Halle 2013

by **laverfan** Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:53 am

First topic message reminder :

Nadal has decimated the field, by withdrawing, from Halle.

The tattered remainder of Halle draw looks like

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?EventId=500&Year=2013

As an aside, the Grass Chewing has now a new pair of COWs (Champions of the Old World) cudding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud) together some Doubles.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2013/06/23/Halle-Federer-Haas-Teaming-Up-For-First-Time.aspx

Daily Schedule - http://www.atpworldtour.com/Scores/Schedule.aspx?EventId=500

Who wants to bet on the next player to beat a certain 17-slam winner? Laugh

Will it be Stubby or Wang-waver? Or perhaps the Jerzy COW... Run

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:46 pm

Exactly CC, I'm not Roger's biggest fan but I don't seek to downplay his actual achievements, nor his talent. It seems at times there is a constant need to deride Nadal's achievements by putting them into lesser context or fobbing off his fans as unknowledgeable fanboys. Yet anyone eulogising about Federer is never termed as such. It's all so pointless.

by CaledonianCraig Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:48 pm

Agreed and I have been labelled a 'fanboy' before as well just because there are times I praise Murray's play.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jun 15, 2013 9:52 pm

Red wrote:Well I haven't said anything offensive about Federer, and I genuinely thought he played well in the final 2 sets today.

Which one was it Red? Did he play well in the final 2 sets or was it a fantastic display?

by User 774433 Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:01 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Well I haven't said anything offensive about Federer, and I genuinely thought he played well in the final 2 sets today.

Which one was it Red? Did he play well in the final 2 sets or was it a fantastic display?

The final 2 sets was a fantastic display (I believe I cleared that up in subsequent posts as I admit it was a bit unclear).

First set Fed didn't really look like he had the intensity.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:05 pm

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Well I haven't said anything offensive about Federer, and I genuinely thought he played well in the final 2 sets today.

Which one was it Red? Did he play well in the final 2 sets or was it a fantastic display?
The final 2 sets was a fantastic display (I believe I cleared that up in subsequent posts as I admit it was a bit unclear).

First set Fed didn't really look like he had the intensity.

Your "Fed will win Wimbledon" post was pretty clear - clear wumming

by CaledonianCraig Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:09 pm

To be fair though JHM is it really such a ridiculous statement? I mean Roger is the defending champion and probably goes into the tournament as fourth favourite. We even have Fed fans on here who feel he has a good chance so it really isn't such an outlandish comment. Personally, I think Roger's lack of ultimate consistency almost rules him out of contention but that is my personal opinion.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:12 pm

It's the intent behind the comment CC - a pattern of insincerity designed to wind up other posters.

by CaledonianCraig Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:16 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's the intent behind the comment CC - a pattern of insincerity designed to wind up other posters.

I'd only say that was the case if that poster was on here post-Wimbledon gloating at Federer's failure to win it. He may honestly believe what he says but I suppose if he is proven wrong it leaves him with enough egg on his face to make a very large omelette.

by lydian Sat Jun 15, 2013 10:38 pm

Anyway.....

I see Youzhny heads into the Federer match with Gerulaitis' words ringing in his ears..."No-one beats The Colonel 15 times!".

Except they will have in 18 hrs time. On the bright side Youzhny could try to win his 4th set against Fed.

Odd trivia fact...this will be their 5th meeting at Halle, dating back to 2002!

by FedsFan Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:27 am

I would not be too sure Youzhny will roll over. A negative h2h means nothing the way Federer is playing these days. I reckon MY is due a win at some point (just as Ferrer is) so it may come tomorrow. He dismissed Gasquet with ease despite Gasquet playing very well.

It would do Federer a lot of good winning here going into SW19. That said Federer has lost in Halle and won Wimbledon (2012) and he has also won in Halle and lost at wimbledon (2008).

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:33 am

FedsFan wrote:I would not be too sure Youzhny will roll over. A negative h2h means nothing the way Federer is playing these days. I reckon MY is due a win at some point (just as Ferrer is) so it may come tomorrow. He dismissed Gasquet with ease despite Gasquet playing very well.

It would do Federer a lot of good winning here going into SW19. That said Federer has lost in Halle and won Wimbledon (2012) and he has also won in Halle and lost at wimbledon (2008).

Its funny how many ordinary players like Nishikori, Bennateau and some more players could catch Fed on their off days to snatch a win how ever veterans like Youz,Ferrer could not catch Fed on his off day for the last decade or so, may be Youz will have his day finally.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:35 am

Red wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:
Red wrote:Well I haven't said anything offensive about Federer, and I genuinely thought he played well in the final 2 sets today.

Which one was it Red? Did he play well in the final 2 sets or was it a fantastic display?
The final 2 sets was a fantastic display (I believe I cleared that up in subsequent posts as I admit it was a bit unclear).

First set Fed didn't really look like he had the intensity.

You talking about Indian - Pakistan Cricket match? Headscratch

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:38 am

lydian wrote:Exactly CC, I'm not Roger's biggest fan but I don't seek to downplay his actual achievements, nor his talent. It seems at times there is a constant need to deride Nadal's achievements by putting them into lesser context or fobbing off his fans as unknowledgeable fanboys. Yet anyone eulogising about Federer is never termed as such. It's all so pointless.

R U sure about it? Fed fans were ruthlessly targeted by may wums in 606 and were named as "Fed-Worshippers", "Fed-extremists" , "Shanky Fans" etc,...

When a player is on his prime their fans go over board and some section get irritated and they target them back, its the exact case for Rafa now, this just shows the success of the players, but the fact is all players fans do undergo such moments.

by HM Murdock Sun Jun 16, 2013 7:41 am

I've seen nothing from Halle apart from the scores.

How has Federer been playing? Does he look like he has a decent chance of defending his Wimbledon title?

Actually, let me put that another way. If you didn't know that the guy had won it 7 times before, does the way he is playing now suggest the weapons are in working order?

by bogbrush Sun Jun 16, 2013 10:51 am

Good questions Murdoch, and exactly those which are in my mind. I wasn't too thrilled to see he dropped the first set to Tommy but then he lost to him last year but won W.

I dunno, I suppose hope springs eternal at Wimbledon. Needs a good draw, but as we saw at RG even what looks on paper to be a great draw can be no good if it contains one dangerous player.

Better to have a succession of threatening players than a run of pushovers followed by a seriously dangerous one; they only have to lose once!

by bogbrush Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:34 am

CaledonianCraig wrote:To be fair though JHM is it really such a ridiculous statement? I mean Roger is the defending champion and probably goes into the tournament as fourth favourite. We even have Fed fans on here who feel he has a good chance so it really isn't such an outlandish comment. Personally, I think Roger's lack of ultimate consistency almost rules him out of contention but that is my personal opinion.

It surprises me that with the long experience of wumming we all have, anyone can fail to see Amrits intention. Do you really believe what you've written here? You are normally quite sensitised to intention.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:48 am

BB, as I said if the poster wishes to talk up Federer's chances they are entitled to do so but if the win doesn't materialise it is only that poster's credibility that is called into question is it not?

I think everyone (well almost everyone) is unaminous in that there is no clear favourite for this Wimbledon. If you look at the big four you could make a case for all of them. Nadal as being on a hot streak of form and full of confidence having got back to slam winning ways, Djokovic for being world No.1 and largely seen as the man to beat in the last year or two, Federer for being the all-time greatest grass courter and defending champion and Murray for his proven grass court game and win at Olympics last year. So if anyone tries labelling someone a hot favourite of using words like 'will win Wimbledon' then it is going too far.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jun 16, 2013 11:52 am

In addition just to throw the tipsters into more confusion you could equally make a case for why each shouldn't be the favourite. Nada; because his knees may not hold up and so long since a slam win away from clay, Djokovic as he seems to be going through a crisis of confidence, Federer because of his age and lack of sustained consistency and Murray because of back issues and is he in the kind of form to win Wimbledon?

by HM Murdock Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:45 pm

bogbrush wrote: I wasn't too thrilled to see he dropped the first set to Tommy but then he lost to him last year but won W.

I dunno, I suppose hope springs eternal at Wimbledon.

Indeed. Although I phrased my question very carefully, it still may be a redundant one.

Even during Wimbledon last year, when he was struggling with his back against Benneteau and Malisse, I thought he had virtually no chance of the title. Yet that turned out pretty well in the end!

So I probably shouldn't read too much into his form, good, bad or indifferent, a whole event prior.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:47 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote: I wasn't too thrilled to see he dropped the first set to Tommy but then he lost to him last year but won W.

I dunno, I suppose hope springs eternal at Wimbledon.
Indeed. Although I phrased my question very carefully, it still may be a redundant one.

Even during Wimbledon last year, when he was struggling with his back against Benneteau and Malisse, I thought he had virtually no chance of the title. Yet that turned out pretty well in the end!

So I probably shouldn't read too much into his form, good, bad or indifferent, a whole event prior.

Good point HM.

Remember as well last year that Federer never won Halle and Murray bombed out in the Second Round at Queen's.

by Guest Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:53 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote: I wasn't too thrilled to see he dropped the first set to Tommy but then he lost to him last year but won W.

I dunno, I suppose hope springs eternal at Wimbledon.
Indeed. Although I phrased my question very carefully, it still may be a redundant one.

Even during Wimbledon last year, when he was struggling with his back against Benneteau and Malisse, I thought he had virtually no chance of the title. Yet that turned out pretty well in the end!

So I probably shouldn't read too much into his form, good, bad or indifferent, a whole event prior.

With regards to form it's definitely the bad Fed.

Trust me, I can spot where Fed's game is at within a couple of games of watching him.

The main issue is his footwork and speed. Looks more sluggish than at anytime I've ever seen it before. Basically anything slightly wide and deep, particularly on the FH side, leads to a Fed error.

There was a time when players use to avoid the Fderer FH like the plague - it was the most feared and most devastating shot on tour. Not anymore. Players just blast away at it knowing they'll get dividends.

I suspect it's too late to sort out his movement issues. Some of it's likely permanent loss and the rest will require intensive speed and footwork drills to regain. It's not something, I suspect, can be remedied in the week before W.

by Guest Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:57 pm

On the issue of WUMs - I don't mind a tongue in cheek WUM, who's obviously having a laugh, even if they lose it a bit at times.

What really annoys me is the disingenuous type of poster. You know, the type who is obviously wumming, and everyone can see this, but when called out on it, instead of just putting their hands up and admitting to it or replying in jest, they'll spend post after post defending their initial Wummy statement, taking us all for absolute idiots. It only serves to make them look cunning and dishonest.

Anyway I'll say no more.

by Jahu Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:27 pm

Fed playing about same as yesterday, 2:2, Fed missed 4 break points so far, and saved 1.

by lags72 Sun Jun 16, 2013 1:32 pm

lydian wrote:Anyway.....

I see Youzhny heads into the Federer match with Gerulaitis' words ringing in his ears..."No-one beats The Colonel 15 times!".

.................................................................

Please note lydian that when using this analogy you are required by law to add the vital words "in a row" Wink

by Jahu Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:07 pm

Youzhny takes the first set in TB. Well deserved, and holding his own very well. Fed....well no comment.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:14 pm

emancipator wrote:On the issue of WUMs - I don't mind a tongue in cheek WUM, who's obviously having a laugh, even if they lose it a bit at times.

What really annoys me is the disingenuous type of poster. You know, the type who is obviously wumming, and everyone can see this, but when called out on it, instead of just putting their hands up and admitting to it or replying in jest, they'll spend post after post defending their initial Wummy statement, taking us all for absolute idiots. It only serves to make them look cunning and dishonest.

Anyway I'll say no more.

I second you in this. thumbsup

Fed's games is the worst I have seen, even worst than his 2008 mono version, no power in his inside out forehand, no stamina to play running cross court forehands, 0 backhand, no foot work to cover net, even the smashes are looking vulnerable, this is the first time I guess in a tourament where players have put 10/10 smashes back.

His serve alone keeping him alive in the game.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:16 pm

Jahu wrote:Youzhny takes the first set in TB. Well deserved, and holding his own very well. Fed....well no comment.

I have seen better version of Youzhny turn up against Fed yet go un rewarded, this Fed is in a gifting mode, I would say Fed deserved to lose the set more Youz deserved to win it.

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:17 pm

The last Halle meeting was ~~4-6, 7-6(4), 6-2~~ 6-1, 6-4 between these two with Federer winning. The Colonel has 3 sets in 14 matches. Can he reverse it today?

by Jahu Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:20 pm

Yes, Fed now looks better in second set, or some sort of calculation of having a poor first set, then fire up in set 2 & 3. Like he wants to spend more time on grass before W.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:20 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote: I wasn't too thrilled to see he dropped the first set to Tommy but then he lost to him last year but won W.

I dunno, I suppose hope springs eternal at Wimbledon.
Indeed. Although I phrased my question very carefully, it still may be a redundant one.

Even during Wimbledon last year, when he was struggling with his back against Benneteau and Malisse, I thought he had virtually no chance of the title. Yet that turned out pretty well in the end!

So I probably shouldn't read too much into his form, good, bad or indifferent, a whole event prior.

Good point HM.

Remember as well last year that Federer never won Halle and Murray bombed out in the Second Round at Queen's.

Well Form and fitness are two different things, last year in Wim, Fed was struggling with his back but his game was on , and when ever his back was ok he was able to play a good set of tennis, this Fed is not about Back problem its about out of shape and out of form, I won't be surprised if he is knocked out before quarters anyways he is not gonna have chance outside quarters, if Murray fails to use this opportunity to win the title he simply find it too difficult to get another one. thumbsup

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:23 pm

Jahu wrote:Yes, Fed now looks better in second set, or some sort of calculation of having a poor first set, then fire up in set 2 & 3. Like he wants to spend more time on grass before W.

He should ask for the last minute wild card in Eastbourne and play the entire tournament to get atleast some kinda match fitness before Wimbledon other wise next one week break gonna bring his game further down.

by Jahu Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:24 pm

Damn right!!

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:27 pm

Jahu wrote:Damn right!!

Jahu, coz of rain I am forced to watch this stupid match ahead of Cilic -Murray, Fed's game is so worse I can't believe he made it to finals, Haas should be kicking his butts for missing an easy match in semi's

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:34 pm

Federer 6/6 BPs. Youzhny has done well so far. thumbsup

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:37 pm

DF on BP.

by Jahu Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:38 pm

But have to say, not seen Youzhny play this good for ages, thought that is helped by poor Feds game.

Finally a break from Fed, 1 out of 7.

by The Special Juan Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:39 pm

The Three Musketeers is on C4 for anyone interested Wink

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:41 pm

Now its more Youz deserve to lose it tha Fed win it.

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jun 16, 2013 2:41 pm

The Special Juan wrote:The Three Musketeers is on C4 for anyone interested

Iam taking it. thumbsup

by LuvSports! Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:04 pm

ALLLLEEZZZZZZZ!!!!!

by LuvSports! Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:13 pm

AAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ FEDERER!!!!

by bogbrush Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:16 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, as I said if the poster wishes to talk up Federer's chances they are entitled to do so but if the win doesn't materialise it is only that poster's credibility that is called into question is it not?

I think everyone (well almost everyone) is unaminous in that there is no clear favourite for this Wimbledon. If you look at the big four you could make a case for all of them. Nadal as being on a hot streak of form and full of confidence having got back to slam winning ways, Djokovic for being world No.1 and largely seen as the man to beat in the last year or two, Federer for being the all-time greatest grass courter and defending champion and Murray for his proven grass court game and win at Olympics last year. So if anyone tries labelling someone a hot favourite of using words like 'will win Wimbledon' then it is going too far.

Dear me, is it naïveté or disingenuity?

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:21 pm

bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, as I said if the poster wishes to talk up Federer's chances they are entitled to do so but if the win doesn't materialise it is only that poster's credibility that is called into question is it not?

I think everyone (well almost everyone) is unaminous in that there is no clear favourite for this Wimbledon. If you look at the big four you could make a case for all of them. Nadal as being on a hot streak of form and full of confidence having got back to slam winning ways, Djokovic for being world No.1 and largely seen as the man to beat in the last year or two, Federer for being the all-time greatest grass courter and defending champion and Murray for his proven grass court game and win at Olympics last year. So if anyone tries labelling someone a hot favourite of using words like 'will win Wimbledon' then it is going too far.
Dear me, is it naïveté or disingenuity?

No it is me giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Now if Red is back on here gloating if Federer exits early then yes that qualifies him as being a wind-up merchant in my eyes. I mean is it not more of a wind-up merchant if people are dissing Roger saying he has absolutely no chance? Perhaps I am being naive by wishing to give someone the benifit of the doubt if that is the case then so be it.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:23 pm

By the way Roger wins in Halle beating Youzny in three sets. A welcome boost for him.

by **laverfan** Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:23 pm

Good win for Federer.

by luciusmann Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:34 pm

Finally Fed gets himself a title this year! Even though I got nervous when Fed lost the first set, I knew Youzhny wouldn't break a habit of a life time. Smile

As others have said, there's no assurance of Fed doing well at Wimbledon on the basis of this, however a good result @ Halle has always produced a good run at Wimbledon, I hope it continues this year as it has in others.

by bogbrush Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:37 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
CaledonianCraig wrote:BB, as I said if the poster wishes to talk up Federer's chances they are entitled to do so but if the win doesn't materialise it is only that poster's credibility that is called into question is it not?

I think everyone (well almost everyone) is unaminous in that there is no clear favourite for this Wimbledon. If you look at the big four you could make a case for all of them. Nadal as being on a hot streak of form and full of confidence having got back to slam winning ways, Djokovic for being world No.1 and largely seen as the man to beat in the last year or two, Federer for being the all-time greatest grass courter and defending champion and Murray for his proven grass court game and win at Olympics last year. So if anyone tries labelling someone a hot favourite of using words like 'will win Wimbledon' then it is going too far.
Dear me, is it naïveté or disingenuity?

No it is me giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Now if Red is back on here gloating if Federer exits early then yes that qualifies him as being a wind-up merchant in my eyes. I mean is it not more of a wind-up merchant if people are dissing Roger saying he has absolutely no chance? Perhaps I am being naive by wishing to give someone the benifit of the doubt if that is the case then so be it.

Naïveté it is then.

by bogbrush Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:40 pm

4th set dropped to the Colonel in 15 matches.

by luciusmann Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:41 pm

Red wrote:I'd say Ancient Greek is the hardest, especially the grammar where you have 'active', 'passive' and 'middle' as well. Obviously there's a new alphabet there as well, but that doesn't tend to me a problem.

French or Spanish... it's difficult to say. I did French since a younger age, so by the time I got the GCSE I more or less knew the language to a basic level. I'd say Spanish grammar probably tends to be a bit more regular.
Latin helped my Spanish, do I think for your trip in August knowledge of Latin will really help. The funny thing is I didn't even realise it, I remember doing Spanish comprehensions and being able to translate vocabulary that we haven't learnt yet... and it would only be later that evening or something that I realise that I've picked up that word or part of the word subconsciously from studying Latin set text.
Latin is harder than French and Spanish, but not as hard as Greek overall. In French and Spanish you don't use the subjunctive and other grammatical rarities as much as you do in Latin.

Interesting, I learnt some Ancient Greek before but decided to stick to what I had more experience of! I remember my university supervisor said he advised students to study Ancient Greek over Latin because there was more logical consistently in Ancient Greek and Latin breaks so many of it's own grammatical rules, which confuses people. I don't know which is harder in terms of Ancient Greek vs Latin, I only learn Ancient Greek to a basic level, it seemed easy to me (but that's at a more basic level). I'm glad to know my Latin will help my Spanish learning....the Spanish accent still sounds quite strange to me though....! The subjunctive in Latin isn't so bad....but learning all the forms in the passive tenses, oh gosh.....don't think I even want to remember!

by lags72 Sun Jun 16, 2013 3:45 pm

Trophy no. 77 brings him level with McEnroe, third equal in total of career titles on all-time Open era list. They both trail Lendl (94) and Connors (109).

Always a source of amazement to me - and no little respect - that Mac also amassed a total of 71 doubles titles along the way .......

by Sponsored content

Which round will Federer lose at Halle?