tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:06:09
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Give the devil his due
I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
Birdman match - which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
match.

For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
all. I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
game and imposed his own power game quite well.

I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
momentum himself and derail the other.

So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
not look too bad at any point in the match.

Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
shift in momentum to occur.

It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
good day.




 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 10:17:16
From: DNA
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 27, 11:34 am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:14 pm, DNA <susene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 3:06 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> > > well
>
> > So you have forgotten Fed's level of play also. Federer was nowhere
> > near his "playing well" level in the first two sets. He was having so
> > many UEs (compare that with the UEs in the next three sets). He was
> > not serving well either. He was giving Berdych exactly the kind of
> > returns Berdych wanted.
>
> Actually, given that Berdych was hitting everything for a winner so
> easily it is surprising that Federer's unforced error count wasn't
> higher. Again, dunno if you play tennis but when an opponent is
> playing in the zone - you try to wrest momentum by going for a lot -
> obviously in the process you make errors. He did well to hit at least
> as many winners as errors in the first two sets (He hit more winners
> than errors in the second set too).
>
> > No, he was not playing well for a world number..er.. I mean.. a grand
> > slam champion.
>
> > > It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> > > bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
> > > good day.
>
> > It wasn't bad because Berdych imploded. If he had not blinked in the
> > third set, Fed would have lost in straight sets and that is the
> > truth.
>
> > So gameplay wise, it was an ok day for Federer.
>
> > Luck wise, it was a very very good day. And this comes from a Fed fan.
>
> Berdych did implode a bit - but a lapse of concentration had to be
> expected from him. He couldn't continue in the zone for three
> continuous sets. Federer knew this -- he waited for the opportunity
> and pounced on it when it happened.



Yes, you are right.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 07:34:19
From: Voice of Reason
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 4:14=A0pm, DNA <susene...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> > well
>
> So you have forgotten Fed's level of play also. Federer was nowhere
> near his "playing well" level in the first two sets. He was having so
> many UEs (compare that with the UEs in the next three sets). He was
> not serving well either. He was giving Berdych exactly the kind of
> returns Berdych wanted.
>

Actually, given that Berdych was hitting everything for a winner so
easily it is surprising that Federer's unforced error count wasn't
higher. Again, dunno if you play tennis but when an opponent is
playing in the zone - you try to wrest momentum by going for a lot -
obviously in the process you make errors. He did well to hit at least
as many winners as errors in the first two sets (He hit more winners
than errors in the second set too).

> No, he was not playing well for a world number..er.. I mean.. a grand
> slam champion.
>
> > It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> > bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> > good day.
>
> It wasn't bad because Berdych imploded. If he had not blinked in the
> third set, Fed would have lost in straight sets and that is the
> truth.
>
> So gameplay wise, it was an ok day for Federer.
>
> Luck wise, it was a very very good day. And this comes from a Fed fan.

Berdych did implode a bit - but a lapse of concentration had to be
expected from him. He couldn't continue in the zone for three
continuous sets. Federer knew this -- he waited for the opportunity
and pounced on it when it happened.


 
Date: 27 Jan 2009 05:10:36
From: DNA
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 4:37=A0pm, PeteWasLucky <Waleed.Kh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 4:14=A0pm, DNA <susene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 3:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> > > well
>
> > So you have forgotten Fed's level of play also. Federer was nowhere
> > near his "playing well" level in the first two sets. He was having so
> > many UEs (compare that with the UEs in the next three sets). He was
> > not serving well either. He was giving Berdych exactly the kind of
> > returns Berdych wanted.
>
> > No, he was not playing well for a world number..er.. I mean.. a grand
> > slam champion.
>
> > > It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> > > bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> > > good day.
>
> > It wasn't bad because Berdych imploded. If he had not blinked in the
> > third set, Fed would have lost in straight sets and that is the
> > truth.
>
> > So gameplay wise, it was an ok day for Federer.
>
> > Luck wise, it was a very very good day. And this comes from a Fed fan.
>
> So if Berdych was not lucky in the third set, why didn't he win the
> fourth or the fifith set?

Geez... Federer was lucky in third and Federer started playing a lot
better after that and Berdych started making errors. (Is that too
difficult to understand? )This does not change the fact that Federer
was very very lucky to survive the third set and the match. Federer
did not have a "very very good day"
He had a "very very good day" against Del Potro. You can see the
difference.


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:20:19
From: RahimAsif
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 2:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> good day.

LOL - he had more UE than winners in the first 2.5 sets. Don't know
about you, but I don't call that a "very, very good day"...


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:37:04
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 4:14=A0pm, DNA <susene...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> > well
>
> So you have forgotten Fed's level of play also. Federer was nowhere
> near his "playing well" level in the first two sets. He was having so
> many UEs (compare that with the UEs in the next three sets). He was
> not serving well either. He was giving Berdych exactly the kind of
> returns Berdych wanted.
>
> No, he was not playing well for a world number..er.. I mean.. a grand
> slam champion.
>
> > It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> > bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> > good day.
>
> It wasn't bad because Berdych imploded. If he had not blinked in the
> third set, Fed would have lost in straight sets and that is the
> truth.
>
> So gameplay wise, it was an ok day for Federer.
>
> Luck wise, it was a very very good day. And this comes from a Fed fan.

So if Berdych was not lucky in the third set, why didn't he win the
fourth or the fifith set?



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 13:14:41
From: DNA
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 3:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> well

So you have forgotten Fed's level of play also. Federer was nowhere
near his "playing well" level in the first two sets. He was having so
many UEs (compare that with the UEs in the next three sets). He was
not serving well either. He was giving Berdych exactly the kind of
returns Berdych wanted.

No, he was not playing well for a world number..er.. I mean.. a grand
slam champion.


> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> good day.

It wasn't bad because Berdych imploded. If he had not blinked in the
third set, Fed would have lost in straight sets and that is the
truth.

So gameplay wise, it was an ok day for Federer.

Luck wise, it was a very very good day. And this comes from a Fed fan.



 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:25:46
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:06:09 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
<sasidharpv@gmail.com > wrote:

>I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
>Birdman match - which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
>match.
>
>For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
>and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
>all. I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
>game and imposed his own power game quite well.
>
>I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
>very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
>Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
>momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
>momentum himself and derail the other.
>
>So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
>the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
>not look too bad at any point in the match.
>
>Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
>well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
>shift in momentum to occur.
>
>It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
>bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
>good day.

When I woke up, it was the beginning of the 3rd set. Fed had lost the
first two. Watched most of the 3rd set. Then I had to go to work,
where I saw the end of the match. Even in the third set, which Berdych
lost, he played some great tennis. I wish I would have seen the first
two sets. Berdych of course has always had really big shots, and when
gets them in court, he is very tough to beat. Fed haters are very
disappointed he didn't win, so they call him a clown. Same old story.


  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:36:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:06:09 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
> <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
>> Birdman match - which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
>> match.
>>
>> For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
>> and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
>> all. I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
>> game and imposed his own power game quite well.
>>
>> I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
>> very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
>> Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
>> momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
>> momentum himself and derail the other.
>>
>> So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
>> the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
>> not look too bad at any point in the match.
>>
>> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
>> well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
>> shift in momentum to occur.
>>
>> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
>> bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
>> good day.
>
> When I woke up, it was the beginning of the 3rd set. Fed had lost the
> first two. Watched most of the 3rd set. Then I had to go to work,
> where I saw the end of the match. Even in the third set, which Berdych
> lost, he played some great tennis. I wish I would have seen the first
> two sets. Berdych of course has always had really big shots, and when
> gets them in court, he is very tough to beat. Fed haters are very
> disappointed he didn't win, so they call him a clown. Same old story.


Roger played 50% of his Safin match level. Berdych said he was happy to
give Roger a close match. Can you believe it? He shoulda been bitterly
disappointed not a happy clown.



  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 20:36:00
From: Vari L. Cinicke
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
Sakari Lund wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:06:09 -0800 (PST), Voice of Reason
> <sasidharpv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
>> Birdman match - which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
>> match.
>>
>> For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
>> and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
>> all. I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
>> game and imposed his own power game quite well.
>>
>> I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
>> very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
>> Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
>> momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
>> momentum himself and derail the other.
>>
>> So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
>> the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
>> not look too bad at any point in the match.
>>
>> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
>> well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
>> shift in momentum to occur.
>>
>> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
>> bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
>> good day.
>
> When I woke up, it was the beginning of the 3rd set. Fed had lost the
> first two. Watched most of the 3rd set. Then I had to go to work,
> where I saw the end of the match. Even in the third set, which Berdych
> lost, he played some great tennis. I wish I would have seen the first
> two sets. Berdych of course has always had really big shots, and when
> gets them in court, he is very tough to beat. Fed haters are very
> disappointed he didn't win, so they call him a clown. Same old story.

There were so many forehands that he hit for screaming winners that it
wasn't even funny.

Federer seemed made of stone for those shots.

--
Cheers,

vc


 
Date: 26 Jan 2009 12:13:49
From: PeteWasLucky
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
On Jan 26, 3:06=A0pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
> Birdman match =A0- which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
> match.
>
> For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
> and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
> all. =A0I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
> game and imposed his own power game quite well.
>
> I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
> very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
> Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
> momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
> momentum himself and derail the other.
>
> So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
> the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
> not look too bad at any point in the match.
>
> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
> well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
> shift in momentum to occur.
>
> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
> bad as most people here make it seem - =A0in fact, it was a very very
> good day.

Good post. As I mentioned in one my posts during the match, that
everything Berdych was hitting became a clear winner. Federer said the
same thing in his interview, but what Federer knows?! people here know
better than him.



  
Date: 27 Jan 2009 14:31:25
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>
>> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
>> well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
>> shift in momentum to occur.
>>
>> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
>> bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
>> good day.
>
> Good post. As I mentioned in one my posts during the match, that
> everything Berdych was hitting became a clear winner. Federer said the
> same thing in his interview, but what Federer knows?! people here know
> better than him.
>


They wouldn't have been winners if he came out in same form as the Safin
match.



  
Date: 26 Jan 2009 22:27:21
From: TT
Subject: Re: Give the devil his due
PeteWasLucky wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:06 pm, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I came back to rst after some time to look at some views on the Fed vs
>> Birdman match - which, personally, I thought was a quite excellent
>> match.
>>
>> For all their disagreements, for some bizarre reason, both Fed lovers
>> and haters here seem to unite in not giving the opponent any credit at
>> all. I thought Berdych played a great match - he kept Federer off his
>> game and imposed his own power game quite well.
>>
>> I don't know if how many here seriously PLAY tennis - but it's very
>> very rare that two players play their best levels at the same time.
>> Much like most sports, tennis works on momentum - whoever has the
>> momentum tries to keep it while the opponent does his best to gain
>> momentum himself and derail the other.
>>
>> So most of the time, if one player plays really well - he WILL make
>> the other player look bad - and I thought Federer did really well to
>> not look too bad at any point in the match.
>>
>> Even when Federer was two sets down - I knew that Federer was playing
>> well and all that was needed was one slip in Berdych's game for the
>> shift in momentum to occur.
>>
>> It may not have been Federer's best day - but it certainly wasn't as
>> bad as most people here make it seem - in fact, it was a very very
>> good day.
>
> Good post. As I mentioned in one my posts during the match, that
> everything Berdych was hitting became a clear winner. Federer said the
> same thing in his interview, but what Federer knows?! people here know
> better than him.
>

I believe criticism here has been mainly about Berdych's lack of balls,
not his lack of skills.

--
"Now I have so many dreams to chase - the French Open, an Olympic
singles gold medal in London in 2012, the Davis Cup for Switzerland"