Kevin Anderson pulled off a stunning upset in even more stunning fashion, saving a match point and rallying from two sets down to beat Roger Federer in the Wimbledon quarterfinals on Wednesday. Anderson prevailed 13-11 in the fifth.
(8) Kevin Anderson def. (1) Roger Federer 2-6, 6-7(5), 7-5, 6-4, 13-11
The overwhelming tournament favorite Roger Federer was stunned by South Africa’s Kevin Anderson in a marathon quarterfinal at Wimbledon on Wednesday afternoon.
For a couple sets, it seemed to be business as usual in the No. 1 seed–except for the fact that Federer was playing on Court No. 1 instead of Centre Court. Still, the second-ranked Swiss was able to handle Anderson’s booming first serve.
Even through the third set, there wasn’t a sense of urgency with the partisan crowd–until he served at 5-5 and Anderson suddenly snagged the break. He served out the set and with it, Federer lost his first set of the fortnight.
From there, the Swiss champion seemed to blink at just the wrong time. The fourth set went into Anderson’s pocket and Federer found himself battling for his tournament life in the fifth. Since Wimbledon doesn’t have a fifth-set tiebreak, one of them would have to secure a break of serve in order to prevail. Both men held fairly comfortably, but again it was Federer that blinked first. In his service game at 11-11, Federer donated an uncharacteristic double-fault and then an unforced error to give Anderson the break.
The eighth seed advances to a surprising semifinal showdown against John Isner on Friday.
[polldaddy poll=10053570]
I have no clue WWW from here on out. Anderson and Isner didn’t even make our WWWW poll! And now one of them will be in the final, with a decent shot to win after Rafa and Nole kill each other.
New poll:
Will Rafa win his 3rd Wimbly after wandering the wilderness for 8 years?
Will Novak win after his 2 year walkabout?
Will John Isner win his first major?? Has he even been to a major quarterfinal before?
Will Kevin Anderson prevail after a huge emotional upset to win his first major at the second time of asking?
All four guys are 31 or 32 years old! Is 30 the new 20?
Yup, being over thirty definitely seems to be the new requirement for even having a shot at a slam title. This new rule must’ve been implemented at the beginning of 2017. Since then no one under thirty has won a slam, and that won’t change on Sunday!
lol, since then no one not named Roger Federer or Rafa Nadal has won a slam!
I hope of course that this won’t change either! If Rafa wins we have to suspect that you can only win a slam if you are over thirty and your first name starts with an “R”.
Not enough options in the poll.
It wasn’t a shocker to me. I had Federer losing to Cilic. The point being, I doubted Fed’s ability to get deeper than the QF. I’m sorry for th fed fans here.
losing to Cilic in the SFs is A LOT different than losing to Anderson in the QFs
I think Anderson’s level today over the last three sets was at least as good as anything Cilic can bring. He played the big points huge; even the match point against he attacked and really forced the error, imo.
That’s right, Ricky.
Is ratcliff being moderated?
Posts don’t go through using my usual username. Weird
nope…
Hmm…
All posts have been lost when I tried posting as Ratcliff. ..all day. Maybe tomorrow I can use rc
testing again
Having similar probs rc-jalep.
Try deleting yer cookies and restarting yer browser.
Works for me. YMMV.
Why losing to Anderson easier than losing to Cilic?:Didn’t Anderson also nearly beat a peak Djoko at Wimby?
I also had Fed losing to Cilic in my bracket , as I felt age was finally catching up with him.
But I cant see why Cilic would play any better than Anderson today ,so I guess the point Ricky made was that , mentally, it would be much tougher to play Cilic in a bigger match than a QF, given their history.
Although I am disappointed for Federer, I am very happy for Kevin Anderson. He played fabulous tennis from the third set onwards, and especially in the last two. It wasn’t Fed’s best day, but Anderson had a lot to do with that. This was the kind of level he displayed in the first two sets against Diego at RG, and imo if he can bring it for his next two matches he will take the title.
This match also really should dispel any notion that Anderson is just a serve-bot, or even just a power player. In addition to crushing serves and ground-strokes, he displayed beautiful touch on several points, including volleys and drop shots. But what was most impressive was how he didn’t fold mentally.
As for Fed, it’s amazing that of the handful of matches he has lost over the last two years, he’s held match point in most of them; and in a couple more he’s been two points from victory. Maybe only the losses to Zverev in Montreal and Goffin at WTF last year was that not the case. I think his age told toward the end today, both physically and mentally.
was there a notion that Anderson was a serve-bot?
I think he’s sometimes lumped in with Isner and Raonic and co. But I don’t remember him ever showing as much touch as he did today.
I really hope Anderson makes the final. And if he does he won’t be a push-over for sure. Wimby is different than the USO. It will also help Anderson that he has been in a slam final already.
i would think Isner would be more competitive
Maybe Isner is but I feel he may be nervous and then starts making errors.
The only true serve bot is Karlovic, imo.
Anderson would make for a more interesting final.
Isntner not so much. Spoiler of tennis.
no he wouldn’t
For me, Isner has a much better chance at upsetting either Nadal or Djokovic in the final than Anderson does.
Agree. But again, that’s just a subjective perception. I don’t see Anderson winning again Nadal or Djoko in a final.
agreed
I agree about Anderson, ie his deft touches, and I’m also amazed that he didn’t fold mentally when facing MP. I really thought Fed had the match when he held MP but strange things do/did happen at times. Who would’ve thought that Anderson when facing MP started to play his best tennis ever to beat Fed at Wimbledon?
Fed to me looked his age as the match progressed, I was wondering whether he was playing too many warm up matches just before coming to Wimbledon. He already looked tired during Halle, perhaps he should just skip Halle after winning at Stuttgart.
Hit the nail on the head. Fed played one warmup too many. We never know what would have happened had he not played.
But decision to play warmup did not help
Exactly what I thought lucky. He shouldn’t have played Halle. YE1 is not a priority, therefore playing one warm-up tournament before Wimby makes more sense at his age.
agreed
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/07/roger-federer-wimbledon-worst-losses-career-kevin-anderson-djokovic-nadal
I am not that surprised Federer didn’t win the title, even though (like almost everyone) I would’ve had him as favourite going in. His Halle/Stuttgart form was mediocre by his recent standards, he just didn’t look sharp enough at times. As well as Coric played in that Halle final, Fed made multiple uncharacteristic errors on big points.
Strangely, despite Nadal’s good form here, I feel Federer might’ve been more nervous facing Djokovic. It’s only speculation, but I think on a grass court right now Roger would still feel more comfortable against Rafa. That’s mainly because of the way in which he notched up those wins last year, those were very big for him mentally. That being said, things can always change back the other way.
I tend to think a below-par Djokovic may have worried Federer a bit mentally, mainly because of those 2014/2015 finals and his lack of wins against Djokovic. They’re different players now, but I reckon it still would’ve been in the back of his mind. Conversely, I like Nadal in the Nadal/Djokovic match-up right now. While that rivalry has often been difficult for Rafa, that’s usually only the case when Novak is looking 100% and confident in himself. Right now I’m not convinced he’s at that point yet, but we should find out a lot in this semi.
Fed has been saying from start of the tournament that Rafa is a threat on grass this season. He did not say that about Djokovic. However his basis for talking up Rafa was the assumption of the confidence he now has because of having a spectacular clay season and defending all his points and winning 4 events.
Who a guy who’s out of the tournament would rather face had he made it to the final? Mmmm’ok sure whatevs.
So much for the “easy” opponents for Rafa at the US Open last year.
I can’t recall, who did Rafa face in the final last year?
It was the fed fans who were putting an asterix besides nadals us open win claiming anderson to be a journeyman. When fed lost to anderson suddenly in all forums anderson becomes more dangerous than delpo. Hypocrisy at its highest.
fair point
yes i have read that too..Its hypocrisy at its best which many Fed fans excel at to tarnish Rafas achievements…Hopefully now on the USO 2017 will not be brought up given that Anderson beat Fed at his fav event
So if Federer got Istomin in a grand slam semifinal, should that be called a tough draw because he beat Djokovic in Melbourne? 😂 Anderson played the match of his life to beat Fed, that’s still a relatively great draw for a final (although he is definitely not more formidable than Del Po or a journeyman by any means). However, I would definitely call Anderson an easier final opponent than former World No. 1s Roddick and Hewitt, a few of Federer’s weak era opponents from slam finals and semifinals.
yes benny but maybe Anderson is tougher than mark philloupousis, marcos baghdhatis and Fernando Gonzalez whom Fed beat in his early years to win slams 🙂
I am sure you understand what I am trying to say. There should be no asterix against anyones slam wins. They played who was in front of them and won .
I am pleased that you have said this, Sanju. I would love to hear you repeat it the next time a Rafa fan talks about some “weak era” in which Fed won slam titles.
I repeat, you play who is in front of you. You cant control when you were born or the quality of your opponents. Yes the overall quality of the field was much weaker from 2004 to 2007 as Rafa and Novak in particular had not blossomed compared to 2008 onwards but frankly it is not Feds fault. He reaped the advantage and why wouldn’t anyone?
Yes the path to slam titles overall for Rafa and Novak was tougher but well no one can change anything ..
we will agree to the asterix for USO 2017 if they agree to the asterix besides Feds only RG win in 2009 :-)..The point is you play who is in front of you and you have no bearing on who loses his matches before facing you. Atleast Rafa does not dodge his weaker surfaces and comes out to play them and try to rake up wins on stronger surfaces against rivals.
You’re joking right? Fed has only skipped the last two clay court seasons. He’s about to be 37. He’s preserving his career, keeping his body in good shape, not risking the back problems that have flared up for him on clay in the past. Remember when Fed got injured at Wimbledon 2016? He took a LOT of time off afterwards (probably more than he needed to) and he missed a very very successful time of the season for him just to make sure he can prolong his career. If he just likes to take time off to avoid clay and playing Nadal on it, he would’ve come back earlier from that injury but he didn’t because he was playing it safe and smart. And it’s not like Fed skipped clay throughout his career or even skipped it when he was in his early 30’s. It just so happens that clay is the surface that physically drains his 36 year old body the most (which is beyond understandable) so he skips it because he can afford to. And because of that, he hasn’t played Nadal off of hard courts, and frankly, he seems to have solved Nadal on that surface.
No Benny I am not joking, you are sane but large part of your fellow Fed fans only motive is to put Rafa down and discredit him and there is full on hypocrisy. Fed missed 2017 and 2018 and he did not play large part of clay in 2016 too. I am not against him skipping anything, it is his decision and I respect it. My grouse is against the multitude of Fed fans who discredit Rafas USO win in 2017 saying he got lucky. No he did not, he played who was in front of him. If Fed was beaten by Delpo and Dimi by Gubulev , its not Rafas fault. Rafa was there standing to play. He turns up to play whichever slam he can unless he is injured and does not tactically skip a slam . And if there is an asterix against Rafas 2017 USO, there should be one against Feds 2009 RG win too . No double standards or different yardsticks to rate Fed or Rafas GS wins. I am sick and tired of reading posts by haters who recycle the same sh!t day in and day out as if their life runs by discrediting Rafa who infact deserves every bit of his phenomenal success and infact much more.
Well I personally don’t consider Nadal lucky. Only time I did bring up that he played some weaker opponents is when some people complain about how easy Fed had it at past slams. I think we can both agree that these guys deserve their slam wins no matter who they face. As you said, they can’t control who they face.
Lets see if he has solved if they play this year Benny. This year Feds form has majorly regressed and Rafas is steady as of last year, so there is no surety that Fed will necessarily beat him on HC next time they meet.
I put no asterix in front of Rafa’s 2017 USO title.
I don’t think Fed has regressed significantly this year. He was playing brilliantly at wimby before the Anderson match, and if he had won that match point everyone would be talking about how he is the clear favourite to take the title. But Anderson went on from there to play the match of his life; Fed didn’t play his absolute best, but he by no means played badly; I would say he played well, given what he was facing. Anderson was just better on the day, especially on the big points, that’s all.
I was joking, Joe, and I’m the first to admit that Rafa had a fairly easy path to the trophy. And Anderson hasn’t played well in the final.
Sorry, Joe, my last really was meant for a different comment. Let me just say this: I disagree insofern with Sanju, as I do believe that Rafa has been extraordinarily lucky at the USO 2017. This was one of his easier slam wins, and even Rafafans should acknowledge that. But the evaluation of his final opponent may change a bit in hindsight.
Yeah, this is what makes it even harder to swallow as a Fed fan. The dude was balling and I would have liked his chances in the semis and finals.
eh, he would have had a good chance vs. Nadal or Djoker but certainly not better than 60-40
I think it’s not often recognized that being 6 inches taller is potentially a decisive advantage on a fast surface. It’s not in most cases simply because the added power is usually accompanied by a corresponding loss in consistency.
But Anderson wasn’t any less consistent than Fed over the last three sets. And he was probably hitting his serve at an average 15mph faster, and much harder ground-strokes as well. Fed probably should have tried to mix things up a bit more, and I thought he could have tried a few drop shots in particular. But Anderson was really bludgeoning the ball from both wings, not to mention the serve. He also showed enough finesse to keep Fed guessing. He also retuned exceptionally well. That package is extremely hard to deal with.
Excuse me Benny Fed started skipping french when he was 34 that is from 2016. And so we will see, will nadal start skipping wimby his least successful slam from 34 years age.
Fed did not skip the FO that year; he was injured. If you say: but he played the grass season, you should acknowledge that in many years, including this one, Nadal has skipped many non-clay tournaments that he “could” in some sense have played, only to return apparently at full strength for the clay court season.
To me, what tournaments one plays or doesn’t play is a non-issue. One can’t do any worse than not playing. There’s not much more to say. Fed’s not playing the clay court season the last two years is a reflection of his age. He simply can’t do it anymore, while still playing at a high level in the remaining non-clay tournaments.
I agree with you, Joe. I think it’s a smart move of Fed, not to play clay tournaments anymore, and I don’t hold it against him. I think that some rafafans are a bit miffed because this allowed Fed to avoid Rafa on clay, and this affected the (rightfully) cherished head-to-head. I do not agree, though, with the argument of many fedfans that Fed would be the unchallenged No 1 player for sure if he only had played the clay season. This argument is faulty for many reasons, because we do not know how playing on clay would’ve affected his overall performance on other surfaces. And Rafa missed also large chunks of the last two seasons. So, it’s about even. Rafa doesn’t skip the grass season because skipping important events is just not compatible with his competitive nature. Also, the grass season is short and is probably less hard on his body than a full clay season would be on Fed’s body. If Rafa should skip anything it’s hardcourt events. And he did just that this year by leaving out the US spring hardcourt masters. Maybe, it wasn’t a free choice because he was recovering from injuries, but it seems that it paid off big time.
Right. As Benny has noted, Fed did not skip any major tournament until last year, when he was nearly 36. We shall see if Nadal is still playing all the major tournaments when he’s that age, or whether he is playing at all. The difference between 32 and 36, in tennis terms, is not small.
Ive even heard Rafa fans say that fed lost deliberately at the US so he wouldn’t have to play Rafa.But he lost to Delpo, who has often troubled him.
Agree about no asterisks, though , otherwise a few players might as well hand their titles back, like all the AO winners of the early Eighties.
On Feds loss, he’s won many more matches like this than he’s lost, statistically its bound to happen sometimes , esp when its 11 all in the final set.
One hears a lot of ridiculously conspiratorial things on this site, Al. All of top guys are far too competitive to throw a match at a slam. Delpo has long given Fed trouble, and he was just better that day. Maybe Fed was carrying an injury, but he was good enough to be competitive against Delpo and obviously would have been against Nadal as well. Not a chance that he lost deliberately.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, Joe. You should look up the definition of a conspiracy! It needs at least one co-conspirator, lol! The idea that Fed tried to avoid a meeting with Rafa in the 2017 USO semis is just an ordinary theory which may or may not be true. But considering that Fed knew, a very well playing Rafa had already reached the semis, and looking at the highly peculiar way how the match against Delpo unfolded, who was clearly not at the heights of his powers after the match against Thiem, lends some credit to this idea. Especially since Fed had freely admitted that the idea of meeting Rafa at the USO 2010 had hampered his performance against Novak in the semis. Roger very clearly wasn’t eager then and now to lose to Rafa at the only slam where it hadn’t happened, yet. So, there might’ve been well a subconscious element there. But we do know from Fed himself that the lopsided head-to-head against Rafa has bothered him far more than he previously had led on. Kudos to him for turning this around in 2017, btw. That was no small feat.
I think that bailing out of matches is far more common than the casual tennis fans are aware of. I believe that Rafa has done it, too, occasionally. I believe for example that he lost more or less deliberately to Thiem in Rome 2017 because he wanted to avoid the Djoker in the semis. A potentially gruelling match just before RG and the risk of a loss wasn’t anything he needed right before the FO. And the full extent of Novak’s slump wasn’t known at the time.
While throwing a match is not something to be proud of, it can sometimes be a smart move, and I believe that many players have done it eventually during their careers.
Don’t agree about Rafa at Rome 2017 littlefoot. Rafa had just beaten Novak at Madrid before that a week before. He was just too tired winning 3 back to back and that can be the only reason .
Feds words for USO 2017 were something like ‘ Rafa is playing very well, well within himself If I cant challenge Rafa, very well someone else challenge him’. It was this statement that led credence to the theory that he may have deliberately lost the QF.
Sanju, we may or may not be wrong with our suspicions. I believe for example the fact that Rafa had just beaten Novak in Madrid was one reason to avoid another meeting. Why endanger the psychological edge Rafa had just gained. And Novak was playing much better in Rome than in Madrid. And even if Rafa had won against Novak, this would’ve led to the necessity to play a competitive final. I really think it was strategically totally smart to let the match against Thiem go. I actually fully expected Rafa to lose the match, and I hoped he would.
But whatever- we may or may not be wrong with our ideas. We certainly can’t prove it one way or another. But while it is speulative, I seriously take issue with the idea that all this is just a ridiculous conspriracy theory, as Joe expressed it.
Well, in the ordinary sense of “conspiracy theory,” the implication is that there is some sinister motive behind what would otherwise be an ordinary event.
In this case, the simplest and most plausible explanation is that Federer lost because delpo was better that day. yes, you can point to some anomalies in the match, but one can often do that. As we just saw with Fed-Anderson, sometimes matches can take very unexpected turns. But to suggest that Federer. one of the greatest competitors ever, would have deliberately lost a chance to play in a slams semifinal, having won two earlier in the year, just is beyond the pale, imo. One would need much better evidence than anything I’ve seen you suggest to believe that.
Good that we all agree that there are no asterix against anybodys win. To be honest they all have got lucky at slams, Rafa got at USO2017, Fed got at RG2009 and maybe few others where Rafa got out early when he was owning him(eg USO 2018 in semi Rafa lost to Murray ) and Fed had a major mental block. Djoko on the other hand I would say did not get really lucky however maybe not beating Rafa and Fed and just having to beat Murray in final(as in 2013 AO, 2015 AO) is lucky to some extent (given that Murray would always self destruct :-))
USO 2008 I meant above
I fully believe that Roger and Rafa got lucky sometimes. I really liked this article linked by Hawkeye which introduced the ELO in order to assess the value of certain slams. Novak however earned most of them the hard way. Did he ever get lucky? This makes his achievements even more remarkable.
Novak may have got lucky at RG 2016, because Rafa had just started to play well again on clay, when he hurt bis wrist and had to bail out of the FO. It’s hard to say if Novak would’ve won against a strong Rafa that year. But at least he had beaten a considerably weaker Rafa already at the FO in the previous year. It’s almost impossible to say who would’ve won such a hypothetical meeting in 2016…
littlefoot, as I have said many times, what that article mostly shows is how good Nadal is on clay. It is only because he is so good at RG, almost always beating the top players (i.e. Federer and Novak), that his cumulative ELO score is so high. If you were to factor out his non-clay slam titles, his score would be much less.
One can reply: so what? The methodology only claims to show that Nadal, on balance, has faced tougher competition in slams than has Federer. To which I say: I agree. Just be honest and acknowledge that that is mostly because of how good he is on clay. He is much better on clay (in win-loss terms particularly) than others are on other surfaces, and that’s why his elo is so high.
Let’s agree to disagree, Joe. We have made our arguments re: value of specific slam titles many times, and we won’t reach a consensus ☺
Let’s look forward to today’s matches. I haven’t the foggiest idea how they will unfold. My heart hopes for a new edition of Nadal vs Anderson – the pairing which sparked this specific discussion. But my heart ist totally irrelevant, lol!
Well, I thought I was agreeing about the overall methodology. You could agree with me that Nadal has the higher ELO score only because he’s so good on clay; that’s what explains why he has the higher overall score. Then we agree on both counts and there’s no disagreement at all.
Djoko got lucky at USO2016 when many of his opponents were injured and retired but he wasn’t lucky enough against Stan in the final. His route to a slam final there was one of the most ridiculously easy one! And people were complaining about Rafa’s easy draw at USO2017 when he had to play all seven matches and not all of them were straight forward wins.
Lucky, true, that route to a final was a complete joke, and it would’ve been truly ridiculous if Novak had won the title.
The Isner/Anderson match is a whole lot more interesting than I was expecting. Trying to work out which of the two I would prefer to see in the final (assuming Rafa deals with Novak that is).
Anderson & Isner are still battling away. At this rate Rafa and Djokovic will end up playing under the roof which could put Rafa at a disadvantage 🙁