ATP 1000: Rome

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Tbh I need to say that Fed's mental poor approach in his matches with Nadal is a big disappointment. He has achieved so much in tennis that such an one-sided loses with Nadal are going to ruin his prestige. That is sad.

BlueClay wrote:

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Many would disagree.
You are caught up with Nadal too much. We all know how he is able to win so not too bothered by those losses.

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

I thought he did enjoy the challenge of playing the young guns - JJ and Paire though, he did well to top them two nights in a row.
That's the snapshot of him I'll take from Rome, not the final. That, and also that crazy match against Simon, he was out of this world, although these highlights don't capture how good he was.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHR--KUiA4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHR--KUiA4[/quote[/url]]

But what good is all of that if he loses so appallingly to the guy that matters? Who cares if he beats a nobody like Paire or JJ? What have they ever done?

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Many would disagree.
You are caught up with Nadal too much. We all know how he is able to win so not too bothered by those losses.

Well I am bothered by them or at least I am bothered by losses of that nature, total thrashings. Who cares why or how Nadal is able to win them? History books won't care.

BlueClay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

I thought he did enjoy the challenge of playing the young guns - JJ and Paire though, he did well to top them two nights in a row.
That's the snapshot of him I'll take from Rome, not the final. That, and also that crazy match against Simon, he was out of this world, although these highlights don't capture how good he was.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHR--KUiA4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHR--KUiA4[/quote[/url]]

But what good is all of that if he loses so appallingly to the guy that matters? Who cares if he beats a nobody like Paire or JJ? What have they ever done?

I do.
You obviously watch tennis for different reasons. One match Federer won in Rome is worth more than Nadal's title for me. He brings so much pleasure to his fans the way he plays, and he has won enough.

Nadal fans only care about the winning, though.

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Well, it's not my job to defend his attitude, but i see he lost interest in playing against Nadal.
Actually, i can't blame him, because i lost interest too in fedal matches

paulcz wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Tbh I need to say that Fed's mental poor approach in his matches with Nadal is a big disappointment. He has achieved so much in tennis that such an one-sided loses with Nadal are going to ruin his prestige. That is sad.

I disagree with you that the matches will ruin Federer's legacy, that is set in stone no matter what but there is no question Federer is weaker mentally than Nadal is and Federer has a huge mental block against Nadal. I am not worried about the losing h2h Federer has so much, I am more worried that Nadal may get very close to Federer's slam count and if that happens people will then go to the h2h and say Nadal is greater.

BlueClay wrote:
Well I am bothered by them or at least I am bothered by losses of that nature, total thrashings. Who cares why or how Nadal is able to win them? History books won't care.

I am not worried about history books. But I will never forget all those breath-taking shots and points he has played over the years.
Even if Nadal had 50 slams, they really mean zero.

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Well, it's not my job to defend his attitude, but i see he lost interest in playing against Nadal.
Actually, i can't blame him, because i lost interest too in fedal matches

But look at the difference between the IW match last year where Federer won and the Rome match yesterday? Was that a body double and not the real Federer?

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
Well I am bothered by them or at least I am bothered by losses of that nature, total thrashings. Who cares why or how Nadal is able to win them? History books won't care.

I am not worried about history books. But I will never forget all those breath-taking shots and points he has played over the years.
Even if Nadal had 50 slams, they really mean zero.

I agree Federer's shots were beautiful but what do you mean Nadal's slams mean zero? What alternate world are you living in?

BlueClay wrote:

paulcz wrote:Having seen the record of yesterday final the reality of the match is even worse. I have never seen so many mishits from BH side from any player playing with Nadal for many years. Fed was not able to hit the ball into the court more than three times from BH side. If they are going to meet in RG, then a bagel is going to be on the agenda. Nadal pulled Fed as a child is pulling an inflatable drake on a sandpit.

Seriously there is no way that Nadal can lose with Fed on clay or BO5 sometime in the future. Or rather I do not know what should happen in order that Fed was able to win. That is unimaginable atm.

Bravo! That is absolutely how I feel.

BC, there is nothing to celebrate. What strikes me on that is that many Fed's fans are not able to look at it from the real perspective. As our plant manager says when we all agree on something, now it is clear as crystal

[quote="noleisthebest"]

BlueClay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

gallery play wrote:

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

I thought he did enjoy the challenge of playing the young guns - JJ and Paire though, he did well to top them two nights in a row.
That's the snapshot of him I'll take from Rome, not the final. That, and also that crazy match against Simon, he was out of this world, although these highlights don't capture how good he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhHR--KUiA4[/quote]

But what good is all of that if he loses so appallingly to the guy that matters? Who cares if he beats a nobody like Paire or JJ? What have they ever done?

I do.
You obviously watch tennis for different reasons. One match Federer won in Rome is worth more than Nadal's title for me. He brings so much pleasure to his fans the way he plays, and he has won enough.

Nadal fans only care about the winning, though.

I watch pro tennis to see the players I like win. I don't have the time or patience to watch players lose over and over again. That is my personal take.

Secretly built a bigger weapon? Sounds like James Bond but no I don't think so.
Even us most seasoned Fed observers could see Nadal was awful in those first SA events, tiring by the 3rd set and so far from the player he was 8 months earlier. His movement wasn't great and shots spraying everywhere and those early wins flattered his status but you could see his form, movement and fitness getting better by the week. In MC, Madrid and Bareclona he looked poor at times but he got the wins. As a Federer fan this seems pretty clear - Federer has simply given up the ghost when it comes to Nadal. His Eastern BH just can't cope with 3000rpm 6 feet off the floor. It never really could except on the lower indoor surfaces. After yesterday's loss he said "When Rafa is at his best he creates opportunities in rallies and dictates. It was difficult to change. He takes the serve and return almost out of play. He plays so well from deep and you should try to play more serve and volley, but he makes it difficult. You can't dictate play, so you take more chances. I had more time to get set in rallies against other players this week – against Rafa you don't get that time". So why isn't he getting that time? Pace, power and depth. When Nadal is on song on clay he's simply a formidable player, always was. Federer knows this better than anyone and seems practically beaten before he takes to court. Like blueclay I don't believe he tanked, he just got beat by a player more adept on clay than him, a player who went up another 10% vs Berdych and Federer. But it doesn't take away what Federer has amassed already.

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Well, it's not my job to defend his attitude, but i see he lost interest in playing against Nadal.
Actually, i can't blame him, because i lost interest too in fedal matches

But look at the difference between the IW match last year where Federer won and the Rome match yesterday? Was that a body double and not the real Federer?

Maybe the difference is NAdal..he came back from a nine month period bootcamp

BlueClay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
Well I am bothered by them or at least I am bothered by losses of that nature, total thrashings. Who cares why or how Nadal is able to win them? History books won't care.

I am not worried about history books. But I will never forget all those breath-taking shots and points he has played over the years.
Even if Nadal had 50 slams, they really mean zero.

I agree Federer's shots were beautiful but what do you mean Nadal's slams mean zero? What alternate world are you living in?

I live in the world where no matter what rush I am in, I take time to stop and smell roses along the road. The real ones with thorns you can't buy in the shop.

wilson_nxt wrote:Secretly built a bigger weapon? Sounds like James Bond but no I don't think so.

I do, only with the help of Blofeld a player repeatedly comes back stronger after a "career threatening" injury

BlueClay wrote:

paulcz wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

So what is Federer doing out there then still? He does not want to even try to make the h2h better? He can't expect to make finals and not have to face Nadal. Nadal is not going anywhere. Matches like the one yesterday are pitiful. No Fed fan should have to watch that type of thrashing. Federer should not play at all if he can't go out there and at least attempt to make it look competitive.

Tbh I need to say that Fed's mental poor approach in his matches with Nadal is a big disappointment. He has achieved so much in tennis that such an one-sided loses with Nadal are going to ruin his prestige. That is sad.

I disagree with you that the matches will ruin Federer's legacy, that is set in stone no matter what but there is no question Federer is weaker mentally than Nadal is and Federer has a huge mental block against Nadal. I am not worried about the losing h2h Federer has so much, I am more worried that Nadal may get very close to Federer's slam count and if that happens people will then go to the h2h and say Nadal is greater.

I think his legacy will always be huge, but when great sportsmen suffered humiliating defeats on the edge of the carreer, the responses from tennis community were pretty harsh. Can you imagine that Fed will lose his RG semi as he suffered in 2008 and successively in Wimbledon? I am afraid that there would be more talks about Fed loses than somebody's wins. Such losses must shake with every great player even with Fed.

gallery play wrote: I do, only with the help of Blofeld a player repeatedly comes back stronger after a "career threatening" injury

I don't see a stronger player. I see someone winning titles in what appears to be a weakened field, inc. Federer himself. Perhaps you can point out what is stronger?

I see someone winning titles in what appears to be a weakened field, inc. Federer himself.

I agree,Nadal seems to be finding himself in quite a lucky position,and aging Federer,Djokovic and Murray injured...reminds me of 2010

OK guys, sorry for having prolonged the discussion, but we're all having fun discussing that. Now, some food for thought (which I agree with to a certain extent):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/21/Brain-Game-Rome-Federer-Nadal.aspx

Interesting take. Roger simply has to be more aggressive, as his post match comments infer he can't allow Nadal to dictate so he seeks to go on the offensive immediately. However, I don't think sadly its going to work on clay as Nadal is a wily player who retrieves and passes equally well. Nadal just seems to overpower Roger these days. You could tell from his comments that he was trying different things but they weren't working. So does he persist like this in Bo5? Perhaps, he can't win the stamina battle anyway against the 3 younger men and this strategy vs Nadal equally applies vs Djokovic and Murray.

DOes he wilson though? I thought he was trying to be too aggressive at times which led to many UE's (on top of the fact he was playing poorly).

BlueClay wrote:
Do you think that Federer would be able to beat Nadal on hc or grass with their respective forms from the Rome event or their respective forms so far this whole year? .

No not with their respective form. But again look at teh way he played last year at Wimby. His back was hurting and and suddenly he found form to beat the best. On the he is still the best player...those days are getting rarer....I agree.

How could Federer be tired mentally or physically? He was off for two months prior to Madrid and lost early in Madrid. When are ALL fans of ALL players going to stop making excuses when their favourite player loses? Enough is enough already

Well very simply cause against Nadal it takes only 3 rallies at 10 shots each to tire everybody bar Djoko. If you run a 100m you are tired at the end of it...regardless how much years you have rested beforehand. Nadal's game is about tiring the opponent. I'd say 99% of players are using something to keep going...Federer looks more human than ever. He is tired even before the match starts cause he knows (like in 2008) he has not got what it takes to rallies ad nausea against those top 3 guys....and that his shots are aimed at trying to shortening those long rallies...and his racquet really helps him in that task with easy shanks.

You think Roger can out ralley him?

Look, I'm a dyed wool Fed fan but its time we didnt expect so much from him anymore. He is simply getting "old" and time takes its toll no matter what tactics he pursues. He needs to think about retirement in the next 18 months before facing the ignominy of being humiliated more often on court by his main rivals. Yes he has the game to beat players below the top three but these days against the three he just fades out more frequently now. Murray beating him at AO this year was a turning point. Roger has lost some ground in his mind and this showed vs Nadal where he seemed to go into the Rome match in ultra aggressive desperation mode. But what is the alternative? There isnt one. I don't like to see the humiliations as a fan but its getting time to simply realise the obvious, his time as a major slam winning force is unlikely to continue unless he gets cakewalk draws. Its time to face that. Maybe he can get lucky like Sampras who won USO02 without playing a top5 seed all tournie.

wilson_nxt wrote:You think Roger can out ralley him?

Look, I'm a dyed wool Fed fan but its time we didnt expect so much from him anymore. He is simply getting "old" and time takes its toll no matter what tactics he pursues. He needs to think about retirement in the next 18 months before facing the ignominy of being humiliated more often on court by his main rivals. Yes he has the game to beat players below the top three but these days against the three he just fades out more frequently now. Murray beating him at AO this year was a turning point. Roger has lost some ground in his mind and this showed vs Nadal where he seemed to go into the Rome match in ultra aggressive desperation mode. But what is the alternative? There isnt one. I don't like to see the humiliations as a fan but its getting time to simply realise the obvious, his time as a major slam winning force is unlikely to continue unless he gets cakewalk draws. Its time to face that. Maybe he can get lucky like Sampras who won USO02 without playing a top5 seed all tournie.

OK, so what do you propose we all do, then? Ignore all the beautiful tennis he still plays just because he loses now and then... c'mon wilson!

There is a nice article that sums it up posted somewhere in the Roger Federer Fan Page thread here, written by Simon Barnes for The Times during last year's Wimbledon (before he won it, and while he was still number 3). Read it.

https://ourtennisforum.forumotion.co.uk/t319-federer-fanpage

BlueClay wrote:
Well I am bothered by them or at least I am bothered by losses of that nature, total thrashings. Who cares why or how Nadal is able to win them? History books won't care.

Go and say that to LA!

Thanks, I read that when it came out. Whilst I sympathise with the sentiments we don't actually know what's going around Federer's brain. It's one thing wishing to play on whilst everything is ok as it was 12 mths ago but quite another once the drubbings start coming. We'll always have the wonderful memories and continued flourishes of his game whilst he still plays on, and its for him to play as long as he wants to, but I won't find it easy watching him start losing to guys who are nowhere near his true level like Nishikori on clay. The Rome draw was kind, future slam draws may not and a couple of early exits may override any thoughts up to that point. Yes you're a long time retired but no-one wants to see a legend struggle against his main rivals either. Well, I don't.

wilson_nxt wrote:Interesting take. Roger simply has to be more aggressive, as his post match comments infer he can't allow Nadal to dictate so he seeks to go on the offensive immediately. However, I don't think sadly its going to work on clay as Nadal is a wily player who retrieves and passes equally well. Nadal just seems to overpower Roger these days. You could tell from his comments that he was trying different things but they weren't working. So does he persist like this in Bo5? Perhaps, he can't win the stamina battle anyway against the 3 younger men and this strategy vs Nadal equally applies vs Djokovic and Murray.

And for that a lighter bigger frame would help immensely.

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:...He's simply too fast and his tennis too powerful for anybody else, including Djoko i'm afraid....

That is what I think, I agree with you completely....

Why do you guys think he is too powerful for Djoko too (BC, I am not quite sure whether your complete agreement extended to that portion of GPs post but if so, I would be interested in your opinion too)?

I do not see a good reason to think so. I agree Rafa is the #1 favorite at RG but to me that is largely because I think Nole is more likely to go out early. But if they get to play each other, I would give better than 50% chance to Nole (perhaps even better by some margin).

Nole showed in the past he can stay in the rallies with Rafa. And once he can do that, he will be the more likely one to win. I do not think Rafa's game changed all that drastically. Rafa was up-and-down in Monte Carlo, but he actually played quite well in the final, yet it was fairly comfortable for Nole. If I remember correctly, in 2011/12, when Nole had success against Rafa, he was winning about 50% of the long rallies. Unless I am mistaken, Nole actually increased that percentage in Monte Carlo, where I think he was winning a significant majority of those rallies. With that kind of base, I do not know where Rafa will find a path to victory.

I am not saying Nole would win with 100% certainty, but I think the odds would be on his side.

I am with you there SB. Nadal is too powerful and too fast but because of that simply doesn't last as long as Djoko. Nadal's form can drop suddenly but no-one has the stamina to push him that far....except Djoko.

Even a poor form Djoko was able to last longer and get the better than Nadal at the last FO...Nadal was simply saved by the rain otherwise he was doomed cause every single shot of his had lost the initial bite and Djoko could make him run even more....making Djoko's next shot easier as the rally extended.

My worry is Djoko losing to anybody else. He is certainly more vulnerable than Nadal against the opposition cause the ball he sends is no so different than any other ball on tour...unlike Nadal's. Nadal's bring a different kind of tennis.....that's the problem really.

BlueClay wrote:

"SR" He tanked

.



Why on earth would he tank after reaching the finals of a Masters 1000 tourament he has never won? That makes no sense at all, I am sorry. Fans are hilarious with their excuses, it never ends.

1) Hypothetically, this is why, take it or leave it:

“With his win over Roger Federerin Sunday’s Internazionali BNL d’Italiafinal in Rome, Rafael Nadalwill overtake David Ferrerfor World No. 4 in the Emirates ATP Rankings on
Monday. The result has huge implications for Roland Garros, as Nadal's No. 4
seeding guarantees the seven-time champion cannot meet World No. 1 Novak Djokovic, No. 2 Andy Murrayor No. 3 Federer before the semi-finals.”

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/05/20/Rome-Sunday-Nadal-Gets-Fourth-Seed-Roland-Garros.aspx

Moreover, the best case scenario for FO seeding for Fed will
present itself IF Murray plays. Then Fed will be seeded #3 and Nadal #4 and
that guarantees these two will not be drawn in the same half.

2) Albeit unproven, I presented a substantiated argument/discussion based
on certain background observations, which I elaborated in my post but you chose
to ignore my reasoning entirely. Whether you agree or not, sweepingly dismissing
my view as “excuses” without the courtesy of addressing even a single
reason I offered is rude. Besides, you don’t solve a problem by asking another question (“why on earth? blah blah…), no?

3) Please fulfill your part of the discussion by presenting
your own counter-argument and explain in detail a) Overall, how did Fed manage
to play better in IW recently INJURED then in Rome
UNINJURED? b) In specific, how did Fed managed to secure a respectable 46 loss
in the IW first set with a bad back but somehow produced a load of UFEs galore and got
a bread-stick from a nothing-special Nadal when Roger should be logically
playing A LOT better without (known) back issues, plus having achieved rather consistent and impressive pre-semi results? and c) If Fed was
really so hopelessly bad and nadal so invincibly strong, how did roger manage
to break him in the 2^nd set? You don’t see this as one of the more
overt signs of Roger turning his game on and off at will?

gallery play wrote:
He didn't tank, but he lost interest in playing against Nadal

Tanking = playing without a purpose to win

Loss of interest = playing without a purpose to win

What’s the difference?

Yes I agree with GP. He did not tank. He wished he had been able to give Nadal a lesson but he knew from the start it was not in his (small frame ) racquet. It's a bit unlike him not to try but Sunday really looked like FO08 the year he knew he was not up to the task physically....so he played over agressive tennis as he certainly did not want to kill himself on the task....not for a TMS1000 for sure. You might want to call this tanking..and I ususally do not hesitate to use big words but here there was an admission from his part that he coudl not win anyway.

Tenez wrote:I am with you there SB. Nadal is too powerful and too fast but because of that simply doesn't last as long as Djoko. Nadal's form can drop suddenly but no-one has the stamina to push him that far....except Djoko.

Even a poor form Djoko was able to last longer and get the better than Nadal at the last FO...Nadal was simply saved by the rain otherwise he was doomed cause every single shot of his had lost the initial bite and Djoko could make him run even more....making Djoko's next shot easier as the rally extended.

My worry is Djoko losing to anybody else. He is certainly more vulnerable than Nadal against the opposition cause the ball he sends is no so different than any other ball on tour...unlike Nadal's. Nadal's bring a different kind of tennis.....that's the problem really.

My worry is not that. It's only the pressure of the dream of completing career slam being so close and within reach that I hope does not affect him.
He really wants to win RG badly, and when he is in that mode he fights till his last breath, like last year against Seppi and Tsonga when he won lost matches.
It will be hard to beat Novak in Paris. I wouldn't read too much in all these losses he suffered recently.

Nole is an interesting case like that. He is very emotional and despite experience he still lets those emotions creep into his mind, overwhelm him and affect his focus. But I like him because of it, shows he is human compared to the robot on the other side of the net - nothing from the heart seem to be able to disturb the balance in his head during a match. From that point of view, he is really good.
I am just not sure if that ALL comes from the confidence in physical superiority, or is it partly because he has been raised and trained like that from his young days by Toni as well.

That is why Federer was able to beat him in 2011 SF.

Having said all that, I don't think Nole has any problem of that kind against Nadal. So as long as he makes it to the final he'll be fine.

Can't wait to see the draw!

The pressure to win a first slam is the same as winning Wimbledon is the same as winning a career slam. They are so focused on every point that they don't think about it until they come to a game away from winning it.

They don't make those mistakes...unless it's 5th set and are completely exhausted and then it can play up...if still tight.....but before we get there....there is lots of tennis to play.

Tenez wrote:The pressure to win a first slam is the same as winning Wimbledon is the same as winning a career slam. They are so focused on every point that they don't think about it until they come to a game away from winning it.

They don't make those mistakes...unless it's 5th set and are completely exhausted and then it can play up...if still tight.....but before we get there....there is lots of tennis to play.

I wouldn't know.... But I do agree, once the match starts they all settle into their focus.

Still, it was not easy for Nole, that RG SF is a classic example: the occasion, the crowd, The Streak record on the line, and Novak had 4 full days to think about it due to Fog w/o .... and a super motivated GOAT across the net, surely, it all must have affected Novak.

I watched that match in a totally crazed state of mind with the streak and all that, so I don't think I have actually seen it with the cold head, so may do it one of these days, just from pure tennis perspective.

It will still be hard for me, because that was such an emotionally charged match, to me bigger than the over-hyped Wimbledon 2008 final. Mind you, I have not seen it all, just a few games...

[quote]

SR wrote:


1) Hypothetically, this is why, take it or leave it:

“With his win over Roger Federerin Sunday’s Internazionali BNL d’Italiafinal in Rome, Rafael Nadalwill overtake David Ferrerfor World No. 4 in the Emirates ATP Rankings on
Monday. The result has huge implications for Roland Garros, as Nadal's No. 4
seeding guarantees the seven-time champion cannot meet World No. 1 Novak Djokovic, No. 2 Andy Murrayor No. 3 Federer before the semi-finals.”

Moreover, the best case scenario for FO seeding for Fed will
present itself IF Murray plays. Then Fed will be seeded #3 and Nadal #4 and
that guarantees these two will not be drawn in the same half.

So in your opinion Roger tanked Rome after making the final in order to give Nadal no. 4 for RG so he would not be drawn in the same half? What difference does that really make for Federer? The fact that Nadal could be drawn in Novak's half and Roger thinks there is a chance Novak could beat Nadal? But Roger stated in an interview the other day that Nadal is clearly the favorite for RG over Djokovic. Either way Roger winning RG is not going to happen imo regardless of where Nadal is in the draw. Federer can't beat Nadal at the FO and I am not sure he would beat Djokovic there after his awful performances so far this year.

2) Albeit unproven, I presented a substantiated argument/discussion based
on certain background observations, which I elaborated in my post but you chose
to ignore my reasoning entirely. Whether you agree or not, sweepingly dismissing
my view as “excuses” without the courtesy of addressing even a single
reason I offered is rude. Besides, you don’t solve a problem by asking another question (“why on earth? blah blah…), no?

3) Please fulfill your part of the discussion by presenting
your own counter-argument and explain in detail a) Overall, how did Fed manage
to play better in IW recently INJURED then in Rome
UNINJURED? b) In specific, how did Fed managed to secure a respectable 46 loss
in the IW first set with a bad back but somehow produced a load of UFEs galore and got
a bread-stick from a nothing-special Nadal when Roger should be logically
playing A LOT better without (known) back issues, plus having achieved rather consistent and impressive pre-semi results? and c) If Fed was
really so hopelessly bad and nadal so invincibly strong, how did roger manage
to break him in the 2^nd set? You don’t see this as one of the more
overt signs of Roger turning his game on and off at will?

By stating you think Roger played better in IW with a back injury than he did in Rome without a back injury, you are assuming too much knowledge about Federer and the actual extent of his injuries. He may have had a bad back in IW but if it were so bad, why play? Clearly it was good enough for him to make the decision to play. I have two parents with back problems and you do not decide to do anything strenuous at all if you really have a serious back issue where you fear you may do more damage. My opinion is people make too much of their favourite player's "injuries" and they assume they "know" the real extent of said "injuries" but the reality is they really don't know squat. So what I am really saying is your "theory" that Roger's back issue was worse at IW than it was in Rome is pure speculation and nothing more.

Re why did Roger play so well in Rome up until the final? Isn't that self-evident? All of those other competitors were not Nadal. Roger has a match-up problem with Nadal and a serious mental block when he plays Nadal. He could knock off every other good player in the draw in rapid succession and look like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread against them, it has no bearing on how he will play against the biggest thorn in his side, Nadal. Roger has looked splendid many times this year against lesser players but when it comes to the QF, SF or F against the other top three, he has looked terrible.

Roger did not look impressive to me in Rome at ANY point. He looked the worst I have seen him play even against Nadal in a very long time. I have never seen so many bh shanks in my life so I am not sure how you could say he turned anything on at will. He was a mess from start to finish aside from the first game or so where he looked good.

No, I do not see any logic to the theory that Roger turned things off and on at will when he made the F in Rome for the first time in how many years? It does not make sense that he would tank in an event which he has never won and which is best of three where he certainly has a shot at beating Nadal even on clay. He has no chance imo on clay at the FO in best of five.

So no, Roger tanking at Rome makes no sense to me on any level. I do feel fans of ALL players make way too many excuses for their favourite players whether it be Novak's ankle which he miraculously played on to continue to win DC even though he stated it was clearly "injured", or whether it be Nadal's "magic knees" or Roger's back. I don't want to hear any excuses for a top player when he loses. If you take to the court you are fit to play imo. All these excuses and theories make me laugh. JMO.

BlueClay wrote:
But Roger stated in an interview the other day that Nadal is clearly the favorite for RG over Djokovic. Either way Roger winning RG is not going to happen imo regardless of where Nadal is in the draw. Federer can't beat Nadal at the FO and I am not sure he would beat Djokovic there after his awful performances so far this year.

Did he, really?

summerblues wrote:

BlueClay wrote:

gallery play wrote:...He's simply too fast and his tennis too powerful for anybody else, including Djoko i'm afraid....

That is what I think, I agree with you completely....

Why do you guys think he is too powerful for Djoko too (BC, I am not quite sure whether your complete agreement extended to that portion of GPs post but if so, I would be interested in your opinion too)?

I do not see a good reason to think so. I agree Rafa is the #1 favorite at RG but to me that is largely because I think Nole is more likely to go out early. But if they get to play each other, I would give better than 50% chance to Nole (perhaps even better by some margin).

Nole showed in the past he can stay in the rallies with Rafa. And once he can do that, he will be the more likely one to win. I do not think Rafa's game changed all that drastically. Rafa was up-and-down in Monte Carlo, but he actually played quite well in the final, yet it was fairly comfortable for Nole. If I remember correctly, in 2011/12, when Nole had success against Rafa, he was winning about 50% of the long rallies. Unless I am mistaken, Nole actually increased that percentage in Monte Carlo, where I think he was winning a significant majority of those rallies. With that kind of base, I do not know where Rafa will find a path to victory.


I am not saying Nole would win with 100% certainty, but I think the odds would be on his side.

SB, I agree with you that if Novak is able to reach Nadal it could go either way but the reason I agreed with GP that Nadal looks too powerful on clay is due to the fact that even though Novak defeated Nadal at MC, he lost early in Madrid and Rome and he has been sub-par by his lofty standards since the AO this year and not just on clay. He lost early in IW and Miami on hc which is obviously by far his best surface. Contrast that to Nadal who was absent for seven months and has made the final of every tournament he has played in and even won IW on his worst surface. I think if Novak reaches Nadal it will be close but I have to give the slight edge to Nadal. It is simply too difficult for me to write-off a guy who has won the FO seven times to a guy who has only made the final there once in his career.

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
But Roger stated in an interview the other day that Nadal is clearly the favorite for RG over Djokovic. Either way Roger winning RG is not going to happen imo regardless of where Nadal is in the draw. Federer can't beat Nadal at the FO and I am not sure he would beat Djokovic there after his awful performances so far this year.

Did he, really?

Yeppers, I am afraid so:

“It goes to show that’s what every player should do,” Federer said. “Now he’s as strong as ever and is going to be the favourite for Roland Garros.”

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/05/19/rafael-nadal-cruises-past-roger-federer-to-win-italian-open-serena-williams-claims-fourth-straight-title/

BlueClay wrote:
SB, I agree with you that if Novak is able to reach Nadal it could go either way but the reason I agreed with GP that Nadal looks too powerful on clay is due to the fact that even though Novak defeated Nadal at MC, he lost early in Madrid and Rome and he has been sub-par by his lofty standards since the AO this year and not just on clay. He lost early in IW and Miami on hc which is obviously by far his best surface. Contrast that to Nadal who was absent for seven months and has made the final of every tournament he has played in and even won IW on his worst surface. I think if Novak reaches Nadal it will be close but I have to give the slight edge to Nadal.

Contraty to popular belief, Novak and Nadal are two very different players. Nadal's tennis is shot-making low risk but fitness highly dependend sport, so as soon as he reaches that physical state, he is in the cruise mode against almost the entire field.
As soon as somebody comes close to him physically, he is vulnerable. The two recent matches against Ferrer showed it clearly.
Ferrer only lost because he ran out of gas as he is smaller and does not get any free points on his serve.

Nole has bags of energy to spare against Nadal as he is much more energy efficient than Nadal, being light and a better ball striker. Even over 5 sets on clay provided they are played in one day.

Re why did Roger play so well in Rome up until the final? Isn't that self-evident? All of those other competitors were not Nadal. Roger has a match-up problem with Nadal and a serious mental block when he plays Nadal. He could knock off every other good player in the draw in rapid succession and look like he is the greatest thing since sliced bread against them, it has no bearing on how he will play against the biggest thorn in his side, Nadal. Roger has looked splendid many times this year against lesser players but when it comes to the QF, SF or F against the other top three, he has looked terrible.

Everybody has a problem with Nadal on clay...bar Djoko.....not just Roger.

If you think timing Nadal's zippy ball on clay with a 90inch racquet is a mental issue I can tell you than you don't know much about mental and physical issues in tennis.

Federer is 10 times mentally stronger than Nadal. However his shots are 20 times riskier than Nadal...especially on clay. His shots are riskier simply because he physically cannot sustain rallying like Nadal. so has to go for broke against someone who can retireve virtuallly any ball. That gives Nadal peace of mind. If Federer coudl physically rally like Djoko does, it woudl be Nadal who'd crack first as proven when Djoko plays Nadal.

Federer has more often than not lead Nadal in their encounters....it's only having to produce a perfect tennis for 3 or 5 sets that has been the challenge and that challenge is a physical one first and foremost....like it was for Djoko before Djoko became fitter in 2011....if yuo don't have that phsyique, there is no point discussing the mental side.

On faster surfaces with low bounce...things woudl be different.

BlueClay wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
But Roger stated in an interview the other day that Nadal is clearly the favorite for RG over Djokovic. Either way Roger winning RG is not going to happen imo regardless of where Nadal is in the draw. Federer can't beat Nadal at the FO and I am not sure he would beat Djokovic there after his awful performances so far this year.

Did he, really?

Yeppers, I am afraid so:

“It goes to show that’s what every player should do,” Federer said. “Now he’s as strong as ever and is going to be the favourite for Roland Garros.”

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2013/05/19/rafael-nadal-cruises-past-roger-federer-to-win-italian-open-serena-williams-claims-fourth-straight-title/

Thanks, BC.
What a very interesting and intriguing paragraph it is, though:

"Federer complimented Nadal for the way he took his time before returning to the circuit.

“It goes to show that’s what every player should do,” Federer said. “Now he’s as strong as ever and is going to be the favourite for Roland Garros.”

noleisthebest wrote:

BlueClay wrote:
SB, I agree with you that if Novak is able to reach Nadal it could go either way but the reason I agreed with GP that Nadal looks too powerful on clay is due to the fact that even though Novak defeated Nadal at MC, he lost early in Madrid and Rome and he has been sub-par by his lofty standards since the AO this year and not just on clay. He lost early in IW and Miami on hc which is obviously by far his best surface. Contrast that to Nadal who was absent for seven months and has made the final of every tournament he has played in and even won IW on his worst surface. I think if Novak reaches Nadal it will be close but I have to give the slight edge to Nadal.

Contraty to popular belief, Novak and Nadal are two very different players. Nadal's tennis is shot-making low risk but fitness highly dependend sport, so as soon as he reaches that physical state, he is in the cruise mode against almost the entire field.
As soon as somebody comes close to him physically, he is vulnerable. The two recent matches against Ferrer showed it clearly.
Ferrer only lost because he ran out of gas as he is smaller and does not get any free points on his serve.

Nole has bags of energy to spare against Nadal as he is much more energy efficient than Nadal, being light and a better ball striker. Even over 5 sets on clay provided they are played in one day.

We will see. As I said above if Novak can get to Nadal it should be close but I have to give the edge to Nadal given he has won the event 7 times and Novak has never won it and only made the final once.

I think Novak is the better ball striker off of BOTH wings than Nadal is and that gives Novak an advantage in that match-up but don't forget Nadal still leads the h2h and has not been owned outright by Novak, especially on clay.

noleisthebest wrote:Thanks, BC.
What a very interesting and intriguing paragraph it is, though:

"Federer complimented Nadal for the way he took his time before returning to the circuit.

“It goes to show that’s what every player should do,” Federer said. “Now he’s as strong as ever and is going to be the favourite for Roland Garros.”

Yes, very interesting!

“I was missing too many easy forehands,” Federer said. “And if you don’t stick your volleys or serve very accurate it’s very difficult.”

================================

That tells me he certainly was not prepared physically to play his best.

We know he has had back problems for years and he has mentioned he needed a day in between matches to recover partially. I am not saying he would have won with more rest but certainly woudl have made less UEs. He still can play very well but on that final we saw 140kph on first serves. ridiculously slow.

BC,

you are going to be happy to be wrong and on Nole's side should that match happen, aren't you?

Tenez wrote:If you think timing Nadal's zippy ball on clay with a 90inch racquet is a mental issue I can tell you than you don't know much about mental and physical issues in tennis.

Federer is 10 times mentally stronger than Nadal.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. For me Federer is the most talented and one of the greatest tennis players ever, but in the mental fortitude area, Federer is not the strongest great, past or present. I think guys like Connors, Sampras and Nadal are better in the mental strength dept.

noleisthebest wrote:BC,

you are going to be happy to be wrong and on Nole's side should that match happen, aren't you?

Absolutely! One thing about me is if I am wrong, I admit it.

BlueClay wrote:

So no, Roger tanking at Rome makes no sense to me on any level. I do feel fans of ALL players make way too many excuses for their favourite players whether it be Novak's ankle which he miraculously played on to continue to win DC even though he stated it was clearly "injured", or whether it be Nadal's "magic knees" or Roger's back. I don't want to hear any excuses for a top player when he loses. If you take to the court you are fit to play imo. All these excuses and theories make me laugh. JMO.

BC, I totally agree.