2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[Kieran]

Did you read this Kieran? Thank you, imjimmy, for reinforcing my point that Djokovic has not been serving well of late and his 40% mark in the first set wasn’t solely about Nadal’s awesomeness, as Kieran’s narcissistic Nadal-centered perspective would have us believe.

You are right, imjimmy, that Djokovic has been routinely shaky on serve lately against opponents other than Nadal.

Oh brother.

Do you see mention of serve in Jimmy's post? Do you see him say what you claim he said?

Novak served at 67% against Tsitsipas - which - like today's % - is a better % than Rafa served today, but not necessarily better serving. You know the difference, I'm sure...

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

There are 2 sides to every coin. Yes, Novak mugged up and did not beat Stefanos in straight sets. But the Greek played CRAP in the first 2 sets. His breakpoint conversion was 0 off 11. He himself admitted in the post match presser than in the beginning he was trying to be conservative and it took him more than 2 sets to figure out that wasn't the right strategy vs Novak. Once he let his tennis flow - he was able to make a match out it until he ran out of gas. Another inexcusable thing when you are panting vs a guy who is 11 years older to you.

And that's the story of Tsitsipas' career. Lot of talent - lot of options - but does NOT have a clear game plan. The father son coaching duo doesn't work. He needs more guidance and strategy to get to the next level. Anyway, just as Novak could have won the match in straights, so too could Stefanos have made this a more competitive match by not playing brainless tennis for half of the match.

May I add imjimmy Stefanos defence on any surface is below par,more exposed on clay.

 

[the AntiPusher]

It's GREAT to see Kieran and MikeOne and so many other old posters back.




As much as I admire all the posts here, I have to take issue with the above. RG 2008 Nadal was a different beast. I have many of his RG matches archived and watched them during the downtime. There is NOT even a comparison. For instance between RG 2008 SF for Nadal vs Djokovic and RG 2020 Final.

What is impressive about today's match is how Nadal managed to raise his level in the final. But again Novak was not at his best, and Nadal/Novak have produced better level of tennis in Roland Garros before. Nadal could have likely gone even higher if Novak had pushed him more. We are all guilty of a recency bias, but even a casual watch of Nadal in RG 2008 would plainly show the difference in tennis quality.

Hi imjimmy..I respectfully disagree..

Rafa is a more complete player than he was in 2008.. Today's match Rafa was able to unload his full arsenal into Novak's unparalleled defense.. Rafa attack Novak's lack of a first serve and pummeled Novak's legendary bh and controlled the center of the court which prevented Novak's dtl BH to Rafa's bh which has been a major issue on the non clay surfaces.

I mentioned to Kieran yesterday that Rafa and team spent numerous hours working on dropped shots which Rafa made Novak look foolish by making this a mainstay in his strategic plan today.. Again, it's just my opinion and if you see it otherwise I will not dispute your.analysis any further.

 

[calitennis127]

So Djokovic does NOT maximize his opportunities?

No, not like Nadal. The two losses to Wawrinka in Slam finals as well as the loss to Nishikori show that, as did the US Open loss to Murray. Djokovic does not put his best foot forward as consistently as Nadal does.

Have you seen the stats? He's dominated tennis for decade after 2011.

He has also lost numerous matches in Slams that frankly he should not have. See the ones I just mentioned above.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Here's Novak supporting what you said, not. He's very honest and gracious and he gives all the credit to Rafa, who "played perfect in the first two sets." You're missing the big picture here, brother, by thinking there are other reasons than himself for why Rafa won the way he did, today...

Many times players give a gracious interview on the day of loss, only to follow it up with some excuse after few days either themselves directly or by means of some surrogates.

 

[imjimmy]

No, not like Nadal. The two losses to Wawrinka in Slam finals as well as the loss to Nishikori show that, as did the US Open loss to Murray. Djokovic does not put his best foot forward as consistently as Nadal does.

He has also lost numerous matches in Slams that frankly he should not have. See the ones I just mentioned above.

So Nadal's losses in slams do not count?

AO 2012 Novak (leading by a break in the 5th) , AO 2014 Wawrinka, AO 2017 Federer (leading by a break in fifth), Wimb 2018 SF (with better stats)

Fact is all three of Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have lost matches they should have won. But they've also won matches they should have lost, many times at the expense of their big 3 counterpart. It's impossible to argue that one of them has used their opportunities more than the other.

They are all extremely opportunistic and hungry, Which is why watching history unfold is so much fun. Someone will be at 21 slams in 2020.
When Fed won AO 2017, it looked likely his slam record was safe. Now he might even be at #3 when all is said and done.

 

[calitennis127]

Now, buddy, you might as well dream here as in bed. I said Novak was under immense pressure because of what Rafa was doing. How he served was up to him, he was trying his best.

Trying your best and doing your best are two different things. Djokovic is capable of serving better than 40% in the first set of a Grand Slam final. I can't believe saying this is generating so much controversy. Why the sensitivity over such an obvious point? Is it because it hurts your feelings to hear someone explain something in anything other than the most positive possible light for Nadal?

Your argument seems to be that what Nadal was doing was so frightening and overwhelming that Djokovic started shaking in his boots and serving a low percentage. Are you serious? He has played the guy over 50 times. Why should some nice shots demoralize him to the point of serving at 40%?

That is an utterly preposterous argument.

But see, I already established - by looking at sets 2 and 3, and the overall % of first serves each man got in for the match, that the 40% myth you're creating is nonsense. In the first set, he may have served at 77% (like he did in set 2) or 74% (set 3) and he'd still have lost heavily.

In set 3, he was 1 game from winning. Again, thank you for proving my point.

Now did he play better overall? Of course he did. But the better first serving was a major part of that. If he was serving at 40% in the 3rd set, do you think he would have gotten the score to 5-4? Scratch me blimmin' head indeed, mate.

In fact, if we look closely, Novak served better in set 2 than he served in set 3, but he played better in set 3. Scratch me blimmin' head. What the blazes, how could that ever be? Surely first serve % is all that counts, gubnor?

Never said that it's all that counts. What I have said is that it can be crucial in setting the tone, and if you are missing a bunch of first serves, it can really hurt you.

You should know that after seeing Nadal squeak out a Wimbledon win over Federer by serving at 80% on first serves.

You do understand tennis scoring, no? After you lose the first set, you begin again at zero in the second set. So you kind of demolished your own argument here, because although he served at 77% in set 2, it only got him 2 games in that set, where he was similarly outplayed to the first set.

And you also acknowledged that Djokovic's serving in set 3 (when he took a 5-4 lead) was higher than it was in set 1. My point was never that serving is the only factor, but that it is an important one and that it is very hard to play well overall when you are only making 40% of your first serves.

You want it to be about Novak and his lousy first serve % in the first set, and you ask, shouldn't an experienced player do better than that. Then, in sets 2 and 3 he does better than that, and you say, too late!

No, I pointed out that in set 3 he got a 5-4 lead before making some unforced errors. If the scores in sets 1 and 3 were identical, even with Djokovic's serving percentage rising in set 3, then you would be right. But Djokovic took a 5-4 lead in the 3rd set, in no small part because his first-serve percentage was higher.

That wasn't the only factor, but it was a major one. You're welcome for another educational lesson. I am going to start charging you like I do Moxie.

 

[imjimmy]

There is NO WAY to argue on a "what if" scenario for the Nadal vs Djokovic final. Simply because it wasn't a close match. More like a blowout, even though Novak tried to make it competitive in the end.

The stats are telling and Nadal is heavily dominant in them.
For all the talk about first serve, even when Novak's first serve was in, he was winning less than half the points. And that's when he was serving at 7mph higher speed in the final vs rest of the tournament. That is crazy and won't win matches. (pts % won on 1st serve)

The most important stat:

53-25 in the “First Strike” 0-4 shot rally length -- in favor of Nadal. That's complete domination. And a complete role reversal of Nadal vs Djokovic where Novak has been usually the aggressor. It's more than a 100% advantage in first strike tennis by Nadal. They were fairly even in long rallies.

 

[calitennis127]

So Nadal's losses in slams do not count?

AO 2012 Novak (leading by a break in the 5th) ,

Djokovic should have won it in 4.

AO 2014 Wawrinka,

Wawrinka played one fire set and Nadal got hurt. That is totally different than laying a stinker for 3 sets against Nishikori or having a 1-set lead on Wawrinka (twice) and freezing up the rest of the match, or letting Murray dictate play to you in a US Open final.

AO 2017 Federer (leading by a break in fifth), Wimb 2018 SF (with better stats)

I didn't watch the 2017 final but I will say that the 2018 Wimbledon semifinal never should have been as complicated as it was for Djokovic.

Fact is all three of Fed, Nadal and Djokovic have lost matches they should have won. But they've also won matches they should have lost, many times at the expense of their big 3 counterpart. It's impossible to argue that one of them has used their opportunities more than the other.

Totally disagree.....there's no way Nadal would have frozen up against Nishikori, Murray, or Wawrinka the way Djokovic did for any reason other than injury.

The difference between Djokovic and Nadal is that Nadal ALWAYS (to his credit) puts his best foot forward. Djokovic does not. He lets his opponents dictate the pace of matches far too much. He is just such an all-around great player (especially defender) that he gets away with it, like he did against Tsitsipas. But sometimes it catches up with him.

 

[imjimmy]

May I add imjimmy Stefanos defence on any surface is below par,more exposed on clay.

Agreed. But Stefanos is mugging up a lot of things. It's like Dimitrov. The Greek has all the shots, but often lacks strategy on court. And then the mental walkabouts. Did you see his match vs Coric in the UsOpen - losing after 6 Match points. And then vs Rublev in Hamburg - choking when about to win.
Tsitsipas has the game. But he lacks the strategy and a coherent game plan. And in my opinion, that's mostly because of his coaching.

 

[calitennis127]

53-25 in the “First Strike” 0-4 shot rally length -- in favor of Nadal. That's complete domination.

Yes, and that number is mostly a result of Djokovic's awful serving in the first set.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I will give Nadal credit for that: I will concede that beating him at Roland Garros while serving at 40% is very difficult (as hard as MikeOne asserts). It’s generally a good idea to serve better than that in the first set of a Roland Garros final.

As has been established above, Novak served much better as the match went along. Even higher first serve percentage than Rafa. It's a Bo5 set contest, Cali, so there was plenty of time to recover from a dismal bagel first set.

He was much closer to his normal self in 2015 than you will ever admit. I was the only one on this board saying that Nadal was fine while everyone else said he was finished. Who turned out being right?

Yes, the same individual who has said repeatedly that age is less important than talent and that the Big 3 would be able to carry their success into their 30’s.

Let’s not forget that since you were ecstatic about Tsitsipas beating Djokovic in Shanghai supposedly because he was “younger,” Djokovic is now 3-0 against him, with each win being in straights except one that should have been in straights too.

I think we've been over your position on that match before. Your "old" position was, as it is now, that that was a decent Rafa in 2015, and that he had every chance to win it. But later, you revised it to insist, more than once, that Rafa got rolled in that match. When you asked me to prove that you'd changed your position, I dug up your old posts from the archives. And you need only to look at the ATP activity by year to see that 2015 was Rafa's worst year by far since he began winning Majors. It's not that you insisted he was ¨fine" in that match, while everyone else said he was "finished." That's a false equivalence. You said he played perfectly fine and could have won it, while everyone else, basically, agreed that he was far below his best. That he had no more than his C-/D+ game. Didn't mean that he was finished, just meant that he didn't play great, nor close to it. You refuse to see that, and no, you're not the one who's right about that match. It's just that you circle the sun in your own Cali orbit, no matter what real tennis confronts you.

As to Tsitsipas, I like him and I like his game...not just because he's younger. (You and the weird age notions.) And just because you think that Novak should have won on Friday in straights...he didn't. I don't know why we have to keep explaining reality to you.

But just to address the bolded above: it seems that you are finally acknowledging that Rafa is a great talent in tennis. I appreciate that concession.

 

[imjimmy]

Yes, and that number is mostly a result of Djokovic's awful serving in the first set.

Actually NO. Those stats are after the serves are IN the court. They only count the serves that were made.
Here are some more stats:

Djokovic only won 50 per cent (33/66) of his first-serve points:
48 per cent (16/33) of second-serve points for the match:
Djokovic's first serve speed was 7 mph higher than his 1st 6 matches of RG. And 8 mph higher than Nadal's 1st serve speed.

Why did Novak lose so many points on his serve when he was actually serving faster?
How about because Nadal returned better and took offense earlier in the rally.

When you win more then double 0-4 rally points vs your opponent - that means you are going on offensive quicker without making more errors.

 

[kskate2]

Thanks buddy! Dunno how long I'll be around but I came back because I just needed to chat some tennis with old pals, and it's great to see everybody...

I've only been asking you for um, a gazillion years to come back. Did you oblige me. NOOOOOOOO!

 

[Kieran]

Hey brother, you misquoted ImJimmy back there, do you ever notice when you do that?

Now this is the last post I'm wasting time with you on this stupid topic. Pay attention, or move aside and stop spamming. I'm here today to celebrate the great Nadal achievement. I don't mind rallying a little with you, but you're in bad faith today and so, read this, then go play with the traffic.

In set 3, he was 1 game from winning. Again, thank you for proving my point.

Disproving your point, because he served his best % in set 2 and was hammered 6-2.

Now did he play better overall? Of course he did. But the better first serving was a major part of that. If he was serving at 40% in the 3rd set, do you think he would have gotten the score to 5-4? Scratch me blimmin' head indeed, mate.

He served his best % in set 2 and was hammered 6-2.

And you also acknowledged that Djokovic's serving in set 3 (when he took a 5-4 lead) was higher than it was in set 1.

Yes, and he served his best % in set 2 and was hammered 6-2..

No, I pointed out that in set 3 he got a 5-4 lead before making some unforced errors. If the scores in sets 1 and 3 were identical, even with Djokovic's serving percentage rising in set 3, then you would be right. But Djokovic took a 5-4 lead in the 3rd set, in no small part because his first-serve percentage was higher.

He served his best % in set 2 and was hammered 6-2.

 

[Kieran]

I've only been asking you for um, a gazillion years to come back. Did you oblige me. NOOOOOOOO!

Aw! I'm obliging you today!

 

[calitennis127]

I think we've been over your position on that match before. Your "old" position was, as it is now, that that was a decent Rafa in 2015, and that he had every chance to win it. But later, you revised it to insist, more than once, that Rafa got rolled in that match.

On the score line, not in terms of level. Nadal's level in 2015 was not that far off from his uaul.

When you asked me to prove that you'd changed your position, I dug up your old posts from the archives.

Yes, and you never found a contradiction. In 2015 I said that Nadal's clay losses were to top opponents by small margins and that his level wasn't as deteriorated as everyone was insisting. In the argument with BwokenWoken last year, the subject was entirely different.

It's not that you insisted he was ¨fine" in that match, while everyone else said he was "finished."

I am talking about the big picture that year. Everyone was saying that Nadal was nowhere near himself, and I never agreed with that.

That's a false equivalence. You said he played perfectly fine and could have won it, while everyone else, basically, agreed that he was far below his best. That he had no more than his C-/D+ game.

Yes, and I never agreed with that. I think Djokovic simply played the way he is capable of playing on that day.

Didn't mean that he was finished, just meant that he didn't play great, nor close to it.

Again, I am talking about the big picture of 2015. I was the only one saying that Nadal wasn't finished. I am not talking solely about the Djokovic match.

You refuse to see that, and no, you're not the one who's right about that match. It's just that you circle the sun in your own Cali orbit, no matter what real tennis confronts you.

Yeah, like Djokovic going almost undefeated in 2020 after you said at the end of the 2019 that most of the tour was getting too young for him because you couldn't handle your glee over Tsitsipas beating him in Shanghai? Did that reality confront you by any chance?

As to Tsitsipas, I like him and I like his game...not just because he's younger. (You and the weird age notions.)

My "weird age notions" led me to be the only one on this board who insisted that there was no reason to see the Big 3 falling off in their 30's. My "weird age notions" led me to predict that Federer would be Top 5 by the age of 35 (something I actually understated). My "weird age notions" have been validated by Federer, Djokovic, and Nadal all winning numerous majors in their mid-30's.

"Weird age notions" indeed.

Regarding Tsitsipas, my point was not that you don't have the right to like him. It's that you and I had an argument after he beat Djokovic in Shanghai about how much of a match-up problem he would be for Djokovic. I told you that Djokovic would be able to adjust, and since that time he is 3-0 against Tsitsipas, having won 2 of the 3 matches in straights and having match point to win in straights in the other.

So who was right in that one? Yes, I was.

But just to address the bolded above: it seems that you are finally acknowledging that Rafa is a great talent in tennis. I appreciate that concession.

I never said that Nadal was not talented. I said that I hate how he wins certain big matches and that I believe he has overachieved against Federer and Djokovic. I stand by those positions.

 

[kskate2]

Aw! I'm obliging you today!

Haha. I'm not falling for that okidoke. You didn't come back for me. You came back today because Nads laid a smackdown on Djoke. But regardless of the reason, I'm glad to see ya.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

He skipped the US Open because it was too close to the FO, which now seems like a wise decision, but personally speaking, I'd have preferred he went to NYC. He would still most likely win Paris.

As for all the stuff about "upsets and disqualifications", I haven't a bloody clue what you're on about. Are you a Djoker fan, still whining about him being (rightly) turfed out of the USO?

Ralph should play Bercy and WTF.

In a normal year, by this time Ralph would be tired and will lose to even third rate players. But, this year is an exception. He has barely played five tourneys in the whole year and so should be fresh still.

I understand that his chances of winning either one may not be high. But, if you are not in it, you cannot win it. These are tourneys which he has never won and if he happened to win either of them, it would be nice addition.

 

[calitennis127]

Hey brother, you misquoted ImJimmy back there, do you ever notice when you do that?

Uhhhh, I didn't misquote him. I quoted the stats he brought up from the Djokovic-Tsitsipas match to show you that Djokovic's serving problems do not occur solely when he is playing Nadal. Of course, you had no response for that.

Imjimmy brought up how Tsitsipas failed to convert on a bunch of break points in sets 1 and 2. So how did I misquote him?

He served his best % in set 2 and was hammered 6-2.

I never said first-serve percentage was the only factor in tennis. Just said that serving 40% in the first set of a Grand Slam final against an opponent on his best surface is not a good idea.

Also said that Djokovic getting to 5-4 in the 3rd set owed in part to his better serving.

That is only a controversial position to a Nadal fanboy.