Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, Masters 1000

[Andy22]

You have to separate out ones where he "choked/gagged" away a set vs the end of the match. If you're talking about the former I guarantee you it's a very long list for any notable player in history. But the latter is the "real choking" and to be honest Fed has probably done it a lot more than most. It's a crazy amount of matches he has lost from match points up. It tells us a couple things; he does feel the pressure closing out the big, close matches and it also tells us that he's difficult to beat convincingly. A lot of his wins are straightforward and a lot of his losses are nailbiters. So there are a couple ways to look at it but I don't think you can sugarcoat it too much, he's flat out choked some crazy matches away like yesterday. Hasn't kept him from being GOAT though and that tells us something.

You are a troll.

Well I do not think somesone who has opinions you disagree with, is a troll fine just your opinion, but I could say some for you fedtroll.

 

[atttomole]

Well I do not think somesone who has opinions you disagree with, is a troll fine just your opinion, but I could say some for you fedtroll.

You just listed matches that Federer lost, some of which he did not choke, but was simply beaten. As an example, how did Federer choke at RG 2011 or RG 2007? You are actually diminishing Nadal by saying that.

 

[Andy22]

You have to separate out ones where he "choked/gagged" away a set vs the end of the match. If you're talking about the former I guarantee you it's a very long list for any notable player in history. But the latter is the "real choking" and to be honest Fed has probably done it a lot more than most. It's a crazy amount of matches he has lost from match points up. It tells us a couple things; he does feel the pressure closing out the big, close matches and it also tells us that he's difficult to beat convincingly. A lot of his wins are straightforward and a lot of his losses are nailbiters. So there are a couple ways to look at it but I don't think you can sugarcoat it too much, he's flat out choked some crazy matches away like yesterday. Hasn't kept him from being GOAT though and that tells us something.

Like I said its all debate, but you yourself agree with some matches, but it was bad timing but was not a dig at Federer its was showing how great he has been in that he has to choke to for you to beat him. So is just my opinion, the matches which he has had match points djokovic USO 10/11 del potro IW18 was big ones, raonic, murray was little ones. Nadal Wimbledon AO, was somewhere in the middle, as was the other matches, against djokovic. But like I said it was bad timing coming from a nadal fan. I will just that Ricardo agree with me so its just not only me?

 

[Andy22]

You just listed matches that Federer lost, some of which he did not choke, but was simply beaten. As an example, how did Federer choke at RG 2011 or RG 2007? You are actually diminishing Nadal by saying that.

OK well the only reason I put RG11 was because he had set points, in the first set and won the 3rd so that I'm say is that he should have been up 2 sets to one, its my bad because I should have said it was just a little choke, not a big one. RG 07 was just a mistake. Also this list would have been better coming from a Federer fan it was bad timing as well.

 

[Moxie]

I do agree with you. It's hard to call yesterday a choke once the taste of bile wears off. At a certain point a person has proven themselves enough that pejoratives like choke shouldn't even be a part of the language for them. I think Roger is a victim of his variety in some ways. He can kill you in so many ways, when he messes up execution he'll look worse than Rafa or Novak who are more likely to be going for a more conventional shot. We can't on the one hand admit he wasn't playing his best, and blame his poor execution on nerves.

I'm OK if Darth and others want to call yesterday a choke for Roger. It was in many ways an uncharacteristic match for Roger, and he did collapse at the end. But that's far from the norm. I agree with you that there's no reason to talk about most Fed losses as "chokes," and I don't agree with Darth that he's choked a lot of them away. We know who some of the big chokers are, and Roger isn't one of them. I don't completely agree that Roger is a victim of his variety. I think when he blows a shot it shocks his fans. Most of us would think of that as normal, on occasion, especially if the other player is playing well. Fed fans don't expect Roger to miss. Frankly, most of us don't, but there are players that pressure him. It's not always "on his racquet." I'm not convinced about your notion that Nadal and Djokovic play more conventional shots, though. Nadal is the most unconventional shot-maker out there.

 

[atttomole]

I'm OK if Darth and others want to call yesterday a choke for Roger. It was in many ways an uncharacteristic match for Roger, and he did collapse at the end. But that's far from the norm. I agree with you that there's no reason to talk about most Fed losses as "chokes," and I don't agree with Darth that he's choked a lot of them away. We know who some of the big chokers are, and Roger isn't one of them. I don't completely agree that Roger is a victim of his variety. I think when he blows a shot it shocks his fans. Most of us would think of that as normal, on occasion, especially if the other player is playing well. Fed fans don't expect Roger to miss. Frankly, most of us don't, but there are players that pressure him. It's not always "on his racquet." I'm not convinced about your notion that Nadal and Djokovic play more conventional shots, though. Nadal is the most unconventional shot-maker out there.

There are times when Roger misses because the opponent makes it tough for him, but there are times when he just misses regardless of how the opponent plays. Shanking has become more frequent as he got older. What do you mean by conventional shot?

 

[Moxie]

There are times when Roger misses because the opponent makes it tough for him, but there are times when he just misses regardless of how the opponent plays. Shanking has become more frequent as he got older. What do you mean by conventional shot?

"Conventional shot" came from @Federberg. I'll let him define. Yes, shanking has become more frequent for Roger as he's gotten older. I suppose it's a function of age, footwork and timing.

 

[Andy22]

Like I said its all debate, but you yourself agree with some matches, but it was bad timing but was not a dig at Federer its was showing how great he has been in that he has to choke to for you to beat him. So is just my opinion, the matches which he has had match points djokovic USO 10/11 del potro IW18 was big ones, raonic, murray was little ones. Nadal Wimbledon AO, was somewhere in the middle, as was the other matches, against djokovic. But like I said it was bad timing coming from a nadal fan.

I'm OK if Darth and others want to call yesterday a choke for Roger. It was in many ways an uncharacteristic match for Roger, and he did collapse at the end. But that's far from the norm. I agree with you that there's no reason to talk about most Fed losses as "chokes," and I don't agree with Darth that he's choked a lot of them away. We know who some of the big chokers are, and Roger isn't one of them. I don't completely agree that Roger is a victim of his variety. I think when he blows a shot it shocks his fans. Most of us would think of that as normal, on occasion, especially if the other player is playing well. Fed fans don't expect Roger to miss. Frankly, most of us don't, but there are players that pressure him. It's not always "on his racquet." I'm not convinced about your notion that Nadal and Djokovic play more conventional shots, though. Nadal is the most unconventional shot-maker out there.

Like Ricardo said with Federer record is hard to say he's not a choker, he might be? Not saying he is just that he might be.To say he is not just little bit is just wrong with all the matches he's blown. Something that only a very nice person would say

 

[Federberg]

Like Ricardo said with Federer record is hard to say he's not a choker, he might be? Not saying he is just that he might be.To say he is not just little bit is just wrong with all the matches he's blown. Something that only a very nice person would say

This is getting a bit ridiculous. The guy who is on target to win the most number of titles in the Open Era; the run away leader in the slam count; you say he might be a choker and yet you claim he's not the best tennis player in the Open Era. He must be so good mate to be a choker and still the most successful player mate. Something isn't adding up. Are you even reading your logic? I guess when he wins matches he probably shouldn't have he's lucky, but when he loses matches he should have won he chokes? Yup! Makes a lot of sense.... not. That's right folks, Federer is the luckiest choker of all time Or B... you're trolling

 

[Federberg]

"Conventional shot" came from @Federberg. I'll let him define. Yes, shanking has become more frequent for Roger as he's gotten older. I suppose it's a function of age, footwork and timing.

For clarity, I'm happy to replace "conventional shot" with willingness to not play the percentage shot

 

[mrzz]

There is something that I guess you guys are missing when analyzing sunday's final, which is the specific kind of pressure del Potro exerted on Federer's serve. Two different aspects to it:

1) One option that Federer uses a lot is the wide out serve on the deuce court. del Potro was using his reach to rip those back with a winner, so in practice he took one safe option out for Federer;

2) Given his height/strength, he can attack the kick serve more than most. Federer was putting a lot of effort to make them kick really high -- you could hear him grunting in all kick serves. Again, that became not a safe option as it would against others.

Both factors combined help to explain both the tie-breaker and lost match points (they don't explain it all, I know). Poor execution on a drop shot in one of them is the main culprit IMO.

So I would not call it a complete choke. He knew he was left with a very small margin of error and could not execute it perfectly when it mattered. It is a choke to some extent, yes, but part of the chess match that those guys always play. I expect Federer to come up with quite a different serving strategy next time he plays del Potro.

 

[Federberg]

There is something that I guess you guys are missing when analyzing sunday's final, which is the specific kind of pressure del Potro exerted on Federer's serve. Two different aspects to it:

1) One option that Federer uses a lot is the wide out serve on the deuce court. del Potro was using his reach to rip those back with a winner, so in practice he took one safe option out for Federer;

2) Given his height/strength, he can attack the kick serve more than most. Federer was putting a lot of effort to make them kick really high -- you could hear him grunting in all kick serves. Again, that became not a safe option as it would against others.

Both factors combined help to explain both the tie-breaker and lost match points (they don't explain it all, I know). Poor execution on a drop shot in one of them is the main culprit IMO.

So I would not call it a complete choke. He knew he was left with a very small margin of error and could not execute it perfectly when it mattered. It is a choke to some extent, yes, but part of the chess match that those guys always play. I expect Federer to come up with quite a different serving strategy next time he plays del Potro.

I'm not sure all of us are missing those points. Delpo's reach is also the reason why Roger tends to prefer driving the ball directly at him when he's defending the net, and it was discussed during the live play on this thread. My initial reaction, which was tainted by emotion was that it was a choke, but I retracted that afterwards. For the very reasons you've put forward. I even question whether we can assert that the drop shot was a choke. More than any other player he plays these unconventional shots. How many times has he closed off a match point with a drop shot for instance? I think that he has earned enough credit over the years (even during this year) to put it down to poor execution rather than choking. But then that's just what I think

 

[DarthFed]

He DF'ed the last game and I may be wrong but I think he missed the first serve on all the match points and then had the drop shot. And then the TB happened...

This stuff happens to them all, I feel like the word "choke" is a bit taboo with some people as it sounds harsh. But if what happened at the end of the match Sunday is not a choke then there are not going to be many other instances. These guys are human and they do feel pressure and sometimes it affects them negatively.

 

[Federberg]

He DF'ed the last game and I may be wrong but I think he missed the first serve on all the match points and then had the drop shot. And then the TB happened...

This stuff happens to them all, I feel like the word "choke" is a bit taboo with some people as it sounds harsh. But if what happened at the end of the match Sunday is not a choke then there are not going to be many other instances. These guys are human and they do feel pressure and sometimes it affects them negatively.

I just think that his very style of play works against him in this debate. Let's look at Rafa as an example. When Rafa gets tight he tends to hit short balls which a good opponent puts away. His unforced error count doesn't go up necessarily but he'll lose just the same. But Rafa's never going to get called out as choking for that. I don't think that on the one hand we can say that in the IW final, Roger wasn't playing great and was making lots of unforced errors and at the same time attribute the errors that cost him the match to choking.

Look... if he'd been playing with a low unforced error count and then proceeded to lose those final points with poor unforced errors then that accusation would be tenable. That simply wasn't the case. Quite frankly he was lucky (imho) to get to the 3rd set in the first place. How then can it make sense that he choked the match?

 

[DarthFed]

I just think that his very style of play works against him in this debate. Let's look at Rafa as an example. When Rafa gets tight he tends to hit short balls which a good opponent puts away. His unforced error count doesn't go up necessarily but he'll lose just the same. But Rafa's never going to get called out as choking for that. I don't think that on the one hand we can say that in the IW final, Roger wasn't playing great and was making lots of unforced errors and at the same time attribute the errors that cost him the match to choking.

Look... if he'd been playing with a low unforced error count and then proceeded to lose those final points with poor unforced errors then that accusation would be tenable. That simply wasn't the case. Quite frankly he was lucky (imho) to get to the 3rd set in the first place. How then can it make sense that he choked the match?

I get your point for sure that Roger with such an aggressive game can look a lot worse when he misses on big points. But on Sunday I thought he played well the last 1.5 sets aside from the big moments. He should've won the set before the TB and then he had the TB won and blew it and got lucky to see the 3rd. In the 3rd set he was clearly outplaying DP until the last few points, probably should've broken before he did but was passive on big points. And that was the pattern, really stinking when it mattered on Sunday and then maybe choking, gagging, or whatever you want to call the end of the match.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I'm not sure all of us are missing those points. Delpo's reach is also the reason why Roger tends to prefer driving the ball directly at him when he's defending the net, and it was discussed during the live play on this thread. My initial reaction, which was tainted by emotion was that it was a choke, but I retracted that afterwards. For the very reasons you've put forward. I even question whether we can assert that the drop shot was a choke. More than any other player he plays these unconventional shots. How many times has he closed off a match point with a drop shot for instance? I think that he has earned enough credit over the years (even during this year) to put it down to poor execution rather than choking. But then that's just what I think

As I already said, the notorious game (when he was serving for the match) lost cannot be attributed to choke. However, the final TB is clearly a choke. Two DFs in one TB, combined with no first serve in, not to mention other UFE. That TB is a big time choke.

Roger himself said in post-match presser "Don't ask me what happened in that tie-breaker. I would like to play it again".

 

[10isfan]

Fed shouldn’t have hit a drop shot at that critical juncture. It’s a high risk shot even considering that he executes it well usually. Fed has too much variety for his own good at times. “Live by the sword; die by the sword” applies here.

 

[Federberg]

As I already said, the notorious game (when he was serving for the match) lost cannot be attributed to choke. However, the final TB is clearly a choke. Two DFs in one TB, combined with no first serve in, not to mention other UFE. That TB is a big time choke.

Roger himself said in post-match presser "Don't ask me what happened in that tie-breaker. I would like to play it again".

there's a difference between failure to execute and choking. I see no reason for Roger to choke in a Master Series final I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense. Let's not make anymore of this than it was

 

[Moxie]

there's a difference between failure to execute and choking. I see no reason for Roger to choke in a Master Series final I'm sorry but it doesn't make sense. Let's not make anymore of this than it was

While it was a terrible TB from Roger in the 3rd, I wonder what folks would have said if JMDP had lost the match. Would anyone have called it a "choke?" I'm with you that it's more about "failure to execute" with a player of Roger's caliber. @mrzz gave an interesting accounting of why.

 

[Andy22]

This is getting a bit ridiculous. The guy who is on target to win the most number of titles in the Open Era; the run away leader in the slam count; you say he might be a choker and yet you claim he's not the best tennis player in the Open Era. He must be so good mate to be a choker and still the most successful player mate. Something isn't adding up. Are you even reading your logic? I guess when he wins matches he probably shouldn't have he's lucky, but when he loses matches he should have won he chokes? Yup! Makes a lot of sense.... not. That's right folks, Federer is the luckiest choker of all time Or B... you're trolling

No not tolling at all, just point out matches, Federer should have won but lost, and if look at my new list of greatest players of open era I have Federer as number one, which means I I'm saying he's goat. I understand its bad timing and most likely a list a federer fan should but do not attack me for just post facts, I have already said its shows how great Federer is by him having to be off to beat him.