PDA

View Full Version : No Time To Be Nice


spam
06-12-2006, 11:59 PM
Tony Roche saw it,second game of second set .Fed is 40-0 up on serve ,Nadal hits a shot that is called long by the baseline judge.Fed instinctively walks to the line and cedes the point to Nadal.Good sport you may say,well yes but suddenly Fed is out of the zone and Nadal breaks to go 2-0 up -after that "game set and mental match "to Nadal.This isnt the time to be nice ,Fed needed to show that he wasnt going to give an inch to Nadal-let the umpire make the call even if the balls a foot in.
Feds that good he wins most tournaments on skill alone but he needs to put this fighter in his place -its definitely a mental issue ,when he gets up next time he needs to put the hammer down,2 sets up and its all over for Nadal.

ericsson
06-13-2006, 12:07 AM
if the ball is in it's in, point. that's what i like about fed exp, a real gentleman and sportsman. it's not easy to do such things, rafter was like that, rios, martin and some others, not like kiefer (i've never liked that guy anyway). go ahead roger, you're an example to us all.

mislav
06-13-2006, 12:14 AM
The ball was in. No soup for you! :mrgreen:

You are very much fooling yourself if you think that this is why Fed lost.

spam
06-13-2006, 12:37 AM
Thats not my point,let the umpire decide-its a concentration issue and also its the vibe you give to the opposition.Im not saying he should cheat .1 point can definitely change the whole perspective of a matchand I believe this was the case here.This match was far more than forehands and backhands.

chess9
06-13-2006, 12:48 AM
Anyone who has played tennis competitively knows that doubt CAN be death to one's game. We all have our nemeses (or, nemesis in the case of RF) and they are people who, when we see them in the draw, we go "Oh, no, not that guy again!"

Anyway, I think Nadal has succeeded in instilling enough doubt and tentativeness in RF's game to beat him. It takes sublime talent to beat RF, but the differences between them are so small the lopsided (6-1) results can ONLY be attributable to mental factors. I choose doubt.

-Robert

Cfidave
06-13-2006, 01:34 AM
It is not so much as being Nice, it is more like being Honest, as in not cheating.

Rhino
06-13-2006, 02:29 AM
Yeah I'm surprised this hasn't been spoken of more.
I agree with you spam actually. I mean, it's funny, you get a lot of people on this board saying "Federer cheated....", etc in other matches but the truth is he's very fair.
However I believe it was at exactly at that point in the final that the momentum of the match switched, it was a big turning point for Nadal. Coming back from 40-0 to break Federer was an important psychological moment. Had Fed gone with the umpires call he would've had a love service game and still be feeling totally in charge.
It's true, he probably still would not have won the match, I'm not saying that. It's just that Federer overall didn't seem very ruthless out there and it did cost him games and provided Nadal with the turning point.
Nice guy tactics don't beat Nadal on clay.

superman1
06-13-2006, 02:49 AM
This happens from time to time. Happened in a match between Roddick and Verdasco. Roddick gives the point to Verdasco on his match point (I think), he ends up losing the set and Verdasco wins the match in 3. One act of kindness can make you feel a little too comfortable on court and before you know it your opponent is going in for the kill. I say leave it to the umpire.

baseliner
06-13-2006, 04:31 AM
Um, gotta agree with cfidave here. If the ball was in (remember it was on clay and Fed examined the mark) what was Fed to do? Character is what tells in the long run. Fed showed character, honesty and sportsmanship. Wouldn't want to win the French Open if I had to cheat to win.

spam
06-13-2006, 04:49 AM
Um, gotta agree with cfidave here. If the ball was in (remember it was on clay and Fed examined the mark) what was Fed to do? Character is what tells in the long run. Fed showed character, honesty and sportsmanship. Wouldn't want to win the French Open if I had to cheat to win.
When did I mention cheating?Sorry if you dont understand my point-its not Feds job or in his best interests to call the lines one way or the other,by giving the point he lost concentration at a vital point in the match and he gave ground in the mental battle-comprende??Remember before the warm up Nadal was jumping around flexing his muscles,trying to intimidate Fed,he also slows the game down to disturb his oppo's concentration-the guys a ruthless shark and you dont show sharks weakness or you're dinner.

Rataplan
06-13-2006, 05:22 AM
It was not an easy call to make. Looking at the mark on tv, the mark did show that the ball touched the line so it was in even if was close.

The umpire ruled it in so what can Federer do about it?

I mean, you say that it's no time to be nice but what could he have done about it other than throw a JMac "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS" type tantrum?
Any suggestions?

Furthermore, I don't think that one moment like that is enough to throw away the concentration for the entire match. Federer is tougher than that.

baseliner
06-13-2006, 08:57 AM
IT IS A MATTER OF CHEATING. Federer "instinctively " walked to the line, saw the ball was in and corrected the call. Now, Spam what exactly are you suggesting Federer do? After seeing the ball was in do a Jimmy Conners and erase the ball mark? Tennis is a game of sportsmanship and played by gentlemen. Even if my opponent is a "shark", I do not let my ethics and moral standards change or be dictated by a less ethical opponent.

matchpoint
06-13-2006, 01:20 PM
IT IS A MATTER OF CHEATING. Federer "instinctively " walked to the line, saw the ball was in and corrected the call. Now, Spam what exactly are you suggesting Federer do? After seeing the ball was in do a Jimmy Conners and erase the ball mark? Tennis is a game of sportsmanship and played by gentlemen. Even if my opponent is a "shark", I do not let my ethics and moral standards change or be dictated by a less ethical opponent.

Agree with baseliner and rataplan. If you checked the mark and you see that it is clearly in you have to correct the call. It's not about being nice it's about being honest and sport.

Spam, could you imagine if you were that person, you checked the mark and you saw it in and called it out and the umpire come down to check the mark and the camera focused on the mark for everyone to see that clearly showed the ball is in, it would be terribly embarassing to be in that situation. Can you imagine the booing that you are going to get and the label that will stay with you forever. That right there is going to cost you the game and the stigma for life.

c_zimma
06-13-2006, 01:31 PM
He was a good enough sport to be honest in a tough situation. That says a lot about him, as a person, and not a tennis player. And that point is not why he lost that game, and that match. It was the "rest" of the points that determined the match.

spam
06-13-2006, 01:37 PM
IT IS A MATTER OF CHEATING. Federer "instinctively " walked to the line, saw the ball was in and corrected the call. Now, Spam what exactly are you suggesting Federer do? After seeing the ball was in do a Jimmy Conners and erase the ball mark? Tennis is a game of sportsmanship and played by gentlemen. Even if my opponent is a "shark", I do not let my ethics and moral standards change or be dictated by a less ethical opponent.
Let me explain-its only cheating if Federer calls the ball long or argues in is out-its not difficult-does a soccer player stop playing because he may or may not be offside.With all due respect Im not talking about you Im talking about ATP tennis in the pro player forum.Fed made a mistake not letting the umpire do his job and it threw his concentration IMO.