World Tour Final - London 2019

"Going for too much" is similar in a way to "being too conservative". Both come from the fear to lose with of course a bit more guts from the former.

And this is where Federer is really special as I have hardly ever seen him going for too passive to the point where it shows a la Djokovic and likewise never I saw him go for ridiculously risky shots that went miles on crucial points.

And this is why imo he is mentally teh strongest. His mind and timing stays the same during the matches and it was obvious when I saw him lives a few times.

When he loses from MPs up it is often in thos long 3 or 5 setters (AO 05, USO 11, W19) where physical tiredness has a huge impact on his mental one.

For Wimby 2019, if he had the physical energy to break Djokovic and go 40-15 up, why would he not have the energy to win one of the next two points on serve?
The second match point he didn't do enough with the approach shot, which I don't think was to do with fatigue.

Daniel2 wrote:

Tenez wrote:I actually thought they were both nervous which is very normal but Thiem was the gutsier. Thiem just over did it and Tsi benefitted from it.

lmao.  How can someone read the game so wrong?  Tsitsipas didn't put a foot wrong that tie breaker.  Theim had 4 unforced errors.  He bottled it.

But he was nervous when he found himself a break up in the 3rd. Losing his serve. He was also very defensive in that first TB.

It was essentially Thiem "bottling it" as you say by going for broke that made the fortune of Tsi..

Having said that Tsi won 20% more points overall, thanks to that 2nd set I guess. So certainly the deservedly winner.

BEL19VE wrote:For Wimby 2019, if he had the physical energy to break Djokovic and go 40-15 up, why would he not have the energy to win one of the next two points on serve?
The second match point he didn't do enough with the approach shot, which I don't think was to do with fatigue.

Because the energy required to go 40-15 up in the 5th v Djoko is huge and he knows that v Djoko he cannot let it go but since he finally gets to 2 MPs he might just rely a bit on a good luck (an ace for instance) to get through. Added pressure of course that it is Djoko the king of retrievers able to throw long rallies on the other side. Also the fact that he has already lost a couple from there against him.

You agree that he has hardly ever lost from MPs up when not physically challenged.

Tenez wrote:

You agree that he has hardly ever lost from MPs up when not physically challenged.

Well most times people lose from match point up it is likely to be in the 5th set, simply because the turn-around from being match point down and being able to win is by definition easiest in set 5.
I can think of an example of Federer losing from MP up when not physically challenged though, he had a MP in 3rd set of the Anderson Wimby QF 2018.

Tenez wrote:Because the energy required to go 40-15 up in the 5th v Djoko is huge and he knows that v Djoko he cannot let it go but since he finally gets to 2 MPs he might just rely a bit on a good luck (an ace for instance) to get through. Added pressure of course that it is Djoko the king of retrievers able to throw long rallies on the other side. Also the fact that he has already lost a couple from there against him.

Yeah but a lot of that is mental. If he hit a deeper approach shot at 40-30, Djokovic's ability to make it a long rally would have been irrelevant.

No it is not mental. If it was mental he would not get to 40/15 up pulling 2 aces on the way. Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

I have just watched them again (since that final) and franly Djoko pulls a return in his legs which he can't get out in times (probably tired and teh second it a quite lucky CC FH from Djoko which could have easily been out.

And had it been out we woudl not be talking about it now!

What do you mean 'if it was out'?
The passing shot was well timed, it's not like he mishit it and the ball spun in by fluke. He aimed for the cross court pass and made it, how is that luck?

Tenez wrote:Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

Surely they play a part? The first one he makes an unforced error, and the second point, 95/100 times he'd hit a better approach shot and win the point.

BEL19VE wrote:What do you mean 'if it was out'?
The passing shot was well timed, it's not like he mishit it and the ball spun in by fluke. He aimed for the cross court pass and made it, how is that luck?

I am not saying it was luck but it is close to the line If he could do it every time, he'd have won 3 sets to love. And again Fed goes to the net...takes his chance. No nerves.

Tenez wrote:Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

Surely they play a part? The first one he makes an unforced error, and the second point, 95/100 times he'd hit a better approach shot and win the point. [/quote]
Again you lack objectivity. Frankly with you there is always a time where you don't want to see it as it is .

Those 2 points he loses from 40/15 are no nerves. When a player is nervous he ususally don;t even get to MPs. To pull 2 aces to get to 40/15 you needs to be relaxed. End off.

Tenez wrote:
I am not saying it was luck but it is close to the line If he could do it every time, he'd have won 3 sets to love.

I don't get what you mean. He can't do it every time, but he did it at the most important moment. Surely that deserves some credit?

Tenez wrote:
Those 2 points he loses from 40/15 are no nerves. When a player is nervous he ususally don;t even get to MPs. To pull 2 aces to get to 40/15 you needs to be relaxed. End off.

I think being 40-15 up could be more nerve wracking though. Hitting an ace is hitting an ace. We'll have to agree to disagree.

If you want to watch a nervous game watch that one from 5h25mn40s.....or any tight moments of Djoko v Nadal 2011...there you will see obvious nerves.



I don;t think you can see it nearly as badly with Federer.

I think Nadal is an extremely nervous anxious player, it's one of the many reasons I like him, to see if he can overcome that with his unbelievable will to win and fighting spirit.

BEL19VE wrote:

Tenez wrote:
I am not saying it was luck but it is close to the line If he could do it every time, he'd have won 3 sets to love.

I don't get what you mean. He can't do it every time, but he did it at the most important moment. Surely that deserves some credit?

That is not the point. the point is on that very point, there is no obvious signs of nerves from federer. Or are you trying to move the goal posts again?

I think being 40-15 up could be more nerve wracking though[/b]. Hitting an ace is hitting an ace. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Of course it is not. Being 0/15 down is a lot more ...yet he pulss 2 aces.

he is 15/40 down v Nadal at the AO 17 in that final game....that is a lot more nerve wracking ..don't you think so? ...or are you going to deny the obvious once again?

BEL19VE wrote:I think Nadal is an extremely nervous anxious player, it's one of the many reasons I like him, to see if he can overcome that with his unbelievable will to win and fighting spirit.  

Well at last some reason!

And it is indeed that anxiety that makes him run after the ball rather than dictating the game, much easier on the mind than taking risks....in spite of his power and large margins.

I'm not trying to say in general Federer doesn't have great mental strength- he's an incredible champion so he does.

But you brought up this specific match, and said physical tiredness played a role on the match points, while I think it was more mental.

Tenez wrote:That is not the point. the point is on that very point, there is no obvious signs of nerves from federer. Or are you trying to move the goal posts again?

I do think there are clear signs of nerves. At 15-40, he shouldn't have missed that forehand. And at 30-40 the approach shot should have finished Djokovic off.

Tenez wrote:
And it is indeed that anxiety that makes him run after the ball rather than dictating the game,

What are you talking about- I don't think you watch Nadal play.
When he's on abysmal form or on a crap run like in 2015, fine, he'd hit the ball short and have to run around before inevitably losing. Also his serve isn't great so he can't get cheap points, but that's a separate issue.

However when he's playing normally/well, he's the one dictating the play from the baseline. He toys with the opponent, and makes them run. That's why most players know they can't engage him in a normal rally and have to go hammer and tongs, hoping they red line. If they slice or play a normal shot he'll take charge of the point and control it. Only other GOATS can play their normal games against Nadal from the baseline.

BEL19VE wrote:I do think there are clear signs of nerves. At 15-40, he shouldn't have missed that forehand. And at 30-40 the approach shot should have finished Djokovic off.

Ideally but the return is in his legs so it is not an UE for a 38 yo who has played 7 matches of best of 5 in 14 days and has just another 4h and 30mn in his legs to feel light footed enough to move swiftly on that return.

You want to see nerves cause you simply want to see it as is. However it is not obvious. He makes plenty of mistakes like that even when it is not a crucial point. You cannot tell objectively it is nerves.

It is just very convenient to diminish him mentally when the guy has won 20 slams by pulling risky shots after risky shots (even with a 90in racquet) at so many crucial times. I have hardly ever seen him with a frozen arm.

Be it AO05, AO09, W08, USO11 or W19 all those matches lost he has lost them with brio. No fearful play there. Just long exhausting games and we know he is not the best at the distance physically.

Tenez wrote:It is just very convenient to diminish him mentally when the guy has won 20 slams

I'm not diminishing him mentally, I've said already his overall career is an example of amazing mental strength.

I just take issue with you bringing up this specific example of Wimby 2019 final as an example of good mental strength, blaming the loss on fatigue.
Even if we ignore the match points, which he should have converted, what about the rest of the match?
Federer was playing superior tennis to Djokovic throughout. All 3 sets Djokovic won were in tiebreaks, and frankly Federer should have won all 5 sets. Djokovic was clutch in the big moments.

BEL19VE wrote:...well, he's the one dictating the play from the baseline. He toys with the opponent,...

Yes we much be watching another Nadal. Toying with opponent would mean he has them in his racquet. Well if that is the case why does it need to sweat like a pig to win a point? toying means playing....I am afraid I do not see that in Nadal's game. Maybe a bit more recently but certainly not what brought him those 19 slams. It is all sweat and running.

Watch that AO12 final I posted above. Can't you see him run right and left at the command of Djoko's racquet? And how boring a game and time wasting in between. Anyway once again we are diverting.

Tenez wrote:Watch that AO12 final I posted above. Can't you see him run right and left at the command of Djoko's racquet?

It's true that earlier Djokovic did handle Nadal's baseline game well and take charge of the points, which not many can do.
However I do think if they played now- Djokovic's game has become more defensive while Nadal has become more attacking- I think Nadal would be the aggressor in the match. Djokovic would still probably be favourite just because his movement is quicker than ever while Nadal has become very slow.

Tenez wrote:Yes we much be watching another Nadal. Toying with opponent would mean he has them in his racquet.

Maybe we are watching different Nadals. I think you get confused with the fact his serve is crap meaning he gets no cheap points with him not being in charge of baseline rallies. When he's playing well, he's nearly always dictating the rallies. That's why most try and avoid normal rallies at all costs by taking crazy risks.

BEL19VE wrote:I just take issue with you bringing up this specific example of Wimby 2019 final as an example of good mental strength, blaming the loss on fatigue.

Did I say good? Lease answer honestly once again, as it is there. I said it was not an obvious case of choking or weak mental. Those very 2 points do not show it.

Even if we ignore the match points, which he should have converted, what about the rest of the match?
Federer was playing superior tennis to Djokovic throughout. All 3 sets Djokovic won were in tiebreaks, and frankly Federer should have won all 5 sets. Djokovic was clutch in the big moments.

That's the problem with the scoring system. A technically brilliant point is worth as much as an UE from the very same opponent. Djoko is consistent and he is there to exploit every drop of form thanks to his amazing fitness able to retrieve balls no-one else can.

But when he had to smash an easy ball to lead by a double break in that FO 15 he bottled it. I have never seen for instance Fed lose from such a position...and if he did never was it from such an easy point.

BEL19VE wrote:

Tenez wrote:Watch that AO12 final I posted above. Can't you see him run right and left at the command of Djoko's racquet?

It's true that earlier Djokovic did handle Nadal's baseline game well and take charge of the points, which not many can do.

I actually thought many could do it but they were often forced to go for too much sooner or later and on crucial points all of them failed.bar Sod once.
Still it brought him 14 or 16 slams more or less.

However I do think if they played now- Djokovic's game has become more defensive while Nadal has become more attacking- I think Nadal would be the aggressor in the match. Djokovic would still probably be favourite just because his movement is quicker than ever while Nadal has become very slow.

Nadal has not become very slow. That is certainly not true. Nadal simply just can't afford to run as much against today's players. He changed his game in 2015 cause he was simply losing more defending.

Watch that 2009 AO semi v Verdasco. This kind of game would be obliterated by anyone on tour from 2014. Nadal had no choice to turn a bit more aggressive.

Funny those tennis conversations. They remind me the old days when I used to spend hours in front of my PC.

Today, I started the day with feeding the dog (never had one before), the hens, then went on to shaping our Cyprus trees, install a stove, cut wood and prepare the pole chain saw for pruning teh olive trees tomorrow. A complete different life.

I managed to watch teh match from the TB of the first set. But sadly I have only played thrice in the last 12 months when I used to play 4 days a week in London. I have got to find the time to get back into it.

I hope it was not the tough debates with myself that drove you to choose life on the farm. Sounds relaxing though.

BEL19VE wrote:I hope it was not the tough debates with myself that drove you to choose life on the farm. Sounds relaxing though.

It's cool. But I miss London....sometimes. .

well, 2019 is over... 
Dont know if many of us (not me) would have predicted Nadal to win 2 slams and end season as number 1

My predictions on the prediction thread were spot on! bar the year. I meant 2020 and not 2019 of course!

Re: A Bold Prediction For 2019
Post by Tenez on Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:23 pm

lol.

Happy New Year!

A bold but realistic prediction:

Not a single 2019 slam won by the big 3.

All I'd say is that the final showed that it's crucial for the sport that all the big 3 are consigned to history. Obviously I will always root for Federer but even I know that it's no longer good for the sport for him to be contesting semis and finals of the biggest events, it just shows a sport that is bound in cement.

Tenez wrote:No it is not mental. If it was mental he would not get to 40/15 up pulling 2 aces on the way. Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

I have just watched them again (since that final) and franly Djoko pulls a return in his legs which he can't get out in times (probably tired and teh second it a quite lucky CC FH from Djoko which could have easily been out.

And had it been out we woudl not be talking about it now!

At 40-30 the decision to approach the net on that FH was a sign of nerves as he had no chance covering the net on a shot to the FH that wasn't deep enough plus charging the net on the BH side that left the BH side so open. 

I wouldn't say the FH CC was luck given he didn't really have to stretch to make any contact. He had time to place it. 

I think it was second serves IIRC on those MP's. Given he hit 2 aces previously, what a contrast in outcomes. 

Now relating that all back to last night. Thiem wilted massively. Tsitsy is so good at moving on from lost points which should hold him in good stead. You look at the BH he hit which clipped the line I think it was Thiem made which got one of the breaks back in that TB. Thiem was spraying it in the TB. The return on MP said it all about Thiem. 

I also think the crowd slightly go to Thiem as well as it can't be nice for him on what is a neutral ground to hear Tsitsipas break out.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:No it is not mental. If it was mental he would not get to 40/15 up pulling 2 aces on the way. Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

I have just watched them again (since that final) and franly Djoko pulls a return in his legs which he can't get out in times (probably tired and teh second it a quite lucky CC FH from Djoko which could have easily been out.

And had it been out we woudl not be talking about it now!

 The return on MP said it all about Thiem. 

Spot on.

BEL19VE wrote:

Tenez wrote:It is just very convenient to diminish him mentally when the guy has won 20 slams

I'm not diminishing him mentally, I've said already his overall career is an example of amazing mental strength.

I just take issue with you bringing up this specific example of Wimby 2019 final as an example of good mental strength, blaming the loss on fatigue.
Even if we ignore the match points, which he should have converted, what about the rest of the match?
Federer was playing superior tennis to Djokovic throughout. All 3 sets Djokovic won were in tiebreaks, and frankly Federer should have won all 5 sets. Djokovic was clutch in the big moments.

You know how old Fed is now... right?
What will Balder be doing at 37?

If you want to laugh check out this stat >

Nadal has not beaten Federer or Djokovic on a hardcourt since 2014, going 0-7 against Fed and 0-8 against Novak. He has failed to even take a set from Novak in those 8 matches

bogbrush wrote:All I'd say is that the final showed that it's crucial for the sport that all the big 3 are consigned to history. Obviously I will always root for Federer but even I know that it's no longer good for the sport for him to be contesting semis and finals of the biggest events, it just shows a sport that is bound in cement.

It's ironic both the WTA and ATP are facing similar dilemma's. 

From my perspective I bet the WTA can't wait to outrun the stench of Serena not just so young talent can prevail, but more so tour is influenced by more level headed and equally talented pro's can promote their game without going full political hormonal rage! 

Men's side it's a bit different. More the future of the game and competition importantly, it needs for the Big 3 to walk off stage to know what the quality and standard of tennis will take the tour forward. So it isn't wishing their departure on such hasty grounds as opposed to the WTA.

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:No it is not mental. If it was mental he would not get to 40/15 up pulling 2 aces on the way. Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

I have just watched them again (since that final) and franly Djoko pulls a return in his legs which he can't get out in times (probably tired and teh second it a quite lucky CC FH from Djoko which could have easily been out.

And had it been out we woudl not be talking about it now!

At 40-30 the decision to approach the net on that FH was a sign of nerves as he had no chance covering the net on a shot to the FH that wasn't deep enough plus charging the net on the BH side that left the BH side so open. 

You might want to see nerves everywhere but it might just be bad tactic or he may have forced an UEs from Djoko who had to pull a winner under pressure. So I do not think it was a bad tactic as he forced Djoko to go for a good angle. Federer lost 204 points in that final. You could check the other 203 points and find some nerves in those as well. On the other hand Fed takes a risk and asks Djoko to take one as well. No nerve and a good decision. Djoko lost 218 poiints in that final I am sure there are some CC FH that went out or in the net under similar circumstances. Frankly I don't see your point. Very far fetched.

I wouldn't say the FH CC was luck given he didn't really have to stretch to make any contact. He had time to place it. 

Easy to say, to pull it on MP, there is pressure and if you look at the match stats , you may think that Djoko was by far the more nervous (more Dfs, less BP conversion and overall losing more points than Fed).  

I think it was second serves IIRC on those MP's. Given he hit 2 aces previously, what a contrast in outcomes. 

And I would need to be explained how the guy who has won more matches on tour than anyone else would be more nervous at 40/15 up than 0/15 in that last game.
No you guys are seeing too much of it. Had he pulled another ace, we would not be here discussing it.

And to add to that, Djoko has a similar FH with no pressure at 0/15.....and makes an CC FH UE!!! So frankly in retrospect, was really right to serve and volley and ask Djoko for the goods. Sure Djoko did deliver there but it was quite close to the line. He would have liked maybe a bit more safety.

Tenez I think the issue is we see our favourite players differently. I'm a big Rafa fan but I know he has flaws, in fact that's part of the reason I like him.
For you though, you see Federer as a deity, so it's tough for you to accept anything negative. I think even most Federer fans think he should have put more on that approach shot.

BEL19VE wrote:Tenez I think the issue is we see our favourite players differently. I'm a big Rafa fan but I know he has flaws, in fact that's part of the reason I like him.
For you though, you see Federer as a deity, so it's tough for you to accept anything negative. I think even most Federer fans think he should have put more on that approach shot.

Yes I do see him in a way as a deity tennis wise. Like I see Mozart as a deity music wise. But that does make me less objective. Both are real geniuses with flaws. But tennis wise for one and music wise for the other, I don;t think I see much flaws. I would find it hard to say Mozart has too many musical notes in his piano concertos.

But Unlike you, I really don;t care about Fed's personal weaknesses. Only his tennis if of interest to me as I don;t know him and don't particularly relate to him. So if I were to see nerves in those 2 shots, i'd say. As simple as that. But clearly it's not obvious. If you see it I would question your objectivity.

At 0-15 he goes for a long rallies and gives it all to get back to 15 all cause an UE there would certainly have put a lot more pressure. But at 15 all I see belief and not nerves and the 2 aces confirm it. But I also see that he is probably rushing to cross the line. That is not nerves to me but more a sign of fatigue which he might feel more at 40/15, at touching distance from the summit than 100m from it.  

And I see tennis flaws even. Federer should have adopted a bigger frame much earlier in his career and that is something some of us could see. I am extremely surprised he did not see it himself. Apparently he tried earlier but did not like it. Still no way he shold have carried on facing Nadal with that old stick. Watching the matches v Nadal or even Djoko and Murray are painful to watch.

And remember I am a Federer who admits Federer was beaten by better players pre-2015. I did not use age as an excuse.

Though I always question the fitness of those "better players". Noyt because they were beating Federer but, in our times, I simply question those who base their game on fitness. Understandably so.

And finally on this. I remember the time when you all thought Federer was losing to Nadal due to nerves!!! And I was fighting with most of you saying that it was physical.

Who was right? That weak BH made him run more than he wanted and since he has that larger frame, no mental weakness v Nada anymore. On the contrary!

You may have thought then I did not want to see flaws in Federer....No I simply try to see it as it is.

Tenez wrote:Yes I do see him in a way as a deity tennis wise. Like I see Mozart as a deity music wise. But that does make me less objective.

I think it does make you less objective. You are flexible with your interpretations to try and fit the narrative you've created.

Well if you want to see it that way fine. But the fact it is not obvious signs of nerves and you want to see it that way, makes you more the fan boy who want Fed to be brought down to Nadal's level.

If you want to see nerves, look at how Djoko loses from 30/0 up in that previous game.....with 3 poor FHs.

Tenez,

Fed has lots way more matches after having MPs compared to Nadal/Djokovic. At Wimbledon 40-15 he didn't necessarily had to win on the one of the next 2 point. He only needed to hold serve and that was it, but he lost 4 straight points from 40-15 onwards. Big time nerves, considering how many close matches he has lost to Djokovic. 

Historically he has had problems closing out the sets against Nadal/Djoko in the past. His BP conversion against them is worse compared to his overall BP conversion. I have not checked it, but I think his serving stats also take a dip when facing Nadal/Djoko. We have tons of stats to see those. 

He was nervous back then, he was 100 times more on the wimby final occasion given how much hard he had to work to reach this point/ Nadal/Djoko refuse to go away easily and this is where Fed starts to get shaky. The AO17 win has done a lot of good to him when facing Nadal in their next matches. 

Wimby19 could have done wonders for him, but it didn't. Those demons might show up again if he faces Djoko again in a slam final. The WTF win was good, but again bo3 and bo5 are different games.

Everyone get nervous, including Fed. He has admitted it too. I don't know why you think otherwise.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

Tenez wrote:No it is not mental. If it was mental he would not get to 40/15 up pulling 2 aces on the way. Look at the 2 points he loses from 40/15 and be honest can you see nerves?

I have just watched them again (since that final) and franly Djoko pulls a return in his legs which he can't get out in times (probably tired and teh second it a quite lucky CC FH from Djoko which could have easily been out.

And had it been out we woudl not be talking about it now!

At 40-30 the decision to approach the net on that FH was a sign of nerves as he had no chance covering the net on a shot to the FH that wasn't deep enough plus charging the net on the BH side that left the BH side so open. 

You might want to see nerves everywhere but it might just be bad tactic or he may have forced an UEs from Djoko who had to pull a winner under pressure. So I do not think it was a bad tactic as he forced Djoko to go for a good angle. Federer lost 204 points in that final. You could check the other 203 points and find some nerves in those as well. On the other hand Fed takes a risk and asks Djoko to take one as well. No nerve and a good decision. Djoko lost 218 poiints in that final I am sure there are some CC FH that went out or in the net under similar circumstances. Frankly I don't see your point. Very far fetched.

I wouldn't say the FH CC was luck given he didn't really have to stretch to make any contact. He had time to place it. 

Easy to say, to pull it on MP, there is pressure and if you look at the match stats , you may think that Djoko was by far the more nervous (more Dfs, less BP conversion and overall losing more points than Fed).  

I think it was second serves IIRC on those MP's. Given he hit 2 aces previously, what a contrast in outcomes. 

And I would need to be explained how the guy who has won more matches on tour than anyone else would be more nervous at 40/15 up than 0/15 in that last game.
No you guys are seeing too much of it. Had he pulled another ace, we would not be here discussing it.

Not a case of seeing nerves everywhere Ten. Again your position is bizarre using terms "He's won the most matches" I could argue someone with a great W/L ratio is a "better" winner. You said it there that it was a bad tactic. So why do you think a player who you say yourself doesn't make many mistakes would make a decision like that on such a crucial point? He was approaching on a shot that he hit into the Djokovic slot which gave him plenty of court on the BH side to aim at. 

I would say Djokovic as Amrit has said with Nadal gets nervous. A more natural position they would take on big points would be to start defensively not to lose it. Now I know you will counter, so I'll save you the time and make the point. Yes Federer sets out to win points rather than lose and you've attributed such courage as a greater sign of mental strength and belief and that is not what is in dispute here. My point is on that 40-30 point yes it got dragged into a rally and rather than play the point on it's merit, his eagerness to finish the point on his terms is what cost him that point. My observation of that decision was driven out of panic that he would lose the point the longer the rally.

My comment on the aces in that service was when he found the first serve against Djokovic, it won him the point as opposed to second serves. 

When any athlete comes up short in a match or tournament from a winning or drawing position gets amplified. For a recent example I am a 49ers fan and they played the Seahawks recently to maintain an unbeaten start. The 49ers kicker Chase McLaughlin makes a 47 yard Field Goal to send the game into Over Time with 1 second of normal time left (where next scoring play wins the game). Yet in OT he had the same yardage and blew the kick to win the game by sending it wide by a good 25 feet. He choked. It happens. 

That AO17 was a nervy affair for both players. Look at the winning FH. Even though it was a winner, my goodness that was a tight FH he pulled. I know for you Federer on loses if tired or the back flares up. 

You might think Federer is being singled out here, but he really isn't. It's the most recent and hence the freshest which is why we are talking about it. If we divulged back into the past, I am sure we would find examples of other players getting nervous in big moments. In the context we are using it with Thiem is that he completely fell apart in that final TB. I wouldn't say Federer fell apart completely. Just made the wrong play in a big moment.

Your argument is Federer doesn't do nerves given the record he has. My argument is that that 40-30 point, wasn't the play of what I would consider a player bereft of any nerves in that moment.

its difficult to point out weaknesses with players that have won more than anyother tennis player in the history of the sport

of course they make mistakes... of course they have their weak points, but still... they are the closest to perfection one can get... and still, some internet council is here debating for days about how they get nervous...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Tenez,

Fed has lots way more matches after having MPs compared to Nadal/Djokovic. At Wimbledon 40-15 he didn't necessarily had to win on the one of the next 2 point. He only needed to hold serve and that was it, but he lost 4 straight points from 40-15 onwards. Big time nerves, considering how many close matches he has lost to Djokovic. 

I know I was the one who first pointed out that Fed had lost many more matches from MPs up than the other 2. But does that mean it is nerves? If it is fine. I simply do not think so. Or at least it is certainly not the main factor. For me it is clearly Fatigue. I will simply never buy that he is more nervous at 40/15 than 0/15 and that applies for all the matches he lost from that position.

Remember Rotla you were one who I fought for years about Fed v Nadal mental strengh. I knew it was technical and therefore physical but I could see Fed was the more composed of the two. I guess you should probably admit that I was right.

Historically he has had problems closing out the sets against Nadal/Djoko in the past. His BP conversion against them is worse compared to his overall BP conversion. I have not checked it, but I think his serving stats also take a dip when facing Nadal/Djoko. We have tons of stats to see those. 

Correct and before he got fitter and had that 2002 racquet (movoing from 85in to 90inch) he also had problems finishing the matches v Hewitt or Nalby. Once he got fitter he never felt the rush to pull the trigger too early...and Hewitt became history. Same applies with Djoko, Nadal and the other matches he lost from there, except that Federer was never as fit as Djoko and Nadal hence when the situation to close those matches it's much harder to do it at the end of a 5 setter than it is at 2 sets up or a set and a break up for the b03. If you were to find matches where he could not finish matches from MP down in spite of a short 3 or 5 setter, then I'd say this guy has problems crossing the lines. But clearly that is not the case. He has closed more matches than everybody else. Just that when it comes to 5 setters or business end of 4th end he has added pressure which the others have not.

Look at the W19 semi v Nadal. When he has to serve it out in the 4th, Nadal disgustingly (yes Amri), really takes his time and tries to slow the game. Nadal knows that if he loses that game, Federer might be physically gone, yet Federer manages to hold his nerves cause he is physically still ok.

He was nervous back then, he was 100 times more on the wimby final occasion given how much hard he had to work to reach this point/ Nadal/Djoko refuse to go away easily and this is where Fed starts to get shaky. The AO17 win has done a lot of good to him when facing Nadal in their next matches. 

again, it was technical not nerves. In spite of being 38 he is beating Nadal (the number 1 player in the world convincingly), so nothing to do with nerves as you thought back then!

Everyone get nervous, including Fed. He has admitted it too. I don't know why you think otherwise.

He has admitted getting nervous before a match. "having butterflies in the stomac" he said " bit then they go once on court".

I do not remember him saying he was nervous losing to Djoko at USO11 when he also had 2 MPs, he on the contrary said that Djoko pulled a lucky shot. Looking at those 2 points (and there is no point looking after that, there is no evidence of nerves. Tell me where you see nerves in those 2 points. I see heavy feet to clear his FH for an aggressive shot, and the second asking Djoko to deliver the good on a very stressful point (Djoko had lost a similar shot in his previous game).

legendkillar wrote:Not a case of seeing nerves everywhere Ten. Again your position is bizarre using terms "He's won the most matches" I could argue someone with a great W/L ratio is a "better" winner. You said it there that it was a bad tactic. So why do you think a player who you say yourself doesn't make many mistakes would make a decision like that on such a crucial point? He was approaching on a shot that he hit into the Djokovic slot which gave him plenty of court on the BH side to aim at. 

You may argue it is a bad tactic but frankly that CC shot Djoko could have been out and we would not be talking about it. Or maybe Fed's FH was made shorter than it was meant due to dodgy grass ? or whatever other factor. Djoko misses a similar and crucial FH in his previous game giving Fed the break. so maybe Federer wanted to test that FH again. And Frankly had that FH not be that close to the line or angled, Fed would have volleyed it.

The point is do you really see nerves? You are implying it is nerves, but it is certainly not obvious.

I would say Djokovic as Amrit has said with Nadal gets nervous. A more natural position they would take on big points would be to start defensively not to lose it. Now I know you will counter, so I'll save you the time and make the point. Yes Federer sets out to win points rather than lose and you've attributed such courage as a greater sign of mental strength and belief and that is not what is in dispute here. My point is on that 40-30 point yes it got dragged into a rally and rather than play the point on it's merit, his eagerness to finish the point on his terms is what cost him that point. My observation of that decision was driven out of panic that he would lose the point the longer the rally.

Well exactly my point. If he were fit or fitter than Djoko, or as young as Djoko  what do you think he'd do? You are saying exactly what I am saying. He used to rush points v Hewitt until he got really fit and then he never lost a match against him. Just watch that match v Nadal in teh O2 in 2012 I believe. Federer is not rushed by anything, he plays long rallies at most BPs and win them all. Beating Nadal 63 60.

Yet in OT he had the same yardage and blew the kick to win the game by sending it wide by a good 25 feet. He choked. It happens.

Listen, If I were to see nerves I'd say. I am not Federer and cannot care less. But again, I was in the past when I heard you all saying that Fed lost to Nadal because of nerves. It was not. Mentally Fed is much stringer. He is the player who relies on the thinnest margins and it happens that unlike anyone else in history, he has the best record on tour. It is however noticeable that as teh matches extend his winning ratios drop, especially against players who are known to be much more physical than him.

That AO17 was a nervy affair for both players. Look at the winning FH. Even though it was a winner, my goodness that was a tight FH he pulled. I know for you Federer on loses if tired or the back flares up. 

SO was that FH for you a proof that Fed was nervous? Should he have played a long rallies? No once again he is taking his chances. He is tired and the finishing line, if anything, make him him realise how tired he is.

So once again, v  A17 Nadal, he rushes it but bites the line, he is an amazing champ and has kept his nerves. The same point in W19 goes out cause he can't get out of the return, misses it by a foot....there he has nerves!
Where is the logic?

You might think Federer is being singled out here, but he really isn't. It's the most recent and hence the freshest which is why we are talking about it. If we divulged back into the past, I am sure we would find examples of other players getting nervous in big moments. In the context we are using it with Thiem is that he completely fell apart in that final TB. I wouldn't say Federer fell apart completely. Just made the wrong play in a big moment.

But there is a huge difference between Fed and Thiem. Fed hits a much less powerful ball. relying much more on timing and yet he has won tons tournaments and slams. He has produced those risky winners time and time again. With his game if he were nervous he'd be a Gasquet!

Your argument is Federer doesn't do nerves given the record he has. My argument is that that 40-30 point, wasn't the play of what I would consider a player bereft of any nerves in that moment.

I have watched Federer play live quite a few times, and this is what I find extremely bizarre ( I described it in my review of his O2 final v Tsonga), he simply plays the same, he doesn't snatch balls or plays a frozen arm. Maybe bad tactics, not chosing the right side that I have see many many times but that's not nerves. A nerves affects the technique, the serve (DFs for instance), or like Djoko in that FO13 lucidity. Frankly, that is very rare from Fed. If he had nerves, he would simply have developped a different game.

Just watch him again v Pete at W02...It is amazing to see as much composure in a youngster who finds himself for the first time in that situation.[/quote]

It comes with age and battle scars.  And when you aren't striking ball as accurately as you once were, serving as good as you used to... it's amplified.  Djok wouldn;t have a prayer on grass v Fed of 2003-7.

These days, in big moments, the 1st serve % vanishes and he starts to doubt himself. Never seen a great blow a slam as badly as Wimb 2019.

It takes a genius to know one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4Kt48oAo64

I am actually pleased Maradona is a big fan.

He knows what it takes to play like Federer.

he took spain to the final