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

[tenisplayrla08]

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.

I'm not entirely certain how you two got to this point. And I don't really want to get in the middle of it. But I do wanna make a point that may be a bit nitpicky.

Fed "only" serving 25 aces in over 200 serves against NOVAK is pretty solid. I mean. First of all. You can't just count the aces. He had a TON of unreturned serves today. Djokovic gets his racket on more serves than anyone. But Fed still served 25 aces, which is a pace of 5 aces per set against the best returner of all time, in a slam final. Plus all his unreturned serves. Djokovic missed some second serve returns. And a lot of first serves were unreturnable even if he could get a racket on them. That slice serve on the deuce court out wide was very effective today. I'm mostly with you that Djokovic returned poorly today. I was so surprised by it. But so much of that was because Fed was mixing it up so well today that Djokovic had to take a step back and that gave Fed the room for that slice serve out wide on the deuce court and the wide serve on the ad court.

If you look at the set break down it's:
1st set: 68%
2nd set: 50%
3rd set: 73%
4th set: 57%
5th set: 60%

So tt was actually the 2 sets he won and then the final set that were low percentage first serves in. It didn't matter in the second set. He only had to hit 18 serves total. More importantly, he won all 9 of the first serves he hit in that set. But. Obviously, Djokovic was just releasing the tension of the first set. He came out of it alive. He knew he could play that well again and trusted that he'd be able to break or manage Fed to another tiebreak in the next sets. So after Fed broke so quickly he let the set go. It may be part of the reason he won. Then in the 4th set, again, it didn't matter. Fed started so quickly. And the drop in the percentage is probably from after he went up 4-0 love and was finally broken for the first time of the day. And then in the 5th set he only served at 60%. He just didn't get it done in the tiebreak in the two sets he served high percentages. After he lost the first tiebreak I was like, well, he'll have another chance. And he did. But he actually never did better than the first set tiebreak. Novak just doing to Fed what he's done to everyone else on tour in tiebreaks his entire career. Djokovic just the steadier player from the baseline and even if he doesn't break, he's usually the guy that gets points on your service game more than you on his. And when he needs his serve the most, he comes up good. So in a tiebreak, he keeps winning those points on your serve that came to nothing during the games. But in the tiebreak they matter. When Fed turned around that first set tiebreak, I thought he had it. And then Fed choked a point or two. But Djokovic snatched it with some great play too.

Anyways. Just gotta remember that the match first serve percentage is just an average of the whole match. Looking at the sets helps show how it all went down a little better. Still. You're not entirely wrong. Because he served at 60% in the final set. But I mean. It was 24 games long plus a tiebreak. It was a 6th set. And while he was broken once in the 5th set and once in the 6th set, I'd be curious to see the percentages for those two halves of the 5th set. Because I felt like his serve just completely disappeared late.

But for Djokovic to feel so confident that he could manage Fed when he really needed to that he felt like he could just go away and drop the second and fourth sets, says a ton to me. In the heat of the moment, he believes that when he needs to (so 3 out of 5 sets) he's better than Fed in most categories and can manage Fed. And he was right. He trusted that Fed couldn't keep it up. That Fed couldn't return that well when Djokovic made sure the first serve was in. Anyways. There are plenty of keys to the match. Y'all are discussing one of the (the running defensive forehand was a HUGE weakness today). I just wanted to break down the serving stats a bit more.

As for Novak.
1st set: 54%
2nd set: 55%
3rd set: 68%
4th set: 60%
5th set: 66%

He never cracked 70% and Fed couldn't break him in the first set. So. While it feels reductionist to say this, it really came down to who won the first set. I mean. If we're going by the serve, that was Fed's best chance to win a set. And he only earned one break point opportunity. Missed it. Got up in the tiebreak with 4 straight points. Then Djokovic snatched 4 points to seal the set. If Fed had pulled out that first set, I think Djokovic would have moved heaven and earth to stay in it and force a fifth if needed and that second set let down almost certainly wouldn't have happened. But Fed would have been in a MUCH better position. To be captain obvious.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

I just watched the two mp.. Roger's 1st went into the net .the 2nd service went deep to Novak fh and it was returned deep to Roger's BH which he tried to run around to hit a FH..the next point he served down the middle and Novak blocked it short.. Roger tried an approach shot to Novak's fH and he got passed.. next two were deep returned of serve by Novak that created ufEs by Roger..Heck if Rafa played that way..I wouldn't call it donkey cock.. Really I would cherish that type of effort.

 

[the AntiPusher]

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.

Enough.of Roddick's overrated serving stats..all you have to do is stand in front of it . even with a open face Continental FH grip..to block it back.. Roddick's serve didn't have Isners or Sampras movements..Roger has all the serves .Tell me .if there were one serve for your well-being..would it be Roddick or Roger's..If you say Roddick's than you really haven't been paying attention..ask Fiero. He should be able to tell you the truth.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm not entirely certain how you two got to this point. And I don't really want to get in the middle of it. But I do wanna make a point that may be a bit nitpicky.

Fed "only" serving 25 aces in over 200 serves against NOVAK is pretty solid. I mean. First of all. You can't just count the aces. He had a TON of unreturned serves today. Djokovic gets his racket on more serves than anyone. But Fed still served 25 aces, which is a pace of 5 aces per set against the best returner of all time, in a slam final. Plus all his unreturned serves. Djokovic missed some second serve returns. And a lot of first serves were unreturnable even if he could get a racket on them. That slice serve on the deuce court out wide was very effective today. I'm mostly with you that Djokovic returned poorly today. I was so surprised by it. But so much of that was because Fed was mixing it up so well today that Djokovic had to take a step back and that gave Fed the room for that slice serve out wide on the deuce court and the wide serve on the ad court.

If you look at the set break down it's:
1st set: 68%
2nd set: 50%
3rd set: 73%
4th set: 57%
5th set: 60%

So tt was actually the 2 sets he won and then the final set that were low percentage first serves in. It didn't matter in the second set. He only had to hit 18 serves total. More importantly, he won all 9 of the first serves he hit in that set. But. Obviously, Djokovic was just releasing the tension of the first set. He came out of it alive. He knew he could play that well again and trusted that he'd be able to break or manage Fed to another tiebreak in the next sets. So after Fed broke so quickly he let the set go. It may be part of the reason he won. Then in the 4th set, again, it didn't matter. Fed started so quickly. And the drop in the percentage is probably from after he went up 4-0 love and was finally broken for the first time of the day. And then in the 5th set he only served at 60%. He just didn't get it done in the tiebreak in the two sets he served high percentages. After he lost the first tiebreak I was like, well, he'll have another chance. And he did. But he actually never did better than the first set tiebreak. Novak just doing to Fed what he's done to everyone else on tour in tiebreaks his entire career. Djokovic just the steadier player from the baseline and even if he doesn't break, he's usually the guy that gets points on your service game more than you on his. And when he needs his serve the most, he comes up good. So in a tiebreak, he keeps winning those points on your serve that came to nothing during the games. But in the tiebreak they matter. When Fed turned around that first set tiebreak, I thought he had it. And then Fed choked a point or two. But Djokovic snatched it with some great play too.

Anyways. Just gotta remember that the match first serve percentage is just an average of the whole match. Looking at the sets helps show how it all went down a little better. Still. You're not entirely wrong. Because he served at 60% in the final set. But I mean. It was 24 games long plus a tiebreak. It was a 6th set. And while he was broken once in the 5th set and once in the 6th set, I'd be curious to see the percentages for those two halves of the 5th set. Because I felt like his serve just completely disappeared late.

But for Djokovic to feel so confident that he could manage Fed when he really needed to that he felt like he could just go away and drop the second and fourth sets, says a ton to me. In the heat of the moment, he believes that when he needs to (so 3 out of 5 sets) he's better than Fed in most categories and can manage Fed. And he was right. He trusted that Fed couldn't keep it up. That Fed couldn't return that well when Djokovic made sure the first serve was in. Anyways. There are plenty of keys to the match. Y'all are discussing one of the (the running defensive forehand was a HUGE weakness today). I just wanted to break down the serving stats a bit more.

As for Novak.
1st set: 54%
2nd set: 55%
3rd set: 68%
4th set: 60%
5th set: 66%

He never cracked 70% and Fed couldn't break him in the first set. So. While it feels reductionist to say this, it really came down to who won the first set. I mean. If we're going by the serve, that was Fed's best chance to win a set. And he only earned one break point opportunity. Missed it. Got up in the tiebreak with 4 straight points. Then Djokovic snatched 4 points to seal the set. If Fed had pulled out that first set, I think Djokovic would have moved heaven and earth to stay in it and force a fifth if needed and that second set let down almost certainly wouldn't have happened. But Fed would have been in a MUCH better position. To be captain obvious.

Good post but in regards to Roger's serve his placement is a constant. He didn't place the ball any better or worse than he usually does. When I think of Roger serving well it comes down to how he's serving in the big moments and also whether he can avoid having a bunch of loose service games where he can't buy a serve when he goes something like 1/5 or 2/7 on first serves. Those have become more frequent the last year plus and has made Roger easier to break. I don't think he had many of those games vs Djokovic today but his serve went AWOL in the tiebreaks. We can't talk about Djoker's return being off and not pretend it didn't help Roger's serve look better.

 

[Carol]

The longest Wimbledon final ever, 4 hours: 57 minutes, boring, far to be a classic, and just a very fine line between to win and to lose.
I don't think both made a brilliant match but one of them had to win.
I agree Nadal played bad the last two sets vs Federer, he forgot to serve, to return, to hit well the ball and also to move well , it's like he forgot to play which means it was more mentally than anything else. But I hope to see soon something very different and I think Rafa has a good opportunity to show his good game in the USO

 

[MikeOne]

I'm not entirely certain how you two got to this point. And I don't really want to get in the middle of it. But I do wanna make a point that may be a bit nitpicky.

Fed "only" serving 25 aces in over 200 serves against NOVAK is pretty solid. I mean. First of all. You can't just count the aces. He had a TON of unreturned serves today. Djokovic gets his racket on more serves than anyone. But Fed still served 25 aces, which is a pace of 5 aces per set against the best returner of all time, in a slam final. Plus all his unreturned serves. Djokovic missed some second serve returns. And a lot of first serves were unreturnable even if he could get a racket on them. That slice serve on the deuce court out wide was very effective today. I'm mostly with you that Djokovic returned poorly today. I was so surprised by it. But so much of that was because Fed was mixing it up so well today that Djokovic had to take a step back and that gave Fed the room for that slice serve out wide on the deuce court and the wide serve on the ad court.

If you look at the set break down it's:
1st set: 68%
2nd set: 50%
3rd set: 73%
4th set: 57%
5th set: 60%

So tt was actually the 2 sets he won and then the final set that were low percentage first serves in. It didn't matter in the second set. He only had to hit 18 serves total. More importantly, he won all 9 of the first serves he hit in that set. But. Obviously, Djokovic was just releasing the tension of the first set. He came out of it alive. He knew he could play that well again and trusted that he'd be able to break or manage Fed to another tiebreak in the next sets. So after Fed broke so quickly he let the set go. It may be part of the reason he won. Then in the 4th set, again, it didn't matter. Fed started so quickly. And the drop in the percentage is probably from after he went up 4-0 love and was finally broken for the first time of the day. And then in the 5th set he only served at 60%. He just didn't get it done in the tiebreak in the two sets he served high percentages. After he lost the first tiebreak I was like, well, he'll have another chance. And he did. But he actually never did better than the first set tiebreak. Novak just doing to Fed what he's done to everyone else on tour in tiebreaks his entire career. Djokovic just the steadier player from the baseline and even if he doesn't break, he's usually the guy that gets points on your service game more than you on his. And when he needs his serve the most, he comes up good. So in a tiebreak, he keeps winning those points on your serve that came to nothing during the games. But in the tiebreak they matter. When Fed turned around that first set tiebreak, I thought he had it. And then Fed choked a point or two. But Djokovic snatched it with some great play too.

Anyways. Just gotta remember that the match first serve percentage is just an average of the whole match. Looking at the sets helps show how it all went down a little better. Still. You're not entirely wrong. Because he served at 60% in the final set. But I mean. It was 24 games long plus a tiebreak. It was a 6th set. And while he was broken once in the 5th set and once in the 6th set, I'd be curious to see the percentages for those two halves of the 5th set. Because I felt like his serve just completely disappeared late.

But for Djokovic to feel so confident that he could manage Fed when he really needed to that he felt like he could just go away and drop the second and fourth sets, says a ton to me. In the heat of the moment, he believes that when he needs to (so 3 out of 5 sets) he's better than Fed in most categories and can manage Fed. And he was right. He trusted that Fed couldn't keep it up. That Fed couldn't return that well when Djokovic made sure the first serve was in. Anyways. There are plenty of keys to the match. Y'all are discussing one of the (the running defensive forehand was a HUGE weakness today). I just wanted to break down the serving stats a bit more.

As for Novak.
1st set: 54%
2nd set: 55%
3rd set: 68%
4th set: 60%
5th set: 66%

He never cracked 70% and Fed couldn't break him in the first set. So. While it feels reductionist to say this, it really came down to who won the first set. I mean. If we're going by the serve, that was Fed's best chance to win a set. And he only earned one break point opportunity. Missed it. Got up in the tiebreak with 4 straight points. Then Djokovic snatched 4 points to seal the set. If Fed had pulled out that first set, I think Djokovic would have moved heaven and earth to stay in it and force a fifth if needed and that second set let down almost certainly wouldn't have happened. But Fed would have been in a MUCH better position. To be captain obvious.

good in depth analysis. I think that Federer fans are nitpicking what Federer didn't do to perfection but not applying same standard to Djokovic. What is the point in talking about Fed's 1st serve % without Djokovic's? So they both could've had higher %? and those stats you point to in 2nd and 4th sets say a ton, that the 1st serve % didn't matter that much. Djokovic struggled to break Fed and easy to say he just returned poorly but seriously? he returned fine, he had some great returns, Fed was smart with his placement.

In the end, nitpicking is silly. When these greats meet, they push each other to the limits, put pressure on each other and this results in moments where they have bad stretches of play. The idea that Federer can just play as he feels vs Djokovic or vice versa is absurdly retarded. Djokovic puts pressure on the server, makes them serve faster, makes them place it better, makes them think more about the serve...this can have it's toll. Similarly, i'm pretty sure Fed also affected Novak's 1st serve %. Same goes with the groundstrokes, they make things awfully tough on one another so force errors. Not to mention the tension and nerves of steel required in all those critical points in such an important match.

This nitpicking and overly critical approach is retarded, they were each facing greatness and it is extremely hard to not have lapses and play perfectly when facing greatness.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

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.

I feel like it should be clear by now that the Big 3 are more successful precisely because they do not have a serve like Isner, Roddick, Karlovic, Anderson, Tsonga, Ljubicic, Sampras, or Querrey or whoever else you wanna put in there. If you spend that much time developing your serve speed, then that's less time developing your feel for the game and point construction. Roddick had a great one two punch because the one (the serve) was so huge. AND because of placement. Roddick had great placement most of the time. He just didn't have the disguise on his serve toss that Fed has. Fed's toss is the difference. Even Novak struggles to read it because ya can't. But Fed always read Roddick's serve like a book. Pegged it so often and blocked it back so well and then obviously had the upper hand from the baseline. Because not growing up on clay hurt Roddick immensely. Compared with the greats and the big 3 that is. We've seen plenty of guys with a big serve and possibly even a better overall game not do what Roddick did. 32 titles is HUGE. All of the true greats have twice that many. But honestly, Roddick is in a class by himself. Roddick worked harder than so many people on tour. Off the court and in the match. But that's a discussion for a different time and thread. One I've made elsewhere before anyways.
But Isner and Karlovic and Anderson and Ljubicic and Querrey of course only have the serve they do because of their height. And none of them were blessed with movement. You wouldn't expect Karlovic or Isner or Anderson to have it. Anderson has the best movement of the three. But it's not exactly great. Ljubicic and Querrey maybe should have better movement. And they do have better movement than those first three. As they should. But they are nothing like these kids we're seeing now. Tsitsipas and Zverev and Medvedev and Khachanov and FAA and Hurkacz even. They are all 6'5" or 6'6" and all move like they're 6'3" max. Which is why they are winning more than most and why, eventually, they ARE going to take over. They have to. They may never be able to put Djokovic or Nadal completely out to pasture. But eventually they'll be ruling the roost. The game is skewing HUGE. And there isn't much we can do about it.

But the discussion of whether Fed's serve is better than these guys or not... Well it's sort of moot. But it's a difficult one if you're gonna have it. As I said. The disguise on the toss is a huge factor for Fed. And therefore sets him apart in this discussion a bit. His placement is truly brilliant. He mixes it up probably better than anyone. He is pinpoint accurate. But to be pinpoint accurate, you have to go for less. Isner and the rest are stretching the speed. Hitting it nearly as hard as they can. Just get it past the opponent or make it impossible to get back in the court. Fed is certainly capable of 135. But he hasn't hit that in years because he's never gonna go for that. That's his top speed for the most part. Isner's top speed may be 150 or 155 or whatever. But he hangs around 130 because at 6'10" that's easy. Even over 30. It's just geometry. And body weight behind the service motion. And he is very accurate. Even pinpoint accurate. But his margins are bigger. He can afford to hit it further inside the box because it's at 135. Fed cannot. And he still holds at a very high level. Or has over the course of his career. There's a lot of nuance to this discussion.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Why was it "underwhelming"? Because both players do things that give the other trouble? That always has been the case and always will be the case when they play each other.

For example, Novak's excessive double-faulting;

He played a 5-hour match that was played at an insane level. There were over 400 total points played and many of them entailed excruciating rallies. Double faults in that context are excusable.

his less than par returning, especially on second serves,

Federer's serving today was simply outstanding. I don't fault Djokovic for having trouble returning.

his going AWOL for the 2nd set.

Fatigue from an amazing first set, mental toll from the first set, plus pacing himself. Plus the fact that grass court tennis is more seamless for Federer than it is Djokovic. That's why that happened.

For Roger, his first serve was great, but his second serve was weak.

Why was his second serve irregularly "weak"? Simply because he lost the match? Federer dominated in his service games and most of his serves were insanely well-placed.

His backhand was inconsistent

It always has been, including in matches that he won. Why single out today? If anything, it was better than usual given how punishing it was at times.

and his forehand wasn't blistering, with tons of errors.

He also hit an insane number of winners and dictated the majority of rallies with it. Nothing new here that he hit some errors.

He looked great at times,

As in 80% of the time. He played phenomenally.

but was also hesitant and defensive for a lot of the match, especially in crucial moments.

He was hesitant in the tiebreaks and when he had the match points because he did not trust his backhand to hold up in long rallies and he knew that Djokovic's defense was terrific.

 

[kskate2]

just pruned the shoutbox.[/i]

 

[calitennis127]

What utter BS. A letdown might have been predictable, but a full-on walkabout was not.

You're saying that because you're a stathead who does not relate to the hyper-intense athletic mentality on the court. You treat these guys like they are simply robots making the numbers in the box score change.

This is the bottom line: GRASS COURT TENNIS IS EASIER AND MORE NATURAL FOR FEDERER THAN DJOKOVIC. Period. End of story. Both guys know it. Plus, the level in the first set was out-of-this-world and both players treated it like it was a 5th set. Djokovic was relieved to pull it out. Plus he knew it was a long match. You put those factors together and you should not be surprised at all that the set went 6-1.

If anything, a great champion should streak ahead with a lead.

You mean like Djokovic did against Nadal in Melbourne? Lol....had to say it. The difference between that day and what just happened with Federer is that it is much easier for Djokovic to play Nadal at the Australian Open than Federer at Wimbledon. The level of what he is facing is not even comparable.

Djokovic is 32 to Roger's 37...no excuse for being gassed in the 2nd.

Are you still making this asinine reference to age? People were calling Federer too old at 26 and 27, and we see how wrong they were. I have been arguing against that nonsense for 10 years with you all now.

You should judge players on an individual talent and individual fitness basis instead of stereotyping them based on age. There are plenty of players 30+ who are more fit than younger guys. In Federer's case, he is blessed with extraordinary athleticism and graceful movement, plus he takes excellent care of his body. Today's match was not lost because of age, especially when you factor in how perfect Federer's game is for grass and how much adrenaline was pumping inside both of them.

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.

Because you don't understand the psychology of players, that's why. My point is not that Federer's backhand is horrible or that he can't do damage with it. To the contrary, it has always been a shotamking weapon, and I think Ljubicic (plus the new racquet) has him punishing a number of BH's that he did not previously. The point I have been making for years is that no matter how explosive Fed's BH can be at times, it does not hold up in long rallies the way the best two-handed BH's do - and Federer and his opponents know it. This is why he is likely to go for more and make unforced errors in tight spots. He doesn't trust his backhand to hold up in very long rallies and for good reason; it is not as solid a rally shot as the best two-handed BH's out there.

 

[tenisplayrla08]

Good post but in regards to Roger's serve his placement is a constant. He didn't place the ball any better or worse than he usually does. When I think of Roger serving well it comes down to how he's serving in the big moments and also whether he can avoid having a bunch of loose service games where he can't buy a serve when he goes something like 1/5 or 2/7 on first serves. Those have become more frequent the last year plus and has made Roger easier to break. I don't think he had many of those games vs Djokovic today but his serve went AWOL in the tiebreaks. We can't talk about Djoker's return being off and not pretend it didn't help Roger's serve look better.

I am FULLY with you on the last year. I mean. It's been frustrating. But today in particular... I'm still partial to the flip side of what you're saying. I do agree that Djokovic didn't return well today. But I also think the vast majority of that was due to Fed mixing it up so very well. Because... it's a bit of a conflicting argument here, but. Fed had so many unreturned serves that Novak got a racket on. And then there were still plenty that Novak got a racket on and got into play, but not well enough and Fed had the point by his second shot or by his 4th shot. While those two ... symptoms seem contradictory, I think they are symptoms of the fact that Novak had a split second less to get to them because 1) Fed's serve is so well disguised and 2) he was completely unpredictable today so Novak had to take a step back, which just opened more options for Fed. I didn't notice Djokovic pegging Fed's down the T serve on the ad court until late in the match. Like 4th set. He started returning that one with more on it with much more regularity. He was more ready for that one by then. But it took him over 3 sets to figure it out a bit. Also, Fed had probably slowed down a bit by then. And of course some of those were second serves.

I also disagree that his serve went AWOL in the tiebreaks. He did miss first serves. But Djokovic always wins a few points on your serve in the games. That adds up in a tiebreak. It's a super obvious thing to say. But it's how Fed has dominated tiebreaks his entire career. It's almost fair that he's losing them now. I'm giving Djokovic more credit for winning the tiebreaks than Fed losing them. I think he deserves that. I think he managed Fed into those tiebreaks for that precise reason. He trusted that he'd win more points on Fed's serve, first serve or not, than Fed would on his. And he was right all three times. They started the day at 12-12 in tiebreaks. Fed added none to that. I was begging him to level it up at 13-13 in the third set tiebreak. But he just couldn't get it done. Because Djokovic was too solid, on serve and the ground, when he needed to be. As it should be.

Fed is amazing. For his age. And the age difference has always been there. It benefited Fed early on. Then was neutral for a few years. But now it is a liability. Has been for a while. But never moreso than now surely. At 37 almost 38, you are bound to miss more than you used to and for most players,vmore than your opponent. That's not true for Fed against everyone but Djokovic and Nadal (on MOST days). And really. This fortnight it was just Djokovic. I mean. All those damn shanks today. Oy. But. I think moreso than you or I, Fed accepts that he's had a truly great run and that his biggest opponents are almost 5 and almost 6 years younger than him and there's a point where that starts to become a real problem. And he's going to be the underdog in those matchups. I think for Fed today he will go home and say that he did what he was supposed to and more. He faltered in the tiebreaks where it mattered. But he got there. He'll certainly be frustrated with himself. Bitterly disappointed he couldn't hold for the title. Hopefully furious that he couldn't get any of the tiebreaks, especially that first one. But he made another grand slam final. He beat Rafa in a slam. AND, after their last 2 finals here, today was a big improvement. But Fed, more than anyone, knows how good Djokovic has been in his prime and he respects that. Because he knows how good he was in his prime as well. And Nadal in his. Because he was there for all of them. So he'll say, I went out there, I missed plenty, but I gave the guy a ton of looks, I played my game, I had a lot of success, and he was too good. If he's too good for how I played today, he deserves to win. He found lines. He dealt with when I found the line. He passed me at the net even though I won a ton at the net. I made poor approach shots and great approach shots. Of course, I didn't watch his presser so I don't know what he did in fact say. But Fed still has to take a ton of positives out of this tournament. It's always crushing to lose these finals, especially when they are this close and definitely when you served for it. But he knows it's an uphill battle against Novak from the first ball to the last.

 

[lob]

The discussion has been insightful. Let's also look at a few facts. I tried not to cherry pick. I have my opinion, but then, I also have an asshole.

1. RF has won a higher % of tie-breaks (65.1 per cent) than anyone in history. That includes Isner, Ivo, Sampras and Roddick.
   
2. RF has won 70 per cent of his tie-breaks in Grand Slam finals.
   
3. ND has won his last five tie breaks with RF. Y'day (and in Paris), ND couldn't win a single set without forcing a tiebreak.
4. RF outplayed ND y'day in Aces, winners, net plays, and breakpoints. RF won 14 more points overall in the match.
5. RF played RN and KN in SF and QF. ND did not play a top 20 seeded player in earlier rounds.
6. Djokovic’s win-percentage after taking the first set is 96, the highest in history. He knew it. RF had to have known it.
7. ND is 6.75 years younger than RF. ND practices arguably the most thorough physical and mental fitness regimen in pro-tennis.
8. The final, at four hours, 57 minutes, was also the longest in tournament history (since 1877).
9. RF lost two consecutive championship points on his own serve.
10. RF got broken after never being a break down until he had two championship points.
11. RF has lost at least 7 match points at SF/F level of a grand slam. 6 of them to ND.
12. The last time a Wimbledon men's runner up lost match points in the final was 71 years ago, in 1948.

Q1. When was the last time an ATP grand slam runner up had two consecutive match points on his own serve?
Q2. How many match points have either ND or RN lost in SF/F stage of grand slams?

As to what all that means, I leave that judgement to you.

 

[britbox]

I don't think it's rocket science. Federer, for the most part, was the better player. Djokovic played the big points better when it mattered. If these two are close then Federer blinks first. Most of the other stuff is emotional fluff from wounded fans.

 

[Front242]

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

Try re-reading your post where you claimed Nadal choked in the finals of the 2012 and 2017 AO if you want an example of that. I know perfectly well what I'm talking about and neither of those were chokes. In the first match he missed one measly point at 4-2 30-15 and that game was far from over. It was only 30-30 after that ffs. Stop overreacting.

The AO 2017, as has been pointed out many times, should have been over in 3 sets lol. The guy who fucked up there was Federer for not finishing him off in 3 or worst case scenario 4 sets. Don't fool yourself. Roger played extremely well from 1-3 in set 5 but it should never have reached a 5th set anyway.

 

[Jelenafan]

I don't think it's rocket science. Federer, for the most part, was the better player. Djokovic played the big points better when it mattered. If these two are close then Federer blinks first. Most of the other stuff is emotional fluff from wounded fans.

DJokovic is 3-0 in Wimbledon finals with Federer in what many claim is Federer’s best surface, that’s enough to elicit emotional fluff.

I find it hard to consider someone the greatest on a surface when you lose all three finals you play with one of your greatest rivals....

 

[Mastoor]

Hello fellow No1e fans. Congratulations! I hope you survived 5 hours of suffering those Federer's hooligans.

I hoped No1e will lift up his game but it didn't happen. However, he managed to do what was most important that is to be better than Fed in tiebreaks and that was enough for victory.

This is a list of what Nole achieved with this win:

1. His fifth Wimbledon (3rd equal with Borg after Fed & Sampras)
   
   
2. His 16th slam
   
   
3. 72nd Wimbledon match won (3rd best ever after Fed & Connors, overpassed Becker)
   
   
4. Improved head to head with Fed 27-22 (4-1 in slam finals)
   
   
5. Improved number of top 10 wins
   
   
6. Improved the points difference with #2 to 4,470 points and came to #1 position in ATP race
   
   
7. Qualified for end of year tournament
   
   
8. First equal with Fed at big titles won with 54 each
   

 

[don_fabio]

@Moxie Just a small correction, Fed was not serving at 5:4 lead in the 3rd set, he had a BP on Novak serve

@MikeOne Glad you mentioned how Novak looked ill at some point. It is also bizzarre to me, as he was gassed out and pushed by Fed and he dipped in energy a lot. His face looked like it changed colour, I don't know it looked like something was odd. He recovered later obviously.

 

[Jelenafan]

[QUOTE="Mastoor, post: 393103, member: 19]

1. Improved the points difference with #2 to 4,470 points and came to #1 position in ATP race

[/QUOTE]

Certainly looks like he’ll match Sampras open tennis record of six years ranked # 1 at YE.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Try re-reading your post where you claimed Nadal choked in the finals of the 2012 and 2017 AO if you want an example of that. I know perfectly well what I'm talking about and neither of those were chokes. In the first match he missed one measly point at 4-2 30-15 and that game was far from over. It was only 30-30 after that ffs. Stop overreacting.

The AO 2017, as has been pointed out many times, should have been over in 3 sets lol. The guy who fucked up there was Federer for not finishing him off in 3 or worst case scenario 4 sets. Don't fool yourself. Roger played extremely well from 1-3 in set 5 but it should never have reached a 5th set anyway.

Nadal definitely choked in 2012. It wasn't just a "measly" point, it was a backhand from almost inside the service box into the open court, that he missed. He would have been up 4-2 40-15 in the fifth.

He didn't choke in 2017 but how the fuck should it have been over in 3 sets?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also for all the talk about Nadal failing to beat a sub-par Djokovic at Wimbledon last year, I'd say Novak played considerably better in than fifth set that he did yesterday in the fifth. To be honest, neither guy played especially well. For a classic, the level of tennis was not high at all, and Roger's ground game looked way off. Any backhand that was not a slice had essentially 50/50 chances of landing in, and even less so of causing any damage, and his forehand was as pedestrian as I've seen in a while. The big difference is that grass allows him to construct points with craftiness and the slice is more effective so he can throw Novak off. But if they were to play on hards I really think Roger gets clobbered as he just doesn't hit cleanly enough vs. Novak and hasn't in years (which is weird considering how much better he hits the ball vs. Nadal nowadays).