Simply put... Del Potro blew Fed away
- Thread starter ArrowSmith
- Start date
klementine
Hall of Fame
Agreed... Federer has drastically improved his net-game... but for some reason decided to go head to head with Delpo from the baseline.
I saw a confident, hungry and patient Del Potro... It seemed that if Delpo had lost, it would've taken him a year + to get over that loss.. Federer seemed to be at ease with the loss by the time the post match interview started... and that was the difference.. that's why Delpo won.
The older Federer gets.. I would love for him to play strictly S&V on hard and grass courts.
Last edited:
This is what I thought it happened: the key of the whole thing is to recognize that Federer had one of his worst days at the service line. If you look at most of his last grand slam finals (Wimby 08-09, RG 09, USO 08), the one thing that did not leave him was the service. Why was his service so poor? Well, only he knows, but my theory is that he was tired from the very beginning. Probably the semifinal took more than we thought from him, both physically and emotionally. I really think that the USOpen needs to end this "Super Saturday" tradition, which ended up helping Fed in some past finals, but hurting him yesterday. In fact, I hope the USOpen gets a new direction, b/c its emphasis on the bottom line is pathetic. How come they try to deny Del Potro his speech in Spanish!! What an amazing contrast with Wimbledon, where they don't even have advertisment in the court.
So the whole thing moved around Fed's service. Del Potro was unable to capitalize on this weakness in the first set, especially because Federer was otherwise playing God like. Fed should have won in 3, but he failed to get the second break when he shanked a very easy forehand when he had all the time of the world at 15-40. That was the turning point, because make no mistake, had he converted that forehand, the final would have been short. I thought the swing in that forehand was lazy, probably a mix of the low energy that the match had at that point and a false sense of superiority, failing to recognize that this was a critical moment of the match. After all, he had swept the floor with Del Potro in their previous hard court contest, and he probably thought that the story would be repeated. This is the point that marked the match, and the one that I will emphasize with my son and daughter, because it's an excellent lesson showing the importance of getting something done, all the way to the end, and keeping the tenacity until the task is done.
Well, we know what happened after. Del Potro found his range and since Federer had such a bad day at the service line, Del Potro found his way out. Kudos to him for hanging on there. He played the way he usually does from the second half of the second set, and with such a monster forehand (and backhand in my opinion) he was able to capitalize on Fed's poor service and heavy dependency on ground strokes. We all know that his backhand is not the most consistent or more dangerous. Fed without his serve is not the Fed that has been #1 for such a long time.
Keep in mind that Del Po is very strong mentally. This slam is not a fluke. This guy is here to stay. He won Washington after being one set down and a break down in the third. He has given a lot of signs of strong mental power, Nadal-like. Yesterday's final was a mental game, framed by Fed's poor serve.
So the whole thing moved around Fed's service. Del Potro was unable to capitalize on this weakness in the first set, especially because Federer was otherwise playing God like. Fed should have won in 3, but he failed to get the second break when he shanked a very easy forehand when he had all the time of the world at 15-40. That was the turning point, because make no mistake, had he converted that forehand, the final would have been short. I thought the swing in that forehand was lazy, probably a mix of the low energy that the match had at that point and a false sense of superiority, failing to recognize that this was a critical moment of the match. After all, he had swept the floor with Del Potro in their previous hard court contest, and he probably thought that the story would be repeated. This is the point that marked the match, and the one that I will emphasize with my son and daughter, because it's an excellent lesson showing the importance of getting something done, all the way to the end, and keeping the tenacity until the task is done.
Well, we know what happened after. Del Potro found his range and since Federer had such a bad day at the service line, Del Potro found his way out. Kudos to him for hanging on there. He played the way he usually does from the second half of the second set, and with such a monster forehand (and backhand in my opinion) he was able to capitalize on Fed's poor service and heavy dependency on ground strokes. We all know that his backhand is not the most consistent or more dangerous. Fed without his serve is not the Fed that has been #1 for such a long time.
Keep in mind that Del Po is very strong mentally. This slam is not a fluke. This guy is here to stay. He won Washington after being one set down and a break down in the third. He has given a lot of signs of strong mental power, Nadal-like. Yesterday's final was a mental game, framed by Fed's poor serve.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Man this stuff is so hypocritical. I agree Federer didn't play his best (and neither did Del Potro, he played like garbage at times), but you are the one who just looooves to constantly repeat that Nadal played great in the French Open against Soderling, when he played terrible there too. It's the same thing. If you're gonna call it for one guy, do it for the other, and for crying out loud people who are saying Federer just got beat are saying the exact same thing you've been repeating for months, yet you dog on them?
Completely absurd.
bizarre_opinion
Rookie
agree fed got blown off court, was good to see, for a change.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Fed was doing well for a set and till he got a close call against him in the second.
Then came the shanks, he seemed to work that out, but then the serving was not too good, this hurt too. Missing quite a few forhands here and there.
Not too many "great" shots like usual.
It seemed he played into ball bashing instead of the thinking game.
Just too many things piling up on Fed, he still took it to 5 sets.
All of these things are easily repairable so this shouldn't be seen as decline.
One thing I worry about is the motivation, I hope it is still there.
Then came the shanks, he seemed to work that out, but then the serving was not too good, this hurt too. Missing quite a few forhands here and there.
Not too many "great" shots like usual.
It seemed he played into ball bashing instead of the thinking game.
Just too many things piling up on Fed, he still took it to 5 sets.
All of these things are easily repairable so this shouldn't be seen as decline.
One thing I worry about is the motivation, I hope it is still there.
True until he hits that dtl FH that clipped the outside edge in the 2nd set. From then on he played with much more confidence.
Fed didn't have his 1st serve to help him out. It only came sporadically. Delpo became more & more agressive on Fed's 2nd serve.
Fed's lack of 1st serve was most evident in tiebreaks.
markwillplay
Hall of Fame
hmmmmm, I do think that Fed missed more serves towards the end of the match because of pressure and trying to get more out of them. And Delpo did not serve lights out for sure. I was puzzed as to why FFed stopped coming in but he knowsmore than I do.
See what you guys and gals think aobut this though....I know on TV, I was misreading Potro's body language. I do wonder if there were times Fed thought that Potro was on the ropes as far as fitness and that he misjudged that. It would definately be a good reason to all the sudden hit a lot of balls late or relax and let your opponant self destruct. We have probably all done that when we saw the guy accross the net strugling with his fitness. I do wonder if Potro didn't really confuse Federer by playing so hard at times and then at other times seeming like he was about to fall out.
I emailed some friends late in the 4th set and said that if it went a 5th set that Delpo would not win a game...I really believed it based on his serve slowing down so much and his body language....yes...he made me sound like an idiot.
See what you guys and gals think aobut this though....I know on TV, I was misreading Potro's body language. I do wonder if there were times Fed thought that Potro was on the ropes as far as fitness and that he misjudged that. It would definately be a good reason to all the sudden hit a lot of balls late or relax and let your opponant self destruct. We have probably all done that when we saw the guy accross the net strugling with his fitness. I do wonder if Potro didn't really confuse Federer by playing so hard at times and then at other times seeming like he was about to fall out.
I emailed some friends late in the 4th set and said that if it went a 5th set that Delpo would not win a game...I really believed it based on his serve slowing down so much and his body language....yes...he made me sound like an idiot.
While you're certainly right about DelPo turning it on, and the numbers absolutely support his overall improvement after a slow start, you're missing something that BP has totally correct. Even though Fed appeared to be rolling in the first set and a half, he was still serving VERY poorly even then. His first serve percentage was 41% in the first set and 44% in the second. Those numbers are atrocious, and about 20% below his first serve percentage when he's playing well (and are the worst he served the entire tournament). He won the first set (and almost won the second) in spite of serving very badly. When DelPo overcame his nerves (or whatever allowed him to raise his game), Fed didn't raise his own level to match.
I do agree that Fed looked worn out by the end of the match. From the end of the 4th set on, his footwork was definitely indicative of being tired, and it affected all of his shots. His serve, however, was crap from the start.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Because we are actually being objective while you're not. Read all the analysis in the newspapers today. Everyone agrees that Federer should have won the match and that he lost it rather than Delpo winning it. They didn't say that about Nadal after he lost to Soderling at the FO. They said that Soderling outplayed Nadal. He pounded deep shots in the corners that Nadal had no answers for. Very similar to what Delpo did to Nadal in the semis at the USO. Basically, Nadal is vulnerable and has no answers to guys that are aggressive and can pound the ball flat all day long. His record shows this. Whereas, Federer thrives on guys that pound the ball flat all day long (e.g., Soderling, Del Potro, Blake, Berdych, etc.) as his record shows that. That's the difference.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um...Del Potro has beaten Nadal the last three times they've played on hardcourts. It was no surprise at all that he beat Nadal again.
When was the last time Del Potro has EVER beaten Federer? How about NEVER? What was the score the last time they played in a Grand Slam on a hardcourt? Oh yeah, Federer DESTROYED Del Potro 6-3, 6-0, 6-0 at this year's AO even though Federer had a back injury.
Yes, this match was Federer's to win or lose. He chose to lose.
:roll: his babies have a nanny so if anyone was up all night it was her and not Roger
tlm
G.O.A.T.
Delpo did not play that well throughout the whole match himself.First set he sucked, third set he df twice to give the set away.Why dont we hear more about that?
I know its serena federer he never gets beat by the opponent, he just does not play up to his potential. The truth is if a player pushes fed to a final set he is not that good. As proven at the ao, last night+ many 3 set matches this year.
I still cant figure out how he is the goat but when it gets to a final set when it really counts he melts down like a candle.
I know its serena federer he never gets beat by the opponent, he just does not play up to his potential. The truth is if a player pushes fed to a final set he is not that good. As proven at the ao, last night+ many 3 set matches this year.
I still cant figure out how he is the goat but when it gets to a final set when it really counts he melts down like a candle.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
First of all, I wasn't being serious.:roll: his babies have a nanny so if anyone was up all night it was her and not Roger
Second of all, maybe his babies were sick and he wanted to take care of them? Who knows? And babies in the next room crying can definitely keep someone up at night. Nanny or not.
IF Fed played pathetic he would have gotten beat 6-0 6-0 6-0. Why the insults to such a great player?
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
How would you know? Do you have babies? Of course not!
You being serious now with the bolded part then??
Nannys are their to look after sick babies and Mirka would have been on hand, Roger would have a private suite away from the babies to sleep, I cannot beleive some excuses on here :lol:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
And you know this because you're the hotel manager? :-?You being serious now with the bolded part then??
Nannys are their to look after sick babies and Mirka would have been on hand, Roger would have a private suite away from the babies to sleep, I cannot beleive some excuses on here :lol:
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Federer is now 15/6 in major finals, compare that with Pete Sampras' 14/4. Its safe to say Sampras >>> Federer.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Um.....21 Major finals >>>> 18 Major finals.
And Federer is not done yet with Major finals.
Of course not
but first the nanny, then Mirka would have attended to the babies, Roger would have been allowed to sleep away from them and anyways he hasn't said that the babies kept him awake has he? I am sure he would have by now
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Um.....21 Major finals >>>> 18 Major finals.
And Federer is not done yet with Major finals.
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival.
Yeah Fed took delpo and pushed him hard even serving like crap lol.
Delpo played well and im glad we finally got a new slam winner. Definately not a blow out though.
As for Cesc Fabregas, notorious TW troll, you always give me a good laugh with your sampras > fed logistics.
Sorry mate but sampras sucked on clay. Thanks for playing but this case is closed.
Delpo played well and im glad we finally got a new slam winner. Definately not a blow out though.
As for Cesc Fabregas, notorious TW troll, you always give me a good laugh with your sampras > fed logistics.
Sorry mate but sampras sucked on clay. Thanks for playing but this case is closed.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
I guess math is not your string suit. The last I checked, 15 > 14, and 21 > 18. Why couldn't Sampras get to more GS finals? Why couldn't Sampras win more GS titles? Why couldn't Sampras get to 22 consecutive GS semis?
You mean Richard Krajicek?
D
Deleted member 21996
Guest
do you know how big his suite was?
1,330 square meters...
stick to the mono excuse...
ps: or alternatively accept that Juan beat him fair and square...
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
stormholloway
Legend
Give it a rest. DelPo hit some very specific forehands just to avoid being straight-setted. He hit flat out bomb forehand winners against Federer. He didn't just let Federer hit errors. He dug himself out with big shots. Federer wasn't playing that well, but he didn't just tank the match by any stretch of the imagination. DelPo caught fire and Federer kept playing mediocre tennis.
In your world, Federer either wins or loses a match. The other man never wins.
markwillplay
Hall of Fame
Hey Breakpoint, don't take offense man but I would not point out anything the media says today for any sort of reference. I am objective (don't love any one player over another...well...except for Edberg of course..ha ha) but I have NEVER, I man NEVER known any tennis player to be "worshiped" more by the media at any time. that includes Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, any of them. The general media just walk behind him to smell is farts. It makes me sick actually but I don't hold it against Fed.
Dude, he had 5 sets to figure his serve and game out. Delpo had 5 sets to figure his out as well. Federer failed to beta a player who was stronger over the long haul yesterday. that's all.
Dude, he had 5 sets to figure his serve and game out. Delpo had 5 sets to figure his out as well. Federer failed to beta a player who was stronger over the long haul yesterday. that's all.
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival.
What a complete ******.
At 28, TMF have won more slams, more final appearances than Pete in his entire career. Plus, Pete participated in more slams events than TMF, but he lost more before he could reach the semi/final. TMF hardly ever failed to make atleast the semi.
TMF outperformed Pete in every 4 slams(AO, RG, SW19, USO) by a mile!
TheFifthSet
Legend
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival.
And if Sampras would've made it to 4 FO finals, it would likely have been 14-8. :lol:
Anyways, 15 + Career slam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 14 and never even sniffing an RG title.
You're quite the hypocrite.
It's rather obvious that Federer collapsed during set 2-3 of that match, but it's equally obvious that Nadal played poorly against Soderling that day. Your assessments of Federer's playing brainlessly, his directing balls to Del Potro's forehand, and terrible serving is spot on. But it can also be argued that Del Potro woke up during set 2-3 to pressure Federer with his huge strokes and movement. The same arguments, with minor differences in playing characteristics, can also be applied to Nadal/Soderling.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Not at all. Nadal played his normal game but Soderling played way too well and overpowered Nadal. Soderling played above his normal level while Nadal played at his normal level.
No one is going to agree that Federer played at his normal level yesterday because he didn't. He played well below his normal level. Even Del Potro played below his normal level. It's just that Federer's level was even lower from normal than Del Potro's was.
stormholloway
Legend
Nadal played his normal level against Soderling and only won one set in a tiebreaker? That's absolute crap and you know it. If Nadal plays at his normal level, the level he's always played at the French Open, then he's unbeatable.
You're so utterly full of it.
You're so utterly full of it.
If you call a 5 setter with two tiebreaks getting blown away.. what do you call a straight set @ 6-2 X 3?
sliceroni
Hall of Fame
Congrats to Del Po. My two cents..Fed had his chances but tightened up enough for Del Po to picked it up while Fed's level dropped, Del Po was hitting the ball cleaner, serving better, and stragety was better. Serve wasn't there for Fed, that happens, he served 50 aces in Wimbledon, not the same here, Delpo put a lot of pressure on his second serve to make Fed think about it. Delpo was better in the end. Fed had an amazing comeback year after his crappy year (French, Wimby, finalist at USO and Australia) that is a dream season for just about anybody else, and he isn't going anywhere. He's 28 and has plenty of more of more slams left in him.
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
Yes, because Soderling played the match of his life and believed he could beat Nadal. He took it to Nadal and took no prisoners and never let up at all. He played much better than he normally does. Even when he just played at his normal level, he almost beat Nadal at Wimbledon, taking Nadal to 7-5 in the 5th set.
Um...NOBODY is "unbeatable". Borg lost at the French. Sampras lost at Wimbledon. And Federer lost at the US Open.
Nobody until Soderling was able to sustain such a high level throughout the entire match to beat Nadal. That's why Nadal hadn't been beaten before. Others, like Federer, had moments of brilliance but were not able to sustain that high level for the entire match. Soderling did.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
I hope you are kidding. I am sure you are.
Sampras's rein is over long time ago and it only lasted a very short while. Federer has surpassed him long time ago and is the GOAT.
There are several factors (which you can find in other threads) but i am sure you know this.
Sampras is an "Also ran" or "Also played" when it comes to clay. Federer has a French Open title.
フェデラー
Hall of Fame
14/4 > 15/6, plus Sampras has a winning record over his best rival.
is that all you can come up with? post something of worth, and then come back to this thread.
stormholloway
Legend
It doesn't matter if Soderling played the match of his life. He won't beat Nadal on clay unless Nadal is playing below his standard. It's still just Soderling. Borg lost at the French to a seasoned clay court player. Federer couldn't touch Nadal at the French and all of the sudden Soderling does, yet it has nothing to do with Nadal's level of play?
Then you have the nerve to turn around and say that Federer lost only because he played at a low level? Beyond hypocritical. Simply stupid. You create arguments that make you feel good. That's really what it boils down to. They have no bearing on reality.
I thought Fed had the match well in control for the first set and well into the second, when he had multiple points to take 2 service breaks. DP was struggling and his confidence was low... Up to this point Fed was on the baseline pressing the issue and keep DP well back. Fed let up giving DP an opportunity to win the second set, even with Fed not serving well he was still using every opportunity to setup inside the baseline and keep DP well behind it.
Even after the third set Fed still had some control of the match... but at some point in the fourth... DP using only his second serve realized he could compete with Fed... and he stepped up on the baseline and dictated play... from that point forward Fed was unable to push DP back and basically played defensively for the balance of the match, mainly because he didn't have a first strike weapon being his serve was not working.
Just my obsservations... take it for what it is worth.
Even after the third set Fed still had some control of the match... but at some point in the fourth... DP using only his second serve realized he could compete with Fed... and he stepped up on the baseline and dictated play... from that point forward Fed was unable to push DP back and basically played defensively for the balance of the match, mainly because he didn't have a first strike weapon being his serve was not working.
Just my obsservations... take it for what it is worth.
SempreSami
Hall of Fame
storm, you might as well headbutt a brick wall instead of argue with BreakPointless. You're more likely to make a breakthrough.
An ammendment...
I thought Fed had a let down in the Soderling match as well... he had it well in hand and gave Soderling some confidence that he built on and almost used to win the match... I wonder what might have been if Soderling had won the 4th set tiebreaker.
Fed really need to close out the second set before taking his foot off of DP's thoat. He coasted too early.
I thought Fed had a let down in the Soderling match as well... he had it well in hand and gave Soderling some confidence that he built on and almost used to win the match... I wonder what might have been if Soderling had won the 4th set tiebreaker.
Fed really need to close out the second set before taking his foot off of DP's thoat. He coasted too early.
Sorry one last thing... I still give DP full credit for winning... even beating Fed at less than his best is not an easy task.
I believe there are times were an opponent can prevent you from playing your best ie. Kim vs Serena... but when you are serving under 50% and that is one of your primary weapons... I don't believe Fed had his best stuff.
Good win for DP regardless...
I believe there are times were an opponent can prevent you from playing your best ie. Kim vs Serena... but when you are serving under 50% and that is one of your primary weapons... I don't believe Fed had his best stuff.
Good win for DP regardless...
Some of you guys are giving too much credit to Rog. He lost because he got outplayed by Del Po. Rog got frustrated by Del Po's game and couldn't shake it off, that's why he played bad. He didn't have a bad night or lack of rest. When it came down to it Rog just couldn't focus because his opponent was the better player.
How does that explain his serving below 45% even during the first two sets?
Similar threads
