Stan Wawrinka...

Beautiful performance from Stan yesterday. It's got to be appreciated by anyone, including Djokovic! As much as Fed's game looks creative and beautiful, it also looks outdated against the modern players such as Djokovic. finesse, creativity and precision don't pay off. They are matched by 2 extra steps and average shots on today's slow surfaces. And even on faster surfaces, it's clealry a struggle to cross the line with those players whose mouvement have made the court much smaller than it used to be.

Forget about creativity and guile, nowadays. one needs racquet power to outpace legs. And this is exactly what Stan has and showed yesterday. He felt that this natural power could hurt Djoko and that gave him faith to believe as well.

I don't expect Stan to line up many slams from now, he could probably had he had Djoko and Murray professionalism but he simply doesn't want to. He is satisfied with whatever comes to him rather effortlessly and this is a quality I also appreciate. It's a balanced approach to life.

To Stan, Keep on surprising us!

Couldn't agree more.

He accepts the fact he's a step lower on the ladder than the big 4 and feels comfortable with it. What he doesn't seem to realize is how exiting his game really is. He hits some of the extraordinary shots you'll ever see, yet makes no fuss about it.

I had no other choice but to learn to appreciate pain and quite early in life, the sun truly never shines so brightly as after the rain...so yesterday was a beautiful match in many ways.

Stan, the warm Slavic soul of course is not the machine, neither is Nole though many think otherwise.

It was Nole's emotions that again cost him the win.
So intense they crushed him and froze him with fear.

I hope he beats himself one day, that is a hard thing to do as one needs to really touch the very rock bottom.

But once he does, he will be liberated.

It may happen later in life, but I'd like to see it happen to him while he is still playing.

Nole has played tennis with a lot of pressure from day one, knowing his parents had huge debts to pay for his tennis lessons, their house was put on as a stake...and that's almost written in his DNA now.

The fearful moment in which he is afraid to pull the trigger.
I clearly remember the shot in the second set in which he lost the match.

Stan...the nice, humble man, the one who tries to fail better and not ashamed to show it to the world...very endearing.
And then the way he plays his game.
Lots of heart.
Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't...I know the feeling.
And the beauty of playing like that you don't have regrets and fears afterwards...because you did all you could...really!

As for tennis and its "modern" stage...

"Then sing, ye birds, sing, sing a joyous song!
       And let the young lambs bound
       As to the tabor's sound!
We in thought will join your throng,
     Ye that pipe and ye that play,
     Ye that through your hearts to-day
     Feel the gladness of the May!
What though the radiance which was once so bright
Be now for ever taken from my sight,
   Though nothing can bring back the hour
Of splendour in the grass, of glory in the flower;
     We will grieve not, rather find
     Strength in what remains behind;
     In the primal sympathy
     Which having been must ever be;
     In the soothing thoughts that spring
     Out of human suffering;
     In the faith that looks through death,
In years that bring the philosophic mind."


W. Wordsworth

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive and to be young was very heaven.

noleisthebest wrote:...The fearful moment in which Nole is afraid to pull the trigger.
I clearly remember the shot in the second set in which he lost the match.

I have not seen that shot. But this is what gave him all those slams too. To go for moderation over the distance instead of all guns blazing. He goes for broke when he has no other choices (you know those USO 10 and 11!).

So it did not pay yesterday but it paid all the other 8 slams he won.

Stan says it clearly in his french interview. "I had the power to push him a foot or 2 further the baseline. Had I not done it, I would have been the one 2 feet extra behind the baseline. That was the key to the match. He was fresh when he entered the court but I tired him down."

I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

Quite interesting as many thought he would dominate everything easily for the next 2 years. Nothing is easy at the very top!

luvsports! wrote:Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive and to be young was very heaven.

Indeed...I am glad to have to even witnessed some of it. We as tennis have been indulged.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...The fearful moment in which Nole is afraid to pull the trigger.
I clearly remember the shot in the second set in which he lost the match.

I have not seen that shot. But this is what gave him all those slams too. To go for moderation over the distance instead of all guns blazing. He goes for broke when he has no other choices (you know those USO 10 and 11!).

So it did not pay yesterday but it paid all the other 8 slams he won.

Stan says it clearly in his french interview. "I had the power to push him a foot or 2 further the baseline. Had I not done it, I would have been the one 2 feet extra behind the baseline. That was the key to the match. He was fresh when he entered the court but I tired him down."

I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

Quite interesting as many thought he would dominate everything easily for the next 2 years. Nothing is easy at the very top!

No certainly not.
And I hope nobody has to play with those terrible balls ever again.
Enough is enough.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2015/06/22/Roland-Garros-Final-Brain-Game.aspx

Good analysis actually...in particular that bit.

Backhand Down the Line
This single shot was a stroke of genius for Wawrinka, as it greatly diminished Djokovic’s cross court defensive prowess, and the Serb’s ability to dictate the flow of points from his own backhand corner. The threat to pull the trigger at will created a whole new baseline dynamic, especially as Wawrinka surged to the finish line in the fourth set.

Something I have been saying for a long time regarding Fed. Something Fed can about do on lower bounce/faster surfaces.....but which Stan seems to be able to do anywhere.

I actually think the slow balls probably helped him yesterday. Faster balls woudl have given him less confidence.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:...The fearful moment in which Nole is afraid to pull the trigger.
I clearly remember the shot in the second set in which he lost the match.

I have not seen that shot. But this is what gave him all those slams too. To go for moderation over the distance instead of all guns blazing. He goes for broke when he has no other choices (you know those USO 10 and 11!).

So it did not pay yesterday but it paid all the other 8 slams he won.

Stan says it clearly in his french interview. "I had the power to push him a foot or 2 further the baseline. Had I not done it, I would have been the one 2 feet extra behind the baseline. That was the key to the match. He was fresh when he entered the court but I tired him down."

I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

Quite interesting as many thought he would dominate everything easily for the next 2 years. Nothing is easy at the very top!

It was a short ball he got off Stan's BH after attacking it.
Nole moved in and instead of putting the ball away with an inside out or CC FH or even deflect it with a volley he hit it hard back at Stan down the middle, but as he loaded it with spin it landed a bit shorter right into Stan's hitting range and got him back into the rally, game and match.
I can't remember what the score was, but pretty sure it was on Stan's serve.

2nd set was crucial as Nole was tired. He gambled his energy away hitting with Stan. And those balls sapped him of whatever he had left after Nadal and Murray very quickly.
Had he won that point I believe he would've won the set and match.

But he didn't - so he lost. The ocassion again suffocated him. There is no other way to explain that shot selection. The whole second set he was frozen but had energy to play.

I wonder at what point in the match it dawned on him he was gone.

When I tuned back for the last game I could not believe the state he was in both physically and emotionally.
He was numb.

I don't think even that "ovation" was able to snap him out of it.

noleisthebest wrote:
Nole has played tennis with a lot of pressure from day one, knowing his parents had huge debts to pay for his tennis lessons, their house was put on as a stake...and that's almost written in his DNA now.

What has all this talk got to do on this tennis forum? You want to sound like Aggasi does in his book OPEN... "look at me , I've been through a lot "...

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:
Nole has played tennis with a lot of pressure from day one, knowing his parents had huge debts to pay for his tennis lessons, their house was put on as a stake...and that's almost written in his DNA now.

What has all this talk got to do on this tennis forum? You want to sound like Aggasi does in his book OPEN... "look at me , I've been through a lot "...

Tenez wrote:I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

And why would he? No one deserves any slam, they all have to win it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

And why would he? No one deserves any slam, they all have to win it.

Because he has consistently beaten on clay the player who has won 9 of them. I don't think the difference in level between Djoko and Nadal on clay is reflected by the 9 FO to 0, do you?

Some deserve to win slams but don't, while others win slams they typically woudl not have deserved. Do you still think this world is perfect and fair?

Tenez wrote:

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:I agree that Djoko deserves a FO but I also think he won other slams he shoudl not have won. So I guess in balance he shoudl be ok.

And why would he? No one deserves any slam, they all have to win it.

Because he has consistently beaten on clay the player who has won 9 of them. I don't think the difference in level between Djoko and Nadal on clay is reflected by the 9 FO to 0, do you?

Some deserve to win slams but don't, while others win slams they typically woudl not have deserved. Do you still think this world is perfect and fair?

Where was Djokovic when Nadal was winning those 9 RG titles? Djokovic has only been able to win on clay off late.  How many RG finals did he reach before 2012? Not even 1. He just had 1 clay masters, 2008 Rome. Compare that to what Nadal has been doing on clay since 2005. Now after all this if Nadal has 9 FOs and Djokovic has 0, but just that Djokovic defeated Nadal this year, it doesn't mean he deserved anything more than 0 RGs.

And Nadal is not a very difficult opponent for Djokovic, considering Djokovic has a very firm DHBH and extremely flexible body. And he still has beaten Nadal at RG this only year after 3 straight losses? For that he deserved his final spot and he got that. What more should he get?

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:
Where was Djokovic when Nadal was winning those 9 RG titles? Djokovic has only been able to win on clay off late.  How many RG finals did he reach before 2012? Not even 1. He just had 1 clay masters, 2008 Rome. Compare that to what Nadal has been doing on clay since 2005. Now after all this if Nadal has 9 FOs and Djokovic has 0, but just that Djokovic defeated Nadal this year, it doesn't mean he deserved anything more than 0 RGs.

You know it is more complex than that! Djoko has beaten Nadal consistently on clay since 2011. In that period Nadal won 4 FOs, Djoko 0. Not a good reflexion of their respective level. The draw is extremely important in tennis and therefore it's very conceivable that one can be luckier than the other. I am not sure that Stan would have been able to get passed Nadal, Murray and Djoko in succession. He may have.....but far from sure! That is why I find it bizarre that you cannot see the "chance" factor in a slam ..or anything else it seems.

And Nadal is not a very difficult opponent for Djokovic, considering Djokovic has a very firm DHBH and extremely flexible body. And he still has beaten Nadal at RG this only year after 3 straight losses? For that he deserved his final spot and he got that. What more should he get?

As mentioned, better draws, a drug free Nadal, more wind, less wind, faster or slower balls, more luck, who knows?

I also think Federer deserves more than one FO. In fact more than 17 slams. I also agree that others deserve less than they have won. It's a personal view, no one has to abide by it but many may feel the same.

Anyway...back to Stan.
Anyone see him a force in Wimbledon?

Funnily I have no memory of him playing there except that five setter against Murray in 2010 (?), that was the first ever match under the roof.

Stan's best result before last years qf loss to feds (4 sets), was in 09 with a 5 set loss to murray.

He's never done very well there. In '13 after a good year, he fell in he first round to Hewitt. 
Wimby has deffo been his least successful surface. He struggles in the first week as he has less time to hit those groundies but he could be v dangerous when the tourney progresses.

luvsports! wrote:Stan's best result before last years qf loss to feds (4 sets), was in 09 with a 5 set loss to murray.

He's never done very well there. In '13 after a good year, he fell in he first round to Hewitt. 
Wimby has deffo been his least successful surface. He struggles in the first week as he has less time to hit those groundies but he could be v dangerous when the tourney progresses.

Well, that's the surface where quick hands come "handy"!

It would be interesting to try and remember which players were able to hit through the court in RG tnis year.
From what I saw it was only Stan, Murray and Kokki.
I assume Cilic didn't have much problem, but haven't actually seen him.

Berd had the power but was too slow even for there.

Stan had the best combination for those conditions.
I wonder of he would've been able to beat Murray.

I was just watching the hilights of yesterday match again and though Stan produced many winners, it's the shots that lead to pull a winners that made the difference. On average Stan's shots were not more powerful, but they had more purpose. More risky, more depth.

Watching it again, Djoko's game is horrible. He was just trying to contain and tire Wawrinka. It's actually very clear when the emotion is gone. Djoko's shots were so safe with the only aim to force the running.

Like Murray, like Nadal before, Djoko is the death of tennis and this is the reason he is not as popular as a number 1 should be.

I am fed up with those type of players who kill the sport really. Yes they are "professional", depressingly consistent and break records at will as their game is based on science and not guile but they are awful to watch.

Well I would not mind them if they were losing much more often. But it sad to have super Canas or super Granollers as "Greats"!

BTW, I'd say the same of Monfils if Monfils was number 1 by just retrieving. Luckily Monfils is a show man as well and don't mind losing. I know you won't like my post NITB but it's watching those hilights which made me realise how low the game dropped.

Yes, I know Nole is a counter-puncher.
It was hard to outhit Stan with those balls. Especially with no day of rest after beating Nadal and Murray.
Even Fed could do nothing.

Plus, I have learnt not to judge matches based on highlights.
It's better to watch even three whole games and get some idea of the dynamics than selected disjointed points usually made by fans.

I am not trying to take anything away from Stan, but it would've been a different story had Nole had two days of rest like him.

The whole draw was geared to help Fed, but it was Stan who made the most of it.

You know I agree with just about all your views, anyway...

I admit I am emotionally biased a bit and you just have to live with it!

Tenez wrote:I was just watching the hilights of yesterday match again and though Stan produced many winners, it's the shots that lead to pull a winners that made the difference. On average Stan's shots were not more powerful, but they had more purpose. More risky, more depth.

Watching it again, Djoko's game is horrible. He was just trying to contain and tire Wawrinka. It's actually very clear when the emotion is gone. Djoko's shots were so safe with the only aim to force the running.

Like Murray, like Nadal before, Djoko is the death of tennis and this is the reason he is not as popular as a number 1 should be.

I am fed up with those type of players who kill the sport really. Yes they are "professional", depressingly consistent and break records at will as their game is based on science and not guile but they are awful to watch.

Well I would not mind them if they were losing much more often. But it sad to have super Canas or super Granollers as "Greats"!

His shots averaged 10mph faster than Djoko.

noleisthebest wrote:Plus, I have learnt not to judge matches based on highlights.
It's better to watch even three whole games and fet some idea of the dynamics than selected disjointed points usually made by fans.

I am not trying to take anything away from Stan, but ot would've been a different story had Nole had two days of rest like Stan.

The whole draw was feared to help Fed, but it was Stan who made the most of it.

You know I agree with just about all your views, anyway...

I admit I am emotionally biased a bit and you just have to live with it!

Heat of the moment saying Stan is like Berdych?

luvsports! wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Plus, I have learnt not to judge matches based on highlights.
It's better to watch even three whole games and fet some idea of the dynamics than selected disjointed points usually made by fans.

I am not trying to take anything away from Stan, but ot would've been a different story had Nole had two days of rest like Stan.

The whole draw was feared to help Fed, but it was Stan who made the most of it.

You know I agree with just about all your views, anyway...

I admit I am emotionally biased a bit and you just have to live with it!

Heat of the moment saying Stan is like Berdych?

No, not really, I still think they play the same game: baseline with lots of power.

The "only" difference is Stan's gutsy and Berd is not. And that's probably because Stan's more talented.

I hope you can see the difference between comparing games and players.
I was comparing their game.

Murray is a cross between Nole's and Nadal's game. For example, but a different player from both.

noleisthebest wrote: I am just emotionally biased a bit but you just have to live with it!

We all are I guess. I could be a bit more diplomatic for sure but having endured years of Nadal's "consistency" I am losing patience a bit with those types of games. It's simply "too" professional and that's not good for the game. Djoko was also grunting loudly after every shot. This mixed with his unelegant style did it for me.


The French are rude! Sorry.

noleisthebest wrote:

luvsports! wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Plus, I have learnt not to judge matches based on highlights.
It's better to watch even three whole games and fet some idea of the dynamics than selected disjointed points usually made by fans.

I am not trying to take anything away from Stan, but ot would've been a different story had Nole had two days of rest like Stan.

The whole draw was feared to help Fed, but it was Stan who made the most of it.

You know I agree with just about all your views, anyway...

I admit I am emotionally biased a bit and you just have to live with it!

Heat of the moment saying Stan is like Berdych?

No, not really, I still think they play the same game: baseline with lots of power.

The "only" difference is Stan's gutsy and Berd is not. And that's probably because Stan's more talented.

I hope you can see the difference between comparing games and players.
I was comparing their game.

Murray is a cross between Nole's and Nadal's game. For example, but a different player from both.

I see Berdych, delpo and soderling as alike: 6'4+.

Stan has a shbh, can hit winners off both sides at will, is 6 ft and can serve at 135 or so.
Murray is a lot more similar to Novak than Stan is to Berd.

Yes Stan's style is very different to Berd's. Not even the same power. Stan is much smoother as a player. He is extremely talented. Really bizarre he took him that long to play his best tennis.

Excellent OP.

Tenez wrote:You know it is more complex than that! Djoko has beaten Nadal consistently on clay since 2011. In that period Nadal won 4 FOs, Djoko 0. Not a good reflexion of their respective level. The draw is extremely important in tennis and therefore it's very conceivable that one can be luckier than the other. I am not sure that Stan would have been able to get passed Nadal, Murray and Djoko in succession. He may have.....but far from sure! That is why I find it bizarre that you cannot see the "chance" factor in a slam ..or anything else it seems. 

Draw is important and I see there is always a possibility of chance. And all them Nadal, Djokovic and Federer have had their fair share of lucky or open draws which allowed them success. If you think this year Djokovic had a tough draw, the last 3 years he had it fairly easy, but he didn't win.

What is there on paper doesn't count always, especially for explosive player like Stan. He may turn out a totally different player on the given day. Stan did get past Djokovic, Berdych and Nadal at AO 2014. He got past Federer Tsonga and Djokovic this RG, and you already know the h2h he has against all the 3. So Stan had a mountain to climb to win this RG, and deserved it more than anyone else. He played the best tennis this tournament. Do you think Djokovic played the best tennis of RG15?

What is h2h of Djokovic against Murray and Nadal and Stan?  You already know, don't you? As you know, he has been beating them all fairly consistently. So even if they are in his path of the draw, they are not difficult opponents for him. His slam road was much easier for him. Be sides Djokovic not having Fed in semis was good for him. It was more likely that Fed could beat Djokovic than a Murray. So whose path to the win was tougher? Definitely Stan. And he conquered it

So Djokovic draw wasn't really bad for him. If he didn't take this up, he didn't deserve anything more than the final. He will deserve a slam when he wins it.

Stan played courageous tennis, and Djokovic played his usual consistency road-runner tennis. Its so much better than the former was the winner. I know you wouldn't disagree to this.

Tenez wrote:As mentioned, better draws, a drug free Nadal, more wind, less wind, faster or slower balls, more luck, who knows? 

And why do you think Djokovic is not doped that he should get a drug-free Nadal? All road-runners are the basically the same.

Tenez wrote:I was just watching the hilights of yesterday match again and though Stan produced many winners, it's the shots that lead to pull a winners that made the difference. On average Stan's shots were not more powerful, but they had more purpose. More risky, more depth.

Watching it again, Djoko's game is horrible. He was just trying to contain and tire Wawrinka. It's actually very clear when the emotion is gone. Djoko's shots were so safe with the only aim to force the running.

Like Murray, like Nadal before, Djoko is the death of tennis and this is the reason he is not as popular as a number 1 should be.

I am fed up with those type of players who kill the sport really. Yes they are "professional", depressingly consistent and break records at will as their game is based on science and not guile but they are awful to watch.

Well I would not mind them if they were losing much more often. But it sad to have super Canas or super Granollers as "Greats"!

Good post.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:...

What is h2h of Djokovic against Murray and Nadal and Stan?  You already know, don't you? As you know, he has been beating them all fairly consistently. So even if they are in his path of the draw, they are not difficult opponents for him. His slam road was much easier for him. Be sides Djokovic not having Fed in semis was good for him. It was more likely that Fed could beat Djokovic than a Murray. So whose path to the win was tougher? Definitely Stan. And he conquered it

So Djokovic draw wasn't really bad for him. If he didn't take this up, he didn't deserve anything more than the final. He will deserve a slam when he wins it.

No, I disagree with this reasoning. Sure Djoko can beat Nadal and Murray...but it's not easy, far from it, he can only beat them cause he puts the miles in. He leaves feathers on the way...and quite a few in fact.

At teh end the argument is easy. Djoko has had the better of the guy who won 9 slams on clay while himself getting none. Can happen.... but weirds stats happen and that is one.

I consider federer a better player than Bruguera on clay...yet one has 2 or 3 FOs, the other only one....why cause fed was unlucky to have Nadal, or unlucky to have new strings and lighter racquets in, or unlucky to have the sport turning a blind eye on PED, etc...the list is long and muight not be accurate but at the end of the day luck is a huge factor.....like slightly touching a net after a smash, or too much sun not allowing a player to think as clearly as under cool temps.

It's important to absorb all the analog information which is not out there in the stats!

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote: I am just emotionally biased a bit but you just have to live with it!

We all are I guess. I could be a bit more diplomatic for sure but  having endured years of Nadal's "consistency" I am losing patience a bit with those types of games. It's simply "too" professional and that's not good for the game. Djoko was also grunting loudly after every shot. This mixed with his unelegant style did it for me.
The French are rude! Sorry.

I wouldn't have them any other way!

Funnily, the rudest word in that whole post is "sorry"...

Tenez wrote:No, I disagree with this reasoning. Sure Djoko can beat Nadal and Murray...but it's not easy, far from it, he can only beat them cause he puts the miles in. He leaves feathers on the way...and quite a few in fact. 

Djokovic's preferred play is putting in the miles, this is the type of game he always implies first. Why is this hard for him then? He gets what he would prefer to. Djokvic tiring? Not him. Had he broken in the 4th and won the set, he sure would have had the energy to put miles for another 2 hours. Did you not see how he blew Stan and Murray in the AO 5th set? He may be tired, but still had energy and would still prefer that road-running than anything else unless he has juts no choice and the match is almost over for him. Just because his game is tiring doesn't mean he loses any feathers on the way. This road-running doesn't even need much feathers.

Tenez wrote:At teh end the argument is easy. Djoko has had the better of the guy who won 9 slams on clay while himself getting none. Can happen.... but weirds stats happen and that is one. 

It took him 10 year to have the better of Nadal at RG and that too in QF. If it was the final, it wouldn't have been so straight fwd for him considering the pressure of losing the last 3 years. In that sense it was better draw for him to face Nadal in QF. So this draw was good for him.

Tenez wrote:I consider federer a better player than Bruguera on clay...yet one has 2 or 3 FOs, the other only one....why cause fed was unlucky to have Nadal,

Federer is a better player with 4RG finals, 1 win and many Masters titles and finals. All the finals he lost was to Nadal who definitely is GOAT on clay hands down. Just looking at No. of RGs doesn't mean much. But did Fed deserve more RG titles than Bruguera? In tennis everyone is an under achiever. One can only beat who is on the opposite side of the court. So if Bruguera has 2 slams, I have to give it to him...he just has it.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:.... Just looking at No. of RGs doesn't mean much.

So this supports the very point I was making.

Finally, (better late than never   ) RG2015 - The Slam That Nole Lost has become The Slam That Stan Won for me.

So a belated, but hearty well done Stan, that's the way to do it!

He played well indeed. Was a good match appreciated by the vast majority of fans.

This is where retrievers are important in the game. They help sort the talented players from the rest.

Stan the Man mixed up with USO cards nicely. There is one thing, which looks tricky with him, which is his really good movement along with  ability to hit really hard from positions where some players can just pull over a ball over the net.  I was impressed by KA's great performance, when he pulled Murray around the court and was on the ball at right time and moved really well  in regard to his large body frame.
But Stan hits ball harder  than Murray and what is more he  managed to gain a pressure by his overall game risky conception and very good move. Stan can do big hits even from less comfortable positions, where he  is extra special in that area. KA just did not expect that a ball will come back to him with such a pace  and was many times too late on the ball.  So, current Stan is different league against Murray, but there was also factor of less concentration and mental fatigue from KA.
KA played his match with Murray on pure adrenalin, he looked like being in trance and it doesn't happen too often for any player to play this way back to back. Here I can dare to say with one exception, which is  Federer. One day after Fed will retire and  write his tennis book, he  will may reveal something from his mental preparation and mind exercises and mental technics on the courts. His focus and thinking on the court is phenomenal.

I think we will have the Good Friday tomorrow. Let's not forget to fasten belts.

paulcz wrote:....So, current Stan is different league against Murray, but there was also factor of less concentration and mental fatigue from KA.

That's what guys like Murray, Djoko and Nadal do to you. the best players can beat them but whether it's a 3 or 5 sets they still shed a few feathers in the fight.

I woudl really rate Fed chance to win 3 or 4 more grand slams shoudl they only dispute the final in best of 5. But I am against changing it...yet it's become so physical that the format should in theory be shortened.

Tenez wrote:

paulcz wrote:....So, current Stan is different league against Murray, but there was also factor of less concentration and mental fatigue from KA.

That's what guys like Murray, Djoko and Nadal do to you. the best players can beat them but whether it's a 3 or 5 sets they still shed a few feathers in the fight.

I woudl really rate Fed chance to win 3 or 4 more grand slams shoudl they only dispute the final in best of 5. But I am against changing it...yet it's become so physical that the format should in theory be shortened.

That came across my mind recently, too.
There are more pros than cons to just play the final as best of 5.

Same should maybe done in WTF, though the RR there is tough plus it's the end if season.

Best of 5 used to be a beautiful format for drama to develop, battles to be fought...and now it's just energy draining exercise, like arm-wrestling.

So many things have changed in tennis: introduction of DBH, big money, medicine, technology...things need to be rethought or readjusted back to where they used to be.

Federer is keeping the magic going.

Did you notice how he said I'm not going to be around for another 100 years in that other interview when they talked about the roof of Ashe?

Yes I heard. Frankly I think next year is going to be his last....if that.