Basel 2014 ATP 500

[isabelle]

Happy for Goffin his game is great

 

[Federberg]

The Dimitrov-Federer match was interesting imo. It really told us something about Grigor.

At the end of the day, both these players have some similarities in their game. Now, Grigor clearly moves better at this point of his career and looks a lot like Federer did in his prime, what with the great running forehand and gets. However the indoors venue neutralized a bit of that advantage, and allowed Federer to make up for his somewhat less good footwork, and really emphasized the actual ball striking and timing.

And there you can really spot differences. I thought Federer won most of the bh to bh exchanges. His bh had a little more bite and topspin to it, and really pushed Dimitrov backward. Federers forehand is both more dynamic, and can create angles that Dimitrov's cannot. Finally, Federer would actively take the center of the court and hit balls a little earlier than Grigor. Then of course the dynamic at net was also a big win for Federer.

At the end of the day, Roger just has more options available to him at almost every spot on the court, and it showed us that Grigor, while talented, doesn't quite have that one 'killer' counter that he can go too when an opponent deals with his variety. He doesn't have a Djokovic backhand, or a Rafa cc forehand or a Raonic serve.

Imo that's why he won't be as big of a champion, assuming that he does break through in the next few years.

Ouch... Superficially perhaps. I think that's a bit unfair on Grigor. Maybe it's better to say Grigor looks a bit like Roger when he was baby Fed... but prime Fed? That's a LOT to live up to. I don't see it myself.

 

[Federberg]

He's playing tougher these days. I find myself able to relax and drink my London Pride!

I couldn't agree more. There's something about Roger these last few months. Even when he's losing or having a tough match he's digging deep and making guys earn it. It's great to watch.

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

BS please don't become like another obnoxious poster on this forum. Why does being pleased about Federer's upturn in form have to lead to a smarmy comment about the Fedal matchup? You're better than that mate! I've never got the impression you invest your worth in how Rafa does. You, rightly, defend him from perceived false accusations, but none of this "my guy is better than your guy" stuff. You'll make me believe your account has been hacked! :laydownlaughing

For my part I'm extremely negative about Roger's ability to do anything in those matches going forward, but then I'm the guy who switched my tv off when Manchester United were 3 - 1 up at Old Trafford against Leicester. I would never have believed Leicester would go on to win it 5 - 3. But that's sports, that's why we watch. So you'll excuse us, if we choose to believe that special things can happen from a guy who is still one of the 3 best players on the planet..

 

[brokenshoelace]

He's playing tougher these days. I find myself able to relax and drink my London Pride!

I couldn't agree more. There's something about Roger these last few months. Even when he's losing or having a tough match he's digging deep and making guys earn it. It's great to watch.

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

BS please don't become like another obnoxious poster on this forum. Why does being pleased about Federer's upturn in form have to lead to a smarmy comment about the Fedal matchup? You're better than that mate! I've never got the impression you invest your worth in how Rafa does. You, rightly, defend him from perceived false accusations, but none of this "my guy is better than your guy" stuff. You'll make me believe your account has been hacked! :laydownlaughing

For my part I'm extremely negative about Roger's ability to do anything in those matches going forward, but then I'm the guy who switched my tv off when Manchester United were 3 - 1 up at Old Trafford against Leicester. I would never have believed Leicester would go on to win it 5 - 3. But that's sports, that's why we watch. So you'll excuse us, if we choose to believe that special things can happen from a guy who is still one of the 3 best players on the planet..

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the late stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would at least be a co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

 

[masterclass]

I couldn't agree more. There's something about Roger these last few months. Even when he's losing or having a tough match he's digging deep and making guys earn it. It's great to watch.

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

You're assuming a lot; not like it'll be a cakewalk for either! Both have had trouble just making the semi of late in some majors! It'll only get worse as the years tick on! :angel: :dodgy:

I'm not assuming a lot when I assume Nadal will beat Federer. I'm assuming the norm.

uhh, it's not the norm indoors or lower-medium bouncing conditions. If you are referring to specifically the Australian Open and Rod Laver Arena, then yes, it is the norm since that has fit into category A below ever since the surface changed to Plexicushion, not that his 3 wins vs. Roger there have come easily. And Rafa's wins vs. Roger don't come without cost if they are not played in the finals. If Rafa can get his ball to bounce high it is difficult for Federer or most of the tour to win. He doesn't have the backhand strength of Wawrinka, or other excellent two handed backhands like Djokovic.

A. Outdoor slower higher bouncing surfaces, especially. clay - Rafa
B. Indoors low bouncing surfaces - Roger
C. Elsewhere, toss up.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Federberg]

I couldn't agree more. There's something about Roger these last few months. Even when he's losing or having a tough match he's digging deep and making guys earn it. It's great to watch.

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

BS please don't become like another obnoxious poster on this forum. Why does being pleased about Federer's upturn in form have to lead to a smarmy comment about the Fedal matchup? You're better than that mate! I've never got the impression you invest your worth in how Rafa does. You, rightly, defend him from perceived false accusations, but none of this "my guy is better than your guy" stuff. You'll make me believe your account has been hacked! :laydownlaughing

For my part I'm extremely negative about Roger's ability to do anything in those matches going forward, but then I'm the guy who switched my tv off when Manchester United were 3 - 1 up at Old Trafford against Leicester. I would never have believed Leicester would go on to win it 5 - 3. But that's sports, that's why we watch. So you'll excuse us, if we choose to believe that special things can happen from a guy who is still one of the 3 best players on the planet..

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the latter stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would be at least co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

I definitely agree with you. Slams pose a much tougher challenge for him now. I'm not sure anyone is that surprised given the age thing. For me he certainly has to prove that this time is really different. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that this apparent commitment to a strategy that a lot of us have hoped for for years, means that it really will be different. But the proof is certainly in the pudding. I think the losses against Murray and Cilic are different to the ones against Rafa. Against those 2 guys he was coming off 5 setters I believe (against Murray if it wasn't the round before it, was the one preceding). Against Rafa I get the impression he could have had the easiest match before and it wouldn't have made a difference to a defeatist mindset. I can only hope he plays the game and not the player (to an extent) if he faces Rafa in Australia. To be honest I still wouldn't hold out too much hope for the win, although I would expect the performance to be better if he truly commits (his comment about ditching the strategy against Novak if it hadn't shown signs of success is a bit depressing!). Playing that way though I hold some hopes at the faster slams at SW19 and Flushing. Anyway.. this is all random speculation, we'll have to see. That's sports!

 

[TsarMatt]

Imagine Nadal's face as he was reading through this thread.

At first I was like...

...but then I was like....

Haha! I'm so stupid.

 

[masterclass]

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

You're assuming a lot; not like it'll be a cakewalk for either! Both have had trouble just making the semi of late in some majors! It'll only get worse as the years tick on! :angel: :dodgy:

I'm not assuming a lot when I assume Nadal will beat Federer. I'm assuming the norm.

That is an embarrassing record even if clay matches taken out of the equation! In the past, the GOAT of his era always ruled and had winning records over his closest rivals! Borg owned Gerulaitis, the Bagel Twins (Dibbs and Solomon), and to an extent Connors and McEnroe! Sampras bested Agassi, Courier, and the rest until the end at '02 USO! Neither Evert or Navratilova had glaring embarrassments in their records, BUT Roger and Nadal rivalry is turning into a joke! I gave him every benefit of the doubt, but as time goes on, even when he has a good chance on hardcourt or grass, the results have been the same! Roger's lucky to take that first set taking advantage of Rafa's slow starts! :nono

First, they are both great players. When they are both healthy, their match up is mostly about the conditions combined with their style of play. If it's high bouncing, it is in Nadal's favor against almost everybody, except the strongest backhands, where his tremendous topspin yields the most benefits. If low bouncing, Nadal can lose to almost anybody playing decently including Federer. In those conditions, he rarely gets to play Federer. But those conditions haven't generally been around for quite a while, except indoors, or first week grass, and a very few outdoor hardcourts. Nadal has embarrassed Federer when conditions suited him and the reverse has also happened when they have managed to play. When conditions balance out, they tend to have their best matches. Sampras didn't beat those guys on clay much either, rarely meeting them. Federer seeded #1 was good enough on clay to get to Nadal #2 when playing on clay, but rarely beat him there, because Rafa is simply the best in those conditions of perhaps anyone in history, so Roger's H2H record is made to look worse than it would if he was not nearly as good on clay and had played few times, like Nadal's relatively few meetings indoors with Federer, or 0 times at the US Open in Federer's best years there.

Rafa was a very early bloomer, reaching a high level of play, especially on clay by 18, winning Roland Garros as he turned 19, so he was very competitive as a youngster even with a Federer in his peak. As time went on, Federer moved further away from his peak, while Rafa entered his. Now that Rafa's peak has passed, that age factor depends on which player declines faster, is injured more, etc.

But anyway, H2H is one of the lesser of important factors when considering one to be a great player in this age. It's not the old barnstorming days of yesteryear where they staged H2H battles 40+ times/year in lieu of having a tour of tournaments. The best player these days is the one who can consistently do the best against the field in tournaments. As Rafa said himself, H2H is important in predicting outcomes for a specific match, and he used an example that in football, Chelsea can beat Manchester United twice in the year, when they face each other, but if Manchester wins the league championship, they are the best team, not Chelsea. Everyone knows that Davydenko is nowhere near the player Rafa is, yet he had a better H2H due to their circumstances.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

You're assuming a lot; not like it'll be a cakewalk for either! Both have had trouble just making the semi of late in some majors! It'll only get worse as the years tick on! :angel: :dodgy:

I'm not assuming a lot when I assume Nadal will beat Federer. I'm assuming the norm.

uhh, it's not the norm indoors or lower-medium bouncing conditions. If you are referring to specifically the Australian Open and Rod Laver Arena, then yes, it is the norm since that has fit into category A below ever since the surface changed to Plexicushion, not that his 3 wins vs. Roger there have come easily. And Rafa's wins vs. Roger don't come without cost if they are not played in the finals. If Rafa can get his ball to bounce high it is difficult for Federer or most of the tour to win. He doesn't have the backhand strength of Wawrinka, or other excellent two handed backhands like Djokovic.

A. Outdoor slower higher bouncing surfaces, especially. clay - Rafa
B. Indoors low bouncing surfaces - Roger
C. Elsewhere, toss up.

Respectfully,
masterclass

With respect, if you're going to be condescending then take the time to read. I specifically said "watch Rafa beat him in the semi finals of.....THE AUSTRALIAN OPEN." They've played 3 times there, Nadal beat him all 3 times. We'll both agree that surface falls under the higher bouncing category which suits Rafa. So yeah, as you speculated, that's exactly what I was referring to.

That was my initial statement. But I'll take it further and say that, yes, in general, it absolutely is the norm for Nadal to beat Federer, especially at this point (if all you can hang on to is indoors, then well, you just made my point). You can talk about surfaces and rightfully so (and I think your later post is great, by the way) but the fact is most surfaces the tour is played on right now favor Nadal, period. And that includes the North American hard courts in the summer unless you really would favor Federer against Nadal at the US OPen.

 

[masterclass]

You're assuming a lot; not like it'll be a cakewalk for either! Both have had trouble just making the semi of late in some majors! It'll only get worse as the years tick on! :angel: :dodgy:

I'm not assuming a lot when I assume Nadal will beat Federer. I'm assuming the norm.

uhh, it's not the norm indoors or lower-medium bouncing conditions. If you are referring to specifically the Australian Open and Rod Laver Arena, then yes, it is the norm since that has fit into category A below ever since the surface changed to Plexicushion, not that his 3 wins vs. Roger there have come easily. And Rafa's wins vs. Roger don't come without cost if they are not played in the finals. If Rafa can get his ball to bounce high it is difficult for Federer or most of the tour to win. He doesn't have the backhand strength of Wawrinka, or other excellent two handed backhands like Djokovic.

A. Outdoor slower higher bouncing surfaces, especially. clay - Rafa
B. Indoors low bouncing surfaces - Roger
C. Elsewhere, toss up.

Respectfully,
masterclass

With respect, if you're going to be condescending then take the time to read. I specifically said "watch Rafa beat him in the semi finals of.....THE AUSTRALIAN OPEN." They've played 3 times there, Nadal beat him all 3 times. We'll both agree that surface falls under the higher bouncing category which suits Rafa.

That was my initial statement. And yes, in general, it absolutely is the norm for Nadal to beat Federer (if all you can hang on to is indoors, then well, you just made my point). You can talk about surfaces and rightfully so (and I think your later post is great, by the way) but the fact is most surfaces the tour is played on right now favor Nadal, period. And that includes the North American hard courts in the summer unless you really would favor Federer against Nadal at the US OPen.

With respect, I had no intention of being condescending, nor was I. I also said "If you are referring to specifically the Australian Open and Rod Laver Arena, then yes, it is the norm". Anyway, context can easily get lost or diluted over several posts, so I don't think we disagree on much, since you confirmed that it was about AO.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[brokenshoelace]

Now watch him lose to Rafa at the semi finals of the Australian Open and everyone lament the disappearance of said toughness during another "inexplicable" performance against Rafa

BS please don't become like another obnoxious poster on this forum. Why does being pleased about Federer's upturn in form have to lead to a smarmy comment about the Fedal matchup? You're better than that mate! I've never got the impression you invest your worth in how Rafa does. You, rightly, defend him from perceived false accusations, but none of this "my guy is better than your guy" stuff. You'll make me believe your account has been hacked! :laydownlaughing

For my part I'm extremely negative about Roger's ability to do anything in those matches going forward, but then I'm the guy who switched my tv off when Manchester United were 3 - 1 up at Old Trafford against Leicester. I would never have believed Leicester would go on to win it 5 - 3. But that's sports, that's why we watch. So you'll excuse us, if we choose to believe that special things can happen from a guy who is still one of the 3 best players on the planet..

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the latter stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would be at least co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

I definitely agree with you. Slams pose a much tougher challenge for him now. I'm not sure anyone is that surprised given the age thing. For me he certainly has to prove that this time is really different. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that this apparent commitment to a strategy that a lot of us have hoped for for years, means that it really will be different. But the proof is certainly in the pudding. I think the losses against Murray and Cilic are different to the ones against Rafa. Against those 2 guys he was coming off 5 setters I believe (against Murray if it wasn't the round before it, was the one preceding). Against Rafa I get the impression he could have had the easiest match before and it wouldn't have made a difference to a defeatist mindset. I can only hope he plays the game and not the player (to an extent) if he faces Rafa in Australia. To be honest I still wouldn't hold out too much hope for the win, although I would expect the performance to be better if he truly commits (his comment about ditching the strategy against Novak if it hadn't shown signs of success is a bit depressing!). Playing that way though I hold some hopes at the faster slams at SW19 and Flushing. Anyway.. this is all random speculation, we'll have to see. That's sports!

I think Roger could benefit far more from these end-of-the-year runs he seems to have regularly if the first slam of the season was played on a surface similar to the US Open. To Roger's great credit, he's only lost to 3 players at the Australian Open since last winning it in 2010: Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Hardly embarrassing, but it's actually quite telling: At this point in his career, he's always going to struggle to beat these guys on this sort of surface. He can beat Murray if he's having a great offensive day (and he did, this year) but the other two are always going to be a problem in Australia, and provided they're in decent form, I don't see Roger beating either of them there, especially over potential 5 sets. Had the surface been different then I'd really like his chances against at least Murray and Djokovic (provided Roger is in this kind of form, of course).

 

[masterclass]

We have definitely drifted off topic here. Who is starting the Australian Open thread?

Who do you think takes it between David and Borna? Two young guys looking to rise even higher. Will Borna have a letdown or be inspired by his win over Nadal? Who do you think would have the best chance against Federer/Karlovic?

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[mrzz]

BS please don't become like another obnoxious poster on this forum. Why does being pleased about Federer's upturn in form have to lead to a smarmy comment about the Fedal matchup? You're better than that mate! I've never got the impression you invest your worth in how Rafa does. You, rightly, defend him from perceived false accusations, but none of this "my guy is better than your guy" stuff. You'll make me believe your account has been hacked! :laydownlaughing

For my part I'm extremely negative about Roger's ability to do anything in those matches going forward, but then I'm the guy who switched my tv off when Manchester United were 3 - 1 up at Old Trafford against Leicester. I would never have believed Leicester would go on to win it 5 - 3. But that's sports, that's why we watch. So you'll excuse us, if we choose to believe that special things can happen from a guy who is still one of the 3 best players on the planet..

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the latter stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would be at least co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

I definitely agree with you. Slams pose a much tougher challenge for him now. I'm not sure anyone is that surprised given the age thing. For me he certainly has to prove that this time is really different. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that this apparent commitment to a strategy that a lot of us have hoped for for years, means that it really will be different. But the proof is certainly in the pudding. I think the losses against Murray and Cilic are different to the ones against Rafa. Against those 2 guys he was coming off 5 setters I believe (against Murray if it wasn't the round before it, was the one preceding). Against Rafa I get the impression he could have had the easiest match before and it wouldn't have made a difference to a defeatist mindset. I can only hope he plays the game and not the player (to an extent) if he faces Rafa in Australia. To be honest I still wouldn't hold out too much hope for the win, although I would expect the performance to be better if he truly commits (his comment about ditching the strategy against Novak if it hadn't shown signs of success is a bit depressing!). Playing that way though I hold some hopes at the faster slams at SW19 and Flushing. Anyway.. this is all random speculation, we'll have to see. That's sports!

I think Roger could benefit far more from these end-of-the-year runs he seems to have regularly if the first slam of the season was played on a surface similar to the US Open. To Roger's great credit, he's only lost to 3 players at the Australian Open since last winning it in 2010: Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Hardly embarrassing, but it's actually quite telling: At this point in his career, he's always going to struggle to beat these guys on this sort of surface. He can beat Murray if he's having a great offensive day (and he did, this year) but the other two are always going to be a problem in Australia, and provided they're in decent form, I don't see Roger beating any of them there, especially over potential 5 sets. Had the surface been different then I'd really like his chances against at least Murray and Djokovic (provided Roger is in this kind of form, of course).

Staying off-topic just a little longer, although is pretty hard to disagree in general with all that's posted above, I would like to add the "dynamical" factor: things change, even if slowly. And, oddly enough, Federer is playing better than 2013 and most of 2012, Djokovic is slightly bellow his best (let alone 2011) and Nadal is quite bellow his best. So 2015 could see different things happening. Plus, and that's in fact what I wanted to say, Federer's backhand is in the best shape I've seen in years. I really was expecting to see people talking about that, but now you can see long stretches without a shank or an easy miss. I am not saying that he'll start to eat Djokovic and Nadal alive with his bh, but comparing to previous years it is far to say that he'll concede, I don't know, 40% less free points on that wing. This could make a difference.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the latter stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would be at least co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

I definitely agree with you. Slams pose a much tougher challenge for him now. I'm not sure anyone is that surprised given the age thing. For me he certainly has to prove that this time is really different. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that this apparent commitment to a strategy that a lot of us have hoped for for years, means that it really will be different. But the proof is certainly in the pudding. I think the losses against Murray and Cilic are different to the ones against Rafa. Against those 2 guys he was coming off 5 setters I believe (against Murray if it wasn't the round before it, was the one preceding). Against Rafa I get the impression he could have had the easiest match before and it wouldn't have made a difference to a defeatist mindset. I can only hope he plays the game and not the player (to an extent) if he faces Rafa in Australia. To be honest I still wouldn't hold out too much hope for the win, although I would expect the performance to be better if he truly commits (his comment about ditching the strategy against Novak if it hadn't shown signs of success is a bit depressing!). Playing that way though I hold some hopes at the faster slams at SW19 and Flushing. Anyway.. this is all random speculation, we'll have to see. That's sports!

I think Roger could benefit far more from these end-of-the-year runs he seems to have regularly if the first slam of the season was played on a surface similar to the US Open. To Roger's great credit, he's only lost to 3 players at the Australian Open since last winning it in 2010: Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Hardly embarrassing, but it's actually quite telling: At this point in his career, he's always going to struggle to beat these guys on this sort of surface. He can beat Murray if he's having a great offensive day (and he did, this year) but the other two are always going to be a problem in Australia, and provided they're in decent form, I don't see Roger beating any of them there, especially over potential 5 sets. Had the surface been different then I'd really like his chances against at least Murray and Djokovic (provided Roger is in this kind of form, of course).

Staying off-topic just a little longer, although is pretty hard to disagree in general with all that's posted above, I would like to add the "dynamical" factor: things change, even if slowly. And, oddly enough, Federer is playing better than 2013 and most of 2012, Djokovic is slightly bellow his best (let alone 2011) and Nadal is quite bellow his best. So 2015 could see different things happening. Plus, and that's in fact what I wanted to say, Federer's backhand is in the best shape I've seen in years. I really was expecting to see people talking about that, but now you can see long stretches without a shank or an easy miss. I am not saying that he'll start to eat Djokovic and Nadal alive with his bh, but comparing to previous years it is far to say that he'll concede, I don't know, 40% less free points on that wing. This could make a difference.

That goes back to what I said earlier (though I did state it provocatively): We've seen this before. Roger looks great towards the end of the year, but if he plays Nadal at the AO, suddenly a lot of these improvements are nowhere to be found. It's not for some inexplicable either, it's just his historical struggles to deal with Nadal's spin are just not going to be solved at this point. That ship has sailed. I still think Roger would really struggle on the backhand wing against Nadal. I agree he can hold his own against Novak, but I still think Novak on medium hards is a mighty task for Roger, who just can't attack as effectively.

 

[mrzz]

^This obviously makes a lot of sense. But what I wanted to emphasize was that (at least for me), differently from other years, when he was also playing "great", you could still that the bh was a clear weakness in certain conditions. Is that specific part that seems to be better now. Would he still struggle? Sure, but maybe his total UE count could drop significantly enough to make things interesting.

I do not think nothing is granted on tennis. Everyone was betting his own house on a Federer Djokovic final at the US open, and both of them got beaten fair and square. I insist on the this point (Federer's chances against the two top dogs) exactly because it is intriguing. What is the point in discussing why Federer will beat Ferrer yeat again, or why will Nadal beat Berdych yet again and again and again... 'course the most probable thing is the pattern to hold, but the fun part is (try to) see the little detail that eventually might change things a bit.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

coric roars back (roaring literally at set point)..

this match is fun, loads going on..time to decide who will play in the final. >>>>>>>

 

[Federberg]

I'm serious about what I said. Since Roger got removed from his prime, he's often had great runs towards the end of each season, but those runs don't automatically translate into the slams anymore (which is why he's won only 1 in the past 4 years). This is not a knock on Roger, he's A) The best ever and B) unbelievable to be doing as well as he's doing in the latter stages of his career. However, I think for all the confidence and mental fortitude he's been showing now, he's often backed them with immediate losses at the Australian Open in which he just doesn't look that good (2012 to Nadal, 2013 to Murray, 2014 to Nadal). Two of those losses (the first two), took place after Roger had a terrific end to the previous year.

I might have stated what I did in a "jerk" manner, but underneath I was genuinely putting forth a narrative. And it goes back to what I said a couple of weeks ago when Roger beat Novak in Shanghai. If slams were best of 3, Roger would be at least co-favorite in three of them. But, I think slams are a different issue these days, where he's more prone to having an odd performance (see the Cilic loss at the US Open, which came on the heels of a Wimbledon final appearance and winning Cinci).

I definitely agree with you. Slams pose a much tougher challenge for him now. I'm not sure anyone is that surprised given the age thing. For me he certainly has to prove that this time is really different. All I can say is that I'm hopeful that this apparent commitment to a strategy that a lot of us have hoped for for years, means that it really will be different. But the proof is certainly in the pudding. I think the losses against Murray and Cilic are different to the ones against Rafa. Against those 2 guys he was coming off 5 setters I believe (against Murray if it wasn't the round before it, was the one preceding). Against Rafa I get the impression he could have had the easiest match before and it wouldn't have made a difference to a defeatist mindset. I can only hope he plays the game and not the player (to an extent) if he faces Rafa in Australia. To be honest I still wouldn't hold out too much hope for the win, although I would expect the performance to be better if he truly commits (his comment about ditching the strategy against Novak if it hadn't shown signs of success is a bit depressing!). Playing that way though I hold some hopes at the faster slams at SW19 and Flushing. Anyway.. this is all random speculation, we'll have to see. That's sports!

I think Roger could benefit far more from these end-of-the-year runs he seems to have regularly if the first slam of the season was played on a surface similar to the US Open. To Roger's great credit, he's only lost to 3 players at the Australian Open since last winning it in 2010: Djokovic, Nadal, and Murray. Hardly embarrassing, but it's actually quite telling: At this point in his career, he's always going to struggle to beat these guys on this sort of surface. He can beat Murray if he's having a great offensive day (and he did, this year) but the other two are always going to be a problem in Australia, and provided they're in decent form, I don't see Roger beating any of them there, especially over potential 5 sets. Had the surface been different then I'd really like his chances against at least Murray and Djokovic (provided Roger is in this kind of form, of course).

Staying off-topic just a little longer, although is pretty hard to disagree in general with all that's posted above, I would like to add the "dynamical" factor: things change, even if slowly. And, oddly enough, Federer is playing better than 2013 and most of 2012, Djokovic is slightly bellow his best (let alone 2011) and Nadal is quite bellow his best. So 2015 could see different things happening. Plus, and that's in fact what I wanted to say, Federer's backhand is in the best shape I've seen in years. I really was expecting to see people talking about that, but now you can see long stretches without a shank or an easy miss. I am not saying that he'll start to eat Djokovic and Nadal alive with his bh, but comparing to previous years it is far to say that he'll concede, I don't know, 40% less free points on that wing. This could make a difference.

This might be counterintuitive but the reason why Roger has become less competitive against Rafa is not the backhand. The problem is that he's lost a step which has drastically reduced his ability to hit dominating shots with his forehand. There just seems to be less threat for Rafa to deal with now. What could change with this new strategy is that he develops other threats for Rafa to contend with. Proof will be in the doing though, right now Rafa feels far too comfortable playing him

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Roger's TB streak is intact it seems like. Anyone watching?

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

ok so you destroyed this basel thread with fedal argument. abandon thread.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Man on a mission wins the first set against Dr.