Did Roger Semi-Tank Montreal Final to Zverev?

[mrzz]

"Even the walk around the court was a little bit reminiscent of how Andy Murray was walking at Wimbledon."

Good grief at least he was not grabbing body parts. You´re not helping with this particular one Front!

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

The timing of the mysterious injury is also curious - it came when he was a set and break down. But we all will believe what we want to believe. It doesn't really matter. US Open is what matters and hopefully he will be 100% there. Bottom line is Zverev played a fantastic match. Let's not forget that fact.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

The assertion that he was missing Cincy to do some damage control and give some credence to his (allegedly non-existent) injury is ridiculous.

He is in the running for YE #1 and playing Cincy (and accumulating points) is lot more important than any perceived damage control.
No way would he be missing Cincy to do some damage control and bolster his ego by spreading the false message that his loss was due to injury if it were not the case. Get real.

I am semi-Ok with the initial suspicion of semi-tanking. But, if you don't even change your mind after he withdraws from Cincy and talk about "damage control" theory it is ridiculous.

 

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Federer possibly tanked the WTF in London but played the Davis Cup final. The guy is 36 now. He wants and the public wants him to stay on the Tour for as long as possible. In order to do so he will have to preserve his body and it looked like today he was preserving his body at the end of the second set. Zverev was unbeatable this week. Full credit to Zverev. Fed threw everything at him but he refused to break or crack. Well done.

How do you tank a match you don't even play? And the Davis Cup final a week later and you could clearly see in the match against Monfils - and the doubles the next day - that he was moving stiffly. Man...some of you guys are just unbelievable. Federer's won the Edberg Sportsmanship award, voted by his peers, 12 times...and has never retired from any match since turning pro and so rarely calls for the trainer that when he did it in the Aussie Open final people thought they'd spotted a dodo bird on the court...but you have him tanking matches? Unreal.

 

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Busted, it happens quite a lot this time of year just before US Open. How many finals have we seen close first set and not very close in the second. It looked like Fed was giving it his best but when he blew his early second set chances he became a different player. I didn't see any injury happen, just a demoralized frustrated player. It happens even to the best. Zverev was great today. Just too good. Not insulting to Federer to say this opinion. It happens in tennis on all levels. You give it your best shot and it doesn't quite go your way so you kind of pack it in, and focus on the big picture, what really counts. THE US Open. Federer's effort level definitely seemed to decline from the beginning and end of the second set. That's not insulting to say that, it's the truth. Am I supposed to sugarcoat everything I write about Federer just because he's the GOAT? No. I'm going to offer my honest objective analysis of the match.

Yeah...right...whatever. Not buying it with Federer. We're not talking about Monfils, Kyrgios and Tomic here - even Djokovic throwing in the towel at Wimbledon. And now Federer's out of Cincy with a back injury, so I guess you're going to say he's faking a back injury to save face so he can have an excuse for getting a beat down yesterday? All while ceding the #1 ranking to Nadal without a fight? OK. Alrighty then. Where's the eye roll emoji when I need it...

 

[mrzz]

The timing of the mysterious injury is also curious - it came when he was a set and break down. But we all will believe what we want to believe. It doesn't really matter. US Open is what matters and hopefully he will be 100% there. Bottom line is Zverev played a fantastic match. Let's not forget that fact.

One poster on the forum also pointed it out -- but I do not think it is exactly the case. The game he got broken he was broke to love -- and for me it was the weirdest game of the match. Everything that happened later you could already see on that game.

 

[Busted]

The assertion that he was missing Cincy to do some damage control and give some credence to his (allegedly non-existent) injury is ridiculous.

He is in the running for YE #1 and playing Cincy (and accumulating points) is lot more important than any perceived damage control.
No way would he be missing Cincy to do some damage control and bolster his ego by spreading the false message that his loss was due to injury if it were not the case. Get real.

ITA. This isn't about damage controls. It's about a dodgy back on 36 year-old with a Slam event 2 weeks away. The fact that people are questioning Federer's integrity - of all the players out there - is totally scary to me. He's probably regretting his decision to play Montreal at the last minute after minimal practice the week before. He said he watned to get in some matches because he'd practiced enough this year - well, anyone who thinks he'd deliberately tank and fake an injury in Cincy when the point of playing both events was to get match tough for the US Open is smoking the bad stuff. He said he's playing for titles at this point in his career - not so he can have his integrity second-guessed by arm chair critics on the internet.

 

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

The timing of the mysterious injury is also curious - it came when he was a set and break down. But we all will believe what we want to believe. It doesn't really matter. US Open is what matters and hopefully he will be 100% there. Bottom line is Zverev played a fantastic match. Let's not forget that fact.

Guess you weren't watching ESPN2 because Patrick McEnroe spotted the injury before he was broken in the 2nd set. IIRC it was either the last game of the first set or the 2nd game of the 2nd set. He mentioned that Federer was letting balls go that he'd normally run for and that he wasn't moving well wide to his forehand side. Brad Gilbert was courtside and concurred that something was off.

 

[Front242]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

The timing of the mysterious injury is also curious - it came when he was a set and break down. But we all will believe what we want to believe. It doesn't really matter. US Open is what matters and hopefully he will be 100% there. Bottom line is Zverev played a fantastic match. Let's not forget that fact.

There's nothing mysterious about it. He was serving crap all week and it didn't matter cos the opponents weren't even good enough to beat his C or D game till the final. Clearly a guy belting balls and serving big is a much tougher opponent so he needed to be fit and healthy to win and he wasn't. It also got worse in that match than it had been all week for the above reasons and cos he played consecutive days in pain. Zero mystery.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Front242- People don't like stuff with 'zero mystery'. They don't like stuff being simple. But it often is. You've summed up pretty well

 

[britbox]

Guess you weren't watching ESPN2 because Patrick McEnroe spotted the injury before he was broken in the 2nd set. IIRC it was either the last game of the first set or the 2nd game of the 2nd set. He mentioned that Federer was letting balls go that he'd normally run for and that he wasn't moving well wide to his forehand side. Brad Gilbert was courtside and concurred that something was off.

Zverev was asked and he said there was a clear change but to ask Federer about it

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Players give cues of an injury but it doesn't mean it's a real injury, it could mean they just don't feel like playing at 100% intensity anymore. Sure, the TV announcers are quick to pick up on these subtle cues. Again, who knows for sure. If it was serious, Fed would have called an injury time out. He did not.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Front242; Before the final Fed said his body was fine. No mention of any niggling injuries.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

catherine writes:

Scoop- Not too many players mention 'niggling injuries' before a match. Even if they've got them. Then, Federer may have not called an MTO because he knew what the problem was and didn't think an MTO would necessarily help. A couple of weeks rest before USO more important.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Catherine, not to be lost in this discussion is the truth that Zverev played a fantastic match, handled everything Fed tried to throw at him and he won his second Masters ATP 100 title. Like Zverev said, Let Fed talka botu his injury if he wants to. If not, then let's all give FULL CREDIT to Sascha Zverev for another fantastic, sensational, excellent mature win against the GOAT.

 

[TFBlogGuest]

JG writes:

Federer may be better off in the Grand Slams where you get a day between matches, here he played 3 in a row and maybe on a hard court thats too much, it takes longer to recover as you get older (fact of life). Sounds like not a serious injury but once you get out of your 20's it just gets harder to recover day to day and you arent going to feel great on court every day no matter who you are. On the flip side, there are days when you play and feel like you are 20 again, just the way it goes--i can see Federer being completely ready for the US open and with the days off in between he's going to be tough to beat.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Good point jg. And Zverev is young enough to be Fed's son. Still, we saw Fed throw everything and the kitchen and bathroom sinks at Zverev but the kid didn't blink. He stayed focused and came up with the goods. It was Fed who blinked first. Helluva match and what Zverev did should not be downplayed, discredited or diminished in any way.

 

[Front242]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Front242; Before the final Fed said his body was fine. No mention of any niggling injuries.

You don't want everyone gaining confidence before a slam by announcing an injury mid tournament. That said, he didn't even need to tell the world as it was obvious to anyone watching him in Montreal all week.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Why did n't he pull out well before the final? Why did he try so hard to beat Ferrer if he was hurt? Why did he try so hard in the first set of the final and to get the early break in the second set? You're not convincing me. But it does not matter. Zverev played a fantastic final and won his second Masters 1000 title. And he had to earn it the hard way.

 

[Front242]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Why did n't he pull out well before the final? Why did he try so hard to beat Ferrer if he was hurt? Why did he try so hard in the first set of the final and to get the early break in the second set? You're not convincing me. But it does not matter. Zverev played a fantastic final and won his second Masters 1000 title. And he had to earn it the hard way.

Not sure anyone would say he earned it the hard way. That was an easy one sided final against a compromised opponent. It is what it is but hard it most definitely was not.