Indian Wells - 2019

I reckon Nole's resurgence got to him.
---

lol... what a pile of shit.  You really need to separate reality from your fanboyism.  It's Nole who just got his ass whooped by yesterday's player - not Federer.

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

Federer continually saying his opponent played better and rationally talking about his own mistakes.  Nadal it's never "my opponent played better when it mattered" etc.

noleisthebest wrote:....a while. It's cool. Really cool.

I was ready in 2012 when he won his 17th at Wimbledon. When I said sad...I meant tennis wise of course...cause it certainly doesn't prevent me from sleeping.  

Don't know what happened later, judging by your comments he was injured.

If niggle he probably could have won like he did in the past but being 37 is clearly worse than being injured nowadays. It simply changes the way he wants to play: Too many risky drop shots, too many rushes to the net, too many unsuccessful SABR, etc...

he knows that but he has no choice. Like he has no choice to say he felt great in his post match interview. Only Daniel is blind to all that.

Federer wrote:I think that’s what I do very well in my head, you know, how I’m able to, for three seconds, analyze it, maybe be frustrated for myself a little bit, and then right away go into relax mode, go into preparation mode for the next point, and be able to think clear again. I think when you feel that way, yeah, you move on quickly.

That for me is one of the most difficult thing to do when playing. And I think the very reason he won so much.

But at the same time, Federer is the player who lost so many close key matches...and that is difficult to explain.

Tenez wrote:

Federer wrote:I think that’s what I do very well in my head, you know, how I’m able to, for three seconds, analyze it, maybe be frustrated for myself a little bit, and then right away go into relax mode, go into preparation mode for the next point, and be able to think clear again. I think when you feel that way, yeah, you move on quickly.

That for me is one of the most difficult thing to do when playing. And I think the very reason he won so much.

But at the same time, Federer is the player who lost so many close key matches...and that is difficult to explain.

He won a few too. So has Nadal won & lost a few.

I don't think losing your share of close matches means anything. They're close because the players are closely matched that day.

Tenez wrote:It doesn't look much but this match really ends Federer's carrer for me. He will not win anything significant from now on.

He had ideal conditions, a not that good opponent (in spite of what I read) but Fed was simply stiff and tired. He clearly could not play the game he had in mind and that made him successful even until recently.

A sad day even if that day came very late in his career and was more than due.

Well it's all there a couple of threads down the list.

bogbrush wrote:

Tenez wrote:

Federer wrote:I think that’s what I do very well in my head, you know, how I’m able to, for three seconds, analyze it, maybe be frustrated for myself a little bit, and then right away go into relax mode, go into preparation mode for the next point, and be able to think clear again. I think when you feel that way, yeah, you move on quickly.

That for me is one of the most difficult thing to do when playing. And I think the very reason he won so much.

But at the same time, Federer is the player who lost so many close key matches...and that is difficult to explain.

He won a few too. So has Nadal won & lost a few.

I don't think losing your share of close matches means anything. They're close because the players are closely matched that day.

Because of his risk taking game, I consider him the mentally toughest player. He has executed many, ridiculously risky shots at key moments to get where he has.

Yet there is a long list of matches he should/could have won which he did not.

I see Nadal and Djoko as opposite to Federer in that respect. They have won many they should have lost, essentially thanks to their grit, helped of course by their superior stamina.

Yes but this has nothing to do with winning or losing close matches. A close match means by definition that day the players are closely matched so a 50/50 outcome in close matches is not unexpected.

I can think of matches Federer has won from very nasty tight situations, and has lost as well.

Straight away I can think of Nadal throwing an AO away against Djokovic when he drove an easy winner into the net, and I can think of Djokovic fouling the net at a critical juncture at the French against Nadal. They all do it.

bogbrush wrote:Yes but this has nothing to do with winning or losing close matches. A close match means by definition that day the players are closely matched so a 50/50 outcome in close matches is not unexpected.

Not necessarily. A player might be close to win in 3 (hence not that closely matched), yet loses in 5 62 62 in the last 2 sets. Could be a close match as outcome could have gone either way but the players have been dominant at different stages.

For instance, Fed v Delpo USO 2009 was not that close had Fed had converted a second break in set 2 (he had 2),  Fed could have won that one in 3 convincingly. They would not have been closely matched. Yet one point allowed Delpo to drag this beyond 3 set and even win in 5. I don;t think one point determines whether players are closely matched.

I could mention FO 11 final, where Fed also could have won in 3 or 4..yet lost in 4, Fed v Hewitt, DC 2006?, etc.....

I can think of matches Federer has won from very nasty tight situations, and has lost as well.

I can think many more matches that Fed should have won and ended up losing than the other way around.

Straight away I can think of Nadal throwing an AO away against Djokovic when he drove an easy winner into the net, and I can think of Djokovic fouling the net at a critical juncture at the French against Nadal. They all do it.

That's my point. The more stamina, the more likely one is to win matches expected to lose.

Nadal, Murray and Djoko all 3 have won more matches than they should have ....and in that respect, Djoko is probably the ultimate one as he is simply the fittest, or with best stamina anyway.

bogbrush wrote:Yes but this has nothing to do with winning or losing close matches. A close match means by definition that day the players are closely matched so a 50/50 outcome in close matches is not unexpected.

I can think of matches Federer has won from very nasty tight situations, and has lost as well.

Straight away I can think of Nadal throwing an AO away against Djokovic when he drove an easy winner into the net, and I can think of Djokovic fouling the net at a critical juncture at the French against Nadal. They all do it.

I agree.

Federer gets criticized for losing close matches but he has probably won far more deciding setters than lost. I don't think he gets enough credit for his grit and fighting qualities. He is so hard to put away. Rarely ever gets blown off the court. Have seen Rafa go down meekly against a player on form many times. Rarely happens with Federer.