There are not many racing series as prestigious as the Verizon IndyCar Series in the world. Granted, Formula One is the leading series worldwide and NASCAR dominates the American market. Formula E and Super Formula have attracted some of the best open-wheel talent outside F1, though neither of those have the long traditions of Indy car racing.
This year the Verizon IndyCar Series got big worldwide attention as the two-time world champion Fernando Alonso came from F1 to participate in the Indianapolis 500 with McLaren and missed the Monaco Grand Prix. Alonso's participation showed the Indy 500 is still one of the most prestigious races in the world as he aims to complete the Triple Crown with the Indy 500 and 24 Hours of Le Mans victories, having previously won the Monaco GP twice.
As F1 dominates global motorsports and NASCAR the American motorsports, it's the Indy 500 that presents the best opportunity to see big names of those categories in the same race. The 2004 NASCAR Cup Series champion Kurt Busch participated in the Indy 500 in 2014. As the Verizon IndyCar Series is showing signs of growth, one can expect the 500 to become more attractive for crossover entries. Ideally the IndyCar regulars are joined by F1 and NASCAR champions in the 500.
While it's the Indy 500 and not the full series that attracts some of the big names in F1 and NASCAR, it would be great if F1 and NASCAR fans had interest in the Verizon IndyCar Series even when a familiar name isn't running at the 500. I find it unfortunate how some F1 and NASCAR fans ignore IndyCar, yet have time to watch F2 and GP3 or Xfinity and Truck Series.
While F1 and NASCAR don't have a lot in common, the Verizon IndyCar Series has a lot to offer to both F1 and NASCAR fans. It combines open-wheel road racing like in F1 with oval races like in NASCAR. It is always good to have alternatives; IndyCar is an alternative for both F1 and NASCAR. If you're losing interest in F1 or NASCAR, I recommend to you give IndyCar a try, maybe you'll find something you've been missing. And even if you're enjoying F1 or NASCAR, you should give IndyCar a try, maybe you'll find something new that you'll enjoy even more.
Monopolies are hardly ever a good thing; F1 and NASCAR need alternatives. The Verizon IndyCar Series seems like the ideal alternative; it can appeal to both F1 and NASCAR fans, and it has one of the most prestigious races in the world. For example, Formula E appeals to open-wheel but not stock car fans, and it has nothing like the Indy 500. And while endurance racing has famous events, the long races and the emphasis on teams instead of drivers don't really make it appealing to masses. MotoGP is probably the biggest series worldwide behind F1 and offers great racing, though bike racing doesn't appeal to all car racing fans.
If the Verizon IndyCar Series became more of a genuine alternative for F1 and NASCAR, all racing fans would be winners. IndyCar fans would surely love to see their series attracting top talent from F1 and NASCAR. But even F1 and NASCAR fans would benefit from strong IndyCar. With a serious rival, those two series would be forced to keep their fans entertained or the fans would be lost to a rival series. Besides, strong IndyCar should increase the driver crossover with F1 or NASCAR, which would be exciting for fans of all series.
In order to become a strong alternative for F1 and NASCAR, the Verizon IndyCar Series needs to expand its fanbase. There are surely potential IndyCar fans among F1 and NASCAR fans. I hope fans of those series give up any preconception of IndyCar as a minor league and give it a try with an open mind. If you find the unique greatness of Indy car racing, it can even become your favorite series regardless of its status compared to F1 or NASCAR. Trust me, it can happen, I've experienced it.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
INDYCAR needs to do away with double points
The 2017 Verizon IndyCar Series goes into the final race with six drivers with a title chance thanks to the double points at the season finale. Despite the excitement they generate for the season finale, double points are one of the most controversial INDYCAR rules.
2014 saw double points introduced for the Formula One World Championship's season finale to keep the championship battle more open until the final race. In the footsteps of F1, double points were also introduced in the Verizon IndyCar Series for the Triple Crown 500-mile races, of which Fontana was the season finale.
A key difference between F1's and INDYCAR's systems was that F1's season finale at Abu Dhabi was a regular race by all means whereas the Triple Crown races were the longest races in the Verizon IndyCar Series. Awarding points based on the race length was not unprecedented in Indy car racing; CART's points system was based on the race length until 1982.
Following lots of criticism, Formula One dropped the double points for 2015 whereas they remained in the Verizon IndyCar Series but with modifications. As Sonoma Raceway became the new venue for the season finale, double points were awarded at Sonoma and at the Indianapolis 500 but no longer at the other Triple Crown 500-mile races.
The 2014 points system with double points for the Triple Crown races had a mixed reception. While many felt it was just a gimmick to keep the championship open in the final race, it was still less controversial than F1's system as the double-points races were the longest ones. The double points, as well as the Indy 500 qualification points, also helped to balance the championship where only six of the 18 races were held on ovals.
The 2015 system, however, was generally disliked. While there were some legitimate arguments in favor of the 2014 double points rule, those arguments were gone with the 2015 rule. It no longer helped to balance the disparity of ovals and road courses as Sonoma was a road course, and it was no longer a system based on the race distance as Sonoma was a regular-distance road race.
Thanks to the double points, six drivers entered the 2015 season finale with a title chance. The season got a controversial finish as Scott Dixon beat Juan Pablo Montoya for the title thanks to his double-points victory at Sonoma.
As Sonoma has remained as the season finale, the double points rule has remained unchanged since 2015. This year, six drivers have a title chance at the final race, and even the third-placed Hélio Castroneves can win the title from 22 points behind Josef Newgarden regardless of other contenders' performances by scoring full points.
Besides Sonoma's double points, the Indy 500's double points and qualification points have a big impact on the championship. The 500 runner-up Castroneves would be out of title contention without Indy's and Sonoma's special points. And while Scott Dixon suffered a heavy crash at the 500 and was classified only 32nd, 42 points for the pole position limited the damage on his championship campaign.
If regular points were awarded at the Indy 500 and Sonoma, Newgarden's lead over Dixon would be 26 points instead of the slim three-point gap. Simon Pagenaud would be 38 points behind Newgarden instead of 34 points, and Castroneves would be 54 points behind instead of 22 points. A top-six finish without double points at Sonoma would secure the title for Newgarden regardless of others' results. Yet because of the double points and the top three within 22 points, anything but winning at Sonoma will put Newgarden at a risk of losing the championship.
I think INDYCAR needs to do away with rules that undermine the series' credibility. Closing the pits when a caution comes out is an example of rules like that, double points is another. As an analogy to team sports, INDYCAR tries to make the season finale a Game Seven of a kind with the double points. But sometimes playoff series get decided in the Game Six and INDYCAR should not create a Game Seven at the expense of credibility.
I would be fine with the double points if the season finished with a 500-mile race on an oval like it did in 2014 when the double points were introduced. A longer race awarding more points is a legitimate reasoning. And while it wouldn't balance the disparity of the ovals and the road courses in the schedule, it would help to achieve a better balance between those in the championship.
Then again, the season finale may well be going nowhere from Sonoma, especially as INDYCAR doesn't want to schedule races further into the fall when the football season has started. A 500-kilometer race at a road course could be equivalent to a 500-mile oval race. Then again, such a long race would hardly boost TV ratings, especially at a track like Sonoma which rarely produces exciting racing, and the double points are exactly intended to increase the viewership.
As for the Indy 500 points system, I'm not a huge fan of the double points if they are not awarded at the other 500-mile races. The Indy 500 is prestigious enough without the double points. Even more I think INDYCAR must abandon or at least reduce the 500 qualification points. 42 points for the 500 pole is more than for a second-place finish at regular-points races, which feels like too much.
The points are a way to bring some excitement into the 500 qualifications, especially as the last two races have had exactly 33 entries and thus no bumping in the qualifications. Though if the car count increased above 33, bumping would bring the sort of excitement that is currently missing from the qualifications, and there would be even less need for the points.
I think INDYCAR needs to do away with the current double points rule, for the sake of credibility. I'm fine with a points system based on the race distance, like awarding double points for all 500-mile races. But as long as the season-finale isn't a 500-mile race, it should not award double points.
If you want to keep the championship open until the final weekend of the season without double points, there is a simple solution, make the season finale a doubleheader. Instead of having a possibly controversial finish to the season, rather give fans one more race to finish the season.
2014 saw double points introduced for the Formula One World Championship's season finale to keep the championship battle more open until the final race. In the footsteps of F1, double points were also introduced in the Verizon IndyCar Series for the Triple Crown 500-mile races, of which Fontana was the season finale.
A key difference between F1's and INDYCAR's systems was that F1's season finale at Abu Dhabi was a regular race by all means whereas the Triple Crown races were the longest races in the Verizon IndyCar Series. Awarding points based on the race length was not unprecedented in Indy car racing; CART's points system was based on the race length until 1982.
Following lots of criticism, Formula One dropped the double points for 2015 whereas they remained in the Verizon IndyCar Series but with modifications. As Sonoma Raceway became the new venue for the season finale, double points were awarded at Sonoma and at the Indianapolis 500 but no longer at the other Triple Crown 500-mile races.
The 2014 points system with double points for the Triple Crown races had a mixed reception. While many felt it was just a gimmick to keep the championship open in the final race, it was still less controversial than F1's system as the double-points races were the longest ones. The double points, as well as the Indy 500 qualification points, also helped to balance the championship where only six of the 18 races were held on ovals.
The 2015 system, however, was generally disliked. While there were some legitimate arguments in favor of the 2014 double points rule, those arguments were gone with the 2015 rule. It no longer helped to balance the disparity of ovals and road courses as Sonoma was a road course, and it was no longer a system based on the race distance as Sonoma was a regular-distance road race.
Thanks to the double points, six drivers entered the 2015 season finale with a title chance. The season got a controversial finish as Scott Dixon beat Juan Pablo Montoya for the title thanks to his double-points victory at Sonoma.
As Sonoma has remained as the season finale, the double points rule has remained unchanged since 2015. This year, six drivers have a title chance at the final race, and even the third-placed Hélio Castroneves can win the title from 22 points behind Josef Newgarden regardless of other contenders' performances by scoring full points.
Besides Sonoma's double points, the Indy 500's double points and qualification points have a big impact on the championship. The 500 runner-up Castroneves would be out of title contention without Indy's and Sonoma's special points. And while Scott Dixon suffered a heavy crash at the 500 and was classified only 32nd, 42 points for the pole position limited the damage on his championship campaign.
If regular points were awarded at the Indy 500 and Sonoma, Newgarden's lead over Dixon would be 26 points instead of the slim three-point gap. Simon Pagenaud would be 38 points behind Newgarden instead of 34 points, and Castroneves would be 54 points behind instead of 22 points. A top-six finish without double points at Sonoma would secure the title for Newgarden regardless of others' results. Yet because of the double points and the top three within 22 points, anything but winning at Sonoma will put Newgarden at a risk of losing the championship.
I think INDYCAR needs to do away with rules that undermine the series' credibility. Closing the pits when a caution comes out is an example of rules like that, double points is another. As an analogy to team sports, INDYCAR tries to make the season finale a Game Seven of a kind with the double points. But sometimes playoff series get decided in the Game Six and INDYCAR should not create a Game Seven at the expense of credibility.
I would be fine with the double points if the season finished with a 500-mile race on an oval like it did in 2014 when the double points were introduced. A longer race awarding more points is a legitimate reasoning. And while it wouldn't balance the disparity of the ovals and the road courses in the schedule, it would help to achieve a better balance between those in the championship.
Then again, the season finale may well be going nowhere from Sonoma, especially as INDYCAR doesn't want to schedule races further into the fall when the football season has started. A 500-kilometer race at a road course could be equivalent to a 500-mile oval race. Then again, such a long race would hardly boost TV ratings, especially at a track like Sonoma which rarely produces exciting racing, and the double points are exactly intended to increase the viewership.
As for the Indy 500 points system, I'm not a huge fan of the double points if they are not awarded at the other 500-mile races. The Indy 500 is prestigious enough without the double points. Even more I think INDYCAR must abandon or at least reduce the 500 qualification points. 42 points for the 500 pole is more than for a second-place finish at regular-points races, which feels like too much.
The points are a way to bring some excitement into the 500 qualifications, especially as the last two races have had exactly 33 entries and thus no bumping in the qualifications. Though if the car count increased above 33, bumping would bring the sort of excitement that is currently missing from the qualifications, and there would be even less need for the points.
I think INDYCAR needs to do away with the current double points rule, for the sake of credibility. I'm fine with a points system based on the race distance, like awarding double points for all 500-mile races. But as long as the season-finale isn't a 500-mile race, it should not award double points.
If you want to keep the championship open until the final weekend of the season without double points, there is a simple solution, make the season finale a doubleheader. Instead of having a possibly controversial finish to the season, rather give fans one more race to finish the season.
Monday, September 4, 2017
Four strong contenders, three outsiders in IndyCar championship
The 2017 Verizon IndyCar Series heads to its final race, the GoPro Grand Prix of Sonoma, with Josef Newgarden and Scott Dixon separated by only three points on top of the championship standings. Hélio Castroneves, 22 points behind Newgarden, is the third driver who can secure the championship regardless of his rivals' performances. Defending champion Simon Pagenaud will attempt to overcome a 34-point deficit to retain the title.
Besides the close top four, three more drivers have a mathematical title chance. While Will Power and Alexander Rossi may hope for a miracle, Graham Rahal's title chances will likely be gone as the green flag waves as Newgarden and Dixon will outscore him by starting the race.
The tables below show the championship points scenarios for each of the title contenders.
Scott Dixon needs to beat Josef Newgarden to win the title. Then again, Newgarden needs to beat Dixon as well unless they finish in consecutive positions below 10th place. However, Hélio Castroneves can win the title outright by winning the race and scoring full bonus points by starting on the pole position and leading most laps. Even if Castroneves won but not with full bonus points, Newgarden and Dixon would need to finish second and the bonus points would decide the title.
If Simon Pagenaud repeats his performance from last year at Sonoma and wins with full bonus points, then he would need Newgarden finishing lower than third and Dixon finishing lower than second to repeat his championship triumph. Even a second place wouldn't be enough for Castroneves to stay ahead of Pagenaud.
Both Castroneves' and Pagenaud's title hopes need badly a victory at Sonoma; a second place would be 20 points less. Depending on the bonus points, even a sixth place could be enough for Newgarden to beat a second-placed Castroneves, and a ninth place to beat a second-placed Newgarden.
Besides Newgarden with four victories, his Team Penske teammate Will Power is the only driver to have scored three victories this season. Still, he is only fourth in the championship and 68 points behind Newgarden. Even if he won at Sonoma with the maximum points, Newgarden would need only a 12th place to beat him in the championship.
Alexander Rossi's title chance is even more unrealistic. He can't win the championship if Newgarden finishes inside the top 20 and Dixon inside the top 18. Graham Rahal is the third repeat winner of the season, though his mathematical title chance would require Newgarden and Dixon not starting at Sonoma.
The last 10 editions of the GoPro Grand Prix of Sonoma have been won by Team Penske (six victories) and Chip Ganassi Racing (four victories). Chevrolet has achieved the victory at Sonoma every year since its comeback to the Verizon IndyCar Series in 2012, though this year Honda has been more competitive against Chevy than in the previous two years of the aero kit era.
Last year Simon Pagenaud won the race for Penske and the team had claimed the top four spots in the qualifying. Scott Dixon is the winner of the 2014 and 2015 races for Ganassi, securing the championship with the 2015 victory. Of the championship top five, all others but the leader Josef Newgarden have won previously at Sonoma.
Newgarden came into the INDYCAR Grand Prix at The Glen leading Scott Dixon by 31 points. He seemed set for a top-10 finish, yet a crash at the pit exit and the damage from it dropped him down to 18th place and the gap to Dixon shrank to mere three points.
Newgarden needs to get over the disappointment of Watkins Glen and race on his normal level at Sonoma. He's had a brilliant first season with Team Penske, having scored four victories so far to lead the championship. However, Sonoma Raceway has not been a particularly successful venue for Newgarden in his five previous appearances. His best results are two sixth places when he drove for Sarah Fisher's and Ed Carpenter's teams.
Scott Dixon has good memories from Sonoma, having won twice and secured the 2015 title there. After his worst season in a decade last year when he finished in sixth place, Dixon is once again a title contender. He has achieved only one victory this season but the only time he missed the top 10 was at the Indy 500 where his race ended after a horror crash with Jay Howard. Yet crucially for the championship, he was racing again a week after the crash, achieving a second place in Detroit despite an injured ankle.
Following his victory at Road America, Dixon didn't make the podium in the following four races, though the second places of the last two races have put him only three points behind Newgarden. Especially the second place of Gateway was particularly impressive as short ovals have been difficult for Honda. Dixon's recent form allows us to expect yet another great performance from him at Sonoma, and Newgarden will face a strong challenge from him.
20 years after his CART debut, the three-time Indianapolis 500 winner Hélio Castroneves' full-time career in the Verizon IndyCar Series may be over after Sonoma. Team Penske may move him into the team's new Acura DPi program and downsize the IndyCar program to three full-time cars with an 500-only seat for Castroneves. Castroneves may now have his last chance to win the elusive series title, though he badly needs a victory at Sonoma to achieve it.
Castroneves ended his victory drought this year when he won at Iowa Speedway. However, his last road course victory was at Detroit in 2014, so winning at Sonoma is a a lot to ask for. Despite the lack of victories on road courses, he is still a great qualifier, having achieved two poles on road courses this year. Qualifying is important at a track like Sonoma where passing comes at a premium.
The defending champion Simon Pagenaud has had a consistent season if we look at top-10 finishes. Only twice has Pagenaud missed the top 10 this season. However, his performances have not been up to last year's level; Pagenaud won five races on his way to last year's title, this year he has only one victory so far.
Pagenaud secured the championship last year at Sonoma after a dominant performance. A similar performance would give him a chance to celebrate the title again, though his championship outcome will also depend on Newgarden and Dixon's results.
It is those four who have a realistic title chance. Will Power in fifth place is 68 points down and Alexander Rossi in sixth place is 84 points down. While those two have a mathematical chance and are strong contenders for the victory, there are too many drivers that are too much ahead of them to have a realistic title chance.
Besides the close top four, three more drivers have a mathematical title chance. While Will Power and Alexander Rossi may hope for a miracle, Graham Rahal's title chances will likely be gone as the green flag waves as Newgarden and Dixon will outscore him by starting the race.
The tables below show the championship points scenarios for each of the title contenders.
 |
| Click to enlarge. |
Scott Dixon needs to beat Josef Newgarden to win the title. Then again, Newgarden needs to beat Dixon as well unless they finish in consecutive positions below 10th place. However, Hélio Castroneves can win the title outright by winning the race and scoring full bonus points by starting on the pole position and leading most laps. Even if Castroneves won but not with full bonus points, Newgarden and Dixon would need to finish second and the bonus points would decide the title.
If Simon Pagenaud repeats his performance from last year at Sonoma and wins with full bonus points, then he would need Newgarden finishing lower than third and Dixon finishing lower than second to repeat his championship triumph. Even a second place wouldn't be enough for Castroneves to stay ahead of Pagenaud.
Both Castroneves' and Pagenaud's title hopes need badly a victory at Sonoma; a second place would be 20 points less. Depending on the bonus points, even a sixth place could be enough for Newgarden to beat a second-placed Castroneves, and a ninth place to beat a second-placed Newgarden.
Besides Newgarden with four victories, his Team Penske teammate Will Power is the only driver to have scored three victories this season. Still, he is only fourth in the championship and 68 points behind Newgarden. Even if he won at Sonoma with the maximum points, Newgarden would need only a 12th place to beat him in the championship.
Alexander Rossi's title chance is even more unrealistic. He can't win the championship if Newgarden finishes inside the top 20 and Dixon inside the top 18. Graham Rahal is the third repeat winner of the season, though his mathematical title chance would require Newgarden and Dixon not starting at Sonoma.
Sonoma a successful venue for both Penske and Ganassi
The last 10 editions of the GoPro Grand Prix of Sonoma have been won by Team Penske (six victories) and Chip Ganassi Racing (four victories). Chevrolet has achieved the victory at Sonoma every year since its comeback to the Verizon IndyCar Series in 2012, though this year Honda has been more competitive against Chevy than in the previous two years of the aero kit era.
Last year Simon Pagenaud won the race for Penske and the team had claimed the top four spots in the qualifying. Scott Dixon is the winner of the 2014 and 2015 races for Ganassi, securing the championship with the 2015 victory. Of the championship top five, all others but the leader Josef Newgarden have won previously at Sonoma.
Newgarden came into the INDYCAR Grand Prix at The Glen leading Scott Dixon by 31 points. He seemed set for a top-10 finish, yet a crash at the pit exit and the damage from it dropped him down to 18th place and the gap to Dixon shrank to mere three points.
Newgarden needs to get over the disappointment of Watkins Glen and race on his normal level at Sonoma. He's had a brilliant first season with Team Penske, having scored four victories so far to lead the championship. However, Sonoma Raceway has not been a particularly successful venue for Newgarden in his five previous appearances. His best results are two sixth places when he drove for Sarah Fisher's and Ed Carpenter's teams.
Scott Dixon has good memories from Sonoma, having won twice and secured the 2015 title there. After his worst season in a decade last year when he finished in sixth place, Dixon is once again a title contender. He has achieved only one victory this season but the only time he missed the top 10 was at the Indy 500 where his race ended after a horror crash with Jay Howard. Yet crucially for the championship, he was racing again a week after the crash, achieving a second place in Detroit despite an injured ankle.
Following his victory at Road America, Dixon didn't make the podium in the following four races, though the second places of the last two races have put him only three points behind Newgarden. Especially the second place of Gateway was particularly impressive as short ovals have been difficult for Honda. Dixon's recent form allows us to expect yet another great performance from him at Sonoma, and Newgarden will face a strong challenge from him.
20 years after his CART debut, the three-time Indianapolis 500 winner Hélio Castroneves' full-time career in the Verizon IndyCar Series may be over after Sonoma. Team Penske may move him into the team's new Acura DPi program and downsize the IndyCar program to three full-time cars with an 500-only seat for Castroneves. Castroneves may now have his last chance to win the elusive series title, though he badly needs a victory at Sonoma to achieve it.
Castroneves ended his victory drought this year when he won at Iowa Speedway. However, his last road course victory was at Detroit in 2014, so winning at Sonoma is a a lot to ask for. Despite the lack of victories on road courses, he is still a great qualifier, having achieved two poles on road courses this year. Qualifying is important at a track like Sonoma where passing comes at a premium.
The defending champion Simon Pagenaud has had a consistent season if we look at top-10 finishes. Only twice has Pagenaud missed the top 10 this season. However, his performances have not been up to last year's level; Pagenaud won five races on his way to last year's title, this year he has only one victory so far.
Pagenaud secured the championship last year at Sonoma after a dominant performance. A similar performance would give him a chance to celebrate the title again, though his championship outcome will also depend on Newgarden and Dixon's results.
It is those four who have a realistic title chance. Will Power in fifth place is 68 points down and Alexander Rossi in sixth place is 84 points down. While those two have a mathematical chance and are strong contenders for the victory, there are too many drivers that are too much ahead of them to have a realistic title chance.
Saturday, September 2, 2017
Separate Sebring races highlight need for aligned WEC and IMSA rules
Among the changes the ACO has announced for the FIA World Endurance Championship was a return to Sebring, Florida for a 12-hour race for the first time since the series' inaugural season in 2012. However, unlike in 2012 when it was a combined race with the American Le Mans Series, the 2019 race will be run separately from 12-hour race of the IMSA WeatherTech SportsCar Championship in the same weekend.
The American Le Mans Series featured LMP1, LMP2, and GTE from ACO's classes with the addition of the PC and GTC classes. That made it easy to include Sebring in the 2011 Intercontinental Le Mans Cup schedule, the predecessor for the FIA WEC. All ILMC classes apart from GTE-Am had their counterparts in the ALMS class structure.
The classes remained the same from the ILMC to the FIA WEC for 2012, yet the class structure for Sebring was more complicated. LMP1, LMP2, and GTE-Pro were split to separate classes for the WEC and the ALMS teams, despite sharing common regulations.
2012 was the last race for the WEC at Sebring, though LMP1 machines returned for one more time in the 2013 ALMS race. In 2014 the ALMS merged with the Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series and LMP1 was dropped from the united series' class structure. WEC teams have still returned to Sebring from the LMP2 and GTE classes that remain in the IMSA WeatherTech Championship.
2019 will see the WEC and the LMP1 machines returning to Sebring. But the WEC and the IMSA series have grown too much apart to run alongside each other. WEC's LMP2 would fall into IMSA's P class and WEC's GTE-Pro would fall into IMSA's GTLM class, though there are some significant differences in the race procedures, like pit stops and caution periods, in the two organizations' rule books. And most importantly, IMSA's prototype teams could hardly race for the overall victories against WEC's LMP1 teams, so the two series will race separately.
I have mixed feelings about the WEC's return to Sebring. Back in the ALMS days when the Rolex 24 was for Daytona Prototypes in the Grand-Am series, Sebring was the second-most important race for Le Mans Prototypes, only behind Le Mans itself. As great as the re-unification was for American sportscar racing, Sebring lost the global top class prototypes. Sebring will get them back in 2019, though the separate races are only a poor compromise. When there are two races, which one will crown the overall winner?
The need for separate IMSA and WEC races showcases what I think is a big problem in sportscar racing, the conflicting regulations in different organizations. The competition between different organizations' series is already a bit destructive for the sportscar racing overall. Sebring and Daytona will probably never be as big as Le Mans is but a top class with limited international relevancy doesn't help either. Yet those two are bigger races than any WEC race outside Le Mans but the WEC's top class wouldn't be sustainable in IMSA competition.
The WEC needs all the classics of prototype racing. It needs Sebring and it would also need Daytona. And not as separate races for the WEC and IMSA but as combined races. The ACO needs to acknowledge IMSA controls the two biggest races after Le Mans, and the two organizations need to create a compatible class structure. Something that is affordable for privateers, what ACO is trying to achieve for LMP1, but not controlled by the balance of performance like DPi is. I wrote earlier about what I think the LMP1 class should be like.
I even go as far as suggesting the ACO and the SRO should align the GT regulations. While both GTE and GT3 are looking healthy at the moment, nobody benefits from the separation of such similar classes. GTE was initially the class for factory teams and GT3 for the privateers, yet there are factory teams in GT3 racing and privateer teams in GTE-Am. Who wouldn't like to see a Ford GT or a Corvette racing for the Spa 24 Hours overall victory, or a Mercedes-AMG GT3 or a McLaren for the Le Mans GTE-Pro victory? At the same time, the class must remain affordable for privateer teams.
Of course, aligning the classes isn't so easy because of all the ongoing projects. Privateers enter LMP1 assuming manufacturers can't enter the class with non-hybrid machines like DPis. Manufacturers have built their DPis for a BoP class so running them unrestricted wouldn't be fair. And a GT convergence wouldn't be fair for those manufacturers that have just launched a new car in either of the current classes.
I have some hope the WEC's return to one of IMSA's major events signifies the start of aligning the regulations of the two organizations. Yet March 2019 may come too soon to abandon the idea of the dual race in favor of a combined race at Sebring.
The American Le Mans Series featured LMP1, LMP2, and GTE from ACO's classes with the addition of the PC and GTC classes. That made it easy to include Sebring in the 2011 Intercontinental Le Mans Cup schedule, the predecessor for the FIA WEC. All ILMC classes apart from GTE-Am had their counterparts in the ALMS class structure.
The classes remained the same from the ILMC to the FIA WEC for 2012, yet the class structure for Sebring was more complicated. LMP1, LMP2, and GTE-Pro were split to separate classes for the WEC and the ALMS teams, despite sharing common regulations.
2012 was the last race for the WEC at Sebring, though LMP1 machines returned for one more time in the 2013 ALMS race. In 2014 the ALMS merged with the Grand-Am Rolex Sports Car Series and LMP1 was dropped from the united series' class structure. WEC teams have still returned to Sebring from the LMP2 and GTE classes that remain in the IMSA WeatherTech Championship.
2019 will see the WEC and the LMP1 machines returning to Sebring. But the WEC and the IMSA series have grown too much apart to run alongside each other. WEC's LMP2 would fall into IMSA's P class and WEC's GTE-Pro would fall into IMSA's GTLM class, though there are some significant differences in the race procedures, like pit stops and caution periods, in the two organizations' rule books. And most importantly, IMSA's prototype teams could hardly race for the overall victories against WEC's LMP1 teams, so the two series will race separately.
I have mixed feelings about the WEC's return to Sebring. Back in the ALMS days when the Rolex 24 was for Daytona Prototypes in the Grand-Am series, Sebring was the second-most important race for Le Mans Prototypes, only behind Le Mans itself. As great as the re-unification was for American sportscar racing, Sebring lost the global top class prototypes. Sebring will get them back in 2019, though the separate races are only a poor compromise. When there are two races, which one will crown the overall winner?
The need for separate IMSA and WEC races showcases what I think is a big problem in sportscar racing, the conflicting regulations in different organizations. The competition between different organizations' series is already a bit destructive for the sportscar racing overall. Sebring and Daytona will probably never be as big as Le Mans is but a top class with limited international relevancy doesn't help either. Yet those two are bigger races than any WEC race outside Le Mans but the WEC's top class wouldn't be sustainable in IMSA competition.
The WEC needs all the classics of prototype racing. It needs Sebring and it would also need Daytona. And not as separate races for the WEC and IMSA but as combined races. The ACO needs to acknowledge IMSA controls the two biggest races after Le Mans, and the two organizations need to create a compatible class structure. Something that is affordable for privateers, what ACO is trying to achieve for LMP1, but not controlled by the balance of performance like DPi is. I wrote earlier about what I think the LMP1 class should be like.
I even go as far as suggesting the ACO and the SRO should align the GT regulations. While both GTE and GT3 are looking healthy at the moment, nobody benefits from the separation of such similar classes. GTE was initially the class for factory teams and GT3 for the privateers, yet there are factory teams in GT3 racing and privateer teams in GTE-Am. Who wouldn't like to see a Ford GT or a Corvette racing for the Spa 24 Hours overall victory, or a Mercedes-AMG GT3 or a McLaren for the Le Mans GTE-Pro victory? At the same time, the class must remain affordable for privateer teams.
Of course, aligning the classes isn't so easy because of all the ongoing projects. Privateers enter LMP1 assuming manufacturers can't enter the class with non-hybrid machines like DPis. Manufacturers have built their DPis for a BoP class so running them unrestricted wouldn't be fair. And a GT convergence wouldn't be fair for those manufacturers that have just launched a new car in either of the current classes.
I have some hope the WEC's return to one of IMSA's major events signifies the start of aligning the regulations of the two organizations. Yet March 2019 may come too soon to abandon the idea of the dual race in favor of a combined race at Sebring.
Friday, August 4, 2017
Is the ATP schedule too taxing?
The ATP World Tour continues next week with a Masters 1000 tournament in Montreal. Of the top six in the ATP ranking, four players will be missing from Montreal. Of those, Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic will be aside for the rest of the season.
Wawrinka and Djokovic are in a similar situation as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last year as those missed the US Open and the rest of the season. Yet this year, those two have swept the Grand Slam titles and Nadal, followed by Federer, leads the Race to London ranking.
At the age of 35, Federer needs smart scheduling to allow his body more years on the top of the game. This year he skipped the entire clay season, including the French Open, to be fresh for the grass season. That worked for him as he won the record eighth Wimbledon title. Yet the cost of missing the clay season was three zero-pointers for his ranking.
Tennis has a short offseason. The season ends in late November and the new season begins at the beginning of January with the Australian Open starting in the third week of the season. In that one month of offseason, players play in the IPTL and exhibitions.
Once the season has started, it is hard for the players to have a longer break from the tour without compromising their ranking. February and April are the only months without mandatory events. As most of the Masters 1000s are back-to-back events, it's hard to have a longer break from the tour without multiple zero-pointers for the ranking.
I think the ATP World Tour schedule is too taxing for the players. The rankings should show who can play the best, not who can play the most. I would give the players more freedom in making their schedules and reduce the number of mandatory tournaments. Most top players would probably still play the Masters 1000s in Montreal and Cincinnati as a preparation for the US Open even if those were not mandatory.
I'd leave only the Grand Slam tournaments and some selected Masters 1000s as mandatory events. Indian Wells is a special Masters 1000 event. It's not preceding a bigger tournament, instead it's over a month after the Australian Open and over two months before the French Open. Given it's considered to be the biggest non-major, it could be mandatory. The following Masters 1000 event in Miami gets overshadowed by Indian Wells and I don't think it should be mandatory. Shanghai is another Masters 1000 I think should be mandatory. It may have the shortest history but is important for the ATP to attract new fans in Asia.
Making most of the Masters 1000s non-mandatory wouldn't probably change players' schedules a lot, players would still play them to prepare for the following Grand Slam tournaments. In addition to reducing mandatory events, I think the season needs to allow a longer offseason. Apart from the ranking points available, the European late-season indoor events serve little purpose. I think the ATP Finals could take place right after the Shanghai Masters 1000. As the season would be shorter, the number of tournaments included in the ranking should be reduced by one or two from the current 18.
The Davis Cup suffers from the absence of star players, especially in the early rounds. In a season that takes players to their physical limits, the star players are not particularly willing to play anything additional, possibly involving a transition to another surface for a single weekend and traveling to another continent.
The ITF Board proposed a switch from best-of-five to best-of-three in Davis Cup singles. The proposal got the support from the majority in the ITF annual general meeting but not the required majority of two thirds. However, the AGM gave the Board the authority to change the Davis Cup format without AGM voting. So the Davis Cup may still eventually become best-of-three in singles.
One must not underestimate the physical demands of Davis Cup ties. A Davis Cup tie with best-of-five singles means six to ten sets in singles, comparable to three or four best-of-three matches. Add to that possibly playing a best-of-five doubles match. A Davis Cup tie is comparable to playing a regular tournament, and away from playing elsewhere. But even with best-of-three singles, a Davis Cup tie would still be away from playing elsewhere. And you can't play more than your body allows to.
I doubt a change from best-of-five to best-of-three would bring the big names into Davis Cup ties. The traveling and the surface transitions are the problem. To make the Davis Cup flourish again, the ITF and the ATP need to find weeks where the ties are not too close to important tournaments. That's important especially for the early rounds; the chance of the title motivates the players more in the semifinal and final stages.
I'd also re-introduce the ranking points for the Davis Cup World Group. Winning two singles rubbers is comparable to making the semifinals or the final in a 250- or 500-point tournament, it should also be rewarded respectively. That was very much the case with the points system from 2009 to 2015 when there were 80 to 275 points available in World Group ties depending on the round.
Wawrinka and Djokovic are in a similar situation as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last year as those missed the US Open and the rest of the season. Yet this year, those two have swept the Grand Slam titles and Nadal, followed by Federer, leads the Race to London ranking.
At the age of 35, Federer needs smart scheduling to allow his body more years on the top of the game. This year he skipped the entire clay season, including the French Open, to be fresh for the grass season. That worked for him as he won the record eighth Wimbledon title. Yet the cost of missing the clay season was three zero-pointers for his ranking.
Tennis has a short offseason. The season ends in late November and the new season begins at the beginning of January with the Australian Open starting in the third week of the season. In that one month of offseason, players play in the IPTL and exhibitions.
Once the season has started, it is hard for the players to have a longer break from the tour without compromising their ranking. February and April are the only months without mandatory events. As most of the Masters 1000s are back-to-back events, it's hard to have a longer break from the tour without multiple zero-pointers for the ranking.
I think the ATP World Tour schedule is too taxing for the players. The rankings should show who can play the best, not who can play the most. I would give the players more freedom in making their schedules and reduce the number of mandatory tournaments. Most top players would probably still play the Masters 1000s in Montreal and Cincinnati as a preparation for the US Open even if those were not mandatory.
I'd leave only the Grand Slam tournaments and some selected Masters 1000s as mandatory events. Indian Wells is a special Masters 1000 event. It's not preceding a bigger tournament, instead it's over a month after the Australian Open and over two months before the French Open. Given it's considered to be the biggest non-major, it could be mandatory. The following Masters 1000 event in Miami gets overshadowed by Indian Wells and I don't think it should be mandatory. Shanghai is another Masters 1000 I think should be mandatory. It may have the shortest history but is important for the ATP to attract new fans in Asia.
Making most of the Masters 1000s non-mandatory wouldn't probably change players' schedules a lot, players would still play them to prepare for the following Grand Slam tournaments. In addition to reducing mandatory events, I think the season needs to allow a longer offseason. Apart from the ranking points available, the European late-season indoor events serve little purpose. I think the ATP Finals could take place right after the Shanghai Masters 1000. As the season would be shorter, the number of tournaments included in the ranking should be reduced by one or two from the current 18.
Davis Cup suffers from the heavy season
The Davis Cup suffers from the absence of star players, especially in the early rounds. In a season that takes players to their physical limits, the star players are not particularly willing to play anything additional, possibly involving a transition to another surface for a single weekend and traveling to another continent.
The ITF Board proposed a switch from best-of-five to best-of-three in Davis Cup singles. The proposal got the support from the majority in the ITF annual general meeting but not the required majority of two thirds. However, the AGM gave the Board the authority to change the Davis Cup format without AGM voting. So the Davis Cup may still eventually become best-of-three in singles.
One must not underestimate the physical demands of Davis Cup ties. A Davis Cup tie with best-of-five singles means six to ten sets in singles, comparable to three or four best-of-three matches. Add to that possibly playing a best-of-five doubles match. A Davis Cup tie is comparable to playing a regular tournament, and away from playing elsewhere. But even with best-of-three singles, a Davis Cup tie would still be away from playing elsewhere. And you can't play more than your body allows to.
I doubt a change from best-of-five to best-of-three would bring the big names into Davis Cup ties. The traveling and the surface transitions are the problem. To make the Davis Cup flourish again, the ITF and the ATP need to find weeks where the ties are not too close to important tournaments. That's important especially for the early rounds; the chance of the title motivates the players more in the semifinal and final stages.
I'd also re-introduce the ranking points for the Davis Cup World Group. Winning two singles rubbers is comparable to making the semifinals or the final in a 250- or 500-point tournament, it should also be rewarded respectively. That was very much the case with the points system from 2009 to 2015 when there were 80 to 275 points available in World Group ties depending on the round.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
LMP1 needs a rethink following Porsche's departure
Porsche is about to leave the LMP1 class of the FIA World Endurance Championship and the 24 Hours of Le Mans, leaving Toyota as the only factory team in the class. Porsche will be the third major manufacturer in three years to leave the class; of the four manufacturers in 2015, Nissan ended its short-lived program after the first year, Audi ended its 18-year Le Mans involvement in 2016, and now Porsche is set to leave the LMP1 class in the fourth season of the program.
There are multiple privateer LMP1 projects so the 2018 grid may well have more cars than six this year at Le Mans. Another thing is if the privateer teams with more limited resources can challenge the only remaining factory team of Toyota. Also, privateer teams don't bring the publicity that a major manufacturer like Porsche or Audi did.
DPi machines from the IMSA WeatherTeach SportsCar Championship could be a way to get more manufacturers in the prototype classes at Le Mans. Cadillac, Nissan, and Mazda are already involved in the DPi class and Acura will join next year. However, DPis can't match the pace of the hybrid-engined factory LMP1 cars. Besides, the DPi class relies on the Balance of Performance. That's fine for IMSA where you don't want an expensive development war, though I prefer the top class of Le Mans is be free from BoP.
What the LMP1 class needs is competitive privateer entries but also factory teams. I'm not a fan of two-tier rules where the cash-strapped privateers have more open rules to be able to challenge the factory teams with bigger resources. Instead I'd like to see rules where it's affordable for privateers to build a winning LMP1 car or to buy one from a factory team and run independently.
The planned LMP1 hybrid rules for 2020 are very much opposite of what I'm hoping for. The hybrid technology will be even more advanced, featuring plug-in recharging during pit stops and running the first kilometer after the stop with electric power. As car manufacturers aim for better fuel efficiency and develop hybrid and electric vehicles, hybrid technology helps to attract manufacturers.
Still, expensive hybrid technology may also drive manufacturers away from the LMP1 class and prevent privateers from having success. LMP1 needs to be open for hybrid technology but it must not be mandatory.
The idea of hybrid technology is to improve the efficiency of the cars. My idea of LMP1 rules would be a maximum amount of fuel, hybrid technology allowed but not required. Set the minimum weight for a car without any hybrid systems; hybrid systems would add to the weight of the car but also to the fuel efficiency. As a result, we might see a manufacturer with an advanced hybrid system, another manufacturer with a less advanced hybrid system but also a lighter and more reliable car, and a light car with no hybrid system.
It would be up to the manufacturer to decide how much it wants to concentrate on the development of hybrid systems and how much it wants to concentrate on the development of a fuel-efficient internal combustion engine. It would be the most efficient technology winning, not the favored technology.
To make LMP1 more affordable, I think the rules in certain areas should be restrictive. In areas with road relevance, like engines, the rules must be open enough to attract manufacturers. But spending on areas with little road relevance doesn't make much sense. Limiting bodywork sets to one per season instead of current two is a welcome change in the planned 2020 rules. Advanced race car aerodynamics don't have that much relevance with most road cars, furthermore advanced aerodynamics only tend to hurt on-track racing.
No ruleset removes the issue of factory teams having more money than privateers. Yet if the rules made it harder to make gains in performance by overspending, privateers would be better able to challenge the factory teams of automotive giants. Making LMP1 less expensive would also attract more manufacturers. If privateers could build competitive chassis, a manufacturer might choose to supply (hybrid) engines to two privateer teams rather than run an own factory team.
To make privateers able to succeed in LMP1, I'd also like to see customer cars. The current LMP1 hybrid cars require factory support, having prevented privateer-run Audi R18s after Audi's departure. I'd like to see a rule where a manufacturer must sell a car of a previous generation to a potential customer at a maximum price. Five million dollars would be a good price for a car that would no longer have any use outside exhibitions, and the price should include the factory support needed. Customer cars would help to bring hybrid technology into privateer racing.
In short, the level of hybrid technology should not be determined in the rules, instead let the manufacturers choose it themselves based on their budgets. With a given amount of fuel, it's the most efficient car that wins, regardless of if it has advanced hybrid technology or no hybrid technology at all.
There are multiple privateer LMP1 projects so the 2018 grid may well have more cars than six this year at Le Mans. Another thing is if the privateer teams with more limited resources can challenge the only remaining factory team of Toyota. Also, privateer teams don't bring the publicity that a major manufacturer like Porsche or Audi did.
DPi machines from the IMSA WeatherTeach SportsCar Championship could be a way to get more manufacturers in the prototype classes at Le Mans. Cadillac, Nissan, and Mazda are already involved in the DPi class and Acura will join next year. However, DPis can't match the pace of the hybrid-engined factory LMP1 cars. Besides, the DPi class relies on the Balance of Performance. That's fine for IMSA where you don't want an expensive development war, though I prefer the top class of Le Mans is be free from BoP.
What the LMP1 class needs is competitive privateer entries but also factory teams. I'm not a fan of two-tier rules where the cash-strapped privateers have more open rules to be able to challenge the factory teams with bigger resources. Instead I'd like to see rules where it's affordable for privateers to build a winning LMP1 car or to buy one from a factory team and run independently.
The planned LMP1 hybrid rules for 2020 are very much opposite of what I'm hoping for. The hybrid technology will be even more advanced, featuring plug-in recharging during pit stops and running the first kilometer after the stop with electric power. As car manufacturers aim for better fuel efficiency and develop hybrid and electric vehicles, hybrid technology helps to attract manufacturers.
Still, expensive hybrid technology may also drive manufacturers away from the LMP1 class and prevent privateers from having success. LMP1 needs to be open for hybrid technology but it must not be mandatory.
The idea of hybrid technology is to improve the efficiency of the cars. My idea of LMP1 rules would be a maximum amount of fuel, hybrid technology allowed but not required. Set the minimum weight for a car without any hybrid systems; hybrid systems would add to the weight of the car but also to the fuel efficiency. As a result, we might see a manufacturer with an advanced hybrid system, another manufacturer with a less advanced hybrid system but also a lighter and more reliable car, and a light car with no hybrid system.
It would be up to the manufacturer to decide how much it wants to concentrate on the development of hybrid systems and how much it wants to concentrate on the development of a fuel-efficient internal combustion engine. It would be the most efficient technology winning, not the favored technology.
To make LMP1 more affordable, I think the rules in certain areas should be restrictive. In areas with road relevance, like engines, the rules must be open enough to attract manufacturers. But spending on areas with little road relevance doesn't make much sense. Limiting bodywork sets to one per season instead of current two is a welcome change in the planned 2020 rules. Advanced race car aerodynamics don't have that much relevance with most road cars, furthermore advanced aerodynamics only tend to hurt on-track racing.
No ruleset removes the issue of factory teams having more money than privateers. Yet if the rules made it harder to make gains in performance by overspending, privateers would be better able to challenge the factory teams of automotive giants. Making LMP1 less expensive would also attract more manufacturers. If privateers could build competitive chassis, a manufacturer might choose to supply (hybrid) engines to two privateer teams rather than run an own factory team.
To make privateers able to succeed in LMP1, I'd also like to see customer cars. The current LMP1 hybrid cars require factory support, having prevented privateer-run Audi R18s after Audi's departure. I'd like to see a rule where a manufacturer must sell a car of a previous generation to a potential customer at a maximum price. Five million dollars would be a good price for a car that would no longer have any use outside exhibitions, and the price should include the factory support needed. Customer cars would help to bring hybrid technology into privateer racing.
In short, the level of hybrid technology should not be determined in the rules, instead let the manufacturers choose it themselves based on their budgets. With a given amount of fuel, it's the most efficient car that wins, regardless of if it has advanced hybrid technology or no hybrid technology at all.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Federer favorite vs. Cilic in Wimbledon final
The men's singles final at Wimbledon will have the two best grass-courters of 2017 facing each other. After skipping the clay season, Roger Federer returned with an upset loss to Tommy Haas. Yet since then he won the Gerry Weber Open title in Halle and reached the record-improving 11th final at Wimbledon, extending his streak of consecutive sets won to 28.
The 17-time Grand Slam champion Federer will be facing the 2014 US Open champion Marin Čilić in the final. Čilić's grass season has been showing an upward trend. A week after making the semifinals in 's-Hertogenbosch, Čilić made the final at Queen's Club, losing to Feliciano López in three close sets. At Wimbledon, Čilić was yet to drop a set before the quarterfinals where he was taken into five sets by Gilles Müller who had beaten Rafal Nadal in an epic, long five-setter the previous round. Čilić made the final by defeating Sam Querrey in four sets in a semifinal battle of two tall, big-serving players.
Federer leads the head-to-head against Čilić 6-1. In their only meeting on grass, Federer beat Čilić in five sets in last year's Wimbledon quarterfinals, after which these two have not faced each other. Čilić's only win is from maybe the biggest match of this rivalry when he beat Federer in straight sets in the 2014 US Open semifinals, on his way to his only Grand Slam title so far.
As it's grass, this should be on Federer's racquet. Grass may suit the big-serving, big-hitting Čilić's game, yet it also suits Federer's aggressive game. It's usually the slower surfaces where Federer is vulnerable against big-hitters who have the firepower to hit through. Yet on the faster surfaces like grass, Federer is able to keep up the tempo and take away the time from his opponents. Both players serve well so there may not be many break opportunities.
Federer lost his last two Wimbledon finals against Novak Djokovic. Though Čilić is a different player to Djokovic. Djokovic has a great return of serve and a great defense. What Čilić can do is to outpower Federer from the baseline, though Federer can take away the time from him.
I give the advantage to Federer. His semifinal win over Tomáš Berdych, even though in straight sets, appears closer on the scoreboard than it was in reality. I expect a similar performance in the final. Both players serve well so the sets will be close, yet I expect Federer to have the upper hand. My pick is Federer, maybe in four close sets, to achieve the record-breaking eighth men's singles title at Wimbledon.
The 17-time Grand Slam champion Federer will be facing the 2014 US Open champion Marin Čilić in the final. Čilić's grass season has been showing an upward trend. A week after making the semifinals in 's-Hertogenbosch, Čilić made the final at Queen's Club, losing to Feliciano López in three close sets. At Wimbledon, Čilić was yet to drop a set before the quarterfinals where he was taken into five sets by Gilles Müller who had beaten Rafal Nadal in an epic, long five-setter the previous round. Čilić made the final by defeating Sam Querrey in four sets in a semifinal battle of two tall, big-serving players.
Federer leads the head-to-head against Čilić 6-1. In their only meeting on grass, Federer beat Čilić in five sets in last year's Wimbledon quarterfinals, after which these two have not faced each other. Čilić's only win is from maybe the biggest match of this rivalry when he beat Federer in straight sets in the 2014 US Open semifinals, on his way to his only Grand Slam title so far.
As it's grass, this should be on Federer's racquet. Grass may suit the big-serving, big-hitting Čilić's game, yet it also suits Federer's aggressive game. It's usually the slower surfaces where Federer is vulnerable against big-hitters who have the firepower to hit through. Yet on the faster surfaces like grass, Federer is able to keep up the tempo and take away the time from his opponents. Both players serve well so there may not be many break opportunities.
Federer lost his last two Wimbledon finals against Novak Djokovic. Though Čilić is a different player to Djokovic. Djokovic has a great return of serve and a great defense. What Čilić can do is to outpower Federer from the baseline, though Federer can take away the time from him.
I give the advantage to Federer. His semifinal win over Tomáš Berdych, even though in straight sets, appears closer on the scoreboard than it was in reality. I expect a similar performance in the final. Both players serve well so the sets will be close, yet I expect Federer to have the upper hand. My pick is Federer, maybe in four close sets, to achieve the record-breaking eighth men's singles title at Wimbledon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)