PDA

View Full Version : What was the turning point for Federer's year?


flyinghippos101
10-11-2009, 02:59 PM
It was clear that a certain event was the catalyst for Federer suddenly not sucking. It can be debated that it was a result of one of the following events

1. The loss at the Australian Open final to Nadal and the subsequent emotional breakdown
2. Sub-par early hardcourt season
3. The racket smash in Miami
4. Losing to Wawrinka at Monte Carlo
5. Madrid Masters win over Nadal and ending his year and a half Masters drought
6. First French Open win

Turning Pro
10-11-2009, 03:00 PM
nadal's injury in the semi v djoker in madrid.

Sartorius
10-11-2009, 03:01 PM
7.The practice week he had before Madrid.

Something obviously clicked there and he was suddenly playing a lot better.

luckyboy1300
10-11-2009, 03:04 PM
it's certainly his madrid masters win.

norbac
10-11-2009, 03:21 PM
Madrid......

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Pulling out those matches early in the FO vs Acasuso and Haas. Really gave him confidence and helped propel him to the FO title after Rafa's loss vs Soderling.

VivalaVida
10-11-2009, 03:30 PM
nadal's injury in the semi v djoker in madrid.
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/49/dawson_crying.gif

P_Agony
10-11-2009, 03:34 PM
nadal's injury in the semi v djoker in madrid.

He was injured after playing just 55 minutes of tennis? :confused::shock:

SerbWhoLovesDelPo
10-11-2009, 03:45 PM
After Nadal's loss at RG, he was gonna win it anyway. Same with Wimbledon. He always gets it together for slams.

He was injured after playing just 55 minutes of tennis? :confused::shock:

He could have. I'm not saying he did, but he could have.

Soccer matches effectively last even shorter than 55 mins and still players can pick up an injury during a match.

Baikalic
10-11-2009, 03:53 PM
Definitely Madrid.

IvanAndreevich
10-11-2009, 04:30 PM
Madrid. Said in the press conference that he's ready to win it. Stepped on the court and played like Roger Federer ought to all the way through.

Breaker
10-11-2009, 04:32 PM
After Nadal's loss at RG, he was gonna win it anyway. Same with Wimbledon. He always gets it together for slams.



He could have. I'm not saying he did, but he could have.

Soccer matches effectively last even shorter than 55 mins and still players can pick up an injury during a match.

Err, what? maybe for some centre halves on the best teams and forwards on the lesser teams but full backs, midfielders, and strikers who track back without being subbed are usually running for a full 90. Not to mention these injuries usually come from being hacked in the shins whilst running at top speed, being elbowed, or other contact.

matchmaker
10-11-2009, 04:39 PM
Well, it is obvious that he had a terrible start of the year: the Nadal debacle at the AO, a subpar HC season, smashing racquets, faltering forehand, losses to players he should not lose against,...

The turnaround was definitely Madrid and coupled to that Nadal's failing physique that all of a sudden opened a boulevard to the elusive FO title and from there on he had so much confidence that he pulled out the match against Roddick at Wimbledon, reaching his lifetime goal: 15 GS victories + carreer Grand Slam.

No more pressure at that point, to the extent he let the USO slip away, probably due to a lack of eagerness.

We will never know what would have happened if Nadal were fully fit and had won the Madrid Masters for instance.

Roger's year might have been catastrophic as a consequence of yet another loss.

But it appears little details change the grand scheme of things.

grimmbomb21
10-11-2009, 04:43 PM
Voted other. (Nadal injury)

sunnyIce
10-11-2009, 04:51 PM
2 weeks of intense training in the mountains of Germany, where the focus was Serve and Fhands.

IvanAndreevich
10-11-2009, 05:07 PM
Voted other. (Nadal injury)

Was that during the time violations in the Djokovic Madrid match while he was standing around, or some other time?

darthpwner
10-11-2009, 06:35 PM
Beating Nadal in Madrid. Gave him supreme confidence

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 06:45 PM
I don't get why everyone is saying Madrid, it's like they forget the matches he had to pull out vs Acasuso, Haas, and JMDP in the French to even get to the finals. Even after the Madrid title, and after Nadal's loss, the Fed FO title was not set in stone.

The inside out FH here @ 0:15 was the true turning pt of Federer's season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEg_0a9av-E

Talker
10-11-2009, 06:46 PM
To win Madrid was a result of a turning point earlier.
Probably the racket smash.

downdaline
10-11-2009, 07:27 PM
I don't get why everyone is saying Madrid, it's like they forget the matches he had to pull out vs Acasuso, Haas, and JMDP in the French to even get to the finals. Even after the Madrid title, and after Nadal's loss, the Fed FO title was not set in stone.

The inside out FH here @ 0:15 was the true turning pt of Federer's season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEg_0a9av-E

I actually think that's very true.

namelessone
10-11-2009, 09:55 PM
It's a combination of him gaining a bit of confidence after the Madrid win, Nadal's body failing and him surviving Acasuso,Haas and JDMP in FO. I don't think Nadal got injured in Madrid per se,just that playing Madrid worsened his condition. Nadal played with pain in his knees since Monte Carlo and played 3 consecutive tournaments in one month without rest. Then he rested one week and played Madrid in which he had a tough match with djoker.

It doesn't matter if the played 55 minutes,15 minutes or whatever. Has anyone actually watched that match? There was time stalling from both players but the points were loooongg,just like in the previous Nadal-Djokovic matches in this clay season. That can't have been good for Nadal who already had physical problems since MC. After Madrid Nadal went to the doc again to get checked up and then the rollercoaster of injuries started.

I don't understand why people isolate the Madrid match between him and Fed. Fed knew he had his work cut out for him even after Madrid. He sure didn't seem at his best in the early matches of FO. If Madrid rejuvenated him he ought to have played better in FO against Acasuso and Haas because of his new found confidence but he didn't,in fact he was a few balls away from being ousted by the german. What really kicked Fed's mental game into high gear was Nadal's elimination. He seemed more focused after that because he knew that his chances had increased exponentially.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:07 PM
It's a combination of him gaining a bit of confidence after the Madrid win, Nadal's body failing and him surviving Acasuso,Haas and JDMP in FO. I don't think Nadal got injured in Madrid per se,just that playing Madrid worsened his condition. Nadal played with pain in his knees since Monte Carlo and played 3 consecutive tournaments in one month without rest. Then he rested one week and played Madrid in which he had a tough match with djoker.

It doesn't matter if the played 55 minutes,15 minutes or whatever. Has anyone actually watched that match? There was time stalling from both players but the points were loooongg,just like in the previous Nadal-Djokovic matches in this clay season. That can't have been good for Nadal who already had physical problems since MC. After Madrid Nadal went to the doc again to get checked up and then the rollercoaster of injuries started.

I don't understand why people isolate the Madrid match between him and Fed. Fed knew he had his work cut out for him even after Madrid. He sure didn't seem at his best in the early matches of FO. If Madrid rejuvenated him he ought to have played better in FO against Acasuso and Haas because of his new found confidence but he didn't,in fact he was a few balls away from being ousted by the german. What really kicked Fed's mental game into high gear was Nadal's elimination. He seemed more focused after that because he knew that his chances had increased exponentially.

Didn't the Haas match come after Nadal was eliminated.

I still say that inside out FH at 30-40 3-4 down 2 sets to love vs Haas was the turning point of his season.

grafselesfan
10-11-2009, 10:10 PM
The moment Nadal got injured.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:10 PM
Obvious troll is obvious.

namelessone
10-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Didn't the Haas match come after Nadal was eliminated.

I still say that inside out FH at 30-40 3-4 down 2 sets to love vs Haas was the turning point of his season.

Hence the nervousness of Fed. He knew he had this one chance and he better not blow it,that's my reason for why he played so bad against haas in the first 2 sets. Ok,Tommy played some great tennis but Federer was shaking in his boots. Those who remember the match know that once Federer got the third,Haas crumbled mentally. Federer literally breezed through the following set and haas came back shortly only in the middle of the 5th. Seriously,the 4th set of that encounter seemed like speed tennis,and the same can be said for the first part of the fifth.

grafselesfan
10-11-2009, 10:13 PM
The fact is Federer's fortunes began to turn almost the exact point Nadal became seriously injured. If you choose to consider that complete coincidence go ahead, but the facts are there.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:20 PM
Hence the nervousness of Fed. He knew he had this one chance and he better not blow it,that's my reason for why he played so bad against haas in the first 2 sets. Ok,Tommy played some great tennis but Federer was shaking in his boots. Those who remember the match know that once Federer got the third,Haas crumbled mentally. Federer literally breezed through the following set and haas came back shortly only in the middle of the 5th. Seriously,the 4th set of that encounter seemed like speed tennis,and the same can be said for the first part of the fifth.

True. Hence my reasoning for that inside out FH being the turning point of this season. Just think if he misses that and loses that match, it really changes the whole course of the year - JMDP would have more than likely gone on to win the tourney, then who knows if Fed even takes Wimbledon at that point, we could've had JMDP w/ 2 slams this season had Fed lost that match. :shock:

BorisBeckerFan
10-11-2009, 10:20 PM
He was injured after playing just 55 minutes of tennis? :confused::shock:

It only takes one point to get injured.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 10:22 PM
The fact is Federer's fortunes began to turn almost the exact point Nadal became seriously injured. If you choose to consider that complete coincidence go ahead, but the facts are there. Nadal wasnt injured in Madrid and to be honest I think Roger's turn around began in Rome gamewise although he lost to Djokovic.
Using that logic Nadal would've had an even harder time getting to no.1 had Roger not lost all those points in the first half of the year due to mono.
So in a way..Nadal's fortunes turned BECAUSE Roger got mono...and later back injury.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 10:24 PM
It only takes one point to get injured. LOLz.He didnt fall down or something..and no way I'm buying those BS Time-wasting tactics he comes up so many times.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Nadal wasnt injured in Madrid and to be honest I think Roger's turn around began in Rome gamewise although he lost to Djokovic.
Using that logic Nadal would've had an even harder time getting to no.1 had Roger not lost all those points in the first half of the year due to mono.
So in a way..Nadal's fortunes turned BECAUSE Roger got mono...and later back injury.

Don't feed this troll, she exists just to p!ss Fed fans off, this much has become obvious, she's the biggest troll on TT.

BorisBeckerFan
10-11-2009, 10:29 PM
The moment Nadal got injured.

It's pretty clear that Nadal's level dropped due to injury and Fed took advantage of that. I know many Fed fans get upset at the notion that Fed won because Nadal wasn't well. I however rejoice not in Nadal's injuries but rather Fed's lack of injuries. Staying healthy is just one of the things that makes Fed great. Sampras had a few bumps in the road but by and large had an injury free career as well. I agree that Nadal's injuries have have had alot to do with Fed's success but to me it doesn't knock down Fed's achievements one bit but instead highlights one of the aspects of being great and that's staying healthy.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:34 PM
It's pretty clear that Nadal's level dropped due to injury and Fed took advantage of that. I know many Fed fans get upset at the notion that Fed won because Nadal wasn't well. I however rejoice not in Nadal's injuries but rather Fed's lack of injuries. Staying healthy is just one of the things that makes Fed great. Sampras had a few bumps in the road but by and large had an injury free career as well. I agree that Nadal's injuries have have had alot to do with Fed's success but to me it doesn't knock down Fed's achievements one bit but instead highlights one of the aspects of being great and that's staying healthy.

So was Robin Soderling the real turning point of Fed's season?

BorisBeckerFan
10-11-2009, 10:37 PM
So was Robin Soderling the real turning point of Fed's season?

In short, yes. This doesn't take any of the luster off of his trophy though. Fed can only play the man across the net and Nadal wasn't there.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 10:42 PM
In the poll I'd actually pick the Miami incident...For all these years Roger kept himself better contained on court than any other current top player.He needed to open the bottle..he needed to let it all out once and for all ON court.He needed to let go of the pressure then and there because he's not stoic by nature..he's an emotional guy ,he just controlled himself too well all this time.I think Miami was sort of the breaking point..
From what I can tell after Miami,he went back,got married which made him relax in a way,got back to Monte Carlo to see where he was and then got working really really hard .

namelessone
10-11-2009, 10:45 PM
So was Robin Soderling the real turning point of Fed's season?

He was one of the big ones. By defeating Nadal he gave Federer motivation and hope that he could win RG. The only highlight in Fed's season up to this point is Madrid so if Fed doesn't win RG,that can't be good for his confidence going into wimbledon,especially if he would have lost his chance with Nadal out.

Nadal was THE ONLY man who blocked Fed's path to RG. Federer proved this by winning RG while not being in great form. It is similar to somebody taking out the big hitters for Nadal on the fast courts,it gives him more chances to win that respective title. And dare I say,Soderling proved to be a real gift giver for Fed not just because he beat Nadal but because he also showed up in the RG final,which was perfect for Fed,a big hitter on clay in RG. I bet he thanked the good Lord for that.

RCizzle65
10-11-2009, 10:46 PM
I don't get why everyone is saying Madrid, it's like they forget the matches he had to pull out vs Acasuso, Haas, and JMDP in the French to even get to the finals. Even after the Madrid title, and after Nadal's loss, the Fed FO title was not set in stone.

The inside out FH here @ 0:15 was the true turning pt of Federer's season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEg_0a9av-E

Yep I'd agree with this, after Nadal's loss, it certainly had an effect on Federer, that this was his golden opportunity to finally grab the French crown he had been missing in his almost complete career. And even before that loss, he still had tight matches with Acasuso and Mathieu who had their chances.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 10:52 PM
Yep I'd agree with this, after Nadal's loss, it certainly had an effect on Federer, that this was his golden opportunity to finally grab the French crown he had been missing in his almost complete career. And even before that loss, he still had tight matches with Acasuso and Mathieu who had their chances. The Haas match is important from the view point of FO .What gave him a renewed perspective for the year as a whole was his Madrid win and what allowed that to happen was him going back, and working hell a lot on his game after Miami IMO.
I remember him saying after Madrid "I got the win I needed badly"..I thought that was very important.

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 10:55 PM
The Haas match is important from the view point of FO .What gave him a renewed perspective for the year as a whole was his Madrid win and what allowed that to happen was him going back, and working hell a lot on his game after Miami IMO.
I remember him saying after Madrid "I got the win I needed badly"..I thought that was very important.

But he still was shaky in the early rounds of the FO...all that work he did post Miami goes for nothing if he misses that FH at 30-40.

grafselesfan
10-11-2009, 10:55 PM
Nadal wasnt injured in Madrid

I am sure you would like to believe this. Unfortunately Nadal himself, Nadal's doctors, Nadal's own coach and uncle, and Nadal's subsequent withdrawal from Wimbledon soon after the French Open all suggest otherwise.

zagor
10-11-2009, 10:59 PM
Inside out FH against Haas on a virtual MP,he played much better at FO from that point.He played great in matches against Monfils,Delpo and Soderling after,on his 2007 clay level IMO.Madrid win was great but it wouldn't mean that much without a FO title,especially at this point of Fed's career when it's mostly about slams.

As for Nadal injury,sure it benefited Fed but Nadal and the field also benefited from Fed's mono(which further resulted in loss of confidence and fitness for Fed)and back problems,overall injuries/sickness/fatigue are part of the game as far as I'm concerned and that doesn't go just for Nadal but for Fed(since many Fed fans like to downplay and excuse Novak's AO win)and any other player as well.

RCizzle65
10-11-2009, 10:59 PM
I am sure you would like to believe this. Unfortunately Nadal himself, Nadal's doctors, Nadal's own coach and uncle, and Nadal's subsequent withdrawal from Wimbledon soon after the French Open all suggest otherwise.

His domination of Hewitt the round before says otherwise, unless your suggesting that he owned him so badly that he injured himself

jamesblakefan#1
10-11-2009, 11:00 PM
Nadal is always injured whenever he loses, don't you guys know that by now? I expect to hear the reports about his buttocks injury he had during the Cilic match coming out pretty soon.

Oh, here they are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acNUrlKp8t0

grafselesfan
10-11-2009, 11:01 PM
His domination of Hewitt the round before says otherwise, unless your suggesting that he owned him so badly that he injured himself

A way past his prime Hewitt on slow Roland Garros clay might as well be Dinara Safina on the other side of the net.

RCizzle65
10-11-2009, 11:03 PM
His first title in awhile was on clay this year.

zagor
10-11-2009, 11:09 PM
A way past his prime Hewitt on slow Roland Garros clay might as well be Dinara Safina on the other side of the net.

Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 and 2007 as well but he still gave Nadal some relatively tough matches on clay,definitely tougher than the worst slam blowout in his career he suffered at the hands of Nadal at FO this year.

Hewitt also played some solid tennis this year overall,was close to reaching Wimbledon semis and pushed Fed pretty hard at USO.

grafselesfan
10-11-2009, 11:14 PM
Hewitt was past his prime in 2006 and 2007 as well but he still gave Nadal some relatively tough matches on clay,definitely tougher than the worst slam blowout in his career he suffered at the hands of Nadal at FO this year.

Hewitt also played some solid tennis this year overall,was close to reaching Wimbledon semis and pushed Fed pretty hard at USO.

I am aware Hewitt gave Nadal one really tough match on Hamburg clay but Hamburg clay is not the same as Roland Garros or the other major clay events at all. Federer was doing great on Hamburg clay when he was still losing early rounds to nobodies all the time at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros. Hamburg is fast courters clay.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 11:15 PM
I am sure you would like to believe this. Unfortunately Nadal himself, Nadal's doctors, Nadal's own coach and uncle, and Nadal's subsequent withdrawal from Wimbledon soon after the French Open all suggest otherwise.er....who said he was injured in Madrid?..I dont remember Nadal saying he was injured in Madrid.He said he shouldnt have played Madrid( probably because he lost it...funny how he chose to play 3 weeks in a row at first,then complain about Madrid).
Madrid was a masters event and the conditions were same for all players.

mandy01
10-11-2009, 11:17 PM
But he still was shaky in the early rounds of the FO...all that work he did post Miami goes for nothing if he misses that FH at 30-40. But like I said with or without FO if the work did anything to him it was to give him a renewed perspective for the year..His chances at Wimbledon had just gotten better with that Madrid win and his overall propects looked a lot better than they were before.

zagor
10-11-2009, 11:20 PM
I am aware Hewitt gave Nadal one really tough match on Hamburg clay but Hamburg clay is not the same as Roland Garros or the other major clay events at all. Federer was doing great on Hamburg clay when he was still losing early rounds to nobodies all the time at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros. Hamburg is fast courters clay.

Wasn't just thinking Hamburg,he gave Nadal one of the tougher matches in 2006 FO and even in 2007 FO he put up more of a fight than this year when he just got pummeled.

Although you probably have a point about Hamburg,I remember when Goran reached the final there(got destroyed by Medvedev though).

Not that the Nadal-Hewitt FO match is some grand measure of Nadal's form and level of play on clay but it still maybe shows Nadal wasn't in as bad form as some people claim so some credit still has to go to Soderling for pulling off one of the biggest upsets in tennis history(and I don't even like the guy,he strikes me as a bully).Nadal didn't play his best but he wasn't crippled either,for all we know the injury that forced him to pull out of DC,Queens and Wimbledon might have happened during or after the match with Soderling.

big bang
10-12-2009, 01:59 AM
Turning point? when Rafa got injured he probably began to believe he could pull it of..

dropshot winner
10-12-2009, 02:15 AM
Hamburg is fast courters clay.
That's not true, and has never been the case.

Most of the time Hamburg is the slowest clay tournament of the season, a lot of which has to do with the damp conditions in Hamburg.

The reason why Federer does so well in Hamburg is the fact that the ball doesn't jump as high as it does in Monte Carlo, the speed of the surface doesn't favor Federer's game at all.

Chelsea_Kiwi
10-12-2009, 02:26 AM
Don't know what everyone else has said but the game vs Haas. The inside-out forehand has probably been the most important shot/point in his career as I very much doubt he would of won the match, Wimbledon or Cincy had he not got that point in. Mentally it was VERY important.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-12-2009, 03:48 AM
Good thread!
I think the turning-point was 2 things, The win vs Nadal in Madrid BUT also the inside-out forehand vs Haas in FO at breakpoint and 0-2 sets down! From there on Fed never really looked back!!

Quite Please
10-12-2009, 07:19 AM
I actually think that's very true.

agree...had he lost that point, he would have stood here today with 13 slams, ranked as number 4 and dangerously close to the end of his career.
And worst of all: Sampras-fans would still have a reasonable argument to dispute his GOATness.

Telepatic
10-12-2009, 07:38 AM
Madrid final against Nadal was that point I'd say.

statto
10-12-2009, 07:46 AM
RG was the turning point. OK, he beat Nadal at Madrid, but he'd beaten him on clay before and slams are far more important to Fed than masters shields. Even after the Madrid win he said Rafa was a big favourite for RG.

Then Nadal goes out, Federer comes through a couple of tough matches and takes the title. That absolutely was the turning point, and it was compounded when he found out Nadal wouldn't be at Wimbledon.

edmondsm
10-12-2009, 07:53 AM
Soccer matches effectively last even shorter than 55 mins and still players can pick up an injury during a match.

What? I guess you've never played soccer.

The turning point of Fed's year was when Nadal decided it was smart to (while taping his knees) play Rotterdam, and then play Madrid after he had gone the distance in Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome.

I seriously don't understand why Nadal does this. No other player would have played Madrid after having that kind of clay season. Nadal and Uncle Toni must be delusional and think that Nadal is immune to fatigue and stress injuries.

drakulie
10-12-2009, 08:08 AM
The inside out FH he hit against Haas at the French Open to save BP and basically the match.

mandy01
10-12-2009, 08:08 AM
What? I guess you've never played soccer.

The turning point of Fed's year was when Nadal decided it was smart to (while taping his knees) play Rotterdam, and then play Madrid after he had gone the distance in Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome.

I seriously don't understand why Nadal does this. No other player would have played Madrid after having that kind of clay season. Nadal and Uncle Toni must be delusional and think that Nadal is immune to fatigue and stress injuries.

I think Nadal should've skipped Barcelona.I dont get why he was killing himself for a 500 event.No matter how close it is to him there is no harm in not playing once.

World Beater
10-12-2009, 08:46 AM
I am aware Hewitt gave Nadal one really tough match on Hamburg clay but Hamburg clay is not the same as Roland Garros or the other major clay events at all. Federer was doing great on Hamburg clay when he was still losing early rounds to nobodies all the time at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros. Hamburg is fast courters clay.

get your facts straight.

hamburg clay is the slowest of them all. its cold, and damp contributing to extremely slow conditions.

just because federer happened to do well doesnt make the surface slow.

NamRanger
10-12-2009, 09:06 AM
get your facts straight.

hamburg clay is the slowest of them all. its cold, and damp contributing to extremely slow conditions.

just because federer happened to do well doesnt make the surface slow.


No, it plays similar to the old AO surface that allowed big hitters to thrive (such as Safin, Agassi, etc.)



The surface is slow, meaning only a guy who hits the ball hard can make it go anywhere. However, due to the dampness, the ball also stays much lower than usual. This makes for some interesting matches, and thus why Federer has won the title 5 times.

NamRanger
10-12-2009, 09:07 AM
I am aware Hewitt gave Nadal one really tough match on Hamburg clay but Hamburg clay is not the same as Roland Garros or the other major clay events at all. Federer was doing great on Hamburg clay when he was still losing early rounds to nobodies all the time at Monte Carlo, Rome, and Roland Garros. Hamburg is fast courters clay.



Hewitt also took a set off Nadal during RG 2006 in a close match.

Cesc Fabregas
10-12-2009, 09:16 AM
Hewitt also took a set off Nadal during RG 2006 in a close match.

So did Mathieu and he plain old sucks.

jamesblakefan#1
10-12-2009, 09:19 AM
So did Mathieu and he plain old sucks.

Let's see, Nadal loses to the 'clown' Soderling and loses sets to Mathieu who 'sucks', he must be the worst RG champ of all time then, amirite? :twisted:

World Beater
10-12-2009, 10:51 AM
No, it plays similar to the old AO surface that allowed big hitters to thrive (such as Safin, Agassi, etc.)



The surface is slow, meaning only a guy who hits the ball hard can make it go anywhere. However, due to the dampness, the ball also stays much lower than usual. This makes for some interesting matches, and thus why Federer has won the title 5 times.


what do u mean "no"?

LOL. you said the same thing i did except in twice the words.

Yes, hamburg is slow. agreed.



It is slower than MC and Rome. Multiple players in their interviews attest to this.

Federer has made the finals of Rome and MC, only losing to Nadal. Federer has also lost to nadal in hamburg. So federer has done well at all the TMS Clay events despite the bounce being different.

OliverSimon
10-12-2009, 11:06 AM
2003 Wimbledon

NamRanger
10-12-2009, 06:31 PM
what do u mean "no"?

LOL. you said the same thing i did except in twice the words.

Yes, hamburg is slow. agreed.



It is slower than MC and Rome. Multiple players in their interviews attest to this.

Federer has made the finals of Rome and MC, only losing to Nadal. Federer has also lost to nadal in hamburg. So federer has done well at all the TMS Clay events despite the bounce being different.




Just because it's slow does not mean it's a good court for claycourt players. The low bounce really helps out the more fast court oriented players, as they are the ones who usually have the power to hit through that damp Hamburg court. Federer happens to dominate here because A. He has the power to hit through the court, and B. The ball bounces WAY lower than a normal claycourt, which really helps him alot.


Ever wonder what happened to all the Spanish guys but Nadal doing well at the AO? Yeah, well the Plexicushion bounces WAY lower than the Rebound Ace.




Then again, I don't expect a ******* like you to actually understand that things like bounce actually matter more than the actual speed of the court.

World Beater
10-12-2009, 07:11 PM
Just because it's slow does not mean it's a good court for claycourt players. The low bounce really helps out the more fast court oriented players, as they are the ones who usually have the power to hit through that damp Hamburg court. Federer happens to dominate here because A. He has the power to hit through the court, and B. The ball bounces WAY lower than a normal claycourt, which really helps him alot.


Ever wonder what happened to all the Spanish guys but Nadal doing well at the AO? Yeah, well the Plexicushion bounces WAY lower than the Rebound Ace.




Then again, I don't expect a ******* like you to actually understand that things like bounce actually matter more than the actual speed of the court.

im not sure why you bring the AO into this at all. I first of all dont agree with the analogy to hamburg, so it doesn't make any sense to bring it up.

Nadal won the AO when they changed the surface. The higher ball bounce should help him. The newer surface has a lower bounce but nadal still won. So you are not really making any sense. besides its not as if the spanish players were dominating when the court was rebound ace. All court players like federer, safin and agassi were still kicking ***- spanish or otherwise on rebound ace. Federer actually lost to nadal on the lower bouncing plexicushion surface...go figure.

the bolded comment is kind of rich. You know you are getting desperate when you have to throw out stuff like this instead of some rational arguments. even a 3rd grader can throw out snide remarks. It doesnt make you smarter or more knowledgeable.

you are an idiot. See, its easy!

Hamburg has been a good court for clay courters - what the hell are kuerten, robredo, davydenko, gasquet, nadal, portas, coria? You gonna tell me that coria is a hard hitter?lol. They all play well on clay and they all have had success at hamburg. Just because a few players like federer or safin have great success at hamburg doens't mean its a fast courters clay court. Are there some nuances that help a federer or safin, more at hamburg. Sure there are. But it is not that overwhelming that suddenly we are going to see it dominated by fast court players.

Federer and safin are good clay courters by any measure. They have done well at MC, Rome and RG. So your hypothesis is not a slam dunk by any metric.

I made a comment about hamburg being slow, which is a fact. You somehow derailed this thread because you were being a smartass by potraying common sense as great insight - "federer excels when the bounce is low"...no shI4. Its not as if federer hasn't won wimbledon like 6 times.

srinrajesh
10-16-2009, 06:34 AM
I don't get why everyone is saying Madrid, it's like they forget the matches he had to pull out vs Acasuso, Haas, and JMDP in the French to even get to the finals. Even after the Madrid title, and after Nadal's loss, the Fed FO title was not set in stone.

The inside out FH here @ 0:15 was the true turning pt of Federer's season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEg_0a9av-E

agree with that ...no way he could have been no. 1 if he had lost early at FO...

stanfordtennis alum
10-16-2009, 10:13 AM
w/o a doubt, his win in madrid

maddogz32
10-16-2009, 04:22 PM
nadal losing to soderling

NamRanger
10-16-2009, 04:48 PM
im not sure why you bring the AO into this at all. I first of all dont agree with the analogy to hamburg, so it doesn't make any sense to bring it up.

Nadal won the AO when they changed the surface. The higher ball bounce should help him. The newer surface has a lower bounce but nadal still won. So you are not really making any sense. besides its not as if the spanish players were dominating when the court was rebound ace. All court players like federer, safin and agassi were still kicking ***- spanish or otherwise on rebound ace. Federer actually lost to nadal on the lower bouncing plexicushion surface...go figure.

the bolded comment is kind of rich. You know you are getting desperate when you have to throw out stuff like this instead of some rational arguments. even a 3rd grader can throw out snide remarks. It doesnt make you smarter or more knowledgeable.

you are an idiot. See, its easy!

Hamburg has been a good court for clay courters - what the hell are kuerten, robredo, davydenko, gasquet, nadal, portas, coria? You gonna tell me that coria is a hard hitter?lol. They all play well on clay and they all have had success at hamburg. Just because a few players like federer or safin have great success at hamburg doens't mean its a fast courters clay court. Are there some nuances that help a federer or safin, more at hamburg. Sure there are. But it is not that overwhelming that suddenly we are going to see it dominated by fast court players.

Federer and safin are good clay courters by any measure. They have done well at MC, Rome and RG. So your hypothesis is not a slam dunk by any metric.

I made a comment about hamburg being slow, which is a fact. You somehow derailed this thread because you were being a smartass by potraying common sense as great insight - "federer excels when the bounce is low"...no shI4. Its not as if federer hasn't won wimbledon like 6 times.




Typical ******* response.

abmk
10-16-2009, 08:34 PM
inside-out FH against haas at RG to save BP

fgzhu88
10-17-2009, 11:35 AM
don't forget, Madrid was his first Masters title since...God..I think Cincinatti 2007? That had to do something for him

Also beating Nadal on Spanish soil... how incredible is that?!! Injury or no injury, Nadal has always been able to block out the pain neurons with his incredible adrenaline. It's just that day, Federer gave him no opportunities to dig in and pump himself up.

shaysrebelII
10-17-2009, 04:14 PM
all about madrid. If he didn't win that match, I can't see the rest of his 2009 happening the same way.