The 2014 US Open and Federer's Position

[DarthFed]

It really depends on the draw. Fed has some incredible luck the past few months with very favorable draws. However, if he gets a draw with the recent Fed killers(JowillieTs, a resurgent Berdych which doesnt exist) or a cobination of Nadal, Murray and Djoker then i wouldnt be so high on Fed chances. Its all about the draw. We shall see.

His draw at Cincy was pretty brutal tough though he was happy to see Ferrer instead of Novak (who failed to make the final) and it isn't his fault Rafa blows on grass and wasn't there to meet him in the semis of Wimbledon.

I will be plenty happy if Roger gets to face Jo Willie in the USO QF or later... Berd is a different story though it seems unlikely he will make the QF. If he does hopefully Berd is someone else's problem.

 

[Federberg]

I think Nadal2005 may have been referring to his "limited success" vs. Rafa, at least that's what I'm hoping. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit

You may be right. But there've been other comments. In any case, I think Roger's success was due to a bit more than his forehand. His serve for one! Anyway.. no big deal

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Well, his position just got stronger it seems...

 

[tented]

Well, his position just got stronger it seems...

Definitely. Nadal is the one person I would bet my house Roger wouldn't beat in a best-of-five set match. With him out, and the shaky performances we've seen from the other top guys (namely Djokovic and Murray), I'd say Roger has a better chance at this year's US Open than he's had in half a decade.

 

[El Dude]

Yup, although the historical precedents are scary.

33-year olds winning Slam titles:
Ken Rosewall 35 (1970 US Open), 36 (1971 Australian Open), 37 (1972 Australian Open)
Andres Gimeno 34 (1972 French Open)

No other players in the Open Era - not Laver, Connors, or Agassi - have won a Slam after turning 33 years old (Agassi and Ashe both won a Slam at age 32; Connors' and Laver's last were at age 31).

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Well, his position just got stronger it seems...

Definitely. Nadal is the one person I would bet my house Roger wouldn't beat in a best-of-five set match. With him out, and the shaky performances we've seen from the other top guys (namely Djokovic and Murray), I'd say Roger has a better chance at this year's US Open than he's had in half a decade.

Spot on..although, as I pointed out, and it boggles the mind, they never met at the US Open, and I would have put money on it this year the trend would continue if Nadal played.

 

[tented]

Yup, although the historical precedents are scary.

33-year olds winning Slam titles:
Ken Rosewall 35 (1970 US Open), 36 (1971 Australian Open), 37 (1972 Australian Open)
Andres Gimeno 34 (1972 French Open)

No other players in the Open Era - not Laver, Connors, or Agassi - have won a Slam after turning 33 years old (Agassi and Ashe both won a Slam at age 32; Connors' and Laver's last were at age 31).

But if anyone could do it, it's Roger. Look how close he just got at Wimbledon.

He's broken so many records, rendered so many other stats meaningless, that these things take on a different feel when you factor him in.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this age precedent. We live in a world of advanced conditioning. What may have been a limit in the 60s and 70s shouldn't apply now. Granted the greater depth now runs counter to this. But as far as I can see, Roger is still comfortable the 3rd best player on the planet in my view

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this age precedent. We live in a world of advanced conditioning. What may have been a limit in the 60s and 70s shouldn't apply now. Granted the greater depth now runs counter to this. But as far as I can see, Roger is still comfortable the 3rd best player on the planet in my view

agree. another factor is all the older players that did make finals, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi etc, lost to younger phenoms like Mac, Connors himself at 22, Federer. as a matter of fact they were destroyed. The only one who prevailed was Gomez, but that was on his best surface and his opponents worst.

Roger has no young phenom to contend with who has the potential to embarrass him. He can handle anyone out there as equal/superior.

 

[El Dude]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this age precedent. We live in a world of advanced conditioning. What may have been a limit in the 60s and 70s shouldn't apply now. Granted the greater depth now runs counter to this. But as far as I can see, Roger is still comfortable the 3rd best player on the planet in my view

I agree with that, but we're not talking about the 60s and 70s - when 30+ year olds were more apt to win big tournaments - but more recent years. In other words, its been 42 years since a 33+ year old has won a Slam. What that tells us is that, regardless of era, it is very, very rare for a player to be in elite form at Roger's age. Agassi is the only all-time great since Ken Rosewall who was as close to his peak form at age 33 as Roger is. Jimmy Connors, too, but he played his last Slam final at age 31, although continued to make semifinals for a few years after with that famous run at the US Open in 1991 when he was turning 39.

agree. another factor is all the older players that did make finals, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi etc, lost to younger phenoms like Mac, Connors himself at 22, Federer. as a matter of fact they were destroyed. The only one who prevailed was Gomez, but that was on his best surface and his opponents worst.

Roger has no young phenom to contend with who has the potential to embarrass him. He can handle anyone out there as equal/superior.

Except for Rafa and Novak, of course. But Rafa is out and Novak is questionable, so the door is open for Roger.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I'm not sure I see the relevance of this age precedent. We live in a world of advanced conditioning. What may have been a limit in the 60s and 70s shouldn't apply now. Granted the greater depth now runs counter to this. But as far as I can see, Roger is still comfortable the 3rd best player on the planet in my view

I agree with that, but we're not talking about the 60s and 70s - when 30+ year olds were more apt to win big tournaments - but more recent years. In other words, its been 42 years since a 33+ year old has won a Slam. What that tells us is that, regardless of era, it is very, very rare for a player to be in elite form at Roger's age. Agassi is the only all-time great since Ken Rosewall who was as close to his peak form at age 33 as Roger is. Jimmy Connors, too, but he played his last Slam final at age 31, although continued to make semifinals for a few years after with that famous run at the US Open in 1991 when he was turning 39.

agree. another factor is all the older players that did make finals, Rosewall, Connors, Agassi etc, lost to younger phenoms like Mac, Connors himself at 22, Federer. as a matter of fact they were destroyed. The only one who prevailed was Gomez, but that was on his best surface and his opponents worst.

Roger has no young phenom to contend with who has the potential to embarrass him. He can handle anyone out there as equal/superior.

Except for Rafa and Novak, of course. But Rafa is out and Novak is questionable, so the door is open for Roger.

No, Rafa, and Novak are not "young phenoms", they are established rivals.

When Connors destroyed Rosewall in 74, Federer destroyed Hewitt in 2004, etc they were in their initial accent, and were setting new standards for level of play.

 

[El Dude]

No, Rafa, and Novak are not "young phenoms", they are established rivals.

When Connors destroyed Rosewall in 74, Federer destroyed Hewitt in 2004, etc they were in their initial accent, and were setting new standards for level of play.

OK, I hear what you are saying - Milos and Grigor are not taking down Roger. But what you say would have applied a few years ago, when Rafa and Novak WERE young phenoms taking down the established master. Don't forget that Rafa and Novak are of an entirely different generation, almost five and six years younger respectively. The gap between Roger and those two is larger than it was between Connors and Borg or Becker and Sampras, and Roger and Novak are about as far apart as Edberg and Sampras were.

On the other hand, it is admirable that even while a younger generation established a new level in 2010-11, Roger hung in there and didn't fall too far behind, even attaining #1 again in 2012 for a few months. So while Rafa and Novak set new standards of play, Roger was able to adjust at least to some extent.

 

[ftan]

El Dude.. your post makes it even more impressive that Roger is still the 3rd best player

 

[isabelle]

He'll probably reach quarter or more but I don't think he'll win USO (5 sets are too hard for him)

 

[Front242]

That's all up to him and how he plays. If he plays well with few lulls he can beat most in 3-4 sets in the early rounds. Unless he really plays poorly I can't see him having a 5 set match till meeting anyone halfway good.

 

[Billie]

That's all up to him and how he plays. If he plays well with few lulls he can beat most in 3-4 sets in the early rounds. Unless he really plays poorly I can't see him having a 5 set match till meeting anyone halfway good.

Hey Front, you missed the action from Sunday...so congratulations!

 

[Front242]

That's all up to him and how he plays. If he plays well with few lulls he can beat most in 3-4 sets in the early rounds. Unless he really plays poorly I can't see him having a 5 set match till meeting anyone halfway good.

Hey Front, you missed the action from Sunday...so congratulations!

Hey Billie,

Yeah, glad Roger finally won something decent as it's about time with the number of finals he'd lost this year before that. Was a bit shocked reading about the lapse in set 2 though. Losing a 6-1 set to Ferrer doesn't exactly fill fans with huge confidence for the USO though he's clearly one of the big favourites all the same. Not being able to meet Novak till the final is a huge boost.

 

[Federberg]

I always find this amusing - that the 3rd best player on the planet is so casually written off, despite his nemesis being out of the draw no less.

This isn't a David Ferrer (no disrespect intended) we're talking about, but a serial winner. Someone who's won the tournament more than any other in the Open era. He'll probably get taken out by the quarters!? Really so sure?? That may happen, but the certainty in that statement is surprising. I doubt the bookies would agree and those guys are usually pretty smart!

 

[Billie]

That's all up to him and how he plays. If he plays well with few lulls he can beat most in 3-4 sets in the early rounds. Unless he really plays poorly I can't see him having a 5 set match till meeting anyone halfway good.

Hey Front, you missed the action from Sunday...so congratulations!

Hey Billie,

Yeah, glad Roger finally won something decent as it's about time with the number of finals he'd lost this year before that. Was a bit shocked reading about the lapse in set 2 though. Losing a 6-1 set to Ferrer doesn't exactly fill fans with huge confidence for the USO though he's clearly one of the big favourites all the same. Not being able to meet Novak till the final is a huge boost.

Well it is not easy to be so consistent and go deep in most of the major tournaments. By the time they make the finals a lot depends on their physical state as well. I can only look at Nole and see that it is not easy, the guy made the last 4 finals in the USO and only won once.

I think Roger is so experienced and in good form that it will take somebody having a really exceptional day to take him out. Usually these top guys find a way to win matches even if they don't play that well, but if they come across somebody "on fire" anything is possible.

I, of course, hope for Nole to turn the page and mount some sort of motivation and form to win this, but frankly I am not so sure in that. All this said, I couldn't pick anybody else to win but Nole although realistically Federer has great chances indeed.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

For some one with such a prowess on hard courts, it is almost shocking to note that
Nole has just one USO.

But, I hope he keeps it up that way and let the old man win this time.