Wawrinka’s already out in the second round, but he’s still recovering from several knee cartilage operations last year. Apparently, though, he’s quite pleased with his progress, having not expected to complete even one match, and improving every day.
My young Canuck compatriot Denis Shapovalov choked badly, giving up a 5th set 5-2 lead on Jo-Wilfrid Tsonga (after beating him last year) to bow out in the second round. Not even 19 until April, this will be a major learning experience, despite the disappointing result. A couple days ago McEnroe pegged Shapolvalov to be top 5 by the time he’s 20, which sounds a little optimistic to me. That’s putting a lot of pressure on the kid, but then again up-and-coming stars have to be able to deal with that.
Saw 15-year-old Ukrainian Marta Kostyuk getting to the third round before losing to 4th-seed Elina Svitolina. Neat seeing future stars, and you can say, “yeah, I saw so-and-so tearing it up at the Aussies when they were 15”.
Watched the Joker just scrape by Monfils - looks the heat is getting out of control. Near the end, after some points, Joker is bent over, asking for weak challenges just to get his wind back.
Federer has had one of the easiest roads to the semis, and soon plays an unseeded Korean with only one hard court title under his belt, so it should be a safe bet Feds will have had maybe one of his easiest-ever cruises to a major final. (probably apropos for a rickety old man now.:p)
Granted, on Hyeon Chung’s road to the semis he had to get by 4th seed Alexander Zverev (6-0 in the fourth) as well as Djokovic, whose nagging elbow is looking to be quite the career setback, with speculations in some circles that he might not ever fully recover from it. On that last point I think it’s too early. If, by Indian Wells, however, it’s still hooped, I might start to having doubts. Apparently he’s avoided surgery over these last six months - I wonder if that was the wisest route or not.
Last time I saw Cilic/Federer the former completely de-limbed the latter 3,3,4 in the US Open 2014 semis. Cilic’s groundstrokes were cannonballs of corner-hitting destruction - one of the most devastating tennis performances I’ve seen.
Appropriate that it’s a Halep/Kerber final considering they’re ranked one and two, yet neither have won a major.
I feel bad this thread hasn’t had any other responses as there are a few of us here who follow tennis (me to a lesser extent than others) and there have certainly been a few talking points. This could be the year we finally see the old guard stop being competitive and some new younger players emerge. Is Kyle Edmund one of the latter? Possibly, I haven’t seen him play much but he could have the game to develop into a regular major contender. He still has time on his side, too.
Anyway, having said that, Chung retires against Federer, making it even easier for the latter to get to the final. He stuffed Cilic at Wimbledon last year but no doubt conditions in Oz will be more on Cilic’s side, so it’s tough to call. I think I’d still pick Federer to win in 4. Apparently the match you describe above is Cilic’s only win against Federer.
Before last season I said Federer would win another Slam and then retire. I was kind of half-right :). Surely this will be his last season? I don’t see him as the kind of player to announce his retirement in advance (which some players like to do, particularly before their ‘home’ slam, as it’s kind of a victory lap), because if you do that you’re virtually guaranteed not to win any more. Also, he’s pretty modest. So I expect him to collect number 20 this weekend, possibly #21 at Wimbledon or Flushing Meadows, then retire after the end of the season.
Oh, and the women’s final is Halep/Wozniacki, as I’m sure you know - Halep/Kerber was the semi. I think Wozniacki will take it, Halep will be too fatigued by previous efforts this week. It would be amusing (in a horrible kind of way) if they both start choking at the end.
Kerber has won a couple of majors but she’s not gonna win this one. I will actually be surprised if either Halep of Wozniacki does since both of them have a hell of a time actually closing out a match. It ought to be a nice long match anyway, but probably ultimately won on unforced errors and not winners.
Federer is so good. I felt bad for both those payers in that match. Chung had given such a good effort to that point and then he came out so bad, and Fed clearly didn’t want to pound him but of course he wanted to win.
:smack: Maybe this doddering 53-year-old shouldn’t post so late at night - yeah I realise Wozniacki’s in the final and that Kerber has two majors under her belt. Interestingly Federer has said (well, last July, anyway) that he could play till 40. Not sure if I’d put money on that, especially to remain in the top five, but I would most definitely LOVE (ha, get it?) to see my favourite player attempt that. Neat being around when the greatest were around (Gretzky, Jordan), and seeing Federer’s career unfold the way it has over the last 18-odd years has been pretty cool too.
So Wozniacki takes it in 3, in just under three hours, in what I thought was an impressively hard-fought battle with long rallies that sent each player all over the court. After 43 majors, this is the first she’s won. (Halep - 31 - still hasn’t won one)
I hope Rory’s pissed.
Number 20 for Federer after a tough fight. I thought he might struggle in the fifth when he lost the fourth after being a break up but it was easy in the end.
BTW was this the first Slam final under a closed roof? That was possibly influenced by the criticism of the heat by some players in earlier games. However otherswere critical of the decision to close the roof and Pat Cash felt it would be an advantage for Federer.
The weird stat getting retweeted is that, yeah, twenty wins is amazing — but that’s twenty out of the thirty Grand Slam finals he reached, of the fifty-nine Grand Slam finals going all the way back to his win at Wimbledon in July of ‘03.
That’s a looooooong span of time over which to say, “yeah, he usually made it to the championship, which he usually won.”
At the end of the 2012 London Olympics, he said he was going to try to make it to the Rio Olympics in 2016. I doubted he would be playing and be good enough to be competitive in 2016.
And he just won the Australian Open. Again. In 2018.
I think he can try for the singles gold medal at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. While he has a gold medal, the singles gold medal is one of the few things he lacks.
Just checked: Yep, he won the Davis cup in 2014. The singles gold medal is probably the only thing he hasn’t won.
Federer’s 20th title here should also factor in an absent Murray, Wawrinka, Stolle, Nishikori, and a hobbled Nadal and Djokovic. Curious if there’s ever been a slam where Fed had an easier path to the title. Now that he’s what 39? 47? the ATP should start setting up “old man friendly” draws so that Fed gets byes all the way into, say, the third round, no more best-of-fives for him, and gets ten challenges per set.
This Canuck sadly realised the other day that Roanic will probably never crack the top five again. I hope I’m dead wrong on that but I just can’t see it. Just lugs around the fucking court.
Federer has definitely had some luck in his last two Slam wins but he deserves every bit of it. His resilience over the last 5 years has been amazing. It would have been so easy for him to retire around 2013 but he hung in there, absorbed some brutal losses to Djokovic in 14-15, re-tooled his game and has now won his just rewards.
His achievements after the age of 30, 4 slams and 3 finals, would be considered an impressive career in its own right. In fact he now has 3 slams after 35 which is truly remarkable when you consider how demanding the modern game is.
Indeed, he is starting to exponentially defy my expectations. As Mahaloth mentioned earlier, I also didn’t expect RF would be playing and be good enough to be competitive in 2016, but here he is, and good and healthy for 2018.
And today, at 36, demonstrating he can destroy in a fifth set to win a 20th major - I’m wondering if this just might be the pivotal point, now, where it’s just not possible that Nadal will catch up to Fed and end up winning maybe one (or at the most two) more French Opens, while RF fleet-foots his way along, staying uninjured, maybe slipping in the rankings a wee, but certainly no signs of stopping any time soon, like, at all.
And speaking of fifth sets, McEnroe was saying there’s renewed chatter about the four slams’ matches going to best-of-three. I’m divided on this - there’s more wear and tear on the players throughout a tourney with best of five, but best of five also shows a more epic display of the participants, and especially way more tension-filled if there is a fifth set, not to mention lending distinction to those particular tourneys.
Funny, with Berdych…for a substantial part of his career, seemingly always stuck in that 5th/6th/7th seed area, IIRC.