The Betfair Contrarian: Why Roger Federer won't win Wimbledon

Wimbledon Betting / The Betfair Contrarian / 18 June 2009 / 6

" class="free_bet_btn" rel="external" onclick="javascript: pageTracker._trackPageview('/G4/inline-freebet');" target="_blank">

That French Open win is not to be trusted, says the Betfair Contrarian, so get against Federer at SW19.

Swiss Miss Roger Federer has made Wimbledon an unhappy part of London for the Contrarian for several years now, but those days are over. Bjorn Borg never recovered from having his Wimbledon dominance broken by a fierce rival and the Contrarian fully expects Roger Federer to tread the same path. The world number two may have just won the French Open but it felt more like a fitting last hurrah for a great champion than it did the dawn of a glorious new era. Here's why you should ignore odds of [2.28] on Federer regaining his crown...

Federer will struggle to recover from last year's loss...
Bouncing back from losing a Wimbledon final to win the following year is notoriously difficult, even more so when you are used to dominating at SW19. Bjorn Borg was so distressed after John McEnroe ended his run of five straight titles in 1981 that he retired shortly afterwards and never played at Wimbledon again. Rafael Nadal's triumph in the final at the third time of asking in 2008 made him the first player in 18 years to win having been a beaten finalist 12 months earlier.

...and he still needs to prove himself against Nadal
Federer lifted a massive weight off his shoulders by finally winning the French Open and completing his career Grand Slam but Robin Soderling made the job easier for him by eliminating Nadal. It was the first time since the 2007 Australian Open that a Grand Slam winner didn't have to face a top-four seed and the chances of a repeat at Wimbledon - where the last five finals have been contested by the top two seeds - are slim. The world number two has yet to answer the questions asked of him by Nadal, who has won the last three Grand Slam finals between the duo, each on different surfaces: at this years Australian Open, where he left Federer in tears looking like a broken man, and last year's French Open and Wimbledon. The Swiss has also lost his last four meetings with Andy Murray and is 0-2 against Novak Djokovic this year.

A lack of preparation may prove costly
In six of the last seven years, the eventual Wimbledon champion prepared for the tournament by winning on grass at either Queens or Halle. However, Federer pulled out of this year's tournament in Halle, because he feels emotionally overwhelmed and exhausted after winning the French Open. The only year between 1993 and 2000 that Pete Sampras didn't win Wimbledon was 1996 and that was the one time during that period that he didnt play at Queens. Federer just about got away with not entering Halle in 2007 because at that point he was still unrivalled on grass he'd won the previous four Wimbledons but its a far bigger risk now that he is no longer dominant and players like Andy Murray are ready to challenge.

It's rare to win the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year
Nadal's successes at Queens and Wimbledon last year were considered all the more impressive because he had adapted from dominating on clay to brushing everyone aside on grass in a matter of days. Federer has yet to prove he can win both the French Open and Wimbledon in the same season and only Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg and Nadal have done so in the last 50 years. Neither Borg or Nadal managed to do the double at the first attempt: it wasn't until Borg's third Roland Garros triumph that he won the pair in the same year and it was at the fourth attempt that Nadal claimed both.

Recent successes mask a poor year
Federer is on form having won his last two tournaments the Madrid Masters and the French Open but they are his only victories of the year. A glance at the number of pre-Wimbledon tournaments Federer has won every year since 2003 when he first triumphed at SW19 shows how his decline correlates with Nadal's emergence:
2003 (4 tournaments won pre-Wdon) - Federers first Wimbledon win.
2004 (5) Federer retains the title.
2005 (7) Federer starts to look unbeatable.
2006 (5) Nadal reaches the final but Federer is still comfortable.
2007 (3) Nadal takes it to five sets; Federer looks slightly vulnerable.
2008 (2) Nadal unseats Federer as Wimbledon champion.
2009 (2) ?

'.$sign_up['title'].'

'; } } ?>

(6)

Dave Taylor | 18 June 2009

Federer clearly won the French Open where Nadal barely barely took Wimbledon. Federer is uninjured healthy and seems to have the best 5 set fitness in tennis right now. Still the favourite I think in any grand slam. BTW I didn't know runner up and winner at the only two grand slams was a bad season?? Actually Nadal's success is more correlated with Roger's bout of mono. This year and Roger's progress is quite characteristic as he has been notorious for peaking later in the season.
Hope | 18 June 2009

What kind of mind is this? Roger Federer is NOT a Swiss Miss. He is a man. Why such antagonism for this genius of the tennis court.
Roger Federer does NOT need to prove himself against anybody, including Nadal. Other great players have had their hoodoo players without their greatness being questioned. Sampras had Bruguera and Ferrera. And the head to head is skewed because of clay. Where was Nadal when Roger was winning the other tournaments? He has to get to the final to stand a chance of winning it. And let us not insult Soderling and belittle his triumph over Nadal in Paris.
A man who reached the final of the Australian Open, was a semifinalist in 3 of 4 Masters and won a grand slam and a masters shield is not in bad form.
And what more preparation does Federer need to play at Wimbledon? He won in 2007 without any 'preparation'. His win in Paris is more than enough preparation I would have thought.
You have shown by the inconsistency in your argument that you expect Roger Federer to win every match he plays and every tournament he enters otherwise "he is in bad form".
He might just do that from now. I expect him to win Wimbledon so do more than 70% of people who took part in surveys. Unfortunately I'm not a betting person, otherwise, I'd put my money where my mouth is - For Roger Federer to win Wimbledon.
Glen Janney | 18 June 2009

"Bouncing back from losing a Wimbledon final is notoriously difficult"?
Good thing for Jana Novotna in '98, Navratilova in '90, Boris Becker in '89, Graf in '88, McEnroe in '83, McEnroe AND Chris Evert in '81, Evert in '74, Stan Smith in '72, and John Newcombe in '70 that they didn't listen to an oddsmaker like you.
And that's just in the Open Era.

Best regards,

Glen Janney
Miami
anon | 19 June 2009

the guy who wrote this article is an idiot.
Chris Burge | 19 June 2009

Bouncing back is difficult. Yeah, right. Uhm, Sampras, 97. Another example. What do you know about this sport?
harry | 19 June 2009

Dave Taylor you are an idiot. Typical Federer fanatic. If you are going to say "Nadal barely took Wimbledon" you should be comparing him to the French Open Final LAST year, where Federer barely won any games. What about the French Open results of Federer the last FOUR years, where he won a total of 3 sets against Nadal out of 15 in total.