PDA

View Full Version : Donīt you think Federer needs some epic victories in his career?


Zaragoza
02-25-2007, 06:52 PM
It´s great from Federer to win so easily most of the times and it says a lot about how good he is so it´s not his fault, but all the greats in the past won some epic matches during their career. However I can´t remember an epic victory by Federer in a single match (maybe I´m wrong and you can refresh my memory). So maybe that´s why he is going to be the greatest, most respected and admired player but not as charismatic as other greats.
His matches lack of dramatism and intensity unlike other greats, he plays too relaxed and people enjoy watching dramatism and intensity. He only seems to don´t play relaxed against Nadal, I think that´s why people enjoy their matches so much.
He barely needs to play the 5th set in best of 5 sets matches, his record in 5 matches isn´t that good though. Maybe his matches against Nadal on clay could be considered epic but he lost in all of them. He barely plays Davis Cup which is a competition where you can easily watch some epic matches.
I think he needs some epic victories, not maybe to be greater but to don´t be remembered as a perfect machine playing tennis and become a little more charismatic. It´s great watching him play but I think people would enjoy him more and maybe admire him more as well if he put 100 % of his effort in some matches and won in the end.
And for one or other reason, I think most of the times he needed to put 100% of his effort he lost in the end (clay matches against Nadal, AO 2005 SF against Safin, Masters Cup 2005 final against Nalbandian...).
Please, I´m not criticising Federer. It´s not his fault to win so easily most of the times, it´s great by him, but I also think he needs some epic victories in his career. Maybe when he turns older and the gap with others is closer we will have the chance to see much more epic matches from him.

BeckerFan
02-25-2007, 07:03 PM
Actually, I agree with you. Federer's record in five setters needs improvement.

The problem for him, I think, is that he so rarely gets pushed to five sets ... when a match DOES go the distance, he looks a bit winded. Federer sometimes lets his nerves get to him at crucial points too, as he did when he held match points against Nadal in Rome last year.

Can anyone remember Federer's last five-set victory?

I recall Haas at the 2006 Australian Open ... before that Nadal at Miami in 2005 and Agassi at the 2004 US Open.

Any others?

Polaris
02-25-2007, 07:08 PM
Don´t you think Federer needs some epic victories in his career?No. He is currently so good that he usually out-talents all and sundry without needing so much as a 4th set, let alone a 5th.

Peter Bodo made a similar argument about Roger lacking the "Warrior Moments" that Sampras had. It is a weird argument, sort of a rationalization for liking Pete more than Roger. Something like: "Pete showed us his human frailty. Then he showed us the triumph of the human spirit by winning in 5 sets. That is why we love him." What about the triumph of the human spirit shown by the poor rival who extended the great Sampras to 5 sets. And if Pete hadn't won in 5 sets, after all that vomitting and sobbing, would we just take his Warrior Moment badge away from him?

By that token, if Federer had won the Master's Cup final in 2005, coming from 0-4 in the fifth set, would we award him his first "Warrior Moment" badge? Just because he lost, can we say that Roger has no Warrior Moments, nevermind the fact that the guy was on crutches three weeks before the tournament?

To each his own, I guess. I don't think Sampras needed a Warrior Moment to be great, and don't think Federer needs it either. They have their slams to speak for them.

BlackSheep
02-25-2007, 09:29 PM
No he doesn't. BUT as time goes on I think that he will have more of these moments.

Chauvalito
02-25-2007, 09:43 PM
No. He is currently so good that he usually out-talents all and sundry without needing so much as a 4th set, let alone a 5th.

Peter Bodo made a similar argument about Roger lacking the "Warrior Moments" that Sampras had. It is a weird argument, sort of a rationalization for liking Pete more than Roger. Something like: "Pete showed us his human frailty. Then he showed us the triumph of the human spirit by winning in 5 sets. That is why we love him." What about the triumph of the human spirit shown by the poor rival who extended the great Sampras to 5 sets. And if Pete hadn't won in 5 sets, after all that vomitting and sobbing, would we just take his Warrior Moment badge away from him?

By that token, if Federer had won the Master's Cup final in 2005, coming from 0-4 in the fifth set, would we award him his first "Warrior Moment" badge? Just because he lost, can we say that Roger has no Warrior Moments, nevermind the fact that the guy was on crutches three weeks before the tournament?

To each his own, I guess. I don't think Sampras needed a Warrior Moment to be great, and don't think Federer needs it either. They have their slams to speak for them.

Well put.

I'm a skeptic of the "warrior argument" myself. For this to happen in the first place Federer would need to be pushed more often...and that doesnot really happen if you ignore Nadal...

OrangeOne
02-25-2007, 09:44 PM
This is just a milder version of the 'there is no real competition now' argument, which when distilled actually reads as "federer needs to lose more to be a true great", which is obviously silly.

He wins. He wins often, and largely, against almost everyone. That's great in my book.

avmoghe
02-26-2007, 01:17 AM
This is roughly equivalent to saying Sampras or Laver needed a Slam where they completely destroyed everyone (Federer has just completed a Grand Slam without dropping a set).

I'm not sure about Laver, but I'm quite sure Sampras never accomplished this. Really, what matters is whether you win...not how you win (assuming you didn't cheat). Infact, I'd lessen a player's greatness if he had to get to five sets often - his fault for dragging it out that long.

Lets put it this way. Assume players A and B play 100 matches (against other players) and both win 90 of them. Player A wins the 90 wins in straight sets matches, while player B "thrills" the audience by coming back from two sets down in say 10 of the 90 wins.

In this case, I'd call player A the greater player (assuming the losses were in roughly same manner). Player B may well be more "memorable" due to his five setters, but IMO he is inferior.

EDIT to clarify: That said, I agree to some extent. It would be nice to have some memorable Federer five set epics. Note that I said "nice to have" - he doesn't "need" them by any means.

catspaw
02-26-2007, 01:31 AM
I think the match in Shanghai against Nadal was something akin to a warrior moment/epic victory. He had so much to prove, both to himself and to the world at large (and to Nadal), that it was a huge one for him. He'd played really quite badly in the round robin phase - seemed a bit unfocussed - and he then suddenly came out and played a great match under enormous pressure. The scoreline wasn't very close, but 'epic' isn't always about the on-paper stats.

vive le beau jeu !
02-26-2007, 01:44 AM
I recall Haas at the 2006 Australian Open ... before that Nadal at Miami in 2005 and Agassi at the 2004 US Open.

Any others?
there was also a match against a guy named pete sampras at wimbledon in 2001... ;)

a guy
02-26-2007, 01:52 AM
There was the safin match at the australian open, but he lost that of course.

Warriorroger
02-26-2007, 01:55 AM
Not a bad post at all! Interesting thread.

caulcano
02-26-2007, 01:59 AM
No he doesn't. BUT as time goes on I think that he will have more of these moments.

I agree. Eventually, the other players will catch up & he'll have more 5-setters/closer matches.

OrangeOne
02-26-2007, 02:04 AM
I think the match in Shanghai against Nadal was something akin to a warrior moment/epic victory. He had so much to prove, both to himself and to the world at large (and to Nadal), that it was a huge one for him. He'd played really quite badly in the round robin phase - seemed a bit unfocussed - and he then suddenly came out and played a great match under enormous pressure. The scoreline wasn't very close, but 'epic' isn't always about the on-paper stats.

Not that I feel the epics are at all necessary - but given you've quoted that one, I think the Nadal W final was a similar match.

Had Nadal have beaten Fed at W.... the psychological damage that may have done to Fed is almost incomprehensible. A good win, a great win, even if it was an expected win. All of the pressure was on Fed.

mdhubert
02-26-2007, 02:05 AM
I agree with you, he needs a comeback à la Agassi RG 99, he needs some emotional victories where he digs deep to win.
It will come with time, the epic moments will come when he gets older and starts losing more, when his pride will be on the line, especially in slams. Today he's the favourite with all powers to defend his status. It will be huge motivation when he loses a couple of second-third rounds in slams, but to remain the best he will have to face hungry young players who want to kill the master... that's when epic moments will come !

catspaw
02-26-2007, 02:25 AM
Not that I feel the epics are at all necessary - but given you've quoted that one, I think the Nadal W final was a similar match.

Had Nadal have beaten Fed at W.... the psychological damage that may have done to Fed is almost incomprehensible. A good win, a great win, even if it was an expected win. All of the pressure was on Fed.

Yes, you're right; it was a very similar match with comparable, though slightly different, pressure. I guess I chose the Shanghai one because, having won Wimbledon, he had to take it one stage further and win on a surface where they're a little more evenly matched. If he'd lost at Shanghai, the Wimbledon win would have been "well, of course he won, it was on grass, but he can't do it anywhere else", and it would thus have been devalued. I got the impression (I could be wrong, of course) that, despite the psychological angst, he believed he would win Wimbledon whereas, at Shanghai, it was more a case of being determined to win it, partly to underscore the value of the Wimbledon match. I don't think I've ever seen him more intensely focussed than in that match.

Shabazza
02-26-2007, 03:38 AM
Yes, you're right; it was a very similar match with comparable, though slightly different, pressure. I guess I chose the Shanghai one because, having won Wimbledon, he had to take it one stage further and win on a surface where they're a little more evenly matched. If he'd lost at Shanghai, the Wimbledon win would have been "well, of course he won, it was on grass, but he can't do it anywhere else", and it would thus have been devalued. I got the impression (I could be wrong, of course) that, despite the psychological angst, he believed he would win Wimbledon whereas, at Shanghai, it was more a case of being determined to win it, partly to underscore the value of the Wimbledon match. I don't think I've ever seen him more intensely focussed than in that match.

Agreed. I had the same impression of him during the Shanghai match.
I thing the "warrior moment" Bodo brought up is a bit silly. I don't remember Sampras for his win against Corretja, but for the things he achieved throughout his career. Of course his match against Corretja was great (solely because of his never say die attitude), but it wasn't awesome or career defining. The "warrior moment" is overrated imo. Espacially if it is used only for 5 set matches.
As mdhubert said - Someday, Federer will be sitting in the same boat as Sampras was later in his career. We can bring this topic up again then, because now he's too good for needing a "warrior moment" to win. Only Nadal on clay can bring him close.

rommil
02-26-2007, 09:26 AM
I think for focus, concentration and energy conservation, Federer keeps his emotions inside by design which may equate to "boring" tennis for the casual fans. Add to that his wide arsenal of shots and variety and his superb talent to anticipate and adjust.That is why it seems so "easy" for him.I feel that Nadal really got under Roger's skin and he himself said that Nadal's lefty spin gave him problems yet it seems like Roger has started to figure Nadal's game out. Somebody really needs to step up against him and take him out of his comfort zone to make him out of sorts for you to see the "epic" match you are looking for. How? I don't know.

@wright
02-26-2007, 09:32 AM
He's saving them for after he has 15 slams...

dukemunson
02-26-2007, 11:42 AM
It will be interesting to watch Federer when his domination begins to wane (be it 6 months from now or 6 years from now). Like Elway taking the QB keeper in to win his first Super Bowl and Sampras battling to win that last Open I look foreward to watching Federer go for GS number whatever when he's not the obvious favorite. See him pull out a few epic 5 setters when he's perhaps past his best tennis and doing it more from heart then domination...the records are his (or soon will be)...I look foreward not to seeing him win Wimbledon this year but win it down a break in the 5th in 3 years against a peaking Murray...

DueSouth
02-26-2007, 11:59 AM
Federer is the G.O.A.T......off course he's going to win easy!!! Maybe this year there will be a reverse of last years FO Final......which was amaaaaaarzing.....that would be an epic win if Federer could beat Nadal in 5 sets on the surface he 'owns' in the competition he has never lost in.....lol would love to see Nadal's face if that happened.

ElanSafin
03-01-2007, 11:57 PM
the 2005 australian open whch safin won..hahahaha!!!

Mr. Sean
03-02-2007, 12:15 AM
We'll see one at the Roland Garros final where he will either play nadal or monfils.

caulcano
03-02-2007, 01:41 AM
We'll see one at the Roland Garros final where he will either play nadal or monfils.

It aint gonna happen against MONFILS.

roysid
03-02-2007, 02:54 AM
It's not that Fed didn't had epic matches. But he lost most of them :(

1) Nadal in Rome final '06
2) Nalbandian in Masters final '05
3) Safin in Aus Open SF '05

The epic one he won is against Sampras in Wimbledon '01.

And he won some other 5 setters too. They are
1) Nadal in Miami ' 05
2) Agassi in US '04
3) Haas in AO' 06

Lambsscroll
03-02-2007, 04:42 AM
Zaragoza is bored with Federer. Fed wins too easily.

schnick_15
03-02-2007, 08:58 AM
I don't mean to make this a "GOAT" thread, but my feeling is that he needs a Davis Cup in order to set himself apart, moreso than an epic win; his win against Sampras seemed good enough for me. Laver, Budge, Borg, and Sampras all won the Davis Cup at least once. Zac

The Gorilla
03-02-2007, 09:16 AM
he had on today against haas, reminded me of the borg gerrulaitas wimbledon game.

Mr. Sean
03-02-2007, 10:19 AM
he had on today against haas, reminded me of the borg gerrulaitas wimbledon game.

I think some of the reasons these haas and nalbandian matches aren't considered epics is because they aren't high profile players. I guarantee that we will see our epic either at rome or roland or maybe even both if we are lucky.

8PAQ
03-02-2007, 11:27 AM
The young guns will be challenging Fed more and more as time goes on. I am sure Fed will have some 5 setters this year. I just hope those 5 setters will happen because the other guy is playing well and not because Fed has an off day. For example when Haas took Fed to 5 sets in 2006 AO Fed just stopped playing well for 2 sets. Haas wasn't doing anything special. So I don't see anything good about 5 setters like that.

Zaragoza
03-03-2007, 09:17 AM
Zaragoza is bored with Federer. Fed wins too easily.

I didnīt say that.

federerfanatic
03-03-2007, 09:53 AM
The young guns will be challenging Fed more and more as time goes on. I am sure Fed will have some 5 setters this year. I just hope those 5 setters will happen because the other guy is playing well and not because Fed has an off day. For example when Haas took Fed to 5 sets in 2006 AO Fed just stopped playing well for 2 sets. Haas wasn't doing anything special. So I don't see anything good about 5 setters like that.

Except for Nadal on clay I find most times a guy takes sets off Federer, it is because Roger is just off. At the Australian Open last year that was the case in all 4 of his tough matches, maybe the closest to an exception was the Davydenko match, but the Haas, Kiefer, Baghdatis match Federer ended up making them close on his own IMO. At Halle that was definitely what happened in him having all those 3 setters. The Canadian Open I thought Tursonov and Malisse took him to tough matches by their own play more then Federer being off, the final vs Gasquet I thought Federer was very off which is why it went 3. All Fed's matches with Agassi in 2003-2005 it seemed each time it went extra sets Fed was off, and each time Fed was sharp it was straight sets.

I am not saying the other guy wasnt playing extremely well. However most times they were only able to take Roger to extra sets while he was off. The exceptions to that are his matches with Tursonov and Malisse at last years Canadian Open, maybe his quarterfinal vs Davydenko at the Australian Open, of course his matches with Nadal on clay(all losses of course).

4brotherdrive
03-03-2007, 11:01 AM
Epic match victories, is what we are talking about. Last year and so far in this year I can't recall any. If he manages to win RG then that will be an epic final if its between him and Nadal, because Nadal won't go out as easily as other players and is better at 5 setters.

FedFan_2007
03-03-2007, 11:11 AM
In the Basel SF vs Scrichipan, he lost the 2nd set 6-3 more to Srichipan's outstanding play then a drop in level. I know because I watched the match on live stream. The problem is not many have the talent/determination to string together 8-10 great games in a row against Roger.

USO2000
03-03-2007, 03:02 PM
I would call his win over Sampras on Wimbledon epic.