2013 French Open QF: Federer vs. Tsonga

[DarthFed]

QF is not "going deep" in a tournament. Roger will still reach most QF's until he retires. The question is does he still have it in him to make a real run.

LOL....a perfect example of the absurdly and stupidly high standards many Federer fans hold up for what "the real Federer" is supposed to do.

Quarterfinals aren't "going deep"? Tell that to the 99% of pro tennis players who would die for that pay day.

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that. QF's for a top player usually means beating 2 powder puffs and 2 average players.

I'd dream of a 1st round payday or even playing a Satellite tournament. What is your point?

 

[brokenshoelace]

QF is not "going deep" in a tournament. Roger will still reach most QF's until he retires. The question is does he still have it in him to make a real run.

LOL....a perfect example of the absurdly and stupidly high standards many Federer fans hold up for what "the real Federer" is supposed to do.

Quarterfinals aren't "going deep"? Tell that to the 99% of pro tennis players who would die for that pay day.

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that.

Is it really?

 

[calitennis127]

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that. QF's for a top player usually means beating 2 powder puffs and 2 average players.

I'd dream of a 1st round payday or even playing a Satellite tournament. What is your point?

My point is that if Roger Federer loves the game of tennis, loves competition, loves being around the events, loves playing before thousands upon thousands of adoring fans, then losing in some more quarters and semis for the next 3 or 4 years isn't exactly the equivalent of being quartered inside Aushwitz, even if that isn't something he is used to.

Also, if Federer is getting to the quarters and semis, then he is in the mix. At that point, anything can happen. He can get hot, someone get hurt or have an off day, and then, voila, the likes of DarthFed are saying "looks like Fed regained his old form here".

That is my point.

---

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that.

Is it really?

What is really shocking is how so many people sink into a hysterical fit whenever Federer loses about "what it all means" - you included.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that. QF's for a top player usually means beating 2 powder puffs and 2 average players.

I'd dream of a 1st round payday or even playing a Satellite tournament. What is your point?

My point is that if Roger Federer loves the game of tennis, loves competition, loves being around the events, loves playing before thousands upon thousands of adoring fans, then losing in some more quarters and semis for the next 3 or 4 years isn't exactly the equivalent of being quartered inside Aushwitz, even if that isn't something he is used to.

Also, if Federer is getting to the quarters and semis, then he is in the mix. At that point, anything can happen. He can get hot, someone get hurt or have an off day, and then, voila, the likes of DarthFed are saying "looks like Fed regained his old form here".

That is my point.

---

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that.

Is it really?

What is really shocking is how so many people sink into a hysterical fit whenever Federer loses about "what it all means" - you included.

---

Really? I challenge you to show me any hysterical fit I threw after a Federer loss. I merely point out what was wrong with his game. If you're referring to me saying he's declining, I first said that 3 years ago. I've made my peace with that fact, and therefore, there are no hysterical fits now at all, since what I'm seeing is hardly surprising.

If anything, I'm one of the most realistic people about where his game stands (ie I don't think he needs to go play with his kids, but I don't think he's still as good as ever either).

 

[DarthFed]

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that. QF's for a top player usually means beating 2 powder puffs and 2 average players.

I'd dream of a 1st round payday or even playing a Satellite tournament. What is your point?

My point is that if Roger Federer loves the game of tennis, loves competition, loves being around the events, loves playing before thousands upon thousands of adoring fans, then losing in some more quarters and semis for the next 3 or 4 years isn't exactly the equivalent of being quartered inside Aushwitz, even if that isn't something he is used to.

Also, if Federer is getting to the quarters and semis, then he is in the mix. At that point, anything can happen. He can get hot, someone get hurt or have an off day, and then, voila, the likes of DarthFed are saying "looks like Fed regained his old form here".

That is my point.

---

Roger isn't 99% of pro players. It's shocking I'd have to explain that.

Is it really?

What is really shocking is how so many people sink into a hysterical fit whenever Federer loses about "what it all means" - you included.

---

At some point he will reach a point where he is still making a lot of QF's but is not a real threat anymore. That is where we disagree...well one of the thousands of parts of tennis/life we might disagree on. Look how many QF's someone like Ferrer makes and someone would have to be on every drug known to man to think he could win a GS.

I don't know if Roger is there yet but he seems to be heading there.

 

[calitennis127]

Really? I challenge you to show me any hysterical fit I threw after a Federer loss. I merely point out what was wrong with his game. If you're referring to me saying he's declining, I first said that 3 years ago. I've made my peace with that fact, and therefore, there are no hysterical fits now at all, since what I'm seeing is hardly surprising.

If anything, I'm one of the most realistic people about where his game stands (ie I don't think he needs to go play with his kids, but I don't think he's still as good as ever either).

Well, to be honest, my view is that last year he was, for the most part, as good as ever. At some moments, I will even say he played what can be called the best tennis of his life. That is to say, it was as good as anything you will find 2005-2007.

However, the fact is, post-Cincinnati he has not been the same most of the time. The decline hasn't been as pronounced as many say, but it is there, and it would be ridiculous to deny it.

Whether he can regain his old form remains to be seen. I don't mind the age talk as much now in 2013 as I did 2009-2012, when it was completely exaggerated. Now, it is still exaggerated, but much more justified. 2013 Federer is not 2012 Federer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Really? I challenge you to show me any hysterical fit I threw after a Federer loss. I merely point out what was wrong with his game. If you're referring to me saying he's declining, I first said that 3 years ago. I've made my peace with that fact, and therefore, there are no hysterical fits now at all, since what I'm seeing is hardly surprising.

If anything, I'm one of the most realistic people about where his game stands (ie I don't think he needs to go play with his kids, but I don't think he's still as good as ever either).

Well, to be honest, my view is that last year he was, for the most part, as good as ever. At some moments, I will even say he played what can be called the best tennis of his life. That is to say, it was as good as anything you will find 2005-2007.

However, the fact is, post-Cincinnati he has not been the same most of the time. The decline hasn't been as pronounced as many say, but it is there, and it would be ridiculous to deny it.

Whether he can regain his old form remains to be seen. I don't mind the age talk as much now in 2013 as I did 2009-2012, when it was completely exaggerated. Now, it is still exaggerated, but much more justified. 2013 Federer is not 2012 Federer.

I agree.

 

[calitennis127]

At some point he will reach a point where he is still making a lot of QF's but is not a real threat anymore. That is where we disagree...well one of the thousands of parts of tennis/life we might disagree on. Look how many QF's someone like Ferrer makes and someone would have to be on every drug known to man to think he could win a GS.

I don't know if Roger is there yet but he seems to be heading there.

I don't see how you could ever place Federer in the Ferrer category of late-Grand Slam impotence (something which Ferrer is trying to change now and may just do).

Federer has too many offensive weapons between his serve and forehand to not be a serious contender at that stage of tournaments. He has much more offensive pop to his game than Ferrer. For that reason, he will never be in the Ferrer category, except at the French.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

The Meister went down in straight sets?
Meister is just too old...

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Really? I challenge you to show me any hysterical fit I threw after a Federer loss. I merely point out what was wrong with his game. If you're referring to me saying he's declining, I first said that 3 years ago. I've made my peace with that fact, and therefore, there are no hysterical fits now at all, since what I'm seeing is hardly surprising.

If anything, I'm one of the most realistic people about where his game stands (ie I don't think he needs to go play with his kids, but I don't think he's still as good as ever either).

Well, to be honest, my view is that last year he was, for the most part, as good as ever. At some moments, I will even say he played what can be called the best tennis of his life. That is to say, it was as good as anything you will find 2005-2007.

However, the fact is, post-Cincinnati he has not been the same most of the time. The decline hasn't been as pronounced as many say, but it is there, and it would be ridiculous to deny it.

Whether he can regain his old form remains to be seen. I don't mind the age talk as much now in 2013 as I did 2009-2012, when it was completely exaggerated. Now, it is still exaggerated, but much more justified. 2013 Federer is not 2012 Federer.

I agree.

agreed as well. and i must admit that i myself am much more prone to hysteric fits in these losses

 

[DarthFed]

At some point he will reach a point where he is still making a lot of QF's but is not a real threat anymore. That is where we disagree...well one of the thousands of parts of tennis/life we might disagree on. Look how many QF's someone like Ferrer makes and someone would have to be on every drug known to man to think he could win a GS.

I don't know if Roger is there yet but he seems to be heading there.

I don't see how you could ever place Federer in the Ferrer category of late-Grand Slam impotence (something which Ferrer is trying to change now and may just do).

Federer has too many offensive weapons between his serve and forehand to not be a serious contender at that stage of tournaments. He has much more offensive pop to his game than Ferrer. For that reason, he will never be in the Ferrer category, except at the French.

I'm not placing him in that category...yet. But truth is he will be there eventually, possibly very soon. It is not about offensive weapons...even today Federer has more of those than Djokovic, Rafa and Murray. Offensive weapons alone do not make you any kind of consistent threat to win a title, just mainly a threat to cause upsets. Ask Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga.

The fact is there will be a time where Federer is going to be considered the underdog in pretty much any QF he reaches and will be considered a long shot to win any big title. It will happen to Nole and Rafa as well if they last into their 30's. It might be next year or a couple years yet for Roger. Again when you take everything into consideration (quality of opponent and how lopsided it was) this is his worst GS loss since 2003. And coming on the heels of 11 months that have been his worst since 2002.

 

[herios]

\ Again when you take everything into consideration (quality of opponent and how lopsided it was) this is his worst GS loss since 2003. And coming on the heels of 11 months that have been his worst since 2002.

I agree with you. Tsonga is not a clay court specialist by any means, nor he had any success as of yet on this surface.
This was his worst performance in a slam as far as I can remember ( I have no recollection of his matches in 2002-03.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

How do you figure that he has reached Sampras stage of his career.. Fed won Wimbledon last year, was number 1 ranked and made RG finals 2 years ago..

Fed was clearly jaded afterwards of his struggle with Simon, that's all. Fed still has the goods.. he wasn't moving well and ran into an INFORM JowillieTS this afternoon.. that's all
Pete was barely on the radar when he won his last US Open

DarthFed, don't give up on your dude.. A few upsets or injuries and Fed will be left there to clean up the carcasses

Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 and then went 2 years without a title, in between that he did reach 2 USO finals but had a lot of bad losses in other slams before winning his last tournament at 2002 USO. It might be too early to say with Fed, but this is his worst 11 months of tennis since 2002 and he isn't getting younger. You will be seeing losses like this which when you factor everything in, is his worst loss at a slam since 2003 IMO. The Tsongas of the world have occasionally beat him at slams the past few years but not in total blowout fashion like this.

---

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

I didn't really follow Sampras' career like I do Roger's, but I don't think your comparison is accurate. Federer consistently is in contention at Slams and so "one last great run" right now for him wouldn't be the same as Sampras' final U.S. Open win. Roger is already playing deep in every GS, so it wouldn't really be a "run" to make it to a final or win it.

QF is not "going deep" in a tournament. Roger will still reach most QF's until he retires. The question is does he still have it in him to make a real run.

---

I think so at Wimbledon

 

[brokenshoelace]

I agree that this was Roger's worst performance at a slam in a while, but bringing up whether or not Tsonga is a clay specialist is irrelevant. He almost beat Novak last year at the same stage, he's not clueless on the surface, and frankly, when you're serving and hitting the ball like that, it doesn't matter whether you're a specialist on the surface or not (see Berdych, Del Potro and Soderling at Roland Garros).

 

[lindseywagners]

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

How do you figure that he has reached Sampras stage of his career.. Fed won Wimbledon last year, was number ranked and made RG finals 2 years ago..

Fed was clearly jaded afterwards of his struggle with Simon, that's all. Fed still has the goods.. he wasn't moving well and ran into an INFORM JowillieTS this afternoon.. that's all
Pete was barely on the radar when he won his last US Open

DarthFed, don't give up on your dude.. A few upsets or injuries and Fed will be left there to clean up the carcasses

Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 and then went 2 years without a title, in between that he did reach 2 USO finals but had a lot of bad losses in other slams before winning his last tournament at 2002 USO. It might be too early to say with Fed, but this is his worst 11 months of tennis since 2002 and he isn't getting younger. You will be seeing losses like this which when you factor everything in, is his worst loss at a slam since 2003 IMO. The Tsongas of the world have occasionally beat him at slams the past few years but not in total blowout fashion like this.

---

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

I didn't really follow Sampras' career like I do Roger's, but I don't think your comparison is accurate. Federer consistently is in contention at Slams and so "one last great run" right now for him wouldn't be the same as Sampras' final U.S. Open win. Roger is already playing deep in every GS, so it wouldn't really be a "run" to make it to a final or win it.

QF is not "going deep" in a tournament. Roger will still reach most QF's until he retires. The question is does he still have it in him to make a real run.

---

I'd argue that a QF berth is certainly considered "deep" into a tournament. After all, the 36-straight is one of his great career accomplishments.

 

[El Dude]

I'm an advocate of the moderate view - that Federer is no longer in the same category with Djokovic and Nadal, and perhaps not even Murray, and is creeping toward the rest of the pack. In fact, he may be more in the category of the second tier players now than the first tier.

Am I being hyperbolic? Well consider that he's played six matches this year against top 10 opponents and only won once - at the Australian Open against Tsonga. He's lost twice to Nadal, once to Murray, Berdych, and Tsonga. He's also lost to Nishikori (#16 at the time) and Benneteau (#39).

He's faired better against players outside of the top ten, but is 1-5 against top 10 opponents. That leads me to believe that his "real" ranking is not #3, but more accurately represented by his Race to London ranking of #7.

Now that may change, but now Federer is playing like a bottom half top 10 player.

 

[DarthFed]

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

How do you figure that he has reached Sampras stage of his career.. Fed won Wimbledon last year, was number ranked and made RG finals 2 years ago..

Fed was clearly jaded afterwards of his struggle with Simon, that's all. Fed still has the goods.. he wasn't moving well and ran into an INFORM JowillieTS this afternoon.. that's all
Pete was barely on the radar when he won his last US Open

DarthFed, don't give up on your dude.. A few upsets or injuries and Fed will be left there to clean up the carcasses

Sampras won Wimbledon in 2000 and then went 2 years without a title, in between that he did reach 2 USO finals but had a lot of bad losses in other slams before winning his last tournament at 2002 USO. It might be too early to say with Fed, but this is his worst 11 months of tennis since 2002 and he isn't getting younger. You will be seeing losses like this which when you factor everything in, is his worst loss at a slam since 2003 IMO. The Tsongas of the world have occasionally beat him at slams the past few years but not in total blowout fashion like this.

---

Fed has officially entered the 2001-2002 Sampras part of his career. Complete shell of himself and will suffer a lot of bad losses even in slams. To me the question remains how will it end. Will he have one last great run at SW19 or New York. And is he actually serious about playing until 2016? With more losses like today I'd bet the house he pulls the plug before that.

I didn't really follow Sampras' career like I do Roger's, but I don't think your comparison is accurate. Federer consistently is in contention at Slams and so "one last great run" right now for him wouldn't be the same as Sampras' final U.S. Open win. Roger is already playing deep in every GS, so it wouldn't really be a "run" to make it to a final or win it.

QF is not "going deep" in a tournament. Roger will still reach most QF's until he retires. The question is does he still have it in him to make a real run.

---

I'd argue that a QF berth is certainly considered "deep" into a tournament. After all, the 36-straight is one of his great career accomplishments.

---

I'd argue that it isn't. It is a large number but let's be honest here, it is a shocking upset if one of the top 4 loses before the QF. That qualifies as a horrendous tournament for any of them and you very rarely see it these days. Roger's 36 straight means he has avoided any outrageous upsets for 9 years which shows he has always maintained a high level.

But QF's are a far cry from the title and therefore I don't call them deep. QF's are usually the first time a top player is meeting a good/great player. Semis are a fairly deep run. 23 straight semis is more impressive to me than 60 QF's would be because the QF match can be a tough one. Making it through 23 straight QF's is more impressive to me than making 36 straight runs beating the qualifiers, journeymen and average players in the first 4 rounds.

 

[SF Nadalite]

I'm an advocate of the moderate view - that Federer is no longer in the same category with Djokovic and Nadal, and perhaps not even Murray, and is creeping toward the rest of the pack. In fact, he may be more in the category of the second tier players now than the first tier.

Am I being hyperbolic? Well consider that he's played six matches this year against top 10 opponents and only won once - at the Australian Open against Tsonga. He's lost twice to Nadal, once to Murray, Berdych, and Tsonga. He's also lost to Nishikori (#16 at the time) and Benneteau (#39).

He's faired better against players outside of the top ten, but is 1-5 against top 10 opponents. That leads me to believe that his "real" ranking is not #3, but more accurately represented by his Race to London ranking of #7.

Now that may change, but now Federer is playing like a bottom half top 10 player.

I think you're exactly right.

I think the key will be Wimbledon and the US hard court run. Fed has a lot of points to defend in July - Sept. If he fails, then his rank was fall to a place it hasn't been in a long time. Roger is not like Jimmy Connors, he doesn't see himself as a "scrapper/fighter" kind of player. His reaction to losing never strikes me as "wait until next time" but more like "How did this happen - I want to be alone".

And why not? All that he can do by hanging around and losing midweek is to just leave looking like someone whose game has declined, never to rise again to his former level.

We're not talking Tommy Haas or Lleyton Hewitt here - I mean, this is the Fed.

 

[Front242]

Got home late and just saw the score. As a Fed fan I'm disappointed mostly that he didn't even win a set. Had a feeling Tsonga would win and he was 7-5 5-2 up when I left work. Thought there was at least a chance Fed would regroup and win set 3 and work on it from there but that's disappointing. Not even one ace?! I just hope Tsonga beats Ferrer but it's doubtful. But Ferrer in the RG final wouldn't be exciting. No offense to him but I just much prefer Tsonga's style of play. Big Tsonga fan anyway and didn't even vote in this poll as I was unsure of the outcome but had a sneaking suspicion Tsonga would win. Great win for him but reading the racquet reaction on tennis.com it seems Fed was really poor. A shame he couldn't at least put up more of a fight. Would absolutely love to see Tsonga win a slam though and will be rooting for him to at least beat Ferrer and reach the final. Tough match though against Ferrer.

 

[shawnbm]

I agree that this was Roger's worst performance at a slam in a while, but bringing up whether or not Tsonga is a clay specialist is irrelevant. He almost beat Novak last year at the same stage, he's not clueless on the surface, and frankly, when you're serving and hitting the ball like that, it doesn't matter whether you're a specialist on the surface or not (see Berdych, Del Potro and Soderling at Roland Garros).

THIS