RF20Lennon
Legend
Well no one can accuse you of not having a positive attitude!
Oh no you're getting me all wrong. I'm anticipating a straight set loss to Mayer
Why I believe Federer will NOT win the US Open
- Thread starter SublimeTennis
- Start date
Oh no you're getting me all wrong. I'm anticipating a straight set loss to Mayer
donquijote
G.O.A.T.
zvelf
Hall of Fame
I think it should be obvious that Federer is an underdog here. The betting odds for him are +400, which gives him a 20% of winning. That sounds about right to me. That said, I don't think Djokovic is going to win. He tends to win and lose tournaments in clumps and he's might be subconsciously relaxing a bit after having a tremendous year up until the past month.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
How do you make a claim for greater depth when Nadal and Fed won every slam from 2004 to 2007 except for Gaudio in 2004 at the FO, Safin at the AO in 2005? That's a four year period where Fed was clearly dominant on HCs and grass. Where was the deep competition? For that matter, where was the deep competition on clay from 2005 on?
That's a circular argument because you can use it to prove Novak was on the decline at age 27 because he only won one slam and was unable to win a HC slam on his best surface.
The fact is that most of the HC tournaments this year were won by either Novak or Fed, and the fact other people have been making more upsets in the past couple years over the top players can either mean that they are all getting weaker (possible) or that competition right now is getting stronger (also possible). If Fed wins nothing else this year it could turn out only to be a so-so year, but he won only 4 tournaments in 2011, only one Masters1000 before taking the WTC at the end of the year. Bo5 is obviously a big ask now. I agree about that. But his peak play this year has been quite spectacular, and I would never count out a #2 player in the world from the potential of winning a slam.
I don't disagree with that, but he made it to two slam SFs last year, both on HCs, and a QF on his worst surface, clay, is not exactly horrible at age 34. He's playing a lot better than Pete was the last year he won the USO, so I don't think it is wise to count him out.
Can he play as well now as he did in his prime, week after week? Of course not. But I would not be terribly surprised if he makes to the final only to be denied by Novak again. Novak and Nadal have already denied him 4 slams, I think, off clay.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sorry for responding point for point, it's the way I'm most comfortable doing it.
The reason Fed won so much in those years was:
-He was at or near Novak's 2011 level for 4 straight years and incredibly consistent at bringing his best level at slams (always scheduled around peaking at them).
-The field wasn't as top heavy as it has been for the past 4-5 years.
What does good depth of the field mean for me? A good mix of veterans, matured players and promising young guns. Now 2006 is a weaker year but in 2004-2005 you had older Agassi, peaking Fed, Hewitt, young Nadal (who bursted on the scene in 2005), Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko and in 2007 you had the arrival of Novak, that epic Fedal Wimbledon final and in 2008 Murray arrived as well while Nadal and Novak took it up a notch. Then in 2009 you had Fedal playing at high level at AO, arrival of Delpo in FO (people forget that he played a great match against Fed in SF) and USO, Soderling finally maturing as a player (and becoming a significant threat to top guys) and the resurgence of Roddick.
Of course I'm comparing a longer period to the current situation so that may all change but as things stand right now, looking at this year you have the oldest top 10 in the Open Era, 34 year old player as #2 and no young guns knocking at the door of top 10 or top 5. That signals to me a lack of depth, the younger guys should have pushed out atleast the players that are occupying the upper half of the top 10.
As I said, top heavy (strong top players) and depth of the field are two different terms to me. I'm not purely talking about slam distribution here but about draws.
Everything regarding competition and primes of players can be turned into a circular argument but I do think that on the whole Novak was unable to sustain his 2011 level past that year and I think he doesn't do a best job of scheduling around slams (even this year, he played better in CC master than FO itself, peaking way too early).
The only HC tournaments Fed won this year are Dubai and Cincinnati, both are the fastest HC tournaments on tour and played in a BO3 format. What this (along with Fed's early exit at AO and impressive Wimbledon run) tells me that until proven otherwise, Fed these days can only shine in conditions that heavily favour the server (for today's standards).
There's no reason to lump him in with Novak regarding HC this year when they both excel in very different circumstances, the only thing in common is the surface itself (HC).
I think Pete's last years on tour are often misunderstood, he didn't give a rat's ass about anything outside slams by that point. His ranking dipped yes but he also reached 3 USO finals in a row in 2000-2002 period which too often isn't taken into consideration.
Fed on the other hand hasn't reached a USO final since 2009 (6 years ago), that's the stat that counts the most when evaluating his USO chances this year, not that he won Dubai and Cincinnati.
That still has to happen for it to be a part of the argument. Until/if it does, when we observe Fed's last 3 years at USO we get this:
-QF loss to Berdych
-4th round lost to Robredo
-SF drubbing at the hands of Cilic after barely surviving Monfils in QF (had to save 2MPs)
The last time Novak himself was the reason Fed didn't win USO was 4 years ago so all this "Fed is playing better than ever but Novak is too good" doesn't hold water at all when it comes to USO for quite some time now.
The reason Fed won so much in those years was:
-He was at or near Novak's 2011 level for 4 straight years and incredibly consistent at bringing his best level at slams (always scheduled around peaking at them).
-The field wasn't as top heavy as it has been for the past 4-5 years.
What does good depth of the field mean for me? A good mix of veterans, matured players and promising young guns. Now 2006 is a weaker year but in 2004-2005 you had older Agassi, peaking Fed, Hewitt, young Nadal (who bursted on the scene in 2005), Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko and in 2007 you had the arrival of Novak, that epic Fedal Wimbledon final and in 2008 Murray arrived as well while Nadal and Novak took it up a notch. Then in 2009 you had Fedal playing at high level at AO, arrival of Delpo in FO (people forget that he played a great match against Fed in SF) and USO, Soderling finally maturing as a player (and becoming a significant threat to top guys) and the resurgence of Roddick.
Of course I'm comparing a longer period to the current situation so that may all change but as things stand right now, looking at this year you have the oldest top 10 in the Open Era, 34 year old player as #2 and no young guns knocking at the door of top 10 or top 5. That signals to me a lack of depth, the younger guys should have pushed out atleast the players that are occupying the upper half of the top 10.
As I said, top heavy (strong top players) and depth of the field are two different terms to me. I'm not purely talking about slam distribution here but about draws.
Everything regarding competition and primes of players can be turned into a circular argument but I do think that on the whole Novak was unable to sustain his 2011 level past that year and I think he doesn't do a best job of scheduling around slams (even this year, he played better in CC master than FO itself, peaking way too early).
The only HC tournaments Fed won this year are Dubai and Cincinnati, both are the fastest HC tournaments on tour and played in a BO3 format. What this (along with Fed's early exit at AO and impressive Wimbledon run) tells me that until proven otherwise, Fed these days can only shine in conditions that heavily favour the server (for today's standards).
There's no reason to lump him in with Novak regarding HC this year when they both excel in very different circumstances, the only thing in common is the surface itself (HC).
I think Pete's last years on tour are often misunderstood, he didn't give a rat's ass about anything outside slams by that point. His ranking dipped yes but he also reached 3 USO finals in a row in 2000-2002 period which too often isn't taken into consideration.
Fed on the other hand hasn't reached a USO final since 2009 (6 years ago), that's the stat that counts the most when evaluating his USO chances this year, not that he won Dubai and Cincinnati.
That still has to happen for it to be a part of the argument. Until/if it does, when we observe Fed's last 3 years at USO we get this:
-QF loss to Berdych
-4th round lost to Robredo
-SF drubbing at the hands of Cilic after barely surviving Monfils in QF (had to save 2MPs)
The last time Novak himself was the reason Fed didn't win USO was 4 years ago so all this "Fed is playing better than ever but Novak is too good" doesn't hold water at all when it comes to USO for quite some time now.
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
We won't know the degree of the depth in Fed's peak until... 2016? What makes that such a magic year?And imo, either you believe, like you, that there was no depth or you do believe there was some or plenty.
No true way to proof one or the other to people with the opposing view - that said, @zagor did a damn fine job of trying.
But aside from the odd exception or two, I don't recall people being swayed on this board with regards to Fed's competition in his peak years.
People believe what they wanna believe.
Last edited:
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
BUT:
Maybe he will win the U.S. Open.
And that's why we watch and enjoy the tennis (as with sports in general).....we just don't know how it will all shake out.
There are those fanboi trolls e.g. TMF who during the course of a Grand Slam fortnight are more concerned (read: obsessed) with marginalizing/denigrating certain pros.....then there are the rest of us who are more about "the tennis."
And btw, Fed's right: a 24-year old set of wheels trumps a 34 year old set of pins even as great a standard as Federer continues to exhibit. If he wins great, if he doesn't, it's not the end of the world - just enjoy his greatness while he's still playing. Even if he didn't pull it off, having a U.S. Open finals with Roger Federer in it? I could think of worse.
In the meanwhile, give 'em hell Fed!
Maybe he will win the U.S. Open.
And that's why we watch and enjoy the tennis (as with sports in general).....we just don't know how it will all shake out.
There are those fanboi trolls e.g. TMF who during the course of a Grand Slam fortnight are more concerned (read: obsessed) with marginalizing/denigrating certain pros.....then there are the rest of us who are more about "the tennis."
And btw, Fed's right: a 24-year old set of wheels trumps a 34 year old set of pins even as great a standard as Federer continues to exhibit. If he wins great, if he doesn't, it's not the end of the world - just enjoy his greatness while he's still playing. Even if he didn't pull it off, having a U.S. Open finals with Roger Federer in it? I could think of worse.
In the meanwhile, give 'em hell Fed!
It won´t just cut it with the serve, he needs to trust his a game, he know he has the defensive tools when nercesarry, he can use them when he needs it, i dont know really what i would try, but i think he needs to Work the angle some more, hit hard, and not rush into net as much as he usually does on mediocre approaches, he needs to Work the point, and gradually Work his way into net. The perfect tennis for me is not when Federer is playing his netrushing tennis, spectacular when he catches a low backhand volley and drapes it over the net. The two perfect games of tennis is for me Novak Djokovic´es(When going for his shots and build up the points to come in, and show HIS skills, which he has. and David Nalbandians. The more defensive (Djokovic) And the agressive(Nalbandiants) Nalbandian "imo" had as good feel at net as Roger, but he had such strong groundstrokes, Court positioning, he worked the points the few time he played his best, when he did, he was imo the best tennis player. Federer a close second, Federer needs to play a bit more like Nalbandian, show his skill when needet, not just try to rush into nd scare the opponent and catch a sick backhand low volley, but Again, that´s his game nowadays, and if that Works for him, it Works.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Zagor makes excellent points. He wrote a very thorough and well thought-out reply. And I'm on the fence, really. That's why I think the whole debate about dominance vs weak era is circular. It's probably almost as useless as the GOAT debates.
And imo, either you believe, like you, that there was no depth or you do believe there was some or plenty.
No true way to proof one or the other to people with the opposing view - that said, @zagor did a damn fine job of trying.
But aside from the odd exception or two, I don't recall people being swayed on this board with regards to Fed's competition in his peak years.
People believe what they wanna believe.
Right now, is SW as good as she seems to be? I would argue that where she is right now is a combination of two factors: 1. She really IS "that good". 2. She has been a bit lucky in not having even one main opponent who can dog her at every slam.
I think Fed was somewhat lucky in that the one person who could regularly shut him down could only do it off clay until 2008. That's simply a fact. There were other people who could get him, at one slam, but it was people like Gaudio on clay in 2004, #10 in the world, and Safin in 2005, #12. I hope I haven't forgotten something, but I believe Fed won every other slam from 2004-2007 except the FOs won by Nadal.
Now, that said, Fed was also extremely UN-lucky to have competed in the Nadal era, because almost without doubt Nadal stopped him from getting a grand slam.
So if it sounds like I'm trying to cut down Fed, that's pretty strange when he is still my favorite player to watch.
We just never know. Right now we can say that the dominance of older players simply reflects an otherwise weak field. Which I actually HOPE is right, because I don't like watching nothing but players around 30 (or older) dominating this way. Ironically, Stan as he FO winner made the final far younger than W, which was fought this year between a guy 28 and a guy 34. This starts to remind of the old Laver/Rosewall era.
Mostly I am thinking out loud, because no one can prove anything when comparing two top players who are sa much as 6 years apart in age. As for whether or not Fed has it in him to win more than a M1000, or a WTC, we will know in a couple more years.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Point by point is great. I actually agree with a good deal of what you said, so I may just add a few ideas.
2001 is usually used for a weak era argument. That year Hewitt won W, but the next 3 top players in the world won no slam - Agassi, Safin and Ferrero. Costa won the FO at #9, Sampras the USO at #13, and Johansson the AO at #14. But you could also call it a competitive year, because people could rise up and win.
That's why I say that talent vs competition is always a circular debate.
It still seems to me that during Fed's peak the only guy who could really threaten him, month after month, was Nadal, and only on clay. That means either that Fed really WAS that great (which I think is at least partially true) or that his competition off clay was weaker.
It seems to me that Novak was pushing towards the same insane dominance in 2011 but part of his inability to win more slams after that was the insane competition he had from Nadal (still stopping him from winning the FO) but also challenging him on his best surface, HCs. If that wasn't enough to stop him, there were players like Murray who I think at his best plays at a higher level than people like Roddick (after his one really good year).
So I say that Novak has had it harder even though, to be honest, I always root against because I don't like his style of play.
That's back to the same problem: dominance vs competition. I just don't know. It seems to me that the players who are nearly 30 or even around 30 are playing at an insane level that I've never seen before, as a group. If what I think is going on is right, in the next couple years the older players will not be as dominant, as they former "Big Four" fade. We will still see players pushing 30 or even older who are winning, but there will be more room for the young guns, and that will signal a true era change.
The problem here is that you could do an analysis of how many different players win tournaments each year vs other years and then make conclusions. To me there are a number of players who are hugely dangerous in any given match, and that is causing more upsets. You can also conclude that it is age, so if the top players were younger, there may not be so many upsets. But one or two very dominant players make the rest of the field look weaker, and that has always been so. Is it true? I don't know.
The USO this year is going to settle a lot of that. If you wins the USO, that's two years with three slams, second I think on the men's side only to Roger (with three) and to Laver, with the grand slam.
That's why this USO is going to answer questions. If Fed goesn't goat in this tournament, I don't think he has another change. Maybe next year at W, but it's getting more and more unlikely. A win this year would strengthen arguments for him as goat. But if Novak wins, he still has other years to get the FO, and his legacy is hugely strengthened.
Center court this year is favoring his game more because of almost no wind. It is playing more like an indoor court. I would say it favors him at least as much as Novak. There are other guys who can win, but I would like o see one of them win OR see Murray or Wawrinka get a 3rd slam. But I don't want to see something like another Nishi/Cilic final.
Who else has won even as many HC tournaments as Fed besides, of course, Novak? I still have to see him as the 2nd most dangerous HC player on any given day. Can he keep that up for 7 matches? We'll know in two weeks.
I think Pete's last years on tour are often misunderstood, he didn't give a rat's ass about anything outside slams by that point. His ranking dipped yes but he also reached 3 USO finals in a row in 2000-2002 period which too often isn't taken into consideration.
Fed on the other hand hasn't reached a USO final since 2009 (6 years ago), that's the stat that counts the most when evaluating his USO chances this year, not that he won Dubai and Cincinnati.
That still has to happen for it to be a part of the argument. Until/if it does, when we observe Fed's last 3 years at USO we get this:
-QF loss to Berdych
-4th round lost to Robredo
-SF drubbing at the hands of Cilic after barely surviving Monfils in QF (had to save 2MPs)
The last time Novak himself was the reason Fed didn't win USO was 4 years ago so all this "Fed is playing better than ever but Novak is too good" doesn't hold water at all when it comes to USO for quite some time now.[/QUOTE]
Terry Tibbs
Hall of Fame
Like many others, I've been desperate for Federer to win another slam but the reality is, Wimbledon would appear to be his best chance and he will be almost 35 at the next Wimbledon tournament so surely that ship has also sailed as it seems inconceivable that he could win a slam at almost 35.
There has been a lot of discussion on here about court speeds which I have found quite interesting to read and something which I've not payed much attention to until now.
There was an interesting thread created by somebody recently with the theory that the powers that be have slowed the courts down over the last 10 yrs to get longer rallies which has played into the hands of the grinders and been to the detriment of Federer and a likely reason why he has not won as many slams recently.
There may be some truth in this and it seems that it's no coincidence that Federer has been very successful at the cincy and Dubai tournaments were it has been suggested that the courts there are the fastest hard courts on the circuit.
Just watching the Murray match and the court looks as slow as hell. This combined with the bo5 format would suggest that Federer has very little chance of winning here which really is a shame. I think his chance to win here again came and went last year. Nishokori beat Djokovic for him but he then got blown away by Cilic. Just so disappointing.
There has been a lot of discussion on here about court speeds which I have found quite interesting to read and something which I've not payed much attention to until now.
There was an interesting thread created by somebody recently with the theory that the powers that be have slowed the courts down over the last 10 yrs to get longer rallies which has played into the hands of the grinders and been to the detriment of Federer and a likely reason why he has not won as many slams recently.
There may be some truth in this and it seems that it's no coincidence that Federer has been very successful at the cincy and Dubai tournaments were it has been suggested that the courts there are the fastest hard courts on the circuit.
Just watching the Murray match and the court looks as slow as hell. This combined with the bo5 format would suggest that Federer has very little chance of winning here which really is a shame. I think his chance to win here again came and went last year. Nishokori beat Djokovic for him but he then got blown away by Cilic. Just so disappointing.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
But do your posts even have marginal sense?
SublimeTennis
Professional
Yea man I'm with you, but frankly I don't enjoy just watching him cruise through the early rounds, I like to watch to see how he's playing, but I want him to win, that's what it's about to me. And no I don't enjoy watching him get to the finals and choke like he did at Wimby, he was a WILD FREAKING ROBOT in the Semi's, everyone should re-watch that, Murray put up his absolute all time best was fired up fought like a crazy man came to the net and passed Federer that was one of my all time favorite matches because it showed a fully confident 100% performing Murray against a 34 year old 100% Federer and that match to me shows the difference in their abilities, in other words someone might say "How much better is Fed than Murray", that match was it, both playing their best, Fed over in 3 sets, I'm CONVINCED, if that Fed, or even that Murray played Djokovich in the finals they would have steamrolled him, taking nothing from Novak they were at their peak, like McEnroe said "This match is like a highlight reel".
SublimeTennis
Professional
I created that thread about court speed, CS is everything.
Listen, don't be down man, Fed can win, remember he is still great on slow courts, you never know how it will play out, the top guys can get knocked out and Fed can play some average guy in the finals, we don't know. One additional negative though, with the roof their is no wind, which means it's much hotter, which means the ball travels slower
Terry Tibbs
Hall of Fame
I created that thread about court speed, CS is everything.
Listen, don't be down man, Fed can win, remember he is still great on slow courts, you never know how it will play out, the top guys can get knocked out and Fed can play some average guy in the finals, we don't know. One additional negative though, with the roof their is no wind, which means it's much hotter, which means the ball travels slower
Doesn't that depend on which way the wind is blowing? Surely the ball will travel slower when being hit into the wind than if there was no wind? Also if there is now a roof, doesn't that assist Federer's chances given how good he is indoors with no environmental factors?
I am a big Federer fan but don't expect him to win. I hope he wins USO but don't expect it.
Court speed makes a huge difference. To those that think it doesn't, Federer has beaten Djokovic at Shanghai, Dubai and Cincy and all of these are fast hard courts. Those 3 wins are consecutive in the last 13 months when Djokovic is in his prime while Federer is old man. 2 of the 3 wins were straight sets. He also beat Murray at Dubai a few years ago and Murray said Federer would still be number 1 in the world if the courts were faster. Murray is a smart guy. Last time Federer won USO was 2008 and the commentators were saying the USO was the fastest of all the slams at that time. It appears the USTA has gone to the standard gritty as hell surface to extend baseline rallies so Murray, Djokovic and Nadal can run around and hit ground strokes forever while boring everyone to death since Federer's last win.
Court speed makes a huge difference. To those that think it doesn't, Federer has beaten Djokovic at Shanghai, Dubai and Cincy and all of these are fast hard courts. Those 3 wins are consecutive in the last 13 months when Djokovic is in his prime while Federer is old man. 2 of the 3 wins were straight sets. He also beat Murray at Dubai a few years ago and Murray said Federer would still be number 1 in the world if the courts were faster. Murray is a smart guy. Last time Federer won USO was 2008 and the commentators were saying the USO was the fastest of all the slams at that time. It appears the USTA has gone to the standard gritty as hell surface to extend baseline rallies so Murray, Djokovic and Nadal can run around and hit ground strokes forever while boring everyone to death since Federer's last win.
TheFifthSet
G.O.A.T.
I guess I am more optimistic than most, lol. I give it 15-20%. He'll sail into the Quarters. If everyone plays to their seeding, he should face and be favoured against Berdych, and should be a very slight favourite against Murray. In the finals he'd have the lions share of the crowd support regardless of who he faced, and Djokovic hasnt been rock solid mentally at Flushing.
He probably won't win this tournament, but stranger things have happened.
He probably won't win this tournament, but stranger things have happened.
SublimeTennis
Professional
From what I have seen so far, it's very hot and humid, which slows the ball, but yes you are correct with less wind Federer plays much better. I don't know today though because ESPN ARE MORONS, CUT THE MATCH OFF, IT WAS LOOKING GOOD BUT CAN'T TELL YOU IF HE PLAYED GOOD OR NOT BECAUSE ESPN ARE IDIOTS.
SublimeTennis
Professional
100% correct, one thing though Shanghi is slow.
Federer won't win the U.S. Open because at age 34 he's not going to be able to weather the storm from the QFs on in a 5-set format. The courts don't play fast enough to really give him a chance to win. He can be aggressive and shorten points to a degree, but he's still going to be forced into some real physical play. He will need some luck as well as great play.
He needed Djokovic's draw for starters.
He needed Djokovic's draw for starters.
You think? I'd say you're right considering Novak himself hasn't won the Open since 2011. Doesn't seem like he's preventing anybody from winning NYC.
I think there's reason to expect Federer to be better this year. In 2012 he played a lot of tennis leading into the Open thanks to the Olympics, so he may have been a bit worn down. 2013 is not relevant, much like Murray's 2014. Last year, he went deep in Canada and won Cincy and consequently looked a little flat in the late rounds of the Open...and ran into a buzz saw in Cilic who wouldn't have lost to anyone the way he played.
This year, he took a long break after Wimbledon and only played Cincy leading up, where he looked very sharp. So, for starters, he is fresher than he has been coming in. Second, he looks like a more relaxed and confident player now. It seems another year with Edberg and playing a more aggressive style has made him more comfortable with it.
All that said, I don't see him winning. I don't say it's impossible, like many do, but it's highly unlikely. Fresh or not, the draw will wear him down over two weeks of best-of-five matches. He'd have a better shot at majors if he could play Djokovic in the opening match.
