2019 Men’s Wimbledon SF: Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal

[Front242]

I think Novak is an average volleyer at best, so maybe he's not as complete as your making out. Sure, volleying is limited in today's game and there are a lot of nuances. On defence, I agree with you - he's probably the best in the business. Greatness? I base that on success, not on the individual makeup of a sum of dimensions. You can have incomplete players with one or two big weapons making mincemeat of otherwise more rounded technically proficient players. You don't need to be the most complete to be the more successful.

Not to mention his overheads are absolute dog shit most of the time so that's another thing against him being the most complete player.

 

[britbox]

Not to mention his overheads are absolute dog shit most of the time so that's another thing against him being the most complete player.

I guess it depends on how completeness is being defined. Maybe MikeOne is just looking at the core aspects of the modern game - solidity from the baseline, defence, transition game... etc - but Novak's volleying, overheads and overall net game are simply average. However, what Djokovic is good at, he's exceptional at.

 

[MikeOne]

I think Novak is an average volleyer at best, so maybe he's not as complete as your making out. Sure, volleying is limited in today's game and there are a lot of nuances. On defence, I agree with you - he's probably the best in the business. Greatness? I base that on success, not on the individual makeup of a sum of dimensions. You can have incomplete players with one or two big weapons making mincemeat of otherwise more rounded technically proficient players. You don't need to be the most complete to be the more successful.

You need to factor in context here. A poster here was specifically making argument federer is goat because of his game; i.e. how complete and versatile he is, not just his achievements. I was responding to that.

Djokovic’s volleys are solid.. it’s helped him win wimbledons. It’s not just me saying djokovic’s top level is prob highest ever. Many former players and tennis experts have said it, including berdych, nadal, toni nadal, bolletieri, andrew castle, rusedski, agassi and others. Look up what these folks said, not that djoker is goat but that he prob reached higher level tenniswise than even federer. There is a reason they say this, of course not all will agree.

Novak doesn’t have record in slams or weeks at #1 but achieved feats neither fed nor nadal could - winning all 4 majors in a row, winning all masters events. He has a winning record vs both of them too..

 

[shawnbm]

I think Novak is an average volleyer at best, so maybe he's not as complete as your making out. Sure, volleying is limited in today's game and there are a lot of nuances. On defence, I agree with you - he's probably the best in the business. Greatness? I base that on success, not on the individual makeup of a sum of dimensions. You can have incomplete players with one or two big weapons making mincemeat of otherwise more rounded technically proficient players. You don't need to be the most complete to be the more successful.

Pistol Pete comes to mind, as does McEnroe—neither was a top baseline defender. Novak has the poorest overhead of any great I’ve ever seen and is a mediocre volleyer of the ball, but, as you say, he has great success because of all he does so well in this tennis epoch—which is more of a defense-oriented baseline game.

 

[Ricardo]

You need to factor in context here. A poster here was specifically making argument federer is goat because of his game; i.e. how complete and versatile he is, not just his achievements. I was responding to that.

Djokovic’s volleys are solid.. it’s helped him win wimbledons. It’s not just me saying djokovic’s top level is prob highest ever. Many former players and tennis experts have said it, including berdych, nadal, toni nadal, bolletieri, andrew castle, rusedski, agassi and others. Look up what these folks said, not that djoker is goat but that he prob reached higher level tenniswise than even federer. There is a reason they say this, of course not all will agree.

Novak doesn’t have record in slams or weeks at #1 but achieved feats neither fed nor nadal could - winning all 4 majors in a row, winning all masters events. He has a winning record vs both of them too..

don't think everyone you listed compared their peak to peak, so please don't act like they did. I know you love Novak but his game is based on lockdown, and he is the best with that style...…..funny I watched his match with B Agut and how similar a game they played, and seems like the type of game more players play these days. But no matter how well he plays it, he can't lock down when offensive players (less of them these days) execute their A game. Djoker was in the form of his life at RG which he needed to complete his CGS, and was twice denied by Fed and Wawrinka who both played incredible, and there was nothing peak Novak could do.

And please spare us with your predictable excuse that Novak didn't play his top level...….he was building to that level in his prior matches, warm up tournament in fact master series, beating the clay greats.....only reason he lost was those two played offensive game too well he simply got out hit. Stan also beat peak Novak at AO, fact is his lockdown mode has its limits. It is probably the best and most efficient game, in terms of percentage. He is probably on par with Nadal, as being the best percentage player ever.

 

[calitennis127]

You need to factor in context here. A poster here was specifically making argument federer is goat because of his game; i.e. how complete and versatile he is, not just his achievements. I was responding to that.

Djokovic’s volleys are solid.. it’s helped him win wimbledons. It’s not just me saying djokovic’s top level is prob highest ever. Many former players and tennis experts have said it, including berdych, nadal, toni nadal, bolletieri, andrew castle, rusedski, agassi and others. Look up what these folks said, not that djoker is goat but that he prob reached higher level tenniswise than even federer. There is a reason they say this, of course not all will agree.

Novak doesn’t have record in slams or weeks at #1 but achieved feats neither fed nor nadal could - winning all 4 majors in a row, winning all masters events. He has a winning record vs both of them too..

I think Djokovic does have some weaknesses, two in particular:

1) He is vulnerable to an aggressive baseliner like Wawrinka or Bautista-Agut getting hot and hitting flat all over the court.

2) He tightens up in his own service games when he gets out to 30-0 and 30-15 leads, often dribbling 10+ times only to hit a meek 1st or 2nd serve.

That said, the main difference between him and Federer is the backhand. Djokovic can rally much longer and much more consistently with his.

There were backhands Djokovic hit on the stretch yesterday against Bautista-Agust that were remarkable defense-to-offense shots. They are absolutely devastating to opponents.

 

[Ricardo]

Pistol Pete comes to mind, as does McEnroe—neither was a top baseline defender. Novak has the poorest overhead of any great I’ve ever seen and is a mediocre volleyer of the ball, but, as you say, he has great success because of all he does so well in this tennis epoch—which is more of a defense-oriented baseline game.

Mac easily has better volleys than Pistol, but I actually think Novak is a very decent volleyer now...….much improved if judging by this Wimbledon. He is the best player of lockdown style, where the best weapon is his defence and this style is most efficient percentage wise.

 

[calitennis127]

But no matter how well he plays it, he can't lock down when offensive players (less of them these days) execute their A game. Djoker was in the form of his life at RG which he needed to complete his CGS, and was twice denied by Fed and Wawrinka who both played incredible, and there was nothing peak Novak could do.

I wouldn't say there was "nothing" peak Novak could do but I do agree that the likes of Federer, Wawrinka, and even Bautista-Agut playing offensive demonstrates his weaknesses.

And please spare us with your predictable excuse that Novak didn't play his top level...….he was building to that level in his prior matches, warm up tournament in fact master series, beating the clay greats.....only reason he lost was those two played offensive game too well he simply got out hit. Stan also beat peak Novak at AO, fact is his lockdown mode has its limits. It is probably the best and most efficient game, in terms of percentage. He is probably on par with Nadal, as being the best percentage player ever.

I would put Djokovic somewhere in the middle of Federer and Nadal in that regard.....he is clearly more offensive than Nadal in their H2H but less offensive than Federer. It is an excellent balance that he is afforded because of his backhand.

 

[Ricardo]

I wouldn't say there was "nothing" peak Novak could do but I do agree that the likes of Federer, Wawrinka, and even Bautista-Agut playing offensive demonstrates his weaknesses.

try and not take it so literally, of course there are always things a player could 'do', but he did perform all aspects at a high level like his prior matches. I wouldn't lump Fed, Wawrinka and Agut together as their styles are pretty different thus exposed Novak's weakness differently.

 

[britbox]

Mac easily has better volleys than Pistol, but I actually think Novak is a very decent volleyer now...….much improved if judging by this Wimbledon. He is the best player of lockdown style, where the best weapon is his defence and this style is most efficient percentage wise.

He's not an instinctive volleyer by any stretch. I'd still class him as pretty average in that department, but yeah, he's improved. None of the current crop are ever going to be mentioned in the same breath as Mac and Edberg... but in respect of how the game has evolved, it's both more difficult and less necessary. I've wondered many times in the past how Mac and Edberg would translate to the current tech and courts. Immediate thoughts are that they'd struggle like f**k, yet when the played seniors tour against newly retired players, they held their own, even though they are giving up a decade or two.

 

[britbox]

don't think everyone you listed compared their peak to peak, so please don't act like they did. I know you love Novak but his game is based on lockdown, and he is the best with that style...…..funny I watched his match with B Agut and how similar a game they played, and seems like the type of game more players play these days. But no matter how well he plays it, he can't lock down when offensive players (less of them these days) execute their A game. Djoker was in the form of his life at RG which he needed to complete his CGS, and was twice denied by Fed and Wawrinka who both played incredible, and there was nothing peak Novak could do.

And please spare us with your predictable excuse that Novak didn't play his top level...….he was building to that level in his prior matches, warm up tournament in fact master series, beating the clay greats.....only reason he lost was those two played offensive game too well he simply got out hit. Stan also beat peak Novak at AO, fact is his lockdown mode has its limits. It is probably the best and most efficient game, in terms of percentage. He is probably on par with Nadal, as being the best percentage player ever.

I was thinking about the 2011 FO Semi myself, but the Wawrinka examples are probably better.

 

[MikeOne]

don't think everyone you listed compared their peak to peak, so please don't act like they did. I know you love Novak but his game is based on lockdown, and he is the best with that style...…..funny I watched his match with B Agut and how similar a game they played, and seems like the type of game more players play these days. But no matter how well he plays it, he can't lock down when offensive players (less of them these days) execute their A game. Djoker was in the form of his life at RG which he needed to complete his CGS, and was twice denied by Fed and Wawrinka who both played incredible, and there was nothing peak Novak could do.

And please spare us with your predictable excuse that Novak didn't play his top level...….he was building to that level in his prior matches, warm up tournament in fact master series, beating the clay greats.....only reason he lost was those two played offensive game too well he simply got out hit. Stan also beat peak Novak at AO, fact is his lockdown mode has its limits. It is probably the best and most efficient game, in terms of percentage. He is probably on par with Nadal, as being the best percentage player ever.

Wrong, all these tennis people compared peak per peak. Look up their comments. They very clearly stated in their opinion, peak vs peak, djoker’s level is prob highest ever attained.

And i laugh hard at how you cherry pick fed wins over djoker and explain them away as ‘nothing djoker could do’ yet when djoker has beaten fed, dismiss it as ‘fed not at his best’. This is so laughable i wonder if you are a clown or comedian.

So you claim in 11, fed brought his A game at RG so novak couldn’t do anything. First of all that match waa extremely tight, novak was up a break to take to 5th set. And what happened in 2012 when novak beat fed at rg easily? I could easily claim ‘see, when novak on his A game, nothing fed can do’. What about when novak destroyed fed in 11 AO? Federer was playing at a very high level. What about when novak beat an on fire fed in 15 wimbledon finals? When he crushed fed 1,2 in first two sets of 16 AO? Fed then won it in 17.. so.. i can very easily use your biased argument and claim when djoker at his best, fed can’t touch him.

So when fed beats djoker, it’s because fed is too good but when djoker beats fed, it’s because fed was bad. Thank you for the laughs. So you are a comedian now, performing for us. Cool.

 

[britbox]

Wrong, all these tennis people compared peak per peak. Look up their comments. They very clearly stated in their opinion, peak vs peak, djoker’s level is prob highest ever attained.

And i laugh hard at how you cherry pick fed wins over djoker and explain them away as ‘nothing djoker could do’ yet when djoker has beaten fed, dismiss it as ‘fed not at his best’. This is so laughable i wonder if you are a clown or comedian.

So you claim in 11, fed brought his A game at RG so novak couldn’t do anything. First of all that match waa extremely tight, novak was up a break to take to 5th set. And what happened in 2012 when novak beat fed at rg easily? I could easily claim ‘see, when novak on his A game, nothing fed can do’. What about when novak destroyed fed in 11 AO? Federer was playing at a very high level. What about when novak beat an on fire fed in 15 wimbledon finals? When he crushed fed 1,2 in first two sets of 16 AO? Fed then won it in 17.. so.. i can very easily use your biased argument and claim when djoker at his best, fed can’t touch him.

So when fed beats djoker, it’s because fed is too good but when djoker beats fed, it’s because fed was bad. Thank you for the laughs. So you are a comedian now, performing for us. Cool.

To be honest Mike, you could probably list 20+ well known tennis experts or ex-pros and line them up in each camp for Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. It's not like Djokovic has the exclusive license on this.

 

[MikeOne]

I wouldn't say there was "nothing" peak Novak could do but I do agree that the likes of Federer, Wawrinka, and even Bautista-Agut playing offensive demonstrates his weaknesses.



I would put Djokovic somewhere in the middle of Federer and Nadal in that regard.....he is clearly more offensive than Nadal in their H2H but less offensive than Federer. It is an excellent balance that he is afforded because of his backhand.

This is the flaw in logic you possess, think offense is everything. If so, sampras is goat.. he had more offensive skills than federer. Federer had much better defense than pete and i question the tennis IQ here of those who under appreciate two things about fed and novak which anyone with any tennis knowledge would know.

1. Federer was a marvelous defensive player, especially during 04-07. He always possessed offense but his defensive skills against big ball strikers was formidable, separated him from the 1 dimensional offensive guys. Fed on MANY occasions used defense to neutralize offensive players. His defensive abilities made federer very difficult to beat, he often times made opponents hit extra shots and miss. The idea that federer was a sampras type player that just overwhelmed with offense makes me serioulsy question the tennis IQ on these baords.

2. Djokovic is not mainly a defensive player, he’s an aggressive baseliner, who attacks regularly, takes ball early and hits deep. He, like federer, has had formidable defense but he is no hewitt, he is more like agassi in the way he hits the ball. All you have to do is analyze his game, how he has bludgeoned nadal at times and yes, even taken the racquet off federer’s hands by using an attacking baseline game (see 11, 16 AO matches, 15, 16 wimbledon matches).. his aggressive return game has done a lot of damage to federer as-well as it has neutralized fed’s 1-2 punch.

 

[Ricardo]

Wrong, all these tennis people compared peak per peak. Look up their comments. They very clearly stated in their opinion, peak vs peak, djoker’s level is prob highest ever attained.

And i laugh hard at how you cherry pick fed wins over djoker and explain them away as ‘nothing djoker could do’ yet when djoker has beaten fed, dismiss it as ‘fed not at his best’. This is so laughable i wonder if you are a clown or comedian.

So you claim in 11, fed brought his A game at RG so novak couldn’t do anything. First of all that match waa extremely tight, novak was up a break to take to 5th set. And what happened in 2012 when novak beat fed at rg easily? I could easily claim ‘see, when novak on his A game, nothing fed can do’. What about when novak destroyed fed in 11 AO? Federer was playing at a very high level. What about when novak beat an on fire fed in 15 wimbledon finals? When he crushed fed 1,2 in first two sets of 16 AO? Fed then won it in 17.. so.. i can very easily use your biased argument and claim when djoker at his best, fed can’t touch him.

So when fed beats djoker, it’s because fed is too good but when djoker beats fed, it’s because fed was bad. Thank you for the laughs. So you are a comedian now, performing for us. Cool.

first it's good to see you come back to the forum with your 2 cents, but you are just so weak. It's all the same tactics with you, making it up, use inconsistent description where it suits......look at AO, two extended sets and a 6-4, for you it's called 'destroy' because Novak won, yet when Fed wins it's 'extremely close'. Novak was indeed up a break in the 4th, then Fed dialled it in and broke him to love with winners after winners......Novak didn't give it to him, Fed took the break back by upping his game. Oh about the comedian part, after I exposed your bias, I actually wouldn't bother with you being just lippy, it's just so petty.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't think I'm overreacting. You went too far. Auto-erotic asphyxiayion is a random and rare predilection. You're the one that brought it up. I don't think I'm damaging your reputation around here any more than you're done a sterling job of it, all by yourself. If you can't walk back comments about women being choked, then I don't think I can help you.

Wow...I left the forum for a bit and you actually posted more about this silly subject? Seriously? That is approaching serious snowflake territory @Moxie and I did not think you were one. Take a joke , move on, or we will have to create a "safe space' for you here to post.

 

[MikeOne]

To be honest Mike, you could probably list 20+ well known tennis experts or ex-pros and line them up in each camp for Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. It's not like Djokovic has the exclusive license on this.

Who said that? All i said is that there is an opinion out there, an argument to support djoker’s highest level has been highest level of tennis ever attained. It isn’t fact nor can be proven.. it has been the opinion of some, that is all.

 

[Ricardo]

This is the flaw in logic you possess, think offense is everything. If so, sampras is goat.. he had more offensive skills than federer. Federer had much better defense than pete and i question the tennis IQ here of those who under appreciate two things which anyone with any tennis knowledge would know.

1. Federer was a marvelous defensive player, especially during 04-07. He always possessed offense but it his defensive skills against big ball strikers was formidable, he MANY times used defense to neutralize offensive players. His defensive abilities made federer very difficult to beat, he often times made opponents hit extr shots and miss. The idea that federer was a sampras type player that just overwhelmed with offense makes me serioulsy question the tennis IQ on these baords.

2. Djokovic is not mainly a defensive player, he’s an aggressive baseliner, who attacks regularly, takes ball early and hits deep. He, like federer, has had formidable defense but he is no hewitt, he is more like agassi in the way he hits the ball. All you have to do is analyze his game, how he has bludgeoned nadal at times and yes, even taken the racquet off federer’s hands by using an attacking baseline game (see 11, 16 AO matches, 15, 16 wimbledon matches).. his aggressive return game has done a lot of damage to federer as-well as it has neutralized fed’s 1-2 punch.

Come on guys, show me some tennis IQ here.

oh boy, zero knowledge about tennis but look at the size of your MOUTH. Fed is by nature, an offensive player. Even his match against Sampras, he won it by playing offensive game. I am bemused with you, getting it all wrong and act like you know it all. Your second point, Novak is not a mainly a defensive player? pls spare us with total rubbish, again. Djokovic's strength is he doesn't miss, and defend better than almost anyone which is how he mainly wins his matches. Nobody offensive would go into long rallies after long rallies after long rallies, Nadal vs Djokovic is a great example, neither is based on offensive game which is why neither can put the other away quickly, and both can defend like no other. Federer, despite playing Nadal so many times, has never played him this way...….much less long rallies and Fed lives and dies by his sword, just look at the average number of shots per rally.

Come on Mike, get the basics right, at the very least....its getting embarrassing.

 

[atttomole]

This is the flaw in logic you possess, think offense is everything. If so, sampras is goat.. he had more offensive skills than federer. Federer had much better defense than pete and i question the tennis IQ here of those who under appreciate two things about fed and novak which anyone with any tennis knowledge would know.

1. Federer was a marvelous defensive player, especially during 04-07. He always possessed offense but his defensive skills against big ball strikers was formidable, separated him from the 1 dimensional offensive guys. Fed on MANY occasions used defense to neutralize offensive players. His defensive abilities made federer very difficult to beat, he often times made opponents hit extra shots and miss. The idea that federer was a sampras type player that just overwhelmed with offense makes me serioulsy question the tennis IQ on these baords.

2. Djokovic is not mainly a defensive player, he’s an aggressive baseliner, who attacks regularly, takes ball early and hits deep. He, like federer, has had formidable defense but he is no hewitt, he is more like agassi in the way he hits the ball. All you have to do is analyze his game, how he has bludgeoned nadal at times and yes, even taken the racquet off federer’s hands by using an attacking baseline game (see 11, 16 AO matches, 15, 16 wimbledon matches).. his aggressive return game has done a lot of damage to federer as-well as it has neutralized fed’s 1-2 punch.

The reason why Federer looks less offensive than Sampras is that the surfaces changed. I think what you are trying to say is that Federer has more variety than Sampras, but you do not want to say it. Watch Federer vs Sampras 2001. Putting aside their ages and the final result, you will see that they were almost mirror images of each other when it comes to offensive play.

 

[MikeOne]

I think Djokovic does have some weaknesses, two in particular:

1) He is vulnerable to an aggressive baseliner like Wawrinka or Bautista-Agut getting hot and hitting flat all over the court.

2) He tightens up in his own service games when he gets out to 30-0 and 30-15 leads, often dribbling 10+ times only to hit a meek 1st or 2nd serve.

That said, the main difference between him and Federer is the backhand. Djokovic can rally much longer and much more consistently with his.

There were backhands Djokovic hit on the stretch yesterday against Bautista-Agust that were remarkable defense-to-offense shots. They are absolutely devastating to opponents.

Anyone is vulnerable to an aggresive baseliner getting hot. Del po took fed down in 09 USO, stan beat fed in FO semis. Agut has a 3-8 record vs djoker and got beaten rather routinely by novak is semis. He took a set off? So did nishikori take a set off fed, is fed also vulnerable to aggressive baseliners?

Novak has handled aggresive baseliners well overall, heck most players today are aggressive baseliners! i think the true exception is stan, but stan is one of the few players who can muscle winners from behind the baseline, consistently. Novak hits deep so stan’s ability to hit winners off deep shots is a problem.