ATP Masters 1000Cincinnati MastersRoger Federer

Federer Schools Raonic to Make Cincinnati Final

Boom, emphatic display here as Federer continued his stunning run against huge servers to dismiss Milos Raonic 6-3 6-2 en route to the Cincinnati final. It was another brilliant display of how to return big servers and Roger is now 6-0 vs Raonic, 2-0 vs Anderson, 11-1 vs Karlovic and 4-1 vs Isner. 4 guys with huge serves and they have very rarely even got a look in.

After making the right noises after his Wimbledon defeat at the hands of Swiss (learning experience, better next time etc) he yet again looked completely out of ideas after his very first service game. Roger is just able to render Raonic's main weapon pretty much useless and he has no other way of winning matches. Once you break his serve and you're confident enough to take care of your own service games then there is just no way back for him.

Quick Match Recap

Roger Federer School Raonic Cincy

Roger won the toss and elected to serve. 42 seconds after stepping up to the line he was leading 1-0. I'm sure you get the picture of how this one is going already 🙂 Raonic then lost serve from 30-0 up, losing 3 points in a row, firing a double fault at the worst possible moment and then firing a forehand long to get broken.

Another Federer love hold consolidated the break and he was soon into a 5-2 lead without dropping a single point on serve. It was important for Raonic to at the very least made his opponent serve out the set but he again faltered, losing serve from 40-15 up with another double fault to drop the set 6-2.

Dropping no points on serve in the first set was always going to be hard to replicate and Raonic began to create some chances early in the 2nd when Fed's 1st serve % dropped every so slightly. The Canadian had break points in Roger's opening service game and made deuce at 1-1 but still couldn't find a way through.

At 4-3 and Raonic up 40-0, Fed reeled off 3 points in a row to make deuce, a short return worked perfectly to setup break point but Raonic saved it. Roger then looked to have made an insane return from a Raonic first serve bomb but it was rightly called out as hawkeye proved. However despite the challenge working system working in his favour Raonic again faltered and on the third break point Fed took it to lead 5-3 before serving it out to 30. Cruise control.

Match Stats

M. Raonic R. Federer
Aces 6 2
Double Faults 3 0
1st Serve % 44% 63%
1st Serve Points Won 17/25 (68%) 29/33 (88%)
2nd Serve Points Won 16/32 (50%) 10/19 (53%)
Break Points Saved 2/5 (40%) 1/1 (100%)
Service Games Played 8 9
1st Return Points Won 4/33 (12%) 8/25 (32%)
2nd Return Points Won 9/19 (47%) 16/32 (50%)
Break Points Won 0/1 (0%) 3/5 (60%)
Winners 23 19
Unforced Errors 15 8
Net Points Won Oct-17 14/16
Return Games Played 9 8
Total Service Points Won 33/57 (58%) 39/52 (75%)
Total Return Points Won 13/52 (25%) 24/57 (42%)
Total Points Won 46/109 (42%) 63/109 (58%)

Highlights

Thoughts on the Match

Federer Raonic Cincy 2014

I'm playing much better [than] last year. I can move freely again. I'm happy the results show. It's more fun playing this way. Now I am playing the right way.

It's great for the confidence to switch from clay to grass to hard courts and keep on playing well. I've had a very complete season so far. This is my eighth final of the season. I hope I can win another final here.

Another complete schooling for Raonic at the hands of the GOAT, seeing him lose 5 on the bounce it's difficult to see how he will ever beat Roger really unless he plays on till he's 40. Could be just one of those bogey players for him and there's already some mental scars in there I think.

As for Fed he just played a smart match, got it done in quick time which is good news considering he didn't take to the court until 10PM at night. Poor scheduling really considering the final is at 4PM the next day. Quite a tough turnaround time but nothing anyone can really do about, all about the TV rights these days.

After a sort of mini slump in Toronto I think Fed is well back on track here with his game and is hitting the ball way better than a week ago. It's also the first time he has made 4 finals in a row since 2008. Halle, Wimbledon, Toronto and now Cincinnati. Pretty special stuff for a guy that can't play tennis anymore according to some pundits.

No real takeaways from this match and really it was very similar to Wimbledon; an early break set the tone and Roger just cruises on serve thanks to Raonic's limited return game. Raonic just runs out of ideas and he has no way of making an impression, not a smart server really, just a big one and I think Fed reads it pretty good.

Predictions vs. Ferrer

Federer Ferrer Into Cincy Final

Next up is Ferrer who was my pre tournament dark horse. He's had a poor year really compared to usual but I knew after the way he played against Fed in Toronto he was finding some form. That's the best performance I've seen him put in against Roger in a while and it was a pretty close match. He's transferred that good form over to Cincinnati and he'll probably do pretty well at the USO.

The good news? Despite playing well in Canada he still fell short and he's now 15-0 in the H2H vs Fed, that's surely got to hurt. The match here lies firmly on Fed's racquet and if he's good to go physically then Ferrer will struggle as he doesn't have the firepower to do any damage.

Fed should be pretty sharp on the return after last night and as long as he makes a good number of 1st serves I think he get's this one done in straights. 6-4 6-2. Allez!

Review Overview

Serving
Returning
Net Play
Winner to Unforced Error Ratio
Break Point Conversion

GOAT

Another demolition of a huge server by Fed. Solid in all areas including the return.

User Rating: 4.46 ( 7 votes)

Jonathan

Huge fan of Roger Federer - I'll pretty much try and watch all his matches from Grand Slam level right down to ATP 250. When I'm not watching or tweeting about tennis I play regularly myself and use this blog to share my thoughts on Fed and tennis in general.

Related Articles

72 thoughts on “Federer Schools Raonic to Make Cincinnati Final”

      1. Thanks, I must say good short match for Roger. He needs to be fresh for final against Bulldog Ferru which I am worried. Hopefully Roger can pull off a W here.

  1. Nice win dippy. Anyway I didn’t see this match but man raonic got owned by federer and he didn’t even win a single point on return in the first set. Next up is david and even though federer leads the h2h 15-0 I’m a bit nervous because it was a tight three set in montreal and federer has had literally no rest compared to ferrrer. I really hope federer can win because he hasn’t won a masters for 2 years and it’s long overdue.

  2. I agree Jonathan, at last our man should get another Masters trophy. Thanks for your amazing fortitude, watching and summarising every match for us. If I happen to miss one, I know I will get more than just the results by reading your blog. What would we do without you?

  3. As you say, Roger very much has the measure of the big servers. That goes as far back as his rivalry with Roddick at Wimbledon. It’s the grinders he has typically had more trouble with – although another win against Murray is an encouraging sign. Roger’s last two matches have been terrific, and have banished memories of the Toronto final – for now – as well as evoking his glory days of the last decade when he was the embodiment of strokes of genius. For my money, he is currently hitting even better than this last Wimbledon. The groundstrokes and return of serve have been immaculate. If he wins the final – surely it is on his racquet – I may permit myself to hope for even better things in New York. Over to you, Roger.

    1. I think big server is a good match up for Federer. As you said, it goes back to federer-roddick. Federer leads 21-3, making Roddick the player with most defeat to Federer.

      Big servers are always tough to beat (even Nadal, Andy, Nole found it difficult). But apparently that is not the case with Federer. Big servers taking the advantage of opponent slow respond, but Federer is having a very fast respond and good reflex to return. That, or maybe he has a superpower to slow down the time 🙂

      1. Don’t try to find magical fast responds skills. Roger’s weapon against this kind of players is a big serve as well. Djokovic’s and Nadal’s return are better, no doubt about it.

      2. They also stand about 10 feet back to return and Fed stands on the baseline. So reflexes are clearly Roger’s forte. That isn’t to say he’s a better returner, but he clearly handles big servers better as he gives them way less time and makes it awkward. Murray is a better returner than Nadal, not sure how you put him alongside Djokovic.

        As time goes by, it becomes clearer, you know nothing about Tennis 🙂 You have some weird desire for Roger not to be better at any element of the game than Nadal lol.

        It’s boring, you come here and say Fed fans are blind worshippers. But you are just as bad, if not worse. Next you will be telling me Nadal’s English is better than Roger’s.

      3. Skip, then goes to Jonathan comment.

        Jonathan,
        Thanks for making it clear. But then you make me have to go back and check the comment above you, to see the reason you mentioned ‘you-know-nothing-about-tennis’.

        Literally laugh when I read it.
        1. So, Federer break big server because his weapon is big serve as well? Seriously? Are they both serve at the same set or what? Hahaha
        2. Nick Kyrgios.

        Back to skip mode

      4. Jonathan here you have the percentage of games won in the return year to date. Watching this it is not very difficult to see that if Roger has less difficulties with big servers is not precisely due to his return :).

        Posición Tenista % Partidos
        1 Nadal, Rafael 36 52
        2 Ferrer, David 35 54
        3 Murray, Andy 32 41
        4 Djokovic, Novak 30 43
        5 Mónaco, Juan 30 31
        15 Federer, Roger 26 50

        I didn’t say Roger is worse in every department of the game than Rafa, I said he is a worse returner which is pretty clear. IF you can’t see this you are either a fanatic or you just know nothing about tennis.

      5. It is difficult to reply the stats. For your information Nadal also leaded 2013 and 2012 in the same stat in the end of the year (I didn’t find more years).

      6. At the 2009 Wimbledon Karlovic was serving at his very best. He had not had his serve broken in the tournament until he met Roger in the second week, when he promptly got broken twice in the first set in an eventual straight sets loss to the great Swiss. He later said Roger’s ability to pass him on the return before he had even reached the service line was “unbelievable”. It was. By contrast, Nadal is aced 37 times by the world 144-ranked player as he is bundled out of the 2014 Wimbledon. But I guess it wasn’t his favourite clay.

      7. I have to admit I don’t agree with you Jonathan when you say Djoker stands 10 feet behind the baseline. In term of returns/ reflexes, he seems to me better than Roger. He stands pretty close to the baseline cuts it off really short usually.

      8. I have to apologize (esp. to Sid) to all to break my vow, not to reply Pablo’s comment. I just want to clear something.

        Pablo,
        1. Correct me if I’m mistaken, isn’t that the stat for return GAME ytd? Remind me again, what we were discussing just now, the fast respond and good reflex to return big serve, wasn’t it? Is the fast respond and good reflex to return big serve makes better returner? No, not necessarily. Did anybody here say that fast respond makes a better returner? Nope, nobody.

        2. Woow pretty good stat for Nadal, isn’t it? Now tell me how many time did nadal play outside clay ytd? Why i bring clay on the table? Because we were discussing about the fast respond to big server (which apparently you didn’t understand what we were discusses about)

      9. We were discussing why Federer deals better with the big servers than the other top guys. I said this is not due to his return like others pointed out because he actually is a worse returner.

        Nadal played outsideof clay the same than other players until Toronto. But for your information he was already the leader on this stat after Wimbledon and he was the leader at the end of the year on 2012 and 2013.

      10. Pablo, have you considered that it’s more the type of return that federer hits that makes him so effective against big servers? That low chip kills tall players and most big servers happen to be tall and/or bad at dealing with low shots.

      11. You should be a lawyer Pablo, so good at it.
        When you start your comment on this discussion, who is said that Federer can deal with this big server because of his a good returner (Game returner), check again. Yup, nobody.

        Everyone is saying that Federer can deal with this big server because his respond to big serve is fast. We were discussing about reflex to return THE BIG SERVE, not return GAME. Read again Jonathan comment, “reflexes are Roger’s forte. It isn’t to say he is a better returner (game returner)”. Got it buddy?

      12. @Simon yeah I prob agree on Djoker, although he won’t hug the baseline a la Fed. I was just responding to Pabtroll’s ramblings. Thankfully they have been resolved.

      13. Though most people have already noticed the flawed use of statistics in this thread, the same page contains a hint that Roger performs relatively better when the serve get faster. He is 15th on the return game but he is 8th on points won returning the 1st serve. This hints at that Roger in fact performs relatively better when returning a fast serve since a “game” contain a mix of 1st and 2nd serves.

        From the statistics it seems that Roger’s returns are on average not awkward enough for the server and while most of the big servers lack the game to take advantage of it, guys like Nadal and Novak will exploit weaker returns.

        I guess that most of us will agree that Rogers position when returning the second server, 27, is the result of many players being able to exploit Rogers weakness in returning the kick serve to the backhand.

      14. [Can you get me Nadal’s return stats from the grass court and US Open series hard court swing please?] – Jonathan

        KWABOOOOOOOM!

        [I guess that most of us will agree that Rogers position when returning the second server, 27, is the result of many players being able to exploit Rogers weakness in returning the kick serve to the backhand.] – Jarlub

        Nailed it!

  4. Hvnt seen but sounds like SF at Wimby! Yes David will be up for it but cannot believe Fed will let another final slip! Hoping for a straight sets win!

  5. Since Raonic declared (before their Wimbledon match) that he is not playing a 17 time GS champion but rather a 33 year old man I enjoy it little bit more when Roger takes him to the cleaners.

    “Fed should be pretty sharp on the return after last night and as long as he makes a good number of 1st serves I think he get’s this one done in straights. 6-4 6-2. Allez!”

    Well, that’s what I thought at Wimbledon but Roger had all sorts of problems of getting any traction in Novak’s service games until very late and also commented on this fact. Think serve returns must be measured relative the talent on the other side. With Novak, they have to be really good. Perhaps that is not the case with Ferrer. We can only hope that it is not the Roger from Toronto that plays today’s final.

  6. Hey guys, just want to make a comment about the last match. As Jon pointed out, Roger first game was literally 42 seconds 🙂 Can you believe that? That is not even 2 times 25 seconds. And that at his age?? Hope the youngsters learn something from that 🙂

    1. Don’t mean to be a party-pooper, but 2*25 = 50 haha 😉

      but good comment, he wins a game in the time it takes dull to serve first and 2nd serve haha 😀 Hadn’t thought of that

  7. That match was such a pleasure to watch! Haven’t been that relaxed watching a Fed game in a while.
    The first set was just perfect from Fed, everything was clicking. Federer has this uncanny ability to make these pros look like such amateurs out there. Though Raonic applied pressure on Fed’s service games in the second set, I still feel he has a long way to go before he can really challenge the elite of the game, take away his serve and he has virtually nothing, and like you mentioned Jonathan, even his best weapon wasn’t untilsed well against Fed. I don’t get why these pundits keep harping on and on about Raonic, yes he has made improvements in his mobility and such, but defs not against Fed, if anything he’s regressed. First 3 encounters between the pair were tight, latest three have been Fed teaching the youngester a tennis lesson.
    Hoping that Roger pushes on from here and clinches the title, his win-loss record in finals is pretty piss-poor this year, needs to rectify that asap.

  8. Great analysis. Just don’t know why you’re still underestimating Ferrer…
    Hoping Fed doesn’t do the same.

  9. Amazing serving display by the master showing the servebots that it’s not the speed of the serve that matters. Great match showing the world that even in the strong era, he is the one to beat on any surface other than clay. Straight set win for his long overdue masters today and at age 33 will be the favorite to win US Open. Making it look like a weak era to some trolls in the next decade. 🙂

  10. Hi Jonanthan

    I know I will never be “first” but then again I do tend to read everything before I leave a comment – obviously that is where I am going wrong!!! Lovely match to watch he was sublime here’s hoping for Number 80 – and I have a request Jonathan should the wonderful Roger get his 80th tour title can the next write up be a troll free zone, (just this once) so we can celebrate without any negativity, I’m sure you must have a magic button that prevents trolls from entering the Magic Federer Kingdom

    1. “I know I will never be “first” but then again I do tend to read everything before I leave a comment – obviously that is where I am going wrong!!!”

      Roger that Trudi 🙂 That is why I will never be the “first” too 🙂 You are not alone in that 🙂

  11. Raonic’s serve % was extremely low. No confidence against Fed. Wimbledon must have been a bigger mental block than I thought.
    Love the way Fed is moving around the court. He is reaching for balls that he let go last year. Must be a good feeling for him to play that way again.
    My friend asked me last night, what was I going to do when he retires. I’d rather enjoy every moment he’s on the court. Think about that one another day.
    We are lucky Fed fans.

  12. Winner – UE ratio Vs UE % “Lies, Damned lies and statistics”
    Continued…

    Simon
    You said “The difference between UE on second shot or 10th shot is the same, he loses the point”
    If you judge a performance simply based on who wins a point, you do NOT have to look at the statistics to tell who the better player was. The winner is always the better player and vice versa.
    You don’t even consider the fact that THE LONGER ROGER IS FORCED TO EXTEND A RALLY, THE MORE LIKELY HE IS GOING TO MAKE A UE.

    Jonathan
    Don’t you want to improve your predictions about Fed’s matches ?
    After all, the whole purpose of this website and your posts is to analyze Fed’s game and give ratings to every department (serve, ground game, returning, net play, BP conversion) with a hope to understand his current form and predict if all of us fed fans can get our hopes high and expect great victories from Roger in the remaining matches.

    Winner to UE ratio only compares Fed to his opponent on that day.
    It does NOT take into account the RECENT HISTORY of Fed’s ground game.
    You do NOT have to even look at W-UE ratio to know who the better player was. Like i said above, the winner is always the better player.
    So it is true that W-UE stat lies because it is NOT the appropriate statistic to look at when you are analyzing Fed’s current form and make predictions.

    But UE % can be used to record the recent history of Fed’s ground game. It allows one to compare performance of current match with previous matches REGARDLESS OF DIFFERENT OPPONENTS and see the trend.
    You could easily plot a graph of UE% on Y axis and the matches on the X axis, see how the curve moves and know Roger’s best level and worst level of play and greatly improve your predictions for his next match.
    The opponent’s UE% does NOT matter here.
    This is just like the Serve%. You can look at the serve% of Fed in all of his matches in a given period of time and give a verdict on Fed’s current form in the serving department.
    With UE%, you can give a verdict on his ground game.

    Finally, calculating UE% is NOT rocket science.
    We already have the total number of points played in the match.
    All we need is the “Average Rally length” stat.
    The HAWK EYE system must definitely have this stat. If you know people in the ATP, you can get this from them.
    If we cannot get it, then it becomes tedious because we have to count the number of shots played by Roger for each point. This is almost impossible to do manually.

    Anyways, I will try to manually count the total number of shots played by Roger for a few matches to get UE%, plot a graph of Roger’s ground game for a period of time and show them to you to prove my point.

    1. *rant mode on*

      The better player is the one who wins the match, full stop, period etc. It brings you NOTHING to be up 5-0, lose and then say “i was the better player today”. You weren’t, you just lost.

      “Winner to UE ratio only compares Fed to his opponent on that day.” Isn’t that exactly the point? Who cares about how well he trashed XXX if he loses to YYY? There’s no point in comparing previous matches.

      “It allows one to compare performance of current match with previous matches REGARDLESS OF DIFFERENT OPPONENTS and see the trend.” -So Roger has the same game plan against Nadal as he has against Isner? Enough said I think…

      And no, you’re right, it’s not rocket science, it’s just bloody stupid! Who the heck cares! If he loses the point after 10 shots or one shot it is the same result! And just to show how screwed that stat is, imagine this: imagine Rog is at the same lvl against Dull and isner. Do you really think he would make the same UE % against isner than Dull?

      *rant mode off*

      1. *Calm Education mode on*

        “imagine Rog is at the same lvl against Dull and isner. Do you really think he would make the same UE % against isner than Dull ?”

        Good question Simon.
        Answer is — OF COURSE HE WOULD.

        Against Isner, Roger would most probably finish the point in less than 5 shots.
        For simplicity of calculation, lets assume Isner plays passive. It is Roger who always ends the point either with a winner or a UE.
        Lets say they play 20 points, each of 5 shots. So 20*5=100 shots.
        Of the 20 points, most probably Roger would make 15 winners and 5 UEs against the Servebot. Easy to create openings because he does NOT need to work hard.
        So UE%=5/100*100=5%
        But Winner to UE ratio = 15 to 5. (You might think, Wow Roger is playing damn good AND JONATHAN WOULD RATE IT 4.5 OUT OF 5 STARS)

        The next match he plays Rafa.
        For simplicity of calculation, lets assume Rafa plays passive. It is Roger who always ends the point either with a winner or a UE.
        Lets assume they play 20 points.
        Against the best baseline grinder, retriever in the world, the rally length is bound to increase because Roger would definitely find it more difficult to quickly create an opening to end the point against Rafa than against Isner.
        So it is reasonable to assume that the average rally length is 10 shots and Roger makes
        lesser number of winners (10) and more UEs (10) in the 20 points because he is forced to work hard (hit harder, hit more) causing more errors.
        So it is 20*10=200 shots totally.

        100 shots Vs Isner for 20 points.
        200 shots Vs Rafa for the same 20 points because Roger is forced to work harder.
        Winner to UE ratio is 10 to 10 (You might think it is bad compared to his previous match 15-5 Vs Isner AND SO JONATHAN WOULD QUICKLY RATE IT 2.5 OUT OF 5 STARS)

        But the fact is ANY PLAYER WOULD ALWAYS TRY TO PLAY THEIR BEST REGARDLESS OF THE OPPONENT and Roger is NO exception.
        Roger always plays his ground strokes with the same intensity against every opponent.

        It is just that it is too good for players like Isner but players like Rafa won’t get blown away by that level. They will definitely make it a lot tougher for Roger.

        So by courtesy of the inappropriate Winner to UE stat (THE LYING STAT), Roger’s best level would look damn good against Isner and the same best level would look not so convincing against Rafa.

        OK. So What is Rog’s best level in the ground strokes department?
        It is 10/200*100= 5% Unforced Error rate (THE TRUE STAT).
        It is his best level.
        For every 100 shots, Roger is bound to make at least 5 UEs.
        Against Isner, it makes the game look ridiculously easy.
        But against Rafa, looks a lot more competitive.

        However, it is the same Roger from the previous match.
        It is NOT like a totally different Roger and all of a sudden his ground game is deserting him.

        Knowing UE%, Winner % , in general % stat is key to make the right predictions.
        Just ask the bookies.

        *Calm Education mode off*

      2. You do realize that he has to go for a lot more against rafa -> more risk -> more UE?… And that risk is not linear? so if Roger is going for more, he’s going to make for UE and the UE % is going to go up = totally rubbish stat

        Your thing would work if he played everybody with the same game plan… guess what? He doesn’t.

      3. Regarding game plan, NO. Roger employs a different strategies for Isner and Rafa.

        We are NOT talking strategy, game plan here.
        We are talking about intensity level in the ground strokes.

        Regardless of the strategy, UE % will give the same number because it is based on intensity and level of play.

        Risk is linear. Better opponents require more risk. True.

        So UE is bound to be more Vs Rafa than against Isner.
        But so does the total number of shots.
        If Roger plays 100 shots in 20 points against Isner, he would have to play 200 shots in 20 points against Rafa.

        So both UE and total number of shots increase and they neutralize each other.
        That is the reason UE % remains almost same and stable. It shows that Roger vs Rafa is indeed the same Roger who played Vs Isner.
        His ground game did NOT desert him. He played with the same best intensity that he is capable of. It turned out that it is just NOT good enough against Rafa.

        Winner to UE ratio stat would tempt one to give a rating of 4.5/5 for the Isner match and a 3/5 rating for the Rafa match. But in fact, Roger would have played with the exact same intensity and level Vs both opponents and that is proven by the UE % which would remain almost same.

        So looking at the UE % stat, if one rates 4.5/5 for the Isner match, he would also rate 4.5 for the Rafa match.
        If one rates 3/5 for the Isner match, he would also rate 3/5 for the Rafa match because it is really the same intensity for Roger Vs both opponents.

        A truly under performing or injured or out of form Roger would have UE % much higher (something like 10%) than his normal 5%.

      4. When UE count (and total shots) goes up, you might think UE % also goes up. WRONG
        UE % remains same.
        Making 5 errors out of 100 shots is the same as making 10 errors out of 200 shots which is the same as making 15 errors out of 300 shots and so on
        (5/100)*100 = (10/200)*100 = (15/300)*100 = (20/400)*100 = 5%

        But the inappropriate LYING Winner to UE stat would tempt one to say that
        Roger made just 5 errors. So lets rate the ground strokes at 4.9/5
        Roger made 10 errors. So lets rate it 4.2/5
        Roger made 15 errors. Lets rate it 3.5/5
        Roger made 20 errors. Rate it just 3/5.

        On the other hand, the UE% ration\ would remain the same 5%.
        If Roger deserves a 4.9/5 rating for 5 errors, then he would also deserve the same 4.9/5 rating for 20 errors.

      5. Sakthi I see what you are trying to get at, but I feel your analysis would make sense if tennis were a game where winning a longer rally gave a player more points. ie: weight-age to rally length. Since the scoring system in tennis appropriates the exact same weight-age to an ace vis-a-vis a 20 shot rally, I don’t see why the unforced error % should matter.

        Yes, I understand that Fed making 5 errors out of 100 is equal to 10 errors out of 200 in terms of UE %, but tennis would score them as 5 points to the opponent in one case, and 10 points to the opponent in the other. While your analysis makes perfect sense, it just doesn’t work with the tennis scoring system. I feel. Correct me where I’m going wrong.

  13. Yes yes YES!!!

    What a relief. I was so happy for Federer, although I did quite feel for Ferrer. He comes across as such a great guy and a wonderfully spirited fighter. Loved when he said that he’d beat Federer one day, maybe in the Senior’s tour. Haha!!

  14. LOVE YOU ROGER !!! Soooooo proud of you and congrats. Now that 80 is in the bag, you will win more titles. I mean come on, indoor is coming and you are playing GREAT. But personally Roger, please please please win USO and FOR GOD SAKE the WTF !!! That one is ours this year.

    By the way, kudos to David. I have liked you from the first time I saw you and I so hope you will win a title when your opponent in the final is NOT Roger Federer 🙂

    Love you GOAT 🙂

  15. Yes yes yes! !! I am relieved that Federer has stopped the rot and finally won another masters 1000. Even though I didn’t watch the match Ferrer must of played well to win the 2nd set with that score. Anyway a really good 2 weeks of great Tennis from the maestro. I really hope now he can take all this momentum and confidence to the US Open and preform well. And preferably go deep and who knows what can happen. It has been a fantastic season so far and I hope he can get the cherry on top, and do the iceing of the cake. Congratulations Roger.

  16. Yes. Very relieved. I was cruising with a smile on my face until the (almost) unforgivable slump in the second set. I got the old “Roger watching” jitters back. Heart beating too fast, sick feeling in the stomache etc. but I shouldn’t have doubted. He pulled himself together, served well and took the opportunity when it was handed to him. Bring on the USO. Allez!

    1. “I got the old “Roger watching” jitters back. Heart beating too fast, sick feeling in the stomache etc”
      LOL you and me both! How quickly things can change!
      During that second set implosion, it’s safe to say happy thoughts were the furthest from my mind.
      But like you said, he recovered nicely, and it bodes well for the US Open. I am so so relieved he’s ended the rot – this title was CRITICAL for both confidence and belief. Another runner’s-up finish was not gonna cut it at this stage of the season!

      With Djok looking sub-par, Nadal’s participation still in doubt, and Murray’s ongoing slump, the Fed man actually has a more-than decent crack at the US Open title! Who would be saying this last year? Certainly, not me! (Oh me, of little faith!)

  17. YES. This was a “Roger watching” jitters match. I started doing laundry in the 2nd set. Heart racing too fast.
    He picked up his serve which won him the match. So happy for him, his team and us Fed fans! He seems to be enjoying himself out there. The twins looked so cute too.
    On to USO. See if Nadal shows up. Ha.

  18. Congratulation Roger’s Fans. he has been playing his goods recently, and it paid off
    it has been a fantastic two weeks, hope he take the momentum to USO

  19. Wow so pleased he won – but had to leave the room during the 2nd set – as I thought here we go again – but he pulled it off with some wonderful tennis again in the 3rd set. You have to feel for Ferrer and I do like to watch him play he is such a terrier but Fed was not going to let this one slip away. Looking forward to the USO – lets hope for a good draw and more of Fed’s fighting spirit allez Roger

    1. Confimed!!

      From his facebook page-

      I am very sorry to announce I won’t be able to play at this year’s US Open a tournament on which I’ve played 3 consecutive finals in my last participations. I am sure you understand that it is a very tough moment for me since it is a tournament I love and where I have great memories from fans, the night matches, so many things… Not much more I can do right now, other than accept the situation and, as always in my case, work hard in order to be able to compete at the highest level once I am back.

      1. That means Federer is going to be seeded number 2. If he can get a good draw, this might very well work out!!

      2. Great… finally a chance where Roger can and WOULD beat Rafa and Rafa doesn’t show up…
        What are the odds he waited till the result of the Cincy final??
        And yes guys, maybe I am all alone in this, but I honestly still believe Roger can beat Rafa. Even on clay 🙂

      3. That’s a highly ambiguous statement from Rafa. And it strikes me as really weird to say “on which I’ve played 3 consecutive finals in my last participations” rather than saying “particularly since I shan’t be able to defend my title”, or something. I think I shall draw my own conclusions from that.

        Katyani: what do you mean “finally”?! I remember at least 3 occasions this year when I’ve thought “actually, I quite fancy Roger’s chances if he has to play Nadal here”, and I think it’s been Nadal who’s failed to make it on every one of those occasions.

      4. @Alison – in the Spanish, it actually says something more along the lines of “where I’ve had such good results in recent years”. Doesn’t mention 3 consecutive finals.

      5. @Thinker: yes, thanks for that. I spotted that last night, and came on here to post as much. It could be that he couldn’t think how to phrase the Spanish in English. Or it may be that the English isn’t actually a translation of the Spanish anyway: I haven’t looked at it that closely.

    2. Interestingly, even though news outlets are talking about his right wrist, this withdrawal announcement DOES NOT MENTION THE WRIST, or healing from injury, in Spanish or English.

      I expect we’ll have a full press conference soon enough, & it’s possible press have had more details released to them than we have. But still.

  20. Maybe, but on the other hand last year when he withdrew from the Rogers Cup Roger didn’t actually mention it being because of the back injury either, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too harsh on Nadal here.

    1. Oops, replies going a bit haywire there! That was supposed to be a response to Thinker’s comments which are immediately above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close