Federer Wins Third Miami Title Over Nadal

In this situation, I usually like to congratulate the winner regardless of who it was but after the unsavory incident that occurred yesterday in the semis between Federer and Kyrgios I find that hard to do.

Yes, Federer is playing very well right now but that is nothing new. He’s been playing very well since 2015.  The only difference is the slump of Djokovic. But it is hard to give credit when you feel like Federer should not have been in the final, to begin with.

In my last post, I said I wanted Federer to win the title but after I saw that incident at 5-4 in the final set tiebreak again I had a change of mind. After my blog went online again yesterday I had a lot of catching up to do and it was late.

I didn’t have time to digest everything that happened. But that incident in the third set tiebreak, the crowd’s behavior in general, and Mirka’s behavior on top of that left a bad taste in my mouth. After Kyrgios lost the first set in a heartbreaking fashion he did incredibly well to win the second set on a tiebreak and get into the position to close the door on Federer at 5-4 in the final set tiebreak.

We can’t say with 100% certainty that Kyrgios would have won the match but that is beside the point anyway. Even though I believe the momentum had changed and Kyrgios would have won the match, it was criminal for the crowd to get involved there.

Some people are saying it’s Kyrgios’ own fault and that he wasn’t mentally strong enough. How can they possibly say that when Kyrgios had recovered from that first set tiebreak all the way to getting into a winning position?

That took incredible mental strength. He was incredibly clutch in the second set tiebreak. He had changed the momentum, all be it in a subtle way that some may not have picked up, and was up breaks twice in the final set tiebreak.

There was a subtle but definite momentum shift. But then someone called out when Kyrgios hit a ball close to the baseline which would distract anyone. Kyrgios completely mishit the next shot and instantly turned around to confront the spectator who made the ludicrous call.

I’m sorry but that is unacceptable and disgraceful behavior that Kyrgios didn’t deserve after how well he fought in the match. People who read my blog know I’m not the biggest Kyrgios fan but to say he deserved it because of who he is is absurd.

Even if one doesn’t like someone one has to respect the mental strength and fight Kyrgios showed against a rampant crowd and at least have the courtesy not to shout out a line call at the most crucial point in the match. Simply unacceptable. End of story.

  • The Federer Cult Went Too Far This Time

I want to give credit where it’s due but I can’t turn a blind eye to an obvious injustice and to ongoing hooligan behavior from the Federer cult. It started getting ridiculous in the US Open final last year and now it continued in Miami.

It’s becoming absurd now to the point that it is affecting the outcome of matches. It is going too far. It went too far in the US Open final last year already but like I said before Djokovic was so good that he didn’t allow it to get close enough for the crowd to affect the outcome of the match.

That doesn’t mean that it was OK and it is certainly not OK now. Then there was the despicable behavior from Mirka as well who whistled at Kyrgios simply because he was changing his racquet, something players do all the time.

The incident in London where she got involved against Stan was even worse. It has gotten ugly and the Federer cult is out of control. I used to be a Federer fan myself and this used to be a Federer blog.

But I couldn’t associate with what had become an out-of-control cult anymore. That is not what a tennis fan is about to me. One can have favorites but one must still respect other players and not act like your player is entitled to winning everything in sight.

Someone like Kyrgios has behaved poorly in the past but he is 21 years old and an unbelievably gifted player who is is also very sensitive. The treatment he received against Federer is neither good for him nor for the future of tennis.

It’s OK to be tough on him when he acts like an obnoxious brat but when he has been consistent as he has been lately and made an effort to get his act together he deserves a chance I think. He is a fragile but rare talent that needs to be nurtured for the health of the future of tennis.

Treating him with disrespect and disdain will only make him more rebellious and careless.

  • About the Final and the Fedal Rivalry

I fell asleep after the first set of this one-sided final and woke up to see Federer had won 6-3, 6-4. I saw that Nadal was still a shadow of his former self, hitting short, and lacking confidence in general.

Even during his Australian Open run where he had good wins over Zverev, Raonic, and Dimitrov, I felt like there was still a certain vulnerability about Nadal. It also became clear in the final where he was a break up in the fifth set against a player who he owned for all intents and purposes, only to lose the match.

Since when does Nadal lose from that situation? I’m pretty sure it has never happened. Since then he lost to Querrey in the Acapulco final, didn’t beat anyone particularly noteworthy in Indian Wells and Miami, and suffered two more heavy losses against someone he previously owned.

I don’t even know why people said he was back. The Australian Open run was good but he still lost in the final and one good run doesn’t mean you are back. It takes a little more than that. I don’t think there is any doubt that Nadal has declined a lot.

His results since 2014 clearly indicate it. He still won the French Open in 2014 and Madrid, but in 2015 his best result was an ATP 500 title and in 2016 he won only two titles including one Masters in Monte Carlo. That is the fewest titles he won in a season since 2004.

Nadal has lost a step and his strokes lack sting, while Federer is arguably a better player than ever. Not to take anything away from Federer. It is not his fault Nadal played the most taxing game style in the history of tennis.

It was bound to catch up with Nadal, while Federer has always had an economic game style and managed his schedule well. But I guess it is still surprising that Federer at 35 has outlasted Nadal at 30 because that is exactly what happened.

With perhaps a slight adjustment to his backhand(which had already been much-improved since he started playing with a bigger head size), Federer has now defeated a Nadal four consecutive times where he previously had no answers.

It seems the rivalry has now gone to the other extreme. Nadal doesn’t have any answers. Federer just picks off his impotent groundstrokes and declined movement at will. Nadal had no say in the last two meetings.

  • Djokovic Makes Strange Decision to Play Davis Cup

I was puzzled to hear that Djokovic would play Davis Cup this coming weekend for Serbia on hard court just a week before Monte Carlo. How often has he struggled with the elbow injury after winning the personal slam?

Had he taken six months off after Wimbledon like Federer he’d probably the one dominating now. I’m still OK with that part, though. What bothers me is that he doesn’t seem to learn from his mistakes.

He should not have come back in Acapulco but was over anxious to play and as a result, he missed one of his best events in Miami and allowed Federer to continue his dominance. Now he seems to be making the same mistake.

I wasn’t even sure if he should play Monte Carlo. Isn’t his body telling him something? And to make matters worse the Davis Cup will be on hard court. Shouldn’t he be playing on clay before Monte Carlo?

But what do I know? I’m not him or his doctor. I just know he can’t afford another single slip up if he wants to stop Federer from dominating the entire season. I am pretty sure Nadal or Murray is not gonna stop Federer.

Does Djokovic want Federer to win the calendar slam? Nadal has declined so much I’m not even sure he can beat Federer on clay anymore. The way things are going Federer will be a serious contender for the French Open.

And that is where Djokovic needs to make a stand while he still can. If he waits until the grass court season he won’t be confident enough to stop Federer from winning Wimbledon…

  • Highlights

Posted in Masters 1000, Miami.

36 Comments

  1. Nadal has declined a lot indeed. That’s nothing new though. He was already extremely bad in 2015. Nadal at his best losing in straight sets at the FO? Something that could never happen.

    And btw, Federer is not going to win the calender slam lol. He is going to skip the whole clay season except for the FO which he won’t win.

    Djokovic is the favourite to take the FO. If he is slightly injured now and it gets worse he can just skip Madrid and Rome and he’ll be fine I hope. I just don’t see how those Master titles are going to play a crucial role for the FO this year. Soderling played terribly twice and went on to reach two consecutive FO finals. Djokovic owned Nadal in 2014 on clay in the Master’s series, played very solid and almost perfect. He still lost to him.

    Perhaps Djokovic should skip two of the Master on clay himself. He’ll be fresh and take the FO crown with ease…if he can play like last year.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well, I hope you are right. I heard about Federer only playing the FO. As long as Djokovic wins the FO Federer can do what he wants but Djokovic needs to string some wins together before that. I think he should have skipped DC but I guess if he has problems there he can still pull out of MC and play Madrid and Rome which should be enough prep. I just think his body still hasn’t recovered from 2015-16 and he is taking unnecessary risks.

    What if the problem comes back during the clay or grass courts season? Can’t he take a cue from Federer and take a long term view? I’m sure Federer would love to have another go at a FO title this year but he puts his health first. Why can’t Djokovic do the same?

    [Reply]

  2. I don’t honestly get the fuss everyone on Youtube, Twitter etc is making over that 5-4 point. It was a very faint out call if anything. Naturally Kyrgios reacted to blame the crowd as most players would but I don’t think think it affects him at all. Federer hit a decent top-spinning backhand with good depth, lands pretty much on the baseline and Nick’s caught in a slightly unfavourable position and is forced to move backwards to hit it, not a easy shot; understandable he shanked it. Fed has shanked many many many balls in this exact situation over the past decade especially with his backhand lol.
    Many players are to used to hearing distractions during points, particularly those that play on the smaller courts at tournaments and constantly hearing proper loud linesman calls from a court next to them. If you’ve been to a tournament particularly a slam you will know what I’m talking about. The line judges call out just as loud as Sharapova’s grunts and those players never complain.

    Funny enough pretty much the exact same happened to Federer against Del Potro in Roland Garros 2012, 5-4 in the tiebreaker as well. Again I don’t think the crowd’s out call affects Fed at all, you can clearly observe he kept shifting back towards the centre of court. He got pissed out, but who can he blame? It was a great crosscourt FH from Del porto and he made an error out of it. Just like as I explained for Kyrgios.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxuGb0C0lY0

    [Reply]

  3. Great point, Conal! But just like I mentioned here a couple weeks ago Kyrgios is a very sensitive guy. He has to learn that dumb people always blame others whereas wise people blame themselves. Sadly Tennis is a mainstream business. You have to follow certain rules to be successful in the long term, just like Djokovic, Federer and Nadal did over the years.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I don’t think Kyrgios should blame himself in that situation. He should blame the crowd but be proud of himself that he came back from a set down and into a winning position. But when you fought so hard and played so well in such a big match that is easier said than done. It’s almost impossible not to regret it and feel like you’ve been done in when you were on the brink of a massive breakthrough.

    [Reply]

  4. I don’t think there is a significant problem with Nadal’s current level. His problem facing Federer is that he used to have a very simple and specific game plan (serve to the backhand, play to the backhand, attack the open court if Federer runs around his backhand) and that plan no longer works. Unsure of what to do, he is second guessing most of his shots, which results in unforced errors and short balls. Add Federer’s broader than ever palette of attacking strokes and defending also becomes very difficult for Nadal.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I don’t think there is a significant problem with his current level either but at that level, even the smallest drop in level makes a massive difference. His results since 2014 clearly indicate it.

    [Reply]

    TennisLiger Reply:

    Yet you hype up Djokovic for beating Nadal at the French in 2015 (at the 7th time of asking), when it was very clear that that was nowhere near peak Nadal.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    That wasn’t a beating it was a crushing. But I never said Nadal wasn’t declined back then. My point was that Federer couldn’t do that despite Nadal’s decline, that Djokovic had fared better than Federer over the years vs Nadal at the FO(couldn’t push Nadal to 5 sets in 5 meetings), and that Djokovic was a better clay court player than Federer.

    [Reply]

    TennisLiger Reply:

    Well I think Djokovic had an age advantage over fed being 1 year younger than Nadal while fed is 4 years older. For example I can see 2006 fed beating or having realistic chances to beat the Nadal from 2011 onwards.

    However, your point still stands that overall Djokovic has given a better account of himself against Nadal on clay than fed did.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Not really because Nadal was an early bloomer. As you can see Federer is now starting to beat Nadal even though he is 5 years older. As for the hypothetical let’s rather stick with the fact which is that Federer got crushed 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in the 2008 FO final by Nadal, something that didn’t even happen to 19-year old Djokovic vs Nadal at the FO.

    Also, Djokovic has given a better account of himself on clay not only vs Nadal but overall http://theultimatetennisblog.com/who-is-the-better-clay-courter-djokovic-or-federer/

    [Reply]

  5. Good Post Ru-an.
    #1. Like I said in my previous post, it sucks that we have to talk about the crowd after a great match. We’ll never know who would have won that point/match if the there was no out call. And I’m still advocating for the ATP to install a strict crowd policy. It’s okay to cheer for your player but don’t be disrespectful to the other.
    #2. The people in the ‘Fed Cult’ aren’t true tennis fans and shouldn’t be treated as such.
    #3. Nadal is in trouble when it comes to facing Roger/Novak. Both have seemed to crack the Nadal code. (In fairness, Nadal is not nearly the same player that we witnessed prior to 2014. People say he lost a step, I think that might be two steps. Nadal and Djokovic were once comparable in terms of court coverage but not anymore.) Also he has lost all confidence in playing Roger and Novak. In yesterday’s final, he tried to go at Roger’s forehand instead of his backhand. Who would have ever believed that this would happened? Not me.
    #4. Currently I don’t have a French Open favorite. The three clay court masters tournaments will decide this for me. Obviously with Roger not playing any of the three (I still think he’ll decide to play one) his chances are slim. Novak and Andy need to show that they can stay healthy and at the same time play at a high level. And Rafa hasn’t won the French since 2014 so he isn’t a lock like everyone believes. Anyhow, this clay court swing should be fun provided that the top players can stay healthy.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Cheers, Styrre.
    #1. It does suck that I have to talk about the crowd again. I’d rather just give credit to the winner and move on.
    #2. Glad you said that again.
    #3. Yes, Nadal is not the player he was prior to 2014 so I am glad Djokovic defeated him in 7 consecutive finals in 2011 including 3 slams and 4 masters. No one can say he had to wait for Nadal to decline to dominate him.
    #4. I am not so sure about Djokovic’s FO chances as a previous commenter was either. It is not the rest of the big four either that can be a problem. There is also Stan and possibly other players. I think he needs to get some matches and wins under his belt first.

    [Reply]

  6. About the 5-4 in Kyrgios-Federer third set tiebreak, if what people are talking about is the ‘out’ call from someone in the crowd before Federer hits the ball, I think it should rather be Federer the one that is upset. He was already disturbed before when he was hitting a ball that someone called out as he was about to hit (I think Ruan referenced this point in a previous post but couldn’t find footage).

    I’d agree that the public was a little bit more into the game than usual, but we should keep in mind that this was a very latinamerican public (Miami has a lot of public from South America) and that the stakes were pretty high in a great match that had gone to three tie breaks. I mean, this crowd seemed a little bit more Davis Cup like, but that would be an overstatement.

    I think it’s clear that the limit should be people keeping quiet during points, cheering/booing between points is fair game.

    With regards to Nadal, I think he’s declined, or is still a little rusty and trying to adapt his game to the raising level in the competition. However, I agree with both Federer and Nadal, yesterday’s final was closer than the final score shows. Overall, Nadal is playing finals again, and he’s coming back to his favourite surface, so I’d not discard him that easily (he’s shown time and again a way to fight back).

    Overall, what a season this may turn out to be. Federer and Nadal back in play and probably able to fight their way into the final stages of slams (this was not the case over the last couple of years because either of them was battling injuries or poor form). Murray and Djokovic who we should expect to come back to their 2016 levels (that is, Murray second semester and Djokovic first semester, would be forces to be reckoned with), and then you have also Stan that can always break havoc, and now you have Kyrgios, Zverev. Del Potro may also take some guys out. So, I’d still favor the big four to win the big titles (slams, masters and atp world tour finals), but I’d be not surprised if this is the year when we finally start seeing trophies spread around between a few more guys.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I disagree. The call at 5-4 came after Federer hit the ball. Also, the other incident where Federer was distracted was in the first set tiebreak which Federer won anyway, so it didn’t in any way affect the outcome of the match.

    [Reply]

    ryanb Reply:

    You’re right, that person called out after Roger hits the ball. The ball had not yet crossed the net, though, and Kyrgios had not heard the umpire called it out, so it may have certainly affected him. Not quite clear whether it was a 100% responsible for him missing the shot.

    With regards to Federer’s situation in the first set. Well, the fact that he overcame a similar situation would only to show that faced with the same issue, one player could handle it and not the other. Thus, given that both happened at the same match, one on each side, it balanced itself out. I think that’d only go to show that, even though the public was in Roger’s favour, over excited guys called out balls not in a one-side way.

    Overall, would it have been better if neither of those situations happened? Sure. Was the public in favor of Roger? Sure. Did the crowd try to influence the result of the game during points? Come on, that’d be going too far… Just one or two guys not well educated in watching tennis, that’s all. It could have gone just the other way. If it’d been Kyrgios the one that had been favored by the situation, it’d not have detracted from him winning the match, nor Federer could say that the public was out to get him.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    You are not honestly trying to convince me, are you? I say it again: Federer won the first set. How did the call affect the outcome of the match? He wasn’t serving for the match, was he? No, Kyrgios was serving to stay in the first set, and he lost it anyway. So no, it doesn’t ‘balance itself out’ at all.

    It was Federer’s cult hooligans and he can also start taking some responsibility for their juvenile behavior.

    [Reply]

    ryanb Reply:

    haha, you’re right, not really trying to win the argument, just trying to state my point of view. I can see your point that the call affected the outcome of the match, and it was clearly at a stage much more critical than the first set shout that upset Federer (I’m not sure anymore whether we’re discussing the same point, as you seem to imply that call also was against Kyrgios. If I recall correctly, someone called out while Federer was hitting a ball that was in and Federer shanked it, and thus lost the point, so he was upset by having been distracted).

    The Federer’s cult hooliganess is a bit of an overstatement. I don’t see a trend going around the world trying to influence Federer’s matches. I mean, he’s obviously a crowd’s favorite around the world, but I’d only go as far as saying that Miami and US Open have been noisy and even annoying in his favor, not that they were unsporting (other than the occasional outburst, which I just attribute to people being overexcited and not well educated in tennis etiquette).

    Anyway, we can probably agree to disagree and move on.

    As I said in another comment, I hope we’re lucky to see much more from Kyrgios soon. Even though it may be a bit premature, can you see him winning a GS this year or next? If that were the case, which would you think he’d have more of a change to get his maiden GS? Probably Wimbledon, because of his serve, right? USO next?

    [Reply]

    ryanb Reply:

    If I may push the thread further into the future of the tour, I’d say that I’m bit tired of the big 4 playing the finals (thanks Stan for mixing it up a little bit over the last couple of years). I mean, the match up between the big 4 is not very interesting anymore. I’d say only the Djokovic-Federer match up makes for interesting tennis matches (their different styles and overall parity just works). Murray against Djokovic or Nadal make for ugly match ups. Djokovic-Nadal can be argued was interesting, but it’s no longer a competitive match up. The same for Nadal-Federer, obviously. The only reason people were excited after AO is because Federer won. If he had lost, we’d all have said we’d had better gone to sleep instead! ;-)

    Other than the big four, I hope for GS finals in the next couple of years with Kyrgios, Stan, Zverev, Del Potro or even Raonic in the mix (god save us though of a Wimbledon final between Raonic and Kyrgios, though). Any of those guys mixed with Djokovic, Federer or even Nadal would be nice. I don’t mean to put down Murray, but I just find his matches to be the more boring of the big four, though.

    PS: God save us too of Nishikori in another GS final. That Cilic-Nishikori USO final may have mixed up the tour a little bit, but I’d argue Nishikori has no place in a GS final. I mean, he puts a lot of effort, but I don’t think he’s at the same level of any of the other guys I mentioned before (Raonic barely makes it too, if at all). I think that USO semifinal is one that Djokovic should still kick himself about (after having beaten at that same stage Federer a couple of times in close matches, losing to this guy is just a bad joke). Federer should kick himself for USO 2009, but Del Potro is more of a worthy player to lose too (even though Federer lost that year, in retrospect, his golden chance for a calendar grand slam. I mean, he had no business losing to Nadal at AO other than the scars of Wimbledon 2008 and Nadal ownage on clay. And USO 2009 I’d argue was overconfidence against an untested guy on a GS final, and also him being content with the year after finally getting FO and moving one GS beyond Sampras at Wimbledon).

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Oh and yes they did call out in a one-sided way. Both times it was called out against Kyrgios by some Federer hooligan.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Also, the Latin-American crowd mention seems pointless. If it was high stakes it was even more reason to be respectful. Davis Cup is a team sport and different, but even there making line calls during points is unacceptable.

    [Reply]

    ryanb Reply:

    Well, the reference to the Latin-American crowd was that it was to be expected that it’d be noisy (Acapulco is the same, if not worse. South-America, even more so). The point was that if players are rattled by a noisy environment, that’s their problem. It’s a world tour, not every place is like playing centre court at Wimbledon.

    Once again, I say this only to reference crowd cheering/booing between points (even from Mirka), that’s fair game. Making noise during points, is not acceptable, nor at Wimbledon, nor at Miami, nor at Davis Cup.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    But Kyrgios clearly was not rattled by a noisy environment, even though that hooligan behavior doesn’t belong in tennis. He came back from a set and 4-5 down in the 2nd set TB with two serves to come for Federer to 5-4 up in the 3rd set TB and two serves to come.

    [Reply]

    ryanb Reply:

    Well, regardless of the outcome of the match, I hope Kyrgios doesn’t get distracted because of this. This guy’s shown that much raw talent already that one cannot wait to see what level he’ll be able to achieve after honing his craft and attitude. I mean he was with Federer every step of the way in rallies, and he looks like he’s not even trying (that’s probably not true, of course, but the point being that he can play with one of the best of all time with such ease when it seems clear that he still has further to go). Anyway, I thought this match should only go to show him that he belongs up there. I like Zverev too, but I think Kyrgios can be on a different level.

    [Reply]

  7. Kyrgios plays exciting, dramatic, controversial, extremely skilled tennis and is great for the game. But he is also petulant 21 year old who has a lot of growing up to do. And until that happens tennis fans will route against him. On the flip side, along with being the GOAT, Roger is the epitome of class – on and off the court – and fans will continue to route heavily for him. Ru-an it’s getting a bit obvious you are routing for him to fail, and I’m confused by this. You are a wise follower of the game, you used to be a professional tennis player, yet you aren’t giving Roger even close to the credit he deserves after winning the first big three tournaments of the season: AUS Open, Indian Wells, and Miami. He wins them all. After taking 6 months off. It is unheard of. And all you want to do is complain about the crowd being exciting to watch history in the making? And I do think I read in one of your posts or replies you think Federer is playing the “best tennis ever” right now. You don’t want to talk about that? I usually really like your posts but this one was disappointing. Please – give credit where credit is due.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘And until that happens tennis fans will route against him.’

    Then why did they root in the same way against Djokovic in the US Open last year, or against several other of Federer’s opponents?

    ‘On the flip side, along with being the GOAT, Roger is the epitome of class – on and off the court – and fans will continue to route heavily for him.’

    The GOAT is subjective and it’s too early to tell anyway. As for the epitome of class, that is subjective too.

    ‘Ru-an it’s getting a bit obvious you are routing for him to fail, and I’m confused by this.’

    Nope, just being fair. The only thing that is obvious is that I don’t have time for the Federer cult.

    ‘After taking 6 months off. It is unheard of.’

    Right, which is why many people are talking about doping. Am I doing that?

    ‘And I do think I read in one of your posts or replies you think Federer is playing the “best tennis ever” right now. You don’t want to talk about that?’

    I talk about that all the time but Fedfans have long ago made their minds up that Federer’s peak was 2004-07 when he hardly had any competition and the only reason that he is losing any matches at all is because he is so heavily declined. They also think that the string of losses in slams to Djokovic does not count because of this.

    So if anyone should give credit where it’s due it’s them. 👍

    [Reply]

  8. 1.
    “Djokovic Makes Strange Decision to Play Davis Cup”
    This is a strange decision indeed…
    And if we speak about schedule, in hindsight, Roger should be thankful to Donskoy…

    2.
    “…this one-sided final and woke up to see Federer had won 6-3, 6-4…”
    I don’t agree that this was “one sided” . Even Nadal’s post mach interview, proves that
    he was happy with his new level.
    He has now a real chance to win MC and/or Rome and/or Madrid.

    3.
    “…The Federer Cult Went Too Far This Time…”
    I don’t think that Roger can do anything about the noise of a rude tennis fan.
    He took his chance & got a well deserved win.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    2.
    Yes, Nadal’s level has slightly improved this season but the decline is still obvious.

    3.
    Never said he can do anything about the noise of his rude tennis fans. But he took advantage of a despicable incident and got a very undeserved win.

    [Reply]

    TennisLiger Reply:

    Why was it an undeserved win? You can’t prove that Krygios would have won that point and that match had there been no call. Fed shot hit the baseline so wasn’t exactly
    Comfortable to return.

    Crowd should have shut up but that’s not Federer’s fault. He can only take care of his business. He himself was negatively affected by one of the calls.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    ‘Why was it an undeserved win?’

    Why was it well deserved?

    [Reply]

    rahan Reply:

    I agree with TennisLiger:

    If the result itself it is not enough, I think that the victory was
    well deserved because of total points won:
    Roger (140) – Kyrgios (130)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Players who win fewer points win the match all the time. Hence the importance of winning the big points. How else do you want to try and justify the unjustifiable?

    [Reply]

    rahan Reply:

    The final and the semi-final were well deserved wins
    because of the Total Points Won:

    Roger 56% (71/127) Nadal 44% (56/127)
    or
    Roger 52% (140/270) Kyrgios 48% (130/270)

    [Reply]

    rahan Reply:

    …and this is a second “test” if we would like to discover the player who dominated the match…

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Like I said on FB, players with fewer points sometimes win the match. Hence the importance of winning the big points. Winning more points doesn’t mean you deserve to win.

    [Reply]

  9. Tennis has been turned into a play with written scenario. The new trend for 2017 is “the OLD timers are back” looking at the finals of AO. Federer is the main character of the series. Djokovic and Murray do not have elbow injuries as Nadal did not have any before his previous miraculous runs after supposed injuries. They are told to step aside and wait to join the show when the main character (Federer) gains back popularity. Djokovic was tormented with rigged draws with Del Potro and Kyrgios in early rounds ever since the Olympics last year and decided to at least play Davis, so the script of ATP won`t be ruined. The tip of the iceberg will be Fed becoming the oldest N1 player ever and some player like Fognini even are happy to lose a match vs Nadal not to spoil the much loved/lost “rivalry” between Fed and Dull :-) . If think a little Kyrgios is the only player that wanted and played his best vs Fed this year. Wawrika, Nishikori and some others preferred to play nice guys :-)

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

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