Monkey off of back: The difference between Federer of 2003 and the Federer of 2005 [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Monkey off of back: The difference between Federer of 2003 and the Federer of 2005

NYCtennisfan
09-09-2005, 01:25 AM
In many if not all of the matches that Nalby beat Fed in before, he beat because of two things: he was mentall tougher and Fed had an inconsistent BH.

IN this match tongiht, the difference in Fed was so apparent.

1. He didn't get rattled when Nalby opened the match with a break or after Nalby broke to go ahead 3-2 and then 4-2 in the 2nd. He was mentally tougher.
In his mind, he should give Nalby a beatdown and that is what he did.

2. His BH was rock solid. He changed up things with slices and power BH's that let him control the points even from his BH. Then when he got a ball on the Fh, he ended the point.

3. His footwork. No sloppy footwork now leading to a slew of unforced errors.

Nalbandian could hardly win a game against Fed tonight. He could not hit a FH, BH, serve, or volley past him. He could not control any of the points. Out of the 7 games that Nalbandian won, Fed made most of his UE's.

The monkey is off of his back. Nalbandian can join Hewitt, Henman, AGassi and other tormentors who just can't challenge him anymore.

jacobhiggins
09-09-2005, 01:52 AM
Also Federer knew what shot bothered David, it was that short mid court slice, David couldn't do anything with it, he would either hit a error or pop the ball up for Federer to attack. It's the slight shots Federer does that beats people, seems like he studies each person specifically!

NYCtennisfan
09-09-2005, 02:26 AM
^Yep. He did that over and over again and really had David off balance with a slice BH, then Top spin BH...Nalby had no idea what was coming next.

R.Federer
09-09-2005, 02:27 AM
Difference is 4 slams ;)

yanchr
09-09-2005, 02:39 AM
^Yep. He did that over and over again and really had David off balance with a slice BH, then Top spin BH...Nalby had no idea what was coming next.
Yeah, it's so obvious in the last but two point of the last game of the 2nd set. Roger showed in this point how he has improved in the previous two years, his consistency esp in the bh side, his transition, his mental strength, his variety, and his ability to finish off the point. That is really a big improvement even compared to 2004 AO when they played.

tangerine_dream
09-09-2005, 02:42 AM
How scary/disturbing is it that there's nobody left for Roger to demolish?

rogertooogood
09-09-2005, 02:44 AM
Difference is 4 slams ;)

Sorry to correct you, but the difference is FIVE slams............ :)

howardean
09-09-2005, 02:46 AM
four since nalby last beat him

R.Federer
09-09-2005, 02:46 AM
How scary/disturbing is it that there's nobody left for Roger to demolish?
why not? nadal is a sure threat. Also marat. gasquet I dont tink will be much threat consistently

R.Federer
09-09-2005, 02:47 AM
Sorry to correct you, but the difference is FIVE slams............ :)
It is 4 slams since he was beaten by nalby
That in my impression has given him the mental belief that he cannot be beaten on an ordinary day, it would need the most extraordinary or very good effort like nadal in Paris

asotgod
09-09-2005, 02:57 AM
why not? nadal is a sure threat. Also marat. gasquet I dont tink will be much threat consistently

I think Nadal will be a continuous threat and pain for Roger on clay but I think Roger will begin dealing with him on hardcourts. Roger must have watched the guys who gave Nadal quite a scare in the U.S Open and think to himself he should be able to do that, if not better, especially when watching Blake. I also think Roger just needs to flatten out more of his shots and put more pace into them, even to his backhand when Nadal hits those high looped shots. Come to think of it, watching Hewitt today showed me how Hewitt's returns neutralized the lefty spin but I guess he was able to do it better because of his two handed backhand. One thing though, like James, was that he did not shy away from attacking the lefty forehand, and that Roger must do against Nadal.

I think matchup wise, Safin will pose more problems for Roger than any other player because of his power and the completeness of his game. He can tail of against Roger easier than any other player, especially on the backhand side. However, I still think at both peaks, Roger will still win a majority of them, not because of any mental excuse but because of Roger's overall variety.

*One thing that makes me laugh is that there are always excuses for most, if not all Safin's losses (and Roger's as well) but more for Safin. It's as if people feel that he always doesn't play well when he loses. Do people think it is possible that he was just outplayed or that his opponent's strategy was great enough to counter his strategy?

R.Federer
09-09-2005, 03:03 AM
*One thing that makes me laugh is that there are always excuses for most, if not all Safin's losses (and Roger's as well) but more for Safin. It's as if people feel that he always doesn't play well when he loses. Do people think it is possible that he was just outplayed or that his opponent's strategy was great enough to counter his strategy? Yes, that is common to hear. Especial for Australia this year, when Roge "should have won the match" after having match point. Does not work like that. Roge has won many matches after being match point down, and those are the only ones he "deserve" to win. Marat deserved to win in Australia because he won the last point, he did not give up after being 5-2 down in TB. Both will push each other.

Also, roddick is a sure threat on grass. Yes, Roge has a good record but he has to play something unnatural to win against andy in the finals of Wimbledon.

nobama
09-09-2005, 03:08 AM
Also, roddick is a sure threat on grass. Yes, Roge has a good record but he has to play something unnatural to win against andy in the finals of Wimbledon.In the 2004 finals he didn't.

asotgod
09-09-2005, 03:10 AM
Yes, that is common to hear. Especial for Australia this year, when Roge "should have won the match" after having match point. Does not work like that. Roge has won many matches after being match point down, and those are the only ones he "deserve" to win. Marat deserved to win in Australia because he won the last point, he did not give up after being 5-2 down in TB. Both will push each other.

Also, roddick is a sure threat on grass. Yes, Roge has a good record but he has to play something unnatural to win against andy in the finals of Wimbledon.

True that. Anyone can give excuses for bad performances but as far as I am concerned, the better player wins all the time. If tennis were all about physical talents alone or mental toughness alone (no combination), some of the guys in the top ten wont be there. Tennis requires many components before a player can have a W by his name.

R.Federer
09-09-2005, 03:10 AM
In the 2004 finals he didn't.
Yes he absolute did. He played the best defense tennis that has won a Wimbledon title. I cannot think of one more person (not even agassi or hewitt or nadal) who could retrive those bombs, play on the backfoot and win. He was down for 2/3rd or more of the match, and won. That was unreal. Not pretty, but unreal. No one would expect that the agressor there was going to lose, in 4.