Shanghai Masters ATP 1000

[the AntiPusher]

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.

All due respect.. I have to admit I havent read all these posts(very brilliant and my man Darth is true to his heart, as "stubborn as a church girl when its time to put out"... That being said.. Most Federer fans believe that its always on Roger's racquest but history has shown that has Never been the case when he is facing Nadal. IMO

So there havent been evidence of decline or fatiqued during the heyday of the FEDAL matches but just as we all have stated just a very bad match up for Roger which has led to Rafa getting inside Roger's head.

 

[Federberg]

^Yup. Rafa is Roger's brain tumour for sure! To be honest these days I don't see a large number of matches as being on Roger's racquet anymore. That's one of the symptoms of his decline. That forehand isn't the point ender it used to be, at least it's starting to look stable. It's greatly to his credit that he's been able to reinvent his game so he can find new ways to win

 

[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.

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.

I wasn't in agreement that he was tired those sets, I figured it was mostly similar to how he approached 2010.

 

[DarthFed]

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..

It's not that he was looking past Novak as in he thought the match was over. But Roger later admitted that he was conserving energy with the thought that if he was to reach the final he would need to avoid the extremely long semifinal against Novak. So yes, in a way it was looking ahead to playing Nadal but it wasn't about underestimating Nole.

The 2009 AO wasn't a choke. To choke a match you have to be in a strong position to win it. 2011 USO was a choke, specifically the 2nd match point and how he played after. 2009 AO doesn't fit that bill. Roger doesn't really choke matches normally but I do think he gets tight in the 5th sets against the best competition and guys like Rafa and Novak simply hold up a lot better.

 

[Kieran]

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.

Now, you're getting two face palms for this, brother. :laydownlaughing

One for not understanding that when it goes bad for a player, it can all go bad, especially when they're under extreme pressure. Especially.

And secondly for not doing your research. You should watch the set again - I did. To say he didn't calm down for a single game is to ignore the game he won to love, and his first service game of the set. Other than that, it was two players who were tired but one of them rose to the challenge mentally and the other didn't.

I recommend you watch it again, as Tented suggested - you might find that we're still here in another 20 pages. :snigger

Oh, and here are your face palms. :cover :cover Seriously, bro.

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."

Thank you! We can agree here: (cough) "You're missing the point."

There is scant similarity between them. You picked those two because he lost, and so because the fifth set score was similar, a superficial reading gives the same story. And yet when examples were presented of where he didn't lose, or he displayed exceptional stamina, you ignore it.

Fact is, in those two matches, the similarities are flimsy. In one, for example, he was a couple of points from victory, lost the tiebreak in the 4th and didn't regroup in time in the fifth.

But in the other, he had all the momentum going into the fifth - and he suddenly fell asleep. This is pre-twins, buddy, he wasn't that tired.

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.

If only this was what I said. :nono

He played the whole match mindful of the schedule that would have him face Rafa on the Sunday. It wasn't just an impromptu decision made in the second and fourth sets. I believe that had he been scheduled to face Youzhny, his approach to the Novak semi would have been different from the start and throughout, and the result would most likely have gone his way. And I said he "most likely have dispatched Novak." Nobody is a fortune teller, and so none of us can make a definitive claim on this, but my point was substantially different. In fairness to you, it's a long time since that thread.

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.

So he loses 2 sets because Rafa is inside his head - but he's fine in the fifth, could maybe do with a little nap? :laydownlaughing Buddy, Roger is a superfit athlete. If he couldn't endure to the death in a final against his historic rival, having slept for two days, and played very simple matches in the QF and SF, then he's not an elite athlete. But believe me, he is. It wasn't fatigue that cost him that match...

 

[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..

It's not that he was looking past Novak as in he thought the match was over. But Roger later admitted that he was conserving energy with the thought that if he was to reach the final he would need to avoid the extremely long semifinal against Novak. So yes, in a way it was looking ahead to playing Nadal but it wasn't about underestimating Nole.

The 2009 AO wasn't a choke. To choke a match you have to be in a strong position to win it. 2011 USO was a choke, specifically the 2nd match point and how he played after. 2009 AO doesn't fit that bill. Roger doesn't really choke matches normally but I do think he gets tight in the 5th sets against the best competition and guys like Rafa and Novak simply hold up a lot better.

Oh absolutely agree. It's one thing to say he's trying to conserve energy for the final, it's another thing to say meeting Rafa in a final is a factor in his performance. I repeat that idea is the rankest armchair psychology :lolz:

I agree that second match point was a choke. But you choke one point, not a match. It wasn't like he couldn't have won it after that.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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..

It's not that he was looking past Novak as in he thought the match was over. But Roger later admitted that he was conserving energy with the thought that if he was to reach the final he would need to avoid the extremely long semifinal against Novak. So yes, in a way it was looking ahead to playing Nadal but it wasn't about underestimating Nole.

The 2009 AO wasn't a choke. To choke a match you have to be in a strong position to win it. 2011 USO was a choke, specifically the 2nd match point and how he played after. 2009 AO doesn't fit that bill. Roger doesn't really choke matches normally but I do think he gets tight in the 5th sets against the best competition and guys like Rafa and Novak simply hold up a lot better.

Darth.. I would agree with this post.. Let's just give Novak credit.. he went for it on those two mps.. Roger later stated.. " Noone would expect for anyone to "go for it" on match point..(Roger didnt say it just like that but his words were similar if I recall

 

[DarthFed]

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..

It's not that he was looking past Novak as in he thought the match was over. But Roger later admitted that he was conserving energy with the thought that if he was to reach the final he would need to avoid the extremely long semifinal against Novak. So yes, in a way it was looking ahead to playing Nadal but it wasn't about underestimating Nole.

The 2009 AO wasn't a choke. To choke a match you have to be in a strong position to win it. 2011 USO was a choke, specifically the 2nd match point and how he played after. 2009 AO doesn't fit that bill. Roger doesn't really choke matches normally but I do think he gets tight in the 5th sets against the best competition and guys like Rafa and Novak simply hold up a lot better.

Oh absolutely agree. It's one thing to say he's trying to conserve energy for the final, it's another thing to say meeting Rafa in a final is a factor in his performance. I repeat that idea is the rankest armchair psychology :lolz:

I agree that second match point was a choke. But you choke one point, not a match. It wasn't like he couldn't have won it after that.

Well I'd say he continuously gagged (for those who hate the c word) after that 2nd match point. It was deuce on his serve after all, still clearly in a position where he "should" win but he double faulted BP down and barely could put the ball in play the last 3 games of the match.

 

[Federberg]

Yes he did check out, after that. It wasn't great to see. After he lost that game we all knew it was over I'm just having calling the whole thing a choke

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Good post as always Baron. The only thing I will say is that the pressure of a 5th set is different than the pressure of staying alive in the 3rd or 4th set. Roger has shown some legendary fight to gut out some sets to stay alive (Wimbledon 2008 and 2014, AO 2013 immediately spring to mind). But that is a different pressure to the 5th where it is simply win or lose. Roger has clearly struggled in the latter against elite competition (and that is a fact) and I don't think you can blame it all or even much of it on fatigue.

 

[Kieran]

Oh absolutely agree. It's one thing to say he's trying to conserve energy for the final, it's another thing to say meeting Rafa in a final is a factor in his performance. I repeat that idea is the rankest armchair psychology :lolz:

Again, it's Federer who said he was thinking of the match against Rafa, so maybe he is some armchair psychologist... :cover

"I was playing good enough to win," Federer said. "But I was a bit confused mentally, maybe, because we played the second session. ... Maybe I just felt like I have to get out of this match as quick as I could to save energy to play Rafa the next day. I think it ended up hurting me losing the match at the end."

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now, you're getting two face palms for this, brother. :laydownlaughing

One for not understanding that when it goes bad for a player, it can all go bad, especially when they're under extreme pressure. Especially.

And secondly for not doing your research. You should watch the set again - I did. To say he didn't calm down for a single game is to ignore the game he won to love, and his first service game of the set. Other than that, it was two players who were tired but one of them rose to the challenge mentally and the other didn't.

I recommend you watch it again, as Tented suggested - you might find that we're still here in another 20 pages. :snigger

Oh, and here are your face palms. :cover :cover Seriously, bro.

Oh my god. Dude, you're more intelligent than this. Remember, my whole point is that he was tired, and it wasn't an issue with nerves! Your point had to do with nerves, and to that I answered, if it was indeed about nerves, then how could he not calm his nerves down for an entire set (which you're smart enough not to take literally).

Keep in mind "he couldn't calm down for a single game" is not an argument I'm actually advancing, it's an implication of the "he couldn't calm his nerves" thing which was an argument ADVANCED BY YOU! Obviously when I said he couldn't calm down for a single game I meant it sarcastically.

My god, double face palms only to lose yourself in your own arguments? Tsk tsk tsk, I expect this from Cali, not you.

Thank you! We can agree here: (cough) "You're missing the point."

There is scant similarity between them. You picked those two because he lost, and so because the fifth set score was similar, a superficial reading gives the same story. And yet when examples were presented of where he didn't lose, or he displayed exceptional stamina, you ignore it.

Fact is, in those two matches, the similarities are flimsy. In one, for example, he was a couple of points from victory, lost the tiebreak in the 4th and didn't regroup in time in the fifth.

But in the other, he had all the momentum going into the fifth - and he suddenly fell asleep. This is pre-twins, buddy, he wasn't that tired.

Yeah "suddenly fell asleep." Yup. That's the explanation. He was so nervous despite having all the momentum. I applaud him for getting his nerves together for winning that one love game on serve you brought up...

If only this was what I said. :nono

Oh, then let's revisit what you said, shall we?

"In fact, if it was Youzhny, he'd most likely have dispatched Nole"

But yeah you're right, that's not what you said at all. If it was Youzhny, he probably would have beaten Nole. How does that not translate to "(probably) because it was Nadal, he lost to Nole"? Can't wait for the arbitrary explanation.

So he loses 2 sets because Rafa is inside his head - but he's fine in the fifth, could maybe do with a little nap? :laydownlaughing Buddy, Roger is a superfit athlete. If he couldn't endure to the death in a final against his historic rival, having slept for two days, and played very simple matches in the QF and SF, then he's not an elite athlete. But believe me, he is. It wasn't fatigue that cost him that match...

"Believe me" is not an acceptable line of argumentation, though I usually do believe you. Not now. No. Fatigue alone didn't cost him the match. It was a mixture of so many things, including his opponent's play, Roger's own shaky serving throughout, his history with Nadal which led to Roger directly blowing opportunities in the first and third set, and fatigue in the fifth which clearly hindered his footwork, movement, etc...

 

[Kieran]

Oh my god. Dude, you're more intelligent than this. Remember, my whole point is that he was tired, and it wasn't an issue with nerves! Your point had to do with nerves, and to that I answered, if it was indeed about nerves, then how could he not calm his nerves down for an entire set (which you're smart enough not to take literally).

Keep in mind "he couldn't calm down for a single game" is not an argument I'm actually advancing, it's an implication of the "he couldn't calm his nerves" thing which was an argument ADVANCED BY YOU! Obviously when I said he couldn't calm down for a single game I meant it sarcastically.

My god, double face palms only to lose yourself in your own arguments? Tsk tsk tsk, I expect this from Cali, not you.

Well now, you just look a tad confused here, bro, and we'll leave aside you're resorting to your own equivalent of "you're missing the point" . So are you disagreeing with this:

No. 100% no. You can't possibly explain a full set of poor footwork, unforced errors, weak serving, rushing shots, etc... with nerves.

Because, actually, you can explain all those thing by nerves, and even for a whole set. And as I showed, he didn't play a whole bad set - he just crumbled where he needed to be firm. Which was my point all along. He buckled in the fifth. He didn't lose that match through fatigue. He ain't that big a wuss.

Oh, then let's revisit what you said, shall we?

"In fact, if it was Youzhny, he'd most likely have dispatched Nole"

But yeah you're right, that's not what you said at all. If it was Youzhny, he probably would have beaten Nole. How does that not translate to "(probably) because it was Nadal, he lost to Nole"? Can't wait for the arbitrary explanation.

Actually, no need for arbitrary, I'll just show you your words, which prompted me to say, "if only that's what I said":

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.

In fact, I didn't say he would have beaten Novak, I said he'd "most likely" beat him. In fact, I even emphasised that I wasn't saying he "would have "beaten Novak.

Now, my English is less arbitrary than your reading of it, maybe, but also, the issue wasn't that he "chose to conserve energy after being down a break in each set that he lost", but that the scheduling and the prospect of a final with Nadal was always at the back of his mind. This is the old argument from tennis.com, and it's a view that Federer himself supported afterwards.

He approached the match differently because he had the final the next day - and more so because it was Nadal, and not Youzhny. Which is what I said here. And as you said yourself, "he would have been more at ease had it been Youzhny."

Now this is the extent of what I said - and the extent of what I said on tennis.com. And it doesn't anywhere translate into me saying that "because it was Nadal, he lost to Nole". I'm saying the same thing Roger himself said later. And I'm saying the same thing you said when you said he'd be more at ease if it was Youzhny.

Two face palms for the gent sitting in the corner! :cover :cover

It was a mixture of so many things, including his opponent's play, Roger's own shaky serving throughout, his history with Nadal which led to Roger directly blowing opportunities in the first and third set, and fatigue in the fifth which clearly hindered his footwork, movement, etc...

Now, can you accept that perhaps - just perhaps - it could have been that Roger's "history with Nadal" that cost him the first and third hadn't actually gone away in the fifth - and cost him even more dearly there, once it was do or die?

Think about it. You think these issues resolved themselves somewhere, before then? Seriously? You're more intelligent than this, brother...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well now, you just look a tad confused here, bro, and we'll leave aside you're resorting to your own equivalent of "you're missing the point" .

Uh, no, not really. You know what my argument is: That Federer lost the last set because he was tired, not nerves. So how on earth could I NOT have been sarcastic when I say "he couldn't even control his nerves for a single game of an entire set"? How am I confused? You failed to spot obvious sarcasm, that's on you buddy.

Because, actually, you can explain all those thing by nerves, and even for a whole set. And as I showed, he didn't play a whole bad set - he just crumbled where he needed to be firm. Which was my point all along. He buckled in the fifth. He didn't lose that match through fatigue. He ain't that big a wuss.

I'm sorry, give me a moment while I laugh.

Ok, I'm back. No you're right, he didn't play a whole bad set. He played a decent game that one time he held to love. Bravo. Shame about the rest of the set.

Actually, no need for arbitrary, I'll just show you your words, which prompted me to say, "if only that's what I said":

In fact, I didn't say he would have beaten Novak, I said he'd "most likely" beat him. In fact, I even emphasised that I wasn't saying he "would have "beaten Novak.

OK, so this also reads into "had Nadal not been in the final, Roger would have probably beaten Djokovic," which also translates into "Most likely (synonym of probably), because Nadal was in the final, Roger didn't beat Djokovic." It's not QUITE what he said, despite your insistence that you and Roger said the same thing.

Now, can you accept that perhaps - just perhaps - it could have been that Roger's "history with Nadal" that cost him the first and third hadn't actually gone away in the fifth - and cost him even more dearly there, once it was do or die?

Think about it. You think these issues resolved themselves somewhere, before then? Seriously? You're more intelligent than this, brother...

Except "Roger's history with Nadal that cost him the first and third" reared its ugly head in key moments, on certain points. It didn't force Roger to forget how to hold a tennis racket, which is what happened in the fifth. That's the one huge difference. You can't equate the first and third set to the fifth. No, the history with Nadal didn't go away in the fifth, and I never said as much. Perhaps YOUR reading needs to be less arbitrary brother, so I'll quote myself:

"Fatigue alone didn't cost him the match. It was a mixture of so many things, including his opponent's play, Roger's own shaky serving throughout, his history with Nadal which led to Roger directly blowing opportunities in the first and third set, and fatigue in the fifth which clearly hindered his footwork, movement, etc..."

You see, I clearly acknowledged the history with Nadal, but believe that fatigue was an obvious factor in the tail end of the match.

 

[Federberg]

"OK, so this also reads into "had Nadal not been in the final, Roger would have probably beaten Djokovic," which also translates into "Most likely (synonym of probably), because Nadal was in the final, Roger didn't beat Djokovic." It's not QUITE what he said, despite your insistence that you and Roger said the same thing. "

thank you! Totally agree 150%

 

[DarthFed]

^ I don't at all agree with the idea that Roger would've beaten Nole if it wasn't Rafa in the final, what I do think is that he wouldn't have tanked the sets with the idea to avoid a 5 hour marathon which would give him no chance the following day. But Roger didn't fall behind early breaks by design in the 2nd and 4th sets and even if he battled hard to try to get the break back it might not have worked.

 

[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.

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?

It sure does and I gave the perfect example there with a mere 4th set (not 5th this time) against Nadal at RG 2011 where again much like the AO '09 5th set he could then barely hit a barn door, losing the set 6-1 that time instead of 6-2 like in the AO. He didn't look tired there in that 4th set either, just his game went to pieces. It does against nobodies too out of nowhere, that's my point. nothing to do with fatigue. Not that Ferrer is a nobody but still, there's no way Federer should lose a set 6-1 to him as he did in Cincinnati earlier this year so there's a perfect example of his game going to absolute tatters out of nowhere and nothing to do with fatigue as he won the deciding 3rd set 6-2. He was hardly so tired that he lost set 2 by 6-1, he merely played like crap. Same at the AO '09 in that 5th set and same in the 4th set of the final of RG '11.

 

[Federberg]

^ I think it's more of a mental stamina issue than a physical one. Being forced to play out of your comfort zone is extremely tiring. It will be interesting to see how thing go with this new serve and volley tactic. Whatever happens it will be much quicker! Assuming he sticks with the plan. I wouldn't mind seeing a loss where he totally commits in that way. If that happens then my belief that he can challenge anyone.. including Rafa, will be that much stronger.

 

[Federberg]

^ I don't at all agree with the idea that Roger would've beaten Nole if it wasn't Rafa in the final, what I do think is that he wouldn't have tanked the sets with the idea to avoid a 5 hour marathon which would give him no chance the following day. But Roger didn't fall behind early breaks by design in the 2nd and 4th sets and even if he battled hard to try to get the break back it might not have worked.

I can certainly subscribe to the view that once he got broken in those sets, he didn't maximise his effort to get back in. If that was the case it was a terrible strategy. He just made Novak believe that much more. But it had nothing to with being afraid to play Rafa. It's one thing to want to conserve energy to face Rafa, and quite another to say he choked because he was scared to face Rafa. That's just vapid thinking in my opinion:blush:

 

[Front242]

^ I don't at all agree with the idea that Roger would've beaten Nole if it wasn't Rafa in the final, what I do think is that he wouldn't have tanked the sets with the idea to avoid a 5 hour marathon which would give him no chance the following day. But Roger didn't fall behind early breaks by design in the 2nd and 4th sets and even if he battled hard to try to get the break back it might not have worked.

I can certainly subscribe to the view that once he got broken in those sets, he didn't maximise his effort to get back in. If that was the case it was a terrible strategy. He just made Novak believe that much more. But it had nothing to with being afraid to play Rafa. It's one thing to want to conserve energy to face Rafa, and quite another to say he choked because he was scared to face Rafa. That's just vapid thinking in my opinion:blush:

Yeah, he's not scared of getting to a final obviously. He just wants to be as fresh as possible as anyone sane would.