Three reasons why Federer won't win the US Open

Wrote this on the fly, please read!
https://www.theroar.com.au/2018/09/03/roger-federer-will-not-win-the-us-open-heres-why/

Nice piece. Doubt whether Fed can get past Djoko, let alone win the whole thing. Just have this feeling that Rafa won't win it, either, just as I had an inkling that Fed would not win Wimbledon this year.

Yes, Rafa has never defended a title off clay, I believe!

I would doubt Federer will win due to, probably, him having to play two brutally physical matches in a short space of time. He faces Djokovic (probably) in the QFs and that will test him physically. Should he manage to win he will then have to probably face Rafa in the final. If that is how things fall then Roger will come up short. However, if Novak and/or Rafa do not meet Roger he has a far better chance.

Draw has worked out well for Federer so far to ensure he’s fresh and he has another easy match tonight. Fed couldn’t have asked for more so far, apart from for Novak’s draw to be more challenging.

it pretty much all comes down to whether he can get past Novak. Gets through that and he’s clear favourite for the title, given his recent record against Rafa.

You’d struggle to think up a more brutal draw than having to get through Djokovic, Cilic and Nadal in succession (perhaps Delpo at his best, in the other half, would pose an even greater threat than Cilic).

But even setting aside the names (not easy to do ....!), I’m firmly of the view the key issue is the gap, highlighted in the LuvSports article, between Federer’s overall level this season versus last. For me, it has been pretty dramatic and I see it as symptomatic of the inevitable decline that affects all athletes in the twilight of their career. There is a noticeable vulnerability, sometimes in evidence against even lowly opponents ; and the ability to convert BP’s and close out matches is a long way from what it once was in his younger days.

If Federer does manage to make the Final, I’m pretty sure Rafa will be the one waiting for him. And Rafa will be desperate to snap that losing streak v Fed, who has come out on top five times on the spin. Rafa is looking very assured and determined to defend a title off clay for the first time, and I still believe - as I did on day one of the tourney - that he is the strongest candidate to lift the trophy, with Djokovic (only very marginally) behind as second favourite.

It’s been a decent Open so far but let’s hope there are some seriously competitive clashes ahead in week two.

I thought that this was a well-written article by the way. My only comment was that it does feel a little Fed bias comes through. For example:

“A fast surface allows Federer to hit through the court easier, it rewards his attacking style and it neuters, to an extent, the effect of the supreme defenders.”

Whilst “supreme defenders” isn’t particularly pejorative, it does undersell why Fed has problems with Nadal and Novak. Djokovic particularly doesn’t beat Fed by being a great defender, although that’s obviously an area he is incredibly strong. He beats him because he’s arguably the greatest returner of all time, negating Fed’s own strongest weapon. He’s then better from the baseline than Fed, enabling him to out-manoveure Fed once he can get into rallies and expose the slight fragility in his backhand. I’d have said something like:

“A fast surface allows Federer to hit through the court easier, it rewards his attacking style and it neuters, to an extent, the strong return games and baseline strengths of his main rivals.”

Born Slippy wrote: ... [Luvsports! writes] “A fast surface allows Federer to hit through the court easier, it rewards his attacking style and it neuters, to an extent, the effect of the supreme defenders.”
...
I’d have said something like:
“A fast surface allows Federer to hit through the court easier, it rewards his attacking style and it neuters, to an extent, the strong return games and baseline strengths of his main rivals.” ...

Hi Born Slippy, I get your point, but this is "journalism" and not an article for an esteemed Sports Journal that academics send their outputs to.  It is meant to be interesting and readable to the great unwashed masses, and ultimately disposable, as the editor demands more from his overworked and overstretched underlings.

Sure Bertie - but I’m guessing LS aspires to slightly more. Obviously all journalists have their own biases but it was just something I consider to be a common failing of some Federer fans - an assumption that it’s just fitness and great defence which makes the likes of Novak great players.

Born Slippy wrote:Sure Bertie - but I’m guessing LS aspires to slightly more. Obviously all journalists have their own biases but it was just something I consider to be a common failing of some Federer fans - an assumption that it’s just fitness and great defence which makes the likes of Novak great players.

You have me thinking about a possible little "research project" for someone. To identify journalists that are "Federer fans" and journalists that are "Nadal Fans" (etc) and see if there are any differences in the way they report similar stories. I am not sure that Luvsport is a "Federer fan".

In the past we have plenty of examples of the writings of "anti-Nadal" commentators with use of pejoratives moonballers, nadull etc. I don't think Djokovic ever generated such deep antipathy. Andy Murray has generated a lot of antipathy from some, but with Andy I think most commentators were more interested in trolling a site that was ostensibly British based and hence supportive (overall) of Andy Murray. But in terms of commentators antipathy Nadal and Murray seemed to have generated the most antipathy. Not sure whether Nadal was the first tennis player in history to generate such antipathy (or at least such polarised views). Maybe Laverfan might have more knowledge on that.

No name Bertie wrote:  Not sure whether Nadal was the first tennis player in history to generate such antipathy (or at least such polarised views). Maybe Laverfan might have more knowledge on that.

Nasatase, Connors, McEnroe, to name a few. Pancho had his fair share of detractors, because of his mercurial behavior. Federer is no saint either, with his share of tantrums (2009 USO vs Del Potro). Soderling and Fognini also (used to) be sneered at. Soderling has the famous Wimbledon 'shorts' episode with Nadal, which caused journalists to lambast him. Djokovic gets the short stick for his ball-bouncing. There are more examples like Kyrgios, Tomic, Tarango. Overall, I do not think there is a shortage of 'bad boys'.

In most cases, the public has amnesia.