PDA

View Full Version : Federer's FO win is a real achievement - not a walk in the park


P_Agony
06-08-2009, 09:59 AM
This thread is mainly for people like GameSampras who clearly think Fed's vicotry was nothing but a walk in the park.

A walk in the park? Are you kidding me? I have never had so many heart aches in my entire life like this FO.

Federer barely won his matches against Acasuso, Haas, and Delpo. He was taken to 5 TWICE and taken to 4 TWICE. He passed all the tests - he beat a great clayer and a crowd favorite in Monfils, he barely beat an on fire, non-choking Del Potro who was playing the best I have ever seen him play. He came back from 5-1 to win the 3rd set against Acasuso, and he basically faced match point against Tommy Haas.

Federer's road to his FO title was anything but a walk in the park. It was one of the only times in his career he had to rely on his huge heart rather than his best tennis, because im most of the time he didn't find it.

Purostaff
06-08-2009, 10:06 AM
way the state the obvious bro

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:07 AM
way the state the obvious bro

Not obvious to the likes of GameSampras.

Telepatic
06-08-2009, 10:09 AM
It wasnt walk in the park but still alot easier without having to face with Nadal/Murray/Novak.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:10 AM
It wasnt walk in the park but still alot easier without having to face with Nadal/Murray/Novak.

Facing Del Potro on clay is easier than facing Djokovic and Murray? You either didn't watch the match or you are a huge Novak/Murray fan...

ghostbear
06-08-2009, 10:16 AM
It should have been a walk in the park, but it was not. Fed showed some guts by rallying back from all those matches.

Stinkdyr
06-08-2009, 10:17 AM
No big deal. We have all seen many tournies where the qtrs or semis end up being much more competitive than the finals. This was just another case in point.

maximo
06-08-2009, 10:20 AM
Facing Del Potro on clay is easier than facing Djokovic?

Of course not, Djokovic waay better than him.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:26 AM
Also to all who say Fed had the easiest draw - that's simply not true. Federer is the one who faced the top seed who is not a top 4 player - that is Del Potro (#5).

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:27 AM
Of course not, Djokovic waay better than him.

Del Potro would have beaten Djokovic in straight sets by the way he played.

maximo
06-08-2009, 10:27 AM
Also to all who say Fed had the easiest draw - that's simply not true. Federer is the one who faced the top seed who is not a top 4 player - that is Del Potro (#5).

What are you talking about? Del Potro is an abosolute joke of a semi-finalist. If it was Djokovic, he would of won.

maximo
06-08-2009, 10:28 AM
Del Potro would have beaten Djokovic in straight sets by the way he played.

Not a chance in hell.

mandy01
06-08-2009, 10:30 AM
What are you talking about? Del Potro is an abosolute joke of a semi-finalist. If it was Djokovic, he would of won.
Sure...just that Djokovic didnt make it in the first place so your coulda woulda shoulda dosent count.

veroniquem
06-08-2009, 10:31 AM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:31 AM
What are you talking about? Del Potro is an abosolute joke of a semi-finalist. If it was Djokovic, he would of won.

Not a chance in hell.

If you're saying Del Potro played a bad semi final, you obviously know nothing about tennis.

vtmike
06-08-2009, 10:33 AM
What are you talking about? Del Potro is an abosolute joke of a semi-finalist. If it was Djokovic, he would of won.

Did you cry when Murray was eliminated by Gonzalez?

joeri888
06-08-2009, 10:33 AM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

True, and tell Davydenko, Gonzales, Nadal and Ferrer about that joke finalist

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:33 AM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

Monfils, Del Potro and Haas is not an easy draw. And this joke of a finalist crushed Ferrer, Nadal, Davydenko and Gonzales - yes he's a real joke.

maximo
06-08-2009, 10:34 AM
If you're saying Del Potro played a bad semi final, you obviously know nothing about tennis.

Djokovic would have won, Del Porto lost, who cares whether it took 5 sets.

shawn1122
06-08-2009, 10:35 AM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

So Nadal was defeated by a joke of a player? I think that's really disrespectful to Nadal...

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:35 AM
Djokovic would have won, Del Porto lost, who cares whether it took 5 sets.

If Del Potro would have played against Djokovic like he did against Federer, Djoko would have lost in straights, IMO.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Facing Del Potro on clay is easier than facing Djokovic and Murray? You either didn't watch the match or you are a huge Novak/Murray fan...

Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

shawn1122
06-08-2009, 10:37 AM
What are you talking about? Del Potro is an abosolute joke of a semi-finalist. If it was Djokovic, he would of won.

Djokovic could not even get past kohlschreiber, you honestly think he had a chance against del potro? He would have been demolished by him and he would have likely retired in the third set because the beating would be too much for him to handle.

mandy01
06-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.
yes,but Del Po was the better player at RG..

maximo
06-08-2009, 10:37 AM
If Del Potro would have played against Djokovic like he did against Federer, Djoko would have lost in straights, IMO.

This is just a crazy statement.

shawn1122
06-08-2009, 10:37 AM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

Not at this year's french open no.

icedevil0289
06-08-2009, 10:38 AM
True, and tell Davydenko, Gonzales, Nadal and Ferrer about that joke finalist

I'm pretty sure if it were nadal and soderling in the final, she would not be saying that.

vtmike
06-08-2009, 10:38 AM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

Erm Soderling is much better on clay than Djokovic.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Not at this year's french open no.

Great logic one player does better at one tournament than another player all of a sudden hes better.

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 10:40 AM
Erm Soderling is much better on clay than Djokovic.

I guess Wawrinka is better than Federer on clay then.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:43 AM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

We don't really know that. Del Potro of today is a different player. He has wins over Murray on clay, over Nadal on hard, and he was very close of killing the EG dream for Fed. He was ON FIRE at the French Open, while Djokovic was so-so from the start.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:44 AM
Djokovic could not even get past kohlschreiber, you honestly think he had a chance against del potro? He would have been demolished by him and he would have likely retired in the third set because the beating would be too much for him to handle.

Now that's what I call a good post.

mandy01
06-08-2009, 10:44 AM
Great logic one player does better at one tournament than another player all of a sudden hes better. not the overall better player but the better performer in the GS which is thwe most important tourney of every suface..Agree or not Del Po played better than Novak at RG.Its the best I've seen him play on clay and he's improved a lot and still very young.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 10:46 AM
not the overall better player but the better performer in the GS which is thwe most important tourney of every suface..Agree or not Del Po played better than Novak at RG.Its the best I've seen him play on clay and he's improved a lot and still very young.

Del Potro was playing massive tennis. I seriously thought Fed was toast at some points in the match. Del Potro did not only played great tennis and served out of this world, he also didn't choke. He made Federer work really hard for his victory, and it makes sense Delpo cried after the loss - he knew he was so close.

matchmaker
06-08-2009, 10:52 AM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

That pretty much sums up the FO this year: Martin, Acasuso, Matthieu, Haas, Monfils, Del Potro, Soderling,....

The Soderling who beat Nadal was a different guy from the one who was facing Fed. That is logical, because only in the final it dawns on a player that he might reach an incredible achievement. Before that, you have nothing to lose...

Soderlings low percentage incredible winner producing machine had to turn against him one day...

shawn1122
06-08-2009, 11:13 AM
Great logic one player does better at one tournament than another player all of a sudden hes better.

This thread is about Federer's win at the FO THIS YEAR. In this tournament del potro was more of a competitor than djokovic because, however hard this is to beleive, djokovic played like ****.

ninman
06-08-2009, 01:38 PM
So Nadal was defeated by a joke of a player? I think that's really disrespectful to Nadal...

Lol, it's funny that she doesn't understand that by saying that she's inadvertently dissing Nadal. Federer straight setted that man who beat Nadal in 4, if he's such a joke what does it say about Nadal?

Claudius
06-08-2009, 01:41 PM
No grand slam victory is a walk in the park.

zagor
06-08-2009, 01:54 PM
C'mon it's an insult to Nadal to say that Soderling is a joke,he beat some of the best claycourters on tour to reach the final.Yes Fed beat him easily in the final and part of that was due to Soderling's nerves but also due to the fact that Fed played a great match and has always been better at handling big powerful flat hitters than Nadal,tennis is about match-ups,people always seem to forget that.

thalivest
06-08-2009, 01:57 PM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

If they had played at this years French the way Del Potro was playing Djokovic would have been spanked. Especialy seeing as he couldnt even get a set off an in form Kohlschreiber. Del Potro is improving so quickly, it is hard to say who he is better or worse than on a surface in general. Djokovic isnt a special clay courter though, 2 wins over top 50 players lifetime at the French, an 0-3 head to head with David Ferrer on clay, an 0-6 head to head with Nadal on clay, 1 Masters title only on clay. Djokovic has only beaten Roger once on clay and Roger played a terrible match (I dont like either player at all so easy for me to objective in this case) and still choked away a set, break with points for a second break in the 2nd lead. If Roger played as poorly as he did vs Djokovic in that match against the Del Potro onslaught in the semis he would have been cooked in 90 minutes.

luckyboy1300
06-08-2009, 01:59 PM
Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

Djokovic=3rd round; lost to Kohlschreiber who lost to Robredo who lost to Del Potro

Del Potro=semis

semis>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3rd round

i wonder what type of logic people are using these days?

zagor
06-08-2009, 02:02 PM
If they had played at this years French the way Del Potro was playing Djokovic would have been spanked. Especialy seeing as he couldnt even get a set off an in form Kohlschreiber. Del Potro is improving so quickly, it is hard to say who he is better or worse than on a surface in general. Djokovic isnt a special clay courter though, 2 wins over top 50 players lifetime at the French, an 0-3 head to head with David Ferrer on clay, an 0-6 head to head with Nadal on clay, 1 Masters title only on clay.

I don't like it but I think Del Potro is catching up to Novak playing wise(Novak still has a big lead in points),If Novak doesn't wake up soon,he'll be in danger of getting passed by Delpo this year.

It's amazing how fast is Del Potro improving each time I see him play.At the FO this year it was like playing against a Karlovic with a consistant and powerful baseline game,quite scary.He's beefing up the speed of his serve and because of his height he can generate some amazing angles with it.

Novak still has him in the movement department though,big time.

luckyboy1300
06-08-2009, 02:03 PM
and to note: this slam became the hardest instead of the easiest for roger to win. in the past he's had to survive 1 or 2 opponents playing way over their level: now we had acasuso, mathieu, haas, and del potro, losing 6 sets along the way. i believe that out of the top 4 only roger and rafa could have survived them all.

DarthMaul
06-08-2009, 02:06 PM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

Nice way to join the troll army. Nadal beaten by a joke of a finalist makes him a joke of a player too, no?

papucla10
06-08-2009, 03:30 PM
Sure...just that Djokovic didnt make it in the first place so your coulda woulda shoulda dosent count.

Completely correct, I think Del potro would have beaten Djoko or Murray, he has beaten them before, look he they lost to.

papucla10
06-08-2009, 03:36 PM
This is just a crazy statement.

It is on the most true statements in this thread, he lost in straights sets to Kohlschreiber ––––> who lost in 4 sets against Robredo ––––> who lost in Straight Sets against Del Potro ––––> Who lost in 5 Sets to Federer Champion ––––> What is your logic.

vtmike
06-08-2009, 03:41 PM
I don't like it but I think Del Potro is catching up to Novak playing wise(Novak still has a big lead in points),If Novak doesn't wake up soon,he'll be in danger of getting passed by Delpo this year.

It's amazing how fast is Del Potro improving each time I see him play.At the FO this year it was like playing against a Karlovic with a consistant and powerful baseline game,quite scary.He's beefing up the speed of his serve and because of his height he can generate some amazing angles with it.

Novak still has him in the movement department though,big time.

I agree...DelPo is much more consistent and reliable...

papucla10
06-08-2009, 03:50 PM
This thread is mainly for people like GameSampras who clearly think Fed's vicotry was nothing but a walk in the park.

A walk in the park? Are you kidding me? I have never had so many heart aches in my entire life like this FO.

Federer barely won his matches against Acasuso, Haas, and Delpo. He was taken to 5 TWICE and taken to 4 TWICE. He passed all the tests - he beat a great clayer and a crowd favorite in Monfils, he barely beat an on fire, non-choking Del Potro who was playing the best I have ever seen him play. He came back from 5-1 to win the 3rd set against Acasuso, and he basically faced match point against Tommy Haas.

Federer's road to his FO title was anything but a walk in the park. It was one of the only times in his career he had to rely on his huge heart rather than his best tennis, because im most of the time he didn't find it.


It should have been a walk in the park but it was not, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay, He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

raiden031
06-08-2009, 04:08 PM
Ok so I guess the consensus here is that Djokovic is the true RG champion because he would've beaten Fed had he been able to win the 5 matches required to meet Fed in the semi's (he could only win 2 matches, 1 of which was by retirement). I guess Fed can't prove he truly deserved the title since he didn't face Djoker, so the true victor in this tournament is Djoker. What a shame for Fed.
:rolleyes:

icedevil0289
06-08-2009, 04:21 PM
It should have not been a walk in the park but it was, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay, He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

Um...no he's not. P_Agony is right. Fed's road to the title was no walk in the park. Perhaps on paper it was supposed to be, but it wasn't. Since when was playing two 5 setters, one of which he had to come from two sets down to win, a walk in the park. Roger showed a lot of heart and fight during this tournament. As far as his opponents "choking", I'm not denying that his opponents got tight, but fed definitely played better when it mattered.

drakulie
06-08-2009, 04:24 PM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/28/26/kangsung1004/folder/3/img_3_213_1?1238141753.gif

zagor
06-08-2009, 04:30 PM
It should have not been a walk in the park but it was, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

C'mon now,call P Agony biased or a fanboy something but a troll he isn't nor is his post trollish.He simply stated his opinion,that it wasn't a walk in the park for Fed.So let me get this straight-If someone believes Fed didn't have a cakewalk-he's trolling.Sorry,can't agree with that.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

Acasuso got tight(or choked if you wish)definitely but he does that against everyone,not just against Fed.He has always been a bit of headcase.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

Mathieu is a pretty good ballstriker,can be dangerous if he's on that day as he proved when he pushed Nadal pretty hard at the FO in 2006.Still it was an ordinary match in which both played solid but Fed came through in 4 sets,can't say anything other than that.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

I disagree that Haas choked,he fell apart mentally in 4th set but he was still playing well in 3d set and was one point from serving for the match,however on that one point Fed hit an inside out FH winner,Haas didn't give Fed away that point but rather Fed took it.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

I do think that Monfils isn't a match for Fed but not because he isn't mentally ready.He plays too defensive and passive,stands too far behind baseline and doesn't use his tools the way he should.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

Agree with this.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

I do think Soderling was nervous but I also think Fed played the best match of his tourney by far(especially second set tiebreak)and I also consider Fed to be a horrible match-up for Soderling's game on top of that.There's a reason Soderling only took one set from Fed in their 10 meetings.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Agree with all this,was especially impressed by the way Del Potro played that day and during whole tourney in general.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay.

Disagree,I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Fed at the FO this year(which a lot of people here seem to take for granted).Reasons are that IMO Fed is a better big match player and fitter which comes into play a lot in a best of five slam match on clay.Not denying that you may be right,just stating my opinion.

As for Murray,while I do think that he's a tough match-up for Fed I do not believe he would have beaten Fed in the final the way Fed was playing in the final considering the fact that clay is Murray's worst surface by far and considering the relative ease with which Gonzo beat him.Of all surfaces I like Fed's chances against Murray the most on clay.Again,just my opinion.

He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

Nothing to add,agree.

drakulie
06-08-2009, 04:31 PM
a recap of veroniquem's last 20 posts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5Sr68NwCY

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 04:35 PM
It wasnt walk in the park but still alot easier without having to face with Nadal/Murray/Novak.
Why? If those three guys are so tough to beat than why did ALL three lose early?

icedevil0289
06-08-2009, 04:41 PM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/haha.gif That joke of a finalist beat Nadal. I wonder what that makes Nadal.

zagor
06-08-2009, 04:43 PM
http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/mtf/images/smilies/haha.gif That joke of a finalist beat Nadal. I wonder what that makes Nadal.

Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.

drakulie
06-08-2009, 04:48 PM
Yeah, that "joke of a finalist" beat the crap out of that "tough draw" Nadal had to face. http://thump01.pbase.com/o5/42/267742/1/68416039.B0ZkE6aN.lmao.gif (http://www.pbase.com/keithrankin/image/68416039)

icedevil0289
06-08-2009, 04:49 PM
Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.


Haha, what logic? I agree. Soderling definitely played well and deserved to be in that final just like fed. He certain is no joke.

zagor
06-08-2009, 04:57 PM
Haha, what logic? I agree. Soderling definitely played well and deserved to be in that final just like fed. He certain is no joke.

LOL,yeah.I guess some people don't understand that when they denigrate Soderling they automatically denigrate Nadal as well since he's the first guy that ever beat Nadal in a best of five.If he's a joke that doesn't speak that well about Nadal's abilities on clay.

Blank
06-08-2009, 05:04 PM
If Djoko/Rafa did not make it to the supposed stage that they should, it can only mean one thing: They played suck!!!

Simple rule: The better player win, the lousy one lose!!
Geeezz why some ppl cannot understand a simple logic such as this!!

egn
06-08-2009, 05:07 PM
He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

That joke beat your boy. That joke took out 4 top clay courters in 4 straight matches. I think that joke deserves more credit than you are giving him.

Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

I agree Djokovic was off at RG but overall I would take Djoker at this moment in time over Del Potro on clay that may change in time but we will see.

yes,but Del Po was the better player at RG..

Yes I do agree if Djoker in his form at RG met Del Potro in his form in especially the later RG rounds DJoker would have likely lost but than that is just on form. Though Djoker is still a far better clay court player.

No grand slam victory is a walk in the park.

Very true.

If they had played at this years French the way Del Potro was playing Djokovic would have been spanked. Especialy seeing as he couldnt even get a set off an in form Kohlschreiber. Del Potro is improving so quickly, it is hard to say who he is better or worse than on a surface in general. Djokovic isnt a special clay courter though, 2 wins over top 50 players lifetime at the French, an 0-3 head to head with David Ferrer on clay, an 0-6 head to head with Nadal on clay, 1 Masters title only on clay. Djokovic has only beaten Roger once on clay and Roger played a terrible match (I dont like either player at all so easy for me to objective in this case) and still choked away a set, break with points for a second break in the 2nd lead. If Roger played as poorly as he did vs Djokovic in that match against the Del Potro onslaught in the semis he would have been cooked in 90 minutes.

Very valid points. We talk all about DJokovic at France yet looking at his past two years. Whats funny is his toughest opponents are PHM (who Fed beat this year) and Fernando Verdasco. His best win probably came on his QF run against Gonzo. Djoker did not beat anyone better or different than Del Potro or Fed at France in the past 3 years. If Nadal had been in top form he probably would have won the whole thing thats very well likely but that is an if. Nadal was not the best player of the tournament as evidenced by Federer winning it and people need to get over it and move on. Each tournament is about who shows up for that tournament.

ninman
06-08-2009, 05:16 PM
a recap of veroniquem's last 20 posts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5Sr68NwCY

Now, now, c'mon, lets get our facts straight. This is a recap of veroniquem's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

sh@de
06-08-2009, 05:36 PM
The conclusions which can be drawn from this thread:

1. Fed's draw was (according to Veroniquem) a total cakewalk
2. Soderling was a joke
3. Nadal was a complete, utter joke because he lost to the headcase in #2

Seriously... all those people who believe those 3 points are severely deluded.

drakulie
06-08-2009, 07:21 PM
Now, now, c'mon, lets get our facts straight. This is a recap of veroniquem's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ


LMAO at that dude having to park the car for her. :)

BreakPoint
06-08-2009, 08:00 PM
Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.
Exactly! I mean like how many other players have ever beaten Ferrer, Nadal, Davydenko, and Gonzalez in the same clay court tournament? None! Soderling is the only one.

Swissv2
06-08-2009, 08:11 PM
Odd how these direct violations of TW policies go unnoticed:

2. No personal attacks or abusive language is allowed. If you have a problem with someone, take it off of Talk Tennis. Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. Debating issues and opinions is fine, but flaming and insulting won’t be tolerated.

Read all of veroniquem's posts and you will soon be doing the same thing yourself.

papucla10
06-09-2009, 06:10 AM
C'mon now,call P Agony biased or a fanboy something but a troll he isn't nor is his post trollish.He simply stated his opinion,that it wasn't a walk in the park for Fed.So let me get this straight-If someone believes Fed didn't have a cakewalk-he's trolling.Sorry,can't agree with that.



Acasuso got tight(or choked if you wish)definitely but he does that against everyone,not just against Fed.He has always been a bit of headcase.



Mathieu is a pretty good ballstriker,can be dangerous if he's on that day as he proved when he pushed Nadal pretty hard at the FO in 2006.Still it was an ordinary match in which both played solid but Fed came through in 4 sets,can't say anything other than that.



I disagree that Haas choked,he fell apart mentally in 4th set but he was still playing well in 3d set and was one point from serving for the match,however on that one point Fed hit an inside out FH winner,Haas didn't give Fed away that point but rather Fed took it.



I do think that Monfils isn't a match for Fed but not because he isn't mentally ready.He plays too defensive and passive,stands too far behind baseline and doesn't use his tools the way he should.



Agree with this.



I do think Soderling was nervous but I also think Fed played the best match of his tourney by far(especially second set tiebreak)and I also consider Fed to be a horrible match-up for Soderling's game on top of that.There's a reason Soderling only took one set from Fed in their 10 meetings.



Agree with all this,was especially impressed by the way Del Potro played that day and during whole tourney in general.



Disagree,I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Fed at the FO this year(which a lot of people here seem to take for granted).Reasons are that IMO Fed is a better big match player and fitter which comes into play a lot in a best of five slam match on clay.Not denying that you may be right,just stating my opinion.

As for Murray,while I do think that he's a tough match-up for Fed I do not believe he would have beaten Fed in the final the way Fed was playing in the final considering the fact that clay is Murray's worst surface by far and considering the relative ease with which Gonzo beat him.Of all surfaces I like Fed's chances against Murray the most on clay.Again,just my opinion.



Nothing to add,agree.

Sorry my first statement is wrong what I am trying to say is the opposite, that Federer Matches at least most of them should have been a Walk in the park but THEY WERE NOT, also what I am trying to state is that if Fed's opponents would have kept their level of play trough at least 4 sets Federer would have not been in the final but his opponents felt the pressure of the moment and the pressure of Federer and gave up except Del Potro and maybe Mathiew well I didn't see this match, Federer never gave up and like you said brought his level up when it mattered but his opponents brought their level down in order for him to make it. If you watched the matches that is clear.

Federer didn't play his best ( More likely because of the pressure ) in all of those matches and that almost cost him the crown but he made it trough with lots of guts and that showed a lot about Federer.

P_Agony
06-09-2009, 06:18 AM
It should have been a walk in the park but it was not, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay, He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

Why am I talking like a troll? Have I offended anyone in my post? Bashed other players? If you disagree with me that's fine, but there's a huge difference between my pos and trolling.

rafan
06-09-2009, 07:08 AM
Why am I talking like a troll? Have I offended anyone in my post? Bashed other players? If you disagree with me that's fine, but there's a huge difference between my pos and trolling.

I think Federer played beautifully and he deserved to win . One point I will make is that Federer had time to study Soderlings game since beating Nadal. I think for Nadal it must have been a shock because he had beaten him so well a few weeks ago. It was good to watch Federer though and route for him for a change, because once Rafa is back on the scene, I will obvioulsy go for him to win

P_Agony
06-09-2009, 09:01 AM
I think Federer played beautifully and he deserved to win . One point I will make is that Federer had time to study Soderlings game since beating Nadal. I think for Nadal it must have been a shock because he had beaten him so well a few weeks ago. It was good to watch Federer though and route for him for a change, because once Rafa is back on the scene, I will obvioulsy go for him to win

That's why you are an example of a good poster. You can support your favorite player but at the same time be objective and respectful to the other players. This board needs more like you.

jackson vile
06-09-2009, 10:06 AM
This thread is mainly for people like GameSampras who clearly think Fed's vicotry was nothing but a walk in the park.

A walk in the park? Are you kidding me? I have never had so many heart aches in my entire life like this FO.

Federer barely won his matches against Acasuso, Haas, and Delpo. He was taken to 5 TWICE and taken to 4 TWICE. He passed all the tests - he beat a great clayer and a crowd favorite in Monfils, he barely beat an on fire, non-choking Del Potro who was playing the best I have ever seen him play. He came back from 5-1 to win the 3rd set against Acasuso, and he basically faced match point against Tommy Haas.

Federer's road to his FO title was anything but a walk in the park. It was one of the only times in his career he had to rely on his huge heart rather than his best tennis, because im most of the time he didn't find it.

I just want to say you are correct, what the heck is up with you guys saying that it was easy for Roger to beat all the guys that he has a wining recored against and always beats because they never even come close.

How right you are sir, you tell them!