The US Open Tennis Thread

Giggsy PO said:
Ahh, of course he did have a bit of luck. Like Agassi had against Medvedev at RG for example, like Sampras had many times... I think you are just trying to "find something" on Federer.
Click to expand...

No I'm no trying to find something on him nobody is disputing his greatness, it's just that Sampras and Agassi were lucky in some important games and then unlucky in other important games.

Federer has had some massive luck on his side this year, especially in the Wimbledon final.
 
uae said:
to be fair he gave him more than a sniff
Click to expand...

He was still in control though. Its laughable how people can doubt Federer. As good as Novak has been he still lacks that big final experience. I'd rate Novak ahead of Nadal but with those two you always know when theyr'e playing there best stuff whereas with Federer, he always has that ability to just up his game and keep cool, calm and collected throughout the match.

Although Djokovic has made some huge strides this year and still only 20. A fantastic prospect.
 
Apart from in the French Open I almost can`t remember seeing him lose important points. He has an extreme mentality.


This time next year we will be talking about Federer and his 15 Grand Slams. He will win the same three again next year, he`s closing in on Roland Garros as well. It doesn`t take more than an injury to Nadal and he has it, or maybe not even that.
 
ILBB15 said:
No I'm no trying to find something on him nobody is disputing his greatness, it's just that Sampras and Agassi were lucky in some important games and then unlucky in other important games.
Click to expand...
And that makes Federer the luckiest player ever? :wenger: Your analogy is very weird.
 
Giggsy PO said:
And that makes Federer the luckiest player ever? :wenger: Your analogy is very weird.
Click to expand...

Yes, because nothing ever seems to go against him. No matter how good you are in any sport, the greatest players in all kind of sports always have those times when it just doesn't go their way. Federer has been lucky to be injury free, to have luck on very important points and things like that.

Everything is always on his side, and you barely see any players have luck against him.
 
I doubt he will win 3 again next year.

Nadal will get the french, Novak will get either the Aussie or the Us open and I predict someone outside these three will pick up one. Wimbledon will be Federers though.
 
Another point with Federer, when you look at his game you just wonder: Is it really that easy? The most difficult points, the most important points and for Federer it is a piece of cake.
 
Federer might have been lucky to avoid injuries, but winning the important points is all about 2 things:

Experience
Mental strength

Federer has too much of both.
 
ILBB15 said:
Yes, because nothing ever seems to go against him. No matter how good you are in any sport, the greatest players in all kind of sports always have those times when it just doesn't go their way. Federer has been lucky to be injury free, to have luck on very important points and things like that.

Everything is always on his side, and you barely see any players have luck against him.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons Federer remains injury free is because he has fantastic technique. Nadal puts everything into every shot, which is he's just burnt out by the end of the season. Same thing with Roddick, who has a dodgy service action.

I hope Federer wins the French next year. That should confirm he's the greatest ever.
 
Ruben said:
Federer might have been lucky to avoid injuries, but winning the important points is all about 2 things:

Experience
Mental strength

Federer has too much of both.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
Ruben said:
Federer might have been lucky to avoid injuries, but winning the important points is all about 2 things:

Experience
Mental strength

Federer has too much of both.
Click to expand...

And luck too. Like when Novak was leading 40-0 with the lead 6-5, Federer takes a chance and hits a forehand cross to make it a winner and it just takes on the last part of the line. Now, anyone that has played tennis knows that you can't direct a ball with that kind of precision that you actually want the ball to hit there, but you hit the ball in that direction and you then hope that the ball will hit a part of the line.
 
ILBB15 said:
And luck too. Like when Novak was leading 40-0 with the lead 6-5, Federer takes a chance and hits a forehand cross to make it a winner and it just takes on the last part of the line. Now, anyone that has played tennis knows that you can't direct a ball with that kind of precision that you actually want the ball to hit there, but you hit the ball in that direction and you then hope that the ball will hit a part of the line.
Click to expand...

But luck is 50/50. Federer will hit the line in 9/10 setballs. He is just supernatural when it comes to the important points. I honestly have never seen anything like it, in any other sport either.
 
Psmith said:
One of the reasons Federer remains injury free is because he has fantastic technique. Nadal puts everything into every shot, which is he's just burnt out by the end of the season. Same thing with Roddick, who has a dodgy service action.

I hope Federer wins the French next year. That should confirm he's the greatest ever.
Click to expand...

Agassi also had fantastic technique but he was struck by injuries when he was like 23 years old, mainly because he was unlucky.
 
Psmith said:
One of the reasons Federer remains injury free is because he has fantastic technique. Nadal puts everything into every shot, which is he's just burnt out by the end of the season. Same thing with Roddick, who has a dodgy service action.

I hope Federer wins the French next year. That should confirm he's the greatest ever.
Click to expand...

Very true. He has a very effective technique. Any tennis coach will tell you: Copy Federers serve, not Nadal or Roddicks serve. Federer will hit the ball as hard (almost) without all that strain on the body.
 
Ruben said:
But luck is 50/50. Federer will hit the line in 9/10 setballs. He is just supernatural when it comes to the important points. I honestly have never seen anything like it, in any other sport either.
Click to expand...

In my opinion luck is not 50/50. Some people barely have any luck, while others are very lucky. My point is that Federers greatness combined with the luck he has makes him this good.
 
ILBB15 said:
In my opinion luck is not 50/50. Some people barely have any luck, while others are very lucky. My point is that Federers greatness combined with the luck he has makes him this good.
Click to expand...

Of course luck can come and go in periods of time but over a number of years, like the last five, luck will probably be evened out pretty much.
 
ILBB15 said:
In my opinion luck is not 50/50. Some people barely have any luck, while others are very lucky. My point is that Federers greatness combined with the luck he has makes him this good.
Click to expand...

Looking at it that way, then every great sportsman is lucky. You could even argue that Federer is lucky to be born with such natural talent.
 
Psmith said:
Looking at it that way, then every great sportsman is lucky. You could even argue that Federer is lucky to be born with such natural talent.
Click to expand...

Yes it does have a lot to do with luck. What if Maradonas first goal against England had been disallowed and Maradona had been given a red card? He was just lucky that the ref didn't see it.

I swear, if I had scored a goal like that somewhere I would have been sent off immediately.
 
I think sometimes you make your own luck. Federer has the vision to try big shots at big moments and has the skill to pull them off. He has now won 12 slams in just over 4 years while it took Sampras about 12 years to win his 14. I'm sure, barring devastating injury, Fed will pass that. I think he is realistic enough to know that he won't be winning 3 a year much longer. I hope he gets the French; he is the 2nd best clay court player after all. Don't understand why anyone doesn't like him. He is charming, funny, a great sportsman and a fantastic player. What's not to like?
 
Djokovic was perhaps unlucky not to take a set yesterday. The fact remains he lost in 3, which is a decisive defeat.

Apart from a couple of losses on clay to one of the greatest clay court players ever, Federer would have just won 2 grand slams in a row. Nadal and Djokovic still have a lot of catching up to do. Maybe they will get closer next year. But will it be close enough?
 
Anyway, how do you define luck in tennis?

When your opponent makes an unenforced error - his fault.

When you force him to make an error - your skill.

When you hit the winner, no matter with how many nanometers on the line, your skill.

An on this top level, where every point can be decisive, there is not such a thing like luck, when player wins several grandslams in a row.
 
Apart from bad line calls, which are rare in tennis, luck plays little part during matches. Luck is more about what happens before the match - rain delays, unfair scheduling, opponent defaults or plays the match of his life, all things which can make a player more or less tired than he should be when going in to play an important final or semi-final. And the draw is based partly on luck and partly on seeding.
 
Giggsy PO said:
Anyway, how do you define luck in tennis?

When your opponent makes an unenforced error - his fault.

When you force him to make an error - your skill.

When you hit the winner, no matter with how many nanometers on the line, your skill.

An on this top level, where every point can be decisive, there is not such a thing like luck, when player wins several grandslams in a row.
Click to expand...

Have you played tennis before? Some of the shots that a player makes are completely lucky. You can make a mishit and still it can be a clear winner, and you can make a fantastic shot that you actually didn't want to make. When someone tries to block a hard serve, he just blocks the ball with his racket and he then hopes that the ball will make it on the inside of the court.
 
Maybe you have a different interpretation of luck. Shots that happen during a match are down to the skill, or lack of it, from the players. This is not luck, which refers to any "randomness" which affects the outcome of matches but which is outside the possible control of the players. Chess has no luck, but roulette is pure luck.

Really the only bad luck Djokovic had yesterday was that he was playing Federer and not Davydenko.
 
Djokovic has himself to blame for even giving Fed a chance at 6-5. You can be sure Fed would have pulled off atleast one ace for those 5 set points.
Anyway this was more of a learning exp for him, will impart him much needed mental toughness.
 
ILBB15 said:
Have you played tennis before? Some of the shots that a player makes are completely lucky. You can make a mishit and still it can be a clear winner, and you can make a fantastic shot that you actually didn't want to make. When someone tries to block a hard serve, he just blocks the ball with his racket and he then hopes that the ball will make it on the inside of the court.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did.

But back to the topic. You said that Federer is the luckiest player ever, opposed to e.g. Sampras or Agassi. And that is obvioulsy bullshit and end off our discusion.
 
Giggsy PO said:
Yes, I did.

But back to the topic. You said that Federer is the luckiest player ever, opposed to e.g. Sampras or Agassi. And that is obvioulsy bullshit and end off our discusion.
Click to expand...

Why is it bullshit?

I've already mentioned in what ways he's been lucky during his career and I also forgot to mention that he's extremly fortunate not to be playing in the 90s. The standards among the rest of the players(except Nadal and now Djokovic) have been really poor the last couple of years. I doubt that he would have been able to win 12 grand slams in 4 years if he had played during the 90s.
 
I play a lot of tennis at a fairly decent level and sure I have luck where I mishit shots and they go in etc but I'm not the best player in the world. The fact that Fed consistently plays the big points well is more than luck. He goes for it and because of his skill he makes the shots more times than not. If it was all luck he would not be winning the big matches the way he does. I think all great players have the skill to pull off the great plays and Fed just does it more than most.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
I play a lot of tennis at a fairly decent level and sure I have luck where I mishit shots and they go in etc but I'm not the best player in the world. The fact that Fed consistently plays the big points well is more than luck. He goes for it and because of his skill he makes the shots more times than not. If it was all luck he would not be winning the big matches the way he does. I think all great players have the skill to pull off the great plays and Fed just does it more than most.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying all of it is luck. I'm just saying that he never has those periods when everything goes against him, which all the others have at least once during their careers.
 
ILBB15 said:
Why is it bullshit?

I've already mentioned in what ways he's been lucky during his career and I also forgot to mention that he's extremly fortunate not to be playing in the 90s. The standards among the rest of the players(except Nadal and now Djokovic) have been really poor the last couple of years. I doubt that he would have been able to win 12 grand slams in 4 years if he had played during the 90s.
Click to expand...

Now that can be classed as luck, whether good or bad. Federer could have won the French a few times in the 90's because there was no-one as good as Nadal on clay. And Sampras was lucky that Federer was not playing in the 90's.
 
ILBB15 said:
Why is it bullshit?

I've already mentioned in what ways he's been lucky during his career and I also forgot to mention that he's extremly fortunate not to be playing in the 90s. The standards among the rest of the players(except Nadal and now Djokovic) have been really poor the last couple of years. I doubt that he would have been able to win 12 grand slams in 4 years if he had played during the 90s.
Click to expand...

I think the standard is higher now. There is more depth in the men than there ever used to be. Look at Sampras and Wimbledon; I believe he only had 1 5 set final and some real duds against Washington and Pioline. And talk about luck with him. He would have lost to Rafter in 2000 if Rafter hadn't choked totally in the second set tiebreaker. Plus the match at the U.S open against Corretja when Sampras was vomiting all over the place and hit an incredible second serve ace. Was that luck that it went in or skill that he tried it? However it is very difficult to compare different eras.
 
surf said:
Now that can be classed as luck, whether good or bad. Federer could have won the French a few times in the 90's because there was no-one as good as Nadal on clay. And Sampras was lucky that Federer was not playing in the 90's.
Click to expand...

Vice versa.
 
ILBB15 said:
I'm not saying all of it is luck. I'm just saying that he never has those periods when everything goes against him, which all the others have at least once during their careers.
Click to expand...

He lost the Master final a couple of years ago because he had a sprained ankle and was out for a while. He would have won that if he had been fit so that was bad luck.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
He lost the Master final a couple of years ago because he had a sprained ankle and was out for a while. He would have won that if he had been fit so that was bad luck.
Click to expand...

Well, it was not in a very important game though.

Lets just agree to disagree.
 
Just look at the 2002 australian open and the poor quality of the players there. Tomas Johansson won it which is a joke. Or the 2002 Wimbledon, just one year before Federer began his domination.
 
ILBB15 said:
Well, it was not in a very important game though.

.
Click to expand...

I think the year ending final is quite a big deal actually. Anyway I still think a player makes his luck.
The big question is will Roger win the French which will cement his greatness? Will be tough with Nadal in the way but if anyone can do it, Fed will. Sampras never even got to a final did he?
I also think Fed won't be winning 3 grand slams a year much longer as he is bound to start to slow down in the next year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.