Day 13- French Open Men's semifinals

First topic message reminder :

Friends, v2ans, countrymen lend me your ears.
I have come to preview this semifinal fixture not to curse it;
The memory of the matches that these men play often live after them;
The unforced errors are often interred with their bones;
So let it be with Roger. The noble Novak
Hath told you Roger is ambitious;
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously Roger might answer it;
Roger was my friend, faithful and just to me;
But Novak says he was ambitious;
And Novak is an honourable man;
He had brought many Grand Slams home to Switzerland;
Whose gleam did fill the trophy cabinets;
Did this in Roger seem ambitious?
When his twins have cried, Roger has stayed up;
Ambition should be made out of sterner stuff;
You did see in Paris many times now;
Thrice the 'Grand Slam' was presented;
Which he did thrice refuse; was this ambition?
Yet Novak says he was ambitious;
And Novak is an honourable man
You did all love him once, not without cause;
What reason withholds you to cheer for him?
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts;
Bear with me, for now I must pause to do this preview

http://www.presentationmagazine.com/famous-speeches-friends-romans-countrymen-11673.htm


Mens semifinals:

Nadal(2) vs Ferrer (6)
Head to Head Record: Nadal 15-4 Ferrer
Last meeting: Rome Semis Nadal 7-6 6-0 Ferrer
Head to Head in Grand Slams: Ferrer 2-1 Nadal
Clay Head to Head: Nadal 12-1 Ferrer

Djokovic (1) vs Federer (3)
Head to Head Record: Federer 14-11 Djokovic
Last meeting: Rome Semis Djokovic 6-2 7-6 Federer
Head to Head in Grand Slams: Federer 5-4 Djokovic
Clay Head to Head: Federer 3-2 Djokovic

Predictions so far:
Ferrer- Invisible Coolers
Nadal- Lydian, Jahu, Haddie Nuff, Bogbrush, Social, Barrystar, Legendkiller, Mangamuri, Tom, Summer, SFP

Federer- Jahu, Lydian, Invisible Coolers, Haddie Nuff, Legendkiller, Tom
Djokovic- Barrystar, Bogbrush, Social, Mangamuri, Summer, SFP

jersey wrote:Federer is finished.

Finished because he lost one match? Nice one liner....but rather childish.

You could argue he was finished @ Wimbledon final 2008?

Or the Aussie Open 2009?

Or Wimbledon 2009 when facing 3 or 4 set points for Roddick in the second set?

These were a while ago now but it can't be denied that things are getting difficult for Fed as he gets older and the notion he stands a decent chance at his weaker slams like the Aussie Open or RG is quaint. His best shot is at the other two and fortunately, those two slams are still to come. It could be concerning that whereas last year he beat Djokovic @ this slam, he has lost this year, we'll just have to see what the draw is @ Wimbledon and see if Fed is on Djokovic's side because if he is, I don't think it will be str8 sets for Djokovic. Based on today's performance, you'd think Djokovic is the favourite against Fed (and definitely Nadal) @ Wimbledon.

luciusmann wrote: Based on today's performance, you'd think Djokovic is the favourite against Fed (and definitely Nadal) @ Wimbledon.

I dont agree with that at all. Nadal played awful at Wimb final last year...he's a different character this year. Compare his progress this RG compared to RG11...

Lucius, does Djokovic move naturally on a grass court?
Lets see.

I think it was just a bad day for Roger...poor strategy, poor execution, poor mindset, poor energy...no wonder Djokovic won really. He's got an altogether different proposition on Sunday!

lydian wrote:

luciusmann wrote: Based on today's performance, you'd think Djokovic is the favourite against Fed (and definitely Nadal) @ Wimbledon.

I dont agree with that at all. Nadal played awful at Wimb final last year...he's a different character this year. Compare his progress this RG compared to RG11...

Yes but remember that last year they were using a different set of Babolat balls that weren't to his liking and it took him time to get used to them.

...and he still won CC. Buit that aside everyone knows Nadal'11 was a different character.

Yes he did but could explain why he looks better this year.

Let's not get carried away because Nadal has done so well @ RG and drove Djokovic close @ the Aussie Open.

Wimbledon and the USO are faster and in both tournaments Djokovic dismissed Nadal in 4 sets. Hence why I'm fairly confident he would do the same to Nadal again this year.

The fact Nadal has done so well on clay and RG doesn't translate into much for other surfaces and especially on faster surfaces against Djokovic. We'll see if Nadal can manage to dismiss Djokovic in str8 sets on Sunday but I don't think it will as easy as it appears.

lydian wrote:...and he still won CC. Buit that aside everyone knows Nadal'11 was a different character.

Yes but he wasn't good enough to snatch the Aussie Open this year lydian. When it comes to the slams lately, Djokovic has beaten Nadal, even when Nadal has had the upper hand!

I'd agree with most of that luciusmann. Nadal is the clay master but Wimbledon and hard courts is a different matter as if you look at Nadal's record on hard courts this year it isn't exactly jaw-droppingly good.

Not just in the slams.
Last year djokovic was 4-0 even in Masters.

Yes but AO showed Rafa was an awful lot nearer and we know about that 4-2 30-0 shot...it was confirmation of the comback trail. Since then he's been getting better and better. Finally we saw him break through vs Novak at Rome.

I dont think it takes much of a tennis observer to spot Nadal is on a different level of form and mentality vs last year. If you know alot about Nadal behind the scenes all manner of things were going on last year that affected his on-court play besides Novak coming at him. These things affect him greatly coming from a closely knit set-up. Now there is a much calmer, wiser and in control Nadal. Ok, he can still lose on Sunday...of course, and it will be a tough fight for sure...but I dont think he has the same fear anymore and his game has come on further, he's much more aggressive than last year and his serve is better too. After all its something like 69 out of 70 service games won at RG so far.

He deserves credit for rising to the challenge, not falling away from it but then this is a player that thrives on challenges. He has always said its about competing, not the winning titles. We need to see what happens Sunday...beyond that who knows what can happen. But I think we're into a phase of Nadal 3.0 vs Djokovic 2.0 - and Federer holding his own on the faster surfaces still. Murray can only improve you feel too. Exciting times for us tennis fans.

I agree lydian, Rafa deserves credit for taking the fight to Djokovic and he was closer @ the Aussie Open and he does seem better but it wasn't enough to win, that's the point. Let's not forget, if Nadal was going to mount a fightback, the Aussie Open, after RG would be the perfect place, the 3rd slowest slam.

Now we're @ the slowest slam, I expect Rafa to win but I can't be sure because we don't know if Rafa's mental demons with Djokovic will surface. They didn't in Monte Carlo or Rome when he faced Djokovic both times but this a grand slam and I'm sure we can expect Djokovic to step it up a gear.

However, let's be clear, if Rafa was going to mount a good defense of any tournaments or win them it would be on clay and that explains his titles this year. Wimbledon and the USO will underline that and I'm sure Rafa will get to either one or both of those finals but if he faces Djokovic, I'm in no doubt he won't be able to beat Djokovic.

Nadal is closer this year, agreed but that closeness may win him a slam and titles on clay but it won't be enough to win him titles on faster surfaces and nothing in recent tournaments would say otherwise to me. I'm going to find the final fascinating because you'd expect Nadal to win in str8 sets or in 4 on Sunday. If he doesn't and gets pushed to 5 and still wins, I think the view that Nadal won't be able to push Djokovic on grass and hardcourt will hold true. Frankly, I'd love 5 sets, finally we'd actually have a contest @ the French Open rather than a one side matches as we've had ever since 2005!

It Must Be Love wrote:

jersey wrote:Federer is finished.

Don't ever post on my articles again.

Please use the 'Foe' button.

I dont know why I'm so disappointed after that, as if he was going to beat Nadal anyway and the way he was playing it could have been a repeat of the 08 final.

I kept telling myself that he needs to protect his points to get to number 1 and I also wouldn't like Novak to have a winning head 2 head over him as well as Nadal (which is on the horizon) but I just know when it came to the final I will still have this false hope he can somehow beat Rafa, only to be disappointed again so Djokovic has saved me some frustration yet I still feel lousy after watching that

CaledonianCraig wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I agree kemet, 'trouncing' is way over the top. It was a strange match but closer than the scoreline suggests.

The only good news is probably that Fed will play Halle and move onto the surface he likes best!

Well Murray's final defeats have been similar in scoreline and been called names along similar lines.

Well, I wouldn't sink to the level of those calling Murray's defeats trouncings if I were you. Roger had a double break lead in the second set and served to level the match. Good on Djokovic for breaking him and getting back into the set, but that is hardly a trouncing. Roger had his chances.

are you saying nadal looks better in general lydian from aus 12 to FO 12 than he did in aus 11 to FO 12, or are you saying he looks better against djokovic?

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I agree kemet, 'trouncing' is way over the top. It was a strange match but closer than the scoreline suggests.

The only good news is probably that Fed will play Halle and move onto the surface he likes best!

Well Murray's final defeats have been similar in scoreline and been called names along similar lines.

Well, I wouldn't sink to the level of those calling Murray's defeats trouncings if I were you. Roger had a double break lead in the second set and served to level the match. Good on Djokovic for breaking him and getting back into the set, but that is hardly a trouncing. Roger had his chances.

We could say similarly of Murray though. Do seem to recall he had set points in his Australian Final V Federer but people will still have you believe it was a trouncing.

You won't find me saying Murray has got trounced in his matches with a scoreline similar to the one in the Djokovic vs Federer match today. I'd call such matches tight.

I share your disappointment CAS but even I knew it was a dream if Fed had got to the final somehow and beaten Rafa and I'm glad Djokovic shattered that dream today rather than Nadal doing so on Sunday because I think there's more chance Fed would have got hammered RG '08 style and Fed has said already the damage that did to his confidence @ the Wimbledon which followed and there's little doubt: he only converted 1 of 13 break points in that match! A close match which he could have won if he'd avoided the scaring @ RG a month earlier.

So in retrospect, today is a good result and overall, Fed's clay court season has been good and he's picked up a good number of points from his weakest surface. The ideal result is Nadal winning on Sunday which will ensure Fed remains in contention for No.1 spot.

I think this could be the first time I support Rafa in a grand slam! I will be first to admit that I dont want Djokovic to win the Novak slam, I like Federer came the closest. Bit of a catch 22 because I like that Djokovic is holding off Nadal surpassing Federer in achievements but at the same time, the more he does it the closer he gets himself!

I would definitely give Djokovic the edge on hard courts, and Nadal the edge on clay. Grass is tougher to call, short season so not many past meetings to go on. Certainly don't think it's clear-cut in Djokovic's favour. If Nadal were to win on Sunday then they face off again at Wimbledon it would be very tough to call.

Just got back from my hike, soaking wet unfortunately, and disappointed to get the result.

From all reports it looks not a great match; many breaks of serve (2nd set!!) and I get the impression from Feds serve % and u/e count that he couldn't - as feared - hit through the court. Errors will flow in that case.

Djokovic doesn't sound too have been too wonderful either, no way is it good to be broken that often.

About right?

For me it was no big surprise. I did point out throughout his matches here that he was dropping sets against players I wouldn't have expected him to. That was the clue that Fed wasn't in the sort of form to mount a real tilt at the title and that is how it panned out. Better chances lie ahead for him and the same goes for Andy Murray and like someone said earlier interesting times lie ahead for the rest of the season.

Nadal has looked imperious on clay but on hard courts he hasn't been on fire, Novak doesn't seem to be in the same red hot form of last year, Fed though ageing will fancy a very good crack at Wimbledon and the US Open and Murray ...well we will see.

bogbrush it wasn't the greatest match and both players were not at their best. Sounds like it was like Murray the other day with Fed as he had chances and got a break of serve and then handed it back almost straight away and also too many unforced errors. Clay isn't Fed's surface so no disaster but just those lost ranking points.

Federer came out firing, a bit similar to the semi in the Aus open against Nadal, but played a poor game as soon as he broke to even it up and then errors flowed. He played a great game in the first game of the 2nd set coming back from 40-0 on Novaks serve and won the rally of the match, then Djokovic threw in some errors and the set look done.

Novak then at *3-0, played a nothing to lose game where everything went in and swang the momentum back in his favour, brought it back to 4-4, frustrating thing is Federer managed to break to 5-4 but again played a poor game. 2nd set decided it, *3-0 up and also 4-2 and 15-40, then also served for it at *5-4, after that you just knew Novak would break at 6-5. After that Federers head dropped and it went through the motions

Fed was being drawn into long rallies- and continuously making Unforced Errors.
Djokovic was very solid. At times Fed missed some sitters, also he was a double break up in the 2nd set and served for it at one stage.

CAS wrote:I think this could be the first time I support Rafa in a grand slam! I will be first to admit that I dont want Djokovic to win the Novak slam, I like Federer came the closest. Bit of a catch 22 because I like that Djokovic is holding off Nadal surpassing Federer in achievements but at the same time, the more he does it the closer he gets himself!

I'm not sure Djokovic is exactly a threat right to Fed's records @ this moment, he's on 5 slams, half as many as Nadal and three times less than Fed. At the same age Fed was on 8 (as he turned 25), Djokovic is on 5 (as he turned 25 last month). Also worth bearing in mind is that Fed won 4/5 subsequent slams after he turned 25 so Djokovic is a long way away in catching up with Fed. Djokovic is doing what he should be doing at this age: turning out the best results of his career, month after month. For him to come close, he needs to win the rest of the slams this year starting with the RG final this Sunday and then he stands a chance of catching Fed but not overhauling him.

We should recognise the unique achievement Djokovic will achieve should he win on Sunday the 'Novak slam' or whatever you'd like to call it because it doesn't happen often, once in about a generation. However, it's one of many unique achievements that make an all time great and right now, Djokovic is on the road to it but far short of getting there just yet.

I think CAS was emphasising how Nole would achieve something Roget never has.

Also worth pointing out that even though Fed didn't make the final this Sunday, in terms of points picked up on clay court events, he's won more this year than last year even when you take into account RG:

2011: 1, 785 points
2012: 2, 080 points

His main issue is Djokovic has gained 480 extra from getting to the final and may gain an additional 800 on top of that if he wins. So if he wants to stay in contention of overhauling Djokovic, he needs Djokovic to lose and he needs to make up the lost points @ RG by getting to the Wimbledon semis or better.

Right, so Fed had good positions in all three sets? Not good.

I think he's losing it faster on clay than anywhere else, for sure.

Still, on the positive side he got a better haul from 3 clay events than he might have and should be in good physical condition - no outright war endured. Bizarrely, if Nadal wins he's still got good chances for #1 although it would be starting to look like Women's #1 thing (all points and no Slams).

Lucias, what if hypothetically Novak ended up on 8-10 slams, has a winning head to head over Rafa and Roger, only player to hold all four slams, beat Rafa in all 4 slams including the ultimate test Roland Garros? Also twice beating Rafa and Roger in the same grand slam, (the other two havent done that, e.g roger beating Novak and Rafa in the same slam)

Thats why Im uneasy about Novak winning this match tomorrow, but at the same time Rafa having 11 slams is getting too close for comfort as well!

Watching the match it was weird as when Fed got a break up you always had a feeling Djokovic was never out of the set but when Djoko broke you never got that same feeling that Fed would come back....in my opinion that is.

its becoming painfully apparent you are not allowed to miss anymore, Federer hitting something like 44 UEs? I was watching the Nadal v Ferrer match and I actually flinched when Nadal missed a shot, I wasn't exactly noticing it during the match it wasn't until he did that I was shocked. Thats what I noticed most in the fed v djok match, it was on Federers racket, every rally Fed was looking for the winner, the outcome is down to him. He just misses a lot

It's a double dilemma CAS!!!

On the one hand, Novak winning means Fed won't get the No.1 spot but on the other hand Nadal winning puts Nadal closer to Fed's 16, just 5 behind and with god knows how many RG titles to add? 2? 3?

Nadal winning puts Fed closer to breaking more potential records but means Nadal gets closer to beating Fed's ultimate record so catch 22. Whereas Djokovic winning gives him another unique record and gets him closer to catching Fed & Nadal but also rules out Fed ever getting No.1 spot this year or ever (realistically).

Ultimately, people look at the total slams you win because winning a lot takes real talent however Novak winning 4 in a row or 5 in a row could be put down to a purple patch (non calendar slam after all) rather than being considered the best of all time. So from a records point of view, Djokovic winning is better but that closes Fed from winning No.1 spot (then he has to win Wimbledon to get it, which seems difficult).

The big 3 players still had a far more impressive tourney than the 4th place stalwart. Just to remind you.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I agree kemet, 'trouncing' is way over the top. It was a strange match but closer than the scoreline suggests.

The only good news is probably that Fed will play Halle and move onto the surface he likes best!

Well Murray's final defeats have been similar in scoreline and been called names along similar lines.

Well, I wouldn't sink to the level of those calling Murray's defeats trouncings if I were you. Roger had a double break lead in the second set and served to level the match. Good on Djokovic for breaking him and getting back into the set, but that is hardly a trouncing. Roger had his chances.

We could say similarly of Murray though. Do seem to recall he had set points in his Australian Final V Federer but people will still have you believe it was a trouncing.

Well, that's other people, and it is clearly not a logical argument, so unless you want to rub salt in the wounds of Fed fans, I don't see why you are describing his defeat as a trouncing, when the facts show otherwise. Being a double-break up and serving for the second set is not a trouncing. I have no problem conceding that Novak played better tennis and deserved to win, but he did not trounce Federer. A trouncing implies that Roger was never in the match.

WUM alert.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The big 3 players still had a far more impressive tourney than the 4th place stalwart. Just to remind you.

Murrays least favourite surfaces is clay so it's not surprising he didn't do as well as he did in the other slams.

luvsports, I'm talking about Nadal's performance vs Djokovic. Even in the relative doldrums last year he was able to still beat most players. What I'm talking about is a renewed focus on his ambition, game and tactics vs Djokovic. More aggressive, nearer the baseline, more to the FH, short angles, better serving, etc, etc. 2 swallows dont make a summer (MC and Rome) but they point to something having clicked considering he got beat at Madrid and Rome in 2011.

I can imagine the Fed fans being disappointed. Its tough to see a once great player (at his peak I mean) losing in a way where you feel he could have done much better. But he has struggled all tournament...losing a set to Ungur and Goffin told us that. The injury to DP perhaps masked the problems that still lay within. Against Djokovic he simply seemed to lack fight back fire to me after the middle of that 2nd set. It was like he knew what his fate was today and resigned to it. I do wonder the effect this loss has on him. You do feel that Djokovic and Nadal are starting to be on different planets to other players. Given that they've already played more times than Nadal-Federer, this rivalry has got a long long time to go. You could see them sharing 1-2 slams each per year for the next 3 years...I dont see who is coming through to challenge them on their best surfaces...Nadal clay, Djokovic HC...and both on grass.

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I agree kemet, 'trouncing' is way over the top. It was a strange match but closer than the scoreline suggests.

The only good news is probably that Fed will play Halle and move onto the surface he likes best!

Well Murray's final defeats have been similar in scoreline and been called names along similar lines.

Well, I wouldn't sink to the level of those calling Murray's defeats trouncings if I were you. Roger had a double break lead in the second set and served to level the match. Good on Djokovic for breaking him and getting back into the set, but that is hardly a trouncing. Roger had his chances.

We could say similarly of Murray though. Do seem to recall he had set points in his Australian Final V Federer but people will still have you believe it was a trouncing.

Well, that's other people, and it is clearly not a logical argument, so unless you want to rub salt in the wounds of Fed fans, I don't see why you are describing his defeat as a trouncing, when the facts show otherwise. Being a double-break up and serving for the second set is not a trouncing. I have no problem conceding that Novak played better tennis and deserved to win, but he did not trounce Federer. A trouncing implies that Roger was never in the match.

You may not describe defeats such as these as trouncings in the past but others have when it concerns Murray and no doubt they will do again in the future. As for rubbing salt in the wounds....how so? Roger Federer has won 16 slams, is regarded widely as the GOAT and holds so many records so this is hardly rubbing salt in the wounds considering it is Federer's least favourite surface.

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The big 3 players still had a far more impressive tourney than the 4th place stalwart. Just to remind you.

Murrays least favourite surfaces is clay so it's not surprising he didn't do as well as he did in the other slams.

Djokovic is also very vulnerable on French clay as its been proven against Seppi and Tsonga. This is the first time he's ever reached the FO final and probably the last.

At this point, it seems like Roger should be playing RG mainly for ranking points, especially considering he is planning to continue playing on the ATP tour. He has to make sure he gets these points in order to ensure that he continues to get favourable draws at the majors.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watching the match it was weird as when Fed got a break up you always had a feeling Djokovic was never out of the set but when Djoko broke you never got that same feeling that Fed would come back....in my opinion that is.

Certainly agree with the sentiment here CC. I felt the same way, maybe it's because Fed was missing so many first serves which caused the doubts in my own mind but that 2nd set felt very much like that 1st set against Rafa @ the RG Final '11. Fed had to win both of them if he was to win, once he lost them, you knew it was match over. You knew Nadal and Djokovic would roar back. It seemed painfully clear that Fed needs those sets more and when he loses them, he loses heart completely, even if he claws back a set or doesn't (like today), it's too little too late. Expecting Fed to make come backs against Nadal and Djokovic these days in grand slam matches is a bridge too far. That much is apparent. He needs to lead or be level and win it in 4 sets, anything longer and you feel he's lost.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The big 3 players still had a far more impressive tourney than the 4th place stalwart. Just to remind you.

Murrays least favourite surfaces is clay so it's not surprising he didn't do as well as he did in the other slams.

Djokovic is also very vulnerable on French clay as its been proven against Seppi and Tsonga. This is the first time he's ever reached the FO final and probably the last.

You should apply to do journalism at the BBC.

Cutting edge stuff

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

kemet wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

luciusmann wrote:I agree kemet, 'trouncing' is way over the top. It was a strange match but closer than the scoreline suggests.

The only good news is probably that Fed will play Halle and move onto the surface he likes best!

Well Murray's final defeats have been similar in scoreline and been called names along similar lines.

Well, I wouldn't sink to the level of those calling Murray's defeats trouncings if I were you. Roger had a double break lead in the second set and served to level the match. Good on Djokovic for breaking him and getting back into the set, but that is hardly a trouncing. Roger had his chances.

We could say similarly of Murray though. Do seem to recall he had set points in his Australian Final V Federer but people will still have you believe it was a trouncing.

Well, that's other people, and it is clearly not a logical argument, so unless you want to rub salt in the wounds of Fed fans, I don't see why you are describing his defeat as a trouncing, when the facts show otherwise. Being a double-break up and serving for the second set is not a trouncing. I have no problem conceding that Novak played better tennis and deserved to win, but he did not trounce Federer. A trouncing implies that Roger was never in the match.

You may not describe defeats such as these as trouncings in the past but others have when it concerns Murray and no doubt they will do again in the future. As for rubbing salt in the wounds....how so? Roger Federer has won 16 slams, is regarded widely as the GOAT and holds so many records so this is hardly rubbing salt in the wounds considering it is Federer's least favourite surface.

With all due respect, who really cares about Andy Murray? He was not even in the semis today, so I really do not understand why he is even part of this discussion.

As for the other point, I have already addressed it and do not want to repeat myself...

Nadal has now reached finals in 8 of 9 slams Since FO'10. Where as Nole has reached 6 of 7 slams since US'10. And these two players are meeting in finals 5th time in last 7 slams. So both are at peak of their powers. I guess we will see more of the same in next 1-2 years.

luciusmann wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Watching the match it was weird as when Fed got a break up you always had a feeling Djokovic was never out of the set but when Djoko broke you never got that same feeling that Fed would come back....in my opinion that is.

Certainly agree with the sentiment here CC. I felt the same way, maybe it's because Fed was missing so many first serves which caused the doubts in my own mind but that 2nd set felt very much like that 1st set against Rafa @ the RG Final '11. Fed had to win both of them if he was to win, once he lost them, you knew it was match over. You knew Nadal and Djokovic would roar back. It seemed painfully clear that Fed needs those sets more and when he loses them, he loses heart completely, even if he claws back a set or doesn't (like today), it's too little too late. Expecting Fed to make come backs against Nadal and Djokovic these days in grand slam matches is a bridge too far. That much is apparent. He needs to lead or be level and win it in 4 sets, anything longer and you feel he's lost.

I'd agree with that. In these matches against Nadal and Djokovic it is most important that Federer wins the first set more than say it is to Nadal and Djokovic. No big deal though as Federer is more at home on the other surfaces.

I do wonder sometimes how Federers peers see him at the moment, especially the Roddicks, Hewitts, Safins, Davydenkos who were comfortably beaten by him more often than not. Do they look on at these matches, and the loss at the AUS open and think, 'maybe he wasn't as good as we thought?' or 'he's getting older, Rafa and Novak should count themselves lucky' or 'man we were average players'

CAS wrote:I do wonder sometimes how Federers peers see him at the moment, especially the Roddicks, Hewitts, Safins, Davydenkos who were comfortably beaten by him more often than not. Do they look on at these matches, and the loss at the AUS open and think, 'maybe he wasn't as good as we thought?' or 'he's getting older, Rafa and Novak should count themselves lucky' or 'man we were average players'

It's probably a bit of all 3

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:The big 3 players still had a far more impressive tourney than the 4th place stalwart. Just to remind you.

Murrays least favourite surfaces is clay so it's not surprising he didn't do as well as he did in the other slams.

Djokovic is also very vulnerable on French clay as its been proven against Seppi and Tsonga. This is the first time he's ever reached the FO final and probably the last.

You should apply to do journalism at the BBC.

Cutting edge stuff

I am over-qualified.