Wimbledon SF: Federer v Berdych

[Busted]

Nice match and a good preparation for the final. Hopefully he plays better than he did today against Marin

I remember in 2015 after he lost to Djokovic in the final, after playing near perfect tennis against Murray in the SF, Federer said in retrospect he'd peaked a round too early because he'd left his best tennis on the court in the Murray match. Hopefully this means he learned from that. He did what he needed to do to win and move on to the final. I think he knows Cilic is going to be a bigger challenge than Berdych. Cilic will be trying to channel his 2014 US Open form - and hoping Roger's as tired as he was that day and isn't playing his best tennis. After seeing the way Roger fought for it against Nadal at the AO, I think Cilic probably has to hope he can win it 3 or 4 and hit Roger off the court - because he's definitely played more tennis these 2 weeks than Roger's had to.

 

[El Dude]

Haha, Busted - I saw your post before you deleted it (is that why you are "busted?'' .

But yeah, Hawaii is three hours behind Pacific and six hours behind Eastern, right now. During Daylight savings it is two and five (no Daylight Savings here).

 

[Front242]

I agree on all accounts. Just pointing out this is a great window of opportunity for him to get #8, not that he won't have more chances. Just probably not any as relatively easy or probable. Seems pretty uncontroversial to say.

But yeah, 2017 AO was my favorite Fed win too. I've re-watched that fifth set maybe half a dozen times or more.

Likewise. The grumpy scowling look on you know who's face as he challenges knowing damn well it was in and then the look at the ground and turn to his box in disgust as he knows the challenge was pointless and he lost. Priceless.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I predicted not only the winner of both SFs (which is easy), but the correct number of sets in both SFs. Unfortunately, these anonymous polls makes it difficult to gloat (is this a conspiracy of the admins to deter gloating?). Fortunately, I posted explicit messages in the threads also apart form merely casting my vote. Also, I can't even find a "pat in the back" icon in the smiley section.

 

[Federberg]

I predicted not only the winner of both SFs (which is easy), but the correct number of sets in both SFs. Unfortunately, these anonymous polls makes it difficult to gloat (is this a conspiracy of the admins to deter gloating?). Fortunately, I posted explicit messages in the threads also apart form merely casting my vote. Also, I can't even find a "pat in the back" icon in the smiley section.

What's your prediction for the final?

 

[Front242]

What's your prediction for the final?

Prediction?

 

[Moxie]

I remember in 2015 after he lost to Djokovic in the final, after playing near perfect tennis against Murray in the SF, Federer said in retrospect he'd peaked a round too early because he'd left his best tennis on the court in the Murray match. Hopefully this means he learned from that. He did what he needed to do to win and move on to the final. I think he knows Cilic is going to be a bigger challenge than Berdych. Cilic will be trying to channel his 2014 US Open form - and hoping Roger's as tired as he was that day and isn't playing his best tennis. After seeing the way Roger fought for it against Nadal at the AO, I think Cilic probably has to hope he can win it 3 or 4 and hit Roger off the court - because he's definitely played more tennis these 2 weeks than Roger's had to.

I think this is a good point, (and El Dude also alluded to it...) that Federer definitely peaked too early in 2015. That's one of the ways I thought his age was showing, a loss of second-nature instinct of when to peak, particularly at a Major. But it may well be that he's wised up about that, and isn't counting on his instincts, but his maturity.

 

[mrzz]

^Nah. I really don´t get this "peaking early" thing. Tennis players are not an exponential infection. This whole "peaking early" is just a narrative that you can afterwards use to explain a loss. How many times top players have kept playing at high level for a long time? Those guys are able to keep playing at a high level, period.

 

[Moxie]

^Nah. I really don´t get this "peaking early" thing. Tennis players are not an exponential infection. This whole "peaking early" is just a narrative that you can afterwards use to explain a loss. How many times top players have kept playing at high level for a long time? Those guys are able to keep playing at a high level, period.

I don't agree that it's just some kind of sports myth. It seems even Fed said it (though I'm only quoting Busted.) Sure, players like him and Rafa and Novak and Andy are just flat better than most, but I think they expect to go deep and try to decide when to expend the energy and when to conserve, how hard to work at a tune-up and when to say it's time to save themselves for the bigger prize. Obviously, match-ups can make a player look different one match to another, but, like Busted, I thought the difference in Roger's level between the SF and F in 2015 was marked. And he didn't play Raonic, for example, he played Murray. Sure, he could have lost to Novak, anyway, but he didn't bring the same level or intensity to that final at all. However, if it's not about peaking and conserving, then Roger could be in trouble on Sunday, if he wakes up flat.

 

[I.Haychew]

Well...I just hope that Cilic has peaked and Federer hasn't.

 

[Moxie]

Well...I just hope that Cilic has peaked and Federer hasn't.

:lulz2: Fair enough.

 

[mrzz]

I don't agree that it's just some kind of sports myth. It seems even Fed said it (though I'm only quoting Busted.) Sure, players like him and Rafa and Novak and Andy are just flat better than most, but I think they expect to go deep and try to decide when to expend the energy and when to conserve, how hard to work at a tune-up and when to say it's time to save themselves for the bigger prize. Obviously, match-ups can make a player look different one match to another, but, like Busted, I thought the difference in Roger's level between the SF and F in 2015 was marked. And he didn't play Raonic, for example, he played Murray. Sure, he could have lost to Novak, anyway, but he didn't bring the same level or intensity to that final at all. However, if it's not about peaking and conserving, then Roger could be in trouble on Sunday, if he wakes up flat.

Variations on level are normal, and, yes, you can be spent after a tough match, but this is completely different than the "peaking" narrative. In this narrative once a player reaches an extremely high level of play, he is doomed to fall sharply in the next round (just like a "peak" in a curve printed on a chart). This is complete BS. Yes, in 2014 and 2015 Federer played worst in the final. But there could be thousands of different reasons to that, and one you cannot forget is that he was simply playing a guy which was playing far better than the guy he faced on the semi.

And there are a lot of counter examples: Take 2012: Federer played brilliantly against Djokovic in the semi, and equally well against Murray in the final. Take all his slams from 2004 to 2007...

Now, change player: Consider Nadal. Take one of the many seasons that he swept the clay season. Where he peaked? He just kept on playing like hell. Or Djokovic in 2011 or in 2015... Or even Wawrinka in his crazy runs in majors....

 

[Moxie]

Variations on level are normal, and, yes, you can be spent after a tough match, but this is completely different than the "peaking" narrative. In this narrative once a player reaches an extremely high level of play, he is doomed to fall sharply in the next round (just like a "peak" in a curve printed on a chart). This is complete BS. Yes, in 2014 and 2015 Federer played worst in the final. But there could be thousands of different reasons to that, and one you cannot forget is that he was simply playing a guy which was playing far better than the guy he faced on the semi.

And there are a lot of counter examples: Take 2012: Federer played brilliantly against Djokovic in the semi, and equally well against Murray in the final. Take all his slams from 2004 to 2007...

Now, change player: Consider Nadal. Take one of the many seasons that he swept the clay season. Where he peaked? He just kept on playing like hell. Or Djokovic in 2011 or in 2015... Or even Wawrinka in his crazy runs in majors....

I take your point, and I don't want to argue it into the ground, because I think it is, as you say, a bit of a narrative, and not easy to defend. I disagree that "peaking" means you're doomed to fail next round, except in the case of the journeyman who pulls of the upset, then has nothing left for the next round, and we've seen that often enough. Great players bring a very high level, and are able to do it for long periods of time. That's why they're greater than the field. To be accurate, I don't think Nadal has swept the clay season more than once. That could be seen as keeping something in reserve, in some of those years. I think Wawrinka is a poor example, because he specifically seems to have geared up to peak for a few Majors. Anyway, I think the contrast in play between Roger SF/F in 2014 to SF/F 2015 was notable. But as I said, I won't fall on my sword to defend the point of what "peaking" means. That's the way I see it, is all.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I believe in "peaking theory". But, it is primarily mental and emotional, than physical. If you give your all out mentally in an SF, it is quite easy to come out flat in the finals.

Also, this peaking has to happen naturally. You cannot fabricate it artificially. Typically this would happen naturally as you are likely to face opponents of greater quality as the rounds progress and so you need to play better to produce a win than before.

Part of the peaking theory is based on conserving energy discussed before. It is unnecessary to blow out the other person by investing too much physical or mental energy when you can sort of take him out without much effort. Having said that, you still want to win even the earlier matches in straight sets (once again to conserve energy).

p.s. It is not so much that Fed played bad today to save the best for tomorrow. Fed just could not do any better today. You might recall that he was muttering to himself few times when he missed shots.

 

[Moxie]

I believe in "peaking theory". But, it is primarily mental and emotional, than physical. If you give your all out mentally in an SF, it is quite easy to come out flat in the finals.

Also, this peaking has to happen naturally. You cannot fabricate it artificially. Typically this would happen naturally as you are likely to face opponents of greater quality as the rounds progress and so you need to play better to produce a win than before.

Part of the peaking theory is based on conserving energy discussed before. It is unnecessary to blow out the other person by investing too much physical or mental energy when you can sort of take him out without much effort. Having said that, you still want to win even the earlier matches in straight sets (once again to conserve energy).

p.s. It is not so much that Fed played bad today to save the best for tomorrow. Fed just could not do any better today. You might recall that he was muttering to himself few times when he missed shots.

I agree that "peaking" is mostly mental and emotional. With a bit of physical effort thrown in, but held back until you really need it. I don't quite agree that you can't make it happen artificially. Especially the top players. I think they know they have to hold back, if they're in for the long haul, and one thing they do well is reserving some emotional investment, when it's not needed. Interesting point about the early rounds: they want to get through quickly, but don't want to invest too much energy. I think this is one of the reasons that the top players are so accomplished. They are just better, of course, but they also have a good sense of how much investment each match needs. That's why they sometimes get caught by an interloper. The lower-ranked player, having 'nothing to lose,' throws everything s/he's got at the match. And often, manages a career-day. The champ, holding something back, can get caught a little in the mid-ground, then behind, then expecting the fold, and it doesn't happen. But, as I said above, that's why the usual thing for the upsetter is to lose next round. They put all of their eggs in one basket, with no mind to how they'd navigate the rest of the tournament. As I've said many times: that's why Soderling gets so much credit. He took his big scalps all the way to the finals, and also to the #4 ranking.

 

[britbox]

I predicted not only the winner of both SFs (which is easy), but the correct number of sets in both SFs. Unfortunately, these anonymous polls makes it difficult to gloat (is this a conspiracy of the admins to deter gloating?). Fortunately, I posted explicit messages in the threads also apart form merely casting my vote. Also, I can't even find a "pat in the back" icon in the smiley section.

When polls are set up, there is a tickbox that allows the votes to be public. Luckily I ticked this one, so if you click on the number of votes, it will show you who voted for it. Your name is on the list, so you can gloat to your heart's content.

Not a pat on the back smilie, but here is a cow pat on the back.

 

[britbox]

Highlights and Pressers:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

When polls are set up, there is a tickbox that allows the votes to be public. Luckily I ticked this one, so if you click on the number of votes, it will show you who voted for it. Your name is on the list, so you can gloat to your heart's content.

Thanks for the info. I was hoping that I would be the only one to get the number of sets right in both semifinals. But, unfortunately I had to share the honors with Moxie. Hopefully, she won't copy my prediction for the finals.

 

[Moxie]

Hopefully, she won't copy my prediction for the finals.

What are the chances? I asked the bookies. They said "nobody cares." :lulz2:

 

[El Dude]

^Nah. I really don´t get this "peaking early" thing. Tennis players are not an exponential infection. This whole "peaking early" is just a narrative that you can afterwards use to explain a loss. How many times top players have kept playing at high level for a long time? Those guys are able to keep playing at a high level, period.

I'm a bit late to the party, but while I agree with you logically speaking, I think there's another aspect to it that you aren't accounting for - which is age. I don't know how old you are, but I think when people get into their 30s and 40s they can still pretty much do everything they could in their 20s, they just don't have the "reserves of youth" to fall back on, so they have to use what energy and resources they have more wisely.

This is why a 35 year old is still capable of reaching peak form, just not as easily or as regularly as he could at 25.

There's this narrative going around that Roger is actually as good as he's ever been. That may be true, but it is only in a more controlled and focused context, and choosing his battle grounds, so to speak. In 2006 he played everything and excelled. He was 24-25 (younger than Grigor, the same age as Tomic), and had a huge reservoir of energy and mental fortitude. There was a sense he could not only do everything and anything, but there was a huge margin of error. Now the margin of error has diminished. At his best, he may be as good as he's ever been (I think he peaked this year at Indian Wells - riding the high level of that 5th set at the AO, but not showing signs of fatigue like he was a bit at Miami).

In other words, older players have less mental and physical endurance, are more prone to injury, and smaller margins of error. They gain a bit of that back due to experience. "Peaking early" is simply using up too many resources too soon, be it mental and/or physical.