Wimbledon Day 9 (Wednesday)

First topic message reminder :

Men's quarters today. The big surprise, of course, is that Rafa does not feature. A scan of all the Wimbledon posts/threads would probably reveal that most thought he would not only reach this stage but could well win the whole thing. All things pointed to another SW19 triumph for the Spaniard. He was fit, confident and in form. 
   Reckon Murray will get past Querrey but what about Rog? It will be tough against Raonic but I'm still to be convinced that the big Canadian moves that well on grass, despite his good Wimbledon record. I don't think either Murray or Fed have been that convincing so far, so both are due a stand-out performance.
   Asking a lot of Muller to follow up such a brilliant display against Rafa with a triumph over Cilic, while I think Djoko will beat Berdych.

Hi there CC - I can't speak for others, but I for one certainly wasn't "offended" (what an odd choice of language ...... why would people be "offended" ...... ??!)

It was about being bemused that such a keen observer of the sport as yourself should so easily forget that tennis at this level  - where there is so much obvious strength in depth - has no certainties, no guarantees, and no inevitabilities. History leaves us in absolutely no doubt about that.

It is simply disingenuous of you to describe the rejection of your irrational 'walkover' theory as equivalent to "trying to play down Fed's chances". People are not denying that Federer has a great chance to take the title and they generally accept him as a strong favourite. Plus, I don't think anyone needs reminding of just how superior is his overall record when compared to any of the remaining contestants.

True, Federer won't want to let this "golden opportunity get away from him" (any more than Cilic, Berdych or Querrey would). The reality is that the unexpected can happen when you least expect it. Few people expected Berdych to defeat Federer - the defending Champion - when they met at Wimbledon 2010. But he did. And maybe even fewer people expected Cilic to beat Federer when they met at the USO in 2014. But he did. (AND worth remembering that Fed's HC credentials at the USO are only very marginally inferior to his Wimbledon grass record: 78-11 vs 85-11).

I'm not at all convinced that what I've said above will sway you from your overly-simplistic 'walkover' theory CC. One thing I DO know is that the next time a fully-fit Murray is about to play a big match where his opponent has a vastly inferior record to his own (even as low as say 50, 60, or 70 in the world), we won't hear you calling the result in advance as a 'walkover'. That's because it wouldn't make sense  - and I suspect you know as much.

Draw has opened up a bit for Federer but he still beat 2 very good players in straight sets to get to the semis.

No guarantee a below par Murray would be as much threat as Berdych or Cilic could be if Fed gets through.


Federer has been tactically very good -shortening the points and keeping his on court time very low and of course missing the clay court season seems to be a master stroke so far.

Staying fresh and fit is important in every sport. Fed might be relatively old but less gametime than others means he's in better shape.

beshocked wrote:

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

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

Staying fresh and fit is important in every sport. Fed might be relatively old but less gametime than others means he's in better shape.

Yes, your point about 'less gametime' is a good one. Fast pace of play, and finishing matches as quickly as possible, have generally been characteristic features throughout his career - but seem very much emphasised now that he's well into his thirties. I remember seeing a jokey comment a while back that he plays his Bo3 tour matches as though he has had to rent the court - but has only paid for one hour.

That said, he has racked up  far more official ATP matches than anyone else currently on tour, so there is undoubtedly a LOT of mileage on the clock, notwithstanding the increasing number of breaks he has begun to take, most notably this season.

Also worth remembering that Fed had a lot of bagels and breadsticks in his early years at number one (2004-07) while the others of the Big 3 had each other to contend with and have generally had to play longer matches.
   Even Fed had a difficult year in 2013 (he was only ranked 6th!) and then, of course, there was the injury-ruined 2016. Rafa over the years has missed chunks of seasons, while always staying fit and available for the clay-court season. 
   There was always speculation about whether Murray and Djoko could cope with the extreme physicality of the tour in their 30s. Well the answer seems to be that it's going to be difficult for them. But can either change their style of play to give them a chance of staying competitive or will periods of rest be necessary?

Guest82 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry if my term walkover offended people here but lets have a reality check. We can discount the age factor here first up - the Australian Open showed us that as Roger went through three five setters on his way to the title. Here he is yet to lose a set and is playing on his favourite surface. He is recognised as the greatest grass-courter of all-time lest we forget. Standing in his way is Tomas Berdych who nobody gave a cat in hell's chance against Novak and whose head-to-head against Fed is very one-sided in favour of Roger. And in the final awaits probably Cilic as I'd expect him to overcome Querrey. Cilic is the biggest threat to Federer left in but again has a pretty dire head-to-head V Roger and I just don't see him having the big match temperament to overcome Roger. As I said it all has an air of inevitability about it. Sure many here are trying to play down Fed's chances but dont tell me the GOAT, greatest grass courter ever and fresh as a daisy to boot is going to let this golden opportunity get away from him.

I would say it is less of a walkover than Murray winning last year...Broady>Lu>Millman>Kyrgios>Tsonga>Berdych>Raonic is probably easier than (potentially) Dolgopolov>Lajovic>M Zverev>Dimitrov>Raonic>Berdych>Cilic.

You are missing my point. My point is that from before the 4th Round where we had all the main protagonists in the mix and a really interesting tournament we have now gone to a one horse race. When Federer wins it will be deserved, every slam win is always deserved regardless of the route to it. I have always said that and always will. The victor can only beat the playets put in front of them. Do that seven times and it is a slam win. Nothing changes there.

lags on your final point.

No I won't and why should I? Ad nauseum on the internet it has been discussed how Murray is not in the same league as Federer and so expectations for Murray have to be set far lower than for Federer. I'd say that was fair is it not?

lags72 wrote:

beshocked wrote:

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

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

Staying fresh and fit is important in every sport. Fed might be relatively old but less gametime than others means he's in better shape.

Yes, your point about 'less gametime' is a good one. Fast pace of play, and finishing matches as quickly as possible, have generally been characteristic features throughout his career - but seem very much emphasised now that he's well into his thirties. I remember seeing a jokey comment a while back that he plays his Bo3 tour matches as though he has had to rent the court - but has only paid for one hour.

That said, he has racked up  far more official ATP matches than anyone else currently on tour, so there is undoubtedly a LOT of mileage on the clock, notwithstanding the increasing number of breaks he has begun to take, most notably this season.

I just think it's his body management just seems to be better than the other top 3. I haven't looked at the stats perhaps as much as you or others but he must have less retirements as a % than the other top 3. His consistency in slams is ridiculous.

It's inevitable for a professional sports person that they want to push their body to the limit - take part in every sporting event. It's the competitive spirit.

Federer just seems to be a bit more savvy.



I've always felt that Murray has the potential to be more aggressive but hasn't tried to develop that side of his game enough.

Lendl has had a positive impact on Murray mentally but he's not a natural person to encourage his net play to improve,

Okay CC - you're clear that a Slam win is always deserved, so no argument there. And yes ..... the tournament has - for some/many people no doubt - become less 'interesting' than it might have been.

What's far less easy to understand & accept is why you persist with the 'one horse race' theory and your casual 'when Federer wins' narrative. Perhaps you have another agenda ?

I don't suppose I'll get anywhere ....but will pose the questions anyway :

1. Is Cilic now totally incapable of doing something he has done before - ie, win a Slam ?

2. Is Berdych now totally incapable of doing something he has done before - ie beat Federer at Wimbledon ?

A last comment re Murray (with full credit & respect to the guy, he is no longer in the event) : yes, it's fair to set much higher expectations  & benchmarks for Federer. What is NOT fair - or even rational - is to completely dismiss the chances of high quality players with talk of a walkover, in the way you have done.

Excellent! Well done Andy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-40589164/andy-murray-corrects-journalist-s-casual-sexism

Funny thing is that going just by Wimbledon in the last 4 years - Cilic has been superior to Nadal - I'd say Cilic has been in top 5 grass court player.

Murray,Djokovic,Federer,Raonic,Cilic

Also interesting that 2 former winners of Queens are in the semis.

lags everyone here is in agreement that Federer is hot favourite. Anything less than a Federer win would be a massive shock.

The Berdych you speak of that beat Fed in 2010 was younger and with less mental scars and in far better form. This year he has been sliding down the rankings. Cilic has not had a stellar year either (just look at his wins to losses ratio). Those pertinent facts coupled with the imperious form Roger has been in this year PLUS his superiority on this surface to all of the remaining players has brought me to my conclusion. I think the term walkover which I used in original post is what is offending - for want of a better terminology I can only see one winner from here on in. Head-to-heads, grass court pedigree, this year's form and physical freshnesd all point to a Federer win. And I am not being disrespectful to the other players still in - it is no disgrace should they lose to Federer as they are just not in the same class as him.

Guest82 wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry if my term walkover offended people here but lets have a reality check. We can discount the age factor here first up - the Australian Open showed us that as Roger went through three five setters on his way to the title. Here he is yet to lose a set and is playing on his favourite surface. He is recognised as the greatest grass-courter of all-time lest we forget. Standing in his way is Tomas Berdych who nobody gave a cat in hell's chance against Novak and whose head-to-head against Fed is very one-sided in favour of Roger. And in the final awaits probably Cilic as I'd expect him to overcome Querrey. Cilic is the biggest threat to Federer left in but again has a pretty dire head-to-head V Roger and I just don't see him having the big match temperament to overcome Roger. As I said it all has an air of inevitability about it. Sure many here are trying to play down Fed's chances but dont tell me the GOAT, greatest grass courter ever and fresh as a daisy to boot is going to let this golden opportunity get away from him.

I would say it is less of a walkover than Murray winning last year...Broady>Lu>Millman>Kyrgios>Tsonga>Berdych>Raonic is probably easier than (potentially) Dolgopolov>Lajovic>M Zverev>Dimitrov>Raonic>Berdych>Cilic.

Very similar in my view. I'd say they were about equivalent in the first three rounds (bearing in mind Dolgo wasn't fit) and then Murray's opponents were harder in R4 and QF and equivalent in the SF/F. The reality is that both, for Federer and Murray, are very favourable runs to a Wimbledon title. The only difference last year was that there was a question whether Murray might struggle to close out the Sf/F as clear favourite. We know Federer has that experience previously.

A walkover is a dead certainty.  A professor I know would say There's a gun pointing at your head. Would you bet your life on it? ... would you bet your child's life on it?  If not tone down your certainty.

No way can Federer be seen as 'overwhelming favourite' considering that Cilic is still in the draw.  Cilic may have found Muller a handful but other than that failed to drop a set at Wimbledon this year, and it took an inspired Lopez to defeat him at Queens.  Yes, Cilic was underwhelming earlier this year, but is in great form on the grass.

For the Querrey match I put this as 70:30 in Federer's favour, for a final vs Berdych, I put it 60:40 in Federer's favour, whilst Federer v Cilic final is surely a 50:50 match given that Cilic has beaten Federer before at Wimbledon, and how they are both playing.

Whilst the semi-finalists, bar Federer, aren't necessarily my favourite players to watch, I disagree that it is a one-horse race now - both Cilic and Berdych are capable of beating Federer in the final.

I see Cilic as the biggest danger to Federer, and I would put that match as 50:50

Interestingly, a couple of weeks before Wimbledon Cilic's odds on winning Wimbledon were 20-1!  Any gamblers on here snap that up?

Cilic 50-50 vs Federer? Really?

Cilic has only beaten Federer once 3 years ago and blew a 2-0 set lead last year at wimbledon.

That was vs a weaker version of Fed.

As for Berdych, Federer has beaten him the last 7 times in a row.

Federer has the experience, the crowd, the form and he'll be fresher.

MrInvisible wrote:No way can Federer be seen as 'overwhelming favourite' considering that Cilic is still in the draw.  Cilic may have found Muller a handful but other than that failed to drop a set at Wimbledon this year, and it took an inspired Lopez to defeat him at Queens.  Yes, Cilic was underwhelming earlier this year, but is in great form on the grass.

For the Querrey match I put this as 70:30 in Federer's favour, for a final vs Berdych, I put it 60:40 in Federer's favour, whilst Federer v Cilic final is surely a 50:50 match given that Cilic has beaten Federer before at Wimbledon, and how they are both playing.

Whilst the semi-finalists, bar Federer, aren't necessarily my favourite players to watch, I disagree that it is a one-horse race now - both Cilic and Berdych are capable of beating Federer in the final.

I see Cilic as the biggest danger to Federer, and I would put that match as 50:50

Interestingly, a couple of weeks before Wimbledon Cilic's odds on winning Wimbledon were 20-1!  Any gamblers on here snap that up?

Eh Cilic has NEVER beaten Federer at Wimbledon. They played once there last year and even Federer with a wonky knee and in poorer form still beat Cilic.

MrInvisble should seriously consider investing heavily in the tennis betting markets as I can tell you right now there is a hell of a lot of money to be made if Fed vs Berdych is genuinely 60-40, or vs Cilic 50-50 or vs Querrey 70-30 (that did make me laugh)

I acknowledge Federer's the favourite but I don't think its quite the foregone conclusion people are making out. I stand corrected on Cilic not beating Federer at Wimbledon (should have double-checked - I do remember him giving him a tough match!).

I agree the draw has opened up nicely for Federer but Cilic is a danger. I won't be betting on the matches, but I do wish I'd put a cheeky fiver on Cilic when his odds were 20-1 during Queens. I'm far more of a fan of Fed than Cilic by the way, but just acknowledging the Croat is in good form and won't be easy should he reach the final.

MrInvisible - I think that's a fair, measured assessment of the potential threat posed by Cilic ; and personally I wouldn't totally rule out Berdy either.

Federer facing me at Wimbledon could be safely described as a "walkover" or a "foregone conclusion" (although I might - possibly - win a point ..... whilst he was distracted due to uncontrollable laughter ....... )