Post: #1

I know there are a few tennis fans on the forum. And for the fans of Roger Federer, today was something incredibly special, especially for the viewers that lasted through the whole Quarterfinals vs. Marin Cilic at Wimbledon, the Croation player, 27, and Grand Slam champion himself having won the US Open 2014 where he destroyed Fed in the semifinals.

We witnessed probably the best, foot in the grave comeback of his whole career. And given the stage of his career, probably the most poignant one.



He played alright in the first set. Lost a close tiebreak. Get broken once in the second set, down 5-4, Cilic to serve with setpoint. Even few years ago, Federer would've hit a clean dropshot return straight off the serve, or blocked it right back to his feet as he did to 140+ mph serves of Karlovic and Roddick, or simply gotten the ball into play and worked it from there.

Instead, his backhand slice return went straight into the net, probably half a foot below the tape. Third set, at 3-3 while Federer is serving, Cilic picks up an uncanny read on his serves, and the greatest Wimbledon champion of all time is down triple breakpoint, while already down two sets to love.

Federer proceeds to save all three, and win the whole match from 0-2 down. These were virtual matchpoints, but Fed was to face actual matchpoints in the fourth. He saves those with an ace, and two second serves at 108 mph. The fourth set goes to a tiebreak, in which he hits a miraculous acute forehand slice, dead even at 9-9, that skimmed the high part of the net and brought him set point. He converts.

To break Cilic and serve for the fifth set, Fed hit a backhand passing shot that had an identical motion to the one vs. Nadal at Wimbledon 2008, matchpoint down. Another match in a dark time of his career. All that brilliance for naught. But not this time.

Was this the final? No. Federer may yet fall to Milos Raonic, another huge server with the forehand. He handled players like him with ease in his prime, like he did Roddick and Cilic himself, never losing to the Croatian until Roger was 33 years old at the time of the US Open 2014 semifinal loss. But it doesn't matter. This is a moment that will live on forever regardless of what happens now.

As a matter of historical perspective, it was fifteen years ago when he first made his mark at the cathedral of tennis when he beat defending champ, the great American player Pete Sampras in 2001. The very birthplace of his legend and origins of the G.O.A.T. as believed by all but a heterodox few. An eternity ago. Now in 2016, he is the oldest man to have reached the semifinals of both the Australian Open and Wimbledon in over 30 years, and has won more Grand Slam matches than any other player in the history of the sport.

The reason I bring this up is that I believe many members of this forum would appreciate it. Even without knowing the context of Federer's career, seeing true greatness and virtue trying to rouse itself for one more day of glory is something few can remain unaffected by. In Federer, we have at least some small facet of this byzantine world where beauty, elegance, and class can still triumph over ugliness, repetitiveness, and degeneracy.

This match was comparable to the last Kobe Bryant game in terms of the drama and excitement, but even that doesn't do it justice. In a time of apathy in my life - just going to work, trying to save up money, thinking of what I need to doing - this was a powerful moment that is forever engraved in my mind. Even if I get Alzheimer's or amnesia, I will not forget this, not until I die.

Post: #2

I saw that federer was still on the court when i randomly googled "wimbledon" yesterday. So i quickly set up my vpn and started watching it on the wimbledon website. Federer was down 2-0 at that point, and was tied in the third set.

I've always found that the guy has pure class, and nerves of steel. He showed it once more tonight, and i secretely hope that this won't be the end of his run.

Cilic was playing really well, but federer showed clutchness and bravery, by hitting many aces when it mattered, as well as strong second serves.

Post: #3

Huge Fed head and tennis fan here. I will never appreciate the sport or any other player like I have appreciated him for the past 15 years. Hope he can win GS#18 and clinch GOAT status on Sunday!

Post: #4

Nothing special, Cillic choked big time.

Federer a few years ago was unbeatable, yesterday he was beatable.

Post: #5

"He handled players like him with ease in his prime, like he did Roddick"

Federer did beat Roddick many times, but not always, and not always with ease... Remember the way Federer "stole" Wimbledon's title - in the most cruel way - from Roddick, in 2009, winning 16-14 in the fifth? Rarely had I seen a tennis player so broken on court (yet courteous as usual) as Roddick was this day...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3zeh8xJxvY

Post: #6

I mean how Fed handles the fastest serves like it's nothing. In 2003 he straight-setted Mark Philipoussis who served 27 aces on average per match en route to the Wimbledon final. As a teenager Roger beat Krajicek in both their meetings and he beat Sampras, the ultimate server, in their only match, on grass. He beat Roddick so many times. Same with John Isner, Milos Raonic, Ivo Karlovic, Cilic himself.

That was an escape act at Wimbledon 2009. Andy deserved to win that one, but that's how it goes. There were matches were Federer made similar mistakes and was on the wrong side of an epic 2 sets to love comeback, vs. Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011 and Djokovic at US Open 2011.

And course Wimbledon 2004 F and US Open 2007 QF were matches where Roddick played at an extremely high level. Andy proved he had the tools necessary to beat Fed and win more Slams, but I think his coach Stefanki had an extremely negative influence making what was in the top 3 or 4 biggest forehands in the world spinny and weak. But for Wimbledon 2009, Fed stole that title, agreed.

Post: #7

(07-07-2016 02:20 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  I mean how Fed handles the fastest serves like it's nothing. In 2003 he straight-setted Mark Philipoussis who served 27 aces on average per match en route to the Wimbledon final. As a teenager Roger beat Krajicek in both their meetings and he beat Sampras, the ultimate server, in their only match, on grass. He beat Roddick so many times. Same with John Isner, Milos Raonic, Ivo Karlovic, Cilic himself.

That was an escape act at Wimbledon 2009. Andy deserved to win that one, but that's how it goes. There were matches were Federer made similar mistakes and was on the wrong side of an epic 2 sets to love comeback, vs. Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011 and Djokovic at US Open 2011.

And course Wimbledon 2004 F and US Open 2007 QF were matches where Roddick played at an extremely high level. Andy proved he had the tools necessary to beat Fed and win more Slams, but I think his coach Stefanki had an extremely negative influence making what was in the top 3 or 4 biggest forehands in the world spinny and weak. But for Wimbledon 2009, Fed stole that title, agreed.

Stefanki was probably trying to make a new Jim Courier out of Roddick, infusing the same (ground strokes especially) techniques into Andy...
Anyway, man, much respect, you're quite the tennis connoisseur!

Post: #8

Roger Federer today, beaten by... McEnroe! How unlikely was this!

(considering that Raonic is now coached, on grass courts, by Big John McEnroe himself)

Also, we have a fascinating battle of coaches on Sunday: Lendl (coaching Murray, who got rid of the LGBT chick) VS McEnroe (coaching Montenegro-born Canadian powerhouse, fast-stabilizing Raonic)

Also, as usual the BBC muddling the field: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/0...roe-comme/

Post: #9

Interesting point, GoingStrong.

Great pic, CactusCat, but the text is practically unreadable due to the picture above it stretching the text way beyond screen size. I'd recommend making separate posts for both in the future, or resizing the pic if possible.

Fed is a class act and a great champ, he's entering the most challenging part of his career as his skill and stamina are tapering off in his mid-30s. I think he will still hang around and try to steal a GS trophy or two, because there is no one as good as he was, except maybe Djokovic, but he's not infallible either. The next stud who's going to monopolize Wimbledon like Borg or Sampras did hasn't shown up.

Post: #10

Roger is a great champion but the odds are against him that he will win another Slam at his age. I think he will continue playing as long as he feels he has a punchers chance and is making it deep into these tournaments.

It is great to see Lendl and Mac so actively involved. They are true assets to the sport.

Post: #11

We shouldn't forget in our coaches' praises, classy, sober serve-volley champ Stefan Edberg, who resuscitated Federer's game, couple of years ago - by convincing the polyglot Swiss to shorten the points, and be even more on the attack...

Post: #12

Lendlray vs. Raonic is an interesting final. No way could you have predicted this from prior to the tournament. It's pretty crazy, Murray's game has noticeably improved within the span of the tournament just from having Lendl in his corner. It looked to me back in 2014 that Lendl had abandoned Andy. Andy really relied on Ivan. To me it's really moving, it's the Obi-Wan - Luke Skywalker story of tennis.

Another one is Boris Becker. Djokovic had a lot of trouble bringing his peak game to the finals of Slams in 2013 and 2014. Then Boris got him back on track.

On the other hand, I don't know what Fed is doing with Ivan Llubijic. Somewhere along the way his coaching has not been the optimal choices. He chose Paul Annacone just because he was Pete's coach... but it was clear that Pete was just naturally mentally comfortable under massive pressure. Edberg represented the optimal choice for that path to take Fed's game. Serve and volley, attacking the net, chip and charge. But the question is: the modern game is so heavily based on endless baseline grinding and retrieving. A coach has to be able to improve that, period, and Edberg is from another era, disconnected from this one.

And what does Roger do now? He clearly can keep going deep in the big tournaments. But it's a matter of facing three, possibly four of the best players in succession, all of them anywhere from 2-7 years younger than he is. He's had a disastrous season where he's missed most of the tournaments so far so his ranking will fall sharply. The draws will be tougher now unless he miraculously defends his late 2015 season points.

I see what he's trying to find: a one-handed backhand player connected to modern tennis, in a way Edberg wasn't. But the coaching options aren't that expansive. The best option would really be none other than Pete Sampras. Someone on Roger's level and who experienced the slowdown of the courts and can relate to everyone relentlessly attacking the backhand. But Pete is enjoying life too much lol.

Post: #13

I'm a massive Fed fan but that loss yesterday was utterly disappointing. He was in cruise control, break points in the fourth, he should have won this easily. Getting broken on grass by the likes of Raonic in 3 different sets, there really is no excuse for that. Pretty disappointing that in the last two years he was by far among the top 2 on grass (two tight finals against Djokovic), this year Djokovic was eliminated early and he couldn't take advantage of that.

Pretty unlikely that he'll win another Grand Slam. This was his golden chance.

Post: #14

(07-09-2016 03:24 AM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  .... Serve and volley, attacking the net, chip and charge. But the question is: the modern game is so heavily based on endless baseline grinding and retrieving. A coach has to be able to improve that, period, and Edberg is from another era, disconnected from this one.

And what does Roger do now? He clearly can keep going deep in the big tournaments. But it's a matter of facing three, possibly four of the best players in succession, all of them anywhere from 2-7 years younger than he is.

That is why the Edberg way was (two years ago) and still is the only possible choice for Federer: Roger is getting older, his legs will fail him more and more, and so will his (strained) back. So, he has only one option: attack, forward like a Michael Llodra (or Pat Cash) on super vitamins, and hope that he'll get lucky and that it'll allow him to stun 7 adversaries in a row - for one last GS title.

But anyway, it will probably not happen: Federer's days of winning a GS are now over. No way his almost-35 body will allow him to win one more.
I predict Federer will lose 2 quarter-finals in the next 2 GS, then skip Roland 2017 and retire with a fourth-round quick exit (against Thiem or Zverev) at Wimbledon 2017.

Note: Pistol Pete and the Goran won their older-days GS, just because of their incredibly powerful serves... (plus, fine volleying in Sampras' case and lefty slice-on-grass in Ivanisevic's case) But Federer's serve, though precise and devilishly efficient, will not, alone, hand him a last GS!

Post: #15

A lot depends on the draw as well. I highly doubt Berdych could have caused Federer much trouble. Cilic and Raonic, both in good form on grass is a pretty bad combination. And this was even one of the best scenarios as Djokovic had already been knocked out. So it matters whether you have to play against the 5th or 6th in the quarter finals and Djokovic in the semis or you get some lower seeded guy and then you have to play Murray.

Look at how easy Murray's route to the final at this year's Wimbledon has been. Had Roger been the 2nd seed here, it would have been much easier for him. I'm not making excuses here, he should have won this tournament or at least reach the final and play a good match. I just wanted to emphasise how big a part the draw plays in the short run. And Federer won't have several more chances, perhaps the US Open this year and Wimbledon next year. Anything else would be a major upset.

Post: #16

(07-09-2016 09:52 AM)marty Wrote:  And Federer won't have several more chances, perhaps the US Open this year and Wimbledon next year. Anything else would be a major upset.

Federer cannot win the US 2016: many players are today better than him on hard courts:

Djokovic obviously. Probably Murray (coached by Lendl) and Nishikori (in good health). Nadal, Raonic, Cilic, Thiem, Del Potro (with a good wrist), maybe even Monfils, Tsonga or Bruguera-improved Gasquet, all of them can now outlast Federer in a five-setter.

By the way, what do you think of the hard-hitting Fritz, or Paul, or the much-hyped Tiafoe? Why are they behind Zverev and Thiem? What's wrong with the training of young talented Americans, at the moment?

Post: #17

Right Marty, you can't exclude another Federer win because the field is not all that great right now. Other than Djokovic, there are no super dominant players right now, and no one has yet emerged in the youth ranks as a future stone cold #1 dominator.

Post: #18

(07-09-2016 10:03 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

(07-09-2016 09:52 AM)marty Wrote:  And Federer won't have several more chances, perhaps the US Open this year and Wimbledon next year. Anything else would be a major upset.

Federer cannot win the US 2016: many players are today better than him on hard courts:

Djokovic obviously. Probably Murray (coached by Lendl) and Nishikori (in good health). Nadal, Raonic, Cilic, Thiem, Del Potro (with a good wrist), maybe even Monfils, Tsonga or Bruguera-improved Gasquet, all of them can now outlast Federer in a five-setter.

By the way, what do you think of the hard-hitting Fritz, or Paul, or the much-hyped Tiafoe? Why are they behind Zverev and Thiem? What's wrong with the training of young talented Americans, at the moment?

No, he's not the favourite but that doesn't mean he can't win it. Just think about Cilic pulling it off two years ago or Söderling beating Nadal at the Roland Garros way back. Federer has a much better chance than them, he has about 8% percent chance of winning it according to Betfair. That's not much but way more than Cilic's or Nishikori's and it actually makes Roger the 3rd favourite behind Djokovic and Murray.

I'd say that's totally fair, the only two that are currently better than him on a fast hard court are the Serb and the Scot. Nadal hasn't been near his best for a long time, Raonic is in trouble when he's forced to play longer rallies. Nishikori can pose a threat, question is which quarter he ends up in. Wawrinka is dangerous as well but pretty unlikely that he'd face Federer given their rankings. I wouldn't be concerned about the rest, they're way too inconsistent.

I'm not American, so can't comment on that. We've yet to see how good Thiem really is. Getting into the top 10 and into the top 3-4 is a whole different thing. Remember two years ago we thought Dimitrov might challenge the top 4 in the future and look what's happened to him. Tsonga or Del Potro couldn't fulfill their destiny either (although the Argentinian has been really unfortunate with his injuries).

Zverev is really young, he still has a lot to prove. I don't really see who will step up and take Federer's and Nadal's place. Or even Murray's or Djokovic's in a few years' time. I think in 5 years men's tennis will resemble women's tennis a lot more, there won't be a few guys who totally dominate the game. The difference is in women's tennis pretty much anyone out of the top 50 can win a GS with a lucky draw (see Bartoli or the Vinci-Pennetta final last year).

Post: #19

It is very interesting, Raonic could have booked a place in the Australian Open final this year, but was hurt in the fifth set vs. Murray. And beat Wawrinka in the quarters. The Canadian is clearly the most accomplished in the whole cadre of the 25 year-old range.

However, his generation overall is horrible. For decades, we've had an unbroken line of succession, of new players beating the older greats. Djokovic and Nadal beating Federer. Safin, Hewitt and Federer beating Agassi and Sampras. Those guys beating Edberg and Becker before them. Right as they turned 20-21, or even earlier. These guys are just not that talented or committed or what have you.

I keep thinking Federer's last chance has come and gone. As far back as the 2014 Wimbledon final. But he keeps creating new chances. He doesn't have to count on someone taking out Djokovic. In their three finals, he could have won had 2 or 3 points in the first tiebreak gone his way, or he had converted better than 4/23 breakpoints. As recently as the US Open 2015 he crushed Gasquet and Wawrinka. I mean, utterly bulldozed his fellow 1-handers, back to back in straight sets. I was shocked he wasn't pulled over by a traffic cop, he was in such a rush to beat them. At Wimbledon/US Open, he will have his chances.

He is still the true second best player in the world, even now, but the injuries have really cost him this season. His victories against Berdych and Cilic is a big positive: last time he played both players in the Slams, he lost, despite being younger. I'm pleased with his results. Wimbledon SF off erratic and spare match play, overcoming a huge test with Cilic and confirming he can still put himself in winning positions vs. players like Raonic, can't ask for much more.

The 'younger' players are really sad. They are in their mid-20s now, in what should be their absolute peak. Think about where Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic were at age 25.

Thiem to me just looks like a David Ferrer, with a one-handed backhand that masks the similarities. He reached the SF of the French Open, mainly due to the draw being decimated, Nadal, Federer, Monfils, Tsonga, all of them withdrawing, and then was quickly destroyed by Djokovic in straights. His ranking is due to his playing every tournament he can, similar to David, usually losing to the top players in form, and beating the lesser ones. He is a dedicated hard worker though which is more than what can be said for the other guys. You have to be able to kill the ball. That's what the contenders have.

I do think Zverev and Fritz are the real deal, Zverev youngest in the Top 30 at 19, Fritz reaching No. 65 in his first year on the ATP tour at 18. A year ago he was still wrapping up his junior career on the Challengers. Not bad. Fritz also reached his first ATP final two years faster than Dominic did.

Post: #20

Great thread; Federer is definitely an inspiration and an endless source of joy to watch.

One of my favorite things when I lived in Montreal was to go watch him practice during that tournament. Pure grace when hitting the ball.

Anyway, I think there were some misleading comments about the Annacone-Federer relationship earlier in the thread. Together they got Roger back to number 1 in the world and won another Wimbledon title.

Also during the period they worked together, Roger went 3-4 against Nadal, which is a pretty big deal. I'm not counting 2013 where Federer had a freak back injury -- a coach can't help with that.

I missed most of the match against Cilic, but OP's enthusiasm reminded me of how I felt after the 2014 loss to Djokovic at Wimby.

Federer really wasn't into that match, and could have lost in straights. Yet, the fight he showed in the fourth set should have put to bed the myth that he can't dig deep in hard matches.

Past his prime and far outclassed, he rattled Djokovic to take the fourth. As a fan, I remember thinking I couldn't realistically ask for more than that.

Post: #21

Lot of (deserved) praise for Federer here... But, the real personality of Federer, who knows it? The Swiss has been a champ also at polishing his image, for marketing reasons. I do remember him as a young player, he was rather mean, bad-tempered, racquet-breaking... and maybe all great champs have to be that way, to become warriors...? But, I don't actually buy into the "super nice guy" image Federer and his Nike team created. I'd rather have a drink with war-survivor Djokovic or flamboyant Murray, or real-life nice guy Nadal, than with the (great) businessman, carefully charming Swiss.

Post: #22

Can't make a concrete conclusion about him as a person (don't know him), and anyway it's his tennis that is captivating.

However, two quick things:

1. If he's that good at creating such a classy image then I would definitely love to have a drink with him cos I could stand to learn a lot. After all, a lot of game/red pill is learning to control your weaknesses and putting your best foot forward (aka "fake" or "manipulative" to outsiders).

2. One day in Montreal he was practicing on a far court that media and fans couldn't get to. But you could sit on some bleachers a few courts away and still mostly see what they were doing. He was hitting with a really low ranked younger player.

During the rest periods, Federer grabbed his chair and pulled it over to his young hitting partner's side. He was acting very gracious and warm with the guy, laughing and chatting.

This wasn't one of his close friends on tour. This was a nobody that he didn't have to pay any extra attention to. Instead of being lost inside his own head during the practice, he obviously made the extra effort to connect with the guy.

I read a lot of tennis forums, and I am friends with a guy who had a very short pro career but knows a few players ranked above 100. The general consensus on Federer is that he is actually a bit of a goof and a nerd, but very friendly and fun. Most likely not to his main rivals, and I'm sure there are people he doesn't get on with (like us all).

But I think when you pair a naturally goofy, inside-your-head personality with huge success and a PR team, it's going to come across to people as a bit manufactured simply because that kind of personality does require a lot of vigilance to maintain good public standing.

Post: #23

Good point there about him being a bit nerdy. I read a biography of him and in his late teens he didn't want to go out or chase girls, he stayed at home and played video games instead.

I don't know how authentic his image is but judging by the way he plays, with such grace and ease, it perfectly suits him. I wouldn't want to draw conclusions from his past actions (racquet breaking, antics), he could and most likely matured a lot. Just think about how different you were 5 or 10 years ago. He looks like an intelligent guy, he must have realised he had to channel all those energies into something else for his own good.

Post: #24

One thing I really appreciate about Federer the man -- as opposed to the player -- is his acceptance of his relative ignorance in fields other than tennis.

I am heavily paraphrasing. But once a reporter asked him about Nelson Mandela, and he said something like "I'd like to meet him, but I don't really have an opinion because I am a sportsman, not a politician".

I personally have some problems with Mandela, but beyond being very slick for PR, Federer's answer at least shows that he follows the basic philosophical maxim Know Thyself.

Post: #25

Not to derail the thread, but such a shame the Swiss did not make the final.
Raonic tried hard but didn't have the experience or nous to challenge Andy and it was a bit of a procession in the end, despite there being two tiebreaks.
A Federer Murray final would I'm sure have been a closer and more exciting affair.
Congrats to Murray on his second Wimbledon title, well deserved.