Wimbledon 2016 - Gentlemans Semifinals

First topic message reminder :

Schedule and Live Scores.


Raonic v Federer - McEnroe feels his protege is ready to get to a Slam Final. On ESPN, he stated that emphatically.  Federer looks hungry, but Cilic feels Federer was missing shots that he did not miss in his heyday.

Berdych v Murray - Murray should find this a bit easier than his QF v Tsonga. Drop shots and good defense should also help. Baseline play may not get him much leverage with Berdych.

The GOATs desire to still win the big events is incredible as he approaches his 35th year.

How predictable.

Milos is a choker - you can see him visibly tightening on the big points.

Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Must say I thought Fed's chance had gone in that second set. Will Raonic's level - quite high so far - drop now?

Not done yet though

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:People seem to be massively under rating the player that Raonic has become. You may not like his game (I certainly don't), but he must be a bugger to play against, particularly on grass.

Nah, he's distinctly average.

This is only close because Fed is so off form.

A fit on form Federer would school him. He'd get the serve back and once in the rally the point would be over. Of course, this Federer is not moving well enough to do all of that. Still expect him to win.

Did well to pull out the TB.

Maybe Milos suddenly remembered who he was playing ... ?

Early stages of the third gonna be very interesting ....

Hasn't been a thrilling watch so far, must be said

I'd say that Federer has less brittle stats than Raonic.

In particular his winning % on 2nd serve is 62% vs. Raonic at 48% - over a long match the relative weakness of a 2nd serve like that starts to pressurise the 1st serve, and you can combine that with Federer likely getting a better read on the serve generally.

I think that's been a big momentum shift. We'll see.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

He hasn't gone away to his credit

No, clearly a LOT more than 2 UE's.

Even in the early stages of the first set there was a graphic on the screen (BBC) showing the Federer tally as 4

Given how evenly matched these two look, there's probably close to 50% chance that this goes to 5 sets and, given the serving dominance, that 5th set could go very deep. Imagine if the next match doesn't get on court today.

This is just awful

Aye if raonic gets one of the next 2. This could be long

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:People seem to be massively under rating the player that Raonic has become. You may not like his game (I certainly don't), but he must be a bugger to play against, particularly on grass.

Nah, he's distinctly average.

This is only close because Fed is so off form.

A fit on form Federer would school him. He'd get the serve back and once in the rally the point would be over. Of course, this Federer is not moving well enough to do all of that. Still expect him to win.

I don't doubt that an on song Fed would trounce Raonic, but that doesn't make him an average player.

Fed still produces some magic here and there even though he has produced so many errors. You have to credit Raonic, I have always said people paint him as an Isner or Karlovic type but his game was always more varied and he was athletically more gifted than those type of big servers.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Given how evenly matched these two look, there's probably close to 50% chance that this goes to 5 sets and, given the serving dominance, that 5th set could go very deep. Imagine if the next match doesn't get on court today.

But I just get the feeling that neither of them can come back from a 1-2 set deficit : not Federer, in this lacklustre form ; and not Raonic who I think could eventually get nervous. So I see the winner of this third as the match-winner.

Raonic has to work on his slice BH, he has hit some good ones but has netted too many. Needs to do the hardwork to bend down with that big frame.

Two break points for Fed.

There it is Fed breaks, and almost certainly will serve out the set.

Greetings everyone; it's been a long time. I hope everyone's enjoying the tennis

socal1976 wrote:There it is Fed breaks, and almost certainly will serve out the set.

I take nothing for granted where Federer is concerned these days socal. This set is not over yet.

Hello Kemet,

Welcome back.

No, you're right kemet (welcome back )

Your reference to "these days" being the key factor ... !!!

emancipator wrote:Hello Kemet,

Welcome back.

Thank you emancipator.

As usual, Roger's causing me no end of stress and anxiety

Fair enough. Served it out, fuss-free. A bit of a blast from the past.

5 sets looking less likely now, as Fed is clearly the better front runner and every chance that he sprints to the finish from here.

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

Have you got a source that discussed it online, or was this something you heard in TV commentary or something?

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:5 sets looking less likely now, as Fed is clearly the better front runner and every chance that he sprints to the finish from here.

Roger relinquished a two-set lead to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga back in the quarters of Wimbledon 2011, going on to lose the match in five sets.

I repeat: I take nothing for granted with Roger Federer post-2007.

Fed looking solid. Raonic not able to up his game at the moment.

It's a pretty boring serve-fest this one - and I'm very rarely bored watching Federer.

Raonic showing that, however imposing your game may look on paper, if you can't consistently bring it on the big points, then the biggest prizes are likely to elude you. I think the mental aspect is by far the biggest barrier to any potential slam success.

Henman Bill wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

Have you got a source that discussed it online, or was this something you heard in TV commentary or something?

He is right, Wimbeldon scorekeepers are unbelievably British and polite and basically will call things forced errors that are in no way forced. In almost every other tournament for example any netted second serve return that should be made is an UE, which it should be. At Wimbeldon they almost never score any return miss no matter how bad as an UE. Notoriously friendly scorekeepers who run up huge Winners to Errors ratios even in comparison to other fast court slams. They are pretty notorious over the generations for that and I actually think they know and like that reputation.

When I say distinctly average I mean by the standards of slam semi-finalists/finalists. Of course it's a relative term.

But I could never envisage Raonic winning a slam against any of the top four if they're not hampered for whatever reason. His game is too limited and too dependent on his serve, big FH combo. In some cases that's enough but unfortunately for Raonic he gets nervous at the key moments and starts missing first serves.

That's two very duff challenges from Raonic - Fed currently has the edge on the mental game.

Fed looking solid. Raonic not able to up his game at the moment.

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

Have you got a source that discussed it online, or was this something you heard in TV commentary or something?

He is right, Wimbeldon scorekeepers are unbelievably British and polite and basically will call things forced errors that are in no way forced. In almost every other tournament for example any netted second serve return that should be made is an UE, which it should be. At Wimbeldon they almost never score any return miss no matter how bad as an UE. Notoriously friendly scorekeepers who run up huge Winners to Errors ratios even in comparison to other fast court slams. They are pretty notorious over the generations for that and I actually think they know and like that reputation.

Yup, pretty much as Socal explained. I have read it somewhere but that was ages ago. But it's the reason why you'll lots of W matches with playing having UEs in just single digits which is unheard of over three sets.

Henman Bill wrote:Fed looking solid. Raonic not able to up his game at the moment.

Really .....

How solid ....??

Interesting stuff on the W/UE at Wimbledon. Thanks.

Raonic is playing OK but a few too many points when he goes on the attack without the required depth.

kemet wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:5 sets looking less likely now, as Fed is clearly the better front runner and every chance that he sprints to the finish from here.

Roger relinquished a two-set lead to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga back in the quarters of Wimbledon 2011, going on to lose the match in five sets.

I repeat: I take nothing for granted with Roger Federer post-2007.

They say that the older you get, the harder it is to maintain focus and manage nerves, so I think you're right to be cautious

Raonic ....tough guy to break when even second serves are coming down at 125

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

Have you got a source that discussed it online, or was this something you heard in TV commentary or something?

He is right, Wimbeldon scorekeepers are unbelievably British and polite and basically will call things forced errors that are in no way forced. In almost every other tournament for example any netted second serve return that should be made is an UE, which it should be. At Wimbeldon they almost never score any return miss no matter how bad as an UE. Notoriously friendly scorekeepers who run up huge Winners to Errors ratios even in comparison to other fast court slams. They are pretty notorious over the generations for that and I actually think they know and like that reputation.

Yup, pretty much as Socal explained. I have read it somewhere but that was ages ago. But it's the reason why you'll lots of W matches with playing having UEs in just single digits which is unheard of over three sets.

I guess the faster the surface, the more likely a player will get rushed into what could be considered a forced error. Also, a higher proportion of net play will massively skew the winner/unforced ratio. As long the approach shot is decent, you're unlikely to get marked down for a missed pass, so the baseline player effectively gets a free roll of the dice. Obviously, it's much easier to hit clean winners from the net also.

It can be hard to get into servefests, but they do tend to offer tension and drama from 4-4 onwards.

True as well, if you look up the stats from that Stakhovsky/Federer match which was constant passing shots, and the W/UE was very high.

It's seems a long time since Fed was good at converting BPs.

I think the "Raonic has such a limited game" mantra that gets trotted out so often appears less & less convincing with every match he plays ......

It's one thing to have a monster serve ; another to produce it regularly under intense pressure.

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:

emancipator wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

emancipator wrote:

Aut0Gr4ph wrote:Only two unforced errors from Fed? I only caught the second half of the set and could have sworn there were more than two BH shanks.

Wimbledon calculates UEs differently to other tourneys - that's why every match has so few UEs at W compared to other tourneys.

Have you got a source that discussed it online, or was this something you heard in TV commentary or something?

He is right, Wimbeldon scorekeepers are unbelievably British and polite and basically will call things forced errors that are in no way forced. In almost every other tournament for example any netted second serve return that should be made is an UE, which it should be. At Wimbeldon they almost never score any return miss no matter how bad as an UE. Notoriously friendly scorekeepers who run up huge Winners to Errors ratios even in comparison to other fast court slams. They are pretty notorious over the generations for that and I actually think they know and like that reputation.

Yup, pretty much as Socal explained. I have read it somewhere but that was ages ago. But it's the reason why you'll lots of W matches with playing having UEs in just single digits which is unheard of over three sets.

I guess the faster the surface, the more likely a player will get rushed into what could be considered a forced error. Also, a higher proportion of net play will massively skew the winner/unforced ratio. As long the approach shot is decent, you're unlikely to get marked down for a missed pass, so the baseline player effectively gets a free roll of the dice. Obviously, it's much easier to hit clean winners from the net also.

Yeah they are friendly statisticians even by other fast court tournaments standards. If you notice ace numbers at Wimbeldon go up a little because of the surface, but all of sudden Winners to UE ratio shoots through the roof like no other event. That is how they have always scored it, that isn't how others score it generally even taking into account the differences in speed of the courts. They see it as part of their tradition to be honest, kind of a nod to the gentlemanly origin of the game.

Maybe converting BPs was never his forte, but his sheer dominance concealed it.

Murray/ Berdych having to prepare for perhaps being on court in 30 minutes, or 1 hour, or 2.

It shows up against nafal and djokovic. Remember 1/17?