World Tour Finals Round Robin: Roger Federer vs Kei Nishikori

Roger Federer or Kei Nishikori?

  • Total voters
    63
jwjh said:
LOL at all the Nole fanboys whining about Nishi now and making it about Nishi playing bad not Roger playing good. :roll:

Roger is putting out a tennis clinic. There is nothing anyone can do about it, not just Nishi.
Click to expand...

Yeah! What he said.

Also, relax Novak fans. He is playing well and will easily get to the final. His number #1 rank is safe. Just enjoy this great Nadal free tennis.
 
Chico said:
Damn, no help from anyone. Nishikori is useless. Djokovic will have to do everything himself.
Click to expand...

Relax, all Djokovic has to do is reach the finals (or SF?) and he finishes YE #1. Depending on the form of those in his draw it could be a dark horse draw, but the surprise slam winners haven't done much else this year.
 
tennisaddict said:
If Fed gets this in straights, then this has to happen for him to not reach semis.

Fed to lose to Murray
Murray to beat Raonic
Nishi to beat Raonic
Click to expand...

I think Fed would have to lose 6-2 6-2 or worse and Kei would have to win 6-1 6-1 or better for this to be possible.
 
Federer is virtually assured of his place in the semis. I don't think he'll lose to Murray like 6-0 6-0. Unless he gets injured, he is through, I think. Let's get ready for Federer v Djokovic final. That should be a good one although this slow court will give a comfortable cushion for Djokovic's game.
 
Bit too many errors, but solid serving from Fed.
Too many weak backhands though and he didn't really know how to approach and volley vs. Kei today.

Kei, great mentality, but got a bit unlucky not to go up a break at the beginning of the match and didn't serve well enough to stay with Fed today.
Still think he'll take the 2nd spot
 
Wawrinka_4_President@LHC said:
Me thinks Roger is already qualified if he wins this in 2. In your scenario, he would still be in front of Raonic and Kei (direct confrontation + more sets/games)...
Click to expand...

If he loses to Murray in straights, Murray beats Raonic in straights, and Kei routs Raonic, it gets a little murky; there would be three 2-1 players with a 4-2 sets won/loss, and the H2H becomes useless at that point. It would go down to games. Fed's breadstick the other day and his short work of Kei today make this scenario highly unlikely, however.
 
I seem to remember that if two players have the same number of wins, the one who won their match is qualified. If three players are tied, you count the numbers of sets/games...

But it's certainly my mind which plays tricks on me, I believe you guys...
 
dudeski said:
Yeah except the first time he beat Sampras was in Queens final (6-4 6-4) in 2000 right before Sampras won another Wimbledon. Sampras was 4 years younger than Fed is now.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=S402&oId=H432
Click to expand...

Yep ;-) I'm just poking at the stupid notion that the "transitional era" was filled with players who then were weaker than the top guys now, and that Federer had "weak competition.

According those subscribers of that theory, the explanation of Hewitt doing well against Sampras isn't how great Hewitt was, but a combination of Sampras being washed-up (despite still having Majors in him at the time), too old (despite being younger than Federer now), or just not good enough / overrated.

I'm not one of those Federer fans who feels the need to denigrate Sampras. I haven't watched as much of him as I'd like, but from what I've seen, he was an incredible player: stunning athleticism and explosiveness. If Hewitt was beating him it's because Hewitt's game was a good foil to Sampras and Hewitt was a pretty great player himself.
 
Will Roger be watching Murray vs. Raonic tonight?

It's during the time I'm usually putting the kids to bed, but I will try to catch a glimpse!
 
Reaction from Roger:

I was expecting a very difficult match. Kei has shown this year what a good player he is. Since he was 17, I thought he was a great talent.

From my standpoint, I'm very happy. It was an important victory in the group. I'm very happy with my play today.
 
Chanwan said:
Bit too many errors, but solid serving from Fed.
Too many weak backhands though and he didn't really know how to approach and volley vs. Kei today.

Kei, great mentality, but got a bit unlucky not to go up a break at the beginning of the match and didn't serve well enough to stay with Fed today.
Still think he'll take the 2nd spot
Click to expand...

Federer's errors were due to the depth and placement of Nishikori's shots, and vice versa. Also, Federer couldn't play a good net game due to the quality of Nishikori's strokes. That was a great tactical match but Nishikori was a bit overpowered in the end.
 
chjtennis said:
Federer's errors were due to the depth and placement of Nishikori's shots, and vice versa. Also, Federer couldn't play a good net game due to the quality of Nishikori's strokes. That was a great tactical match but Nishikori was a bit overpowered in the end.
Click to expand...

For the most part I believe this is true. Kei made a few too many bad UE's and really they were on pretty critical points, but overall, Roger's play kind of forced them. This is in contrast to when he played Murray and he had all day to tee off.

Coulod have been a different match if Kei kept his level from the start, but those are the breaks sometimes. As you pointed out earlier, I really felt Federer should've won their match in Miami this year and kind of fell apart.
 
Last edited:
dh003i said:
I'm not one of those Federer fans who feels the need to denigrate Sampras. I haven't watched as much of him as I'd like, but from what I've seen, he was an incredible player: stunning athleticism and explosiveness. If Hewitt was beating him it's because Hewitt's game was a good foil to Sampras and Hewitt was a pretty great player himself.
Click to expand...

Sampras was in decline, but the slowing of the courts and Hewitt's SV-countering game (5-4 against Sampras, 3-1 against Rafter, 9-1 against Henman) was a perfect storm. He was 4-4 against Agassi, the other most prominent baseliner in the early 2000s.

Hewitt was a great champion, and sadly his career was derailed by injuries. Don't think he would have won anymore majors after 2005 with the dominance of Fedal, but he could have been a factor. Hell, even with all his injuries, he's still managed a couple wins against Fed the last few years.
 
Fed played well. Kei forehand was terrible today. This WTF has been boring so far. Only Raonic played decent in a losing match. Kei wasn't good today. Cilic looked like he had no idea how to play tennis. Berdych was toothless and I hear Murray played bad against Nishikori. Hopefully Stan vs Novak is a good match.
 
Backspin1183 said:
Fed played well. Kei forehand was terrible today. This WTF has been boring so far. Only Raonic played decent in a losing match. Kei wasn't good today. Cilic looked like he had no idea how to play tennis. Berdych was toothless and I hear Murray played bad against Nishikori. Hopefully Stan vs Novak is a good match.
Click to expand...

Even after Nishi's poor performance today, I bet you still think he'll beat Nole if they should meet later on in the tournament! :grin: :wink:
 
Backspin1183 said:
Fed played well. Kei forehand was terrible today. This WTF has been boring so far. Only Raonic played decent in a losing match. Kei wasn't good today. Cilic looked like he had no idea how to play tennis. Berdych was toothless and I hear Murray played bad against Nishikori. Hopefully Stan vs Novak is a good match.
Click to expand...

The RRs are hardly ever inspiring matches. In fact, the only time I can remember them being compelling is when Delpo was in the mix.
 
dh003i said:
Yep ;-) I'm just poking at the stupid notion that the "transitional era" was filled with players who then were weaker than the top guys now, and that Federer had "weak competition.

According those subscribers of that theory, the explanation of Hewitt doing well against Sampras isn't how great Hewitt was, but a combination of Sampras being washed-up (despite still having Majors in him at the time), too old (despite being younger than Federer now), or just not good enough / overrated.

I'm not one of those Federer fans who feels the need to denigrate Sampras. I haven't watched as much of him as I'd like, but from what I've seen, he was an incredible player: stunning athleticism and explosiveness. If Hewitt was beating him it's because Hewitt's game was a good foil to Sampras and Hewitt was a pretty great player himself.
Click to expand...

I agree. If Hewitt was 5 year younger he would have been Pete's main rival with similar result as we have with Federer vs Nadal. Hewitt probably would end up with around 7 slams and Sampras with 11 but Hewitt would lead their H2H. Agassi might have actually won more than 8 because Hewitt could have taken out Pete a few times and Agassi then would have won those slams.
 
chjtennis said:
Federer's errors were due to the depth and placement of Nishikori's shots, and vice versa. Also, Federer couldn't play a good net game due to the quality of Nishikori's strokes. That was a great tactical match but Nishikori was a bit overpowered in the end.
Click to expand...

Mainly agree, have said the same earlier in the thread. Still, Fed missed a few volleys, he don't normally miss.
Nishi errors were partly caused by Fed, partly caused by him going for a wee bit too much too early/going for the low percentage shot dtl while stretched early in the rally.
And yeah, many of Fed's errors were due to depth from Nishi as well. Still don't think his backhand looked good though, he hit a few good ones, but many poor ones.
 
Chico said:
You never know. Until YE #1 fat lady sings I am cheering against Fed in every match.
Click to expand...

To be honest, even though I am a Fed fan, Djoker deserves YE#1, even if he does have a losing H2H with Fed this year. What matters most is how you did all year against everyone, not how you did against a certain player.

Both Fed and Djoker had layoffs due to childbirth, which makes it even more amazing that they are 2 and 1.
 
coloskier said:
To be honest, even though I am a Fed fan, Djoker deserves YE#1, even if he does have a losing H2H with Fed this year. What matters most is how you did all year against everyone, not how you did against a certain player.
Click to expand...

Had Federer won Paris, the WTF and DC, I think he would have deserved it too.
With Djoko at 1 slam, 4 Masters and possibly a WTF it's hard to argue against him and he's as good as safe in terms of getting there (Birdman ain't beating him and neither is Wawa, I would say).
 
coloskier said:
To be honest, even though I am a Fed fan, Djoker deserves YE#1, even if he does have a losing H2H with Fed this year. What matters most is how you did all year against everyone, not how you did against a certain player.

Both Fed and Djoker had layoffs due to childbirth, which makes it even more amazing that they are 2 and 1.
Click to expand...

No, obvious H2H is what counts the most! lol

I think I'd rather Federer have had Djokovic's year even if Djokovic ends up #2, but really YE#1 is deserved by whoever obtains it. Djokovic already has his reward for winning Wimbledon, his Masters, and other performances. It's all reflected in the points.
 
dudeski said:
I agree. If Hewitt was 5 year younger he would have been Pete's main rival with similar result as we have with Federer vs Nadal. Hewitt probably would end up with around 7 slams and Sampras with 11 but Hewitt would lead their H2H. Agassi might have actually won more than 8 because Hewitt could have taken out Pete a few times and Agassi then would have won those slams.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree Hewitt would have taken that many Majors from Sampras, or that he'd have won 7, but it isn't a ridiculous proposition. His game did counter a lot of those guys back then.

Also, although Hewitt didn't come to the net a lot, he does in fact have very good volleys.
 
It is astounding how Federer has turned it around.

I'm really hoping he does a Jimmy Connors and plays until he's 40.
 
chjtennis said:
Federer is virtually assured of his place in the semis. I don't think he'll lose to Murray like 6-0 6-0. Unless he gets injured, he is through, I think. Let's get ready for Federer v Djokovic final. That should be a good one although this slow court will give a comfortable cushion for Djokovic's game.
Click to expand...

Unless......Stan somehow suddenly rediscovers his Djoko slayer mode again and beats Djoko, tops his group....and Djoko qualifies second and faces Fed in the semi....and the semi turns out to be a battle for #1.....
Very unlikely, I know. But it would be so epic if no.1 goes down to the wire and one has to literally take it from the other :D
 
sbengte said:
Unless......Stan somehow suddenly rediscovers his Djoko slayer mode again and beats Djoko, tops his group....and Djoko qualifies second and faces Fed in the semi....and the semi turns out to be a battle for #1.....
Very unlikely, I know. But it would be so epic if no.1 goes down to the wire and one has to literally take it from the other :D
Click to expand...


Lol, yeah, kinda. But Federer would still need to win the finals if that happens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HunterST
  • Poll Poll
Delray: James Blake vs. Kei Nishikori
Replies
22
Views
3K
Devilito
Devilito
Meles
  • Poll Poll
2015 ATP WTF RR: Nishikori (8) vs. Federer (3)
16 17 18
Replies
894
Views
48K
Sentinel
Sentinel
mike danny
  • Poll Poll
World Tour Finals Round Robin: Andy Murray vs Milos Raonic
3 4 5
Replies
241
Views
13K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
A
Are Nishikori and Dimitrov already superior players than Raonic?
7 8 9
Replies
406
Views
46K
Meles
Meles
tennisaddict
  • Poll Poll
2018 Paris Indoor Masters QF : Roger Federer (3) vs Kei Nishikori (11)
7 8 9
Replies
438
Views
18K
dr325i
dr325i
Back
Top