Poll : 2014 USO quarter : Federer vs Monfils

[nehmeth]

To you it unkind. Noted the first time and again this time.

He's still a clown. He's a total turd. He should be fined for not even trying.

When do you think he wasn't trying? And why would he not? A "clown" and a "turd"…and you were so admiring of how he handled the beginning 2/3 of the match.

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

Moxie you sit in your couch and you scold and criticize us over and over until you either brow beat us into silence or we change the subject. You want to pass judgment as to why I said something and then call me inflexible?? My "for years" comment was not a source of pride - only meant to convey it's not something new thrown out just because he lost here. His whole career has been a series of similar events like tonight.

 

[Front242]

I see people are too busy discussing the UCOF (Undisputed Clown Of Fifth Sets) to start a Federer v Cilic semi final thread. :snigger

 

[rubydo]

I think Gilbert expressed it well, when discussing the concept of having a short memory. Gael couldn't shake losing those MPs, while Roger (and other champions like Rafa, Novak) are excellent at putting bad things behind them, and moving on. As Gilbert put it, "This is why one of these guys has 17 majors, and the other has never even made it to a final."

Gilbert summed it up with simplicity, no rhetoric. You can debate it all you want if you felt Monfils did not try hard enough in the fifth set. I do not believe that is the case, he is a different sort of player not the norm and why judge him for that? He was simply mentally spent and Roger took full advantage of the situation, like the true champion he is.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In the pre match presser, Gael was asked that he seems very serious these days and have
given up the clown mode and is focusing.

Gael vehemently denied. He said he is still a clown and it was a pure coincidence that
he has not lost a set so far.

To cap it off, he said, at the end of the day tennis is not a job for me and it is
entertainment (may not be exact words, but close to it). You can look at the video
or transcript at USO site.

You can accuse Gael of anything, but he is so true to his words.

 

[Front242]

Well he won 2 games against Federer but he won zero in the fifth against Murray at RG so he surely can't be so mentally spent he can't even win 1 game! That RG 5th set was 10 times worse than this. It took 10 minutes!

 

[nehmeth]

I think Gilbert expressed it well, when discussing the concept of having a short memory. Gael couldn't shake losing those MPs, while Roger (and other champions like Rafa, Novak) are excellent at putting bad things behind them, and moving on. As Gilbert put it, "This is why one of these guys has 17 majors, and the other has never even made it to a final."

Gilbert summed it up with simplicity, no rhetoric. You can debate it all you want if you felt Monfils did not try hard enough in the fifth set. I do not believe that is the case, he is a different sort of player not the norm and why judge him for that? He was simply mentally spent and Roger took full advantage of the situation, like the true champion he is.

I believe there's a difference between being mentally spent and not even trying. I've done both in matches with the same outcome - I lost. The difference was pretty obvious to my teammates, my coach and my Dad. Mentally spent, I got a pat on the back and "Good effort". Not trying - I heard about it in no uncertain terms.

In the fifth set, Monfils made one brief display (one game) where he hit the way he had hit in the first two sets. It was almost like saying "see?" and then nothing else really. Was it a last valiant effort or just a "If I really tried I could beat you." statement? I personally think it was the latter.

 

[Moxie]

To you it unkind. Noted the first time and again this time.

He's still a clown. He's a total turd. He should be fined for not even trying.

When do you think he wasn't trying? And why would he not? A "clown" and a "turd"…and you were so admiring of how he handled the beginning 2/3 of the match.

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

I am not convinced Monfils was red lining myself. Murray was swinging for the fences on those forehand, Monfils played solid tennis against a mediocre Fed. Very different. I also don't get why Le Monf deserves so much respect on what has hardly been even a career year. Solid year, but not his best or anything.

I don't want to be combative about this, (or, anymore than I have been, :snigger ), but I see it a bit differently than you do…you and a few others. Murray v. Djokovic is one thing, and I only brought it up because nehmeth was able to see why Murray might not be able to keep up a certain level against Djoker, over the long term, right now. To me, it is a parallel with Monfils and Roger, even if Roger wasn't playing his best at the beginning of the match. (Which I believe had to do with Monfils, too.) It's a high level of focus and concentration that Monfils kept up, which most of us would consider uncharacteristic of him, and he'd been playing at that level for the whole tournament. And without a coach. And he kept it going against Roger, which is a stretch for him, right? I'm saying that, when Roger mounted a comeback, Gael's reserves ran thin. That's not "clowning," but understandable. And the reason that I mention his new resolve might just be a small one, but folks might look back to his final in Doha v. Rafa earlier this year. Same focus, no show-boating. I thought I was seeing a new Monfils in that final, and that's Le Monf that has been playing in the Open. I really do think that he's one of those guys that, if he can stay injury-free, is looking to have a very interesting late career. I believe he has a new focus and attitude, and that's why I don't think it's fair to call him a clown, or a tanker or whatever people were accusing him of in that 5th set.

 

[nehmeth]

In the pre match presser, Gael was asked that he seems very serious these days and have
given up the clown mode and is focusing.

Gael vehemently denied. He said he is still a clown and it was a pure coincidence that
he has not lost a set so far.

To cap it off, he said, at the end of the day tennis is not a job for me and it is
entertainment (may not be exact words, but close to it). You can look at the video
or transcript at USO site.

You can accuse Gael of anything, but he is so true to his words.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/interviews/2014-09-02/201409021409696960718.html

 

[nehmeth]

and that's why I don't think it's fair to call him a clown, or a tanker or whatever people were accusing him of in that 5th set.

Third time noted.. unkind and not fair to call the clown a clown. Got it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here is a partial transcript of Gael's interview right after his win over black heart.

Q. You're very mentally focused today. On the days when you're struggling for focus, what kind of crazy things get through your mind?

GAEL MONFILS: Well, I don't know. Just sometime -- I don't know how to explain it. Like straightaway it's -- for me tennis is a sport, you know. It's not a job, you know, it's a sport. Sometime if I'm fed up with that, you know, just leave it. For me, I don't know if it's bad to say it and for sure I will use like bad words in English, but it's like, you know, don't give a shit. You know, it's like okay, next one. It sounds bad in English, but what I mean is I care about the match. I don't care about, you know, other things. It's like if I'm not happy, it's okay. I want just to be happy, you know. If I'm not happy, fine. Have it, you know.

Q. Is that what you mean by calm your mind when you were talking before about keeping your mind calm out there?

GAEL MONFILS: Yeah. You know, I just try to be relax, because I'm always been a relaxed person. I try my best for everything. If I don't feel happy, I don't do it.

Q. Your flexibility on the court is unbelievable. Do you do yoga? Do you use that?

GAEL MONFILS: Just every day thanks for my mom and my dad. Seriously just it's because of them.

Q. What was going on late in the first set and sort of the second set?

GAEL MONFILS: Second set, yeah, I just get a bit pissed. I finish. Then I was sorry for Grigor, because I was in front, and he was like, Just serve. Because obviously I give you the game, so it's okay. Move it.

Q. What were you upset about?

GAEL MONFILS: Myself. Sometimes when I get frustrated, you know, as I told you, when I don't like, I don't do it. It's nothing against anyone. I was upset. Come on. We need to move on, you know.

 

[Moxie]

To you it unkind. Noted the first time and again this time.

He's still a clown. He's a total turd. He should be fined for not even trying.

When do you think he wasn't trying? And why would he not? A "clown" and a "turd"…and you were so admiring of how he handled the beginning 2/3 of the match.

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

Moxie you sit in your couch and you scold and criticize us over and over until you either brow beat us into silence or we change the subject. You want to pass judgment as to why I said something and then call me inflexible?? My "for years" comment was not a source of pride - only meant to convey it's not something new thrown out just because he lost here. His whole career has been a series of similar events like tonight.

I actually deleted that post, but you managed to catch it. But whatever, I'll stand by it. I'm not brow-beating anyone into silence. Am I the only person who has challenged another's claim or argument around here? I thought that's what we do. My position is defending Monfils against the charge of "clownishness," in losing that 5th set. I made my case in response to Riotbeard, above, including why I think this change in Monfils is not sudden. You called him a "clown" and a "turd." I was trying to make the subtler argument in his favor. I don't see why that's "scolding." You've every right to argue against my position, and I, yours.

 

[nehmeth]

When do you think he wasn't trying? And why would he not? A "clown" and a "turd"…and you were so admiring of how he handled the beginning 2/3 of the match.

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

Moxie you sit in your couch and you scold and criticize us over and over until you either brow beat us into silence or we change the subject. You want to pass judgment as to why I said something and then call me inflexible?? My "for years" comment was not a source of pride - only meant to convey it's not something new thrown out just because he lost here. His whole career has been a series of similar events like tonight.

I actually deleted that post, but you managed to catch it. But whatever, I'll stand by it. I'm not brow-beating anyone into silence. Am I the only person who has challenged another's claim or argument around here? I thought that's what we do. My position is defending Monfils against the charge of "clownishness," in losing that 5th set. I made my case in response to Riotbeard, above, including why I think this change in Monfils is not sudden. You called him a "clown" and a "turd." I was trying to make the subtler argument in his favor. I don't see why that's "scolding." You've every right to argue against my position, and I, yours.

If you had ever played tennis competitively, it's not that hard to tell when someone is gassed and someone is not even trying.

Rather than going after clown boy Monfils, I shared from my own "clown" moments when I didn't try. I even did the one game hit like a fiend just to show I could before losing the last set without even trying. My teammates, coach and father knew it and I CAUGHT HELL.

There were other times when I was mentally and physically gassed like Murray was against Nole. He was trying with whatever he had left just to stay with it as the other guy pulled away. There wasn't any suddenly fresh as a daisy blip on Andy's radar that last set.

... and if Gael really did call himself a clown, who are you to say otherwise?

 

[Moxie]

Wow, that was very fast tented, I am impressed.

This question came up a few years ago, so I saved the info in a text file, knowing it would come up again ... and it did.

You saved a lot of time for me; i was planning to dig up on that.

Ah, and Roger has already done this before as his name appears in your list. Nothing new
to him, "been there done that" is the response for everything.

His name is on the list, but in a bad way: Safin saved a match point in the AO '05 semifinal against Roger, then won the tournament.

So, if Roger wins the USO, he joins the list of players who have survived MP against, and gone on to win the tournament?

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

Moxie you sit in your couch and you scold and criticize us over and over until you either brow beat us into silence or we change the subject. You want to pass judgment as to why I said something and then call me inflexible?? My "for years" comment was not a source of pride - only meant to convey it's not something new thrown out just because he lost here. His whole career has been a series of similar events like tonight.

I actually deleted that post, but you managed to catch it. But whatever, I'll stand by it. I'm not brow-beating anyone into silence. Am I the only person who has challenged another's claim or argument around here? I thought that's what we do. My position is defending Monfils against the charge of "clownishness," in losing that 5th set. I made my case in response to Riotbeard, above, including why I think this change in Monfils is not sudden. You called him a "clown" and a "turd." I was trying to make the subtler argument in his favor. I don't see why that's "scolding." You've every right to argue against my position, and I, yours.

If you had ever played tennis competitively, it's not that hard to tell when someone is gassed and someone is not even trying.

Rather than going after clown boy Monfils, I shared from my own "clown" moments when I didn't try. I even did the one game hit like a fiend just to show I could before losing the last set without even trying. My teammates, coach and father knew it and I CAUGHT HELL.

There were other times when I was mentally and physically gassed like Murray was against Nole. He was trying with whatever he had left just to stay with it as the other guy pulled away. There wasn't any suddenly fresh as a daisy blip on Andy's radar that last set.

... and if Gael really did call himself a clown, who are you to say otherwise?

Did Gael call himself a clown? I didn't see that in the transcript.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There were 308 points played on this match and Fed came to the net in 74 of them.
That is close to 25% of all the points. In other words, he came in one out of every four
points.

He had success in 54 of them giving about 68.75% success rate when coming in.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Wow, that was very fast tented, I am impressed.

This question came up a few years ago, so I saved the info in a text file, knowing it would come up again ... and it did.

Djokovic's US Open 2011 win needs to be added to the list. Aside from that I don't think there were occations where the eventual winner had to save a match point along the way in recent years, but it often came pretty close.

 

[tossip]

Roger was motivated by the disgusting ovation the classless fans gave him in the middle of the match .I hope Djokovic makes him cry again...

 

[Federberg]

When do you think he wasn't trying? And why would he not? A "clown" and a "turd"…and you were so admiring of how he handled the beginning 2/3 of the match.

Moxie, I have called him a clown for years... I also shared for years how I pitied anyone who coached him. I wasn't admiring Monfils, I was enjoying watching Fed get pushed around.

I dont know what it means to say you've been calling him a clown for years, but if that's a source of pride to you, whatever. It does, however, imply that you are inflexible in your attitude towards him. It implies you haven't been watching some of his play this year, because Gael has been changing his attitude, playing more seriously and more focused. I think that's a change worthy of noting, and the point I'm trying to make with the "clownophiles."

But you never answered this: if it makes sense that Murray can only red-line his game so long against Novak, without it completely detracting from him, why doesn't it make sense that Monfils can only red-line his game so long against Federer, before he becomes a "clown"?

I am not convinced Monfils was red lining myself. Murray was swinging for the fences on those forehand, Monfils played solid tennis against a mediocre Fed. Very different. I also don't get why Le Monf deserves so much respect on what has hardly been even a career year. Solid year, but not his best or anything.

I don't want to be combative about this, (or, anymore than I have been, :snigger ), but I see it a bit differently than you do…you and a few others. Murray v. Djokovic is one thing, and I only brought it up because nehmeth was able to see why Murray might not be able to keep up a certain level against Djoker, over the long term, right now. To me, it is a parallel with Monfils and Roger, even if Roger wasn't playing his best at the beginning of the match. (Which I believe had to do with Monfils, too.) It's a high level of focus and concentration that Monfils kept up, which most of us would consider uncharacteristic of him, and he'd been playing at that level for the whole tournament. And without a coach. And he kept it going against Roger, which is a stretch for him, right? I'm saying that, when Roger mounted a comeback, Gael's reserves ran thin. That's not "clowning," but understandable. And the reason that I mention his new resolve might just be a small one, but folks might look back to his final in Doha v. Rafa earlier this year. Same focus, no show-boating. I thought I was seeing a new Monfils in that final, and that's Le Monf that has been playing in the Open. I really do think that he's one of those guys that, if he can stay injury-free, is looking to have a very interesting late career. I believe he has a new focus and attitude, and that's why I don't think it's fair to call him a clown, or a tanker or whatever people were accusing him of in that 5th set.

I managed to watch the last set and a half. While it looked inevitable that Gael would lose the 5th set, I have to agree with Moxie. I didn't think that he lost due to a lack of effort or clowning. My impression was that his physical limitations as well as not being able to move past the loss of the match points cost him. I think it's very easy to pull up the cliche's about certain players, when familiar patterns repeat. I've seen Gael "clown" around in losses to Novak in particular. But I think it's extremely harsh to use that term for this one. You never got the impression those Novak losses really mattered to him, while I think this one will really sting. Funnily enough he never clowns around against Roger (at least I can't recall it). I don't know whether it's a respect issue, or friendship issue. Anyway... the point is I sort of agree with Moxie that it's unfair to use that term in this case

 

[Federberg]

5 sets is never good for someone Roger's age. He worked links out a long time ago, all about going out there and playing well from the start especially at his age.

That was a quick 5 sets though. I'm not sure it's going to be a problem. What's more important is getting back to playing good tennis. Not sure if that was the wind, a bad day at the office, but the stats didn't look great for serving and his forehand. His two money shots. Still I'm very concerned about the Cilic match now. He has to dramatically improve or he's going home

 

[TsarMatt]

Nice one, Fed!