Why did Wimbledon organizers try and succesfuly ruined Fedal final?

FiReFTW

FiReFTW

Legend
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
 
bananaforehand said:
There were two other matches that were better on paper.
Click to expand...

Nadal-Del Po yes.

Nishi-djoko was not. Those matches are predictable, Djokovic routinely beating a baby version of himself. Plus Nishi is not a grasscourter.

Ofc Fedr-Ando on paper was a easy Fedr win, but the fact Fedr was defending champ and the Wimbledon favourite meant he should have been given priority.
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...

The court change was irrelevant, Fed of the 1st set would have beaten Anderson on any grasscourt and Fed of the last 4 had a good chance of losing on any grasscourt against any good big hitter/server.

Fed has played on Court 1 before and won without any issues.
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...

Well, they put Djokovic on court 1 in 2016 against Querrey and ruined a possible Murrovic final. UK may have been delighted with an easy win for Murray but for the tennis world at large Raomurray was a lousy final. Last year, they put Nadal on court 1 against Muller. You see where this is going. The point is the big guys ought to play at least one match on court 1. If it happens to be against a big serving guy, so be it. IIRC Fed drew Groth on C1 in 2015 but Groth mugged to glory that day. Sometimes C1 creates upsets or at least difficult matches. Djokovic had his hands full with good old Kevin in 2015 and before that against Cilic, again on C1. I disliked Djoko's whining but he does have a point and this time the AEC listened.
 
zagor said:
The court change was irrelevant, Fed of the 1st set would have beaten Anderson on any grasscourt and Fed of the last 4 had a good chance of losing on any grasscourt against any good big hitter/server.

Fed has played on Court 1 before and won without any issues.
Click to expand...

Zagor, remember the Stakhovsky match? An SnV player beat Roger. The theme here for few days was that Roger can't handle serve and volley players, so he lost. This is also like that. The "faster" court 1 didn't let Roger win. He had match point in third set. That point is conveniently lost on all of them. It was as if, they played the first three sets on Center court and the last two sets on Court 1 :D
 
zagor said:
The court change was irrelevant, Fed of the 1st set would have beaten Anderson on any grasscourt and Fed of the last 4 had a good chance of losing on any grasscourt against any good big hitter/server.

Fed has played on Court 1 before and won without any issues.
Click to expand...

Yeah im not arguing that Fed might have lost on CC, im just saying that against a big server being on court 1 is a disadvantage that im sure the organizers know, and considering its a 10 year old anniversary from the amazing 2008 final and that everyone would want the repeat, shouldn't it make more sense that the organizers would try to make everything to make it happen (even if it might be unfair to others).
 
Feather said:
Zagor, remember the Stakhovsky match? A SnV player beat Roger. The theme here for few days was that Roger can't handle serve and volley players, so he lost. This is also like that. The "faster" court 1 didn't let Roger win. He had match point in third set. That point is conveniently lost on all of them. It was as if, they played the first three sets on Center court and the last two sets on Court 1 :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's funny. A slightly better Fed would have walked off with a straigtht set win on that very same court. Ditto against Stakhovsky, Fed eats serve and volley players for breakfast usually, he was just in terrible form in 2013 overall.

Fed had an off day or even tweaked something physically, either way he was ripe for the upset here, I doubt court change played any signigicant role.
 
Oh Please Federer won the first 2 sets comfortably and had match point I believe at one point. The court had nothing to do with why he lost. At the end of the day he was off enough for Anderson of all people to play the match of his life and pull off the win. Even being Off Federer really had that match at one point.....but he lost anyway. I doubt the organizers were trying to ruin a Fedal final or anything, because seriously Nadal very nearly lost to Delpo and many people think he will lose to Novak in the SF.

The real gag will be if Nadal does manage to win everyone is gonna throw a temper tantrum over it.
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...

First, Federer is a great server too, second, why do organizers put Fed in some special comfort zone just to have him in final? He's already had easy draw. And this is competition, you have to prove your power on every court.
 
I guess they figured considering he's not dropped serve all tournament, and not dropped a set at Wimbledon since 1896 he would probably be okay being moved on to a different court for one match.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does Federer not like fast surfaces? Does Federer not eat big servers for breakfast? Did Federer not play flawless tennis the first set? Can we get past the idea the court is the reason he lost?
 
ibbi said:
I guess they figured considering he's not dropped serve all tournament, and not dropped a set at Wimbledon since 1896 he would probably be okay being moved on to a different court for one match.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but does Federer not like fast surfaces? Does Federer not eat big servers for breakfast? Did Federer not play flawless tennis the first set? Can we get past the idea the court is the reason he lost?
Click to expand...

Well the OP already made the point that Anderson won fair and square, I don't see anyone blaming the loss on the court here.
 
Krish872007 said:
Well the OP already made the point that Anderson won fair and square, I don't see anyone blaming the loss on the court here.
Click to expand...
"Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win,"

No, doesn't sound like blaming it on the court at all :D
 
BorgCash said:
First, Federer is a great server too, second, why do organizers put Fed in some special comfort zone just to have him in final? He's already had easy draw. And this is competition, you have to prove your power on every court.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he had easy draw that is why he lost to a servebot and was slated to face one more servebot if he survived it.
 
IMO the court change did matter, not in terms of level of play but the intangibles changed in Anderson's favor.

(1) All Federer ruffians occupied centre court not expecting Federer to be moved out to court 1. So hooliganism wasn't as big a factor as it would have been on centre court. The court 1 crowd was respectful towards Anderson.

(2) Anderson felt at home on court 1. He has played there many times before. He has very little exposure to centre court, if any and that helped him to keep his composure.
 
I knew the instant that i saw Federer was put on Court 1 that his time was up.
Wimbledon officials messed up big time (for me anyway).

But i will give Anderson credit for maintaining a positive body language throughout the match.
Even when he faced that match point in the 3rd set, his body language almost made me believe he was the one holding the match point, not Federer.
 
sbengte said:
Yeah, he had easy draw that is why he lost to a servebot and was slated to face one more servebot if he survived it.
Click to expand...

Fed won all his four previous matches. And typical servebot - Karlovic - could not win over Federer. Anderson played great in general.
 
ibbi said:
And correct me if I'm wrong, but does Federer not like fast surfaces? Does Federer not eat big servers for breakfast? Did Federer not play flawless tennis the first set? Can we get past the idea the court is the reason he lost?
Click to expand...
basically that's true, but on an off-day would his RoS suffer, so against someone like Anderson would a slower court probably have been a bit better.
ibbi said:
I guess they figured considering he's not dropped serve all tournament, and not dropped a set at Wimbledon since 1896 he would probably be okay being moved on to a different court for one match.
Click to expand...
yo, it were good conditions for him. they also weren't fast, maybe medium-fast. in normal form would he never have lost to Anderson.
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...
If Wimby WANTED a FEDAL final then they are garbage. They should want a fair tourney not fixed bs. Wanting a FEDAL final is some Sansa Stark level fairy tale nonsense. The only people who wanted that were a segment of Fed fans who thought Rafa would be a walkover final for Fed.

Maybe just MAYBE 1) Fed’s matchup was the boring match (he just didn’t get the job done), 2) Wimby shouldn’t care about trying to HELP fed win, and 3) he’s had so many CC matches it was his turn.

This C1 complaining is hilarious. Win your damn match or go home and shut up. IF you need to be on CC to win you don’t deserve to win. Fed was more than capable of winning that match, he just got upset.
It happens.
 
If not for that slip in 2nd set, fed would have won fair and square in 3 sets, that injury was maybe small but hampered fed's movement in FH-BH shots throughout the match, and the reason why he was still hanging in there, was only his serve...
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...
So they should rig it in Fed's favor? They already gave him the #1 seed and the easiest draw what else do you want?
 
FiReFTW said:
Why put Federer on court 1 against a big server?

Can someone explain what they were thinking?

Bear in mind im not trying to find excuses for Federer's loss or even claim he would have won if they played on CC, and Anderson won fair and square.

Im just trying to understand why the organizers would even contemplate putting Federer on court 1 which is far faster against a big server and big hitter where Federer's chances would be lower to win, when they knew that Nadal vs Federer final, 10 years after the 2008 would be the greatest thing ever?

What were they thinking or what was their reasoning behind this? Were they not thinking at all?

I guess it just wasn't meant to be, but maybe if they did play on CC..maybe just maybe we would get a Fedal final, that would trully be a dream final 10 years after the amazing 2008 final.. too bad.
Click to expand...
On paper, this was going to be the least competitive QF. Fed hasn't conceded a single set to Anderson in the four matches they played. Not even a tiebreaker: 6–1, 6–1; 6–3, 7–5; 7–5, 6–1; 6–4, 6–4

This was well on its way to yet another uneventful 6–2, 7–6, 6–4 win. We were literally one shanked Federer backhand away from this result materializing
 
jm1980 said:
On paper, this was going to be the least competitive QF. Fed hasn't conceded a single set to Anderson in the four matches they played. Not even a tiebreaker: 6–1, 6–1; 6–3, 7–5; 7–5, 6–1; 6–4, 6–4

This was well on its way to yet another uneventful 6–2, 7–6, 6–4 win. We were literally one shanked Federer backhand away from this result materializing
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
George Turner said:
Nadal-Del Po yes.

Nishi-djoko was not. Those matches are predictable, Djokovic routinely beating a baby version of himself. Plus Nishi is not a grasscourter.

Ofc Fedr-Ando on paper was a easy Fedr win, but the fact Fedr was defending champ and the Wimbledon favourite meant he should have been given priority.
Click to expand...
Nadal / Delpo was not better on paper... Their last 2 encounter have been fairly one side victory for Nadal. Considering the holdover for Delpo, and his performance at RG against Nadal nothing suggest the match would be any different. I think it's funny too everybody downplay Anderson and this being a possibility of revenge for a healthy Fed on his best surface against USO17 finalist. That in and of itself was CC worthy. Not to even mention Fed has all time grass court wins, was defending champion. He deserved CC more than Nadal/Delpo without question. Concessions needed to be made to the 3 time champion Djoko who was better last year than Nadal and was likely going to be the only semifinalsalist without being on CC. Was Anderson ever on CC? Would have made sense even more if he wasn't for Fed/Anderson to be on CC. Unless I'm mistaken IT WAS CLEAR BIAS, AELTC PLAYED THEIR CARDS HOPING FED'S COURT WAS LESS A FACTOR FOR HIM THAN WOULD BE FOR NADAL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kragster
So if Fed is #3 and Rafa gets to #4, that's bad for RG organizers!
Replies
23
Views
4K
falstaff78
falstaff78
M
After 2008 Wimbledon final and 2009 Australian Open final, would you have predicted..
Replies
16
Views
3K
mike danny
mike danny
Spencer Gore
Why did Federer's grass game decline so badly after the 2008 final?
3 4 5
Replies
225
Views
13K
Headhunter_Tennis
Headhunter_Tennis
D
Indian Wells - Why do Federer, Nadal and Djokovic thrive there?
Replies
21
Views
2K
mike danny
mike danny
D
Wimbledon 2008 final
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Arzivu
Arzivu
Back
Top