Roland Garros - Day 4 30/5/12

First topic message reminder :

Hello



Another beautiful day in Paris.

Let the fun begin....

Minions, oh minions, oh minions.

One to watch out for today: Big Bird vs Llodra. H2H 2-2. But Llodra has won their only meeting at the FO in 2008. However you'd have to go for Berdy.

Also on today: Djoker, Fedster and Tsonga.

On the women's side is there a possibility of another huge upset after the drama of yesterday. Azarenka wobbled her way through the first round. How will she fair against the unknown and unpronounceable opponent today?

Once again minions around the universe,

Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuuuuumble.



emancipator - universal tennis correspondent

Some very good points Kemet and Lydian.

We'll see whether this mini-recent-resurgence of Federer pays any dividends for Roger at the remaining slams. I don't have much hope for Wimbledon but perhaps, if he manages to retain some confidence in his game, he will have a reasonable shot at the USO.

emancipator wrote:Some very good points Kemet and Lydian.

We'll see whether this mini-recent-resurgence of Federer pays any dividends for Roger at the remaining slams. I don't have much hope for Wimbledon but perhaps, if he manages to retain some confidence in his game, he will have a reasonable shot at the USO.

The fact that you don't have much hope for Wimbledon illustrates the extent to which Roger's level on that surface has fallen from the heady heights of 2003-2009, where he won six titles in seven years. As Wimbledon rolls around, I will elaborate on this point more, as I don't want to detract from the fact that Roland Garros is taking place...

As for Roland Garros, Roger has a very good record here with the 2009 title and four runner-up finishes. This is not too shabby either. Hopefully, he can roll back the years and make one last run.

I think it is fair to say that is the worst performance by any of the top four at Roland Garros this year. Federer dropped a set against world No.92 Ungur. Fed will need a big improvement if he wants to at least repeat his feat at RG last year. Elsewhere Del Potro again involved in a drawn out battle in the early rounds and emphasises what I was saying pre-tournament about him. Tsongs also has a battle on his hands and will resume tomorrow entrenched in a battle with Goffin of Belgium.

ahhh its the ever cheery CC with his views on feds

Well is it really open for debate. After all Fed has been tipped by plenty on here to at least reach the final so with that I'd expect more than to see him drop a set against a world No.92. If that had been Murray he would have been crucified on here and he took stick yesterday for dropping a mere six games against a higher-ranked player so what goes around comes around I say.

Most impressive of top four seeds - obviously Rafael Nadal.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well is it really open for debate. After all Fed has been tipped by plenty on here to at least reach the final so with that I'd expect more than to see him drop a set against a world No.92. If that had been Murray he would have been crucified on here and he took stick yesterday for dropping a mere six games against a higher-ranked player so what goes around comes around I say.

Most impressive of top four seeds - obviously Rafael Nadal.

Most impressive Nadal? Are you sure? What about Murray he managed to bagel his opponent despite playing with a bad back.

Nope Nadal for me. Murray's display could be described as a little patchy and has only played one match whilst Nadal has now played twice.

That does sound way over the top CC, worst performance by the top 4 @ RG? Well given they're only a few rounds in, that isn't hard! A bit melo-dramatic -I don't think Murray would be crucified here but then again if he is, it's probably because more is expected of of him if he's to actually win a grand slam whereas Federer has won 16 grand slams and even with blips like today, we know he can win a slam.

I can agree, it was a bit surprising to see him lose the third set, but then again, he's dropped sets this early in RG before and still done well, 2009 springs to mind yet he went on to win. A tough few rounds early on is actually good in some ways, toughens up a player. Naturally I'm not suggesting he will win the whole thing, but the reason many people including me are tipping him is because:

a) his recent good form
b) his record @ RG of 5 finals and 1 title

nadal has played once craig he is yet to play istomin in round 2

Its too early to be form-horse'ing these guys yet...they play as well as they need to early on.

Anyone seen Raonic play the first round...he took out Hidalgo pretty easily. Seems to the main threat to Nadal in many respects. ALthough he's at that stage where Raonic could just as easily lose to Jesse Levine tomorrow. All depends on that serve...

Was great to see Baker put up a strong fight to Simon...although wierd two last sets...1-6, 6-0...guess he just ran out of gas. Shows what potential he clearly had as Simon is no mug.

Exactly lydian, Fed no doubt knew that his intensity dip in the 3rd set would only cost him one set and another half an hour and that's all. However, the same thing in a QF/SF/F could very well cost him the the match. Fed confirmed that he had an intensity dip or as he worded it: he stopped playing aggressively in the tie breaker.

Absolutely luciusmann...though I did find it interesting that when those crunch moments came in the TB he starting hitting long on the BH side....he did become passive and reverted to ralleying and these days he does overhit when he gets tight. Needs to stay aggressive...thats whats propelled him forward since USO'11.

Well after all Murray had a few choice comments flung at him yesterday and yet never dropped a set against a player ranked much higher than Ungar and remember this is a Murray not given much of a chance here whilst Federer is talked of here as a potential finalist. As I said if that had been Murray dropping a set today against the same opponent he would have been pounced upon readily and criticised for it so why not the same for Federer.

Yes of course Nadal has only played once but was the least troubled as his opponent never got a sniff of winning a set. Kamke threatened Fed in a set, Djokovic was pressed today and Murra had a lapse against Ito hence Nadal has been most secure/impressive so far of the top four.

There's little doubt that passivity costs Fed and is his biggest threat. Isn't that what happened in the first set and a half when he played Djokovic in Rome?

Frankly, even if I wasn't a Fed fan, it would still make for a thoroughly boring match because you would feel that once under threat, Fed has little chance of winning. It will be interesting to see if a tough QF will help him if he makes it to the SF or beyond. As others and myself included have said, far too early to deduce anything thus far.

Yes it is early but that is a worrying sign dropping a set against a world No.92. That tells me that is he really in the form to challenge or even remotely challenge Rafael Nadal or even Novak Djokovic? At this moment in time I'd say not so he really needs to up his game from here and improve consistency.

I can't say I was reading the comments on Murray on here yesterday although I did watch some of the match/commentary text on the BBC website and was surprised he let his opponent back into the match (after breaking him in the second set) but he saw off the threat.

There is a difference between Murray & Federer: Murray is undoubtedly a good player, however, you tip him @ a hard court slam, not on clay @ RG. His recent record on clay hasn't been much to write home about either. Also, Murray has to get past Nadal before getting to the final, which is pretty tough. Id think Fed has more chance of getting past Djokovic than Murray has of getting past Nadal. Although maybe Murray might provide the upset of the tournament by beating Nadal, it would be great to hear that but you got to agree, that is unlikely. However, should Murray get to the semis and face Rafa, stealing a set would be impressive and clearly show he's making progress against the top players.

I agree, that sort of intensity dip from Federer today would have been punished by Djokovic or Nadal and they would have capitalised on it in the 4th set and you could see either of them taking away a match like this from Fed. It's this sort of intensity dip that still worries me about Fed, whether he can keep himself focused long enough through a match to win against the likes of Berdych or Djokovic is my primary concern. We saw in Madrid he can manage it against Berdych, although over 5 sets is maybe another matter, but Djokovic? He maybe able to but there's no doubt he needs to be highly disciplined and keep his focus. There's no doubt that this sort of intensity dip cost Fed that first set last year against Nadal and apparently there's less of them now, well we'll see in the big matches next week!

Fed breaking every record there is....

Also the first set last year was lost because time violations and cheating was not punished by the Umpire.

I can't, for the life of me, see where I have tipped Murray on any court to be honest? Clay is not Murray's strongest surface (surely his weakest) but likewise it is not Federer's strongest surface. True Federer has the better route to the final but that man still stands in the way - Rafael Nadal. I cannot see Federer overcoming Nadal.

CaledonianCraig wrote:
Yes of course Nadal has only played once but was the least troubled as his opponent never got a sniff of winning a set.

why say he had won twice then?

I really do feel you are over hyping feds losing a set today.

I didn't suggest you were tipping Murray, I was saying if anyone would tip Murray for a tournament, it wouldn't be on clay. The 'you' wasn't directed @ you specifically but to a general audience.

True, clay isn't Fed's strongest surface however he's won titles on clay (beating Nadal a few times) and @ RG too. Let's be clear, naturally I would want Fed to win RG however, this isn't a tournament I'd see him winning, even if he was in the final!

Fed's got the easier route to the final than Murray, and that's why I was saying it's natural people might tip Fed to get there rather than talk of Murray getting there. Rafa stands in everyone's way and I didn't suggest anyone but Rafa being most likely winner.

I am a Murray fan but can't see Andy getting beyond the quarters this year for various reasons. As for Federer well I can see him reaching the semis but can he beat Djokovic. I am not so sure.

I'm not sure he can either but he's got more chance of doing it than beating Nadal. I also think a lot of fans, including some Fed fans would rather see Djokovic in the final, just because he has shown he can consistently beat Nadal and it means Nadal, Fed's arch rival could be knocked off his main slam throne. I'm not convinced Djokovic will do a much better job than Federer, but maybe he could push Nadal to 5 sets, but I still think he won't manage a win over Nadal. So to me, it would be better if Fed is in the final, if only for the points it gives him.

Well if I had the choice of Djokovic or Federer playing for my life against Nadal I'd pick Djokovic. Why? Well Novak recently has held a very strong Indian sign over Nadal in crunch slam matches. On the other hand the opposite can be said of Federer V Nadal in recent crunch matches. It is Nadal who invariably has come out tops in recent slam encounters.

i think that is the conundrum for some fed fans.
Yes they want feds to beat novak but his chances are so minuscule against rafa he wouldn't actually gain on rafa in the race or novak.
Worst case scenario for a fed fan is to see novak beat feds but lose to rafa which could very well happen but if the same was said in '11 i think novak would deffo beat rafa, now im not so sure.

I'd always want Federer to win any match, same goes for a semi with Djokovic with Nadal in the final.

There's no such thing as can't.

hence the reason i said some fed fans.

But really why should it matter to Federer fans so much who wins a final between Nadal and Djokovic? Not WUMMing but just curious as to why that should be the case? It doesn't alter Federer's legacy in any real way as another slam win may take Nadal inching closer to Fed's slam total but likewise a Djokovic win would have him do what Federer hasn't done before and hold all four slams at one time. Swings and roundabouts really isn't it?

Luvsports I couldn't agree more, last years semi I was couldn't decide what I wanted. It was incredible to see Federer taking down the unbeaten Novak but at the same time I just knew Rafa in the finals was going to be a painful watch. I find it impossible to root against Federer but its how I also felt in both US Open semis, I didn't fancy Federer after 5 sets to take on Rafa and then having the record of losing to him in all 4 finals but doesn't mean I wasn't on the edge of my seat the whole match, cheering every break of serve and set point for Federer.

This year I don't really want Novak to win all four Majors, I like Roger and Rafa have that record elevating their rivalry in the history books, and it get less and mess impressive the more players that do it. So I think I would rather Rafa won it but by beating someone else other than Federer in the final. Having a Novak vs Rafa final will be a weird one, not wanting Djokovic to win but being in the odd position of supporting Rafa, I wont know what to do with myself!

Good points.
There are a wide variety of federer fans who are torn over this issues imo.
Some dislike rafa for his style of play perhaps but also because he constantly beats feds in slams, fear he may overhaul feds slam total, see the head to head get even worse (in which case they will be upset but not too much with feds losing to novak). In that case many cheer for novak to stop the above happening.
Other fed fans still believe he can do the unthinkable and beat rafa at RG, i am torn on this one as my heart says yes and head says no.
I think a smaller section of fed fans will perhaps not want novak to gain all 4 but 2bh i have never heard that one before from feds fans, i could easily be wrong as CAS states.
If feds loses i will support novak for a number of reasons and they are listed above

In my opinion winning that French Open final last year could have been Federer's most impressive slam victory, and I still hold the hope that he can pull it off but theres only so many times you can see Federer blow Nadal off court for half a set then watch Nadal sink his teeth in

I'm in the camp that will most certainly cheer Djokovic in a final with Nadal but certainly will be cheering Fed if he plays Djokovic (and against Nadal if he plays him too).

I think you've summed up the conflict of many Fed fans quite well LuvSport and CAS. I do feel in many ways that, what can only be called, a delusion dream, Fed can beat Nadal @ RG even though all evidence and logic says he can't.

On their respectively strongest surfaces (in the slams), both are tied with 6 titles each but whereas Fed lost once to Nadal (while also beating him twice) on his strongest surface (grass, Wimby), Nadal beat Fed 5 times on his strongest surface (clay, RG). So even though Fed has made as many finals @ RG as Nadal has made Wimbledon finals, Nadal has actually beaten Fed on his own strongest surface whereas Fed never has. Hence why to many Fed fans, that spectacular hope he could beat Nadal @ RG would redeem his loss to Rafa @ Wimbledon. I can only see this as the strongest reason why he should get to the final, besides the points he earns. Otherwise, the conclusion is quite simple, Nadal was able to adapt his game to other surfaces and beat the best whereas Federer wasn't able to change his game so easily to maintain his supremacy over his main challenger.

I think a lot of Federer fans see Djokovic as the key to stopping Nadal breaking Federer's record and also he is a great argument when Nadal fans throw the head to head argument at Federer fans, and how he always beats him at slams. If Djokovic ends up with a positive head to head over Nadal in slams and overall that argument is over, however to make a stronger argument in this case it will be good if Federer keeps his positive head to head over Novak.

Djokovic is in an incredible position, he could hold all 4 slams something that neither Nadal or Federer could do and is well on the way to having a positive head to head over both, if he gets around 8-10 slams the argument shifts once again

luciusmann wrote:I agree, that sort of intensity dip from Federer today would have been punished by Djokovic or Nadal and they would have capitalised on it in the 4th set and you could see either of them taking away a match like this from Fed. It's this sort of intensity dip that still worries me about Fed, whether he can keep himself focused long enough through a match to win against the likes of Berdych or Djokovic is my primary concern. We saw in Madrid he can manage it against Berdych, although over 5 sets is maybe another matter, but Djokovic? He maybe able to but there's no doubt he needs to be highly disciplined and keep his focus. There's no doubt that this sort of intensity dip cost Fed that first set last year against Nadal and apparently there's less of them now, well we'll see in the big matches next week!

Exactly, that dip cost him at the US Open semi last year (I still can't bring myself to think about that match, it was infuriating watching it unfold). Coming back to the RG semi last year Novak actually served to carry that match into a fifth set, and Roger broke him. However, I think there is something about Roger in Paris (I know him being fluent in French certainly helps), that captures the imagination of the French public and gets the crowd behind him.

Watching that match, Roger played brilliantly, but the crowd definitely carried him; it was almost as if it was cheering one of its own.

If Roger progresses to week two, he should try to get the crowd behind him in his own way.

CAS wrote:Djokovic is in an incredible position, he could hold all 4 slams something that neither Nadal or Federer could do and is well on the way to having a positive head to head over both, if he gets around 8-10 slams the argument shifts once again

One thing to realise regarding Fedal, they stopped each other from holding all 4 slams (and Nadal's injuries), so the competition was tougher in one sense, unlike now, when both are aging warriors. It is wonderful to see Federer at 30+ playing a much more physical game than Jimbo C, and without any major injuries.

The h2h argument makes no sense, given Davy's h2h.

@CC... Isner took two sets off of Nadal in R128 in 2011, ranked 39. Ungur should be given credit for playing brilliantly and making Federer very uncomfortable.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Yes of course Nadal has only played once but was the least troubled as his opponent never got a sniff of winning a set. Kamke threatened Fed in a set, Djokovic was pressed today and Murra had a lapse against Ito hence Nadal has been most secure/impressive so far of the top four.

So Federer was "threatened" and Djokovic was "pressed" but Murray had a "lapse"? Murrays problems are so often portrayed by his fans as being in his own head. If only he didn't let his concentration lapse or if only he really believed or if only he was more confident and went for his shots he is so talented he is really better than the rest. Pfft!

Who are all these Federer fans that want Federer to lose against Djokovic? If he gets to the final and loses to Nadal so what. To lose to Nadal at RG is no disgrace but he doesn't want to start losing to Djokovic too. His win over Djokovic last year was huge hopefully he will produce something similar next friday.

If Federer gets there... Federer has by far got the trickiest quarter with Berdych. On form Berdych is the true RG 4th seed.

Agree Hawkeye. Always better to win more and progress. Federer has nothing to be bothered about, the arguments about him being below Nadal on lay has been settled, so he has no downside from playing him on there. It doesn't change 16, 18 in 19, GOAT credentials, etc.

A bagel and a breadstick sandwiching a 7-5 set and check stats and sure looks like a lapse to me. If the scoreline had been something like 6-3 7-5 6-3 for example I would have agreed he was pressed but clearly not. Still like I said elsewhere a patchy display hence why despite you wishing me to lay claim to him being most impressive I say that goes to Nadal.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Yes of course Nadal has only played once but was the least troubled as his opponent never got a sniff of winning a set. Kamke threatened Fed in a set, Djokovic was pressed today and Murra had a lapse against Ito hence Nadal has been most secure/impressive so far of the top four.

So Federer was "threatened" and Djokovic was "pressed" but Murray had a "lapse"? Murrays problems are so often portrayed by his fans as being in his own head. If only he didn't let his concentration lapse or if only he really believed or if only he was more confident and went for his shots he is so talented he is really better than the rest. Pfft!

Ermmmm did Ito actually build on any of his 'momentum' generated by his 'improved' performance in the 2nd set? A bagel in the 3rd hardly suggests that now does it? Let's not be totally silly!

Kavcic was still going for his shots even in the 3rd despite the fact he actually built on Djokovic's sloppy play.

Same with Federer and Ungar. Federer had a lapse and Ungar seized it. Federer had lapses in Rome.

Federer, Djokovic and Murray had lapses, but all yielded different outcomes based on the opponents they faced.

Pfffftt

murray could be heading home