Federer Wins Record 8th Wimbledon Title in Blowout Final

I said I wouldn’t make another post about this Wimbledon because of their biased scheduling but you know me, I can’t stay angry for long. Congrats to Federer for finally breaking the record for the most Wimbledon title as he surpasses the record he held with Sampras.

Today he defeated Cilic 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 to achieve this incredible record. Unfortunately, the final was even more one-sided than I predicted. After Djokovic lost I said Federer would win the title without dropping a set but I expected a better fight from Cilic in the final.

The key moment came very early in the match. Cilic started very well after a shaky opening service game and had a break point on Federer’s serve at 2-2 and 40-30 but missed a return off a second serve from Federer right into the net. Absolutely unforgivable.

I was waiting for Cilic to choke from the beginning because he was always a bit of a choker to me and it happened in no time. When you get a second serve on break point you at the absolute least make the other guy play. But by making an unforced error on that return he showed Federer weakness right away and from there on it was one-way traffic.

I felt it was the boring no-contest final Wimbledon deserved after their biased scheduling. It was a bit of a disaster to be honest because Cilic even started crying at one point. Can you imagine? What a tragic way for Federer to achieve such an incredible milestone.

The whole thing had the feeling of a setup about it like Federer was handed the 8th title on a silver platter. I said in my last post that it is actually quite sad that if Federer wins his 8th title under these conditions but I didn’t think it would be this much on anti-climax and I can’t help but feel like it was bad karma.

But they got the winner and the storyline they wanted so I’m sure Wimbledon is not too unhappy, even though it was the most one-sided Wimbledon final since 2002. It was not unlike the French Open where Nadal didn’t drop a set on his way to the title and then the final was a one-sided blowout.

But this was the first time Federer didn’t drop a set on his way to the title whereas Nadal had done it before at the French. I wonder where are the Fedfans who kept using Federer’s terminal decline as an excuse for his string of devastating losses to Djokovic in 2014-16 now.

Clearly, Federer is playing as well as if not better than ever which I have stated all along and which Fedfans have vehemently argued against. They just could not deal with the fact that Djokovic at his best is simply a better player than Federer as evidenced by his unmatched dominance from 2014-2016.

When Djokovic chalked up the most dominant season in 2015 and completed the personal slam in 2016 I knew he had done something that no one could ever take away from him and which not even Federer would ever achieve. But at least by winning the Australian Open and Wimbledon this year Federer achieved some pretty good things himself.

I mean it’s hardly believable, to be honest, that after 5 years of winning his last slam and a 6-month break that he came back to win the Australian Open and Wimbledon in the fashion that he did but in the absence of evidence you have to assume it was done without resorting to anything illegal.

Federer is now 36 which is ancient in tennis and it seems he just keeps getting better and better. The fact that he won Wimbledon is also similar to Nadal winning the French Open in the sense that to me Federer was already the greatest on grass ever and that winning another title didn’t really prove anything new to me.

It sure is the perfect plot. I’m not going to deny that. But if I was Federer I would rather have won the title by defeating Djokovic along the way or at least one of Nadal or Murray. But Djokovic is the guy who defeated Federer in his last two Wimbledon finals. That said, I’m kinda glad Wimbledon screwed Djokovic with the schedule because he was obviously not healthy and I would have hated for him to lose to Federer if he wasn’t 100% healthy.

Federer can have his ’empty’ victory. Djokovic still leads the head-to-head(23-22), the head-to-head in slam finals(3-1), and the head-to-head in slams(9-6). The outcomes of the French Open and Wimbledon just shows you how badly tennis needs a healthy Djokovic. Without him abusing Federer and Nadal these two would literally dominate the sport with no interference from anyone, least of all the tournament organizers and mainstream media.

So hopefully, Djokovic will be healthy again soon but he has set himself back pretty badly with his poor scheduling and I don’t expect him to be ready or healthy for the US Open yet so we will probably have to endure some more boring dominance from Federer and Nadal until then.

But once Djokovic is healthy again I can see him, Agassi, and Ancic doing a lot of damage together because I think the Agassi partnership has, even more, potential than the Becker one.

Let me know what you think.

  • Highlights

Posted in Grand Slams, Wimbledon.

107 Comments

  1. Angry Toni Nadal: ‘Wimbledon is like a small event, they help other players – http://go.shr.lc/2u9IXCA

    [Reply]

    Marcus Reply:

    Nice post
    Not sour grapes because the entire situation on so many levels was less than convincingly clear, therefore the final reflected that. If you pause to reflect, that is

    The highlight of the day for me was watching Geller win the boys doubles after the packed sceduling over the weekend meant he ended up playing ten sets in just over a day, contributing to him being in less than peak conditioning for the boys final, which he lost, despite playing the exact same type of player and gamestyle as he had faced in the semis, where he coped by taking the initiative against constant junkballing (and gamesmanship of the opponent)

    And thanks for starting the blog again
    I know you were offline for awhile then decided to get it going again

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks and you’re welcome, Marcus. Of course, the mentally unbalanced Federer cult wants to believe it is sour grapes but it is not at all. I have plenty of credible people to back me up including uncle Toni in the article I posted and many Fedfans themselves. And I am happy for the balanced Fedfans for sure. But even now after Federer made their dreams come true I am getting attacked by the unbalanced Federer cult. How sad is that?

    [Reply]

  2. Look man, what you’re saying is true, I too believe that Djokovic surpassed Federer’s level in 2014 and 2015 as evidenced in their Wimbledon final meetings. But Djokovic only has himself to blame for not scheduling wisely and has now aggravated his injury. To me this means that Federer will go on to win number 20 at the US open. So Djokovic will have a lot more work to do if he is ever to reach that many grand slams.

    On a positive note at least Nadal is out of the GOAT debate.

    The faster balls may have helped Federer at the auzzie open and that final with Nadal was a key match for him. He defeated his nemesis from a break down in the fifth at the tournament where Nadal caused him the most pain. He then went on to beat him in Miami as well (slow hard court). Unbelievable what confidence can do.

    We will never know if he could have beaten a fully fit Djokovic (possibly not) but it would have been another great contest at least. I believe that Federer’s slam winning days will be over next year with the return of Djokovic. The problem is that even at 40, Federer will have the game to go deep at Wimbledon, but not all the way. If he can go deep, then maybe he believes he can win it.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    It’s incredible for Federer’s achievements even with such a lop-sided match no one saw it coming. I was expecting at least a tight 3 set or 4th set match. However, it is what it is, Federer got what he wants. There is nothing more for him to prove after wining the AO this year by beating his namesis Nadal. This is Federer’s year, it’s unrealistic to expect the big 4 still competing at every SF like they were in their 20s.

    Djokovic has an Uphill task to chase his GS record as the gap now is 7 slams gap. However, with some rest and refreshed motivation, he can certainly come back to win more.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    The Return of Djokovic ? Which Return? Is he far from finished ?

    [Reply]

  3. Personally, I am very sad that Federer today was able to celebrate this success. Djokovic would have earned the victory more humanly. He is the better man. This is the opinion of many people. As a child I always had the desire that nobody would have more titles than Jimmy Connors (109) and since 2013 I hope that Djokovic wins more Grand Slams in Singles than THE GOAT. The former is becoming increasingly difficult and the latter is almost hopeless. The two most sympathetic tennis players of all time lose either records or chances by half a South African. Federer does not do me any good at all.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    Cilic was very ill in that final. Ironically before the final all was okay. Djokovic and Cilic
    not fit. Title Number 8 was a present.

    [Reply]

  4. To be honest, whether Roger beat Djokovic en route to his record 8th Wimbledon Title is besides the point. I am pretty sure that if they had played here, Roger would have beat him convincingly. Maybe he wouldn’t have equaled Borg’s record of winning Wimbledon without dropping a set but that’s irrelevant now.

    I have always believed that Federer will not only be able to withstand Novak’s dominance but also be able to surpass it and in doing so actually outlast his younger rivals.

    I mean the guy is incredible. It’s as simple as that. I wonder if Novak decides to take the rest of the year off, if he’ll manage to come back stronger than ever.

    With his and Murray’s absence, Roger is now in pole position for Year-End Number 1. Nadal will be there too but he’s played about 15-20 matches more than Federer this year so he’ll most likely wear out after the end of the US Open.

    I see Roger playing:

    Cincinnati, US Open, Laver Cup, Basel and Nitto ATP Finals.

    I can more than see him sweeping all of these which would put him comfortably at Year-End Number 1 and extend his record at the WTFs without having to play in Canada as well as in Shanghai.

    You can call it boring but as a Fed Fan I am loving it! 😎😊👍

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    Oh my God. You drive me crazy. If you get something that you do not deserve is not a reason for joy, but an absolute modesty.

    The Laver Cup and the prestige have always been a reason to believe that tennis would be cheated from this year. Such accidents do not exist.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol, don’t mind Vily. He is an old troll of this blog and the perfect example of a Federer cult member.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Hello, Vily and goodbye. I knew it was you given the extreme tardism of this comment. Your writing style is unmistakable. Also when you try to get in again next time you may not want to use your actual last name in your email address :-h

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    What writing style? I am from East Germany. Clear words. Since 1982.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    My comment was in reply to ‘Federer Fan’.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    Manchmal landet ein Text im falschen Bereich.
    Sometimes the words goes in the wrong direction.
    Especially in days like this where a GOAT was born (again at 36).

    [Reply]

  5. Hey Ru-an. Glad to see you changed your mind and posted. My thoughts.
    1) One sided final like you and many others, including myself, expected. I didn’t understand all of the hype around Cilic anyway. He didn’t even win a grass title before Wimbledon (Loss to F. Lopez at London). Not too mention, he went 5 sets against Muller and 4 sets against Querrey (Not exactly eye popping stuff). But I give him credit like I do all players who win.
    2) 2015 Federer is better than 04-07 Federer (My opinion). 2015 Djokovic was better than 2015 Federer. It’s pretty simple. People who don’t believe this yet, never will.
    3) I believe 2017 Federer is better than 2015 Federer. Which sucks, because now both Andy and Novak are hurt. I would like at least one more year of all four being healthy and battling it out among each other. That’s my wish for 2018.
    4) Speaking of Novak. I hope Agassi can influence him to rest and heal his body. Allowing yourself to be injured for a year and a half is some serious neglect on Novak’s part. It’s ironic how being stubborn can make these players so great but also be their downfall (sad really). What do you think he should do?

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Cilic almost beat Federer in last year’s Wimbledon final as he held 3 match points. Sure, Federer was not in the best form but that match also cost him the loss to Roanic. Cilic has the game if he wasn’t injured he could at minimum win a set from Federer.

    As to who is better is irrelevant. At the presentation ceremony Federer called out he lost the 2 finals to Djokovic in 14′ and 15′, that shows how much he respect and wary of him.

    if Djokovic is willing to play till his mid or late 30s, he still stand a fighting chance to surpass Federer’s GS record as we are unlikely to see a dominant young player emerged at the current field.

    We need to look beyond who is better (at their age ) as they are more prone to injury hence it’s unrealistic to expect all of them healthy competing each other 100% like in their 20s.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    It’s a tough one to answer Styrre which is why he isn’t certain himself. There isn’t much time between now and the North-American HC season so if he decides to play he won’t get enough rest again. That’s what happens when you don’t listen to your body, to begin with. Now he is in an even more difficult situation.

    He can skip the N-A HC season and start again in the fall or play and then take the fall off. Either way, his ranking is gonna slip pretty badly. After Wimbledon, he slipped to #7 in the race.

    [Reply]

  6. It’s true that Oz was playing faster but overall the courts have been made slower and slower.Nadal probably wouldn’t have won W if the grass hadn’t been slowed down.Federer would have won a couple more W’s on fast grass.I’m a Fedfan and I respect Djokovic enormously and hope he comes back stronger than ever.These are his peak years and to catch F or N he needs to win more majors as soon as possible.Obviously what Nadal has done on clay is amazing but his deliberate? time wasting turns me off.

    [Reply]

  7. I’m glad you changed your mind about writing a final wimbledon post. The final was pretty disappointing, but I guess that’s the way it works sometimes, we don’t always get classics. As a Fed-fan, I’m happy anyway since we already did get a very satisfying slam win at Australian Open, so the fact that this one ended up a bit of a cakewalk doesn’t bother me too much. After coming pretty close the last few years it’s hard to say it’s not deserved. I honestly did not expect a win in straight sets, but my predictions lately have been very off lately.

    Maybe this slam isn’t really that significant in itself or tells us anything new, but it’s nice adding to his total slam count, and having an 8th wimbledon title means Federer no longer has to share the record with Sampras. Though I do agree though that numbers aren’t everything. I don’t really get into the whole goat discussion personally, but at least it’s interesting to listen to some of the arguements. The level Federer has played this season seems to be even higher than the last few years, and I have to admit myself I wonder how that is physically possible. It also makes me wonder how Federer at this level in 2017 would fare against Djokovic at his best. Federer has proved a lot this year by beating Nadal and mitigated some of the damage to his legacy, but now it seems Djokovic has become the new elephant on centre court (when he’s not relegated to court 1) and there’s still something to prove there for Roger.

    In regards to your last post, about the Wimbledon being rigged. You definetly ruffled some feathers with that post. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that many comments. I do think you have a point, but I wouldn’t go as far as calling it rigged. Though there is definetly some bias among the organizers and you do kind of get the sense that Djokovic is treated like a stepson sometimes. It’s understandable that Murray gets to play on centre court all his matches since he is the home favorite. Some favouritism towards Federer is also understandable considering his popularity and history. But I agree that Djokovic playing 3 matches on court 1 is taking it too far. I think Federer himself was surprised he got to play all his matches on centre court. It probably would not have mattered in the end, given Djokovic’s injury situation, but of course that’s not the point. Wimbledon could lose it’s status as the most prestigeous slam if they allow these things to happen, so it’s important to speak out about it.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Happy for you about Fed’s title! I think it’s great that he won the 8th because now he is officially above Sampras which I thought was the case all along. I think it is fitting and I’m glad it happened. And yes, the GOAT debate is meaningless. I never believed in a GOAT, to begin with, but I enjoyed the debate and speculation.

    [Reply]

  8. Part of being a great tennis player is knowing how to manage your health. Federer knows how to do that better than anyone. That’s why he is the greatest of all time.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I agree with the part about managing your health and that Federer is the best with it. Djokovic made a mistake but then Federer never won the personal slam and one wonders how he would have handled that situation if he was Djokovic. It wasn’t an easy situation because of how dominant Djokovic was. To go from making a mockery of the ATP to a long break seems almost absurd.

    [Reply]

  9. Cilic was injured. I don’t think it would be that easy if he wasn’t. He forced Fed to five sets last year though Fed wasn’t fully fit himself back then.

    Kind of felt for him.

    This victory is a bit strange. It’s good Fed won the AO by defeating Nadal in the final. If this would be his first Major in five years by winning like this, it would have been a disaster and purely anti-climatic (which it already was).

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Yes and no. I think even without the AO victory, Federer got to the final without dropping a set hence that shows how great form he was in. Then, he didn’t beat any of the big 4 members but he took the opportunity and win it. Its the same in this year’s FO, Nadal didn’t play any of the other big 4 members to win, notably Djokovic though u can consider Wawrinka the no.5 player in the big 4 discussion.

    He did however, beaten Djokovic and Murray to win his last Wimbledon, so it’s not like he has to prove anything in winning this tournament. His only lone FO win , though, came with plenty of luck as he wouldn’t be able to beat Nadal if he was in his way.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    Federer’s 7th Wimbledon was truly remarkable. He beat the then World number 1 and defending Wimbledon champion Djokovic in the SF. Won his 7th Wimbledon in the final against Murray to claim the number one ranking himself.

    That was one hell of an achievement. This one pales in comparison to that one (my own subjective view).

    And yes, I agree with you. Federer doesn’t have to prove anything at this stage of his career. His place as an ATG is cemented in the history of the sport.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Yes the stars aligned perfectly for him this time. He actually had one of the toughest draw including Roanic , then, Djokovic got eliminated in QF. I don’t think this win takes away anything from him as grass has always been his best surface. AO though was a big surprise as he was never able to get passed Nadal or Djokovic in the last couple of years.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I’m not so sure Cilic was injured. He was just fine in the SF and until he choked on break point. Then all of a sudden he started crying. I think it was out of embarrassment and humiliation that he brought up the injury. He was a complete mess out there.

    [Reply]

    Eren Reply:

    I actually had to laugh about this (in a positive way).

    You might be right. I thought, I thought I’d just bring it up as Cilic himself said he was troubled by a blister on his foot (or both feet). It, allegedly, hampered his movements.

    He did go on to play some serve and volley to keep the points shorts which gives him a little credibility I think.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    All the players play with blisters at one point or another. You want to tell me two days is not enough to sort out some blisters? I think if he didn’t choke and broke serve at 2-2 you may well have seen a very different Cilic. These injuries that every player struggle with from time-to-time have a way of ‘hurting’ a lot more when things are not going your way.

    [Reply]

    Tarik Reply:

    That could also be of Djokovic? I do believe if he had one that 1st set tiebreaker & been up a break (instead of down one) in the 2nd set againt Berdych, I honestly don’t think he would’ve retired?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    A few blisters are a little different from a chronic injury that started bothering Djokovic before he completed the personal slam. His arm was toast. He was already playing well below his best in the first set.

    [Reply]

    Tarik Reply:

    Good point Sir!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks! 😀

    [Reply]

    Ben chia Reply:

    As much as I dislike Nadull, I have to give it to him for playing through pain… You see the blisters on his feet before? Enough to make you squirm. But he plays through it bec it’s a bloody GS final. So, I think cilic might have been overwhelmed by the occasion and used that blister injury as a “pass”.

    Pity about doko injury. A fit nole vs god-mode fed would have been great to watch. Stars were aligned for fed this year. Can’t blame him if his opponents got hurt before meeting him, no? (God, I miss teasing Rafa)

    Hi Ru-an! it’s been a while. Your last post ruffled too many feathers. I know it wasn’t click bait but you know us fed fans… Always ready to jump to fed defence.

    Anyway, it’s good that you keep writing. I for one am glad nole lost his mojo temporarily… Bec during his dominant run, you had little to write about. He was just killing everyone… So much so That it got boring. But things are getting interesting again finally. Hopefully, everyone stays healthy for an awesome WTF.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Hey, BC! Hope you’re good. Yes Cilic looked great at the start until he missed that 2nd serve on a BP after which he all of a sudden fell apart. It is highly unlikely that it was because of the injury because of the timing. He choked and was intimidated by the situation. Simple as that. Like you say, the big boys play through it.

    [Reply]

  10. Both Wimbledon finals were disappointing matches. But, that happens sometimes. As a Fed fan I am thrilled that he keeps winning. It seems that that 6 months rest and recuperation was a tremendous boost to his mental and physical capacities.
    It seems to me that Djokovic is in some sort of dark space which he can’t figure how to get out of.and he has continued playing with injury. Not good. I’m looking forward to seeing some of the up and coming players – I love watching both of the Zverevs, Thiem, Goffin, Tafoe, Khachamov (sp) and others. Also women’s tennis has become much more exciting to watch: Ostopenko, Pliskova, Bacinsky, Konta, and Muguruza – all powerful, smart players. Looking forward now to the American tournaments!!

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Na..women tennis a yawn, can’t bother to watch the ladies final. They all play the same powerful baseline game with little variety. I seriously think the equal pay should be abandoned. I don’t even know who is Pliskova, she is the new world no.1????she didn’t even make it to Wimbledon SF. Then out of nowhere there is a new French open champion, again where was she in Wimbledon? the women tennis just hopping from one GS winner to another without the same level of consistency as the men’s tennis, save by the raw power of the William sisters.

    I preeict Djokovic will be back next year with full swing, psrhaps winning one or two slams. If Federer is healthy they would compete for big titles again. Nadal will keep winning the clay titles. MUrray can only win big when the other 3 got eliminated early or injured. Warinka will be in the mix, and probably someone like Alexandra Zevera finally breakthrough with a slam win. Everything can change pretty quickly if you know what I mean.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I agree. I don’t watch women’s tennis at all and never blog about it. It is a different sport from men’s tennis altogether and the two should be completely separated or completely joined where they play the same tour. Then people will quickly realize how absurd equal pay is. The women won’t win a single set all year on such a tour let alone a single match.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Well said, not sexism here but the quality of the women tennis is just low , partly due to the rise of the William sisters more than a decade ago. Back then we still have good quality of top female players with variety but since they (Williams ) came into the scene is just playing bang, bang more bang out hitting each other not forgetting the grunts and shrieks, Some argue women should play best of 5 similar to the men’s tour in Grand slams to earn the same pay. I don’t support this view as it would create more frustration for the viewers. I know some women only watch the men’s tour, that say it all

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes, the Williams sisters didn’t help things but personally, I have never watched women’s tennis. I just don’t see the point. Women can play 5 sets as long as their tour is completely separated from the men and I don’t have to wait for ages in frustration for them to finish. It is bad enough as it is.

    But if women play their own tour they would not get enough money and sponsors to pay the players. They are dependent on the ATP yet they want equal pay and at the same time frustrate fans.

    [Reply]

  11. Another lame GS is over! I must admit I’m not very happy that one of the boring 4 won again. It would be pretty refreshing for tennis to see exciting youngsters like Kyrgios, Zverev or Thiem at the top. That said I find it amazing that Djokovic receives so many lines here, since Feds win had nothing to do with him? It had also nothing to do with the Canadian National anthem. The Nole-Slam was a great achievement, yup! But it was only possible because Federer was tentative and injured and Nadal was playing very weak tennis for the last two years. I don’t like Federer as well, but for sure he is by far the better player. In 14&15 he was not confident and blocked against Djokovic. Therefore he lost. Now he is playing mentally free for the first time and no one is able to counter his play. I see it like that: Federer and Nadal dominated this sport since the early 2000s, Djokovic was able to dominate for a year or two. Now it’s time that there is finally a changing of the guards to keep tennis alive. Cheers

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    =))

    [Reply]

  12. This underlying hatred on this blog and in the comments section for federer is pretty incredible. I understand that you have strong feelings for djokovic, but a certain Mr Federer just won a record wimbledon and any hint of a congratulation is followed by cynical comments. You make your jealous feelings too obvious. Somehow all the pundits on tv and in the press (most of them legends of the game who know a lot more than you) seem to disagree with what you say. Sorry that you are in such a bad state of mind.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I just said in a comment that I am glad Federer won the 8th Wimbledon and that I think it is fitting because I have said all along that he is the grass court GOAT. And yes, I AM a Djokovic fan so I will defend his interests. You need to learn the difference between hate and refusing to be a blind worshiper and member of the Federer cult.

    I don’t know what more you people want from me. I am not a mainstream pundit and can say what I want which is why I have my own blog, to begin with. I don’t have to hype Federer to promote tennis or to make money.

    No one has to read it. If you don’t like it or disagree with it then don’t read it. It’s that simple.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    Of course you can have your own blog. And you completely entitled to your own opinion. But why can’t I disagree with what you say AND read it? Am I not allowed to question your views? I just want to know why the greats of our game (becker, McEnroe etc) seem to not have the same views as you. McEnroe is not one to shy away from the truth and yet he’s not saying what you are.
    And when djokovic wins something do you just say you are “glad”, or is your choice of word somewhat more exciting.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes, you are totally allowed to question my views. In fact, I encourage it. And I certainly don’t claim to be right all the time and I respect the opinion of many pundits. But they also speak complete nonsense at times in my view. Like Brad Gilbert who recently said Nadal is a relentless offensive machine. How is that not mindless Nadal worship?

    The difference between me and them is that I admit being a Djokovic fan while they also have favorites but kinda try to hide it because they are supposed to be ‘unbiased’. Then their bias manifests in such crazy ways as Gilbert calling Nadal a relentless offensive machine who is an offensive player that can also play defense.

    I mean you can’t make it up. It’s beyond absurd. I make no secret that I am a Djokovic fan but I try to give credit to other players and I don’t make absurd statements like Gilbert and Mcenroe. Mcenroe once said Nadal is the best volleyer on tour. That’s like saying Djokovic has the best overhead on the tour which I wouldn’t say in a million years.

    I have stated repeatedly that Djokovic has the worst overhead for a #1 in history and the worst overhead in the top 100. I have also been known to criticize my favorites plenty while the fanatics never do it.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    I didn’t hear gilberts comments so I can’t comment on that as I don’t know in what context he was talking about. Regarding McEnroes comments (I am afraid I also missed them) I have to be honest that whilst I am not nadals greatest fan he has come to the net a lot more recently and his net game is incredible and something that went under the radar for a long time.
    My point is that whilst you can be a djokovic fan (completely allowed) it doesn’t mean that you have to be a federer hater.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I don’t hate Federer at all. I just identify with and like Djokovic a lot more. As for Nadal’s volleying, he is great at finishing points at the net and an underrated volleyer but far from the best on tour. If you look closely he will come only to the net to finish points.

    That is not even what volleying is about. Anyone can come to the net for the easy put-away. An authentic volleyer doesn’t just wait for the easy put-away he goes to the net on 50/50 approaches or on even lesser odds and can hit several volleys in one point whereas Nadal hits only one volley 99% of the time.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    Ok. Thanks for your replies and I look forward to reading more of your articles. I just discovered this blog and I enjoy the fact that different views are accepted.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You’re welcome and welcome to my blog!

    [Reply]

    Ben chia Reply:

    You gotta read some of Ru-an earlier writings. His style has changed a little but it’s a fun read if you put judgement aside. And take part in the occasional mud slinging against some players (he-who-cannot-be-named)… Don’t want to spoil the fun for you :-)

    [Reply]

    cornel Reply:

    Lol. Ruan knows probably 10% less about tennis than Becker, Mac and Edberg. At least he can say what he thinks. I will read his blog for that reason much more than those guys.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks, Cornel! 😂

    [Reply]

  13. I also like this blog very much. It’s fun to read cause you do a really good writing job! There are very few blogs favoring Djokovic, which makes it even more interesting. I also like the discussions with so many opinions. But I’ve never heard that volleys aren’t played to shorten points. Do players just come in because they want to be closer to the opponent? 😂 Keep up the good work!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks a lot! English is not my first language so I appreciate that.

    About the volleys, of course it is played to shorten points! I never said otherwise 🙂

    [Reply]

  14. This is borderline lunatic stuff!

    I dunno, saying 36-year-old Fed is as good as ever, then saying 36 year old is ancient, then questioning whether he is on drugs…?

    On grass, I don’t think 17 Fed is better than 08 Fed, and therefore he wouldn’t beat Nadal in top form. He has a more reliable backhand and a better racquet, but it does not compensate for his much slowed-down footsteps, serve, and loss of accuracy. Tactically he did push to play more to his strengths, but as seen early in the final, with big enough forehand it is pretty easy to hit through his defense.

    From the perspective of a Fed’s fan, the only reason why Fed did not get a calendar grand slam is because he primed at a time when Nadal is strongest. There is just no way to overcome Nadal at his best on clay with Federer’s play style and OHBH, much less without a modern racquet.

    2015-16 Djokovic probably displayed a level that is higher than 04-07 Fed. But then Federer need not play (and in fact didn’t learn to play) at such high level back then. And to be picky the play field aren’t that great during 15-16 comparing to 09-12 when Fed is at a similar age. Actually I think Djokovic in 2011 is probably better than 15-16 even though the result is not as strong.

    So in the end it’s all about timing. As a Fed fan I dreamed about what he could have done with a modern racquet in 2010-2012. Or how high his level could have become if the big 4 are all there at 2004. But it is just a dream. In reality the highest skill of play probably occurred with Nadal or Djokovic.

    One thing we haven’t seen from Djokovic is how he is going to reinvent his game when he gets older.

    Saying the tournament is rigged I think is just too much. They can be stubborn and stupid but I cannot imagine they would want to undermine Djokovic to favor Federer. Tony is complaining about always putting Federer in centre court; I don’t really see it as a problem since it is probably most people lining for a seat in the centre court wanted to see, right?

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Talent and skill wise ,Federer is better than anyone else in the field. However, Nadal’s toughness is Just superior than anyone – he play an unconventional game( heavy topspin , left handed, solid defense). His defense skills now is nowhere it once was as he is slightly slower now than in his prime. Djokovic has the right balance of everything and he peaked at the right time too. I believe he just got worned out mentally and physically after winning a lot and his personal life plays a part too.

    The ups and downs just show us they are human too, each has his own strength and weakness that’s why tennis fans like us are spoiled for their greatness and feel for them when they are not at their top form.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well said, Throttle. A golden era of tennis that just never seems to end. How lucky we are! I agree that Djokovic has the right balance of everything including mental strength. To me, he is the most complete player so far if you take everything into account. With the added dimension of lethal returns and a world class bh he is even better than Federer at his best. There is nowhere you can go unless you serve like Kyrgios or pummel the ball like Stan.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Hi Ru-an,

    I am a fan of both Federer and Djokovic, to some extend I enjoy watching Nadal too. Really who is better or GOAT is not all that important. They are all in their late career so I treasure every time they play against each other. The fact is if there is no Nadal or Djokovic , then Federer would have won everything just make the sports one sided. Likewise, if there is no Federer then we wouldn’t have the excellence we see in Djokovic or Nadal today. Because of their contrasting playing style , they develop a different strategy and approach to winning which what makes the sports so interesting as they try to outdo each other.
    My only question as a casual myself, I find the 2 handed backhand can be hard to manage as one gets older because you have to be a step quicker to strike the ball. Do you see this a disadvantage for Nadal or Djokovic jg they continue to play till their mid 30s?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes, the GOAT debate is just for fun and a GOAT can’t be determined. It’s probably better not to talk about a GOAT at all. The big 3 all have their strengths and weaknesses and there is very little to choose between them.

    The two-handed bh is not a disadvantage. It is better than the one-hander also as you age.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Agree GOAT cannot be determined as there are many factors and you have to bring in the context of TOP players from previous era, ,court speed, racquet technology etc.

    I think the dominance of Djokovic the last few years had helped Federer rather than the other way. It keeps him motivated and chasing after the big titles, and overtime created a strategy to beat Nadal where he previously couldn’t do it consistently and at the big stage.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Check this out

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You will have to right click and open image in new tab if you want to see a larger view.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    Since 2011 Djokovic is the best and most important player in the world. In this case the whole world is united. He unites different cultures and time poles to a Serbian landscape.

    [Reply]

  15. That was the least exciting wimby final. But, he sure does have a ton of slams now. His celebration was tentative. He’ll win the US open too. Dkjoker won’t play I bet.

    [Reply]

  16. The fans of djokovic are clearly in the minority. What I constantly read is hidden praise for the GOAT. It is hard to bear. Nevertheless, I continue to read. At the beginning of my re-entry into the Tennistheme I had kept my fingers crossed for Murray because he was from Western Europe. That was a mistake. The semifinal 2013 in Wimbledon made me then to the Djoker.

    [Reply]

  17. “Clearly, Federer is playing as well as if not better than ever which I have stated all along and which Fedfans have vehemently argued against. They just could not deal with the fact that Djokovic at his best is simply a better player than Federer as evidenced by his unmatched dominance from 2014-2016.”

    It may or may not be true that Federer is playing as well as ever, but I do think he is in fact playing better in 2017 than he was during 2014-2015. I think that is pretty hard to argue against, actually. Many have noted how Federer has kept retooling his game, particularly his backhand.
    So, who is to say whether Djokovic’s ‘best’ is superior to Federer’s? Perhaps Federer 2017 has reached yet a higher level still than the Djokovic of recent years.

    As tennis.com puts it:

    “… there’s no question he’s [Federer] a better, sharper, more complete player now than he was over the last two or three years.”

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘It may or may not be true that Federer is playing as well as ever, but I do think he is in fact playing better in 2017 than he was during 2014-2015.’

    Even if this was true then it just proves my point even more that Federer fans are hypocrites. But Djokovic’s level was still higher. Federer is not nearly as dominant now as Djokovic was in 2015 for instance. Federer needed 3 5-setters to win the AO and he lost to two players ranked by triple digits this year. At Wimbledon, he didn’t drop a set but again didn’t face a big 4 member. Don’t fall for the hype so easily.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    “Federer needed 3 5-setters to win the AO”. In my opinion that just shows how great he that he still beat the likes of nadal wawrinka nishikori over 5 sets. These players are younger, fitter and should be more energised yet he still won.
    And then you say he didn’t beat a big 4 player. How can you undermine his victory at Wimbledon because the other big players LOST before he had a chance to play them??

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Now you are just nitpicking. Federer’s victories at the AO and Wimbledon are great, so great in fact that I find it hard to believe. But you are taking out of context. We were comparing Federer with Djokovic.

    [Reply]

  18. Djokovic played a five setter with Gilles Simon during his run to the AO title in 2016. I’m not sure that the amount of five setters Federer and Djokovic played on their way to AO titles against different opponents is the best way to measure their peak level of play.

    Federer’s win/loss record has been exemplary so far this year, obviously helped by skipping the clay season, which is the sort of thing I suppose you have to do when you are 35 and trying to win all the big tournaments.

    Even in those two losses you point out, he had match points in both of them, and Tommy Haas obviously has some class on the grass.

    And, of course, the losses came in the two smallest tournaments he’s played this year.

    In any case, such statistics sound more like a measurement of dominance or consistency than peak level of play.

    At the end of the day, Federer has won every slam and masters tournament he has entered this year, which is nothing short of astonishing, and certainly sounds a lot like Djokovic’s recent achievements to me.

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    While looking up Djokovic’s 2016 AO performance, I came across this fun little fact, totally irrelevant to the discussion but interesting nonetheless:

    Before losing to Djokovic, Simon had played none other than Evgeny Donskoy earlier in the tournament. And they had a hard fought 5 setter too!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘and certainly sounds a lot like Djokovic’s recent achievements to me.’

    Not to me. By skipping the clay season where Federer would have been dominated by Nadal anyway he missed his chance. Djokovic’s 2015 season is unmatched in terms of dominance and level of play. It is so good that even if Federer wins every match he plays from now on it still won’t match Djokovic’s success.

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    I agree that skipping the clay court season means that in no way will Federer’s season match that of Djokovic’s in terms of raw achievements and dominance. I mean, that’s obvious, Djokovic got his personal slam.

    But again, is that a measure of level of play or dominance. You use both those terms here, but I believe it is only dominance being measured, not level of play.

    It tells us little of who would win in a head to head match up between Djokovic 2015/16 and Federer 17, or who is the player at a higher level.

    The only thing we can really say is that both players were dominating their respective fields and putting up some crazy numbers and records.

    But I suppose my central point is: if one argues that Federer was better than ever when losing to Djokovic in slam finals in 2014-2015, and one also concedes that Federer is better now than he was then, it is at least possible that Federer is better now than Djokovic was then, in terms of level of play.

    No question Djokovic was more dominant or successful by virtue of playing the clay season, of course.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    I reckon it’s difficult to measure the old Federer or the Nee Federer is better. Better in the sense he is playing with less pressure these days and putting his healthy and family as priority. His backhand has certainly improved this year but to play a full season it might do harm to his body ;and;he might not be able to win as many matches.

    Djokovic was certainly more impressive in his 15-16 run as he played a full season. However, at Federer’s current age one can forgive him to taking more time off to avoid injury. The point I was trying to made is the stars aligned perfectly for Federer this year eg. Murray/Djokovic not at their best form and Nadal was also in the resurrection process at the start of the year (till his peak form in FO), ;then he didn’t need to play the other big 3 in Wimbledon
    and playing a slightly injured Cilic in the final. Even Federer was surprise himself how well he had done. However, if we had the other big 3 all in great form then it might not turn out this astonishing result. Maybe, next year when everyone is back with full swings then we’ll see.
    That’s only if all the big 4 decided to play in full season and in great form.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    It’s aimless to compare who is better the ‘then’ Djokovic versus the ‘present’ Federer.

    They are great in their own rights , unless all things equal eg.
    1. They are at their peak usually in tennis term is around the mid 20s age
    2. They are 100%, free from any injury
    3. They play in the same era of competition ie. head to head record versus themselves and versus other TOP players
    4. They compete at All the major events including slams, masters, 500 etc.
    5. The stage of their career and their mental state eg no distraction from personal life etc.
    Otherwise is pointless to compare who is greater. We can use this analogy.

    1. The Federer at his first peak 05-07 is better than Djokovic just starting to emerge
    2. The first peak of Djokovic 11-12 is better than Federer whom started to decline the same year
    3. The mid level peak of Federer in 12 is better than than first peak of Djokovic the same year.
    4. The 2nd peak of Djokovic in 15-16 is better than the 2nd peak of Federer the same year
    5. The 3rd peak of Federer 17 is better than the 2nd peak decline of Djokovic though they never get to play each other , but result speaks for itself

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    I think this is spot on, actually.

    You can’t really say whether Djokovic is or ever was a “better player” than Federer or vice versa.

    One can say: Djokovic’s accomplishment of winning 4 slams in a row is unmatched by Federer. Just as one could say: Federer winning 19 total slams is a feat unmatched by Djokovic (and very unlikely he can match it in the future).

    But to say that Djokovic of 2014-16 is a “better player” than Federer can only really be said for the Federer of 2014-16. We can’t know whether he is a “better player” than the Federer of today. Or the Federer of the mid-2000s.

    To say that Djokovic of 2014-16 is a better player than Federer, full stop, assumes that the Federer of 2014-16 is the best version of Federer ever. But as soon as we admit he might be even better now, in 2017, we can’t keep making that argument.

    All you can say is what you just said: who was better at given points in time.

    [Reply]

    Gilbert Reply:

    Why do not you simply compare the corresponding age phases? Djokovic is 30. So you can only compare to the age of 30. So with Federer the year 2011 would be the limit. There is Novak Djokovic today.

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    Well towards the end of 2011 Federer began a run that would give him number one after winning Wimbledon 2012. That was also the year he famously knocked the otherwise unstoppable Djokovic out of the French.

    But is it really helpful to compare 2011 Federer with 2017 Djokovic? Is it really all that relevant to the question of who is a better player, to go year by year and compare X year Federer with Y year Djokovic? I’m not so sure. Afterall, 2011 Federer played the field of 2011, and 2017 Djokovic played the field of 2017.

    They may superficially look to be in similar stages of their careers, but just looking at age takes out all the context. Some players win Wimbledon at age 17. Others might win their first slam approaching 30.

    What Djokovic fans should of course take hope in is that if Federer had a fruitful career in his 30s, then so too could Djokovic, but only if he makes changes to his schedule and doesn’t repeat the mistakes of the last year.

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    I suppose, for me, there are only two ways to get a good sense of how players compare:

    1. How they compared against each other, and the field, when playing at the exact same time e.g. 2014 Federer vs 2014 Djokovic. This produces a long list of “Federer was better in 2006, Djokovic was better in 2011 etc”.
    2. How they compare overall at the end of their careers when both are retired and all is said and done. Inevitably, of course, we like to jump the gun and try to draw conclusions now. At the moment, taking the totality of their body of work into account, this is clearly advantage Federer (though Djokovic obviously will have a few things of his own such as the personal slam).

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    This comparisons is endless. Records are there to be broken anyway. We have now Federer and Nadal surpassed Sampras 14 GS in the same era. Some point in time Djokovic will surpass this number too if he is healthy and regain his great form. So is Federer or Nadal better than Sampras? I don’t know the answer. Federer is a more complete player but Sampras has a solid serve and volley game and he dominated everyone in his era. Is Djokovic better than Federer? Yes perhaps in his unprecedented of 4 slams in a row and his ability to beat Nadal consistently which Federer failed until very recently. No when it comes to the number of GS win, Wimbledon record ,weeks at no,1 longevity etc.though he is not done yet.

    [Reply]

    Gilbert Reply:

    We will see. Time tell us the answer. Djokovic is the better guy. The whole world loves him. Also the people they are angry to say it on Television.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    One thing I admire most about Federer is his willingness to change and never stop believing himself after falling six feet under. He was embarrassed by Nadal in 2008 FO, losing a 5 tight set Wimbledon the same year and again in AO 2009. He rebounded the same year winning His first and only FO, and Wimbledon. Again, after
    Losing to Djokovic in consecutive GS finals he was back and achieved 2 more GS wins.

    If Federer can do it at the age of 35 or nearly 36, i can’t see why Djokovic can’t rebound as he has only just turned 30, with plenty of tennis still behind him. With Agassi supporting him,his return to form is inevitable.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    It’s like Throttle said. Djokovic and Murray have been struggling with injuries so Federer had it easier. If a fit Djokovic was not around in 2014-16 Federer would have been doing the same thing he is doing now. But once you lose to a better player in slam finals it hurts your confidence so you lose other matches too. Just because Federer is having better results now doesn’t mean his level was higher. It’s all about confidence and momentum.

    Djokovic is a better player than Federer at his peak. Hence the unmated dominance in 2015-16 and the personal slam. Even in 2011, he was 10-1 vs the rest of the big 4. No other big 4 member achieved that. Just be happy that Federer is still playing and winning slams at that. You worry too much about your favorite player being the best at everything all the time. It sounds greedy and ungrateful.

    [Reply]

    Wodgie Reply:

    Yeah I’m not really into this ‘Big 4’ thing. There are players playing well at a given moment in time and there are players who are not. For an extended period of time, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have been the best four players in the world, but right now that is not the case, and there have certainly been periods when Federer and Nadal have fallen out of the top recently as well.

    Also, Wawrinka and Murray both have 3 slams, yet Murray is granted admission into this ‘Big 4’ while Wawrinka is not. And does anyone really believe Murray would have troubled Federer even if he was in better shape right now? Federer beat him convincingly at Wimbledon in 2015.

    Let’s just stick to Djokovic, because that’s a more interesting question.

    Right now, Federer is undefeated against top 10 players so far this season. That is far more relevant than any talk of the big 4 in my view.

    Every player benefits from others not being quite at their best, usually. That can even partly be credited to the player who is dominating, making their peers play worse. Or, it could be due to injuries, or like you said, confidence issues.

    The claim that Federer’s level is higher now isn’t just based on results, it is based on the observations of many regarding his tactics, attitude and backhand. There is an eye test to it as well as the results on the board.

    “Djokovic is a better player than Federer at his peak. Hence the unmated dominance in 2015-16 and the personal slam.”

    This should read “Djokovic was more dominant over 2015-16 in winning the personal slam than Federer ever was”. I can agree with that. But winning 4 slams in a row actually tells us nothing about level of play, only consistency. In fact, when you get down to it, it’s really only winning one additional match vs what Federer had the chance to do on multiple occasions, only being stopped by Nadal in the French Open final.

    Now, I’m a big believer that Djokovic’s personal slam has been criminally underrated and not praised nearly as much as it should be, but at the same time, it isn’t some trump card that proves Djokovic reached a higher level of play than Federer ever did. It doesn’t even prove that 2015-16 was Djokovic’s peak level of play.

    Afterall, just like you said for Federer, just because someone has better results doesn’t mean their level is higher. I couldn’t have put it better myself. We just need to extend that logic to discussion of Djokovic’s great run, if we want to be consistent.

    Now, as for your final couple of lines. Yes, a classic Ruan out of the blue projection, as I’ve observed on the blog over the years.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I don’t have the time to read your long comments anymore but I scanned it and saw the last paragraph. I think you are the one projecting. I realize how spoiled I’ve been with the dominance and Djoker slam since I became a Djokovic fan at the 2015 FO. Which is why I can take the drought of the last year.

    Why are you so obsessed with Federer having a higher level than Djokovic? Aren’t you happy that he is still playing tennis, let alone winning more slams and dominating tennis again? That is not enough for you? This is the kind of thing I have observed from Fedfans over the years. They want it all, all the time.

    Sorry to inform you, but it will never happen.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Yes Djokovic had a remarkable 15-16 season. Federer’s decline was more a gradual process after winning the Wimbledon in 2012. However the decline came quickly as well. In fact, it was quite shocking since he was so dominant a year ago.The last 5th slams apart from USO where reached the final the rest were terrible results, and he didn’t lose to Nadal, Federer or Murray but the lower ranked players. Was it all due to injuries? He should have taken time off to heal and recover. That was a article wrote about the mystery behind his sudden decline was not clearly understood, not just the motivation but it was personal . I guess he didn’t want to reveal too much what really happened.

    [Reply]

    Tarik Reply:

    Wow u sound so hypocritical! All u do on this blog is Mostly talk about how much greater Novak is. Even this article is more about Djokovic’s superiority, than Roger’s Victory. They didnt even play each other so why is Novak’s name mention so many times? The only person that seems OBSEESED …..IS YOU!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    *OBSESSED.

    Because I’m a Djokovic fan and I’m sick of the Federer privilege and hype? Just because I don’t fawn over Fedddy doesn’t mean I’m obsessed with Djokovic old sport. Not everyone is obsessed with your hero!

    [Reply]

  19. “… in the absence of evidence you have to assume it was done without resorting to anything illegal.”

    Way to nail your colours to the mast. I have been reading this blog for a while now. It’s generally interesting even with the blatantly obvious and routinely subjective pro-Djokovic bias but for someone who claims to be passionate about tennis to, effectively, suggest Federer’s recent results might have been aided by non-legit help is quite comical in the extreme given it’s Djokovic who went from being the often exhausted player to the fittest and most bullet-proof fit player the game has ever seen in the space of 6 months.

    Going gluten free doesn’t make you go from a flake to an ironman. So what are we to assume even ” in the absence of evidence…”? Assume the same as what we seen when cyclists or weight-lifters or swimmers come onto the scene and start dominating? Or not?…

    If the shoe fits…

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    The weak doping controls are well documented and anyone can be doping. There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory in what I said. I have said a million times that if one is doping they are all likely to dope, and since you claim to be a regular reader of my blog should know that.

    As for the blatantly obvious Djokovic bias, I have also stated a million times that I am biased towards Djokovic so yes it is blatantly obvious! Again, since you’ve been reading my blog for a while you should know that.

    [Reply]

  20. Can you explain this “Federer privilege” you keep mentioning? Is it about court scheduling at Wimbledon? If so, I assume you are worried about Konta and Dan Evans (not to mention other UK players) getting privilege too since they were both scheduled on courts which far exceeded what their prior performances or rankings suggested.

    Federer’s only privilege is that everyone knows when you put him on the centre court you get more interest. When you put him on centre court you are far more likely to have magical moments of genuis which Djokovic and Nadal don’t come up with nearly as often.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    To me serve botting 7 opponents off the court in straight sets is not moments of genius, it’s boredom.

    The Federer privilege is the scheduling and the way he gets portrayed in the mainstream media as the second coming of Jesus while Djokovic is constantly portrayed as the devil. Gullible people fall for this and it has a huge influence on how Djokovic is perceived and treated which in turn affects results.

    [Reply]

    Gilbert Reply:

    I totally agree.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    7 straight set victory does not mean boring. I imagine for a lot of people it would be there first time seeing federer in real life and the moments of magic he provides during a game is what they want to see.
    There is a reason federer has such a big fan base, and clearly people want to see him and not just thrillers.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    7 straight set victory does exactly mean boring. Nobody will see this.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    I am guessing that a 5 set match between two big servers is considered exciting plainly because it’s a “5 setter”. Crowds come to see something special. And a certain federer will always bring that. Regardless whether its 5 sets or 3.

    [Reply]

    Throttle2017 Reply:

    Federer is not just a tennis star but a celebrity as well. Basically he is the perfect product on and off the court. When he is not playing or winning he is the ambassador or major Household Brand’s or charity events. Basically, he is well connected with the celebrity circles. What else does the media wants? A charming champion backup by numerous record breaking titles, ageless, a Husband with a beautfil wife, Father of 4 ,well spoken, graceful and unmatched shot making on the court etc etc he is also a perfect model for the ATP tour which we rerely seen in tennis; which is also the perfect embassador Of the peaceful / neutral Switzerland. The media needs a villain, and there is where Djokovic fits in, someone who comes to the club and spoil the fun , threaten Federer’s impressive records. He is mostly unloved by the media but still have plenty of fans largely of his technical skills & winning results. He is the outsider of the Federer/Nadal camp attempting to get the respect he deserved. This is very much how I see it. Wimbledon’s scheduling is a good example – well perhaps Breexit plays a part in this context hehe..

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    Personally, I have managed not to consume a minute of Federer this year.

    I look at him only against certain players and even then only when I know before that he has lost. So as a record. I never know the result. This keeps the voltage. The same with Djokovic. It must be clear beforehand that he has won. Except against Delpo. This is my wife’s favorite. I take the risk. It is definitely gratifying. I would, for example, in a match between Nadal and Federer before know whether Nadal won. Otherwise the day is a total disaster if you look at it live and Federer would win.

    [Reply]

    Justifying the truth Reply:

    What language do you write in? I honestly don’t understand a word.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    =)) He is German.

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    That is correct. German Democratic Republic.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I have a German last name too 👍

    [Reply]

    GILBERT Reply:

    I hope it that one more or less can understand. Otherwise I would be disappointed very much.
    Otherwise I must go over into German. This would be my absolute end here I believe. :-bd

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha we can understand some of it :D

    [Reply]

  21. Various indepedent outside groups have been pushing the issue of tennis’s ‘clean’ record on PEDs and Jim Courier as far back as 1999 said there was no effective test for blood doping back then and he wished the atp were doing more

    So there is no assumtion in realizing tennis hAs a clean record on PEDs when the atp hasn’t touched the surface

    How many of the very top players would pass a lie detector test to the question of wether they’d used illegal performance enhancing or blood doping stimulants on a straight yes/no answer

    The Federer fan base want a straight Federer and they have got a straight Federer exactly as described and no more, at this moment in time…

    Do you think the question should (energetically) hang in the background perennialy or be written off ?

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

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