By the end of the day then, either we witness the biggest upset in grand slam history or we witness another ruthless display of what i term as 'professional "clinicalism" '. Perhaps this is not entirely fair because to be honest, i haven't really witnessed a Federer win where there haven't been those few shots that always succeed in amazing the viewer. Hence, it is an injustice to claim that Federer won primarily because he always got the job done. That's what Hewitt was famous for in his heydays back when he routed Sampras in 2001 only to get worse than a taste of his own medicine in 2004.
Do i personally think that Isner can cause an upset here? OF COURSE NOT! If being 6'9" meant that it was so easy then perhaps Karlovic would have been in the top 10 by now. Since this comes from an opinion that hasn't even seen Isner in action, I'm going to vehemently claim that if Federer plays badly (which i believe he usually plays), he loses ONE set in a tiebreak or maybe even 5-7 or 4-6; nothing more than that.
Perhaps some may consider that a moral victory for Isner - to take a set of the World's best.
They can have that cake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment