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

Who wins?

  • Djokovic in three sets

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Djokovic in four sets

    Votes: 6 33.3%
  • Djokovic in five sets

    Votes: 3 16.7%
  • Federer in three sets

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Federer in four sets

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Federer in five sets

    Votes: 1 5.6%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,949
Reactions
3,896
Points
113
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.

Challenging a point is not the same thing as insisting to get it replayed. He was in the wrong and so was Nadal with his fucking sock which was funnily enough fine till just before his opponent served for the match. I'm tired of arguing because frankly there is no disputing who is right or wrong here and also cos I have to get up in 5 hours. They were both wrong.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
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


I think they both played their A game. Djokovic went away in the second set because he was exhausted after the first set and he has to work harder than Federer to win points on grass, so the first set took more out of him.

But the simple reality is that Federer's backhand (even though it has improved) does not hold up in long rallies like Djokovic's does. That always has been his Achilles heel. Safin and Nalbandian exposed that when he was younger but they were both too inconsistent in getting far in tournaments to show the world that (especially Nalbandian). But Djokovic and Nadal have gone far in tournaments consistently and they have exposed Fed's BH weakness.

Not only does he hit errors off that wing, but he clearly lacks confidence in relying on his BH during long rallies at key moments. That's why he goes for more and is error-prone. That's why he went for that forehand winner at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak.....he was clearly trying to stay away from any kind of long rally in that moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atttomole

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,606
Reactions
14,765
Points
113
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.
You know nothing about me, as evidenced by your above. I have a lot of empathy for the fans of Federer and of Novak when we get to the rubber-meets-the-road matches, like this. If you think Novak was top-drawer in this match, that's your perception. Not sure how you explain the 2nd set, but anyway, yes, he kept pulling it out with his back to the wall. That's not to be under-appreciated. But I still say he was beatable today. Not his best tennis for a lot of it, and Roger wasn't his best either. At times, both were great, but not consistently, and rarely at the same time. That's how I saw the match.
 

DarthFed

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,724
Reactions
3,477
Points
113
And you, predictably, would make it a -gate. I'm (almost) sorry I ever try to be nice to you people.

That was 1,000% gamesmanship to stall before Roger served for the match. Just friggin admit it, I know you have it in you :)
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,949
Reactions
3,896
Points
113
I told you Moxie would defend sockgate...

That's the second time off the top of my head the pos has done that against Roger while losing but no doubt there have been other times I missed. 5-2 down in the first set of RG 2011 when he was there for the taking and he managed to successfully distract Roger that time.

These Nadal clowns think we dislike him over the h2h but that's not the reason for many (I blame Roger for a lot of those). It comes down to shit like this which is unnecessary. If you're losing, find a way to catch up and win ON THE COURT but not stooping to MTOs and changing your fucking sock, bandages or taking a dump before your opponent serves for the match. What a joke and embarrassment to be a fan of that crap and even worse to defend it. The world is a sad place.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,606
Reactions
14,765
Points
113
I think they both played their A game. Djokovic went away in the second set because he was exhausted after the first set and he has to work harder than Federer to win points on grass, so the first set took more out of him.
Actually, what was up with him in that 2nd set? There is no reason he should have been exhausted. Roger's 6 years older, and he wasn't. I haven't heard anything about him being ill, but he sure played like something was wrong with him, at places, and not just in the 2nd.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
You know nothing about me, as evidenced by your above. I have a lot of empathy for the fans of Federer and of Novak when we get to the rubber-meets-the-road matches, like this.

Moxie, there is no need for you to pretend that you are taking the high road here. You just complimented El Dude for "opening up." So why don't you open up and just admit that you are very bitter over Nadal's loss on Friday and that you want to take some shots at fans of Federer and Djokovic? It's very clear that this is what you're doing, yet you're trying to couch your spite in Marcus Aurelius-esque terms. You just said a few minutes ago that this match wasn't all that special in terms of quality. I can't imagine you ever saying that about a Grand Slam final Nadal played in, let alone a 5-set, 5-hour match. So your bitterness is on full display here.

I'm still bitter over Djokovic's loss to Thiem, and I'll admit it. Why can't you admit that you are still very frustrated over the Nadal loss?

If you think Novak was top-drawer in this match, that's your perception.

I absolutely do think he was.

Not sure how you explain the 2nd set, but anyway,

Federer is the more talented and effortless shotmaker on grass, so Djokovic had to exert more in the first set than Federer did. Plus, after winning the first set he knew he had to start pacing himself for the long haul. A letdown was predictable.

yes, he kept pulling it out with his back to the wall.

With incredible shotmaking and rally play.

That's not to be under-appreciated.

You have been underappreciating it during this entire conversation by acting like his level was nothing special today. In reality it was fantastic.

But I still say he was beatable today.

By Federer, not Nadal.

Not his best tennis for a lot of it, and Roger wasn't his best either.

They were both at their best. What you apparently don't understand is that if they are both at their best they are going to create moments where the other is overwhelmed. A player can be at "his best" without dominating every point.

At times, both were great, but not consistently, and rarely at the same time.

Absolute nonsense.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Actually, what was up with him in that 2nd set? There is no reason he should have been exhausted. Roger's 6 years older, and he wasn't. I haven't heard anything about him being ill, but he sure played like something was wrong with him, at places, and not just in the 2nd.

Grass court tennis is far more effortless for Federer than Djokovic so Djokovic had to push much harder in that first set than Federer did. Djokovic was relieved to win the first set, he had to work harder than Federer did in the first set, and then on top of that he knew he would have to start pacing himself for the long haul. Put all of that together and a letdown is predictable.

There is really only one reason why Federer did not win this match today: his one-handed backhand does not hold up in tight moments the way the best two-handed backhands do. But it was plain as day that shotmaking is more effortless for him than anyone else on grass. Unfortunately tennis is not just highlight reels and you also have to win the boring points and the slug-it-out points. And that's why I liked Nalbandian - he had Federer's explosiveness but with a two-handed backhand that could stay solid in tense rallies. Federer has never had that.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,606
Reactions
14,765
Points
113
That was 1,000% gamesmanship to stall before Roger served for the match. Just friggin admit it, I know you have it in you :)
If you and Front didn't catalogue every bathroom break that Rafa has taken, and didn't treat him like a doper, I might have some faith in your judgement as far as he's concerned. But you don't. Front says above it's not about the h2h. But it's all about the h2h. When Rafa started to trash Roger early and often, Fed fans started to look for the "whys," not believing it could just be his tennis, and the match-up issues. It's been a litany of complaint ever since. If you were more fair, someone might buy some of what you're selling. But your partisanship inclines me to say: Speak to the hand.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,117
Reactions
5,768
Points
113
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.

OK, fair enough. I do acknowledge that you don't hate on other players and are defending Rafa. But I do think you sometimes falsely assume that someone is attacking, just because they're not framing Rafa in the best possible light. I speak from personal experience ;).

But yeah, the constant attacking of Rafa and his character by a handful of folks is beyond absurd. You know I agree with that!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moxie

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,117
Reactions
5,768
Points
113
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.

I don't think it is only the backhand, which is better now (2017-19), even in this match, than it was for most of his career.

I think his forehand has been a problem, too. He can't rely upon it like he used to - especially against a great defender like Novak.

His second serve was pretty crappy, too. If I could fault Novak's game in one way, it is that he didn't take advantage of Roger's weak-sauce second serves enough.
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,117
Reactions
5,768
Points
113
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

I didn't say that. I don't think Novak played his best. In fact, that's why I think Roger lost the match - because Novak was vulnerable. As I mentioned above, Novak's returning wasn't up to par for much of the match.

But you go ahead and be upset about something i'm not even saying. Have fun with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fiero425

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,117
Reactions
5,768
Points
113
Cali, I don't know how you can say they were both at their best. They had flashes of their best, but overall that was an ugly match with lots of underwhelming play by both players.

For example, Novak's excessive double-faulting; his less than par returning, especially on second serves, his going AWOL for the 2nd set. His performance overall was uneven.

For Roger, his first serve was great, but his second serve was weak. His backhand was inconsistent and his forehand wasn't blistering, with tons of errors. He looked great at times, but was also hesitant and defensive for a lot of the match, especially in crucial moments.
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,606
Reactions
14,765
Points
113
OK, fair enough. I do acknowledge that you don't hate on other players and are defending Rafa. But I do think you sometimes falsely assume that someone is attacking, just because they're not framing Rafa in the best possible light. I speak from personal experience ;).

But yeah, the constant attacking of Rafa and his character by a handful of folks is beyond absurd. You know I agree with that!
I can't pretend that sometimes I don't take offense where none is intended. :lol6: I know I can get my back up. But you and I generally talk turkey, and I appreciate that. And I know you don't truck with the Rafa-hating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: El Dude

Sundaymorningguy

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
6,384
Reactions
1,759
Points
113
Location
Norfolk, VA
Novak can usually navigate his mediocre play against both Nadal and Federer. It is like he has this uncanny ability to know when he is flirting with danger against either of them, and he figures out away to work it out 90% of the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lob and Fiero425

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,606
Reactions
14,765
Points
113
Grass court tennis is far more effortless for Federer than Djokovic so Djokovic had to push much harder in that first set than Federer did. Djokovic was relieved to win the first set, he had to work harder than Federer did in the first set, and then on top of that he knew he would have to start pacing himself for the long haul. Put all of that together and a letdown is predictable.

There is really only one reason why Federer did not win this match today: his one-handed backhand does not hold up in tight moments the way the best two-handed backhands do. But it was plain as day that shotmaking is more effortless for him than anyone else on grass. Unfortunately tennis is not just highlight reels and you also have to win the boring points and the slug-it-out points. And that's why I liked Nalbandian - he had Federer's explosiveness but with a two-handed backhand that could stay solid in tense rallies. Federer has never had that.
What utter BS. A letdown might have been predictable, but a full-on walkabout was not. If anything, a great champion should streak ahead with a lead. Djokovic is 32 to Roger's 37...no excuse for being gassed in the 2nd. As to Roger's BH, it's been holding up much better over the last 2 years. I don't think that was the game-changer.
 

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
I didn't say that. I don't think Novak played his best. In fact, that's why I think Roger lost the match - because Novak was vulnerable. As I mentioned above, Novak's returning wasn't up to par for much of the match.

But you go ahead and be upset about something i'm not even saying. Have fun with that.
fair enough, i thought that's what you were saying.

In the end, honestly, the notion that player A or B should've won is pointless. Why should Federer have won if he couldn't actually outplay Djokovic when it counted? Any logic there? It's a pointless argument to be honest. The only strong argument to back up a point of view that someone should've won is if that person is cheated; i.e., a bad call on match point etc... No player should win a march that they actually don't win.... what matters is who plays the critical points better, here is where greatness is defined. No argument here claiming Fed should've won has any real substance behind it.
 

MikeOne

Masters Champion
Joined
Sep 29, 2015
Messages
658
Reactions
484
Points
63
I think they both played their A game. Djokovic went away in the second set because he was exhausted after the first set and he has to work harder than Federer to win points on grass, so the first set took more out of him.
You can't say they both played their A game every point but to be honest, anyone who expects this knows little about tennis, specifically how hard it is to play perfect tennis when the opponent is an all time great. What happened in this match was sort of expected, when two players push themselves to the limit, both will have periods where their level dips momentarily. It is humanly impossible to play at the top gear for 4-5 hours, every point, especially when two all time greats face each other. The mental and physical effort required to maintain the intensity, concentration, confidence through a match like this is titanic. I agree with you that the first set took A LOT out of Djokovic, first set was the highest quality of the match, stats wise. What i didn't expect was a 6-1 and how Novak was acting as if he was ill or something, that was bizarre. The dip in level from novak at the beginning of 4th set was more or less normal, the 2nd set was weird. I agree though, that 1st set took a tremendous amount of concentration and it was played a a very high intensity and Fed's game is more effortless on grass.

But the simple reality is that Federer's backhand (even though it has improved) does not hold up in long rallies like Djokovic's does. That always has been his Achilles heel. Safin and Nalbandian exposed that when he was younger but they were both too inconsistent in getting far in tournaments to show the world that (especially Nalbandian). But Djokovic and Nadal have gone far in tournaments consistently and they have exposed Fed's BH weakness
Not only does he hit errors off that wing, but he clearly lacks confidence in relying on his BH during long rallies at key moments. That's why he goes for more and is error-prone. That's why he went for that forehand winner at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak.....he was clearly trying to stay away from any kind of long rally in that moment.
Federer's backhand wasn't that bad in this match, he just was pushed to a defensive stance on the b side often by Novak but Novak has arguably the greatest bh of all time (i'd put Nalbandian and safin in same category) so it's unfair to expect Federer to match him. Think about it, Novak's bh even beats Nadal's fh often in rallies, it's a crazy shot when it's on. I think Fed missed off his fh side as much as he missed the bh side, just that he prob overused the slice. Novak was relentless with his groundstrokes for about 3.5 sets, it's why Fed covered more distance than Djokovic throughout the match, which is unusual. I think Federer has learned to hit through his bh against Nadal in effective ways, Novak is just insane when he's locked in on rallies. Interestingly cali, you were saying Novak's weakness was getting behind in rallies against players like Agut, why is it that he is able to be ontop of Federer on rallies? match-up? Clearly, Djokovic dictated most of the baseline rallies, it was Federer doing most of the running and defending. Federer's offense largely came from aces, service winners and 1-2 punches after good first serves. Once rally was neutral, Djokovic was in control.

lastly, this was a tremendous match. Dips in level throughout such a tough match where players push themselves to the limit is expected, no player can sustain the intensity, concentration, confidence every point, every game, every set for 4-5 hours, especially when opponent is an all time great. This is simple freaking stuff so those complaining that Federer wasn't perfect in every point don't know anything about tennis. Djokovic also had many moments where he was far from perfect and we can't just run hypotheticals of 'Had Fed done this or had fed done that, if fed wouldn't have... etc....' we can write a book on hypotheticals on what Novak could've done or what Fed could've done... This was one of the greatest matches i have ever seen, the dips in level was totally expected and what makes it even more interesting, they are not ROBOTS. This match was crazy, i was turning the channel when Djokovic served in 5th set, it was high high drama. GREAT MATCH.