Lamest US Open in years??

[DarthFed]

Not happening this time, Roger won't phuck this up. Roger was a lame duck in 2010 Wimbledon and the whole year after AO, the 2012 one was a shock and probably kept Roger from winning that tournament. Roger will step up, also not sure Berd will beat Cilic.

I love your new optimism, Darth, and not unjustified. But why was Roger a 'lame duck' in the 2010 Wimbledon? What does that even mean? He was the "defending champion," win the normal parlance. And what was the shock in 2012 that kept Roger from winning…what? Do clarify.

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

 

[Moxie]

Not happening this time, Roger won't phuck this up. Roger was a lame duck in 2010 Wimbledon and the whole year after AO, the 2012 one was a shock and probably kept Roger from winning that tournament. Roger will step up, also not sure Berd will beat Cilic.

I love your new optimism, Darth, and not unjustified. But why was Roger a 'lame duck' in the 2010 Wimbledon? What does that even mean? He was the "defending champion," win the normal parlance. And what was the shock in 2012 that kept Roger from winning…what? Do clarify.

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

 

[DarthFed]

Not happening this time, Roger won't phuck this up. Roger was a lame duck in 2010 Wimbledon and the whole year after AO, the 2012 one was a shock and probably kept Roger from winning that tournament. Roger will step up, also not sure Berd will beat Cilic.

I love your new optimism, Darth, and not unjustified. But why was Roger a 'lame duck' in the 2010 Wimbledon? What does that even mean? He was the "defending champion," win the normal parlance. And what was the shock in 2012 that kept Roger from winning…what? Do clarify.

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

He was playing poorly at Wimbledon 2010 and all of 2010 short of Australia and the Fall. The 8 months of February - October were comparable to 2013 result wise if you want to look.

Not sure how what I said about 2012 is saying it was on his racquet. Berd beat him handily and Roger was playing well coming in and on the heels of a dominant performance at Cincy and a Wimbledon title. Roger didn't play well that night but the Berd rockets had a lot to do with that. I was giving Berd props there. He deserves props for 2010 too, easily beat Roger there after 7 straight finals, but given how poor Roger looked heading in it was not a big upset.

 

[the AntiPusher]

The only thing that can save this USO is for Monfils or Berdych to win.. IMO.. I predicted Federer to win this weeks ago when Rafa pulled out and I dont see any resaon to waiver.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

Um, you do realize he most likely has to beat NoleJoker to win it, right? And his form has been downright frightening over the past week.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

Darth, You do realize if Fed wins this thing it would pretty much be a very crushing blow to the other tennis fans(Rafa, Djoker and Murray) and will wipe these boards clean because Its all over IMO. Rafa has really just messed up this entire tennis season, look at this tournament, its pretty much lifeless which is might be the reason Lux**Borg created this thread.

 

[Moxie]

Not happening this time, Roger won't phuck this up. Roger was a lame duck in 2010 Wimbledon and the whole year after AO, the 2012 one was a shock and probably kept Roger from winning that tournament. Roger will step up, also not sure Berd will beat Cilic.

I love your new optimism, Darth, and not unjustified. But why was Roger a 'lame duck' in the 2010 Wimbledon? What does that even mean? He was the "defending champion," win the normal parlance. And what was the shock in 2012 that kept Roger from winning…what? Do clarify.

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

He was playing poorly at Wimbledon 2010 and all of 2010 short of Australia and the Fall. The 8 months of February - October were comparable to 2013 result wise if you want to look.

Not sure how what I said about 2012 is saying it was on his racquet. Berd beat him handily and Roger was playing well coming in and on the heels of a dominant performance at Cincy and a Wimbledon title. Roger didn't play well that night but the Berd rockets had a lot to do with that. I was giving Berd props there. He deserves props for 2010 too, easily beat Roger there after 7 straight finals, but given how poor Roger looked heading in it was not a big upset.

I never believe what you say about him playing "poorly," since, by your own admission, anything short of winning is just bad. But who won the 2010 Australian Open? It certainly wasn't as poor a run as 2013. And you do "sort of" give Berd his props, but then you pull back and say, "it wasn't that great of an upset." You're saying that Roger is great, except when he isn't. He has bad patches, so if anyone beats him during those, it's because he was lesser, not that he was bested.

Um…I sort of get that.

 

[nehmeth]

Obviously it's a tough match against Novak but pretty even if the Wimbledon final is anything to go by. Other than that to be honest the only match I'd say is a very tough one for Roger on paper is a potential match against Berdych. I'd feel confident backing him to beat the rest out there.

Novak has to make it to the final. If he goes out at all tentative against Murray he's in for a long evening. Then, if Stan has played himself into form, that could be another long day at the races before meeting Fed in the final. If a few things go his way (like Murray cramping and Nishi beating Stan), I do like his chances against Fed better on the cement than on the grass earlier this year.

 

[DarthFed]

I love your new optimism, Darth, and not unjustified. But why was Roger a 'lame duck' in the 2010 Wimbledon? What does that even mean? He was the "defending champion," win the normal parlance. And what was the shock in 2012 that kept Roger from winning…what? Do clarify.

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

He was playing poorly at Wimbledon 2010 and all of 2010 short of Australia and the Fall. The 8 months of February - October were comparable to 2013 result wise if you want to look.

Not sure how what I said about 2012 is saying it was on his racquet. Berd beat him handily and Roger was playing well coming in and on the heels of a dominant performance at Cincy and a Wimbledon title. Roger didn't play well that night but the Berd rockets had a lot to do with that. I was giving Berd props there. He deserves props for 2010 too, easily beat Roger there after 7 straight finals, but given how poor Roger looked heading in it was not a big upset.

I never believe what you say about him playing "poorly," since, by your own admission, anything short of winning is just bad. But who won the 2010 Australian Open? It certainly wasn't as poor a run as 2013. And you do "sort of" give Berd his props, but then you pull back and say, "it wasn't that great of an upset." You're saying that Roger is great, except when he isn't. He has bad patches, so if anyone beats him during those, it's because he was lesser, not that he was bested.

Um…I sort of get that.

Now you're just being difficult. I don't see how it's taking credit away from Berd to point out the FACT that Roger was struggling with form for most of 2010. Australia was in January, from February - July Roger made the final of Madrid and then didn't make a semifinal of any other event except Halle, where he lost the final to Hewitt. 2nd round loss to Baghs at Indian Wells, 4th round loss to Berd at Miami, loss to Ernie in 2nd-3rd round at Rome, QF loss to Soderling at RG. Roger's form improved after Wimbledon and really picked up in the Fall. Berd still had to go out there and beat the guy who made 7 straight finals, and he crushed him.

My post is comparing Roger with Roger. 2012 was a much different scenario than 2010 and 2014 would mirror 2012 in many ways going into the match. Flat out, Berd had to play much better to win in 2012 USO than he did at 2010 Wimbledon. That's the point I was getting at but you can continue to dig for slights

 

[DarthFed]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

Um, you do realize he most likely has to beat NoleJoker to win it, right? And his form has been downright frightening over the past week.

I'm well aware, but if Roger doesn't make the final then it is a major blown opportunity. If he does make the final and loses to Djokovic then it is still a poor season but at least he will give himself an opportunity to have a good one.

 

[britbox]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

Darth, You do realize if Fed wins this thing it would pretty much be a very crushing blow to the other tennis fans(Rafa, Djoker and Murray) and will wipe these boards clean because Its all over IMO. Rafa has really just messed up this entire tennis season, look at this tournament, its pretty much lifeless which is might be the reason Lux**Borg created this thread.

Not too sure many Andy Murray fans (or even Djoker fans) would see a Fed victory as a crushing blow in their hopes to overturn the 17/18 major haul. I'd hazard a guess it's not something that crossed the radar.

 

[Federberg]

He stunk all of Wimbledon 2010, down 2 sets to Falla, almost went 5 with another nobody in the 2nd etc. And all that right after losing the SF streak to Soderling at RG. I was not surprised to see him lose to Berd that year, even called it close to a tossup if I recall.

In 2012 had Roger beaten Berd I think he definitely beats Murray and Nole in the very windy conditions. Given the confidence going in he probably would've beaten them in any conditions really. That loss was shocking, especially at night where Roger pretty much never has a close match at USO. 2012 is definitely similar to 2014 if it's a match with Berd as far as Roger's results the past couple months and confidence going in. But I think Roger will be more alert and obviously more hungry since he hasn't done anything at slams the past 2 years.

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

He was playing poorly at Wimbledon 2010 and all of 2010 short of Australia and the Fall. The 8 months of February - October were comparable to 2013 result wise if you want to look.

Not sure how what I said about 2012 is saying it was on his racquet. Berd beat him handily and Roger was playing well coming in and on the heels of a dominant performance at Cincy and a Wimbledon title. Roger didn't play well that night but the Berd rockets had a lot to do with that. I was giving Berd props there. He deserves props for 2010 too, easily beat Roger there after 7 straight finals, but given how poor Roger looked heading in it was not a big upset.

I never believe what you say about him playing "poorly," since, by your own admission, anything short of winning is just bad. But who won the 2010 Australian Open? It certainly wasn't as poor a run as 2013. And you do "sort of" give Berd his props, but then you pull back and say, "it wasn't that great of an upset." You're saying that Roger is great, except when he isn't. He has bad patches, so if anyone beats him during those, it's because he was lesser, not that he was bested.

Um…I sort of get that.

Now you're just being difficult. I don't see how it's taking credit away from Berd to point out the FACT that Roger was struggling with form for most of 2010. Australia was in January, from February - July Roger made the final of Madrid and then didn't make a semifinal of any other event except Halle, where he lost the final to Hewitt. 2nd round loss to Baghs at Indian Wells, 4th round loss to Berd at Miami, loss to Ernie in 2nd-3rd round at Rome, QF loss to Soderling at RG. Roger's form improved after Wimbledon and really picked up in the Fall. Berd still had to go out there and beat the guy who made 7 straight finals, and he crushed him.

My post is comparing Roger with Roger. 2012 was a much different scenario than 2010 and 2014 would mirror 2012 in many ways going into the match. Flat out, Berd had to play much better to win in 2012 USO than he did at 2010 Wimbledon. That's the point I was getting at but you can continue to dig for slights

Let's not forget that it was an extremely windy match as well. Normally I would have expected Roger to do well in those conditions, but not against Berdy it seems

 

[DarthFed]

So "lame duck" means he played poorly as the defending champion at Wimbledon. And the usual, "it was on Roger's racquet," except until it wasn't, in the subsequent USO? Nothing to do with all those guys that beat him?

I agree with you that he's looking amazing and confident, this tournament. For sure.

He was playing poorly at Wimbledon 2010 and all of 2010 short of Australia and the Fall. The 8 months of February - October were comparable to 2013 result wise if you want to look.

Not sure how what I said about 2012 is saying it was on his racquet. Berd beat him handily and Roger was playing well coming in and on the heels of a dominant performance at Cincy and a Wimbledon title. Roger didn't play well that night but the Berd rockets had a lot to do with that. I was giving Berd props there. He deserves props for 2010 too, easily beat Roger there after 7 straight finals, but given how poor Roger looked heading in it was not a big upset.

I never believe what you say about him playing "poorly," since, by your own admission, anything short of winning is just bad. But who won the 2010 Australian Open? It certainly wasn't as poor a run as 2013. And you do "sort of" give Berd his props, but then you pull back and say, "it wasn't that great of an upset." You're saying that Roger is great, except when he isn't. He has bad patches, so if anyone beats him during those, it's because he was lesser, not that he was bested.

Um…I sort of get that.

Now you're just being difficult. I don't see how it's taking credit away from Berd to point out the FACT that Roger was struggling with form for most of 2010. Australia was in January, from February - July Roger made the final of Madrid and then didn't make a semifinal of any other event except Halle, where he lost the final to Hewitt. 2nd round loss to Baghs at Indian Wells, 4th round loss to Berd at Miami, loss to Ernie in 2nd-3rd round at Rome, QF loss to Soderling at RG. Roger's form improved after Wimbledon and really picked up in the Fall. Berd still had to go out there and beat the guy who made 7 straight finals, and he crushed him.

My post is comparing Roger with Roger. 2012 was a much different scenario than 2010 and 2014 would mirror 2012 in many ways going into the match. Flat out, Berd had to play much better to win in 2012 USO than he did at 2010 Wimbledon. That's the point I was getting at but you can continue to dig for slights

Let's not forget that it was an extremely windy match as well. Normally I would have expected Roger to do well in those conditions, but not against Berdy it seems

True but I thought it was a decent match, fun to watch. The only things it were missing was a 5th set and a Roger win. I just remember Berd destroying the ball even more than normal and not missing often, going after Roger's 2nd serve with great success and even defending decent. It was maybe the best match I've seen him play.

 

[nehmeth]

Roger needs this and those bozos aren't winning the final against anyone from the other side. If Roger messes up this opportunity it means 2 straight poor seasons.

Darth, You do realize if Fed wins this thing it would pretty much be a very crushing blow to the other tennis fans(Rafa, Djoker and Murray) and will wipe these boards clean because Its all over IMO. Rafa has really just messed up this entire tennis season, look at this tournament, its pretty much lifeless which is might be the reason Lux**Borg created this thread.

Not too sure many Andy Murray fans (or even Djoker fans) would see a Fed victory as a crushing blow in their hopes to overturn the 17/18 major haul. I'd hazard a guess it's not something that crossed the radar.

Agreed, the "crushing blow" would fall squarely on some of Ralf's fans. Novak fans have a slim hope to catch up with Nadal's haul of slams, but not Roger's. :nono

 

[Front242]

Obviously it's a tough match against Novak but pretty even if the Wimbledon final is anything to go by. Other than that to be honest the only match I'd say is a very tough one for Roger on paper is a potential match against Berdych. I'd feel confident backing him to beat the rest out there.

Novak has to make it to the final. If he goes out at all tentative against Murray he's in for a long evening. Then, if Stan has played himself into form, that could be another long day at the races before meeting Fed in the final. If a few things go his way (like Murray cramping and Nishi beating Stan), I do like his chances against Fed better on the cement than on the grass earlier this year.

Greedy b****rd, he won that one :snigger I guess you'd like him to win in 3 this time

 

[nehmeth]

^^^
That would be a 'yes' my friend.

 

[DarthFed]

If it's a rematch of the Wimbledon Final I just hope Roger brings his forehand. That pancake soft baseline play obviously won't get it done vs. Nole even when he has one of his best serving performances ever. If he's going down he better be doing it while being aggressive. Aside from 2013 Roger on his worst day isn't going down in 3 on fast hards. It will be Fed in 4 or Nole in 5 if that's the final.

 

[Federberg]

I really hope Fed brings some of that heavy top spin with high net clearance he's been using in in the early rounds. It's absolutely evil, and easy to miss as he's also been flattening his shots a lot. I can imagine the variation between the two types of shot giving Novak serious problems. But... sigh.. I'm unwilling to get too far ahead of myself. While I don't think this is his last chance, I can't help feeling this is a really really good chance! Just hope Andy and Stan can soften Novak up!

 

[DarthFed]

There is no reason to fear Nole at USO, it's just tougher match than any of the other guys simple as that. It's taken total debacles to keep Roger from being 5-0 vs. Nole at USO. If Fed plays well then Nole will have to be extremely good to beat him. Stan and Murray could also beat Roger in the final. But yes, I will wait till he gets past Monfils before I get too excited. Even a focused Monfils could spoil the party if Roger shows up weak.

I will be happy if Cilic wins though I naturally hate the juice mongrel. I just don't see a scenario where Roger blasts through Berd at this point, and if it goes a tough 4 or 5 then he could struggle in the final if he wins.