Re: Wimbledon Day 12 - Men's Semi

by Tenez Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:42 pm

BB: He is very practiced at managing it within limits. 2012 was miraculous, he could hardly walk against Malisse. This one wasn't much of an issue but I bet it leads to Canada being scrubbed.
=============%

Exactly and you can check here that some of us had seen the back problem already at the FO 12 and people came to mock us here including SB.....so when it came out in the match v Malisse SB kind of admitted that GP and I may have been right.

In fact we learnt later that the problem actually started at the blue clay Madrid final a few weeks earlier.

But as mentioned it has always been there in the background it seems.

by noleisthebest Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:36 pm

Tenez wrote:BB: He is very practiced at managing it within limits. 2012 was miraculous, he could hardly walk against Malisse. This one wasn't much of an issue but I bet it leads to Canada being scrubbed.
=============%

Exactly and you can check here that some of us had seen the back problem already at the FO 12 and people came to mock us here including SB.....so when it came out in the match v Malisse SB kind of admitted that GP and I may have been right.

In fact we learnt later that the problem actually started at the blue clay Madrid final a few weeks earlier.

But as mentioned it has always been there in the background it seems.

This should go to "I was right" thread, hehe. Big Grin

by gallery play Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:48 pm

Or in 2010 when Hewitt beat Federer in Halle. They called us "hysterical hormonal teenage girls" too or something like that. 2 weeks later Federer was not a shadow of his former self at Wimbledon and walking around with a big bandage..

There is a reason why i'm completely comfortable when i see Federer play against Raonic and 2 days later uncomfortable against Berdych. And i mentioned it when Fed was 4-2 ahead.

by legendkillar Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:09 pm

gallery play wrote:
summerblues wrote:
Tenez wrote:The question is how much is it affecting them?
But why does it even matter? Player's health is part of the package - just like their hand-eye coordination or their height. I can sort of make an exception in cases like Muster or Seles, but not otherwise. If you are not healthy enough to win the titles, that ultimately makes you a lesser player.

On top of that, you are overprotective specifically wrt Fed. Djokovic withdraws through injury and you happily take it without much fuss, but with Fed you and GP were acting like hysterical hormonal teenage girls.
That's a bit overdone SB. And easy to say afterwards.
The point of a live thread is to respond to what you see. I got worried based with what i saw and i still think he was not 100%. His level dropped too much for in my view and started to hit "wooden" FH's, while he was ahead and that's unusual.
He was never tested in the final so we never know.
Anyway, it all worked out well. Nevermind.

My view was he was tight. I don't believe it was injury or a twinge. He was just tight. Nervous clearly because he wasn't going for the wings on his shots like in previous rounds and similarly in parts in the final.

Federer feels the pressure just as anyone else. The 5th set in the final of Wimbledon 2014 at 4-5 is an example of it.

by Tenez Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:31 pm

legendkillar wrote:
gallery play wrote:
summerblues wrote:
Tenez wrote:The question is how much is it affecting them?
But why does it even matter? Player's health is part of the package - just like their hand-eye coordination or their height. I can sort of make an exception in cases like Muster or Seles, but not otherwise. If you are not healthy enough to win the titles, that ultimately makes you a lesser player.

On top of that, you are overprotective specifically wrt Fed. Djokovic withdraws through injury and you happily take it without much fuss, but with Fed you and GP were acting like hysterical hormonal teenage girls.
That's a bit overdone SB. And easy to say afterwards.
The point of a live thread is to respond to what you see. I got worried based with what i saw and i still think he was not 100%. His level dropped too much for in my view and started to hit "wooden" FH's, while he was ahead and that's unusual.
He was never tested in the final so we never know.
Anyway, it all worked out well. Nevermind.

My view was he was tight. I don't believe it was injury or a twinge. He was just tight. Nervous clearly because he wasn't going for the wings on his shots like in previous rounds and similarly in parts in the final.

Federer feels the pressure just as anyone else. The 5th set in the final of Wimbledon 2014 at 4-5 is an example of it.

Sorry but it doesn't make sense. You don't get "tight" just after you break, you relax, especially if you are the best front runner ever!

And tight he woudl be in TBs. he won them all 5 out of 5 in this Wimbledon. Sorry but "tight"?

by summerblues Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:22 am

gallery play wrote:
summerblues wrote:you and GP were acting like hysterical hormonal teenage girls.
That's a bit overdone SB. And easy to say afterwards.

Well of course it is a little overdone, one needs to go a little ott on a forum occasionally smiley

It was all in good humor and I meant no harm, apologies if you found it offensive.

I do think you guys just cannot stand Fed playing poorly so whenever he is below par you are conjuring up injuries. And since he has had chronic back troubles, going to the back issues is your go-to card.

But I did not even mean to claim you were wrong. Let's even assume you were right and he did have a back problem. To me, one or two posts on that would have been enough and after that you could have just commented on his game (with the implicit understanding that if he is playing poorly you think it is due to the back issues). But you guys just went on and on and on about his back. It struck me as rather emotional. Sort of like, well, maybe how a 13 year old fan could write about Justin Bieber if she thought he was unwell smiley

by Daniel Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:44 am

I agree. I'm sorry, but it was reading like a Nadal fan site at one point... 2 double faults and it's CLEARLY injury that made it happen. Can't be anything else. Any mistake "It's his back, I tell you! That's to blame, Gov'ner Laugh

"

No player who is really injured wins a slam at professional level. For that matter, winning even amateur events is nearly impossible with a real injury. Niggles and nerves are part of sport. Degradation with age and play is part of sport. You cannot asterisk losses. We ought not to be aping how Nadal and a lot of his fans and the media jump on injury as an excuse. It's lame. Lame fanboyism. Federer did have a bad back last year, and he won bugger all. But he still entered events - and when you enter... sorry...NO EXCUSES.

by summerblues Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:51 am

Also, GP, I did not just come up with my opinion "afterwards". I expressed much the same sentiments before the finals in these two posts (the first Friday night when I got home from work, the second Saturday after I saw the match):

summerblues wrote:Yey! Fed won yet again (even though - judging from some of the histrionics here - not entirely without problems). Still, it is a staright sets win. I will try to watch some of it later today or tomorrow, and then the final as it happens.

One more match, baby!

summerblues wrote:I managed to watch the whole match last night and agree, I did not see any signs of problems. Fed played quite well, he was always going for all his shots and was in general executing well. As you said on the other thread, that second TB was quite spectacular.

Tenez and GP have a better eye for things like that than I do so I do not want to say I am 100% certain there were no issues, but I have also seen GP and Tenez do their fair share of jinxing over the years, so I am not going to take their word for it either.

In any event. It is what it is. Fed has had back problems all his career (he even used his back issues to avoid Swiss military service), so it is all part of the package anyway.

BTW, I did not mean to try to stop you from posting about Fed's back (or whatever else you fancy) in future. I quite enjoy reading whatever people have to say. I was just meaning to poke fun at it in good humor. Once again, apologies if it came out worse than I meant it.

by gallery play Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:30 am

summerblues wrote:Also, GP, I did not just come up with my opinion "afterwards".

I wasn't an opinion SB.
It's easy to say: those posts during the semi were really stupid because he won the whole thing after all.
I know you didn't mean to be harsch but it sounded cynical though. The last thing you want is posters to stop saying spontaneous things (wrong or right) during live threads: the more the better.

Anyway: i don't feel offended at all so no hard feelings Thumbs Up

by Tenez Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:35 am

Daniel wrote:I agree. I'm sorry, but it was reading like a Nadal fan site at one point... 2 double faults and it's CLEARLY injury that made it happen. Can't be anything else. Any mistake "It's his back, I tell you! That's to blame, Gov'ner "

No player who is really injured wins a slam at professional level. For that matter, winning even amateur events is nearly impossible with a real injury. Niggles and nerves are part of sport. Degradation with age and play is part of sport. You cannot asterisk losses. We ought not to be aping how Nadal and a lot of his fans and the media jump on injury as an excuse. It's lame. Lame fanboyism. Federer did have a bad back last year, and he won bugger all. But he still entered events - and when you enter... sorry...NO EXCUSES.

I find those kind of statements meaningless and almost always wrong.

What does "really injured" mean? Nothing. Murray was really injured but yet reached the 1/4F of a slam....or maybe he was not really injured and no excuse to lose to Querrey and no-one can mention the word injured in his match v Querrey? not even here? What's your point?
Was Malisse in W12 so much better than Djoko and Murray that he managed to take 2 sets which the other 2 could not? Nothing to do with Federer "very consistent level"?

What if as Fed said "the back can come and go very quickly" is that bullshit? Do you think his back was ok in his WTF semi v Stan in 2014? According to you since he won he was not "really injured" and therefore did not play the final cause he chickened out?

A back injury is something extremely serious, but as federer said it can quickly go.....but as we saw on quite a few occasions it may not go.
That's what we were commenting...nothing else. We don;t need to find excuses for a 18 or 19 slam champion but those record will not prevent for telling what I see.

by legendkillar Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:00 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
gallery play wrote:
summerblues wrote:
Tenez wrote:The question is how much is it affecting them?
But why does it even matter? Player's health is part of the package - just like their hand-eye coordination or their height. I can sort of make an exception in cases like Muster or Seles, but not otherwise. If you are not healthy enough to win the titles, that ultimately makes you a lesser player.

On top of that, you are overprotective specifically wrt Fed. Djokovic withdraws through injury and you happily take it without much fuss, but with Fed you and GP were acting like hysterical hormonal teenage girls.
That's a bit overdone SB. And easy to say afterwards.
The point of a live thread is to respond to what you see. I got worried based with what i saw and i still think he was not 100%. His level dropped too much for in my view and started to hit "wooden" FH's, while he was ahead and that's unusual.
He was never tested in the final so we never know.
Anyway, it all worked out well. Nevermind.

My view was he was tight. I don't believe it was injury or a twinge. He was just tight. Nervous clearly because he wasn't going for the wings on his shots like in previous rounds and similarly in parts in the final.

Federer feels the pressure just as anyone else. The 5th set in the final of Wimbledon 2014 at 4-5 is an example of it.
Sorry but it doesn't make sense. You don't get "tight" just after you break, you relax, especially if you are the best front runner ever!

And tight he woudl be in TBs. he won them all 5 out of 5 in this Wimbledon. Sorry but "tight"?

Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"

Seriously did you not see his last service game in that AO final this year when he had to starve off BP's!! Was that the back or was that him being tight? Hmmmmm.

Federer feels the pressure like any other athlete or player. You seriously going to tell me that for 6 out of the 7 matches his back was fine and for that one match it hampered him?

He played 2 tense sets against Berdych before finally looking more relaxed in the third. Berdych was completely broken after losing the second and clearly he didn't see a way of winning the match from that point given he has only ever came back from 2 sets down on one occasion in his career!

by Tenez Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:25 am

legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"

I would agree with that. I even think that with his new racquet and on form, he would beat Nadal on clay.
I admit it....and to me he even proved it over his 14years on the tour. he is the best and it is as simple as that and I am saying as much as a fan as a pure neutral observer of the game.

Seriously did you not see his last service game in that AO final this year when he had to starve off BP's!! Was that the back or was that him being tight? Hmmmmm.

No, nerves were not obvious to me. I saw an extremely good return from Nadal (happens), then he was maybe a bit conservative or bad luck with a FH sailing slightly long cause if he was nervous, he would more likely have lost the game at 15/40 than winning it..which he did.

Federer feels the pressure like any other athlete or player. You seriously going to tell me that for 6 out of the 7 matches his back was fine and for that one match it hampered him?

That's very difficult to say. Many were saying here that Fed played well below par in his first rounds. I, and I believe SB, thought he just played within himself, being more cautious than anything. Maybe cautious because of his back, who knows? Nothing wrong for suggesting it.

He played 2 tense sets against Berdych before finally looking more relaxed in the third. Berdych was completely broken after losing the second and clearly he didn't see a way of winning the match from that point given he has only ever came back from 2 sets down on one occasion in his career!

the way he played teh TBs tells me it is anything but nerves. As mentioned, with a break up in that 1st set, I woudl have expected a AO17 v Berdych type of score, especially knowing how much better he is than Berds on grass.

by legendkillar Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:31 pm

If you were as natural observer as you were, you would not be consumed with the desire to apportion blame to his back for every defeat he has suffered (ok an exaggeration on every defeat) but you know what I mean I hope Winking

Ten that FH he hit on MP against Nadal was tentative. He didn't hit that with the umphh I've been accustomed to. That service game was nerves given how well he served in the previous games of that set. Especially when recovering the break.

As for the Berdych match. That was tight. I don't care what anyone else says. Given the free flowing nature of some parts of the performances he put in before hand. Berdych played 2 horror TB's!! Stats for that first TB showed 1 winner out of 11 points!

Believe it or not, Federer can win ugly. That might not sit well with yourself and other supporters who only associate beauty with his play, but boy he can grind results out even if he isn't playing well himself. That Berdych match case and point. No sign of injury or niggles to me. Just a tense match. As I said come third set I saw Federer play more freely and more relaxed and Berdych just fold and recoil into his shell.

by bogbrush Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:54 pm

Bits of good sense from everyone here. I think not enough credit is given to Berdych for that semi, he was really good. Strong net presence and definitely no brain fade.

Federer was awesome in that 2nd set tiebreak. Four points in succession won with God mode forehands. It was just a really high standard match.

Fed gets nerves. He says he does. As Pete said, "we all choke". A brave man doesn't feel no fear, he conquers it. I think Federer is brilliant in those nervous positions, better than anyone including Nadal - Rafa wins many clutch points but when he's facing someone who he can't control (like Muller) he can become very inhibited and safe. Federer seems to go hard for the lines but even he can feel it.

by Daniel Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:12 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"
I would agree with that.

It's incredible you don't see how ridiculous that is - or that it's pure religious-like fanboy fanaticism at its very worst. Federer beat Berdych because he played brilliant tiebreaks and kept his nerve at crucial times - and Berdych didn't play his best either. Not close. But Federer made a ton of errors that were entirely due to being nervous. Same with Cilic. In the first set, he was shitting it.

by noleisthebest Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:13 pm

Daniel wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"
I would agree with that.

It's incredible you don't see how ridiculous that is - or that it's pure religious-like fanboy fanaticism at its very worst.

I agree with that too.

Fresh and injury free, it's virtually impossible to beat him.

by Daniel Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:15 pm

... wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"
I would agree with that.

It's incredible you don't see how ridiculous that is - or that it's pure religious-like fanboy fanaticism at its very worst.
I agree with that too.

Fresh and injury free, it's virtually impossible to beat him.

I don't care if you agree - I'm telling you that line of thought is a disease of the mind. You are wrong. Federer's H2H v various players proves you are wrong. And "fully fit" "injury free" "fresh" are also fanboy terms to excuse a loss. Professional sport doesn't work like that - no player can ever be truly fresh. Again - the Nadal fans use these terms all the time.... but you are clearly just as bad! You're a fanboy.

by N2D2L Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:59 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"
I would agree with that.

by Tenez Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:26 pm

legendkillar wrote:If you were as natural observer as you were, you would not be consumed with the desire to apportion blame to his back for every defeat he has suffered (ok an exaggeration on every defeat) but you know what I mean I hope

I am the one who says that Djoko and Nadal came up with a more efficient tennis than Federer. The excuse I give here is not the back. I always said those 2 were from a different generation than federer, hence why federer was losing the H2H against them. Fitness and technology got the better of federer and his 90in racquet. No back excuse there...though I am sure the back played up too at times. But against everybody else? No sorry I do not know any player could beat a Federer on form....not even Malisse!

Ten that FH he hit on MP against Nadal was tentative. He didn't hit that with the umphh I've been accustomed to. That service game was nerves given how well he served in the previous games of that set. Especially when recovering the break.

If you play with such small margins as federer and have nerves...you don't get ranked higher than 20 in the world. Federer woudl not be able to play his game if he was nervous. That's in my view what makes him different than a Dolgolopolov, a Nishikori, Cilic or a Berdych. I am not saying they woudl be as good as Fed but they woudl be much closer to him if they coudl play their best shots with the calm federer plays them. It took me a while to understand how mentally strong Federer was. I used to think he had more talent than mental strength. Now I think it;s the other way around....and the way he won this Wimbledon and teh AO confirms my view.

As for the Berdych match. That was tight. I don't care what anyone else says. Given the free flowing nature of some parts of the performances he put in before hand. Berdych played 2 horror TB's!! Stats for that first TB showed 1 winner out of 11 points!

Agree to disagree. Maybe you were so nervous yourself you projected yourself to Federer. Winking

Some of us saw something wrong with his coordination and likewise you change my mind about it.

Believe it or not, Federer can win ugly. That might not sit well with yourself and other supporters who only associate beauty with his play, but boy he can grind results out even if he isn't playing well himself. That Berdych match case and point. No sign of injury or niggles to me. Just a tense match. As I said come third set I saw Federer play more freely and more relaxed and Berdych just fold and recoil into his shell.

No problem with that. I wished he had many times in the past which woudl have given him more wins maybe. But his "ugly" is still so much nicer than the "beautiful" of the rest.

by Tenez Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:34 pm

... wrote:
Daniel wrote:
Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Sorry but that's nonsense. In your mind a fit Federer never loses. If he loses, it's "it's the back"
I would agree with that.

It's incredible you don't see how ridiculous that is - or that it's pure religious-like fanboy fanaticism at its very worst.
I agree with that too.

Fresh and injury free, it's virtually impossible to beat him.

yes..what's so special about that? The guy has been kicking everybody's asses for years and still does it at 36 but hey we have no right to give Federer excuses for losing to 38 Tommy Haas or Joy Donskoy.

I really wonder who is ridiculous here!

by legendkillar Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:45 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:If you were as natural observer as you were, you would not be consumed with the desire to apportion blame to his back for every defeat he has suffered (ok an exaggeration on every defeat) but you know what I mean I hope
I am the one who says that Djoko and Nadal came up with a more efficient tennis than Federer. The excuse I give here is not the back. I always said those 2 were from a different generation than federer, hence why federer was losing the H2H against them. Fitness and technology got the better of federer and his 90in racquet. No back excuse there...though I am sure the back played up too at times. But against everybody else? No sorry I do not know any player could beat a Federer on form....not even Malisse!

Ten that FH he hit on MP against Nadal was tentative. He didn't hit that with the umphh I've been accustomed to. That service game was nerves given how well he served in the previous games of that set. Especially when recovering the break.
If you play with such small margins as federer and have nerves...you don't get ranked higher than 20 in the world. Federer woudl not be able to play his game if he was nervous. That's in my view what makes him different than a Dolgolopolov, a Nishikori, Cilic or a Berdych. I am not saying they woudl be as good as Fed but they woudl be much closer to him if they coudl play their best shots with the calm federer plays them. It took me a while to understand how mentally strong Federer was. I used to think he had more talent than mental strength. Now I think it;s the other way around....and the way he won this Wimbledon and teh AO confirms my view.

As for the Berdych match. That was tight. I don't care what anyone else says. Given the free flowing nature of some parts of the performances he put in before hand. Berdych played 2 horror TB's!! Stats for that first TB showed 1 winner out of 11 points!
Agree to disagree. Maybe you were so nervous yourself you projected yourself to Federer. Some of us saw something wrong with his coordination and likewise you change my mind about it.

Believe it or not, Federer can win ugly. That might not sit well with yourself and other supporters who only associate beauty with his play, but boy he can grind results out even if he isn't playing well himself. That Berdych match case and point. No sign of injury or niggles to me. Just a tense match. As I said come third set I saw Federer play more freely and more relaxed and Berdych just fold and recoil into his shell.
No problem with that. I wished he had many times in the past which woudl have given him more wins maybe. But his "ugly" is still so much nicer than the "beautiful" of the rest.

Alright not defeats, but it seems any deficiency in Federer's game is summarised with a lack of fitness or health. Malisse on his day was animal, but was plagued with injuries ala Hewitt.

In terms of calmness, yes Federer is right up there. However, I disagree playing in margins is more nerve wracking than playing percentage shots. If I knew I had the shots Federer could produce, but my opponent didn't, I'd feel more relaxed for sure. Take in point the Berdych match. Berdych will know that Federer can pull a shot that will either win the point outright immediately or one that will win the point in 2-3 strokes time. In a TB that's additional pressure when you know the set will be won by a few points. That's for me why Federer is brilliant in TB's. 2-3 FH's and he can turn it into a hammering. Look at Murray's tennis at the moment in terms of percentage. Essentially, he can only hope that a big hitter or consistent hitter will outhit themselves or tire. He knows shot for shot he can't outhit someone, so the pressure is to make every percentage ball one that the opponent can't gobble up. Look at the Federer/Murray match up and look how in most of the encounters that Federer has gone after him and got on top because he knows Murray won't try and hit himself out of a hole. So trying to bridge a gap with an opponent you know is much better is tough pressure to live with.

Federer was nervous in that match with Berdych Ten. Simple as that. Was tentative on so many shots and was reminiscent of the FO semi in 2009. Same thing happened where the weight of expectation clearly on his mind. Think about it. At the start of any Slam, it's Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray that get made favourites. Being an equal favourite must be comforting because people are not specifically backing one horse and stating "it's for them to lose" in that AO victory, even with Nadal there, there was doubt. At Wimbledon with Nadal, Murray and Djokovic out the picture to the wide world and even the scurge that is the BBC said "Federer can't lose it from here, surely" When you individually expect to win, that's an easy pressure to deal with as it's your own expectations, when the wide world expect you to win, Eeeek! I wasn't nervous for him Ten Winking

I go by what I have seen from him past and present and other great champions down the years when coming in on the home stretch. Federer in the past did it with panache and comfort. The Berdych match was just a blink and a gulp. He still won the title. The Berdych match aside from the Raonic TB was the only time I saw a little wobble. Other than those, it was plain sailing.

Ten you've played sport as have I and many others on this forum. I know there are days when I am in the zone. Full flight and everything coming of like I know it can. Other days I've taken a momentary pause as the body and the mind feels heavier and thus not being able to click into full flight mode. That happens even at the highest level. You hit an obstacle that you have a little trouble climbing over. The fluidity isn't quite flowing. Call it the wall if you will. That happens.

by N2D2L Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:53 pm

legendkillar wrote:
Ten you've played sport as have I and many others on this forum. I know there are days when I am in the zone. Full flight and everything coming of like I know it can. Other days I've taken a momentary pause as the body and the mind feels heavier and thus not being able to click into full flight mode. That happens even at the highest level. You hit an obstacle that you have a little trouble climbing over. The fluidity isn't quite flowing. Call it the wall if you will. That happens.

by Tenez Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:41 pm

legendkillar wrote:Ten you've played sport as have I and many others on this forum. I know there are days when I am in the zone. Full flight and everything coming of like I know it can. Other days I've taken a momentary pause as the body and the mind feels heavier and thus not being able to click into full flight mode. That happens even at the highest level. You hit an obstacle that you have a little trouble climbing over. The fluidity isn't quite flowing. Call it the wall if you will. That happens.

But that's exactly what I mean. You used the word "if fit" so I did not bother adding details to it....but yeah I mean "on form". If you play a sport, as you say, you know they are guys you would never lose to if you are fit and guys you woudl never beat unless they were not 100%.

And he has even proven that for years, even this year at 35: 34 matches 2 losses and I can easily find him "excuses" for his 2 losses, in which he had MPs.

There is nothing extraordinary in that statement.

by noleisthebest Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:18 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Ten you've played sport as have I and many others on this forum. I know there are days when I am in the zone. Full flight and everything coming of like I know it can. Other days I've taken a momentary pause as the body and the mind feels heavier and thus not being able to click into full flight mode. That happens even at the highest level. You hit an obstacle that you have a little trouble climbing over. The fluidity isn't quite flowing. Call it the wall if you will. That happens.
But that's exactly what I mean. You used the word "if fit" so I did not bother adding details to it....but yeah I mean "on form". If you play a sport, as you say, you know they are guys you would never lose to if you are fit and guys you woudl never beat unless they were not 100%.

And he has even proven that for years, even this year at 35: 34 matches 2 losses and I can easily find him "excuses" for his 2 losses, in which he had MPs.

There is nothing extraordinary in that statement.

We all know those days, but they don't work in tennis against an opponent of Federer's calibre and experience.

Maybe a crazy Dustin Brown could cause some damage if he is able to sustain his form for the entire match, but he can't. (did only once against Nadal with the help if fresh grass).

Fed has so many weapons and too much game.

Every player dreams of having his arsenal. Incl Nadal.

by legendkillar Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:20 pm

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Ten you've played sport as have I and many others on this forum. I know there are days when I am in the zone. Full flight and everything coming of like I know it can. Other days I've taken a momentary pause as the body and the mind feels heavier and thus not being able to click into full flight mode. That happens even at the highest level. You hit an obstacle that you have a little trouble climbing over. The fluidity isn't quite flowing. Call it the wall if you will. That happens.
But that's exactly what I mean. You used the word "if fit" so I did not bother adding details to it....but yeah I mean "on form". If you play a sport, as you say, you know they are guys you would never lose to if you are fit and guys you woudl never beat unless they were not 100%.

And he has even proven that for years, even this year at 35: 34 matches 2 losses and I can easily find him "excuses" for his 2 losses, in which he had MPs.

There is nothing extraordinary in that statement.

On form and if fit are 2 different things Ten. I've played some shockers when fit. Distractions, over thinking, lack of effort. That can happen and that's not down to fitness.

No athlete can sustain constant concentration in every performance. Some have lapses and take longer to re-focus and re-frame. The slightest thing can throw an athlete.

Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.

by noleisthebest Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:44 pm

Daniel wrote:I agree. I'm sorry, but it was reading like a Nadal fan site at one point... 2 double faults and it's CLEARLY injury that made it happen. Can't be anything else. Any mistake "It's his back, I tell you! That's to blame, Gov'ner "

[b[No player who is really injured wins a slam at professional level. [/b]For that matter, winning even amateur events is nearly impossible with a real injury. Niggles and nerves are part of sport. Degradation with age and play is part of sport. You cannot asterisk losses. We ought not to be aping how Nadal and a lot of his fans and the media jump on injury as an excuse. It's lame. Lame fanboyism. Federer did have a bad back last year, and he won bugger all. But he still entered events - and when you enter... sorry...NO EXCUSES.

Djokovic won USO 11 injured in the final.

By that match he had beaten Nadal in 6(?) finals that year & Nadal was so concussed he couldn't even take advantage of it.

by Tenez Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:59 pm

legendkillar wrote:...
Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.

But if he had one you'd be wrong. And I think you are clearly wrong in that case.

Federer even said after his Berdych match interview: "Never played with any sense of panic, which is so important when it gets to crunch time."And exactly what we saw in his 5 or 6 TBs he played in that fortnight.

You've got all this experience, all the titles that you have. Do you still get nervous? Were you nervous today before the match?
ROGER FEDERER: Not before the match, no. For some reason, I was much more nervous, like I said in the press, before my second-round match against Lajovic for some reason. I didn't know my opponent very well.
Today I felt very calm going out on court. Even in the warmups, the first games when I was serving, I was, All right, this is like another match. I'm just really happy it's a semis and not a second round.
Yes, I do get nervous. I'm happy I do get nervous for the big occasions.

And there is no reason why he would get more nervous once he is a break up. Sorry but I completely disagree with you on that occasion...whether he had a niggle in the back or not.

by Tenez Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:26 pm

legendkillar wrote:
On form and if fit are 2 different things Ten. I've played some shockers when fit. Distractions, over thinking, lack of effort. That can happen and that's not down to fitness.

No athlete can sustain constant concentration in every performance. Some have lapses and take longer to re-focus and re-frame. The slightest thing can throw an athlete.

Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.

...
Again, Federer was 74-6 (04) 81-4 (05) 92-5 (06) and 68-9 (07) that's 16 matches lost to players not called Nadal..... in 4 years!!!!!!
Check the names of those he lost to and let me know if they could beat an in form/fit Federer.

by Daniel Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:38 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
On form and if fit are 2 different things Ten. I've played some shockers when fit. Distractions, over thinking, lack of effort. That can happen and that's not down to fitness.

No athlete can sustain constant concentration in every performance. Some have lapses and take longer to re-focus and re-frame. The slightest thing can throw an athlete.

Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.
...
Again, Federer was 74-6 (04) 81-4 (05) 92-5 (06) and 68-9 (07) that's 16 matches lost to players not called Nadal..... in 4 years!!!!!!
Check the names of those he lost to and let me know if they could beat an in form/fit Federer.

Love how you are citing the years I say Federer was in his is prime and peak... You just don't see the problem, do you? Federer is almost 36 now. And he isn't at that level now - not fine motor skills, nor stamina. A 36 year old is simply never going to be able to compete on most levels with his 26 year old counterpart. Apart from this year, Federer suffered a drought winning titles that nearly all older players do. Federer is a massive exception to any rule because he is a freak - but even he suffered badly. And he also agrees the useless youngsters today have a lot to do with it.

Also - in those years - Federer was not 97-0 or 77-0 etc. He lost. Nadal still dominated Federer on clay. Or was Federer a better clay player than Nadal? Is that your argument? Because it certainly seems that it has to be. You don't think Federer was simply outplayed in those very few matches he lost? Even the greatest of all time lose from time to time. What you are suggesting is that Federer is a god. He is not.

by legendkillar Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:36 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:...
Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.
But if he had one you'd be wrong. And I think you are clearly wrong in that case.

Federer even said after his Berdych match interview: "Never played with any sense of panic, which is so important when it gets to crunch time."And exactly what we saw in his 5 or 6 TBs he played in that fortnight.

You've got all this experience, all the titles that you have. Do you still get nervous? Were you nervous today before the match?
ROGER FEDERER: Not before the match, no. For some reason, I was much more nervous, like I said in the press, before my second-round match against Lajovic for some reason. I didn't know my opponent very well.
Today I felt very calm going out on court. Even in the warmups, the first games when I was serving, I was, All right, this is like another match. I'm just really happy it's a semis and not a second round.
Yes, I do get nervous. I'm happy I do get nervous for the big occasions.

And there is no reason why he would get more nervous once he is a break up. Sorry but I completely disagree with you on that occasion...whether he had a niggle in the back or not.

So if he didn't have a niggle, how am I wrong??? Doesn't make sense.

Look at the last part of your quote. The man himself says he gets nervous and is happy he gets nervous on the big occasion!

Before the 2 sets went to TB, it was tentative play. If it wasn't a niggle or injury and it wasn't nerves, what do you think it was?

by legendkillar Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:42 am

Tenez wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
On form and if fit are 2 different things Ten. I've played some shockers when fit. Distractions, over thinking, lack of effort. That can happen and that's not down to fitness.

No athlete can sustain constant concentration in every performance. Some have lapses and take longer to re-focus and re-frame. The slightest thing can throw an athlete.

Federer in that Berdych match didn't look relaxed and that I wouldn't apportion to a niggle or injury, but more so because of pressure he put on himself.
...
Again, Federer was 74-6 (04) 81-4 (05) 92-5 (06) and 68-9 (07) that's 16 matches lost to players not called Nadal..... in 4 years!!!!!!
Check the names of those he lost to and let me know if they could beat an in form/fit Federer.

On the flipside, how many of those 315 victories were at the expense of his opponent not being in "form/fit"?

You've been saying that Djokovic/Nadal play efficient tennis and then on the other hand say a fit and inform Federer can't be beaten. Do you see the difficulty in marrying that up? Unless of course that 2010 post AO to 2016 was Federer not being fit or in form.

by Tenez Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:24 am

Daniel wrote:Love how you are citing the years I say Federer was in his is prime and peak... You just don't see the problem, do you? Federer is almost 36 now. And he isn't at that level now - not fine motor skills, nor stamina. A 36 year old is simply never going to be able to compete on most levels with his 26 year old counterpart. Apart from this year, Federer suffered a drought winning titles that nearly all older players do. Federer is a massive exception to any rule because he is a freak - but even he suffered badly. And he also agrees the useless youngsters today have a lot to do with it.

you insist! Laugh

Sorry if you cannot appreciate Federer's progress, I cannot help. Same if you cannot see Murray limping when everybody else does.

Also - in those years - Federer was not 97-0 or 77-0 etc. He lost. Nadal still dominated Federer on clay. Or was Federer a better clay player than Nadal? Is that your argument? Because it certainly seems that it has to be. You don't think Federer was simply outplayed in those very few matches he lost? Even the greatest of all time lose from time to time. What you are suggesting is that Federer is a god. He is not.

That's my point. I don;t expect a player to be 100% over a 4 year period.

Regarding his losses to Nadal I usually don't use injury as an excuse unlike you who gave age as an excuse since 2006!

No he is not God...though if there was a tennis god, I could see him play like Federer.[/quote]

by Daniel Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:54 am

Another straw man. You've made your statements and you've made them clearly. Attacking me with straw men for your own insane nonsense won't wash. You agreed to the statement that Federer only loses when not fit. Not me Winking

by legendkillar Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:37 pm

Ten I was wondering, did you watch the Open yesterday?

Now did you see Spieth who carried over a 3 shot lead into the final round mentally capitulate on the first 9 holes and then further capitulate further on the 13th ala Masters 2016 and see his lead evaporate?

The guy was leading by 3 going into that final round. None of the field were making significant gains and yet he got the nerves before managing to turn it around on the next 4 holes and win it by 3.

Point in case Ten, even those who have won before and many times, still feel the pressure of the being the man.

No living athlete is immune to pressure regardless of position in a match or tounament.

by Tenez Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:03 pm

I know that. I but i also know that Spieth is not an aggressive player (according to GP whi knows a bit more than me about golf). He is more like Nadal, Djoko and Murray...which means mentally they cannit be compared to Federer. Federer plays a risky game....very risky in fact and can o ly be successful at this game if the mind is really strong....or more importantly if the confidence is unshakable. As mentioned Fed even said in his post mat h interview he felt very calm playing Berdych. He is also the best front runner...if he has lost matches from being in the lead it has always been down to over confidence or tiredness...never did i see him panicking closing a match.

by gallery play Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:07 pm

legendkillar wrote:Ten I was wondering, did you watch the Open yesterday?

Now did you see Spieth who carried over a 3 shot lead into the final round mentally capitulate on the first 9 holes and then further capitulate further on the 13th ala Masters 2016 and see his lead evaporate?

The guy was leading by 3 going into that final round. None of the field were making significant gains and yet he got the nerves before managing to turn it around on the next 4 holes and win it by 3.

Point in case Ten, even those who have won before and many times, still feel the pressure of the being the man.

No living athlete is immune to pressure regardless of position in a match or tounament.

I see it different. Spieth played his absolute best just when he got one shot behind and the pressure was sky high..
In other words: when he finally had a reason to be nervous, he started to play outstanding.
That doesn't make any sense does it? Just like it doesn't make any sense to claim Federer got nervous right after he outplayed Berdych and took a 4-2 lead.

@Tenez: i would compare Spieth with Djoko (2011- 2015): not a fluid swing (plain ugly to be fair), but deadly accurate. And he wins because he's great in avoiding mistakes. Great course management, great focus and keeping things together at all times.

by bogbrush Tue Jul 25, 2017 1:20 am

And he's perhaps the best putter I've ever seen. Bit hyperbolic, no doubt a fan will torpedo it but he just always seems to get very close or in, and lengthy putts always look probable for him.

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:10 am

gallery play wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Ten I was wondering, did you watch the Open yesterday?

Now did you see Spieth who carried over a 3 shot lead into the final round mentally capitulate on the first 9 holes and then further capitulate further on the 13th ala Masters 2016 and see his lead evaporate?

The guy was leading by 3 going into that final round. None of the field were making significant gains and yet he got the nerves before managing to turn it around on the next 4 holes and win it by 3.

Point in case Ten, even those who have won before and many times, still feel the pressure of the being the man.

No living athlete is immune to pressure regardless of position in a match or tounament.
I see it different. Spieth played his absolute best just when he got one shot behind and the pressure was sky high..
In other words: when he finally had a reason to be nervous, he started to play outstanding.
That doesn't make any sense does it? Just like it doesn't make any sense to claim Federer got nervous right after he outplayed Berdych and took a 4-2 lead.

@Tenez: i would compare Spieth with Djoko (2011- 2015): not a fluid swing (plain ugly to be fair), but deadly accurate. And he wins because he's great in avoiding mistakes. Great course management, great focus and keeping things together at all times.

You're not wrong there Winking

Let's start with your account of Speith. I can't tell you how wrong you are.

Reason to be nervous? He had that after playing 3 over in the first 4 holes! Any golfer will tell you in such a situation with that many holes left, that not to panic and to consolidate. Not go out all attack, but consolidate. He played the next 5 holes at even par and was still tied with Kuchar before the mare at 13th which in fairness to escape with a bogey was miraculous. The next 4 holes were just magic from Speith. A defensive conservative player does not go 5 under in 4 holes on a back 9 in the final round of Major. As for your comparison with Djokovic, laughable. He doesn't win because he avoids mistakes (Christ that's how most players win on the tour!) he wins because he has a great short game and as BB stated is a fantastic putter. Unlike many on the tour, he's an aggressive putter. He can down the crucial putts. If Westwood had an ounce of Speith's short game, he would be a multiple Major winner by now.

As for this Berdych match. Seems to be common place that comments are not read properly. I stated it was a tight match from Federer. If you had seen my comments, you'd notice the one in which I said the first 2 sets were tight and then the 3rd the pendulum completely swung into Federer's favour in which he relaxed more and Berdych fell apart completely. Ten pulled that quote Federer said post match and conveniently overlooked the last part where he said he get's nervous and is happy to! Playing without panic is different than being nervous. Panic is where you think less rationally and can't decide between aggressive and passive. Read my comments about pressure, even in the tiebreaks.

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:11 am

bogbrush wrote:And he's perhaps the best putter I've ever seen. Bit hyperbolic, no doubt a fan will torpedo it but he just always seems to get very close or in, and lengthy putts always look probable for him.

Watch some of Ben Crenshaw's putts! Scarily amazing. The best putter I've ever seen by a country mile.

by gallery play Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:01 pm

legendkillar wrote:
gallery play wrote:
legendkillar wrote:Ten I was wondering, did you watch the Open yesterday?

Now did you see Spieth who carried over a 3 shot lead into the final round mentally capitulate on the first 9 holes and then further capitulate further on the 13th ala Masters 2016 and see his lead evaporate?

The guy was leading by 3 going into that final round. None of the field were making significant gains and yet he got the nerves before managing to turn it around on the next 4 holes and win it by 3.

Point in case Ten, even those who have won before and many times, still feel the pressure of the being the man.

No living athlete is immune to pressure regardless of position in a match or tounament.
I see it different. Spieth played his absolute best just when he got one shot behind and the pressure was sky high..
In other words: when he finally had a reason to be nervous, he started to play outstanding.
That doesn't make any sense does it? Just like it doesn't make any sense to claim Federer got nervous right after he outplayed Berdych and took a 4-2 lead.

@Tenez: i would compare Spieth with Djoko (2011- 2015): not a fluid swing (plain ugly to be fair), but deadly accurate. And he wins because he's great in avoiding mistakes. Great course management, great focus and keeping things together at all times.

You're not wrong there

Let's start with your account of Speith. I can't tell you how wrong you are.

Obviously

by bogbrush Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:07 pm

legendkillar wrote:
bogbrush wrote:And he's perhaps the best putter I've ever seen. Bit hyperbolic, no doubt a fan will torpedo it but he just always seems to get very close or in, and lengthy putts always look probable for him.

Watch some of Ben Crenshaw's putts! Scarily amazing. The best putter I've ever seen by a country mile.

See, I knew one of you would bring in some fact based old stuff to blow me out! This is like someone telling me something like "Pancho Gonzales down the line slice made Federers look like a lob". Unfair use of knowledge!

I'm sure you're right. Spieth makes me think he's always going to hole it. Everyone else looks like they're going to try.

by legendkillar Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:58 pm

bogbrush wrote:
legendkillar wrote:
bogbrush wrote:And he's perhaps the best putter I've ever seen. Bit hyperbolic, no doubt a fan will torpedo it but he just always seems to get very close or in, and lengthy putts always look probable for him.

Watch some of Ben Crenshaw's putts! Scarily amazing. The best putter I've ever seen by a country mile.
See, I knew one of you would bring in some fact based old stuff to blow me out! This is like someone telling me something like "Pancho Gonzales down the line slice made Federers look like a lob". Unfair use of knowledge!

I'm sure you're right. Spieth makes me think he's always going to hole it. Everyone else looks like they're going to try.

On the contrary sir, I wasn't in full adult stage in the time of Crenshaw. Golf, like football and even tennis I've had a fondness to look back in time. Thanks to the internet and the odd documentary, you can see past events which is brilliant. I love nostalgia and history tells us everything apparently. Winking

I always love reading your admiration for McEnroe and how you remember him and even when Tenez remarked how Wilander was the most unfazed individual he had seen on the tennis court (wonder if he still holds that view). I find views like that fascinating and insightful.

Speith is a great putter. Chambers Bay in 2015 he was immense! And US Open greens have been notorious for being something like on a crazy golf course. Shinnicock for the US Open 2004 even saw balls rolling off greens as they were that quick and riddled with slopes.

I love Crenshaw. Gentle Ben, lovely guy and a real believer of faith and fate. He was just a putting machine. Even 30 feet out he would sink them. If he landed the ball on the green, you felt he would sink it in 1 stroke. His 84 Masters victory, just a ridiculous display of immaculate putting. I remember fondly when he won the Masters in 1995 and he cried at the end because of the passing of Harvey Pennick his mentor. When winning that Masters, he didn't record a single three putt!

I would recommend you tube the infamous Brookline Ryder Cup in 1999. Aside from the chaos, look up Ben's speech the day before the last day. To this day sends chills down my spine when you think of what unfolded the next day.

by bogbrush Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:00 pm

The pity is I couldn't fully appreciate McEnroe at the start as he was a little twat getting in the way of Borg. It was not until later that I appreciated him.

I'll look for that speech. I thought Speith was classy the other day making a big thing to apologise to Khucher for his antics on the 13th.

by legendkillar Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:48 am

Here is the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Msi4XLDrP4

USA were 10-6 down going into Sunday. It's just amazing how convinced he was in that speech.

Speith's caddy was brilliant in that situation. Speith said as much that his caddy calmed him down. Speith said he did have thoughts of the Masters 2016, but managed to stay calm in this situation. I was surprised how conservative Kuchar was in that situation even leading up to the 13th. I remember after the third round he said "I am going to play to protect 2nd place. I want to win" and I never got a sense of that from his play until the 18th!

McEnroe and Becker were 2 players I really warmed towards when starting out on my tennis journey. They could get the crowd to invest in a match and that for me was what really done it for me. In times gone by I've not found myself as invested in players. Hewitt that dogged determination was something to behold, but the cavalier musketeer approach to the game is dead.

by Sponsored content

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30