PDA

View Full Version : Am I the only one who thinks Federer played very well against Roddick?


JediMindTrick
04-04-2008, 11:06 AM
I mean he served up a storm, he held serve easily most of the time, the forehand was on fire, he kept pressuring Andy's serve. He only had one bad serving game, but this happened in most of his matches back when he was winning everything. Bottom line I think he played as well as ever, I couldn't see anything wrong with his game. Am I the only one?

sureshs
04-04-2008, 11:08 AM
So Roddick is just the better player?

jmsx521
04-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Well, how long have you been watching pro tennis? The more you watch the more you train your eyes. I started watching the match right before the 1st set tie-break: Just by seeing Federer's face expression, plus a few points of playing, to me it was obvious that there's something wrong with Federer's game.

Starwind
04-04-2008, 11:09 AM
Well, I haven't been watching the matches that Federer has been losing lately, so I really don't know. But I would love for someone to be able to pinpoint the reason he's not dominating, because from the highlights I've watched Fed seems like the same old Fed, but with less of the intangibles that he usually has... maybe he's still ailing from that sickness he was complaining about?

stormholloway
04-04-2008, 11:11 AM
Federer played well, but since Roddick was playing so well Federer couldn't afford to let up when he did.

He didn't play "as well as ever". That implies that he played as well as he has in the past, which is definitely not true. Watch Federer against Agassi in 2005 at Flushing or against Roddick in Australia in 2007. Watch some of his great Wimbledon performances.

He wasn't at his best but he was playing very well. He just lost focus at the wrong moments.

maverick66
04-04-2008, 11:14 AM
Well, I haven't been watching the matches that Federer has been losing lately, so I really don't know. But I would love for someone to be able to pinpoint the reason he's not dominating, because from the highlights I've watched Fed seems like the same old Fed, but with less of the intangibles that he usually has... maybe he's still ailing from that sickness he was complaining about?

guys are starting to believe his beatable. hes lost that untouchable factor that hes had for the past years. still wouldnt be suprised to see him come out firing in clay courts after such a disapointing start to the year. this loss to roddick has got to really hurt as roddick is a guy he dominates normally. somethings gotta change for him. maybe he gets a coach or starts playing more matches. i personally feel he takes alot of time off and thats what is hurting him know. lack of tournament play when everyone else is grinding it out and in constant tournament mode.

Lotto
04-04-2008, 11:28 AM
In all fairness Roger did play well in the 2nd set, maybe not his best but he did hit 3 or 4 nice forehands and backhands and he played some good points approaching the net.

saram
04-04-2008, 11:31 AM
Roger played very well. Roddick also came to play. Roger was a step behind on a few shots. Congrats to Andy for playing well--but a healthy and non-distracted Roger would have won.

DJG
04-04-2008, 11:32 AM
He was not at the top of his game, but much better than for instance in IW where he was just atrocious.

zagor
04-04-2008, 11:33 AM
He obviously didn't play his best tennis but he player very good and probably good enough to win but his concentration slipped in key moments and Roddick served amazing.I think Federer is almost back to full fitness but he is not match tough enough and confident.

Fedace
04-04-2008, 11:36 AM
I mean he served up a storm, he held serve easily most of the time, the forehand was on fire, he kept pressuring Andy's serve. He only had one bad serving game, but this happened in most of his matches back when he was winning everything. Bottom line I think he played as well as ever, I couldn't see anything wrong with his game. Am I the only one?

YES. I believe you maybe the only one.

KFactor27
04-04-2008, 11:42 AM
He played good for normal standards, but for his own standards he has to be disappointed with his play. Too many errors off both wings and he didn't play the big points very well.

JediMindTrick
04-04-2008, 11:48 AM
I'm not saying this was his best match ever, I'm saying he played well, he was bullying Roddick with forehand bombs, he was fast (no more mono excuse), the serve was on fire, his performance was above the average from back when he was winning everything. At some point in the second set they showed the statistics and Federer had 28 winners and 16 UE or so which is very good. I don't know why he lost.

Against Djoko at the AO, he was slow and the forehand had no power, I didn't see his loss against Murray, and when he lost to Fish he played ridiculous, so we know why he lost those matches. Why did he lose this one?

GasquetGOAT
04-04-2008, 01:19 PM
Against Djoko at the AO, he was slow and the forehand had no power, I didn't see his loss against Murray, and when he lost to Fish he played ridiculous, so we know why he lost those matches. Why did he lose this one?

Roddick served unbelievably well (compared to his past matches against Federer, at least). He had nothing to lose (as ever) and this win against Fed was inevitable given the odds.

sureshs
04-04-2008, 01:27 PM
This shows how tennis has been allowed to become dominated by the serve, reducing it to a luck-based game. Whether it is Sampras or Roddick or Karlovic, their matches are disproportionately biased because of the serve. Since no human can react to a ball which is served at 130 mph and above, they have to guess and the outcome of the match is quite random. None of the other racquet sports like table tennis, badminton, or racquetball feature unreturnable serves. It makes a mockery of the game which was once hailed as the perfect sport in which no particular physical attribute was allowed to dominate.

daddy
04-04-2008, 01:31 PM
I mean he served up a storm, he held serve easily most of the time, the forehand was on fire, he kept pressuring Andy's serve. He only had one bad serving game, but this happened in most of his matches back when he was winning everything. Bottom line I think he played as well as ever, I couldn't see anything wrong with his game. Am I the only one?

I believe you can see another guy who has the same opinion, by looking at the mirror. :)


....


Seriously he lost to roddick giving up penultimate game to love. That is serious lack of concentration in the VERY most important part of the match - so unlike Federer. Rest of the match was usual Fed, 2nd set was even very good to great by his standards, good strong holds, pressuring Roddicks serve and breaking on time with very few ue's and more than a few great winners.

daddy
04-04-2008, 01:32 PM
This shows how tennis has been allowed to become dominated by the serve, reducing it to a luck-based game. Whether it is Sampras or Roddick or Karlovic, their matches are disproportionately biased because of the serve. Since no human can react to a ball which is served at 130 mph and above, they have to guess and the outcome of the match is quite random. None of the other racquet sports like table tennis, badminton, or racquetball feature unreturnable serves. It makes a mockery of the game which was once hailed as the perfect sport in which no particular physical attribute was allowed to dominate.

I guess you did not watch a lot of table tennis. Serve is very very hard to return when playing on a pro level, you might want to check out last years world cup final for this.

stormholloway
04-04-2008, 01:35 PM
It's hardly coincidental that he loses to Roddick during the biggest slump of his career.

Greengrass
04-04-2008, 01:35 PM
Everything Roger did well in that match was negated for me by that shocking 8th game in the 3rd set. Where his mind went to go to 0-40 down so quickly I do not know. It more or less telegraphed to all the players that if they stay with him long enough, he will crack. It made me very sad to see it. But that said, all credit to A-Rod, his serving was brilliant, he never faltered, he never lost belief that this was his best chance to beat his nemesis - who is certainly not at the moment the player we have come to know for the past 4 or 5 years. All things must pass I guess.

Lendl and Federer Fan
04-04-2008, 01:57 PM
I thought he played well too, but not as good as he is capable, and he has no confidence and luck now.

tkramer15
04-04-2008, 02:14 PM
I posted this under another thread as well, but it is even more relevant to this thread.

I thought Roddick served extremely well, probably better than in some other meetings with Federer, but other than a few exchanges late in the first set, I didn't come away thinking that Roddick played an incredible, outstanding overall match. I actually believe he's played better against Federer in a couple of his losses to him (Wimbledon final in '04, Masters Cup round robin in '06, U.S. Open QF in '07). Andy did do an excellent job of staying focused mentally throughout. He never once let up.

Clearly, Federer did not play up to the same standard that we have become accustomed to over the last four plus years. He did look a bit sluggish at times and made some really uncharacteristic mishit errors on fairly routine rally shots. And the biggest thing I saw was that Federer seemed to get tight and choke when he lost serve at love at 3-4 in the third. Now look, I'm not a proponent of the opinion that Fed has lost it and his reign is over. I believe that he set such a high standard, a standard that we simply have never seen for such an extended period, that we are completely shocked that he's now gone the first four events of the year without even reaching a final. Finally, it appears that a number of players have broken through that barrier where they now have some belief that they can beat him. And that has cracked Fed's confidence slightly. It looks like he's got a little more doubt, especially in the key moments of matches. We don't know how much the illness is still affecting him, although I don't know how he could have played with true mononucleosis.

danb
04-04-2008, 02:15 PM
I mean he served up a storm, he held serve easily most of the time, the forehand was on fire, he kept pressuring Andy's serve. He only had one bad serving game, but this happened in most of his matches back when he was winning everything. Bottom line I think he played as well as ever, I couldn't see anything wrong with his game. Am I the only one?

Fed played VERY well. Roddick played even better.

drakulie
04-04-2008, 02:20 PM
He played well enough to win, but surely didn't play his best. Says a lot about Fed, since Roddick played extremely well, and barely squeeked out a win.

But hats off to Roddick for hanging in there and staying mentally tough.

PS: I hope davy beats the crap out of Arod!

PROTENNIS63
04-04-2008, 02:22 PM
Well, I haven't been watching the matches that Federer has been losing lately, so I really don't know. But I would love for someone to be able to pinpoint the reason he's not dominating, because from the highlights I've watched Fed seems like the same old Fed, but with less of the intangibles that he usually has... maybe he's still ailing from that sickness he was complaining about?

Good luck with that. Most of the answers you will receive here are trash.

My answer:

Federer is recovering from his mono. He feels the pressure at number 1. He is a human being. Those exhibitions with Sampras just made it worst for him. The younger players are simply playing the big points better. The match with Andy was about who would win the 2-3 big points. Andy got the edge so he won.

PROTENNIS63
04-04-2008, 02:23 PM
He played well enough to win, but surely didn't play his best. Says a lot about Fed, since Roddick played extremely well, and barely squeeked out a win.

But hats off to Roddick for hanging in there and staying mentally tough.

PS: I hope davy beats the crap out of Arod!

I would like to see an Andy-Rafa final. Haven't seen one of those yet.

daddy
04-04-2008, 02:24 PM
Good luck with that. Most of the answers you will receive here are trash.

My answer:

Federer is recovering from his mono. He feels the pressure at number 1. He is a human being. Those exhibitions with Sampras just made it worst for him. The younger players are simply playing the big points better. The match with Andy was about who would win the 2-3 big points. Andy got the edge so he won.

I guess when you say them it is not trash. Only when other guys like me pinpoint these reasons they are trash ..

daddy
04-04-2008, 02:25 PM
I would like to see an Andy-Rafa final. Haven't seen one of those yet.

Well you could see them in Dubai, it was just a couple of weeks ago.

drakulie
04-04-2008, 02:27 PM
I would like to see an Andy-Rafa final. Haven't seen one of those yet.

Let's keep it that way.

tkramer15
04-04-2008, 02:41 PM
Good luck with that. Most of the answers you will receive here are trash.

My answer:

Federer is recovering from his mono. He feels the pressure at number 1. He is a human being. Those exhibitions with Sampras just made it worst for him. The younger players are simply playing the big points better. The match with Andy was about who would win the 2-3 big points. Andy got the edge so he won.

Yep, that's what I've been saying. Federer is human and at some point he was going to stop winning every event he's entered, which is what he's virtually done since the start of 2004. In a previous post, I said that it too often goes unsaid that the guys on the tour are all incredible athletes and the best tennis players in the world. On any given day, anyone in the top 100 or maybe 200 could beat a top 20 or maybe even top 10 guy. Is Federer's game really that much better than everyone else's in the world? Perhaps it's the most complete, but his dominance is probably more attributed to his mental toughness and ability to rise to the occasion at the key moments and big points.

For years, most others, with the exception of Nadal, have appeared to have become disheartened during matches with Fed even when they were still very much in the match. Few truly believed they could beat him. Finally, that seems to have changed. I feel like the result is two fold. Guys now feel they have a fighting chance to beat him if they play well, and Federer may not be quite as confident. He certainly didn't play with the same confidence late in last night's match with Roddick.

PROTENNIS63
04-04-2008, 04:57 PM
Well you could see them in Dubai, it was just a couple of weeks ago.

forgot about that one. I think they have had just once and I hadn't seen that match. Anyways, Roddick screwed up today. Davy is in the finals!

PROTENNIS63
04-04-2008, 04:58 PM
I guess when you say them it is not trash. Only when other guys like me pinpoint these reasons they are trash ..

I never said you. I am talking about the "retire" threads, Fed is done, all that stuff.

Fedexeon
04-04-2008, 04:59 PM
He played okay throughout the match..but not in his last service game...

daddy
04-04-2008, 07:29 PM
I never said you. I am talking about the "retire" threads, Fed is done, all that stuff.


I know but generally people are not as eager to accept new things here - you have two types. Bashers , Fed losses and they are all over him, and defenders , they are always backing up even ridiculous claims that Fed tanked the match because he can blah blah.

There is no room for objective opinion, there are no people who would listen. You say something and instantly you are either a fanboy or a hater. So you choose not to say anything. This reverse psychology damages the board.

NicolasH
04-04-2008, 09:11 PM
I wouldn't say that Fed played well against Roddick.
Sometimes you play as well as your opponents lets you.

However he played a REALLY sloppy game at 3-4 in the 3rd set. I think it's one thing to make mistakes if your opponent puts you under pressure, it's another thing if you commit unforced errors.
In the past, it looked like you had to play well if you wanted to beat Fed because he wasn't going to beat himself. However, that game at 3-4 was really unlike him.

Either way, Roddick beat him fair and square.

I still think that Fed isn't 100% though. Just to put this Mono thing into perspective: Ancic took 6 months off. Henin didn't play for 7 months. Fed didn't even know he had it and kept playing.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because you have to play with what you have but I don't believe that Fed is done etc.
Maybe he won't win 3 grand slams a year anymore, but even if he wins one a year for the next couple of years he'd have to be considered as one of the greatest players of all time.

I also think it's weird that people write him off, I mean he's number 1 in the world... you'd think he'd have to lose that ranking first and then plummet down the ranking list before people write you off.

And my last point: Should Fed win 1 grand slam this year people will say that he had a bad year. Just think about that, most players never win ONE. Roddick won ONE. It can't be a bad year if you win a grand slam.

Even if Fed doesn't win the FO or the USO, I think he has to be considered a threat at Wimbledon for as long as he'll be on the tour.

Cheers,
n.

KRFLegal
04-04-2008, 09:41 PM
The commentators during the match often said that in past matches, Fed would get his racket on more of Roddick's serves. They also indicated that Fed made more "uncharacteristic" errors than in the past.

I think the "uncharacteristic" errors were the forehand errors, as we are used to seeing Fed shank backhands.

The "why" behind these two issues no one knows, but probably a combination of stress, lingering effects of mono and Roddick playing very well.

Fed hit TMF type shots in the second set, and his serve was great. After the second set, I thought he was going to win...so, I think Fed is improving and will be back in true form soon...still may not be enough now that the psychological edge he had is possibly gone...

tangerine
04-08-2008, 02:01 PM
Federer did play very well, certainly better than he did when he lost to Mardy Fish in Indian Wells.

paperduetoday
04-08-2008, 03:46 PM
YES you are the only one.

tuzar_AG400
04-09-2008, 01:46 AM
Many of you may find this crazy, but I still do think that Federer played his best match in 2008 against Roddick ( he played very well against Tipsarevic in the AO too). The serve was on, the fast movement was back, he made some trade mark sick shots. What separeted him from the win was the lack of concentration in the tie-break and in the game he was broked to love in the third set.
You may disagree, but for me three players played this year the match of their life against Federer - Tipsarevic ( Federer still managed to win this one ), Murray and Fish ( this was the worst play from Federer I've ever seen).
I am not going to speculate on the reason behind his not so good performance (according his high standarts) so far this year - was it mono , was it something in his mind which distracted him from tennis. Maybe we will never know for sure. One thing I know for sure is there are clear signs that Federer is back on track after Miami. He still isn't 100 % the "old" Federer from the past few years, maybe he we'll never be again ( he is almost 28 ). But his class was so high so I think that even with 80% of the "old" Federer he will be number one at least till the end of the year.
I don't like predictions, but I think Federer will win two clay events this year.
I hope FO will be one of them.

tuzar_AG400
04-09-2008, 01:52 AM
correction - he will be 27 on 8 of Aug 2008

D. Dokas
04-09-2008, 01:52 AM
i think fed played well but really at 3-4 in the third he basically gave him that game, he didnt step up in the match like he usually does he jsut played good tennis but for roddick that day not good enough all credit to roddick though he served amazingly

pound cat
04-09-2008, 03:00 AM
this win against Fed was inevitable given the odds.


There is no inevitability in odds if all things stay the same & the Roddivk /Federer losing sitiuation could have gone on ad infinitum. However, if there is a change in the game of one or both of the players, the odds will change.


And something evidently hard to pinpoint (see all the posts) was working to tip the odds in Roddicks favour.

lonestar
04-09-2008, 03:53 AM
Looking at the statistics, one would think he played a fairly good match. He hit 46 winners to 30 UEs which isn't bad at all. Must be hard to lose like that.
It really came down to that crappy game in the third set with 1 lazy volley and 3 UEs in a row. Plus, A-Rod played some very good and solid tennis throughout the match.

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8423/fedstatsqz4.png

ninman
04-09-2008, 04:48 AM
It's hardly coincidental that he loses to Roddick during the biggest slump of his career.

I would qualify that statement by adding "since 2004" at the end. If the worst he's done since becomming number 1 in the world is fail to make the final of 4 tournies running then it just shows how brilliant he's been for 4 years.

Vision84
04-09-2008, 05:47 AM
I mean he served up a storm, he held serve easily most of the time, the forehand was on fire, he kept pressuring Andy's serve. He only had one bad serving game, but this happened in most of his matches back when he was winning everything. Bottom line I think he played as well as ever, I couldn't see anything wrong with his game. Am I the only one?

You should watch their match at the USOpen 2007 if you think Federer was at his best.

thejackal
04-09-2008, 06:22 AM
i watched the whole match and it came down to 2-3 shots from 3-3 in the 3rd set on. at 0-30 on roddick's serve fed had a look at a pass but sliced it to roddick who put it away at the net. then in the next game he made a couple of UEs and at 0-40 he was pretty much terminal. otherwise i can't say he played badly or that roddick played great, except that he served big and hung in there long enough to get the win.