Tennis Planet

Official Freaking Site Of Tennis Freaking Fans Worldwide.

Federer regains No. 2 rank while confirming the ‘Wimbledon shock’ theory.

Posted by tennisplanet on October 16, 2010

Not only did he displace Djokovic he is now just a match away from being the 4th one on the all-time title list. He will also tie Sampras with 64 titles.

But more importantly it’s beginning to look that the Wimbledon loss did stir things up both from within (motivation) and from the outside (coach). Since that quarterfinal loss to Berdych, Federer has reached three finals in four events, winning one of them – with a very close semifinal loss in five sets. For the entire season before that Federer had reached just three finals (Halle, Madrid and AO) in 10 outings winning just one (AO). At one of those matches he lost to Hewitt. Post Wimbledon he has lost to just Murray and Djokovic while reversing losses to Berdych, Baghdatis, Soderling (twice) and Djokovic (twice) from earlier in the season. Are you freaking getting the pitchker?

This title will allow him to accomplish what he failed to get to at both Toronto and the US Open: Winning the title after beating three top dogs – Berdych, Djokovic and Murray (Toronto) and Soderling, Djokovic and Nadal (US Open). This Soderling, Djokovic and Murray run capped with the third and 64th title wrapped with No. 2 rank while matching Nadal’s 18 Masters will elevate Federer’s psyche, game and twin-producing gadget among other items far beyond they have all been pre-Wimbledon.

However, losing to Murray even in a close three set battle will be like reverting to Toronto essentially maintaining status quo – which might still be more than even Federer himself may have expected past the grass courts. No matter what happens from now on Federer has already provided enough evidence to convincingly push back the ‘not a factor or still a threat’ rumblings. He IS a threat without the ‘still’ now.

So what makes him NOT totally back? No. 24 at Djokovic’s match. Anyone know what that is? No, you don’t!!!!!!!!!!!


22 Responses to “Federer regains No. 2 rank while confirming the ‘Wimbledon shock’ theory.”

  1. M said

    Allez, Roger!!

    “So what makes him NOT totally back? No. 24 at Djokovic’s match. Anyone know what that is? ”

    Off the top of my head, I’d say it was the UE count — which right now I can’t remember, but I *do* know whatever it was, it was a substantial amount lower than the 63 he was sporting at the USO semi.

    Other guesses?

    • Jenny said

      Here’s a brief breakdown of the official stats, M.

      Aces 7
      lst ser 76%
      1st ret 38%
      Break Points 75%

      Aces 4
      lst serve 63%
      lst ret 24%
      Break Points 20%

      • M said

        Thank you, Jenny! 🙂

        Would you look at that BP conversion of Roger’s!
        What do you bet he and PA have been drilling and drilling on that?

      • Jenny said

        I did M, and his returns.

      • M said

        His returns against the Sod were like clockwork, too, Jenny — and it really looked like he was saying to himself, with his jaw set, “I’ve got a strategy, and I’m sticking to it.”

        (Nice jaw set that man has, too. 😛 )

    • chieko said

      Thanks Jenny san, 😀

  2. Growltiger said

    Rooting for Murray. Go Andy!

    Federer is the bonafide No 2 player in the world. Djokovic can’t beat him. Djokovic had a chance to prove today that the US Open wasn’t a fluke; instead he proved that it was. I’m still gap jawed at the stupid drop shot he played at break point to let Federer back in a game he had clearly lost. Then to follow up with another drop shot to lose a set he’d won 5-7.

    • M said

      If you remember, GT, Nole (had the cheek to!) beat Roger last year in his hometown, in the Davidoff Swiss Indoor in Basel.

      I won’t repeat everything I said in the other post, I’m just going to paraphrase the wise Jenny:
      “Nobody can win everything.”

  3. wuiches said

    We must not forget that Joker won a title with one day of rain delay just before going to Shanghai, to me he ran out of gas there.

    He completely lost his intensity at the end of the 1st set and never got it back. At USO he was hittin’ big during all the match, he couldn’t do the same today.

    Any way Fed played great, however I won’t take USO win bay Joker as a fluke.


    • Jenny said

      “We must not forget that Joker won a title with one day of rain delay just before going to Shanghai, to me he ran out of gas there”

      Agreed, Wuiches, but he also got a first round bye in Shanghai, his first match was Wednesday as I recall, Ferrer who lost to Djoko in the Beijing final had to play the big hitting Istomin on Tuesday and it wasn’t the last match of the day. It was tough for both of them.

  4. Sir Vibhudi Aatmapudi said

    Twin producing gadget, ha ha. By the way, I didn’t see any shanks on either side from Federer in this match. And my hands did not travel to my shaking head like they did at the USO semis. Good signs.

  5. evie said

    Has anyone noticed that Roger has reached the final in FOUR STRAIGHT Masters tournaments? That is incredibly hard to achieve. I think the only other person to do it was Federer, and only once before.

    He’s going to win tomorrow. He’s had a much tougher draw than Murray and is just not going to be beat in the final.

    1,000 points, straight up!

    • M said

      “Has anyone noticed that Roger has reached the final in FOUR STRAIGHT Masters tournaments? ”

      I think Banti did, Evie, earlier today. 🙂

      Am I right in thinking his finals were Madrid, Toronto (Berdych revenge!), Cincinnati (4th championship, tied with Andre, I think, for that record) and here at Shanghai?

  6. Dee said

    Well TP!Nice article.I am with some of those fans in Shanghai. Fed is my #1, so official ranking doesn’t make a difference.

  7. wuiches said

    I’ll never understand why fed fans give so much importance to semis and finals without titles, who wants to be an “almost” player. Everybody was talking about Berdman after his “semis” at RG and “finals” at Wimby, yet he hasn’t won a TITLE this year, who can call him a true champion, he must prove that he can make the break through or he’ll always be the classic “a lot of talent but…”

    For Fed standards only TITLES work, don’t tell me that fans will be fine if fed plays all the GS finals from here to 4 years ahead but without 1 TITLE??? let’s be sincere here!!!

    I consider that this has been a good year for fed, 1 slam and 1 1000 is more than the rest of the tour could ask, and he won those TITLES playing amazing and he’s playing amazing now, he totally deserves the TITLE of Shanghai but he still has to pass the Murray test.

    Good luck Fed!!!

    • Andy said

      Oy, Wuiches, Wuiches, Wuiches.

      The point about Berdman not being a champion yet is understood, but, talking about his ONE final and Fed’s many finals are two totally different things.

      I’m not saying this because I’m a Fed fan, but making it to the semi-finals and finals is, of course, significant. At a major, it means you’ve won at least 5 matches, obviously not an easy feat. To do that consistently is very impressive, regardless of what you end up doing thereafter.

      Wuiches, I’m afraid your “For Fed standards only titles work” idea actually misses the whole essence of sport, which is doing your best to try to win, not winning in itself. Though I’m sure he’s very disappointed whenever he loses, Fed understands this point I think. A guy who puts himself into the semis and finals is always giving himself a chance at a title – if fortunate, some he will get, but of course some he won’t, especially as he ages.

      I once heard of a tennis coach who had his players throw out all their runner-up trophies. To me that is actually a very disgusting thing to do. The ultimate example of why in my opinion is Ivan Lendl, a player I hated by the way. But I respect him. Do you know what I respect him for the most? NO YOU DON’T!!!!!

      Look at Lendl’s record at Wimbledon. How many titles does he have there? A BIG FAT ZERO, that’s what he has! BUT, the freaking guy tried his heart out, despite his limitations on grass, and battled his way to two finals and a few tough semifinals too. He gave it his all, but always came up short against better grass court tennis players. And yet, to me, he should be prouder of what he did at Wimbledon than what he did at any of the other Majors because the real strength in his character showed in his effort to go the distance on a surface that was the least suited for his game.

      So Wuiches, in my humble opinion, you have the choice of being two types of people:

      1. A member of the “masses” out there, like the neanderthal tennis coach above, who would look at Lendl never winning Wimbledon and draw the conclusion that this was nothing but a huge failure; or

      2. A guy who thinks outside the box a little who would look a little further into the context of the big BAGEL beside Lendl’s name at Wimbledon and understand that what he did there truly deserves our respect.

      • wuiches said


        Rationalization (making excuses):

        In psychology and logic, rationalization (or making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, to differentiate from the original deterministic explanation, of the behavior or feeling in question.[2][3] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.



      • Andy said

        No excuses or rationalization here. My comment was not about Fed’s loss yesterday and would have been made even had he won. But about that match, my take is simply that Fed lost because he was outplayed by the better player, by far, on the day. Where is the excuse or rationalization there?

        Anyway, hard to say from your response, but you seem to be saying that you are okay with going the route of the masses, that is, with being one of the not very inciteful majority who only look at the win column and pay hardly any attention to anything else. You seem to be saying, for instance, that we should simply look at Ivan Lendl as a three time US Open winner, and that’s basically it at the USO, without giving all that much credit to him for making it to 8 straight finals there.

        Oh well – you know where I stand, and it ain’t no rationalization!

        Vince Lombardi was dead wrong with “Winning is the only thing” and so are you with “Only titles work for Fed.”

  8. bunnee said

    ok TP, so why is roger not yet “totally back”? 24 refers to what?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: