Indian Wells, BNP Paribas Open, Masters 1000

[Front242]

Let's call a spade a space, I like Del Potro and while he was better in the first half of the match, Federer was better till 5-4 40-15 in set 3 and played like dogshit after that and yet it still took a 3rd set TB for DP to win with Roger spewing carrot sized chunks of gunk in the final TB. The match was gifted to him on a platter from Roger at the tail end of set 3.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

Losing a service game at match point when up 40-15 is pretty much the definition of choking.

When you throw in two DFs and don't land a first serve in match deciding TB, there is no contribution of JMDP in it

Very good points, Dude & Goat. That's the bottom line.

 

[Federberg]

Let's agree to disagree. There's losing focus and there's choking. I don't think he choked, and I'm not sure anyone here's going to convince me otherwise. Sometimes you lose, and drama doesn't have to be applied to it. He got cute when he was serving it out and got punished. One could actually argue that what he tried was the very opposite of choking. Anyway...

 

[Moxie]

From Merriam-Webster : to lose one's composure and fail to perform effectively in a critical situation | He had a chance to win the game but he choked.

We can vary that in our own way, but regardless there's always going to be interpretation involved. A critical situation is involved, and a player doesn't perform effectively, whatever that means.

I think part of the problem with Roger is that "perform effectively" generally means perform at close to his best level, which is so damn high that any time he doesn't perform close to his best could be described as choking.

Now the disagreement seems to be whether A) Roger choked or B) Del Potro outplayed him.

I say, why isn that either/or? Why not both?

I think everyone would agree that Roger wasn't playing great over the weekend and Del Potro was. Everyone would also agree that Roger is a greater player than Delpo, so in most cases will win.

Losing a service game at match point when up 40-15 is pretty much the definition of choking. At the same time, Delpo also did remarkably well by forcing a tiebreak and playing in the clutch, so in essence out-played Roger.

So again, both.

Thanks for the definition, Dude, and also acknowledging that there is interpretation involved. "Choke" is a rough word in sports, and I think we have our own feelings about what constitutes one. I said earlier on that you can say both things happened. I'm not going to tell a Fed fan that he can't call it a "choke" on Roger's part, if they want to. But my own sense of a choke is that Roger didn't. I disagree with @GameSetAndMath that Roger can choke. To me, choking is a failure of nerve/head above all, when faced with closing out. I think Roger is too experienced and sanguine to suffer that, anymore. What happened was a failure of form, or perhaps, focus, as @Federberg suggests. And del Potro maintained his. It was a loss. They happen.

 

[El Dude]

But what doesn't make sense to me, @Moxie, is how you can think that Roger can lose focus but not composure (choke). Both are signs of weakness of one kind or another, but why one but not the other? And I've certainly seen Roger lose composure, and his play suffer because of it.

Choking implies a certain level of ability. In baseball, it is good players who are accused of choking in critical moments - when they fail to come through when they are expected to come through. You don't say that your utility infielder chokes when he fails to drive in the winning run. Mike Trout chokes when he fails to do that, and Trout is the best player in baseball. Even though this ignores the fact that even a great hitter fails most of the time (just as in tennis, even great players lose about 45% of all points).

But again, I don't see how Roger failing to win the match when he's up 40-15 is not choking. That's the definition of choking. On the other hand, to reduce his loss to choking is to miss a lot else about the match - including how Delpo may have facilitated him choking, or how he played close enough to take it in the end. I didn't watch the match, so it is impossible for me to make a judgement about to what degree the match was about Roger choking, and to what degree it was about being out-played.

So I see "failure of form," "loss of focus" and "choking" as different shades of the same thing. They have different qualities, but the differences are smaller than we are making them. And they all are directly relative to our own expectations.

 

[Moxie]

But what doesn't make sense to me, @Moxie, is how you can think that Roger can lose focus but not composure (choke). Both are signs of weakness of one kind or another, but why one but not the other? And I've certainly seen Roger lose composure, and his play suffer because of it.

Choking implies a certain level of ability. In baseball, it is good players who are accused of choking in critical moments - when they fail to come through when they are expected to come through. You don't say that your utility infielder chokes when he fails to drive in the winning run. Mike Trout chokes when he fails to do that, and Trout is the best player in baseball. Even though this ignores the fact that even a great hitter fails most of the time (just as in tennis, even great players lose about 45% of all points).

But again, I don't see how Roger failing to win the match when he's up 40-15 is not choking. That's the definition of choking. On the other hand, to reduce his loss to choking is to miss a lot else about the match - including how Delpo may have facilitated him choking, or how he played close enough to take it in the end. I didn't watch the match, so it is impossible for me to make a judgement about to what degree the match was about Roger choking, and to what degree it was about being out-played.

So I see "failure of form," "loss of focus" and "choking" as different shades of the same thing. They have different qualities, but the differences are smaller than we are making them. And they all are directly relative to our own expectations.

For all of your interesting discussion on the points, you said you didn't watch the match. I think we have to discuss it when you have. I don't think the purely theoretical works, here. A lot of the reaction on this thread is emotional, and I don't think you'll get it until you watch the match.

 

[El Dude]

For all of your interesting discussion on the points, you said you didn't watch the match. I think we have to discuss it when you have. I don't think the purely theoretical works, here. A lot of the reaction on this thread is emotional, and I don't think you'll get it until you watch the match.

OK, ignore the match, then. What I said applies, regardless.

 

[mrzz]

But again, I don't see how Roger failing to win the match when he's up 40-15 is not choking. That's the definition of choking.

First, I know it is just one phrase and there is context to it, but anyway...

This is not the definition of choking, as it must depend on how you lost those points. If the guy on the other side of the net played them absurdly well (he rose to the occasion, or anti-choke), then what? Also, you don't even need that, as Haelfix put, if you look at it statistically, some times players will lose close matches holding match points -- even homogeneous, robotical non-choking statistical players he used on his example. As I put on a longer post way up thread, in this game in particular I guess is merit to del Potro -- not only for what he did on the game, but for his whole receiving strategy that closed out some options for Federer. Only the bad drop shot is suspicious to me in that particular game.

On the tie-breaker, yes, as GSM puts two double faults and zero first serves for a guy who made a living out of making great escapes with his serve, ok, different story. We could use milder words, as "felt the moment", so anyone can sort of agree. But we are really going in circles in this one, I guess.

 

[Federberg]

First, I know it is just one phrase and there is context to it, but anyway...

This is not the definition of choking, as it must depend on how you lost those points. If the guy on the other side of the net played them absurdly well (he rose to the occasion, or anti-choke), then what? Also, you don't even need that, as Haelfix put, if you look at it statistically, some times players will lose close matches holding match points -- even homogeneous, robotical non-choking statistical players he used on his example. As I put on a longer post way up thread, in this game in particular I guess is merit to del Potro -- not only for what he did on the game, but for his whole receiving strategy that closed out some options for Federer. Only the bad drop shot is suspicious to me in that particular game.

On the tie-breaker, yes, as GSM puts two double faults and zero first serves for a guy who made a living out of making great escapes with his serve, ok, different story. We could use milder words, as "felt the moment", so anyone can sort of agree. But we are really going in circles in this one, I guess.

Completely agree with you on the serving out game. Glad you said it! But re: the tie break, there is another option. He was still litigating the game with the match points in his mind and didn't achieve the right level of focus. My point is that his performance in the tie break doesn't need to have been about fear. Given what we all saw, with the repeated arguments with the umpire, anger is the far more credible explanation. It stuns me that folks prefer to resort to the rather implausible conclusion that the most successful player in history, who's played in more big time matches than anyone else was somehow quaking in a deciding tie break of a Master Series final

 

[mrzz]

You gotta a point there, @Federberg (and, yes, I have seen that you raised it before). Federer was quite and visibly pissed throughout the match, so it makes sense. Actually these late years we could say we can see him more angry, maybe he decided that after all those years he deserved the break of not policing himself that much. Can't say that I am 100% convinced it is actually the case, but it is a very plausible theory. Only the guy on court will ever know. Time to move on.

 

[El Dude]

Who is saying Roger was "quaking"? That is only based upon your own definition of choking, @Federberg, that it has to do with fear. I think you are the only one saying that. The actual dictionary definition says loss of composure, which doesn't have to mean fear or quaking. Anger is another way composure can be lost - just ask Luke Skywalker! Or simple garden variety irritation or nerves.

Anyhow, I hear your point, @mrzz, especially about talking in circles! But I still maintain that it isn't either/or. It can involve choking and being outplayed. In fact, I think the talking in circles comes from wanting it to be either/or, when some degree of both is likely involved and, of course, it is interpretative.

 

[Federberg]

Mate I'm completely discounting anything you say as it seems you didn't watch the match. Again... I'm focussing on the tennis not contextless advocacy of what the scores meant. I know choking when I see it, Roger did not choke in my view. For whatever reason he lost his focus which proved fatal against a player of Delpo's calibre. You're welcome to disagree

 

[GameSetAndMath]

First, I know it is just one phrase and there is context to it, but anyway...

This is not the definition of choking, as it must depend on how you lost those points. If the guy on the other side of the net played them absurdly well (he rose to the occasion, or anti-choke), then what? Also, you don't even need that, as Haelfix put, if you look at it statistically, some times players will lose close matches holding match points -- even homogeneous, robotical non-choking statistical players he used on his example. As I put on a longer post way up thread, in this game in particular I guess is merit to del Potro -- not only for what he did on the game, but for his whole receiving strategy that closed out some options for Federer. Only the bad drop shot is suspicious to me in that particular game.

On the tie-breaker, yes, as GSM puts two double faults and zero first serves for a guy who made a living out of making great escapes with his serve, ok, different story. We could use milder words, as "felt the moment", so anyone can sort of agree. But we are really going in circles in this one, I guess.

I have clearly said in my earlier posts that I would not call what happened in the notorious game (while serving for the match) as a choke.
However, I would call what happened in the TB as a choke.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

You gotta a point there, @Federberg (and, yes, I have seen that you raised it before). Federer was quite and visibly pissed throughout the match, so it makes sense. Actually these late years we could say we can see him more angry, maybe he decided that after all those years he deserved the break of not policing himself that much. Can't say that I am 100% convinced it is actually the case, but it is a very plausible theory. Only the guy on court will ever know. Time to move on.

Roger was grumpy at various points in the match. However, I believe his grumpiness vanished once he started the third set. So, we cannot put what happened to general angry mood and arguing with umpire. Also, Fed's quality of tennis improved considerably in the third set. Even before Fed actually broke JMDP, it was clear that Fed is having easy time holding serve and JMDP was having hard time holding serve.

 

[Federberg]

Roger was grumpy at various points in the match. However, I believe his grumpiness vanished once he started the third set. So, we cannot put what happened to general angry mood and arguing with umpire. Also, Fed's quality of tennis improved considerably in the third set. Even before Fed actually broke JMDP, it was clear that Fed is having easy time holding serve and JMDP was having hard time holding serve.

I certainly agree that the point of discussion should only be the tie break

 

[mrzz]

I don't now how many of you guys actually play tennis -- at any level -- but anyone who plays knows exactly what choking (in tennis) is, and it does not includes "anger". So, at least in tennis world, choking is one thing and getting pissed of is quite another. It could be other way in other sports/contexts, but in tennis those are completely different things.

@GameSetAndMath , I got that you separated the infamous game from the TB. Did I implied otherwise?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I don't now how many of you guys actually play tennis -- at any level -- but anyone who plays knows exactly what choking (in tennis) is, and it does not includes "anger". So, at least in tennis world, choking is one thing and getting pissed of is quite another. It could be other way in other sports/contexts, but in tennis those are completely different things.

@GameSetAndMath , I got that you separated the infamous game from the TB. Did I implied otherwise?

1. Yes, Throwing away a match in anger is not choking. How many times have Fog done it? Fog was not choking, he is just a head case.
2. Ya, you got that separated. I was just emphasizing that the infamous game is not a choke. Things just did not work out.

Yes, I do play tennis. But, I never choke. Not because I am great. To choke, you should foul up on something that you routinely execute well. I don't routinely execute anything well and so by definition I cannot choke.

 

[Federberg]

1. Yes, Throwing away a match in anger is not choking. How many times have Fog done it? Fog was not choking, he is just a head case.
2. Ya, you got that separated. I was just emphasizing that the infamous game is not a choke. Things just did not work out.

Yes, I do play tennis. But, I never choke. Not because I am great. To choke, you should foul up on something that you routinely execute well. I don't routinely execute anything well and so by definition I cannot choke.

brilliant!

 

[Federberg]

I don't now how many of you guys actually play tennis -- at any level -- but anyone who plays knows exactly what choking (in tennis) is, and it does not includes "anger". So, at least in tennis world, choking is one thing and getting pissed of is quite another. It could be other way in other sports/contexts, but in tennis those are completely different things.

@GameSetAndMath , I got that you separated the infamous game from the TB. Did I implied otherwise?

Well said brother! Well said...

 

[El Dude]

Mate I'm completely discounting anything you say as it seems you didn't watch the match. Again... I'm focussing on the tennis not contextless advocacy of what the scores meant. I know choking when I see it, Roger did not choke in my view. For whatever reason he lost his focus which proved fatal against a player of Delpo's calibre. You're welcome to disagree

Huh? What does what I'm saying have to do with whether I watched the match or not?

What I'm saying has nothing do with the specific match, nor am I talking about "contextless advocacy of what the scores meant," nor am I saying that Roger did actually choke in this specific match (although it sounds like there was some degree of chokeage). I'm talking in general, re: the question of choking vs. being out-played, and whether a great player like Roger can choke, which I think he can.