Federer's Schedule 2018

[Murat Baslamisli]

Is Roger confirmed for Cincy?

 

[Moxie]

Is Roger confirmed for Cincy?

I was waiting for some Feddies to weigh in. He's still in. For sure, unless he's bothered by something, he's playing, right?

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Is Roger confirmed for Cincy?

 

[isabelle]

do you think he'll win ??

 

[britbox]

do you think he'll win ??

Probably his best tournament. .. thus, his best chance to win.

 

[lob]

Probably his best tournament. .. thus, his best chance to win.

It is good practice but it means very little for his USO chances. This court plays very differently from USO and it's a walk in the park compared to Flushing. He's won this 5 times in his past 8 attempts. He has won the Open exactly 0 times in all those years.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

 

[DarthFed]

It is good practice but it means very little for his USO chances. This court plays very differently from USO and it's a walk in the park compared to Flushing. He's won this 5 times in his past 8 attempts. He has won the Open exactly 0 times in all those years.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk

They've made the USO a trash court the past few years and he choked for years on end there as well. It's past time to have a good US Open, it's been 10 years since he's had a good one. Definitely the place he's underachieved most.

 

[Moxie]

*yawn*

 

[DarthFed]

*yawn*

Yawn what? Clearly the play has been slowed down there. But it's fine because Australia has thankfully sped up their courts. As long as there is one fast and one slow it is acceptable. Anyways Fed is historically the 2nd best slow hardcourt player in history, and #1 on that list isn't all the way back to his former powers.

 

[El Dude]

They've made the USO a trash court the past few years and he choked for years on end there as well. It's past time to have a good US Open, it's been 10 years since he's had a good one. Definitely the place he's underachieved most.

Dude, really? He won the USO five times in a row - hard to ever consider that "underachieving." After that, let's take a look:
2009: Loss in Final to del Potro. I suppose you could say he "underachieved" by not finding a way to beat del Potro.
2010: Loss in Final to Djokovic. If I remember correctly, this was the first tournament that Novak looked ot reach a higher level. No shame in losing to Novak at USO.
2011: Loss in SF to Djokovic, who was at the peak of his powers.
2012: Loss to Berdych in QF. This was a bit of travesty, admittedly.
2013: Loss to Robredo in 4R. He wasn't himself, so it wasn't as much about "underachieving" as it was him struggling.
2014: Loss to Cilic in SF. Cilic was virtually unbeatable, so not sure what to say.
2015: Loss to Novak in F. Novak at peak of his powers again.
2016: Injured.
2017: Loss to del Potro in QF. Roger was fading (tiring?) for the year, and del Potro was rising.

Anyhow, I think you could say he underachieved in 2009 and 2012, but that's about it. Three times he lost to peak Novak, once he was struggling overall, once he lost to a player playing his best tennis ever, and once he lost to a rising del Potro. Hard to fault him for those losses. But I'll give you 2009 and 2012.

 

[DarthFed]

Dude, really? He won the USO five times in a row - hard to ever consider that "underachieving." After that, let's take a look:
2009: Loss in Final to del Potro. I suppose you could say he "underachieved" by not finding a way to beat del Potro.
2010: Loss in Final to Djokovic. If I remember correctly, this was the first tournament that Novak looked ot reach a higher level. No shame in losing to Novak at USO.
2011: Loss in SF to Djokovic, who was at the peak of his powers.
2012: Loss to Berdych in QF. This was a bit of travesty, admittedly.
2013: Loss to Robredo in 4R. He wasn't himself, so it wasn't as much about "underachieving" as it was him struggling.
2014: Loss to Cilic in SF. Cilic was virtually unbeatable, so not sure what to say.
2015: Loss to Novak in F. Novak at peak of his powers again.
2016: Injured.
2017: Loss to del Potro in QF. Roger was fading (tiring?) for the year, and del Potro was rising.

Anyhow, I think you could say he underachieved in 2009 and 2012, but that's about it. Three times he lost to peak Novak, once he was struggling overall, once he lost to a player playing his best tennis ever, and once he lost to a rising del Potro. Hard to fault him for those losses. But I'll give you 2009 and 2012.

2009 was a disaster. 2010 Djoker was the semi but Nole wasn't even close to what he would be the following year. That tournament was noted for him having a lot more DF's than aces. That match was extremely low quality and Nadal destroyed Djokovic in the final as expected.

It's not just about the players he lost to (many are historically underwhelming) but the way he lost them, oftentimes against all odds.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Dude, really? He won the USO five times in a row - hard to ever consider that "underachieving." After that, let's take a look:
2009: Loss in Final to del Potro. I suppose you could say he "underachieved" by not finding a way to beat del Potro.
2010: Loss in Final to Djokovic. If I remember correctly, this was the first tournament that Novak looked ot reach a higher level. No shame in losing to Novak at USO.
2011: Loss in SF to Djokovic, who was at the peak of his powers.
2012: Loss to Berdych in QF. This was a bit of travesty, admittedly.
2013: Loss to Robredo in 4R. He wasn't himself, so it wasn't as much about "underachieving" as it was him struggling.
2014: Loss to Cilic in SF. Cilic was virtually unbeatable, so not sure what to say.
2015: Loss to Novak in F. Novak at peak of his powers again.
2016: Injured.
2017: Loss to del Potro in QF. Roger was fading (tiring?) for the year, and del Potro was rising.

Anyhow, I think you could say he underachieved in 2009 and 2012, but that's about it. Three times he lost to peak Novak, once he was struggling overall, once he lost to a player playing his best tennis ever, and once he lost to a rising del Potro. Hard to fault him for those losses. But I'll give you 2009 and 2012.

If you look at them individually, you can always come up with a justification. But, Federer is supposed to be the best
hardcourt player and him not winning even one in the last nine years is certainly an underachievement.

The important point is that if he loses this year it will be La Decima by Federer at USO.

 

[El Dude]

If you look at them individually, you can always come up with a justification. But, Federer is supposed to be the best
hardcourt player and him not winning even one in the last nine years is certainly an underachievement.

The important point is that if he loses this year it will be La Decima by Federer at USO.

Maybe the problem is expectation, thus "supposed to be." In the end, players can only be judged for what they actually accomplished, not what they "should have." Every player has sub-par tournaments and "if only" scenarios. I'm not sure Roger has more than anyone else. Think of all the players who never won Slams but were better than players that did indeed win Slams, for instance.

As far as the last nine years, the fact of the matter is that he was surpassed by two players on slow hards, who won 5 of those 9. And I think you have to look at those years both individually and as a whole. So I do agree that Roger has somewhat "underachieved" in that he probably should have won at least one of those nine, but think it is overstated by those who want to sell a certain narrative.

 

[Jelenafan]

Maybe the problem is expectation, thus "supposed to be." In the end, players can only be judged for what they actually accomplished, not what they "should have." Every player has sub-par tournaments and "if only" scenarios. I'm not sure Roger has more than anyone else. Think of all the players who never won Slams but were better than players that did indeed win Slams, for instance.

As far as the last nine years, the fact of the matter is that he was surpassed by two players on slow hards, who won 5 of those 9. And I think you have to look at those years both individually and as a whole. So I do agree that Roger has somewhat "underachieved" in that he probably should have won at least one of those nine, but think it is overstated by those who want to sell a certain narrative.

It’s “paper analysis” to say he’s underachieved at the USO, 5 USO titles is plenty in any career. Those players who won these last 9 years, Del Potro, Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Cilic and Murray certainly were deserving champions, nothing fluky about those wins.

For arguments sake; Djokovic could be said to have underachieved in the USO with “ only” 2 champs in the last 10 years considering his AO record and overall HC Masters win; but again it becomes a zero sum game of belittling those who did win.

 

[Moxie]

It’s “paper analysis” to say he’s underachieved at the USO, 5 USO titles is plenty in any career. Those players who won these last 9 years, Del Potro, Djokovic, Nadal, Wawrinka, Cilic and Murray certainly were deserving champions, nothing fluky about those wins.

For arguments sake; Djokovic could be said to have underachieved in the USO with “ only” 2 champs in the last 10 years considering his AO record and overall HC Masters win; but again it becomes a zero sum game of belittling those who did win.

This is the post of the day, (and following on to give credit to El Dude, who has been reasonable about what Roger has and hasn't done at the USO, based not on a general notion of what he "should have done," but what actually went down.) I hear often that Djokovic has "underachieved" at the USO, too. And it rankles to a Nadal fan, since Novak has lost 2x to Novak in finals. I don't think anyone is saying that Novak "underachieved" when he lost to Roger in 2007. It's a general purposes comment that doesn't address what happened to say that Roger or Novak should have done more at the USO, and it does demean the players who beat them. Thanks for your very considered post.

 

[DarthFed]

Maybe the problem is expectation, thus "supposed to be." In the end, players can only be judged for what they actually accomplished, not what they "should have." Every player has sub-par tournaments and "if only" scenarios. I'm not sure Roger has more than anyone else. Think of all the players who never won Slams but were better than players that did indeed win Slams, for instance.

As far as the last nine years, the fact of the matter is that he was surpassed by two players on slow hards, who won 5 of those 9. And I think you have to look at those years both individually and as a whole. So I do agree that Roger has somewhat "underachieved" in that he probably should have won at least one of those nine, but think it is overstated by those who want to sell a certain narrative.

Again just look at how he was losing the matches. 2009 he was up a set and serving 30-15 for the second and did an awful dropshot on an easy putaway forehand. This against someone who has done nothing at a slam before or since. 2010 he was a sizable favorite against a weak Djokovic and he played abysmal even before getting 2 MP's. 2011 again was an epic choke from 2 sets and MP's up. 2012 up a break late in first set vs Berd and blows it and loses an ugly match to a 3rd tier player. 2017 loses an ugly match to a 3rd tier player and had an easy putaway on set point in the 3rd set TB.

And the USO is only recently a slow HC. A lot of those matches were on fast hards where Roger has pretty much always been the best.

 

[Jelenafan]

Again just look at how he was losing the matches.

The point is the other players stood up and TOOK the match. Many players are given opportunities and mentally choke but they didn’t; they stayed tough. They WON and Federer lost.

The irony is that Roger has benefitted when other players played badly and I don’t hear that his victories weren’t legit ( Cilic and that horrendous abysmal play in 2017 W anyone?)

But trying to taint Roger’s oppenets’ USO victories is so transparent ; falsely saying he should have won more when he was clearly outplayed.

Sour grapes indeed.

 

[DarthFed]

The point is the other players stood up and TOOK the match. Many players are given opportunities and mentally choke but they didn’t; they stayed tough. They WON and Federer lost.

The irony is that Roger has benefitted when other players played badly and I don’t hear that his victories weren’t legit ( Cilic and that horrendous abysmal play in 2017 W anyone?)

But trying to taint Roger’s oppenets’ USO victories is so transparent ; falsely saying he should have won more when he was clearly outplayed.

Sour grapes indeed.

So your point is that players never choke? Because most of Roger's last 8 USO losses certainly qualify as that. Personally I don't care about the other players and how they performed, I am just talking about Roger doing extremely sub-par at an event that he used to own.

This is a forum and talking about past results, in this case horrible results, are always going to be a topic of conversation especially when the next USO is right around the corner.

 

[El Dude]

Darth, I have conceded that Roger underachieved a bit and at some USOs, but I think you exagerrate to fit your narrative. I'm just trying to bring balance to the Force .

I have also commented in the past that Roger seems to have more choking big losses than, say, Rafa; but this may have more to do with Rafa's nerves of steel than any lack on Roger's part. In the end, Roger has won more majors than any player in Open Era history--including five USO titles--so it is hard to call him an "underachiever," even if you want to build up the view that he "should have" won 25 Slams by now.

I think the reason this narrative is popular among some Federer fans is as a kind of pre-emptive rationalization in case Rafa passes him in Slam count. Fast-forward to 2020 and Rafa has won four Slams to Roger's zero, so the final count is 21 to 20. I can hear the refrains already: "If Roger hadn't choked in X, Y, and Z, then he'd have 25 Slams easy."

You might have to accept the possibility that to all but the most zealous superfans in both camps, Roger and Rafa will go down in the history books as co-GOATs.

 

[Front242]

Darth, I have conceded that Roger underachieved a bit and at some USOs, but I think you exagerrate to fit your narrative. I'm just trying to bring balance to the Force .

I have also commented in the past that Roger seems to have more choking big losses than, say, Rafa; but this may have more to do with Rafa's nerves of steel than any lack on Roger's part. In the end, Roger has won more majors than any player in Open Era history--including five USO titles--so it is hard to call him an "underachiever," even if you want to build up the view that he "should have" won 25 Slams by now.

I think the reason this narrative is popular among some Federer fans is as a kind of pre-emptive rationalization in case Rafa passes him in Slam count. Fast-forward to 2020 and Rafa has won four Slams to Roger's zero, so the final count is 21 to 20. I can hear the refrains already: "If Roger hadn't choked in X, Y, and Z, then he'd have 25 Slams easy."

You might have to accept the possibility that to all but the most zealous superfans in both camps, Roger and Rafa will go down in the history books as co-GOATs.

LOL, not a hope, sorry.