Early Wimbledon Talk

[Moxie]

Wawrinka has played Wimbledon 12 times. His results are 1R 5 times, 2R twice, 3R once, 4R twice and QF twice. The problem with Wawrinka is that he needs a lot of time to line up his shots. Many players, not just Federer, can take time away from Stan and that is why he has miserable results.

Grigor has reached SF of Wimbledon which Stan has never managed to do so. Further Grigor has won 63% of his Wimbledon matches compared to 60% of Stan.

Annacone cannot produce instant changes in Stan. It takes time for a new coach to change players.

I take all of your points except that Wawrinka is a proven big match player, and Dimitrov plays for the Manila Folders. If Dimitrov goes deeper than Stan, I'll owe you a beer.

 

[isabelle]

d

I don't agree that Rafa is a "serious pretender" and not a "serious contender." In fact, I'm scared of Rafa at Wimbledon. Other than that, I like your list, @GameSetAndMath.

don't be scared of him....another Rosol or Darcis"ll probably take care of him

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Rafa's case is like "I have to see it to believe it". But if the draw is easy, he can be through to the QF at least.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Rafa's case is like "I have to see it to believe it". But if the draw is easy, he can be through to the QF at least.

This year at Wimbledon,Rafa may make believers out of his many naysayers but not Front and Darth ..the distain for Rafa is baked in with those two

 

[Carol]

Rafa's case is like "I have to see it to believe it". But if the draw is easy, he can be through to the QF at least.

So are you very convinced that if Roger would get a dificult draw he anyway would be through the QF?

 

[DarthFed]

So are you very convinced that if Roger would get a dificult draw he anyway would be through the QF?

The draw matters a lot less for Roger than Rafa at Wimbledon. I think that's stating the obvious.

 

[Carol]

d

don't be scared of him....another Rosol or Darcis"ll probably take care of him

Or maybe they should be more scared of this one......

 

[Carol]

The draw matters a lot less for Roger than Rafa at Wimbledon. I think that's stating the obvious.

I'm not sure about that

 

[Moxie]

I'm not sure about that

Oh, come on. While Rafa is going to be fresher and hopefully healthier than he's been for Wimbledon in a while, he is going to be vulnerable the first week, more so than Roger, and he'll be hoping to avoid some of the dangerous floaters more than Roger will have to worry about them on the grass. That's been true for some years now.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not sure about that

Who has won this one 7 times which some might consider an underachievement considering how poorly he has played in multiple finals? The other one has 2 wins which is probably more than he should've won given that he has lost 4 straight times to guys ranked outside the top 100 when he's played. If Roger plays half decent it's enough to make the semis, if he plays well he wins the event, simple as that. There is no one on tour that "should" beat him on grass right now.

 

[Moxie]

Who has won this one 7 times which some might consider an underachievement considering how poorly he has played in multiple finals? The other one has 2 wins which is probably more than he should've won given that he has lost 4 straight times to guys ranked outside the top 100 when he's played. If Roger plays half decent it's enough to make the semis, if he plays well he wins the event, simple as that. There is no one on tour that "should" beat him on grass right now.

You're as bad as she is. Roger didn't really play "badly" in any finals. Maybe 2015 wasn't his best showing, but you can't say Djokovic wasn't the better player at that time. And Rafa deserved his wins. Had a good shot at Federer in 2007 final, too, but kinda blew it.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger was God awful in the 2015 final and mediocre at best in 2008. I'd say he was also sub par in 2004 and 2009 at the very least, both winnable matches for Roddick. 2014 was different, tremendous match from Djoker to barely get past a 33 year old Fed, I thought Roger acquitted himself well that day.

All you have to do is look around and see Rafa at 10-0 in RG finals, Sampras 7-0 in Wimbledon, Borg 6-0 at RG, and Djoker 6-0 at AO. Fed clearly hasn't brought it well on the big stage at his best event. 9-1 would be acceptable in 10 finals.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure about that

Carol, you always find a way to up the level of silliness where Rafa's concerned. You might have noted that I said I'm scared of him this Wimbledon and see him as one of three favorites, if a bit behind Roger and Andy. So please note that I'm giving him much better chances than most. But to say that the draw doesn't matter in the early rounds for him any more than Roger is just silly.

Consider their records at Wimbledon over the last five years:

Roger: 25-4...one W, two Fs, one SF, one 2R (losses to Djokovic x2, Cilic, Stakhovsky)
Rafa: 5-4...one 4R, two 2R, one 1R (losses to Kyrgios, Darcis, Brown, Rosol)

Roger lost twice to peak Novak, once each to Cilic and Stakhovsky in years when he was struggling with injury issues. Meanwhile, Rafa lost four times to players outside the top 100 and was, as far as I remember, healthy each time.

If Roger throws off the rust and returns to his form from earlier this year, he is the favorite to win Wimbledon. I mean, who would be able to beat him? Unless Novak finds his peak form, I don't see anyone capable of beating this version of Roger on grass - or at least no one with more than a slight chance. Rafa could do it, but would need Roger to struggle; he wouldn't be able to beat the version of Roger he lost to three times earlier this year. Similarly with Andy. He only beats Roger if Roger is struggling for some reason. Again, the only player who has a legit shot at beating the 2017 version of Roger on grass is Novak, but only if Novak returns to 2011-15 form.

That said, a few players that could be really dangerous are Kyrgios, Zverev, and slightly less so Raonic. I don't think any of them are able to win Wimbledon yet, but they'd be very tough 4R/QF floaters that could beat anyone on a good day.

 

[El Dude]

Roger was God awful in the 2015 final and mediocre at best in 2008. I'd say he was also sub par in 2004 and 2009 at the very least, both winnable matches for Roddick. 2014 was different, tremendous match from Djoker to barely get past a 33 year old Fed, I thought Roger acquitted himself well that day.

All you have to do is look around and see Rafa at 10-0 in RG finals, Sampras 7-0 in Wimbledon, Borg 6-0 at RG, and Djoker 6-0 at AO. Fed clearly hasn't brought it well on the big stage at his best event. 9-1 would be acceptable in 10 finals.

Darth, I agree that Roger was bad in 2015. That was the year he utterly demolished Andy in the SF and if he had translated that form to the Final, he would have beaten Novak. But he stumbled and just couldn't match Novak. 2008 was so close that either player could have won. Rafa was surging and Roger was slipping a bit, so Rafa took it. But either could have won that match.

7-3 isn't so bad. In fact, it is better than 7-0. I call it the "Lendl Principle": better to reach a final and lose than not reach it at all.

 

[DarthFed]

Yes but the point stands that he hasn't brought it well on the final Sunday at Wimbledon. 7-3 on the best surface for someone of his stature is bad at best

 

[Moxie]

Darth, I agree that Roger was bad in 2015. That was the year he utterly demolished Andy in the SF and if he had translated that form to the Final, he would have beaten Novak. But he stumbled and just couldn't match Novak. 2008 was so close that either player could have won. Rafa was surging and Roger was slipping a bit, so Rafa took it. But either could have won that match.

7-3 isn't so bad. In fact, it is better than 7-0. I call it the "Lendl Principle": better to reach a final and lose than not reach it at all.

I did think he was going to win, after his SF performance against Murray. I was surprised how much farther down his level was in that final. I thought maybe at his age he'd lost the ability to peak at the right moment. Had he played as well in the final, I'd say he could have beaten Novak, for sure.

 

[Moxie]

Yes but the point stands that he hasn't brought it well on the final Sunday at Wimbledon. 7-3 on the best surface for someone of his stature is bad at best

It's very fannish and wrong to believe, as I know you do, that the only reason Roger ever lost a final at Wimbledon is down to him. You really have to give credit to the person on the other side of the net.

 

[DarthFed]

I gave credit to Nole for 2014, i wasn't even slightly disappointed in Roger's play that day, Nole called it the best match he'd been a part of and I'd agree. I don't think Nole was particularly great in the 2015 match as he didn't need to be. And 2008 Rafa was nothing special, it was a terrible first couple sets and Roger blinked in set 5 with crazy amounts of errors and all around was unclutch aside from two good tiebreaks

 

[El Dude]

Yes but the point stands that he hasn't brought it well on the final Sunday at Wimbledon. 7-3 on the best surface for someone of his stature is bad at best

I just disagree, Darth. First of all, two of those finals came when he was 32 and 33 years old (and almost 33/34). Sampras was 7-0, but his last Wimbledon final was at age 28; he two Wimbledons after that were 4R and 2R defeats. As you know, Sampras retired right after turning 31. You're penalizing Roger for reaching (but losing in) finals at an age when Sampras had been retired for two or three years.

Similarly with Borg. There is a mystique of "what could have been" about Borg because he retired so young, but the other side of this is that he retired just when he was starting to slip, so his career stats aren't marred by decline. This goes for his overall win percentage, his Slam records, etc. He probably could have won two or three, even four more Slams, but he probably would have lost more finals and performed worse at age 26-30ish than he did in his prime, bringing his rate stats down.

And Novak at Oz is still being written. Either he does a Sampras and never reaches another final, or he does a Roger and maybe wins one or two more, but also loses some as he ages.

Rafa at Roland Garros is just a different category. I think the only way he would have ever lost a final there is if he had faced Novak in the finals in 2015. He wasn't beating Novak in 2015-16 no matter what. I also wouldn't be surprised if he loses in a final coming up - maybe to Thiem next year.

 

[El Dude]

All that said, I do agree that Roger isn't quite as strong a competitor as Rafa or Novak at his best. Meaning, while I think Roger is at least as talented and skilled as any player ever--and possibly more so than any player--I do think Rafa has the edge on him in terms of pure competitive spirit and grit, and probably Novak at his best. Meaning, Roger is more likely to play below his best level in the most crucial moment than Rafa or Novak.

I've put forth the theory that part of this may have to do with temperament, but it might also have to do with the very different context in which the three of them first peaked. When Roger came into his own in late 2003 and 2004, he quickly separated himself from the pack of his peers and was unchallenged by anyone until Rafa came along, and then for awhile mostly on clay, until 2008 when Roger started slipping.

Both Rafa and Novak had to fight their way to the top past other great players. Roger just had to separate himself from a talented group of peers, but none of whom were truly great players. The only other great player in 2004 was a 34-year old Andre Agassi. Roger's greatness was forged through fighting off lesser peers, while Rafa's and Novak's greatness was forged through fighting past other great players.