Djokovic Retires from Rigged Wimbledon

So Djokovic had to retire in his match against Berdych after trailing 7-6(2), 2-0 due to his old arm injury after having to play two days in a row when Wimbledon could have let him play on Center Court on Monday.

First of all, I have lost interest in this tournament after the biased behavior of the organizers. This will be my final blog post about the 2017 Rigged Championships unless Federer loses which is highly unlikely. It is more likely that he will win Wimbledon without dropping a set.

I don’t feel like a tournament which favors certain players over others with their scheduling deserves another post from me unless it is to celebrate their failure to get what they want. They already failed to get one of their favorites past the quarterfinals when Murray lost to Querrey which was great but if Federer wins the tournament they would still have gotten their way.

Federer winning a record 8th Wimbledon title is what they want to see and now they have helped to eliminate his nemesis through ridiculous scheduling. Djokovic was in pain from the start and hardly moved out of second gear. When he lost the first set it was obvious he wasn’t going to complete the match.

It was the old arm injury that never properly healed after he completed the personal slam. Djokovic is just as responsible for his retirement as Wimbledon but it doesn’t excuse Wimbledon’s pathetic behavior in any way. It was obvious to anyone who knows something about tennis that he never properly recovered from the historical 2015-16 run.

He was burned out and never gave his body the rest that it was constantly calling for. If Djokovic had taken the entire last year off and used a protective ranking he would be in a better position than he is now. In the last year, he achieved very little on the court and only made his arm worse.

I already realized Djokovic was doomed at the beginning of the clay court season. In hindsight, Djokovic should have shut it down post US Open last year. But he also kept making mistakes like playing Acapulco instead of sticking to his original schedule. At the beginning of the clay court season, I was already very concerned because I knew he was taking more risks by playing.

I knew at any time during the clay court or grass court seasons the injury can come back. So I was never very optimistic about him playing the clay or grass court seasons but you are going to try to hope for the best after he decided to keep going. And sure enough, the arm came back to haunt him at the worst possible time.

Just as it looked like he was finding form again and before he would face Federer in the Wimbledon semis. But he probably wouldn’t have beaten Federer if he was 100% healthy anyway. So unknowingly Wimbledon may have done him a favor with the schedule. He wouldn’t have wanted to give Federer the satisfaction of beating him if he wasn’t at his best.

But again, that doesn’t excuse Wimbledon in any way. They made it clear who they want to help win the tournament. It’s like they realized Federer can’t beat Djokovic so they had to give him a little extra help to achieve the most profitable and sensational plot. It is actually quite sad that he may win his record 8th Wimbledon title under these conditions.

It reminds me of the changed court speed in Melbourne this year that helped shape the perfect script for Federer to win his 18th slam. This kind of bias from the capitalist model is just one of a million reasons that a GOAT can’t be determined. Djokovic is seen as the outsider so he doesn’t get the kind of assistance Federer gets.

I don’t care about slam titles for determining the GOAT anymore. Not as much as most people anyway. Deciding on GOAT is now an entirely personal thing for me. When people call Federer the GOAT that is just part of the mainstream sensationalism that makes ignorant tennis fans feel like they are supporting the best and that therefore their lives are somehow more meaningful.

Our whole society is based on a lie. And that lie is that some of us are superior to others. The same rigged system that exists in sport exist in politics and it is slowly but surely destroying us. It is this whole idea of superiority due to race, religion, country, gender, sexual orientation or whatever the case may be. The capitalist system is a rigged system based on inequality. And in the meantime, we are destroying the very planet we live on.

I don’t want this to be a political discussion but tennis is a part of this whole system. It’s not a fair system based on equality.

 

Posted in Grand Slams, Wimbledon.

160 Comments

  1. While it’s true that the organizers seemed to have repeatedly scheduled Murray and Federer on center court, at the expense of Djoker and Nadal, I don’t think there was any conspiracy behind the fact that Djoker ended up having to play 2 days in a row. No one could have predicted that the Nadal Muller match would last that long.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘No one could have predicted that the Nadal Muller match would last that long.’

    That’s not the point. CC was standing open long before Nadal and Muller finished.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    Ruan,
    Assuming you are the organiser, how would solve the practical fan problem ie C1 fan paid to see 2 matches & CC fan same. If by shifting to CC, fan there get to see 3 matches & C1 will only see 1 match. How do you intend to solve this in an equitable manner? Financial compensation is out of the question.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Let court 1 tickets become CC tickets and CC ticket holders must go home? Pretty simple.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    The match in C1 is still ongoing. You mean leave the current match & go straight to CC.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I see what you mean. I guess you have to let the folks who have CC tickets stay there and give the Court 1 folks the option of CC when they are finished if there are open seats. The court 1 folks are getting a classic in Nadal vs Muller anyway so if they can’t see Djokovic it’s not the end of the world. Again, the players should also be considered. It’s not all about the fans.

    [Reply]

    Ankur Reply:

    What a solution! Giving an option? When an epic encounter is going on? How is that possible? By announcing??!!
    I think they could have started the Djokovic match in the centre court with roof and lights after the Nadal match is over. The fans could have moved straight to centre court. That seems easier. I don’t know why didn’t do that… It’s really unfortunate that Djokovic had to play on consecutive days.

    [Reply]

    MattK Reply:

    Oh yeah, I can see that working out ha ha. It takes a special kind of stupid to think you can just transfer people over to a stadium with a different seating plan, a different number of seats and people who have bought block packages of seats, or a particular seat for the duration of the tournament (which many hundreds of people do for Wimbledon centre court).

    You have to ignore a whole lot of important details to think this hair-brained idea could be implemented remotely easily.

    Djokovic just lucked a day when a match wen long. There’s no conspiracy there – he was the marquee match on Court 1, nothing to be scoffed at at all. It just happened that Nadal’s match was an anomaly and messed the schedule up.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Are you gonna bitch and criticize all day like your first two posts or are you gonna contribute something meaningful? If the answer is the former you may as well stop posting now because I will remove you otherwise.

    [Reply]

    Aimee Librado Reply:

    Very biased tournament! I find Wimbledon very elitist. It seems they are far more concerned about who is the next VIP sitting at the royal box and who is better dressed to the nines! pathetic. With regards to this centre court business, I absolutely agree with you Ruan. It was very unfair to Novak and Gulbis for that matter, to wait all day and then to find your match is cancelled. On a different note, I am finally relieved Novak has acknowledged his chronic injury, and hopefully take the sensible decision of taking time out (I hope) and get it fixed.
    It doesnt matter who wins Wimbledon now, but we all know you know who is going to win it.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Elitist is a very good way to describe Wimbledon. That is exactly what it is. All their rigid traditions annoy me too. And yes, we all know Federer is going to win it. It’s hardly worth watching.

    [Reply]

  2. You really let it out bro, too bad for Djoker though. Just when he was getting his form back, down the drain goes his comeback. He’ll need some time to get his body and mind back.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You live you learn. The good thing that came out of this was the Agassi partnership.

    [Reply]

  3. Why is Federer being dissed here? You make it sound as if Federer was behind the “so called conspiracy” of not making Nole play on CC the other day :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    That is entirely your own interpretation. At no point in any way did I suggest that this was Federer’s fault. But don’t worry I am used to people interpreting things through their own biases having a tennis blog.

    [Reply]

    George Wong Reply:

    Hi Ru-An, I couldn’t be happier to read ur posts as a Nole fan!

    I used to like RF but dislike him after his cocky behaviour when he swung his finger after defeating Nole in 2011 French Open. I admire Nole’s dedication and hard work more than this cocky talented fake gentleman. Tomic’s recent comment was spot on. RF is nit working for money but the live if tennis? Give all his prize money and Tomic would fo the same😏
    Anyway it’s sad now Nole has to rest and see this one getting all the admiration.
    Life goes on but Wimbledon is over since Nole retired.
    One note, salute to Tomas Berdych for wearing Nole’s shoes and hoping to beat his opponent for him!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Glad to hear it, George! Yes, I prefer Nole’s personality to Federer’s too. Even when I was a Federer fan I never really warmed to his personality. I mostly liked his tennis but the serve botting eventually became boring. And then, of course, there was the fanatical cult following. Becoming a Nole fan was something totally new and fresh and the best move I ever made as a tennis fan!

    [Reply]

    George Wong Reply:

    I hope Djokovic can be fit to play Cincinnati and win it this year. Fingers crossed!

    [Reply]

  4. Tennis is a big business just like any other sports, especially the women tennis has been in downfall the last few years.

    The organiser wants to see a Federer-Nadal or Federer-Murray final. It’s too bad bad Djokovic is on the other side of the draw if not a Federer-Djokovic final still draw the same impact.

    Simple as that. A Djokovic versus Cilic or Muller final doesn’t draw the same.
    It’s not a matter Federer is a Swiss or Djokovic a Serbian, it’s a popularity thing.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Oh I didn’t realize tennis was a popularity contest. I thought it was about the ability to win.

    [Reply]

    Ed Reply:

    First, nice site. I don’t always share your opinions, but you give informed ones.

    As for tennis, like all sports, it’s both. Jordan got more foul calls. Greg Maddux got wider strike zone (conversely, Wade Boggs got a smaller one). Cam Newton gets crushed (no penalty) and Tom Brady gets brushed (15 yard unnecessary roughness!!). It’s reality and life. Federer and Murray are more popular so they get Centre Court preference. Djokovic, relegated to Court 1, got screwed cuz the Nada match went 5 hours. My point isn’t that what happened with Djokovic was “unfair.” Maybe it was with the officials refusing to reopen CC with the roof (I dont know the purported “security” reasons for why they didn’t. But I’m sure you don’t either.) But there were many factors that led to it and to attribute the lion’s share of the events to Wimbledon organizers plotting to screw Djokovic so Federer would win is paranoia and hyperbole. If they wanted to do that, they could have put Cilic or Raonic or Muller in Djokovic’s portion of the draw. Djokovic had a pretty easy draw and his QF opponent was either Thiem (someone who readily admits Djokovic gives him fits even though he won the last clay match) and 25-2 Berdych. To take your conspiratorial speculation to another level, I think most objective fans would concede Federer (who is in top form this year) would have likely beaten Djokovic (who is not) in the SF this year (more evidence that the H2H can be skewed for various reasons). So the organizers had every incentive to make sure Djokovic made it to the SF for Federer’s revenge. To say my speculation is absurd is the same as thinking Wimbledon organizers huddled in secret and agreed that they should screw Djokovic and make him play back to back so he would have less rest against Berdych/Federer. Neither nor you are privy to any such info, but it’s not very plausible. The more objective and logical explanation is that Djokovic was on a roll for awhile (just like both Federer and Nadal were) and now he has dropped off for whatever reason including having some worse luck with injuries and scheduling, as well as mental fatigue, family priorities, etc. It’s life and humanity. No reason to go full X-Files.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks but I don’t think I am going full X-Files or even X-Files for that matter. There were several Fedfans who agreed that the scheduling is a joke. Djokovic was in fine form and there was no way to tell that Federer would have won before his 4th round match. The organizers don’t choose the draw it gets pulled out of a hat in front of cameras. Djokovic’s form dropped off because he didn’t take a break to recover from his dominant run but he was finding it again on grass. I don’t share many of your opinions either.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    I’m talking about the organiser, the media, the sponsors, tv rating etc all come into play.
    It’s a multi-million dollar business.
    Fans will support whoever they players they like to see winning.
    Obviously the TOP players get popular in the first place because of their superior skills, playing quality,and winning consistency.
    The last decade or so men tennis has been in the golden era because of the big 4. It’s not just Federer drawing the crowd but the remaning big 3 and other up and coming players as well.
    The drawback because of their Long success it’s harder for new players to breakthrough. It’s actually quite alarming the remaining 4 players in the draw age range from 28-35, apart from Cilic winning a slam the others are not exactly household names. It would be more interesting if the final featuring a young up and coming player vs the veteran like Federer or Djokovic.
    As they age they are prone to more injury but if they keep playing then the organiser and media have to keep rooting for them to bring in the cash. There are no other players coming through in the big stage yet, maybe the smaller tournament but the slams are mainly the avange-garde of tennis esp Wimbledon very much like the English premier league or the World Cup.
    If Federer is also out in the SF you’ll see a drastic drop in tv rating.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    It is not always important how many people attach to a player, but what people! On the day where Federer finally stops, you should get drunk. Unfortunately I do not like alcohol.

    [Reply]

  5. The ATP have helped the ‘Big Four’ progress in events for years. Fed and Murray make the most money for Wimbledon, it’s the same plus Nole and Rafa for the ATP. So I don’t have any sympathy at all for Rafans and the Nolefam who are upset about these two weeks.
    If anything I’m fighting off the childish temptation to blow raspberries. It’s about time two of the previously untouchable ‘Big Four’ actually get what it’s been like for fans of any other player outside them for the last decade. Yes we do exist ATP.
    It’s not all fixed though, the guys still have to deliver the goods, so that’s how tennis still has meaning to me. Fed still has to be in good enough shape, keep calm and execute. That’s as pure as we are gonna get under the current ATP.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You just confirmed that the system is rigged. But you didn’t go far enough. There are players much further down the line who have no fans at all who are trying to make it but don’t have the opportunity because of the system.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    I think this so called ‘rigged’ system applies only to Wimbledon, I don’t such conspiracy in other slams.

    Wimbledon also happen to have the highest ticket price and probably the highest viewership amongst all the slams.

    Perhaps Djokovic ongoing injury has already been known by some officials and they concern he might retire in the SF or Final which certainly will not help the reputation and rating of the tournament. By letting him play 2 matches in a row he was ultimately forced to retire early before the big showdown in the SF and final which is where the cash is.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    So, rigged then?

    And if you think strange things only happen at Wimbledon, cast your mind back to AO 2016 when Djokovic was their defending champion, yet there were several ridiculous ‘accidental’ incidents which would have derailed a lesser player. He won despite that, but the winning couldn’t be allowed to carry on. Of course nobody foresaw him going off a cliff after the FO and making it easy for them to screw him – he virtually screwed himself.

    [Reply]

  6. If the scheduling was all about optimising profit (capitalist model), they would have let Djokovic play on CC in the round of 16. A Federer vs Djokovic semi final would generate more money than a Fed vs Birdshit semi? There is something else going on here.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Yes, the something else going on is that the whole system is rigged so that Fed will get to 20GS this year (so expect the same or worse at the USO and after). He is the ATP and Nike’s cash cow and to his fans his miracle resurrection is like the return of The Messiah, so the present situation is a win win win for them all. Fed included. (Nadal also included, but he is secondary to Fed in their hierarchy). It has gone beyond ‘sport is a business’, which we know we must accept, to money and power being a religion, and no room is left for even the pretense of a little integrity or fair play. Last year’s Wimbly was engineered for a Fed-Murray final, but Raonic got in the way, this year the plan was the same but Murray fell. The born again, supercharged Fed was supposed to destroy Djokovic in the semis if Delpo didn’t get rid of him first – but Djokovic had been finding much better form recently and just might have beaten Fed if he had been fully fit and rested – which couldn’t be allowed. Obviously the injury could not be planned, but was a bonus. The debacle of the unfair scheduling where Djokovic was the ONLY player who did not get a rest day, makes it look highly suspicious, bearing in mind that it could have easily been avoided. It has been blindingly obvious from the time of the instant miracle resurrection of Fed and Nadal at the AO after months out injured, and thereafter Fed winning just about everything except the FO which was always going to be Nadal’s, that ‘something else is going on’. A little Googling of ‘Federer’ and ‘bulging veins’ will bring up a couple of obscure blogs which raise questions about how the miracle resurrection was even physically humanly possible, but apart from that, the miracle appears to be down to practicing his backhand a lot and ‘thinking young’. Some of us don’t buy it. I know Ru-an you prefer to look on the positive side, and the truth will never be known, so all I will say is that it is somewhat heartening to see you criticising the status quo, even if it’s only going as far as saying the system is rigged. I accept we have different views on the issue of what Fed himself may or may not be doing in his down time, and you are not accusing him of any wrong doing.. As a Brit I feel sad and ashamed for the way the organisers at Wimbledon have treated Djokovic and some of the other players, but I am afraid they are not the only ones involved in this sickening manipulation of what I once thought was a clean and honourable sport, and that things are only going to get worse. Sorry for the negativity.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Linsey, we have exchanged thoughts before, and I also belong to the faction which doesn’t believe that Fed’s miracle resurrection was achieved without pharmaceutical help. Many tell tale signs are there. I spoke to a doctor and he said that this kind of physical rejuvination just doesn’t happen naturally at Fed’s age. It makes me sick in my stomach that for years Fed was supposedly the white knight who was fighting the just fight against the black sheep like Nadal and Djokovic. Well – whatever, I believe Fed has gone over to the dark side. And if that’s the case, he will get away with it because it would be suicidal for tennis if the anointed GOAT turns out to be a cheat. Tennis doesn’t want a Lance Armstrong with a raquet…
    You also know my opinion, though, that I don’t exclude other players from my suspicion that tennis isn’t squeaky clean. Doping accusations shouldn’t be an axe wielded selectively by disgruntled fans. More likely than not doping is rampant in a system which doesn’t have adequate control systems in place.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Sabine, I take on board what you’re saying about doping most likely being rampant, and the control systems being inadequate (and selective if what we suspect is true). I thought it was unlikely with Djokovic (who, you may have gathered, is my main concern! ) because he hasn’t to date ever had any extended time out in which to organise it, do it and get rid of the traces if any, and maybe more importantly, if found out, there would be absolutely no way it would be covered up – certain people would be only too pleased to have a legitimate excuse to negate all his achievements, vilify him, call him a cheat and write him out of history. They are already doing that anyway so he would be mad to give them a legitimate reason and wreck his own legacy. But – who knows really. On a flippant if inappropriate note, if any of the others at the very top are doing it, they should ask for their money back as it patently isn’t working for them! For what it’s worth I never had any suspicions about Fed before this year, but it seems so blatant and obvious now. He has nothing to lose, everything to win and knows he is bullet-proof. My guess is that doping is more likely lower down the ranks with players trying to break into the big time, which of course I’m not condoning. It’s just that much more sickening and despicable when you suspect that certain favoured top players are not only getting away with it, but IMO the powers that be are actually enabling it for the sake of power and raking in more money.
    At this very moment, on my TV the pundits are discussing the semi-final prospects. Mention was made that Berdych has beaten Fed in the past. Quote from McEnroe: ‘Yes but Berdych is a lot older now – and Federer is a lot younger.’ Admittedly Mac is well known for only opening his mouth to put his foot in it, and he was joking. I just wish it was really a joke.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Lynsey, I’d argue that doping probably isn’t mostly confined to the lower ranks, but I agree with you that Fed is probably totally bullet proof. As you say, he cannot lose anything but his integrity. Because there’s just no way that tennis is going to expose it’s biggest star, since it would totally annihilate the biggest decade, the so-called Golden Age of tennis. There could be no bigger disaster. The ITF has tightened the doping procedures – on the surface. But there is still the niggling detail that they don’t send independent doping controllers. They send their own guys, and there’s the rub.
    It’s damning btw, that they never caught a player doing serious stuff like HGH or EPO, as they should if the controls were really working. Yes, they banned Sharapova for something which has been totally legal two weeks before she was caught, and experts aren’t even sure if Meldonium does enhance performances, lol! Then there’s our Wimby finalist Cilic, who was so stupid to send his mom to the pharmacy and didn’t check if she brought the correct medication. I believe his explanation because if he had been consciously doping he could’ve easily avoided a positive test. And again: this mildly stimulating medication which is legal during training sessions anyway, is hardly a big gun. But the ITF looks good if they ban a bigger name once in a while for something which isn’t exactly earth shattering. I will only believe that their controls work when they catch a big name doing something seriously performance enhancing…
    Don’t get me wrong: Sharapova and Cilic deserved their bans, if only for monumental stupidity. But it doesn’t convince me that the control system really works.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Sabine, what you say makes a lot of sense and we can only come to the conclusion that it’s a mess. Sadly a mess which protects most of those who are at it rather than exposing them, and even if the checks were more frequent and rigorous, those with enough money surely have access to the type of doping which can be guaranteed to leave no evidence if planned and carried out properly. And those people will never be caught or exposed. But tests are apparently neither frequent nor rigorous, and people who get caught like Sharapova are usually hoist by their own monumental stupidity or carelessness – virtually by accident if you like, and only have themselves to blame. Dan Evans – not exactly much more than a minnow admittedly – has recently brought about his own ruin by being caught for using Cocaine – not as far as I know a performance enhancing drug, and not in a tennis context, but how stupid can you get? I guess that’s their ‘catch’ for the year.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Yes, it’s a frigging mess alright :-(
    And, as you, say, even if the controls were tighter, for a well earning and organized athlet it seems to be easy these days to avoid a positive test if they schedule and dose carefully. A British journalist and hobby triathlet showed that even the biological passport can be easily tricked by microdosing EPO. He tested it himself. His performance became significantly better when he was on microdosing EPO, but all control tests which he scheduled himself never even raised the suspicion that he was using EPO. This is really depressing because, as you said: athlets apparently only get caught because of their own stupidity or accidentally. One journo said: testing during tournaments is the equivalent of an intelligence test. Only the dumb get caught.

    [Reply]

    MJ-Ruban Reply:

    Why you didn’t have suspicions about Fed before this year? I think he is playing as well as in the 2nd part of 2015 season.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Simply because Fed is a very talented athlet and has played on a high level for a long time. But even Fed ages. Slowly he did become a tad slower and .less commanding. Many saw exactly this totally natural phenomenon as a sign that he was probably not a big time doper. But for me and others it’s simply not credible that at his age he comes back from a long injury break – and is better than he has been in a long time. Not only technically but also stamina wise. I don’t buy this fairy tale of a miracle resurrection.. Even Fed isn’t ageless and he cannot defy nature. Most sports doctors agree that the aging process can’t be reversed by simply “thinking young” as Fed expressed it or by a raquet change.
    I have no idea if Fed has or hasn’t been doping prior to this season. Like Lynsey I never suspected him explicitly. But now it seems to be blatantly obvious at least to me. There are also some tell tale physical symptoms. And how can people argue with a straight face that Nadal is probably doping and Fed isn’t when a five years older Fed suddenly outlasts his old nemesis in a five-setter?? Admittedly Fed played great, but enhanced stamina leads to self belief and brilliance if the talent is there. And Nadal may very well be doping. But isn’t it logical to assume then that Fed is doing it, too? Interestingly many Fed fans have become very silent on the matter of Nadal and doping or of anyone doping for that matter – probably because it has become a very two-edged sword, lol!

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Completely agree.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Thanks to you, too :-)

    [Reply]

    Marcus Reply:

    Lynsey,
    There is no precedent for the Federer situation should he go on to win 8th:

    Sampras won his seventh time at Wimbledon aged 28 then he fell off a cliff and his game style was less taxing than todays Federer’s
    Renshaw won his seventh time at Wimbledon aged 28 then he fell off a cliff and his game style was less taxing than todays Federer’s

    And there is consistency all the way inbetween:
    McCenroe won his last time at AELTC aged 25, then fell off a cliff
    Borg won his last time at AELTC aged 25, then fell off a cliff
    Even ‘evergreen’ Connors won his last time at AELTC aged 29
    Tilden holds the record time between first and last titles at 10 yrs

    Federer is looking to extend that record to 14 yrs (and counting) ?
    Federer wins AELTC aged 35 yrs 11 mnths without dropping a set ?
    The last person to do that was Borg aged 20

    Let’s look at where Federer is coming from;
    His father was a chemist and Federer comes from Basel, the industrial centre of Switzerland
    The B.I.S (Bank of International Settlements) was and still is based in Basel (Baal). During WW11 the managing director and chairman of B.I.S were also the very same managing director and chairman of the Reichsbank Berlin
    Swiss neutrality is an image as well as a mindset

    So is Federer clean ?
    Yes or no
    Iff yes how ?
    The commentators Mark Petchey et al reckon the players have better longevity today because of better nutrtion and diet and access to better doctors/psychlogists than before, but surely the game is even more taxing nowadays so you ought to be seeing a dropping off of performance not an increase after 28 yrs and especially not a peak increase after the age of 35 ?

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Marcus, I agree with your last point, and thank you for those other stats, most of which I wasn’t aware of. It is true that the longevity of today’s players is greatly helped by their awareness of the importance of nutrition and holistic approach to training and fitness – mind as well as body. But as you say, the game and the year round schedule is so taxing today that to be honest I’m amazed at their stamina and that more of the players aren’t felled by injury and burnout more often.

    To answer the question ‘is Federer clean and if so how’: I can’t claim to have actually spoken to doctors about it as Sabine has, but I have asked questions of a few ex-athletes as to whether or not what he has done could be considered normal or physically possible. Without exception they say it would be very unlikely without some kind of pharmaceutical intervention, blood treatment, whatever. What initially made me suspicious was that although he was still hovering around the top of the game before his extended time off, he had been in a slow decline overall and had not won anything really significant for about five years – which is normal for a player his age, even a super talented one (as your stats confirm). Yet both he and Nadal were able to come back from that long injury lay-off and INSTANTLY play as though the clock had been turned back ten years, apparently not tiring in the slightest or needing any match play in preparation to winning the AO. To me this seemed strange, but it may have turned out to be a one-off.

    Then I came across a blog – I think it was called ‘The strange case of Roger Federer’ – but probably not appropriate to put the link on here – which went into the situation in detail and raised many questions, not just about Fed, but doping in tennis generally. The writer’s views were not hysterical, but well thought out and reasoned.

    Since then Fed has won almost every tournament this year, except a couple of 250 point ones which he could afford to lose. My own somewhat cynical view of what IMO he is doing is one I have been repeating ad nauseam on here for a while, so I won’t go over it again. There are many other contributing factors to the conclusion I have come to, which is that the answer to the original question has to be ‘no’. In fact I’m quite surprised that some others seem to feel the same way, because it was like thinking the unthinkable. Of course it isn’t possible to ask these questions publicly except on certain blogs because of the torrents of vile abuse one would get from Fed fans, and the media and commentators will never say anything, whether out of blind devotion to an untouchable player, or the fear of losing their jobs. I feel sure that some people, possibly other players, do know or at least suspect the truth but can never speak out for fear of repercussions. The sorriest thing for me is that we will never know the real answer, as Fed is completely bullet proof and can basically do as he likes with the approval and probably the downright complicity of the powers that be.

    I can’t answer the question ‘If yes how?’, because I don’t believe there can possibly be any ‘how’. It will be interesting to see how long he can go on with this once he gets past 20GS. I don’t know about the long term effects of doping, but he won’t want to be seen to be declining again before he retires. Ego may dictate that he goes out ‘at the top’ but that remains to be seen.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Thanks for that long information. I will look for the site you mentioned.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    You’re welcome. It was in fact ‘The Curious Case of Roger Federer’. A couple of interesting articles by the same guy.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Thanks, easy to find. It’s good to know that we aren’t the only ones who dared to contemplate the unthinkable and that more knowledgeable people than us have been on that curious case ;-)

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    You’re right. I began to wonder if I was having hallucinations or attacks of paranoia until I read that blog. It’s just a great shame we will never know the truth for sure one way or the other, and can’t do anything about it anyway. Who knows, in years to come we may be able to say, ‘I told you so back in 2017’ ;-)

    [Reply]

    MJ-Ruban Reply:

    I think the so-called prime age range in tennis is getting changed. 3 players were over thirty at both Australian and French Open semi-final stage. At Wimbledon, the range was 28-35.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Djokovic did play the round of 16 on CC. Federer winning the title is better for them than him losing to Djokovic. They don’t want a Djokovic vs Cilic/Querrey final that’s for sure.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    He did, after a wasted day spent warming up and cooling down and Wimbledon getting heavy criticism in the media. Any other result than Fed winning the title would indeed be disastrous for them. But I don’t think they need to worry now.

    [Reply]

    cornel Reply:

    This topic about whether federer is doping or not is very similar to whether there is a god or not. Zero proof either way. If you are the religios type then stop watching tennis

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    This I happen to agree with. It’s a pointless argument in my view. It’s lame because all the fan bases use it depending on how well their own player is faring or how their own player’s rivals are faring.

    [Reply]

    Mary Culbertson Reply:

    Yes Novak ended up playing on CC round of 16 but who watched it? Court 1 people from night before? Had to be more than them. Bigger court. And wonder how they arranged the seating. Who sat where. Or was it CC ticket people who had tickets for women’s match coming up. But anyways, they put him back on Court 1 the next day!

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    I think it’s a legitimate concern as long as the discussion doesn’t focus exclusively on Fed. That would be short sighted and counterproductive. While I have argued here that Fed might be doping because what happens right now seems not natural and too good to be true, I try to see a bigger picture, which is the question if there’s doping going on in tennis.
    And while I can totally understand that you want to keep out of this discussion for many reasons, I think even without hard proof that this isn’t just a question of belief or disbelief. I talked to doctors specialized on sports medicine. Their tenor is that tennis is most likely not sqeaky clean, that the controls are inadequate and that Fed’s miracle resurrection at his age after a lengthy injury lay off is incredible – quite literally incredible.
    But thanks again for allowing the discourse so far. I will stress that I’m just expressing my personal opinion which has been formed by lengthy research of the doping problem in general. It’s actually very discouraging to learn what’s possible and how easily even stricter controls than in tennis can be tricked. And maybe it’s time to shut up about it now. I certainly cannot add a new thought right now ;-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Sure doping is possible but it is meaningless to accuse some players and not others. If you are going to assume one is doping then you must at least accept all are doping. Federer winning the AO after a six-month break by winning three 5-setters and defeating Nadal in the final after being a break down in the 5th still seems surreal to me but I just can’t bring myself to say it is because of doping. Can it be? Sure it can. Do I have proof that it is? No, I don’t so if I assume it will just make me look butthurt. You can afford it but I can’t since I have a blog.

    The mentally unstable people who leave abusive comments on my blog love to think that I am the mentally unstable one and that I am obsessed. If I was obsessed I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to agree with you and to encourage people to accuse Federer of doping. Sadly for them, they are the mentally unstable and obsessed ones. They are obsessed with me and my blog. They literally can’t stay away even though they hate it :))

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    And yet, you contemplate if Wimby could’ve been rigged to a certain degree in order to accomodate Fed :-)
    But it’s ok. I can understand why you want to keep out of this thorny issue. But thanks again for letting us discuss.
    And I agree with you insofar as it isn’t wise to just accuse Fed. IMO doping might be a larger issue simply because the testing is inadequate and a lot of money is at stake., Experiences with other sports tell us that if doping is possible and athlets can gain an edge then we have to assume that it happens and as Bill Simmons the illustrious sports journalist said: if a story is too good to be true then questions should be asked . The problem Lynsey and I addressed is, that if Fed is really doping then he is probably bullet proof. The same is probably true for Nadal, because Fedal is the best selling product of the ITF. And they want to milk it as long as it lasts. For those who don’t know this: while I like the Djoker I’m not an ardent fan. Therefore I’m not coming from a butt hurt position at all. But I’m worried about the integrity of tennis.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I have concrete evidence with them not letting Nole finish his match on CC so that’s different. I can also see that all players don’t receive the same treatment, whereas with doping they could all be doing it.

    You seem to think I don’t think there is doping in tennis, which would be naive too. All I am saying is you can’t single out one player because they are having great results and you don’t like it.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    I agree with you that we shouldn’t continue to single out one player and accuse him of doping but not others. I always made that clear. And if Fed is doping I’m certain he’s not the only one. I could discuss many other players. Fed might even just reacted to pressure. Lynsey and I focussed on Fed because this latest miracle resurrection story is simply not credible for many medical experts. The same is probably true for Nadal’s miraculous comeback. And if it hadn’t been eclipsed by Fed’s success than there would be no shortage of people accusing Nadal of doping. Which demonstrates nicely the preveiling double standard when Fed is involved. Just because he’s sacrosanct many heiratet to voice their -as I think – well founded suspicions. For a change Nadal is able to sail relatively unmolested in Fed’s wake because you can hardly accuse Nadal without aiming the spotlight brightly at Fed, too.. And that’s the main problem Lynsey and I have been discussing: that the establishment is behind Fed no matter what. Rigging in his favor is just the other side of the medal.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    The problem is if Djokovic recovers and makes a miraculous comeback where he wins 10 more slams then you have to accuse him too and speaking for myself I don’t want to do that.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You have the luxury of discussing the possibility of Federer doping but I don’t because it looks like sour grapes if I do. I am also protecting you from pretty psycho people here and to be honest with you I’m not even sure why I allow it. It still doesn’t reflect particularly well on my blog, even though I don’t personally get involved in the discussion.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Ruan, if you feel better, we can stop the discussion for now. We have said what we wanted to say and right now there are no new thoughts anyway.
    Let’s see how the final will go tomorrow. Fed is the clear favorite but I think Cilic has proven he has the tools to trouble Fed.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Fair enough.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    We do understand your position and are grateful for your tolerance and letting us speak in a safe place. But as Sabine says, we have probably flogged the issue to death now, and I for one will say no more about it unless any further info surfaces, which I can’t see happening. Thanks again. :-h

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Yes, we had our say. Thanks, Ruan. And thanks, Lynsey, for a very illuminating discussion.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    👍

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    You’re welcome Sabine, it’s been a pleasure talking to you. :-h

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    You’re quite right that there is zero proof either way. But that doesn’t mean we have to ignore the issue and not even talk about it. Some people are incensed at the unfairness of seeing what they believe is a player and the establishment in cahoots in order to secure a certain result, and feel that they as fans are being treated with contempt, not to mention the player on the losing end, who may be talking the route of staying clean but then has no chance. Other people may be able to just shrug their shoulders and say it is what it is. Obviously easier to do this if your player is on the winning side. If those of us with suspicions say nothing just because we will never know the truth either way, that reduces us to mindless blobs who IMO probably deserve the contempt the establishment already dishes out to us.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    I agree.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Thanks! :-)

    [Reply]

  7. Stop Crying. A Nole/Fed semi would make much more money for the organizers. There is no conspiracy. And suggesting they changed the court speed in Australia to make Federer win, a Federer that nobody was even sure was going to play again, is a very desperate thing.

    Djokovic would never win with his injury, as you said yourself. Lose in quarters or semis, no difference.

    We will only be able to judge the better player when they both retire. Let’s see what Nole brings to the table after his slump. Federer has proven time and time again that he could come back and do great things past his prime. Now Nole is past his prime. What will he do?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Who’s crying? All I see crying so far is Fedfans for me stating some simple facts that even objective Fedfans agree with. Whether Djokovic could beat Federer or not is not the point. The organizers didn’t know Djokovic’s arm would be a problem in his round of 16 match. He was improving every match and didn’t drop a set until the Berdych match. Before the R16 match, it was impossible to say he can’t beat Federer.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Agree. Federer didn’t win it easy in AO, he had to play 5 sets to beat Nishikori and Wawrinka along the way. He was down 1-3 in the 5th set with Nadal , everyone thought he might lose the title.

    The scheduling in Wimbledon is horrible and doesn’t do much flavour to Djokovic. However, the truth he was not injury free so a day of rest might not help the match with Berdych, and he could lose to Federer who is in great form.

    The question is why wouldn’t they want a Fed versus Djokovic SF with Murray and Nadal alr gone? The fact is there is no guarantee Federer will be in the final as he could still lose to Berdych.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol that is extremely unlikely given Berdych’s history of bending over to Federer and choking in big matches. Also, they didn’t know Nadal or Murray would be gone when CC was standing open while Nadal and Muller were playing. Come on this is not rocket science. The bottom line is they should have allowed Djokovic to finish his match on the same day as the others and they should let Federer and Murray play at least one match each on court 1 for the sake of decency and fairness. It’s not so much to ask to let a 3-time former champion to play on CC you know.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    I do not disagree what you said. I also believe Djokovic was not given the same treatment but that’s not his fault he was not as popular than the other 2. However, elsewhere eg in Australia where he won 6 times, he was almost always playing at the centre court, and he was the main draw card especially when Federer didn’t make it further.

    Murray, on the other hand, has had not enjoyed the same popularity elsewhere apart from his native United Kingdom.Federer (to certain extend, Nadal) is global and consistently popular whenever he goes.

    I wonder if Djokovic is not playing in the same era as Federer and Nadal he would have been treated the same? However, look at the bright side, without all the superstar treatment ,Djokovic could focus on his game and let the racket do the talking. He didn’t win 12 slams for no reason during the golden era. He is certainly not done yet.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    ‘There is no conspiracy. And suggesting they changed the court speed in Australia to make Federer win, a Federer that nobody was even sure was going to play again, is a very desperate thing’.
    1. If something is true, it isn’t a conspiracy.
    2. Well, they were desperate – to get Fed back on top and milk the cash cow while he could still hold a racquet and make it look as if he was the risen Messiah. They, and he, are living the dream while they still can. Who cares if it is at the expense of the integrity of the sport and other less privileged players.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    The court speed was faster this year more to align with the US open courts, I believe. AO does need to uplift its game as its probably the least global among the 4 slams given its timezone difference and distance from Europe and North America.

    [Reply]

    Srdjan Savic Reply:

    AO is the most attended slam of the year. Each year the attendance increases. This year had over 700 000 people in attendance. Plus its the only slam with three with three roofs and has the best weather of all slams. Also according to many fans it has the best atmosphere of the 4 slams.

    [Reply]

    Srdjan Savic Reply:

    AO has the highest attendance of the 4 slams with each year more people are attending. This year there were 700 000 people in attendance. It is also the only slam with three roofs and has the best weather of the 4 slams. Also according to a lot of tennis fans it has the best atmosphere of the 4 slams. To me Roland Garros is the worst of all the slams with the constant rain the last two years and the worst crowds.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Agree about Roland Garros, it’s either a mudbath or a dustbowl, with none of the facilities you’d expect for a 21st century tournament.

    [Reply]

    cornel Reply:

    Agree

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    We’ve been over this. Federer in the final is more profitable and sensational than having Djokovic beat him and having Djokovic play in the final instead.

    [Reply]

    Mary Culbertson Reply:

    Okay, so is there a rule or not that the #1 player HAS to play at least 1 match off CC which I was told/ screamed at by Fed fans last year when I complained about Novak, who was #1, playing in rain on Court 1 against Sam Querry?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    No there is no such rule. Obviously. Good thing you mentioned the Querrey match of last year. Another example of Djokovic getting unequal treatment.

    [Reply]

  8. I so agree with you man.. this tournament does not deserve any other post from you… I wish I could believe that scheduling was random but now I doubt it!

    [Reply]

  9. Thanks Ru-an. It’s really sad to see how biased organizers are when they are supposed to lead the way in terms of fair-play. The Wimbledon organizers have reached an all time low and showed us how efficient they can be when they are absolutely determined to see their favorite lift the trophy. Novak has upset their plans too many times, and from now on the gloves are off. The plain, simple fact is that they could have put Novak’s match on CC on Monday as the court was empty and waiting while Rafa and Muller played on, but they chose not to and gave some lame excuse related to safety. Yet the very next day when confronted with the same problem yet again, they reschedule the ladies match for CC and there was no talk of safety or lack of it. How come?
    Obviously playing best of 5 sets two days in a row at this point for Nole was more than he could take, so one way or another the organizers got what they wanted, Nole out! He will no longer usurp the throne that belongs to Federer, at least not his year.
    They screwed Nole, there’s no other way of putting it. The path is clear and open for Fed to keep on piling his slams titles and as Lynsey Adams pointed out, it won’t change at the USO. Long live the establishment and its corrupt ways. :-(

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You’re welcome. I don’t necessarily enjoy making posts like this but I’m not gonna always ignore things like everything is just fine. I often just ignore things because I know fans are biased but at some point, you have to set the record straight.

    [Reply]

  10. Hey Ruan, I understand that you are very upset but taking it out on organizers is not the right thing I guess.
    First of all, I don’t think that at Australian Open, they changed the court speed just for Federer to win. If that was the case, Federer draw would have been a lot easier. In fact, it was one the toughest draws that anyone of the Big Four might have ever received in their entire career. Federer was supposed to win against 5 top 10 players at Australian Open. If everything had went according to the draw, Federer would have faced Djokovic in the finals at Aus Open. Clearly, advantage Djokovic but that didn’t happen.
    Even at this Wimbledon, Federer I think had the toughest draw of the big 4 having to go through Misha Zverev, Dimitrov, Raonic\ Alexander Zverev, Djokovic, Murray\ Nadal.
    If they really wanted only Federer to win, draw would be easy and court speeds would have been like the 90’s or early 2000 era.
    .
    Second, regarding the back to back days play for Djokovic, in Masters 1000, we see players contesting for 3 to 4 back to back days and many times most of those matches go to 3 sets. In fact, I think a player winning Grand slam matches in 3 sets is better rested compared to masters 1000. Djokovic had his work cut out in first round due to his opponent retiring. 2nd and 3rd rounds were straight setters. So physically he should have been completely rested. It’s just that Djokovic decided to play at Wimbledon even with problem in the arm.
    .
    Third, regarding the preferences given to Murray and Roger. Let me tell you, if at all there was any big tournament in Serbia, Djokovic being a local player would always be preferred in the main courts irrespective of his ranking and form. Murray is a local at Wimbledon and also the world no. 1. You can even see lower ranked players scheduled at centre court just because they are local. Same thing happens at all the courts in the entire world. Even wild cards are given to the local players.
    .
    Roger is the most popular player in the entire world. His consecutive ATP fans favorite award is testimony to that.
    .
    So organizers are just going with their local and the most popular player at centre court.
    .
    Also, regarding the Djoker match that could have been shifted to centre court, we as fans only want our players to win, but as organisers they have to look at lot many things like spectators, TV rights etc. Coz in the end, that’s where the entire prize money and their salary comes from. I don’t remember exactly but I think there was one wimbledon where Federer won his last 4 matches in 5 days to win the title. Correct me if I am wrong. I think, thats how it goes.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    But Wimbledon is not some 250 event in Serbia. It’s a slam and as international, as it gets. It should set an example of equality and fairness. If you let two players play all their matches on CC it not only appears biased and unfair but it also gives them an advantage of never having to adjust to another court. Are you telling me that letting Federer and Murray play one match on court 1 and a 3-time Wimbledon champion playing on CC is too much to ask?

    [Reply]

    Nandan Reply:

    I think you will agree that even a Grand Slam (if it happens) in Serbia would do the same thing what Wimbledon and other slams are doing. Preference was always Roddick at US Open and Hewit at Aus Open and Murray at Wimbledon.
    Even at French you will see Tsonga, Gasquet, Monfils at main courts. Would you say it is harsh on other players outside big 4 at French.
    It has always been and will always be this way only.
    And it’s not that Federer has played his all career 100 matches at Wimbledon at centre court only. He has had his share of moments before he became so hugely popular. You being his die hard fan previously must be knowing this better than myself.
    Djokovic is a 3 time Wimbledon champion and what he has done in 2015-16 is truly mind boggling. I truly admire him for that, but currently Murray and Federer are the ones who are generating more revenue for the organizers at Wimbledon and we cannot just ignore the revenue part as it is not some Government or Charity sponsored tournament. They are just doing what is good for their revenue.
    FIFA World Cup, the biggest sporting event in the world, the hosting nation gets an automatic entry in main draws. What do you think it is done for?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Again, 1/7 matches on court 1 are nothing. The lost revenue will be negligible. But the gained respect will be well worth it. Do home country players automatically play on CC when they are in the draw? No, they have to achieve something first.

    [Reply]

    Nandan Reply:

    Johanna Konta (Seeded 6) from Britain was preferred over Halep (Seeded 2) on centre court in Round 2.
    Kylie Edmund (Unseeded) from Britain was preferred over Djokovic (Seeded 2), Thiem (Seeded 8), Kerber (Seeded 1) on centre court in Round 2.
    Heather Watson (Unseeded) from Britain match vs Azarenka (Unseeded) on centre court Over Cilic, Venus William in 3rd Round.
    These are some matches at this years Wimbledon.
    I am sure you will find similar scheduling if you can go through other tournaments as well.
    .
    Home country players do get wild cards and preferences on show courts even though there are better qualified players.
    3 out of 6 for Men’s singles,
    4 out of 6 for Women’s Singles,
    4 out of 5 for Men’s doubles,
    3 out of 3 for Women’s doubles
    These are the wild cards given this year at Wimbledon and this is the statement on their website: “Wild cards are usually offered on the basis of past performance at Wimbledon or to increase British interest.”
    Same things happen at tournaments world over.
    .
    Regarding the revenue, I cannot comment on whether the revenue lost will be negligible or not, but as a businessman or an organizer, I cannot think of even a negligible lost revenue because that is not what I will be hired for.
    .
    I can understand, that as a Djokovic fan, you are completely distraught, but Djokovic retiring from the match is because of his own decision to play Wimbledon. Same goes for Murray. In fact I will be happy if he takes the remaining year off and come out all guns blazing just like Federer and Nadal did last year and also prolong his career.

    [Reply]

    bartelbe Reply:

    Exactly, I can’t stand these conspiracy theories. The idea that Wimbledon would rig things against one player is insane. It is this kind fanaticism which give tennis fans, at least on the internet, a bad name.

    I enjoy tennis, this is suppose to be an ultimate tennis site. It isn’t healthy to hero worship one player obsessively.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You are always welcome to read other blogs. This blog is for woke folks who aren’t brainwashed by the system.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Why is it ‘insane’ to suggest Wimbledon would rig the tournament in any way? Tennis is a huge moneymaking business, and Wimbledon is now no better than the rest, sadly not the Holy Grail of upright fair play that it purports to be, and we want it to be. Although granted the players look great in their whites, and the traditions of the place itself can be sometimes inspiring, sometimes annoying and inflexible, to honestly believe that they are above manipulating things in order to facilitate the most profitable outcome ‘just because it’s Wimbledon’ is admirable, but surely a tad naive.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well said, Lynsey. Bartelbe is sadly brainwashed by the system. It’s because of people with this kind of herd mentality that the system survives. They just blindly believe whatever the system tells them and that it is somehow the perfect system while the world around them is on fire.
    `

    [Reply]

  11. Your cynicism is justified in many ways and I agree that Djokovic was not afforded the respect he deserves. there must be many players who are always relegated to the courts in the boondocks because they don’t draw the fans. It’s like being rejected every time again by the beauty queen with the big tits. Big money in sport is just another way the corporatists demonstrate their power, I don’t think Wimbledon is any more corrupt or partisan than other tournaments. (Although I do get a bit nauseated at Sue Barker’s wild enthusiasm for everything British). I would love for someone to write a book about the tennis “industry”. (how ’bout you?)
    And I am a die-hard Federer fan and I hope he wins his 8th Wimbledon. And too bad you’re not going to continue the blog.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well I hope Federer wins Wimbledon for fans like you. When I say I want Federer to fail it is for the rotten establishment, not the mentally balanced and objective fans like yourself. It’s not Federer’s fault what is happening but he does benefit a lot from it.

    I doubt I’m qualified to write the book you are talking about. For one thing, my English is not particularly good. I also don’t know enough. It would have to be an insider who knows all the details.

    [Reply]

    Ganesh Reply:

    Your English is great. I can tell from the blogs you write👍

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks, man! It’s just that I didn’t grow up in an English speaking home. I am originally Afrikaans but I have sort of adopted English because I like it more and find it easier to express myself in English. That said, I still don’t really feel like an English speaking person. When I write I am often looking for words and there are often English words that I don’t even know what they mean!

    [Reply]

  12. Like other posters here I find it alarming that again no one from the younger generation was able to stage a prolongued run. The drawback of the so called Golden Age of tennis is, that those below the top players don’t have developed a healthy sense that they can win big titles, since a handful of top players have been monopolizing the majors and the masters for more than a decade now. That’s unprecedented. For the young players it doesn’t make a big difference if they make it to the quarterfinals, the semis or even the final. They simply don’t believe that they can win the title. Thiem said as much after his great run into the semis at RG. He said that it’s ridiculously difficult to win a slam these days because even if one scores a big win against one of the Big Four, you will most likely be taken down by another member of that exclusive club. Delpo, Cilic and Wawa are rather the exception than the norm (especially Wawa’s late blooming is a very strange case). If you add preferential treatment then it’s hardly surprising that the young ones failed to develop big dreams and self belief. Tomic’s declaration of total indifference towards winning or losing may be extreme, but it’s a symptom of what’s wrong with tennis these days nevertheless.
    As to the surface change at the AO: I do think that it was a deliberate decision in order to help certain players and decrease the chances of other players (probably mostly Djokovic because the organizers couldn’t know at the time that not only Fed but also Nadal would stage a huge comeback). But I think the organizers changed the surface mostly in order to maximize their home boy’s (Kyrgios’) chances. But I’m sure that Fed approved. He’s a mighty political force behind the curtain.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Those players at the very top, whether we love or loathe them as individuals, have earned their places by years and years of hard work and in most cases devoting their whole lives to tennis in order to maximise their God give talents. Sure, the rewards are huge, but so are the sacrifices in terms of lifestyle and family v staying on the circuit. Not that they are to be pitied, that is their choice.
    Yes, to quote Thiem, it is ridiculously difficult to win a slam, but that’s how it should be. If it wasn’t hard, where’s the value? The days when Fed was racking up GS wins over players of whom many were second rate, are for the most part gone – except for this year, for reasons we have already discussed – and actually it is refreshing to see some slightly different faces at the sharp end, even if the end result is a foregone conclusion. For non-Fed fans, (even though in the minority) the final is so predictable it will sadly be a bore. But the Wimbledon crowd will be delirious with delight and the establishment will have got what they wanted – again. So that’s OK then. I actually have no problem with the ‘old guys and gals’ winning – they’ve earned their stripes. I just want them to do it honestly.
    I’m not sure that younger players such as Sascha Zverev and Thiem lack belief in themselves, they just need a few more years experience. They both have admirable work ethics and amazing talent and I’m sure their day will come. With Tomic, I think his attitude says a lot more about him than the state of tennis. He was whining about having played ‘for seven years’, which is nothing in comparison to the effort put in by those at the top. To call himself ‘hugely talented’, admit that he faked injury to disrupt the match, and say that he was bored, in it for the money and couldn’t care less, doesn’t sound like somebody who even deserves to be playing professional tennis, let alone winning. Newsflash Bernie, you have to love the sport, commit 100% and work bloody hard if you truly want to win.
    As for the issue of the surface change at the AO, IMO the game plan began as far back as Federer’s defeat and Djokovic’s win at the 2016 AO, despite subtle and not so subtle efforts to derail him. Fed and his pal Laver between them were on the case, with Nadal even installing the same surface at his own academy, so both had months to get used to it and prepare. Of course at that time nobody expected Djokovic to go off a cliff and make it easy for them. I’m not going to repeat the broken record comments of what happened next at the AO – the Miracle – but I believe all bases were covered on and off the court, and it didn’t happen just by chance.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Lynsey, – if we skip the dicey doping problem for a moment – I totally agree with you that the top players earned their top spots through outrageous talent and extremely hard work over a prolongued time. But their extreme longevity has created a problem for the younger generation. It’s simply mind boggling how many majors and masters (and year-end-championships) they have accumulated over the last decade. There was simply not a chance for others to score a big title. Sascha Zverev was one of the few exceptions in Rome. This situation is unprecedented in the history of tennis, and IMO it is totally understandable that it affects the mind and work ethics of the younger generation. Why should they sacrifice so much if they still can’t win? Greatness can inspire but it can also be overwhelming – especially if there’s not just one but four larger-than-life players. But again: this is a unique situation and I don’t blame the Big Four for it.
    But barring any more miracle rejuvenations this situation cannot last indefinitely. Some of the young ‘uns are loudly knocking at the doors …

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    And I believe the ‘NexGen’ are getting their own tournament prior to the WTF aren’t they? We can agree to differ a little on the dominance of the top spots and the possible effects on the younger players. I just think that the last decade being mind boggling and unprecedented shows what is possible if you want it enough and are prepared to work for it (honestly one hopes), and of course have the innate talent in the first place. I feel lucky to have been around to see it happen. I can understand those lower in the ranks getting discouraged, but only to a certain extent – getting to the top is a long grind and in the end those who are inspired and prepared to give it their all (Zverev and Thiem for example) will succeed and those who want it handed to them on a plate just because they are young, won’t. Just my opinion though and I respect yours. :-h

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    No problem, Lynsey. I find it refreshing anyway to discuss such dicey problems.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Yes, it makes a change to be able to do that without getting torrents of vile abuse from Fed worshippers. I don’t post on any other forums except this one. So thanks Ru-an for allowing us this space. :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You’re welcome. I don’t mind taking the torrents of vile abuse from Fedfans so you guys can have a space to post. I’ve already had to delete several under this post. But it is nice when it is noticed and appreciated :-)

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    I didn’t realise you’d had to delete posts, although it shouldn’t come as a surprise. In that case you deserve double thanks! And for sure your blog is really appreciated. :-h

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Oh I’ve already deleted two posts telling me I belong in a mental hospital and other vile stuff while there are plenty I won’t see because they are already on my black list. I also just replied to a comment telling me I need help. It is always the same pathetic personal attacks by the same lame trolls. But I’m honored that my posts bother them so much. It makes this all the more worthwhile.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Ha ha, I would expect nothing less from you. I love the way you turn their bile around and render them toothless by saying you’re honoured to have upset them! Way to go man!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I mostly ignore them but sometimes I like to have me some fun 😎

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    ^:)^

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    :D

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    court speed or not, a player still have play his lung out to win the tournament hence I find such statement uncalled for. Nadal , Djokovic and Murray all benefited from the lower court speed when they first emeged as top ranked players.

    Also, Djokovic’s slump has nothing to do with Federer. He lost early before they could even meet. I just think the last few years he was winning a lot that had taken a lot out of him mentally and physically. I am pretty sure he will come back stronger if he take time to rest.

    [Reply]

  13. Well, at some point someone is going to breakthrough given the big 4 and Wawrinka are all in their 30s. Alexandria Zevera is probably the most likely player to win a slam. Kygrois is a spoiled punk until he gets serious and mature he is not likely to breakthrough. Unfortunately, tough minded and extreme hard work is not in Aussie’s culture. The next top player is likely to someone from the Eastern Europe or from the German speaking part of Western Europe ,eg. the likes of Steffi Graft, Djokovic, Monica Seles, Boris Becker, Federer.

    [Reply]

  14. You can’t be serious in suggesting that Wimby authorities conspired for Federer’s win! First off Feds hasn’t won yet and secondly Novak had the easiest of draws. If Novak hurt himself last year then that is his problem and he shouldn’t have played like Federer did not for most part of 2016. To bring injuries up is in bad taste because if you are on the court you are fit enough to play. As simple as that, or simply do not enter, or just leave but do not being it up. You also must understand now that Novak’s game is so overly dependent of retrieving and extending rallies instead of shortening them that he cannot stay at the same level after 29 or 30 years of age. There was bound to be a sudden drop and that happened, and there is no way Novak will win more than one more slam, if any at all, after this or Rafa any other except on clay. And we all are seeing what’s happening with Murray. Between Murray, Novak and Rafa only Rafa has a serious weapon for clay in his forehand and therefore he still wins on clay. Neither Murray or Novak have a serious weapon such as an amazing forehand of Rafa or Roger or serve of Karlovic, Roger, Raonic, Serena, Pliskova and some others. They are too reliant on their feet and the wheels are bound to fall off around 30! You and your readers need to educate themselves about talent by reading this article I discovered and it is in three series so read all three of them fully and argue with its writer to enlighten you further …. http://www.138mph.com/decoding-the-big-three-murray-part-iii/

    [Reply]

    Mary Culbertson Reply:

    I think this blog was mainly about Novak playing two days in a row and Andy/Roger always playing on CC giving them more advantage of winning.

    [Reply]

  15. “It reminds me of the changed court speed in Melbourne this year that helped shape the perfect script for Federer to win his 18th slam.”

    Wimbledon and the Australian Open were both slowed down. The homogenization of surfaces has never benefitted a player like Federer. Changing the court speeds back closer to what they originally were is no conspiracy (AO and the USO were played on grass initially).

    Had they never changed anything from the start then Fed and Sampras would have had 20+ slams, easily.

    They slowed down the courts at the AO somewhere in 2008 which benefitted Djokovic and Nadal immensely. No one cared about Federer being disadvantaged by the slower courts.

    Why is it an issue now?

    Djokovic lost to a guy who was ranked by three digits at the AO, Djoker should have done better. Fast courts, slow courts, doesn’t matter.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    A so-called GOAT should not be disadvantaged by any type of surface, and yet they changed court speed was the only reason he won the AO. No, Sampras would not have won 20+ slams. He played in the fastest conditions possible. Federer lost to guys ranked in 3 digits twice this year. He should have done better.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    I agree that Fed probably wouldn’t have won the AO if they hadn’t changed the court speed. Wheter it was done for him or for Kyrgios, it certainly suited Fed just fine.
    And yes, Sampras won so many slams precisely because the conditions at three slams were very fast. And he never won the French because the clay court conditions weren’t advantageous for him, although he was able to score some impressive wins on clay, too. Facing todays conditions Sampras would’ve won less and not more slams.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    “Facing todays conditions Sampras would’ve won less and not more slams.”

    With that, I agree. I meant something else though, as pointed out in my comment towards Ruan.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    Ah, I meant, if they never changed anything then everything except for the FO would have been played on grass! I bet Sampras could have won 7 more Slams if 3 out of 4 were played on grass.

    “A so-called GOAT should not be disadvantaged by any type of surface”

    Djokovic should be thankful for his Wimbledon titles. On fast grass courts, he wouldn’t have won it. Yet, you never mention that do you?

    Slowing down grass certainly suited Djoker and Nadal just fine.

    Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. Djokovic isn’t dead or anything. He’ll come back at the USO as he almost always does. Even last year, he made it to the final.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘Djokovic should be thankful for his Wimbledon titles. On fast grass courts, he wouldn’t have won it.’

    Djokovic is not Nadal. He has plenty of offensive options. If Agassi won Wimbledon in the 90s he could easily have. Your claim is purely hypothetical – always a non-argument. But since we are at it, I submit that Federer would never have won so many slams did he not have the weak competition before Nadal and Djokovic.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    “yet they changed court speed was the only reason he won the AO.”

    “Your claim is purely hypothetical – always a non-argument.”

    I am glad you only resorted to facts :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks. No one who knows something about tennis actually thinks Federer would have won on a slow, high-bouncing AO surface. He could hardly do it on a fast low-bouncing one.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    Eren, I get your point. And I agree with you that the homogenisation of the surfaces has helped Fed, Nadal and the Djoker to win a career slam. Because we shouldn’t forget that, while the surfaces and conditions of the other slams have been slowed down, the FO have become somewhat faster because of a thinner layer of crushed brick and faster playing balls. So, while Sampras might’ve won less slams facing todays conditions he just might’ve had a better shot at the FO :-)
    In the end all those speculations are mute and show that you cannot compare different tennis generations. What about raquet and string technology for example? How would Sampras have fared with a bigger raquet and modern strings? We will never know. Sampras did regret that he never adopted a new raquet during his active career. He tried it later and liked it a lot.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    I don’t think slowing down the courts has helped Federer lol. He would have loved to play on fast courts like Pete Sampras did.

    “So, while Sampras might’ve won less slams facing todays conditions he just might’ve had a better shot at the FO.”

    Nadal would have manhandled Sampras just as he did with Fed and every other player with a one-handed backhand. Don’t worry, Sampras would have never won the FO in any era lmao.

    [Reply]

    Sabine Reply:

    I don’t get your point: of course Fed would’ve loved to play on faster courts. I was implying that while Djoker and Nadal profitted from a general slow-down of grass and hardcourt, Fed probably profitted from the faster speed at RG. If he hadn’t had the misfortune to run constantly into Nadal he would’ve won more than one RG. And of course Sampras would’ve had no chance in hell against Nadal. But in my hypothetical argument I had Sampras playing against his contemporary opponents on a slightly faster RG court. This discussion only shows that comparisons of different eras are inherently flawed, even if speculating can be a lot of fun.

    [Reply]

  16. Oh you’re not starting this paranoid crap again. When you loved Federer, the world conspired against Federer, now you love Djokovic, the world conspired against him.

    The scheduling f**ks different players every year. The scheduling had nothing to do with his arm injury.

    You really need to seek help with this hero worship stuff, it is not healthy.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    People who need help don’t get to tell others to seek help. There are mentally balanced Fedfans(who commented on this post) and tennis fans and then there are folks like you. Telling other people on the Internet who have a different opinion from yourself to seek help is a sure sign that you need to seek help. I get it all the time from mentally unstable Fedfans. You are no different.

    [Reply]

  17. Too many Federer Fans in this Blog…
    Wimbledon News:
    Cilic – Querrey 67 64 76 75
    The King – Berdych 76 76 64

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I’m still right about Federer not dropping a set. The suspense is killing me 😴

    [Reply]

  18. I saw most of the Cilic-Querrey match and I was pretty impressed by what I saw. Cilic looks like a man on a mission, he didn’t get frustrated after throwing away a 4-1 tiebreak lead in the 1st set. I doubt he’s gonna bend over in the final. Could be a long match. I don’t see Fed winning in straights, although I obviously wouldn’t mind.

    [Reply]

  19. The court situation has been nothing short of a disaster, but it’d be nice if we could give Federer some credit for an incredible Australian open this year at some point 😕

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I think I have already but yes it was an incredible effort. I never disputed that. I just found it hard to believe!

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    I’m sorry, but I think you will find that he gets a huge amount of praise in just about every article, on every blog, in all the main stream media, and I hear that even little green men on Mars are talking about him in reverent tones. He won’t be hurting for lack of praise and devotion.

    The issue that some of us on here have been discussing is indeed his ‘incredible’ performance at the AO. The dictionary definitions of ‘incredible’ are 1.’Impossible to believe’ and 2. ‘difficult to believe, extraordinary’. You have probably gathered that there are some people posting here who take the view of ‘impossible’ being the most likely scenario.

    I’m sorry if this point of view offends you, it’s just that some people have a different opinion on the reason for Federer’s incredible performance.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    It is a strange phenomenon how Fedfans want me specifically to praise Federer even though the Internet is saturated with it, isn’t it? Why is that so important to them? Am I the ultimate authority on tennis? Well this is the ultimate tennis blog after all so I guess that is true 😎

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    Ru-an, you have obviously become a Legend in you own Lunchtime! That’s what you get for being ‘Ultimate’!

    At least Darrell wasn’t being abusive, which I’m grateful for. In fact I though it was kinda sweet in comparison to the slime we usually get. :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha thanks. I don’t mind Darrell’s comment at all and I like to give credit where it is due. It’s just a strange phenomenon that after all this time of me not being a Federer fan and basically rejecting his cult-like following that there are so many of them still around and that what I say matters so much to them. It’s flattering but a little odd.

    [Reply]

    Lynsey Adams Reply:

    It’s always nice to be remembered and deferred to as long as it’s for the right reasons. Perhaps Darrell might be a candidate for coming over to the bright side, he sounds quite sane. (I hope this doesn’t provoke him). =D>

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol, Darrell is a good guy. There are good Fedfans that remember me and bad ones. But the fact that the bad ones remember me doesn’t mean it is for the wrong reasons. I’m not perfect and never claimed to be. I’ve made many mistakes in my interactions with people but the trolls are merely here because my blog tortures them and they love the pain :-?

    [Reply]

  20. I don’t understand your point regarding the changed court speeds in the Aus Open. I don’t see why having a fast court is a bad thing. Grand Slams, imo, should be varied across them all in terms of how the courts play. And in recent years, we’ve seen all 4 play either slow or medium-slow. Even Wimbledon has played kinda slow, and grass is supposedly the fastest surface going. I’d be quite happy if only the French played slowly given how most other tournaments play medium to slow in fact (I think last year only Dubai was designated fast wasn’t it?).

    So I don’t think that lends itself to some kind of conspiracy. I’ve been pretty critical of Wimbledon mind – I think the courts are a shambles and yes the scheduling has been bad. I think a bigger problem that Djokovic playing on court 1, mind, is how the Women’s side has been relegated. I’m no crusader for Social Justice or anything like that, quite the opposite in fact, but when you have a fourth round match between the number 4 seed (Svitolina) against the French Open champion (Ostapenko) playing on Court..12 (was it?), it’s a bit of a joke. There was another 4th round match stuffed on Court 18 too. And yes, there was no reason to not play Djokovic on Centre, or at the very least tell him in advance that it’s Court 1 or bust. And I say that as a massive Federer fan.

    That said, I don’t think it changed anything. Djokovic was clearly feeling worse and worse as it went on, and even if he managed to battle past Berdych I don’t think he’d be able to play a full Semi Final.

    As a result, I don’t think there’s any kind of asterisk next to this title if Fed does indeed go on to win it, which is the impression I got from “It is actually quite sad that he may win his record 8th Wimbledon title under these conditions”. I mean, given the way he’s won his matches, I think the result probably would have been the same on Court 1, 2, 3, 18 and so on. I don’t think playing on Centre has had a significant factor in his results so far at all.

    As for the “GOAT” discussion I feel like it’s a pointless discussion people get too hung up on anyway. He is for me because he’s the player that I’ve enjoyed to watch the most in combination with all of his success in the sport. At the end of the day “Who is the GOAT” is a question with no definitive answer – everyone will be biased to their favourite era or player and as the sport is ever changing there’s always going to be some other candidates here and there. You have the same nonsense in the NFL. For me, Tom Brady is the GOAT due to his longevity and the most Super Bowl wins as a QB. Others may say, n talent alone Aaron Rodgers is the GOAT. Other fans from the 80’s will say Montana is the GOAT. 20 years from now there’ll be some other QB people will hail as the GOAT.

    It doesn’t mean much. It’s just a topic for tennis fans to argue and shitpost over ad infinitum because it’s an easy topic to discuss (though it’s certainly a very boring topic). I doubt any of the players are hung up over it because they know there will never be a definitive answer. They can only look after their own legacy.

    As for Djokovic, it’s pretty obvious he needs some time off. Maybe even shut down the season if he need surgery. He’s got some years left in him, I don’t know if he’ll be at the top level at the age Federer is because his game relies more on the kinds of things you lose with time, but certainly another 2 or 3 years competing. If he wants to preserve that he needs to be sensible with his body. Murray I feel is an example of what not to do. He played everything resulting in total burnout to get the number 1 ranking, and good for him he got it, but the cost has taken maybe a couple years off of his career. He would have done well to have skipped a lot of the season to recover but the guy doesn’t seem to learn, great competitive spirit and all but he’s 30 now and Father Time is coming. I wouldn’t be shocked to see Murray only have a handful of years left competing anywhere near the top, probably less than Djokovic if I’m honest. Nadal is in a similar boat. Personally, I’m just going to enjoy them (not that I like putting Murray in the same group as the rest, I think he’s a clear level or two below them) while they’re here, and it’d be nice if more people did the same.

    As for you not doing another blog post on the Championships, well, you do you man. Personally, I think an 8th Wimbledon title would be a great thing to celebrate just as Nadal’s 10th French was, but I’m not about to tell you what you can and can’t blog about. My only issue is the way I’m interpreting the blog to kind of imply Fed wouldn’t have earned the title – I fully believe you can only beat who you play. The same principle applies to every other player – if Djokovic beat Wawrinka in last year’s US Open despite having only played 3 full matches to get there, I wouldn’t be claiming he doesn’t deserve the title. Just as Federer doesn’t deserve an 8th Wimbledon title until he wins it, for example, I’m a big believer in players who won a title being fully deserving of it. It works both ways.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I never said speeding up the AO courts was such a bad thing. In fact, I’ve already stated before on my blog that the slow courts didn’t help Federer so one can’t complain about the increase of speed. I was just saying Federer couldn’t win it otherwise.

    I can’t go through your whole comment but I will also respond to the part about Federer earning the title. If he wins it he deserves it. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t helped or that he didn’t face tough competition. It is just the way the system works.

    [Reply]

    Ryan Reply:

    “I never said speeding up the AO courts was such a bad thing. In fact, I’ve already stated before on my blog that the slow courts didn’t help Federer so one can’t complain about the increase of speed. I was just saying Federer couldn’t win it otherwise.”
    Then that’s fair. The tone implied like you felt it was a bad thing, as you explicitly stated that Wimbledon “rigging” the tournament “reminded you” of the Aus Open speeding up the courts, but if that wasn’t your intention then there’s no argument to be had there. I just wanted to express that I see it as a good thing. I was really hoping Wimbledon would follow suit actually, but they didn’t and they got (fully deserved) criticism when their courts failed to hold up as a result (not entirely a result of that, but it didn’t help).

    “If he wins it he deserves it. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t helped or that he didn’t face tough competition. It is just the way the system works.”
    Right. Again, that’s the point I was looking to convey. To me, the way “It is actually quite sad that he may win his record 8th Wimbledon title under these conditions” was worded struck me with an implication of the title having an asterisk or not being fully deserved. Again, if that wasn’t your intention then there is no argument to be had. I’m not denying he wasn’t helped at all. It’s obviously better to play all your matches on the same court. There’s no denying, also, that the draw has opened up nicely for Fed. Pretty much everyone he’s faced are players he has dominated especially recently. But it is what it is. Sometimes that’s the way Slams go. And even now, Cilic is capable of causing an upset.

    Should Fed have played a match on Court 1? Probably. Was Djokovic kinda screwed by the organizers? Sure. But at the end of the day he was injured and the injury, in his own words, was getting worse throughout the week. If all the wrongs were righted, there is absolutely no guarantee, and indeed, I’d argue it’s not even probable, that we would end up in a different situation that what we’re at now. Last year Djokovic was hurt by poor line calls. That’s a valid cause for complaint, because 30-0 is very different from 0-30. But this? Yes, there’s room for complaint, but it’s simply too large a stretch to claim it ultimately changed anything meaningfully. Maybe it would have, but there’s no evidence towards that. Not that I’m claiming that’s what you’re saying, but there’s my point.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well it’s not about this one event per se. I usually don’t pay these kinds of things any attention. It’s a bunch of small stuff that keeps happening that at the end of the day can make a big difference and then there comes a situation like this and I finally have to make a stand. Some Nole fans spend all their time pointing these kinds of things out. While I think that is over the top I do think they have a point. It is just the capitalist model and it’s not a great system.

    [Reply]

  21. Your right about AELTC and the understated moral superiority of the British establishment

    BUT…for the rest of the year it is Federer’s turn to be at a disadvantage in the sceduling…
    If he has a deep run at Cinci he will most likely have to default Montreal because in these tournaments Federer is always put on last on the evening scedule and regularly goes to bed as a result around 2-4 am to the point where it’s all normal and a routine

    This even continues in the European segment and even Basl to the point where Fedderer expects it and incorporates it as an almost set scedule

    You have to say this puts him at a heavy disadvantage throughout this run

    So if Federer has sceduling advantage at AELTC, it is the only place and he better run with it because he won’t get it anywhere else directly as a result of him being prime time tv (late evening’s) viewing ratings cash cow

    [Reply]

  22. As a Federer fan, I would love to see Roger win the record 8th Wimbledon title. Nonetheless, I agree that it’s about time that we see a clash between Federer and Djokovic in a slam.

    Roger was always there during Djokovic’s prime but for one reason or another Novak is not able to make an impact during Roger’s remarkable resurgence.

    Possibly playing Eastborne was a mistake. That was 4 more matches there. Novak playing the week before a slam certainly contributed to his elbow aggravation.

    That being sad, my question is what is next for Djokovic? Is he going to play the US Open? Is he going to stand idle while Roger and Nadal dominate the sport?

    Just curious to hear your reaction.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘Roger was always there during Djokovic’s prime but for one reason or another Novak is not able to make an impact during Roger’s remarkable resurgence.’

    This is bias where was Federer in 2013? Also, we know it’s not ‘one reason or another’ but Djokovic making the mistake of not getting proper rest and being burned out and injured as a result.

    Playing Eastbourne was the least of it. The real mistake was made long before that.

    I have no idea what is next for Djokovic. He said in his presser he is not sure himself, so…

    [Reply]

    Federer Fan Reply:

    What is your opinion on the coach dynamic?

    I felt that when Becker was his coach, Novak was an unstoppable beast but potentially that took a lot out of him and potentially it was the reason for his alleged family troubles.

    In my opinion, by letting him go, he made a signal that his family is his number 1 priority and therefore the tennis became secondary. The moment he fired Becker, as a Federer fan, I knew that the dominance will come to an end.

    I hope that Agassi helps him to rediscover the form from last year. 😊

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    The time with Becker was unprecedented in the history of tennis but it ended at the right time. Like Djokovic, I believe everything happens for a reason. Even his latest struggles were necessary. Because of it, he started a partnership with Agassi(and also Ancic) which I think has more potential than the Djocker partnership.

    [Reply]

  23. You might just be witnessing the rigidity of the AELTC organizers at play here rather than outright rigging

    Here’s another example from the current event :
    Axel Geller just won boys dbls 10/8 in the third set SF 7:45 PM after earlier in the day also winning his singles SF 6/3 in the third YET the oranizers have him on court one for the boys singles final tomorrow at 1PM — after having played 6 sets today.
    And his game style isn;t like he’s just spinning the ball into play; his average 1st serve speed today was 126 mph…
    Then according to the scedule, he could potentially play the dbls final a short time after that
    So Geller could potentially play TWELVE sets in just over a day, as the crow flies
    The scedule has him on court tomorrow even earlier than the Federer final
    The scedule organizers are made to look rigid again,
    Wether there would be more leeway and more options if one of ‘theirs’ is involved is a moot point

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Interesting Marcus I agree that Wimbledon is far too rigid and ‘traditional’. It’s my least favorite slam in terms of schedule because in the second week you have days with no men’s tennis which means no tennis for me since I don’t watch women’s tennis.

    Another thing which I didn’t even get to in my post is the media. The media is extremely influential and they always treat Djokovic like shit. This has enormous implications because it affects the way people look at Djokovic and treat him.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    That’s the problem. The media does not treat Djokovic better than Donald Trump. These are the same media (CNN). In part, they also treat Lionel Messi much worse than Christiano Ronaldo. This is because the media does not have a real view. Unfortunately, most of the things we know about these people come through the media.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    CNN helped Trump to win the election by giving him $5 billion in free media coverage lol. I don’t see any relation between Djokovic and Trump.

    [Reply]

    Gilbert Reply:

    The biggest competitors of the two are favorites of the mainstream. Hillary Clinton & King Roger. Of both I have never heard on the appropriate channels something positive. Especially since the middle of 2015 no more. Actually a pity or?

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    “These are the same media (CNN). In part, they also treat Lionel Messi much worse than Christiano Ronaldo.”

    LOL, Cristiano Ronaldo is often treated MUCH worse than Messi, especially by media such as commentators, analysts but also by fans in general whether it is in a stadium or outside of it. CNN might treat Messi worse (I’ll take your word for it). In general, definitely not.

    You know the “drunken” crowd at the USO in 2015. That’s a glimpse of what Ronaldo has to go through in almost every match he plays outside of the Bernabeu. Mentally, Ronaldo is just so tough, it hardly affects his performances. That doesn’t justify the despicable behaviour of the crowd towards him.

    Ronaldo and Djokovic are so much more similar than Djokovic and Messi. It doesn’t even compare.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Interesting. I thought Ronaldo was the softy and Messi the tough guy but I don’t even watch football. Isn’t Ronaldo the guy who dives and acts a lot for penalties?

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    Well, I was talking about how the media portrays both guys, Ronaldo the arrogant type and Messi more as a holy saint.

    Messi is respected almost everywhere where he plays, in whatever stadium. He enjoys the same kind of respect Federer has at all Slams. If you’re constantly whistled at by 50000 man week in, week out and you still perform, break records, then I guess that shows how mentally tough you are.

    Messi losing 4 finals with Argentina and then considering to quit the national team doesn’t really show huge mental strength. I don’t think it’s even a debate about who’s mentally tougher between the two.

    That’s just my view though.

    About diving, yeah that’s the pathetic part of the sport and almost everyone is doing it sporadically, Fernando Torres, Luis Suarez (round of 16 against PSG) etc.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Gotcha. That makes me respect Ronaldo more. As for Suarez, I’ve never liked him since he cheated against an African team in a world cup match when the world cup was in South Africa. He has always struck me as a cheater and a faker.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    The media likes to stir things up to sell stories. Federer is always perceived as the nice and perfect champion whereas Djokovic the spoiler and the villain. Murrray the underachiever and Nadal the ‘in betweener’. When Federer is not playing or in the spotlight of tennis, Nadal takes ove his role. Their matches are always sold as the classics – they get the highest ratings where ever they play , just look at the AO this year, lots of hype leading up to the final.

    The media wants Nadal and Federer back chasing the no.1 and no.2 ranking. Murray is just a temporary no.1 (honesty, who wants to see him being no.1 anyway?) until the battle starting to warm up after AO.

    So now we have Federer AO 17 champion, Nadal FO 17 champion, and potential Federer Wimbledon 17 champion. Since, Nadal didn’t get far in the tournament, the next hype will be the USO.

    This is of course not Federer’s fault as he does not control the media but certainly benefited from it.

    Agassi is a well liked past champion so having him on Djokovic side certain help to boost the interest on both so it’s a win win.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Right. The media is full of shit in other words. It’s like Trump benefiting from the media to become POTUS and although it’s not his fault he is already doing enormous damage to the planet and the human race because of it. The media is incredibly powerful in shaping opinions and controlling outcomes. The powerful use the media to deceive, control, and manipulate. It is an incredibly effective and destructive tool.

    [Reply]

  24. Will Murray be still number one after the US Open? When does Djokovic fall out of the Top 5? In Wimbledon he would have become number one again after a victory.

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *