Nole's defeat in slam finals

[Kieran]

Well, back to Djokovic and to cut him some slack, look at who he faced in his majors: apart from Tsonga in his first, and Stan on Sunday, it's been the blokes who are winning everything. No easy route. Rafa in his peak, Roger in his peak in 2007, 2008 Oz semis, Murray at his best. Murray is no Fedal, but he's no gonzo or baggy either. I think the stat still holds: about 13% of novaks career has been played against these three players, and that percentage rises hugely when it comes to semis and finals in slams. My only gripe remains - the times Novak bottled it - but I give him huge credit also for what he's actually done, given the opposition. He made a permanent place for himself as an all-time great, when it looked at one time like he wouldn't....

 

[Mile]

There were 2 defeats i cant get. First against Muzzard on Wimby, second here on RG by Wawec.

While on Wimby was complete X how could he lost, here on RG... isnt clear neither. But Wawec deserved it, while Muzzard was complete outsider.

 

[Federberg]

:cover
I see the same weak era nonsense is trying to be sneaked in to the conversation now :nono
The irony is that if Federer had lost to Gonzales people would have talked about Nando's performance in similar terms to Stan's this past weekend.

Frankly it doesn't matter how many slams the opponent has or had, what matters is the players form at the time. For this reason I find it much easier to give Novak a pass at RG 15, because he was beaten by a guy who was unplayable. To debase the conversation to who the player is, and not how well the player was playing makes absolutely no sense to me. Extremely limited imagination in my view.. all one has to do is use ones God given sight :nono

As I've said before Novak's loss to Andy at Wimbledon is far more difficult to comprehend.

 

[Great Hands]

There were 2 defeats i cant get. First against Muzzard on Wimby, second here on RG by Wawec.

While on Wimby was complete X how could he lost, here on RG... isnt clear neither. But Wawec deserved it, while Muzzard was complete outsider.

'Complete outsider'? :laydownlaughing The world no.2? Who made the final the year before? Who'd won the Olympics on the same court, beating both Novak and Fed to do so?

Novak was not at his best in that WD final, but I disagree that 'didn't have any big fight that day'. People forget just how clutch Murray was on the big points in that match. Novak was 4-1 up in set 2, 4-2 up in set 3, and if he had taken any of the multiple break points he had at 4-5 in the 3rd, the match could have completely turned. But Murray stayed strong.

The match was much more hard fought than the straight sets win suggests, or even the scoreline suggests. Loads of long rallies, loads of deuces, breaks and break backs.

 

[Great Hands]

There were 2 defeats i cant get. First against Muzzard on Wimby, second here on RG by Wawec.

While on Wimby was complete X how could he lost, here on RG... isnt clear neither. But Wawec deserved it, while Muzzard was complete outsider.

I wouldn't describe Murray as a 'complete outsider'. He was the world no.2 at the time, he'd made the final the year before, and he'd won the Olympics on the same court the previous year, beating both Novak and Fed to do so!

I think a lot of factors went into his loss, and as I have said, I think Murray was playing the better tennis on the day, but none of it fully explains the straight-sets. A tough 5-setter against Delpo in the semi-final is in the mix, along with a relatively hot day in London, and overwhelming crowd support for Andy. But he didn't have any big fight that day, and that feels a little odd.

Novak was not at his best in that WD final, but although I agree with your other points Moxie, I disagree that he 'didn't have any big fight that day'. Novak fought, but people forget just how clutch Murray was on the big points in that match. Novak was 4-1 up in set 2, 4-2 up in set 3, and if he had taken any of the multiple break points he had at 4-5 in the 3rd, the match could have completely turned. But Murray stayed strong.

The match was much more hard fought than the straight sets win suggests, or even the scoreline suggests. Loads of long rallies, loads of deuces, breaks and breaks back.

For example, Djokovic had THREE break points to level the match at 4-4 in set 1 that Murray saved with an ace, and two highly aggressive forehand-volley combos. In set 2 Djokovic, as well as being 4-1 up, had TWO break points to serve for set 2, one of which Murray saved with an ace, and the other with aggressive forehands followed by net play again. In set 3, Novak, as well as being 4-2 up, had THREE break points to level after Murray had already had 3 championship points - if Novak had won any of those 3 points, would Murray have been able to come back from it, or would the match have turned? Anyway, Andy won those three break points with a big first serve, a long rally which he won with a forehand winner, and a big serve - inside out forehand - volley combination.

What I'm saying is, that match was far closer than it appeared. You can see Novak getting increasingly frustrated that every time he has a point to completely turn the match around, Murray keeps being highly aggressive, accurate and successful. And Novak kept fighting to turn the match around, right till the last ball.

 

[Puppet Master]

I am not sure why this debate is still going on. When Murray and Novak both play well, it can be a very interesting match no matter what court they play on. Andy gets difficult to deal with on fast courts since he is a highly skilled player, but the weaknesses in his game seem to disappear at times there. Namely, his serve becomes less attackable and his slow baseline shots become far more penetrating. So on a fast court, they are very close to being equals. Now consider the fact that Murray had the whole crowd on their feet for him, and Djokovic did get affected by it. Also, he was a tad drained from playing Delpo.
The one match I remember when Andy actually played aggressively against Djokovic and completely ouplayed him. I hope this doesn't start some crazy argument because I see this as close as possible to the truth.

 

[nehmeth]

Also, he was a tad drained from playing Delpo.

The 2013 Wimbledon semifinal between Del Potro and Djokovic (for me), was one of the highest quality matches - where both players were at their best - for that year. Del Potro was not going to be denied. Novak knew if he was going to move on, he would have to bring his best, and for the better part of five sets they played at a level that captivated the audience.

I wanted Novak to get through that match quickly, but I let that go and just sat their mesmerized as those two battled with power, skill and will, to gain an advantage. When it was over, I was wrung out. All I could do was shake my head and appreciate that I had been able to see it.

In Rome 2011 I saw Novak play an excruciatingly difficult semifinal against Murray, and then come out for the final and take down Nadal in two. So while the match with Del Potro was taxing, it isn't the reason Novak lost the final.

I just spent some time looking through the numerous videos from their match. If you missed, it's worth watching some of them.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=2013+Wimbledon+Semi+final+Djokovic+v.+Del+Potro&tbm=vid

 

[Great Hands]

Also, he was a tad drained from playing Delpo.

The 2013 Wimbledon semifinal between Del Potro and Djokovic (for me), was one of the highest quality matches - where both players were at their best - for that year. Del Potro was not going to be denied. Novak knew if he was going to move on, he would have to bring his best, and for the better part of five sets they played at a level that captivated the audience.

I wanted Novak to get through that match quickly, but I let that go and just sat their mesmerized as those two battled with power, skill and will to gain an advantage. When it was over, I was wrung out. All I could do was shake my head and appreciate that I had been able to see it.

In Rome 2011 I saw Novak play an excruciatingly difficult semifinal against Murray, and then come out for the final and take down Nadal in two. So while the match with Del Potro was taxing, it isn't the reason Novak lost the final.

I just spent some time looking through the numerous videos from their match. If you missed, it's worth watching some of them.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=2013+Wimbledon+Semi+final+Djokovic+v.+Del+Potro&tbm=vid

Completely agree, Nehmeth. That Novak-Delpo SF was incredible. I was fortunate enough to be able to watch it live (on T.V., that is!), and many times during that match I thought to myself 'this is why I watch tennis, to see matches like this!' It wasn't just the quality, which was outstanding, it was also the feeling of mutual respect, and some great interactions with the crowd. The atmosphere was fantastic.

 

[Obsi]

No. But you're basing this on the stats, I base my view of him being brittle and "often unreliable" on watching the man. Chrissy was always reliable, just sometimes she wasn't good enough. Novak was often good enough, just didn't bring it when he needed to...

How did you come to the conclusion that Evert was always reliable?

Because I saw her. Never once saw her renege in a match. There's no Melzer moments in Chrissie's resume...

OK you saw her. But based on what you saw, how did you come to the conclusion that Evert has never reneged in a match? What if Djokovic is always reliable but sometimes he isn't good enough?

 

[nehmeth]

...many times during that match I thought to myself 'this is why I watch tennis, to see matches like this!' It wasn't just the quality, which was outstanding, it was also the feeling of mutual respect, and some great interactions with the crowd. The atmosphere was fantastic.

Truly...

 

[Kieran]

How did you come to the conclusion that Evert was always reliable?

Because I saw her. Never once saw her renege in a match. There's no Melzer moments in Chrissie's resume...

OK you saw her. But based on what you saw, how did you come to the conclusion that Evert has never reneged in a match? What if Djokovic is always reliable but sometimes he isn't good enough?

I never once got the impression that she would have done better if she'd tried harder. Not once. I saw her upset and beaten by players she should beat, Kathy Jordan comes to mind one time, if memory serves, but it wasn't through a lack of effort or fortitude. With Novak, I felt a few times he let himself down in matches where he could have shown some heart. It used to be more regular, obviously, so much so we're tempted to draw a line in the sand and call him Pre-2011, and Post-2011, Novak, but even Post-2011 I've gotten that same impression a few times.

By the way, you don't have to defend him. Everybody admires Novak, or should do...

 

[Moxie]

There were 2 defeats i cant get. First against Muzzard on Wimby, second here on RG by Wawec.

While on Wimby was complete X how could he lost, here on RG... isnt clear neither. But Wawec deserved it, while Muzzard was complete outsider.

I wouldn't describe Murray as a 'complete outsider'? He was the world no.2 at the time, he'd made the final the year before, and he'd won the Olympics on the same court the previous year, beating both Novak and Fed to do so!

I think a lot of factors went into his loss, and as I have said, I think Murray was playing the better tennis on the day, but none of it fully explains the straight-sets. A tough 5-setter against Delpo in the semi-final is in the mix, along with a relatively hot day in London, and overwhelming crowd support for Andy. But he didn't have any big fight that day, and that feels a little odd.

Novak was not at his best in that WD final, but although I agree with your other points Moxie, I disagree that he 'didn't have any big fight that day'. Novak fought, but people forget just how clutch Murray was on the big points in that match. Novak was 4-1 up in set 2, 4-2 up in set 3, and if he had taken any of the multiple break points he had at 4-5 in the 3rd, the match could have completely turned. But Murray stayed strong.

The match was much more hard fought than the straight sets win suggests, or even the scoreline suggests. Loads of long rallies, loads of deuces, breaks and breaks back.

For example, Djokovic had THREE break points to level the match at 4-4 in set 1 that Murray saved with an ace, and two highly aggressive forehand-volley combos. In set 2 Djokovic, as well as being 4-1 up, had TWO break points to serve for set 2, one of which Murray saved with an ace, and the other with aggressive forehands followed by net play again. In set 3, Novak, as well as being 4-2 up, had THREE break points to level after Murray had already had 3 championship points - if Novak had won any of those 3 points, would Murray have been able to come back from it, or would the match have turned? Anyway, Andy won those three break points with a big first serve, a long rally which he won with a forehand winner, and a big serve - inside out forehand - volley combination.

What I'm saying is, that match was far closer than it appeared. You can see Novak getting increasingly frustrated that every time he has a point to completely turn the match around, Murray keeps being highly aggressive, accurate and successful. And Novak kept fighting to turn the match around, right till the last ball.

OK, I take back that Novak didn't have "any" big fight that day. He had breaks in all 3 sets, if I remember correctly. And he nearly broke Murray's last service game, which would have evened the set at 5-5, which could have given Novak a chance at the set and renewed life. I have said that I think Andy was superb and really committed that day, and would have won even if it had been a longer match. I'm just with lots of people who were surprised that it was done in straights. Frustration can happen, but it didn't seem to include enough digging deep by Novak.

 

[Moxie]

I think most people have been too polite to mention it, including Novak, who barely made reference, but he did have to play 3-1/2 sets v. Murray on Saturday before the final. This happened to him before at the USO in 2012, when he had to play 3+ sets v. Ferrer on the Sunday before the Monday final. (Actually, it also happened to Murray before playing Federer in his first final at the USO in 2008.) Surely it doesn't explain everything, and isn't an excuse, as Nole is a super-fit guy, but I do think it bears remembering, especially if I, with some others, are going to remark about him not always bringing his best at the business end of a big tournament. In both of those cases for Novak, I think they were very bad scheduling decisions on the part of the tourney. And no matter how fit you are, playing out a SF on the day before a final is not the same as relaxing and preparing yourself for a final, especially if that's what the opponent is doing.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I think it's hard to deny that playing the day before the final played a role at the US Open 2012 as Novak was cramping in the fifth set. Although he needed just around two hours to beat Ferrer on Sunday it is to be expected that an opponent who is at a similarly fit and had a day off before has some physical advantage after playing for 4 1/2 hours. Last weekend in my opinion it was more of a problem that Novak probably used his practice on Saturday to prepare for playing Murray and for that reason couldn't prepare for playing Wawrinka in the final the way he would have liked.

In general Novak's losses at the late stages of Slams are somewhat linked to his playing style in my opinion. He has such a complete, reliable baseline game that anything than a poor performance of him and/or a great performance of an opponent basically means he gets to at least the semi final. In the semi final or final he is then much more likely to meet a player who is generally good enough or in good enough form to at least threaten him if Novak just plays solid. Additionally his style usually allows opponents to get into a rhythm and he isn't comfortable at breaking it up by changing speeds, spins and trajectories or aggressive play like Roger is. So when an opponent is in the zone and Novak does not have a great day himself, he probably sees his best chance in keeping up a good, sustainable level, so the opponent needs to play extremely well for at least two hours to win the match.

As high bouncing surfaces make it easier to line up big shots and it is not as hard to hit through Novak on fast surfaces, it makes sense that his most successful big tournaments are the Australian Open and the World Tour Finals that are rather slow and low bouncing (and usually offer favorable conditions for him), where it's tough to hit winners against him and his defensive shots especially from the backhand side stay low enough that it's hardly possible to be consistently aggressive off them. So there Novak playing nothing special is significantly harder to beat than at the French Open, Wimbledon or the US Open.

Somewhat strange in that context is, that Novak is very successful in the finals of Masters 1000s and the WTF where he won 15 straight since Cincinnati 2012 and regularly in dominant fashion. Even considering that there are multiple surfaces that really suit him at those tournaments it's hard to explain that he seems to be consistently able to raise his level for those finals but fails to do the same at the late stages of Slams.

 

[Federberg]

I think most people have been too polite to mention it, including Novak, who barely made reference, but he did have to play 3-1/2 sets v. Murray on Saturday before the final. This happened to him before at the USO in 2012, when he had to play 3+ sets v. Ferrer on the Sunday before the Monday final. (Actually, it also happened to Murray before playing Federer in his first final at the USO in 2008.) Surely it doesn't explain everything, and isn't an excuse, as Nole is a super-fit guy, but I do think it bears remembering, especially if I, with some others, are going to remark about him not always bringing his best at the business end of a big tournament. In both of those cases for Novak, I think they were very bad scheduling decisions on the part of the tourney. And no matter how fit you are, playing out a SF on the day before a final is not the same as relaxing and preparing yourself for a final, especially if that's what the opponent is doing.

This is the guy who best Murray in a 5 setter then beat Nadal in a final? I don't think it's relevant. Frankly the final set and a half on Saturday was an ideal warm up, not taxing. The way I see it, beating Rafa put a tremendous amount of pressure on him. He was expected to win and it got to him. He thought about the goal and not the match and paid for it. I said before he beat Rafa that it would be a huge test for him to deal with his victory and close it out. A lot of people dismissed that concern. But the simple fact is, it's not easy to win, particularly when most everyone has already crowned you the champion

 

[Moxie]

I think most people have been too polite to mention it, including Novak, who barely made reference, but he did have to play 3-1/2 sets v. Murray on Saturday before the final. This happened to him before at the USO in 2012, when he had to play 3+ sets v. Ferrer on the Sunday before the Monday final. (Actually, it also happened to Murray before playing Federer in his first final at the USO in 2008.) Surely it doesn't explain everything, and isn't an excuse, as Nole is a super-fit guy, but I do think it bears remembering, especially if I, with some others, are going to remark about him not always bringing his best at the business end of a big tournament. In both of those cases for Novak, I think they were very bad scheduling decisions on the part of the tourney. And no matter how fit you are, playing out a SF on the day before a final is not the same as relaxing and preparing yourself for a final, especially if that's what the opponent is doing.

This is the guy who best Murray in a 5 setter then beat Nadal in a final? I don't think it's relevant. Frankly the final set and a half on Saturday was an ideal warm up, not taxing. The way I see it, beating Rafa put a tremendous amount of pressure on him. He was expected to win and it got to him. He thought about the goal and not the match and paid for it. I said before he beat Rafa that it would be a huge test for him to deal with his victory and close it out. A lot of people dismissed that concern. But the simple fact is, it's not easy to win, particularly when most everyone has already crowned you the champion

I was offering it as food for thought, and part of the mix of things. I did make your argument re: 2012 AO SF and F when someone mentioned his long SF was the reason Novak lost Wimbledon in 2013. I agree with your reasoning, as to the pressure of beating Rafa, and the overall pressure to win it, which increased after that QF. But I can see why people felt you could argue either possibility before it happened: that beating Rafa would be energizing, or potentially increase the pressure. By the same token, if you argue for the effect of psychological pressure, you can see the point of not having a day off to prepare mentally, I would think. It also seems that a lot of people agree that Nole was playing too safely after the first set, "the goal not the match," as you say.

All this is not to take away from Stan's performance, but the point of the thread is to ask what prevents Novak from closing out the big Slams more often than he does.

 

[Kirijax]

I think most people have been too polite to mention it, including Novak, who barely made reference, but he did have to play 3-1/2 sets v. Murray on Saturday before the final. This happened to him before at the USO in 2012, when he had to play 3+ sets v. Ferrer on the Sunday before the Monday final. (Actually, it also happened to Murray before playing Federer in his first final at the USO in 2008.) Surely it doesn't explain everything, and isn't an excuse, as Nole is a super-fit guy, but I do think it bears remembering, especially if I, with some others, are going to remark about him not always bringing his best at the business end of a big tournament. In both of those cases for Novak, I think they were very bad scheduling decisions on the part of the tourney. And no matter how fit you are, playing out a SF on the day before a final is not the same as relaxing and preparing yourself for a final, especially if that's what the opponent is doing.

This is the guy who best Murray in a 5 setter then beat Nadal in a final? I don't think it's relevant. Frankly the final set and a half on Saturday was an ideal warm up, not taxing. The way I see it, beating Rafa put a tremendous amount of pressure on him. He was expected to win and it got to him. He thought about the goal and not the match and paid for it. I said before he beat Rafa that it would be a huge test for him to deal with his victory and close it out. A lot of people dismissed that concern. But the simple fact is, it's not easy to win, particularly when most everyone has already crowned you the champion

I was offering it as food for thought, and part of the mix of things. I did make your argument re: 2012 AO SF and F when someone mentioned his long SF was the reason Novak lost Wimbledon in 2013. I agree with your reasoning, as to the pressure of beating Rafa, and the overall pressure to win it, which increased after that QF. But I can see why people felt you could argue either possibility before it happened: that beating Rafa would be energizing, or potentially increase the pressure. By the same token, if you argue for the effect of psychological pressure, you can see the point of not having a day off to prepare mentally, I would think. It also seems that a lot of people agree that Nole was playing too safely after the first set, "the goal not the match," as you say.

All this is not to take away from Stan's performance, but the point of the thread is to ask what prevents Novak from closing out the big Slams more often than he does.

This makes me wonder if Djokovic will find even an higher mental level than he has now. To be able to play through an entire Grand Slam without having a mental lapse. It sounds to say that about a guy who has won eight grand slams, but he's had trouble with that a few times it seems. Maybe that will be what separates with him from the "Super Two".

 

[Moxie]

This is the guy who best Murray in a 5 setter then beat Nadal in a final? I don't think it's relevant. Frankly the final set and a half on Saturday was an ideal warm up, not taxing. The way I see it, beating Rafa put a tremendous amount of pressure on him. He was expected to win and it got to him. He thought about the goal and not the match and paid for it. I said before he beat Rafa that it would be a huge test for him to deal with his victory and close it out. A lot of people dismissed that concern. But the simple fact is, it's not easy to win, particularly when most everyone has already crowned you the champion

I was offering it as food for thought, and part of the mix of things. I did make your argument re: 2012 AO SF and F when someone mentioned his long SF was the reason Novak lost Wimbledon in 2013. I agree with your reasoning, as to the pressure of beating Rafa, and the overall pressure to win it, which increased after that QF. But I can see why people felt you could argue either possibility before it happened: that beating Rafa would be energizing, or potentially increase the pressure. By the same token, if you argue for the effect of psychological pressure, you can see the point of not having a day off to prepare mentally, I would think. It also seems that a lot of people agree that Nole was playing too safely after the first set, "the goal not the match," as you say.

All this is not to take away from Stan's performance, but the point of the thread is to ask what prevents Novak from closing out the big Slams more often than he does.

This makes me wonder if Djokovic will find even an higher mental level than he has now. To be able to play through an entire Grand Slam without having a mental lapse. It sounds to say that about a guy who has won eight grand slams, but he's had trouble with that a few times it seems. Maybe that will be what separates with him from the "Super Two".

When Roger was interviewed sometime before the 2009 RG, he said something to the effect of: If Rafa gets knocked out, by upset or injury, I have to take my chance. Uncharacteristically frank from him. When Rafa went out to Soderling, Roger nearly went out to Haas in the same round, and he went 5 to DelPo in the SF. But he knew it was (probably) his one chance, and he took it. Likewise Nadal in 2010, when the other Big 3 were looking a bit tattered, and DelPotro wasn't going to defend the USO, I think for sure he saw his moment and took it in NY.

More than ever, this was Djokovic's "best" chance at RG, but he didn't get it. I'm sure everyone thinks he's got 2-3 more good/decent ones at the French. But, when the eye has opened up a little bit, both Roger and Rafa have been more opportunistic.

 

[Federberg]

^Nole's recent experience just highlights how difficult it is to do what Roger did in 09. Still I would place Novak as favourite to get the job done next year. He'll have 12 months to figure out why mentally he wasn't all there in the final. Which is not saying that he would definitely have beaten Stan, far from it, but some of his decision making was unlike what we've come to expect from him.

 

[Great Hands]

^Nole's recent experience just highlights how difficult it is to do what Roger did in 09. Still I would place Novak as favourite to get the job done next year. He'll have 12 months to figure out why mentally he wasn't all there in the final. Which is not saying that he would definitely have beaten Stan, far from it, but some of his decision making was unlike what we've come to expect from him.

i'm not so sure about this. You could be right, but couldn't it also work the other way - i.e. he's now had anohter chance, his best chance yet, at least on paper, to win rg, and he couldn't do it. if he gets in a winning position next year, cldn't what happened this year make the pressure on him even greater next time?
or he'll hav 12 months to stew and build up the thing even more in his mind for next year...