Cincinnati Masters

First topic message reminder :

Full draw: http://www.protennislive.com/posting/2015/422/mds.pdf

Fed magic.

Andy needs rest.

You better beat Djoko tomorrow !!!!

Back home and the final is settled then.

Congrats Novak for completing a Masters Set.

That confident LK?

It's not a confidence I would like to be honest LS, but I can see a Wimbledon Deja Vu happening. Even though the format is a bit more physically favourable, Federer needs a serving clinic to have any chance.

It's not a match I look forward to. Pretty much because all Djokovic needs is for his return and groundies to be on song and Federer can't handle him.

Would gladly like to be proven otherwise though

LK, you don't think Federer can win? I would make him favourite in the final, but maybe not heavy favourite. So much favours him: Djokovic's long run and tougher matches from Montreal through to this week, the court, the daytime conditions (assuming final is same time), Djokovic's issues with completing sets!

I would bet Djokovic gets a least one break point though - that's what's disappointing about Murray's performance - because the scoreline looks actually an improvement on previous performances, but he's just not getting anywhere with returning Federer's serve. I know other players have the same problem, but returning is Murray's strength. And Federer only served 55% first serves. Hmmm.

Federer has to be favourite tomorrow, he clearly loves this quicker court and has won it 7 times. Novak won't have enough time on the ball and there is also more pressure on him as he goes for the masters golden slam or whatever it is called.

I can see federer winning and possibly in straight sets. He has shown much better form in this particular tournament than Novak.

I believe that makes five consecutive losses suffered by Murray to Fed. Not a streak Andy will be too happy about.

The h2h has been swinging in Federer's favour over the last couple of years. Normally that wouldn't be a surprise given Fed's pedigree. But should it be happening at this stage of their respective careers .....??

It's 10 sets on the run. That's pretty strong even though some of it was Murray coming back.

It's quite a thing for a 34 year old player to have such an edge over the #2.

Would never have guessed this. After Olympics 2012 was then followed by Australian Open 2013 I thought Murray had got the edge for good and I thought he would win most of the matches after that. The AO 13 was a 5-setter but Murray was by far on top, it should not have gone the distance.

Amazed he hasn't won since then.

From Wikipedia - this includes today

All matches: Federer, 14–11
Grand Slam matches: Federer, 5–1
ATP World Tour Finals matches: Federer, 4–1
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches: Murray, 7–3
Olympic matches: Murray, 1–0
Best of 5 matches: Federer, 5–2
Best of 3 matches: Tied, 9–9
Matches lasting 5 sets: Murray, 1–0

All finals: Federer, 5–3
Grand Slam finals: Federer, 3–0
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 finals: Murray, 2–0
Olympic finals: Murray, 1–0

I actually thought Federer won the rivalry when he won Wimbledon, going 3-0 up in slam finals and in fact in all slam matches. I thought that was the rivalry-deciding match at the time. I never thought he would hold on to win the overall head to head. Now, at 14-11 he's got a chance.

Hmm.....yes ..... quite something.

Getting to the point where you can't help think that Andy (amongst numerous others further down the ranks) would be pretty glad to get an invitation asap to the RF retirement party .......

lags72 wrote:I believe that makes five consecutive losses suffered by Murray to Fed. Not a streak Andy will be too happy about.

The h2h has been swinging in Federer's favour over the last couple of years. Normally that wouldn't be a surprise given Fed's pedigree. But should it be happening at this stage of their respective careers .....??

It's unwise to read too much into the 2014 defeats. Clearly we can now all see, that Murray wasn't himself.

Wimby was 'lights out' Tennis under Roger's favourite conditions - let's be honest he's the best ever player of fast conditions that resemble anything like the 90's, which you only ever get at SW19 on a hot day or Dubai

The only surprise today, was that it wasn't easier. I don't care what athlete is competing, the Canada / Cincy swing is utterly ridiculous as illustrated by the enormous inconsistency, almost within points, of the finalists of last weekend

Rafa's achievement in 2013 (Candada/Cincy/US Open) becomes more remarkable every time someone else tries to do the same. No wonder the poor lad looks a spent force now

Last week / this week has no bearing on the US Open. Weather /ease of earlier rounds will be a deciding factor in a slam of which they are more or less equal

From Murray's point of view, he just needs to ignore the results last year and concentrate on working out how to beat the style Federer is playing this year. It's just a different prospect to how he was playing before.

I think Murray will need to endure a bit more pain in regard of the H2H as heading into the last part of the season, if they meet indoors that suits Federer and I don't see him getting any wins. Murray's best chance is slow outdoor hard court or clay(!) probably.

Henman Bill wrote:Would never have guessed this. After Olympics 2012 was then followed by Australian Open 2013 I thought Murray had got the edge for good and I thought he would win most of the matches after that. The AO 13 was a 5-setter but Murray was by far on top, it should not have gone the distance.

Amazed he hasn't won since then.

But is it amazing? In 2014 Murray simply wasn't at the races and for me does not get enough plaudits for wrestling himself from spiralling out of the Top 10, to getting back into the Top 5 (which shows just how ridiculously limp the pretenders are)

Wimby was no shock. I maintain that Roger would have beaten anyone, since he first won it, on that day. Tonight was close and Murray was a spent force before they even walked on court

Now if Roger pummels him at the US Open in cooler conditions having played more tennis to that point, than Andy, - I'll agree that there it is then amazing

Roger's enjoying himself, he's gone back to having that care-free brand of tennis combined with a steeliness he never had back in 2004 - simply because he didn't have to. The new combination is wonderful to watch and anyone questioning his GOAT status needs their head examining

Perhaps I'm not longer bothered at a very good player, getting beaten by simply the greatest

Yeah, based on that Im fairly convinced Murray will win if they play at the Open. He can't surely return Fed's second serve as badly (he used to take it apart for fun before the back surgery) and he looked increasingly comfortable in the rallies. A terribly passive point at 5-4 in the tiebreak followed by that shanked dropshot return by Fed at 6-6 ultimately cost him. I think Novak will win relatively easily tomorrow unless Fed serves a lot better.

banbrotam wrote:Rafa's achievement in 2013 (Candada/Cincy/US Open) becomes more remarkable every time someone else tries to do the same. No wonder the poor lad looks a spent force now

Federer made the final of both Masters last year (bit like Djokovic this year) so played the max number of matches but then I think the highest ranked player he'd have met would have been Ferrer, so slightly less grueling than some runs (and got stopped at the SF at the Open).

The US Open is starting to look more open now. Looking forward to it. And Djokovic, doing well to get to his 10th final in a row. Dolgopolov, noteworthy tournament as well, certainly taking advantage of the draw.

banbrotam wrote:

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

Perhaps I'm not longer bothered at a very good player, getting beaten by simply the greatest

It's a totally understandable perspective. And when all said & done, it IS only a game, and there are more important things in life .......

Whist not a direct analogy (team sport v individual) I liken it in some ways to, say, Germany losing a football match to a Brazilian team made up of ageing stars past their best. On balance it shouldn't happen. But it's still Brazil, and there is rarely any shame for any team losing to them. Murray is not far off his best form now and will go into next season stronger, I'm sure.

I do expect Djokovic to take the trophy tomorrow. He has been sailing close to the wind this week, with both Goffin and Dolgo throwing away golden opportunities. But as all dominant Number Ones have a habit of doing, he makes opponents feel edgy at the crunch stage. His progress to the Final has been emblematic of what is turning into a very impressive season, which is approaching the superb W/L ratio of 2011 : ie, not always playing spectacular stuff in every match BUT somehow finding enough to get through when it matters.

It's just totally weird the way the rivalry turned around. Murray was a bit of a puzzle for Fed as a youngster - despite Fed dominating the big Slam matches. Now, at what should be the twilight of Fed's career, he can't even win a set off the old dog. Federer has really aged fantastically. Physically and mentally, the years must have taken their toll, but as far as his technical qualities are concerned, his game is as rock solid as it's ever been. A lot of times, you look at his volleying and touch shots, backhand and serve and he looks even better than ever.

For sure, there's no way in hell Nadal will age as well as Federer has unfortunately. A lot of wrong predictions have been made about Nadal in the past, but this intuitive one is true. He was never going to bring that intensity of his to the latter part of his career.

mthierry wrote:It's just totally weird the way the rivalry turned around. Murray was a bit of a puzzle for Fed as a youngster - despite Fed dominating the big Slam matches. Now, at what should be the twilight of Fed's career, he can't even win a set off the old dog. Federer has really aged fantastically. Physically and mentally, the years must have taken their toll, but as far as his technical qualities are concerned, his game is as rock solid as it's ever been. A lot of times, you look at his volleying and touch shots, backhand and serve and he looks even better than ever.

No sorry, the wimb. final should have shattered all these delusions about Federer being anywhere near what he was. All you have to do is get Federer moving and you see how he has lost so much foot speed. Murray didn't do it the last couple of times because for some reason only known to himself and Mauresmo he has regressed into the style of play which saw him get raped by fed in his first two slam finals.

All Djoko has to do is play his C+ game to win tomorrow.

Fed has obviously improved his serve, volleys and backhand in the last few years. In a one-off match those improvements can give him the edge against any of his rivals. What he has lost is a small amount of speed and most of his ability to recover - hence if he has to play Murray then Novak at the Open he has no hope.

What is odd is just how poorly Andy is returning Fed's serve. He used to return it so easily i was convinced he had a read on it. In the 4 matches before Murray's back injury Fed averaged 44% points won on 2nd serve. Today he won a higher % on 2nd than 1st!

greengoblin wrote:

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

All Djoko has to do is play his C+ game to win tomorrow.

Really .....? No more than C+ ?

Federer's prime years are clearly behind him ; but he must have fallen a long way if you feel Djokovic needs to produce only a lowly C+ to deal with him. And that doesn't say much about Murray's current level, who of course just took the title in Canada v Novak

If a C+ from Djokovic is indeed good enough to beat Fed, then just how poorly would you say Djokovic played in losing to Federer four times during the course of this season and last ......??

Good solid win for Fed.  A few thoughts:

1.  Fed's game did not feel as breathtaking as his W SF, but on the other hand it seemed more solid in a way.  In W SF and F I had the feeling that Fed was by miles the second best against both Andy and Novak once the rallies got very long, and thus had to do something earlier on in the rally - with success against Andy and less so against Novak.  Today I somehow did not feel that Fed was anywhere as far behind in the long rallies - he appeared quite solid all around.  Of course, someone will now pull up a stat showing me that he in fact was just as bad in the long rallies today

2.  This was the best in a long time I have seen Fed moving to his FH side.  In his prime, he just about never looked like he was caught being late on the ball, but as the years progressed it got much worse.  He has been better lately, but today was about as good as I have seen him in years.

3.  What is it with the half-volley 2nd serve returns that Fed has been trying out this week?  Is he expecting to be including them in his arsenal more seriously?  They sometimes work out, but it did not look like Fed was able to make anything very interesting happen with them - he just ends up being a sitting duck at the net.  But I would love it if he could turn them into a legitimate percentage play.

4.  Even on a court as fast as this, players were unable to avoid getting into the rallies.  It is just impossible to play tennis in which rallies do not figure prominently these days.

From Andy's perspective, I thought he played quite well.  Certainly did not look tired to me - he was once again successfully running down great many balls.  Agree with BS that he hit quite a few oddly limp second serve returns.  He is in with a shot at the USO, no question about it.

summerblues wrote:3.  What is it with the half-volley 2nd serve returns that Fed has been trying out this week?  Is he expecting to be including them in his arsenal more seriously?  They sometimes work out, but it did not look like Fed was able to make anything very interesting happen with them - he just ends up being a sitting duck at the net.  But I would love it if he could turn them into a legitimate percentage play.

Against Murray's second serve, it just adds pressure on the server. Djokovic's second serve is unlikely to be treated this way.

Very disappointed in Dolgo, Goffin, Gulbis. Losing from winning positions feels worse than losing from losing positions.

The 2nd serve half volleys are a laugh, though I doubt it's funny as a pro to see someone playing games like that with your shot.

If Federer could get his eye on them it'd be interesting - the one problem with a serve is that it's a bad body position from which to rapidly play a groundstroke, so getting the ball back very quickly is difficult even if it's not a conventionally tough shot.

Based on what I've seen this week, Federer is the favourite today. He's been purring along. I think this mindset he has of seemingly not caring and just playing for fun seems to suit him! No sets dropped (has he even dropped serve?).

Novak has been struggling with his serve and that seems to be impacting the rest of his game.

The cause for optimism with Novak is that pretty much all of his tournament wins this year have been patchy, inconsistent affairs that culminated with a good performance in the final. He'll need that again today. His level of the tournament so far won't be enough.

As a side note, if Novak wins today, it will be the first time he's led the h2h. I see Murray's travails in this match up are attracting comment but it has been a very stubborn one for Novak to shift too.

Question for the floor.

Other than the loss of the explosive speed of his youth, is any other part of Roger's game far below his peak?

The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

YvonneT wrote:LK, you don't think Federer can win? I would make him favourite in the final, but maybe not heavy favourite. So much favours him: Djokovic's long run and tougher matches from Montreal through to this week, the court, the daytime conditions (assuming final is same time), Djokovic's issues with completing sets!

I would bet Djokovic gets a least one break point though - that's what's disappointing about Murray's performance - because the scoreline looks actually an improvement on previous performances, but he's just not getting anywhere with returning Federer's serve. I know other players have the same problem, but returning is Murray's strength. And Federer only served 55% first serves. Hmmm.

Indeed. I wouldn't make Federer favourite. Would you make Federer favourite in rallies?

Djokovic has reached the final without playing anywhere near his best tennis and that is frightening! He still has gears to click into.

Following the comments about risky tennis, an interesting comment from Dolgo about Djoko:

"He just makes you play, and (he) plays more careful on the big points. You have to beat him and go for the risk."

HM Murdock wrote:Question for the floor.

Other than the loss of the explosive speed of his youth, is any other part of Roger's game far below his peak?

The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

Federer is great but he is 34. He is not as good as he was...

hawkeye wrote:Federer is great but he is 34. He is not as good as he was...

Clearly not.

But shot-for-shot, I don't see a huge difference to difference to his peak years. His forehand still pops, his backhand is benefiting from the new racquet, his serve if anything looks better than ever and his imagination and execution is still superb.

It's only the speed and endurance that has visibly declined as far as I can tell. But then I wasn't an avid follower of him in his peak years, so maybe I'm missing something.

HM Murdock wrote:Question for the floor.

Other than the loss of the explosive speed of his youth, is any other part of Roger's game far below his peak?

The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

There's perhaps an argument that the forehand isn't as concussive as once, but no stronger than an argument.

Other than that it's all about speed & stamina - the shots are just as good if not better. The backhand is more dependable now and the serve is better than ever.

In terms of risk. Anyone watching the Lopez/Nadal match did you see the graphic in Nadals returning position?

At Montreal on first serves he was on average 2.5m behind the baseline and on 2nd serves about 1.4m. At Cinncy?

First serves he was 1.2m behind the baseline and on second serves? He was 0.4m inside the baseline!

HM Murdock wrote:Question for the floor.

Other than the loss of the explosive speed of his youth, is any other part of Roger's game far below his peak?

The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

I think not just speed, but mindset. When playing the retrievers, he knows he has to go extra for winners. I think he does show the signs of additional pressure. Even when engineering a point, he needs so much more precision and I think that has had a massive effect too.

HM Murdock wrote:Question for the floor.

Other than the loss of the explosive speed of his youth, is any other part of Roger's game far below his peak?

The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

His forehand definitely. He arms his forehand a lot nowadays. Players are no longer afraid of it.

lags72 wrote:

greengoblin wrote:

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

All Djoko has to do is play his C+ game to win tomorrow.

Really .....? No more than C+ ?

Federer's prime years are clearly behind him ; but he must have fallen a long way if you feel Djokovic needs to produce only a lowly C+ to deal with him. And that doesn't say much about Murray's current level, who of course just took the title in Canada v Novak

If a C+ from Djokovic is indeed good enough to beat Fed, then just how poorly would you say Djokovic played in losing to Federer four times during the course of this season and last ......??

OK a B- . Happy?    

Seriously, I find it painful to watch fed nowadays. He's still a great player, but the ravages of time are  just too obvious to me

Loss of speed and power for Fed. Also, his BH was very good in the past, watch his matches in 2006, his BH hardly a liability and only Rafa could exploit that and only on clay.

I dont think his BH now is any better, maybe everyone tries to attack his BH these days but it still holds up well and that makes people think that it has gone better. Maybe its better than during 2008-2009 and 2012/2013, but to me not better than his 2004-2006 and 2007. His BH during 2010/2011 was awesome too, esp during the indoor HC season ending at WTF.

HM Murdock wrote:The loss of speed of course impacts all parts of his game but, in terms of technique and potency, I'd struggle to identify a shot that has seriously declined.

The heydays rarely saw a squash return. They are a-plenty now and a clear indication of loss of speed. Shanking is much higher on BH and FH, but the aggression has increased to a much higher level to compensate and avoid shanks.

Koenig/Goodall made a good point yesterday, that SHBH does not require a grip change for either BH or FH, but DHBH does. Djokovic is showing signs of such adding to his rage woes. I hope he calms down and plays better than the past two weeks.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Loss of speed and power for Fed. Also, his BH was very good in the past, watch his matches in 2006, his BH hardly a liability and only Rafa could exploit that and only on clay.

I dont think his BH now is any better, maybe everyone tries to attack his BH these days but it still holds up well and that makes people think that it has gone better.  Maybe its better than during 2008-2009 and 2012/2013, but to me not better than his 2004-2006 and 2007. His BH during 2010/2011 was awesome too, esp during the indoor HC season ending at WTF.

Completely agree R.E. the backhand. I know it's not representative but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WASb906o11E is simply brilliant.

Fed must annihilate Djoko today.

If Djoko wins today, he will play crap at USO, get lazy as he does after every big record and me as a fan of Djoko, want him to keep playing good and focused.

He can win RG in 2017 and Cincy in 2018, ain't that bad.

Jahu wrote:If Djoko wins today, he will play crap at USO, get lazy as he does after every big record and me as a fan of Djoko, want him to keep playing good and focused.

Yes, you are staunch fan!

HMM, hahah, you know I'm right, Djoko will be spoiled with Golden Masters and screw the rest of the season.

That makes me half fan of him

I don't think he's that bothered about completing the set of Masters. I don't think anyone is that bothered about it!

It's like getting getting another GCSE when your rivals have got A-levels.

Come on, don't over simplify it.

Its a unique record. Among records Djoko has set, this is quite nice, since he will end the career with most Masters titles anyway, and having won them all is superb.

What rival has A levels? Apart from Fed, he will overrun Nadal in everything, bar RG titles.

Even Feds GS number ain't safe.

HM Modesty

It's a considerable achievement and its always good to be the first to do something.

But when his career is done, people will look first at the slam total and then probably weeks at #1.

The 'Golden Masters' will be a bit further down the CV.

Given a choice between the complete set of Masters and another Australian Open (let alone RG!), it's Australia every time.

greengoblin wrote:

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

Seriously, I find it painful to watch fed nowadays. He's still a great player, but the ravages of time are  just too obvious to me

Well I can certainly understand your disenchantment with Federer's current level when viewed in the context of his prime 3-Slam-titles-a-year phase. Time does of course play a big part, and Federer was at the summit of the game for so long - and set such high standards for himself and others - that almost anything he does in this, the twilight of his career, will inevitably pale in comparison.

But your perspective also strikes me as a tad extreme. By which I mean .....if you really do find it "painful to watch Fed nowadays" (and you're almost certainly far from alone in that, given the decline from his former mercurial best)- then I wonder who you DO enjoy watching from the current crop.......?

Take this Cincy tourney merely as a snapshot example of how the biggest names have fared. Did you enjoy watching Rafa ....? Did you enjoy watching Andy ....? Were they I wonder less, or more,  "painful" to watch than Fed ? ? And as far as the dominant No. 1 is concerned .....well, the comparison here at Cincy is interesting in itself. In making the Final, Djokovic has played a series of opponents whose combined ranking is 127, and he has conceded a total of 39 games ; the respective numbers for Federer are 62 and 27. This obviously will have little, if any, impact on the outcome of the Final. But again, it raises the matter of where Federer's current game - even in his fading years - sits in relation not just to the field as a whole, but to the elite.

Whatever different spin we choose to put on things, the fact remains that Federer is still making it through to Finals where so many others are not : Eight this year to date, with four trophies. As I mentioned in a previous post, Federer is nowhere near as scary an opponent as he once was. But even today, I suspect that not too many guys (certainly not Murray) are especially pleased to see his name in their section of a draw.

Fed is more likely to play a bad match nowadays in a slam but he is, at least, as scary an opponent as he ever was in bo3. There is no player who has turned around a h2h against him (other than Novak and that's still even).

GG's comment is ridiculous - if you are a fan of Federer's style of play there is, if anything, more to enjoy in watching him parade a much wider range of skills now than he needed to 10 years ago. He's a breathtaking player who, even at 34, is matching/beating players who are themselves exceptional.

Belovedluckyboy wrote:

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

I dont think his BH now is any better, maybe everyone tries to attack his BH these days but it still holds up well and that makes people think that it has gone better.  Maybe its better than during 2008-2009 and 2012/2013, but to me not better than his 2004-2006 and 2007. His BH during 2010/2011 was awesome too, esp during the indoor HC season ending at WTF.

When the man himself was asked about his backhand in 2013 (and what he might teach his daughters), this was his take on things  ..........

http://www.si.com/tennis/beyond-baseline/2013/02/13/roger-federer-backhand