DC 2014 Final - 21-23 Nov 2014

First topic message reminder :

SUI and FRA contest the final in a few days.

http://www.daviscup.com/en/draws-results/tie/details.aspx?tieId=100021090

SUI has two players coming out of WTF, while FRA has depth in numbers.

SUI may never be at this point in the near future and can make the best of the presented opportunity. Federer and Wawrinka would like to add this to their CV, if they can. They will rue the opportunity that Lady Luck has thrown their way.

FRA is the last hurdle, and have some good players, a home court advantage and a surface that may favor them more the the SUI. H2Hs may be meaningless in such a contest given that any of the players on one side can beat players on the other side of the net.

ARG v ESP turned out to be an excellent DC final, with DelPotro, Monaco, Nalbandian trying their best to get the better of the other side.

Will this final live up to its billing?

Federer took the glory because he was on court at the end but in fact Stan won 2 from 2 in the final and Federer 2 from 3.

They both did well though - it was a team effort and Federer scored well in earlier rounds.

Haha, just checked your link, so every one of the French players live in Switzerland, amusingly close to the French border. I assume that's for tax reasons. You can hardly blame them with the tax rates in France and the fact that they would only spend 10-20 weeks a year probably in France anyway, even if they were resident there.

Henman Bill wrote:Haha, just checked your link, so every one of the French players live in Switzerland, amusingly close to the French border. I assume that's for tax reasons. You can hardly blame them with the tax rates in France and the fact that they would only spend 10-20 weeks a year probably in France anyway, even if they were resident there.

Hollande is such an idiot. Still, Ed was saying he was showing the way for Europe a few years ago, but quieter now.

Isn't the tax rate in France like 70% for some?

No wonder the French are fleeing!

So pleased for Roger and Stan and the Swiss in general. It is going to be a very, very long time before this is repeated because the next two guys in the rankings are Chiudinelli and Lammer who are ranked 208 and 508 respectively unless a new generation has been inspired by Federer. It was Switzerland's only chance and they managed to pull it off.

I do believe Fed's back was an issue at the WTF because he was appalling vs Monfils. Monfils was on fire and even a fully fit Fed would have struggled anyway but at the end of the day they made it. One player cannot win a Davis Cup,its a team effort so they all deserve it. Ironic that Federer's win should seal the deal so from his perspective it could not have been better than having the daddy of Swiss tennis strike the winning ball/win the last point. If you look at the headlines its a case of Federer sealing the win for the Swiss.

I think he played down the win because lets face it, his greatest rivals all have a DC win so it must have been something he wants to achieve. I guess he owed this to the others too and the country. I think he is just missing that singles gold medal and maybe Rome/MC in terms of completing the full masters set too.

This could work both ways. It might inspire him to achieve more or it might make him think, he's done it all now so maybe it's time to stop chasing the records. With the depth in the game I doubt he will have another RG title. Wimbledon in the summer was his best chance to seal a legacy as he was 2 games away. The USO, another good opportunity missed so this hopefully makes up for those disappointments.

Btw, anyone know what was up with Tsonga? I know it was an elbow issue but Chris Bradnam was hinting there maybe more to it as he mentioned something about a psychological issue or perhaps some other external reason he was not his usual self this weekend

Probably his Tax bill arrived from Paris

Some swiss spied.

Henman Bill wrote:Haha, just checked your link, so every one of the French players live in Switzerland, amusingly close to the French border. I assume that's for tax reasons. You can hardly blame them with the tax rates in France and the fact that they would only spend 10-20 weeks a year probably in France anyway, even if they were resident there.

Yep. Dead certainty.

Hollande is indeed a prime fool.

Easy people on Hollande. Peugeot sux too, but best player in the world wares it.

Hollande got votes too.

Well done to the Swiss. Think they were the favourites for the tournament from the time Federer decided to play this year especially with Wawrinka having just won the AO. There is a big difference from being favourite though and actually winning. It wasn't always straightforward but they got there reasonably comfortably in the end.

From Federer's reaction it looked big to him, that somewhat pathetic falling over forwards and crying was the way he celebrated his early slams, I thought he'd got past that these days and is more likely to celebrate nowadays with a casual finger wag or head nod, or maybe a jump in the air at most.

A lot of the top singles players have won it now, Murray obviously being an exception although his chances took a big knock when Djokovic decided to play for Serbia leaving Murray to be backed up by the world no 200.

Very pleased for the Swiss. They deserve it. Another disappointment for Gasquet, which pretty much sums up his career since that stunning comeback against Roddick at Wimbledon many moons ago. As for French politics, good luck to marine le pen, a party representing the common man rather than the trendy liberal elite.

Long live UKIP then

Back to tennis please, no politics

temporary21 wrote:Its a historic moment for Switzerland. If I may however, raise my glass to Stanislas Warinka. Always the man in shadow, hes won a slam this year, and took the disappointment of the O2, and the scandal and threw it out the window. He took the first point, and was brutal in the doubles. It his win as much as anybody elses.

Hes gone from "that other bloke who plays tennis in Switzerland" to arguably their marquee player, thats a heck of an achievement.

To Stan

Not their marquee player, but definitely their banker - in this DC final he's been the lynchpin of the team. Without him they wouldn't have won, whereas although Federer contributed hugely as well, you couldn't necessarily say the same for him. Fed seems to be trying to stay out of the limelight in the ceremony afterwards etc, highlighting Stan's performance too. Good man.

I'm more happy for the team than either individual, but Stan really is the man. Such a great guy, I'm glad he won this and hope he kicks on and has an excellent 2015

Good result for the Swiss, as soon as I heard it was (blown) Gasket playing it was all over bar the (very loud) shouting. The French made some poor decisions in my opinion. For example why not continue with Vasselin/Benneteau who just played very well at the WTF Doubles. The rubber after Friday just felt flat tbh...anyway well done La Suisse on this win. Federer can retire soon a happier man...not that he had much to be unhappy about anyway, lol.

Stan Wawrinka must want 2014 never to end. Major winner, bagged a 1000 and another 250. Throw in the Davis Cup.

As for King Roger, all he needs is the 2016 OGM in the singles, to close the show...I doubt he'll win it on clay though...

greengoblin wrote:As for French politics, good luck to marine le pen, a party representing the common man rather than the trendy liberal elite.

What a crass and ignorant comment. I guess this is why there is no political section on these boards.

whocares wrote:

greengoblin wrote:As for French politics, good luck to marine le pen, a party representing the common man rather than the trendy liberal elite.

What a crass and ignorant comment. I guess this is why there is no political section on these boards.

I'm not going to discuss politics as this is a tennis forum, but please look up demographic projections in Europe, and then you might see the need for concern.

greengoblin wrote:As for French politics, good luck to marine le pen, a party representing the common man rather than the trendy liberal elite.

I suppose if you don't include minorities as the 'common man', sure

No more politics please, people.

lydian wrote:Good result for the Swiss, as soon as I heard it was (blown) Gasket playing it was all over bar the (very loud) shouting. The French made some poor decisions in my opinion. For example why not continue with Vasselin/Benneteau who just played very well at the WTF Doubles. The rubber after Friday just felt flat tbh...anyway well done La Suisse on this win. Federer can retire soon a happier man...not that he had much to be unhappy about anyway, lol.

I too thought you would want to have Vasselin/Benneteau to play doubles especially after their RG triumph this year. It was clearly a winning combination.
However, it is for what happened this afternoon that Vasselin was not picked. He is a doubles player and that is about it. If he was in the team and one of singles players was injured (like Tsonga) then Clement would have needed another player with some singles prowess to step in. Simon
would have given Federer more problems than Gasquet but Gasquet had played doubles with Tsonga so a last minute switch was possible.
Chardy would have been another option, again a bit of problem for Fed. I think the whole focus was on Federer but they overlooked Wawrinka, the real danger man.

These French players will never achieve anything beyond what they have already achieved. they have reached their level of competence.

for some reason they are totally incapable of stringing a series of wins. all they do is have one great match in a tourney and then they burn out.

i was thinking Stan would join their ranks till last year, but thankfully, he's broken through. he has too much talent in him.

i think if he works on his fitness, then he can seriously contend against Djokovic.

Unfortunate for France. They gambled on Tsonga being fit enough to last the tie. That turned out not to be the case. With Tsonga in the squad, I don't see they had any option but to choose Gasquet and Benne as they needed both singles and doubles cover. They were toast though as soon as they lost the doubles so tamely.

Good for Switzerland - it would have been something of a travesty if Wawrinka and Fed had not won a Davis Cup in their careers.

Its intriguing how it worked out though. Did Monfils beating Fed so easily work against France in the end? I can't imagine he would have played doubles after a 5 setter for example. No Fed in the doubles and France might well have grabbed it!

Born Slippy wrote:Its intriguing how it worked out though. Did Monfils beating Fed so easily work against France in the end? I can't imagine he would have played doubles after a 5 setter for example. No Fed in the doubles and France might well have grabbed it!

Yes, it's been banded about that Monfils was almost too good and didn't wear Fed out enough. Must say I thought Fed's remarks after the Monfils defeat, that he felt better and better the longer the match went on and that he was ready to play the doubles if necessary, was mere bravado.
But considering how well he played in the doubles and against Reeshard praps he was right.
Of course there will always be debate about the 02 final pull-out. It could be argued that Rog would have tried to play if the DC final had not been coming up. But at the same time I still think he probably WAS in a bad way.

I had to smile at Federer's post-match comments:

"This one is for the boys. It's not for me. I've won enough in my career and did not need to tick any empty boxes. I'm just happy for everybody else."

His ability to try to say something humble but end up sounding arrogant is quite remarkable.

(Which isn't to say I disagree with what he says!)

Forgot to add that he made Quotes with his fingers when he said to tick empty boxes.

HM Murdoch wrote:I had to smile at Federer's post-match comments:

"This one is for the boys. It's not for me. I've won enough in my career and did not need to tick any empty boxes. I'm just happy for everybody else."

His ability to try to say something humble but end up sounding arrogant is quite remarkable.

(Which isn't to say I disagree with what he says!)

I'm still trying to work out whether it was really arrogant, really humble, or both at the same time (is that even possible?).

IMBL, don't sugarcoat HM anti-Fed sentiment

HM Murdoch wrote:I had to smile at Federer's post-match comments:

"This one is for the boys. It's not for me. I've won enough in my career and did not need to tick any empty boxes. I'm just happy for everybody else."

His ability to try to say something humble but end up sounding arrogant is quite remarkable.

(Which isn't to say I disagree with what he says!)

I laughed because of the casualness of "I've won enough in my career"

He has a point given the doubles lads haven't much to shout about.

It Must Be Love wrote:I'm still trying to work out whether it was really arrogant, really humble, or both at the same time (is that even possible?).

I don't think he actually ever attempts humble. He just says what he sees as the facts.

And the facts are that he is incredibly talented and has been incredibly successful. There's no denying that.

It's just that he states these kind of facts as freely as he would state the fact that he is a Swiss tennis player.

I quite like it actually. False modesty gets quite tedious after a while.

Well the mere fact that he says he has won enough in his career begs the question as to why he is bothering to carry on then ??? If it is not an attempt to be humble that is

HMM - I think you've got it spot on. Fed talks quite openly of "being talented" and will say, before a match, "obviously I'm favourite to win". Others are more guarded. Listen to Rafa and you would think he was a very average player rather than one of the greatest of all time.

Next time Rafa wins something he's going to give it to Almagro. Rafa has won enough and he's decided to donate future wins to those in need. After that he will pick a needy player from a list he's preparing I think he's hoping those champagne people might notice

But why if he has said quite openly that he has won enough in his career does he choose to carry on... who does he think he is fooling ???
He would say it best if he said nothing at all

Haddie-nuff wrote:But why if he has said quite openly that he has won enough in his career does he choose to carry on... who does he think he is fooling ???
He would say it best if he said nothing at all

I applaud your dedication

It doesn't bug me so much. Players like the big 4 are perfectly entitled to say they are talented and whatnot, but I think Nadal and Murray do it better (i.e. be humble) than the other 2. How can you believe that, when one of them plays the world 150-odd that it will be a "tough match"?

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

The Special Juan wrote:It doesn't bug me so much.  Players like the big 4 are perfectly entitled to say they are talented and whatnot, but I think Nadal and Murray do it better (i.e. be humble) than the other 2.  How can you believe that, when one of them plays the world 150-odd that it will be a "tough match"?

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

Because its their way of publicly showing respect for their opponent

The Special Juan wrote:

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

That isn't Murray being humble it's him being wildly optimistic

hawkeye wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

That isn't Murray being humble it's him being wildly optimistic

More like you being cynical HE

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

That isn't Murray being humble it's him being wildly optimistic

More like you being cynical HE

Don't you think there is a difference between Federer saying "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it" and Murray saying it?

You have to earn the right to be criticized for being too humble

hawkeye wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

That isn't Murray being humble it's him being wildly optimistic

More like you being cynical HE

Don't you think there is a difference between Federer saying "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it" and Murray saying it?

You have to earn the right to be criticized for being too humble

When did Federer say it

hawkeye wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:

(Murray's favourite is "hopefully" i.e. "It will be a tough match but hopefully I can get through it")

That isn't Murray being humble it's him being wildly optimistic

Ugh my feelings have been hurt now

Haddie-nuff wrote:

When did Federer say it

Federer didn't say it Murray did (apparantly) but was being praised for being humble by The Special Juan. As if he was playing down his chances. I disagreed. I think with that comment he is talking up his chances. That's how I see it anyway.

Somehow I couldn't imagine Federer saying it in whatever context.

and I can imagine Murray being criticised for saying in whatever context

Haddie-nuff wrote:Somehow I couldn't imagine Federer saying it in whatever context.

and I can imagine Murray being criticised for saying in whatever context

I don't think either are particularly humble but Murray should be more wary of blowing his own trumpet. This is what he said after winning his quarter final before his meeting with Nadal this year at the FO

He said: “It’s definitely a big achievement, but that’s not what I came here to do. My goals are different and my expectations are different to a lot of people.

“I expect a lot of myself. I put a lot of pressure on myself to perform well at these events, and thankfully I have done OK so far. There’s still hopefully a long way to go in the tournament.”

And in contrast this is what Nadal said about Murray

He insisted he always saw Murray as a danger here, saying: “I’m not surprised Andy is in the semi-finals. He’s a candidate to win Roland Garros. Before the tournament he was a candidate to win Roland Garros for me.”

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2014/jun/05/andy-murray-rafael-nadal-french-open

Andy's comments seem perfectly reasonable - the thoughts of any top 10 player.

Rafa taking the pee out of Andy there I think Unless he really was the only person who thought Murray was a candidate to win.

^ Rafa was just giving Andy a lesson on how to be humble

JuliusHMarx wrote:Andy's comments seem perfectly reasonable - the thoughts of any top 10 player.

Rafa taking the pee out of Andy there I think Unless he really was the only person who thought Murray was a candidate to win.

I think that Rafa has always held Andy in high esteem because he knows that (more in the past than now methinks) Andy has been an opponent that has caused him problems.. I seriously do not think that Rafa knows how to take the pee out of anyone.. though I am sure you will prove me wrong

As long as the article doesn't have the headline "Murray Not Overawed By Nadal Semi"

I don't really think he was taking the pee out of him - hence the smiley - but he wasn't being humble, he was simply being a) polite rather than truthful or b) truthful but a poor judge of Murray's clay court ability.
If Djokovic had said the same thing it would simply be another poor attempt to be popular, but that's another story