It’s not often that Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Alexander Zverev, Juan Martin Del Potro, Dominic Thiem, Kei Nishikori, and Nick Kyrgios can land in the same half of a slam and the draw is still thought of as balanced. In fact, that has never been the case. But it is now, because almost all of the aforementioned players head into the All-England Club with some questions and arguably the two best grass-courters in the world—2017 Wimbledon finalists Roger Federer and Marin Cilic—find themselves on the other side. Also in the Federer-Cilic half are Grigor Dimitrov, Borna Coric, and accomplished grass-courters Kevin Anderson, Sam Querrey, Milos Raonic, and Gilles Muller.
The result should be a wildly entertaining fortnight from start to finish.
Federer’s quarter
Although the bottom half of the draw is tougher overall, Federer may not be able to completely fly through his quarter. Dusan Lajovic isn’t the easiest of first-round opponents and possible third-round foe Ivo Karlovic is someone nobody ever wants to meet at Wimbledon (just ask Lleyton Hewitt!). Federer is also on a collision course for the last 16 with Coric, who just upset the Swiss 7-6(6), 3-6, 6-2 in the Halle title match. Coric, though, could be in line for a difficult third-rounder against Antalya runner-up Adrian Mannarino.
Anderson and Querrey lurk on the other side of this section. The two big servers consistently enjoy success at the Grand Slam level; in fact, they have faced each other in the second week at two of the past four majors (Querrey won 5-7, 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-7(11), 6-3) in the Wimbledon fourth round before Anderson prevailed 7-6(5), 6-7(9), 6-3, 7-6(6) in the U.S. Open quarters). Their final on the indoor hard courts of New York earlier this season required a third-set tiebreaker. Querrey, though, has a tough draw—potentially with Sergiy Stakhovsky in the last 64 and either Richard Gasquet or Gael Monfils in the third round. Anderson could run into Muller, a 2017 Wimbledon quarterfinalist, in the last 32.
Best first-round matchup – (23) Richard Gasquet vs. Gael Monfils
This has five sets written all over it. Monfils has been ousted from Wimbledon the last three years by fellow Frenchmen, and in five sets every time (against Gilles Simon in 2015, Jeremy Chardy in 2016, and Mannarino in 2017). The last three non-retirement matches between Monfils and Gasquet have all required deciding sets, including a 6-2, 6-7(7), 7-6(4) victory for Monfils in their most recent meeting last summer on the grass courts of Eastbourne. Gasquet recently triumphed in ‘s-Hetogenbosch, and although Monfils has struggled in 2018 he is coming off a decent semifinal performance in Antalya.
[polldaddy poll=10043298]
Best potential second-round matchup – (25) Philipp Kohlschreiber vs. Gilles Muller
Best potential third-round matchup – (16) Borna Coric vs. (22) Adrian Mannarino
Possible surprises – Many in the tennis world are going ahead and penciling in a second-Monday showdown between Federer and Coric in a rematch of the Halle final. Not so fast. Coric faces what could be a rough opener against Daniil Medvedev and Mannarino is a master on grass. The Frenchman, who is looking at a favorable draw through two rounds, could end up being Federer’s fourth-round opponent. Additionally, don’t be surprised if the expected Querrey vs. Anderson fourth-rounder becomes Muller vs. Stakhovsky.
[polldaddy poll=10043291]
Cilic’s quarter
Federer would have preferred to see Dimitrov instead of Cilic on this side of the bracket, just as Cilic surely wanted to show up in Nadal’s half instead of Federer’s. Aside from that, though, this is an outstanding draw for the third-seeded Croat. His nearest seed is an injury-plagued Filip Krajinovic and his two potential seeded fourth-round foes are Raonic and Lucas Pouille. Raonic is once again dealing with an injury (shoulder), while Pouille is a disappointing 5-9 in his last 14 tournament matches. The Frenchman also has a tricky opener on his hands with borderline grass-court specialist Denis Kudla.
Right now, of course, the big story in this section is a first-round battle between Dimitrov and Stan Wawrinka. Due to his long-term injury layoff, Wawrinka goes into the All-England Club unseeded and it left him at the mercy of the draw—which produced something worthy of a major semifinal when both men are at their best. Neither one is anywhere close to his best at the moment, which means the winner could be in trouble against either Stefanos Tsitsipas or Jared Donaldson in the third round.
Best first-round matchup — (6) Grigor Dimitrov vs. Stan Wawrinka
From a quality standpoint, this probably won’t be one to store in the video archives. Dimitrov has been unable to build on the momentum from his 2017 Nitto ATP Finals triumph and Wawrinka is still rusty as he returns from knee problems. The Bulgarian is just 19-12 this season and 11th in the race to London, while the Swiss is 5-9 and coming off a blowout loss to Murray in the Eastbourne opening round. Still, Wawrinka is three-time major champion, Dimitrov is a former Wimbledon semifinalist, and they are two of the biggest names in the field. This is without question the marquee matchup of the first two days.
[polldaddy poll=10043301]
Best potential second-round matchup – (9) John Isner vs. Steve Johnson
Best potential third-round matchup – (13) Milos Raonic vs. (17) Lucas Pouille
Possible surprises — Isner has been the No. 1 American for much of the last decade and he is the No. 9 seed this fortnight, but it is a different duo from the United States that has a much better chance of faring well at SW19. Kudla advanced to the fourth round in 2015 and his draw could open up nicely if he upsets Pouille in the opening round. Meanwhile, Steve Johnson should be the considered the favorite if he faces Isner in the last 64. Johnson has won four consecutive meetings with his countryman and is far better-suited for grass. If the world No. 42 wins that one, his draw opens up to a significant extent.
[polldaddy poll=10043294]
Zverev’s quarter
Zverev and Thiem also played in the same section of the French Open draw and managed to book their spots (Zverev just barely) in a head-to-head quarterfinal collision. What are the chances they successfully battle into another quarterfinal contest at Wimbledon? Unlikely at best. Thiem just about warrants the “clay-court specialist” stigma and his road is a rough one, likely featuring Karen Khachanov in the second round, either Fernando Verdasco or Frances Tiafoe thereafter, and Djokovic to begin week two. Zverev could run into either Kyrgios or Nishikori on the second Monday.
Can Djokovic seize an opportunity in this quarter and take his 2018 comeback to a whole new level? Things have been trending in the right direction for the Serb since he unceremoniously exited Indian Wells and Miami, with a semifinal run in Rome, a quarterfinal performance at the French Open, and a runner-up result at Queen’s Club (had championship point against Cilic before losing in three sets). Djokovic should coast through two rounds in London before potentially running into Kyle Edmund.
Best first-round matchup — (30) Fernando Verdasco vs. Frances Tiafoe
Two of the biggest forehands on tour will be on display in this one. That is just about where the similarities end, because Tiafoe is in the early stages of his career and Verdasco is a 34-year-old lefty who is in his 18th season on the circuit. Although the Spaniard has never won a grass-court title and only one of his 23 ATP finals has come on the greenery, he has reached the second week at Wimbledon four times—including a quarterfinal appearance in 2013. Tiafoe beat Robin Haase during first-round action at the All-England Club and the American recently made it to the quarters at Queen’s Club. This should be a good one; and a fun one.
[polldaddy poll=10043302]
Best potential second-round matchup – (4) Dominic Thiem vs. Karen Khachanov
Best potential third-round matchup – (12) Novak Djokovic vs. (21) Kyle Edmund
Possible surprises — Although this section is completely loaded, no seed is a lock to go deep. If an unseeded player steals the semifinal spot, it will almost certainly be Khachanov. The 22-year-old Russian is 5-2 in his last seven matches, reached the Wimbledon third round last summer (lost to Nadal), and his draw of David Ferrer in the first round and Thiem in the second really isn’t bad. Don’t sleep on lucky loser Bernard Tomic, either. Like it or not, the Aussie begins with another lucky loser (Hubert Hurkacz) and could parlay an opening win into a real run if Nishikori and Kyrgios are less than 100 percent.
[polldaddy poll=10043285]
Nadal’s quarter
Nadal will not mind his draw at all even though his side of the bracket is unquestionably deeper from top to bottom. None of the seeds in the Spaniard’s eighth—Diego Schwartzman, Fabio Fognini, and Marco Cecchinato—enjoy playing on grass. Schwartzman has never won a single match on this surface and Cecchinato had never won one until he picked up two victories this past week in Eastbourne. Speaking of Eastbourne, grass guru Mischa Zverev captured his first career ATP title and is Nadal’s likely third-round adversary at the All-England Club. Zverev is expected to be the world No. 1’s most difficult proposition prior to the quarterfinals.
The other half of this section is completely up for grabs, as the seeds are vulnerable and the unseeded floaters are dangerous. Del Potro has not yet played on grass in 2018, David Goffin is struggling, Jack Sock is in absolutely disastrous form, and Denis Shapovalov is a novice on the green stuff. Whoever emerges from the early-round quartet consisting of Murray, Benoit Paire, Shapovalov, and Chardy could go a long way.
Best first-round matchup — Benoit Paire vs. Andy Murray
This not a good matchup for Paire, as a no-nonsense Murray has been able to tune out the Frenchman’s shenanigans en route to a 2-0 lead in the head-to-head series (including a 7-6(1), 6-4, 6-4 victory in the Wimbledon fourth round last summer). The Scot can handle his opponent’s firepower with strong defense and can exploit the underdog’s forehand. All of that being said, this is obviously not the same Murray that Paire saw in 2016 and 2017. Early returns in the former world No. 1’s 2018 comeback have been encouraging, but he still has just three matches under his belt (a win over Wawrinka plus losses to Kyrgios and Edmund).
[polldaddy poll=10043322]
Best potential second-round matchup – (5) Juan Martin Del Potro vs. Feliciano Lopez
Best potential third-round matchup – (5) Juan Martin Del Potro vs. Andy Murray
Possible surprises — Muller (twice), Lukas Rosol, and Dustin Brown are among those who have handed Nadal losses at the All-England Club. What do they have in common? Underdogs with big serves who can shorten points and quite simply take the racket out of Nadal’s hands. That sounds a lot like the older Zverev brother, who delivered another serve-and-volleying master class from start to finish in Antalya. On the other side of this quarter, watch out for the unseeded contingent of Chardy, Feliciano Lopez, and Matthew Ebden.
[polldaddy poll=10043284]
[polldaddy poll=10042978]
discuss
I am delighted that somebody voted for Fabio Fognini to win Nadal’s quarter. In other news, Federer early rounds aren’t all that easy. We could see a set or two taken from the Maestro.
Fedfans (aka the Maestronians) are always delighted when someone beats Rafa.
Hilarious that 86 people here think that Nadal will win Wimbledon.
Like I’ve said, Rafa fans on this site are like religious fanatics.
not that hilarious given the state of the rest of the tour
says a lot more about the tour than it does about Rafa fans on this site LOL
Current state of the tour is bad compared to Rosol, Dustin Brown, and Steve Darcis?
Nadal can’t win consistently on grass since he was 25. It has nothing to do with his competition. He’s just not that good on grass and certainly won’t be winning Wimbledon at 32.
And yes, it’s hilarious that 86 true believers think otherwise.
The state of the rest of the tour is such that the aged and decrepit have split the last 6 slams between them. Nadal won the US Open, for crying out loud.
Sure, the stars would have to align just right for Nadal to even find himself in week 2…but even with all that, It’s not like it’s all that outrageous.
Oh, and hi Cheryl, nice to see you posting here like during the good old days of tennistalk! Welcome!
the #GloryDays
Joe, the current state is just that bad that an old man like Fed could still win without dropping a set! It is worse than 2013 when a Stakhovsky could beat the 7th time Wimbledon holder who’s then four years younger than when he’s at 2017!
There’s no Rosol, no Kyrgios, no Brown and no Muller standing in Rafa’s way this time before the QF; the only danger may be Mischa. Let’s see what Rafa can do this time before writing him off completely!
Who are Rosol, Darcis, Brown? Relative nobodies. That’s the whole point: Nadal has been losing to relative nobodies at Wimbledon for years. If he can lose to those guys, there’s no reason to think he can’t lose to the guys he’s likely to face in the first 4 rounds this year. Sure, he might beat them all, but I honestly don’t see why anyone is at all confident.
Consider this. Suppose, before Fed made his announcement to skip RG this year, that I had predicted him to make the RG final if he played -not to win, mind you, just to make the final. Imagine the reaction here. Yet, in the years that Fed has played RG since 2011, his worst result was as good as Nadal’s best result (R4) at wimby during that time. Most of Fed’s losses occurred in the QF and SF to top 10 players: Djokovic, Wawrinka, Tsonga. The worst was Gulbis, who made the semi-finals that year (2014).
Based on recent track records, Fed’s chances to make the final at RG this year, though not especially high, were much better than Nadal’s to win wimby next month. That’s why I think it’s hilarious that so many here are predicting Nadal to win.
p.s. Fed was a lot better in 2017, with the larger racquet, than his injured, smaller-racquet self was in 2013.
Ha, Fed won Wimbledon not because of his bigger racket! It’s because there’s no Djoko stopping him! Or players like Tsonga, Berdych getting old and no where near their 2010/2011 level!
Fed reaching final of FO? Not when he lost early at the clay Masters to Tom Dick or Harry; Fed could no longer grind on clay with his aging body. There’re just too many clay court players who could stop him at the FO; there are not too many who’re good on grass, only the big servers who could trouble anyone, but not all of them have the belief against big four.
Rafa fans are hopeful because there’re no big server in Rafa’s path this time, except some S&V players but they may be fatigued after B2B weeks of play. Sometimes, the draw plays a part in determining who will go far.
And you said recent track record?? How recent? He had missed the clay season for two years before 2018, and you still think he had good track record on clay? Not when he lost playing first match at Miami in 2018!
You kept talking about Rafa losing to Rosol, Brown… but had you taken into consideration what happened to Rafa then? He was suffering from knee issues in 2012 and had to take six months off to treat his knee. In 2015, he was losing even on clay, so don’t talk about him losing on grass! Kyrgios and Muller weren’t nobodies on grass, if Fed could lose to Gulbis in R4 on clay, I don’t see why Rafa losing to Kyrgios and Muller on grass in R4 was any worse.
Lucky, it’s unfortunately typical of you to ignore the factual basis of my argument. It’s not in doubt that since 2011, in the RG tournaments he has played, Federer has performed better than Nadal has in the wimbledon tournaments he’s played. That’s simply a fact.
You’ll note that I did not say Federer’s chances of making the final this year, had he played, were especially high. I know he’s gotten older and he hasn’t played on clay for quite some time. On the other hand, he’s won 3 of the last 4 slams he’s played, and he’s ranked #2 in the world. He hasn’t forgotten how to play on clay, I’m sure.
In any case, what I said stands: Federer’s chances of making the RG final this would have been higher, had he played, than Nadal’s are of winning the wimby coming up.
Kyrgios was ranked #144 when he beat Nadal.
Muller is average on grass, certainly not great. Nadal fans remember him because he’s beaten Rafa twice, but his best result before last year (QF) was to make R3 (did it twice).
One more thing: Steve Darcis is not a big server. He was ranked 135 when he beat Nadal in straight sets in the 1st round in 2013. That was in between Nadal winning RG and USO. If Rafa can lose on grass to Darcis even when he’s having that kind of year, he can lose to anyone.
Joe, we shall see how Rafa does this year on grass!
You said Muller was nobody on grass but he reached SF of Queens last year losing to Cilic the Wimbledon finalist, won at Netherlands on grass the week before and was ranked in the 20s. What mattered was not what he had done prior to 2017 when he beat Rafa, but what he could do in 2017 on grass! He’s not nobody on grass with his S&V game. Kyrgios was ranked 144 when he beat Rafa but that didn’t mean he’s a nobody when he rose quickly in the rankings after that to in the 50s, and everyone knew then how good his serve was and what potential he had.
Gulbis while he was ranked 17 when he beat Fed, had won nothing on clay so I don’t see losing to Gulbis on clay is anything better than losing to Muller on grass. Of course losing to a no.144 Kyrgios wasn’t something great but Kyrgios wasn’t a Rosol who faded away but had consistently moved up the rankings and had the game to play and win on grass.
You talked about Steve Darcis, but do you know Rafa was back from his six months break and had played many matches before grass; he had skipped the warm up event on grass and had not practised much on grass, hence he wasn’t even competitive vs Darcis – compared to his other losses on grass where he lost in four or five sets.
Ok my mistake, Gulbis did win at Nice that year on clay, a 250 event like Muller’s Netherlands title in 2017, so Fed losing to Gulbis on clay = Rafa losing to Muller on grass, not anything better.
Joe, I didn’t ignore the facts, but you mentioned ‘recent’ records on clay for Fed, how recent when he last played in 2016 and only five matches?
I’m a Federer fan,and I didn’t even pick him to win.Sadly.
But,after his first match,I’m a bit more hopeful
Joe Smith AT 12:01 AM,
It’s no surprise that you, Fedfan, use the expression ‘religious’ fanatics.
Having ‘religious experiences’ while watching an athlete has been a familiar thing for Fed devotees over a decade.
I have never had a religious experience, certainly not watching a professional athlete.
I do not obsessively detail every move of a player, as you do. In my book, that counts as a step beyond ordinary fandom, one I cannot understand.
It is evident that you care deeply about Nadal on a personal level, as do many other Rafans on this site. Doubtless that is one reason you react so violently to the slightest criticism of him, and also why you display such venom in everything you write about Federer.
Personally, I could care less about Federer as a person. Actually I probably prefer Nadal, who I think is a genuinely humble and honest person. (Though I have nothing against Federer personally). However, I don’t like the way Rafa plays tennis, particularly how slowly he plays, so I’m not a fan.
Joe Smith AT 7:53 AM,
Hmm. Instead of stalking Rafa fans, you should keep an eye on your own comrades.
Given that this forum is dominated by Rafa fanatics, I have more occasion to interact with them. As I’ve said, I find them generally more fanatical than the Fed fans on this site, such as Benny, Al, thinwhiteduke, Eugene, Kevin, and of course myself.
I have had numerous and lengthy exchanges with a bonafide religious fanatic who also happens to be a Federer fanatic. You can read them on the the non-tennis forum pages.
Joe Smith AT 9:30 AM,
You do NOT have to stalk Rafa fans on Rafa’s page!
As for the non-tennis forum, I don’t waste my time on the ‘lengthy exchanges’.
‘Stalk’ is an interesting choice of word. As Ricky has said, this is not a Rafa fan site (despite some appearances to the contrary), and the Nadal page is not the exclusive property of those who call themselves Nadal fans.
Why should you care where I or anyone posts?
Joe Smith asks AT 10:34 AM: “Why should you care where I or anyone posts?”
===
Hmm. It’s YOU, Fedfan, who cares what Rafa fans post on Rafa’s page.
‘Where’ vs ‘what’ makes all the difference.
Joe, Augusta08 isn’t worth trying to engage with on any rational argument. Except maybe , (just a hunch) , on why Tiger Woods hasnt won a major since his big meltdown.
Wow, I never made that connection. Any confirmation, Augusta?
Imo, there’s only one person on this site sufficiently irrational not to engage with, Al. I set the bar low, but not that low.
Another lie.
Joe Smith AT 8:15 PM,
Hmm. “On Rafa’s page” = where.
Big Al AT 12:26 AM.
I wonder what’s the connection between your comment about me and my post on JULY 1, 2018 AT 6:01 AM (i.e. the parent post):
https://tenngrand.com/2018/06/30/2018-wimbledon-draw-analysis/#comment-306798
Joe how does that make them religious fanatics 😂
Well, Benny, I said they were ‘like’ religious fanatics. In both cases, you have people believing things that aren’t supported by the evidence.
To be sure, they could both turn out to be right. Nadal might win Wimbledon. And the Messiah might return tomorrow.
The smart money says neither is happening.
As opposed to the closeted fanatic. Or hypocritical. Or in denial.
In a certain fed fanboy’s case (I’ll let you guess who that is Benny), all of the above would apply.
To be fair to Joe, he says Fed is unlikely to win Wimby because of his age. Nadal though , is even less likely.
Realistic argument , which I agree with.
Augusta08,just a hunch.Clue is your name.
Augusta08,just a hunch.Clue is your name.
People thinking Rafa can win does bud make them religious fanatics. I am really done with this kind of nonsensical thinking. Say you disagree and Rafa has no chance, but leave out the cheap shots at Rafa fans.
It actually does say something about the current state of the tour.
Sorry, does NOT make them religious fanatics! *
I think Roger do feel pressure going to Wimby this year…I mean,the indication of that is he lost to Coric at Halle coz he needs to win to maintain his No1 ranking at that time…Also,i think he also feel pressure of being chased by Rafa…When he’s got 17,Rafa got 14..And when he add to 20,suddenly Rafa close up that gap with 17…And he knew he don’t have much time left on his side..But,Rafa still 32..Logically he still have time to add more…At least from what Moya says…And i believe him…
Therefore,Wimby this year is very interesting to follow whether Rog can stay strong & not crumble with all the said pressure…Also wanna wish to Rafa,Roger,Novak,Andy & all players & ALL MY BELOVED RAFANZZZZ,FEDFANS,NOLEFANS & ANDYFANS ALL THE BEST OF LUCK TO U GUYZZZZ!!LET THE GAME BEGIN!!…WOOOHOOOO!!!
Mira, I happen to agree about the point Fed is feeling the pressure. Despite what Fed’s supporters want to believe, that Fed doesn’t care about the no.1 ranking, I do feel Fed really cares, especially where the records are concerned.
After seeing Rafa losing in the QF of AO and dropped lots of points, Fed decided to play Rotterdam when he originally didn’t plan to play, and so he snatched the no.1 position from Rafa; he’s obviously frustrated when not winning Halle and lost the no.1 ranking again. I think it’s not so much just the no.1 ranking, but pushing his record weeks at no.1 to more than his 302 weeks (before 2018) so that it’s harder for anyone to break that record.
To me, Fed is more interested in record breaking and holding as many records as possible, so he’s trying to win as many slams as possible to stay ahead of the field, especially with Rafa chasing from behind and Rafa is five years younger.
Ironically with the rise of Djoko (from 2011-2016), Djoko wasn’t only stopping Rafa from winning more slams to catch up with Fed, but he’s also stopping Fed from winning more slams! Now that Djoko suffered his slump, it’s back to Rafa going after Fed’s records again.
Since Djokovic won his last slam, Nadal hasn’t narrowed the slam gap, and has frequently been an extra slam behind, which may again be the case in a couple weeks.
He also still trails the WTF count, 6-0. That too may increase before both players retire.
Does it matter about the WTF if Rafa could exceed Fed in the slam counts? Nobody would look at WTF titles when one has > slam titles than the other.
The fact that three of the slam surfaces favoured Fed more than Rafa, yet Rafa still could stay just three slams behind and not worse, that shows how good Rafa is, above the other players not named Fed!
WTF counts for a lot, imo. I can’t see any reason it shouldn’t. I can think of two reasons why serious tennis fans should give it a lot of weight, even if slams are pretty much the only thing that count in the general public’s eye.
First, to win the WTF you have to beat a top 10 (top 8, actually) player at least four times, often five. I’m fairly confident that no one has ever won a slam having to beat that many top 10 players. In that respect, winning the WTF is harder than winning a slam.
The numbers bear this out. Whereas several players have won a tournament, including a GS, 7 or more times, the most a player has won the WTF (or ATP finals since 1970) is six (Fed), whereas Lendl, Sampras, and Djokovic have won 5.
Based on those two objective facts, the WTF is harder to win that any slam, which is why serious tennis fans should give it a lot of consideration.
It’s not that it’s more difficult to win than a slam, it’s laughable to say so when it’s BO3 and with one day rest in between the RR matches and one has to win five matches not seven. It’s just that players concentrate more on winning the slams, not so much the WTF.
The WTF is good to have, esp when one couldn’t lay hands on the slam trophies, like Davy and Dimi for examples. It’s played at the end of the year when many TOP players are tired, so the TOP two or three guys who are good on the HCs could still win it and beating the other guys with lopsided scorelines!
Rafa wasn’t bad at the WTF, it’s just that hes losing to the TOP two best players on indoor HCs, either in the SFs or in the finals. It just happens that indoor HC is Rafa’s worst surface. I can’t say Sampras is > Rafa just because he won five WTFs, when he couldn’t lay his hands on a single FO trophy.
BO3 has nothing to do with it. It’s the level of competition and the fact that so few have won it more than 4 times.
I am sure that it matters a lot to players to win the tournament. Maybe not as much as a slam, but more than any other tournament non-slam.
Whatever others thing, for me, Nadal would improve his GOAT status more by winning a couple of WTFs than he would by winning two more RGs. The latter barely moves his undoubted clay GOAT status, whereas the former would really add to his claim to be an all-time great player on all surfaces/styles.
For similar reasons, for Fed’s legacy I would count one more Fed RG title as much as two more wimby titles, and as much as 3 or more WTFs.
And you said level of competition? Look at 2014 WTF for example, where’s the competition when the scores were so lopsided! The players were either exhausted or wounded by the time they arrived at the WTF! Look at 2017 too when Rafa barely could play, and Sock doing nothing the whole year but won one Masters and he’s qualified for the event. What competition?
Yeah Lucky!I do feel Fed really cares about his ranking too…If not,he wouldn’t go to Halle after he won Stuttgart & jeopardizing his chances at Wimby right?I also think that he wouldn’t expect to win at Stuttgart at all…But Halle is his sacred place…he rarely failed there & thought maybe he could gained more points & extend his lead over Rafa…
But..Some Fedfans said,it’s a mistake to participate in B2B tourneys like that…Coz 1st..He’s not young anymore…2nd..When he played 2 weeks in a row,…He’ll be tired and he will exposed his weaknesses for all the players to see…That he got some chinks in his armour…And when Coric successfully exposed it…Bam!…That’s the signal for all players have been waiting for!…Now,players will go on court with xtra motivation & knowledge that they also have a chance to beat The Great Roger Federer…Fed can’t afford to have 4 or 5 setters at all…Not even once…
But,at the same time..we’re talking about Fed here!….Fed & Wimby is a great couple!Hehehe…I’m not surprised if he will lift his ‘lover’ once again in 2 weeks time!!ohohohhoo!!…..
I’ll be surprised tbh! If Coric could extend him so do others. I remember a Falla extending Fed to five sets in his first match in 2010. Or Cilic, and Raonic, extending Fed to five sets in 2016. If Fed is not as fit as he was in 2017, chances of him having to play four or five sets matches go up.
Yeah Lucky!…To be honest,i don’t have a feelings that Fed will win Wimby this year…I don’t have that vibe unlike last year…Even tho,he won Stuttgart,but he looks more shaky this year imo…If he got dragged a couple of 4 or 5 setters..he’s done i think…And he very possibly get Coric again in 4th,After that Querry who’s always produced his best at Wimby these last 2 years…And then Cilic who is in good form atm…So,very tough draw from 4th onwards for Fed i think…
Nah, that’s not a good way to gauge how difficult to win a tournament. Like I said, the players concentrate more on winning the slams. And, not all TOP eight players could win a slam!
AO – Djoko 6, Fed 6
FO – Rafa 11, Borg 6
Wimbledon – Fed 8, Sampras 7, Borg 5
USO – Fed 5, Sampras 5, Connors 5
WTF/YEC/Masters – Fed 6, Djoko 5, Sampras 5, Lendl 5
There are more players winning 5 or more titles at WTF/YEC than winning 5 or more titles at a particular slam. It’s just that Rafa (and Borg) are special on clay, just like Fed/Sampras are on grass.
On the HCs there are more players who are able to play well to win multiple titles.
Incorrect that you have to beat four top 8 players in WTF.
You can lose two matches and still win the title. Also, more often than not, Top 8 don’t even play due to exhaustion and injury.
Even Federer skipped the WTF final to rest for Davis cup final which he obviously put priority on over WTF. Of course he even admitted he decided to default to Nole not because he couldn’t play, but because he wouldn’t have a chance to win.
Same troll also now moving goalposts when he actually thought the big racquet would have won the French (not just making the final). Federer failed to win the French many times without Rafa stopping him so a sad excuse to say thats the only reason he only has one clay slam.
Cheryl nailed it. Rafa and Federer winning last six slams is more an indication of a relatively weak field, almost as bad as 2001-07 famous Weak Era.
Prior to the current Weak Era at this year’s AO, Federer hadn’t defended a slam title on ANY surface since 2008!
The common denominator is the relatively weak fields bookending the Golden Era during which Rafa and Nole dominated and Fed mostly worked on his SF streak.
Hawkeye is right, that one can lose 2 RR matches at the WTF and still has a chance to win the title as long as he wins the SF and the final, that means he needs to beat three, not five TOP eight guys to win the title and can afford to lose two matches out of five played. At a slam, no such luxury.
And no guarantee that those three opponents would be in the top 8 as more often than not they have to convince a lower ranked alternate to play (sometimes not even a top 20 player because they have no commitment to play and frequently put priority on doing nothing over playing a glorified promotional exhibition).
Okay, theoretically its possible to win WTF even after losing two matches but how many times it has happened. Rather I remember out of last 10 years, player who has won all the RR matches has gone on to win the title 7 or 8 times.
Anyway I dont think it makes any sense to take up debates with a bunch of idiots on this site especially those who predicted that Cilic and Coric would not be on Fed’s side of draws and those who are predicting that roof would be closed to favor Fed. Such dumpsters should be thrown out of the site.
You should change your name to hawkexal as you’re obviously more a fan of me than Federer.
(fedexol should check his medication)
#YoureWelcomeMyFan
Theres been quite a few Weak Eras according to you. But, maybe all are weak compared to the Golden One,which seems to conveniently coincide with Nadals most successful time on non-clay surfaces.
Just one weak era to date.
Too early to say if we are currently in another but it does appear that way.
I’ve often said that Sampras didn’t have the advantatto the same degree that Federer had although his last slam occurred and was helped by the weak era.
You’re obviously not old enough to remember if there were any other weak eras .
As I thought. Just another strawman and when called on it, resorts to personal insult, the last resort of the desperate.
#CheckAndMate
#ThanksForPlaying
#PleaseTryAgain
And al, don’t be like joe smith. It’s beneath you. You can’t back up that “quite a few” just like joe smith can’t back up any of his endless strawman arguments.
Al must think that Federer won “quite a few” French open titles.
I agree fedexal is hawkeye’s fan.
Get in line My new little fan.
Why are there so many people with a variation of Hawkeye’s name posting on this site?
Nativenewyorker JULY 1, 2018 AT 3:03 PM,
Hmm. It’s only one person with multiple alias names.
(Once upon a time, he was Christophe Umlaut).
Hmmm. Oh no I’ve been outed!!!!
I also go by armchair doctor (my personal fav).
Very funny. I think Ricky can check on them, are they one and the same person.
Stuart Fraser@stu_fraser:
¤¤ BREAKING: Andy Murray withdraws from Wimbledon.
Murray: “We’ve decided that playing best of five set matches might be a bit too soon in the recovery process.” ¤¤
https://twitter.com/stu_fraser/status/1013444633299505152
The Guardian: “Andy Murray withdraws…”:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jul/01/andy-murray-withdraws-from-wimbledon-because-of-injury
On WTF: Although theoretically possible, no player has ever lost two RR matches and gone on to win the tournament. So all champions have beaten at least 4 top players.
Easy to cherry-pick a tournament and say it was relatively weak, as Lucky does with 2014 WTF. One could also point to 2017 USO as relatively weak draw for Nadal. A far more sensible thing to say is that there are no easy slam titles, nor any easy WTF titles.
Yes, players are sometimes injured and often tired at the end of the year. Hard to see how that makes it easier to win the tournament.
Fed withdrawing in the final against Nole a few years ago was particular to his circumstances, with Davis Cup coming right up. Obviously, he wouldn’t have done the same if it had been an RG final. On the other hand, you can be sure that Nadal wouldn’t withdraw from a WTF final, since he’s never won the title.
Excuse me Joe, do you see players exhausted when playing the USO the way they were at the WTF?? Don’t try and twist facts, Rafa had to play seven BO5 matches without losing, compared to a WTF five BO3 with one or two losses allowed!
Come on, Fed’s AO2018 draw was also easy don’t you think, why don’t you quote that one instead, huh?? See how biased you are?
Please note my words:
“A far more sensible thing to say is that there are no easy slam titles, nor any easy WTF titles.”
Joe, you said Rafa’s relatively easy draw (at USO2017)! Those are your words.
And I didn’t say anything about ‘relatively easy’ draw; again don’t put words into my mouth!
Here again are your words, Lucky:
“And you said level of competition? Look at 2014 WTF for example, where’s the competition when the scores were so lopsided!”
You are clearly implying that the winner of the 2014 WTF had relatively easy competition. I then replied that by cherry picking you can show lots of things, including that Nadal’s USO title last year was achieved against relatively easy competition. Again, my point was simply a response to your initial one. You’re the one who has the burden of showing why the WTF title is not worth much.
Joe, the competition! The draw for WTF is always the top eight, but the top eight don’t play at the same level year after year. And, many times, they’re too exhausted or wounded to play their best tennis, you just can’t deny that!
Also, read carefully, I said in my post of July 1 2018 at 10.08am, second paragraph:
‘ The WTF is good to have, esp when one couldn’t lay hands on the slam trophies, like Davy and Dimi for examples. It’s played at the end of the year when many TOP players are tired, so the TOP TWO or THREE guys who are good on the HCs could still win it and beating the other guys with lopsided score-lines’.
And who were the Top two or three guys on the HCs? It’s Djoko and Fed, so they’re the two winning the most of the WTFs.
How is it nadals fault that berdych,dimitrov and fed lost before meeting nadal. Nadal had to play berdych in rd4, dimitrov in qf and fed in sf. I cannot see how is it an easy draw. People continuously find ways to undermine rafas results by saying either they are on clay and clay doesnt count as a surface or the draw was easy. It is quite easy to see that fedfans are very insecured about their idols position as goat.
rafa rules AT 6:29 AM,
Rafa’s “easy 2017 USO draw” has been Fed devotees’ daily topic (on different websites) since the USO.
It has always seemed to me that the anti-Rafa campaign is being orchestrated by specialists who keep the certain topics alive.
RR: If you look at the post directly above yours, you’ll see my view is that there are no easy slam or WTF titles. I’m not someone who generally talks about “easy” draws. Winning any major tournament (counting WTF) requires beating a lot of very good players, regardless of the draw.
I don’t think clay doesn’t count; I count all of Nadal’s titles on clay as much as titles on any other surface. However, all should be able to agree that Nadal’s overall record and standing is heavily skewed by his out-sized achievements on clay.
Your complaints about “undermining” are best directed at many Rafa fans on this site. It’s part of their religion that Fed’s prime, from 2004-2007, was a “weak era,” and so his many slam titles during that time should be devalued. If you look on the Fed pages, you’ll see my arguments that Nadal in particular cannot claim to be disadvantaged by not having played from 2004-07 (except, of course, that he did). The main problem is that he has lost to players outside the big 4 at slams far more often than he has lost to the big 4.
Well said Rafa rules!
Since 2000, there have been just 3 WTF champions that weren’t themselves multiple slam champs: Nalbandian (2005); Davydenko (2009), and Dimitrov (2017). That’s about the same as one-off slam champs. Most years, one of the very best players wins WTF, just as they win the slams.
Lol “since 2000”.
Cherry pick much?
No coincidence that 2 of 3 were during weak eras and 2009, Nadal was a shell of himself coming off knee and stomach injuries, Roddick pulled out due to injury and Nole was nowhere near his prime.
WTF is mostly a promotional event propped up with excessive points where you can lose two matches and win the title.
Nadal wouldn’t strategically withdraw from any match.
Federer did.
Nadal wouldn’t strategically skip any slam.
Federer did.
A weakened field with alternates outside top 15 or 20 makes it easier for other top players to win.
It’s hillarious how a closeted fanboy in denial blames Nadal as the only excuse why Federer has a lone French Open (when Rafa wasn’t in his way in 2001-04, 2014-15) and Federer’s indoor specialty is never mentioned to excuse Nadal from WTF titles from same fanboy.
It’s this continual bias and selective half truths that speak volumes about his fanaticism that, by comparison, deafens his empty claims of denial. It’s called self projection. It’s pretty funny and transparent.
WTF logic is the one above? No non-multi slam winning player has won the MonteCarlo masters since 2005 (even the supposed GOAT has not). Does that mean that the MonteCarlo masters is a more presigous tournament than the US open which Marin Cilic,JMDP (non multi slam champs) have been able to win?
I never claimed WTF is more prestigious than a slam. Of course it’s not. But it is more prestigious than any masters title. And I gave a couple of reasons to think it is objectively more difficult to win than a slam. The point you are referring to was in response to Lucky’s suggestion that relatively weak players win the WTF, whereas only the strongest players win slams. As I’ve showed, that’s simply false over the last 20 years or so.
The whole conversation started because I think WTF is generally and wrongly ignored in GOAT debates, particularly by Nadal fans who understandably would like to forget about Rafa’s dismal record at the tournament.
“. But it is more prestigious than any masters title.”
Obsessed fanboy in denial symptom: can’t differentiate between fact and opinion.
(vmk1: obsessed fanaticism can’t coexist with logic but you shredded his argument with ease lol.)
Excuse me Joe, don’t put words into my mouth! When did I say relatively weak players win the WTF?? Show me where I said that!
Top eight players are not relatively weak players! It’s just that NOT all top eight players could win a slam, so they’ll settle for a WTF title! Ask any player, which they prefer – a slam or a WTF title!
Don’t come here and tell us which is important or not, and try to argue your way out when it’s JUST your own opinion which counts for nothing in the grand scheme of things, especially to the players themselves.
Whether Rafa has a WTF title or not, I’ll say the same thing about WTF, that his slam counts are worth more than the WTF counts. If he has 21 slams, he’s better than Fed’s 20, regardless of how many WTF titles Fed or Rafa has. I’ll also say the same thing about Masters titles for that matter.
Well, Lucky, here’s the quote of yours I had in mind:
“The WTF is good to have, esp when one couldn’t lay hands on the slam trophies, like Davy and Dimi for examples. It’s played at the end of the year when many TOP players are tired, so the TOP two or three guys who are good on the HCs could still win it and beating the other guys with lopsided scorelines!”
To me, this suggests that the TOP players are too tired to win, so that the very good but not TOP players have more of a chance.
And that’s simply false. The TOP players named Federer and Djokovic have won the tournament a combined 11 times. Even Murray has won it once. Only Nadal has proven to be incapable of doing so (also, he’s only been defeated by Federer once in a final, compared to Federer being defeated by Rafa in a RG final 4 times). Rafa simply isn’t good enough on HC indoor.
Your last sentence above, to the effect that WTF and masters don’t count at all in an overall assessment, just shows that you’re not a serious tennis fan. Granted that the slams count the most, why should they be the *only* thing that counts?
The whole ‘point’ of a points system is to provide a reasonably objective way of deciding these things. If the points system is good enough to decide the YE #1 (which you think it is; otherwise you’d think that Rafa and Fed should have tied last year), then it’s good enough to made overall assessments about players’ careers.
The WTF is worth 1500 points (if one wins all five matches), which is worth about 3/4 slam. Those who deny this -and especially those who, like you, think the WTF counts for nothing or at best as a tie-breaker, carry the burden of proof to say why.
As I’ve said before, my view is different. Spread of titles counts, because it shows versatility as a tennis player. 3 slam titles is equivalent, from a points perspective, to 4 WTF titles. However, IMO, if Nadal currently had 4 WTF titles, they would go a lot further toward making his GOAT case than would 3 additional RG titles (not, to be clear, than would 3 additional HC slam titles). In Fed’s case, additional RG titles would count more heavily as well: 2 additional RG titles would imo be worth twice as many wimby titles, and countless additional WTF titles.
Joe, where in my post did I say ‘relatively weak players’??
Please do not misquote what I post!
Well, it’s not me but the general tennis community who put so much emphasis on slams, go tell them what you feel!
As for me, I’ll be pleased if Rafa leads in the slams AND the Masters count and wins one WTF. Also, gets his weeks at no.1 to over 200 weeks, to me that’s good enough for a player of Rafa’s stature, there’s no need to mention anything about Goat, unlike some obsessive Fed fanatics.
Lucky, none of those things is likely to happen, with the possible exception of masters count.
Rafa doesn’t have to win any more to do “good enough.” He’s already done that and more if he retires tomorrow. If you think he *needs* to win more, it can only be because you would like him to overtake Fed in the GOAT stakes, no other reason. Rafa probably feels the same: like Roig has said, Nadal would have already retired if Fed had.
Rafa only lost to Fed in a WTF final; he was stopped by Fed at the SF on a two occasions – 2006/2007. He was stopped by Djoko in a final in 2013 and in SF in 2015.
Rafa despite qualifying many times (13 times) did not play at the WTF many times (5 times), ie he missed it because of injuries – 2005, 2008 when he had a good chance of winning if not for his injury; 2012, 2014, 2016. In 2017 he played one match and withdrawn. He at least made the SFs and lost to Fed or Djoko five times. It’s only in 2009 and 2011 that he played poorly and didn’t make the SF; well Fed also had his lousy year in 2008 where he didn’t make it out of the RR stage.
*Rafa not only lost to Fed in a WTF final.
And Joe, saying all those things are unlikely to happen, don’t be so sure! Rafa could reach 200 weeks as no.1 this year, and he may win the WTF too this year. He may defend his USO title too if you think he will not win Wimbledon. I say he has very good chances of achieving all those!
Rafa at the USO – in the past five years, Rafa won two USO (2013,2017), missed 2014. Djoko won one (2015) reached finals twice and SF once (missed 2016). Cilic won one and Stan one. So, Rafa has the best results among the players at the USO in the past five years despite him not doing well in 2015/2016. I don’t see why Rafa couldn’t defend his title this year when Djoko isn’t his own formidable self, and Rafa has better records against the other guys.
Fed has only made one final (2015) in the past five years, I doubt he will be doing any better now in 2018.
Refer to my post of July 2 2018 at 11.23 am.
What Goat debate? You’re the one who keep bringing up the Goat debate, not the Nadal fans.
Why are you so obsessed with Goat and so eager to pronounce Fed as the Goat? I see you’re the only one who keep mentioning Goat, as if you’re feeling more and more threatened each time Rafa wins a slam. There’ll be more slams coming Rafa’s way, so stay tuned….
I’ve already said that I’m not referring to Fed as GOAT anymore. To repeat: he’s the GOAT off clay; Nadal is the clay GOAT.
Do you agree?
If there has to be an overall GOAT, then I couldn’t possibly be threatened by Nadal, for many reasons. But the most relevant one is that he’s nowhere close to Fed:
http://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/goatList
don’t agree
Why not?
why do you need GOATs of different surfaces? I mean yes the surfaces are somewhat different, but it’s not like they are entirely different sports. There can be one GOAT of tennis in general.
Well, I’m trying to be ecumenical towards the Rafa fans on this site (though not getting much reciprocity, I must say).
If there’s a tennis GOAT, it’s Fed.
I see what you mean Ricky. I know who is your GOAT. No, not his opponent. I know.
I agree.
Hello guy’s, it’s been awhile.
How are you all doing?
Joe, I said I’ll be pleased that Rafa leads in the Slams and the Masters, I DIDN’T demand that Rafa should lead in slams and Masters. Who are you to judge what I should think or feel?? Who are you?? Don’t try to tell me what I should or should not do! This is atrocious!!
Lucky, I assume you’re already quite pleased with Rafa’s accomplishments. Tell me, why do you care if he leads in the overall slam count?
And, I couldn’t care about Goat, all I wish is for Rafa to overtake Fed in the slam counts, that’ll silence all those Fed fanatics who don’t show any respect for Rafa, saying he’s only good on clay!
It’s only the Fed fanatics who are obsessed with Fed as Goat!
I would never say Rafa is not good on clay. He’s obviously better than most people who have ever played the game, even off clay.
However, whereas Rafa is far and away the best player ever on clay, his accomplishments off that surface probably put him somewhere around 10th best in the open era. Here is Rafa’s main record off clay:
HC slams: 4
Grass slams: 2
WTF: 0
HC masters: 8
Those are very good numbers, but nowhere near his record on clay, as I’m sure you’d agree. Why, then, should you or anyone have a problem with someone saying that Nadal is much, much better on clay than he is off clay? It seems so obvious as to almost be undeniable.
Joe, don’t try to confuse things. The Fed fanatics are saying Rafa IS ONLY good or great on clay, and that’s why people like you try to separate the so called Goat on clay and non clay surfaces.
Ricky is right, why separate clay from non clay? Everytime when it comes to Rafa, the Fed fanatics would say ‘if not for clay’ or ‘outside clay, Rafa is not as good….’. Do we hear such thing about Djoko, like ‘other than the HCs, Djoko isn’t dominating on the other surfaces’? Or ‘Fed is not dominating on clay’, but instead we hear ‘if not for Rafa, Fed would win more on clay’! I can also say that if not for Fed, Rafa would’ve more Wimbledon; or if not for Djoko who’s the best HC player during 2011-2016, Rafa would’ve more HC slams; not to mention Rafa getting injured during a slam final, and had to miss some slams during his peak and his prime when he’s obviously the best player during those seasons.
Do you see the biased view against Rafa? In the first place, who determine what’s a Goat? I’m not sure Fed was the Goat on non clay surfaces when he wasn’t dominating the non clay surfaces like carpet or indoor HCs when those players in the 1970s to the 1990s were winning so much more titles on those surfaces than Fed had.
👍Vmk1
Hello!
Well said Ricky!
Ricky is right about not separating the surfaces. If not, then it’s not just about clay and non clay (why clay?), but also carpet, indoor hard and outdoor hard and grass. I’m not sure Fed excel on the carpet or indoor HCs over the old timers.
In the first place, Fed not even the so called ‘Goat’ on non clay surfaces when he didn’t dominate on carpet, indoorHCs and didn’t even dominate over Djoko his contemporary on the outdoor HCs.
Thus far Federer has a better record on HC outdoor and indoor than Djokovic:
Federer: 11 HC slams, 6 WTF, 21 HC masters
Djokovic: 8 HC slams, 5 WTF, 19 HC masters
Federer has a better record against Djokovic before 2011; Djokovic better since then, as you’d expect for two players with a six year age gap
You’re wrong, Djoko has 22 HC masters, not 19. He has 30 masters (three more than Fed) with 22 on HCs and 8 on clay.
Also Fed has played for a long long time, from 1999 to 2018; Djoko started from 2003, ie a five years difference! Djoko may have more years to win his HC slams and WTFs than Fed has going forward.
Mea culpa on the HC masters stat. I subtracted Nole’s clay masters from Fed’s total, not Novak’s.
It’s a silly argument, the GOAT debate. You can’t separate Federer and Nadal and at his peak, Djokovic has both of the covered. They are similar calibre players when they bring close to their best. Longevity, grand slam titles won first come into it when you’ve won as many and played each other as much as these guys have.