometimes you struggle and have to dig really deep. Next match is a whole new story and you might find your game very quickly. It's never pretty when you play against someone who is able to eliminate your best weapons.

Roger the Dodger
01-20-2011, 07:21 PM
Roger needs to get into the habit of finishing points thrice against Simon like players. Because they will run the first two would-be winners down.

DrJules
01-20-2011, 07:38 PM
Sure, he won and that's the important thing but judging by the way in which he played that final set, I think he was a little bit lucky. Instead of going back to a more aggressive style of playing (indeed, Federer's own style), he resorted to a passive and very conservative strategy, almost as if he was afraid of going for the winners. At the end, Simon comitted some crucial mistakes and Federer was good enough to take advantage of them and break his serve in the sixth game but would that same strategy be enough to beat someone like Nadal who's especially clutch in fifth sets? I think not.

In the presser, Federer said that when the match goes to a fifth set you just trow tactics and gameplan "out of the window" and basically just try to win. Well, you need the tactics to win, esp. when it comes to win a fifth set, imo. At the end, Federer got the win here but for me it wasn't that convinicing at all.

Not sure he was that defensive (4 aces and 0 double faults) and (15 winners and 9 unforced errors). There were 11 winners in first set and 7 in second.

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day8/1232ss5.html

Tactically Wilander felt that Federer should have been more defensive as Simon could not hurt him and actually felt taking pace away the best tactic.

Not surprising that Murray has won last 9 sets played against Simon including 4 at the end of 2008 in the Simon gold period:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=MC10&oId=SD32

Dougie
01-20-2011, 07:43 PM
That's the whole bloody thing I was trying to explain Dougie on the other thread. Fed was playing into Simon's hand, and that would never work against an athlete who feeds off pushing and punching. Its how the level dropped after set 2 thats purely mystery. For me, its just nerves: you begin to anticipate hell, because things are going far too well!

I wish tennis was as simple as that; playing your own game and winning if you succeed in doing that. I see your point, but what I was trying to explain is that a player like Simon pretty much takes away Federer´s weapons and leaves him with a bunch of second-best-options on court.

If Federer would have lost 3-0, I could accept the explanation that he just played badly or used the wrong tactics. But a player of his calibre doesn´t win the first two sets against a player of Simon´s calibre, then suddenly start playing the way Simon wants him to. COme on, he´s way too smart to do that. It´s not a mystery why his level dropped, the answer is Simon and his game. A man who´s won 16 GS´s doesnt let his game fall into pieces just because things are going too well in 2nd round match.

barbadosan
01-20-2011, 07:52 PM
You sure it wasn't YOUR nerves that went to pieces, Roger the Dodger :D

Jaz
01-20-2011, 07:55 PM
I thought he improved in the final set.

Lets be honest, when federer usually goes to 5, it usually means he will lose (lately). This time he didn't.

Jaz
01-20-2011, 07:58 PM
I basically agree with you though. that kinda play will not win against somebody like Nadal or Djokovic/murray when they really play good. I haven't seen the US Open 2009, but maybe he made the same mistake there too?

DelPo was immense that match, absolutely brilliant brilliant performance. The fact is that Federer needs to feel as if he makes inroads into the opponents serve, otherwise he gets nervous.

Roger the Dodger
01-20-2011, 08:07 PM
I wish tennis was as simple as that; playing your own game and winning if you succeed in doing that. I see your point, but what I was trying to explain is that a player like Simon pretty much takes away Federer´s weapons and leaves him with a bunch of second-best-options on court.

If Federer would have lost 3-0, I could accept the explanation that he just played badly or used the wrong tactics. But a player of his calibre doesn´t win the first two sets against a player of Simon´s calibre, then suddenly start playing the way Simon wants him to. COme on, he´s way too smart to do that. It´s not a mystery why his level dropped, the answer is Simon and his game. A man who´s won 16 GS´s doesnt let his game fall into pieces just because things are going too well in 2nd round match.

But that's the thing. Ever since Nadal wreaked havoc between Roger's ears, he's started to react funny when his 'winners' come right back on court for another hit. And another. So its not just a second round match. Its also the fact that he's playing a pusher with great wheels and the psychological burden of having lost his previous matches to Simon that made him question his smooth sail after the first two sets.

Hypothetically speaking to explain my point further; if Roger would take the first two sets playing sublime against Nadal in the French Open final this year, he'd lose the next three playing ridiculous.

You sure it wasn't YOUR nerves that went to pieces, Roger the Dodger :D

I was anticipating disaster when Roger went down 0-1 in the third set. Sweated bullets till the end of the match. :lol:

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 08:32 PM
I wish tennis was as simple as that; playing your own game and winning if you succeed in doing that. I see your point, but what I was trying to explain is that a player like Simon pretty much takes away Federer´s weapons and leaves him with a bunch of second-best-options on court.

If Federer would have lost 3-0, I could accept the explanation that he just played badly or used the wrong tactics. But a player of his calibre doesn´t win the first two sets against a player of Simon´s calibre, then suddenly start playing the way Simon wants him to. COme on, he´s way too smart to do that. It´s not a mystery why his level dropped, the answer is Simon and his game. A man who´s won 16 GS´s doesnt let his game fall into pieces just because things are going too well in 2nd round match.

it's clear that simon started to play better from the second half of the second set onwards and that put pressure on Federer. I don't think anyone is saying that fed's game "felt to pieces" but simply that his intensity in attack dropped and he began to play more like simon wanted him to play.

rest assured, in a game of passive playing and pushing balls as a main strategy, simon is better than federer. hell, simon is better than 99.9% of the ATP in that kinf of game so why play it when you've got so many other options? Imo, Federer should have kept attacking in spite of Simon's better level and the colder conditions because that's what he does best and because that's his core game. With that strategy, the match would be always in his racquet and I don't even think a fifth set would have been needed.

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 08:34 PM
DelPo was immense that match, absolutely brilliant brilliant performance. The fact is that Federer needs to feel as if he makes inroads into the opponents serve, otherwise he gets nervous.

i only watched the fourth set tiebreak and the final set of that match so i can't really comment much. based on what i watched, though, i can say that delpo was indeed brilliant. he was hitting winners from all sides of the court.

however, i do tend to wonder why that happened. my guess is that federer must have allowed him to gain that type of confidence. just a guess, though as i didn't see the entire match.

mark73
01-20-2011, 08:45 PM
had he at least served first, he would have won........federina was in total shock mode.......simon served second in all the 3rd, 4th and 5th sets........

Federer was just lucky to win those 16 grandslams, right? He is worse than the average club player.

mark73
01-20-2011, 08:48 PM
had he at least served first, he would have won........federina was in total shock mode.......simon served second in all the 3rd, 4th and 5th sets........

You are right? Federer really really sucks. Their is more talent in Nadals left testical then in federer's entire body.

mark73
01-20-2011, 08:52 PM
it's clear that simon started to play better from the second half of the second set onwards and that put pressure on Federer. I don't think anyone is saying that fed's game "felt to pieces" but simply that his intensity in attack dropped and he began to play more like simon wanted him to play.

rest assured, in a game of passive playing and pushing balls as a main strategy, simon is better than federer. hell, simon is better than 99.9% of the ATP in that kinf of game so why play it when you've got so many other options? Imo, Federer should have kept attacking in spite of Simon's better level and the colder conditions because that's what he does best and because that's his core game. With that strategy, the match would be always in his racquet and I don't even think a fifth set would have been needed.

I think federer lost some of his timing after the first 2 sets, as a result his attacking game became to risky. It's hard to play his style for 5 sets, sometimes he has to back off a bit, not by choice but because his game occasionally goes cold.

Jaz
01-20-2011, 08:55 PM
i only watched the fourth set tiebreak and the final set of that match so i can't really comment much. based on what i watched, though, i can say that delpo was indeed brilliant. he was hitting winners from all sides of the court.

however, i do tend to wonder why that happened. my guess is that federer must have allowed him to gain that type of confidence. just a guess, though as i didn't see the entire match.

Essentially Federer dropped serve, and he couldn't get it back in the sets he lost.

It's a bit like Manchester United, they only seem to play better if they can get on the scoresheet (irrespective of the score).

It's slightly psychological. However, I'm glad that Federer pulled through in the 5th set with some good postive Tennis. He needs to continue to do this in the 5th set in future.

Jaz
01-20-2011, 08:56 PM
I think federer lost some of his timing after the first 2 sets, as a result his attacking game became to risky. It's hard to play his style for 5 sets, sometimes he has to back off a bit, not by choice but because his game occasionally goes cold.

I think his fitness should be questioned, I mentioned this in the match thread, and people "laughed". I actually do think that given how few best of 5 players play now, Federer's fitness may have declined with age and he hasn't quite realised.

His movement tends to decline a the end of the 2nd set and so his shotmaking goes too.

simplet
01-20-2011, 09:23 PM
it's clear that simon started to play better from the second half of the second set onwards and that put pressure on Federer. I don't think anyone is saying that fed's game "felt to pieces" but simply that his intensity in attack dropped and he began to play more like simon wanted him to play.

rest assured, in a game of passive playing and pushing balls as a main istrategy, simon is better than federer. hell, simon is better than 99.9% of the ATP in that kinf of game so why play it when you've got so many other options? Imo, Federer should have kept attacking in spite of Simon's better level and the colder conditions because that's what he does best and because that's his core game. With that strategy, the match would be always in his racquet and I don't even think a fifth set would have been needed.

This is very wrong. Simon came back into the match purely due to Federer errors and passing shots/counter-punching Federer's big shots. He didn't start to really create his own chances until late into the fourth set. Basically unless Federer was going to be flawless like in the first two sets, trying to attack all the time was playing into Simon's hands.

Let's face it, Simon can't really hurt Federer if he's not already fed pace. He can try to go for winners but he has to crush the ball with his really flat groundies and take a lot of risks. That's why it was really smart on Federer to put the pressure on Simon to come up with the goods, Simon was serving like shit, so no free points + tired + need for high risks shots gave Federer the break. But when it came to finishing the match or getting out of trouble on serve, Federer took care of business with big serves and big shots, like he should.

Priam
01-20-2011, 09:26 PM
That game Simon got broken he was up 40-15 I think. Great fight from Gilles but you always knew the end result was NID after failing to break at 1-0, 0-30.

It seems only the big hitters have a chance at taking out Federer early at slams these days.

abraxas21
01-20-2011, 09:28 PM
This is very wrong. Simon came back into the match purely due to Federer errors and passing shots/counter-punching Federer's big shots. He didn't start to really create his own chances until late into the fourth set. Basically unless Federer was going to be flawless like in the first two sets, trying to attack all the time was playing into Simon's hands.

well, i disagree. i think simon upped his level during the second set. federer also thought the same, as you can hear in his presser. that brought pressure on fed and he began to play more defensively. i think he should have kept on attacking even if that would have meant fewer points won (in comparison to the first set and a half or so) and i think that with that strategy in hand he would have won the match more comfortably.

there's not much for me to say without starting to sound like a broken record so i'll leave it at that. besides, i've gottta go now

dodo
01-20-2011, 10:03 PM
You got that right.

Federer is a fraud and has lucked to all of his 16 majors, 67 tournament wins.
His 23 GS semis in row was a fluke run, he only did it because he had such easy draws (unlike Nadal who always faces the toughest opponents).

That sad thing is that some fanboys actually would believe that.

Youre new here. Pro-tip: dont bother getting into it with the nadal tard brigade. these guys (sdg especially) are immune to logic, facts and reason.

Re: thread. Yes, Federer's performance was indeed worrisome. But not so much the fifth set, where he did the only thing available at the time and grind out slow points with Simon. The worrisome part is how he lost his mojo at the end of set 2 out of the blue. Suddenly couldnt land an aggressive shot in court. The grinding tactic might work against Novak (unlikely), but it will be a loser vs Murray and a catastrophe vs Nadal.

Arkulari
01-20-2011, 10:26 PM
That's how it is. When Federer wins, it's never because he was the better player. It's because his opponent was tired, Fed was lucky, umpire was biased, somebody forgot to wear a pair of lucky underwear, opponents coach had one too many egg in the hotel buffet and couldn't create a proper game plan. The list is endless.

Exactly, don't give credit when credit is due :retard:

Roger has won each and everyone of his 67 titles by sheer luck, his opponent being injured, sick, tired or fed up with the world :rolleyes:

lalaland
01-20-2011, 11:19 PM
I think ppl are forgetting that being a great tennis player and winning match is about doing better at different elements in different situations. Better than your opponent so you come out on top at the end of the day, that’s how matches are won. I know it pains some Fed fans that Federer is not perfect at all the moments on court, and it seem to them that win or lose, his opponent has nothing to do with it. But here is what ppl are suggesting happened in the match.

1. Set 3 onward, Federer changed strategy from his very aggressive brand of tennis to a more passive style…What did Simon do in that 2 sets? Simon changed his very passive style to a more aggressive one, result = Simon won the next 2 sets. Seems to me that change of strategy is done by both and one of them’s strategy worked better than the other one, is it not a fact?

2. Set 3 onward, Federer after first 2 sets of high level tennis, cannot maintain, Simon, after 2 sets of so so level of tennis, upped his level, result = Simon won the next 2 sets. One is doing better than the other in maintaining/upping his level then, is it also a fact?

3. Set 3 onward, the weather/condition changed, that favored Simon, so Federer has to change strategy and that may have resulted in level dropped. Is the ability to manage the changing conditions not a criteria for being a great player? The weather changed during last match when Federer was down against Kolya, and he ended up winning in colder weather. What do we make of that match then? Are you willing to say Kolya would have won if the weather remained hot? What if this Simon/Federer match was played during the hot summer afternoon day at noon time, can we assume the result would have been different? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter because they don’t get to choose what condition to play, they just have to know how to handle whatever condition is given to them.

4. Set 5, Simon got tired, unable to up his level, Federer managed the physical much better. So one has better stamina than the other, that’s one of the factor that affected the reason of the match. Stamina, also a factor that makes one plays better than the other. If you lose out on stamina, then you are just not good enough, no?

5. Set 5, Simon got tired, served badly. Federer still fresh in mind and body, made small change in tactic and broke Simon and won the match. That's why he's one of the greatest, the ability to just do better than the opponent when it matters.

What I’m trying to say is that if ppl are willing to actually look at the match objectively, then they will understand that the result of the match is the sum of all elements that got played out in the entire duration of the match. And these elements applied to both players and one will do better than the other at different time of the match. Because if Federer is better in all elements all the time, he would have won it 6-0 6-0 6-0. The fact that it was a 5 setter and Simon won 2 sets meaning he was better in that 2 sets. That’s only simple logic. If you prefer to think that Simon wasn't "better", just Federer was "poorer", then suit yourself. A champion will be able to limit it's "poorer" moment then, that's called consistency. I do not know why his fans would prefer to think that he has so many "poorer" moment in matches, that doesn't necessarily makes him look good. If you want to compare FH to FH, BH to BH, serve to serve, style to style, you can compare it on paper. But that’s why they play the match.

Federer won, he was happy because he thought he won a hell of a match. His fans were not, because they didn’t want to give Simon any credit for having make a match out of this.

Arkulari
01-21-2011, 12:03 AM
I think ppl are forgetting that being a great tennis player and winning match is about doing better at different elements in different situations. Better than your opponent so you come out on top at the end of the day, that’s how matches are won. I know it pains some Fed fans that Federer is not perfect at all the moments on court, and it seem to them that win or lose, his opponent has nothing to do with it. But here is what ppl are suggesting happened in the match.

1. Set 3 onward, Federer changed strategy from his very aggressive brand of tennis to a more passive style…What did Simon do in that 2 sets? Simon changed his very passive style to a more aggressive one, result = Simon won the next 2 sets. Seems to me that change of strategy is done by both and one of them’s strategy worked better than the other one, is it not a fact?

2. Set 3 onward, Federer after first 2 sets of high level tennis, cannot maintain, Simon, after 2 sets of so so level of tennis, upped his level, result = Simon won the next 2 sets. One is doing better than the other in maintaining/upping his level then, is it also a fact?

3. Set 3 onward, the weather/condition changed, that favored Simon, so Federer has to change strategy and that may have resulted in level dropped. Is the ability to manage the changing conditions not a criteria for being a great player? The weather changed during last match when Federer was down against Kolya, and he ended up winning in colder weather. What do we make of that match then? Are you willing to say Kolya would have won if the weather remained hot? What if this Simon/Federer match was played during the hot summer afternoon day at noon time, can we assume the result would have been different? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter because they don’t get to choose what condition to play, they just have to know how to handle whatever condition is given to them.

4. Set 5, Simon got tired, unable to up his level, Federer managed the physical much better. So one has better stamina than the other, that’s one of the factor that affected the reason of the match. Stamina, also a factor that makes one plays better than the other. If you lose out on stamina, then you are just not good enough, no?

5. Set 5, Simon got tired, served badly. Federer still fresh in mind and body, made small change in tactic and broke Simon and won the match. That's why he's one of the greatest, the ability to just do better than the opponent when it matters.

What I’m trying to say is that if ppl are willing to actually look at the match objectively, then they will understand that the result of the match is the sum of all elements that got played out in the entire duration of the match. And these elements applied to both players and one will do better than the other at different time of the match. Because if Federer is better in all elements all the time, he would have won it 6-0 6-0 6-0. The fact that it was a 5 setter and Simon won 2 sets meaning he was better in that 2 sets. That’s only simple logic. If you prefer to think that Simon wasn't "better", just Federer was "poorer", then suit yourself. A champion will be able to limit it's "poorer" moment then, that's called consistency. I do not know why his fans would prefer to think that he has so many "poorer" moment in matches, that doesn't necessarily makes him look good. If you want to compare FH to FH, BH to BH, serve to serve, style to style, you can compare it on paper. But that’s why they play the match.

Federer won, he was happy because he thought he won a hell of a match. His fans were not, because they didn’t want to give Simon any credit for having make a match out of this.

I agree with you, Roger himself said that he didn't lose those two sets but Simon took them away from him :yeah:

People here have set impossible standards for both Roger and Rafa and tend to forget that they are human and can be beaten even if they aren't injured/tired/sick/etc :shrug:

paseo
01-21-2011, 12:14 AM
You FedTards are too much. Even when Fed wins, you all still whine and whine saying that it was not good enough. None of you even bother to read rofe's post. Here, let me qoute it.

Fairly decent analysis posted by ApproachShot in the Fed-Simon thread
Straight Sets - Tennis Blog of The New York Times
January 19, 2011, 5:00 pm

Analysis: How Federer Survived Simon
By GEOFF MACDONALD

After coming back from a two set deficit to force a fifth set, Gilles Simon looked brazenly confident as he outhit Roger Federer from the baseline. He kept the ball deep to Federer’s backhand, and when Federer changed direction and went down the line, the quick Simon laced into a forehand cross-court that moved Federer hard to his right, and also opened up the backhand side again. He had the tactical hook deep in Federer’s side, and the momentum was on his side.

How, then, did Federer escape? It wasn’t any one tactical change, but a series of subtle variations that allowed him to wrest control of the match from Simon and his inspired play. Serving at 1-1 in the fifth set, Federer fell behind, love-30, on his serve. Brad Gilbert calls this point a “hidden ad” for Simon because if he can win one of the next three points he will have a break point.

Federer was on a dangerous precipice here. His response? A great serve wide, and an inside out forehand drop shot that fooled Simon. It was a gutsy, creative shot, and it required a quick grip change — from a semi Western to a continental — and perfect touch. The shot selection signaled a tactical shift in Federer’s game plan, an attempt to mix in touch with his usual power baseline game.

At 15-30, Federer hit a hard slice up the middle for a service winner. Another first serve at 30 all gave him a short ball. The drop shot two points ago forced Simon to play closer to the baseline, and this time Federer ripped an inside out forehand approach that Simon couldn’t touch. He won the game with an ace at the T.

The next critical game came with Simon serving at 2-3. Rather than trade explosive groundstrokes, Federer began to vary spin on his backhand, slicing the ball to slow the point down and force Simon to work harder and play with patience. Federer very subtly shifted the pressure of the match on to Simon. When he finally got a break point, Federer ran down a Simon drop volley, covering the court in four breathtaking strides to flick a forehand down the line past Simon. Once again, this required a shift to a continental grip.

After holding serve to go up, 5-2, Federer quickly moved to love-40 on Simon’s serve. He played two drop shots –one off of each side- to get the first two points. His use of touch had changed Simon’s baseline rhythm, and he moved to triple match point. But Simon hung tough, holding off a net rushing Federer and salvaging the match with a courageous hold.

Here Federer used his main weapon, his serve, to try and put this match away. Federer relied on his favorite serve — the wide slice to the deuce — to maneuver Simon well outside the sideline as he made his return. He quickly moved to match point at 40-30. After a long rally, Federer moved forward to attack a short forehand. Remarkably, he tried the inside out forehand drop shot again. This time the ball caught the tape, hung in the air for a second, and fell back. Deuce.

This point showed Federer’s genius more than any other in the fifth set. He once again went wide on his first serve, but netted it. Now, at deuce, having just lost a match point, Federer prepared to hit his second serve.

The percentages shifted in favor of Simon, who moved forward, looking to take the return early and put Federer on his heels. For the entire match, Federer was only winning 43% of second serve points. In the fifth set, the numbers were even bleaker. Of 11 points on his second serve, Federer had won only 3 of them.

He hit another wide slice to the forehand, with a bit more spin for clearance but with plenty of pace, and Simon hit a good return deep crosscourt. Federer unloaded on a down the line forehand that landed a foot inside the lines. Simon defended well, blocking back a backhand that kept him in the point.

Here Federer burst forward, moving with desire and urgency to close in and volley a backhand angle crosscourt for a winner. With three decisions to play to win – the big second serve, the attacking forehand, and the sprint forward to play a volley- Federer put himself once again at match point. He took intelligent risks to put Simon away. His final service winner was almost anticlimactic.

You all should learn a little from NadalTards, they have confidence in their idol.

DorianGray7
01-21-2011, 01:39 AM
Start da Gama is just a pathetic troll who threw fits because Federer won.

Same story like at WTF. Have pity on him because he is a bitter immature kid regardless of his real age.

abraxas21
01-21-2011, 04:10 AM
You FedTards are too much. Even when Fed wins, you all still whine and whine saying that it was not good enough. None of you even bother to read rofe's post. Here, let me qoute it.



You all should learn a little from NadalTards, they have confidence in their idol.

what the hell are you on? it's as important to analize defeats as much as wins.

i read rofe's post for your info. i thought it was more a description of what happened than an analysis itself.

theres nothing positive anyone could learn from any nadaltard for the record.