2017 Montreal Final - [2] Roger Federer vs [4] Alexander Zverev

[DRII]

Just looking at total points won in each set is far more misleading than looking at the winners and (un)forced errors count.

no its not. again UEs and FEs are opinions not stats.

 

[abmk]

no they are not stats, they are opinions.

whats not an opinion is total points won.

Wawrinka won 26 pts in set3, which is not that far off what he won in his winning sets, only 3 pts less than sets 1 and 4.

however, Nadal won far more total points in set3 than his losing sets; 8, 14, and 13 points more respectively.

so, i'm sorry but you're conclusions:

"nadal was better in set 1 than he was in set 3.
stan was much worse in set 3 than he was in any other set."

are wrong or at the very least incredibly misleading.

UEs and FEs are stats, even if subjective. Get the difference ?

incredibly misleading ? really ? based on what ? you have absolutely nothing to back that up.

sets 1, 3 and 4 had 50,51 and 46 points, all less than set 3, which had 57 points.

you want to ignore that stan committed a lot of UEs in the 3rd set, that's just you not accepting the reality. Like I said, nadal wasn't even defending insanely well to force those UEs in long rallies.

nadal won more points in set 3, because stan played much worse than he did in set 1 (and set 2 and 4)

this part is hard, cold reality as well :
1st set : 180 kmh, 149 kmh - average serve speeds for nadal (1st and 2nd)
3rd set : 158 kmh, 131 kmh - average serve speeds for nadal (1st and 2nd)

you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your problem .

nadal was serving better, moving better in set 1. he only hit harder in set 3 because he had to go for it. Still not enough to make it a better set than set 1 from him.
stan was just much worse in set 3.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Mulholland Drive is one of my favourite films.

lost highway

Thats the best Lynch movie imo.

Sasha is on the highway and has taken the fastrack. (but dont think he is into Ramstein even being German and all )

 

[Zara]

Nope you will not see quotes, thats the beauty of it. <3

Sometimes I have put people on ignore for a couple of weeks if I felt they were a little annoying, lol.
This is my free time and I spend enough time w dealing w people I have to get along w and patients I have to take everything in, be in service sort of, being all responsible. In here I want to have fun and share my tennis obsession which is a huge part of my life. The ignore thing has saved me from leaving this forum.
The posters I have permanent(dead and burried)on ignore are posters I have found it impossible to reason with. A couple of times I have unignored these posters but it always ends up in another time wasting bad insulting thing, so finally learned.

Thanks! It's done. I don't see him anymore.

Actually you are right. There's only so much negativity one can take. And I don't think it's good for the mental aspect of things either or physical. Why go through hell when you can choose to be in peace and love? I am sure the option is there for a reason. This at least allows you to enjoy tennis and connect with those you get along just fine.

 

[DRII]

Good grief with this. No we don't know, but we do know he lost and at the end of the day that is all that matters. What is it with all of the history rewriting on this forum. The winner is the winner and the loser is the loser. That is the nature of sport. You cannot state your guy would have won if he was not injured, didn't have to play on a full moon phase, and did not run into the guy wearing red pants.

if only results were being discussed, this or any other forum would be quite dull.

of course what you say is empirically true, but debate is often about hypotheticals.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

yea well, my prediction was offset by a completely unpredictable occurrence (Cilic falling apart emotionally after a fall on the court) during the final.

no one noticed anything wrong or niggling with him as far as injuries were concerned.

people did notice that Federer seemed off this week and that he might be struggling with some kind of injury or physical problem, and that was before the final. yet, you foolishly berated them and was proven wrong today.

there is a clear difference in these scenarios.

try your best to decipher it.

Telling fellow Fed fans to relax. A fool's game, perhaps. My thuggish optimism knows no bounds.

"It'll be fine" is my attitude in life in general. Sometimes it won't be, but worrying about that won't reduce the chance and will often increase it.
So I try to never worry. I'll leave "falling apart emotionally" to the professionals.

If I'm ruining a thread's carefully cultivated anxiety please say so and I'll happily leave you to grind your teeth.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Oh sorry I left out

"try your best to understand what I've written"

"if you can"

 

[DRII]

UEs and FEs are stats, even if subjective. Get the difference ?

incredibly misleading ? really ? based on what ? you have absolutely nothing to back that up.

sets 1, 3 and 4 had 50,51 and 46 points, all less than set 3, which had 57 points.

you want to ignore that stan committed a lot of UEs in the 3rd set, that's just you not accepting the reality. Like I said, nadal wasn't even defending insanely well to force those UEs in long rallies.

nadal won more points in set 3, because stan played much worse than he did in set 1 (and set 2 and 4)

this part is hard, cold reality as well :
1st set : 180 kmh, 149 kmh - average serve speeds for nadal (1st and 2nd)
3rd set : 158 kmh, 131 kmh - average serve speeds for nadal (1st and 2nd)

you want to bury your head in the sand, that's your problem .

nadal was serving better, moving better in set 1. he only hit harder in set 3 because he had to go for it. Still not enough to make it a better set than set 1 from him.
stan was just much worse in set 3.

all that is your opinion, which you have every right to have; but please do not act as if the 'stats' you cite in any prove your conclusions.

 

[gogo]

Did you ****ing idiot watch that second set?

Now, now. No need to get so emotional and talk like that. That's not what I taught you. It's just a tennis game, not the end of the world if someone has a different opinion than you.

Signed
Mom

P.S. I didn't mean to call only you out, son. Many here are talking as if their life depended on their view being accepted and lots of name calling. Aren't we all here because we like tennis? I don't think (don't hope) we are here for idol worship. Let's enjoy our discussions and appreciate differing opinions.

Well, at my old age, I'll just grab a cuppa and head off to bed. Love to you all!
Love
Mom

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

no its not. again UEs and FEs are opinions not stats.

Of course they are stats. Not always 100% accurate but they always tell a far better story than the freaking points count which just tells the end result of points without any bigger context. Quite shocking that I have to explain such trivial stuff.

 

[DRII]

Telling fellow Fed fans to relax. A fool's game, perhaps. My thuggish optimism knows no bounds.

"It'll be fine" is my attitude in life in general. Sometimes it won't be, but worrying about that won't reduce the chance and will often increase it.
So I try to never worry. I'll leave "falling apart emotionally" to the professionals.

If I'm ruining a thread's carefully cultivated anxiety please say so and I'll happily leave you to grind your teeth.

oh, well that explains your libertarian leanings.

just realize theres a thin line between never worrying and apathy.

 

[abmk]

all that is your opinion, which you have every right to have; but please do not act as if the 'stats' you cite in any prove your conclusions.

those stats are the stats of the official Australian Open statisticians. Not my opinion.

and yes, they pretty much prove my conclusions solidly, completely.

stan's stats were pretty poor in the 3rd set.
nadal's 1st set stats were slightly better vs a much better Wawrinka than in the 3rd set.

an eye test from an unbiased eye would show the very same as well..

You've been proven completely wrong. Accept it and move on.

those W/UE/FE stats and the serve stats for nadal perfectly explain what happened in those sets. you have nothing whatsoever to back up what you said.
do you think nadal was serving better in the 3rd set than he was in the 1st ? do you think he was moving better ? seriously ?

(he only hit harder in set 3 because he had to go for it. Still not enough to make it a better set than set 1 from him)

 

[abmk]

Of course they are stats. Not always 100% accurate but they always tell a far better story than the freaking points count which just tells the end result of points without any bigger context. Quite shocking that I have to explain such trivial stuff.

of course he knows, but can't bring himself to accept it over here, since that would mean accepting he was completely wrong.

 

[gogo]

I actually gave considerable thought to which word to use there. Considered "video gamish" but thought the one I went with got closer to covering it. Are "surreal" and "objective" opposites by the way?

And it's actually not video at all, in the sense that it's not real footage of the ball in flight/coming in for landing. It's all a projection based on readings from electronic devices.

Main thing I was getting at was that there's a human distancing. Not always for the worse but it's a layer, nevertheless.

Thanks. I appreciate your comments. I get what you were saying now.

 

[DRII]

those stats are the stats of the official Australian Open statisticians. Not my opinion.

and yes, they pretty much prove my conclusions solidly, completely.
an eye test from an unbiased eye would show the very same as well..

You've been proven completely wrong. Accept it and move on.

those W/UE/FE stats perfectly explain what happened in those sets. you have nothing whatsoever to back up what you said.
do you think nadal was serving better in the 3rd set than he was in the 1st ? do you think he was moving better ? seriously ?

sorry, but the actual real stats show that your conclusions are wrong.

so you really need to stop relying on them.

Nadal's variance in total points won was far greater than Wawrinka's (comparing winning sets to losing sets).

that shows that it was Nadal's level that ebbed and flowed far more than Warwinka's!

deal with it.

 

[abmk]

sorry, but the actual real stats show that your conclusions are wrong.

so you really need to stop relying on them.

Nadal's variance in total points won was far greater than Wawrinka's (comparing winning sets to losing sets).

that shows that it was Nadal's level that ebbed and flowed far more than Warwinka's!

deal with it.

absolutely delusional.

stan's 1st set, 2nd set and 4th set were on a similar level statistically.

3rd set was much much worse than the other 3. yes, nadal won more points in that because newsflash , stan played much worse as shown by his W/UE/FE stats in that set.

just answer these :

do you think nadal was serving better or as well in the 3rd set than he was in the 1st ? do you think he was moving as well or better ? seriously ?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

oh, well that explains your libertarian leanings.

just realize theres a thin line between never worrying and apathy.

I do. I mostly live on the far side of that line. I reserve caring for things that are worth it.
Otherwise caring becomes a bit meaningless.

 

[reef58]

again i'll repeat, Nadal was hugging the baseline in the 3rd and was taking the ball very early. try and comprehend that.

also Wawrinka is not that mentally tough except against Djokovic the last few years.

so again, historical stats belie your assertion that Wawrinka at AO 14 final was somehow unbeatable for a healthy Nadal.

If matches were decided by historical stats there would be no reason to play them, and you could make a fortune betting. They are not decided by historical stats, so your point is invalid. Why is it so hard to just admit your guy lost? I just don't get that. Maybe I am not a big enough fan. Each time my favorite player or team lost they got beat. Oh well.

 

[DRII]

absolutely delusional.

stan's 1st set, 2nd set and 4th set were on a similar level statistically.

3rd set was much much worse than the other 3. yes, nadal won more points in that because newsflash , stan played much worse as shown by his W/UE/FE stats in that set.

just answer these :

do you think nadal was serving better in the 3rd set than he was in the 1st ? do you think he was moving better ? seriously ?

i already told you what Nadal was doing in the 3rd set that upset Wawa, standing in close on the baseline and taking the ball incredibly early robbing him of time.

thats what brought about more errors from Wawa.

 

[DRII]

If matches were decided by historical stats there would be no reason to play them, and you could make a fortune betting. They are not decided by historical stats, so your point is invalid. Why is it so hard to just admit your guy lost? I just don't get that. Maybe I am not a big enough fan. Each time my favorite player or team lost they got beat. Oh well.

admit my guy lost? i don't have to admit anything, just recognize such.

you on the other could admit that Nadal was injured in that final!

 

[abmk]

i already told you what Nadal was doing in the 3rd set that upset Wawa, standing in close on the baseline and taking the ball incredibly early robbing him of time.

thats what brought about more errors from Wawa.

yeah, those would be called forced errors, not unforced errors. I already explained that to you.

those are already counted in nadal's winners+forced errors = 12

for the record, from what I saw, nadal wasn't taking it incredibly early. He was taking it a bit earlier than normal, but hitting it harder, more significantly.
again, not enough to compensate for serve being considerably worse than in the 1st set and movement not being what it was in the 1st set.

just that stan was confused on how to handle the nadal injury situation and messed up with quite a few UEs.

Similar thing happened to Murray in the 3rd set of AO 15 final (but this time Djokovic was playing possum, theatrics) and Murray fell for them.

 

[Rago]

you're obviously unaware of Wawrinka's dismal record vs Nadal.

 

[reef58]

admit my guy lost? i don't have to admit anything, just recognize such.

you on the other could admit that Nadal was injured in that final!

Why? Do you get a dollar if I do? What do you get out of such an admission? WIll you sleep better tonight? Another poster provided you with all the stats you need if you were objective. It is clear you are not. I don't see the upside. Do you realize the physical toll tennis at this level takes on the body? These guys and women are likely in pain in each and every match. Some days they paint the lines. Some days the ball is wide or long. That is why they take the court.

 

[DRII]

yeah, those would be called forced errors, not unforced errors. I already explained that to you.

those are already counted in nadal's winners+forced errors = 12

for the record, from what I saw, nadal wasn't taking it incredibly early. He was taking it a bit earlier than normal, but hitting it harder, more significantly.
again, not enough to compensate for serve being considerably worse than in the 1st set and movement not being what it was in the 1st set.

just that stan was confused on how to handle the nadal injury situation and messed up with quite a few UEs.

Similar thing happened to Murray in the 3rd set of AO 15 final (but this time Djokovic was playing possum, theatrics) and Murray fell for them.

i disagree, anyway my GOT party is here, so PEACE!

 

[DRII]

Ragu tonight?

 

[gogo]

So, I didn't get to watch the match until later and have just checked into the forum recently. I am so disappointed, but not all that surprised, that the comments on this thread have devolved into name-calling, etc. Every time that Fed or Rafa (or the other big 2) are in a match, their over-the-top fans, as opposed to normal fans, become obsessive. Yelling at anyone who has a differing opinion. You'd think they had no life or self-opinion other than their fandom for their idol. Please grow up.

Now back to the match at hand....

I have to say that I was disappointed in Roger's play. He seems to have been "off" all week. I presumed he was taking it easy, not wanting to injure himself before the ultimate prize, the US Open. But then, when Z began to bring it to him he stepped up his game. His ego (not a negative comment) meant that he couldn't resist stepping up. He brought up his game, and then....something happened. I have no idea whether it was physical or mental. Regardless, young Sascha brought his A game and took the match.

Congrats to the young man! He has many, many victories ahead of him.

I hope that Fed's loss was simply because he didn't want to put his all into this tournament, but the change in gear and demeanor leads me to believe (just a personal opinion; not any great insight, before anyone takes my head off!) that it was at first lack of caring and then, once the caring kicked in, a physical problem.

I welcome other's opinions. So many of you have great insight into the game and I am happy to learn from others.

 

[veroniquem]

Also @veroniquem and other haters - don't you dare ruin Z for me going forward by fangirling over him now. You're just happy Fed lost.

Er... I've liked Sascha for quite a while now... and I intend to continue doing so with or without your permission

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Hmm, I don't know what all this discussion about injuries and Wawrinka-Nadal is all about and don't have the time to read. Just judging from the HLs, Zverev really raised his level today and produced incredible ball striking consistently. By and large handled the slicing well too, made Fed pay when he tried to S&V. Basically ticked all boxes. He is harnessing his power and reach by spreading the court beautifully. I didn't think he would produce this level just yet but he has so kudos. Maybe after the second set break, Fed gave up (like Djokovic at Rome) but that can't be held against Zverev. You can bet your last dollar Robin Haase was not going to beat this 'hampered' Fed if hypothetically they had met in the final. Fed was good enough to get it done given the generally sub par state of the tour. But Zverev gave him a real fight and he was found wanting. It's always been like this at Montreal for whatever reason and at this rate he may never win the Canadian Open at Montreal.

What will be interesting to see is how Zverev goes on from here because this will boost his confidence like anything. Fed's been the man to beat on HC and grass and to pound him in straight sets in a final is just amazing. I'd maybe advocate tanking Cincy and staying fresh for USO for Zverev because he seems to get gassed at the slams. Let's wait and see what Fed is going to do. But if he really wants no.1, he probably ought to play Cincy and try to match Nadal's points as it would still be in the bag in that event. Why? Because if Zverev rises quickly, Fed can kiss goodbye to slam no.20...at least until Wimbledon 2018.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Oh by the way congrats to @Meles. The hypetrain has finally reached the station.

 

[Rago]

Ragu tonight?

What's the matter? Run out of gifs?

I've got one for you. People on this board whenever they see DR-Squared post something...

 

[veroniquem]

Cmon, have you looked at Zverev? The only way for him to get fans is to beat players with haters.

I have... and now I can't stop! He's addictively enticing (jealous much? )

 

[abmk]

i disagree, anyway my GOT party is here, so PEACE!

you can disagree all you want. not going change the reality.

and its pretty ignorant to say total # of points show the how the match progressed better than the other stats combined ( aces, speed, Winner/forced errors/unforced errors etc.). people will just laugh at you.

Just have a look at the game in which Stan broke nadal at the start of the 2nd.
nadal was defending fine, serving fine, hitting fine. Stan just overwhelmed him.

1st point : long rally, goes back and forth in terms of control. Stan crushes a high FH near the baseline for a winner

2nd point : stan hits a BH slice return that forces nadal back and he coughs up an short FH and stan hits a FH winner

3rd point : in the rally, stan hits a FH DTL to force error from nadal

4th point : stan hits a BH CC return winner of the nadal serve

that's just a great return game from Stan. to attribute that to nadal being somehow injured at that point is just downright silly.

Look at his serving and movement after the MTO. there's a clear marked difference, serve even more so..

 

[Red Rick]

I have... and now I can't stop! He's addictively enticing (jealous much? )

The looks? Not particularly. If I'm gonna be jealous of the looks of other men, I'm sure as hell gonna be jealous at other people.
The tennis? Sure. Who isn't
The brains? Given he's playing both singles and doubles in Cinci, I'm liking my own brain just fine thank you very much.

 

[veroniquem]

The looks? Not particularly. If I'm gonna be jealous of the looks of other men, I'm sure as hell gonna be jealous at other people.
The tennis? Sure. Who isn't
The brains? Given he's playing both singles and doubles in Cinci, I'm liking my own brain just fine thank you very much.

Everything. He's obviously a charming smart young man excelling at tennis (defensive much? )

 

[gogo]

Cmon, have you looked at Zverev? The only way for him to get fans is to beat players with haters.

??
Can't say I agree. JMO.

 

[The Green Mile]

This Zverev run this year has similar vibes to a late 08/early 09 Del Potro run for me (regardless of what titles they won, I know Delpo doesn't have a Masters). Next phase is deep runs into the majors.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

-

 

[Zara]

lost highway

Thats the best Lynch movie imo.

Sasha is on the highway and has taken the fastrack. (but dont think he is into Ramstein even being German and all )

Out of all Lynch movies, I do like Mulholland Dr. the most. It's far too mysterious for me to decode though I think I've done a decent job. Lost Highway is also very good. Lynch is our modern day Hitchcock. Btw, I like Patricia Arquette a great deal as an actor. She's done a TV show called Medium (loosely based on true story) that I thought was quite good. I also like Naomi Watts. I recently finished watching her Netflix original Gypsy - a psychological thriller but unfortunately, they've pulled the plug and it's not coming back for a second season.

I think as far as mystery/psychological thrillers are concerned Memento is quite up there with Mulholland Dr. along with Fight Club. I also enjoyed Following a great deal - a little gem not too many people know about.

I don't know if you are into sci-fi but my personal favourits are 2001: A Space Odyssey, Solaris (Russian version) and Contact. And perhaps in that order too.

Sorry I've gone off topic here.

 

[Meles]

@Meles where's the party gonna be my man?

Saw the whole match live. Hopefully Fed can find more game at the Real Slam and the US Open; today was a hollow victory. Zed has more to offer and Fed not at his best (though the Fraud pulled in the Halle final probably won't happen on hard courts ever with Zverev.)

As I've been saying since the Zedbot became apparent in Rome (just before the final when I took a hard 2nd look at his numbers), he's likely to be number one sometime in 2018.

 

[Zara]

So, I didn't get to watch the match until later and have just checked into the forum recently. I am so disappointed, but not all that surprised, that the comments on this thread have devolved into name-calling, etc. Every time that Fed or Rafa (or the other big 2) are in a match, their over-the-top fans, as opposed to normal fans, become obsessive. Yelling at anyone who has a differing opinion. You'd think they had no life or self-opinion other than their fandom for their idol. Please grow up.

Now back to the match at hand....

I have to say that I was disappointed in Roger's play. He seems to have been "off" all week. I presumed he was taking it easy, not wanting to injure himself before the ultimate prize, the US Open. But then, when Z began to bring it to him he stepped up his game. His ego (not a negative comment) meant that he couldn't resist stepping up. He brought up his game, and then....something happened. I have no idea whether it was physical or mental. Regardless, young Sascha brought his A game and took the match.

Congrats to the young man! He has many, many victories ahead of him.

I hope that Fed's loss was simply because he didn't want to put his all into this tournament, but the change in gear and demeanor leads me to believe (just a personal opinion; not any great insight, before anyone takes my head off!) that it was at first lack of caring and then, once the caring kicked in, a physical problem.

I welcome other's opinions. So many of you have great insight into the game and I am happy to learn from others.

Re: the bolded part, that's a great attitude to have. I typically don't like to post as much but today, I really ended up posting a lot due to a few many Fed fans kept quoting me and I had reply to all those posts. Now my arms hurt.

 

[-NN-]

Two favourite films in the following order:

Memento, then Magnolia. Mulholland Drive is also high up the list.

"How am I supposed to heal if I can't feel time?"

 

[gogo]

What's the matter? Run out of gifs?

I've got one for you. People on this board whenever they see DR-Squared post something...

Belittling. Such a powerful tool. You must be proud.

 

[gogo]

Two favourite films in the following order:

Memento, then Magnolia. Mulholland Drive is also high up the list.

"How am I supposed to heal if I can't feel time?"

Which version of Memento? I've been dying to watch this flick, but really want to watch the original non-American version first, before watching the American one.

 

[KarmaKorps]

...

I have to say that I was disappointed in Roger's play. He seems to have been "off" all week. I presumed he was taking it easy, not wanting to injure himself before the ultimate prize, the US Open. But then, when Z began to bring it to him he stepped up his game. His ego (not a negative comment) meant that he couldn't resist stepping up. He brought up his game, and then....something happened. I have no idea whether it was physical or mental. Regardless, young Sascha brought his A game and took the match.
....

Not too far fetched, given Fed's champion mentality. I only saw the highlights - and for me it was enough to conclude Fed was not himself. Zverev's form these days is better than I imagined, though, I'll say that much. In the past I had doubts about his durability, but he seems to have put on just enough bulk in the lower body to support all the torque he's putting on his frame. Although today's match doesn't really say much to me in terms of the match up between Fed and Z, it's really good to see a new player put together some consistency along with the aggression.
One good thing, is that it wasn't Nadal facing the (seemingly) injured Fed - This place would be a bit unbearable under such conditions

 

[-NN-]

Which version of Memento? I've been dying to watch this flick, but really want to watch the original non-American version first, before watching the American one.

I only know the Chris and John Nolan directed and written 2000/2001 film.

It's the only film I've watched which was better the second time around.

 

[Meles]

Oh by the way congrats to @Meles. The hypetrain has finally reached the station.

The final piece of the Zedbot saga fell into place at the Citi Open with his hard court stats and so:

 

[Meles]

sorry, but the actual real stats show that your conclusions are wrong.

so you really need to stop relying on them.

Nadal's variance in total points won was far greater than Wawrinka's (comparing winning sets to losing sets).

that shows that it was Nadal's level that ebbed and flowed far more than Warwinka's!

deal with it.

you can disagree all you want. not going change the reality.

and its pretty ignorant to say total # of points show the how the match progressed better than the other stats combined ( aces, speed, Winner/forced errors/unforced errors etc.). people will just laugh at you.

Just have a look at the game in which Stan broke nadal at the start of the 2nd.
nadal was defending fine, serving fine, hitting fine. Stan just overwhelmed him.

1st point : long rally, goes back and forth in terms of control. Stan crushes a high FH near the baseline for a winner

2nd point : stan hits a BH slice return that forces nadal back and he coughs up an short FH and stan hits a FH winner

3rd point : in the rally, stan hits a FH DTL to force error from nadal

4th point : stan hits a BH CC return winner of the nadal serve

that's just a great return game from Stan. to attribute that to nadal being somehow injured at that point is just downright silly.

Look at his serving and movement after the MTO. there's a clear marked difference, serve even more so..

 

[Dolgopolov85]

if only results were being discussed, this or any other forum would be quite dull.

of course what you say is empirically true, but debate is often about hypotheticals.

It need not be dull but it need not be quite so acrimonious. It's frankly quite petty when people get all worked up about hypotheticals, arguing them as if they were facts rather than, well, hypotheticals. I am not singling you out, there's a bunch of usual suspects that indulges in this and I don't even need to read the thread to guess it's them at work. Somewhat on the lines of my comment to YellowFedBetter in the other thread, legacy is all ******** anyway and mostly just a narrative controlled by the media except sports at least does a good job of separating winners and losers. Look to the future, men's tennis finally has at least one if not two and hopefully more to come. People should be excited about this. Get over your Fedal obsession already, people.

 

[Meles]

Here's my take on the match.

Zverev was the better player throughout the match and deserved to win it in the end, however, after about 2-2 in the second set, it was very obvious that Federer's back had hampered his play. In the first set, AZ came out fast, hitting aggressive off both wings, taking the initiative, looking the more mentally focused. Federer's level, as I stated before the match wasn't going to be in God mode, but he actually started off slower than even I thought he would. First set, Zverev was just plain better in every aspect.

Second set, Federer picks his game up, he moves even further inside the court, bigger cuts at the ball, inside out forehand starting to come to the dance, but Alex stuck to his guns, absorbed the punishing play, and managed to keep Federer at bay. Roger was in no mood to tank at that point, he was trying to win it, but Alex was not letting him get that crucial break, which is major kudos to him. Then it becomes obvious, Federer's service pattern drastically changes, the sting on the ball has dropped off, and with it his mobility also. He is reluctant to get into rallies, and Zverev's defense today is too strong to break down with just two or three shots. Alex holds on, Federer fades, match over.

Zverev deservedly won it, since he was winning and then gallantly held a Fed fight back off at the start of the second, but it was clear as day that Federer was suffering out there, and was not at his best in the final stages of the match.

Saw one really good point in this match early in the 2nd where Zverev hit a nice lob over Fed who hit an OK overhead, but Zverev got back into the point. Great and very long point, but instead of coming on strong the rest of the match Fed never upped his level. That may have been the straw that broke the camelerer's back.

 

[-snake-]

This Zverev run this year has similar vibes to a late 08/early 09 Del Potro run for me (regardless of what titles they won, I know Delpo doesn't have a Masters). Next phase is deep runs into the majors.

Yep. But with no Djok or Mury on his way, he'll be able to vulture even more titles than the crystal tower.