2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[Nadalfan2013]

Wait, so Federer had the game to go up 5-1 and get set point with an array of winners, but then he missed a forehand in the forecourt with Nadal standing 15 feet behind the baseline because he was scared all of a sudden (despite the double-break lead he had built up!)?

That is beyond stupid and delusional. You are almost as bad as Kieran talking about the final as though Djokovic playing terribly in the first set had nothing to do with the outcome.

What's your point??? That when Nadal wins easy sets against Djokovic and Federer it's because they are playing bad or choked but when they are the ones who win easy sets against Nadal it's because Nadal is playing well but they are too good for him? As usual you are full of it. I have yet to read one post by you that actually makes sense, your goal in life is to downplay Nadal's talent and achievements and proclaim that Federer and Djokovic are greater and more talented than him. Well keep doing it but Nadal will keep winning no matter how much you complain and cry.

 

[AMR]

Clearly you are a Nadal fan like the ole mick Kieran. I never said that first serve accounted for everything, but that in the first set of a Slam final it is not a good idea to hit only 40% in when it is important to have a strong start. For a player of Djokovic’s experience it is also inexcusable. Djokovic got absolutely nothing cheap in the first set to allow himself to settle in to the match.

Your stats (just as with Kieran) also conveniently omitted that Djokovic served much better in the 3rd set over the 1st and he put himself in a position to win with a 5-4 lead.

So I am not saying first-serve percentage is everything, but it is necessary to put yourself in position to win. 40% doesn’t cut it for the first set of a Slam final. That is totally inexcusable.




Yup, agreed. All the more reason that it was important for Djokovic to make his first serves and win some cheap points in the first set instead of serving like a qualifier at a 250 event. I’m glad we agree on that.

Djokovic did not even come close to putting his best foot forward. On a scale from 1 to 10 he played at a 2, and that mostly owed to his serving, which also cost him dearly against Tsitsipas.

Your exact quote was "If Djokovic was serving at 70% and Nadal still mauled him 6-0, that would be totally different. But that's not what happened." I merely pointed out that he served 77% in the second set and was STILL MAULED 6-2!!!! You cannot hang this all on how Djokovic served without also acknowledging how well Nadal RETURNED. As I said, 98% of service returns in play through the first 2 sets is ridiculous.

As for the third set, Nadal only had 5 enforced errors through the first 2 sets. He made 9 in the third set so his overall level dropped. Djokovic did play better but Nadal had opportunities to make that a much easier set. It could have easily been 6-3 if Nadal held serve or closed on more of the countless break points he had. I believe Nadal had break points in 5 of 6 of Djokovic's service games.

Again, I am reemphasizing my earlier point that this was a GREAT RETURNS IN PLAY match from Nadal. By far the best he's done in years. I can't even count how many matches over the last few years where Nadal puts a second serve return into the net or sails it long. On a SECOND SERVE!!! It makes me crazy and want to break my TV. So yes, he finally put a match together where he put almost every return in play. Hoorah!!!

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Your exact quote was "If Djokovic was serving at 70% and Nadal still mauled him 6-0, that would be totally different. But that's not what happened." I merely pointed out that he served 77% in the second set and was STILL MAULED 6-2!!!! You cannot hang this all on how Djokovic served without also acknowledging how well Nadal RETURNED. As I said, 98% of service returns in play through the first 2 sets is ridiculous.

As for the third set, Nadal only had 5 enforced errors through the first 2 sets. He made 9 in the third set so his overall level dropped. Djokovic did play better but Nadal had opportunities to make that a much easier set. It could have easily been 6-3 if Nadal held serve or closed on more of the countless break points he had. I believe Nadal had break points in 5 of 6 of Djokovic's service games.

Again, I am reemphasizing my earlier point that this was a GREAT RETURNS IN PLAY match from Nadal. By far the best he's done in years. I can't even count how many matches over the last few years where Nadal puts a second serve return into the net or sails it long. On a SECOND SERVE!!! It makes me crazy and want to break my TV. So yes, he finally put a match together where he put almost every return in play. Hoorah!!!

You make perfect sense and you backed your claims with solid facts, but you are wasting your time because you are dealing with Cali. He will again ignore all the facts and claim how Nadal had nothing to do with the win and that it was Djokovic who gifted him the final, and then his twin Bonaca will say that Nadal is simply a bunny who runs fast and puts the ball in play and nothing more. Don't waste your time with them, just enjoy watching Nadal make tennis history and become the undisputed GOAT. If you want, troll them with stupid posts just like they do because at least it will be fun, but if you use intelligence and facts you will be wasting your time.

 

[Kieran]

Great post. AMR, and yet again it has to be pointed out to young Cali that Novak served a higher % in set 2 and lost it 6-2. Somehow, this is irrelevant to him and yet, it's a completely sane reply to his flourishing display of the third set stat of Novak serving at 74%. Compared to this, rafa served at 57% first serves.

He won the set, and the match.

Go figger...

 

[tented]

Your exact quote was "If Djokovic was serving at 70% and Nadal still mauled him 6-0, that would be totally different. But that's not what happened." I merely pointed out that he served 77% in the second set and was STILL MAULED 6-2!!!! You cannot hang this all on how Djokovic served without also acknowledging how well Nadal RETURNED. As I said, 98% of service returns in play through the first 2 sets is ridiculous.

As for the third set, Nadal only had 5 enforced errors through the first 2 sets. He made 9 in the third set so his overall level dropped. Djokovic did play better but Nadal had opportunities to make that a much easier set. It could have easily been 6-3 if Nadal held serve or closed on more of the countless break points he had. I believe Nadal had break points in 5 of 6 of Djokovic's service games.

Again, I am reemphasizing my earlier point that this was a GREAT RETURNS IN PLAY match from Nadal. By far the best he's done in years. I can't even count how many matches over the last few years where Nadal puts a second serve return into the net or sails it long. On a SECOND SERVE!!! It makes me crazy and want to break my TV. So yes, he finally put a match together where he put almost every return in play. Hoorah!!!

Welcome to Tennis Frontier, @AMR.

 

[calitennis127]

Great post. AMR, and yet again it has to be pointed out to young Cali that Novak served a higher % in set 2 and lost it 6-2.

And somehow it has to be pointed out to our brain dead Irish friend that I never said serve was everything or that it was impossible for Djokovic to lose a set when serving above 60-70%. There is more to tennis than serving, and the second set was played under completely different circumstances.

The point is that Djokovic did nothing to set the tone in a good way in set 1 - at all. He was sluggish and he did not win any cheap points on serve. Making first serves is crucial to getting off to a good start in high-profile matches.

Somehow, this is irrelevant to him and yet, it's a completely sane reply to his flourishing display of the third set stat of Novak serving at 74%.

In the 3rd set, Djokovic’s high-serve percentage was part of the reason he got himself to one game away from winning the set. Serving that way in the first set would have put him in a totally different place and you would have had a different match altogether, instead of the misleading slumberfest Djokovic indulged in on Sunday.

And, btw, you know who agrees with me? An actual coach, as opposed to a cadre of Nadal fanboys. In fact, Serena’s coach. Read and learn. He said almost exactly what I said to you and imjimmy after the match.



"Of course Rafa played his match, and that's a good thing about him.

You are never disappointed, as he always plays his match. Whether he wins or loses, Rafa is always there, starting the encounter solidly and seeing what's happening, stepping up if he needs to. That's exactly what Novak didn't do from the start.

You could feel something wrong because he was looking for easy points, trying drop shots here and there, like those four drop shots in the first game. Novak wasn't prepared to rally and go for it and hit winners to give himself the chance to win that match.

He didn't enter the court playing with the same mindset as the one we know. It happens to everyone, that's why tennis is interesting because it's not only about entering and playing your match there are many other aspects. The mental aspect is huge," Patrick Mouratoglou said.

Patrick Mouratoglou: 'Novak Djokovic wasn't ready to challenge Rafael Nadal in Paris'

Patrick Mouratoglou: 'Novak Djokovic wasn't ready to challenge Rafael Nadal in Paris'

Tennis - Nadal defeated Djokovic in straight sets to claim the 13th Roland Garros crown

www.tennisworldusa.org

 

[Bonaca]

You make perfect sense and you backed your claims with solid facts, but you are wasting your time because you are dealing with Cali. He will again ignore all the facts and claim how Nadal had nothing to do with the win and that it was Djokovic who gifted him the final, and then his twin Bonaca will say that Nadal is simply a bunny who runs fast and puts the ball in play and nothing more. Don't waste your time with them, just enjoy watching Nadal make tennis history and become the undisputed GOAT. If you want, troll them with stupid posts just like they do because at least it will be fun, but if you use intelligence and facts you will be wasting your time.

Wrong did not say that troll, he does more than just put balls back, but this is the most important part of his talent and game strategy. He is building everything on this feature, everything. On slow clay therefor he capitalises the most, on other surfaces just mediocre.
Simple strategy: easier to go the safe way with his running-horse- skills, than play risky tennis and go for broke/winners or preparing points more offensively.
That’s why almost everyone struggles playing him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kieran]

And somehow it has to be pointed out to our brain dead Irish friend that I never said serve was everything or that it was impossible for Djokovic to lose a set when serving above 60-70%. There is more to tennis than serving, and the second set was played under completely different circumstances.

The point is that Djokovic did nothing to set the tone in a good way in set 1 - at all. He was sluggish and he did not win any cheap points on serve. Making first serves is crucial to getting off to a good start in high-profile matches.



In the 3rd set, Djokovic’s high-serve percentage was part of the reason he got himself to one game away from winning the set. Serving that way in the first set would have put him in a totally different place and you would have had a different match altogether, instead of the misleading slumberfest Djokovic indulged in on Sunday.

And, btw, you know who agrees with me? An actual coach, as opposed to a cadre of Nadal fanboys. In fact, Serena’s coach. Read and learn. He said almost exactly what I said to you and imjimmy after the match.



"Of course Rafa played his match, and that's a good thing about him.

You are never disappointed, as he always plays his match. Whether he wins or loses, Rafa is always there, starting the encounter solidly and seeing what's happening, stepping up if he needs to. That's exactly what Novak didn't do from the start.

You could feel something wrong because he was looking for easy points, trying drop shots here and there, like those four drop shots in the first game. Novak wasn't prepared to rally and go for it and hit winners to give himself the chance to win that match.

He didn't enter the court playing with the same mindset as the one we know. It happens to everyone, that's why tennis is interesting because it's not only about entering and playing your match there are many other aspects. The mental aspect is huge," Patrick Mouratoglou said.

Patrick Mouratoglou: 'Novak Djokovic wasn't ready to challenge Rafael Nadal in Paris'

Patrick Mouratoglou: 'Novak Djokovic wasn't ready to challenge Rafael Nadal in Paris'

Tennis - Nadal defeated Djokovic in straight sets to claim the 13th Roland Garros crown

www.tennisworldusa.org

Serena’s coach

My dear sainted mother had a phrase, “that man says more than his prayers.” It means, he yaps too much. His lips go flapping, hot air comes out. You kept going on so much about the 40%, you need to own it, brother. And pay attention also to what others are saying. Sometimes truth comes from a place you don’t like. But AMR is a new and very welcome voice. We don’t know who they like as a player, maybe it’s Daveed, we dunno. But whatever, you’re reading the stats on serve wrong.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Wrong did not say that troll, he does more than just put balls back, but this is the most important part of his talent and game strategy. He is building everything on this feature, everything. On slow clay therefor he capitalises the most, on other surfaces just mediocre.
Simple strategy: easier to go the safe way with his running-horse- skills, than play risky tennis and go for broke/winners or preparing points more offensively.
That’s why almost everyone struggles playing him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s like me saying that Federer and Sampras win mostly on fast surfaces because they can count on their serve. That’s their main strategy to win easy points on their serve and then the rest of their game is way less important or impressive. That’s why they don’t succeed as much on slower surfaces like Clay because outside of their serve they are nothing special.

See when you troll I can also reply with a troll message. It doesn’t work like that. Isner is a huge server but can’t win slams. Monfils is faster than Nadal but he can’t win slams. The problem is you never give any decent credit to Nadal and you force me and others to reply with the same stupidity as you because either you know nothing about tennis or you are a troll hater (probably both).

Nadal has a complete game including one of the greatest forehands in the history of the game, a stunning backhand that is very versatile from power to slice, perfect volleying and smash, amazing combination of both attack and defence, solid serve and return, amazing precision and touch, amazing mental strength, great power, building points with intelligence, unique shots and game, etc. and yes he’s a great mover too but so are Federer and Djokovic.

But just in this thread alone you kept referring to him as a bunny with unbelievable luck who just puts the ball in play and waits for the errors and that’s just completely stupid and disrespectful. Nadal is the only one out of the Big 3 to have won multiple slams on each surface he has nothing left to prove. He also beat Federer in the AO and WB finals, and Djokovic in 2 USO finals. But keep on hating and trolling and he will keep on winning.

 

[Bonaca]

That’s like me saying that Federer and Sampras win mostly on fast surfaces because they can count on their serve. That’s their main strategy to win easy points on their serve and then the rest of their game is way less important or impressive. That’s why they don’t succeed as much on slower surfaces like Clay because outside of their serve they are nothing special.

See when you troll I can also reply with a troll message. It doesn’t work like that. Isner is a huge server but can’t win slams. Monfils is faster than Nadal but he can’t win slams. The problem is you never give any decent credit to Nadal and you force me and others to reply with the same stupidity as you because either you know nothing about tennis or you are a troll hater (probably both).

Nadal has a complete game including one of the greatest forehands in the history of the game, a stunning backhand that is very versatile from power to slice, perfect volleying and smash, amazing combination of both attack and defence, solid serve and return, amazing precision and touch, amazing mental strength, great power, building points with intelligence, unique shots and game, etc. and yes he’s a great mover too but so are Federer and Djokovic.

But just in this thread alone you kept referring to him as a bunny with unbelievable luck who just puts the ball in play and waits for the errors and that’s just completely stupid and disrespectful. Nadal is the only one out of the Big 3 to have won multiple slams on each surface he has nothing left to prove. He also beat Federer in the AO and WB finals, and Djokovic in 2 USO finals. But keep on hating and trolling and he will keep on winning.

You have to read more carefully , it’s the most important part, it’s obvious when looking at his game and results on different surfaces.
Novak and Fed are clearly more complete player and not that dependant on one aspect like Bob.
Jesus he depends on wta moonballs at times.
You said it, rest of his game is solid, bring-back ability is stellar, he made the most of it.
Let’s see if rabbit can go on with his Duracell game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonaca]

That’s like me saying that Federer and Sampras win mostly on fast surfaces because they can count on their serve. That’s their main strategy to win easy points on their serve and then the rest of their game is way less important or impressive. That’s why they don’t succeed as much on slower surfaces like Clay because outside of their serve they are nothing special.

See when you troll I can also reply with a troll message. It doesn’t work like that. Isner is a huge server but can’t win slams. Monfils is faster than Nadal but he can’t win slams. The problem is you never give any decent credit to Nadal and you force me and others to reply with the same stupidity as you because either you know nothing about tennis or you are a troll hater (probably both).

Nadal has a complete game including one of the greatest forehands in the history of the game, a stunning backhand that is very versatile from power to slice, perfect volleying and smash, amazing combination of both attack and defence, solid serve and return, amazing precision and touch, amazing mental strength, great power, building points with intelligence, unique shots and game, etc. and yes he’s a great mover too but so are Federer and Djokovic.

But just in this thread alone you kept referring to him as a bunny with unbelievable luck who just puts the ball in play and waits for the errors and that’s just completely stupid and disrespectful. Nadal is the only one out of the Big 3 to have won multiple slams on each surface he has nothing left to prove. He also beat Federer in the AO and WB finals, and Djokovic in 2 USO finals. But keep on hating and trolling and he will keep on winning.

He lost even in Paris against Novak, and never could beat him on his best slam.
When did you give credit to Novak , must have missed that honey!
You were very quite before the F, now bullshiting again. At least you show up some times , not like the other nadaltards who were hiding since Bob won again and the ground was safe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Bonaca you are as unlikeable as Djokovic. Now try to leave the “never ending lucky wta moonballer rabbit Bob” alone and get a life

 

[Bonaca]

Bonaca you are as unlikeable as Djokovic. Now try to leave the “never ending lucky wta moonballer rabbit Bob” alone and get a life

Haha and that from you? Jesus almighty, you really make me laugh. Thx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bonaca]

Bonaca you are as unlikeable as Djokovic. Now try to leave the “never ending lucky wta moonballer rabbit Bob” alone and get a life

Be honest , is it his game or his ass-to-mouth action that attracts you? Or his fistpumping on easy mistakes repeatedly?
He shouldn’t be role model to anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calitennis127]

Serena’s coach

My dear sainted mother had a phrase, “that man says more than his prayers.” It means, he yaps too much. His lips go flapping, hot air comes out. You kept going on so much about the 40%, you need to own it, brother. And pay attention also to what others are saying. Sometimes truth comes from a place you don’t like. But AMR is a new and very welcome voice. We don’t know who they like as a player, maybe it’s Daveed, we dunno. But whatever, you’re reading the stats on serve wrong.

No, you have always had a contempt for detail. I said that in general one needs to serve better than 40% to put himself in a position to win a set in a Grand Slam final. I never said it was everything, just a key prerequisite. After the first set, there were two sets in which Djokovic served above 70%: one in which he lost 6-2 and the other in which he had a 5-4 lead. There is nothing in that which contradicts my original position.

Djokovic’s awful start in the first set gave Nadal a lot of momentum, which carried over into the 2nd. Djokovic didn’t start letting things flow until set 3, and the increased serve percentage was a key component of that (but not the only one, and I never said it was). “Important” and “only” are not the same thing. I think you should contemplate the difference.

 

[Kieran]

No, you have always had a contempt for detail. I said that in general one needs to serve better than 40% to put himself in a position to win a set in a Grand Slam final. I never said it was everything, just a key prerequisite. After the first set, there were two sets in which Djokovic served above 70%: one in which he lost 6-2 and the other in which he had a 5-4 lead. There is nothing in that which contradicts my original position.

Djokovic’s awful start in the first set gave Nadal a lot of momentum, which carried over into the 2nd. Djokovic didn’t start letting things flow until set 3, and the increased serve percentage was a key component of that (but not the only one, and I never said it was). “Important” and “only” are not the same thing. I think you should contemplate the difference.

You see, all I see is this: something historic happened in Paris, and you want to change the subject. And if you haven’t changed too much over the last few years, since we last encountered each other, then you’ll hammer this alt-history version of things until you think it’s gained traction. Trying to peddle fake news, if you like, hoping it goes mainstream.

So even above, you “said that in general one needs to serve better than 40% to put himself in a position to win a set in a Grand Slam final.”

Well, that’s exactly what happened in sets 2 and 3. Novak served at 77 and 74% respectively. Of these two sets, he did worse at 77%. Rafa served lower % than Novak in both sets, and won them. This stat, too, contradicts what you said above. ImJimmy posted the % of points won off first serves that landed in and obviously Rafa was returning great.

But in stubbornly insisting that you’re onto something, you hastily make mistakes, and if you notice them, you’re not honest enough to admit it, or you’re hoping they'll glide by unnoticed, or you’re simply a masochist.

You maybe a masochist but I’m not. I’m probably more a sadist in the way I persist with you. No wonder we get on so well, eh?

 

[Carol]

It will be possible?

 

[calitennis127]

It will be possible?

That is actually very funny, and Federer and Djokovic will deserve witnessing it if it happens for all their flops at Roland Garros.

 

[calitennis127]

You see, all I see is this: something historic happened in Paris, and you want to change the subject.

Why is it “changing the subject” to talk about the details of the match, or to provide a perspective from the Djokovic side? To you, anything other than saying “Nadal was unbelievably awesome and that’s all there is to it” is unacceptable and a “changing of the subject.”

And “something historic” also happened when Djokovic won in Cincinnati (becoming the only player to win each Masters title twice) and Rome (becoming the player with the most MS titles in history). Why weren’t you celebrating history in those moments too?

So even above, you “said that in general one needs to serve better than 40% to put himself in a position to win a set in a Grand Slam final.”

True, and I stand by that. It is a key prerequisite, but not the only factor either.

Well, that’s exactly what happened in sets 2 and 3. Novak served at 77 and 74% respectively. Of these two sets, he did worse at 77%.

That is an utterly trivial difference of 3% and it is laughable that you would make anything of it.

Rafa served lower % than Novak in both sets, and won them. This stat, too, contradicts what you said above.

Again - I never said that first-serve percentage was the only factor in a tennis match, just that it is a key prerequisite to success and if you’re serving 40% in the first set of a Grand Slam final you’re probably going to be in trouble.

But in stubbornly insisting that you’re onto something, you hastily make mistakes, and if you notice them, you’re not honest enough to admit it, or you’re hoping they'll glide by unnoticed, or you’re simply a masochist. You maybe a masochist but I’m not. I’m probably more a sadist in the way I persist with you. No wonder we get on so well, eh?

You’re the one making mistakes here my friend. I have never said that first-serve percentage was the only factor in a match, but rather that one can’t afford to serve 40% in the first set of a Grand Slam final. The reason our conversations stimulate you is that subconsciously you sense that I am revealing the holes in your argument.

And yes, I do think in the most fundamental sense that the 40% first-serve mark in the first set is where the match went off the rails for Djokovic and showed that his mindset was all off in this match. Djokovic needed to come out and set the tone in the first set with efficient and fast-paced play on his own serve. He needed to be sharp. He needed to get some cheap points and build some momentum in the rallies. He did not do this. To the contrary, he could barely hit a serve in. And to Nadal’s credit, he came out as sharp as can be and allowed Djokovic to play his Nyquill tennis for an hour and a half before Djokovic woke up.

Djokovic was shell-shocked that he lost the first set 6-0 with the whole tennis world watching. Obviously, this was not something he was expecting, given his undefeated record on the year. But frankly it was something he deserved. His poor serving got him stuck in numerous matches this year that should have been more straightforward, especially the semi against Tsitsipas.

Djokovic went into this match thinking he could just work his way into a rhythm like he has all the other matches, as though he was playing Berankis or Koepfner in the Round of 16 at a Masters event. He did not come out ready like Nadal did.

 

[Kieran]

Why...did.

You’re thinking of tennis matches in terms of romance novels. “Novak was shell shocked with the whole world watching. You see, he didn’t set the tone. It’s like the bride on her wedding night, she wants to look her prettiest.”

You watch tennis wrongly. Don’t give me a “Djokovic perspective.” What the heck is that? You’re watching the match, you’re not able to give Djokovic’s perspective. You would only be thinking, “I better counter-factual this match because I don’t like how it went down. I’ve an idea, from Djokovic perspective 40% is a lousy insurmountable beginning! Thank you Lord!”

This is purchasing into more romantic myths, ignoring the excellent scoring system that resets things at the beginning of the next set. Novak, romantically speaking, isn’t virginal in these settings. He’s used to the wedding night. He’s used to scrapping back. He scrapped back with a high first serve % in set two and was hammered there too.

In fact, in set 3, it was only competitive for 2 games, 3 at most. Novak broke back, Novak held, Rafa held.

Match over...