2020 French Open Final: Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal

[calitennis127]

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...

First and maybe the only time you will hear me say this, but you’re right. I like how it works.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Whether you said this or not I don’t know, but I would be genuinely surprised if you actually thought Nadal was going to lose that match going into it.

By the way, this 40% conspiracy theory is such a con job. It's a non sequitur. Novak was ready, and he was outplayed.

Disagree. I think the collapse at the end of the 3rd set against Tsitsipas was a portent of things to come. Djokovic’s all-around game and impressive winning streak have covered up the erratic serving issues.

As everyone knows, when you win your flaws are minimized and when you lose they are magnified. In Djokovic’s case, his serving issues have generally been overlooked this year because of the near-perfect record. But they caught up with him in a major way in the last 3 rounds of Roland Garros.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

No, I think it depends on the circumstance. Sometimes a 1-6 set can be moved past easily if a player is just working their way into the match and maybe made some sloppy unforced errors in a slow start (Djokovic actually did this in Rome in 2014 to win the final against Nadal). But in the case of a #1-ranked player who is essentially undefeated on the season losing a first set 6-0 in a Grand Slam final...... there is clearly a different kind of effect.

Also, are you seriously saying that in a match where, let’s say, a player had set point in the 3rd set and lost a tiebreak 12-10 they aren’t more likely to lose a blowout 4th set? How can you seriously argue that?

There is immense psychological carryover from one set to another because players are constantly thinking of the long-term and what their bodies can tolerate exertion-wise.

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.

Not my point at all. My question was this: from a tactical/strategic point of view, would you as Djokovic’s coach have told him that there was simply nothing he could have done better in the final? Would you have told him there was no room for improvement?

Novak didn't have "serving woes" against Tsitsipas. He served at 67% and won 73% of points off first serves he got in.

Did you watch the end of the third set and how meager Djokovic’s serving was and how slow his pace was (excessive dribbling, etc.)? That is what I am referring to. During Djokovic’s win streaks of 2020, he has had more than his share of complicated 3-setters because of it.

One thing I like about Federer’s game in particular - and Nadal to a lesser degree - is that they don’t fiddle for 30 seconds plus with their serving routine. They step right up and hit the ball. And that is why they both have better serving rhythm than Djokovic does. It makes a huge difference in tense moments and big matches. It also demonstrates decisiveness and confidence, whereas Djokovic often looks reactive, as though he needs the other player to punch him in the face before he gets going.

 

[calitennis127]

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.

Oh really? Let’s look at what elicited my reply about Cincinnati. This is what you said to me:

“just spend a few mins checking this video out, this is insane... Busta is being toyed with here, the power of Nadal is too much. Have you seen nadal cali?”

You asked me if I had ever seen him play live and I mentioned one of the occasions that I had. How is that “illogical”? You start blurting out nonsense when you are in your rambling musclehead mode.

 

[Kieran]

Brother, you’re never gonna learn. Any time Rafa shows his greatness, you think it’s not greatness at all, it’s because the other bloke played poorly. It’s a pity, but you’ll never appreciate him, and that’s your loss.

Meanwhile, I love rewatching this match, the whole thing is like a highlights reel...

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Well as it stands, Fedal are definitely superior to Djoker until things change. As to Nadal vs Fed, it’s pretty arguable.

 

[Moxie]

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.

You're only willing to "concede" that because I pointed it out to you. Why are we hypocrites? What did we say that doesn't gel with both matches? However, slippery bastard that you are, you only concede that the low serve percentage "played a role" in Nadal's loss in the 2nd set of that AO match. Only the second set. Not the whole match. Whereas you're trying to lay Djokovic's loss in the entirety of the RG final this year to a disastrous first set, and low serving percentage, overall across the year. That does seem a double-standard. And a lot of excuse-making.

One thing I like about Federer’s game in particular - and Nadal to a lesser degree - is that they don’t fiddle for 30 seconds plus with their serving routine. They step right up and hit the ball. And that is why they both have better serving rhythm than Djokovic does. It makes a huge difference in tense moments and big matches. It also demonstrates decisiveness and confidence, whereas Djokovic often looks reactive, as though he needs the other player to punch him in the face before he gets going.

Are you serious? Nadal doesn't have a long, complicated service routine? He hasn't been called out for time violations on court and on these forums? Now I think you're just high.

You're trying to make a lot out of Djokovic's loss by laying it down to his poor service game. But that's never been what his game was based on. He's made it much better in the past few years, and that's helped make him even more lethal, but in 2010 he had the yips on his serve and still managed to be #3 in the world. His loss in the RG final really wasn't about his serve. It's sort of telling that you have no other defense for how poorly he played, rather than site the serve. And it's pretty obvious that you're trying as hard as you can not to say that Nadal just beat the pants off of him.

 

[Ricardo]

the funny thing here is, people make it out to be that Djoker lost because his first serve % was low in the first set. probably could make an argument if Djoker got to match point or some kind of huge lead, but fact is, he was beat to a pulp. another thing, Rafa didn't play his best. It was one of his best finals, but definitely not his best match.....nobody plays the match of their life in their mid 30s, best young Rafa beats best old Rafa. some even said Rafa moves faster than ever.......that's just a joke. In a sprinting sport such as tennis, your physical peak is around 24-25 while in a stamina sport you peak around 29-30. Nobody is at their explosive best at 34, and even more impossible with a crooked knee. Its a blessing for Djoker that Rafa is hampered by injury and Fed is so much older, that he gets to enjoy a much compromised competition. This year alone, Rafa has taken months off while Fed shut the year down....so good for you know whom.

 

[Bonaca]

Actual Bobo beats young Bobo no doubt about that.
It’s not the question if he runs faster than his younger version, the fact is he runs faster than every opponent and brings back nearly everything. He runs as fast as ever with more experience, that brings him the advantage against young Bobo. He is not very smart player, but the biggest working man with robot like discipline. He is a freak not only to that point. He is so dogged , means everything to him, no children!
Every Nadaltard is crying about the conditions, why? Slow as hell helped him the most. In May/June it would have been much harder for him.
He is damn lucky about many things including COVID. Roger beat him more often in last years and Novak dominates him for a decade now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Actual Bobo beats young Bobo no doubt about that.
It’s not the question if he runs faster than his younger version, the fact is he runs faster than every opponent and brings back nearly everything. He runs as fast as ever with more experience, that brings him the advantage against young Bobo. He is not very smart player, but the biggest working man with robot like discipline. He is a freak not only to that point. He is so dogged , means everything to him, no children!
Every Nadaltard is crying about the conditions, why? Slow as hell helped him the most. In May/June it would have been much harder for him.
He is damn lucky about many things including COVID. Roger beat him more often in last years and Novak dominates him for a decade now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't understand how you think being "dogged," is a bad thing. We have pretty much determined that Nadal has the best focus and mentality in the game. Why do you act like that's a negative? Surely he brings experience to his game, as his legs get gimpier. But you're surely wrong that he doesn't bring intelligence to the game. He's one of the best there is at adapting mid-match, based on a players' game.

And what the hell are you on about "no children?" Seriously. What does that even mean? You are reaching so hard to try to explain why Novak bit the big one in the RG finals the other day, and Rafa is, *ahem* still able to best Novak. Aren't you the one who said to me not to make it about personal issues with these players? That you didn't give a shit about that? And now it's about personal things, not tennis. I love you, Bonaca, but you are as double-dealing as the day is long, right now.

 

[calitennis127]

You're only willing to "concede" that because I pointed it out to you. Why are we hypocrites? What did we say that doesn't gel with both matches? However, slippery bastard that you are, you only concede that the low serve percentage "played a role" in Nadal's loss in the 2nd set of that AO match. Only the second set. Not the whole match.

By the second set of the 2019 AO final, Djokovic had already established a superiority from the baseline and they had played a 6-3 set, so it was to be expected that Nadal would start to unravel a bit on serve. That is consistently the pattern in their matches anyhow. Nadal tends to miss a greater number of first serves as time goes on.

What happened in this recent French Open final was entirely different. Nadal came out primed and ready. He was crisp. He served 76% to Djokovic’s 43% and was ready for the drop shot tactic. You cannot even compare how the two started the match.

Whereas you're trying to lay Djokovic's loss in the entirety of the RG final this year to a disastrous first set, and low serving percentage, overall across the year. That does seem a double-standard. And a lot of excuse-making.

This wasn’t just any first set. This was a 6-0 first set in a Grand Slam final with the entire tennis world watching, and the loser of it was the #1 player in the world who was effectively undefeated on the season. No one was expecting that, least of all Djokovic himself.

The point, yet again, is that Djokovic needed to set the tone with sharp play in the first set. He did not do that. He served 43% to Nadal’s 76%, and that overall sloppiness carried over into some of the rallies that he lost.

Nadal came out ready to play his A+ plus game and Djokovic came out hoping that the match would evolve his way like most have this season. He was not prepared to be sharp and he suffered because of it.

Are you serious? Nadal doesn't have a long, complicated service routine? He hasn't been called out for time violations on court and on these forums? Now I think you're just high.

That was far more of an issue in the past than it is now. But in general Nadal takes time at the back of the court with towels and walking around. When he gets to the line he has a decisive rhythm. Djokovic on the other hand dribbles for 18 seconds every time he gets a little bit nervous.

You're trying to make a lot out of Djokovic's loss by laying it down to his poor service game. But that's never been what his game was based on.

Never said it was, and I’m not saying he should have hit 35 aces. I’m saying that as the #1 player in the world in the first set of a Grand Slam final he should have served at least at 60% and won some cheap points on serve. Why is that too much to ask? Only hypocritical Nadal fans would act like that is some kind of unrealistic demand.

He's made it much better in the past few years, and that's helped make him even more lethal, but in 2010 he had the yips on his serve and still managed to be #3 in the world. His loss in the RG final really wasn't about his serve.

It actually was. The first-serving woes were the Jenga block that caused the whole tower to crumble.

It's sort of telling that you have no other defense for how poorly he played, rather than site the serve. And it's pretty obvious that you're trying as hard as you can not to say that Nadal just beat the pants off of him.

The sloppy serving in the first set revealed an indecisive mindset without a plan. It showed that Djokovic was merely hoping that the match would evolve in a way that he could work into it like he does against most opponents. This was inexcusable when Djokovic knew that Nadal would be coming out to play his A+ game.

Bottom line: Nadal came out sharp with a plan in set 1. He was ready for the drop shots, focused on making all his returns, and he served 76% in the first set. In other words, Nadal put his best foot forward to set the tone in the match.

Djokovic, on the other hand, came out sloppy, sluggish, and indecisive. He did not win any cheap points on serve and indeed only served 43%. He played his C- game or worse at times. He absolutely did not put his best foot forward in set 1 and as a result he got beaten very badly by a score of 6-0. That surprising result set the tone for the rest of the match, and Djokovic can only blame himself for allowing such a catastrophe.

 

[Moxie]

It's funny. You've given me a hard time on more than one occasion for making a match into an emotional narrative, and yet that's what you're doing here. I rewatched that match yesterday. Djokovic didn't even play that poorly in the first set. He just neglected to play well in the points that mattered. As he himself said, he was "over-matched." You're bemoaning that he didn't play better. Well, he didn't. And Rafa played very well. I don't know why we're even still discussing it. There's not much more to say about a match that was won so decisively.

 

[calitennis127]

It's funny. You've given me a hard time on more than one occasion for making a match into an emotional narrative, and yet that's what you're doing here. I rewatched that match yesterday. Djokovic didn't even play that poorly in the first set. He just neglected to play well in the points that mattered.

Ahhhh yes, there you go Moxie. You’re making excellent progress. Points that mattered, huh? Perhaps break points? That’s where some nice first serves to win a few cheap points would have come in handy.

I’m so happy you’re starting to learn and see the light. It’s unfortunate Federer could not learn as quickly as you. Otherwise he would have a few more French Open titles to his name.

 

[Bonaca]

I don't understand how you think being "dogged," is a bad thing. We have pretty much determined that Nadal has the best focus and mentality in the game. Why do you act like that's a negative? Surely he brings experience to his game, as his legs get gimpier. But you're surely wrong that he doesn't bring intelligence to the game. He's one of the best there is at adapting mid-match, based on a players' game.

And what the hell are you on about "no children?" Seriously. What does that even mean? You are reaching so hard to try to explain why Novak bit the big one in the RG finals the other day, and Rafa is, *ahem* still able to best Novak. Aren't you the one who said to me not to make it about personal issues with these players? That you didn't give a shit about that? And now it's about personal things, not tennis. I love you, Bonaca, but you are as double-dealing as the day is long, right now.

Focus and mentality absolute, it’s positive.
Dogged in an arrogant way is negative to me. I see this also in the fucking Austrian. I don’t like it, it takes greatness away.
I think his intelligence is overrated, it looks so because he can reach more balls and so at some point getting chance to construct and dictate points. Same for your point of mid-match adapting. All comes from his ability to bring back. Pushing the opponent to go more and more risk. Novak can go the rallies with him, even on chatrier, but wasn’t ready.
He is just focused/dogged while both of the others already reached other big goals like children, and tennis success. It shows something. I think it was said he is a family guy? It is a bit confusing, isn’t it?
But you are right , I really don’t care about personal life of them all.
I really mean this.
Beside all of this I respect you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Moxie]

Ahhhh yes, there you go Moxie. You’re making excellent progress. Points that mattered, huh? Perhaps break points? That’s where some nice first serves to win a few cheap points would have come in handy.

I’m so happy you’re starting to learn and see the light. It’s unfortunate Federer could not learn as quickly as you. Otherwise he would have a few more French Open titles to his name.

When you're caught short, you resort to treacly condescension. You have no response to what was lacking in Novak's game in that final, beyond blaming his serve, which is not the cornerstone of his game. It's just that his game just wasn't up to it. You somehow can't address that in any meaningful way, however. As to Roger, you can keep trying to insist that he'd have beaten Nadal at RG...but there is nothing in history to bear that out. Though I know how much you love to rewrite history....

 

[calitennis127]

When you're caught short, you resort to treacly condescension. You have no response to what was lacking in Novak's game in that final, beyond blaming his serve, which is not the cornerstone of his game.

This really has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said about tennis or sports generally, which is really saying something. The point is not that Djokovic needed to hit 25 aces. The point, yet again, is that getting quality first serves in with placement/kick allows you to start ahead in the point and control more of the rallies. In that sense, serving is important for all players, not just big servers.

And if you need proof of that, look at how seriously Nadal and Uncle Toni have taken first serve over the years. Nadal served over 80% in the 2008 Wimbledon final. That number was absolutely critical to him holding serve as much as he did to sneak out the victory. He also prioritized high first-serve percentage early in the Roland Garros final, serving 76% in the first set.

To his credit, Nadal came out sharp and his high serving numbers showed it. Djokovic came out flat and sloppy and paid a price for it.

It's just that his game just wasn't up to it. You somehow can't address that in any meaningful way, however.

Again, I know you’re clueless but it’s hard to develop a rhythm when you’re shooting yourself in the foot with first-serve percentage in the low forties. Not a good idea for a Grand Slam final, especially when your opponent is making nearly 80% of his first serves.

As to Roger, you can keep trying to insist that he'd have beaten Nadal at RG...but there is nothing in history to bear that out. Though I know how much you love to rewrite history....

5-2 with set point in the first set of the 2011 final. It was there for the taking but Federer did not seize it, largely because of his muscleheaded approach of going CC with the forehand.

 

[Moxie]

Focus and mentality absolute, it’s positive.
Dogged in an arrogant way is negative to me. I see this also in the fucking Austrian. I don’t like it, it takes greatness away.
I think his intelligence is overrated, it looks so because he can reach more balls and so at some point getting chance to construct and dictate points. Same for your point of mid-match adapting. All comes from his ability to bring back. Pushing the opponent to go more and more risk. Novak can go the rallies with him, even on chatrier, but wasn’t ready.
He is just focused/dogged while both of the others already reached other big goals like children, and tennis success. It shows something. I think it was said he is a family guy? It is a bit confusing, isn’t it?
But you are right , I really don’t care about personal life of them all.
I really mean this.
Beside all of this I respect you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Dogged in an arrogant way?" What does this even mean? I'm sorry, but you're reaching hard to denigrate him. You keep making it about pushing others, running a lot, and that there is not "greatness" in what he does. Either you are blind, or just a blinkered fan, and I think we both know which it is. If 13 wins at RG, the physically toughest Major, isn't enough "greatness" for you, then we'll just have to stop discussing it. You and Cali are just each beating your same drums over and over again, because you're so mad about how things worked out. You keep repeating the same things, as if saying them 75 times will make a difference. And while you say you don't care about players' personal lives, you still question again why Rafa, a family man, doesn't have children yet. He has said many times that he expected to be retired and a father by now, but also that he wants to watch them grow up, not be on the road playing tennis. Try to respect that as a position.

I like you and respect you as a poster, in general, but you, who have often accused other fans of bitterness and excuse-making, are as bitter as they come right now. And you may pretend that you're not making excuses, but you are.

 

[Moxie]

This really has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said about tennis or sports generally, which is really saying something. The point is not that Djokovic needed to hit 25 aces. The point, yet again, is that getting quality first serves in with placement/kick allows you to start ahead in the point and control more of the rallies. In that sense, serving is important for all players, not just big servers.

And if you need proof of that, look at how seriously Nadal and Uncle Toni have taken first serve over the years. Nadal served over 80% in the 2008 Wimbledon final. That number was absolutely critical to him holding serve as much as he did to sneak out the victory. He also prioritized high first-serve percentage early in the Roland Garros final, serving 76% in the first set.

To his credit, Nadal came out sharp and his high serving numbers showed it. Djokovic came out flat and sloppy and paid a price for it.

No one needs a lesson in what serving well does for a player. What you neglect to comment upon, and no amount of prodding will bring it forth, is everything else Novak did wrong to lose that match. As I've said, his game isn't predicated on his serve alone, by a long shot.

Again, I know you’re clueless but it’s hard to develop a rhythm when you’re shooting yourself in the foot with first-serve percentage in the low forties. Not a good idea for a Grand Slam final, especially when your opponent is making nearly 80% of his first serves.

Clearly not, and I think we've established that...even over a week ago.

5-2 with set point in the first set of the 2011 final. It was there for the taking but Federer did not seize it, largely because of his muscleheaded approach of going CC with the forehand.

Once again, sorry, but you're always nattering on about sets and games in long matches. Even if Roger had won that first set, there is no assurance he'd have won the match. He's never even taken Nadal the distance at RG. You really stretch points beyond where they break. You're the guy that still thinks Medvedev lost the USO last year when he had Nadal "on the ropes." You are so far beyond reasonable tennis analysis when it comes to Nadal, and it's apparent to everyone.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

5-2 with set point in the first set of the 2011 final. It was there for the taking but Federer did not seize it, largely because of his muscleheaded approach of going CC with the forehand.

What exactly is your point? In the 2006 final Federer won the first set 6-1 then still lost the next 3 sets.

 

[Bonaca]

"Dogged in an arrogant way?" What does this even mean? I'm sorry, but you're reaching hard to denigrate him. You keep making it about pushing others, running a lot, and that there is not "greatness" in what he does. Either you are blind, or just a blinkered fan, and I think we both know which it is. If 13 wins at RG, the physically toughest Major, isn't enough "greatness" for you, then we'll just have to stop discussing it. You and Cali are just each beating your same drums over and over again, because you're so mad about how things worked out. You keep repeating the same things, as if saying them 75 times will make a difference. And while you say you don't care about players' personal lives, you still question again why Rafa, a family man, doesn't have children yet. He has said many times that he expected to be retired and a father by now, but also that he wants to watch them grow up, not be on the road playing tennis. Try to respect that as a position.

I like you and respect you as a poster, in general, but you, who have often accused other fans of bitterness and excuse-making, are as bitter as they come right now. And you may pretend that you're not making excuses, but you are.

This family-point is a version I never heard about, because it’s gossip and I’m not looking for that. Everyone as he likes I guess.
Tolerance is an important gift.
I’m not allowed to answer you the way I want.
So let’s end this shit.
We have clearly different views on nadal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk