At some point someone has to question how a 38 year is still able to perform in what used to be a young mans sport.

The seeding system was already rigged in Federer's favour, with Nadal going in to the tournament ahead of him in the rankings but the Wimbledon ranking system is based on who they like more so Federer got number 2 seed.

Also on the subject of fairness, was it fair that whenever Djokovic went to hit a serve, the crowd shouted out and tried to put him off and then started spitting on him. I remember when Djokovic was serving late on, a group of people in the crowd took his parents hostage and threatened to slit their throat if Djokovic didn't let Federer win the point and they also burnt his house down while playing the final tiebreak. I do not think that this sort of behaviour from a crowd is fair.

This is the problem when the top 3 are so much better than the rest. One of them will face each other in the semis whilst the other gets the easier semi.

Bautista-Agut put up a good fight to be fair to him. I think this is when Murray is missed as he usually gets the better of Djokovic or will at least make it difficult for him.

Federer blew his chance when serving for the championship, he seemed to tense up at the crucial moments.

Djokovic deserves a lot of credit though, majority of the fans supporting Federer but he's so mentally strong and finds a way. You can see him surpassing Federer in terms of grand slams.

This is the problem when the top 3 are so much better than the rest. One of them will face each other in the semis whilst the other gets the easier semi.
--------------------------------
Yup when you have three who are light years ahead of the rest then the current seeding system doesn't quite do it justice. I understand that you wouldn't be able to change it to make it fairer though.

Not a mention of Lewis anywhere !

How is it unfair that the 2nd and 3rd seeded players have to play each other in the semis?

comment by Declan McDaid (U1734)
posted 18 minutes ago
How is it unfair that the 2nd and 3rd seeded players have to play each other in the semis?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strictly speaking it's not unfair but putting things into a greater context it seems unfair that Federer at nearly 38 would have needed to beat both Nadal and Djokovic (who are both significantly younger) in order to win the tournament. While Djokovic only needed to beat one of them.

Just seems like a massively tall order for Fed that he was always unlikely to overcome. That he got past Nadal and then to Championship point against Djok feels like a significant achievement in itself when you consider all factors.

I am still not seeing how that is unfair? When Djokovic was younger and Federer was at his peak (ranked number 1), Djokovic had to play tougher opponents.

Now that Djokovic is at his peak, why does Federer deserve a helping hand to keep him winning slams?

Federer had years of being the only decent player in men's tennis before the other's came along. Now it may be Djokovic's time to be the one that is above the rest, just at the other end of his career.

I'd argue that being old is less advantageous then being young. And I'm not saying that Fed should be given a helping hand at all.

I'm just saying that Fed had a much tougher journey to winning this tournament than Novak. Especially when you factor in Fed's age.

Yes and you are saying that that is unfair? How is it unfair?

Unfair in the context of the situation that a 38 year old Fed had to beat two of the three greatest ever players in consecutive matches when they are 32 and 33 respectively, in order to win the tournament.

While by comparison a 32 year old Djok only needed to beat a 38 year old Fed in order to win the tournament. Seems unbalanced to me.

Would Novak have beaten Nadal in the semis and then Fed in the Final ? We'll never know but it would have been a significantly tougher challenge than the one he faced.

Unfair would have been Djokovic having to play Nadal in the semis because Djokovic earned the number 1 ranking, therefore avoided the tougher semi through merit. Seems fair no?

So the top guy shouldn't have to play the other top guys in order to prove he's still the top guy ?

I'm not really arguing about the seeding system though.

I'm making a point in a very specific context where we have the top three best tennis players to ever play the game all playing in the same tournament.

* men's tennis players.

Still failing to see how it's unfair? Just did a quick check on the calculator to see how many players make the final two and three didn't fit into two. Was just getting an error or some weird number with a full stop in the middle. Could they have maybe Djokovic in the final and the legs of Nadal and the upper half of Federer as the opponent. It would make more sense as all 3 should be in the final to make it fair.

Well I'm obviously not going to convince you that it's unfair within a specific context so you can stop repeating your same question.

I'll ask you this though. Do you honestly think that Novak would have beaten Nadal in the semis followed by Fed in the Final in this tournament ?

If there had been some sort of ridiculously unfair seeding and he had had to play Nadal in the semis, then yes he probably would have beaten Nadal and then Federer. Would have been pretty unfair though for actual reasons though, not completely illogical reasons like you are suggesting.

Personally I don't think that it's certain that Djok would have beaten both Nadal and then Fed. Nadal was playing really well and certainly would have given Djok a significantly tougher match than he got in the semis.

Djok would have been less fresh for the Final while Fed would have been more fresh, even if we're just talking about margins. It all adds up and Fed might have gone one better than just getting to Championship point.

I don't think it helped with the likes of Tsitsipas, Thiem (more clay court), Stan & Zverev exiting the tournament early. Some of these guys are supposed to be the future of tennis and with Stan he's quite good in grand slams so I've put his name in there.

The draw was pretty straight forward for the 3 of them their most testing game came in the semis which just shows the differences in level.

The seeding for this tournament was fine, but if you look at the amount of times Federer and Djokovic were drawn against each other from about 2008-2013 (no matter what the seedings) and then saw Nadal always get Murray (very good, but a clear 4th at best and on clay he was nowhere then). Sometimes Murray was injured too

I found those seedings very unfair.

Have a look at the slams between 2008-2013 if you don't believe me