Tennisopolis : Tennis Social Network

By now I'm sure everybody has realized--- Why do you think Fed lost..? :)

Disbelief---- I can't even begin to fathom he was defeated--- This has to surely rank as one of the biggest upsets of all-time in the history of tennis since its inception in the world--Federer had made a home at Wimbledon..He has won seven championships here, including last year. He had not lost before the quarterfinals at Wimbledon since falling in the first round to Mario Ancic in 2002. In his own words, he said ' He could not play much better ' after defeating Hanescu in the first round this year..

Would love your comments on if you saw this match , why you thought this happened ...


Views: 212

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

sO CRAZY that I had to edit your title in case someone on the front page had not heard!

And I can't believe it was to Stakhovsky who is just not that strong of a player - I saw him out at Indian Wells last year and he was battling with Michael Russell or Benjamin Becker if I remember correctly!  I did not see the match, but I will make sure to tune in tonight.  I heard Stak was serve and volleying nonstop and Fed was just missing too many passes.

Crazy days!

Long live the serve and volley tactic. Darcis and Stakhovsky, I tip my hat to you across the lush green grass. haha!

Hey Mark and Tim :)

I was wondering why Fed didn't serve and volley himself. I've seen him do it in the past against strong serve n volleyers to mimic their strategy and tell 'em ' If you can do it , well, I can do it too ;) Some prime examples are the famous 7 series competitive exos against Sampras where he had a great deal of success doing that against the great Pete ] ..Also on a lot of crucial points, his backhand return of serve was just a high moon-ball which Stakh was punching for clean volley winners , not those treacherous low slices at the incoming Stakhovsky's shoestrings which could have made a world of difference..

The way I saw it S&V by Fed would not have changed much.  He could hold just fine; problem was that he couldn't win enough points on Stakhouse's serve games.  Where were the lazer returns down the line?  I was impressed with Stak's big serve, placement, and those deep first volleys.

Abs and Tim and anyone, this brings us to the big question: Can Stak do it again?  Can any of these guys do it again.  Have a look at this section of the draw.

Stakhovsky out.

Fed definitely has got to rework that backhand return. It's like a smelly fish in need of a cleaning. Everyone knows it stinks, too. j/k

Whenever Stakhovsky can play his serve and volley (rushing to the net even after most of his 2nd serves) and his beautiful single-handed backhand like that, he can beat anyone on the grass. Have not seen anyone who can volley like that for a REALLY LONG TIME.

This was a once in a lifetime loss.  There is no way Stakhovsky could repeat what he did and proved it by loosing the next round to a far lesser player.  Playing the Top 10 players brings out the best in you and gives you a go for broke attitude.  No doubt it was a huge W for stakhovsky but consistent?  repeatable?  nope.  Those are words you use to describe Roger Federer through his career. 

Even in this game, Federer hit 72 % of his first serves in against Stakhovsky, smashed 57 winners and committed just 13 unforced errors


I think Fed gets overwhelmed by those big serve players. So much of Fed's game is setting opponents up and when he can't return the ball the way he wants and put the server on the defense...he is vulnerable. Just like @the French vs the big serving Tsonga. Perhaps he is not as hungry as before as he is a family man now and family comes first before tennis. I mean it takes hours to get the timing of these big serves and there is only a minute margin of error...and if you are off by a half a become the hunted as opposed to being the hunter dominating the point.


Like Us!


© 2019   Created by Mark / The Mayor.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service