Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Simon says 'go home'

BEVERLEY SMITH

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:11 PM EST 25/07/08

Unseeded Frenchman defeats world No. 1 Federer in three sets, while Wimbledon champion Nadal advances ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. C C from Canada writes: Biased much?

    Nadal was two break points from being down 1-5 in his opening set.

    When Nadal becomes World No. 1, watch how the press will immediately turn their backs on him. They never gave Federer full credit for his ridiculous run from 04-07.
  2. Anand ** from Canada writes: Not sure what was the most lousy of the entire match - the linesmen, the jerk in the crowd, Federer's game?

    I know I'm going out on a limb here but I frankly think Federer's decline is clearly underway.
  3. g h from Canada writes: This is a huge opportunity for Nadal to take over as number 1 or come very close. After the tournament Fed will lose the points from last year's tourney. A strong run by Nadal will make it very close.
    And give credit to Gilles Simon; he's been playing terrific tennis lately; didn't he win in Indy last week? I think so.
  4. Antonio San from Canada, Canada writes: Somehow I am not surprised: I was never expecting Fed and Nadal to be battling out for Canada's open... with the Olympics coming up. It will be interesting to see the pair Federer.Wawrincka progress.

    Meanwhile Simon has had great wins in the past, including against Roddick so full credit to him.

    As for Federer's decline, I agree we may be surprised by his decision sooner than later.
  5. Moose Lion from Canada writes: CC:

    I don't know what you are talking about. How much more credit could they give Federer? Many of the media consider him to be the greatest tennis player ever...how much more praise do you want him to get?
  6. C C from Canada writes: Thanks to the Globe for publishing their own write up for the story, rather than sticking with the Associated Press' ridiculous drivel.

    On ATPTennis.com, it concedes that Nadal had to save 2 break points to avoid falling in a huge hole during his first set this afternoon. The Globe's current story reflects the rustiness in Nadal's opening match.

    The AP had the balls to write 'Federer's conqueror strolled to victory'. They need to take off their rose-coloured glasses! Is tennis faring that poorly in the US that they needed to sensationalize Nadal's victory?
  7. C C from Canada writes: Moose Lion,

    You missed the original AP wire story about today's matches. The AP correctly mentioned Federer's horrible play, but gave a pass on Nadal's general rustiness in his opening match. Calling him 'Federer's conqueror' is a little much, given Nadal had to save two break points from letting some no-name scrub serve out the opening set.

    The problem with the press is that it loves taking shots at a player once he becomes World No.1. Watch Nadal get a 'haterade shower' once he's at the top. Nadal's been the success of the year in tennis, but the press shouldn't have a blind eye when he does have an off day. Some unbiased journalism, please!
  8. Moose Lion from Canada writes: CC:

    You say:

    'The problem with the press is that it loves taking shots at a player once he becomes World No.1.'

    That statement is 100% false with respect to Federer. I don't know what you've been reading for the last 3-4 years, but Federer was treated with the utmost respect while he was on his run of Grand Slam wins and firmly the number 1 player in the world. I'll take your word that there was a negative article about him recenlty, but that does not erase several years of very, very respectful and fair reporting.
  9. C C from Canada writes: Moose Lion,

    The public and the ATP pros all love Fed. The press have never truly warmed up to him.

    During Federer's reign over 04-07, he was still very under-appreciated by the press. Writers were regularly hesitant to put him up with GOATs like Laver or Samparas, despite him being at 12 GS by the end of last year. Do you remember the ridiculous media criticism when Fed lost that exhibition match to Sampras in Asia last fall? This was after Fed had completed the year winning 3 GS and the Tennis Masters Cup in convincing fashion. The media was taking shots at Fed, despite him losing in an exhibition, charity match that had no effect on his ranking.

    Sampras faced similar media backlash during the 2nd half of his career, but he's grown in GOAT status over his last 5 years of retirement. I think it will only be after Fed retires that the press will finally give credit where credit is due.
  10. Adam Berel Wetstein from Toronto, Canada writes: The trouble with Rogers Cup is the best players always "mysteriously" tank in the first few rounds. Expect a similar event by Nadal in round three.
  11. R M from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    They'll have to change the name of the event, 'cause it ain't going to be "Roger's" cup this year! :-)

    Good on Simon, he played superbly.
  12. A. McDonough from Canada writes: Well I should be able to get seats for less on Sunday. I think the scalpers just had a conniption.
  13. Captain Ontario from Canada writes: He doesn't want to waste time in Canaduh.

    Yawn.

    He wants to return to civilized land.
  14. Larry Ming from Canada writes: I saw Federer, Nadal, Djokovic's matches just a few rows from the court. Just based on his first set, Federer played a higher level of tennis than Djokovic or Nadal. Nadal's 6-4 first set does not show that his opponent won an equal number of points and that Nadal had to dig himself out of a deep hole that was almost 2-5 and initially heading for an upset. For the first six games the inexperienced Levine outclassed Nadal and was shooting winners by him. The Spaniard's movement on the hardcourt looked suspect, similar to problems which affected him in the past two years during the second half of the season . Then Levine got a bit tentative and his play dipped, and he could not convert the 4 or 5 breakpoints he had in the second set. Unlike Nadal and Djokovic, Federer did not face an inexperienced opponent who would wilt as the match wore on. The No. 22 ranked Gilles Simon is the 'hottest' hardcourt player as he won Indianapolis last week, the only hardcourt tournament since early April. In February, then No. 30 Gilles Simon beat Novak Djokovic 6-2 6-7(6) 6-3 in Marseille, the Serb's first tournament after the Australian Open (Djokovic claimed "I wasn't 100 percent fit. When you aren't 100 percent against a player like Simon, you cannot win." to which Simon retorted: "I don't look for excuses when I lose so I don't find excuses for those I beat."). Federer looked like he was going to beat Simon in straight sets in the natural sunlight until the middle of the second set when his forehand started failing him under the night lights. Federer's serve was off throughout, leading to more rallies, some of which were absolutely fantastic. Simon moved superbly and played tougher and excellent tennis the deeper it got. The way Simon played later he might have also beaten the Nadal or Djokovic who showed up at the tournament. It is premature to presume Federer's decline based on this one match so soon after his excellent overall grasscourt season.
  15. g h from Canada writes: Good comments Larry Ming, and I like Simon's retort about not making excuses when you lose. As Djokovic continues to improve as a player, we all wait for him to acquire some class or at least maturity to keep pace, but it's not happening. The guy is on track to become the least popular number 1 player ever.
  16. Chuck the X-Canuck from Spain writes: As to how the press treats Fed and Nadal, repectively, it is only this year that the latter's victories have not described as losses by the former.
  17. Levap K from Burlington, Canada writes: Anybody would remember Justine Hennin? She was very smart to get out. I think Roger Federer will follow very soon. It is time to move on in his life.
  18. Moose Lion from Canada writes: CC:

    I really don't remember the media critism you speak of after his loss in Asia, other than it being reported for what it was...a loss in an exhibition match.

    As for Fed being the GOAT, Federer was being talked about in the ranks of Sampras and Laver about 5-6 grand slam wins ago. If anything, they were talking about it prematurely.
  19. Moose Lion from Canada writes: Larry:

    So Nadal is coming off two grand slam wins and plays a bit poorly in his first set back. You know what that means? Absolutely nothing.

    I agree it's "premature to presume Federer's decline based on this one match so soon after his excellent overall grasscourt season".

    But its equally premmature to judge Nadal's game based on his first set back after winning two grand slams.

    Should be a fun hardcourt season.
  20. G Montcler from Canada writes: Obvious that Federer wanted to leave this "small match" asap and get ready for the serious ones (US Open).
    He lost on purpose.
  21. mats naslund from Canada writes: you gotta believe roger's heart wasn't in it this time.
  22. Martin Fedgrass from Canada writes: People still pay tennis?
    I thought that fad died 20 years ago...it is so boring!
  23. S Ellison from Canada writes: Hey Martin, boring is golf. That is from a spectator's point of view. Either game is decent to play, but to watch.....
  24. John Lansing from Canada writes: The press have always had reservations about Fed. With the series of exhibitions against Sampras in Asia and MSG, you could really see the biases presented by the American sportswriters. And let's not foreget their regular August love affair with Blake and Roddick, even though they've only combined to win 1 US Open since 2003.
  25. Sal Gillespie from Canada writes: Larry- thanks for the comments, but I think there may be something to Anand's idea: perhaps Fed is starting to slip.
    Remember that two and three years ago, Fed was regularly bagelling his opponents- even Hewitt and Roddick.
    Then last year he was beating them, but in a closer, Sampras-style.
    Now he's losing to Gilles Simon? Yes, it's just one match, but that was the crazy thing about Fed in past years- he NEVER lost. He made every final.

    For those who think he tanked, he could lose his No1 over this. He won this tournament last year. Does anyone know the points situation exactly? I believe Nadal could snatch No1 Sunday. If not, he will definitely be in a position to do it in Cincinatti.
  26. Melanie McGregor from Canada writes: Roger Federer is a class act, and I really can't see him losing on purpose last night. His play was sloppy and he didn't serve well, and Simon outplayed him in the second half of the match. I think Fed might be still reeling from Wimbledon and probably also from the fact that he's lost the edge he had over the rest of the field for so long. I don't see him retiring any time soon. Even if he's not #1, and I'm not sure he will be for much longer, I think he'll still be a contender for some time to come. He's said he's sticking around to play in the 2012 Olympics where the tennis will be at Wimbledon. He's kept 1 for a good while as Nadal and Djokovic have come on strong, so I think it's a bit premature to say he's on his way out. I think he's on his way out of dominance, but not out of the game.
  27. Sal Gillespie from Canada writes: According to Bloomberg News, Nadal cannot get no1 here, but he now will be able to in Cinci
  28. D M from King City, Canada writes: Something must be amiss in the Federer camp. He played listlessly: served poorly and was slow to volley. I think whatever it is, its in his head. He doesn't need a tennis coach, he needs a shrink. Too bad for the Rogers Cup. I was so jumped for a Roger-Nadal-Djokovic final.
  29. Pudge Canuck from TO, Canada writes: One question.

    What was Federer's appearance fee?
  30. Melanie McGregor from Canada writes: He doesn't charge an appearance fee. He just plays for the prize money.
  31. CC Rider from Toronto, Canada writes: VEEERY INTERESTING! Isn't the US open just around the corner?MaMMa MiA.....money.....money.....money.........It was a Dark Night for........the Joker is on us.
  32. Rubsun Ho from Toronto, writes: I was at the Federer match last night and, together with everyone in all of the seats around me, thought that there was a major scoring error in the third set. I think it was in the ninth game, set tied at 4-4, when Simon challenged a shot that was called out. On review, it was confirmed that the ball was indeed out and Simon should have lost the point. Instead, somehow Simon was given the point and instead of being down 0-30 (i think), it was tied 15-15 and Simon went on to win the game. Everyone around me thought that they posted the wrong score and we were waiting for a correction that never came. Didn't anyone else notice that or did we all miss something?
  33. Chris P from Toronto, Canada writes: I was at the game last night in the stands. The only reason that Roger Federer was defeated, in spite of not having his best game, was the totally rude and disruptive behaviour from the guy sitting in seats reserved for Carrington Homes. Federer was in complete control of the match until this guy started constantly shouting. His (the Carrington Homes representative) behaviour was completely inappropriate. This isn't wrestling. He not only changed the match, he annoyed everyone around him. Shame on him, and shame on the people who gave him the seats.
  34. Allan Wexler from Canada writes: RubSun - I was in section 126 and pointed out the error to all around me. Elliotte Friedman of Sportsnet sat behind me and agreed that the score was wrong. Federer should have won that game and would have had the break. No one seems to have noticed it, not even the players. As to the noise, Tennis Canada has to do something about the private boxes. They are way too loud and the users show no normal signes of courtesy. Perhaps broadlooming the area in the boxes would be of some assistance, but the noise level is generally unacceptable.
  35. g h from Canada writes: Sal Gillespie: I agree with your comments, but one correction: Federer did not win last year. Recall, he lost the final to Djokovic.
  36. Melanie McGregor from Canada writes: Re: my comment about appearance fees above...apparently, these fees aren't usually disclosed, but it's not that uncommon for top players to get them. So, I stand corrected, though who knows if Fed got a fee for this tournament.
  37. Rubsun Ho from Toronto, writes: Thanks for confirming, Allan. I haven't seen the scoring error mentioned in any media reports at all which I find very surprising. To me it's a gigantic error, and like you, I think it cost Federer the match. It potentially cost me my Federer-Nadal final.....
  38. Elliotte Friedman from Canada writes: Mr. Wexler,

    I double-checked that after the match and was reminded that there are two different ways a point can be scored/not scored in that situation. In order for it to be awarded, the chair umpire must determine that the ball would have been a clear winner.

    Because Simon would have been able to continue the rally had there been no "out" call, the umpire declares it a replay and not a point.

    Federer was asked about in his media conference and seem surprised it was brought up. He had no issue with the way this particular situation was handled.

    EF
  39. 5and man from Toronto, Canada writes: At least Federer showed up (in Toronto)....
  40. Allan Wexler from Canada writes: Thanks Elliotte. I knew the rule but must have lost track since I thought they reversed the awarding of the point and gave it to Simon.
  41. Larry Ming from Canada writes: Moose Lion: So Nadal is coming off two grand slam titles on surfaces that are totally different from the faster hardcourts of the US Open Series. You know what that means? Absolutely, monumentally nothing. In the open era since 1968, only three players have won three grand slam titles in a row: Laver, Sampras Federer (twice). Those who failed to win a third in a row after winning the first two: Rosewall, Connors (twice), Vilas, Borg (three times), McEnroe (twice), Wilander, Becker, Couriesr, Sampras (twice), Agassi (twice), Federer. Apart from the Grand Slam winners Don Budge and Rod Laver, do you know how many other players have won three of the four Grand Slam tournaments in the same calendar year? Nine players: Jack Crawford (1933), Fred Perry (1934), Tony Trabert (1955), Lew Hoad (1956), Ashley Cooper (1958), Roy Emerson (1964), Jimmy Connors (1974), Mats Wilander (1988) and Roger Federer. Only Crawford, Trabert and Hoad won the French and Wimbledon as part of their three-Slam feat. And yes, Federer is the only player in tennis history to have achieved this feat not just twice but also three times (2004, 2006, 2007). Given his exceptional track record and his mononuclosis viral illness earlier this year, it is "premature to presume Federer's decline based on this one match so soon after his excellent overall grasscourt season". Given Nadal's underachieving track record in this second half of the season in the past two years, his past injury problems and the fact that he has played more tennis matches than in previous years, no one would be prematurely judging Nadal's game to consider these factors. Regardless it is a fact that "the Spaniard's movement on the hardcourt (in his first match against Levine) looked suspect, similar to problems which affected him in the past two years during the second half of the season". Which brings up the question of how long would the Spaniard's legs last once he keeps piling up the miles on hardcourts.
  42. Larry Ming from Canada writes: G Montcler and Pudge Canuck: On Thursday--the day after he lost--a few hundred spectators and I packed together like sardines to watch Roger Federer practice for an hour, then sign autographs for the mob of fans and then play his doubles match . If Federer wanted to leave asap, why did he stick around for another day (he could have found an excuse to default his doubles match)? Second, Toronto would not need to pay the top 50 players any appearance fees since it is compulsory for them to play the Masters Series events like Toronto or face penalties if they do not have a valid medical reason. In any case, their ranking points must include points earned in all Masters events.
  43. Larry Ming from Canada writes: Sal Gillespie: Good point as it is conceivable that Federer is starting to slip given Federer's overall performances this year are under par compared to his 2004 to 2007 years. But given his track record and his season compromised by illness, it is more conceivable that Fed is simply facing a temporary slump which all other great players have faced. First, had Fed won Wimbledon--he was just two points away from winning at 5-4 in the fifth set--this would have been his best ever grass court season. This was the first year Fed reached the Wimbledon final without dropping a set at Halle and Wimbledon. Second, despite Fed's lopsided loss to Nadal in the French Open final, this is still at least his second best clay season after 2007, with one win, three finals and one quarterfinal this year. Third, it is reasonable to factor his un-Fed performances from the Australian Open to Miami in early April to the mononucleosis he suffered from December to January. The Swiss Olympics sports doctor felt that Federer's recovery from his mono was affected by his playing the Australian Open with the disease. Regardless, Federer's semifinal accomplishment is impressive considering he was suffering the peak of his illness. Fourth, being caught cold in his first match on hardcourts by No. 22 Gilles Simon--who is the currently the hottest hardcourt player who could make it to the final or win the Rogers Cup--is no humiliation. Fed has lost before the final in the US Open series: in 2004, he lost to No. 21 Dominik Hrbaty in the first round of Cincinnati Masters and in 2006 lost to No. 21 Andy Murray in the second round of Cincinnati. Only in 2007, considered a subpar year for Fed, did he get to the final of Toronto and then win Cincinnati. Fifth, Federer gave 6 bagels in 2007 but this year has already given 4 bagels. I feel that since last year Federer has stopped trying to bagel opponents (e.g., against Nadal in the 2007 Masters Cup semifinal) unless he needed to prove a point.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top