Bullet dodged. From Overcaffeinated. Thanks.
Posted by tennisplanet on May 28, 2009
OVERCAFFEINATED
A BULLET DODGED
So Roger scraped through a match against a dude who he should’ve technically belted to submission. Sure. The pundits and media might write and ask questions otherwise; and start to question Roger’s form etc. Let them. It will pretty much show they were not watching the match.
Yes Roger had a truckload of unforced errors, however he really did not play that badly at all. What he was up against was a heavier court, cooler temperatures and a dude who had a red-hot first three sets. So good in fact that he had the first break of the match; had a host of set points in the first set tie-break and blew each one as badly as Divine Brown did Hugh Grant; won a second set when some thought he would flake away; played out of his brain to 5-1 in the third and had Roger reeling… then he hit a flat or blew a gasket. Aka. he choked. On top of this, the level of play he kept – that insane level – started to falter.
Legs got heavier in line with the body tightening on the realisation that he was about to go two sets to one up. Even if this happened, no way he would’ve won this match. Roger’s supreme conditioning would’ve seen him through. Fumes only go so far. In this case, to 5-1 in a third set, for the wilt in the tie-break was of the Acasuso of normal, and the fourth set…well, he should’ve just packed his gear at the end of the third, or just sat with the rest of the spectators to watch the Roger show roll on.
Going back to Roger – he was in cruise control in the second and no doubt expecting to play a close match, but taking it in straight sets. Sure he was up against a red-hot dude who took a massive gamble on putting all effort/energy into three sets and wish for the best, however he hung in the second until he played some crap points and got broken. Sacre Bleu.
Why so close in the first two: Roger was hitting very short. I missed the third until he was 1-5 down. Then noticed Roger started hitting deeper and deeper. This really was the key to the turn around IMO, as his game was steady and serve was not bad either. He kept Acasuso pinned to the back of the court, and also benefited that Acasuso is scared of the net on the short balls.
Vintage Roger? Heck no. Actually quite a boring match despite the close score. Just something in the “spark” factor that was missing. Was great to see how Acasuso took it to RF, but not a great specatacle of the Roger / Rafa kind at Wimbledon 08 and Aust Open 09.
And rolling on to round three…Vamos Roger!!
Sarah said
A BULLET DODGED-accurate title. He did dodge a bullet. Can you imagine the headlines if he had lost? In the second round?
Well, maybe this will make him play better. I’m still hoping for a Rafael/Roger final.
Overcaffeinated, love your post.
Jenny said
I disagree, why should Roger have technically belted Acasuso into submission? He didn’t let Roger have it all his own way lst set on the hardcourt last year. This guy is talented, is a very fine clay court player with clay titles to his name also, [view of the experts too, all ex pros, Frew McMillan said he didn't think Roger would have it easy]. I value McMillan’s opinion. Acasuso’s a big powerful guy with a great serve and a shotmaker, he’s also an underachiever, his movement can be suspect, and he is inclined to choke, a la Verdasco of old. Roger was lucky he uplifted his game in the nick of time and secured the the third set after being 5-2 down. Acasuso lost his way or it might well have gone to 5, plus turning his ankle wouldn’t have helped either..
Deep South Girl said
John McEnroe’s commentary said basically the same thing. A tough competitor–a good match.
imaginaryband said
Thanks! Having missed the match I was pleased to read an un-Eurosport-like (i.e. more accurate!) commentary and match summary. From watching the scoreline alone it looked as if Federer fought valiantly, which is at least one positive for him to take away along with the serving.
Tennis Freak said
“Then noticed Roger started hitting deeper and deeper. This really was the key to the turn around IMO, as his game was steady and serve was not bad either. He kept Acasuso pinned to the back of the court, and also benefited that Acasuso is scared of the net on the short balls.
Vintage Roger? Heck no. Actually quite a boring match despite the close score. Just something in the “spark” factor that was missing.”
A few comments, first with a general one: The whole piece is coming from someone who still thinks that Federer is Almighty, the second mightiest after Nadal on clay, and there is record to back that if we just isolate the FO record.
Another general comment, and this is directed to TP: Federer means money. His every win brings more people to this site, as to most other tennis sites. So, it has found a partner to sing Federer choir boy/ girl.
Now to the details, from the bottom part: A “boring match”? In what sense? It was the most scintillating match between Federer and a player whose name is not Rafa, in the last 5 French Open. To back this claim, if not with a fact, with another expert’s opinion, “No one over the last five years, apart from Nadal, had really made Federer seem ordinary at the French Open until Acasuso did for stretches.” Acasuso almost beat Federer, was close to a straight set stunning upset !!! So the match became boring simply because another player played better than Federer in the first 31 games? How is hard hitting tennis boring, in contrast to Federer’s figure-skating like soft economic, ping pong tennis? I think both are beautiful in their own ways. (Tennis) aesthetics does not reside in one style of play. Preference is one thing, but dismissal of another style verges on intolerance.
And, imo, no “spark” was missing from Federer except in those 1st 6 games of the 3rd set. With the 7th game of the 3rd, he went back to the same level as he was playing in the 1st and 2nd sets. Acasuso simply collapsed from the moment he twisted his ankle, after playing amazingly beautiful tennis. His collapse may not be wholly attributed to the ankle twist, but it did mark the downfall time-wise. Or, like you said, he just did not have the mileage beyond 3 sets, so his collapse was imminent and inevitable when he could not serve out the 3rd set at 5-2. Federer’s “turn around” had less to do with what you describe as his “hitting deeper and deeper” because this reasoning would contradict with Acasuso’s sudden collapse and his not having mileage beyond 3 sets. The truth is Federer cut the UEs to just 3 after holding his serve at 2-5 in the 3rd, during which Acasuso’s multiplied astronomically. Until the sudden meltdown, Acasuso was the better one from the back of the court; his shots were precise, hard, and quick. So the argument that he was “pinned to the back of the court” does not hold as he had been benefiting from it until that moment of collapse.
On the score board, Federer only lost 1 set, becoming the 1st one to lose a set among the so-called three title contenders.
Good Federer won, but had he faced a ranking player in that vulnerable situation (one who could do a little more than what Acasuso thought:”I thought I could have won this match.”) Federer would not have survived. Surely he dodged a bullet and in that a mighty lethal one !
evie said
Money? In what way is this site monetized?
boxingary said
Tennis Freak wrote:
“Acasuso almost beat Federer, was close to a straight set stunning upset !!!”
——————-
(1) When Player A is MORE THAN A FULL SET away from the
finish line, he’s not “close to a straight set” victory.
(2) When Player A has never made it past the 4th round
of the FO and Player B has made it to the last 3 finals,
he’s REALLY not “close to a straight set” victory.
================================================
Tennis Freak also wrote:
“To back this claim, if not with a fact, with another expert’s opinion, “No one over the last five years, apart from Nadal, had really made Federer seem ordinary at the French Open until Acasuso did for stretches.””
——————————-
Your “expert” has a very short memory.
In last year’s FO semi-final, a (then) 59th-ranked
Gael Monfils took Federer to 7-5 in the 4th set.
That’s a “seem ordinary” of the first rank, no?
Big Fish said
Great post. Thanks..
Sol said
“blew each one as badly as Divine Brown did Hugh Grant”
LOL. I’m still in freaking out mode to comment on that match so I’m just going to say, nice one overcaffeinated.