2014 Wimbledon Championships...London, England

[klacr]

Djokovic with a great comeback in that 4th set tie-break. Dimitrov with 6-3 lead in that breaker. Djokovic finding ways to win, that's what champions do.

I did enjoy Djokovic attempting to serve and volley on his first match point. Sadly, he absolutely duffed the first volley, as if he assumed it would be easy.

Djokovic waiting for Fed/Raonic. He'll be rooting for Raonic.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Does Raonic have a problem with his right arm? He wears a long sleeve...

[klacr]

Does Raonic have a problem with his right arm? He wears a long sleeve...

He's been wearing that for quite a while.
The sleeve was for protection against the sun, after Raonic had an allergic reaction on his arm from some sort of creme, either a moisturizer or some sort of Icy-Hot type product.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[gzhpcu]

Roger did it! Now for the final! Pretty impressive. Would not have thought in three sets, but Raonic is not used to opponents getting his serve back, and he is impatient on the rallies... Roger was in control from the very beginning.

[stotty]

Normal service is resumed...

Changing of the guard...no chance. Federer never loses to lumberjacks and Djokovic...well...he's not ready to be overturned either. The way Djokovic started out today showed he wasn't going going to take Dimitrov lightly. What a start that was...errorless.

Federer vs Djokovic

Djokovic would have found it sapping today. I was coaching in that humid heat and it was tough going. He may still be feeling the effects of that in the final.

Both players will be nervous. Djokovic needs to stop the rot of losing in grand slam finals and Federer will want to make history. I'm expecting a see-saw final with Djokovic emerging the winner, though I'm rooting for Federer.

[DougEng]

Great Coverage!

Update for Stotty...The complexion of the match has completely changed fro an immaculate Djokovic and a struggling Dimitrov. The pendulum has swung to Dimitrov. Now it is a fight...just what Grigor wants. The more physical the better. 2-2 third set.

At 3-3...do I detect some slightly wobbly legs in Djokovic. He holds for 4-3...nonetheless.

Grigor holds for 4-4...Djokovic shows some very uncharacteristic emotion...at one point hurling his racquet high in the air. He caught it...awkwardly.

Great comments, guys. I enjoyed reading the thoughts!
I didn't watch Djokovic-Dimitrov match. Will do later tonight when I get off the court…yes 7+ hrs on court today on July 4!

Best,
Doug

[don_budge]

Slipping and sliding...

Well that was a really odd match between Dimitrov and Djokovic. I never saw the end of it...I went to play tennis. First practice since my surgery for Dupuytrens Kontraktur.

I have never seen players slipping and sliding and falling down. It was so comical...at one point they both fell down. The footing was impossible. Notice how the wear patterns have created a situation where there is no grass behind the baseline. Even a foot in front of the baseline grass is really non existent. Any ball landing on that surface takes a very unpredictable bounce. Dimitrov would have done well to zero in that slice backhand to the baseline. Djokovic was having a very difficult time with that shot. Even on the forehand Djokovic was taking some really awkward passes at the ball.

It was a strange match too in a way. Some real inconsistent play. Djokovic has not looked so sharp all tournament. I think that if Dimitrov would have played anywhere near his potential the match was his but he had some very nervous looking breakdowns.

Never saw any of Roger's match. But I had a pretty good feeling about him pulling through. Milos is too nice of a guy for his own good.

[don_budge]

Roger Federer vs. Milos Raonic

I didn't get a chance to see this yesterday. Isn't it something that there it is the morning after...voila youtube!

Something a bit curious right at the beginning...Roger wins the toss of the coin and passes on his choice thereby Milos elects to serve and Roger chooses the opposite side of the court.

So what prompts such a decision...it's a chess move. By choosing the side Roger has guaranteed that on his first service game he will not be looking into the sun. While Milos also will not be looking into the sun on his first game...he will be looking into it in his second...it will be the first time one or the other will be looking into the sun.

Whatever the reason it is an interesting play. The chess game starts with the coin toss.

[tennis_chiro]

I didn't get a chance to see this yesterday. Isn't it something that there it is the morning after...voila youtube!

Something a bit curious right at the beginning...Roger wins the toss of the coin and passes on his choice thereby Milos elects to serve and Roger chooses the opposite side of the court.

So what prompts such a decision...it's a chess move. By choosing the side Roger has guaranteed that on his first service game he will not be looking into the sun. While Milos also will not be looking into the sun on his first game...he will be looking into it in his second...it will be the first time one or the other will be looking into the sun.

Whatever the reason it is an interesting play. The chess game starts with the coin toss.

And he caught Milos a little bit and broke him in that first game.

don

[don_budge]

The Chess Game continued...into the Finals!

And he caught Milos a little bit and broke him in that first game.

don

Roger opened with a bit of an unorthodox move then proceeded with a textbook dissection of his one dimensional opponent...the rather hapless and unemotional Milos Raonic.

There was one bit of a sidebar that the camera kept on panning to...it was Jack Nicklaus and Rod Laver sitting together. What a beautiful image of two champions of the most traditional of games in years gone by. Golf and tennis...God's gift to mankind in terms of recreation. Having "mastered" both sports this pair looked to me like a Van Gogh or a Divinci out of the Louvre in Paris. You won't see this pairing around for ever.

As to the traditional nature of things...well just kiss it all goodbye. Good riddance mutters the now generation...everyone captivated by their iPhone or the other latest gizmos. Twitter this...twitter that. Is that what tweeting is all about...it's only a rhetorical question. I don't want to know.

I had intended to do a similar match analysis as I did for the Djokovic and Dimitrov pairing. I had the interviews and I had done a rough outline for the discussion, but between watching the other semifinal and running off to hit a few myself I never got around to it. It doesn't matter...the whole thing wasn't all that compelling as it was routine. For which Roger is ever so grateful. He's happy to get of the court quickly without expending a lot of nervous energy in a tight match. It was as easy as ABC...or as they say in David Bowieville...wham...bam...thank you mam!

On the Federer side of the coin he doesn't make many mistakes with the bit players...particularly now that he is armed with a weapon that is equal to the rest of the competitors. His decision to not switch from his old racquet years ago will go down in history as one of the worst decisions that he never made. Now even as he is "maturing" or "growing older" he has made up some serious ground with the switch of equipment. For the life of me I cannot understand what the big deal was. It took me two seconds to realize that the extra real estate in the face of the racquet automatically makes the hack a better player so in the hands of a trained professional it immediately enhances every single aspect of their game. What does that mean in a land of "the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"? It means that every single link is automatically enhanced thereby strengthening the chain exponentially. John McEnroe himself noted that he went out and defeated Ivan Lendl 7-6 in the fifth immediately after he made the switch. Another mystery...Federer the enigma.

In my remarks that I didn't make I was quoting from Roger's post Wawrinka interview. His most telling comments about his up coming match with Raonic were comments about the serving battle. He automatically acknowledged that one almost has to concede Raonic's serve to him most of the time but the thing to concentrate on is your own service. He made it a point to say that he must take care of his own serve. That is exactly what he did as he kept Raonic sufficiently off balance the entire match with his deliveries and never once lost his serve. Did he ever face a break point? By keeping the heat on Raonic he was pressuring the Big Lug to hang on to his own serve.

Paul Annacone wrote a nice little piece here on tennisplayer.net "Magician or Mechanic?" and I will suggest to you that Roger Federer is something of a cross between the two. He was at one point in his career technically building the machine that would serve him well in his golden years...but he was more of an advanced mechanical engineer designing an exotic race machine. As his metaphysical powers evolved and waxed, he has also earned the status of wizard...a Nike head band serving as his wizard's cap. He has it all together in his mental preparation for a big lumbering cat like Milos.

So what is up with the net game of Federer? Obviously he has hired Stefan Edberg for one reason and that is to conjure up the motivation for him to attack the net. Even the wizard's skills in this regard have eroded from lack of use. The approach shots too often are cross court with topspin which is an invitation to the opponent to take a healthy attempt at a passing shot if they can get their racquet on it. Novak Djokovic for one is going to take advantage of this subtle lack of tactical acumen should the occasion arise on Sunday afternoon. As it was, Raonic was less inclined to use this against Federer as Roger had him pinned over on the backhand side all match long. One final point about the net game of Federer...he missed a swinging volley on an absolute sitter when he was serving out the match. A simple acute angle touch volley would have sufficed but no matter...it was a foregone conclusion against the Canadian Lumberjack. The problem is now the Wily Serb who has been known to change the complexion of a match on a dime...or one silly mental error by his opponent. Roger beware.

Milos Ranoic...what have they done to you? The modern game of tennis dictated strong gripped forehands and two fisted backhands and you just happened to get caught up in the vortex didn't you? The service motion seems to be wonderful...yet in the semifinals didn't nerves just happen to unhatch the tiny flaw in the delivery just enough for him to lose his serve rhythm precisely one time in each set. Just enough to allow the Swiss Maestro to take the service game out of Milos' hands when the proper time had come...aka a convenient culmination point. I think it did...just as Dimitrov's has come unglued at some most inopportune times. If it isn't perfect...just when you need it most you might have just a bit of difficulty dialing in. So it went with Milos...and The Fed.

But Raonic is playing the wrong game in general. His physical make up does not preclude him to be a baseline grinder. He showed me on more than one occasion that if he was trained to be an assassin serve and volleyer with a kamikaze attitude he would be a much more dangerous adversary in general. Of course there are aspects of the engineering that are stacked against him but more than that it was the hijacking of the coaching. I see him with a one hand backhand ala Stan Wawrinka or the numerous others that employ the single arm swing. Dominic Thiem. There are a bunch of them these days. I don't understand how you can take a guy like Milos or Tomas Berdych or Sam Querry or Jerzy Janowicz or the host of other big and tall guys that should be blanketing the net and make them two handed grinders. The big advantage of a tall man is his reach so why would you handicap him in this regard. Why not enhance the strength to make it even more of an advantage? Then when these guys get to Wimbledon the difference becomes glaring when the necessity of getting into position at the net is handicapped by their inability to approach off of the short ball to the backhand.

Poor Milos...stuck in his own ritual of eight bounce for every serve. Doesn't he realize how boring that is to watch? Every one asking themselves...does he count every single time he serves? Why the robotic sense of monotony? Loosen up baby...you are too tight. You might as well change it up every once in a while. What the hell why not just step up to the line and bombs away? That would give 'em all something to think about.

Raonic's footing looked real tentative but he wasn't doing the ice skating act that the two guys playing "hockey tennis" were the match before. Federer had him pinned over on the backhand side where Milos was hitting forehands a meter outside of the baseline. If he only had a one hand backhand and just made the percentage play he would have been in much better position to unleash some bombs off of the forehand. As it was...he didn't seem to really have his feet under him to be aggressive from that side of the court.

The play in both semifinals was rather spotty and sporatic. The lawn of Wimbledon is serving notice to the game in general that it has disappeared off of the radar screen. The grips and the swings are not conducive to all court tennis...just reference the thread "Jack Kramer on the Grips" or whatever the hell it was called. There is some sage advice in the thread...like it or not. The service motions of today are certainly not designed to propel the players to the net thus the worn out surface right on the baseline serving to trip them up and send them sliding to and fro.

Players of today are not suitably trained to play good tennis on fast surfaces. That is why you have the second best player in the world getting taken out early every year by a player ranked so lowly. The incrementally speeded up surface at the Australian Open highlighted this little fun fact for anyone that cared to notice. It is going to be interesting to see what the U. S. Open holds in store for us this year. Mats Wilander agreed with me in Stockholm in March and he more or less insinuated that the surfaces will be picking up speed in the near future. Ever so incrementally...afterall we can't risk upsetting the ever so fragile psyche of the modern day tennis players...can we?

[gzhpcu]

Today is the day! Roger has a chance of being the oldest player to win Wimbledon in the open era!

Funny too that Edberg and Becker appear in another Wimbledon final, this time as adversary coachs...

[don_budge]

Women's tennis...on the grass at Wimbledon

And will somebody please come out and say that Venus played a tremendous match to win 17 service games in a row before succumbing at 5-5 in the third. I've only seen a few points, but that must have been some match. To play that tough against Kvitova. That was the match that made Kvitova's Wimbledon as much as anything.

don

I have never had much interest in women's tennis...at least on the professional level. The best women's tennis match that I have ever seen was a match between Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert in the finals of the U. S. Open in 1984. Teaching middle aged women how to play tennis...now that is a different story. It is possibly one of the most redeeming aspects of tennis as it stands today. Middle aged women are the best listeners as students...I find.

But as for this Wimbledon final...it struck me as just plain terrible tennis. Certainly not on the part of Kvitova...she played a fine match. But where was the competition? You can quote all kinds of numbers but from what I saw it was just plain terrible. Which made me wonder why.

The only reason that I watched that match...well I still can't figure out why...was I believe that I was a bit curious about Eugenie Bouchard. I know she is capable of better performances but the impression that I got from watching her this day was...where is the passion? In fact...where is the pulse? She took a tremendous beating without seeming to care one tiny little iota.

The second set was just a joke. Her second serves were so weak they were like feed balls and Kvitova was only teeing off on them as if she was drilling with her coach. Bouchard seemed to be making half hearted attempt and only fanning her racquet at the ball.

It looked to me that there was something dramatically wrong with Bouchard...her dog died? She had a virus? Her boyfriend broke up with her? A death in the family? That is how it looked...as if she was somewhere else mentally and totally distracted. Her head was not in the game. It looked as if her coach could not believe his eyes either. Here you are...a chance in a lifetime. You work your tail off to be in such a position...the finals of the Championships at Wimbledon...and then nothing? No fire? No passion? No outward display that you even remotely give a shit?

Something seemed to be wrong with Bouchard...I remember looking at her on the screen and wondering if she was human. Didn't she have any feelings? I remember wondering if she was trying to be the Chris Evert "Ice Maiden"...but the difference was that Evert competed. Bouchard did not. There are no if's, and's or but's about that. She did not compete. She quit. She tanked. Her coach could not believe his eyes either...his looks imploring her to do SOMETHING...anything.

The only plausible theory that I could come up with was the condition of the courts. The way that I see it...Bouchard may be more of a retriever and counterpuncher compared to the knockout, knockdown style of the Czech. The condition of the courts was so bad that retrieving was an impossibility...and the task was too daunting and overwhelming for the young and relatively inexperienced Bouchard. Perhaps it was just too overwhelming...Center Court and all.

The way that Kvitova was knocking off the second serves of Bouchard and Eugenie never making a serious move to the ball. This didn't seem to add up. Kvitova no doubt is a talented player...I haven't seen enough of women's tennis to fully assess her capabilities...but she isn't that good. Not 6-3, 6-0 good. Something did not make sense to me. What I was seeing did not seem to be commensurate to the situation.

I watched that match between Venus Williams and Kvitova also. I wasn't that impressed with Kvitova in that match. It will be interesting if Kvitova will be able to live up to the hype you guys see in her. Venus Williams is well past her prime and she played Kvitova to a virtual stand still. That match was dead even until the very end.

Obviously grass court tennis is a totally different game. We are seeing that the condition of the courts in combination with the modern style of playing tennis is wreaking havoc on the quality of play. The men's final will be doubly interesting...taking the factor of the condition of the court into play.

[hockeyscout]

Thank you don_budge! VERY realistic. You must not listen to the "noise" either like me.

I thought I went crazy here!

It was million dollar, consistently hit 100 balls in a row over the net, pretty, talented, athletic, chosen one, diet coke ad, self promoting, rich academy tennis versus girl from village who earned it every step of the way when people said she was to fat, to slow and practiced hitting the tough shots day in and day out out of the spotlight against men in some village who would never make it.

At least that is how a certain eight year old see's it.

But as for this Wimbledon final...it struck me as just plain terrible tennis. Certainly not on the part of Kvitova...she played a fine match. But where was the competition? You can quote all kinds of numbers but from what I saw it was just plain terrible. Which made me wonder why.

Thank you, I am not crazy. I was dumbfounded by the comments and analysis of the match.

The only reason that I watched that match...well I still can't figure out why...was I believe that I was a bit curious about Eugenie Bouchard. I know she is capable of better performances but the impression that I got from watching her this day was...where is the passion? In fact...where is the pulse? She took a tremendous beating without seeming to care one tiny little iota.

Yes, you are right. We noticed the same thing. Their was one point where Kvitova chased down a record number of balls and Bouchard had a chance to dive on a cross court ball and just watched it sail by her. Everyone said, what a rally, what a play by Kvitova, but cripes, what terrible play by Bouchard who didn't step in and end it with some killer instinct.

The second set was just a joke. Her second serves were so weak they were like feed balls and Kvitova was only teeing off on them as if she was drilling with her coach. Bouchard seemed to be making half hearted attempt and only fanning her racquet at the ball.

Exactly!

It looked to me that there was something dramatically wrong with Bouchard...her dog died? She had a virus? Her boyfriend broke up with her? A death in the family? That is how it looked...as if she was somewhere else mentally and totally distracted. Her head was not in the game. It looked as if her coach could not believe his eyes either. Here you are...a chance in a lifetime. You work your tail off to be in such a position...the finals of the Championships at Wimbledon...and then nothing? No fire? No passion? No outward display that you even remotely give a shit? Something seemed to be wrong with Bouchard...I remember looking at her on the screen and wondering if she was human. Didn't she have any feelings? I remember wondering if she was trying to be the Chris Evert "Ice Maiden"...but the difference was that Evert competed. Bouchard did not. There are no if's, and's or but's about that. She did not compete. She quit. She tanked. Her coach could not believe his eyes either...his looks imploring her to do SOMETHING...anything.

Exactly. I think that coach needs to go - 12 to 20, to long. Maybe the pupil has rebelled, and the coach hasn't said, enough, I have done my part, bye. That needs to happen sometimes and maybe the kid doesn't want to pull the trigger.

The only plausible theory that I could come up with was the condition of the courts. The way that I see it...Bouchard may be more of a retriever and counterpuncher compared to the knockout, knockdown style of the Czech. The condition of the courts was so bad that retrieving was an impossibility...and the task was too daunting and overwhelming for the young and relatively inexperienced Bouchard. Perhaps it was just too overwhelming...Center Court and all. The way that Kvitova was knocking off the second serves of Bouchard and Eugenie never making a serious move to the ball. This didn't seem to add up. Kvitova no doubt is a talented player...I haven't seen enough of women's tennis to fully assess her capabilities...but she isn't that good. Not 6-3, 6-0 good. Something did not make sense to me. What I was seeing did not seem to be commensurate to the situation.

Nail on the head. Academy tennis, rally, rally, top spin, two handed back hand, be consistent and follow our program. Well, she was consistent in feeding Petra balls all day and playing academy tennis which doesn't have a great track record for success since the 1980's unless your an absolute rebel and talented enough to buck the system which judging by her game nothing revolutionary is coming out of her game like say Venus or Serena.

It was academy tennis versus girl from village.

Petra has played A LOT more playground tennis. Eugenie looks like she was raised in a tennis academy. Of course it breaks down. TennisRat versus two million dollars in coaching fees. See my notes in the other thread, however, I just do not think Bouchard's running is up to par, and when pressured BIG TIME it showed.

Instincts as well, I think this is what wins championships, lots of time spend on bad dilapidated European clay, bad surfaces, weird bounced and bad ABC coaching (kids got to sort it out better internally).

It looked like Eugenie was incapable of thinking for herself and being original on the fly. She knew how to play a great academy game, but not the playground game where everything but the kitchen sink gets thrown at you, and you don't care if you win or lose. You're only deal is "god I hope it doesn't get dark to soon, or mom and dad calls me home like jerks and ruin my fun."

My young one always bitches, moans and complains, "Gabby Price and Eugenie Bouchard have perfect courts, great developmental programs, associations behind them 100%, technical coaches, perfect balls every day, nice American fitness trainers, Rick Macci, elite tournaments, sponsors, money and all I got is the worlds worst tennis court, holes in the ground to navigate, homeless people stealing my balls, men hitting partners, old school Russian coaches, civil war, Russia taking over my home in Crimea and being forced to leave my friends and favorite facility and my papa refuses to put my video up to promote me on youtube like Shishkina, Silva and Price or send me to tennis academy, and I got to work so much harder to get to their level coming from here!"

Obviously that's not the case, however, I think most players coming up like Serena, Steffie or Petra coming from small towns and off the map tennis places kind of felt that way. It gets you through those tough times. If you want a kid like Petra at 24 then it's obviously a different curve of development over the long haul, and a lot of patience.

Kindest regards, ABCTENNISdadwhoknowsnothingaboutthegripsandwillhav eahardtimehavingmeaningfulandlongtermrelationships withtenniscoaches

[don_budge]

I was talking to my Father yesterday...

Yesterday I got a phone call from dear old Dad. He was a bit down to hear that my youngest sister has filed for divorce from her husband. Children...aren't they wonderful? The gift that keeps on giving. Parents never stop worrying about their children...even long past when they are still children. My wife too was concerned for her son...his live-in of three years was packing it up yesterday. Another couple reaches their culmination point. Boys and girls...the Battle of the Sexes will never be won...too much fraternization with enemy.

Be that as it may...today is the day for the finals of the Men's Singles Championships at the Wimbledon All England Tennis Club. I am going to keep this short and simple today...because it is. I summed it up to Dad in about two minutes.

Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic

Their lifetime head to head is 18-16 to Roger Federer. Roger has won two of the last three and these are all the results of 2014. The most relevant. Novak's victory came at Indian Wells...the condition of that court probably favored him most of all.

Today there are two real important factors...well three. Well possibly more. Maybe this isn't going to be so simple afterall.

Number one...the most important factor is the condition of the court. Here you must read the thread "Jack Kramer explains various Grips..." and/or "Match Play and the Spin of the Ball" by Bill Tilden. Knowing what you will know from these two sources you will know all that you need to know that all things being equal...advantage Roger Federer.

http://www.tennisplayer.net/bulletin/showthread.php?t=2610&highlight=jack+kramer+grips

Number two...Roger's new racquet and the 12% extra real estate he possesses in his new "Excalibur". Keep in mind that throughout their entire career Roger has been playing to a 12% deficit in terms of area in their respective racquets. Not exactly fair in real life but certainly "fair" in the modern game of tennis. Every link in the chain has been fortified and the effect should be exponential. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link...Tilden wrote that somewhere in his writing. Possible advantage again in terms of leveling the playing field to Roger Federer. His serve is beefed up as well as every stroke in his arsenal.

Number three...mental preparation. Djokovic's play has been spotty up to this point in the tournament. Is he simply in bad form or does he have some "niggles" that are inhibiting his play? It doesn't matter if he can make it work for him. When I was playing competitively there were days where I had my doubts about things but somehow it only fueled my efforts...I made the negative into a positive to make it work for me. You can lick your wounds later. To me...Djokovic is perhaps the most dangerous player on the tour in the regard that he knows how to let the game come to him. He showed us in a couple of matches here that he can look somewhat defeated and struggling then he suddenly stands up and rights himself and turns it on to his opponent. Suddenly it is he that is pounding them into submission.

Federer used to have this type of wherewithal. But it appears that Djokovic has the best ability to let the game come to him...he can hang in there and weather the storm. For Federer's part it is important that he comes out of the gates and gets on top quickly. At this stage of his career he is a fine front runner but his ability to battle back from behind against the big guys is suspect.

The conditions may favor Roger. If I am Stefan Edberg I am conjuring up motivation for Federer to get to the net where the footing is a bit better and being on the attack will bolster his confidence. It is imperative that Roger serves immaculately. One other thing is I would have Roger dial in that slice backhand in all of its possible shapes and forms to neutralize the speed and consistency of Djokovic. He should be laser like in his precision to lay that ball back near the baseline where the bounce has become tremendously "iffy". Also laser like in playing it short and varied pace and spin. Might as well stack the percentages in any way possible. Never give your opponent a ball that he likes to hit...another Tilden pearl of wisdom.

The condition of the court is terrible behind the baseline and on the baseline. Let's see how much of a factor this is today and who can take advantage of it. Remember...topspin brings the ball down and underspin carries the ball. I would like to see that ball carrying to the baseline...but I would also like to see Federer bringing Djokovic forwards into the forecourt on low balls where his grips render him less effective.

Grigor Dimitrov had at one point in his match neutralized the initial onslaught of Djokovic and he did it by slicing and being patient. He won a number of points by being patient as slicing and dicing four or five shots before he really seized the initiative. But it appeared that he gave up on these tactics a bit...which he shouldn't have. The conditions certainly were favorable to this sort of play. These tactics also played to Djokovic's weaknesses. Never change a winning game and always change a losing game...another parable out of the Tilden manifesto.

The conditions and the moment and the location all seem to be tipped in Roger's direction. It is his match to go out and win. It will take steely nerves against the wily Djokovic...who can never be counted out. He will never underestimate an opponent...even if that opponent is none other than Roger Federer.

I guess it wasn't so simple or brief. It seemed like it was when I was talking to my dear old Dad.

[stotty]

Federer and Koslov

The conditions and the moment and the location all seem to be tipped in Roger's direction. It is his match to go out and win. It will take steely nerves against the wily Djokovic...who can never be counted out.

:

This is exactly what I was telling my son in the car home from the club this morning.

Movement will also be a key issue. The baseline is a dust bowl which Djokovic hates as it will makes it slippy. Federer floats so it's less of a problem for him.

It's raining as I write. I am 40 miles from Wimbledon so it may well be raining there too. If the roof goes on, that will sway in Federer's favour.

I see Koslov is in the boy's final. Let's see how he fairs....interesting.

The remarkable thing about Koslov is he is remarkably unremarkable...yet he always seems to win.

I will only see an hour of the final as I fly to Italy on holiday this afternoon. Let's hope I get to see Federer win the first set and a half.