tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 01 Feb 2009 09:34:22
From: stephenj
Subject: what surprised me was ...
.. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
when he looked like the better player for most of the match.

e.g., in all the losses to nadal at the FO, fed lost while clearly
looking inferior.

even in the W final last year that went to 8-6, Nadal for the most part
looked stronger and fed seemed to be the one somehow managing to hang in
there.

but last night, through the first 4 sets, fed was better. he should have
won the match 3 sets to 1. what beat him was not converting the 6
breakers at the end of set 3. Neither guy is good enough to win sets 4
and 5 against the other, so whoever was up 2 sets 1 had a decisive edge.

fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before ...

--
When the facts change,
one's opinion ought to change.

- John Maynard Keynes




 
Date: 02 Feb 2009 20:49:01
From: Whisper
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
stephenj wrote:
> .. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
> when he looked like the better player for most of the match.
>
> e.g., in all the losses to nadal at the FO, fed lost while clearly
> looking inferior.
>
> even in the W final last year that went to 8-6, Nadal for the most part
> looked stronger and fed seemed to be the one somehow managing to hang in
> there.
>
> but last night, through the first 4 sets, fed was better. he should have
> won the match 3 sets to 1. what beat him was not converting the 6
> breakers at the end of set 3. Neither guy is good enough to win sets 4
> and 5 against the other, so whoever was up 2 sets 1 had a decisive edge.
>
> fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
> first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before ...
>


Bear in mind Rafa's depleted physical condition due to longest AO match
in history in s/f. That kept the match looking respectable for Fed. If
he were fresh he woulda been lucky to grab a set.



  
Date: 02 Feb 2009 09:32:59
From: Javier Gonzalez
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com.au > wrote:
> stephenj wrote:
>> .. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
>> when he looked like the better player for most of the match.
>>
>> e.g., in all the losses to nadal at the FO, fed lost while clearly
>> looking inferior.
>>
>> even in the W final last year that went to 8-6, Nadal for the most part
>> looked stronger and fed seemed to be the one somehow managing to hang in
>> there.
>>
>> but last night, through the first 4 sets, fed was better. he should have
>> won the match 3 sets to 1. what beat him was not converting the 6
>> breakers at the end of set 3. Neither guy is good enough to win sets 4
>> and 5 against the other, so whoever was up 2 sets 1 had a decisive edge.
>>
>> fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
>> first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before ...
>>
>
>
> Bear in mind Rafa's depleted physical condition due to longest AO match
> in history in s/f. That kept the match looking respectable for Fed. If
> he were fresh he woulda been lucky to grab a set.

Have to agree here - that serving performance and fresh Nadal would have meant
it was over in four at the most - even though Federer had a very respectable
showing in ground game.


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 23:27:37
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
stephenj wrote:
> .. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
> when he looked like the better player for most of the match.
>
> e.g., in all the losses to nadal at the FO, fed lost while clearly
> looking inferior.
>
> even in the W final last year that went to 8-6, Nadal for the most
> part looked stronger and fed seemed to be the one somehow managing to
> hang in there.
>
> but last night, through the first 4 sets, fed was better. he should
> have won the match 3 sets to 1. what beat him was not converting the 6
> breakers at the end of set 3. Neither guy is good enough to win sets 4
> and 5 against the other, so whoever was up 2 sets 1 had a decisive
> edge.
> fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
> first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before


My thoughts exactly. I thought he'd blitz him in that third set when Nadal
was clearly tired.
But he missed those unbelievable 6 BP and all of a sudden he looked more
beaten and tired than Rafa.




 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 11:17:06
From: The MAN
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
On Feb 1, 7:34=A0am, stephenj <s...@cox.com > wrote:
> .. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
> when he looked like the better player for most of the match.
>
> e.g., in all the losses to nadal at the FO, fed lost while clearly
> looking inferior.
>
> even in the W final last year that went to 8-6, Nadal for the most part
> looked stronger and fed seemed to be the one somehow managing to hang in
> there.
>
> but last night, through the first 4 sets, fed was better. he should have
> won the match 3 sets to 1. what beat him was not converting the 6
> breakers at the end of set 3. Neither guy is good enough to win sets 4
> and 5 against the other, so whoever was up 2 sets 1 had a decisive edge.
>
> fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
> first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before ...
>
> --
> When the facts change,
> one's opinion ought to change.
>
> - John Maynard Keynes


Wrong. Feddy had WAY too many UEs!!!

Dumping ball into net, wildly overshot points.

And a TOTAL collapse at the end!!


 
Date: 01 Feb 2009 16:51:07
From: Petter Solbu
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
stephenj wrote:
> .. this is the first time i can remember fed losing a big slam match
> when he looked like the better player for most of the match.

I don't think Federer looked like the better player for most of the
match. At times he sure did. He actually surprised me in fourth set
playing better and dictating play in some rallies. I really believed
that he could come out strong in fifth, but the exact opposite happened.
He seemed dead.

For most of the match it was same old, same old... Nadal hitting spin
serves out wide on ad side and automatically taking command in the
point, too many short returns of serve from Fed, Fed being extremely
vulnerable at the net etc. I think there were a few positive things
though: 1) Fed's defense and footwork were great the whole match, maybe
apart from the fifth set, 2) More backhand winners than usual and in
general his backhand was not that bad as it uses to be against Nadal. I
think he has practiced a lot on this the last couple of days. Too bad
for Fed there also was a big negative side of this match: Weak serve.
The weakest serving performance I have seen in a long time from him. If
you add the mental part of the game, he is completely outplayed by Nadal
in that department.

The match could have tipped both ways, but Fed played too inconsistently
to win it. Nadal was best on the big points, and especially in that
fifth set.

> fed had outplayed nadal - not by all that much, but clearly - in the
> first 3 sets, yet trailed 2 sets to 1. hadn't seen that happen before ...

Outplayed? That is an overstatement.

PS.


  
Date: 01 Feb 2009 14:00:02
From: WAY2GOOD
Subject: Re: what surprised me was ...
"Petter Solbu" <pettermann1984@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Gtednar0TsRjWRjURVnzvQA@telenor.com...

> Outplayed? That is an overstatement.

Federites are noted for their delusions.