PDA

View Full Version : Bodo: Rodge Tanked Matches at IW & Miami


OddJack
04-06-2010, 03:47 PM
So Bodo has moved to msn and seems like most readers like him except the high expectation posters at tt. Not me anyways. Rodge got to where he wanted to be in those tourneys and then let it go, moved to clay before everyone else did, and it makes perfect sense.


http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/36195514/ns/sports-tennis/

http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad33/oddjack/RodgeClay.jpg

Rhino
04-06-2010, 04:16 PM
i don't think he's saying that he tanked. He says Federer "did the best he could with the matches he was presented there."

Still, I disagree with the article anyway. Federer is 9 weeks away from breaking Sampras's all time record of weeks at #1, and he was trying hard to win those matches, you could tell that by watching them.

Overheadsmash
04-06-2010, 04:20 PM
I think he took too much time off after the Oz open and it hurt him. He wasn't as sharp as he usually is under fire.

rommil
04-06-2010, 04:20 PM
i don't think he's saying that he tanked. He says Federer "did the best he could with the matches he was presented there."

Still, I disagree with the article anyway. Federer is 9 weeks away from breaking Sampras's all time record of weeks at #1, and he was trying hard to win those matches, you could tell that by watching them.

9 weeks? That's all that's left? Sorry I don't know the math to the rankings but does he have a lot of points to defend now til then? I think Roger is really intent on catching up with that record, regardless if he said it or not.

OddJack
04-06-2010, 04:23 PM
^^^Not only 9 weeks to break Samp record but he actually has a good shot for 300.

ChanceEncounter
04-06-2010, 04:24 PM
With the way the other top players are playing, Roger will barely need to try to break Sampras's all time #1 record.

thalivest
04-06-2010, 04:27 PM
I agree he tanked the matches. Or if he didnt tank he didnt try nearly as hard as he would have if he was very determined.

cknobman
04-06-2010, 04:29 PM
i don't think he's saying that he tanked. He says Federer "did the best he could with the matches he was presented there."

Still, I disagree with the article anyway. Federer is 9 weeks away from breaking Sampras's all time record of weeks at #1, and he was trying hard to win those matches, you could tell that by watching them.

The only thing I could tell from the Miami match against Berdych is that he really didnt give a rats rear if he won or not.

There have even been threads showing pics of their faces during the match while striking balls. Fed looks bored and like his head is somewhere else, Berdych looks like hes fighting for his life.

Im not saying he tanked the Miami match but I am saying he did not look like he really wanted to win either.

OddJack
04-06-2010, 04:31 PM
i don't think he's saying that he tanked. He says Federer "did the best he could with the matches he was presented there."

Still, I disagree with the article anyway. Federer is 9 weeks away from breaking Sampras's all time record of weeks at #1, and he was trying hard to win those matches, you could tell that by watching them.

I watched them. I disagree that "he tried hard".

How many matches has he lost after having match points? And here two in a row?

Since 2007 he has won only 4 masters out of 28. Compare that to his majors win and that should tell you something

bluescreen
04-06-2010, 04:39 PM
that pic in the opening post looks awesome, btw.

ive just been wondering, what if, WHAT IF, fed purposely tanked after having match point just to prove to himself he could win the match. im not saying i believe this, but its an interesting theory nonetheless.

OddJack
04-06-2010, 04:42 PM
that pic in the opening post looks awesome, btw.

ive just been wondering, what if, WHAT IF, fed purposely tanked after having match point just to prove to himself he could win the match. im not saying i believe this, but its an interesting theory nonetheless.

Only he can answer that question, but what I saw, especially in Berd match, was that there were games that I noticed he raised his game and won the point in contrast to previous points. The one long rally that ended behind Berd was one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfvfn786TL4

Fee
04-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Bodo is still at Tennis.com. All this content sharing is getting pretty damn confusing.

West Coast Ace
04-06-2010, 05:21 PM
Bodo can do great serious work - the profile of Davy in Tennis Magazine last year was really good. Then he'll slop out some silliness like this and makes you remember he's a fat tool who (apparently) never played sports competitively.

Fed doesn't like losing to anyone - it's the arrogance of confidence - especially the guys who rarely beat him. No reason to give them any Hope. Having said that he's not match sharp since the AO - so it's not a huge surprise and he's not going to break a racket like last year.

jukka1970
04-06-2010, 06:54 PM
Bodo can do great serious work - the profile of Davy in Tennis Magazine last year was really good. Then he'll slop out some silliness like this and makes you remember he's a fat tool who (apparently) never played sports competitively.

Fed doesn't like losing to anyone - it's the arrogance of confidence - especially the guys who rarely beat him. No reason to give them any Hope. Having said that he's not match sharp since the AO - so it's not a huge surprise and he's not going to break a racket like last year.

well I suppose we can call him bodo for the good articles and change the d to a z, when he writes dumb articles like this one

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:19 PM
I watched them. I disagree that "he tried hard".

How many matches has he lost after having match points? And here two in a row?

Since 2007 he has won only 4 masters out of 28. Compare that to his majors win and that should tell you something

No.

There are many reasons that can explain why Federer performs worse in MS than in GS. Arguing that this is because he's not motivated enough to win MS or that he doesn't care is just one possible explanation and a wrong one imo.

Here are some reasons that are more likely to resemble reality:

1- Federer feels more pressure in best of three sets matches because the finishing line is a lot closer (Federer has made this very point himself) so there is not much space for long lapses of errors that are common in Fed's game at time, be it in GS or MS. However, as opposed to what happens in MS, in GS Federer has a longer time period to regroup his forces and fight back to win a match.

2- Conversely, the players Federer is playing against are less likely to sustain a good level of play during a best-of-five set match than during a best-of-three sets match and thus are more likely to beat Federer in the former than in the latter.

3- Federer at times plays MS after long break periods but he always plays GS after having played a lot in the last weeks. Thus, he comes to GS with more time on the court than he does when he enters MS.

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:21 PM
The only thing I could tell from the Miami match against Berdych is that he really didnt give a rats rear if he won or not.

There have even been threads showing pics of their faces during the match while striking balls. Fed looks bored and like his head is somewhere else, Berdych looks like hes fighting for his life.

Im not saying he tanked the Miami match but I am saying he did not look like he really wanted to win either.

Did you see the match?

Federer clearly cared. He was pumping himself up in a way in which I hadn't seen since he beat Andreev in five sets in the fourth round of the USO in 2008. His body language was extremely expressive (by his own standards) against Berdych and when he lost he seemed very disappointed.

Seriously, you're talking nonsense.

OddJack
04-06-2010, 07:23 PM
No.

There are many reasons that can explain why Federer performs worse in MS than in GS. Arguing that this is because he's not motivated enough to win MS or that he doesn't care is just one possible explanation and a wrong one imo.

Here are some reasons that are more likely to resemble reality:

1- Federer feels more pressure in best of three sets matches because the finishing line is a lot closer (Federer has made this very point himself) so there is not much space for long lapses of errors that are common in Fed's game at time, be it in GS or MS. However, as opposed to what happens in MS, in GS Federer has a longer time period to regroup his forces and fight back to win a match.

2- Conversely, the players Federer is playing against are less likely to sustain a good level of play during a best-of-five set match than during a best-of-three sets match and thus are more likely to beat Federer in the former than in the latter.

3- Federer at times plays MS after long break periods but he always plays GS after having played a lot in the last weeks. Thus, he comes to GS with more time on the court than he does when he enters MS.

No,

What you wrote does not explain his master title run before 2007 and that includes 3 bacl to back Indian Wells.

He didnt feel pressure back then? Why players back then were not more likely to sustain a high level?

His priorities has changed, there is no doubt about it.

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:24 PM
ive just been wondering, what if, WHAT IF, fed purposely tanked after having match point just to prove to himself he could win the match. im not saying i believe this, but its an interesting theory nonetheless.

I'm going to sound quite rude but that's really the dumbest theory I've heard in the past few weeks.

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:27 PM
No,

What you wrote does not explain his master title run before 2007 and that includes 3 bacl to back Indian Wells.

He didnt feel pressure back then? Why players back then were not more likely to sustain a high level?

His priorities has changed, there is no doubt about it.

Federer was simply better back then... He's level has decreased a bit in the last 2 and a half years. Not much but enough for players like Berdych, Tsonga or Marcos beat him in third set tiebreakers.

I also kind of feel that Federer's confidence has decreased in best of three set matches. He used to win a lot of those disputed three setters when he was not playing well back in 2006 and 2005 but now he just doesn't do it with the same frequency anymore.

curious fact: Federer has lost 6 of his last 8 third set tiebreaks in best of three set matches.

OddJack
04-06-2010, 07:38 PM
Federer was simply better back then... He's level has decreased a bit in the last 2 and a half years. Not much but enough for players like Berdych, Tsonga or Marcos beat him in third set tiebreakers.

I also kind of feel that Federer's confidence has decreased in best of three set matches. He used to win a lot of those disputed three setters when he was not playing well back in 2006 and 2005 but now he just doesn't do it with the same frequency anymore.

curious fact: Federer has lost 6 of his last 8 third set tiebreaks in best of three set matches.

He was number 1 then and he is now. The only thing that has changed is his age and goes with that his priorities. He was young and could afford win masters and majors both now he has few years left and goes for the big ones.
Wouldnt you do the same? Would you risk injury and/or fatigue when what counts the most in history is number of majors?

It's a no brainer, acutally.

abraxas21
04-06-2010, 07:39 PM
I'm going to sound quite rude but that's really the dumbest theory I've heard in the past few weeks.

that pic in the opening post looks awesome, btw.

ive just been wondering, what if, WHAT IF, fed purposely tanked after having match point just to prove to himself he could win the match. im not saying i believe this, but its an interesting theory nonetheless.

Sorry for my last blunt and rude reply... I kinda felt bad after posting it and I'm not able to edit my posts for some reason here :S

Seriously speaking, I know you're not saying you believe that theory but I honestly don't see why any player would want to tank a match after having MP. What would be the point ? Prove that he could have won the match? The reality is that he couldn't and it has happened many times before with many other players who have wasted MP before. Moreover, even if he wanted to prove that (as impossible as it is), what would be the point?

Again, sorry for my first reply. I was a bit angry for who knows what. Have a good day. :)

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2010, 11:28 PM
I watched them. I disagree that "he tried hard".

How many matches has he lost after having match points? And here two in a row?

Since 2007 he has won only 4 masters out of 28. Compare that to his majors win and that should tell you something

I don't like Bozo anyway. I think ESPN finally realizes that he's a lousy writer and got rid of him. Well, Fed didn't look as though he really tried. It was funny that he played like that, which was fine with me.

OddJack has a good point. Fed seemed like he wanted to fulfill his Masters requirement but then wanted to just rest up his body for the majors. That's fine with me anyway. I rather win a major then 5 masters. Me, personally, I would be thrilled just to play on the ATP but then dreaming can only take you so far.

Reborn Rebel
04-07-2010, 02:37 AM
Sorry for my last blunt and rude reply... I kinda felt bad after posting it and I'm not able to edit my posts for some reason here :S

Seriously speaking, I know you're not saying you believe that theory but I honestly don't see why any player would want to tank a match after having MP. What would be the point ? Prove that he could have won the match? The reality is that he couldn't and it has happened many times before with many other players who have wasted MP before. Moreover, even if he wanted to prove that (as impossible as it is), what would be the point?

Again, sorry for my first reply. I was a bit angry for who knows what. Have a good day. :)


I have the same feeling as bluescreen. He might have tanked these 2 matches. Why did he tank? The answer is that at this point he only needs to do just enough to keep his no.1 ranking. So why should he have high results in all these non slam events and then have the pressure of defending all those points next year. So he just makes sure that he does a little better than his rivals who are trying to take away the no.1 ranking away from him. Having match points just helps the theory that he didnt tank these matches after all....which is again another tactic from fed. He is one smart MF...

jrod
04-07-2010, 04:11 AM
First off, I have to say that Bodo is a horrible writer. He tries to be clever in his use of language to convey his point(s), his 'expertise', his wit, but it comes off sounding rather pedestrian to me. David Foster Wallace he is not.

Now, onto the speculation that Fed 'tanked' these matches. I've heard this before and it keeps coming up time and again (like every time he loses). I don't buy it....entirely that is. We can all agree that Federer no longer has anything to prove. Sure he would like to break the record for weeks at #1, beat Nadal at RG, etc., etc. etc., but the truth is none of this really matters at the end of his professional tennis career. His achievements speak for themselves and he and everyone else knows this.

So what is it with Federer and these matches? My sense is they are a form of practice for him, and to some extent he probably does look at them this way. Anyone who has seen Federer play or has watched him over the years knows he is capable of shifting into a higher gear when he feels the need to. When he was younger, it seemed he was playing in a higher gear most of the time, routinely dismissing opponents. These days, once gets the impression he is playing many of these matches in a lower gear, almost as if he is entertaining himself by allowing his opponents to stay close....almost as if he is soliciting a situation where he is facing down a match point just to test his resolve. These are the moments Federer is looking for. Winning by a large margin does nothing for him anymore. He has a need to feel like he is on the edge, not unlike the extreme sportsman taking it to the precipice.

My sense is he isn't explicitly tanking any matches. I believe he is playing these matches in this occasionally lackluster manner to solicit the pressure moments. Prevailing in these situations is what separates the true champions from the wannabes. Why not solicit them? He's got nothing to lose by doing so.

Blowfish anyone?

Rhino
04-07-2010, 05:21 AM
First off, I have to say that Bodo is a horrible writer. He tries to be clever in his use of language to convey his point(s), his 'expertise', his wit, but it comes off sounding rather pedestrian to me. David Foster Wallace he is not.

Now, onto the speculation that Fed 'tanked' these matches. I've heard this before and it keeps coming up time and again (like every time he loses). I don't buy it....entirely that is. We can all agree that Federer no longer has anything to prove. Sure he would like to break the record for weeks at #1, beat Nadal at RG, etc., etc. etc., but the truth is none of this really matters at the end of his professional tennis career. His achievements speak for themselves and he and everyone else knows this.

So what is it with Federer and these matches? My sense is they are a form of practice for him, and to some extent he probably does look at them this way. Anyone who has seen Federer play or has watched him over the years knows he is capable of shifting into a higher gear when he feels the need to. When he was younger, it seemed he was playing in a higher gear most of the time, routinely dismissing opponents. These days, once gets the impression he is playing many of these matches in a lower gear, almost as if he is entertaining himself by allowing his opponents to stay close....almost as if he is soliciting a situation where he is facing down a match point just to test his resolve. These are the moments Federer is looking for. Winning by a large margin does nothing for him anymore. He has a need to feel like he is on the edge, not unlike the extreme sportsman taking it to the precipice.

My sense is he isn't explicitly tanking any matches. I believe he is playing these matches in this occasionally lackluster manner to solicit the pressure moments. Prevailing in these situations is what separates the true champions from the wannabes. Why not solicit them? He's got nothing to lose by doing so.

Blowfish anyone?

Hmmm. Aren't we all just over-thinking this a bit? The guy was coming back from a lung infection, some time off, lacked match practice, and played some tight best-of-three matches where the margin of error is a lot smaller than at the slams. He nearly lost to Berdych the last time they met at the Australian Open (2009) didn't he? In fact he was trailing 2 sets to love, which would be game set and match at a Masters.

I don't think Federer is anything like an extreme sportsman. He's stared down enough match points in his career, and I don't think that quite compares to BASE jumping. :)

To me he looked gutted after losing both of those matches.

jrod
04-07-2010, 05:40 AM
....
To me he looked gutted after losing both of those matches.

Exactly....too much poison in the blowfish dinner can ruin more than just the meal. Do you know anyone that enjoys losing?

Rhino
04-07-2010, 05:42 AM
Do you know anyone that enjoys losing?

Someone who just tanked a match.

jrod
04-07-2010, 05:43 AM
Someone who just tanked a match.

Q.E.D.

10 chars

Rhino
04-07-2010, 05:51 AM
Q.E.D.

10 chars

Many people in this thread are saying that Federer looked like he wasn't really trying.
My point is, if you lose when you are not trying, you don't tend to look that gutted.
In my opinion there is no great mystery or conspiracy theory regarding the loses.

jrod
04-07-2010, 05:59 AM
Many people in this thread are saying that Federer looked like he wasn't really trying.
My point is, if you lose when you are not trying, you don't tend to look that gutted.
In my opinion there is no great mystery or conspiracy theory regarding the loses.


Not sure you understood me here or correctly understood the slightly off-color intent of my initial post.

Simply put, I'm agreeing with you.

Rhino
04-07-2010, 01:22 PM
Not sure you understood me here or correctly understood the slightly off-color intent of my initial post.

Simply put, I'm agreeing with you.

Yeah all that talk of blowfish kind of threw me off. Anyway it's just nice to be able to say "BASE jumping" now and again.

LuckyR
04-08-2010, 07:20 AM
I wouldn't look too hard at Fed's facial expressions to answer this question. People like Fed hate to lose. They hate to lose at any and all things, especially what they are known for. He may have been coming off of an illness or out of practice, but guys like that always seek to avoid losing as much as they can.

yellowoctopus
04-08-2010, 08:22 AM
No.

There are many reasons that can explain why Federer performs worse in MS than in GS. Arguing that this is because he's not motivated enough to win MS or that he doesn't care is just one possible explanation and a wrong one imo.

Here are some reasons that are more likely to resemble reality:

1- Federer feels more pressure in best of three sets matches because the finishing line is a lot closer (Federer has made this very point himself) so there is not much space for long lapses of errors that are common in Fed's game at time, be it in GS or MS. However, as opposed to what happens in MS, in GS Federer has a longer time period to regroup his forces and fight back to win a match.

2- Conversely, the players Federer is playing against are less likely to sustain a good level of play during a best-of-five set match than during a best-of-three sets match and thus are more likely to beat Federer in the former than in the latter.

3- Federer at times plays MS after long break periods but he always plays GS after having played a lot in the last weeks. Thus, he comes to GS with more time on the court than he does when he enters MS.

I support all these 'potential' reasons and would also add that his opponents usually have more pressure in Grand Slams than any Masters, with exceptions of Nadal.

Despite all these reasons, one has to always realize that during his junior years, Federer had a reputation of losing almost all of his practice matches. Old habits do not go away, especially when it has worked well for him throughout his life.

I don't think 'tanking' is a good word; it gives Mr. Federer way too much credit on his ability to control the outcome of the match. I believe the tactic being used by Mr. Federer is more sincere than tanking the match. Perhaps his intention in these Master Series is to try different things in his game, size up some of the competitions, and just keep his own competitive edge sharp. If he wins matches, great, if he doesn't, no biggie. Bodo is right about the pace yourself part, both the physical and mental energy.

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2008/01/13/va1237286652208/Roger-Federer-5839913.jpg

joeri888
04-08-2010, 09:03 AM
The only thing I could tell from the Miami match against Berdych is that he really didnt give a rats rear if he won or not.

There have even been threads showing pics of their faces during the match while striking balls. Fed looks bored and like his head is somewhere else, Berdych looks like hes fighting for his life.

Im not saying he tanked the Miami match but I am saying he did not look like he really wanted to win either.

Fed always looks bored, except after he won a Slam.

TennisandMusic
04-08-2010, 09:06 AM
Trying to convince yourself of this stuff is so hilarious. He's just not as good anymore. It's pretty clear and straightforward. He didn't tank anything, he got beat.

anointedone
04-08-2010, 09:11 AM
I don't think 'tanking' is a good word; it gives Mr. Federer way too much credit on his ability to control the outcome of the match.

It depends who you are talking about. Agaisnt the Berdych and Bagdhatis's of the World it isnt unreasonable at all to believe 16 slam winner Federer controls virtually everything about the outcome of the match. It is not like either guy won the match on anything except Federer making a huge number of errors either (Federer had many more winners than both even in subpar form).

rommil
04-08-2010, 09:16 AM
Trying to convince yourself of this stuff is so hilarious. He's just not as good anymore. It's pretty clear and straightforward. He didn't tank anything, he got beat.

LOL this could be Federer.........or Rafa.

West Coast Ace
04-08-2010, 10:34 AM
I thought he played pretty well - had a few shanks here and there - in the Bags match. The 1st set of Berdych he did look like he was #500 in the world - last two sets he was fine. In both it got to the end of the 3rd and he just blew his chances.

Both Bags and Berdy are dangerous flashy players who have been know to get hot and play top 5 level tennis. Not like he lost to O Rochus (like Joker).

If he were tanking - and controlling the outcome - neither would have gone to 3 sets. I'm sure he would have lost 75 76 or some such.

thalivest
04-09-2010, 06:38 AM
Other than possibly Bagdhatis at the 2006 Australian Open neither Berdych and Bagdhatis have never played top 5 calibre tennis. They arent capable of beating any of the current top players unless they play poorly.

borg number one
04-09-2010, 06:54 AM
There was no tanking involved, in my opinion. How do you reach match point when trying to "tank"? I agree with the comments of WestCoastAce and YellowOctopus above. I think he just ran into 2 dangerous players playing very well and really wanted to win and believed they could win. The odds are that once in a while, such players will beat players ranked in the top five. It's just the law of averages.

These are all GREAT tennis players (anyone in the top 150 or can play some amazing tennis at times) and none are easy to "control" or "beat" with ease, no matter WHO they are playing and especially if the opponent, even Roger Federer is not playing well and really "dialed in" that day. When pro players really start "zoning" somewhat, it's just not that easy to overcome them. It's the nature of Tennis and why even the top players drop matches to lower ranked folks. I think Federer uses these tourneys as "prep" for the Slams. In a way, he may be conserving some "mental energy" as well. You can't be 110% focused and honed in ALL THE TIME. He seems to be able to control his "peaks" very well, obviously. He's going to lose sometimes. That has happened to every player in the History of the Game. It's nothing new and to be expected. Winning a big tourney, especially a Grand Slam, is like threading a needle. Every week, all players lose a match, except one guy out of 32, 64, or 128 players. All the rest of those great players lose, during every week they play. That's part of what makes Pro Tennis so difficult week in and week out. You will lose once in a while no matter who you are.

thalivest
04-09-2010, 07:20 AM
Baghdatis or Berdych were never "zoning" in those matches. There was not a player on court for either match who had more winners than errors which on hard courts is typically what constitutes good tennis at the top level.

Serena has alot of close matches in non slam events and I still think she tanks basically them all and only plays for the slams, Miami, and the WTA Championships now. I think Roger puts in more effort than Serena but still not nearly as much as most players do.

Matt H.
04-09-2010, 08:20 AM
Other than possibly Bagdhatis at the 2006 Australian Open neither Berdych and Bagdhatis have never played top 5 calibre tennis. They arent capable of beating any of the current top players unless they play poorly.

T-Bird blew Fed off the court in the '04 Olympics.

Annika
04-09-2010, 08:56 AM
I just made that photo in the first post as my desktop background. It's cool!

thalivest
04-09-2010, 10:03 AM
T-Bird blew Fed off the court in the '04 Olympics.

ROTFL!!!! That was a good one. That was the worst match Federer ever played probably and Berdych barely won. Berdych actually also played awful, that was one of the worst tennis matches I ever saw. Both players had about 7 winners the whole match, and Federer had over 70 errors.