It will be a showdown between Saddlebrook (Tampa, Fla.) training mates and occasional doubles partners when Alexander Zverev and John Isner battle for a place in the final of the Internazionali BNL d’Italia on Saturday afternoon.
Zverev leads the head-to-head series 2-0, having prevailed 6-4, 6-2 last fall in Shanghai and 6-7(5), 7-6(5), 7-6(5) at the Miami Masters. In the latter contest, the fast-rising German saved three match points before surviving a two-hour and 38-minute thriller.
Isner had to get through another deciding tiebreaker in order to give himself one more shot at Zverev. Following victories this week over Albert Ramos-Vinolas, Florian Mayer, and Stan Wawrinka, the 6’10” American outlasted Marin Cilic 7-6(3), 2-6, 7-6(2) on Friday. This run has come mostly out of nowhere for Isner, who had been a modest 9-8 in 2017 prior to Rome and had not played since mid-April in Houston (lost to Ernesto Escobedo in the third round).
“It doesn’t matter what the surface; I feel I can play well on all surfaces,” Isner said. “Nothing changes for me. Whether I’m playing on grass, hard, or clay, it’s the same recipe. I’m going to serve and hold my serve a lot. I can hold my serve in mud out there, really. So I like my serve no matter the surface. It just so happens to be that this week I’m sort of putting it together. Clay can be a great surface for me.”
It has been Zverev’s best surface this season. The 20-year-old is a stellar 24-9 overall and an especially outstanding 13-3 on clay, with a title in Munich and a quarterfinal showing in Madrid in addition to this Rome performance. Zverev punched his ticket to the last four by beating Kevin Anderson, Viktor Troicki, Fabio Fognini, and Milos Raonic, surrendering just a single set to Anderson in the process.
“Against Sascha, it’s an extremely tough match,” Isner assured. “I actually know him very well, since he was very young. I train with him a bunch and I played him two times–and I’m 0-2. I would certainly love to get some revenge on him. But he’s playing remarkably well. It was only a matter of time, in my opinion, before he started having results like this.”
“I’m happy to be in the semis and playing John, who I know very well from our Saddlebrook days,” Zverev added. “We practice quite a lot together in the offseason and do quite a lot of stuff together. It’s going to be a great match. I’m excited for both of us.”
The world No. 17 should be excited, because–now that Rafael Nadal is out–he has been arguably been the best player in the field during this tournament along with Dominic Thiem. He also warmed up perfectly for this matchup by facing Raonic, whom he broke an impressive four times. Isner will be tougher, but Zverev should be able to get enough returns in play to pick up a third win in their head-to-head history.
Pick: Zverev in 3
[polldaddy poll=9751169]
I could tell Fed was back before he won three hard court tournaments at the beginning of the year while many said he was old, slow and/or fat.
But now it is easy for everyone to see he is back.
History repeats.
Wait until Fed comes back to see if he is indeed back 😀
Just because he was back doesn’t mean he remains back lol
Fed really looked fat and slow. So what happened? Was that “fat” not fat but muscle?
rc, your post sounds like a tongue twister. Whether he is back or not will, according to some pundits here ( are you one of them?), depend on whether he wins titles or not . So if he wins Halle, he is back, if he loses Wimbly, he is not back, if he wins Canada, he is back, he loses Cincinnati, he is not back, he wins USO, he is back…..so on, he is back, he is not back in dizzying succession, all determined by whether he wins titles or not. This argument also leads to the conclusion that at any time only one player can be back as only one can win a title!! So both Rafa and Nole cannot be back at the same time!!!!!
I think he is back until he proves otherwise.
No reason to suggest a sudden drop in level once grass begins and he remains selective with his schedule.
Fed only slumped in my opinion in 2013 and recovered once his back was better and he switched to a new racquet.
Nole only slumped after French Open until his recent return to form.
Rafa slumped in 2014-2016.5. He is so good on clay that he was still able to win the FO while slumping.
We gonna see about Fed, no?
And Novak doesn’t appear back in the sense of consistency. I have to see more match play to agree he’s reliable. The hiring of Agassi gives me hope.
Well somewhat depends on how we define consistency.
However, I go with my own eyes plus what the players who have played against him (and Becker) have said this week.
Again, first time in a long time I’ve seen him emotionally invested and Rome was his if not for the rain delays IMO.
While anything is POSSIBLE on any given day, I don’t see Rafa or Nole losing in the French prior to meeting in the semis in RG.
Nor do I see Fed or Nole losing to anyone at Wimbledon prior to meeting in the final.
Those are my predictions.
What do you think of Muzz’s chances at Wimbly?
FWIW, as it stands as of this moment in time, I am picking Rafa for RG and Fed for Wimbledon.
USO too early to call. Even for Me!!!
Also while I agree completely that Nole is back, I do not think it rules out Zverev or Kyrgios ( if his head is screwed on right) beating Nole before the final. Fed is less likely to fail simply because no one dangerous would be in his path till at least the semis and in all probability, till the final.
As it stands, not good (unless he really turns it around in grass lead ups).
Where is Lendl by the way? He should have been with him earlier than just for RG. Certainly once it was obvious he was struggling.
Duly noted.
But did you watch the Rome final?
Novak was goofed up again. Imo he only showed confidence and the sort of positve focus in his eyes on the day he played tired Thiem.
Delpo’s best performance was the 3 set match vs Dimitrov. Delpo isn’t in good enough shape to hold the level he had during the Dimitrov match into the rest of his matches.
Rafa is the strongest but he was playing on fumes in the Thiem match. Thiem had nothing left vs Novak.
We gonna see soon! Can’t wait for the draw!
Yeah possible. I’d give Zverev a better shot but both big underdogs IMO if Nole carries last week’s form into Paris.
However, I think at least three of four of Zverev, Kyrgios, Delpo and Thiem will be in Rafa’s quarter, so I doubt that Nole will face either Kyrgios or Zverev.
But if Zverev is not in Rafa’s quarter, he will be in Nole’s. Same for the other three for that matter.
No I definitely saw it in RBA and Delpo matches.
Yes I watched the final. Zverev was amazing. Nole was tired but I’ve explained that already.
Rafa was definitely overplayed. But that’s ok. Well needed rest.
Feli after losing to Nole in Madrid:
“I think he played very well, too. He served strongly, well, with a lot of rhythm. He has changed the rhythm of his game a lot. He played very fast and very smart.
Perhaps the other days I have seen him with ups and downs, but today I saw him play very consistent and strong during the whole match. We both have to be happy about today’s match.”
Yes to what Feliciano said and I liked how Novak performed vs Rafa in Madrid.
But no on RBA and Delpo. RBA is close to burn out at this point — he just wasn’t his snappy self. There’s some very worn down clay specialists at this point: PCB and ARV, too. They’ve all been at it since South America.
Delpo actually had a real backhand for most of that glorious win over Dimitrov durine his first Rome match – that was a battle. Every match after that Delpo was relying strictly on his serve and forehand and by his match v Nole there was nothing left, imo.
Novak was spaced out but playing from rote memory vs RBA. I didn’t like it. But he took away confidence from those wins and tho Thiem was tired I was excited how Novak played v Thiem…so much so that I was positive that he’d take the trophy.
He played distracted and annoyed, even spitting mad at one point in the match.
But he’s the nicest gentleman at the net and in defeat.
Sascha gets many easy points with his serve and he recovers really well. He looked the best by Rome, surprisingly. He’s in good condition!
I liked how Nole fought through his struggle vs RBA whereas in the past I think he would have just checked out.
Yes, before his match with RBA that is exactly what I thought Novak might do, “check-out” if RBA made him work. Luckily RBA was not at his best. Fortunately I don’t see RBA, Cuevas, or PCB playing this week. But ARV is- crazy man.
I think Rafa actually was in great pain in some set, must be the last one. I was really crying when it appeared that it was over. I still seem to see those heart sinking moments in slow motion. But he managed through sheer will power to gut it out and lift the trophy.
My comment was a nudge to hawkeye.
I have no interest in discussing the topic.
#catalyst
RC, you sure you liked how Djoko played against Rafa at Madrid? I’m not sure you get it right! Djoko got hammered by Rafa!
Yes, he got hammered bit he took it well. In Madrid, all I was looking for was improvement. He made the SF. Then in Rome, he exceeded my expectations by making the final but I don’t consider him “back”. That remains to be seen,imo.
rc,
I have already weighed in on my thoughts about Novak. Lucky and I are in agreement. He has made progress. That is true. There are some good signs, because he is able to produce dome high level tennis. But he can’t sustain it.
I think Lucky broke it down quite well with his matches. I agree with her take.
You should be encouraged by his progress. This doesn’t turn around overnight.
But you just don’t see Novak’s level go up and down like it did in the semis and final.
The poor serving from Novak, the DF’s and some of the poor shot selection, ill-timed drop shots and missing wide open shots, are all an indication that something is still amiss. Novak doesn’t get tired. The match with Delpo may have spilled over into the next day, but it was one set that was over pretty quickly. The match with Thiem barely lasted an hour.
The other thing that I would like to say is that I am not maintaining that a player must win every tournament they play in, every title to be back. That is not possible although Novak has certainly dominated in the last few years.
So for the sake of clarification, it’s not winning every title, all or nothing. But Novak’s consistently high level of play made it possible for him to go deep in many tournaments and have chances to win.
Nny
His performance in Madrid was a good step in the direction of being back. In no way did I expect him to beat Rafa in the SF there. If Novak was back I don’t think he would necessarily have won that match but he would have fought and made it closer. Something is still off — mentally and perhaps physically (not an injury) but in terms of his preparation and confidence. I need to see more of him in match play.
If he is back he’ll make a deep run at RG but I wouldn’t expect him to beat Rafa there to say he’s back. His best tennis at RG didn’t assure him of a title there in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015. 2011 and 2015 were banner years for him but he still lost to Stan. Losing to Stan didn’t mean he wasn’t “back” or inconsistent — 2015 was tremendously consistent. In fact through all those years I considered him consistent.
It made me laughed, when I listened to the commentators during the Djoko/Thiem match; they said ‘Djoko is back’, and joked that Djoko should save his money and forget about getting Agassi as coach. I wonder how they felt the next day, when Djoko got hammered by Zverev in the final! Probably embarrassed by their silly mistakes, jumping into conclusions too soon, taking things for granted that Djoko sure to win the final to collect his 5th trophy at Rome?
Clearly, there’s still some way to go before Djoko can be back to his winning ways. There’s no short cuts; he has to put in the efforts to train and to get back his consistency, his precision in his ground strokes and his serves and returns; they’re just not there consistently to help win him title(s).
Agree with your second paragraph rc.
he doesn’t have to beat Rafa to be back, but will just continue to show he’s back by having a deep run before they meet. Which I predict they will.
Commies who suggested he was back, wouldn’t necessarily consider the loss in the final as proof he wasn’t back.
Some may think it means he’s not back. However I believe he’s already back to his level to be the 1-2 favourite in slams/tournaments going forward, and not just the No. 1 favourite because fedal are also back whereas during his 2015-16 run, they were not both back at the same time.
#NoleIsBack
#RafaIsBack
#FedIsBack
#MuzzaAWOL
I add to my post AT 4:37 PM….
Nole never had to fight his way through three matches in a row including warm ups, cool downs and media commitments in just over 24 hrs against very good players during his 2015-16 run the way he did in Rome so it is speculative to say he could have done any better.
Nvertheless, I have to see more of Nole before I will agree you that he’s back, Hawks.
I need more time and need to SEE more from him!!
I can already see it (like for Fed and Rafa). I wasn’t surprised many lower ranked players took him out before, but I’d be quite surprised to see it happen in Paris (other than Rafa).
#HawkstradamusIsBack
RC, Agut wasn’t playing his best tennis until the last few games, when he decided to be offensive, hit some FH or BH DTL to get a few winners. However, by then Agut looked defeated(stupid to engage in long rallies with Djoko all day) and couldn’t do much to turn the match around.
I agree on your take about Delpo. He wasn’t that match fit, not playing much on clay and I suspect that Dimi match had taken a lot out of him. He still had to beat Edmund before meeting Djoko. It’s obvious to me looking at Delpo, that he was physically spent during his match with Djoko; Djoko just had to keep the ball in play and then waited for Delpo’s errors.
Djoko came out all guns blazing vs Thiem, knowing he himself was at a disadvantage when Thiem had more time to rest before the SF. To me Djoko played his best match of the tournament in that SF. It’s strange that he couldn’t sustain that level or at least played close to that level, in the final.
Djoko used to have problems against big hitters the likes of Stan and Delpo, and now we have Thiem and Zverev. Thiem plays like Stan, and Zverev as we have seen in the Rome final what he’s capable of doing, I doubt Thiem would play the same way (as in the Rome SF) the next time they meet.
It’s very strange that Novak couldn’t come close to his SF level in the final. And getting spitting mad at himself did nothing to help. I’m not buying that he was tired. He couldn’t pull it together to make it close.
Credit to Zverev for playing so well in his first masters final.
If I couldn’t buy into him being tired (at least benefit of the doubt), then I’d find it strange too.
I find he needs to show anger/emotion. Any time he plays fed and is emotionally calm, without showing emotion (incl. some anger), he usually loses. Wow, they haven’t played each other in 15 months.
But it is a balance no doubt.
And Zverev. So cool to be able to execute like that in his first Masters final. I just hope he doesn’t get a big head (as there have been signs before). I could be a big fan down the road.
rc,
I think the key was consistency with Novak in the last few years. That is missing now. I don’t presume to know how he will do at RG. He could make a deep run. That would be an indication that he may be back. Time will tell.
I agree that something is still off with him. I think it may be mental. Paul Annacone was the one tennis channel commentator who made it a point if saying that Novak was back – for the match with Thiem. He did not engage in the hyperbole of the others. He observed at either Madrid or Rome in the early rounds that Novak could produce some great tennis, but that errors were coming st the crucial moments of matches now. It used to be the opposite. He seems to think it’s mental.
I absolutely agree that just because Novak lost to Stan in the RG final in 2015, did not mean he wasn’t back. Stan simply played the match of his life to win that match.
Again, just to be perfectly clear, s player does not have to win titles all the time. That’s not possible. But Novak was in his second final this year and that is nowhere near what he was doing the last few years. I am not sure that he will dominate in the way that he did. But that does not preclude him coming back to his best.
Things have changed with the young guys stepping up and being in contention. Kyrgios, Thiem, Goffin and Zverev have all made some noise this year.
I maintain that Novak is still on the right track. RG will tell us more
rc,
I appreciate your approach when it comes to the question of whether Novak is back. I dot think he’s there yet. Just my opinion from a lifetime of watching this sport. I still think that RG will tell us more. A slam is where the rubber meets the road. A possible seven best of five set matches is the biggest test.
I need to see more from him before I can say he is really back.
Your attitude is great, considering that you obviously want him to be back to his best.
I don’t think he’s there yet.*
Mary raised the pesky PED question in connection with a certain player’s recent success. While I think it’s an extremely double edged and poisoned sword to raise these suspicions in connection with a player we don’t like and who has beaten our favorite player, I think it’s valid to be concerned about the use of PED’s in tennis. I prefer to look at the broad picture and in my opinion no player is above suspicion, since a lot of money and prestige are at stake for players and burocrats alike, and the ITF’s anti-doping program is clearly less than adequate, although it certainly improved in the last few years with more out-of-competition tests and the introduction of the biological passport.
I came across a great article of the well known sports journalist Bill Simmons. It’s well worth the lenghthy read because it doesn’t just cover the PED problem. It raises the question how sports journalists should ideally deal with their privately harbored concerns. And in the end he makes a great check list of what should legitimately raise our red flags even in the absence of hard proof:
http://www.grantland.com/features/daring-ask-ped-question
The article doesn’t specifically mention tennis. But while tennis might sport a better anti-doping program than baseball or football, the fundamental questions are still valid. A tennis match can’t be won with strength, endurance and fast recovery alone. Specific skills and mental attitude play a huge part. But it’s also true that skills and mental attitude can be used much more efficiently if there’s a solid base of strength and endurance and if recovery time is shortened. And especially amongst the top players, where the margins are small, it might make all the difference.
You can also find a great BBC documentary from 2015 by the investigative reporter Mark Daly (search Youtube for “Mark Daly Catch Me If You Can BBC Documentary”). For a part of his investigation he demonstrates practically how microdosing with EPO does significantly improve his personal triathlon training results but how he never triggers a positive test. He even manages to beat the highly recommended biological passport. It’s very disheartening. And microdosing can be done with most useful illegal substances. So, unfortunately we can’t argue that tennis must be relatively clean just because it manages to catch only criminally negligent players like Sharapova or criminally stupid guys like Cilic, who don’t bother to look up the new list of banned substances or who send their mother to the pharmacy and don’t bother to check if she actually bought the correct pills. Don’t get me wrong, both deserved their bans, but I believe their explanations. While they undoubtedly meant to enhance their performance with what they believed to be legal medication – if they had really intended to enhance their performance by illigal means, they could’ve easily avoided to get caught with smarter timing and dosing. Therefore I really hate the hypocrisy surrounding Sharapova’s comeback although I’m not at all a fan. She deserved her ban because she’s responsible for what enters her body. Stupidity doesn’t protect from punishment. But who knows who else has been taking Meldonium as long as it was still leagal, and has simpy been a bit smarter than Sharapova? And ironically the experts aren’t even sure if Meldonium really acts as a performance enhancer. It might well act more as a placebo.
It’s far more concerning that the ITF never managed to catch a player who did hardcore doping with EPO and HGH. That are the big guns of the seasoned doper and there’s no reason to believe that it isn’t used by at least some tennis players, too. Hasn’t the infamous Wayne Osednik been caught with HGH vials? I wonder what he planned to do with them. It’s highly unlikely that he needed the sustance for his phd thesis or that he was really an investigative reporter like Daly 😉
Exactly, littlefoot. Elsewhere I have made a post about use of PEDs which are not yet in the banned list. As for long time favorites like blood and HGH ( they have been around in tennis at least from the 90s), it is extremely difficult to detect them because they are substances naturally found in the body. Apparently bio passport after initially causing concern to cyclists is no longer of concern as they have found a way. As for HGH, there is a ridiculously short window of time in which doping can be detected. So anyone could be doping.
Littlefoot, the most important part of your post comes at the beginning. “Extremely double-edged and poisoned sword to raise these suspicions in connection with a player we don’t like and who has beaten our favorite player”.
You get it, unlike Mary.
As to the more general issue of PEDs in tennis, of course there are plenty of reasons to be concerned. Again, these are general, not affecting any specific player until hard evidence is produced.
I think Mary gets it just fine Joe.
I think Mary is doing it to make a point. Like now the shoe is on the other foot for so much BS constantly directed towards Nadal throughout his career re doping accusations for beating THEIR favourite player.
I don’t see any long standing web sites with the sole purpose of accusing Federer of doping, or government officials appearing on TV accusing Federer of doping or commercials on television implying Federer dopes. Yet all happened to Rafa, with zero proof or evidence.
Check out tennis has a doping problem web site and get back to me.
Mary’s comments pale in comparison.
Jesus, I just googled it and there is so much hate directed towards Rafa and accusations of doping dor the sole reason of repeatedly beating their favourite player, Nadal’s name not even in the search.
So many sites mostly aimed at accusing Rafa, a few on Serena.
You have to specifically search for federer doping for anything to show up but this was an interesting read….
“Whether it’s Federer, Nadal, Ferrer, Djokovic and his ‘gluten free diet’, Murray and his full body transformation during an off-season or Wawrinka who suddenly had endless stamina at the age of 28, it doesn’t matter, they are all at it if you ask me. And given the fact that over the course of 2002 and 2003 no less than sixty players had nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, in their system, it’s likely to be more widespread than many of you would think. ”
http://tennispurist.blogspot.ca/2017/04/the-curious-case-of-roger-federer.html
The writer points out that established tennis magazines have no problem accusing Rafa…..
http://www.tennisnow.com/News/Doping,-Tennis,-Nadal—Connection-.aspx
But are all quiet otherwise.
It’s a double standard.
Let’s just get clear on who believes what. Me first: I don’t believe that either Nadal or Federer are doping. I am aware of accusations, but not aware of any hard evidence to support the accusation that either one of the whose players use PEDs.
Mary, are I right in thinking you *do* believe that Federer is doping, but don’t believe Nadal is?
Hawk: do you believe that Federer is doping? Rafa?
If Mary’s point is supposed to be that there are (unfairly) many more accusations of doping against Rafa than Federer, I agree. If the point is supposed to somehow be that one group of unsupported accusations should be “counter-balanced” by another, well, I think that’s just stupid. What we should all be saying is that none of these accusations are worth considering seriously until hard evidence is produced.
What did you think about Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France at almost 34 before he was proven guilty Joe?
I was always very suspicious of him winning so easily in his 30s.
Joe’s argument is based on a fallacy called the fallacy of ignorance. Just because there is no hard evidence proving Fed is doping, Joe assumes that Fed is not doping. But circumstantial evidence definitely strongly suggests Fed is doping. Without any hard evidence a sports official in France had no problem in blithely stating that it is well known that Rafa was sitting out the season because of doping. However I am yet to find anyone announcing on tv through interviews or ads that Fed is doping despite the fact that he has the exact profile physical and performance wise of a doper. Double standards as hawkeye has already pointed out.
Mary, you do not understand the argument from ignorance, which requires the claim that something *must* be true because no one has produced contrary evidence. I do not claim that it must be true that Federer is not doping (that is, I recognize that he may be).
Rather, I think that the burden of proof is on anyone who believes the contrary to show it. Not unlike the various standards of evidence that operate in the law, one is presumed to be innocent until “proven” guilty. That’s all my position amounts to, and it’s perfectly reasonable.
Unlike yours.
When circumstantial evidence suggests Fed is doping, the burden of proof is on you to prove that he is not doping. A man at 35 not only wins AO but also IW and Miami. He may even be year end #1 if he keeps up this unnatural dominance. The amazing thing is journalists are keeping mum instead of doing some investigation.
What is the circumstantial evidence? That he won those three tournaments at 35? Sorry, not enough to shift the burden of proof; not even close. Federer has had far too much success recently, coming very close to winning slams (and actually winning masters) for his 2017 record to count as evidence.
Now, if Tommy Haas had done that this year, I agree it might be a different story.
And even an ESPN article implying a 26/27 year old in-his-prime Rafa in 2013 but nothing but praise and fawning from the main stream federazzi media about a 35/36 year old Fed in 2017.
“The greatest Spanish pro, Rafael Nadal, has fought off doping allegations for years while his eight-month absence grows more curious.”
http://www.espn.com/tennis/story/_/id/8910329/are-tennis-players-hiding-answers-increased-ped-questions-espn-magazine
No surprise that the infamous Tennis Has A Steroid Problem historically directing hate and accusations at Nadal has coincidentally decided to shut down after a 35 yr old Fed won Australia. Even they could see their own double standard.
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ca/2017/01/checking-out.html
Double standards are everywhere.
How do you say not even close. It is definitely circumstantial evidence. I am sure Fed is doping but without the tools to investigate, I cannot produce the “hard” evidence you demand. I don’t believe in fairy tales or Santa Claus. A 35 year old man sweeps the hard court season….
You’re “sure” Fed is doping? Right.
More like you desperately want to believe he’s doping because he beat your guy.
What did you think about Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France at almost 34 before he was proven guilty Joe?
I was always very suspicious of him winning so easily in his 30s.
I don’t follow cycling, so never had any informed opinion. Can’t remember whether he admitted to having been doping pretty much from the beginning.
Again, I’m not denying that performance alone could count as circumstantial evidence (e.g. Tommy Haas winning the 3 tournaments Fed won this year). But the performance would have to be a significant outlier in several respects (previous track record, age, degree of improvement etc.).
I don’t follow cycling either, but it was hard to miss if you were a casual watcher of Sports Center or followed any sports section.
So even though there was no hard evidence, it was obvious to many, even the casual fan, that it was likely he was doping.
And he worked extremely hard with God given talent.
But one does not exclude the other.
If indeed it can be deemed good circumstantial evidence, I don’t think it has much probative value.
One can claim Federer is doping, and the onus is on someone else to prove that he isn’t, because ‘he’s old and he’s winning titles and his body isn’t inconsistent with a certain drug/hormone‘? Following that reasoning consistently would mean presuming that virtually any older successful tennis player was guilty of doping (“somebody investigate how that Rosewall bastard made a GS final at age 39!”). The fact that he’s one of the greatest players of all-time is also probably relevant, as is the reduced schedule/extended layoff, his general career longevity, and the drop off from Novak – the one guy who has consistently prevented Fed from clinching titles in the last few years.
Rafa might well come close to sweeping the clay court season at age ~31, after an untold number of injury setbacks through his career that probably would’ve ended a lesser mortal. He might even do it again in future year(s), he is more than good enough. Would it then be fair to presumptively label him a doper, on virtually that basis alone? No, it definitely would not. It’s not right that those sorts of accusations have been leveled against him without evidence being produced in numerous instances. It has not been fair to his fans, and especially not to him & his team.
I do think tennis fans should indeed recognise that doping is rife across many sports, that the incentives can be big, that the dopers are one step ahead of the regulators, and that neither the game nor its champion players are at all immune. But that doesn’t mean it’s fair to assert that a player is doping when the totality of direct and circumstantial evidence is very little (or next to nothing), nor does it remove the need to back-up such potentially damaging claims. Much as one might, understandably, want to get back at certain people/commentators by way of tit-for-tat claims for all the unfair, baseless accusations, it’s probably something to avoid, in any circumstance.
What new accusations can anyone make against Rafa? You guys have been making it since he was 19. What now seems obvious in hindsight is that this was done to deflect suspicion from Fed. Hence the attempt to project the doper as a man with big muscles. The fact of the matter is, like the cyclists, the typical doping tennis athlete has the physique of Fed. So chances are that Fed has ben doping from 2003. But one thing is certain. He is defintely doping now. To sweep the hardcourt season at age 35 proves it.
I’ve never made any accusations against Rafa. I’m certainly not in favour of making them now – I would’ve thought that was clear from what I just said. I suppose such is the state of affairs in tennis-fandom, that sometimes certain things can only be viewed from dogmatic, partisan battle-lines.
“But one thing is certain. He is defintely doping now. To sweep the hardcourt season at age 35 proves it.”
All I can say there is, for reasons outlined in my other post, that sort of logic leaves a lot to be desired.
Have you heard of probability? All our decisions are made by choosing the most probable. The most probable explanation for Fed’s performance is doping. Unless you prove otherwise, that remains the common sense explanation. Logic is impeccable.
I have heard of probability, yes. Have you heard of the ‘appeal to probability’ logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability)? Drawing conclusions from probability is often good but it isn’t always as straightforward as it would seem; here’s a page explaining some of the other fallacies relating to probability & issues with interpretation – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Probability_interpretations.
“All our decisions are made by choosing the most probable”
See above. But to use a specific example that demonstrates a potential flaw in that type of reasoning when taken in the context of doping:
Hypothetically, suppose it was somehow known incontrovertibly that 99.9% of the top 1000 ranked men’s tennis players were doping, but not which ones specifically. One might say that this piece of ‘evidence’ is highly relevant for a particular case in which a doping body is making a finding as to a specific player’s guilt. But actually, it isn’t, because it does not rationally affect (directly or indirectly) the assessment of the existence of the fact in issue in the proceeding – whether Federer (or whichever SPECIFIC player it is) doped. If that sounds kinda complicated or counter-intuitive, well, it’s because issues around probability, evidence and fact-finding in individual cases sometimes are. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy#Possible_examples_of_fallacious_defense_arguments; and http://professoralexstein.com/images/Evidence_Probability_BOP.pdf – this paragraph starting on p. 561 is of particular relevance to a conclusion that an athlete is doping, for example:
“Courts generally do not use mathematical probability in applying the burden of proof doctrine. Importantly, the prevalent academic opinion approves this practice: Most evidence scholars believe that adjudicative factfinding is fundamentally incompatible with mathematical probability. Mathematical probability sometimes allows policymakers to evaluate the overall performance of a rule or a set of rules and macromanage the legal system as a whole. Carrying this tool to the process of determining individual facts is broadly considered a bad idea.”
But that really all only becomes important to the ‘Fed & doping’ idea if there actually is some particular probability or piece of evidence, and on that I refer to my earlier post.
Wrong again, Mary.
The fact that you repeat (ad nauseum) “Doping is the most probable explanation for Fed’s recent success” doesn’t make it so. The truth of that sentence has to be *shown,* see? But since you’ve already admitted you have no hard evidence to show it, you’re reduced to making the same pathetic allegation over and over. Worse, you claim to be “sure” of it.
Santa Clause, indeed.
TWD: “I suppose such is the state of affairs in tennis-fandom, that sometimes certain things can only be viewed from dogmatic, partisan battle-lines.”
Very well said. From all the vitriol one would think the topic was something truly important like the Israel-Palestinian conflict -or whether Led Zeppelin or the Who was the better live band.
The Who obviously.
“The Who obviously”
Agreed. But for any doubters:
https://vimeo.com/204160661
Sweeping the hard court season’Proves it’??!! Lol
vr,
It just gets curiouser and curiouser.
Poor Joe Smith merely insulting me or claiming that doping is not the most probable explanation doesn’t alter anything. Till you provide evidence to the contrary, the most probable explanation stands.
As for some of the Rafa fans here who never raised a finger to defend Rafa but are rushing to attack me to defend Fed, all I can say is that they and their Echo deserve pity for being so needy for approval. Incidentally nothing is getting curioser and curioser. Bad logic, my dear resident Echo. If you want to back up your claim, show what was curious and what made it curioser.
Where’s the insult, Mary? Find one instance where I ever said something insulting about you, as opposed to what you’ve said (e.g. you said something stupid or pathetic, namely your baseless allegations against Federer).
Again, to be perfectly clear, I think Fed fans who bash Rafa for doping for no good reason (e.g. his muscles) are saying stupid and pathetic things as well.
Wow this Willow poster on TX gets it…
Willow Says:
In 2013 people said Rafas amazing run was suspicious, and questions were also raised about Novaks amazing run in 2011 that came from nowhere, yet nobodies said a word about Federer and raised an eyebrow this year, not that im not saying anyone of the players could be up to no good, just hate the double standards that go around these forums ….
Willow Says:
I Think my post was merely objective, same was said about Rafa and Novak when they were having their amazing years, yet god forbid anything is said about Federer, and why shouldnt posters discuss a possible grey area, unfortunatly its the world we live in, and BTW i dont hate Federer, what i hate is double standards ….
But then after being attached by fedfans, Willow brings up the dreaded GOAT debate naming Roger as GOAT….
Willow Says:
Oh i give up, im not bringing down anybody, i think Federes an amazing player the best ever, if ive said it once ive said it a million, zillion, trillion bloomin times, i just think when one player gets suspected of wrong doings, so should everyone
Read more….
So How Is Roger Federer Doing It?
by Sean Randall | April 8th, 2017, 3:46 pm
http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2017-04-08/25788.php
OK, as I’ve said I agree about the double standards. Are you going to answer my questions? Do you think either Rafa or Fed is doping?
I believe 100 percent that it is relatively easy to get away with given testing standards today.
I would be disappointed but not shocked if any of the Top Four tested positive.
Like Willow, I think Fed is the current GOAT (by a hair IMO) and there is a double standard that gives him a free ride compared to Rafa and Djoko.
I certainly think Fed is doping. He is 35 year old for God’s sake. It took a 28 year old Rafa 2 years to start playing well again but a 35 year old Federer comes back from a 6 month lay off and wins the three biggest titles on the trot?
Admittedly more suspicious than anything else I’ve seen from the other Top 4.
That article made some strong points.
But you’ll never hear it in the main stream media the way they’ve accused Rafa.
By omission, I take it you don’t think either of them is doping, though you wouldn’t be shocked if they were.
My sentiments exactly.
I have a different take than all three of you. I believe neither of them has ever doped. The least I can do as a fan of this sport if to come out in favor of those who have ascended the sport to new heights. I, as a tennis fan, owe a lot to not only Rafa but also Federer. I am Rafanatic but respect Federer.
To me it feels really really unfair to attribute the success they have had to doping! I can’t even imagine the amount of effort these two have put in their careers and here we are , making theories about PED.
I would be extremely shocked if anything surfaces like this regarding Fedal. I strongly believe it is not the case.
Yes, this is my personal opinion and I feel strongly about it.
Btw, if Rod laver could win a calendar slam at 31 , playing 32 tournaments and playing about 125 matches (winning about 87%), why can’t Federer and Nadal win slams in their 30s?
These athletes are far better conditioned and the training regimes, diets, facilities and everything is 50 times better now.
Vamos, the main reason I wouldn’t be shocked is simply that so many professional athletes have been shown to use PEDs. Although I feel similar to you about many of the things you say, I think we should admit, all of us, that none of us really *know* any of these people (unless, of course, one of us actually does). In general, I think the revelation that a top athlete has used PEDs is about as shocking as the revelation that a rock star cheated on his girlfriend with a bunch of groupies on tour.
One thing we do know about top athletes is that they are not like most of the rest of us. They are extremely competitive, driven, and focused on one thing. And, being good at that one thing makes them fabulously rich and famous. Since the margins are so small and the rewards so huge, this makes the incentive to do anything to gain a competitive advantage enormous.
Again, we agree in that I believe that they have never doped either.
Federer is 35, not 31. The benefit of better conditioning, diets facilities is available to all and the top 20 definitely have enough money to afford the best. So all things being equal, the 35 year old is still at a disadvantage because of his age unless he is taking supplements to make up for the fall in HGH.Science has still not discovered a way of stopping the natural fall of HGH which reaches significant levels by 35. So there are clinics set up to provide this fountain of youth ( HGH) to celebrities and aging athletes.
@Joe Smith,
I don’t know them on a personal level , that’s true. What I am trying to say is, I don’t think they deserve my suspicion of doping when clearly I have seen them as role models of hard work, dedication and humility. I as a fan owe to these champions and this is the least I can do to respect them for that. Why should I create theories about PEDs when there is not an iota of evidence. If they were drug cheats, they would have done it earlier even and Fed wouldn’t have waited to get 34 or 35!
Anyway, I am going to put forward why I think they are not dopers. I just expressed my personal view that these two have never doped. I find it distasteful to attribute their success to something which is pure conjecture. You want the only FACT is? they have worked extremely hard and they are God gifted talents 🙂
Vamos: Fair enough, and well said!
@Mary, also remember that Laver played 32 tournaments at 31!! Fedal were playing literally half of this even in their heyday! And, we are talking about an athlete from the 60s!
1. Top 20 don’t have the money to afford everything
2. It is totally logical that despite having access to all those facilities, others are still not able to match Fedal and Djokovic. The reason is that they are either not as disciplined or patient or committed or mentally as strong or are simply not talented enough. Tennis is not sprinting! Since when has physical strength (while quite important) become the most important factor?
I see top 20 players expressing their shock about how intense Nadal’s practice sessions are and how much effort he puts in. Countless times I’ve read players talking about how it’s kind of impossible to match Rafa’s intensity in practice.
So, I believe these top athletes have far more factors working for them that separate them from the field.
VR, the problem is not whether they can or not, the problem is when it comes to Fed, they believe he can, even at 35; but when it comes to Rafa, even at 27, they think he can’t! Such is the double standard. Even some or many of the Djoko fans believe that Rafa is/was doping, just because Rafa used to beat Djoko from the very beginning, from 2006-2010, and they esp couldn’t forgive Rafa for beating Djoko in that epic Madrid SF of 2009 that caused Djoko to be in tears afterwards, not forgetting that Olympics 2008 SF too. And yet when it comes to Djoko and his sudden surge in 2011 and onwards, they assumed its all due to Djoko’s talent; strange that Djoko’s talent suddenly could overcome a ‘doping’ Nadal when in the past he couldn’t!
From the very beginning they’d been accusing Rafa of doping, when he shot to prominence on clay and beating Fed often on that surface. They directed their accusations at Rafa based on his physique too.
I’m glad now they have shit on their faces when they couldn’t explain why a 35 yo Fed after a six month breaks could win the big prizes and yet a 27 yo when doing the same was being suspected of doping. They are busy keeping silent about Fed and doping, and hoping no one would raise this subject; and by doing so, they let the world know what kind of hypocrites they are.
Thank you Fed, whether you’re doping or not, for putting all your fanatical supporters, be it your fans, the media or anyone else, into their place and keep them silent and stop the doping accusations of Fed’s main rivals, at least for the time being.
Well said Lucky.
As I said, the long standing web site Tennis Has A Steroid Problem (THASP) after years of accusing Rafa, suddenly decided to “move on” after 35 year old Fed won Australia.
Lance Armstrong at almost 34 won the Tour de France and he worked extremely hard and had God given talent too.
@Luckystar, Agreed! double standards galore. There are fans of all three of them who resort to doping accusations when their player is up against the wall. It has been an epic egg-on-face situation for those Fed fanatics who used to accuse Rafa of doping. They should really be ashamed now. No doubts!
yeah PED also enabled Fed to evolve his strategies and start going for more topspin backhand returns lol
oh so they closed the tennishasasteroidproblem site. Good news. It was such a hate filled site. Ruan’s site too was meant for hating Rafa and accusing him of doping. One fan said, Fed looks so honest, you know he is clean. And looking at Rafa, they saw a “dirty pig”. It was so awful. After some time, Ruan decided to stop the doping accusations and then he finally became a Djokovic fan. Weird. What I find odd is that Rafa fans rarely defended their hero. If they claimed Fed was doping in retaliation, they were immediately banned, even on tennistalk. But Cheryl had no problem with fans claiming Rafa was doping. She refused even to delete one such accusation claiming it was just a joke! Even more weird!!!
Ruan has another site now…
Federer’s Remarkable 2017 Run
Posted on April 5, 2017 by Ru-an | 19 Comments
http://theultimatetennisblog.com/federers-remarkable-2017-run/
Ruan says, “It sure is tempting to believe that given such a remarkable and peRFect script. When Federer was losing to Djokovic and others in slams in the last few years Fedfans always used the excuse of his lack of stamina due to age.
What happened to that narrative after Federer won three five-set matches to win the Australian Open or to complete the Indian Wells/Miami double spanning three weeks which included two brutal three-set matches in Miami’s oppressive heat?
Certainly, a case for doping can be made in this situation and the behavior of Fedfans provide even more incentive for it. But since I am unbiased and objective(unlike them) I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
As far as I’m concerned if one is doping then it is very likely that all of them are doping in which case it evens out. I just don’t appreciate hypocrisy where Nadal or Djokovic is singled out but the possibility that Saint Federer is doping is entirely out of the question.
I used to accuse Nadal myself as a Federer fan when I still believed Federer represented good and Nadal evil, but I overcame my fanaticism. The world is not that black and white. I think it’s immature to worship one player like a god and vilify the other like he is the devil.”
And the site is not closed, they’ve just decided it’s time to stop updating the site….
http://tennishasasteroidproblem.blogspot.ca/
oh, so Ruan has become objective? As for the steroidproblem site, no coincidence that they stopped updating when Fed won AO at 35.
I wouldn’t say he’s more objective at all.
I respected him more when he was more open about his hate.
He just tries to hide it now, but it’s still obvious. He said Rafa’s loss to Thiem was suspicious and he suspected Rafa was trying to avoid a rematch with Nole. So he still puts Rafa down continuously, just less obviously open about calling him the devil and Federer God (actually his words, not mine).
Doping in sports won’t go away, it will only get more creative and sophisticated or fall under different catagories and names. And it might be something that takes a long time, if ever to be deemed illegal.
I’d be surprised if the biggest stars in any sport didn’t try a number of “training programs and procdures” over the course of their careers.
But I’m a cycling fan so I lean toward a cynical view of otherworldly and unbelievable performances.
My imagination is just that – imagination. I’ll say no more about it! 😀
Just forget it.
But despite all that, 35 is 35 when natural HGH levels are signifantly lower. No matter how you spin it, you cannot get away from that. Federer is not God, he is human, subject to natural aging. There are some things which no amount of conditioning can stop and fall of HGH level is one of them, as inevitable and relentless as death but unlike death, it is on a strict timeline.
I’m thinking implanted nano-biochips to signal the release of a variety of activities in humans.
RC, yes, there are cheaters and ‘bad people’ in every field out there and sports is no exception. But, human beings (esp when they are as talented as Fedal) are capable of pulling off miracles too.
What else can describe Connor’s 1991 US Open Run? haha.
VR, You have a pure heart and mind! I choose to enjoy the performances and not let my suspicious imagination interfere– I leave it to those much smarter than I am to engineer the species to greater heights. No pun intended lol
Well who did Connors beat?
And laver was great, but the game was very different from today.
My only contribution to this discussion is to say that I agree with vr. I see it very much the way he does and since he expressed it so well, there is not much for me to add.
I also think that Rafa has been in fairly targeted and finally he did something about it and filed a lawsuit. But that does not mean that I have to respond in kind when it comes to Fed.
Maybe I am not cynical because I don’t watch sports like cycling. But I believe in giving Fed and Rafa the benefit of the doubt.
It should read that I believe Rafa has been unfairly targeted!*
Nny
I’ll keep it to myself!
rc,
No you don’t have to keep it to yourself! Not at all! I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject. I respect your point of view. Since you watch cycling, where doping has been rampant, you have a perspective that wound be worth sharing!
Please speak up! I am willing to hear you out!
?
Nny
Oh, no, if we were in a bar having a bottle of bubbly maybe, with your permission I’d let loose some of my wild ideas but we’d end up laughing…
Anyway, I decided it’s best to be a believer on the topic of tennis heros.
rc,
I hear you! That sounds like it would be fun!
Even I know all about cycling. You can’t escape it even if you never watched the sport.
I will respect your wishes since we are not in a bar! I think we all want to believe in heroes!
?
Me too rc!!!!
MA
I think that the upcoming GS is, as usual, increasing tensions. Last FO I had to part ways with other Novak fans, maybe you remember?
This year is kind of a big deal with la Decima so close. Speaking for myself, I really want this for Rafa. But last year I was desperate for Nole to get FO. It was crazy.
Anyway Vamos Rafa, Insyaallah ♡
Hey rc!!…First of all..I Miss U!!Crazy crazy lots!!hehe…and yeah rc,i still remember…It always pains me to see u be treated like that…But,what the heck..forget about them rc!
And thank u for your endless support for Rafa and Nny and VR are right!….You’re not only have a BIG heart but also one truly amazing and awesome human being rc!!Wooohooo!!
Thanks AM. And belated thanks to Nny and VR.
It’s nice to have the kind words 🙂
Thanks NNY, cheers!
vr,
You are welcome! I think you said it so very well and I appreciate you bringing up my childhood idol Rod Laver!
I do think that Lucky did express the anger and outrage that Rafa fans have felt over the years as he has been treated so badly. She made a good point about the Fed fans ha ing to keep their mouths shut now and not deal with it coming their way. Rafa has been hard done by throughout the years. I don’t know hiw he has managed to handle it so well. Just a class act!
Ha ha, I’m enjoying this present moment, when both Fed and Rafa are having their revivals, and yet the Fed fanatics couldn’t accuse Rafa of anything, as their dear Fed is having even better results than Rafa so far this season (with a slam in hand), and beating Rafa thrice. They certainly can’t accuse Rafa of doping now, when Fed himself at 35 could do amazing things!
I’m so glad they got ‘silenced’ by non other than their very own saint fav player. Some, like the owner of that ‘tennis has a steroid problem’ blog finally get some enlightenment and feeling repentant? or remorseful? is/are now singing a different tune!
Again, thank you Fed, you do ‘wonders’! Not forgetting Fed’s MTOs during the AO, that got the Fed fanatic supporters busily defending him for taking his MTOs, when in the past the same people were accusing others of faking injuries to take their MTOs! Karma?
It is not karma. it is double standard. Fed also took a bathroom break at some AO as a strategy. But Fed fans, like Joe Smith here, complain about everything they possibly can about Rafa but choose to become deaf, dumb and blind where Fed is concerned and never complain. If somebody else points it out, they will falsely claim they never noticed it, they do not follow Fed obsessively, Rafa fandom is a cult etc. So what Joe Smith and his ilk are claiming is they too obsessively follow Rafa but not Fed so they complain only about Rafa! Ha ha
#Hilarious
Haha, yes, hilarious Mary.
Not really.
A double standard (in context) is applying one standard to one player but not to others. Here’s a challenge: try to find one instance of where I’ve done that on this site. Failing to mention something in the first instance, but then readily accepting it when it’s pointed out (e.g. condemning Federer for bullying tactics similar to those Rafa has employed; failing to concede a point based on a bad call, etc.) doesn’t count.
I would never say that all Rafa fans are cultish. Some are, some aren’t -no different from Fed fans. IMO, you exhibit a few cultish traits, chief of which is taking personally any criticism of Rafa, and attacking personally anyone who criticizes him in any way. To that I would add your apparent jealous hatred of Federer, marked by your willingness to attack him on grounds that even you don’t believe, simply because other deluded Fed fans attack your idol on similarly misguided grounds.
Hawkeye , i dont know if you know, but im Willow on TX, i was cut to ribbons on that forum by a couple of the Federer fans which i wont name, simply because i brought up the possibility that he could be doping, as i said there i hate the double standards that fans have, when it comes to their favorites, simply because they are their favorites ….