Thirtysomethings Federer, Haas, Nalbandian Bid For Grass Titles On Sunday

Nice to see cilic in a final.

June 16th, 2012 at 7:17 pm

“You have to admire Haas for his effort and perseverance.”

Considering that 34-year Tommy Haas (who turned pro 2 years before Roger did) and 30-year Federer are in the Halle finals… and 30-year old David Nalbandian is in the Queens final… it just goes to show the quality of the Federer generation.

June 16th, 2012 at 7:26 pm

Nalbandian is 30, thought he was younger than that. hmm, he must have turned 30 this year coz I know he is younger than fed. Amazing how federer body is still doing strong.

June 16th, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Very tough for me to choose with Nalby/Cilic: they both need this title but for very different reasons. Swan song versus kick start?

I suspect Fed will top Haas but they could be tight sets. Fed had no problem with Youz by the looks of it, whereas Haas had a tougher time versus PK, but something tells me Haas will keep it tight for at least one set anyhow. The serve, as always, will be important for both. The crowd will be pleased either way, methinks.

June 16th, 2012 at 9:30 pm

Current win-loss records of top four players over past 52 weeks (from week after 2011 Queens/Halle till 2012 Halle semifinal). The 30-year old player is not just the winningest player (it’s like he had another year with under ten losses), but also ties Nadal for most matches played. Just adding to what Sienna posted in other thread.
1. Federer: 69-9 (88.5%)
2. Djokovic: 65-11 (85.5%)
3. Nadal: 65-13 (83.3%)
4. Murray: 60-14 (81.1%)
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Current-List.aspx

****

Kimmi: Nalby’s birthdate is Jan 1, 1982, so he is just under 5 months younger than Fed.

****

I wish it were Kohlschreiber or Berdych facing Fed rather than Fed’s buddy Haas infront of German fans. The problem with Roger is that since 2007, unless he has something to prove, he tends to go easy on his buddies to keep their egos happy, keeps it close instead of putting them away, gives them belief, and sometimes gets stuck in tight matches, occasionally losing (such as to Roddick at Miami). Nadal, on the other and, has it right: he’s ruthless on court, even against his friends. That’s the way it should be.

June 16th, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Dave, yes, but sadly, few of those wins and many of those losses were against the current world nos. 1 and 2, and in (e.g.) slam semifinals. It’s nice that Federer has the highest win percentage over the past 52 weeks, but it’s just not all that important.

June 16th, 2012 at 10:23 pm

(But I agree with you about Haas. I bet it will be a less straightforward match than it looks on paper – see, e.g., last time Fed was in a Halle final, when he lost to Lleyton “Just Had My Seventeenth Hip Surgery” Hewitt [one of my favorite players, but still].)

June 16th, 2012 at 10:25 pm

Federer and Haas have had some classics over the years, particularly in the majors. They’ve played three 5-set matches that went the distance (2 at AO and 1 at FO). Seems they bring out the goods with each other, so I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s match.

75 career titles would be quite the milestone for Federer.

June 16th, 2012 at 10:59 pm

Eric: On the contrary, I feel the win-loss record is important, because it directly contributes to ranking points. That’s why Federer is in a position where he might be able to take the No. 1 ranking if he wins Wimbledon or US Open.

Second, the win-loss records also indicate that:

– Federer remains consistent and it builds his confidence and momentum. Even though 4 of those 9 losses were to Djokovic (3) and Nadal (1), Roger also had 2 wins against Nadal. This consistency keeps open the likelihood that Federer will switch on to a higher gear in a future Slam. [Regarding those 4 losses to Djokovic/Nadal, don’t forget that Federer has played a lot of matches and at his age is more prone to injuries and their effects than when he was in his mid 20s (e.g., groin injury in 2011 French Open, back injury in Doha, hip injury in Madrid). The law of averages tends to balance with good periods when health and game fall in place.]

– Djokovic/Nadal are not invincible in the way Federer was in 2006, when Roger won 12 of 16 finals out of 17 tournaments played. Therefore the possibility exists they might slip in a future Slam, as Djokovic almost did twice at French Open. Sooner or later luck turns the other way. Tennis history shows that dominance is never guaranteed — even the most dominant players eventually hit unexpected slumps or lost confidence against an unexpected player who has their number. They are only human and the ball is round.

Fed lost to only two players ranked worse than No. 19 since 2010 Estoril: Hewitt at 2010 Halle and Roddick at 2012 Miami. Against Hewitt, Fed was carrying a leg injury he picked up in the Halle semifinal, I believe. So that was an added complication, and could have affected his match. It was probably more serious than he says because it was same leg injury that he carried into Wimbledon and almost lost in the first round to the clay courter Falla that he had beaten at Roland Garros.

Q: Two years ago you were slightly injured against Hewitt. When did you stop having the back problems because they were with you for some eighteen months, weren’t they?

FEDERER: I don’t think it was the back. I think it was my leg that was hurting but I was still able to play. I should have won on 0-6, 4-4, 0-40 and then he hit a net cord on one of his forehand. It’s a pity because I was in control, I was playing well, I created the opportunities I wanted. I don’t think he would have broken me at 5-4 and then he played really well I have to say in the third. He started to return me really well and he just got into another gear which was great to see. But it was still a good final for me.
But my back has been under control for maybe somewhat over a year now. Obviously it always flares up from time to time like for any other player. When you change surface maybe you feel it a bit more but it’s not like you cannot play. But sometimes it gets too bad like for me in Doha or maybe for Murray in Madrid, he didn’t come. I mean you’re able to play somewhat okay but it’s just not a whole lot fun playing with it. I’ve been very happy with my back for about a year now or so.
http://www.gerryweber-open.de/gwo_en/Interviews/2012/16.06.2012/Interview-with-Roger-Federer-after-his-win-against-Mikhail-Youzhny

****

the mind reels: From fed’s presser:

Q: Does the number 77 tell you anything?
FEDERER: Not a lot.

Q: John McEnroe’s tournament victories. You have 74.
FEDERER: Yes, I knew he had won 77 but I’m not always aware of that.

Q: Is it a goal to overtake him?
FEDERER: I hope that I will otherwise my next years don’t look too good (laughs). We’ll see. Tomorrow I can make another huge step. But John McEnroe is a huge legend. I think he also won 78 doubles titles. So, I’m glad that he is still in tennis by working as a commentator or by playing exhibitions. He knows how to move the masses. It would be great if I caught up with him but it’s not one of my main goals.

June 16th, 2012 at 11:16 pm

Dave, you don’t have to convince me that Federer is still playing well and having good results. (And actually, I think I was the first to point out last week that if Roger beats Rafa – or anyone but Nole – in the Wimbledon final, he gets his #1 ranking back, if I did the math right.)

However – at grave risk of pedantry – “the win-loss record is important, because it directly contributes to ranking points” is wrong. Tournament results independently generate (a) win-loss percentages and (b) ranking points. (a) has no direct impact of any kind whatsoever on (b). (Not all matches are created equal.)

It seems like you are trying to suggest that Federer has had a 52 weeks comparable to or better than Djokovic and Nadal because he has a better 52-week win percentage than them. That’s ridiculous when Federer has now lost in the quarter- or semifinal stage of the past four slams, while Djokovic and Rafa have contended all four finals against one another. Now, personally, I am perfectly happy with Roger’s form and results. He’s won quite a lot of tournaments, including a few Masters events, and is clearly capable of beating anyone, anywhere. (Well, maybe not Rafa at RG. That 2011 final is still a sore spot with me.) I have high hopes for both Wimbledon and the US Open. But until Federer actually proves he can win a slam final again, comparing his present results to Rafa and Nole is just silly.

June 16th, 2012 at 11:36 pm

Eric,

Can you please tell me when was the last time a 30 year old who was 5 yrs older than the no.2 with about 10 slams and no.1 with 5 slams and 6yrs younger than him, still had a better winning % than them over a 52week period?

Yes fed’s record @slams has not been stellar, but he is still one slam win away from the no.1. I dont think anyone even predicted this would happen when federer lost that USO semi-final. Federer has positioned himself in prime spot to take over the number one. he has 1350 points to defend till USO as compared to 2700 for rafa and 5600 for djokovic.

It is entirely on his racquet to get the no.1 and it is a great opportunity for anyone. Will he make it? we donot know. but if anyone can, you know that Fed can!

June 16th, 2012 at 11:49 pm

Grass seems to be surface suited to veternan players. Maybe because the grass season is so short that it takes players years to get the hang of it? Or maybe the surface, despite how it has slowed, is more suited to players who play a style of tennis more in keeping with the Fed/Haas?hewitt/roddick generation.

June 16th, 2012 at 11:58 pm

As for his chances against rafa/djokovic at a slam.

against djokovic he is 1-2 in his last 3 and had double match-points in one of those.

against rafa, he has played the 2011 FO final and 2011 AO final on courts that suit rafa’s game. There is no denying that Wimbledon and USO suit federer’s game much more than they do rafa’s.

outside clay, rafa is 7-12 against djokovic and 6-8 against federer. if you include only post clay tournaments, federer is 6-1 against nadal with nadal’s only win being the 9-7 in the 5th wimbledon run.

If anyone should be worried, it is nadal’s fans, who is almost certainly out of the year end race. things only get faster from here and rafa’s success has been limited in these surfaces when compared to novak/federer.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:03 am

SM, actually plenty of people predicted it including myself. I guess I am not being clear. I am not in any way denigrating Federer’s achievements over the past year, his form, or anything else.

What I am saying is that his win-loss percentage (PER SE) is irrelevant. Knowing that Federer has won 3% more of his matches over the past year (and, BTW, let’s not even get into issues of statistical significance) adds exactly NOTHING to our understanding of Federer’s year as a tennis player.

It’s just a statistic like any other. It results from what happens out on the tennis court – in this case over a very long range of time – and can only ever capture one angle of that set of phenomena, can only ever describe them in a limited way. Stats are good for some things, bad for others. (I have two blocks of cheese. They both weigh 2 oz. But that’s not, presumably, what you really want to know about the cheese.) In the same way that reading the 1st serve %, no. of errors, or whatever your fav stat happens to be, is no substitute for actually watching a match and applying your intellect and knowledge to understanding what is happening, knowing a win-loss % over a season is at best a pale reflection of actually understanding the processes that resulted in the generation of that particular number. Remember the Mark Twain quip: “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.” In this case, I submit, even one of our resident stats buffs, Dave, has been seduced by an epiphenomenon of the tennis year instead of actually thinking about the tennis year itself. If you do that instead, you’ll see that – win-loss records be damned – Fed is still on the outside, trying to get back in to where Rafa and Nole are.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:13 am

@Kimberly:

One can only hope that the powers that be dont slow down the surface more!

another thing that has immensely helped baseliners is that the proliferation of their ilk makes sure that the baseline is almost like clay by the time the 2nd week rolls in. back in 90s, no one used to hang around the baseline, so the grass still stayed slippery and in the finals, if you chose to stay back, you are not moving as well as you would on clay/hard courts. [it would be a lot like how madrid was where djokovic/nadal were too frustrated with the slippery baseline because coming forward is not an option for them. players like federer who adapted and kept the points short were not so frustrated).

if the grass at the baseline wasn’t trampled upon enough, power baseliners with defensive games would be more vulnerable to players who play 1st strike tennis.

in this case, atleast it is not the authorities helping the power baseliners but it is their numbers. in the 90s when clay courters would take vacations when the grass season started, now they see opportunity and a more than even chance to make it to the 2nd week of the world’s most hallowed tennis tournament.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:15 am

Kimberly, I don’t think grass is especially suited to veterans; I think it’s more just that it’s more of an “anything can happen” surface. This year Haas and Nalby happen to have been the unexpected “anything,” but in the past it’s been Sam Querrey, Adrian Mannarino, whatever. (Plus I’m not sure we can say grass is an old man’s surface if you look at when these veterans actually did well on it – Nalby ten years ago, Hewitt when he was, what, 11 or something? Even Federer was still fairly young when he won his first Wimbledon. Andy Roddick too in his finals there almost ten years ago now.)

June 17th, 2012 at 12:16 am

Sean, you are a soothsayer now? fed’s last chance? LOL!

Eric,

I can quote a million quotes about statistics are relevant. How was mark twain qualified to talk about statistics? How well does he know statistics? If you are going to predict the future, which is what we are doing here – you would be doing yourself a disservice if you insist that you only look at limited data, like you do by only looking at slams. Yes, you have to look at them. but you also have to look at other statistics. You need to look at as much data as you can and then make your decision.

In this sense, the win % is definitely relevant as it is one of the many factors you can use to forecast the tennis landscape. It is very likely that rafa (more than novak) might start getting taken down by those other players who have mauled him in the 1000s and 500s and 250s. More often than not, a great players demis starts in the 500s and masters.

Club the above information with federer/nadal’s annual performances since 2005, post FO and you will see Federer has more than a punter’s chance @ no.1 and a slam.

If the future just blindly followed the past, why even bother watching tennis or any sport.

there are “trends” that show federer’s stock is on the way up. Will it rise above nadal/djokovic’s? There is a very good chance.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:25 am

“If the future just blindly followed the past, why even bother watching tennis or any sport.”

That actually is exactly what you would ask someone with your faith in statistics.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:28 am

@Eric: and to add to your post, Nadal has been contesting Wimbledon finals since he was about 20 years old, so surely not a veteran’s surface.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:29 am

The bottomline is that this is Federer’s best part of the season with the faster surfaces that reward his aggressive game and there are a bunch of stats that show he can make it count big time. [win%, his annual post-clay performance as opposed to rafa’s, his stellar wimbledon/uso records and so on]

June 17th, 2012 at 12:31 am

Sean, Tignor says something similar about the changed style of play on grass: “Blame two-handed backhands, Western grips, and bigger racquets for the shift before you blame the “new” surface at one tournament.”

http://blogs.tennis.com/thewrap/2012/06/you-know-its-grass-season-when.html

June 17th, 2012 at 12:35 am

Sean,

I agree with the strings being a huge factor. but they still dont help these power baseliners in fast surfaces like indoor tournaments and cincinnati and the USO, right?

yes they can make an odd run here and there [agassi won wimbledon in 90s too] but by and far, the aggressive players will have a more than 50% shot at the tournament. right now, Wimbledon might be the other way and if they continue with “slowing down the conditions” maybe even the indoors and cincinnati and uso will make the game tilted in favor of the defensive baseliner.

for now, novak/federer have a much better chance than defensive players like rafa/murray.

I do accept the premise that the strings are the biggest culprit, but wimbledon could atleast stop whatever they do with the balls that tim-henman complained in 2001/2002 – something to do with removing them from the cans before the matches or something like that!

June 17th, 2012 at 12:38 am

Apparently I am totally failing to make myself clear. Let me try one last time.

Here’s the way tennis works. Two guys go out on a court and hit a ball around for a couple hours. In the process, they generate sets of numbers. Now, what matters most is who wins the match, which is determined by which player wins 2 or 3 sets first, depending on the tournament. (Yes, I am being condescending; deal with it.) But they also generate other numbers that describe what they did on the court: number of aces. first serve percentage. number of double faults. winners. unforced errors. average serve speed. many, many more.

It’s very easy – indeed, everyone does it – to confuse one or two of those numbers with what actually happened in the match. (“Oh, X needs to keep his winner:error ratio up.” Well, obviously, but it’s not that simple.) Obviously the statistics result from the match, tell us about the match, and are very important. But even gathered all together, they are only reductions of the match. Looking over a stat sheet afterward is less revealing than actually watching the match.

Similarly, over the course of many tournaments, other numbers get generated: wins-losses. finals reached. trophies lifted.

Again, these all result from and contain information about the tennis season. But they are not substitutes for actually following the tour.

Join me on a thought experiment. Two guys – let’s call them Cheech and Chong – play all the same tournaments for a season. Cheech gets to the third or fourth round at every tourney, then loses, all year long, without fail. Chong wins every tournament for the first half of the season, then loses in the first round of every tournament for the second half. Now, I’m not sure which one of these guys had the better season (I say Chong, but reasonable minds might disagree; it’s not really the point). What I do know is that knowing their win percentage doesn’t help you decide – it’s 50% for both of them.

(And by the way, we’re not talking about predicting the future, at least not primarily. Dave and I were talking about the role of statistics in evaluating and describing performance in the past. Obviously they are linked insofar as athletic performance tends to be fairly continuous most of the time, barring injury.)

June 17th, 2012 at 12:39 am

Cheech and Chong playing tennis would be a… hoot.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:42 am

The Arrogant One Vs Mr. Injury

2005 called. It wants it match back. If you can’t give it back, atleast call it, a senior finals.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:42 am

Sean,
Lol I am a lifer with POG(oversize)and prince synthetic 17ga with Gut mains.
Tomorrow I will buy Lux big banger and not worry anymore about chip and charge, thanks to your revelation.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:44 am

but 2wimbledons is a very small sample space. 2010 was definitely a legit injury issue. federer had his hamstring taped heavily in his 1st/2nd round match. he even did something he rarely does – talk about an injury after a loss to berdych!

I feel federer’s best surface is the USO [lending belief to some people’s arguments that it is now the fastest slam!] it took delpotro and djokovic 5 sets to take federer out and fed had matchpoints in both djokovic matches.

i would say the jury is out on fed’s performances at wimbledon. That said, definitely his chances of beating djokovic @ wimbledon are higher than his chances @ the french? similarly his chances @ beating nadal are greater than at wimbledon than aussie open?

so i dont get this fed can no longer beat these 2 at slams argument when they beat fed on his weaker surface. when they consistently beat fed at wimbledon and uso, we will see. tsonga/berdych beating fed at wimbledon is no guarantee that nadal/djokovic will beat fed at wimbledon. their playing styles are different. nadal/djokovic are far defensive than tsonga/berdych. so it is an entirely different match-up

June 17th, 2012 at 12:52 am

“Looking over a stat sheet afterward is less revealing than actually watching the match. ”

Well, numbers dont lie to suit their agenda, but people do it all the time. As I said, performances in Grandslam are an indicator, but a win% is a good indicator too of what is to come.

you can look at the glass half full and glass half less.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:57 am

you dont have to give brownie points for GS. The ATP already awards them more points than the 1000s and 500s.

finally, if federer wins wimbledon and gets number one, there will be a lot of people who will say djokovic who holds 2 slams deserves it much more than federer. but that is simply not true. if we had number ones be decided by who people think deserved number 1, Jesus would have been the number one for almost the last 30 years.

Maybe federer or borg would have overtaken him once in a while, but it is a safe bet Jesus would be number 1 for the most part.

June 17th, 2012 at 1:10 am

Sean,

I did mention that even agassi won wimbledon and USopen in the 90s. ofcourse, nadal can make the odd run through the 2 weeks, but can he do it for 5 years in a row? i doubt it!

June 17th, 2012 at 1:13 am

SM, remind me how many finals Nadal has been in at Wimbledon?

June 17th, 2012 at 1:14 am

eric,

would he have made those in the 90s?

June 17th, 2012 at 1:17 am

I thought we were discussing whether slowing wimbledon conditions has helped the defensive players, Sean! I brought up the 90s to show you that even in those fast conditions, baseliners won Grand Slams.

obviously it is not the only factor, but it is a factor, nonetheless.

June 17th, 2012 at 2:04 am

Look, if you are a Federer fan, you will see the glass half full.

if you are not you see it as half empty.

there were a lot of people who predicted federer was done after the 2008 wimbledon final. he wasn’t was he?

federer and his fans believe he has another 1 or 2 Grandslam in him and his critics think otherwise.

June 17th, 2012 at 2:15 am

Sean, SM,

Problem with Wimbledon is not just the surface, but the balls. The balls being made heavy makes it difficult to take advantage of the slick surface. I don’t think they keep slowing down the surface every year, they did it few years back at the begining of the decade. Also the court conditions depends on the weather too.

But one thing they control and try to make it slower is through the balls. They had a very heavy balls last year, which helps players with big swing and who can hit the ball hard.

Not sure what type of balls are going to be used this year.

June 17th, 2012 at 2:26 am

Sean, You make a very good point about Nadal on your
June 17th, 2012 at 12:59 am post. Nadal is banged up by the time the indoors start.

His last tournament which he cares in HC would be USO. After that he may play tournaments either they are mandatory or give him huge appearance fees.

June 17th, 2012 at 2:30 am

Some nice comment about Rafa..

So i headed over to atp a site where they actually have real tennis facts. Its really starting to bug me people saying rafa needs to prove him self on other surfaces, as far as i’m concerned he has and more so then djokovic. Saying rafas only got a lot of titles because they’ve all come on clay is like saying djokovic and federer only have a lot of titles because they’ve come on hard courts. Just out of curiosity i found what percentage each player had won on any one surface the results were as followed:

Djokovic

Hard: 73%
Clay: 23%
Grass: 4%

Nadal

Clay: 74%
Hard: 20%
Grass: 6%

Federer (left out carpet court titles)

Hard: 72%
Grass: 14%
Clay: 14%

As you can see each players strongest surface makes up about 75% of there overall titles only 1% difference between the 3 players! So to come out and say Rafa needs to win more titles on other surfaces to prove himself is just donkey balls. So far the closest out of the three to be the best on all surfaces is rodger federer Generally speaking if someone held two gs titles at each gs they would be considered most successful on all surfaces and no ones done that to this date. And even if we take a look at the players weaker surfaces rafas 10 hard court titles (20%) include 5 masters, 2 GS’s and an olympic gold medal. And his 3 grass titles (6%) include two Wimbledon titles. Djokovics weaker surfaces consists of only 3 masters titles on clay and his lone Wimbledon on grass. HMMMMMM wonder whos had more success on all surfaces. I understand your probably a djokovic fan and yes hes much more of a competitor these days but to say nadal has to beat him on those surfaces time and time again to prove hes an all surface player when clearly djokovic or almost all tennis players will never be then your just plain crazy. Another funny thing is the fact that the majority of tournaments have HARD COURTS. For rafa to win the same percentage of tournaments on his favorite surface when there’s less clay tournaments is pretty impressive. Imagine if tennis tournaments were split 50/50 half tournaments clay half hard, who would have the most titles? The answers plain and simple rafa easily would cause he absolutely dominates clays but also has an odd IMPORTANT hard court win every now and then.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:12 am

To claim that the win oss numbers are not relevant is clearly putting our head in the sand.

Of course everybody knows that youve gotta win the slams in order to become #1 in mens tennis. (it can be achieved without if the right persons are winning the slams) But I agree that the # 1 at least needs to win 1 slam.

But the winloss # are relevant it show that Fed is very determend to make every single point in the race count. To me it just adds to the sheer willpower this men has. He is a great tennis player secondairy. People give him credit for playing a beautifull game.
But that can only be because he is willing to put in the training to keep his body up to the fittest he possible can.
I believe his true asset of a player is his will power. His ability to envision and planning a year to become the best player after Wimbly 2012and make it happen can only be reached when you are reluntless and very determined.

Words fail me to praise the man’s ongoing selfbelief and perseverance.
WHen he does win Wimbledon within a few weeks and reach #1. Then that would go down as 1 the greatest run in sports.

Only true greats can believe and achieve those goals.
Mohammed Ali, Lance Armstrong, MichaelJordan to name a few.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:33 am

“Win-loss is largely irrelevant. What matters is results in Slams.”

I said a few months ago that it is possible for Federer to become No. 1 in the rankings without wining even a single Slam. That possibility still remains today. Of course it would probably require both remaining slams to be won by players other than Djokovic or Nadal (e.g., del Potro, Murray, Raonic, Tsonga, Berdych, etc.). In the future, anything is possibleas tennis history has shown us many times (only crazy people believe that past results will keep repeating into the future or that possibilities must be excluded from the future).

There is a precedent for this: In 1970, Rod Laver was considered co. No. 1 even though he did not win a grand slam title (this was the year after his 1969 Calendar Year Grand Slam). The other co. No. 1 players (Rosewall and Newcombe) won one slam each, as four different players won each of the Slams. Although Laver failed badly in Grand Slam tournaments, he succeeded in winning several other important tournaments.

A more contemporary example is 1998. Marcelo Rios almost ended 1998 as year-end No. 1 in ranking points, despite never winning a slam (Australian finals, French Open QF, Wimbledon R1, US Open R3). But Pete Sampras (won one slam, Wimbledon) scrambled to play seven tournaments after the US Open (he won only tiny Vienna) — and edged Rios by just 3,915 to 3,670 points.

On a slight tangent: In recent years, some people have been obsessed with winning slams as the only measure of greastness, perhaps because Sampras and then Federer’s slam records created this monster. Or perhaps because that’s what Nadal can realistically hope to attain since he is unlikely to break records for years/weeks at number one and total tournaments won.

However, to the greatest players, winning grand slam titles is a necessary but not sufficient attribute — or only attribute — for greatness. For many decades, the three key attributes were: how long at No. 1, how many slams won and how many total titles won.

– Martina Navratilova: “(The Greatest Of All Time is) a combination of how many grand slams have you won, how many tournaments have you won, how many years you were number one and he’s got all those combinations. The body of work is phenomenal and now he has got that French Open and I think he can just go on and sip Margaritas for the rest of his life.”

– In Pete Sampras’s site, “the definition of ‘champion’ ” is 14 grand slam titles, 6 consecutive year-end No. 1 rankings, 286 weeks ranked No. 1, 64 singles titles, $43 million in prize money.

– Ivan Lendl’s site lists his career highlights as: ranked as the world’s top player 1985-87 and 1989, held World #1 ranking for a total of 270 weeks, captured 8 Grand Slam titles [Australian Open (1989, 1990), French Open (1984, 1986, 1987), US Open (1985, 1986, 1987)], won 5 year-end Masters Championships, competed in a total of 19 Grand Slam singles final, career prize money: $21.2m

– At 2009 Australian Open, Federer was asked: Q. “Which is the most prestigious record in men’s tennis? Is it the most Grand Slams?”
ROGER FEDERER: “Yeah, I mean, I guess this one is — yeah, to me it almost seems like, you know. Or weeks at No. 1 maybe, because that shows how long you’ve been at the top. More than slams, I guess. But then there’s many other ones as well. I feel those two are the most important at the moment.”
http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=54034

June 17th, 2012 at 4:34 am

Nirmal you forget 1 big thing and that is that 70% of tourney are played on HC. only 20% is on clay.

So your stats are totaly out of order.

A player should have 70 % HC, 20%clay and 10% gras wins.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:36 am

And furthermore Nirmal. WHenever tennis was player 50/50 HC andclay ..

When that was the case tennis would be a different sport with different people playing it.

When tennis would have been like that maybe there would have been other greats in the sport. It is even uncertain that Nadal would have beenthe top clay player when that was the case.

You just cannot make 1 adjustement in the game of tennis and go with that hypothesejust to make sum bogus argument. When you change 1 thing everything changes with it.
So just try to keep it real with real stats and make an argument about that.

I can make the case that if Wimbly was not slowed down since 2002 then Fed would have won 9 Wimbly titles.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:44 am

Sienna Says,

WHen he does win Wimbledon within a few weeks and reach #1. Then that would go down as 1 the greatest run in sports.

I agree. If Roger does win Wimbledon and reclaim No 1, it would be probably the greatest achievement in our sport. I would say it would be better than winning a Calendar GS.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:48 am

Sienna.. The above is not my stats. I just pasted a comment from another poster in a different forum.

I don’t want to say it’s either right or wrong. I thought the stats were pretty interesting, so I posted here. From me, it’s neither pro Roger or pro Nadal.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:49 am

Sienna , for your post on June 17th, 2012 at 4:44 am.

I agree, more they play, players figure out how to win against others. Also clay is clustered at only stage of the year. It takes much bigger effort to win through the year like HC, since it’s played both on Jan and November, also the competition is much higher in HC than Clay.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:52 am

Yes but it is totally wrong to point them out with the claim you make.

A player with 75% winns on clay when clay is only 20% of total is not the rigth way to look at this problem.
You just saw a stat and gave youre keyboard a humming. Without even thinking of the things you state.

It just shows how one sided Nadal is in his achievements. You proof he is the ultimate claycourter and not the allrounder.
Where Fed and Djokovic ahave a winning % according to % of the surfaces on tour. They show that they are allrounders.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:54 am

I agree with Sienna. This only illustrates nadal’s relative one-dimensionality compared to Roger and novak.

Rafa/novak/federer play about 20 tournaments a year. of these, 2 are on grass and 4 are on clay [5 for nadal] and remaining 14 are on hard. that makes it 70% hardcourt, 20%clay and 10%grass. If a player is an all-surface player, he would ideally win 70%hard, 20%clay and 10% grass. in nadal’s case it is the total opposite, 70% on clay and only 20% on hard. his game is very clay heavy. not that there is anything wrong with it. but it would be a mistake to spin it otherwise.

you can see how this lop-sidedness helps rafa in the head to heads against novak and federer.

against federer, nadal played 28matches, but 50% are on clay, where ideally it should be only 20%

against djokovic, again nadal has played close to 50%on his favoured surface instead of the 20%

if sampras played nadal instead, he would have avoided nadal on clay and might have had a winning H2H like davydenko has [he has played majority of his encounters against nadal outside clay]

June 17th, 2012 at 5:20 am

Nirmal Kumar:

I knew wimbledon was doing something with the balls. henman had complained about it in 2002/2001 when he said the change made it harder for S &V players like him. I will try and google that information

June 17th, 2012 at 5:22 am

In case of Roger vs Rafa it’s more of a match-up issue. But what surprises me is the fact that a great player like Roger couldn’t find a way to turn things around, he didn’t seem to change things to find a way and almost always fell short of ideas against Rafa. Whatever may his fans say, for a neutral person it’s a huge blot on his greatness. Novak is not exactly a great match-up for Rafa either, but you cannot blame Rafa for his efforts or lack thereof. He has gone back to the drawing boards, worked on his game and the fruits are beginning to come. Roger hasn’t won a single match in slams against Rafa since 2007 Wimbledon and that’s a bloody long time. Even then a 20 years old kid who was just learning to play on other surfaces was able stretch him till the 5th set.

June 17th, 2012 at 5:24 am

Eric: You certainly were not the first to point out anything last week. Since December last year, I was possibly the first anywhere — though I can’t remember if I mentioned it here at that time — to point out that Federer had built a stockpile of points after the 2011 US Open over Djokovic and Nadal that he could use to reclaim the No. 1 ranking by 2012 US Open or earlier. As the weeks passed, more and more people started popping up saying basically the same thing, even Darren Cahill at the Australian Open. I’ve been tracking their points and possibilities since then. In past months, other posters here had already pointed out the possibilities for Federer at Wimbledon. Welcome to the club.

I said “win-loss record” NOT “win-loss percentages”. I stated that win-loss record directly contributes to ranking points — which it obviously does (even if it is a ATP 250 tourney) — not that having the best win-loss record results in the highest ranking points. If you are able to finally understand the difference, you should now realize the irrelevance of your comment: “Tournament results independently generate (a) win-loss percentages and (b) ranking points. (a) has no direct impact of any kind whatsoever on (b). (Not all matches are created equal.)”. There is no need for your false logic, when the common sense and hard test of reality is more compelling. In the past 22 years, there is a strong correlation between the No. 1’s year-end ranking (based on ranking points) and his strong win-loss record for the year. Name me one top player (i.e., the highest ranking points) in ATP history who does not have one of the best win-loss records of that year. Same thing with Federer: even without a slam, he is in the hunt for No. 1 because of his superior win-loss record at that level. But this is not the same as saying that his superior win-loss record has generated the most ranking points. You have a problem comprehending what you read in a rush to pass unproductive judgments.

What’s really ridiculous is that you misrepresented my comment (which was limited to a comparison of their absolute match records) into something I did not mean: “It seems like you are trying to suggest that Federer has had a 52 weeks comparable to or better than Djokovic and Nadal because he has a better 52-week win percentage than them. That’s ridiculous when Federer has now lost in the quarter- or semifinal stage of the past four slams, while Djokovic and Rafa have contended all four finals against one another.” There’s clearly a difference between winning matches in absolute terms and winning matches in the specific tournaments that are slams. That’s not what I wrote, so stop putting words in my mouth. Regardless, the ATP World Tour is not just made up of grand slams: just because Djokovic and Nadal have done well at the slams does not mean they are not deficient in other parts of the tennis tour.

You should not be pontificating on statistics when you have problems comprehending clear comments about the top four players’ win-loss match records. If you can twist what I wrote, I can only imagine how you wil treat statistics. I submit you have been seduced by the epiphenomenon of your pontifications instead of actually comprehending what I wrote.

In any case, the smart experts at ATP have had many years to understand why they chose the overall win-loss index of current players as one of the primary reliability measures on the ATP Reliability Index.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Overall-Current-List.aspx

What’s also ludicrous is a layman dictating “But until Federer actually proves he can win a slam final again, comparing his present results to Rafa and Nole is just silly.” Federer does not have to prove anything to you or to anyone else — his unprecedented slam and number one records give him the licence to win slams at his own pace for the rest of his career. It’s stupid to preclude his performance because he has not won a slam. The majority of analysts still consider him one of the the big three of tennis.

To pronounce that “Fed is still on the outside, trying to get back in to where Rafa and Nole are” is silly imagery. And it is asinine to presume that what a player accomplishes or does not accomplish in the past determines where he is tomorrow. Anyone who understands even basic tennis history should realize that what Djokovic and Nadal have done last week is already in the past. Tomorrow is always a new day for contenders to write new history.

June 17th, 2012 at 5:30 am

Yes but it is totally wrong to point them out with the claim you make.

That’s bullshit. I’m not making any claim.

June 17th, 2012 at 5:45 am

SM,

I think we need to wait for next 3-4 years to substantiate Nadal’s position outside clay. I believe he is in the mid of his career, probably learned to be successful outside clay. I believe Rafa is into 8 slam finals out of 9 played, including clay and non-clay. It typically shows me that he is getting better on other surfaces.

Nadal has reached all the Wimbledon finals he had played since 2006. That’s a huge achievement. But he may not win many matches on grass, that’s because there is only one prep tournament on Grass and most of the years he comes to those tournamets after winning so many matches on clay and winning FO. I don’t think any player would be bothered to play a 250 level tournament after winning a GS, that too in next 3-4 days.

When Roger won the FO, he did not even bother to play Halle, which just shows how difficult it is to play such minor tournaments after having a big success.

If Roger had won more FO, his total matches played on grass would be less, since he would have skipped the grass prep tourmanent.

As far as HC, probably Nadal has another 3-4 HC slam in him. Let’s see.

June 17th, 2012 at 5:52 am

Nirmal Kumar Says:
Yes but it is totally wrong to point them out with the claim you make.

That’s bullshit. I’m not making any claim.

June 17th, 2012 at 5:45 am

Nirmal take a look at your comment.

Nirmal Kumar Says:
Some nice comment about Rafa..

So i headed over to atp a site where they actually have real tennis facts. Its really starting to bug me people saying rafa needs to prove him self on other surfaces, as far as i’m concerned he has and more so then djokovic. Saying rafas only got a lot of titles because they’ve all come on clay is like saying djokovic and federer only have a lot of titles because they’ve come on hard courts. Just out of curiosity i found what percentage each player had won on any one surface the results were as followed:

Djokovic

Hard: 73%
Clay: 23%
Grass: 4%

Nadal

Clay: 74%
Hard: 20%
Grass: 6%

Federer (left out carpet court titles)

Hard: 72%
Grass: 14%
Clay: 14%

As you can see each players strongest surface makes up about 75% of there overall titles only 1% difference between the 3 players! So to come out and say Rafa needs to win more titles on other surfaces to prove himself is just donkey balls. So far the closest out of the three to be the best on all surfaces is rodger federer Generally speaking if someone held two gs titles at each gs they would be considered most successful on all surfaces and no ones done that to this date. And even if we take a look at the players weaker surfaces rafas 10 hard court titles (20%) include 5 masters, 2 GS’s and an olympic gold medal. And his 3 grass titles (6%) include two Wimbledon titles. Djokovics weaker surfaces consists of only 3 masters titles on clay and his lone Wimbledon on grass. HMMMMMM wonder whos had more success on all surfaces. I understand your probably a djokovic fan and yes hes much more of a competitor these days but to say nadal has to beat him on those surfaces time and time again to prove hes an all surface player when clearly djokovic or almost all tennis players will never be then your just plain crazy. Another funny thing is the fact that the majority of tournaments have HARD COURTS. For rafa to win the same percentage of tournaments on his favorite surface when there’s less clay tournaments is pretty impressive. Imagine if tennis tournaments were split 50/50 half tournaments clay half hard, who would have the most titles? The answers plain and simple rafa easily would cause he absolutely dominates clays but also has an odd IMPORTANT hard court win every now and then.

June 17th, 2012 at 4:12 am

How should I view this and judge that you do not agree with what youve posted?

You agree that Nadal’s results are totally biased towards clay? Where Fed and Djokovic have a more normal results and show they are very much the allround player. You agree that the comment you oosted from other site is totally wrong and only shows how much a claycourt specialist he is? He doesnot win any non clay titles for over 1 1/2 year?

June 17th, 2012 at 6:03 am

The nicest thing about all this is the fact that Nabaldian is back to a final and seems to have real chances to get the win. The Argentinian is, for many, an extraordinary talented played, as good as the top players when it comes to talent. I want the best to win, but I would really want Nabaldian to be the winner. I don’t think he will have many more chances to win an atractive tournament like this. He will, however, in other tournaments of the same category, as long as he keeps working hard.

June 17th, 2012 at 6:06 am

“Federer’s last two Wimbledons have resulted in QFs. If grass is his (best?) surface why then the poor showings? He’s doing just fine in Australia/Paris/NY, but London there’s a problem. Bad luck? Injuries (Dave will chime in)? Tough draw?”

Federer’s loss at 2010 Wimbledon to Berdych was probably a combination of Berdych playing very well and Federer compromised by the leg injury he originally got at 2010 Halle. [Apparently spectators overheard Federer complaining about his leg during his pre-match warm up with his team). In the first round of that Wimby, Federer was just points away from losing the match to Falla, a clay courter whom he had beaten at Roland Garros fairly easily. Something was not right. If a compromised Federer could barely handle Falla, he was simply unable to defend against the firepower of Berdych.

Federer’s loss to Tsonga at 2011 Wimbledon on gras probably seems more conceivable once we consider that (a) Tsonga knocked out Nadal from Queens that year after Rafa won the first set and (b) Tsonga very nearly knocked out Djokovic from the French Open on Jo’s worst surface. Although Federer said he had a groin injury from the 2011 French Open (he withdrew from Halle), I don’t believe it was a factor based on his movement and play in earlier Wimby rounds. Instead I think it was a combination of 10% bad luck and (depending on how you see it) 90% bad decision making. After winning the first two sets, Federer had every reason to expect to win the match. Federer is paradoxically a conservative decision maker who plays the percentages: having had beaten Tsonga in easy straight sets in their last three matches at 2010 Australian Open, 2011 Doha and 2011 Rome (and before that at 2008 Madrid indoors)… Thus Federer probably expected Tsonga to fold. In the very close third set, Tsonga still won very few points on Fed’s serve but they all came in one game, arguably a couple of shots and sloppy misses by Fed. In the fourth and fifth set, Fed hunkered down to an even more conservative level, expecting Tsonga — who had never displayed such fight in their previous matches — to fold or self-destruct, not do a Djokovic. It was actually a logical approach, based on their history. In hindsight, he probably realizes he should have drastically changed tactics and gone after Tsonga as if the match just started. Regardless, the way Tsonga played in those last three sets against Federer would have made him a fearsome opponnet for Nadal and Djokovic in the quarterfinals. Although Djokovic did beat Tsonga in the semifinals, Jo played at that level for only one set against Djokovic.

June 17th, 2012 at 6:10 am

Sienna.. I should have put in a disclaimer at the end of the post.

None of the comments in that post are mine. My only comment in that post was the first line “Some nice comment about Rafa..”

Other than this, all the stats and comments were just copied from another poster in a different forum.

I posted this for some Rafa fans here.

June 17th, 2012 at 6:10 am

Mr. Roger Federer is not winning anymore Slams – FACT. He hasn’t got it in him. Choking away several match points in two consecutive US Open semis says it all!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 6:12 am

Swiss Maestro
It is a bit hard to try and reason wth people who look at certain stats and give a total new dimension to the outcome.
Nirmal took the comments from an other site and tried to teach us that Nadal is evenly mixed with his winnings as Djoker and Fed.

But he fails to not notice the most obvious and that is that when they play most tourney on a certain court then you should be able to win the most titles on a court like that,

June 17th, 2012 at 6:15 am

But he fails to not notice the most obvious and that is that when they play most tourney on a certain court then you should be able to win the most titles on a court like that,

Sienna,

I do notice. I have made a comment on the above for the same.

June 17th, 2012 at 6:20 am

Sienna: Fact is Nadal gets most of his titles from a minority surface in both his own schedule and the entire tournament schedule.

36 (72%) of Nadal’s 50 titles came on clay. Yet clay forms a relatively small percentage of (a) Nadal’s tournament schedule as well as (b) the entire tournament schedule.

(a)) Yet clay forms a relatively small percentage of Nadal’s tournament schedule. Nadal plays only four clay events (23.5% to 22.2%) of the 17 to 18 ATP tournament he plays in recent seasons.

(b) Yet clay forms a relatively small percentage of the entire tournament schedule. Of the 68 ATP and Grand Slam tournaments this year, only 24 (35.3%) are clay court events.

Yet 72% of his titles came on clay, a minority surface anyway you look at it. 64% of his slams came on clay (7 of 11).

Both Federer and Djokovic’s percentages for hard courts are close to the percentage of hard court tourneys on even Rafa’s schedule as well as in the overall ATP World Tour schedule.

Furthermore, Federer’s completeness as a player and balance on all surfaces can be seen by the fact that he has reached at least 5 to 7 finals in each of the four slam surfaces. On the other hand, Nadal has 1 US Open final, 2 Australian Open finals, 3 Wimbledon finals, 7 French finals — not very balanced, no?

June 17th, 2012 at 6:28 am

fed wins wimby he is number one!

June 17th, 2012 at 6:39 am

^ Never going to happen so don’t keep your hopes up!

June 17th, 2012 at 6:46 am

Nirmal Kumar Says:
But he fails to not notice the most obvious and that is that when they play most tourney on a certain court then you should be able to win the most titles on a court like that,

Sienna,

I do notice. I have made a comment on the above for the same.

June 17th, 2012 at 6:20 am

Yes Nirmal you did, but you gave it a twist to show us that when clay was the dominant surface nadal would be the GOAT or something like that. I showed you that you cannot reason like that because tennis would be very differen. You did ackowledge that. So you are trying a bit to hard to stay objective. I see you as a scapgoat trying very hard to please the Fedfans around and suddenly put in a bogus argument. You have been tagged.

June 17th, 2012 at 7:04 am

Sienna says,
Yes Nirmal you did, but you gave it a twist to show us that when clay was the dominant surface nadal would be the GOAT or something like that.

When and where? can you point me to the exact statement I made.

June 17th, 2012 at 7:29 am

Cheer up for mr. Haas , don’t let down your home crowed!
Cilic, medjugorje is waiting for a big present, show that you can do it!!!!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 7:37 am

Haas was a break down in the first set and takes the set, federer making errors on big points.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:08 am

I thought Roger would give this match to Haas after playing some good quality tennis.

But looking at the quality of tennis he has played so far, I believe Tony would be fighting his heart out to get Roger in Rafa’s half in Wimbledon. Rafa has not been lucky to get Roger in his half at FO. I pity whoever does not get Roger in their half at Wimbledon.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:12 am

wow roger two DF in a row.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:18 am

Come on haas, !!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:25 am

I agree with Nirmal that we need to wait for another 3-4 years to judge rafa’s achievements.

For now, Roger is the GOAT and he will always be the El Mago, but Rafa definitely has a good chance to overtake Roger’s 16 slams.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:25 am

Dave 6:28 am. Nadal has actually reached 2 US Open FInals. Won one, lost one. 2010-2011. We can look back in Hisotry but tennis is a what have you done for me lately sport. While titleless outside of clay, Nadal has made deep runs consitently since 2010 in important hard court tournaments.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:26 am

That’s it 3-3,,,,,go haas, break it, make it 4

June 17th, 2012 at 8:35 am

Haas has been playing very well, federer is the onbe struggling in this match.

still on serve in the second set though.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:39 am

I can’t believe Federer is playing this poorly… on grass, this is painful to watch.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:42 am

Is it really Federer playing now?just feel like slapping him to get him out of this error mode he’s in!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:44 am

federer is going to lose this match…i can’t believe it…after yesterday i thought this was a foregone conclusion that fed would win

June 17th, 2012 at 8:44 am

federer missing too much, haas about to break

June 17th, 2012 at 8:44 am

fed not really on court..but he is playing a dear friend…like haas very much…great player ..congrats tommy

June 17th, 2012 at 8:45 am

haas breaks. haas to serve for the match.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:45 am

totally agree with u Maso,so painful!he’s gotta be kidding us right?its like he’s not even trying to up his level…

June 17th, 2012 at 8:46 am

This is starting to get unbearable, to be honest. I love Federer but I just can’t stand to see him play like this, and it’s happening more and more often. It’s almost embarrassing. It looks like Roger, and the guy on court’s not playing like him, that’s for sure.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:46 am

And this is on GRASS, mind you.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:46 am

fed failed to convert 5-6 game points..hats off to tommy …

June 17th, 2012 at 8:47 am

dont get tight now tommy!!!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:48 am

And now Federer falls. Something’s wrong. Or he’s just completely off today, whatever it is, but this is really worrisome for Wimbly.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:49 am

federer goes down, but he is OK.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:49 am

there goes the hope of another wimbledon…

June 17th, 2012 at 8:49 am

this is halle ,,,!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:49 am

Yes, this is Halle and Roger used to own this court as much as Wimbledon. And while Rafa’s performance was not an indication of how he’s going to play at Wimbledon, I’m afraid this is the Roger we’re going to see in a week… I earnestly hope it’s not the case but if he can’t even take down Haas..s

June 17th, 2012 at 8:51 am

tommyyyyyy well done!!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:51 am

its not ok Kimmi,this is not the showing of someone who’s about to win a Wimby and Olympics!Im sad!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:52 am

Beyond disappointed. I think I should start following tennis with a bit more distance, being a Federer fan has become bad for the psyche these past 3 years.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:52 am

game set and match. hmmm, roger just too many errors nowadays. that is his huge problem.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:52 am

haas can take anyone down on grass!!!!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:53 am

why so negative give some credit to haas ok federer did not play his best so what?!??!?! haas played great

June 17th, 2012 at 8:53 am

Agreed, Kimmi, it’s a gigantic problem. His focus is gone, his movement is sloppy, he seems to playing the rallies only reactively and without strategy, it’s just downright WEIRD to see! I hope he can pull it together for Wimbly but it’s not looking good… He’s just not consistent anymore. We gotta keep dreaming as Fed fans, but it’s getting harder and harder to believe.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:55 am

squerrel – i know. I meant he was OK after the fall.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:55 am

they all look happy with the result !!! this result does not hurt anyone not even the die hardest roger fan should be to upset

June 17th, 2012 at 8:55 am

my prediction: another quarterfinal exit at wimby for federer…3 QF exits in a row at wimby that’s a record too!

June 17th, 2012 at 8:58 am

Haas looks like he did in 2009 when he won something like 9 grass matches in a row before losing to Federer at Wimbledon. This isn’t a guy you want to play in the 1st round there.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:58 am

Ah, not watching this match. It is too painful. If anyone thinks that Roger is fresh as a daisy, he isn’t. He doesn’t need this match, and it’s great for Tommy to take it after what he has been through. I know that feelings shouldn’t come into this, but Fed ain’t there. He is just going through the motions, whereas for Haas, this will be his biggest win over fed for, well, forever. This is why Federer hasn’t got this mental edge today. Dad’s and their girls come into it with these two playing.

Wish he could turn things around, but as long as he gets a mojo on for Wimbledon, don’t care. Let’s face it, he has played a shed load of tennis this year, whereas Haas ‘haas’ not.

June 17th, 2012 at 8:59 am

Well, don’t know what to think about what I have seen just now from Federer. How genuine was he today!?
I just refuse to believe that this is where he is with his game at the moment.
Not taking anything from Haas, good on him, but Roger just didn’t move around the nowhere near as he can. Footwork nonexisting.
I will leave it to Roger’s fans to worry, I have enough worries wiyh Novak:)

June 17th, 2012 at 8:59 am

28 unforced errors…hmm seemed like a lot more than that

June 17th, 2012 at 9:00 am

YESSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GO ON TOMMY!!!!!!!!!!

this was a 25o pt final against someone who is OLDER than federer and yet he lost in straight sets- and people expect him to beat rafa or novak in a best of 5 tourny where both have won before…. OK.

Some are even trying to suggest that roger is STILL BETTER than rafa or novak right now….. yeah sure.

LOL!

Look i like the guy, he’s GOAT in my eyes, BUT you have to call a spade a spade and fact is were in 2012 and rafa- novak are a countrymile ahead of the rest in the big ones that matter- slams.

IF either is to face roger- as he hasn’t made SF for last 2 years at wimby- expect them to beat roger, and most likely convincingly.

roger’s BEST slam hope is the USO- not wimby- due to it being the quickest slam. USO 2012 should tell us, pretty definately, IF his slam hopes are genuinely finished or not.

Expect a rafole, for now, at wimby.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:00 am

Agreed about the footwork Wogboy. Haas was hitting the ball back directly to Federer in many rallies and Rog just couldn’t get his movement right. It seemed like he was caught off guard on all of Haas’ attacks. I know Federer’s going to have matches at Wimbledon where plays better than this, but the problem these days is his game is so up and down. He can play like good ol’ Roger for one set and then play like absolute crap for the 2 next ones. (change the word set with the word match and it can hold true too depending on the tournament) Anyway, congrats to Haas, and time to get ready for a painful 2 weeks on the grass. =)

June 17th, 2012 at 9:02 am

wog boy, disappointed but not surprised. Fed gave it away. Sorry, but the footwork and the mental attitude was quite simply crap.

And no, I don’t care about this result to worry so much. It’s over and Fed now needs to rest.

And for the rafa fans coming on to rub it in, don’t.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:02 am

JAMIE do you still think federer will win wimbledon??

June 17th, 2012 at 9:04 am

federer is walking gingerly towards the podium to collect his RUP trophy…seems like the hip injury is aggravated once mroe.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:05 am

@Wog Boy:

people can make all sorts of excuses to make themselves feel better, but this is where roger’s tennis is at the moment.

He got to SF at doha, AO, wins at Dubai, rotterdam, IW, Madrid, SF at rome and FO. ONLY shocker was at MI.

so clearly he’s been consistent, going deep in tourny’s and in form.

No excuses should be acceptable here- when they’re are not accepted for rafa or novak.

Clearly, imo, he’s in a gradual decline and such results are to be expected.

His last 3 losses, worryingly for him and his fans, have been in straight sets.

DEPENDING on his draw, he shoulfd make SF at wimby imo, no further.

IF though he gets say tsonga or berdych at qtrs- it shall be tough for him.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:06 am

IF feds hip injury is a major problem for him now, he should bite the bullet and skip wimby and olympics, imo.

USO is his best chance for success at a major and playing on shall only harm his chances.

its a tough decision, but if he were to make it, i believe a wise one.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:08 am

@Brando

i totally agree with you b/c grass and its sudden changes of direction will do a number on an injured hip and its not like he’s gonna win wimby anyway in the form he’s at, so he might as well skip it. however, if he feels he’s ready for olympics, he should go for that, as it is going to be his last chance

June 17th, 2012 at 9:11 am

madmax,

“footwork and mental attitude” that is about right, no need for further analysis.

Maso,

I am still recovering from FO and Wimbledon is almost here.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:16 am

@boss:

i agree. i’d like fed to remain competitive and ‘in with a major shout’ at the big ones BUT imo looking at his present form at wimby it’s more than likely he’ll suffer a defeat that may crush his self belief.

Now if his chances are genuinely compromised by his hip injury situation then there is no point in playing wimby. Self preservation is a must for a top athlete and fed should place emphasis on sorting the hip injury out asap as oppossed to pursuing, what i think anyway, are a route to great damage.

IF he takes time out now, is fully fit for the USO swing he’ll be a MAJOR CHALLENGER for the title in new york.

Him and his team need to have a good and honest talk about the present situation me thinks.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:17 am

Wtf, wake up and found out Fed lost in straights. Another Halle final lost to a veteran.

Brando,

Yes, his game is in decline but if you enter a Slam (where yoi won 6 times in the past) with the prospect of winning it and becaming #1, you clearly have a shot and can’t be out of contention. Draw may open up and he maybe doesn’t have to beat both Nadal and Djokovic.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:18 am

It is clear that federer is 3rd in the world. By the same token, it is also clear who is 1st and 2nd too.

The only way Federer wins wimbledon is if he someone takes out rafa and novak.

The only way rafa wins wimbledon is if someone else beats novak.

You can really hand over the Wimbledon to novak, right now.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:23 am

@Daniel:

but is it a realistic prospect?

facts say that rafa and novak have played the last 4 slam finals in a row.

rafa has played the last 5 slam final, and realistically speaking is the best on grass after fed.

novak is the clear no.1 and defending champion.

roger, on the other hand, hasn’t reached SF at wimby for last 2 slams. IF he get there, the chance of him meeting one of rafa or novak is pretty great.

Looking at his recent slam record against the 2, i would say it’s greatly in there favour for the win.

Add in the hip scenario, then a already tough ask becomes an almost impossible one.

And before i forget, IF he gets past one more than likely he’ll face the other in the final- now when was the last time he beat both in a slam……..

June 17th, 2012 at 9:27 am

Congratulation haas, you are the champion,,,,, I’ll get extra money tomorrow, sweeet,,,hahaha

June 17th, 2012 at 9:31 am

Brando,

I see where are you coming from, but this was really not Federer, I was watching him carefully just to try to figure out what is wrong, I don’t think it is simply decline. Decline is decline but this was well below and beyond just decline, if you know what I think. I was looking at his box, and I couldn’t read them either. This wasn’t even ordinary Federer, Haas pley best he could but even 80% Federer would be enough to win this one. All his FH errors came simply because he didn’t move and couldn’t put himself in proper position for return.
I know, we Nole’s fans, copped it a lot from Fedfans:) and I don’t mind seeing him lose the match, but this way…. I just don’t enjoy seeing him losing like this.
That is only me.

June 17th, 2012 at 9:37 am

@wog boy:

i understand what you mean- no one wants to see a great champion lose badly.

However, fed’s last three losses (Rome, FO, Halle) have all been in a similiar fashion- straight sets, and if one was to be cruel, pretty one way traffic matches.

so it raises the question: what’s wrong with fed at the moment?

In my mind it could be one of 2 things:

1- hip injury: IF this present, naturally it could affect his performance. If this is the case, urgent time off is needed.

2- it’s where his game is at now: fact is he’ll be 31 by the end of this summer, he’s in a gradual, natural decline- so him losing shouldn’t be a surprise. the lack of footwork, mental strength etc are all aspects we recognise when a former great player is on the slide. Remember sampras in 2001?

June 17th, 2012 at 9:44 am

Folks don’t grieve , most of the things have season,,,,,,,

Give young generation some space, and all will be harmony and peace, lol

June 17th, 2012 at 10:03 am

Brando,

I will ask you the same, when was the last time nadal beat djokovic in a slam outside clay?

When last did rafa beat both federer and djokovic for a GS outside clay?

June 17th, 2012 at 10:23 am

congratulations to haas. he has been playing some serious tennis and no one wants to play him in the 1st round in wimbledon!

there is nothing more magical/beautiful in tennis than a single hand backhand and all 4 semi-finalists in halle were single handers.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:26 am

@El Mago,

The fact that Nadal has overall winnig record against Fed means he owns him at the moment. Say what you want clay, grass, hard courts, shit courts. That the fact.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:37 am

queen Says:
@El Mago,

The fact that Nadal has overall winnig record against Fed means he owns him at the moment. Say what you want clay, grass, hard courts, shit courts. That the fact.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:37 am

queen, when is your language going to improve? and why is it that all you do is come on and talk crap?

Have you got anything nice to say about anyone who is interested in listening to you? Plus, have you got anything worth discussing about tennis?

You are a real disgrace to this forum.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:47 am

after losing a point and get broken, nalbandian kicked the side lines man on the sheen. The guy is bleeding. lol! how did he do that?

Nalbandian very sorry. but wait a minute… he gets code violation and lose the match. is that possible? he was a set up (7-6 3-4), i thought they lose a point but not a match. the guy did not do it on purpose.

Cilic very surprised at the turn of events. crowd booing!!

June 17th, 2012 at 10:47 am

Is it trophy presentation coming up?? this is C-R-A-Z-Y!!!

What is nalbandian going to say? his runner up speech??

June 17th, 2012 at 10:50 am

nalbandian talking to the supervisor, trying to understand what has just happened but the decision ha been made i’m afraid.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:53 am

@queen:

I think someone just posted why a relatively one-dimensional nadal has a winning record against djokovic and federer. in federer’s case, federer is also 5years older.

connors had a 7-17 record against lendl. i dont see anyone use that to claim lendl is a greater player than connors.

June 17th, 2012 at 10:56 am

harry and grendel, left you a post over on that other thread.

Kimmi! I missed both finals. Now very curious to see what happened to Nalby!

June 17th, 2012 at 10:57 am

ha ha crowd booing!!

June 17th, 2012 at 10:59 am

congrats to cilic but what a way to end the tournaments.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:00 am

conty – i dont think nalbandian wanted to receive his runner up trophy. they went straight to cilic. nalbandian is sitting on his chair all the time.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:03 am

nalbandian looking very mad during his on court interview, he says he agrees he made a mistake but ATP has done a lot of mistakes to players and nothing has been done. interesting!!

June 17th, 2012 at 11:07 am

Nirmal Kumer: June 17th at 4:12 pm

Many times I agree with your posts but those statistics are bogus because:

Overall percentages are based on win- loss record over the career of each player. Those results are basically skewed due to Federer playing more matches and turning pro so much earlier than Nadal or Federer. Of course, Federer’s numbers of wins and losses are going to be higher giving him a lower percentage overall. If you wait until Nadal and Djokovic continue playing past their primes, and retire; and Federer is retired, then it would be accurate to a degree. But then there are other variables, like court surface changes, tournament format changes, raqcuet tech changes ect, that occured during the early Federer years though to the present.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:10 am

Wow, Kimmi, I don’t have a stream up, I’m working. But later today when tennis channel replays the Queen’s final, I don’t want to miss it!

Congrats to Tommy Hass and Marin Cilic.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:13 am

meant Federer turning pro before Nadal or Djokovic! not Federer. ahhhaaaa cannot multi-task

June 17th, 2012 at 11:15 am

@ Madmax,

Have you got anything nice to say about anyone who is interested in listening to you? Plus, have you got anything worth discussing about tennis?

You are a real disgrace to this forum.

Don’t be mad max. Majority of people who write on this site got nothing smart to say anyway. All they do is bash Nadal, root for Djoko in revenge for Fed’s defeats, and cry over Fed’s losses like they were surprised. As far as my language skills are concerned I hope you speak at least two other languages except English. If that is the case you are right to correct me if not f..k off!

June 17th, 2012 at 11:16 am

Marin Cilic wins Queens after Nalbandian defaulted for kicking hoarding and injuring line judge. The hoarding hit the line judge on the shin causing bleeding. What a way for a final to end. Nalbandian is gutted. Let this be a lesson to players like djoker and Murray who are always having temper tantrums and smashing furniture and rackets.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:36 am

Federer is done. He should retire.

Nadal is just a clay court player. But with TONS OF LUCK.

Djoke rules. Were it not for the rain, he would have won the French this year.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:37 am

Oh man, my post above was to Nirmal Kumer about his 4:12 am post. Was trying to read tennis-x, post a couple posts and type work notes on another laptop. Doesn’t work for me!

Poor Nalbandian went off the rails, it sounds. That’s too bad. He played a solid match vs Dimitrov.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:45 am

After claiming the title Haas said: “This has been one of the best weeks of my career, but I reckon I won’t really appreciate what’s happened until this evening.

“If someone had said to me beforehand that I was going to beat Roger Federer, probably the best player of all time, I would have thought they were mad!”

Federer was magnanimous in defeat, saying: “Tommy has performed well throughout, I’m thrilled for him.”

This was Haas’s third career win over Federer after beating his better-fancied rival at Halle in the semi-finals in 2005 and 2006, against 10 defeats, the last in the semi-finals at Wimbledon in 2009.

I don’t think Federer gave much of his energy to this match. “Magnaminous” in defeat. Let’s hope he cranks it up in two weeks time. Haas will be a dangerous floater on grass, as well as being ranked number 50.

Way to go for a 34 year old.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:45 am

I’m a little surprised there is not more agitation over what happened. When was the last time a player was defaulted in a final?

It was a very unfortunate sequence of events. The match was actually an exceptionally good one, with both Cilic and Nalbandian playing superbly. And the whole thing was hotting up to a great climax. Then, a rush of blood to the head, and almost before he had finished his shot (having, as Kimmi says, just got broken) Nalbandian lashed out with his foot at the nearest thing in sight.

As ill luck would have it, this was a flimsy box like construct which instantly broke under the impact of the kick, with the wood, presumably a sharp edge of it, digging into the leg of the linesman who had this box at his feet. It was clearly pretty painful. He gave a sort of yelp, and hobbled off for medical attention.

The director apparently had no choice but to default Nalbandian, which he evidently did with great reluctance. He or another official (can’t quite recall) had his arm around Nalbandian in sympathy. Tempers can flare in the heat of battle, everyone understands that, the actual sequence of events which lead to the default – the juxtaposition of the box, Nalbandian’s flailing foot and the linesman’s leg at that precise instant – was quite improbable.

There was no intent. But there was the problem of precedent, so the rules had to be adhered to even though no one wanted to apply them. There was a curious sense of helplessness all round.

You have to feel sorry for Cilic, too. Not a satisfactory way to acquire a title. Worth repeating, this was building up into a classic match.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:50 am

Thanks for that update madmax. I missed both matches. Glad Tommy is having a comeback. He’s been out for a long time, but he was a top player at one time.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:50 am

Okay. I know get the unfortunate picture of Nalby, grendel, thanks. Very bad ending all around.

June 17th, 2012 at 11:53 am

having identity troubles: carlo or conty today; haven’t decided yet :/

June 17th, 2012 at 11:54 am

carlo/conty

It is already on YouTube!

Poor old bloke, it did look painful:(

June 17th, 2012 at 11:58 am

very pitiful. it is all over you tube already. thanks Wog boy. oh dear, I don’t think I need to watch that over again.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:10 pm

wogboy – here is the link

http://youtu.be/MAdwVHXhGzA

June 17th, 2012 at 12:11 pm

sorry wogboy, you already seen that. Well, already post it for anyone else who would like to see.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:13 pm

Kimmi, i watched it again to see more of Marin’s reaction. He did not want to win that way, it appeared. But Nalbandian must be so ashamed and sorry. That will have to haunt him, certainly didn’t mean to injure that poor linesman.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:17 pm

Of course, the other thing is – the crowd. Most of them had no idea what was happening, and quite naturally broke into sustained booing on the announcement of the default. But consider how they must have felt anyway. It’s been a miserable week, weatherwise, which has certainly effected the quality of the tennis. For a change we had reasonable conditions today with a bit of sun, a fine and competitive match – and suddenly the rug is pulled from the proceedings. Bad enough if you were watching on telly, but having made the effort to go there….

And then they were obliged to proceed with the ceremony. I can tell you, that was pretty surreal.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:26 pm

Wow that was a bummer. Agree Nalby didn’t look like he was going after the guy to hurt him, just looking for something to kick and……oops. Bummer but you had to enforce the rule there.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

bryan brothers loses second straight final to nestor/mirnyi. In straight sets too.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Alas, alas, slept through both finals and just have seen that video of Nalby’s disqualification. So sad, but is it what they had to do? Ugh, bad situation all round: unfortunate for Cilic, Nalby, the linesman who was hurt, the crowd, etc. But you can’t harm others; it’d be no different, I guess, than hurling your racquet in the crowd’s direction and hurting someone. He should’ve just smashed his racquet, or the Perrier sign, or threw his water bottle, or yelled at the umpire – like a normal player. :/ Alas.

But congrats are due to the winners, Cilic and Haas.

I am surprised Haas beat Fed, but he is a former champ at Halle and I figured he’d make it close. I didn’t watch so can’t say more.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Kimmi, thanks for posting the link.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Jane,

I am surprised Haas beat Fed, but he is a former champ at Halle and I figured he’d make it close. I didn’t watch so can’t say more.

June 17th, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Jane, you are now jinxing fed, your last 3 predictions where he will win his game or match, he has gone on to lose :)

No predictions for wimbledon please :)

June 17th, 2012 at 12:58 pm

http://www.sallykirkman.com/blog/who-will-win-wimbledon-2012

June 17th, 2012 at 1:03 pm

madmax, really? I didn’t predict he’d beat Nole, I said 50/50. ;) It sounds like he wasn’t playing his best tennis today; just reading through all the comments now. BTW, did you see my comments re: Book Thief on the other thread – “prologue” very good!

June 17th, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Wow, Nalbandian… that’s horrible. Poor judgment on his part though…

June 17th, 2012 at 1:22 pm

@Swiss Maestro actually i remember watching the Agassi/Ivanisovich wimbledon final. i thought agassi was quite fortunate to win. he was able to do so IMHO mainly because Goran played a bad match tactics wise. he played alot of passive baseline tennis against AA. w/ his all but unbreakable serve on grass all he had to do is play very aggressive on his return games and make a break or 2 each set and he would have won in 3 or 4 sets. he played into agassi’s hands by playing his style and it cost him.

June 17th, 2012 at 1:42 pm

@Fedfan

The problem with her prediction is that Jupiter was on top of Nole’s astrology(on top of his sun) the day of the FO final, according to the Argentine psychic, but still Nole lost the final to Nadal. Another example is the Netherlands’ coach this year had Jupiter on top of his astrology and now the Netherlands is out of Euro2012. So having Jupiter on top of someone’s astrology does not guarantee a win as Nole at RG and the Netherlands at Euro2012 have proven. Specially if other factors/planet alignments/lunar and solar astrology are involved.

June 18th, 2012 at 9:51 am

So basically just because Federer has jupiter on top of his astrology the day of the Wimbledon finals does not mean he will win as Nole had jupiter on top of his astrology during the RG tournament but he still lost and the Netherlands’ coach had jupiter on top of his astrology during the Euro2012 but the Netherlands lost.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:05 am

Also I don’t think Federer will reach the Wimbledon final. I see two of the top 4 players reaching the final. Neither of the two will be Federer.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:09 am

@Nirmal Kumar

Agree. Whoever gets Murray will get the tougher SF at Wimbledon. Federer might not even make the SF like in the past 2 years while Wimbledon has been Murray’s most consistent slam since 2009.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:28 am

@El Mago

I don’t think Nadal will reach 16 slams. He had too many years in the past where he won 1 slam only to ever reach that number.

Final numbers could be:

Federer 16(17 if a miracle happens and he avoids Nadal AND Djokovic).

Nadal 13

Nole 10

June 18th, 2012 at 10:33 am

@boss

Federer’s best chance will be at the USO. By then Nole and Nadal might be tired.

June 18th, 2012 at 10:42 am

@ Jamie. Who is going to win Wimbledon?

June 18th, 2012 at 11:41 am

@Mark

The Argie psychic is busy but I will ask her soon, when she has some spare time.

There is another psychic that told me by email that he(Russian astrologer) predicts that Nadal will win Wimbledon and Murray will win the USO.

We will see.

June 19th, 2012 at 11:14 am