It was a fitting end to an epic 2017 Australian Open.
And it was so good, in fact, that the winner said during the trophy ceremony that he would have been happy if it had ended in a tie–or even a loss.
But without any exceptions, tennis matches and tennis tournaments can only end well for one player, and that one player on Sunday night in Melbourne was Roger Federer. Federer’s third five-set victory of the fortnight gave him Grand Slam title No. 18 and Aussie Open title No. 5, which he clinched by outlasting long-time rival Rafael Nadal 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3 after three hours and 37 minutes.
Although the fifth proved to be a nail-biting thriller that was nowhere close to being decided until the final shot was shown to be in, no set was particularly competitive in terms of the scoreline. Federer took control in the first, breaking for 4-3 and holding his next two service games with the loss of just one point. Nadal hit back in the second, seizing a 4-0 lead before mostly cruising from there despite giving one of the breaks back. The two former world No. 1s took turns gaining the upper hand in the third and fourth, as well, with Federer once again inching ahead only to see Nadal respond in emphatic fashion.
That paved the way to a dramatic decider, which lasted only nine games but packed an unforgettable punch in a short amount of time.
Nadal delivered the first blow, but it was not enough to knock Federer out. After dropping his initial service game to fall behind 1-0 and then 2-0, the Swiss eventually broke back to get on level terms at 3-3. That ignited a streak of five straight games in Federer’s favor after he trailed 3-1. His second break of the set came in an incredible game with Nadal serving at 3-4, which ended when Federer forced the Spaniard into an error with a perfect cross-court forehand return.
The 35-year-old served thing out in clutch fashion one game later, but not before fighting back from a 15-40 deficit. Federer eventually converted his second championship point with a forehand winner off the sideline that Nadal unsuccessfully challenged.
Highlights:
“I kept on fighting,” Federer explained. “I kept on believing–like I did all match long today–that there was a possibility I could win this match. I think that’s what made me play my best tennis at the very end.”
“I think [it was] a great match,” Nadal assured. “I enjoyed to be part of it. I fought to try to have the trophy with me. I had some chances in the fifth with (a) break up. But (it) is true that after I had the break, he played very aggressive, hitting a lot of great shots. So (it) was tough to hold the serve every time.”
Holding serve every time is what Nadal managed to do in his fifth set against Grigor Dimitrov on Friday, but the Spaniard had to save three break points in two different service games in order for his lone break of the Bulgarian to be enough. Nadal survived two deuces, as well, while serving out the semifinal match at 5-4. Speaking of five-setters, Federer also went the distance in his semifinal against Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic bowed out of the tournament in a five-set, second-round stunner against Denis Istomin.
All of it set the stage for the icing on the cake, the 35th chapter of arguably tennis’ best-ever rivalry.
“It remains for me the ultimate challenge to play against him,” Federer said of Nadal. “So it’s definitely very special. I said that also before the finals: if I were to win against Rafa, it would be super special and very sweet because I haven’t beaten him in a Grand Slam final for a long, long time now. Last time I guess was 2007 at Wimbledon in a five-setter. Now I was able to do it again.
“Like I said on the court, it would have been nice for both of us to win, but there’s no draws in tennis. It’s brutal sometimes.”
[polldaddy poll=9650771]
Lost for words right now.
ALLEZ ROGER??
I was hoping for rafa to get double slam but not to be. Hoping for Nole double slam too.
Well done Roger, as Rafa said, he deserved it more today although Rafa had the toughest ride to the final.
Please..Roger draw was not easy too.
I agree. Roger’s draw wasn’t easy at all. His sole advantage was that he avoided Andy in the quarters and had the relatively harmless Mischa Zverev. If he had a protracted match against Andy, he might’ve been in worse shape against Wawa -if he had survived Andy in the first place. But that are all what-ifs. Rafa was probably lucky to have avoided Novak. While Grigor was a hard opponent, I doubt that Rafa would’ve won against Novak.
Both players had a fairly tricky path to the final, but also dodged one dangerous opponent. Considering that they were both coming back after a prolongued break, it’s super impressive that they even made it to the final. And I thought it was very encouraging that Rafa managed to put away three very dangerous young(ish) players (A. Zverev, Raonic, Dimitrov) who feel very comfortable on a faster surface. That is very encouraging.
Littlefoot is bang on.
Few rafans would have picked Rafa to even make the final before the tournament began.
Rafa had a relatively easy draw. Zverev unexpectedly gave him trouble but every other opponent was a cakewalk. Dimitrov only took it to 5 sets because of Rafa’s lapses in concentration. That one should’ve been straight sets too. It came back to bite him.
Ultimately, it’s this incarnation of a nervous Rafa who gifted Roger this AO title. He had it in the bag, but then suddenly gave it away. It wasn’t the draw, just Rafa’s current game.
Rafa didn’t have an easy path to the final at all: A. Zverev, Monfils, Raonic and Dimitrov in a row on a fast surface is as difficult as it can get. Ranking isn’t everything. A.Zverev is very dangerous, and especially with Grigor he managed to put away a young red-hot and extremely talented player. But Roger’s path to the final wasn’t exactly a cake walk either.
Agree with Paul completely that a player of Rafa’s calibre doesn’t surrender five straight games when up a break in the decider without it being on him.
Roger stepped up but Rafa opened the door.
Just like at AO2012 final vs Djoko. When Rafa is not confident, he tense up at such crucial moments, allowing his top class rivals to seize any opening(s) offered to them.
I’m not saying that Roger’s draw was easy, I’m saying that Rafa’s was toughest. Rafa also had one day less to rest.
But and foremost, Roger was better in the final and fully deserves the title.
Shine and rise again, Rafa!
Shireling agreed.
I Dont think Rafas draw was tougher, as he played two top ten players, and Roger played three, that been said though, i do believe its unfair that Roger had an extra days rest before the final, IMO i dont think thats really fair, as i thing both semis should be played on the same day, and both players get to the final on an even footing, Rafa and i would say that about any other player too, are at a disadvantage when they have a day less to rest ….
So maybe with all that in mind there is some truth in what Elina / Hawkeye said about favouritism ….
It doesn’t make sense that one finalist has a day less of rest. This should be changed in the future. Same goes for the US when a player is sometimes forced to play to days in a row…
As for the draw, it’s not only about the seeds but in which shape they’re in at a given time. It is also true that sometimes Rafa’s tentative play encourages players and makes his life much harder.
Shireling, I thought about it some more. Yes, the finalists should be on equal footing as far as days of rest go. But Rafa had one full day of rest – just as it is normal for all the other slams. Thankfully the US Open have done away with Super Satutday where both finalists had no off-day before the final. So, the bone of contention for this year’s AO isn’t so much that Rafa hadn’t enough rest – we are irked by the fact that Roger may have had had too much rest. He should’ve played his 5-setter on Friday, too, just like Rafa. Fair enough. But would that set-up, which would certainly have been more fair, really have made a big difference for yesterday’s match? Rafa would still have been very tired. But would Roger really have been noticeably more tired, and could Rafa have exploited it more? Maybe, but I’m not so sure. While Roger played a 5-setter,too, his match was still a lot shorter and far less gruelling than Rafa’s match against Grigor. So, in the end this silly AO peculiarity probably made only a small difference. The truth is that Rafa should’ve put Grigor away in 4 sets. That would’ve made a much bigger difference.
That doesn’t change the general silliness of the AO scheduling and I think that players, fans and experts think that it should be changed. It’s only beneficial from a monetary perspective. I can remember years where both finalists had protracted and gruelling semifinals. In this case the player who had played one day earlier had definitely a huge advantage.
What gets me littlefoot is that with few exceptions if any, fed always gets the extra day regardless of seeding.
If that has always been so, it’s indeed suspicious. As I tried to argue, it might not have made such a big difference to the outcome of yesterday’s match. But it might tie into the general locker room accusations of favoritism towards one player. And that’s certainly an ugly thought…
littlefoot JANUARY 30, 2017 AT 2:54 PM
If that has always been so, it’s indeed suspicious. As I tried to argue, it might not have made such a big difference to the outcome of yesterday’s match. But it might tie into the general locker room accusations of favoritism towards one player. And that’s certainly an ugly thought…
*********************************
But Fed wins the Sportsmanship Award every year which we are told is voted for by the players. Non of it makes sense to me.
If there is favoritism..is anyone talking about it? He has been getting scheduling benefits since eons..has anything changed all these years?
I remember though in 2014..he was in Rafas half at AO and played semi on Friday.
I remember 2010 US semi..he and Novak played 2nd after Rafa-Youzhny though same day..
I remember 2011 FO semi..he and Novak played 2nd on FRiday after Rafa-Murray..same day
2012 FO semi..again he and Novak played 2nd on Friday after Rafa-Ferrer ..same day
I have a feeling..AO favours him regarding scheduling..French open heavily with draws (he is never on Rafas side and Rafa/Novak always together)…I dont see any obvious bias from Wimby or USO towards him..
Wimby is very fair. Defending champ always plays Day 1. Also historically Aussie Open has been fair but this year was an exception regarding scheduling and court conditions.
French Open and USO traditionally never let Rafa start the tournament before Fed. Some history during the peak of the Golden Era when Fed’s slam count production was threatened:
FRENCH OPEN
2008: Fed was No. 1, Rafa defending champ – Fed plays on Day 2, Rafa on Day 4
2009: Rafa was No. 1, Rafa defending champ – Rafa and Fed both play on Day 2
2010: Fed was No. 1, Fed defending champ – Fed plays on Day 2, Rafa on Day 3
2011: Rafa was No. 1, Rafa was defending champ – Fed plays on Day 2, Rafa on Day 3
2012: Nole was No. 1, Rafa was defending champ – Fed plays on Day 2, Rafa on Day 3
2013: Nole was No. 1, Rafa was defending champ – Fed plays on Day 1, Rafa on Day 2
US OPEN:
2008:
2009: Fed was No. 1, Fed defending champ – Fed plays Day 1, Rafa plays Day 3 (Fed plays his 2nd rnd match on Day 3!!!)
2010: Rafa was No. 1, Delpo defending champ – Fed plays on Day 1, Rafa on Day 2
2011: Nole was No. 1, Rafa was defending champ – Fed plays on Day 1, Rafa and Nole on Day 2
2012: Nole was No. 1, Nole was defending champ – Fed plays on Day 1, Nole on Day 2
2013: Rafa was No. 1, Murray was defending champ – Fed and Rafa play on Day 1 (except Fed was rained out)
(Have I mentioned that the French crowd have always loved Fed much more than Rafa?)
#QueueTheUsualSuspect
You have to factor in Fed’s age; if both of them played their five setter SF matches on the same day and had only one day rest before the final, I doubt Rafa would be any worse off than Fed even when Rafa’s match vs Dimi was more grueling. Rafa is five years younger than Fed and he’s the fitter guy.
Rafa did not have one full day of rest because he finished his match at midnight then had to attend press conferences, doping tests etc. which didn’t finish until 4.30 am in Saturday morning which was when he went to bed. They could have played the second SF earlier on Friday to avoid playing into Saturday.
If Rafa is himself saying his legs and shoulder felt tired in the match due to long semi with Dimi..why are we not believing him? He is human..the long 5 hour semi was bound to have an effect..he is 30 plus now and not that match fit…I am not saying he would have won had he been fresh but his CC shots were landing short on Feds BH and that can be due to tiredness..Isnt that his bread butter shot vs Fed? If those would have landed deep..could Fed have hit so many BH winners..
Also the Dimi match with Rafa seemed to help Fed bigtime..He said he saw the full 5 hour match 50% as an analyst to see what Rafa is doing..Dimi plays similar to Fed..so Fed knew exactly what to do vs Rafa 🙂
Yes bread and butter.
The usual strategy was correct. He doesn’t need to adjust that against Fed. The execution was poor with so many CCFH landing short (and low because of fast conditions) and ineffective easy for Fed to put away with winners.
#HowManyTimes???
This. I wondered so many times through the match why Nadal wasn’t giving the ball more air on the corsscourt – Federer got him on the crosscourt exchange several times.
Said he was lacking energy to consistently hit that shot deep after long semi.
Strange thing is Rafa’s team seemed like they had not been watching Fed’s matches there at the AO. If they had, they would realize that Fed was hitting his BH better than ever, and he was consistently moving forward to attack and shorten points.
Moya had done an interview with the Spanish media and somebody translated what he said; he mentioned that they were surprised how well Fed hit his BH. I mean surprised? If they had been watching Fed’s matches, they shouldn’t be surprised.
It seemed to me that they had only one game plan against Fed; once that game plan failed, Rafa ran out of ideas how to deal with Fed. I’m disappointed with the way he returned Fed’s serves during the final. Against Raonic, he adjusted his return positions and that paid off; against Fed, he hardly changed his return positions, camped way behind the baseline, allowing Fed to move to the net immediately after serving, feasting on Rafa’s short returns.
If Rafa’s legs and shoulders were tired, then why not play from closer to the baseline instead of camping way behind the baseline? Staying on the baseline, his CC FH won’t be as short as him hitting from way behind the baseline.
Seriously, it’s typical of Rafa, once he’s lacking in confidence or belief, he became defensive and coiled back into his shell and started playing defensive tennis. He’s not as brave as before, preferred to counterpunch to force errors instead of taking more
risks and going for winners.
We talked about the unfairness of the timing of the SF, when Rafa seemed to be at the short end all the time. If that’s always the case, then do something to conserve energy if the AO organisers are not going to do something to help you. Rafa please, get you team to help time you all the time and make sure that you’re serving well under 25 secs. The TV warnings he rec’d during the Raonic and Dimi matches had clearly bothered him, for he had to rush through his service games and then lost his serve, causing him more precious energy fighting back from behind in the set. Imagine Rafa sailed through Raonic’s match smoothly, and beat Dimi in four sets, he could save precious energy for the final.
Fed didn’t have it easy either, he had to battle through Kei and Stan in five sets (about 3+ hours each match); though he had an additional one day rest, he at 35 would need more recovery time. A less fatigued Rafa might hit his shots with more authority, retrieved a bit quicker, played with a calmer mind and clearer thoughts, and most likely held on to the fifth set lead to win the title. A lesson to be learned by Rafa, and a well deserved win by Fed ( for capitalizing on whatever were given to him and on the weaknesses of his opponent).
Luckystar…agree with everything u said..
Sorry but Rafa is not in peak shape after such a long layoff.
We know historically it takes more matches for rafa to find his top form than Fed even after short layoffs let alone longer ones which is part of why I didn’t expect Rafa to even make finals.
In better shape/form, Rafa’s strategy would have worked and he could have made better adjustments if needed, but conditioning, poor execution when it counted also caused by nerves cost him in the end.
He got much further than I thought and came very close to beating Fed on Fed’s best fast conditions when playing him.
A privilege for all tennis fans to watch…an honor to be in the tv presence of two wonderful champions. Both played great in the 5th, but Fed is GOAT!!!
Whether or not Rafa having an extra days rest wouldve made a difference in the final, is neither here nor there really, and not really the issue, what we are talking about, is fairness for all in the scheduling, other than that Federer deserves his 18 GS no doubt about it ….
I agree, general fairness is the issue. That was the point I was trying to make, too. This issue goes beyond yesterday’s match.
LittleFoot it does indeed, Federer fans would see this as sour grapes i suppose, however as i said, i would say this if the shoe was on the other foot too, its not about emotional bias ….
Yeah p’sses me of a bit, it was the same in 2009, an extra days rest for Federer, where as Rafa was slugging it out for god knows how long with Verdasco, and hardly any rest afterwards, in that final i expected him to get white washed, thankfully he won pleased to say ….
I would like to pose the question to anyone who knows the precise answer. How was the decision made in the tournament, which side of the draw to play on the first day? Any chance for organizer to favor any side of the draw?
top half played first because Federer was in it.
Ricky, your wording is very interesting: You said, that the top half played first because Federer was in it. If there is no favorotism shouldn’t be more like: top half ALWAYS plays first – no matter who’s in it? 😉
But in 2009 it was the other way round: Federer was definitely in the bottom half – but in that year the bottom half played first. So, there’s apparently a certain degree of flexibilty to the schedule. And that does at least open the door to favoritism…
whichever half Fed is in plays first
Whichever half has Federer in it plays first.
Ricky and liz are correct!
#BeatMeToThePunch
What amazes me is that everyone accepts open inequalities in the way tennis is run. A junior girl was disqualified athletes this year’s AO for swiping a ball aside and accidentally hitting a ball girl, but Djokovic hit a ball into the crowd once and nothing was done about it.
Corr
A junior girl was disqualified at this year’s AO for swiping a ball aside
so you agree he gets scheduling benefits..I feel scheduling benefits at AO and draw benefits at French open..dont see any bias by Wimby and USO though..your thoughts please Ricky..I am saying this based on what I have observed since many years..
Roger played only one day match at this tournament. Or am I wrong?
Till the semis Stan played more day matches,I remember. Stan was also AO champion in the past and his ranking was better than Rogers at this tournament. Andy played also 2 day matches…
SO, Roger got all the possible help. I am really, really angry.
Yeah, it looks like Roger got all the help he could get. I can understand that this makes you angry. If the suspicions are true it makes me angry, too. But this doesn’t just concern Rafa. It concerns all the other players, too.
If that helps: Roger didn’t win the match yesterday and all his other matches because of favoritism. He played great and Rafa didn’t play equally great. That’s why he lost.
As to the night matches: I can understand that. Rafa and Roger are the biggest viewer magnets. And the nightmatches can be watched by Europeans in the morning. Therefore it does make sense to schedule Roger and Rafa for most of the night matches. Wawa may be ranked higher nominally, but certainly not on the general popularity scale.
littlefoot, you could say that the reason Roger played better was because he was more rested and had more time to prepare for the final. Stands to reason.
Nadline, while general disparity of rest time and perhaps favoritism is troubling, I’m not sure if it had such a great effect on yesterday’s match. Roger would probably have been more rested than Rafa even if he had played on Friday, too, simply because he spent much less time oncourt against Wawa. I don’t believe that Roger woul’ve been much more tired if he had rested one day less. Rafa brought some of his extra tiredness onto himself by not putting Grigor away earlier.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the AO scheduling is ok. I made that very clear. Favoritism is ugly. But we shouldn’t take all this for an excuse that Rafa lost.
littlefoot,
Again the voice of reason! I think you make some good points. I also don’t wish to expend too much more energy on this because it won’t change the outcome. I would prefer to go along with your contention that it would not have made a difference if they both played in the same day. It is worthwhile to bring up the fact that Rafa spent more time on court overall in his previous matches. Rafa had been so good in taking his opportunities to close out matches, but did not do so in that crucial semifinal match with Dimi. Rafa being up two sets to one, should have taken the opportunity to close it out in the fourth set, thereby saving himself another hour on the court. That might have made the difference.
I think we all agree about favoritism and the unfairness of having the semis played in two different days. That is not up for debate.
Thanks, NNY 🙂
Kei was mirroring Roger on night matches until he was knocked out by Roger.
I just don’t understand why the SFs for the women are played on the same day but one of the men’s S. finalists is given an extra day. It is also worth noting that Federer is ALWAYS in the half that gets the extra day’s rest. The commies said Rafa did not get to bed until 4.30 am on Saturday morning, got up at midday and only practiced for one hour because he needed to rest and recover.
I am proud of Rafa and I’m pleased that he won 6 best of 5 set matches in a row, something which he hasn’t done since the FO 2014, this shows that his form is back, he now needs to maintain that and have mother luck on his side.
Vamos Rafa!
Prime time TV ratings is why.
#Business101
For me, the match came down to:
1. fast conditions set up to give fed his deepest run possible
2. along with preferred scheduling for Fed (a savvy veteran business move tied to ratings/revenue, nothing more),
3. Rafa almost beating Fed yet again on Fed’s best fast hard court conditions when he plays Rafa and Rafa not closing the door up a break in the decider (due to remaining doubts).
4. and Fed playing as good as he’s ever played in that match.
#NothingNew
Hawkeye,
I basically agree with your points overall. I have been reading the discussion with interest.
I think what stands out to me, is that Rafa was in a position to win the match. That should not be forgotten amidst all of the anger over favoritism. Rafa let it get away from him most likely due to nerves late in the second set. He did very well in his previous matches to not get broken in the key moments late in his matches. In fact, he showed tremendous mental fortitude in fighting off break points. But that seemed to desert him when he was up a break and only three games from winning.
It is a legitimate issue that one player gets an extra day’s rest. That did not work eight years ago when Rafa somehow defeated Fed when everything was against him.
The favoritism has not helped Fed until now. Because he still could not beat Novak in two slam finals in 2015. So there is a limit to what favoritism can do.
It’s over now and complaining about it won’t change the result.
Sorry, I meant to say in the final set, not the second set!
NNY and Hawkstradamus, I agree with all your thoughts. And while favoritism is ugly an shouldn’t anger only Rafafans, let’s not forget that Rafa played a great tourney. But Roger played better at key moments. As NNY said correctly, favoritism couldn’t get Roger titles in the past – he still lost eventually – and it didn’t get him the title yesterday. It might’ve facilitated it but he still had to go out and win. And he did. Rafa came close but it wasn’t enough.
Oh I disagree that favouritism didn’t help.
The most blatant example was the 2008 USO Super Saturday. All throughout the tournament, Rafa’s half played 1st (rare exception)and Roger’s half played their corresponding round the next day.
Nasty weather came on Super Saturday with scheduling in disarray. The first match should have followed suit with Rafa starting 1st but I was shocked to learn that, no, the tables would be turned and Roger would play Nole 1st.
As a result, the Rafa-Murray match was not completed and had to be finished on Sunday giving Roger more rest for the Finals. Would love to know the back-door scheduling that happened that weekend.
Not to mention the 13 straight slams Nole was drawn into Fed’s half in non-clay slams prior to Nole turning his career around winning three slams and starting to beat Roger in 2011, might I remind everyone a 0.01% chance of random occurrence.
I don’t follow any other sport as closely, but I doubt that there is any other sport that blatantly fixes conditions to suit their preferred outcome of tournaments. I heard a commentator say the Australians laid on a fast court with fast balls for the benefit of Krygios. Fat lot of good did that do, as Krygios had no interest in making any effort to do well. The Americans did the same for Sampras and Roddick to enable them to win the USO.
Tennis will be seen as a disreputable sport if people take a close look at what goes on.
No. Mass fandom and revenue is blind. Federer is by far the most popular tennis player of all time (in terms of ATP/ITF revenue and player endorsement revenue is concerned). It benefits them the longer Fed is playing in a tournament.
All professional sport is a business first.
Nadline, it was always like this. Nothing new and Roger – or maybe even Kyrgios, for whom the fast conditions were designed (that explanation actually makes a lot of sense to me – Germans would try to design very fast conditions for our rising star Sascha Zverev these days), When Germany hosted the WTF Championships in the 90s, first in Franfurt, then in Hannover, an ultra-fast floor was layed out in order to accomodate Boris Becker. So, what happened this year during the AO is nothing new. Federer might even have been a secondary beneficionary of the faster conditions. Kyrgios is indeed a more plausible primary target. There’s always pressure to accomodate the national players. As far as the extra rest day is concerned – Federer was for sure the intended beneficionary in that case.
Well Boris Becker was No. 1 in the world when Germany started hosting those so I think that comparison is a little dubious in my opinion.
I think it was done for Roger to be honest, and also to lessen Djokovic’s advantage who loves AO traditional slower surface, but as I said a wise business move, hardly controversial. They are free to do as they choose.
I don’t get why there is so much controversy over faster courts. If the AO were still played on the sticky surfaced Rebound Ace Nole, Andy, and Rafa would have a collective 0 titles there.
If the organizers did speed up the courts the intended benefits would’ve been for the local stars in Kyrgios & Tomic. Both prefer Wimbledon’s faster surfaces plus Kyrgios won his maiden title at an indoor hardcourt event last year.
I don’t see any controversy.
Rafa is a very good fast court player (he got to the final) but he loses a key advantage vs Fed in fast conditions.
Rafa is 3-0 vs Fed on slower AO courts.
Fed is 4-1 vs Rafa on fast WTF hard courts.
Just an observation.
BTW, I picked Fed to win the Australian Open before the tournament started for a bunch of reasons, one of which was that lead up tournaments were playing fast and AO was reported fast by players after practice.
You definitely did call it, Hawkstradamus! Well done! 🙂
As Hawstradamus says: no real controversy. And I agree that it is more likely that the recent court speed change was primarily made for Kyrgios. And Roger certainly didn’t complain 😉
No I doubt it was done for Kyrgios.
Television revenue from broadcast rights worldwide is orders of magnitude greater than ticket sales (which are pretty much sold out regardless of how Kyrgios might do).
Local TV ratings are more important for non-finals matches. That’s how undeserving no-name local players get scheduled onto night matches.
I also agree that Fed did earn the win. He played better in that match. Now one can say that Rafa may have been hampered by that long five set match with Dimi and only one day’s rest. I said before the final that the one thing that could cost Rafa was tiredness and fatigue after the long semifinal.
Also, I don’t understand why there is not more outrage over the MTO’s that Fed took in the fifth set. Who was the one that would have benefited from a few strategic MTO’s? Pat Cash accused Fed of cheating. Fed did admit after the match that he had a groin or leg injury even from the match against Stan.
If Rafa had taken those MTO’s and won the match, then we would be hearing about him cheating to win the match. Where is the outrage over that? Fed was holding his service games easily. So why the need for the MTO’s?
That was strategic to clear his mind .. He said in presser after Stans match that MTOs are all mental..you just want to clear your mind and talk to someone…Since it worked there, I am sure he tried it here ..He actually lost his serve immediatedly ..so not sure it helped him here..
He played out of his guts being 3 1 down..which I never ever expected him to ..Rafa showed what he does not against Fed and Fed showed what he does not against Fed in 5th set..
Sanju,
My point is that if it was Rafa, no matter whether it worked or not, we would have heard accusations of cheating.
Do you remember when Fed pulled something similar in the 2010 AO in his match with Davy? Fed was down one set and Davy was on the verge of going up two breaks in the second set. Fed took a well timed abs strategic bathroom break and the sun changed position. Fed ended up winning the second set and the match. I think he even admitted it after the match, that it was strategic. So he’s done this before.
The effect of MTO’s at key moments in a match can be to distract one’s opponent or stop his momentum.
If we are going to talk about scheduling favoritism, then I think it’s fair to bring up the MTO’s.