2016 Wimbledon Semifinal - [3] Roger Federer vs. [6] Milos Raonic

Who?


  • Total voters
    150

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
By the by, average 2nd serve speed for Raonic for the match - 110 mph with a fastest of 133 mph. Also Raonic's average first serve speed of 129 mph is faster than Fed's fastest first serve of 126 mph.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Oh, I am definitely NOT overlooking that ;) just omitted to mention it in this particular post. That point Raonic constructed at the first deuce at 6-5 4th set was sheer brilliance. And people are blaming Fed for coming in behind that forehand but I always thought he would fancy his chances against the Raonic DTL backhand. But that shot was firing well yesterday for Raonic. Fed didn't expect him to make those passing shots (I THINK).
But Raonic had way too much time to make that DTL BH. No way he was missing that .

We cannot blame Fed for those as he had nano seconds to come up with the shot. It happens.

It just seems every year we have to endure hard losses like this. .

But this one gets added to 2005 AO, 2008 Wimb, 2009 AO, 2009-11 USO, 2014 Wimb as one of the painful losses.

4 set losses are easier to deal with.
 

Fed881981

Hall of Fame
Just saw the end of the 4th set again. Man, I can't believe that Fed has lost his serve at such a critical stage after having 40-0 and another game point against Raonic. I felt that after being 40-0, Fed rushed in trying to get to the TB and that cost him badly. What a terrible way to lose the set. Sure, Raonic could very much win the 4th in the TB if they got there, but at least Fed will be serving first in the decider.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
But Raonic had way too much time to make that DTL BH. No way he was missing that .

We cannot blame Fed for those as he had nano seconds to come up with the shot. It happens.

It just seems every year we have to endure hard losses like this. .

But this one gets added to 2005 AO, 2008 Wimb, 2009 AO, 2009-11 USO, 2014 Wimb as one of the painful losses.

4 set losses are easier to deal with.
He did have time to set it up yes but in the past he was wont to miss those shots too. From a pretty mediocre-to-average groundstroke game, Raonic has stepped it up to a level where it fires in the key moments. He's not going to come up with spectacular winners from way out of court because he's a big man and can't run like the Big Four. But he has a very aggressive mentality on returning/passing shots/second shots. Actually a typical 90s style all courter. Fed had zero return winners against Raonic but Raonic came up with 4. He also made 3 UEs on returns but the way grass tennis works, making errors on serves in easy hold games doesn't hurt as much as not punishing (relatively) weak serves in big moments.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Just saw the end of the 4th set again. Man, I can't believe that Fed has lost his serve at such a critical stage after having 40-0 and another game point against Raonic. I felt that after being 40-0, Fed rushed in trying to get to the TB and that cost him badly. What a terrible way to lose the set. Sure, Raonic could very much win the 4th in the TB if they got there, but at least Fed will be serving first in the decider.
Raonic's TB was 20-5 and Fed's was 8-5. Let us console ourselves that Raonic would have won the tiebreak.

I was telling myself it was ok as long as Fed took it to the tiebreak as he would be serving first in the 5th. Alas !

BTW, what made Fed choose to receive both against Cilic and Raonic ? I got very irritated at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn

coloskier

Legend
As a diehard Fed fan, I congratulate Milos. He is one of very few players that could play a red line game for a full 5 sets. If he backed off at all after the 3rd set, he's toast. Unfortunately for us Fed fans he'll probably only be able to do that once in his lifetime. Cilic could only play a red line game for 2 1/2 sets and he lost, even though he was successful doing it at USO. One and done.....
 

Fed881981

Hall of Fame
Raonic's TB was 20-5 and Fed's was 8-5. Let us console ourselves that Raonic would have won the tiebreak.

I was telling myself it was ok as long as Fed took it to the tiebreak as he would be serving first in the 5th. Alas !

BTW, what made Fed choose to receive both against Cilic and Raonic ? I got very irritated at that.
Losing the 4th set that way rattled Fed in the 5th. And once he started serving 2nd, he had no room for error.

I think Fed thought that these guys will come tight to the match and if they start serving, they are likely to lose serve right away. It worked with Raonic in the past, but this Raonic is not the same guy that we saw two years ago.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
man, lets admit it , Milos doesn't deserve to be in final of wimby. Roger just gave that semi away today,,,,gift rapped in cheap serophene
I should probably know better than to respond to this but why doesn't the guy who beat Nole's nemesis in easy four sets (yes, it was easy, I watched the match) and the 7 time Wimbledon champion deserve to be in the final? You think if Fed had somehow held for 6-6 everything would have magically worked out? In spite of plenty of late-Fed evidence to the contrary?
 
Losing the 4th set that way rattled Fed in the 5th. And once he started serving 2nd, he had no room for error.

I think Fed thought that these guys will come tight to the match and if they start serving, they are likely to lose serve right away. It worked with Raonic in the past, but this Raonic is not the same guy that we saw two years ago.
this... look i cant think if another player right now that will be competing at 34. Congrats to Milos and i cant believe it has taken this long for new blood to punch through....

Important for Milos to get to the final by beating fed... it is a rite of passage
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
After Roger double faulted twice in the fourth set, Raonic took charge and never really let Federer back into the match. It was a good effort from Raonic and he got the win so that's all that matters.
Then there is nothing to discuss about any win or any match -- winners win losers whine. But it clearly mattered to you to state that the win was special because Raonic raised his level. Yes, Raonic played well in the 5th after RF inexplicably gifted him the 4th. It was not just the DF, the set-point in the 4th RF had an easy putaway into the open court and fluffed it trying to go behind Raonic -- a tactic that repeatedly back-fired throughout the match. Raonic was ineffective the whole match from the break in the 1st to the next break in the 4th -- this against a ****-poor Fed.

BTW, I didn't hear you state the same during the Cilic match where your statement was that Cilic choked -- not that RF won so that's what matters :)

At any rate Raonic is probably going to get rickrolled by Murray so all this talk about young guns breaking through is just empty talk.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
I should probably know better than to respond to this but why doesn't the guy who beat Nole's nemesis in easy four sets (yes, it was easy, I watched the match) and the 7 time Wimbledon champion deserve to be in the final? You think if Fed had somehow held for 6-6 everything would have magically worked out? In spite of plenty of late-Fed evidence to the contrary?
Federer had multiple break points in that 4th set and should have just won 6-4. that is what should have happened. Milos got lucky
 

stiggytennis

Semi-Pro
Absolutely gutted for Fed.
I thought at 2 sets to 1 up he had it,and that game at 5-6.:(
His knee seemed to play up on him towards the end of the fourth,by the way he was serving,less and less leg drive,knee press.
I thought he'd have won that tie-break too as he was serving better than Milos throughout the fourth.
But in the end I think the match sharpness and fitness caught upto him,hence why he relied on his serve so much as his ground game looked patchy at times.
Credit to Milos though,he had the(slazenger)balls to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fps

marc45

G.O.A.T.
idk if anyone posted

Craig O'Shannessy ‏@BrainGameTennis 16m16 minutes ago Merton, London
#Wimbledon SHOCK.

Since 2004, #Federer has not lost a service game from 40-0 up.

But he did v #Raonic at 5-6 in the 4th set yesterday.


and was he upset
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
I should probably know better than to respond to this but why doesn't the guy who beat Nole's nemesis in easy four sets (yes, it was easy, I watched the match) and the 7 time Wimbledon champion deserve to be in the final? You think if Fed had somehow held for 6-6 everything would have magically worked out? In spite of plenty of late-Fed evidence to the contrary?
I think most of us think that Fed could have given more of a fight at the end. True he might still have lost the match he had held for the TB in the 4th set, but he would have been serving first in the 5th which makes a huge difference, plus throwing the 4th in such a manner causes such a huge mental disappointment as well. As many others have pointed, Raonic won the 4th but Fed could have made him earn it a lot lot harder had he not thrown in the DFs.
 

augustobt

Legend
I should probably know better than to respond to this but why doesn't the guy who beat Nole's nemesis in easy four sets (yes, it was easy, I watched the match) and the 7 time Wimbledon champion deserve to be in the final? You think if Fed had somehow held for 6-6 everything would have magically worked out? In spite of plenty of late-Fed evidence to the contrary?
Honestly, Federer gifted away this match and you know it. He was serving 40-0 up, and deuced it with a couple of double faults. He had the break point ball on his hand and gifted away to Raonic (the court was wide open!) and he was returning so much better Milos' serve after the first set (where, just ro remember, he gifted the break as well).
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
Honestly, Federer gifted away this match and you know it. He was serving 40-0 up, and deuced it with a couple of double faults. He had the break point ball on his hand and gifted away to Raonic (the court was wide open!) and he was returning so much better Milos' serve after the first set (where, just ro remember, he gifted the break as well).
While the times his opponents broke down under pressure were entirely due to his genius, right? Sorry but calling a five set winner lucky makes no sense on any level.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I think most of us think that Fed could have given more of a fight at the end. True he might still have lost the match he had held for the TB in the 4th set, but he would have been serving first in the 5th which makes a huge difference, plus throwing the 4th in such a manner causes such a huge mental disappointment as well. As many others have pointed, Raonic won the 4th but Fed could have made him earn it a lot lot harder had he not thrown in the DFs.
I am just saying there is a huge difference between would and might. Esp these days when Fed is more vulnerable. And he could have still forced the tiebreak. He had Ad. That's his fault, not Raonic getting lucky.
 

augustobt

Legend
While the times his opponents broke down under pressure were entirely due to his genius, right? Sorry but calling a five set winner lucky makes no sense on any level.
It's a different story in my opinion. Fed lost focus on that 40-0 up, he broke down after the poor selection of shots in the points after that couple of double faults. Federer was reading Milos' serve quite easily between the 2nd and the 4th set. I'm pretty safe to assume that in case of a tie break, Fed would've been victorious.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
It's a different story in my opinion. Fed lost focus on that 40-0 up, he broke down after the poor selection of shots in the points after that couple of double faults. Federer was reading Milos' serve quite easily between the 2nd and the 4th set. I'm pretty safe to assume that in case of a tie break, Fed would've been victorious.
But as I said above the onus was on Fed to force the tiebreak. He had Ad and he still couldn't do it. And Raonic played fantastic tennis from that deuce to win the game. Fed certainly didn't gift him THAT.
 

augustobt

Legend
But as I said above the onus was on Fed to force the tiebreak. He had Ad and he still couldn't do it. And Raonic played fantastic tennis from that deuce to win the game. Fed certainly didn't gift him THAT.
I disagree. He gifted him the point on the set-point. The ball was on his racket with the cross court open (Milos isn't a fast runner!) but he preferred try to wrong foot Raonic with a ball that wasn't that penetrating and he paid the price. Broken and serving behind in the fifth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gn

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
I disagree. He gifted him the point on the set-point. The ball was on his racket with the cross court open (Milos isn't a fast runner!) but he preferred try to wrong foot Raonic with a ball that wasn't that penetrating and he paid the price. Broken and serving behind in the fifth.
I was dead sure you were going to say this. So a guy doesn't get to profit from the opponent's errors now? By those standards, I guess Raonic will always be lucky for you no matter how much he wins and who he beats.
 

WeeDiM

Professional
Very unfortunate result because Roger clearly had a good shot at this. It seems likely he's done winning majors. It's sad but all good things come to an end. It won't stop me rooting for him for as long as he keeps playing.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Then there is nothing to discuss about any win or any match -- winners win losers whine. But it clearly mattered to you to state that the win was special because Raonic raised his level. Yes, Raonic played well in the 5th after RF inexplicably gifted him the 4th. It was not just the DF, the set-point in the 4th RF had an easy putaway into the open court and fluffed it trying to go behind Raonic -- a tactic that repeatedly back-fired throughout the match. Raonic was ineffective the whole match from the break in the 1st to the next break in the 4th -- this against a ****-poor Fed.

BTW, I didn't hear you state the same during the Cilic match where your statement was that Cilic choked -- not that RF won so that's what matters :)

At any rate Raonic is probably going to get rickrolled by Murray so all this talk about young guns breaking through is just empty talk.
Cilic choked and Federer took advantage just as Federer choked a bit and Raonic took advantage. Getting the win is all that matters.

As for the Raonic vs Murray final, Murray will probably win but Raonic should have his chances. Their last couple of contests have been tight.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Cilic choked and Federer took advantage just as Federer choked a bit and Raonic took advantage. Getting the win is all that matters.

As for the Raonic vs Murray final, Murray will probably win but Raonic should have his chances. Their last couple of contests have been tight.
Disagree -- neither of them choked. Fed had a brain-fart, lost focus, for 15-20 mins. Perhaps not unexpected at his age, physical condition, lack of match practise and 9 tough sets in a row. I did not recollect anything Cilic could have done a lot differently -- he was unlucky and F was lucky, but no choke.

And I expect Murray to win comfortably.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Disagree -- neither of them choked. Fed had a brain-fart, lost focus, for 15-20 mins. Perhaps not unexpected at his age, physical condition, lack of match practise and 9 tough sets in a row. I did not recollect anything Cilic could have done a lot differently -- he was unlucky and F was lucky, but no choke.

And I expect Murray to win comfortably.
How about not lose 3 match points?

I think Murray will probably win but I doubt it will be a straight set beating.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
How about not lose 3 match points?

I think Murray will probably win but I doubt it will be a straight set beating.
We will have to agree to disagree. -)

One of the match points was when Fed lost a sitter at set-point -- Cilic should never have got a 3rd MP. That was closest to a "choke" (but ironically not from Cilic!), but given the situation not unexpected. That kind of evened out later and Fed played a good point anyway to grab that one.

Other than swinging harder at some very good 2nd serves and hoping they would land in, I don't see Cilic doing anything vastly different, from what he was doing earlier. A lack of luck, but no choke. LIkewise Fed was lucky those 2nd serves landed in -- as we saw in the Raonic match later he'd already used up his quota ! If you look at the stats Fed was winning around 60% of his 2nd serves, even excluding those two, so there was nothing wholly unexpected about Cilic losing those two points.

If Raonic takes it to 4 or 5 I will be mightily impressed. He has definitely improved both from the baseline and the net -- his anticipation of some of Fed's attempted passes was exceptional, as was his I/O FH. Movement is better but compared to Murray significantly worse. That and Murray's returns should be the difference.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
rkmjnhbgvfdsak,l
If Raonic takes it to 4 or 5 I will be mightily impressed. He has definitely improved both from the baseline and the net...
I actually think Raonic might take the first set, despite his first-slam-final-nerves. But Andy will take out the trash with no problem after that. The only thing Raonic does better than Andy is serving. His volleys looks good against Fed because he approached almost exclusively on Fed's BH. Andy's BH is obviously the far greater weapon. Raonic's volleys won't look so great against someone who can pass as well on the BH as the FH.

Andy will return the brute's booming serves and keep his focus, as he has all tournament. I don't think the match will even be close, Muzz is the far, far better than more complete player, plus he has tons of experience in slam finals.
 

dh003i

Legend
Federer could have won this match against Raonic and the two double-faults in a row are insane, but people seem to ignore that probability factors into it. The idea that these players can choose not to double fault, as simple as that, is pretty nutty. You can say maybe he went after the serves too much, but if he had similar pace as other serves, it's just probability that sometimes you expect really bad things to happen, even twice in a row.

He's had similar very tough losses from winnable positions multiple other times in his career, but has also had very tough wins from positions winnable for his opponents.

Regarding Murray and Raonic in the finals, Murray is not nearly as good a server as Federer is, so Raonic will have more opportunity on Murray's serves than he did on Federer's. It evens out, despite Murray's superior baseline game.

I don't think it is open-and-close that Raonic loses.
 

underground

G.O.A.T.
I am just saying there is a huge difference between would and might. Esp these days when Fed is more vulnerable. And he could have still forced the tiebreak. He had Ad. That's his fault, not Raonic getting lucky.
And I'm trying to point out that Fed should have made Raonic to fight for deuce in the first place, rather than gifting him such a position which allowed him to zone in the returns.
 

Dolgopolov85

G.O.A.T.
And I'm trying to point out that Fed should have made Raonic to fight for deuce in the first place, rather than gifting him such a position which allowed him to zone in the returns.
Yes, but logically speaking, the player still has a chance at deuce to close out the set on his serve, more so at Wimbledon. Look I understand everyone is upset with Fed's back to back double faults. I am just saying logically a deuce does not gift the game away. I would agree if Fed had continued on with another double fault and an unforced error to give the break to Raonic without a fight. But he made Raonic work very hard for the break and Raonic proved equal to the task. Saying Fed gifted him the set does not take cognisance of the effort Raonic put in to convert his opportunity, an effort that Fed should have probably put in himself (and which is what I really blame for the loss of the fourth set, same old story, not converting opportunities because he can cruise on the serve).
 

tipsa...don'tlikehim!

Talk Tennis Guru
How about not lose 3 match points?

I think Murray will probably win but I doubt it will be a straight set beating.
I think it is not really about these 3 MP. None were on his serve.
It is more about the third set at 3-3 and 0-40 on Federer's serve, and then serving DF in the next game and getting broken. If Cilic had not choked he had a solid chance to win in straights.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
rkmjnhbgvfdsak,l


I actually think Raonic might take the first set, despite his first-slam-final-nerves. But Andy will take out the trash with no problem after that. The only thing Raonic does better than Andy is serving. His volleys looks good against Fed because he approached almost exclusively on Fed's BH. Andy's BH is obviously the far greater weapon. Raonic's volleys won't look so great against someone who can pass as well on the BH as the FH.

Andy will return the brute's booming serves and keep his focus, as he has all tournament. I don't think the match will even be close, Muzz is the far, far better than more complete player, plus he has tons of experience in slam finals.
To be fair, I don't think Raonic is trash - he is a legitimate top-8 player now, with scope for further improvement. I thought he made some pretty nice volleys against Fed.

I agree that the safe call is Murray in 4 or 5. I was thinking a combination of nerves, two 5-set matches in the last few days and the differences in class between the two should result in a straight sets victory for Murray -- probably 7-6, 7-5, 6-4 or something like that. This assumes that Murray is dialed in and focused, with not nervy himself. Of course, sport has the funny habbit of proving all the soothsayers wrong, so we'll see...
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
Federer could have won this match against Raonic and the two double-faults in a row are insane, but people seem to ignore that probability factors into it. The idea that these players can choose not to double fault, as simple as that, is pretty nutty. You can say maybe he went after the serves too much, but if he had similar pace as other serves, it's just probability that sometimes you expect really bad things to happen, even twice in a row.

He's had similar very tough losses from winnable positions multiple other times in his career, but has also had very tough wins from positions winnable for his opponents.

Regarding Murray and Raonic in the finals, Murray is not nearly as good a server as Federer is, so Raonic will have more opportunity on Murray's serves than he did on Federer's. It evens out, despite Murray's superior baseline game.

I don't think it is open-and-close that Raonic loses.
Losing from 40-0 up -- probably only in the last few years and against Djokovic or somewhat similar caliber of returners is fine. Against Raonic being up 2-1 in sets is not really excusable.

Yes - probably you may be right. Maybe I am not yet ready to believe that Raonic is good enough, despite his many improvements over the last year or so, that he is in the same class as the top-2. Aren't Murray's serving stats better this year than the previous - it seems to me that he has improved on that front.
 

dh003i

Legend
Federer could have won this match against Raonic and the two double-faults in a row are insane, but people seem to ignore that probability factors into it. The idea that these players can choose not to double fault, as simple as that, is pretty nutty. You can say maybe he went after the serves too much, but if he had similar pace as other serves, it's just probability that sometimes you expect really bad things to happen, even twice in a row.

He's had similar very tough losses from winnable positions multiple other times in his career, but has also had very tough wins from positions winnable for his opponents.

Regarding Murray and Raonic in the finals, Murray is not nearly as good a server as Federer is, so Raonic will have more opportunity on Murray's serves than he did on Federer's. It evens out, despite Murray's superior baseline game.

I don't think it is open-and-close that Raonic loses.
 

sunny_cali

Semi-Pro
To be fair, I don't think Raonic is trash - he is a legitimate top-8 player now, with scope for further improvement. I thought he made some pretty nice volleys against Fed.

I agree that the safe call is Murray in 4 or 5. I was thinking a combination of nerves, two 5-set matches in the last few days and the differences in class between the two should result in a straight sets victory for Murray -- probably 7-6, 7-5, 6-4 or something like that. This assumes that Murray is dialed in and focused, with not nervy himself. Of course, sport has the funny habbit of proving all the soothsayers wrong, so we'll see...
Well - this played like clockwork against the playbook :) The difference in levels between Murray/Djokovic and the rest of the field is stark.
 
Federer had a huge amount of ground strokes errors. It was a nightmare of errors.

His serving was brilliant.

At one point, he had an easy put away to put it in the open court. Instead, he went down the line where raonic was sitting all along.

Just because federer fluffed a 40-0, doesn't mean he couldn't win the match. He was up two sets and still lost it and that was mental, rather than physical tiredness. His game up two sets was mostly due to good serving and a better variety of skills in rallies, but as I said, it was so boring to watch when you think the majority of groundies will hit the net.

Not many people have pointed out the huge accumulation of balls hitting the net from fed. It was painful and boring to watch.
 
Federer had a huge amount of ground strokes errors. It was a nightmare of errors.

His serving was brilliant.

At one point, he had an easy put away to put it in the open court. Instead, he went down the line where raonic was sitting all along.

Just because federer fluffed a 40-0, doesn't mean he couldn't win the match. He was up two sets and still lost it and that was mental, rather than physical tiredness. His game up two sets was mostly due to good serving and a better variety of skills in rallies, but as I said, it was so boring to watch when you think the majority of groundies will hit the net.

Not many people have pointed out the huge accumulation of balls hitting the net from fed. It was painful and boring to qatxh
 
Top