Federer vs. Cilic in the Final on Sunday. Fed has been playing terrific throughout the tournament, not dropping a set. He looked good but not great against Berdych in the semis today, winning in 3 again. He'll have to play better to beat Cilic if Cilic is in good form. Too bad Querrey didn't beat Cilic to make the final. Would have been fantasitic to see an American challenge Fed again. The draw worked out pretty well for Federer this year. That's one of the rewards of his consistency and making it deep into tournaments year after year after year---eventually the draw will break his way--giving him a great chance at another major. Nadal is only 2 back and younger and still playing well. The biggest surprise is Venus in the final.
Venus got blown away in the final. If she was 7-8 years younger, I think she would have won. Cilic's power and confidence is very high. He always plays well on grass. His age and strength gives him a huge advantage on grass, which is the fastest surface to play on. I don't think Federer can break his serve. Cilic in 4 is my prediction, even though I want Roger to win.
Federer still the the most impressive sports story of 2017 in my opinion, winning 2/4, hell maybe even 3/4 majors at the age of 35/36 in this era would be ridiculous. That being said Cilic is playing very well, Fed has to be at his best in the final.
I'm so glad I was wrong. Another masterpiece from the one and only Roger Federer. Saving the best, for last. A straight set win over the entire field, one month short of his 36th birthday. 19 Grand Slams and hopefully more to go. 8 record Wimbledon wins. I can't believe it, 6-3, 6-1, 6-4 against a hard hitting and in form Cilic. Roger has a very good chance for a 6th US Open and a 6th Australian Open 2018. Go Roger Go.
Agree that Serena is more dominant. Nadal only owns Federer on clay, though. Federer has a slight edge on hard. They've only played 3 times on grass. If the clay and grass matches were balanced it's probable that the head to head is very even.
It's hard to play with blisters, and that certainly hampered Marin from giving his best, and he is certainly more than a handful when he gets going, but I was impressed with Roger's mental attitude from the beginning. It was clear that he was going to put pressure on Cilic, and he did that quickly, before the unfortunate injury kicked in. I thought that Marin would win in 4, but now I feel Roger would have won in 4, if Cilic hadn't gotten injured. Roger has become a stronger player mentally after the 6 month break from injury, and physically he looks fresh, after getting adequate rest. I honestly believe that he is an ominous threat at his best against Nadal, Novak, Murray etc on all surfaces apart from clay, and he isn't bad on it either.
I'm just absolutely floored by how little movement we've had at the top of the men's game over the last 7-8 years. It's really kind of shocking. I first started really getting into watching tennis back in 2010. At the time, the four best, most consistent players were Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. In 2017, although I suppose you could make an argument that Stan Wawrinka has worked his way into the picture, those are probably still the four best players on tour on a consistent basis. They get injured more now, sure, but look at how well Nadal and Federer have bounced back from fairly significant injuries of late. Someday, a tennis writer is going to write an incredible book about this era of men's tennis, and I'm really interested to hear that person's theories on how we arrived in this place. Was it that these guys are just simply four of the greatest tennis players of all time and they all happened to more or less come along at the same time? Did they just happen to come along at the right time, as the game was transitioning from being all about variety, speed, and agility (think Lleyton Hewitt's style and guys like Michael Chang winning majors in their teens) to being more about consistency and power from the baseline? Was there just a dearth of worthy contenders during this period?
The extended primes is what really sets these guys apart for me. I don't think it's been a weak era. It's just that the best players are maintaining their level for so long. The increased physicality is what is keeping teens from reaching the top, so it would be no surprise if guys were fizzling out earlier too due to that same element, yet they're not. We do need a great tennis book. Is there any sport where players are less accessible to the press than tennis? There is also quite a bit to be written about on the business side of tennis. Prize money inequality, appearance fees and strange things like umpires sharing agents with players. John Feinstein's book, Hard Courts, was a great read about tennis in the early 90's. I'm not aware of anything like it since.
I don't think the little movement at the top of the men's game over the last 7-8 years is as bad as what it was in 2008-2012 specifically. In the last 7-8 years, due to Federer and Nadal injuries/issues, Ferrer and Raonic got in the mix. Those 5 years- 08-12 specifically are when the top four did not have anyone new in the mix. Federer, Nadal, Murry and Djoker just dominated and had an absolute hold on the top 4. 83,84 and 85 are the most recent years (consecutively) in which the top 4 had no one new but merely rotated between the same four players.
I would like to see Novak get over his issues and back to his form two years ago. He's the only player that could challenge Rafa consistently on clay and Fed on grass. What Roger has done this year is amazing and he has to be the solid favorite for the US Open. If he were an American he would get way more coverage here for what he had accomplished.