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

[britbox]

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.

You have to bear in mind that family members of Michael Hutchence might be reading this forum**. They might be deeply offended by your jokes on this serious subject. Hang your head in shame.

**0.00001% of ex-INXS band members read tennis forums.

 

[MikeOne]

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.

You don’t even know federer’s game, you need to be educated all over. He was a complete player who had remarkable offensive and defensive skills, his defense was amazing and won him many matches when he wasn’t at his best. Federer had some of the best defensive skills in tue history of the game - his court coverage, use of slice to steal winners, his block returns.. his speed. It was one of his weapons, his defense, without it, he would have 10 slams at best. Even yesterday, at 37-38 he displayed great defense, how he ran down so many balls; in fact, some here called it ‘unreal’ defense. When he was younger, his defense was as good as anyone else’s.. guys like roddick couldn’t get a serve or winner past him.

In djokovic, he’s an aggressive baseliner, returner who often times dictates baseline rallies. Saying otherwise is just dumb.

Your tennis IQ is very low, i have to say. Did you even watch federer back between 04-07?

 

[britbox]

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.

The whole premise seems way too subjective... Highest level ever attained? How is it being measured... over a set, match, season, career?

Anyone in the Top 100 can redline an amazing unplayable set, or sometimes a match. If we're talking careers, then the realistic measurement is what you win.

My feeling is that over the last few years, you could easily sell a case that Djokovic has consistently played the highest level of tennis. I just think a blanket statement that he hits unapproachable heights to be too subjective.

The highest relative level anywhere is Nadal at his best on a clay court. It's the hardest out in world tennis... probably ever... and I don't even like the guy.

 

[Ricardo]

You don’t even know federer’s game, you need to be educated all over. He was a complete player who had remarkable offensive and defensive skills, his defense was amazing and won him many matches when he wasn’t at his best. Federer had some of the best defensive skills in tue history of the game - his court coverage, use of slice to steal winners, his block returns.. his speed. It was one of his weapons, his defense, without he would have 10 slams at best. Even yesterday, at 37-38 he displayed great defense, how he ran down so many balls; in fact, some here called it ‘unreal’ defense. When he was younger, his defense was as good as anyone else’s.. guys like roddick couldn’t get a serve or winner past him.

In djokovic, he’s an aggressive baseliner, returner who often times dictates baseline rallies. Saying otherwise is just dumb.

Your tennis IQ is very low, i have to say. Did you even watch federer back between 04-07?

ok so Novak is an offensive player (more offence than defence), while Fed is a complete player (equal offense and defence). Does this even sound right?

And you want to educate who?

BHahahahaha, Mike is officially back....and we shall all have fun times.

Tennis basic, offensive player can have great defence. Likewise, defensive players can have great offence. Big difference between the two types, offensive players always look to finish points, at every opportunity, even taking greater risk. Defensive players, on the other hand, are content with prolonged rallies until they get short ball, angles to work with, before they go for a kill....it doesn't mean they'll keep pushing until opponent misses. There is a reason why Nadal always engages in long rallies with Novak, they play like two brick walls against each other while Fed vs either nadal/novak would always end up with shorter rallies.

So simple, yet Mike can't see, and he wants to 'educate'?

 

[MikeOne]

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.

No.. sampras lacked defense so when his offsense was off, he was very vulnerable. Federer had incredible defensive abilities, it was hard to hit an ace or winner off him. I’m shocked it’s as if people here never watched federer until recently and then act like they know tennis. I actually find it amusing how some here take issue with me saying federer had amazing defense, why? Isn’t this a good thing? Lol.. saying he had amazing defense (a freaking fact for anyone who actually watched him play all of his career) doesn’t take anything away from his offensive qualities, he has both. Offense alone didn’t get federer 20 slams, he used a combination of defense and offense. The tennis IQ on these boards has really dropped, at least in years back the fed fans acknowledged fed’s defensive prowess, now it’s like fed fans think claiming fed has defensive abilities is a bad thing. WTF.

The issue i take is some here making it look like fed was just an offensive machine and djoker a defensive machine. Fed has had amazing defense (crucial part of his success) and djoker has always been capable of playing very offensive tennis. He is always ontop of the baseline, attacking.

 

[britbox]

Federer does have great defence. He's probably third fiddle behind Djoker and Nadal... but I'd definitely agree with this.

 

[Ricardo]

The whole premise seems way too subjective... Highest level ever attained? How is it being measured... over a set, match, season, career?

Anyone in the Top 100 can redline an amazing unplayable set, or sometimes a match. If we're talking careers, then the realistic measurement is what you win.

My feeling is that over the last few years, you could easily sell a case that Djokovic has consistently played the highest level of tennis. I just think a blanket statement that he hits unapproachable heights to be too subjective.

The highest relative level anywhere is Nadal at his best on a clay court. It's the hardest out in world tennis... probably ever... and I don't even like the guy.

Stan on his day would out hit Novak on his best surface (AO), regardless how Novak plays. While Nadal playing his best level, has no equal on clay. Novak does not remotely play unbeatable level, he may average highest level in terms of duration in 6 months (keeping high level over long time) but in one match, there are others players above him apart from Fedal. Obviously Mikeone wants to establish some bragging rights, ie when my idol is at his best, he is better than anyone.

Except it isn't true.

 

[Ricardo]

No.. sampras lacked defense so when his offsense was off, he was very vulnerable. Federer had incredible defensive abilities, it was hard to hit an ace or winner off him. I’m shocked it’s as if people here never watched federer until recently and then act like they know tennis. I actually find it amusing how some here take issue with me saying federer had amazing defense, why? Isn’t this a good thing? Lol.. saying he had amazing defense (a freaking fact for anyone who actually watched him play all of his career) doesn’t take anything away from his offensive qualities, he has both. Offense alone didn’t get federer 20 slams, he used a combination of defense and offense. The tennis IQ on these boards has really dropped, at least in years back the fed fans acknowledged fed’s defensive prowess, now it’s like fed fans think claiming fed has defensive abilities is a bad thing. WTF.

The issue i take is some here making it look like fed was just an offensive machine and djoker a defensive machine. Fed has had amazing defense (crucial part of his success) and djoker has always been capable of playing very offensive tennis. He is always ontop of the baseline, attacking.

where in your twisted mind did he try to talk down Fed's prowess? everyone knows it and nobody wants to deny (why would anyone), who gave you that idea? talk about being desperate, and trying to look for ways out.

then again, when you mention Novak has edge on head to head over Federer, don't forget to mention that it only happened when Fed was in his mid 30s...….if you need to wait so long, actually for a guy past normal retirement age, you probably don't really have his number. If he is some kind of best ever like you try to convince us, he'd at least be like Nadal....who had Fed's number more than a decade ago.

 

[Ricardo]

now it’s like fed fans think claiming fed has defensive abilities is a bad thing. WTF.

yes WTF, which Fed fan here implies that his defensive abilities is a negative?

Mike the make up artist, always a pleasure...…..he does the make up, and I expose it.

 

[calitennis127]

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?

Djokovic and Federer lose in different ways to "aggressive baseliners," and you know this. Federer never would have lost to Wawrinka getting b*tched around for over 2.5 hours in rallies during a final like Djokovic did. Federer would have kept the points shorter and gone for more.

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.

Now you are changing the parameters of the conversation. You original point was that he essentially has no weaknesses. Now you are saying that he has generally handled the aggressive baseliners well. But those are two different points entirely.

Overall Djokovic has handled everyone well, including the aggressive baseliners. I don't dispute that. But the aggressive baseliners have shown his weaknesses when they've been on top of their games.

Novak hits deep so stan’s ability to hit winners off deep shots is a problem.

Hence Wawrinka shows some of Djokovic's weaknesses, namely that against the most offensive players he can get behind in a lot of rallies.

 

[calitennis127]

In response to MikeOne:

There is a difference between having good defensive skills (which Federer always has) and being a mainly defensive player (which Federer has never been). Why can't you see the difference? Someone can be a very offensive player who also possesses great defensive ability when needed. The two are not mutually exclusively. In fact, it makes sense that an athletic player would have the potential for that combo.

I never said that Djokovic is mainly a defensive player. I said that I put him somewhere between Federer and Nadal in terms of his offensive aggressiveness. Not as offensive as Federer, more offensive than Nadal.

Why is that so bothersome to you? You always take any remark about Federer being more offensive than the other 2 of the Big 3 as such an offense.

 

[Ricardo]

I never said that Djokovic is mainly a defensive player. I said that I put him somewhere between Federer and Nadal in terms of his offensive aggressiveness. Not as offensive as Federer, more offensive than Nadal.

even Nadal has offense. try and tell Mikeone that it's not all black and white, he just won't learn until it's something that suits his argument (which always ultimately leads to Novak being best ever bla blah blah)

 

[MikeOne]

Djokovic and Federer lose in different ways to "aggressive baseliners," and you know this. Federer never would have lost to Wawrinka getting b*tched around for over 2.5 hours in rallies during a final like Djokovic did. Federer would have kept the points shorter and gone for more.



Now you are changing the parameters of the conversation. You original point was that he essentially has no weaknesses. Now you are saying that he has generally handled the aggressive baseliners well. But those are two different points entirely.

Overall Djokovic has handled everyone well, including the aggressive baseliners. I don't dispute that. But the aggressive baseliners have shown his weaknesses when they've been on top of their games.



Hence Wawrinka shows some of Djokovic's weaknesses, namely that against the most offensive players he can get behind in a lot of rallies.

Fed did get bitch slapped, pummeled by Stan in that FO semis... go watch highlights.

Stan has a losing record vs djokovic. We can’t say a weakness is evident mainly due to two losses djoker had vs stan in slam finals. I do agree it’s a tough match-up but more to do with how djokovic’s strengths (not weaknesses) line up vs stan’s strengths.

Djokovic is an agassi type baseliner that beats you by taking ball early and taking opponents apart by hitting deep, fast and consistently. He also defends well, especially off bh side. His depth is one of his strengths and this is usually tough for opponents as it’s hard to attack deep balls. Stan does two things that negate djokovic’s strengths - he can hit cold winners behind the baseline and can hit through djoker’s defense. So he is prob the only player on tour that takes depth away from djoker and can hit thru djoker’s defense. It’s not that he is exploiting a weakness, it’s that he can handle djokovic’s strengths in unusual ways, no-one else can do it like stan does.

But he still has a losing record vs novak so not sure we can make an argument stan exploits a weakness.

 

[Ricardo]

Fed did get bitch slapped, pummeled by Stan in that FO semis... go watch highlights.

Stan has a losing record vs djokovic. We can’t say a weakness is evident mainly due to two losses djoker had vs stan in slam finals. I do agree it’s a tough match-up but more to do with how djokovic’s strengths (not weaknesses) line up vs stan’s strengths.

Djokovic is an agassi type baseliner that beats you by taking ball early and taking opponents apart by hitting deep, fast and consistently. He also defends well, especially off bh side. His depth is one of his strengths and this is usually tough for opponents as it’s hard to attack deep balls. Stan does two things that negate djokovic’s strengths - he can hit cold winners behind the baseline and can hit through djoker’s defense. So he is prob the only player on tour that takes depth away from djoker and can hit thru djoker’s defense. It’s not that he is exploiting a weakness, it’s that he can handle djokovic’s strengths in unusual ways, no-one else can do it like stan does.

But he still has a losing record vs novak so not sure we can make an argument stan exploits a weakness.

the average Stan has losing record against a lot of players. both Stan and Fed have hit through Novak's defence, that's how they win. Hitting through Novak's defence is the only way, because Novak is a defensive player. No more bs required.

 

[MikeOne]

In response to MikeOne:

There is a difference between having good defensive skills (which Federer always has) and being a mainly defensive player (which Federer has never been). Why can't you see the difference? Someone can be a very offensive player who also possesses great defensive ability when needed. The two are not mutually exclusively. In fact, it makes sense that an athletic player would have the potential for that combo.

I never said that Djokovic is mainly a defensive player. I said that I put him somewhere between Federer and Nadal in terms of his offensive aggressiveness. Not as offensive as Federer, more offensive than Nadal.

Why is that so bothersome to you? You always take any remark about Federer being more offensive than the other 2 of the Big 3 as such an offense.

But unless i bring it up, you all make it sound like fed was all offense, far from it. His defensive slices, block returns, court coverage were a huge part of his game. It was a nightmare for opponents, he made them hit extra shots, was difficult to ace and defused power game of opponents.

You seem to diminish those who use defense but it was a big part of fed’s game (i stress big, not small part). Now you clarify fed did rely on defense too, just that he has been more offensive than djokovic. I agree but it just sounded like some of you were diminishing novak’s offense and mischaracterizing fed’s game as all offense.

It is also a misnomer that the more offensive player always has the advantage. Fed regularly beat more offensive players by making them miss... making players hit xtra shots is a way to negate offense, a good offensive players doesn’t always have the advantage against a good defensive player. It depends on surface and match-up. Defense can best offense sometimes... offense is easier when there is a lack of defense, pretty obvious.

 

[calitennis127]

Fed did get bitch slapped, pummeled by Stan in that FO semis... go watch highlights.

Stan has a losing record vs djokovic. We can’t say a weakness is evident mainly due to two losses djoker had vs stan in slam finals. I do agree it’s a tough match-up but more to do with how djokovic’s strengths (not weaknesses) line up vs stan’s strengths.

Djokovic is an agassi type baseliner that beats you by taking ball early and taking opponents apart by hitting deep, fast and consistently. He also defends well, especially off bh side. His depth is one of his strengths and this is usually tough for opponents as it’s hard to attack deep balls. Stan does two things that negate djokovic’s strengths - he can hit cold winners behind the baseline and can hit through djoker’s defense. So he is prob the only player on tour that takes depth away from djoker and can hit thru djoker’s defense. It’s not that he is exploiting a weakness, it’s that he can handle djokovic’s strengths in unusual ways, no-one else can do it like stan does.

But he still has a losing record vs novak so not sure we can make an argument stan exploits a weakness.

My point is that when Djokovic loses - regardless of the opponent - he tends to get caught up in very patchy baseline play where he is often neutral in the rallies and/or playing from behind. So he ends up giving his opponent a lot of opportunity to set up shots and hit flat.

Think of it: why was Bautista-Agut able to make it such a difficult match yesterday when Djokovic is clearly a better mover and more athletic? It's because Djokovic's rally shots tend to sit up. Against Nadal this isn't a problem because Nadal doesn't hit flat and uses his offense to draw errors. But against Wawrinka or Bautista-Agut it is an issue because those guys hit flat and make Djokovic pay for being only moderately aggressive.

Don't get me wrong.....I think Djokovic is a much better player in general than Wawrinka (or of course Bautista-Agut). I'm just saying that when those guys get in an offensive groove they expose Djokovic's weakness, just as Djokovic and Nadal have demonstrated Fed's BH weakness over the years.

 

[calitennis127]

But unless i bring it up, you all make it sound like fed was all offense, far from it. His defensive slices, block returns, court coverage were a huge part of his game. It was a nightmare for opponents, he made them hit extra shots, was difficult to ace and defused power game of opponents.

Why was Federer's slice mostly "defensive"? He usually used it to negate Roddick's serve or simply toy with people at Wimbledon or World Tour Finals. He would hit the slice to to draw a moonball reply and then attack on the next shot. It was more a point-constructing shot than a defensive tactic.

You seem to diminish those who use defense but it was a big part of fed’s game (i stress big, not small part).

How big? I would say his game was at least 70/30 or 75/25 offense to defense, probably more like 80/20. The fact is, Federer for most of his career has not needed to be defensive.

Now you clarify fed did rely on defense too, just that he has been more offensive than djokovic. I agree but it just sounded like some of you were diminishing novak’s offense and mischaracterizing fed’s game as all offense.

I actually think Djokovic's backhand at its best is an offensive weapon, like we saw with the backhand down-the-line against RBA yesterday after the 45-shot rally. But that is correct, I consider Djokovic to be an offensive player, just not as offensive as Federer. And that has its pluses and minuses depending on the opponent and the surface.

Djokovic being less offensive than Federer makes him better on clay and slow hardcourts. But on grass and fast hardcourts (like Cincinnatti) Federer can win matches less strenuously because he hits faster and wins points quicker (in general).

 

[monfed]

Actually, it was. Completely predictable. You are a one-note, singular focus, Fed troll who has no idea of tennis. You live for Roger, but you're really not interesting ever when it comes to talking tennis. Sorry. But that's kinda true.

Stop trying so hard to get a reaction out of me.

LOL@ no idea of tennis. If you had any idea you would never support such a negative player like Nadal.

It's funny it's always the morons who have no idea of tennis support Nadal. Maybe a coincidence, maybe not.

 

[MikeOne]

Why was Federer's slice mostly "defensive"? He usually used it to negate Roddick's serve or simply toy with people at Wimbledon or World Tour Finals. He would hit the slice to to draw a moonball reply and then attack on the next shot. It was more a point-constructing shot than a defensive tactic.

It was mostly neutral to defensive. I really get the feeling some of you didn't watch Federer between 04-07 and just popping up on the boards after Fed reached 35 and changed his game.

The typical rally between Blake, Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Agassi, Safin, baghdatis,Nadal vs Fed between 04-07 was them attacking his backhand side 3-4 times, Federer using the slice to defend, sometimes hitting through it but he hit slice a lot more back then than now. Federer would then wait for an opportunity and run around his bh to hit a fh. This was the typical rally point vs fed back then. He regularly used his slice to defend, in fact A LOT. I'm not sure why you guys get up and arms when i compliment Fed's defense, it's strange. I think it's because some of you have been on a mission belittling Nadal or Djoker's game as 'defensive' so don't want to admit Fed too relied on defense a lot.

How big? I would say his game was at least 70/30 or 75/25 offense to defense, probably more like 80/20. The fact is, Federer for most of his career has not needed to be defensive.

Fed has changed the mix. Before 04, he was more offensive and erratic, i would say 70/30. Between 04-07, his best years record wise, he was 60/40... Federer used defense A LOT and i mean A LOT... Again, he would defend off bh side with his slice, run down balls, block serves and defuse power. What he did very well was transition from defense to offense. He was no more than 60/40 offense/defense back then.. one of his strengths was making opponents go for too much, miss. Watch the 05 Safin AO match, Fed defended like an ANIMAL...

Later, as he aged, defense was tougher as defense requires more movement. I would say Fed is now 70/30 or 80/20, today he plays much more offense but that's why he is less consistent. Playing offense is hit or miss, when you are off, you are toast. Between 04-7 Fed won many matches below his best but just hung in there, making opponents drown in UFEs.

I think the problem is people look at Fed today and forget Fed of 04-07, he is a different player, much more offensive today and less reliant on defense.

I actually think Djokovic's backhand at its best is an offensive weapon, like we saw with the backhand down-the-line against RBA yesterday after the 45-shot rally. But that is correct, I consider Djokovic to be an offensive player, just not as offensive as Federer. And that has its pluses and minuses depending on the opponent and the surface.

Djokovic being less offensive than Federer makes him better on clay and slow hardcourts. But on grass and fast hardcourts (like Cincinnatti) Federer can win matches less strenuously because he hits faster and wins points quicker (in general).

I think Djokovic's fh is more offensive but his bh is more solid and his ability to defend off bh side is off the charts, plus how he can turn defense to offense off that side.

On grass Fed has advantage due to the serve mainly... they are even outside of the serve, serve is key for Fed on grass. The match up on grass is interesting as Djokovic's return can somewhat neutralize Fed's serve and this is problematic for Fed. If Fed serves lights out, he edges Novak on grass but Novak has improved on grass, he has been the best since 2010.

 

[atttomole]

No.. sampras lacked defense so when his offsense was off, he was very vulnerable. Federer had incredible defensive abilities, it was hard to hit an ace or winner off him. I’m shocked it’s as if people here never watched federer until recently and then act like they know tennis. I actually find it amusing how some here take issue with me saying federer had amazing defense, why? Isn’t this a good thing? Lol.. saying he had amazing defense (a freaking fact for anyone who actually watched him play all of his career) doesn’t take anything away from his offensive qualities, he has both. Offense alone didn’t get federer 20 slams, he used a combination of defense and offense. The tennis IQ on these boards has really dropped, at least in years back the fed fans acknowledged fed’s defensive prowess, now it’s like fed fans think claiming fed has defensive abilities is a bad thing. WTF.

The issue i take is some here making it look like fed was just an offensive machine and djoker a defensive machine. Fed has had amazing defense (crucial part of his success) and djoker has always been capable of playing very offensive tennis. He is always ontop of the baseline, attacking.

I never said Federer does not have incredible defence. What I disagree with is that you are trying to tell us that Sampras is the attacking tennis goat, which is not surprising since you are a Sampras fan. In my opinion, Federer was just as good an attacking player as Sampras.

However, unlike Sampras, Federer can play from the baseline and you have to have incredible defence to win points from the baseline. As you say, Federer’s defence was amazing in his younger years. That is what makes Roger an all court player. Sampras could only play one way.