Grand SlamsRoger FedererWimbledon

Wimbledon Draw 2021

Roger Federer to face Adrian Mannarino in the first round.

The All England Lawn Tennis Club has just announced the Wimbledon 2021 draw, and Roger Federer will face Adrian Mannarino in the first round.

The Swiss will play his first match on Tuesday, and you can see his projected opponents below.

Federer's Projected Opponents

federer wimbledon 2021
  • Round 1: Adrian Mannarino
  • Round 2: Richard Gasquet
  • Round 3: Cameron Norrie
  • Round 4: Pablo Carreno Busta
  • Quarter-Final: Daniil Medvedev
  • Semi-Final: Alexander Zverev / Matteo Berrettini
  • Final: Novak Djokovic

Printable Blank PDF Draws:



Updated Draws with Latest Results:



Thoughts on the Draw

federer dimitrov

After the loss in Halle, Federer briefly returned to Switzerland to practice on a private grass court before arriving in London on Wednesday. He has since practised with Grigor Dimitrov and Aslan Karatsev.

Given what we saw at the Noventi Open, it's difficult to predict what level Federer can bring, but since he could win three matches at the French Open, I'd expect him to at least match that here. 

However, his first-round is not easy and pits him against Adrian Mannarino, who he beat in his first-ever match under the Centre Court roof in 2011. The two also met at Wimbledon in 2018, and both matches were straight sets affairs.

The Frenchman is currently playing in Mallorca, and the grass is the only surface he has a winning record on, thanks to his cat and mouse type game and being able to massage the ball around the court. 

Fortunately, that game style doesn't usually cut the mustard with Federer as he grew up facing players in that mould rather than the standard heavy baseline hitting we see today.

Still, Mannarino held a virtual match point against him in Basel a few years ago, so Roger will need to serve well to keep the left-hander from getting a foothold in the match.

In round two, fellow veteran Richard Gasquet is the opponent if he sees off Yuichi Sugita. Gasquet played the Nottingham challenger last week but retired from his quarter-final match, and he immediately withdrew from Eastbourne, so there are question marks over his fitness.

Gasquet's results on grass are impressive for a guy who loves to play deep behind the baseline, with two grass titles and two Wimbledon semi-finals on his resume.

If he's able to move well, he'll give a good account of himself as he showed against Nadal for a set and a half at last months French Open, but I'd pick Federer to come through.

Moving into the last 32, this likely puts Federer up against one of the years in form players, Cameron Norrie. The Brit has played well on all four surfaces this season, including grass, making the final at Queen's a week ago.

While not the guy who'll produce jaw-dropping type shots, Norrie is exceptionally tough to beat as he'll make many balls. He also possesses an ultra spinny forehand paired with an ultra-flat backhand which can cause players problems.

Federer has played him once before, at the 2019 Hopman Cup, where he came through for the loss of just two games.

That gives Federer the edge, but Norrie has 29 victories this season which is the third most wins on the ATP tour.

The only player likely to give Norrie trouble before a potential Federer showdown is Alex Bolt, who's received a wild card thanks to his title-winning performance at the Nottingham Challenger.

The top seed is Pablo Carreno Busta for the fourth round, but he's yet to get out the first round at SW19 in five attempts, so it's more likely either Sam Querrey or Lorenzo Sonego make the last sixteen. I don't see either of those guys posing big problems assuming Federer win his first three matches and has fresh legs.

Into the quarter-finals and Medevev is the top seed in the other quarter, but he has a very tricky match against Jan Lennard Struff in the first round. Cilic and Dimitrov are also in this section and are both capable of making the last eight.

For the semi-final, Sascha Zverev and Matteo Berrettini are the two big dogs in Federer's half. The Italian has been a hot pick pre-tournament given his showing at Queen's Club, so it will be interesting to see if he lives up to the billing as Novak's biggest threat for the title. 

On the other side, Djokovic is the top seed. He comes in after a brilliant performance in Paris and some grass-court practice thanks to playing doubles in Mallorca, which looks like a smart move. 

Novak also has a very kind draw, with no real threatening names or dangerous floaters in his quarter. Can Tsitsipas can come through his section for a French Open final rematch in the last four?

On paper, it's hard not to see Novak in the final but grass always breeds upsets, and I imagine the draw will be ripped apart by the middle Sunday.

As for Federer, I think he has a pretty good draw but can see a couple of sets dropped during the opening rounds.

The question will be, can he sustain a level without huge peaks and troughs, and what sort of quality and quantity of chances can be created during a match? If the answers to those two questions are yes and plenty, the results will follow.

Interesting First Round Matches

  • Daniil Medvedev vs Jan Lennard Struff
  • Dan Evans vs Feliciano Lopez
  • Stefanos Tstisipas vs Frances Tiafoe
  • Kyrgios vs Ugo Humbert

What do you guys think of the 2021 Wimbledon draw? Predictions for Federer? Let me know in the comments.


Huge fan of Roger Federer. I watch all his matches from Grand Slam level right down to ATP 250. When I'm not watching or writing about tennis I play regularly myself and have a keen interest in tactics, equipment and technicalties of the sport.

Related Articles


  1. I don’t have to many expectations on this one.
    Just hope for some nice Roger moments.

    I’m 99% sure Djokovic has 20 slams in a couple of weeks or so.
    It felt like that in 2016 too, so let’s hope he gets the same result from his side…

  2. If he was Roger of 2017, hands down he will reach semis at least. Now is one match at a time, point by point. So long he doesn’t waste too much energy in the early rounds. He should have enough in tank for semis and final. Can someone please take out djoker….a bit sic watching him winning again ha ha ha

      1. Haha yeah was always going to be the case, decent for him to get a set though, served well but Djoker was just easing himself him.

  3. Roger has an AMAZING DRAW all things considering.

    What will he do with it is a different question.

    If he can take advantage of it, he can make the finals. But it will all depend on his level and potentially how he does in the opening rounds and round 3.

    If he can produce the level required and shake off the fears, he can make a run.

    But if he is timid, careful, etc. he’s bound for the upset. I truly hope that he took the time off between Halle and Wimbledon to meditate, speak to his team and get back on the horse.

    The draw here is miles better than the one at the French.

    1. Yes, this IS a kind draw, isn’t it?

      I agree with you about Fed’s “mentality”. If he plays like he did in the WTF2019 against the Djoker and in the first five games of their AO2020, he wins. If he begins to doubt himself (like he did at 4-1, 40-0 at AO2020), he loses. Even now, if the knee’s okay, the match really is on his racquet…even against Djokovic. Just like it was in the 2019 final.

      My prediction: If Roger beats Norrie, he wins Wimbledon.

      What’s yours?

      1. If Roger reaches the final, he wins 😉 (or loses by wasting MP’s., BP’s, whatever).

      2. I think Norrie is getting overhyped now. I’m guilty of it myself in my post. Brits and Wimbledon have never been a love affair, he could easily bomb in R1.

      3. I want to get excited about Roger and Wimbledon but we’ll just have to take it match by match.

        I will really get excited if Roger makes it into the quarters.

    2. Yes, draw its pretty good for him. People forget this is grass! Fed played always much better on the grass, when he’s fit final is easy walk for him.
      Medvedev and Zverev are simply not good at grass, at least not good for Fed lvl on grass. Only question is can he win in finals against Djokovic… i think it’s about time for luck to come back!

  4. Good draw for Fed. It’s everything on his hands until SF. The same for Djokovic, but until the final. And I don’t see anyone able to beat him the final, including Fed (but I don’t see him making the final).
    Against FedFans wishes and prayers, there is no one to take Djoker before the crown.
    If Roger reaches SF, it’s good enough. Everything else would be a miracle.
    Even in matches won in straights there is still 3 sets to play. And only one day for recovery. It will be enough after very good and fast matches in first 2 round, but then it will be harder every round and matches can go into 4-5 sets.
    But maybe Fed can still do miracles?

    1. Here’s are some interesting points about the Fed-Djoker rivalry. I wrote it in defence of a Fed fan speaking about how Fed could now be on 22 if he’d converted his MPs against the Djoker from USO 2010, USO 2011, and Wimbledon 2019.


      What is interesting about the Federer-Djokovic rivalry (and, in fact, every Federer H2H rivalry) are the finer “in-match” stats and their comparison to the grosser “results” stats. For example, the Djoker-Fed rivalry is 27-23 in the Djoker’s favour (11-6 in slams) … but (and here’s the rub), several important in-match statistics *tilt in Federer’s favour*. For example, Federer’s points dominance (PD) ratio is 1.02, his game dominance (GD) ratio is 1.01, his total points won is 50.2%, his total games won is 50.4%, and his total sets won is 50%. In other words, *Federer is better than or equal to the Djoker in 5 of tennis’s most important in-match categories*. Now these might seem to be trivial in the larger scheme of things (after all, only the result matters, right?) or like hair-splitting on the part of a Federer fan, but they become important considerations when one is discussing if Djokovic is really a greater/better tennis player than Federer. Because – to have a healthy lead in such a large H2H set (50 matches!) and still trail in these in-match statistics is so rare as to be almost singular . [Take into consideration Djokovic̍s 6-years (!) age-advantage and how he only began to lead the H2H in early 2016 (and to pull away in 2018) and one can argue that he comes out looking the lesser rather than the greater player.]

      This rarity of Federer’s is made more apparent by a look at these very statistics in the case of the Djokovic-Nadal H2H. In this case, the leader of the H2H category (again, the Djoker) also leads the in-match stats: with a PD ratio of 1.04, a GD ratio of 1.09, a total points won of 50.7%, a total games won of 51%, and a total sets won of 52.3%. This sort of correspondence in “leads” is what is expected – what Federer has done against Djokovic goes completely against most people’s assumptions about the performance of the player who leads the H2H.

      And this is not a one-off! Just as interesting are the in-match stats of a couple of Federer’s other negative H2Hs against current players, namely, Thiem and Zverev. Despite the H2H match count being low (just seven each) and despite trailing Thiem 2-5 and Zverev 3-4, his in-match stats (PD, GD, percent points won) is still greater than or equal to that of both players! Indeed, the only (relevant) player Federer trails in these in-match stats is Rafa – and even there, the skew is much less than the 16-24 H2H skew. For instance, Federer’s PD ratio is 0.97 and his total points won is 49.4%!

      The point of all of this? That H2Hs can be “deceptive”; that Federer is almost indisputably the greatest in-match player in tennis history (as well as the most profligate with BPs, SPs, and MPs); and that the player who wins the match is not necessarily the greater/better tennis player.

      To conclude: 1) The Djoker is the best, most consistent player *at the moment*; 2) His lead in the H2H against Federer against Federer does not mean he is the better/greater tennis player (though it is fair to say it indicates he is the better “closer” and that his “mental strength” is better) ; 3) Given Rafa’s (extra)-skewed dominance on clay, his lopsided H2H against the Djoker on HC, and Federer’s resurgence against him since 2017, Djokovic’s real rival (in overall statistics and records) is a six-years-older Fed rather than Rafa ; 4) Fed’s better “in-match” performance over 50 matches against Djokovic makes a strong case for his status as the *greater tennis player* (though not the greater *winner*) of the two.

      P.S: My fascination with these in-match statistics kind of began after Wimbledon 2019 – a match which, as far as I’m concerned, Fed “won”, just not officially . Watching Fed (officially) lose a match he “won” got me looking into the finer match stats. What I found therein confirmed my impression of Federer – as Novak’s greatest rival over the past decade (despite being 6 years older) and as *the finest in-match player in tennis history*. I’m not saying this makes him the GOAT (which is mostly a futile, emotion-driven argument) – but it most certainly lends factual credence to the popular belief that *Federer is the most complete player (in the “tennising” sense) to have played the game*. That he plays with such a sui generis flair and artistry is the icing on the cake.


      1. The Djoker and the Fed have met four times on grass. The Djoker leads the H2H 3-1, but here are Fed’s in-match statistics: PD = 1.04, GD = 1.19, Total points won = 50.4%, Games won = 51%.

      2. In Bof3 matches, the Fed-Djoker H2H is 16-16 (with matches played between 2006-2019). For these 32 matches, the in-match statistics for the Fed are: PD = 1.05; GD = 1.15; BP ratio = 1.05 (he even leads this against possibly the game̍s greatest returner….confirming my opinion that Fed’s return is highly underrated); total points won = 50.6%; games won = 51.5%; sets won = 52.6%. In short, the Fed leads the Djoker in every one of these categories , an astonishing feat.

      3. For all Djokovic’s acclaimed brilliance on hard courts (he leads Nadal 20-7!), the Fed has been his greatest competitor on them, with their H2H being 18-20 in the Djoker’s favour. As for the in-match stats … it’s “deja vu once again” with Fed having a PD = 1.02, GD = 1.02, (BP ratio = 0.98), total points won = 50.2%, games won = 50.7%, sets won = 51.9%.

      Truly – if Fed had the remarkable “nervelessness” of Djokovic (or perhaps even that of Rafa), god knows how many of the important matches would have gone his way! So yes, a statement talking about Fed’s propensity to waste MPs (and, therefore, lose) would be reductive … if there wasn’t so much hard evidence that the Fed is the superior in-match player with a marked tendency of getting nervous at crucial moments . Which is why the hypothetical 22 and 17 (for the Fed and the Djoker respectively) is not as far-fetched or clutching-at-straws as it might seem. Because, putting aside what might have come next (against Nadal), if Fed had had the “nerve(lessness)” to convert those MPs from those three slam matches — he would lead the Djoker 26-24 in their overall H2H; lead him 9-8 in their Grand Slam H2H; and lead him 21-18 in the slam count … but he didn̍t convert them, that’s that, and here we are.

      But don’t ever let the H2H or slam titles or Wimbledon 2019 fool you into believing anything except the fact that Djokovic is the “mentally stronger” (a term I don’t care for) and “more nerveless ” (I prefer this term) tennis player of the two. Not the “greater”. In fact, I will reiterate my opinion that Federer is the greater of the two – not simply because of his “style” but because he has achieved his records while playing an attacking all-court game that offers much less margin for error (than Djokovic’s) and being six years older than Djokovic.

      Stats courtesy:

      1. Truly fascinating MKA! In a uniquely ‘non-cumulative’ sport like tennis these ‘in-match’ stats give more insights. Not that stats alone define greatness and hence the last sentence is really all about it. One more thing to consider is that with the kind of creative talent and the attacking game that Fed has – with probably 5 or 6 shot options to every ball – HIS consistency is itself a wonder, because he could have ended up as another wasted/disinterested or underachieving talent like a McEnroe or a burnout like Borg or a Kyrgios.
        Another thing that needs to be junked is the theory of the ‘weak era’ with these above stats. If early Fed era was weak then what has been going on for the last 5/6 years – a 40 year old who has been at least 1/2 a step slower since 2013 is still in the running for a Grand Slam crown!

      2. Very interesting even for someone, who – like me – is not fan of stats. Because stats cannot represent the “emotional” and “brain game” factor (the game beauty aside, because it’s subjective), which is so important in this kind of individual sport. I could express this like: A wins always against B, while B wins always against C, but C wins always against A. Seemingly no logic at all, but Federer’s game is more instinctive and intuitive, which probably makes it more vulnerable to errors in crucial moments. Can you find some statistical representation for this aspect?
        Then a question about the value and validity of your in-match stats. These stats are about all points, without differentiating between points of different importance for the result.
        An example, I have noticed in many matches between different players. Player A serves. Starts trailing 0:40, than seemingly with big ease (f.i. hitting 3 aces in a row) levels the game but at the end loses it. Stats can’t help understand this behavior, because it’s mental/emotional. To make it as simple as possible. Once you are 0:40, you actually lost the game and have nothing to lose, so you are no more nervous, while spectators could think, this player must be on highest nervousness level, because every lost point means getting broken. Then, when just out of the hole, the relief must come (ah, I made it and now we start a kind of at 0:0), the focus (the nothing-to-lose emotion is replaced by everything-is-OK emotion) suddenly declines, while the opponent, who was over-focused when being up 40:0, sees, the big chance is getting lost, goes for a highest risk and (probably statistically to be proven, but I’m not inclined to do a statistical research) in more cases than not – he wins.
        Your stats are still very interesting, but … they are still (only) stats. Stats count only “after”, never “before”.
        The question “who is greater” and how to measure it, remains open. Such close stats can hardly be useful to be used as a prove of anything.
        Some players need to have 80% of first serve to win the match. Others are mostly winning with 50-60%.
        But your analyze is still worth reading and thinking about 🙂

      3. Interesting numbers.

        If you like stats, take a look at Matthew Benham who wons Brentford. He’s a former banker turned betting platform creator turned club owner. He has a very different view as to which stats matter. Not just wins / losses or scoring record players have etc. Employs a ton of analysts.

  5. A “virtual” MP at Basel, Jonathan. I believe it was a BP Mannarino had at 30-40, while he was up 4-3 in the third set.

    This IS a kind draw for the Fed! Also, it’s PAST time the “tennis gods” finally favoured the Fed (results-wise not talent-wise). At Halle, I predicted he’d win…if he got past Rd 2. For Wimbledon, I’m going to predict he wins the title…if he gets past the 3rd round.

  6. A few years ago this would have been a perfect draw as others have said, with players we’d have been expecting Roger to get past comfortably.
    It’s still as good as it gets, but he needs to get through as quickly as possible to build confidence and maintain fitness.
    As soon as he gets pushed to 4/5 sets its basically curtains for his hopes going forward. The knock on effect is just huge for him now.
    I think a Monday start may have helped Roger to get 2 days off at the end of week 1, but in not getting that at least he avoided Djokovic!

  7. I think this draw is entirely in his hands and, as is so often the case, his toughest opponent could well be himself. The draw in general doesn’t excite me too much though, mainly through a combination of a lack of interesting match-ups and general lack of pedigree throughout.

    1. Very true. I watch Federer’s early matches with the hope to see some occasional good shotmaking on his part – and not much else. And … I watch his later matches with the hope that he’ll somehow win rather than lose from a winning position. The first hope is usually met, but the quality of the opponent means its effect is rather bland. As for the second hope, it is most often not met … and when things like Wimbledon 2019 happen, all the taste of Federer’s shotmaking turns to ashes in one’s mouth. :/

    2. Yeah the top half has a very weak field tbh, a lot of clay courters who have no real aspirations of doing well, it is just a pay cheque then onto Hamburg etc.

  8. In normal circumstances, I too would have said this was a favourable draw for Fed, but at the moment I’m just too unsure. Mannarino was playing at Queen’s, and I remember one of the commentators saying that he could be a tough (early?) player on grass, so I’m a bit concerned about that.

    You mean Novak has another cakewalk draw to the final, like last time? 🙁

    1. And he just made the semi-finals in Queens so he has 7 matches on the grass to Roger’s 2 heading in. Fed big favourite though, Mannarino no weapons so Fed would need to be very much off colour.

      I think Evans will beat Lopez.

  9. Mannarino just beat Feli in Mallorca & is in the semis, so – good form, possible fatigue from more recent play/travel. I agree with Alison that normally this would look very doable for Roger, but right now we just don’t know where the new ‘normal’ IS.
    I hope for him to have fun & to be pleased at the end of it.
    It would surely be a surprise, even though we know these things happen on grass, for anybody other than Djokovic to come through on the other side.

  10. Fed’s “faster court” (if we can call it that) match fitness against in-form players is clearly compromised.

    We saw that in Halle.

    The rest of his game has plenty of holes. But everything is suffering because of he’s not match fit, he’s 40, and he’s really cautious and emotionally hampered by his knees.

    Give him a longer match against a fairly fast power player and I’m afraid he wilts.

    I don’t have high expectations for him. And I would be shocked if he made it past the 4th round.

    I actually expect an early exit this year as everywhere else except RG.

    …But he’s still my fave and I hope he does well and gets some good match experience under his belt.

    1. He should go for broke and play with the abandon he displayed at the Hopman Cup and the AO of 2017. Should he do that, I’d even back him against Djokovic. After all, of the two, he is most certainly the better, more versatile, more attacking player.

      However, I think you’re right that he’s (unusually) worried about his knees. And if that’s really so, he shouldn’t be playing even. Because not just will he lose (which is okay), the poor man won’t even have fun…which is the least he deserves for all his “service to the game”.

      Let’s hope these last ten days have helped “clear his head” and brought him out of the unprecendented (?) funk he’d fallen into in that last set against FAA in Halle.

      1. True that.

        And MKA, I feel you on the sadness of seeing Fed not have any fun.

        A very strange experience a la 2013.

    2. I agree. Roger making it to the 3rd round would be celebration.
      It is tough for him against powerful players especially those who bomb serves at 130 + mph consistently
      Berrittiini comes to mind: standing at 6′ 6″, he has such a big advantage when it comes to holding serve. Roger’s record against big servers (Karlovic, Isner, Kevin) in the past has been good but I don’t think they move as well as Berrittini. The Italian mobility is really good given his stature. His going deep in the last few tournaments attests to what he can bring on and he is going to be a real threat in Wimbledon. I hope he is able to bring Joker down if they meet.

  11. I think this year’s wimby is the most open it has been for years, but the clear favourite is Djoko. Apart from him, there’s no other obvious challengers: Med ? Zverev ? wih dodgey 2nd serves on grass ? I don’t think so. No Nadal, no Thiem. ONly Berettini and Rublev look feasable but they are untested on grass. Dimitrov to sneak through to final ? Gulp, that would be a big drop in standard.

    And Rog ? Wimby has come a little too early, another month and he’d been close to full match sharp. As it stands, how far he gets will depend on fitness, even at current technical levels, he could get past the 1st week if his body holds up, if so than anything can happen. Med over best of 5 is doable as is Berretini, he can’t always serve huge over best of 5, same goes for his weaker BH, over 5 it will be exposed. That’s assuming these guys get through and there’s no certainty of that.


    1. I can see Rublev coming unstuck over 5 on grass, he just blasts away like on a clay court. Works some of the time like Rosol managed but over a Slam? Dunno.

      Berrettini has a decent chance of going deep, has a big game but enough of the other stuff like the slice to mix it up.

  12. Very good draw for Roger, not just because he is in it. Not very impractical to think he can make the quarters or semis. But, at his age and his lack of match practice, one match at a time is more the realistic way. As always, I hope he can win the whole thing, however remote his chances are. Let’s hope we have some spectators in and watch the king of grass in action.

    1. Oh, we will have spectators in – 50%. Anyone else going? I’m going on Thursday, which should be a day Roger’s playing, unless he doesn’t make it past round 1.

      1. I’ve only got a ground pass, nothing fancy 🙂

        I do wish the Daily Express would stop its obsession with Roger’s draw: every time I launch my browser I get all these silly news snippets/bits of clickbait telling me how good his chances are, regardless of the realities of his current situation. That’s at least 3 now. Anyone’d think the title was a lock 🙁

      2. Do you need a negative test or double jabbed to be allowed a grounds pass?

        I won’t be attending any events with rules like that.

      3. That’s for tickets: – “You will be required to show proof of COVID status upon entry, either in the form of both vaccinations (first and second dose), and with the second dose 14 days ago; or a negative lateral flow test taken within 48 hours of your visit (for those aged 11 and over).”
        I don’t see anything about ground pass, but something called “mobile ticket” (you can come and go many times or something). Looks like conditions for this were the same as normal tickets.

      4. @Jonathan
        Will you really make your protest (which nobody notices) against Covid rules just at Wimbledon, which maybe Roger’s last or eventually last with some chances for the win? You may not believe in Covid or vaccines or tests, but making a test doesn’t hurt really. It’s up to you, bu I would do more than a test to go to watch Fed live at this occasion 🙂
        Would you protest against Wimbledon attendance because it’s a big money business? Well, then why not against Fed himself? He is a rich man and lives in luxurious conditions. He is probably jabbed. You should ignore him and close your blog 😉

      5. I won’t be attending any events that require testing or vaccine passports. Testing is a complete scam business, I do not support scams.

        I can think of a few exceptions for taking one – necessary travel, or necessary to stay in employment. Anyone taking them for a day out is an idiot and they get what they deserve – serfdom.

  13. Hey Jonathan – thanks for the careful analysis of what the next couple of weeks will hopefully look like for Federer and his legion of fans! So many amazing players — it’s exciting. I’m 100% behind Roger. I hope he enjoys every minute on court. Hopefully Centre Court 🙂

    G O R O G E R ! ! !

    1. Norrie is getting overhyped, I have done the same in my post. Brits and Wimbledon have been a bit of a flop outside Murray for the last 20 years, so I could see an early loss.

      Time to do my anti-Brit acca bet.

      1. Norrie had actually some good achievements this year (I don’t think about him defeating Thiem, because Thiem was not Thiem then) so in this terms he is not overhyped. His hame? I don’t like it and would never watch a Norrie match if he does not play Fed or Thiem.
        But if you need to do your anti-Brit action … I’m often doing anti-Pole actions, like re overhyped Hurkacz (not Świątek so far but probably very soon).

      2. Norrie has been great this year, 3rd best win % on tour, but the Brits at Wimbledon generally fare poorly and nobody is factoring that in, Maybe he can buck the trend.

  14. My (not liked) dark horse is Medvedev. Just like on clay, he is learning quick to play his paralytic dance on any surface. If he overcomes Struff and Cilic, he plays QF against Fed, which would be not a goof news for Fed. Medvedev is a tricky opponent for everyone if he feels he has chances.
    Of course no match for Djoker. Djoker wins the title against anybody.


    Just one small correction, Mannarino didn’t have MP against Roger in Basel. That match became famous, though, because on BP on the third Set Roger invented a monstrous backhand flick to save it and then win the whole thing.

    Otherwise great article, I agree with everything, also with Matteo’s high chances (as an Italian he’s my second favorite to win the tournament).

    Good luck Roger

    1. As an Italian? This is not soccer, is it? Matteo is for sure not one of strict circle of contenders, but can maybe reach SF.

  16. It’s a favourable draw if this was pre 2021. We have to be also be fair to Federer in Halle, FAA was in form and can serve bombs. The bad thing is that Federer’s 1st serve % disappeared. With Mannirino, there will be long rallies and it will be more about Federer being able to end points. Federer no longer has that aura and players believe they can beat him. It’s been like that since 2013 for sure, but he kind of got it back in 2017-2019. Even a 4 set match might do him in now, if it’s physical like the one at the FO.

    I hope he can make the 2nd week, that would be a success.

    MKA made interesting points about the H2H stats. I would say that since the 2010s, when Federer beats Djokovic, the matches are not close (i..e at least 1 break in each set, fewer tiebreakers and 7-5s). Djokovic wins the close matches (was it the indoor Paris in 2019 or 2018?). Mental strength or belief is a real thing. All Federer needed was to land one first serve out of 2 match points at 40-15. I can’t say it is fatigue because he managed to serve well and hold another 2 or 3 games after getting broken. He was clearly the better player except in the tiebreakers. It really was an amazing performance at Wimby 2019, not to mention dismissing Nadal. The annoying thing is that Federer has to create points whereas Djokovic can go into lockdown mode like he did vs Thiem at the AO 2020 and Tsitsipas last month. Oh well I’m rambling…

    1. I think you’re forgetting that his second match point was a first serve, to Djokovic’s forehand, that he blocked back deep, and Fed hit a modest approach and got passed. The reality is, the first match point, on second serve, Djokovic hit a great return at Fed’s feet and forced an error (if Fed made that first serve, it’s over; it was an ace down the middle and Djokovic was leaning the wrong way), and the second Fed probably should’ve gone to Novak’s backhand, but the pass itself was one Djokovic has made countless times on that court, and that year too (Fed passed Novak the same way to break in an earlier game). If you look at the match point against Murray in 2012, Fed made the same approach play, and Murray just missed the same pass. High risk, but it’s worked for Fed before.

      The problem is, he played very passively the next two points. That’s what bothers me the most, he just let Novak dictate, instead of forcing the play. Not finding a first serve on either of those points also hurt.

      1. Thanks, yes that’s correct. On the first match point he went for too much with a forehand that missed wide and long to the deuce side. The 2nd match point he went too early to the net which looked a bit panicky. Yes if he made that first sever at 40-15 down the T it would have been over.

        Hopefully he lets these things go better than his fans (!)

    2. Is this really annoying that Fed needs to create points? It’s just amazing. Djoker’s ability to stay in lockdown mode when trailing 0:2 is amazing too, but only if you watch scores, not the real match. Even if I like to observe Djoker’s face after missing a shot or being in big troubles. He almost always produces Mona-Liza smiles 😉

  17. Where the hell is Katyani’s Wisdom? I have no expectations here. Creeping in my mind is 2019…..worst moment in the history of being a Fedfan.
    On another note….it is going up to 42 C here on Monday. Usually 20C. Called a heat dome.

  18. Well,we shall see .Immediate weather forecast is dire.Same old,at least there is a roof now.
    Apart from Fed I am really interested I what Tsitsipas can do on grass.
    There is the future of tennis I think.Should be an interesting first round tussle against Tiafoe.

  19. Oooh, Apart from hoping on Fed I’m eager to see what Musetti can achieve. Not that I expect much that early in his career – but he’s a great talent, pushed Djoko in FO, and also otherwise a bit unpredictable – AND a singleback-hander

  20. Its pretty much disgusting how “all” the huge-serve/in-form players landed in Fed’s half of the draw. Humbert, Zverev, Berrettini, Cilic, FAA, Sonego, Musetti, Isner, Kyrgios, Struff.

    1. Kyrgios is what? Big server? Yes, but ius he in form? Kyrgios can fall in the first match.
      And to not make your list too long – don’t count for instance Humbert&Kyrgios or Struff&Cilic. Both pair will meet just before potentially meeting Fed, so say Humbert or Kyrgios or Aliassime or Zverev (all in one section, not in Federer’s), Struff or Cilic or Musetti, Isner or Berrettini, Actually only Sonego is in Fed’s section.
      It’s pretty much disgusting how you don’t understand the draw and look for potential excuses before Fed hits the first ball and is Sonego really a big threat for Federer? Federer himself is his biggest threat, because of age and unsuccessful preparation.

      1. Which next gen? It’s only statistics. Every single player has his own development path.
        The breakthrough man from “next gens” could be Medvedev, just because what he plays has nothing to do with tennis – kind of unreadable paralytic dance. But it works. So is he the “real next gen”? In paralytic dances – yes, of course. Not in tennis.
        Thiem would be the real next gen if not his many health problems. Actually he wis, if you look on his H2H against every one of Big3 and on his big matches (including lost, because sometimes you lose the match where you was even or maybe a bit better than the opponent – we all know this about Fed).
        If Thiem can overcome his (not only physical) crisis and I guess, he will, we will have in him the real next gen for some years to come. Thiem has no comparable talent with Big3, but he has skills, mental strength and passion.
        Would you call a loser or fake next gen someone beating regularly Federer everywhere (not on grass, I don’t mind his win in Stuttgart).

    1. Stef is likable guy but was always pumped and self-overhyped.
      Tiafoe is someone with great potential: Federer-like footwork, easy power, courage. But he is mostly failing on bug points.
      It’s nice to see him defeating the big balloon 😉
      BTW: Stef is not designed for grass. Too heavy, no appropriate movement. He will never have big wins on grass. Like so many others.
      Grass is for Fed, Djoker and some other oldies, still winning (like Seppi) but never having potential for big wins.
      It’s kind of good for Stef to have more time to prepare for hard court season.

      1. Tsitsi will need to tweak his game for grass but this is possible. His game is well suited to slower surfaces, he will also struggle on faster hard courts sometimes with his setup.

        Thiem also had similar problems but has improved, although looking at his record: 1R, 2R, 2R, 4R. 1R, 1R there is still work to do.

    1. Ha ha I was just saying this to myself when I saw the Barty failed to close out the 2nd set, predictably …

  21. Fed is done. He has no serve or forehand, or any rhythm at all. Maybe he’ll beat this first round pusher but he won’t go far, let alone the final. It’s time to retire. Dreams of revenge against Novak anywhere are just that, and the legacy-staining loss in 2019 will remain forever. He needed to win then and hang it up, not grind away like he needs a paycheck while giving free lessons and career boosts to everyone on tour.

    1. There are flashes of what used to be, but yes it disappeared by the 2nd set tiebreaker. Fought to get even in the 3rd, then broken to love again. This is a harsh assessment but sometimes you have to be harsh.
      Crowd giving a big ovation just for him to win a point on serve now. Can only hope it goes to 5.
      Mind you Mannarino is a decent grass player, lots of disguise.

  22. Anyone with a strong serve can trouble Fed. One nutjob on this website got triggered when I just said that Fed’s half of the draw is the toughest one with all the big serve players stacked up.

  23. Well he got through somehow, for those who missed it Federer hit a forehand that clipped the tape I think and changed direction suddenly, causing Mannirino to slip as he tried to change direction , causing him to twist his knee.
    To be fair to Federer he was going to win the 4th set being up a break and serving well, but the 5th would have been 50-50, and I’d give the edge to Mannarino as he had zero pressure…

    1. Good recap. Fed admitted Mannarino was the better player and had the better chance for the win. Overall, does not look good at all for Fed given his draw. It will take a miracle for this Fed to get to the finals.

  24. It is a tricky draw when Fed has been out of matches so long. No secret that Mannarino and Gasquet have long recorded good grass results.

  25. I think physically he is OK, it’ s just his timing is off. And that’s normal, the key to his game is taking it early and that means basically guessing and reacting , and when that’s off, at this stage, he’s just a good player, not a great one.
    If he gets dragged into 4-5 setters every round he can’t make it past the 1st week.

    Until the 2nd set tiekbreaer, things looked OK actually, I missed it but it looks like he got beaten badly there. Looking forward to Jonathan’s summing up (maybe he was watching the England match though :))

    1. My feeling too was that the timing was off – and that he was starting to get it back in the 4th set. We’ll see what Jon has to say.

  26. I predicted Murray would get blown out by Shapovalov. He had nothing left and wasn’t playing with his usual guile, slices, droppers, etc. Tried to slug it out with a slugger and lost big. I like Andy and give him credit for coming back. Fed? He looked like his old self vs. Gasquet, but I was willing to bet on Mannarino in the 5th and was distressed to see him go down and get hurt. Serena and Venus should hang it up, open an academy for minority players, design some outfits and raise kids. I love Korda. He has the potential to be greater than his Dad and maybe even his golfing sisters. My dark horse is Berretini or maybe FAA with those whippy strokes, while my DH on the Ladies side is Paula Badosa though Sabalenka should win if she can keep those thunderbolts on the court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button