Discussion in 'Pacific Life Open' started by Calboymatt, Mar 19, 2006.
Blake was giving Federer a run for his money and then he "lost his mojo" i couldn't believe it!
Now that I think about it maybe Federer started playing real well,
Flip flop much?
lol, yeah, Federer started playing well.
it was a shame i was hoping blake would do it,
btu i guess he got taken to feds house of pain
is that what happened in the third set? did fed start playing like a god or did blake just loose it ? i never got the watch the last set.
i think blake kind of gave up in the third set, he was making all kinds of mistakes like he was just letting fed win. why?
the score is typical in a GS round when a top seed faces a qualifier.... usually the lesser player will make a run, keep it tight in the first set, lose a 2nd set without much fight and totally go away in the 3rd.
that's how good Fed is, he can make a red hot Blake look quite ordinary.
Yeah, whenever Fed is up two sets to none, its as good as over, done deal, money in the bank.
How many 5-set matches has Fed lost when he was up two sets to none?
The only ones that come to mind are vs. Nalbandian at the Masters Final last year and vs. Hewitt in Davis Cup a few years back.
Blake blew it. He should have won the 1st set. He had his chances in the
2nd set but after he lost the 2nd; Roger was in cruise control.
Roger 3-0 (+148)...that was the smart money.
Roger Federer may be a great tennis player but hes no PETE SAMPRAS.
Agreed he's no pete.
He's a more rounded player than pete.
And more likely to win the grandslam than pete.
Just like AO 06 final
Yep, these guys are bursting with confidence until the realize who/what they're up against. Reality sets in... Once they're out of the zone they've been playing in and begin to miss the miraculous shots they had been making, they can't seem to come up with a way to keep their form or make minor adjustments. Then, their confidence is broken and it's all over. The last set looked like Fed was playing against someone outside the top 50.
So much hype. Blake has a great game, but it's all been done before. Roger is so comfortable and confident it's hard to rattle him. I still don't understand how Nadal has a winning record against him though. Seems like it should be even or Nadal maybe would only have won on clay.
Nadal never gives up, no matter what the score is. And Fed has these lapses once in a while.
That's true. But his game isn't very dynamic is it? It doesn't make sense to me that Blake has a 3-0 record to Nadal, 0-3 record to Fed, and Nadal has either a 3-1 or 2-1 record to Fed. Roger should be beating both of them or Nadal should be beating Blake.
...if any of these guys has lapses it's Blake, which makes no sense that he hasn't lost to Nadal.
it's true blake didn't catch his chance in 1st set, but it was all because of fed. when fed was broken twice in 1st set, he kept his calm and changed his strategy by playing more of a defensive game instead of counter-hitting against blake like he did from the beginning in 1st set. once he had the 1st set, he then switched on his offensive game again (actually the offensive game came back to him!) and that was really it for blake from that point on.
that's fed, and that's why he's in his own class.
blake can hit ball early on the rise with so much pace (well we all know blake's forehand), so nadal's heavy top spin didn't seem affect blake's timing much, which usually is a big advantage nadal has against other opponents. nadal got roger frustrated with his top spin as well, and when did you see roger frustrated playing anyone else other than nadal?
when i watched nadal/blake match, i wanted blake to win, but i also kinda wanted nadal to win, because i thought nadal would have a better chance against roger in the final.
I think 3-1 is a temporary state of affairs. Next time they meet on hard courts Fed is likely to win.
I was actually a bit surprized when he lost in Dubai -- he destroyed Nadal in the first set, but then played a fairly weak game against Nadal, who started playing at 100%. Even then it was a very close match.
What is strange to me is why Fed beats Hewitt so easily, while having hard time with Nadal.
I think Blake is capable of being a top 3 in the world for a short period. He will probably be top 10-15 for the rest of his career if he's healthy. I hope he doesn't let the loss get him down. At the same time, I believe he still takes too many chances and the bottom fell out in the PLO final. No one can expect to play at the level he reached for any length of time, but he insists on the aggressive style. He goes for too many great shots, rather than rally or wait for the best opportunity.
I wanted Nadal to win as well. I like Nadal's charisma and day in day out he works very hard for his points and plays a very high percentage game.
Hewitt can't do as much damage from the left side of the court and his ball doesn't doesn't have such heavy topspin. I think that's a point that's been brought up before. Safin, Nadal, Gasquet, and Nalbandian, all who beat him last year are strong from the left side.
I noticed during the match that Thomas Blake said "He's beating James forehand with his backhand," referring to Fed obviously. Fed was just more consistant and Blake lost patience it seemed to me.
I agree, Nadal being a lefty has a lot to do with it. Also Nadal is generally a better player I think. Still, the difference is striking.
In the first set, if you recall, Blake played a few of weak points and Fed played two fantastic points in a row. Once Blake started losing confidence, the game was over quickly.
agree. he works very hard and plays every point the same no matter it's 5-0 or 0-5! how can you not like a guy like the way he plays.
Good question. Nalbandian kinda showed how to beat Roger.
He basically ties Roger to his backhand side and occasionally
stretch him wide on forehands. He also attacks Roger's serving
game pretty aggressively. Counter punching is also important.
IMHO, Hewitt does not have foreceful shots to counter-punch.
Especially his forehand is not forcefull enough to tie Federer
to his backhand or stretch him wide. Roger just does not have
pressure because hewitt just does not have power.
Now Nadal.. He isn't forcefull as some other players but he has
lefty's angle. He can do 200% of Nalbandian's tactic effectively.
He can put Roger deep into his backhand side and stretch him
really wide to his forehand. He can also hit aggressive return on
Roger's serving game.
I don't think Roger will ever be able to turn the table against Nadal
convincingly. If Roger develops stronger atacking games, he can
probably beat Nadal most of the time. Even if that happens,
it will be always close, IMHO.
You know federer is man who mostly overlate to get rithym. Once he got it, he would take form to something nuts. That's what Blake've done in the earlier match was right, you know, be aggresive, get the heavy burden pressure to opponent and actually it's only way to challenge Fed. Consistency and mentality maybe a major problem to everybody when they met federer.
Nadal's 'nothing to loose' game is very effective to figure out this case. He's young, agressive, massive power, and no pressure on his shoulders.
Ok, this is what happened.
James was playing freaking amazing and killing Feds and was up 2 breaks for 4-1 I believe.
James was serving still with his momentum and he proceeds to play the loosest game in history. He basically went back to old James and made some unbelievably ridiculous errors trying to go for too much too soon.
I'll watch the match again tonight, but if you recorded it check it for yourself.
It was James himself who handed the momentum over to Feds.
Even Fed said at the post match interview that James played a loose game and he was back in it.
James, Feds is not Tommy Robredo!!! You can't let up for a minute with Feds. That is all he needs!!!!!
He probably thought ok, bye bye insurance break, I still have one more. Against anybody else, that would probably be true, but the Fed express knew once James had made those error HIMSELF, that the extreme confidence he was feeling would have subsided a bit and he could have a chance at the set and Fed played with #1 experience and didn't go for too much to soon but changed strategy and outplayed James.
Hopefully James will learn from this and not try to hit spectacular shots at key points in a match. When you are up 2 breaks, increase the gap by doing EXACTLY WHAT GAVE YOU THE 2 BREAKS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! Resist the temptation to play spectacular shots and go for too much.
James should've won that first set.
i can't remember the exact events, but blake's game went way off the rails near the end of the first set... i presume it was the pressure, but some of his shots were 4.0 level mistakes.... then i went to bed fairly early in the second set as i've seen that movie before (didn't know it was best of 5 though).
Nadal will get Blake. It's only a matter of time. I don't think Nadal enjoys playing on US soil. He's lost to Blake in America on all occasions and on both occasions I thought the crowd was a bit rude and agressive. I heard a lot of cheering when Nadal missed a first serve especially in the US open. Nadal needs to be a little more patient with blake. I think on both occasions he kind of understimated Blakes scrambling abilities.
Federer changed the rhythm of the match -- slices, angles, shortish balls --and that upset Blake, who likes pace and bounce on the ball. That's one of the reasons why Blake has a good match uo with Nadal, that and Blake's speed. It will be interesting to see whether Nadal can vary his game to beat Blake consistently.
Nadal gives Federer trouble because he is a left hander, and for no other real reason. If Federer works out how to play Nadal's left handed game it will be over for Nadal as far as Federer is concerned.
Separate names with a comma.