Your expectations from Dimitrov in USO series?

[Moxie]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

In one Olympics, Fed lost the semifinals and then the bronze match (if I
remember right) and given that he had no medals in Olympics singles
at that time and given that there is a possibility of that happening again
(as the loser's match was also on the next day), Fed put all his heart and
mind to ensure the he wins against JMDP at any cost. The cost in this case
was being unable to give a good fight in the finals.

Although me and Front are talking about Fed's fatigue, Fed himself did
not say anything about physical fatigue in his post-match interview. But,
he did explicitly mention that he had mental fatigue.

The Olympics was in a 3-set format, which means, yes, you play the final the day after the semi-final. And yes, Roger played a grueling semi against Del Potro. He fought for that match because he wanted to win the Gold Medal. Your notion above, which I bolded, that he "gave up" on the final is spurious, and unfounded by anything he's ever said, before or since, about wanting to win the gold medal. This gets back to tented's thread about "excuse-making." While there can be "extenuating circumstances" in matches as to why someone lost, to say Roger 'gave up' is a bit of a howler, and frankly, sounds like an "excuse."

I actually think that final at the Olympics was a great example of tented's thesis that there are reasons that a great player loses without it being an excuse...because it can be complicated. Murray had just lost a heartbreaker at Wimbledon to Federer in the exact same place. Both are great on grass. Federer was fatigued from a huge battle the previous day, yes, but Murray was also encouraged by a big win over Djokovic. And he was working hard to get a monkey off his back. Federer's loss in that match is not merely down to his fatigue. It also had much to do with Murray's conviction to win it. We know that Roger could have beaten 98% of the field on grass, so it's not like Andy was merely toying with him. You really have to take the full narrative on board when assessing the match. It's not just about one player.

 

[Fastgrass]

The Olympics was in a 3-set format, which means, yes, you play the final the day after the semi-final. And yes, Roger played a grueling semi against Del Potro. He fought for that match because he wanted to win the Gold Medal. Your notion above, which I bolded, that he "gave up" on the final is spurious, and unfounded by anything he's ever said, before or since, about wanting to win the gold medal. This gets back to tented's thread about "excuse-making." While there can be "extenuating circumstances" in matches as to why someone lost, to say Roger 'gave up' is a bit of a howler, and frankly, sounds like an "excuse."

Roger didn't give it fanboyo, he wasn't physically 100% since you know it why.

and "45 minutes before match doesn't sounds like excuse, since Murray is 7 yo. kid still living with moma so it wasn't expected from him being mentally tough. :lolz:

I actually think that final at the Olympics was a great example of tented's thesis that there are reasons that a great player loses without it being an excuse...because
it can be complicated. Murray had just lost a heartbreaker at Wimbledon to Federer in the exact same place. Both are great on grass. Federer was fatigued from a huge battle the previous day, yes, but Murray was also encouraged by a big win over Djokovic. And he was working hard to get a monkey off his back. Federer's loss in that match is not merely down to his fatigue. It also had much to do with Murray's conviction to win it. We know that Roger could have beaten 98% of the field on grass, so it's not like Andy was merely toying with him. You really have to take the full narrative on board when assessing the match. It's not just about one player.

There is virtually no reason to believe Murray was capable of beating Fed in Bo5 since 1 month earlier Federer took him out comfortably on same court and Still Fed owns Murray in slams with 4-1 record. In Bo3 Murray has defeated Fed multiple times but in Bo5 he got benefited from tired Fed and not to mention post prime Fed. No one could improve to such extent within just month. Fed had nothing in his tank left for finals so why Murray, any top player even like Gasquet would've finished exhausted Roger.

At Olympics Delpo while at Ao 13 Tsonga did it for Murray. It's fair assumption 17 time major champ could beat 2 time major champ whenever he wants if he's physically 100%. Murray's form was never factor since match always on Fed's racquet particularly against Murray as he unquestionably better player than Murray even at 31! and still at 33!

Murray deserved OG since it was not his fault but while analysing that victory, Roger's inability to give his best rather than Murray's excellence was deciding factor IMO since if Murray has that level of skills he wouldn't have smoked by Dimitrov in his prime on grass simple as that.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

For London 2012 that's wrong, as the semi finals were on Friday and the final was on Sunday. I think on Saturday just the gold and bronze medal matches for the women and some doubles and mixed doubles took place. Before the final most thought Roger would be OK due to the day off and because in the match against Del Potro a lot of points were won with the serve, so there were just a few longer rallies.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

 

[Fastgrass]

For London 2012 that's wrong, as the semi finals were on Friday and the final was on Sunday. I think on Saturday just the gold and bronze medal matches for the women and some doubles and mixed doubles took place. Before the final most thought Roger would be OK due to the day off and because in the match against Del Potro a lot of points were won with the serve, so there were just a few longer rallies.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

2 days break is enough for physical beasts like Djokovic, nadal to get ready for another 4 hr. epic. Fed was never that kind of player even in his prime, so it was not fair to expect him to do it at 31 being father of two. Younger players always have advantage in physical department. Rush Murray for 4 hours at 30 and make him play 25 yo Dimitrov in his peak, and guess the score! I believe it would be 6-1 6-0 6-2 beat down since fresh 27 yo prime Murray could win only 9 games against Dimitrov yet to hit peak.

 

[DarthFed]

I always hated the "fatigue" excuse more than anything. The reason Roger was fatigued is that he couldn't take care of DP in less than 4 hours. On the other hand Murray beat a much better player than DP in straight sets. If Roger takes care of DP in straightforward fashion (as he should on grass) then he may have arrived in better shape.

Same deal at AO 2013, no way Roger should be going 5 with Tsonga and so you can't complain about fatigue if you take forever to finish off a lesser player the round before.

 

[TennisFanatic7]

I always hated the "fatigue" excuse more than anything. The reason Roger was fatigued is that he couldn't take care of DP in less than 4 hours. On the other hand Murray beat a much better player than DP in straight sets. If Roger takes care of DP in straightforward fashion (as he should on grass) then he may have arrived in better shape.

Same deal at AO 2013, no way Roger should be going 5 with Tsonga and so you can't complain about fatigue if you take forever to finish off a lesser player the round before.

Don't be silly. 31yo Roger probably would have hit two bagels past peak prime 25yo Murray 2.0. :angel:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

For London 2012 that's wrong, as the semi finals were on Friday and the final was on Sunday. I think on Saturday just the gold and bronze medal matches for the women and some doubles and mixed doubles took place. Before the final most thought Roger would be OK due to the day off and because in the match against Del Potro a lot of points were won with the serve, so there were just a few longer rallies.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

You are right and I am wrong.

As Olympics was played in a compressed time frame, I assumed that was the case.
However, upon fact checking, the men's singles semifinals was played on Friday and the
finals was played on Sunday. In view of the day's rest and in view of the finals being a
5 set match, it was generally expected that Roger would win it.

I am not sure whether Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday. But,
I am sure he played at least one on Saturday (the semifinal in mixed doubles).
The Gold medal match in Mixed Doubles was held on Sunday (and I believe after
the Men's Gold medal match was over).

 

[GameSetAndMath]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

In one Olympics, Fed lost the semifinals and then the bronze match (if I
remember right) and given that he had no medals in Olympics singles
at that time and given that there is a possibility of that happening again
(as the loser's match was also on the next day), Fed put all his heart and
mind to ensure the he wins against JMDP at any cost. The cost in this case
was being unable to give a good fight in the finals.

Although me and Front are talking about Fed's fatigue, Fed himself did
not say anything about physical fatigue in his post-match interview. But,
he did explicitly mention that he had mental fatigue.

The Olympics was in a 3-set format, which means, yes, you play the final the day after the semi-final. And yes, Roger played a grueling semi against Del Potro. He fought for that match because he wanted to win the Gold Medal. Your notion above, which I bolded, that he "gave up" on the final is spurious, and unfounded by anything he's ever said, before or since, about wanting to win the gold medal. This gets back to tented's thread about "excuse-making." While there can be "extenuating circumstances" in matches as to why someone lost, to say Roger 'gave up' is a bit of a howler, and frankly, sounds like an "excuse."

I actually think that final at the Olympics was a great example of tented's thesis that there are reasons that a great player loses without it being an excuse...because it can be complicated. Murray had just lost a heartbreaker at Wimbledon to Federer in the exact same place. Both are great on grass. Federer was fatigued from a huge battle the previous day, yes, but Murray was also encouraged by a big win over Djokovic. And he was working hard to get a monkey off his back. Federer's loss in that match is not merely down to his fatigue. It also had much to do with Murray's conviction to win it. We know that Roger could have beaten 98% of the field on grass, so it's not like Andy was merely toying with him. You really have to take the full narrative on board when assessing the match. It's not just about one player.

I was not attempting to make an excuse at all. Murray won the match and he deserves
the Olympic gold medal without any asterisk. You misunderstood my "gave up" remark.
There is no secret that Federer really, really wanted to win that Olympic Gold Medal.
However, even though he wanted to win that, he could not put it the effort needed
due to fatigue. However, that is Fed's problem and does not take anything away
from Murray's victory.

The point I was trying to make was that there is definitely a parallel between
Girgor-Murray Wimbledon 14 match and Murray-Federer Olympics 12 match. In both
cases, the player who most thought would win lost. In both cases, there was some
extenuating circumstance for the loser (although in Murray's case, we don't even
know as of that what that extenuating circumstance is). Despite the extenuating
circumstance, there should not be any asterisk and the winner deserves full
credit in both cases.

Finally, as has been argued by many so far in this thread, too much stock
cannot be put on the future of the winner in both cases based on that victory
alone, in view of the circumstances. While everybody correctly jumped on
fastgrass for doing so, when it came to Fed-Murray match, people did not
give similar consideration for that. In particular, it appears that TF7 feels
there were no extenuating circumstances. In particular, when Fed and
Murray meet next time on Grass, I would expect Fed to win under normal
circumstances.

 

[Iona16]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

You're absolutely correct. Andy did play 2 mixed doubles matches on the Saturday. Murray/Robson v Hewitt/Stosur and then Lisicki/Las. Both matches were decided on super tie-breaks. Andy played the doubles final 45 mins after beating Federer.

I'm not suggesting for a second that doubles is as energy sapping as singles - it clearly isn't - BUT it should be noted that Andy wasn't sitting with his feet up on the Saturday. Federer was the one with the day off.

As I recall the general consensus seemed to be that Federer would be winning the gold medal.

 

[Iona16]

For London 2012 that's wrong, as the semi finals were on Friday and the final was on Sunday. I think on Saturday just the gold and bronze medal matches for the women and some doubles and mixed doubles took place. Before the final most thought Roger would be OK due to the day off and because in the match against Del Potro a lot of points were won with the serve, so there were just a few longer rallies.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

Fed was never that kind of player even in his prime, so it was not fair to expect him to do it at 31 being father of two.

".. father of two". What does that have to do with anything? He's 2 years older now and has 2 more kids and he still took the world #2 to 5 sets a few weeks ago on the same court. You'd think Federer was the only player that had ever had a tough semi. Andy was the one with the tougher opponent in the semis.

BTW a player in his prime can still play badly on any given day. That should not need to be explained.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Incidentally, the same Del Potro pushed Djokovis to 5 sets in (one of the matches of
the year) Wimbledon semifinals in 2013, thus to some extent contributing to what happened
in the finals.

Fruit Baskets and Wine anyone?

 

[Front242]

Incidentally, the same Del Potro pushed Djokovis to 5 sets in (one of the matches of
the year) Wimbledon semifinals in 2013, thus to some extent contributing to what happened
in the finals.

Fruit Baskets and Wine anyone?

The 2013 Wimbledon final was a very hot day too. Over 32C and even warmer courtside.

 

[Moxie]

No one used being 31 as a reason for anything but being 31 and just coming off a 4 hour 26 min semi ending 19-17 in the 3rd set is a different matter entirely. Recovering from that would be tough at any age, but with the number of matches Federer has played on tour and being 31 at the time, it sure didn't help a whole lot either.

One thing that is not said, at least explicitly, is that the finals of Olympics was on the
very next day to that of Semifinals (unlike in most grandslams). When a player ages,
the first thing that goes away is the recovery time. After that long semifinal, Fed
pretty much gave up on even trying to win the final, as he knew he would have no
chance. This is not to say he would have won had there been one more day gap,
although it is possible. Most probably, he would have fought valiantly and lost,
had there been one more day gap.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

You're absolutely correct. Andy did play 2 mixed doubles matches on the Saturday. Murray/Robson v Hewitt/Stosur and then Lisicki/Las. Both matches were decided on super tie-breaks. Andy played the doubles final 45 mins after beating Federer.

I'm not suggesting for a second that doubles is as energy sapping as singles - it clearly isn't - BUT it should be noted that Andy wasn't sitting with his feet up on the Saturday. Federer was the one with the day off.

As I recall the general consensus seemed to be that Federer would be winning the gold medal.

Great point. I thought the SFs and Fs were back-to-back, but it was Andy that played matches on the day off.

For London 2012 that's wrong, as the semi finals were on Friday and the final was on Sunday. I think on Saturday just the gold and bronze medal matches for the women and some doubles and mixed doubles took place. Before the final most thought Roger would be OK due to the day off and because in the match against Del Potro a lot of points were won with the serve, so there were just a few longer rallies.

I think Andy played two mixed doubles matches on Saturday, so some even thought Roger might have an advantage in the singles final because of that. But it showed pretty soon he didn't.

Fed was never that kind of player even in his prime, so it was not fair to expect him to do it at 31 being father of two.

".. father of two". What does that have to do with anything? He's 2 years older now and has 2 more kids and he still took the world #2 to 5 sets a few weeks ago on the same court. You'd Federer was the only player that had ever had a tough semi. Andy was the one with the tougher opponent in the semis.

BTW a player in his prime can still play badly on any given day. That should not need to be explained.

This "fatherhood" business is kind of BS. Fed has money, and nannies and Mirka to shield him from the distraction of children.

Incidentally, the same Del Potro pushed Djokovis to 5 sets in (one of the matches of
the year) Wimbledon semifinals in 2013, thus to some extent contributing to what happened
in the finals.

Fruit Baskets and Wine anyone?

I'm not really buying that Del Potro is the reason that Federer lost the OG to Murray or that Djokovic lost Wimbledon 2013 to Murray. As to the above stated, Roger had a day to recover, while Andy played medal matches at the Olympics. And it's not like Djokovic had never played a 5-set semi before winning a Major. (Australia '12.) In both cases, I think Murray was committed to the win, and it showed. He deserves full credit, and I don't think he needs to send hearts and flowers to Del Potro.

 

[Front242]

Of course he deserves credit but it takes probably 1.5 hours at the very most for a guy Andy's age to recover from a doubles match. Compare that to a 31 year old playing a 4 hour 26 min semi. It's a world of difference to recover from that at any age, let alone 31. There's no running along the baseline in doubles, it's mostly serve and quick points at the net ending with volleys or smashes. I for one think Andy played great and fully deserved his medal and employed decent tactics when he saw Roger was slow out there. He made him run a lot. But equally so, he had a pretty tired opponent out there that day.

Matches between those two are usually pretty close regardless of who wins and rarely have 6-1 6-2 sets unless they're blowout final sets but for the first 2 to have gone with that scoreline means fatigue (mental and physical as a 4 hr 26 min semi is mentally exhausting too) had to come into it.

 

[Iona16]

Incidentally, the same Del Potro pushed Djokovis to 5 sets in (one of the matches of
the year) Wimbledon semifinals in 2013, thus to some extent contributing to what happened
in the finals.

Fruit Baskets and Wine anyone?

Djokovic should have got it done in 3 then shouldn't he?

 

[Front242]

Kinda hard given how well Del Potro was playing.

 

[Iona16]

Kinda hard given how well Del Potro was playing.

We could play this game all day. I could list the many occasions when Andy has had a tough schedule or a tough semi or a day less rest than his opponent. It's swings and roundabouts. It doesn't matter how old, tired or experienced your opponent is. It doesn't matter how hot, cold or wet it is either. All that matters is who wins the match.

 

[Front242]

Kinda hard given how well Del Potro was playing.

We could play this game all day. I could list the many occasions when Andy has had a tough schedule or a tough semi or a day less rest than his opponent. It's swings and roundabouts. It doesn't matter how old, tired or experienced your opponent is. It doesn't matter how hot, cold or wet it is either. All that matters is who wins the match.

I gave Andy full credit for the win already and of course all that matters is the win but people have been analyzing the match here and fatigue played a part, that's all.

 

[Iona16]

Kinda hard given how well Del Potro was playing.

We could play this game all day. I could list the many occasions when Andy has had a tough schedule or a tough semi or a day less rest than his opponent. It's swings and roundabouts. It doesn't matter how old, tired or experienced your opponent is. It doesn't matter how hot, cold or wet it is either. All that matters is who wins the match.

I gave Andy full credit for the win already and of course all that matters is the win but people have been analyzing the match here and fatigue played a part, that's all.

I'm not saying fatigue played no part in the result but the reason we seem to be discussing this match - 2 years on - is because fastgrass described it as a "fluke" win. I would hope the majority of posters would agree that it certainly was not.

 

[Moxie]

Kinda hard given how well Del Potro was playing.

We could play this game all day. I could list the many occasions when Andy has had a tough schedule or a tough semi or a day less rest than his opponent. It's swings and roundabouts. It doesn't matter how old, tired or experienced your opponent is. It doesn't matter how hot, cold or wet it is either. All that matters is who wins the match.

I gave Andy full credit for the win already and of course all that matters is the win but people have been analyzing the match here and fatigue played a part, that's all.

I'm not saying fatigue played no part in the result but the reason we seem to be discussing this match - 2 years on - is because fastgrass described it as a "fluke" win. I would hope the majority of posters would agree that it certainly was not.

It was not.