2016 Wimbledon Championships Day 6: Saturday, July 2 - Order of Play

[Front242]

Federer is quite clearly not moving well so I don't think anyone would say it wasn't a real injury. Losing to Thiem and Zverev on grass shows how far off the pace he is. Murray will win the title as I said before the tournament began.

 

[Kieran]

We'll see. It's often the case that when the crown falls before them in the dirt, the pretenders wobble. I think Stan losing early was a problem solved for Andy, even though he dispatched him very well in Paris. Stan's the type who flicks a switch. But I agree, Andy seems most likely. Especially since he brought Lendl back on the team...

 

[Front242]

We'll see. It's often the case that when the crown falls before them in the dirt, the pretenders wobble. I think Stan losing early was a problem solved for Andy, even though he dispatched him very well in Paris. Stan's the type who flicks a switch. But I agree, Andy seems most likely. Especially since he brought Lendl back on the team...

Lendl will bring some helpful placebo to Andy but if Andy does win the title they'll be making it out that Lendl was the reason for the win when in fact it was a case of no Djokovic, hampered almost 35 year old Federer (if he even makes it that far to face him) and the rest are a bunch of nobodies on grass. Raonic showed how good he can be on grass for 1.5 sets but won't be able to win 3 sets.

 

[Kieran]

We'll see. It's often the case that when the crown falls before them in the dirt, the pretenders wobble. I think Stan losing early was a problem solved for Andy, even though he dispatched him very well in Paris. Stan's the type who flicks a switch. But I agree, Andy seems most likely. Especially since he brought Lendl back on the team...

Lendl will bring some helpful placebo to Andy but if Andy does win the title they'll be making it out that Lendl was the reason for the win when in fact it was a case of no Djokovic, hampered almost 35 year old Federer (if he even makes it that far to face him) and the rest are a bunch of nobodies on grass. Raonic showed how good he can be on grass for 1.5 sets but won't be able to win 3 sets.

Gee. You're making me nostalgic for 2004.

I think Murray would have had a fighters chance regardless of whether Novak was still in it. I mean, you tipped him yourself, before it started. Right?

EDIT: and Lendl isn't a placebo, these two blokes are obviously very simpatico. Andy has no strange irrational hormones in his corner anymore... :snicker

 

[Front242]

We'll see. It's often the case that when the crown falls before them in the dirt, the pretenders wobble. I think Stan losing early was a problem solved for Andy, even though he dispatched him very well in Paris. Stan's the type who flicks a switch. But I agree, Andy seems most likely. Especially since he brought Lendl back on the team...

Lendl will bring some helpful placebo to Andy but if Andy does win the title they'll be making it out that Lendl was the reason for the win when in fact it was a case of no Djokovic, hampered almost 35 year old Federer (if he even makes it that far to face him) and the rest are a bunch of nobodies on grass. Raonic showed how good he can be on grass for 1.5 sets but won't be able to win 3 sets.

Gee. You're making me nostalgic for 2004.

I think Murray would have had a fighters chance regardless of whether Novak was still in it. I mean, you tipped him yourself, before it started. Right?

EDIT: and Lendl isn't a placebo, these two blokes are obviously very simpatico. Andy has no strange irrational hormones in his corner anymore... :snicker

I definitely think Murray had more than a chance against Novak here but not having to even play him makes it a giveaway at this stage. And yeah, I was expecting him to beat Novak here for once if they met each other. Roger would still be co-favourite if not for his knee surgery and dodgy back but he needs to be 100% fit to dispatch Murray and frankly has no shot against Murray without being able to move properly. The timing absolutely sucks given Novak is now gone. Roger is probably gutted.

 

[lob]

..... Roger is probably gutted.

agree with everything in your post except that. Roger isn't gutted, more like 'you s.o.b, Novak, why didn't you chose one of the last two years to pull this no-show'... still Roger is still having a good time out there...I don't think he walked into the tournament expecting to go far. Of course, he will be very pis#ed for an hour when he loses but he'll be smiling by that evening.

 

[masterclass]

Novak Djokovic is now 4-21 (16%) in best of 5 matches in his career where he has dropped the first two sets.

Of course the 4 he won all went the full 5 sets - Anderson 2015 WC, Seppi 2012 RG, Federer 2011 USO, GGL 2005 WC.

Of the 21 he lost -

1 has been in 5 sets - Murray 2012 USO.

6 have been in 4 sets including this last against Querrey.

14 have been in 3 sets.

In comparison, Rafa is 3-17 (15%), Roger is 8-32 (20%), and Andy Murray is 9-34 (21%) in the same situation.

Respectfully,
masterclass

You missed Novak's loss to Melzer in RG 2010 which was in 5 sets.

I missed nothing...

Novak was ahead 2 sets to love in that one. BTW, he is 180-1 in best of 5 matches when he is up 2 sets to love. So Melzer was his only loss in that situation.

My list is matches where he was down 2 sets to love, like in the Querrey match.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Backhand_DTL]

He won the Nole-Slam, it's not the same as the Grand Slam, which is to hold all four in the same calendar year. Look, I wasn't insulting Novak saying he choked, but it looked like he was flat, listless and unable to handle the big points. He's more or less had it handy for a long time now but it's hard work facing the pressure all the time, and like I said, all the great players have days like this, and more often than not they squeak out the result, like Novak did against Anderson.

Just wasn't to be, and in some ways I think of it as a pity, but it's also an opportunity for other players now...

I don't think pressure played a big role in the loss yesterday but more that after winning so much in the last 2 years and experiencing the highlight of his career by finally winning the French Open Novak was emotionally somewhat empty and not ready to play at his highest level and with the required intensity just a few weeks later.

I thought more of a quarter final against Raonic as a potentially really dangerous match for him but the matches against Cilic in 2014 and Anderson last year indicate that big hitters are a somewhat troublesome match-up for Novak on Court No. 1.

Compared to the match against Anderson I think Novak was playing significantly worse this year (if I remember correctly he was playing quite OK and was leading/having set points in both tie-breaks, so shouldn't even have been down two sets last year), as his return and backhand were nearly non-existent and the serve below average on Friday. Yesterday he returned better but the serve, backhand and ground game in general remained quite shaky and rather ineffective by his standards. In the close matches Novak won my impression often was, that the opponent probably won't be able keep up the needed level or that it's just a matter of time until Novak would shift to a higher gear but even against Simon in Australia he didn't play as genuinely awful at any point as in the second set in this match. That's why I think that apart from serving very well Querrey didn't even have to play out of his mind to win the match and I'm doubtful if Novak could have raised his level enough to contend for the title even if he would have found a way to get through.

For the title Andy is the somewhat clear favourite now as he was much more consistent recently than anyone else left in the draw but he's probably far away from having the aura of invincibility Novak had, so probably many players really think they might be able to win the tournament now.