Roger Federer and Alexander Zverev will be squaring off for the fifth time in their careers when they each try to remain undefeated in round-robin competition at the World Tour Finals on Tuesday night.
The head-to-head series is all tied up at two wins apiece, including 1-1 this season. Federer dominated the Halle final 6-1, 6-3 before Zverev won their only hard-court encounter to date via a 6-3, 6-4 decision in the Montreal title match. In 2016, Federer got the job done 6-3, 7-5 on the clay courts of Rome only to see Zverev prevail 7-6(4), 5-7, 6-3 in the Halle semifinals.
A back injury plagued Federer is his Montreal loss to Zverev and also contributed to a rough road at the U.S. Open, where the Swiss survived several tight matches before succumbing to Juan Martin Del Potro in the quarters. It’s safe to say that the back is no longer an issue. Federer is 11-0 since the U.S. Open with titles in Shanghai and Basel plus a 6-4, 7-6(4) victory over Jack Sock on Sunday in London.
“I think we’re all going to start playing better every round that goes by,” Federer said after beating Sock. “It’s just still early days in the tournament. (You) can’t expect to play your best against the best players in the world in that first match…. I think that’s the difficulty in a first round usually at any tournament. Here it’s amplified because it’s against a fellow top-10 player. It just makes things really, really difficult.”
It will be a fellow top-three player on the other side of the net in this one. Zverev’s ascension to the top of the sport in 2017 was highlighted by Masters 1000 titles in Montreal and Rome, plus additional titles in Montpellier, Munich, and Washington, D.C. The 20-year-old German slumped to the tune of an 8-7 record in his last seven tournaments prior to London, but he scored an impressive 6-4, 3-6, 6-4 win over World Tour Finals veteran Marin Cilic on Sunday night.
Thus it is Zverev who has a better lifetime winning percentage at the year-end championship than Federer. Of course, his sample size is just a bit smaller. Whereas Zverev is 1-0, Federer owns an amazing 53-12 career record at this event with six titles.
“I think anyone beating Federer in this group [would have] a good chance of passing (to the semifinals),” Zverev assessed. “But he’s the favorite, definitely, in all of the matches he plays. I played him a few times this year now…. All of them were great matches. Hopefully it can be another one.”
Given how well the underdog did to battle back from a break down in the third set against Cilic and how well he has played against Federer in the past, another competitive one should be in the cards. But the world No. 2 will likely raise the level he showcased against Sock and improve to 2-0 following a tough fight.
Pick: Federer in 3
[polldaddy poll=9873358]
Greatest joke on earth, when the greatest of all retrievers ie Djoko was the one who beat Fed the most in recent years, and the supposedly powerful Zverev had not a clue against a subpar Fed and got beaten despite all his power and hard hitting.
I am happy 4 R. Federer but A. Zverev tried, he almost won the 1st set and if he had, the game might change.
Zverev was also very sub-par today. The Montreal version most definitely can beat Federer. In general, when the best big guys are on fire (Zverev, Cilic, Delpo), they are almost impossible to beat. They just have too much firepower when the ball is landing in the court consistently.
If Roger Federer loses his next match with M. Cilic in straight sets, I know he won’t lose it but if he does will he still be number one in the group, if A. Zverev defeats J. Sock in straight sets?
https://www.scoreboard.com/en/tennis/atp-singles/finals-london/
Please I need a quick answer.
I know that R. Federer has qualified for the next round.
Yes, irrespective of the coming result Fed is going to top the group.
Thanks!
R. Federer is one of my favorite player’s and I know he won’t lose to M. Cilic, he might not even lose a set but if R. Federer loses to M. Cilic in 2 sets.
He will have 2 wins, 1 lose, he will have 4 sets victories and will lose 3 sets.
He currently has 2 wins, no loses, he has won 4 sets and lost 1 set.
If A. Zverev defeats J. Sock in 2 sets.
He will have 2 wins, 1 lose, 5 sets victories and will have 3 sets loses.
AZ currently has 1 win, 1 lose, he has won 3 sets and lost 3 sets.
If this happens and it won’t happen because R. Federer won’t lose in 2 or lose at all, according this A. Zverev has more sets victories( 5), if R. Federer tops the group he will be there because he defeated A. Zverev right?
Yes, if only two players qualify based on win/loss record then the winner of the two will top the group, but if 3 of them have the same win/loss record then the sets win/loss would be considered.
I haven’t seen Zverev on fire to that extent – the few times he beat Fed, Fed was off his game – Halle 2016 and Montreal 2017. He was smoke by Rafa on clay at MC and by Fed at Halle this year.
Even when he’s playing well, the big boys would beat him even if it’s narrowly – he’s 0-3 vs Rafa and 2-3 vs Fed. Zverev just lacks the court craft and the varieties to deal with the big guys when they’re playing reasonably well. You can’t compare him to Delpo who has almost everything in his game and belongs to a higher tier, that of the big four. Delpo at 20/21 had beaten Fedal to win his maiden slam. He reached as high as World no.5 (no. 4 for a short while) during late 2009 to early 2010 in an era when the big four were collectively at their best or at least near their best.
Perhaps Zverev is comparable to Cilic but Cilic when in the zone, is still better than Zverev. I mean beating Fed in straight at USO, and winning a set vs Djoko 6-1 when Djoko was at the top of his game. Zverev is still young, he’s only 20. He may end s up doing better than both Delpo and Cilic but right now he’s still a WIP imo.
Goffin is horrible. Looks out of place.
Lucky
I hadn’t realised you shared my opinion off Koenig’s commentating skills 😉
Goffin is hobbled by his knee injury.
If Goffin is hobbling, then I hope Thiem gets to the SF with Dimi. I certainly doesn’t want to see a hobbling semi finalist here, making it easy for the other group.
Goffin would play. It won’t matter if he’s hobbled or not.
No, what I mean is I hope Thiem to qualify for the SF, not a hobbled Goffin.
D. Thiem might defeat D. Goffin.
I dont understand why do players turn up for the top 8 championships . You cant win a match without being fully fit. You can aggravate your injury. Rafa went to Paris , felt that he could not play . Came here, found it is not healed yet.
Fed makes some very pertinent points as to why Rafa is injured. I think Fed is very straightforward and his interviews should be very carefully analyzed by budding tennis stars as to how you should prolong your career.
He is a great great role model for somebody who started relatively early and is playing supreme tennis @ age of 36. Its a rocking year for Fed and @ age 36 its probably the 8th wonder of the world.
What did he say about rafas injury. I just read sad he had to retire twice .
He mentioned the injury is an age issue . At the start of Shanghai as well, he mentioned that Rafa was playing both full Asian swing and thats where the problem started.
Fed could pick and choose his tournaments, the others couldn’t. They have not gained full exemptions yet.
I actually marvelled at Djoko, who’s the fittest guy of them all. He had played six great years of tennis without serious injury break and won 11 slams amidst very tough competition. In fact he’s the leader in terms of ranking points won during a season, that speaks volume as to his dominance over a strong field.
He’s the best HC player imo, even better than Fed during Fed’s heydays. We’ll see how he does during his thirties.
I’ve done some analysis of the careers of the big three, Rafa had done the best among the three during late teens to early twenties (18-22), Fed during mid twenties (23-26) and Djoko late twenties (27-29); though there’s one thing in common, ie they all had done very well at age 24(each winning three slams during age 24).
Rafa has got exemptions now.
I still think Fed > Djoker on HC and grass though its very very close. HC play comes very naturally to Djoker.
the only think Djoker will be disappointed about is the number of USO finals that he has lost. In my opinion he should have won at least 4 USO given the solid game he has got.
I dont think Murray deserves to be qualified as big 4 . He should at least win 6 slams to join that category.
No, his full exemptions should start in 2018, not now as in 2017.
Ok, so he can skip all 500 tourneys . Right ?
I dont think he is playing Acapulco, its a useless tourney.
If results in the biggest tournaments matter, then Federer is (narrowly) the best HC player of his generation, probably the best ever. His stats vs. Novak:
HC Slams: Leads Djokovic 10-8
1000s: Leads Djokovic 25-22
WTF: Leads Djokovic 6-5
Novak may well surpass him, but for the moment Roger has the edge.
HC Masters: Fed 21; Djoko 22.
Djoko is six years younger so has plenty of time to surpass Fed on the HCs. Given he’s only 2 HC slams and 1 WTF behind Fed but he’s in the tour a few years shorter than Fed, he’s in fact ahead of Fed in his pace of winning HC slams and big titles. He’s already ahead in the Masters.
He will become 2 WTF behind after this week.
Don’t be so sure about that.
Why shouldn’t he?
R. Federer is THE best!
I like N. Djokovic a lot but this current R. Federer will smoke him like he smashed Rafa this year.
Roger is on fire🔥🔥🔥 baby!
Fed’s generation is not Rafa and Djoko’s generation BTW.
I have already aired my view of why IMO Rafa did not pull out of the O2 in advance. He knew his knee had not fully recovered but took to the court in order not let the organisers and sponsors down. He only withdrew when it became obvious to continue risked causing greater injury to the knee.
Do you think he took court only not to let organisers and sponsors down ? He wanted to check whether he could win or not. He even said that in pre-match conference that he felt he could last 5 matches.
He withdrew because he got to know because he could not compete. He said that he was already aware of the injury.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/879249/Rafael-Nada-already-knows-knee-injury-time-out-David-Goffin-ATP-World-Tour-Finals
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/sport/tennis/879955/Rafael-Nadal-injury-news-ATP-World-Tour-Finals/amp
Rafa saying above part of his team did not want him to play and it was his decision to play.this clearly means the knew had not recuperated and he still took the risk to test how it will go.
That was Rafa’s decision. It’s not complicated. He said in the interview that he’s missed this tournament too many times. He wanted the chance to compete. He’s a professional athlete and wants to play.
He tried and realized the knee would not hold up. So he can go home knowing he gave it a shot. I think Rafa has a right to make his decisions. He’s honest and forthright.
He played and now it’s over. Time to move on. Rafa will get treatment and rehab and work to be ready for 2018.
Rafa’s best on grass beat Fed’s best on grass in 2008. End of.
Djokovic’s best on hard beat Fed’s best on hard in 2010-2011 USO. End of.
Rafa’s best on clay beat Fed’s best on clay HOW MANY TIMES??? So many that Fed has retired from clay.
Nole’s best on HC beat Rafa’s almost best on HC in 2011 USO and 2012 AO.
Rafa’s best on HC beat Nole’s almost best on HC in 2013 USO.
You are at your best once in a bluemoon.
Also, I dont think Rafa’s best is better than Fed’s best on grass as well as HC.
18 Grandslams versus 6 GrandSlams. ENDOF
How do you know that Fed’s “best in grass” was on display in 2008? He was below par almost everywhere that year, and had his mono thing. You may be right, but I don’t think we can really know. But given that he was noticeably stuggling for most of that season, I can’t necessarily say he wasn’t better in 2007, when Rafa probably wasn’t quite as good as he was in 2008. Fair?
How about 2008 Rafa > 2007 Fed on grass? Just asking, as 2008 Rafa > 2007 Rafa and 2007 Rafa very close to 2007 Fed.
Fair question, Lucky.
A 4th straight final in 2009 would have been quite intriguing. It was not too be, unfortunately. Had Rafa never gotten injured, I definitely would have picked him to face Federer in the final over Roddick. Obviously you never know, and I don’t want to take anything away from Roddick as he was incredible in that tournament. But Rafa had entered the peak of his powers at that point. If I could go back in time to 2009 Wimby and have Rafa not be injured, I’d pick him to at least face Fed in the final…
Yes, that’s a much better comparison, but essentially unanswerable. They had three chances to settle it on the court in those years; Fed won two, Rafa one.
Imo Fed’s best match on grass was either Wimbledon 2003 semis or Wimbledon 2015 semis.
2008 wimby final obviously up there as well.
I definitely agree about Wimby 2015 semis for Fed’s beat grass match. Honestly, I would also say that 2001 Sampras match was one of his best. He was absolutely insane and fearless in that match, and he beat the guy who was the greatest grass player ever. To this day, I still don’t think I’ve ever ever seen Fed return as well as he did in that match, at least not on grass… He must have hit like a hundred return winners off the Sampras serve.
But, Sampras wasn’t at his best in that 2001 match. He didn’t win a Wimbledon title after 2000. He was already in decline. I don’t think he ever reached a Wimbledon final after 2000.
True, he wasn’t the Pete Sampras we saw in 1999 or something, but he still hadn’t lost since 1996, and he could have easily won his 5th straight had he come through that match with Fed. Fed was very streaky as a teenager, and was not yet consistent enough to win a major. But let’s not pretend like him ending the 31 match win streak at Wimbledon, of the guy who at the time was generally considered the greatest ever, wasn’t one of the most historic victories ever. The victory looks even better in hindsite, because if Sampras had won that match and the tournament, Fed’s 8 titles would be TIED for the record, not the lone record-holder. If we’re going to look for a way to minimize it, it should be the fact that he flamed out in the next round against Henman.
Best match on grass not the same as best level on grass; the level of your opponent does matter. The 2015 Wimbledon SF, Murray looked lost out there; I doubt a Rafa or a Djoko at his best would play so badly or defensively as Murray vs Fed on that day.
No way. Murray played brilliantly in that Wimby SF; otherwise the score wouldn’t have been so close when Fed was in God mode. When Murray is playing badly and Fed is at his best, the score is 6-0, 6-1, like it was at WTF a few years ago.
Murray’s brilliance wasn’t the same as the brilliance of Djoko or Rafa, simple as that.
No murray played well. That was an absolute beatdown. Fed was absolutely flawless. He was great but not flawless against Nadal in 2008.
Yeah, 2015 was literally flawless. You can’t possibly have played flawless if you lose two sets in a row, no matter how great the other player is.
Actually, most people said that day that Murray played pretty well, he was just completely outclassed and dominated by Fed’s serving. And Murray is one of the greatest returners.
Fed 2015 Wimby SF was his best match. I thought Murray was quite brilliant that day. I remember a titanic game @ 5-4 in the second set which Murray held to take it to 5-5. The level of tennis was insane. Fed’s serve was untouchable that day. I felt if Fed played in the same way , he would beat Djoker but he just could not win the first set against him after a break-up and after that doubts crept in.
I think Fed could have got to 10 Wimbys had he not lost one or two very close finals. I still think deep in his mind he wants to achieve that although it might not happen now.
Murray wasn’t serving as well as Djoko did in the final. Djoko was able to hang tough to push the first two sets to TBs. Give Djoko credit, it’s not about Fed only. Fed didn’t serve poorly in the final, but Djoko served better.
Rafa would’ve won three AOs had he not lost two close Finals. Rafa would’ve three Wimbledon had he not lost the close final of 2007.
You win some you lose some; that’s why Fed has eight Wimbledon, not ten.
Kevin, on grass being a good returner is not enough; you also have to serve well to hold your serve.
Djoko and Rafa beat Fed on grass because they served well to hold their serves and at the same time found ways to break Fed’s serves.
By your own estimation, Federer is playing better this year than ever. His best on grass was not in 2008, but this year (with the larger racquet). In fact, he’s generally been better since 2014 than earlier in his career, again due mainly to the racquet.
Fed 2.0 would beat 2008 Nadal on grass, fairly easily. As you like to say, the game moves on. Especially after nearly a decade.
His match against Berdych this year in Wimby was very high level tennis. That was the best I saw Berdych this whole year.
You forget Rafa of 2008 was very quick, no way the 2017 Fed would hand a beat down to that Rafa on grass. I would rate that Rafa > than this Fed of 2017.
Murray isn’t Djoko or top form Rafa on grass (Rafa was 3-0 vs Murray on grass btw). Murray was more a defender on grass; Djoko unlike Murray could serve very well on grass, hence he would have his chances even if he were to meet Fed in that 2015 SF. Why Fed couldn’t play like his SF when facing Djoko in the final? It’s not just about Fed, but about Djoko too. I had no doubt at that time that Djoko would do better than Murray vs Fed; true enough, he proved that I was right, and beat Fed in four sets.
To beat Fed on grass, it’s not about returning serves, but one also has to serve well consistently and gets to every ball. Cilic played well against Fed on grass in 2016 but faltered at crucial moments. Serving and hitting like Cilic on grass will give you a better chance vs Fed, Murray couldn’t play that way. He’s 1-2 vs Fed on grass; Djoko is 2-0.
How can Fed be generally better since 2014? Joe, do you know what you’re posting? If he’s better he would have better results than his heydays! A bigger racket alone is not enough to reverse the trend when one is aging! It’s not a miraculous instrument that could allow you to turn back the clock.
His skills may be better(everyone is as they become more experienced!) but his other weapons may not be. He’s half a step slower, his precision of his shots not as good, his fitness and stamina not as good as before, he’s not hitting with same power as his younger days – which is why he’s not winning slams from 2013 to 2016! He, together with Rafa, benefitted from the absence of a top form Djoko, though I still think Rafa would win his FO title playing the way he played.
To me, Rafa’s best level on HC was USO 2010, followed by AO 2009, USO2013 and then AO 2014.
I feel Rafa of USO 2010 at least equal to Djoko at his best in a HC slam, say AO 2011; both dropping only a set the whole tournament, and Rafa beat Djoko in the final of USO 2010 whilst Djoko has Murray at AO 2011 final (can’t compare having Murray as a final opponent to having Djoko). Murray was horrible in that AO 2011 final tbh.
Djoko still the better HC player than Rafa obviously, as Djoko produces his best tennis on the HCs so very frequently whilst Rafa simply can’t do that frequently.