Higher level of tennis: 2008 final or 2014 final?

[Moxie]

Roger was +37 and Nadal +33 in the 2008 final. Both Nole and Roger exceeded those statistics in this final. On that criteria alone, this one may deserve to at least be viewed as a classic like that one with Rafa.

I think this one was a classic. Top play from both guys across 5 sets. The 2008 final was a different type of match, and had different drama. In terms of being chips-on-the-table/winner-take-all, that was the 08. I disagree, obviously, with Cali, who thinks that this match had better shot-making. That's a matter of taste, and I liked the longer rallies of the 08. But, I'd say that, in fairness, Roger was more consistent throughout this one. He was more "in" this one from the first point. But there was great play from both sides, and real excitement up until the last. Both were great matches.

 

[britbox]

I thought Roger played slightly better today than he did against Nadal in 2008, but then that's b/c Novaks game doesn't bother him as much matchup wise.

Yea I agree with other posters, the loss of the old tmf forehand was probably what made the difference.

Still, just like Nadal in 2008, I thought Novak's level was just better. It wasn't a clutch thing, or a fitness thing, or bad luck. Straight up, Novak had the better level and deserved the win. If anything, it was Roger who clutched and gutted himself into making it close. This should have been over in 4.

Going forward, we can see the problem with the netgame strategy. Its great against lesser opponents, but against great defenders who know its coming, it just doesn't work on anything less than glass. Roger needs the old inside out forehand back. It's the primary reason why he has stopped winning majors.

There was a few things Roger could have tightened up with on the netgame strategy:

1) He came in on some pretty casual approach shots and was to all intents a sitting duck on some of them

2) I'd have liked to have seen him covering the line more often. It's Novak's sucker punch. He could have forced him cross court more often with pass. I'm not saying it would necessarily have worked but worth a try.

3) He tried to be bit too cute with wrong footing Novak. A couple of times at least he had the open court at his mercy and tried to go back behind Djoker - who welcomed the gift on a point that looked lost.

Other than that, I don't think he did an awful lot wrong. He mixed things up well - mixing up attacking the net and giving Novak lots of variation with spin and pace from the baseline. Djoker clearly didn't like the dose of slice he was getting and it forced several errors and on other occasions allowed Roger to take control of the point.

Agree with the I/O forehand but also his backhand DTL wasn't firing either. On the plus side, Federer defended very well.

 

[britbox]

As for the OP - I thought the level was higher in this match, but the drama in 2008 was greater - mainly because of that fifth set.

 

[the AntiPusher]

No.. not a chance.. this was no where the epic that 2008 was.. I would put it above 2010 Roddick vs Federer

 

[DarthFed]

I thought it was probably better quality wise AP. The stats certainly back that up (though that doesn't mean everything). Only thing it was missing was a great 5th set and that's why it ranks just below. The 2nd set was pretty good too and sets 1, 3 and 4 were outstanding. Roger pulling out the 4th set here was more impressive than 2008 where it really was just a few clutch points in the tiebreaker.

 

[britbox]

No.. not a chance.. this was no where the epic that 2008 was.. I would put it above 2010 Roddick vs Federer

Some of that might be based on personal investment in the match. I thought it was below the 2008 match for drama but above it some other respects. It's actually the first time I've really felt tense watching a match since 2008.

 

[Moxie]

Match of the year, so far. As between those great Wimbledon finals, I suppose it will be apples and oranges for some people. And always a bitter lemon for the Federer people, in some way, though the Federer fans have taken this one with alacrity. I agree with Darth that Roger's comeback in the 4th was much more dramatic and emphatic in this match, and the 5th in this one lacked the drama of the 08 one.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not sure what measure people are using the judge "higher level of tennis", but I'd put 2008 ahead for several reasons. First, there was so much at stake. Federer trying for 6 in a row, Rafa trying to finally break through and win a slam off clay.

Federer feeling the heat of being chased - and Rafa being ready to become #1.

Rafa tearing off the first two sets - it looked like he was going to take it in straights when Roger served at 3-3, 0-40, in the 3rd - then Roger digging deep and taking the third and fourth on tiebreaks - saving two championship points, and not just on serve, but with a ripper of a pass off his backhand.

A glorious finale - which yesterday's match lacked - where Rafa brutally staved off a break point - virtual championship point - at 3-4 down.

Rain delays, near darkness, it was the longest final - and Roger was only 27, Rafa 22, so both were clearly in their prime.

Yesterday's match was also a great one, and it's a credit to Federer that the finals he's lost at Wimbledon have actually been greater than the ones he's won. It means, he's a danged hard chap to beat there!

 

[DarthFed]

^ All that shows is that there was more drama, not really address the level of play. As for Roger, given that his standard of play is so much lower now, he didn't play that poorly yesterday. He fought bravely throughout but didn't have enough game aside from his serve to deal with Nole. I felt 2008 was a different story, he was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court. For the most part he didn't acquit himself too well given how erratic his play was. A truly ghastly first 2 sets, much worse returning than yesterday even, and I think losing the 5th in that match was weaker given his age yesterday and the quality of play on the other side of the net (Nole's was considerably higher IMO).

I don't think it's a credit at all that the ones he lost are greater than the ones he won. There is no credit to be given to the loser.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There are many ways of comparing both matches. One thing , I don't know why, that kept jumping out at me was Roger's passing shots. On the match thread during the chat, I kept saying " Roger , please make ONE", and I am not sure he did. But some of the best moments I remember from 2008 are his amazing passes in certain moments.

I wish I knew the stats for that specific shot.

 

[Kieran]

^^ This is why I said that I'm not sure what measure people are using the measure "higher level of tennis." It's subjective, because you say that "was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court", and I wouldn't have been surprised if Rafa won in straights. You say, "a truly ghastly first 2 sets" and I wonder if you even seen the match.

So if we leave aside our own slant, how are we to measure "higher level of play?" Rafa holding serve 29 times out of 30? That's just a statistic. Roger losing serve once the whole of this years tournament - until the final, where he lost serve four times. That can be assessed both ways: poor serving in the final - or better opposition.

I think the 2008 final has a mythic quality that this years one didn't reach, partly because - as I say - both were in their primes in 2008, and they were alone at the top for three straight years. Now, there's two alone at the top, but there are others who have a shot.

This question might be best judged by people who are neither Fedal fans, or Djoker fans, but neutrals, because we all have - as Britbox puts it - personal investment in the match...

 

[DarthFed]

That and Roger's forehand was definitely better in the 2008 match. I think literally everything else was better yesterday but part of the reason the backhand was better is the matchup, slice is effective vs. Nole but not Rafa. Roger was even worse at net in 2008 believe it or not. I remember yelling "What the f--- is he doing" on more lame approach shots that year.

 

[nehmeth]

These were two very different matches.

In 08 there were significant shifts in momentum and levels of play. I still believe Rafa could have won that one in three, but he dropped his level and Roger lifted his. In the 2014 final, both guys played at a very high level and the momentum shifts (outside of the 4th set) were incremental. IMO - Better sustained quality from both players in 2014

The storyline is different but just as interesting. The old master is playing some of his very best tennis in years, cutting through the newbies like butter on his way to playing for a record 8th Wimbledon singles title. The challenger is world number two suffering a drought of titles when playing in the finals of slams. Regaining the world #1 ranking was his should he win. IMO - a tie

Thankfully, weather and darkness were not turning the singles final into a doubles match this year. IMO - 2014 the clear winner.

Overall, which is "best" is left to the discretion of the viewer.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

There are many ways of comparing both matches. One thing , I don't know why, that kept jumping out at me was Roger's passing shots. On the match thread during the chat, I kept saying " Roger , please make ONE", and I am not sure he did. But some of the best moments I remember from 2008 are his amazing passes in certain moments.

I wish I knew the stats for that specific shot.

Roger had 2 passing shots and Novak had 12 passing shots in yesterday's match.

 

[shawnbm]

And Novak fought off two break points at 3-3 in the fifth set, which was likely as much the match as if Rafa had failed to save break point at the same point in the fifth back in 2008. The fifth set definitely had drama. Really, this match was higher quality start to finish--Rafa dominated the first two sets in 2008 and the match's intensity and quality of shotmaking went up in the last three sets. Yesterday, the two were fighting tooth and nail from the get go and never let up. Even Nole said it was the best quality match he has even played in a grand slam final and that says something when you think of the finals he has played.

 

[tennisville]

I think one difference is that Federer was in his prime in 2008 and so was Rafa. Both matches could have ended in 3 sets but for the champions instinct of Roger were taken to 5.

I feel Rogers level was higher that year. Yesterday if any rally was going to take place , you could feel that Novak would be the winner of that rally . That wasnt the case in 2008 where 1 forehand could change the entire dynamic of the rally. That deadly forehand was missing yesterday

Also the drama was higher in 2008 , I remember being unable to sit during the last couple of games of that final but because of Feds age this time , I didnt have the nervousness. I knew he would lose the match if it went 5 whereas in 2008 I got the feeling that he would have a jolly good chance of winning

So for me 2008 is still the best match I have ever seen but the match I want to forget as well :cry

 

[Front242]

Actually Roger won the same number of long rallies yesterday as Novak but Novak won more of the medium rallies. Yeah the forehand and ROS yesterday were the biggest loss for him but look at the effort it takes a guy in his prime to a beat a near 33 year old Federer. Shows how amazing Roger is even now.

 

[Moxie]

^^ This is why I said that I'm not sure what measure people are using the measure "higher level of tennis." It's subjective, because you say that "was expected to be great and damn near impossible to beat on that court", and I wouldn't have been surprised if Rafa won in straights. You say, "a truly ghastly first 2 sets" and I wonder if you even seen the match.

So if we leave aside our own slant, how are we to measure "higher level of play?" Rafa holding serve 29 times out of 30? That's just a statistic. Roger losing serve once the whole of this years tournament - until the final, where he lost serve four times. That can be assessed both ways: poor serving in the final - or better opposition.

I think the 2008 final has a mythic quality that this years one didn't reach, partly because - as I say - both were in their primes in 2008, and they were alone at the top for three straight years. Now, there's two alone at the top, but there are others who have a shot.

This question might be best judged by people who are neither Fedal fans, or Djoker fans, but neutrals, because we all have - as Britbox puts it - personal investment in the match...

I agree that "higher level of play" is a subjective call, between the matches. Partly depending on taste, because yesterday's final was dependent much more on serve and shorter points. Of course, Roger wasn't "ghastly" in the first 2 sets of the 08, as Darth claims. He didn't win them, though, even with a lead in the 2nd. The weather and the length of the match created more ebbs and flows, too.

Understood that dramatic set-up and back-story aren't the main criterion for a great match, but they were huge in the '08 final. As you say, Kieran, that match had a mythic quality that's hard to recreate. From the last ball of the '08 RG final, everyone who cares about tennis was looking towards the presumptive Federer v. Nadal final at Wimbledon. They were the only 2, and they'd met each of the 2 years previous. Roger to keep the crown, or Rafa to snatch it, finally, after 3 years the bridesmaid. And it was a bare knuckles brawl. Maybe not always as pretty as yesterday's match, but raw with the sense of all-chips-on-the-table. And, yes, both players blinked at times.

Cosmo once asked the mostly unanswerable question: Would it have been considered the greatest tennis match of all time if Federer had won? For sure Nadal winning made better copy. But everyone who watched that match in real time was held breathless throughout most of it - surely the end of it - and we didn't know who would win. Kieran, you're right that that match, and the final yesterday, are probably better judged by those dispassionate few. Still, it's not often a tennis match makes the front page of the NYTimes, as it did in '08. (It did not, today.) The final yesterday was a very great match, but it wasn't legendary. If you ask me.

 

[Kieran]

Exactly. It was more like the Roddick final in 2009, in that the player who was better going in, and who was favourite to win it, won it. Looked at dispassionately, an old man like Federer shouldn't even be getting to five sets against prime Novak in a slam final, let alone winning it.

But, had Roger bucked the expectations yesterday, and thrown back the years and won in five, I think the match would have stood in mythic relations with the 2008 final...

 

[Fiero425]

Exactly. It was more like the Roddick final in 2009, in that the player who was better going in, and who was favourite to win it, won it. Looked at dispassionately, an old man like Federer shouldn't even be getting to five sets against prime Novak in a slam final, let alone winning it.

But, had Roger bucked the expectations yesterday, and thrown back the years and won in five, I think the match would have stood in mythic relations with the 2008 final...

Finally someone who agreed with me; no way this should have gone so long! :nono - If Nole had dropped this match, I would have been done with him! No more fandom, defense, or acknowledgement of a legacy! :clap :angel: