Rogers Cup, Montreal, Canada, ATP Masters

[The Strokes]

AZ is in Fed's half in Cincy.

 

[The Strokes]

Sure, he's off the drugs lol. And without them he can't move and serves like one of the weakest WTA players.

I said for the truly paranoid. I was just covering all possible explanations ...
If he isn't injured, it is kind of mystifying, no?

 

[Busted]

Actually, I have been waiting for this to happen since Halle.
I did not think Fed looked that good at Wimb, he just didn't run into the right assassin on the right day.
On my previous site, Fed fans were certain Fed would have beat Mueller (they knew this because they played the hypothetical match in their heads and saw it happen). I'm sure they think he would have beat Shap too.
Fed got Polanksy WC and Rafa, Shap WC. I wonder if Rafa hadn't played his 2016 self if he would have beaten Zverev.
Well now I'm talking like a fed fan.
Unless Fed is injured?
Then it's a different story.
Or for the very paranoid, changed his "nutrition"?

No, it was almost a walkover.

I disagree. Roger looked really good at Wimbledon and it wouldn't have mattered who he played because he was dialed in. At this tournament he was coming off a 10-day vacation with 1 week of physical training and very little practice - and it showed.

 

[El Dude]

Why can't it just be old age catching up to him; mon Dieu! Why do we always have to give an excuse to the Big 4 when they lose? Maybe he just got BEAT! Heaven knows he did the same to Nole in Rome! Sasha's just coming of age sooner than we thought! ;-)

I'm not making excuses for him - just responding to what people are saying. I didn't see the match, so don't have an eyeball sense of whether he was hurting or not. My assumption is he just got beat until I read this forum.

In other words, chillax Fiero - you've got the wrong dude

 

[Front242]

I said for the truly paranoid. I was just covering all possible explanations ...
If he isn't injured, it is kind of mystifying, no?

Pretty sure he IS ailing in some way. He didn't move for a lot of balls just like in 2013 and his serve was slow, especially in set 2. May not be his back, could be some stomach virus but it could also very easily be lower back as he was extremely sluggish and rigid and not just today but all week.

 

[Federberg]

I disagree. Roger looked really good at Wimbledon and it wouldn't have mattered who he played because he was dialed in. At this tournament he was coming off a 10-day vacation with 1 week of physical training and very little practice - and it showed.

Actually I have to disagree. I don't think he looked that good at Wimbledon. That was a bizarre tournament and he really didn't need to play to his top level. I don't think he looked as mobile as he had earlier in the year. In the first week I thought he was being cautious because of the slippery grass, but he still wasn't running around like in the earlier part of the year..

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I am not upset so much that Fed lost today. However, it is really worrisome to think that whatever issues he may be having might affect him in Cincy and USO. Hope, it is something mild and not very serious. He was not really trying today. Many times, he was just standing still not even bothering an attempt at trying to retrieve.

 

[The Strokes]

I disagree. Roger looked really good at Wimbledon and it wouldn't have mattered who he played because he was dialed in. At this tournament he was coming off a 10-day vacation with 1 week of physical training and very little practice - and it showed.

Wimb: He only had to beat Raonic--who is really terrible lately, Berdych--who hasn't had a big win in ages, and Cilic with blisters on the bottom of his foot.
Not persuaded in the slightest.
This didn't really look like rusty. Wimbledon was over almost a month ago. But his form here did look worse than Wimb, that much I will agree on.
If it's an injury, then that explains it. Be curious to see what he says in the presser.

 

[The Strokes]

Actually I have to disagree. I don't think he looked that good at Wimbledon. That was a bizarre tournament and he really didn't need to play to his top level. I don't think he looked as mobile as he had earlier in the year. In the first week I thought he was being cautious because of the slippery grass, but he still wasn't running around like in the earlier part of the year..

Good to hear that from a Fed fan. That was also my impression.

 

[The Strokes]

Pretty sure he IS ailing in some way. He didn't move for a lot of balls just like in 2013 and his serve was slow, especially in set 2. May not be his back, could be some stomach virus but it could also very easily be lower back as he was extremely sluggish and rigid and not just today but all week.

I agree he looked physically compromised 2nd set. I missed most of the 1rst set so can't say how he started.

 

[kskate2]

I am not upset so much that Fed lost today. However, it is really worrisome to think that whatever issues he may be having might affect him in Cincy and USO. Hope, it is something mild and not very serious. He was not really trying today. Many times, he was just standing still not even bothering an attempt at trying to retrieve.

It may just be that he is older now. I keep going back to what Chris Evert, Martina and Mac said about getting older. You have more off days than before. Some days you'll wake up and you just won't have it.

 

[The Strokes]

When do the Cincy points come off?
Murray is still sitting there at 7750, 200 points ahead of Rafa.

C'mon take them off already!

 

[Puppet Master]

Good week . I am happy Zverev won, I like him a lot ! Finally some young guys bringing a breath of fresh air to the game.
Roger got his points, played some games, saw where his level is at and I am sure he will step it up a notch to at least B+ for Cincy and hopefully the A game for the Open.
I am seriously hoping PM is wrong though and there is nothing wrong with Roger's back. Otherwise a good week.

I wish I was wrong, but this isn't just a bad level. I have seen Fed play a bad match. There is more to it than that. He netted so many shots. It all points to his lower back which has tortured him since his first slam win in 2003. Let's see if he pulls out of Cinci. The great one can be stubborn, as we all know.

 

[herios]

When do the Cincy points come off?
Murray is still sitting there at 7750, 200 points ahead of Rafa.

C'mon take them off already!

Relax. They are coming off next week.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It may just be that he is older now. I keep going back to what Chris Evert, Martina and Mac said about getting older. You have more off days than before. Some days you'll wake up and you just won't have it.

I have seen Chris Evert say those things and I agree with her in general. However, having seen the whole match I am of the impression that it is not a question of off day but something physical bothering him (just like all the commentators of the match today mentioned). It is there to see directly, especially in the second set.

 

[mrzz]

Wimb: He only had to beat Raonic--who is really terrible lately, Berdych--who hasn't had a big win in ages, and Cilic with blisters on the bottom of his foot.

Thing is this argument is a bit superficial. Raonic is not doing much lately yes, but in that match he played well and it only ended quickly because Federer played better. Same goes for Berdych -- even if was not a good showing from Federer, Berdych had a decent match, and Federer still found a way to win. In Cilic´s case, I agree, not much to show in that match. But I am sure that Cilic´s blisters wouldn´t hurt so bad had he ran away in from in the first set... but he got broken by a backhand flick of the wrist that a very few guys can emulate, let alone in a Wimbledon final.

So, no stellar performances yes, but you gotta give credit when credit is due. You don´t win 21 sets on grass in a row if you´re playing quite well.

As for the final, Zverev level was higher than anything Federer showed the entire week, so he deserved to win, period. Having said that, it is true that Federer was strange to say the least. But, again, his level on the previous matches -- where he was physically ok, wasn´t enough to beat Zverev today.

 

[The Strokes]

Thing is this argument is a bit superficial. Raonic is not doing much lately yes, but in that match he played well and it only ended quickly because Federer played better. Same goes for Berdych -- even if was not a good showing from Federer, Berdych had a decent match, and Federer still found a way to win. In Cilic´s case, I agree, not much to show in that match. But I am sure that Cilic´s blisters wouldn´t hurt so bad had he ran away in from in the first set... but he got broken by a backhand flick of the wrist that a very few guys can emulate, let alone in a Wimbledon final.

So, no stellar performances yes, but you gotta give credit when credit is due. You don´t win 21 sets on grass in a row if you´re playing quite well.

As for the final, Zverev level was higher than anything Federer showed the entire week, so he deserved to win, period. Having said that, it is true that Federer was strange to say the least. But, again, his level on the previous matches -- where he was physically ok, wasn´t enough to beat Zverev today.

Of course Zverev deserved to win, the match was not even remotely close or competitive. I never make the statement "so and so didn't deserve to win" but I might say "so and so" looks better than he actually is at the moment because he isn't running into the danger opponents, the upset makers.
I won't go into the Wimb thing because it's long over. I think Fed got an easy ride, draw-wise.
In MOntreal, Picture what would have happened had he had to have played Shap 2nd round instead of Polansky. LOL!
Zverev's level varies--he was incredible against Djok in Rome; crappy against Fed in Halle (making Fed look better than he was) but very good here, though not at his top either.

 

[mrzz]

Of course Zverev deserved to win, the match was not even remotely close or competitive. I never make the statement "so and so didn't deserve to win" but I might say "so and so" looks better than he actually is at the moment because he isn't running into the danger opponents, the upset makers.
I won't go into the Wimb thing because it's long over. I think Fed got an easy ride, draw-wise.
In MOntreal, Picture what would have happened had he had to have played Shap 2nd round instead of Polansky. LOL!
Zverev's level varies--he was incredible against Djok in Rome; crappy against Fed in Halle (making Fed look better than he was) but very good here, though not at his top either.

Oh, I wasn´t implying you made such a statement... I just wanted to leave very clear that I am sure Zverev deserved the W, but at the same time Federer showed signs of... I don´t know what, but something. Here you need to make yourself very clear that you´re not going into excuse territory....

And, yes, Nadal´s draw was way tougher, I have posted my opinion about that when the draw came out.

Wimbledon, again, not saying that Federer was stellar, but all over the internet (even here, where people are way more balanced than average), I can´t help but feel that it is hard to find an assessment that is not extreme, i.e, either the guy played like crap and only won because the he sold his soul to the devil, or he was to most amazing player of all time. Most times he was simply the last man standing, which most of the times means he was the guy playing better those two weeks. This is basically what happened in Wimbledon, and, believe me, it is harder than it looks...

 

[Fiero425]

Oh, I wasn´t implying you made such a statement... I just wanted to leave very clear that I am sure Zverev deserved the W, but at the same time Federer showed signs of... I don´t know what, but something. Here you need to make yourself very clear that you´re not going into excuse territory....

And, yes, Nadal´s draw was way tougher, I have posted my opinion about that when the draw came out.

Wimbledon, again, not saying that Federer was stellar, but all over the internet (even here, where people are way more balanced than average), I can´t help but feel that it is hard to find an assessment that is not extreme, i.e, either the guy played like crap and only won because the he sold his soul to the devil, or he was to most amazing player of all time. Most times he was simply the last man standing, which most of the times means he was the guy playing better those two weeks. This is basically what happened in Wimbledon, and, believe me, it is harder than it looks...

I went with Roger selling his soul to the Devil earlier this year! :cuckoo:

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am not following what is going on...Roger played a really bad tournament, lost to a good opponent totally worthy of the win but now suddenly he did not deserve Wimbledon either? Sure...