Wimbledon

Timeout: Let’s Burn Some Bullshit

Because we’re on the web (can’t deny my blog is on the internet, unfortunately), we get more or less tossed-in to this bath-house of points-of-view, some of which fail on several levels. However, the positives of the internet, I’m afraid, outweigh the negatives, which, granted, is a vague generalization, but you and I know I’m right about this. We have so much ease and insight at our fingertips via the internet: the smartest of us, then, will be those who can discern the legitimate from the bullshit.

I work hard on this blog and know, in fact, that I need to step-up my game even more. The blog as a genre has grown and has become a more and more credible platform for additional perspectives on a variety of topics. This development advances social, intellectual and democratic agendas and is, therefore, valuable, among other things.

But there are still and always will be much less constructive blogs, discussion boards and articles, etc., that litter the interwebs and potentially our thought processes. Again, I don’t think this is necessarily a doomed condition.

This just means that you have to develop the ability to read and understand what is decent from indecent, honest from delusional, etc.

The Djokofans are upside-down right now (I mean the crazed, belligerent types, about which you can read at that infamous dump emanating out of S. Africa and his sibling-hysteric apparently coming-out of Britain, among, I am sure, many more).

I address this bullshit from time to time. I did so around the time of Indian Wells, here and here.

Here’s what everyone’s favorite tennis blogger wrote recently (you probably saw he called WB rigged, Djokovic persecuted, etc.). His lunacy is better represented in pretty colors.

“I’ve posted tables before which showed that Djokovic gets the toughest draws and face the stiffest competition and the above confirms this fact. It also shows that Federer had the weakest competition of the big four throughout his career.

So not surprisingly, Federer has won the most slams. Some of the most striking facts are that Djokovic won only one of his slams without facing a big 4 member in the final while Federer won 12 slams without facing a big 4 member in the final. Federer has also won 11 slams without facing any big 4 member at all while Djokovic had to beat at least one big 4 member in all the slams he won.”

I have addressed this in so many ways, this being one of the more recent articles.

There are two major problems with this ridiculous point about facing the “Big 4.” One is the inability to acknowledge that Federer played virtually in a different era; as my linked article points-out, by 2008, Federer had 13 majors, Nadal had 5 and Djokovic had 1. That’s not a typo, nor do you have to be an authoritative tennis historian to see a problem with this “Big4” criterion. Wipe the bullshit from your chin.

This “Big 4” point used to criticize Federer’s opponents is rife with fallacy; you pick which specific fallacy applies: Incomplete comparison – in which insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison. Inconsistent comparison – where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison. False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

The second problem is putting so much ill-advised stock in the composition and development of a draw. No one can control a draw other than the players contesting those matches. I have heard people talk about the anti-climactic 2017 Wimbledon final, how this might affect Roger, the quality of the win, etc.

Please note: this has no bearing on the quality of that major. Federer’s draw was tough, he played well enough to win, Cilic couldn’t muster the goods in the final, so Federer wins his 19th. That’s what happened and even more so: that’s what the records show and will show in the future.

Remember the Mcshow Tennis Nadal v Federer argument (a series of posts I wrote over a year ago)? One of the flaws with that H2H is Nadal often was no where to be found late in the draw in tournaments that didn’t take place on the red dirt of RG. Is that Federer’s fault? That he didn’t get to play the #2 seed, who went out in the 3R? Shit happens, folks. You can not blame a player because other players shit their pants earlier in the tournament. Djokovic, Nadal and Murray bowed-out early in this last Wimbledon, so we should discount Federer’s win? Ha ha.

In fact, what will become clearer to you novice thinkers is that the very fact of one’s survival becomes a big part of legacy. If you can’t stay healthy, that’s a flaw and once that can of worms is opened, we can go all sorts of places. Staying healthy is part of the program. If you can’t, you won’t and no one cries for you other than your sad, diapered little fans who are really just sport hooligans who could care less about tennis.

The idea that Federer’s 19th is blemished because he couldn’t play Djokovic in the semi-final, or Nadal/Murray in the final is so weak. Those three players lost prior to playing Federer. Can you wrap your brain around that fact? They didn’t play well enough to advance. Do you understand that?

I have to keep this somewhat focused since so many extensions arise – health and consistency are HUGE factors folks and like I have been arguing for almost a year now, the Djkollapse has been tragic. That’s part of that story, part of the 12 majors, his BH, etc.. Just like Nadal’s injuries are inseparable from his clay success and his non-clay inconsistency.

Please read more closely, with more discernment and breadth of knowledge. Please.

Next:

“Federer is the talented one who currently has the most slam titles. Nadal is the great fighter and clay court GOAT. Djokovic is the most complete if you include the mental aspect and has the highest peak level. They are all incredible players and it is unlikely that any of them will ever be officially crowned the GOAT.”

Someone explain how Djokovic is the most complete player. He’s a baseline grinder with superb flexibility, has a great ROS and a decent serve. This “most complete” claim is a vague statement that lacks any sort of definition/delineation. He has been described as having a very natural stroke, from his early days, his timing superbly natural, his turn through the ball exquisite. But there’s a lot more to tennis than FH and BH from the BL.

This will get played-out, historically. We will get to why Federer’s 2017 is not that surprising, but why Djokovic excelling at the age of 35-36 might be. Read that last sentence again (I have posed it a million times): how, do you gather, will Djokovic play at 33, 34 or 35? That has to do with one’s game, style and related health which play massive roles in one’s legacy. Sorry if this seems so obvious.

Lastly and most ridiculously:

“There are many more variables than what I touched on in this post. For instance the biased scheduling we saw at Wimbledon but far more importantly the influence of the mainstream media. By always promoting Federer as the embodiment of all that is good and noble and victimizing Djokovic as the villain they influence the way Federer and Djokovic are perceived and treated as a result.

The media has enormous power and in politics, the powerful use it for instance to win elections and to make people vote against their own interests. It is the ultimate brainwashing tool and very easy to fall for if you are not inclined to think for yourself and hold a certain skepticism for everything you hear in the mainstream media.

Anyway, the media is just one other factor that I wanted to include because it is part of a rigged system whether in sport, politics, or whatever the case may be. I never talked about it before but I saw how enormously influential it is in American politics and thought it is an underrated and overlooked influence in tennis.

But I will leave it at that. [. . .]”

Ha ha ha ha ha aha.  The media affects the results of matches? That’s the argument. Are you talking about the popularity of a player and how that affects the fans and therefore the playing environment? Right: I just articulated your argument more effectively than you.

If a player is beaten by the crowd, what’s that player’s prospects on tour? This is a joke, right? The media controls tennis matches. The popularity affects scheduling, etc. Does the media affect the draw? Was Djokovic’s victimization the reason he got such a soft draw at 2017 WB? Help us out here.

I know: part of the conspiracy is Roger gets a tougher draw, therefore his matches are against higher quality opponents, which encourages the organizers to put such a quality match-up on CC whereas Djokovic gets the shitty-easy draw so his matches can be moved to Court 1.

Is that what you fangirls are arguing? The softer draw was part of the conspiracy?

This sophomoric blogger completely loses his ass when he gets into world politics here, or American politics in particular and the role of the media. One can see he’s trying to add this political association to strengthen his argument that the media affects tennis matches. The media is big in politics; therefore, it’s big in tennis. Another weak logical fallacy, I’m afraid.

The latest chapter in the media’s influence on politics is that the media, as a whole, failed the American people in the last Presidential election. Literally, there was one poll out of the University of Southern California that appears, in hindsight, to have seen a much tighter election. On the whole, the media failed, did not affect the election other than one could argue that the American people rebelled against the mainstream media narrative: that Hillary Clinton would be the next US President.

In other words, don’t give the media that much credit.

And we’re talking about tennis, so to the point here, you’re in way-over-your-head.

To come full circle: we bloggers are here to keep the mainstream media, hopefully, more honest and perhaps more and more unsure of their own significance.

At the same time, a blogger off-the-rails doesn’t give this new genre much advance. Maybe ease-up on your fanboy antics, enjoy and analyze the sport more objectively, so you don’t make such a fool of yourself.

I have a lot more to say folks about more things tennis and this blog (a lot of thinking going-on here about the direction of the season and this blog). I will post another article tonight (by writing that down, such goals more often come to pass). 🙂

Cheers!

Federer Routines Cilic for Eighth Wimbledon Title

You probably watched the final, at least heard about what happened or didn’t happen.

We could blame the blister, I guess. Quite unfortunate for the aspiring ATP threat with one major and one Masters. Cilic looked solid through the first four games, had the BP, 42433FF000000578-4690146-image-a-45_1499880580015missed, was broken in the next game, lost the first set 3-6, went down 0-3 in the second set, called for a MTO, broke-down emotionally, actually cried, lost the second set 1-6, still couldn’t get anything going in the third set, Federer stayed true-to-form and that pretty much synopsizes this gentlemen’s final.

Cilic’s serve never showed-up, which could have been a huge factor on the grass (he came into the match with 130 aces), and then his vaunted groundstrokes took-off to see a play in Stratford-upon-Avon; hope they had fun. Just a “cruel” (as Federer reminded us in his post-match address on-court how these finals can treat a particular player) set of circumstances for the 28 year-old Croatian.

In the end, as we, our kids, their great-great-grand kids and anyone else interested look back at this match, Federer won. Sure, there are these kinds of circumstances that should be clarified, thus qualifying the win, perhaps; but we all know how tough this tour can be, how “unfair” it may seem at times. Whether we like it or not, these results tell a pretty  convincing story.

For this match, we should start with the numbers. In this case, the number 8. One of the interviews pointed-out that he was born on the eighth day of the eighth month and today he claimed his eighth Wimbledon, beating Marin Cilic 63 61 64 (3 + 1 + 4 = 8). I know, that’s corny, but the lighter, softer lob is used here as I move to another storyline that I neglected in my post yesterday about match themes for this gentlemen’s final: Revenge.

This topic came-up in our lead-up to the match, in even the comments from the “Storyline” post. I smell insight, another perspective on what we’ve been tracking as far as the 2017 Federer is concerned. I mentioned in the comments of my “Storyline” post that there was another obvious theme I neglected to mention. This was in reference to the idea that someone beyond the Big 4 could win a major, a discussion growing more and more surreal as these guys get into their late thirties (at least one of them).

But “revenge” is, indeed, a neglected storyline that I was hoping you all would help me find (in addition to several others). Hence, the richness and multilayered landscape of a deeper discourse that I endeavor daily to render here at Mcshow Tennis Blog.

Please be aware that if you watch a particular sport with keen interest, you might have a particular favorite player or players with whom you identify. What happens here is you develop a bias toward this player. When you venture, then, toward discussion and any level of analysis or insight, your point-of-view is potentially (likely) skewed. That’s fine; in fact, it is so common, you might think I’m being melodramatic to bring to light this so obvious flaw in our rationality.

This really comes into play when we hope to analyze a given event (let’s get back to tennis here). If one endeavors to analyze legitimately, bias can and will strangle one’s credibility (I have to admit, however, that sometimes a crazed, lunatic obsession can yield some pretty interesting insight, at times, given the gigantic energy of interest).

The latest Federer run, as you probably know, has pushed some “fans” to some typical kinds of “analysis” that lose any lasting resonance because of the bias stink that distracts and undermines. It’s reactive, unreasonable, too emotional, half-witted, has a short half-life.

For example, Wimbledon was rigged (see my Rant) and/or Federer is doping. I will take-up the latter point (the spirit of that hysteria) in a post this week.

That’s the “analysis” of some of these “fans.” If you are reading this and you have fallen into that kind of poop in your pants, I am glad you’re reading this. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest challenging yourself to a deeper deconstruction of the tournament or the year/career of Federer (the conspiracy garbage is laughable, seriously). Perhaps move your writing toward story; try to make sense of your calamity by offering a new way to digest the match, the context, the patterns; feel free to include some inference where you identify patterns or context that people perhaps haven’t considered. Try to earn an A for effort, at least.

If you’re just Tweeting or texting or you have a silly fanblog, by all means, knock-yourself-out. Admittedly, such naiveté and foolishness can evolve; but until then, remember that you sound like a party to a playground quarrel. It’s cute, annoying but hopefully leads to a teachable moment (I can go on and on, and will, later).

Revenge

Juxtaposing the all-white adorned and adored Swiss tennis star and the royal box and general class of the Championships is a darkness that fuels this 2017 Federer.

When Federer made his rounds today with his trophy, connecting personally with his fans, though still from a distance, but more intimately with the celebrity contingent inside the club facility where all had gathered to pay their respects to this real gentleman of the game, he had an extended visit with Edberg. They spoke, Stefan whispered something to Roger, and Federer even let the Swede great hold the Cup.

This only reminded me of an insight that you know I attribute much in my understanding of 2017 Federer (2016 was half-baked, so to speak, with injury and an extended leave).

Federer, I have no doubt, is benefitting tremendously from the influence of Ivan Ljubičić. I honestly wasn’t quite aware of Roger’s and Ivan’s friendship, that such a trusting and serious relationship could develop from their acquaintance. Ljubičić, I knew from the moment I read the news, could (possibly) give Federer what he so desperately needed: a winning nadal-federer-mailbag-leadugly mentality, a kind of nastiness. I knew that’s what he needed, what he lacked. What Connors and Johnny Mac, Pete and even Andre and Jim had – a bit of that “F U” mentality, some more than others. Those, of course, are my American forefathers that I grew up watching. Lendl and Becker were schooled in the nasty. We know Lleyton Hewitt had “attitude,” and, though Roger had a temper as a youngster, he grew into a more refined on-court demeanor though he could definitely show emotion. Of course, Nadal and Djokovic brought that very tough, relentless grind that contrasted the gentlemanliness of Federer. We probably attribute most of their success against Federer to this darker side that they’ve used to almost bully the beauty and brilliance of the Fed Express.

Obviously, Roger has done just fine in his career (the results speak for themselves), but the point here is that his hire of Ljubičić was a kind of recognition, perhaps, of this dearth of necessary darkness.

Am I overriding this a bit? Probably.

But underneath this lovable (hatable) refinement of Roger Federer, there’s a kind of tour de revenge that’s happening, that speaks to this dominance of 2017. Five players come to mind upon which Roger has enacted a spell of revenge.

Nadal has seen his fair share. What happened in Melbourne and on the Sunshine Double speaks to nothing but a stroke of revenge (Federer has seen more than his own fair share of cruelty and death at the hands of the Spaniard) though you might want to include that he was simply playing brilliant offensive/defensive tennis. That was career/legacy altering stuff on those early hard courts. What’s happened at Wimbledon is almost additional salt on the Melbourne/Cali/Florida wounds. Federer took a pass from possibly getting anymore trouble from the clay rampant Spaniard (notably upon advice from his tall Croatian mastermind coach); the revenge tour resumed on European grass.

In Miami, Kyrgios got his taste of Federenge or Revederer 😀
The Aussie had beaten Federer in Madrid back in 2015, of course is your basic malcontent into which any one of us elders might want to slap some sense.

That Miami SF was a brilliant match, heated, chippy. Federer served it up on the surging Kyrgios: Revenge.

Next was another one of our tour’s future: Sascha Zverev. The 2017 Halle final was a blow-out: 1 and 3. Zverev beat Roger in last year’s Halle SF in three sets, as a 19 year-old. This year’s Halle meeting was a beating with meaning. Pre-Wimbledon. Future is tomorrow; 2017 Federer is now.

Raonic got his dose in this year’s WB SF, as a result of his win over Federer in last year’s WB SF. Raonic did not play poorly in this year’s SF, mind you. None the less, that was straights, a definitive pressure cooker from the 35 year-old.

Lastly, Cilic got his today; GRANTED, the blister, you might say, undermines this pattern of revenge on this example. On the contrary, there’s too much evidence to ignore. Even sans blister, Marin, unfortunately, wasn’t quite in that 2014 USO form. The struggle he had with Muller (as we said) wasn’t the best look, nor was the relative struggle he had with Sam Querrey, who, let’s be fair, should have been ripe for a more convincing victory.

Federer is on a mission, folks.

One of my readers/commenters caught the prediction I made on Twitter a day or two before the match. Sure, Cilic seemed primed for a big move here (I made this case, I think, pretty well); but the magic and revenge are strong with the Swiss giant in this time and place.

Don’t let the silky smile and fashion icon handsomeness fool you, folks. Federer is blood-thirsty. He seeks revenge and has no one more to thank than the man, the myth (in his own right), Ivan Ljubičić.

I have a lot more to say, as I’m sure you do, as well.
Sorry – a bit punchy at the moment. Stay-tuned, be well, and get ready for hard courts!

😀

Wimbledon Men’s Final Storylines

 

wimbledon-2017-all-you-need-to-know-136418573681803901-170607080331

There are several.

Brainstorming these kinds of elements (adding to the overall perspective of the match) can help one see either a strategy or a theme that may help clarify the outcome – which is often coincidence. But there could be irony, logic, tragedy and beauty (emotion) that all come into play in such an event, especially one that involves humans contesting a tennis match, one-on-one, mano y mano, the stakes so incredibly high (or not that high really, considering it’s just a tennis match and there are so many other things we can and should worry about in our world and our lives).

Start with the Federer legacy, his drive to reach numbers that may be more important to his legion of fans than to him (probably not). Numbers on the line: #8, #19, and then the year-end numbers that would coincide with reaching #1, year-end #1, WTF title count, etc. (Sampras has said that the year-end #1 was one of the most important achievements of his storied career – he ended the year #1 a record six times).

How about the 2017 storyline that continues and is part of the numbers. But the resurrection itself has a story, the continuation of 2017 Fedal, how these two have cemented their legacies together even more because of their incredible success this year, dominating the tour at the Masters and the Majors. Unreal really.

So, to be clear, 2017 Federer is a big storyline.

I would remind everyone, regardless of the outcome of tomorrow, how Federer’s run here, this fortnight, also extends his historical consistency, his insanely persistent high-level of tennis into his mid-30s. When all is said and done, this kind of relevance (and dominance) at this age could be the real deal-breaker when one enters that discussion of greats. He’ll be 36 in about a month. How well will Nadal be playing in five years, Djokovic in six years? Exactly.

What about Cilic? He’s won a major already and has made the WB QF, I believe, four consecutive years. That’s a trend. At the USO, there was virtually no warning before 2014 when he stormed the tournament and turned-away everyone, including Federer in the SF. At least at WB he’s made some steady progress and seems ready to take that next step.

Speaking of the USO, there is the similarity here that people are seeing between this match-up and the 2009 match-up in the USO final between Federer and Del Potro. Federer has another youthful 6’6″ power broker with whom the three-seed has to negotiate, somehow, a profitable outcome. Federer was up 2-1 sets in that affair before the quiet giant stuck-around and outlasted a much younger Federer.

I think this youth (Cilic isn’t exactly “young” but he’s playing an almost 36 year-old, so he’s “young”) vs. age is a critical story-line. This plays-out in sports all the time, as Father Time is undefeated. Venus Williams’ run ended today in this exact way.

Federer has been dominant in 2017, but he hasn’t had to play an in-form Djokovic, his victory in Melbourne came, in the end, against a Nadal who is not young. His victory over a monster Kyrgios in Miami may have been some of the most impressive tennis we saw from the Maestro this year. He turned-away a youngster.

But here again he has to play a guy who is younger, stronger and may be playing better (we have to wait for tomorrow’s match to determine this last comparison).

Federer will have to outsmart Cilic as much as out hit him. He will need to out-clutch the Croatian as much as out-serve him (Cilic has twice as many aces as Federer in this tournament: 130 to 64).

Indeed, the youth vs. old age theme is a biggie in my book. Federer has to do a lot to overcome that in my estimation.

As for the tennis statistical arguments and themes, help me out here with some of your own research. Federer has been better than Cilic in the UE department (~12 to ~23 a match — though WB apparently is pretty conservative with these numbers). Federer, we know, has to continue to be much cleaner than his opponent. If we get that FH abandonment or his vaunted (improved) BH goes awry, we have the 2014-15 Federer who just doesn’t have the goods in the end, in the final, against a younger, stronger player (Novak, Cilic, et al.).

I think a very interesting trend could be one that Federer might have broken or bucked. Go watch the 2014 and 2015 WB semi-final matches in which Federer routined Raonic and Murray, respectively; of course, he came-up short in the final with what people might describe as less ascendant form. Even though this year’s SF vs. Berdych was in straights, I think many of us agree Federer’s tennis seemed a bit “off” his more dominant 2017 form. So, is this the case where he’s saved his best for last, kept his game in a lower gear vs. Berdych early-on in order to save some of that higher gear for the final?

This will be an interesting one to watch, for sure.

There are probably several others that add to our perspective and understanding of this match. Chime-in. While there’s still time.

Cheers!

Cilic and Federer Set 2017 Wimbledon Men’s Final

pri_46637736

The only tennis I missed this morning was the first set TB of Cilic v Querrey and the third and final set of Federer v Berdych. I replayed the final frame of Fedych and learned via news source that Cilic let slip a 4-1 lead in that first set TB. His ability to regroup and take care of business is pretty telling of the danger and focus we’ve been talking about for a month or so with the 6’6″ Croatian star.

I’m up-to-speed on all of the tennis today in those big semi-final matches. The final booking is a pretty predictable outcome given these players’ overall games at this point.

Sure, toward the end of the first week, having seen glimpses of play and score-lines (and picking-up that macro-narrative I like to wrestle with), I imagined a Nadal v Djokovicf inal in that the Spaniard appeared (at first grasp) to be still riding that annihilative tennis and Novak, my lord, had to, at some point, resurrect himself, and become even more motivated by the opportunity to rain on Federer’s parade.

But Cilic has played stand-out tennis and Federer is probably the grass GOAT, not to mention it’s #2017Federer, so what else should we expect. Indeed, this is an almost logical final here at the Championships.

Keep in mind, those of you who have read this blog for a few years, I have had some pretty harsh words for Cilic, whose 2014 run in NYC still seems almost corrupt. His ability to win Cincinnati in 2016 and reach the QF (again) at WB last year and the F this year only help his case; however, watching him through most of 2015-16 play very ordinary (or sub-ord.) just made that 2014 run terribly unfortunate. To think both Federer and Djokovic could lose those SF matches against perennial misfits was tennis hell.

Good on Cilic for backing-up his one major.

The Querrey v Cilic match went pretty much according to form. I crawled out of bed seeing that Querrey had won a first set TB. Could it be? But once I got myself in-front of the tele, the story-line we’d predicted started to materialize. There was a moment in that third set TB where I could’ve seen Sam snap control at 3-3, get a mini break there and serve-it-out, but the Croatian was very very determined. Marin’s emotional energy remained positive and urgent – losing last year to Fed where he held a MP and a 2-0 set advantage, and losing in the Queen’s final this year both seem to define some of his facial expressions today – he was not going to lose. This was the body language and the tennis for most of the match; I say “most” because Sam played well, made Cilic play at a high level to secure the four-set victory.

But mentality almost trumps the actual tennis. What belief do you think Sam actually had that he could make the WB final? The telecast showed a pre-SF interview with Sam who talked about his confidence, beating Novak and making the QF last year, how that experience helped fuel this year’s run. When asked about his chances in today’s match or in the final four, he said something along the lines of “I hope to do a little better than last year.” The part I got right in that paraphrase is “a little better.”

I am not suggesting that his relaxed demeanor on court necessarily informed the outcome here; Cilic is rolling, of course. But opposite Cilic was a guy playing great tennis, on a really memorable run here at SW19, but in the end not in possession of the confidence players need at this end of the draw. I am proud of my American brother, but I think it’s safe to say that he would have a very tough time closing-out the uber-motivated Cilic who has SO MANY REASONS to want this finals appearance at Wimbledon.

Sam unable to hold that break in the third was tough to see; Marin put much more pressure on the American’s serve whereas Cilic had several love holds on his serve (had a much easier time most of the match). The writing was on the wall throughout, but still Querrey made a solid appearance; we should see more of this cool customer’s tennis in other big matches in the future.

______________________________________________________________________

Not sure how Berdych feels here. Probably worse since he’s been here before, has had more success on tour than Querrey. At the same time, the Czech beast played some good tennis and certainly had Federer looking pretty weary in that second set.

Berdych’s ROS troubled Federer at times. Of course, if the ball to Tomas stayed up at all, he was able to punish Federer. Federer did have BP opportunities (the first set could have been much less dramatic had Federer cashed one or two of those BPs), but Berdych also held his own. On a few of those BP, Berdych answered with an ace. The tennis was tight throughout.

No doubt we observed a slightly tighter Federer, his FH errant, his BPs uneaten, his timely dreamy drop-shots missing wildly. . .he just wasn’t as dialed-in. I haven’t seen the numbers (serve, winners/UE, etc.) but the eye-test was very telling. Berdych played well, and Federer just wasn’t as sharp as he’s been.

Yet he still won in straight sets. Of course, what most will say here is that if one of those two TBs goes the other way, we have a different match – Berdych has more belief, Federer sees the wheels coming-off (when Tomas broke back in the first set, he was dictating, had Federer looking a little unsure of himself).

In both TBs, Federer took control and managed to maintain that valuable distance between him and a potentially dangerous 4-5 setter with Big Berd.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Initial thoughts on the final

My initial thought is Federer will be up against a very determined, motivated and dangerous tennis player. The fierce yet positive emotional energy from Cilic only adds to his big serve, good footwork and threatening BL arsenal (his FH and BH were big and solid v Querrey). All four of these players today can come to net; Cilic shows he can finish there, quite well.

The previous point about ROS strength still stands, but Cilic handled Sam’s big gun today and Berdych put some pressure on Roger’s serve, as well. The idea that Roger has the best ROS has some merit, but it’s not going to be that simple. In the TBs, Federer’s level/concentration/etc. rose and that was the difference. Berdych also gifted Federer some pretty meaningful points on that FH. Not sure Roger wants to wait until the TB to outshine Cilic. Berdych certainly looked like the bright lights of that sudden-death tennis got to him. He was toe-toe with the Maestro, but for the TB tennis.

Obviously, that 90%+ first serve win factor for Federer is huge. He should have been able to serve-out the first set, winning his serve easily up until that game at 4-3.

It’s pretty much cliché time in the commentary because it’s one match to rule them all. 😀

We’ve been talking about the Cilic danger for so long now (read my preview, even my grass tune-up commentary where I said where he lands in the draw is critical. When the draw came-out, I was quick to say Nadal had the toughest bracket because of the Croatian, certainly, along with that other grass master – Muller), I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Cilic finds that rampant form, which we saw a bit today, and over-powers Federer. His youth and power (and experience) are big factors. Both Federer and Cilic know this.

At the same time, we tend to think that if Federer finds that almost unplayable form (FH and BH murderous, solid ROS and 90%+ first serve) that he’ll straight-set Cilic.

I’m going to close today on a nod to the coaching. This, imho, is a critical factor in these tournaments. Think of the effect of Lendl on Murray’s game (when the Scot is healthy). I have no doubt that Goran Ivanišević has added strength and character to Berdych’s tennis in 2017. No doubt. What about Novak’s coaching situation; that sure seems like a complicated arrangement – did Andre know the Serb was injured? Did an injury-laden year warrant cleaning-house on his box? No doubt, the Serb’s coaching situation reflects his personal and professional health.

And then there’s Marin and Roger. Jonas Bjorkman is a grass court mastermind; he has three WB doubles titles. Cilic’s success in 2016-17 has to be partly a result of this relationship. Bjorkman was instrumental with Murray’s success and now he has Cilic playing very well on these London lawns.

Likewise, Federer’s new coaching arrangement (as of the end of 2015/beginning of 2016) has been, I have argued at length, critical to his newfound brilliance.

That’s where we are now: behind closed doors, some final words of advice to these men’s finalists at Wimbledon 2017. Listen, you can hear the coaches now . . .

What are Bjorkman and Ljubičić telling their respective charges?

Remember my “pep talk” to Roger before USO 2015? He wasn’t listening.

However, he’s been applying that theory to the T in 2017. 😉

What say you?

WB Eve of the Men’s Semi-finals

Roger I think covered it all here.

He’s been reading my blog. Sam is dangerous, so is Cilic and Berdych. I brought all of this to light in my QF preview and elsewhere. Also, Roger points-out, good luck to Novak and Andy getting healthy. In my Rant, I clarified how important player health is to the health of the tour, as well – the health of all players.

My preview underscored the questions surrounding Novak and Andy; they were favorites for most people because not much was made of the injuries. Novak, in an interview after his retirement, said the elbow has been bothering him for a year and a half. And he was seeking treatment, aggressively, from his and the ATP’s physio since the beginning of the tournament. Not sure if this violates the tour’s version of HIPPA, or some other privacy clause for locker-room competitive banter, but that information should have “leaked.” Novak looked unconvincing throughout his soft draw but I sill thought he would rise – just like I thought he would rebound at the French. I keep waiting for this guy to come around; and, at the same time, I keep charting the Djokollapse, which is an unreal decline of a great player; this is beyond a slump.

But if I’d been better aware of the extent of his injury, he’d have been written-off July 3.

Again, I think Roger did well to shed some light on what’s left at this tournament in the video; it’s pretty simple at his point.

Cilic v Querrey

Cilic is dangerous (this we’ve been on since Netherlands and Queen’s). Querrey, though that was an upset (Murray’s injury report was perhaps too quiet, as well), is also dangerous. The big serve of both makes them formidable and they have good feet on grass, can pummel ground strokes, etc. Cilic’s resume may seem bigger (it is, no doubt, given his Cincy and USO titles), but Querrey’s recent exploits can’t be overlooked. He beat Novak at WB last year and this year he beat a surging Nadal and rampant Kyrgios in February (along with the hometown boy here on CC).

The Kyrgios match was especially interesting because the Aussie had just straight-setted Novak, was playing dominant/confident tennis, but the American took care of business. I watched this live and everything from the American, including the body language back-and-forth with the antic-ridden Aussie was impressive. The Yankee then beat Nadal in the final in straight-sets. Sure this is February 2017 we’re talking about, and Acapulco; but that’s some firepower he handled pretty decisively.

Either way, good on Querrey for getting the job done against Andy, in emphatic bakery goods, 1 and 1 in-front of the home-crowd on Centre Court to advance to the WB SF. Pretty much a break-through match despite all of the big matches I’ve been referring to here in my case for Querrey. He’s in a semi-final match at the Championships.

Cilic is rolling. I might add that the 5-setter against Muller after Muller played a week-end holiday long R16 match against you-know-who probably isn’t ideal for the Croatian. You lean Marin here, based-on his potential form (he’s shown that kind of high level before on this stage), where the big serve and quick-strike tennis could dictate terms to Sam. But if Sam can find his feet, put pressure on Cilic’s serve, find rallies, we could be in to a long match, a kind of coin flip match. Sam can certainly go five. Can he get it to five?

That’s the real theme here: the read is a Cilic v Federer final, but some surprise and unexpected has taken a seat at our table, causing a bit of a scene.

PS Keep our eye on the Cilic FH that has been known to let him down.

Federer v Berdych

Federer should win this match. If Berdych wins, it’s an upset. What makes Berdych a little more, for me, than just a big hitter who has beaten Federer before is that match in March, in a Miami QF, where the Czech veteran held MP in the third set TB. That was 2017 Federer and Berdych played him even.

The run here has been solid, but Novak did retire due to injury; perhaps the most Tomas can say is that he’s rested and ready to give an old friend more than just an exhibition? Not sure if it’s the presence of Ivanišević, or Berdych’s maturity, but this career top-ten player with loads of game does seem just a bit more purposeful, has more character, etc.

Raonic and Berdych probably present similar kinds of obstacles for Roger: both big serves, and can put balls past the Swiss from the BL. Raonic, of course, does a little more at the net.

Looking back at the Raonic v Federer QF:

1st set: Federer 94% of first serve won, was 1/2 on BP, 14-2 (winner v UE) and hit more aces than Raonic (5 to 2). Raonic won 71 % of his second serve, which seemed pretty high, was 11-4 winner/UE and was 0/0 on BP.

Federer able to convert on that BP, a little more solid on serve, but the set pretty clean; Raonic did not play poorly.

2nd set: Federer breaks game 1. Big move here. More urgency, variety, passing shots that leave Raonic just shaking head.  Second break at 4-2 and serves out the set at love.
Federer 92% FS won and 2/4 on BP. Again, very clean in the winner v UE department – Federer just playing good Federer tennis.

Raonic down to 13% second serve won (huge drop from the first set). Again. 0/0 BP opportunities.

3rd set was a held-service convention though Raonic did see a BP in the 8th game. Raonic, again, looked good. Go watch his 2014 SF match with Federer a WB. He has built himself a nice little WB resume and could one day raise this trophy.

In the 3rd set TB, Raonic off to a 3-0 start, but Federer comes roaring back, taking the next five points. He closes the Canadian out at 7-4.

To make a long story short, how many BP opportunities will Berdych get tomorrow Reader/commenter Incondite stole my thunder by brining-up the lack of ROS in Berdych (or Cilic/Querrey).

All four of these SFinalists have big serves, but who can put pressure on another’s serve? Who has the best ROS? Federer does.

Without a ROS, the chances to break become minimized. If Federer serves well tomorrow (in that 90% FS winning range), Berdych will have trouble finding cracks to weaken a surging Federer. Federer’s ROS, even against the huge Raonic delivery, proved effective enough to wear down the 6’5″ 26 year-old.

That just seems to be the crux here: serve and ROS. If Federer continues this form, in fact even improves some, he’ll be tough to beat.

I have enjoyed reading the comments. Thank you! Some one (I think “Jason Bourne” – wow, international spy intrigue at Mcshow Tennis) brought-up the point of Federer succeeding in a draw that’s been opened-up like this, with Murray/Djokovic/Nadal out. One such was that 2009 US Open – where he was up 2 sets to 1, seeking his 6th straight USO title. Did not happen.

Not sure if from this same commenter, but another point: at this age, has Federer left enough on the plate to raise his game for a SF and/or Final? To answer this, I would say his Lajovic and Zverev matches were solid though not necessarily balletic. He seems to have raised his level vs. Dimitrov (who did fade at the sound of another loss) and Raonic.

But all good points. Indeed, Federer has much work to do and Berdych, I suspect (and even hope) gives Federer and the viewing audience more reason to scoot to the edge of our seats and live or die on some dramatic major SF tennis.

Sorry for the late post, folks.

Enjoy the tennis and talk to you all tomorrow!

Wimbledon QF Preview and A Rant

Quarter Finals

1. Murray (3 set R16) v Querrey (5 set R16)

My numerology is fantastic! Everyone who played a three-set R16 match raise your hand. You are going to win your QF match and advance to the SF! Congratulations! This is a conspiracy and we’ve let this one go a little too far. You are all part of a grand chain of events beyond your control. If your R16 match went 5 sets, sorry. Better luck next time!

Actually my Rant is below, but I’m really feeling it right now. Sorry. Thought that pattern nonetheless is pretty funny and does probably work to determine the SF match-ups. Ha ha.

Murray should advance here and wear-and-tear will be a part of that. Plus, Murray has more leverage across the board, starting with he’s a better tennis player. But the intangibles are speaking-up, as well. He’s the defending champ at his home major. Lendl is in the house. Murray looks untroubled so far and we know he’s been getting good reps. That RG SF wasn’t all for nought. What’s not to like about Murray?

Of course, Querrey isn’t just an empty pint. Querrey made the QF last year after beating Novak (the supposed beginning of Djokollapse) and lost to Raonic. He can play grass and his big serve makes him relevant (as it does Muller and Raonic and even Berdych). Andy’s ROS will partly neutralize the American’s big weapon, but stranger things have happened. And what’s the status on injuries? I have heard Andy is injured. Novak looked injured today, yet the talking heads around SW19, who have better access than we do, don’t seem to be talking much about any of this. This could be Andy in 3 or 4, but if gets into the land of TB, the contest could get tight, go either way; and Murray, we know, is still chasing that lion. But you have to favor Murray here.

2. Cilic (3) v Muller (5)

These two played a tight SF at Queen’s Club that Marin won 63 57 64. Muller may be rested and feeling really confident from that win over Nadal, so we could be in for another tight match. I have been big on Cilic and I think he over-powers the lefty; at the cilic-wimbledon-2017-wednesdaysame time, the big serve can neutralize a dangerous opponent, too. Can Muller tap into a big day on serve and keep things going for another round? Probably better to surmise that Gilles is pretty taxed, and Marin will continue to march towards another final-four showdown (remember, he was up 2-0 sets on Roger in last year’s WB QF. He had MP at Queen’s two weeks ago in the final. This is a guy with major championship range and he’s probably pretty motivated). Jonas Bjorkman doesn’t hurt either. We like Cilic here but an energized and stoic Muller would be gift for us fans, again (that Nadal match is still ringing in our ears).

3. Fededer (3) v Raonic (5)

Federer is rolling, and Raonic has had a less than good year on tour; but we better understand that Milos will not be an easy match for Federer. Of course, last year’s SF plays into that. But even more so: his run here at these Championships. A win like that in the R16, against a young hot-shot who’s been playing better and more (consistently), has to bring Raonic out of his slump a bit. And the serve is just enormous. We think back to the role a big serve can play on these lawns, even the slower manifestations of the grass. The Zverev match is a big win for the Canadian.

But, the taxman did collect, Raonic needing five big sets (though he breadsticked Sascha in the fifth) to compile the victory. That was a tough battle, so some fatigue would be expected and Federer has been pretty light on his feet, flowing, seems ready for this revenge match.

A reader asked about my commentary last year where I called Roger out a bit for failing to close-out Raonic. I have not re-read my post on that SF, but like most matches, there are a few big moments in the exchange that will determine the big shifts in score and momentum (clutch). I remember that being the case with that match, that Federer, whether it was injury, the Ljubičić-project still in its infancy, who knows, but Federer couldn’t handle the big Raonic at that point. Raonic had a better year in 2016, had McEnroe in his box during the fortnight, etc. He was a better player then.

And Federer has that clear re-interpretation of tennis at the business-end. 2017 Federer, understatement of the era, has been remarkably more efficient, lethal. Before, all of that lethality would dull in those critical breaths of huge games and points. He’s closing now; the BH being a good tangible example of this new approach; but the intangibles seem as palpable, as well. Federer’s variety, sorcery, and talent are now polished with that more efficient gamesmanship, match management, etc. You know what I mean.

Federer should win this (on the 5 v 3 numerology) but also on the arch of their careers (ironically); Federer is looking to continue an historical year, playing well. Raonic seems to be struggling just a bit and might have expended a bit too much getting to the QF.

Lastly, on this match; that serve and ROS equation. If Federer can serve well here, then the Canadian has to have a mammoth day on serve. Federer’s ROS is much better and will, most likely, get a look at some BP – of course, he has to cash-in, unlike Nadal yesterday. But if Federer is serving like he did against Grigor, how does Raonic pressure Federer?

4. Djokovic (3) v Berdych (5)

I will write this analysis tomorrow, but as you can see, based-on my sophisticated numerology, I can predict that Novak will win in 3 sets (follow the pattern there?).

I wrote that sentence yesterday, so another prediction fulfilled! I know, I’m being pretty silly, but the match (I watched bit toward the end) looked off. Novak had a MTO and seemed to be wincing through out his service games. That did not look good. I saw highlights of the first set and Novak looked solid, running Mannarino side-to-side at will; Novak looked to be hitting the ball well. 

But he looked off closing-out the match, unhappy, uncomfortable. After the match, Gilbert and Goodall didn’t say much about the injury. Is he injured? Was that an inappropriate MTO? I’m referring to my back-in-forth with Wilfried in last night’s comments. Novak looked legitimately uncomfortable in that right shoulder/elbow/etc.

As for Berdych, he can play grass and he’s a big boy with a big game. He does struggle playing these top guys; he is 2-25 against Novak overall. But, he’s also 1-1 at WB against the Serb, the win coming in the 2010 QF.

We’ll see. I still don’t know the status of Novak. I’ve been anticipating his return for a few months now. He didn’t really prove too much at Eastbourne, his draw here has been a joke (again, Mannarino looked completely over-matched out there. Looked like a bad ticket to watch Wimbledon), and now he looks to be battling injury with another match tomorrow against a big hitter?

You got me on this one.

Berdych has been playing well this year; I keep going back to the QF at Miami where he played 2017 Federer to a stand-still. He’s under the direction of Ivanišević. But he just played 5 v Thiem and he’s 2-25 against the Djoker. I’m not calling upset though this would not surprise me; would validate this mystery form and health that the shitty draws perpetuate. Instead, I’m calling BS on the Serb – if he’s healthy, and he probably is, he routines the big, tired Czech underachiever (you hear that, Tomás? Prove me wrong, big guy).

_________________________________________________________________________________

Is there any pressure on Djokovic? You bet there is. He has to prove to someone, anyone (himself, his coaches, Pepe, his fans) that he is in major championship winning form. This isn’t Novak, #1 in the world, with a seasoned box including Wimbledon great Boris Becker on staff. This is Novak, clawing his way out from under the Djokollapse, who’s hired Agassi and Mario Ancic, a decent player back in the early to mid aughts, but left the game to go to law school and become a banker.

Brad Gilbert, referring to Djokovic’s R16 match today getting postponed (and finally moved to July 11), suggested that both Djokovic and Agassi must have been pacing back Agassi_Wimbledon-2017-player-Novak-Djokovic-988952and forth like Agassi used to do during his playing years, anticipating the start of his match (Gilbert coached the American for a time). These two have to be somewhat nervous since there’s a lot on the line – more so than for any other player (an argument I have been making all year, which I started in 2016). This is more important for him than it is for Fedal, Andy, Cilic, Mannarino, yo mama, etc.

Don’t be fooled.

And Agassi is not messing around. He’s doing this coaching gig pro bono. He’s going after people even somewhat critical of Novak, including John McEnroe; according to reports, McEnroe likened Djokovic’s fall to that of Tiger Woods’. Hmmm. We might have to consider the context here like was necessary with his comment about Serena’s relevance on the ATP. Agassi told Johnny Mac to shut-up.

So, from the nervous pacing to the mafia-like public relations, the Novak camp has to know that tomorrow had better be a smooth three-setter.

If you recall, I joked about the upset alert in my last post regarding Djokarino. Instead we got Muller Time (another t-shirt). I don’t think Novak has much difficulty tomorrow, but then again I don’t have much on which to base my confidence in Novak.

I will fill-out the QF preview tomorrow. Thanks for reading.

PS
Djokerfan is suggesting that there’s a conspiracy in putting Djokarino on Court 1 today, knowing full well that they would never get that match in, so moving the match to 7/11 is part of, again, some conspiracy to undermine Nole. Djokerfan is wrong again. The conspiracy, rather, is that this unrepentant mass needed something about which to hiss and piss; it’s not a meaningful tournament unless the Djokergirls and boys are crying. Alas, we have a complaint! Couldn’t cry about the draw. But they got something to piss on, after all. Only the Djokes on them. 😀

PPS
Good luck, Novak. Just play good tennis.
Berdych is waiting and playing like it’s 2010 😉

_______________________________________________________________________________________

The Rant

Folks, you and I read and watch a lot of tennis. The fact that you’re reading this right now makes me very happy, by the way – might even add a little motivation in the morning to get out of bed 😀

I grew-up listening to many of our great tennis narrators add so much layer and depth to matches, tournaments, championships, and their players. I’m getting side-tracked here; this is not a recollection of some of the sport’s great voices – that would be a fun post to write for sure.

This is about some of the garbage out there that I want to say a few quick words about. Indeed, some of the less qualified “voices” in our super-charged social media environment decorate this glorious tennis landscape like wads of senselessness that I guess at least provide some of us fuel for discourse. But you know of what I speak.

Let me paraphrase the sentiment that I have been torpedoing for awhile here lately. It’s pretty much the Djokerfan. Separate this discussion from the discussion about tennis and their hero. He’s an all-timer, one of the very best ever and watching him struggle to get out of this collapse is a little disturbing; I can go into that more later, but let’s just say that the world isn’t quite right when a 30 year-old Novak Djokovic is struggling. As I’ve been saying, get your shit together, bud. Shit or get off the pot. What is this? Seems very personal, emotional.

Of course, Andy last year and now Fedal have moved to fill the void; so it’s not like we’re abstinent from genius competitive professional men’s tennis. In other words, the sport we love is better when people are healthy and playing their best. All players.

Do you hear that, Djokerfans? Your pissing and moaning about the conspiracy against your player is a bad look, a really bad look. You believe Novak has been singled-out because he’s a threat to Fedal, the sport in general, whatever.  You believe others (a vague “they”) perpetrate an historical crime (perpetuated) against Djokovic. If that’s the case, and it is, then the spirit of your complaint implies you would prefer to see bad fortune brought upon others. If you believe there is ill-will toward your player, then you naturally (we all assume this if you’re too dumb to realize this) invite ill-will on your opponents.

You recall my exposé on CindyBlack3 (look her up on Twitter) and that fog horn of fanatical garbage. She blocked me finally when I asked her how her argument that Novak is the greatest HC player of all time jives with Roger’s and Pete’s 5 USO majors, or Lendl’s eight straight USO finals. That’s the land of hard courts, folks, where the men separate themselves from the pretenders. Federer has as many of those titles as Novak, Nadal and Andy have combined. Get your saber metrics toilet paper out of the building. She and her cohorts have all kinds of statistics that argue the corruption of draws designed to undermine Novak, historically.

The Djoker conspiracy around 2017 Wimbledon has finally landed, as of yesterday (tough to bring too much attention to the draw in which their player has played a bunch of top-50 players). I touched-on this extra-terrestrial encounter yesterday, as the alien ship landed only because there was nothing acutely, of note, for them to sink their teeth into until that Muller v Nadal match.

Because Djokarino played today, the scheduling of a Djokovic match is now under protest; the calendar was altered, moved to today because the court it was scheduled to play on yesterday, Court 1, happened to be occupied by one of the great matches of recent memory.

One popular strain of the conspiratorial virus reads along these lines: “They” (whoever the fuck that is) want a Federer-Murray final. They’ll go on to say crap like Federer’s scheduling has never been subject to so much “bad luck.”

The Fan will look past the pure manner of scheduling and the coincidence that Nadal and Muller would play a ~5 hour classic. Are Muller and Nadal in on the conspiracy, too?

Or is it that you want to play on Centre Court? Part of this complaint might be that because the Nadal/Muller went so long, Agassi and Djoker were upset that the last R16 match wasn’t moved to Centre Court on the fly. They were upset, apparently. But can’t you all see how/why that seems a little more complicated than you’d all like it to be? A lot of pieces, quickly, and confusedly, have to move. Sorry to break it to you, but the entire planet doesn’t just revolve around Djokovic. But isn’t that ironic, because you think the tennis planet revolves around Federer (and Nadal?). Actually, clarify that for me; is Nadal part of the bad guys? Is it Djokovic v Federer or Djokovic v Fedal? I haven’t heard if Nadal was upset that he was on Court 1 for the R16. Perhaps we should look into that…

If you’re bummed that Djokovic wasn’t originally scheduled for Centre Court, what’s your point? That your player is being de-valued, you’re insecure that he’s not “liked” or as popular as other players? That sounds ridiculous. But is it possible that there is some truth to that? Would such a sentiment be totally unfounded?

If you can’t possibly see the rationale for Murray playing on Centre Court and/or Roger Federer playing on Centre Court (from a fan’s point-of-view, the role of marketing, the pulse of business enterprise, the growth of the tournament and the sport, not to mention the quality of the match – your draw stinks, Novak), I can only encourage you to keep reading my blog, because I believe that will help.

What about your draw?

If you think the tournament really wanted Federer v Murray, why wouldn’t they just switch Federer’s draw with Djokovic’s? Your QF opponent has a 2-25 record against you. You played a guy today in the R16 that looked way out of his league and the guy he beat in R3 is best known for tanking matches. You get the most favorable draw in the tournament, yet you think we’re all coming for you?

Did you see the move that I made in that last sentence? I changed the pronoun from “they’re” to “we’re.”

Your irrationality does see it as the world is after you. And people like me will come after you because your hysteria taints an ordinarily decent event (Is the sport totally void of corruption? No. But we can certainly utilize our crap-detectors to determine what and when something is really worth some kind of investigative discussion).

The only thing, of course, that will cure this disease is for Novak to start winning; then again, we know humanity well enough to gauge that even that won’t curb the conspiracy enthusiasm. 😉

Carry-on.

Wimbledon QF Preview – (In Progress)

Quarter Finals

1. Murray (3 set) v Querrey (5 set)

2. Cilic (3) v Muller (5)

3. Fededer (3) v Raonic (5)

4. Djokovic/Mannarino v Berdych (5)

I will write this analysis tomorrow, but as you can see, based-on my sophisticated numerology, I can predict that Novak will win in 3 sets (follow the pattern there?).

Is there any pressure on Djokovic? You bet there is. He has to prove to someone, anyone (himself, his coaches, Pepe, his fans) that he is in major championship winning form. This isn’t Novak, #1 in the world, with a seasoned box including Wimbledon great Boris Becker on staff. This is Novak, clawing his way out from under the Djokollapse, who’s hired Agassi and Mario Ancic, a decent player back in the early to mid aughts, but left the game to go to law school and become a banker.

Brad Gilbert, referring to Djokovic’s R16 match today getting postponed (and finally moved to July 11), suggested that both Djokovic and Agassi must have been pacing back Agassi_Wimbledon-2017-player-Novak-Djokovic-988952and forth like Agassi used to do during his playing years, anticipating the start of his match (Gilbert coached the American for a time). These two have to be somewhat nervous since there’s a lot on the line – more so than for any other player (an argument I have been making all year, which I started in 2016). This is more important for him than it is for Fedal, Andy, Cilic, Mannarino, yo mama, etc.

Don’t be fooled.

And Agassi is not messing around. He’s doing this coaching gig pro bono. He’s going after people even somewhat critical of Novak, including John McEnroe; according to reports, McEnroe likened Djokovic’s fall to that of Tiger Woods’. Hmmm. We might have to consider the context here like was necessary with his comment about Serena’s relevance on the ATP. Agassi told Johnny Mac to shut-up.

So, from the nervous pacing to the mafia-like public relations, the Novak camp has to know that tomorrow had better be a smooth three-setter.

If you recall, I joked about the upset alert in my last post regarding Djokarino. Instead we got Muller Time (another t-shirt). I don’t think Novak has much difficulty tomorrow, but then again I don’t have much on which to base my confidence in Novak.

I will fill-out the QF preview tomorrow. Thanks for reading.

PS
Djokerfan is suggesting that there’s a conspiracy in putting Djokarino on Court 1 today, knowing full well that they would never get that match in, so moving the match to 7/11 is part of, again, some conspiracy to undermine Nole. Djokerfan is wrong again. The conspiracy, rather, is that this unrepentant mass needed something about which to hiss and piss; it’s not a meaningful tournament unless the Djokergirls and boys are crying. Alas, we have a complaint! Couldn’t cry about the draw. But they got something to piss on, after all. Only the Djokes on them. 😀

PPS
Good luck, Novak. Just play good tennis.
Berdych is waiting and playing like it’s 2010 😉