2019 Men’s Wimbledon Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Roger Federer

[Moxie]

Obviously I want Roger to win, but I feel far less attached to the outcome of this match than I did the SF. Beating Rafa at a Slam has just been so rare, and defending his home turf and keeping the grass H2H lead just felt important. I really hope he gets #21, but if he doesn't at least he beat Rafa.

That's a heartfelt admission. Very open. I hope you will take it in the right spirit when I say that, for one who gives me such a hard time about my "obsession" (in your opinion) with the Fedal wars, it seems that you're not immune. I noticed that you had pegged the grass h2h, something that I had not thought about at all before the match.

 

[Moxie]

I think Federer was the better player (slightly) for most of the match but I don't think Djokovic was C- level. You have to be kidding. They both played incredible today.

Federer played a level of offense that Djokovic cannot. And Djokovic was sturdy with his backhand in long rallies in a way that Federer cannot be. That's the way to look at it. To say Djokovic was C- is ridiculous. They were both outstanding today.

That was an incredible match.

I agree that Federer was a bit better for most of the match, and with those that say Federer just played the crucial points less well. Not serving out the 3rd was huge. Djokovic was only C- in the 2nd, but never close to A-game. I don't think either was outstanding, or that it was an incredible match, though it got quite thrilling late in the 5th.

 

[Moxie]

Cop this for a second and rethink that last line: Nadal was fine with his damn sock all match but just before Federer was serving for the match he decided there was something up with his foot and tried yet again to get into Roger's head and distract him by stalling. Next it's Djokovic's turn. A clear winner from Roger and Novak argues with the umpire to get the point replayed.

Roger isn't a fucking dick like those 2...and that's why he's more popular and also, most importantly, why he's won the sportsmanship award so much more than those 2 who have no self respect or decency.

You're always looking for games. Nadal has had to re-wrap his foot before when it's too tight. Novak asked if the point could be replayed on a big point? That's really not random, and even Roger does that. Stop making up "badness."

 

[mrzz]

I think Federer was the better player (slightly) for most of the match but I don't think Djokovic was C- level. You have to be kidding. They both played incredible today.

Federer played a level of offense that Djokovic cannot. And Djokovic was sturdy with his backhand in long rallies in a way that Federer cannot be. That's the way to look at it. To say Djokovic was C- is ridiculous. They were both outstanding today.

That was an incredible match.

I agree it was a very good match up to, say 2x3 or 2x4 in the fifth. Then it became quite ugly -- even if it is completely understandable. It picked up a little bit from 5x5 till the end... but the fifth was all about nerves, not tennis quality (considering who was playing).

 

[DarthFed]

I think Federer was the better player (slightly) for most of the match but I don't think Djokovic was C- level. You have to be kidding. They both played incredible today.

Federer played a level of offense that Djokovic cannot. And Djokovic was sturdy with his backhand in long rallies in a way that Federer cannot be. That's the way to look at it. To say Djokovic was C- is ridiculous. They were both outstanding today.

That was an incredible match.

Djokovic disappeared for almost 2 full sets. And aside from the first set he wasn't really that convincing in the rest. Federer sucked donkey dick in pretty much every big moment the sets Djokovic actually decided to play. I don't think that gives either player a high grade. It was an incredible match because of how tight it was.

 

[calitennis127]

I agree that Federer was a bit better for most of the match, and with those that say Federer just played the crucial points less well. Not serving out the 3rd was huge. Djokovic was only C- in the 2nd, but never close to A-game. I don't think either was outstanding, or that it was an incredible match, though it got quite thrilling late in the 5th.

Well of course you are not going to say it was an incredible match, because you are terribly biased toward Nadal and you are spiteful toward a number of people on this board for pointing out his deficiencies over the years. So you saying it was not an incredible match is just a product of your emotions and desire to get even with a lot of people on here. There is not much logic to it.

Now how the hell can you say Djokovic was never close to A-game? Are you out of your mind? The level of both players in the first was insane. Djokovic's level of play in rallies at key moments was outstanding. His backhand was rock-solid and he made some very daring shots off both wings.

You are clearly just envious that Nadal is nowhere near as good as either Djokovic or Federer on the grass. He is not as potent a shotmaker as either of them. Accept it.

 

[Front242]

You're always looking for games. Nadal has had to re-wrap his foot before when it's too tight. Novak asked if the point could be replayed on a big point? That's really not random, and even Roger does that. Stop making up "badness."

Oh yeah...just before his opponent serves for the match lol. Give it rest ffs. You'd defend him if he pulled out a gun and shot his opponent on the kneecap ffs. Djokovic knew the point was won. He was being a pos.

 

[MikeOne]

I think Federer was the better player (slightly) for most of the match but I don't think Djokovic was C- level. You have to be kidding. They both played incredible today.

Federer played a level of offense that Djokovic cannot. And Djokovic was sturdy with his backhand in long rallies in a way that Federer cannot be. That's the way to look at it. To say Djokovic was C- is ridiculous. They were both outstanding today.

That was an incredible match.

Federer was more consistently good as nole had massive dips in play in two sets. It was incredible high quality for about 3.5 sets.

Curious, what level of offense did federer play that djoker can’t? The serve? Fed had a clear advantage on serve but baseline? If you watched the whole match, it was dead clear djokovic had control of most of the rallies;in fact, he had federer on the defense more than federer had djokovic on defense. This is why roger actually ran more mileage than djokovic, novak had roger from side to side all match.. of course roger attacked off the ground in spurts but djokovic largely was ontop of the rallies. If you factor in serve and 1-2 punch after big serves, roger was better but once a baseline rally started, djokovic was latgely the offensive player, agassi like. The serve was a big difference though... fed used serve to get on offense or just hit aces, service winners.

 

[Moxie]

Well of course you are not going to say it was an incredible match, because you are terribly biased toward Nadal and you are spiteful toward a number of people on this board for pointing out his deficiencies over the years. So you saying it was not an incredible match is just a product of your emotions and desire to get even with a lot of people on here. There is not much logic to it.

Now how the hell can you say Djokovic was never close to A-game? Are you out of your mind? The level of both players in the first was insane. Djokovic's level of play in rallies at key moments was outstanding. His backhand was rock-solid and he made some very daring shots off both wings.

You are clearly just envious that Nadal is nowhere near as good as either Djokovic or Federer on the grass. He is not as potent a shotmaker as either of them. Accept it.

Either you didn't watch the match, or you didn't watch with us on Live Chat. I asked the folks if it seemed less than inspiring because I didn't have a dog in the hunt, or if it was actually not really an interesting match. This was in the 3rd. They all allowed as how it wasn't, up to that point, very interesting. Also why the crowd was so mute. The really thrilling points were pretty few and far between. I'll give you that it was a thriller late in the 5th, but I didn't make that up...you can read back.

 

[El Dude]

That's a heartfelt admission. Very open. I hope you will take it in the right spirit when I say that, for one who gives me such a hard time about my "obsession" (in your opinion) with the Fedal wars, it seems that you're not immune. I noticed that you had pegged the grass h2h, something that I had not thought about at all before the match.

Well its all a matter of degree. I've never claimed to be "immune," but I tend not to get wrapped up in the tit-for-tat about proving my guy is the best. I like you, Moxie, but feel you tend to always want to edge towards Fedal warring...to be fair, you generally do it "on defense" - that is, defending Rafa rather than attacking Roger (or Novak). Unlike some others .

 

[calitennis127]

Djokovic disappeared for almost 2 full sets.

He disappeared in the second set because of how much energy he had to exert in the first set, during which the quality was simply outstanding. Tennis on the grass is far more effortless for Federer than Djokovic (and they both know it), so Djokovic had to really buckle down with extreme focus and excellent rally play in the first set tiebreak to win it. I am not surprised that he had a letdown afterward.

To act like that first set was just one regular set is preposterous. You and the ESPN analysts were both talking that way. Djokovic had to give everything and more to win that set. Then with the lead he knew he had to start pacing himself for the long-term.

And aside from the first set he wasn't really that convincing in the rest.

Wtf are you talking about? How was he not "convincing"? Because he didn't win each set 6-2?

Federer sucked donkey dick in pretty much every big moment when Djokovic actually decided to play.

If you only look at the tiebreaks, you can make that case. But what about all the games at the ends of the 1st, 3rd, and 5th sets? Do those not count as "big moments"? Federer produced some incredible stuff there.

The difference in this match was the backhands - something you have never accepted as a clear limitation for Federer (and that's why I always used to say Nalbandian was better than him in rallies). Even though Federer is hitting his backhand really well right now and with much more weight and aggression (partially thanks to Ljubicic I think), his backhand still cannot hold up in long rallies with the best two-handers. That's always been his fatal flaw.

I don't think that gives either player a high grade. It was an incredible match because of how tight it was.

I give both an A. And a strong A at that.

 

[Moxie]

Oh yeah...just before his opponent serves for the match lol. Give it rest ffs. You'd defend him if he pulled out a gun and shot his opponent on the kneecap ffs. Djokovic knew the point was won. He was being a pos.

You know, sometimes they talk to the chair to catch a breath, too. Roger not immune to it, or the well-chosen crappy challenge moment. It is simply less egregious than you claim.

 

[calitennis127]

Either you didn't watch the match, or you didn't watch with us on Live Chat. I asked the folks if it seemed less than inspiring because I didn't have a dog in the hunt, or if it was actually not really an interesting match. This was in the 3rd. They all allowed as how it wasn't, up to that point, very interesting. Also why the crowd was so mute. The really thrilling points were pretty few and far between. I'll give you that it was a thriller late in the 5th, but I didn't make that up...you can read back.

Well I think that neither you nor them are right about that. In your case, you are clearly in a spiteful frame of mind toward the fans of Federer and Djokovic. And in the case of Federer fans such as Darth, they are going to denigrate the match quality any time Federer is not blowing someone out.

If Federer does not win a match in straight sets, then Darth is automatically going to say that Federer played terrible and the match quality was poor. It's entirely predictable. Just as you could never accept Nadal's limitations, Darth can't accept that Fed's one-handed backhand has always been and always will be his fatal flaw. He thinks Federer is perfect and can only lose from being "mentally weak." But that is nonsense for the simple reason that Darth underrates how much of a problem Fed's backhand is in long rallies at key moments.

 

[El Dude]

That was a heartbreaking match to watch. I try to avoid taking this angle, but Roger lost that match more than Novak won it. I'm guessing Roger is tossing and turning in his luxury suite right now about those championship serves...this is one that got away from him and will haunt him for years to come.

I think when it comes down to it, Roger just isn't as good a clutch player as Novak or Rafa. He tends to blow it in crucial moments more than they do. Novak played like Novak for much of the match, but was also vulnerable and Roger should have taken advantage but couldn't. He wasn't out-played, he just showed a lack of spine when he needed it most.

I was also baffled by some of his choices. For the first time I really questioned his tactics - time and time again he hesitated, or took a safe path, or made an obviously poor choice. It was like it was a combination of being blinded by having too many options out there, and hesitating a fraction of a second too long.

I could say more, but it would just be more venting. That was more painful than I expected and I feel a bit "tennised out."

 

[Moxie]

Well its all a matter of degree. I've never claimed to be "immune," but I tend not to get wrapped up in the tit-for-tat about proving my guy is the best. I like you, Moxie, but feel you tend to always want to edge towards Fedal warring...to be fair, you generally do it "on defense" - that is, defending Rafa rather than attacking Roger (or Novak). Unlike some others .

I've told you this before...I'm not wrapped up in the Fedal Wars, but there are so many posters here that attack Rafa, and in really egregious ways. Not just hating on his tennis, but hating him, calling him unsportsmanlike and a doper. And otherwise seriously insulting and rude names. As you say, I will go on the defense against that kind of talk. And I will play the game back at people, which may look like the Fedal Wars to you, but to me, it's just holding up my side for Rafa. I'm glad you've noticed that I don't really attack Roger or Novak. I'm just defending Rafa. Against what I think will admit and have even acknowledged, are a lot of haters.

 

[calitennis127]

That was a heartbreaking match to watch. I try to avoid taking this angle, but Roger lost that match more than Novak won it. I'm guessing Roger is tossing and turning in his luxury suite right now about those championship serves...this is one that got away from him and will haunt him for years to come.

I think when it comes down to it, Roger just isn't as good a clutch player as Novak or Rafa. He tends to blow it in crucial moments more than they do.

One simple reason Mr. Dude: the one-handed backhand. Federer knows it can't hold up in long rallies so he has to go for more and be aggressive in a way that makes you ask "what is he thinking?"

The two guys who exposed this when Federer was younger were Safin and especially Nalbandian, but neither of them was consistent enough to get far in the biggest tournaments and expose how much of a weakness it was. Djokovic and Nadal, on the other hand, have gone far in tournaments enough to show it.

That's really what it comes down to.

Why did Federer go for that forehand winner at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak? Very simple: he was trying to avoid a long rally at all costs.

He is not confident he can win long rallies at key moments against Djokovic and I don't blame him for feeling that way.

 

[DarthFed]

He disappeared in the second set because of how much energy he had to exert in the first set, during which the quality was simply outstanding. Tennis on the grass is far more effortless for Federer than Djokovic (and they both know it), so Djokovic had to really buckle down with extreme focus and excellent rally play in the first set tiebreak to win it. I am not surprised that he had a letdown afterward.

To act like that first set was just one regular set is preposterous. You and the ESPN analysts were both talking that way. Djokovic had to give everything and more to win that set. Then with the lead he knew he had to start pacing himself for the long-term.



Wtf are you talking about? How was he not "convincing"? Because he didn't win each set 6-2?



If you only look at the tiebreaks, you can make that case. But what about all the games at the ends of the 1st, 3rd, and 5th sets? Do those not count as "big moments"? Federer produced some incredible stuff there.

The difference in this match was the backhands - something you have never accepted as a clear limitation for Federer (and that's why I always used to say Nalbandian was better than him in rallies). Even though Federer is hitting his backhand really well right now and with much more weight and aggression (partially thanks to Ljubicic I think), his backhand still cannot hold up in long rallies with the best two-handers. That's always been his fatal flaw.



I give both an A. And a strong A at that.

No he disappeared in the 2nd set inexplicably. Are you really suggesting Novak was tired after one set? They played long tiebreak 1st sets in 2014 and 2015 and Djokovic didn't totally go on walkabout after that. Djokovic was better in the 3rd but that's not saying much. 4th set again he totally went away in the middle and found a bit of game at the end. I don't really think Federer was all that good in sets 2 and 4, he just didn't need to be. Clearly the 1st set was the highest quality of the match. The 5th set just managed to find its way to 12-12. They both had their ups and downs but after two dismal MP's it was obvious Federer wasn't winning the match. Are you one of the tards who thinks that approach shot wasn't special ed? I'm curious if we took a poll here about the % of posters who would call that a decent approach shot.

 

[MikeOne]

That was a heartbreaking match to watch. I try to avoid taking this angle, but Roger lost that match more than Novak won it. I'm guessing Roger is tossing and turning in his luxury suite right now about those championship serves...this is one that got away from him and will haunt him for years to come.

I think when it comes down to it, Roger just isn't as good a clutch player as Novak or Rafa. He tends to blow it in crucial moments more than they do. Novak played like Novak for much of the match, but was also vulnerable and Roger should have taken advantage but couldn't. He wasn't out-played, he just showed a lack of spine when he needed it most.

I was also baffled by some of his choices. For the first time I really questioned his tactics - time and time again he hesitated, or took a safe path, or made an obviously poor choice. It was like it was a combination of being blinded by having too many options out there, and hesitating a fraction of a second too long.

I could say more, but it would just be more venting. That was more painful than I expected and I feel a bit "tennised out."

So novak couldn’t have played better but roger could? You saw the second set? Beginning of 4th set? Was that novak being novak? Lol

As always, it’s what federer did wrong or didn’t do but nothing novak did wrong or could’ve done better. In my opinion, novak could’ve played better, his serve wasn’t great and his return wasn’t as great as it can be. He also had massive dips in play for 1.5 sets so it wasn’t just what roger could’ve done better, goes both ways

 

[calitennis127]

I've told you this before...I'm not wrapped up in the Fedal Wars, but there are so many posters here that attack Rafa, and in really egregious ways. Not just hating on his tennis, but hating him, calling him unsportsmanlike and a doper. And otherwise seriously insulting and rude names. As you say, I will go on the defense against that kind of talk. And I will play the game back at people, which may look like the Fedal Wars to you, but to me, it's just holding up my side for Rafa. I'm glad you've noticed that I don't really attack Roger or Novak. I'm just defending Rafa. Against what I think will admit and have even acknowledged, are a lot of haters.

The problem is when you become excessive in your response and say something silly like "Djokovic was not commanding today." That is nothing but sour grapes about Nadal losing on Friday and people taking shots at him.

 

[Moxie]

That was a heartbreaking match to watch. I try to avoid taking this angle, but Roger lost that match more than Novak won it. I'm guessing Roger is tossing and turning in his luxury suite right now about those championship serves...this is one that got away from him and will haunt him for years to come.

I think when it comes down to it, Roger just isn't as good a clutch player as Novak or Rafa. He tends to blow it in crucial moments more than they do. Novak played like Novak for much of the match, but was also vulnerable and Roger should have taken advantage but couldn't. He wasn't out-played, he just showed a lack of spine when he needed it most.

I was also baffled by some of his choices. For the first time I really questioned his tactics - time and time again he hesitated, or took a safe path, or made an obviously poor choice. It was like it was a combination of being blinded by having too many options out there, and hesitating a fraction of a second too long.

I could say more, but it would just be more venting. That was more painful than I expected and I feel a bit "tennised out."

I think you're right, and I can see why you guys are heartbroken. So much opportunity left begging. I really do think Roger had that match in his grasp, and kept letting it slip when it mattered most. I think you're also right about his changing his mind on some critical points. He hesitated, and it cost him. I don't suppose anyone wants me to mention Nadal at this point, but the missed opportunity last year for us still hurts. I feel your pain.