M
Morrissey
Guest
Come back with that statement in 6 months. Until someone beats him on clay this year he's deserving of the right to be called FO favorite.
Come back with that statement in 6 months. Until someone beats him on clay this year he's deserving of the right to be called FO favorite.
M
Morrissey
Guest
Lol, yeah. He acts the same as when he beat Sampras in that epic 5 setter six years ago. This was a routine 3 set win for him. No drama here. Just put your hands up and say "I'm da man!" "Allow me to reintroduce myself, my name is HOV! I keeps it real, WU-TANG!"
LOL
And I fully agree that Nadal is the FO favourite. I basically consider him the greatest clay courter ever. Fed fans who trash talk Nadal only make a disservice to Federer and play right into the "Federer plays in area of weak competition" argument. As Federer fan I prefer to believe that Fed was owned on clay by the greatest clay courter ever and not by some punk.
Last edited:
BigServer1
Legend
I agree with you here. Nadal is the favorite on clay unless someone beats him on the dirt. I think this is the year that he loses on clay and I just have a feeling someone is going to get to him and what must be a semi-fragile tennis mind. That said, he's won 60 in a row and deserves props for that, but I think it gets lost in the shuffule due to his recent struggles. We'll see if he gets it back this April and May.
As for the dramaticism of Roger, he does indeed deserve that celebration. This slam was certainly not mundane in any way shape or form. It was his 10th slam (just seems so much bigger than 9), he became the first guy since 1980 to win a slam without dropping a set and he's the first man to win three slams three different times (so they said last night). Pretty big stuff for a guy who's a student of the game and is writing his own place in the history books.
Mick
Legend
Sure, but in past matches, he had played Lleyton Hewitt, James Blake, Rafael Nadal, and Tommy Haas. Those are great players but they are not in the same league as Roger Federer. Gonzo had more unforced errors because to win a point from Federer, he had to hit a fantastic shot and when you go for a fantastic shot point after point, you are going to make more unforced errors.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
mick stated it perfectly......and i've said similar leading into this match...
any player on the tour right now can play out of their mind, hit 60 winners and like 1 or 2 errors a match, over 95% 1st serves, just everything looks like perfect tennis....but it means nothign when put up to playing federer, because you dont hit those winners like you did in earlier rounds against a ball hit off federer's racquet
you wont get as many aces or service winners with federer returning, and you will make many more errors trying to return a shot by federer than by hewitt, blake, nadal, or haas
gonzo put up a valiant effort on his part but 7-6 6-4 6-4 was the best he could do....federer is just too good
any player on the tour right now can play out of their mind, hit 60 winners and like 1 or 2 errors a match, over 95% 1st serves, just everything looks like perfect tennis....but it means nothign when put up to playing federer, because you dont hit those winners like you did in earlier rounds against a ball hit off federer's racquet
you wont get as many aces or service winners with federer returning, and you will make many more errors trying to return a shot by federer than by hewitt, blake, nadal, or haas
gonzo put up a valiant effort on his part but 7-6 6-4 6-4 was the best he could do....federer is just too good
Last edited:
mileslong
Professional
OWNED again, jeez morrissey your tennis takes just get better and better. who do you like in the super bowl? your 90% wrong on everything tennis so i would like bet the other way on your super bowl pick. maybe if you werent such a fed hater you might get a few more picks right from time to time...
Docalex007
Hall of Fame
^^ Ouch, morrissey you just owned by this post.
Shabazza
Legend
Sounds realistic, anything more would mean he has keep up the pace he takes Slams for anthor 4-5 years, which I doubt he can.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
IMO, that was one of the lowest quality matches I've ever seen Federer play ever or Gonzo play this week. Unforced errors galore from both!!! Both players seemed to have trouble just keeping the ball from sailing 3 feet past the base or side lines. Low 1st serve %. Netting easy shots. To me, it was a case of of whoever was less terrible will win - kind of like a club level match.
Gonzo seemed to forget how to play the way that got him to the final and reverted back to the "old" Gonzo. Missing big shots wildly and going for big shots or drop shots at the worng times. :sad:
I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets. Unfortunately, Gonzo played at least 10 times worse. So even though Federer played very poorly by his standads, he still won in straight sets.
Pretty sad final IMHO. :sad:
Gonzo seemed to forget how to play the way that got him to the final and reverted back to the "old" Gonzo. Missing big shots wildly and going for big shots or drop shots at the worng times. :sad:
I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets. Unfortunately, Gonzo played at least 10 times worse. So even though Federer played very poorly by his standads, he still won in straight sets.
Pretty sad final IMHO. :sad:
Last edited:
ubel
Professional
What a great match this was. Federer realized pretty quickly that he was going to have to come to the net a lot to finish points against Gonzalez.. Gonzalez coughed up a few errors on his forehand and backhand, and when he did make his shots, Federer's incredible defense kept him in the points long enough to allow Gonzalez to hit the error. Gonzalez got quite a few winners in, but most of the power on his forehand and backhand was neutralized by the Fed-factor. After that incredible first set, Federer just upped his game so much that he was barely having any trouble in holding serve. He lost just 4 points in 10 service games over the last two sets combined.. ridiculous. It's absolutely true: no matter how well you play in a tournament and how confident you are heading into a match against him, everything changes once you step out on that court to actually play Federer. Two nastiest stats about the match which decided the match, mentioned by Marius and others:
Federer's Net Approaches: 34 of 43 = 79 % (out of 120 total points won).
Federer's Winning % on 2nd Serve = 28 of 36 (78 %)
Federer's Net Approaches: 34 of 43 = 79 % (out of 120 total points won).
Federer's Winning % on 2nd Serve = 28 of 36 (78 %)
Last edited:
Shabazza
Legend
LoL Y
Yeah of course, 32 winners vs 7 UE's in the 2nd and 3rd set from Fed is "Unforced errors galore" from him.
You're playing tennis right?
If you can't see the tactical change Federer made after the first set (which was hampered by a strong wind) and how he began to out-maneuver and out-think Gonzalez, your analytical sense for the game is pretty bad.
Both players had more winners than errors - Federer had a +25 statistic. And both had one of the best rallies at this years AO.
Really, if you can't recognize a well played match, if the winning score isn't 0, 1, 2. You're a lost cause.
Go enjoy your blowouts.
Shabazza
Legend
I second that. Can't believe people who play the game can't see it...
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
Exactly. I don't know why some posters don't learn. They kept talking about "if Gonzalez plays the way he has been playing" crap. That's exactly the point, Federer won't allow you to play the way you were playing against other players.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
You have a point BP, but I don't think this was the worst from either of them. It was, indeed, far from the best. But then, as fans, we were spoiled by Federer's and Gonzo's supreme domination in the semifinals. I think it was too much for either of them to repeat because:
1) Playing that way day in and day out is impossible
2) Playing that way depends on the match-up
3) There is the added pressure of a GS final
4) The wind played havoc with the timing of both players from one side of the court
Still, I really enjoyed the first set. It was a ding-dong battle.
Last edited:
I thought it was a great match. Gonzo had set points in the first set but it seemed like Fed was in control for the most part. The best point came in the 3rd set, 3-3, 30-30; Federer had to come in to net twice before winning that point.
I also thought it was interesting when the umpire made them replay a point where Federer correctly challenged an out call that was a backhand winner for him (Gonzalez was close to the ball on his backhand side). I'm sure Gonzo was like, "thanks, that's really going to help me out." Carillo said he was ready to "concede the point."
I also thought it was interesting when the umpire made them replay a point where Federer correctly challenged an out call that was a backhand winner for him (Gonzalez was close to the ball on his backhand side). I'm sure Gonzo was like, "thanks, that's really going to help me out." Carillo said he was ready to "concede the point."
Fed finished +26 and played Club level tennis.......did I read that right?
TennezSport
Hall of Fame
Wha wha whattt???
BP,
I think the point you are missing here is that Fed did not allow Gonzo to play at the level that his other opponents did. If you look at the match stats this was a very well played match. Fed had 45 winners to 19 UEs; Gonzo had 33 winner and 28 UEs.
Fed served 48% first serves in the first, but improved that to 69% first serves in the next 2 sets and only allowed 3 points against serve. Fed won 78% of his first serves and 77% of his second serves. Gonzo's serve percentage started high but began to fall as Fed took Gonzo's legs out.
In Gonzo four previous matches, he was able to dictate and come in on slower and shorter balls (especially against Nadal and Haas). Fed kept more than 78% of his balls within a foot of the baseline. Even the shorter balls had so much spin they jumped at Gonzo. Gonzo also kept the ball deep, but Fed's ability to take the ball on the rise is as good as Agassi's used to be and that kept Gonzo under constant pressure (thus, more UEs).
By all of the stats this was a VERY WELL played match from both players. Now whether you enjoyed it or not is your issue, but the stats don't lie.
TennezSport
BP,
I think the point you are missing here is that Fed did not allow Gonzo to play at the level that his other opponents did. If you look at the match stats this was a very well played match. Fed had 45 winners to 19 UEs; Gonzo had 33 winner and 28 UEs.
Fed served 48% first serves in the first, but improved that to 69% first serves in the next 2 sets and only allowed 3 points against serve. Fed won 78% of his first serves and 77% of his second serves. Gonzo's serve percentage started high but began to fall as Fed took Gonzo's legs out.
In Gonzo four previous matches, he was able to dictate and come in on slower and shorter balls (especially against Nadal and Haas). Fed kept more than 78% of his balls within a foot of the baseline. Even the shorter balls had so much spin they jumped at Gonzo. Gonzo also kept the ball deep, but Fed's ability to take the ball on the rise is as good as Agassi's used to be and that kept Gonzo under constant pressure (thus, more UEs).
By all of the stats this was a VERY WELL played match from both players. Now whether you enjoyed it or not is your issue, but the stats don't lie.
TennezSport
MasturB
Legend
Is it just me or has Federer lost that "explosion" in his forehand? It's still a dominant weapon but you just don't see it explode off the racket anymore.
I noticed he doesn't use as nearly much as torque on his body on forehands from the baseline than he used to. I was watching the Hewitt - Federer '04 US Open demolition derby and his forehand, each and every one of them were rockets.
The ones he's been hitting at the open recently have been moreso accuracy shots than power shots. I think it's great he's figured out how to continously win matches like this without having to explode on his forehands. His approach forehand is still very explosive, but i noticed he's been holding back on some of his behind the baseline forehands until he really needs to turn it up.
I noticed he doesn't use as nearly much as torque on his body on forehands from the baseline than he used to. I was watching the Hewitt - Federer '04 US Open demolition derby and his forehand, each and every one of them were rockets.
The ones he's been hitting at the open recently have been moreso accuracy shots than power shots. I think it's great he's figured out how to continously win matches like this without having to explode on his forehands. His approach forehand is still very explosive, but i noticed he's been holding back on some of his behind the baseline forehands until he really needs to turn it up.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
It is just you. Federer's forehand especially crosscourt is as explosive as ever in his matches against Djokovic, Roddick, and Gonzalez.
You can't compare these matches against his match with Hewitt. Hewitt's balls don't have as much bite, so he has all the time he needs to explode. Against hard hitting balls from the 3 I mentioned above, he doesn't need to explode, all he needs is to take it early, using opponent's pace.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
Both player well played the final, which was much better than either of the semi-final. However, Fed was better than Gonzo, so Fed won the match. Isn't this just so simple? 
FitzRoy
Professional
Both player well played the final, which was much better than either of the semi-final. However, Fed was better than Gonzo, so Fed won the match. Isn't this just so simple?
Clearly Federer was better, and in that sense it is "simple". However, it's interesting to try and analyze specifically how and why he was better. There has to be a reason, no? This isn't some quasi-mystical phenomenon where we just say "Whoever is betta wins, and Fed is betta, except on clay, where Nadal is betta". What is it that makes him better? I think anyone who enjoys watching or playing tennis should be interested in trying to know the answer to that question.
In the case of Federer vs. Gonzalez, I think there were two key differences. One was the use of the backhand. Gonzalez's slice backhand worked for him in the sense that it allowed him to extend points, but there were only a few occasions in which Gonzalez was able to use his backhand aggressively out of a neutral rally to put Federer in defensive positions on the court. Conversely, Federer could equally maintain a neutral rally on his backhand, but was also consistently able to strike the backhand aggressively and put Gonzalez in poor positions (either running to the forehand, or stretched wide to the backhand side). On the whole, my observation was that Fed's superior backhand play allowed him to take control of neutral rallies, and from there win the point with his excellent transition game.
The other difference was the second serve. Gonzalez was not able to return Federer's second serve aggressively, so Federer was able to start, at worst, in a neutral rally, and from there take control of the point. Gonzalez hadn't faced anyone with a second serve that good up until the final, and he wasn't able to put any pressure on Federer during his service games.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I guess you forgot all of those easy forehands that Federer hit 3 feet past the baseline? Or all those backhands that Gonzales either netted or hit 5 feet wide? How about all of those missed first serves into the bottom of the net?LoL Y
Yeah of course, 32 winners vs 7 UE's in the 2nd and 3rd set from Fed is "Unforced errors galore" from him.
You're playing tennis right?
If you can't see the tactical change Federer made after the first set (which was hampered by a strong wind) and how he began to out-maneuver and out-think Gonzalez, your analytical sense for the game is pretty bad.
Both players had more winners than errors - Federer had a +25 statistic. And both had one of the best rallies at this years AO.
Really, if you can't recognize a well played match, if the winning score isn't 0, 1, 2. You're a lost cause.
Go enjoy your blowouts.
I don't care how they count the winners and unforced errors, all I know is I've been watch tennis for 35 years and this was one of the ugliest matches I've ever seen. It seemed to me as if both players were brain dead out there or like they were playing not to lose rather than to win. I've seen much better college matches before.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
That's only because, IMO, Gonzales had zero defense and just stood there and allowed Federer to do whatever he wanted. To me, that's not high quality nor exciting tennis. Kind of like watching a 5.0 player beat up on a 3.5 player. Not a very competitve match IMO.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Anyway, IMO, Gonzo's loss had more to do with Gonzo than anything that Federer was doing. I saw all of Gonzo's last 4 matches and I know what he is capable of and what kind of shots he can hit. He did none of those things in today's final. Did you notice that every time Federer came to the net, Gonzo tried to hit through Federer instead of past him, like he did so well against Haas, Nadal, and Blake? Like he was just blasting the ball aimlessly and mindlessly - like the old Gonzo, pre-Stefanki.
Federer played terrible in that 1st set and the only thing that saved him was that Gonzo played even worse. Federer had no business at all winning that 1st set. If Gonzo had even played at only 50% of the level that he played against Haas, he would have won that set 6-2.
I think his 0-9 record against Federer really got to Gonzo's head and he didn't really truly believe deep down that he could beat Federer in a Grand Slam final (which has only happened ONCE, ever (Nadal - RG '06)), despite what he was saying to the media. It really showed and he was trying some strange things out there today.
Anyway, this is just my own personal opinion. You guys may see it and interpret it differently. That's what message boards are all about.
Federer played terrible in that 1st set and the only thing that saved him was that Gonzo played even worse. Federer had no business at all winning that 1st set. If Gonzo had even played at only 50% of the level that he played against Haas, he would have won that set 6-2.
I think his 0-9 record against Federer really got to Gonzo's head and he didn't really truly believe deep down that he could beat Federer in a Grand Slam final (which has only happened ONCE, ever (Nadal - RG '06)), despite what he was saying to the media. It really showed and he was trying some strange things out there today.
Anyway, this is just my own personal opinion. You guys may see it and interpret it differently. That's what message boards are all about.
RiosTheGenius
Hall of Fame
I think we're concentrating too much on skills and we're forgetting the intangibles. Tennis is a mental game, so besides any obvious differences between these two players in terms of skills... you have to consider that a slam final is a totally foreign territory to Gonzalez, there he was perhaps in a once in a lifetime chance against Roger Federer who he had also never beaten. -- on the other hand there was Federer where he feels more comfortable and where he plays his best tennis, he's comfortable against anyone in finals.
so if you consider this inportant factor you might understand why Gonzo's flawless serve against Hass hit the bottom of the net against Federer... I thought it'd be common sense but since you brought it up.....
RiosTheGenius
Hall of Fame
I think we're concentrating too much on skills and we're forgetting the intangibles. Tennis is a mental game, so besides any obvious differences between these two players in terms of skills... you have to consider that a slam final is a totally foreign territory to Gonzalez, there he was perhaps in a once in a lifetime chance against Roger Federer who he had also never beaten. -- on the other hand there was Federer where he feels more comfortable and where he plays his best tennis, he's comfortable against anyone in finals.
so if you consider this inportant factor you might understand why Gonzo's flawless serve against Hass hit the bottom of the net against Federer... I thought it'd be common sense but since you brought it up.....
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Actually, I was referring to Federer's first serves hitting the bottom of the net. Most of Gonzo's missed first serves went long.
lambielspins
Banned
It was obviously a very windy match and that is why the tennis was not of the highest standard from either player. It is really quite simple.
The tennis guy
Hall of Fame
What are you smoking?
fed does have a serve problem. he used his wrist too much in first serves and his back bend/shoulder turn is too little, therefore not so explosive as other bigger serves and not as consistent as desired. His second serve tends to be short - though usually kicking up high, not threatening enough and can be attacked.
I am looking at it having sampras kind of serve in the back of my mind. maybe fed just doesn't want to get a sampras like serve fearing that would lead to back injuries and early retirement. why fix it when it still works?
I am looking at it having sampras kind of serve in the back of my mind. maybe fed just doesn't want to get a sampras like serve fearing that would lead to back injuries and early retirement. why fix it when it still works?
dysonlu
Professional
Gonzo didn't play bad. Federer simply neutralized Gonzo's weapons with his fantastic defense (a combination of incredible anticipation and speed). Shots that used to be winners with other players are routinely returned by Roger. He lures his opponent into playing beyond their margin of errors, while himself patiently contructs his points. I think that's one of the big differences between Roger and the others; he, even with his immense talent, knows the importance of being patient and playing high percentage shots, instead of constantly playing on the edge. I think his return of serve shows this well: he rarely goes for a return of serve winner and prefers a safe deep and low return.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
OK. I am gonna watch the replay on Star sports again tonight.
BreakPoint, you have no clue what you're talking about really. Your opinion is really uneducated and it shows. It's like a high school student trying to talk about string theory; uneducated and will talk out of his butt.
"Unforced errors galore form both!!!" What are you talking about? Look at the stats; read the posts above. It was pretty good for the conditions; it was windy down there and swirly. You could see Federer's shirt and hair moving quite a bit during the match.
I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets. Again, are you that delirious? Do you think Federer is that terrible of a player? Federer has an incredibly heavy shot with a lot of penetration than any of those guys and a sound defense. He is strong mentally. He doesn't win 9 grand slams before this (his 10th grand slam) just by luck.
"I think his 0-9 record against Federer really got to Gonzo's head."Federer outplayed Gonzo; Gonzo could not come up with anything to really beat Federer. He doesn't have the dimensions to really beat Federer nor' does he have the fitness level or anticipation of Federer.
"Gonzales had zero defense and just stood there and allowed Federer to do whatever he wanted." Did we even watch the same match? Did I not see Gonzales running for every shot and slicing the forehand back or the backhand etc.
It was a good match and well played by both players. Gonzalez tried very hard to stay in many points; but his anticipation was poor and Federer has a forehand where it's hard to predict where it will go. He was always running after balls; many forehand slice defense shots (the squash shots).
Federer didn't allow Gonzales to hit the shots he wanted simply because Federer has a greater weight of shot; it's harder to control the point/shot when this happens. Not only this, but Federer was aiming to make Gonzales tired. Gonzales was tired as we saw he was panting a bit and trying to slow down to catch his breath.
"Unforced errors galore form both!!!" What are you talking about? Look at the stats; read the posts above. It was pretty good for the conditions; it was windy down there and swirly. You could see Federer's shirt and hair moving quite a bit during the match.
I think had Gonzo played at the same exact level and quality of match as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he would have beaten Federer in straight sets. Again, are you that delirious? Do you think Federer is that terrible of a player? Federer has an incredibly heavy shot with a lot of penetration than any of those guys and a sound defense. He is strong mentally. He doesn't win 9 grand slams before this (his 10th grand slam) just by luck.
"I think his 0-9 record against Federer really got to Gonzo's head."Federer outplayed Gonzo; Gonzo could not come up with anything to really beat Federer. He doesn't have the dimensions to really beat Federer nor' does he have the fitness level or anticipation of Federer.
"Gonzales had zero defense and just stood there and allowed Federer to do whatever he wanted." Did we even watch the same match? Did I not see Gonzales running for every shot and slicing the forehand back or the backhand etc.
It was a good match and well played by both players. Gonzalez tried very hard to stay in many points; but his anticipation was poor and Federer has a forehand where it's hard to predict where it will go. He was always running after balls; many forehand slice defense shots (the squash shots).
Federer didn't allow Gonzales to hit the shots he wanted simply because Federer has a greater weight of shot; it's harder to control the point/shot when this happens. Not only this, but Federer was aiming to make Gonzales tired. Gonzales was tired as we saw he was panting a bit and trying to slow down to catch his breath.
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I think you've mistaken me for someone that actually cares about your opinion of me.
Yeah, I read the stats. Gonzo had 28 UE versus only 3 in the Haas match. 28/3 is almost 13 times more! 13 times more qualifies as "galore" to me. And I don't really care what the stats say anyway. I care about the match that I saw. If the stats told the whole story, nobody would ever watch a live match and would just read the stats the next day instead.
Do you think Haas and Nadal are "terrible players"? The last time I checked, Haas took Federer to 5 sets last year at the AO and beat him at Kooyong, and Nadal still has an overwhelming winning record against Federer. But Gonzalez blew then both away easily in stright sets. So if Federer is so much better than Gonzales then what does that make Nadal and Haas? The way Gonzo played in the semis and quarters, nobody could have beaten him. Not even Federer.
This match result proves once again that tennis is 90% mental. If Fed outplayed Gonzo, it's because Gonzo allowed him to.
Didn't you know that "just stood there" is a figure of speech? It means that he let Federer do what ever he wanted with little resistance. Gonzo didn't really do anything to attack Federer, he allowed Federer to toy with him and dictate the points, whereas in his previous matches, it was Gonzo who was dictating the points.
Yes, Gonzo's anticipation was poor. Another reason why I said he had "zero defense and just stood there".
Blake hits harder than Federer, Haas also can hit pretty hard, and Nadal's balls have more spin (heavier), and Gonzales had no problems handling their shots, did he?
capriatifanatic
Banned
Haas isnt even close to Federer. You cant compare stats in a match vs a wannabee contender like Haas and compare them to the great Federer, and act like producing the same stats is just as easy or doable.
Haas cant lick the gum of Federer's shoe. He is 27 and has never reached a slam final. He is 0-6 vs Federer in his last 6 matches BTW, and the only 2 events Haas took a set or two off Federer were events Federer was losing sets to lots of players-last years Australian Open Federer went to 4 or 5 sets in the 4th round, quarters, semis, and finals, despite not playing a top 10 player. At Halle, where Haas took Fed to 3 sets Fed went to 3 sets in every single match there, contrast that to Wimbledon where in 7 best 3-of-5 set matches Federer lost only 1 set. On the other hand the 2 events Haas played Federer in last year where Federer wasnt losing sets in 4 or more of his matches, Doha and Miami Federer decimated Haas, just blew him away. All this shows is Haas can only get in a good match with Federer if it an event Federer is struggling and losing sets to almost everyone he plays that event.
Yeah Nadal is 6-3 vs Federer, but 2-2 on hard courts, the 6-3 is because he is 4-0 on clay which favors Nadal, and 0-1 on grass which favors Federer. On hard court they are 2-2 which is even. However that does not change the fact Nadal-1)has never gotten past the quarters of a grand slam on hard courts still, 2)has only gotten to the semis of 2 of his last 9 events on hard courts, both losing in the semis, 3)has lost to Berdych, past his prime Ferrero, Youzhny, Johannson, Berdych again, Blake, Federer, Malisse, Guccione(retired while losing), and now Gonzalez in his last 10 events, look at some of those losses-Ferrero, Youzhny in a grand slam quarterfinal, Malisse, LOL! It is clear he is in a slump of sorts and not the toughest opponent to play now, still a big win for Gonzalez but beating Nadal in the quarters is basicaly just the same things everyone is doing to Nadal if they play him around the quarters lately. Also beating Nadal in the quarters in a grand slam on hard courts is basicaly when anyone does by then anyway also, since as I said Nadal has yet to advance past the quarters in a grand slam on hard courts. In addition to all that Nadal has huge trouble with the flat ball hitters who dont mind shoulder balls. Nadal is 0-3 vs Berdych on hard courts and 0-3 vs Blake on hard courts, so no big surprise Gonzalez who plays hits an extremely flat ball, is a top 15 player, and who does not mind shoulder balls beat him.
Yes Federer is much much better then all of Gonzalez, Haas, and Nadal right now. Gonzalez at this event was closer to him then Haas or Nadal would have been had they played him in the final. Your point?
Yes just like he allowed him to all 10 times they played now. Such a nice guy Gonzalez, choosing to allow Federer beat him 10 times in a row. I bet he will let Federer beat him the next 10 times in a row they play too.
In his previous matches Gonzalez was playing-Blake, a grand slam underachiever who has never gotten past the quarters of any slam outside the U.S Open where he plays his only inspired slam tennis, who sulked and pouted his way through the match from the start, Nadal-a slumping clay court specialist who since his wonderful Wimbledon final result has barely gotten past the quarters of any of his 9 events since(only 2 semi losses)and who reportedly was injured, Haas-a wannabee contender who at 27 has never made a slam final and in his first slam semi in 5 years now, and only his 3rd ever.
His anticipation isnt that good anyway. It just isnt a strength of his game. That is not him being off, that is the way it is. Federer just exposed it better then the previous opponents since Federer is better then his previous opponents.
Blake doesnt hit any of his shots harder then Federer, Federer's forehand is just as hard, his first serve is harder generaly, and his backhand is harder hit. Haas doesnt do anything as well as Federer, as I said he is a wannabee contender who has never reached a slam final at 27-he cant lick the gum of Federer's shoes. Nadal's shots have too much spin so they dont penetrate the court enough, Federer's has the right combination of spin and penetration.
Last edited:
Polaris
Hall of Fame
I'm afraid I have to disagree again. The assumption behind the above statement is that the transitivity relation holds in tennis, i.e., that
A > B and B > C implies A > C
This, as you know, is untrue. Match-ups are of paramount importance in tennis. In that light, Gonzo's 0-9 deficit against Federer weighs more than the transitivity relation that you propose - in just the same way that Federer's 3-6 deficit against Nadal carries a more significant weight than the fact that Federer owns Blake who, in turn, owns Nadal.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Oh, really? I guess you haven't seen Blake absolutely crush returns of serve at almost 100mph?
And Federer's first serve is harder than Blake's? Look at their 1st round matches. Blake's average first serve speed was 191 km/h, whereas, Federer's was only 180 km/h. And I've seen Blake crush his backhand harder than Federer because he hits it flatter. Federer uses more spin on his backhand which slows the ball down.
And if Haas is a "wannabee" because he's never made it to a slam final at 27, then what does that make Blake, who's also 27 and never even made it to a slam semi?
I didn't really see a whole lot that Federer was doing that Blake, Nadal, and Haas weren't doing. It's just that Gonzo played almost flawless tennis against them, and pitiful tennis against Federer. Gonzo played more like the way he did in the 1st round last year, in which he lost to a qualifier. It didn't matter that Gonzo was playing against Federer, he would have lost to just about anyone in the Top 100 in the final at the level that he was playing.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
No, I was not implying that. I know all about match-ups in tennis. But some of the posts here make Haas, Nadal, and Blake sound like chopped liver as if Gonzales crushing all three of them in straight sets was no great achievement and that it doesn't make Gonzales a dangerous player that had any chance at all against Federer. Well, I disagree.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, If Gonzo had played at the EXACT SAME LEVEL as he did against Haas, Nadal, and Blake, he most likely would have beaten Federer.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
BTW, I'm a HUGE Federer fan. Probably one of the biggest ones around. I watch ALL of his televized matches. He'a true artist and I play a very similar all-court style of game.
But, nevertheless, I call them as I see them. Just being intellectually honest here.
But, nevertheless, I call them as I see them. Just being intellectually honest here.
psamp14
Hall of Fame
breakpoint i've skimmed your posts on this topic....but if gonzo played at the same level as he did against blake, nadal, and haas,.....against federer....well it would be a very exciting match for sure....but federer would suddenly raise his level of play and pull it out in 4 tight sets... (he wouldnt lose...)
(he wouldnt lose...)
FitzRoy
Professional
BP, I agree with you to an extent. I think Gonzo's level of play was not quite as high in the final, probably due to the occasion and due to mental difficulty in facing Federer. But I disagree when you say that Gonzalez played terribly - I think he played fairly well, all things considered. But he was not at the level of brilliance that he exhibited against Blake, Nadal, or Haas.
The other posters are right, though, that it is harder to do it against Federer in a technical sense. He simply covers the court better - not only getting to the ball but also hitting it back with depth and spin, allowing time to recover and retrieve the next one. Also, Gonzalez's slice backhand did not bother Federer the way it did other players; instead of setting him up with hittable forehands, it allowed Federer to control neutral rallies.
Also, Gonzalez couldn't do anything with Federer's second serve. Federer was hitting some good second serves, I grant that, but I think Gonzo could have done much better in that particular facet. I've seen guys like Blake be aggressive and punish Fed's second serve, and I've also seen Gonzalez do that to a lot of players. He was much too tentative in returning it, and thus Fed felt very little pressure in his own service games.
Did blake pick up his serve in subsequent rounds? You're a federer devotee, you should know that in round 1 & 2 (the early rounds - he's said he doesn't care if he plays his best tennis there as long as he wins) his serve was 8-10ks slower in average terms in round 1 & 2 than in rounds 3 & 4. He was in cruise mode.....
But that's assuming tennis is golf, where one's level is not affected by the other player unless one lets the mental side get in the way. Someone who is mentally strong in golf can play as well as they can on any day and not be affected by their opponent. Half of the reason Gonzo played the way he did is that Federer doesn't allow him to play the way he was against others. Gonzo "Winners" come back from Federer. Fed's returns and rally balls are deeper, and have more work on them, than anyone on tour. I watched the highlight reel from Gonzo v Haas, and the winners were coming off 3/4 court balls. Hewitt hasn't hit deep balls with penetration for some time....
I've heard you say this before, and I'm sure you both play all court tennis, but it's funny how everyone plays similar to Fed. Why does no-one ever say "I have the serve of Kournikova, with the backhand of Arthurs, the chokability of the WTA and the volleys of a claycourter"?
Mick
Legend
Hey, if one day I could reach that level of tennis, I would be ecstatic . Although those people don't perform well when stacked against the very best of players, most tennis players will never reach their level.
FitzRoy
Professional
Ok, this is interesting. I'll give you a realistic assessment of my game in these terms.
Guillermo Coria's second serve is a long way ahead of my first serve. Arthurs' weak, floating, inconsistent slice backhand would neutralize my entire backcourt game. I move like Ivo Karlovic and my shot selection is about on par with the OLD Fernando Gonzalez. I only go to the net to shake hands, so I don't even know who to compare my net game to.
I will acknowledge the possibility that Kournikova's serve is better than mine, but I can't actually bring myself to directly state it.
I don't disagree one iota, I was simply commenting that even on the comparison basis, everyone picks the legends. Personally, when I try and compare myself to a pro, I pick someone who makes some errors and goes for some silly winners, which makes the comparison feel more 'human', like Molik or Paradorn. I'm not 1% of 1% of 1% of them, but still, I'm not going to say "my serve is like Sampras", even if I have the same stance and I use a PS85
