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.

I know I am going to risk sounding like Captain Obvious here, but it is virtually mission improbable for Marin Cilic, if not mission impossible.

The most the first-time Wimbledon finalist can hope for is a drop in Roger's level due to overconfidence, premature celebration of his eight title, etc.

The problem is that Cilic has not been imposing himself in any aspect of this match (serve, baseline rallies, etc.)

Bet you wouldn't risk saying that it though cc if it was the player you were supporting!

So it's curious that Cilic was super calm and mentally strong in his first slam final, the biggest match of his life, but now he is already a slam champion and you would think he would swing freely, apparently not. But maybe it's more the injury than the mental.

I do think it's worth reminding ourselves that Cilic had never reached a masters semi final before his first masters win in 2016, and has only ever won three tournaments above 250 level in his whole career. Until this year, QF was his best result at Wimbledon. He's done well just to get to this final.

I did say before the semi that I thought he peaked too soon in this tournament, I don't see why, even if he had zero injury, we should expect Marin Cilic to play for 7 matches in a row at such a high level. He's never done that before.

The Cilic serve beginning to fire.

What's the least games won in a Wimbledon final? I doubt Cilic is getting past 7 here. Has anyone ever done worse than that?

Henman Bill wrote:Bet you wouldn't risk saying that it though cc if it was the player you were supporting!

No I definitely wouldn't but again, lets remember, Andy Murray is not Roger Federer. That is why.

Born Slippy wrote:What's the least games won in a Wimbledon final? I doubt Cilic is getting past 7 here. Has anyone ever done worse than that?

I don't know but I remember McEnroe giving some good beatdowns to an aging Connors and to Lewis (I believe).

Henman Bill wrote:

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

I did say before the semi that I thought he peaked too soon in this tournament, I don't see why, even if he had zero injury, we should expect Marin Cilic to play for 7 matches in a row at such a high level. He's never done that before.

Hmm.... I can't remember each & every one of the seven matches he played at the USO 2014. But he sure did better than any of the other 127 guys could manage ! So full credit for that.

summerblues wrote:

Born Slippy wrote:What's the least games won in a Wimbledon final? I doubt Cilic is getting past 7 here. Has anyone ever done worse than that?

I don't know but I remember McEnroe giving some good beatdowns to an aging Connors and to Lewis (I believe).

Connors only won 4 games in 1984, so he's already past that. One more game to do better than Nalbandian and Lewis.

Got a feeling Fed may be pushed hard in this third set.

1974

39 / 40 year old Ken Rosewall versus 21 year old Jimmy Connors

Wimbledon final Rosewall loses final 1-6 1-6 4-6
US Open final Rosewall loses 1-6 0-6 1-6

lags72 wrote:Got a feeling Fed may be pushed hard in this third set.

Yeah, Roger is starting to miss some first serves. He needs to maintain his level of play.

Cilic is clearly hampered by a foot issue. This was not predictable before this match. This does not support the pre-match "walkover theory" because Cilic is clearly hampered. Federer is being professional.

Well it looks bad for Marin. However, if he focuses on getting returns in play, perhaps Roger may tighten up.

This is quite amazing. Who would have thought it. It looks like the first three slams of the year are going to be won by Federer x2 & Nadal x1.

Grand slams won (men's singles only) without losing a set, open era

Rosewall 71 Australian (6 matches)
Nastase 73 French
Borg 76 Wimbledon
Borg 78 French
Borg 80 French
Federer 07 Australian
Nadal 08 French
Nadal 10 French
Nadal 17 French

This has not been achieved at Wimbledon for 41 years!

No name Bertie wrote:Cilic is clearly hampered by a foot issue.  This was not predictable before this match.   This does not support the pre-match "walkover theory" because Cilic is clearly hampered.  Federer is being professional.

Cilic hasn't looked injured to me. He's just frozen on the big stage and his forehand has been a liability. Just not produced today.

2017 Slam Finals
Australian Open - tight five setter between Federer vs Nadal.
Roland Garros - easy three setter for Nadal against Wawrinka: 6-2, 6-3, 6-1
Wimbledon - easy three setter for Federer against Cilic: 6-1, 6-1, 6 - ?

If Federer wins this set, and that after the dust settles on this match, it might be worth checking the stats for least games played or least games lost to win a Wimbledon. It'll never match the French Open records because of serve dominance on this surface but for Wimbledon, this year could be a contender. Given the first round retirment, maybe % of games won might be a fairer comparison.

Then again, it isn't over yet...

Well Marin has done his part on putting the pressure on Roger to serve it out.

Over to you Roger

Only players to win W without dropping a set in all history

Budge 38
Mckinely 63 (who knew?)
Borg 76

All played 7 matches.

Game, set, match and championship to Roger Federer. Congratulations to Roger on his 8th Wimbledon title. Never in doubt.

Indian summer for Roger Federer.  Next up US Open?

2017 Slam Finals
Australian Open - tight five setter between Federer and Nadal: 6–4, 3–6, 6–1, 3–6, 6–3
Roland Garros - easy three setter for Nadal against Wawrinka: 6-2, 6-3, 6-1
Wimbledon - easy three setter for Federer against Cilic: 6-1, 6-1, 6-4

The biggest surprise of course has been old man Roger Federer.

So Roger wins his 19th slam on my 38th birthday. The numerical significance of this is not lost on me.

Nineteen years ago, Roger won the Junior Wimbledon Men's title.

I expected a greater challenge from Marin, but congrats to Roger.

Rather reminiscent of the French Open 2009 final, a historic but in some ways anticlimactic match.

Brilliant from Federer. His most dominant Wimbledon win at the age of 35. Yet to lose a match at a slam or masters this year.

Anti climax. But nice for Fed to reach #19. Surely he needs to get to 20 now? How about at the USO?

I seem to recall some people over the last few years suggesting Federer should retire not to embarrass himself against Djokovic, Murray and the younger generation.

20 sure is a nice round number.

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.

Henman Bill wrote:20 sure is a nice round number.

It is.  That said, 21 is not ugly either.  It is just 19 that somehow does not look as pretty.

Congrats to the Fed.

After five barren years following a record-equalling seventh Wimbledon back in 2012, I always thought - along with almost everyone else, surely - that he would finish up with 17 Slams. Adding two more in the year of his 36th birthday is pretty crazy stuff.

Like all Slam wins, this wasn't just about what happened today in the Final. You have to navigate through six previous matches, and many a past Slam champion has fallen early - including the very first round of course.

Congratulations to the Old Man on #19/#8 without losing a set. .

summerblues wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:20 sure is a nice round number.

It is.  That said, 21 is not ugly either.  It is just 19 that somehow does not look as pretty.

19 is a prime number - 20 and 21 are decomposable numbers. Federer has reached his prime - well done!

Well Fed didn't really have to do too much, with Marin hampered and spraying UEs all over the place. When you think of some of the epic GS finals that Fed lost, it's ironic that this is one he won without touching the heights.
   With five titles already this year, Rog is just one behind Lendl for all-time tournament wins. He may not catch Connors (109 titles) but may be the 100 is on.
   Of more immediate interest, the year-end number one is also on, particularly if Rafa has his usual modest end-of-season run.

Well done to Federer. Well deserved. Excellent tournament for him. Sure he could have stepped up another gear if Cilic had played better but didn't need to.

No name Bertie wrote:I seem to recall some people over the last few years suggesting Federer should retire not to embarrass himself against Djokovic, Murray and the younger generation.

Indeed. And it was often more than just the occasional suggestion.

Not sure whether you ever participated in the original 606, but the likes of Unbiased Educator (and his countless aliases ..... Simple Analyst, Tennis Tutor etc etc), Boromir, Jewel et al, were all asking - as far back as 2011 and early 2012 - just what 'relevance' Federer had within the so-called Golden Era characterised by the new young lions.

It was painful enough for all those parallel-world Fed denigrators on 606 when he then went on to capture a seventh Wimbledon in 2012. Life will surely be close to unbearable for them now.......

sirfredperry wrote:Well Fed didn't really have to do too much, with Marin hampered and spraying UEs all over the place. When you think of some of the epic GS finals that Fed lost, it's ironic that this is one he won without touching the heights. ...

Federer had to do a lot to win Wimbledon 2017. The preparation - skipping the clay court season, training to reach an elite level while maintaining his health. Preparing for the grass season, developing match fitness in pre-Wimbledon grass tournaments, navigating 6 rounds at Wimbledon to reach the final. Ensuring a hampered Cilic gets no opportunity in the final.

No name Bertie wrote:

sirfredperry wrote:Well Fed didn't really have to do too much, with Marin hampered and spraying UEs all over the place. When you think of some of the epic GS finals that Fed lost, it's ironic that this is one he won without touching the heights. ...

Federer had to do a lot to win Wimbledon 2017.   The preparation - skipping the clay court season, training to reach an elite level while maintaining his health.  Preparing for the grass season,  developing match fitness in pre-Wimbledon grass tournaments, navigating 6 rounds at Wimbledon to reach the final.  Ensuring a hampered Cilic gets no opportunity in the final.

   Didn't mean to take away from his achievement and what you say, NNB, is correct. With the twins appearing at the end, wonder if we'll get the "Two Sets to Love" headlines?

Its very hard to comprehend just what Roger has been achieving this year. In Australia it did not look like a Federer victory was on the cards. 3 five setters in a row and I would bet it have been hard to find a single person who saw the old man triumph in the final set against Nadal. I didn't believe it until the last ball was played.

But that being said, a final swansong major title was always foreseeable to me. One more big one. I did believe I would see it just not with such a titanic effort and not beating Nadal in the final. That was one of the greatest sporting triumphs I have ever witnessed in my lifetime if not thee greatest. But possible....plausible.

What's happened since then is incomprehensible to me. The two masters wins. That shouldn't happen for a 35 year...even this 35 year old.

To take more time off and then win Halle and now Wimbledon. Both without dropping a single set. 30 sets in a row...on GRASS?!?!! This doesn't make sense at all.

So there has to be some serious analysis of what it is exactly that we are witnessing.

Hi Lionel Hutz, the key is he is playing in an injury free healthy condition.  The other factor is the drop off of Novak Djokovic.   Perhaps the drop off in Andy Murrays game is also a factor - but Federer always had a game that matched up well against Murray, even when Federer was beyond his prime.

This also shows what an enormous gulf there has been between the top four players and all the rest.  Federer is no where near his prime - he doesn't have the speed, movement, agility and power that he had aged 21 - 26.  Yet he is STILL good enough to be competitive at the top level.  STILL good enough to win grand slams.

Always reckoned Fed had one more Wimbledon in him but few could have expected it to come now. 
  Among the achievements of Fed and the others in the Big 4 has been their total domination at Wimbledon. You have to go back 15 years for a time when anyone outside the Big 4 won it.

Well done federer but my goodness that was one of the worst matches I think I have ever witnessed. Not often I would say I was glad I wasn't at a final. I actually think Wimbledon 2017 was hugely disappointing. So few decent matches, really poor stuff

SMcQ - Well, yes, the final was a bit of an anticlimax. And probably what was needed was a big match between two of the Big 4 at some stage. But at least the Muller-Rafa match was high on drama, while Konta played some memorable matches. 
   However, with so many injuries, Fed was literally last man standing.

Sometimes it does happen in sport. We can't always be guaranteed the very best matches and finals. Roger is so far ahead of everyone else on grass just now for varying reasons that the result seemed obvious to me since early in the second week. He is the greatest grass courter of all-time and greatest player. If he hadn't got to the semis then (oddly enough) the tournament would have probably dealt up closer matches and more drama. In that way that says that tennis WILL SURVIVE after the big four has gone. You will lose a heck of a lot of quality but it will be more of a level playing field and more open matches.

The reality is many of the best matches were in the ladies. Kerber vs. Muguruza was an absolute classic and should never have been on Court 2. Call them sexist out of date or whatever you like but the organisers need to realise some of the top women are quite interesting too and not pander just to the top 4 men all the time.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:So much about what Fed should or should not do, what about Marin Cilic?  What he should do to beat Fed?  I see it's really pro Fed here, it's like most if not all here want Fed to win, after already winning so much at Wimbledon.  

Are you forgetting La Decima, so soon? Et Tu? Cilic needed to be healthy, first and foremost.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I do hope Marin can surprise everyone and get to win his first Wimbledon ( who knows whether he has anymore chances in future!).

Cilic's post match interview clearly stated that his injury was also present in the Querrey match, and the Wimbledon medical teams tried to address the issues for 30+ hours - Marin Cilic Final Press Conference 2017 .

Newballs.

The problem with that is that exciting or not, the interest remains in the men's game. The clearest way to see that is in looking at debenture ticket prices and audience viewing figures from the second Tuesday onwards.

But this tournament it's probably true that the most exciting matches were in the women's game

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.

One thing I missed was that Roger achieved today the record of most slam finals at one event with 11, beating the market of Tilden (7-3, US Open) and Rafa at the French Open. Of course, you'd rather have Rafa's ludicrously impressive 10-0 record that Roger's 8-3. Interesting Sampras has a record of 7-0 at Wimbledon.

Federer's record is a male only record. Martina Navratilova made 12 Wimbledon finals (9-3).

Most titles at a single tournament

10 - Rafa - MC
10 - Rafa - Barcelona
10- Rafa - FO
9 - Federer - Halle
8 - Vilas - Buenos Aires
8 - Federer - Wimbledon
7 - Sampras - Wimbledon
7 - Federer - Dubai
7 - Federer - Cincinatti
7 - Federer - Basle
7 - Nadal - Rome

So of the 11 instances of players winning 1 tournament 7 or more times in a row in the open era, 5 are Federer , and 4 are Rafa!

Navratilova crops up again in the women's records, with 12 Chicago and 11 Eastbourne.