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

[calitennis127]

Will you guys stop with the strawman bullshit? Nobody's saying he should have been perfect (and this "A+"). Just maybe not go for the wrong shot selection with bad execution to boot? That sounds reasonable to you?

Sure, but that only answers part of the question of what to do in that scenario. Djokovic was rock-solid in rallies at the ends of sets and especially in tiebreaks. So it's not entirely self-evident what Federer should have done to win those points. You have offered nothing except a condemnation of what he did do.

Look at all the unforced errors he hit in the first two tiebreaks.....that was clearly weighing on his mind on the match points. When those points came, he had to make a split-second decision on what to do and he was obviously paranoid about getting in a long rally in light of previous forced/unforced errors. If he had stayed back and lost a rally of 8-12 shots people would have been saying that he was too much of a chicken to come to net even after having success with it.

What is comical here is that you and Britbox are talking as though those two points were like any other points in the match. They obviously weren't given the pressure and the moment. Those moments are obviously different but you are treating it like it was a matter of simple strategy, which is utterly silly.

 

[Fiero425]

Sure, but that only answers part of the question of what to do in that scenario. Djokovic was rock-solid in rallies at the ends of sets and especially in tiebreaks. So it's not entirely self-evident what Federer should have done to win those points. You have offered nothing except a condemnation of what he did do.

Look at all the unforced errors he hit in the first two tiebreaks.....that was clearly weighing on his mind on the match points. When those points came, he had to make a split-second decision on what to do and he was obviously paranoid about getting in a long rally in light of previous forced/unforced errors. If he had stayed back and lost a rally of 8-12 shots people would have been saying that he was too much of a chicken to come to net even after having success with it.

What is comical here is that you and Britbox are talking as though those two points were like any other points in the match. They obviously weren't given the pressure and the moment. Those moments are obviously different but you are treating it like it was a matter of simple strategy, which is utterly silly.

Back in the day, a top player could summon up an ACE to finish off a match! It was the strategy then and still is for someone like IVO! :whistle:

 

[shawnbm]

Back in the day, a top player could summon up an ACE to finish off a match! It was the strategy then and still is for someone like IVO! :whistle:

It is interesting you say that because it was actually an ace that Roger Federer hit to give himself the two championship points. But he was unable to have another one to actually win the championship.

 

[calitennis127]

Back in the day, a top player could summon up an ACE to finish off a match! It was the strategy then and still is for someone like IVO! :whistle:

I agree and I have said multiple times in this thread that an ace would have been ideal. But my question has repeatedly been this: short of an ace, what should he have done?

Broken, amidst all of his name-calling after this diet-like transformation to his identity, still has not answered that question. Nor did Darth. They have just said that he shouldn't have done what he did do.

 

[shawnbm]

Useless to speculate on what could have been done. It is done and he will lament this loss more than any other in his career, I dare say even more than 2008 because of the history behind this one and beating them both back to back at almost 38. He at least knows he can do it, so that should give him some degree of consolation and confidence going forward.

 

[DarthFed]

I agree and I have said multiple times in this thread that an ace would have been ideal. But my question has repeatedly been this: short of an ace, what should he have done?

Broken, amidst all of his name-calling after this diet-like transformation to his identity, still has not answered that question. Nor did Darth. They have just said that he shouldn't have done what he did do.

This is just baiting at this point. I think I've said multiple times what he should've done. Go for a big first serve (he didn't), then when hitting Novak's return which clearly didn't neutralize the point, go for an aggressive approach shot preferably into the forehand corner (he didn't), and finally after hitting a terrible approach shot he should've realized no chance in hell to come to net where he would be easily passed(he went anyways and was easily passed).

 

[Front242]

I agree and I have said multiple times in this thread that an ace would have been ideal. But my question has repeatedly been this: short of an ace, what should he have done?

Broken, amidst all of his name-calling after this diet-like transformation to his identity, still has not answered that question. Nor did Darth. They have just said that he shouldn't have done what he did do.

I think he should have gone for a very well placed body serve with decent pace 'cos even if Djokovic got a racquet on it, it would've been blocked back and Roger could have run to the net for a relatively easy put away, or the body serve may simply have made it an unreturnable serve. Hope that was the last brain fart for the rest of his slam career. This loss, the one last year against Anderson at Wimbledon, the US Open 2009 final and 2 USO semis lost against Djokovic where he had 2 match points in each match imo rank as his worst career losses and could well have cost him his GOAT status.

 

[brokenshoelace]

What is comical here is that you and Britbox are talking as though those two points were like any other points in the match. They obviously weren't given the pressure and the moment. Those moments are obviously different but you are treating it like it was a matter of simple strategy, which is utterly silly.

No, indeed they weren't like any other two points, but that is the thing: Federer played them shakily, and nerves affected him. And that is what indicates a choke. This doesn't make Djokovic any less clutch, as he could have faltered, but didn't.

 

[calitennis127]

This is just baiting at this point. I think I've said multiple times what he should've done. Go for a big first serve (he didn't), then when hitting Novak's return which clearly didn't neutralize the point, go for an aggressive approach shot preferably into the forehand corner (he didn't)

Right, so you wanted him to be aggressive and if he had missed that "aggressive approach" you would have likely criticized him for poor shot selection. Would you have been okay if he was more aggressive and missed? Were you okay with what he did at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak? He went for a decisive winner there and missed wide, which turned the whole tiebreak around.

 

[DarthFed]

Right, so you wanted him to be aggressive and if he had missed that "aggressive approach" you would have likely criticized him for poor shot selection. Would you have been okay if he was more aggressive and missed? Were you okay with what he did at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak? He went for a decisive winner there and missed wide, which turned the whole tiebreak around.

Yes I was way more ok with that miss at 5-3 in the TB than the 2nd MP.

Here's the thing you and Mike don't get with this "what if he went for a shot and missed" simpleton stuff. This like many other sports is a game of %'s. Roger's best chance vs. Novak, Rafa and most players is aggressive, first-strike tennis. It is what brought him to MP's to begin with. Roger's % to win the point went down by attempting a weak first serve, and then despite having the clear edge in the point and having a chance to take control and possibly quickly end the point he hit a very timid approach shot. His chances of winning the point went way down after that shot, yet if he didn't panic and accepted his shot was not good enough to come to net, he'd at least have been close to neutral. By coming to net his % chance to win the point went down close to zero. Novak ain't missing that shot in an important moment no matter how hard you guys (hilariously) try to claim it was. Routine cross court pass, tons of time, tons of open court. Nole cut it a lot closer than he had to. He is making that 9/10 at least.

 

[Fiero425]

Right, so you wanted him to be aggressive and if he had missed that "aggressive approach" you would have likely criticized him for poor shot selection. Would you have been okay if he was more aggressive and missed? Were you okay with what he did at 5-3 in the first set tiebreak? He went for a decisive winner there and missed wide, which turned the whole tiebreak around.

These days courage is rewarded over playing it safe! There's a reason the top players are "the top players!" They play with conviction and confidence; Fed's losing his even with current success against Rafa! He still can't catch up in the H2H due to being owned early on! :whistle:

 

[don_fabio]

People are getting obsessed with this approach shot on MP, they even made comparison with 2012 against Murray

 

[Fiero425]

People are getting obsessed with this approach shot on MP, they even made comparison with 2012 against Murray

...Which would be ridiculous! Even with Murray's early success against Roger, he wound up being Fed's b!tch, rarely winning when it counted except at the 2012 Olympics on home grass, Wimbledon! It was unfortunate for Andy that Fedalovic happened along in his era, restricting him to only crumbs on tour and holding the #1 ranking for about 5 minutes! :whistle:

 

[DarthFed]

People are getting obsessed with this approach shot on MP, they even made comparison with 2012 against Murray

Approach shot against Murray was pretty poor too but clearly better than the one against Djokovic. Of course part of this story is "play your opponent". Djokovic is a close 2nd to Nadal in passing shots, you can't come in on junk against those guys or you're toast. Even a good approach shot sometimes isn't enough against them but you better at least come in on something decent if you are going to have a chance.

 

[MikeOne]

Approach shot against Murray was pretty poor too but clearly better than the one against Djokovic. Of course part of this story is "play your opponent". Djokovic is a close 2nd to Nadal in passing shots, you can't come in on junk against those guys or you're toast. Even a good approach shot sometimes isn't enough against them but you better at least come in on something decent if you are going to have a chance.

This is a freaking joke now... you are not even aware of the garbage you spew anymore

Murray’s strong suit is passing, he loves a target, just like hewitt did. As a premier defender who moves well and has good touch, he is as good as anyone passing.

That approach against murray was almost identical to the one against djokovic, murray missed, novak made it. Federer played it smart, he wasn’t confident from the back court, came in, forced novak to paint the line, under pressure.

Djokovic came up BIG, end of it.

 

[Hamidreza Roohian]

I really think it was more than just one approach shot guys, there were so many chances throughout that you might not remember now so rewatch the match if you haven't already. The main thing was Djokovic being a mental beast at many points of the match.

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

However, the good thing is, I am one hundred percent sure that a player like Federer will not end like that He will find another high before hanging up.

 

[MikeOne]

Very interesting post. Thanks for that.

I was always curious to compare my own stat record keeping to what the 'statisticians' do during matches.

Sometimes you watch a match and the winner/UFE doesn't tell fill story. A player with 30/10 may seem to have advantage over an opponent with 15/10 but these stats only capture part of the picture. The Forced error is a very underrated stat; after all, it is an error and usually a result of quality play from the player forcing the error. So 30/10 vs 15/10 may seem like the former played better but if the forced error count is 25-8, suddenly when tallying winners vs TOTAL errors, it's now 30/35 vs 15/18.

Djokovic is very similar to Agassi in that both played a control aggression type of game. They didn't go for outright winners as often as guys like Sampras, Federer but instead forced opponents into errors by moving them from side to side. I remember many matches where Agassi seemed to have control of matches yet didn't end up with many winners, he would make opponents hit shots from difficult positions, forcing errors.

Sometimes the winner/UFE doesn't quite tell us who actually played better, it's deceiving.

 

[DarthFed]

This is a freaking joke now... you are not even aware of the garbage you spew anymore

Murray’s strong suit is passing, he loves a target, just like hewitt did. As a premier defender who moves well and has good touch, he is as good as anyone passing.

That approach against murray was almost identical to the one against djokovic, murray missed, novak made it. Federer played it smart, he wasn’t confident from the back court, came in, forced novak to paint the line, under pressure.

Djokovic came up BIG, end of it.

Man, just admit you can't even look at a video without incredible bias. I own your ass, that's why you bring me up on damn near every thread. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the approach shot vs Murray is closer to the sideline and a bit deeper. Murray actually had to move for it and hit a somewhat difficult passing shot. Truth is it wasn't a good approach and Murray probably makes that shot a good % of the time.

And Murray has as good of forehand passing shots as Djokovic? Lol!

 

[Moxie]

Man, just admit you can't even look at a video without incredible bias. I own your ass, that's why you bring me up on damn near every thread. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the approach shot vs Murray is closer to the sideline and a bit deeper. Murray actually had to move for it and hit a somewhat difficult passing shot. Truth is it wasn't a good approach and Murray probably makes that shot a good % of the time.

And Murray has as good of forehand passing shots as Djokovic? Lol!

I think you overstate how different they were. They look pretty similar to the eye. Djokovic made the pass, Murray didn't. Whether it was a great pass or poor approach, though, starts to become immaterial. Bottom line is that Roger was tight, Novak was willing to go for his shots, and it worked out for him, and in the end. I agree that it seemed that Roger was the better in many ways, in that match, but Novak played the big moments better. That's it. We can keep massaging over it, but it doesn't change the outcome. It's been a week now. Are we done?

 

[MikeOne]

Man, just admit you can't even look at a video without incredible bias. I own your ass, that's why you bring me up on damn near every thread. Anyone with a set of eyes can see the approach shot vs Murray is closer to the sideline and a bit deeper. Murray actually had to move for it and hit a somewhat difficult passing shot. Truth is it wasn't a good approach and Murray probably makes that shot a good % of the time.

And Murray has as good of forehand passing shots as Djokovic? Lol!

it's hard Darth, not sure who i have owned more, you or broken. It's close. You are more fanatical, so this gets in the way of actually seeing things clearly. Broken is more of a moron, but thinks he's smart. I have taught both you a lot, knowledge you begrudgingly accept..

NO Darth, those shot were almost mirror images of each other... Murray got to it and could've made passing shot, but not easy to do under pressure. Djokovic was forced to put the ball ON THE LINE, even a GOAT cannot do that at will. Had he not perfectly placed it like that, under pressure, Federer would've most likely won that point. OH, and NO Darth, Murrays' passing ability off fh side isn't any worse than Novak's, both have their bh as strengths, their fh passers pretty equal.

Tennis 101 Darth, sit back and learn. Heard of chip and charge? heard of putting pressure, playing the point? yeah, that is exactly what Federer tried to do. He didn't go for the risky perfect approach, he deliberately hit it and closed the net to put pressure on Novak and force Novak to make the difficult pass, yes, it was difficult..not hardest shot ever, but far from easy.

Charging the net to put pressure on opponent is something kids are taught in an early age and something players do in juniors, college, futures, satellites, atp 500, masters, slams. This is why i can literally find hundreds of volleys Federer has won behind approaches where he actually gave opponents a chance, it sometimes paid off, sometimes didn't. Djokovic came up big, accept it, bow down to him. As Federer said after the match 'novak, that was crazy'

your welcome Darth..