Is Wimbledon now Federer's to lose?

Wimbledon looks to be working out perfectly for Federer. His draw so far hasn't even slightly stretched him and he now has the following route to the final:

Johnson
Nishikori/Cilic
Raonic/Goffin

I can't see any of those players giving him much trouble on grass. Cilic is the only one with the game to do so and he hasn't exactly had any form over the past year. 

If he does make the final, then he will face either Murray or probably a first time slam finalist (I can't see Tsonga or DP making it that far). Given Murray's record in slam finals, Fed then has to be the big favourite. 

Title 18 incoming?

This time last year you would have thought Fed would win. But he's (comparatively) hardly played this year and has been unable to beat either Thiem or Zverev on grass.
I doubt if he's yet fully fit. He could even lose tomorrow in round four. Murray is now favourite, but it could be there will be a new winner this year. For Wimbledon, this would be the first time since 2002 there's been a non-Big Four victor at SW19.

Raonic is more of a threat i would imagine than you are crediting him with

"Title 18 coming" - NO

It's over four years since his last Slam win and he is unlikely to get one now.

If and a big if he makes the final and Murray likewise I cannot see Andy losing this one!

If this were 2015, then yes he could now be eyeing the trophy. He was in good shape for his age, and had the game & fitness to pretty much dismantle Murray - and it was a very in-form Murray, let's not forget - on that hot Friday in the semis.

But fast forward 12 months, and it's all very, very different. There are any number of reasons why he can't make it number 18 here - sfp's post summarises the key ones pretty well.

All that aside, I think it would be no bad thing to see a brand new Slam winner. The game sure needs something fresh, and perhaps Novak's loss will prove to be the catalyst.

Otherwise it should be a second W for Andy.

Raonic, NIshikori or Cilic won't be easy.

Last year he woulda got through this lot and probably beaten Murray without dropping a set.

But this year he's still working his way back and to me he clearly is not moving from side to side on the baseline as well as he was in Oz before the injuries. Tentative and slower and over five sets that's not gonna do it against these guys.

On the other hand he still has some time to play himself into form but I don't think it will be enough. He needs a good few months of solid competition to get back near his best.

It took him around 6 months after the debacle in 2013 to do it. It took Murray just as long (?longer) after his back op and it took Rafa nearly 2 years before he started to look like his old self. Not sure how anyone can expect a nearly 35 year old to bounce back at top form after just three weeks on tour following illness, surgery and injury stretched over nearly 5 months.

Some jinxing perhaps?

No, of course not. Wimbledon is now Andy's to lose.

Fed should win his next match but beyond that I think he will struggle against anyone he plays. His form so far this Wimbledon has been consistent with how he played at Stuttgart and Halle where he lost to Thiem and Zverev.

Nevertheless, with Djokovic gone, the chance of Fed winning the title is now much higher. Much higher, but still very low. I would guess somewhere around 10-15%.

Roger Federer will be 35 this August. I suspect he will continue to break age records that won't be broken by others {in terms of points won (normalised), reaching semi-finals and finals}.

Pella did provide more resistance then Willis and Evans. The last two matches should not lull Federer into a coma. The next few matches will be tough. Johnson, being the easiest of the next set. Nishikori should be next where he will get a sterner test. With McEnroe in his corner, Raonic is no slouch, either.

I'd love it if he were to win number 18. Don't see it though.

I predict he'll lose to Raonic in the semi-finals. He's not playing well enough since his return from injury. If he can find some form, then obviously he's got a good chance.

Murray should win this title fairly comfortably, the only man that is able to beat him is out. I think it'll be a Raonic v Murray final.

The thread title is a "QTWAIN" - Federer may win, but his form this year including on grass, his fitness doubts, and his age mean that he's not even the favourite, let alone the guy who has the title on his racquet.

Murray has got to make the final, and I think he'd start any match as favourite vs. anyone left in the draw.

I'd love to see Fed in his 11th final (!?), but surely the 34-yr-old who lost to Zverev and Thiem recently on grass faces more banana skins in the draw than his reputation and usual form at Wimbledon would otherwise suggest?

He's looking pretty rubbish so far. Shanks all over the place. Footwork awful

He's been given a Sampras 97 draw so far. It makes it very very hard to figure out how he will hold up to harder tests

Born Slippy wrote:Wimbledon looks to be working out perfectly for Federer. His draw so far hasn't even slightly stretched him and he now has the following route to the final:

Johnson
Nishikori/Cilic
Raonic/Goffin

I can't see any of those players giving him much trouble on grass. Cilic is the only one with the game to do so and he hasn't exactly had any form over the past year. 

If he does make the final, then he will face either Murray or probably a first time slam finalist (I can't see Tsonga or DP making it that far). Given Murray's record in slam finals, Fed then has to be the big favourite. 

Title 18 incoming?

Can you explain how if he and Murray meet, that Roger's the big favourite? (I'll agree with you if the weather's going to be red hot, i.e. like last years SF, so there are nice and fast conditions for the worlds best ever fast court player). But it isn't

I'm also interested how he's suddenly going to blast through Raonic (assuming they meet) when he couldn't beat the less experienced Theim or Zverev

Cilic also looks back to his best form as well. When he is, he's actually one of the few who can cause him, Murray etc problems

Let's be honest here, whilst I thought Evans might given him a better match, he's met four players that any of the Top 30 would be disappointed not to beat

Yes. Roger's been all over Andy in recent matches, but most of these were in 2014 when Murray was half the player he is now

I actually want Roger in the final.

Of course you'd love this version of Roger in the final; - you've been waiting about 8 years to get this version.

If Fed had been injury free and playing like last year then of course he'd be the favourite against Murray - on any surface, under any conditions.

But this is 2016. But we shall see. There's no guarantee that either of them will prevail.

emancipator wrote:Of course you'd love this version of Roger in the final; - you've been waiting about 8 years to get this version

We got a version weak enough for Murray to beat, just under four years ago, which stopped Roger getting his coveted Olympic Gold. Sorry!! I forgot that he was knackered after his Del Potro battle

emancipator wrote:If Fed had been injury free and playing like last year then of course he'd be the favourite against Murray - on any surface, under any conditions

Disagree. Roger now needs fast conditions or some of the fastest ones to beat Murray or Djokovic. You seem to be under the misconception that Murray is still that useless pusher. He isn't. Now there is variety and power.


I watched the Olympic 12' SF with Nole recently, compared to now it was like watching a 70's match between someone like Connors and Rosewall

banbrotam wrote:Can you explain how if he and Murray meet, that Roger's the big favourite?

BS is just jinxing.

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Of course you'd love this version of Roger in the final; - you've been waiting about 8 years to get this version

We got a version weak enough for Murray to beat, just under four years ago, which stopped Roger getting his coveted Olympic Gold. Sorry!! I forgot that he was knackered after his Del Potro battle

emancipator wrote:If Fed had been injury free and playing like last year then of course he'd be the favourite against Murray - on any surface, under any conditions

Disagree. Roger now needs fast conditions or some of the fastest ones to beat Murray or Djokovic. You seem to be under the misconception that Murray is still that useless pusher. He isn't. Now there is variety and power.


I watched the Olympic 12' SF with Nole recently, compared to now it was like watching a 70's match between someone like Connors and Rosewall

Do you mean like the super fast conditions at the O2 - where Murray managed all of one game?

Andy's recent record against Fed is horrible and I don't think his 2014 injury comeback can totally account for it. The worry in recent meetings is that Murray has really struggled to get a read on Fed's serve and make inroads when returning. I don't understand that, as he used to return Fed's serve brilliantly.

However, I'm not sure how significant these recent meetings are. In fact, I'm pretty sure they haven't met since Cincy 2015 and Fed has really been on the slide since then, with Murray arguably improving over the same period. I also think the Lendl factor helps.

If they meet, then I'd have Murray as favourite, but, if Fed has negotiated his way to the final, then clearly his form will be on the up and it definitely won't be a gimme.

Apparently, fed and cilic practiced together at the start of the tournament, and according to Fan insiders who saw it, cilic was manhandling Federer. Even to the point that many of them were speculating on his forum at that time, that fed might withdraw.

Cilic looks to have continued that form, but also fed is feeling better and his back has loosened up. At same time, his lateral movement and explosiveness is way off, and insiders also saying his knee swells and he's still having issues there.

Fed should know enough grass tricks to counter cilic explosiveness, but i think this is a toss up.

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Wimbledon looks to be working out perfectly for Federer. His draw so far hasn't even slightly stretched him and he now has the following route to the final:

Johnson
Nishikori/Cilic
Raonic/Goffin

I can't see any of those players giving him much trouble on grass. Cilic is the only one with the game to do so and he hasn't exactly had any form over the past year. 

If he does make the final, then he will face either Murray or probably a first time slam finalist (I can't see Tsonga or DP making it that far). Given Murray's record in slam finals, Fed then has to be the big favourite. 

Title 18 incoming?

Can you explain how if he and Murray meet, that Roger's the big favourite? (I'll agree with you if the weather's going to be red hot, i.e. like last years SF, so there are nice and fast conditions for the worlds best ever fast court player). But it isn't

I'm also interested how he's suddenly going to blast through Raonic (assuming they meet) when he couldn't beat the less experienced Theim or Zverev

Cilic also looks back to his best form as well. When he is, he's actually one of the few who can cause him, Murray etc problems

Let's be honest here, whilst I thought Evans might given him a better match, he's met four players that any of the Top 30 would be disappointed not to beat

Yes. Roger's been all over Andy in recent matches, but most of these were in 2014 when Murray was half the player he is now

I actually want Roger in the final.

Well, much as I'd like it to be different, Andy showed zero sign in either match last year of being able to deal with Fed's serve. Wimbledon will be quick regardless of whether it's hot or not and Andy needs to get on top of Fed's serve if he is going to win. Combine that with Andy's highly questionable form in slam finals and it's clear why Fed should be the favourite.

As for Fed's QF and SF, I don't see the warm up matches as any sort of guide. Clearly, Fed was still recovering and not moving well in Stuttgart and Halle. He looks much better here (at least in R3 and R4). Obviously Cilic is a challenge but you aren't seriously suggesting he's the underdog in either match surely?

That's a fair assessment. I would say though that both times federer served about as well as he can. You can't deal with a serve if it's always in the corner

His serve isn't quite that this year

Is this reverse-jinxing of Murray going on? Why look at the past, its irrelevant for this year.

Federer's game has been nowhere in 2016...16-6 record, lost to Zverev at Halle.
Murray is on 33-6...got to last 2 slam finals, last 2 Masters finals (Rome W) and Queen's W.

He's also 6 years younger with many more miles left on the clock vs Federer, who still looks stiff in the back to me.
Looking at his physique, his arms are getting like spindles so clearly he's not had as much time to train/bulk either.

In a much more physical encounter with Murray, I only see one winner. This is most certainly Murray's to lose.

Both still to get to the final - -or have I missed something?

There are still other players to beat before the final. A bad day at the office, an opponent playing at an unexpected high level (Querrey) or injury (Nishikori, Gasquet) are all possibilities. Even an extended match causing fatigue (I've heard that one before) could affect things. However if they meet in the final and both are reasonably fresh I feel that the match will hinge on Federer's serve and Murray's ability to negate it. In the 2015 semi Federer's serve was so spot on that he wore Murray down always holding and therefore putting Murray under pressure to hold. Which obviously ramps up as the set get closer to the end. Therefore if his serve is poorer this year I would expect Murray to pressure it more and be able to break it and go on to win.

But then again I thought that Krygios would run Murray very close yesterday. So what do I know.

Good argument Lydian, you're probably right, but to play devil's advocate and consider a counter argument:

1. Federer has been affected by injuries this year. Has he managed to set them aside at the right time?
2. Federer's year has been affected by poor form. Is he playing himself steadily into form at the right time? Let's see v Cilic.
3. Grass is different. Federer has reached the last two finals.
4. Head to head. Federer has won the last 5 matches and last 10 sets.

I agree Murray is favourite, but it can be argued either way which of them is most likely to get to the final or win the title.

Indeed HB...lets see tomorrow ;-)

Born Slippy wrote:Well, much as I'd like it to be different, Andy showed zero sign in either match last year of being able to deal with Fed's serve. Wimbledon will be quick regardless of whether it's hot or not and Andy needs to get on top of Fed's serve if he is going to win. Combine that with Andy's highly questionable form in slam finals and it's clear why Fed should be the favourite.

As for Fed's QF and SF, I don't see the warm up matches as any sort of guide. Clearly, Fed was still recovering and not moving well in Stuttgart and Halle. He looks much better here (at least in R3 and R4). Obviously Cilic is a challenge but you aren't seriously suggesting he's the underdog in either match surely?

Easy answer first to your last question. Yes

Whilst Federer's serve troubles Murray more than any other, to ignore the conditions at last years SF is an error. He would have held is serve against anyone on that Friday, firing like that

I don't really understand why you think Roger can continue to turn up and put in a par performance (to his standards) even though evidence shows that the minute these top guys have a serious injury (i.e. that requires operating on) they lose something not just physically but mentally, i.e. until they beat one of their peers

But let's agree with you and assume that Federer is the most remarkable human ever, he can just come back as good as new after such surgery. Another negative is that he's nearly 35

However, the most strongest reason why Andy is more likely than at anytime since his surgery, is simply that he's improved and is playing the best tennis of his life

Incidentally, I don't think Murray's form has been questionable in any of the finals against Roger. The only thing I can criticise him for is not challenging a line call at Aus 2010, which would have either have got him a break point or broken the serve

To be honest, I think that all the others in remaining in the draw, other than Pouille will be a tougher proposition than an ageing 34 year old with physical and confidence issues

It's be good if some realised that Roger is only human, he's not a demi-god. 2013 showed that. 2015 showed how great he is when fit and firing at his best

banbrotam wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:Well, much as I'd like it to be different, Andy showed zero sign in either match last year of being able to deal with Fed's serve. Wimbledon will be quick regardless of whether it's hot or not and Andy needs to get on top of Fed's serve if he is going to win. Combine that with Andy's highly questionable form in slam finals and it's clear why Fed should be the favourite.

As for Fed's QF and SF, I don't see the warm up matches as any sort of guide. Clearly, Fed was still recovering and not moving well in Stuttgart and Halle. He looks much better here (at least in R3 and R4). Obviously Cilic is a challenge but you aren't seriously suggesting he's the underdog in either match surely?

Easy answer first to your last question. Yes

Whilst Federer's serve troubles Murray more than any other, to ignore the conditions at last years SF is an error. He would have held is serve against anyone on that Friday, firing like that

I don't really understand why you think Roger can continue to turn up and put in a par performance (to his standards) even though evidence shows that the minute these top guys have a serious injury (i.e. that requires operating on) they lose something not just physically but mentally, i.e. until they beat one of their peers

But let's agree with you and assume that Federer is the most remarkable human ever, he can just come back as good as new after such surgery. Another negative is that he's nearly 35

However, the most strongest reason why Andy is more likely than at anytime since his surgery, is simply that he's improved and is playing the best tennis of his life

Incidentally, I don't think Murray's form has been questionable in any of the finals against Roger. The only thing I can criticise him for is not challenging a line call at Aus 2010, which would have either have got him a break point or broken the serve

To be honest, I think that all the others in remaining in the draw, other than Pouille will be a tougher proposition than an ageing 34 year old with physical and confidence issues

It's be good if some realised that Roger is only human, he's not a demi-god. 2013 showed that. 2015 showed how great he is when fit and firing at his best

Excellent post.

And we saw the evidence today. Squeaked by a guy who under normal circumstances has no business taking sets off Fed on grass.

This feels like RG 09.
Todays matc swung it for me

Its in the stars
All in on the Fed

I dont see that as a good sign for the future of tennis. If it keeps being propped up by 4 old guys its gonna come crashing down
Be nice for his fans though

The only caveat.
He started to grunt very heavily on his serve, and started to look leggy, physically, im not sure how he holds up

I have just checked Mr Federer's Grand Slam record and have been shocked to discover that he is a fifty time loser. So if he were to lose this Grand Slam to make him a fifty one time loser it would not be unusual.

temporary21 wrote:The only caveat.
He started to grunt very heavily on his serve, and started to look leggy, physically, im not sure how he holds up

Was that how it looked on the radio?

A 34 year old winning his first grand slam in four years is not an issue for tennis. There is still a long way to go and will need a vast improvement if he is actually to won it.

You can watch highlights, and the bbc stream when you get home on the computer... jeez

Seeing murray today, hes gotta fancy his chances

Or you can say someone "looks done" when not even watching it. So just wondered this time around. There was no discernable drop off in his energy as the match went on. But that's understandable as the adrenaline will no doubt have helped. Will be far more interesting to see how he scrubs up on Fri. It took him two hours to get going today. Can't see.him getting away with that again.

I didnt say that...

I could hear his grunts live on radio. He used to do that when his back was hurting in 2013
I watched a bit on my phone during a break... I agreed with the other that he didnt look that spritely

Well have to see how he recovers

temporary21 wrote:This feels like RG 09.
Todays matc swung it for me

Its in the stars
All in on the Fed

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

With the (minor ) difference that he just happened to be seven years younger back in
2009 ; with the sort of recovery powers enjoyed by twenty-somethings ..... as opposed to that of
thirty-somethings - and with so many more miles on the clock.

I do not think it ever was, in response to the thread title.

The manner of this recent defeat shows how far he is from winning another slam.

In fairness, Fed probably should have won this in four. I watched until 4-4 in the 4th and he was by far the better player. Two DFs in the vital game in the 4th? Real shame as with just a bit more match play he'd have come through.

Agree, he lost that match very clearly in the 4th. He was hitting choice of shots he wouldn't make had he been match tighter. Wasted chances when 15-40 up late in the 4th and lord knows why he hit it straight back to Raonic at 40-A when 5-6 down...that was the match lost right there. I switched off the TV at that point as knew he wouldn't win afterwards. He deserved a final send off really but hey ho...

Yes but I think Milos was better than Fed at the start and all the way towards the end of the second set. The way I saw it was that Milos dipped and allowed Fed back in because of his inexperience in this situation. I mean if you watched the first set and half he was clearly the best player. Fed did play better in the middle part of the match but Raonic had become tentative and more passive in that period to allow it.

Fair enough socal, but as Emancipator rightly says on the other thread, Fed was so rusty that to push this hard off so little was very impressive indeed. I always thought Raonic would get to a slam final, in fact its taken a little longer than expected from his initial I'm still not sure he has the mental strength to get over the final line but who knows...someone has to win the big ones in years to come!

lydian wrote:Fair enough socal, but as Emancipator rightly says on the other thread, Fed was so rusty that to push this hard off so little was very impressive indeed. I always thought Raonic would get to a slam final, in fact its taken a little longer than expected from his initial I'm still not sure he has the mental strength to get over the final line but who knows...someone has to win the big ones in years to come!

No question Fed wasn't near his best, my point is that Milos controlled the match early and sort of tightened up. I think if it wasn't Fed and some other opponent he might of closed this thing in 3 or 4. I was very impressed with how effective he was when he chose to move into the net. He was always a decent volleyer with pretty good hands when comparing to modern players. But what impressed me was that the shots that aren't famous for Milos the volleys, the return, and the backhand won it for him today. Plus, Fed was rusty but he had been holding pretty easily and is always so hard to break of grass. Despite being 30 something he is top 5 in hold percentage. Milos got 4 breaks on a top 5 server on grass. If you think about that, well that should be a frightening proposition for the rest of the tour. I mean Fed could be rusty and out of shape but he is no patsy to break on grass, and Milos was in a lot of service games.

He really can't improve the serve, if he wants to move up a level he has to focus on incremental improvements on return. And he has returned very well all this year when compared to how he would return in the past.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Fair enough socal, but as Emancipator rightly says on the other thread, Fed was so rusty that to push this hard off so little was very impressive indeed. I always thought Raonic would get to a slam final, in fact its taken a little longer than expected from his initial I'm still not sure he has the mental strength to get over the final line but who knows...someone has to win the big ones in years to come!

No question Fed wasn't near his best, my point is that Milos controlled the match early and sort of tightened up. I think if it wasn't Fed and some other opponent he might of closed this thing in 3 or 4. I was very impressed with how effective he was when he chose to move into the net. He was always a decent volleyer with pretty good hands when comparing to modern players. But what impressed me was that the shots that aren't famous for Milos the volleys, the return, and the backhand won it for him today. Plus, Fed was rusty but he had been holding pretty easily and is always so hard to break of grass. Despite being 30 something he is top 5 in hold percentage. Milos got 4 breaks on a top 5 server on grass. If you think about that, well that should be a frightening proposition for the rest of the tour. I mean Fed could be rusty and out of shape but he is no patsy to break on grass, and Milos was in a lot of service games.

He really can't improve the serve, if he wants to move up a level he has to focus on incremental improvements on return. And he has returned very well all this year when compared to how he would return in the past.

Don't disagree with much of this - Raonic is now a competent volleyer and (rightly) very willing to come to the net. However, the comment in bold rather ignores the fact that there are two players on the court, and that Federer played better for a spell, making it very difficult for Raonc from about mid 2nd set to the 5-6 game in the 4th.

Interesting that we now have a repeat of the Queens final, where Raonic dominated the first set and a half against Murray, who then came back and broke down Raonic's game. I wouldn't normally put too much store in the last meeting, but this was so recently and on the same surface that there has to be a significant advantage to Murray not just in winning but in how he did it. Also, I think Andy's a much tougher match up than Fed for a big server who comes to the net a lot - more serves will come back more effectively and Andy's a better passer and lobber, so it's very mentally wearing on someone used to a lot of easy points.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Fair enough socal, but as Emancipator rightly says on the other thread, Fed was so rusty that to push this hard off so little was very impressive indeed. I always thought Raonic would get to a slam final, in fact its taken a little longer than expected from his initial I'm still not sure he has the mental strength to get over the final line but who knows...someone has to win the big ones in years to come!

No question Fed wasn't near his best, my point is that Milos controlled the match early and sort of tightened up. I think if it wasn't Fed and some other opponent he might of closed this thing in 3 or 4. I was very impressed with how effective he was when he chose to move into the net. He was always a decent volleyer with pretty good hands when comparing to modern players. But what impressed me was that the shots that aren't famous for Milos the volleys, the return, and the backhand won it for him today. Plus, Fed was rusty but he had been holding pretty easily and is always so hard to break of grass. Despite being 30 something he is top 5 in hold percentage. Milos got 4 breaks on a top 5 server on grass. If you think about that, well that should be a frightening proposition for the rest of the tour. I mean Fed could be rusty and out of shape but he is no patsy to break on grass, and Milos was in a lot of service games.

He really can't improve the serve, if he wants to move up a level he has to focus on incremental improvements on return. And he has returned very well all this year when compared to how he would return in the past.

I can't agree that he was in "a lot" of Fed's service games. He broke Fed early (courtesy of a double fault) but Fed then held extremely easily until 5-6 40-0 in the 4th. At that point, Fed had taken 1/8 BPs and Milos 1/1. In the crucial 12th game, Milos did latch on to a couple of returns but Fed helped him significantly particularly with the two double faults. Had Fed been a touch sharper, he'd have easily closed it out in 4.

@BS sorry can't agree, say Fed was tired or whatever, he is still a potent server on tour and Milos broke him 4 times on grass. Everything is relative, my comparison of Milos returning is comparing it to his own level. All he needs is an incremental but significant improvement on his returning to go from a top 10 guy to a top 5 guy. He seems to have either made that step or is making that step.

If Fed rolled out of wheel chair he could probably still hold 90 percent of the time on grass. Raonic was one of the worst returners on tour, if he can become average the whole tour is in big trouble. And yesterday was an acid test against a great server, albeit not anywhere near his best, but a guy who still even this year holds at a very high percentage; and he passed with pretty flying colors.

I think if Milos played a better second half of the second set he wouldn't of even needed a third set this thing would have been done and dusted in 3. Fed benefitted from the kid tightening up against the living legend, not the other way around.

dummy_half wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:Fair enough socal, but as Emancipator rightly says on the other thread, Fed was so rusty that to push this hard off so little was very impressive indeed. I always thought Raonic would get to a slam final, in fact its taken a little longer than expected from his initial I'm still not sure he has the mental strength to get over the final line but who knows...someone has to win the big ones in years to come!

No question Fed wasn't near his best, my point is that Milos controlled the match early and sort of tightened up. I think if it wasn't Fed and some other opponent he might of closed this thing in 3 or 4. I was very impressed with how effective he was when he chose to move into the net. He was always a decent volleyer with pretty good hands when comparing to modern players. But what impressed me was that the shots that aren't famous for Milos the volleys, the return, and the backhand won it for him today. Plus, Fed was rusty but he had been holding pretty easily and is always so hard to break of grass. Despite being 30 something he is top 5 in hold percentage. Milos got 4 breaks on a top 5 server on grass. If you think about that, well that should be a frightening proposition for the rest of the tour. I mean Fed could be rusty and out of shape but he is no patsy to break on grass, and Milos was in a lot of service games.

He really can't improve the serve, if he wants to move up a level he has to focus on incremental improvements on return. And he has returned very well all this year when compared to how he would return in the past.

Don't disagree with much of this - Raonic is now a competent volleyer and (rightly) very willing to come to the net. However, the comment in bold rather ignores the fact that there are two players on the court, and that Federer played better for a spell, making it very difficult for Raonc from about mid 2nd set to the 5-6 game in the 4th.

Interesting that we now have a repeat of the Queens final, where Raonic dominated the first set and a half against Murray, who then came back and broke down Raonic's game. I wouldn't normally put too much store in the last meeting, but this was so recently and on the same surface that there has to be a significant advantage to Murray not just in winning but in how he did it. Also, I think Andy's a much tougher match up than Fed for a big server who comes to the net a lot - more serves will come back more effectively and Andy's a better passer and lobber, so it's very mentally wearing on someone used to a lot of easy points.

Again can't agree at all. I know the prevalent opinion is that Fed gave this away. Yeah if you forget that early in the match Milos was attacking very strongly and won the first set and only lost the second set in TB. Really, if he wasn't playing Federer on this stage, he would have won this match in 3 sets. And I don't ignore that there is another guy on the other side of the net. I just think from the get go if you go back and watch the match it was on Milos' racquet. That he bossed the early proceedings, tightened up and endeavored to gift it to Fed, as soon as he got his bearings and realized his level was much higher than his opponents on the day he won the 4th and sprinted to the finish. If anyone gifted anything it was milos, he tried to choke away what was a pronounced superiority in ball striking in the first third of the match away in sets 2 and 3.