A Stay of Execution

First topic message reminder :

Well done for holding nerve at that crucial 4th set tie break, but this isn't the 2012 Wimbledon Champion.

Very sad to see him look so poor.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:Oh dear Socal, you have forgotten that Fed is 30 again.

Fed is 30 again? Has he been 30 before?

Yes Last year

lydian wrote:Colonel win unlikely but he's a mercurial player. The problem is he goes mental walkabout at least once per set as he starts to philosophise everything...Youhnzy is a very bright cookie if you read his background. If Fed plays like today then anything is possible...

If Fed plays like today in tomorrow's match Prof X will surely go for win, Prof X is mentally very strong, physically very durable and skillfully way better than Ben, but saying all these Fed will play to the merit of the opponent and win or lose Fed will play better, more than Youz XM has more chance to topple Fed coz XM has done it in the past [and he has beaten almost every big player in his day] .

laverfan wrote:J Mc was very critical of Federer missing volleys during net play.

The age factor needs to be considered for Benneteau as well. Same age as Federer (4 months younger actually). He played the first two sets really well, as well as the fourth.

It will only get tougher. . Rosol would have done the same to Federer, that he did to Nadal.

Fed is more likely to fall to grinders than big servers, against big servers the match gonna end quick and hence less energy consumption, against grinders its more enegery consumption which the poor old body doesnt have any more.

People forget how good a defender he was at his prime, when opponent went berserk his defence killed their momentum and his offence killed their spirit, these days Fed solely relies on his attack as his defence is close to 20% of his prime, unfortunately rather than playing attacking game he played a defensive game in the first few sets and no wonder Benny made him pay early on.

Fed completely looked lacklusture early on, but he never gave up, and its very difficult for any player to topple him in a GS when he doesn't wanna give up.

ALl I can think is Djoko, Nadal, and [beating him once list] Safin, DP, Berdych, Tsonga and Soderling in last 7 years , that says the story.

banbrotam wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I could be wrong but one thing I'm more sure of is that Fed won't go meekly in str8 sets to Djoko like he did @ RG earlier this month if he gets to the semis.

Why's that then? Has he got a time capsule that can transport him back to 2005? Was he just saving himself for Wimby. It's illogicol to think that an ageing player is going to get better than a younger player just entering their peak

During the last two years, Fed has simply put in too many weak performances against this 3 rivals. No surprise, given his age

Fed gave up against Djoko in FO semi's , even on his interview its pretty much clear he never believed he can beat prime Djoko at this age in very slow courts, but in Wimbledon it will be a different story, Djoko is not a great mover in grass like he is on clay and Fed plays better in grass than slow clay.

So yes Fed will give up a fight even if he has to go down to Djoko in semi's, atleast he thinks he has a chance.

laverfan wrote:J Mc was very critical of Federer missing volleys during net play.

The age factor needs to be considered for Benneteau as well. Same age as Federer (4 months younger actually). He played the first two sets really well, as well as the fourth.

It will only get tougher. . Rosol would have done the same to Federer, that he did to Nadal.

Fed's vaunted volleys were awful frankly it is one of his most overrated aspects of his game. He is a good volleyer not a great one. And his volleys today against Benny were very poor. i actually think Youzhny will be a tougher match in what should be his quarter, Malisse should be easier to handle but nothing as you say is easy.

banbrotam wrote:
I honestly think that at the end of this Slam, quickly following the French - Murray / Tsonga or even Del Potro would have him

And quite right too. It's going to get very worrying if Fed can still beat anyone when he's nowhere near his peak at nearly 31

Given that he's one tournament win away from being #1, don't you think the implication is already made?

Well said, bb.

It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

Weel, it's worrying for those who want to say Djokovic is some extraordinary talent, that's for sure...

I can't deny there are concerns over Fed's skills. There can certainly be no issues with his temperament or balls.

Fed winning a slam doesn't necessarily mean the current standard of play is low or bad by any means. Many legends of the game, recently and in the past won slams in there 30s, Sampras, Agassi, Rosewall and Laver. It says more about Fed being unique and equally being a legend if he wins a slam in 30s rather than today's game.

I don't want to bring up the whole debate about the wee keria but it will surely settle the matter if Fed manages to win Wimbledon while also taking the No.1 spot. Anyway, I'm following Fed's approach and looking at how he progresses through each match rather than thinking ahead (for now).

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

cos he's getting on a bit?

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

So the greatest of all time is not the greatest in the present time

Apparently Djokovic is going to win 25 slams, hadn't you heard?

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

So the greatest of all time is not the greatest in the present time

By the quivering chins of David Nalbandian, that doesn't make any sense!

reckoner wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

So the greatest of all time is not the greatest in the present time

By the quivering chins of David Nalbandian, that doesn't make any sense!

Maybe when you get an education it will.

Nore Staat wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

So the greatest of all time is not the greatest in the present time

By the quivering chins of David Nalbandian, that doesn't make any sense!

Maybe when you get an education it will.

\

I have an education and it makes no sense to me either. You see, Greatest of all Time does not mean "Best player today" Clearly at 31 Federer is not near his best and Djokovic is the best player in the world currently. That does not mean Federer cannot beat him, especially on grass. He is the greatest player of all time and capable even at 31. If it was 2004-7, wave bye to Djok because he would be annihilated on grass.

Nore Staat wrote:

reckoner wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:It isn't worrying at all. We are talking about the greatest player of all time here not some ordinary player. What nonsense.

If we are talking about the greatest player of all time ... why isn't he the greatest in todays time?

Because he is almost 31. Dear lord, do people even think before posting anymore? Do you really believe Nadal and Djok will be winning in 2 years let alone 4?

So the greatest of all time is not the greatest in the present time

By the quivering chins of David Nalbandian, that doesn't make any sense!

Maybe when you get an education it will.

Rather secure about my education, many thanks for your concern though.

Classy ad hominem response to my good-natured post - must be a product of your no doubt extensive "educashun". Shame they didn't teach you any manners!

Nore doesn't seem to understand that "all time" means overall in entire career compared to other players. It doesn't mean greatest every year of an entire career.

You'd think the concept would be simple to grasp for such a well educated chap...

I know Federer didn't play very well but I thought at this years Aussie Open up to the semi-finals he looked amazing, he was hitting beautiful shots. The match against Tomic he was sublime, he put Del Potro to the sword as well as Ivo Karlovic, in Indian Wells he was amazing again against Nadal. We need to stop being so gloomy, he lost a close match to Rafa, a 11-time slam winner hardly something we should be too shocked about.

Yes he has some off days, but if you look back he did have some battles with players over the years that you would not expect, anyone remember the AUS Open 06? He stumbled to the win, was 2 sets up to Haas and battled in 5, then drop sets to Davydenko, Kiefer and then for moments I thought he would lose to Baghdatis. Its because of his age he gets written off, had it been him that lost to Rosol not Nadal there would be obituaries all over the place.

We need to give him a break, yes he struggled against Benneteu but how many 3rd round opponents have played like that against him in the last 10 years? It was a stunning display, and he played bad and won, thats how great he is.

I actually think he got very fortunate that Benny got hurt CAS. I mean CAS Benny was a shell of himself for a set and half and that is when the match tilted in Roger's favor there was something clearly physically wrong with Benny. Plus lets remember Del Po had Roger on the ropes till he pulled up lame at RG, and after struggling in the early rounds there Roger went out meekly to Djokovic. I think history will repeat itself. It is weird to say because I rate his forehand as the greatest of all time, Roger's hasn't been all that convincing. He errors a lot with that shot and more and more players feel like they can stand toe to toe with him and slug it out forehand to forehand cross court and still comeout on top. A few years ago even hitting it to that side was considered suicide.

Federer to be fair did well to come back but such matches are expected in the Round 1 or 2. Does not do much good having that in Round 3. Fortunately he has some easy looking matches to negotiate until Djokovic which logic suggest he will lose. Age unfortunately catches up. Not that i think a primes Federer would have made a difference though. The courts will turn clay-ish by next friday.

Benneteau wasn't injured. He cramped. That's what the trainer came to relieve.

And it was suicide because he was more consistent. It's a shot on the edge of timing and it takes only a slight drop to hurt it.

bogbrush wrote:Benneteau wasn't injured. He cramped. That's what the trainer came to relieve.

And it was suicide because he was more consistent. It's a shot on the edge of timing and it takes only a slight drop to hurt it.

Exactly BB. Benneteau also confirmed he was cramming in his post match interview. So Socal & JOE, you can continue to speculate, but the man has said he was cramming, the leg massage should have told you he wasn't injured.

Many players cant keep the intensity needed to win against the top players, we've seen it time and time again. That's why Fed has won 16 slams, and most of these guys none. Making up excuses such as Benneteau being injured when he's said he wasn't is desperate.

Even if he hadn't cramped (which is not an injury by the way, just poor conditioning) Fed woulda rolled through him in the fifth set. Benn's only hope was to win that match in four. After Fed got the fourth all the momentum was with him. Sure it may have been more competitive than 6-1 but Federer was at least 80% certain to go thorugh at that stage.

I could see Benneteau starting to go in the 3rd. He was not running for reachable shots. He made his big stand in the 4th and all credit to him, he nearly got past a nervous Fed.

bogbrush wrote:I could see Benneteau starting to go in the 3rd. He was not running for reachable shots. He made his big stand in the 4th and all credit to him, he nearly got past a nervous Fed.

Unsure, I didn't really think Fed was nervous in that 4th set (certainly not towards the last games of the set), I think I read on the Wimbledon app that Fed came 2 points away from going out on 6 occasions during that set. I think he did a remarkable job of remaining composed, Benneteau credited Fed afterwards saying he showed nothing on court and that's what it felt like watching on TV.

I seem to recall that Benneteau slipped and fell over awkwardly when he was serving at I think 1-1 and 15-15 in the third set. That seemed to be the turning point of the third set and the match. Federer upped his level just a notch perhaps sensing Benneteau was slightly and temporarily physically troubled, or perhaps slightly mentally unfocussed. Anyway Federer broke him on that game. Benneteau didn't really recover and before he knew it Federer had the double break. He then sort of gave up on the set and his energy level really dropped for all to see. Even though he put a lot more effort into the fourth set, the energy and sharpness he showed in the first two sets just wasn't there.

Federer remained mentally strong in the fourth set and his experience, coolness under pressure, as well as his own fitness and basic very good level of tennis, saw him home.

The only criticism I have of Federer is rushing into the second set tie-breaker ... it was so predictable that he would lose it following the momentum swing to Benneteau in the preceding game when Benny won a 12 minute service game. It could have been a 7-5 second set to Federer, but it went to 6-6 and Benneteau had the momentum. Players like Nadal or Djokovic would have gone to their seat had a swig of water followed by a rub down with the towel etc before composing themselves for the tie breaker.

luciusmann wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I could see Benneteau starting to go in the 3rd. He was not running for reachable shots. He made his big stand in the 4th and all credit to him, he nearly got past a nervous Fed.

Unsure, I didn't really think Fed was nervous in that 4th set (certainly not towards the last games of the set), I think I read on the Wimbledon app that Fed came 2 points away from going out on 6 occasions during that set. I think he did a remarkable job of remaining composed, Benneteau credited Fed afterwards saying he showed nothing on court and that's what it felt like watching on TV.

Maybe not. Perhaps it was me.

I'd agree with much of your assessment NS, but especially regarding the second set tie breaker. Although Nadal and Djokovic get critical coverage on here from some rabid Fed fans about the time they they take, it's very important during crucial points in the match to compose yourself, to slow things down and in some sense, make your opponent think that bit more. Rushing things will lead to more mistakes and the score-line in that 2nd set suggests that (even though I admit I didn't see it).

I feel sad for Benneteau. It would have provided a crowning glory and story for him, but it became undone.

Tipsy AO 2008, Berdych AO 2009, Haas (several times), Falla, there is a long list where he won. Very thin line between greatness or lack thereof.

There will be a good game plan from Luthi/Annacone/Federer, the question would be, can Federer execute? I personally think he can.

luciusmann wrote:I'd agree with much of your assessment NS, but especially regarding the second set tie breaker. Although Nadal and Djokovic get critical coverage on here from some rabid Fed fans about the time they they take, it's very important during crucial points in the match to compose yourself, to slow things down and in some sense, make your opponent think that bit more. Rushing things will lead to more mistakes and the score-line in that 2nd set suggests that (even though I admit I didn't see it).

I saw that part of the match and it was just a surprise to me that Federer would start the tie-breaker about 15 - 20 seconds after the final point of Benny's service game. It was so quick it was just like a continuation of the preceding game - which Benny had just won. I mentioned it immediately on the match thread and the BBC commentator mentioned it when Federer went 0-3 down in the Tie-Breaker. I just didn't understand the thinking behind it.

Nore Staat wrote:I seem to recall that Benneteau slipped and fell over awkwardly when he was serving at I think 1-1 and 15-15 in the third set. That seemed to be the turning point of the third set and the match. Federer upped his level just a notch perhaps sensing Benneteau was slightly and temporarily physically troubled,

He was already looking tired and Federer came out all guns blazing. It seems to me that people are spending far too much time finding excuses for what was an amazing come back under the worst of pressures.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I seem to recall that Benneteau slipped and fell over awkwardly when he was serving at I think 1-1 and 15-15 in the third set. That seemed to be the turning point of the third set and the match. Federer upped his level just a notch perhaps sensing Benneteau was slightly and temporarily physically troubled,

He was already looking tired and Federer came out all guns blazing. It seems to me that people are spending far too much time finding excuses for what was an amazing come back under the worst of pressures.

Benneteau was very lucky he met Federer on one of his gift giving days, any normal day he would have been brushed aside 6-2 6-2 6-3 whatever.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:I seem to recall that Benneteau slipped and fell over awkwardly when he was serving at I think 1-1 and 15-15 in the third set. That seemed to be the turning point of the third set and the match. Federer upped his level just a notch perhaps sensing Benneteau was slightly and temporarily physically troubled,

He was already looking tired and Federer came out all guns blazing. It seems to me that people are spending far too much time finding excuses for what was an amazing come back under the worst of pressures.

So you never saw the match

Josiah Maiestas wrote:...Benneteau was very lucky he met Federer on one of his gift giving days, any normal day he would have been brushed aside 6-2 6-2 6-3 whatever.

You're at least 18 months out of date

I watched it from beginning to end, and you are just a very bad loser and fanboy/girl Anyone with a brain knew Federer was not gonna lie down and he didn't (go and read my comments, I was saying he was gonna come back into it and that he was capable to Bogbrush). I feel very sorry for you that your hatred for Federer gets in the way of logical thinking. My hatred of Nadal does not. And it is rational.

Your hero was beaten in R2.

Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

Seifer Almasy wrote:I watched it from beginning to end, and you are just a very bad loser and fanboy/girl Anyone with a brain knew Federer was not gonna lie down and he didn't (go and read my comments, I was saying he was gonna come back into it and that he was capable to Bogbrush). I feel very sorry for you that your hatred for Federer gets in the way of logical thinking. My hatred of Nadal does not. And it is rational.

Your hero was beaten in R2.

The only sense of losing I feel is time spent responding to your comments. You clearly are living in your distorted world if you can miscontrue my comments and come up with the above.

carrieg4 wrote:Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

No it doesn't. It is possible to hate Nadal's guts and yet congratulate him on a fantastic win or achievements. What Nore and the others (you included?) are about is putting opponents of Nadal down or Putting Federer down because they can't stomach him being the best ever player.

My reasons for hating Nadal are rational and I am not going over them again. Hating a man for winning is not rational, it is crazy. Putting an opponent down for winning or blaming an amazing come back on injury is awful. I am not sure you people realise how obvious you make yourselves look to others...

It is really sad.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

No it doesn't. It is possible to hate Nadal's guts and yet congratulate him on a fantastic win or achievements. What Nore and the others (you included?) are about is putting opponents of Nadal down or Putting Federer down because they can't stomach him being the best ever player.

My reasons for hating Nadal are rational and I am not going over them again. Hating a man for winning is not rational, it is crazy. Putting an opponent down for winning or blaming an amazing come back on injury is awful. I am not sure you people realise how obvious you make yourselves look to others...

It is really sad.

Hating a tennis player who you've never met, has never done you any harm and whose only 'crime' is a disregard of a few rules of a sport is not rational. If you hate Nadal how do you feel about burglars, murderers, dictators etc - more than hate? What would more than hate be - really, really hate?
Perhaps you don't mean hate, but from your previous posts, it would seem you do. I find that really sad and a little bit detached from the real world.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

No it doesn't. It is possible to hate Nadal's guts and yet congratulate him on a fantastic win or achievements. What Nore and the others (you included?) are about is putting opponents of Nadal down or Putting Federer down because they can't stomach him being the best ever player.

My reasons for hating Nadal are rational and I am not going over them again. Hating a man for winning is not rational, it is crazy. Putting an opponent down for winning or blaming an amazing come back on injury is awful. I am not sure you people realise how obvious you make yourselves look to others...

It is really sad.

Hatred is an extreme emotion. I reserve hatred for murderers, rapists etc. not sportsmen. Hating a sportsman is not rational.

Looks like Julius made the same point as me, before I did.
Should have read properly before submitting post

carrieg4 wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

No it doesn't. It is possible to hate Nadal's guts and yet congratulate him on a fantastic win or achievements. What Nore and the others (you included?) are about is putting opponents of Nadal down or Putting Federer down because they can't stomach him being the best ever player.

My reasons for hating Nadal are rational and I am not going over them again. Hating a man for winning is not rational, it is crazy. Putting an opponent down for winning or blaming an amazing come back on injury is awful. I am not sure you people realise how obvious you make yourselves look to others...

It is really sad.

Hatred is an extreme emotion. I reserve hatred for murderers, rapists etc. not sportsmen. Hating a sportsman is not rational.

You don't seem to understand emotion then. To love a player would be just as illogical if you were right. Think about it. I am not hating a man for being a man or for being a good player, I am hating him for his behaviour.

Seifer Almasy wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

Seifer Almasy wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:Hatred ALWAYS gets in the way of logical thinking.

No it doesn't. It is possible to hate Nadal's guts and yet congratulate him on a fantastic win or achievements. What Nore and the others (you included?) are about is putting opponents of Nadal down or Putting Federer down because they can't stomach him being the best ever player.

My reasons for hating Nadal are rational and I am not going over them again. Hating a man for winning is not rational, it is crazy. Putting an opponent down for winning or blaming an amazing come back on injury is awful. I am not sure you people realise how obvious you make yourselves look to others...

It is really sad.

Hatred is an extreme emotion. I reserve hatred for murderers, rapists etc. not sportsmen. Hating a sportsman is not rational.

You don't seem to understand emotion then. To love a player would be just as illogical if you were right. Think about it. I am not hating a man for being a man or for being a good player, I am hating him for his behaviour.

I understand emotion just fine thanks. Mine are merely proportionate to the situation.

Could it be some form of temporary neurosis or a teenager or both

Good to see you back CarrieG4, after sometime.

Seifer Almasy wrote:You don't seem to understand emotion then. To love a player would be just as illogical if you were right. Think about it. I am not hating a man for being a man or for being a good player, I am hating him for his behavior.

Can you separate a person from their behavior? Does picking up a racquet and returning it considered good behavior or bad? Dehumanising a player with mind-blind hatred seems to be a good path to justifying your own emotions.

Human beings, very wonderful athletes, but the core humanity is often on show, like bumping into each other. It happens on the motorways too, and such incidents are called accidents.

laverfan wrote:Good to see you back CarrieG4, after sometime.

Thanks LF. Good to be back