Author Topic: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened  (Read 729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
this was a historical loss. stak becomes the first man in history to beat roger at a slam in the 2nd round.



what is your own take on this? lets take a moment to revisit that match.


what really happened? was stak that good on that day or was roger off his game.


lets face it. when did you ever see roger lose his serve 6 times on grass at Wimbledon?

when did you ever see roger return that poorly on grass?

why was stak able to rush the net so many times? was there sufficient sting and depth on roger`s shots?




you saw what happened against melzer: melzer returned better and stak man had no place to hide.



anyway you have the floor. give it a go.


« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 07:46:04 PM by Clay Death »

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12067
  • Gender: Male
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2013, 07:58:44 PM »
Fed lost to a better player on that day who was in the zone, who risked everything but it worked out for him. The problem I have with both Darcis and Stakhovsky (and all 'giant killers in general) is that they never follow through. They always lose in the next round after their 'giant kills'.

It's pathetic IMHO. What did Rosol do since he def. Rafa last year? Nothing. What did Darcis and Stakhovsky do after their glorious wins. Absolutely nothing. they are like monkeys celebrating their 5 minutes of fame and then going nowhere  :\. blah ....

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2013, 08:02:31 PM »
I think the reason stak had a day of his life the other day is because roger allowed him to have such a day.
 
 
1. he returned poorly
2. he did not take care of his serve
3. his shots off the ground lack the usual mustard
 
 
you cant lose your serve on grass 6 times and expect to win no matter who the hell you are anyway.

Offline Alex

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12067
  • Gender: Male
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2013, 08:20:12 PM »
Fed was too passive. He simply didn't take Stak too seriously and he paid the price. Fed didn't mix it up, he didn't go to the net, he just sort of 'hoped for the best' and we know what happened.

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2013, 08:57:34 PM »
nadal did the same thing but in a different way:
 
1. he farted around on hard courts in Mallorca
 
 
2. he did not go to boodles where nole and dimitrov and the others were getting some matches in
 
 
3. and then if that was not enough, he was farting around with Monaco on the practice courts at Wimbledon when he finally made it there
 
 
sure he was spent and he was not going to win this Wimbledon but at least he should have sent darcis packing.
 
 
who the hell is darcis anyway? I could have beaten him on a good day when I was playing and practicing 6 hours a day.
 
 
 
nadal and roger did not take their early matches seriously and paid the price.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2013, 08:58:29 PM by Clay Death »

Offline tennisfan78

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 4634
  • Gender: Male
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2013, 11:07:41 PM »
I am not really surprised with federers upset. He has been playing pretty inconstant almost the whole season losing frequently to players that he never used to before. He thought that he would be able to rise to raise his game at Wimbledon but he couldn't.

He definitely looks slower out there. His forehand seem to have lost the zip,ground stokes doesn't seem to have the length and pentatration ,return of serve is a huge concern.

May be he needs to change his racquet,work on fitness,get hungry again and start playing more smaller tournaments and start winning again. He is currently low on confidence and it will only come with winning more matched and beating top players consistently.

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2013, 11:16:55 PM »
good to see you around general tennis fan.
 
 
good post.
 
that is really what happened. the return was not quite there and his shots lacked the depth and the sting. that made it too easy for Stak.
 
 
roger also did not do enough with the serve. he lost it 6 times.
 
 
normal roger takes care of his serve better than 90% of the time at Wimbledon.

Offline Litotes

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Gender: Male
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2013, 02:03:38 AM »
I think the reason stak had a day of his life the other day is because roger allowed him to have such a day.
 
 
1. he returned poorly
2. he did not take care of his serve
3. his shots off the ground lack the usual mustard
 
 you cant lose your serve on grass 6 times and expect to win no matter who the hell you are anyway.

General, what is this with losing serve six times? Stak broke Fed exactly twice, once late in the 3rd and once early in the 4th. Fed only broke once, to get back on serve in the 4th.

Apart from that I agree with your analysis. Breaking Stak only once, and losing two of three TBs, was caused by poor returning. He made Stak look like a better server than he deserves to.

So where is Fed's form now? Difficult to tell. You will notice that the two men he beat to get the title in Halle, Haas and Youzhny, are still in the draw. Unfortunately for them, they now meet Djokovic and Murray respectively....

Offline sid

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 11593
  • Gender: Male
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2013, 05:05:46 AM »
Stak got hot v Roger but i would not wright Roger off @ the USO yet.Will this loss make Roger go away & work harder? or will he say to himself i've done more than enough in my time in tennis,(who knows)What i do think,when the likes of Roger Nadal Nole & Murray are gone,we will look back & say how hard it was to win GS tennis titles.Deep down i'm sure Roger won't worry about this loss to Stak when looking back over the years.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12282
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2013, 06:31:38 AM »
A lack of confidence coupled with some piss poor serving immediately set the tone.  Stak's attacking game made for very short points which limited Rogi's chance to establish any sort of rhythm.  Fed probably thought he could play his way into the match and received his just punishment.

&
Stak played lights out tennis. :)
CONK da ball!!!

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2013, 09:06:41 AM »
I think the reason stak had a day of his life the other day is because roger allowed him to have such a day.
 
 
1. he returned poorly
2. he did not take care of his serve
3. his shots off the ground lack the usual mustard
 
 you cant lose your serve on grass 6 times and expect to win no matter who the hell you are anyway.

General, what is this with losing serve six times? Stak broke Fed exactly twice, once late in the 3rd and once early in the 4th. Fed only broke once, to get back on serve in the 4th.

Apart from that I agree with your analysis. Breaking Stak only once, and losing two of three TBs, was caused by poor returning. He made Stak look like a better server than he deserves to.

So where is Fed's form now? Difficult to tell. You will notice that the two men he beat to get the title in Halle, Haas and Youzhny, are still in the draw. Unfortunately for them, they now meet Djokovic and Murray respectively....


I don't know where the hell I read he broke roger 6 times. that indeed does not sound correct in a 4 set match on grass.



maybe darcis broke nadal 6 times. I forget now.

Offline Swish

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
  • How Many Times?
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2013, 04:52:11 PM »
 
Fed took some time off and wasn't ready is one reason.
Ran into a hot player who played a great game and also played the type of game to benefit from Fed's weak ROS.
 
Fed will go back to work after licking his wounds.
 
 
 

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2013, 06:10:23 PM »
1. Stakhovsky served lights out. About 17 aces against Fed! That = 45 against anyone else. More than that, his placement was impeccable and he served amazingly on the big points.

2. He also took advantage of Roger's ROS. Roger gets away with it 90% of the time. This was one of the 10%.

3. Roger buckled in the face of constant pressure in his face. Roger wasted some shots just trying to decapitate Stakhovsky. That's the definition of being in someone's head.

4. Match Point
Ironically, the match ended on a passive baseline rally. After Roger saved a MP in the 4th set TB I thought he was going to go on and win. Stakhovsky gave him the opening. Roger couldn't take it. Roger wins that point and they're back on serve...and IMO he goes on to win.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 06:21:10 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2013, 11:59:39 PM »
at the end of the day it really just comes down to lack of proper preparation for roger.
 
 
perhaps he took too much time off.
 
 
another theory could be that he is just not working hard enough on 2 parts of his game that he has to have now that he is a little bit older and tiny bit slower:
 
1. the serve
2. the return
 
 
 
especially the return. it is so damned crucial on grass.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12282
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2013, 06:30:28 AM »
You said it earlier and I've said it a thousand times.
The serve & ROS are key, especially on grass.
These are the 2 most important and least practiced shots at any level of the game.  Shortcomings on either stroke and you start EVERY POINT at a disadvantage.  It always cracks me up when players who haven't mastered the serve & ROS want to rally practicing groundies.

Now whether that stems from time off or lack of effort from Fed, well, that's another kettle of fish.

One would think that maintaining or even improving the serve could be done at any age for a pro.
The complexity of ROS should also lend itself to providing many facets to improve upon, even for an old man like Fed.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 09:35:40 AM by monstertruck »
CONK da ball!!!

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2013, 08:01:32 AM »
I heard Roger ran into Jerzy early on in the tournament and Jerzy said "HOW MANY TIMES will you win Wimbledon?" and Federer decided to give it a rest.

It's ok. I hear Roger's going to be bringing a 105 sq-inch 8oz feather light racquet to the Championships in 2014. And that's not even the secret weapon. The secret weapon is his two handed backhand that he's learning by watching videos of Djokovic and Murray. And because the tour is so hectic, he's losing a lot more so he can have more time to develop this secret weapon. It's all a strategy. He wants to give off the "Oh I can't win everything, a loss here and there is bound to happen" vibe, only to win the calendar year grand slam in 2014.

« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 08:03:32 AM by pawan89 »


Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2013, 09:33:08 AM »
You said it earlier and I've said it a thousand times.
The server & ROS are key, especially on grass.
These are the 2 most important and least practiced shots at any level of the game.  Shortcomings on either stroke and you start EVERY POINT at a disadvantage.

Now whether that stems from time off our lack of effort, well, that's another kettle of fish.

One would think that maintaining or even improving the serve could be done at any age for a pro.
The complexity of ROS should also lend itself to providing many facets to improve upon, even for an old man like Fed.


excellent post.

Offline Mertov

  • Tennis Addict
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2013, 10:44:52 AM »
I am not really surprised with federers upset. He has been playing pretty inconstant almost the whole season losing frequently to players that he never used to before. He thought that he would be able to rise to raise his game at Wimbledon but he couldn't.

He definitely looks slower out there. His forehand seem to have lost the zip,ground stokes doesn't seem to have the length and pentatration ,return of serve is a huge concern.

I agree, tennisfan78 summarized it very well.  There are stretches in the matches he plays where he has trouble keeping the ball in play more than 4-5 times.  Anything but the 2013 version of Federer would have won the match regardless of Stakhovsky's level of play.

He has looked terrible even in the totally-outmatched first rounds in the French or the first round here (I know it's hard to believe when he wins in three straight sets, but if you watched closely you would have seen how low the quality of his play was, even on those).  The last time he looked like a top 8 player was in the Australian Open.  He will have to play better in the US Hard Court season or else, I believe it would be a surprise if he makes it to the quarters at Wimbledon.  Cincinnati is a tournament where he does very well over the years; let's see how he does there.  If he would have to play well to win that tournament (thatis not like winning Halle, where he did not play near his top level anyway, scrambled through the draw).

Offline pawan89

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 8501
  • Gender: Male
    • Onset of Chaos
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2013, 11:02:29 AM »
I am not really surprised with federers upset. He has been playing pretty inconstant almost the whole season losing frequently to players that he never used to before. He thought that he would be able to rise to raise his game at Wimbledon but he couldn't.

He definitely looks slower out there. His forehand seem to have lost the zip,ground stokes doesn't seem to have the length and pentatration ,return of serve is a huge concern.

I agree, tennisfan78 summarized it very well.  There are stretches in the matches he plays where he has trouble keeping the ball in play more than 4-5 times.  Anything but the 2013 version of Federer would have won the match regardless of Stakhovsky's level of play.

He has looked terrible even in the totally-outmatched first rounds in the French or the first round here (I know it's hard to believe when he wins in three straight sets, but if you watched closely you would have seen how low the quality of his play was, even on those).  The last time he looked like a top 8 player was in the Australian Open.  He will have to play better in the US Hard Court season or else, I believe it would be a surprise if he makes it to the quarters at Wimbledon.  Cincinnati is a tournament where he does very well over the years; let's see how he does there.  If he would have to play well to win that tournament (thatis not like winning Halle, where he did not play near his top level anyway, scrambled through the draw).

I agree. His wins at Halle weren't all that impressive either considering the competition he was playing. If he was struggling against Haas and Youzhny, no matter how good a grass court player each one is, I figured he'd get pushed around by the top dogs. The way he got beaten by Tsonga at the French was not a good sign. Tsonga is a strong top player but the clay should have given Federer the edge but instead it was Tsonga who was better on all fronts, from the shotmaking to the consistency. What I didn't think was he'd get beaten by someone not as high quality but playing a great match.


Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: roger federer historical loss revisited : what really happened
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2013, 11:15:04 AM »
his serve bailed him out in halle in his last 2 matches there and he even said so.
 
 
I think he had around 12-13 aces in the semifinal match there and about the same number in the final against tommy.
 
both nadal and roger would benefit heavily from playing and practice more on the red clay on year around basis.
 
 
if not then both can say goodbye to their ground game.
 
you are nothing in the sport today without a rock solid ground game.
 
 
 
you might get lucky and have a good day on slick grass once in a blue moon but you are still nothing  if you don't have a viable ground game.