Federer had 28 W/17UE but still lost...
- Thread starter FreeBird
- Start date
He didn't say anything like that about this match. In the press conference he pretty much said he was trying to hang in there and hoping for some mistakes from Cilic. He gave Cilic credit.
And if you are talking about Federer fans, I don't think most of them felt that way during this match. It was clear early on that Cilic was in control. He was bossing Federer around the entire time.
swizzy
Hall of Fame
cilic played the match of his life to beat roger.. just as kyrillos, or whatever his name is, did to beat nadal.. the monfils match had to be a factor.. rog did not have the legs in this one.. the 2 sets he lost to gael were full of shanks.. in this one cilic hit with crazy power and for winners
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
Much truth in this.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
That comment is valid when you play grinders and pushers (we all know who). Not when you play Cilic . Care to post what his differential was ?
FreeBird
Legend
61% is little over 50%. Haha.. :twisted: I say Federer has 'little' lead over Djokovic in slam count.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
It's quite silly when people look at w/ue stats and make huge sweeping generalisations. It's like when people often bring up that Nadal hits many more winners than del Potro in many of their matches and that it has to mean that Nadal was the more aggressive player. There's a huge misconception on this board about what w/ue stats actually mean.
From these stats you'd think Federer played well but he didn't get much chance to even hit many UE because Cilic was so damned good that he crushed Federer and made sure the match was on his racket. Federer hit some winners, made some UE's an the rest of the time was left in the dust by Cilic's awesome power and accuracy.
In short, this thread makes no sense, illustrates little and does a poor job at actually determining the meaning of the stats, which can mean different things depending on the match.
W/UE stats don't always tell you how a player actually played -- it doesn't tell you that Cilic was in God-mode or that Federer refused to hit either stroke DTL almost inexplicably.
BTW, even Federer at his best would have found Cilic yesterday to be extremely formidable. Cilic played the best match of his career, as he admitted afterwards.
Main point to take away: don't make assumptions based on just looking at W/UE stats, as they are often hugely misleading and don't necessarily speak for the quality of one's play.
Congratulations to Marin Cilic on a superb performance. I hope Nishikori wins the final though!
From these stats you'd think Federer played well but he didn't get much chance to even hit many UE because Cilic was so damned good that he crushed Federer and made sure the match was on his racket. Federer hit some winners, made some UE's an the rest of the time was left in the dust by Cilic's awesome power and accuracy.
In short, this thread makes no sense, illustrates little and does a poor job at actually determining the meaning of the stats, which can mean different things depending on the match.
W/UE stats don't always tell you how a player actually played -- it doesn't tell you that Cilic was in God-mode or that Federer refused to hit either stroke DTL almost inexplicably.
BTW, even Federer at his best would have found Cilic yesterday to be extremely formidable. Cilic played the best match of his career, as he admitted afterwards.
Main point to take away: don't make assumptions based on just looking at W/UE stats, as they are often hugely misleading and don't necessarily speak for the quality of one's play.
Congratulations to Marin Cilic on a superb performance. I hope Nishikori wins the final though!
Though you're right that many "unforced errors" could arguably be called forced, broadcasters aren't the ones recording those stats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/29097794
I was referring to cilic serving at little over 50% for most of the match, not federer.
FreeBird
Legend
So, match is not exactly on Fed's racquet everytime. That's my point. That was a foot-in-mouth comment from Federer.
FreeBird
Legend
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
You are gloating for some strange reason, and aren't even reading the posts properly. He meant Cilic was serving at ~50% (actually 56%) and Fed couldn't get enough BP's.
Shouldn't you be worried about why Djokovic lost to a fairly sluggish Kei ?
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
That's a different point. Two players have a say in a match, but using W/UE stats to 'prove a point' was an illogical way of going about it. You should know more than anyone else the nuances of tennis and tennis stats, as you're an intelligent observer of the game.
Did Federer say before the Cilic match that the match will be on his racket? If so, he got punished duly in the match and taught a lesson.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
And where did he say it was -- "everytime" ? And even if he did, it was applicable when he was sometime in his prime -- not now.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Great post, Nat_Near! IMHO, Fed has lost far more sting on his FH than on his BH. Do you agree, and why do you think this is the case ? It's not just foot-speed. Even when he is in position he seems unable to unleash it like in his hey-days. Is it the new racket or changes to his technique, or simply side-effects of old age ? Agassi's movement declined, but his groundstrokes remained potent - strange to see Fed morph into powder-puff Fed (exaggeration of-course but the basic point remains)
FreeBird
Legend
Okay, wrong way to put it. But, Federer's comment is still a mockery of all other players and delusion of highest level.
I am referring to this:
https://twitter.com/bbctennis/status/397057330678075392
This interview is from Nov, 2013. Also, even in his prime, it's not only about his racquet. Other players are not ballerina dancers.
Last edited:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
I really don't know. His new racket did change his game markedly: he lost some finesse generally, and seemed to find more balance in his strokes. It seems he's balanced out his ground game rather than trying to maintain his biggest strength, so he's gained some ease on the backhand and lost some potency on the forehand, but overall, it seems he's lost potency and confidence on both shots because he believes less in his accuracy. So many of his DTL shot attempts just end up going middle-ish.
Also, because of this he's lost his 6th gear due to him making the decision to balance his game rather than believe in big weapons that, when they click on their day, can produce that sort of 6th gear unstoppable level of tennis play, as Cilic produced in the semi-final yesterday. I've said it all summer that Federer has yet to really produce a standout performance; maybe he just can't do it any more. He's had a long career and he's getting old. But he's got his stroke bias all wrong IMO. For Djokovic, an even distribution is his personal best balance. For Federer, his personal best balance is one that is biased toward the forehand side substantially, and he's forced himself away from his successful personal ''well-balanced'' configuration.
Overall, perhaps Federer just isn't comfortable with his new stick. He's said in recent interviews that he's still trying to master it and understand it (don't have sources for the moment, read it in other threads). Look at his play in Wimbledon 2014 and compare it to his 2012 run, and Federer looks like he's gearing himself toward solidity and has lost some spark. His new stick is more forgiving and leaves more margin for error, and I've heard that he strings it 10 or so lbs heavier than before (before meaning his best years), which supposedly would give him greater accuracy and less power, but actually he just has less power and doesn't redirect the ball with accuracy anyway...
Also, because of this he's lost his 6th gear due to him making the decision to balance his game rather than believe in big weapons that, when they click on their day, can produce that sort of 6th gear unstoppable level of tennis play, as Cilic produced in the semi-final yesterday. I've said it all summer that Federer has yet to really produce a standout performance; maybe he just can't do it any more. He's had a long career and he's getting old. But he's got his stroke bias all wrong IMO. For Djokovic, an even distribution is his personal best balance. For Federer, his personal best balance is one that is biased toward the forehand side substantially, and he's forced himself away from his successful personal ''well-balanced'' configuration.
Overall, perhaps Federer just isn't comfortable with his new stick. He's said in recent interviews that he's still trying to master it and understand it (don't have sources for the moment, read it in other threads). Look at his play in Wimbledon 2014 and compare it to his 2012 run, and Federer looks like he's gearing himself toward solidity and has lost some spark. His new stick is more forgiving and leaves more margin for error, and I've heard that he strings it 10 or so lbs heavier than before (before meaning his best years), which supposedly would give him greater accuracy and less power, but actually he just has less power and doesn't redirect the ball with accuracy anyway...
Last edited by a moderator:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
FreeBird, especially with the direction that Federer has taken his game and that he's not a dominant force any more, I can't agree with his statement there from 2013. I'm happy to hear him say it to see he still believes in himself, but only if he backs it up by gearing his game to actually be virtually unstoppable if he's on, which isn't where his game is headed. Instead, it sounds like delusion based on the glory ghosts of days past. Every player makes mistakes.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
And he did not say that - you did. And "everytime" is something you are adding. I agree that if he said this in 2013, it is somewhat delusional. I don't think he realizes just how much his groundstrokes have declined from his prime.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Federer has turned from a sharpshooter/specialist to a generalist. Djokovic is a generalist... Federer and Nadal have heavy biases and that's how they operate best. Federer lost sight and belief in his old values of working on his strengths to make them even stronger. Of course, all three of these players are 'generalists' in that they are well enough rounded players, but I think my point is clear.
Bionic slice
Semi-Pro
Perhaps at Feds age, new stick or not, he as not going to get any better and maybe needs to be more aggressive and win points outright and not battle guys who have youth and recovery on their side
Fed881981
Hall of Fame
Exactly.
There was no moment in this match in which I thought the match is on Fed's racquet since Cilic got the 3-1 lead in the first set. Not a single moment. And, even we Fed got the early break in the 3rd set, I knew it's another mountain to climb for him and Cilic confirmed that by breaking back right away.
Motor city
New User
Cilic played great and Fed did not. Cilic said after it was his highest level ever. Even at 50% first serve he made the big ones. IMO his strategy was serve big to Fed back hand especially on big points, pummel shots the backhand in rallies even when the rally opened up for cross court(I saw many points where it drew Fed off court ad side and still crushed it to the ad court despite a big opening on deuce side), and he hit up the line on Feds approaches. He executed on a tough game plan.
Fed was bullied around the court mostly. I think he screwed up in two of Cilic's breaks, especially the game he was up 40-love. On this day giving up two unearned breaks was too much. Kudos to Cilic.
I just hope it's a good final
Fed was bullied around the court mostly. I think he screwed up in two of Cilic's breaks, especially the game he was up 40-love. On this day giving up two unearned breaks was too much. Kudos to Cilic.
I just hope it's a good final
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
The only veil here is the faulty hymen we have you to thank for.
TommyA8X
Hall of Fame
That's pretty much how I feel about him as well. He's played a good and consistent season, but I have a hard time remembering even one "god mode", or 6th gear performance.
Also, his precision certainly isn't what it used to be. FH dtl often misses by 10+ inches, or goes to the middle too much. The same goes for his approach shots going to his opponents forehand (inside in). Often he hits relatively deep, but too central. The other times, he adds some width, but lands it on the service line. Either way, most of the time, his opponent has a pretty good shot at hitting a pass.
Arsnlrob
Rookie
Haha, exactly. I know many of the statisticians for the USO. There are about 10 stattos for the tourney but I will say they are all usually very consistent with their calls on F/U Errors. Obviously there is grey area in every stat category and errors and winners are probably the most abused by the broadcasters. As the tourney gets in the last week, the few stattos left working are the most experienced and fairly standardized.
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
+1. great post. I can hardly even recall the last time I saw even half a set of Fed in that 6th gear, where no one can hang with him.
Pretty much the same thing happened to Fed against DelPotro at the USO. DelPotro and Cilic got in the zone, and would have beaten anyone that day.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Your point about "seeking balance" is interesting. I wonder if his attempt to morph into some sort of mini-Edberg this late in his career is taking away from his game around the baseline ? I wasn't aware that he was stringing it 10 pounds heavier -- doesn't that kind of take away to a degree the easy power that the larger frame would give ? Has he altered his stroke mechanics significantly to somehow put less pressure on his ailing back as well ? On the BH he certainly seems to be rolling his wrist over a lot more than i remember in his prime.
It seems that when we lay the blame for his current game on the racket, there is the hope that he would get over this teething period and get better at doing some of the things he used to do earlier. Somehow, I am not really holding my breath. I don't expect the magic of his youth at this age -- so the 6th gear you speak off is certainly lost forever -- but getting back to 90% of his ground-game would be most welcome. I still love watching his movement, but wince every time he flails around at the baseline.
Feather
Legend
His forehand is a pale shadow of what it used to be. It was very evident in Wimbledon 2014 final. It was his serve alone that carried him through to the fifth set
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
I think this fact makes a whole lot of more sense than any talk of blaiming his losses on a new stick or whatever.
I doubt a natural decline due to aging can be 'fixed' by any adaptation, whether technically or by tactics. In fact I think that trying to change his tactics is exactly what he's been trying to do, hence that match against Batista-Agut when he came to the net for over 50 times. That tactic apparently worked well against 'lesser' players, but leaves no chances for him against an opponent who didn't allow him to even try to do so - as did Cilic.
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
There are definitely some problems right now with his direction and execution which have something to do with his new stick as he's admitted in interviews, in that he's actually still trying to figure out all his strokes with it, but also for me the main problem besides his age (an obvious point we can all assume and therefore we can discuss different elements rather than boil down a discussion to something so boring as ''he's old'', as it goes without saying) is where he's taken his game in terms of balance and how it's starting to render him without big specialist weapons. He needs to find some potency on his forehand again as well as confidence in pulling the trigger first not necessarily in terms of winners but redirecting the ball so that he isn't the one who is getting shifted around the court first and responding so much. He can certainly improve these things over the next year and maybe play as well or better in 2015 than he did in 2014, but I don't expect a Slam. He isn't going to ever 'fix' his game to the tune of dominance. Those times are long gone.
Just a small guess about his stroke mechanics... I'm sure that his biomechanics probably have changed subtly and probably somewhat without him even properly knowing, just as a natural extension of using new gear and figuring out what it can do. I can't really point out what small nuanced changes there have been other than he guides the ball more now rather than taking so many explosive swings with supreme racket-head speed. Yeah, stringing the racket heavier is supposed to generally offer you more accuracy and less power.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think this change you're describing is accidental. Federer's forehand racket speed has been decreasing over the years, way before his racket change. It's very noticeable in his mechanics, there's more topspin and less explosion than before (there's a video somewhere showing the change in his mechanics towards to a more "passive" stroke, i'll post it if I find it again), maybe it's due to his back, or maybe not having the strength anymore.
Regardless of the reason, he just doesn't have that weapon and he prolly knows it, and I think that's why his trying to balance out his game, making it more mundane. Hope he can regain some accuracy, which I think is racket and confidence related, but power-wise it seems like the magic is over
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Good post, I think I've seen that video before. Agreed completely that the accuracy is racket and confidence related. He's a bit unsure at the moment but he has plenty of time to continue adapting to his new stick, so though youth isn't on his side he could well continue to do well on the tour and win tournaments as he continues to get more acclimated. I would be surprised if he doesn't.
Yes.. For 33 year old federer, the match isn't on his racquet anymore. It was on his racquet for the past 10 years though.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Despite Federer's winner/UE ratio, I think we can all agree that Federer has never been beaten like this since his prime started except in the Tsonga match at RG last year. But I don't think even that match was as bad.
He has beaten himself against retrievers, even in straight sets, but he has never looked so helpless before. He has always found a way to win or at least make it competitive like against Del Potro RG 2009, etc. He had no response for Cilic and was probably just praying for errors.
So I tend to agree that the result has at least something to do with a continuation of Federer's decline. Federer has faced many GOATing offensive opponents before, but has never been steam rolled this badly by someone like Cilic.
He has beaten himself against retrievers, even in straight sets, but he has never looked so helpless before. He has always found a way to win or at least make it competitive like against Del Potro RG 2009, etc. He had no response for Cilic and was probably just praying for errors.
So I tend to agree that the result has at least something to do with a continuation of Federer's decline. Federer has faced many GOATing offensive opponents before, but has never been steam rolled this badly by someone like Cilic.
Last edited:
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Nadal/Tsonga AO 2008
Mike Sams
G.O.A.T.
Federer is gonna get blitzed alot more yet...all the way up to his retirement..whenever that will be. Regardless, he will still be laughing all the way to the bank and making more endorsement money than Nadal and Djokovic combined.
But Nishikori likely could surpass that soon and become the highest paid player.
But Nishikori likely could surpass that soon and become the highest paid player.
Didn't watch the match, but sounds like Cilic just killed it and Federer didn't bring his A-game, which he would have needed. The result wasn't a surprise. I wish Federer could have been playing in the final for a chance at #18, but the SF is still a good result and I'm ever-hopeful.
Congratulations to Cilic, the win was well-deserved.
Sounds like he was treated quite unfairly in the doping ban, with little evidence and great lack of proportionality. So good for him.
Federer will continue to have more chances, and if he wins another Major (or more!) great, but if not as long as he continues enjoying tennis and trying his best, that's enough.
It's also great to see a Japanese player in the USO Final.
Congratulations to Cilic, the win was well-deserved.
Sounds like he was treated quite unfairly in the doping ban, with little evidence and great lack of proportionality. So good for him.
Federer will continue to have more chances, and if he wins another Major (or more!) great, but if not as long as he continues enjoying tennis and trying his best, that's enough.
It's also great to see a Japanese player in the USO Final.
abmk
Bionic Poster
agree with most of this. But I'm not sure it has as much to do with the racquet as it has to do with the mentality and footwork...
He needs to let that FH of his 'fly'
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Both of those aspects have declined markedly too and contribute substantially. His mentality has affected him not just in the typical ways of ''mental strength'' on court but also where he's decided he should take his game. It will be interesting to see him complete his current mission, because he's admitted that he's still figuring out his racket.
Last edited by a moderator:
dunlop_fort_knox
Professional
rogi is going to have a heck of a time against big hitters from now own. match is on THEIR racquet. Big hitters are not impressed anymore with the CV.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Not so simple to play like Cilic, the perfect clean match every groundie on the sideline or baseline. Remember Fed beat Cilic in Toronto, so let's not make TOO much out of this.
kOaMaster
Hall of Fame
Yeah, because Nadal did never have problems vs big hitters?
Come on, be realistic. Big hitters are called that way because they are hitting big. If everything goes in and the big hitter is zoning over 3 or more sets, what are you going to do?
btw, Federer used to do that too sometimes but cut back and plays now a safer game (perhaps a B+ game?) that allows him to win matches he's not "zoning".
This is opposite to what stan often does - either all or nothing.
Similar threads
