Federer vs. Ferrer

Discussion in 'Pro Match Results and Discussion' started by Andres, Apr 21, 2006.

  1. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    Not looking good at all for David.
    Federer is up 5-0 with triple set point.
    Ohh, 40-15 now :p

    Nope... 6-0, the first bagel of the match :rolleyes: in 17 mins
     
    #1
  2. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    ^^no bagel 6:1
     
    #2
  3. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    this match is a beatdown...seems like Fed is really serious about clay this year ;)
     
    #3
  4. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    Yeah, I'm a moron, seems like I wasn't paying any attention at the match.
    Gotta turn up the volume, and stop messing around on the internet :mrgreen:
     
    #4
  5. oscar_2424

    oscar_2424 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,239
    Location:
    Hallandale, Florida
    Federer is killing Ferrer
     
    #5
  6. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    6-1 4-2 at the time :)
     
    #6
  7. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    yep Fed played 2 loose games and Ferrer is fighting now 4*:3 for fed
     
    #7
  8. Andres

    Andres G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Messages:
    12,541
    Location:
    Mar del Plata, Argentina
    It's over, 6-1; 6-3 ;)
     
    #8
  9. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    except those 2-3 games where Federer's mind wandered off court he was great today - I don't see Gonzo or Ljubo beat him tomorrow...
     
    #9
  10. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,949
    That was just a beatdown.I wonder if he will play doubles.Can u imagine if we get a Nadal vs Fed matchup, Fed will be a huge underdog, Nadal's streak on the line.
     
    #10
  11. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    reminds of Dubai only the other way round, maybe with the same outcome and the underdog wins? ;)
     
    #11
  12. psp2

    psp2 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,102
    this match was a straight out "Federer 101" schooling for Ferrer. RF moved unbelievably well in that 1st set.
     
    #12
  13. Volly master

    Volly master Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    656
    roland garros...beware of the man whos swiss.
     
    #13
  14. ATXtennisaddict

    ATXtennisaddict Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    4,278
    that's awesome!!!!
     
    #14
  15. Tchocky

    Tchocky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,815
    Location:
    The OC
    I can't believe people actually thought Ferrer had a chance. Federer was a heavy favorite at -621 vs. Ferrer at +561.
     
    #15
  16. Brettolius

    Brettolius Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    Beyond Thunderdome
    Yes, because the world revolves around betting odds.
     
    #16
  17. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Well the odds are generally right the majority of the time, especially with huge odds like that. That's why its so hard to win at gambling.
    Those odds are insane. That's like the Bulls beating the Heat in the playoffs. I can't imagine anyone thinks they have a realistic shot, & I can't imagine anyone thought Ferrer had a realistic shot.
    I'm interested in seeing the odds for a Fed-Nadal final. It could be the first time that Fed is an underdog since he played Roddick in '03 Wimbledon.
     
    #17
  18. Tchocky

    Tchocky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,815
    Location:
    The OC
    What were the odds when Roddick play Fed in the 2003 Wimbledon semis?

    I would expect Fed to be +130 to +150 and Nadal to be -150 to -170.
     
    #18
  19. jhhachamp

    jhhachamp Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,033
    I think at this point, the Fed Nadal potential final would have to be pretty close to even.
     
    #19
  20. 8PAQ

    8PAQ Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,002
    I think Nadal will win in 4. I just hope Fed at least plays well for more than 1 set this time. So frustrating that he never can keep his level up for the entire match against Nadal.
     
    #20
  21. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,949
    Alot of the pressure will be on Nadal.I hope Fed comes more foward.I think he knows a victory is huge for his confidence on clay,
     
    #21
  22. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Roddick was a slight favorite, probably similar to what you think Nadal will be.
    Nadal was +250 in Dubai(which I thought was a bit disrespectful, considering who he is & is his record vs Fed) I wouldn't be surprised if Fed is +180, especially if Nadal destroys Gaudio(which I expect him to do)

    On clay, no one seems to be able to keep up their level vs Nadal on clay. I thought Coria's comments today were funny-"the guy is a physical beast, an animal."
    And too many seem obsessed with stats on clay. Everyone makes more errors than winners on clay(most of the time) Not sure why so many seem to think Fed can play exactly the same on clay(statistically) that he does on hardcourt.

    Even if Federer loses to Nadal, I don't think it will bother him that much or hurt his chances at the French. The French is a long ways away & stranger things have happened (like Muster losing to Stich at '96 French, who would have thought that was possible?)

    I also don't think its wise for Fed to play all 3 clay masters series(for the 1st time in his caree). He's risking being worn out or peaking to soon before the French. Playing too much on clay also might get him playing more like a claycourter than playing like Fed.
    He might get too used to making a lot of errors;)

    Jim Courier only played 1 clay event before the '92 & '93 & it didn't hurt his chances. You don't need to eat & sleep on clay to do well on it.
     
    #22
  23. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,949
    If he wins, i think he might skip Rome.
     
    #23
  24. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    I think he should pass on Rome, regardless if he wins. He's already getting 6 matches in this week, that's what's most important(for his French preparation), not the title. The title would just be gravy.
     
    #24
  25. ACE of Hearts

    ACE of Hearts G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    13,949
    Hey Moose, lets not forget, he wants to defend those points.If he gets to the final, he will have alot of points, if he wins it, even better.He dont want to give up that number 1 ranking.
     
    #25
  26. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    You don't really think he's in danger of losing his #1? The guy has a 2,000 point lead, the biggest lead ever(I think)
    Right now all he cares about is the French. I doubt #1 will be on his mind until after the US Open(if he hasn't already clinched it by then)

    Career Grand Slam>#1 ranking

    I expect him to put forth his best effort in the final(doesn't he always do that?) But, hopefully he takes a pass on Rome, win or lose.
     
    #26
  27. snark

    snark Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    241
    It would be impossible for Nadal to catch up with him even if Nadal wins every clay Masters tournament, there are just not enough points before Wimbledon. Federer would have to get injured and miss Wimbledon before someone could (at least in theory) catch up.
     
    #27
  28. The tennis guy

    The tennis guy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,625
    It wasn't surprise. 96 French was the fastest clay court ever. They speeded up the court by thickenning the layer below clay, faster balls, plus very dry weather. The result, the last 4 were Kafelnikov, Stich, Sampras, Rosset.
     
    #28
  29. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    Yeah, right. Did you predict what happened? If you bet on Stich to win that match you would have made a fortune. Who was your pick to win the event beforehand? Muster was the heavy favorite, like Nadal last year.
    And Rosset was always good on clay throughout his career, so I don't think him making the semis proves anything. Kafelnikov made the semis the year before. Sampras was in the Quarters 3 of the last 4 years. Stich was a former Hamburg(slowest claycourt) champ. And a SFist in '91.

    I have a several matches on tape from '96 French, nobody said anything about this clay thickening. Muster said the speed was the same, where is your info from?
    If they could change the speed, why didn't they for any other year that decade?

    I never heard any player say anything about the balls either. Yes, it was pretty hot that year. But it was also very hot in '94 & Bruguera played Berasategui. And it was very hot at '96 Rome & Muster still won it.

    Muster was a huge favorite in that match. Was just watching it, the clay was still clay, Stich just played out of his mind, was serving huge & just going for broke on anything. And he was able to stay in long rallies with Muster.

    Attacking players sometimes do well at the French. Krajicek & Rafter made the semis, do you think it was fast clay those years as well? Or Becker making Monte Carlo final?
    These things happen its not always about some conspiracy with the surface being manipulated. I can't imagine why the French would do so, to help a French player? To help Sampras?
     
    #29
  30. Shabazza

    Shabazza Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    5,106
    He has a 3,000 point lead atm. and I agree with you, but I doubt he will skip Rome.
     
    #30
  31. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    Actually, I really wasn't surprised at all. The 96 French the courts were packed because of a heat wave and drought leading up to the event and thus the tournament played "just like a hard court" as a result. It was a year for the traditional gripper, with fast-court technique.

    And also, Muster was always vulnerable to the big-server, serve and volleyer, type of player. Sure, he won his share due to shear grit and determination, but Edberg and Rafter OWNED him for the most part. It's notable, because these were two of the few guys who matched Muster for intensity, focus, and concentration, 110% on every point types. Thus, what you got was a pure matchup with no outside variables and intangibles affecting things in my opinion, i.e. both players going all out without excuse. If a guy like Stich was on and giving it his, that's the worse possible matchup for a guy like Muster, plus add the court conditions that year? It was a given he would lose in my opinion. I really didn't get the shock over the match at the time, Muster losing to a Fernando Meligeni type back then, of course, would have been a vastly different story.
     
    #31
  32. Moose Malloy

    Moose Malloy Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,889
    This was not the only French Open to be played under very hot & dry conditions. It was like that in '94, when Bruguera beat Berasategui. And many others I'm sure.
    It was also hot & dry like that in Rome '96, when Muster beat Krajicek in the final. Clay is clay & Muster has won a ton of matches on clay in hot & dry conditions. You & tennis guy must have the only ones not shocked. Muster was one the strongest favorites in French Open history. He won everything on clay that year. Stich hardly played any tennis in '96 due to injury. And he was considering not playing the French that year. Remember, he retired in '97, so this was near the end of his career.
    I watched that match recently & Stich didn't S&V much. His groundstrokes were great & he really was smacking the ball with a lot of pace. When he won, he acted like he won the lottery. The commentators called it one of the biggest upsets in FO history. However hot & dry it is this year, I can't imagine Nadal losing to Henman. That's what it was like when Stich beat Muster.
     
    #32
  33. vive le beau jeu !

    vive le beau jeu ! G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,453
    Location:
    Ometepe, Pink Granite, Queyras, Kerguelen (...)
    in general, muster didn't like to play vs S&V players : he has a 0-10 record vs edberg, 0-3 vs rafter, etc.
    and he always had close matches vs stich on clay !
    (it was not such a big big big surprise although muster won everything before RG)
    http://www.atptennis.com/en/players...ichael&playernum1=S351&player2=Muster,+Thomas
    especially this 10-8 in davis cup... i didn't see it but stich had several match points and was close to be the first one to ever beat muster on clay in davis cup...

    finally it's goran who did it in 1997...... in austria ! (67 75 67 62 75)
    i wish i could have seen this match !!! anybody did ?
     
    #33
  34. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    I understand, but I really think it was faster that year than others since more of a point was made of it.

    And still, really, EVERYONE'S gonna lose sometime. And to me, Muster was just never a guy who felt comfortable with big servers and all-court types. I'm not even saying Stich came in all the time, but to me, it's the mere option he had. Muster just wasn't comfortable playing against Stich types, in my opinion. Also, Stich was a really tall guy and to me heavy topspin doesn't bother taller guys like that because you can't get the ball up on them as much, and secondly Stich hit a flat ball which would affect Muster's strike zone more in my opinion. Again, if you're playing a guy with Stich's rep you know that at any time he can come in. To me, really it's not a surprise. Stich got in the zone, unusual conditions, really while it still may have been a surprise based just on his record, it still doesn't mean that much to me. It's just one match, he was bound to lose sooner or later. I mean if Stich's not at his best that's one thing, but he wasn't. Stich was in the zone. If Stich's in the zone, someone with his type of game that spooked a guy like Muster? Plus add that to me, Muster's got A WHOLE LOT more to lose, and he's going to lose. I mean what pressure did Stich have on him in that match? It's like Sampras playing Bruguera in the first round that year, Bruguera was far from his best, had an excuse with his knee, was in very poor physical condition, was not match tough, blew a million break point chances (why he called the match the most frustrating of his career), and yet who had the most to lose? Bruguera, of course...aka, a "humilitating loss" as PMac put it, just like when Rafter lost to Bruguera at Wimbledon his first time with Bruguera serving and volleying much of the way and JMac saying that match was the one that really set Rafter back. Who do you think had all the pressure there? Rafter, the ATP newcomer of the year, the new Aussia darling, who was supposed to carry on the aussie traidtion of fast court, serve and volley tennis? OR...Bruguera who was just having fun, felt the tremendous release of defening the French off him now (most pressure he ever felt he said), the one with the weirdo technique, who LIKED playing Rafter...but on grass? Obviously, RAFTER was the one with ALL the pressure in that match, and toward the end he started cramping...maybe half because of pressure he felt. Losing a match like that IS humiliating, and it's the kind of thing that can set you back as JMac said about it. And yet, these kind of matches happen not all the time, but certainly they do happen. Just because you're on one surface doesn't mean, ALL of these guys still can't beat you. It just make it less likely is all, but they're all still MORE than capapble of taking you out if you're not all there, or if they're in the "zone." The difference in the mindset can and DOES make a difference at this level.

    But even beyond that, Bruguera unlike Muster felt more comfortable playing big servers and all-courters/net rushers. He actually said he looked forward to people coming in, because he liked to pass. That wasn't Muster, Muster didn't like having to think about that; it was a weakness of his.

    Add these factors up, and again, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's just one loss, nothing more, nothing less from a scientist's perspective...even if it happened at the French.

    And as for the Krajicek match? That's one thing, one match, but it wasn't THIS match. Medvedev had beaten Bruguera like twice in a row or something leading up to 93 French semis, but what happened? Bruguera decimated Medvedev and said he felt like he couldn't miss that day, and that's because he couldn't...that's what the "zone" state is. It comes and goes, years later, Kuerten said he'd never be able to play like he did in the 97 French final again, because it was like that day, it was unbelievable, everything was just going in like it was practice or something with no pressure. It was just one of those days. After that 93 semis match, Bruguera said every match is different, the other matches didn't matter leading up. And that's just how it is. Sometimes, you can be in a slump, but have a good day out of the blue, like Ferrero recently, sometimes you can be off for a long time, and have a zone day too, it happens. I know these things just from personal experience, "zone" days can literally happen anytime, anywhere; the difference is that the zone is kind of a fluke, it's more the day-in, day-out level of your play that deterimines how "hot" you are or not. Just one day here or there in the zone? It IS like winning the lottery, because you can't really plan for it. Literally, I've taken two months off and not done any exercise whatsoever, then hit with a guy I used to own, and then he insults me inadvertantly by saying I'm in no condition to play a match, then I get all fired up, and within minutes, I'm in "the zone" and just annihiliating him...making him say, I'm a "darn good player" sheepishly, only with an m. It happens, doesn't mean my day in day out level was really "hot" or that I was confident. The zone is just one of those things that come out of context, I really don't make more of it than that.

    Again, given the style matchup, given who Muster did and did not like to face, given the court conditions, given how much Muster had on the line (for the record, Bruguera said that he never felt more pressure than he did in having to defend the French title, he was very tight and conservative in his play the first two sets, tanked the third, and it wasn't until the fourth that he finally just let loose and entered the zone, like I said, the zone kind of just comes and goes, when it hits, it can hit at any time, even when you look and are playing like you're down in the dumps, BUT when you feel it "click," you just know, and you instinctively put your put on the the peddle, all you know is that you better RIDE THE WAVE while you can, because the zone can leave just as quickly as it comes on...so no wonder, Stich looked like he had won the lottery afterward), AND just the law of what goes up MUST come down sooner or later. I mean it's like Kuerten, do you think every day during his prime he's going to be down match point to Rudy, err, I mean Michael Russel, at the French? Of course not, just the way it is sometimes. Like Yevgeny Kafelnikov for years playing his best tennis at the Australian Open, the conditions suiting him perfectly, his favorite tournament, one of the few places he's actually in a good mood, then what happens? He gets stomped on by little Alex Kim...in what he later called the worst match he'd ever played in his life...

    Look at the Russian wrestler who hadn't lost ever once in his career in like a decade of competition, then at the Atlanta Olypmics all set to retire with yet another gold, he loses to a no-name American of all peope. It happens, and I remember watching that match and thinking, I can feel something bad coming on. There was just something in the air. You tempt fate for too long, you're gonna lose sooner or later. Even Vitas had his day, no one beats Vitas 100 times in a row, or whatever it was he said. These are only humans here, humans with fluctuations and not robots. Muster may have been a robot those days, but given the conditions why not? Seemed like a perfectly good enough time for it too happen to me. Had he won, no shock, right
     
    #34

Share This Page