Wimbledon Day 3

First topic message reminder :

GOATgate

Roger Federer has been told he cannot wear trainers with orange soles again at Wimbledon. The Swiss defending champion wore the trainers as he eased past Victor Hanescu 6-3 6-2 6-0 in the first round.

The official guidelines state that: "Including the warm-up period, players at Wimbledon must be dressed almost entirely in white."

Worthy of a DQ


Centre Court - 1.00pm

Flavia Pennetta (ITA) v Victoria Azarenka (BLR) [2]
Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (FRA) [6] v Ernests Gulbis (LAT)
Sergiy Stakhovsky (UKR) v Roger Federer (SUI) [3]

No.1 Court - 1.00pm

Fernando Verdasco (ESP) v Julien Benneteau (FRA) [31]
Yen-Hsun Lu (TPE) v Andy Murray (GBR) [2]
Petra Kvitova (CZE) [8] v Yaroslava Shvedova (KAZ)

No.2 Court - 11.30am

Dustin Brown (GER) v Lleyton Hewitt (AUS)
Petra Cetkovska (CZE) v Caroline Wozniacki (DEN) [9]
Michelle Larcher De Brito (POR) v Maria Sharapova (RUS) [3]
Kenny De Schepper (FRA) v Marin Cilic (CRO) [10]

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

No, Federer didn't play badly for what he is today. It's those of us who have Fed2006 lodged in our minds who look upon it with such gloom.

Like I said though, Roger on his day could beat any player but now he finds an opponent he can't beat - 'Old Father Time'. It comes to all players at some point in their career. Commiserations again but Stak would have been a match for ANYBODY today.

That's my view.

It's weird, I'm really not sad about it. It's felt like Feds existed on borrowed time for a while now; I still don't know how he won it last year. Time up.

Feds lucky this match didn't happen to him a few years ago.

time please wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I think its proved one thing at least .. and I did say it in my predictions that a dark horse could well come up on the outside and win this.
I dont think Andy or Novak can afford to sit back and count their chickens... I really dont. Anything goes in this tournament when they appear to be playing on an ice rink out there

Becker and McEnroe both discounted that - grass has always been slippery and guys like Federer and Murray have kept their feet.  Tsonga blamed the weather rather than the courts.

I do think that Stakhovsky's win, Darcis' win and to a lesser extent Dustin Brown's sends a signal to all the guys that it is possible to beat the top players and it must send waves of hope pouring into the non seed locker rooms!

What a chance for Murray now - from the worst half of the draw, it is not Djokovic who looks to have the more dangerous banana skins!

And WHO IS a dangerous banana skin did you think Stakhovsky was or Darcis .. you have no way of knowing
the underdogs have smelt blood and are straining at the leash !!!!

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Feds lucky this match didn't happen to him a few years ago.

It did, he just somehow sneaked through. Hell, Falla served for it in the 1st round three years ago.

I would like Stakh to be more than a one-match wonder.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

time please wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:I think its proved one thing at least .. and I did say it in my predictions that a dark horse could well come up on the outside and win this.
I dont think Andy or Novak can afford to sit back and count their chickens... I really dont. Anything goes in this tournament when they appear to be playing on an ice rink out there

Becker and McEnroe both discounted that - grass has always been slippery and guys like Federer and Murray have kept their feet.  Tsonga blamed the weather rather than the courts.

I do think that Stakhovsky's win, Darcis' win and to a lesser extent Dustin Brown's sends a signal to all the guys that it is possible to beat the top players and it must send waves of hope pouring into the non seed locker rooms!

What a chance for Murray now - from the worst half of the draw, it is not Djokovic who looks to have the more dangerous banana skins!

And WHO IS a dangerous banana skin did you think Stakhovsky was or Darcis .. you have no way of knowing
the underdogs have smelt blood and are straining at the leash !!!!

That is true!  From the first game Stakhovsky looked as though he could cause an upset because he was so quick around the court and covering the net so well but I didn't forsee it before they walked on court.  Like BB though I have been preparing myself for this since the scare of the opening match of 2010 - sooner or later he was going to lose a close one in the early rounds.  It's how he comes back from this because, unlike Rafa, he has not defended massive points and I think this is the year that he begins to slide.  Still, what a ride!

I think Haas could upset Novak on the grass as long as he himself makes it through to meet him in the third round.  

Let's hope it is Murray's year and we can all toast a British victory - that would be something I would love to see in my lifetime.

laverfan wrote:I would like Stakh to be more than a one-match wonder.

Me too.

I'd so much like this to carry on and have Wimbledon be the meaningful event when the game got changed around.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

No, Federer didn't play badly for what he is today. It's those of us who have Fed2006 lodged in our minds who look upon it with such gloom.

Like I said though, Roger on his day could beat any player but now he finds an opponent he can't beat - 'Old Father Time'. It comes to all players at some point in their career. Commiserations again but Stak would have been a match for ANYBODY today.

That's my view.

It's weird, I'm really not sad about it. It's felt like Feds existed on borrowed time for a while now; I still don't know how he won it last year. Time up.

Don't wish to sound smug or anything but I can't see how sadness comes into it when you consider all the joy he has brought with 17 slam wins. Sadness suppose at the final realisation that his time is up I suppose?

No, Fed was much better in this match and this guy had more nerves than Falla. He was probably more physically impaired at the time too. Fed had to win this match as the other guy wouldn't lose it and he couldn't quite do that.

laverfan wrote:I would like Stakh to be more than a one-match wonder.

Exactly. Just hope he doesnt do a rosol or darcis. I just hope he's put on a big showcourt against Melzer but I doubt he will.

More than likely a Murray v Djokovic final.

What a chance for Murray now - from the worst half of the draw, it is not Djokovic who looks to have the more dangerous banana skins!


sorry you are sending out confused messages here.

Nope CC he has 3 more slams in him. Then when he can't win anymore after that it's time to be sad.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

No, Federer didn't play badly for what he is today. It's those of us who have Fed2006 lodged in our minds who look upon it with such gloom.

Like I said though, Roger on his day could beat any player but now he finds an opponent he can't beat - 'Old Father Time'. It comes to all players at some point in their career. Commiserations again but Stak would have been a match for ANYBODY today.

That's my view.

It's weird, I'm really not sad about it. It's felt like Feds existed on borrowed time for a while now; I still don't know how he won it last year. Time up.

Don't wish to sound smug or anything but I can't see how sadness comes into it when you consider all the joy he has brought with 17 slam wins. Sadness suppose at the final realisation that his time is up I suppose?

I'm saying I'm not sad. You've quoted me saying it. I'm not, he's had an extended decline for a while and he's had his great last hurrah in 2012 by getting #7, #17 and >300.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

No, Federer didn't play badly for what he is today. It's those of us who have Fed2006 lodged in our minds who look upon it with such gloom.

Like I said though, Roger on his day could beat any player but now he finds an opponent he can't beat - 'Old Father Time'. It comes to all players at some point in their career. Commiserations again but Stak would have been a match for ANYBODY today.

That's my view.

It's weird, I'm really not sad about it. It's felt like Feds existed on borrowed time for a while now; I still don't know how he won it last year. Time up.

Don't wish to sound smug or anything but I can't see how sadness comes into it when you consider all the joy he has brought with 17 slam wins. Sadness suppose at the final realisation that his time is up I suppose?

CC we wall know his time is up and yes its sad news, also its pretty difficult to see the invincible Fed lose to lesser mortals , Fed should time his retirement next year in my view, give 2014one big go like Sampras did in 2002, he will fail some but will win 1 big and that should be the way it ends.

What fantastic old school grass court tennis from Stakhovsky. That's how I like to see it. Tremendous quality - a joy to watch.
Did well to hold it together at the end as well.

Told you Stack was good.......let's hope he can get at least to the SF ans give a bit of a turnaround to his career.

As for Federer: he is in an age where the body changes a lot., get bulkier and doesn't have the same flexibility and reactivity anymore, it can happen a lot of earlier, most of time.

@ BB, may be we are all forgetting the sponsorship money which might have forced him to play longer eventhough he knows he is done.

Very much a case of "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs", for Murray.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Nope CC he has 3 more slams in him. Then when he can't win anymore after that it's time to be sad.

You'd better get your hankie out then! Wimbledon 2012 was Pete's USO 2002.

If he realises that he now needs to put in the gym work, call up Haas for some tips and really rededicate himself, Federer could yet win slams. The footwork would come back to a large degree, and with it the timing. I couldn't blame him if he chooses not to, or feels that he can't - he has a lot in his life now.

I'm with bogbrush on this one, I hope that this tournament is a game changing event. Federer's great, but even his run of dominance kind of signified stagnation in the game...here's to a new era going forward?

Fed will be fine, his level is still great. Look what it took to beat him, basically a Rosol performance except Feds not injured.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

No, Federer didn't play badly for what he is today. It's those of us who have Fed2006 lodged in our minds who look upon it with such gloom.

Like I said though, Roger on his day could beat any player but now he finds an opponent he can't beat - 'Old Father Time'. It comes to all players at some point in their career. Commiserations again but Stak would have been a match for ANYBODY today.

That's my view.

It's weird, I'm really not sad about it. It's felt like Feds existed on borrowed time for a while now; I still don't know how he won it last year. Time up.

Don't wish to sound smug or anything but I can't see how sadness comes into it when you consider all the joy he has brought with 17 slam wins. Sadness suppose at the final realisation that his time is up I suppose?

I'm saying I'm not sad. You've quoted me saying it. I'm not, he's had an extended decline for a while and he's had his great last hurrah in 2012 by getting #7, #17 and >300.

No I meant I wouldn't expect sadness after the career he has had.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fed will be fine, his level is still great. Look what it took to beat him, basically a Rosol performance except Feds not injured.

Is he at his peak?

He was on the points he won.

It was good to see an exhibition of serve-volley tennis. I agree with Bogbrush, a result like this has been coming for a while and he dodged a massive bullet vs Falla three years ago.

It was frustrating to see the forehand misfiring, but perhaps this defeat is a blessing in disguise and give Roger the wake-up call he needs.

Time will tell.

In any case, he is a 17-slam winner, which is still the most no. of slams won by anyone and he has had a great career.

No eulogies for me? Ouch.

LuvSports! wrote:No eulogies for me? Ouch.

Fed's getting on a bit, Staka played wonderful tennis, tomorrow Wimbledon continues

One for PseudoFed?

"Good to leave court quicker & not have to go through trophy ceremony. That's nice thing about today.Other than that disappointed."

I won't be surprised if all these were pre-planned by Fedal to do some fishing in Swiss shores. I guess they got to bored of winning Tennis and wanna explore a different sport altogether.

But given the form of Fedals the quarterfinal match had it took place would have been interesting, 5 sets with 200 errors from both sides

kemet wrote:It was good to see an exhibition of serve-volley tennis. I agree with Bogbrush, a result like this has been coming for a while and he dodged a massive bullet vs Falla three years ago.

It was frustrating to see the forehand misfiring, but perhaps this defeat is a blessing in disguise and give Roger the wake-up call he needs.

Time will tell.

In any case, he is a 17-slam winner, which is still the most no. of slams won by anyone and he has had a great career.

I think I misunderstood you earlier Kemet - sorry!

I do feel very sad that the QF streak had to come to an end on CC and not at another slam.  Would love to see him come back but what a privilege it has been to see him in his purple phase - like you and BB, I feel  that sooner or later one of these early round close matches would swing the other way and see him out so no great surprise.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fed's getting on a bit, Staka played wonderful tennis, tomorrow Wimbledon continues

Absolutely - no-one, not even the 7 time Champion, is bigger than than the tournament. An era has come to an end tonight with no TMF in the second week, but while that is very sad, it is also very exciting to see who comes through now and takes the title.



Hope we see him back rested and refreshed at USO - what is his seeding going to be though?

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Can Fed still be the year end no1?

That's the funniest post I've seen on here for a while.

This isn't going to be easy for either Djokovic or Murray now. Every low ranked player in the draw is going to feed off of these upsets. They are going to have that extra confidence and belief that "if he can do it, maybe I can too?!".

CaledonianCraig wrote:I really don't think Federer's level was so bad today just that Stakhovsky played so brilliantly. He played the big points superbly and kept his head even under immense pressure. From what I saw Roger just never got to grips with Stak's serve. It was a match Stak deserved to win. For Federer it doesn't change much - still the greatest grass courter and player of all-time. Commiserations Fed fans.

As it sinks in- it does put into perspective how amazing the Federer quarterfinal and semifinal streaks were.... Coming across players playing the match of their lives, playing with nothing to lose and year after year he found a way to win round after round.... It's sad it ends.. but wow- what a ride!

Just heard the news about Fed - I thought my reaction would be one of horror, but really it's more of delight that he's kept the balls in the air for so long.  
 
I suspect how he reacts to this will initially be visceral - is his disappointment enough to force him back into the gym, or does he discover that it doesn't hurt enough in the harsh light of day and it's not worth the candle?
 
But when the dust settles I suspect he's got more thinking to do than Nadal.

Lets hope for the Wimbledon and all fans that Murray wins this W, with a player out of top 10 in the final.

Cogen wrote:This isn't going to be easy for either Djokovic or Murray now. Every low ranked player in the draw is going to feed off of these upsets. They are going to have that extra confidence and belief that "if he can do it, maybe I can too?!".

The difference, however, is that Djokovic and Murray, unlike this version of Federer, are excellent returners of serve, and are younger.

Roger used to be excellent on the return and used to be fine against big servers.

Now, he is clearly vulnerable.

His return wasn't so bad today, he saved a matchpoint on Stak's serve.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:His return wasn't so bad today, he saved a matchpoint on Stak's serve.

His return was poor I thought - far too many chipped BH returns which were neither low enough or deep enough - and that includes off 2nd serves.

Fair enough. I thought what really let him down on the break points was throwing away rally shots or should be winners and failing that just being too tight.

Cogen wrote:This isn't going to be easy for either Djokovic or Murray now. Every low ranked player in the draw is going to feed off of these upsets. They are going to have that extra confidence and belief that "if he can do it, maybe I can too?!".

I don't really agree on this point. Federer and Nadal (by way of his tennis mileage) are half a generation ahead of Djokovic and Murray, and their losses really bear little meaning to the two younger members of the big four.

For the past year or so most tennis commentators on either side of the tv/computer screen have been stating that we are now entering a Novak/Andy era, and although Rafa usurped this duopoly for a while on his beloved clay (and even then not without an 8 month sabbatical in preparation and an almighty battle with Novak at Roland Garros - a match he really should have lost), this is what we have witnessed save for Federer's miracle Wimby 2012 run.

To ramify on this point, it is extraordinary just how "under the radar" Djokovic is in this tournament given that he is the world no.1, Wimby champion from two years ago, current holder of the titles at the Australian Open, World Tour Finals, Canada, Shanghai and Monte Carlo and frankly played a match of vastly underrated quality against probably the greatest clay courter of all time a few weeks ago.

i am glad most of the posters i know from since time began are pretty sanguine about Fed's loss. his loss today doesn't belittle him in any way at all.

The Ukrainian brought a brand of tennis today very seldom seen and what's more he maintained it consistently throughout the match.

Fed's speed has declined for sure. that is the first thing that goes with age, but all said the Ukrainian thoroughly deserved his win.

also some perspective from those who think it's the end of the world. it isn't.

it is a tennis match played by two people for who none of us exist.

Nelson Mandela is still in hospital. Now THAT is more concern worthy than Federer's loss.

lastly, i seriously doubt the Ukrainian can maintain this form. if he could, he wouldnt be the world number 135 or whatever.

this will be a Murray vs Djokovic final.

he is and always was marginal favourite for Wimbledon with Murray behind him. there are some who rated Nadal as fave after the FO, but again that was based on emotion not logic.

only blind worshippers gave Federer any chance and i say this as a Federer admirer.

[quote="spdocoffee"]

Cogen wrote:

To ramify on this point, it is extraordinary just how "under the radar" Djokovic is in this tournament given that he is the world no.1, Wimby champion from two years ago, current holder of the titles at the Australian Open, World Tour Finals, Canada, Shanghai and Monte Carlo and frankly played a match of vastly underrated quality against probably the greatest clay courter of all time a few weeks ago.

The season of Djokovic has been strange. You have the excellent wins of Australian and Monte Carlo, but also the defeats to Haas, Dimitrov and Berdych early on elsewhere. Yet, he's still clear No 1.

Haddie-nuff wrote:What a chance for Murray now - from the worst half of the draw, it is not Djokovic who looks to have the more dangerous banana skins!

Every player at a slam is a potential banana skin.

Haddie-nuff wrote:sorry you are sending out confused messages here.

Was this for me, H-n?

spdocoffee wrote:

Cogen wrote:This isn't going to be easy for either Djokovic or Murray now. Every low ranked player in the draw is going to feed off of these upsets. They are going to have that extra confidence and belief that "if he can do it, maybe I can too?!".

I don't really agree on this point. Federer and Nadal (by way of his tennis mileage) are half a generation ahead of Djokovic and Murray, and their losses really bear little meaning to the two younger members of the big four.

For the past year or so most tennis commentators on either side of the tv/computer screen have been stating that we are now entering a Novak/Andy era, and although Rafa usurped this duopoly for a while on his beloved clay (and even then not without an 8 month sabbatical in preparation and an almighty battle with Novak at Roland Garros - a match he really should have lost), this is what we have witnessed save for Federer's miracle Wimby 2012 run.

To ramify on this point, it is extraordinary just how "under the radar" Djokovic is in this tournament given that he is the world no.1, Wimby champion from two years ago, current holder of the titles at the Australian Open, World Tour Finals, Canada, Shanghai and Monte Carlo and frankly played a match of vastly underrated quality against probably the greatest clay courter of all time a few weeks ago.

I agree, I bleat on about it all the time, but Andy and Novak's consistency of the last two years is vastly underplayed. Of course there are dangers, but these two are simply not going to fight for years to get equal / better than Fedal to give it all up in say two hours on Centre Court

Someone will have top play well for four hours to beat them

What a day.  The retirements and walkovers alone would have made the day strange, but Fed losing - in the second round - to a player outside top 100.  That does not happen very often; maybe once in ten years or so.  This feels like the slams in the old days, where you did not know who would be in the semifinals until after the tournament started.

Have not yet seen the match (will try to watch some of it tonight and then maybe the rest over the weekend) but from what I hear it was pretty exciting tennis.

It may even have beneficial consequences for the relationships on the forum.  Both Rafa and Roger bombed so spectacularly that on either side we do not feel confident enough to be smug about the other guy's loss .  So instead of winding ourselves mutually up, we may as well commiserate with each other.

And, for all the disappointment of the results of the last few days (well, maybe not if you are an Andy fan ), we may find out that - in the end - we all love tennis first and foremost, and may even get excited about the prospect of something different without the need to focus on the usually omnipresent Rafa vs Roger storms in a teacup.  Who knows, we may even get an exciting brand new slam champion (Ferrer, anyone?)

It is also funny how the draw now - only three days in - has an entirely different feel from when the tournament started.  Andy's half, which looked like a draw of death when we started, now looks like a backwater 250 tournament.  I imagine the organizers are ok with the decimated bottom half - as long as Andy is still there.  But if he somehow slips too, they will cringe in horror.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:he has 3 more slams in him.

I would like nothing more than for you to be right.

However, over the years I have seen many champions who would beat everyone and win everything in their early and mid twenties, then win a little bit less in their late twenties, then less still in their early thirties.  And the typical progression has not been to then start winning big again in the mid thirties.

summerblues wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:he has 3 more slams in him.

I would like nothing more than for you to be right.

However, over the years I have seen many champions who would beat everyone and win everything in their early and mid twenties, then win a little bit less in their late twenties, then less still in their early thirties.  And the typical progression has not been to then start winning big again in the mid thirties.

Unfortunately, I don't think he does. This event, this year, was his best chance. I simply think that there are too many minefields now for him in order for him to get to even the QF's fresh

And now he's poised to be seeded to reach only the quarters at the US Open