Wimbledon - Days 12 and 13 (The singles finals)

First topic message reminder :

Thought I would combine the final weekend so posters can also look ahead to the men's final on Sunday. Mug v Venus promises to be a good match. Mug has reached one Wimbledon final, is a GS winner and is playing very confidently. So at the very least she should be competitive against Venus.
  Conchita is helping Mug and in some ways this final resembles that of the 1994 Wimbledon final when Conchita played an ageing but still good former champion in Martina Navratilova - and won.
   Really, you could make a good case for this afternoon's final going either way.
   Harder to make such a good case for Cilic, although the Croat is playing well and, like Mug, is a GS winner. Cilic won't, for example, be able to chuck away a tiebreak against Fed as he did against Querrey. Marin will, clearly, have to be at his best to win and even that may not be enough if Fed is at HIS best. Cilic played some excellent tennis against Rog at Wimbledon last year and still lost. 
   A 19th GS for Rog is going to set the bar even higher for those in pursuit. Even a defeat tomorrow should see Rog have an excellent chance of finishing in the top two by the season's end.

Win loss records:

Federer's best:
Federer 2005 81-4 (95.29%)
Federer 2006 92-5 (94.85%)
Federer 2017 so far 31-2 (93.94%)

Notable seasons by others
Mcenroe 1984 82-3 (96.47%)
Connors 93-4 (95.87%)

If he doesn't lose again.
Federer could get his best season win % by getting to a mark of 41-2 (95.35%) than would require 2 tournaments played or more, and no defeats.

55-2 (96.49%) would beat the Mcenroe record. That would require playing 5 more tournaments, and not losing once.

If he loses once more
If he loses even one more match he can still get his best season with a mark of 61-3 (95.31%). 30 more matches means about 6 (or maybe 7) more tournaments, and win all but one.

Obviously he can't catch Connors/Mcenroe win loss % even with only one more defeat.

Of course, it's far easier to get a good win/loss % by playing less matches, so it wouldn't make it his best season. Also none of this looks particularly likely, since I imagine he'll lose several times in the rest of the season. Just curious though to see what the options are.

Thanks, HB for the number crunching.

Henman Bill wrote:

summerblues wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:Given the first round retirment, maybe % of games won might be a fairer comparison.

I looked these up last night .  But this is one of the "less dominant" titles among those that were with no sets dropped.

OK, had a quick glance at Borg 1976. Didn't do the math but there were some sets like 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 , 6-3 in the mix so might have been statistically speaking even more dominant.

I was not doing the calculations myself either .

Luckily, this wiki page had them all calculated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_related_tennis_records

...and looking at it right now (I see they already updated it with Fed's numbers), his current slam is the least dominant from among all those that were won without dropping a set.

Still, it was a good enough Wimbledon for me

summerblues wrote:...and looking at it right now (I see they already updated it with Fed's numbers), his current slam is the least dominant from among all those that were won without dropping a set.

Still, it was a good enough Wimbledon for me

Federer is probably too busy crying with joy in winning his 8th title at Wimbledon to have noticed this fact. Maybe it is the most dominant from a post 30 year old?

Will any under-30 take a major title (Slam.Masters/WTF) this year? Highly doubtful with the top five now all in their 30s. There were 19 titlists in 2016 who were over 30. Not sure what the record is but this could be the year a new high is reached.
   Looking at the rankings today, there is just one player under 26 in the top 10. Last year Rafa and Rog were not always around, yet it was Murray and Djoko who dominated rather than a young player. It's been a similar story this year, with the 2016 dominators out of sorts but the big wins going to Rafa and Rog.

sirfredperry wrote:Will any under-30 take a major title (Slam.Masters/WTF) this year? Highly doubtful with the top five now all in their 30s. There were 19 titlists in 2016 who were over 30. Not sure what the record is but this could be the year a new high is reached.
   Looking at the rankings today, there is just one player under 26 in the top 10. Last year Rafa and Rog were not always around, yet it was Murray and Djoko who dominated rather than a young player. It's been a similar story this year, with the 2016 dominators out of sorts but the big wins going to Rafa and Rog.

Zverev won Rome, so they already have.

Interesting though that both Rafa and Federer won their most dominating RG & WIM, even this far into their decline. I think something has to be said for the strength of the field.

What is the bigger achievement - Fed winning Wimbledon without dropping a set or Rafa at RG. Think Wimbledon is a bigger achievement, given the surface. But Rafa somehow looked more dominant.

I have to say this was the first Wimbledon that I found really boring. The nadal vs Muller match was very good but you could count on one hand the number of decent matches this year. It was just such a damp squib overall. Certainly the worst slam final in recent memory.

I really fear for tennis after the top guys leave the scene. On the one hand it will be more of an open playing field but the fact that the likes of Federer can beat the rest with such ease, it really doesn't bode well.

We have been so spoiled since around 2007 with the top guys and their amazing rivalries. I think the Federer / Nadal / Djokovic rivalries have been simply phenomenal, the level of play they reached was from another planet. Murray and Wawrinka have really played their part too.

Looking beyond them, it is a sorry state of affairs. I think Thiem and Zverev have huge potential and are exciting prospects if they keep it going. Outside of them, the less said the better.

What are BBC going to do when Murray retires? There will probably be no British involvement after round 1 or 2!!! I know Konta reached the semis but I find her calling herself British a bit much. I am all for integration but she was born and spent the first 15 years of her life in Australia, then moved to Barcelona and then even represented Australia until 2012. I know this is happening in all sports but for me this one is a bit ridiculous. I have nothing against her and her actual tennis.

Anyway congrats again to the Federer fans and here is hoping the US open delivers more than that dismal Wimbledon did.

Agree Slasher - and last year's wasn't great either. Essentially, when we are left with only one big 4 player in a draw (and Stan is also not in Stanimal mode), it just looks a foregone conclusion. Hopefully, Novak and Andy can get over their current issues and the likes of Thiem, Kyrgios and Zverev can start to make some real impact, so e get a cracking US Open to make up for it!

G82. Whoops. Forgot about Zverev in Rome. Well spotted. At least Rog was not around during the clay court season for the younger guys to have to contend with. But he'll be playing a much bigger part in the rest of the season. If Murray and Djoko can get over their various ailments, the 20-somethings may have a long wait for further success.

I think winning Wimbledon without dropping a set is harder because of the serve dominance however that links SB posted shows that at RG this year Rafa won 77% of games versus 62% for Federer at Wimbledon. I think, overall Rafa's French Open was the more dominant and impressive. With Rafa, I got the feeling that he could have beaten anyone. With Federer, that may have been the case but you were less sure, and it was more of a bonus for him to see other big four losing.

Henman Bill wrote:I think winning Wimbledon without dropping a set is harder because of the serve dominance however that links SB posted shows that at RG this year Rafa won 77% of games versus 62% for Federer at Wimbledon. I think, overall Rafa's French Open was the more dominant and impressive. With Rafa, I got the feeling that he could have beaten anyone. With Federer, that may have been the case but you were less sure, and it was more of a bonus for him to see other big four losing.

Yep, I would agree that this year Rafa's RG overall performance was probably more impressive than Fed's equivalent at Wimbledon.

Although ..... you could, I guess, add to the equation the fact that Rafa does have the notable benefit of five years less mileage on the body clock. His dominance at RG is of course unquestioned and is the stuff of legend ;  but it's also indicative of a heavily skewed balance where the four Slams are concerned. Rafa has only ever managed to successfully defend a Slam title at one venue, RG - whereas Federer has done so (and on numerous occasions, of course) at AO, at Wimbledon, and at the USO.

Either way .... I'm pretty sure that once the final chapters are written, the precise percentage of games won for each Slam title will have long been forgotten.

lags72 wrote:Yep, I would agree that this year Rafa's RG overall performance was probably more impressive than Fed's equivalent at Wimbledon.

True, but Wimbledon is a much more prestigious event...

^^ Much more?? Such snobbish or elitist view!

There are more who won multiple Wimbledon than there are at RG in the open era - Fed, Sampras, Borg, Becker, John Mac, Djoko; vs Rafa, Borg, Lendl, Wilander. It's not like Fed is way ahead of the other greats who won multiple Wimbledon, certainly not vs Sampras and Borg, whilst Rafa is way ahead of anyone at the FO.

I don't think the FO is easier to win than Wimbledon, don't see why Wimbledon is much more prestigious; other than perhaps its long traditions.

As HB mentioned, Rafa really didn't look troubled at all at the FO, nor even against the red hot Thiem (even giving him a bagel), and he had made the 2015FO champion looked so helpless out there, and breadsticked him as well!

Fed OTOH, had to fight off stiff challenge from Berdy, Berdy could have won the first set TB but dumped one shot into the net and lost the lead in the TB. If only the red hot Djoko of 2015 Wimbledon appeared....

It's a shame that Cilic couldn't bring his best in the final, perhaps he had psychologically bailed out of the final, being too nervous and so happened that he had that foot blister that he could give himself an excuse to bail out.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:^^ Much more?? Such snobbish or elitist view!

There are more who won multiple Wimbledon than there are at RG in the open era - Fed, Sampras, Borg, Becker, John Mac, Djoko; vs Rafa, Borg, Lendl, Wilander.  It's not like Fed is way ahead of the other greats who won multiple Wimbledon, certainly not vs Sampras and Borg, whilst Rafa is way ahead of anyone at the FO.

I don't think the FO is easier to win than Wimbledon, don't see why Wimbledon is much more prestigious; other than perhaps its long traditions.  

You may not appreciate the reasons why, but tennis players and fans consider Wimbledon by far the most prestigious tournament.

As that's the massively prevalent view, I have no idea how one could categorise it as "snobbish" or "elitist"?

What you're describing above is a poorer field for a less prestigious tournament - one could say much the same for the Australian Open for example.

Reckoner, I have problem with your term "much more". While Wimbledon is prestigious, I don't think it's 'much more' prestigious than the other slams! To call it so is imo snobbish and elitist! You don't even need to bring out the competition blah blah blah! As if we didn't see weak competition during some Wimbledon! And how was the competition at FO and AO weak, when we have multiple grand slam players, tennis legends, world no. 1s attending and winning there?

In the past, three grand slams out of four were on the grass.  Grass was the "tennis" surface - clay was rather an oddity.  The Australian Open was skipped by most people in its early history - simply because it was too far away and occurred in the festival - rest season.  Tennis is a European invention and Britain had history - so Wimbledon became the most prestigious slam on the tour.

^ 'Most' but not 'much more'. Now it's the HCs that are being played on mostly; and it's no longer just an European affair. It's still the same players playing on the different slam surfaces, not that only certain group of players can play on certain surfaces and can't play on the others.

It's also not like the other big four members couldn't win at Wimbledon, it's just not necessary to view winning at Wimbledon being much more prestigious than winning at the other slams, imo.

Well, you can argue about the merits of the various slams. But Wimbledon has always been the one the players most want to win. And since the ending of grass-court play at the AO and USO, Wimbledon's prestige has grown, IMHO.
   After all, the sport is called Lawn Tennis and this is the only grass-court Slam. Reckon Lendl, Wilander and Rosewall (to name but three) would have been prepared to swap some (all?) of their other GS titles for just one Wimbledon.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Reckoner, I have problem with your term  "much more".  While Wimbledon is prestigious, I don't think it's 'much more' prestigious than the other slams! To call it so is imo snobbish and elitist!  You don't even need to bring out the competition blah blah blah!  As if we didn't see weak competition during some Wimbledon!  And how was the competition at FO and AO weak, when we have multiple grand slam players, tennis legends, world no. 1s attending and winning there?

For literally millions of people Wimbledon IS tennis. They don't care about year end ranking, ATP Finals, the Masters series or the other slams. Can't say the same about any other slam - and this is only part of the reason why Wimbledon is so much more prestigious. There's nothing "snobbish" or "elitist" in making this factual statement, I'm afraid!

As recently as the 90s the French was not really that important to the professional circuit - arguably Courier and Agassi gave it a bit more prominence. To this day the crowd behave appallingly (the racial abuse of the Williams sisters, for example) and are notoriously ill thought of. Past winners include terribly average tennis players, this really isn't a matter of debate to be honest, so let's agree to disagree.

Come on, stop exaggerating, swap (all) for one Wimbledon? Who are you to know how they feel?

It's prestigious but not to the extent that players would only want to win it but not the other slams. I'm not sure Delpo for example won't value his only slam i.e. the USO just because it's not a Wimbledon title. It's the multiple slam winners who so desire the Wimbledon title if they have the others but missing the Wimbledon title.

I don't deny Wimbledon is prestigious but not to the extent that a player would regret not winning it if he can only win one slam in his career and it's not the Wimbledon title that he has won.

As I said, it's about the four slams now, not only Wimbledon. There are also one slam wonders who won Wimbledon but no other slams - Cash, Krajecek, Stich, Goran. It's only fair to say that there are one slam wonders at any slam.

Fed and Djoko were so happy when they won the FO because that's the only slam missing in their portfolio for so long, it's what's missing in an ATG's portfolio that mattered most to him; I bet Sampras would want a FO to complete his career slam if he had a chance to win another slam.

In the past it's always about Wimbledon, but with the emergence of three ATGs in the current era, it's no longer about winning Wimbledon but rather winning all the four slams, at least one each. Didn't people started talking about how Sampras portfolio was incomplete as he missed the FO, or Connor's or John Mac's? And Lendl and Wilander missing Wimbledon? And Agassi was held in high esteem because he won all four, winning Wimbledon on quick grass and FO on slow clay?

Cash has built a whole media career on the back of his winning Wimbledon. It's remarkable that he won only SIX tournaments in his whole playing career. Doubt if he'd been able to sell himself as a pundit if he'd, say, won so little and had NOT won at SW19.
   But the one that slipped away - be it Wimbledon, be it another Slam - is, as BLB says, the thing that aggravates. Johnny Mac still talks about his disappointment of losing to Lendl in the French final when he was leading. He was never to triumph at RG.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:As HB mentioned, Rafa really didn't look troubled at all at the FO, nor even against the red hot Thiem (even giving him a bagel), and he had made the 2015FO champion looked so helpless out there, and breadsticked him as well!

Fed OTOH, had to fight off stiff challenge from Berdy, Berdy could have won the first set TB but dumped one shot into the net and lost the lead in the TB. If only the red hot Djoko of 2015 Wimbledon appeared....

The flip argument is that it is easier to break on clay. So Rafa was clearly playing better than anyone else, but given it was clay, was in every service game.

Fed has to take out Raonic, Berdych and Cilic - all big servers - in straights on grass. One poor service game or tie-break and Fed would have dropped a set.

I think Rafa looked more dominant, but other factors are in play.

Guest82 wrote:

The flip argument is that it is easier to break on clay.  So Rafa was clearly playing better than anyone else, but given it was clay, was in every service game.

Fed has to take out Raonic, Berdych and Cilic - all big servers - in straights on grass.  One poor service game or tie-break and Fed would have dropped a set.

I think Rafa looked more dominant, but other factors are in play.

Absolutely spot on.

The thing is, Fed is better than almost anyone when it comes to TB, and that's the problem for his opponents. His opponents happened to be big hitters but not great returners. Fed himself is also a great server so as long as he holds his serves until the TB, he's able to win the set almost always - against Raonic and Berdych. It takes someone as good as Djoko with his ROS to break Fed's serves to win the title in 2014/2015.

If it's easier to break on clay, it works both ways with Rafa and his opponents. It's not like Rafa is a big server, and he has to work his way to win a point on clay; on grass having a great serve does help one to win a point quickly.

Yes I agree Federer is better in TBs, I'd go as far as to say this informs his strategy against tricky opponents. After all what is the point in a flattering scoreline, he's simply playing to win the tournament. Reading into precise scores of each round to see who is more "dominant" is really for tennis anoraks, I wouldn't have thought the players particularly care!

True, the main aim is to win the tournament, who cares whether you lost a set or not! It's the fans of Fedal who care too much for such details.

I remember Fedal during their heydays were beating their opponents giving out bagels and breadsticks often, then came the days when they had to struggle a bit to beat their opponents, losing more games or even sets to do so. The thing is, they're still winning their matches and that's what mattered.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:True, the main aim is to win the tournament, who cares whether you lost a set or not!  It's the fans of Fedal who care too much for such details.

I remember Fedal during their heydays were beating their opponents giving out bagels and breadsticks often, then came the days when they had to struggle a bit to beat their opponents, losing more games or even sets to do so.  The thing is, they're still winning their matches and that's what mattered.

Totally agree!

I do not think the difference is nearly as big as it used to be, but Wimbledon is still the most prestigious of the slams.  RG and the USO are probably roughly on par, and the AO, while now much closer to the other three, is still probably the least important one.  That is just how it is, for population that does not follow tennis as closely as we do, Wimbledon is almost (though not quite) like Tour de France of tennis.  It is perhaps not quite fair to other tournaments, but life is not fair.

Wimbledon is the most presitigous I'd agree, but some of you are exaggerating by how much I'd say.

Wimby is by far the most prestigious, just ask the players, @HB.