Why are Federer´s losses different to the rest of players?

[Zaragoza]

I mean, I think it´s unfair when Federer loses and some people say it´s ´cos he tanked the match, he was tired.....however Nadal lost last week in 3rd round (not 2nd) against a higher ranked player than Murray in 3 sets and then people say he´s not so good on hardcourts, he cannot win a Grand Slam on hardcourts, his topspin doesn´t work here....not fair. I can imagine what people would say about Nadal if he served like Federer did yesterday.
I don´t wanna make a Federer-Nadal thread about this but is it so hard to accept that even if Federer is the world No.1 he can lose sometimes? Don´t say he tanked the match or he was tired, just say he´s not a machine and he´s not in good form now. He didn´t play his best in Toronto, he struggled to the limit and dropped 4 sets so I´m not surprised at all about his loss.
I don´t think a guy who gets a warning is tanking the match, do you?
And well, if Federer was tired, wasn´t Murray? He played last 3 weeks: final in Washington, semis in Toronto and now Cincinnati playing 3 sets in 1st round. Shouldn´t he be more tired than Federer?
Just admit Federer probably played his worst match since he´s the No. 1. and he can lose, that´s tennis.

PS: This isn´t exactly a match result comment but a reflection, please don´t move to other section.

 

[BiGGieStuFF]

Fed lost the match fair and square, but there were factors though. i believe he wanted to win but this guy has played deep into every tournament he's been in and plus he played a late match yesterday and had to play a early match against murray. That is a short turnaround. It's all part of the game so there isn't any excuses for Fed. He was just not physically there and it costed him.

Could murray beat a fresh Federer? Possibly not, but that doesn't matter because Murray had his number yesterday. If you're not fresh you're not fresh. They aren't going to postpone your match just because you dont' feel 100%.

It was a good win for Murray and he shouldn't second guess it. Federer didn't play well and he took advantage of it. It's just crazy because it was obvious Fed was completely out of it. You don't sweat that much when tanking a match.

 

[MaxT]

To win these two, you need to play for two weeks everyday and then start the Open. It is simply not smart to attempt it.

The rule says you have to enter all masters (right?). So maybe this is the solution. Fed wants to win it if others give it to him, but he won't risk anything to fight for it.

 

[bagung]

murray beat fed, that is the fact. despite all the excuses, murray plays better and beat fed.... looking forward to see fed loose again in the us open

 

[Rhino]

murray beat fed, that is the fact. despite all the excuses, murray plays better and beat fed.... looking forward to see fed loose again in the us open

Oh yeah, I don't know how we missed that: Murray plays better than Fed, and Fed will go down at the Open. All based on one match. You're a smart guy.

Hang, why didn't Murray beat Gasquet then? Or Clement? Or (of all people) Gimelstob? Or Baghdatis? Or Seppi? Or Tipsarevic? Or Monfils? Or Blake? Or Volandri? Or Ferrer? Or Lisnard? Or Wawrinka? Or Davydenko? Or Robredo? Or Soderling? Or Ljubicic? Or Ancic? Or Berdych? And that's just this year.

Federer on the other hand.... yeah he's had a terrible year, Murray plays much better.

 

[johnkidd]

Because he loses so infrequently (especially early). It's like Tiger Woods missing a cut. I doesn't happen real often and when it does it's news.

 

[ATXtennisaddict]

Yea, what's with all the excuses??? Federer loses in tournaments in the 2nd round very often! He played his best! That's his game right there, I'm sure those long grueling matches from the masters LAST WEEK didn't affect him at all. He's not human. He's a machine! And of course Murray is better than Federer. I mean, I see the list of ppl who've beaten Fed before, they are a hell lot better than him that's for sure. I mean, THEY WON!!!! THEY BEAT THE FED! They have *got* to be better than 9 slams and 11 Masters.

LMAO. Yeap, I sure am smrt!!!!!

 

[JohnS]

Federer's a just a little burned out. Even though he doesnt participate in as many tournys as the others do, he does go deeper than the others. That means that he plays as much or even more than most players. I doubt that he will play the next tourny before the UO. I dont expect to see Nadal at the Penn tourny either.

No excusses, Federer just couldnt play his game and lost. Murray is also improving drastically (Gilbert may get a raise ). Murray is now a good bet to contend for the UO along with Federer, Nadal, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Gasquet, and even Blake and Roddick.

What will be more interesting is if Roddick meets Murray in Cinncy. This will be a mind game for Roddick. I think they will meet. :mrgreen: Actually, I HOPE that they meet.

 

[Rataplan]

Yea, what's with all the excuses??? Federer loses in tournaments in the 2nd round very often! He played his best! That's his game right there, I'm sure those long grueling matches from the masters LAST WEEK didn't affect him at all. He's not human. He's a machine! And of course Murray is better than Federer. I mean, I see the list of ppl who've beaten Fed before, they are a hell lot better than him that's for sure. I mean, THEY WON!!!! THEY BEAT THE FED! They have *got* to be better than 9 slams and 11 Masters.

Don't you think that you're exaggerating here? Not a lot of people (unless they're trolling) are claiming that Murray or any of the other guys who have beaten Federer is better than Roger all of a sudden and of course they can't compete with the 9 slam titles + 11 Masters.

I don't think Roger's burned out. I know that he won Cincy last year, but hasn't Roger struggled here before? Maybe it simply takes more time for him to adapt to the surface and having to adapt + having played matches all week long in the Toronto tournament + a Murray who deserves credit = too much even for Federer.

The big drama we see today is because we only see it so rarely so people tend to overanalyse the match and look for explanations there were we step over the defeats of other players more quickly in a "he lost? It happens "*shrugs shoulder* way.

 

[Zaragoza]

Because he loses so infrequently (especially early). It's like Tiger Woods missing a cut. I doesn't happen real often and when it does it's news.

Yes I know it´s unusual. My point is when Federer loses people should admit it like when Nadal, Nalbandian or any other lose a match, otherwise I find it a little fanatic.
Murray should be much more tired than Federer if you look at their activity in the last 2 weeks and I don´t think someone who tanks a match gets a warning. I think Federer shouldn´t play Cincinnati but once he decides to play, no excuses allowed.

 

[dh003i]

Zara,

Why is it that when Federer loses, everyone who tries to explain it is accused of making excuses?

Federer lost, which means Murray played better than him.

Is that because Federer is suddenly declining, and "the Fed Era is Over," as one moron says? No.

Is that because Federer just had a very rare off-day? Maybe.

Is that because Federer was exhausted? Maybe.

Is it because he purposefully tanked the match? Definately not.

I suppose the question is, did he lose by having weaknesses exposed, or was he just playing below his normal game?

 

[Rabbit]

Fed just got that ass whupped. Hey, it happens.

 

[shawn1122]

I mean, I think it´s unfair when Federer loses and some people say it´s ´cos he tanked the match, he was tired.....however Nadal lost last week in 3rd round (not 2nd) against a higher ranked player than Murray in 3 sets and then people say he´s not so good on hardcourts, he cannot win a Grand Slam on hardcourts, his topspin doesn´t work here....not fair. I can imagine what people would say about Nadal if he served like Federer did yesterday.
I don´t wanna make a Federer-Nadal thread about this but is it so hard to accept that even if Federer is the world No.1 he can lose sometimes? Don´t say he tanked the match or he was tired, just say he´s not a machine and he´s not in good form now. He didn´t play his best in Toronto, he struggled to the limit and dropped 4 sets so I´m not surprised at all about his loss.
I don´t think a guy who gets a warning is tanking the match, do you?
And well, if Federer was tired, wasn´t Murray? He played last 3 weeks: final in Washington, semis in Toronto and now Cincinnati playing 3 sets in 1st round. Shouldn´t he be more tired than Federer?
Just admit Federer probably played his worst match since he´s the No. 1. and he can lose, that´s tennis.

PS: This isn´t exactly a match result comment but a reflection, please don´t move to other section.

Nadal lost because he sort of had a bad day too. But not nearly as bad as Federer did yesterday. And Nadal lost more because Berdych took it to him, while Federer lost simply because Murray made him play. And yes, for Federer hitting the ball out of the stadium would probably be tanking. If you have seen the match, you would know that was the most flat-footed attempt at winning ever made.

 

[dh003i]

Rabbit,

Federer lost fair and square, but 7-6, 6-4 is hardly an "ass-whooping".

6-4, 6-3 is an ass-whooping.

 

[simi]

Rabbit,

Federer lost fair and square, but 7-6, 6-4 is hardly an "ass-whooping".

6-4, 6-3 is an ass-whooping.

Nah. 4 and 3 is only a single break per set. 2 and 1 would be a whooping.

 

[supersmash]

//edit: Looks like simi beat me to it.
4 is too much. You can easily take the break at 4-all. An ass-whooping would be under 3 each.

On a sidenote, I think Roger's going to come back with a vengeance his next match. His poor first round opponent will suffer a double bagel.

 

[Supernatural_Serve]

on that court on that day Murray played better.

No more, no less.

There are no additional meaningful interpretations, conclusions, or explanations.

 

[Rabbit]

Hang on, any time Federer loses to a guy who's not even seeded, it's an ass whooping. Hell, if I was Murray I'd be renting billboards around the New York City area advertising the ass whooping.

Evidence of ass whooping:

1. Federer hit a ball out of the arena during the match. Sure sign of an ass whooping.
2. Federer looked like he has that ass whooped. He was sweaty, his hair was in disarray, his bandana was crooked.
3. Plus, it's Federer. He doesn't lose in the early rounds unless there's a can of whoop ass on the sidelines.

 

[dh003i]

Rabbit,

Yea, Federer played badly. Yet, despite him playing badly, and actually sweating, it still wasn't an ass-whooping.

An ass-whooping is a lopsided score; it has nothing to do with the relative calibre of the players.

 

[wings56]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXtennisaddict
Yea, what's with all the excuses??? Federer loses in tournaments in the 2nd round very often! He played his best! That's his game right there, I'm sure those long grueling matches from the masters LAST WEEK didn't affect him at all. He's not human. He's a machine! And of course Murray is better than Federer. I mean, I see the list of ppl who've beaten Fed before, they are a hell lot better than him that's for sure. I mean, THEY WON!!!! THEY BEAT THE FED! They have *got* to be better than 9 slams and 11 Masters.

Don't you think that you're exaggerating here? Not a lot of people (unless they're trolling) are claiming that Murray or any of the other guys who have beaten Federer is better than Roger all of a sudden and of course they can't compete with the 9 slam titles + 11 Masters.

I don't think Roger's burned out. I know that he won Cincy last year, but hasn't Roger struggled here before? Maybe it simply takes more time for him to adapt to the surface and having to adapt + having played matches all week long in the Toronto tournament + a Murray who deserves credit = too much even for Federer.

The big drama we see today is because we only see it so rarely so people tend to overanalyse the match and look for explanations there were we step over the defeats of other players more quickly in a "he lost? It happens "*shrugs shoulder* way.

i think you definately missed out on the sarcasm...

 

[Rabbit]

Rabbit,

Yea, Federer played badly. Yet, despite him playing badly, and actually sweating, it still wasn't an ass-whooping.

An ass-whooping is a lopsided score; it has nothing to do with the relative calibre of the players.

Don't confuse a blow out with an ass whooping. You really don't get a chance to whoop ass when it's a blow out, you're on and off court too quick. Federer was on court long enough to get that ass whooped. He looked whooped at the end of the match. Why? Because he was whooped.

 

[Shabazza]

Don't confuse a blow out with an ass whooping. You really don't get a chance to whoop ass when it's a blow out, you're on and off court too quick. Federer was on court long enough to get that ass whooped. He looked whooped at the end of the match. Why? Because he was whooped.

That reminds me, I need to buy some toilet paper....

 

[Fischer76]

Hang on, any time Federer loses to a guy who's not even seeded, it's an ass whooping. Hell, if I was Murray I'd be renting billboards around the New York City area advertising the ass whooping.

Evidence of ass whooping:

1. Federer hit a ball out of the arena during the match. Sure sign of an ass whooping.
2. Federer looked like he has that ass whooped. He was sweaty, his hair was in disarray, his bandana was crooked.
3. Plus, it's Federer. He doesn't lose in the early rounds unless there's a can of whoop ass on the sidelines.

ROFLMAO :mrgreen: I like the 2nd one most. Allow me to add one observation.

2. Federer looked like he has that ass whooped. He was sweaty, his hair was in disarray, his bandana was crooked, and he looked distraught. Yeah, like someone who just got his ass whooped. :mrgreen:

 

[Rabbit]

ROFLMAO :mrgreen: I like the 2nd one most. Allow me to add one observation.

2. Federer looked like he has that ass whooped. He was sweaty, his hair was in disarray, his bandana was crooked, and he looked distraught. Yeah, like someone who just got his ass whooped. :mrgreen:

LMAO - Friendly amendment accepted and approved.

He did look like he just got that ass whooped.

 

[NamRanger]

Nadal in 2005 got a much worse beating at Cincinnati 2005 and yet no one talked about that. Federer loses one match here and it's the end of the world. Oh no!

 

[Watcher]

Nadal in 2005 got a much worse beating at Cincinnati 2005 and yet no one talked about that. Federer loses one match here and it's the end of the world. Oh no!

Nadal hasn't even hit his full potential, whereas Fed's been playing his best tennis for the past two years.

 

[Zaragoza]

Nadal in 2005 got a much worse beating at Cincinnati 2005 and yet no one talked about that. Federer loses one match here and it's the end of the world. Oh no!

Sorry? Nadal lost in 3rd set tie-break, how can you say it´s a worse beating?

 

[Zaragoza]

Zara,

Why is it that when Federer loses, everyone who tries to explain it is accused of making excuses?

Federer lost, which means Murray played better than him.

Is that because Federer is suddenly declining, and "the Fed Era is Over," as one moron says? No.

Is that because Federer just had a very rare off-day? Maybe.

Is that because Federer was exhausted? Maybe.

Is it because he purposefully tanked the match? Definately not.

I suppose the question is, did he lose by having weaknesses exposed, or was he just playing below his normal game?

What you say makes sense but I mean if he feels tired before the tournament and however he decides to play then he and his fans have to assume the consequences of a loss. And did you see how many matches did Murray play in the last 3 weeks? Then you cannot allege the physical factor. One of the keys of Federer´s consistency is he rarely plays 2 weeks in a row (excepting Grand S.) so it wasn´t a good decission playing Cincinnati (I already thought this before his loss). In my opinion he was too confident after Toronto that he could beat anyone playing at 50%, doesn´t matter 3 sets or tie-breaks ´cos he knows how to play the big points. I don´t believe a no.1 in the world enters a tournament to see if he can pass 2 or 3 rounds, he was confident to win the tournament even not playing his best. Now I think he learned the lesson.

 

[dh003i]

Zaragoza,

Fair enough.

I'm not sure he thought he could win the tournament, but thought he had a chance (which certainly he did; I would say it's a combination of him being tired, and playing poorly, e.g., crappy serving).

Moose has noted that players used to play every tournament they could, in the days of Laver, Hoad, and Pancho.

 

[superman1]

The gap between the past and the present is constantly getting wider. It's a different game now. Does Laver really look tougher to you than players of today? I'm sure he'd have just as much trouble playing tournaments today back-to-back.

 

[FEDEXP]

"I don´t wanna make a Federer-Nadal thread...."

Well, given this board, you did.....

 

[Zaragoza]

"I don´t wanna make a Federer-Nadal thread...."

Well, given this board, you did.....

I don´t think so but anyway I wish everybody had the same respect for Nadal that I have for Federer.

 

[NamRanger]

Sorry? Nadal lost in 3rd set tie-break, how can you say it´s a worse beating?

It was pretty bad the other set he lost, I forgot what it was. But Nadal just ran out of steam in the end of that tiebreak, just like Federer. No way you can utilize movement to win 2 tournaments back to back in a span of 13 days.