how idiotic are you.
Not on his game at all?
50plus aces
over a 100 winners
Even Roger said they both played well. WTF
Wimbledon 2009
- Thread starter Nani Nana
- Start date
how idiotic are you.
Not on his game at all?
50plus aces
over a 100 winners
Even Roger said they both played well. WTF
how idiotic are you.
Not on his game at all?
50plus aces
over a 100 winners
Even Roger said they both played well. WTF
Federer didn't play as well as he can. He's not going to say "Well, I was a bit shit.. but still enough to beat Roddick, I suppose", is he?
He won about four important points to win the match. Murray was below par. Roddick was excellent though.
Apparently, Roddick injured his hip yesterday in the fourth set when he fell down awkwardly. I don't know the extent of the injury, but if true (which I don't doubt because of the awkwardness of the fall itself), it's noteworthy that he was able to carry on playing 30+ games in spite of it. Perhaps it explains why Roddick got caught a bit wrong footed, and looked fatigued towards the end. If this is all true, it should give Roddick even more confidence that he took Federer to the brink, and that it took an injury to take him out this time.
The injury didn't take him out, clearly he was ok to play on
It could've played a part
Obviously he was ok to play on, but you don't know that it didn't ultimately take him out. There are several reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from all this, one of which is that it did become progressively worse, and did take him out.
Played a part in him winning his next 14 odd service games?
He fell awkwardly, he didn't compete for a few points, thereafter he was fine. Maybe it hurts today, but he was capable of going toe to toe with Federer, clearly it wasn't that much of an issue
Nope, it's just looking for excuses, where none are needed really
He played a great match, more than good enough to win the Championship
But he was up against Federer. And bar all but one game that also went into extended play in the 5th against the other special player of this generation at Wimbledon over the last 7 years, Federer wins
If his injury is a problem, he loses the final set 6-0, not 16-14
In all the years that I've seen Roddick, he's never struck me as the kind of person who'd resort to an excuse. And combined with the awkwardness of the fall itself, I can reason that his injury and its effects became progressively worse as the match wore on. You obviously can have your opinions and if you represent it as such, that's one thing, but for you to be definitive without knowledge of all relevant facts presumably seems odd to say the least.
Also, you're basically presenting a false dichotomy. In other words, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's two options, one that he would have lost 6-0 if he had a big enough injury or that the injury didn't affect him, and that it allowed him to play without effect. As I said before, there are several reasonable explanations, one being that his injury and its effects became progressively worse as the match wore on, and eventually resulted in the defeat. Yet another could be that his subsequent running around in one particular instant exacerbated the injury, and thereby caused the significant downward turn in his performance in the final games. Without anything more, we're just speculating.
I'm sorry
You're blaming him losing on an injury that he hasn't once complained about, and failed to prevent him hammering down 140mph serves and win 14 consecutive service games, all the while gaining more break points against his opponent, who just happens to be the greatest grand slam player in the history of the game, and 5 time Wimbledon Champion (at that point)
You've come up with a theory, baseless on the evidence of how the match played out thereafter, and now you're passing it off as 'facht'
He didn't even call the trainer for a massage or painkillers, I doubt it played a part, I imagine you're so high on adrenaline anyway at the time.
He said in his post match press conference it was fine and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a ploy to get out of the Davis Cup in a few days time. Don't blame him.
He said in his post match press conference it was fine and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a ploy to get out of the Davis Cup in a few days time. Don't blame him.
Roddick was serving bombs still at the end, but his groundstrokes vanished, probably due to fatigue. His serve kept him in it for about his last 3 service games. Roger was serving huge and looked like he could have easily played on. It was great match and Roger just had enough to take it. Roddick played the game of his life but couldn't do it. I'm not a fan of his, but I did feel sorry for him but thrilled for Roger. People who say he is arrogant etc are crazy. He is a very humble person considering and a real gentleman.
Roddick not complaining his injury after the match falls in line with his character. It's a reasonable possibility that you've dismissed without full knowledge of the circumstances such as the degree of his injury.
And while you can think about the 12 games or so, think about the last remaining games when he looked off his game. Yes, it could be fatigue, it could be the effects of the war of attrition, but it also could've been the injury progressing to the point that it did begin to affect his game or that he sustained an exacerbation of the injury.
And what's funny is that I'm the one who's been saying all along that there are several possibilities while representing nothing as fact. You on the other hand are so definitive about what actually happened without knowing all the relevant facts. So who's the one presumptuously passing their view as "facht"? Look in the mirror.
how idiotic are you.
Not on his game at all?
50plus aces
over a 100 winners
Even Roger said they both played well. WTF
He only broke Roddick's serve once all match, despite it being the longest match in the history of tennis.
and he didn't play nearly as well as he can. and, he kept making unforced errors, and cocking up relatively easy return shots.
The fact he got taken to the wire by a player who's nowhere near as good as him says enough.
Well done on calling me an idiot, though.
Tennis
Yeah Tennis motherfecker!
He looked off his game that final set did he? I bet most players wish they could play like that in the decisive set of a grand slam final against arguably the greatest tennis player of all time!!!"I can reason that his injury and its effects became progressively worse as the match wore on" was your comment. No you can't. Off pure guesswork, and seemingly wanting it to be injury that cost him the match, you can reason it. To go off what happened on the court, clearly he was fine to go toe to toe with Federer
How about he lost just because Federer finally found a way to break his serve once in the match, and was good enough not to lose his own in the meantime eh? And the likelyhood fatigue was taking hold in both men, what with it being 15-14 in the 5th set and all
This reminds me when some folk were insistent Ole knackered his knee back during his celebration in '99. Utter nonsense, it's as if people want it to be true so bad they pass it off as fact. Bizarre
Gutted for A-Rod, he gave everything but couldnt close out and it was all down to the serving of Federer...
Roddick actually served better against Murray yet Murray managed to break him 2 or 3 times...
Roddick was doing all the forcing and really going for it, Federer just waited and waited and waited.
It was quite a boring match as far as tennis goes but on drama is was pretty special. I really felt bad for Roddick.
Roddick actually served better against Murray yet Murray managed to break him 2 or 3 times...
Roddick was doing all the forcing and really going for it, Federer just waited and waited and waited.
It was quite a boring match as far as tennis goes but on drama is was pretty special. I really felt bad for Roddick.
How come no one does this in tennis anymore?
Federer did it to win his semi final vs Haas!
But the real reason is because hardly anyone serves and volleys anymore.
But the real reason is because hardly anyone serves and volleys anymore.
"I can reason that his injury and its effects became progressively worse as the match wore on" was your comment. No you can't. Off pure guesswork, and seemingly wanting it to be injury that cost him the match, you can reason it. To go off what happened on the court, clearly he was fine to go toe to toe with Federer
What's particularly laughable is that you're still on about this. I suggest you let it go because you're not coming off too well.
For starters, if you're able to read at all, I said that he looked off his game in the final few games, not set. That's a world of difference that you failed to comprehend. I wasn't referring to the entire set, i.e., 16-14 marathon. I was referring to the last remaining games, i.e., perhaps some time after 13-13 or so, where Roddick looked like a different player. Do try to keep up.
Again, your poor reading comprehension betrays you. If you focus long enough, you'll see that I said that it was reasonably possible that Roddick lost because he lost the "war of attrition", i.e., fatigue setting in. Of course, I also said that it was a "reasonable possibility" that it was because the effects of the injury setting in. So, for the umpteenth time, I'm the one who's open minded about what the real answer may be. On the other hand, you're the one whose behaving like Rafa, trying to represent one possibility as conclusive fact. Yes, it's you, sadly. Hey pot, feeling black today?
On second thought, please post more because now I'm curious what the root of your problem is. That is, if you're just a wum or if you really are this thick-headed. I have hopes that it's the former because the latter would be rather pathetic to be honest.
Where could I watch the final online? I missed it
I thought Federer played pretty poor. Which might tell you more about how good he is considering he was poor yet still won wimbledon...
Federer served brilliant but the rest of his game wasn't up to it on the day. Roddick served brilliant but couldnt take his chance.
In the end i think Roddick just punched himself out.
Federer served brilliant but the rest of his game wasn't up to it on the day. Roddick served brilliant but couldnt take his chance.
In the end i think Roddick just punched himself out.
Re: tennis players getting injured.
Why are they such pussies? One of em falls over and the whole crowd goes 'ooooooooooh' and then they lie down for ages and gingerly get back up whilst the commentator reacts like he's just seen a man fall out the back of a moving truck. It's grass ffs. They're f'kin worse than footballers!
Re: the final. Roddick should've taken his chance in the 2nd set tie break. He had an excellent tournament though.
Why are they such pussies? One of em falls over and the whole crowd goes 'ooooooooooh' and then they lie down for ages and gingerly get back up whilst the commentator reacts like he's just seen a man fall out the back of a moving truck. It's grass ffs. They're f'kin worse than footballers!
Re: the final. Roddick should've taken his chance in the 2nd set tie break. He had an excellent tournament though.
You really don't want to watch it.
Well as a spectator you would be worried the match would be stopped due to injury, you cant just sub them off. And considering players fall all the time playing football it isn't unusual whilst in tennis it doesnt happen so often so when it does a little panic sets in.
Aye, Roddick should have. Still think if Murray had served even 60% he would have beaten Roddick but you have to take your hat off the A-Rod, he's got guts and with his serve he should always pose a major threat.
Someone mentioned serving and volleying and had Roddick even a half decent consistant volley, serving like he was, he'd have won that match quite comfortably imo
For me I'd be upset that say, for half a set I did'nt even put Fed under the cosh by serving and volleying just to see the results
When you've got a weapon like Roddick has for fast courts he's just wasting it really. Not only that but the points are over quick which is the complete opposite of chasing down balls in 20 hit rallys. It would also give someone even as good as Federer much more to think about on his return. Look how for about 80% of that match Federer, once his eye was 'in', simply blocked back the return which would then set off a point with a rally - a good volleyer ( not even a great one) would have demolished 75% of those returns.
I think Federer played excellent tactically - very sound knowing Roddick would stay back
Roddick's 2nd serve was good enough to come in on maybe %50 of the time so there was a lot of cheap points for him gone begging there too
Great effort by Roddick and he's raised his baseline game immensely but if he really worked on his volleying he'd have the beating of both Federer and Nadal on a fast court imo
I really feel he'd have won this final had he come to the net and pressured Federer maybe %30 more
Yeah Jopub, with Federer getting no reading on his serves whatsoever he could have afforded to come in behind the serve on occasion to throw the element of doubt in, that way Federer would think twice about pust patting it back.
Anyway, i was geuinely gutted for A-Rod, more gutted for him than i was for Murray.
Anyway, i was geuinely gutted for A-Rod, more gutted for him than i was for Murray.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/events/wimbledon/p003ng9c
All on the iPlayer, think you have to be in the UK though.
Some belting insults there mateSo you come to the thread, claim that "combined with the awkwardness of the fall itself, I can reason that his injury and its effects became progressively worse as the match wore on" even though he never called for the trainer, didn't lose power on his serve, played on for about 30 more games winning all but the last of his service games... and you had a go at me for not going off 'the facts'
He hurt himself in a fall. He got up, looked ginger and didn't compete for a few points, then he was fine and played his part in an epic final set. You can give it all the FeedingSeagulls patronising hypothesis scenario possibility bullshit, he lost because in the 77th game of the match, he lost his serve against arguably the best player of all time, for the first time in the match
You can waste time coming up with 'reasoned' excuses for that, the rest of us don't have to. We congratulate him on how close he came, it was a bloody good effort that bodes well for the future, and if he'd won that second set as he really should have, who knows what could have happened
What? You think I was actually expending energy trying to insult you? I think you do fine on your own to be honest.
Pffft...classic strawman argument. In other words, you're claiming things I never said. The only true quibble I had with your post is that your claim that you basically knew for a certainty that Roddick's injury had no effect. On the other hand, I said... ah, feck it. I've already repeated it several times. If you can't understand the distinction, then that's your problem.
Tell me, why did Roddick look like a complete different player at around 13-12 or so? He got caught wrong footed in several instances since that time unlike before generally. He looked a bit more stiff. Was it fatigue? Was he mentally beaten? Did he tweak his injury? At least I don't have the hubris to claim to know the absolute truth unlike you. feck... I had to repeat myself to you again because of your poor reading comprehension abilities. I promise this will be the last time... and this time, I mean it. Or something.
And then, there's your appeal to the masses. It's rather pathetic. Furthermore, there's a clear difference between what you've said compared to what others have generally said. Here's one example from Skelter:
Do you see the difference? He's representing it as his opinion on what he thinks happened. It's a reasoned response. I've got no problems with that whatsoever. In fact, I might go so far as to agree with it if someone held a gun to my head.
But on the other hand, for you to go around beating your chest that you know for a certainty that the Roddick's injury had no effect whatsoever. That's presumptuousness. Hopefully, you'll learn to avoid doing dumb things like that in similar instances such as this.
Listen, have your final go at it because this is really boring.
tbh mate you're stretching it a bit here
Professional (athletic) solo ( not team) sport played at this level is based soundly on
1 the ability you have
2 the fitness you have
3 and the willpower therefor confidence you have
Any kind of injury that gets in the way of any of these will result in you getting, at the very highest of levels, not just losing but a complete hammering. Any small injury sustained in tennis will result in a huge inability to move and keep up with an opponent who will take every advantage to nail you in the most physically brutal way possible - in short you're ability to actually even compete is destroyed totally. In tennis if you see an opponent cant move quite right on his forehand side then that's exactly where you stick it, if you see his shoulder is giving him problems then you throw up plenty of lobs and of course professional class players can do that to the letter. If Roddick were injured he'd have collapsed in a completely obvious way imo and probably retired a game later knowing it was no longer a contest. As someone who played the game at a decent level I can say he was'nt injured, in a long term way that made him lose - he'd never have finished the match
His demise eventually was one that a professional can suffer, absolutely run out of lungs after 4 and a half hours, his stamina made it very difficult for him to move to the ball and his ground strokes started to weaken, his timing to dissappear and his ability to get the ball back with any aggression almost impossible. The only thing he could do in the last three four games was to at least serve where his technique and timing held up untill the very last game.
Do you know he mishit his last three points when Federer returned the serve.? He was out on his feet and really as in boxing, he took a final right to the chin that put his lights outs
Making out any case of injury is not really an option
I'm trying not to lean in Brad's way here (as he's a cvnt
) but I think you're wrong about this one oh Oderous OneI beg to differ. For example, Michael Chang vs. Ivan Lendl in the French Open. You probably will recall that Lendl was a dominant player at that time. On the other hand, Michael Chang was a scrappy fellow who happened to be suffering from severe leg cramps during that match. Chang managed to pull a few tricks here and there, and eventually won the match in spite of carrying around his severely hampered leg condition.
We've also seen Sampras play some five set matches where he was hanging on for dear life (we're talking being bent over and panting with a sick look on his face) at the last set because he usually didn't need that much time to dispose of people, and thusly, didn't generally have the fitness for five-set marathons, but nevertheless his superior skills allowed him to survive and play on and win in several instances.
We also see numerous instances where players will wear bandages around their hamstring, quads or other parts of the body because they're nursing a tender condition from an injury, and in many instances, they compete well. So, in some instances, a collapse or retirement is imminent as you've stated, but that's not always the case because it depends on the extent of the injury among other things.
To be fair, it did look like Roddick got over the effects of the slip and fall very shortly thereafter. But as I've said before, there came a point at around 13-12 in the fifth set where he looked noticeably different. All I'm saying is that it's not unreasonable to think that he perhaps may have exacerbated the tweak that he sustained or perhaps that his adrenaline no longer staved off the limitations. Furthermore, Roddick has foregone playing Davis Cup, something that he's represented well his entire career, as a result of his hip injury. Perhaps he's just mentally fatigued. Perhaps he needs an easy way to bow out of the spotlight for a while. Or perhaps he simply does have a hip injury that got progressively worse.
Federer did out last Roddick, it is testament to the efficiency of his game, this is reflected in his record 21 consecutive semi final appearances. 5 years of grand slams and he's never been injured or tired to the point where he can't reach the top 4, another reason why he is the greatest
fecking hell
Are me and Jopub essentially agreeing on something here?!?!
Who have thought it eh!
I remember the Chang Lendl match well, watched it.
However getting / overcoming cramps is part of a professional athlete's agenda. It clearly never stopped him mobility wise as he managed to get to corners laterally along the baseline to return long stroke rallys, so he was'nt that badly hindered and on a clay court as well where continual movement is a prerequisite
It may have hurt a bit but not what I would call an injury as such and cramps is also temporary as well so he'd have played knowing it would probably go away. As for some of the other dubious tactics in that match - well ! - the underarm serve became legendary and Lendl's nonsensicle inability to cope with the situation was hilarious - what a twat - screaming at unpire, ball boys and crowd because he could'nt put Chang away
. Idiot, all he had to do was keep his head and he'd have won at a a canter
No I think if you are in any way hampered mobility wise at this level its over within a game or two maybe after a vist from the on court medic. Roddick looked to me like he succumbed to fatigue in the most honest of ways - he simply ran out of steam and could barely put one foot in front of another at the finish, hence no movement of the feet on any rally more than two shots, hence his mishits and his final demise
I'm dissapointed for him as his efforts deserved a win but you cant take anything away from Federer - he was up for the battle and as far as mental and physical strength go you cant fault him
Be interesting when Nadal gets back because I think Federer in the last two months has added to his game in terms of durability - should be a fair few more corking battles to come from both of them. Hopefully Federer can sustain the hunger which is difficult once kids and family come along in terms of priorities
Federer didn't play well because Roddick didn't allow him to. He could barely get beyond his serve for 3/4 of the match, and when he did, Roddick was hanging in there with his improved ground-strokes and odd winners.
I generally agree with Nearco on this. When Nadal is fit, Federer has always been second best. It's the difference between playing under immense pressure and no pressure at all, for him.
If Nadal can avoid any serious injuries, my money is on him surpassing Federer's record.
I generally agree with Nearco on this. When Nadal is fit, Federer has always been second best. It's the difference between playing under immense pressure and no pressure at all, for him.
If Nadal can avoid any serious injuries, my money is on him surpassing Federer's record.