Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Was Federer never broken during Wimbledon 2017

106 views
Skip to first unread message

dn.u...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:12:22 AM7/17/17
to

Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?

Out of the 19 sets he won, 5 went to tie-breaks. And he won them all. Tie-breaks involve an element of luck, and he seems to have been at least a little lucky. The biggest break was to have Cilic suffering from foot blisters.

I would like US Open last 4 to feature four players without any slam win between them, the way it was at this year's women's French draw. Federer can get his 20th at next year's Wimbledon. I won't mind that. But in spite of his 2 majors this year, the chances of him winning even one more major have always been slim since 2013, and they continue to be slim. I would take the field against him for US Open 2017.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:16:05 AM7/17/17
to
Berdych broke him in the semis. Dimitrov broke him in the fourth round. May have been more.

SliceAndDice

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:16:32 AM7/17/17
to
Oh yes..Lajovic too. Very first game.

John Liang

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 1:20:33 AM7/17/17
to
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 2:12:22 PM UTC+10, dn.u...@gmail.com wrote:
> Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?
>

In the final. No, he was never broken but Berdych did break him in the first set of the semi in the eighth game of the first set.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 3:54:00 AM7/17/17
to
do you actually ever watch tennis? Fed walked this Wimbledon, his opponents barely showed up and everyone else retired or was injured. His chances are very very high of another slam (as they long have been) cos of the field.

kaennorsing

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 4:16:01 AM7/17/17
to
Op maandag 17 juli 2017 06:12:22 UTC+2 schreef dn.u...@gmail.com:
> Read somewhere that Federer was never broken during Wimbledon 2017. Is that correct?

Federer did get broken I think about 5 times this tournament. Most in the first week. Each time he broke back immediately.

> Out of the 19 sets he won, 5 went to tie-breaks. And he won them all. Tie-breaks involve an element of luck, and he seems to have been at least a little lucky. The biggest break was to have Cilic suffering from foot blisters.

A tiebreak can involve an element of luck, but it's really about who plays the most clutch tennis that wins it. Look at the scorelines for his tiebreaks and almost all were one-sided. Also, I think Fed didn't face any setpoints in the tournament. So no luck involved.

> I would like US Open last 4 to feature four players without any slam win between them, the way it was at this year's women's French draw. Federer can get his 20th at next year's Wimbledon. I won't mind that. But in spite of his 2 majors this year, the chances of him winning even one more major have always been slim since 2013, and they continue to be slim. I would take the field against him for US Open 2017.

Fed's chances of winning the USO are greater than you think. So far he is 4/4 in so called big tournaments this year (slams+masters). In the two matches he lost (in smaller tournaments) he had matchpoints... So great chance for the USO imo.

The Iceberg

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 4:40:37 AM7/17/17
to
the tiebreaks say it all that is needed, it was a walk in the park. Good post.

Whisper

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 9:11:04 AM7/17/17
to
Alternate facts?



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Carey

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 9:23:38 AM7/17/17
to
One of the any things I like about tennis is that luck is, in fact, minimized.
One has to win a game by two points, a set by two games, a TB by two points even.

If a player 'gets lucky' over and over and over and over, perhaps something more
than luck is involved. ;)

dn.u...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 17, 2017, 12:04:26 PM7/17/17
to
On Monday, July 17, 2017 at 6:23:38 AM UTC-7, Carey wrote:
> >
> One of the any things I like about tennis is that luck is, in fact, minimized.
> One has to win a game by two points, a set by two games, a TB
> by two points even.
>

And TBs are shunned in the last set precisely because they do not minimize luck.

It is Joe Posnanski's twitter handle which says : Think about this: Federer at 36 will win Wimbledon without losing a set and without being broken. Insane.

But there are responses to that tweet pointing out that Federer was broken a few times in this year's Wilmbledon. One response says that he was never down a break. But if SliceAndDice is correct that Lajovic broke Federer in the very first game (of a set), that would put him down a break. Unless Fed broke Lajovic in the first game of the set, and then Lajovic broke back in Federer's first service game. However that might be, it is rather careless of Posnanski to make the claim about Federer never having been broken.

0 new messages