"Everything" points to Federer?You have a career in stand up comedy my friend. That's gold, Jerry, gold!
(1) Making this Wimbledon final breaks a streak of 7 Slam appearances without making a final for Federer. Over that same period, Djokovic made more than half the finals possible (4).
(2) Of the last 16 Slam finals played, Djokovic has played in 11 of them (68.75% of them), to Federer's playing in 2 of them (12.5% of them).
(3) Of the last 16 Slams played, Djokovic has made 15 semi-finals (93.7% rate) to Federer's 9 semi-finals (56.2% rate).
(4) Federer hasn't won a Slam final against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself since 2009. 4 of Djokovic's 5 Slam final wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself. One player here has clearly needed to face unproven opposition to add to his Slam title collection.
(5) You have to go back to the 2006 US Open - all of 8 years ago - to find the last time Federer won a Slam final against an opponent who had previously won that Slam himself (Roddick was the Fed's victim in the 2006 US Open final, he'd previously won it in 2003). 3 of Djokovic's 5 Slam wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who had previously won the Slam concerned himself (he beat Nadal at the 2011 Wimby, 2011 USO & 2012 AO finals - Nadal had last won those Slams in '10, '10 & '09). Needless to say, both these players have previously won Wimbledon.
They're the recent hsitorical facts of note. Now, for this tournament specficially - Federer's first 3 opponents aren't even worth mentioning. In the 4th R he beat Robredo, who in 12 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 3rd R (wow, impressive grass pedigree). In the QF he beat Wawrinka, who in 9 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 4th R (again, wow, impressive grass pedigree), and in the SF beat someone who was making his first Slam SF appearance in 15 tries, and had never been past the 2nd R in 3 previous Wimbledon appearances (once again, wow, impressive grass pedigree). Fact is the Fed has looked somewhat like his old self because he's faced a bunch of grass stiffs. There's little need to mention the Fed's biggest win came in a match he didn't even play (Nadal getting knocked out by a current nobody, before the two could square off against each other).
Anyone looking critically at the facts can't but come to the realisation that very little points to Federer, never mind "everything". About the only things the Swiss can console himself with is (a) that the Serb has lost the last 3 Slam finals he's played in (but considering Roger didn't even make it to the QF stage in any of those 3 Slams, means that's a somewhat hollow consolation), and (b) that he won their (only) previous meeting at Wimbledon (though that is only 1 of 2 wins he has against the Joker in 6 Slam meetings since 2010 - he still sports a 66% losing rate).
If the Fed overturns the mountain of historical inertia he faces to win here, he'll prove himself the greatest of all time in my book.
"Everything" points to Federer?You have a career in stand up comedy my friend. That's gold, Jerry, gold!
(1) Making this Wimbledon final breaks a streak of 7 Slam appearances without making a final for Federer. Over that same period, Djokovic made more than half the finals possible (4).
(2) Of the last 16 Slam finals played, Djokovic has played in 11 of them (68.75% of them), to Federer's playing in 2 of them (12.5% of them).
(3) Of the last 16 Slams played, Djokovic has made 15 semi-finals (93.7% rate) to Federer's 9 semi-finals (56.2% rate).
(4) Federer hasn't won a Slam final against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself since 2009. 4 of Djokovic's 5 Slam final wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself. One player here has clearly needed to face unproven opposition to add to his Slam title collection.
(5) You have to go back to the 2006 US Open - all of 8 years ago - to find the last time Federer won a Slam final against an opponent who had previously won that Slam himself (Roddick was the Fed's victim in the 2006 US Open final, he'd previously won it in 2003). 3 of Djokovic's 5 Slam wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who had previously won the Slam concerned himself (he beat Nadal at the 2011 Wimby, 2011 USO & 2012 AO finals - Nadal had last won those Slams in '10, '10 & '09). Needless to say, both these players have previously won Wimbledon.
They're the recent hsitorical facts of note. Now, for this tournament specficially - Federer's first 3 opponents aren't even worth mentioning. In the 4th R he beat Robredo, who in 12 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 3rd R (wow, impressive grass pedigree). In the QF he beat Wawrinka, who in 9 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 4th R (again, wow, impressive grass pedigree), and in the SF beat someone who was making his first Slam SF appearance in 15 tries, and had never been past the 2nd R in 3 previous Wimbledon appearances (once again, wow, impressive grass pedigree). Fact is the Fed has looked somewhat like his old self because he's faced a bunch of grass stiffs. There's little need to mention the Fed's biggest win came in a match he didn't even play (Nadal getting knocked out by a current nobody, before the two could square off against each other).
Anyone looking critically at the facts can't but come to the realisation that very little points to Federer, never mind "everything". About the only things the Swiss can console himself with is (a) that the Serb has lost the last 3 Slam finals he's played in (but considering Roger didn't even make it to the QF stage in any of those 3 Slams, means that's a somewhat hollow consolation), and (b) that he won their (only) previous meeting at Wimbledon (though that is only 1 of 2 wins he has against the Joker in 6 Slam meetings since 2010 - he still sports a 66% losing rate).
If the Fed overturns the mountain of historical inertia he faces to win here, he'll prove himself the greatest of all time in my book.
"Everything" points to Federer?You have a career in stand up comedy my friend. That's gold, Jerry, gold!
(1) Making this Wimbledon final breaks a streak of 7 Slam appearances without making a final for Federer. Over that same period, Djokovic made more than half the finals possible (4).
(2) Of the last 16 Slam finals played, Djokovic has played in 11 of them (68.75% of them), to Federer's playing in 2 of them (12.5% of them).
(3) Of the last 16 Slams played, Djokovic has made 15 semi-finals (93.7% rate) to Federer's 9 semi-finals (56.2% rate).
(4) Federer hasn't won a Slam final against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself since 2009. 4 of Djokovic's 5 Slam final wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself. One player here has clearly needed to face unproven opposition to add to his Slam title collection.
(5) You have to go back to the 2006 US Open - all of 8 years ago - to find the last time Federer won a Slam final against an opponent who had previously won that Slam himself (Roddick was the Fed's victim in the 2006 US Open final, he'd previously won it in 2003). 3 of Djokovic's 5 Slam wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who had previously won the Slam concerned himself (he beat Nadal at the 2011 Wimby, 2011 USO & 2012 AO finals - Nadal had last won those Slams in '10, '10 & '09). Needless to say, both these players have previously won Wimbledon.
They're the recent hsitorical facts of note. Now, for this tournament specficially - Federer's first 3 opponents aren't even worth mentioning. In the 4th R he beat Robredo, who in 12 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 3rd R (wow, impressive grass pedigree). In the QF he beat Wawrinka, who in 9 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 4th R (again, wow, impressive grass pedigree), and in the SF beat someone who was making his first Slam SF appearance in 15 tries, and had never been past the 2nd R in 3 previous Wimbledon appearances (once again, wow, impressive grass pedigree). Fact is the Fed has looked somewhat like his old self because he's faced a bunch of grass stiffs. There's little need to mention the Fed's biggest win came in a match he didn't even play (Nadal getting knocked out by a current nobody, before the two could square off against each other).
Anyone looking critically at the facts can't but come to the realisation that very little points to Federer, never mind "everything". About the only things the Swiss can console himself with is (a) that the Serb has lost the last 3 Slam finals he's played in (but considering Roger didn't even make it to the QF stage in any of those 3 Slams, means that's a somewhat hollow consolation), and (b) that he won their (only) previous meeting at Wimbledon (though that is only 1 of 2 wins he has against the Joker in 6 Slam meetings since 2010 - he still sports a 66% losing rate).
If the Fed overturns the mountain of historical inertia he faces to win here, he'll prove himself the greatest of all time in my book.
"Everything" points to Federer?You have a career in stand up comedy my friend. That's gold, Jerry, gold!
(1) Making this Wimbledon final breaks a streak of 7 Slam appearances without making a final for Federer. Over that same period, Djokovic made more than half the finals possible (4).
(2) Of the last 16 Slam finals played, Djokovic has played in 11 of them (68.75% of them), to Federer's playing in 2 of them (12.5% of them).
(3) Of the last 16 Slams played, Djokovic has made 15 semi-finals (93.7% rate) to Federer's 9 semi-finals (56.2% rate).
(4) Federer hasn't won a Slam final against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself since 2009. 4 of Djokovic's 5 Slam final wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who was already a Slam winner himself. One player here has clearly needed to face unproven opposition to add to his Slam title collection.
(5) You have to go back to the 2006 US Open - all of 8 years ago - to find the last time Federer won a Slam final against an opponent who had previously won that Slam himself (Roddick was the Fed's victim in the 2006 US Open final, he'd previously won it in 2003). 3 of Djokovic's 5 Slam wins since 2011 have come against an opponent who had previously won the Slam concerned himself (he beat Nadal at the 2011 Wimby, 2011 USO & 2012 AO finals - Nadal had last won those Slams in '10, '10 & '09). Needless to say, both these players have previously won Wimbledon.
They're the recent hsitorical facts of note. Now, for this tournament specficially - Federer's first 3 opponents aren't even worth mentioning. In the 4th R he beat Robredo, who in 12 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 3rd R (wow, impressive grass pedigree). In the QF he beat Wawrinka, who in 9 previous Wimbledon appearances had never made it past the 4th R (again, wow, impressive grass pedigree), and in the SF beat someone who was making his first Slam SF appearance in 15 tries, and had never been past the 2nd R in 3 previous Wimbledon appearances (once again, wow, impressive grass pedigree). Fact is the Fed has looked somewhat like his old self because he's faced a bunch of grass stiffs. There's little need to mention the Fed's biggest win came in a match he didn't even play (Nadal getting knocked out by a current nobody, before the two could square off against each other).
Anyone looking critically at the facts can't but come to the realisation that very little points to Federer, never mind "everything". About the only things the Swiss can console himself with is (a) that the Serb has lost the last 3 Slam finals he's played in (but considering Roger didn't even make it to the QF stage in any of those 3 Slams, means that's a somewhat hollow consolation), and (b) that he won their (only) previous meeting at Wimbledon (though that is only 1 of 2 wins he has against the Joker in 6 Slam meetings since 2010 - he still sports a 66% losing rate).
If the Fed overturns the mountain of historical inertia he faces to win here, he'll prove himself the greatest of all time in my book.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.