Roger Federer is two wins away from a 20th career Grand Slam title, which would mark his second triumph in the last three majors and third in the last five. It would also be his second in succession on the way to which he did not face either Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, or anyone else in the top five.
Federer appeared to be on a collision course with Juan Martin Del Potro or David Goffin for the quarterfinals and with Novak Djokovic or Alexander Zverev for the semis. So much for those ideas. The 36-year-old Swiss ended up meeting Tomas Berdych in the last eight (won 7-6(1), 6-3, 6-4) and he will go up against Hyeon Chung on Friday.
Although Chung had never previously accomplished anything in majors, his run has not come completely out of nowhere. The 21-year-old South Korean was hailed as a top up-and-coming player starting in 2015 and he staked a claim to being the best of his age group by winning the inaugural NextGen ATP Finals in Milan with a perfect 5-0 record this past fall. In Milan, though, Chung did not have the opportunity to beat the absolute cream of the under-22 crop (Zverev played the Nitto ATP Finals in London instead). As it turned out, that matchup was simply being saved for much higher stakes–in round three of this Australian Open. And it did not disappoint (well, except for Zverev’s performance in the fifth set); Chung pulled off a 5-7, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-3, 6-0 upset after three hours and 22 minutes. The world No. 58 also ousted Mischa Zverev (via retirement), Daniil Medvedev, and Tennis Sandgren without dropping a set to any of those three foes.
“Yeah, I’m really surprised,” Chung said of his run to the semifinals. “Because I really [didn’t] know (I could do it). I [made the] semis; I beat like Sascha, Novak, the other good players. I [had never played in the] second week in Grand Slam, so I’m really surprised.”
There will be no surprises on Friday, as Chung is obviously quite familiar with his upcoming opponent–even though he once looked up more to Djokovic than to Federer. With 19 Grand Slam titles under his belt, Federer is showing no signs of deterioration in terms or talent or passion for the game in this his 21st season on the pro circuit. The world No. 2 is six sets away from a successful defense of his 2017 Australian Open title following mostly routine wins over Aljaz Bedene, Jan-Lennard Struff, Richard Gasquet, Marton Fucsovic, and Tomas Berdych. Speaking of sets, Federer has not surrendered a single one so far this fortnight–although he was at least forced to come back from 5-2 down in the opener against Berdych on Wednesday.
“I’m very excited to play Chung,” Federer said. “I thought he played an incredible match against Novak. To beat him here is one of the tough things to do in our sport, I believe. I know that Novak maybe wasn’t at 110 percent, but he was alright. He was giving it a fight ’til the very end. To close it out, that was mighty impressive…. I think it’s an interesting match for me. I’ll definitely have to look into how I need to play against him because he has some great qualities, especially defensively like Novak has.”
Unfortunately for Chung, rarely is defense the recipe to beating Federer. Nadal used to do it with frequency, but the Spaniard also wields far more offensive firepower than Chung and much heavier topspin that troubled Federer’s one-handed backhand in the past. Moreover, unlike Zverev and Djokovic, Federer will not prolong rallies when he has Chung on the defensive by staying near his own baseline while being content to trade groundstrokes. Instead, the five-time Aussie Open champion will be–and always has been–willing to move forward and close points out quickly at the net when his opponent is out of position.
The enormity of the occasion should not be too big for Chung; he has already made that quite clear during his stay in Melbourne. But a matchup with Federer is simply not a favorable one for him–and not for anyone else right now.
Pick: Federer in 3
[polldaddy poll=9925010]
The kind of constant pressure that Fed and Nadal apply is another level. Chung was 99℅ chance of losing the first set
Cilic v Fed will be an absolute cracker. Arguably the 2 best players right now.
I hate retirement, congrats to R. Federer he is truly the best.
H. Chung played some fantastic tennis in Australian Open and I wish him the very best.
What a dud of a match, even before the retirement. Shame that Chung was hurt, but he didn’t seem to have any way of really hurting Fed. Roger looked to me like he was trying a few things out, almost like a practice match. His 1st serve pct. was atrocious, but he was hitting them much harder than usual. He hit some beautiful winners.
In terms of the final, it will obviously help Fed not having to have played a full match, given his age and Cilic having an extra day. But it was a shame fore the fans; I feel sorry for all those people who paid big money to see it.
Joe, yes it was a big dud. Like a big new year rocket failing to blast off!lol
“…I feel sorry for all those people who paid big money to see it.”
Joe, Ain’t you sorry for those people who bet on Federer and got back just their deposit (bet money) without any profits? https://emojipedia-us.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/emojidex/112/face-with-tears-of-joy_1f602.png Insert crying emoji here!lol
Yeah that was as anti-climactic as it gets.
Fed has one day less rest for this final, but after the warm-up that was tonight’s semi, that’s not going to matter one iota. Rather, the issue might instead be: Has he actually faced enough competition to get him ready for a final? Let’s face it, the only bit of real opposition he got was from Berdych, and when it came to the crunch he barely even had to up his level, because Berdych played the big points poorly. Fed’s practically been in his comfort zone this whole tournament.
Cilic hasn’t had a particularly hard set of opponents, but at least he got a stern four set test from Rafa before the retirement happened.
Two very fresh opponents, will be interesting if Cilic brings his A-game.
Fed will win AO without losing a set . And 36 year old is not playing his best tennis . Its scary !!
Retirements suck. Injuries suck. Watching a guy play hurt sucks. There’s just no good way out. I’ve always felt that Rafa hangs in too long when he’s hurt, way past the point where I can bear to watch. But I felt that Chung quit too soon. Yes, it was hopeless, but it was hopeless from the start. Blisters are painful but it’s only pain. They heal. Every player plays with blisters from time to time. They don’t retire because of blisters! Federer pointed out that he’s played with blisters and they are painful. He didn’t point out that he’s NEVER retired because he had painful blisters. Never. It was the semi of a major. You don’t retire because your feet hurt! If you can’t stand the pain you better get out of pro tennis NOW.
Chung was getting hammered . He just wanted to get the hell out of there. One wonders how many times Fed has won when he was not 100%. I dont think he has retired even once in his career. At 36 year old he is pushing the bar real high. I dont think he is playing a lot better than what he was in 2014-2015. Its just that there is no Djoker on the other side
I think Federer played better in 2017 than in 2014-15, but only in the slams. The six month layoff helped him, and he has gotten more used to the larger racquet.
However, the biggest factor by far, imo, was beating Nadal at AO. At Wimby and USO 2015, Fed choked and wasn’t able to produce the level he had in the semi-final round. There was the danger of that in last year’s final. But the 5th set comeback got Fed over the mental hurdle, and that’s really been the big difference.
IMO, 2017-18 Fed, with healthy back, would beat 2014-16 Novak at Wimby and AO.
Joe still couldn’t get over it huh? You also forget that Rafa was also just back from injury at AO2017.
Beating a Rafa on the comeback doesnt equate to beating a healthy Djoko on grass at Wimbledon and on HCs at AO and USO!
Some Fed fans criticize the Rafa fans for giving excuses when Rafa lost, and never give his opponents credit; Joe is also not giving Djoko credit, for beating Fed in the slam finals; it’s Djoko’s play that made Fed lost the matches, even when Fed wasn’t playing badly.
Lucky,
I agree 100%!
Yeah Djokovic was too tough in those finals. He was really unstoppable for most of 2014-2015 (especially 2015). So solid in all aspects of his game. I felt Roger played great in the Wimbledon 2014 final and also played pretty well in 2015 final. The only match I felt like Roger could’ve played much better in was the US Open 2015 final. Only because he missed so many returns on both first and second serves that day. But all in all, Djokovic was on fire during that stretch and deserves all the credit for those wins. I’m just glad Roger stuck with it and that it has clearly paid off.
I think you might be right about that last statement Joe. He seems a lot more confident now than he was in 2015. Seems more relaxed in the big matches than he did when he was playing Djoker in all those finals. I wouldn’t say he choked them though. I guess the 2015 US Open was a borderline choke because his level was just so tight and erratic during that one but overall, I think Djokovic was playing very well with supreme confidence and momentum and I think he deserves a lot of credit for those wins he had over Fed.
Wimby 2015 was the biggest choke. Fed didn’t play nearly as well as he did against Murray in the semi-final, which he could have done, in some sense of “could”. His serve, especially, wasn’t nearly as good as it had been throughout the tournament.
Saying a player choked (which imo Fed did) is not making an excuse. Fed didn’t play to the best of his ability, but that’s perfectly compatible with saying Novak was the better player on the day, as he was (obviously) the better player during those two and a half years.
In contrast, some Rafa fans here, including (now, but not at the time), Hawkeye and Lucky, make an excuse for Rafa when they say that he was “just off injury” or “80%” in his loss to Fed last year at the AO. I don’t know why they do this, but I imagine it’s because it’s too hard for them to accept that Rafa was simply beaten by the better player that day, period.
What’s the difference? In making their usual excuses, Rafa fans imply that some factor *beyond Nadal’s control* was responsible for his loss -usually injury, sometimes a tough match beforehand, perhaps tournament schedulers out to get him. In contrast, I believe Fed’s choking was within his control and consequently his responsibility. That’s why I have no problem saying he choked.
It’s also why I praise him for overcoming it in his win over Rafa, which was -imo- not only Fed’s biggest win but a bigger win than Nadal has ever scored over Roger.
Why? Because, given their H2H, Fed’s age, and Fed’s recent slam chokes, it was his most unexpected victory. In particular, there was no reason whatsoever to think that Federer would come down from 3-1 in the 5th set.
But he did. It was that big for him, mentally, and that’s why I think this version of Fed would beat Novak at his best, at least on HC and grass.
Nah Joe, don’t try to argue your way out! Saying as if it’s Fed’s fault that he choke, and if not..,, it wasn’t any difference from making any excuse for him when he lost to Djoko. You’re not giving Djoko any credit for beating Fed; Djoko was simply the better player on those days!
Again, Joe couldn’t accept the facts, that Rafa was having a disadvantage with one less day’s rest, and Rafa was also just back from injury! Those are facts, Fed choking is arguable, not a fact but an opinion.
Don’t try to behave as if you’re better than the Rafa fans; if you can’t accept facts but keep believing your own opinions as if they’re facts, then sorry, you’ll continue to give excuses for Fed’s losses even when they’re not proven facts.
Joe is living in his own fantasy world! Come on, Djoko made Fed looked ordinary in their AO2016 SF! You think the Fed who struggled to beat Rafa in the AO2017 would beat Djoko at his best???
Fed was even struggling to beat Berdych and Kyrgios at Miami, you think he had a chance vs a Djoko at his best???
Lucky, here’s my words:
“Fed didn’t play to the best of his ability, but that’s perfectly compatible with saying Novak was the better player on the day, as he was (obviously) the better player during those two and a half years.”
If it wasn’t clear, I think Djokovic was the better player on the day in all three slam finals that he defeated Fed in 2014-15. I don’t think Fed played his best, but that’s on him, no one else. I’d also say the same about Fed’s loss to Rafa at AO 2009, and Wimby 2008.
Now: let’s hear you say the same about Rafa’s loss to Fed at AO 2017. Something to the effect of “Federer was the better player on the day. No excuses.”
I’ll bet you won’t.
Do note that from 2008-2010, Djoko, Rafa and Fed each won one AO; but once Djoko started dominating at the AO, both Fed and Rafa couldn’t win any, until Djoko injured his elbow and was knocked out early last year.
Joe, I would say Fed was the better player at IW, Miami and Shanghai, no question because Rafa was being outplayed! However, at AO2017, Rafa wasn’t being outplayed, and he was leading in the fifth set, so, using your words, Rafa ‘choke’ and resulting in Fed getting back in front and gotten the win.
And Joe, I had no problem saying Fed was the best player on the HCs (and on grass) in 2017!
Ok, that’s close. At least you’re not making excuses about Nadal’s loss at AO.
But I totally disagree about Rafa choking. IMO, the only reason Nadal won any sets in last year’s final was because Fed’s level dropped: he dominated when he was playing well. And the reason Fed came back in the last set was because he played amazing clutch tennis!
I’d be more inclined to point to injury regarding Rafa’s loss at Shanghai than I would at AO.
Nadal didn’t choke last year’s AO final. I watched that thing point for point and he did not choke. Fed went all out aggression in that final set. Fed earned his way back into it, Rafa did not choke or give up a bunch of points to let Fed back in.
Chung retired because Roger’s play was making his blister hurt even more. If he had been in that match, he would have stuck around like Roger or Rafa would if they were playing with blisters. But he’s young so can’t really blame him. Probably wasn’t a good feeling out there both physically and mentally. At least he didn’t cry like Cilic at Wimbledon though 😂
He’s 21. Lots of players were *winning* majors at his age. At 21 Rafa lost badly to Ferrero 2nd round in Rome with huge blisters on his feet but he didn’t quit. He played, and a couple weeks later he won his 4th RG and then his first Wimbly. At 14 Rafa played and won the Spanish championships with a broken little finger.
Sorry for the rant. I’ve just been trying to figure out why Chung’s retirement simply didn’t sit well with me.
Agree with u Ramara!…Didn’t sit well with me too!!..Is his blister’s horrible?From my eyes,it didn’t look like it..I mean,not to the extent of quiting the match…
Just as I suspected could possibly be the case, it was so obvious that Chung had ever faced that level of CONSISTENT aggression before. Obviously he has faced players who do a more mild version of that, or maybe do it in spurts. But he clearly had not been in a situation where almost every single shot he hit, the ball came back so quickly that he wasn’t able to get into any rhythm. That’s the thing about old-Fed. He doesn’t have to hit the ball as hard as he can because he gets the ball right back across the net so quickly. The younger guys who are straight up grinders like Chung, when they face this version of Fed, most of them ultimately have no idea how to stop it, especially when Fed is serving. And before they know it, the first set is gone and dusted so fast.
Sure, I’d like to think that if Chung had no blisters that he at least would have won some more games. But to me, it was obvious from the first ball that he just had no idea what was being done to him from across the net… He’ll learn, though.
And, that’s the difference between the current young guns compared to young Djoko and young Rafa. Young Djoko and Rafa weren’t intimidated by Fed and fought hard against a younger and quicker Fed in his prime.
Young Djoko started beating Fed in his prime after two or three attempts; let’s see whether a fully fit Chung could start beating an old Fed going forward.
A younger and quicker Fed, who still wasn’t as good as the 37 yr old .
I was just thinking tonight, that this 2017-8 Fed at the AO would never have lost the 2009 final the way he did,Just my opinion.
You forgot to mention a young Murray, who also beat Fed .
But, I really like Young Chung and his game…reminds me of Joe 90 lol
Big Al, the younger Fed was much quicker than this Fed (watch TMC Shanghai 2006 Fed vs Rafa SF, see for yourself how quick that Fed was). This current Fed is no where near that Fed in terms of quickness!
You have also conveniently forget that Fed had the advantage of an additional one day rest over Rafa, both times in 2009 and 2017.
Also, the Rafa of 2009 was moving far too quickly compared to the 2017 version, so I doubt the 2017 version of Fed could handle that Rafa either. The Rafa of 2009 AO won’t let a lead in the fifth set slipped away, unlike the 2017 just back from injury version.
Fortunately, the 2009 AO is in the record books. I really dislike reading this hypothetical nonsense that Fed of today would have won against Rafa,
That win by Rafa was a singular achievement. On paper there is no way Rafa wins that match. After playing the longest semifinal ever, with only one day’s rest, Rafa should have lost. But something extraordinary happened. Rafa dug derp and somehow found the physical strength and the sheer guts and will to win. I have seen Rafa play better in slam finals, but this has always been one of my favorites. For the simple reason that Rafa defied the odds. He did the impossible.
One of the truly great feats in tennis history. Fed would never bear him, not that Fed, not this Fed. Because Rafs found a way to win when he should surely have lost.
LS/NY, I was referring to the mental/tactical side of it.Not the physical.Fed is much more confident now .He was playing too passively in that final .Not that I’m taking away from Nadals amazing achievement .
I love the revisionism that now has Rafa “just off injury” in the 2017 AO final against Fed. As if Fed wasn’t just off injury as well!
Oddly, I don’t recall anyone on this forum mentioning Rafa’s injury at the time.It was obviously so serious that it allowed him to make it to the final.
Just more excuses from (some) Rafa fans, who have such a hard time accepting his losses for what they are: losses to the better player on the day, period.
Yes, Rafa scored a great win over Fed in 2009 AO final. Congratulations, 9 years later.
Bigger picture: it’s the only AO Nadal ever managed to win. Federer has 5 titles, possibly 6 after tomorrow.
Lucky, you misread Big Al. He said the old fed was younger and quicker, but not as good as the current one. I think he is better in certain ways now, particularly the consistency and aggression on the backhand wing. But I definitely wouldn’t go as far to say he would’ve won the 09 final. That was a great battle deservedly won by Nadal for sure. Anyways, we just don’t know and there’s no point in pondering it. Like NNY said, the hypotheticals are useless to bring up. That being said, we also don’t know that 2009 version of Rafa doesn’t blow a lead because any guy can blow a lead at any time in their career. Doesn’t matter how well they are playing, it just happens. All in all, they’re all hypotheticals that don’t really matter. We should just appreciate the greatness of that 09 final. What a match that was
Benny, Rafa didn’t blow a lead and couldn’t come back to win in those days! Look at his Wimbledon 2008 final! Rafa was very confident during those days and mentally very tough.
The hypotheticals simply gone too far, you people wanted to believe a 35 yo Fed would beat a 22 yo Rafa at the AO? Do you know how much disrespect that is against Rafa!
A Fed at 35 was struggling to beat a 30 yo Rafa and almost lost it and yet people here want to think and believe a 35 yo Fed would have a chance against a 22 yo Rafa! What more on a slower surface! Such disrespect! More like sore losers who couldn’t get over the fact that Rafa did beat Fed at a HC slam!
I didn’t say that I think 35 year old Fed beats 22 year old Rafa. I literally said that I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this Fed would’ve won the 09 final lol. I’m just saying leads are blown by all kinds of players, no matter how good they are, and even if a player is in their prime, they can still blow leads. It just happens at times, it’s part of the sport.
Also Rafa didn’t “blow the lead” in the AO 2017 final. Fed earned that win with his resilience and aggression from 1-3 down in the fifth. Rafa didn’t play a bad fifth set. He just got outplayed. Period.
Just like Fed was outplayed by Djoko in the Wimbledon and USO2015 finals; he didn’t choke!
Yes!! That’s correct!! I said that!! 😂
If you read my post, I didn’t say either that 2017 Fed would have won 2009 AO, but that he wouldnt have lost in the way that he did .His tactics are much better now ,esp backhand. He also went away rather badly in the fifth set. Rafa won that match by outlasting him, even with his extra days rest. Might have been different on a faster court.
Also Rafa is still mentally tough. Just because Fed beats him more often now doesn’t mean Rafa is mentally weak to lose to him. Rafa has won plenty of clutch matches and close battles over the last couple seasons (for example, the match literally right before last year’s AO final). Saying Rafa is now mentally weaker than he used to be is just an illogical excuse for his loss to Fed.
Nobody said that, you’re assuming somebody said that.
Anyway, looked at Rafa during 2008-2009 for examples and compared him to 2015-2016, tell me was he mentally strong during 2015-2016? And compare that to his 2008-2009.
You’re the one who doubt Rafa would not also let a lead slipped away in AO2009, had he met a Fed of 2017. I said Rafa was tough enough to not let that led to a loss, see Wimbledon 2008!for example; such was the difference between a Rafa of 2008 and a Rafa of 2017. He simply fought to overcome the slip up, he couldn’t in 2017, just like he couldn’t in 2012 AO. His opponents’ play might be the reason of course, but his own play too did play a part. He was playing better tennis in 2009 AO than in 2017, imo.
I totally agree, why is he suddenly mentally weak? Hasnt that always been one of his greatest strengths? Its almost as if being mentally weak is like being injured, they cant do anything about it.Its an illogical excuse esp.about a player like Nadal.
And I accept that all players are human, they’re all going to suffer lack of confidence at some point.
well that’s one of the downsides in tennis betting, we do see quite a few retirements over the course of a season.
Sorry, typos in my last post. Rafa dug DEEP. *
Fed would never BEAT him. *
looks like djokovic was chung’s idol in more ways yhan one🙄
If Chung acheieves one-tenth of hat Djoker has achieved I will be surprised. Hi shitty serve is going to be exposed big time. I did not like his attitude today.
Much ado about nothing.
Chung faced his first in-form player of the tournament (albeit at least that’s one more than Roger has).
Return of the Weak Era 2.0 all over again LOL. How many times???
Sunday prediction: Cilic to start crying after the second set in the final (assuming it gets that far) as Wimbly dynamic repeats itself.
Since last year slam champs: Crony Fed – NonPeak Rafa – Crony Fed – NonPeak Rafa – Crony Fed.
Who are the runner ups? Off-Injury Rafa, Stan, Crying Cilic, Anderson, Crying Cilic.
Trend should continue at least through Wimbledon.
Not quite like the original Weak Era but no sequel ever is.
#AndersonIsTheNewTomasJohansson
#MeetTheNewWeakEra
#SameAsTheOldOne
I didn’t realize this, but Federer has never once retired in over 1300 tour matches:
http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/22221658/australian-open-already-know-roger-federer-superhero
Also, Chung’s injuries were no ordinary blisters. I don’t think the kid would have quit unless he was in serious pain:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/tennis/australian-open/blister-under-blister-under-blister-agent-reveals-extend-of-hyeon-chungs-foot-injury/news-story/3230e6d6be9b69f6704b4b6d7c1555c3
The different reactions from Rafa fans to Nadal vs. Rafa’s retirements is striking.
I meant to Nadal vs. Chung’s retirements, of course.
Nah, Rafa had a similar blister at Rome 2008 but managed to finish the match (lost to Ferrerro) and that was R2.
Rafa retired in the QF here because his injury was more serious, it’s not just the pain, but the harm that continuing to play might have worsen the injury.
I would say players have differing threshold for pain; perhaps Chung wasn’t used to too much hardship (pain)??
By that stage,Rafa was a multi Slam champion , Chung is much less experienced and an amazing achievement to get as far as he did.
Nah, all the more Chung should value the opportunity to do well at a SF of a slam for the first time going by that logic. Anyway thats not the reason ie whether hes a multi slam winner or a green horn.
I saw a pic of his blister, its quite bad and according to his coach, he had that blister for the past few matches too but took pain killing injections before each match and managed to win them.
I think its the Aussie heat out there and if I’m not wrong, Chung played most of his matches during the day when court surface temperature could even melt the base of the shoes. I wont be surprised that players suffered from foot blisters and Chung had played many matches, some long ones to get to the SF.
He probably think enough is enough and hes not going to beat Fed anyway.
Lucky is right. Chung should’ve stayed out there and toughed it out through the biggest match of his life, even if he is getting smoked. Blisters aren’t as serious as thigh injuries or any other sort of injury involving the muscles.
I just don’t think you should second-guess Chung’s decision. We don’t have any idea how it felt for him. And members of his team have said that continuing to play with his condition could well have longer-term consequences.
Again, I”m sure you and many others here would be angry with someone who second-guessed Rafa’s decision to quit in his match.
Nah Joe, for you its old habit dies hard, always making wrong assumptions about me, never learn a lesson huh?
If Chung had a thigh injury and retired, I certainly would not second guess him, and if he continued to play I would think that hes foolish. But, a blister would not cause him further harm, at least not, say, a muscle tear or something.
I would think he could just finish the second set, talked to the trainer again and see what could be done before quitting.
I would guess that if hes leading in this match, he might not quit so soon and might try to push further. At that point in the second set, he knew with his conditions hes not going to win the next three sets and so theres no point in continuing and suffering more pain. Perhaps he’s thinking that worsening the conditions would mean taking longer time to recover thereafter and thus affecting his schedule after the AO.
After seeing that picture of Chung’s blister, I am inclined to cut him some slack. The fact that he felt the need to post a picture of it, says something about how he must be feeling about the criticism.
I don’t think this should take away from what he did in this tournament. We can talk about tolerating pain, but you don’t know what it’s like unless you are the one suffering.
The match was a blowout. Sobthe doecrsyirs got cheated out of one game, people are so
quick to condemn.
It’s too bad that Rafa’s retirement has to even be brought into this discussion. He did what he felt was necessary to make sure that he did not make the injury worse. I am not going to even make any comparisons between him and Chung. Chung was suffering and felt that he could not go on. I am willing to cut him done slack.
Ouch!! I just looked up the picture and geez that was nasty. That had to have been painful. He probably made the right decision now that I’ve seen the blister. And don’t worry NNY I don’t think people will remember his retirement. They will remember his run with the wins over Djoker and Zverev. I highly doubt this will take away from it. It surely doesn’t take away from his run for me at least.
NNY: the whole point of bringing in Rafa’s retirement is to point out the double standard some are applying.
As far as I can see, no one on this forum, including me, has criticized Rafa for quitting. He made the decision that was right for him, and any fan (or foe) should be able to recognize that.
All I’m saying is, let’s give Chung the same benefit of the doubt. I realize that you appear to agree with me; I’m just clarifying why I brought Nadal’s retirement into the discussion.
Steve Tignor had picked Roger as the winner on Sunday so Cilic does have that going for him :p
Does anyone remember the last time someone retired from a major or even masters’ match because of blisters? I’m curious as to just how unusual this is.
Sorry, autocorrect garbled what I was trying to say about the spectators only getting cheated out of one game.
He couldn’t do anything and finally had to retire. I am sure it was disappointing to him.
Yep, it’s not going to take away what Chung had done the whole tournament – beating A Zverev and then Djoko.
I think he’s unfortunate to play most of his matches in the day and his style of running all over the court certainly won’t help. Cilic also played many matches during the day, but his style of big serving and hard hitting certainly not as taxing on his legs. I do wonder did Cilic also develop any foot blister, like he did at Wimbledon last year? I hope not, I don’t want another not so pleasant slam final where one party suffers an injury and loses.
Cilic lost Wimbledon final on the mental side. It was less to do with blisters. He was not himself till the end of last year.
Fed hurt his back against Zverev . Could not compete, but complete the match.
Next generation gives up too quickly.
After a little further reading and reflecting, I’m not so sure re Chung giving up too quickly. He’d been struggling with blisters at least since the Djokovic match. He’d had a pain killing injection but either it wore off too soon or was not effective. Hate to keep bringing Rafa up, but he’s the player I know most about. In his book it’s stated that he had a pain killing injection in the sole before his 2008 Wimbledon match for “a blister and a swelling” on his left foot and without it he’d “have been unable to play”. His injection held throughout that very long final. Sounds like pain killing injections for blisters are routine and normally effective. Maybe Chung just got unlucky. Anyway, fwiw the kid gets the benfit of the doubt from me.
Fed will deal with Cilic easily! Cilic is a mental midget and I am sure he will find the reason to whine on Sunday I expect Cilic will have another injury as an excuse as soon as Fed starts dominating…
natashao..when will your dream/vision of rafa winning AO come true please