Basel 2014 ATP 500

[GameSetAndMath]

So, Fed wins title number 5 matching the goal he set for himself at the beginning of this year.
Also, he spent less than an hour on court and so should have plenty left in the tank for Paris.
He is now less than 500 points behind Novak. :clap

 

[kskate2]

Nice trophy. Resembles Wimby hardware.

 

[brokenshoelace]

On fast surfaces like Cincy Federer doesn't needed to do anything special in terms of strategy because Nadal's topspin isn't bouncing shoulder height to Roger's one handed BH. Anyone who watched their Cincy 2013 match could easily see the only thing Roger needed to do to win that match was just be consistent and nothing more.

This is really vague and to be honest, kind of shortsighted. That's not how tennis works. You don't tell a player "just be consistent." What does that mean? Play safe and don't miss? That will get you burned againts Nadal.

Yeah, Nadal's spin doesn't sit up shoulder height at a surface like Cinci, but if you're Federer you still need to figure out what you need to do with the backhand. Do you go cross court and play to Nadal's forehand again, and thus get stuck in the forehand to backhand cross-court pattern (which is a losing one for Roger, more often than not, on most surfaces, including Cinci), do you try to hit backhand down the line rally shots to try and find Nadal's backhand? Do you try and hit your CC backhand aggressively and try to take Nadal out of position (kinda like what others do against Nadal)? Do you slice and try to run around your backhand on the subsequent shot? There's still not a clear way. Indoors, Roger can hit deep with his backhand up the line to force Nadal on his backhand wing, before finding a forehand on the subsequent shot (he actually becomes the one pinning Nadal on his backhand side, waiting for the right moment to attack).

Anyway, there's a lot of vague denial centered around "Roger shouldn't be losing to Nadal on fast hards" but I've yet to see concrete reasons as to why other than "Oh, he's just a much better fast hard court player." Well yeah, but that means nothing head to head because the match-up comes into play. And no, contrary to popular belief, the match-up isn't just defined by whether Nadal's forehand bounces high or not on a particular surface. You guys seem to view it this way: "Is the surface high bouncing? If yes, well, Roger is screwed. If no, he should win." Well, no.

Had this been 2006 Roger then we'd be talking. But time to accept reality.

 

[Front242]

The reality is imo that wasn't vague at all. The service game Federer lost in set 2 was just a random lame service game where he committed too many errors and his game plan was working perfectly fine all that match ref'd above till then. If he'd held serve and kept the pressure on he could've put himself in a winning position in that match playing just as he was. He was hitting lots of winners and rallying nice and cleanly all match till that one lapse, hence why I don't think he needed to do anything other than not have lost that service game.

 

[DarthFed]

If Rafa can't bully Roger with the forehand by hitting it high then there isn't much of a matchup issue and therefore it becomes a match Roger should win flat out with having way more firepower all around. That's why losses like Cincy, indoors and yes wimbledon are the inexcusable head scratching kind.

 

[mrzz]

Had this been 2006 Roger then we'd be talking. But time to accept reality.

That's the point. This is not 2006 Federer, but no 2010 Nadal either. And the fact is that Federer seems to be dealing better with time than Nadal. "Reality" says that Nadal is not playing that well for a while, injury or no injury. I am the last person to get in those "he is done" (about any player) bandwagons, but, margins are small. Those top guys are far from "done", but they can be in different relative levels according to their own peaks, and this can surely alter the dynamics of their match ups.

 

[masterclass]

Congrats to Federer on 5th title in 10 finals this year, his 6th Basel title and 82nd overall.
Commiserations to David Goffin who was outclassed and overpowered today. He had a good tournament, and it's no shame losing to Federer who is playing very well since Roland Garros - 36-3 - 92.3 % .

One more final this year and he'll have played in more finals than any year since 2007, when he had 12. He is now only 340 points away from Novak Djokovic in the Year End #1 battle with Nole's 2013 150 Davis Cup points certain to be dropped. Paris next.

EDIT: Fixed Typo - 36 not 86... duh

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

 

[Federberg]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

 

[Front242]

This hasn't been updated with today's win and title but I guess it's 62-10 for the year for Roger.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rb

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

I was complaining abouthe 86-3.

340 is actually right. Roger is currently 490 points behind Novak. But, for YE #1
purposes, Roger is only really 340 points behind as Novak's 150 will be taken off
before YE #1 is determined. Note that this is not a wishful thinking or most probable
scenario. It is a certainity.

 

[masterclass]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

Obvious typo. I've corrected it - 36-3 Percentage is correct.
Thanks.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Federberg]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

I was complaining abouthe 86-3.

340 is actually right. Roger is currently 490 points behind Novak. But, for YE #1
purposes, Roger is only really 340 points behind as Novak's 150 will be taken off
before YE #1 is determined. Note that this is not a wishful thinking or most probable
scenario. It is a certainity.

That's interesting. Why would 150 be taken off for Novak? Thanks

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

I was complaining abouthe 86-3.

340 is actually right. Roger is currently 490 points behind Novak. But, for YE #1
purposes, Roger is only really 340 points behind as Novak's 150 will be taken off
before YE #1 is determined. Note that this is not a wishful thinking or most probable
scenario. It is a certainity.

That's interesting. Why would 150 be taken off for Novak? Thanks

See rankings thread for detailed discussion. Basically, Novak had won 150 point in
last years DC finals. That is counted correctly as part his race points in 2014. However,
those points will go away the moment this years DC finals is over. Note than Novak
is not playing in DC finals this year and so cannot add points.

I know this would look confusing and counterintuitive; but everything is correct
and see rankings thread for details.

 

[masterclass]

Your numbers are wrong, it cannot be 86-3. He has not won that many matches in the whole
year, let alone after RG

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

I was complaining abouthe 86-3.

340 is actually right. Roger is currently 490 points behind Novak. But, for YE #1
purposes, Roger is only really 340 points behind as Novak's 150 will be taken off
before YE #1 is determined. Note that this is not a wishful thinking or most probable
scenario. It is a certainity.

That's interesting. Why would 150 be taken off for Novak? Thanks

It was thoroughly explained in one of the rankings threads, but it's pretty easy.

Nole earned 150 points in the 2013 Davis Cup Final. Davis Cup points drop off at the same stage in the following year. See rule d. here.. Year End ranking is based on ranking points on the Monday following the final eligible tournament of the calendar year which is Davis Cup. So Davis Cup points earned the year before will be dropped. In Novak's case, 150. And Davis cup points earned (potentially 225 for Roger) will be added, and reflected on the Monday following the Davis Cup. So for the Year End #1, for practical purposes, Nole has 9010-150, so 8860 points to work with since it is a certainty his DC points will drop. After the Basel win, Roger has 8520. So 340 difference and potentially more with Davis Cup wins from Roger, but that is no certainty... .

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[masterclass]

I agree. And he's 490 points behind Novak in the race now... not 340

I was complaining abouthe 86-3.

340 is actually right. Roger is currently 490 points behind Novak. But, for YE #1
purposes, Roger is only really 340 points behind as Novak's 150 will be taken off
before YE #1 is determined. Note that this is not a wishful thinking or most probable
scenario. It is a certainity.

That's interesting. Why would 150 be taken off for Novak? Thanks

See rankings thread for detailed discussion. Basically, Novak had won 150 point in
last years DC finals. That is counted correctly as part his race points in 2015. However,
those points will go away the moment this years DC finals is over. Note than Novak
is not playing in DC finals this year and so cannot add points.

I know this would look confusing and counterintuitive; but everything is correct
and see rankings thread for details.

Beat me to it... correct. Thanks.
Confusion always seems to lie with the Year End date (final rankings points date). Many people assume it to be the World Tour Finals, because the trophy has always been handed out there, but that is just because it has worked out that way, where Davis Cup has not made a difference.

And as you pointed out, because Davis Cup is after London, the points earned in the Davis Cup Final go toward the following year's RACE TO LONDON, as well as points being dropped/added for the normal 52 week rankings.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[pavlik89]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyBuv2y1rOw[/video]

 

[El Dude]

This hasn't been updated with today's win and title but I guess it's 62-10 for the year for Roger.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rb

Those numbers haven't been updated for the whole tournament, so he's actually 66-10 for the year now.

 

[Front242]

This hasn't been updated with today's win and title but I guess it's 62-10 for the year for Roger.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Roger-Federer.aspx?t=rb

Those numbers haven't been updated for the whole tournament, so he's actually 66-10 for the year now.

Nice one. Pretty impressive win/loss ratio for a 33 year old

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Rafa can't bully Roger with the forehand by hitting it high then there isn't much of a matchup issue and therefore it becomes a match Roger should win flat out with having way more firepower all around. That's why losses like Cincy, indoors and yes wimbledon are the inexcusable head scratching kind.

And that's exactly the kind of simplistic analysis that I don't agree with. Yeah, obviously, if he's not hitting balls at shoulder height, he's better off. But that still doesn't negate other aspects of the match up, such as Nadal forcing him to overhit, worrying about getting stuck in backhand-to-forehand exchanges (even on a surface like Cinci, that can be a problem, and it was evident last year once Nadal started changing directions and firing his forehand up the line), not being able to do anything on Nadal's serve, being unsure how to return his second serve, etc...

Obviously, the faster surfaces neutralize some aspects of the match-up and it becomes easier for Roger to play "his game," but this isn't 2006. He still gets moved around the court and he can't grind as much, and he's still prone to just making errors. You call the errors unjustifiable, like all other Fed fans, but maybe after 33 meetings in which this happened at least 23 times, there's something more to it.