2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[Moxie]

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

A week after that match, you're still trying to say you were right about something: that Novak played a terrible first 2 sets, and if he hadn't, things might have gone differently? Sure. Everyone agrees with that, I think. Otherwise, what is your point?

 

[MikeOne]

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.

Over the years, your bias and hatred for Nadal has clouded your judgment in severe ways, to the point where you can barely apply logic to any scenario and yes, you use straw mans, as kieran points out, and completely illogical points to try and somehow get out of the holes you get yourself into with your irrational points of view. Perfect example of your lack of logic is when i explain how much power and spin Nadal is able to employ on clay and you post a video of Nadal being dominated by Djokovic in Cincinnati, years ago, a completely irrational response and you change the argument as me saying Nadal can dominate others and employ his clay court power/spin on any surface. This is a complete butchering my position to gain ground by setting forth your totally illogical points of view.

Now on Nadal, he has won 13 RGs and i think you have an excuse for every opponent's loss - 'Federer was dominating, won first set 6-1, then choked' 'Soderling was a shadow of himself in finals, if he had played like how he played to beat Nadal in 09' 'Djokovic choked, couldn't get a serve in' 'Federer had mono' 'Thiem was tired'

when will you just knock some sense into you and realize that when a player wins 13 slams, he is the best and at his best, he is the BEST. 13 slams is almost as many slams that Sampras has, do you realize the significance of this? There is a reason... Nadal has an extraordinary clay court game.. from his movement, defense, power, amount of spin etc.. Nadal has a out of this world clay court game and every single time Djokovic, Federer have stepped on the court against Nadal, the racquet has never been in their hands.... Nadal has his very best -->>>>>> Djokovic and federer at their best, on clay. Now you can point to matches, here and there, where Novak and Fed beat Nadal on clay, so what? Nadal is not invincible and has lost, especially in clay court tournaments outside of FO, to guys like Diego, Fognini, Moya, Ferrer, Novak, Fed... but so what? importantly, when in form and in FO final, he is 10x more difficult to beat. Remember Soderling in 10 finals after he had beaten Nadal in 09? got annihilated... Stan in 17 finals after he had won it in 15? overpowered and crushed... Djokovic in the 3 finals after he had beaten Rafa in other tournaments? dominated... Fed in FO finals after Fed had beaten Nadal in smaller tournaments? beaten handily, never even got to 5 sets. What happened to Diego i semis after he had dominated Nadal in Rome? just happened to play poorly? nah,, Nadal at his best, Diego is just a toy...

So what is the reality? First, he is greatest clay courter ever and second, once he in a FO final, he is usually at his best - the greatest clay courter, at his very best.. 13-0, 13-0 cali, 13-0! Now you can make all sorts of excuses 'If Fed had done this, if Novak had done that' but in the end, Nadal is simply better than them, on clay, all of them at 100%. Novak and Fed are talented and all courters, in ways more well rounded than Nadal but when Rafa is at his best, ON CLAY, he is powerful, he hits heavy, he doesn't miss, he generates crazy angles, he has good drop shots, he slides and moves better than anyone, he can defend and hit winners off impossible positions, his spin is hard to deal with at the net, his backhand has greatly improved and a weapon... He is absolutely insane... Djokovic didn't start the FO final that poorly (first couple of games) just that Nadal was at his best and Djokovic then sort of had a let down... but 0,2 is crazy, no way djokovic loses first 2 sets like that against anyone else in a final... then when novak played better, still lost it. Realize that to beat Nadal, in a FO final, you have to take risks, limits UFEs, use right tactics, serve big AND you need Nadal to not be at his very best.... It's not impossible, just very very hard, almost impossible and the 13-0 is proof. You cali, have no proof but excuses galore and many irrational, illogical positions as to why players have lost to Nadal..

 

[calitennis127]

A week after that match, you're still trying to say you were right about something: that Novak played a terrible first 2 sets, and if he hadn't, things might have gone differently? Sure. Everyone agrees with that, I think. Otherwise, what is your point?

Moxie you should not be talking about being wrong when you were on here at the end of 2019 celebrating after Djokovic lost to Tsitsipas in Shanghai and saying that the younger generation was going to start causing major problems for him. Two weeks later Djokovic trounced Tsitsipas at the Paris Masters, and then he also straight-setted him in Dubai.

So ever since your predictions that the tour was getting too young for Djokovic and that Tsitsipas in particular would be a problem for him, Djokovic is 3-0 against Tsitsipas and Djokovic nearly went undefeated overall in 2020, with his only two losses a disqualification and a loss to a player who is actually older than him. I made the argument to you at the time that just because Djokovic was 32 didn't mean he couldn't make adjustments in future match-ups with Tsitsipas, and since I said that he is 3-0 against Tsitsipas. I also said that talent was more important than age, and Djokovic has gone undefeated against younger players in 2020 aside from a disqualification. So who out of us 2 was right on that issue? Not even close.

As for the RG final, I never made a prediction on this board. My view is simply what it has always been - that Federer/Djokovic underachieve there and Nadal overachieves. The bottom line is that the way Djokovic came out in the first set was a joke. Despite his excellent record in 2020, his serving has been very erratic. But other aspects of his game have covered it up. In the French Open final it caught up with him severely. I would also point out that Djokovic has had major issues with serving and setting the tone offensively in big matches, which is why he lost to Murray, Nishikori, and Wawrinka as well. It's not just Nadal's amazingness which has revealed this flaw, contrary to Kieran's absurdly tendentious pro-Nadal arguments.

 

[calitennis127]

Over the years, your bias and hatred for Nadal has clouded your judgment in severe ways, to the point where you can barely apply logic to any scenario and yes, you use straw mans, as kieran points out, and completely illogical points to try and somehow get out of the holes you get yourself into with your irrational points of view.\

Yeah, it's funny how you only come on here to talk Nadal with me after he wins a big match. I don't remember you coming on here to taunt me (let alone give me credit) after the 2019 Australian Open final or the 2019 Wimbledon semifinal when Nadal was outclassed. Matter of fact, did you come on the board and give me credit after Thiem beat Nadal in the AO quarters for pointing out the clear limitations in Nadal's offensive abilities that were on display in that match? Of course not.

How about the match with Federer at 2019 WImbledon? It was clear that Federer had more firepower but you were strangely silent on that point after the match.

As for Roland Garros, is it really "irrational" to say that Federer did not have the game to beat Nadal in the 2011 French Open final when you look at the shotmaking display he put on against Nadal in the first set? How can you possibly argue he didn't have the game to do it in that match? All he needed to do was hit more forehands inside-out and up-the-line to attack Nadal's forehand but instead he went CC in the most muscleheaded way imaginable.

I know you aren't as clueless as Moxie was when she talked up Tsitsipas as a Kryptonite to Djokovic at the end of last year, so you should be able to see how superior Federer was talent-wise in this match:

 

[calitennis127]

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...

A Djokovic perspective means looking at the match in terms of Djokovic's own performance and not simply slobbering over Nadal, which is the essence of your perspective. In other words, can you look at the match and say "Djokovic could have done X, Y, or Z better"? That is looking at things from Djokovic's perspective.

As for your point about the scoreline starting anew with each set: that simply shows your blindness to the emotions of sports. Sets are connected psychologically and emotionally. If you lose a set 10-8 in a tiebreak, the next set is generally going to be much harder to win. To ignore that sets are connected is absurd.

Allow me to ask these questions of you:

1) If you were Djokovic's coach, would you have told him after the RG championship match a week ago that he played his best and there was nothing more he could have done?

2) Do you think that Djokovic's serving woes against Tsitsipas (which caused the match to go to 5 instead of concluding in 3) were at all an indicator of a deeper problem than goes beyond simply playing Nadal?

3) Why do you think Djokovic has lost big matches in Slams to not just Nadal but also Murray, Wawrinka, and Nishikori?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

A Djokovic perspective means looking at the match in terms of Djokovic's own performance and not simply slobbering over Nadal, which is the essence of your perspective. In other words, can you look at the match and say "Djokovic could have done X, Y, or Z better"? That is looking at things from Djokovic's perspective.

As for your point about the scoreline starting anew with each set: that simply shows your blindness to the emotions of sports. Sets are connected psychologically and emotionally. If you lose a set 10-8 in a tiebreak, the next set is generally going to be much harder to win. To ignore that sets are connected is absurd.

Allow me to ask these questions of you:

1) If you were Djokovic's coach, would you have told him after the RG championship match a week ago that he played his best and there was nothing more he could have done?

2) Do you think that Djokovic's serving woes against Tsitsipas were at all an indicator of a deeper problem than goes beyond simply playing Nadal?

3) Why do you think Djokovic has lost big matches in Slams to not just Nadal but also Murray, Wawrinka, and Nishikori?

Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final but of course you will argue that he played great but that Djokovic was too good and made Nadal helpless. You just twist things like you want as long as it makes Djokovic and Federer superior to Nadal.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

 

[MikeOne]

Yeah, it's funny how you only come on here to talk Nadal with me after he wins a big match. I don't remember you coming on here to taunt me (let alone give me credit) after the 2019 Australian Open final or the 2019 Wimbledon semifinal when Nadal was outclassed. Matter of fact, did you come on the board and give me credit after Thiem beat Nadal in the AO quarters for pointing out the clear limitations in Nadal's offensive abilities that were on display in that match? Of course not.

How about the match with Federer at 2019 WImbledon? It was clear that Federer had more firepower but you were strangely silent on that point after the match.

As for Roland Garros, is it really "irrational" to say that Federer did not have the game to beat Nadal in the 2011 French Open final when you look at the shotmaking display he put on against Nadal in the first set? How can you possibly argue he didn't have the game to do it in that match? All he needed to do was hit more forehands inside-out and up-the-line to attack Nadal's forehand but instead he went CC in the most muscleheaded way imaginable.

I know you aren't as clueless as Moxie was when she talked up Tsitsipas as a Kryptonite to Djokovic at the end of last year, so you should be able to see how superior Federer was talent-wise in this match:

jesus, how irrational can you get? i keep pointing it out and YOU CONTINUE TO DO IT. I have told you 1 million times, i'm talking about Nadal on clay, especially RG finals, you keep bringing up idiotic and completely irrelevant matches elsewhere. You're credibility is in the ground, dirt.. you can't even make any sense.

and you continue to dig holes by pointing to games, sets where Federer outplayed Nadal.. as if pointing to games or sets where Federer outplayed Nadal has anything to do with a full match. Btw, watch how Nadal broke Federer in that first set with a ridiculous explosive winner to which even commentators said 'wow, how good is nadal'

you continue to just spit out trash, nonsense..... bringing up matches on grass, AO and and pointing to games or stretches where joker or fed outplayed Nadal at FO, as if they are NEVER supposed to outplay Nadal in any points... IT IS IRRELEVANT if Federer, Theim or even your MOM can outplay Nadal for a few games or for most of a set, IRRELEVANT... the point is, NO-ONE has been able to do it for 3 sets.. in RG finals and this because Nadal mostly outplays you and forces you to play an incredibly high level, 13 opponents have tried, 0 has succeeded, in FO finals. Nadal is SIMPLY BETTER than Djokovic or Federer, even at their best, IF Nadal is at his best, on clay. Live with it....

 

[Jelenafan]

Now I think B05 Major finals are a unique situation onto themselves. The pressure and atmosphere is unlike anything else in tennis. So I find it interesting that all the previous Major finals between Rafa and Novak all went 4 or even 5 sets. Until 2019/20. Last year Novak dominated Rafa in an impressive straight set victory at the AO and now in 2020 Rafa did the same thing in straight sets in Roland Garros.

I think most would say that Novak is the favorite on HC in a Major finals and that Rafa is the favorite on red clay based on the last five years. However nobody predicted those two matches were the victor was soo dominant. So I find it amusing that adherents of both Rafa/Novak are acting as if these 2 matches settle definitively the question once and for all. Those two matches were more an anomaly IMO, as I expect both players to do better in a rematch in either surface. Wouldn't be surprised if their next Major final goes 4 or even 5 sets.

It's a Major finals, people, all bets are off.

 

[calitennis127]

how irrational can you get? i keep pointing it out and YOU CONTINUE TO DO IT. I have told you 1 million times, i'm talking about Nadal on clay, especially RG finals, you keep bringing up idiotic and completely irrelevant matches elsewhere. You're credibility is in the ground, dirt.. you can't even make any sense.

and you continue to dig holes by pointing to games, sets where Federer outplayed Nadal.. as if pointing to games or sets where Federer outplayed Nadal has anything to do with a full match. Btw, watch how Nadal broke Federer in that first set with a ridiculous explosive winner to which even commentators said 'wow, how good is nadal'

Your comments over the years on Nadal have extended far beyond clay, and when he loses you are strangely silent. You never come on this board on a mission to make a point after matches in World Tour Finals when Nadal can't even hit 5 winners, or after he gets doused on grass. But then after he wins Roland Garros finals you appear with a vengeance. Why is that? I didn't see you coming on this board to say "Cali has been vindicated" when Djokovic went up in the H2H on Nadal or after he beat him in all 3 clay MS finals.

Also, in the 2007 RG final, Federer had around 20 breakpoints that he did not convert. If you think that means Nadal is outright superior, I beg to differ.

Finally, let's talk about that point you are referring to. In the video, the point starts at 5:03. Freeze it at 5:10. Federer has two easy options to finish the point with the ball hanging right by the net - either a BH up the line or a dropshot. But what does he do? A stupid CC backhand that Nadal tracks down. If you watch that point you will see Federer being as muscleheaded as you are being in this conversation:

 

[Moxie]

Moxie you should not be talking about being wrong when you were on here at the end of 2019 celebrating after Djokovic lost to Tsitsipas in Shanghai and saying that the younger generation was going to start causing major problems for him. Two weeks later Djokovic trounced Tsitsipas at the Paris Masters, and then he also straight-setted him in Dubai.

So ever since your predictions that the tour was getting too young for Djokovic and that Tsitsipas in particular would be a problem for him, Djokovic is 3-0 against Tsitsipas and Djokovic nearly went undefeated overall in 2020, with his only two losses a disqualification and a loss to a player who is actually older than him. I made the argument to you at the time that just because Djokovic was 32 didn't mean he couldn't make adjustments in future match-ups with Tsitsipas, and since I said that he is 3-0 against Tsitsipas. I also said that talent was more important than age, and Djokovic has gone undefeated against younger players in 2020 aside from a disqualification. So who out of us 2 was right on that issue? Not even close.

As for the RG final, I never made a prediction on this board. My view is simply what it has always been - that Federer/Djokovic underachieve there and Nadal overachieves. The bottom line is that the way Djokovic came out in the first set was a joke. Despite his excellent record in 2020, his serving has been very erratic. But other aspects of his game have covered it up. In the French Open final it caught up with him severely. I would also point out that Djokovic has had major issues with serving and setting the tone offensively in big matches, which is why he lost to Murray, Nishikori, and Wawrinka as well. It's not just Nadal's amazingness which has revealed this flaw, contrary to Kieran's absurdly tendentious pro-Nadal arguments.

You keep bringing up my opinion on Tsitsipas and other younger players v Novak. I'm sure you mischaracterize it, as you always do when you paraphrase posters you disagree with. I have pointed out that Djokovic has the worst record v. Next Gen of the Big 3, and he still does. I made no prediction that it was the end of Djokovic or any such nonsense. What I asked you was why you keep hammering on that first set...you've said all there was to say many posts ago. Now I see that you've resurrected the notion that we don't understand the psychological/emotional arc of matches in your response to @Kieran. But we are talking about Djokovic here, not some scrub who got bageled by Nadal on clay and gave up. He had a bad day at the office and Nadal had a very, very good one, in a milieu where he excels anyway. I know you to be a person to focus on a set or even a point, and not a match, no matter how much it changes nothing. But I'll ask you again...why the obsession over that first set?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

13-1 in RG titles and 7-1 in RG h2h and some Djokovic fans are still trying to argue that the result depended on their player! lol

 

[calitennis127]

Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final but of course you will argue that he played great but that Djokovic was too good and made Nadal helpless. You just twist things like you want as long as it makes Djokovic and Federer superior to Nadal.

Interesting perspective. Now why do you say Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final? Did he serve 40% in the first set?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Interesting perspective. Now why do you say Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final? Did he serve 40% in the first set?

Even worse, he was barely moving during the whole match, extremely flat and slow on every ball.

 

[Moxie]

Interesting perspective. Now why do you say Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final? Did he serve 40% in the first set?

Zverev, in his win today over FAA, served 39% in the first set and won it 6-3. Obviously, it wasn't the same as playing Nadal at RG, but Zverev is also no Djokovic, either. And he depends much more on his serve.

As to the AO, Nadal DID actually serve 40% in the second set. And made an unusually high # of UFEs.

2019 Australian Open F: Novak Djokovic vs Rafael Nadal Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

www.tennisabstract.com

Compare this to the recent RG we're discussing on this thread:

2020 Roland Garros F: Novak Djokovic vs Rafael Nadal Detailed Stats | Tennis Abstract

www.tennisabstract.com

Make whatever you will of all that, but I think Jelenafan made a good point above: that Major finals between Nadal/Djokovic tend to go 4 or 5. The last 2 were more blow-outs. Not the norm, but anomalies. What does it mean? Likely not that much.

 

[MikeOne]

13-1 in RG titles and 7-1 in RG h2h and some Djokovic fans are still trying to argue that the result depended on their player! lol

Nadal can be 1,000,000,000 - 0 in matches won at RG finals but cali will have an excuse for every one of those 1,000,000,000 losses and flood the forums with highlights of stretches where Nadal was outplayed by players, as if games and 3/4 of sets = full match. It's the highest level of deliberate irrational and illogical reasoning... There is no way to beat cali in argument, 'Hey cali, Nadal is 1,000,000,000 - 0' his response? 'yes, but in 2001 match, on hards, 10 years ago, player x dominated Nadal' OR 'yes, but in 2003, for 4 games, player y dominated Nadal in RG finals, here are the highlights' LOL How can anyone beat such irrational and illogical arguments? impossible! cali creates a maze of absolute gibberish arguments.

 

[Kieran]

Interesting perspective. Now why do you say Nadal played horrible in the 2019 AO final? Did he serve 40% in the first set?

Rafa didn't play well in the 2019 Australian Open at all. And I mentioned this to fellow-Rafa admirers at the time, both before the match and during the tournament. He was rolling drunks, and looking tough, but who did he beat? He was dropping the ball short and nobody was good enough to call him on it, until the final.

The reason for all this is that Rafa played zero tennis after the USO in 2018, far as I remember. He was woefully under-prepared for Djoker playing at that level in that Australian Open final. If my memory serves me well, he even withdrew from a warm up tourney before Oz. By the way, this 40% conspiracy theory is such a con job. It's a non sequitur. Novak was ready, and he was outplayed.

There's your analysis right there...

 

[Kieran]

As for your point about the scoreline starting anew with each set: that simply shows your blindness to the emotions of sports. Sets are connected psychologically and emotionally. If you lose a set 10-8 in a tiebreak, the next set is generally going to be much harder to win. To ignore that sets are connected is absurd.

This has been shown to be wrong so often throughout tennis history, that it's barely worth replying to. One of the great Wimbledon finals finished with a scoreline of 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7, 8-6. Novak isn't a rookie. He towels down after the first and regroups. It's actually so much the opposite of what you said, I'm surprised I'm having to type this.

Allow me to ask these questions of you:

1) If you were Djokovic's coach, would you have told him after the RG championship match a week ago that he played his best and there was nothing more he could have done?

Monday morning quarterbacking, as you Yanks call it, is a term that refers mockingly to people who know better after the match. Everybody knows better after the match. It's nonsense. If I was Novak and my coach said that to me I'd fling a racket at him.

2) Do you think that Djokovic's serving woes against Tsitsipas (which caused the match to go to 5 instead of concluding in 3) were at all an indicator of a deeper problem than goes beyond simply playing Nadal?

Novak didn't have "serving woes" against Tsitsipas. He served at 67% and won 73% of points off first serves he got in. In the Australian Open final, nobody mentioned serving woes, even though he served at 65%. He won that match, and nobody goes looking for excuses after a win.

It's a myth that he had serving woes against Tsitsipas. In set 4 (which he lost) he served at 70%, but in the fifth set, which he won 6-1, he served at 50%. My memory of the last 2 sets is that Novak was holding serve quickly and Tsitsipas was struggling, facing break points and long games on almost every serve.

If you're saying it just to win an argument, then it's a lie to say Novak had serving woes against Tsitsipas.

3) Why do you think Djokovic has lost big matches in Slams to not just Nadal but also Murray, Wawrinka, and Nishikori?

There are several reasons, but none of them are relevant to Sunday's final. The reason he lost there is because he was outplayed, and that was across all three sets, not just the first set...

 

[Kieran]

KSkate, why the change with the quoting format for replies? The new one is a complete pain and makes it harder to divide up other people’s replies. It would be great if you could switch back. Thanks.

It’s much easier, brother. All you do is click enter below the piece you want to quote and it highlights it automatically as a quote...

 

[calitennis127]

Zverev, in his win today over FAA, served 39% in the first set and won it 6-3. Obviously, it wasn't the same as playing Nadal at RG, but Zverev is also no Djokovic, either. And he depends much more on his serve.

As to the AO, Nadal DID actually serve 40% in the second set. And made an unusually high # of UFEs.

Unlike you hypocrites I would be willing to concede that low first-serve percentage played a role in Nadal’s loss in that second set of the AO final. However, as a general matter I expect first-serve percentage to decline over the course of a match unless it is some kind of Anderson-Isner-Karlovic-Roddick-Federer servathon match. Players get tired obviously and usually first-serve percentage comes down with the fatigue becoming pronounced

My view is that high first-serve percentage is most important early in a match and it shows that someone is primed, ready, and prepared. It’s like wearing a suit to an interview. Serving at 40% in the first set is like walking in 20 minutes late to an interview in your sweatpants without a shower. And, alas, that is what Djokovic did in the Roland Garros final. It is no surprise that he didn’t get the job.

Djokovic was not ready and he didn’t start playing his game until far too late.