PDA

View Full Version : Simply put... Del Potro blew Fed away


Pages : [1] 2

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:45 PM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?

fed_the_savior
09-14-2009, 10:46 PM
6-0 7-6 6-0 is blowing someone away

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:48 PM
6-0 7-6 6-0 is blowing someone away

Ummm I'm talking about when someone hit more winners then Fed.

BreakPoint
09-14-2009, 10:53 PM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 10:55 PM
I think by the time Aussie Open rolls around, Fed will be all business once again. No shenanigans.

big bang
09-14-2009, 11:02 PM
had Del Potro been more experienced he would have won in 4, he broke Fed in every set except the first and still he was not even close to the form he showed against Nadal:)

Rabbit
09-14-2009, 11:05 PM
Had DelPo continued his play of the first two sets, he'd have lost. He picked up the pace considerably and started hitting monster groundstrokes.

I agree, Fed played poorly, especially his service. But there are no excuses, DelPo just turned it on and hung in there.

Fedace
09-14-2009, 11:07 PM
Fed got blown away from 3rd set on.

flyer
09-14-2009, 11:39 PM
i dont think he blew him away, it was 5 close sets, he out hit him in the end but it wasnt to the tune of 62 62 62, thats blowing people away...

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:43 PM
It was blown away in the closest way you could do it to Federer... it was 6-2 final set.

JohnnySpot
09-14-2009, 11:44 PM
ArrowSMinth likes to eat BABIES

ArrowSmith
09-14-2009, 11:45 PM
Babies... mmm chewy. Like chicken!

jlitt93
09-14-2009, 11:50 PM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

I have to disagree. I mean, Federer started the match rolling, and he was up 5-3 in the 2nd set I am sure. When Del Potro turned his game on, Federer couldn't match up to him and that is when the errors and double faults began to pile up on him. IMO, Federer had the opportunity to breeze through the final but he ended up choking. And in my eyes it wasn't Federer choking as much as it was Del Potro coming up big in the huge situations. Del Potro outplayed Federer and there really isn't an excuse for it. Basically, Federer was worn out by the end of the match and it was obvious.

tricky
09-15-2009, 12:04 AM
And in my eyes it wasn't Federer choking as much as it was Del Potro coming up big in the huge situations. Del Potro outplayed Federer and there really isn't an excuse for it. Basically, Federer was worn out by the end of the match and it was obvious.

That's how I interpreted it too. Federer was shanking a lot of shots in the 4th and 5th sets, but I thought it was due to Federer not being able to handle the raw pace coming back at him. He was flat-out hitting the ball late a lot of times. This was maybe the first time I've really seen Federer not able to handle the power of his opponent, including against Safin.

The other thing is, DelPo was guessing correctly on a lot of Federer's patterns. Federer fell in love with that inside-out DTL FH shot, but he wasn't getting enough depth on it. Federer just kept on going at it, and DelPo just unloaded. DelPo went through this weird period where he was taking too much off his serves, but that also enabled him to get into extended rallies with Federer. Federer likes to play angles and force players to do something against the short ball, but DelPo was taking him apart doing that.

tata
09-15-2009, 12:14 AM
Yea Federer could have taken the 2nd set. He had triple break point but potro just came up with 3 big first serves when he needed it. Although fed did serve poorly i dont think it was a big factor in why he lost. I think potro thought he was going to lose anyway after fed took the 3rd set and just swung with everything he had like he had nothing to lose.....which he doesnt anyway.Fed lost a bit of concentration and made more errors mid way onwards but once again more so to do with potro getting his act together.

JohnnySpot
09-15-2009, 12:21 AM
Huff AND Puff and Blew...nahhhhhhhh

Tony48
09-15-2009, 12:27 AM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

I hope no one on this board takes anything you say seriously.

JohnnySpot
09-15-2009, 12:28 AM
I hope no one on this board takes anything you say seriously.

Oh but I do.....I really do. Hopefully no babies get eaten. thats not a good thing. at all. not at all.

Cesc Fabregas
09-15-2009, 12:29 AM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

Federer played well, theres nothing he could have done he simply got hit off the court. (Yeah thats right, im using your wording after Nadal lost to Soderling at the French Open)

Speedygonzalez
09-15-2009, 12:34 AM
Congrats to Del Potro. Before the match I thought Fed would win this one in four or maybe five sets, but after Del Potro broke back in the second Delpo's game just got better and better.

I think Fed could have put more variation in his game since Delpo started to read his shots better as the match went on. In the first set he mixed up his backhand nicely with slice but later he only hit with topspin. Also, his serving was below par and some approaches were just not punishing enough.

But anyway, I am happy for Del Potro, what a player he is. It seemed that he still couldn't believe it while he was holding the trophy.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 12:52 AM
I have to disagree. I mean, Federer started the match rolling, and he was up 5-3 in the 2nd set I am sure. When Del Potro turned his game on, Federer couldn't match up to him and that is when the errors and double faults began to pile up on him. IMO, Federer had the opportunity to breeze through the final but he ended up choking. And in my eyes it wasn't Federer choking as much as it was Del Potro coming up big in the huge situations. Del Potro outplayed Federer and there really isn't an excuse for it. Basically, Federer was worn out by the end of the match and it was obvious.
That was because Delpo couldn't get a first serve in nor hit a ball in the court to save his life in the 1st set. Both were playing pitiful tennis. Federer only won the first set and was up a break in the second because Delpo was playing even worse than Federer was. It was like neither of them wanted to win. Once Federer let Delpo back into the match by allowing himself to be broken after leading 5-3, 30-0 in the 2nd set, Delpo started believing he could win the match and grew more confident by the minute. That was basically the end for Federer. Delpo raised his game from then on but Federer continued to play poorly throughout the entire match. Hitting everything to Delpo's forehand and trying weird shots instead of hitting winners when the opportunity was right in front of him was very strange for Federer. Did he think he was playing left-handed Nadal out there? It was like Federer left his brain in the hotel room when he came to the court today.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 01:01 AM
Federer played well, theres nothing he could have done he simply got hit off the court. (Yeah thats right, im using your wording after Nadal lost to Soderling at the French Open)
Those two matches have absolutely nothing in common. Soderling played the match of his life to beat Nadal at the French. Whereas, Del Potro played one of the worst matches of his life and still beat Federer at the US Open. Federer was pitiful and pathetic. It was as if he forgot how to play tennis. Why would you hit every ball to your opponent's biggest weapon on purpose? And getting hit off of the court has nothing to do pitiful serving.

Del Potro hit Nadal off of the court in the semis as everyone saw. Federer lost because he couldn't get a serve in and couldn't hit a groundstroke without framing it. Delpo beat Nadal by hitting winners past Nadal. Delpo beat Federer because Federer couldn't hit a ball into the court.

Tony48
09-15-2009, 01:27 AM
Del Potro put the fear of God in Federer. The last time I saw him look so scared in a major was....against Nadal. All that shanking was nerves. It's so rare that Fed is intimidated by his opponent.

Automatix
09-15-2009, 01:38 AM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

...

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer. +1...........................

IvanisevicServe
09-15-2009, 01:50 AM
Well, Federer played brilliantly the first two sets excluding his horrible first serve percentage...up until he served for the second set.

Polvorin
09-15-2009, 01:52 AM
6-2 6-2 6-2 is getting blown away.

Polvorin
09-15-2009, 01:59 AM
That's how I interpreted it too. Federer was shanking a lot of shots in the 4th and 5th sets, but I thought it was due to Federer not being able to handle the raw pace coming back at him. He was flat-out hitting the ball late a lot of times. This was maybe the first time I've really seen Federer not able to handle the power of his opponent, including against Safin.


It was bizarre considering that Fed usually handles pace so well...but a lot of those wild forehands were on sitters, not powerful shots.

sh@de
09-15-2009, 02:13 AM
I think what many people fail to realize is that Federer actually played a poor match. I'm not taking anything away from Delpo's win, because if he hadn't had the ability to hang in there, he wouldn't have pulled through, but ultimately, I think that this match was Fed's to lose. He was serving for a two sets to love lead and got broken... he wasted masses of bp opportunities... he was two sets up to one at one point... there were just so many places where he could have dealt the final blow and made DP deflate, but it never happened.

Tony48
09-15-2009, 02:49 AM
I think what many people fail to realize is that Federer actually played a poor match. I'm not taking anything away from Delpo's win, because if he hadn't had the ability to hang in there, he wouldn't have pulled through, but ultimately, I think that this match was Fed's to lose. He was serving for a two sets to love lead and got broken... he wasted masses of bp opportunities... he was two sets up to one at one point... there were just so many places where he could have dealt the final blow and made DP deflate, but it never happened.

Del Potro double faulted twice to give Federer the 3rd set and to go up 2 sets to 1.

Speedygonzalez
09-15-2009, 03:19 AM
I dont think fed wasted too many bp, at least not on those occasions where it really mattered (like the first set). Most bp that did matter were played well by Del Potro. Of course, he should have won the second set, then he would have steam-rolled and I could hit my bed.

The-Champ
09-15-2009, 03:28 AM
6-2 6-2 6-2 is getting blown away.



That is a pretty darn good result for someone who cannot move and serve :)

larry10s
09-15-2009, 04:01 AM
feds 50%1st serve number and 11 double faults are not the stats of a winner of a match. inspite of a poor serving daqy the match still went 5 sets. not a blow away. my 2 cents is that roger did not have the fire for this one. he showed little emotion upon losing and in the press conference said he was tired and hadh had a good tournament and year. i think hell play with the babies win the final master series champion ship and roar into the australian open envigorated. my $. 02

Cindysphinx
09-15-2009, 04:06 AM
My take on it is that DelPo won because he was smarter than Fed. A lot smarter.

When DelPo DF'd in the third set, he observed that Fed wasn't hurting him with his return of serve. So DP took off some pace and raised his first serve percentage. Fed did not adjust at all. He never tried to punish these cupcake serves.

When DelPo started blasting his FH, Fed didn't adjust at all.

Fed didn't play nearly enough drop shots, even though the few he did play worked reasonably well.

When DP hit huge pace with his FH, Fed did not hit a defensive shot to allow himself to get back into position. Instead, he hit back as hard. So he couldn't cover the court for the next shot.

And when Fed wasn't serving well, DP took big chances on the return, thereby intimidating Fed into not taking something off of his serve to get it in.

Bottom line: DP was the better player because he was the smarter player.

Polvorin
09-15-2009, 04:09 AM
That is a pretty darn good result for someone who cannot move and serve :)

Looked like he was moving pretty well to everyone who wasn't watching through ******* vision.

sureshs
09-15-2009, 04:23 AM
Bottomline is that Del can hit shots which Fed cannot hit, probably no one can. 110 mph crosscourt FHs, jumping cross court BHs hit hard - are examples of shots which require height and strength.

TheNatural
09-15-2009, 07:06 AM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

If Federer knew Delpo was going to play so well he would have packed his bigger 95" rackets.

JankovicFan
09-15-2009, 07:07 AM
I get the part about the forehand winners, but Roger lost on his own.

Grover Sparkman
09-15-2009, 07:10 AM
Why can't anyone just give Del Potro credit? It doesn't take anything away from Federer's greatness or what he's accomplished. Del Potro has played amazingly well since Wimbledon, and he's going to be one of the next stars on the tour. He took the US Open by beating two of the greatest players that have played the game (yes, I do think Rafa is that good).

jrepac
09-15-2009, 07:12 AM
given the start of the match, Del Potro looked like he was going to be blown out...he could've folded...he didn't (much like Roddick didn't in the W final)

Federer's serving definitely went off...his serve saved him at W....but killed him here

great turn around from Del Potro...

tlm
09-15-2009, 07:16 AM
Delpo made a great comeback, but in the 5th he just played solid+let fed ckoke the match away.

truthorbust
09-15-2009, 07:16 AM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?

IMO Fed blew himself away in this match. Fed had a set up and served for the 2nd and blew that.
He then was reluctant to used the stuff that works on DP.
Rushing the net , short angles and slices. He went away from that. Stupid Fed.

Stinkdyr
09-15-2009, 07:26 AM
Fed must be regretting those charity points and games he threw in the 2nd set. And his serve % was low throughout. He should have used a strategy of making the big guy cover more court side to side to exhaust him. And finally, Fed ran out of gas in the 5th cuz he is entering the twilight of his career.

P_Agony
09-15-2009, 07:30 AM
Federer played well, theres nothing he could have done he simply got hit off the court. (Yeah thats right, im using your wording after Nadal lost to Soderling at the French Open)

You have seriously been gj'd!

How can you consider bad serving (low %), huge numbers of unforced errors, low % of BP converted a good play? Nadal played better against Soderling than Fed did against Del Potro IMO.

P_Agony
09-15-2009, 07:36 AM
IMO Fed blew himself away in this match. Fed had a set up and served for the 2nd and blew that.
He then was reluctant to used the stuff that works on DP.
Rushing the net , short angles and slices. He went away from that. Stupid Fed.

Well said, Fed was brainless after the break in the 2nd set. He also always tried to serve his 1st serve to Delpo's BH in the ad side, and ALWAYS dumped it in the net. He saw this serve isn't really going well yet he kept trying, he was really stubborn instead of maybe taking some of the pace away or changing direction. I kept thinking to myself "Fed stop hitting your serve there, you tried it for 50 times already, it doesn't work for you today!".

Fed, in a very strange way, refused to use his low slice after a while to DP's BH, and instead tried to outpower DP from the baseline with the shots to his FH. Delpo was the one dictating play, and Fed was on defense for most of the time. Fed really played without any tactics in mind.

Also, Fed is usually a slam TB monster. He almost never losses a TB in slams, let alone 2 TBs. Gave the minibreaks away with stupid shanks.

P_Agony
09-15-2009, 07:40 AM
Fed must be regretting those charity points and games he threw in the 2nd set. And his serve % was low throughout. He should have used a strategy of making the big guy cover more court side to side to exhaust him. And finally, Fed ran out of gas in the 5th cuz he is entering the twilight of his career.

He didn't run out of gas, his game was just not working. The gas was there, the engine wasn't.

tlm
09-15-2009, 07:42 AM
He ran out of balls not gas.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 11:01 AM
That is a pretty darn good result for someone who cannot move and serve :)
Hmmm...if that were the case, how come none of the wheelchair players were able to make it to the semis of the main draw? ;)

TMF
09-15-2009, 11:06 AM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?

It had to take TMF a really, really bad day for someone to hit more winners. Serving 50% sure help Del Potro to add up all of those winners in 5 sets, but still, Del Potro only had a few more winners.

coloskier
09-15-2009, 11:13 AM
I think by the time Aussie Open rolls around, Fed will be all business once again. No shenanigans.

AO's court surface will take a lot of the pace off of Del Potro's ball, but he still will be a force to be reckoned with.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 11:14 AM
IMO Fed blew himself away in this match. Fed had a set up and served for the 2nd and blew that.
He then was reluctant to used the stuff that works on DP.
Rushing the net , short angles and slices. He went away from that. Stupid Fed.
Exactly! The way to beat Delpo is not to give him any rhythm, but hit short chip slices, drop shots, mix up the pace and spins on groundies, move him side-to-side and back-and-forth, chip and charge off of his second serves, mix in serve and volley, etc. This is the strategy that Federer has used in the past against him to great success, beating him all 6 times they've played, including that 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 beatdown at this year's AO, the last time they played on hardcourts. In fact, in 6 meetings, Delpo had never gotten even a set off of Federer until this year's FO, and we know Federer is more vulnerable on clay than on hardcourts. If you let Delpo get into a rhythm, he'll just pound away from the baseline like he did to Cilic and Nadal.

For some reason, Federer stopped doing all of the above and started hitting everything to Delpo's big forehand. What kind of bizarre strategy is that to hit everything to your opponent's biggest weapon instead of doing what has worked in the past or even just making the big man run out wide to hit running 2HBH's, which are very tough to hit consistently?

All I can say is that Federer must have had a massive brain cramp out there, i.e., cerebral paralysis. :shock:

Fedace
09-15-2009, 11:24 AM
I just want to know why Fed Stoped using the slice shots after 2nd set, he was slicing even on his forehand in the 1st set. Fed looked like the 3.5 player in our club.....lol

klementine79
09-15-2009, 11:29 AM
Exactly! The way to beat Delpo is not to give him any rhythm, but hit short chip slices, drop shots, mix up the pace and spins on groundies, move him side-to-side and back-and-forth, chip and charge off of his second serves, mix in serve and volley, etc. This is the strategy that Federer has used in the past against him to great success, beating him all 6 times they've played, including that 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 beatdown at this year's AO, the last time they played on hardcourts. In fact, in 6 meetings, Delpo had never gotten even a set off of Federer until this year's FO, and we know Federer is more vulnerable on clay than on hardcourts. If you let Delpo get into a rhythm, he'll just pound away from the baseline like he did to Cilic and Nadal.

For some reason, Federer stopped doing all of the above and started hitting everything to Delpo's big forehand. What kind of bizarre strategy is that to hit everything to your opponent's biggest weapon instead of doing what has worked in the past or even just making the big man run out wide to hit running 2HBH's, which are very tough to hit consistently?

All I can say is that Federer must have had a massive brain cramp out there, i.e., cerebral paralysis. :shock:

Agreed... Federer has drastically improved his net-game... but for some reason decided to go head to head with Delpo from the baseline.

I saw a confident, hungry and patient Del Potro... It seemed that if Delpo had lost, it would've taken him a year + to get over that loss.. Federer seemed to be at ease with the loss by the time the post match interview started... and that was the difference.. that's why Delpo won.

The older Federer gets.. I would love for him to play strictly S&V on hard and grass courts.

icazares
09-15-2009, 11:43 AM
This is what I thought it happened: the key of the whole thing is to recognize that Federer had one of his worst days at the service line. If you look at most of his last grand slam finals (Wimby 08-09, RG 09, USO 08), the one thing that did not leave him was the service. Why was his service so poor? Well, only he knows, but my theory is that he was tired from the very beginning. Probably the semifinal took more than we thought from him, both physically and emotionally. I really think that the USOpen needs to end this "Super Saturday" tradition, which ended up helping Fed in some past finals, but hurting him yesterday. In fact, I hope the USOpen gets a new direction, b/c its emphasis on the bottom line is pathetic. How come they try to deny Del Potro his speech in Spanish!! What an amazing contrast with Wimbledon, where they don't even have advertisment in the court.

So the whole thing moved around Fed's service. Del Potro was unable to capitalize on this weakness in the first set, especially because Federer was otherwise playing God like. Fed should have won in 3, but he failed to get the second break when he shanked a very easy forehand when he had all the time of the world at 15-40. That was the turning point, because make no mistake, had he converted that forehand, the final would have been short. I thought the swing in that forehand was lazy, probably a mix of the low energy that the match had at that point and a false sense of superiority, failing to recognize that this was a critical moment of the match. After all, he had swept the floor with Del Potro in their previous hard court contest, and he probably thought that the story would be repeated. This is the point that marked the match, and the one that I will emphasize with my son and daughter, because it's an excellent lesson showing the importance of getting something done, all the way to the end, and keeping the tenacity until the task is done.

Well, we know what happened after. Del Potro found his range and since Federer had such a bad day at the service line, Del Potro found his way out. Kudos to him for hanging on there. He played the way he usually does from the second half of the second set, and with such a monster forehand (and backhand in my opinion) he was able to capitalize on Fed's poor service and heavy dependency on ground strokes. We all know that his backhand is not the most consistent or more dangerous. Fed without his serve is not the Fed that has been #1 for such a long time.

Keep in mind that Del Po is very strong mentally. This slam is not a fluke. This guy is here to stay. He won Washington after being one set down and a break down in the third. He has given a lot of signs of strong mental power, Nadal-like. Yesterday's final was a mental game, framed by Fed's poor serve.

Moose Malloy
09-15-2009, 12:01 PM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?

2008 USO, Gilles Muller

http://2008.usopen.org/en_US/scores/stats/day17/1504ms.html

TennisandMusic
09-15-2009, 12:04 PM
He didn't run out of gas, his game was just not working. The gas was there, the engine wasn't.

Man this stuff is so hypocritical. I agree Federer didn't play his best (and neither did Del Potro, he played like garbage at times), but you are the one who just looooves to constantly repeat that Nadal played great in the French Open against Soderling, when he played terrible there too. It's the same thing. If you're gonna call it for one guy, do it for the other, and for crying out loud people who are saying Federer just got beat are saying the exact same thing you've been repeating for months, yet you dog on them?

Completely absurd.

bizarre_opinion
09-15-2009, 12:04 PM
agree fed got blown off court, was good to see, for a change.

Talker
09-15-2009, 12:12 PM
Fed was doing well for a set and till he got a close call against him in the second.
Then came the shanks, he seemed to work that out, but then the serving was not too good, this hurt too. Missing quite a few forhands here and there.
Not too many "great" shots like usual.
It seemed he played into ball bashing instead of the thinking game.
Just too many things piling up on Fed, he still took it to 5 sets.

All of these things are easily repairable so this shouldn't be seen as decline.

One thing I worry about is the motivation, I hope it is still there.

CCNM
09-15-2009, 12:17 PM
Congratulations to Juan Martin & Kim C for winning the US Open.

rocket
09-15-2009, 12:25 PM
Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

True until he hits that dtl FH that clipped the outside edge in the 2nd set. From then on he played with much more confidence.

Fed didn't have his 1st serve to help him out. It only came sporadically. Delpo became more & more agressive on Fed's 2nd serve.

Fed's lack of 1st serve was most evident in tiebreaks.

markwillplay
09-15-2009, 12:27 PM
hmmmmm, I do think that Fed missed more serves towards the end of the match because of pressure and trying to get more out of them. And Delpo did not serve lights out for sure. I was puzzed as to why FFed stopped coming in but he knowsmore than I do.


See what you guys and gals think aobut this though....I know on TV, I was misreading Potro's body language. I do wonder if there were times Fed thought that Potro was on the ropes as far as fitness and that he misjudged that. It would definately be a good reason to all the sudden hit a lot of balls late or relax and let your opponant self destruct. We have probably all done that when we saw the guy accross the net strugling with his fitness. I do wonder if Potro didn't really confuse Federer by playing so hard at times and then at other times seeming like he was about to fall out.

I emailed some friends late in the 4th set and said that if it went a 5th set that Delpo would not win a game...I really believed it based on his serve slowing down so much and his body language....yes...he made me sound like an idiot.

LPShanet
09-15-2009, 12:36 PM
I have to disagree. I mean, Federer started the match rolling, and he was up 5-3 in the 2nd set I am sure. When Del Potro turned his game on, Federer couldn't match up to him and that is when the errors and double faults began to pile up on him. IMO, Federer had the opportunity to breeze through the final but he ended up choking. And in my eyes it wasn't Federer choking as much as it was Del Potro coming up big in the huge situations. Del Potro outplayed Federer and there really isn't an excuse for it. Basically, Federer was worn out by the end of the match and it was obvious.

While you're certainly right about DelPo turning it on, and the numbers absolutely support his overall improvement after a slow start, you're missing something that BP has totally correct. Even though Fed appeared to be rolling in the first set and a half, he was still serving VERY poorly even then. His first serve percentage was 41% in the first set and 44% in the second. Those numbers are atrocious, and about 20% below his first serve percentage when he's playing well (and are the worst he served the entire tournament). He won the first set (and almost won the second) in spite of serving very badly. When DelPo overcame his nerves (or whatever allowed him to raise his game), Fed didn't raise his own level to match.

I do agree that Fed looked worn out by the end of the match. From the end of the 4th set on, his footwork was definitely indicative of being tired, and it affected all of his shots. His serve, however, was crap from the start.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 12:40 PM
Man this stuff is so hypocritical. I agree Federer didn't play his best (and neither did Del Potro, he played like garbage at times), but you are the one who just looooves to constantly repeat that Nadal played great in the French Open against Soderling, when he played terrible there too. It's the same thing. If you're gonna call it for one guy, do it for the other, and for crying out loud people who are saying Federer just got beat are saying the exact same thing you've been repeating for months, yet you dog on them?

Completely absurd.
Because we are actually being objective while you're not. Read all the analysis in the newspapers today. Everyone agrees that Federer should have won the match and that he lost it rather than Delpo winning it. They didn't say that about Nadal after he lost to Soderling at the FO. They said that Soderling outplayed Nadal. He pounded deep shots in the corners that Nadal had no answers for. Very similar to what Delpo did to Nadal in the semis at the USO. Basically, Nadal is vulnerable and has no answers to guys that are aggressive and can pound the ball flat all day long. His record shows this. Whereas, Federer thrives on guys that pound the ball flat all day long (e.g., Soderling, Del Potro, Blake, Berdych, etc.) as his record shows that. That's the difference.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 01:15 PM
Come on.....must you guys say this after every single one of his losses???

Delpotro was the better man that day.

Do you really think its an accident that the guy went through Nadal and then Federer back to back???

Thats no coincidence.....Delpotro was playing great. Take it like a man and grow a pair....stop being a girl.

Its the same old story....Fed wasnt playing well....bla bla bla. Well maybe Delpotro forced Federer to play badly with those bomb forehands????

And delpotro even spotted Fed a set by doublefaulting....so if anyone was playing badly it was delpotro because he was scared sheetless.
Um...Del Potro has beaten Nadal the last three times they've played on hardcourts. It was no surprise at all that he beat Nadal again.

When was the last time Del Potro has EVER beaten Federer? How about NEVER? What was the score the last time they played in a Grand Slam on a hardcourt? Oh yeah, Federer DESTROYED Del Potro 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 at this year's AO even though Federer had a back injury.

Yes, this match was Federer's to win or lose. He chose to lose.

Emelia21
09-15-2009, 01:17 PM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

:roll: his babies have a nanny so if anyone was up all night it was her and not Roger :)

tlm
09-15-2009, 01:32 PM
Delpo did not play that well throughout the whole match himself.First set he sucked, third set he df twice to give the set away.Why dont we hear more about that?

I know its serena federer he never gets beat by the opponent, he just does not play up to his potential. The truth is if a player pushes fed to a final set he is not that good. As proven at the ao, last night+ many 3 set matches this year.

I still cant figure out how he is the goat but when it gets to a final set when it really counts he melts down like a candle.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 01:35 PM
:roll: his babies have a nanny so if anyone was up all night it was her and not Roger :)
First of all, I wasn't being serious.

Second of all, maybe his babies were sick and he wanted to take care of them? Who knows? And babies in the next room crying can definitely keep someone up at night. Nanny or not.

pmerk34
09-15-2009, 01:38 PM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.


IF Fed played pathetic he would have gotten beat 6-0 6-0 6-0. Why the insults to such a great player?

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 01:45 PM
OMG.....now thAT IS FUNNY.:shock:

Thats the best excuse I have heard thus far. Bravo.

I think Fed might actually use that one.....he used everything else already.

Laughing my Fawking asz off!!!
How would you know? Do you have babies? Of course not!

Emelia21
09-15-2009, 01:53 PM
First of all, I wasn't being serious.

Second of all, maybe his babies were sick and he wanted to take care of them? Who knows? And babies in the next room crying can definitely keep someone up at night. Nanny or not.

You being serious now with the bolded part then?? :confused:

Nannys are their to look after sick babies and Mirka would have been on hand, Roger would have a private suite away from the babies to sleep, I cannot beleive some excuses on here :lol:

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 02:00 PM
You being serious now with the bolded part then?? :confused:

Nannys are their to look after sick babies and Mirka would have been on hand, Roger would have a private suite away from the babies to sleep, I cannot beleive some excuses on here :lol:
And you know this because you're the hotel manager? :-?

Cesc Fabregas
09-15-2009, 02:02 PM
And you know this because you're the hotel manager? :-?

Federer is now 15/6 in major finals, compare that with Pete Sampras' 14/4. Its safe to say Sampras >>> Federer.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 02:05 PM
Federer is now 15/6 in major finals, compare that with Pete Sampras' 14/4. Its safe to say Sampras >>> Federer.
Um.....21 Major finals >>>> 18 Major finals. :oops:

And Federer is not done yet with Major finals.

Emelia21
09-15-2009, 02:05 PM
And you know this because you're the hotel manager? :-?

Of course not :) but first the nanny, then Mirka would have attended to the babies, Roger would have been allowed to sleep away from them and anyways he hasn't said that the babies kept him awake has he? I am sure he would have by now :)

Cesc Fabregas
09-15-2009, 02:06 PM
Um.....21 Major finals >>>> 18 Major finals. :oops:

And Federer is not done yet with Major finals.

14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival. :oops:

maddogz32
09-15-2009, 02:18 PM
fed didnt play all that well. but he still played well enough to take it to five sets with del potro. feds first serve was off point, and he was missing a lot of forehands

coyfish
09-15-2009, 02:22 PM
Yeah Fed took delpo and pushed him hard even serving like crap lol.

Delpo played well and im glad we finally got a new slam winner. Definately not a blow out though.

As for Cesc Fabregas, notorious TW troll, you always give me a good laugh with your sampras > fed logistics.

Sorry mate but sampras sucked on clay. Thanks for playing but this case is closed.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 02:50 PM
14/4 > 15/6,
I guess math is not your string suit. The last I checked, 15 > 14, and 21 > 18. Why couldn't Sampras get to more GS finals? Why couldn't Sampras win more GS titles? Why couldn't Sampras get to 22 consecutive GS semis? :oops:

plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival.
You mean Richard Krajicek? :oops:

Gorecki
09-15-2009, 03:04 PM
First of all, I wasn't being serious.

Second of all, maybe his babies were sick and he wanted to take care of them? Who knows? And babies in the next room crying can definitely keep someone up at night. Nanny or not.

do you know how big his suite was?

1,330 square meters...

stick to the mono excuse...

ps: or alternatively accept that Juan beat him fair and square...

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 03:06 PM
do you know how big his suite was?

1,330 square meters...

Um...no. That's bigger than his house!

Where do you get your info from?

stormholloway
09-15-2009, 03:09 PM
Yes, this match was Federer's to win or lose. He chose to lose.

Give it a rest. DelPo hit some very specific forehands just to avoid being straight-setted. He hit flat out bomb forehand winners against Federer. He didn't just let Federer hit errors. He dug himself out with big shots. Federer wasn't playing that well, but he didn't just tank the match by any stretch of the imagination. DelPo caught fire and Federer kept playing mediocre tennis.

In your world, Federer either wins or loses a match. The other man never wins.

markwillplay
09-15-2009, 03:19 PM
Hey Breakpoint, don't take offense man but I would not point out anything the media says today for any sort of reference. I am objective (don't love any one player over another...well...except for Edberg of course..ha ha) but I have NEVER, I man NEVER known any tennis player to be "worshiped" more by the media at any time. that includes Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, any of them. The general media just walk behind him to smell is farts. It makes me sick actually but I don't hold it against Fed.

Dude, he had 5 sets to figure his serve and game out. Delpo had 5 sets to figure his out as well. Federer failed to beta a player who was stronger over the long haul yesterday. that's all.

TMF
09-15-2009, 03:44 PM
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival. :oops:

What a complete ******.

At 28, TMF have won more slams, more final appearances than Pete in his entire career. Plus, Pete participated in more slams events than TMF, but he lost more before he could reach the semi/final. TMF hardly ever failed to make atleast the semi.

TMF outperformed Pete in every 4 slams(AO, RG, SW19, USO) by a mile!

TheFifthSet
09-15-2009, 03:48 PM
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival. :oops:


And if Sampras would've made it to 4 FO finals, it would likely have been 14-8. :lol:

Anyways, 15 + Career slam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 and never even sniffing an RG title.

mzzmuaa
09-15-2009, 04:28 PM
Those two matches have absolutely nothing in common. Soderling played the match of his life to beat Nadal at the French. Whereas, Del Potro played one of the worst matches of his life and still beat Federer at the US Open. Federer was pitiful and pathetic. It was as if he forgot how to play tennis. Why would you hit every ball to your opponent's biggest weapon on purpose? And getting hit off of the court has nothing to do pitiful serving.

Del Potro hit Nadal off of the court in the semis as everyone saw. Federer lost because he couldn't get a serve in and couldn't hit a groundstroke without framing it. Delpo beat Nadal by hitting winners past Nadal. Delpo beat Federer because Federer couldn't hit a ball into the court.

You're quite the hypocrite.
It's rather obvious that Federer collapsed during set 2-3 of that match, but it's equally obvious that Nadal played poorly against Soderling that day. Your assessments of Federer's playing brainlessly, his directing balls to Del Potro's forehand, and terrible serving is spot on. But it can also be argued that Del Potro woke up during set 2-3 to pressure Federer with his huge strokes and movement. The same arguments, with minor differences in playing characteristics, can also be applied to Nadal/Soderling.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 04:50 PM
You're quite the hypocrite.
It's rather obvious that Federer collapsed during set 2-3 of that match, but it's equally obvious that Nadal played poorly against Soderling that day. Your assessments of Federer's playing brainlessly, his directing balls to Del Potro's forehand, and terrible serving is spot on. But it can also be argued that Del Potro woke up during set 2-3 to pressure Federer with his huge strokes and movement. The same arguments, with minor differences in playing characteristics, can also be applied to Nadal/Soderling.
Not at all. Nadal played his normal game but Soderling played way too well and overpowered Nadal. Soderling played above his normal level while Nadal played at his normal level.

No one is going to agree that Federer played at his normal level yesterday because he didn't. He played well below his normal level. Even Del Potro played below his normal level. It's just that Federer's level was even lower from normal than Del Potro's was.

stormholloway
09-15-2009, 05:22 PM
Nadal played his normal level against Soderling and only won one set in a tiebreaker? That's absolute crap and you know it. If Nadal plays at his normal level, the level he's always played at the French Open, then he's unbeatable.

You're so utterly full of it.

Mkie7
09-15-2009, 05:34 PM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?

If you call a 5 setter with two tiebreaks getting blown away.. what do you call a straight set @ 6-2 X 3?

timnz
09-15-2009, 05:38 PM
Blowing away - goodness Federer was only 2 points away from winning the match!

What according to your definition is a close match?

Blowing away is a good description of what happened to Nadal in the Semi's.

sliceroni
09-15-2009, 05:50 PM
Congrats to Del Po. My two cents..Fed had his chances but tightened up enough for Del Po to picked it up while Fed's level dropped, Del Po was hitting the ball cleaner, serving better, and stragety was better. Serve wasn't there for Fed, that happens, he served 50 aces in Wimbledon, not the same here, Delpo put a lot of pressure on his second serve to make Fed think about it. Delpo was better in the end. Fed had an amazing comeback year after his crappy year (French, Wimby, finalist at USO and Australia) that is a dream season for just about anybody else, and he isn't going anywhere. He's 28 and has plenty of more of more slams left in him.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 05:53 PM
Nadal played his normal level against Soderling and only won one set in a tiebreaker? That's absolute crap and you know it. If Nadal plays at his normal level, the level he's always played at the French Open, then he's unbeatable.

You're so utterly full of it.
Yes, because Soderling played the match of his life and believed he could beat Nadal. He took it to Nadal and took no prisoners and never let up at all. He played much better than he normally does. Even when he just played at his normal level, he almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, taking Nadal to 7-5 in the 5th set.

Um...NOBODY is "unbeatable". Borg lost at the French. Sampras lost at Wimbledon. And Federer lost at the US Open.

Nobody until Soderling was able to sustain such a high level throughout the entire match to beat Nadal. That's why Nadal hadn't been beaten before. Others, like Federer, had moments of brilliance but were not able to sustain that high level for the entire match. Soderling did.

Tennis_Monk
09-15-2009, 05:55 PM
Federer is now 15/6 in major finals, compare that with Pete Sampras' 14/4. Its safe to say Sampras >>> Federer.

I hope you are kidding. I am sure you are.

Sampras's rein is over long time ago and it only lasted a very short while. Federer has surpassed him long time ago and is the GOAT.

There are several factors (which you can find in other threads) but i am sure you know this.

Sampras is an "Also ran" or "Also played" when it comes to clay. Federer has a French Open title.

フェデラー
09-15-2009, 06:00 PM
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival. :oops:

is that all you can come up with? post something of worth, and then come back to this thread.

stormholloway
09-15-2009, 06:02 PM
Yes, because Soderling played the match of his life and believed he could beat Nadal. He took it to Nadal and took no prisoners and never let up at all. He played much better than he normally does. Even when he just played at his normal level, he almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, taking Nadal to 7-5 in the 5th set.

Um...NOBODY is "unbeatable". Borg lost at the French. Sampras lost at Wimbledon. And Federer lost at the US Open.

Nobody until Soderling was able to sustain such a high level throughout the entire match to beat Nadal. That's why Nadal hadn't been beaten before. Others, like Federer, had moments of brilliance but were not able to sustain that high level for the entire match. Soderling did.

It doesn't matter if Soderling played the match of his life. He won't beat Nadal on clay unless Nadal is playing below his standard. It's still just Soderling. Borg lost at the French to a seasoned clay court player. Federer couldn't touch Nadal at the French and all of the sudden Soderling does, yet it has nothing to do with Nadal's level of play?

Then you have the nerve to turn around and say that Federer lost only because he played at a low level? Beyond hypocritical. Simply stupid. You create arguments that make you feel good. That's really what it boils down to. They have no bearing on reality.

Ripper014
09-15-2009, 06:03 PM
I thought Fed had the match well in control for the first set and well into the second, when he had multiple points to take 2 service breaks. DP was struggling and his confidence was low... Up to this point Fed was on the baseline pressing the issue and keep DP well back. Fed let up giving DP an opportunity to win the second set, even with Fed not serving well he was still using every opportunity to setup inside the baseline and keep DP well behind it.

Even after the third set Fed still had some control of the match... but at some point in the fourth... DP using only his second serve realized he could compete with Fed... and he stepped up on the baseline and dictated play... from that point forward Fed was unable to push DP back and basically played defensively for the balance of the match, mainly because he didn't have a first strike weapon being his serve was not working.

Just my obsservations... take it for what it is worth.

SempreSami
09-15-2009, 06:06 PM
storm, you might as well headbutt a brick wall instead of argue with BreakPointless. You're more likely to make a breakthrough.

Ripper014
09-15-2009, 06:06 PM
An ammendment...

I thought Fed had a let down in the Soderling match as well... he had it well in hand and gave Soderling some confidence that he built on and almost used to win the match... I wonder what might have been if Soderling had won the 4th set tiebreaker.

Fed really need to close out the second set before taking his foot off of DP's thoat. He coasted too early.

Ripper014
09-15-2009, 06:12 PM
Sorry one last thing... I still give DP full credit for winning... even beating Fed at less than his best is not an easy task.

I believe there are times were an opponent can prevent you from playing your best ie. Kim vs Serena... but when you are serving under 50% and that is one of your primary weapons... I don't believe Fed had his best stuff.

Good win for DP regardless...

aces
09-15-2009, 06:45 PM
Some of you guys are giving too much credit to Rog. He lost because he got outplayed by Del Po. Rog got frustrated by Del Po's game and couldn't shake it off, that's why he played bad. He didn't have a bad night or lack of rest. When it came down to it Rog just couldn't focus because his opponent was the better player.

LPShanet
09-15-2009, 06:47 PM
Some of you guys are giving too much credit to Rog. He lost because he got outplayed by Del Po. Rog got frustrated by Del Po's game and couldn't shake it off, that's why he played bad. He didn't have a bad night or lack of rest. When it came down to it Rog just couldn't focus because his opponent was the better player.

How does that explain his serving below 45% even during the first two sets?

aces
09-15-2009, 07:21 PM
So Rog can't adjust his service game? What's the next excuse?

Rob_C
09-15-2009, 07:36 PM
It doesn't matter if Soderling played the match of his life. He won't beat Nadal on clay unless Nadal is playing below his standard. It's still just Soderling. Borg lost at the French to a seasoned clay court player. Federer couldn't touch Nadal at the French and all of the sudden Soderling does, yet it has nothing to do with Nadal's level of play?

Then you have the nerve to turn around and say that Federer lost only because he played at a low level? Beyond hypocritical. Simply stupid. You create arguments that make you feel good. That's really what it boils down to. They have no bearing on reality.

Different players. Soderling, like Del Potro, is a tall guy, with a two handed backhand, who hits very flat, penetrating strokes.

Nadals go to strategy of hitting high topspin forehand two the backhand side isnt as effective against them as it is against Fed.

I also think Nadal has lost a bit of his aura of invincibility. Del Potro has beaten him 3 times this year, twice convincingly, he lost at the French. I think it'll be like what happened to Fed, people will come on the court feeling they have more of a chance.

As for the Open final. I think Fed got a little over confident. He let Del Potro hang around too long, and then couldnt raise his game enough to win.

The drop shot he tried at 5-4, 30-0, in the 2nd set was a poor decision. The 2nd serve DF he hit at 2-5, deuce, 5th set, trying to go out wide to Delpo's forehand was a poor decision. He needed to hold serve to see if Delpo would falter or not, not risk a low percentage shot to go down the 3rd and final match point.

Lastly, he served like crap. Maybe he got tired, but it seemed like he couldnt buy a 1st serve late in the match.

dParis
09-15-2009, 08:09 PM
Hmmmnnn... 100+ posts. Not so simple after all, apparently.

I like both players so I don't really have a horse in this race but it was obvious that Fed didn't play his best after the first set. During the first set Fed's movement was sublime, a continuation of what he showed many times in the Djokovic match. He just couldn't sustain that after the first set of the final; I give the fact that Del Potro stepped up his game much of the credit for that. Fed's horse-feather serving sealed his fate. Del Potro only dropped 2 sets coming into the final and tore Nadal a new one his way there. Tore him 3 new ones, actually. Del Potro may end up being one of the greatest players of his generation. Who knows, maybe the the greatest of his generation. I'm happy to see him doing so well.

Still, I wonder how one takes 5 sets to "blow" someone off the court.:confused:

Talker
09-15-2009, 08:57 PM
Fed wasn't blown off the court.
His game had fallen apart, forehands in the net and outside of the lines by quite a large distance. Serve left him and the ones he got in were not too good. He lost a ton of points because the serve sets up his game.
We saw how Fed's serve hurt him at the AO.

Fed was in damage control, but what could he do?

I give him a lot of credit making it 5 sets.

I have a feeling he didn't feel so bad because he realized his game was really off and he knew Potro was the better player that day.

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 09:19 PM
I hope you are kidding. I am sure you are.

Sampras's rein is over long time ago and it only lasted a very short while. Federer has surpassed him long time ago and is the GOAT.

There are several factors (which you can find in other threads) but i am sure you know this.

Sampras is an "Also ran" or "Also played" when it comes to clay. Federer has a French Open title.
No, Cesc Fabregas is not kidding.

Sad isn't it?

BreakPoint
09-15-2009, 09:29 PM
It doesn't matter if Soderling played the match of his life. He won't beat Nadal on clay unless Nadal is playing below his standard. It's still just Soderling. Borg lost at the French to a seasoned clay court player. Federer couldn't touch Nadal at the French and all of the sudden Soderling does, yet it has nothing to do with Nadal's level of play?

Then you have the nerve to turn around and say that Federer lost only because he played at a low level? Beyond hypocritical. Simply stupid. You create arguments that make you feel good. That's really what it boils down to. They have no bearing on reality.
Talk about no bearing on reality.

"Just Soderling"? Are you serious? The same Soderling that also steamrolled Ferrer, Davydenko, and beat Gonzalez (who easily beat Murray) at RG? The same Soderling that almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, only losing 7-5 in the 5th?

Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. He's not tall enough and he hits a 1HBH. Nadal is NOT a bad match-up for Soderling. Soderling is tall, hits big and flat, and has a 2HBH. Nadal's high bouncing topspin shots go right into Soderling's strike zone. Same with Del Potro. And look at what Del Potro has done to Nadal the last few times. Just because Federer has trouble with Nadal on clay does not necessarily mean that Soderling does. In case you didn't know, tennis is about match-ups. Besides, Federer did beat Nadal in Madrid and Hamburg and had match points in Rome.

BTW, Borg lost to a chain-smoking, out of shape serve and volleyer....on slow red clay....at the French Open.....TWICE!

UsualSuspect
09-15-2009, 11:01 PM
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival. :oops:
Someone failed at interpreting stats :oops: Shot yourself in the foot there. Federer has the consistency to make slam finals more frequently then Sampras and when he gets there, it takes his opponents an inspired 5 set effort to close the deal. Unlike Sampras who got flipped like a cow. :lol:

federerfanatic
09-15-2009, 11:11 PM
Someone failed at interpreting stats :oops: Shot yourself in the foot there. Federer has the consistency to make slam finals more frequently then Sampras and when he gets there, it takes his opponents an inspired 5 set effort to close the deal. Unlike Sampras who got flipped like a cow. :lol:

You are right. The prime of Federer probably began in 2004 and Sampras in 1993. Federer in his prime has now only lost to Nadal, Safin, Del Potro, Kuerten, Djokovic, all grand slam champions. Sampras in his prime from 1993-1998 lost in slams to Jaime Yzaga, Gilbert Schaller, Mark Philipoussis, Karol Kucera, Magnus Norman, and Roman Delgado. Also while they are grand slam champions themselves I dont exactly consider the likes of Kafelnikov, Rafter, Krajicek, Korda ever consistently the caliber of players that Del Potro and Djokovic already have been at such a young age.

pmerk34
09-16-2009, 03:56 AM
Talk about no bearing on reality.

"Just Soderling"? Are you serious? The same Soderling that also steamrolled Ferrer, Davydenko, and beat Gonzalez (who easily beat Murray) at RG? The same Soderling that almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, only losing 7-5 in the 5th?

Nadal is a bad match-up for Federer. He's not tall enough and he hits a 1HBH. Nadal is NOT a bad match-up for Soderling. Soderling is tall, hits big and flat, and has a 2HBH. Nadal's high bouncing topspin shots go right into Soderling's strike zone. Same with Del Potro. And look at what Del Potro has done to Nadal the last few times. Just because Federer has trouble with Nadal on clay does not necessarily mean that Soderling does. In case you didn't know, tennis is about match-ups. Besides, Federer did beat Nadal in Madrid and Hamburg and had match points in Rome.

BTW, Borg lost to a chain-smoking, out of shape serve and volleyer....on slow red clay....at the French Open.....TWICE!

Soderling does not hit flat on his FH. That is an illusion caused by television. I saw him live vs Davydenko at the US Open. His FH's cleared the net by 4-6 feet with heavy heavy topspin. This went for both is rally forehand and when he really went for it. I was amazed by the spin and safety on such a big shot.

His two hand backhand actually looked like it had a bit of underspin on it. If you can beleive that.

ASL
09-16-2009, 04:05 AM
Soderling does not hit flat on his FH. That is an illusion caused by television. I saw him live vs Davydenko at the US Open. His FH's cleared the net by 4-6 feet with heavy heavy topspin. This went for both is rally forehand and when he really went for it. I was amazed by the spin and safety on such a big shot.

His two hand backhand actually looked like it had a bit of underspin on it. If you can beleive that.

You are very much right. I saw Soderling vs Gonzo at the FO and his forehand was nowhere near as flat as i thought it was when i watched his match v Nadal on TV.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 05:53 AM
Um...no. That's bigger than his house!

Where do you get your info from?

http://www.thecarlyle.com/suites.cfm

the hotel's website... trustworthy enough?

TensProfes
09-16-2009, 05:55 AM
Soderling does not hit flat on his FH. That is an illusion caused by television. I saw him live vs Davydenko at the US Open. His FH's cleared the net by 4-6 feet with heavy heavy topspin. This went for both is rally forehand and when he really went for it. I was amazed by the spin and safety on such a big shot.


That's actually true for a surprising number of the so-called "flat" hitters on the tour. Because most fans see the game on television, and the visual angles are deceptive, the perception of the ball path is really skewed. There are very few actual flat hitters on the tour at all, and the commentators and analysts of the sport today use the term in a very relative way. Even the flattest of today's top players often use considerably more topspin than their counterparts 15-20 years ago, due to increased racquet head speed and modern stroke paths.

pmerk34
09-16-2009, 05:59 AM
That's actually true for a surprising number of the so-called "flat" hitters on the tour. Because most fans see the game on television, and the visual angles are deceptive, the perception of the ball path is really skewed. There are very few actual flat hitters on the tour at all, and the commentators and analysts of the sport today use the term in a very relative way. Even the flattest of today's top players often use considerably more topspin than their counterparts 15-20 years ago, due to increased racquet head speed and modern stroke paths.

No doubt. I don't know why people around here use the term flat all the time as if these guys are Jimmy Connors.

To be fair some of them are talking about trajectory and not spin.

But your post is correct. Most male pros use an incredible amount of topspin on the forehand side.

Bud
09-16-2009, 06:02 AM
do you know how big his suite was?

1,330 square meters...

stick to the mono excuse...

ps: or alternatively accept that Juan beat him fair and square...

Um...no. That's bigger than his house!

Where do you get your info from?

http://www.thecarlyle.com/suites.cfm

the hotel's website... trustworthy enough?

I think you're confusing feet and meters :oops:

1,330 sq. meters is 14,316 sq. ft. :wink:

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 06:04 AM
How does that explain his serving below 45% even during the first two sets?

oh... the ones when Juan served below 30%...

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 06:10 AM
oh... the ones when Juan served below 30%...
I guess he wasn't talking about those imagined sets in your head.

In reality Del Potro served at 54% in the first and at 60% in the second set.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 06:17 AM
I think you're confusing feet and meters :oops:

1,330 sq. meters is 14,316 sq. ft. :wink:

ooops... i wrote meters... :oops:

sorry...:oops:

you know... being european, you have your thinking formated for european metric system...

Sorry for the mistake...

i guess my point remains!

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 06:18 AM
oh... the ones when Juan served below 30%...

Maybe he got scared?

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 06:24 AM
oh... the ones when Juan served below 30%...

DelPO served higher than Fed in sets 1,2,4, and 5.

Actually, Fed's worst serving percentage was in the first set which he won very convincingly. So, serve percentages were not that important really.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 06:25 AM
DelPO served higher than Fed in sets 1,2,4, and 5.

Actually, Fed's worst serving percentage was in the first set which he won very convincingly. So, serve percentages were not that important really.
The reason why Federer won the first set so easily was the rest of his game, he played almost flawless at the net and from the baseline.

Serve percentage has always been important for Federer.

TensProfes
09-16-2009, 06:32 AM
oh... the ones when Juan served below 30%...

Come on now, Gorecki. Don't just say things randomly to argue:) Juan's first serving percentage in the first two sets was 54% and 60%, respectively. Both were much higher than Fed's percentage in those sets (and for the whole match).

TensProfes
09-16-2009, 06:34 AM
DelPO served higher than Fed in sets 1,2,4, and 5.

Actually, Fed's worst serving percentage was in the first set which he won very convincingly. So, serve percentages were not that important really.

They are important. DelPo was playing poorly early on in the match. Fed didn't need the service edge to win the first, but when Juan started playing up to his potential it became much more important.

pmerk34
09-16-2009, 06:38 AM
They are important. DelPo was playing poorly early on in the match. Fed didn't need the service edge to win the first, but when Juan started playing up to his potential it became much more important.

Del Potro started slapping Feds second serves around like a red headed stepchild.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 06:40 AM
The reason why Federer won the first set so easily was the rest of his game, he played almost flawless at the net and from the baseline.

Serve percentage has always been important for Federer.

So why couldn't he continue to play flawlessly in the last 3 sets. In the third set, for example, they had the same percentage, and Del Po almost won that one.

Percentages are important, but not that much.

And the reason DelPo had higher percentages in the end is because he scaled down his serves. He hit only 1 ace in the last 3 sets.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 06:44 AM
So why couldn't he continue to play flawlessly in the last 3 sets. In the third set, for example, they had the same percentage, and Del Po almost won that one.

Percentages are important, but not that much.
I don't know. It was the same in Australia, Federer served poor for the whole match and fell apart in the fifth.

Federer would've likely won both those matches had he served like in the Wimbledon final. First serve percentage is very important in a mach like that.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 06:52 AM
I don't know. It was the same in Australia, Federer served poor for the whole match and fell apart in the fifth.

Federer would've likely won both those matches had he served like in the Wimbledon final. First serve percentage is very important in a mach like that.

But, the way someone serves in the 5th set doesn't depend only on him, but also on his opponent. By the time 5th set comes along, server may be scared, or confident, or whatever. His attitude has a lot to do with what his opponent did to him before that in the match.

At AO 09, Fed was playing against his nemesis. And in US 09 against a kid who didn't wanna fold, which probably surprised him. In Wimbledon, he was against his longtime punching bag, and was bound to have more confidence.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 06:56 AM
But, the way someone serves in the 5th set doesn't depend only on him, but also on his opponent. By the time 5th set comes along, server may be scared, or confident, or whatever. His attitude has a lot to do with what his opponent did to him before that in the match.

At AO 09, Fed was playing against his nemesis. And in US 09 against a kid who didn't wanna fold, which probably surprised him. In Wimbledon, he was against his longtime punching bag, and was bound to have more confidence.
Are you saying that Federer was scared by Djokovic and Del Potro, and that's the reason why he couldn't get 1st serves in?

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 07:10 AM
He wasn't scared of Djokovic, of course. I'm talking about the final.

But why did Fed's serve (and whole game) suck in the fifth set? I mean, he's broken all records, he had a great season, and way more experience than his opponent. So, there is really no outside excuse for folding in the fifth set.

What can he blame his low serve percentage and bad game on?

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 07:19 AM
He wasn't scared of Djokovic, of course. I'm talking about the final.

But why did Fed's serve (and whole game) suck in the fifth set? I mean, he's broken all records, he had a great season, and way more experience than his opponent. So, there is really no outside excuse for folding in the fifth set.

What can he blame his low serve percentage and bad game on?
If beeing scared by Del Potro was the reason for Federer's low first serve percentage, what was the reason for his low percentage against Djokovic?

I don't know why exactly Federer's level dropped, but you shouldn't forget that Federer's almost a grandpa by tennis players standards.
Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro will probably all be outside the top10 by the time they reach 28.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 07:25 AM
If beeing scared by Del Potro was the reason for Federer's low first serve percentage, what was the reason for his low percentage against Djokovic?

I don't know why exactly Federer's level dropped, but you shouldn't forget that Federer's almost a grandpa by tennis players standards.
Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro will probably all be outside the top10 by the time they reach 28.

He isn't a grandpa. He is fitter than Djokovic and Del Potro, and should be mentally tougher than them.

So, can we agree that:

1. Federer would probably win with higher percentage and better game in the 5th
2. 15 time GS winner has no excuse for serving and playing badly in the 5th

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 07:33 AM
He isn't a grandpa. He is fitter than Djokovic and Del Potro, and should be mentally tougher than them.

So, can we agree that:

1. Federer would probably win with higher percentage and better game in the 5th
2. 15 time GS winner has no excuse for serving and playing badly in the 5th
I understand that you want to talk Federer's performance up as a huge Del Potro fan, but there's no doubt that 28 year is relatively old for a tennis player.

If you don't believe me, check how many % of slams are won by players younger than 28, my guess is aboit 90%, and there's a reason for that.

At a certain age foot- and armspeed decreases and physical recovery takes longer. That isn't an excuse, it's merely an explanation.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-16-2009, 07:44 AM
But, why did he serve so well against Roddick? Roddick is younger than Federer and worked hard on his fitness during winter. And at the end of the Wimbledon match, Roddick was completely spent while Federer was still composed and seemed like he could stay on court for a long time.

Federer is one of the fittest guys on tour. And every expert has expressed doubts about DelPo's fitness. So Fed's loss cannot be explained by inferior fitness.

dropshot winner
09-16-2009, 07:48 AM
But, why did he serve so well against Roddick? Roddick is younger than Federer and worked hard on his fitness during winter. And at the end of the Wimbledon match, Roddick was completely spent while Federer was still composed and seemed like he could stay on court for a long time.

Federer is one of the fittest guys on tour. And every expert has expressed doubts about DelPo's fitness. So Fed's loss cannot be explained by inferior fitness.
We can't know. Federer had a great serving day against Roddick, and bad ones against Nadal and Djokovic (SF) and Del Potro. It happens.

Federer's fitness is fine, but he struggles more and more to bring is A-game (which includes the serve), and that has something to do with age.

luishcorreia
09-16-2009, 07:48 AM
Del Potro overwhelmed Federer with his power. No exactly on the score line. I also think that Federer physically went out on the fifth set.

luishcorreia
09-16-2009, 07:50 AM
But, why did he serve so well against Roddick? Roddick is younger than Federer and worked hard on his fitness during winter. And at the end of the Wimbledon match, Roddick was completely spent while Federer was still composed and seemed like he could stay on court for a long time.

Federer is one of the fittest guys on tour. And every expert has expressed doubts about DelPo's fitness. So Fed's loss cannot be explained by inferior fitness.

Federer has a very "economic" style of playing. In grass the point are quicker and its Federer best surface.

On hard courts like the US Open htere are more ball exchanges and it's harder on the body.

Roddick worked hard on the off season but that doesnt make him one of the fittest guys out there!

jjermann
09-16-2009, 07:51 AM
DelPO served higher than Fed in sets 1,2,4, and 5.

Actually, Fed's worst serving percentage was in the first set which he won very convincingly. So, serve percentages were not that important really.

delpo took pace off his 1st serve 4 and 5th sets.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 08:52 AM
Come on now, Gorecki. Don't just say things randomly to argue:) Juan's first serving percentage in the first two sets was 54% and 60%, respectively. Both were much higher than Fed's percentage in those sets (and for the whole match).

your post was the only who adressed me in the way i wanted..

if one is to post bs, lets post at will. so i did it in the same fashion...

you, i believe, understand that it was not the serve that made the diference in this game... simply because Delpo served better than Fed in the first set where delpo was beying toyed around by fed...

and in all honesty, yes... Delpo served better but his percentage picked up on the two last games... in the first two games of the first set, he serve around 29% i believe. i could be wrong about the stats, but i think it's what i saw or something like that.

point is: if people is going to blame the serve percentage for Fed's loss, i can make any preposturous post...8-);-)

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 09:04 AM
Del Potro was just better that day.

The ball was in
09-16-2009, 09:22 AM
if this was fed getting blown away, what was nadal's loss? A pasting/mauling....del potro played well and fed was not playing at his best. As fed said you can't win them all.

TennezSport
09-16-2009, 10:10 AM
You call winning a match by a total of 8 points getting blown away???

Total Points Won Fed=172 DP=180 (taken from the USO Match Stats)

You have a very strange concept of getting blown away. Now 2,2,2 is a much better definition.

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 10:15 AM
if this was fed getting blown away, what was nadal's loss? A pasting/mauling....del potro played well and fed was not playing at his best. As fed said you can't win them all.

I thought Nadal had like a 9mm abdominal tear and will be out for a month and did his parents already get divorced or are they still battling it out?

Ripper014
09-16-2009, 11:04 AM
I think what some people are not understanding is that Fed's serve is an offensive weapon that allows him a first strike advantage. If he does not hit a winner off the serve, getting a weak return provides him a huge tactical advantage where he can win the point on one of the next few shots.

It allows him to step into the court and push his opponent well back behind the baseline. When he is serving badly it allowed DP to gain back his baseline allowing him to have a even footing with Fed and the opportunity to attack with his forehand... which was not just on... but lethally hot in the finals.

I don't think Fed played well in the finals... but he competed well until the end... I thought his play in the last set was rather weak. He looked like a man out of answers against someone he knew was playing much better than him. I just wish he had shown a little more heart and battled harder in the last set.

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 01:27 PM
Soderling does not hit flat on his FH. That is an illusion caused by television. I saw him live vs Davydenko at the US Open. His FH's cleared the net by 4-6 feet with heavy heavy topspin. This went for both is rally forehand and when he really went for it. I was amazed by the spin and safety on such a big shot.

His two hand backhand actually looked like it had a bit of underspin on it. If you can beleive that.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you don't think ANYONE hits flat. "Flat" is a relative term. "Flat" is also the trajectory of the ball and not just the amount of spin on the ball. It's impossible to hit the ball totally flat in which the ball doesn't even rotate one degree. Compared to Nadal, Soderling hits "flat".

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 01:35 PM
do you know how big his suite was?

1,330 square meters...


http://www.thecarlyle.com/suites.cfm

the hotel's website... trustworthy enough?
So which suite in that hotel is over 14,000 square feet? Because 1,330 square meters is 14,316 square feet. That's probably bigger than an entire floor of that hotel and I doubt Federer's house is even that big. Besides, how are you so sure he stayed at that hotel? I don't think he wants the public to know exactly where he's staying. I know I wouldn't.

LPShanet
09-16-2009, 01:35 PM
your post was the only who adressed me in the way i wanted..

if one is to post bs, lets post at will. so i did it in the same fashion...

you, i believe, understand that it was not the serve that made the diference in this game... simply because Delpo served better than Fed in the first set where delpo was beying toyed around by fed...

and in all honesty, yes... Delpo served better but his percentage picked up on the two last games... in the first two games of the first set, he serve around 29% i believe. i could be wrong about the stats, but i think it's what i saw or something like that.

point is: if people is going to blame the serve percentage for Fed's loss, i can make any preposturous post...8-);-)

That last point you make is fair enough. Fed's first serve percentage isn't the ONLY reason Fed lost. But I think the original point was that he could still have won if he had served better, which may well be true.

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 01:39 PM
ooops... i wrote meters... :oops:

sorry...:oops:

you know... being european, you have your thinking formated for european metric system...

Sorry for the mistake...

i guess my point remains!
No, it doesn't. You can easily hear two babies crying loudly in a 1,300 sq. feet. suite. Heck, you can hear babies crying from the next hotel room.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 01:47 PM
Federer lost because he was up all night with the twins??

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 01:53 PM
He wasn't scared of Djokovic, of course. I'm talking about the final.

But why did Fed's serve (and whole game) suck in the fifth set? I mean, he's broken all records, he had a great season, and way more experience than his opponent. So, there is really no outside excuse for folding in the fifth set.

What can he blame his low serve percentage and bad game on?
Federer was serving terribly and playing terribly pretty much for the entire match, not just the 5th set. It was just one of those days. Some days you just have a bad serving day. However, his poor strategy and decision making was inexplicable. It's not like he's never played Del Potro. Why he didn't stick to the same strategy that has worked beautifully against Del Potro the last 6 times they've played and in the first set and a half is still a mystery to me.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 01:56 PM
Federer was serving terribly and playing terribly pretty much for the entire match, not just the 5th set. It was just one of those days. Some days you just have a bad serving day. However, his poor strategy and decision making was inexplicable. It's not like he's never played Del Potro. Why he didn't stick to the same strategy that has worked beautifully against Del Potro the last 6 times they've played and in the first set and a half is still a mystery to me.


Maybe because Federer just got scared?

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 02:00 PM
Maybe because Federer just got scared?
Scared of what? Winning?

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 02:22 PM
Scared of what? Winning?

Of losing.

Gorecki
09-16-2009, 02:34 PM
No, it doesn't. You can easily hear two babies crying loudly in a 1,300 sq. feet. suite. Heck, you can hear babies crying from the next hotel room.

Federer lost because he was up all night with the twins??

no... it was Mono.. ask break point...

@ Breakpoint: you are getting tiresome and desperate, and you are starting to sound like the usual Nadalete, making lame excuses for every damn loss...

It was public that Federer was and did in fact stay at that hotel...

so far you claimed it might be the babies, it might have been mono, it might have been this or that.. heck... it might have been dandruf... but you off all of us, have not backed any of your claims with proof!

but i think it might have been this baby:

http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/foto/0,,21936889-DP,00.jpg


guess i have to weight the idea of starting to ignore you too!

and your reply to my previous post. the one about the confusion on inches and meters : lets hope you never write a mistake in these threads... you will meet "the wrath of Gore" :evil:

jukka1970
09-16-2009, 02:51 PM
Ummm I'm talking about when someone hit more winners then Fed.

Then you should title it Del Potro hit more winners then Federer. As the other person said, a blow out is what Fed did to Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. Or what Nadal did to Federer at the French Open last year 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, or finally what Del Potro did to Nadal in the semi's 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. These are blowouts.

pmerk34
09-16-2009, 03:34 PM
Yeah, yeah, I know, you don't think ANYONE hits flat. "Flat" is a relative term. "Flat" is also the trajectory of the ball and not just the amount of spin on the ball. It's impossible to hit the ball totally flat in which the ball doesn't even rotate one degree. Compared to Nadal, Soderling hits "flat".

Compared to Nadal everyone hits flat. Soderlings ball off the FH has massive spin.

Gut Feeling
09-16-2009, 03:44 PM
Then you should title it Del Potro hit more winners then Federer. As the other person said, a blow out is what Fed did to Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0. Or what Nadal did to Federer at the French Open last year 6-1, 6-3, 6-0, or finally what Del Potro did to Nadal in the semi's 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. These are blowouts.

Nothing is quite as bad as Nadals defeat of Federer 6-,6-3,6-0...omg ...that was bad.

BreakPoint
09-16-2009, 04:47 PM
no... it was Mono.. ask break point...

@ Breakpoint: you are getting tiresome and desperate, and you are starting to sound like the usual Nadalete, making lame excuses for every damn loss...

It was public that Federer was and did in fact stay at that hotel...

so far you claimed it might be the babies, it might have been mono, it might have been this or that.. heck... it might have been dandruf... but you off all of us, have not backed any of your claims with proof!

I was never serious about his babies keeping Federer up all night as a reason for his loss. Get real. It was a joke. Just speculation as to why Federer was all out of sorts and not himself in the final. He's usually one of the smartest players on the court with a high tennis IQ. But in the final, he played like one of the dumbest.

But I am serious that you can hear two babies bawling in the middle of the night in a 1,300 sq. feet room. That is a small space.

Gorecki
09-17-2009, 01:12 AM
I was never serious about his babies keeping Federer up all night as a reason for his loss. Get real. It was a joke. Just speculation as to why Federer was all out of sorts and not himself in the final. He's usually one of the smartest players on the court with a high tennis IQ. But in the final, he played like one of the dumbest.

But I am serious that you can hear two babies bawling in the middle of the night in a 1,300 sq. feet room. That is a small space.

this is a completely different position form what you posted so far in the context of his thread. in that case, i partially agree with you!

BorisBeckerFan
09-17-2009, 01:34 AM
Fed is awesome and still great but he is not what he use to be. That last set was disappointing. It's tough to say that someone got blown away in a 5 set match with two of the sets decided by tie breakers. Very happy for JMDP. It's good to see someone other than Nadal not backdown to Fed at the big stage but he didn't blow Fed away.

ksbh
09-17-2009, 07:45 AM
My question is quite simple ... since many Federer fans are attributing his loss to factors other than Juan MDP, what is the real reason for Federer's loss?

1. Too cocky & cute
2. Over confident
3. Crying babies
4. Incompetent nanny

Which of the above? ROFL!

hoodjem
09-17-2009, 07:47 AM
He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

I think the OP is incorrect. If it went five sets, it was not a "blow away".

Fed just had a bad day. It happens.

Gut Feeling
09-17-2009, 08:45 AM
Fed just had a bad day. It happens.

He also had a "bad day" when:

he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon

he lost to Nadal at the AO

he lost to Djokovic at the AO

and if you look at TW Fed just had a bad bad day in 3 out of 4 of his losses at the FO to Nadal.

The list goes on.....Federer has never simply just been beaten.

hoodjem
09-17-2009, 01:48 PM
Usually when he has a bad day, he gets beaten--if he's playing a quality player.

Gut Feeling
09-17-2009, 01:50 PM
off topic....does TW sell this?:

http://www.hypebeast.com/image/2009/06/nike-roger-federer-wimbledon-collection-4.jpg

Benhur
09-17-2009, 03:44 PM
Del Potro played one of the worst matches of his life and still beat Federer at the US Open.

You must have followed Del Potro's game very closely over the years. From your expert observation we might be tempted to conclude that if Del Potro had played at his normal level -- instead of playing "one of the worst matches of his life" -- he would have triple bageled his opponent with ease.

BreakPoint
09-17-2009, 05:06 PM
You must have followed Del Potro's game very closely over the years. From your expert observation we might be tempted to conclude that if Del Potro had played at his normal level -- instead of playing "one of the worst matches of his life" -- he would have triple bageled his opponent with ease.
Del Potro played well in the semis. The result? The demolition of Nadal: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2.

フェデラー
09-17-2009, 05:11 PM
del potro played a pretty poor match. if you had watched the first two sets it would be almost impossible to disagree with BP

mzzmuaa
09-17-2009, 06:26 PM
It doesn't matter if Soderling played the match of his life. He won't beat Nadal on clay unless Nadal is playing below his standard. It's still just Soderling. Borg lost at the French to a seasoned clay court player. Federer couldn't touch Nadal at the French and all of the sudden Soderling does, yet it has nothing to do with Nadal's level of play?

Then you have the nerve to turn around and say that Federer lost only because he played at a low level? Beyond hypocritical. Simply stupid. You create arguments that make you feel good. That's really what it boils down to. They have no bearing on reality.

Hypocritical, exactly
And he's been doing this for 24k posts.

Tony48
09-17-2009, 07:06 PM
Del Potro played well in the semis. The result? The demolition of Nadal: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2.

And how was Nadal playing?

BreakPoint
09-17-2009, 08:13 PM
And how was Nadal playing?
It wouldn't have mattered how Nadal played. Nadal does not possess any weapons to hurt Del Potro on a fast hardcourt, as Del Potro has proven 3 times this year already. Del Potro is a bad match-up for Nadal.

But Federer? He thrives on guys that play like Del Potro, Soderling, Blake, i.e, big, flat hitters. Federer was 6-0 versus Del Potro before Monday and beat him 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 earlier this year when they last played on a hardcourt.

Benhur
09-18-2009, 08:15 AM
It wouldn't have mattered how Nadal played. Nadal does not possess any weapons to hurt Del Potro on a fast hardcourt, as Del Potro has proven 3 times this year already. Del Potro is a bad match-up for Nadal.

But Federer? He thrives on guys that play like Del Potro, Soderling, Blake, i.e, big, flat hitters. Federer was 6-0 versus Del Potro before Monday and beat him 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 earlier this year when they last played on a hardcourt.

If this made sense (it doesn't) then you would have to consider also that prior to Miami this year, Nadal was 4-0 on Del Potro, having played him on all surfaces (and twice on hardcourts), never dropping a set.

Connors started out 8-0 against young Lendl. Then it was somewhat close for a couple of years (8-5 for Lendl) and it ended 15-0 for Lendl.

And the point? The point is: Things are what they are until they are no longer what they were. Federer's previous record against Del Potro says exactly nothing about what happened in their last match. Your claim that Del Potro played "one of the worst matches of his life" is complete nonsense. If you had followed Del Potro's game in any detail, you would have noticed that his game has improved enormously and moved to a completely different level over the last 18 months or so.

Gut Feeling
09-18-2009, 08:22 AM
It wouldn't have mattered how Nadal played. Nadal does not possess any weapons to hurt Del Potro on a fast hardcourt, as Del Potro has proven 3 times this year already. Del Potro is a bad match-up for Nadal.

But Federer? He thrives on guys that play like Del Potro, Soderling, Blake, i.e, big, flat hitters. Federer was 6-0 versus Del Potro before Monday and beat him 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 earlier this year when they last played on a hardcourt.

Dont players evolve? Delpotro is only 20.....he is coming into his own.

Nadal is a far better player than he was at 17 and thats one of the resons he beat Federer at Wimbledon and the AO.

Nadal was really starting to dominate until his parents starting getting divorced and his injuries started piling up.

I will say this about Federer.....his game is just so fluid that he never gets injured. Its poetry in motion....but I am afraid at their best Nadal has already proven to be the better player.

BreakPoint
09-18-2009, 10:04 AM
If you had followed Del Potro's game in any detail, you would have noticed that his game has improved enormously and moved to a completely different level over the last 18 months or so.
Yes, you are exactly right. And the Australian Open was only 7 months ago, where Federer destroyed Del Potro 6-3, 6-0, 6-0.

BTW, Nadal never played Del Potro at all last year.

For anyone that saw both matches, no one would disagree that Del Potro played much better in the semis against Nadal than in the final against Federer. Heck, Del Potro couldn't even get a first serve in nor keep the ball in the court for the first 2 sets. He also made many unforced errors throughout the entire match which he didn't do against Nadal.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
09-18-2009, 10:09 AM
He hit more winners then Federer. I can't remember a non-clay slam match that Fed hit less winners then his opponents(Rafa prob hit more winners in 2008 FO). Can anyone remember the last time it happened?
The title is terrible...4 really close sets then Fed blew HIMSELF away!

BreakPoint
09-18-2009, 10:12 AM
I will say this about Federer.....his game is just so fluid that he never gets injured. Its poetry in motion....but I am afraid at their best Nadal has already proven to be the better player.
Really? How so? Federer has been #1 for many, many more weeks. He has made 22 consecutive GS semis. He has made 17 of the last 18 GS finals. He has won 15 GS's. He is like 130-1 against players outside of the Top 5 in GS's (Del Potro at #6 was his only loss this week).

Has Nadal even come close to any of the above?

Federer also destroyed Nadal in the '06 and '07 Master's Cups, and beat him in the '06 and '07 Wimbledon finals, and this year on red clay in front of his home crowd in straight sets. If Nadal was good enough to make more GS finals on hardcourts, Federer would have a much better H2H against Nadal.
So how in any way is Nadal "better" than Federer??? :confused:

Tony48
09-18-2009, 10:15 PM
It wouldn't have mattered how Nadal played.

Humor me then.

BreakPoint
09-18-2009, 11:13 PM
Humor me then.
Nadal has a history of losing to guys that hit big and flat and can neutralize his topspin because he has no weapons against these types of players. It happens most often on hardcourts, but as we've seen this year, it can also happen on clay if his opponent is hot and fearless. Del Potro, Soderling, Blake, Youznhy, Berdych, Nalbandian, Tsonga, etc. These guys can hit right through Nadal. You're not going to claim that Nadal was injured or not playing well EVERY time he's lost to one of these guys, are you? If anything, these guys don't ALLOW Nadal to play well because they can take his topspin shots and pound them past him, and Nadal has no Plan B because he's basically a one-dimensional topspin baseline basher who can't serve and/or volley his way out of trouble.

BorisBeckerFan
09-18-2009, 11:26 PM
off topic....does TW sell this?:

http://www.hypebeast.com/image/2009/06/nike-roger-federer-wimbledon-collection-4.jpg

Please do not post pics like this. I am a huge Federer fan but when I see pics of him in this silly attire it makes me hate him. I hate that he shows up wimbledon with a purse and stuff that makes him look weak. Roger is an amazing athelete and should be dressed as such. This attire does not reflect the speed, grace and strength of a top flight tennis player.

Sentinel
09-18-2009, 11:35 PM
^^ That photograph was deliberately posted as a troll attempt*. Ignore it like everyone else did.

* by one of our dear earlier banned users

BorisBeckerFan
09-18-2009, 11:47 PM
I should have caught that and ignored it. He's had some great outfits too so the fact that the poster chose this one should have been a clue.

ceberus
09-18-2009, 11:54 PM
Please do not post pics like this. I am a huge Federer fan but when I see pics of him in this silly attire it makes me hate him. I hate that he shows up wimbledon with a purse and stuff that makes him look weak. Roger is an amazing athelete and should be dressed as such. This attire does not reflect the speed, grace and strength of a top flight tennis player.As good as Federer is, I can't stop laughing at the man purse he brings to Wimbledon.

Elegant_Roger
09-19-2009, 02:49 AM
As good as Federer is, I can't stop laughing at the man purse he brings to Wimbledon.

There is definitely a heated debate on whether Roger's new Nike/Anna Wintour White and Gold Trimmed Waist Coat with gold "RF" emblems is "Smashing" or "Clownish". Many are blown away by how Regal and Suave Roger looks. Others think it is a little overboard or maybe even mimics Captain Stuebing (Gavin McCloud) of the Love Boat.

I firmly believe Roger is like Machievelli's "The Prince". People need someone to worship, to love, to lead them because they have so little within themselves. Roger is a high class Magician, ready to lead his people to next level of Tennis. He must act and dress appropriately to distinguish his superior breeding and he is doing so with this new Anna Wintour/Vogue High Class Wimbledon Royal brand of clothing. You can't buy it at a store because it is too expensive for you. But it is not too expensive for our beloved King.

sh@de
09-19-2009, 02:50 AM
If this made sense (it doesn't) then you would have to consider also that prior to Miami this year, Nadal was 4-0 on Del Potro, having played him on all surfaces (and twice on hardcourts), never dropping a set.

Connors started out 8-0 against young Lendl. Then it was somewhat close for a couple of years (8-5 for Lendl) and it ended 15-0 for Lendl.

And the point? The point is: Things are what they are until they are no longer what they were. Federer's previous record against Del Potro says exactly nothing about what happened in their last match. Your claim that Del Potro played "one of the worst matches of his life" is complete nonsense. If you had followed Del Potro's game in any detail, you would have noticed that his game has improved enormously and moved to a completely different level over the last 18 months or so.

Did you even watch the match... it was such a poor match. Both players played poor.

Gut Feeling
09-19-2009, 09:33 AM
Really? How so? Federer has been #1 for many, many more weeks. He has made 22 consecutive GS semis. He has made 17 of the last 18 GS finals. He has won 15 GS's. He is like 130-1 against players outside of the Top 5 in GS's (Del Potro at #6 was his only loss this week).

Has Nadal even come close to any of the above?

Federer also destroyed Nadal in the '06 and '07 Master's Cups, and beat him in the '06 and '07 Wimbledon finals, and this year on red clay in front of his home crowd in straight sets. If Nadal was good enough to make more GS finals on hardcourts, Federer would have a much better H2H against Nadal.
So how in any way is Nadal "better" than Federer??? :confused:

players get better as they evolve:

Nadal is better now than he was at 19

federer is better Now than he was at 19

djokovoc is better now than he was at 19

and del potro is better now than he was at 19

Sentinel
09-19-2009, 10:01 AM
^^ I have a GUT FEELING who you really are .... lol.

Benhur
09-19-2009, 10:15 AM
Did you even watch the match... it was such a poor match. Both players played poor.

First, I should say I totally disagree with the title of this thread.

Regarding your question, yes I did. And I think the score in the final is much more representative of what went on than the score in the semifinal, where there were many many close games that ended up going in the same direction. Similar to the 6-1 6-0 score in the Nadal-Soderling match in Rome, which is one of the most deceptive scores I have ever seen.

Regarding the final, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets were very close, just as the score suggests, and they could have easily gone the other way, with Federer winning in 4 sets (or even in straights) if just a few points, very few, had gone the other way.

Now, had that happened, you would still have virtually the same match, but I am 100% certain that most of the "awful quality" theatrical wailing would be absent from these boards. Del Potro would have been perceived as putting up a valiant effort, keeping it close, and Federer's play would have been described as possessing great clutch to deal with the barrage of big shots from his opponent. This is more or less how Federer’s victory over Andreev at last years USO was, described, and rightly so. Had Federer lost that match, you would have the “awful play” machinery wailing in high falsetto, as usual.

The truth is that when it comes to assessing Federer’s play, the vast majority of his fans have a pathological, incurable reflex to explain every single one of his losses on his own bad play. The opponent never plays any role other than submissive sidekick or puppet to Federer’s brilliance or Federer’s suckery. I have no recollection of any of his fans ever attributing a Federer loss to great play by the opponent. Never seen it. It is by definition an impossible occurrence.

This reflex is common also among fans of other players to explain away their losses, of course, but among Federer’s fans it acquires the proportions of a fervent article of religious faith. Most Nadal fans here have readily acknowledged that Nadal was simply manhandled and outplayed by an inspired player in a number of important matches (Blake at the 05 USO, Gonzalez at the 07 AO, Tsonga at the 08 AO, Davydenko in Miami 08). By contrast, some Federer fans openly state that Federer simply “cannot lose” if he is playing well, period. This is preposterous but firmly ingrained in their soul. (And by the way, the Nadal fans who believe that Nadal “cannot lose on clay” if playing “his best”, are equally deluded).

The notion that how well you play is not entirely up to you, but depends to a great extent on how your opponent plays you, seems incomprehensible to the majority, or at least not applicable to Federer.

Statements like “Del Potro played one of the worst matches of his life” are so deliriously silly they merit no comment. With that kind of belief system, objective discussion is impossible.

Elegant_Roger
09-19-2009, 10:53 AM
Did you even watch the match... it was such a poor match. Both players played poor.

No they didn't. Sometimes it is one point which determines the result of a match, and at the 2009 US Open I believe it was the game on Fed's serve at 5-4 in the 2nd set which lost him the title.

The bigger question is why Fed got so sloppy in this crucial game. My thought is that some of the "Nadal effect" was in play here; when Fed faces an opponent who is able to match him shot for shot, as Delpo started doing in the 2nd set with his powerful groundstrokes, he can get frustrated, causing him to lose focus or become impatient, subsequently leading to poor decision-making on his part.

While Delpo's level picked up markedly in the 2nd set, he was still subject to bouts of nerves at times, as when he double-faulted to lose the 3rd set, and being down 2 sets to 0 would very likely have affected his confidence enough and Fed would've closed things out in 3 or 4 sets.

In that fateful game, Fed deployed an ill-considered drop volley, which Delpo lobbed over him, to which he replied with a no-look over the shoulder lob of his own that went out. The next two points featured great Delpo passing shots as Fed rushed the net on "Andy Roddick-like chip and charge approaches (i.e. hit it to the corner and pray something good happens as you rush the net). As Roddick (and Fed) should have learned by now, the most successful approaches against the master-passers of today's game are those which have a good chance to win the point in and of themselves, anything else generally leads to the net rusher facing a high chance of being passed.

Of course, this just shows how important the mental game is to the sport; even a player of Federer's veteran abilities can become undone as the result of just a few poor decisions. The power of Delpo's groundstrokes had put so much pressure on Federer's forehand that by the time of this crucial game he had lost confidence in his ability to beat Delpo with it, and this lack of faith in his ground game at this crucial juncture, in my opinion, cost him the match. Realize that Delpo was hitting his forehand returns so hard that Fed barely had time to get a racket on them, and yet still miraculously got the balls back in play. This was something Nadal was not able to do several days earlier.

borg number one
09-19-2009, 11:34 AM
Benhur, your post is very well put in my opinion. Great points there. Not all Federer fans are that way, but many are. I call it "drinking the kool aid". It's also not true that Nadal CANNOT BE BEAT on clay. He also has his share of problematic/unobjective fans, but I've certainly come across more Federer, oh let's say, "robots". Let's face it, all these guys are very human and tennis is EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, with little difference between 2 players during many matches. Plus, if you look at it, the scoring system can create situations in which a player wins many more points than someone, but still loses, so things can change quickly in matches. It just takes a break here or there, at critical times for example. That's why when anyone actually wins a GS, it takes a lot of things falling in place typically. Thanks.

zagor
09-19-2009, 11:40 AM
. Most Nadal fans here have readily acknowledged that Nadal was simply manhandled and outplayed by an inspired player in a number of important matches.

LOL! No,just no,you must be reading a different forum.

フェデラー
09-19-2009, 11:44 AM
Benhur, your post is very well put in my opinion. Great points there. Not all Federer fans are that way, but many are. I call it "drinking the kool aid". It's also not true that Nadal CANNOT BE BEAT on clay. He also has his share of problematic/unobjective fans, but I've certainly come across more Federer, oh let's say, "robots". Let's face it, all these guys are very human and tennis is EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, with little difference between 2 players during many matches. Plus, if you look at it, the scoring system can create situations in which a player wins many more points than someone, but still loses, so things can change quickly in matches. It just takes a break here or there, at critical times for example. That's why when anyone actually wins a GS, it takes a lot of things falling in place typically. Thanks.

thanks for the great lol fest. nadal was beat by fed easily at madrid and this was prior to any injury.

NamRanger
09-19-2009, 12:22 PM
Most Nadal fans here have readily acknowledged that Nadal was simply manhandled and outplayed by an inspired player in a number of important matches (Blake at the 05 USO, Gonzalez at the 07 AO, Tsonga at the 08 AO, Davydenko in Miami 08).




Say what? Maybe YOU can do that, but the majority of "Nadal Fans" that I know on this forum simply do not do that.



They attribute his losses to altitude, faster clay, knee tendinitis (slightly understandable, but still, an overused excuse), fatigue (an incredibly overused excuse), etc.

BreakPoint
09-19-2009, 01:38 PM
players get better as they evolve:

Nadal is better now than he was at 19

federer is better Now than he was at 19

djokovoc is better now than he was at 19

and del potro is better now than he was at 19
Huh? Del Potro is freaking 20! That's only one year! Federer is 28, much older than 19.

Oh, and Del Potro was the same age as he is now when Federer blew him away 6-3, 6-0, 6-0.

BreakPoint
09-19-2009, 01:43 PM
Regarding your question, yes I did. And I think the score in the final is much more representative of what went on than the score in the semifinal, where there were many many close games that ended up going in the same direction. Similar to the 6-1 6-0 score in the Nadal-Soderling match in Rome, which is one of the most deceptive scores I have ever seen.

You cannot be serious! Nadal only won 75 of the total 175 points in the match. That means Del Potro won 100. That's 100 to 75. If this was a basketball game, it would be called a blowout, a beatdown, mass destruction, or whatever you want to call it. The match was NOT close in any sense of the word. You must be a *********. :-?

Benhur
09-19-2009, 01:48 PM
LOL! No,just no,you must be reading a different forum.

Well, I am not going to start digging for the threads on those matches. But my recollection is that most Nadal fans acknowledged what happened without saying it was due to Nadal playing badly. That's how I recall it.

BreakPoint
09-19-2009, 06:07 PM
Regarding the final, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets were very close, just as the score suggests, and they could have easily gone the other way, with Federer winning in 4 sets (or even in straights) if just a few points, very few, had gone the other way.

Now, had that happened, you would still have virtually the same match, but I am 100% certain that most of the "awful quality" theatrical wailing would be absent from these boards. Del Potro would have been perceived as putting up a valiant effort, keeping it close, and Federer's play would have been described as possessing great clutch to deal with the barrage of big shots from his opponent. This is more or less how Federer’s victory over Andreev at last years USO was, described, and rightly so. Had Federer lost that match, you would have the “awful play” machinery wailing in high falsetto, as usual.
No, if Federer had won in straight sets, I would have said the same thing. I would say that he played terrible but Del Potro managed to play even worse and gifted the final to Federer on a silver platter.

The truth is that when it comes to assessing Federer’s play, the vast majority of his fans have a pathological, incurable reflex to explain every single one of his losses on his own bad play. The opponent never plays any role other than submissive sidekick or puppet to Federer’s brilliance or Federer’s suckery. I have no recollection of any of his fans ever attributing a Federer loss to great play by the opponent. Never seen it. It is by definition an impossible occurrence.

This reflex is common also among fans of other players to explain away their losses, of course, but among Federer’s fans it acquires the proportions of a fervent article of religious faith. Most Nadal fans here have readily acknowledged that Nadal was simply manhandled and outplayed by an inspired player in a number of important matches (Blake at the 05 USO, Gonzalez at the 07 AO, Tsonga at the 08 AO, Davydenko in Miami 08). By contrast, some Federer fans openly state that Federer simply “cannot lose” if he is playing well, period. This is preposterous but firmly ingrained in their soul. (And by the way, the Nadal fans who believe that Nadal “cannot lose on clay” if playing “his best”, are equally deluded).

The notion that how well you play is not entirely up to you, but depends to a great extent on how your opponent plays you, seems incomprehensible to the majority, or at least not applicable to Federer.

That's because Federer has so many dimensions that he can change his game to beat anyone, so yes, if he's playing at his very best, he is virtually unbeatable because he has many ways to exploit an opponent's weaknesses. Contrast that with Nadal who can only play one way. If that one way isn't working against a certain opponent, he doesn't possess the ability to change and play a different style of game. He just ends up getting beaten.

sh@de
09-19-2009, 07:57 PM
First, I should say I totally disagree with the title of this thread.

Regarding your question, yes I did. And I think the score in the final is much more representative of what went on than the score in the semifinal, where there were many many close games that ended up going in the same direction. Similar to the 6-1 6-0 score in the Nadal-Soderling match in Rome, which is one of the most deceptive scores I have ever seen.

Regarding the final, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets were very close, just as the score suggests, and they could have easily gone the other way, with Federer winning in 4 sets (or even in straights) if just a few points, very few, had gone the other way.

Now, had that happened, you would still have virtually the same match, but I am 100% certain that most of the "awful quality" theatrical wailing would be absent from these boards. Del Potro would have been perceived as putting up a valiant effort, keeping it close, and Federer's play would have been described as possessing great clutch to deal with the barrage of big shots from his opponent. This is more or less how Federer’s victory over Andreev at last years USO was, described, and rightly so. Had Federer lost that match, you would have the “awful play” machinery wailing in high falsetto, as usual.

The truth is that when it comes to assessing Federer’s play, the vast majority of his fans have a pathological, incurable reflex to explain every single one of his losses on his own bad play. The opponent never plays any role other than submissive sidekick or puppet to Federer’s brilliance or Federer’s suckery. I have no recollection of any of his fans ever attributing a Federer loss to great play by the opponent. Never seen it. It is by definition an impossible occurrence.

This reflex is common also among fans of other players to explain away their losses, of course, but among Federer’s fans it acquires the proportions of a fervent article of religious faith. Most Nadal fans here have readily acknowledged that Nadal was simply manhandled and outplayed by an inspired player in a number of important matches (Blake at the 05 USO, Gonzalez at the 07 AO, Tsonga at the 08 AO, Davydenko in Miami 08). By contrast, some Federer fans openly state that Federer simply “cannot lose” if he is playing well, period. This is preposterous but firmly ingrained in their soul. (And by the way, the Nadal fans who believe that Nadal “cannot lose on clay” if playing “his best”, are equally deluded).

The notion that how well you play is not entirely up to you, but depends to a great extent on how your opponent plays you, seems incomprehensible to the majority, or at least not applicable to Federer.

Statements like “Del Potro played one of the worst matches of his life” are so deliriously silly they merit no comment. With that kind of belief system, objective discussion is impossible.

LOL if Fed had won the match, it would've been even more pathetic. He played poor, period. If he won, then all that means is DP played even poorer. But DP won, so he played better than Fed. Hence he deserves the title. Does that mean Federer didn't play crap? No. Stop looking through tinted glasses.

If Fed had won, I would definitely say he didn't deserve it. And of course you don't believe me right?

Gut Feeling
09-19-2009, 11:17 PM
Huh? Del Potro is freaking 20! That's only one year! Federer is 28, much older than 19.

Oh, and Del Potro was the same age as he is now when Federer blew him away 6-3, 6-0, 6-0.

Yes it is. There is a breakout year for every player.

Delpotro broke out at 20

I think Federers breakout year was 23???

Djokovic is also I think 20???

Every player evolves....very few hit the ground running. The only one I can think of that did that was Borg.

Nadal started great at 17 but he really only started to dominate at 22 when he beat Federer at the FO,Wimby,AO......

The point is players get better and have a breakout year. Del Potro is coming inot his own. Every year he got better and better ,,,,,and now at 20 he beat
Federer simply because he is a stronger player now than he was as a teeny bopper.

Breakpoint....I have a challenge for you. Other than clay has Federer ever lost a match where he played great?

asdfuogh
09-19-2009, 11:24 PM
Federer lost to Nalbandian in the 2005 Shanghai... although the extremists might stick the blame on his ankle or something..

Anyway, wow, I guess I wasn't really a Federer fan ever if these are what "fans' are like. Delpo played well and Federer didn't play too intelligently.. give it a rest!

asdfuogh
09-19-2009, 11:25 PM
Oops, I wanna edit what I said but I don't see the option... so double post=>

The lost to Nalbandian wasn't a bad match. Federer played great, but Nalbandian weathered the storm and won.

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 12:24 AM
Yes it is. There is a breakout year for every player.

Delpotro broke out at 20

I think Federers breakout year was 23???

Djokovic is also I think 20???

Every player evolves....very few hit the ground running. The only one I can think of that did that was Borg.

Nadal started great at 17 but he really only started to dominate at 22 when he beat Federer at the FO,Wimby,AO......

The point is players get better and have a breakout year. Del Potro is coming inot his own. Every year he got better and better ,,,,,and now at 20 he beat
Federer simply because he is a stronger player now than he was as a teeny bopper.

Breakpoint....I have a challenge for you. Other than clay has Federer ever lost a match where he played great?
Yes, Del Potro broke out at 20. But Federer had beaten Del Potro 4 times in a row when Del Potro was 20, including that 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 beatdown in this year's Aus Open QF. Del Potro hadn't even come close to taking a single set off of Federer in 5 matches until this year's French.

And, no, off of the top of my head, I can't think of a single match when Federer played great and still lost. Someone would have to be even greater than the greatest of all time to be able to beat him when he is playing great. When he is playing great (such as in the Cincy semis vs. Murray and in the final vs. Djokovic), he is an unstoppable weapon of mass destruction. :)

Rob_C
09-20-2009, 02:01 AM
And, no, off of the top of my head, I can't think of a single match when Federer played great and still lost. Someone would have to be even greater than the greatest of all time to be able to beat him when he is playing great. When he is playing great (such as in the Cincy semis vs. Murray and in the final vs. Djokovic), he is an unstoppable weapon of mass destruction. :)

2005 AO semis against Safin???

Sentinel
09-20-2009, 06:23 AM
The truth is that when it comes to assessing Federer’s play, the vast majority of his fans have a pathological, incurable reflex to explain every single one of his losses on his own bad play. The opponent never plays any role other than submissive sidekick or puppet to Federer’s brilliance or Federer’s suckery. I have no recollection of any of his fans ever attributing a Federer loss to great play by the opponent. Never seen it. It is by definition an impossible occurrence.



Ben, I like most of your posts. However, the above is a statement you make casually without reading the forum. There are not just posts, but threads about Fed fans who appreciate Delpo and his game.

jackson vile
09-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Federer played one of the worst matches of his career. Terrible serving. Shanking every other ball. Totally the wrong strategy of hitting exclusively to Delpo's forehand. Weak returns of serve. Was not aggressive on 2nd serve returns. Stopped coming into the net. Unforced errors like crazy. Very bad decision making throughout the entire match. He must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something as he just seemed all out of sorts out there.

Maybe his babies kept him up all night? Whatever it was, he definitely was not himself out there today.

Delpo didn't even play all that well and he still beat Federer. Just a pathetic performance altogether by Federer.

Are you kidding me???? When the hell are the excuses going to stop?

Look Roger has not looked this good ie during the USO for at least a year, he got his 1HBH back, more agressive etc.

The reason Roger lost is he couldn't deal with Delpotro, he knew the only way he could win would be to play HUGE, and Roger could not get it done because Delpotro was overwhelming.

You sir need a reality check badly!

jackson vile
09-20-2009, 09:40 AM
I think by the time Aussie Open rolls around, Fed will be all business once again. No shenanigans.

Really? Roger almost lost to Roddick at Wim, almost lost to Tommy, and Delpotro.

Delpotro has proven that it is no fluke, he overwhelmed Roger and Roger could not deal with the pressure.

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 10:50 AM
2005 AO semis against Safin???
I thought he played pretty well but not "great". When playing "great", he doesn't try a between the legs shot on match point up. That was obviously a brain cramp. :(

Cesc Fabregas
09-20-2009, 10:58 AM
I thought he played pretty well but not "great". When playing "great", he doesn't try a between the legs shot on match point up. That was obviously a brain cramp. :(

Federer played one of his best matches of his career against Safin, but it just happened Safin was playing at an even higher level.

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 10:59 AM
Are you kidding me???? When the hell are the excuses going to stop?

Look Roger has not looked this good ie during the USO for at least a year, he got his 1HBH back, more agressive etc.

The reason Roger lost is he couldn't deal with Delpotro, he knew the only way he could win would be to play HUGE, and Roger could not get it done because Delpotro was overwhelming.

You sir need a reality check badly!
Um...then how did Federer beat Del Potro 6 times in a row? How has he beaten Del Potro on grass, clay, and hardcourt (the last time being only 7 months ago in an annihilation at the AO QF, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0)? He didn't know how to deal with Del Potro? Get real! He knows EXACTLY how to beat Del Potro, and trying to play huge is NOT it! He knows that. He's beaten him like a drum before by purposely NOT playing huge but by giving him junk instead. He did some of that in the 1st set and won the set easily (should have been 6-1 as he had over 10 break point chances). But for some inexplicable reason, he STOPPED doing it. He started to play the game that Del Potro WANTED him to play and with which Del Potro is the most comfortable with. Federer is usually a very intelligent player on the court, but that was one of the dumbest matches he has ever played.

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 11:02 AM
what a ret ***, he was match point up when he play between the legs just like his spectacular winner v djokovic, mmmmk? brain cramp indeed, u win some u lose some mr contradiction. :)
Um...did Federer have match point when he did it versus Djokovic? :-?

And what are the odds that you'll be able to hit a clean winner on a tweener? 100 to 1? Anyone who tries it on match point is an idiot.

Turning Pro
09-20-2009, 11:03 AM
er del potro came of age at the french, should of won barring fitness, brain cramp w hen break up in 5th, and was pre-prime. he was just better and was outhit, outplayed similar to ao 09, ao 05 and masters cup 05

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 11:09 AM
er del potro came of age at the french, should of won barring fitness, brain cramp w hen break up in 5th, and was pre-prime. he was just better and was outhit, outplayed similar to ao 09, ao 05 and masters cup 05
Do you even play tennis and know how strategy works? You don't give your opponent what they want you to give them. You give them what they don't want to annoy the heck out of them. Federer is the master at this. That's how he's dominated Del Potro. For some unknown reason in the USO final, he tried to outhit him. Well, you know how that turns out. If you don't, just ask Nadal.

aphex
09-20-2009, 11:16 AM
Um...then how did Federer beat Del Potro 6 times in a row? How has he beaten Del Potro on grass, clay, and hardcourt (the last time being only 7 months ago in an annihilation at the AO QF, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0)? He didn't know how to deal with Del Potro? Get real! He knows EXACTLY how to beat Del Potro, and trying to play huge is NOT it! He knows that. He's beaten him like a drum before by purposely NOT playing huge but by giving him junk instead. He did some of that in the 1st set and won the set easily (should have been 6-1 as he had over 10 break point chances). But for some inexplicable reason, he STOPPED doing it. He started to play the game that Del Potro WANTED him to play and with which Del Potro is the most comfortable with. Federer is usually a very intelligent player on the court, but that was one of the dumbest matches he has ever played.

people seem to forget delpo got exactly 14 points in 2 sets 8 months ago.

Augustus
09-20-2009, 11:25 AM
The US Open was full of drama was full of drama, but it really was a bad match. Federer should have made the difference either at the end of the second set or at the start of the fourth.
He didn't, and Del Potro took advantage by playing really solid. It just seemed to me that Federer was irritated since the serve incident and he wanted to beat DP at his own game.
By doing this Del Potro could find his rhythym and started to dominate in the rallies.
At the end of the third Del Potro collapsed completely, but Federer failed to take advantage and went into choke mode on the BP's he had. His serving was abysmal and his DF to start the TB was the finishing touch...

sureshs
09-20-2009, 12:16 PM
Read this:

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/tk-3.html

Federer had no answer to DP's groundies. That is all.

aphex
09-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Read this:

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/tk-3.html

Federer had no answer to DP's groundies. That is all.

you're confusing federer with nadal.

the semi was the definition of "having no answers".

actually, it was the definition of "demolition".

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-20-2009, 01:14 PM
Ben, I like most of your posts. However, the above is a statement you make casually without reading the forum. There are not just posts, but threads about Fed fans who appreciate Delpo and his game.

Fed didn't tank, but Delpo should thank him anyway - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=289250

Did Fed Tank this one to Delpo? - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288723

Is Roger asleep today, worst tennis ever from him. - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288005

will Delpo beat Federer again in a slam? - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=289222

Fed's done, the fire is gone.. - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288246

Federer sucked.... - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288594

My take on the USO final, and future of Federer - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288178

Federer Right (Again) About The Challenge System - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288102

Have you seen a game where Federer has served worse? - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=288210

There is more, but reviving old threads is a very low forum strategy, so I won't do it again....

Benhur
09-20-2009, 02:48 PM
Do you even play tennis and know how strategy works? You don't give your opponent what they want you to give them. You give them what they don't want to annoy the heck out of them. Federer is the master at this. That's how he's dominated Del Potro. For some unknown reason in the USO final, he tried to outhit him. Well, you know how that turns out. If you don't, just ask Nadal.

Ah, we see. Up until this match, Federer had a waterproof strategy all worked out to beat Del Potro in his previous matches with him. It had always worked perfectly, and master tennis strategist BreakPoint knew exactly what the strategy was. The strategy consisted in not doing what Del Potro wanted Federer to do (which sounds like a very good strategy, whatever it involves). However, precisely at their USO final, Federer decided “for some unknown reason” (to irritate BreakPoint, perhaps?) to ditch that superb strategy and instead start doing precisely what Del Potro wanted him to do, and the opposite of what BreakPoint wanted him to do, which was: beat Del Potro however you can
In this manner, Federer was not defeated by Del Potro, but rather chose to beat himself “for some unknown reason”.

Del Potro, on the other hand (according to this script) also did everything possible to do what Federer wanted him to do and so he proceeded to play “one of the worst matches of his life.” But even that was not enough, because Federer’s determination to lose was even stronger, and, since the King can accomplish what he wants in tennis more efficiently that Del Potro, he did it with ease.

You ask people if they play tennis. People wonder when does a 24,000+ post poster who posts such popcorn have time to play tennis, and with which parts of his anatomy.

Gut Feeling
09-20-2009, 04:12 PM
I can't think of a single match when Federer played great and still lost.

I rest my case. There is always an excuse.

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 05:08 PM
Read this:

http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2009/09/tk-3.html

Federer had no answer to DP's groundies. That is all.
Yeah, Federer had the answers for 6 straight matches against Del Potro but somehow "lost" the answers in the US Open final? Yeah, maybe his dog ate the answers? :-?

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 05:13 PM
In this manner, Federer was not defeated by Del Potro, but rather chose to beat himself “for some unknown reason”.

Hey, you said it. not me.

You ask people if they play tennis. People wonder when does a 24,000+ post poster who posts such popcorn have time to play tennis, and with which parts of his anatomy.
I play tennis every single day of the year for hours, which I'm sure is much, much more than the great majority of the people who post on this board. :)

BreakPoint
09-20-2009, 05:16 PM
I rest my case. There is always an excuse.
Yes, that excuse being that he didn't play "great". :shock:

President
09-20-2009, 05:23 PM
Yeah, Federer had the answers for 6 straight matches against Del Potro but somehow "lost" the answers in the US Open final? Yeah, maybe his dog ate the answers? :-?

Del Potro had been making fast improvements in the time leading up to the USO Final. Contrast his performance at the AO with that at the French Open. He even improved during the summer hardcourt season, winning Legg Mason and reaching the final of Montreal (he was definitely outplaying Murray in the final but his strenuous schedule caught up to him) I agree that Federer did not play a really good match by his standards, but it wasn't anywhere near the worst he's played.

The shift in momentum during the final I think had more to do with Del Potro than Federer. Del Potro's nerves got the better of him in the early part of the match, and when he realized that he could actually hang with Federer he started playing much better. Federer did start to become a bit mentally unhinged (umpire incident), but I really don't think he lost the match for himself. Del Potro won it.

ksbh
09-21-2009, 09:25 AM
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I get the impression that behind the thinly veiled appreciation of Del Potro, many Federer fans are actually bitter that Juan MDP beat him.

Get this straight ... Federer didn't throw this match away. Juan MDP simply hit him off the court. 6-2 in the final set ... that isn't even close!

Federer_pilon
09-21-2009, 09:31 AM
Um...then how did Federer beat Del Potro 6 times in a row? How has he beaten Del Potro on grass, clay, and hardcourt (the last time being only 7 months ago in an annihilation at the AO QF, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0)? He didn't know how to deal with Del Potro? Get real! He knows EXACTLY how to beat Del Potro, and trying to play huge is NOT it! He knows that. He's beaten him like a drum before by purposely NOT playing huge but by giving him junk instead. He did some of that in the 1st set and won the set easily (should have been 6-1 as he had over 10 break point chances). But for some inexplicable reason, he STOPPED doing it. He started to play the game that Del Potro WANTED him to play and with which Del Potro is the most comfortable with. Federer is usually a very intelligent player on the court, but that was one of the dumbest matches he has ever played.

Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 on clay a few weeks before losing to him at RG...Just because Fed beat DP 6 times in a row doesn't mean he's going to beat him all the time.

zagor
09-21-2009, 09:36 AM
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I get the impression that behind the thinly veiled appreciation of Del Potro, many Federer fans are actually bitter that Juan MDP beat him.

Get this straight ... Federer didn't throw this match away. Juan MDP simply hit him off the court. 6-2 in the final set ... that isn't even close!

Nope,there are way more Fed fans who congratulated and were glad for Delpo,there are several threads to attest to this.Don't confuse BP with how majority Fed fans feel about Delpo's win.I didn't even particulary care that much for the outcome of the USO final as I like Delpo's game and Fed winning FO and breaking Pete's record this year was enough for me,6th USO in a row would have been the icing on the cake but it's hardly something Fed himself or his fans can't get over with considering what he accomplished this year.

Also regardless of the result of the final set the match was indeed very close and was decided by few points(don't forget Delpo won 2 sets in tiebreaks),unless you consider Fed's win over Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon not to have been very close either because of the 6-2 in final set?

Gut Feeling
09-21-2009, 09:45 AM
I can't think of a single match when Federer played great and still lost.

I rest my case. There is always an excuse.

Yes, that excuse being that he didn't play "great". :shock:

Oh come on now. You have had many more excuses besides that.

ksbh
09-21-2009, 09:46 AM
Zagor ... O' best of the objective posters, it's been ages since I exchanged posts with you!

As regards your last remark, I agree that both the matches were close. I was just referring to the last set which was one sided in both those contests.

Nope,there are way more Fed fans who congratulated and were glad for Delpo,there are several threads to attest to this.Don't confuse BP with how majority Fed fans feel about Delpo's win.I didn't even particulary care that much for the outcome of the USO final as I like Delpo's game and Fed winning FO and breaking Pete's record this year was enough for me,6th USO in a row would have been the icing on the cake but it's hardly something Fed himself or his fans can't get over with considering what he accomplished this year.

Also regardless of the result of the final set the match was indeed very close and was decided by few points(don't forget Delpo won 2 sets in tiebreaks),unless you consider Fed's win over Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon not to have been very close either because of the 6-2 in final set?

zagor
09-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Zagor ... O' best of the objective posters, it's been ages since I exchanged posts with you!

As regards your last remark, I agree that both the matches were close. I was just referring to the last set which was one sided in both those contests.

Heh,thanks for that man.

I agree the last set was one sided,Delpo was hitting with amazing pace and Fed couldn't handle it,he was overpowered which almost never happens to Fed because he's one of the best players ever at handling pace.

Don't pay attention to BP,the guy's a complete fanboy.I liked NF way better than him actually.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
09-21-2009, 09:56 AM
A suggestion...moving on? no?
Del Po won, i was extremely disappointed, end of story.

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
09-21-2009, 11:05 AM
A suggestion...moving on? no?
Del Po won, i was extremely disappointed, end of story.

Yeah, moving on is the best idea.

I would like to see what Fed will do in his next match with DelPo. What is he gonna change.............

Gut Feeling
09-21-2009, 11:26 AM
Yeah, moving on is the best idea.

I would like to see what Fed will do in his next match with DelPo. What is he gonna change.............

Fed never changes.....he is too stubborn. Thats why he keeps losing to Nadal.

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 11:32 AM
Get this straight ... Federer didn't throw this match away. Juan MDP simply hit him off the court. 6-2 in the final set ... that isn't even close!
You're right, 6-2 is not close. So what would you call: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2? Not even in the same stratosphere?

Yes, Del Potro hit Federer off of the court in the last 3 sets, but that was because Federer allowed DP to hit him off of the court. DP could have also hit Federer off of the court the last several times that they've played but in those cases, Federer did not allow him to. He also did not allow him to in the first set and a half of the USO final. How? By not getting into a baseline slugfest with him, which is what DP does best and what he's most comfortable with. Watch their past matches and you'll see what I mean, especially the '09 AO QF and the '09 Madrid semis. Federer avoided getting into a slugfest with DP on purpose but instead hit tons of drop shots, short chips, slices, and moved DP front to back very effectively, taking advantage of the big guy's poorer movement. That kept DP off balance and very uncomfortable and never allowed DP to get into any kind of rhythm. That's how Federer beat him 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 in Aus and 6-3, 6-4 in Madrid. So Federer knows very well how to beat DP, but for some reason he stopped doing it in the last 3 sets of the USO final.

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 11:36 AM
Nadal beat Soderling 6-1 6-0 on clay a few weeks before losing to him at RG...Just because Fed beat DP 6 times in a row doesn't mean he's going to beat him all the time.
That 6-1, 6-0 match was a VERY close match. If Soderling had converted a few of the many break points he had and Nadal didn't, it could have easily been 6-1, 6-0 for Soderling.

BTW, so does Federer know how to beat Soderling and Davydenko? He is 12-0 versus each of them.

Cesc Fabregas
09-21-2009, 11:41 AM
That 6-1, 6-0 match was a VERY close match. If Soderling had converted a few of the many break points he had and Nadal didn't, it could have easily been 6-1, 6-0 for Soderling.

BTW, so does Federer know how to beat Soderling and Davydenko? He is 12-0 versus each of them.

Nadal beats Soderling 6-0 6-1 and its a close match, but Soderling beats Nadal in a 4th set tiebreak and its a beatdown. Wheres the logic in that?

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 11:44 AM
Nadal beats Soderling 6-0 6-1 and its a close match, but Soderling beats Nadal in a 4th set tiebreak and its a beatdown. Wheres the logic in that?
I've never said Soderling beating Nadal at the French was a beatdown. Look it up. I said Del Potro beating Nadal in the USO semis was a beatdown.

ksbh
09-21-2009, 11:53 AM
That is correct. YOu got it spot on. To summarize-

Del Potro blew Nadal right off the court in the semi-final and in the final, he brushed aside Federer in the decisive final set.

There is nothing that Nadal or Federer could have done to stop Del Potro. That is why, he is a deserving champion!

You're right, 6-2 is not close. So what would you call: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2? Not even in the same stratosphere?

Cesc Fabregas
09-21-2009, 11:53 AM
I've never said Soderling beating Nadal at the French was a beatdown. Look it up. I said Del Potro beating Nadal in the USO semis was a beatdown.

What are you talking about? Nadal played great. He just simply got smoked by Soderling. Just like Cilic smoked Murray yesterday.

Yeah, sure, Nadal plays better on grass than on clay? Tell me another one. How many titles has Nadal won on clay in his career versus on grass? Case closed.

Soderling was also a "nobody" until he spanked Nadal at Roland Garros. :oops:

Soderling murdered Nadal.

:oops::oops:

TMF
09-21-2009, 12:21 PM
Del Potro did not blew Fed away, but it Federer shot himself on the foot. Of his 21 GS final appearances, the 2008 USO final was his worst serving day. He served a career low 51%, and 11 double faults. You can't serve this badly and expect to win in a GS final, maybe in the early round. Had TMF served 60% and cut down his df, he would of pulled off the win. If he continue to serve this bad at the GS final in the future, he will lose again. But despite of a a terrible serving day, the match still end in a 5 sets. So no one blew anyone away.

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 12:55 PM
:oops::oops:
Um...so exactly when did I use the word "beatdown"? :confused:

Do you even know what the word "beatdown" means?

OK, I'll define it for you: 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. THAT'S a "beatdown"! :oops:

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 12:56 PM
Del Potro did not blew Fed away, but it Federer shot himself on the foot. Of his 21 GS final appearances, the 2008 USO final was his worst serving day. He served a career low 51%, and 11 double faults. You can't serve this badly and expect to win in a GS final, maybe in the early round. Had TMF served 60% and cut down his df, he would of pulled off the win. If he continue to serve this bad at the GS final in the future, he will lose again. But despite of a a terrible serving day, the match still end in a 5 sets. So no one blew anyone away.
You mean 2009.

boojay
09-21-2009, 01:02 PM
Being blown away in this case is relative. Yes, Fed losing in 5 and the way he did against a super saiyan Delpo was a blowout by Fed's standards. Whereas the Delpo beatdown of Nadal was not totally surprising and nowhere near as much of an upset.

Gut Feeling
09-21-2009, 01:38 PM
Delpotro was scared out of his mind . He is a 20 year old in NYC at the open against Federer. He was so nervous that he doublefaulted a set away....and Fed was nevertheless blown out in that final set when delpotro finally overcame his nerves.

Tony48
09-21-2009, 01:56 PM
Reading some of the posts in this thread, I get the impression that behind the thinly veiled appreciation of Del Potro, many Federer fans are actually bitter that Juan MDP beat him.

Get this straight ... Federer didn't throw this match away. Juan MDP simply hit him off the court. 6-2 in the final set ... that isn't even close!

Federer fans are bitter when ANYONE beats him.

jackson vile
09-21-2009, 02:56 PM
Um...then how did Federer beat Del Potro 6 times in a row? How has he beaten Del Potro on grass, clay, and hardcourt (the last time being only 7 months ago in an annihilation at the AO QF, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0)? He didn't know how to deal with Del Potro? Get real! He knows EXACTLY how to beat Del Potro, and trying to play huge is NOT it! He knows that. He's beaten him like a drum before by purposely NOT playing huge but by giving him junk instead. He did some of that in the 1st set and won the set easily (should have been 6-1 as he had over 10 break point chances). But for some inexplicable reason, he STOPPED doing it. He started to play the game that Del Potro WANTED him to play and with which Del Potro is the most comfortable with. Federer is usually a very intelligent player on the court, but that was one of the dumbest matches he has ever played.

You are crazy, in your own thread you admit that Roger made the mistake! Roger was at his best and simply could not get it done because Delpo would not allow it!

Delpo is still growing as a player and will continue to get better. I will bet you Delpo will beat Roger again and in a major at that.

The-Champ
09-21-2009, 03:54 PM
Nadal beats Soderling 6-0 6-1 and its a close match, but Soderling beats Nadal in a 4th set tiebreak and its a beatdown. Wheres the logic in that?


Yeah...don't forget when Nadal straight seted Söderling in 2006 FO (62 75 61), Nadal barely escaped that one.


Against Federer in 2008 FO final....it was a match that could've gone either way.


So of course, Nadal beating Söderling 60 61 was a very close match, which Nadal was lucky to win.

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 04:14 PM
You are crazy, in your own thread you admit that Roger made the mistake! Roger was at his best and simply could not get it done because Delpo would not allow it!
Wow, just wow! Roger was "at his best"? If you call serving at only 50%, with 11 double-faults and only 14 aces, and only 5/22 on break points, "at his best", then what do you call what he did at Wimbledon when he served 50 aces and only 4 double-faults and a 1st serve % of 64%? "Bestest"? :oops:

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 04:15 PM
Yeah...don't forget when Nadal straight seted Söderling in 2006 FO (62 75 61), Nadal barely escaped that one.

Are you serious? In 2006, Soerling was ranked #50. Hardly a factor.

The-Champ
09-21-2009, 04:25 PM
Are you serious? In 2006, Soerling was ranked #50. Hardly a factor.


are you serious? Nadal being no.1, lost to a player ranked outside top #100 in an exhibition match on CLAY a day or two before this year's FO.

Heyford Price
09-21-2009, 04:48 PM
The Champ (¿?) you should add in your signature: ZERO USO titles or finals, and ZERO Tennis master cup titles or finals...

The-Champ
09-21-2009, 05:07 PM
The Champ (¿?) you should add in your signature: ZERO USO titles or finals, and ZERO Tennis master cup titles or finals...



even better...13-7 against the so-called "GOAT"

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 07:02 PM
are you serious? Nadal being no.1, lost to a player ranked outside top #100 in an exhibition match on CLAY a day or two before this year's FO.
You're right, Nadal sucks. ;-) Just kidding.....

Do you think Nadal takes an exhibition match against an unknown as seriously as he takes the French Open?

BreakPoint
09-21-2009, 07:04 PM
even better...13-7 against the so-called "GOAT"
You mean: "15-6, GOAT vs. Not the GOAT" :oops:

Tony48
09-21-2009, 07:25 PM
Wow, just wow! Roger was "at his best"? If you call serving at only 50%, with 11 double-faults and only 14 aces, and only 5/22 on break points, "at his best", then what do you call what he did at Wimbledon when he served 50 aces and only 4 double-faults and a 1st serve % of 64%? "Bestest"? :oops:

Why do you think Roger was playing so poorly?