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]

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

    • 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.

  4. 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!

  5. 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

  6. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  11. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes