It turned out that everyone else in Indian Wells was playing for second place, given the dominance of Roger Federer. But with Federer, Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal, Nick Kyrgios, Alexander Zverev, and Juan Martin Del Potro all packed into the same quarter of that draw, second place–and third, and fourth–was wide open.
The Miami Open–first place included–should be even more up for grabs, especially with Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic out due to elbow injuries. That means Indian Wells runner-up Stan Wawrinka is the No. 1 seed ahead of Kei Nishikori, Milos Raonic, and Federer.
Another tough quarter awaits Federer and Del Potro in Miami, where they could go head-to-head in the third round. It would not be unfair to argue that the winner of that possible showdown will go on to take the title, although Del Potro would likely have a hard time backing up an upset of Federer by beating Roberto Bautista Agut in the next round.
Elsewhere in the top half of the bracket, Wawrinka is in a section that also includes Kyrgios, Zverev, David Goffin, and John Isner.
On the other side, potential quarterfinal showdowns are Nishikori vs. Marin Cilic and Raonic vs. Nadal. A rematch of an Australian Open semifinal thriller–won by Nadal–could see the Spaniard go up against Grigor Dimitrov in the fourth round. Dimitrov is 17-3 this season with losses only to Nadal, Goffin, and Sock (all in final sets).
Intriguing first-rounders include Donald Young vs. Dustin Brown, Fabio Fognini vs. Ryan Harrison, and Benoit Paire vs. Martin Klizan, Kyle Edmund vs. Jared Donaldson, Alexandr Dolgopolov vs. Malek Jaziri, and Nikoloz Basilashvili vs. Tommy Robredo.
Seeds who could lose their opening match:
(18) John Isner–vs. Thomas Bellucci. Isner is not in good form, has never fared well against lefties, and Bellucci would basically have home-court advantage in Miami even though this is technically in the United States.
(22) Sam Querrey–vs. Nikoloz Basilashvili. Querrey recently captured a stunning title in Acapulco. He will be content with that result for at least a few months.
(27) David Ferrer–vs. Karen Khachanov or Diego Schwartzman. This is the beginning of the end for Ferrer, whose disappearance from the top of the rankings is becoming more and more obvious with each tournament.
(30) Joao Sousa–vs. Fabio Fognini or Ryan Harrison. Sousa is tougher mentally than either of his two potential second-round opponents, but the discrepancy in sheer talent level may be too much to overcome.
(32) Paolo Lorenzi–vs. Adrian Mannarino. Lorenzi shouldn’t be seeded; and he wouldn’t be if not for the withdrawals of Djokovic, Murray, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, and others. Mannarino is a crafty fast-court player who often does well in Miami.
Predictions
Quarterfinals: Nick Kyrgios over Alexander Zverev, Dominic Thiem over Roberto Bautista Agut, Grigor Dimitrov over Milos Raonic, and Lucas Pouille over Fernando Verdasco
Semifinals: Kyrgios over Thiem and Dimitrov over Pouille
Final: Dimitrov over Kyrgios
[polldaddy poll=9701254]
who ya got?
Federer. Hard to pick against him until he loses
Fed is the man! I gotta go with him over Rafa in the final. Cream rise to the top.
Fed not making the QF? what is this guy smoking…
he is 50 years old and tired
that being said, if he beats Del Potro, he will win the tournament
Then you should have picked him.
Easy win.
I like the Dimitrov pick….he looked great at IW, but my vote still goes to Fed, GOAT!!!
Finally you pick Dimi for a tournament, he is the one and he gonna do it
Comooooon Dimi
Fed will win title if he beats Delpo
A struggling #TBT #Nole1.0 has won last two vs #Delpo0.5.
I just hope that you not comparing #GOAT2.0 with struggling #Nole0.5.
Don’t you? Or do you.
I haven’t picked Rafa to win any tournament this year yet, but as I’ve already said on another post, I am actually picking Rafa to FINALLY win Miami. If we get another Fed/Rafa final, there’s a chance I will have to rethink this pick depending on their respective forms going into said final. However, I personally don’t think the Fed will make it to the final here, mainly because the IW/Miami double is one of the most physically challenging feats in tennis, and I just feel like it could be too big of an ask for a 35 year old especially in the really humid, heavy conditions of Miami… That being said, NOTHING will surprise me about Fed anymore. So if he were to actually pull off Miami, I wouldn’t be that surprised after all!
I think that Canada/Cincy feat is even tougher to do, as only two players did it ten years apart. This IW/Miami feat seems not so rare when many players did/do it and some did it multiple times, e.g. Djoko (4 times), Fed (twice). You have four weeks to win 12 matches (for seeded players) whilst Canada/Cincy you have two weeks to win 10 matches (for seeded players).
I agree with lucky regarding the Canada/Cincy feat being tougher than the IW/Miami feat for the reasons she stated. No need to repeat it, because I think she covered it.
Who said anything about the Canada/Cincinnati double not being extremely rare? Simply stating that the IW/Miami is not an easy feat. Many great players have not been able to do it. Only 7 male players EVER have done it, and the only two guys who have done it more than once are two of the most accomplished hardcourt players ever… I wouldn’t describe that as a feat that “many players” have done. 🙂 Just because the US Open series double is very rare and difficult, it doesn’t mean that the IW/Miami double is not a very impressive feat, especially given the extreme heat at both tournaments and the humidity of Miami.
Something seems to have struck a nerve with you when I mentioned the IW/Miami double… I know you are not intending to sound a unfairly biased, luckystar. But when I mentioned this historically difficult feat, that just happens to be one of the only feats that Rafa has yet to achieve, your reaction was to immediately defend the even more rare double that Rafa has achieved, which I never even mentioned in my comment. I never even said that the IW/Miami double was the harder than the US Open one…
Rafa being only one of a few guys (Roddick and Rafter the only I can think of) to ever win the US Open series double (AND the US Open itself!) is an absolutely incredible achievement. And yes, one could argue that it is even more impressive than the other hardcourt double. It’s still ok to admit that the IW/Miami double is a very impressive feat! 🙂 I know that you didn’t like it when I said something like this the other day, and I’m sorry. But you’ve got to understand that when you respond like you did to my comment about the Sunshine double simply being difficult, especially for a 35 year old Federer, what else am I supposed to think?
That’s why I couldn’t pick old Fed to win Miami. But I see Benny G doesn’t have a problem picking Fed to do the IW/Miami double. We’ll see! Especially I don’t think Fed will beat Rafa in the final…but I’m not good at picking the brackets lately. 2017 has been tough to pick. Lots of changes going on.
Ratcliff- who is the woman in your photo?? I’ve been trying to figure it out because she looks so familiar, but I just can’t put my finger on it!
She’s Catherine Bellis: young, talented and hopefully bringing the single-mindedness to her sport of tennis in the same way young Mikaela Shiffrin brought to her craft of Alpine Slalom and Giant Slalom ski racing! 🙂
We shall see. Chris Evert is her mentor. Cici appears to be mentally rock solid but you never know. right.
Kevin, it more like my post had struck a nerve in you! I was just stating a simple fact, that more players (7 right?) had done the sunshine feat, over three or four weeks, so according to me, that’s really not that rare!
If I want to talk about Rafa, I would have mentioned his clay court prowess! ( I don’t even want to go there!)
It turns out that you’re the one being so sensitive; you’re the one who keeps thinking about Rafa and his fans reaction; I mean not everyone has to agree with you right?
You mentioned that Fed and Djoko being the two best HC players, so all the more it’s not something rare for them to achieve the sunshine doubles more than once! The funny thing is, being the two best HC players, until now they still haven’t won Canada/Cincy B2B all these years, even when they came close (Fed in 2007/2014; Djoko in 2011/2012).
So, my point still stands, that it’s rare to win the Canada/Cincy double(Cincy is also hot and humid, and many times European players wilt in the heat and humidity during the days there, whilst Fed was always given the night slot). It’s no wonder one player won in 2003 and it took ten years for another to do it again in 2013. In between the two greatest HC players of this era had almost done it, twice each.
Oh I shortchanged Fed, he came close too in 2010, lost the final at Canada to Murray.
Rafa has certainly found the best sunshine double more difficult than Canada and Cincy.
Wasn’t Kevin’s point. Lucky just likes to play down #GOAT2.0”s achievements and play up Rafa’s.
But that’s fan bias for you.
Rafa is not the HC goat, nobody expect him to win the sunshine double. Some people just like to link everything back to Rafa.
Aren’t we comparing HCs at various venues and looking at the difficulties at winning them? What’s wrong with comparing the sunshine doubles against the Canada/Cincy double? Or must I always agree with what others have to say, when I truly disagree?
Isn’t this too much? Why everything has to link back to Rafa? Or people here are just too sensitive?? Certainly I do not appreciate people accusing me of anything, Hawkeye in particular. Hawkeye, I posted in an earlier post that we do not see eye to eye, and wanted you to skip my post and I to skip yours. So please leave my posts alone and I will not respond to any of your post, this being the last time. Thank you!
Sorry lucky but once one creates a reputation right or wrong, it is hard to shake so the perception here is that you dragged Rafa into this (who finds it harder to win the sunshine double as he’s never done it).
And there is nothing wrong with comparing HC venues. Nobody said so.
I do agree that bias or no, Cincy/Canada IS the tougher double. Just not sure of the point so the only point that seems obvious is that Rafa did one and not the other.
I responded to that offer. I am free to respond within forum rules and will continue to do so. It is you who went against your own statement that you were going to skip mine which you haven’t.
By your own admission, you would be better off if you did I suspect.
Maybe I should have let sleeping dogs lay, lucky. I resisted saying anything for a while, but I decided to just tell you anyway just to let you know how your response comes off to someone who is neutral. I won’t say anything about it again.
You’re absolutely right that I sensitive about my posts. I have trouble letting it slide when I feel like someone is misconstruing my comments. For example, I never said Fed and Djokovic are “the two best hardcourt players”. That’s something that is, and always will be debatable, depending on how you define “the best”. I said that they are “two of the most accomplished hardcourt players ever”. I specifically made sure to say “two of” the best because Agassi has also won a very large amount of hardcourt titles. These kinds of things shouldn’t be a big deal, but they are for me. It’s important to me that people understand what I’m saying. This why I felt the need to point out that I never even mentioned the IW/Miami double being any more or less difficult than the other double… I’m sorry.
Bang on Kev. Give as good as you get.
If it’s too hot in the kitchen, stay out of the fire.
Ok Kevin, point accepted. But, I have to disagree that IW/Miami are that difficult to win, considering the fact that out of 30+ times played since the open era, the IW/Miami B2B feat was done eleven times, i.e. > 30%, which to me it’s a lot of times.
Also please don’t be so sensitive, not everything is about Rafa, I’m just stating a fact, that the Canada/Cincy feat is more difficult to achieve, as since the open era, it’s being achieved only five times, i.e. about 10% of the times and each time done by a different player.
I’m just comparing B2B HC tournaments and there are only two of such ( Shanghai and Paris are not B2B).
Kevin, the basic premise of my previous post is that I DO NOT AGREE with you that IW/Miami is that difficult to win and I followed with the reasons for saying so, e.g. 12 matches over 4 weeks, compared to other B2B tournaments of 10 matches over 2 weeks (of Canada/Cincy for e.g., this also B2B events for comparison purposes. I could also bring up Madrid/Rome B2B but that’s on clay so I think that’s not a good comparison).
It is DEFINITELY difficult. Only seven people on the planet have ever done it.
I understand fully understand your intentions, lucky. I do not question them at all. I just felt compelled to let you know that when someone makes a comment saying that they think Federer will struggle to win the proven-difficult the Sunshine Double at his age, and your response is “The Canada/Cinci double is even harder!”, even though I personally believe that you do not intend to sound biased, it could appear to other people that you perhaps struggle to discuss anything Federer-related without feeling the need to defend Rafa in a reactionary way.
I understand that you’re unable to see it, because that’s how biases work! I am certain that I do it sometimes with politics (I am quite left-leaning), as well as with my all-time favorite player, Andre Agassi. Everyone does it sometimes. Almost all of your comments do not have what I am talking about! It’s just something I noticed in a couple of your comments regarding Federer-related things. Maybe I shouldn’t have said anything and just kept my mouth shut… But like I said before, I struggle to not speak up. I wished at that moment I could just email you about it instead of commenting about it on here.
If it were August right now and Cincinnati was about to start, and Rafa had just won the 2017 Rogers Cup, and I made a comment saying that I thought Rafa would struggle to win Cincinnati as well because that double is really difficult for someone his age, and a very pro-Federer person responded with, “The Sunshine double is harder than the Canada/Cinci double…”, I would think the exact same thing. And I do see things like that a lot!
#Boom
#DropsMic
#NailedIt
Nishikori is a US Open finalist who made the final of Canada and Miami in the last 12 months, yet he’s rarely mentioned as an elite hard court player. Got the easiest quarter. Djokovic, Murray absent. Kei lives in South Florida. Time for him to bag a Masters 1000 title.
not sure his body can withstand 6 matches
he lost to Sock in Indian Wells, which is not good
QF:
Kyrgios over Stanimal
Fed over Thiem
Rafa over Sock
Nishikori over Harrison
SF:
Fed over Kyrgios
Rafa over Nishikori
Final:
Fed over Rafa
QF
Kei over Pouille
Rafa over Sock
Delpo over Thiem
Goffin over Sascha
SF
Rafa over Kei
Delpo over Goffin
F
Delpo over Rafa
I don’t think Delpo can go far even if he were to beat Fed. I see Thiem going far here as the court is slow and suits his grinding but big hitting game. I pick Thiem vs Kygrios or Stan SF; and Rafa vs Kei SF. Not going to pick the finalists let alone the winner.
Well, I’d love to pick Kyrgios or Thiem but both have yet to impress me in a 1000 point tournament. Stan I think will go out earlier than at IW. Fed, I can’t see him accomplishing the IW/Miami double. He definitely can beat my pick Delpo tho! Rafa may well win…I had to take him to the final and I think Kei won’t beat Rafa here.
That said, this is also known as the South American Slam. So…unlikely, but Delpo over Rafa or vice versa.
Only one who has a great shot beating #GOAT2.0 in Miami (other than a complete upset a la Donskoy) is #Rafa.
Everyone else has 50% less chance.
lol, you are pretty far gone OTT for Fed these days. 😀
Agree tho #Rafa
Not really rc.
Just observing.
#GOAT2.0’s results speak for themselves three months into the season.
Three months into the season is still too soon to get so carried away. A LOT can happen.
Hahahah Harrison is on the verge of losing and I picked him to make the quarters come on Ryan hang in there bro!!
😀 Fognini made it! I suspected Fabio would be up for Miami for a couple rounds.
rc,
I am with you. It’s way too early to get carried away. Who would have thought last year that after Novak won RG, he would get knocked out of Wimby by Querrey in the early rounds. He would lose in the USO final to Stan and end up losing the # 1 ranking to a resurgent Murray who played some of his best tennis to win Wimby again and finally be #1 at the end of the year.
Fed has had a stronger start, but there is a lot of tennis still to be played.
Thanks Nny!
That’s what I’m saying. Fed has had a strong start but it’s a long way – still: 3 of the 4 GS’s — and over 7.5 of the 9 masters 1000 are left. Miami is not a done deal!
Who says Miami is a done deal? Who says Fed’s got a lock on YE No. 1?
#Strawman
I don’t see Fed losing to del Potro. If he loses in his half, it will be to Kyrgios. On the other side, my pick is either Dimitrov or Sock as the surprise finalist. Either Fed or Kygrios wins the title over either Dimi or Sock.
He won’t.
#Delpo0.5 is too one dimensional to bother this #GOAT2.0, tired or no.
HK,
I do not come often here, but I find your posts hilarious.
Aw shucks Dory.
#Humb1e
The one time I decide to post my tip of the spear picks and what do I get? hahahaha….
Delpo troubling top players is one thing but against Fed it will be totally different. The other top players are mostly defensive and therefore they have faced problems with Delpo’s powerful forehand and against Fed he will face all sorts of problem.
possibly
probably
It is rare to do the Canada / Cincy double, i believe only two players achieved that Roddick was one, although i dont know if he won the USO in the same year ?, and Rafa in 2013 where he also won the USO, no fan worship from me just facts, and hes been the only player to go unbeaten in a season on grass in 2008, on clay in 2010, and the American HC swing in 2013 ….
I think Roddick did win the USO in 2003.
I think what Djoko did in winning AO/IW/Miami was truly impressive. He won that thrice – 2011, 2015, 2016 – to me he’s the goat on HCs. He’s just two HC slams behind Fed, one WTF behind but at 22 HC Masters vs Fed’s 19, I think it’s a matter of time he will catch up on the HC slams and WTF.
What Djoko did in2015 was unbelievable, reaching all finals after losing early at Doha, was no.1 in ranking points on HCs, grass and clay! Not even Fed or Rafa could do that during their peak. The only flaw was not winning the FO that year. His ranking points on the HC that year top anyone else in any season in a decade.
Alison,
Bravo! I agree with you! I take exception to this idea that it’s about fan worship for Rafa and somehow glorifying his achievemects over those of other players.
For myself, I have never had a problem giving credit to other players for their achievements. I remember saying that is winning the North American Summer Slam we easy, then more players would have done it. It is a singular achievement that stands on its own.
Luckystar no argument from me there, thats the whole reason i dont really care or buy into all things GOAT, as theres too many different caveats to that particular topic, the top players all have their own specific areas in greatness, some have even put Conners in there with his career wins and titles ….
Nope. There is a GOAT. Undisputable.
Only disputable as to who it is.
Fed will remain favourite in all his matches, he will streamroll till semis and then there could be two tough matches and even though anything can happen but he is very confident right now and that should get him through his next title.
Thanks NNY 😉 ….
To add ive never put other players down in favour of Rafa ….
Bold*
But you’ve put down Rafa in favour of other players.
#JustAskGiles
My Predictions:
Quarterfinals:
Dimitrov beats Raonic
Wawrinka beats kegrios
Federer beats Thiem
Nishikori beats whoever he faces
Semifinal:
Federer beats Wawrinka
Dimitrov beats Nishikori
Final:
Federer beats Dimitrov
One more bild prediction:
Federer will win Miami without loosing a set.
Bold*
Fed-Rafa is too far away but it could definitely happen. Rafa was uncharacteristically bad in his match against Fed because generally his level has been very good this year. Fed is definitely an improved player now due to certain reasons. It would be more appropriate to talk about their match up once we really have it but I would like to touch upon some points:
-Fed is now coming over his backhand returns SO MUCH more. And, he is really in the zone and making such good contact. His backhand returns are more powerful and his mindset is such that he is ready to be on the offensive right from his ROS. In the past, we would chip/slice sooo many backhand returns and allow Rafa to set the rhythm of the rally with those heavy forehands. I mean, I’ve seen him come over his backhand returns in the past but never with the same regularity, power and belief. This is definitely troublesome for Rafa who can no longer afford to throw a safe, slider to Fed’s backhand on a break point. He has to shake the patterns up a bit and erase they predictability of those patterns.
– Fed can punish short, low pace balls more efficiently now with his backhand so depth is ESSENTIAL. Whenever Rafa was getting good length in AO and even in the IW match, Fed was just hitting backhand drives that didn’t have much on them because of the depth of Rafa’s shots. While I will never say Fed’s current forehand is better than his 2005-07 forehand, he perhaps does have some more easy power on this. This racket allows him to have easy power on serve and groundstrokes.
-Based on the above, one pattern Fed is using a lot if hitting forehands DTL early in the rallies. Rafa is surely slower to cover his forehand side now and Fed’s powerful forehands DTL are really punishing Rafa. Fed thought Rafa was moving slow in the IW match. It could be the case but in general Rafa needs to be wary of those forehands.
Agreed, VR, about Rafa being slow to cover his FH corner. Rafa tends to camp at his BH corner more often then not, and his opponents nowadays are not afraid to attack his FH, compared to in the past, all thanks to Djoko (and Sod) for showing the way of how to beat Rafa by attacking his FH before going to his BH.
Fed with his bigger racket now can attack DTL more effectively from both wings, not to mention his CC BH shot improvements too. He’s turning into another Djoko, i.e. well balanced from both wings and can attack from any direction.
Rafa OTOH, not only has a weaker FH than before, but also a weak BH since don’t know when (probably after 2009 or 2010). It will be a losing battle for Rafa vs not only Djoko but also Fed from now on; not to mention his weak serve and a declining ROS as well. I really don’t think Rafa can improve much if he sticks to one way of playing, i.e. playing from the baseline 95% of the time.
He may still have a slight edge over Fed on clay but they may not even meet on clay in the first place.
Solid points from both.
The way that match started aws typical with #GOAT2.0 attacking at a very high level and Rafa playing the turtle to #GOAT2.0’s Hare.
Peak Rafa would bide his time and turn the tables.
<90% Rafa couldn't do it.
But he can and at some point he will.
I think he would do it this week if they meet solely because Rafa said he'd be better in Miami.
It’s crazy how many looks Fed has gotten at Rafa’s serve on their matches so far this season… It would be interesting to see what % of Rafa’s service games Fed has gotten to deuce in the two 2017 matches. I mean, it’s gotta be pretty high percentage, right? Especially in that 5th set in Melbourne- did all of Rafa’s service games get to deuce in that set? Even though I expect Rafa to play better against Fed in Miami (if they play) than he did in IW, it won’t be any better for Rafa from a serving standpoint in Miami because the ball doesn’t bounce as high as in IW. But I guess that even when Rafa was serving better in like 2010, the issue was always more of Fed chipping those high kick serves to his backhand and allowing Rafa to dictate his service game rallies, as opposed to stepping in and coming over the ball more like he has done in their last couple matches.
So I really don’t know what to think of they meet in the final. Part of me thinks that Rafa will win simply because it feels so unnatural to think Fed would beat him four times in a row haha. But then another part of me thinks that if Fed serves as well as he has been, returns as aggressively as he has been, and just generally keeps playing so aggressively and taking it so early to the point that people can’t even impose their game on him consistently enough to make inroads, then why should I expect anything to be different? It’s really fascinating, actually… I think it would crazy if they played in the final again. Especially given that Rafa would surely KILL to win Miami!
Not all that crazy Kevin. Rafa’s serve is way down from his best so #GOAT2.0 going to make inroads on his serve.
But his overall game on average is trending in the right direction.
This site is so polite! Compared to Bleacher Report, where I’ve been for the past few years and where I considered myself reasonable if only for not engaging in personal attacks, here I feel like being gratuitously provocative. So here goes. I think you Rafa fans are engaging in more than a little wishful thinking at this point. The fact is, Rafa didn’t play that badly at IW and he got destroyed. Jack Sock gave Fed a much tougher match. At AO, Nadal stayed with Fed as long as Roger’s game dropped (though he did come out and played very well in those first two games of the last set). In general, I don’t think Nadal can hang with Roger anymore if Roger is anywhere near his best. The points about Nadal’s FH being vulnerable are spot-on, and Novak has showed that for the past several years. As I’ve said before, that step or so that Nadal has lost is not coming back. (Hawk, if you think Rafa’s speed looked ok in the AO final, I suggest you go watch a match from 10 years ago). And the decline in lateral movement affects his whole game, defensive and offensive -and, last but not least, his confidence. You can see it in Nadal’s face (at least I can): he no longer expects to beat players, especially Fed. And a prediction: clay is not going to change the equation. Attacking tennis, played consistently, wins on any surface. If the two were playing the Roland Garros final tomorrow, Federer would be the favourite. I agree that Nadal has done a lot better this year than the previous two (and objectively, he’s done well, period), but to be honest I haven’t been that impressed with his play, apart from flashes at Acupulco. At the AO, he beat an injured Raonic, a head-case Monfils, and probably should have lost to Dimitrov. At IW, he struggled in beating an old Gonzales. Props to him for winning all of those matches, but I will be surprised to see him in the final at Miami. I hope he makes it, because I’d love to see another match-up with Roger.
” Rafa didn’t play that badly at IW and he got destroyed. ”
Anytime one of The Big Four plays the other, they WILL get “destroyed” if they just play “not badly”.
“At AO, Nadal stayed with Fed as long as Roger’s game dropped”
Tennis players level is a function of their opponent’s (particularly in a slam final). They are not independent variables. Rafa’s level dropped up a break in the 5th and Fed’s rose. Rafa’s to lose. That simple. It was that close.
“Hawk, if you think Rafa’s speed looked ok in the AO final”
Non-starter. I didn’t. It was his lack of depth to Fed’s BH and poor serve that lost the match. Didn’t do it enough in IW either.
“Attacking tennis, played consistently, wins on any surface.”
Waaaay off there bud. You’re better than that.
At the end of the day, it’s easy to knock a guy when he’s down.
Given Nadal’s 2014.5-2016 injury and severe anxiety woes, I like what I see so far.
You are entitled to your opinion that he’s not going to improve, but I disagree. Still heading in the right direction with a lot of upside.
He’s No. 2 in the Race not near his best with lots of potential and he’s still second only to a red hot #GOAT2.0. Enjoy it while his streak lasts while the other Big 4 are simultaneously not at their best. The script on GOAT remains fluid. I can enjoy Fed’s tennis. Doubt you are able to enjoy Rafa when he’s at his. Just a hunch.
Gratuitously provocative? Hardly. Transparent? Definitely.
I’ve never pretended not to be a Fed fan, so I’m not sure what you’re seeing through. I agree that I have a hard time appreciating Rafa’s game. Both have to do with tennis aesthetics; like a lot of people I think Roger plays a beautiful game. Rafa, not so much. Messi vs. Ronaldo is an apt comparison. (I have nothing but respect for Nadal as a person. I think he’s a genuinely humble champion who is very good at keeping things in perspective off the court). But fan is after all short for fanatic, and I doubt there’s too much rationality involved in explaining why we back the players and teams that we do.
I don’t think I’m kicking Nadal when he’s down, because I think he’s much more up than he has been for quite awhile. Many (including me) have been writing his tennis obituary for the last couple of years, so I’m a bit surprised to see him doing as well as he has. I agree with you about moving in the right direction, but not about the upside: I think we’re seeing him at about his best right now.
Standing by the claim about attacking tennis. It just that there are very few who can do it nowadays. Fed is at the top of the list, but so is Stan; and some of the big guys when their game is on. (I was picking Kyrgios to beat Roger in that match at IW had they played). Novak upped his game the last couple of years by becoming a more attacking player, going for more winners and coming to net more. A generation ago, McEnroe should have beaten Lendl even on the slow clay in 1984; would have but for his twinkie diet. So we probably just disagree here.
I agree that Rafa’s biggest weakness at the moment is his serve. But (as I’ve said to Lucky), I don’t think Nadal’s serve has ever been all that. That’s why I focus on lack of speed. You talk about depth of shot, which of course is very important. But the two are pretty closely connected. For Rafa especially, it starts with the footwork.
Finally, of course each player’s play affects the other’s. But Federer changed something fundamentally by coming back in that 5th set in Melbourne, and he reinforced it with the win at IW. Rafa has been in Roger’s head like no top player has ever been in another’s, at least in the 40 odd years I’ve been watching tennis. As I see it, the script has now been flipped, and Nadal is not going to be able to fall back on that psychological advantage anymore.
“I’ve never pretended not to be a Fed fan, so I’m not sure what you’re seeing through. I agree that I have a hard time appreciating Rafa’s game. ”
No surprise. It was 10 full years of Fed failing to beat Nadal in a slam. As a fed fanatic, you are not alone in struggling to appreciate that. But I’m still able to appreciate Fed despite his wins over Rafa. Speaks to what I was seeing through.
“I don’t think I’m kicking Nadal when he’s down, because I think he’s much more up than he has been for quite awhile. Many (including me) have been writing his tennis obituary for the last couple of years, ”
Yes you do (or I give you too much credit). Yes many “fanatics” have. Many “fanatics” wrote off Fed. Not me. Again, speaks to my point.
Attacking tennis doesn;t work on every surface. That’s the dumbest statement I’ve ever heard. Maybe you missed Fed’s repeated failures at the French Open until Rafa was injured. He still almost choked to Haas. Haas!!!!!
“I don’t think Nadal’s serve has ever been all that. ”
Non-starter. How many times was Rafa’s serve broken prior to the US Open final in 2013?
If you can’t tell the difference between 2013, and Rafa dumping so many first serves into the bottom two-thirds of the net then I suggest you watch another sport.
No. Rafa tightened up. It’s been a big problem. It’s mental. I’ve been saying that since 2014. But it’s more rare.
Yes, in terms of your riding the wave while it lasts, that’s how most black and white fed fanatics would see it. Also speaks to my point.
Transparent.
I’m enjoying Fed’s tennis. Always have, north of 2007.
Joe, this is boring. I’ve been doing it for too long.
Same old arguments and downplaying other players.
Neither of us will convince the other of anything.
I’m really not into it.
No worries, I won’t mind if you don’t respond. But just one substantive question. Why are you so willing to chalk up Nadal’s current problems to mental anxiety, tightness, etc., but not entertain the idea that that’s been Roger’s main problem against Nadal for the past 10 years? That’s what I’ve always thought (though the larger racquet success of the last three years has convinced me that that change alone, in 2007, would have been enough to change the dynamic with Rafa).
Experience.
Not to mention being able to read both players own words.
It surprises me when people are willing to write off Rafa before the clay season has even started… There have been plenty of season where Rafa didn’t win anything pre-clay, and then did great on clay. I feel like the clay season, in particular Monte Carlo, has always been a good measure of where he’s at physically and mentally. I don’t claim to think that Rafa is definitely going to kill it in the clay season by any means, but I also could never write him off before the traditional Rafa clay test has even started.
Joe Smith- I commend you for having the stones to speak your mind about Rafa on such, in the words of Hawkeye, a Rafa-skewed site haha!
It doesn’t take stones to sit behind a keyboard and post anonymously.
As far as surprising? Nah, that’s just Joe being what he refers to as “gratuitously provocative” and I refer to as transparent and predictable.
#Semantics
Fed having a mental block is perfectly consistent with him not being aware of it.
Wishful thinking based on nothing but Fed coloured glasses.
As good as Fed is this year, he still loses to any version of Rafa 2008-13 or Nole 2011-15.
As I said enjoy it while it lasts. As I do. I’m a tennis fan first. Fanatics cant tell the difference between Fed and tennis. They can’t separate the two.
You are proving my point for me.
Nothing new.
This is you not getting into it, huh? Good thing you’re the only one without biases.
“As good as Fed is this year, he still loses to any version of Rafa 2008-13 or Nole 2011-15”
Now that really is a dumb thing to say. Fed 2011 beat Novak at RG (the former’s weakest surface); and should have beaten him two years ago at Wimby and USO. 2017 That 2015-16 version of Novak is better than Nadal ever was, and Fed is a good step up from two years ago. I like current Roger’s chances against any version of Novak except 2016 AO, which as I’ve said might be the best tennis I’ve ever seen (1st two sets). Current Fed will beat any version of Nadal off clay, and he will push even prime Rafa on clay (maybe win 2-3 of their FO matches). See their 2011 final where Roger played attacking tennis and jumped to a big early lead. But Fed is nearly 36. Give his 26 year old self a larger racquet and the right mental attitude, and he wins handily. Just me trying to be as objective as I can be. I’m not sure current Fed wins against Cilic USO in 2014, or other big guys who when they’re on can simply overwhelm the opponent. Maybe Stan at 2015 FO falls into that category: Roger played great in QF but still lost. So I don’t think I’m channeling pure Roger worship. Maybe you think I’ve got it in for Rafa. He’s a great champion. I just don’t think he’s the tennis player that Federer is, nor the Novak of the past few years.
Now, we are back to Fed at 26 with bigger racket would beat a peak Rafa at RG again?? Come on, their FO 2008 match wasn’t even close! FO2011? Fed almost won the first set, so what? He still lost in the end! Was the Rafa of 2011 in peak form? Nope, after all the beatings he received from Djoko that year, he was poor where confidence was concerned. He was definitely better at FO2012 and FO2013; still in his prime but not sure was he still in his peak on clay.
As mentioned before, the young Rafa simply could hit with depth even from way behind the baseline; he was very quick in his movements as well. Come on Joe, people here are calling me a biased Rafa fan, but I can say that Fed > Rafa on grass and on quick HCs. You are an even more biased Fed fanatics, to say that a younger Fed at 26 with a bigger racket could beat a peak Rafa at RG!
Nah, Djoko v 2011 > Djoko v 2015/2016 except on clay. CAN’T agree that Djoko at 2015/2016 ( or even 2011) > any version of Rafa.
To me Rafa at 2008/2010 > Djoko on clay and grass anytime! Rafa of USO2010 = or even slightly better than any version of Djoko at USO (Djoko had his serves broken before the finals there). Djoko at AO > than Rafa at AO.
And, why Fed should’ve beaten Djoko at Wimbledon or USO2015? To me Djoko played very well and Fed was fortunate to get a set at Wimbledon 2015!
Djoko at 2011 or 2015 > Fed with bigger racket (or 2017 version if you think he’s better in 2017). Only a peak Fed > Djoko on grass and quick HCs.
If you don’t think Djokovic’s best was 2015-16, then we really disagree on something important. I agree that he was great in 2011, but he really upped it later. I think this is a typical Rafa-centered analysis: Novak was best during the period of their greatest rivalry. I think most people disagree, and taking on Becker as a coach really did take him to a new level. It’s much easier (I think) to compare Nole and Rafa, because their games are so similar. But I can see how, if you think that Novak was better in 2011 than he was 5 years later, that you would disagree that his later self was better than Rafa ever was.
The 2011 Djoko was beating almost everyone in straight sets and served out many bagels and breadsticks. The 2015 Djoko had many narrow escapes. Like I said, it’s only on clay that the Djoko of 2015/2016 was better than the 2011 version. The 2015 version on grass wasn’t better than the 2011 version, at best almost equal. It had nothing to do with Rafa, more to do with Djoko vs the field.
Djoko in 2015 > a weaker field; Djoko in 2011 > a stronger field.
God how dull and pointless.
Fedfans can’t accept that Feds greatness is due to his longevity in spite of his being dominated by his two key rivals.
It’s true, some Fed fans can’t accept that other players have had the better of him, especially over five sets. But I think it’s also true that Fed’s longevity relative to his rivals is no mere coincidence or ‘luck’ factor, it is partially attributable to their respective styles of play (as well as the ability to maintain motivation).
On the Head to Heads: In a game that, like most, is about beating the field as a whole (for slams, masters, weeks at #1 and whatever else) I think the importance of H2H is sometimes overstated by commentators, but I can understand why, the individual ‘gladiatorial’ battles capturing the public imagination as they do. That all being said, Fed has hardly been dominated by Djokovic. I think he’s now slightly down on the H2H now, but a lot of great players would’ve retired five years back, at which point he was ‘leading’ that count. As for Nadal, yeah, the guy’s clearly had the better of Fed. Not by quite as much as the H2H might indicate though, as they’ve met on clay a lot more than grass, as we all know.
the Fedal H2H is shrinking….
The Fedole H2H is growing…
IMHO, Fed wasn’t playing great tennis in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Nothing to do with his racket, but more of Fed himself, so to me, a bigger racket won’t help.
Fed had mono in 2008, had back issue at end of 2008; skipped D.C. and Dubai in 2009 because of back issue. He didn’t play well at the channel slams but won both when Rafa was knocked out early at FO and skipped Wimbledon. In 2010 he didn’t play well vs Sod at FO as Sod was hitting without missing after the rain delay and there’s nothing Fed could do about it. At Wimbledon he lost to Berdych in the QF but said afterwards that he had injured his thigh earlier on.
Would a bigger racket help in those circumstances mentioned above? I doubt so, when it’s Fed himself not being able to play well. Credit to him that he still managed to win four slams when not at his best during those three years. Perhaps he should have won the USO 2009 final but let it slipped away. Even if he might win the USO SF in 2010 vs Djoko if not for the lucky shot, I doubt he’s going to beat Rafa in the final when Rafa was serving with his almost unbreakable serve.
Fed’s not going to beat the FO2008 Rafa even if Fed used a bigger racket, when Rafa was in that kind of mode and allowed Fed only four games. At Wimbledon 2008, Rafa was in top form and moved like snake on grass. Rafa at 2008 > Rafa at 2007 on grass; Fed at 2008 < Fed at 2007, I'm not sure Fed with a bigger racket would help him on grass, when Rafa was so quick to get to every shot and if not for rain delay, might won in straight imo.
Lucky: I’m glad you pointed out that Fed won 4 slams from beginning of 2008-AO 2010. During same period Rafa won 3. I’m not saying that Roger was the better player during that period, but it’s at least not obvious, despite the big losses to Nadal. Rest of 2010 was all Rafa, obviously, and (to me) that was his peak, better than 2013. Of course wondering about the effect of the larger racquet is highly speculative, but that’s what makes it fun. The point I keep coming back to, which I’d love to see someone try to answer, is this: How could nearly 33-35 year old Fed be so much better than 29-31 year old Fed? I just don’t see any explanation except for the larger racquet. Put that racquet (and attacking mind-set) in the hands of 26 year old Fed, and I think he would have won 30 slams. How he is playing right now is totally unprecedented for someone his age, and there is no good reason that he wouldn’t have been this good and better with the right equipment/attitude 10 years ago.
Nah if fed had the bigger racket back then, his confidence in the backhand could’ve been a lot higher earlier therefore circumstance and results can change drastically. A lot of factors are in play with his bigger racket especially confidence. Fed is more confident now against Rafa with the bigger racket and could very well have been the same deal back then which could have totally changed some results. This is just my opinion though I do see what you’re saying.
Benny, you have to take into consideration this Rafa isn’t the Rafa of say 8 to 10 years ago; that Rafa would hit with more depth, hence even if Fed had his improved BH with his bigger racket, chances were that Rafa would still be able to push Fed back to the baseline or beyond.
I’d used Djoko as an example in the earlier discussion. I mean how is Fed’s new improved BH compared to Djoko’s DHBH at its best? If Rafa in 2012 at 26 was able to find a solution to Djoko’s DHBH (re: the clay season that year; also their encounters in 2013 right up to USO), how was Rafa any worse off during his peak from say 2008-2010 (or from 2007-2010) when he had to pitch against Fed’s SHBH with bigger racket? Also, on clay it would be tougher for Fed even if he tried taking the ball earlier; I mean Rafa’s topspin FH at its best was really formidable, it would beat Fed’s SHBH with its raw power, heavy weight, on that shot.
You as well as some others said that if Fed played with the bigger racket, he might change some of the results vs Rafa earlier on, but which results? I believed I’d dealt on this in some of my earlier posts; Fed vs Rafa from 2004 (first encounter) to 2007, on non clay surfaces, Fed was 5-2 against Rafa, so bigger racket or not Fed had the edge then. Would a bigger racket help Fed to win the other two encounters which Rafa won – i.e. Miami 2004, Dubai 2006? Who knows? After all Rafa didn’t attack Fed’s BH in 2004, but played an all court game to beat Fed, winning almost all his points when he came forward to the net. The Dubai final in 2006, Fed was playing very well, won the first set comfortably, somehow lost a bit of focus in set two to let Rafa back into the match. Rafa broke early in the third set but Fed broke back later on and Rafa narrowly beat Fed in the end. Was it because of Fed’s BH that he lost? I don’t think so because Fed was hitting his BH very well throughout the match; it’s more like Nadal was playing a little better at the end to edge out Fed.
In their earlier days encounters, Rafa wasn’t in Fed’s head, not during 2004, 2005, 2006. In fact Fed almost won their Rome encounter in 2006 but Rafa was clutch in saving MP when Fed otoh, played it safe. Fed after that match, was still full of confidence that he would beat Rafa at RG that year, he still failed. Would a bigger racket helped at that time? Maybe.
Fed did beat Rafa on clay at Hamburg the following year, so whether Rafa was in his head or not it didn’t matter and Fed failed to beat Rafa again at the FO. Would a bigger racket help? Maybe, but Rafa himself was reaching his peak so there’s also no guarantee that Fed would beat Rafa at RG with a bigger racket.
Exactly, Benny. The confidence is doing wonders right now, and would have had the same effect (on a 10 year-younger body) back then. In technical terms, the main change would have been the ability to take Rafa’s heavy topspin shot on the rise, much easier to do with a larger racquet. And this can be done on any surface; Roger of course tried to do it back in the day, but couldn’t get the required consistency with the 90 cm racquet. So he reverted to the slice as his default, and that defined a lot of their baseline exchanges.
Fed’s BH with bigger racket still wasn’t enough to counter Rafa’s topspin at its very best – the weight of shots against a SHBH was enough to cause Fed all sorts of problems, imo. Also you’re assuming Fed had the skills at that time, like he has it now, so Fed has not improved his skills all these years?
Don’t shortchanged Rafa at his peak; if you’re assuming Fed at 26 with a bigger racket could deal with Rafa at his peak at the FO, based on what Fed at 35 could do on a quicker court against a 30 yo Rafa, then I think that’s simply wishful thinking.
A bigger racket is not going to solve the Rafa problem for Fed, it makes me pissed that Fed fans thought the world of Fed, belittling Rafa at his best, as if one bigger racket Fed would be able to beat Rafa at his best on clay. Rafa is not the king of clay for nothing. He beat Fed on clay not because of Fed’s weaker SHBH; Fed had his formidable FH during his peak years, but that didn’t help him to beat Rafa on clay most of the times.
Note that when Rafa was at his peak, he was more aggressive than he is now, moving inside the court more often compared to now, even though he wasn’t the more offensive self of his earlier years of 2003-2005. To think that Fed with a bigger racket could consistently take Rafa’s topspin FH on the rise on clay is not being realistic; as if Rafa could only attack Fed’s BH. I would also think that Fed would break his shoulder when taking the topspin FH consistently on his SHBH, without using his own FH to help him!
Rafa during his peak could attack Fed on both wings as in all directions, not just FH CC to Fed’s SHBH. Watch their earlier matches, Rafa’s CC BH was formidable, and he was so quick that he could run around his BH to hit his FHDTL or CC I/O FH.
Also, Fed at that time when he was 26, wasn’t having the skill sets that he has now; at least he wasn’t rushing the net that often, knowing full well Rafa would pass him most of the times with passing shots, preferring to stay back to rally when he had the foot speed, power and pace of his shots to do so.
This is seriously the dumbest thread I’ve ever read.
Imo, Fed also didn’t play well at AO 2009; it’s just that his opponents – Delpo, Safin, Roddick made him looked good; he was taken to five sets by Berdych. His serve stats was below par in the final, and a tired Rafa still could beat him in five sets.
You have to look at the competition. When Fed was 29-31, ie mid 2010 to mid 2013? It happened that there was a formidable Djoko at his peak in 2011, sweeping up most major titles on his way to becoming world no.1; and a formidable Rafa in 2010 and then 2013. Also Fed was having physical problems in 2013. In 2012, there’s also a Andy Murray in addition to Djoko and Rafa.
When Fed was 33-35, i.e. 2014-2016, it happened that one of his main rivals, i.e. Rafa, was having injury issues and was then in a slump. Fed had only one major rival Djoko to contend with during those times, as Murray was also just back from surgery and took almost a year to get back to full health and fitness. 2016 was between Djoko and Murray with Fed and Rafa out of the picture midway.
Fed is now fit and healthy after six months break and so happens that Djoko is in a mini slump, Murray not playing that well and injured his elbow now; and Rafa is also back from injury break. It’s up to Fed to take advantage of the situation now, before….
HE Im not sure why you keep bringing up Giles, OK fine he was right, i was wrong, i was a bit negative about Rafa at the time, but all i was saying is i dont buy into all things GOAT and thats my perogative, you do and thats yours, and its one area of tennis i care very little about, i much prefer the idea that we have a number of all time greats instead, hell i dont even post here that often to make an issue about each and every little thing, let Roger and Novak both win 25 GS each, and both sets of fans can tear lumps out of each other pontificating about whos the greatest ever for all i care ….
No that’s not all you said. You said “To add ive never put other players down in favour of Rafa ….”
And I brought up Giles to point out that you put Rafa down to play up Fed.
Hope that answers your question about why o brought up Giles. She was right. That’s all.
And there is a GOAT. The only unknown is who it is.
Go read again, i dont care about GOATs, not everyone does, i just prefer to watch and enjoy the tennis, although im not obsessed about it, you are entitled to love all things GOAT and thats your perogative, im entitled to not care and thats mine, im not sure why you feel the need to make such an issue about this, im out have it your own way, i dont bloody care ….
You asked why I brought up Giles.
I answered.
The rest is your opinion which I respect.
Why is this so hard for you?
I Just dont see why we have to keep dragging up things that were said in the past ….
Except you did at 2:29 pm. I just called you on it….
Hawkeye, you mentioned that Fed’s greatness is due to his longevity; not due to his domination over his two key rivals.
First of all, neither of them have dominated each other. You may say Rafa dominated Fed on Clay just like he has dominated almost everyone due to his exceptionness on clay. So, overall, if Federer did not dominate Djokovic, nor did Djokovic. If Federer did not dominated Nadal, nor did Nadal.
If Nadal did not djokovic, neither did Nadal.
Greatness is a combination of different factors. We might have a clear picture of mutual dominance if all of 3 would have had same age. So, head to head is totally misleading in terms of measuring greatness.
OK I should have been more specific.
Rafa dominated Fed in Slams.
We can never know if Federer had a large racket earlier, he might have beaten peak Nadal on clay in RG. I repeat we never know….
Nadal’s ridiculous clay wins had left a scare on Federer’s mind and that led to some tricky defeats on other surfaces. Nadal,s non clay wins over Federer is a function of Federer’s scare of Nadal’s clay wins. For example, in my opinion, Federer used to have togh time in beating Nadal on Wimbeldon because
Of Nadal’s half month ago RG wins. In fact, it played a major role especially in 08 Wimbeldon final because of Federer’s crushing defeat in 08 RG final just a month ago then and these two defeats led to another defeat in 2009 AO final. In my personal opinion, if wimbeldon might have played earlier than RG (just assuming), we might have never seen Federer facing struggle on grass against Nadal due to not having RG defeat in mind. In fact, Nadal used to carry super confidence ahead of Wimbeldon due his RG wins. Now just imagin the reverse…I repeat just imagin the reverse. Had wimbeldon played earlier than RG, and had it been Federer playing RG final with confidence (due to wimbeldon win played befor RG), who knows may be Nadal would have had same state of mind what Feder suffered going Wimbeldon with a RG scaring defeats. Nadal always had nothing to loose position facing Federer in Wembeldon duw to his earlier RG win. If the scheduling of RG and Wimbeldon might bave been reverse, and Federer facing Nadal at RG with nothing to loose mindset after Wimbeldon wins (scheduled earlier), I personally feel Federer might at least have won 1 (if not 2) RG final against Nadal out of 4 and Federer might have never lost 08 Wimbeldon.
In a nutshell, we must keep in mind, sometimes the dynamics of order of wins or deafets play a major role in inventing other wins or defeats.
I confess to being baffled as to why this has even been brought up. Hypotheticals can be fun or maybe interesting, but the fundamental reality of the past can never be changed. What happened, happened. That’s it. Rafahas a lopsided H2H against Fed. If the Fed fans can’t accept it or live with it and have to come up these scenarios of “would have, could hsve, should have”, then that is their problem.
It’s not enough for them that Fed beat Rafa to win his 18th slam. Now there has to be this nonsensical proposition that if Fed had the bigger racket in the past, then Fed would have beaten Rafa more. Never mind that this simplistic argument does not include other factors, such as Rafa’s innate superiority and skill on clay. Like it came down to the racket, as opposed to Rafa’s brilliant movement and court coverage, superb defense, that forehand and his cc and DTL backhands. It’s so much more than just the racket.
It appears that Fed fans will never be satisfied until they have tried to rewrite the past. Their refusal to acknowledge Rafa’s greatness and unique gifts, his fierce mental strength, the fact that he was never in awe of Fed and was the one player who had the game and the fighting spirit to take it to him, is a measure of their own fanaticism.
The record is the record. There are many reasons why Rafa was able to get the best of Fed over the years of their rivalry. Fed fans refusing to acknowledge Rafa’s incredible genius and greatness, are living in a fool’s paradise.
Well said NNY! Fully agreed.
Bravo nny. You’ve expanded perfectly on what I succinctly said was the dumbest discussion I’ve ever read.
Make me laugh, reading all those Fed fans could’ve, should’ve etc and etc. As if they knew exactly how Fed felt about Rafa; to say Fed would have beaten Rafa at RG with a bigger racket and then said Fed would not lose Wimbledon 2008 to Rafa! Are they dreaming?
Rafa was far superior to Fed on clay – quicker, more powerful, better in many ways than Fed on clay. A bigger racket won’t help solve the Rafa issue for Fed.
Come on, it’s pretty obvious Rafa was superior to Fed in 2008 at both RG and Wimbledon 2008 ( Rafa was on his way to a straight set win at Wimbledon too if not for the rain delay). Bigger racket or not it’s not going to help Fed! If it’s so simple a problem, many players would have beaten Rafa on clay already.
Lucky,
Thanks! At least we can appreciate Rafa’s game and his unmatched dominance on clay. His record speaks for itself. It’s interesting that the man who preceded Rafa as the greatest clay court player of all time, seems to have a special appreciation for what Rafa has done in succeeding him and breaking his record at RG. Borg should know just how much it takes to do what Rafa has done.
Well said to yourself, too!
??
haha. I KNEW this would come up. It is pretty pointless to say that. I don’t mind some hypothetical scenarios (after all, a lot of Rafans talked about the weak era thing and it WAS reasonable given there is proof that fed’s dominance dropped off later, and the proof his later rivlas were far superior than the weak era ones). This hypothetical claim is very weak though. On so many grounds.
Imagine the outcome of Wimbledon 2006 2007 if Rafa had the 2010 serve and a bigger forehand (like 2010 or 2013)?
I am not upset that Fed fans are bringing this up as they are overexcited right now. However, if they don’t realize that the claims are too far-fetched,
I wasn’t saying fed would’ve won those matches they had. I’m saying it’s possible. But that doesn’t matter now. What matters is fedal is at the top of the race this year and that’s pretty awesome.
Benny gets it like reasonable tennis fans as opposed to player fanatics should.
Most of the fed fans here are reasonable and that includes Benny and Kevin. Like I said, all fans have the tendency to get overexcited but what’s important to stay realistic once you think about what you are saying.
– Do you really think Fed could have hit his forehand with the same efectiveness (control, precision/accuracy) with the larger racket? Try playing tennis with a 90 sq inch racket and then switch to a 100 sq inch one. It will be very obvious how you lose control of your shots. More easy power and less shanking? Yes. But, control not the same. The fed forehand in his prime was hugely supported supplemented by the racket he used back then. It was perfect for his forehand and also the backhand slices/drop shots and the ‘feel’ on his game. I am sure Fed would agree how much that racket suited to his forehand!
So, using a larger racket would have involved a trade-off , anyway. Also, don’t forget that players like Rafa can change the hitting patterns a bit (just like he did against Novak post 2011) so rafa’s wouldn’t necessarily have kept pummelling fed’s backhand to the same extent.
I know it’s a pointless ‘debtate’ but I was just sharing some views as they might help improve our understanding here.
I would actually like Rafa to attack Fed’s forehand a bit more… He will likely get more errors as compared to the prime Fed. So, all the top players need to change the mentality a bit.
Carlos Moya on Fed-Rafa IW match:
He didn’t allow him to do anything,’ Moya told El Espanol. ‘It’s difficult when you play against an inspired Federer. He maybe had to play insider the court on the return, be more aggressive especially on the second serve even if it means making more errors. It was a comfortable match for Roger. The beginning could have been a little bit different because he had a game point to be up 1-0 and then another one to break him back, but Federer’s level was incredible. There isn’t anything to say.’
‘He realizes that top players have a big advantage if their opponents play far away from the court. Despite he doesn’t feel comfortable many times, he will have to adapt to it. The more he practice on it, the easier it will be in competition. Anyway, he doesn’t have to play like this all the time, but he will have to vary. Tennis evolves and the player needs to do the same thing, but in the past he already did it. You’re not asking to him anything he can’t do. We try to plan the practice session depending on what we see in the matches. We didn’t changed anything drastically, you simply need to continue on this way and improve little details in order to keep having a good season.’
Carlos says Rafa needs to be more aggressive- 100% agreed
Carlos says Rafa should have returned serve from close to the baseline- Not too sure about this.
Actually, Rafa made a mess with second serve returns. Fed changed his strategy a bit and served heavy kick serves to Rafa’ s FOREHAND. Rafa kept landing short returns (even if they had some penetration) and Fed crushed them with his forehand. I kept shouting during the match that Rafa should stand back to return serve and try to get good depth. Rafa started doing this late in the match and actually it worked better! By returning close to the baseline, you are also playing into Fed’s hands by increasing the pace of the rallies.
In the last few years Fed was a bit more willing to serve and volley , even on second serves as he was not too confident about his baseline game against Rafa Djoko. BUT, I have noticed that now he is more than happy to stay back and he thinks he can defeat anyone from the baseline! Ljubicic also has a role in this.
I noticed that wawrinka was returning serve from miles behind the baseline and fed BARELY came in. He waited for Stan’s returns at the baseline. So, given how good Rafa is at dipping returns, he should not be tense. Also, Fed was not coming in much behind serve so rafa can stand back and try to get good depth on his returns. It’s the idea thing for him as long as he gets GOOD length.
When standing on the baseline, he can hit aggressive returns from his backhand but his forehand return is not reliable enough (esp in the deuce court). Watch the highlights and you will notice! It’s good to have options so no harm in stepping in to return but the primary option should be to stand back until his forehand return is much better.
* I meant Fed was not coming in much behind his serves during their AO match..
I’m a fed fan, but it’s too early to say how he would have played in the past with his current skills. He played great in IW and I just wish he wins many more tournaments. At least the weak era arguments will stop now. The players who were considered strong are losing to a 35+ year old guy. In fact their grand slam wins should be considered to have come in the weak era as when Fed was good they were not winning and again when he is good they will not win. Ofcourse it will not last longer as he is very old now.
Nopes, this is fan bias and I understand. How convenient to say Fed is defeating ‘The players who were considered strong’ Clearly those players are not having the best time of their careers at the moment. One is injured/in a slump, the other is coming back from injuries and doesn’t have the same belief and mental strength (WHICH was one of the biggest reasons for his so many wins over fed).
So, it really is not that simple. Also, rafa is clearly not as fast as he used to be and Fed knows that too. Prime Rafa was a diff monster. The weak era argument definitely stays! Where was fed’s grand slam winning rate 2008-2015 when Rafa and djoko were the two having dominating years. Exclude 2009 as Rafa was injured and Djoko wasn’t the player he later became (unsurprisingly the only year when Fed won multiple slams in a year since 2007!!!). These are no coincidences but facts.
Fed’s greatness knows no bounds. What he is doing right now is astonishing and mind-boggling but the weak era argument definitely still holds because we are talking about titles won over whole careers.
Waaoo…this weak era debate will never end. If you really believe in weak era hypothesis then you should keep in mind Nadal is the most luckiest person to have ever got benefit of weak era. According to your logic if weak era is the function of non presence of competetion, then you must think Nadal won all his French open titles because there was absolutely zero competetion at Clay and Nadal fully took advantage of it. Apart from Federer upto 2011 and Djokovic later on, there was absolutely no conpetetion for Nadal at RG. Now Rafa fans will say because Rafa was so strong on clay that is why it seemed as if there was no competetion. Nadal was lucky to take advantage of virtually zero competetion at clay. And still it was only Federer from so called weak era who was still giving some competetion to Nadal at clay upto 2011. And again, djokovic’s prime years 2014-2016 again, it was only federer drom so called weak era who was giving some competetion to Djokovic. And now when Federer has a momentum to ein again, the rafans have started making thier minds again establishing a conceptIn a of low competetion because of current state of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal, but Federer from weak era is still there to give a comoeteyion…weak era debate will never end and its baffling.
Er… wasn’t Fed lucky when he had no competition when winning his seven Wimbledon??
Don’t compare apples to oranges. When has a peak nadal gotten cake competition man? It is actually you Fed fans who belittle Fed when you say Nadal had zero competition on clay!! You keep missing the point. Nadal has ALWAYS had to contend with Federer in his career and then when he finally was able to overcome Fed and Fed’s level may be dropped, everyone thought Nadal’s dominance had begun but then came Djokovic ! So, nadal NEVER got that time when the nearest rivals are player like Roddick, safin, Ljubicic (COME ON?!). The weak era argument is not to downplay federer’s high level of play, it is that Fed would NOT have won the same number of slams if he were contending with Nadal and Djokovic on all surfaces! You saw how hampered Fed was at RG because Rafa was so good on clay but it took him time to mature on other surfaces.
DO I believe Rafa and Djoko would have smashed slam after slam and stay no.1 for like forever in their prime when nearest competitors were Roddick, Nalby, Saffin, Ljubicic, Davydenko etc. YES, WHY NOT!! All these players were mentally so damn weak and limitations too in their games.
Yup, there are IFs and Buts involved but no doubt Fed’s slam tally wouldn’t have been the same. Do you expect him to beat rafa and Djoko all time ?? They would get split just like they have been getting split between the big players since 2008 depending who players better.
And you actually missed another point. Even if you say Rafa didn’t have enough competition (which is crap as Fed is a phenomenal clay court player and even the clay greats have hailed him to be so), rafa also defeated Djokovic at the French 3 times and showed he could have bossed anyone around at RG! I am sorry but Fed could barely show that as he started losing a lot to Rafa and Djoko post 2007.
The Fed fans miss the point again and again that they are dissing their own man when they try to demean Rafa. That lopsided H2H was not a fluke or an accident. The truth is that Rafa changed the face of men’s tennis because of his ability take on Fed when no one else could. Rafa never feared Fed. He went out believing that he could beat him.
Also, this is not meant to demean Fed at all. I remember watching a replay of the 2005 AO semifinal between Fed and Safin. I was blown away by how brilliant Fed was back then, his movement and the sheer accuracy and sharpness of his forehand at that time was unbelievable. Safin was at his mercurial best in that match. He has incredible potential and should have challenged Fed more. But his temperament got in the way. Safin ended up winning this match, but it took his very best to do it.
No one is taking away anything from Fed. He took the game to a whole other level. But there is no question that he had weak competition. Not his fault but true nevertheless.
Can you precisely tell from which year the ‘strong era’ came into existance? When Federer started declining you mean? Lol…
That’s so cute. So Fed declining right after 2007 when he was 27?! That’s NOT the age to decline in today’s game LOL. He had weakened with Mono in the beginning of 2008 but that’s it. Funny how he was able to win two slams in 2009 after Rafa was injured. I see he held up fine against his old rivals safin and Roddick at Wimbledon haha. Oh and we had Djoko continually improving before he finally got a major win over Fed in USO 2010. Then Djoko reaches another level in 2011 and Fed’s victory at RG is highly commendable though!
2008 onward was a more competitive era and then 2010/11 to 2013/14 it was epic because three GOAT contenders were there and don’t forget Sir Andy Murray who is far better than all of fed’s rivals (excluding Rafa) in the 2003-2007 period. Fed had Rafa in that phase but only on clay..Rafa not good enough on other surfaces then.
26 LOL.
Premature aging brought on by the death of the weak era.
Asif, the strong era came into existence when first Rafa, then Djokovic and Murray turned pro, around 2004 and that’s when Fed stopped being a serial winner. Those 3 players, Nadal, Djoko and Murray became members of the Big 4 whilst virtually all the players Federer used to beat for fun were still playing. That’s proof that Federer’s age group were not up to it.
Fed fanatics love to ignore the concept of age.
Except when it suits them.
Weak Era
-2002-2007
-RIP
-Started when Thomas Johansson won the Australian Open
-Died 2007 marked in 2008 when young 22 yo Rafa beat Fed at prime age of 26 at Wimbledon going on to beating Fed in six straight slam meetings most of which weren’t on clay.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer_Weak_Era
lol. Yeah 2002-2007 is more apt than 2003-2007. Sampras retires and the year saw Johannson winning AO!! My Goodness. Then we saw Ferrero become world no.1 in 2003!!
In Djokovic’s absolute prime years 2014-2016, Federer from weak era stil gave competetion to the absolute beast Djokovic of 2014-2016…with 6-8..While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016….It seems more than Nadal, it is Federer who makes a strong era…So, What can we say about this? Should we conclude that it was again a weak era from 2014-2016 that Federer from weak era gave still competetion to prime djokovic (6-8) and Nadal from ‘strong era’ could give zero competetion to Prime Djokovic of 2014-2016 with (1-9)….I eould be astonishing if you could still find any logic about it.
you need to take a pause and understand one thing: there is nothing like ‘Fed from the weak era’!!! Federer is evergreen and has graced the tennis world for all his career. He is arguably the greatest of this generation. It is NOT about Fed but the fact that Fed got to spend a good 3-4 years in a field which is QUITE WEAK. It is not federer’s fault but that doesn’t change the fact that his slam tally would obviously not have been the same if he didn’t have that field! He would still have won many slams but NOT that many, no way! We are talking about three GOAT candidates here don’t forget! when they go head to head again and again, slams will be split! But when these three go against a field of players like Roddick, Safin, hewitt, Ljubicic, Davy they would obviously win the bulk of the slams.
Don’t know what you mean when you say ‘fed from the weak era’ against Prime Djoko in 2014-15. It has nothing to do with Fed! He is the great man. Around that time, he was actually a more well-rounded player than his 2006-07 level and for Djoko to beat him on grass in 4 sets (losing one set in a 10-12 tie break!!) was a huge achievement and showed exactly what I meant. The same fed would have DEMOLISHED all those rivals in 2003-07 phase!
The slams would have been more evenly split. You have to believe this unless you think Hewitt, Roddick etc are of the same caliber to the big 4 (esp big 3).
Note: sorry to any fans of Roddick, hewitt, Safin , Nalby etc. I don’t mean to disrespect them but I just want to assert they are not even close to the ‘RaFedkovic’ trio. Even Sir Andy is a level above all of them.
Tennis has always had ‘dark phases’ where fields are weak. No wonder Juan Carlos Ferrero was world no.1 as well in 2003 ! WHY?! the FIELD was WEAK. Then came a GOAT contender and players like roddick and ferrero were nowhere to be seen around the world no.1 mark!!!
“While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016”
Asif must be from one of those infinite parallel universes I’ve heard about.
Dear Ricky, I would love to get a reply and opinion about this enigmatic question:
In Djokovic’s absolute prime years 2014-2016, Federer from weak era stil gave competetion to the absolute beast Djokovic of 2014-2016…with 6-8..While Nadal from ‘strong era’ had 1-9 against prime Djokovic from 2014-2016….It seems more than Nadal, it is Federer who makes a strong era…So, What can we say about this? Should we conclude that it was again a weak era from 2014-2016 that Federer from weak era gave still competetion to prime djokovic (6-8) and Nadal from ‘strong era’ could give zero competetion to Prime Djokovic of 2014-2016 with (1-9)….I would be astonishing if you could still find any logic about it.
Asif, you have to take into consideration that in 2014 Rafa was injured mid way through the season, came back in 2015 playing without confidence. Murray was also coming back from surgery in 2014 and it took him a year or so to get back to normal.
During 2014, Stan beat Djoko at AO, Rafa beat Djoko at FO, Kei beat Djoko at USO and Djoko beat Fed at Wimbledon. In 2015, Stan was the only one who beat Djoko at a slam (FO); Murray lost to Djoko at final of AO and SF of FO; Fed lost to Djoko at finals of Wimbledon and USO. So, Fed wasn’t the only one to challenge Djoko during 2014 and 2015.
Rafa was still beating Fed (at AO in 2014) and Djoko (at FO 2014) before his right wrist injury and then appendicitis. He was leading the race right up to the FO and if not for injury/appendicitis would be the one challenging Djoko all the way. In 2015 Murray ended the year as no.2, so again it’s not Fed who’s the only one to challenge Djoko.
On the contrary Lucky, Asif has to NOT consider those exact things you mention.
#ConfirmatoryBias
All right, this is more like it! Now, you will notice that the only people who talk about “weak era” are Rafa (and Novak) fans. Why? This didn’t start yesterday, obviously. The whole weak era thing started because Nadal fans had to find a way to denigrate Fed’s unprecedented success from 2004-07, so that they could proclaim Nadal the GOAT. All part of a crazy attempt to make H2H a much more important component of overall success than it is. Tennis is about winning and doing well in (the biggest) tournaments, always has been in the open era, and Federer has the best record at that -by far. Here is a stat you may not have come across before. From AO 2004-AO 2010 -a period of 6 years, Federer did not lose at a GS to someone who was not himself a GS champion. He did not lose to a single also-ran (unless you count del Potro). Starting at FO 2010, guess what? He started to age. How can you tell? Not because of his record with Nadal and Djokovic, his peers. Rather, you can tell because he started to lose to those also-rans: Soderling, Berdych, Tsonga; then later Gulbis, Stahhovksy, Robredo. That all started a few months shy of 29, the witching hour for most all great male tennis players (Agassi the one exception). I’ve been saying this for years, but only now can Rafa and Novak fans start to see how it applies to their players as well. Novak’s great run ended at 29. Nadal’s last slam was a year earlier, at 28. In short, the best explanation for Federer’s tailing off in 2010 -*not* in 2008-9, when he won just as many slams as Nadal- was age, not the “strong era” suddenly coming into effect. Nadal himself would never talk about weak or strong era; nor would any professional tennis player. Only fanatics do that.
What has this got to do with predictions and preview of Miami 2017?
You don’t like predictions, remember?
(Some people can be so contrary.)
Chardy def Cilic 64 26 63.
Now, the follow up. If it’s age, you’ll say, how can you explain Federer’s play now? Pretty simple. The big change, as I’ve said, came in 2014, with the new racquet. His results since then are much better than the previous 3 years, which is very much the opposite of what would expect for a tennis player his age. However, Fed never fell far from the top; even with age he could still play and sometimes beat the best players in the world. With the new racquet, he suddenly became the 2nd best player -at age 32-33, and the only one who could reliably beat Novak, even if not at the slams. The time off last year obviously helped, and the new coach probably as well. But it’s mainly the racquet and the new-found confidence with the BH. Given Roger’s age, it could end any day. That’s why I like to speculate about what could have been.
Welcome to Joe Smith’s echo chamber.
http://hamiltonsthoughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EchoChamberlarge.jpg
Joe Smith, I have to shoot off to haven’ Firstly, Nadal was a mere shadow of himself in 2015 and poor guy had injury plagued 2014 and 2016 so yeah obviously he would only have Djokovic! Not to mention that Murray was playing crap after his surgery and it was 2016 when he again hit his top form. It was pretty evident. SO OBVIOUSLY, there was only djoko!
what Fed’s doing at this age is beyond INCREDIBLE. He is setting new standards and I can only respect him for that. What I field to understand is how can someone NOT acknowledge how weak the field was in 2003-07 !! It is not about Fed but the field. And when you pit a GOAT candidate in a field like that, he would obviously destroy it! That time period showed what Fed was capable of but nothing changes the fact that he didn’t have rivals on all surfaces; something which he himself admitted.
oops the opening sentence got erased a bit. I meant I have to shoot off so haven’t responded to your first post.
It’s called selective bias VR.
But I agree with you, especially about Fed’s achievements despite being a fan of one of his rivals, like yourself.
And that’s what separates tennis fans from player (esp. Fed) fanatics.
A common fed-fanatic affliction…confirmatory bias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
All tennis fans are afflicted to some minor degree but it commonly leads to blindness when left untreated by fed-fanatics.
All except for Captain Pierce, of course.
Nope. Your blindness proves my point repeatedly.
I enjoy federers resurgence.
But you are incapable to enjoy Nadal because you can’t separate tennis and Federer.
You’re welcome My fan.
Actually, I enjoy Nadal quite a bit. In the same way that I enjoy the Dallas Cowboys and New York Yankees when they are dominant. Many sports enjoy a foil to cheer against. These days, when Rafa is past his prime, I cheer for him when he’s playing young guns like Kyrgios. I never liked Connors until he had to play an 18 year old Agassi. But, to me, Nadal in his prime -only on the court, to be sure- was a bit of a bully. I never liked the sneer and I think his great competitiveness went a bit too far. Rosol claimed Rafa put a shoulder into him on the changeover during that Wimby match, and I can believe it.
Federer cursed out umpires, cheated by pointing at the wrong marks on clay against Rafa, yelled at the French Crowd to shut up, smashed racquets, admitted to gamesmanship by taking a bathroom break at Wimbledon to wait for the sun to move.
Cry me a river. Poor Joe Smith.
?
Fair enough. I don’t defend any of that. In general, I think it’s pretty silly to look at sports stars as role models. As I said, there’s a fair bit of irrationality that goes into determining who one backs. That doesn’t mean that one’s analysis is necessarily infected with irrationality (making no judgment about my own case, or yours).
You dont defend it but simply focus on the examples that fit your confirmatory bias while involuntarily ignoring the examples that don’t.
Now maybe we’re getting somewhere -if you can resist the name calling. I don’t intentionally ignore evidence that doesn’t support my case; nor, I imagine, do you. I haven’t seen any evidence so far that you’re less susceptible to confirmation bias than anyone else here. My argument about age being the chief factor in Fed’s decline stands. Lucky is trying to engage with it, so I’ll address his arguments.
You haven’t seen it because you are blinded by your confirmatory bias.
How is this so difficult for you?
#Rhetorical
Joe Smith, I thought I had already explained why a 29-31 year old Fed wasn’t able to do better than a 33-35 year old Fed in my earlier reply to you? How come you are here repeating the whole issue again? A sign of you refusing to accept facts maybe? VR is basically explaining the same thing to you again!
That’s what Joe does. Talks in his own circular echo chamber.
#BrokenRecord
VR
‘2008 onward was a more competitive era and then 2010/11 to 2013/14 it was epic because three GOAT contenders were there and don’t forget Sir Andy Murray who is far better than all of fed’s rivals (excluding Rafa) in the 2003-2007 period’.
So, now you think Nadal is past his prime because he is past his age. While you say 2010/2011 and 2013/2014 was strong era when all of three were Goat contenders…For the sake of love, dont you think in 2013/2014 Federer was much older than Nadal’s current age? Even in 2011 he had same age as of today’s Nadal…? Wasn’t Federer past his prime then then when you think strong era started? Trust me there has neither been a weak era nor been a strong in any sport…it is the biggest illusion on earth. Its dominance of players which give the illusion of strong or weak era..In reality there is none…But it is upto you if you can give self satisfaction to degrade the achievements of Federer of 2004-2007..a real dominance…
No, Asif. I am not a blind Rafa fan nor a fed hater and if you’ve been following my posts for long, you might know. Tennis has always had these phases and the time with three GOAT candiadats having the potential to play their best is THE GOLDEN ERA. Please answer my question of Ferrero becoming world no.1 in 2003? can you imagine that guy as world no.1 in a field with Fed or Rafa or Djoko or even Murray?! NO WAY.
To answer your question, Nadal is not outside his prime because of age. It is because the poor guy has had various injuries over the years and they take a HUGE toll on a player. He had a miraculous 2013 but then got injured in 2014, and then even had appendicitis ! 2015 was understandably his worst year. How can you trust your body when every time you reach the summit, it throws you from there by giving you a new injury! At least have some empathy for players. I never comment much on fed’s 2013 because I know he was good shape for most of that season. Let’s be fair here wherever we can.
Also, Fed’s playing style is not as dependant on athleticism as Rafa’s so it is logical that age will affect Rafa more. And don’t forget that rafa’s mileage on the pro circuit started when he was 15! He started a couple years earlier too. Given the injuries he has had and his playing style, he would of course be affected more.
Nothing to take away from Fed though. Total respect for what he is doing. He is a genius and continues to shock the tennis world. I will also miss Roger Federer when he retires to be honest 🙂
*because he was LACKING good shape for most of the season.
Vamos Rafa, i am neither a rafa hater…I truly praise him and I would like to see the greatest clay court player of time winning his 10th RG title…Looks very sweet…
I can see you are not a Rafa hater, Asif. I’ve had enough experience with them to quickly point out haha.
I also understand why being a Fed fans you would want to challenge the weak era thing but trust me, while there is not an even an iota of doubt about Fed’s greatness, that field in 2002-07 was very disappointing when compared to what followed. You just can win 3 slams every year when you have 3 GOAT candidates and Sir Andy. 2011 is actually a good example too. Rafa had everyone including Fed sorted but then he was stopped by another GOAT candidate. Rafa would have won 3 slams and ended the year as no.1 by miles. Unfortunaly no relief for Rafa! Haha.
Vamos: you say Rafa is not outside his prime because of age, but because of injury. Leave aside the fact that advancing age makes one more susceptible to injury so that it becomes harder to separate the two. Focus on the fact that Nadal is nearly 31. Why do you think he, of all people (with his style of play) would be immune to the decline that inevitably comes with age? The best explanation for the fact that he is playing at a lower level than he was 7 years ago is because 7 years ago he was in his prime; now he is past it. The same logic applies, with variation of course, to every player, including Federer. As I said above, it best explains why Roger tailed off in 2010. Again, the weak era stuff is the topic of fans, not players. Professional players know that there are no easy matches, and certainly no easy GS titles. Each tournament is different, and the best two players make it to the final. That was true in 2004 and it is true today.
When did Rafa turn 31?
So the best 2 players made it to the AO 2017 final. What’s your case?
Joe smith,you just picked one line from my post. Read the whole posts where I have explained how and why age has affected Rafa even more. But, 27-28 is not the age to start declining in today’s age, esp when you have a playing style like Federer’s. Nadal was 27-28 when he dominated in 2013 and looked BETTER THAN EVER. He was so damn unlucky to lose that AO final in 2014 and getting all those injuries. Otherwise, his playing level was incredible his 2014 FO forehand was a MONSTER.2015 was less about Rafa being slow on the court due to age but more about suffering from anxiety after he lost faith in his body.
What Fed is doing at 35 is incredible and he is setting new standards. But, to say he started declining due to age after 27 is ridiculous to be honest. You miss 2008 when Rafa actually announced he was now ready to win on all surfaces. He was better than ever at RG, won WImby and Olympic Gold. Trust me, were it not for that ridiculous scheduling he had to undergo because of Olympics, he would very likely have faced Fed in the USO 2008 final and I have little doubt what the outcome would have been. But that’s something that never happened so I’ll stop. AO 2009 , drained Rafa played inspired tennis and defeated the favourite Fed. SO was it age ?! NO. No coincidence that Fed won 2 slams in a row and was miraculously stopped by Delpo at USO. And don’t attribute Soderling beating Fed entirely on Fed’s decline as a player. He won AO 10 playing at a very high level. That match against SOderling at RG was on a very damp clay and really suited soderling. Soderling was a very dangerous player in that period and it happened. Following Delpo’s and Soderling’s runs in 2009. big hitters had started to make more inroads anyway.
When someone dominates for quite a few years, all the eyes are on you and the whole field is finding ways to beat you. Your weaknesses slowly get exposed and players do find some winning patterns. Rafa showed the world how by breaking Fed’s backhand you can beat him. Delpo showed how power game can do it. Djokovic also relentlessly attacked Fed’s backhand in 2008 AO semi to show some patterns. Rafa has also suffered more ever since Djoko has exposed some winning patterns against the spaniard. It is a very natural process.
*I meant Roger winning 2 slams in 2009 after Rafa’s injury was no coincidence.
You say Djoko’s prime was 2009 and Djoko was also 28 at that time! Gone are the times when players start declining after 25-26 due to age factor. These athletes are fitter and stronger than ever. Also look at Wawrinka who reached his prime in 28 or something.
Vamos: Now it’s you who aren’t reading carefully. I said Fed started declining in 2010, when he was nearly 29. He claims to have had mono in 2008, which (I think) he would cite as the main reason for his not playing as well that year. I take no stand on that. But 29 is as good an age as any to pick for the time when top male tennis players start to decline. As I said, a good case can be made that it is true of the big three. Btw, I would never say that Novak’s prime was in 2009. I think it was last year!
I read it completely fine, Joe. That’s why I wrote ‘you are missing 2008’. I know you said 2010 but how you ignored 2008-09 is nothing but fan bias. I can excuse him for losing AO but he was playing pretty well in the EU clay court swing. Pushing rafa to 3 sets in hamburg, actually having a 5-1 lead in the first set. Rafa just moved to an extraterrestrial level in 2008 RG. Fed was playing very well in Wimb 08 and destroyed Safin in straight sets in the semi. Most of the people had picked him to win. Rafa was edging closer and closer on grass and it is very logical that he finally beat Federer! He was definitely the superior player.
Fed was again playing at a very high level in 2008 USO and the AO 2009. He was soundly beaten in the fifth set 6-2 by Rafa.
2008-09 are actually very important years to look at and understand.
I am sorry but there is no way Fed would have competed with Rafa of 2010 anyway. That Rafa was even serving like a monster.
And no, 29 is not necessarily the age now. The playing age is increasing across all sports due to improved fitness regimes, better diets and facilities and medical advice. Wawrinka is an example I gave. He started peaking 28-29 actually.
While age would have its effect, the reason his slam winning rate reduced is Rafa and Djokovic. After all, the great man was more than capable of demolishing the ‘rivals’ he had in that 2003-07 stretch. What changed was that he had Rafa and Novak.
Joe can’t hear you VR.
#ComfirmatoryBias
While Fed might have slowed down with age, his game has gotten a lot more well-rounded over the years. His backhand has actually improved a lot even with his older racket. Look at his backhand in WTF 2011 against Rafa. Rafa mentioned before their semi that Fed’s backhand is better than ever now so he needs to be careful.
Fed had not lost a set and had dropped serve only twice in this path to the Wimbledon 2008 final. Before the match he was like ‘Don’t write me off yet. This is my part of the season now.’ He was playing pretty well and was very motivated to prove a point.
Rafa was making great progress on grass and after nearly getting it done in 2007 , he crossed the finish line in 2008.
Vamos: I agree that 2008-09 are terrifically important years in comparing Federer and Nadal. Contrary to popular conception amongst Nadal fans, however, there’s a good case to be made that Federer was actually better in those two years, at least if we judge by overall performance in the biggest tournaments, namely GSs. They both won 3 slams in those two years, so that’s a push. However, Rafa’s best performance other than those victories was to make the SF (3 times). Fed, in contrast, made 4 finals and one SF. In other words, his weakest performance at a slam during 2008-09 was at the 2008 AO, when (he claims) he had mono and shouldn’t have competed at all. After that 2 year period, he went on to win the 2010 AO. That capped his incredible run which I mentioned at the slams, from 2004-10. After that, as he neared 29, he declined, by the objective measure of actual performance at the most important tournaments, the slams. Now, I don’t deny that there are other factors. The most obvious ones are Nadal’s great slam victories over Roger in 2008-09, along with some of the other data you mention. I am not ignoring these. But I don’t see how one can deny the importance of the overall comparison at the slams. It’s at least not obvious that Nadal was the better player overall in 2008-09, his clear advantage in their H2H notwithstanding.
Fed apparently thought so. He couldn’t take it anymore. Lucky for him, Rafa was injured for French Open and Wimbledon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X6AfufPFYQ
A real dominance, yet Federer aside (other than a non-peak Rafa), Federer faced no consistent player(s) in slam finals from because his opponents were virtually random mediocrity other than a burgeoning Nadal. Other than Federer, none of the mediocre field of the failing so-called “competition” could make it to more than four slam finals out of 48 slam final spots (and Roddick was the only one to even do that).
Proof of a very weak and incredibly boring era with ZERO players other than Fed able to consistently make it to slam finals.
That lot missed their collective calling to the Washington Generals.
Compare this to 2008-2013 when FOUR players made it to seven or more out of a possible 48 slam final spots:
Nadal (13), Djokovic (11), Federer (10), Murray (7)
Hilarious.
#YoureWelcome
@Hawkeye, why are you trolling yourself..If federe’s so called weak era players are not being able to reach finals but federer still does….what does it mean? It automatically proves that Federer is the man of all eras..still giving competetion to ‘pursumely’ strong era; in fact making strong era for others…just like Djokovic got none of the competetion apart from Federer in his prime 2014-2016 years…If Federer had weak era, than how on earth it is only Federer who gave stiff competetion to prime Djokovic (2014-2016)..and still doing…
what others were and are still doing or hiding in current ‘strong era’?
You still getting it wrong. It is NOT about what Fed’s capable of.It’s about how crap that field was! The 2003-07 period definitelt showed how great Federer was but it also showed how pathetoc the rest of the field (barring Rafa) was ! They couldn’t even reach slam semis and finals consistently so how can you expect them to stop a GOAT candidate from winning slams and staying at no.1.
Good sfuff hawks.I was waiting for you to put these numbers here haha. You are right, none of those players were consistently able to reach slam finals and semis. They were also hopeless when it came to challenging for the top spot. Not even a single player from all of those were a ‘complete package’.
Fedfanatics can’t process evidence and simple facts that contradict their confirmatory bias.
Left untreated, they are ex-tennis fans that are tragically and terminally blind.
Sad.
More excuses (and self-satisfied sign-offs) from Captain Pierce. Let’s see you engage with some of my arguments…or do you find it too boring? Federer dominated when he was in his prime (apart from the greatest clay court player ever), and then started to tail off as he reached 29. A simple explanation, the latter part of which also happens to apply to his two chief rivals. No weak era nonsense needed.
Already disputed but you are blinded due to your confirmatory blindness.
Any attempt to educate you would be futile.
Lost cause I’m afraid. I don’t wish to give you false hope. Tragic.
oh woe is me! My one hope -a proper education from Captain Pierce -dashed!
At least you can revel in your ignorant bliss.
It’s all you have left.
Sad.
Dolgo loses e the 1st set against Jaziri then throws in the towel, so Jaziri goes through.
As long as I was happy about Federer winning Australion Open 2017, I was truly sad for Rafa. The poor sould had such an incredible opportunity at Australion open 2012 too..He could have won 2014 Australion open too had he not injured. I think more than anyone Rafa deserves double carrear slam..May be federer deserves too…But I would be more thsn happy if Rafa somehow manages to win AO 2018 ultimately achieving the deserving feat.
Correction:
The poor soul had such an incredible opportunity at Australion open 2012 too
These arguments are so pointless… Pro-Rafa people will always think Rafa is the best. Pro-Federer people will always think he is the best. And guess what? That’s totally expected, and absolutely fine!
The indisputable truth is that arguments can be made for why each of them stands out from everyone else. That is why the GOAT discussion is so damn ridiculous- the term “Greatest” is so incredibly subjective. Anyone who thinks that the title of GOAT in tennis is anything but an opinion is simply wrong. It may become more acceptable for someone to be considered the objective “greatest” of a specific measurable area. But the “overall greatest tennis player of all-time (or as Rafa would say, “the greatest of eh-history”)? Sorry, but there just is no right or wrong answer because it’s an opinion! There is no question that arguments can be made for Federer or Nadal being the greatest player ever, as well as others (imo, Sampras, Laver, and Djokovic)…
But I really just don’t understand why there is such an obsession with there HAVING TO BE a single greatest player of all-time… It drives me absolutely crazy that we can’t just have a sort of Mt. Rushmore of guys who really stand out from all the rest for their unique reasons, and just appreciate all of those reasons why those guys are amazing. Maybe one reason I have trouble understanding this obsession with your guy being better than the other, and feeling threatened by people talking up the other guy, is because my favorite player just was never quite on the level of those 5 guys I named before. Don’t get me wrong, there’s no denying that Andre Agassi is an all-time great, (in my opinion on the level directly below the 5 greatest, along with dudes like Borg, Connors, etc.) but I know that he is not quite on the same level as those top guys. If Agassi had taken tennis a little more seriously early in his career and ended up with like 12 slams to go with his career slam, perhaps I would have felt some need to defend his honor against those “typical Sampras-tards”! 🙂 But alas, I deeply admire Sampras’ game, Andre was just not Pete, and I was able to accept that many, many years ago. So the GOAT thing is just something I cannot for the life of me wrap my head around. We’ve got goatS, PLURAL, people…
Greatest of ALL time is totally shit. I prefer ‘greatest of his generation’. I use GOAT in my posts as it is easier to write than the whole greatest of his generation lol. Otherwise, there is no such GOAT.
BTW, just for the record, GOAT is not shit.
Claiming that others should agree with you on who Is GOAT is shit.
There is a GOAT.
Kevin,
Bravo, bravo! I have been making your point to no avail for some time now.
I have never understood this need to have a designated Greatest Of All Time. It is subjective! It is opinion! Yet the argument rages on. It’s Fed! No it’s Rafa! On and on and on it goes ad infinitum.
I have always been in favor of a group of the greatest of all time, your Mt. Rushmore argument. I would include Fed, Rafa, Sampras and Laver. Maybe Borg. I think now that Novak has entered that group.
I think that is the fairest and most reasonable way to do it. A group of tennis greats who achieved a level of achievements above all others.
The user interface of commenting section of this website is somewhat confusing and sometimes we miss the replies because of not being able to know automatically if the reply has been made..
Dear Ricky, I am a Software Engineer…If you want I can help you about it to make the commenting section more dynamics…
Of course, I would love to do it free of cost…
Correction: *dynamic*
This is just a wordpress setting.
Doesn’t require an engineer to figure that out.
Back in 2014, I was actualy of the view that if Rafa wins double career slam , he will be the best of this generation. Then, poor Rafa’s injuries and anxiety issues and Fed challenging the new king Djokovic. Then again before AO 17 final I was like the winner will be the best in my view. Fed winning over Rafa in 5 sets (coming down from 1-3 in the 5th) was incredible and I now think Fed has the lead in the greatest of this generation debate. I can make argumemts for Rafa too but I am waiting for the spaniard to achieve a bit more 🙂
Yup, AO final winner would decide current GOAT for me regardless who won (despite what Kevin said) just as Rafa became GOAT in 2013.
Still up for grabs.
I, personally, don’t think it’s really fair to the big three in judging which is the best of this generation because they all had their various peaks at different times. Fed is 5 and 6 years younger than Rafa and Novak, respectively. As Federer’s absolute peak was starting to dwindle around 2008, when Rafa entered his non-clay peak (Rafa was never not peak on clay 🙂 ). Even though Rafa is only one year older than Novak, Rafa was a real heavy hitter on the tour a few years before Djokovic became a factor. So it makes sense then that there was only truly a couple years where Rafa’s and Novak’s peaks overlapped (2011-2013).
This is obviously my opinion, and I know that Hawkeye will surely disagree with all of this haha. But the point I am trying to make is that I don’t this it’s really fair to the three of them, especially to Rafa and Fed, to try and crown one of them the “best of their generation” when there really wasn’t much time when all three of them were at their top-dollar best… For me, the time that was closest to having the Big 4 all at or close to their best was 2012. Djokovic had his Aussie Open win and eventually ended #1, then Rafa turned the tables on Djokovic and dominated the clay season, Fed played really well again beating Djokovic at Wimbledon and getting to #1, and then Murray finally won his first slam. Big 4-wise, that was as good as it got.
I also don’t like to think of someone being the best of this “generation” because the game is so different than it was even like 7 or 8 years ago. It’s just another example of how there are too many variables and specifics for it to not be subjective.
Haha, 5 and 6 years OLDER, of course. 🙂
Jo Smith, how can you judge that someone has passed his prime when he has not been able to play at 100% fit?
Confirmatory bias and wishful thinking.
That and a heaping dose of chronic frustration LOL.
Nad: As I said to Vamos, the best explanation of Rafa’s decline since 2014 is age, which is quite standard for top players. Part of that involves greater susceptibility to injury, which is of course part of getting older. It is true that the top players are getting older, and one can certainly point to Stan in particular as an exception to my claim. As many others have noted, though, there is a lot less mileage on stan’s body than on the big 3; he has just played many fewer matches. So: maybe I’m wrong, and Nadal’s lower standard over the last 3 years is to be chalked up entirely to injury and a crisis of self-doubt, whatever. But I think a far more plausible explanation is simply that he’s getting older.
#SmithsEchoChamber
How can it be age, when in 2016 Rafa had a mini revival on clay before injury took him down again? I mean his 2016 performance on clay was definitely better than his 2015 or even 2014 before injury stopped him at the FO forcing him to withdraw.
Ok, so he was better for awhile last year than he was in 2015, maybe than he was in 2014. I don’t deny that injury plays a role, but again, advancing age is not irrelevant to that. I just don’t see him returning to that 2013 level again. Let’s see what happens.
He may not need to get back to his 2013 level; but his 2014 level even with back issue was already good enough; having reached finals in 7 out of 10 events played, winning four, and was the race leader up to FO that year. He just has to stay fit and healthy, without injury getting back to that level plus 2016 clay level should serve him well.
It’s the same with the rest, Djoko is not going to get back to his 2015 level, or Fed to his 2006 level; still they’re good enough to win and beat other players.
In that case, Joe Smith, the decline of Djoko and Murray is now in progress.
It’s more likely than not. They’ve both played a lot of tennis, having been near the top of the rankings for a decade. It particularly wouldn’t surprise me if we never see Novak at his 2015-16 best again. The main point is simply that this is the long-established trend for top male -not necessarily female- tennis players. The best known stat is the rarity of winning a slam after 30. The list of players who have won more than one since 1980 is extremely small (Connors, Agassi, Federer, Wawrinka) and no one has won more than 2. Certainly the top players are getting older, and maybe this stat will start changing as well. For the moment, however, it seems a good bet that none of the big four are likely to win too many more slams.
Not just the top players getting old.
The average age of the tour overall is getting old.
And it makes me wonder.
Average age of ATP/WTA bottomed out at 24/22 in the mid-80s and has been OTR ever since.
Average age of ATP Top 100 and Top 10 is 29 today.
https://cleaningthelines.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/42-atp-wta-age-comparison-post.png?w=600&h=411
http://www.changeovertennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Andrew-Graph-4.png
Getting this thread back on track of Miami… How you you all think Nishikori will do here? I totally forgot that he beat Kyrgios to make the final last year. Kei is frustrating- we all know he is capable of beating all the top players, but you can never count on him to play at high level for more than a few matches. It’s especially frustrating for me because Kei is often my favorite player to watch. When’s he’s on, his super aggressive baselining is awesome to watch.
I have him falling in semis to Nadal.
I forgot that he beat Kygrios last year too. Kei is my third pick to make the final, behind Dimitrov and Sock. If Raonic is playing at a much higher level than I expect (after injury and lay-off), he could sneak in there too. It is odd that for someone as under-sized from a power point of view, Kei isn’t the most consistent player. You’d think that is what he would bring to the table, but not usually. You’re right though, that when he’s on he’s a lot of fun to watch. I sometimes wonder if he’d benefit from some Novak-like diet, conditioning, hyperbolic chamber stuff. In terms of toughness he kind if reminds me of pre-2011 Djokovic.
Dimi out already in his first match, one strike off your list.
LOL.
it’s his Christmas list.
Sock having all sorts of problems with Nishioka, was down 4-2 in first set before Nishioka retired with knee injury; lucky escape for Sock, if not he might follow Dimi out of Miami.
Kei will at least reach the SF; he’s the finalist here last year, losing to Djoko.
Yes, maybe you’re right. I haven’t seen any of the matches yet except for Tiafoe in the 1st round. Dimitrov must have had a pretty bad day, compared to the level he had in Melbourne. Looks like Sock was lucky too for the opponent to retire when he had a lead.
Kei is capable of beating all the top players only when they are not playing at their best. His game doesn’t have enough punch or a single asset as in a big serve, great fh or bh but he can mix it up and make his opponent feel uncomfortable when they are playing below par.
It was hard to gauge Rafa’s level yesterday because he was not only playing against Sela but also against the wind. Hope the weather improves and Rafa can play without any inhibitions.
whoa….Kevin’s post @ MARCH 25, 2017 AT 12:06 AM ??
The same here about Kei Nishikori!
Last year Hawkie was preaching to me about how well “Nishi at night” would do in Miami. HE was mostly right. Kei made the final but was depleted and defeated.
Picked Kei to the SF this year where he is defeated by Rafa ….
And I have Goffin in the top SF getting knocked out by Delpo ??
Wow. Good memory rc.
I’d forgotten that.
If you don’t think I’m reading or listening to you…think again 😀 ?
Yes, it’s time to give some love to Kei. He takes the ball so early with his groundstrokes. He has also improved his serve in the last year or two. He has an aggressive mindset when he’s on his game. He’s become mentally tough and a really strong competitor.
I think his main problem is just staying healthy and free of injury.
Welp Dimitrov is out. I really hope he isn’t drifting back into his pre resurgence mode. He may just be tired from all the efforts to start the year with winning Brisbane and Sofia and making Melbourne semis. Now a few poor results as of late by losing this one and losing four match points to J Sizzle in IW where he probably could’ve made the semis and would’ve at least made the QF has he beaten Sock. Also the Rotterdam loss to Goffin but that was still solid QF run. Grigor still 17-4 this season. Just not as impressive of a March masters campaign he would’ve liked. Also there goes Ricky’s pick for the title LOL
I see Rick’y predicted winner has already bitten the dust. 😉 😉 😉
he would have won the title if I hadn’t picked him
That’s why I picked #GOAT2.0.
#AntiJinxings
Well done, Ricky; I can see that there is method behind your madness. 😉
Ha ha, in his first match too!
We can roughly gauge form of players – Dimi wasn’t playing that well at IW, coming back from short break after Rotterdam. The conditions at Miami was windy and rainy, very hard to control the ball, no wonder Dimi over hit some of his shots.
Some are too harsh with Rafa; he at least adjusted to the windy conditions without dropping a set. I hope Rafa improves match by match to reach SF or final, winning it would be great!
“Some are too harsh with Rafa; he at least adjusted to the windy conditions without dropping a set. I hope Rafa improves match by match to reach SF or final, winning it would be great!”
Luckystar….VERY AGREE!!
Goffin down 4-0 vs a qualifier King? Where’s this King from?
He’s from Barbados and has his cheering section there – this is the first time I’ve seen him playing. He’s no match for Goffin. He does appear potentially dangerous: about Rafa’s size, powerful, 24 years old. Likes the drop shot, his serve and forehand, Ranked 120. Not in the same class as David Goffin, though.
Goffin caught up and passed him; took the 1st set 7-5.
King ran out of steam, that’s the problem with these modern day players (i.e. the younger gen players) – serve and hit hard and run along the baseline, not much else!
Tiafoe another one, just runs along the baseline, doesn’t know how to come forward. It’s his hard hitting and big serves that keep him alive vs Fed, not going to last with all the running. It’s a pity, such big servers should come forward after their big serves to take away the returner’s time and attack right away.
Makes me appreciate young Rafa and young Murray more; also Kygrios the ‘bad’ boy, for the willingness to come forward once sensing the right time to do so.
Didn’t see Tiafoe-Fed, but what you say seems right to me based on watching his 1st round match. Absolutely: a lot of these players would benefit from being willing to come in more. Where they trail the top guys is usually in consistency, and if they’re made to hit one more hard shot from the baseline, it eventually tells and they miss. Being able to come in and end the point quickly after that first big hit can make a huge difference; often the volley wouldn’t be that hard because they’ve got such a positional advantage in the point.
Incidentally, I think Rafa is probably the best (of those players that rarely come to net) at knowing/sensing when to come in, and he’s got a terrific volley. I think his best strategy at this point is to increase his net approaches. He’s got a good DTLBH, and that’s the shot I would look to come in on most (against righty BH).
Skull Island
King is from Barbados.
Fed’s opponents making the same mistake, they keep hitting CC to Fed’s BH; should hit more to Fed’s FH, make him run from side to side. Tiafoe has a few successes hitting winners to Fed’s FH.
2nd round matches have changed nothing for me… I still do not expect Federer to win Miami. I also won’t be at all surprised if he does win it… I also still expect Rafa to win Miami. I also won’t be at all surprised if he does not win it…
#KevinLogic
#”Humb1e”
Federer is the greatest player of all time. Lucky for Rafa, he’s ALSO the greatest of all time.
#PseudoMcEnroe
You got it, Hawks! 🙂
Aaaand Thiem is out!
Del app seems to be playing pretty well. Assuming he gets through Haase no problem, then I think we could have us a really good Fed/Del Po match! I think it could go either way. If Del app were to pull off the upset, that would mean that he will have the all the Big 4 plus Stan in just the last 9 months… Incredible if you consider where he was at the end of 2015! When he first came back from this most recent wrist surgery, I remember thinking that I just didn’t see him ever playing at a decent level ever again… Boy, was I wrong! 🙂
*Will have BEAT all the Big 4 plus Stan that is.
[polldaddy poll=9706561]
Too bad, Thiem went out early. I expect him to make the SF. He smashed a racket or two.
[polldaddy poll=9706561]
I saw his meltdown! Yes, he did some damage to some rackets!
Men single GOAT:
1. By number of overall slam:Federer
2. By number of RG: Rafa
3. By best H2H with closest peer:Novak
4. By number of Olympic gold:Murray
5. By number of most titles:Connors
6. By best result in WTF: Fed
7. By most titles on clay: Rafa
8. By most prized money: Novak
9. By highest ace ratio in slam: Peter
10. By most RG-Wimbledon in same year: Borg
11. By most number of calendar slam: Rod Laver
12. By overall criterion of men tennis: choose and pick whom you like best 🙂
Well done Fg!
I just wish that I could pick the one I like best.
Perhaps after the French.
#PhotoFinish
This is very nice! Giving the greats their due and reminding us of their unique contributions to this sport!
Well done!
?
Milos withdrew again due to recurring hammy.
How many times!!!!
Retires I mean.
“It’s related to my previous injury. It’s the same muscle, up high in the hamstring”
Wow! Rafa’s draw opening up quite nicely! This bodes well for my prediction. 🙂
It’s two against one.
Ricky and I have picked #GOAT2.0.
Resistance is futile.
Wow, massive choke by Kei… Although if he ends up losing to Verdasco, then Rafa will have no true resistance in getting to the final. In fact, I will say that if Kei ends up losing to ‘Dasco, Rafa will have NO EXCUSE to not make the final!
What do you mean? Ricky’s above predictions don’t even have “GOAT2.0” making the Quarterfinals…
https://tenngrand.com/2017/03/26/miami-r3-preview-and-prediction-federer-vs-del-potro/?replytocom=255595#respond
Never mind, Hawks! I just saw Ricky’s prediction change on the Fed/Del Porto post! 🙂
I was sorry to hear that Raonic had to pull out again with a recurrence of his previous injury. I know that this opens up Rada’s draw, but I never like to see it at the expense of an injury to a player.
Yes! Kei won! If you all can’t tell, I reeeaaaally want to get a Nishikori/Nadal semifinal…
Kei wins it ugly!
Ricky’s predictions:
Semifinals: Kyrgios over Thiem and Dimitrov over Pouille
Final: Dimitrov over Kyrgios
At least Kyrgios is still standing. 😉