Straight sets anyone

[roysid]

Roger obviously doesn't care, but here is golden chance to win Wimbledon in straight sets. After all these years
He could have done it in 2005 when he demolished Hewitt and Roddick in straight sets in semis and finals resp. But he had lost a set to a lowly keifer somewhere along the way. Casual, must be.
Next year, didn't lose a set and reached finals. But Rafa Nadal there took a set in tiebreak.
Since then, the opponents in final were too strong.

Hope it becomes this year

 

[MeatTornado]

It's only two matches, but still a long way to go for Fed. The remaining 3 are all big servers and therefore capable of taking him to a tiebreak where obviously anything can happen. And how many times did he almost lose serve that one game in that 3rd set today? He was in complete control of the Raonic match all day, and then he had a little dip which could've cost him the whole set. The margins are just so damn small on grass, which makes it such a tall order.

 

[roysid]

Yes totally agree. Could have lost the 3rd set multiple times against Raonic. So many breakpoint s and was 0-3 down in tie break.

Still he has a good chance I must say

 

[Jackuar]

Agree with Tornado. Still, nothing wrong to hope. Let's see

 

[ProStaff forever]

Wished he'd work on those passing shots, missed a few usuals against Raonic

Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Skeletroll]

Wished he'd work on those passing shots, missed a few usuals against Raonic

Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

He was passing Raonic left and right, I think it's fine.

 

[Neil_Fedfan]

Even if Federer beats Berdych tomorrow, he ain't beating either of Cilic/Querrey in straights. Heck, even winning is far from guaranteed and I'd say if Cilic is in the final he'll be the favourite 60/40 given how well he has managed to push Federer in recent times including a straight sets win at USO in '14.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Roger obviously doesn't care, but here is golden chance to win Wimbledon in straight sets. After all these years
He could have done it in 2005 when he demolished Hewitt and Roddick in straight sets in semis and finals resp. But he had lost a set to a lowly keifer somewhere along the way. Casual, must be.
Next year, didn't lose a set and reached finals. But Rafa Nadal there took a set in tiebreak.
Since then, the opponents in final were too strong.

Hope it becomes this year

Because back then he didn't care about preserving himself as much. There was no real need to. Today he has to play well in every match because he can't afford to squander any chance he gets against the best players. Look at his match against Raonic for example.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Even if Federer beats Berdych tomorrow, he ain't beating either of Cilic/Querrey in straights. Heck, even winning is far from guaranteed and I'd say if Cilic is in the final he'll be the favourite 60/40 given how well he has managed to push Federer in recent times including a straight sets win at USO in '14.

Cilic is the worry in my mind. Possibly Berdych if he comes out swinging. Either player is capable of toppling the master on their day and have done it before. Well done to Querrey, especially if he makes the final, but unless Fed collapses completely or Querrey demonstrates tennis that he never has before, Fed will eat him alive.

For me, what I want is for Querrey to take out Cilic. That would increase my confidence in Fed a fair bit.

 

[NGM]

Roger obviously doesn't care, but here is golden chance to win Wimbledon in straight sets. After all these years
He could have done it in 2005 when he demolished Hewitt and Roddick in straight sets in semis and finals resp. But he had lost a set to a lowly keifer somewhere along the way. Casual, must be.
Next year, didn't lose a set and reached finals. But Rafa Nadal there took a set in tiebreak.
Since then, the opponents in final were too strong.

Hope it becomes this year

Why should we care about that trivia while in reality Federer has failed really badly in Wimbledon 3 times in a row, losing in later stage after showing phenomenal performance in early rounds every time?

That kind of attitude is not helpful. I was so sure that he would win 2015 final and he lost in 4. Every one was confident that he would beat Cilic in US Open 2014 and he lost in straight. Doesn't it ring a bell to you?

I would be happy if he can win the next two matches. Berdych and Cilic can make Federer cry again, so don't get over yourself.

 

[AiRFederer]

Wishing for this cause my heart can't take another 2017 aussie open final

 

[Mr Feeny]

Why should we care about that trivia while in reality Federer has failed really badly in Wimbledon 3 times in a row, losing in later stage after showing phenomenal performance in early rounds every time?

That kind of attitude is not helpful. I was so sure that he would win 2015 final and he lost in 4. Every one was confident that he would beat Cilic in US Open 2014 and he lost in straight. Doesn't it ring a bell to you?

I would be happy if he can win the next two matches. Berdych and Cilic can make Federer cry again, so don't get over yourself.

I agree. A lot of arrogance on here by quite a few people. I'll take a win any way we can get it. He might lose to either man and blow this ala the US open 2014.

 

[BVSlam]

Doing it in straight sets is literally the least interesting thing about this tournament. With three dangerous big hitters left, just winning is all I'd like, and doing that is not going to be easy by any means, nor is it a given.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I don't see it going any other way - he is likely to sleep through the rest of the tournament and wake up lifting the trophy.

 

[ProStaff forever]

He was passing Raonic left and right, I think it's fine.

Yeah majority of it is woring fine in the later stages, but ive always noticed that he struggles during first 2 games, which i think if not careful will cause him a set, especially in later stages in Wimbledon.

Sent from my Redmi Note 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Doing it in straight sets is literally the least interesting thing about this tournament. With three dangerous big hitters left, just winning is all I'd like, and doing that is not going to be easy by any means, nor is it a given.

The voice of reason!

 

[LETitBE]

Even if Federer beats Berdych tomorrow, he ain't beating either of Cilic/Querrey in straights. Heck, even winning is far from guaranteed and I'd say if Cilic is in the final he'll be the favourite 60/40 given how well he has managed to push Federer in recent times including a straight sets win at USO in '14.

he might,Quezzard might not be up to the occasion of a Wimbley final,then again?

 

[BVSlam]

The voice of reason!

**** yes bro, I love reason!

 

[Steve0904]

I agree. A lot of arrogance on here by quite a few people. I'll take a win any way we can get it. He might lose to either man and blow this ala the US open 2014.

Looking back at that particular USO I'm not even sure I'd say he "blew" it. Back then he was favourite on name after Djokovic went out, but probably not on form having barely escaped against Monfils and just generally looking lackluster the whole tournament. In contrast to this year where he looks like the most in form player here and he has whenever he's played for basically the whole year.

 

[Steve0904]

Even if Federer beats Berdych tomorrow, he ain't beating either of Cilic/Querrey in straights. Heck, even winning is far from guaranteed and I'd say if Cilic is in the final he'll be the favourite 60/40 given how well he has managed to push Federer in recent times including a straight sets win at USO in '14.

Well he might, but as many others have said, that's not important at all. Important is winning it. I don't care if he needs back to back 5 setters (obviously I'm hoping he doesn't).

As far as who the favourite is, are you saying Cilic is a 60/40 favourite over Federer in a Wimbledon final? If so, I believe you are overstating it. Federer was the favourite coming into this tournament and he's still the favourite now. I'm not saying Cilic can't beat him. He definitely can, but this isn't 2016 anymore either. Federer's playing way better than that this year, and that's why he's the favourite.

If I misunderstood you I apologize.

 

[ibbi]

Wow, lowly Kiefer. Nice.

 

[Mr Feeny]

Looking back at that particular USO I'm not even sure I'd say he "blew" it. Back then he was favourite on name after Djokovic went out, but probably not on form having barely escaped against Monfils and just generally looking lackluster the whole tournament. In contrast to this year where he looks like the most in form player here and he has whenever he's played for basically the whole year.

That's true, but I figured a close call would wake up him if anything. It reminded me of the Bennetau match at Wimby 2012. He was playing so badly but then he went back against the wall in ways I hadn't seen him for a long time. He was screaming at himself, pumping his fist anytime something good happened and it looked like a defining match. His "come-ons" were so loud. He was furious with himself for struggling and kept muttering himself in Swiss German, which I was glad to see.
If nothing else, it showed that atleast he cared. Federer is so often emotionless that he gives off a vibe that he's indifferent. And that had been the case with him for the previous year and a half or so. So, to see him fight the way he did was nice.

When he won, I figured here was a chance to fight through fatigue and get it done. He's usually done well when he's survived a scare. Haas, Bennetau etc etc.

In any case, you're right. This does feel different. He's playing well. And mentally, he's as strong as he's ever been. He's digging his way out of break points and he's rock solid when the pressure has been on. This is a good chance to finally stand alone at Wimbledon. I hope he does it.

 

[Steve0904]

That's true, but I figured a close call would wake up him if anything. It reminded me of the Bennetau match at Wimby 2012. He was playing so badly but then he went back against the wall in ways I hadn't seen him for a long time. He was screaming at himself, pumping his fist anytime something good happened and it looked like a defining match. His "come-ons" were so loud. He was furious with himself for struggling and kept muttering himself in Swiss German, which I was glad to see.
If nothing else, it showed that atleast he cared. Federer is so often emotionless that he gives off a vibe that he's indifferent. And that had been the case with him for the previous year and a half or so. So, to see him fight the way he did was nice.

When he won, I figured here was a chance to fight through fatigue and get it done. He's usually done well when he's survived a scare. Haas, Bennetau etc etc.

In any case, you're right. This does feel different. He's playing well. And mentally, he's as strong as he's ever been. He's digging his way out of break points and he's rock solid when the pressure has been on. This is a good chance to finally stand alone at Wimbledon. I hope he does it.

Yeah, initially at the time this is what I thought as well. And I can definitely think of a few matches where I wish Federer showed more outward emotion so I agree there as well. Yesterday was a bit strange in that regard. Federer didn't scream and holler a lot (until he won MP), but he was so sharp that you could just tell how bad he wanted it which is what I was hoping would happen.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Why would it be a big deal if he won Wimbledon w/o dropping a set? The enormous deal would be that a man almost 36 won a major at all! It's not a stat even serious tennis fans much care about. Obviously Rafa just did it at the FO (and he's done it twice before there, I think), Roger did it at the '07 AO, Borg, Rosewall, Emerson, Trabert have all done it.

All that matters is that he gets #19. If it takes two five setters to do it or straight sets, does it really matter?

 

[Sorry_to_tell_you_mate]

Even if Federer wins it without dropping a set, it will just be his second time ever in a slam. Nadal did it 3 times in his career, sorry to tell you, mate.

 

[MasturB]

It will be cool if he wins without dropping a set.

But I'd honestly be completely fine with him just hoisting #8 on Sunday too.

 

[PMChambers]

36% chance.
90% Birdman
40% Cilic
According to Watson {IBM 286 with maths co-proccesor}

 

[-NN-]

Winning will be hard enough.

 

[deBroglie]

36% chance.
90% Birdman
40% Cilic
According to Watson {IBM 286 with maths co-proccesor}

Interesting, but you don't need Watson for that. I'm also quite baffled by the prediction of Federer taking down Berdych in straight sets at 90% - I just calculated 56.0% from odds.

 

[World Beater]

could be but i honestly dont think he is sharp enough..there are always lull periods in his game..

like against raonic - he dfed twice in a game which is clear lull since federer rarely dfs.

he also missed sitter fhs in the game.

but he is playing with a sort of calm confidence and he isnt playing too fast/aggressive either...i honestly think he gets too aggressive with his fh/bh and would like to see a little bit more slicing on neutral shots...he seems to slice mostly on defensive shots..that has changed a bit this year.

really liked the fact that he was spinning in some kickers against raonic - shows he feels confident about rallying from the baseline...he isnt just going for big serves all the time...

 

[Gazelle]

Wishing for this cause my heart can't take another 2017 aussie open final

I can't handle full finals anymore. I usually tune in about 1.5 hours into the final, hoping to see Fed with a healthy lead.

 

[NastyWinners]

He was passing Raonic left and right, I think it's fine.

46 winners to 9 errors. Not a bad stat line.

 

[MajesticMoose]

Raonic was the biggest threat for the "big servers". Berdych poses no threat nor does Cilic or Querrey. He'll keep his form and keep rolling on. #8 here we come.

#spokenlikeatruearrogantfedfan

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Even if Federer wins it without dropping a set,

it will just be his second time ever in a slam.
Nadal did it 3 times in his career, sorry to tell you, mate.

"Just?" .​

Winning Wimbledon--period--is what the tennis world's all about right now (forget the "my favorite male idol in straight sets!!" fanboy b.s.) and why every pro would love to be in Federer's shoes right now so to try and rain on it with the "just 2x" swipe is besides the point and kinda lame imho.
.
Ftr, there are others besides Rafa who have done it 3x as well: R. Sears, Marion Trabert and Bjorn Borg so--just like with the OP--I don't know what your point is, i.e. besides busting fedfan chops. . .

But hey, it's all good...and what the hell, I can be a .d-i-c-k. too - check it out:

Q: What do you call a Roger Federer - Nick Kyrgios hybrid?

A: Tankerer. . . : )
​

I can't handle full finals anymore.

I usually tune in about 1.5 hours into the final, hoping to see Fed with a healthy lead.

sigh.....reading so many of these type of posts I realize it's not about "the tennis" with so many here so much as it's about "my favourite male idol."​

Wow, lowly Kiefer. Nice.

^ +1
case in point​

 

[noobforehand20]

kind of like groth in 2015, one tiebreak, one double fault and you lose the set

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Kiefer was anything but lowly, the guy took a set off peak GOATerer in four consecutive meetings, which were interestingly all Slam meetings - Wimby, Real Slam, USO 05 and Aussie 06.

 

[Sirius Black]

Meat Tornado is a solid poster

 

[falstaff78]

Even if Federer wins it without dropping a set, it will just be his second time ever in a slam. Nadal did it 3 times in his career, sorry to tell you, mate.

It's much harder to win Wimbledon without dropping a set than to win the french without dropping a set.

The former has been done only once in the open era (Borg) and the latter has been done 6 times (Nadal, Borg and Nastase)

This is because it is harder to break serve on grass and thus top players are more prone to upsets.

 

[PMChambers]

Interesting, but you don't need Watson for that. I'm also quite baffled by the prediction of Federer taking down Berdych in straight sets at 90% - I just calculated 56.0% from odds.

Got an old XT you can use but doesn't have floating point calculation. I think you picked the wrong metric under movement. Use either,
1. New born deer running on grass
Or
2. New born elephant stuck in mud.
That will get you to 90%.
Seriously he isn't breaking Federers serve. He cant just push it back and he wont move fast enough on split step to consistently drive it. Federer is better on every shot than Birdman but importantly his first step is so much better on grass it's over before it starts. Birdman is slow HC player he muscles himself around a court.

ThIs Tournament was a Fed locking before the start, nothing's changed to during to make that any different.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Even if Federer wins it without dropping a set, it will just be his second time ever in a slam. Nadal did it 3 times in his career, sorry to tell you, mate.

Federer is the more accomplished player. Sorry to tell you that, mate.

 

[jimjam]

Interesting, but you don't need Watson for that. I'm also quite baffled by the prediction of Federer taking down Berdych in straight sets at 90% - I just calculated 56.0% from odds.

Yeah... Federer doesn't even have a 90% h2h record against berdych. Even 50% sounds high to me.

 

[deBroglie]

Yeah... Federer doesn't even have a 90% h2h record against berdych. Even 50% sounds high to me.

I'm sorry, you might have mis-interpreted what I meant to say (possibly due to poor wording). The 56.0% refers to the following:

The chance that Federer defeats Tomas Berdych in straight sets

GIVEN that Federer defeats Tomas Berdych.

 

[jimjam]

The 56.0% refers to the following:

The chance that Federer defeats Tomas Berdych in straight sets

GIVEN that Federer defeats Tomas Berdych.

Aaaahhh. My bad. That sounds like a very reasonable estimation then!

 

[roysid]

One of the reasons why Fed hasn't done it till now is that he focuses on the whole match. I've often seen him playing lightly after winning 2 sets/1 set knowing very well even if he loses 1 set, he can step it up and win the remaining sets.

Whereas Nadal, particularly on clay doesn't give a game away. Plays brutally for all games and sets with the aim to finish it as soon as possible.

 

[Sereger]

Thread still opens guys. Well done Rogi!

 

[roysid]

See I told you so.. seeing his form and the opponents felt he could win his straight sets. And that's what happened