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

[Moxie]

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.

It's ridiculous to say that the player who didn't win "should" have won, in a tight contest. But to pretend that Federer wasn't really close, and kind of did blow it is to have not watched the match. I watched the match rather dispassionately, other than that I didn't want Roger to get #21. I really thought he had it in the bag a couple of times. That Djokovic pulled it out late also doesn't surprise me, but I do think you have under-appreciated Roger in the match.

 

[MikeOne]

It's ridiculous to say that the player who didn't win "should" have won, in a tight contest. But to pretend that Federer wasn't really close, and kind of did blow it is to have not watched the match. I watched the match rather dispassionately, other than that I didn't want Roger to get #21. I really thought he had it in the bag a couple of times. That Djokovic pulled it out late also doesn't surprise me, but I do think you have under-appreciated Roger in the match.

i said it was close and could've gone either way but Roger shouldn't have won because he didn't, it's that simple. Again, you have to actually play the big points better than the opponent. At 40-15, the narrative of fed fanboys is Fed gave two points away but the fact is that Djokovic came up with a very good return and a very good passing shot, had he not done so, match would've been over. The 'could've' 'should've' nonsense is just that - nonsense. I could write a 12 chapter book on what Novak could've done to straight set Federer 2,3,4 today. 'If Novak would've served better, if Novak would've returned better, if Novak didn't have that dip in 2nd set' I never do because it's pointless so Fed fanboys with their 'Fed could've hit a better approach shot or Fed could've handled Djokovic return better' is as valid as a pile of cow manure. Djokovic deserved the win as much as Federer deserved it, it was close, a point here or there determined outcome'. Djokovic deserved to win a bit more as he actually outplayed Federer in big moments, end of discussion here.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Neither of those were chokes. He never had match points and was far from match points in both.

You don't know what you are talking about..

 

[DarthFed]

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.

Roger's serve wasn't really good at all considering it totally went AWOL when it mattered. 63% 1st serves in is a pretty weak % for him on grass too. Djokovic just missed a lot more returns than we are used to seeing, otherwise he'd have broken Fed's serve a lot with that pretty mediocre %. As a comparison Roger served 70% in 2014 with same number of aces in way less service points and Djokovic still broke him 4 times. Djokovic's subpar returning made it seem Roger's serve was way better than it was. Fed even had 6 DF's today though I don't think any came in games he was broken or in TB's. But that just adds to the point that Djokovic usually would break him more the way he served today.

Roger's problem, preventing him from still being truly elite, isn't his backhand per se, it's his now relatively poor defense particularly moving to the forehand. Fed can't transition from defense to offense well anymore so once Djokovic got him on the move the point was usually over. Roger more than held his own in the 1st set and pissed it away anyways but as the match went on Roger became more and more harmless from the baseline. Kind of why I say aside from first set (before TB disaster) this wasn't some good performance from Roger. Oftentimes too passive and was easy pickings in the big moments.

 

[shawnbm]

If you look at everything in the last eight years, it is abundantly clear that Novák is miles ahead of everyone and, as it is fitting, second-place is Rafa and then Roger. Looking at their ages, does this not make sense?

 

[Moxie]

i said it was close and could've gone either way but Roger shouldn't have won because he didn't, it's that simple. Again, you have to actually play the big points better than the opponent. At 40-15, the narrative of fed fanboys is Fed gave two points away but the fact is that Djokovic came up with a very good return and a very good passing shot, had he not done so, match would've been over. The 'could've' 'should've' nonsense is just that - nonsense. I could write a 12 chapter book on what Novak could've done to straight set Federer 2,3,4 today. 'If Novak would've served better, if Novak would've returned better, if Novak didn't have that dip in 2nd set' I never do because it's pointless so Fed fanboys with their 'Fed could've hit a better approach shot or Fed could've handled Djokovic return better' is as valid as a pile of cow manure. Djokovic deserved the win as much as Federer deserved it, it was close, a point here or there determined outcome'. Djokovic deserved to win a bit more as he actually outplayed Federer in big moments, end of discussion here.

I think we all agree that Djokovic played the important points and moments better. That is what was between them. But Federer was serving for the 3rd set, at 5-4. That was a bit of a choke. He could have been done in 4. I don't ever like the alternate universe crap, but to pretend that Roger wasn't really close is also nonsense. Roger had CPs in the 4th, I think. That's closer than Djokovic was. While you might be able to write a script where Djokovic won in straights, it's not nearly as close to reality as Federer winning in 4. There's only so much reality you can change. Roger was closer to the win than Novak was, surely in the 4th, and even in the 5th. Novak pulled it off, but don't make it like Novak had it in the bag.

 

[MikeOne]

I think we all agree that Djokovic played the important points and moments better. That is what was between them. But Federer was serving for the 3rd set, at 5-4. That was a bit of a choke. He could have been done in 4. I don't ever like the alternate universe crap, but to pretend that Roger wasn't really close is also nonsense. Roger had CPs in the 4th, I think. That's closer than Djokovic was. While you might be able to write a script where Djokovic won in straights, it's not nearly as close to reality as Federer winning in 4. There's only so much reality you can change. Roger was closer to the win than Novak was, surely in the 4th, and even in the 5th. Novak pulled it off, but don't make it like Novak had it in the bag.

and who is saying it wasn't close or that Novak had it in the bag? are you arguing with a ghost? where is this ghost or imaginary person saying this? read what i said.. that it was close, a point here and there, could've gone either way, i've said it not once, repeatedly. It would be stupid to say anything other than this. What are you arguing? seems like we agree on that it was close, could've gone either way but that Djokovic deserved the win which is something Fed fanboys don't think.

 

[MikeOne]

Roger's serve wasn't really good at all considering it totally went AWOL when it mattered. 63% 1st serves in is a pretty weak % for him on grass too. Djokovic just missed a lot more returns than we are used to seeing, otherwise he'd have broken Fed's serve a lot with that pretty mediocre %. As a comparison Roger served 70% in 2014 with same number of aces in way less service points and Djokovic still broke him 4 times. Djokovic's subpar returning made it seem Roger's serve was way better than it was. Fed even had 6 DF's today though I don't think any came in games he was broken or in TB's. But that just adds to the point that Djokovic usually would break him more the way he served today.

Roger's problem, preventing him from still being truly elite, isn't his backhand per se, it's his now relatively poor defense particularly moving to the forehand. Fed can't transition from defense to offense well anymore so once Djokovic got him on the move the point was usually over. Roger more than held his own in the 1st set and pissed it away anyways but as the match went on Roger became more and more harmless from the baseline. Kind of why I say aside from first set (before TB disaster) this wasn't some good performance from Roger. Oftentimes too passive and was easy pickings in the big moments.

you are totally wrong that it's sad, you can't even see things clearly anymore. Fed served well and you forget that holding serve is not just about serve %, it's what you do after the serve and how you place second serves. Djokovic had control of most neutral rallies but Federer backed up his serve beautifully today. Most of the time Roger was on offense was when he was backing up his serve with an aggressive shot. When rally was neutral, Djokovic dominated.

as far as defense goes, wrong too. Federer played incredible defense, the stats showed he ran more miles than Djokovic, so shows he was doing most of the defending during neutral baseline rallies, particularly off bh side, with slice. He defended extremely well. You mention he didn't defend to his fh side as-well, that HAS ALWAYS been his weaker side defensively, even during 04-07. During 04-07, he was deadly defending off his bh side and it was Djokovic and Nadal who started attacking his fh around 05-08. Nadal obviously attacked Roger's bh but he would open up fh side and then hit his inside out fh to Roger's fh and Roger was ALWAYS weaker defending that shot. Djokovic, in 08 AO, went regularly to Fed's fh with his down the line bh and cross court fh, and has continued to do so ever since... it has always been his weaker side on defense but overall he defended extraordinarily well today. WRONG Darth, WRONG.

 

[Moxie]

and who is saying it wasn't close or that Novak had it in the bag? are you arguing with a ghost? where is this ghost or imaginary person saying this? read what i said.. that it was close, a point here and there, could've gone either way, i've said it not once, repeatedly. It would be stupid to say anything other than this. What are you arguing? seems like we agree on that it was close, could've gone either way but that Djokovic deserved the win which is something Fed fanboys don't think.

Cool, so you agree that Djokovic wasn't great, and Roger was close, but Novak deserved the win because he actually got it. I think that about sums it up.

 

[DarthFed]

you are totally wrong that it's sad, you can't even see things clearly anymore. Fed served well and you forget that holding serve is not just about serve %, it's what you do after the serve and how you place second serves. Djokovic had control of most neutral rallies but Federer backed up his serve beautifully today. Most of the time Roger was on offense was when he was backing up his serve with an aggressive shot. When rally was neutral, Djokovic dominated.

as far as defense goes, wrong too. Federer played incredible defense, the stats showed he ran more miles than Djokovic, so shows he was doing most of the defending during neutral baseline rallies, particularly off bh side, with slice. He defended extremely well. You mention he didn't defend to his fh side as-well, that HAS ALWAYS been his weaker side defensively, even during 04-07. During 04-07, he was deadly defending off his bh side and it was Djokovic and Nadal show started attacking his fh around 05-08. Nadal obviously attacked Roger's fh but he would open up fh side and then hit his inside out fh to Roger's fh and Roger was ALWAYS weaker defending that shot. Djokovic, in 08 AO. went regularly to Fed's fh and has continued to do so ever since... it has always been his weaker side on defense but overall he defended extraordinarily well today. WRONG Darth, WRONG.

Not wrong at all. 25 aces in over 200 serves ain't special for Roger on grass, less than 13% ace. And wow, Roger was aggressive on 1st serves that Novak got back in play (which were far less than we usually see). You do realize that probably VERY FEW of the 1st serve returns neutralized the point right? Of course Roger stepped in and took control of a lot of the returns Novak got back. Novak also returned the 2nd serves poorly, missed a bunch of them and wasn't getting as much depth as usual. He made it easier for Roger on serve today, both in the number of free points and due to the fact many of his returns made it easy for Fed to take control right away.

Good defense means transitioning well from defense to offense. Roger got a lot back in play, particularly on the backhand wing, when Djokovic was dictating, but he could not turn the points around because he doesn't move anywhere near as well anymore. They were mostly slice backhands on the dead run with no bite on them that just allowed Novak to keep pounding away until he finally forced the error. I do agree that Roger always defended the backhand better, it's just that as Roger has aged his movement to the forehand wing has become an outright weakness as well as his inability to transition from offense to defense. In Roger's prime his defense was fantastic, I recently saw you mention it was an underrated part of his success and I totally agree. But at his age he can't get it done anymore. The reason he turned it around vs. Nadal is he grabs control of the points the first chance he gets. And on the flip side the main reason that he loses a lot more often to one-dimensional big servers/hitters these days is his lack of defense to offense. Djokovic easily punished those weaknesses today. Anytime you get Roger on the move to the forehand wing the point is usually over. Defended extraordinarily well today? GTFOH.

What exactly did Roger do poorly which gave him a loss against a guy who only showed up for a few sets? The way your dumbass talks you'd think it was the best match he ever played.

 

[the AntiPusher]

you are totally wrong that it's sad, you can't even see things clearly anymore. Fed served well and you forget that holding serve is not just about serve %, it's what you do after the serve and how you place second serves. Djokovic had control of most neutral rallies but Federer backed up his serve beautifully today. Most of the time Roger was on offense was when he was backing up his serve with an aggressive shot. When rally was neutral, Djokovic dominated.

as far as defense goes, wrong too. Federer played incredible defense, the stats showed he ran more miles than Djokovic, so shows he was doing most of the defending during neutral baseline rallies, particularly off bh side, with slice. He defended extremely well. You mention he didn't defend to his fh side as-well, that HAS ALWAYS been his weaker side defensively, even during 04-07. During 04-07, he was deadly defending off his bh side and it was Djokovic and Nadal who started attacking his fh around 05-08. Nadal obviously attacked Roger's bh but he would open up fh side and then hit his inside out fh to Roger's fh and Roger was ALWAYS weaker defending that shot. Djokovic, in 08 AO, went regularly to Fed's fh with his down the line bh and cross court fh, and has continued to do so ever since... it has always been his weaker side on defense but overall he defended extraordinarily well today. WRONG Darth, WRONG.

Wait.wait..wait..I stated four weeks ago that Roger's defense was near the level of Novak's and Rafa's level..but Darth and F#berg said I Looney..now everyone is acknowledging Roger's defense..Did Roger's defense just went from average to great since this past Thursday..I don't think so.

 

[DarthFed]

Wait.wait..wait..I stated four weeks ago that Roger's defense was near the level of Novak's and Rafa's level..but Darth and F#berg said I Looney..now everyone is acknowledging Roger's defense..Did Roger's defense just went from average to great since this past Thursday..I don't think so.

He doesn't defend anywhere near as well as them anymore. If we are comparing primes it was a lot closer though they still had a clear edge even then in that department.

 

[the AntiPusher]

He doesn't defend anywhere near as well as them anymore. If we are comparing primes it was a lot closer though they still had a clear edge even then in that department.

Darth..Roger doesn't serve no where near as hard as Isner, Dr. Ivo , Krygios or Roddick but his service placement is just as good or better. Roger's ability to use his defense to set up his offense is uncanny and almost unmatched besides Rafa and Novak's..hence #20, 18 and 16..

 

[MikeOne]

Darth..Roger doesn't serve no where near as hard as Isner, Dr. Ivo , Krygios or Roddick but his service placement is just as good or better. Roger's ability to use his defense to set up his offense is uncanny and almost unmatched besides Rafa and Novak's..hence #20, 18 and 16..

bruh, if Federer doesn't do the following:

1. 45 aces in 5 sets
2. 80% 1st serve
3. 100% break points conversions
4. 200 winners, less than 20 UFEs
5. 70 net approaches, at least 90% won
6. run like a gazelle, never get tired, never have 1 mental lapse, never get nervous


Then he will complain. It's beyond ridiculous. Whenever federer loses, he will pick apart every point, every stat and tell us how bad he played. What he never does is recognize what the opponent did or that the opponent largely determines how you play. Like i have stated many times before, substitute Djokovic or Nadal for others in all those losses and Roger would have 30+ slams. Tennis is two men battling and the job of the two men is to play well and make their opponents play bad. Darth has always talked as if Roger could've done anything he wanted to, no matter the opponent. It's a remarkable thing... ..

 

[Hamidreza Roohian]

How did Djokovic turn the match around?

http://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2019/07/3-reasons-why-djokovic-won-wimbledon-2019-002948129.html

 

[DarthFed]

Darth..Roger doesn't serve no where near as hard as Isner, Dr. Ivo , Krygios or Roddick but his service placement is just as good or better. Roger's ability to use his defense to set up his offense is uncanny and almost unmatched besides Rafa and Novak's..hence #20, 18 and 16..

Lol, anyone who thinks Roger currently defends anywhere near as well as the other two is on crack. Again it was at least a comparison prime to prime though Rafa and Djoker clearly edge him there.

As for serve, I never said his placement was worse. It is better than all those guys but when you factor in how much harder they serve and the fact most serve at a higher % and possess better 2nd serves, they all have better serves than Roger. None of those guys are/were decent from the baseline, at least not on a consistent basis and yet they all hold serve as often as Roger with the exception of Nick who is well...a bit crazy. Seriously, again anyone arguing Roger's serve is better than Isner, Dr. Ivo, etc. is living in lalaland.

Question, if Roger has the best serve ever, is tied for best defense ever, has one of the best forehands in history, then why is he about to be overtaken in the slam race? What are the deficiencies in his game that made him an easy out for Nadal for many years and currently is making it easy for Djoker to mop him up in every major meeting?

 

[the AntiPusher]

Lol, anyone who thinks Roger currently defends anywhere near as well as the other two is on crack. Again it was at least a comparison prime to prime though Rafa and Djoker clearly edge him there.

As for serve, I never said his placement was worse. It is better than all those guys but when you factor in how much harder they hit and the fact most serve at a higher % they have better serves. Seriously, again anyone arguing Roger's serve is better than Isner, Dr. Ivo, etc. is living in lalaland.

Question, if he has the best serve ever, is tied for best defense ever, has one of the best forehands in history, than why is he about to be overtaken in the slam race? What are the deficiencies in his game that is making it easy for Djoker to mop him up in every major meeting?

My Lord ..I thought you were just only an idiot when it comes to Nadal.. Service placement is the key to having a great serve not speed..Also..are you saying that Roger is making to these finals by just ommosi or because of his playing style
.if so you must be opiods or heroin.

 

[the AntiPusher]

bruh, if Federer doesn't do the following:

1. 45 aces in 5 sets
2. 80% 1st serve
3. 100% break points conversions
4. 200 winners, less than 20 UFEs
5. 70 net approaches, at least 90% won
6. run like a gazelle, never get tired, never have 1 mental lapse, never get nervous


Then he will complain. It's beyond ridiculous. Whenever federer loses, he will pick apart every point, every stat and tell us how bad he played. What he never does is recognize what the opponent did or that the opponent largely determines how you play. Like i have stated many times before, substitute Djokovic or Nadal for others in all those losses and Roger would have 30+ slams. Tennis is two men battling and the job of the two men is to play well and make their opponents play bad. Darth has always talked as if Roger could've done anything he wanted to, no matter the opponent. It's a remarkable thing... ..

Darth sets unrealistic expectations on poor Roger..I am glad a non Rafa person has finally been able to challenge Darth's distorted view

 

[DarthFed]

My Lord ..I thought you were just only an idiot when it comes to Nadal.. Service placement is the key to having a great serve not speed..Also..are you saying that Roger is making to these finals by just ommosi or because of his playing style
.if so you must be opiods or heroin.

If any of the big 3 had Isner's serve they would probably never lose a match, at least not one off clay. Placement is one of the keys, but if you are 7 feet tall and can serve 135+ miles per hour at a high % then yes it is way stronger than a guy who is averaging below 120 with great placement and a lower %.

Did you see the stats someone posted comparing Roddick and Federer's serve stats? Roddick had better stats down the line including BP % saved and % of games held. And this is someone with 1/10th the game backing up his serve. This is just a silly comparison really.

 

[DarthFed]

Darth sets unrealistic expectations on poor Roger..I am glad a non Rafa person has finally been able to challenge Darth's distorted view

Not really. I just expect him not to suck donkey cock in most of his Wimbledon finals and to actually be able to win from match point up on occasion.