2017 Wimbledon Final: Federer v Cilic

[Moxie]

Regarding this final, I'm mainly disappointed with Cilic in this aspect...This is the first post-match ceremony I've seen in which the runner-up did not congratulate the winner. Or maybe I missed something?

I didn't notice, and I doubt the players do. He was shattered and Roger was elated. Do you think Fed's keeping a petty tally of being congratulated in the sad tennis ritual that is the loser having to give a speech? I'm thinking not.

 

[DarthFed]

Then maybe all of the 2008 and onward decline BS is just that...BS. Just questioning.

It isn't BS. His physical decline is still obvious but he's never hit the backhand this well or returned this well either (though he was great at getting everything back in play during his prime). Comparing Fed to 2004-2007 is apples and oranges, he plays quite a bit differently. And it's easy to see he doesn't move anywhere near as well as before, everyone's issue this year is that he is bossing them around so much that he isn't having to move side to side much.

 

[I.Haychew]

It's not an unfair point from @lob. Do you think a very talented undercard player has the same chance as a top player with a full team? Especially as s/he works their way through futures and quallies? Paying for the travel, and hoping for a little prize money? If you think that tennis is fully equalized on pure talent, you're kidding yourself. The players get it, so they shifted the money down to give the quallies and early rounds more money. Too socialist for you? Too bad. Apparently the players think it's good for tennis. I do, too. I keeps good players in the game.

Then take Nadal's, Federer's, Djokovic's, Murray's trainers, physios, nutritionists, etc. and mandate that they join other players' teams. Is that fair/socialist enough for you?

 

[I.Haychew]

I didn't notice, and I doubt the players do. He was shattered and Roger was elated. Do you think Fed's keeping a petty tally of being congratulated in the sad tennis ritual that is the loser having to give a speech? I'm thinking not.

I don't care whether or not Federer is keeping a tally. I'm just stating that this is the first time that I've not heard the runner-up not congratulate the winner at a major since I've been watching tennis. I'm sure it's happened before.

 

[Moxie]

Then take Nadal's, Federer's, Djokovic's, Murray's trainers, physios, nutritionists, etc. and mandate that they join other players' teams. Is that fair/socialist enough for you?

It's lob's point, and I agree with it that there is a basic inequity in tennis that could allow for some of the differences in circumstances. However, my point to lob was that the mid-high level players have basically the same benefits, as to great teams, and still aren't beating the big guns. My only point is that it's good that the prize money trickles down more, to allow decent players to stay in the game.

 

[Moxie]

I don't care whether or not Federer is keeping a tally. I'm just stating that this is the first time that I've not heard the runner-up not congratulate the winner at a major since I've been watching tennis. I'm sure it's happened before.

Well, I didn't notice, either. If it bothers you, it does. That seems petty, given that you were feeling so sorry for Marin in his tears. If you're going to compound it by thinking less of him by what he didn't say in extremis, then that's your choice. Personally, I think Cilic had a rough day, it was a sadly uninspiring final, but Roger richly deserved his #19. And now I'm moving on.

 

[I.Haychew]

Well, I didn't notice, either. If it bothers you, it does. That seems petty, given that you were feeling so sorry for Marin in his tears. If you're going to compound it by thinking less of him by what he didn't say in extremis, then that's your choice. Personally, I think Cilic had a rough day, it was a sadly uninspiring final, but Roger richly deserved his #19. And now I'm moving on.

It doesn't "bother" me, and I don't think I said that I feel sorry for Cilic "in his tears". It's just an observation. I'm sure his mind was racing, and being gracious in defeat was probably the last thing on his mind. I don't think any less of him. He had a great tournament. He just played a bad match at the worst time.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Regarding this final, I'm mainly disappointed with Cilic in this aspect...This is the first post-match ceremony I've seen in which the runner-up did not congratulate the winner. Or maybe I missed something?

May be he did not do it because Fed won due to his blisters.

 

[Moxie]

May be he did not do it because Fed won due to his blisters.

I really didn't think your problem was the inability to read. We worked this out a while back. Nobody is saying that Roger won because of Cilic's blisters. You really have no heart, or you're trying to stir up trouble where there is none.

 

[I.Haychew]

It isn't BS. His physical decline is still obvious but he's never hit the backhand this well or returned this well either (though he was great at getting everything back in play during his prime). Comparing Fed to 2004-2007 is apples and oranges, he plays quite a bit differently. And it's easy to see he doesn't move anywhere near as well as before, everyone's issue this year is that he is bossing them around so much that he isn't having to move side to side much.

So you are saying that he has declined physically, but improved technically? If so...Is that a "wash", or does movement/physicality trump technique?

 

[atttomole]

There was an article by someone, I forget where, that the topmost guys on the tour have too many advantages. A fantastic team of top physio, top coach, top trainer, dedicated nutritionist, multiple servants, nannies, private jets and residences in multiple cities across the planet. Their fiercely loyal coaching team studies each opponent, match etc. and devices targeted strategies in each match. They travel with their entire tram everywhere. On top of that they have an adoring fan base across the globe to draw support from. On top of all that given that they are very high status celebrities, even non-fans and reporters, are genuinely nice to them and give them attention. They are cushioned from the ordinary shocks, annoyances, frustrations of life that any player outside the top 10 will not be insulated from.

Is it correct to say that none of these practices existed, perhaps even in the 1990s? The talented and highly motivated newcomer had a fair shot. To what extent is this state of affairs responsible for the difficulty of youngsters in breaking through to beat a top player once in a while? Can they fight the pecking order or believe that they can topple someone at the top?

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

That is true, but remember most of them start from humble beginnings and rise to the top. They have to do the hard yards, and they will make enough money to have large entourages. In addition, these players do not have the same talents, so, even with hard work, only the cream will rise to the top.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I really didn't think your problem was the inability to read. We worked this out a while back. Nobody is saying that Roger won because of Cilic's blisters. You really have no heart, or you're trying to stir up trouble where there is none.

What do you mean you worked it out? It is not up to you to work it out. None of us really know the reason he did not congratulate. We can only speculate.

 

[mrzz]

The point of the size of the teams is a good one, but, as Moxie said, guys above #20 have great teams. Hell, you make around 50.000 US$ for winning just one round at a major. A guy living in the 10~20 range can afford a hell of a team. And when one guy starts calling attention, there´s no doubt opportunities will smile for him. I am pretty sure one guy like Kachanov, for example, who is still around #40, being a good prospect might already a pretty good team around him.

And those guys earned all that they have, probably beating people with more resources on their way up. I am sure all this structure wasn´t there on the 70´s, but surely was there late 90´s and in the 00´s.

Anyway, the question is legit, and if one thinks things are too unfair, only one way to solve: change the distribution in prize money. Interestingly enough, we have seen some top players pushing for it.

Edit: Challenger tour paying better would be of great help.

 

[DarthFed]

So you are saying that he has declined physically, but improved technically? If so...Is that a "wash", or does movement/physicality trump technique?

I don't think it is a wash. Back then Fed had more ways to beat you and even if he was off badly he would still win against just about anyone. Now, at his age, he has to play extremely aggressive, first-strike tennis and avoid the long rallies like the plague. And if he is erratic or just not hitting clean it's going to be trouble because he isn't going to win on defense and baseline consistency anymore. Also he can't play a full schedule and still hope to peak for the big events anymore.

 

[MartyB]

Well, I didn't notice, either. If it bothers you, it does. That seems petty, given that you were feeling so sorry for Marin in his tears. If you're going to compound it by thinking less of him by what he didn't say in extremis, then that's your choice. Personally, I think Cilic had a rough day, it was a sadly uninspiring final, but Roger richly deserved his #19. And now I'm moving on.

It was pretty much the first time there weren't congratulations given to the winner. But I agree with Moxie here. Cilic was totally distraught and was very overwhelmed. If it's true that Fed & Cilic like each other then I'm sure Fed's totally cool with what happened here.

 

[Moxie]

The point of the size of the teams is a good one, but, as Moxie said, guys above #20 have great teams. Hell, you make around 50.000 US$ for winning just one round at a major. A guy living in the 10~20 range can afford a hell of a team. And when one guy starts calling attention, there´s no doubt opportunities will smile for him. I am pretty sure one guy like Kachanov, for example, who is still around #40, being a good prospect might already a pretty good team around him.

And those guys earned all that they have, probably beating people with more resources on their way up. I am sure all this structure wasn´t there on the 70´s, but surely was there late 90´s and in the 00´s.

Anyway, the question is legit, and if one thinks things are too unfair, only one way to solve: change the distribution in prize money. Interestingly enough, we have seen some top players pushing for it.

Edit: Challenger tour paying better would be of great help.

I believe they did make some changes in the distribution of the prize money a few years back, when Roger and Rafa were on the board.

 

[Busted]

I didn't notice, and I doubt the players do. He was shattered and Roger was elated. Do you think Fed's keeping a petty tally of being congratulated in the sad tennis ritual that is the loser having to give a speech? I'm thinking not.

To his credit - in his press conference, before answering an unrelated question, Cilic went out of his way to say that in his distress he had forgotten to congratulate Roger and proceeded to do so. Give the guy a break. He didn't handle the moment the best and owned it later. The video is on YT...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Even though I was very aware of Cilic not congratulating Roger, I did not read much into it because the way the interview started, straight into Marin's issues, it was easy for Marin to get side tracked. His mind was already busy with that so no biggie. Plus, I have a feeling , if I was to watch some "first time slam final loser" interviews, I am sure I would see some gems there

 

[Busted]

There was an article by someone, I forget where, that the topmost guys on the tour have too many advantages. A fantastic team of top physio, top coach, top trainer, dedicated nutritionist, multiple servants, nannies, private jets and residences in multiple cities across the planet. Their fiercely loyal coaching team studies each opponent, match etc. and devices targeted strategies in each match. They travel with their entire tram everywhere. On top of that they have an adoring fan base across the globe to draw support from. On top of all that given that they are very high status celebrities, even non-fans and reporters, are genuinely nice to them and give them attention. They are cushioned from the ordinary shocks, annoyances, frustrations of life that any player outside the top 10 will not be insulated from.

Is it correct to say that none of these practices existed, perhaps even in the 1990s? The talented and highly motivated newcomer had a fair shot. To what extent is this state of affairs responsible for the difficulty of youngsters in breaking through to beat a top player once in a while? Can they fight the pecking order or believe that they can topple someone at the top?

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

Please. Those advantages existed for the top guys in the 1990s. Guys like Becker started hiring away ATP physios in the late '80s and keeping them on their payroll. By the mid-'90s most of the top players had an "entourage" as they called it back then instead of a "team." Federer himself didn't really have a "team" until about 2007 after he started working with Tony Godsick. Before that Mirka and his parents handled everything. Actually, I think it was only in 2009 when they started having kids that Mirka and his parents stepped back and Godsick started running the show more. When Tony Roche retired again and Luthi started traveling with him people didn't even know he was Roger's coach. Roger thanked him after a win and someone asked why and he had to explain the Luthi was his coach not just a friend hanging out. Nadal has always had his family there for his base support, too, and of course Uncle Toni long kept the ship afloat even off court. Same with Djokovic and Murray. They didn't all just walk into a world where they had "teams".

There's a Tennis Channel interview special Federer did with Mary Carillo for the Seattle Match For Africa where he talks about how hard it was knowing who to trust when he was coming up and questioning whether people were trying to align themselves with him because of the prospect of the money he'd be making instead of doing it for his best interests. So these guys all paid their dues to get where they are. He even says in the video that he had the best time of his career when he was coming up and getting to play and hang out with his heroes from TV. He didn't say it was NOW when he's made it and has a cushy life.

The reality is - with success comes endorsements, with endorsements comes wealth and with wealth comes a "team." So if players are complaining that the top guys have the edge because they can afford 2 coaches, a physio, a nutritionist\chef, nannies, etc, etc., then I suggest these lower ranked guys work harder off court to position themselves to succeed on court and then they, too, can have these "advantages" and stop carping about the inequality of it. The fact of the matter is - prize distribution is better now than it used to be back in the day. There's more prize money in the lower rounds than ever before but if you're not content with a $35,000 Wimbledon 1st round payday, then train harder and play better so you can reach higher rounds and make more money. That's on the lower ranked guys - not the top guys. Plus, I seem to remember the reason there's more prize money in the lower rounds at all tournaments now is because that was something Federer helped negotiate with the tournament directors on behalf of the players when was President of the Players Council - a more equal distribution of prize money. Kinda ironic, ain't it? Really ironic when you consider that Djokovic later whined that the top guys weren't getting enough of the pot...even as he was becoming the All-time Career Money Leader.

 

[Busted]

I don't think it is a wash. Back then Fed had more ways to beat you and even if he was off badly he would still win against just about anyone. Now, at his age, he has to play extremely aggressive, first-strike tennis and avoid the long rallies like the plague. And if he is erratic or just not hitting clean it's going to be trouble because he isn't going to win on defense and baseline consistency anymore. Also he can't play a full schedule and still hope to peak for the big events anymore.

I don't think he HAS to play that way to win now. I think he plays that way because it keeps him interested and engaged, makes it fun for him - and it keeps the matches short. As he keep saying - its all about health and preserving his body so he can play as long as possible. And he didn't just start playing this aggressively just this year. He started doing it in 2014 when he started working with Edberg. The main thing he changed this year was coming over his backhand and driving it more. He's always been as close to he baseline as possible and looking for short balls to attack, so that's nothing knew.

And really - why get into long rallies if you don't have to? As he said when asked about it a press conference in IW - there are only long rallies if BOTH players want it. Otherwise one of them can get aggressive and take control of the points. I think we're starting to see more and more players trying to emulate what Roger's doing. Some guys are doing it by being more aggressive off the ground and others are coming forward more than they have in the past. They're seeing that if they're going to beat Roger they're going to have to take it to him the way he's taking it to them. It's just - he's better at that style of tennis than everybody else is. Let's see if Nadal makes an adjustment for the American hard court swing...because he's not going to win the US Open from 8 feet behind the baseline the way he did the FO. Wimbledon proved that.