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

[MikeOne]

LMAO. This guy gets his argument torn in every post, resorts to "yadayadayada" then calls others lazy.

Torn by who? The yadayada is for a poster in here who seems to be on drugs..

 

[Bonaca]

The approach was terrible and that's the point. It was a bad decision, bad execution, and visibly nervous (as evidenced by Roger falling apart quickly afterwards and getting broken).

You are right. Looking only at Fed, you are absolutely right.
But there is not only Fed to look at. A match depends on both players.
When only looking at these two points and only on Fed , exclude everything else, then you are right. Finito.
My point and I think also of some others is , that this is not the whole story of the match.

 

[MikeOne]

Did federer fans criticize roddick’s approaches vs federer, time and and time again, kamikaze style? Nahhh! They instead admired the Glorious passing shots fed hit. Never once did they tear apart the hundreds of times roddick came in behind shots that made federer’s approach on sunday seem perfect. I recall when fed crushed roddick in 07 AO... that was a 101 on how not to approach the net. I don’t recall fed fanboys flooding forums on how horrible the approach shots were, instead they were orgasmic, talking about what amazing passing shots fed hit. Substitute fed for roddick and djokovic for fed and all of a sudden, the passing shots are crap and so are the approach shots. Lol

 

[calitennis127]

Did federer fans criticize roddick’s approaches vs federer, time and and time again, kamikaze style? Nahhh! They instead admired the Glorious passing shots fed hit. Never once did they tear apart the hundreds of times roddick came in behind shots that made federer’s approach on sunday seem perfect. I recall when fed crushed roddick in 07 AO... that was a 101 on how not to approach the net. I don’t recall fed fanboys flooding forums on how horrible the approach shots were, instead they were orgasmic, talking about what amazing passing shots fed hit. Substitute fed for roddick and djokovic for fed and all of a sudden, the passing shots are crap and so are the approach shots. Lol

Completely right. Darth's double standards are preposterous. I should also add that Roddick finished his career with a winning record against Djokovic so I'm sure more than a few of those kamikaze bull rushes to the net drew errors from Djokovic.

 

[britbox]

Christ on a bike... has one-shot ever come under the microscope so much?

Fed comes in on an ill-timed approach, that you "kind of get" as a changeup to keep Novak guessing - probably better employed when he's 30-0 up or similar, rather than in this particular situation.

Not a huge amount of pace behind it... Novak doesn't have to work hard to make a play on the ball... a couple of split steps... doesn't really have to make much of a decision, because Fed's locked out the DTL option with his positioning and plays a well-executed cross-court pass.

Novak executes and took care of business... Kudos, but how this is being elevated to one of the greatest shots in tennis history is beyond me.

 

[MikeOne]

Completely right. Darth's double standards are preposterous. I should also add that Roddick finished his career with a winning record against Djokovic so I'm sure more than a few of those kamikaze bull rushes to the net drew errors from Djokovic.

Roddick’s serve troubled novak, strangely. But those losses came mainly when novak’s game was in disarray. Remember all that nonsense when djokovic was retiring from matches, including one against roddick at AO? Same period when his serve went away.. nadal and fed also feasted on novak during this period.. think it was 09 and first half of 2010... one of novak’s bad stretches.

 

[MikeOne]

Christ on a bike... has one-shot ever come under the microscope so much?

Fed comes in on an ill-timed approach, that you "kind of get" as a changeup to keep Novak guessing - probably better employed when he's 30-0 up or similar, rather than in this particular situation.

Not a huge amount of pace behind it... Novak doesn't have to work hard to make a play on the ball... a couple of split steps... doesn't really have to make much of a decision, because Fed's locked out the DTL option with his positioning and plays a well-executed cross-court pass.

Novak executes and took care of business... Kudos, but how this is being elevated to one of the greatest shots in tennis history is beyond me.

And tell me who here is saying it’s one of the greatest shots in history? On the contrary, we are countering the opposite position - that it was a horrendous approach and a crap, easy passing shot that novak would make 10/10 times as darth puts it. You agree?

 

[britbox]

And tell me who here is saying it’s one of the greatest shots in history? On the contrary, we are countering the opposite position - that it was a horrendous approach and a crap, easy passing shot that novak would make 10/10 times as darth puts it. You agree?

I discussed it with Cali earlier in the thread. I'd expect Novak to make that passing shot. 100% of the time - obviously no, but as a routine pass, then yes.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Andy Roddick went 5-4 against Djokovic including a 4-match winning streak. We all know that Djokovic is not perfect. We have all seen him miss routine shots before and he very well could have on that point.

If Djokovic was perfect he would not have lost 4 times in a row to Roddick like he did.

None of that has shit to do with Roger's approach being good or not. Federer is a much better player and shotmaker than Roddick so the standards are infinitely higher. Bringing up the Roddick/Djokovic h2h to justify a poor shot by Federer is a whole new level of reaching.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If Djokovic's shot placement had not been that perfect, Federer may have very well gotten a racquet on it and finished the point.

But let me try for the 100th time: if you had been able to tell Federer what to do on that 40-30 point (other than go for an ace), what do you think he should have done that would have definitively won it?

...not be terrified of rallying and constructing the point? Hit a an aggressive forehand and stay back? Anything that isn't a suicidal approach?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Did federer fans criticize roddick’s approaches vs federer, time and and time again, kamikaze style? Nahhh! They instead admired the Glorious passing shots fed hit. Never once did they tear apart the hundreds of times roddick came in behind shots that made federer’s approach on sunday seem perfect. I recall when fed crushed roddick in 07 AO... that was a 101 on how not to approach the net. I don’t recall fed fanboys flooding forums on how horrible the approach shots were, instead they were orgasmic, talking about what amazing passing shots fed hit. Substitute fed for roddick and djokovic for fed and all of a sudden, the passing shots are crap and so are the approach shots. Lol

The standards for a 20 time GS champion are not the same as they are for Andy fucking Roddick you logically challenged buffoon. So no, you never "substitute Fed for Roddick" because they're in different stratospheres and one is capable of much more, so when he hits a terrible shot, it stands out and it deserves to be criticized. This is beyond stupid.

 

[DarthFed]

And what Federer did was nowhere near that bad, don't be ridiculous.

Why don't you just admit you are looking at this with a meathead mentality of who won and who lost? I have asked you about 5 times now what you would have preferred that Federer do in that situation and you have zero answers. I also laid out an array of possibilities of what could have gone wrong if he was more aggressive and you were silent about that. If he had been aggressive and missed, you would have said he was too jumpy and impatient. If he had worked a long rally and missed a BH, you would have said he was too much of a chicken to pull the trigger.

Why don't you just admit that you have no idea what he should have done in that scenario and are just mad that he lost? The closest thing I have gotten from anyone as a strategic alternative to what he actually did is Ricardo saying he should have gone for an ace, which I agree with. But none of you Monday morning quarterbacks have offered a single suggestion for how he could have constructed a point in a way that would have definitively and surely won it.

I told you multiple times what he should've done including going for a big serve. Even with that mediocre serve he still had control of the point, and therefore should've hit an aggressive approach instead of a lame duck. Then after hitting that awful approach he should have realized he can't follow it into net because it was an easy pass. Simple as that.

 

[calitennis127]

I told you multiple times what he should've done including going for a big serve. Even with that mediocre serve he still had control of the point, and therefore should've hit an aggressive approach instead of a lame duck. Then after hitting that awful approach he should have realized he can't follow it into net because it was an easy pass. Simple as that.

Okay, so if he went for an aggressive approach and hit it wide or long, then what? Would you have said it was the most pathetic, horrible, awful shot of his life? I think so.

You are failing to recognize that the dynamic of that moment is totally different. Players become more subconscious in those moments and don't play off instinct as much. So a clear plan is needed and you still aren't offering one except that he either a) should have been more aggressive, which could have easily led to an error, or b) should have stayed back in which case he easily could have gotten bogged down in a long rally where he missed.

 

[DarthFed]

Find me the post where I've ever said Roger was invincible in his prime? Any? Just more BS from posters that put words in everyone's mouths.

But I do love the Djoker narrative here. He wins 1 match at frickin Toronto in 2007 and according to Mike this is proof baby Djokovic gave him hell in his prime. Are we ignoring the rest of 2007 and everything else before 2011? The fact he is struggling to beat a 38 year old isn't encouraging for the growing Novak is God crew. Roger should be taken out in straights every fucking match by Rafa and Novak at this point. And I mean EVERY match. This isn't exactly a great look for them.

 

[calitennis127]

Christ on a bike... has one-shot ever come under the microscope so much?

Fed comes in on an ill-timed approach, that you "kind of get" as a changeup to keep Novak guessing - probably better employed when he's 30-0 up or similar, rather than in this particular situation.

Not a huge amount of pace behind it... Novak doesn't have to work hard to make a play on the ball... a couple of split steps... doesn't really have to make much of a decision, because Fed's locked out the DTL option with his positioning and plays a well-executed cross-court pass.

Novak executes and took care of business... Kudos, but how this is being elevated to one of the greatest shots in tennis history is beyond me.

I am giving Djokovic credit for two things here:

1) Striking it and placing it perfectly where Federer could not get a racquet on it, and

2) Hitting it that perfectly in that moment.

Djokovic very easily could have netted it or shanked it or put extra air under it that would have allowed Federer to get a racquet on it. But he didn't.

I think you and Broken both tend to be blind to the emotions of a match at times. You have a legal disposition, as if you are examining laws and writing a deposition. Sometimes you have to pay attention to the emotions of the moment. A tennis match in the 5th set of Wimbledon is not the same as investigating a case for the Justice Department.

 

[calitennis127]

Find me the post where I've ever said Roger was invincible in his prime? Any? Just more BS from posters that put words in everyone's mouths.

It's implied in your analysis.

But I do love the Djoker narrative here. He wins 1 match at frickin Toronto in 2007 and according to Mike this is proof baby Djokovic gave him hell in his prime. Are we ignoring the rest of 2007 and everything else before 2011? The fact he is struggling to beat a 38 year old isn't encouraging for the growing Novak is God crew. Roger should be taken out in straights every fucking match by Rafa and Novak at this point. And I mean EVERY match. This isn't exactly a great look for them.

Or maybe you make way too big a deal out of age, and you are doing it right now especially because you are partisan toward Federer and you want to excuse his various losses to Djokovic and Nadal.

 

[DarthFed]

Okay, so if he went for an aggressive approach and hit it wide or long, then what? Would you have said it was the most pathetic, horrible, awful shot of his life? I think so.

You are failing to recognize that the dynamic of that moment is totally different. Players become more subconscious in those moments and don't play off instinct as much. So a clear plan is needed and you still aren't offering one except that he either a) should have been more aggressive, which could have easily led to an error, or b) should have stayed back in which case he easily could have gotten bogged down in a long rally where he missed.

No one is claiming Roger for sure hits a winner off that return, of course he could have missed but his chances of winning the point against Djokovic, any point for that matter, are much higher when he's aggressive. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. His vanilla play worked right in Djokovic's favor and the results were predictable.

 

[calitennis127]

No one is claiming Roger for sure hits a winner off that return, of course he could have missed but his chances of winning the point against Djokovic, any point for that matter, are much higher when he's aggressive. This isn't a hard concept to grasp. His vanilla play worked right in Djokovic's favor and the results were predictable.

Okay, so at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak he went for an aggressive FH winner and gave Djokovic a cheap point at 5-4 and that turned around the tiebreak. Were you cool with that? Or did you consider that a choke too?

It sounds to me like your definition of a "choke" is Federer losing period. If he is aggressive and misses, he chokes. If he is conservative and Djokovic makes a great shot, it's also choking. There is no way Federer cannot choke in your book except by winning.

 

[MikeOne]

The standards for a 20 time GS champion are not the same as they are for Andy fucking Roddick you logically challenged buffoon. So no, you never "substitute Fed for Roddick" because they're in different stratospheres and one is capable of much more, so when he hits a terrible shot, it stands out and it deserves to be criticized. This is beyond stupid.

No it’s not, a passing shot is a passing shot and an approach shot is an approach shot, doesn’t matter who is producing the shots, silly boy.

 

[MikeOne]

I discussed it with Cali earlier in the thread. I'd expect Novak to make that passing shot. 100% of the time - obviously no, but as a routine pass, then yes.

He put on the line britbox, with federer closing the net, down match point. Even your bias shows a bit, you are for sure a bigger fan of fed than novak.