Re: Is Fed just a big server?

On Oct 5, 9:59 am, "Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Jason Catlin" <jasoncatlin1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:946feb25-1d65-46d8-ab44-ed4f5bd22928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Oct 5, 8:49 am, "john" <jli...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Iceberg" <iceberg.ru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:ddiym.101775$OO7.51824@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jason Catlin" <jasoncatlin1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:33573da5-3966-4546-8c21-8df4b4671de9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Oct 3, 1:20 pm, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 3, 8:41 am, Whisper <beaver...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Iceberg wrote:
Glancing back on the posts since the US Open final, we can see
that
all
the Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. They
have
done
this a lot recently. So let me ask you a question, is Fed nothing
more
than just a big server? we all know that is the only reason he
won
the
Wimbledon final, so it's a fair question to...discuss

Fed has a phenomenal record in tie-breaks in Wimbledon finals.  If
he
loses those t/b's he'd be a 2 or 3 time Wimbledon champ at best.

Seems to me that winning tiebreakers, especially in Wimbledon finals,
is a good sign of a champion.

It's been Fed's ability to stay calm and execute in those crucial
tiebreakers that have been a huge key to his success. I couldn't
believe how well we played the third set tiebreaker in the 05 USO
final, for example. How he was able to tune out the crowd and all that
pressure and play glorious tennis was something else. Some people here
seem to think this guy's all talent and somehow relatively lacking in
mental toughness, which is one of the more absurd ideas you'll read on
this ng.

he's not challenged mentally that often as the media has hyped him so
much
most of his competitors are scared or too much in-awe to try to beat
him
or they're just clowns - Soderling = absolute prime example.
Canas/Murray/Nadal have illustrated this better than anyone else. When
Fed
has been challenged and he's not on his A game, the result is usually a
win for the other guy.

Why is the media hyped him so much ?  This is the question you have to
ask.
The simple
answer is the guy has the run on the board, he won 15 grand slams because
he
is head and
shoulder above most of his peers in his era.  Canas/Murray may be able to
squeeze a few
wins in tune up but they are non factors in grand slam tournaments.
Nadal's
hard court grand
slam record told us how far he really is behind Federer on that surface.
Nadal's weakest surface
is hard court even then he was never the 2nd best on that surface through
out much of his career.
Of course guys like you never give credit for Federer for fighting his
way
out of a 2 sets deficit to
win match in AO and FO.  Nadal was giving the credit as a fighter yet he
never demonstrate in the
last few years he was able to show enough fight to win matches when
things
weren't quite right.
Where was that warrior Nadal in this years' USO and FO ?- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Why turn this part of the thread into criticism of Nadal? I commend
Federer on his great and underrated mental toughness, without which
all the talent in the world would never be enough to make him a great
champion. Iceberg responds in typical trolling mode, making some
ridiculous attempt to discredit his achievements. And then you have to
respond to that by making some dig at Nadal.

Now I know why I'm spending less and less time on this ng.

not trolling, my record shows that I've consistently disagreed with the
opinion that Fed is a great fighter, in my book he isn't, there's very
little evidence to show he is. Those Canas wins made me realise this. He's
generally relied on his talent and guys being afraid of him (usually due to
the media hype). Agassi and Sampras would have had field day with him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You're referring to matches that Fed lost after he had already won 10
GS titles. Those losses were like the
equivalent of Sampras losing to Bohdan Ulihrach in 1997 IW, i.e.
meaningless. The only match of significance in Fed's career where he
hasn't fought well, imo, is the 08 FO final. I'm sure one day he'll
admit that in some form or another. That was a rather pathetic
display, but Fed has shown great fighting ability in many matches. How
about the 05 KB final? The 08 Wimby final? The 05 YEC final, where he
was dead tired and still fought back to within 2 points of winning?
There's really very little evidence of Fed giving up in matches,
compared with all the times he's turned around matches that weren't
going well.

And that's talking only about fighting from behind, what about all the
matches that have been close and yet he's always the one winning the
crucial 3rd set breaker or getting the crucial break of serve to get
things in his favor. I don't know how you can not be trolling if you
say that's only because of talent. In fact, the whole notion of a 15
time GS champ who isn't extremely mentally tough or a great fighter is
absurd.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Fed just a big server?
    ... the Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. ... all the talent in the world would never be enough to make him a great ... You're referring to matches that Fed lost after he had already won 10 ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Is Fed just a big server?
    ... Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. ... and then at coupla non-clay finals when he was off peak proves ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Is Fed just a big server?
    ... Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. ... When one part of his game isn't clicking, ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: Is Fed just a big server?
    ... Fedfans are blaming the reason he lost on his serve. ... Federer has to serve big in the KTE or he won't succeed. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
  • Re: FO 1984 - final between Mac and Lendl
    ... the baseline and traded groundstrokes with Lendl. ... Mac's 1st serve ... reason he lost. ...
    (rec.sport.tennis)
Loading