Shanghai Masters ATP 1000

[tented]

If anyone actually watches the entire fifth set, please let me know. It's too soon to have finished it yet, since I posted the link only 15 minutes ago, but I'll check back in later.

 

[Front242]

If anyone actually watches the entire fifth set, please let me know. It's too soon to have finished it yet, since I posted the link only 15 minutes ago, but I'll check back in later.

I gave up and fast forwarded to "God it's killing me". It was pitiful viewing in that 5th set but didn't looked tired to me, just flat out bad. He's lost completely lopsided sets to nobodies at times too and not due to fatigue. He's often out of focus like an 80 year old camera.

 

[Federberg]

It wasn't a choke. He simply wasn't up for the fight. I wouldn't have minded so much, but why put in that 4th set, and give me hope in the first place. Duuuuude...

 

[DarthFed]

^ You'll be waiting a long fu**in time for me to watch that disgrace more than once in this lifetime.

 

[tented]

^ You'll be waiting a long fu**in time for me to watch that disgrace more than once in this lifetime.

Well, it's worth it to get a fresh feel for it. I know you have a good memory, but is it so good that you can recall an entire fifth set, played nearly 6 years ago? Isn't there a chance your impression of it would be different now?

 

[Front242]

Just to put some fun back in this thread I said I'd throw this in...

 

[Kieran]

:laydownlaughing :clap

Ah there's nothing like a Fedal scrap to bring things to life.

Just to get back on topic, when is Shanghai starting? :snigger

 

[brokenshoelace]

^ So you think Rafa definitely wins AO 2009 if he hadn't won Wimbledon 2008? I think that final both accelerated Rafa's rise and possibly even Fed's decline. But of course it is speculation and meaningless speculation at that. But I think that's the most important failure on Roger's part in the "rivalry" Not to mention he would've had 6 straight and gotten 7 straight if everything stayed the same.

Roger was really gassed in that fifth set at the AO. I really don't subscribe to the theory that he just mentally fell apart. Roger generally loses the big points against Nadal, yes. But that set had no big points to begin with. It was just Federer being awful, and he had the momentum on his side after winning the fourth. He was visibly tired, otherwise the fifth would have been at least closer, but with Roger failing in key moments, as opposed to him shanking shots left and right.

So while Nadal beating him so many times in a row, including the Wimbledon final certainly played a factor, I don't think that Roger winning Wimbledon in 2008 would have necessarily gave him the energy needed to compete in the fifth set against Rafa in their AO final. Though you could argue that he might have won the match before it even got to a fifth, but then we're REALLY speculating.

That fatigue excuse is always lame and didn't apply at all to AO 2009. It was something like 1-2 and 30-0 when Roger missed a routine forehand winner down the line ended up getting broken and then barely put another ball in play. The wheels came off likely because Wimbledon 08 and other losses were in his head. He had even more momentum going into the 5th set there, on grass, and he still didn't get anything done. And then there is also the part where his serve completely deserted him the entire match Probably nerves? Would they still be there if he had won in 2008?

Yeah, no you're right. The fatigue excuse is lame. But a then 13 time slam winner and a season veteran completely falling apart for the first (and only) time in his career to the point where virtually not a single shot was landing in, in the fifth set despite having the momentum no less, is far less lame and more logical. Yes, Roger couldn't control his nerves so much that he just couldn't find the court anymore. Sure, man.

Pay attention to Roger's poor footwork leading up to many backhand misses in that fifth set, and you'll know what I mean.

Uhh, the guy has lost tons of 5th sets and a few of them in lopsided fashion the past 5-6 years. Did he also suddenly get fatigued against Djokovic at the USO 2 straight years? It's pretty obvious that he simply doesn't handle the do or die moments well. There is one enormous stat to back that up, 3-8 in 5th sets in the semis and finals of majors. And add to that Rafa had beaten him 5 straight including the gut wrenching Wimbledon final and it is much easier to believe that he buckled mentally when it came time to win or lose.

Nothing better than a post starting with an ironic "uhhh" that ends up completely killing your own argument.

I am SO glad you brought up the Djokovic matches at the US Open. To back up my point below, I will call upon my buddy Kieran, who ironically replied with a "bingo" to your post:

Kieran, do you remember the whole debacle on tennis.com when Federer admitted that after he went down a break in the second and fourth sets of the 2010 US Open semi against Djokovic, he chose to conserve energy and wait for the following set because he knew that Nadal was fresh and waiting in the final? I am sure you do, because you made a huge deal about that yourself.

So let me get this straight Darth, Federer ADMITS that he didn't want to spend energy in order not to get too tired, and you're claiming it's not physical? And for those who are going to ask for a source, please google it, although this is common knowledge. And are you telling me that say, the 2006 version of Federer would have done the same? Would he not have fought in those sets and trusted himself to be able to keep it up physically? Doesn't the fact that he had to conserve energy say a lot?

But no, you're right Darth, Fed just didn't handle the pressure well when he was playing against Djokovic in 2010, despite having mopped the floor with him for 3 straight years at that VERY SAME TOURNAMENT in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

Now, I'm sure you'll bring up the missed match points, to which I'll say that A) it is indeed possible that Federer tightened up on those points and B) remind you that they were saved by some otherworldly play by Novak.

HOWEVER, the main difference between that match and a match like the 2009 AO final is EXACTLY what I initially stated: Had Federer lost a close fifth set to Nadal (like he did against Djokovic at the match in question) in which he blew some opportunities or lost key points, then I could have bought the fifth set mental meltdown thing. But he literally couldn't find the court with routine groundies, and lost the set 6-2, and it wasn't remotely competitive. And that is highly different to the set he lost against Novak in 2010 (and again, there was definitely an element of fatigue, as admitted to by Federer himself).

Now, this brings me to the 2011 US Open semi final. Uhhhhhhhh, hello? Remember Federer being up two sets to love then completely taking the 3rd and 4th sets off after going down a break because he couldn't stay up for it physically? Again, something that Federer admitted to? Not only that, but it was something obvious for the world to see as even the normally clueless commentators figured out what was going on. Or are you telling me that Federer couldn't handle the "pressure moment" of being up 2 sets to love?

This is not about whether Federer handles pressure moments well or not. That was never the point in question so don't try to divert from the initial point. The initial point was about two specific matches, and the effect one had on the other. The question was about the 2008 Wimbledon final, and how it affected Federer at the 2009 AO final, and his subsequent fifth set meltdown, which you attributed to nerves due to him having lost to Nadal so many times. Well, he hadn't lost to Djokovic so many times when they played in the 2010 US Open semi so bringing that up is A) irrelevant and B) detrimental to your argument for the reasons I mentioned above.

It's actually funny, you literally brought up the two matches that Federer lost mainly due to not being able to keep it up physically.

And with that, I'm out of this thread, resting my case.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not seeing your points at all here. Roger was conserving energy with the final in mind, as in if he battled 5 long grueling sets with Nole and survived he would have a lot of trouble recovering in time to play Nadal the next day. He wasn't conserving energy because he already felt fatigued in sets 2 and 4 of 2010 or sets 3 and 4 of 2011. Again he would have to be in terrible shape if that was the case. That had to do with having to potentially play the finals the next day and doing whatever it took to avoid a 5 hour semi even if it meant letting go of sets where he fell down an early break. And in 2011 we are talking about a 30 year old, almost 3 years older than the one that played the 2009 AO final.

How in the world is this not about Federer handling pressure, especially in the tight moments vs. Nadal? That is exactly the point. When faced with a deciding set in the 2009 final the fact that Nadal had beaten him so often including the gut wrenching loss in the 5th at Wimbledon was very likely playing on his mind. It is understandable if it did, these guys are only human. And in a similar trend do you think there is a chance in hell Roger wasn't thinking about the 2010 semi after he lost 2 match points to Djokovic in 2011? Any normal human being would be thinking "Here we go again" at that moment. Do you think that natural thought may have had to do with him completely collapsing after he lost the 2 match points? Or was he just suddenly fatigued after playing incredible tennis to get to 5-3 40-15?

And you're comparing a match with Rafa on slow-medium hards to two with Nole on fast hards. Roger obviously has less difficulties with Djokovic to this day, it is especially an easier matchup on fast courts compared to playing Nadal on a slow-medium paced hard court. There is only one thing in common for all 3 matches. Roger lost the match after badly (and I mean badly) losing the plot at some point in the 5th set. Against Nadal it happened early in the 5th, against Nole it happened late. If there is one thing to take away from that it might be that, maybe, just maybe Roger's ugly past with Rafa caused the mental collapse quickly in the 5th just 7 months after the Wimbledon 08 loss.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Had you ever seen Roger take sets off to conserve energy before? The fact that he did meant that he recognized that his physicality and stamina were on the decline. I'm sorry, but him being up 2 sets to love on Novak then taking two full sets off the moment he got broken early in set 3 says it all. You think a younger version of Federer wouldn't actually try to battle back into the set (and it was hardly against someone with an unbreakable serve) and finish the match in straight sets or four sets? You actually didn't think he was exhausted? It's funny how the narrative changes conveniently, because when that match took place, everyone and their mother, including Fed fans, acknowledged that Federer looked tired in set 4 especially, and were just hoping he had a late run in him in set 5, which he did.

Federer had won the US Open 5 times in a row by playing on two consecutive days, why did he suddenly have to conserve energy? Maybe cause he was no longer 24? Just a thought.

What you're failing to see is that I never said Federer's losses to Nadal didn't affect him in key moments. Of course they did. And failing to win sets 1 and 3 of their AO final is an indicator. What i'm saying is set 5 was clearly about him being exhausted, and NOT some inability to handle pressure, because he lost that set so resoundingly and was missing so many routine shots that it's lazy to just explain it by nerves. You really mean to tell me that a 13 time major champion and a world number 1 for like 150 consecutive years was sooo petrified that he just couldn't find the court? It's one thing to let the nerves get the better of you in key moments, such as earlier in that same match, or on that second match point against Djokovic after Novak hit that infamous return, but it's a whole other thing to look like an amateur in the fifth set, which Federer certainly did in Australia.

Federer was not "suddenly fatigued after being up 5-3" against Djokovic. He WAS fatigued. That's not the reason he lost those two points. That had more to do with his inability to be clutch at that moment, sure, as well as some sensational play by his opponent. But the problem is you're ignoring two full sets beforehand in which Federer looked just gassed. And after taking these sets off, he only had one run in him to make a go at the match, and to his credit he did, but fell short.

And I'm not comparing $hit. You're the one who brought up the Novak matches.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, do you remember the whole debacle on tennis.com when Federer admitted that after he went down a break in the second and fourth sets of the 2010 US Open semi against Djokovic, he chose to conserve energy and wait for the following set because he knew that Nadal was fresh and waiting in the final? I am sure you do, because you made a huge deal about that yourself.

I not only remember it, buddy - I caused it. And you know that’s not like me. :nono

The issue was that I suggested that Roger had one eye on the final and it affected his performance against Nole in the semi. I said that he was conserving himself somewhat. It was argued against me that I claimed that Roger tanked to avoid Rafa, but it was Roger himself a few months later who confirmed my view. I'm not sure what side you took in the row, but I remember being alone in my view for a long time - until Federer confirmed it. There are others here who remember that thread also.

In 2010, players could try this stuff with Novak. Not so, however, in 2011.

By the way, he wasn't conserving energy because he couldn't endure five against Novak - it was playing five two days straight, with Rafa waiting in the final, was what caused him to suddenly become conservative. Had it been anyone else waiting in the final, he'd have been less cautious. If he had known that as things turned out (Novak had the Sunday off), then conservation wouldn't have been an issue. :nono

I’m surprised you forget that as late in the day as 2013 Roger went to five long sets against Tsonga in the QF at Oz, and two days later played a five setter against Murray in the semi - and it was only at the end of the second - even longer - match he was gassed. In 2009, he played 2 five setters at Roland Garros, including one with DP. And don’t forget mono-gate, where he won in almost five hours against Tipsy - and showed zero ill-effects two days later against Berdy.

Stamina has very rarely been an issue with Roger, we see this with his longevity, his recovery times, his ability as a 33 year old to play 10 matches in 13 days across two countries. Maybe nowadays he finds five setters harder, but even still, his conditioning has always been extraordinary.

Apart from a scare against Berdy in the 4th round, he had a routine Oz in 2009, and then a long match in the final - after two days rest. There’s no way he wasn’t conditioned for a brawl against Rafa, knowing that he’d need to be. :nono

Had you ever seen Roger take sets off to conserve energy before?

Well, he's never admitted it before, which is different. But bear in mind, he never had Nadal waiting to play him next day in the USO final before, so the reason for conserving energy was obvious, as stated above.

What you're failing to see is that I never said Federer's losses to Nadal didn't affect him in key moments. Of course they did. And failing to win sets 1 and 3 of their AO final is an indicator. What i'm saying is set 5 was clearly about him being exhausted, and NOT some inability to handle pressure, because he lost that set so resoundingly and was missing so many routine shots that it's lazy to just explain it by nerves. You really mean to tell me that a 13 time major champion and a world number 1 for like 150 consecutive years was sooo petrified that he just couldn't find the court?

It could be equally said that "it's lazy to say he lost the fifth because he was tired." Very lazy. In fact, he wasn't tired at the end of the fourth, and he's suddenly gassed. And in fact it can happen even to great players who've won a ton of things that suddenly they snap. And he didn't only snap - he buckled...

 

[brokenshoelace]

The issue was that I suggested that Roger had one eye on the final and it affected his performance against Nole in the semi. I said that he was conserving himself somewhat. It was argued against me that I claimed that Roger tanked to avoid Rafa, but it was Roger himself a few months later who confirmed my view. I'm not sure what side you took in the row, but I remember being alone in my view for a long time - until Federer confirmed it. There are others here who remember that thread also.

I was on the side that didn't think it was about Roger being "worried" about Nadal and letting that affect his performance, but rather, that he knew he had to play a final the next day (regardless of the opponent. Roger subsequently mentioned Rafa by name because he happened to be the one waiting. Though I'm sure he would have been more at ease had it been Youzhny), and that he was no longer as physically durable as he once was, and had to conserve his energy accordingly. I'm not saying this to revisit that debate and am not really interested in having it again, but I'm just answering to the part where you didn't remember where I stood.

By the way, he wasn't conserving energy because he couldn't endure five against Novak - it was playing five two days straight, with Rafa waiting in the final, was what caused him to suddenly become conservative. Had it been anyone else waiting in the final, he'd have been less cautious. If he had known that as things turned out (Novak had the Sunday off), then conservation wouldn't have been an issue. :nono

In 2011, Federer and Novak played first, before Rafa and Murray. So Roger didn't know for sure he'd be playing Rafa (although I'm sure most, Fed included, figured Rafa would be winning against Murray). But, do you really think it makes sense that Federer is up two sets to love, gets broken early in the third and thinks: "Oh, I'm not really that tired but I better take two sets off and go to a fifth because Rafa will probably beat Murray and I'll have to play him." I think, at least in that match, Federer's mind was definitely in the moment, and focused on Novak (who was the man to beat back then). Had he felt he could physically exert the effort and win that match in three or four sets, he would have done it. But he clearly took those sets off the moment he got broken in each, and was actually looking pretty tired (something everyone picked up on back then, so this isn't some conjecture). So while that narrative might have applied to 2010, it certainly doesn't in 2011, where Rafa was A) NOT waiting in the final yet, and B) Roger looked visibly tired.

I’m surprised you forget that as late in the day as 2013 Roger went to five long sets against Tsonga in the QF at Oz, and two days later played a five setter against Murray in the semi - and it was only at the end of the second - even longer - match he was gassed. In 2009, he played 2 five setters at Roland Garros, including one with DP. And don’t forget mono-gate, where he won in almost five hours against Tipsy - and showed zero ill-effects two days later against Berdy.

My man, this is the sort of reasoning I call "lazy." It's lazy for a multitude of reasons, including falsely assuming a position of mine that I never really took. I never said Federer could no longer go five sets after 2009. I'm saying he declined physically. Saying "oh he didn't tire in that one match so how could he tire in another" is faulty logic. Again, why did both Nadal and Djokovic gas out in their FO final this year (as admitted to by both) when they'd had far longer, more grueling matches against one another and didn't look as drained? (the answer is because every match is different, and your body does not always react the same way. It might be in better shape at different moments of the year. Federer, for instance, had a well-documented back injury in late 2008/early 2009, so I'm sure that meant he wasn't quite his usual self physically). Furthermore, Roger went five sets with Tsonga? A) That match lasted 3 hours and 34 minutes, which while not exactly short, is not a marathon either for a five setter. B) Both players play quick first strike tennis so the nature of the rallies isn't nearly as grueling. He went five sets with Del Potro at the FO? Four of the five sets ended in a scoreline of 6-3 or less (3-6 6-7 6-2 6-0 6-3). His match with Novak at Wimbledon this year was on grass, which isn't quite as physically draining due to the shorter points, aces, etc...

We're talking about five sets with Rafael Nadal at the end of a tournament (a tournament in which Roger had already played a five setter against Berdych, where he had to battle back from being two sets to love down), filled with grueling intense rallies and a backhand being peppered to death. Yeah, Rafa himself was tired after the Verdasco match but your opponent being tired will not magically make you any less tired. It's not like they cancel each other out. Keep in mind, Rafa's margins are safer so he's able to be safe while tired, while picking his spots about when to be aggressive (which he did throughout the match expertly. I really think the fact that he was able to deal with his fatigue was what won him the match, because he looked a touch flat from the word go), whereas Roger's riskier, offensive game suffers immensely if your legs aren't responding (being a split second late means shanking a backhand/forehand).

Stamina has very rarely been an issue with Roger, we see this with his longevity, his recovery times, his ability as a 33 year old to play 10 matches in 13 days across two countries. Maybe nowadays he finds five setters harder, but even still, his conditioning has always been extraordinary.

Stamina has indeed rarely been an issue for Roger. Even now, he's fitter than most. That doesn't mean he wasn't tired in a handful of matches in the later stages of his career. And yeah, his condition has always been extraordinary. Being tired against Rafael Nadal of all people after a marathon is hardly a knock.

It could be equally said that "it's lazy to say he lost the fifth because he was tired." Very lazy. In fact, he wasn't tired at the end of the fourth, and he's suddenly gassed. And in fact it can happen even to great players who've won a ton of things that suddenly they snap. And he didn't only snap - he buckled...

OK, no. Saying he was tired is based on something visible such as his movement, footwork, serving, etc... When you're taking some racket head acceleration off or actually rushing shots, getting to the ball late, have uncharacteristically shaky footwork, miss routine rally ground strokes, put less snap on your serve, etc... These are visible issues. So while my theory could be mistaken (though I'm convinced it's not), it's certainly not "lazy."

And no, he wasn't "suddenly gassed" after the fourth. If you remember, it was Rafa who actually had the first break point opportunities in the fourth at 3-3, and they played a marathon game (I mean one of those LONG 10-12 minute games) in which Roger eventually held. Surely that took a lot out of him, and even more so considering he went on to put in even more effort to break Nadal and take the set. You mean to tell me that's not how fatigue works? You put in a herculean effort, you take the set, you relax a bit at the changeover, and it really kicks in. The effort you just exerted comes back to bite you. Keep in mind, Roger was first broken at 2-2 in the fifth. So that's four extra games. So no, he wasn't "suddenly" tired, but it happened gradually.

Also, if nerves were going to get the best of him, why didn't they when he was 2 sets to 1 down and facing break points in the fourth? It's kind of weird that he'd show great mental resolve to go on to hold, break, win the set, only to "suddenly" go: "oh my god, this is the fifth set! My nerves! Can't control em!"

 

[brokenshoelace]

If anyone actually watches the entire fifth set, please let me know. It's too soon to have finished it yet, since I posted the link only 15 minutes ago, but I'll check back in later.

I gave up and fast forwarded to "God it's killing me". It was pitiful viewing in that 5th set but didn't looked tired to me, just flat out bad. He's lost completely lopsided sets to nobodies at times too and not due to fatigue. He's often out of focus like an 80 year old camera.

In the deciding sets of majors? In the deciding set of a major final no less? So after playing pretty OK for 4 sets, Roger suddenly falls apart for no reason whatsoever? That makes sense to you?

 

[Kieran]

Oh brother. :cover

You're a little bit all over the place here, but let me cut to the chase, if I can.

Firstly, on the topic on tennis.com I don't remember anybody else suggesting that Roger was being economic with his energy - my exact phrase - and not too many rushed to defend me when I was accused of claiming he tanked. He was being economic, by the way, because it was Nadal in the final, not Youzhny. And we agree, if it was Youzhny, "he would have been more at ease had it been Youzhny."

To which I can only say, amen. In fact, if it was Youzhny, he'd most likely have dispatched Nole and Youzhny the next day (according to schedule) and "stamina" wouldn't have been an issue. Nor would it have been an issue if he knew he had a day off before potentially facing Nadal.

Second, for you to say this - 'Saying "oh he didn't tire in that one match so how could he tire in another" is faulty logic' - after it was you who brought another match (Delpo) into the debate to support your position, is a little odd, no? So you bring a match in and we should accept it as proof, but when we bring other matches in, and it's "faulty logic". :cover It's faulty logic, actually, to take the del Potro match as proof of anything to do with fatigue, since we have so often seen even great players lose a fifth swiftly after being gutted in a fourth set tiebreak.

But Roger had the momentum going into the fifth in Oz.

Now, you brought up the Berdych match - in the 4th round. This can be easily discounted as having no effect on him in the final. He had two days off before the final. It was Rafa who should be citing fatigue.

Saying he was tired is based on something visible such as his movement, footwork, serving, etc... When you're taking some racket head acceleration off or actually rushing shots, getting to the ball late, have uncharacteristically shaky footwork, miss routine rally ground strokes, put less snap on your serve, etc... These are visible issues. So while my theory could be mistaken (though I'm convinced it's not), it's certainly not "lazy."

Now, given that you're the one to bring the word "lazy" into honest analysis, you make it very easy for me to post this quote of yours and say - this is exactly why it's lazy to say he was tired. All the above are also symptoms of a guy cracking.

Yes?

Or no?

So how is it "lazy" to look at a physical issue and draw a mental conclusion? But you grasped the physical issue instead of what Cahill was discussing in the commentary: that Rafa is inside his head and Roger's issues were psychological.

Also, if nerves were going to get the best of him, why didn't they when he was 2 sets to 1 down and facing break points in the fourth? It's kind of weird that he'd show great mental resolve to go on to hold, break, win the set, only to "suddenly" go: "oh my god, this is the fifth set! My nerves! Can't control em!"

Because it was all or nothing in the fifth. Connors was 0-4 down to Borg in the fifth in the 1977 Wimbledon final, got back to 4-4, and choked. It happens sometimes that players fight harder when they're behind - but when it's all or nothing then, and the win is on the line, they crack.

And Roger didn't only crack, he yielded, deferred and finally buckled. And the extent of his distress was finally seen on the podium. Nadal was inside his head. I'm surprised your battling this self-evident conclusion... :nono

 

[DarthFed]

Had you ever seen Roger take sets off to conserve energy before? The fact that he did meant that he recognized that his physicality and stamina were on the decline. I'm sorry, but him being up 2 sets to love on Novak then taking two full sets off the moment he got broken early in set 3 says it all. You think a younger version of Federer wouldn't actually try to battle back into the set (and it was hardly against someone with an unbreakable serve) and finish the match in straight sets or four sets? You actually didn't think he was exhausted? It's funny how the narrative changes conveniently, because when that match took place, everyone and their mother, including Fed fans, acknowledged that Federer looked tired in set 4 especially, and were just hoping he had a late run in him in set 5, which he did.

Federer had won the US Open 5 times in a row by playing on two consecutive days, why did he suddenly have to conserve energy? Maybe cause he was no longer 24? Just a thought.

What you're failing to see is that I never said Federer's losses to Nadal didn't affect him in key moments. Of course they did. And failing to win sets 1 and 3 of their AO final is an indicator. What i'm saying is set 5 was clearly about him being exhausted, and NOT some inability to handle pressure, because he lost that set so resoundingly and was missing so many routine shots that it's lazy to just explain it by nerves. You really mean to tell me that a 13 time major champion and a world number 1 for like 150 consecutive years was sooo petrified that he just couldn't find the court? It's one thing to let the nerves get the better of you in key moments, such as earlier in that same match, or on that second match point against Djokovic after Novak hit that infamous return, but it's a whole other thing to look like an amateur in the fifth set, which Federer certainly did in Australia.

Federer was not "suddenly fatigued after being up 5-3" against Djokovic. He WAS fatigued. That's not the reason he lost those two points. That had more to do with his inability to be clutch at that moment, sure, as well as some sensational play by his opponent. But the problem is you're ignoring two full sets beforehand in which Federer looked just gassed. And after taking these sets off, he only had one run in him to make a go at the match, and to his credit he did, but fell short.

And I'm not comparing $hit. You're the one who brought up the Novak matches.

The issue isn't necessarily whether Roger is physically worse at age 27-29 than he was at age 25. He is, but how does that actually prove the 2009 5th set was all down to fatigue? In 2010 and 2011 it wasn't just the fact he was worse physically. Roger knew he could try to battle back in those sets and might fall short which could turn the match into a 5 hour brawl a day before the final. This would affect him in the FINAL and basically give him no chance. In Roger's 5 USO wins he pretty much never got down breaks in the semi, never thought he'd face a long match (and he didn't) and never had a fresh as a daisy Rafa waiting for him in the final. It affected his thinking. The old argument on the board was mostly HuntingYou claiming Roger was basically scared to win, that in his mind he was thinking about Nadal at the key moments and then choked the match away. Whereas Kieran and others correctly realized what was going on: Roger was trying to avoid the 5 hour brawl a day before the final. Would Roger have done that at age 25? Probably not but he would've carved up Novak or whoever else he was facing in the semis making it a moot point. And sorry, if it was about fatigue after the 2nd set of USO 2011 we are talking about someone in horrid shape considering Roger easily won that 2nd set. That wasn't much different to 2010, and of course Roger figured Rafa would win that semi. In 2011 against a much stronger Djokovic it is also likely that Roger was less confident about being able to turn around a set. If he had fought hard those sets and come up short then he probably would be tired come the 5th set (as a 30 year old).

The problem with your reasoning is that you think these guys are like robots. I'm pretty sure they do think about things on the court, especially when we are talking about rivals who have played tons of big matches. You really think 7 months after Wimbledon 08, and with 5 straight losses total that Roger wouldn't be thinking about it during crunch time of yet another huge match. You also act like we've never seen Roger nervous (check out the entire 2012 Olympics semi for an example). It wasn't about what Roger had won to that point that made him nervous, it was about what he was trying to accomplish and mostly who he was up against. It's not much different to Rafa in the 2012 final with Nole after he missed perhaps the easiest shot of his life at 4-2. He'd have to be inhuman not to have thought about the pain in 2011 at that moment and it affected him. In that 09 final all looked normal in the 5th set until Roger suddenly missed a couple easy balls and then he was basically trash from there on out. Fatigue IS the lazy excuse for it.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Oh brother. :cover

You're a little bit all over the place here, but let me cut to the chase, if I can.

Firstly, on the topic on tennis.com I don't remember anybody else suggesting that Roger was being economic with his energy - my exact phrase - and not too many rushed to defend me when I was accused of claiming he tanked. He was being economic, by the way, because it was Nadal in the final, not Youzhny. And we agree, if it was Youzhny, "he would have been more at ease had it been Youzhny."

To which I can only say, amen. In fact, if it was Youzhny, he'd most likely have dispatched Nole and Youzhny the next day (according to schedule) and "stamina" wouldn't have been an issue. Nor would it have been an issue if he knew he had a day off before potentially facing Nadal.

Second, for you to say this - 'Saying "oh he didn't tire in that one match so how could he tire in another" is faulty logic' - after it was you who brought another match (Delpo) into the debate to support your position, is a little odd, no? So you bring a match in and we should accept it as proof, but when we bring other matches in, and it's "faulty logic". :cover It's faulty logic, actually, to take the del Potro match as proof of anything to do with fatigue, since we have so often seen even great players lose a fifth swiftly after being gutted in a fourth set tiebreak.

But Roger had the momentum going into the fifth in Oz.

Now, you brought up the Berdych match - in the 4th round. This can be easily discounted as having no effect on him in the final. He had two days off before the final. It was Rafa who should be citing fatigue.

Kieran my man, I brought up the Del Potro match because there was literal similarities: Federer falling apart in the fifth set and losing by the exact same scoreline. It also happened in the same year, which is telling. The main similarity for me, in both matches, is Federer looking drained and lacking energy in the fifth, which is why I brought it up (and I doubt Roger was terrified of Del Potro).

You bringing up matches that had different outcomes from different years in which the fifth set unfolded much differently is a totally separate issue. So no, I'm not all over the place. No need to face palm. Just stick to "you're missing the point."

As far as whether he'd have dispatched Nole if it had been Youzhny instead of Nadal waiting, that's where I disagree. There's no way to tell. Roger chose to conserve energy after being down a break in each set that he lost (before the fifth, of course). Had it been Youzhny waiting, he might have chosen to fight during those sets, but who's to say he actually would have broken back? Where you and I differ is you're essentially saying: Had Nadal not been waiting in the final, Roger would have beaten Novak. I don't think there's any way to say that for sure, and yeah, you're on your own in this one.

As far as Rafa being the one who should cite fatigue, he actually did, and he had every right to. Luckily I already touched on that and mentioned that one player being fatigued doesn't cancel out the other suffering from the same thing.

Now, given that you're the one to bring the word "lazy" into honest analysis, you make it very easy for me to post this quote of yours and say - this is exactly why it's lazy to say he was tired. All the above are also symptoms of a guy cracking.

Yes?

Or no?

So how is it "lazy" to look at a physical issue and draw a mental conclusion? But you grasped the physical issue instead of what Cahill was discussing in the commentary: that Rafa is inside his head and Roger's issues were psychological.

No. 100% no. You can't possibly explain a full set of poor footwork, unforced errors, weak serving, rushing shots, etc... with nerves. Had it been on a few key points here and there, then absolutely. But you're telling me the guy was so nervous for a full set that he couldn't calm himself down even for a bit in order not to play like a challenger level player? Yeah, OK there buddy. You're right, I'm lazy. A guy as experienced as Federer was so petrified he couldn't calm his nerves down for a single game throughout a whole set.

And Roger didn't only crack, he yielded, deferred and finally buckled. And the extent of his distress was finally seen on the podium. Nadal was inside his head. I'm surprised your battling this self-evident conclusion... :nono

Nobody denies Nadal was/is inside his head. What a revolutionary idea. Of course he was. What's lazy though, is using that as an explanation for pretty much everything. I clearly conceded that Federer not winning sets 1 and 3 (especially the latter) was clearly a result of his previous losses to Nadal and his mental struggles against that particular opponent. But to blame an entire set of garbage tennis on that is rich.

 

[Federberg]

I'm largely with you on this BS. In so far as I don't think he choked it. Only someone who hasn't played sport to any decent level comes up with the fantasy that someone like Roger is looking ahead to the next round DURING a tough match. That's armchair sports psychology of the lowest order For my part I think it was a mix of things, in part stamina issues were probably a factor, but I also think that sometimes you just get flat. I suspect over the years Roger has had a certain amount of entitlement, and he just gets to a point, where he can't fight the darkness in his mentality. I would prefer to think of it as bailing out, it's definitely not choking. Had he been facing a lesser player, as we've seen many times, the killer comes out and he does what he has to do. As for the AO 09, I felt that there was a certain petulance. He just couldn't understand why there was a 5th set. Odd given that he had to win the 4th! Appalling really..

 

[britbox]

I'm with Broken on this school of thought. I've always thought (to use an analogy) that Federer is a better middle distance runner than a long distance runner and always suggested he looked gassed in the fifth at the AO in the Nadal match.

I'm not sure why this is deemed some "knock" on the result. Nadal takes him to places he doesn't want to go. That should be a compliment rather than a knock.

I've never bought the idea that Federer was a choker, although as many players attest - it can get harder the older you get as you play - there is a little more fear because the window for success is always decreasing.

We also know the history with Nadal (probably the only player in his head). That in itself, doesn't explain Federer's "average" fifth set record - it points more to his natural physical engine.

If Federer was such a choker when the going gets tight, then explain how he won the fourth set, or the third and fourth at Wimbledon 08 - his back was also to the wall then.

Neither does it lend itself to his excellent record in tie breaks or his record in third set deciders, which I'd hazard a guess is a lot better than his fifth set deciders.

Now, I do think he can get a little tight on occasion these days but not in comparison to the vast majority of players outside Nadal and Djokovic. Who doesn't get tight on occassion?

Also, it's not as if the opponent isn't likely to be playing at a pretty good level themselves if they've got Federer to a fifth set decider unless you believe the fallacy that everything is always on Federer's racquet.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Had you ever seen Roger take sets off to conserve energy before? The fact that he did meant that he recognized that his physicality and stamina were on the decline. I'm sorry, but him being up 2 sets to love on Novak then taking two full sets off the moment he got broken early in set 3 says it all. You think a younger version of Federer wouldn't actually try to battle back into the set (and it was hardly against someone with an unbreakable serve) and finish the match in straight sets or four sets? You actually didn't think he was exhausted? It's funny how the narrative changes conveniently, because when that match took place, everyone and their mother, including Fed fans, acknowledged that Federer looked tired in set 4 especially, and were just hoping he had a late run in him in set 5, which he did.

Federer had won the US Open 5 times in a row by playing on two consecutive days, why did he suddenly have to conserve energy? Maybe cause he was no longer 24? Just a thought.

What you're failing to see is that I never said Federer's losses to Nadal didn't affect him in key moments. Of course they did. And failing to win sets 1 and 3 of their AO final is an indicator. What i'm saying is set 5 was clearly about him being exhausted, and NOT some inability to handle pressure, because he lost that set so resoundingly and was missing so many routine shots that it's lazy to just explain it by nerves. You really mean to tell me that a 13 time major champion and a world number 1 for like 150 consecutive years was sooo petrified that he just couldn't find the court? It's one thing to let the nerves get the better of you in key moments, such as earlier in that same match, or on that second match point against Djokovic after Novak hit that infamous return, but it's a whole other thing to look like an amateur in the fifth set, which Federer certainly did in Australia.

Federer was not "suddenly fatigued after being up 5-3" against Djokovic. He WAS fatigued. That's not the reason he lost those two points. That had more to do with his inability to be clutch at that moment, sure, as well as some sensational play by his opponent. But the problem is you're ignoring two full sets beforehand in which Federer looked just gassed. And after taking these sets off, he only had one run in him to make a go at the match, and to his credit he did, but fell short.

And I'm not comparing $hit. You're the one who brought up the Novak matches.

The issue isn't necessarily whether Roger is physically worse at age 27-29 than he was at age 25. He is, but how does that actually prove the 2009 5th set was all down to fatigue? In 2010 and 2011 it wasn't just the fact he was worse physically. Roger knew he could try to battle back in those sets and might fall short which could turn the match into a 5 hour brawl a day before the final. This would affect him in the FINAL and basically give him no chance. In Roger's 5 USO wins he pretty much never got down breaks in the semi, never thought he'd face a long match (and he didn't) and never had a fresh as a daisy Rafa waiting for him in the final. It affected his thinking. The old argument on the board was mostly HuntingYou claiming Roger was basically scared to win, that in his mind he was thinking about Nadal at the key moments and then choked the match away. Whereas Kieran and others correctly realized what was going on: Roger was trying to avoid the 5 hour brawl a day before the final. Would Roger have done that at age 25? Probably not but he would've carved up Novak or whoever else he was facing in the semis making it a moot point. And sorry, if it was about fatigue after the 2nd set of USO 2011 we are talking about someone in horrid shape considering Roger easily won that 2nd set. That wasn't much different to 2010, and of course Roger figured Rafa would win that semi. In 2011 against a much stronger Djokovic it is also likely that Roger was less confident about being able to turn around a set. If he had fought hard those sets and come up short then he probably would be tired come the 5th set (as a 30 year old).

The problem with your reasoning is that you think these guys are like robots. I'm pretty sure they do think about things on the court, especially when we are talking about rivals who have played tons of big matches. You really think 7 months after Wimbledon 08, and with 5 straight losses total that Roger wouldn't be thinking about it during crunch time of yet another huge match. You also act like we've never seen Roger nervous (check out the entire 2012 Olympics semi for an example). It wasn't about what Roger had won to that point that made him nervous, it was about what he was trying to accomplish and mostly who he was up against. It's not much different to Rafa in the 2012 final with Nole after he missed perhaps the easiest shot of his life at 4-2. He'd have to be inhuman not to have thought about the pain in 2011 at that moment and it affected him. In that 09 final all looked normal in the 5th set until Roger suddenly missed a couple easy balls and then he was basically trash from there on out. Fatigue IS the lazy excuse for it.

I'm not ignoring this but my response would be pretty similar to what I told Kieran so there's no point in repeating.

I will say though, that it's weird ho we were all pretty much in agreement that Federer was tired against Djokovic in 2011 and took two sets off after being a break down in each, but this suddenly changed three years later to suit a separate narrative.

 

[Kieran]

Only someone who hasn't played sport to any decent level comes up with the fantasy that someone like Roger is looking ahead to the next round DURING a tough match. That's armchair sports psychology of the lowest order

Actually, Federer himself admitted that he was looking ahead to the final and conserving energy against Novak... :cover