US OPEN MEN´S FINAL

Tenez wrote:
And how do you explain the difference in the result between the Olympics and Wimbledon 3 weeks earlier?

1 - Murray improving after further advice from Lendl or

2 - Federer may have been fatigued.

The loss was not unique. Federer has lost on fast courts to Murray, just not Grass. Also, there is no need for a unique reason for the loss.

At W, Federer had his chances in the 8th game to break Murray and lead 5-3. He managed to do it in the second set at 6-5, so it was a close second set. Murray missed his chances in the second set. Roof was closed, where Federer, started pushing in the third set to win it. Murray faced several BPs in the sixth game.

Look at the following...

Federer v Murray W 2012

Set 1 - BPs - 1 of 3, 2 of 2, W/UEs - 11/16, 10/5 (-5, +5)
Set 2 - BPs - 1 of 2, 0 of 4, W/UEs - 19/8, 14/4 (+11, +10)
Set 3 - BPs - 1 of 6, 0 of 0, W/UEs - 15/6, 13/8 (+11, +5)
Set 4 - BPs - 1 of 1, 0 of 1, W/UEs - 17/8, 9/8 (+9, +1)

Federer v Murray OG 2012

Set 1 - BPs - 0 of 2, 2 of 4, W/UEs - 10/11, 11/6 (-1, +5)
Set 2 - BPs - 0 of 7, 2 of 3, W/UEs - 5/10, 9/9 (-5, 0)
Set 3 - BPs - 0 of 0, 1 of 3, W/UEs - 9/10, 7/2 (-1, +5)

Very clear to me that set 2,3,4 @W were much better sets than set 1,2,3 at OG. The W/UE differential is one of keys, the BP creation and conversion the other.

I see no reason to blame it on fatigue for Federer. Murray played a pretty close match with Djokovic at OG.

laverfan wrote:

Tenez wrote:
And how do you explain the difference in the result between the Olympics and Wimbledon 3 weeks earlier?

1 - Murray improving after further advice from Lendl or

2 - Federer may have been fatigued.

The loss was not unique. Federer has lost on fast courts to Murray, just not Grass. Also, there is no need for a unique reason for the loss.

Typical of LF...widening the conversation comparing other matches. We are talking about 2 matches played within 3 weeks on the very same court. This is what we are comparing not other matches dealing with other conds with players reaching different peaks. Please stay on subject again!!!!

Right you see no reason why Federer would be tired after a 3 setter comprising 58 games??? the equivalent of a 5 setter such as 57 75 75 57 64!!!! But you compare it to the 75 75 of Murray?

LF... Federer had a very very long match against Del Potro. This may explain why his performance was not as good as Wimbledon 2012.
Break Point stats are all well and good, but the fact is Federer was simply not playing well in the Olympic final. After seeing his immense joy after winning the Olympics semi, I don't think motivation was a factor, but I think fatigue was.

Also, there is no need for a unique reason for the loss.

Yes Pete winning 14 slams on grass and HC but none on clay may have not much to do with his serve being not as potent on clay. Reasons for losing on clay may have been due to an allergy to dust, got flu the 14 times he played at the FO, did not digest well the heavy french meals and could not follow the score due to teh funny french accent of the ump.

We can find many reasons indeed!

Tenez wrote:
Typical of LF...widening the conversation comparing other matches. We are talking about 2 matches played within 3 weeks on the very same court. This is what we are comparing not other matches dealing with other conds with players reaching different peaks. Please stay on subject again!!!!

I am comparing the stats of FvM at W and OG 2012. Do you see that?

Tenez wrote:
Right you see no reason why Federer would be tired after a 3 setter comprising 58 games??? the equivalent of a 5 setter such as 57 75 75 57 64!!!! But you compare it to the 75 75 of Murray?

BPs converted in Del Potro v Federer @OG, 3rd set Federer 2/9, Del Potro 1/3. This is Federer's problem. He need not have played 34 extra games if he had converted more of his BPs. Compare it to the Murray match BP conversions.

Tiredness excuses yet again. . Federer has famously made the statement, if you are not fit, do not show up with a racquet, ready to play.

I understand he is older and recovery takes longer, should he be given special dispensation to take an extra day break?

What happened against Berdych after the Fish break? He played a 16-14 fifth set against Roddick @W 2009.

What is the difference between your 58-game argument and the excuse that some Nadal fans offer regarding the Soderling loss in 2009 about Nadal not being 100%? PS: Soderling was beaten 6-1, 6-0 in the previous match with Nadal, correct?

By you definition, no one is ever 100% when a match is lost? Djokovic was also not 100% when he lost to Murray, is it? Murray was not 100% when he lost to Federer at W 2012, but was 100.1% at OG.

Very strange reasoning.

Does each loss need a unique explanation? The better player on the day won, no one died, it was just a Tennis match.

Tenez wrote:

Also, there is no need for a unique reason for the loss.

Yes Pete winning 14 slams on grass and HC but none on clay may have not much to do with his serve being not as potent on clay. Reasons for losing on clay may have been due to an allergy to dust, got flu the 14 times he played at the FO, did not digest well the heavy french meals and could not follow the score due to teh funny french accent of the ump.

We can find many reasons indeed!

Yes, and there is the Thalassemia and a butterfly sneeze as well.

Tenez wrote:Right you see no reason why Federer would be tired after a 3 setter comprising 58 games??? the equivalent of a 5 setter such as 57 75 75 57 64!!!! But you compare it to the 75 75 of Murray?

I said this earlier, and ROTLA read the comment, perhaps you did not.

Lest you forget, if Federer was tired after the SF with Del Potro, so was Del Potro, but he [Del Potro] managed to beat Djokovic.

You can always say tank was empty, tiredness, too much tennis, etc., etc.

LF, Tenez is going to eat that argument up for breakfast.
So, so flawed

There is a difference between a false excuse and valid reasons.

I am not a Federer fan, and I think the statement 'Roger was fatigued after the Del Potro match, and hence may not have been 100% in the OG final' is entirely plausible.

Federer may have said: 'if you are not fit, do not show up with a racquet, ready to play,' but in this context when analysing a match it means nothing.

OK guys, to make all of you (hopefully) smile:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/625653_10151142121001407_1960995611_n.jpg

Try this!

OK, now that he won the USO it is not as funny anymore, but as you guys were nostalgic about the Olympics and its direct aftermath...

Amritia3ee wrote:There is a difference between a false excuse and valid reasons.

I am not a Federer fan, and I think the statement 'Roger was fatigued after the Del Potro match, and hence may not have been 100% in the OG final' is entirely plausible.

Federer may have said: 'if you are not fit, do not show up with a racquet, ready to play,' but in this context when analysing a match it means nothing.

Valid reasons or false reasons or plausible reasons, IMVHO, none is required, but yet the quest is on.

There is the Paris 2008 and Doha 2012 instances of a walk-over. I am surprised now we are looking for a middle ground to be used for a loss, because there is refusal to acknowledge that god-mode Federer is human as well.

Why is their such emotional vehemency attached to a Federer loss? He has won quite a lot, he has and will lose matches in the future. As he himself said, this is why we watch sport.

sphairistike wrote:OK guys, to make all of you (hopefully0 smile:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/625653_10151142121001407_1960995611_n.jpg

Try this!

Fantastic image. I liked the way Federer and Del Potro cried on each other's shoulder after the match. Amazing to see such humanity and respect.

Thanks for the link.

I guess Fed knew how tough the loss must have been for DelPo but he had to win it as he never got a medal at Olympics for singles... No matter what people say about Fed not always being gracious in defeat or not being humble, he always shows his humanity and he seems genuinely good natured.

Tenez wrote:Well there is often a healthy safety margins in his shot but teh point we (certainly I) make is that Nadal tends to do the running when his opponent is fresh and tries to hit through him. When his opponent tires and loses his edge to hit close to the lines , Nadal then dictates in turn...to close the match.You can see this best when facing Ferrer for instance.

Nadal always plays more or less the same - he does not hit aggressive shots but he is hoping that his rally shots will allow him to ultimately dictate the point. When his opponents go for aggressive hitting, he is unable to assert himself and dictate the points and ends up on the defensive. When his opponents do not do that, he is usually able to dominate (even if his opponents are not tired). But that does not make him more aggressive when his opponents are tired. Only superficially he may look more aggressive but his play does not become more aggressive.

That is not the same for Andy. Andy did indeed play that 5th set (and quite a few other matches this summer) more aggressively than he used to play in the past.

To make a similar point from a slightly different angle: Given the same circumstances, Rafa will always look the same. Andy - however - now plays more aggressively in circumstances when in the past he would not.

sphairistike wrote:OK guys, to make all of you (hopefully0 smile:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/625653_10151142121001407_1960995611_n.jpg

Try this!

Yes, very funny.