2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[GameSetAndMath]

No, it was @mrzz...he'll fess up. He wasn't completely alone. I think also @GameSetAndMath was in there. But Mrzz has had that on his "what's up for next year?" calendar for the last 3, I think.

Fake news. Show a post of mine that you are alleging.

 

[the AntiPusher]

All I know I will savor every single moment of this until he potentially wins number 21 in 2021! I vividly remembered when he lost that 2007 Wimbledon, he was visibly distraught and he wanted to cry during the trophy presentation. The following year he won Wimbledon in which at that point his biggest accomplishment. Then those 3 brutal losses at AO Final (2012, 2014 and 2017) really could have altered his confidence and chances of catching Federer's count, but he preserved and work his way back to the top! Now, he has finally caught up to Federer in the slam count and successfully fended off Djokovic on getting close to his own slam count.

2021 will be the first year in Nadal's legendary career that he does not have to "chase" Federer anymore. He literally will have the freedom of knowing that if he wins another 7 slam matches, he will hold the most slam titles in Men's tennis history. And I still can't believe I am typing this right now....

Yes and spot on..
Finally he can play like he does in his practice sessions, open up his shoulders and let it fly. During the semis, I think it was Jim Courier who says that Rafa hits the ball harder and flattening out his FH more in his grueling practice sessions with Moya.( I won't revisit my analysis of 7 years ago when I stated Rafa was capable of altering his FH)..If Rafa moves his return of service position on the non clay surfaces , he will increase his odds vs the other big two (Novak and Roger) whom have been the primary beneficiaries of his extremely extraordinary far positioning..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Loved this tweet from Iga Swiatek

"Congratulations@Rafael Nadal! It's amazing to kind of share this experience with you
Am I even allowed to say this?.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So Djokovic does NOT maximize his opportunities? Have you seen the stats? He's dominated tennis for decade after 2011.
He's beaten Nadal and Fed in most of the important slam finals in this decade. Djokovic is 4-1 vs Federer in slam finals with the loss being in his early days. He's also beaten Nadal everywhere except at RG and in slam finals too. After his hiatus in 2017, Novak won Wimb 2018, UsOpen 2018, Australian Open 2019, Wimbledon 2019 and AO 2020.
Djokovic looked down and out vs Federer in Wimb 2019 - but won the match. Ditto vs Thiem in AO 2020.
He was 37-1 before the RG final with the only loss being disqualification.

Why is it that you always project as Nadal maximizing his opportunities. You don't think Djokovic and Federer do? How did they get to 20 and 17 slams plus all the weeks at #1? All of these top guys are great at maximizing their opportunities. It's a great slam race, let's just sit back and enjoy it.

Of course, all three of them are opportunists. Otherwise, they would not be owning so many slams and records.

But, there are different degrees to which the three are able to maximize their opportunities.

I think it is true that Ralph is really great in maximizing his opportunities in comparison to the other two.

Most often when Ralph loses, it is either because he is compromised (Nadalites will agree with this) or he was simply outhit by an aggressive player or just outplayed by his opponent. It is rarely because Ralph did not play as well as he could have played on that day.

However, both Novak and Fed have squandered many opportunities by not playing as well as they could have on that day.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Another interesting stat,

Keeping with the French theme,

Rafa's 102nd bagel in the ATP Tour.Most among active players.He becomes the only member of the Big3 to bagel the other two in a GS final.

 

[calitennis127]

Of course, all three of them are opportunists. Otherwise, they would not be owning so many slams and records.

But, there are different degrees to which the three are able to maximize their opportunities.

I think it is true that Ralph is really great in maximizing his opportunities in comparison to the other two.

Most often when Ralph loses, it is either because he is compromised (Nadalites will agree with this) or he was simply outhit by an aggressive player or just outplayed by his opponent. It is rarely because Ralph did not play as well as he could have played on that day.

However, both Novak and Fed have squandered many opportunities by not playing as well as they could have on that day.

Yes, and on that note, I am re-watching the 3rd set on Tennis Channel right now and seeing how many easy points Djokovic won when making his first serves, it’s amazing that the Nadal fan club on this board is denying how much Djokovic’s dismal serving in the first set helped Nadal.

Djokovic put zero pressure on Nadal in the first set by winning any cheap points because he was dumping so many serves in the net. It was pitiful.

 

[Moxie]

Fake news. Show a post of mine that you are alleging.

I'll look it up. If I remember incorrectly, I'm sorry and will retract.

 

[Moxie]

Another interesting stat,

Keeping with the French theme,

Rafa's 102nd bagel in the ATP Tour.Most among active players.He becomes the only member of the Big3 to bagel the other two in a GS final.

I did mention this earlier, (and I know you were sleeping,) but neither Roger nor Novak has ever received a bagel in a GS final, other than those 2, at the hands of Rafa. Both at RG, obv.

 

[calitennis127]

Another interesting stat,

Keeping with the French theme,

Rafa's 102nd bagel in the ATP Tour.Most among active players.He becomes the only member of the Big3 to bagel the other two in a GS final.

He’s probably also the only player to bagel someone and win in straights while finishing the match with less winners than his opponent. Djokovic had more winners in this match (38 to 31), despite being bageled in the first set and only hitting 1 ace to Nadal’s 4.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

He’s probably also the only player to bagel someone and win in straights while finishing the match with less winners than his opponent. Djokovic had more winners in this match (38 to 31), despite being bageled in the first set and only hitting 1 ace to Nadal’s 4.

Look at Novaks overall UFE 52 in three sets of tennis BP 1/5 that explains a lot

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Look at Novaks overall UFE 52 in three sets of tennis BP 1/5 that explains a lot.....my tennis coach always said to me that the BP was one of the most important stats,indicated how well/not well you were playing.

Total points won for the match Rafa 106 Novak 77

 

[GameSetAndMath]

He’s probably also the only player to bagel someone and win in straights while finishing the match with less winners than his opponent. Djokovic had more winners in this match (38 to 31), despite being bageled in the first set and only hitting 1 ace to Nadal’s 4.

In today's match at least Ralph had better differential (Winners - UFE) than Novak.

He has won a ton of matches where he does not even have better differential. I am very sure that no other player will come close to him on this stat.

 

[Jelenafan]

Another interesting stat,

Keeping with the French theme,

Rafa's 102nd bagel in the ATP Tour.Most among active players.He becomes the only member of the Big3 to bagel the other two in a GS final.

PLus he's given both Federer and Novak their worst beatdown in a Major final, Federer's in 2008 .

 

[Moxie]

Of course, all three of them are opportunists. Otherwise, they would not be owning so many slams and records.

But, there are different degrees to which the three are able to maximize their opportunities.

I think it is true that Ralph is really great in maximizing his opportunities in comparison to the other two.

Most often when Ralph loses, it is either because he is compromised (Nadalites will agree with this) or he was simply outhit by an aggressive player or just outplayed by his opponent. It is rarely because Ralph did not play as well as he could have played on that day.

However, both Novak and Fed have squandered many opportunities by not playing as well as they could have on that day.

Forever the back-hand compliment. I do agree that Rafa gives 100% as often as possible. And injury is sometimes an issue, as you cop to. However, you do slide in the slap, as bolded above. Then you wimp out with your last, and very telling comment: Roger and Novak only fail because they didn't play their best on the day. You fall into the old trope that Rafa is somehow "work-a-day," and Roger and Novak are excellently talented artists who just sometimes fail to live up to their art. Talented, but temperamental. If they lose, they "squandered" it. What bullshit. Sport is not the same as art. If and when Roger and Novak lose, they lose for the same reasons all the greats and lesser lights do...they got beat. You may not like how the sausage gets made, but this is sports, not the painting of the Sistine Chapel. Just because you like the style of play of Roger or Novak or whomever, it doesn't matter. When they lose, it's not just because they didn't "play to their potential." It's also because they just lost. Like today. Or the 2008 RG final. Those guys got their asses handed to them, and there was no amount of their potential that was going to save them.

 

[Jelenafan]

Of course, all three of them are opportunists. Otherwise, they would not be owning so many slams and records.

But, there are different degrees to which the three are able to maximize their opportunities.

I think it is true that Ralph is really great in maximizing his opportunities in comparison to the other two.

Most often when Ralph loses, it is either because he is compromised (Nadalites will agree with this) or he was simply outhit by an aggressive player or just outplayed by his opponent. It is rarely because Ralph did not play as well as he could have played on that day.

However, both Novak and Fed have squandered many opportunities by not playing as well as they could have on that day.

How do you qualify that, and who determines who could have played better? Take the Rafa/Federer titanic 2008 Wimbleon finals, it was an epic battle, but Rafa could actually have won it in straight sets except he faltered a bit in that third set, ditto the 4 th when he had MP.

I would classify Nadal's 2007 5 set loss at Wimbledon as a "winnable" match, in that he had chances to break Federer early in that 5th set, then you have his marathon 2012 AO finals versus Novak in which he had a break lead 4-2 in the 5th set and lost after nearly 6 hours. (IIRC One shot muffed would have set him up for 5-3) Ditto the 2017 AO final with Federer when he lost again when up a break at 3-1 in the 5th set. Add the 2018 Wimbledon SF (virtually the finals ) where he came close to breaking Novak in the 5th set several time before succumbing 10-8. I also think Rafa played below form the 2019 Wimbledon SF vesrus Federer, I certainly felt he contributed to his own loss with some substandard play.

This myth that Rafa hasn't squandered opportunities is just that. Instead of 20 he could have had 3-5 more, but again close only counts in horseshoes. All three champs have coulda/woulda/shoulda. Federer for sure the 2019 Wimbledon finals and of course the 2009 USO finals versus Del Potro. While he lost the SF's with MP at both the 2010/11 USO, it wasn't a foregone conclusion he could have bested Rafa in those HC Finals.

 

[calitennis127]

Look at Novaks overall UFE 52 in three sets of tennis BP 1/5 that explains a lot

It does, and I never said that Nadal’s low UFE count isn’t impressive. It certainly is. But it does show that his strategy was largely predicated on making Djokovic miss and self-implode.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It does, and I never said that Nadal’s low UFE count isn’t impressive. It certainly is. But it does show that his strategy was largely predicated on making Djokovic miss and self-implode.

I think you and I were not watching the same match with the current conditions at RG this year,Rafa has been playing more aggressive tennis and he has been flattening out his shots more,he knew he had to do this.
Novak's play was extremely poor in the first 2 sets,he did improve slightly in the 3rd set still it was a crushing defeat from Nadal.
To me Novak had run out of idea's he overplayed the drop shot.Rafa can easily turn defence into offence especially on a clay court.
If Novak can only conjure up 5 BPs in 3 sets of tennis and only converting one of those it does not paint a pretty picture at all.
He even said in his presser Rafa was just too good today....enough said.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Okay I need to get some more sleep I went to work at 10pm my time last night and it is nearly 3pm this afternoon.
Still on a high.I will rewatch the match again later.

Congrats again to my fellow Rafa fans....incredible win!

 

[imjimmy]

Just a couple of other observations:

1) Lot of discussion on serve. For the total match, Djokovic's first serve % was at 67% versus Nadal at 65%. Djokovic's serve was CONSISTENTLY faster than Nadal's as well.

Nadal won 67% points on first serve and 68% points on second serve
Djokovic won at 50% first serve and 55% second serve respectively.
That stats alone says why Novak was broken 7 times in the match. In the 2nd and 3rd set, Novak served OVER 70% first serves and still got broken multiple times.

If you are serving faster than your opponent and when your serve lands in and you win only HALF the points, that's BIG trouble. It indicates your opponent dominated every part of the groundstrokes in the match: most of the rallies, the return games, serve-plus-one, etc. Which brings up the 2nd pt..

2) Even more important - evolution of Nadal's game on clay. It is CRITICAL to understand this since it differs from the past. If we look at Nadal's matches since 2017 we see that (in general) his winning % in shorter rallies is much higher than his winning % in longer rallies. In the past, Nadal would usually make it a war of attrition and win the longer rallies against most opponents. Now, with age however, it is the reverse. For instance, in RG 2020 Sinner, Schwartzman and Djokovic won more points on longer rallies (more than 4 shots) than Nadal did.

Rafa does the MOST damage in the serve+1, return+1 or 0-4 shot rallies. He tries to take a forehand ASAP in a neutral rally and takes a big cut on it.
This was especially true in the match vs Novak. As I pointed out before, 53-25 in the “First Strike” 0-4 shot rally length -- in favor of Nadal. That's a lopsided domination stat. In fact the longer the rallies went, the more Novak won them. In short, Nadal is not a talentless hack who is just defending and outlasting his opponent. In fact that's not a viable strategy at all, since the longer the point goes the shorter Rafa hits and he usually ends up losing a lot of them. (Moves slower than before, less explosive etc etc).

Finally - what could Novak have done to avoid being beaten like this? For one thing have a better strategy. Rope a dope tennis (dropshot/lob/dropshot-putaway) won't win matches vs Nadal. He would have been better of taking chances earlier in the rally so that Nadal could not step in and take it on his forehand. Djokovic was also standing way back to return Nadal's serve. That doesn't make any sense. He should have stepped in and returned aggressively deep into Nadal on the baseline. True, Nadal would have probably won more cheap points on serve. But standing back and floating a return only meant that Nadal took control of the rally and ended most points in less than 4 shots. One reason why Sinner seemed to have more success vs Nadal than Novak did (as preposterous as that sounds)..

 

[imjimmy]

You can speak for yourself and others, but I never thought there was any merit to the Nadal durability concerns and I said so repeatedly. I often said he would be able to win French Opens and remain highly ranked into his 30’s.

People used to say that he played too physical a style to last, but I didn’t see how that was the case given that everyone has to cover the court and stomp around.

I do agree with that. Credit where it's due. Most of us thought that Nadal would succumb to injuries and retire earlier. Not only did he not retire, he was able to adapt and win more slams. It doesn't hurt that a lot of the tour these days plays the physical brand of tennis and truly offensive players such as Federer get fewer with time..