Wimbledon 2019

Hector Savage

Btw have RTE embarrassed themselves yet by trying to talk about the final in any sport slot and getting the score and names of the players completely wrong ....

"Not my area there Sean, I'm more of a bog ball expert" ...

eagle eye

walshb wrote:

Roddick was every bit as good as Andre, but unfortunately he had Fed in his era...

Roddick had a great serve and very little else.
Agassi is one of the greatest returners of all time.
I don't for the life of me see how you can compare them and I think you are crazy if you think that Roddick was near Agassi's level in their eras. Agassi won all four grand slams, Roddick won one US Open. He never even made the final in France or Australia.

MisterAnarchy

EagererBeaver wrote: »

"Nadal could only beat Federer on grass as Federer got older"

Federer was 26 when he lost the '08 final. I didn't realise that was the athletic peak of a human being.

Federer was very sick that year with mononucleosis.
He was nowhere near his peak.

walshb

Guys, Agassi v Fed (when Roddick had to face Fed) would likely have won 0 slams....Fed would have beaten Agassi every bit as much as he beat Roddick

Go watch Rodrick in SW19 finals...he was brilliant; just met a peak, or close to peak Roger

I like Sampras, but a peak Fed had so much more.....Roddick had to contend with that.

walshb

eagle eye wrote: »

Roddick had a great serve and very little else.
.

Nonsense. Go watch more of Roddick. You don't lose 16-14 in the 5th set vs Fed with just a server and little else..

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Federer was very sick that year with mononucleosis.
He was nowhere near his peak.

Nonsense. The whole year he was sick, and not near peak? Read up on that illness he suffered with.

He made 3 slam finals, almost winning 2, and played some brilliant tennis that year...lost by a whisker to a prime Nadal at SW19.....

Excuses for Fed are silly...

dominatinMC

walshb wrote: »

Guys, Agassi v Fed (when Roddick had to face Fed) would likely have won 0 slams....Fed would have beaten Agassi every bit as much as he beat Roddick

Go watcgh Rodrick ion SW19 finals...he was brilliant; just met a peak, or close to peak Roger

I like Sampras, but a peak Fed had so much more.....Roddick had to contend with that.

That's all well and good, but I prefer to look at the facts rather than indulge in conjecture. The facts are Agassi won 8 slams, across all the surfaces, and is almost-universally lauded as one of the all-time greats. Roddick, on the other hand won a solitary slam. The fact that Fed denied Roddick a few more slam wins does not magically elevate Roddick to the level of Agassi.

Chivito550

Roddick was not at the level of Agassi. Agassi won a career slam back when the courts were very different and it was almost impossible to achieve.

But Roddick was a top level player and he doesn’t get the credit he deserves. He’s unfortunate Federer was around at the same time.

walshb

dominatinMC wrote: »

That's all well and good, but I prefer to look at the facts rather than indulge in conjecture. The facts are Agassi won 8 slams, across all the surfaces, and is almost-universally lauded as one of the all-time greats. Roddick, on the other hand won a solitary slam. The fact that Fed denied Roddick a few more slam wins does not magically elevate Roddick to the level of Agassi.

Winning 8 slams in one era does not mean you are greater a tennis players than another from another era, who wins less...

I was strictly speaking about talents....

Put it this way: For me, Fed has an easier time (most of the time) against a prime Agassi than against a prime Roddick.

Success wise, yes, Agassi clearly greater than Roddick. Ability on a court and ability to win matches, and Roddick for me right up there....had Roddick been in Andre's era, I reckon he wins a fair few slams.

Fed/Nadal and Nole a far deadlier challenges to Roddick than Sampras/Courier and Kafelniko were to Andre....to give an example.

Andre wins 0 slams if he has to contend with the big three....

Hector Savage

Just saw the interview with Federer on centre, wow what a class act and a gent.

Really feel for him now.

rireland

These are 3 generational talents. Somehow, they all seem to come along around the same time in a multitude of sports. Ronaldo/Messi, Bolt.

The next group won't be the same standard, it's unlikely. You'll have very good players like the level of Del Potro etc. but expecting the standard of players we have today is unrealistic.

rireland

I really hate the fist pumping in tennis. The teams in the crowd standing up fist bumping back at them.

Also annoys me seeing Federers entourage all wearing his stupid RF caps. Lads in suits with a peak cap ffs.

Blinky Plebum

walshb wrote: »

Winning 8 slams in one era does not mean you are greater a tennis players than another from another era, who wins less...

I was strictly speaking about talents....

Put it this way: For me, Fed has an easier time (most of the time) against a prime Agassi than against a prime Roddick.

Success wise, yes, Agassi clearly greater than Roddick. Ability on a court and ability to win matches, and Roddick for me right up there....had Roddick been in Andre's era, I reckon he wins a fair few slams.

Fed/Nadal and Nole a far deadlier challenges to Roddick than Sampras/Courier and Kafelniko were to Andre....to give an example.

Andre wins 0 slams if he has to contend with the big three....

Why did Roddick not get to more finals and Semi finals?

Why did he not clean up in the early 00's, Agassi won more slams than Roddick in that time and he was in his 30's

Why was Roddick not consistent throught his career if he as better than Agassi.

Why did he not get past the 4th round at Roland Garros?

NoviGlitzko

Still devastated from yesterday.

dominatinMC

It feels like some kind of online wake today after Feds loss! Across the various social media outlets, most people seem utterly devastated, I wonder if even Federer himself is taking it as bad as some of his fans! :pac:

Seriously though, as cliched as it sounds, I think Federer can take plenty of positives from his performance yesterday. At almost 38, he out-played Djokovic for the majority of the match. He has played some unreal tennis these last two weeks, particularly in beating Nadal and almost beating Djoko. There is nothing to suggest that he can't add another slam if this forms keeps up (probably a big if). The only real issue is his mental state, the manner of yesterdays defeat might leave some scarring that could be decisive in any potential future slam final(s).

walshb

dominatinMC wrote: »

It feels like some kind of online wake today after Feds loss! Across the various social media outlets, most people seem utterly devastated, I wonder if even Federer himself is taking it as bad as some of his fans! :pac:

I think the victory over Nadal will ease the pain....

Fed I think takes losses to Nadal more personally...

That semi win v Nadal must have been so sop sweet....like his final!

BarryD2

fryup wrote: »

Novak is a far more likeable character imo

More interesting maybe - as in flawed. Whereas Roger and Corporation Federer come across as a bit too perfect? But I guess that's also why he's a crowd favourite.

Chivito550

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Still devastated from yesterday.

Me too. I don’t think I’ve taken any other Federer losses this badly. Nadal at Wimbledon 08 was tough but I always felt Nadal sort of let Federer back into that one, and he never got to match point. Del Potro in 09 was tough but a part of me saw that as pay back for getting let off the hook by Roddick in the previous slam that year. This, however, is simply devastating. He had the championship on his racquet. Back to back aces to bring him to 40-15. One more good first serve and it was almost certainly match over. 9 Wimbledon titles which would never be matched. 21 Grand Slams, which might be matched, but with a 6 slam gap back to Djokovic, it would probably only be Nadal who could. The oldest ever Grand Slam champion. All that taken away in a brief moment. Even at 11-11 there was hope again, with 2 further break points, only for the door to be closed. I could only see one winner in a tie-break.

As an aside, I’ve never been in favour of a final set tie-break. I’d say it too if Federer won. There’s something quite special about a 5th set in a slam. Lack of attention spans of the youth of today has pushed for this. Fair play to Roland Garros for resisting the urge so far. The greatest matches I’ve witnessed in the flesh (Cilic V Isner at 2011 AO, Schiavone V Kuznetsova at 2011 AO) would no longer be possible anymore under today’s tie-break rules. Smart phones and social media are the ruination of the human race. People can’t seem to keep their attention for longer than a few minutes anymore!

eagle eye

walshb wrote:

Nonsense. Go watch more of Roddick. You don't lose 16-14 in the 5th set vs Fed with just a server and little else..

Agassi beat Federer three times over 11 matches, one of his losses to Fed was a five setter at the US Open while Fed was no.1 in the world and had already won two grand slam titles that year.
Roddick beat Federer three times in 24:attempts.
Roddick and Agassi met six times and the result of those matches is 5-1 to Agassi.

walshb

Fed won their last 8 matches....in other words, once he start maturing he started winning...

That 5 setter was impressive from Agassi alright. I remember that, and only watched highlights of it, would you believe, last week.

Christy42

Chivito550 wrote: »

Me too. I don’t think I’ve taken any other Federer losses this badly. Nadal at Wimbledon 08 was tough but I always felt Nadal sort of let Federer back into that one, and he never got to match point. Del Potro in 09 was tough but a part of me saw that as pay back for getting let off the hook by Roddick in the previous slam that year. This, however, is simply devastating. He had the championship on his racquet. Back to back aces to bring him to 40-15. One more good first serve and it was almost certainly match over. 9 Wimbledon titles which would never be matched. 21 Grand Slams, which might be matched, but with a 6 slam gap back to Djokovic, it would probably only be Nadal who could. The oldest ever Grand Slam champion. All that taken away in a brief moment. Even at 11-11 there was hope again, with 2 further break points, only for the door to be closed. I could only see one winner in a tie-break.

As an aside, I’ve never been in favour of a final set tie-break. I’d say it too if Federer won. There’s something quite special about a 5th set in a slam. Lack of attention spans of the youth of today has pushed for this. Fair play to Roland Garros for resisting the urge so far. The greatest matches I’ve witnessed in the flesh (Cilic V Isner at 2011 AO, Schiavone V Kuznetsova at 2011 AO) would no longer be possible anymore under today’s tie-break rules. Smart phones and social media are the ruination of the human race. People can’t seem to keep their attention for longer than a few minutes anymore!

I think they final set tie break was because of Isner Anderson match as opposed to attention spans.

That match entirely ruined the final as Djokovic simply didn't have an opponent. It might be an idea to have them keep playing in the final as they have time recover after that.

Chivito550

Christy42 wrote: »

I think they final set tie break was because of Isner Anderson match as opposed to attention spans.

That match entirely ruined the final as Djokovic simply didn't have an opponent. It might be an idea to have them keep playing in the final as they have time recover after that.

People were celebrating the 70-68 back in 2010 as one of the great moments in tennis. 9 years later and now matches over 6-6 are suddenly too long. Short memories.

walshb

I agree with it....a winner is needed, and tv rights and advertising and general viewership wants a winner.

Other sports have sudden death scenarios...

And a final 'game' where each man knows that this is it, actually makes it more intense and exciting...

12-12 and then tie break is perfect. It's like a whole extra set....and if they still can't decide, here's the sudden death...

Hey, that can then go on and on, but with match/championship points non stop....

24 games in the final set is a reasonable amount of games imo to allow for a winner to decide itself and allows for the audience to get their fill also.

Hector Savage

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Still devastated from yesterday.

If it helps as a Djokovic fan it feels empty and hollow.
Nothing like the 14,15 Wimby finals.

forumdedum

Hector Savage wrote: »

I'd say the opposite, money wise the ATP are in big trouble when these 3 retire, none of the new lads have any charisma, maybe Krygios cos he is a rude bollocks that says what he wants, but he's like the guy you love to hate.
He won't draw the interest the Nadal and Federer have.

Krygios will win nothing. Doesn't have the brains.

alan partridge aha

What's all the devastation, Feds had it in his own hands no one to blame but himself. He played brilliantly and is beautiful to watch, but Novak is champion and I doubt it feels hollow to him.

forumdedum

alan partridge aha wrote: »

What's all the devastation, Feds had it in his own hands no one to blame but himself. He played brilliantly and is beautiful to watch, but Novak is champion and I doubt it feels hollow to him.

Federer messed up yes. Big time.

I don't know Djokovic that well but I would not want to win anything because someone messed up so bad. That's just me.

alan partridge aha

forumdedum wrote: »

Federer messed up yes. Big time.

I don't know Djokovic that well but I would not want to win anything because someone messed up so bad. That's just me.

But Novak put him under pressure, he is one of the best returners in the game. So Novak should have lay down and handed it to Feds because he was "better". Come on give me a break.

Chivito550

I’m a huge Federer fan, and not particularly fond of Djokovic, but come on, give the guy a break. If you win, you have every right to be delighted and proud. He wasn’t at his best, but he fought hard and dug in, and he played some of the very big points very well. I’m absolutely sickened, but there is no reason why Djokovic and Djokovic fans shouldn’t be delighted.

forumdedum

forumdedum wrote: »

Federer messed up yes. Big time.

I don't know Djokovic that well but I would not want to win anything because someone messed up so bad. That's just me.

Djokovic took it off him.

He went on the attack on Fed's match points in a brave fashion.

It's been the first time since 1948 that a men's champion has come back from facing match point and here it was two as he was down 15-40

So he achieved something that hasn't been done in over 60 years.

I don't think that he'll harbour any thoughts about Fed giving it to him. Quite the opposite.

The fact that he won it when he wasn't even at his best except at the key moments might make it all the sweeter.

walshb

I still think Fed better than Nole overall

All sets: Federer, 72–70....:p

50- 70 v Nadal

Nole - Nadal is 74-67

Nobody clear!

walshb

alan partridge aha wrote: »

But Novak put him under pressure, he is one of the best returners in the game. So Novak should have lay down and handed it to Feds because he was "better". Come on give me a break.

One of, if not best returners in history....

flipsat

Looking for a photo of Djokovic dancing with Halep at Wimbledon Ball last night?

walshb

Nole's win kind of reminds me of a 12 rds boxing match that is broken into 36 minutes

Fed won 19 minutes and Nole won 17 minutes, but Nole won 7 rds to 5....he nicked the rds to get over the line. Did what he had to on the critical points..

Blinky Plebum

forumdedum wrote: »

Federer messed up yes. Big time.

I don't know Djokovic that well but I would not want to win anything because someone messed up so bad. That's just me.

Yes I'm sure you'd resign from your job if your boss revealed that all the other candidates for the role did terrible interviews.

forumdedum

Blinky Plebum wrote: »

Yes I'm sure you'd resign from your job if your boss revealed that all the other candidates for the role did terrible interviews.

I don't understand that analogy. Not relevant in my job anyway.

forumdedum

alan partridge aha wrote: »

But Novak put him under pressure, he is one of the best returners in the game. So Novak should have lay down and handed it to Feds because he was "better". Come on give me a break.

I don't recall saying Novak should have lay down and handed it to him (even though he did that in set 2. Never actually witnessed that before)

walshb

forumdedum wrote: »

Federer messed up yes. Big time.

I don't know Djokovic that well but I would not want to win anything because someone messed up so bad. That's just me.

And what about all the "mess" ups that Nole had in the match?

It's swings and roundabouts.....overall Fed for me was that little bit better, but sometimes what separates winners and losers isn't always so clear-cut.

forumdedum

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’m a huge Federer fan, and not particularly fond of Djokovic, but come on, give the guy a break. If you win, you have every right to be delighted and proud. He wasn’t at his best, but he fought hard and dug in, and he played some of the very big points very well. I’m absolutely sickened, but there is no reason why Djokovic and Djokovic fans shouldn’t be delighted.

I stopped watching when Federer failed to serve it out. Even if Federer had won after that I would not have been interested in the result. I didn't check the result, it appeared on a facebook feed a few hours later.

I didn't see any post match interviews or reactions so I don't know about Djokovic's reaction.

I can tell you if I was a Djokovic fan (which I once was until his playing became negative and dull) I would not celebrate this prize.

forumdedum

walshb wrote: »

And what about all the "mess" ups that Nole had in the match?

It's swings and roundabouts.....overall Fed for me was that little bit better, but sometimes what separates winners and losers isn't always so clear-cut.

No excuse for not serving out on championship point imo.

Also throwing away a 4-2 lead in final set not worthy of a champion.

forumdedum

forumdedum wrote: »

I stopped watching when Federer failed to serve it out. Even if Federer had won after that I would not have been interested in the result. I didn't check the result, it appeared on a facebook feed a few hours later.

I didn't see any post match interviews or reactions so I don't know about Djokovic's reaction.

I can tell you if I was a Djokovic fan (which I once was until his playing became negative and dull) I would not celebrate this prize.

all sounds a bit irrational to me, sorry!

forumdedum

glasso wrote: »

all sounds a bit irrational to me, sorry!

Fine.

walshb

forumdedum wrote: »

No excuse for not serving out on championship point imo.

Also throwing away a 4-2 lead in final set not worthy of a champion.

You aren't really embracing, or it seems, understanding the whole concept and brilliance of sport, so.

sxt

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nonsense, this won't last.

Djokovic at best will finish on 19.

Nadal will win at least 2 FO's and hope no other slams.

We could see Fed + Nadal finish on 20, Nole on 19 .... fitting...

He's won 4 out of 5 slams on three occasions. He's winning 2 or 3 slams per calendar year since 2015.Only exception was 2017 when he missed halve season through shoulder injury

Federer might only have one really competitive season left before he retires?.I wouldn't put a lot of money on him beating Djkovic in another grand slam final. Nadal ailing career injuries might take their ultimate toll sooner rather than later.

Who's going to stop him going on a run of 4out of 5 slams again going forward? A pushing 40 year old Federer,? an injury prone Nadal? Andy Murray?

Andy Murray is the last guy that was not named dkjovic,Federer, Nadal to win a grand slam and that was 2016

AbusesToilets

Think the talk of him being too old to compete is a touch premature. Brady is winning SBs at 41, nothing I saw yesterday suggested a man over the hill. Whether he has the drive to continue is another question for sure.

josip

forumdedum wrote: »

I stopped watching when Federer failed to serve it out. Even if Federer had won after that I would not have been interested in the result. I didn't check the result, it appeared on a facebook feed a few hours later.
...

For someone who claims not to have been interested, you've been posting an awful lot on here.

EagererBeaver

I think it's simple. Final set tie break in all rounds but the final.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^^

nah, they would've been there all night

forumdedum

josip wrote: »

For someone who claims not to have been interested, you've been posting an awful lot on here.

I watched the match until 8-8, 5th set. Lost interest there.

Did not seek the result, appeared on Facebook feed. Here I have expressed views.