Man, DMan1, explain away Roger's first-round loss to Gilles Simon in Canada. I saw Simon play last week at Indy and I enjoy the guy's pluck and chicanery--he's the new Gallic Santoro, fluffing shots and running down balls--but to beat Roger in a Masters, this has gone too far. Sacre bleu? Whatever that means. Roger isn't winning the Open after this. The way he's going, he's lucky if he makes it to the second week. You can't go losing to guys like Simon and then go out and win a Slam. It doesn't happen that way unless you're someone like Sampras. Too many good players are stepping up and Roger is stepping down.

Also of note, whatabout Blake losing a first set to Bjorkman 6-1. I know he recovered nicely, but Bjorkman hasn't been playing well in singles at all this year. How does he beat Blake 6-1 in a set. Blake is showing some major signs of wear.

Jose Acususo beats Gulbis and then Gonzalez? What has gotten into the big Argentine. He does have beautiful strokes, but this is a major surprise. 

American tennis is kind of back to the days of 2003-05 when the only hope for an American to produce big results was Agassi and Roddick. Now Andre's gone, and so are Fish, Ginepri, Dent, and the new guys just don't have what it takes. Querrey, Isner, Young are all nice 50-and-above players in the rankings. Only change is that Roddick is no longer a guy who will go deep in Slams. Does all America have to look forward to is whether Spadea will break Agassi and Connors records for longevity?

Gilles Simon is a very good player.  I first saw him play in this year's Australian Open against Nadal in the third round, and he was up 4-1 in the first set, but lost it and the match in straight sets to a very physical opponent.  He has incredible racket head speed off his first serve, and both ground stroke wings. He hits winners quite easily, and at the same time  with great foot speed and foot work runs down shots that would be winners against most players.  His passing shots were amazing. Simon won this match ultimately because he was match tough, and Federer was not. He also believed he could win even when down. 

To get better, Simon needs to work on his strength conditioning and improve his backhand slice. Simon has a lot of up side. He can become a top ten player one day because he is 23 years old, and his best years are now  and the next 3.   He can win a Masters' Series one day.   He has yet to make a good run at a grand slam, though, and I hope he does at the US Open with a good draw of course.  Hard courts may be his best surface, but he is versatile, having won tournaments on clay, indoor hard, and outdoor hard.

Losing to Simon is not the end of Federer.  The credit should go to Simon for the win.  Federer unfortunately played someone who is very match tough, confident, and younger.  He was not ready to win last night.  

Gulbis is a fool.  He had twenty-four days to have played a tournament after his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon. He should have played one of the clay tournaments in Europe after Wimbledon, or Newport, or Indianapolis.  Meanwhile, Del Potro who had little confidence all season wins his first two titles.  Gulbis looked like the better player at first, but he has not won a title on the tour, and likely has less confidence than Del Potro now. His loss to Acasuso is not good at all, especially after he was up 5/1 in the third, and then just gave up.  He appeared to me like he lost his tennis tan, and has not been on the courts for a while, and certainly not an outdoor one.  Gulbis seems to be approaching his career in a lazy, irresponsible and unprofessional manner.  He can not expect to make a run at a grand slam without first winning a title on the tour.  He needs to know the pressure of serving for a title, and converting championship point.  At least Del Potro experienced this twice in the last two weeks.

A comment on Blake. He was finished the night he lost to Agassi in the 2005 US Open quarters.  That night was not the beginning of great things to come but the end.  I gave up on him that night.  I do not need three years to do so, like the average tennis fan.
   

I actually walked away from the match after the second set, and I was surprised to see the result. Simon is a steady player who was match tough as tommyboy said. Federer clearly had way too much game for Gilles but was making too many errors. Extended baseline rallys take their toll on Federer and his backhand has been looking sloppy. If I was Roger, I would skip the Beijing Olympics. There is no guarantee he'l even win Silver with Nadal and Djokovic in the mix and it will only hurt his preparation for the US Open. The number 1 ranking was gone for the year after he lost to Nadal at Wimbledon and maybe Federer should have just admitted it, but I don't think he's out of contention for slam titles. HE should get to cincy as soon as possible and let Nadal and Djokjovic slug it out in Canada. There might be a hangover effect for Nadal too even though he is full of cinfidence. He looked pretty sluggish while Djokovic looked outstanding.

Simon is a very solid and underrated player and no question he was much more match tough having just won Indy. But still, despite Federer's layoff, this was a lethargic and bad loss. When you've got a guy routinely spinning second serves in at 75 mph (or slower) in some cases, you're up a break (twice) in the final set and you can't hold onto your own serve or break him more often (he did break Simon 5 times but only 3 times over the final two sets), that's not good enough against a guy who is match tough and a great mover. Simon is very quick and steady, but does not nearly have the weapons Federer has and for Fed it has to be frustrating that his fh let him down against a guy who is pretty predictable (cc, cc, cc, cc) off that side.

Not to take anything away from Simon because he grinded and gutted it out and finished strong (after holding for 5-4 he quickly got up 0-40 on Federer's serve before breaking to close it) and obviously the lack of match play doesn't help, but you've got to get through when you're up a break twice in the final set. Still think he'd be better off - at least once in a wihle - using the front court a bit more. Sure, Simon is very, very quick, but he also appears much more comfortable moving laterally than forward and he loves playing off the pace (he's not as effective forced to generate his own pace) so at least show him some angle volleys or make him move differently so he can't get in a rhythm.

Increasingly, Fed's idea of aggression is to play closer to the lines off when he gets the fh  and can't blame him - the guy's got one of the best fh's I've ever seen - but what about when it's not falling? He should consider being more aggressive with his feet, IMO, but he's won 12 majors obviously has a very good idea of what to do. Just would like to see him adjust more in matches like these when his fh and serve are not firing on all cylinders. Would love to see Nadal-Djoker semi, but if Ferrer beats Gasquet today (and Ferrer smoked Gasquet in Shanghai last November though Gasquet seems to like the courts in Toronto) Ferrer could certainly trouble Nadal given the fact he beat him at the Open last year and looked sharp in doing so.

Yes, I fear the party is truly over.  When a sportsman develops a mystique in the way Roger had, it helps him on the court by intimidating his opponents and by aiding his belief that he can win even when the going gets rough.  Roger had some tight matches in the past and pulled them out by believing he was special.  When Nadal kept beating him at the French and nipped at his tail all those other times, it obviously wobbled Roger's confidence and now the mystique is gone.  Roger has looked totally ordinary on many occasions this year.  He looked clueless when he made his errors against Gilles Simon, overhitting and spraying balls unnecessarily.  The potential of Federer's breaking Sampras' Grand Slam record is truly in doubt, as are any other records he has had the potential to break.  I will not predict that it is impossible for him to return to glory because it will only take a couple of big wins to get him back, but unlike Nadal, he is human and the task is gargantuan to retrieve a mystique.  The only sign of Nadal's being human will come in two or three years when his body totally gives out from the unbelievable amount of effort he puts in every time he is on the court.

I had to watch the match in pieces because I was waiting for the Mets to implode yet again. I had picked Gulbis and Simon to follow in early rounds at the Open so was sorry Gulbis went out early and hope it wasn't hubris. He has potential but so do a lot of guys like Acasuso who manages to shoot himself in the foot repeatedly. Funny he has great shots and is so strong but the mind seems to wander,

All great players have slumps. It is how you deal with them that matters. Fed may have been replaying that last shot at Wimbledon over and over. Who knows? Certainly his forehand was about as bad as I have seen it. Sampras, never won every tournament he entered and Federer won't either. Now he will win a major here and there but once the other players (Simon deserves credit here)lose their awe of him it will be harder. To me the storyline that will follow is far better than watching him blow away player after player. It is the comeback story. If he goes out early at the Open or the Australian then you watch to see if he can climb back. Agassi was far more popular after his comeback. Before that he was a brat who wasted his considerable talent. Now Roger has to show he can win again  and people will respect him more for that than those five in a row victories

.Nadal will never have the long reign  of Roger with those knees and that iffy left foot injury  but I would love to see him win the Grand Slam because he is incredibly talented and a nice guy to boot.

Tommyboy,

You make some good points, but if you think Simon has a chance to be top-10 in the world (not France) than you're mistaken. Spadea was bullying him last year in the French, up a set and a break. The guy has a nice Murray-lite game, but if this guy's a future top-10, than maybe Bobby Reynolds is a future top-20.

Redhead I think you are on to it this time  :-)  . The loss to Djokovic in Australia was a shock. The crushing loss to Nadal at the French and Wimbledon were also devastating defeats. The great reign may be over. It could well be over. King Roger must be wondering himself, Am I still the best? What's happened to my game? He must be confused. Like Kostya Tszyu said when he was the light welterwegiht champion of the world in boxing, #1 is all that matters, everyone beneath #1 is the same.

Clearly this is Nadal's time. He has earned it and deserves it. And Djokovic looks mighty motivated to pressure Nadal from here on out. Right now, Djokovic has to be the slight favorite to win the US Open given that he is the best hard court player right now.

Hopefully this is just a slump or an off year and the King from Switzerland can regain his throne but it's not looking good. Pete's record is suddenly looking very safe. Last year Roger barely eked out several important matches, like the US Open and Wimbledon finals, both of which he could have very easily lost. The tide has turned and he is losing those matches now, consistently all year he has lost those tight very close matches. To regain that mental edge may not be possible, John McEnroe said he never could regain #1.  

---

:

Redhead-

 I never did receive my invite.....Kind of funny though, that you have already sealed shot the coffin of Roger Federer.  He is still ranked #1. I could understand if you were talking about a guy like Vince Spadea, who once lost 21 matches...in a row...and there was scorn and laughter that he would even try to continue on the tour...and yet you kept cheerleading him...to this day you marvel at how "well" Vince is doing for a 30-something guy.

 

But that Roger Federer fellow.  The party's over for him!

I don't get it.

 
But as far as the Simon loss.  Yup, it was a bad loss. Plain and simple. Roger played like crap. And there is no way a top player should lose while leading in the 3rd set.  And it does come down to a loss of confidence. Roger is after all human. Despite winning many matches a player can lose confidence (for the record see: Spadea, Vince).

 

I agree with RP's assessment. And what Peggy said: every player goes through bad patches, every player is human. Will roger win the US Open? or Cincy? or the Olympics? I don't know. Like I said, and I am sure he knows and everyone else knows, Roger Federer has lost confidence. I remember 1987, when Martina Navratilova lost every tournament she played going into WImbledon, and Steffi Graf won every tournament. The signs were clearly there for a changing of the guard. However, Martina still held off Graf to win both Wimbledon and the Open that year. And the changing of the guard still happened. Connnors was written off in 1982, but he came back and won Wimbledon and the Open that year. Chris Evert lost 13 times in a row to Martina, and everyone said she ought to hang it up. But she came back and beat Martina to win the French in 1985.

 

Everyone left Agassi for dead in 1997 when his ranking plummeted to #141. And yet he rebuilt his career, and won 4 majors at the age of 30! Graf suffered through inuries for 2 years, dropped off the charts, yet came back to win one more major.

 

And lest we forget about Sampras. He didn't win a tournament of any kind for 2 years, but came back to win the Open and his 14th major at the age of 31.

 

So this history lesson is supposed to illustrate that those who want to permanently kick Federer off the list of guys who can win majors do so at their own peril. (Take a peak at Pete's career results and you'll find a lot of bad losses mixed in there, including years he won Wimbledon or the Open)

 

Roger's reign at #1 is coming to an end. Long live the King! And did someone say "Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown"!   I actually think it could be good for Roger to lose the #1 ranking. May take a little pressure off of him.
 

DMan1,

How can you say you didn't receive an invite. I sent one out specifically for you back in January when Fed was eating Djoko's dust in Australia. I reminded you of it when Fed went down, back-to-back to Fish and Roddick, and then again I reminded you before the French and Wimbledon. 

I'm not saying Fed will never win another Slam again. That would be an absolute fall from grace. But you have been adamant that Fed is still the same player he was the past three years, and now finally, even you, DMan, are backing off that untoward line just like Bush has backed off on a timetable in Iraq. 

Look, Fed isn't like JohnnyMac or Borg, who got married and tried to have lives outside of their tennis careers in their mid-20's. Fed's whole life, to the permanent girl friend and to the vacation house in unpc Dubai, is about tennis dominance. His great play and this lifestyle is why his sudden fall from grace is rather shocking, wouldn't you agree?

I just want to know why some people are enjoying Federer's struggles.  I admit because of not liking Sampras for cheating to win 1998 Wimbledon, I enjoyed watching his struggles back in 2002, and he went on to win the US Open that year. A load of good my gloating did! 

Now I just enjoy that Federer and Nadal both achieving in the game are making Sampras into an afterthought.  It does not matter if Federer struggles because his achievements speak for themselves, just like Sampras'  unfortunately do.  They have their places in tennis history. Nadal has his as well. Federer has some more to achieve and he can.  Admittedly, I do not believe he is going to dominate like he used to and win 3 slams in a year. He is still going to win a few more, though it is getting harder because he is getting older, and others are younger.  However, something can always occur within two weeks of a grand slam to help his cause. He is still a great player and champion.

Nadal has more to achieve; hopefully he can win the US Open and become the first man in history to win three slams in a year on three different surfaces.  Then he would have a powerful argument to favor his cause to being named the greatest. 

Tommyboy: can you make it through one thread without trashing Pete Sampras.  He did not cheat to win Wimbledon in 1998, please give it a rest.

I made it through the Roddick thread without trashing Pete, so I can go through one.  I am sorry if you are offended, West Coast, about my trashing Pete. 

It is just so easy to do so.  First of all, he needed to and did cheat to win 1998 Wimbledon. 

He is obviously arrogant. He trashed Rafter in the press for no good reason back in 1998 before the US Open when asked the difference between him and Rafter and his response was "10 grand slams."  He even refused to shake the umpire's hand after losing the finals in Cincinnati that year to Rafter.

Back in 2000, when asked if any of the players in the  NEW BALLS campaign by the ATP Tour has what it takes to become the next number one, he said none of them.  When asked to reconsider his answer, he said "Maybe Kuerten." He was right about Kuerten but was wrong about the others in the campaign, namely, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero, and Federer, all of whom held number one. He thought he was so much better than the other player that he could not even respect another's talent.  He eventually lost the finals of the US Open that year to Safin, and lost the Master's Cup semifinal to Kuerten, who ended the year number one. He lost the US Open final in 2001 to Hewitt, and the round of 16 at Wimbledon 2001 to Federer.

Even though he acknowledges that Federer is a great champion and player, he goes so far to diminish Roger's achievements by saying that he has less competition than he ever did.  This is a lie because Roger is facing Nadal, who is greater than any player Pete ever faced.

Pete recently said that Nadal is a great athlete, great competitor, has a big heart, and is a great guy, but then said that Djokovic is the only one that can move with, hit with Roger, and do all the other stuff.  That is of course an insult to Nadal, implying that he has little tennis ability, and is only a grinder.  Guess what happened after this comment!  He was proven wrong, and Nadal won Queens Club and Wimbledon, and ultimately the French-Wimbledon combo, something Pete, Roger, Andre, J. Connors, J. McEnroe, I. Lendl, M. Wilander, S. Edberg, B. Becker, J. Courier, and many others never did.

He considers himself the greatest of all time, but now is forced to concede that Federer is better, and eventually will be forced to concede that Nadal is even more so. 

Ultimately, Pete should try to become the most well-rounded nice person possible.  When all is said and done, that is what matters anyway. He kind of ingratiated himself  to the tennis public when he participated in the exhibition at the Garden.  He never did in his playing days with some regret now that he did not. Hopefully, he can make a new beginning and be a better public figure for the game of tennis in his present capacity, harder it is. 

Congratulations for getting through one post w/out dissing Pete!  I must have missed that one. Sorry.

For the record....I never said that Federer was the same player after his losses.  I have said over and over that Fed is still the #1 ranked player. Which is a fact and is true.

 

Redhead, you nailed the coffin shut after the Djokovic loss in Australia. You talked about the FON factor in IW.  Conveniently forgetting facts such as Fed crushed Djoker in their next match, although Djoker couldn't even be bothered with finishing the match - a move you dubbed 'tactical genius'.

 

When I remind you of Djoko losses, like to Kevin Anderwho, you excuse away those without a problem. And for the record in his last 6 matches, Djokovic is a pedestrian 3-3. If you are comparing Fed is 4-2.

 

Yup, The Fed loss to Simon was a bad one. And yup, in all likelihood Fed will lose his long held #1 ranking this year. Yet even you say you're not saying Fed will never win a Slam again. And you go on to say Fed's whole life is about tennis dominance. I completely disagree. He was just better than everyone else. Period. A house in Dubai - let's arrest him for that "un-pc" move. And give me your standards on Vince and everyone else on the pro tour as far as pc-ness.  

 

Fed's great play and lifestyle is why his sudden fall from grace is shocking?!?  Fall from grace?  He hasn't even fallen yet from his #1 perch. And I'd hardly call it a fall from grace. I mean it would be one thing if he was becoming like Andy Roddick, who you dubbed " mean expletive". What kind of graceless behavior has befallen Roger?  His perhaps about-to-fall from #1 position is shocking? Maybe. Perhaps. But then again what goes up must come down. And as Peggye always says, no one can win forever.  I think you have been secretly hoping Fed can become the official GOAT, and soon. Maybe you're a frustrated Fed fan, disappointed that he is losing more often than he used to. I kind of don't get how Mirka plays a role in his tennis dominance. I thought her low key style, and their relationship, proved how normal he was. Rog isn't like Andy or Vince, trying to snag a girl in every city.

 

So the party isn't over...yet. I didn't miss any invitation. But I am concerned for Redhead, and the Nole fans.  Is the PRESSURE of all those points to defend getting to Nole? I mean a few months ago Nole choked away chances at becoming no. 2. And now he's got a lot of points to defend. And he's not exactly looking so sharp. "Favorite" for the US Open?  Me thinks not.

 

Oh, and I think I'll sign off with my signature phrase (not RP's favorite 'Pipe down Pardner') but.....

 

"UNEASY LIES THE HEAD THAT WEARS THE CROWN" 

 

Roger Federer has been ranked #1 for more consecutive weeks than any player in history. And has done it with tremendous grace and flair.  When the time comes for him to relinquish that crown, we'll never see another player match his achievements as a dominant #1.