US Open Day 9: Djokovic and Cilic Book Semi-Final Spots

Hi, folks. I hope you have been enjoying the tennis as much as I have. These slams really are a treat for better or for worse. I have decided to take a break from my studies to this week so I can make a post every day of this second week so I can keep you fully updated. That said, I don’t have much time for this post because the Anderson vs Wawrinka match will begin soon and I don’t want to miss a point of that.

  • Djokovic Gets the Job Done Against Lopez

This was the second match of the evening session which began very late since Cilic and Tsonga went to five sets, but I was not going to miss it. Djokovic gave a masterclass in the first set and opened the bakery to breadstick Lopez 6-1. He was raising his game from the RBA match, but then the same thing happened in the second set as he dropped his guard and allowed Lopez to get the early break.

That was not the worst thing that could happen as long as he broke back, but he failed to do so at 3-5 when he missed a very makeable pass to the open court and went on to drop the second set 6-3. Credit to Lopez though who was playing as well as he can, serving huge, showing off his skills at the net, and even blasting ground stroke winners. There were some tremendous rallies in this match and it was a high-quality affair.

Great entertainment. Going into the third set Djokovic had to be absolutely furious with himself after missing that very makeable pass to break back, and I think he showed it at the change of ends as he shouted loudly in Serbian sitting in his chair at the change of ends. But as we have seen time and time again from Djokovic he as this incredible ability to shake off those kinds of setbacks.

Against RBA, he stepped a racquet in half after dropping the first set. It seems he complete releases his frustration that way and then starts over as if nothing happened. The same thing happened at Wimbledon after he dropped the second set against Federer which should never have happened. It’s almost become a pattern now. So in the third set he quickly got the break and raced to a 3-0 lead. Back in charge.

COccz5cXAAEFyzd

He wrapped up the third set 6-3 to take a two sets to one lead. Then in the fourth set with Djokovic serving at 2-3 there was a long key game where Djokovic faced two break points after some more inspired play from Lopez. I think Djokovic saved both break points with unreturned serves and held serve. Both players continued to hold serve until the tie-break where the world #1 raised his level for a 6-1, 3-6, 6-3, 7-6(2) victory.

It was the usual workmanlike victory for Djokovic who wasn’t at his best throughout but again props to Lopez for playing extremely well. We are now into the business end of the tournament and I think Djokovic played better than against RBA. In the first set, he did for sure. That was just perfection and if he plays like that in the semis and final there is no way he will be defeated. But he also dropped his level again in the second set.

It is not the final yet after all. Djokovic is a big-match player and he knows when to peak. The more he can get away with poor form earlier on without expending too much energy the more good form he keeps for later on. That does not guarantee that he will peak for the semis and final. You could say he did the same at Montreal and Cincy and lost both finals. But if he had to play less than his best at Montreal and Cincy so he could play his best at the US Open I’d be more than happy with that.

I think he’s better so far than in those two events anyway. We will see what the deal is against Cilic next. Cilic has had a good amount of court time now and who knows how he will hold up physically. Djokovic schooled him in straight at Wimby but this is different and he is a potential danger. I’d like to see win comfortably, but I don’t want him to peak before the final either, which you can be sure he won’t.

  • Cilic Survives Tsonga in Five Sets

Cilic is still on course for his title defense but only just after defeating Tsonga 6-4, 6-4, 3-6, 6(3)-7, 6-4. Tsonga saved several match points in the fourth set and in the fifth as well I think but in the end Cilic scraped through. Who knows but the fightback from Tsonga may just cost Cilic in his next match. This was his second five-set match and he played a four-set match too. Cilic clearly played a lot more tennis than Tsonga so in that sense it favors Djokovic to play Cilic.

COdlNGSUcAAZR6E

The head-to-head is 13-0 in Djokovic’s favor so I guess you could say Djokovic is the favorite.

  • Federer Gets Second Night Match and One Day of Rest

Stan vs Anderson will be the last match of the day session today on Ashe and Federer will play Gasquet in the second night match. Today’s quarterfinalists will also get only a day of rest before the semis compared to the top half who gets a welcome two-day break. This shouldn’t be a problem for Federer if he wins quickly tonight, but if it becomes a long match then it could well be decisive.

The good thing for him compared to last year is that he didn’t play Montreal is more rested than last year. He is also playing better. I can see Gasquet potentially winning a set tonight. That would still be ok, but I think Federer probably needs more help from the draw too. I think he needs to play Anderson in the semis. I think Stan would be a much tougher matchup for him and could even defeat him.

My feeling is he is going to get lucky and Anderson is going to win. But I’m not gonna underestimate Stan. This is the first time they will play in a slam and Stan is way more experienced than Anderson in slams. There is also the physical and mental tiredness that could play a role for Anderson who had a very demanding match against Murray. Whatever the case may be I can’t wait for it to start.

COeGdxcUcAAENkX

But what I wanted to say is that Federer did things the right way this year, but I still think he needs some help from the draw because he is not getting help from the schedule. If Djokovic makes the final he will be very fresh regardless of what happens against Cilic basically. And you just know if it’s a Djokerer the final that the likelihood of Federer straight-setting Djokovic is quite slim.

He’d probably have to win the first two sets to win the match. And if he is to do it in four sets he’s gonna need to be fresh. If it goes to five Djokovic becomes a big favorite. I know I’m getting big time into hypotheticals now. Djokovic can still lose to Cilic and Federer can lose to Gasquet or Stan/Anderson. I am just thinking long term and looking at different scenarios for interest sake. The main thing is to enjoy the tennis!

  • The Prediction Game

At a quick glance, it looks like Darrell, Krish, and Nakul won the previous round. All with 12 points. If I left anyone out I’m sorry, but I just don’t have much time left. Congrats to those guys anyway and keep your predictions coming in for the two quarterfinal matches today. I will update the rankings soon.

  • In Case, You Missed It…

I posted the below video as an update on my last post, but some of you may have missed it. I want everyone to see this because this is the reason Murray is not in the league of Fedalovic. But other than that it is just disgraceful behavior which makes me really dislike Murray. It also looks like he is trying to intimidate and unnerve Anderson with his disgusting and classless swearing. Anderson left after a while, but Murray just kept up his deranged behavior.

COV9UMZWoAA1WQ-

It was after the second set where Anderson almost choked again and Murray was trying hard to get under his skin. Fortunately, Anderson wasn’t affected by it and was mentally very solid, but this is just pathetic and unacceptable behavior from the arrogant Scot. It makes me extremely happy that a good and classy guy like Anderson sent him back to Haggis land where he can cry without giving tennis players a bad name.

Murray really needs to take a good look at himself as a human being and as a tennis player if he wants to take it to the next level. This is another very poor result for him after being one of the pre-tournament favorites and his slam woes continue. He needs to stop the pathetic and negative behaviour on court and become a more attacking player if he wants to win another slam. The first two is already tainted.

  • Highlights

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

The is in your court.

Posted in Grand Slams, US Open.

74 Comments

  1. Extraordinary performance by Djoker and such a lucid post by the author. I commend you on doing a terrific job year after year without asking anything in return. You are doing a great service to the tennis community with your insightful analysis and objectivity.

    If only all tennis journalists were as intelligent and objective as you. It’s a shame the ones who get paid write mindless drivel and someone like you who actually has something insightful to say don’t get paid.

    I don’t know as much as you about tennis and my IQ is probably not in the upper range, but I can tell that you are honest, objective, and knowledgeable about tennis.

    Keep up the great work!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Thanks! Very nice of you to say ;-)

    [Reply]

  2. This should be very interesting. I’ll take Stan, in the end, as I’ve said.

    I have a broadcast with Taylor Dent doing the color. He’s a bit of a clutz, no? Lol.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Stan took the opening set 6-4. What do you mean about doing the color with TD? Dude had a massive serve.

    [Reply]

  3. I’m streaming the match – he’s doing to the color. I just don’t find him the most compelling voice. Kinda like his game – big for sure but not the most nuanced, fluent. I’m ust being a smart-ass.

    [Reply]

  4. Anderson was probably gassed from the Murray match, but it’s tough not to see, in light of this QF result, Murray’s play (inability to handle Anderson) and behavior as a garbage presence on the tour. What a facade. People will overlook this, give him a pass (he won Montreal, he’s an emotional guy), but I’d say there is a HUGE gap between him and these giants of the game (the final four, especially the big 3).

    Stanimal rises.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol. Murray should let his wife Kim coach him next.

    It’s a shame that there is no tennis tomorrow. Sound like there is rain coming too. Federer looks very fresh. Gasquet played like a gimp, but Federer has looked very dominant so far. Stan looked good vs Anderson too though. Should be an interesting conclusion to the USO. Federer will probably win the tournament but still a long way to go.

    [Reply]

    Nakul Reply:

    Does this match mean that Fed peaked too soon in the tournament? :-S

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    I would hardly call that peaking. He was actually quite poor. Gasquet was just unbelievably bad.

    [Reply]

    Nakul Reply:

    Good. Saving his best for the last. He seems to have learned a lot after losing Wimby final again

    [Reply]

    jason Reply:

    I didn’t watch the match, but from the stats there are some things to suggest Fed is peaking too early again. 1st serve % at 76, which is more or less the figure we saw when he peaked against Murray in Wimbledon. Aces at 16 for an 87 min match is also very high. More than 1 ace per service game (13 service games), and we have not begun to count the unreturnable serves. Also add the fact that he faced no break points at all.

    If Fed is peaking, usually he can take it for at most 2 matches. Next match is Wawrinka, who looks very strong…likely needing Fed at peak to defeat. In his prime years, to win finals he didn’t need to be at peak but now it’s all different. The way the circumstances are set up, this will not be unlike what happened at Wimbledon earlier this year. If he’s peaking now (most aspects of the stats suggest that way), then I don’t like his chances at winning this USO — especially if Djokovic is waiting at the finals, which in all likelihood, he will be.

    [Reply]

    steve Reply:

    He won easily–if he’d made harder work of it, people would say he spent too much energy. How can people say that dropping only seven games in a Grand Slam quarterfinal is a bad outcome? Would any of Federer’s fans have preferred a repeat of last year’s draining five-set comeback against Monfils?

    If he wins handily, he loses because he’s peaking too early and/or hasn’t been tested. If he wins with difficulty, he loses because he’s exhausted himself and won’t have anything left for the next round. If he wins by walkover, he loses because his rhythm gets screwed up by not playing. If he loses, he loses because he loses. So there’s apparently no winning. Really, it’s a wonder the guy even bothers to play–doesn’t he know he’s screwed whether he wins or loses in the early rounds?

    Gasquet’s not Murray, anyway–he plays way behind the baseline but doesn’t defend that well, so Federer had more time to strike the ball cleanly and implement his game plan. When he was able to get Gasquet on the run, he was able to finish the point easily. Whereas when you get Murray on the run, you’re never really sure that the ball won’t come back.

    Murray played one of his best-ever Grand Slam matches in that Wimbledon semifinal, and Federer had to play one of his best-ever Grand Slam matches to stop Murray. That was not the level Federer had to produce to beat Gasquet, although he did play at a very high level.

    We’ll just have to see how it goes against Wawrinka. Their last match on hard courts was very close and Wawrinka had multiple match points, but I’d expect Federer to change it up a bit this time. C’mon Roger!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Good comment Jason but you are definitely wrong about him peaking vs Gasquet. I watched the match and it was just Gasquet who was utterly atrocious. No fight and no balls. In fact, at times it looked like he was tanking. A pathetic excuse for a tennis player.

    Where you could be right is that we have something similar to Wimby happening if Federer peaks vs Stan. He may have to to defeat him. He may be even a bigger challenge than Murray was at Wimby. Djokovic, on the other hand, could very well peak again in the final.

    But Fed can peak for two matches and win the USO.

    [Reply]

    jason Reply:

    Well, I guess I am just a bit too anxious about my favorite player, Steve. You definitely have a point there…if he wins easily, we deem him to be peaking & if he got into trouble, he would get exhausted.

    Ru-an & Steve, I think if I am to explain more deeply about my anxiety, it’s the feeling that Fed really needs to be in the zone if he’s to beat the other top 2 players (Stan & Nole). That zone is getting tighter & tighter as he gets older. In his prime he didn’t really need to be that in-zone, and that zone itself was much vaster. If we’re to take the positive, it’s that he still has that zone even at this age.

    I think we can find some examples when he was peaking early & got into trouble afterwards. 2009 AO comes into mind…devastating Delpo in the SF, tanking in the F against Nadal. Maybe 2005 as well, peaking against Agassi in QF & crushed by Safin in SF. 2009 USO, too. The thing is after peaking, he doesn’t play bad… he still plays well but it is a drop from the peak. In those occasions, and of course the recent Wimby, that drop from peak proved too much to tolerate. AO 2007, he really peaked against Roddick, but Gonzalez was always going to be a walk in the park even when he dropped from that peak.

    Peaking for 2 matches is more a rarity than just 1 match. And IF Fed reaches the final & he’s peaking there? All bets are off if the Djoker is peaking too.

    I guess we discuss too much about peaks. Conclusion? Twin peaks are the best LOL.

    [Reply]

    Jiten Reply:

    Oh Ru-an, not again. Stop jinxing your old love! X_X

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha, I’m serious Jiten. I can see him winning this. But let’s see what happens in the semis.

    [Reply]

    rahan Reply:

    Yes , Ruan, I completely agree. The result of the semifinal is not clear at all:

    Stan’s 2015 GS results are: SF, WON, QF in all 3080 points
    Roger’s 2015 GS results are: 3RD, QF, RUP in all 1640 points

    Therefore, from a statistic point of view, Roger is a clear underdog.

    Let me point out what Stan thinks:

    “……While Wawrinka said his relationship with Federer off the court was still good, he added his countryman’s demeanour on court had been changed by their increasingly competitive meetings.

    “Before it was only me,” Wawrinka said. “I was nervous because I knew I wasn’t at his level, for sure.

    “Now I think we can see that he was also nervous every time we play each other the past few years. That’s a big difference, because that shows how much he knows that I can play at his level.”

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes, Stan has won two slams as well in the last couple of years while Roger has won none. I also see Roger saying that he knows how difficult an opponent Stan is and that he doesn’t want to think of it. He clearly knows he is in for a difficult match and his attitude is a far cry from the one where he went into the match against Stan being sure he’d win.

    Look, I just wanted Federer to have at least one decent test before the final instead of the losers he played so far. If he beats Stan and Djoker to win the title then he deserves it and I have no problem with it. But if he played Anderson in the semis I would have had a big problem with that. He already missed out on Berdych. At least he now plays a guy who won’t roll over like the others have so far.

    [Reply]

  5. I hate myself and I want to die.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    :))

    [Reply]

    Ajay Reply:

    I can see that you are the same guy as Andrew Wiles. You are, for some reason posting as guys who have proved conjectures (Fermat’s Last Theorem and Poincare’s Conjecture) which were not proven for centuries. So what’s the deal here ?

    [Reply]

    Jiten Reply:

    Great Mathematicians taking over Ru-an’s blog! Probably Ru-an is onto solving some conjectures on his own and winning the million dollar for himself. Navier-Stokes equations may be. :)) :-)

    [Reply]

    Bharata Reply:

    Don’t forget Emily Noether, who has important contributions to mathematical physics…although her post above was pretty positive….

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    There IS ether; we just don’t see it (speaking from a Physics education perspective), so maybe it doesn’t ‘matter.’ Props to Emmy of course, an excellent Group Theory scientist and more. And good catches by you totally brilliant folks!

    Let me weigh in on this mystery by speculating that it’s a Hilda/Vily attack in disguise!

    What say you, Ru-an the Blasphemer? You’re the one who can resolve all this very quickly!
    :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha already resolved Joe. The person who is doing this is a low-life loser with no life, no job, and most importantly no brain. They have been severely dealt with, but I hope they try to make another comeback because the whole thing is incredibly entertaining.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Some people who try to invade my blog are truly deranged :))

    [Reply]

    rahan Reply:

    ….and there is also another comment (see the reply at 10:30) from a
    most famous math lady Emmy Noether (1882 – 1935)

    I really don’t know what is happening…Maybe a Reincarnation ?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    =)) It’s just a nut job who thinks they know something about math. A very lonely and disturbed individual who badly needs attention.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Lol. Nothing great about the moron who was acting as a mathematician :)) The only great mathematician around here is you ;-)

    [Reply]

    Jiten Reply:

    ^#(^ ^#(^

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Sure you are :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Oh, it was just some abusive nutjob I was having a laugh at. It was great entertainment.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    I guess it’s a measure of how great your site is Ru-an, that you attract people of all ages, from all walks of life, all levels of enlightenment, etc..

    Too bad about that, sometimes! :))

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    It’s true I attract all kinds of brilliant folks and nice people like you Joe. You are always very kind and generous and I appreciate that :-)

    [Reply]

  6. Wawrinka destroyed Anderson, clearly Anderson was gassed but it was clinical from Stan regardless…he looks scary right now.

    As for Federer that was a great match, but you know Gasquet allows him to relax. And he wan’t even running after some of Federer’s shots so Fed’s winners count was higher than it would be. Gasquet’s forehand has no penetration and he can’t win too many cheap points off the serve. Add to this FEderer was used to 140mph serves after Isner, and it must have looked like slow motion to him.

    Anyway better than a 5 setter against unpredictble Monfils.

    I am realstic though, Wawrinka can hit Federer (or anyone else) off the court. On a slow surface he can beat FEderer fairly comfortably now since he has time to set up his big strokes . On a fast service like grass I think Fed has the edge just due to variety. On a hard court I give Stan the advantage because he can still outpower Federer.

    Federer can handle the big guys sure, but the ‘big guys’ tend to just mean big serves and big forehands, and slow movement . On the other hand Stan is big on everything, especially the backhand.

    So Federer has to decide whether he wants to go into a war with Stan – which I think he loses due to age and the fact he is not a bull like Stan – or has some other strategy. It’s like playing Berdych, but imagine if Berdych was mentally strong and had won 2 Slams beating Nadal and Djokovic…

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Yes, Anderson was gassed which I thought might be the case after the very demanding Murray match.

    Gasquet’s problem is a big weapon like you said but also his pathetic mental fortitude. The guy has no spine and he may want to look into buying one because he should have the financial resources.

    Stan, on the other hand, has as big weapons as anyone and like you accurately pointed out he is not just a serve like the tall guys. He can actually move, unlike Isner who is slower than a sloth.

    I’m not sure about Stan’s tennis on a faster hard court like this, though. If it was the AO he would easily be the favorite. But here I can see Federer winning in four sets in which case he will be fine for the final. But if it goes to five it could tire him or he could lose. He can’t afford to peak and blast Stan off the court like he did against Murray and Wimby and then gets picked off by Djokovic in the final either. I’m not even sure who I want to win as a Djokovic fan. Both players could potentially beat him in the final if he is there.

    [Reply]

    Bharata Reply:

    Yes you said it right – Gasquet is mentally fragile. He checked out by the middle of the 2nd set yesterday and let Federer look like a genius. I think Federer is smart to realize that and not relax. McEnroe basically said it was an embarrassment to watch Gasquet tank the 3rd.

    And yet Gasquet hung in really tough against Stan in WImbledon at the same stage. My feeling is that he has lost fo Federer so much and maybe even looks up to him a little bit, so he has a mental block. Or maybe he just was tired.

    Judging from the comments someone put up, Stan really believes he can win though. He can be very up and down, and I don’t think the match is on Federer’s racket here. He sort of has to hope Stan hits some balls long and makes errors at key times.

    [Reply]

  7. Your sharp words have slashed me diagonally into two and because I am a nobody coward who sits at home in front of my computer harassing people who actually achieved something in their life I have to go now and kill myself.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Good, you’ll be doing the world a great favour :-bd

    [Reply]

    Ajay Reply:

    I am not sure exactly what is going on here. But I can see you are trying to get even with someone who posted something you didn’t like here. Somehow I seem to have gotten involved because that person has sent me a mail. Maybe you should try sorting out the problem offline.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Interesting. Do you have something to do with this? I sure didn’t send them your email…

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    And no, I don’t need your advice on how to run my blog.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Your involvement is very suspicious to say the least Ajay. What business is it of yours in the first place and why were you the first one to make a remark about it? Why did you know so well what was going on? And most importantly how did the nutjob get a hold of your email address? Your comments won’t appear on my blog anymore until you can come up with a satisfying explanation. I don’t have time for BS.

    [Reply]

    Ajay Reply:

    Are you serious man ? I have no idea how he has my email. That is what even I am trying to tell you that I have no reason to be spammed by idiots posing to be mathematicians. I already told you how much I respect you and the blog and I would never spam a blog like that. If you want I can forward his mail you. What I am telling is I don’t see why this should involve me and if you have a problem with him like I expect you too, I think it should be settled between the two of you.

    [Reply]

    Ajay Reply:

    As for the email id, I myself am shocked. It is not my personal email id but the email id I use for all college mails. He must have got it out of the internet possibly. I know I needn’t tell you all this, but I think it is really wrong on his part to only spam the blog but also my email.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Of course, it’s wrong! I have blacklisted about 10 email addresses and IP’s from the freak, but ‘it’ keeps making comments so they must have some computer knowledge at least or have access to many computers. ‘It’ probably found some shady way to get a hold of your email address. Makes you wonder what else is possible on the Internet.

    Anyway enough of this crap let’s get back to the tennis.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    It’s not Vily?

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Don’t think so. ‘It’ is using IP addresses from different locations all over the world. As dumb as Vily was he is not as dumb as this person. Very different writing style.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    =))

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    =))

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Ok, I saw his email you sent me. Your comments will appear again. I just had to be sure because this was all a bit weird that the two of you were emailing. I’m sure you can understand that.

    As for you being involved, I’m sorry but maybe it is good that my readers get an idea of some of the filth I have to deal with here. Of course, they don’t see the actual abusive shit the nutjob sent me, but from how I handled the situation they can draw their own conclusions.

    It’s just an exception that this has gone so far anyway. I found it entertaining and decided to have some fun with it and see where it goes.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    It’s very educational, Ru-an. And if I ever decide to start a Physics blog – I won’t.

    Thanks again for all you do!

    [Reply]

  8. Well, Stan can definitely win this. He can beat anyone, and he would be a very deserving winner.

    I think what distinguishes Stan from other players is that he is a powerful and accurate striker from both sides. He has a lot of other great attributes as well (moves pretty well for a power player, for example), but his forehand/backhand combination is one of the best combinations of speed and accuracy on the court; maybe the best. He’s mentally strong as well, and no one intimidates him. That wasn’t always true of him, so I like that about him even more. Fairly late in his career, it’s as if he’s come into his own now.

    But I don’t know that he moves as well as Roger, or has Roger’s accuracy in terms of shot placement, so I think the key to the match for Roger must be a lot of variety and precision in ball placement, and to use his own movement to take time away from Stan. He should try to make Stan move forward and backward (a little dangerous), as well as right and left, make him switch from forehand to backhand, etc.

    His variety should be manifest in terms not only of pace, angle, etc. (e.g. slice) on the ball but also on interval between points. He always plays quickly from point to point but he should probably vary that too, as well as anything else that would frustrate Stan’s rhythm.

    If Roger is not able to out-think and out-move Stan, he could be in big trouble.

    I’m a Federer fan, unashamedly so. But I’m also a Djokovic fan, and I love to watch him play. I think the era of Djokovic is here (has been here for a while now), and I won’t mind if he or Stan wins the tournament. On the other hand, I’ll be a little disappointed if Cilic takes the trophy home, but I probably shouldn’t be. After all, we have strong players in the semis this year, and it’s really been an excellent tournament so far. If Cilic wins then he’ll deserve the win.

    The reason I’m holding out hopes for Roger to win is just that I want him to create some more distance from Nadal. It looks like Nadal is finished, doesn’t it? But one new undetectable substance, and he could be back with a vengeance. I think it’s likely that he won’t win another slam, but I can also still see him winning a couple more. And if he gets to 16, people will start talking about the H2H with Roger… and I just don’t have any patience for it.

    After he beat Gasquet, Roger said that Stan had achieved everything a tennis player could ask for in a career (!). If it applies to Stan, then it applies even more to Roger, the ‘winningest’ player ever. Roger’s era is basically over, and Djokovic is a great champion, very deserving of the mantle of the world leader.

    But one more tournament win for Roger, even though it seems like a long shot, and I think every Federer fan (who is not also a fanatic) would have to be satisfied. I think he would be beyond Nadal’s reach too, at that point. I admit this: my disdain for Nadal is almost as strong as my admiration for Roger.

    In any event, I tend to think Roger has good chances in the semis as long as he doesn’t get into a slugging match with Stan, something he used to do with Berdych for example (when he was losing). If Roger can use his unmatched variety, then I think – on a fast court, anyway – he may have a slight edge against Stan. Maybe not against Djokovic though… and there’s no doubt that getting another major victory will be a tall order for Roger at this point.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Good comment Joe. I hope you didn’t ever say you don’t know much about tennis because that would be a lie. I think Fedfans should be satisfied already. 17 slams is more than enough and with Nadal’s career in the doldrums that should be enough to be safe. I want to see Djokovic win this and stake a GOAT claim for himself.

    If he wins this it’s not inconceivable that he ends up with 15 slams. That would put him right up there because he will have all the credentials but also none of his main rivals will own him the way Nadal owns Federer. In fact, he could well end up with a positive h2h against all his main rivals.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    I agree Ru-an. And I would love to see Djokovic pass Nadal on slam count total. It will be difficult since he came into his own a little later, but he can do it.

    Whether he does or not, when Djokovic is on his game he plays tennis just about as well as it can be played, and I don’t think anyone who really knows tennis will lose sight of that.

    [Reply]

  9. Hey! Isn’t all THIS EXCITING!!! EVERYONE getting involved with your REALLY STUPID EDITS AND COMEBACKS!!

    Sorry Ajay! I NEVER meant to spam you. YOU asked what the “deal was”!

    I wanted you to make the connection between Georg Cantor, the FATHER of SET THEORY, and diagonal slash method, and one-to-one correspondence between infinite sets! Also the BRST symmetry in quantum field theory and anomaly cancellation and Faddeev-Popov ghosts! WHAT A SHAME!

    BTW, tell Joe that the ether DOES NOT (or at least DOES NOT NEED TO) EXIST!! My friend Michelson and I disproved that with our famous experiment before the bad hair guy came and explained it all with his SPECIAL RELATIVITY !!

    No more comments from me, I PROMISE!! All HAIL KING ROGER !!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Ladies and gentleman, I give you the latest nutjob who have been trying to invade my blog, in his own words =)) Another mentally unstable Fedfan =))

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    Hello Morley,

    I admitted that if the ether does exist, then it doesn’t matter, didn’t I? A poor pun, but one that I hope contained the truth you and I are both trying to express.

    I hope you won’t feel that I need to be educated about an experiment that’s over a hundred years old now, that’ was discussed in freshman Physics courses in the 20th century.

    But if you have any pretensions of education, intelligence, or enlightenment, wouldn’t you prefer to say that we don’t know of any need for ether’s existence? The fact that we don’t know about something should never be construed to mean that it isn’t there, should it? So wouldn’t the adoption of my suggestion constitute a more objective, or scientific, stance? Loved your work on atmospheric composition btw…

    Maybe we’ll talk about theology one day; I understand you completed a challenging theological program at Andover.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    :)) Do you think it’s Morley’s ghost? :D What exactly do you mean by the ether? Like a unified field or whole? If so then it definitely does exist. How else would you explain quantum physics?

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    I think it must be Morley’s ghost Ru-an!

    And you ask an excellent question, as usual. Let me start by saying that the results of this famous series of experiments laid the groundwork for Einstein’s development of Special Relativity.

    The issue, back in the day, was that the waves we knew about were propagated in some medium, such as air or water.

    So how do we see light from the sun, for example? There’s nothing but vacuum in the space between earth and sun, so what medium is there to propagate the light waves (i.e. the electromagnetic waves)? Could there be some kind of ether in the vacuum of space that allowed light waves to propagate? That was a topical question in Physics at the end of the 19th century.

    But planets pass through this hypothetical either without noticeable drag, i.e. Newtonian mechanics could predict the trajectories of celestial bodies without any drag in the equations. So this ether must have some interesting properties, if it exists.

    But since the earth moves in an ellipse around the sun, it’s not possible for the earth to be stationary with respect to the ether all the time.

    By measuring the speed of light in different directions at different times, Physicists like our Morley thought it would be possible to measure the motion of the Earth relative to the ether. But the results they expected were quite small in magnitude, since the earth moves at only a very small fraction of the speed of light.

    Morley’s partner Michelson invented an interferometer to make some precise measurements. And the results were small, all right – zero! But it was later found that Michelson’s interferometer was subject to experimental errors too large to reach any conclusions about the so-called ether wind.

    Still, after many repetitions of the experiment by these guys and by other Physicists, it was determined that we don’t need to postulate any ether to explain or predict the material universe.

    There’s more I could say about this experiment, much more, but it’s a busy day at work. Maybe Morley would like to add some interesting facts, but I confess that I hope instead that he’ll be true to his promise not to post here any more. :-)

    Instead I’ll close with Einstein’s remarks about the experiment, penned in 1916:

    Although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the ether produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. But on the basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a “specially favored” (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the ether-idea, and hence there can be no ether-drift, nor any experiment with which to demonstrate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two fundamental principles of the theory, without the introduction of particular hypotheses; and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest relatively to the sun.

    So there you have it; it’s fun to discuss over a beer. And now (especially if we’ve seen the last from Morley) – on with the tennis!
    :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Ok, I have no idea what you just said. But maybe it’s because these things don’t interest me much. As in the scientific part of it. Not in that much detail anyway. I’m also not nearly as educated as you in these matters. But as far as I can tell you didn’t say anything about my point that there has to be some kind of unified field for quantum physics to exist in.

    For instance, two particles at opposite ends of the universe instantaneously affecting each other.

    Anyway, Morley left another comment claiming to be dead and sharing a cup of coffee with Einstein(the bad hair guy, right?) on some days. (I was wondering how he would share a cup of coffee with Einstein while being disembodied myself). And for some reason I don’t see Einstein being a ghost :)) I’ll pass you his response on later perhaps because he does not deserve the privilege of having another comment approved on my blog.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    Hey Ru-an,

    I am not very good at explaining these things, especially after decades away from Physics.

    But I do think this experiment began a process of suggesting a kind of equality between the quantum vacuum and what Buddhists refer to as Sunyata, Gnostics as the Pleroma, that Immanuel Kant called the Noumenon, and I think Hindus refer to as Brahman. Modern Physics has found it necessary to move beyond dualistic thought, but the Eastern masters saw that necessity millenia ago. Some pretty sharp guys…

    I admit that I’ve been impressed by the Advaita branch of the Vedantic school, by which thinking Brahman (I think is the same thing you’re calling the unified field), is beyond any empirical distinctions. For example, Buddha said of Nirvana, “It both exists and does not; neither exists nor does not.” And I don’t think he was playing! :-)

    Something a philosophy professor said to my class many years ago is that in the Chinese way of thinking, Nothing is greater than Everything. Think, he said, of a vast void, and somewhere in the middle, shining like a jewel, is … well, everything. Everything that was, or will be, or could be. The multiverse. I never found that in my own readings of Chinese philosophy, but I like it and it is very similar to the other ideas I’m just floating here.

    I consider this fascinating stuff, but my friends walk away when I start talking about it!

    I’m really soft-pedalling it today, but that’s what I was trying to suggest to Morley earlier (may he rest in peace).

    And I think you would be really good at this Physics stuff!

    :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Haha thanks, Joe. This comment from yours is much more up my alley. Advaita is what I believe in. Or non-duality. Nothing exists. Everything is just an appearance. All explanations concern the mind only and reality is beyond the mind.

    I am impressed by how well-read you are. You sound like a very smart and educated guy. My education was very spotty, but I’m working on that! I think science and spirituality are coming closer to each other all the time anyway.

    Some fundamentalist scientists will never figure out what the sages figured out hundreds of years ago but the open-minded ones are catching up. Quantum physics comes the closest to representing ‘Brahman’ in scientific terms. As you know in quantum physics everything is interconnected and time does not exist. At least not in the way we understand it.

    This is consistent with what the sages tell us about Brahman.

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    It’s fascinating stuff, isn’t it? But I’m just a self-educated guy like you.

    That doesn’t mean we aren’t both very smart guys though!

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Indeed. Do you believe in ghosts?

    [Reply]

    Joe Reply:

    Well defining terms can get to be extremely difficult when discussing numinous topics.

    In light of that difficulty, it’s probably more accurate to say that I don’t disbelieve, just as I don’t disbelieve in ether!

    :-)

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Well, one thing I can tell you is that Morley or whatever his name is is not a ghost. Just a complete psychopath harassing good people on the Internet.

    [Reply]

    Ru-an Reply:

    Oh and this time he was posting as Ashford Miles :))

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

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