Roger's three losses in 2005 so far... [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roger's three losses in 2005 so far...

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 01:31 PM
So at this stage of the season Roger lost ... three times only (since Cincinatti last year BTW).
-1st loss to Marat Safin, AO SF (hard): 7-5 4-6 7-5 6-7(6) 7-9
1 MP
Epic battle, very close throughout the match. Marat got a good coaching from Lundgren it seems, he overpowered and made run Federer a lot. Federer had a minor foot injury.

-2nd loss to Richard Gasquet, Monte-Carlo QF (clay): 7-6(1) 2-6 6-7(10)
1 MP
Begining of the clay season for Fed (not his favourite surface), right after Miami. Gasquet is in a momentum, lots of winners, shows mental strength at key moments (MP against him). Though not in a GS, this is the earliest loss of Fed this season.

-3rd loss to Rafael Nadal, Roland Garros SF (clay): 3-6 6-4 4-6 3-6
One of the much anticipated showdowns of the season, Fed is quite nervous and starts the match very badly contrary to his habits (many breaks). He's had a good draw and is full of energy but he doesn't handle the Rafa lefty topspin at the net and he's often overpowered on baseline.

IMO the most siginficant loss is Nadal's, as Roger didn't seem to be able to win, because he was doing too many mistakes (BH, FH and volleys). In addition, he didn't have "external factors" to explain the loss. He was unusually nervous. However, we can notice that Nadal's game is the most "1 dimensionnal" of the three, but he compensated with his mental strength and his science of clay.
In the other two matches it was the usual Federer, and he even showed a capacity to fight till the end and in adversity, that some questioned at the time (cf. Wertheim).
Not surprisingly 2 losses came on clay, where Fed is a bit less confident and less patient, though one of the best on the tour.
The Gasquet match is a bit special as Federer lost to a kind of "double" of himself, a talented all-courter without huge power. Gasquet, due to lack of stamina, certainly wouldn't have won in a 5-set match, but he seized his opporunities and took advantage of his relatively "unknown" game on the tour.
So to beat Fed in 2005 :
-Make him visit the court a lot
-Bombard him with maximum pace on both wings
-Play on clay
-Build confidence before with lots of wins in previous torunies
-Prepare for a tough and long journey
What do you think ? ;)

mitalidas
08-22-2005, 01:33 PM
he had matchpoints in two of these three. there is no question that the much better player won at the French.

At the other two, it ended in final set tiebreak and 9-7 in the fifth. Roger has won so many of those close matches (this year --against ljubicic, ferrero), but these two he lost. You could say the better person won, but frankly, on a final set tiebreak it is a lottery.

1sun
08-22-2005, 01:38 PM
should have beaten marat, that loss hurt him the most

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 01:39 PM
You could say the better person won, but frankly, on a final set tiebreak it is a lottery.
But still, when Fed has a MP against you, it takes good balls to stay alive... ;)

PamV
08-22-2005, 01:40 PM
mdhubert:

Roger's loss to Nadal in the FO SF was NOT a shock. Nadal was the favorite on clay. Roger has never done that well on clay except for Hamburg....which is a different type of clay and a colder climate.

As for his loss to Gasquet, again that red clay is not his best surface but keep in mind that he had just won two prior MS tournaments back to back. Most of the top players were not even entered to play Monte Carlo. Later in the year Roger beat Gasquet in straight sets in the Hamburg final.

Of all the loses the AO loss has to be the most disappointing. It was so close and if he had won that he would have no doubt beaten Hewitt in the final.

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 01:44 PM
mdhubert:

Roger's loss to Nadal in the FO SF was NOT a shock. Nadal was the favorite on clay. Roger has never done that well on clay except for Hamburg....which is a different type of clay and a colder climate.

As for his loss to Gasquet, again that red clay is not his best surface but keep in mind that he had just won two prior MS tournaments back to back. Most of the top players were not even entered to play Monte Carlo. Later in the year Roger beat Gasquet in straight sets in the Hamburg final.

Of all the loses the AO loss has to be the most disappointing. It was so close and if he had won that he would have no doubt beaten Hewitt in the final.
Good remarks. Did I say that this SF loss was a shock ? The match, the encounter, was a shock, not the loss. As you say he still has to adapt to RG conditions and that explains a bit his nervousness. But he put a lot of balls in the net and was often out of position, which is not usual for him, even on clay.

Puschkin
08-22-2005, 01:49 PM
At the other two, it ended in final set tiebreak and 9-7 in the fifth. Roger has won so many of those close matches (this year --against ljubicic, ferrero), but these two he lost. You could say the better person won, but frankly, on a final set tiebreak it is a lottery.

Yes and no, on overage the better players do win the lotteries more often ;) . You heard me, Mr. Safin? :p

Cervantes
08-22-2005, 01:52 PM
I didn't see the match against Gasquet, but I believe the Nadal match was the one he could or should have won. I mean against Safin it was just an unbelievable match and Marat played very well. Against Nadal it was just plain bad tennis from Federer, but still halfway through the 3rd I felt Roger was getting on top and he could have won it.

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 01:56 PM
but still halfway through the 3rd I felt Roger was getting on top and he could have won it.
Too fragile and too short, from the first point we felt Rog was in danger this day, and he screwed up badly his advance in the third. It's strange what you say, because without this damn lob in the fourth he WAS beating Safin in AO ! Nowhere we saw Nadal fighting for his life in RG... alas

Jessie_Sophie
08-22-2005, 02:01 PM
LOL..just noticed..it was Nadal's birtday when he beat Federer, right?? And also Marat's!!! Hahah..so it should be your birtday to be able to beat Federer!!
Ah big WHOOOOOO for the birtday boys!!

Cervantes
08-22-2005, 02:02 PM
Too fragile and too short, from the first point we felt Rog was in danger this day, and he screwed up badly his advance in the third. It's strange what you say, because without this damn lob in the fourth he WAS beating Safin in AO ! Nowhere we saw Nadal fighting for his life in RG... alas

I'm not saying he didn't have a chance to beat either Gasquet or Safin, but at least he played up to his potential against Safin. Against Nadal I feel he could have done better and that's why I regard this loss the worst.

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 02:03 PM
LOL..just noticed..it was Nadal's birtday when he beat Federer, right?? And also Marat's!!! Hahah..so it should be your birtday to be able to beat Federer!!
Ah big WHOOOOOO for the birtday boys!!
Yep, very true ! but it has to be a GS SF to work, otherwise... maybe it's extra motivation: I'm getting old (esp. Nadal), I have to move my ass...

Experimentee
08-22-2005, 02:04 PM
I only saw two of those. At the AO I dont think he was hindered much by any injury, Safin was just awesome and outplayed and overpowered him. It was still close, but that was because Roger played very well too.

At RG Nadal was a lot better and Federer didnt play his best, but he had no chance. The answer to beating Fed is to just stay solid, keep your level up throughout the match, and overpower him with your best shot(s). Not very easy to do.

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 02:07 PM
The answer to beating Fed is to just stay solid, keep your level up throughout the match, and overpower him with your best shot(s). Not very easy to do.
I fax the recipe to Ducky and C'moon guy straight away... I would add that you can forget the powerful serve but instead look for placement to build the next "killer" shot

1sun
08-22-2005, 02:10 PM
I only saw two of those. At the AO I dont think he was hindered much by any injury, Safin was just awesome and outplayed and overpowered him. It was still close, but that was because Roger played very well too.

At RG Nadal was a lot better and Federer didnt play his best, but he had no chance. The answer to beating Fed is to just stay solid, keep your level up throughout the match, and overpower him with your best shot(s). Not very easy to do.
if safin outplayed roger then it would have been a straight sets beat down
roger had cahnces mate against rafa. it was alot closer than people seem to think it was

Jessie_Sophie
08-22-2005, 02:13 PM
Yes..that match was very close...it could have been over in one hour..enough chances to win on both sides...

Nimomunz
08-22-2005, 02:37 PM
i think that the safin match was very important esp to the other players on tour in that they saw it was a match fed was expected to win and he brought alot of game to the match but he was beat!! it gave them hope that he wasnt beatable only when he's nervous or playing off!

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 02:45 PM
i think that the safin match was very important esp to the other players on tour in that they saw it was a match fed was expected to win and he brought alot of game to the match but he was beat!! it gave them hope that he wasnt beatable only when he's nervous or playing off!
Yes true, especially on hard... one loss in one year ! He's beatable, but so rarely !!

mitalidas
08-22-2005, 02:51 PM
i think that the safin match was very important esp to the other players on tour in that they saw it was a match fed was expected to win and he brought alot of game to the match but he was beat!! it gave them hope that he wasnt beatable only when he's nervous or playing off!

Too few players know they have the abilities of Safin at his best to take any hope from seeing Safin beating Roger

silverwhite
08-22-2005, 03:07 PM
The Gasquet loss was a big fluke, I tell you.

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 03:08 PM
The Gasquet loss was a big fluke, I tell you.
why ?

silverwhite
08-22-2005, 03:15 PM
why ?

I meant "the loss to Gasquet", in case I wasn't clear enough.

David Kenzie
08-22-2005, 03:26 PM
Good remarks. Did I say that this SF loss was a shock ? The match, the encounter, was a shock, not the loss. As you say he still has to adapt to RG conditions and that explains a bit his nervousness. But he put a lot of balls in the net and was often out of position, which is not usual for him, even on clay.
I beleive this does not have the same meaning as in french ;) A shock in english is a surprise, in french a "choc" between two players is like saying it is a showdown

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 03:27 PM
I beleive this does not have the same meaning as in french ;) A shock in english is a surprise, in french a "choc" between two players is like saying it is a showdown
I yes, I missed too many English lessons, you're right... what a showdown it was !;)

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 03:31 PM
I meant "the loss to Gasquet", in case I wasn't clear enough.
Gasquet is talented, isn't it ? In three sets matches he can take anyone when healthy. In GS, not yet. That was a bit of a surprise but not like if Murray had beaten Federer for example... :devil:

silverwhite
08-22-2005, 03:37 PM
Gasquet is talented, isn't it ? In three sets matches he can take anyone when healthy. In GS, not yet. That was a bit of a surprise but not like if Murray had beaten Federer for example... :devil:

Didn't I say it was a fluke? :fiery:

njnetswill
08-22-2005, 05:58 PM
His record can easily be something like 80-1...what a scary thought.

bandabou
08-22-2005, 06:14 PM
Scary....this shows that you should get thim on the slower surfaces...othewise, it is good night.

WF4EVER
08-22-2005, 06:15 PM
I've marvelled at the competition between Nadal and Feder for top honours this year. Nadal has made 10 finals and won 9, Roger made 9 and won all. Nadal has probably won two or three matches more than Fed has but he has lost many more suggesting that he has had to work so much harder in order to remain in contention.

It just seems to me as if Nadal is Fed's driving force this year. He has given him some serious competition for top billing and everytime he seems to edge away (like winning a Slam before Fed this year) Fed just surges forward again. Nadal came out and won Montreal, tying Fed for AMS wins this year and Fed comes out of nowhere, rusty as ever and wins Cincy to pass him and become the only player to ever win 4 in one season. I'm sure Nadal will want to catch him with either Madrid or Paris, but for sure both of them want the final SLam of 2005 to separate himself from the other.

This year has certainly been a lot more competitive than last year was even if the competition has been limited to two players, but why not? They're No. 1 and No. 2 in the world; isn't that how it's supposed to be?

TheMightyFed
08-22-2005, 07:04 PM
I've marvelled at the competition between Nadal and Feder for top honours this year. Nadal has made 10 finals and won 9, Roger made 9 and won all. Nadal has probably won two or three matches more than Fed has but he has lost many more suggesting that he has had to work so much harder in order to remain in contention.

It just seems to me as if Nadal is Fed's driving force this year. He has given him some serious competition for top billing and everytime he seems to edge away (like winning a Slam before Fed this year) Fed just surges forward again. Nadal came out and won Montreal, tying Fed for AMS wins this year and Fed comes out of nowhere, rusty as ever and wins Cincy to pass him and become the only player to ever win 4 in one season. I'm sure Nadal will want to catch him with either Madrid or Paris, but for sure both of them want the final SLam of 2005 to separate himself from the other.

This year has certainly been a lot more competitive than last year was even if the competition has been limited to two players, but why not? They're No. 1 and No. 2 in the world; isn't that how it's supposed to be?
I'm totally with you, and people who are "bored" when they see such a rivalry, I don't know what they want... :worship:

NYCtennisfan
08-22-2005, 07:42 PM
What's amazing is that in 67 matches this year and over 80 matches going back to last year, he has been soundly beaten with no doubts basiclally once by Nadal. Yes, Marat and Gasquet beat him and deserve to win, but those matches were basically ties that could go either way, just like a few of Fed's wins against JCF and Minar earlier this year where it weas bascially a tie and Fed won with a bit of luck. It's just quite amazing really.

cleverdutchclogs
08-22-2005, 08:38 PM
-2nd loss to Richard Gasquet, Monte-Carlo QF (clay): 7-6(1) 2-6 6-7(10)
1 MP

3 MP don't you mean?

Federer led (in the third set tiebreak) 6-5, 7-6 and 8-7 before losing it 10-8!

Cervantes
08-22-2005, 09:52 PM
This year has certainly been a lot more competitive than last year was even if the competition has been limited to two players, but why not? They're No. 1 and No. 2 in the world; isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Still I don't feel there's any real competition between them, Nadal just picks up the clay trophies and Federer the hardcourt and grass titles.

uNIVERSE mAN
08-22-2005, 11:32 PM
So at this stage of the season Roger lost ... three times only (since Cincinatti last year BTW).
-1st loss to Marat Safin, AO SF (hard): 7-5 4-6 7-5 6-7(6) 7-9
1 MP
Epic battle, very close throughout the match. Marat got a good coaching from Lundgren it seems, he overpowered and made run Federer a lot. Federer had a minor foot injury.

-2nd loss to Richard Gasquet, Monte-Carlo QF (clay): 7-6(1) 2-6 6-7(10)
1 MP
Begining of the clay season for Fed (not his favourite surface), right after Miami. Gasquet is in a momentum, lots of winners, shows mental strength at key moments (MP against him). Though not in a GS, this is the earliest loss of Fed this season.

-3rd loss to Rafael Nadal, Roland Garros SF (clay): 3-6 6-4 4-6 3-6
One of the much anticipated showdowns of the season, Fed is quite nervous and starts the match very badly contrary to his habits (many breaks). He's had a good draw and is full of energy but he doesn't handle the Rafa lefty topspin at the net and he's often overpowered on baseline.

IMO the most siginficant loss is Nadal's, as Roger didn't seem to be able to win, because he was doing too many mistakes (BH, FH and volleys). In addition, he didn't have "external factors" to explain the loss. He was unusually nervous. However, we can notice that Nadal's game is the most "1 dimensionnal" of the three, but he compensated with his mental strength and his science of clay.
In the other two matches it was the usual Federer, and he even showed a capacity to fight till the end and in adversity, that some questioned at the time (cf. Wertheim).
Not surprisingly 2 losses came on clay, where Fed is a bit less confident and less patient, though one of the best on the tour.
The Gasquet match is a bit special as Federer lost to a kind of "double" of himself, a talented all-courter without huge power. Gasquet, due to lack of stamina, certainly wouldn't have won in a 5-set match, but he seized his opporunities and took advantage of his relatively "unknown" game on the tour.
So to beat Fed in 2005 :
-Make him visit the court a lot
-Bombard him with maximum pace on both wings
-Play on clay
-Build confidence before with lots of wins in previous torunies
-Prepare for a tough and long journey
What do you think ? ;)


Why does everyone say Safin overpowered Roger? Check the stats, Roger had way more winners and won more points, and higher return % too. Who's overpowering who?

mitalidas
08-23-2005, 12:36 AM
Why does everyone say Safin overpowered Roger? Check the stats, Roger had way more winners and won more points, and higher return % too. Who's overpowering who?
safin did not overpower Roger. He did not even outace Roger.
I would go out on a limb to say he did not even outplay Roger, except that he did win, and I don't begrudge him that so by the score he technically outplayed him, since he won that last point
Roger has won so many matches in a close final set/tb, and we give him the credit for winning those, so marat deserves the credit for the AO. but overpower, outplay and thrashing is just a stretch

NYCtennisfan
08-23-2005, 01:19 AM
Safin overpowered Federer on a many of the points he won, but to truly overpower someone, you have to be shoving them around the court on MOST of the points that are in play or at least a good majority of them. Safin didn't do that. Federer overpowerd Sfain on many of the points that he won.

In any case, that was still the best match of the year followed closely by the Nadal/Coria match in Rome.

uNIVERSE mAN
08-23-2005, 03:16 PM
The 6-4 set Safin won was by luck, check the tapes, Fed had many breakpoints, and Safin fluked two of them. Safin broke in a game that Fed had game point on. The tiebreak well you know what happened there. And the 5th set Federer was labouring.

RogiFan88
08-23-2005, 04:11 PM
I'm totally with you, and people who are "bored" when they see such a rivalry, I don't know what they want... :worship:

They want Pandy winning everything. :p

mitalidas
08-23-2005, 04:27 PM
The 6-4 set Safin won was by luck, check the tapes, Fed had many breakpoints, and Safin fluked two of them. Safin broke in a game that Fed had game point on. The tiebreak well you know what happened there. And the 5th set Federer was labouring.

Yeah, he had many breakpoints --but saving a bp is as much winning a point, as anything else. Looking back on W 04, roddick had so many chances to break Roger, and Roger got out of jail by the skin of his teeth. We give credit to Roger for "playing great" at those moments, but a re-run shows that he put himself into vulnerable positions and roddick sometimes shanked, but sometimes missed by cm's. The TB is the only place where Roger really should have closed it out, leading 5-2 or whatever