Assessing chances

So, as initially predicted... it's Fed v Cilic.  

Federer is favourite, of course. I'd give him 1-2.  Cilic 2-1.  But Federer must bring his best. His serve is absolutely key. If he gets broken, it will be difficult to find free points to break back.  Cilic will be nervous, but so will Federer if the Big Berd match is anything to go by. Federer knows what Cilic can do - he came within a whisker of being beaten last year and was also blown off court at the US.  It would not be an upset to see Federer beaten.

It's up to Federer to put this to bed.  Use variety. Take the big points. Serve consistently. Move Cilic around.  And do what he usually does against big opponents - return brilliantly.

2-1 on Cilic?  I hope more like 4-1.  If it is really 2-1, I should be quite nervous on Sunday.  Somehow I have in my mind already almost pocketed #19.  If Fed loses on Sunday, it will almost feel like having to return a slam already won.

I had better rewatch some of their USO 2014 match to instill more proper fright in me.

As far as I can tell, this is the fifth time that Fed has reached a slam final without dropping a set.  He only has a 50% success from the four previous occasions:

W06: Beat Nadal in 4
AO07: Beat Gonzalez in 3
W08: Lost to Nadal in 5
USO15: Lost to Djokovic in 4

AO 2007 is the only time Fed won a slam without dropping a set.  It would be very nice to do the same now, just over 10 years later.

summerblues wrote:2-1 on Cilic?  I hope more like 4-1.  If it is really 2-1, I should be quite nervous on Sunday.  Somehow I have in my mind already almost pocketed #19.  If Fed loses on Sunday, it will almost feel like having to return a slam already won.

I had better rewatch some of their USO 2014 match to instill more proper fright in me.

Bookies have it 9/2 & 2/9, roughly.

The bookies don't go on pure odds like I did.  They adjust depending on how people are betting.  I don't think Cilic is 4-1. A 25% chance?  Not for me. And I am nervous about Fed's chances.  He's gonna need to turn up better than he did against Berd.

The bookies had stupid odds on Murray and Djok to win their QF matches, despite obvious injuries. Real shame I didn't take a double.

Oh I agree, that's just what they are.

You look at the h2h detail and the only really straightforward result in recent years was Cilic's win. Federers have all been close.

I watched the two semis and thought Federers standard was far higher but the record shows he doesn't duff Cilic up.

I share your concern, just hope Federer has the experience in this arena to take him out.

You will read one day, most likely in Fed's bio that he is not 100%. Or at least was not yesterday. Very reminicent of 2012. The good thing is that he did not prevent him of winning then.

I had said the same of his campaign 2010..when he lost to Tsonga from 2 sets up. I could see that something happened after or during those first 2 sets as he could no longer return and made Tsonga look a better server than he was.
Years later even Tsonga admitted that Fed was not 100% in this match. Fed also mentions that he had back problem aĺl along his career even when he won...but tried not to mention it. I believe he says it again in one if his interview this week.

I was not concern last week as I felt he was just playing within himself but yesterday confirms why he was playing within himself maybe. In anycase there was something wrong.

Even in wimbledon 2003...i remember Federer having a back massage during a MTO in his 1/4 F which went under the radar then as he was not too famous nor expected to win the tournament. All eyes were on Roddick.

I look forward to the final.

It's going to be a great match.

It's hard to measure which player wants it more.

As for injuries etc...all players carry some.
The point is to summon what you've got on the day and go to the battle bravely.

The rest is in God's hands...que sera, sera.

Watched both SF matches, the first matches of this tournament that I'd seen. I thought that Querry's level was ok though Murray would have to have been injured to lose to that. Cilic had this intense aura of focus about him the whole match.

In the other SF, I think Fed started amazing and was just toying around and could have broken in any of those games. He should have won the first set 6-2 or something. It was strange how he double faulted to get broken but he didn't seem rattled at all by it. I would have liked to have seen more breaks and a more comprehensive victory though Berdych was playing well himself and the SF performance hasn't really had much bearing on the final performance so guess it doesn't really matter.

I noticed Cilic playing good cross court shots a lot and also hitting good shots when pulled way off the court. I think if Fed gets his tactics right, executes well and gets converts break points a bit better than the SF then he should do it.

I don't disagree Tenez, the question is how much of a problem it really causes. His serving was brilliant yesterday and having watched the whole match again without the distraction of emotion I think he played extremely well.

I had thought through the Dimitrov and Raonic matches that while he was playing well both opponents had been supine, at least for 5 of those 6 sets. This made me reserved about the adulation raining down on him. Yesterday Berdych played as well if not better than I've ever seen. He certainly didn't have a brain fade, his ground strokes were concussive (as usual) and he volleyed well. I think Federer played to a higher level than previous rounds.

I didn't see an obvious problem with power. The 2nd set tiebreak was awesome in that respect. He was tetchy but that's easily accounted for by the pressure and the standard of his opponent.

I always like to find parallels, and I wonder whether this was the semi final of FO 2009 again? There his major roadblocks had been removed for him and he came to the semi final as strong favourite with the World desperate to crown him. Del Potro had been annihilated by Federer at the Australian Open earlier that year but produced a fearsome barrage of power that threatened to overwhelm him but he dug very deep and won through.

The happy interpretation was that he went on to face the surprise opponent in the final and complete a tense but clear cut straight sets win to capture one of his great career milestones.

25% chance for Cilic seems about right. This is on Federer's racquet. If Fed plays reasonably well he should win this in 3 or 4 sets. A 7 times W champion vs a first time finalist. The player of the year so far vs well.. whatever Cilic is. Federer is rested and looked sharp against Berd when it mattered. The only thing hampering him is this cold. 

However, most of the above sentiments were even stronger when Screech played Wawrinka in the '15 FO final and we know what happened there. If Cilic redlines, and he probably has to to win, then he could just take it. But I don't see it. I expect him to be nervous and to play below par.

Like SB I've already banked this one - gonna be a shocker if he loses and will feel like one that got away.

Losing is not an option tomorrow.
You've got to get that!

You shouldn't confuse that USO semi with tomorrow.

Cilic is irrelevant.

Of course Cilic is irrelevant. But so is Nole and yet he beat Fed a number of times

summerblues wrote:Of course Cilic is irrelevant.  But so is Nole and yet he beat Fed a number of times

Nole is not irrelevant.
He is still giving you nightmares...

But so is Cilic . That USO SF is one of the darker memories of the Federer ride.

summerblues wrote:But so is Cilic . That USO SF is one of the darker memories of the Federer ride.

The Cilic nightmare has nothing to do with Cilic but the five setter Fed played against Monfils in the previous round.

I agree with Nitb: what's more relevant, just one match 3 years ago on a different surface, or an opponant losing sets to exhausted top 30 players?

gallery play wrote:I agree with Nitb: what's more relevant, just one match 3 years ago on a different surface, or an opponant losing sets to exhausted top 30 players?

This is what gives me some confidence. I think the quarter and semi were abysmal results, playing shattered opponents without real pedigree and dropping 3 sets. 

I think Federers opponent played one of the matches of his life.

Well, due to nerves mostly, Cilic was worse than even 4-1.  I am glad he didn't turn up.  If I were a neutral, that match would have been the worst of the bunch, but, as a Fed fan, it was just what the doctor ordered.  I don't know how Federer is doing this.  I tend to see it as him being a freak of nature coupled with what is obviously a rather weak field in tennis (it's been the case for a while now).  The young guys - one day - really will start to show their ability.  Zverev especially looks to be getting there. But even when you factor it all in - there is no way I would have believed Federer could win 2 slams in one year again - or reach 19.  It's super human longevity and skill, the likes of which we will never see again in our lifetime.

Not only did he win... but he won 2 grass tournaments in a row without dropping a set (32 sets in a row total) and raised the bar for oldest Wimb champion by 4 years (Ashe 31 years 11 months).

Daniel,
young players have 10 years of match playing experience less experience as well as the sheer ballsteiking than the top players.

They have no chance, it's not the lack of ability.

Can you imagine what those ten extra years of hitting the ball two hours a day brings to your arsenal as a player?

They keep adding all the time.

That's why Zverev looks boring and Thiem is 4 m behind the baseline...and the rest are playing qualies and getting knocked out in r1 or 2 of slams.

They don't keep adding all the time... that's why the record of oldest Wimb champ has held true for 40 years.  You do get that, right?  lol.

Daniel wrote:They don't keep adding all the time... that's why the record of oldest Wimb champ has held true for 40 years.  You do get that, right?  lol.

Of course they do.
If you don't understand that, you don't get the basics.

And I won't repeat for thr millionth time that current young players don't have a new technology to overtake the old guard with like in the past.

Instead, they have all been playing woth more or less same racquets for thr last 10-15 years.

And when was the last time that happened?

And how old were the winners then?