Djokovic v. Federer #44

[GameSetAndMath]

Nobody won more than one match against Novak this year, except for Roger who won three times. So, that is another way that Roger has proven that he is clearly #2 (though not in ATP rankings) this year.

 

[Front242]

Roger's the clear number 2 given he skipped by Miami AND Toronto. Anyway, Murray can enjoy his number 2 ranking till the AO '16 starts when it's likely bye bye number 2 for him and back to Roger. Really can't see Roger losing in the 3rd round again so he has potential for tons of points to gain, whereas Murray is defending finalist points. Tall order to defend all those. But you never know in both cases. More likely scenario though is Roger gets it back pronto in 2016.

 

[Kirijax]

Roger's the clear number 2 given he skipped by Miami AND Toronto. Anyway, Murray can enjoy his number 2 ranking till the AO '16 starts when it's likely bye bye number 2 for him and back to Roger. Really can't see Roger losing in the 3rd round again so he has potential for tons of points to gain, whereas Murray is defending finalist points. Tall order to defend all those. But you never know in both cases. More likely scenario though is Roger gets it back pronto in 2016.

If Federer wanted that No. 2 ranking, then he shouldn't have lost to Seppi at the AO so early, get blown out in all three finals that mattered, lose to the Famous Vamos Ramos in China, and show up at the Miami and Montreal Masters. Murray earned it.

 

[Front242]

Roger's the clear number 2 given he skipped by Miami AND Toronto. Anyway, Murray can enjoy his number 2 ranking till the AO '16 starts when it's likely bye bye number 2 for him and back to Roger. Really can't see Roger losing in the 3rd round again so he has potential for tons of points to gain, whereas Murray is defending finalist points. Tall order to defend all those. But you never know in both cases. More likely scenario though is Roger gets it back pronto in 2016.

If Federer wanted that No. 2 ranking, then he shouldn't have lost to Seppi at the AO so early, get blown out in all three finals that mattered, lose to the Famous Vamos Ramos in China, and show up at the Miami and Montreal Masters. Murray earned it.

Murray didn't earn sh1t. He merely got lucky Roger lost early in Shanghai but in truth he as good as handed him that ranking by not playing the 2 aforementioned tournaments earlier in the year. That's a massive point deficit for free by way of him skipping 2 masters 1000 tournaments completely, 1 of which he was defending finalist points in and the other he could conceivably have done well in. Now if Roger had played Miami and Toronto and lost to Murray, we'd be having a different conversation but every time they played this year Roger took him to the cleaners and it's clear who the real number 2 this year was.

 

[Kirijax]

Roger's the clear number 2 given he skipped by Miami AND Toronto. Anyway, Murray can enjoy his number 2 ranking till the AO '16 starts when it's likely bye bye number 2 for him and back to Roger. Really can't see Roger losing in the 3rd round again so he has potential for tons of points to gain, whereas Murray is defending finalist points. Tall order to defend all those. But you never know in both cases. More likely scenario though is Roger gets it back pronto in 2016.

If Federer wanted that No. 2 ranking, then he shouldn't have lost to Seppi at the AO so early, get blown out in all three finals that mattered, lose to the Famous Vamos Ramos in China, and show up at the Miami and Montreal Masters. Murray earned it.

Murray didn't earn sh1t. He merely got lucky Roger lost early in Shanghai but in truth he as good as handed him that ranking by not playing the 2 aforementioned tournaments earlier in the year. That's a massive point deficit for free by way of him skipping 2 masters 1000 tournaments completely, 1 of which he was defending finalist points in and the other he could conceivably have done well in. Now if Roger had played Miami and Toronto and lost to Murray, we'd be having a different conversation but every time they played this year Roger took him to the cleaners and it's clear who the real number 2 this year was.

LOL The rankings say different my friend! Murray is the 2015 No.2. End of story. He had a great season and he earned everything he did. Don't be sore your favorite (not sure who your favorite is) couldn't do anything in the finals that counted. If he had, he'd be No. 2. But he didn't so he ain't.

 

[Front242]

I realize he's the year end number 2 but it's obvious why and to anyone following the sport closely they can see who the real 2nd best player was this year by a country mile.

 

[El Dude]

I really don't think Roger cares one bit if he's the year-end #2 or #3.

 

[nehmeth]

Nobody won more than one match against Novak this year, except for Roger who won three times. So, that is another way that Roger has proven that he is clearly #2 (though not in ATP rankings) this year.

That and the way he makes Murray look like a stooge when he plays him.

 

[DarthFed]

The rankings between Roger and Murray don't matter. Neither should be happy with their years, Stan had the 2nd best year on tour for the 2nd year in a row

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I really don't think Roger cares one bit if he's the year-end #2 or #3.

Yes, he does not care whether he is #2 or #3. He wanted to maximize his chances of winning USO by skipping Canada. A very good strategy although happened to not yield fruits.

 

[herios]

I really don't think Roger cares one bit if he's the year-end #2 or #3.

Yes, he does not care whether he is #2 or #3. He wanted to maximize his chances of winning USO by skipping Canada. A very good strategy although happened to not yield fruits.

I know you are unhappy with the end result, but it paid off. He made his first USO final in 5 years.

 

[DarthFed]

^ who cares, he probably could've gone 6-1 at the USO if he had played Toronto.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Roger's the clear number 2 given he skipped by Miami AND Toronto. Anyway, Murray can enjoy his number 2 ranking till the AO '16 starts when it's likely bye bye number 2 for him and back to Roger. Really can't see Roger losing in the 3rd round again so he has potential for tons of points to gain, whereas Murray is defending finalist points. Tall order to defend all those. But you never know in both cases. More likely scenario though is Roger gets it back pronto in 2016.

And Murray skipped Monte Carlo, so the difference in Masters 1000 played is just one. I think the number of tournaments both played is quite similar. Murray was clearly better until the French Open, then Federer was much better in the second half of the year, especially after Montreal. As they excelled at different parts of the season it's not that easy to say who the 2nd best player for the year was.

Because of his superior first half of the season and better consistency at the Masters 1000 events Murray, although Federer had the slightly better year in my opinion, deserves the No. 2-year end ranking but at the moment and already since their Wimbledon match Federer definitely looks like the better player of the two. That might well change again in the first months of the next season that don't suit Roger too much, but as he does not have much points to defend apart from the Indian Wells and Rome finals and some 250 and 500 wins he might not even need great results to get to No. 2 again or it could at least go back and forth between Roger and Andy for some time.

 

[Great Hands]

On who is the 'real' world no. 2:

The whole 'Murray is only world no.2 because Fed skipped this and that, didn't do well in this and that' is silly. Murray also skipped Monte-Carlo and pulled out of Rome, after winning his first match, to rest before the FO. But if your argument is that Fed has been the second best player this year because of his best level of play, 2 slam finals, wins over Novak etc, then I would agree. On the other hand, both Andy and Roger had one win each over Novak that mattered: Andy in Montreal and Roger in Cinci. Both of them haven't been able to beat Novak in a big match this year except for on one occasion, in a Masters event, and neither have done it in a slam. And Andy has 2 Masters wins to Roger's 1. But Roger made 2 slam finals to Andy's 1. Really, they've both been competing for the scraps left by Novak, little to choose between them. As others have said, Stan has had the second best year.

But ranking doesn't measure peak form or performances in the biggest events, it measures consistency, which is a very different thing. That's why I've never been very interested in rankings as a determiner of greatness in any way. They're just a device to decide seedings for tournaments as far as I'm concerned. And if you want to do the 'Fed's the real no.2 because of his level and performances in the big events' thing, then this kind of thing happens all the time. According to this logic, which I agree with, then Murray was the 'real' world no.1 after WD 13, because he'd won two of the 4 majors and Olympic Gold over a 12 month period, whereas Novak had won only one slam in that same 12 month period.
That's why rankings aren't really very important in factoring greatness, IMO. It's about winning the big titles.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

On the Sunday's match, it looked to me that the following pattern appeared again and again.
Novak engages Roger in a backhand crosscourt rally that lasts long and then finally hits to Fed's
forehand side which Fed runs and gets. Then immediately Novak sends it to Fed's backhand side
and while Fed could run to reach the ball, he cannot position himself perfectly and shanks it.

I did not read about it anywhere. It is just a personal observation. I was just wondering whether others felt the same way about this particular pattern.

 

[Puppet Master]

On the Sunday's match, it looked to me that the following pattern appeared again and again.
Novak engages Roger in a backhand crosscourt rally that lasts long and then finally hits to Fed's
forehand side which Fed runs and gets. Then immediately Novak sends it to Fed's backhand side
and while Fed could run to reach the ball, he cannot position himself perfectly and shanks it.

I did not read about it anywhere. It is just a personal observation. I was just wondering whether others felt the same way about this particular pattern.

It's not only the pattern you described. It was his whole game that day. In the neutral rallies, Novak was the aggressor and was creaming him from there, whether they were long or short. There was nothing on Fed's shots, and even when he did get the upper hand there was a slight chance that he would shank the following shot. This is the same inability to play in the big moments that cost him so dearly in the last 3 slam finals he played against him. His serve just randomly goes away as well. We can blame it on age or whatever, but it pains me to watch those matches.

 

[isabelle]

Congrats to Nole for the best season ever, don't know who's the "real " N°2 but I know who is the tennis boss : the great Serbinator for sure

 

[lob]

It's not only the pattern you described. It was his whole game that day. In the neutral rallies, Novak was the aggressor and was creaming him from there, whether they were long or short. There was nothing on Fed's shots, and even when he did get the upper hand there was a slight chance that he would shank the following shot. This is the same inability to play in the big moments that cost him so dearly in the last 3 slam finals he played against him. His serve just randomly goes away as well. We can blame it on age or whatever, but it pains me to watch those matches.

Very True.
I may be wrong but to me one of the reasons why Fed's game breaks down under pressure is that while he has the most diverse and varied game in the sport, he really has no plan B under pressure. If you are under real pressure, which happens for someone like Fed only in the biggest moments when he knows in his gut that he has to bring the goods, his normal game doesn't function as smoothly as he is used to. This can happens to anyone. For example Djokovic's botched overhead in FO (13?) or Nadal's easy put away at the net in 5th set of AO12 Final. The difference in Roger's case is that he cannot revert to a top level, high percentage, grinding game to see the tide through under real pressure. All he can do is either go for it or take the gas off. One means more UFEs because of pressure and the other means there will be very little on his ball now that he is a step slower. He is between a rock and a hard place. One is self destruction and the other is destruction by Djokovic. The outcome is the same.