General Hercules, you are right, it just wasn't to be for Roger Federer. He put himself in position to win, 1 set and into the tiebreaker, but a single muffed shot, early in the tiebreaker cost him as it turned out, as Stan played very solidly in the breaker, and the one mini-break was all he needed. Thereafter, I think Stan got a lot of energy from winning the set, and Federer looked a bit deflated, and a bit tired, and unable to raise his level. That's all Stan needed. He outplayed and outhit Roger in the final set to win going away, 6-2, and fully deserved the victory.
Lady TT, it was a bit of a strange match, due them being good friends as well as compatriots. I thought the first set was a bit nervous from both men at the start, but Federer came out of it sooner and better. He played aggressively and was very solid, especially on serve. He came to the net repeatedly, didn't give Wawrinka any rhythm, mixing everything up with variety. Wawrinka tried to respond in kind, but his shots simply were not finding the court as often as Roger's and he couldn't pass Federer, either dumping the ball into the net, over-hitting, or losing to Federer's superb anticipation and volleying, and Federer took the set 6-4.
The second set started off with Stan holding serve pretty easily, and then Federer had a sloppy service game, with a double fault and a couple of unforced errors, and Wawrinka played solid to get the break at 30. But then it was Wawrinka's turn to make some errors, and along with Federer's good play and Federer broke to love. The rest of the set was even, with each player holding a difficult service game, and both enduring a brief rain delay. I thought Federer backed off a little in his aggression though on Stan's service games, perhaps saving energy, and seemed content to let the set go to a tiebreaker. Stan, serving first in the set, always had the scoreboard pressure on, and Federer at 5-6, was forced to hold his serve to stay in the set. And he held very well, serving to love, crafting some nice points, and perhaps Stan was saving some energy as well.
Off of that last service game, it looked like Federer had the momentum going into the tiebreaker. But Stan served first, and bombed a nonreturnable serve in to take the 1-0 lead. Then Federer had a fine serve, but Wawrinka managed to get a decent return, and after a brief rally, Roger overhit a bit, and missed the court with a cross court backhand for a mini break - 0-2. Thereafter, both men played well on their serve. Stan served big, played aggressively, and Roger couldn't make a dent on his serve, Roger played equally well on his serve, but the damage had been done with the lone early mini-break, and Stan took the tiebreaker 7-5. Stan improved in that set, curbing his errors to only 10, while Federer made more, and an error too many.
I never expected that either man would be able to have more winners than errors, in the match, as they know each other's game very well, and it was difficult to put winners away in the slow heavy conditions. Also, they were both trying to control the court with aggressive play, and naturally made some errors with that style of play, as they went for lines. I think statisticians need to separate out unforced error stats better for people who don't happen to watch the match to give a better idea of what happened. There is a difference between dumping an easy ball into the net, or sailing one well past the lines; and the errors made going for your shot, and just missing a line.
In the third set, Federer had first serve, but appeared a bit deflated after losing the tiebreaker, and the chance to win the match in 2 sets, and was broken immediately with 3 forehand errors, 2 of them into the net, and then a backhand error into the net. Stan quickly won his next service game as Federer didn't seem to have the energy or will to fight back to prevent consolidation of the break with the same enthusiasm as he did in the second set. Stan played very well in the decider, playing a more error free and yet still aggressive ground game. So with Stan up 2-0, the 3rd game was the key game of the set. Federer quickly went down love-30, but managed to get to deuce, and then played well to get the advantage. But Stan was resolute, and with Federer looking in control of the next point, Stan turned it around and played a super down the line forehand winner to get it back to deuce. After a short rally, Federer then dumped a slice into the net. Stan then broke Federer for the double break with another excellent forehand winner, this time cross court. After that, it was clear that Federer didn't have the energy to raise his game to match Stan, Stan won his serve to go up 4-0, and then the rest of the set played out on serve. Federer didn't go to the net anywhere as much in the 3rd set, didn't serve that well, and just didn't seem to have it, while Stan was pumped and playing very well.
But at the end, as they met at the net, you could see that despite any disappointment Federer might have felt from losing, that he was very happy for Stan.
Stan and Roger had dinner the night before, practiced in the morning before the match, had lunch after practice, and then after the match were laughing together in the locker room. As Stan said, Roger is his best friend on the tour. So I think the Monte Carlo title helps Stan solidify his confidence, which will keep him a tough opponent for anyone going forward. Roger didn't seem too bothered about the loss, seemed happy for Stan, and fact they had an all Swiss final, and in retrospect was quite happy to make the final as a late wildcard entry in the first clay match of the season, was pleased overall with his season thus far, making 4 finals, winning one, along with a SF and QF, and tour leading matches won, and only said that his immediate goal was to get the wins when he reached the final going forward.
Respectfully,
masterclass
Well. I can just delete the match on my DVR now. That was an excellent blow-by-blow. It was a win-win for Federer, talking about making good use of a WC. But, isn't it ironic how certain titles elude different players for no apparent reason? I thought that was a done deal for Federer, but Stan proved me wrong.
His confidence has to be at its maximum. Thus far this year he has beat Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer, three guys he's struggled with all of his career. He definitely proved me wrong, I didn't think his euphoria would last at all. So far, he's maintaining his momentum. Not only that, he's gotten greedy too!
Monte Carlo turned out to be a wacky tournament, or is it a sign of things to come? Are there more surprises coming in the near future? And is the Big Four slowly becoming more human?
We really needed the upset thread on this particular tournament. I doubt any of us would have come close to getting it right.