tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 03 Jan 2009 21:33:53
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Exo's are not always meaningless.
Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=meaningless. He owned the H2H,
nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.

Federer losing to Murray at an exo=significant. Federer really needed a win
here. Federer's 2 wins over Murray came when Murray was fighting
inexperience and nervousness. First time at the final of Bangkok (Murray's
first tour final when he was 18) and most recently at USO final having
beaten Nadal for the first time and making his first slam final.





 
Date: 04 Jan 2009 15:07:01
From: john
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.

"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5RQ7l.14733$Sp5.9076@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=meaningless. He owned the H2H,
> nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.
>
> Federer losing to Murray at an exo=significant. Federer really needed a
> win here. Federer's 2 wins over Murray came when Murray was fighting
> inexperience and nervousness. First time at the final of Bangkok (Murray's
> first tour final when he was 18) and most recently at USO final having
> beaten Nadal for the first time and making his first slam final.

OK, Exo are not always meaningless. I got two questions for you on Exo.
How
many meaningful Exo did Sampras win during his career ? Name one or two of
those meaningful Exos




 
Date: 03 Jan 2009 21:19:41
From: ew
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.
After the last ball was struck at the Exo, Federer left the court with some
match-play and, more importantly, without any injuries. The Exo was,
therefore, a success. Same can be said of Nadal's Exos. Can you imagine
sustaining an injury at an Exo. Oh the shame. And I have trouble believing
that an already injury-prone Murray is gonna play all out at an Exo as well.
I'm guessing that for Pros at that level, that playing in an Exo is sorta
like going to Vegas to gamble but doing it with Monopoly money. Completely
different mindset involved.

The added pressure and expectation on Murray to beat Fed now increases. The
"underdog" status is gone. No more excuses. I think this is a significant
dynamic at that level of tennis...a dynamic we newsgroup and forum chatters
pretend to understand but are actually clueless about...

"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5RQ7l.14733$Sp5.9076@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=meaningless. He owned the H2H,
> nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.
>
> Federer losing to Murray at an exo=significant. Federer really needed a
> win here. Federer's 2 wins over Murray came when Murray was fighting
> inexperience and nervousness. First time at the final of Bangkok (Murray's
> first tour final when he was 18) and most recently at USO final having
> beaten Nadal for the first time and making his first slam final.



 
Date: 03 Jan 2009 22:45:35
From: Iceberg
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.
"Dr. GroundAxe" <groundaxe@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5RQ7l.14733$Sp5.9076@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=meaningless. He owned the H2H,
> nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.
>
> Federer losing to Murray at an exo=significant. Federer really needed a
> win here. Federer's 2 wins over Murray came when Murray was fighting
> inexperience and nervousness. First time at the final of Bangkok (Murray's
> first tour final when he was 18) and most recently at USO final having
> beaten Nadal for the first time and making his first slam final.

and he was tired and the linesmen paid! :)




 
Date: 03 Jan 2009 13:44:57
From:
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.
On Jan 3, 9:41=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Your contention being that if Federer wanted to win he would have. Pity h=
e
> has been unable to use the same force of will to do anything about captur=
ing
> the FO.

No, I didn't say that. If he wanted to give 100%, he would have. He
might still have lost ...



 
Date: 03 Jan 2009 13:35:07
From:
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.
On Jan 3, 9:33=A0pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=3Dmeaningless. He owned the H2=
H,
> nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.
>
> Federer losing to Murray at an exo=3Dsignificant. Federer really needed a=
win
> here.

No-one told Federer that, obviously.





  
Date: 03 Jan 2009 21:41:50
From: Dr. GroundAxe
Subject: Re: Exo's are not always meaningless.
Your contention being that if Federer wanted to win he would have. Pity he
has been unable to use the same force of will to do anything about capturing
the FO.


<gregorawe@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:0d0eb999-e397-496c-8b40-46d1626f8489@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 9:33 pm, "Dr. GroundAxe" <ground...@hotmail.co.uk > wrote:
> Federer losing to Roddick or Haas at a exo=meaningless. He owned the H2H,
> nothing to prove as he and everyone else knows they aren't challengers.
>
> Federer losing to Murray at an exo=significant. Federer really needed a
> win
> here.

No-one told Federer that, obviously.