2019 Basel SF Federer vs Tsitsipas: Why not beat the Big 3 twice?

[mike danny]

Well, to be fair, one could argue, why are you watching a semifinal of a tournament that is "meaningless?" Any tournament win for Fed is a great thing, even a 500 or 250. Connoirs at age 38 wasn't coming close to beating 21 year old top 10 players.

Because it's tennis between top players at the end of the day and Fed still has the prettiest game among all players

 

[youngpolyhater]

How did Fed lose to Tsits at the AO?

Choked at the BPs then ran out of the gas in the 4th

 

[mike danny]

Fed to serve for it.

Is it too late for Tsits to change his name to Djokovic?

 

[mike danny]

Well, as long as Fed humbles De Minaur, all is good

 

[flyingboris]

MEOW! Coaching warning Mr Tsitsipas!

did I hear that right?

 

[Breakpointerer]

Is it too late for Tsits to change his name to Djokovic?

We'll see.

 

[MeatTornado]

@MeatTornado, correction: Fed needs Djokovic to be taken out AND manage his health and make sure it's 100%.

AKA needs a time machine back to 2017. He needs everything to go right at the same time to win slams at his age like it did that year.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Oops

 

[James P]

Doublefaulterer??

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

He already got revenge when he destroyed him in the Dubai final a month after that loss.

True, but I want sustained revenge from Fred on these young twerps. I know it becomes increasingly more unlikely as he gets closer to carrying a walker than a tennis racket, but amassing these wins only helps his career portfolio, not hurt it.

I would like him to be better against Zverev though. He always seems to be dreadful against that dork.

 

[StrongRule]

Not really. There are plenty of matches Federer has won where he should have lost. It mostly balances itself out throughout a career.

Not like Djokovic and Nadal haven't lost slams they should have won as well.

The current slam count is about right, all things considered.

The only slam which Nadal maybe "should have won" and lost was Wimbledon 2018. For Djokovic I can't think of any examples at all. For Federer I can't think of any except Wimbledon 2019. If the match was close it still doesn't mean the player should have won it.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed's first DF of the match. What a lousy time.

 

[Breakpointerer]

Timely ace

 

[Meles]

Message from Dadsipas:

Extinguish all the jedi of all court tennis

 

[jss]

oh no

 

[Breakpointerer]

Saves BP!

 

[MeatTornado]

Stef bailed him out on that BP

 

[mike danny]

AKA needs a time machine back to 2017. He needs everything to go right at the same time to win slams at his age like it did that year.

Well, given how close he came at Wimb, he just needs to not suck and needs to be 100% healthy.

 

[Breakpointerer]

MP

 

[flyingboris]

Sweet finish! Good going old man!

 

[Breakpointerer]

Fedr does it!

 

[jss]

nice work, a bit stiff in the end

 

[James P]

GSM. Well played.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Fed into his 15th Basel final!

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Lew knows this is peak Fed

 

[Pheasant]

yes!!!! Congrats to Fed for going to the final. Regardless of the tourney, I love to watch him play and I really love it when he wins. Any match win at his age is a bonus.

Everything since 2016 has been icing on the cake.

 

[mike danny]

Fed into his 15th Basel final!

I always forget he has actually lost finals in Basel.

 

[Breakpointerer]

28-11 W-UE for Fed, great stuff.

 

[Red Rick]

I hate to do this to you, but 7-5 6-7 6-7 6-3 14-16

You don't wanna play this game with me.

We'll both go through hell, so you'll be in hell, and I'll be at home.

 

[guitarra]

Great win for Roger. Hopefully he'll win title no103 tomorrow!

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Nah I reckon Fed will get this one over the line. But we'll see.

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk

Told ya.

Go Fed!

Sent from my moto g(7) plus using Tapatalk

 

[MeatTornado]

I always forget he has actually lost finals in Basel.

We don't talk about those.

 

[Red Rick]

Challenger level draw stuff from Tsits.

 

[Red Rick]

We don't talk about those.

The Earth King has invited you to Lake Laogai

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

The only slam which Nadal maybe "should have won" and lost was Wimbledon 2018. For Djokovic I can't think of any examples at all. For Federer I can't think of any except Wimbledon 2019. If the match was close it still doesn't mean the player should have won it.

Ned could have won 2017 AO, 2014 AO, 2018 Wimbledon, off the top of my head.

Djokovic 2016 USO, 2015 French Open, 2013 French Open (infamous hitting the net).

Federer 2009 USO, 2009 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2019 Wimbledon etc

These are just off the top of my head. I will preface these fall under the could/should category, but they're close enough to be grouped together.

 

[Third Serve]

You don't wanna play this game with me.

We'll both go through hell, so you'll be in hell, and I'll be at home.

Apologies, it's just that the 40-15 meme has really been overused at this point.

 

[Frank Bannister]

I know it's just Basel, but Fed needs that trophy right now.

Well played old man

 

[Third Serve]

I know it's just Basel, but Fed needs that trophy right now.

Well played old man

Basel is a Slam, what are you talking about?

 

[StrongRule]

Ned could have won 2017 AO, 2014 AO, 2018 Wimbledon, off the top of my head.

Djokovic 2016 USO, 2015 French Open, 2013 French Open (infamous hitting the net).

Federer 2009 USO, 2009 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2019 Wimbledon etc

These are just off the top of my head

Oh yes, AO 2014 for Nadal. How could I forget this. Probably because I wish I could forever forget this tournament. That injury in the final was terrible.

As for the other examples, they are more about "could have won", not "should have won".

 

[Breakpointerer]

Ned could have won 2017 AO, 2014 AO, 2018 Wimbledon, off the top of my head.

Djokovic 2016 USO, 2015 French Open, 2013 French Open (infamous hitting the net).

Federer 2009 USO, 2009 AO, 2014 Wimbledon, 2019 Wimbledon etc

These are just off the top of my head. I will preface these fall under the could/should category, but they're close enough to be grouped together.

14 Wimby he could've just lost in 4 though, Djokovic helped him out up 5-2 in the fourth.

 

[Frank Bannister]

Basel is a Slam, what are you talking about?

Glad to see him through. Making some baby steps now towards putting Wimbledon behind him.

 

[StrongRule]

14 Wimby he could've just lost in 4 though, Djokovic helped him out up 5-2 in the fourth.

True, and same thing about Djokovic in RG 2013.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Oh yes, AO 2014 for Nadal. How could I forget this. Probably because I wish I could forever forget this tournament. That injury in the final was terrible.

As for the other examples, they are more about "could have won", not "should have won".

I added this as an edit before you replied " I will preface these fall under the could/should category, but they're close enough to be grouped together. "

Basically those matches easily could have gone the other way, which is why I'm not too cut up about 2019 Wimbledon. Play long enough and you win matches you should lose, and lose matches you should win. That's just sport in a nutshell.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

14 Wimby he could've just lost in 4 though, Djokovic helped him out up 5-2 in the fourth.
For Ned, there's also 2012 AO

True, and same thing about Djokovic in RG 2013.

Fred still had a BP, all the momentum, and the crowd on his side in 2014 Wimbledon final 5th set. That was painfully winnable, almost as much so as 2019 - especially since Fed didn't really have a mental block against Djokovic by that point.

2009 USO was a bad loss, no offense to Del Potro. Got too cute serving it out in the 2nd and blew the set. 2009 AO wasn't a bad loss because, Nadal, but Nadal played like a 6 hour SF and Federer had momentum not carry over into the decider.

I am confident there are even more examples for all 3 of opportunities that were missed.

2014 USO Federer/Djokovic BOTH blew a pristine chance to add a slam. Yes, Cilic was redlining, but it's still a blown chance.

 

[youngpolyhater]

Not really. There are plenty of matches Federer has won where he should have lost. It mostly balances itself out throughout a career.

True,but for a player of his caliber its bad because this has cost him very important titles

Not like Djokovic and Nadal haven't lost slams they should have won as well.

True in Djokovics case-but less than Federer,but completely False in Nadals case - he laps on any opportunity-the ultimate opportunist in tennis

The current slam count is about right, all things considered.

Vehemently disagree - Fed has massively underachieved,Djokovic slightly underachieved and Nadal massively overachieved

 

[Red Rick]

Apologies, it's just that the 40-15 meme has really been overused at this point.

That was my one time

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

True,but for a player of his caliber its bad because this has cost him very important titles


True in Djokovics case-but less than Federer,but completely False in Nadals case - he laps on any opportunity-the ultimate opportunist in tennis


Vehemently disagree - Fed has massively underachieved,Djokovic slightly underachieved and Nadal massively overachieved

20 slams is massively underachieving? You have very high standards then.

Nadal is probably the best of the 3 at taking opportunities, but there are plenty of tournaments he has lost too that he was the favorite in.

Will agree Federer has squandered the most chances of the three..but if anything that speaks to his greatness as well that he was constantly in those positions.

Even if Federer had bagged Wimbledon 2019, his slam lead would still very much be under threat.

The fact the big 3 are still dominating is more a commentary on the dire state of the rest of the tour, and not a condemnation on the three themselves. Fed is almost 40 for christ sakes.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Indoors, fast hard court - Federer still is the Best. It's shame there aren't too many fast courts around.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

The most are saying Fedr

@HetTheGreaterer you lose

Checkmate

Majority isn't always right, masses can be misguided.
Galileo was considered idiot in the early times.


#IstickWithFeder

 

[youngpolyhater]

20 slams is massively underachieving? You have very high standards then.

Nadal is probably the best of the 3 at taking opportunities, but there are plenty of tournaments he has lost too that he was the favorite in.

Will agree Federer has squandered the most chances of the three..but if anything that speaks to his greatness as well that he was constantly in those positions.

Even if Federer had bagged Wimbledon 2019, his slam lead would still very much be under threat.

The fact the big 3 are still dominating is more a commentary on the dire state of the rest of the tour, and not a condemnation on the three themselves. Fed is almost 40 for christ sakes.

I was comparatively speaking among the big 3,he's the underachiever -which you agree with also.