Let's face it. His last two Slam wins have been bit of a lark. I mean when you face Andreev and Mueller in late rounds of Slams, and then face depleted Djokovic and Murray, you've had a pretty nice run of it. But it was topped off at the French where he faced, no this is not a typo for you fans who missed the event, Robin Soderling in the finals.

Now Fed must go through Dr. Ivo, Djoko and Murray (well, he won't have to go thru Murray b/c Djoko's going to take him down) to win Wimby. I don't see how it can happen. I know he's great at Wimby, and he would never be able to beat this trifecta at the Open in Sept (well, maybe let me substitute, Roddick for Dr. Ivo). If Roddick beats Murray, which I can see happening now that Murray is looking a little patchy, Fed still doesn't win.

 

Redhead:

   Your constant contradictions are confusing even to you. When it comes to Federer you exhibit marshmallow logic: soft, gooey and a confection of contradictions.

   So let's review the Redhead treatsie on tennis:

1. You spouted off on this board that Djoker would win more career majors than Fed yet Fed beats Djoker, the guy you claimed would win more majors than he, and it's a "soft draw"?  

2. Murray beats the World No. 1 Nadal at the US Open, enters the Open final with a career winning record over Federer and that's a "soft draw"?

3. Karlovic has not lost serve for this entire grass court season - are you suggesting beating him on grass is soft?

4. Both you and Tommyboy castigated Murray as a pusher with a weak forehand and now you're claiming Murray won't make the final?

 

 

 

 

redhead:

Let's face it. His last two Slam wins have been bit of a lark. I mean when you face Andreev and Mueller in late rounds of Slams, and then face depleted Djokovic and Murray, you've had a pretty nice run of it. But it was topped off at the French where he faced, no this is not a typo for you fans who missed the event, Robin Soderling in the finals.

That Soderling guy knocked off Gonzalez, Ferrer and Nadal on clay to reach the final. We can rightfully say he is in the form of his life. Not a cakewalk...

 

redhead:

Now Fed must go through Dr. Ivo, Djoko and Murray (well, he won't have to go thru Murray b/c Djoko's going to take him down) to win Wimby. I don't see how it can happen. I know he's great at Wimby, and he would never be able to beat this trifecta at the Open in Sept (well, maybe let me substitute, Roddick for Dr. Ivo). If Roddick beats Murray, which I can see happening now that Murray is looking a little patchy, Fed still doesn't win.

Granted Djoko has flown under the radar pretty, but will have his hands full with Haas (not unlike the Fed at the French). By no means is that a walkover. Federer has looked pretty good, needs to come up big against Karlovic and anybody else in his way. But I still believe that he will at least go through to the final and has a great chance of winning it (again). And didnt the Fed beat Djoko and Murray (two thirds of the Trifecta) last september when many people had already written him off?

So, you (Redhead) being a big Johnny Mac guy, do you discount his win against Chris Lewis in the FINAL of Wimby, not a so called "late round" creampuff, but in the final of the Big W.Wheres Lewis on your list of all time greats?

 Heres Lewis's great run to the final.

This Event Points: , South African Airways ATP Ranking: , Prize Money: $

I think the only one who 'can' beat Roger right now is a Djocko who is hitting on all cylinders. Murray can give Roger a fine battle, but I think Roger can still beat Murray on grass. He probably will NOT be able to do that on hard courts later this summer. As good as Roger is, he's now getting a little older. He's looked great in this tournament, though..... his serving is excellent and he looks to be in good shape. Some of the commentators have stated that he has NOT yet lost a halfstep. As he gets older, some of the very best guys will be able to beat him when they play their best, and Murray looks to be one of those guys. So does Djocko. Del Potro may be having something to say about the hard courts this summer as well.

I think Roger will be holding that trophy this Sunday, though. With five possible sets, I think Roger will simply find a way to beat these guys and win this thing, but it might be the last time he wins this trophy as well. 

 

---

Carpe Diem, my friend... all the way to the end:
http://www.motionbox.com/videos/d496d2b51c19e1cd5b

With 8 guys left at this years Wim. it looks as wide open and available as any major.  Roger has to be the clear favorite because he has done it before, has all the weapons, has confidence, and moves on grass like Baryshnikov.

I wish Roddick could find a way but consider him and Fererro the longest shots.

Roger really has a tough draw this year and if he does it again he again deserves all credit.  Not sure if Murray has self belief yet.

I can see Haas beating the Djoker but it is probably just wishful thinking on my part.

Hewitt was serving seconds at 88 and 85 mph- that will not get it done.  I will be amazed if someone does not dismantle him.

I like the Croatian guy and wouldn't be bummed if he won it either. 

If Novak makes the final I won't even want to watch.

RP,

I think that Redhead said that this particular draw at Wimby is not soft for Fed.  I know that it is hard to interpret what Red says half the time, but even I managed to make sense of him this time.   I have implied that Murray is a pusher with a weak forehand, but on the fast courts, where counterpunching is an important component of success, he is likely to be successful. 

 tommyboy

I'm quite clear in what I state as I was with T-boy when I told him quite succinctly that Nadal was not going to win three slams this year, or any year, and Gilles Simon, his beloved Frenchman, has about as much chance of making a Slam semi as does Richard Gasquet.

Now, as for Djoko, I said that I over-estimated him and although I like his game a lot and his pluck, I revised my initial Slam prediction for Djoko and as a result, I see Fed beating him at Wimby.

Karlovic is a good draw for a Slam quarter, but I think Roger has to be happy he's not facing Roddick, Djoko, Murray or Haas in the quarters and is facing Ivo.

There's no way Fed is taking this Wimby b/c he will be facing fresh, younger players. At the US Open, Djoko and Murray were younger, but not fresher. You tell me in a few days whether that makes a difference.

Now, RP, Scoop said he's coming up to Newport. Are you? Say for the semis on Friday?

redhead:

I'm quite clear in what I state as I was with T-boy when I told him quite succinctly that Nadal was not going to win three slams this year, or any year, and Gilles Simon, his beloved Frenchman, has about as much chance of making a Slam semi as does Richard Gasquet.

Now, as for Djoko, I said that I over-estimated him and although I like his game a lot and his pluck, I revised my initial Slam prediction for Djoko and as a result, I see Fed beating him at Wimby.

Karlovic is a good draw for a Slam quarter, but I think Roger has to be happy he's not facing Roddick, Djoko, Murray or Haas in the quarters and is facing Ivo.

There's no way Fed is taking this Wimby b/c he will be facing fresh, younger players. At the US Open, Djoko and Murray were younger, but not fresher. You tell me in a few days whether that makes a difference.

Now, RP, Scoop said he's coming up to Newport. Are you? Say for the semis on Friday?

 

Redhead

Most interesting post. The original one was a hummer!

I thought I knew the meaning of comeuppance, but after seeing your post, I had to look it up to be sure. Here it is: "A punishment or retribution that one deserves; one's just deserts."

 

I get it that you don't like Fed, and truly wish he would just step aside, for the cooler, 'better' players. Sorry he has disappointed you. (But hey, you'll always have Vinnie!) 

 

I wonder how someone "rightfully will get his comeuppance".  Federer is a 5 time Wimbledon champion, lost last year's final by a whisker in a match called the greatest ever. Then he wins the US Open (I won't even bother addressing who Roger beat to win that event since facts are facts), and on top of that he wins the friggin French Open this year!  But I guess the only thing in tennis Federer hasn't earned yet is his comeuppance!

 

Soft or hard - those are descriptions for pillows or boiled eggs. Not tennis draws.  

 And do my eyes deceive me, or have you revised your pics, and are now saying Fed will beat the Djoker?!  First, Fed must beat (the somewhat graceful?!) Karlovic, and Djoker must get by Tommy Haas. As for who Fed faces in the quarters, well he couldn't play Murray or Djoker based on their rankings. Federer v Roddick in a major?  Isn't it 7-0 in Fed's favor - and he's only lost 2 sets. While Tommy Haas is a dangerous opponent, taking Federer to 5 sets in 2 majors in the last few years, I still think Karlovic is the most dangerous opponent for any guy at Wimbledon - at least before the finals.  I am wondering too, how you would describe the R16 opponents of Federer and Djoker at Wimbledon this year.

 

Karlovic is an absolute crapshoot. It's why he's in the quarters this year without losing serve, but lost his last 4 first round matches at Wimbledon. Fed has the experience but I guarantee you he'd rather play Djoker, Murray, Haas, or Roddick in the quarters.  Karlovic just has to go for bombs on his serves, that is pretty much it. It won't be pretty tennis. In fact it will be rather ugly, and ungraceful. But I guess that's what you're looking for. Afterall, Rog deserves his "comeuppance."

 

One day I'd love to get a clear definition of what a "fresher" player is.  I wonder, would Roger Federer at the 2008 Australian Open be designated a "fresh" player? 

 

Anyhoo, clever posts - saying Fed has a soft draw, and he's lucky he's playing Ivo. Cause if Roger loses it's a great way for you to say, "see I told you the guy was dead!"

If I hear one more time"how did he/she create that angle" I am going to scream. There are noangles to create; they all exist already, pick one from 1 to 179 degrees, depending on where you are on the court and where you want the ball to land.Also if somebody just witnessed something, he cannot say “unbelievable”. If one just saw it, it cannot be unbeliavable. Unbeliavable is reserved for when somebody is told something out of the ordinary.Extraordinary would be the appropriate term.

sorry, put in wrong place will correct it.

I agree with the part about "Federer is a 5 time Wimbledon champion, lost last year's final by a whisker in a match called the greatest ever. Then he wins the US Open"

ALL EXCELLENT POINTS!

InDEED, Roger barely lost that match. Sometimes, tennis is so incremental that you just 'edge someone out' and that is EXACTLY what Nadal managed to do.

Nadal did not 'destroy' Roger Federer at Wimbledon; Nadal edged him out. And this year Nadal is GONE.

I see Federer holding another trophy. He is serving well, and looks confident.   

 

 

---

Carpe Diem, my friend... all the way to the end:
http://www.motionbox.com/videos/d496d2b51c19e1cd5b

Jocko has been rolling thru his games and looks very tough:

 

First Round	Julien Benneteau	W	6-7 (8-10), 7-6 (7-1), 6-2, 6-4
	Second Round	Simon Greul	W	7-5, 6-1, 6-4
		Third Round	Mardy Fish (28)	W	6-4, 6-4, 6-4
		Fourth Round	Dudi Sela	W	6-2, 6-4, 6-1

 

Novak has been mopping people UP. It might have been done quietly? But he's got some amp to his game. 

 

 

---

Carpe Diem, my friend... all the way to the end:
http://www.motionbox.com/videos/d496d2b51c19e1cd5b

Couple of points:

- How can Karlovic be considered an easy draw? The guy serves huge, has not lost his service in the whole grass court season and has finally picked up some rally abilities. For crying out loud, he defeats Tsonga (number 9 seed) and Verdasco (number 8 seed) and he is an easy draw? I think that people sometimes make the mistake of only looking at the name of a player instead of looking at the level of tennis that they are playing. Why do people say that Soderling was easy at the French? The guy was in the form of his life, demonstrating it by taking it to Nadal and beating him and also coming back from out of nowhere to defeat Gonzalez... To me, Karlovic is a name in (grasscourt)tennis and is also in the form of his life. Though the bookies say that Federer is a favorite and is also favored to win in three sets, the odds between a three and four setter are quite close. This also is something I would suspect, Federer in 3 or 4 sets. But not a cakewalk by all means!

- By your "name" logic, how has Djokovic not received an easy draw. Come on, Simon Gruel and Dudi Sela as your 2nd and 4th round opponents. I'll give you the Mardy Fish win, that was good, but otherwise it was rubbish. I think today against Haas will be the first real test of how well Djokovic is playing.

- How can the younger players not be "fresh"? Djokovic and Murray are 6 years Rogers junior and Nadal is 5 years Rogers junior. Murray you could make a case for, because he had to defeat Nadal and then the next day come back for Roger. But come on, if youre 21/22 then that shouldnt be a problem for an athlete. Djokovic had a day off between the Federer semi-final, so boo-freaking-hoo that he had to play an extra set two days before going into a semi-final with Federer.

On the point of players having less rest than the other, I can only think of two unfair situations, and both involve Nadal:  Wimbledon '07, and AO '09.  The rest of the stuff I read about unfair scheduling is just plain nonsense to me. 

About Djokovic, he has had a cakewalk of a draw.  I even consider Tommy Haas in the quarters part of that cakewalk.  Haas has a surgically repaired shoulder, and because he does not have heart and character like my man Muster (who played with a surgically repaired knee and won a grand slam), he will not rise above adversity, and beat Djokovic today.  His win in Halle over Djokovic was also helped by a partisan crowd in Germany.  He will not have such today. The only thing that has helped Haas in this tournament is his second round first set retirement by Llodra, which got him well rested for his 3rd round match against Cilic, whom he also beat in two days in five sets.  I believe he might have lost this match if not for what he received in the second round.  He has subsequently beaten Andreev, and now faces Djoker.  I still say that Djoker takes this match as easily as  he wants it to be. 

About Karlovic playing Federer.  I actually admire Karlovic's performance in this tournament for one reason. His win against Tsonga in the 3rd round.  Tsonga had a walkover in the 2nd, and therefore was well rested entering the 3rd, and should have had the edge over Dr. Ivo.    Usually such a win over a well rested player requires five sets, and then should have lost against Verdasco if he had gone five against Tsonga. Karlovic was up for the task and won both matches in routine four set scorelines.   Karlovic is playing at a high level in the tournament, and Fed will have his work cut out for him. 

Sentimentally, I would love it if Karlovic wins Wimbledon because he is basically a self-made man.  No one believed in him and his potential when he grew up, thereby less an inferior quality private training at the grass routes level compared to  the greats of the game today .  At 18 or 19, he put himself on the challenger and futures circuit with little support, and coaching.  He won tournaments late in his career, but he did win all surfaces so far.  He is 30 years old, and he is at his very last hurrah in his tennis career, so he is hungry and even desperate entering the quarters. 

Sentimentally, I would also love it if Murray wins Wimbledon because it would be nice to lift the morale of Dunblane, Scotland, after the aweful tragedy of the school shooting back in 1996 at Murray's primary school.  It would also be nice for Britain as well to have a  first Wimbledon champion in over 70 years.  And Murray has enough game and presently with the crowds willing him, enough exposed heart to win it.  When Henman competed for Wimbledon, the tennis gap between him and Sampras, Agassi, and Ivanisevic was huge, and he still lost in a semi in five.  I  think the gap between him and Federer, is significantly smaller than that of Henman and his competition.  And he has had plenty of breakthroughs in his young career, that he still can build on, and face it, Nadal is not in the draw.  He can not ask for a better situation. 

And finally, can not count out Federer, who is just a winning machine.  And if he wins 15, he is hands down the GOAT, and only idiots would raise a hand to argue against such quantitative and qualitative facts.