Federer's FO win is a real achievement - not a walk in the park

[drakulie]

He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

 

[zagor]

It should have not been a walk in the park but it was, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

C'mon now,call P Agony biased or a fanboy something but a troll he isn't nor is his post trollish.He simply stated his opinion,that it wasn't a walk in the park for Fed.So let me get this straight-If someone believes Fed didn't have a cakewalk-he's trolling.Sorry,can't agree with that.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

Acasuso got tight(or choked if you wish)definitely but he does that against everyone,not just against Fed.He has always been a bit of headcase.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

Mathieu is a pretty good ballstriker,can be dangerous if he's on that day as he proved when he pushed Nadal pretty hard at the FO in 2006.Still it was an ordinary match in which both played solid but Fed came through in 4 sets,can't say anything other than that.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

I disagree that Haas choked,he fell apart mentally in 4th set but he was still playing well in 3d set and was one point from serving for the match,however on that one point Fed hit an inside out FH winner,Haas didn't give Fed away that point but rather Fed took it.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

I do think that Monfils isn't a match for Fed but not because he isn't mentally ready.He plays too defensive and passive,stands too far behind baseline and doesn't use his tools the way he should.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

Agree with this.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

I do think Soderling was nervous but I also think Fed played the best match of his tourney by far(especially second set tiebreak)and I also consider Fed to be a horrible match-up for Soderling's game on top of that.There's a reason Soderling only took one set from Fed in their 10 meetings.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Agree with all this,was especially impressed by the way Del Potro played that day and during whole tourney in general.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay.

Disagree,I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Fed at the FO this year(which a lot of people here seem to take for granted).Reasons are that IMO Fed is a better big match player and fitter which comes into play a lot in a best of five slam match on clay.Not denying that you may be right,just stating my opinion.

As for Murray,while I do think that he's a tough match-up for Fed I do not believe he would have beaten Fed in the final the way Fed was playing in the final considering the fact that clay is Murray's worst surface by far and considering the relative ease with which Gonzo beat him.Of all surfaces I like Fed's chances against Murray the most on clay.Again,just my opinion.

He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

Nothing to add,agree.

 

[drakulie]

a recap of veroniquem's last 20 posts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5Sr68NwCY

 

[BreakPoint]

It wasnt walk in the park but still alot easier without having to face with Nadal/Murray/Novak.

Why? If those three guys are so tough to beat than why did ALL three lose early?

 

[icedevil0289]

He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

That joke of a finalist beat Nadal. I wonder what that makes Nadal.

 

[zagor]

That joke of a finalist beat Nadal. I wonder what that makes Nadal.

Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.

 

[drakulie]

Yeah, that "joke of a finalist" beat the crap out of that "tough draw" Nadal had to face.

 

[icedevil0289]

Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.

Haha, what logic? I agree. Soderling definitely played well and deserved to be in that final just like fed. He certain is no joke.

 

[zagor]

Haha, what logic? I agree. Soderling definitely played well and deserved to be in that final just like fed. He certain is no joke.

LOL,yeah.I guess some people don't understand that when they denigrate Soderling they automatically denigrate Nadal as well since he's the first guy that ever beat Nadal in a best of five.If he's a joke that doesn't speak that well about Nadal's abilities on clay.

 

[Blank]

If Djoko/Rafa did not make it to the supposed stage that they should, it can only mean one thing: They played suck!!!

Simple rule: The better player win, the lousy one lose!!
Geeezz why some ppl cannot understand a simple logic such as this!!

 

[egn]

He had an easy draw and a joke of a finalist. Despite that he was really close to losing several times. But of course in the end it doesn't matter: winning a slam is always a unique achievement and luck is an integral part of the sport.

That joke beat your boy. That joke took out 4 top clay courters in 4 straight matches. I think that joke deserves more credit than you are giving him.

Erm Djokovic is much better on clay than Del Potro.

I agree Djokovic was off at RG but overall I would take Djoker at this moment in time over Del Potro on clay that may change in time but we will see.

yes,but Del Po was the better player at RG..

Yes I do agree if Djoker in his form at RG met Del Potro in his form in especially the later RG rounds DJoker would have likely lost but than that is just on form. Though Djoker is still a far better clay court player.

No grand slam victory is a walk in the park.

Very true.

If they had played at this years French the way Del Potro was playing Djokovic would have been spanked. Especialy seeing as he couldnt even get a set off an in form Kohlschreiber. Del Potro is improving so quickly, it is hard to say who he is better or worse than on a surface in general. Djokovic isnt a special clay courter though, 2 wins over top 50 players lifetime at the French, an 0-3 head to head with David Ferrer on clay, an 0-6 head to head with Nadal on clay, 1 Masters title only on clay. Djokovic has only beaten Roger once on clay and Roger played a terrible match (I dont like either player at all so easy for me to objective in this case) and still choked away a set, break with points for a second break in the 2nd lead. If Roger played as poorly as he did vs Djokovic in that match against the Del Potro onslaught in the semis he would have been cooked in 90 minutes.

Very valid points. We talk all about DJokovic at France yet looking at his past two years. Whats funny is his toughest opponents are PHM (who Fed beat this year) and Fernando Verdasco. His best win probably came on his QF run against Gonzo. Djoker did not beat anyone better or different than Del Potro or Fed at France in the past 3 years. If Nadal had been in top form he probably would have won the whole thing thats very well likely but that is an if. Nadal was not the best player of the tournament as evidenced by Federer winning it and people need to get over it and move on. Each tournament is about who shows up for that tournament.

 

[ninman]

a recap of veroniquem's last 20 posts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5Sr68NwCY

Now, now, c'mon, lets get our facts straight. This is a recap of veroniquem's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

 

[sh@de]

The conclusions which can be drawn from this thread:

1. Fed's draw was (according to Veroniquem) a total cakewalk
2. Soderling was a joke
3. Nadal was a complete, utter joke because he lost to the headcase in #2

Seriously... all those people who believe those 3 points are severely deluded.

 

[drakulie]

Now, now, c'mon, lets get our facts straight. This is a recap of veroniquem's posts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wT7zM8XgXQ

LMAO at that dude having to park the car for her.

 

[BreakPoint]

Following that logic,that makes Nadal even a bigger joke.

However I don't consider Soderling to be a joke at all considering how he pummeled his way through some pretty damn good claycourters on the way to the final.He played some amazing tennis these 2 weeks.

Exactly! I mean like how many other players have ever beaten Ferrer, Nadal, Davydenko, and Gonzalez in the same clay court tournament? None! Soderling is the only one.

 

[Swissv2]

Odd how these direct violations of TW policies go unnoticed:

2. No personal attacks or abusive language is allowed. If you have a problem with someone, take it off of Talk Tennis. Antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. Debating issues and opinions is fine, but flaming and insulting won’t be tolerated.

Read all of veroniquem's posts and you will soon be doing the same thing yourself.

 

[papucla10]

C'mon now,call P Agony biased or a fanboy something but a troll he isn't nor is his post trollish.He simply stated his opinion,that it wasn't a walk in the park for Fed.So let me get this straight-If someone believes Fed didn't have a cakewalk-he's trolling.Sorry,can't agree with that.



Acasuso got tight(or choked if you wish)definitely but he does that against everyone,not just against Fed.He has always been a bit of headcase.



Mathieu is a pretty good ballstriker,can be dangerous if he's on that day as he proved when he pushed Nadal pretty hard at the FO in 2006.Still it was an ordinary match in which both played solid but Fed came through in 4 sets,can't say anything other than that.



I disagree that Haas choked,he fell apart mentally in 4th set but he was still playing well in 3d set and was one point from serving for the match,however on that one point Fed hit an inside out FH winner,Haas didn't give Fed away that point but rather Fed took it.



I do think that Monfils isn't a match for Fed but not because he isn't mentally ready.He plays too defensive and passive,stands too far behind baseline and doesn't use his tools the way he should.



Agree with this.



I do think Soderling was nervous but I also think Fed played the best match of his tourney by far(especially second set tiebreak)and I also consider Fed to be a horrible match-up for Soderling's game on top of that.There's a reason Soderling only took one set from Fed in their 10 meetings.



Agree with all this,was especially impressed by the way Del Potro played that day and during whole tourney in general.



Disagree,I don't think Djokovic would have beaten Fed at the FO this year(which a lot of people here seem to take for granted).Reasons are that IMO Fed is a better big match player and fitter which comes into play a lot in a best of five slam match on clay.Not denying that you may be right,just stating my opinion.

As for Murray,while I do think that he's a tough match-up for Fed I do not believe he would have beaten Fed in the final the way Fed was playing in the final considering the fact that clay is Murray's worst surface by far and considering the relative ease with which Gonzo beat him.Of all surfaces I like Fed's chances against Murray the most on clay.Again,just my opinion.



Nothing to add,agree.

Sorry my first statement is wrong what I am trying to say is the opposite, that Federer Matches at least most of them should have been a Walk in the park but THEY WERE NOT, also what I am trying to state is that if Fed's opponents would have kept their level of play trough at least 4 sets Federer would have not been in the final but his opponents felt the pressure of the moment and the pressure of Federer and gave up except Del Potro and maybe Mathiew well I didn't see this match, Federer never gave up and like you said brought his level up when it mattered but his opponents brought their level down in order for him to make it. If you watched the matches that is clear.

Federer didn't play his best ( More likely because of the pressure ) in all of those matches and that almost cost him the crown but he made it trough with lots of guts and that showed a lot about Federer.

 

[P_Agony]

It should have been a walk in the park but it was not, firstable I would like to say that I am a Federer Fan but the truth is the truth, you are talking like a troll.

1) Acassuso: chocked after his small injury with his ankle in the third set, with this event he found an excused to hand the match to Federer in a silver platter.

2) Paul-Henri Mathieu: No body mentions him but you can see Federer's RG pressure against him.

3) Hass: Simply chocked at the end of the match, if he hadn't chocked Federer would not be a champion today.

4) Monfils: No a match for Federer, not mentally ready.

5) Del Potro: Federer knew this was his chance to the final, they both played great until Del Potro lost lost some stamina starting the 4th set, and eventually lost easily in the last 2 sets.

6) Soderling: Federer simply was ready for his moment and Soderling didn't believe he could win his first GS.

What I am trying to say with this is that Federer had a lot of pressure on his shoulders in all those matches specially after finding out Nadal lost against sundering, in all those matches he didn't play nothing close to his best, only maybe against Del Potro who actually got tyred at the end that is why he lost, if he had played close to his best then the matches would have really been a walk in the park, exept maybe against Del Potro because I think he played god on that match closer to his best.

Federer more likelly would have beaten in 4 or 5 sents the likes of Djokovic and specilly murray in the RG clay, He could have beeten Rafa in the Final if he played the way he did against Sonderling but well we all know federer would have had so much trouble against Nadal not because Nadal who had already been beaten by Fed in the Madrid Final but more because of Federer's mentality against Nadal.

Why am I talking like a troll? Have I offended anyone in my post? Bashed other players? If you disagree with me that's fine, but there's a huge difference between my pos and trolling.

 

[rafan]

Why am I talking like a troll? Have I offended anyone in my post? Bashed other players? If you disagree with me that's fine, but there's a huge difference between my pos and trolling.

I think Federer played beautifully and he deserved to win . One point I will make is that Federer had time to study Soderlings game since beating Nadal. I think for Nadal it must have been a shock because he had beaten him so well a few weeks ago. It was good to watch Federer though and route for him for a change, because once Rafa is back on the scene, I will obvioulsy go for him to win

 

[P_Agony]

I think Federer played beautifully and he deserved to win . One point I will make is that Federer had time to study Soderlings game since beating Nadal. I think for Nadal it must have been a shock because he had beaten him so well a few weeks ago. It was good to watch Federer though and route for him for a change, because once Rafa is back on the scene, I will obvioulsy go for him to win

That's why you are an example of a good poster. You can support your favorite player but at the same time be objective and respectful to the other players. This board needs more like you.

 

[jackson vile]

This thread is mainly for people like GameSampras who clearly think Fed's vicotry was nothing but a walk in the park.

A walk in the park? Are you kidding me? I have never had so many heart aches in my entire life like this FO.

Federer barely won his matches against Acasuso, Haas, and Delpo. He was taken to 5 TWICE and taken to 4 TWICE. He passed all the tests - he beat a great clayer and a crowd favorite in Monfils, he barely beat an on fire, non-choking Del Potro who was playing the best I have ever seen him play. He came back from 5-1 to win the 3rd set against Acasuso, and he basically faced match point against Tommy Haas.

Federer's road to his FO title was anything but a walk in the park. It was one of the only times in his career he had to rely on his huge heart rather than his best tennis, because im most of the time he didn't find it.

I just want to say you are correct, what the heck is up with you guys saying that it was easy for Roger to beat all the guys that he has a wining recored against and always beats because they never even come close.

How right you are sir, you tell them!