Roger is the classic greatest. Always love you. Roger

Well...........its that kind of attitude that got u into this predicamnet in the first place!! For this match yeasterday.....you underprepared letting your 12:0 h2h get to YOUR head!!

Federer, you need to learn from Rafa a littlie bit......NEVER UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OPPONENT....NEVER!!!!!

Wish you luck @ Wimby!

VAMOS!!!!

it wasn't only his earliest Roland Garros loss since 2004

it was his earliest Grand Slam loss since RG 2004

Fed should ponder over his loss to Sod. He tried to meet fire with fire. Nothing wrong. But where was the prudent change in game when fire with fire was not succeeding. He should have recollected that he has other weapons too. Sod played the same game throughout the match. But it was the winning game, so no need for experimentation. Fed should ponder over this loss and defend his title at Wimby.

eskay.....i agree totally!!! And the thing is.....to be honest...........I didnt think that Sod's game was such to affect Fed if he had only changed his strategy!! Thats why i am not NOT worried in the slightest about Sod meeting Rafa bcos i know Rafa already has a strategy to play Sod, and if it fails Rafa will come up with a solution right there and there to beat Sod or at leat to arrest the bleeding!!!

I realise Sod likes to play hard and what Rafa will do A LOT against Sod is to slice the ball to dull the pace so to put Sod off.....Rafa is extremly good at that! Im not worried about Rafa in the least!! And even if he loses, I know he would have done his utmost best..........not like Fed hanging his head as if he deserves to win without even busting a sweat!!! C'mon!!!!!!

If Fed had done a bit more homework he WOULD have won this match and its not to say he did not have chances to! Fed has no one to blame but himself..........not conditions, not opponent....but HIMSELF!!!!............period!

Roger is a gypsy, he's always moving on - couple of years ago when he was failing on hard courts, he was looking to the clay season. This clay season, he failed to win a single tournament before the FO, so he decided that it was only the FO that mattered, now he doesn't want to think of the red stuff at all, but wants to quickly move on to the green stuff.

April 2010, Federer:

?It helps to move on to a different surface,? Federer said. ?I?m looking forward to the clay court season.?

After Madrid 2010 - Federer:

Federer said, Rafa?s and my claycourt seasons are decided at the French Open, and not before. It?s unfortunately - or fortunately - like that. If we win all the tournaments like Rafa now and then go out in the first round of the French, everything will be questioned. It?s just how it is, so we?ll see what happens in three weeks.?

Roger, just learn to take your defeats with grace, you can't win them all.

carrie, save your phony concern. Perhaps the way Roger handles things mentally is EXACTLY why he's had the success he's had -- move on, don't dwell too much, keep looking forward. I would argue that perhaps he could use better match strategy now and then, but I can't argue with the results. I don't think Federer needs any help from the peons in the peanut gallery who have no idea what it takes to accomplish what he's accomplished in the sport.

Hello Everyone!

It's Fleur!

A late lunch!

I couldn't watch the match!

Just fortuitous yesterday that I had a business meeting all day, unable to believe the score when I got home!

Yet, I found I was more than reasonable after a magnum of champagne had hit the nodes, enough to realise that Federer, whilst an athlete of enormous stature and the world's best, will understand the jealousy and bitterness of some, is a big enough person to come back from this, in elastic fashion!

Spring back!

Paris in the Spring!

Graceful in his interview, complimentary towards Robin, (I love the swedish people!) I read the calmness of his comments (with champagne in my hand), and thought to myself, bravo Roger Federer. Allee, Allee you mighty, mighty, man.

On to the grass season now with head up and a new game plan built on the foundations of confident attacking play, a huge smile, and a free spirit.

It is important for him to realise he has nothing left to prove. He has beaten everyone, and every record worthy of note.

Ching!

Ching!

"He has beaten everyone, and every record worthy of note. "

every record of note??
REALLY???
proves a point i say often..
certain fedfans know nothing..

ill have to agree with u here clayking!!!

i didn't think he was particularly gracious in the presser. Basically blamed entire thing on the wet conditions. Very little credit to Soderling.

..few more glasses of bubbles, and he will beat Sod yesterday!!!

Ricky,

That was absolute rubbish and you know it! Federer was utterly gracious.

Did you also read soderling's presser where he also referred to the weather conditions as being "tough?".

You're really incredible Ricky.

put your reading glasses on next time ricky. you're supposed to be setting a standard here.

"Conditions obviously were on the rougher side for both of us, and I thought he came up with some great tennis. So hit it well, you know. But he played aggressive and kept on coming. When the conditions got more heavy when we came back from the rain delay, he played well, you know. I was one break up in the fourth, and, well, I lost three sets; this is what I did. That's why it's frustrating leaving the tournament like that.
But at the end of the day, he needs to take credit. He played incredibly well from the beginning to the end and in very difficult conditions.
So it's a bit of a shame. The conditions were what they were, but he deserves it. He played very well."

maxi,
according to the interview posted by you,
it is a classic case of whip and candy..
praising sod a bit and blaming the conditions more..
don't you think maxi, he could have done without blaming the conditions??
or he could have done it less..

P.S. of course i'm not gonna argue with you..
this is the impression i got..
and surely it is not the impression you will ever get

Maxi, there's more to the interview than what you chose to post. Did you conveniently forget about the rest of that session?

In any caes, Ricky didn't call Roger a liar or say that conditions weren't tough. You totally missed the point.

clayking, you are entitled to your opinion. There was plenty praise in his presser. The problem is when rafa fans who dislike roger, want to pick on anything, they will twist. and that is exactly what ricky has done. candy to a baby. candy to rafa fans, he praised sod - a lot. it was a classy, funny presser from fed. (I had never seen him laugh at himself before -the QF joke), that was funny.

I think it was either smr or fleur, who posted a whole load of comments from rafa's pressers, where his words were not complimentary (or didn't seem to be), I dont like it when people do this, because we all admire our favourite players, a lot, and I have seen many interviews with roger, many of them.
I think you said you were 18 years old? clayking, you haven't lived! (no disrespect), and just googling/wiki ing what people say/stats etc., does not make you an expert, it makes you a curious/inquisitive person of tennis.

Federer doesnt come across as very emotive, but this presser was a different federer, a more reflective federer, an accepting federer, a complimentary one too. Why it is that certain people want to twist words, is just their way of being childish.

You've seen exactly what federer said above. Clayking, he has given many interviews over the years and talks in geometry and weather conditions, because he is a planner, a strategist. He takes everything into account before he gives his assessment. The only time I would agree with you here is if he said nothing about soderlingand did not credit him and pay him his dues, but he did and yet even when you can see the video link and read the presser, you still argue with it? It's unbelievable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcctFLLqCEY&playnext_from=TL&videos=uKR vjPSueOo&feature=recentu

Very interesting video.

clayking,

"maxi,
according to the interview posted by you".

this wasn't "my interview". Get onto the Roland garros official tennis site 2010 and you can read the full one there. I don't make things like this up. I haven't got the time!

Jean,

Ricky said that Federer wasn't complimentary about Robin - I am not going to post the whole interview, but it is on the Roland Garros official site where anyone, including yourself, can read it in full. That goes without saying.

But don't lie when it's blindingly obvious that federer was complimentary. Why don't you say to Ricky, to include all the complimentary bits? missed that one out didnt you? why was that conveniently forgotten? read properly please Jean.

You might want to read Robin's interview too (if you have the time), who also refers to weather conditions being "tough", but that he was used to it over the years in sweden.

Why are you twisting things Jean when it's not necessary?

Soderling:
Q. You mentioned you have to play in any conditions. What was it really like? Was it sloppy underfoot? Did the balls get very heavy?
ROBIN SODERLING: The balls got heavy. I think I played good matches in these kind of conditions in the past, and I think it suits my game pretty well. It was a little bit slower, but I managed to serve really well and take the ball early. It helped me a lot.

You must be the only one Jean who doesnt know that this type of weather (rain on a clay court) suits the heavy hitters. Even soderling says so and yet you still don't accept it? your problem. I can't do anything about that.

jean, i've just looked at tj's video and it is really interesting (a bit long - 8 minutes), but i think also if you can hear what the guy is saying, again, he repeats that the weather like this (rain on clay), slows the ball down and favours soderling. I dont know why you wont accept this? but anyway. no more to say on the matter. just trying to help.

Maxi: you are really quite thick. Did I say the conditions didn't suit Robin? Please tell me where I said that. Did you even read what I wrote? You are too highly emotional, read only what you want into comments, get on your high horse and trash everyone and call yourself a reasonalble fan. You are a hypocrite maxi! You are also quite stupid. Read, maxi, READ!! I'll repeat what I said: You missed the point. Is that crystal enough? Why did you posts all those comments from Robin, I already read them. You've totally wasted yout time trying to make a point that wasn't even being argued.

maxi,
i don't know about others, but i have considered you a fair enough fan.. (i'm saying of maxi of TT, not madmaxi of some other site)
and so i do believe you have the right to say about your fav player and point out if someone says something derogatory.(even i do same if someone utters a word about juanqui)
however, since you have actually been graceful enough to point out how young i'm and that i know nothing of life, i guess i should have been clearer..
when fed was asked the question " the difference between the Robin you saw last year here and today, was it significant?"
fed replied like this
" Well, I think conditions were even harder today. I mean, I think last year's match was difficult for both of us. You know, I had a good start again today, which was the case as well last year.
You know, I mean, at times I guess I could have played a bit better. He served well. I didn't take my chances early on in the second set. And then in the third set as well.
So I just missed too many chances today, which I didn't do last year, and I was able to run away with it. Today I couldn't do that"
he said nothing that was relevant as an answer to the question asked.. he said how the conditions were tough(personal problem), that he could have played a bit better(personal problem) and that he missed too many chances yesterday(to my 18 year old mind, personal problem).

so when asked about sod, what he actually said(except for one passing statement that sod served well), was how he could not do well, how the conditions were tough etc. Now, that answer to the question asked registers in my mind(may i add inexperienced 18 year old mind) as avoiding an answer about sod.
when the question was posed a 2nd time about sod, he answered as you stated. but first time around he avoided it plainly. i hope you are not going to argue that fed could foresee a 2nd question about sod coming.
then 2nd time round he was asked this
"You were 12 0 against him. What did he do today that really bothered you on the court?"
even now, he mainly said how tough the conditions were, but was gracious enough to say 2 statements about sod in a long answer, one about his serve speed and other a general statement that he played well..
roger particularly mentioned this,
"I'm not blaming the conditions or anything, but I think they were in his favor towards the end"
"But of course I'm disappointed to having sort of lost three matches in the rain on clay this season: in Estoril, in Rome, and now here again."
now you know maix, a certain commentator named mats wilander(may i add he is not 18 year old like me), said about fed that fed is hardly bothered by rain because he is so good a player that a momentum break hardly bothers him, but it disrupts the flow of an opponent who is playing well..
still, fed mentioned that rain bothered him..

maybe this is what ricky mentioned..
that roger was not gracious enough..
now he must have meant not gracious enough befitting a champion..

P.S. oh maxi,
you said this, didn't you??
"and just googling/wiki ing what people say/stats etc., does not make you an expert, it makes you a curious/inquisitive person of tennis."

you know what maxi, it does make me curious..
curious to see the world of tennis beyond your fed or my sampras..
if one is asked who has won most slams or most majors on grass, it is just not a matter of stats maxi..
it is a matter of devotion..
you have to devote yourself to the world of stats to answer that correctly..
now, i may not have seen life, and i may not learnt on court /off court psychology..
but i have seen tennis world beyond your roger..
my 18 year old self may not have seen life, but you (??) year old self has not seen tennis world beyond roger..

P.P.S. did you say no disrespect meant??
even i didn't mean any.. :P

Clayking, there was no disrespect intended. 18 years old is young. You said yourself you find out your information by googling it. Did that offend you?

clayking, what you are doing is also picking and choosing roger's comments and putting your own twist on it. I don't see it that way. May be I am biased (I suppose I must be), but I try hard to listen to what you are saying. If I can correct you on this point:

"so when asked about sod, what he actually said(except for one passing statement that sod served well).

It wasn't just "one passing statement". There were many statements made by federer in the interview, but I am not going to get into a discussion here which is a dead end in my view. You have your opinion and I have mine. I always like to believe the best in the people, I think Roger gave soderling plenty of credit yesterday.

I see plenty tennis world beyond roger, clayking, so don't assume. We can all google stats and quote them here to sound knowledgeable.

Jean, don't call me stupid and thick. How rude is that? I was trying to help.

maxi, when you are asked about how good your opponent was and then you say about yourself, that is not the exact answer expected..
when he was asked specifically abourt sod, he said about himself and his problems..
that is avoiding an answer maxi..

"We can all google stats and quote them here to sound knowledgeable. "
yes, maxi anyone can..
since you can do that as wel, please answer this..
"who has won most slams or most majors on grass??"
try finding the answer..
then you will now it is just not a matter of googling..
it is a matter of devotion..
you are devoted to roger, i'm devoted to tennis..
did that offend you??

clayking you are asking me two questions:

1) who has won the most slams.
2) who has won the most majors on grass.

you tell me the answer! i dont need to go anywhere else!

I see what you are saying. He is avoiding the question I think you are saying?
May be so, but didn't he answer it in the interview a bit later? May be it is all to do with his own learning curve clayking? As a professional athlete, he is trained to think about himself first, his game first, I don't know. so it is second nature to him to think about his opponent first? even in a presser? what do you think? You could be right.

maxi, i'll be honest with one thing..
your reference to the fact that i google a lot has offended me..
yes, i do google a lot..
but then to collect information, you have to google..
but you said it as if i do it to impress people..
no maxi, it is a matter of devotion..
just like for you, reading up about roger maybe a matter of devotion, to me collecting facts and stats from the entire history of tennis is a matter of devotion..
now, my being 18 or 80 does not matter..
even at 80, i will be as devoted about stats as now..

well maybe that is his thinking, answering about himself first,
but you cannot find fault with people if they think he was avoiding answering it..
and later on he didn't praise sod too much..
whenever he said he played well, he followed up with a reference to the conditions..

P.S. maybe i was being rude to you..
my apologies..
oh that question.. both of it refers to grass..

clayking. thanks for being honest. sorry if i offended you. no offence meant. i dont google as much as you. there are many ways to collect information, google being one way - i agree. 18 or 80 does not matter, you are right.

i find fault when people say federer doesn't give credit. he does. it's just how you read it. It's important also to realise that it is dangerous to give your opponent too much respect on court (soderling's coach Magnus said this), i like to see it in a positive way, not a negative way as i cannot see the point. Also, I think to be too obsequious in an interview is dangerous ().

To give a perfect interview, the way that the press want, is never going to happen and I do think that Federer could be more expressive in his interviews, may be crack a few jokes, lighten the mood, but it isn't his way. Just has to be accepted, I suppose. I think he is just used to his way clayking. Very often, he refers in his interview to "fair play" and "respect for the game". I also think as head of the tennis council, along with rafa, he has to show a certain detachment from the others - whether this affects what he says in the press room, I dont know. I am just looking to see different ways of trying to understand your argument. But I do see what you are saying. I just see it differently.



It is easy for people to pick faults when they dont like a player, more difficult to praise the opponent they dont like. As a federer fan, I am happy with how he dealt with the situation and also with the way in which Soderling spoke of the tough conditions. I thought Soderling dealt with the conditions better and outplayed federer yesterday. Federer didn't take the major opportunity he had to take the third set, but one point of the match is only one element of the game. It's federer's game plan against this oponent, that needed to be stronger.

you are lovely.

Sampras with most grass court wins (7)
Federer had a 65-match winning streak on Grass, and 40 consecutive wins at Wimbledon.
Federer with most slams in open era. We've had this argument before though? the laver/fed argument?

maybe you are right..
fed maybe like that..
and people may see it the way they want to..
i think fed was not gracious enough..
maybe i see that way because i want to see that way..
maybe i should be a bit more lenient while listening to his interviews..
oh, and i will be honest with one more thing..
i think you took his loss too emotionally..
yesterday's comment by you about rafa that he should lose badly was uncharacteristic of you..

P.S. oh you took the question seriously..
i just asked that because i was a bit offended..
but the answer is wrong..
speaking of slams, emerson has 10 slams on grass,
while laver has 12 majors(9 slams + 3 pro slams)
(seriously, i didn't google it, that answer is not easily available :-) )

clayking - we are talking two different things - we had this argument before - pre open tennis era and modern tennis era - depends how you look at it.

no. what is wrong clayking is the way that nadline constantly floods federer posts. I reacted once to that, and that takes a lot from me. believe me. next time perhaps you should judge others and then understand reactions more. at this stage, you don't. you judge me on one reaction, and not what happened beforehand, that is what is wrong. but i don't want to get into this clayking, because we are all individual people, thinking different ways.

I knew about emerson, you mentioned him weeks ago in your post, but he is never spoken about in the modern era. I did mention this to you and we have already had this discussion, redundant now.

vamosrafa and clayking and the good rafa fans here, few though there are, congratulations on your day. enjoy it. :)

oh well, even though pre open and open are 2 things, they are still parts of tennis..
i do not believe in segregrating the records..
because we are speaking of a single game, and i did not mention open era..
and that is one reason i collect stats since i feel the past greats do not get their due because the numbers do not favour them..

fine enough maxi..
i'm sure your guy would be back in halle and wimby..
(though i won't support him in halle since juanqui is playing there as well)

cheers!!

Maxi and Clayking.......behave!!....lol!!!!!

Although I am a Rafa fan but I can imagine how difficult it is for Roger at this point to speak to the media after what must be a devastating loss.........the media themselves ask so many stupid questions sometimes, i dont know what the point is really. I know if I were a tennisplayer, I dont care what the repurcussions, I would never attend those press conferences.....win OR lose!!!!

clayking, that's great. no harm done.

Monalysa, we'll behave - it's all fine -
problem is if players don't go straight to the presser (after drug tests), they get fined £20,000.

I think after all the interviews (particularly with Fed), that they give, they must be exhausted, hungry, tired, and then have to put on a face for the stupid questions (you mentioned), must be hard. Fed did well yesterday.

The best one I ever saw was posted on tennis.x monalysa, given by a-rod, questions were being asked of him, interview was done and dusted in 3 minutes! he was brilliant! he was having none of the stupid questions.

Hi maxi, you mentioned me up above ... posting interviews or something. Not really sure what that is all about, but I actually thought Federer was quite gracious in his presser.

Oh, they are fined!!!..............ooops!.........thats capitalism for yuh!!!!.....lol!!!

Very long discussion here about whether Fed gave enough credit to his opponent (soon to be world no 1 according to Borg). He gave more than a loosing player would usually give. If you ever listen to other player's interviews after they have lost, it is almost always just the same lines- he served well.. took his chances..I made too many mistakes...not enough first serves.. Usually as quickly as possible and mostly about what they did wrong or can improve on next time because that's the way a professional sports person should think- about himself, what he can do do to win his next tournament, or what he shouldn't do. You would never here a person say- "he is a better player than I am, that's why he won", what you will hear is "he played better than I did today", which is rather obvious since he lost. But also it shows the way they think- today he played better than I did, but I am still the better player. Next time I'll beat him, because I am better and today I wasn't at my best.

BigL, yes. he gave plenty credit. a professional sportsman will always think of how to promote himself first, that is why they are in the game, to win. so the conversation will be discussed naturally about them first, as it did with rafa's interview yesterday with almagro, when he was asked a question about amalgro's play, rafa said "I played terrible". It's not directly answering the question. I feel sorry for the players straight after a game, the last thing, as monalysa says, that they must feel like doing is talking to the press! i dont have a problem with Fed's presser at all, very gracious, very classy.
smr? no, i think some confusion from me - i read here somewhere someone posting comments on what rafa had said, (there are too many to go through, so cant check), and i know you and i have had a few conversations, so I assumed you had posted some, if it wasn't , apologies. no harm done, i hope.

@maxi, i am posting part of my post on another thread since i have said there why fed would gain nothing by pondering this loss..

some are saying it was strategical wrong on fed's part to try to out hit sod. But waht they dont get is that fed had no option. The heavy damp cold conditions effectively took away most of his weapons and made most touch shots ineffective.. only thing left to do was to out hit the opponent.. sadly he couldnt. That was the story of the day.




'Basically fed had no option but to out hit him and he couldnt.. that is why fed said he was very clear in his mind why he lost and wouldnt dwell on it too much.. it was a combination of too many factors and the only thing he can conclude by dwelling on it is that he needs a two handed back hand for conditions like this and a broader racket(for a broader sweet spot-for when conditions are such that only pure power and not precision is needed).. both are not feasible options so fed will take it in his stride and move on.'



By the way if there are any sod fans here now, here is a really ell written article on SoD The Mighty Viking

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/400400-he-is-the-giant-ki ller

A sample :) -

At 6? 4? and 195 pounds, the ferocious monster swings his weapon with the same ruthlessness as a Gaulic warrior his broadsword into Roman legions. Starting with his brawny legs, he generates unimaginable upward force that uncoils his midsection, unleashing the potential energy gifted the upper half of his imposing figure by millions of years of evolution. The potential becomes the actual as the force explodes out through his torso to his arms, and into a small yellowish sphere at the menacing command of his Head Liquidmetal Radical MP strung to a tension of 68.9 lbs.

:) Some fantasy fiction that.

I think Fed has many options against different opponents and different conditions. He did not improvise things. He is sometimes overconfident about his game and does not like to try different things. He only ups his gear and gets out of difficult positions. But when the position demands probing opponents' weaknesses by making subtle changes, a mere transition to higher gear in his own game may not suffice. I thought he could have tried heavy slice as a set up for volley at the net, since the ball would not have risen that much in the damp conditions and Sod is not well known either for quick movements or making winners from a low sliding ball. But that is my personal opinion.

Federer will not think abut his loss and will surely defend his title at wimbledon

Tell Roger not to discount small tourneys and enter Queens instead of Halle because Queens' field is way too competitive than Halle. All the big guys are playing Queens, at least he can gauge his level of play.

more realistic level of play, I mean.

Jean, don't call me stupid and thick. How rude is that? I was trying to help.
maxi , 6/2/10 6:00 PM

jean , 6/2/10 5:21 PM
re: maxi's reply to you. When I made a sharp reply to something Maxi said on another thread, I got the following reponse from her!

well then may be you should have made yourself a bit clearer ed. I cant help it if i am a bit thick can I? next time dont be so bad tempered.
maxi, 5/22/10 12:59 PM

FiG,
This fantasy of the BR writer you've quoted - this sounds like an Arian fantasy back in the 1920's and 1930's. (And a far cry from the high class origins of law tennis.)

" the same ruthlessness as a Gaulic warrior his broadsword into Roman legions. Starting with his brawny legs, he generates unimaginable upward force that uncoils his midsection, unleashing the potential energy gifted the upper half of his imposing figure by millions of years of evolution. "