Hi Kelli, nice blog, but am sure federer isnt thinking that far ahead! He's only focusing on the next match, so dont jinx him!

C'moon federer! (thought at the moment,it's pouring with rain in Miami so no federer playing right now :(.

Kelli, are you in Miami at the moment?

maxi ,its raining so heavily that I dont think we will be able to see any tennis from the maestro today.

vamos, hi. i know :(. I'm very sad vamos. I came home ready to watch, as it was an afternoon one, and now feel very low!

vamos, to me, you are THE most objective rafa fan here and I'd like to ask for your opinion please. I watched rafa's match yesterday (it was a solid performance and very tense in places), there was a digital clock in the bottom right hand corner of the screen, rafa took 35 seconds on some points before serving. do you think that this is too long? he did it quite often, but this was the longest point that i could see. they tended to range around 24 seconds to 35 seconds. i have tried to check the rules here, and from i could see, it says 20 seconds maximum. why is this allowed on a continuous basis if it is breaking the rules?

thanks vamos.

federer is playing estoril (all federer fans would have known this as it was added to his schedule 4 months ago), but still a nice read.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/tennis/top-stories/ Federer-snubs-Monte-Carlo-for-Estoril/articleshow/5736238.cms

Fedex's method of preparation is meticulous ... he is planning the tourneys well, last year he took a WC at MC and got beaten by Wawrinka i think ... so the same mistake is avoided.

justtennis,

yes. he hadnt planned on playing MC, but took a WC to get some practise. He had just got married to Mirka the weekend before he played MC.

the rain has stopped! Roger is on first! I am going to die of happiness.

c'moon roger! Do it, just do it, for the twins! Sooooo excited!

maxi, i also notiiced it. The rule has it 25 seconds for these events and 20 sec for slams, djokovic,nadal and sharapova are the regular violators of this rule. Rafa did it quite a few times yesterday, taking more than 30 seconds at times.I think it is not good for the game, surely,,,,,disturbs momentum and its not nice to make your opponent and spectators wait so long ..may even annoy the opponent. But there is one thing, as much as it was rafa's fault, it was the umpire and referee's fault !! may b even more, if the rule is there, why not force it?? pressure the player into abiding by the rule and if he doesnot abide then he shud be penalized!! I am not sure why nadal does it, what are the intentions.normally he is a good sportsman but yea this thing doesnot seem nice..but i blame the officials more than I do rafa.

oo serra hits back but down 15-30 again...

Roggie redeemed himself in the first set tiebreaker.

7-6 in the first. Typical Fed against a ham-and-egger playing well. He should similarly cruise now with a single break, 6-4, or 6-2 if Serra crumbles.

Accent on the "should."

vamos, thanks for answering. this is the thing. i enjoy watching your man play. i really do. but if he breaks the rules over and over again (which he did yesterday, looking at the digital clock) - rafa was doing it over and over and the ump said nothing. If it is against the rules, then why not a word in rafa's ears?

Hi Fed fans...enjoying???
I was expecting this should go much quicker??? Fed doesn't look on top, or this is old hater in me???

...but it will be probably (sure) enough.

OMG look who is in the stands !! my rafaaa :D :D ...perhaps cheering for roger as he was doing in his match against davy in doha. last time rafa watched him , roger lost...dont be nervous roggie u dont need to prove anything to rafa he knows u are the 'best in the hitohry ' *rafa style* :D

zare, it's not so much a match to be enjoyed, but a match to be endured. It's like the NCAA tourney: win and advance; doesn't matter how, just win and advance.

that forehand pass on the dead run was SUBLIME ...and the use of drop shots has been so clever and efficient in set 2...good second set from federer. 6-2 is abt to happen :)

...double break...that's more like it!!!
Yes Rafa is in stands:-)

sloppy game from roggie and some good shots from serra. the deficit reduced to 1 break....

This guy Serra... strange...he can produce beautiful shot... and after he make one or two horrible UE...

hmmmhe didn't challenge... even on PC it was visible it was out???

the 2nd set has been entertaining !! ohh 2 brk pts again !

Oh brother ...

Are we going to see a little bit of drama here...
Still I can't imagine that we shall see 3. set.

I can.

SenorPlaid, Maxi...he is ROGER FEDERER!!!

deuce

don't worry: Roggie will re-redeem himself in the tiebreaker

Yeah, zare, and he's a totally different beast in the Masters as he is the Slams. It's happened enough so that it's no longer a pattern, it just is. This is how it goes. It's never easy early, just win and advance is all. We'll see what happens in the breaker.

win and advance ...

RIGHT ON FEDERER!!!! WAHHOOOOOOOOO!!!!! :)

He goes on...but how??? I mean his opponent was Serra... 60 and something player in the world...veteran???

Ok win is win...Oh I would love ed to see ugly, sloppy Nole's victory over Rochus:-(
Maybe we shall finaly see one big finale...Fed vs Rafa!!!

Federer says he is surprised to hear that people think he is only interested in slams, he says that is quite wrong, so the man himself has never said so. I have always maintained that that can't be true because to me he always looks like it matters to him to win any tournament.

Some beautiful shots were made... Next... Go FED go! :) C'MON!

"If it is against the rules, then why not a word in rafa's ears?"
maxi , 3/29/10 9:59 PM

Maybe you should spend your time complaining about this, instead of talking about it in different blogs, by writing the umpires and referees and ask them why they don't call it. Rafa knows he takes the chance in being called for it. But as has been said before, if the umps don't call it, there isn't much we as fans can do.

Was kind of surprised to see fed taken to tiebreaks by Serra, but it is early and with everybody else having trouble, he did what he needed to do to win. He made the comment at IW, that he should never be taken to a tiebreak, but I'm sure he will up his level, as I'm sure Rafa will too regardless of whether they face each other.

No connection with this post... but can anybody explain to me this result???
N Almagro/T Robredo d D Nestor/ N Zimonjic.....46,62 10_5... what is 10-5???

nadline, I view the FED as just another player when he is not playing a Grand Slam. Albeit my favourite player of all, and a "very good other player" at that for sure, but when he is playing a Slam there is much more Roger Federer. Something which is (in my opinion) rarely (if possible) seen in the Masters, and other tournaments. It is like the magic has time to ripen in a Slam, not so for all other tournaments. But then of course this is my opinion "only". I'm sure there are many differing views on the matter. Federer likes to win, this is certain at any event, but I'm sure the Slams have most of his interest. They are after all the most rewarding. C'MON!

roger now has a very tricky match coming up,,,,berdyyyy !! dangerous opponent.

sky, its not only federer whose interest in greater towards slams inm comparison to masters, its the same with every elite player or every player i shud say becoz the reward is greater for everyone, not just roggie

fan4tennis. shut up will you. you become more boring by the second.I'll talk about whatever I want in any blog I want.Vamosrafa has told me about the rules and I respect what he says because he is a lovely, fair poster unlike yourself.


zare, yes. i know. I hope you looked at the youtube link i sent you showing some of novak's sublime shots? dont be too sad for too long Zare, novak will be back. He is a star. Ollyk and I have such great conversations over at tennis.x. please come over some time.

Roger does lose focus some of the time now, but did you see some of his shots? Just scarily good and "casually brilliant". Cheers Zare. Do you know where Novak is right now? Will he go back to Vadja for some coaching without Martin?

but I'm sure the Slams have most of his interest. They are after all the most rewarding. C'MON!

sky , 3/29/10 11:11 PM


sky, the man himself has just said in his after match interview by SKY, that this is not the case. He says all tournaments are important to him. If he does well in slams, I think it's probably because the field is so wide that only the Qtrs or even the SFs are competitive for top players.

fed weathered the storm very well today..played the breakers intelligently and now a tougher test awaits. HE has always handled big hitters superbly well so lets see what the outcome is this time around...

vamos,

when was the last time berdyche won against a top ten player? I think people are building him up too much. But of course, federer has to be on his guard. always. all players have nothing to lose now, especially with novak and murray out, it is true to say it's anyone's show, but i'm still hoping for a roger/rafa final.

zare, apparently doubles matches at the non-Slam events are decided by a super tiebreak up to 10 instead of an actual third set.

Another stunner with Nestor and Nenad out. Bryans probably will go next. It's been something of a kooky month in tennis.

Hi maxi...
I don't know where is Nole...I hope he's back home in Monaco and he is hitting some empty beer cans on field with Vajda. But knowing him...he'll be probably in Serbia having a good time and homemade food:-).
In this match Fed wasn't shadow of great Fed as we know... but he is probably saving energy. It was enough. That's what is important.
I will cheer for him and rafa, I would really like to see one big finale, even that means that Rafa will be dangerously near to my guy.

So the tiebreak 'till 10 points???
Thanks Senor...didn't know that:-)

R we for another upset...Hantuchova is over Venus 5:1 in first set???

" I think it's probably because the field is so wide that only the Qtrs or even the SFs are competitive for top players."

nadline

Nah, that's not it. You do know that the only difference between the Slams and Masters in terms of field is that there are 32 more players at a Slam, so there are no first-round byes. That's all. If Mardy Fish wants a shield, he has to win seven matches, same as at a Slam. There's no difference there, other than perhaps the fact that players who get a bye might be rusty going against a player who already is a bit battle-tested. That's a drawback for those who have byes.

The big difference is the three-set vs. five-set format. If Fed or any other big name drops the first set at a Slam, well, there's no reason to panic. Lots of time to get that one back and more. But in a Masters, you drop a set and now you're just a few fluky shots in a tiebreaker away from going out. It gives the ham-and-eggers more confidence -- hey winning two sets off of Fed is easier than three, ask anyone -- so it requires more immediate focus with fewer chances to take a mental break.

Federer used to win a lot more of these tourneys, so it's either a case of he doesn't want to apply that much focus in the early rounds of a Masters or he can't apply that much focus. Whatever the case, it's obvious that there's a difference between the results at a Masters and at a Slam. I'll be danged if I know the reason.

To add to SP view, the best of 5 format makes it easier to change things in your game that aren't working. FH or BH misfiring, serve not working, any shots not working. The best of 3 format doesn't give a player as much time to figure out how to correct what might be going wrong in his game. And also, the best of 5 format certainly favors those players who are more fit than others.

Nadline - I agree with you... to an extent. I've never believed that Masters are not important to him - people only have to look at his face after he lost to Baggy at IW. However, as to your 11:17 post, I hope you're not suggesting that Masters are harder to win than Slams. While you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion, I would have to disagree very strongly with you.

You mentioned the wide field, but I don't think that's his problem with masters - if you call it a problem LOL. (Any average player, and quite a few above-average players would do a lot for Fed's results in masters:D)

No, in my opinion what Fed has trouble with is the best-of-three format. Roger has said himself that a contributing factor in his inconsistent results in Masters is, to a degree, the fact that when he loses concentration in a match - which he usually does nowadays - he has less time and sets to recover from it. There are, of course, compounding factors, such as the one you mentioned. The fact of the matter is, Roger is a different beast in slams. He has more confidence in his abilities, and is simply better at playing in slams than most all others. That does not make Masters an easier prospect than masters, only that Fed is far more confident in one than in the other.

When Roger's concentration is at a high level in Masters he will invariably play well. The problem is, this happens far less in Masters than in Slams. Anyway, I'm sure I've made a complete mess of explaining myself, so I think I'll stop there. I only hope my thoughts were coherent enough to follow:)

___________________________

Now, on to my analysis of the match, such as it is. Fed didn't play at his best. The ratio of errors to winners says it all - 26 winners to 29 unforced errors. He had periods of great play, such has early on in the second set, but I feel he lost concentration and let his opponent back in the match. (Who knows, perhaps he was trying to be symmetrical (his first match was 6-3, 6-3; his second was 7-6, 7-6:D) or perhaps he was practicing tiebreaks - 100%, just like his break point conversion in his first match.)

Anyway, he will have to step it up in his next match against Berdych. Onwards, Roger and Rafa, I want a dream final!!

Agree with you, fan4tennis. That is what I was trying to explain in my post above. I only hope it looks like that:)

OK, it may be the format that gives players more time to set up in slams, but in Masters you have to be off the block immediately, or it's over before you even start. As far as Federer's interest goes, he has just said on SKY TV that he is surprised that people feel that only slams matter to him. He was specifically asked the question to clear up the generally held opinion.

I don't think that fed doesn't care about the Master's tourneys. He has said before that he enters a tourney to win! But the Slams are a different beast. It is like if you are playing poker for money and one tourney is for $25 and the other is for $5000. You are definitely going to try even harder to win the higher payout. You will try to win the smaller ($25) tourney because it helps you with points and helps your game, but your level goes way up (or should) when you are going for the $5000.

These Masters tourneys count alot towards points in the season. You can't just rely on Slam points (especially if you are defending because you either keep your points or lose points...there is no gaining more points). Fed definitely realizes that and that is why when I hear some say that fed doesn't care what he does for the Masters, I just don't agree.

...He says all tournaments are important to him...

nadline, 3/29/10 11:17 PM

I guess we are talking semantics here nadline, although Roger said the above, he did not say they are "equally" important. It is fair to say and vamosrafa at (3/29/10 11:14 PM) appears to agree here. Because the reward is provincially greater (more money, more prestige) for anyone advancing in a slam, it is only natural that the WIN emphasis at a SLAM would be/is "more" important. No one is saying the other tournaments don't have there place as having some importance, just not as much that's all. We can agree to disagree on this one though. The only thing that should really matter to us (as fans) is how well our favs are playing each tournament, and... when our favourite player wins, it's what it is. A GREAT feeling. :) C'MON!

Fed does cares about the Masters, it's just that the best-of-3 tournaments means if a player is on a hot-streak, he can capitalizes more on the hot form because he doesn't need to maintain it for 3 sets for each match and for a period of 2 weeks.

Whereas in the Slams, a guy on a hot streak will usually lose that form at some point in the 2-week period.

So in Masters, players have a better chance to win against Roger or Rafa because if Rafa and Roger's form dips for 2 sets and the other guy is on top form the whole 2 sets then it's game over.

Lapennti, Serra and now Berdych , a real challenge for Fed!!

maybe Berdych will give him a match, he played very well in Indian Wels.

I think a few folks here have crystalized my thoughts perfectly, and I thank them for that. Yes, it's not that Fed doesn't care about the Masters or smaller events, it's that he doesn't care as much. He wants to win at all times, but I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that you could take the meltdown in Toronto, the stunner in Indian Wells, the KO in the WTF, the loss to Mardy Freakin' Fish, roll 'em up in a ball, and they don't equal the nagging feeling he has from losing the Open last year.

You've hit the nail on the head SP. Similarly, Nadal has yet to fully recover from the humiliation of RG.