June 21, 2010 by USA Post
As defending champion of Wimbledon, Roger Federer, according to tradition, open Centre Court on this point, the first day of play at the event in 2010. His opponent was Alejandro Falla of Colombia, a companion who had beaten Federer twice in the last month. The top seed was so convinced that in a rare spasm of bluster, he said his goal was to get off the court in time to watch Switzerland play Chile in World Cup.
When Federer left the court at about 4:30 pm London time, the World Cup game was deep into the second half. And Federer narrowly avoided the biggest upset of the Open era – really, try and name more – Surviving Falla 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0.
Federer has not won a tournament since Australia, but there was a feeling he has lost a little intensity at the events over plant-(understandable at this stage of his career), let appear in the majors. That has not happened in French Open. And he has certainly not been the case through three sets today. He has not played with conviction in the database. He did not capitalize on break points (a problem all year). He did not attack as much as he usually does on grass. His forehand seemed to lack punch. And give credit Falla. Tons of it. He not only took the match to Federer, but has shown a real sense of gifted Grass Court, some real coup-making, and some real nerves. How a player has never cracked the top 50 or won a title alone is a mystery.
Then, two sets and 4-2, Falla weakened. It was as if he suddenly woke up and remembered he was playing. And the moment was lost. Federer is the beach. Falla body began to betray him. Two of the most underrated game of Federer – his heart (Mats Wilander to watch?) And his ability – passed to it. Federer was quick to admit it was a game he would have lost. But he did not. Therefore, it is a tennis champion and a sub-species is not entirely.
Jon, I was surprised to discover that the guy who was in the final for the past seven years, winning six of them, is not the favorite to win! What is your rationale for this pick strange? PS. I know that the results of Federer’s end were poor, but he played the final in Halle, losing a very close game, he should have won. Nadal, however, lost decisively to Lopez, who shows that his recent success on clay will not be as effective on grass than many think.
Zielkiewicz Marcin – Warsaw, Poland
• We could frame this convincingly anyway. Player A has won Wimbledon six of seven, he is the camp of the defense, it is the men’s tennis’ leading all-time major singles titles (16) and had already done one this year. Who in their mind to take against this guy? Wait, Player B has not only won the previous Great, but it is ranked No. 1. And not only did he beat the player A in their meeting face-to-head last (and last on the grass), but it is mounted on a seven Wimbledon victories in a row! You’d be nuts not to take it, right?
I ended up going with Nadal. But if Federer is to win again, it would surprise almost no one (despite his fragile efforts on Monday). Most of us, however, agree that in a perfect world, we get another Federer-Nadal. It’s too long (18 months) as the two best players met in a Grand Slam final.
As I wrote about last week, I think the developed confirmed two truths that have been easy to forget these years. 1) The transition from clay to grass is not as easy as “Feder-al” is published. Of course, Nadal has lost to Lopez at Queens Club, but I do not want too much, since he had played the French Open 72 hours. 2) There are many good players there. Federer pulls out a small apartment? Lleyton Hewitt, former No. 1 and a past champion the World Bank, is his game? ” The game is just the best of three? Presto.
Jon trivia question: Is Federer the only man to start off Centre Court Wimbledon in seven years in a row?
- Kathy Tanner, Viera, Florida
• Very good. With Federer at Wimbledon in 2009, Federer took the honors.
Federer vs. Cilic
Murray vs Nadal
Final: Federer vs. Murray
- Joel Castro, San Juan
• Many of you hit me with your alternative choices. Here Joel. See how we do.
The U.S. Open has a tie-break to decide-set, the other Grand Slams do not … Wimbledon has its own ranking system, the Grand Slam others do not … I realize that the Grand Slam tournaments are “their own kind” and not necessarily sanctioned by the ATP or WTA, but when the current rules are changed for a specific tournament, I do not see the benefit of all tennis, and instead of causing more than the usual confusion … If there are differences of specific rules to the French or Australian Open please let me know (can not think of any off hand). Honestly, a big fan who still hope for this great game;)
- Danny Kochan, Toronto
• I love your sign, but I disagree with the premise. Firstly, apart from the face of all evidence – that is the biggest difference of matter – the French is the only major that does not use replay technology calls online. Rain does not automatically stop playing. There are three Sundays of dollars to play. And the crowd is entertained by “the wave”, which went out of fashion in most places in the mid 80s. In Australia, until last year he was the only event which offered a retractable roof.
But the biggest point: I like the oddities among Slam. The golf course even how to design different dimensions or different dimensions Fenway, Yankee Stadium, I rather like the lack of standardization. Slam It gives each a distinct look. And again, examine the surfaces. Once you play an event on gravel and another on the grass, without a tiebreaker or a special formula for seedlings are fairly minor key, right?
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.