Australian Open final preview and prediction: Federer vs. Cilic

January 26, 2018 Ricky Match previews 521

For the second time in the span of three Grand Slams, Roger Federer and Marin Cilic will be squaring off in a final when they take the court one more time at the 2018 Australian Open on Sunday night.

Federer and Cilic faced each other in last summer’s Wimbledon title match, in which the Swiss sailed to a 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 victory to complete a perfect run at the All-England Club during which he did not drop a single set. Cilic managed to take a set at the Nitto ATP Finals a few months later, but Federer still recovered for a 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-1 win and improved to 8-1 lifetime in the head-to-head series (5-1 on hard courts). Cilic famously earned his lone upset in this matchup with a 6-3, 6-4, 6-4 romp in the 2014 U.S. Open semifinals on the way to his first and so far only major winner’s trophy.

The similarities are striking between this Australian Open and the 2017 Wimbledon event, and not just because it is all coming down to Federer vs. Cilic. Once again, Federer has coasted into a slam final without the loss of even one set. Cilic, on the other hand, has again battled through several three-hour affairs to keep his hopes alive for a second Grand Slam triumph. Injuries plagued the All-England Club festivities, with Novak Djokovic retiring in the quarterfinals, Andy Murray barely managing to complete his quarterfinal loss, Stan Wawrinka not playing again the rest of the season following his departure from London, and even Cilic bogged down by blisters in the final. In Melbourne, Rafael Nadal retired from his quarterfinal clash against Cilic and both semifinals were marred by physical problems.

This fortnight should end in far more entertaining fashion than Wimbledon last summer, when the title match was a snooze-fest.

After all, Cilic is showcasing something similar to the form that took the rest of the field by storm four years ago in New York. The sixth-ranked Croat, who will climb to a career-high No. 3 on Monday, has advanced with victories over Vasek Pospisil, Joao Sousa, Ryan Harrison, Pablo Carreno Busta, Nadal (via fifth-set retirement), and Kyle Edmund.

“I’m feeling really, really good physically, even though I had few matches that went more than three hours,” Cilic commented. “I think I played great tournament so far with my level of tennis. I think I improved it [compared] to end of the last year. I’m playing much, much more aggressive. I’m feeling that I am, for most of the shots, hitting them really, really good. From the return, moving, forehand, backhand, serving, I think everything is in (a) good, solid spot. (I’m) feeling really excited about the final.”

Nobody has been as good or as dominant as Federer. The 36-year-old has basically waltzed past Aljaz Bedene, Jan-Lennard Struff, Richard Gasquet, Marton Fucsovics, Tomas Berdych, and Hyeon Chung (via second-set retirement). Struff, Fucsovics, and Berdych pushed him to one tiebreaker apiece, with Berdych even leading 5-2 in the first set before Federer quickly restored order.

“I think I’ve done everything pretty well,” the second seed assessed. “I’m just pleased that actually my game has been good from the very beginning of the tournament. I mean, I’ve won all my matches without dropping a set. Clearly I was a bit lucky against Berdych in that first set, but things must be all right if I’m in this stage right now not having dropped a set and in the finals.”

But Federer is well aware that things are going swimmingly for Cilic, too.

“I definitely think him winning the U.S. Open gave [him] great belief,” Federer said. “If the big moments come about, that [players like Cilic and Stan Wawrinka] can attain this level–not easily, but they can get there from time to time. I think he played great against Rafa. I think the belief and the way he played very positive made him win that match because he didn’t look good there for a while when he was down a set and a break and everything.

“So I like his attitude; he’s very professional. He’s always very much the same regardless of whether he wins or loses. I like that attitude. On the court, he’s a winner. You can see it on the way he behaves on the court. He’s there to win and not just to be there. Sometimes you see other players you feel like they’re happy to have made the quarters so far. I think he strives for more.”

Cilic should be able to do more on Sunday than he did at Wimbledon, and not just because he appears to be 100 percent from a health standpoint. He is playing better than he did during his run in SW19 and a medium-paced hard court is arguably more conducive to his game than grass, as the ball bounces higher into his strike zone and he has more time to set up his huge groundstrokes.

Federer will likely be tested for the first time this fortnight, but experience, freshness, and just about every other factor favor the 19-time major champion.

Pick: Federer in 4

[polldaddy poll=9926507]

521 Comments on Australian Open final preview and prediction: Federer vs. Cilic

  3. I don’t care who wins, as long as it’s in 5 sets or at least 4 tight ones. Something like that 2001 Sampras/Agassi USO QF, where there was (I believe?) 4 tiebreaks, and all 4 were crazy…

    Reply

  5. “Cilic should be able to do more on Sunday than he did at Wimbledon”

    I doubt it (unless you are referring to tear production).

    “I think I’ve done everything pretty well,” the second seed assessed.

    Lemme see. Cushy Draw? Check. Night matches? Check. Yes, I’d have to agree.

    “This fortnight should end in far more entertaining fashion than Wimbledon last summer, when the title match was a snooze-fest.”

    Perhaps. But only if you think a bore-fest is far more entertaining than a snooze-fest. Don’t you? Or do you.

    Thank you, thank you very much! I’m here ’til Sunday. Try the veal!

    Reply

    • Sorry hawks but you sort of come off as an unnecessarily salty Rafan when you constantly bring up Fed getting night matches and such. You are basically going out of your way to constantly discredit his success. You do know Rafa should be getting time violations on several of the points he plays, right? And before games when he takes time to set his water bottles down in that certain order he always has them in. Fed isn’t the only guy who gets preferential treatment.

      Reply

      • No “sort of” about it, Benny. It’s called sour grapes.

        Of course Rafa gets favourable treatment. And other players on tour complain more about Rafa’s constant time violations than they do about Fed’s night matches.

        Fed played a day match, and he had a more difficult draw on paper (at the outset) than did Nadal.

        Reply

        • Ricky. NNY. Benny. Anyone else here with a shred of decency:

          Are you going to continue to let Hawkeye slander people with impunity? He clearly and repeatedly violates site rules.

          Let’s hear from others who want Hawkeye to either stop this behavior or else be banned from the site.

          I’m sure lots of others agree with me, and Ricky will act if enough of us speak up.

          Reply

          • Are you asking for a link to Hawkeye’s offensive behaviour? He just called me (12:17am) a “homophobe defender,” which is just gratuitous slander.

            Hawkeye frequently and gratuitously calls people racist and homophobic, either directly or in a hashtag, outside the non-tennis forum.

            It makes the site much less pleasant for everyone.

  10. I watched the highlights of the 2014 Fed-Cilic USO match yesterday. Two related aspects of Fed’s play stood out. He wasn’t playing that close to the baseline, and he was hitting his shots with a fair amount of topspin.

    Both of those things are likely to be different tomorrow. Roger is basically playing at the baseline, and he’s not giving his opponents any time. He will tolerate his higher unforced error count, as well as Cilic hitting some winners by him, as long as it allows Fed to dictate play and create UE from Cilic.

    I expect Fed to serve better than he did against Chung, and create more break points than Cilic does. I think he will try very hard to win the first set, and if he does it will be Fed in 3.

    Reply

  12. Surely, the weather is a factor here. Forecast is a maximum of 39 degrees so it will most likely still be in the 30s when play starts.

    Fed in 4 is the most likely result. His net game and drop shots in top if everything else he brings is just too much for any other player right now.

    Reply

    • Emperor Julius Ceaser,

      Nice to see you back that too in color!

      Are you really/was the Emperor of Rome? or Are your from France?

      Why fed in 3? How much are you betting on fed in 3. can’t you bet a billion bucks on fed in 3(if you have that much lying around!lol).

      And why not in fed in 4 as Cilic is playing very well with great confidence. His serving and returns seem to be very powerful and on point.

      Looking for your deep logic/analysis for this pick.

      I know fed will win 75% so going Fed ML on him. But the odds are very low.

      Mulling if fed will win by -5.5 games. Are you or your friends betting on this?

      Reply

      • Congrats Roger (and to me….read below) for winning the 2018 AO Championship and in the process achieving an unbelievable 20 Grand Slams!

        Thanks Roger for making my above huge bet of
        1) Fed ML and

        2) -5.5 games Roger…as discussed above…

        (finalized it finally b4 match started)! Also bet on the over as I knew that Cilic would win atleast 1 set (and push the over) as he was playing well without injuries and was healthy-n-fit!

        Did anyone bet on the above bets? Congrats to Roger’s(I mean both Rogers) followers!lol

        How many more points does “Roger the GOAT” need to become World No.1?

        Reply

      • Congratulation Roger (GOAT) and Roger (tennis betting expert). 😊 I actually betted fed straight sets win with small stake and -5 games with medium stake.

        Reply

        • By the way, I’m an emperor of neither Rome nor France. Lol.. I’m just lurking here, I’m a shy type and I’m not so good in english (i have so limited english my friend lol).

          Reply

  15. Looks so easy for Fed against this Cilic!

    Berdych really has to bang his head against the wall a few times, I mean if he got past Fed, he would have a compromised Chung in the SF and then this Cilic in the final! What an easy path to the trophy after beating Fed.

    Should be a straight sets win for Fed here, Cilic can’t figure out how to return Fed’s tricky serves, and he’s having difficulties holding his own!

    Reply

    • Roger beat Berdych in straights though. Berdych had chances in the first but it’s not like he should’ve won that match or would’ve won even if he had taken the first. Don’t know why he would be banging his head on a wall after he couldn’t even take a set.

      Reply

      • Ha, he should be banging it harder, for not winning that first set! And I do think that the longer he dragged the match, the more likely Fed’s level would drop.

        Reply

  16. Beginning to wonder how come Cilic beat Fed is USO 2014. Its lkike Serena-Sharapova kind of match up. Sharapova last beat Serena in Before Christ era and after that Serena has shown where Maria belongs.

    Reply

    • Cilic just played flawless power tennis that day. It didn’t help Roger that his legs weren’t that fresh after his great escape from his match with Monfils but Cilic basically redlined and took the match out of Fed’s racket. Seems to me that Roger is serving too well and playing too relaxed and confident to get dominated by anybody like that again.

      Reply

      • I think Fed was robbed off a potential USO that day. He would have gobbled up Kei very easily. Even Cilic is lucky to hold 5 straight games in second set today.

        Reply

  17. Cilic not a smart server, I mean why always be so predictable when serving at the Ad court, serving out wide to Fed’s BH so often that Fed is expecting that and returning so readily! For a change, at least serve to the FH and catch Fed off guard!

    OTOH, Fed is holding serve so easily!

    Reply

  18. Very nervy game there from Fed, and he’s lucky not to have lost the 2nd set. I think Cilic is starting to feel his oats a bit, and Fed’s level seems to be dropping a bit.

    Reply

  20. Greg Rusedski
    ‏

    @GregRusedski1
    49m ago
    One guy warms up indoors, other warms up outdoors before the finals. Roof is closed. 🤔 This is so wrong for a GS final which is an outdoor event, which means you should have to deal with the elements. So far one sided. I hope Cilic can get back into the match.

    Reply

    • Well they didn’t close it just because. They closed the roof due to something called the “Wet Globe Temperature” and if it exceeds something like 32.5 degrees, then they have to close the roof, according to Aus Open policy. I find it dumb that they don’t do it for normal on and off court temperature, like on Thursday and Friday of the tournament when Monfils and Djokovic played. It was much hotter then but according to the commentators, they don’t factor in the sun and its effects on the temperature for this Wet Globe Temperature. Also, it was 37 degrees like an hour or a half hour before the final and I think that played a part as well although I’m not sure there.

      Reply

        • Oh yeah they do generally give him preferential treatment with his scheduling for sure (although he didn’t have an extra day of rest before today like Cilic and he could’ve had Djokovic then too). But Rafa gets preferential treatment too as he should easily be called for time violations on several occasions and players have spoken out about that on numerous occasions. I personally don’t mind that Rafa takes a lot of time between points and during changeovers but they do enforce that rule a lot less with Rafa. Honestly, I would like to think that Fedal deserves some preferential treatment after all they have done for the sport.

          Reply

    • And last year’s final between Roger and Rafa was played outdoors. And Roger still won it. I don’t think the outdoor/indoor thing is the deciding factor for this one or in most matches. What I do think is that Roger was probably in contact with the tournament prior to the final and they may have told him or hinted that it was likely that the final would be played indoors due to the rising temperatures and the tournament policy. I just hope that if Roger wins this, you and/or other Rafans won’t try to find a bunch of ways to discredit an incredible 20th slam win at the age of 36 (i.e. his draw, indoor final, etc.) especially after last year’s win where he had one of the toughest paths having to win three five setters to take the title AND had to beat Rafa outdoors.

      Reply

  21. A lot of clutch play from Cilic in that set, especially on his serve. Thin margins in the TB; the late FH unforced error by Fed was the difference.

    Reply

  24. Fed’s serve is the difference in this match. It bailed him out several times that set, while Cilic was generally stronger from the baseline. But serving 81% 1st serves and seven aces in the set is very hard to beat.

    Reply

  26. As I said before, Cilic is not a smart player. He should be serving down the T in his previous service game once his out wide serve wasn’t winning him points; not only when he had lost his serve (when serving out wide) then he started serving down the T to hold serve.

    When Fed is serving for the set, he rarely fails to do so. Cilic is asking for trouble! Fed 2 sets to 1 now; Cilic game over (he’s not Delpo so I expect him to fold in the next set)!

    Reply

    • You may be right, Lucky. I expected Cilic to come out strong in the 4th like he did against Rafa, but that was a very weak opening service game. And I think Roger is just serving too well for Cilic to break him here.

      Reply

  28. Clutch play from Cilic to hold serve there. A break and he would have been done, but some terrific FHs and serving keeps him in the match.

    Reply

  29. I truly hope that we don’t have to see Cilic in another slam final again; he’s one guy who can just get frustrated easily and starts losing his way and I suspect gives up subconsciously. I don’t see why Cilic has to play those loose points and loses serve so easily, after losing the third set. I thought a true champion should and would try upping the level after being 1 set to 2 down.

    I much prefer Delpo over Cilic; Delpo never gives up and will fight till the end; rarely being affected by frustration.

    Reply

  30. A big row has taken place over the closing of the roof when they wouldn’t do it in sweltering heat for the likes of Monfils and Djokovic.

    Reply

    • On my broadcast, they said the temp was 39 degrees before the start of the match, which is certainly hot enough to close it.

      There are good reasons of consistency not to close the roof for some but not others. Postponing all matches for the day is a better policy than closing the roof for just a few.

      Reply

  31. Cilic has really been up and down today. About midway through the 3rd set he looked like he was starting to take control of the rallies, and I expected him to continue at or near that level. But he’s gone off the boil for the most part since then.

    Reply

  32. Actually, I feel this match is really on Fed’s racket; it all depends on how well he serves! Cilic wins points on Fed’s serves because of Fed’s relatively poor serving and errors; when Fed serves well, Cilic has no clue how to return or break Fed’s serves.

    Reply

  35. Fed’s BH DTL has been almost nonexistent today. He seems not to have the confidence to go for it much and when he has tried it generally hasn’t worked. Cilic, on the other hand, has hit several BH’s DTL, although he’s missed a lot too.

    Reply

  37. Wow, Fed’s 1st serve pct. dropped from 81% in the 3rd to 36% in the fourth. Really odd that the serve just seemed to disappear when he was up 3-2.

    Reply

  41. Fed almost got robbed out of a hold there. Cilic’s backhand on Roger’s first game point was clearly out and they missed the call and even showed it was out after. I was about to have a heart attack when he had to save break points there 😂

    Reply

  42. Uptil now it’s been like a Challenger Tournament for Federer. He’s played really very low ranked players to get to the final.

    Bedene – 51
    Struff – 55
    Gasquet – 29
    Fucsovics – 80
    Berdych – 20
    Chung – 58

    Reply

        • My point is what you understood. BTW Fed’s draw has been difficult than Rafa’s USO 2017 . He is playing one top 10 player in Cilic

          Reply

          • If Fed had played Djokovic and Nadal, then no one would say he had an easy path, even if he had beaten both in straight sets.

            The fact that he played (and beat) the two guys who beat those players shows that his draw wasn’t easy because of who he played. In this tournament, Chung and Cilic were better than Djokovic and Nadal. That’s how it always works, and only fans who are mesmerised by H2H matchups get confused on that score.

            The only easy aspect of Fed’s last three rounds was the fact that Chung retired, apparently injured for entire match.

    • Nadal got Rublev in the US Open quarterfinals and Anderson in the finals so why not call his draw a challenger draw? Fed gets Berdych in the Aus Open quarters and Cilic in the finals. And Chung beat Zverev and Djokovic before the semis. He could’ve easily had one of those two instead. You beat the guys in front of you Nadline. You’re basically dissing the lower ranked guys that make it far in the tournament with this poor argument of yours. Just let Fed’s 20th slam happen and stop trying to undermine his win like this. And in the meantime, maybe go look at Fed’s draw from last year and who he had to beat there? That certainly wasn’t a challenger draw. #20

      Reply

    • Nadline10, the actual rankings don’t count in a Grand Slam!

      As it is a Grand Slam, every underdog (lower ranked player) plays like a top ten player! So, throw the rankings out of the window. In many matches you don’t see much difference in the level of play between top ranked & lower ranked players!

      Look at how Jana fett played to nearly knock out Woz from the AO!

      So, technically Cilic and Fed played he BEST TOP 10 Players to get to the finals!

      Reply

  43. Some bad luck for Cilic in this last set, and it’s been closer than the score will indicate. Above all, no one should say that Cilic gave up or didn’t try his hardest. He’s played a very good match, but Federer has just been better. When his serve has worked, Cilic hasn’t had a lot of answers.

    Congratulations to the GOAT on his 20th GS title!

    Reply

    • Joe, its because of how pathetic Fed served in the fourth set that allowed Cilic to break serve twice, its not like Cilic was playing fantastic, and he just upped his level, held serve to win the fourth set.

      You see how pathetic he played in the fifth; couldnt break Fed’s serve in the first game when he had chances and then lost his own serve inmediately after that!

      Reply

      • Yes, I agree that Fed let him in the door in the 4th set, esp. with the DFs. But I wouldn’t say Cilic played pathetic in the 5th. Yes, he failed to convert the BPs in the first game; that was crucial. But he kept trying; the shots just didn’t fall for him.

        Reply

  45. Congrats to Fed for the win!

    As I said earlier, I hope I or we dont need to see Cilic in a slam final again! Such inconsistency!

    Fed isnt in top form this match and in fact whole tournament; that shows how pathetic the field is now, excluding those who are injured of course!

    Reply

    • Lucky, I would be happy to see Cilic again. Sure, he was not always consistent, but after a very nervous start, he generally played quite well, comparable to how he played against Nadal after the first set.

      I thought Federer played great or very good until he served leading 3-2 in the 4th set. His serve fell apart at that point, and he didn’t pick it up until the 5th. But overall his level was high. I think he was tired by the end, not surprising at his age.

      Reply

    • Cilic was in very good form,but Federer plays differently from everyone else,plus he had added pressure to do better than his teary exit at Wimby
      End of the day no matter how pathetic it seems,it’s still a 20 th Slam.

      Reply

  46. Hats off to the old man.

    The old GOAT of tennis.
    It is a shame for the rest of fields unable to stop his train.

    6 AO, matching Nole record.
    Amazing indeed and congratulations to all tennis and Fed fans.

    Reply

      • I think he may considering how fit athletes are these days. Also he can look at a reduced clay heavy schedule without bothering about the rankings. I did not expect him to be competitive at 30 back in 09. So fingers crossed

        Reply

        • Agree, but I think he has to reduce his schedule to play into his mid 30s. But I’d say the same about him as I did about Federer: as long as Rafa is winning slams or getting into finals, I don’t see him retiring.

          At this point, I don’t see him retiring any time soon.

          Reply

        • Vmk1 JANUARY 12:09 PM,

          Rafa is aware that many (!) people predicted already 13- 14 years ago that he will have a short career. But he is still happily playing…
          Rafa was interviewed by the newspaper during the 2017 Paris Masters. He says in his interview: “When I was 18, many people were predicting that my career wouldn’t be long, because of my style of play. After sixteen years on the circuit, I’m still there and very competitive. This is the thing that matters to me the most, beyond all the titles I could win.” (Via Google Translate)
          http://www.lemonde.fr/tennis/article/2017/11/13/rafael-nadal-je-joue-avec-la-douleur_5214107_1616659.html

          Reply

        • I doubt Rafa will last that long! It’s five more years from now. He’s injury prone and doesn’t like to reduce his workload, so I doubt his body could last that long without further breaking down.

          I’m more interested in seeing how Djoko fares once he’s back and is healthy. After watching Djoko vs Chung, I actually appreciate Djoko more, because his footwork was simply amazing, still as quick as before and his fighting spirit was intact.

          I have to say after watching Djoko closely (when in the past I was always watching Rafa closely when he played Djoko but didn’t concentrate on Djoko much), I have to agree with those who said he’s truly well balanced at both wings. The depth of his shots was amazing all along (prior to injury); and he’s able to change direction, hitting CC and DTL at will. It’s no wonder he’s having positive H2H vs both Fed and Rafa, no mean feat when he was lagging behind them quite a bit in the H2H prior to becoming his version 2 (or 3) self.

          He said he’s motivated to play for many more years so let’s wait and see how much more he could achieve.

          Reply

          • I think Djoker has still some marital problems affecting him. When he lost, his wife tweeted about being proud of him. Usually you such tweets are more for the public.

            I think Roger and Rafa are in a different league with regards to passion. Djoker’s passion is little up and down.

        • Faith? Not when he’s so stubborn and insist on playing a full schedule despite his body breaking down every year.

          We have to be realistic and not bluff ourselves into believing whatever decisions he makes are always right. He’s pushing his body to the limit, it’ll come a day when it won’t be able to take it anymore.

          Reply

          • luckystar AT 1:57 PM,

            To me, calling myself a fan means supporting the favourite player through thick and thin. I cannot think of any other reason for calling myself a fan.

          • Many people, including Fed’s fans thought he was past it a few years ago because he wasn’t winning anything. He stuck at it and it’s paid off. I don’t think we are in a position to say what they should or shouldn’t do.

  48. Cilic played well. I thought he should have wrapped up given the momentum at the end of the fourth set and Fed looked vulnerable at the start of fifth. BH was awful for Cilic. But credit to Fed, held his nerve.

    I dont think Fed played well at all in AO, but still was good enough with whatever he got. Fed wont give serve back in consecutive sets.

    Just hope that Rafa is ignited as well. If he playes well @ RG, I dont think it should be difficult to have good RG given that rest of the competition does not look that great. If you are healthy, you have a good chance.

    Reply

    • Yes, I thought Cilic had a great chance at the start of the 5th. If he had been able to convert one of those two BPs in the first game, the outcome might have been different.

      Agree that his BH wasn’t as good as it has been, but he was still damn good off the ground in general, after the first set.

      As I said before, the difference was really Fed’s serve and Cilic’s ROS. When Roger’s 1st serve was working, Cilic had no answers.

      Reply

        • So true. He’s very humble which is a big part of why I am such a big fan of him. Genuine excitement in that reaction to the win. I also love that he usually fist pumps or says “come on” in the opposite direction of his opponent or looking at the ground, sort of to himself with his reactions.

          Reply

          • Federer and humble do not go together in the same sentence, for heaven’s sake. Even he will tell you that. What’s humble about the gold handbag and matching suit?

          • Well I meant humble in his reactions and how he respects his opponents. But I don’t see how Fed owning fancy things makes him not humble? Does Rafa own or wear nothing expensive ever?

          • fedexal AT 4:20 PM,

            Rafa is NOT the owner of the Richard Mille watches he is wearing. He is getting paid to wear (= to TEST) them.

            New York Times, March 23, 2017: ¤¤ His [Richard Mille] distinctive watches are worn by world-class athletes like the tennis champion Rafael Nadal… Over the years, Mr. Mille has produced six different timepieces for Mr. Nadal, continuously tweaking the design and experimenting with materials and techniques.
            “Rafa has broken five or six watches, actually exploded them while playing,” Mr. Mille said. “But that is how we TEST our products. It is normal product development.” ¤¤

            https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/fashion/watches-richard-mille.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

    • Yeah I was surprised to see Marin was much more reliable off the forehand. It’s usually the opposite. Still a great performance from him

      Reply

    • Congrats Benny! So happy for you, man, once again! 🙂 🙂 🙂 I don’t care what anyone says or what the field looks like- a 36 1/2 year old Dad with back problems should not be winning anything…. Unless they are a truly a once-in-a-lifetime type of player! It just blows my mind that once he left his physical prime somewhere around 30 like most other great players do, Rafa and Novak were in their primes and took the game to a whole new level of physicality and athleticism we have never seen before. Most players would have just withered away, maybe made one more final at some point, only to retire around 33. But Federer had to completely take on a new game-style and aggressive mindset in order to have a shot being able to compete for big titles in his mid-thirties. The game had sort of moved on from him in a way, and he managed to find a game style that is just so hard to ultimately penetrate, especially in best-of-five. He’s clearly also upped his mental toughness, as shown by his big 5-set wins.

      It truly is like he started a new career. The way he approaches matches at slams now is just very different. And because his mental toughness is markedly better, it seems to not phase him as much now when he is pushed to a 5th set and is on the brink. He now seems to have this belief that if he just stays aggressive and doesn’t back down, he is absolutely capable of racing to the finish line.

      The whole thing is just crazy to me. A guy his age just does not beat top-5, major champions, who have beaten him en route to majors nonetheless. We haven’t seen this in the modern game. Honestly, I hope that it is a trend we see more of- I hope that when Rafa and Novak get to that age, they too have figured out ways to adjust their games to be able to contend with the younger guys. Although their games are so much more physical that Federer’s, I believe they are great enough that they can do it. As long as he stays healthy, I can see Rafa doing this 2017-RG-Terminator routine for years to come.

      Reply

      • Good comment, Kevin. Federer really has changed the way he plays the game. The number of half-volleys he hit from the baseline yesterday was incredible. (It also shows you how much depth Cilic was getting on his shots).

        Reply

  50. 😂😂😂, Congrats to the best tennis player ever #Nooneelse.
    And if you don’t know who I am talking about then you are smoking something and you need to drop it 😋😋😋.

    What a match, M. Cilic fought and I like that but at the end #20GS’s baby.

    I predicted last year that he would win between 22-23 GS b4 he retires but he might win more than that, this is guy is a crazy winner.

    Please don’t get it twisted, what Rafa couldn’t do…. 😂😂🤣🤣😁😁😎😎💪💪👍✌!

    #Peace
    #20GS’s
    #Nooneelse
    #🏆!

    Reply

  51. Agree that Fed wasnt in top form but he need not be to win the AO!

    Its at moments like this that we treasure Rafa and Djoko, without them, theres not much competition for Fed. I know Cilic would fold in the end, because frankly speaking hes quite one dimensional; once you can read his serve and returns with interest, he’ll most likely lose the point.

    I would say that a top form Fed and top form Rafa would beat this Cilic readily; his USO2014 SF performance is a one off.

    Reply

  52. But one great thing that has happened is that he is less arrogant now. Said this last year too when he beat Rafa. Earlier the gloating used to be unbearable.

    Reply

  53. Fed looked real jittery in post match speech. He was topsy tury and did not know what to say. Got real emotional in the end. May be wants to treasure these moments, He knows these are limited.

    Reply

  54. Cilic will rise to 3 in the world now. In my opinion, it’s very well deserved. He’s made the finals at two of the last three slams and I think he proved his run to the final here was no fluke by really pushing Roger here tonight. He has made two of the last three grand slam finals now. Also, I wasn’t previously aware of this but he hit 83 winners in the quarters. That is just crazy. So while the US Open 2014 saw him playing some insane tennis, I think he has proven that he can still play at an extremely high level. At 29 years old, I would not be surprised if Marin went on to win at least another slam in his career. I think he has more than proven that he has the game to do it again.

    Reply

    • Absolutely, Benny. The main thing I think Cilic could work on is his 2nd serve. Other than that, his game is very solid, and sensational when he’s on form. His recent results speak for themselves.

      Reply

    • He has the game, but not the mentality imo. He’s too inconsistent; unless he meets a relatively easy opponent in the final, a first time finalist may be.

      Reply

  55. Federer is 155 points behind Nadal and will return to world #1 if Rafa doesn’t make it to Acapulco SF. Admittedly, that’s pretty unlikely unless Rafa doesn’t play there at all. Also, Roger has a lot of points to defend before CC season starts.

    Reply

    • Where I assume it will happen is in Dubai. Same week as Acapulco. Fed defending hardly anything and Rafa defending finals points. I’d be shocked if Fed played Dubai and didn’t manage to get to #1… But it shouldn’t bother Rafa fans too much, as he should be able to get #1 back from Fed once they get into IW and Miami. Then, if Fed plays a couple CC tournies this season, I would expect him to take #1 back again at some point during CC season, simply because he can only gain by showing up, while the bulk of Rafa’s points to defend this year are in clay season. I predict it could all come down to NAHC season to determine #1, unless Rafa can’t stay healthy or Fed had back problems.

      Reply

  56. I am not sure what you guys feel..but I think the excess gush of emotions at this years ceremony means its his last AO..he did not want to say it after he won. Even after he won last year, he was not anywhere close to this esp since he won after 4.5 years. I think 20 was the magic number he was waiting for. I think its his last year on tour. Just my feeling.

    Reply

    • Agree that he was emotional for #20, but I don’t think it means this is his last year. I don’t see Roger retiring as long as he’s winning slams.

      Reply

    • He has already committed to Basel until 2019. That’s the earliest he will retire. I think the excess emotion just came over him when he mentioned how much his family and team has done for him. As these incredible moments continue to happen for him, I think he realizes more and more just how valuable and precious they are.

      Reply

    • Yeah I had this feeling as well Sanju. Fed is known for getting emotional about tennis and crying after some slam finals, but even for him this was a lot. I think there’s a fair chance that this is his last year.

      Great final by Cilic. In a way I feel sorry for him, because he was so close in that last set, and maybe if he had broken, who knows. Fed to me looked to be getting tight against him, it was like the reverse of last year’s final where he started swinging.It’s also very hard for Cilic to play with the crowd being so pro-Fed, even though he would’ve been ready for that atmosphere.

      Reply

      • Yes, I was thinking the same thing: Roger got tight at the start of the 5th set, very different from last year against Rafa. I think by that point he genuinely lacked confidence in the rallies against Cilic’s power, and in that sense the match was on Marin’s racket. In the end, Cilic just couldn’t find his range, either on his ground-strokes or on his serve, and Fed upped his level.

        Reply

    • Aww! That was nice, if R. Federer play French Open he might win it.

      Since his time is almost up, he should at least play the FO again.
      Wimbledon and US Open is locked in 👌💪😎.

      Reply

    • Sanju, there’s no need to make any guesses. Fed will retire if he feels it’s time to do so.

      Fedal may retire together, probably playing one more Olympics before doing so. I doubt Rafa will play till he’s 36, in 2020 he’ll be 34, a good time to retire (hopefully by then he’s married for I really don’t want to see his girlfriend having to wait and wait for him for so long before tying the knots. A woman doesn’t have too much youth to waste or to spend waiting for someone!).

      Fed will be the all time leader in the slams with Rafa a close second ( I’m sure Rafa will win the FO and USO again, I’ve faith in him, but not at the AO).

      I do feel Djoko, if he can recover from his elbow injury, and with Fedal gone (presumably after 2020) will collect many more slams as long as he’s motivated and keeps up his high level.

      Reply

  60. I think when he beat Rafa last year after a break down in the fifth set, it appears that he has got a big monkey off his back. He does not seem to fold anymore now. At the start of fifth set, I expected him to fold since he lost a lot of momentum.

    This could be his last year on the tour. Enjoy while it lasts.

    Reply

  61. ‪Don’t read too much into it but Fed never said “see you next year” to the crowd which he has done EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Could explain why he was so emotional. Only a theory and hope he plays for a while! ‬

    Reply

  62. Unbelievable Swiss! I never had doubts he would beat Cilic! Fed is simply amazing! Congrats to his fans for believing in him and well deserved happiness and joy! He sure is the greatest of all times! It’s not Fed’s fault that other players are injury prone due to their style of play! Fed worked hard to get where he is now and it is all worth admiration!

    Reply

    • Natashao says AT 1:28 PM: “…other players are injury prone due to their style of play”

      ===
      Hmm. I wonder who are these ‘other players’?

      Reply

        • Natashao AT 2:55 PM,

          As for Rafa, I’m sure your comment satisfies all the people who have trashed Rafa over a decade for who he is.

          Reply

          • No idea what you are talking about, augusta?? It’s not only Rafa who is injured and had been injured! Novak was able to beat Fed and was unfortunate to have career threatening injury right now. Andy would have been the real threat at this AO but he is sidelined with serious injury! It’s not only Rafa! Rafa could have accomplished more when not injured but he had to deal with healthy Novak, Andy and Wawa besides Fed. Last couple of years Fed had no opposition due to the rest of the serious contenders being injured…

          • Natashao AT 4:03 PM,

            I’m talking only about Rafa because I don’t care what you wrote about others AT 1:28 PM.

          • Dont laugh Benny, I believe she was referring to Djoko, who did beat Fed handily at AO2016 SF when Djoko wasnt injured.

          • I misunderstood Natashao’s comment sorry. I thought Natashao said that those guys WOULD beat him handily as if they would’ve taken him down for sure if they were healthy. My mistake. Sorry guys

          • @augusta 4:13 pm,
            Then you should not respond to the posts which you miss understood and which you only partially considered! I was talking about the whole bunch of players as the field does not consist of Fed and Rafa only. Show some respect to these great players! And honestly your response was just to be mean and nothing else…

          • Natashao AT 4:48 PM,

            I asked AT 2:51 PM: who are these ‘other players’ who are injury prone due to their style of play.
            Your reply contained 5 names, Rafa among them.

          • It wasn’t to be mean. I just misread it. I understood what I thought I read but I guess my eyes just deceived me. I thought u said “would”, not “could.”

          • Yeah, Beny, it wasn’t funny when Andy took Fed out at the AO 2013! Or when Wawa defeated him at RG 2015! As for Novak Fed became his regular customer when Nole was healthy! It’s easy to dominate the crippled weak field!

          • Andy defeated Fed in AO13 and how many times fed defeated him in GS. In last years Andy is not even able to take a set from Fed. And Wawa first check his H2H against Fed.
            The only player you should mention is djoko, ofcourse he can defeat fed but he had his best years so let him have his downfall which every player goes through in their career. They can’t be at their peak lifelong and without injuries. In case you claim peak djoko wouldn’t have allowed fed to win AO which is hypothetical but then the same would apply to US open as well.

          • @bestplayer,
            Not true! Rafa defeated peak Nole at USO before so your argument is not valid! My point was that those players who coul beat Fed because they DID before were injured! Did not say they would sure beat him, but it woukd have been different for an old man if he was a bitbtested prior to the finals! I also said it wasn’t Fed’s fault that all of them are out injured or suffering multiple injuries! Fed is the best for a reason: his style of play saves his body and allows longevity! His willingness to change and improve proved essential! Should add to it the favoritism of the GS organization as extra care of his health also contributing to his longevity…

          • Why some are behind favouritism, Rafa was given first day to start which means one day extra off before finals. No one wants to talk about it but when Fed got last year then everyone was behind him. If you talk of night matches the difference between Rafa and fed is only one out of 7 matches had Rafa made the finals.
            Closing the roof helps both, it helps both of them to sustain their energy longer. Difference between fed and Cilic remains same whether indoors or outdoors.
            In Rafa’s match if they close the roof then once again some of them may complain that Rafa is not good at indoors that’s why they have closed the roof. So even if it is 50 deg for Rafa match they can’t close the roof as then the fingers will point to Fed for no reason.
            Just accept Fed played well and he keeps entertaining his fans. Rafa will do the same at RG.

          • Bestplayer,
            Fed did play well enough to beat any of the remaining players! Also I knew he would beat Cilic with or without roof! Fef did not need extra help from AO management! But if Cilic was not informed and Fed was it’s unfair to Cilic! Why bring Rafa into this? I could go on and on about Rafa playing consecutive days in FO due to rain. Even being thier 10 FO champiion he was never favored in scheduling at Paris! If Rafa was to play under closed roof today be sure his fans would have been furious about it as we all know those conditions favor Fed over Rafa!

          • Decision to close the roof should happen irrespective of players participating in the match. Default should be roof open, unless the conditions turn real extreme. There has to be some amount of consistency and rationale behind this decision.

        • Nats, if by “could” you mean “might” then lots of players “could” beat Fed handily, just as lots of players “could” beat Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and any other player handily.

          In other words, your statement is so weak as to be almost meaningless.

          Reply

          • If it was weak and meaningless, you wouldn’t feel the need to say so. Your actions betray your words Joe Smith.

          • Well, he seems to have denied that he meant anything stronger.

            The stronger reading would be false in any case.

          • No JS, your point is meaningless! Rafa in his best days had to face peak Nole, Andy, Wawa and those players would make the path difficult for him! How many GSs did Fed win during Nole’s peakntime in 2014-2015? So my point was that while they might not beat him if there were healthy they sure would have made it more demanding for an old Fed to reach finals! If Fed was healthy at USO 2017 I am sure he would have gone through to face Rafa…

          • Just what years do you have in mind as Rafa’s “best days”? Any time before 2014 was hardly peak Wawrinka and any time before 2012 wasn’t peak Murray. Any time after 2011 wasn’t peak Fed.

            The point is this. You and many other Rafa fans are obsessed with a short period (roughly 2011-12) when both Rafa and Nole were at or near their best (and Fed was beginning his decline).

            That’s hardly a surprise given that they are roughly the same age, but it’s pure subjective bias to think that that was somehow the high-water point of modern tennis. It wasn’t, and Rafans’ constant attempts to denigrate others’ (particularly Federer’s) achievements outside that very brief period are tiresome.

  63. Any particular reason they closed roof today and not yesterday during the women’s final. What changed today for them to close the roof?

    Reply

    • fedexal JANUARY 28, 2018 AT 1:28 PM
      “Any particular reason they closed roof today and not yesterday during the women’s final. What changed today for them to close the roof?”

      Federer was playing. He prefers indoors so they obliged.

      Reply

        • They showed a picture of Simona in the hospital after the final. I think it’s outrageous for her to end up in that condition when there is a roof!

          Yet they decided to close the roof for the men’s match.

          Reply

  66. Really get sick of people trying to push Rafa off to retirement, hes playing now which is all i can about,he will call it a day when hes good and ready, and not a minute sooner ….

    Reply

  67. Joe Smith JANUARY 28, 2018 AT 11:57 AM
    If Fed had played Djokovic and Nadal, then no one would say he had an easy path, even if he had beaten both in straight sets.

    Nadal retired injured!

    Reply

    • Nadline, you’ve obviously missed my point completely, which was an argument showing that your claims about Fed having a weak path are completely unfounded (apart from Chung’s retirement).

      The fact that he played Chung and Cilic (the players who beat Nadal and Djokovic) does not mean Fed had an easy path.

      And Cilic might well have beaten Nadal even if he hadn’t suffered that injury (which he didn’t until well into the fourth set, apparently).

      Reply

  69. Seriously the AO is clearly the most biased and horribly at that. It was hotter and humid yesterday but they kept the roof open. Today they closed it. Are they not ashamed of themselves of making it so obvious? They refused to put roof on when it was its hottest in week 1 but for a night match in final, they do?

    Craig Tiley…you are the most biased tournament director in town..atleast wimby gives CC match preference..dont close roof as per their whims.

    Reply

    • Agreed. I thought they had good arguments to support their decision but they obviously only wanted to protect the old man from the heat! Novak played at the 60 degrees during the day and complained about it but nobody cared. Rafa as well. Biased decisions of the organization are unacceptable…and the ladies final did not “deserve” the same treatment? This makes Fed’s feature less remarkable!

      Reply

  70. When is this obvious bias going to stop? How is the entire tour just keeping quiet? You can schedule matches as its business decision, that is fine..but things like roof on or closed has to be consistent…You let the women wilt in the heat yest but show mercy to the men?

    Week 1 you had an AND clause..temp > 40 and wet bulb index > 32.5..today it is OR condition?

    Cilic is right in complaining about it in post match interview.

    Reply

    • I don’t think they wanted to delay all those matches on the day when it was super hot because that was the second round and they would’ve had to push so many matches into the night and probably push some to the next day. It’s a lot easier to just push one match back aka the final. But I agree it is still a little much. I understand closing the roof but why would Cilic practice outdoors? I think they told Roger that they were probably going to close the roof beforehand and didn’t tell Cilic which is just wrong. I still think indoors actually helps Cilic’s game a lot but Roger does obviously benefit as well, especially with the heat not being a factor helping him since he is older.

      Reply

  71. The woman’s tour is much more competitive right now and was better entertainment at the AO this year.

    The men’s game is seriously lacking.

    Federer is one of the best of all time but the game revolves around him too much and his accomplishments are tainted with excess favouritism to give the majority of fans what they want.

    I agree that this will likely be his last year.

    Reply

    • Yeah, quite disappointed with the ‘lost’ gen and the next gen guys. Rafa was injured during the tournament, Djoko hadn’t fully recovered, Stan and Raonic too; Murray and Kei couldn’t even play and yet that two generation of players still couldn’t step up to challenge Fed, I wonder when they could.

      Chung at least made the SF but too bad he was worn out (foot blisters); Dimi and Zverev were disappointing, Dimi couldn’t beat Edmund and Edmund lost easily to Cilic! Goffin, Sock lost early and Thiem lost in five sets to Sandgren? What were they doing?

      I think the big four plus Ferrer and Delpo when they were top six or seven players, at least made the QFs at the slams consistently; whilst now we have some top six guys couldn’t make it out of week 1 of a slam frequently.

      Looking at the ranking points of top ten players now, their aggregate ranking points total is miserable, 56,000, and above 60,000 points in six out of those eight years! The top two now, ie Fedal aren’t having many ranking points each, < 10,000 points. We really have a weak top ten cast currently!

      Reply

      • Oops, I missed out some things … ‘ Looking at the ranking points of top ten players now, their aggregate ranking points total is miserable 56,000 with six of those years > 60,000.

        Reply

        • Something wrong with my postings.

          I meant to say the total ranking points of top ten players now are below 50,000 points.

          In the period 2009-2016, the total ranking points each season exceeds 56,000 points, and in six of those years, the total went up to above 60,000 points!

          Reply

      • If Fed had played the clay court season in 2017 as he did when he was younger, and achieved roughly the same results, he would have had a healthy number of points as #1 last year.

        He’s a very strong #1 off clay at the moment.

        Reply

    • I thought you were prepared to conceded the GOAT title to Fed if he won one more AO (until Rafa wins another slam, presumably).

      Reply

  72. Simona Halep was left dehydrated after the match. Agreed it was a biased decision

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jan/28/australian-open-simona-halep-hospitalised-dehydration

    I wonder Cilic was practicing in outdoors. That means this decision was taken in a haste. Given how close the match was, it could have a bearing on the result. Who knows ?

    And they are putting on air-conditions after closing the roof. Thats ridiculous.

    I have a thing to say on this. Had it been Djoker or Rafa on other side , I think we might have seen a stronger opposition against this decision.

    Reply

      • January in Australia is going to be very hot , always. AUS open should change his scheduling.

        So I can recall three extreme instances of favoritism

        1. Fed playing at night in 2nd round when Djoker-Monfilis should have been a night match.
        2. They shifted a match from RL to MC when Fed-Gasquet was getting late in the night. Wimbledon did not do this for Djoker 4th round and that guy suffered.
        3. Today they got the roof closed.

        Reply

        • I don’t think the AO should change scheduling (even through February you will get some very hot days that are similar), but it should stop play on days where the temperature is 40 degrees OR in excess of the heat/humidity rule.

          Agree and disagree on those three favoritism points though:

          1. I agree Djoker/Monfils deserves night match, however it has been rumored that Djokovic actually requested a day match. Seems a bit unlikely to me, even given Monfils’ terrible record in heat, but Courier seems to think it’s true. There are also other inconsistencies here though, e.g. I think there was a Dimitrov match that probably was better for a night match than a Nadal one. The issue here is with these discretionary decisions, commercial considerations and the influence of ‘star power’ (i.e. Fed, Nadal, Djoker – usually in that order). There are probably always going to be some controversies here, because at the end of the day there will be some discretionary decisions being made by tournament organisers. Having said that, they need clear guidelines/policy here, and they need to make it transparent. Otherwise it’s just endless questions about why a decision was/was not made, whether it was biased etc.

          2. I’m not sure if this is an AO issue though, or a Wimbledon issue. Maybe it’s an issue of not having consistency across tournaments…or should different slams have the discretion on matters like this? I’m not sure, honestly.

          3. On a day like today – the peak temperature was about 39 degrees and it was pretty humid – imo the roof should be closed. The issue is, their heat policy is crap, as I’ve alluded to above. Because of that they were stuck in a no-win position: Be completely consistent and follow an already stupid policy, OR recognise that it’s poor policy, and don’t follow it. Ultimately, they probably should’ve just followed the policy, for the sake of consistency if nothing else. And it’s true, indoors does favour Fed, although today given how muggy it was, I think it did slow the conditions down, which does not help him.

          Reply

          • For 1. Djoker confirmed he did not request for day match. In fact Fed confirmed that Djoker would have requested for night match as well after this 2nd round win.
            For 2. Yes it could be a problem with Wimby scheduling .
            For 3. Why was the ladies match, happened a day earlier not played under closed roof ?

            You read Cilic’s presser and he said that he was surprised that he was told right at the end that the roof would be closed. Why would you practice outdoors when an indoors possibility is more. He even attributed his first set loss because of that.

          • 1. Okay, but was he given the choice of a day/night match? If not, I agree, it’s the wrong decision. There is a big problem here though, because organisers can say ‘well Federer (or whoever) is a bigger drawcard’. And even IF they’re right, commercially, where does it end? At some point, even if all the ticket holders just want to see Fed/[insert big name player here], you have to, I think pick the other match, if it’s a much better game. That’s why they need some clear policy, which allows for some consideration of what people pay to see, star players etc., but also the likely quality of the contest.

            3. The temperature was lower, and so was the humidity. I don’t think either the WBGT index was met or the heat.

            If Cilic was informed later than Federer, or was less updated, I agree, that is definitely unfair.

          • If tournament organizers come in open and accept that Fed is a bigger drawcard , I am fine with it. Given the diversity claims going on these days, I bet they dont have the audacity to do it.

            I am kind of aware of history of how Australia has evolved. It was a place where criminals were asked to spend some part of their lives to rinse their sins. It has been the most biased and racial country ever

        • I agree with number 1.

          Number 2 deals with an entirely different tournament and has no bearing on this final.

          How does closing a roof when the conditions call for it favor any certain player?

          Reply

    • I don’t think anyone would have complained under the circumstances, it being the final; they would just grin and bear it.

      If it wasn’t for Rafa I would cancel my SKY subscription and forget about tennis until this injustice to other players end.

      Reply

      • Jim Courier once threatened to boycott the finals if roof was closed. It depends on how strongly you show your resentment. Cilic did the right thing, he did not want to get in negative frame of mind but he definitely did not agree to this.

        Reply

    • Cilic PM presser

      Q. Can I clarify? Did you argue your case with the referee at all with the roof? I believe Jim Courier, once he threatened to boycott the final if the roof was closed. Did you have an argument with the referee over it?

      MARIN CILIC: No, I didn’t. Coming in before the final, I didn’t want to have any negative thoughts. I was just trying to focus on myself, on that. In the end of the day, it’s tough for me to change that decision. Just to lose energy before the match, it’s pointless.

      Reply

  73. @javidank
    Follow Follow @javidank

    Replying to @TenistaDeSanz
    I by no means am a Fed hater. But inside source tells me Fed wanted the roof closed at 2pm this afternoon.

    Reply

  74. Federer was right way back in 2010 but I’m sure that even he didn’t think he would be at the top eight years later to accomplish that feat.

    I knew I could find it if I poked around google enough…

    This is for Benny G, Kevin, Scoot Dimon, Eugene and abhirf wherever he may be.

    ‘Asked if he would be happy to add another three to his record total of 16 major wins, he told Radio 5 live: “No, I wouldn’t, I would want to win more.”‘

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/8908993.stm

    Reply

  75. I think if Rafa doesn’t play at AO, I shall stop watching the AO. If he plays, I will just watch his matches. Once Rafa retires from tennis, I’ll stop watching the AO totally.

    I hope Rafa wins one more AO (hopefully next year) and then forget about playing at the AO. The extreme weather conditions there is not good for Rafa, he’s getting injured there far too often, that I suspect the weather plus the court surfaces there really do him in. He needs to stay fit and healthy as he has bigger fishes to fry, on clay and at the USO.

    Reply

    • luckystar AT 4:04 PM

      I have a feeling that Rafa’s injuries are somehow related to dehydration. I’m just saying, I’m not going to play an armchair doctor.

      Reply

  76. From a BBC article:
    The humidity at the start of the match, measured using the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature, was 32.6 – exceeding the threshold of 32.5. “At no other time during the event this year has the WGBT reading reached the threshold,” organisers said in a statement. Federer said he was “surprised” by the ruling, but that playing indoors did not affect his preparation. “I was surprised to hear they had the heat rule in place for a night match,” said the 36-year-old Swiss. “I never heard that before. “When I arrived to the courts, I was totally ready to play outdoors. They told me they were thinking it will probably be indoor. Then they kept me posted along the way. “Half an hour before, we got the word that it’s going to be indoors. For me, it doesn’t change anything in the preparation, to be honest. I was ready for either.”

    I would like to think Roger was being truthful here in not knowing and that the tourney just did this. Maybe he practiced indoors because of his age and didn’t want to tire himself in the heat before the final? It was 96 degress out earlier in the day so I think that could’ve been it. I agree the tourney catered to Fed a lot with the scheduling and they might have catered to him here, but I’m not so sure that he actually asked them himself to close the roof. Besides, last year’s final was outdoors and he handled that fine, even after a much tougher path to get there. Like he said in that quote, I doubt he would actually think the tournament could or would make the final indoors at night, after last year’s final being outdoors when he was still pretty old lol.

    Reply

  77. Having said all this, all the controversies surrounding the AO, got to hand it to Fed who is always there , fighting for important moments. Rafa was unlucky but winning after no warm-ups just coming off knee injury, he did well too.

    I think last 4 GS actually send a very pertinent message to Rafa and Fed both. If they are healthy they can still win it despite being 30+.

    Rafa needs to cut down his scheduling and look for longer term picture. Competing in Grand Slams and fighting for important events is an important thing. He should not even value Masters 1000 tourneys and just focus on majors.

    Reply

      • So everyone is not like Fed. His tennis is easy on his body. What works for Fed might not be best for others. Rafa needs to cut down his scheduling to prolong the career.

        Reply

        • fedexal AT 5:08 PM,

          Rafa said recently that his schedule is good for him.

          Rafa on Dec.17.: “My calendar in 2017 was the right one for me, pretty much playing only the mandatory amount, except a tournament here or there picked for preparation. My idea for 2018 is similar and maybe I’ll play a couple more [in the Spanish-language version of the article: ‘fewer’] tournaments. That’s what I’m thinking, but it depends on results.”

          Rafa doesn’t consider Fed his role model.

          https://en.as.com/en/2017/12/25/other_sports/1514197115_364069.html

          Reply

          • I disagree with Rafa here. I think a healthy and match-fit Rafa would have been a difficult obstacle for Fed as I think Fed was more solid last year. This year I found him little more nervous in big moments. A seasoned player could have exploited that a lot more.

          • Well anyway he will have his own way. I am just voicing what I feel the best for him. He needs to cut down on practice as well.

            I hope he is right !! He can be fit till longer age. You look at any sport, longevity in general has increased.

            Look no further than RG 2017 and USO 2017. Such kind of wins are less taxing to the body. Imagine his knees had USO been a physically taxing major victory for him.

          • Exactly! The same point I was making in my posts above! Healthy top players who are experienced and had beaten Fed before could have exploited Fed’s weakness in this AO… but the stars rather aligned for Fed…

    • Tell that to Rafa.

      When asked about his schedule, he said hes 31, not 36, so he’ll not do as Fed does, ie cut down on number of events played.

      He’ll stick with his own schedule, and that’s why I doubt he’s going to play for another five years, given his injury record.

      I just hope Rafa can win some more FO and USO before he calls it a day (I’ll forget about the AO and Wimbledon).

      The USO is the least biased among all the slams, at least they dont specially cater to Fed. The FO used to favor Fed but Fed has ‘deserted’ them so they cant even cater to him now even if they so wish.

      Wimbledon is simply horrible in that they gave Fed the CC when he was seeded lower than Djoko and refused to let Djoko play his match at CC when Fed’s match ended early there when Djoko was delayed by Rafa’s long match.

      But, the AO takes the cake where Fed favoring is concerned. I think they really didnt inform Cilic before hand that they’ll close the roof, hence Cilic was practicing outdoors! And, Fed practiced indoors!

      Reply

      • So Rafa can win 3 more RG, if he stays injury free.
        Give me one player who can beat him at RG if he is healthy.

        Unfortunately I dont have access to Rafa, otherwise chalking out a schedule is not that difficult.

        Skip Miami, humid and he has not won there. No problems, chuck it.
        Skip Rome.

        Play Queens and Wimby, I liked what I saw in last Wimby from Rafa. He was unlucky against a big server.
        Play Tornoto, Cincinnati and USO.
        Cut down on Laver Cup. Play Shanghai, Bercy and WTF.

        Yes, its an extreme scaled down schedule, but he would be fresh after this even at the end of the year.

        And lastly, if he feels knee at any point, just skip the tourney to heal so that he does not have to take a long break.

        Reply

        • fedexal says AT 5:19 PM: “Unfortunately I dont have access to Rafa.”
          ===

          You can post on his Facebook page (if you have an FB account).

          Reply

      • I don’t know why so much of fuss is being made about the roof. It was not in Fed’s hands. Roger, like Cilic, too was infofmed about it around 30 mins before. Practicing indoors and outdoors is a personal choice.
        In such heat, I think outdoor condition would have suited Fed much better.

        Regardless of all this, I think Fed would have still won.
        Congrats to him for winning his 20th Major!
        Commiserations to Cilic for putting up a great fight👍

        Reply

        • You practice outdoors only when there is a fair possibility of an outdoor match. Nobody would practice outdoors for an indoor match.

          You can practice indoors to save yourself from heat even when there is an outdoor match.

          Its a subtle difference.

          Reply

        • Thank you for saying that, abhirf. I agree that he would’ve won either way, and I’m sure he practiced indoors to conserve energy, plus he practices on indoors a lot when he is in Switzerland, so he likely prefers practicing indoors anyways. He said himself he was surprised to hear about the roof and that makes sense considering last year he played AO final outside and that most finals here, if not all, have been previously played outdoors. Either way, Roger has his 20th and I’m just so happy for him and his team. 😄 🎉

          Reply

  78. Congratulations to all the classy Fed fans here in the GrandStand,what an unbelievable achievement it is to reach the two dozens of GS titles! Really hope that the Maestro can keep going on tour for many years to come!

    Reply

  79. This has been the most unfair Grand Slam of all time. In fact it has taken a bit of sheen of Fed’s victory.

    Playing indoors @ night is the crappiest thing that could have happened. I feel for Djoker who is just not given the big 3 status. Djokovic match with Murray in FO 2015 SF left him hampered in the finals. He lost to Wawa and I think he should have won that final. Ended up in wrong side of scheduling in Wimby last year.

    Men’s tennis is incomplete without Djoker who I think takes his losses very sportingly. His marital problems have ruined his career and his health and has given a wind to 30+ old champs and they were good enough to take it. Hardly surprising !

    Reply

    • Agree with you about Novak; I hope he gets back to full health. But my God there is a lot of complaining that goes on here when Federer wins a title.

      How about some analysis of the tennis? It was actually a very interesting match, after the first set in which Cilic was nervous and Fed was just playing too good. It thought Roger’s level stayed high throughout the second set, but Cilic really raised his. It was a very close and well-played TB, especially the first part of it.

      There may not have been a lot of long rallies, but in many of them both players were hitting the snot out of the ball. I thought Fed won most of those, which was psychologically significant.

      Until about mid-way through the fourth, I was thinking to myself that Roger had played at a consistently high level through the whole match, which is unusual, tbh. And then his serve just fell apart, for seemingly no reason. I thought maybe he had tweaked his back; it was very unusual. One set he serves 81% 1st serves, the next 36%.

      However, the last set showed the mental strength he has gained since beating Rafa here last year. All the momentum was with Cilic, he had two break points in the first game, and it looked like he might run away with it. (One poster here predicted Cilic would win the last set 6-2 at that point). But Fed raised his level and did not back down. It was very impressive, imo.

      Reply

  80. I am going to leave it up to Rafa and his team to plan his schedule. They have his best interests at heart.

    Armchair schedulers don’t impress me.

    Reply

    • Without Nadal and Djokovic, sure. Without Andy Murray, though? Nope, wouldn’t make any difference… The only time he was able to be beat Federer at a major was in 5 sets in 2013, and Federer wasn’t beating Novak at AO in 2013 even if he had gotten past Murray. 🙂

      Reply

      • Yeah, but Andy took Rafa out in USO 2008 and made it easier for Fed to win the finals. Otherwise, after demolishing Fed in FO 2008 and Wimby 2008 Rafa would have had an upper hand over Fed in USO as well…😀

        Reply

        • Can’t argue with you there! Although, if Rafa wasn’t there either as you suggest, then I guess he wouldn’t be there to potentially face Fed anyway, right? That could have been an epic Fedal final, 2008 US Open. That was by far the best Federer had looked all season long, and Rafa was obviously coming into his own on hardcourts. It likely would have been a 5-set epic, just like the previous major final, and the one right after it!

          Reply

          • Rafa was pretty much toast by the 2008 USO semi. He’d had a terrific year topped off by his 4th RG, that epic Wimbledon final, playing Rogers Cup, Cincy, winning Olympic gold, becoming #1 for the first time…

            You could tell by his blogs during the USO that he really did not expect to win it. Of course he hadn’t expected to win Olympic gold either, being quite tired going in. He credited staying in the Olympic Village with the other Spanish athletes with inspiring him to do it.

          • If not for the Olympics, I would expect Rafa to beat Murray in the SF and then beat Fed in the final at the USO that year. He’s just so good and confident that year!

    • If Fed had adopted the larger racquet in 2007, he would have at least 25 GS titles, probably closer to 30, including, imo, 2 victories over Nadal at RG.

      It has transformed his game, and he wouldn’t have won any slams after 2012 without it.

      Just to make it clear to those who get confused on this score, the point is not that the racquet is magic, it’s that Federer is really that good that he can win multiple slams after 35 when he’s not playing with substandard equipment.

      Reply

      • How do you get 25 or 30 slams? I assume you include beating Djoko? But don’t underestimate Djoko on the HCs; beating Rafa or Cilic in five sets on the HC doesn’t mean that he’ll beat Djoko too on the HCs at AO especially.

        Reply

      • Also, Fed didn’t have his improved BH in 2007 AO I highly doubt he’ll beat Rafa at the FO back then. Not forgetting, Rafa’s topspin FH was even more powerful back then even though skill wise, he’s not as good as he is now.

        Reply

      • So Rafa winning multiple slams after 30 means that if he’s playing this way back during his earlier years, he would probably win more slams, esp at the USO!

        Reply

    • It’s hypothetical to assume that Fed would have this many or that many slams if he had the bigger racket. He didn’t. Case closed.

      It’s hilarious that Rafa fans are accused of doing this or that or saying this or that, and then we have to read this nonsense about how many more slams Fed would have won because of the magic racket!

      I could say a lot about what might have been had Rafa not suffered all those injuries, but he did and that’s the way it was.

      Fed would not have beaten Novak with the magic racket. Novak was simply too good when he beat Fed in those Wimbledon and USO finals in 2015. Novak being injured is one reason why Fed has been able to finally win slams again. The only one who could beat that Novak was Rafa. But he got mired I. a slump for two and a half years.

      Revisionist history is really not attractive.

      Reply

        • This isn’t, strictly, revisionsism; it’s speculative or hypothetical reasoning.

          An example of revisionism is saying that Rafa was “coming off injury” at 2017 AO *as an excuse* for his loss to Fed (who was also, obviously, coming off injury). When you and Hawkeye says that now, but never mentioned it last year -which you didn’t-
          that’s revisionist history.

          In any case, my suggestion about 25-30 slams (which I”ve made before) was made in response to Nadline’s hypothetical (and subtle dig at Fed) that Roger would have won 40 slams if only the other big four weren’t around.

          Reply

          • Joe, Rafa was coming off an injury, remember he had a wrist injury and had to stop his season in Oct 2016? It’s not only Fed who’s on an injury comeback, Rafa was too! In fact Rafa only had about two months to heal, shorter time than Fed, so it’s reasonable to say he’s not back to 100% yet.

            Whether we mentioned it then in 2017 or not doesn’t change the fact that Rafa also came back from injury; that is not revisionism when we didn’t mention it back then but we’re talking about it now because it’s a fact! We talk or don’t talk about it, it’s still a fact!

            Also, with wrist injury Rafa couldn’t train using his racket. Fed OTOH was working on his BH for during his injury break! If Fed wasn’t working on his BH, tell me how he suddenly improved his BH??

          • ‘This isn’t, strictly, revisionism…’ and yet it is!

            You are using what happens now and trying to revise the results of the past! Yours are not facts, Rafa coming back from injury was fact.

          • Lucky,

            Remember what I said about Rafa’s win in the 2009 AO? A feat that I had never seen and will probably not see again. Yet the response from our erstwhile Fed fan was to point out that Rafa only won it once whereas Fed has won it five times. Now he can say six!

            You know what I say? I don’t give a crap if Rafa only won it once! Because it was a win for the ages! Nothing can ever take away from what Rafa dud in that match! No hypothetical garbage about a magic racket is going to change what happened. Even after all these years when I watch it again I am stunned and inspired all over again.

            The idea that I as a Rafa fan cannot take Fed getting the better of Rafa last year at the AO, would be laughable if it wasn’t so incredibly insulting.

            You know what I can’t bear? As a Rafa fan who has watched him battle back too often from too many tough injuries, it’s watching him get injured that tears me apart!

            So I don’t need some clueless Fed fan to tell me what I can’t bear or what I can’t handle!

            Rafa gave it his best and lost in a tough five setter. But I rejoiced in seeing Rafa once again playing great tennis! He got to the final in a slam for the first time in three years!

            There is a saying that I like to remember at certain times – it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness! I looked at the positives out of that match. I would have loved to see him win the double career slam, but I k we that Rafa was back. What would happen the rest of the year would show us that!

          • @ Nativenewyorker 2:29 p.m. – How can a FedFan say in 2009 that Fed won Aus Open 5 times when he had won AO thrice till that time ?

          • Here’s my opinion: the reason no one mentioned it at the time, but now are starting to, is because it’s too hard for you and some other Rafa fans to accept that Nadal was dominated last year by Federer, after so long of it being the other way round.

            It’s hard to explain last year’s results by saying Nadal wasn’t at his best, because he was the world #1 by year’s end. And it doesn’t appear any other explanation is forthcoming either, except…that Federer is now clearly the superior player off clay.

            So, to ease the pain of the most significant loss -at the AO, where Nadal had never lost to Fed previously- you have to claim that Nadal was “coming off injury” as an excuse. You just can’t accept that Federer was the better player on the day, period, no excuses.

            However, even if there was some sense in which Nadal was injured to an extent that Fed wasn’t (highly doubtful), far more significant (historically speaking) is that Federer basically hadn’t played any competitive tennis for over six months.

            To come into a major in that situation and win the whole thing, is unprecedented; see Novak this year for a comparison. However, to do it as Fed did -seeded 17, with multiple five set matches against tough competition along the way and then defeating your absolute nemesis in the final, coming back from a break down in the 5th- well, that will simply never happen again, to anyone.

          • And Joe again trying to play smart and as usual making wrong assumption about me! Old habits die hard, for Joe!

            What pain? Rafa won his 10th FO and his 3rd USO! Is Rafa not supposed to lose to Fed when he could lose to Verdasco or Berdych? I’m perfectly ok to say that Rafa was clearly outplayed by Fed at IW/Miami and Shanghai, no excuses!

            At the AO, Rafa was clearly disadvantaged, and yet he made it so close, almost beating Fed, and yet we have you Joe here doing revisionism and ‘speculated’ that Fed would also beat Rafa at least twice on the clay court (FO) had he played with his bigger racket back during 2007!

            Tell me, who’s the sour grape here? You’re one who’s so sour about Fed’s losses to Rafa in the past, that you even want to doubt whether the clay goat could beat Fed with a bigger racket???

          • I’ve nothing to be sour about. Unlike you and some others, I don’t make excuses for Fed’s tough slam losses to his top rivals, which have (obviously) been more numerous than the other way around.

            Here it is clearly: Every single slam loss suffered by Fed to Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, indeed anyone, was because he was beaten by the better player on the day.

            No excuses.

            Fed had mono at AO 2008? (Says he). If it was that bad then he shouldn’t have played (which he now thinks).

            Rafa obviously judged he was in good enough health to play the AO 2017. He was healthy and good enough to make the final, so why make health excuses for him when he wasn’t good enough to win the final?

            Rafa wouldn’t want that, I’m sure.

          • My speculation about how a younger Fed would have done with the larger racquet is just that: speculation. It’s not groundless, but it is speculative.

            In any case, it’s completely separate from the point I’m making about not making excuses for Nadal’s losses.

          • Fedexal,

            I was referring to Joe Smith’s response to me after I wrote about Rafa’s great feat in winning that 2009 AO slam final. He was the one who felt the need to respond by saying that Fed has now won five AO’s. That was correct. He was not saying how many Fed won at that time. His point was that 2009 was Rafa’s only win compared to Fed having amassed five wins. Now it’s six.

            If that is all you got out of that post, then you really missed what I was trying to say.

            For some reason I am not surprised.

          • “It’s hard to explain last year’s results by saying Nadal wasn’t at his best, because he was the world #1 by year’s end. ”

            Relatively crappy field is how.

            Rafa was good of course (just like Fed was during the Weak Era) but Rafa was simply not at his best level prior to his demons from 2014-16.

            Seriously. Not rocket science. Nor was the first Weak Era.

            But Joe don’t listen. He’s like a broken record with nothing new to say.

            If Roger gets an even bigger racquet this year, just hand him the CYGS and cancel the remaining slams this year LOL.

          • Joe, obviously you are sore, hence your revisionist view about Fed beating Rafa on clay with a bigger racket in 2007! You even said that Fed might beat Rafa on clay with his bigger racket if they met in 2017!

      • Yep NNY, so what with Rafa winning only one AO when Fed only won one FO too. More so when Rafa was injured many times at the AO whilst Fed wasn’t injured at the FO!

        Just don’t like Joe’s boasting about how great Fed is winning so many slams off clay but he doesn’t take into consideration how much opposition Rafa gets from Djoko when they’re playing in their prime; not to mention Rafa’s injury issues that he had/has to miss so many slams (at least 2 AOs and 2USOs, 2 Wimbledon).

        If I’m not wrong, Fed won 7 of his HC slams prior to 2008, he won 2 from 2008 to 2016. Even if we say he’s past his prime, but that’s only after 2012 or 2011, so he’s not much better than Rafa who won 3 HC slams in the same period. Also, Fed lost to Djoko and Rafa at the AO (2008, 2009, 2011,2012) when he’s not past his prime; it’s not like they’re bullying him when he’s past his prime. Djoko was the one who won majority of the HC slams – winning 7 in a tough era from 2011-2016.

        As I said earlier, both Fed and Rafa benefitted from Djoko’s injury and hence they’re sweeping up all three HC slams from AO2017 to AO2018.

        Reply

        • As I said, the most interesting hypothetical concerning Rafa is what he might have accomplished if he hadn’t been injured so many times.

          Regarding Fed and the FO, it provides us with the the clearest hypothetical of any we have considered, which is this:

          If Fed not been so unlucky as to play in the same era as the greatest clay court player ever -by far- then he would have 5 RG titles, to go with his 5+ titles in each of the other slams plus WTF.

          That illustrates his GOAT credentials beetter than anything.

          Reply

          • And if Rafa was born two years earlier (and/or also used even a bigger racquet than he did at the time), he would have beaten Fed at Wimby 2006-07.

          • hawkeye,

            Now that made me laugh so hard! It shows the absurdity of this whole hypothetical business of if this one had that or that one did this. It can never be proven because it’s already happened. Over and done with!

            What is the point of what if’s, could haves and should haves!

          • Well, NNY, you could ask that of many Rafa fans on this site, who engage in this kind of reasoning endlessly when it comes to Nadal’s losses.

            There are far too many instances to count where Rafans have speculated about how Nadal would have done in this or that match or tournamnet -for instance, the recent loss to Cilic- if only he hadn’t been injured, or if only he had an extra day rest, or if only he had hit his FH deeper in the court (Hawkeye’s recent favourite, which blithely assumes that this is something that is easily done; it isn’t).

            They do the same about Fed’s wins, including the recent win over Cilic. They speculate about how Fed would have had a much harder path if only he had to play Nadal, Novak, or Murray; or if he hadn’t had favourable scheduling; or if they hadn’t closed the roof; or if Cilic hadn’t been mentally weak, etc.

            All of it is highly speculative, much more so than the hypothetical I posted above about Fed and RG titles. (Admittedly, I have engaged in much more speculative reasoning about how Fed would have done if he had used the larger racquet earlier, but the above hypothetical doesn’t rely on that; that’s why I said it’s the clearest of those that that have been discussed on this site).

            To be consistent, you should pose your last question to Rafa fans as well as me.

          • There’s no evidence that a larger racquet would help Rafa (though he used lead tape last year to make his racquet heavier).

            There’s ample evidence that a larger racquet helps Federer.

          • And size is nothing compared to material.

            If Borg and Laver swapped wood for today’s composites, either of them would best Federer obviously.

            That’s a fact.

          • Joe, not so simple!

            Without Rafa, you cant be sure that Fed would win the FO in 2005; you cant assume that he would sure to beat Puerta in the final.

            In 2008, Djoko was playing very well at the FO, if not for Rafa, Djoko would reach his first FO final then. Djoko was playing better than Fed imo, he even pushed Rafa to the limit at Hamburg, so theres no guarantee than Fed would beat Djoko in the final.

            In 2009, had there be no Rafa, Djoko might even beat Fed at Madrid and prevented Fed from winning the FO because he was playing better tennis than Fed at the FO, they were drawn to meet in the SF.

            So Fed might win in 2006, 2007 and maybe 2011 (against Murray in the final?), ie 3 FOs.

            All this ‘if not for this or that player….’, well we could also say the same for, say Lendl/Wilander, or Borg vs any of the other clay court greats during that time.

          • I think it’s very safe so say Federer would have beaten Puerta in 2005, but I’d be content to limit the claim to 2006-08, when Fed lost in the final to Nadal.

            If there’s no Rafa in those years (or if he somehow loses in R3 as he did in 2016), then Fed would likely have 4 RG titles and 2 calendar slams (2006-07).

            Although Djokovic can make a similar claim about RG titles, he can’t make the same claim about calendar slams. In the two years in won 3 slams (2011 and 2015), his losses at RG were not to Nadal but to Federer and Wawrinka.

          • Actually, adding 2011 (plus 2006-08) gives Fed 5 RG titles, which was my original claim. Add a probable win against Puerta, and you get to 6 RG titles for Fed if Rafa isn’t around.

  84. To me it’s just so simple:

    1) Fed not gonna beat Rafa on the clay court, assuming not a compromised Rafa of course, big racket or not; Rafa’s topspin FH on the clay court makes the ball bounces higher and not allow Fed to hit his BH so comfortably, even when he would try taking it earlier.

    2) Fed not gonna beat Djoko at a HC slam, big racket or not, quick HC or not, Djoko is just that great on the HCs (see his W/L rate);

    3) Fed may have his chances on grass against Djoko but that’s 50/50; for Djoko’s DHBH is world class (at least before he’s injured). Djoko takes the ball early too and returns better than Rafa, which may be why, Djoko is beating Fed at the slams all the times when they met after 2010, with the exception of FO2011.

    Reply

    • 1) On clay we just disagree. I think younger Fed with the larger racquet will neutralize Nadal’s advantage to the BH. He will stand close, take Rafa’s time away, hit sharp angles which prevent Nadal from standing so far back, and hit much more penetrating returns that give Rafa fits.

      2&3) Fed has a winning record against Novak until 2011, a losing record after. Guess what? They’re six years apart. By far the best explanation for the difference in H2H is age.

      However, even in 2014-15, Fed was extremely close. IMO, he choked in 2015 and should have won both Wimby and USO. That was when Fed was 34. A 24 year old Fed with the larger racquet (and sufficient time to prepare, hone his serve, etc.) takes down any version of Novak on HC or grass -my opinion.

      Reply

      • Joe, whether Fed played with a bigger racket or not, he would play the same way in 2007. You’re assuming Fed would do what he does now by taking the ball earlier but in actual fact( not your revisionism), Fed wasn’t taking the ball early back then!

        You talked about Fed being six years older than Djoko, precisely why he had the advantage over a young Djoko prior to 2011! Why the double standard, when Fed in this peak years was beating a young pre prime Djoko, it’s perfectly fine with you but when Djoko was in his prime and Fed was older and then over his prime, you kept mentioning it??

        At the AO HC slams, Djoko was better than Fed; at USO they’re 3-3, they met four times prior to 2011 so Fed had the advantage there but Djoko managed to beat him in 2010.

        Djoko was beating Fed at AO and USO2011 when Fed wasn’t over the hill! Don’t say Djoko had any age advantage, when Fed had his advantage over a young Djoko too prior to 2010 or even 2008.

        Reply

        • Even if Fed was taking the ball early back then on clay, Rafa was simply so quick back then that he would have no problem going after the shots. Rafa beat Fed relatively comfortably in those two FO finals, in four sets in 2006, 2007.

          Reply

          • Again, about the clay hypothetical we just disagree. Fed is taking the ball early now largely *because* the bigger racquet enables him to do so more easily and safely. He would have done the same thing with that racquet if need be when he was younger.

            Even on clay, foot speed isn’t as important as the ability to hit the ball with pace and angle, if one can do it consistently. Nadal wasn’t as fast last year as he was at RG 10 years earlier. But his shots were far harder and more aggressive, on the whole. An opponent who could hit the ball like that (as Stan did in 2015) would be able to overcome someone with good speed.

            I’ll concede that if you combine last year’s version of Rafa with his younger version’s foot speed, that player might be unbeatable on clay. I’d love to see that hybrid vs. young Fed with the larger racquet.

          • Again Joe, if Fed was able to take the ball early, he would have done so already back in 2007, whether it’s bigger racket or not! Are you saying Fed wasn’t improving all these years from 2007 to 2017??

            Don’t some of you here said that Fed is playing better now than when he was younger? It cuts both ways, Fed simply wasn’t as good skill wise back then!

          • And Joe, don’t forget Fed changed from S&V to become a baseliner from 2003 onwards and here you are telling me Fed would revert back to net rushing to take the ball early against Rafa on clay back then? If anything Fed wont be winning his so many slams during 2004-2007 had he played his net rushing game!

            Just face it, Fed’s BH back then was weak, at least weaker than it is now, so whether he used his big racket or not, he’s not going to change that. Stan with a stronger BH couldn’t withstand Rafa’s FH on clay; you think Fed could rush to take Rafa’s topspin FH to his BH consistently on clay throughout a whole match?

          • Djoko was already beating Fed on the HC slams at AO2008 and USO2010. If anything Fed had the advantage then because they met more often at the HC slams during Fed’s prime and Djoko’s pre prime or at least before Djoko reached his peak in 2011.

            They met twice at AO (2007 R4, 2008 SF) and four times at USO (2007 to 2010) before Djoko reached his peak in 2011, ie they met six times and Fed was 4-2 vs Djoko. Djoko was 2-0 vs Fed in 2011 when Fed wasn’t off his prime, winning both AO and USO SFs. The next two times they met on HC slams, Djoko won both – AO2016 and USO2015 – you can say Fed was off his prime by then.

            Don’t forget too that Djoko beat Fed in 2014 to 2016 at the slams when Fed was already using his big racket. I don’t see Fed beating Djoko at his best, big racket or not.

          • And, it is laughable to say that Rafa of 2017 FO hit with greater power (harder) than Rafa of 2006/2007! Have you got any idea how quick and powerful a younger Rafa was back then? He was hitting with depth consistently back then and that’s why Fed won’t have the chance to rush forward to take the ball early at his BH .

            Stan with his power wasnt able to deal with the Rafa of 2017 FO, foot speed does/did matter on clay as it does on other surfaces.

          • Lucky, let me repeat: Fed is taking the ball earlier *because* the larger racquet enables him to do so consistently and safely.

            He didn’t take it early nearly as much in 2004-13 because he wasn’t able to do consistently with the smaller racquet: it produces too many shanks and mis-hits.

            If he had the larger racquet in 2004-12, he would have used it in the same way he is now, but to greater effect because he was in his physical prime.

        • I agree that there are exceptions, but the larger trend in the Fed-Novak H2H is explained by age. I have no problem saying that, e.g. Fed’s slam victory over Novak in 2007 was over an immature Novak not yet in his prime.

          The age issue cuts both ways, but if you only focus on 2011-forward, you’ll get a skewed picture of what prime Novak vs. prime Fed would look like.

          Reply

          • I want R. Federer to play in the French Open(2018) so that he could prove a lot people wrong but at the end they will still make excuses, what’s the point.

            Fed might not play because of age, health reasons etc, I hope he doesn’t make the same mistake he made in Montreal/Cincy, if he skips this tournaments because…U know what= US Open baby!

            It’s not impossible for Fed to win all 4 Majors, it would be difficult, extremely difficult but if anyone can do it… 😂😂😂 would be RF, the best tennis player ever 💪👌👍😋!

          • Nole did what fed couldn’t do even during the weak era, The grand slam and on three different surfaces. Four surfaces according to joe smith.

          • Incredible accomplishment indeed.

            Let it be noted that Nadal retired in 3rd round at RG 2016.

            Fed almost certainly would have won calendar slam 4 years running (2005-08) had Nadal retired in 3rd round at RG in each of those years.

          • Sorry, obviously not calendar slam but RG; would have won calendar slam in 2006-07 in those circumstances had Rafa retired.

          • Hahaha now the hypotheticals require a weak era AND Rafa to be injured lol.

            the weak era played like they were all injured.

            Why couldn’t fed win the grand slam in 2003-04 when Rafa wasn’t even there?

            Shooting down joe smith hypotheticals like shooting fish in a barrel lol.

          • Well, Ricky, in 2006-07, Fed won three slams and was runner up at RG. Who was going to beat him there?

            Granted one can’t be certain of anything, but it seems a fair bet. Fed was the 2nd best clay player in the world for several years. If Rafa hadn’t been around, it’s very likely he would have snagged several RG titles.

          • Ha ha Joe, still on it?

            Fed had a weak BH back then, no racket was going to help him! His BH was limited back then, your would’ve scenarios are at best ‘revisionism’ fantasies!! Too bad you still couldn’t accept that, preferring to live in your own fantasy world!

          • BTW Joe, Fed was already using the big racket from 2014 to 2016, still he couldn’t improve and still he lost to Djoko and Rafa at the slams. It’s no coincidence that when Djoko was out of the slams early due to injuries, Fed (and Rafa) managed to win the HC slams (and Fed Wimbledon). Fed couldn’t win Wimbledon in 2014-2016 despite playing with his bigger racket on his fave surface, and that says it all!

          • Tell me, Lucky, since you’re at least open to reasonable discussion:

            Why don’t you think Federer could have had as good a backhand, using a larger racquet, in 2004 as he does today? Can you provide an actual reason?

          • Regarding Novak in 2014-16, you already know my take on the slam losses. In 2014 he was very close and lost narrowly to the better player. In 2015 he was the better player but (in some sense hard to specify by regularly used), “choked.”

            Along with many others (including, I believe, Hawkeye), I picked Federer to win Wimby 2015 prior to the final. Based on his play in the previous year, I thought he was the slight favourite.

            In short, yes, Roger didn’t play well enough in 2014-15 to beat Novak, but he was very close and in some sense of “could have,” he could have beaten Djokovic even during that period (he did, of course beat him in Bo3 matches). That is mainly due to the improvements brought about by the racquet change; that’s what best explains his improved play from 2014.

            2014 AO loss to Nadal was just after the racquet change (basically the 1st or 2nd tournament) and Fed wasn’t used to it yet.

          • Joe, is simple, Fed had a poorer BH back then!

            I read some earlier articles about Fed and his BH, one of his earlier coaches mentioned that Fed had a very poor SHBH in his earlier days.

            His BH wasn’t fantastic during his heydays either relatively speaking and hes used to running around it to hit his FH more often than now. He had his laser sharp FH and it was enough to deal with his every opponent until a certain Rafael Nadal appeared. You know what, I feel Fed was complacent not to improve his BH back then.

            You talked about a bigger racket, but a bigger racket would affect his game, which was based on exquisite timing, hitting with his sweet spot and if his BH was his weaker wing, and he’s relying heavily on his FH, how on earth a bigger racket would help him? He might turn into a grinder with a bigger racket back then!

            As to why he only decided on changing to a bigger racket from 2013/14 onwards, well we all know as he grows older, he’s not as quick thus mistiming his shots so changing to a bigger racket may help in reducing all those shanks.

            He had engaged first Anacone and then Edberg to help with his net game from 2009 onwards as he felt he couldn’t stay with his younger opponents at the baseline. He did add two more slams to his tally – AO2010 and Wimbledon 2012 . Do note that as his BH was under attack often, Fed did improve his BH and he’s hitting it very well in 2010 WTF vs Rafa in the final.

            He had his back issues throughout 2013 and he was trying out a bigger racket during the clay events at Hamburg and Gstaad but with not much successes there. Perhaps he realized that he had to grind vs Djoko and Rafa after all and so he decided a bigger racket would help; though he’s not staying at the baseline to grind a losing war so he decided to step inside the court more often to take the ball early even when using a bigger racket.

            I doubt he had Rafa in mind as Rafa was having a bad time from second half of 2014 onwards; it’s more to deal with Djoko, who’s so well balanced from both wings and changing directions at will and could attack Fed’s BH with his own world class DHBH.

            He had yet to test against a fit and healthy Djoko and especially on the HCs which is Djoko’s forte. Winning against Rafa on the HC is different from beating Djoko on it!

          • And, I must add, Fed playing with a bigger racket back during 2004- 2007 was asking for troubles; he would have to grind more instead of finishing points quickly and he’ll play into Rafa’s hands, for who could grind better than Rafa back then, when he’s so quick, powerful, fit and strong?

            Rafa is obviously not as physically strong and quick now that he’s 31 and he himself isnt grinding that much anymore; so Fed even when hes much older now, could use his bigger racket and improved court position to deal with Rafa on the HCs, when Rafa’s topspin is least effective.

            Do note that Fed is doing more running now, is doing more defending and retrieving too, comparing to his younger days, perhaps thats because hes using a bigger racket.

          • You say: it’s simple, Fed had a poorer BH back then.

            I agree. So does Fed and everyone else. So that’s not in dispute.

            My claim is that Federer *could* have had a better BH back then, had he used a larger racquet. I’ve read your post carefully twice, and I can’t see that you’ve provided any reason why he couldn’t.

            You say that a bigger racquet would affect his game. Of course it would; it has now. The point is, it’s affected it for the better!

            My argument is simple, really. Federer is not a better athlete at 36 than he was at 26. No world class tennis player is. I take it you agree? Everything he can do now, he could have done at least as well then, and probably better, since he was younger, fitter, etc.

            Not only his BH has improved, although that has garnered the most attention. I have read (though I haven’t looked into it) that by several measures his serve has improved as well. Again, that is largely down to the bigger racquet. Fed has talked about the “easy power” it has given him.

            Bear in mind that although Fed lost at slams, he did win a few HC masters against Novak during Novak’s best period (2014-16). He was basically the only one doing that, at the age of 33-35. Again, the best explanation is that the larger racquet improved his game, which was otherwise in slow but sure decline.

          • One thing I don’t understand. You say:

            “Do note that Fed is doing more running now, is doing more defending and retrieving too, comparing to his younger days, perhaps thats because hes using a bigger racket.”

            I very much doubt that is true. Fed’s main strategy in recent years has been to shorten points, to conserve energy. He’s not doing more running than he was 10-12 years ago.

          • Joe, I’ve already explained very clearly. It’s not just a bigger racket or not! Using a bigger racket would affect Fed’s FH at that time, read again. His BH was weak then, so using a bigger racket won’t help! He had to improve his BH; do you think Fed need not improve his BH in 2017 when using the bigger racket, or you think it’s so magical that once with a big racket in hand, he could straight away hit his BH well???

            I already explained (and Fed is not stupid!), that if he could use a ‘better’ racket to help him, why would he hesitate? It’s because his main lethal weapon, his FH, might be affected hence he’s not willing to change. It’s not about the BH (Fed wasn’t as obsessed with his BH as you!) but his overall game!

            You’re so obsessed with his BH because you’re bothered with Rafa who has a lopsided H2H vs Fed. You think with a better BH and a bigger racket Fed would do better against Rafa even on clay but you forget that that would affect Fed’s FH and his game as a whole.

            Fed’s FH is not what it once was, so he has to up his BH to help with his overall game. He has to run more these days (watch his matches vs Delpo for example, he did quite a lot of defending and retrieving; his matches vs Agut too) because his FH wasn’t as good as before, it’s not always short points in his matches, there’re players who can make him run – Agut, Simon, Monfils, the other big four guys, and even Delpo. A bigger racket certainly help him to defend better when his timing may be off as he’s slower now (is still quick against most guys, just not against those who runs well).

          • Fed had always won on the quicker HCs against Djoko, bigger racket or not. You remember Cincy 2012? And if we want to dig further, Fed had beaten Djoko on the quicker courts all along – Cincy 2009, Basel and Shanghai 2010 for examples.

            Fed beat Djoko at Dubai 2014/2015, Cincy 2015, Shanghai 2014 – all of them quick HCs.

          • A fair bit of speculation about what Fed might have thought about this new racquet MAYBE affecting his forehand in 2007.
            IMO while his forehand might not be as big a weapon now ,whether that’s the racquets fault or Feds age, it’s more reliable.Fed used to shank his forehand often back then.

          • Yes, Big Al. Fed’s FH is still plenty good; witness the few rallies where he and Cilic were trading FH bombs in the AO final; Fed won quite a few of those rallies.

            Although I’ve said Fed should have switched racquets back in 2004-05, it’s probably not realistic to switch when you’re having so much success. The most reasonable time to have switched would probably have been late 2010, when he had started losing to lesser players at slams (such as delpo, Berdych and Tsonga) for the first time in six years.

            Those losses, combined with the tough losses to Nadal in 2008-09, should have been the writing on the wall for Fed to know that he wasn’t at the same level, relative to the field, that he had been 5 years previously.

          • Big Al, you’re wrong; Fed hit laser sharp FH; he’s known for his precision FH. The shanking you’re talking about happened during 2009 after his major back issue in 2008 (that he had to withdraw before the QF in Paris Masters in 2008, and lost two matches in the RR stage for the first time at the YEC, to Simon and Murray).

            His FH is no longer what it once was, shanking more and more; even with a bigger racket, he would still mishit his FH (and BH), just not as bad as when using his previous racket during his post prime days.

        • Lucky just want to add that Fed vs Djoko played more matches after Roger was 29. At that time Novak was already 23 (Not a baby, more than Zverev and Kyrgios). I don’t want to argue about their h2h.
          Anyway, even if they played half-half matches their prime, the h2h would have been probably about even.
          What I don’t agree is many people on this blog say Fed is only winning because the other big guys are injured and missing. That’s not an excuse. Longevity is as important as having an excellent BH or FH in your career. A player who wins 10 slams during 20 years is equally valuable as a player who wins 10 slams in 15 years, if the latter used more of his body resources in a shorter period of time and retired earlier. Longevity is undervalued. Djokovic and Nadal have their own strengths that exceed Federer’s. But Fed in turn has longevity which is at least as relevant and important as his rivals’ strengths.

          Reply

          • Eugene, we also can’t say for sure Djoko doesn’t have longevity as he’s only 30/31 and he’s not retired yet. In five years, who can be sure that Djoko won’t be the one still winning benefitting from absence of injured players?

            Why are people (not saying its you but in general) so quick in jumping into conclusions, that Rafa, Djoko (and Murray) won’t have Fed’s longevity (because of their style of play)? They’re 30/31 only and not retiring anytime soon. Even if Rafa plays till he’s 34 and not 39 like Fed, in say 2020 (ie 18 yrs vs 21 yrs) that’s already a long career for injury prone Rafa, and who’s to say Rafa won’t be winning some more slams up till then?

            Djoko has only one major injury (elbow) in twelve years from 2005 to 2016 but he won 12 slams, 5 WTFs and 30 Masters, and he’s playing in a tough era from 2011-2016. Is he that injury prone or that he won’t last? I certainly don’t think so.

          • Fed vs Djoko – 13 : 6 prior to 2011;

            Fed vs Djoko – 1 : 4 in 2011;

            Fed vs Djoko – 8 : 13 after 2011.

            Fed at 29 or 30 wasn’t past his prime, just like Djoko and Murray in 2016 weren’t past their prime and were the top two guys.

      • Fat hope Joe, that Fed would win six FO titles. You can’t dismiss Puerta and take for granted that Fed would beat him; Fed wasn’t playing all that well to start with. You’re a biased Fed fan to the core, so you always assume he would beat anyone!

        In 2008 and 2009, it’s a safe bet that Djoko would beat him at the FO; so the safe thing to say is that Fed might get 3 FOs, no more than that!

        You don’t have to deceive yourself to make yourself feel good about Fed, he’s not your family member is he? Why spend so much time fantasizing about him?

        Reply

        • No fantasizing going on here, Lucky. I’m quite certain that I care less about Federer, personally, than most Rafa fans here care about Nadal. As I see it, I’m just countering some of the very heavy pro-Nadal bias on this site.

          I do think Fed is very under-rated as a clay court player. First, he won RG in 2009, so it’s very odd that you’re saying Novak would have beaten him. Also far from a “safe bet” that a still immature Novak would have beaten him in 2008.

          In any case, the facts are that Fed was runner-up to Nadal four years, and lost to him in SF in 2005, when finalist was an unseeded Puerta. Granted that it’s all speculative, it seems fair to say that absent Rafa, Fed would have won the title in 2006-08; and in 2011 (when he already had beaten Djokovic). I think even you would agree, in your heart of hearts, that Fed would have taken down Puerta had they played each other in the 2005 final. That gets Fed to six RG titles. If it’s a hope, it’s not a terribly fat one.

          Reply

          • Nah, as I said Djoko was playing better than Fed at FO in 2008. Without Rafa, Djoko would not have a long SF match at Madrid in 2009 and he might beat Fed in the final, because he had already beaten Fed at Rome that year.

            The Madrid match affected both Djoko and Rafa, without Rafa, Djoko would not lose early at FO in 2009; Fed was playing horribly the whole FO in 2009 save for the final, to think that Djoko who had already beaten him earlier on in Rome, would beat him in the FO is a logical assumption.

            Fed was fortunate too that Delpo ran out of steam in their 2009 five sets SF.

          • You’re obsessed with Fed and that’s why you’re still continuing with your obsession with his BH and still continuing with your revisionist theory about Fed with a bigger racket in 2007!

          • You cant just speculate Federer with a bigger racquet would lead him to be a grinder. A change in racquet at that point would be a variable change it will be hard to say how he would have adapted, being a grinder is just one among many possibilities. Thanks for the hyper speculative fan fiction

          • It’s quite hilarious lucky but his revisionism is no match to you tennis acumen. You nailed it perfectly when you point out that it’s too simplistic to look at a single item like a larger racquet lol:

            “You talked about a bigger racket, but a bigger racket would affect his game, which was based on exquisite timing, hitting with his sweet spot and if his BH was his weaker wing, and he’s relying heavily on his FH, how on earth a bigger racket would help him? He might turn into a grinder with a bigger racket back then!”

            so peRFectly said!

          • nirvan,

            variable change or viable change? You’re right, it’s speculative and I don’t understand why the discussion is still on when we’re not going to change anything now!

          • ‘Federer played horrible in 2009 RG,lucky to squeeze past Delpo ‘.
            Just like Wimby 2007 and all those other 5 setters,Fed truly is the Luckystar😗

      • umm.. Joe I would like to disagree on Wimby’ 15.
        Nole simply outclassed Fed in that match. His level of play on grass that day was of the highest quality. I don’t think even prime Fed or prime Rafa on grass would have been able to go through that day.. Fed played well enough to somehow steal a set..
        And I’m saying all this as a Fed fan.
        USO ’15 – he choked big time in that match. He was the overall better player in that match but fumbled big time on Break points.

        Reply

        • Abhirf shows by example the difference between a fedfan who believes Fed is GOAT with balanced opinion vs Joe Smith echo chamber confirmatory bias.

          Abhirf always worth having a discussion with.

          Just like I give Nole credit where credit is due and recognize fed for his unworldly accomplishments.

          Glad to see you back abhirf even though we often disagree.

          Reply

          • I would objectively agree with Joe about Feds clay court ability.Who would have stopped him winning RG in 2005-7 if not Nadal? He’s the only one who could give Rafa a decent match in those days.

          • ‘Fed truly is the Luckystar’

            Big Al, if you choose to say so with a hint of sarcasm, well that’s your choice. But, don’t be like Joe, ie assuming you know what I think but in fact you don’t.

          • Lucky,just basing my answers on your comments,you rarely give Fed any credit for getting through these close matches.But,even he needs a bit of luck.
            Then again,it’s like the old golf saying,’The more I practise,the luckier I get’😉
            Anyway,can’t wait for the south American clay swing,it’s one of my favourite parts of the year.

          • Hawkeye, you’ve shown, repeatedly, that you’re unable or unwilling to engage in a civil conversation with me.

            That’s why you hurl insults (some truly vile) that get you warnings from Ricky and have gotten you banned from many other sites, by your own admission.

            A year ago I asked you for a truce, to which you agreed. At the time, you asked only that I be respectful.

            I have abided by that; you have not, to put it mildly.

            So we disagree about tennis. Hardly a topic of earth-shattering importance, as I’m sure you’d agree. It’s not worth your venom.

            You owe me an apology for what you said to me regarding Fedexal.

            I’ll be pleasantly surprised to receive it.

          • You have it the other way around joe smith.

            Constant strawman arguments and repetitive statements does not a civil conversation make.

            One of your first posts here was an observation of how civil it was here on TG and you wanted to liven things up. But you just dredge out old tireless arguments. You have had the same warnings that I have.

            You abided for several weeks but you couldn’t keep it up.

            On the contrary, Joe Smith, you should apologize to posters here that have tennis debate in good faith.

            I have nothing against fans of any player who exhibit the ability to do so including Eugene, Kevin, abhirf, scoot d and many others.

            Lucky has done a great job schooling you on tennis. You should thank her.

            Try to be happier about feds 20th. Always here to provoke which you stated yourself when you first arrived.

            Too funny.

          • I have never been warned on this site or any other, ever.

            Unlike you, I have never been banned from any site.

            That’s because I stick to civil language, I don’t insult people (or players: “Punchbag”), and I try to have a genuine conversation even with those I disagree with.

            Unlike you.

            When the going gets tough, you resort to put-downs and insults. You’re either unwilling or unable to continue the conversation.

            No one else here has a problem with me; only you.

            Lots of people here have a problem with you, including Ricky sometimes, hence the warnings.

            You took my initial posts here far too seriously, and they’ve obviously colored your impression of me.

            You know damn well that I’m not a homophobe, and it was vile of you even to suggest it. From my interactions with Stanley, you should be able to tell that your and my views on the subject are probably very similar.

            As I said, I’d be pleasantly surprised to receive an apology. Now I’ll be even more surprised.

          • Yeah you have been warned.

            I’ve been banned on TW and TX which are nothing but fedfan troll sites.

            “I try to have a genuine conversation” No you don’t. Don’t confuse yourself with fedfans Benny, Eugene, abhirf and Scoot D. You use strawman repetitive tired arguments and have never once bent from your viewpoints no matter what any non-Fedfan has said – in other words, you always think you are right so what’s the point in countering with you?

            When the going gets tough, that means that someone has put forth a challenging new idea and is willing to have a discussion and shows evidence of being open to counter arguments, and I gladly partake.

            You haven’t shown that once so it bores me to no end – that is not going getting tough – it’s just plain tired.

            No, you’ve delivered on your initial posts. I don’t take anything you say seriously Joe.

            Show me where I said that you were a homophobe Joe Smith or is that just another Strawman taken out of context which is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Something the other fedfans I’ve referenced never do.

            You’re the one who should apologize for your see through motives (which you admitted when you first arrived here). Lucky calls you out on it tirelessly and effectively but I’d rather wait until the “going gets tough”.

          • You referred to me as a “homophobe defender,” a vile reference to my agreeing with something that Fedexal said about Federer.

            I also appealed to Ricky (and others here to tell Ricky) that you should be told to stop with the insults or else be banned.

            Ricky then deleted your insulting reference and my general appeal to others.

          • Out of context. As usual.

            If you defended fedexal, then you defended a homophobe.

            You know damn well that I never suggested that you were a homophobe, and it was vile of you even to suggest it.

            You owe me an apology for what you said to me regarding your strawman about what you say I suggested.

            I’d be pleasantly surprised to receive an apology.

          • Just so everyone is clear:

            I agreed with something Fedexal said, entirely tennis-related, about Federer.

            Hawkeye then referred to me as a “homophobe defender”.

            Evidently, he doesn’t see anything wrong with that.

          • Just so everyone is clear:

            You have taken everything out of context and claim that I insinuated that you were homophobic which is a blatant lie. Nothing new.

        • Ab, at Wimby 2015 Fed didn’t begin to match his level in the SF against Murray. After that match, Murray said he played great, but Federer was just too good. Hawkeye probably agrees, since he picked Fed to beat Nole in the final.

          Fed started the final against Novak at the same level he delivered in the SF, was up a break in the first set. But he missed an easy volley, and cracked after that.

          My opinion, nothing more, and anyone is of course free to disagree. I wouldn’t rest anything on it, and I have no problem saying that Novak was the better player that day, as he obviously was during those years (2014-16).

          This point is totally separate from what I’ve said about Fed would have accomplished in Rafa’s absence (also speculative), which is separate from my point about Rafa fans’ propensity to make excuses for almost all of his losses (simply reporting a fact).

          Reply

          • Laughable, saying that Fed choked and lost to Djoko at Wimbledon and USO is precisely making an excuse for Fed’s losses. IOW, the implications is: if Fed didn’t choke, then results might be different. What made Fed choke? Djoko’s game of course! Not giving Djoko his due credit when it’s all about Fed choking. Joe still has the cheek to accuse the Rafa fans of making excuses all the time for Rafa’s losses, blah, blah, blah…,

          • No excuses, Lucky, as I’ve already explained to you. If Fed choked (my opinion), it was his fault! Novak was better! How can that be an excuse?

            Of course I think Djokovic had something to do with it (VR’s response below is quite plausible). I’m not taking away from his achievement; I just think Fed didn’t play as well as he could have; and if he would have played as he could have, he would have won. But he didn’t, and Novak was the better player that day.

            Again, there is no excuse in there!

          • Well you are missing a very essential part when analyzing the final. The fed serve was INSANE in the SF against Murray. It was too high to sustain even for Roger Standards and unsurprisingly, he couldn’t sustain that level in the final so Murray was a bit unlucky in the semi. Every time he had mini openings in return games, Fed slammed the door with an returnable serve. Fed was getting 75% + first serves in and winning more than 80% or something!! It was a masterclass from Fed overall.

            Against Djokovic, I knew the serving quality would go down a bit and it happened. His first serve % dropped to the 60’s and that was kind of what it normally is in B05 matches for these players. Also, as well as Murray can return, Djokovic is a different returner and can make the server’s life very uneasy.

            Rafa’s an excellent returner of Fed serve on clay and slow surfaces but it is Djokovic who just closes so many angles and gives Federer much smaller targets to hit. Fed finds it much harder to serve against DJokovic as compared to Nadal and Murray who often stand further back to return first serves.

            All in all, apart from the serve, Djokovic was just relentless from the baseline and he outdid federer gradually as the match went on. I don’t think the Murray match is the right barometer here.

          • Good point, VR, that Fed’s serve was unusually good against Murray. If it had been that good against Novak, I think Fed would have won. But I don’t remember his serve pct. being in the 60’s; I thought it was lower. But you may be right, I have to go back and check.

          • Hey Joe,

            I just checked the numbers. It was 76% against Murray and 67% against Djokovic. Yep, as good a serve Roger is, that serving display was a rarity. I even remember Murray saying after the match that that was the best Federer has ever served against him and the serve was so good that he was feeling too much pressure in his own service games. Apart from the first game where he had a chance to break, he never got a chance.

            Also, we know Murray’s 2nd serve is much weaker than Novak’s. Fed was REALLY in the zone and Murray’s 2nd serve didn’t cause any disruptions to his ultra-aggressive mindset. He was able to keep Murray under so much pressure as he was not missing much either.

            Against Novak, it was much harder to go after 2nd serve so he had to relinquish the control of return games a little bit.

            Lastly, I would say Novak always makes it tougher for Fed to serve on fast courts. Murray and Rafa stand far back to return first serves and they give Fed space to hit and there is no better server than Fed when it comes to hitting the targets. Djokovic just closes that space so much and the targets get much smaller.

            On clay Rafa’s the best returner of Roger’s serve in my opinion. He stands far back and is able to make so many returns that Fed is deprived of free points much more often.

          • Thanks for that, VR. I’ll go have a look set by set; also, I’m sure that it was best at the beginning; Fed started great and was up a break in the that first set.

            I’d have to watch the whole match again to see if I feel as strongly as I did at the time, but my strong impression, which seemed to be shared by many others, was that Fed under-performed in that final, even taking into account Novak’s great play.

          • Doubt it. Federer just had to go for lower margins of error on his serve because Nole is the better returner.

          • Joe,

            He might have ‘underperformed’ a bit but I think using the Murray match to conclude that is not right for the reasons I mentioned. I also think because of the constant pressure Fed kept Murray, the Scotsman wasn’t able to hit as freely as he can on grass.

            Look, Fed is a MONSTER on grass. I do think he could have made it tougher against Novak but I would say Fed hadn’t quite found the balance yet to defeat the Novak of 2015. He was transitioning into that ultra-aggressive mode and he kept getting better and better and more confident. However, at that time, I think Djokovic was just incredibly strong off both wings from the baseline. And, it is no secret that Novak’s out-done Fed in crucial moments in slams before as well. He did that even in 2010 and 2011 USO’s

          • I agree that current version of Fed has found some mental strength that he lacked prior to beating Rafa last year at AO; that really got him over the hump. That’s a large part of what I mean by saying he choked in 2015: he lacked the self-belief that he could still win a slam. It had been a long time, he was nearly 33, and the pressure of thinking it was his last chance was too much.

            By 2017, I honestly think Fed never expected to win, maybe even right before the final. Objectively, why would he, at his age, against Nadal, in a slam final?

            That’s what allowed him to play as he could have done previously (e.g. Wimby 2015), in some sense of “could have done.”

            Novak was too good in the crucial moments in those matches in 2010-11. (Imo, they wouldn’t have been nearly as close had Fed been playing with the larger racquet back then). Fed also had the wrong attitude at the time, kind of like he was entitled to win, which showed through in his sour grapes post-game interviews, esp. in 2011.

            I now think he has hit a happy median in attitude: not arrogantly thinking he should win, but confident that he can if he plays his game.

          • joe,

            I agree with the attitude point. He has improved his attitude towards the game and his chief rivals.

            The larger racket thing is not as simple as Fed fans make it sound if I am honest. I understand why Fed fans would want to say that but you need to analyze things carefully and comprehensively here.

            I can give my own opinion/analysis on this and people here know I don’t necessarily take sides here just for the sake of it. There is so much activity going on on the next page so not sure if its a good idea to engage in a discussion here.

            Lastly, one point that needs to be emphasized is that Federer only got the belief in the 5th set of the AO because he was finally feeling that he was playing at the level needed to win against Rafa. In 2015, he perhaps never had the same feeling because Novak was consistently getting the edge in the biggest moments.

          • Exactly VR! Fed didn’t choke; it’s Djoko whose return was ‘out of this world’ and that’s what I saw and felt at that time.

            You know what, even after how Fed played vs Murray, I had the sense of inevitability of Fed losing to Djoko in the final even before they played the final; because Djoko was simply so good and confident in 2015. True enough, Djoko even finished off Fed in four sets (improved over 2014 final where they went five sets). It’s only some Fed fans who couldn’t see the truth, that Djoko was simply playing at a different level all year round, and Murray was no Djoko.

          • Good point VR! As I mentioned, Djoko was simply playing very well and very confidently; Fed couldn’t do to Djoko what he could to Murray. And I think even even if Fed could serve as well, he won’t sustain that over five sets against Djoko; the 2014 final was a good example (Djoko wasn’t as good or as confident in 2014 yet he managed to outdo Fed in five sets).

            As for the big racket, it’s not the be all and end all! Fed barely beat Rafa in five sets at AO last year; and beating Rafa on HCs wasn’t the same as beating Djoko on HCs. Some Fed fans even went as far as saying Fed would beat Rafa on clay with his bigger racket; I said fat hope, judging from how Rafa played on clay last year, no chance for Fed!

  85. The closing of the roof is just incredible and no doubt cayered to Federer and influenced the result.

    I have in doubt at ask we would have seen a different match and different result of it was played outdoors.

    37 v 28 year old in hot, humid conditions is a major factor with a major bearing on the result.

    Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

    Reply

    • That’s very speculative, to say the least. Fed has had very little time on court this tournament. Last year he played three five-setters outdoors and still beat Rafa in the final. Never mind the fact that indoor conditions is actually good for Cilic, he hits a pretty flat ball, not a lot of margin for error.

      Also, it’s 36 v 29 btw, but hell, ‘don’t let anyone tell you any different’.

      Reply

  86. Rafa allowed so many players from Australia sponsored by Tennis Australia come and practice at his sprawling academy and use all the facilities. What for when they show him the short end of the stick always.

    I agree USO is the only fair GS around , atleast no obvious partiality. Wimbledon does it in terms of courts but if their Court 1 also gets a roof by this year , there will not be too much partiality left as matches can still get completed on both courts. French is pathetic and never accords Rafa the respect of a 10 time champion and have even made him start play on Suzanne Lenglen as defending champion . They deserve how Fed has shown them his middle finger. AO is the worst of the lot and is horribly biased to the extent of being shameful.

    Rafa – wake up and please smell the coffee . But you I guess are too naïve to understand all this.

    Reply

  88. I’m glad they closed the roof. After seeing Simona in the damn hospital, why wouldn’t we want to do what we have to to avoid a repeat of that? Why they didn’t close it for the women’s final and previous matches is a completely different discussion. But closing the roof after seeing what happened to Simona is just common sense, isn’t it?

    Also, for Marin Cilic and Roger Federer, playing indoors is absolutely making the playing field level. I seriously cannot think of a current player whose game is more tailor-made for indoor hard court than Marin Cilic haha! Indoor conditions is so ideal for both Fed and Marin. No worry about the extreme heat swinging the match in someone’s favor. Just pure, uninhibited tennis.

    If Fed were facing, say, Pablo Carreno Busta in the final, then it would make total sense to say that closing the roof would favor Fed. But to suggest that indoor conditions somehow don’t “favor” MARIN CILIC just seems so ridiculous to me! The dude serves absolute bombs and hits some of the hardest, flattest shots on tour!

    The only way that I would think it was unfair was if Federer was informed ahead of time that the roof would be closed, while Marin was not informed ahead of time. But I have yet to see any evidence that that happened.

    I also accept the argument that Marin was frustrated that he would have wanted to have his strings strung differently had he known it would be indoors. That’s on the AO. They need to get their shit together as pertains to roof closing.

    But to suggest that closing the roof itself gave 36 1/2 year old Federer an advantage that Cilic did NOT have just makes no sense to me…

    Reply

    • Fair point about Halep.
      Yeah,there’s contradictory arguments about who it would suit more.Rusedski said the closed roof suited the defensive player more,but an attacking Fed,is helped by the still conditions ,as is the defending Fed .
      I can’t see either why it wouldn’t favour Cilic as well.

      Reply

    • So, you close the roof when someone falls sick or dies on court. What an amazing logic ? I am sure Monfilis complained about that earlier. Simona as well. But they waited for Simona’s hospital admission to close the roof.

      Has Aussie Open got a bunch of illiterates as part of decision makers ?

      Reply

      • Yeah, it’s bad. Hopefully they will use all the problems they had with the heat to set a better policy for next year. The problem is that there is nothing they can do to make it more playable for the outer courts. It’s not like they can install retractable roofs over all the outer courts, too… Or can they? 🙂

        Reply

  89. I’m fed up with all this stuff about the roof.Whatever decision they make,someone will claim bias.
    Maybe they should change the roof rule to be affected by the rain only,not the heat.

    Reply

  91. US Open is as bad as Australia. Always have been. Here’s when US showed favoritism waaaaaay back in 2003 before Roger was boss…

    “Roger Federer was an angry man – angry at losing in the fourth round of the US Open to David Nalbandian of Argentina, angry at missing the opportunity to become the world No1 and angry at the way the scheduling has overtly favoured Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick to the detriment of everybody else.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/sep/06/tennis.usopentennis2003

    #NothingNew
    #Business101

    Reply

    • Certainly nothing new in any tournament favoring players from the home country. It’s just that favoritism hasn’t helped the current Americans.

      Reply

  95. Any tournament going on this week, just asking.

    I know Rafa is resting and recovering, but any news about Djoko? Is he going for surgery?

    Reply

  96. Thanks Augusta,

    I notice that Cilic is playing clay events at BA and Rio, a bit strange. Djoko not scheduled for anything yet; Stan playing at Rotterdam, hopefully he’s fine by then.

    Reply

  97. Oh, so this week is the DC ties R1, I see, so the tour events start next week.

    I think I enjoy the atp tour events better because I can get most of the matches on paid tv and the atp tennis tv website. The slam events, they only showed matches played at the show courts so those matches at the outside courts were not shown.

    Reply

  98. I feel bad for Novak to some extent. I can’t imagine how frustrating and scary it must be knowing that the injury you have just may not be able to ever fully heal as long as you continue to put full match strain on it. I feel like a chronic injury like that may realistically need at very least like an entire year of putting ZERO strain on it. If this were 2007, I would honestly say that taking an entire year or more to fully heal the elbow would be worth it, as he would have his entire prime ahead of him still. However, he is at the age where guys’ physical primes are coming to an end, if it hasn’t already ended. So taking an extremely long time away from tennis at his age could be pointless.

    I always feel bad for any player who is going through injury problems. I’ve always felt bad for Rafa, but his thing isn’t just one chronic injury, it’s dozens of injuries over time. It’s almost like we’ve had to learn to accept that Rafa getting injured is just the way it is with him, and we’ve seen him bounce back from them so many times that it’s easier for us to have faith in him returning to glory. Fed has his back thing, but he’s managed/been lucky to have it not come back every single week. With Novak, it seems like he just put too much strain on that one elbow injury for so damn long that it really is coming back to haunt him. I really hope that he eventually does get back to somewhere near his all-time great level, even if he has to develop a more aggressive style of play as he gets older, and doesn’t have to rely on his insane defensive prowess. With that style of game, it’s just always going to be extremely difficult to constantly play that way once you get into your 30’s.

    Last year were saw Rafa play arguably the most aggressive tennis we’ve seen him play at RG and the latter-season hardcourts. We saw Federer play the most aggressive we’ve ever seen him play. I would love to see guys like Novak and Andy try to take a similar route, otherwise it’s hard for me to imagine Novak being able to play like it’s 2011-2015 consistently enough without ruining his body….

    Reply

    • If you’ve seen him played this AO, you would notice that his footwork was intact; so as long as he’s doing whatever necessary to get that elbow healed, I’m sure he can comeback to play good tennis again.

      Djoko, like Rafa, started off being an aggressive player. While both of them aren’t S&V players to start with, they’re more aggressive than defensive players. Watch their matches when they were just upstarts, they’re certainly more attacking than they’re now.

      I suspect they changed to become defence/offence baseliners because they’re affected by the slowing down of the courts. Even the most defensive of the big four ie Murray, started off playing a more varied style and wiling to approach the net often, but now he prefers to stay at the baseline most of the time.

      They had to adapt too to be able to succeed on the slowed down courts. Now that they’re older, perhaps they have to revert back to the style that they once played in their younger days – Rafa with his aggressive hitting from the baseline combined with net approaches (Miami 2004); Djoko with his painting the line tennis, and Murray with his varied game, mixing in net approaches and S&V.

      Reply

        • Your emoticon would be better served if it was you putting more thought BEFORE posting.

          Rod Laver comments on TW tennis forum does he?

          Riiiiiiight.

          Seriously though. That site is for absolute morons.

          I’m sure “Rod Laver” is busy commenting on some of these currently burning “issues” there:

          YouTube Muppet accuses Federer of waiting 5 yrs until Nadal and Djokovic were out of their prime

          How long will Fed detractor start using Women players achievements to deny his greatness?

          Why So Much Nadal Hate Here?

          For me, Fed has surpassed Jordan, Brady and Gretzky

          Nadal will pull out of French with injury.

          Reply

          • Hawkeye’s definition of “Nadal Hate”

            1. Someone posts a link to a site which has a discussion about whether Fed should have switched racquets earlier.

            2. In response to Hawkeye’s deeming the site a “Fed echo chamber” someone else points out that Rod Laver is a member. Hawkeye then says the site is for “absolute morons”.

            Hawkeye then wonders about all of the Nadal hate here.

            In fact, I can’t think of a single regular poster here who hates Nadal. Many of us say complimentary things about him on a regular basis.

    • Borg didn’t really have a choice. He’d had no life outside tennis and he wanted one. He really went off the rails for awhile but he straightened out and he’s got a good life now. I think. Would it be better if he’d won a career slam, as many titles as Jimmy Connors and a dozen RG’s? Doubt it.

      Reply

      • Ramara,

        You are correct. If anyone watched the documentary – “McEnroe/Borg: Fire and Ice” then you would understand why Borg left. He started at 15, both he and Rafa were teenage phenomenons. But he started to hate the grind and lost the passion and will to compete. He basically burned out. He was like a machine with his mental and physical strength. He engaged in 30+ rallies at RG and could outlast anyone.

        Borg had these rituals when he was playing. He would always take the same route to the tournament. He slept naked in bed at the same temperature every night. He used the same towel in court.

        Rafa has his own rituals when he is playing. Both Borg and Rafa have been compared because they are similar in playing style and mental and physical strength. I worried that Rafa might go the way of Borg and burnout. Borg never had to battle injuries like Rafa.

        Borg just lost it and left at the peak of his career. I was a huge fan and it devastated me. But I understand how a person can break down and just lose the desire or will and not be able to do it anymore. Borg made it look easy but in that documentary you realize that it was anything but.

        Borg did what he needed to do at the time. He accomplished so much at such a tough g age. Eleven slams, six RG’s, 5 Wimbledon’s. Winning the channel slam three consecutive years. Rafa has done it twice but not in consecutive years.

        Borg gave all he could and finally had to walk away. He struggled but did get himself together. He seems content with what he did in tennis. If he had stayed on the game he would surely have broken Roy Emerson’s record at the time of 12 slams.

        Reply

        • Perhaps the best grass court player of all time along with Sampras and Laver. Even MacEnroe, Nole, Federer and Rafa’s best on grass would challenge that elite group.

          Reply

        • I think what really finished him was not winning the US after coming close , and all the hard work.
          Then , he was asked to qualify for Slams the following year.Insult to injury.
          I still think he could have taken a break, and kept playing with less intensity/a reduced schedule, but maybe that was the problem, it was all or nothing with him and his style.

          Reply

          • And I know he’s compared to Nadal (and Federer) but he didn’t have the benefit of modern racquet technology to generate his topspin.

          • None taken.

            Nor did he have the uniform grass surface as it is today that allows players the ability to take the ball on the rise.

          • Al,

            You make some good points. I think not winning the USO did take its toll. Connors and McEnroe got the best of him. In that last USO final, Borg just went away. He stopped competing. I remember when I was watching it and I knew something was terribly wrong. Then after the match ended, he just walked off the court without staying for the trophy ceremony. He said that later he apologized to McEnroe for doing that.

            I never understood why Borg couldn’t just take a break and then come back. I do think with him it was all or nothing.

            I know that when he walked away, it broke my heart.

          • Borg said (sorry don’t remember when) that he’d been wanting to retire for at least a year before he did, and had spoken to his parents about it. Possibly he hung in to try to win a hard court slam and was disappointed because he couldn’t make it happen and knew it was his last chance.

        • Borg and Nadal had similar games . Nadal had the benefit of modern technology , but I never realised how bad Borgs OCD was .Nadal just had his bottle lining up routine as far as I know…;)

          Reply

          • Goes waaaaay beyond just the bottles and I’m guessing your wink acknowledges that.

            Much better than it used to be however. He’s kept the rituals that don’t cost him time and energy.

        • I was a big fan of Borg, too. I believe it was a few years before he briefly attempted a comeback and motivated more by needing money than tennis. And yes, he did not want to play qualies as he was nearly 30 then.

          I don’t know if Rafa could have played pro tennis back then. It was such a lonely sport. Nowadays having a team around is more or less standard and Rafa needs team and family around. Not to mention constant communication by cell phone and computer. Rafa’s also been able to maintain his Manacor life and friends, which is very, very important to him.

          Reply

        • @NNY,

          Thanks for sharing. Always a pleasure to read thoughts of an experienced, knowledgable tennis viewer/observer. I wasn’t even born in the borg era so wonder how it might have been like.
          The guy was unique and history will ALWAYS remember him.

          Reply

          • Yeah!…Agree with VR!..Always loved to read younger version of Nny talking about tennis..u know since i still p@#’d in my pants at that time..so i didn’t know a thing about Borg & clans tennis..

          • VR,

            Thanks for that! I am always happy to talk about the first tennis love of my life. I do grateful that Rafa has stayed in the game , despite the injuries and tough times. He is very resilient.

            I just wanted to say that it’s been great to have you back here talking tennis. I took a while off and then came back right before the AO started.

            It would not be the same if you were not here to do your analysis and in depth discussion of Rafa’s game!
            😀

          • @MA, LOL!

            NNY,

            Thanks for your kind words. Hope everything is well at your end!

            Yeah it’s good to be discussing tennis again. I think the tennis community here has grown and is richer now.

            I almost didn’t come back to post here but I guess I am back for now…

        • Thanks NNY for your comment about Borg. Wow, I think Borg at that time was a fitter player than what Rafa is now in the modern era. I mean he playing 30+ shots rallies and yet not getting injured. He winning the channel slams thrice was mighty impressive because of the slow clay/quick grass back then.

          I agree, that had he not lost his desire and passion for the sport, he might win some more slams and who knows may be the so called ‘Goat’.

          Reply

    • Personally, I don’t think Borg could handle the fact that by 1981 McEnroe was better than he was. If Mac had a fraction of the focus and commitment that Federer has, he would have dominated the entire 80s (in 1981 he was only 22).

      Imo, he was the greatest tennis talent ever seen before Federer came along.

      Shame he’s such a prick.

      Reply

    • Is strange how Murray hardly gets a mention on this site .Apart from his two Wimbledon titles, his performances at Queens club were some of the best ever seen.

      Reply

      • I love Murray but I wouldn’t put him in the same grass elite as mentioned above. Becker is not quite in that strata either imo as great as he was.

        Reply

        • True. Murray was beaten by Rafa thrice at Wimbledon – 2008, 2010 and 2011 and beaten by Fed in 2012 and 2015.
          Murray had beaten Djoko at Wimbledon once, in 2013 final, but unlike Djoko, he couldn’t beat Fed or Rafa at Wimbledon.

          I would think that Fedal and Djoko > Murray on grass when they’re all playing their best tennis.

          Reply

          • But ls, he lost to Fed in 2012 after the roof was closed.Then went on to beat Nole and Fed to win his gold medal.

          • Best of three match vs Djoko; final vs Fed no doubt was Bo5 but Fed looked spent after his long match vs Delpo in the SF.

            Problem with Murray in BO5 is that he couldnt sustain a high level long enough to beat the other three guys who are all more offensive than him.

          • Exactly lucky.

            Still, I believe that had the roof remained opened (as it should have), Murray would have righted the ship and beaten Federer on that day. He had the belief and epic matches like Wimby finals can have more than one turning point – but the roof prevented that. Federer – on grass – indoors no less, is a very difficult challenge for Muzza over five.

  106. Also I know Rafa is much better of a clay court and even on a hard court but I think Rafa’s grass court form is pretty good from 2006-2010 and in 2017 (lost to a grass court specialist). He had a good chance to make the final last year

    Reply

    • I’d say he was excellent on grass in 2011 also where he only lost in the final (in his fifth consecutive Wimbledon event) only losing to Novak in a form that nobody could touch at the time.

      Reply

  107. He’s good on grass,but his knee problem prevents him bending low enough and is used to explain his defeats over the past six years. How would he have done on the traditional low bouncing courts of I wouldn’t like to guess.

    Reply

    • Same for Federer. No guarantee that he’d be the same on the faster, less consistent grass where the ball wasn’t so predictable preventing him from taking the ball so early.

      I think as long as his knees were good like they were from 2006-2011 with five straight final appearances, Rafa would do fine.

      Reply

      • 👍Hawkeye, you’re right. When Rafa’s knees were healthy, he’s perfectly fine playing on grass – watch him at Wimbledon from 2006-2008, no issues bending his knees when taking on Fed’s slices and returning them with interest with his DTL FH that had Fed scrambling to reach them, when most of Fed’s opponents would at best sliced the ball CC right back at Fed and many netted the ball while doing so.

        Reply

      • Rafa is vulnerable on grass more now . Not like he was not earlier. He had a couple of five-setters in 2010 and was little lucky to scrape through. He always has little trouble against big servers on grass.

        I dont think its the case with knees only.

        Reply

        • On grass, not only Rafa was vulnerable to big server/big hitter. Fed had his problems against Cilic at Wimbledon too in 2015; even against Roddick, a player he owned, he was pushed to the limit at the Wimbledon 2009 final; Djoko too was pushed to the limit many times – by Delpo at Wimbledon 2013, by Cilic in 2014.

          Reply

          • Exactly lucky. How many players in the modern era made it to five straight Wimbledon finals of events entered. Only Borg, McEnroe, Fed and Rafa.

            Doesn’t matter about five sets. It matters who wins.

          • How many five setters Rafa has played with non Top 10 big servers in grass. How many for Fed and Djoker. You will get an answer.

            I am not including post 2011 or pre 2006 losses.

  108. Roger just posted a pic on Instagram thanking the fans in Melbourne for their support during the tournament. And he also says “Can’t wait until next year” at the end. #phew 😅

    Reply

  109. Novak beat Federer twice at W, although i dont believe the Federer of old in his prime would lose to Novak twice at W, and not making excuses Novak came from nowhere to have this amazing year in 2011, and beat Rafa in the W final after Rafa went off the boil, Rafa came close in 2007, before cracking the case in 2008, his record is better now at the USO winning 3 of the 4 finals hes made, so his best chance of GS away from clay is the USO going forward ….

    Reply

  110. Since we’re on this topic, I wonder the grass of the 1980s, how quick/slow was that compared to the 1990s and to post 2002.

    People are complaining that the grass is slow now, enabling the retrievers to win on them, but if they revert the surface to 1990s quickness, it’ll skew towards favoring the big servers esp with modern string technology.

    How about reverting to 1980s pace?

    PS. I dont see why Rafa, Djoko and Murray winning at Wimbledon was because of grass slowing down, as if theyre not good enough skill wise to win on grass.

    They beat Delpo or Cilic or Raonic on grass just like what Fed could do; I dont see why it favored them but not Fed (who won more Wimbledon titles than any one of them and all of them combined).

    Reply

  112. It’s debatable since they never played each other on fast grass.
    But if you look at the evidence on fast hard court,Fed does have the edge over his main rivals.
    Now,I’m not saying that edge would transfer to grass,but it’s an indicator.

    Reply

      • Yes, there were a lot more bad bounces on the grass back in the day.Great leveller.
        OTOH, todays grass, if it were faster, would still suit Federer better than his main rivals.
        So , IMO,its not a very good revision to put Fed v Nole/Rafa on Eighties grass compared to a faster version of todays grass.

        Reply

        • Not at all an “equalizer”.

          Sampras would beat Federer more often than not on fast grass. He owned it. Virtually unbeatable. That’s a fact lol.

          #EndOf

          Reply

        • Big Al,

          You’re assuming they couldn’t do it against Fed based on their game now; but, if all along the grass was quick, you think they would grow up playing this way on grass?

          As far as I know, they’re way more aggressive than they’re now when they were younger; so I won’t be surprised they would rush the net more often playing on quick grass.

          Rafa as a 17 yo in 2003 even tried some S&V on grass. Had the grass remained quick, one thing I know Rafa’s coach Toni would do was to get Rafa to improve his serve during his early days, bringing forward the improved serve (of 2010) to as early as 2005/2006 perhaps?

          Reply

          • Maybe LS,but what about their development and later success on clay?Would that be affected by this more aggressive game that you think Toni should have developed? Then there’s the adjustment from clay to fast grass,very few players could ever do that successfully as you well know.

          • Being aggressive doesnt mean you cant win on clay – watch how Rafa played at FO2017!

            In fact Rafa could be better off playing aggressive tennis on clay, grinding less and saving his body!

            Rafa would still be his physically strong and powerful self whether the surfaces are quick or slow; and it’ll bode well for him to play aggressive tennis on both clay and grass as that makes the transition from one surface to the next easier thus winning the channel slam on slow clay fast grass plausible.

            I really dont see any detrimental effect on Rafa or his clay court legacy had he played a more aggressive style of tennis from day one.

          • And, if you’ve watched Rafa played on clay in 2003, you would notice that he was very aggressive even on clay and he beat Albert Costa (ranked 7)the 2002 FO champion at MC Masters and Moya (ranked 4) the 1998 FO champion at Hamburg Masters (though he lost in the next round both times to Coria and Gaudio respectively).

            He became more defensive later on as he started reaching his prime I suspect that’s because 1) the courts were slowing down and 2) he had physically reached his prime and so played the defence/offence game which was very effective on the slowed down surfaces (Djoko played a similar style too once he reached his physical peak in 2011).

          • But… I’ve to add, I love Rafa for using his tactical brain to solve problems out there; I certainly don’t want to see a Rafa who just plays short point tennis all the time and lost the point construction ability and not making full use of his tactical brain. To me, tennis is not only played with racket skills, but also played using the brain ( and of course good or even great footwork as well).

            I would like a more offensive version of Rafa who plays a great defence/offence game but shorten points on grass and quicker surfaces.

          • Lucky, I agree with you about Rafa’s aggressiveness at RG2017- personally, I actually think that may have been the most truly aggressive I’ve seen him play, on any surface! It looked to me like he was stepping into the court, and going for his shots sooner, more consistently and effectively than I recall ever seeing him.

            I am curious to hear your opinion, Lucky, on why you think Rafa has played the way he played on clay in 2017 with as much consistency on other court conditions. Sure, he showed some great agressiveness in Beijing and Shanghai, but it’s been quite inconsistent compared to how well he did it on clay last year.

            Do you think it could be because on clay he has a little more time to wind up for his big shots, as well as a little more time to move into position for said shots, due to the relatively slower court speed? Or could it maybe be that the slightly higher bounce of the clay court makes it a little more comfortable for him to go for his shots sooner and with more authority? Or do you think that there’s no physical reason for it, and that he’s just mentally so comfortable being on a clay court? What do you think? You’ve pointed out many times how relentlessly aggressive he was on clay last year, and wondered out loud at times why Rafa wasn’t playing that way. I’m interested to hear your take on this.

          • Whoops! I made a big typo, Lucky! I meant to ask why you think Rafa has NOT played as consistently aggressive on the other surfaces! Wow, that one typo completely ruins the whole post haha. Please disregard it!

          • Confidence!

            To me Rafa’s aggressive game can be played on any surface but what’s important is his confidence. It’s on clay that he can truly feel so confident and at ease because he grows up playing on clay.

            I’m not going to talk about his earlier days as Ive said enough; but I saw in 2010 and 2013 how great he was playing on the HCs (and the quicker ones) – Montreal/ Cincy in 2013 and Tokyo in 2010, even if we want to classify the USO court as medium slow.

            I personally liked his Tokyo 2010 tournament a lot, after watching the matches again, I felt I’d almost forgotten just how good he was back in 2010 on the HCs – big serve (serving 18 aces in a BO3 match), aggressive hitting, great footwork, hardly missing anything.

            Who can forget his big serving at the USO in 2010, but his aggressive play at Canada/Cincy in 2013 was truly impressive, playing close to the baseline, stepping inside the court often and beating Djoko at Montreal SF, and Raonic and Isner both big server in the two finals.

            I feel he was playing confidently in those two years after having great results on clay. I think he felt the same way at Beijing and Shanghai in 2017 after winning at USO but too bad he suffered an injury during Shanghai.

            He was playing quite well at Wimbledon last year even without playing a warm up event, he certainly wasn’t defensive in his first three rounds; and up his level in the last three sets in R4 after losing the first two.

          • Exactly LS. Well said.

            I remember Rafa being so happy after winning Wimbledon in 2010 talking to McEnroe about getting it done at the USO. He was beaming with confidence and he was right.

            Confidence is everything and is what makes all the difference at the elite level.

  114. Thats why ive always loved the idea that we have a number of all time greats rather than one whos the great-est ever, IMO tennis doesnt merely revolve around one player and his/her achievements, its bigger than one player ….

    Reply

    • I agree, there are many all time greats but there is a best player in every sports and tennis has a current best player today.
      His name is…🤣.

      Reply

    • Obviously neither would be terribly likely. Practically speaking, the Fed on clay possibility would be less probable right now simply for the reason that he is unlikely to even play the clay court season. I would be surprised if he played it, and I don’t think he will. Nor do I think he should, he is old, clay is a tough surface that does not suit his game. In fact his game is probably less suited to clay than it ever has been. Points will be longer and more drawn out, he’ll be forced to defend quite a bit, and he’ll have to spend a lot of time on court. Despite Fed being no clay slouch (Correct me if wrong but I think he’s top 10 for win % at the French, 1 FO, made five finals and was only likely to be beaten by Rafa), he is probably more vulnerable now on clay than he’s ever been. Don’t forget, the
      risk of injury, which is apparently more likely for Fed on clay (clay should be easier on the knees, perhaps injury is likelier mainly because of the exertion/time on court? I don’t know). The injury thing is even more of a worry as it would really harm his Wimbledon chances too. Plus, even though he’s pretty good at starting quickly with little run-up, he’d surely still have to play at least one lead-up. Again, the more he plays, the more chance of injury. At this stage in his (anyone’s) career, injuries are to be more expected than ever, and the risk would just go up the more the schedule is packed.

      Hell, even if Rafa was out of the French before it started, it would be risky. There are other players who would fancy their chances over this version of Fed on clay, e.g. Wawrinka, Thiem, Djoko if he’s close to fitness. Maybe Zverev too, Chung if he could somehow recover from that mental & physical capitulation at the AO – which is a lot to ask, but I feel like Chung has a pretty good attitude, at least relative to the rest of the next-gen. If Rafa were somehow out (don’t worry Rafa fans, he will surely be there, and be favourite) Fed may be so tempted by the possibility of a 2nd FO that he would go for it. And it would really add to his resume, more than anything else right now, and even with Rafa gone. But I think it would still be a bad decision, and imo he’d still be substantially less likely to win the FO than any other slam.

      Rafa at Wimbledon? Despite the poor showings and injuries during 2012 – 2015 showed last year that he can still play decent grass tennis. Problem is, big servers can hold against him too easily when he’s standing far back, and then take a free swing at his service games. On his day though, he’s still good enough to be favourite against most big servers…it’s just that he’d likely have to beat a few of them to win it, even with a good draw. And then there’s the risk of injury too, the soreness in the knees etc.

      In way, the two situations kinda mirror each other, and both are pretty low percentage outcomes. I think there is very little splitting them. Rafa on grass might just be slightly more likely. Even though Fed’s not had the same early exits of 2012-2015 on clay, he hasn’t actually played the FO since 2015, so he is a bit of an unknown on the surface, at his age, and with a different approach. Rafa made it out of the first few rounds okay last year, and was beaten by a pretty good Muller, who went down to Cilic in 5.

      TLDR: Nadal, because he’s at least got *some* recent form which is okay, and he’s probably going to actually play the tournament.

      Reply

      • Nah, on grass Rafa didn’t stand way back to return serves, you got it wrong there!

        Considering the fact he didn’t play any warm up event on grass last year, and still reached R4 without dropping a set, beating Khachanov (a big server and big hitter who played well vs Fed at Halle) along the way, he wasn’t playing badly. It’s because he didn’t start well against Muller who’s red hot during the grass season, had to fight hard to level the match at 2-2 and went the distance in the fifth set before losing.

        As long as his knees hold up, he should be able to play well against the big servers/big hitters, as I feel his serve is better now than during 2015/2016.

        Fed without playing any warm up event on clay won’t go far at the FO; after 2012, he hadn’t reached any SF at the FO even after playing warm up events on clay. I think Thiem, A Zverev or even a Stan who should be back on clay by then would pose problems for Fed even when Rafa is absent.

        Reply

        • I wasn’t saying Rafa stood way back last time, I remember the debate on here and how he decided to stand closer to the baseline, just thought he might try and do it because he seems very comfortable with that tactic. If he’s willing to do it on a medium-fast HC, is grass that much crazier? Either way, I think it’s a bad idea.

          Fed probably wouldn’t go far on clay without a warm-up yes, but if he were 1-2 seed he would probably get a couple of nice rounds to get used to the competition. In his 2015 appearance he did still get to the QF’s, lost to Wawrinka in 3 (not common) but Wawa was of course the eventual winner. Again though, I don’t think he’ll play, and I think that’s the right call.

          Reply

          • In 2015 Fed did play a few warm ups, won Istanbul, lost to Djoko at Rome final, still couldn’t make it past the QF at FO. In 2014 and 2015 he was seeded top three and he’s younger. Fed is not going to grind on clay and then expects to still do well on grass, he’s wise enough not to take any risk last year.

          • I think we mostly agree here Luckystar. Fed would be silly to play the FO, even with big name players out it would not be worth the risk given Wimby is around the corner.

          • And Rafa is not going to stand way back to return serves on grass because the ball bounces lower on grass, so Rafa would be at a disadvantage.

          • True, and really he should be playing the points as short as possible anyway. I guess the other big factor for him is how the clay season goes, given the short turnaround. (1) Does he play the same schedule as last year, and (2) can he win the FO without difficult matches? I think the answer to both is probably ‘yes’, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea imo to drop a lead-up tournament, despite the points loss.

      • you’re right, Rafa has a good grass game. If he got a draw without many big servers of grass court specialists he has a real chance of winning Wimbledon

        Reply

      • TWD, I personally would love to see Fed play RG this year, without any warm-up. Sure it’s hard to put his chances really high, but you never know, and especially if he does well in the remaining HCs he would go in with a lot of confidence. If he doesn’t play clay warm-ups he would be well-rested as well.

        Imo, another RG title would be worth *much* more to Fed than any other (just as, imo, another non-clay slam or even WTF would mean more for Nadal than another RG title). Even if it reduces Fed’s chances at Wimby I think it would be worth it. And if Roger is healthy, I like his odds to go deep in the tournament. Just my take.

        Reply

        • I think you’re wrong on both counts.

          Federer has intimated several times that he values more Wimbledon titles over anything else and Rafa values the French titles over any other slam. No way he’d take a non slam event over a slam of any kind. That goes I’m sure for any player at any time in history. Just ridiculous to think otherwise.

          Just my take.

          Reply

  119. I Dont mind plausable reasoning, Nadal winning W again granted is most unlikely, however what really grates on me, is people giving an opinion and stating it out to be a bona fide fact, at the begining of 2012 us fans heard, he aint winning off clay again, err correct me if im wrong but hasnt he won the USO twice since ?, he will never be number 1 again, err hasnt he been number 1 twice since?, he will retire at the end of 2013 ,err isnt he still playing? blah, blah, blah, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again, so brilliant to shut a few of the naysayers up 😉

    Reply

    • Rafa winning at Wimbledon again is not unlikely, it depends on the draw and also how he plays.

      He needs to stay fit and healthy, plays aggressive short point tennis with confidence. He really needs to play warm up event to at least give him some confidence playing on grass, and I hope he doesnt adopt a wait and see attitude when playing on grass but to come out all guns blazing.

      I feel he shows too much respect to guys who serve very well when he plays on grass, should just concentrate on his own serve, and tries to be clutch in TBs when he has to play them (when he couldnt break his opponent’s serve); just keeps trusting his own game and not tense up at crucial moments (he was tense and made crucial errors in the TB vs Kyrgios in 2014; he couldnt make any adjustment to his return position against Muller in the fifth set in 2017, for examples).

      Reply

      • I am busy so I can’t write much but I am confident Rafa won’t win Wimbledon again, he just can’t even with a good draw.

        He had an amazing draw in AO(2018) but couldn’t, I can’t see Rafa winning Wimbledon again, it’s close to impossible.

        Reply

        • Stanley he has an injury during the AO, he was making it to the final most likely. Alison is right, you should have said I think he won’t win Wimbledon instead of, he won’t win Wimbledon. Personally Rafa could win it again. If he avoids big servers he has a great chance.

          Reply

          • Olly, respectfully, you are talking to a racist and misogynist. Two examples of litterally hundreds he’s posted here. Your choice of course but I just wanted to let you know. The rest of us tend to ignore his bait.

            Stanley said:

            “when a terrorist murders an innocent person there motivation is found in the quran the words of muhammed & allah.”

            https://tenngrand.com/non-tennis-forum/comment-page-24/#comment-269704

            and…

            “murdering an innocent baby in the womb is EVIL, WICKED, DEMONIC etc and those who support these BARBARIC organizations that have murdered hundreds of millions of defenceless babies are worse than Adolf hitler.”

            https://tenngrand.com/2017/01/09/kyrgios-wears-f-donald-trump-shirt-following-win-nadal/comment-page-11/#comment-250364

          • Ricky:

            Once again I’ll ask you remove these comments and to warn Hawkeye for an inappropriate post on what is supposed to be a tennis forum. I’d ask you to remove Stanley’s response on the next page as well.

            I realize that it’s a big ask to monitor every instance on these pages where Hawkeye is just being a garden-variety dickhead.

            But surely it’s not too much to require that totally unprovoked and gratuitous allegations or insinuations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. be confined to the non-tennis forum.

            Again, I’d ask you to warn Hawkeye that he will be banned if he continues in this vein.

            To others who agree with me: I’ll again ask you to let Ricky know that you don’t want this sort of commentary on the tennis pages of this forum; and that anyone who continues to engage in it should be banned.

          • I never said Rafa won’t win a title off clay, never become #1 or that he would retire at the end of 2013.

            What I am saying is that Rafa won’t win Wimbledon again, I don’t think it would ever happen again of course I could be wrong but I don’t think so.

            Rafa might win other GS’s but Wimbledon is highly unlikely.

  120. While we are on the subject of Wimbledon. On the 2nd of July big upsets have almost always happened. 2001- Federer defeats Sampras, 2010- Berdych beats Federer, 2011- Tsonga beats Federer, 2012- Rosol defeats Nadal 2013- Stakhovsky defeats Federer, 2014- Dimitrov beats Murray, 2015- Brown defeats Rafa, 2016- Querrey defeats Djokovic 2017- started on 3rd of July
    2018- first round starts on 2nd of July

    Reply

    • Hawktard you truly have no moral compass and the depths of your moral depravity it’s bottomless it has no end, very soon God will reward you according to your evil works and believes.

      Your short life will end some day and if you don’t repent from your wickedness and passionate defense for EviL that is demonic and obviously ungodly, you will regret it for eternity that never ends, believe me you might think there are no consequences but God cannot be mocked or deceived, whatsoever you sow you will reap it in the end and the end is near.

      I am a racist and a misogynist because I tell you the truth 😂🤣😂, well done, I will gladly wear it as a crown but you “my friend” will spend eternity in regret and God’s righteous Judgement will stand if you don’t repent from your wicked ways.

      I encourage you to turn around now before it’s too late, open your eyes, open your ears, open your heart, see the errors of your ways, hear the truth that is before you daily, don’t cast it away but receive it sincerely, don’t harden your heart, open it, invite God and He will change your life for the better.

      God is rich in mercy and grace, if you call upon Him, He will answer you, He will forgive you and make you His own.
      The wages of our sins is eternal death but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.

      Trust in Jesus Christ today!

      Reply

  122. Stanley i wasnt talking about you, it was more like a generalisation, the arrogant tennis-x lot that couldnt wait to right him off, it was wonderful to see them leave with egg on their faces, and stick two fingers in their direction ….
    Thanks NNY 😉

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes

Skip to toolbar