PDA

View Full Version : How did Baghdatis lose?


ATXtennisaddict
01-30-2006, 11:12 AM
And how did Federer win? Anything specific? Did Baghdatis tire out, or did Fed kick it up a notch...Was baghdatis not able to unlease a forehand winner or was Fed's defense just too darn good...

Let's analyze it to death. I am curious what you all think. I haven't seen the match yet myself. Waiting for some time to watch the Tivo.

Ripper
01-30-2006, 11:26 AM
And how did Federer win? Anything specific? Did Baghdatis tire out, or did Fed kick it up a notch...Was baghdatis not able to unlease a forehand winner or was Fed's defense just too darn good...

Let's analyze it to death. I am curious what you all think. I haven't seen the match yet myself. Waiting for some time to watch the Tivo.

My take:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=84629

jgunnink
01-30-2006, 11:39 AM
IMHO, Baghdatis' 1st serve % went in the dumper. In the game where Federer won 5 straight points to take the second set the Bagman didn't get a single 1st serve in after he was up 40-0.

As a result Federer could attack the second serve. He even chipped and charged on a few. I don't think people realized the extent to which Baghdatis was relying on his serve up to that point.

48% first serves just won't do it against Federer. I think those five setters were finally getting to Baghdatis and his legs just weren't up to the challenge.

Ripper
01-30-2006, 12:02 PM
IMHO, Baghdatis' 1st serve % went in the dumper. In the game where Federer won 5 straight points to take the second set the Bagman didn't get a single 1st serve in after he was up 40-0.

As a result Federer could attack the second serve. He even chipped and charged on a few. I don't think people realized the extent to which Baghdatis was relying on his serve up to that point.

48% first serves just won't do it against Federer. I think those five setters were finally getting to Baghdatis and his legs just weren't up to the challenge.

Good point of view.

gts072
01-30-2006, 12:07 PM
Well, Fed began to return Baghdatis' serve better in the latter part of the match. And he stepped it up to blow him out in the third and fourth sets. Fed changed his gameplan and level of play to win. There is always another level to his game.

volleys_tennis_master
01-30-2006, 12:09 PM
i heard baghdatis started to play worse when he started to think that the possibility of beating fed crept into his mind

Stan
01-30-2006, 12:10 PM
How did Baghdatis lose? Is this a serious question???

Here's the simple answer...

Uh, he lost because he was playing Federer in a Grand Slam Final. No one has ever beaten Roger in that setting. No one. Ever. 'Nuff said.

penpal
01-30-2006, 12:29 PM
Looked to me like Badhdatis lost his legs while at the same time Federer cut down on his errors. In the last couple of sets Baghdatis rarely hit anything deep, which allowed Federer to be more offensive.

Seems to me consistency on the deep ball is the "extra" level Federer always has in his back pocket. He can keep his shots consistently deep better than anyone else on tour. So, to beat him, his opponent not only has to keep his shots deep, but he has to put Federer on the defensive in hopes that Fed will be forced to hit something shorter. This is extremely difficult to do when the opponent is hitting from deep the vast majority of the time.

It is obviously extremely difficult for the other pro men at the moment to come up with a winning strategy against Fed. I imagine their thinking goes something like this:

"Ok, how am I going to beat this damn FedEx? Hmmm, let's see, I can't afford to get into long rallies because more often than not I'm going to make an error (give up a short ball, hit into the net, hit out) before he does. So my choices are to either come into net or avoid long rallies by aggresively going for winners."

Alas, his toughest match of the tournament -- Taylor Dent -- one of the very few men on tour whose game is predominantly built around net rushing. For the majority of the men who are backcourt players, they are relegated to playing a match where they are forced to go for winners to have a shot at victory -- not an easy thing to do over the course of an entire match.

joe sch
01-30-2006, 12:53 PM
It was mostly mental:

Up 7-5 5-6 40-luv he starting thinking about winning the TB and winning the greatest upset in tennis history !

Once this thinking caused his downfall by not getting into a TB, he was devastated and the dream turned into a nightmare.

Just goes to show that tennis is mostly mental between the elite players.

arnz
01-30-2006, 12:59 PM
You may be right about the mental part. It is part of being a champion. If you ever get the chance, watch the 1993 Wimbledon womens championship match between Graf and Novotna. Novotna was up like 5-1 in the third set and serving for the match. She proceeded to play the worst tennis of her life.

When champions smell weakness, they're all over you. Champions won't let you get up once you've lost your nerve. Bahgdatis faltered and it was all over.

tennis-n-sc
01-30-2006, 01:18 PM
Well, all the observations are true, I think. I also think he lacked proper conditioning, probably never expected to get as far as he did and wasn't physically or mentally ready to play in the finals of a major. Having said all that, I like the guy and with some extra conditioning, which I hear he doesn't like to do, he could make a lot of noise in the coming season. He did have Roger the Dodger looking more than a littled befuddled in the first two sets. I could see him in the group with Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Safin and some others.

pham4313
01-30-2006, 01:26 PM
It was mostly mental:

Up 7-5 5-6 40-luv he starting thinking about winning the TB and winning the greatest upset in tennis history !



40-love Federer started to come in to net and it suprized Baghdatis...2 points in a row he finished with the volley up the net to 40-30 and then the last point Baghdatis thought Federer would come in the net again but he stayed at the baseline...Federer just didnt give you the same look everytime...bam 40-40 and next is target serving and target hitting.

BreakPoint
01-30-2006, 01:30 PM
It was mostly mental:

Up 7-5 5-6 40-luv he starting thinking about winning the TB and winning the greatest upset in tennis history !

Once this thinking caused his downfall by not getting into a TB, he was devastated and the dream turned into a nightmare.

Just goes to show that tennis is mostly mental between the elite players.

I totally agree! It was mostly mental. The mental letdown of losing the 2nd set all of a sudden when he was up 40-love and serving to go in the tiebreak was too hard for him to get over mentally. In his mind, he thought he was going to win the 2nd set since he was up a break earlier and he was holding serve pretty easily. The overrule on set point didn't help, either, as he probably felt he got cheated out of the 2nd set.

He could see the finish line and when that finish line disappeared when he lost the 2nd set, he knew he would have to win 2 more sets, and given his exhaustion, he knew that would be a huge mental uphill battle. Yes, he was also physically exhausted and his legs were pretty much gone by the 3rd set, but the devastating mental letdown just aggravated his physical problems to the point that his playing level just dropped off a cliff in the 3rd and 4th sets. If you look at the way he played in the 1st and 2nd sets and compared them to how he played the 3rd and 4th sets, it was like two different players.

And, yes, Federer also raised his level and cut down on his errors, but some of that had to do with the fact that Bagdad didn't pressure him as much inthe 3rd and 4th sets, which gave Federer more time and confidence to really go for his shots.

pound cat
01-30-2006, 01:31 PM
Well, all the observations are true, I think. I also think he lacked proper conditioning, probably never expected to get as far as he did and wasn't physically or mentally ready to play in the finals of a major. Having said all that, I like the guy and with some extra conditioning, which I hear he doesn't like to do, he could make a lot of noise in the coming season. He did have Roger the Dodger looking more than a littled befuddled in the first two sets. I could see him in the group with Hewitt, Roddick, Nadal, Safin and some others.

Federer said that he knew he could win when he saw Baghdatis was tiiring. And that was beginning of the end for Bag.

Grimjack
01-30-2006, 01:56 PM
How did Baghdatis lose? Is this a serious question???

Here's the simple answer...

Uh, he lost because he was playing Federer in a Grand Slam Final. No one has ever beaten Roger in that setting. No one. Ever. 'Nuff said.

I agree with the spirit of this.

If I go out on court and face Roger Federer, one might justly analyze that:

- I lost because my serve, although very good when I hit it perfectly, just was not at that level consistently enough on that day to hang with RF the way he was playing

- I lost because my groundies, even though I am able to hit them with depth, pace, and spin, simply did not have QUITE enough depth, pace, and spin to stay on the court with RF on that day

- I lost because even though I am able to block back really good serves that are nonetheless where I can reach them, I was not able to put enough pressure on RF's serve to summon up break chances

This would all be technically true, yet, at the heart of it, would be complete and utter bull ####. The simple truth of the matter is that where the game of professional-level tennis is concerned, I'm not fit to carry Roger Federer's jockstrap.

Neither is Baghdatis. That's why he lost.

devila
01-30-2006, 02:03 PM
The US DC captain declared Baghdatis a super talent. I didn't see much talent. At 18 or 19, Marcos rarely won matches, let alone tournaments.
He shouldve won the Australian Open, but his poor shotmaking at break point chances killed him. Ask Tommy Haas and Davydenko. They had the chance to wiin the 1st set and convert 6 set points, but panicked.

Marcos has bad serve placement and he wasn't born with long arms and power (Federer depends on these to escape matches like this). The Federer never loses finals explanation is as stale as Federer's personality.

Kaptain Karl
01-30-2006, 03:06 PM
The US DC captain declared Baghdatis a super talent. I didn't see much talent. ... He shouldve won the Australian Open, but his poor shotmaking at break point chances killed him. ... Marcos has bad serve placement...I read this post without first noting what Member was posting. 2/3 of the way through this lame nonsense I was thinking, "What numbskull is posting this drivel?"

On looking at the screen name, it suddenly all made sense again....

Geez!!!
_____________

On other threads I've seen comments about "greatest GS Final ever" and similar remarks. Am I in a very small minority here? I didn't think the *competition* was really all that great.

It seemed to me that Marcos was playing "lights out" ... while Roger was "off". From the middle of the second set, each competitor had "moments" of briliance -- but never both simultaneously.

From the third set to the end, it seemed like mostly Roger playing well ... and Marcos was realizing his own mortality (mentaly and physically).

(For the record, I am the (apparently only) TW Member who thought the '05 Safin/Federer Semi was *not* one of the great matches of all time. I'm beginning to think I look at these matches differently than many people do....)

This final was still very enjoyable to watch; just not near the top of my list for "best matches."

- KK

vllockhart
01-30-2006, 03:28 PM
:confused: Marcos lost because he is not as good as Federer.