Federer at current form not very far off his best and I think the favorite in final.

It is strange that Roger is having a second and even now a third spring in his career at the age 34. In many ways it is unprecedented in tennis but at the same time we are seeing players having their best results in the late 20s and early thirties something that would have been unthinkable on the tour 15 years ago. I mean Mac never won a slam after 84, Borg retired at 25. I feel that Federer is in many ways better than he was even at his peak in 04-07. I think many people will argue with me and call me crazy. But physically modern tennis players are not losing their fitness and athleticism as rapidly as they did in the past. This has to do with how far advanced sports medicine has come. Improved surgeries, medicines, holistic alternative medicine, better nutrition, yoga, pilates, and weight training has allowed athletes in tennis to maintain near peak physical powers at later ages. Especially, if they are as athletically gifted to start with as a player like Federer and have avoided many serious injuries.

In comparison to fed 04-07 I would say that current Federer has a better backhand, is more comfortable in being aggressive on the second serve return. Additionally, Federer of 04-07 was not as tactically astute or varied as current Federer. He was much more comfortable to play from the baseline on opponents service games and use his slice backhand and his movement to work the point. A style that in my mind didn't suit the strong points of his game as much as his all out aggression model of today. Fed was faster and fitter in his peak years and therefore he didn't feel a need to rush and pressure opponents at every single opportunity like he does today. Today Federer I feel is more eager and comfortable at net than he was at his peak as well. Federer of 04-07 wouldn't adjust to opponents wouldn't play out of his comfort zone or try new things, he didn't need to. But years of playing second fiddle to Nadal and to an extent to Djokovic changed Federer's mentality and made him tactically a much more difficult player to play. The use of SABRE or drop shot or quicker strike tennis with more approaches to the net have all played dividends and have made Roger uniquely challenging for today's power baseliners. Another tactical variation he has added post peak, aided by the better more modern racquet is his ability to come over the return and to be aggressive instead of using the chip or block back return of the past. In the past a heavy kick serve to Fed's backhand if you had a good kick almost always assured you a pretty workable chip return that you could run around and get on top of the point with a return. Now he steps in and belts those backhand returns not giving you the opportunity to attack him on the first forehand.

On the serve there is actually a clear improvement in today's Federer than in comparison to peak Federer at no point in 04-07 did he win as high percentage of service games as he is today. So in summary, combining a better harder backhand, with a better serve, more aggression on the return, and better tactical mix has made new Federer if not as equally formidable to his peak; very close to it. Yes he is not as fast or as fit, but those are relatively minor losses to Federer and the way that he plays. He doesn't play many physical matches or points to begin with and doesn't spend much time defending in most matches whether now or in the past. Yes his results aren't as strong and surely there is drop off in certain areas, but I feel that this type of purple patch should no longer surprise us.

I see Fed as 60-40 favorite in tomorrow's final based on his current form and Djokovic's current form. Novak has just not hit the high notes post Wimbeldon and Federer has. In away I think Federer has found away to evolve to where he can still win and be the best with the new tool set of skills, equipment, and tactics at his disposal.

Ten years ago


hes not as good as that anymore, hes more awkward, but hes not better. His main wepoan now is his serve, which e uses as a platform to attack on the return points if you take that away, like Novak does, youve cut a huge amount of his effective strength.

The key to beating him, short of a good return is the passing shot... people have lost the tactical 2 shot pass back in the days of s and v, thats what you need the most.

Well after your accurate analysis at the Frenchc Open I take some comfort from this. Although I disagree Djokovic is favourite.

I think 2011 Roger, who only lost to Novak and Rafa that year and hardly anyone else, and did not have a single defeat to a really lowly ranked player all season like he did in 2004 and 2007, was as good as the 2004-2007 Roger.

But 2013-2015 has been losing to Robredo, Seppi, and all sorts even in grand slams, and losing in R2, R3 R4, QF of slams. The peak Roger was a permanent fixture in at least the semi final. So it pretty obvious to me that he has declined. The results are clear. There is an argument (which I don't quite believe) that only the consistency has declined, and that his 2015 best is still as good as his previous best, but overall that still represents a decline.

I think his serve has lost a little power in the last couple of years (does anyone agree or is this just me?), maybe his movement, his forehand, and I think physically he has slightly declined. He is ranked 2 because Murray and Rafa are on the decline.

Hes become very good in a few key areas, the serve and the rush play the 2 most prominent, counter those and youve got him nowadays. Ten years ago you could do everything right and still not get close.

Well HB I see it a bit differently. Conditions tomorrow are more favorable to Federer. And in terms of serving Fed is holding at a higher percentage right now than at any year from 04-07, I think by four percentage points over 07. Whatever he is doing on serve it is working better now than it did even at his peak. Plus when he was at his peak he was faster, fitter and could aid his effort to hold more effectively with other tools. To me his serve is better than in the past. It is just that Roger's game is more well rounded and frankly he is a much wilier and craftier ball striker and tactician. I concede his forehand and movement not quite what it was; but the serve, backhand, and tactical mix is better. (ie go after returns, change return position, use more net rushes, more drop shots)

temporary21 wrote:Ten years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TZeGkEQWc

hes not as good as that anymore, hes more awkward, but hes not better. His main wepoan now is his serve, which e uses as a platform to attack on the return points if you take that away, like Novak does, youve cut a huge amount of his effective strength.

The key to beating him, short of a good return is the passing shot... people have lost the tactical 2 shot pass back in the days of s and v, thats what you need the most.

I think Fed's more aggressive style now is more unorthodox and hard to handle for players that have grown up playing the last decade on tour. They just weren't used to it at the juniors and they don't see it on the pro tour either. He pressures them and challenges these skill sets like the two shot pass that you talk about that they simply have not practiced and are not used to seeing in matches.

It's very hard to assess. We basically have to weigh up if any improvement in his game is enough to offset the inevitable physical decline that happens by age 34.

I'd be willing to accept that his tennis skills are better than ever.

But I also think the decline in his speed and endurance is marked. His style of movement is still graceful and seemingly effortless but it's easy to forget how quick his foot speed was in his mid 20s. He's definitely slower nowadays and that impacts so much.

It's all relative of course. He's probably still one of the quicker top players. But a clear level behind Djokovic and Murray.

But I agree with you in making Federer favourite.

In the notional calculation of "form + physical condition", I place him sightly ahead of Novak. In other words, I think the difference in form does more than merely offset the difference in physical condition. It's big enough to put Federer slightly ahead.

I also expect a tie break in one or both of the first two sets, so this match probably really will come down to a point or two.

I think Federer won serve games in 04-07 because of the deadliness of the forehand backing up the serve. I think his serve improved after that. But it seems to me, without looking at any stats, that his serve peaked in around 10-12. He doesn't seem to dominate so much and smash as many aces down as before. I agree his serve is better than 04-07 but just have a feeling it's slightly on the down trend due to physical issues.

However I havn't seen anyone else say it so I could be wronng.

I did watch the Agassi-Federer match in 05 and just watched the highlights posted. I have to say Agassi was matching Federer that day on ball striking and talent, I think ihs relatively weak serve and the fact that he was older and less fit, was probably the only reason he lost.

Agassi with a monster serve and better mental stability would have been a frightening player, maybe even the GOAT.

Henman Bill wrote:I did watch the Agassi-Federer match in 05 and just watched the highlights posted. I have to say Agassi was matching Federer that day on ball striking and talent, I think ihs relatively weak serve and the fact that he was older and less fit, was probably the only reason he lost.

Agassi with a monster serve and better mental stability would have been a frightening player, maybe even the GOAT.

Yes, if Andre was let says six one as opposed to five tennish he probably would have had a better flat serve. He always had a good kick serve to rely on. A couple of inches more of height probably would have given another 5 or 6 miles per hour on his serve. But he also wasn't as fast as Roger, Andy, Rafa, or Novak.

Henman Bill wrote:I think Federer won serve games in 04-07 because of the deadliness of the forehand backing up the serve. I think his serve improved after that. But it seems to me, without looking at any stats, that his serve peaked in around 10-12. He doesn't seem to dominate so much and smash as many aces down as before. I agree his serve is better than 04-07 but just have a feeling it's slightly on the down trend due to physical issues.

However I havn't seen anyone else say it so I could be wronng.

The serve is about 5-10 mph slower than it was 5 years ago even with the racquet change. However his first serve % seems to have increased so perhaps this has been a conscious effort to land more first serves.

HM Murdock wrote:It's very hard to assess. We basically have to weigh up if any improvement in his game is enough to offset the inevitable physical decline that happens by age 34.

I'd be willing to accept that his tennis skills are better than ever.

But I also think the decline in his speed and endurance is marked. His style of movement is still graceful and seemingly effortless but it's easy to forget how quick his foot speed was in his mid 20s. He's definitely slower nowadays and that impacts so much.

It's all relative of course. He's probably still one of the quicker top players. But a clear level behind Djokovic and Murray.

But I agree with you in making Federer favourite.

In the notional calculation of "form + physical condition", I place him sightly ahead of Novak. In other words, I think the difference in form does more than merely offset the difference in physical condition. It's big enough to put Federer slightly ahead.

I also expect a tie break in one or both of the first two sets, so this match probably really will come down to a point or two.

I see it much the same way but for an attack player like Federer his defensive skills and movement are not as big a part of his game as how he is serving and hitting his groundstrokes. I think like you said form really does matter as players tend to go through lulls and hot streaks with slight decreases and increases in their games and the margins being thin these little lulls provide opportunities for others to knock them off.

theslosty wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:I think Federer won serve games in 04-07 because of the deadliness of the forehand backing up the serve. I think his serve improved after that. But it seems to me, without looking at any stats, that his serve peaked in around 10-12. He doesn't seem to dominate so much and smash as many aces down as before. I agree his serve is better than 04-07 but just have a feeling it's slightly on the down trend due to physical issues.

However I havn't seen anyone else say it so I could be wronng.

The serve is about 5-10 mph slower than it was 5 years ago even with the racquet change. However his first serve % seems to have increased so perhaps this has been a conscious effort to land more first serves.

Yeah but his first serve percentage is pretty much in line with what it was in 04-07. I think if you are a smarter server you don't need as much mph to get the same result. I feel like fed hits his spot better, a well placed serve at 80 mph can be an ace and a poorly placed serve at 130 can get crushed for a winner. Also his ace numbers are pretty much in line with what it was during his peak, yet he is holding at higher percentage. I think party of it is that Federer is more inclined to move in behind his first serve this pressurizes the returner and causes them to miss more returns otherwise. And if Fed is making a conscious decision to S and V more he is going to want to use more slice and spin serves to give him time to get to net. That could be why he may be taking down avg. miles per hour on first serve if he is doing it at all.

It's a reasonable analysis and I think Federer has a good chance, but what he can't cope with is the danger of it going long. If this goes 5 sets, or even 4 long, he's toast. That puts a lot of pressure on Roger to push and that could cause him a lot of trouble.

He has to do it very swiftly to win. The key is Djokovic's serve & Federers return. He needs multiple breaks, maybe 5 or more.

It does depend which Djokovic shows up really. He hasn't had to break much of a sweat and that SF was perfect from a preparation point of view. What we saw at Wimbledon was a proactive Djokovic, then in Cinncy one which was tired and beat. It's easy for Federer to dominate 2 sets, but 3-4 is a tall ask.

We saw what 2 TB sets did to Federer and despite winning one of them, he was toast. However, this time he hasn't had to go through Murray which was a massive bonus. 

Thing is Fed wasn't serving badly in that Wimbledon final. Just Djokovic was returning like a demon. I'd love to see Slam 18. Just how the old man holds up physically.

I'll be honest I don't think it matters that much, on either side. Would 18 really change the minds of anybody? on the end a memirable match is what we want to take from these 2 now

#18 matters to Federer, and that is what counts. For everyone else it is just a number.

Someone reminded Federer that it has been 6 years since his last USO final. He intends to do his utmost to try and win it as he said it himself.

As LF said, it's not the number, but the achievement if he pulls this off would be amazing. It's purely theatre and some achievements are.

As Jack said of his 1986 Masters triumph: "Everyone comes up and says to me "Jack I remember exactly where I was when it was happening, I was in an airport or restaurant" I didn't hear that with any other Major, but I did with the 1986 Masters"

Some things in sport transcend achievement and accomplishment. Some moments just stand in time in the lives of us mortals.

All great athletes are "better" at their sport in their later years, but still unable to dominate or match their past success. All those years of practice, experience add to the players abilities. At the same time, it just can't compensate for the loss of speed, coordination, twitch muscle fibers, and the motivation and confidence of youth. Michael Jordan was a far better shooter, defensive player, court tactician in his mid 30's than he was in his mid 20's, but could not dominate 1 on 1 like he could in his younger years. Ali was far better tactically, more variety, smarter as he aged but he was never as dominant as in his 20's prime. Montana could dissect any defense, a better qb in his mid 30's but had lesser success than in his prime because of arm strength loss.
I
It's happens in all walks of life. Musicians, engineers, doctors.... Experience and knowleage build on itself, but it just doesn't compensate for the what they had in their prime.

In certain areas, Of course federer can do things better. However, he has lost speed and power. He has lost ability to recover big time. We can say he played a match as good as his prime but he can't back that up match after match like he could in his prime. He may have hit a zone right now where he is keeping his high level many matches in a row, but anyone can see over the past several years that he lost many a match and titles simply because he couldn't recover from a previous match like he did in his mid 20's. So in terms of success, it doesn't matter if he's Better or nearly as good in certain areas because in the overall scheme of things- there is no way he can overcome what age goes to an athlete.
It is a marvel how good he remains and how relevant. The true realization that should be taken from this is how it proves how otherworldly good he was in his prime. We won't see it again I don't think. Not that good for that long.

TRuffin wrote: Michael Jordan was a far better shooter, defensive player, court tactician in his mid 30's than he was in his mid 20's, but could not dominate 1 on 1 like he could in his younger years.  Ali was far better tactically, more variety, smarter as he aged but he was never as dominant as in his 20's prime.  Montana could dissect any defense, a better qb in his mid 30's but had lesser success than in his prime because of arm strength loss.

Jordan, in Federer's box, said something about focus and age when at USO watching Federer.

Montana/Rice pulled some incredible stuff for 49ers. It was never the same at Chiefs.

Neon Deion had sport in his DNA, and was good at a lot of sports. It was fun to watch him at Braves/Falcons.

As one ages the joints become less elastic, and the body takes longer to recover.  Things like pushing up from the balls of one's feet, and knee bends and pushing off the surface with knees bent become more difficult.  One needs to become more strategic in ones play as one gets older.

More than Federer though, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic rely more on certain super physical attributes than others.  Rafael Nadal seems to be a patchwork creation nowadays and his knees have been the substrate for medical science testing and developments (that are helping normal people) to increase the healing / recovery of worn out / aging joints - but there is a limit even to that.  Djokovic is still going strong - I think he must come from a family of super bendy people because the strain he puts on his ankles as he slides around the hard courts and the split like wide stances he gets himself into are astonishing.  I am sure he will have to adapt his play as he ages from here on.

Tell me about it........

Sadly Cincinnati bo3 is not US Open bo5.

Djokovic will win this without too much trouble, and if the weather is heavy it will make it more clear cut. The bread and butter points are just a disaster for Federer.

bogbrush wrote:Sadly Cincinnati bo3 is not US Open bo5.

Djokovic will win this without too much trouble, and if the weather is heavy it will make it more clear cut. The bread and butter points are just a disaster for Federer.

BB, you've had 13 days of cautious optimism, don't succumb to negativity now!

Fed has a very realistic chance today. Taking 3 off Novak is tough but I don't think Fed's game could be better tuned to do so.

I think he's a better player. Problem is you really can't hide fitness over five sets. I don't think his loss in speed is that noticeable, in fact it'd probably been off set by what seems to me to be massive improvements in anticipation. Let's not forget, at Wimbledon with a touch of luck in the first set, he could have been 2-0 up (this is of course ignoring the fact that with a bit of luck Djokovic could have been 2-0 up). Better tennis player, but I think the stamina is an insurmountable obstacle against either a "there" Nadal or Djokovic and unfortunately he's facing one of them tonight

It just has to be three in three, or at worst three in four. That's not impossible, just hard as it should be, with the problem of making sure the rallies aren't predominantly wearing.

I think if Novak has trouble he can trying to make rallies long. I'm not saying that's his only way to win, he could just beat him straight up, but it's a hell of a fallback plan. Stan imploded after a while, Novak is better than that and the match will be competitive to the last point if Federer wins.

kingraf wrote:... stamina is an insurmountable obstacle against  either a "there" Nadal or Djokovic ...

I think Djokovic is still there but Nadal is clearly over there as his Wimbledon record demonstrates and he may in fact be over here having past that hill over there.

After all the fuss, I think SABR has a role. Novak doesn't like it and so long as it delivers no less than 30% success rate I like it - the payoff is in the points he doesn't use it (forces the 2nd to be more varied, etc.).

And if nothing else it's a short, non-tiring, point!

Mano a mano, if you can get into your opponents head, then it stops them from thinking clearly.  There must be a lot of that during a long game of tennis.  

I remember when Federer played Murray in the US Open 2008 (I think it was that game).  Murray had beaten Del Potro in the QF and Nadal in the SF and had beaten Federer a few months earlier in Dubai and had a winning 2-1 H to H against Federer.  Murray thought he had a good chance of winning.  Federer said that five set matches were completely different to three set matches and that Murray had 3000 years of history on his shoulders.

Anyway it was quite clear that early on Federer had somehow got into Murray's mind and Murray's eyes seemed glazed over.  It was quite clear that Federer realised this, knew he was going to win, and you could see Federer trying to stifle a laugh as he was serving to Murray early in the third set I think - man against boy.

I remember watching Nadal playing a hard serving opponent off his feet (maybe Verdasco).  Then there was some crowd commotion that clearly unsettled Nadal, you could tell he had been knocked out of "the zone", he suddenly seemed more agitated - a lot more shorts and ear tweaking - and he proceeded to lose the next four or five games, before recovering.

bogbrush wrote:After all the fuss, I think SABR has a role. Novak doesn't like it and so long as it delivers no less than 30% success rate I like it - the payoff is in the points he doesn't use it (forces the 2nd to be more varied, etc.).

And if nothing else it's a short, non-tiring, point!

I think we'll see it, but infrequently.

Once or twice in a set, just to let Novak know he's willing to do it, and then perhaps to telling effect in a tiebreaker.

I'm intrigued to see how Novak deals with it. I bet Becker has told him to think about smacking right back at Federer in a body shot. If Novak does that though, the crowd will go beserk! Will Novak has the guts to take that on?

And you are right in your other post about Novak being able to go long, it's a very useful fallback option.

The tough part is getting that third set. One would think that they'll be in the third hour of play by the end of that set and that alone begins to swing things toward Novak. Probably not substantially but possibly enough to make a difference.

As ever in this match up, the first set is crucial.

Just like before Wimbledon final, Fed has been playing well enough to give me hope he can do it. To me, he looks better than at Wimbledon. The Wimbledon SF against Andy was phenomenal but it was more a one-off. His USO matches are maybe not quite as brilliant, but they are all very good. Also, he reached the final with even less effort than at Wimbledon - most specifically his match against Stan was much easier than his Wimbledon SF against Andy which, while a straight set win, was quite competitive throughout. Finally, I have been impressed with how he has managed to avoid getting into long rallies.

On the other hand, even with all that, when I think of possible outcomes, I think that:

- if Nole wins the first set, he will almost certainly also win the match
- if Fed wins the first set, it is still not much better than 50-50 from there.
- the first set is a toss-up for me

Which all combined, makes Nole maybe 70-30 favorite for me. But even at 30%, Fed's chance is good enough to give realistic hope, so I will be quite nervous as the match starts.

This sounds a lot like you're trying to cover Djokovic's a** . I sure wish Fed had faced 33+ year old's in his slam finals (3 of them now for Novak).

Loved Federer's court side interview after he had beaten Wawrinka. I think the whole arena will be rooting for Federer to win.

greengoblin wrote:This sounds a lot like you're trying to cover Djokovic's a** . I sure wish Fed had faced 33+ year old's in his slam finals (3 of them now for Novak).

No Roger just had a 35-year-old Agassi to beat.

If Novak can play as well as le Swiss at 34, then we probably would have another Bovidae Caprinae.

Forget the age for the first two sets, theyve fairly well matched. If its one set all then you get to worry

Henman Bill wrote:Well after your accurate analysis at the Frenchc Open I take some comfort from this. Although I disagree Djokovic is favourite.

I think 2011 Roger, who only lost to Novak and Rafa that year and hardly anyone else, and did not have a single defeat to a really lowly ranked player all season like he did in 2004 and 2007, was as good as the 2004-2007 Roger.

But 2013-2015 has been losing to Robredo, Seppi, and all sorts even in grand slams, and losing in R2, R3 R4, QF of slams. The peak Roger was a permanent fixture in at least the semi final. So it pretty obvious to me that he has declined. The results are clear. There is an argument (which I don't quite believe) that only the consistency has declined, and that his 2015 best is still as good as his previous best, but overall that still represents a decline.

I think his serve has lost a little power in the last couple of years (does anyone agree or is this just me?), maybe his movement, his forehand, and I think physically he has slightly declined. He is ranked 2 because Murray and Rafa are on the decline.

I don't think Socal is using Fed's 2013 form for his argument So I'm not certain the relevant of those results

I'm not certain that we should measure how good someone is playing by how many defeats they avoid to lowly players. Surely the correct measure is how they perform at the slams and hence why Fed's current form has to be considered amongst his best ever

I disagree about his serve. Granted it's vulnerable very early in matches and Murray at Wimby plus Stan on Friday should have taken advantage. It's always been his confidence shot, i.e. if its working well so generally is the rest of his match

It's difficult to compare. For instance Roger now slugs it out now far more than he's done at any time, that point late on in the Stan match when he just kept firing the ball back Novak (and Andy at his best) style - resulted in a visible mental meltdown by his countryman. We never got that before. Remember, he used to see the drop shot as 'junk' tennis. He's now not as precious - realising that he has to beat his rivals at the same game they play against him

Lastly Nadal's decline is visible. There's none in Murray - unless you're judging him on 2014 comeback after injury. Murray's Munich to Davies Cup form, was as good as I've ever seen and I fail to see how someone can be declining when they're the second player to book their place at the O2

Federer's just playing superb and Socal has a point. However, for me, nothing beats that jaw-dropping 2004/5 phase (after that he wasn't quite as good)

Nore Staat wrote:Mano a mano, if you can get into your opponents head, then it stops them from thinking clearly.  There must be a lot of that during a long game of tennis.  

I remember when Federer played Murray in the US Open 2008 (I think it was that game).  Murray had beaten Del Potro in the QF and Nadal in the SF and had beaten Federer a few months earlier in Dubai and had a winning 2-1 H to H against Federer.  Murray thought he had a good chance of winning.  Federer said that five set matches were completely different to three set matches and that Murray had 3000 years of history on his shoulders.

Anyway it was quite clear that early on Federer had somehow got into Murray's mind and Murray's eyes seemed glazed over.  It was quite clear that Federer realised this, knew he was going to win, and you could see Federer trying to stifle a laugh as he was serving to Murray early in the third set I think - man against boy.

Whilst I always think that Fed would have won that match, let's be honest the main reason for Murray's mental capitulation was that you don't prepare for your first slam by having a 2 day slug-fest with one legend, when you're playing another legend who's had his feet up during the entire time

Now Aus 2010 is a very good example of what you mean. Easily Murray's most disappointing performance, simply as we can see with hindsight Roger wasn't at his best during this time

banbrotam wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Mano a mano, ...

Whilst I always think that Fed would have won that match, let's be honest the main reason for Murray's mental capitulation was that you don't prepare for your first slam by having a 2 day slug-fest with one legend, when you're playing another legend who's had his feet up during the entire time

Now Aus 2010 is a very good example of what you mean. Easily Murray's most disappointing performance, simply as we can see with hindsight Roger wasn't at his best during this time

It may have actually been Aus 2010 I was thinking of - yea I'm sure it was.

Novak's playing a slam final at the US, not at his 'home from home' Australia or even Wimbledon

This is an event that he rarely gets right. Personally, I think he plays too much beforehand - none of the top players (those who expect to win) should do Cincy and Canada. He will be more nervous than normal

I've seen nothing from him that a good Fed or Murray couldn't beat. It's all in the mind and it's fair to say Novak did have a hex on Roger, but that ended at Cincy - it doesn't matter of it was a three set match, Roger spanked him

Let's give Novak a lot of credit for thinking ahead and saving energy by routing Cilic. But let's also remember that Cilic had no chance and knew it from the moment the first point was played

Nore Staat wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Mano a mano, ...

Whilst I always think that Fed would have won that match, let's be honest the main reason for Murray's mental capitulation was that you don't prepare for your first slam by having a 2 day slug-fest with one legend, when you're playing another legend who's had his feet up during the entire time

Now Aus 2010 is a very good example of what you mean. Easily Murray's most disappointing performance, simply as we can see with hindsight Roger wasn't at his best during this time

It may have actually been Aus 2010 I was thinking of - yea I'm sure it was.  

NS it was!! That's the quote Roger made and he kept repeating it time and time again. It riled me at the time, but it was fantastic 'mental disintegration' (to coin a phrase from Steve Waugh) and the first signs that Roger was changing, i.e. getting a bit Connors like dirty, to keep his new peers in line

Murray was playing the better tennis, he just didn't turn up for the final - which included failing to challenge a point that would have given him either a break point or a break. Witness what Del Potro did a few months earlier, when his US final changed almost in an instance on a controversial point that the Argentinian had nous to recognise an opportunity to get in Roger's hear

Anyway, Roger in four for me. It might be my heart ruling my head, as I think his year deserves a slam

Djokovic in four sets for me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No Roger just had a 35-year-old Agassi to beat.

Do you honestly think that's a clever riposte?

Djokovic has had that 3 times now, compared to Roger's one, and Roger's been in a fair few more GS finals than Djokovic. Please go back to school so you can learn about proportions/percentages. Or maybe you haven't gone yet.

banbrotam wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Mano a mano, ...

Whilst I always think that Fed would have won that match, let's be honest the main reason for Murray's mental capitulation was that you don't prepare for your first slam by having a 2 day slug-fest with one legend, when you're playing another legend who's had his feet up during the entire time

Now Aus 2010 is a very good example of what you mean. Easily Murray's most disappointing performance, simply as we can see with hindsight Roger wasn't at his best during this time

It may have actually been Aus 2010 I was thinking of - yea I'm sure it was.  

NS it was!! That's the quote Roger made and he kept repeating it time and time again. It riled me at the time, but it was fantastic 'mental disintegration' (to coin a phrase from Steve Waugh) and the first signs that Roger was changing, i.e. getting a bit Connors like dirty, to keep his new peers in line

Murray was playing the better tennis, he just didn't turn up for the final - which included failing to challenge a point that would have given him either a break point or a break. Witness what Del Potro did a few months earlier, when his US final changed almost in an instance on a controversial point that the Argentinian had nous to recognise an opportunity to get in Roger's hear

Roger was very good in that match and destroyed passive murray. That was not nous from del potro, it was cheating, and the umpire should have been banned for allowing it.

How about you tone down the rudeness mate? Were meant to be friends here you understand?

greengoblin wrote:That was not nous from del potro, it was cheating, and the umpire should have been banned for allowing it.

No it wasn't. Just before the row, there was a point that got replayed, in Fed's favour, that he had no chance of getting to - but seemed to think it was OK. So then when Del Petro dared to play the same game, he lost the plot

Whislt Del Potro was superb he got to Roger mentally

banbrotam wrote:

greengoblin wrote:That was not nous from del potro, it was cheating, and the umpire should have been banned for allowing it.

No it wasn't. Just before the row, there was a point that got replayed, in Fed's favour, that he had no chance of getting to  - but seemed to think it was OK. So then when Del Petro dared to play the same game, he lost the plot

Whislt Del Potro was superb he got to Roger mentally

So challenging the point when both players are just about to sit down on the changeover is allowed?

greengoblin wrote:

banbrotam wrote:

greengoblin wrote:That was not nous from del potro, it was cheating, and the umpire should have been banned for allowing it.

No it wasn't. Just before the row, there was a point that got replayed, in Fed's favour, that he had no chance of getting to  - but seemed to think it was OK. So then when Del Petro dared to play the same game, he lost the plot

Whislt Del Potro was superb he got to Roger mentally

So challenging the point when both players are just about to sit down on the changeover is allowed?

The Umpire allowed it. Controversial admittedly, but it creases me up why only that's remembered and the incident earlier when Fed challenged a ball that was in from Del Potro, [b]after[b] it had gone past him, lost the challenge but somehow got a replay

If Roger's such and angel he should have conceded the point. Things like that, during that spell of Roger's career, got noticed by the likes of Novak, Murray and Del Boy and I'm certain they used to quietly seethe about Roger's "can do no wrong" image

Similar thing happened in the 4th set tiebreak with Fed, with Delpo annoyed. Whats the point? Doesn't in any way degrade what was a great match

greengoblin wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

No Roger just had a 35-year-old Agassi to beat.

Do you honestly think that's a clever riposte?

Djokovic has had that 3 times now, compared to Roger's one, and Roger's been in a fair few more GS finals than Djokovic. Please go back to school so you can learn about proportions/percentages. Or maybe you haven't gone yet.

Oh dear.

A pleasant evening to you too.