Discussion:
40-15
(too old to reply)
Whisper
2021-02-27 11:01:31 UTC
Permalink
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu


I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?

Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Wow. I've rewatched those 2 pts many times, but when you actually watch entire game you get a far better sense just how close it was.


And imo the famous passing shot is least problematic for Federer. His approach shot was medium okayish and Djokovic punished it with a safely played passing shot. However it was not really a bad shot from Federer on a match pt?

Compare with Djokovic's net approach against Medvedev on a match pt if you watched highlights. Nothing spectacular, it's the surprise effect they're after in that moment, not perfect execution.

I think Federer played a solid point at 40-30. The thing is, Djokovic assumed/knew due to his experience I guess, that Federer would attempt to come in an he waited. It happens.

So rather than being very spectacular, the second match point was more of a cat and mouse point. They usually go 50-50.

It's actually the first match point that Federer should have regrets about, if anything, the second serve return that he threw out seemingly for no reason. Followed by two lost rallies on deuce.

The well known passing shot at 40-30 is actually the best point Federer played of those 4 imo.




PS check this point. Return, followed by passing. Tops. Here, Medvedev at 00-30 with serving at 5:6 in first set, Djokovic guesses side.


--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-02-27 12:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Wow. I've rewatched those 2 pts many times, but when you actually watch entire game you get a far better sense just how close it was.
And imo the famous passing shot is least problematic for Federer. His approach shot was medium okayish and Djokovic punished it with a safely played passing shot. However it was not really a bad shot from Federer on a match pt?
Compare with Djokovic's net approach against Medvedev on a match pt if you watched highlights. Nothing spectacular, it's the surprise effect they're after in that moment, not perfect execution.
I think Federer played a solid point at 40-30. The thing is, Djokovic assumed/knew due to his experience I guess, that Federer would attempt to come in an he waited. It happens.
So rather than being very spectacular, the second match point was more of a cat and mouse point. They usually go 50-50.
It's actually the first match point that Federer should have regrets about, if anything, the second serve return that he threw out seemingly for no reason. Followed by two lost rallies on deuce.
The well known passing shot at 40-30 is actually the best point Federer played of those 4 imo.
Yes, but you see how Fed hesitates coming to the net. He waits until he
hits his fh & then follows to the net. This gave Djoker extra
milliseconds to size up a crosscourt passing shot. Sampras would have
hit the fh flat & hard while stepping in and approaching net in 1 smooth
motion. Djoker may have made the passing shot anyway, but he'd have far
less time to react. In fact Sampras likely hits a fh winner from that
same position as there would be no hesitation on his part.
Post by *skriptis
PS check this point. Return, followed by passing. Tops. Here, Medvedev at 00-30 with serving at 5:6 in first set, Djokovic guesses side.
http://youtu.be/w4N_28vdS-Q
Yes, that was the key point in the whole final. Very memorable. It
shook Meds up, contributing to the error on set point.
TT
2021-02-27 13:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy.  Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts.  What should
he have done?
Handled his nerves better...

Clearly a stiff arm & shaky legs after those two aces. He wanted it too
much.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
grif
2021-02-27 14:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy.  Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts.  What should he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
PeteWasLucky
2021-02-27 15:22:59 UTC
Permalink
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Are you warming up for incoming Wimbledon final? :)

I have to admit, I didn't watch your clip, and never re-watched
the final. I simply can't, it's too painful for me.

I enjoy watching Federer matches that he lost, but not this one.

Regarding what Federer should have done , I played this blame game
and I concluded it's stupid because he is the one that got
himself to these match points and definitely he knows how to win
slams.

It's one of these matches that you try to forget and get out of
your mind.

This is sports.

He said, he won matches he shouldn't have won and lost matches he
should have won, and he is okay with it.

Comes to my mind, Wimbledon final against Andy Rodick that he won
in five sets. This was supposed to go to Andy.

I hope he has one Wimbledon left in him.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
guypers
2021-02-27 15:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Are you warming up for incoming Wimbledon final? :)
I have to admit, I didn't watch your clip, and never re-watched
the final. I simply can't, it's too painful for me.
I enjoy watching Federer matches that he lost, but not this one.
Regarding what Federer should have done , I played this blame game
and I concluded it's stupid because he is the one that got
himself to these match points and definitely he knows how to win
slams.
It's one of these matches that you try to forget and get out of
your mind.
This is sports.
He said, he won matches he shouldn't have won and lost matches he
should have won, and he is okay with it.
Comes to my mind, Wimbledon final against Andy Rodick that he won
in five sets. This was supposed to go to Andy.
I hope he has one Wimbledon left in him.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Agree, but should have served down the middle, lower net, cuts down the angle, easier volley, ask Ice?
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-27 15:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Are you warming up for incoming Wimbledon final? :)
I have to admit, I didn't watch your clip, and never re-watched
the final. I simply can't, it's too painful for me.
I enjoy watching Federer matches that he lost, but not this one.
Regarding what Federer should have done , I played this blame game
and I concluded it's stupid because he is the one that got
himself to these match points and definitely he knows how to win
slams.
Yep. Fed was a bit tentative, and the FH was wewy short. But that
happens all the time. Sampras too was a bit tentative with that BH on BP
against Fed in 2001. That was the make or break shot of the match. He
regretted that shot, but he knows the ballgame and that he played an
otherwise excellent match. Stuff just happens.

Loading Image...

Chjoking is part of the game.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-02-27 21:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by PeteWasLucky
https://streamable.com/dwlbtuI edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to 40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should he have done?Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat slam count.
Are you warming up for incoming Wimbledon final? :)
I have to admit, I didn't watch your clip, and never re-watched
the final. I simply can't, it's too painful for me.
I recommend watching it. My point was the way he reached mp with 2
consecutive aces, then took foot off the pedal on remaining serves.
This speaks to his conservative natures, compared to Djoker taking
aggressive approach in similar situations? It's an interesting issue -
looks like Fed's conservative approach is the smart option v anyone
except Djoker? It's a very interesting dynamic that perhaps only Djoker
could exploit? You can see the puzzled look on Roger's face, trying to
calculate the best strategy to get over the line. His nature is to
maximize odds of winning, while at the same time knows how Djoker
approaches these situations - hoping things will be different this time,
but deep down doubts it?

Given he just served 2 great aces perhaps he should have stuck with what
worked and kept serving big rest of the game rather than slowing down?
He was trying to minimize risk of blowing it, but v Djoker that's
actually increasing the risk. Similar dynamic at those 2 USO semis v
Djoker where he also had 2 mp's in each match but Djoker went for it &
won.
Post by PeteWasLucky
I enjoy watching Federer matches that he lost, but not this one.
It's one of the best matches ever, same group with '80 Wimbledon final
imo. My fave Mac lost that one just as Fed lost this one, but they were
superb matches on the biggest arena, & big legacy implications in both
matches.
Post by PeteWasLucky
Regarding what Federer should have done , I played this blame game
and I concluded it's stupid because he is the one that got
himself to these match points and definitely he knows how to win
slams.
Yes, but he changed what was working.
Post by PeteWasLucky
It's one of these matches that you try to forget and get out of
your mind.
This is sports.
He said, he won matches he shouldn't have won and lost matches he
should have won, and he is okay with it.
He lost a lot more important matches he could have won. The ones he won
were mostly not slams.
Post by PeteWasLucky
Comes to my mind, Wimbledon final against Andy Rodick that he won
in five sets. This was supposed to go to Andy.
Yeah that was a weird match. Roddick maybe should have been up 2 sets
to 0 as he led 6-2 in 2nd set tb but lost 6 pts in a row to level it.
That's prob where he really lost that match.
Post by PeteWasLucky
I hope he has one Wimbledon left in him.
He'll prob come back very fresh & eager from this recent break. If he
has a good draw he could prob make semis without dropping a set, maybe
only a couple sets. The draw will be crucial, & then weird things can
happen Djoker can lose early to eg Opelka serving 100 aces while
carrying some kind of injury etc. We'll have to see how he plays next
time out.
bob
2021-02-27 19:47:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
1. 40-15 missed 1st serve, then a very loose FH.
2. 40-30 made 1st serve, djok makes nice pass on fed approach.
3. deuce missed 1st serve, then very weak rally to allow djok force an
error
4. ad out made 1st serve, then nets easy FH.

what could fed do different? you suggested the all 1st serves.
mivght've helped him at 40-15 or deuce?

mostly fed's nerves caved IMO.

bob
Whisper
2021-02-27 22:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
1. 40-15 missed 1st serve, then a very loose FH.
2. 40-30 made 1st serve, djok makes nice pass on fed approach.
3. deuce missed 1st serve, then very weak rally to allow djok force an
error
4. ad out made 1st serve, then nets easy FH.
what could fed do different? you suggested the all 1st serves.
mivght've helped him at 40-15 or deuce?
mostly fed's nerves caved IMO.
bob
Yes, the nerves got him to slow down the serve. The 1st ace Djoker had
no clue, moved the wrong way & easily beaten. The 2nd ace Djokere
guessed right but couldn't touch it. At 40-15 Fed served down the T &
Djoker was edging the wrong way. Would likely have been an ace had he
not throttled back on the power & caught the net. Would have been an
epic way to win the final, 3 aces in a row against maybe goat returner
in biggest final. Nerves got Fed to play very conservatively just when
he needed to steel himself & make another big server and/or fh winner.
guypers
2021-02-27 22:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
1. 40-15 missed 1st serve, then a very loose FH.
2. 40-30 made 1st serve, djok makes nice pass on fed approach.
3. deuce missed 1st serve, then very weak rally to allow djok force an
error
4. ad out made 1st serve, then nets easy FH.
what could fed do different? you suggested the all 1st serves.
mivght've helped him at 40-15 or deuce?
mostly fed's nerves caved IMO.
bob
Yes, the nerves got him to slow down the serve. The 1st ace Djoker had
no clue, moved the wrong way & easily beaten. The 2nd ace Djokere
guessed right but couldn't touch it. At 40-15 Fed served down the T &
Djoker was edging the wrong way. Would likely have been an ace had he
not throttled back on the power & caught the net. Would have been an
epic way to win the final, 3 aces in a row against maybe goat returner
in biggest final. Nerves got Fed to play very conservatively just when
he needed to steel himself & make another big server and/or fh winner.
Pete and Fed are very emotional personalities, Pancho had nerves of steel. The mexican cool cat
Whisper
2021-02-27 22:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by guypers
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
1. 40-15 missed 1st serve, then a very loose FH.
2. 40-30 made 1st serve, djok makes nice pass on fed approach.
3. deuce missed 1st serve, then very weak rally to allow djok force an
error
4. ad out made 1st serve, then nets easy FH.
what could fed do different? you suggested the all 1st serves.
mivght've helped him at 40-15 or deuce?
mostly fed's nerves caved IMO.
bob
Yes, the nerves got him to slow down the serve. The 1st ace Djoker had
no clue, moved the wrong way & easily beaten. The 2nd ace Djokere
guessed right but couldn't touch it. At 40-15 Fed served down the T &
Djoker was edging the wrong way. Would likely have been an ace had he
not throttled back on the power & caught the net. Would have been an
epic way to win the final, 3 aces in a row against maybe goat returner
in biggest final. Nerves got Fed to play very conservatively just when
he needed to steel himself & make another big server and/or fh winner.
Pete and Fed are very emotional personalities, Pancho had nerves of steel. The mexican cool cat
You can be emotional but not conservative & vice versa. Sampras showed
emotion but he served aces through tears, didn't throttle back.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-28 08:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by guypers
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
1. 40-15 missed 1st serve, then a very loose FH.
2. 40-30 made 1st serve, djok makes nice pass on fed approach.
3. deuce missed 1st serve, then very weak rally to allow djok force an
error
4. ad out made 1st serve, then nets easy FH.
what could fed do different? you suggested the all 1st serves.
mivght've helped him at 40-15 or deuce?
mostly fed's nerves caved IMO.
bob
Yes, the nerves got him to slow down the serve. The 1st ace Djoker had
no clue, moved the wrong way & easily beaten. The 2nd ace Djokere
guessed right but couldn't touch it. At 40-15 Fed served down the T &
Djoker was edging the wrong way. Would likely have been an ace had he
not throttled back on the power & caught the net. Would have been an
epic way to win the final, 3 aces in a row against maybe goat returner
in biggest final. Nerves got Fed to play very conservatively just when
he needed to steel himself & make another big server and/or fh winner.
Pete and Fed are very emotional personalities, Pancho had nerves of
steel. The mexican cool cat
You can be emotional but not conservative & vice versa.  Sampras showed
emotion but he served aces through tears, didn't throttle back.
Sampras himself thought he played an excellent match against Feds in
that 2001 encounter, but he dearly regretted that one conservative BH
slice on BP. He blinked on the most important point of the match.

Should of not throttled back.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-02-28 09:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
You can be emotional but not conservative & vice versa.  Sampras
showed emotion but he served aces through tears, didn't throttle back.
Sampras himself thought he played an excellent match against Feds in
that 2001 encounter, but he dearly regretted that one conservative BH
slice on BP. He blinked on the most important point of the match.
Should of not throttled back.
That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & Sampras
was at rock bottom form of his career. Neither was going to come close
to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v
Henman next rd.

It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15. If he got
it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins Wimbledon
as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side. That's what it comes down
to. A few inches. Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title
gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap). Coulda been 21 slams v 17 today
(4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap). All but for a couple
inches. Amazing really.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-28 11:04:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Pelle Svanslös
You can be emotional but not conservative & vice versa.  Sampras
showed emotion but he served aces through tears, didn't throttle back.
Sampras himself thought he played an excellent match against Feds in
that 2001 encounter, but he dearly regretted that one conservative BH
slice on BP. He blinked on the most important point of the match.
Should of not throttled back.
That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & Sampras
was at rock bottom form of his career.
It was a huge deal for Sampras. Playing the way he played against little
Fed, he woulda decimated the rest, and clawed himself out of that title
slump. Maybe even paved his way out of tier 2?

For Fed it was of lesser importance, sure. More of a rite of passage thing.

Just shows that Sampras wasn't hitting winners with tears in his eyes
after all. He succumbed to the pressure just like everybody else. Often
at the breadstick stage.

Neither was going to come close
Post by Whisper
to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v
Henman next rd.
It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15.  If he got
it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins Wimbledon
as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side.
Missing first serves happens all the time. Have you been away?

That's what it comes down
Post by Whisper
to.  A few inches.  Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title
gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap).  Coulda been 21 slams v 17 today
(4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap).  All but for a couple
inches.  Amazing really.
I'm sure Fed cried into his pillow for a week or so, yeah.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-02-28 11:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Whisper
That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & Sampras
was at rock bottom form of his career.
It was a huge deal for Sampras. Playing the way he played against little
Fed, he woulda decimated the rest, and clawed himself out of that title
slump. Maybe even paved his way out of tier 2?
That's dumb. You must be trolling lol. Sampras couldn't win a
tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more than
2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered. The loss to
Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom era.
Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
For Fed it was of lesser importance, sure. More of a rite of passage thing.
Federer said it was the biggest and most important match of his career
at that point. You really are dumb.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Just shows that Sampras wasn't hitting winners with tears in his eyes
after all. He succumbed to the pressure just like everybody else. Often
at the breadstick stage.
No, he just was looking to end his career as he lost all motivation and
couldn't win tournaments anymore due to no interest.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Neither was going to come close
Post by Whisper
to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v
Henman next rd.
It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15.  If he got
it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins
Wimbledon as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side.
Missing first serves happens all the time. Have you been away?
That's what it comes down
Post by Whisper
to.  A few inches.  Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title
gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap).  Coulda been 21 slams v 17
today (4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap).  All but for a
couple inches.  Amazing really.
I'm sure Fed cried into his pillow for a week or so, yeah.
Something that could happen;

Federer 20
Nadal 20
Djokovic 21

Djokovic = slam goat



Had Fed won that match v Djoke it would be;

Federer 21
Nadal 20
Djokovic 19

Federer = slam goat


Still think it's not a big deal?
Pelle Svanslös
2021-02-28 13:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Whisper
That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak &
Sampras was at rock bottom form of his career.
It was a huge deal for Sampras. Playing the way he played against
little Fed, he woulda decimated the rest, and clawed himself out of
that title slump. Maybe even paved his way out of tier 2?
That's dumb.  You must be trolling lol.  Sampras couldn't win a
tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more than
2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered.  The loss to
Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom era.
Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.
I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean you
played badly. It just means somebody played better.

With the way Sampras played against Fed, which was absolutely fabulous,
he woulda been the fave to PWN the guys he PWND in the past. Sampras
just was was unlucky. Got steamrolled by what was to come.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
For Fed it was of lesser importance, sure. More of a rite of passage thing.
Federer said it was the biggest and most important match of his career
at that point.  You really are dumb.
At the nestling point of time, sure. Fed proved himself to be almost
ready to fly.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Just shows that Sampras wasn't hitting winners with tears in his eyes
after all. He succumbed to the pressure just like everybody else.
Often at the breadstick stage.
No, he just was looking to end his career as he lost all motivation and
couldn't win tournaments anymore due to no interest.
He took a long time to look for a way out.

Nevertheless, when the pressure was there, he "failed" in a very similar
manner as Fed "failed".
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Neither was going to come close
Post by Whisper
to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v
Henman next rd.
It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15.  If he
got it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins
Wimbledon as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side.
Missing first serves happens all the time. Have you been away?
That's what it comes down
Post by Whisper
to.  A few inches.  Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title
gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap).  Coulda been 21 slams v 17
today (4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap).  All but for a
couple inches.  Amazing really.
I'm sure Fed cried into his pillow for a week or so, yeah.
Something that could happen;
Federer 20
Nadal 20
Djokovic 21
Djokovic = slam goat
Had Fed won that match v Djoke it would be;
Federer 21
Nadal 20
Djokovic 19
Federer = slam goat
Still think it's not a big deal?
Of course it was a big deal. I'm sure Fed soaked a few of his pillows.

But reaaally. As a slam winner candidate, Fed was already on borrowed
time. What really is amazing is that he was playing the match and
competing the way he was. That final putt was missed by the closest of
close margins.
--
"Cough cough"
-- Suzanne Lenglen
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 28.2.2021 13.29, Whisper wrote:> On 28/02/2021 10:04 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:>> On 28/02/2021 11.52, Whisper wrote:>>>>>>>>> That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & >>> Sampras was at rock bottom form of his career. >>>> It was a huge deal for Sampras. Playing the way he played against >> little Fed, he woulda decimated the rest, and clawed himself out of >> that title slump. Maybe even paved his way out of tier 2?>>> > > That's dumb. You must be trolling lol. Sampras couldn't win a > tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more than > 2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered. The loss to > Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom era. > Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean you played badly. It just means somebody played better.With the way Sampras played against Fed, which was absolutely fabulous, he woulda been the fave to PWN the guys he PWND in the past. Sampras just was was unlucky. Got steamrolled by what was to come.> > >> For Fed it was of lesser importance, sure. More of a rite of passage >> thing.> > Federer said it was the biggest and most important match of his career > at that point. You really are dumb.At the nestling point of time, sure. Fed proved himself to be almost ready to fly.> >>>> Just shows that Sampras wasn't hitting winners with tears in his eyes >> after all. He succumbed to the pressure just like everybody else. >> Often at the breadstick stage.> > > No, he just was looking to end his career as he lost all motivation and > couldn't win tournaments anymore due to no interest.He took a long time to look for a way out.Nevertheless, when the pressure was there, he "failed" in a very similar manner as Fed "failed".> >>>> Neither was going to come close>>> to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v >>> Henman next rd.>>>>>> It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15. If he >>> got it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins >>> Wimbledon as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side. >>>> Missing first serves happens all the time. Have you been away?>>>> That's what it comes down>>> to. A few inches. Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title >>> gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap). Coulda been 21 slams v 17 >>> today (4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap). All but for a >>> couple inches. Amazing really.>>>> I'm sure Fed cried into his pillow for a week or so, yeah.>>> > > Something that could happen;> > Federer 20> Nadal 20> Djokovic 21> > Djokovic = slam goat> > > > Had Fed won that match v Djoke it would be;> > Federer 21> Nadal 20> Djokovic 19> > Federer = slam goat> > > Still think it's not a big deal?Of course it was a big deal. I'm sure Fed soaked a few of his pillows.But reaaally. As a slam winner candidate, Fed was already on borrowed time. What really is amazing is that he was playing the match and competing the way he was. That final putt was missed by the closest of close margins.-- "Cough cough"-- Suzanne Lenglen
The 2017-2019 period perhaps saved Federer's career?

First he made a shocking upset at AO 17 by beating Nadal. Nobody expected that. It was huge.

Then, another two slams he won Wim 17 and AO 18 are of no legacy value in boat sense imo as he beat lesser guys, but they did improve his slam tally which was important, and he became an all-time Wimbledon king. Huge.

And then he basically almost beat his biggest rivals who were #2 and #1 at the time, in the grandest of stages, Wimbledon. I did not expect him to beat Nadal there, let alone almost beat both Nadal and Djokovic. Huge.


He secured his goat claims by what he had done in those two years.

Another 16 pts in 7543 to get record 103 pts.
Even if he is shout to lose in the slam chase, the gap is unlikely to be huge thus leaving him in contention.

And he'll stay standalone Wimbledon king.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-03-01 05:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
On 28.2.2021 13.29, Whisper wrote:> On 28/02/2021 10:04 pm, Pelle Svanslös wrote:>> On 28/02/2021 11.52, Whisper wrote:>>>>>>>>> That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & >>> Sampras was at rock bottom form of his career. >>>> It was a huge deal for Sampras. Playing the way he played against >> little Fed, he woulda decimated the rest, and clawed himself out of >> that title slump. Maybe even paved his way out of tier 2?>>> > > That's dumb. You must be trolling lol. Sampras couldn't win a > tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more than > 2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered. The loss to > Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom era. > Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean you played badly. It just means somebody played better.With the way Sampras played against Fed, which was absolutely fabulous, he woulda been the fave to PWN the guys he PWND in the past. Sampras just was was unlucky. Got steamrolled by what was to come.> > >> For Fed it was of lesser importance, sure. More of a rite of passage >> thing.> > Federer said it was the biggest and most important match of his career > at that point. You really are dumb.At the nestling point of time, sure. Fed proved himself to be almost ready to fly.> >>>> Just shows that Sampras wasn't hitting winners with tears in his eyes >> after all. He succumbed to the pressure just like everybody else. >> Often at the breadstick stage.> > > No, he just was looking to end his career as he lost all motivation and > couldn't win tournaments anymore due to no interest.He took a long time to look for a way out.Nevertheless, when the pressure was there, he "failed" in a very similar manner as Fed "failed".> >>>> Neither was going to come close>>> to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v >>> Henman next rd.>>>>>> It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15. If he >>> got it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins >>> Wimbledon as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side. >>>> Missing first serves happens all the time. Have you been away?>>>> That's what it comes down>>> to. A few inches. Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title >>> gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap). Coulda been 21 slams v 17 >>> today (4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap). All but for a >>> couple inches. Amazing really.>>>> I'm sure Fed cried into his pillow for a week or so, yeah.>>> > > Something that could happen;> > Federer 20> Nadal 20> Djokovic 21> > Djokovic = slam goat> > > > Had Fed won that match v Djoke it would be;> > Federer 21> Nadal 20> Djokovic 19> > Federer = slam goat> > > Still think it's not a big deal?Of course it was a big deal. I'm sure Fed soaked a few of his pillows.But reaaally. As a slam winner candidate, Fed was already on borrowed time. What really is amazing is that he was playing the match and competing the way he was. That final putt was missed by the closest of close margins.-- "Cough cough"-- Suzanne Lenglen
The 2017-2019 period perhaps saved Federer's career?
First he made a shocking upset at AO 17 by beating Nadal. Nobody expected that. It was huge.
Yes, nobody gave Fed a chance from 1-3 down in 5th set v Rafa.
Post by *skriptis
Then, another two slams he won Wim 17 and AO 18 are of no legacy value in boat sense imo as he beat lesser guys, but they did improve his slam tally which was important, and he became an all-time Wimbledon king. Huge.
And then he basically almost beat his biggest rivals who were #2 and #1 at the time, in the grandest of stages, Wimbledon. I did not expect him to beat Nadal there, let alone almost beat both Nadal and Djokovic. Huge.
He secured his goat claims by what he had done in those two years.
Another 16 pts in 7543 to get record 103 pts.
Even if he is shout to lose in the slam chase, the gap is unlikely to be huge thus leaving him in contention.
And he'll stay standalone Wimbledon king.
Yes, Djoker could have possibly challenged that Wimbledon record if not
for covid. He may have won 6th Wimbledon in 2020 & 7th this yr, leaving
him 1 shy of
Whisper
2021-03-01 05:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
That's dumb.  You must be trolling lol.  Sampras couldn't win a
tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more
than 2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered.  The loss
to Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom
era. Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.
I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean you
played badly. It just means somebody played better.
Yes, same deal with Fed's loss to Henman. Simply outplayed in routine
fashion by the better player.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
With the way Sampras played against Fed, which was absolutely fabulous,
he woulda been the fave to PWN the guys he PWND in the past. Sampras
just was was unlucky. Got steamrolled by what was to come.
Steamrolled by that scoreline? Weird way to describe flip of the coin
match. It's your opinion that Sampras played his A game for that 1
match in 2 yrs & crap all the others. The logical explanation is he was
in a slump & that was the peak bottom, as evidenced by nearly losing to
Barry Cowan in 5 sets.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Nevertheless, when the pressure was there, he "failed" in a very similar
manner as Fed "failed".
Lol. The stakes were a billion time greater in 2019. On the line in
2019 was a possible 9th Wimbledon crown & potential goat status with 21
slams. In 2001 a 4th rd match with Tim Henman was the prize.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-03-01 11:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
That's dumb.  You must be trolling lol.  Sampras couldn't win a
tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more
than 2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered.  The loss
to Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom
era. Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.
I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean
you played badly. It just means somebody played better.
Yes, same deal with Fed's loss to Henman.  Simply outplayed in routine
fashion by the better player.
Fed would soon grow up and return the favour. With interest.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
With the way Sampras played against Fed, which was absolutely
fabulous, he woulda been the fave to PWN the guys he PWND in the past.
Sampras just was was unlucky. Got steamrolled by what was to come.
Steamrolled by that scoreline?  Weird way to describe flip of the coin
match.  It's your opinion that Sampras played his A game for that 1
match in 2 yrs & crap all the others.  The logical explanation is he was
in a slump & that was the peak bottom, as evidenced by nearly losing to
Barry Cowan in 5 sets.
Sampras was actually asked about this after the Fed match (in a BBC
interview). He brushed the Cowan match off as "stuff happens, he played
well". His only regret about the Fed match was that BH where he
"failed". The interviewer had the same line of thinking, "would the form
in that match carry over?" Sampras would have none of it.

Of course Sampras wasn't in a slump either. Very soon after this match,
at the USO, he would be crushing the guys he was always crushing. He
would just meet a new guy in the final he wasn't always crushing. A bit
like at Wimbledon.
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Nevertheless, when the pressure was there, he "failed" in a very
similar manner as Fed "failed".
Lol.  The stakes were a billion time greater in 2019.  On the line in
2019 was a possible 9th Wimbledon crown & potential goat status with 21
slams.  In 2001 a 4th rd match with Tim Henman was the prize.
Who was Sampras' patsy. As were the rest in the draw. Had he won that
BH, Wimbledon would have been in the bag. The stakes were enormous for
Sampras who was running out of time. A bit like Fed in 2019.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
Whisper
2021-03-01 11:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Post by Pelle Svanslös
That's dumb.  You must be trolling lol.  Sampras couldn't win a
tournament of any description between July 2000 and Sep 2002 - more
than 2 years he was losing in every tournament he entered.  The loss
to Federer 7-5 in the 5th set was in the middle of this rock bottom
era. Even Barry Cowan pushed Pete to 5 sets at the same Wimbledon.
I suspect you misunderstand something. If you lose, it doesn't mean
you played badly. It just means somebody played better.
Yes, same deal with Fed's loss to Henman.  Simply outplayed in routine
fashion by the better player.
Fed would soon grow up and return the favour. With interest.
Only when Tim declined. Fed feasted on clowns until Rafa/Djoker came along.
Whisper
2021-03-01 11:13:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Who was Sampras' patsy. As were the rest in the draw. Had he won that
BH, Wimbledon would have been in the bag. The stakes were enormous for
Sampras who was running out of time. A bit like Fed in 2019.
Running out of time to achieve what? No offense but you come across as
a low grade moron if these are your genuine thoughts.
Pelle Svanslös
2021-03-01 11:30:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Pelle Svanslös
Who was Sampras' patsy. As were the rest in the draw. Had he won that
BH, Wimbledon would have been in the bag. The stakes were enormous for
Sampras who was running out of time. A bit like Fed in 2019.
Running out of time to achieve what?
To win slams! Sampras had two years left on the clock in 2001. Fed was
37 (?) and likely played his last final in 2019.
Post by Whisper
No offense but you come across as
a low grade moron if these are your genuine thoughts.
--
“We need to acknowledge he let us down. He went down a path he shouldn’t
have, and we shouldn’t have followed him. We shouldn’t have listened to
him, and we can’t let that happen ever again.”
-- Nikki Haley
bob
2021-02-28 13:18:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 20:52:54 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Pelle Svanslös
You can be emotional but not conservative & vice versa.  Sampras
showed emotion but he served aces through tears, didn't throttle back.
Sampras himself thought he played an excellent match against Feds in
that 2001 encounter, but he dearly regretted that one conservative BH
slice on BP. He blinked on the most important point of the match.
Should of not throttled back.
That match wasn't really a big deal as Fed was far from peak & Sampras
was at rock bottom form of his career. Neither was going to come close
to winning Wimbledon that year as demonstrated by Fed losing easily v
Henman next rd.
It's kinda heartbreaking watching Fed's 1st serve at 40-15.
yeah, he caught the tape - 1-2" hjigher and it's match over.
Post by Whisper
If he got
it over the net he gets an ace (woulda been 3 in a row) & wins Wimbledon
as Djoker was guessing wrong to his fh side. That's what it comes down
to. A few inches. Fed would have 9 Wimbledons & Djoker 4 (5 title
gap), instead it's 8 v 5 (3 title gap). Coulda been 21 slams v 17 today
(4 slam gap), but now it's 20 v 18 (2 slam gap). All but for a couple
inches. Amazing really.
this thread is amazing. great detail. :-)

bob
bob
2021-02-27 20:01:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
thanks for posting this whisp, i could watch it all afternoon.

1 thing i noticed, and it should not go unstated: after the 2 very
poor fed FH UEs at deuce and ad out to lose the game, he hit a
beautiful stroke back to the ball boy. think about it. :-))))

bob
Gracchus
2021-02-27 21:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
thanks for posting this whisp, i could watch it all afternoon.
1 thing i noticed, and it should not go unstated: after the 2 very
poor fed FH UEs at deuce and ad out to lose the game, he hit a
beautiful stroke back to the ball boy. think about it. :-))))
This is supposed to be some kind of insight? Any pro can hit a beautiful stroke to a stationary target. Obviously it's a little different when you're on the move and hitting the ball to an opponent who can kill any less-than-perfect shot.
bob
2021-02-28 13:21:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:16:22 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
thanks for posting this whisp, i could watch it all afternoon.
1 thing i noticed, and it should not go unstated: after the 2 very
poor fed FH UEs at deuce and ad out to lose the game, he hit a
beautiful stroke back to the ball boy. think about it. :-))))
This is supposed to be some kind of insight? Any pro can hit a beautiful stroke to a stationary target. Obviously it's a little different when you're on the move and hitting the ball to an opponent who can kill any less-than-perfect shot.
the insight is once the stroke didn't matter he loosened up and hit
his usual beautiful effortless FH. nothing like the 2 previous FHs
that netted very easy shots that you or i could've put in play.

i know it's very subtle gracchus, but look at it again, if you don't
agree i'll respect that.

bob
Gracchus
2021-02-28 16:41:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:16:22 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
thanks for posting this whisp, i could watch it all afternoon.
1 thing i noticed, and it should not go unstated: after the 2 very
poor fed FH UEs at deuce and ad out to lose the game, he hit a
beautiful stroke back to the ball boy. think about it. :-))))
This is supposed to be some kind of insight? Any pro can hit a beautiful stroke to a stationary target. Obviously it's a little different when you're on the move and hitting the ball to an opponent who can kill any less-than-perfect shot.
the insight is once the stroke didn't matter he loosened up and hit
his usual beautiful effortless FH. nothing like the 2 previous FHs
that netted very easy shots that you or i could've put in play.
i know it's very subtle gracchus, but look at it again, if you don't
agree i'll respect that.
I knew exactly what you meant. My point was it's no revelation that anyone can tighten up when the stakes are at the highest. Even having been in that position many times before doesn't ensure it won't happen. Obviously he didn't suddenly forget how to hit a forehand. I remember Connors reflecting on one of the marathon matches he lost against McEnroe at the USO. He said, "Two abortionated points. The two worst points of my life." And maybe they were. I doubt if he would have flubbed those shots if he was en route to routing Vitas--or hitting to the ballboy.

And when had the stakes been higher for Federer? The 2019 Wimbledon final had tremendous legacy potential. Imagine at that age to win his 9th WImbledon, 21st slam and beat nemeses Nadal & Djokovic back-to-back. When it comes to career regrets, I'd think blowing that one would be at the top.
Whisper
2021-03-01 05:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:16:22 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
Post by Gracchus
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 22:01:31 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
https://streamable.com/dwlbtu
I edited this from my master copy. Watch what Federer does to get to
40-15 2 matchpoints, then what happens in the next 4 pts. What should
he have done?
Will be interesting to see how this match result affects the final goat
slam count.
thanks for posting this whisp, i could watch it all afternoon.
1 thing i noticed, and it should not go unstated: after the 2 very
poor fed FH UEs at deuce and ad out to lose the game, he hit a
beautiful stroke back to the ball boy. think about it. :-))))
This is supposed to be some kind of insight? Any pro can hit a beautiful stroke to a stationary target. Obviously it's a little different when you're on the move and hitting the ball to an opponent who can kill any less-than-perfect shot.
the insight is once the stroke didn't matter he loosened up and hit
his usual beautiful effortless FH. nothing like the 2 previous FHs
that netted very easy shots that you or i could've put in play.
i know it's very subtle gracchus, but look at it again, if you don't
agree i'll respect that.
I knew exactly what you meant. My point was it's no revelation that anyone can tighten up when the stakes are at the highest. Even having been in that position many times before doesn't ensure it won't happen. Obviously he didn't suddenly forget how to hit a forehand. I remember Connors reflecting on one of the marathon matches he lost against McEnroe at the USO. He said, "Two abortionated points. The two worst points of my life." And maybe they were. I doubt if he would have flubbed those shots if he was en route to routing Vitas--or hitting to the ballboy.
And when had the stakes been higher for Federer? The 2019 Wimbledon final had tremendous legacy potential. Imagine at that age to win his 9th WImbledon, 21st slam and beat nemeses Nadal & Djokovic back-to-back. When it comes to career regrets, I'd think blowing that one would be at the top.
Absolutely, could go down as one of the most important matches ever.
Maybe not as costly as Mac blowing '84 FO final after leading 6-3 6-2.
Good chance Mac wins calendar slam had he won that match, so legacy cost
there was massive, goat killing stuff. How would Mac rate today with a
calendar slam in open era on all 3 surfaces? Maybe mentioned in same
breath as Laver, possibly even higher?
Loading...