People think that they are smart because they suggest "something else".
Fed should have lost easily in straight sets, and all Fed fans here would still be happy with the victory against Nadal, which kept him from getting closer, up to only one slam difference.
Fed didn’t account for FU mode Djokovic. Helps that Fed can’t summon an ace on MP to save his life
Let me think about it.
Just gave it a thought and maybe not.
What the fvck is this?
I thought that exactly when he lost the first set TB.
Fed would have never done that. Never.
It’s all about expectations. Simple as that.
Yes, simple as that. We should take that once and for all and stop whining.
This and similar comments are odd when they refer to the game of tennis. These days if a player loses two points on his serve it is considered chocking, regardless of the fact that that happens multiple times in a match. I guess everyone is a "choker" all the time.
This and similar comments are odd when they refer to the game of tennis. These days if a player loses two points on his serve it is considered chocking, regardless of the fact that that happens multiple times in a match. I guess everyone is a "choker" all the time.
I wonder how many of those others played against a 4 times Wimbledon champion and one of the greatest returners/defenders at the age of 38.
I already digested Federer is a choker, an immensely talented choker, at the same time I am his fan. Also, he is the player I enjoy watching play the most.I wonder how many of those others played against a 4 times Wimbledon champion and one of the greatest returners/defenders at the age of 38.
And why shouldn't be able to do that? He almost beat Nadal and Djokovic in the same tournament?
Come on! Have you never lost squandering match points? Hope you haven’t. It feels worse than being bageled or breadsticked.
Maybe you can’t have it all together, but a not choking-prone Federer would have been the undisputed tennis GOAT, what he isn’t.If we assume that Federer is the same player in win and defeat, it looks like the concept of choking is bound to whether the player wins or loses. A rather flimsy definition then, considering that Federer has won most than any player in the OE.
Well, it’s about personal tastes then.No, it doesn't.
Where did I say “if Fed won every time”. You can lose without choking, and that’s fine.I mostly don't bother to make that remark, as people here are sold on the concept anyway, but the GOAT moniker is such a non-entity it is not even funny.
Also, I am not sure what you are saying here, but basically the gist of what you imply is that, if Federer won every time, he would be whatever abstract idealisation there is for the perfect tennis player. Well, duh, but that player doesn't exist.
Djokovic was breadsticked today, and he won the match. He seemed to be a punching ball in the second set?Sure. I vastly prefer to know that I already have the level to beat someone and I need to improve whatever I think needs improving, than to be crushed and fulfill the duty of a punching bag, wondering what I am doing on the court at all.
I just watched Federers press conference and someone asked him if it's harder to lose like that.
I am just analyzing what he did at each of the MPs today. He did not play them well. Strange after having hit two aces in the two prior points.You are the second person today that I am talking to on that matter, but why people believe that bringing a match to a critical point and losing it there is more of a "choke" than losing it convincingly? If the match was strongly contested one would think that the opponent has as many ways to influence the outcome as the player we are talking about himself, so it is not like the "choker" is supposed to be rolling over his opponent in a crucial moment.
What would he say instead? he can’t say the other thing never.
OK, I got what you said. You believe Fed did not choke today, where choking means he could not manage presssure well, which is a common trait in many of his matches against Djokovic, which also happened against Nadal in the past, but it seems he has solved lately.It is not strange at all. Is Federer supposed to be nailing ace after ace to win service games? Two aces in one game is already an extraordinary high number.
It shows that Djokovic is great enough to win points at the slightest opening. Who would have thought or expected that from an ATG with 16 Majors to his name?
Second MP reminded me a lot this one:
