How Djokovic won Monte Carlo: what Federer has failed to do....

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Here's a good topic to be discussing in the off-season. It is an opportunity for certain commenters on this board to pick up a little better understanding.

Many people forget this, but Nadal actually served for the second set in the Monte Carlo final. He broke Djokovic at 5-5 and was up 6-5, and he appeared poised to take the second set. Yet, somehow Djokovic broke back against the King of Clay in his most dominant event besides Roland Garros. And how did Djokovic do this?

FOREHAND DOWN THE LINE IN THE COURSE OF REGULAR RALLIES.

One of Nadal's most glaring weaknesses is his game's vulnerability to being attacked with offensive shots to his forehand side, particularly heavy, flat forehands (but not solely these either). Yes, it is true that if you hit a top-spin-heavy forehand to Nadal's forehand wing, he may very well run it down and hit a passing shot (as has happened to Federer all too often because of Federer's indecision and "play-the-odds" type of thinking). But historically Nadal has been a bit slow in responding to heavy shots to his forehand, and that owes more to the way in which his own shots often sit up and ask to be pelted by the opponent.

In the video below, you see that Djokovic at 0-0 and 0-30 in Nadal's 6-5 game won the point by executing forehands down the line. Contrary to what someone like Broken would assert, these are by no means "low percentage" shots for players the caliber of Djokovic and Federer. Rather, they are there for easy pickings much of the time against Nadal. And Djokovic did this on clay, in a key game in a final, no less. Imagine what Federer could do to Nadal on hardcourts by employing this strategy more systematically and more sharply.

The good part begins at 13:38 and goes until 14:03. Enjoy folks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auMHI5SURp4
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
Djokovic has done a lot of things that Federer has failed to do against Nadal. I understand that this might be more significant than some other Djokovic wins over Nadal due to the fact that it was at Monte Carlo where Nadal is so dominant, but Novak had beaten him on clay before, and generally gave him more trouble than Federer did. Strategy wise, this was more or less the same as the other 2 Djokovic wins over Nadal on clay.

Please, if you want to have a constructive conversation, stop being so dense. The "low percentage" thing was in reference to FEDERER, and where he stands currently. Have you watched him this year? Have you seen how off his game he was? Have you seen how poor forehand is? So yeah, firing forehands down the line at will (especially on the run) like you suggested against Nadal in their Cinci was likely going to be a low percentage proposition. Federer isn't nearly as consistent as Djokovic anymore, and at this point, on a match-to-match basis, his forehand isn't as good. The fact that Djokovic did it against Nadal in Monte Carlo has nothing to do with Federer being able to do it in Cinci. I don't imagine what Federer can do to Nadal on hard courts because he's not that player anymore. Maybe he'll catch fire and do it once, but that's about it, unless you haven't been paying attention this year, including their 3 hard court matches. Never mind the fact that you can't just look at forehands alone, since to actually be in that position to fire the forehand, you have to take into account backhand, movement, defense, point construction, consistency, etc... All these things that Novak does significantly better than Federer at this point. It's not like the ball magically ends up in a position for Federer to fire a forehand. And yeah, of course he had plenty of opportunities to do so, but as I said, no, he's not that consistent anymore. Get over it.

"And Djokovic did this on clay, in a key game in a final, no less. Imagine what Federer could do to Nadal on hardcourts by employing this strategy more systematically and more sharply."

Let's use the same logic. You know what Federer REALLY failed to do? Beat Tommy Robredo on a hard court. Yeah, imagine what happens if he plays Nadal...oh wait, you don't have to.

Another thread, same flawed reasoning. Actually, forget the constructive conversation. It's the same old thing. You bring up the same iffy point by providing a different unrelated video. Yay. Next.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,011
Reactions
7,287
Points
113
Rafa improved as the clay season went on. MC was at a good time for Nole to beat him, on a rainy day too. I would consider it a good win, but the timing was right and Nole played great on the big points.

In the next few weeks, Rafa improved, so much so that he was more or less his old King of Clay self by the second week in Paris, which is where it matters.

I'm not saying this to denigrate Nole, because Broken is right: he gives Rafa a much tougher time than Roger. This is anywhere and everywhere, not just hards and not just clay. And on that day he was much better on the big points. In fact, I think Rafa was a different guy to the one we usually see, on the big points, losing virtually all of them, including 11 of the last 12 points, or something crazy like that...
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,651
Reactions
14,820
Points
113
calitennis127 said:
Here's a good topic to be discussing in the off-season. It is an opportunity for certain commenters on this board to pick up a little better understanding.

Your assertion that "certain commenters" need better understanding, as provided by you, becomes a bit wearying. It doesn't bode well for any notion of 'discussion' when you pre-advertise that you are already 'right.'

Kieran said:
Rafa improved as the clay season went on. MC was at a good time for Nole to beat him, on a rainy day too. I would consider it a good win, but the timing was right and Nole played great on the big points.

In the next few weeks, Rafa improved, so much so that he was more or less his old King of Clay self by the second week in Paris, which is where it matters.

I'm not saying this to denigrate Nole, because Broken is right: he gives Rafa a much tougher time than Roger. This is anywhere and everywhere, not just hards and not just clay. And on that day he was much better on the big points. In fact, I think Rafa was a different guy to the one we usually see, on the big points, losing virtually all of them, including 11 of the last 12 points, or something crazy like that...

I agree with Kieran on all points here. To start with Novak, and his motivation: MC was important for him, as a set up for RG. Clearly, he wanted this win for psychological advantage over Rafa. He was sharp and in winning mode, coming off the AO. For Nadal, he was working his way into form, (though I know that Cali likes to say he was in-form from basically his initial return,) and it was his first time to face Djokovic in nearly a year. Nole played a fantastic match, no doubt, but if all he had to do to beat Nadal was to hit flat into his forehand, he'd have had better results later in the year. Nadal did play better after MC on clay, and on hard courts. And Djokovic did seem decidedly confused about his game plan v. Rafa in Canada and at the USO. He perked up after the USO, markedly, for sure. It will be interesting to see how they both come into 2014.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Broken_Shoelace said:
Please, if you want to have a constructive conversation, stop being so dense. The "low percentage" thing was in reference to FEDERER, and where he stands currently. Have you watched him this year?

Yes, I saw a number of his matches, including ones such as the encounters with Del Potro at the end of the season where he went toe-to-toe in long rallies for hours with a talented, athletic, powerful shotmaker in his "prime". In these matches, Federer showed that he had plenty of game left, to put it mildly. The fact that I even have to describe it that way to you is sad, but your age obsession almost forces me into it.

Yes, Broken, if you are going toe-to-toe with Del Potro in long rallies and beat him 2 out of 3 times at significant events (Paris and World Tour Finals), you are not playing at the level of the 42nd-ranked player in the world. Let's also not forget that all three of these matches I am referencing (I could reference many others) came AFTER Delpo's great run in Shanghai, which included a straight-set thrashing of the player with the "best forehand in the game".

Speaking of that latter player, Federer should have beaten him in Cincinnati, and that match was more than competitive. Federer had control and simply failed to close it out. It is becoming silly on your part to talk as if Federer is just "so far off" from winning these types of matches. He simply is not as far off as you continually say.

Even if you are looking at it like a stathead, you can come to this conclusion: Federer took Djokovic to three sets twice in the midst of one of the strongest runs in his career, the indoor season at the end of 2013. So, there you have it - Federer managed to take a set off of the great 26-year-old Novak Djokovic in two different matches during a run in which Djokovic was the best player in the world for those few tournaments and was thoroughly beating pretty much everyone he faced.

Broken_Shoelace said:
Have you seen how off his game he was?

Yeah, it was just downright terrible. So off it can't even be described.:laydownlaughing

Broken_Shoelace said:
Have you seen how poor forehand is?

Yeah, it was so horrible in the third set of the Cincinnati match when he finally opened things up and hit more winners in 10 minutes than Nadal did during the entire final match of the World Tour Finals with the "best forehand in the game".

Broken_Shoelace said:
So yeah, firing forehands down the line at will (especially on the run) like you suggested against Nadal in their Cinci was likely going to be a low percentage proposition.

Total nonsense. First of all, Federer was moving more than well enough to hit offensive shots on the run. But - and this is much more important - what I was calling for was not so much hitting forehands down the line on the run, but avoiding absolutely pointless, counterproductive, wasteful exchanges in which Federer often hits 4 to 6 crosscourt forehands, including massive bombs that he truly thinks will somehow give him a major advantage, against Nadal. He does this when forehands down the line or inside-out forehands from the middle of the court would completely open up the court for him, give him an edge in the rally, and afford him a wider array of options with how to conclude the point.

This is not "low percentage". What is "low percentage" is following your "controlled offense" approach. That is precisely what has led to his woeful 10-22 record against Nadal.

Broken_Shoelace said:
Federer isn't nearly as consistent as Djokovic anymore, and at this point, on a match-to-match basis, his forehand isn't as good.

Nonsense. The only way you can say this is if you measure forehands strictly in your boring sense of landing in a lot. The big differences right now between Djokovic and Federer are the backhands and ability to sustain high levels of physicality in matches. Federer's problem is not his forehand. In fact, it is still more of an offensive weapon most of the time than Djokovic's. That is not his problem.

Broken_Shoelace said:
The fact that Djokovic did it against Nadal in Monte Carlo has nothing to do with Federer being able to do it in Cinci.

Are you kidding me?

I can't believe I have to point this out to you - but Federer very nearly won the match in Cincinnati. It was not 6-1, 6-2. Did you forget that?

Federer won the first set, and simply failed to close out the second - just like Dubai 2006. There were plenty of long, high-level rallies in which Federer defended well and showed great variety on his shots. He also hit an array of winners with his forehand. Because he was so involved in the rallies, there were plenty of rallies where the shots I pointed at from the end of the Monte Carlo final would have worked. Watch the two points I made reference to and seriously try to tell me that those shots wouldn't have worked in the Cincinnati match.

Broken_Shoelace said:
I don't imagine what Federer can do to Nadal on hard courts because he's not that player anymore.

Goodness gracious can you be depressing with your cliches and "in-the-box" mentality. "Federer is 32, therefore he can't hit advanced shots anymore". Is that it? All you have to say here?

Federer was just a small handful of points from winning the Cincinnati match. He did not get blown away by any stretch. Most people who watched the match understood this. It was an ugly loss for Federer, and one which really fit a pattern for him over the years when facing Nadal.

Broken_Shoelace said:
Never mind the fact that you can't just look at forehands alone, since to actually be in that position to fire the forehand, you have to take into account backhand, movement, defense, point construction, consistency, etc...

I do take all of that into consideration. And when I see Federer have ample opportunity within rallies to take control with a very makeable forehand down the line and he opts to just keep cracking CC forehands to no end, I get annoyed. The fact that his movement and consistency aren't at A+ level anymore doesn't mean that they have fallen to F or even C level. It's more like a B+, A- right now, with occasional moments where he is above the A-. And when playing on a surface like Cincinnati, A- movement is more than good enough for him (i.e. ROGER FEDERER) to go for some forehands down the line.

Broken_Shoelace said:
It's not like the ball magically ends up in a position for Federer to fire a forehand.

Yeah, you're right. But even without magic the ball does end up in a position for him to forehands down the line and forehands inside-out from the middle of the court against Nadal much more than he does. He just chooses not to.

Broken_Shoelace said:
And yeah, of course he had plenty of opportunities to do so, but as I said, no, he's not that consistent anymore.

Yeah, too bad he can't be as consistent as he was in the 5th set of the Australian Open in 2009. That was a STANDARD of consistency right there.

Broken_Shoelace said:
It's the same old thing. You bring up the same iffy point by providing a different unrelated video.

No, the video is actually very related. Both the Djokovic-Nadal series and Federer-Nadal series involve long rallies in which decisions are made about how to deal with the opponent's game. In both cases, Djokovic and Federer do well to go down the line aggressively with their forehand. The highlights I posted illustrate this.:cool:
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
OK, my only reply to this would be to remind you how you bowed out the moment I counted, yes counted, how many forehands down the line Federer missed against Nadal at the WTF (it was something like 14), and clearly remembered rubbing that in. Conveniently, you had "missed the second set."

So yeah, I don't know what's more telling, an unrelated player doing this to Nadal, Federer doing this to an unrelated player, or his failure to do so against Nadal himself. Of course, you'll ignore that match because of some arbirtary reason.

Anyway, moving on.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Broken_Shoelace said:
OK, my only reply to this would be to remind you how you bowed out the moment I counted, yes counted, how many forehands down the line Federer missed against Nadal at the WTF (it was something like 14), and clearly remembered rubbing that in. Conveniently, you had "missed the second set."

So yeah, I don't know what's more telling, an unrelated player doing this to Nadal, Federer doing this to an unrelated player, or his failure to do so against Nadal himself. Of course, you'll ignore that match because of some arbirtary reason.

Anyway, moving on.

Lol....I never said that I "missed the second set". I said that I missed the first couple games of the second set - 15 minutes worth, and that was partially because I was disgusted with what I had seen from Federer in the first set.

And it is just completely off-base for you to even begin to suggest that Federer employed this strategy in the semifinals against Nadal. By the time he started doing it a little bit the cat was well out of the bag.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Kieran said:
Rafa improved as the clay season went on. MC was at a good time for Nole to beat him, on a rainy day too. I would consider it a good win, but the timing was right and Nole played great on the big points.

In the next few weeks, Rafa improved, so much so that he was more or less his old King of Clay self by the second week in Paris, which is where it matters.

I'm not saying this to denigrate Nole, because Broken is right: he gives Rafa a much tougher time than Roger. This is anywhere and everywhere, not just hards and not just clay. And on that day he was much better on the big points. In fact, I think Rafa was a different guy to the one we usually see, on the big points, losing virtually all of them, including 11 of the last 12 points, or something crazy like that...

Kieran, my point is that at the tail end of the second set, Djokovic TOOK those points more than Nadal gave them away, and he did it by attacking with the forehand down the line in rallies. He set the tone that way.

Nadal was serving for it at 6-5. Djokovic had to do something substantial to break back and take the set, and my point is that he did something which Federer has had repeated opportunities to do, but has not.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,011
Reactions
7,287
Points
113
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...
 

Moxie

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
43,651
Reactions
14,820
Points
113
Kieran said:
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...

I think he's got you there, Cali. You still talk about how disgusted you are that Djokovic lost that USO final. Why no appreciation for how Nadal turned that 3rd set around in Flushing Meadows? He did it via aggression. Your disgust and outrage is not equal opportunity.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Kieran said:
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...

Just watched it (suffered through the re-run on Tennis Channel). Nadal didn't take anything in that 3rd set. Djokovic gave it away.

See my new thread for the explanation.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Moxie629 said:
Kieran said:
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...

I think he's got you there, Cali. You still talk about how disgusted you are that Djokovic lost that USO final. Why no appreciation for how Nadal turned that 3rd set around in Flushing Meadows? He did it via aggression. Your disgust and outrage is not equal opportunity.

Laughable assertion.:lolz:

The winner count late in the 3rd set was 34 to 16 in favor of Djokovic, including 21 to 10 on the forehand (yes, with the "best forehand in the game" having the meager 10 winners after being on court for 3+ hours and even including Djokovic's sluggish and awful 1st set).

Pretty much all of the key points in the 3rd set were lost by Djokovic with unforced errors. Nadal did not win that set off of aggression but off of mental constancy. He slivered and snuck his way out of it. It was a wily weasel, not an Alexander the Great, that you saw there.
 

brokenshoelace

Grand Slam Champion
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
9,380
Reactions
1,334
Points
113
calitennis127 said:
Moxie629 said:
Kieran said:
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...

I think he's got you there, Cali. You still talk about how disgusted you are that Djokovic lost that USO final. Why no appreciation for how Nadal turned that 3rd set around in Flushing Meadows? He did it via aggression. Your disgust and outrage is not equal opportunity.

Laughable assertion.:lolz:

The winner count late in the 3rd set was 34 to 16 in favor of Djokovic, including 21 to 10 on the forehand (yes, with the "best forehand in the game" having the meager 10 winners after being on court for 3+ hours and even including Djokovic's sluggish and awful 1st set).

Pretty much all of the key points in the 3rd set were lost by Djokovic with unforced errors. Nadal did not win that set off of aggression but off of mental constancy. He slivered and snuck his way out of it. It was a wily weasel, not an Alexander the Great, that you saw there.

I won't debate anything, as I said earlier, but I want to rectify facts, especially when you're being a gigantic hypocrite:

At 0-40 down on his serve, with the score 4-4 in the third set, Nadal saved the break points with A) A clean forehand winner (it was the third shot of the rally, right after Novak's return), B) a unforced error and C) an ace. He sealed the game with an overhead winner.

So if you're going to mention a specific game in the OP in which Novak TOOK things from Nadal, you have to give Nadal credit for the same in a different match, instead of lying through your teeth in order to enhance your argument. If you're going to talk about Novak hitting more winners in general in that match, you'll hear no arguments from me, since it's true. But in that game, which really ended up deciding the match, Nadal saved those break points by taking the initiative. This is a fact, not a subjective assessment. Now you can go back to arguing about whatever you were arguing. Unless of course, that one unforced error from Novak holds more weight than the 3 winners that Nadal hit in that game.
 

calitennis127

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
4,947
Reactions
459
Points
83
Broken_Shoelace said:
calitennis127 said:
Moxie629 said:
Kieran said:
Hey buddy,

Now you confuse me. When Novak "took" the points back, you celebrate him by starting a thread about it. When Rafa was 4-4 in the third and "took" 3 break points back from Nole in NY - a far more important match - you don't celebrate it. In fact, you don't give him any credit at all. :(

Help me out, my friend, I'm missing something here...

I think he's got you there, Cali. You still talk about how disgusted you are that Djokovic lost that USO final. Why no appreciation for how Nadal turned that 3rd set around in Flushing Meadows? He did it via aggression. Your disgust and outrage is not equal opportunity.

Laughable assertion.:lolz:

The winner count late in the 3rd set was 34 to 16 in favor of Djokovic, including 21 to 10 on the forehand (yes, with the "best forehand in the game" having the meager 10 winners after being on court for 3+ hours and even including Djokovic's sluggish and awful 1st set).

Pretty much all of the key points in the 3rd set were lost by Djokovic with unforced errors. Nadal did not win that set off of aggression but off of mental constancy. He slivered and snuck his way out of it. It was a wily weasel, not an Alexander the Great, that you saw there.

I won't debate anything, as I said earlier, but I want to rectify facts, especially when you're being a gigantic hypocrite:

At 0-40 down on his serve, with the score 4-4 in the third set, Nadal saved the break points with A) A clean forehand winner (it was the third shot of the rally, right after Novak's return), B) a unforced error and C) an ace. He sealed the game with an overhead winner.

So if you're going to mention a specific game in the OP in which Novak TOOK things from Nadal, you have to give Nadal credit for the same in a different match, instead of lying through your teeth in order to enhance your argument. If you're going to talk about Novak hitting more winners in general in that match, you'll hear no arguments from me, since it's true. But in that game, which really ended up deciding the match, Nadal saved those break points by taking the initiative. This is a fact, not a subjective assessment. Now you can go back to arguing about whatever you were arguing. Unless of course, that one unforced error from Novak holds more weight than the 3 winners that Nadal hit in that game.

Get YOUR facts straight. There were 10 points in that game. And I went over all 10 in my new thread.

I gave credit to Nadal for his shot at 0-40. It was a great shot.

But his ace and the overhead on the 10th point were hardly the type of dominant rally winners Djokovic had been hitting during sets 2 and 3.

Moreover, the key points in that game were three rallies in which Djokovic made a truly UNFORCED error. Long rally points define matches like that and Djokovic gave 3 of them away there.

Btw, I started a new thread because I had been intending it for a long time, and it was appropriate timing given the Tennis Channel re-run. Also, this thread was about how Djokovic won certain key points tactically. It was not about how he played offensive in general and "took it" at Monte Carlo, which is what Kieran and Moxie say that Nadal did at Flushing Meadows in the third set.